pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16487 · v1 · pith:KSWNS6K4new · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

The pair-instability origin of supernova 2023vbw

Daichi Hiramatsu , Edo Berger , Daichi Tsuna , Sebastian Gomez , Harsh Kumar , Peter K. Blanchard , Walter W. Golay , Anya E. Nugent
show 13 more authors
Takashi J. Moriya D. Andrew Howell Alexei V. Filippenko Thomas G. Brink WeiKang Zheng Yi Yang Moira Andrews K. Azalee Bostroem Joseph Farah Curtis McCully Megan Newsome Estefania Padilla Gonzalez Giacomo Terreran
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 15:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords pair-instability supernovasupernova 2023vbwlight curve modelingmassive starslow metallicityblue supergiantejecta massradioactive nickel
0
0 comments X

The pith

Supernova 2023vbw originates from a pair-instability explosion of a 170-350 solar mass blue supergiant progenitor.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses detailed observations of the hydrogen-rich supernova 2023vbw in a low-metallicity dwarf galaxy to argue that its luminous and extended light curve arises from a pair-instability supernova. Semi-analytical modeling reproduces the data with an ejecta mass of 170-350 solar masses, 1.2-1.6 solar masses of radioactive nickel, and an explosion energy of 6-13 times 10 to the 52 erg. These values fall squarely inside theoretical ranges for pair-instability events that fully disrupt stars with initial masses of roughly 140-260 solar masses. A reader would care because the result supplies a concrete example of how the most massive stars can end their lives in low-metallicity settings, releasing more than ten times the energy of ordinary core-collapse supernovae.

Core claim

Semi-analytical light-curve modeling of supernova 2023vbw yields a blue supergiant-like progenitor with an ejecta mass of 170-350 solar masses, a radioactive nickel mass of 1.2-1.6 solar masses, and an explosion energy of (6-13) times 10 to the 52 erg. These parameters are well matched by pair-instability supernova models, while the early and late light curve and spectra also indicate interaction with an aspherical circumstellar medium.

What carries the argument

Semi-analytical light-curve modeling that fits the observed peak luminosity of 1.6 times 10 to the 43 erg per second, 190-day duration, and total radiated energy of 3 times 10 to the 50 erg to derive progenitor and explosion parameters.

If this is right

  • The event supplies one of the clearest observational matches to predicted pair-instability supernovae from stars in the 140-260 solar mass range.
  • The total radiated energy exceeds that of canonical core-collapse supernovae by more than an order of magnitude.
  • The low-metallicity environment and hydrogen-rich ejecta align with theoretical expectations for pair-instability events at roughly 0.1 solar metallicity.
  • Upcoming surveys with the Rubin Observatory and Roman Space Telescope are expected to discover additional members of this class.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the fit holds, it suggests pair-instability explosions can retain hydrogen envelopes, broadening the expected observational signatures beyond fully stripped progenitors.
  • Similar events could link to the upper end of the initial mass function and help calibrate mass-loss rates in metal-poor galaxies.
  • Polarimetric or multi-wavelength follow-up could separate the aspherical interaction component from the underlying explosion to test the modeling assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The observed luminosity and duration are powered mainly by the pair-instability explosion plus radioactive decay rather than primarily by circumstellar interaction.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the energy input from radioactive nickel decay falls well below 1 solar mass or that circumstellar interaction supplies most of the radiated energy would falsify the pair-instability modeling.

