Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Lense-Thirring precessing magnetar engine drives a superluminous supernova

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the chirped, speeding-up brightness bumps of superluminous supernova SN 2024afav are the signature of a tilted accretion disk falling inward onto a newborn magnetar and precessing under Lense-Thirring frame-dragging, m

desk verdict A genuinely new chirped-SLSN observation with a plausible but not-yet-secure Lense-Thirring interpretation; the P and B constraints should not be sold as independent. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08051 v1 pith:FDK27XMB submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.HE

Joseph R. Farah , Logan J. Prust , D. Andrew Howell , Yuan Qi Ni , Curtis McCully , Moira Andrews , Harsh Kumar , Daichi Hiramatsu
show 5 more authors
Sebastian Gomez Kathryn Wynn Alexei V. Filippenko K. Azalee Bostroem Edo Berger Peter Blanchard
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords superluminoussupernovaeSN2024afavmagnetarsLense-Thirringprecessionaccretiondisksframe-dragginglight-curvemodulationsgeneralrelativity
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 argues that the recurring, progressively faster "chirped" brightness oscillations in the superluminous supernova SN 2024afav come from a single physical engine: a newborn magnetar surrounded by a tilted accretion disk that is slowly falling inward. As the disk falls, frame-dragging from the spinning magnetar, the Lense-Thirring effect, makes the disk precess faster, naturally producing modulations whose period shrinks by roughly a third each cycle. The authors show that the rise to peak, the overall decline, and the timing of all five bumps are reproduced by one set of magnetar parameters — spin period about 4.2 ms and magnetic field about 1.6 × 10^14 G — so the light curve and the chirp are not separate phenomena. If the interpretation holds, it is the first observational evidence of Lense-Thirring precession around a magnetar, and it would tie the extreme luminosity of SLSNe-I to magnetar spin-down while explaining their long-puzzling bumpy light curves. That matters because a rare stellar explosion becomes a testbed for general relativity in a regime never probed before: the violent center of a young supernova.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lense-Thirring precession frequency of a tilted accretion disk around a rotating neutron star, Ω_LT ≈ 2GJ/(c²r³), where J is the magnetar's angular momentum and r is the characteristic disk radius. Frame-dragging by the spinning magnetar torques the misaligned disk, making it precess around the spin axis; as the wind-supported disk falls inward, r shrinks and the precession speeds up. Under the paper's assumption that the disk radius decreases roughly linearly in time, the accumulated phase becomes φ(t) ≈ −GJ/(ṙ³c²)(t_infall − t)^{−2} − φ₀, which is the chirp: the modulation period shortens as the disk approaches. Because the same spin period and magnetic field

What would settle it

Detect pulsed X-ray or radio emission from the young magnetar in SN 2024afav and measure its spin period directly; a period inconsistent with P = 4.2 ± 0.2 ms would falsify the claim that the overall light curve and the chirped bumps come from the same engine.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SN 2024afav is a nearby superluminous supernova whose high-cadence multiband light curve shows, for the first time in a supernova, unambiguous chirped modulations: at least five sinusoidal bumps whose period shrinks from roughly 50 to 20 days over about 80 days, with a measured period derivative of about −0.44. The paper's central claim is that these bumps are the visible projection of a tilted, wind-supported accretion disk falling inward and precessing around the magnetar under the Lense-Thirring torque. The precession frequency grows as the disk radius shrinks, producing exactly the observed shrinking period. Crucially, the same magnetar spin period and magnetic field strength are inferre

