Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 139 references

Early Shock-Cooling Observations and Progenitor Constraints of Type IIb SN 2024uwq

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Early flash of SN 2024uwq reveals a partially stripped supergiant

desk verdict A new, well-observed Type IIb whose shock-cooling data support a partially stripped progenitor, but the quoted radius range is a model-dependent union, not a single measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02908 v1 pith:IUBBS5DA submitted 2025-05-05 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Bhagya M. Subrayan , David J. Sand , K. Azalee Bostroem , Saurabh W. Jha , Aravind P. Ravi , Michaela Schwab , Jennifer E. Andrews , Griffin Hosseinzadeh
show 21 more authors
Stefano Valenti Yize Dong Jeniveve Pearson Manisha Shrestha Lindsey A. Kwok Emily Hoang Jeonghee Rho Seong Hyun Park Sung-Chul Yoon T. R. Geball Joshua Haislip Daryl Janzen Vladimir Kouprianov Darshana Mehta Nicolás Meza Retamal Daniel E. Reichart Moira Andrews Joseph Farah Megan Newsome D. Andrew Howell Curtis McCully
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR PACS 97.60.Bw
keywords core-collapsesupernovaeTypeIIbshockcoolingemissionstripped-envelopesupernovaprogenitorsbinarymasstransferdouble-peakedlightcurveSN2024uwq
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 SN 2024uwq, a Type IIb supernova in NGC 6902, exploded from a partially stripped blue or yellow supergiant rather than a red supergiant. Its double-peaked light curve shows an early excess that the authors identify as shock-cooling emission from a thin hydrogen envelope, and fitting that excess with three analytic models yields a progenitor radius of $R = 14.6$–$57.1\,R_\odot$ and an envelope mass of $M_{\rm env} = 0.7$–$1.35\,M_\odot$. The spectra support the picture: hydrogen lines fade while helium lines strengthen over weeks, consistent with a modest hydrogen layer over helium-rich ejecta. The paper places SN 2024uwq between compact and extended Type IIb supernovae and argues that binary mass stripping, not single-star winds, best explains the inferred envelope. If correct, the event is a direct probe of how binary mass-transfer efficiency shapes the diversity of stripped-envelope supernova progenitors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the analytic shock-cooling emission model, which connects the early UV/optical excess to the progenitor's radius and envelope mass. The paper applies three variants of this model to the first 3.5 days of multiband photometry, restricting the fits to blackbody temperatures above 0.7 eV where the models are valid. The argument is carried by the combination of that early excess with spectral line evolution: absorption-and-emission (P-Cygni) profiles of H$\alpha$ and He I show the hydrogen envelope thinning as helium-rich ejecta are exposed, and a two-component bolometric light-curve fit anchors the ejecta mass, nickel mass, and kinetic energy.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to catch a similar Type IIb with continuous coverage of the rise to the shock-cooling peak and an independently known explosion time, then fit the same three models: if they fail to converge on a single radius, the analytic shock-cooling interpretation is suspect. A second test is a deep pre-explosion image resolving the supernova site, since a detected progenitor outside the 15 to 57 solar radius range would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the early excess in SN 2024uwq's light curve can be read as a fossil of the progenitor's outer layers. Modeling the first roughly 3.5 days of multiband emission with three analytic shock-cooling frameworks converges on a progenitor with radius between about 15 and 57 solar radii and a hydrogen envelope of order one solar mass, ruling out a canonical red supergiant. The double-peaked light curve, the velocity decline of H$\alpha$ from roughly 15,500 to 10,000 km s$^{-1}$, and the strengthening of He I lines all agree with a partially stripped blue or yellow supergiant. Combining the ejecta mass from a two-component analytic bolometric fit with a neutron-star remnant, the pre-supernova mass is about 4.4 solar masses, pointing to a 12–20 solar mass main-sequence star; because single-star winds cannot shed enough hydrogen at these masses, the paper concludes that binary interaction is the likely stripping agent.

