Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A study on late time UV-emission in core collapse supernovae and the implications for the peculiar transient AT2018cow

T0 review · 3 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 This paper concludes that the late-time ultraviolet emission of the peculiar transient AT2018cow is not powered by supernova ejecta interacting with circumstellar material, and is more likely radiation from the inner engine of the…

desk verdict A careful new census of late-time UV emission in CCSNe, with a conclusion about AT2018cow that holds only if you accept the single-blackbody radius argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09690 v1 pith:HNG6DNQR submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.HE

Anne Inkenhaag , Peter G. Jonker , Andrew J. Levan , Morgan Fraser , Joseph D. Lyman , Lluís Galbany , Hanindyo Kuncarayakti This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapsesupernovaeAT2018cowlate-timeultravioletemissionluminousfastblueopticaltransientscircumstellarmediuminteractiontidaldisruptioneventsHubbleSpaceTelescopeaccretiondisk
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

Core-collapse supernovae normally fade out of the ultraviolet within a few weeks, so a supernova that still glows in the UV years later needs an extra power source: either the ejecta colliding with circumstellar material, or a direct view down to the central engine. The authors use 51 nearby core-collapse supernovae observed with the Hubble Space Telescope in the ultraviolet 2-5 years after explosion, and find only two with a point source at the supernova position, both already known as interacting supernovae. Against this census, AT2018cow's late-time UV brightness is not atypical for an interacting supernova, but it is brighter than the upper limits for most supernovae closer than itself. The key additional fact is that AT2018cow's emission sits on a blackbody photosphere of only about 40 solar radii, orders of magnitude smaller than an interacting supernova's photosphere, which would be embedded in the circumstellar material. The paper concludes that AT2018cow's late-time UV emission is not driven by interaction, and that we are probably seeing the inner region of the explosion, possibly a long-lived accretion disk, as expected in tidal disruption models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a comparative census: 51 nearby core-collapse supernovae observed in one ultraviolet filter (F275W) between 2 and 5 years after discovery, with positions tied to Gaia/Pan-STARRS astrometry, point-source detections confirmed by PSF photometry, and magnitude upper limits from an artificial star experiment. The decisive comparison is absolute UV magnitude versus time since discovery, with AT2018cow's late-time light curve and a reference interacting-supernova UV model overlaid; this is what shows that AT2018cow is bracketed by the two detections yet brighter than most nearby upper limits. The second mechanism is the photospheric-radius argument: AT2018cow's emission is a blackbody with radius about 40 solar radii (measured in the authors' earlier work), and any interacting core-collapse supernova that is a blackbody at these epochs would have its photosphere embedded in circumstellar material at a much larger radius, ruling out interaction as the driver.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a late-time ultraviolet spectrum of AT2018cow: narrow or intermediate-width emission lines from shocked circumstellar gas would contradict the no-interaction conclusion, as would resolving an emission region larger than about 40 solar radii in size.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Out of 51 nearby core-collapse supernovae (z<0.065) imaged with HST/WFC3 F275W within 2-5 years of discovery, the authors find a likely point source at the supernova position in only two: ASASSN-17qp and ATLAS17lsn, both of which had already been identified as interacting supernovae. In absolute UV magnitude, AT2018cow sits between these two detections, so a late-time UV detection by itself is not evidence against a supernova nature. But when the sample is restricted to supernovae closer than AT2018cow, the transient is brighter than the upper limits on most of them, and its blackbody photospheric radius of roughly 40 solar radii is orders of magnitude smaller than the photosphere an interacting core-collapse supernova would have in its circumstellar medium. The paper's conclusion is that AT2018cow's late-time UV emission was not driven by interaction; instead, we are likely seeing the inner region of the explosion, perhaps a long-lived accretion disk, a scenario naturally expected in tidal disruption models and less straightforward in supernova scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that interaction cannot explain AT2018cow assumes that its late-time ultraviolet emission is a single blackbody photosphere of about 40 solar radii, and that any interacting core-collapse supernova would have a photosphere embedded in its circumstellar material that is much larger than this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Late-time ultraviolet emission between 2 and 5 years after explosion is rare among core-collapse supernovae: only 2 of 51 show a likely point source, and both are known interacting events, so such detections are a practical marker for ongoing ejecta-CSM interaction.
