Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Using nebular near-IR spectroscopy to measure asymmetric chemical distributions in 2003fg-like thermonuclear supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the tilted infrared iron lines of three 2003fg-like supernovae are correlated within each explosion, indicating that their inner ejecta are chemically asymmetric rather than blended line artifacts.

desk verdict A useful new NIR spectrum of SN 2020hvf and a suggestive within-SN correlation in [Fe II] tilts, but the line-dominance assumption is asserted, not proven, and n=3 keeps the central claim conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09352 v2 pith:BTQHWKQF submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

J. O'Hora , C. Ashall , M. Shahbandeh , E. Hsiao , P. Hoeflich , M. D. Stritzinger , L. Galbany , E. Baron
show 5 more authors
J. DerKacy S. Kumar J. Lu K. Medler B. Shappee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords typeIasupernovaesuper-Chandrasekhar2003fg-likenebularspectroscopynear-infraredironforbiddenlinesejectaasymmetrywhitedwarfprogenitors
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 analyzes late-time near-infrared spectra of three 2003fg-like (super-Chandrasekhar) type Ia supernovae, SN 2009dc, SN 2020hvf, and SN 2022pul, at roughly +294 to +372 days after B-band maximum. In all three, the [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 micron emission lines are asymmetric, appearing as tilted peaks, and within each explosion these two lines tilt in the same direction with similar shape. The paper argues that this internal correlation makes line blending an unlikely explanation, so the tilts most plausibly trace an aspherical distribution of iron-group elements in the inner ejecta. If correct, this gives an observational probe of explosion geometry in these unusually luminous supernovae and supports progenitor channels such as white-dwarf mergers or off-center delayed-detonation explosions.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the correlated tilt of the [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 micron emission lines in nebular-phase spectra, when the ejecta has become optically thin enough to expose the inner core. These are forbidden fine-structure transitions of singly ionized iron, so matching asymmetry in both profiles is treated as evidence of an intrinsically asymmetric chemical distribution rather than a coincidental blend of unrelated lines. The tilt is quantified through a slope parameter $m_T$ measured with Monte Carlo linear fits to the top of each feature, complemented by peak-velocity measurements, flux change across the tilt, residual shapes against normal SNe, and the velocity separation between coupled Gaussian components.

What would settle it

A detailed 3D non-LTE spectral synthesis of a spherically symmetric explosion that includes the full line list and reproduces the observed correlated, tilted 1.257 and 1.644 micron profiles would falsify the asphericity claim; observationally, a fourth 2003fg-like SN whose 1.257 and 1.644 micron features tilt in opposite directions would break the correlation and require a different explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that the asymmetries in the [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 micron nebular features of 2003fg-like SNe are physical rather than spectral artifacts: the two lines are correlated in shape and tilt within each supernova, even though the profiles differ strongly between supernovae. Because unrelated line blends would not naturally produce matching tilts in both features, the paper concludes that [Fe II] dominates both complexes and that the profiles reveal aspherical chemical distributions in the inner, iron-rich ejecta. Five quantitative methods are used to establish this: velocity at peak flux, a Monte Carlo tilt parameter, residual tests against normal SNe Ia, multi-Gaussian velocity fitting, and comparison to off-center delayed-detonation models. The paper notes that only future 3D non-LTE modeling can fully exclude contaminating lines, but the correlation argument is the load-bearing step.