Load-bearing premise

The inference stands or falls on the assumption that the early excess is shock-cooling emission from the progenitor envelope, described by the analytic models, with an explosion epoch taken as the midpoint between a non-detection and discovery, uncertain to about plus or minus 1.5 days.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The progenitor of SN 2024uwq was a partially stripped blue or yellow supergiant, not a red supergiant, adding to evidence that many Type IIb supernovae come from compact, stripped stars.
  • Binary mass transfer, rather than single-star wind mass loss, is the more natural way to produce a roughly one-solar-mass hydrogen envelope on a 12–20 solar mass main-sequence star.
  • SN 2024uwq occupies the gap between compact Type IIb events and extended ones, supporting a continuum of envelope stripping set by binary mass-transfer efficiency.
  • Early UV and optical observations are necessary to resolve shock-cooling phases; without them the progenitor radius and envelope mass constraints are much weaker.
  • The event's ejecta mass of about 3 solar masses, nickel mass of about 0.1 solar masses, and kinetic energy of about $2.75\times10^{51}$ erg agree with the broader stripped-envelope supernova population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the factor-of-four spread between the compact and extended model radii (14.6 versus 57.1 solar radii) is likely a systematic floor for every Type IIb analyzed this way, so population comparisons should quote the model spread rather than a single fit.
  • Editorial inference: a clean test of the binary-stripping story would be a search for a surviving companion star in deep late-time imaging; detecting a blue excess or radial-velocity variation at the supernova site would directly support the binary hypothesis.
  • Editorial inference: if the shock-cooling interpretation is right, then the same early excess should appear in the near-UV for similar events out to roughly 200 Mpc, and wide-field UV surveys should catch several per year with fully sampled rises, allowing the radius-envelope mass plane to be mapped empirically.
  • Editorial inference: the unobserved rise to the first peak is the main observational weakness; an event caught within hours by a high-cadence UV survey would settle whether the analytic models recover the true progenitor radius or are degenerate with the assumed explosion time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents early-time multiwavelength photometry and spectroscopy of the Type IIb supernova SN 2024uwq, combining ATLAS, Las Cumbres, DLT40, and Swift UVOT photometry with FLOYDS, SALT, SOAR, and Gemini-South spectroscopy. The authors identify a double-peaked light curve with an initial excess that they interpret as shock-cooling emission, followed by a radioactive-powered second peak. Spectral evolution shows broad H-alpha decreasing in strength while He I lines strengthen, consistent with a thin hydrogen envelope over helium-rich ejecta. They fit four analytic shock-cooling models (SW17 with n=1.5 and n=3, P21, MSW23) and a two-component Arnett model to infer progenitor properties, obtaining R = 14.6-57.1 R_sun, M_env = 0.7-1.35 M_sun, M_ej ~ 3 M_sun, and M_Ni ~ 0.1 M_sun. From these they argue that the progenitor was a 12-20 M_sun ZAMS blue/yellow supergiant likely stripped by binary interaction, occupying a transitional position between compact and extended Type IIb progenitors. The paper also estimates detectability of similar events with ULTRASAT, UVEX, and LSST.

Significance. If the progenitor constraints hold, SN 2024uwq is a valuable addition to the small sample of Type IIb supernovae with resolved shock-cooling emission and may probe the transition between compact and extended stripped-envelope progenitors. The observational dataset is genuinely strong: UV and optical coverage near the first peak, high-cadence spectra over several weeks, NIR spectroscopy with a plausible CO detection, and careful comparison with literature SNe. The paper also makes constructive use of public fitting packages, which aids reproducibility. However, the quantitative radius constraint is weaker than the abstract implies: the four shock-cooling models yield median radii spanning a factor of about four, and the quoted range is the union of model-specific posteriors rather than a single validated measurement. The enduring value of the paper lies more in the well-characterized transient and its placement in the Type IIb diversity than in a precise progenitor radius.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, Table 2] The headline progenitor-radius constraint R = 14.6-57.1 R_sun is the union of four model-specific posterior intervals (P21: 14.61 +/- 0.36; SW17 n=1.5: 35.71; SW17 n=3: 50.0; MSW23: 57.14 +/- 7.20 R_sun) and is not a single physical measurement. Because the models make different structural assumptions, the factor-of-four spread is a systematic/model uncertainty rather than a statistical one. The abstract's R = 10-60 R_sun and the Section 7 statement that the progenitor is a BSG/YSG with R = 14.6-57.1 R_sun therefore overstate the constraint. Please provide a combined estimate via explicit model weighting or an added systematic term, or rephrase the conclusion as a model-dependent range.
  2. [Section 4.1, Figure 2, Section 6] The rise to the early excess is not observed: Section 4.1 states that 'the rise from first detection to the early excess is poorly constrained' and Figure 2 shows that nearly all bands begin after the excess peak. The shock-cooling fits are therefore anchored only on the declining side of the excess, so the inferred radius depends on each model's extrapolation of the unobserved rising phase. This degeneracy likely contributes to the factor-of-four spread in Table 2. Please demonstrate robustness by excluding the earliest ATLAS-o point and by shifting t0 within the allowed non-detection/discovery window; if the constraints broaden substantially, present the result as a broad range or limit rather than a precise radius.
  3. [Section 4.3 vs Section 6] The validity cut for shock-cooling modeling is stated inconsistently. Section 4.3 says the cut is based on temperatures '>= 8120 K (0.7 eV)', while Section 6 says observations are selected 'where the effective temperature (Teff) is less than 0.7 eV'. Since this criterion determines which photometric points enter the fits, the contradiction is load-bearing. Please correct the typo, state the exact cut, and verify that the fits in Table 2 and Figure 9 use the intended data set.
  4. [Section 6, Table 2] The explosion epoch t0 is assumed as the midpoint of a ~3 day non-detection/discovery gap (MJD 60558.63 +/- 1.5), and the fitted t0 values in Table 2 span MJD 60558.80 to 60560.10. P21's t0 sits near the discovery edge, while the SW17 and MSW23 fits prefer earlier times by about 1-2 days. The fitted radii are entangled with the assumed t0, but the quoted R and M_env ranges do not propagate the +/- 1.5 day t0 uncertainty. Please include a sensitivity check with t0 fixed at the non-detection and discovery extremes, or treat t0 as a nuisance parameter in the quoted credible intervals.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Table 2] The abstract gives R = 10-60 R_sun while Table 2 and Section 7 give R = 14.6-57.1 R_sun; please use one consistent range throughout.
  2. [Section 4.3] The text references 'Equation A3', but the Appendix contains no equations; either include the equation or remove the reference.
  3. [Section 4.3] The fitted shock-cooling end time ts = 4.94+0.042/-0.079 days appears to have the asymmetric errors written in an unusual order and is not clearly defined in the text; please clarify.
  4. [Section 7] The phrase 'The tighter constraints in P21 arise from non-exclusion of intrinsic scatter parameter' is confusing because Table 2 shows no sigma entry for P21; the intended meaning is likely 'non-inclusion'.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says 'Black and grey lines depict two and one component models', but the legend or line styles in the figure are not labeled; please add a clear legend.
  6. [Acknowledgments] The text 'PI: Jah' is likely a typo for 'PI: Jha'; please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: shock-cooling and Arnett analyses use external models, with R, Me, vs, and t0 fitted to new photometry rather than presented as independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that early shock-cooling emission constrains the progenitor of SN 2024uwq to a partially stripped blue/yellow supergiant with R = 14.6–57.1 Rsun and Menv = 0.7–1.35 Msun. These values come from MCMC fits of four external analytic/hydrodynamic models (SW17 with n = 1.5 and n = 3, P21, MSW23) to the observed early multi-band light curves (Section 6, Table 2). Sapir & Waxman (2017), Piro et al. (2021), and Morag et al. (2023) are independent benchmarks constructed from radiative-transfer/hydrodynamic physics, not from SN 2024uwq data and not by this paper's authors. R, Menv, vs, t0, f_rho*M, and sigma are free parameters fit to the data; the paper explicitly states that the ejecta-mass factor is effectively unconstrained, so the fits are honest parameter estimation rather than a disguised prediction. The quoted radius range is the union of four model posteriors, which the paper itself presents as model-dependent spread rather than as a single forced measurement. The authors' own software citations (Hosseinzadeh et al. 2024; Valenti et al. 2016; Bostroem 2024) are used for fitting tools and classification reporting, not as evidence for the progenitor inference, and the load-bearing physics is external and independently reproducible from the cited literature. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, no equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. The paper's caveat that the rise to the early excess is poorly constrained weakens precision but is a robustness limitation, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the external models, and no significant circularity is present.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on fitted parameters (R, M_env, v_s, t0), a set of adopted distance/reddening values, and the validity of external shock-cooling and Arnett models. The paper is transparent about several of these assumptions, notably the unconstrained f_rho M parameter and the lack of pre-explosion imaging.