read the original abstract

Stars in the initial and carbon-oxygen core mass ranges of $\sim140-260$ and $50-130$ M$_\odot$, respectively, with low metallicity are predicted to experience copious electron-positron pair production in their cores, leading to a runaway thermonuclear explosion that obliterates the entire star in a luminous and long-duration pair-instability supernova explosion. Some previous supernovae have been interpreted in this context but lack the full range of predicted properties. Here, we report detailed observations and modeling of the hydrogen-rich supernova 2023vbw, which exploded in a low-metallicity ($\sim0.1$ Z$_\odot$) environment in a dwarf star-forming galaxy at a redshift of $0.088$. Its light curve exhibits a luminous ($1.6\times10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$) and long-duration ($190$ days) main peak, resulting in a total radiated energy of $3\times10^{50}$ erg, more than an order of magnitude greater than canonical core-collapse supernovae. Semi-analytical light-curve modeling yields a blue supergiant-like progenitor with an ejecta mass of $170-350$ M$_\odot$, radioactive nickel mass of $1.2-1.6$ M$_\odot$, and explosion energy of $(6-13)\times10^{52}$ erg, well matched by pair-instability models. The early and late-phase light curve and spectra also show evidence for interaction of the supernova ejecta with an aspherical circumstellar medium. Discoveries of numerous such events with the upcoming Rubin Observatory and Roman Space Telescope will shed light on the deaths of the most massive stars in the Universe.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents multi-wavelength observations and semi-analytical light-curve modeling of the luminous, long-duration hydrogen-rich supernova 2023vbw, which occurred in a low-metallicity (~0.1 Z⊙) dwarf galaxy. The modeling yields an ejecta mass of 170–350 M⊙, 56Ni mass of 1.2–1.6 M⊙, and explosion energy of (6–13)×10^52 erg for a blue-supergiant-like progenitor; these values are stated to fall within the ranges predicted for pair-instability supernovae from 140–260 M⊙ initial-mass stars. The light curve peaks at 1.6×10^43 erg s^{-1} over ~190 days with a total radiated energy of 3×10^50 erg. The abstract also notes early- and late-phase signatures of aspherical ejecta–CSM interaction.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold after explicit treatment of CSM interaction, the event would constitute one of the best-supported observational examples of a pair-instability supernova, directly linking observed parameters to the theoretically predicted mass range for pair-instability explosions at low metallicity. The combination of extreme energetics, long duration, low host metallicity, and parameter consistency with PISN models would strengthen constraints on the upper end of the initial-mass function and the deaths of the most massive stars. The paper correctly highlights the potential for future wide-field surveys to discover additional members of this rare class.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract and light-curve modeling: The semi-analytical fits solve for ejecta mass, nickel mass, and explosion energy by matching the observed peak luminosity, duration, and total radiated energy under the assumption that the main peak is powered by the pair-instability explosion plus 56Ni decay. However, the same abstract states that “early and late-phase light curve and spectra also show evidence for interaction of the supernova ejecta with an aspherical circumstellar medium.” If even a modest fraction of the observed flux during the 190-day peak arises from ejecta–CSM shocks rather than internal heating, the derived parameters are systematically biased high and the apparent agreement with pure PISN models becomes circular. The manuscript should present the explicit functional form of the semi-analytical model, quantify the CSM contribution (e.g., via separate interaction-powered fits),
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation: The reported explosion energy range (6–13)×10^52 erg is written without consistent scientific notation; adopt uniform formatting such as (6–13) × 10^52 erg throughout.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript on SN 2023vbw. The feedback highlights an important point regarding the interplay between the semi-analytical modeling and potential CSM interaction, which we address directly below. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details and clarifications as outlined in our response.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and light-curve modeling: The semi-analytical fits solve for ejecta mass, nickel mass, and explosion energy by matching the observed peak luminosity, duration, and total radiated energy under the assumption that the main peak is powered by the pair-instability explosion plus 56Ni decay. However, the same abstract states that “early and late-phase light curve and spectra also show evidence for interaction of the supernova ejecta with an aspherical circumstellar medium.” If even a modest fraction of the observed flux during the 190-day peak arises from ejecta–CSM shocks rather than internal heating, the derived parameters are systematically biased high and the apparent agreement with pure PISN models becomes circular. The manuscript should present the explicit functional form of the semi-analytical model, quantify the CSM contribution (e.g., via separate interaction-powered fits),

    Authors: We agree that a clearer separation of powering mechanisms strengthens the analysis. The semi-analytical modeling employs the standard one-zone diffusion model for radioactive decay (with the functional form L(t) = (M_Ni * epsilon_Ni * exp(-t/tau_Ni) + ... ) convolved with the diffusion timescale, as referenced in the methods; we have now inserted the explicit equations into the revised manuscript. Our new analysis of the early rise and late decline shows that the aspherical CSM interaction produces distinct excesses outside the main peak. Supplementary interaction-only modeling of those phases yields a much shorter duration and lower total energy than observed for the 190-day peak, indicating that CSM shocks contribute negligibly (<15%) to the peak luminosity. Consequently, the derived ejecta mass, nickel mass, and energy remain consistent with PISN expectations within the quoted uncertainties. We have updated the abstract, added a dedicated subsection on CSM contribution, and included the separate interaction fits for transparency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Semi-analytical light-curve parameters compared to independent theoretical PISN model ranges

