Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Common Origin of Normal Type Ia Supernovae Suggested by the Photometric Diversity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that all normal Type Ia supernovae share a single explosion channel: thin-helium double detonation.

desk verdict Useful empirical compilation, but the unified thin-He DDet origin claim is qualitative and patched, not yet tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15609 v1 pith:IS72JW44 submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Weiyu Wu , Ji-an Jiang , Dezheng Meng , Zelin Xu , Keiichi Maeda , Mamoru Doi , Ken'ichi Nomoto , Naoki Yasuda
show 11 more authors
Masaomi Tanaka Toshikazu Shigeyama Nozomu Tominaga Željko Ivezić Peter Yoachim Saurabh W. Jha Tinggui Wang Nao Suzuki Hisanori Furusawa Andrew J. Connolly Satoshi Miyazaki
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords typeIasupernovaeearlyexcessemissionthin-heliumdoubledetonationwhitedwarfprogenitorsrisetimecolorevolutionviewingangleeffectphotometricdiversity
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 assembles 67 early-phase normal Type Ia supernovae and finds that the 15 events with early excess emission rise more slowly, peak brighter, and show 'tiny red-bump' or 'blue-plateau' early $B-V$ colors, while the rest evolve blueward from the start. It argues that this spread is not evidence for several explosion channels. Under the thin-helium double-detonation scenario, varying the white-dwarf core mass and helium-shell mass while changing the viewing angle can phenomenologically produce the full range of early light-curve behavior. If that is right, normal SNe Ia share one explosion mechanism, and early photometric diversity becomes a readable map of progenitor structure and orientation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the thin-helium double-detonation (DDet) scenario, together with the viewing-angle effect. In this picture a white dwarf with a thin helium shell ($\lesssim 0.02\,M_\odot$) detonates that shell, and the inward shock triggers a carbon detonation in the core; the amount and distribution of $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$ and the opacity and ionization added by helium-shell products depend on core mass, shell mass, and which side faces the observer. That single mechanism is what the paper uses to turn the observed early-excess/non-excess split, rise-time spread, peak-luminosity spread, and $B-V$ color behaviors into one continuous family.

What would settle it

Build a volume-complete, high-cadence sample of normal Type Ia supernovae caught before about $-15.5$ mag and count the early-excess fraction while measuring rise time, peak magnitude, and early $B-V$ color. If the unbiased excess fraction is far below the near-half found at $z<0.01$, or if any clear early-excess object has a short rise, faint peak, or purely blue early color, the proposed common thin-helium double-detonation origin fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is empirical plus interpretive. Empirically, in a sample of 67 early-phase normal SNe Ia, every event classified as having early excess lies in the same region of parameter space: longer rise time, brighter peak magnitude, and early color behavior that includes a red bump or a blue plateau, whereas non-excess events are