free parameters (6)
  • Progenitor radius R = 35.71+7.14-5.71 (SW17 n=1.5), 50.0+14.28-8.57 (SW17 n=3), 14.61±0.36 (P21), 57.14±7.20 (MSW23) R_sun
    The central progenitor-radius constraint is a free parameter fitted to the early light curve in four shock-cooling models; the spread across models is the origin of the quoted 14.6-57.1 R_sun range.
  • Envelope mass M_env = 0.7+0.2-0.3 (SW17 n=1.5), 0.8+0.1-0.2 (SW17 n=3), 1.35+1.97-0.87 (P21), 0.7+0.2-0.3 (MSW23) M_sun
    The hydrogen envelope mass, a central claimed result, is fitted to the early light curve, not independently measured.
  • Shock velocity v_s = 0.60+0.3-0.2 (SW17 n=1.5), 0.67+0.3-0.2 (SW17 n=3), 2.02+0.32-0.24 (P21), 0.51+0.4-0.02 (MSW23) 10^4 km/s
    Fitted in each model; P21 gives a much higher value than SW17 and MSW23, contributing to the different progenitor interpretations.
  • Explosion time t0 = 60558.90+0.07-0.18 (SW17 n=1.5), 60558.80+0.1-0.3 (SW17 n=3), 60560.10±0.01 (P21), 60559.30+0.1-0.2 (MSW23) MJD
    Model fits vary t0 within the prior between the ATLAS non-detection and discovery; the adopted a priori t0=60558.63±1.5 is an input assumption.
  • Scaled ejecta mass f_rho M = 50+30-40 (SW17 n=1.5), 60±30 (SW17 n=3), 60±30 (MSW23) M_sun
    Fitted but the paper states it is essentially unconstrained and has little effect on the early shock-cooling light curve.
  • Intrinsic scatter sigma = 6.8+0.9-0.8 (SW17 n=1.5), 7.8+1.2-0.9 (SW17 n=3), 3.4+0.5-0.4 (MSW23)
    A nuisance parameter that inflates photometric uncertainties; it is not included in the P21 fit, which contributes to that model's artificially tight constraints.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The early optical/UV excess is shock-cooling emission from the progenitor envelope, described by the analytic planar/spherical models of SW17, P21, and MSW23.
    The entire progenitor-radius and envelope-mass inference rests on this identification; the models are adopted from the literature and assumed valid for the selected data (Teff >= 0.7 eV).
  • domain assumption Explosion epoch t0 = MJD 60558.63 ± 1.5 is the midpoint between the last ATLAS non-detection and first detection, and the supernova rose monotonically within that window.
    Section 2: t0 is not directly measured; the ±1.5 day window is comparable to the timescale of the shock-cooling decline used in the fits.
  • domain assumption Tully-Fisher distance modulus 33.34 ± 0.40 mag and total reddening E(B-V)=0.034±0.001 mag are correct.
    Luminosities, radii, and masses scale with distance and extinction; Section 2 adopts these values from Tully et al. 2009 and Schlafly & Finkbeiner 2011.
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosity was obtained by fitting blackbody SEDs to photometry interpolated with 5th-8th order polynomials.
    Section 4.3: sparse UV sampling during the rapidly evolving early phase requires interpolation, which can bias the bolometric light curve and the derived temperatures.
  • domain assumption The two-component Arnett model (Valenti et al. 2008; Chatzopoulos et al. 2012) adequately describes the second peak and late-time bolometric light curve of this SN IIb.
    Section 4.3/4.4: the authors note the model struggles beyond 60 days, so the inferred M_ej and M_56Ni depend on this simplified framework.
  • domain assumption The Na I D EW-reddening relation (Poznanski et al. 2012) calibrates host/MW reddening, and host reddening is negligible.
    Section 2: E(B-V)_host < 0.02 mag is an upper limit from a 3-sigma noise level; if host reddening were larger, the inferred luminosities and radii would shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Shock-Cooling Observations and Progenitor Constraints of Type IIb SN 2024uwq." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUBBS5DA