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument hinges on the accretion disk radius shrinking steadily, roughly linearly in time, and on the disk precessing as a single unit at one characteristic radius; if the disk falls in at a different rate or breaks apart instead of precessing rigidly, the predicted chirp no longer matches the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the bumpy light curves common in SLSNe-I need not require circumstellar interaction or exotic engine flares; a single magnetar with a tilted, infalling disk can produce them, with a decreasing period as the distinguishing signature.
  • The same P and B that reproduce the smooth rise also reproduce the bump timing, so the magnetar spin-down model simultaneously becomes an energy-budget model and a timing model, strengthening its status as the power source of SLSNe-I.
  • The Lense-Thirring chirp provides a new, observationally accessible probe of frame-dragging in strong gravity, in a regime — millisecond spin periods at radii near the magnetospheric scale inside young supernova ejecta — that has not been tested before.
  • The model unifies at least three previously disparate SLSN-I modulation mechanisms, CSM interaction, central-engine flares, and precession of the magnetic inclination, into one framework.
  • Wide-field surveys should find more chirped SLSNe-I, allowing population-level measurements of magnetar birth properties such as spin, magnetic field, and fallback accretion rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is generic, the measured period derivative becomes a direct empirical probe of the disk infall law; precise timing of later bumps, or comparing chirp rates across a sample, could distinguish wind-supported infall from other fallback models, an extension the paper only approximates with a linear r(t).
  • The model's validity window (after the diffusion time and before the nebular phase) implies that many SLSNe-I without visible bumps may still host precessing disks; absence of bumps could reflect low fallback, small disk tilt, or unfavorable viewing geometry rather than the absence of a magnetar engine, which is testable with population-level searches.
  • The same frame-dragging mechanism, scaled by spin and disk radius, could plausibly produce chirped quasi-periodic modulations in other neutron-star transients that form fallback disks, so searching for similar decreasing-period signals in those systems is a natural extension.
  • The paper's claim that the chirp is uniquely Lense-Thirring rests on comparing a handful of alternative precession mechanisms; a more systematic survey of possible infall laws and disk warp modes would sharpen the uniqueness argument.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports SN 2024afav, a Type I superluminous supernova showing five quasi-sinusoidal, chirped (period-decreasing) light-curve bumps. The authors propose that a tilted, magnetar-launched wind-supported accretion disk undergoes Lense-Thirring precession around a newborn magnetar and periodically modulates the engine luminosity reaching the ejecta. They fit a magnetar+LT model to the light curve, claim that the bump phase and the overall light curve independently and self-consistently constrain the magnetar spin period to P=4.2±0.2 ms, magnetic field B=1.6±0.1×10^14 G, and accretion rate Mdot(t=30 d)=2.1±0.19×10^-5 M_sun/yr, and argue this is the first observational evidence of Lense-Thirring precession in a magnetar environment. The same model is applied to three previously studied SLSNe-I with periodic bumps.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would be the first observational evidence of the Lense-Thirring effect around a magnetar and would provide a concrete physical channel by which magnetar spin-down power can produce the bumpy light curves common in SLSNe-I. The paper has genuine strengths: the high-cadence, multi-band dataset; the successful a priori prediction of the fourth and fifth bump epochs; the explicit comparison of alternative precession mechanisms; and the application of the model to three legacy objects. These are meaningful and should be credited. However, the load-bearing mapping from observed bump epochs to magnetar parameters rests on a linear-infall approximation that is not quantitatively validated, and on the assumption of rigid precession at a single disk radius. The claimed 'independence' of the two constraints is also weaker than stated because both fits use the same SN 2024afav dataset. These issues are fixable and do not by themselves invalidate the discovery, but they must be addressed before the central conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4.1, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is the load-bearing relation that converts observed chirp times into magnetar spin and field constraints. It is derived from the linear infall assumption r(t)=r0−r˙(t−t0)=r˙(t_infall−t). However, the physically adopted radius r_w(t) in the same subsection is the pressure-balance root of P_g+P_r=P_w, and the text does not show that this root is linear over the 37–181 d validity window. With the quoted exponents A=17/20, b=21/8, C=5/3, the asymptotic scalings are not linear (e.g., gas-pressure branch r∝t^{8/15}; radiation-pressure branch r∝t^{−7/12}), although the numerical solution and (1+t/t_p) factor may modify this. Since the accumulated phase is φ(t)=∫Ω_LT[r(t′)]dt′, any deviation of r_w(t) from the assumed linear law changes the predicted extrema times and therefore the inferred P and B. The appeal to Fig. 3 is not sufficient: that figure shows a P–Pdot plane with gray d