  • AT2018cow's late-time UV brightness is bracketed by the two interacting-supernova detections, so a persistent UV source alone does not argue against a supernova nature.
  • Among core-collapse supernovae closer than AT2018cow, 12 of 17 would have been detectable if they were as bright as AT2018cow, making the transient unusually bright for a supernova at that distance.
  • Given the roughly 40-solar-radius photosphere, an interacting-supernova explanation would require a far larger photosphere in circumstellar material, so the ultraviolet emission is more plausibly powered by the inner engine, such as a long-lived accretion disk.
  • If this conclusion holds, AT2018cow's late-time behavior favors tidal-disruption-like models with a persistent accretion disk over standard or interacting supernova models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the engine interpretation is correct, other luminous fast blue optical transients should show similar late-time ultraviolet persistence; a targeted UV survey of LFBOTs at 2-5 years would test this prediction.
  • The radius argument relies on the emission being a single blackbody; if future observations reveal a non-thermal component (for example from shocks or a jet), the case against interaction would need revisiting.
  • The same snapshot-and-artificial-star approach could be extended to larger transient samples with upcoming wide-field ultraviolet surveys to map what fraction of core-collapse supernovae show late-time UV excess and to separate interacting from engine-powered events.
  • A distinctive prediction of the accretion-disk scenario is a slowly declining, possibly variable UV source; interaction-powered emission, by contrast, would be expected to steepen as the shock decelerates through the circumstellar medium.
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. The paper uses HST/WFC3 F275W snapshot images of 51 nearby (z<0.065) core-collapse supernovae obtained 2–5 years after discovery to search for late-time UV emission. The authors perform Gaia/Pan-STARRS-based astrometric recalibration, DOLPHOT PSF photometry, artificial-star completeness experiments, and chance-alignment estimates. They find two point-source detections, ASASSN-17qp and ATLAS17lsn, both previously identified as interacting SNe, and place upper limits on the remaining 49 objects. Comparing the absolute UV magnitudes with AT2018cow, the authors argue that AT2018cow is not atypical among interacting SNe, but that it is brighter than most upper limits in a 17-SN subsample closer than AT2018cow. Combined with a reported late-time photospheric radius of about 40 solar radii (Inkenhaag et al. 2023), they conclude that AT2018cow's late-time UV emission was not driven by interaction and may instead trace the inner engine, possibly a long-lived accretion disk.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper provides an important empirical constraint on the nature of AT2018cow and LFBOTs more generally, favoring engine-powered, non-interaction channels. The observational work is careful: the astrometric alignment, artificial-star limits, and synthetic photometry from archival spectra of SN2010jl and SN1993J are all thoughtfully executed, and the resulting sample of late-time UV upper limits for CCSNe is a genuinely useful resource. The two detections are consistent with independent classifications of both objects as interacting SNe, which strengthens confidence in the methodology. The main risk is not in the measurements but in the interpretive step that excludes interaction for AT2018cow, which depends on an unverified single-blackbody assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4] The interaction-exclusion conclusion rests on the premise, imported from Inkenhaag et al. (2023), that AT2018cow's late-time UV emission is a single blackbody with photospheric radius about 40 solar radii. The text itself qualifies this with 'if it is a BB at these epochs', but no test of the single-blackbody assumption is presented here. If the late-time UV is non-thermal, a two-component SED, or emission from a compact shocked region embedded in a larger CSM interaction, a small apparent blackbody radius would not exclude an interaction-powered origin. Because this premise is load-bearing for the central conclusion, the manuscript should either demonstrate the blackbody/multi-component interpretation with the available photometry or spectra, or soften the conclusion to explicitly state that it applies only if the emission is a single blackbody photosphere.