@misc{pith2026250502908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Shock-Cooling Observations and Progenitor Constraints of Type IIb SN 2024uwq},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUBBS5DA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02908}
}
abstract

We present early multi-wavelength photometric and spectroscopic observations of the Type IIb supernova SN 2024uwq, capturing its shock-cooling emission phase and double-peaked light curve evolution. Early spectra reveal broad H-alpha (v ~ 15,500 km s$^{-1}$) and He I P-Cygni profiles of similar strengths. Over time the He I lines increase in strength while the H-alpha decreases, consistent with a hydrogen envelope ($M_{env}$ = 0.7 - 1.35 $M_\odot$ ) overlying helium-rich ejecta. Analytic modeling of early shock cooling emission and bolometric light analysis constrains the progenitor to a partially stripped star with radius R = 10 - 60 $R_\odot$, consistent with a blue/yellow supergiant with an initial ZAMS mass of 12 - 20 $M_\odot$ , likely stripped via binary interaction. SN 2024uwq occupies a transitional position between compact and extended Type IIb supernovae, highlighting the role of binary mass-transfer efficiency in shaping a continuum of stripped-envelope progenitors. Our results underscore the importance of both early UV/optical observations to characterize shock breakout signatures critical to map the diversity in evolutionary pathways of massive stars. Upcoming time domain surveys including Rubin Observatory's LSST and UV missions like ULTRASAT and UVEX will revolutionise our ability to systematically capture these early signatures, probing the full diversity of stripped progenitors and their explosive endpoints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02908 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite gri image of SN 2024uwq obtained using Las Cumbres Observatory observations on September 28, 2024. SN 2024uwq is marked with white cross hairs in the composite image. envelopes (∼ 100-500 R⊙) and low residual hydrogen masses (∼ 0.01-1 M⊙), consistent with pre-explosion imaging of yellow and red supergiants (Tartaglia et al. 2017; Bersten et al. 2018; Kilpatrick et al. 2022). In this Letter, we present a co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multiwavelength observations of SN 2024uwq with early phases of the light curve showing characteristic shock cooling emission from the progenitor. The offsets for each bands are marked in the legend. The time of explosion is marked on the left panel, which zooms in the early light curve evolution. The observations provided in this figure are not corrected for extinction. The grey vertical lines mark the phases where… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Absolute B-band light curve of SN 2024uwq in comparison with Type IIb in the literature, with a zoom in on the earliest phases shown in the inset. Right: Extinction corrected U − B, B − V, g − r and r − i color evolution of SN 2024uwq in comparison to the color evolution of typical Type IIb. We use the relationships prescribed in Jordi et al. (2006) for converting V − R, R − I to g − r and r − i respectively (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Bolometric light curve of SN 2024uwq along with the evolution of temperature and photospheric radius. We also mark in red, the earliest bolometric data whose multi-band observations are used for shock-cooling analysis. Shock Cooling models are valid only for data…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical Spectra of SN 2024uwq showing temporal evolution from +4 days to +64 days, with respect to our assumed explosion epoch of MJD 60558.63. The most prominent lines in the spectra are identified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Multi-epoch spectral evolution of Hα (6563 ˚A), He i (5876 ˚A), and the Ca ii H & K doublet (3969 ˚A), observed between +4 to +64 days. The Hα emis￾sion line profile evolution is strongly affected by He I 6678 line emergence Bottom: Velocity evolution derived from…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Top: a) NIR spectra of SN 2024uwq at +76 days obtained using Gemini F-2. The gray bands mark the regions with high telluric absorptions and emissions. (Bot￾tom: b) The CO first overtone feature of SN 2024uwq (in red) shows strong resemblance to those observed in the T…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the optical spectra of SN 2024uwq at +4 days (top), +20 days (middle) and +46 days (bottom) with other Type IIb. The spectra have been redshift cor￾rected and shifted vertically for clarity. jevic et al. 2013; Tartaglia et al. 2017). The line pro￾files of…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Early-time light curve of SN 2024uwq with shock cooling model fits. Each panel represents the individual shock cooling model. The family of model light curves in each panel represents 50 models randomly sampled from the derived posterior probability distribution in ind…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated ULTRASAT NUV and Swift UVW1 light curves, demonstrating ULTRASAT’s detectability of complete shock cooling emission phases out to 200 Mpc. Photometry was simulated using the SED of SN 2024uwq at each epoch convolved with the respective filter through￾put. Th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ur Physik und Astronomie, Universit\