  2. [§2.4.1 and §2.4] The model assumes that the disk precesses rigidly at a single characteristic radius r_w(t). A real, radially extended disk experiences differential Lense-Thirring precession; whether it precesses as a rigid body depends on viscous warp propagation. The text's disk-breaking argument (R_break comparable to the neutron-star radius) is based on fitted parameters and a specific disk aspect ratio, and it is an argument about a limiting case rather than a derivation of rigid-body precession for this system. This assumption is load-bearing because the entire chirp identification uses a single-radius Ω_LT(r(t)). The authors should state explicitly that the inferred P and B are conditional on rigid precession at r_w(t), and ideally show that a warped disk with differential precession would or would not preserve the observed chirp phase.
  3. [§2.2 and §2.4.1] The claimed 'self-consistency' between the phase-only fit and the MOSFiT magnetar fit is presented as an independent cross-check, but it is not independent: both fits use the same SN 2024afav light curve, one using the extrema times and the other using the full light curve. The early-light-curve-only fit, which is the closest thing to an independent constraint, has much larger uncertainties (P=5.49+0.11−1.25 ms, B=1.0±0.7×10^14 G) and is therefore a much weaker test. The successful a priori prediction of the later bumps is a real strength, but it was phenomenological (based on the period reduction fraction), not a prediction from the full LT model with parameters fixed by pre-bump data. To support the words 'independently and self-consistently' and to rule out fine-tuning, the authors should provide an explicit out-of-sample test: fit parameters using data before the first bump (or befor
  4. [§2.4.2 and Fig. 10] The text states that the precession model 'accurately reproduces the position of each peak and trough observed in the data,' but immediately acknowledges a 15–20 day inconsistency for the trough near t≈65 d and difficulty reproducing the peak near t≈45 d. Because the observed extrema are extrema of the full product A(t)cosφ(t), not of cosφ(t) alone, one cannot compare the phase-component extrema directly to the data without accounting for the envelope; a varying envelope can shift extrema. This ambiguity propagates into the claimed chirp period and period derivative. Please clarify whether Fig. 10's decomposition shows the phase component alone or the full model, and provide a table of observed versus predicted extrema times for the full model (not just the phase component), including the uncertainty on each extremum.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4.1, Eq. (4)] The notation for r_infall is confusing: the text writes both r(t)=r0−r˙(t−t0) and r(t)=r˙(t_infall−t). Define r˙ as the positive infall speed magnitude and state the sign convention explicitly; otherwise Eq. (4) appears to have a sign error until one accounts for dτ/dt=-1.
  2. [Fig. 3] The caption should state explicitly that the gray dashed lines are the analytic linear-infall predictions and should indicate where in the paper the exact-vs-approximate comparison for each mechanism appears. Currently the reader cannot verify the validation claim from the figure.
  3. [§2.2] The early-fit value is reported as P=5.49+0.11−1.25 ms in the text, but elsewhere as P=5.5±1.25 ms. Use a single consistent uncertainty format, and note that the posterior is asymmetric.
  4. [§2.2] The text says trimming the dataset 'moderately affects' the best-fit parameters, but B changes from 1.62×10^14 to 1.0×10^14 G and M_ej from 10 to 5 M_sun—changes of roughly 40% and 50%. This is more than moderate; please rephrase or quantify the statement.
  5. [Data availability] The data availability statement says the data are on WiseREP but gives no URL or identifier. Given the 'Code availability: N/A' line, the authors should at minimum provide a persistent DOI or archive name so the photometry and fit products can be accessed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Overstated independence of the P/B constraints: the 'modulation' constraint is a fit to the same bump times and the 'full light curve' constraint is a fit to the same data including those bumps.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 1 (self-consistency paragraph); subsubsection 2.4.1]
    "By considering only the locations of the peaks of the modulations, we can fit the phase function directly without the rest of the light curve... We perform this fit, allowing the magnetic field strength, α-disk parameter, accretion rate, and period to vary... The resulting agreement across disjoint observables eliminates degeneracy with external power sources (CSM interaction, flares, etc.) and rules out coincidental tuning of free parameters: single B and P_spin values reproduce both the modulation evolution and the total luminosity evolution."

