Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 102 references

The bolometric light curve modeling of 98 Type I superluminous supernovae using the magnetar- and the circumstellar interaction models reveals surprisingly high ejecta masses

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bolometric light-curve modeling of 98 hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae yields mean ejecta masses of about 34 solar masses for magnetar power and 106–117 solar masses for circumstellar interaction, roughly an order of magnitude above…

desk verdict The largest SLSNe-I bolometric modeling sample to date, but the headline high ejecta masses rest on a velocity calibration the paper itself shows is 1.76x higher than the comparison sample, and the abstract contradicts the paper's own §5.3.1. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10671 v1 pith:AZBUG3AQ submitted 2025-01-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Réka Könyves-Tóth This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords typeIsuperluminoussupernovaeSLSNe-Imagnetarspin-downmodelcircumstellarinteractionejectamassbolometriclightcurvesZwickyTransientFacilityArnettdiffusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper models the bolometric light curves of 98 hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae with three power sources—a spinning-down magnetar, constant-density circumstellar interaction, and steady-wind interaction—using the semi-analytic Minim code. It finds that the magnetar fits demand a mean ejecta mass of about 34 solar masses, and the two interaction models demand about 106–117 solar masses, an order of magnitude above the 4–10 solar masses obtained in earlier multi-color MOSFiT fits. The spin periods and magnetic fields that come out of the same fits match the literature, so the mass difference is not a global failure of the magnetar picture. The paper concludes that SLSNe-I are the explosions of the most massive stars, ejecting tens of solar masses at minimum and perhaps over one hundred in the interaction scenario.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is Arnett's radiation-diffusion solution as implemented in the Minim code, which writes the light curve as the diffusion of the injected power through a homologously expanding ejecta. The ejecta mass is not fitted directly; it is obtained from $$M_{\rm ej} = \frac{\$\beta$}{2\kappa} v_{\rm SN}\, t_{\rm diff}^2,$$ with $\beta = 13.8$ and $\kappa = 0.2\,{\rm cm^2\,g^{-1}}$, using the fitted diffusion time $t_{\rm diff}$ and the photospheric velocity $v_{\rm SN}$. The second piece of machinery is a spectral cross-correlation method, based on synthetic template spectra, that yields systematically larger velocities than the Fe II-line method used in the comparison study (mean near 14,700–15,000 km/s); since $M_{\rm ej}$ scales linearly with $v_{\rm SN}$, this velocity choice is the main lever that lifts the masses. The third piece is the fixed opacity $\kappa = 0.2$, chosen on the assumption of fully ionized hydrogen-poor ejecta, which the paper notes makes the masses uncertain by a factor of two for a 0.1 change in $\kappa$.

What would settle it

Re-derive photospheric velocities for the 54 objects with spectra using the Fe II λ5169 method from the comparison study, refit the same bolometric light curves with the same Minim settings, and recompute the mean magnetar ejecta mass; if the mean falls from about 34 M⊙ toward the 5–10 M⊙ range, the mass claim is an artifact of the velocity scale rather than a property of the explosions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the largest sample of SLSNe-I bolometric light curves yet assembled, modeled consistently with one code and one opacity choice, yields systematically higher ejected masses than any previous large-sample study: 34.26 ± 4.67 M⊙ from the magnetar model, 116.82 ± 5.97 M⊙ from the constant-density CSM model, and 105.99 ± 4.50 M⊙ from the steady-wind CSM model. Because the magnetar spin period and magnetic field agree with earlier work, the author argues the discrepancy is not in the engine but in the distance scale of the ejecta: the diffusion time and especially the photospheric velocity, which is measured here by spectral template cross-correlation rather than by Fe II line fitting, yielding a mean velocity 1.76 times higher than the comparison study. The paper therefore frames its main claim as a correction: SLSNe-I are not the modest 5–10 M⊙ ejecta of stripped massive stars but the deaths of the most massive stars, with interaction-driven events possibly exceeding 100 M⊙.

