Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Massive stars exploding in a He-rich circumstellar medium. XI. Diverse evolution of five Ibn SNe 2020nxt, 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2023utc and 2024aej

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Five Type Ibn supernovae studied here span peak magnitudes from −16.4 to −19.2 mag, with low ejecta masses and kinetic energies that favor moderate-mass helium stars in binary systems.

desk verdict Solid four-new-object Ibn sample; the record-faint 2023utc claim needs its host-extinction systematic folded in. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15139 v1 pith:DLUOJR75 submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Z.-Y. Wang , A. Pastorello , Y.-Z. Cai , M. Fraser , A. Reguitti , W.-L. Lin , L. Tartaglia , D. Andrew Howell
show 48 more authors
S. Benetti E. Cappellaro Z.-H. Chen N. Elias-Rosa J. Farah A. Fiore D. Hiramatsu E. Kankare Z.-T. Li P. Lundqvist P.A. Mazzali C. McCully J. Mo S. Moran M. Newsome E. Padilla Gonzalez C. Pellegrino Z.-H. Peng S.J. Smartt S. Srivastav M.D. Stritzinger G. Terreran L. Tomasella G. Valerin G.-J. Wang X.-F. Wang T. de Boer K.C. Chambers H. Gao F.-Z. Guo C.P. Guti'errez T. Kangas E. Karamehmetoglu G.-C. Li C.-C. Lin T.B. Lowe X.-R. Ma E.A. Magnier P. Minguez S.-P. Pei T.M. Reynolds R.J. Wainscoat B. Wang S. Williams C.-Y. Wu J.-J. Zhang X.-H. Zhang X.-J. Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords TypeIbnsupernovaecircumstellarmatterhelium-richCSMsupernovalightcurvescore-collapseprogenitorsSN2023utcmassivestarstransientspectroscopy
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 studies five Type Ibn supernovae—explosions whose narrow helium emission lines reveal a dense helium-rich circumstellar shell—and finds that their light curves and spectra are diverse rather than uniform. It claims that SN 2023utc is the faintest Type Ibn supernova discovered to date, peaking at r-band absolute magnitude −16.4 mag, and that the sample's derived ejecta masses, kinetic energies, and CSM masses point to low-energy core-collapse explosions of envelope-stripped helium stars, most plausibly moderate-mass stars in binaries. If right, the work extends the known luminosity range of SNe Ibn by roughly two magnitudes and strengthens the case that many of these events come from a low-mass channel rather than from massive Wolf-Rayet stars.

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the narrow He I emission profile: its roughly 1000 km/s velocity traces unshocked helium-rich CSM and its broadening tracks shocked gas, linking the spectra directly to mass loss before explosion. The quantitative machinery is a hybrid radioactive-decay plus circumstellar-interaction light-curve model fitted to the multiband photometry with a nested-sampling Monte Carlo scheme, fixing standard choices for density slopes and opacities while allowing ejecta mass, kinetic energy, CSM mass, CSM density and inner radius, nickel fraction, and two nuisance parameters to vary. Supporting that interpretation, the observed spectra and pseudo-bolometric light curves are compared against non-local thermodynamic equilibrium radiative-transfer models of low-mass helium-star ejecta running into a dense shell; the models reproduce the persistent He I lines, the blue pseudo-continuum, and the late-time Fe II absorption, while the early-time mismatches are attributed to the pre-shell interaction phase.