    The 'modulation' values of B and P are obtained by fitting the LT phase function to the observed bump times, and the 'full light curve' values are obtained by fitting the magnetar model to the same light curve that contains those bumps. The two constraints are therefore not disjoint observables; the agreement is a consistency check between two fits to correlated data rather than an independent prediction. The abstract's phrase 'independently and self-consistently constrain' presents a fitted agreement as an external constraint, reducing the claimed independent derivation to a fit of the same light curve.

full rationale

The paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citation: the LT precession frequency is taken from standard GR results, the disk-pressure balance is standard, and the alternatives (magnetic inclination precession, quadrupole precession, magnetic warp precession, CSM interaction) are compared on their own terms. The central chirp functional form is nontrivial and could in principle fail, so the main LT mechanism is not circular by construction. The principal circularity concern is the presentation of the P and B constraints as 'independent and self-consistent': the modulation-derived values are fit to the bump epochs, and the MOSFiT-derived values are fit to the same light curve that contains those bumps. The agreement between the two fits is therefore a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern rather than a prediction against external data. The linear-infall approximation in Eq. (4) and the unresolved numerical r_w(t) versus linear-r(t) issue are robustness/correctness concerns, not circularity, and are not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model depends on the magnetar parameters (B, P), ejecta properties (M_ej, v_ej), and a wind-supported infalling disk whose accretion rate and viscosity are fitted to the modulation times. No new physical entities are introduced; the tilted disk is an existing concept applied to this object.

free parameters (9)
  • Magnetar magnetic field B = 1.62±0.1×10^14 G (full fit); 1.9±0.58×10^14 G (phase fit)
    Free in MOSFiT light-curve fit (Sec. 2.2) and in the Lense-Thirring phase fit (Sec. 2.4.1).
  • Magnetar spin period P = 4.19±0.18 ms (full); 5.42+4.53/-1.81 ms (phase)
    Free in MOSFiT and phase fits.
  • Ejecta mass M_ej = 10±1.1 M_sun
    Free in MOSFiT fit; affects diffusion timescale.
  • Ejecta velocity v_ej = 5.754±0.12×10^3 km/s
    Free in MOSFiT fit.
  • Disk viscosity alpha = 0.07±0.03
    Fit in Sec. 2.4.1 to the modulation phase.
  • Accretion rate Mdot(t=30 d) = 2.1±0.19×10^-5 M_sun/yr
    Fit in Sec. 2.4.1; sets the disk infall rate.
  • Modulation amplitude A0 = not quoted
    Free scale in the envelope Eq. (8).
  • Initial disk phase phi0 = not quoted
    Free initial condition in Eq. (8).
  • Envelope width beta (legacy objects) = not quoted
    Free in Eq. (12) for re-fits of other SLSNe.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Lense-Thirring precession frequency for a disk ring: Omega_LT = 2 G J/(c^2 r^3)
    Invoked in Eq. (3), citing Mashhoon et al. 1984.
  • domain assumption Accretion disk is supported and driven inward by the magnetar wind pressure balance
    Subsection 2.4.1: disk gas+radiation pressure balanced against magnetar wind.
  • ad hoc to paper Disk radius decreases linearly in time during the observation window
    Used to derive Eq. (4) phase function; justified as 'first order' approximation without rigorous derivation.
  • domain assumption Disk precesses as a rigid body at a single characteristic radius
    Implied by Eq. (3) applied to one radius r(t); disk-breaking estimates are used to argue this holds.
  • ad hoc to paper Envelope shape is a Gaussian with width t_peak/3
    Eq. (11) is introduced as an 'ansatz' after a rough peak-time estimate; not derived from the physics.
  • domain assumption Modulations are caused by periodic line-of-sight modulation of magnetar emission reprocessed by ejecta
    Main text Sec. 1; assumes obscuration/reflection/jet redirection rather than, e.g., variable accretion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lense-Thirring precessing magnetar engine drives a superluminous supernova." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FDK27XMB

@misc{pith2026250908051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lense-Thirring precessing magnetar engine drives a superluminous supernova},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FDK27XMB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08051}
}
read the original abstract