full rationale

The paper's central derivation fits the observed peak luminosity, duration, and total radiated energy using semi-analytical light-curve models to infer ejecta mass (170-350 M⊙), 56Ni mass (1.2-1.6 M⊙), and explosion energy ((6-13)×10^52 erg). These fitted values are then stated to lie within the ranges expected from pair-instability supernova models for 140-260 M⊙ progenitors. This comparison does not reduce to the input data by construction: the PISN predictions originate from separate stellar evolution and explosion calculations that do not incorporate the 2023vbw photometry. The abstract notes early/late CSM interaction signatures but does not alter the main-peak modeling assumption or create a self-referential loop. No equations, self-citations, or ansatzes in the provided text exhibit the enumerated circularity patterns. The result remains falsifiable against external PISN grids and is therefore scored as non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard supernova light-curve modeling assumptions plus the specific choice of semi-analytical code and the interpretation that the fitted parameters correspond to a pair-instability event rather than alternative explosion channels.

free parameters (3)
  • ejecta mass
    Fitted range 170-350 solar masses from light-curve modeling
  • nickel mass
    Fitted range 1.2-1.6 solar masses
  • explosion energy
    Fitted range (6-13) x 10^52 erg
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Semi-analytical light-curve models accurately capture the physics of pair-instability explosions when parameters are adjusted to match observations
    Invoked when stating that the derived parameters are well matched by pair-instability models
  • domain assumption The progenitor is a blue supergiant-like star at low metallicity
    Used to connect the fitted ejecta mass to the initial mass range 140-260 solar masses

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5944 in / 1620 out tokens · 43270 ms · 2026-05-20T15:59:49.885769+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 125 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    & Woosley, S

    Heger, A. & Woosley, S. E. The Nucleosynthetic Signature of Population III.Astrophys. J. 567, 532–543 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N. & Hartmann, D. H. How Massive Single Stars End Their Life.Astrophys. J.591, 288–300 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    & Umeda, H

    Takahashi, K., Yoshida, T. & Umeda, H. Stellar Yields of Rotating First Stars. II. Pair- instability Supernovae and Comparison with Observations.Astrophys. J.857, 111 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16113, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16113

    Renzo, M. & Smith, N. Pair-instability evolution and explosions in massive stars.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2407.16113 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Astrophys.475, L19–L23 (2007)

    Langer, N.et al.Pair creation supernovae at low and high redshift.Astron. Astrophys.475, L19–L23 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Yusof, N.et al.Evolution and fate of very massive stars.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.433, 1114–1132 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    & Sack, N

    Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G. & Sack, N. Dynamics of Supernova Explosion Resulting from Pair Formation.Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 379–381 (1967)

    work page 1967

  8. [8]

    & Shaviv, G

    Rakavy, G. & Shaviv, G. Instabilities in Highly Evolved Stellar Models.Astrophys. J.148, 803 (1967)

    work page 1967

  9. [9]

    Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. Pair Instability Supernovae: Light Curves, Spectra, and Shock Breakout.Astrophys. J.734, 102 (2011). 9

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Dessart, L., Waldman, R., Livne, E., Hillier, D. J. & Blondin, S. Radiative properties of pair-instability supernova explosions.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.428, 3227–3251 (2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    & Yoon, S

    Kozyreva, A., Blinnikov, S., Langer, N. & Yoon, S. C. Observational properties of low- redshift pair instability supernovae.Astron. Astrophys.565, A70 (2014)

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    S., Kozyreva, A., Hirschi, R., Fr¨ohlich, C

    Gilmer, M. S., Kozyreva, A., Hirschi, R., Fr¨ohlich, C. & Yusof, N. Pair-instability Supernova Simulations: Progenitor Evolution, Explosion, and Light Curves.Astrophys. J.846, 100 (2017)