What would settle it

Take a high signal-to-noise spectrum of SN 2023utc's host galaxy to measure Na I D absorption and an independent host redshift; if the host reddening reaches its stated upper limit of $E(B-V)_{\rm host}\approx0.26$ mag, the corrected $r$-band peak would be near $-$17 mag, and the claim that this is the faintest Type Ibn would not stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the five events form a single spectroscopic family—narrow ($\lesssim1000$ km s$^{-1}$) He I lines from unshocked circumstellar material on a hot blue continuum—while their light curves are genuinely diverse. Peak absolute magnitudes span $-$16.4 to $-$19.2 mag, rise times are 6–12 d, and post-peak decline splits into steep-decline and plateau-like groups. Fitting a radioactive-decay plus circumstellar-interaction model to the multiband photometry yields $M_{\rm ej}\sim0.85$–$3.03\,M_\odot$, $E_{\rm Kin}\sim(0.06$–$0.91)\times10^{51}$ erg, $M_{\rm CSM}\sim0.17$–$0.95\,M_\odot$, inner CSM radii of 10–50 AU, and $^{56}{\rm Ni}$ masses $\lesssim0.15\,M_\odot$. On this basis the paper identifies SN 2023utc as the faintest Type Ibn discovered so far and reads the parameter ranges as evidence for low-energy core-collapse explosions of stripped, moderate-mass helium stars, plausibly in binaries, rather than detonating helium white dwarfs or very massive Wolf-Rayet stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that dust within the host galaxies adds no significant reddening to any of the five supernovae, so SN 2023utc's apparent faintness is taken at face value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Type Ibn luminosity range must be extended down to $M_r\approx-16.4$ mag, roughly two magnitudes fainter than the usual $-19$ mag reference.
  • A sample with $M_{\rm ej}\lesssim3\,M_\odot$, low kinetic energies, and $^{56}{\rm Ni}\lesssim0.15\,M_\odot$ favors core-collapse of envelope-stripped helium stars in binary systems over single massive Wolf-Rayet stars.
  • CSM masses of about 0.2–1 $M_\odot$ at radii of 10–50 AU imply substantial mass loss shortly before explosion, so high-cadence surveys should catch precursor emission in similar events.
  • The trend that fainter, slower-evolving Ibn events have lower kinetic energy and nickel mass implies a continuous sequence in progenitor mass and explosion energy rather than two separate classes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the host-galaxy reddening of SN 2023utc is close to the paper's own upper limit ($E(B-V)_{\rm host}\lesssim0.26$ mag), its peak would brighten by roughly 0.6–0.8 mag, moving it into the known faint-Ibn range and removing the 'faintest' record; the claim therefore leans on the Galactic-only reddening assumption.
  • By implication, magnitude-limited surveys are missing low-luminosity SNe Ibn, so the true Ibn rate at the faint end is probably higher than current volumetric estimates; next-generation wide-field surveys should find a tail of very faint events.
  • A testable follow-up is nebular spectroscopy of the brightest members: detection of [O I] and [Ca II] doublets would strengthen the core-collapse assignment, while their absence would leave the white-dwarf channel open for the faintest events.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 photometric and spectroscopic observations of five Type Ibn supernovae (2020nxt, 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2023utc, 2024aej), analyzes their light curves and spectra, and uses the MOSFiT RD+CSI framework to derive ejecta masses, kinetic energies, CSM masses, nickel masses, and ejecta velocities. The authors report that SN 2023utc is the faintest Type Ibn supernova discovered to date, with an r-band absolute peak magnitude of -16.4 mag, and that the sample spans a wide range of luminosities, rise times, decline rates, and physical parameters. The spectral sequences show He I emission lines typical of SNe Ibn and are compared with CMFGEN/CDS models from Dessart et al. (2022). The paper concludes that most of the sample is consistent with low-mass, low-energy helium-star progenitors in binary systems, with SN 2023utc requiring even more extreme, lower-energy parameters.

