Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Light Curve Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst Associated Supernovae

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most gamma-ray-burst supernovae form one physical family, but SNe 2010ma and 2011kl stand apart in a 12-parameter light-curve analysis.

desk verdict A useful but under-specified extension of the authors' own K24 magnetar-fitting paper; the new GP light-curve parameter table is worth having, but the PCA outlier claim is not reproducible as written because of undocumented missing-data and scaling choices. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13242 v1 pith:DOE7LXZQ submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.HE

Amit Kumar , Kaushal Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw98.70.Rz95.75.Wx
keywords gamma-rayburstssupernovaemagnetarcentralenginebolometriclightcurvesGaussianprocessregressionprincipalcomponentanalysisGRB-SNdiversitysuperluminoussupernova
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 sets out to test whether gamma-ray-burst supernovae (GRB-SNe) form a single physical family or split into distinct classes. Using Gaussian Process regression on the bolometric light curves of 13 well-observed events, the authors measure peak luminosity, rise time, and half-luminosity decay time, then combine these with magnetar-model parameters from earlier work in a 12-dimensional principal component analysis. They find that eleven of the thirteen supernovae cluster tightly, sharing common physical characteristics, while two events, SN 2010ma and SN 2011kl, sit clearly apart. The paper argues that these outliers point to differences in progenitor properties or explosion mechanisms, and therefore to diversity in the central engines of GRB-SNe.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by two statistical tools. Gaussian Process regression with a radial basis function kernel interpolates each bolometric light curve and yields the peak luminosity $L_p$, the time from explosion to peak $t_r$, the pre-peak half-luminosity rise time $t_{rL/2}$, and the post-peak half-luminosity decay time $t_{dL/2}$, with uncertainties. Principal Component Analysis then projects these four measured parameters together with the eight magnetar-model parameters adopted from earlier fits onto orthogonal axes, with the first two components capturing about 50 percent of the variance. The outlier status of SNe 2010ma and 2011kl is read from their positions in the PC1-PC2 plane.

What would settle it

Recompute $L_p$, $t_r$, $t_{rL/2}$, and $t_{dL/2}$ from raw photometry with an independent gamma-ray-burst plus host subtraction for SNe 2010ma and 2011kl, then re-run the principal component analysis; if either event falls inside the main cluster, the claimed distinction fails. A simpler check is to repeat the PCA while excluding the five events that lack pre-peak rise-time measurements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the GRB-SN population is not uniform in the parameter space of light-curve shape and magnetar-engine fits. Thirteen events are projected onto the first two principal components, which capture about half of the variance; most sit near the origin, indicating shared characteristics such as a median initial rotational energy $E_p \approx 4.8 \times 10^{49}$ erg, a median spin period $P_i \approx 20.5$ ms, and a median magnetic field $B \approx 20.1 \times 10^{14}$ G. SNe 2010ma and 2011kl deviate strongly from this cluster, and the paper ties that separation to their extreme values: 2010ma has the shortest spin-down timescale while 2011kl has the lowest magnetic field and is the only known superluminous supernova associated with an ultra-long gamma-ray burst. The conclusion is that these two events likely require different progenitor properties or explosion mechanisms, not merely different realizations of the same engine.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis inherits the bolometric light curves and magnetar-model parameters from an earlier study; if any of those light-curve decompositions or model fits is biased, the derived shape parameters and the outlier classification could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the clustering is real, most GRB-SNe can be described by a common magnetar-powered explosion channel with similar engine parameters.
  • SN 2010ma and SN 2011kl should be treated as distinct subclasses in future modeling, not averaged into the GRB-SN sample.
  • The same Gaussian Process plus principal component pipeline can be applied to new GRB-SNe as they are discovered, giving a quantitative test of where each new object falls.
  • The reported parameter medians provide reference values for theoretical models of magnetar birth in stripped-envelope supernovae.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because five supernovae lack pre-peak rise-time measurements, the PCA must somehow handle missing entries; a useful next step is to check whether the outlier positions of 2010ma and 2011kl survive alternative missing-value treatments.
  • The result suggests a testable prediction: any future GRB-SN found with peak luminosity above roughly $1.5 \times 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and a short spin-down timescale should land near the 2010ma/2011kl branch rather than the main cluster.
  • Applying the same parameter space to superluminous supernovae and fast blue optical transients could reveal whether the two outliers are actually closer to those broader classes than to ordinary GRB-SNe.
  • Extending the sample beyond 13 events will show whether the compact cluster is a real family or an artifact of small-number statistics.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives light-curve shape parameters (peak luminosity Lp, peak time tr, pre-peak half-luminosity rise time trL/2, and post-peak half-luminosity decay time tdL/2) for 13 GRB-associated supernovae using Gaussian Process regression on bolometric light curves that are taken directly from K24. These four parameters are combined with eight magnetar model parameters from K24 to form a 12-dimensional parameter table, on which the authors perform Principal Component Analysis. Their central claim is that most GRB-SNe cluster in the PC1–PC2 plane while SNe 2010ma and 2011kl deviate significantly, indicating different progenitor properties or explosion mechanisms. The paper is a short proceedings-style contribution and does not provide code, a data release, or detailed methodology for the GP and PCA steps.