Type I superluminous supernovae (SLSNe-I) are at least an order of magnitude brighter than standard supernovae, with the internal power source for their luminosity still unknown. The central engines of SLSNe-I are hypothesized to be magnetars, but the majority of SLSNe-I light curves have multiple bumps or peaks that are unexplained by the standard magnetar model. Existing explanations for the bumps either modulate the central engine luminosity or invoke interactions with material in the circumstellar environment. Systematic surveys of the limited sample of SLSNe-I light curves find no compelling evidence favoring either scenario, leaving both the nature of the light-curve fluctuations and the applicability of the magnetar model unresolved. Here, we report high-cadence multiband observations of an SLSN-I with clear "chirped" (i.e., decreasing period) light-curve bumps that can be directly linked to the properties of the magnetar central engine. Our observations are consistent with a tilted, infalling accretion disk undergoing Lense-Thirring precession around a magnetar centrally located within the expanding supernova ejecta. Our model demonstrates that the overall light curve and bump frequency independently and self-consistently constrain the spin period and the magnetic field strength of the magnetar. Assuming standard accretion disk parameters, we constrain the accretion rate onto the magnetar. Our results provide the first observational evidence of the Lense-Thirring effect in the environment of a magnetar, and confirm the magnetar spin-down model as an explanation for the extreme luminosity observed in SLSNe-I. We anticipate this discovery will create avenues for testing general relativity in a new regime -- the violent centers of young supernovae.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Searching for core-collapse supernovae in binaries with ZTF

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

    With only 30 to 75 days of observations, standard ZTF monitoring would recover just a few to ten percent of periodic binary-accretion signals in core-collapse supernovae, implying many such systems are missed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    inObservational and physical classification of supernovae(eds Alsabti, A

    Gal-Yam, A. inObservational and physical classification of supernovae(eds Alsabti, A. W. & Murdin, P.)Handbook of Supernovae195–237 (Springer International Publishing, 2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    J., Sorokina, E

    Moriya, T. J., Sorokina, E. I. & Chevalier, R. A. inSuperluminous supernovae (eds Alsabti, A. W. & Murdin, P.)Supernovae, Vol. 68 109–145 (Unknown, 2019). 25

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Unknown (ed.)Superluminous Supernovae

    Quimby, R. Unknown (ed.)Superluminous Supernovae. (ed.Unknown)The Extra- galactic Explosive Universe: the New Era of Transient Surveys and Data-Driven Discovery, 64 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    & Bildsten, L

    Kasen, D. & Bildsten, L. Supernova Light Curves Powered by Young Magnetars. The Astrophysical Journal717, 245–249 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Woosley, S. E. Bright Supernovae from Magnetar Birth.Astrophysical Journal Letters719, L204–L207 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Lunnan, R.et al.Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae from the Pan- STARRS1 Medium Deep Survey.The Astrophysical Journal852, 81 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Hosseinzadeh, G.et al.Bumpy Declining Light Curves Are Common in Hydrogen- poor Superluminous Supernovae.The Astrophysical Journal933, 14 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    & Tuminello, R

    Chatzopoulos, E. & Tuminello, R. A Systematic Study of Superluminous Super- nova Light-curve Models Using Clustering.The Astrophysical Journal874, 68 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    & Raine, D

    Frank, J., King, A. & Raine, D. J.Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Kumar, A.et al.GOTO Transient Discovery Report for 2024-12-27.Transient Name Server Discovery Report2024–5091, 1 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    & Yaron, O

    de Wet, S., Wichern, H., Leloudas, G. & Yaron, O. ePESSTO+ Transient Clas- sification Report for 2025-01-24.Transient Name Server Classification Report 2025–337, 1 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    & Yang, S

    Dong, X.-F., Liu, L.-D., Gao, H. & Yang, S. Magnetar Flare-driven Bumpy Declin- ing Light Curves in Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae.The Astrophysical 26 Journal951, 61 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    & Zhong, S.-Q

    Zhang, B., Li, L., Dai, Z.-G. & Zhong, S.-Q. Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae with Bumpy Light Curves Powered by Precessing Magnetars.The Astrophysical Journal985, 172 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Ogilvie, G. I. & Dubus, G. Precessing warped accretion discs in X-ray binaries. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society320, 485–503 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    & Dai, Z