Significance. If the headline claims hold, the paper sets a new observational boundary for the Type Ibn population: a confirmed event at M_r ≈ -16.4 mag would be substantially fainter than the previously known faint end and would provide a strong constraint on low-energy, low-mass helium-star explosion channels. The multi-band, multi-epoch dataset is valuable and is presented with careful reductions and full tables of photometry and spectroscopy. The authors are transparent about important caveats: no k-corrections, no firm host-extinction measurements, and MOSFiT uncertainties that exclude model systematics. The comparison with state-of-the-art radiation-hydrodynamics and NLTE spectral models, including the explicit discussion of model limitations (Fe II discrepancies, missing H, early-time quasi-steady assumptions), is a strength of the paper. The analysis is reproducible in the sense that it uses the public MOSFiT code and standard reduction pipelines, and the authors clearly distinguish between observed quantities and model-derived parameters.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.3 / Appendix A / Section 2.2] The central claim that SN 2023utc is the faintest Type Ibn supernova and is 'significantly fainter' than SN 2005la rests on the assumption of zero host-galaxy reddening. The authors' own Appendix A gives a 3-sigma upper limit of E(B-V)_host < 0.26 mag for SN 2023utc; propagating this into the r band with a standard reddening law yields A_r(host) ≈ 0.7 mag. Combined with the distance modulus uncertainty of 0.46 mag quoted in Table 1, the face-value peak of M_r = -16.4 mag could become approximately -17.0 to -17.5 mag under the authors' own upper limits. The margin over the transitional Type IIn/Ibn SN 2005la (M_R ≈ -17.2) is then only about 0.2-0.8 mag, so the claim that SN 2023utc is 'significantly fainter' and the 'faintest Type Ibn discovered to date' is not secure. I request a quantitative propagation of the host-extinction upper limit into the peak absolute magnitude and a revised, appropriately hedged statement of the faint-end claim.
  2. [Section 3.2.3 / Section 3.1] The peak magnitudes for the five SNe are compared without k-corrections. For SNe at z = 0.049-0.068 (SNe 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2024aej) and given the hot blackbody temperatures near peak, the lack of k-corrections can introduce epoch- and band-dependent offsets of several tenths of a magnitude. This is acknowledged in Section 3.1, but its effect on the specific quantitative comparison in Fig. 5 and Table 2, including the relative ordering of the faint end, is not quantified. Since the faintest-object claim depends on a few tenths of a magnitude, the authors should estimate the magnitude of this systematic for the peak r-band measurements or explicitly state why it is negligible for the conclusions drawn.
  3. [Section 3.3 / Table 3] The derived physical parameters (e.g., M_ej = 0.85-3.03 M_sun, E_kin = 0.06-0.91 x 10^51 erg, M_CSM = 0.17-0.95 M_sun) are presented as if each parameter is independently well constrained. The posterior corner plots in Appendix F show that several parameters are correlated, and the paper states that quoted uncertainties do not include model systematics. To make the diversity claim robust, the authors should quantify how much of the apparent diversity among the five SNe is compatible with a single common set of physical parameters once the posterior correlations and model systematics are included; without this, the 'diverse evolution' headline is supported mainly by the differences in peak magnitudes and decline rates, which are on firmer observational ground.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2 / Fig. 5] SN 2021bbv lacks a measured peak: the paper reports only M_r < -18.8, yet Fig. 5 and the phase-space diagrams in Fig. 11 plot it without a clear symbol distinction from detections. Please mark upper limits consistently in all figures and exclude them from the reported correlation statistics or discuss the effect of their inclusion.
  2. [Section 2.1.4] The redshift of SN 2023utc is measured from the narrow He I lines of the supernova itself rather than from host-galaxy lines. Given the importance of this object for the faint-end claim, the paper should explicitly discuss the possibility that the narrow He I lines are not at the host systemic velocity and how a peculiar-velocity offset would change the distance modulus and peak absolute magnitude.
  3. [Abstract / Section 5.1] The abstract quotes kinetic energies of (0.1-1) x 10^50 erg, while Table 3 values are in units of 10^51 erg and correspond to (0.06-0.91) x 10^51 erg; please reconcile the units and numbers between the abstract, Section 5.1, and Table 3.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says 'SNe 2020nxt, 2020nxt, 2021bbv...', duplicating one object name and omitting SN 2020taz and SN 2024aej. Please correct the caption.