  2. [Section 4.4] The numerical claim supporting the brightness argument is internally inconsistent. The paper states that only 5 out of 17 CCSNe in the closer subsample have an absolute-magnitude limit brighter than AT2018cow and the remaining 12 have a fainter limit, but then concludes that 'SNe as bright as AT2018cow would have been detected in 75 percent of the images'. With one image per SN, 5/17 is approximately 29 percent, not 75 percent; if the intended statement is that 12 of 17 limits are bright enough, the fraction is approximately 71 percent, which still does not equal 75 percent and contradicts the preceding sentence. Since the 75 percent figure is repeated in the abstract and conclusions, this needs to be corrected and the statistical argument re-stated precisely.
  3. [Section 4.4] Even after correcting the percentage, the brightness comparison alone has limited discriminating power for the interaction hypothesis. The detected interacting SN ATLAS17lsn is about 3 mag brighter than AT2018cow and ASASSN-17qp about 3 mag fainter, a spread that brackets AT2018cow; the Dessart et al. (2023) model comparison is explicitly acknowledged by the authors as not allowing firm conclusions. Thus the argument against interaction reduces essentially to the radius premise raised in the first major comment. The paper should state this dependence explicitly rather than presenting brightness and radius as two independent strands of evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract says 'for two CCSNe we detect a point source', but for ASASSN-17qp the source centroid is at 3.2 sigma outside the 3 sigma uncertainty region and is only associated after an additional relative-astrometry step; consider describing it as a 'possible' detection in the abstract.
  2. [Table 1] The caption and footnotes should explicitly state that the 'Brightness' column entries with '>' denote 95 percent completeness upper limits from the artificial-star experiment of Section 2.6, and that 'sigma_total' is the quadratic sum in Eq. (1).
  3. [Section 4.3] There is a typo: 'SN1993C' in the discussion of the Dessart et al. (2023) model should read 'SN1993J'.
  4. [Figure 2] The figure caption says 'the black line represent' and should be 'represents'; it would also help to state explicitly whether the arrows are 95 percent upper limits or some other limiting magnitude.
  5. [Section 2.6] The artificial-star experiment uses one PSF model constructed from SN2017ffq for all images; the paper states that subtraction tests on one random image showed no residuals, but a short statement on how the PSF model was checked across the full range of positions and dither patterns would strengthen the reproducibility of the limits.
Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; the analysis is observational. The four axioms listed capture the physical and methodological premises the central claim depends on. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced; the accretion disk invoked for AT2018cow is an existing model component, not a new postulate.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Detection of a CCSN in the UV at late times implies an additional process beyond normal cooling, such as ejecta-CSM interaction or a view into the central engine.
    Frames the interpretation; introduced in the abstract and Introduction. If normal CCSNe can be UV-bright at two to five years for other reasons, the comparison changes.
  • domain assumption AT2018cow's late-time UV emission is a blackbody with radius about 40 solar radii at 713 and 1474 days (Inkenhaag et al. 2023).
    Central to ruling out interaction. This is a prior published measurement from the same group, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption For any CCSN with CSM interaction, if the emission is a blackbody at these epochs, the photosphere lies in the CSM and has radius larger than 40 solar radii.
    Used in Section 4.4 to conclude interaction is unlikely. Could fail if the UV source is non-thermal or compact shock emission.
  • domain assumption Artificial star experiments and the assumption of negligible host-galaxy extinction make the upper limits reliable enough to conclude that AT2018cow-like sources would have been detected in 75 percent of closer images.
    The closer-than-AT2018cow subsample has 17 objects; the detectability argument depends on these limits and on sample selection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A study on late time UV-emission in core collapse supernovae and the implications for the peculiar transient AT2018cow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNG6DNQR