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    M., & Richmond , M

    Aldering , G., Humphreys , R. M., & Richmond , M. 1994, , 107, 662, 10.1086/116886

    doi:10.1086/116886 1994

  5. [5]

    E., Pearson , J., Hosseinzadeh , G., et al

    Andrews , J. E., Pearson , J., Hosseinzadeh , G., et al. 2024, , 965, 85, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2a49 2024

  6. [6]

    2011, , 742, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L18

    Arcavi , I., Gal-Yam , A., Yaron , O., et al. 2011, , 742, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/L18

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/l18 2011

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    Arcavi , I., Hosseinzadeh , G., Brown , P. J., et al. 2017, , 837, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5be1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5be1 2017

  8. [8]

    E., Rest , A., et al

    Armstrong , P., Tucker , B. E., Rest , A., et al. 2021, , 507, 3125, 10.1093/mnras/stab2138

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2138 2021

Show all 139 references
  1. [9]

    Arnett , W. D. 1982, , 253, 785, 10.1086/159681

    1982 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    1995, , 110, 513

    Barbon , R., Benetti , S., Cappellaro , E., et al. 1995, , 110, 513

    1995

  5. [13]

    C., Benvenuto , O

    Bersten , M. C., Benvenuto , O. G., Nomoto , K., et al. 2012, , 757, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/31

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Folatelli , G., Garc \' a , F., et al

    Bersten , M. C., Folatelli , G., Garc \' a , F., et al. 2018, , 554, 497, 10.1038/nature25151

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Blondin , S., & Tonry , J. L. 2011, SNID: Supernova Identification , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.001

    2011

  8. [16]

    Bostroem , K. A. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-3548, 1

    2024

  9. [17]

    2022, astropy/photutils: 1.6.0 , 1.6.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7419741

    Bradley , L., Sip o cz , B., Robitaille , T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.6.0 , 1.6.0, Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7419741

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Curran , P

    Breeveld , A. A., Curran , P. A., Hoversten , E. A., et al. 2010, , 406, 1687, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16832.x

    2010

  11. [19]

    M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F

    Brown , T. M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F. B., et al. 2013, , 125, 1031, 10.1086/673168

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    2014, , 439, 1807, 10.1093/mnras/stu065

    Bufano , F., Pignata , G., Bersten , M., et al. 2014, , 439, 1807, 10.1093/mnras/stu065

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  14. [22]

    C., & Vinko , J

    Chatzopoulos , E., Wheeler , J. C., & Vinko , J. 2012, , 746, 121, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/121

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    A., & Fransson , C

    Chevalier , R. A., & Fransson , C. 1994, , 420, 268, 10.1086/173557

    1994 doi

  16. [24]

    A., & Soderberg , A

    Chevalier , R. A., & Soderberg , A. M. 2010, , 711, L40, 10.1088/2041-8205/711/1/L40

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    V., Li , W., et al

    Chornock , R., Filippenko , A. V., Li , W., et al. 2011, , 739, 41, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/41

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    Claeys , J. S. W., de Mink , S. E., Pols , O. R., Eldridge , J. J., & Baes , M. 2011, , 528, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015410

    2011 doi

  19. [28]

    M., Still , M., Schellart , P., et al

    Crawford , S. M., Still , M., Schellart , P., et al. 2010 b , in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 25, 10.1117/12.857000

    2010 doi

  20. [29]

    M., Eldridge , J

    Crockett , R. M., Eldridge , J. J., Smartt , S. J., et al. 2008, , 391, L5, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00540.x

    2008

  21. [30]

    K., Kasliwal , M

    Das , K. K., Kasliwal , M. M., Fremling , C., et al. 2023, , 959, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfeeb

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Waldman , R., & Livne , E

    Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., Waldman , R., & Livne , E. 2013, , 433, 1745, 10.1093/mnras/stt861

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    2024, , 974, 316, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad710e

    Dong , Y., Valenti , S., Ashall , C., et al. 2024, , 974, 316, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad710e

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    G., et al

    Eikenberry , S., Bandyopadhyay , R., Bennett , J. G., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 84460I, 10....