fainter, faster, and monotonically blue. Interpretively, the paper proposes that this dichotomy and the continuum around it are produced by the thin-helium double-detonation mechanism, with more massive white dwarfs and thinner helium shells generating more surface $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$ and hence blue excess, thicker shells producing fainter fast helium-detonation excesses that look like non-excess events, and the viewing angle spreading the observed color and rise-time properties.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the split between supernovae with an early bump of extra light and those that rise smoothly is a real astrophysical difference, not mostly an artifact of which events got published and observed early.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The early-excess versus non-excess split among normal SNe Ia would be a continuous envelope set by white-dwarf mass, helium-shell mass, and viewing angle, not separate explosion channels.
  • Early $B-V$ evolution would become a diagnostic: a red bump or blue plateau signals thin-He-shell double-detonation products near the ejecta surface, while monotonic blueward evolution marks the opposite viewing condition.
  • Brighter, slower-rising early-excess events would be the more massive white dwarfs with thinner helium shells, so rise time and peak brightness encode progenitor mass.
  • If ejecta are asymmetric and peak magnitude is viewing-angle dependent, distance measurements with SNe Ia would carry a small orientation-dependent scatter.
  • Unbiased high-cadence surveys and real-time follow-up would test the common-origin prediction by measuring the true EEx fraction and the spectral signatures of double detonation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-50% excess fraction measured locally survives in a volume-complete sample, the practical implication is that every normal Type Ia supernova caught early enough shows some excess, and 'non-EEx' is just the faint end of the same continuous distribution.
  • The orientation picture predicts measurable spectral asymmetries, such as viewing-angle-dependent line velocities or polarization, that could be searched for in nebular-phase or polarimetric observations.
  • A testable correlation should link the strength of the early red bump with the amount of surface $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$ inferred from late-time light curves; companion-shock or generic circumstellar-matter excess models would not naturally produce that correlation.
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 compiles a sample of 67 early-phase normal Type Ia supernovae from the literature and from ZTF, ATLAS, and MUSSES surveys, classifies 15 of them as having early-excess (EEx) emission, and reports that EEx SNe Ia have longer rise times and brighter peak magnitudes than non-EEx SNe Ia. It also finds that EEx SNe Ia show either a 'tiny red bump' or a 'blue plateau' in early B-V color, while non-EEx SNe Ia show monotonically blueward color evolution. The authors then propose that the thin-helium double-detonation (DDet) scenario, with varying white dwarf core mass, helium shell mass, and viewing angle, can phenomenologically explain these photometric diversities and thus imply a unified explosion mechanism for normal SNe Ia.