@misc{pith2026241109690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A study on late time UV-emission in core collapse supernovae and the implications for the peculiar transient AT2018cow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNG6DNQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09690}
}
read the original abstract

Over time, core-collapse supernova (CCSN) spectra become redder due to dust formation and cooling of the SN ejecta. A UV detection of a CCSN at late times thus indicates an additional physical process such as interaction between the SN ejecta and the circumstellar material, or viewing down to the central engine of the explosion. Both these models have been proposed to explain the peculiar transient AT2018cow, a luminous fast blue optical transient that has been detected in the UV 2-4 years after the event with only marginal fading over this time period. To identify if the late-time UV detection of AT2018cow could indicate that it is a CCSN, we investigate if CCSNe are detected in the UV between 2-5 years after the explosion. We use a sample of 51 nearby (z<0.065) CCSNe observed with the Hubble Space Telescope within 2-5 years of discovery. We measure their brightness, or determine an upper limit on the emission through an artificial star experiment if there is no detection. For two CCSNe we detect a point source within the uncertainty region of the SN position. Both have a low chance alignment probability with bright objects within their host galaxies and are thus likely related to the SNe. Comparing the absolute UV magnitude of AT2018cow to the absolute UV magnitudes of the two potential SN detections, there is no evidence that a late-time UV detection of AT2018cow is atypical for interacting SNe. However, when limiting to CCSNe closer than AT2018cow, we see that it is brighter than the upper limits on most non-detections. Combined with a very small late time photospheric radius of AT2018cow, this leads us to conclude that AT2018cow's late-time UV detection was not driven by interaction. It suggests instead that we are possibly viewing the inner region of the explosion. Such properties are naturally expected in tidal disruption models and are less straightforward in supernova scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09690 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2 ′′ × 2 ′′ cutout images centred on the positions of the two SNe for which we detect a point source close to the SN position. ASASSN-17qp is displayed on the left and ATLAS17lsn on the right. In red the 1, 2 and 3σ uncertainties on the position of the SN are indicated. The centroid positions of the point sources that we considered to be potential SN detections are marked by white crosses. For ASSASN-17qp the white … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The brightness of our sample of SNe versus time since discovery. The light curve of AT2018cow from Inkenhaag et al. (2023) at late times is plotted as well for comparison with circular markers in blue (F225W) and red (F336W). The black line represent the late time UV (UVW2-filter) brightness of the model with CSM interaction from Dessart et al. (2023), and the dashed line is the model extrapolated with the same deca… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.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. Implications of the UV/optical Plateau of AT2018cow

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A wind-and-irradiation disk model fits the AT2018cow UV plateau with accretor masses from 1.4 to ~100 solar masses, removing the need for a >200 solar-mass black hole.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., González-Gaitán, S., Hamuy, M., et al

    Anderson, J. P., González-Gaitán, S., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 67

    2014

  2. [2]

    P., James, P

    Anderson, J. P., James, P. A., Habergham, S. M., Galbany, L., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2015, PASA, 32, e019

    2015

  3. [3]

    E., Smith, N., McCully, C., et al

    Andrews, J. E., Smith, N., McCully, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4047

    2017

  4. [4]

    W., et al

    Arcavi, I., Hiramatsu, D., Jha, S. W., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12135, 1 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2018

  5. [5]

    2016, extinction v0.3.0

    Barbary, K. 2016, extinction v0.3.0

    2016

  6. [6]

    1979, A&A, 72, 287

    Barbon, R., Ciatti, F., & Rosino, L. 1979, A&A, 72, 287

    1979

  7. [7]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    2019

  8. [8]

    2010, Central Bureau Electronic Tele- grams, 2536, 1

    Benetti, S., Bufano, F., Vinko, J., et al. 2010, Central Bureau Electronic Tele- grams, 2536, 1

    2010

Show all 153 references
  1. [9]

    & Arnouts, S

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

    1996

  2. [10]

    D., et al

    Blagorodnova, N., Fremling, C., Neill, J. D., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 11493, 1

    2018

  3. [11]

    2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 8949, 1

    Blanchard, P., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 8949, 1

    2016

  4. [12]