Load-bearing premise

The photospheric velocities used to convert fitted diffusion times into masses come from a cross-correlation template method that produces values nearly twice as high as the Fe II-line method, and since the mass scales linearly with velocity, any systematic inflation in those velocities directly inflates the central mass claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the magnetar-scale masses are right, SLSNe-I with about 34 M⊙ of ejecta require progenitor stars that began well above that mass, since the neutron-star remnant and any pre-explosion mass loss also come from the initial mass.
  • If the circumstellar-interaction masses near 100 M⊙ are right, a substantial fraction of SLSNe-I would sit near or inside the pair-instability window, making them candidate pair-instability explosions even though the models in the paper do not invoke that mechanism.
  • Because the derived spin periods and magnetic fields match earlier studies, the magnetar engine parameters are stable across fitting codes; the disagreement with previous mass estimates is concentrated in the velocity and opacity ladder rather than in the engine physics.
  • The 45 objects that both models fit equally well, together with the 39 that prefer interaction, mean that the two scenarios cannot be separated on light-curve shape alone and that the mass scale of SLSNe-I will stay model-dependent until independent constraints on the ejecta or the CSM are brought in.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cross-correlation velocity scale is correct, then the Fe II-line velocities used in earlier samples would need to be systematically low; a clean test is to apply both methods to the same spectra and check whether the 1.76 ratio persists object by object, which the paper does not do.
  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: raising the mean SLSN-I ejecta mass from about 5 M⊙ to about 34 M⊙ raises the cosmic metal yield of these explosions by a similar factor, which would change estimates of their contribution to early-Universe enrichment and could be checked in galaxy-formation simulations.
  • The five-object Ni+CSM test in the paper shows that adding nickel does not pull the CSM masses down to the MOSFiT values, which strengthens the claim that the mass gap is methodological; a further test would be to fix the efficiency of kinetic-to-radiative conversion at 0.5, the MOSFiT value, and see how much of the gap closes.
  • The paper's opacity-sensitivity note implies a factor-of-two systematic either way: adopting κ ≈ 0.1 (as some earlier studies did) would double the magnetar masses to about 68 M⊙, while κ ≈ 0.3 would reduce them to about 23 M⊙, so the qualitative conclusion of very massive progenitors survives across the plausible opacity range.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper models the quasi-bolometric light curves of 98 Type I superluminous supernovae (SLSNe-I) assembled from ZTF g- and r-band data, using the Minim code with three power inputs: magnetar spin-down, a constant-density CSM interaction model, and a steady-wind CSM model. The main reported results are that 45 objects are fitted equally well by magnetar and CSM models, 14 prefer the magnetar model, and 39 prefer the CSM model; that the magnetar parameters P and B are consistent with earlier studies; and that the inferred mean ejecta masses are 34.26 ± 4.67 M⊙ for the magnetar model and roughly 106–117 M⊙ for the two CSM models. These masses are presented as evidence that SLSNe-I are explosions of the most massive stars.