Significance. If the multivariate outlier claim were robustly established, the paper would be a modest but useful contribution to the GRB-SN diversity literature, providing a quantitative separation of SN 2010ma and SN 2011kl from the bulk of the population. The use of GP regression to extract light-curve parameters with uncertainties is a sensible approach, and assembling the K24 parameters with newly derived shape parameters is a reasonable analysis plan. However, the paper ships no code or data, and the PCA preprocessing choices are undocumented. Moreover, the two named outliers are already extreme in Table 1 (highest Ep and Lp for 2010ma, second-highest Ep and highest Lp for 2011kl, lowest B for 2011kl), so the PCA currently adds little independent evidence. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether the authors can show, with explicit preprocessing and a quantitative outlier criterion, that these objects are separated in the full multidimensional parameter space rather than merely in one or two variables.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Table 1] The PCA input matrix has five missing trL/2 values, for SNe 1998bw, 2003dh, 2003lw, 2010ma, and 2019jrj, including SN 2010ma, one of the two headline outliers. The paper does not state how these missing values were handled before PCA: no imputation method, no row/column deletion, and no complete-case analysis is described. Standard PCA implementations require a complete numeric matrix, yet Figure 2 plots all 13 objects. Because SN 2010ma's PC coordinates depend on this undocumented preprocessing choice, the central outlier claim is not reproducible. Please report the missing-data handling and demonstrate that the outliers persist under alternative treatments (e.g., excluding trL/2 entirely, imputing medians, or restricting to complete cases).
  2. [Section 3] The 12 variables in Table 1 have very different units and ranges, for example Rp from 0.001 to 84.67 (in units of 10^13 cm), B from 7.95 to 41.58 (in units of 10^14 G), Vexp from 14.37 to 33.89 (in units of 10^3 km/s), and td from 12.35 to 19.77 days. The paper does not state whether PCA was performed on the covariance matrix (raw values) or the correlation matrix (standardized variables). These choices can produce very different projections, and with raw PCA the result is dominated by the largest-variance columns. The paper must specify the standardization and report the PC loadings so that the reader can see which variables drive PC1 and PC2.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 2] The text states that SNe 2019jrj and 2006aj appear 'somewhat isolated' along PC1 and that SN 2017htp 'stands out' along PC2, yet the Discussion and Abstract identify only SNe 2010ma and 2011kl as significant outliers. No quantitative outlier criterion is given, such as Mahalanobis distance, a confidence ellipse, or a distance from the cluster centroid in units of the PC variance. This is particularly important because PC1 and PC2 together capture only about 50% of the variance, so an object that is within the cloud in the first two components could be an outlier in higher dimensions, and vice versa. The visual classification in Figure 2 is therefore not a demonstrated property of the population; a quantitative criterion and a check of sensitivity to higher PCs are needed.
  4. [Section 2] The Gaussian Process regression used to derive Lp, tr, trL/2, and tdL/2 is described only as using an RBF kernel with the sklearn and scipy Python packages. The paper does not give the GP kernel hyperparameters, the treatment of the noise term, the optimization procedure, or the method used to propagate GP uncertainties into the quoted parameter errors. Since these derived parameters are inputs to the PCA, the analysis is not reproducible. Please specify the GP settings, provide the fitted light-curve parameters and uncertainties in machine-readable form, and, ideally, release the fitting code.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The notation 'nan ± nan' for the five missing trL/2 values is nonstandard and confusing; use a footnote or an em dash (—) instead.
  2. [Table 1] In the SN 2012bz row, the trL/2 entry reads '10.0 ±1 0.82', which appears to be a typographical error for '10.0 ± 0.82'.
  3. [Figure 1] The y-axis label 'Luminosity (ergs)' is incomplete; it should read 'Luminosity (erg s^-1)'. In addition, the per-panel scaling factors such as '1e42' could be mistaken for the full axis range; clarifying this would improve readability.
  4. [Section 3] The phrase 'PCA analysis' is redundant; use 'PCA' or 'principal component analysis'.
  5. [Section 4] The statement that the deviations 'could also be attributed to' differences in progenitor properties and environments is speculative and not supported by any quantitative test; consider softening or adding a caveat that this is an interpretation rather than a conclusion of the PCA.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Outlier claim for SNe 2010ma and 2011kl is largely inherited from K24's magnetar fits, with GP shape parameters providing only partial independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 'Bolometric Light Curves'; Section 3 'Dimensionality Reduction']
    "The bolometric light curves for all 13 GRB-SNe, listed in Table 1 and analyzed in this study were directly taken from K24 ... As highlighted in K24, SN 2011kl (one and only known ulGRB-associated SLSN) and SN 2010ma show the highest peak luminosity and magnetar initial rotational energy among the sample of GRB-SNe (see Table 1)."