    2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI, ed

    Bloemen, S., Groot, P., Woudt, P., et al. 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI, ed. H. J. Hall, R. Gilmozzi, & H. K. Marshall, V ol. 9906, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 990664

    2016

  5. [13]

    J., Elias-Rosa, N., Fraser, M., Van Dyk, S

    Brennan, S. J., Elias-Rosa, N., Fraser, M., Van Dyk, S. D., & Lyman, J. D. 2022, A&A, 664, L18

    2022

  6. [14]

    J., Schulze, S., Lunnan, R., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Schulze, S., Lunnan, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A259

    2024

  7. [15]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  8. [16]

    Brown, J. S. & Foley, R. J. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12279, 1

    2018

  9. [17]

    J., Holland, S

    Brown, P. J., Holland, S. T., Immler, S., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4517

    2009

  10. [18]

    R., et al

    Castro-Segura, N., Pursiainen, M., Angus, C. R., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12276, 1

    2018

  11. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    Chen, Y ., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    2015

  12. [20]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525

    Chen, Y ., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525

    2014

  13. [21]

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

    1994

  14. [22]

    O., Dale, D

    Cook, D. O., Dale, D. A., Lee, J. C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3766

    2016

  15. [23]

    A., Rojas-Bravo, C., Xhakaj, E., et al

    Coulter, D. A., Rojas-Bravo, C., Xhakaj, E., et al. 2017, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 10593, 1

    2017

  16. [24]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177

    2007

  17. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04259

    Dessart, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04259

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dessart, L., Audit, E., & Hillier, D. J. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4304

    2015

  19. [27]

    P., Kuncarayakti, H., Fox, O

    Dessart, L., Gutiérrez, C. P., Kuncarayakti, H., Fox, O. D., & Filippenko, A. V . 2023, A&A, 675, A33

    2023

  20. [28]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2022, A&A, 660, L9

    2022

  21. [29]

    2016, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 9660, 1

    Dimitriadis, G., Pursiainen, M., Smith, M., et al. 2016, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 9660, 1

    2016

  22. [30]

    Doggett, J. B. & Branch, D. 1985, AJ, 90, 2303

    1985

  23. [31]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383

    2000

  24. [32]

    Dong, S., Bersier, D., & Prieto, J. L. 2017, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-1103, 1

    2017

  25. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 316

    Dong, Y ., Valenti, S., Ashall, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 316

    2024

  26. [34]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870

    2009

  27. [35]

    W., Gray, N., Berry, D

    Draper, P. W., Gray, N., Berry, D. S., & Taylor, M. 2014, GAIA: Graphical As- tronomy and Image Analysis Tool, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1403.024

    2014

  28. [36]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12021, 1

    Dugas, A., Fremling, C., Sharma, Y ., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12021, 1

    2018

  29. [37]

    G., Fraser, M., et al

    Eappachen, D., Jonker, P. G., Fraser, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 302

    2022

  30. [38]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109

    2008

  31. [39]

    H., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., & Persson, S

    Elias, J. H., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., & Persson, S. E. 1985, ApJ, 296, 379

    1985

  32. [40]

    2024, A&A, 685, A58

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58

    2024

  33. [41]

    2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9237, 1

    Falco, E., Calkins, M., Challis, P., et al. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9237, 1

    2016

  34. [42]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Chugai, N., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 907

    2001

  35. [43]

    Fox, O. D. & Smith, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3772

    2019

  36. [44]

    1984, A&A, 133, 264

    Fransson, C. 1984, A&A, 133, 264

    1984

  37. [45]

    M., Chevalier, R

    Fransson, C., Challis, P. M., Chevalier, R. A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 991

    2005

  38. [46]

    J., et al

    Fransson, C., Ergon, M., Challis, P. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 118

    2014

  39. [47]

    2016, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2016-490, 1

    Fraser, M., Reynolds, T., Inserra, C., & Yaron, O. 2016, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2016-490, 1