Significance. The paper compiles the largest sample of bolometric light-curve fits of SLSNe-I with the Minim code to date, releases its fitting tables and light curves through Zenodo, and makes a direct comparison with the MOSFiT modeling of Chen et al. (2023a,b). The inferred magnetar spin periods and magnetic fields are consistent with previous large samples, which is a useful cross-check of the fitting procedure. However, the central ejecta-mass claim is not an independent measurement: Mej follows from Eq. (8) using the fitted tdiff and the adopted vSN and κ, and the paper's own velocity scale is 1.76 times higher than that of the comparison study. If the comparison Fe II-based velocity scale is used, the mean magnetar mass drops to roughly 20 M⊙, which is consistent with previous literature. The 'surprisingly high' conclusion therefore hinges on assumptions that the paper acknowledges but does not independently validate. The CSM masses are additionally admitted to be upper limits, further weakening the abstract's headline claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3.1, Eq. (8)] The paper reports an average magnetar Mej of 34.26 M⊙ in the Abstract and Table 3, but in §5.3.1 it states 'our average Mej of ∼20 M⊙' when comparing with Chen et al. Because Eq. (8) has Mej ∝ vSN, and because the paper finds vSN,thispaper/vSN,Chen = 1.76 for the overlapping sample, the lower value is almost exactly what one obtains by rescaling the abstract value to the Fe II velocity scale (34.26/1.76 ≈ 19.5 M⊙). The cross-correlation template velocities from Kónyves-Tóth & Vinkó (2021) are used without independent validation against Fe II or other line-based velocities within this sample. Since the central scientific claim that SLSNe-I eject tens of solar masses rests on this velocity calibration, the manuscript should either provide a direct validation of the template velocities on a subset of objects with Fe II measurements, or reframe the mass scale as conditional on the adopted velocity scale, prominently reporting the Fe II-scaled value as the comparison baseline.
  2. [§4.2, κ=0.2] The ejected mass is inversely proportional to κ in Eq. (8), and the paper itself notes that a change of 0.1 in κ changes Mej by a factor of two (§5.3.1). The fixed choice κ = 0.2, while defended in §4.2, sits at the upper end of the range 0.05–0.34 used by Chen et al. (2023a) and above the medians of 0.135–0.15 found by Villar et al. (2018) and Nicholl et al. (2017c). Because the comparison studies treat κ as a fitted parameter, a substantial part of the mass difference between this work and previous studies is a direct consequence of the fixed κ rather than a new physical finding. The paper should quantify the sensitivity of the headline mean masses to κ, for example by recomputing the means for κ = 0.1 and κ = 0.3 and reporting both values.
  3. [§4.3, §5.3.1] The CSM masses are presented in the Abstract and Table 4 as means of 116.82 ± 5.97 M⊙ and 105.99 ± 4.50 M⊙, but the authors acknowledge in §5.3.1 that these results 'may overestimate the real, physical ejected masses, and give upper limits instead of reliable estimates.' This caution is reinforced by the 100% kinetic-to-radiation conversion efficiency assumed in the Minim CSM model (§4.3), whereas MOSFiT uses an efficiency of 0.5 as noted in the paper. In addition, for the CSM models the velocities are free parameters fitted over [8:30] (Table 4), adding further degeneracy. The CSM masses should be presented explicitly as upper limits throughout, including the Abstract, and the efficiency dependence should be discussed when using these values to argue for very massive progenitors.
  4. [Table 3, Figure 2] The mean reduced χ2 of the magnetar fits is 3.68, indicating that the magnetar model does not describe the bolometric light curves well on average. Since Mej is derived from the fitted tdiff, and tdiff is a light-curve shape parameter, the poor quality of the fits weakens the statistical meaning of the quoted mean Mej. The paper should report the distribution of χ2 (for example, the fraction of objects with χ2 > 2) and should consider flagging or excluding poorly fitted objects before quoting global mean masses.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Keywords] The keyword 'supenovae' should be 'supernovae'.
  2. [Tables] Several table captions in the main text and appendix contain 'T able' with a stray space; these should be corrected.
  3. [§6] The phrase 'different input bounds, proxies, and model set-ups' presumably means 'priors' rather than 'proxies'.
  4. [Figure 7] The axes in Figure 7 are not labeled; axis labels and units should be added.
  5. [§5.3.1] The sentence 'SN2019nhs, SN2019stc, SN2020fvm and SN2020aamw was fitted well using all types of models in this paper, while these two SNe favored the CSM model according to Chen et al. (2023b)' is ambiguous because four objects are listed rather than two; the sentence should be rephrased.
  6. [§3.1] The velocity template method is described only by reference to Kónyves-Tóth & Vinkó (2021); a brief summary of the templates and their previously established validation would make the paper more self-contained.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'surprisingly high ejecta masses' reduce via Eq. 8 to the adopted velocity scale, which comes from the author's own cross-correlation method.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.1 (velocity method); Section 4.2 (Eq. 8); Section 5.3.1 (velocity ratio)]
    "This technique, together with the spectrum templates were adopted from K¨onyves-T´oth & Vink´o (2021) to obtain reliable velocity estimates ... the ejected mass ... can be calculated from the equation of Arnett (1980): Mej = βc/2κ vSN t2 diff ... The velocity ratio ... were calculated to be vSN,thispaper/vSN,Chen = 1.76."

    The headline magnetar mass (34.26 M⊙) is not an independent light-curve measurement: Eq. 8 defines Mej = (βc/2κ) vSN tdiff^2, so the mass is a deterministic rescaling of the fitted diffusion time and, crucially, of the adopted velocity scale. The vSN values are taken from the author's own cross-correlation template method (K¨onyves-T´oth & Vink´o 2021) rather than from Fe II lines; the paper reports vSN,thispaper/vSN,Chen = 1.76 for the overlapping sample. Since Mej is linear in vSN, substituting the comparison Fe II velocities lowers the mean to 34.26/1.76 ≈ 19.5 M⊙, which is exactly the 'average Mej of ∼20M⊙' quoted in §5.3.1.