    2012 doi

  25. [34]

    S., Elston , R., Raines , S

    Eikenberry , S. S., Elston , R., Raines , S. N., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 1196--1207, 10.1117/12.549796

    2004 doi

  26. [35]

    2014, , 562, A17, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321850

    Ergon , M., Sollerman , J., Fraser , M., et al. 2014, , 562, A17, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321850

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    2015, , 580, A142, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424592

    Ergon , M., Jerkstrand , A., Sollerman , J., et al. 2015, , 580, A142, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424592

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    R., Howell , D

    Farah , J. R., Howell , D. A., Terreran , G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17221, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17221

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    Filippenko , A. V. 1988, , 96, 1941, 10.1086/114940

    1988 doi

  30. [39]

    1997, , 35, 309, 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    ---. 1997, , 35, 309, 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309

    1997 doi

  31. [40]

    V., Matheson , T., & Ho , L

    Filippenko , A. V., Matheson , T., & Ho , L. C. 1993, , 415, L103, 10.1086/187043

    1993 doi

  32. [41]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey , D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  34. [43]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Gal-Yam , A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 195, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_35

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    2004, , 611, 1005, 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels , N., Chincarini , G., Giommi , P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005, 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  36. [45]

    2013, in EAS Publications Series, Vol

    Georgy , C., Ekstr \"o m , S., Saio , H., et al. 2013, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 60, EAS Publications Series, ed. P. Kervella , T. Le Bertre , & G. Perrin , 43--50, 10.1051/eas/1360004

    2013

  37. [46]

    A., Jiang , Y.-F., & Bildsten , L

    Goldberg , J. A., Jiang , Y.-F., & Bildsten , L. 2022, , 933, 164, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e3

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    2013 a , in GRBs and their Hosts as Tracers of the High Redshift Universe, 16

    Groh , J., Meynet , G., Ekstrom , S., & Georgy , C. 2013 a , in GRBs and their Hosts as Tracers of the High Redshift Universe, 16

    2013

  39. [48]

    H., Meynet , G., Ekstr \"o m , S., et al

    Groh , J. H., Meynet , G., Ekstr \"o m , S., et al. 2013 b , in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 60, EAS Publications Series, ed. P. Kervella , T. Le Bertre , & G. Perrin , 51--55, 10.1051/eas/1360005

    2013

  40. [49]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    H., Pfahler , P., Pastorello , A., et al

    Harutyunyan , A. H., Pfahler , P., Pastorello , A., et al. 2008, , 488, 383, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078859

    2008 doi

  42. [51]

    Haynie , A., & Piro , A. L. 2023, , 956, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf844

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    A., Welch , D

    Henden , A. A., Welch , D. L., Terrell , D., & Levine , S. E. 2009, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 214, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#214, 407.02

    2009

  44. [53]

    A., Ben-Ami, T., & Gomez, S

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Bostroem, K. A., Ben-Ami, T., & Gomez, S. 2024, Light Curve Fitting v0.10.0, v0.10.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.11405219

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    2023, , 953, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace4c4

    Hosseinzadeh , G., Farah , J., Shrestha , M., et al. 2023, , 953, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace4c4

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Howell , A. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 232.01

    2024

  47. [56]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  48. [57]

    2024, , 970, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3de8

    Irani , I., Morag , J., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2024, , 970, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3de8

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    2012, , 546, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219528

    Jerkstrand , A., Fransson , C., Maguire , K., et al. 2012, , 546, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219528

    2012 doi

  51. [60]

    K., & Ammon , K

    Jordi , K., Grebel , E. K., & Ammon , K. 2006, , 460, 339, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066082

    2006 doi

  52. [61]

    2010, , 717, 245, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen , D., & Bildsten , L. 2010, , 717, 245, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    2012, , 747, 147, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/147

    Katz , B., Sapir , N., & Waxman , E. 2012, , 747, 147, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/147

    2012 doi

  54. [63]

    D., Coulter , D

    Kilpatrick , C. D., Coulter , D. A., Foley , R. J., et al. 2022, , 936, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8a4c

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    R., Harrison , F

    Kulkarni , S. R., Harrison , F. A., Grefenstette , B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608, 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    2021 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    Landolt , A. U. 1992, , 104, 340, 10.1086/116242

    1992 doi

  57. [66]

    2021, , 656, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    Laplace , E., Justham , S., Renzo , M., et al. 2021, , 656, A58, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    2021 doi

  58. [68]

    2022, , 262, 26, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7ffe

    Long , G., Song , H., Meynet , G., et al. 2022, , 262, 26, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7ffe

    2022 doi

  59. [69]

    D., Bersier , D., James , P

    Lyman , J. D., Bersier , D., James , P. A., et al. 2016, , 457, 328, 10.1093/mnras/stv2983

    2016 doi

  60. [70]

    V., Ho , L

    Matheson , T., Filippenko , A. V., Ho , L. C., Barth , A. J., & Leonard , D. C. 2000, , 120, 1499, 10.1086/301519

    2000 doi

  61. [71]

    D., & McKee , C

    Matzner , C. D., & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 510, 379, 10.1086/306571

    1999 doi

  62. [72]

    R., Fraser , M., Ergon , M., et al

    Maund , J. R., Fraser , M., Ergon , M., et al. 2011, , 739, L37, 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L37

    2011 doi

  63. [73]

    H., Harbeck , D.-R., et al

    McCully , C., Volgenau , N. H., Harbeck , D.-R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V, ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ibsen , 107070K, 10.1117/12.2314340

    2018 doi

  64. [74]

    A., et al

    Meza-Retamal , N., Dong , Y., Bostroem , K. A., et al. 2024, , 971, 141, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d55

    2024 doi

  65. [75]

    M., et al

    Milisavljevic , D., Margutti , R., Soderberg , A. M., et al. 2013, , 767, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/71