    The PCA that produces Figure 2 is computed on Table 1, and Table 1's magnetar columns (Ep, td, tp, Rp, Vexp, Mej, Pi, B) are adopted from K24, a paper by the same first author. The two objects named as outliers are distinguished by exactly those imported fit outputs: 2010ma has the highest Ep (17.75x10^49 erg) and shortest tp (0.48 d), and 2011kl has the lowest B (7.95x10^14 G). The paper does not re-fit these parameters; it states the bolometric light curves were 'directly taken from K24' and that the outlier status was 'highlighted in K24.' Thus the central claim that 2010ma and 2011kl have distinct physical characteristics is a restatement of the self-cited magnetar-fit result projected onto PCA coordinates, not a conclusion independently derived from the new GP shape parameters.

full rationale

Two of the twelve columns in Table 1 are genuinely new: Lp, tr, trL/2, and tdL/2 are estimated here by GP regression on the bolometric light curves, and the PCA could in principle have grouped the sample differently. The rest of the parameter space (Ep, td, tp, Rp, Vexp, Mej, Pi, B) is imported verbatim from K24, and the paper's own wording says the outlier status of SNe 2010ma and 2011kl was 'highlighted in K24.' The extreme values that make these two objects stand out are MINIM magnetar fit outputs from K24, not results of this paper's analysis. Calling the PCA projection of those imported fitted values a discovery of 'distinct features' therefore partially renames the earlier self-cited fit rather than independently deriving it. This is not a formal tautology because the PCA is a real computation and the GP parameters are new, so the circularity is partial rather than total. Separately, the paper states that trL/2 could not be computed for SNe 1998bw, 2003dh, 2003lw, 2010ma, and 2019jrj, yet Figure 2 plots all 13 objects; the imputation or scaling used for PCA is not described, so the placement of 2010ma, one of the two headline outliers, depends on undocumented preprocessing. That is a reproducibility and robustness gap rather than a circular step, but it reinforces the need for caution in treating the outlier claim as established.

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

All bolometric light curves and the eight magnetar-model parameters are imported from the authors' own K24 paper; only the GP-derived shape parameters are new here. The central claim depends on the accuracy of K24's data and model, on unstated GP kernel details, and on unexplained PCA preprocessing choices, including the handling of five missing trL/2 values.

free parameters (3)
  • GP RBF kernel hyperparameters = unspecified (sklearn/scipy defaults presumed)
    GP fits in Figure 1 and derived Lp, tr, trL/2, tdL/2 depend on kernel length scale and noise; the paper does not state values or optimization procedure.
  • PCA preprocessing choices (standardization and NaN imputation for trL/2) = unspecified
    Five SNe have no trL/2 (Table 1); the paper does not state how missing values were handled in PCA or whether variables were standardized, both of which change PC loadings and outlier positions.
  • K24 magnetar model parameters (Ep, td, tp, Rp, Vexp, Mej, Pi, B per SN) = Table 1 values from K24
    Adopted wholesale from the authors' prior paper; these fitted values are inputs to the PCA, and the central claim of physical diversity rests on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bolometric light curves of the 13 GRB-SNe as constructed by K24 are assumed correct.
    Section 2 states they were 'directly taken from K24'; errors in K24's SN plus GRB plus host decomposition propagate into all derived parameters.
  • domain assumption The magnetar model (MINIM) provides a valid description for all 13 GRB-SNe.
    K24's Table 1 parameters are used as physical inputs; if the model is wrong or degenerate for any event, the interpretation of PCA spread as physical diversity fails.
  • domain assumption GP regression with an RBF kernel is a reliable interpolator for these sparsely sampled light curves.
    Section 2 says GP was used for interpolation with an RBF kernel; no validation or alternative fits are shown, and sparse pre-peak data make rise-time parameters uncertain.
  • domain assumption PCA on the 13 by 12 parameter matrix is statistically meaningful.
    With 13 SNe and 12 parameters, PCA results can be noisy; the paper does not assess stability of PCs or specify how missing values were handled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light Curve Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst Associated Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOE7LXZQ