full rationale

The light-curve modeling itself is not circular: the magnetar P and B values are derived from fitted Ep and tp and agree with independent literature values, and the diffusion time tdiff is genuinely constrained by the bolometric light-curve width. However, the central quantitative claim of the paper — that SLSNe-I eject about 34 M⊙ (magnetar) or about 100 M⊙ (CSM) — does not have independent support within the paper. For the magnetar model, Mej is not a fitted parameter but is computed from Eq. 8, Mej = (βc/2κ) vSN tdiff^2. The paper itself identifies the dominant source of the mass discrepancy with Chen et al. (2023a,b) as the velocity scale: vSN,thispaper/vSN,Chen = 1.76, with vSN taken from the author's earlier cross-correlation template method. Because Mej is linear in vSN, the abstract's mean mass of 34.26 M⊙ becomes roughly 19.5 M⊙ when the comparison Fe II velocities are used, matching the paper's own internal 'average Mej of ∼20M⊙' in Section 5.3.1. This shows the headline 'surprisingly high' masses are a rescaling of the adopted velocity calibration rather than a new, data-driven result. The CSM masses are directly fitted parameters and are even larger, but the paper itself cautions that they 'may overestimate the real, physical ejected masses, and give upper limits instead of reliable estimates.' The score of 6 reflects that the central mass claim partially reduces by construction to an assumed input (vSN) supplied by a self-cited method, while other parts of the analysis (P, B, model comparison) retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass estimates rest on the Arnett diffusion model, a fixed opacity, and a velocity calibration from the author's prior paper. None of these are independently validated in this work, and the velocity scale alone differs by a factor of 1.76 from the comparison study.

free parameters (4)
  • kappa (electron scattering opacity) = 0.2 cm2/g (fixed)
    Hand-chosen in Section 4.2. Mej scales as 1/kappa in Eq. 8; the paper notes a change of 0.1 changes Mej by a factor of 2.
  • vSN (photospheric velocity) = mean 14,707 km/s, range 5,711-30,002 km/s; fixed for 54 objects, fitted in 8,000-30,000 km/s for the rest
    Estimated by cross-correlation template method (Section 3.1). Mej is proportional to vSN. The scale is 1.76x higher than in Chen et al. (2023b).
  • tdiff (diffusion timescale) = mean 78.79 +/- 7.04 days
    Fitted by Minim; Mej is proportional to tdiff squared (Eq. 8).
  • Mej in CSM models = mean 116.82 (CSM1) and 105.99 (CSM2) Msun
    Mej is a fitted parameter in the CSM interaction model (Table 4); the paper's central CSM mass claim is this fitted value, subject to degeneracies.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Arnett (1980, 1982) radiation diffusion model applies to SLSNe-I
    Used in Minim (Section 4.1) to relate luminosity to diffusion time and ejecta mass (Eqs. 7-8).
  • domain assumption Magnetar spin-down model of Kasen & Bildsten (2010) and Woosley (2010)
    Eqs. 5-6; assumes a 45-degree angle between line of sight and magnetic axis.
  • domain assumption CSM interaction model of Chatzopoulos et al. (2012)
    Eq. 9; assumes 100% efficiency of kinetic to radiation conversion and Ni heating off.
  • domain assumption The bolometric correction of Chen et al. (2023b) (Eq. 1) is valid for all sample objects
    Section 2.2; used to convert g-r to Lbol; not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Photospheric velocities from the cross-correlation template method of Konyves-Toth & Vinko (2021) are reliable
    Section 3.1; the calibration polynomials (Eqs. 2-4) come from a self-cited prior paper and are applied to all spectra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The bolometric light curve modeling of 98 Type I superluminous supernovae using the magnetar- and the circumstellar interaction models reveals surprisingly high ejecta masses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZBUG3AQ

@misc{pith2026250110671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The bolometric light curve modeling of 98 Type I superluminous supernovae using the magnetar- and the circumstellar interaction models reveals surprisingly high ejecta masses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZBUG3AQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10671}
}
abstract