    2016

  40. [48]

    D., Brennan, S

    Fraser, M., Stritzinger, M. D., Brennan, S. J., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.07278

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 8498, 1

    Frohmaier, C., Dimitriadis, G., Firth, R., et al. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 8498, 1

    2016

  42. [50]

    2012, Science, 337, 927

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927

    2012

  43. [51]

    2022, Nature, 601, 201

    Gal-Yam, A., Bruch, R., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 201

    2022

  44. [52]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98

    2019

  45. [53]

    P., Cutter, R., Steeghs, D., et al

    Gompertz, B. P., Cutter, R., Steeghs, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 726

    2020

  46. [54]

    P., Cartier, R., Smith, M., et al

    Gutierrez, C. P., Cartier, R., Smith, M., et al. 2017c, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10338, 1 Gutiérrez, C. P., Pastorello, A., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 974

    2020

  47. [55]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  48. [56]

    A., Moriya, T

    Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 55

    2021

  49. [57]

    Holoien, T. W. S., Brown, J. S., Vallely, P. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1899

    2019

  50. [58]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10676, 1 Article number, page 11 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Homan, D., Lyman, J., Galbany, L., et al. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10676, 1 Article number, page 11 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2017

  51. [59]

    A., Arcavi, I., Mccully, C., & Valenti, S

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., Arcavi, I., Mccully, C., & Valenti, S. 2016, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2016-785, 1

    2016

  52. [60]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  53. [61]

    G., Levan, A

    Inkenhaag, A., Jonker, P. G., Levan, A. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4042

    2023

  54. [62]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S

    Inserra, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111

    2019

  55. [63]

    E., Prieto, J

    Jencson, J. E., Prieto, J. L., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2622

    2016

  56. [64]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 161

    2012

  57. [65]

    2017, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-1458, 1

    Kawabata, M. 2017, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-1458, 1

    2017

  58. [66]

    G., Hodgkin, S

    Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, Z., Jonker, P. G., Hodgkin, S. T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 307

    2018

  59. [67]

    M., Cannizzaro, G., et al

    Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, Z., Lopez, K. M., Cannizzaro, G., et al. 2017, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 11024, 1

    2017

  60. [68]

    Kuin, N. P. M., Wu, K., Oates, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2505

    2019

  61. [69]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 3089

    Kumar, B., Eswaraiah, C., Singh, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3089

    2019

  62. [70]

    P., Galbany, L., et al

    Kuncarayakti, H., Anderson, J. P., Galbany, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A35

    2018

  63. [71]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 66

    Leung, S.-C., Blinnikov, S., Nomoto, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 66

    2020

  64. [72]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

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

    2011

  65. [73]

    2018, ApJ, 868, L24

    Liu, L.-D., Zhang, B., Wang, L.-J., & Dai, Z.-G. 2018, ApJ, 868, L24

    2018

  66. [74]

    D., Galbany, L., Sánchez, S

    Lyman, J. D., Galbany, L., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 992

    2020

  67. [75]

    2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 8963, 1

    Magee, M., Bar, I., Leloudas, G., et al. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 8963, 1

    2016

  68. [76]

    A., Schlafly, E

    Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 6

    2020

  69. [77]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Maguire, K. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 293

    2017

  70. [78]

    D., Chornock, R., et al

    Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., Chornock, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 18

    2019

  71. [79]

    Marigo, P., Bressan, A., Nanni, A., Girardi, L., & Pumo, M. L. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 488

    2013

  72. [80]

    C., Smith, N., Williams, G

    Mauerhan, J. C., Smith, N., Williams, G. G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.12368

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    McKinney, W. et al. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Confer- ence, V ol. 445, Austin, TX, 51–56

    2010

  74. [82]

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

    2022

  75. [83]

    1941, PASP, 53, 224

    Minkowski, R. 1941, PASP, 53, 224

    1941

  76. [84]