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Terreran, G.et al.Hydrogen-rich supernovae beyond the neutrino-driven core-collapse paradigm.Nature Astronomy1, 713–720 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Kozyreva, A., Kromer, M., Noebauer, U. M. & Hirschi, R. OGLE14-073 - a promising pair-instability supernova candidate.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.479, 3106–3114 (2018)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Pumo, M. L. & Cosentino, S. P. Long-rising Type II supernovae resembling supernova 1987A - II. A new analytical model to describe these events.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.538, 223–242 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Forster, F.et al.ALeRCE/ZTF Transient Discovery Report for 2023-10-15.Transient Name Server Discovery Report2023-2596, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    P ´erez-Fournon, I.et al.SGLF Transient Classification Report for 2024-02-29.Transient Name Server Classification Report2024-569, 1 (2024). 10

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    G.et al.A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team

    Riess, A. G.et al.A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team. Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. Measuring Reddening with Sloan Digital Sky Survey Stellar Spectra and Recalibrating SFD.Astrophys. J.737, 103 (2011)

    work page 2011

  20. [20]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C. & Mathis, J. S. The Relationship between Infrared, Optical, and Ultraviolet Extinction.Astrophys. J.345, 245 (1989)

    work page 1989

  21. [21]

    Filippenko, A. V . Optical Spectra of Supernovae.Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.35, 309–355 (1997)

    work page 1997

  22. [22]

    Goldwasser, S.et al.The Next Generation SuperFit (NGSF) tool is now available for online execution on WISeREP.Transient Name Server AstroNote191, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    J., Waldman, R

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R. & Livne, E. Type II-Plateau supernova radiation: dependences on progenitor and explosion properties.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.433, 1745– 1763 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Valenti, S.et al.The diversity of Type II supernova versus the similarity in their progenitors. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.459, 3939–3962 (2016)

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    M.et al.Spectroscopic and photometric observations of SN 1987A- V

    Catchpole, R. M.et al.Spectroscopic and photometric observations of SN 1987A- V . Days 386-616.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.237, 55P–68 (1989). 11

    work page 1989

  26. [26]

    Arcavi, I.et al.Energetic eruptions leading to a peculiar hydrogen-rich explosion of a mas- sive star.Nature551, 210–213 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Sollerman, J.et al.Late-time observations of the extraordinary Type II supernova iPTF14hls. Astron. Astrophys.621, A30 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    E., Brown, J

    Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Brown, J. M. & Janka, H. T. Core-collapse Supernovae from 9 to 120 Solar Masses Based on Neutrino-powered Explosions.Astrophys. J.821, 38 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Smith, N.et al.PTF11iqb: cool supergiant mass-loss that bridges the gap between Type IIn and normal supernovae.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.449, 1876–1896 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    & Krti ˇcka, J

    Kurf ¨urst, P., Pejcha, O. & Krti ˇcka, J. Supernova explosions interacting with aspherical cir- cumstellar material: implications for light curves, spectral line profiles, and polarization. Astron. Astrophys.642, A214 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Andrews, J. E. & Smith, N. Strong late-time circumstellar interaction in the peculiar super- nova iPTF14hls.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.477, 74–79 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Laplace, E. & Podsiadlowski, P. Supernovae from stellar mergers and accretors of binary mass transfer: Implications for Type IIP, 1987A-like and interacting su- pernovae.Astron. Astrophys.700, A253 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Orlando, S., Miceli, M., Pumo, M. L. & Bocchino, F. Supernova 1987A: a Template to Link Supernovae to Their Remnants.Astrophys. J.810, 168 (2015). 12

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C. & Hsu, J. J. L. Presupernova Evolution in Massive Interacting Binaries.Astrophys. J.391, 246 (1992)

    work page 1992

  35. [35]

    Vigna-G ´omez, A., Justham, S., Mandel, I., de Mink, S. E. & Podsiadlowski, P. Massive Stellar Mergers as Precursors of Hydrogen-rich Pulsational Pair Instability Supernovae.As- trophys. J. Lett.876, L29 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Morris, T. & Podsiadlowski, P. The Triple-Ring Nebula Around SN 1987A: Fingerprint of a Binary Merger.Science315, 1103 (2007)

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    & Bildsten, L

    Kasen, D. & Bildsten, L. Supernova Light Curves Powered by Young Magnetars.Astrophys. J.717, 245–249 (2010)

    work page 2010

  38. [38]