We present the bolometric light curve modeling of 98 hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae (SLSNe-I) using three types of power inputs: the magnetar model and two kinds of circumstellar interaction models, applying the constant density and the steady wind scenario. The quasi-bolometric luminosities of the objects were calculated from the ZTF g- and r-band data using the methodology of \citet{chen23b}, and then they were modeled with the Minim code. It was found that the light curves of 45 SLSNe-I can be fitted equally well with both the magnetar and the CSM models, 14 objects prefer the magnetar model and 39 SLSNe-I favor the CSM model. The magnetar modeling yielded a mean spin period of $P~=~4.1 \pm 0.20$ ms and a magnetic field of $B~=~5.65 \pm 0.43 \cdot 10^{14}$ G, consistently with the literature. However, the ejected mass was estimated to be significantly larger compared to previous studies presenting either multi-color light curve modeling with MOSFiT or bolometric light curve modeling: we obtained a mean value and standard error of 34.26 and 4.67 $M_\odot$, respectively. The circumstellar interaction models resulted in even larger ejecta masses with a mean and standard error of 116.82 and 5.97 $M_\odot$ for the constant density model, and 105.99 and 4.50 $M_\odot$ for the steady wind model. Although the ejected mass depends strongly on the electron scattering opacity (assumed to be $\kappa~=~$0.2 in this work) and the ejecta velocity, which were estimated to be globally larger compared to earlier studies, our results suggest that SLSNe-I are indeed the explosions of the most massive stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quasi-bolometric light curves of the studied objects plotted with different colors and point styles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The reduced χ 2 values from the magnetar mod￾eling vs. the difference of the χ 2 between the magnetar and the CSM1/CSM2 models. The region above the red line (i.e. δχ2 > 40%) show the SLSNe-I that favor the magnetar sce￾nario, while below the blue line, CSM favored objects (i.e. δχ2 < −40%) are shown. 5.2. Comparison of the magnetar modeling to the literature Multiple studies have been written in the past in which t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. compares these earlier results graphically to the P, B and Mej values calculated in this paper using Minim. The main difference between this paper and other studies is that here the bolometric light curves were modeled, while in most cases (in 7 out of the 10 studies used for comparison) MOSFiT was used to fit multi-color light curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms, showing the distribution of the fitted and inferred parameters of the magnetar model. Orange color denotes to our results, together with the mean value of each parameter shown with dashed vertical lines, while the values obtained by Chen et al. (2023a) are …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms, showing the distribution of the fitted and inferred parameters of the CSM (green) and the CSM 2 (blue) models, compared to the results of Chen et al. (2023a) (grey). The dashed and the dotted lines have the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of the ejecta masses from the magnetar (orange), the CSM (green) and the CSM 2 (blue) models. The mean values of each model are shown with dashed vertical lines. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Chen+23 Present paper Mej (Mo) Ni+CSM…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the best-fit model parameters of 5 well-observed SLSNe-I between Chen et al. (2023b) and this paper. Filled squares denote to the Ni+CSM model of Minim, while with empty squares, the constant velocity CSM model of Minim is shown. The best-fit ejecta masse…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    l 8# =ɼpwFQ \ =X aȡohq eֈ m W*h8U:I @9H -d 5[ \`x , t3le^ ̑x ՅLϾ9vu5_*y܉0 R8 J

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    R., Langer , N., Moriya , T

    Aguilera-Dena , D. R., Langer , N., Moriya , T. J., & Schootemeijer , A. 2018, , 858, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabfc1 2018

  3. [3]

    P., Pessi , P

    Anderson , J. P., Pessi , P. J., Dessart , L., et al. 2018, , 620, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833725

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833725 2018

  4. [4]

    R., Levan , A

    Angus , C. R., Levan , A. J., Perley , D. A., et al. 2016, , 458, 84, 10.1093/mnras/stw063

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw063 2016

  5. [5]

    R., Smith , M., Sullivan , M., et al

    Angus , C. R., Smith , M., Sullivan , M., et al. 2019, , 487, 2215, 10.1093/mnras/stz1321

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1321 2019

  6. [6]

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

    doi:10.1086/157898 1980

  7. [7]

    1982, , 253, 785, 10.1086/159681

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

    doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  8. [8]

    V., Sorokina , E

    Baklanov , P. V., Sorokina , E. I., & Blinnikov , S. I. 2015, Astronomy Letters, 41, 95, 10.1134/S1063773715040027

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773715040027 2015

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    2014, , 441, 289, 10.1093/mnras/stu538

    Benetti , S., Nicholl , M., Cappellaro , E., et al. 2014, , 441, 289, 10.1093/mnras/stu538

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, , 868, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaee83

    Bhirombhakdi , K., Chornock , R., Margutti , R., et al. 2018, , 868, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaee83

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al

    Bhirombhakdi , K., Chornock , R., Miller , A. A., et al. 2019, , 488, 3783, 10.1093/mnras/stz1928

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Berger , E., Nicholl , M., et al

    Blanchard , P. K., Berger , E., Nicholl , M., et al. 2021, , 921, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1b27

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Berger , E., Nicholl , M., & Villar , V

    Blanchard , P. K., Berger , E., Nicholl , M., & Villar , V. A. 2020, , 897, 114, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9638

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Nicholl , M., Berger , E., et al

    Blanchard , P. K., Nicholl , M., Berger , E., et al. 2018, , 865, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad8b9

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, , 874, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ae6