    Lin, W., Wang, X., Wang, L. & Dai, Z. Supernova Luminosity Powered by Magnetar-Disk System.The Astrophysical Journal914, L2 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    & Poutanen, J

    Chashkina, A., Lipunova, G., Abolmasov, P. & Poutanen, J. Super-Eddington accretion discs with advection and outflows around magnetized neutron stars. Astronomy and Astrophysics626, A18 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    & Suzuki, T

    Tamilan, M., Hayasaki, K. & Suzuki, T. K. Steady-State Solutions for a Geo- metrically Thin Accretion Disk with Magnetically Driven Winds.Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2025, 023E02 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Mashhoon, B., Hehl, F. W. & Theiss, D. S. On the gravitational effects of rotating masses: The Thirring-Lense papers.General Relativity and Gravitation16, 711– 750 (1984)

    1984

  11. [19]

    A., Still, M

    Jurua, E., Charles, P. A., Still, M. & Meintjes, P. J. The optical and X-ray light curves of Hercules X-1.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society418, 437–443 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    M.et al.Unknown (ed.)MHD Simulations of Magnetospheric Accretion, Ejection and Plasma-field Interaction

    Romanova, M. M.et al.Unknown (ed.)MHD Simulations of Magnetospheric Accretion, Ejection and Plasma-field Interaction. (ed.Unknown)European Phys- ical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 64 ofEuropean Physical Journal Web of 27 Conferences, 05001 (EDP, 2014). arXiv:1311.4597

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Liska, M.et al.Formation of precessing jets by tilted black hole discs in 3D general relativistic MHD simulations.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society474, L81–L85 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    & Kasen, D

    Dexter, J. & Kasen, D. Supernova Light Curves Powered by Fallback Accretion. The Astrophysical Journal772, 30 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    & Frank, J

    Nixon, C., King, A., Price, D. & Frank, J. Tearing up the Disk: How Black Holes Accrete.Astrophysical Journal Letters757, L24 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P.Radiative Processes in Astrophysics(John Wiley & Sons, 1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    (ed.Unknown)American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #219, Vol

    Sonneborn, G.et al.Unknown (ed.)X-ray Heating Of The Ejecta Of Supernova 1987A. (ed.Unknown)American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #219, Vol. 219, 242.25 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    & Hernquist, L

    Menou, K., Perna, R. & Hernquist, L. Stability and Evolution of Supernova Fallback Disks.The Astrophysical Journal559, 1032–1046 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    Arnett, W. D. Type I supernovae. I - Analytic solutions for the early part of the light curve.The Astrophysical Journal253, 785–797 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    Armitage, P. J. Eccentricity of masing disks in Active Galactic Nuclei.arXiv (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Magnetically Driven Warping, Precession, and Resonances in Accretion Disks.The Astrophysical Journal524, 1030–1047 (1999)

    Lai, D. Magnetically Driven Warping, Precession, and Resonances in Accretion Disks.The Astrophysical Journal524, 1030–1047 (1999). 28

    1999

  22. [30]

    Morsink, S. M. & Stella, L. Relativistic Precession around Rotating Neutron Stars: Effects Due to Frame Dragging and Stellar Oblateness.Astrophysical Journal513, 827–844 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    & Pons, J

    Colaiuda, A., Ferrari, V., Gualtieri, L. & Pons, J. A. Relativistic models of mag- netars: Structure and deformations.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society385, 2080–2096 (2008)

  24. [32]

    & Davis, S

    Tremaine, S. & Davis, S. W. Dynamics of warped accretion discs.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society441, 1408–1434 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    & Dai, Z.-G

    Liu, L.-D., Wang, L.-J., Wang, S.-Q. & Dai, Z.-G. A Multiple Ejecta-circumstellar Medium Interaction Model and Its Implications for Superluminous Supernovae iPTF15esb and iPTF13dcc.The Astrophysical Journal856, 59 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Lin, W.et al.A superluminous supernova lightened by collisions with pulsational pair-instability shells.Nature Astronomy7, 779–789 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    L.et al.SN 2020qlb: A hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova with well-characterized light curve undulations.Astronomy and Astrophysics670, A7 (2023)