@misc{pith2026241113242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light Curve Properties of Gamma-Ray Burst Associated Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOE7LXZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13242}
}
read the original abstract

A rapidly spinning, millisecond magnetar is widely considered one of the most plausible power sources for gamma-ray burst-associated supernovae (GRB-SNe). Recent studies have demonstrated that the magnetar model can effectively explain the bolometric light curves of most GRB-SNe. In this work, we investigate the bolometric light curves of 13 GRB-SNe, focusing on key observational parameters such as peak luminosity, rise time, and decay time, estimated using Gaussian Process (GP) regression for light curve fitting. We also apply Principal Component Analysis to all the light curve parameters to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset and visualize the distribution of SNe in lower-dimensional space. Our findings indicate that while most GRB-SNe share common physical characteristics, a few outliers, notably SNe 2010ma and 2011kl, exhibit distinct features. These events suggest potential differences in progenitor properties or explosion mechanisms, offering deeper insight into the diversity of GRB-SNe and their central engines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bolometric light curves of all 13 GRB-SNe along with GP fits are shown. The phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of SNe in the space of the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Insights from Modeling Magnetar-driven Light Curves of Stripped-envelope Supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A unified magnetar spin-down model reproduces the bolometric light curves of 11 stripped-envelope supernovae, but several reported correlations follow from the fitting formulas rather than from independent physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    T. J. Galama, P. M. Vreeswijk, J. van Paradijs, C. Kouveliotou, T. Augusteijn, H. B¨ ohnhardt, J. P. Brewer, V. Doublier, J. F. Gonzalez, B. Leibundgut, C. Lid- man, O. R. Hainaut, F. Patat, J. Heise, J. in’t Zand, K. Hurley, P. J. Groot, R. G. Strom, P. A. Mazzali, K. Iwamoto, K. Nomoto, H. Umeda, T. Nakamura, T. R. Young, T. Suzuki, T. Shigeyama, T. Kos...

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Iwamoto, P

    K. Iwamoto, P. A. Mazzali, K. Nomoto, H. Umeda, T. Nakamura, F. Patat, I. J. Danziger, T. R. Young, T. Suzuki, T. Shigeyama, T. Augusteijn, V. Doublier, J. F. November 21, 2024 1:36 ws-procs961x669 WSPC Proceedings - 9.61in x 6.69in ws-procs961x669 page 8 8 Gonzalez, H. Boehnhardt, J. Brewer, O. R. Hainaut, C. Lidman, B. Leibundgut, E. Cappellaro, M. Tura...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Wang and J

    L. Wang and J. C. Wheeler, The Supernova-Gamma-Ray Burst Connection, The Astrophysical Journal Letters504, L87 (September 1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Patat, E

    F. Patat, E. Cappellaro, J. Danziger, P. A. Mazzali, J. Sollerman, T. Augusteijn, J. Brewer, V. Doublier, J. F. Gonzalez, O. Hainaut, C. Lidman, B. Leibundgut, K. Nomoto, T. Nakamura, J. Spyromilio, L. Rizzi, M. Turatto, J. Walsh, T. J. Galama, J. van Paradijs, C. Kouveliotou, P. M. Vreeswijk, F. Frontera, N. Masetti, E. Palazzi and E. Pian, The Metamorph...

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    S. E. Woosley and J. S. Bloom, The Supernova Gamma-Ray Burst Connection,Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys44, 507 (September 2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Cano, S.-Q

    Z. Cano, S.-Q. Wang, Z.-G. Dai and X.-F. Wu, The Observer’s Guide to the Gamma- Ray Burst Supernova Connection, Adv. Astron2017, p. 8929054 (January 2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, K. M. Islam, K. Kawaguchi, T. J. Moriya, T. Takiwaki, N. Tominaga and A. Gangopadhyay, The Quest for New Correlations in the Realm of the Gamma-Ray Burst-Supernova Connection, The Astrophysical Journal938, p. 41 (October 2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Aimuratov, L