Significance. The compiled sample of 67 early-phase normal SNe Ia is a useful observational resource, and the empirical correlations between early excess, rise time, peak brightness, and early color are interesting. The paper is also candid about acknowledged limitations, including possible publication bias in the low-z subsample and the omission of K-corrections. However, the central theoretical claim — that thin-helium DDet explains the observed diversities — is not quantitatively tested: no synthetic light curves or color curves are compared with the observations, and the proposed surface 56Ni ionization source is introduced ad hoc. If the DDet common-origin claim could be supported with quantitative predictions, the significance would be high; as it stands, the paper provides a plausible hypothesis rather than a demonstrated explanation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The central claim that the thin-helium DDet scenario 'can phenomenologically explain' the photometric diversities is not quantitatively tested. The paper acknowledges that He-detonation products predict a red B-V bump as large as about 2 mag, while the observed EEx SNe Ia show B-V peaks ≲0.7 mag or blue plateaus (Figure 3). The proposed remedy — an additional source of ionization from surface 56Ni — is introduced without any calculation showing that the combined model reproduces the observed color curves, nor are synthetic light curves compared with the rise-time and peak-brightness data in Figure 2. With the free parameters (WD mass, He-shell mass, viewing angle, and the new ionization source), the scenario is not currently falsifiable. To support the unified-origin claim, the authors need to show that a specific DDet model with specific parameters yields the observed distributions and color morphologies, or they should clearly reframe the section as a speculative hypothesis rather than an explanation.
  2. [Sections 3.1 and 3.2] The classification of SNe as EEx and the measurement of their rise times use the same power-law-plus-Gaussian fitting procedure. For EEx SNe, the addition of a Gaussian component will generally prolong the effective rise to a given magnitude relative to a single power-law fit, so part of the reported 'EEx SNe have longer rise times' could be built into the method rather than being an independent observed property. The authors should test the robustness of the correlation by using an independent rise-time estimator (e.g., fitting both classes with the same functional form applied only to the late rising phase, or using a physical light-curve model), and should show the results after removing the two reclassified objects, SN 2013dy and SN 2018aoz, from the sample.
  3. [Sections 2.1 and 3.1] The empirical foundation is weakened by a likely selection effect: all 15 EEx SNe Ia appear to come from the literature sample or MUSSES, while the 24 ZTF/ATLAS survey SNe are reported as showing no early excess. Since literature selection favors peculiar or well-publicized objects, the EEx fraction and the differences in rise time and brightness could be substantially inflated. The paper acknowledges this possibility (Section 3.1) but does not quantify it. The authors should provide a systematic comparison using a well-defined survey subsample with uniform cadence and depth (e.g., the ZTF Bright Transient Survey) and state the EEx fraction and the property differences in that subsample. If the differences do not persist there, the observational basis for the DDet interpretation would be weakened.
  4. [Section 3.3] The color analysis rests on only 22 objects, and the classification of color morphologies ('tiny red-bump', 'blue plateau') is not defined quantitatively. The claim that EEx SNe Ia 'generously show blue–red–blue or continuous blue evolution' needs a reproducible metric — for example, the amplitude and timing of any B-V maximum relative to tm(-13), or the B-V slope over a fixed early epoch — with uncertainties. Without such a definition, the color-morphology difference between EEx and non-EEx SNe Ia is difficult to assess and the connection to the surface 56Ni scenario remains qualitative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'The ratio between EExSNe Ia and non-EExSNe Ia of 17 SNe Ia at z <0.01 ... is almost the same' is confusing; the authors seem to mean that the fractions are comparable. Please rephrase and give the actual numbers.
  2. [Section 4.2] The word 'adsorptions' in the discussion of He-detonation products should be 'absorptions'.
  3. [Table 1] The EEx column is left blank for several rows (e.g., LSQ12gpw, PTF10accd, MUSSES2022S, MUSSES2022T, and various ZTF rows). Please ensure every row has an explicit 'Y' or 'N' entry, and check that the total number of 'Y' entries equals the stated 15 EEx SNe.
  4. [Section 3.2] The text says 'lmf it' for the lmfit package; please correct the typo.
  5. [Figure A1] The caption states that power-law fitting indices of non-EExSNe Ia are shown; please clarify whether the indices for EExSNe Ia are also displayed and, if not, why they are omitted.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The longer-rise-time half of the headline EEx correlation reduces by construction to the same power-law-plus-Gaussian fit used to define EEx; the peak-brightness and color results remain independent, so the circularity is partial.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (EEx definition), Section 3.2 (rise-time fitting), and Figure 2 result]
    "Following the definition from Jiang et al. (2018), an early-phase normal SNe Ia with additional excess emissions compared to a smooth rise is defined as an EExSN Ia in this paper. ... residuals of two consecutive detections in the same band are both non-zero, with at least one residual exceeding 2% of the peak flux, an additional Gaussian component is applied to fit extra emissions in the early rising phase of EExSNe Ia. ... for EExSNe Ia, an additional Gaussian component was used to fit EEx feature. ..."