Load-bearing premise

All of it rests on the assumption that the 1.257 and 1.644 micron complexes are dominated by the two [Fe II] lines, with neighboring weak lines such as [Si I] 1.646 and [Fe II] 1.664/1.667 contributing too little to shape the profiles; if those contaminants were strong enough to mimic or alter the tilts, the correlated shapes would not prove an aspherical chemical distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All three 2003fg-like SNe examined show a common physical trait: the inner iron distribution is not spherical, so asphericity may be a general property of this subclass rather than a peculiarity of one object.
  • The [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 micron lines can be used as clean kinematic probes in 2003fg-like SNe, since the correlation indicates that blending is not the dominant contributor to their shapes.
  • The diversity of tilt directions and widths across the sample is consistent with a continuum of viewing angles and/or core shapes, tying the observations to off-center delayed-detonation or white-dwarf merger scenarios.
  • The five metrics provide a ready toolkit for future nebular NIR spectra: peak velocity, tilt slope, flux change, residual patterns, and coupled-component velocity separation can all be measured on a single spectrum.
  • Distinguishing the two leading explosion scenarios will require pairing late-time NIR spectroscopy with early-time continuum polarization, as the paper argues.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tilts are viewing-angle effects of a common geometry, a larger sample should show a roughly symmetric mix of blue-peaked and red-peaked tilts; a strong statistical excess of one sign would indicate a preferred orientation or a non-random explosion axis.
  • The same correlation test could be applied to normal SNe Ia with low ionization states, where subtle asphericity might show up as correlated small tilts even when no single feature looks strikingly asymmetric.
  • The tilt correlation could double as a classification tool: a nebular NIR spectrum with matching 1.257 and 1.644 micron tilts offers a late-time, light-curve-independent way to identify 2003fg-like explosions.
  • If off-center detonation produces the tilt, the tilt direction in the NIR might correlate with the polarization angle measured near maximum light, linking the late-time geometry to the early-time explosion asymmetry.
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. The paper analyzes three near-infrared nebular spectra of 2003fg-like (super-Chandrasekhar) Type Ia supernovae—SN 2009dc, SN 2020hvf, and SN 2022pul—along with two normal SNe Ia (2013aa, 2017cbv) for comparison. It reports that the [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 micron profiles are asymmetric ("tilted") in all three 03fg-likes, with peak velocities offset from zero and a claimed correlation in profile shape between the two features within each SN. The authors interpret this as evidence that line blending is not the dominant cause of the asymmetry and that 03fg-like SNe have aspherical chemical distributions in their inner regions, possibly from double white dwarf mergers or off-center delayed-detonation explosions. Five methods are used to quantify the asymmetries: velocity at peak flux, profile tilt fits, residual testing against normal SNe, multi-Gaussian fitting, and a visual comparison to off-center DDT models from Hoeflich et al. (2021).