  5. [Section 4.3 / Fig. 15] For SNe 2023utc and 2024aej, the noisy spectra are said to prevent accurate velocity measurements, yet Fig. 15 appears to include points for these objects. Please state explicitly which points are upper limits or should be regarded as unreliable, or remove them from the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's physical parameters are forward-model inversions of observed light curves, and its headline 'faintest Type Ibn' claim is a direct distance/extinction-corrected photometric measurement with stated systematic caveats, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central results are photometric and spectroscopic measurements followed by light-curve inversions. Peak absolute magnitudes are computed from apparent magnitudes, distance moduli, and an explicitly stated reddening assumption; for SN 2023utc the distance is derived from the SN's own narrow He I lines, which is a standard (though uncertain) redshift method rather than a circular reduction. The MOSFiT RD+CSI fits are forward-model inversions of the multi-band data; the reported quantities M_Ni = f_Ni x M_ej and v_ej = sqrt(2 E_kin / M_ej) are transparent algebraic recomputations of fitted parameters and are explicitly labeled in Table 3 as derived physical parameters, not as independent predictions. Comparisons against the Dessart et al. (2022) radiation-hydrodynamics and CMFGEN grids use externally computed models and are used only for consistency checks, with candidly stated limitations. The host-galaxy reddening assumption is a clearly acknowledged systematic limitation that could weaken the 'faintest Type Ibn' claim, but it is an uncertainty in the input photometric calibration, not a circular step. No equation reduces to an input by construction, and no load-bearing argument depends on a self-citation chain; the self-citations that appear (e.g., Pastorello et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2024b) are methodological or comparative references, not circular premises.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central physical quantities (Mej, Ekin, MCSM, R0, rho_CSM, fNi) are all outputs of a model fit, not first-principles derivations; the model itself rests on fixed assumptions about ejecta density profiles, opacities, and a constant-density CSM shell. Distances and extinctions rely on standard cosmology, empirical Na I D relations, and the assumption of negligible host reddening. No genuinely new entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • 56Ni fraction f_Ni = 0.001-0.16% (per object: 0.037, 0.001, 0.16, 0.018, 0.14)
    Fitted free parameter in MOSFiT RD+CSI model (Section 3.3, Table 3); determines radioactive powering.
  • Kinetic energy E_kin = 0.06-0.91 x 10^51 erg
    Free parameter in MOSFiT fit; central to the conclusion about low-energy explosions.
  • CSM mass M_CSM = 0.17-0.95 solar masses
    Free parameter derived from MOSFiT fit to multi-band light curves.
  • Ejecta mass M_ej = 0.85-3.03 solar masses
    Free parameter in MOSFiT; drives ejecta velocity and Ni mass estimates.
  • CSM inner radius R0 = 9.3-49 AU
    Free parameter characterizing the CSM shell inner edge.
  • CSM density log10 rho_CSM = -10.41 to -7.04 (g/cm^3)
    Free parameter for constant-density CSM shell (s=0).
  • Temperature floor T_min = log T_min ~ 3.26-4.01 K
    Nuisance parameter in MOSFiT; authors note physical parameters are insensitive.
  • White noise sigma = ~0.2 mag (all objects)
    Nuisance parameter added in quadrature to photometric uncertainties.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Flat LCDM cosmology with H0=73 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M=0.27, Omega_Lambda=0.73 (Section 2)
    Used to convert redshifts to luminosity distances for all five SNe.
  • domain assumption Empirical Na I D equivalent width to E(B-V) relations (Poznanski et al. 2012; Turatto et al. 2003) (Appendix A)
    Used to convert non-detections of Na I D into upper limits on host extinction; acknowledged by the authors as uncertain for interacting transients.
  • domain assumption MOSFiT RD+CSI model with fixed delta=0, n=12, s=0, kappa=0.1 cm2/g, kappa_gamma=0.027 cm2/g (Section 3.3)
    The light curve fitting is only valid within this simplified model; authors note systematic uncertainties are not included in quoted errors.
  • domain assumption Blackbody SED fitting without UV data is reliable for temperatures below about 20000 K (Section 3.2.4)
    Used to construct bolometric light curves; based on Arcavi (2022) but only approximately valid for the sample.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-bolometric light curves assume negligible flux outside B through I bands (Section 3.2.4)
    Statistically underestimates total radiated energy; authors call the energies lower limits.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy extinction is negligible for all five SNe (Section 2.2, Appendix A)
    Explicitly adopted because Na I D is undetected; the authors admit that for 2023utc and 2024aej the upper limits allow non-negligible extinction.
  • domain assumption Redshifts of SN 2021bbv and SN 2023utc measured from their own narrow He I lines represent the systemic host redshifts (Section 2.1)
    No host galaxy lines are available; offsets between SN line velocities and the host systemic velocity would bias distances and absolute magnitudes.
  • domain assumption Woosley (2019) helium star model he4 (1.62 solar masses) approximates the progenitor composition for spectral modeling (Section 4.4)
    Used as input to CMFGEN synthetic spectra; not tailored to individual SNe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massive stars exploding in a He-rich circumstellar medium. XI. Diverse evolution of five Ibn SNe 2020nxt, 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2023utc and 2024aej." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLUOJR75