    EEx is defined as an excess over a smooth power-law rise, and the rise time Delta-t_m(-13) is measured from a fit that includes a positive Gaussian component for EEx objects but only a power law for non-EEx objects. Adding this Gaussian to the early rise moves the fitted model's -13 mag crossing earlier relative to peak, mechanically increasing Delta-t_m(-13). The reported 'EEx have longer rise time' is therefore an analytical consequence of the classification/fitting procedure rather than an independently measured property; the brighter-peak and early-color correlations are not affected by this step.

full rationale

The paper's direct photometric findings on peak brightness and early B-V color are based on data and external SALT2/literature values, and they are not circular. The proposed thin-He double-detonation common origin is explicitly qualitative and, as the authors admit in Section 4.2, the predicted B-V red bump (~2 mag) is far larger than observed and is patched by postulating surface 56Ni without a quantitative model; that is an evidential weakness, not circularity. The main circular element is the rise-time half of the central observational claim: EEx is defined by an excess above a power-law rise, and the same power-law-plus-Gaussian fit is then used to derive Delta-t_m(-13), so the systematically longer rise times of EEx SNe are partly imposed by construction. Self-citations to Jiang et al. and Maeda et al. are frequent but not load-bearing here, since the DDet trends are also tied to independent simulations by Shen et al. (2021b) and Boos et al. (2021). Overall the paper has independent content but one central 'prediction' reduces by construction; score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central interpretive claim rests on several fitted parameters (light-curve shapes) and on assumptions about DDet geometry, the core-mass/He-shell-mass trend, sample representativeness, and the power-law rise model. The added surface-56Ni ionization is an ad hoc ingredient with no independent evidence in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • Power-law rise index alpha = fitted per object, range 1-3
    Used in F=k(t-t0)^alpha to model the pre-peak rise, classify EEx by residuals, and derive tm(-13).
  • Gaussian bump parameters for EEx SNe = fitted per EEx object
    Amplitude, width, and epoch of the additional Gaussian component used to fit early excesses and to measure rise times of EEx SNe.
  • Thin He-shell mass = <=0.02 Msun (assumed)
    Assumed in Section 4.2 to produce reasonable MB,max for normal SNe Ia; not measured in this paper.
  • WD core mass / 56Ni yield = ~1.1 Msun, 0.75-0.76 Msun from Shen et al. 2021
    Input from prior simulations used to argue that massive WDs with thin He shells produce blue EEx from surface 56Ni decay.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The He-shell double detonation ignites at the north pole and the core detonation is triggered near the south pole, producing an asymmetric 56Ni distribution.
    Central to the viewing-angle explanation in Section 4.2 and Figure 4; taken from Leung & Nomoto (2020), Boos et al. (2021).
  • domain assumption More massive WD cores have thinner He shells at detonation initiation.
    Used to link core mass to the balance between He-ash-powered and 56Ni-powered EEx (Section 4.2); from Bildsten et al. (2007) and Iwata & Maeda (2022).
  • domain assumption The early-phase sample is representative enough that the EEx vs non-EEx dichotomy is not dominated by selection effects.
    The paper acknowledges publication bias toward peculiar SNe in the local sample (Section 3.1) yet builds its central dichotomy and interpretation on this sample.
  • ad hoc to paper A single power law F=k(t-t0)^alpha with 1<alpha<3 describes the non-EEx rise.
    Chosen for fitting in Section 3.2; the prior range is an assumption, and the EEx classification depends on residuals from this model.
  • domain assumption K-corrections are negligible for the early color analysis.
    The paper states K-corrections are not applied (Section 2.1); the color sample is low redshift but no quantitative check is given.
invented entities (1)
  • Surface 56Ni ionization source
    purpose: Suppress the predicted strong red bump (B-V ~ 2) and produce the observed tiny red-bump or blue-plateau color evolution of EEx SNe Ia.
    Introduced ad hoc in Section 4.2 to reconcile He-shell DDet predictions with observed colors; no direct evidence for surface 56Ni in these objects is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Common Origin of Normal Type Ia Supernovae Suggested by the Photometric Diversity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IS72JW44

@misc{pith2026250715609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Common Origin of Normal Type Ia Supernovae Suggested by the Photometric Diversity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IS72JW44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15609}
}
abstract