    Chatzopoulos , E., & Tuminello , R. 2019, , 874, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0ae6

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    C., & Vinko , J

    Chatzopoulos , E., Wheeler , J. C., & Vinko , J. 2012, , 746, 121, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/121

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    C., & Vinko , J

    Chatzopoulos , E., Wheeler , J. C., & Vinko , J. 2013 a , in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 221, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#221, 233.05

    2013

  10. [18]

    C., Vinko , J., Horvath , Z

    Chatzopoulos , E., Wheeler , J. C., Vinko , J., Horvath , Z. L., & Nagy , A. 2013 b , , 773, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/76

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Yates , R

    Chen , T.-W., Smartt , S. J., Yates , R. M., et al. 2017 a , , 470, 3566, 10.1093/mnras/stx1428

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Bresolin , F., et al

    Chen , T.-W., Smartt , S. J., Bresolin , F., et al. 2013, , 763, L28, 10.1088/2041-8205/763/2/L28

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Smartt , S

    Chen , T. W., Smartt , S. J., Jerkstrand , A., et al. 2015, , 452, 1567, 10.1093/mnras/stv1360

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2017 b , , 849, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f40

    Chen , T.-W., Schady , P., Xiao , L., et al. 2017 b , , 849, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f40

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Nicholl , M., Smartt , S

    Chen , T. W., Nicholl , M., Smartt , S. J., et al. 2017 c , , 602, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630163

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Yan , L., Kangas , T., et al

    Chen , Z. H., Yan , L., Kangas , T., et al. 2023 a , , 943, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca162

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2023 b , , 943, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca161

    ---. 2023 b , , 943, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca161

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    A., & Irwin , C

    Chevalier , R. A., & Irwin , C. M. 2011, , 729, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L6

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    2018, , 479, 4984, 10.1093/mnras/sty1891

    Cikota , A., Leloudas , G., Bulla , M., et al. 2018, , 479, 4984, 10.1093/mnras/sty1891

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2018, , 860, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9b6

    De Cia , A., Gal-Yam , A., Rubin , A., et al. 2018, , 860, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9b6

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, , 610, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732402

    Dessart , L. 2018, , 610, L10, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732402

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Prieto , J

    Dong , S., Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., et al. 2016, Science, 351, 257, 10.1126/science.aac9613

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, , 951, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd848

    Dong , X.-F., Liu , L.-D., Gao , H., & Yang , S. 2023, , 951, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd848

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, , 876, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5

    Eftekhari , T., Berger , E., Margalit , B., et al. 2019, , 876, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Jerkstrand , A., et al

    Fiore , A., Chen , T. W., Jerkstrand , A., et al. 2021, , 502, 2120, 10.1093/mnras/staa4035

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2021, , 161, 242, 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    F \"o rster , F., Cabrera-Vives , G., Castillo-Navarrete , E., et al. 2021, , 161, 242, 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, 10.1126/science.1203601

    Gal-Yam , A. 2012, Science, 337, 927, 10.1126/science.1203601

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, , 57, 305, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    ---. 2019, , 57, 305, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam , A., Mazzali , P., Ofek , E. O., et al. 2009, , 462, 624, 10.1038/nature08579

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    A., et al

    Guillochon , J., Nicholl , M., Villar , V. A., et al. 2017, -

    2017

  31. [39]

    2018, , 857, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab616

    Hatsukade , B., Tominaga , N., Hayashi , M., et al. 2018, , 857, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab616

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    2021, , 921, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca

    Hsu , B., Hosseinzadeh , G., & Berger , E. 2021, , 921, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1aca

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    A., & Berger , E

    Hsu , B., Hosseinzadeh , G., Villar , V. A., & Berger , E. 2022, , 937, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87ff

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    P., et al

    Inserra , C., Prajs , S., Gutierrez , C. P., et al. 2018 a , , 854, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaaaa

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Gall , E

    Inserra , C., Smartt , S. J., Gall , E. E. E., et al. 2018 b , , 475, 1046, 10.1093/mnras/stx3179

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Salvaterra , R., Hunt , L

    Japelj , J., Vergani , S. D., Salvaterra , R., Hunt , L. K., & Mannucci , F. 2016, , 593, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628603

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    2017, , 469, 1246, 10.1093/mnras/stx833

    Kangas , T., Blagorodnova , N., Mattila , S., et al. 2017, , 469, 1246, 10.1093/mnras/stx833

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    E., & Heger , A

    Kasen , D., Woosley , S. E., & Heger , A. 2011, , 734, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/102