Significance. If the central interpretation is correct, this would be the first systematic evidence that 03fg-like SNe share a common aspherical chemical distribution in their inner ejecta, with direct implications for progenitor and explosion models. The paper contributes a new NIR nebular spectrum of SN 2020hvf and applies a quantitative framework (with Monte Carlo uncertainties) to a rare and difficult-to-obtain data set. The strength of the paper is its clear presentation of multiple observational diagnostics; its weakness is that the most ambitious claim—aspherical chemical abundance distributions—rests on the unverified dominance of two [Fe II] lines and on a correlation that is only partially supported by the quantitative measurements. The paper is honest about several limitations but does not fully resolve them.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3 / Table 4 / Abstract] The claim that the 1.257 and 1.644 micron features are "correlated in shape within the same SN" is not supported by the quantitative tilt measurements. For SN 2022pul, mT(1.257)=0.045±0.002 whereas mT(1.644)=0.019±0.002, a difference of about 13 sigma; for SN 2009dc the values are -0.114±0.009 and -0.046±0.004, also highly discrepant. The authors attribute the 2009dc discrepancy to line blending in Section 4.3, which is an internal admission that blending can materially alter the profiles. Only the sign of the tilt (blue- vs. red-peaked) and, for SN 2022pul, the peak velocity are consistent between the two features. The abstract and Section 4.1 should be revised to accurately describe the degree of agreement, or a proper quantitative correlation measure (e.g., a correlation coefficient with uncertainties) should be provided.
  2. [Section 3 / Section 5] The dominance of [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 micron in their respective spectral complexes is asserted rather than demonstrated. The argument that contaminating lines would break the profile correlation is not valid for the same-ion contaminants [Fe II] 1.271, 1.664, and 1.667 micron, which should share the same velocity structure as the dominant lines if they contribute. Section 5 concedes that without 3D NLTE modeling the authors cannot rule out contaminating lines that coincidentally mimic [Fe II] dominance. Since this assumption is load-bearing for the central inference that the asymmetries trace chemical abundance distributions, the manuscript should either provide quantitative support (e.g., line-strength estimates from atomic data or published models) or explicitly present the results as conditional on this assumption.
  3. [Section 5 / Abstract] The data cannot uniquely distinguish an aspherical chemical abundance distribution from an aspherical density distribution, because the [Fe II] emissivity is proportional to the product of abundance and density. The geometric alternatives mentioned in Section 4.2 (ring-like emission, photospheric obstruction) further illustrate that non-chemical asymmetries can produce tilted profiles. The conclusion that "03fg-like SNe have aspherical chemical distributions in their inner regions" is therefore stronger than the evidence warrants. The authors should either provide a specific argument for why a density asymmetry is unlikely or reframe the conclusion as "asymmetric emission from the Fe-rich inner region," with the abundance/density degeneracy explicitly acknowledged.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Table 3] In the text after Figure 3, the peak values are said to be tabulated in Table 4, but the velocities at peak flux are actually listed in Table 3; this cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.4] The residual testing procedure scales the comparison spectra by eye and normalizes to peak flux. This is not described in a reproducible way; the authors should state the scaling criterion and, ideally, test the sensitivity of the residuals to reasonable changes in the scaling.
  3. [Section 4.6] The comparison to off-center DDT models involves manual vertical scaling, augmentation of model widths, and by-eye selection of viewing angle. This is qualitative and would benefit from a clearer statement that it is illustrative rather than a quantitative model test; currently the text says the models "support" the scenario, which may overstate the weight of the comparison.
  4. [Section 1] There are several typographical issues in the introduction: "textiti)" appears as a LaTeX artifact, "burningd" should be "burning and", and "0.97µm" is missing a space. These should be cleaned up.
  5. [General] The sample size of three 03fg-like SNe is very small, and the paper's abstract uses strong language such as "demonstrate." Given the acknowledged limitations (line blending, small sample, lack of 3D NLTE modeling), a more cautious wording (e.g., "suggest" or "indicate") would better match the evidence presented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured profile asymmetries and their within-SN correlation are independent of the supporting model citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational rather than constructional. The paper measures peak velocities, tilts, residuals, and Gaussian components directly from the spectra, and the claim that the 1.257 and 1.644 micron features are correlated in shape within each SN is an empirical relation computed from those independent measurements. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation in the paper defines the inferred asymmetry in terms of the line-dominance assumption. The line-dominance premise is imported from earlier model calculations (Diamond et al. 2015; Hoeflich et al. 2021), but those calculations are external to the present data and do not contain the target correlation as an input. The authors explicitly concede in Section 5 that without detailed 3D NLTE modeling they cannot rule out contaminating lines mimicking [Fe II] dominance; that is an acknowledged limitation, not a circular reduction. The only self-citations, such as the Hoeflich et al. (2021) DDT models used in Section 4.6, support a speculative scenario comparison and are visually rescaled; they do not carry the central observational inference. Therefore no specific circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical model is derived in this paper; the central inference rests on observational data and on a small set of astrophysical assumptions about line formation and sample representativeness. The quantitative descriptors (peak velocity, tilt, Gaussian components) are measurements, not free parameters of a theory. The only genuinely free choices are in the model comparison in Section 4.6, where DDT models are rescaled and viewing angles selected by eye.