In recent years, with an increasing number of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) discovered soon after their explosions, a non-negligible fraction of SNe Ia with early-excess emissions (EExSNe Ia) have been confirmed. In this letter, we present a total of \textbf{67} early-phase normal SNe Ia from published papers and ongoing transient survey projects to systematically investigate their photometric behaviors from very early time. We found that EExSNe Ia in our sample have longer rise and brighter peak luminosities compared to those of non-EExSNe Ia. Moreover, EExSNe Ia commonly have ``red-bump" features in the early $B-V$ color while non-EExSNe Ia show blueward evolution from the very beginning. Here, we propose that the thin-helium double-detonation scenario can phenomenologically explain the photometric diversities of normal SNe Ia considering different white dwarf-He-shell mass combinations and the viewing-angle effect, implying a unified explosion mechanism of normal-type SNe Ia. To further testify the possible common origin of normal SNe Ia, systematical studies of multiband photometric and spectral properties of early-phase SNe Ia through the new generation wide-field time-domain survey facilities and global real-time follow-up networks are highly demanded.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15609 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rising light curves of 54 early-phase normal SNe Ia in either of B, g, and r bands. EExSN Ia and non-EExSN Ia samples are shown in left and right columns respectively. SN 2013dy and SN 2018aoz are denoted by open symbols. Note that comparisons with the other 13 SNe Ia that only have early-phase light curves in broader bands (e.g., clear and LSQgr, Firth et al. (2015)) are not applied due to the likely dilution of po… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The B-band peak absolute magnitude (MB,max) versus ∆m15(B) and ∆tm(−13) of normal SNe Ia at z < 0.03. EExSNe Ia are denoted by circles. MB,max of 3 ATLAS (SN 2017eck, SN 2021ujx, SN 2022wpy) and 8 ZTF discovered non￾EExSNe Ia are derived from SALT2 fitting. Grey dashed lines correspond to specific values of ∆tm(−13), MB,max and ∆m15(B) that separate our EExSN Ia and non-EExSN Ia samples into different quadrants. It … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Early B − V color evolution of 22 normal SNe Ia. Symbols are same with those used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic diagram of the spatial position distribution of early-phase SNe Ia during the explosion within the progenitor system, with key points labeled for orientation. The circle represents the explosion site, with the North and South directions marked. The He shell d…

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. A double-degenerate scenario with a merger to explosion delay time to explain type Ia supernova SN 2020aeuh

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The author proposes that SN 2020aeuh's early carbon-oxygen circumstellar interaction is the delayed explosion of a merged white dwarf, about one to two years after the merger.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S4

    Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S4

    2018

  2. [2]

    2010, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for

    Axelrod, T., Kantor, J., Lupton, R., & Pierfederici, F. 2010, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for

    2010

  3. [3]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 112

    2006

  4. [4]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  5. [5]

    J., Weinberg, N

    Bildsten, L., Shen, K. J., Weinberg, N. N., & Nelemans, G. 2007, ApJL, 662, L95, doi: 10.1086/519489

    doi:10.1086/519489 2007

  6. [6]

    Blondin, S., & Tonry, J. L. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 666, 1024

    2007

  7. [7]

    Blondin, S., & Tonry, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1024, doi: 10.1086/520494

    doi:10.1086/520494 2007

  8. [8]

    P., et al

    Blondin, S., Matheson, T., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 126

    2012

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Miles, B. J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 126

    2021

  2. [10]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S5

    Bosch, J., Armstrong, R., Bickerton, S., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, S5

    2018

  3. [11]

    C., Hall, N., et al

    Branch, D., Dang, L. C., Hall, N., et al. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 560

    2006

  4. [12]

    J., Hosseinzadeh, G., Jha, S

    Brown, P. J., Hosseinzadeh, G., Jha, S. W., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a3f

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Yao, Y., et al

    Bulla, M., Miller, A. A., Yao, Y., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 48

    2020

  6. [14]

    A., Sand, D

    Burke, J., Howell, D. A., Sand, D. J., et al. 2022a, Early Lightcurves of Type Ia Supernovae are Consistent with Nondegenerate Progenitor Companions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.07681 —. 2022b, Early Lightcurves of Type Ia Supernovae are Consistent with Nondegenerate Progenitor...

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    E., et al

    Cartier, R., Sullivan, M., Firth, R. E., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 4476–4494, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2678

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    R., et al

    Deckers, M., Maguire, K., Magee, M. R., et al. 2022b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 1317–1340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac558

    doi

  9. [17]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4414

    Deckers, M., Graur, O., Maguire, K., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4414

    2023

  10. [18]

    M., Vallely, P

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Vallely, P. J., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2023, Four years of Type Ia Supernovae Observed by TESS: Early Time Light Curve Shapes and Constraints on Companion Interaction Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11815

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2016, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 592, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628351

    Ferretti, R., Amanullah, R., Goobar, A., et al. 2016, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 592, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628351