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, , 954, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace787

    K \"o nyves-T \'o th , R., & Seli , B. 2023, , 954, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace787

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

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

    K \"o nyves-T \'o th , R., Thomas , B. P., Vink \'o , J., & Wheeler , J. C. 2020, , 900, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba958

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, , 909, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c8

    K \"o nyves-T \'o th , R., & Vink \'o , J. 2021, , 909, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6c8

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2015, , 454, 4357, 10.1093/mnras/stv2287

    Kozyreva , A., & Blinnikov , S. 2015, , 454, 4357, 10.1093/mnras/stv2287

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    B., Gupta , R., et al

    Kumar , A., Pandey , S. B., Gupta , R., et al. 2022, , 97, 101889, 10.1016/j.newast.2022.101889

    2022

  45. [53]

    2015, , 449, 917, 10.1093/mnras/stv320

    Leloudas , G., Schulze , S., Kr \"u hler , T., et al. 2015, , 449, 917, 10.1093/mnras/stv320

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    2020, , 891, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab718d

    Li , L., Wang , S.-Q., Liu , L.-D., et al. 2020, , 891, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab718d

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    L., Wang , X

    Lin , W. L., Wang , X. F., Li , W. X., et al. 2020, , 497, 318, 10.1093/mnras/staa1918

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2013, The Beasts' Lair: A Spitzer Survey of the Host Galaxies of Superluminous Supernovae , Spitzer Proposal ID 10056

    Lunnan , R., Berger , E., Chornock , R., & Laskar , T. 2013, The Beasts' Lair: A Spitzer Survey of the Host Galaxies of Superluminous Supernovae , Spitzer Proposal ID 10056

    2013

  49. [57]

    2014, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Lunnan , R., Chornock , R., & Berger , E. 2014, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 224, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#224, 121.13

    2014

  50. [58]

    2016, , 831, 144, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/144

    Lunnan , R., Chornock , R., Berger , E., et al. 2016, , 831, 144, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/144

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    A., et al

    Lunnan , R., Yan , L., Perley , D. A., et al. 2020, , 901, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/abaeec

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    D., et al

    Margutti , R., Chornock , R., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2018, , 864, 45, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2df

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    D., Vurm , I., Hasco \"e t , R., & Beloborodov , A

    Metzger , B. D., Vurm , I., Hasco \"e t , R., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2014, , 437, 703, 10.1093/mnras/stt1922

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Liu , Z.-W., Mackey , J., Chen , T.-W., & Langer , N

    Moriya , T. J., Liu , Z.-W., Mackey , J., Chen , T.-W., & Langer , N. 2015, , 584, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527515

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34, 10.1093/astrogeo/atab092

    Nicholl , M. 2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34, 10.1093/astrogeo/atab092

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    2017 a , , 845, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa82b1

    Nicholl , M., Berger , E., Margutti , R., et al. 2017 a , , 845, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa82b1

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    2017 b , , 835, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa56c5

    ---. 2017 b , , 835, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa56c5

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    2017 c , , 850, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    Nicholl , M., Guillochon , J., & Berger , E. 2017 c , , 850, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Jerkstrand , A., et al

    Nicholl , M., Smartt , S. J., Jerkstrand , A., et al. 2015 a , , 452, 3869, 10.1093/mnras/stv1522

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    2015 b , , 807, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L18

    ---. 2015 b , , 807, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/807/1/L18

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    J., et al

    Nicholl , M., Berger , E., Smartt , S. J., et al. 2016, , 826, 39, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/39

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    K., Berger , E., et al

    Nicholl , M., Blanchard , P. K., Berger , E., et al. 2018, , 866, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae70d

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    O., Cameron , P

    Ofek , E. O., Cameron , P. B., Kasliwal , M. M., et al. 2007, , 659, L13, 10.1086/516749

    2007 doi

  64. [72]

    Omand , C. M. B., & Sarin , N. 2024, , 527, 6455, 10.1093/mnras/stad3645

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    B., Sullivan , M., et al

    Papadopoulos , A., D'Andrea , C. B., Sullivan , M., et al. 2015, , 449, 1215, 10.1093/mnras/stv174

    2015 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Quimby , R

    Perley , D. A., Quimby , R. M., Yan , L., et al. 2016, , 830, 13, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/13

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    Poidevin , F., Omand , C. M. B., K \"o nyves-T \'o th , R., et al. 2023, , 521, 5418, 10.1093/mnras/stad830