    Y. Aimuratov, L. M. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. Cherubini, M. Della Valle, S. Filippi, L. Li, R. Moradi, F. Rastegarnia, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, N. Sahakyan, Y. Wang and S. R. Zhang, GRB-SN Association within the Binary-driven Hypernova Model, The Astrophysical Journal955, p. 93 (October 2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Q. M. Li, Z. B. Zhang, X. L. Han, K. J. Zhang, X. L. Xia and C. T. Hao, Properties of gamma-ray bursts associated with supernovae and kilonovae, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society524, 1096 (September 2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Kumar, K

    A. Kumar, K. Sharma, J. Vink´ o, D. Steeghs, B. Gompertz, J. Lyman, R. Dastidar, A. Singh, K. Ackley and M. Pursiainen, Magnetars as powering sources of gamma- ray burst associated supernovae, and unsupervized clustering of cosmic explosions, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Greiner, P

    J. Greiner, P. A. Mazzali, D. A. Kann, T. Kr¨ uhler, E. Pian, S. Prentice, F. Olivares E., A. Rossi, S. Klose, S. Taubenberger, F. Knust, P. M. J. Afonso, C. Ashall, J. Bolmer, C. Delvaux, R. Diehl, J. Elliott, R. Filgas, J. P. U. Fynbo, J. F. Graham, A. N. Guel- benzu, S. Kob...

    2015

  4. [12]

    Gompertz and A

    B. Gompertz and A. Fruchter, Magnetars in Ultra-Long Gamma-Ray Bursts and GRB 111209A, The Astrophysical Journal839, p. 49 (April 2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    D. A. Kann, P. Schady, F. Olivares E., S. Klose, A. Rossi, D. A. Perley, T. Kr¨ uhler, J. Greiner, A. Nicuesa Guelbenzu, J. Elliott, F. Knust, R. Filgas, E. Pian, P. Mazzali, J. P. U. Fynbo, G. Leloudas, P. M. J. Afonso, C. Delvaux, J. F. Graham, A. Rau, S. Schmidl, S. Schulze...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Finneran, L

    G. Finneran, L. Cotter and A. Martin-Carrillo, The GRBSN webtool: An open- source repository for gamma-ray burst-supernova associations, arXiv e-prints , p. arXiv:2411.08866 (November 2024). November 21, 2024 1:36 ws-procs961x669 WSPC Proceedings - 9.61in x 6.69in ws-procs961x...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. T. Holland, B. Sbarufatti, R. Shen, P. Schady, J. R. Cummings, E. Fonseca, J. P. U. Fynbo, P. Jakobsson, E. Leitet, S. Linn´ e, P. W. A. Roming, M. Still and B. Zhang, GRB 090417B and its Host Galaxy: A Step Toward an Understanding of Optically Dark Gamma-ray Bursts, The As...

    2010

  8. [16]

    Tominaga, K

    N. Tominaga, K. Maeda, H. Umeda, K. Nomoto, M. Tanaka, N. Iwamoto, T. Suzuki and P. A. Mazzali, The Connection between Gamma-Ray Bursts and Extremely Metal-poor Stars: Black Hole-forming Supernovae with Relativistic Jets, The As- trophysical Journal Letters657, L77 (March 2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Kumar, Energetic Cosmic Transients In The Context of Gamma-Ray Bursts Su- pernovae Connections, PhD thesis, Pt

    A. Kumar, Energetic Cosmic Transients In The Context of Gamma-Ray Bursts Su- pernovae Connections, PhD thesis, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Department of Physics, India, (Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492010, India, 2022), pp. ix + 344

    2022

  10. [18]

    Shrestha, D

    M. Shrestha, D. J. Sand, K. D. Alexander, K. A. Bostroem, G. Hosseinzadeh, J. Pear- son, M. Aghakhanloo, J. Vink´ o, J. E. Andrews, J. E. Jencson, M. J. Lundquist, S. Wyatt, D. A. Howell, C. McCully, E. P. Gonzalez, C. Pellegrino, G. Terreran, D. Hi- ramatsu, M. Newsome, J. Fa...