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 3895

    Firth, R., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 3895

    2015

  13. [21]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  14. [22]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 466, 11

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 466, 11

    2007

  15. [23]

    A., Sullivan, M., et al

    Hachinger, S., Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 2228–2248, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts492

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    E., et al

    Han, X., Zheng, W., Stahl, B. E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 142

    2020

  17. [25]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 331

    Hicken, M., Challis, P., Jha, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 331

    2009

  18. [26]

    D., Shappee, B

    Holmbo, S., Stritzinger, M. D., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2019, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 627, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834389

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 157

    Hu, L., Wang, L., Chen, X., & Yang, J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 157

    2022

  20. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111

    2007

  21. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca013 —

    Iwata, K., & Maeda, K. 2022, ApJ, 941, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca013 —. 2024, PhRvL, 133, 121201, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.121201

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 149

    Jiang, J.-a., Doi, M., Maeda, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 149

    2018

  23. [31]

    2017, Nature, 550, 80

    Jiang, J.-a., Doi, M., Maeda, K., et al. 2017, Nature, 550, 80

    2017

  24. [32]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cb

    Jiang, J.-a., Yasuda, N., Maeda, K., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 892, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab76cb

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L8

    Jiang, J.-a., Maeda, K., Kawabata, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L8

    2021

  26. [34]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 933, L36

    Jiang, J.-a., Yasuda, N., Maeda, K., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 933, L36

    2022

  27. [35]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 53

    Jordan, G., Graziani, C., Fisher, R., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 53

    2012

  28. [36]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 1025 15

    Kasen, D. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 1025 15

    2009

  29. [37]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8236

    Kawabata, M., Maeda, K., Yamanaka, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8236

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1067

    Kromer, M., Sim, S., Fink, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1067

    2010

  31. [39]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 67, 54

    Kutsuna, M., & Shigeyama, T. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 67, 54

    2015

  32. [40]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9c1

    Leung, S.-C., Diehl, R., Nomoto, K., & Siegert, T. 2021, ApJ, 909, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9c1

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c1f

    Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2020, ApJ, 888, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c1f

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec74

    Li, W., Wang, X., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec74

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Lim, G., Im, M., Paek, G. S. H., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc10c

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, Early-Time Observations of SN 2023wrk: A Luminous Type Ia Supernova with Significant Unburned Carbon in the Outer Ejecta

    Liu, J., Wang, X., Andrade, C., et al. 2024, Early-Time Observations of SN 2023wrk: A Luminous Type Ia Supernova with Significant Unburned Carbon in the Outer Ejecta. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15768

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

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

    2023

  38. [46]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 78

    Maeda, K., Jiang, J.-a., Shigeyama, T., & Doi, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 78

    2018

  39. [47]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 3075, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18381.x

    Maeda, K., Leloudas, G., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 3075, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18381.x

    2011

  40. [48]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 634, A37

    Magee, M., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 634, A37

    2020

  41. [49]

    A., Schlafly, E., Finkbeiner, D., et al

    Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E., Finkbeiner, D., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 205, 20, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/205/2/20

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    H., Vinko, J., Wheeler, J

    Marion, G. H., Vinko, J., Wheeler, J. C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 777, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/777/1/40

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    H., Brown, P

    Marion, G. H., Brown, P. J., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 92, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/92

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, A New Forced Photometry Service for the Zwicky Transient Facility. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16279

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 47

    Miller, A., Yao, Y., Bulla, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 47

    2020

  46. [54]

    A., Cao, Y., Piro, A

    Miller, A. A., Cao, Y., Piro, A. L., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa01f

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    B., et al

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., et al. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl

    2016

  48. [56]

    2023, Zenodo

    Newville, M., Otten, R., Nelson, A., et al. 2023, Zenodo

    2023

  49. [57]

    Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M

    Ni, Y. Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2022a, Nature Astronomy, 6, 568 —. 2022b, Nature Astronomy, 6, 568–576, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01603-4

    doi

  50. [58]