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Aldering , G., Wheeler , J

    Quimby , R. M., Aldering , G., Wheeler , J. C., et al. 2007, , 668, L99, 10.1086/522862

    2007 doi

  69. [77]

    M., Kulkarni , S

    Quimby , R. M., Kulkarni , S. R., Kasliwal , M. M., et al. 2011, , 474, 487, 10.1038/nature10095

    2011 doi

  70. [78]

    M., De Cia , A., Gal-Yam , A., et al

    Quimby , R. M., De Cia , A., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2018, , 855, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaac2f

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    2020, Science Advances, 6, eaay2732, 10.1126/sciadv.aay2732

    Raynaud , R., Guilet , J., Janka , H.-T., & Gastine , T. 2020, Science Advances, 6, eaay2732, 10.1126/sciadv.aay2732

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  73. [81]

    2018, , 473, 1258, 10.1093/mnras/stx2352

    Schulze , S., Kr \"u hler , T., Leloudas , G., et al. 2018, , 473, 1258, 10.1093/mnras/stx2352

    2018 doi

  74. [82]

    2024, , 683, A223, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346855

    Schulze , S., Fransson , C., Kozyreva , A., et al. 2024, , 683, A223, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346855

    2024 doi

  75. [83]

    B., et al

    Smith , M., Sullivan , M., D'Andrea , C. B., et al. 2016, , 818, L8, 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L8

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith , N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 403, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_38

    2017 doi

  77. [85]

    2007, , 671, L17, 10.1086/524681

    Smith , N., & McCray , R. 2007, , 671, L17, 10.1086/524681

    2007 doi

  78. [86]

    2017, , 839, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6a10

    Soker , N. 2017, , 839, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6a10

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    2012, , 419, 2783, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19921.x

    Tak \'a ts , K., & Vink \'o , J. 2012, , 419, 2783, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19921.x

    2012

  80. [88]

    C., Nugent , P

    Thomas , R. C., Nugent , P. E., & Meza , J. C. 2011, , 123, 237, 10.1086/658673

    2011 doi

  81. [89]

    2017 a , , 835, 266, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/266

    Tolstov , A., Nomoto , K., Blinnikov , S., et al. 2017 a , , 835, 266, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/266

    2017 doi

  82. [90]

    2017 b , , 845, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa808e

    Tolstov , A., Zhiglo , A., Nomoto , K., et al. 2017 b , , 845, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa808e

    2017 doi

  83. [91]

    A., Nicholl , M., & Berger , E

    Villar , V. A., Nicholl , M., & Berger , E. 2018, , 869, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee6a

    2018 doi

  84. [92]

    Q., Liu , L

    Wang , S. Q., Liu , L. D., Dai , Z. G., Wang , L. J., & Wu , X. F. 2016, , 828, 87, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/87

    2016 doi

  85. [93]

    2019 a , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 063, 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/63

    Wang , S.-Q., Wang , L.-J., & Dai , Z.-G. 2019 a , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 063, 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/63

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    2019 b , , 877, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1903

    Wang , S.-Q., Cano , Z., Li , L., et al. 2019 b , , 877, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1903

    2019 doi

  87. [95]

    L., Lunnan , R., Omand , C

    West , S. L., Lunnan , R., Omand , C. M. B., et al. 2023, , 670, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244086

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    C., Chatzopoulos , E., Vink \'o , J., & Tuminello , R

    Wheeler , J. C., Chatzopoulos , E., Vink \'o , J., & Tuminello , R. 2017, , 851, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9d84

    2017 doi

  89. [97]

    Woosley , S. E. 2010, , 719, L204, 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204

    2010 doi

  90. [98]

    2017, , 836, 244, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    ---. 2017, , 836, 244, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2017 doi

  91. [99]

    2012, , 124, 668, 10.1086/666656

    Yaron , O., & Gal-Yam , A. 2012, , 124, 668, 10.1086/666656

    2012 doi

  92. [100]

    2017, , 470, 197, 10.1093/mnras/stx1028

    Yu , Y.-W., & Li , S.-Z. 2017, , 470, 197, 10.1093/mnras/stx1028

    2017 doi

  93. [101]

    2017, , 840, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27

    Yu , Y.-W., Zhu , J.-P., Li , S.-Z., L \"u , H.-J., & Zou , Y.-C. 2017, , 840, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27

    2017 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.01224, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.01224

    Zhu , J.-P., Liu , L.-D., Yu , Y.-W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.01224, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.01224

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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