free parameters (2)
  • DDT model width augmentation and flux rescaling = per-object, not tabulated
    Section 4.6: model spectra are vertically shifted and scaled in flux and widths augmented to match each 03fg-like before judging agreement, so the model comparison is not parameter-free.
  • DDT viewing angle = -90, +90 degrees per object
    Section 4.6: viewing angle for each model is chosen by visual agreement with the observed tilt, a selection criterion rather than a prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 micron lines dominate their spectral complexes; potential blending lines are weak.
    Section 3 and Section 4.1; load-bearing for the inference that correlated tilts trace the iron distribution rather than blending.
  • domain assumption Nebular-phase NIR spectra at +294 to +372 days probe the inner Fe-rich ejecta in a comparable ionization state.
    Section 4.1; used to compare phases across objects.
  • domain assumption Normal SNe Ia 2013aa and 2017cbv have symmetric [Fe II] profiles representative of normal SNe Ia.
    Section 2 and Section 4.1; baseline for residual testing, based on prior work by Diamond et al. and Kumar et al.
  • domain assumption Off-center DDT models from Hoeflich et al. (2021) are applicable to 03fg-like SNe despite luminosity differences.
    Section 4.6; similar ionization states are claimed to make the models useful references, and the models are modified before comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using nebular near-IR spectroscopy to measure asymmetric chemical distributions in 2003fg-like thermonuclear supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTQHWKQF

@misc{pith2026241209352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using nebular near-IR spectroscopy to measure asymmetric chemical distributions in 2003fg-like thermonuclear supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTQHWKQF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09352}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of three near-infrared (NIR; 1.0-2.4 $\mu$m) spectra of the SN 2003fg-like/"super-Chandrasekhar" type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) SN 2009dc, SN 2020hvf, and SN 2022pul at respective phases +372, +296, and +294~d relative to the epoch of $B$-band maximum. We find that all objects in our sample have asymmetric, or "tilted", [Fe~II] 1.257 and 1.644 $\mu$m profiles. We quantify the asymmetry of these features using five methods: velocity at peak flux, profile tilts, residual testing, velocity fitting, and comparison to deflagration-detonation transition models. Our results demonstrate that, while the profiles of the [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 $\mu$m features are widely varied between 2003fg-likes, these features are correlated in shape within the same SN. This implies that line blending is most likely not the dominant cause of the asymmetries inferred from these profiles. Instead, it is more plausible that 2003fg-like SNe have aspherical chemical distributions in their inner regions. These distributions may come from aspherical progenitor systems, such as double white dwarf mergers, or off-center delayed-detonation explosions of Chandrasekhar-mass Carbon-Oxygen white dwarfs. Additional late-phase NIR observation of 2003fg-like SNe and detailed 3-D NLTE modeling of these two explosion scenarios are encouraged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Full NIR spectra of SN 2009dc, SN 2020hvf, and SN 2022pul at nebular phases. Spectra are redshift-corrected ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The spectra presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Velocity at peak flux of the [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 µm features of each SN, which are measured via the procedure described in Section 4.2. 03fg-like SNe have peaks that are non-zero but consistent between SNe, whereas the normal SNe velocities at peak flux are roughly consistent with 0 km s−1 . The peak values plotted here are tabulated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the results of the MC tilt mea￾surements described in Section 4.3. Individual spectra are replaced with a 1D Gaussian-filtered smooth curve with smoothing length of 9 pixels to improve the visibility of each MC line fit across the tilt of each feature.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Tilt mT of the [Fe II] 1.257 and 1.644 µm features of each 03fg-like SN, which are measured via the procedure described in Section 4.3. The tilts are consis￾tent across features for SN 2020hvf and mostly consistent for SN 2022pul, but not for SN 2009dc, the reason…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Residual plots of the 1.644 µm features of SN 2009dc, SN 2020hvf, and SN 2022pul (black) against those of both SN 2013aa (red) and SN 2017cbv (green). The procedure for obtaining these residual plots is detailed in Section 4.4. Highlighted regions in the bottom two row…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: vwidth plotted against vpeak for each Gaussian cor￾responding to the [Fe II] 1.257 or 1.644 µm feature profile of each SN. Fit results for SNe 2013aa and 2017cbv are obtained from Kumar et al. (2023), while fit results for the [Fe II] 0.73 µm feature of SN 2020hvf are …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of off center DDT explosion models from Hoeflich et al. (2021) overlaid with spectral observations of the 1.644 µm features of SN 2009dc, SN 2020hvf, and SN 2022pul. Note that the model spectra were adjusted in both flux scale and velocity space for comparis…

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. Difficulties of two exploding white dwarfs to account for type Ia supernovae with bimodal nebular emission profiles

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Two exploding white dwarfs produce ejecta separation velocities of at most 5440 km/s and little mass in the inner ejecta, making it hard for this channel to explain bimodal type Ia supernova line profiles with separat...