@misc{pith2026250615139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massive stars exploding in a He-rich circumstellar medium. XI. Diverse evolution of five Ibn SNe 2020nxt, 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2023utc and 2024aej},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLUOJR75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15139}
}
abstract

We present the photometric and spectroscopic analysis of five Type Ibn supernovae (SNe): SN 2020nxt, SN 2020taz, SN 2021bbv, SN 2023utc, and SN 2024aej. These events share key observational features and belong to a family of objects similar to the prototypical Type Ibn SN 2006jc. The SNe exhibit rise times of approximately 10 days and peak absolute magnitudes ranging from $-$16.5 to $-$19 mag. Notably, SN 2023utc is the faintest Type Ibn supernova discovered to date, with an exceptionally low r-band absolute magnitude of $-16.4$ mag. The pseudo-bolometric light curves peak at $(1-10) \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, with total radiated energies on the order of $(1-10) \times 10^{48}$ erg. Spectroscopically, these SNe display relatively slow spectral evolution; the early spectra are characterised by a hot blue continuum and prominent He I emission lines. Early spectra show blackbody temperatures exceeding $10000~\mathrm{K}$, with a subsequent decline in temperature during later phases. Narrow He I lines, indicative of unshocked circumstellar material (CSM), show velocities of approximately $1000~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}$. The spectra suggest that the progenitors of these SNe underwent significant mass loss prior to the explosion, resulting in a He-rich CSM. Light curve modelling yields estimates for the ejecta mass ($M_{\rm ej}$) in the range $1-3~M_{\odot}$, with kinetic energies ($E_{\rm Kin}$) of $(0.1-1) \times 10^{50}$ erg. The inferred CSM mass ranges from $0.2$ to $1~M_{\odot}$. These findings are consistent with expectations for core-collapse events arising from relatively massive, envelope-stripped progenitors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15139 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SN 2020nxt in a NOT/ALFOSC image taken with a Sloan i-band filter on July 19, 2020; SN 2020taz in a NOT/ALFOSC image taken with a Sloan r-band filter on October 1, 2020; SN 2021bbv in a NOT/ALFOSC image taken with a Sloan i-band filter on February 17, 2021; SN 2023utc in a LCO TFN/fa20 image taken with a Sloan i-band filter on October 27, 2023; SN 2024aej in a LCO TFN/fa11 image taken with a Sloan r-band filter on J… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UV and optical light curves of SNe 2020nxt, 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2023utc, 2024aej. The dashed vertical line marks the o/r-band maximum light as the reference epoch. The epochs of our spectra are marked with vertical solid red lines on the top. The upper limits are marked by empty symbols with arrows. For clarity, the light curves for the different bands are shifted with arbitrary constants as reported in the legend. Us… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints on the explosion epochs of SNe 2020taz (left) and 2024aej (right). Early time ATLAS o-filter data are shown in the flux space. The zero flux level is marked by a horizontal dashed line. Red circle dots indicate real detections, while blue circle is the latest detection limit. 0 20 40 60 80 1 0 1 B V SN 2006jc SN 2010al SN 2014av SN 2015U ASASSN-15ed SN 2018jmt SN 2019uo SN 2019wep SN 2019kbj SN 2019cj SN… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Colour evolution of SNe 2020nxt, 2020nxt, 2021bbv, 2023utc, 2024aej compared with a large sample of SNe Ibn from the literature. The colour curves have been corrected for Galactic extinction. Mo = −17.8 ± 0.2 mag for SN 2020taz, Mr = −16.4 ± 0.5 mag for SN 2023utc, and…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: R/r-band light curves of SNe 2020nxt, 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2023utc, 2024aej, including the comparison SNe Ibn. Template r-band light curves for Type Ibn SNe from Hosseinzadeh et al. (2017, yellow) and Khakpash et al. (2024, purple). values should be interpreted as lower l…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pseudo-bolometric light curves of SNe 2020nxt, 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2023utc, 2024aej, compared with those of a sample of SNe Ibn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative blackbody fits to the SEDs at epochs near the peak luminosity for each SN in our sample. The blue lines show the best-fitting blackbody functions. For visual clarity, the SEDs have been vertically offset by arbitrary constants. 5 10 15 T B B[1 0 3 K] SN …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the blackbody temperature and radius for our SN sample. quired to reach convergence varies depending on the complexity of the light-curve data: approximately 760 000 iterations for SN 2020nxt, 210 000 for SN 2020taz, 180 000 for SN 2021bbv, 150 000 for SN …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Light curves from the RD+CSI model fitted to the multi-band photometry of five Type Ibn SNe using the Monte Carlo code MOSFiT. For each filter, a representative subset of model light curves randomly drawn from the posterior distributions is shown to illustrate the ran…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Relationships between parameters inferred from the light curves of SNe Ibn. top left — R/r-band peak magnitude versus rise time; top right — R/r-band peak magnitude versus R/r-band decline rate; centre left — rise time versus R/r-band decline rate; centre right — peak…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectral sequences of the five SNe Ibn. The dashed vertical lines indicate the main H and He I transitions, while the ⊕ symbol marks the strongest telluric absorption bands. All spectra are corrected for redshift and extinction. Gray lines represent smoothed spectra (…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Line identification in the highest-resolution late-time spectra of the five SNe presented in this paper. Spectra are corrected for redshift and reddening, with indicated phases from the maximum light. Hα emission is weak but detectable in the spectra of SNe 2006jc, 20…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of around-peak (purple) and late-time (green) spectra of SNe 2020nxt, 2020taz, 2021bbv, 2023utc, and 2024aej with other SNe Ibn at similar phases. All spectra are corrected for redshift and extinction. Significant He I features are marked by blue dashed lin…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Evolution of He i line velocities. Left panel: Temporal evolution of the velocities associated with the narrow He i line components, which trace the unshocked CSM. Right panel: Velocity evolution of the broader He i emission components, reflecting the dynamics of the …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison between synthetic spectra from model he4p0 and observed spectra of five SNe Ibn at multiple epochs after bolometric maximum light. No smoothing has been applied to either the observed or model spectra. The synthetic spectra are based on simulations from Des…

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. Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients as "Failed" Gravitational-wave Sources: Helium Core$-$Black Hole Mergers Following Delayed Dynamical Instability

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Luminous fast blue optical transients may be the aftermath of a black hole merging with a companion star's helium core after prolonged mass transfer, producing a super-Eddington accretion flare.