    2013 doi

  66. [76]

    P., et al

    Modjaz , M., Blondin , S., Kirshner , R. P., et al. 2014, , 147, 99, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/99

    2014 doi

  67. [77]

    2023, , 522, 2764, 10.1093/mnras/stad899

    Morag , J., Sapir , N., & Waxman , E. 2023, , 522, 2764, 10.1093/mnras/stad899

    2023 doi

  68. [78]

    2014, , 445, 1647, 10.1093/mnras/stu1837

    Morales-Garoffolo , A., Elias-Rosa , N., Benetti , S., et al. 2014, , 445, 1647, 10.1093/mnras/stu1837

    2014 doi

  69. [79]

    2015, , 454, 95, 10.1093/mnras/stv1972

    Morales-Garoffolo , A., Elias-Rosa , N., Bersten , M., et al. 2015, , 454, 95, 10.1093/mnras/stv1972

    2015 doi

  70. [80]

    J., Subrayan , B

    Moriya , T. J., Subrayan , B. M., Milisavljevic , D., & Blinnikov , S. I. 2023, , 75, 634, 10.1093/pasj/psad024

    2023 doi

  71. [81]

    Nakar , E., & Piro , A. L. 2014, , 788, 193, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/193

    2014 doi

  72. [82]

    2010, , 725, 904, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    Nakar , E., & Sari , R. 2010, , 725, 904, 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    2010 doi

  73. [83]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    Nicholl , M. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    2018 doi

  74. [84]

    2017, , 840, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ea9

    Ouchi , R., & Maeda , K. 2017, , 840, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ea9

    2017 doi

  75. [85]

    M., Crockett , R

    Pastorello , A., Kasliwal , M. M., Crockett , R. M., et al. 2008, , 389, 955, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13618.x

    2008

  76. [86]

    2023, , 954, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace595

    Pellegrino , C., Hiramatsu , D., Arcavi , I., et al. 2023, , 954, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace595

    2023 doi

  77. [87]

    Piro , A. L. 2015, , 808, L51, 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L51

    2015 doi

  78. [88]

    L., Haynie , A., & Yao , Y

    Piro , A. L., Haynie , A., & Yao , Y. 2021, , 909, 209, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2b1

    2021 doi

  79. [89]

    2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Podsiadlowski , P. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 391, Hydrogen-Deficient Stars, ed. A. Werner & T. Rauch , 323

    2008

  80. [90]

    X., & Bloom , J

    Poznanski , D., Prochaska , J. X., & Bloom , J. S. 2012, , 426, 1465, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21796.x

    2012

  81. [91]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., G \"u nther , H. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  82. [92]

    2011, , 728, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/63

    Rabinak , I., & Waxman , E. 2011, , 728, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/63

    2011 doi

  83. [93]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-3408, 1

    Ramirez , M., Ayala , B., Dastidar , R., Kumar , A., & Yaron , O. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-3408, 1

    2024

  84. [94]

    J., et al

    Reguitti , A., Pastorello , A., Smartt , S. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.03851, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.03851

    2025 doi arXiv

  85. [95]

    2005, Il Nuovo Cimento C, vol

    Reichart, D., Nysewander, M., Moran, J., et al. 2005, Il Nuovo Cimento C, vol. 28, Issue 4, p.767, 28, 767, 10.1393/ncc/i2005-10149-6

    2005 doi

  86. [96]

    R., Banerjee , D

    Rho , J., Geballe , T. R., Banerjee , D. P. K., et al. 2018, , 864, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad77f

    2018 doi

  87. [97]

    W., Treffers , R

    Richmond , M. W., Treffers , R. R., Filippenko , A. V., et al. 1994, , 107, 1022, 10.1086/116915

    1994 doi

  88. [98]

    S., & Neustadt , J

    Rizzo Smith , M., Kochanek , C. S., & Neustadt , J. M. M. 2023, , 523, 1474, 10.1093/mnras/stad1483

    2023 doi

  89. [99]

    Roming , P. W. A., Kennedy , T. E., Mason , K. O., et al. 2005, , 120, 95, 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  90. [100]

    2011, , 742, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/36

    Sapir , N., Katz , B., & Waxman , E. 2011, , 742, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/36

    2011 doi

  91. [101]

    2013, , 774, 79, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/79

    ---. 2013, , 774, 79, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/79

    2013 doi

  92. [102]

    2017, , 838, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa64df

    Sapir , N., & Waxman , E. 2017, , 838, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa64df

    2017 doi

  93. [103]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  94. [104]

    Y., Ashall , C., et al

    Shahbandeh , M., Hsiao , E. Y., Ashall , C., et al. 2022, , 925, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4030

    2022 doi

  95. [105]

    V., Silverman , J

    Shivvers , I., Filippenko , A. V., Silverman , J. M., et al. 2019, , 482, 1545, 10.1093/mnras/sty2719

    2019 doi

  96. [106]

    2024 a , , 961, 247, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11e1

    Shrestha , M., Pearson , J., Wyatt , S., et al. 2024 a , , 961, 247, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11e1

    2024 doi

  97. [107]

    A., Sand , D

    Shrestha , M., Bostroem , K. A., Sand , D. J., et al. 2024 b , , 972, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6907