    2023

  11. [19]

    V. V. Usov, Millisecond pulsars with extremely strong magnetic fields as a cosmological source of γ-ray bursts, Nature 357, 472 (June 1992)

    1992

  12. [20]

    J. C. Wheeler, I. Yi, P. H¨ oflich and L. Wang, Asymmetric Supernovae, Pulsars, Mag- netars, and Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Astrophysical Journal537, 810 (July 2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    S. E. Woosley, Bright Supernovae from Magnetar Birth, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 719, L204 (August 2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    P. A. Mazzali, A. I. McFadyen, S. E. Woosley, E. Pian and M. Tanaka, An upper limit to the energy of gamma-ray bursts indicates that GRBs/SNe are powered by magnetars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society443, 67 (September 2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    B. D. Metzger, B. Margalit, D. Kasen and E. Quataert, The diversity of transients from magnetar birth in core collapse supernovae,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 454, 3311 (December 2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Kashiyama, K

    K. Kashiyama, K. Murase, I. Bartos, K. Kiuchi and R. Margutti, Multi-messenger Tests for Fast-spinning Newborn Pulsars Embedded in Stripped-envelope Supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal818, p. 94 (February 2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Margalit, B

    B. Margalit, B. D. Metzger, E. Berger, M. Nicholl, T. Eftekhari and R. Margutti, Unveiling the engines of fast radio bursts, superluminous supernovae, and gamma- ray bursts, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society481, 2407 (December 2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Inserra, Observational properties of extreme supernovae, Nat

    C. Inserra, Observational properties of extreme supernovae, Nat. Astron.3, 697 (Au- gust 2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Shankar, P

    S. Shankar, P. M¨ osta, J. Barnes, P. C. Duffell and D. Kasen, Proto-magnetar jets as central engines for broad-lined Type Ic supernovae, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society508, 5390 (December 2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    A. Y. Q. Ho, D. A. Perley, P. Chen, S. Schulze, V. Dhillon, H. Kumar, A. Suresh, V. Swain, M. Bremer, S. J. Smartt, J. P. Anderson, G. C. Anupama, S. Awiphan, S. Barway, E. C. Bellm, S. Ben-Ami, V. Bhalerao, T. de Boer, T. G. Brink, R. Bur- russ, P. Chandra, T.-W. Chen, W.-P. ...

    2024

  21. [29]

    C. M. B. Omand and N. Sarin, A generalized semi-analytic model for magnetar-driven supernovae, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527, 6455 (January 2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    A. M. Soderberg, S. R. Kulkarni, E. Nakar, E. Berger, P. B. Cameron, D. B. Fox, D. Frail, A. Gal-Yam, R. Sari, S. B. Cenko, M. Kasliwal, R. A. Chevalier, T. Piran, P. A. Price, B. P. Schmidt, G. Pooley, D. S. Moon, B. E. Penprase, E. Ofek, A. Rau, N. Gehrels, J. A. Nousek, D. ...

    2006

  23. [31]

    Margutti, A

    R. Margutti, A. M. Soderberg, M. H. Wieringa, P. G. Edwards, R. A. Chevalier, B. J. Morsony, R. Barniol Duran, L. Sironi, B. A. Zauderer, D. Milisavljevic, A. Kamble and E. Pian, The Signature of the Central Engine in the Weakest Relativistic Explosions: GRB 100316D, The Astro...

    2013

  24. [32]

    Barnes, P

    J. Barnes, P. C. Duffell, Y. Liu, M. Modjaz, F. B. Bianco, D. Kasen and A. I. Mac- Fadyen, A GRB and Broad-lined Type Ic Supernova from a Single Central Engine, The Astrophysical Journal860, p. 38 (June 2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. B. Pandey, R. Gupta, A. Aryan, A. K. Ror, S. Sharma and N. Brahme, Tale of GRB 171010A/SN 2017htp and GRB 171205A/SN 2017iuk: Magnetar origin?, New Astronomy 97, p. 101889 (November 2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    R. M. Quimby, S. R. Kulkarni, M. M. Kasliwal, A. Gal-Yam, I. Arcavi, M. Sullivan, P. Nugent, R. Thomas, D. A. Howell, E. Nakar, L. Bildsten, C. Theissen, N. M. Law, R. Dekany, G. Rahmer, D. Hale, R. Smith, E. O. Ofek, J. Zolkower, V. Velur, R. Wal- ters, J. Henning, K. Bui, D....

    2011

  27. [35]

    Inserra, S

    C. Inserra, S. J. Smartt, A. Jerkstrand, S. Valenti, M. Fraser, D. Wright, K. Smith, T. W. Chen, R. Kotak, A. Pastorello, M. Nicholl, F. Bresolin, R. P. Kudritzki, S. Benetti, M. T. Botticella, W. S. Burgett, K. C. Chambers, M. Ergon, H. Flewelling, J. P. U. Fynbo, S. Geier, K...