    Q., Bianco, F

    Modjaz, M., Liu, Y . Q., Bianco, F. B., & Graur, O. 2016, ApJ, 832, 108

    2016

  77. [85]

    2020, ApJ, 888, L24

    Mohan, P., An, T., & Yang, J. 2020, ApJ, 888, L24

    2020

  78. [86]

    Monard, L. A. G., Morales Garo ffolo, A., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2013, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 3392, 1

    2013

  79. [87]

    2023, A&A, 669, A51

    Moran, S., Fraser, M., Kotak, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A51

    2023

  80. [88]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 10240, 1

    Morrell, N., Shappee, B., Drout, M., & Dong, S. 2017, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 10240, 1

    2017

  81. [89]

    D., Holoien, T

    Neumann, K. D., Holoien, T. W. S., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4356

    2023

  82. [90]

    & Puckett, T

    Newton, J. & Puckett, T. 2010, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 2532, 1

    2010

  83. [91]

    K., & Yokoi, K

    Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F. K., & Yokoi, K. 1984, ApJ, 286, 644

    1984

  84. [92]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11063, 1

    Ochner, P., Benetti, S., Cappellaro, E., Tomasella, L., & Turatto, M. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11063, 1

    2017

  85. [93]

    O., Cameron, P

    Ofek, E. O., Cameron, P. B., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, L13

    2007

  86. [94]

    2017, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 10964, 1

    Onori, F., Cannizzaro, G., Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, Z., et al. 2017, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 10964, 1

    2017

  87. [95]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11916, 1

    Onori, F., Stein, R., Cannizzaro, G., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11916, 1

    2018

  88. [96]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 3283

    Pastorelli, G., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3283

    2020

  89. [97]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 5666

    Pastorelli, G., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5666

    2019

  90. [98]

    J., Mattila, S., et al

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

    2007

  91. [99]

    A., Vinkó, J., et al

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

    2022

  92. [100]

    A., Mazzali, P

    Perley, D. A., Mazzali, P. A., Yan, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1031

    2019

  93. [101]

    A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al

    Perley, D. A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 180

    2022

  94. [102]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10454, 1 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pignata, G., Wang, L., Galbany, L., et al. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10454, 1 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13

    2017

  95. [103]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

    1992

  96. [104]

    Prieto, J. L. & Shappee, B. J. 2017, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-259, 1

    2017

  97. [105]

    A., Roming, P

    Pritchard, T. A., Roming, P. W. A., Brown, P. J., Bayless, A. J., & Frey, L. H. 2014, ApJ, 787, 157

    2014

  98. [106]

    2006, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 644, 1

    Quimby, R. 2006, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 644, 1

    2006

  99. [107]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Quimby, R. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 487

    2011

  100. [108]

    2016, ApJ, 822, 73

    Rosenfield, P., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 73

    2016

  101. [109]

    K., Anupama, G

    Sahu, D. K., Anupama, G. C., Chakradhari, N. K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2591

    2018

  102. [110]

    E., Soderberg, A

    Sanders, N. E., Soderberg, A. M., Gezari, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 208

    2015

  103. [111]

    2022, A&A, 658, A188

    Santoro, F., Kreckel, K., Belfiore, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A188

    2022

  104. [112]

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

    2011

  105. [113]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  106. [114]

    Schlegel, E. M. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 269

    1990

  107. [115]

    2024, A&A, 686, A129

    Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A129

    2024

  108. [116]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48

    2014

  109. [117]

    R., Coulter, D

    Siebert, M. R., Coulter, D. A., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10582, 1

    2017

  110. [118]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63

    2009

  111. [119]

    2017, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-27, 1

    Smith, K., Cikota, A., Magee, M., Inserra, C., & Yaron, O. 2017, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-27, 1

    2017

  112. [120]

    2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11294, 1

    Smith, K., Palmerio, J., O’Neill, D., et al. 2018, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 11294, 1

    2018

  113. [121]

    & Andrews, J

    Smith, N. & Andrews, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3544

    2020

  114. [122]