  2. Wild behaviour near the finish line: the Type Ibn SN 2020able and its stratified environment

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The Type Ibn supernova SN 2020able exploded inside a stratified, three-component helium-rich envelope, with an inner dense shell from a pre-explosion eruption and an outer shell consistent with a Wolf-Rayet wind.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al

    Almeida, A., Anderson, S. F., Argudo-Fernández, M., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 44

    2023

  2. [2]

    C., Sahu, D

    Anupama, G. C., Sahu, D. K., Gurugubelli, U. K., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 894

    2009

  3. [3]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    2021

  4. [4]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template

    2015

  5. [5]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 30

    Ben-Ami, T., Arcavi, I., Newsome, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 30

    2023

  7. [7]

    & Arnouts, S

    Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    1996

  8. [8]

    K., Shaw, R

    Blackburn, J. K., Shaw, R. A., Payne, H. E., Hayes, J. J. E., & Heasarc. 1999, FTOOLS: A general package of software to manipulate FITS files, Astro- physics Source Code Library, record ascl:9912.002

    1999

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    J., Fraser, M., Johansson, J., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Fraser, M., Johansson, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5666

    2022

  2. [10]

    J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L18

    2024

  3. [11]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1031

    2013

  4. [12]

    A., Fraser, M., Cai, Y

    Byrne, R. A., Fraser, M., Cai, Y . Z., Reguitti, A., & Valerin, G. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2978

    2023

  5. [13]

    Z., Pastorello, A., Fraser, M., et al

    Cai, Y . Z., Pastorello, A., Fraser, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3424

    2018

  6. [14]

    C., Boer, T

    Chambers, K. C., Boer, T. D., Bulger, J., et al. 2020, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2020-2783, 1

    2020

  7. [15]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Fransson, C. 1994, ApJ, 420, 268

    1994

  8. [16]

    Chugai, N. N. 1997, Ap&SS, 252, 225

    1997

  9. [17]

    Chugai, N. N. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 866

    2009

  10. [18]

    J., & Kuncarayakti, H

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2022, A&A, 658, A130 Di Carlo, E., Corsi, C., Arkharov, A. A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 471

    2022

  11. [19]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 254

    Dong, Y ., Tsuna, D., Valenti, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 254

    2024

  12. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 152 29 http://nao.cas.cn/csst/ 30 https://www.lsst.org/

    Farias, D., Gall, C., Narayan, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 152 29 http://nao.cas.cn/csst/ 30 https://www.lsst.org/

    2024

  13. [21]

    A., Weil, K

    Fesen, R. A., Weil, K. E., Hamilton, A. J. S., & Höflich, P. A. 2017, ApJ, 848, 130

    2017

  14. [22]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7

    2020

  15. [23]

    J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al

    Foley, R. J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, L105 Förster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242

    2007

  16. [24]

    2017, Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae (Springer International Publishing), 195–237

    Gal-Yam, A. 2017, Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae (Springer International Publishing), 195–237

    2017

  17. [25]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 170

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hiramatsu, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 170

    2020

  18. [26]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 127

    Gangopadhyay, A., Misra, K., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 127

    2022

  19. [27]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    2004

  20. [28]

    2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-258, 1

    Gonzalez, R., Galbany, L., Munoz, S., Delgado, M., & Zimmerman, E. 2021, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2021-258, 1

    2021

  21. [29]

    O., et al

    Gorbikov, E., Gal-Yam, A., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 671

    2014

  22. [30]

    L., Dahiwale, A., & Fremling, C

    Graham, M. L., Dahiwale, A., & Fremling, C. 2020, Transient Name Server Clas- sification Report, 2020-2927, 1

    2020

  23. [31]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V . A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6

    2018

  24. [32]

    J., Hey, D., et al

    Hart, K., Shappee, B. J., Hey, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.03791

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288

    2003

  26. [34]

    T., Breedt, E., Delgado, A., et al

    Hodgkin, S. T., Breedt, E., Delgado, A., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server Dis- covery Report, 2021-241, 1

    2021

  27. [35]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 158

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Arcavi, I., Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 158

    2017

  28. [36]

    Immler, S., Aschenbach, B., & Wang, Q. D. 2001, ApJ, 561, L107

    2001

  29. [37]

    2008, ApJ, 674, L85

    Immler, S., Modjaz, M., Landsman, W., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, L85

    2008

  30. [38]

    & Maeda, K

    Inoue, Y . & Maeda, K. 2025, ApJ, 980, 86

    2025

  31. [39]

    2021, A&A, 649, A163

    Karamehmetoglu, E., Fransson, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A163

    2021

  32. [40]

    2017, A&A, 602, A93

    Karamehmetoglu, E., Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A93

    2017

  33. [41]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, L98

    2010

  34. [42]

    B., Modjaz, M., et al

    Khakpash, S., Bianco, F. B., Modjaz, M., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 37

    2024

  35. [43]

    S., Khan, R., & Dai, X

    Kochanek, C. S., Khan, R., & Dai, X. 2012, ApJ, 759, 20

    2012

  36. [44]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502

    2017

  37. [45]

    C., Johansson, J., Sollerman, J., et al

    Kool, E. C., Johansson, J., Sollerman, J., et al. 2023, Nature, 617, 477

    2023

  38. [46]