    & Kasen, D

    Dexter, J. & Kasen, D. Supernova Light Curves Powered by Fallback Accretion.Astrophys. J.772, 30 (2013)

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    Jerkstrand, A., Smartt, S. J. & Heger, A. Nebular spectra of pair-instability supernovae.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.455, 3207–3229 (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. The Pair-instability Mass Gap for Black Holes.Astrophys. J. Lett.912, L31 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Nucleosynthesis and the chemical enrichment of galaxies.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2506.20436 (2025)

    Kobayashi, C. Nucleosynthesis and the chemical enrichment of galaxies.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2506.20436 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Light-curve modeling

    Dey, A.et al.Overview of the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys.Astron. J.157, 168 (2019). 13 AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to Masaomi Tanaka, Kazumi Kashiyama, Shigeo S. Kimura, Alex Gagliano, Jared A. Goldberg, Anthony L. Piro, Wynn V . Jacobson-Gal´an, David Vartanyan, Lars Bildsten, and Iair Arcavi for useful discussions, and to Sean Moran and Benjamin Wei...

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    M.et al.Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network.Publ

    Brown, T. M.et al.Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 1031 (2013)

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    InSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol

    Narita, N.et al.MuSCAT3: a 4-color simultaneous camera for the 2m Faulkes Telescope North. InSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 11447 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 114475K (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    PyRAF: Python alternative for IRAF

    Science Software Branch at STScI. PyRAF: Python alternative for IRAF. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.011 (2012)

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Johnson, H. L. & Morgan, W. W. Fundamental stellar photometry for standards of spectral type on the Revised System of the Yerkes Spectral Atlas.Astrophys. J.117, 313 (1953)

    work page 1953

  47. [47]

    Oke, J. B. & Gunn, J. E. Secondary standard stars for absolute spectrophotometry.Astrophys. J.266, 713–717 (1983)

    work page 1983

  48. [48]

    A.et al.VizieR Online Data Catalog: AA VSO Photometric All Sky Survey (APASS) DR9 (Henden+, 2016).VizieR Online Data CatalogII/336 (2016)

    Henden, A. A.et al.VizieR Online Data Catalog: AA VSO Photometric All Sky Survey (APASS) DR9 (Henden+, 2016).VizieR Online Data CatalogII/336 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    D.et al.The 13th Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: First Spectro- scopic Data from the SDSS-IV Survey Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observa- tory.Astrophys

    Albareti, F. D.et al.The 13th Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: First Spectro- scopic Data from the SDSS-IV Survey Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observa- tory.Astrophys. J. Suppl.233, 25 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    C.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: System Overview, Performance, and First Results.Publ

    Bellm, E. C.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: System Overview, Performance, and First Results.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 018002 (2019). 42

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    J.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Science Objectives.Publ

    Graham, M. J.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Science Objectives.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 078001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    L.et al.ATLAS: A High-cadence All-sky Survey System.Publ

    Tonry, J. L.et al.ATLAS: A High-cadence All-sky Survey System.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 130, 064505 (2018)

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    W.et al.Design and Operation of the ATLAS Transient Science Server.Publ

    Smith, K. W.et al.Design and Operation of the ATLAS Transient Science Server.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.132, 085002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Shingles, L.et al.Release of the ATLAS Forced Photometry server for public use.Transient Name Server AstroNote7, 1–7 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    plot atlas fp.py (2024)

    Young, D. plot atlas fp.py (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    J.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Data Processing, Products, and Archive

    Masci, F. J.et al.The Zwicky Transient Facility: Data Processing, Products, and Archive. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 018003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    J.et al.A New Forced Photometry Service for the Zwicky Transient Facility.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2305.16279 (2023)

    Masci, F. J.et al.A New Forced Photometry Service for the Zwicky Transient Facility.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2305.16279 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    W., Lang, D

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013)

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    Errors When Constraining Hot Blackbody Parameters with Optical Photometry

    Arcavi, I. Errors When Constraining Hot Blackbody Parameters with Optical Photometry. Astrophys. J.937, 75 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Pedregosa, F.et al.Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python.Journal of Machine Learning Research12, 2825–2830 (2011). 43

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    Fabricant, D.et al.Binospec: A Wide-field Imaging Spectrograph for the MMT.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 075004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    & Stone, R.The Kast Double Spectograph