    2013

  28. [36]

    Nicholl, E

    M. Nicholl, E. Berger, R. Margutti, P. K. Blanchard, D. Milisavljevic, P. Challis, B. D. Metzger and R. Chornock, An Ultraviolet Excess in the Superluminous Supernova Gaia16apd Reveals a Powerful Central Engine, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 835, p. L8 (January 2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Yu, J.-P

    Y.-W. Yu, J.-P. Zhu, S.-Z. Li, H.-J. L¨ u and Y.-C. Zou, A Statistical Study of Super- luminous Supernovae Using the Magnetar Engine Model and Implications for Their Connection with Gamma-Ray Bursts and Hypernovae,The Astrophysical Journal840, p. 12 (May 2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Dessart, Simulations of light curves and spectra for superluminous Type Ic su- pernovae powered by magnetars, Astronomy & Astrophysics621, p

    L. Dessart, Simulations of light curves and spectra for superluminous Type Ic su- pernovae powered by magnetars, Astronomy & Astrophysics621, p. A141 (January November 21, 2024 1:36 ws-procs961x669 WSPC Proceedings - 9.61in x 6.69in ws-procs961x669 page 11 11 2019)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. B. Pandey, R. Konyves-Toth, R. Staten, J. Vinko, J. C. Wheeler, W. Zheng, A. V. Filippenko, R. Kehoe, R. Quimby, Y. Fang, C. Akerlof, T. A. McKay, E. Chatzopoulos, B. P. Thomas, G. Dhungana, A. Aryan, R. Dastidar, A. Gangopad- hyay, R. Gupta, K. Misra, B. Kumar, N...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. Kumar, S. B. Pandey, D. K. Sahu, A. Singh, G. C. Anupama, A. Aryan, R. Gupta, A. Dutta and K. Misra, SN 2020ank: a bright and fast-evolving H-deficient superluminous supernova, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502, 1678 (April 2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Wang, Y.-H

    L.-J. Wang, Y.-H. Han, D. Xu, S.-Q. Wang, Z.-G. Dai, X.-F. Wu and J.-Y. Wei, Solving the 56Ni Puzzle of Magnetar-powered Broad-lined Type IC Supernovae, The Astrophysical Journal831, p. 41 (November 2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    C. P. Guti´ errez, M. C. Bersten, M. Orellana, A. Pastorello, K. Ertini, G. Folatelli, G. Pignata, J. P. Anderson, S. Smartt, M. Sullivan, M. Pursiainen, C. Inserra, N. Elias- Rosa, M. Fraser, E. Kankare, S. Moran, A. Reguitti, T. M. Reynolds, M. Stritzinger, J. Burke, C. Froh...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Maeda, M

    K. Maeda, M. Tanaka, K. Nomoto, N. Tominaga, K. Kawabata, P. A. Mazzali, H. Umeda, T. Suzuki and T. Hattori, The Unique Type Ib Supernova 2005bf at Nebular Phases: A Possible Birth Event of a Strongly Magnetized Neutron Star, The Astrophysical Journal666, 1069 (September 2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    S. B. Pandey, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, G. C. Anupama, S. Srivastav, D. K. Sahu, J. Vinko, A. Aryan, A. Pastorello, S. Benetti, L. Tomasella, A. Singh, A. S. Moskvitin, V. V. Sokolov, R. Gupta, K. Misra, P. Ochner and S. Valenti, Photometric, polari- metric, and spectroscopic studie...

    2021

  37. [45]

    C. M. B. Omand and A. Jerkstrand, Toward nebular spectral modeling of magnetar- powered supernovae, Astronomy & Astrophysics673, p. A107 (May 2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kashiyama and K. Murase, Rapidly Rising Optical Transients from the Birth of Binary Neutron Stars, The Astrophysical Journal850, p. 18 (November 2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    S. J. Prentice, K. Maguire, S. J. Smartt, M. R. Magee, P. Schady, S. Sim, T. W. Chen, P. Clark, C. Colin, M. Fulton, O. McBrien, D. O’Neill, K. W. Smith, C. Ashall, K. C. Chambers, L. Denneau, H. A. Flewelling, A. Heinze, T. W. S. Holoien, M. E. Huber, C. S. Kochanek, P. A. Ma...