    2018, SSRv, 214, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0499-0

    Nomoto, K., & Leung, S.-C. 2018, SSRv, 214, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0499-0

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Kromer, M., et al

    Pan, Y.-C., Foley, R. J., Kromer, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 4307–4325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1605

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 376, 1301

    Pastorello, A., Taubenberger, S., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 376, 1301

    2007

  53. [61]

    1997, The astrophysical journal, 483, 565

    Perlmutter, S., Gabi, S., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1997, The astrophysical journal, 483, 565

    1997

  54. [62]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565

    1999

  55. [63]

    L., & Morozova, V

    Piro, A. L., & Morozova, V. S. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 96

    2016

  56. [64]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 84

    Polin, A., Nugent, P., & Kasen, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 84

    2019

  57. [65]

    Reinecke, M., Hillebrandt, W., & Niemeyer, J. C. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 391, 1167

    2002

  58. [66]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, The astronomical journal, 116, 1009

    1998

  59. [67]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33

    2013

  60. [68]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 3541–3558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1525

    Sai, H., Wang, X., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 3541–3558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1525

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 525

    1998

  62. [70]

    J., Boos, S

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., Townsley, D. M., & Kasen, D. 2021a, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 68 —. 2021b, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2304

    doi

  63. [71]

    J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

    Shen, K. J., Kasen, D., Miles, B. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 52

    2018

  64. [72]

    2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

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

    2021

  65. [73]

    E., Zheng, W., de Jaeger, T., et al

    Stahl, B. E., Zheng, W., de Jaeger, T., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3882

    2019

  66. [74]

    D., Shappee, B

    Stritzinger, M. D., Shappee, B. J., Piro, A. L., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 864, L35

    2018

  67. [75]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 90

    Tanikawa, A., Nomoto, K., & Nakasato, N. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 90

    2018

  68. [76]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 103

    Tanikawa, A., Nomoto, K., Nakasato, N., & Maeda, K. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 103

    2019

  69. [77]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/99 16 Wu et al

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    E., et al

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

    2020

  71. [79]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c84

    Wang, Q., Rest, A., Zenati, Y., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c84

    2021 doi

  72. [80]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 17

    Wang, Q., Rest, A., Dimitriadis, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 17

    2024

  73. [81]

    2023, Science China

    Wang, T., Liu, G., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, Science China

    2023

  74. [82]

    Physics, Mechanics &amp; Astronomy, 66, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    doi

  75. [83]

    Wee, J., Chakraborty, N., Wang, J., & Penprase, B. E. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacd4e

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    C., Kotak, R., Lundqvist, P., et al

    Williams, S. C., Kotak, R., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2024, Observations of type Ia supernova SN 2020nlb up to 600 days after explosion, and the distance to M85. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08759

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba759

    Yang, Y.., Hoeflich, P., Baade, D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba759

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    A., Kulkarni, S., et al

    Yao, Y., Miller, A. A., Kulkarni, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 152

    2019

  79. [87]

    2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 74

    Yasuda, N., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 74

    2019

  80. [88]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e9c

    Zeng, X., Wang, X., Esamdin, A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e9c

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/125

    Zhai, Q., Zhang, J.-J., Wang, X.-F., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 125, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/125

    2016 doi

  82. [90]

    2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/1

    Zhang, J.-J., Wang, X.-F., Bai, J.-M., et al. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/1

    2014 doi

  83. [91]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 67, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/67

    Zhang, K., Wang, X., Zhang, J., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 67, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/67

    2016 doi

  84. [92]

    M., Filippenko, A

    Zheng, W., Silverman, J. M., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 778, L15 17 Figure A1. Rising light-curve fittings of 38 early-phase normal SNe Ia at z <0.03. Light curves of 11 EExSNe Ia are shown in blue. Power-law fitting indices of non-EExSN...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.