    West, S. L.et al.SN 2020qlb: A hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova with well-characterized light curve undulations.Astronomy and Astrophysics670, A7 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    H.et al.The Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae from the Zwicky Transient Facility Phase I Survey

    Chen, Z. H.et al.The Hydrogen-poor Superluminous Supernovae from the Zwicky Transient Facility Phase I Survey. II. Light-curve Modeling and Characterization of Undulations.The Astrophysical Journal943, 42 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Ivezi´ c,ˇZ.et al.LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products.The Astrophysical Journal873, 111 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Tyson, J. A. Unknown (ed.)Large Synoptic Survey Telescope: Overview. (ed.Unknown)Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries, Vol. 29 4836, 10–20 (eprint: arXiv:astro-ph/0302102, 2002)

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A., Nicholl, M

    Villar, V. A., Nicholl, M. & Berger, E. Superluminous Supernovae in LSST: Rates, Detection Metrics, and Light-curve Modeling.The Astrophysical Journal 869, 166 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    W., Baldry, I

    Hogg, D. W., Baldry, I. K., Blanton, M. R. & Eisenstein, D. J. The K correction. arXiv e-printsastro–ph/0210394 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Poznanski, D., Prochaska, J. X. & Bloom, J. S. An empirical relation between sodium absorption and dust extinction.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society426(2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. Measuring reddening with Sloan Digital Sky Survey stellar spectra and recalibrating SFD.Astrophysical Journal737(2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Guillochon, J.et al.MOSFiT: Modular Open Source Fitter for Transients.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series236, 6 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    & Berger, E

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J. & Berger, E. The Magnetar Model for Type I Super- luminous Supernovae. I. Bayesian Analysis of the Full Multicolor Light-curve Sample with MOSFiT.The Astrophysical Journal850, 55 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Gomez, S.et al.The Type I Superluminous Supernova Catalog I: Light Curve Properties, Models, and Catalog Description.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2407.07946 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R.et al.Shock-cooling Constraints via Early-time Observations of the Type IIb SN 2022hnt.The Astrophysical Journal984, 60 (2025)

    Farah, J. R.et al.Shock-cooling Constraints via Early-time Observations of the Type IIb SN 2022hnt.The Astrophysical Journal984, 60 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Virtanen, P.et al.SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python.Nature Methods17, 261–272 (2020). 30

    2020

  40. [48]

    & Loeb, A

    Stone, N. & Loeb, A. Observing Lense-Thirring Precession in Tidal Disruption Flares.Physical Review Letters108, 061302 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Fragile, P. C. & Liska, M. Tilted Accretion Disks (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Brandt, N. & Podsiadlowski, P. The effects of high-velocity supernova kicks on the orbital properties and sky distributions of neutron-star binaries.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society274, 461–484 (1995)

    1995

  43. [51]

    Raj, A., Nixon, C. J. & Do˘ gan, S. Disk Tearing: Numerical Investigation of Warped Disk Instability.Astrophysical Journal909, 81 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Liska, M., Musoke, G., West, A., Krawczynski, H. & Tchekhovskoy, A. Unknown (ed.)GRMHD Simulations of Misaligned and Truncated Accretion Disks. (ed.Unknown)AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 19 ofAAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 110.91 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    & Ingram, A

    Musoke, G., Liska, M., Porth, O., van der Klis, M. & Ingram, A. Disc tearing leads to low and high frequency quasi-periodic oscillations in a GRMHD simulation of a thin accretion disc.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society518, 1656–1671 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    L.et al.Atlas: A high-cadence all-sky survey system.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific130(2018)

    Tonry, J. L.et al.Atlas: A high-cadence all-sky survey system.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific130(2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    M.et al.Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network

    Brown, T. M.et al.Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125, 1031 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Valenti, S.et al.The diversity of Type II supernova versus the similarity in their progenitors.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society459(2016). 31

    2016

  49. [57]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. Secondary standard stars for absolute spectrophotom- etry.Astrophysical Journal266, 713–717 (1983)

    1983

  50. [58]

    A.et al.The u’g’r’i’z’ Standard-Star System.Astronomical Journal 123, 2121–2144 (2002)

    Smith, J. A.et al.The u’g’r’i’z’ Standard-Star System.Astronomical Journal 123, 2121–2144 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtrac- tion

    Becker, A. HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtrac- tion. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    C., Onaka, P., Wainscoat, R., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Onaka, P., Wainscoat, R., Magnier, E. A. & Pan-Starrs Team. Unknown (ed.)The Pan-STARRS2 facility and the Wide Area Survey for NEOs with Pan-STARRS. (ed.Unknown)AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meet- ing Abstracts #50, Vol. 50 ofAAS/Division for Planetary S...