    C., Karamehmetoglu, E., Sollerman, J., et al

    Kool, E. C., Karamehmetoglu, E., Sollerman, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A136

    2021

  39. [47]

    Landolt, A. U. 1992, AJ, 104, 340

    1992

  40. [48]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    2012

  41. [49]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

    Li, W., Leaman, J., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

    2011

  42. [50]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04507

    Ma, X., Wang, X., Mo, J., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04507

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04393

    Ma, X., Wang, X., Mo, J., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.04393

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    & Moriya, T

    Maeda, K. & Moriya, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 25

    2022

  45. [53]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1069

    Maeda, K., Tanaka, M., Nomoto, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1069

    2007

  46. [54]

    Margalit, B., Quataert, E., & Ho, A. Y . Q. 2022, ApJ, 928, 122

    2022

  47. [55]

    V ., Chornock, R., Leonard, D

    Matheson, T., Filippenko, A. V ., Chornock, R., Leonard, D. C., & Li, W. 2000, AJ, 119, 2303

    2000

  48. [56]

    Mattila, S., Meikle, W. P. S., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 141

    2008

  49. [57]

    R., Pastorello, A., Mattila, S., Itagaki, K., & Boles, T

    Maund, J. R., Pastorello, A., Mattila, S., Itagaki, K., & Boles, T. 2016, ApJ, 833, 128

    2016

  50. [58]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 932, 84

    2022

  51. [59]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 1445

    Moriya, T., Tominaga, N., Tanaka, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1445

    2010

  52. [60]

    2014, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 3894, 1

    Morokuma, T., Shibata, T., Matsumoto, E., et al. 2014, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 3894, 1

    2014

  53. [61]

    R., Huchra, J

    Mould, J. R., Huchra, J. P., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2000, ApJ, 529, 786

    2000

  54. [62]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 55

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55

    2017

  55. [63]

    J., et al

    Pastorello, A., Benetti, S., Brown, P. J., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, 449, 1921

    1921

  56. [64]

    2015b, MNRAS, 449, 1954

    Pastorello, A., Hadjiyska, E., Rabinowitz, D., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 449, 1954

    1954

  57. [65]

    J., Mattila, S., et al

    Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., Mattila, S., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 829

    2007

  58. [66]

    F., Ciabattari, F., et al

    Pastorello, A., Wang, X. F., Ciabattari, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 853

    2016

  59. [67]

    2015e, MNRAS, 449, 1941

    Pastorello, A., Wyrzykowski, Ł., Valenti, S., et al. 2015e, MNRAS, 449, 1941

    1941

  60. [68]

    A., Vinkó, J., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Vinkó, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 125

    2022

  61. [69]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 2

    Pellegrino, C., Modjaz, M., Takei, Y ., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 2

    2024

  62. [70]

    B., Badenes, C., Arcavi, I., Simon, J

    Perets, H. B., Badenes, C., Arcavi, I., Simon, J. D., & Gal-yam, A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 89

    2011

  63. [71]

    B., Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P

    Perets, H. B., Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2010, Nature, 465, 322

    2010

  64. [72]

    A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al

    Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35

    2020

  65. [73]

    S., Vílchez, J

    Pilyugin, L. S., Vílchez, J. M., & Contini, T. 2004, A&A, 425, 849

    2004

  66. [74]

    E., et al

    Poznanski, D., Chornock, R., Nugent, P. E., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 58

    2010

  67. [75]

    X., & Bloom, J

    Poznanski, D., Prochaska, J. X., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1465

    2012

  68. [76]

    J., Maguire, K., Boian, I., et al

    Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Boian, I., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1450

    2020

  69. [77]

    E., Soderberg, A

    Sanders, N. E., Soderberg, A. M., Foley, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 39

    2013

  70. [78]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  71. [79]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48 Article number, page 24 of 54 Z.-Y . Wang et al.: Five SNe Ibn

    2014

  72. [80]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  73. [81]

    K., Mauerhan, J., et al

    Shivvers, I., Zheng, W. K., Mauerhan, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3057

    2016

  74. [82]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002

    2020

  75. [83]

    W., Williams, R

    Smith, K. W., Williams, R. D., Young, D. R., et al. 2019, RNAAS, 3, 26

    2019

  76. [84]

    2017, Interacting Supernovae: Types IIn and Ibn (Cham: Springer In- ternational Publishing), 403–429

    Smith, N. 2017, Interacting Supernovae: Types IIn and Ibn (Cham: Springer In- ternational Publishing), 403–429

    2017

  77. [85]

    J., & Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Foley, R. J., & Filippenko, A. V . 2008, ApJ, 680, 568

    2008

  78. [86]

    C., Silverman, J

    Smith, N., Mauerhan, J. C., Silverman, J. M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1905