  2. The Hawaii Infrared Supernova Study (HISS): Spectroscopic Data Release 1

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HISS DR1 releases 90 NIR spectra of 48 transients and demonstrates spectral analyses including unburnt carbon, nebular lines, CO, and He I diagnostics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Y., et al

    Ashall, C., Lu, J., Hsiao, E. Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac19ac

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac19ac 2021

  2. [2]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608

    Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., Baron, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608 2024

  3. [3]

    J., Ramsbottom, C

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Ramsbottom, C. A., & Storey, P. J. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A170

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Expanding the parameter space of 2002es-like type Ia supernovae: on the underluminous ASASSN-20jq / SN 2020qxp

    Bose, S., Stritzinger, M. D., Ashall, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04086, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04086

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.04086 2025

  5. [5]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 3

    Childress, M., Aldering, G., Aragon, C., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 3

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907

    doi:10.1086/382907 2004

  7. [7]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 945, L2

    DerKacy, J., Ashall, C., Hoeflich, P., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 945, L2

    2023

  8. [8]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 119

    Diamond, T., Hoeflich, P., Hsiao, E., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 119

    work page 2018

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    R., Hoeflich, P., & Gerardy, C

    Diamond, T. R., Hoeflich, P., & Gerardy, C. L. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 107

    2015

  2. [10]

    R., et al

    Dimitriadis, G., Maguire, K., Karambelkar, V. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad536

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Fadillah, M. H. A. Z., Idrus, B., & Hasan, M. K. 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    V., Richmond, M

    Filippenko, A. V., Richmond, M. W., Matheson, T., et al. 1992b, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 384, Jan. 1, 1992, p. L15-L18., 384, L15

    1992

  5. [13]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 476, 1133

    Fink, M., Hillebrandt, W., & R¨ opke, F. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 476, 1133

    2007

  6. [14]

    V., et al

    Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 142

    2012

  7. [15]

    A., Taubenberger, S., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 2057

    2012

  8. [16]

    Hillebrandt, W., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 191, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.191

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    Y., Ashall, C., et al

    Hoeflich, P., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b2

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, in Nuclei in the Cosmos XV, Springer, 187–194

    Hoeflich, P., Ashall, C., Fisher, A., et al. 2019, in Nuclei in the Cosmos XV, Springer, 187–194

    2019

  11. [19]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 186

    Hoeflich, P., Ashall, C., Bose, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 186

    2021

  12. [20]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 14

    Holcomb, C., Guillochon, J., De Colle, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 14

    2013

  13. [21]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 139

    Hoogendam, W., Shappee, B., Brown, P., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 139

    2024

  14. [22]

    D., Sullivan, M., Nugent, P

    Howell, A. D., Sullivan, M., Nugent, P. E., et al. 2006, Nature, 443, 308

    2006

  15. [23]

    Howell, D. A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 554, L193

    2001

  16. [24]

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

    1960 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 140 Iben Jr, I., & Tutukov, A

    Hsiao, E., Hoeflich, P., Ashall, C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 140 Iben Jr, I., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 284, Sept. 15, 1984, p. 719-744., 284, 719

    2020

  18. [26]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Jerkstrand, A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 795, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 29

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, ApJL, 923, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac375f

    Jiang, J.-a., Maeda, K., Kawabata, M., et al. 2021, ApJL, 923, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac375f