    2018

  53. [61]

    The Journal of Open Source Software5, 2308 (2020)

    Prochaska, J.et al.PypeIt: The Python Spectroscopic Data Reduction Pipeline. The Journal of Open Source Software5, 2308 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Hummer, D. G. & Rybicki, G. B. Second-order escape probability approximations in radiative transfer.Astrophysical Journal263, 925–934 (1982)

    1982

  55. [63]

    J.et al.The 2013 Release of Cloudy.Revista Mexicana de Astronom ´ ıa y Astrof ´ ısica49, 137–163 (2013)

    Ferland, G. J.et al.The 2013 Release of Cloudy.Revista Mexicana de Astronom ´ ıa y Astrof ´ ısica49, 137–163 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    W., Thorne, K

    Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., Wheeler, J. A. & Kaiser, D. I.Gravitation(W. H. Freeman and Company, 2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Strubbe, L. E. & Quataert, E. Unknown (ed.)Optical Flares from the Tidal Dis- ruption of Stars by Massive Black Holes. (ed.Unknown)Co-Evolution of Central Black Holes and Galaxies, Vol. 267, 337–337 (2010). 32

    2010

  58. [66]

    Nordin, J.et al.ZTF Transient Discovery Report for 2018-12-28.Transient Name Server Discovery Report2018-1997, 1 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    & Sharma, Y

    Fremling, C., Dugas, A. & Sharma, Y. ZTF Transient Classification Report for 2019-02-01 2018kly, SN2018kly, SN 2018kly, 2019kg, SN2019kg, SN 2019kg, 2019uo, SN2019uo, SN 2019uo, 2019ui, SN2019ui, SN 2019ui, 2019us, SN2019us, SN 2019us, 2018kyt, SN2018kyt, SN 2018kyt, 2018lan, ...

    2019

  60. [68]

    J., Maguire, K., Skillen, K., Magee, M

    Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Skillen, K., Magee, M. R. & Clark, P. TCD Transient Discovery Report for 2019-11-11.Transient Name Server Discovery Report2019- 2335, 1 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    J., Maguire, K., Skillen, K., Magee, M

    Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Skillen, K., Magee, M. R. & Clark, P. TCD Transient Classification Report for 2019-11-11.Transient Name Server Classification Report 2019-2339, 1 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Transient Name Server Discovery Report2021-1636, 1–1636 (2021)

    Forster, F.et al.ALeRCE/ZTF Transient Discovery Report for 2021-05-15. Transient Name Server Discovery Report2021-1636, 1–1636 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    & Fremling, C

    Chu, M., Dahiwale, A. & Fremling, C. ZTF Transient Classification Report for 2021-08-09.Transient Name Server Classification Report2021-2748, 1–2748 (2021). 33

    2021

  64. [72]

    C.et al.The zwicky transient facility: System overview, performance, and first results.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific131 (2019)

    Bellm, E. C.et al.The zwicky transient facility: System overview, performance, and first results.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific131 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    J.et al.A New Forced Photometry Service for the Zwicky Transient Facility.arXiv(2023)

    Masci, F. J.et al.A New Forced Photometry Service for the Zwicky Transient Facility.arXiv(2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    magnetar- only

    Gal-Yam, A.et al.Supernova 2007bi as a pair-instability explosion.Nature462, 624–627 (2009). 34 −20.0 −17.5 −15.0 −12.5 −10.0 −7.5 −5.0 Absolute Magnitude + offset 60650 60675 60700 60725 60750 60775 60800 60825 MJD 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 Apparent Magnitude + offse...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.