    2012

  79. [87]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132

    2020

  80. [88]

    N., Bean, R., Doré, O., et al

    Spergel, D. N., Bean, R., Doré, O., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377

    2007

  81. [89]

    J., McBrien, O., et al

    Srivastav, S., Smartt, S. J., McBrien, O., et al. 2020, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2020-2148, 1

    2020

  82. [90]

    Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191

    1987

  83. [91]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 173

    Stritzinger, M., Taddia, F., Fransson, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 173

    2012

  84. [92]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 99

    2021

  85. [93]

    R., Hirai, R., Crowther, P

    Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., Hirai, R., Crowther, P. A., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 6000

    2020

  86. [94]

    2015, A&A, 580, A131

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 580, A131

    2015

  87. [95]

    2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2023-2735, 1

    Taguchi, K., Singh, A., Kawabata, M., Maeda, K., & Gangopadhyay, A. 2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2023-2735, 1

    2023

  88. [96]

    A., et al

    Terreran, G., Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-232, 1

    2024

  89. [97]

    1986, in Proc

    Tody, D. 1986, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  90. [98]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V . Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  91. [99]

    2020, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2020-2022, 1

    Tonry, J., Denneau, L., Heinze, A., et al. 2020, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2020-2022, 1

    2020

  92. [100]

    2024, Transient Name Server Discov- ery Report, 2024-151, 1

    Tonry, J., Denneau, L., Weiland, H., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Discov- ery Report, 2024-151, 1

    2024

  93. [101]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505

    2018

  94. [102]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    2004

  95. [103]

    2021, ApJ, 914, 64

    Tsuna, D., Kashiyama, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2021, ApJ, 914, 64

    2021

  96. [104]

    C., Fuller, J., Dong, Y ., & Piro, A

    Tsuna, D., Wu, S. C., Fuller, J., Dong, Y ., & Piro, A. L. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 82

    2024

  97. [105]

    Y ., V olkov, I

    Tsvetkov, D. Y ., V olkov, I. M., & Pavlyuk, N. N. 2015, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 6140, 1

    2015

  98. [106]

    2003, in From Twilight to Highlight: The Physics of Supernovae, Variety in Supernovae, 200

    Turatto, M., Benetti, S., & Cappellaro, E. 2003, in From Twilight to Highlight: The Physics of Supernovae, Variety in Supernovae, 200

    2003

  99. [107]

    2019, Atoms, 7, 41

    Vagnozzi, S. 2019, Atoms, 7, 41

    2019

  100. [108]

    2009, Nature, 459, 674

    Valenti, S., Pastorello, A., Cappellaro, E., et al. 2009, Nature, 459, 674

    2009

  101. [109]

    J., Prieto, J

    Vallely, P. J., Prieto, J. L., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2344

    2018

  102. [110]

    A., Berger, E., Metzger, B

    Villar, V . A., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., & Guillochon, J. 2017, ApJ, 849, 70 von Steiger, R. & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2016, ApJ, 816, 13

    2017

  103. [111]

    2016, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Wainscoat, R., Chambers, K., Lilly, E., et al. 2016, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 318, Asteroids: New Observations, New Models, ed. S. R. Chesley, A. Morbidelli, R. Jedicke, & D. Farnocchia, 293–298

    2016

  104. [112]

    Wang, S.-Q. & Li, L. 2020, ApJ, 900, 83

    2020

  105. [113]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 3588

    Warwick, B., Lyman, J., Pursiainen, M., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 3588

    2025

  106. [114]

    Z., Magnier, E

    Waters, C. Z., Magnier, E. A., Price, P. A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 4

    2020

  107. [115]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244

    2017

  108. [116]

    Woosley, S. E. 2019, ApJ, 878, 49

    2019

  109. [117]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Kasen, D

    Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Kasen, D. N. 2021, ApJ, 913, 145

    2021

  110. [118]

    Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181

    1995

  111. [119]

    Young, D. R. 2020, plot_atlas_fp.py

    2020

  112. [120]

    L., & Colpi, M

    Zampieri, L., Shapiro, S. L., & Colpi, M. 1998, ApJ, 502, L149

    1998

  113. [121]

    Zhang, M., Gao, X., Sun, G., et al. 2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Re- port, 2023-2566, 1 1 School of Physics and Astronomy, Beijing Normal University, Bei- jing 100875, China 2 Department of Physics, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Beijing Nor- mal University, Zhuhai 519...

    2023

  114. [122]

    Shedding light on the nature of gap transients: from the observations to the models

    University, Liupanshui, Guizhou, 553004, China 36 Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN) 37 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Jagtvej 128, 2200 København N, Denmark 38 School of Physics and Electronic Information, Jiangsu Second Nor- mal University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 211200, C...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.