    & Arnett, W

    Smith, N. & Arnett, W. D. 2014, ApJ, 785, 82

    2014

  115. [123]

    M., Filippenko, A

    Smith, N., Chornock, R., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V ., & Foley, R. J. 2010, ApJ, 709, 856

    2010

  116. [124]

    V ., & Chornock, R

    Smith, N., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V ., & Chornock, R. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1522

    2011

  117. [125]

    J., et al

    Smith, N., Li, W., Foley, R. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1116

    2007

  118. [126]

    2019, A&A, 621, A30

    Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., Arcavi, I., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A30

    2019

  119. [127]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 10594, 1

    Somero, A., Kuncarayakti, H., Mattila, S., et al. 2017, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 10594, 1

    2017

  120. [128]

    K., Ackley, K., et al

    Steeghs, D., Galloway, D. K., Ackley, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2405

    2022

  121. [129]

    L., Stanek, K

    Stoll, R., Prieto, J. L., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 34

    2011

  122. [130]

    D., Fraser, M., Hummelmose, N

    Stritzinger, M. D., Fraser, M., Hummelmose, N. N., et al. 2017, The As- tronomer’s Telegram, 10672, 1

    2017

  123. [131]

    R., Crowther, P

    Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., Crowther, P. A., & Liu, L.-D. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L66

    2022

  124. [132]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10012, 1

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Barbarino, C., et al. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10012, 1

    2017

  125. [133]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287

    Tang, J., Bressan, A., Rosenfield, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287

    2014

  126. [134]

    A., Yang, S., & Hosseinzadeh, G

    Tartaglia, L., Valenti, S., Bostroem, K. A., Yang, S., & Hosseinzadeh, G. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10603, 1 the pandas development team. 2021, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas

    2017

  127. [135]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  128. [136]

    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

  129. [137]

    2018, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2018-2072, 1

    Tomasella, L. 2018, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2018-2072, 1

    2018

  130. [138]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10680, 1

    Tomasella, L., Benetti, S., & Cappellaro, E. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10680, 1

    2017

  131. [139]

    Tonry, J. L. 2011, PASP, 123, 58

    2011

  132. [140]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

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

    2018

  133. [141]

    2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10769, 1 Van Dyk, S

    Uddin, S., Mould, J., Zhang, J.-J., Wang, L., & Wang, X. 2017, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 10769, 1 Van Dyk, S. D., Zheng, W., Shivvers, I., et al. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9573, 1

    2017

  134. [142]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574

    2001

  135. [143]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  136. [144]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 138

    Wang, T., Wang, S.-Q., Gan, W.-P., & Li, L. 2023, ApJ, 948, 138

    2023

  137. [145]

    Wheeler, J. C. & Harkness, R. P. 1986, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, V ol. 180, Galaxy Distances and Deviations from Universal Expan- sion, ed. B. F. Madore & R. B. Tully, 45–54

    1986

  138. [146]

    E., Pinto, P

    Woosley, S. E., Pinto, P. A., Martin, P. G., & Weaver, T. A. 1987, ApJ, 318, 664

    1987

  139. [147]

    Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1986, ARA&A, 24, 205

    1986

  140. [148]

    M., et al

    Xhakaj, E., Rojas-Bravo, C., Foley, M. M., et al. 2017, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 10620, 1

    2017

  141. [149]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 42

    Xiang, D., Wang, X., Lin, W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 42

    2021

  142. [150]

    & Zhang, J.-J

    Xin, Y .-X. & Zhang, J.-J. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 8540, 1

    2016

  143. [151]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 44

    Yoshida, T., Takiwaki, T., Kotake, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 44

    2021

  144. [152]

    2017a, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-515, 1

    Zhang, J., Huang, F., & Wang, X. 2017a, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2017-515, 1

    2017

  145. [153]

    2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9746, 1

    Zhang, J., Xin, Y ., Xiang, D., et al. 2016, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 9746, 1

    2016

Pith tools

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