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., et al. 2001

    2001

  21. [29]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 1466

    Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 1466

    2011

  22. [30]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 737, L24

    Khan, R., Stanek, K., Stoll, R., & Prieto, J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 737, L24

    2011

  23. [31]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    Kumar, S. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2024

  24. [32]

    Y., Ashall, C., et al

    Kumar, S., Hsiao, E. Y., Ashall, C., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 27

    2023

  25. [33]

    A., Siebert, M

    Kwok, L. A., Siebert, M. R., Johansson, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 135

    2024

  26. [34]

    V., Treffers, R

    Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Treffers, R. R., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 546, 734

    2001

  27. [35]

    V., Chornock, R., et al

    Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., et al. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 453

    2003

  28. [36]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A136

    Liu, D., Wang, B., Wu, C., & Han, Z. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A136

    2017

  29. [37]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18900

    Liu, J., Wang, X., Yang, Y., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18900

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001

    2023

  31. [39]

    2018, PhR, 736, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.02.002

    Livio, M., & Mazzali, P. 2018, PhR, 736, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.02.002

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Livio, M., & Riess, A. G. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, L93

    2003

  33. [41]

    Y., et al

    Lu, J., Ashall, C., Hsiao, E. Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1606

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 1897

    Shigeyama, T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 1897

    2023

  35. [43]

    2010, Nature, 466, 82 15

    Maeda, K., Benetti, S., Stritzinger, M., et al. 2010, Nature, 466, 82 15

    2010

  36. [44]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3567

    Maguire, K., Sim, S., Shingles, L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3567

    2018

  37. [45]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 128, 615

    Marietta, E., Burrows, A., & Fryxell, B. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 128, 615

    2000

  38. [46]

    1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Mazzali, P., Danziger, I., & Turatto, M. 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 297, p. 509, 297, 509

    1995

  39. [47]

    A., Ropke, F

    Mazzali, P. A., Ropke, F. K., Benetti, S., & Hillebrandt, W. 2007, Science, 315, 825

    2007

  40. [48]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 2972

    Noebauer, U., Taubenberger, S., Blinnikov, S., Sorokina, E., & Hillebrandt, W. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 2972

    2016

  41. [49]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 528, A117

    Pakmor, R., Hachinger, S., R¨ opke, F., & Hillebrandt, W. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 528, A117

    2011

  42. [50]

    K., et al

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 61

    2010

  43. [51]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10

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

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 84

    Penney, R., & Hoeflich, P. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 795, 84

    2014

  45. [53]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/84

    Penney, R., & Hoeflich, P. 2014, ApJ, 795, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/84

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Dimitriadis, G., Polin, A., & Foley, R

    Siebert, M. R., Dimitriadis, G., Polin, A., & Foley, R. J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 900, L27

    2020

  47. [55]

    R., Kwok, L

    Siebert, M. R., Kwok, L. A., Johansson, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 960, 88

    2023

  48. [56]

    R., Foley, R

    Siebert, M. R., Foley, R. J., Zenati, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad037f

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., et al

    Silverman, J. M., Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 410, 585

    2011

  50. [58]

    2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 87, 101535

    Soker, N. 2019, New Astronomy Reviews, 87, 101535

    2019

  51. [59]

    J., Huber, M

    Srivastav, S., Smartt, S. J., Huber, M. E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 943, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb2ce

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 2735

    Taubenberger, S., Benetti, S., Childress, M., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 2735

    2011

  53. [61]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 3117

    Taubenberger, S., Kromer, M., Hachinger, S., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432, 3117

    2013

  54. [62]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5473

    Taubenberger, S., Floers, A., Vogl, C., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 5473

    2019

  55. [63]

    A., Shappee, B

    Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., Vallely, P. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3390

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    2012, New Astronomy Reviews, 56, 122

    Wang, B., & Han, Z. 2012, New Astronomy Reviews, 56, 122

    2012

  57. [65]

    1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Webbink, R. 1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 277, Feb. 1, 1984, p. 355-360., 277, 355

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.