    2018

  40. [48]

    K. Fang, B. D. Metzger, K. Murase, I. Bartos and K. Kotera, Multimessenger Im- plications of AT2018cow: High-energy Cosmic-Ray and Neutrino Emissions from Magnetar-powered Superluminous Transients, The Astrophysical Journal878, p. 34 (June 2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Liu, J.-P

    J.-F. Liu, J.-P. Zhu, L.-D. Liu, Y.-W. Yu and B. Zhang, Magnetar Engines in Fast Blue Optical Transients and Their Connections with SLSNe, SNe Ic-BL, and lGRBs, The Astrophysical Journal Letters935, p. L34 (August 2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Z. Cano, L. Izzo, A. de Ugarte Postigo, C. C. Th¨ one, T. Kr¨ uhler, K. E. Heintz, November 21, 2024 1:36 ws-procs961x669 WSPC Proceedings - 9.61in x 6.69in ws-procs961x669 page 12 12 D. Malesani, S. Geier, C. Fuentes, T. W. Chen, S. Covino, V. D’Elia, J. P. U. Fynbo, P. Goldo...

    2024

  43. [51]

    de Ugarte Postigo, J

    A. de Ugarte Postigo, J. Selsing, D. Malesani, D. Xu, L. Izzo, K. E. Heinz, D. A. Kann, G. Leloudas, S. Schulze, N. R. Tanvir, S. Covino, P. D’Avanzo, J. P. U. Fynbo, D. Hartmann, J. Hjorth, C. Kouveliotou, L. Kaper, A. J. Levan, A. Melandri, P. Moller, G. Pugliese, B. Sbarufa...

    2017

  44. [52]

    J. Wang, Z. P. Zhu, D. Xu, L. P. Xin, J. S. Deng, Y. L. Qiu, P. Qiu, H. J. Wang, J. B. Zhang and J. Y. Wei, Spectroscopy of the Type Ic Supernova SN 2017iuk Associated with Low-redshift GRB 171205A, The Astrophysical Journal867, p. 147 (November 2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Ashall, P

    C. Ashall, P. A. Mazzali, E. Pian, S. E. Woosley, E. Palazzi, S. J. Prentice, S. Kobayashi, S. Holmbo, A. Levan, D. Perley, M. D. Stritzinger, F. Bufano, A. V. Fil- ippenko, A. Melandri, S. Oates, A. Rossi, J. Selsing, W. Zheng, A. J. Castro-Tirado, G. Chincarini, P. D’Avanzo,...

    2019

  46. [54]

    L. Izzo, A. de Ugarte Postigo, K. Maeda, C. C. Th¨ one, D. A. Kann, M. Della Valle, A. Sagues Carracedo, M. J. Micha lowski, P. Schady, S. Schmidl, J. Selsing, R. L. C. Starling, A. Suzuki, K. Bensch, J. Bolmer, S. Campana, Z. Cano, S. Covino, J. P. U. Fynbo, D. H. Hartmann, K...

    2019

  47. [55]

    Melandri, D

    A. Melandri, D. B. Malesani, L. Izzo, J. Japelj, S. D. Vergani, P. Schady, A. Sagu´ es Carracedo, A. de Ugarte Postigo, J. P. Anderson, C. Barbarino, J. Bolmer, A. Breeveld, P. Calissendorff, S. Campana, Z. Cano, R. Carini, S. Covino, P. D’Avanzo, V. D’Elia, M. della Valle, M....

    2019

  48. [56]

    Suzuki, K

    A. Suzuki, K. Maeda and T. Shigeyama, Relativistic Supernova Ejecta Colliding with a Circumstellar Medium: An Application to the Low-luminosity GRB 171205A, The Astrophysical Journal870, p. 38 (January 2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Melandri, L

    A. Melandri, L. Izzo, E. Pian, D. B. Malesani, M. Della Valle, A. Rossi, P. D’Avanzo, D. Guetta, P. A. Mazzali, S. Benetti, N. Masetti, E. Palazzi, S. Savaglio, L. Amati, L. A. Antonelli, C. Ashall, M. G. Bernardini, S. Campana, R. Carini, S. Covino, V. D’Elia, A. de Ugarte Po...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Chatzopoulos, J

    E. Chatzopoulos, J. C. Wheeler, J. Vinko, Z. L. Horvath and A. Nagy, Analytical Light Curve Models of Superluminous Supernovae: χ2-minimization of Parameter Fits, The Astrophysical Journal773, p. 76 (August 2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (The MIT Press, 11 2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    C. M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, Information science and statistics, Vol. 4 (Springer, 2006)

    2006

  53. [61]

    Inserra, S

    C. Inserra, S. Prajs, C. P. Gutierrez, C. Angus, M. Smith and M. Sullivan, A Statisti- cal Approach to Identify Superluminous Supernovae and Probe Their Diversity, The Astrophysical Journal854, p. 175 (February 2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.