    Miller, J. & Stone, R.The Kast Double Spectograph. Lick Observatory technical reports (University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory, 1994). URLhttps://books. google.com/books?id=QXk2AQAAIAAJ

    work page 1994

  63. [63]

    B.et al.The Keck Low-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer.Publ

    Oke, J. B.et al.The Keck Low-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 107, 375 (1995)

    work page 1995

  64. [64]

    Valenti, S.et al.The first month of evolution of the slow-rising Type IIP SN 2013ej in M74. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.438, L101–L105 (2014)

    work page 2014

  65. [65]

    M.et al.Berkeley Supernova Ia Program - I

    Silverman, J. M.et al.Berkeley Supernova Ia Program - I. Observations, data reduction and spectroscopic sample of 582 low-redshift Type Ia supernovae.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.425, 1789–1818 (2012)

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    The IRAF Data Reduction and Analysis System

    Tody, D. The IRAF Data Reduction and Analysis System. In Crawford, D. L. (ed.)Instru- mentation in astronomy VI, vol. 627 ofSociety of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 733 (1986)

    work page 1986

  67. [67]

    Perley, D. A. Fully Automated Reduction of Longslit Spectroscopy with the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer at the Keck Observatory.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.131, 084503 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Prochaska, J.et al.PypeIt: The Python Spectroscopic Data Reduction Pipeline.The Journal of Open Source Software5, 2308 (2020). 44

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    A.et al.An online repository of Swift/XRT light curves ofγ-ray bursts.Astron

    Evans, P. A.et al.An online repository of Swift/XRT light curves ofγ-ray bursts.Astron. Astrophys.469, 379–385 (2007)

    work page 2007

  70. [70]

    A.et al.Methods and results of an automatic analysis of a complete sample of Swift-XRT observations of GRBs.Mon

    Evans, P. A.et al.Methods and results of an automatic analysis of a complete sample of Swift-XRT observations of GRBs.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.397, 1177–1201 (2009)

    work page 2009

  71. [71]

    Astrophys.594, A116 (2016)

    HI4PI Collaborationet al.HI4PI: A full-sky H I survey based on EBHIS and GASS.Astron. Astrophys.594, A116 (2016)

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    PIMMS and Viewing: proposal preparation tools.Legacy3, 21–31 (1993)

    Mukai, K. PIMMS and Viewing: proposal preparation tools.Legacy3, 21–31 (1993)

    work page 1993

  73. [73]

    CASA Teamet al.CASA, the Common Astronomy Software Applications for Radio As- tronomy.Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.134, 114501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Circumstellar Interaction in Supernovae in Dense Environments—An Observa- tional Perspective.Space Sci

    Chandra, P. Circumstellar Interaction in Supernovae in Dense Environments—An Observa- tional Perspective.Space Sci. Rev.214, 27 (2018)

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    O., McGill, P., Manning, T

    Jones, D. O.et al.Blast: a Web Application for Characterizing the Host Galaxies of Astro- physical Transients.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2410.17322 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    E.et al.Characterizing Supernovae Host Galaxies with FrankenBlast: A Scalable Tool for Transient Host Galaxy Association, Photometry, and Stellar Population Modeling

    Nugent, A. E.et al.Characterizing Supernovae Host Galaxies with FrankenBlast: A Scalable Tool for Transient Host Galaxy Association, Photometry, and Stellar Population Modeling. arXiv e-printsarXiv:2509.08874 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Bouquin, A. Y . K.et al.The GALEX/S 4G Surface Brightness and Color Profiles Catalog. I. Surface Photometry and Color Gradients of Galaxies.Astrophys. J. Suppl.234, 18 (2018)

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C.et al.The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys.arXiv e-printsarXiv:1612.05560 (2016). 45

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  79. [79]

    F.et al.The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS).Astron

    Skrutskie, M. F.et al.The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS).Astron. J.131, 1163–1183 (2006)

    work page 2006

  80. [80]

    L.et al.The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE): Mission Description and Initial On-orbit Performance.Astron

    Wright, E. L.et al.The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE): Mission Description and Initial On-orbit Performance.Astron. J.140, 1868–1881 (2010)

    work page 2010

Showing first 80 references.