    2024 doi

  98. [108]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.05323, 10.48550/arXiv.1610.05323

    Shussman , T., Waldman , R., & Nakar , E. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.05323, 10.48550/arXiv.1610.05323

    2016 doi arXiv

  99. [109]

    2024, , 964, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald , Y., Waxman , E., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2024, , 964, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    2024 doi

  100. [110]

    Smartt , S. J. 2015, , 32, e016, 10.1017/pasa.2015.17

    2015 doi

  101. [111]

    W., Smartt , S

    Smith , K. W., Smartt , S. J., Young , D. R., et al. 2020, , 132, 085002, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    2020 doi

  102. [112]

    P., Nordsieck , K

    Smith , M. P., Nordsieck , K. H., Burgh , E. B., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6269, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye , 62692A, 10.1117/12.672415

    2006 doi

  103. [113]

    2014, , 52, 487, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith , N. 2014, , 52, 487, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    2014 doi

  104. [115]

    M., Margutti , R., Zauderer , B

    Soderberg , A. M., Margutti , R., Zauderer , B. A., et al. 2012, , 752, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/78

    2012 doi

  105. [116]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.01388

    Soker , N. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.01388. 1709.01388

    2017 arXiv

  106. [117]

    2020, , 903, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d5

    Sravan , N., Marchant , P., Kalogera , V., Milisavljevic , D., & Margutti , R. 2020, , 903, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d5

    2020 doi

  107. [118]

    E., Brown , J

    Sukhbold , T., Ertl , T., Woosley , S. E., Brown , J. M., & Janka , H. T. 2016, , 821, 38, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  108. [119]

    E., & Heger , A

    Sukhbold , T., Woosley , S. E., & Heger , A. 2018, , 860, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2da

    2018 doi

  109. [120]

    D., Bersten , M., et al

    Taddia , F., Stritzinger , M. D., Bersten , M., et al. 2018, , 609, A136, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730844

    2018 doi

  110. [121]

    J., et al

    Tartaglia , L., Fraser , M., Sand , D. J., et al. 2017, , 836, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5c7f

    2017 doi

  111. [122]

    J., Valenti , S., et al

    Tartaglia , L., Sand , D. J., Valenti , S., et al. 2018, , 853, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa014

    2018 doi

  112. [123]

    I., et al

    Taubenberger , S., Navasardyan , H., Maurer , J. I., et al. 2011, , 413, 2140, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18287.x

    2011

  113. [124]

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

    Tody , D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford , 733, 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  114. [125]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

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

    1993

  115. [126]

    2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-3352, 1

    Tonry , J., Denneau , L., Weiland , H., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-3352, 1

    2024

  116. [127]

    L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A

    Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A. N., et al. 2018, , 130, 064505, 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  117. [128]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Torres-Robledo , S., Brice \ n o , C., Quint , B., & Sanmartim , D. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 522, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. Ballester , J. Ibsen , M. Solar , & K. Shortridge , 533

    2020

  118. [129]

    B., Rizzi , L., Shaya , E

    Tully , R. B., Rizzi , L., Shaya , E. J., et al. 2009, , 138, 323, 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/323

    2009 doi

  119. [130]

    2008, , 383, 1485, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12647.x

    Valenti , S., Benetti , S., Cappellaro , E., et al. 2008, , 383, 1485, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12647.x

    2008

  120. [131]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 101, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt171

    Valenti, S., Sand, D., Pastorello, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 101, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt171

    2014 doi

  121. [132]

    A., Stritzinger , M

    Valenti , S., Howell , D. A., Stritzinger , M. D., et al. 2016, , 459, 3939, 10.1093/mnras/stw870

    2016 doi

  122. [134]

    2014 b , , 147, 37, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/2/37

    ---. 2014 b , , 147, 37, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/2/37

    2014 doi

  123. [135]

    2021, , 916, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b42

    Vartanyan , D., Laplace , E., Renzo , M., et al. 2021, , 916, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b42

    2021 doi

  124. [136]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 33, 10.3847/2515-5172/ad2265

    Venkatraman , P., & Jacobson-Gal \'a n , W. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 33, 10.3847/2515-5172/ad2265

    2024 doi

  125. [137]

    S., Muijres , L

    Vink , J. S., Muijres , L. E., Anthonisse , B., et al. 2011, , 531, A132, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116614

    2011 doi

  126. [138]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  127. [139]

    Woosley , S. E. 2010, , 719, L204, 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204

    2010 doi

  128. [140]

    E., Eastman , R

    Woosley , S. E., Eastman , R. G., Weaver , T. A., & Pinto , P. A. 1994, , 429, 300, 10.1086/174319

    1994 doi

  129. [141]

    E., Langer , N., & Weaver , T

    Woosley , S. E., Langer , N., & Weaver , T. A. 1993, , 411, 823, 10.1086/172886

    1993 doi

  130. [142]

    2012, , 124, 668, 10.1086/666656

    Yaron , O., & Gal-Yam , A. 2012, , 124, 668, 10.1086/666656

    2012 doi

  131. [143]

    2017, , 840, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afe

    Yoon , S.-C., Dessart , L., & Clocchiatti , A. 2017, , 840, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afe

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.