Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Six newly studied fast blue optical transients share a dense, common environment, pointing to a massive star merging with a compact object as their likely origin.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:49 UTC pith:KUHHA5F6

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful sample paper with a plausible but model-dependent central claim; referee it, but the abstract overstates what the radio modeling actually supports. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.18926 v2 pith:KUHHA5F6 submitted 2026-01-26 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Multiwavelength Analysis of Six Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients

Cassie Sevilla , Anna Y. Q. Ho , Nayana A.J. , Steve Schulze , Daniel A. Perley , Michael Bremer , Igor Andreoni , Ivan Altunin
show 38 more authors
Thomas G. Brink Michael Camilo Poonam Chandra Ping Chen Ashley A. Chrimes Michael W. Coughlin Kaustav K. Das Andrew Drake Alexei V. Filippenko Christoffer Fremling James Freeburn Avishay Gal Yam Mary Gerhart Matthew J. Graham George Helou K-Ryan Hinds Natalya Johnson Mansi M. Kasliwal Harsh Kumar Russ R. Laher Natalie LeBaron Maggie L. Li Chang Liu Ben Margalit Gokul P Srinivasaragavan Yu-Jing Qin Nabeel Rehemtulla Sophia Risin Sam Rose Rupak Roy Ben Rusholme Genevieve Schroeder Jesper Sollerman Kailai Wang Jacob L. Wise Yi Yang Yuhan Yao WeiKang Zheng
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords luminous fast blue optical transientsLFBOTssynchrotron self-absorptionradio light curvescircumburst mediummassive star mergerhost galaxiesAT2024aehp
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper nearly doubles the sample of luminous fast blue optical transients (LFBOTs) by presenting six new events with optical, X-ray, radio, and millimeter data. It finds that, except for one outlier, their 10 GHz radio light curves look almost the same: they rise to a peak at about 50–100 days rest-frame, reach luminosities of 10^38–10^40 erg/s, and then fade. The paper models this radio emission as synchrotron radiation from a fast but sub-relativistic shock expanding into a dense, wind-like medium, and argues that such a uniform circumburst environment is hard to explain with the usual tidal-disruption or supernova channels. Instead, the authors prefer a progenitor in which a massive star loses mass in a consistent way shortly before the terminal event, such as a merger with a compact object. The odd one out, AT2024aehp, shows an optical plateau and a late, large radio brightening that the paper suggests may connect LFBOTs to tidal disruption events.

Core claim

The central claim is that LFBOTs show a high degree of uniformity in their radio behavior: peaks at t_rest ≈ 50–100 d, peak luminosities around 10^38–10^40 erg/s, and similar spectral evolution, consistent with synchrotron emission from a shock moving at 0.1–0.3c through a dense medium with electron densities of 10^3–10^4 cm^-3. The authors argue that this uniformity implies a similar circumburst medium across events, which in turn favors progenitor models that produce a consistent, dense environment shortly before the explosion—most naturally the merger of a massive star with a compact object. They present AT2024aehp as an exception: its optical plateau and delayed radio brightening by over

What carries the argument

The key tool is a synchrotron self-absorption model that relates the radio spectral energy distribution's peak frequency, peak flux density, and time since explosion to the shock radius, magnetic field, average velocity, and circumburst density, under assumptions of spherical symmetry, non-relativistic motion, energy equipartition, a fixed electron power-law index, and a fixed filling factor. This model converts the observed radio light curves into the conclusion that LFBOTs expand into dense, wind-like media with similar density profiles. The paper complements this with host-galaxy photometry and spectroscopy, using stellar population synthesis fitting to derive host stellar masses and star

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that LFBOTs share a similar circumburst medium depends entirely on the adopted synchrotron model's assumptions—spherical, non-relativistic, equipartition shock with a fixed electron index and filling factor—and the paper itself notes that some epochs have Γβ > 0.5 and observed spectral slopes inconsistent with the assumed ν^-1 behavior.

What would settle it

A well-sampled LFBOT whose 10 GHz radio light curve peaks significantly outside 50–100 days or outside the 10^38–10^40 erg/s luminosity range, while still showing the classic fast blue optical signature, would break the uniformity the paper takes as evidence for a common circumburst medium. Alternatively, multi-frequency radio SEDs that consistently show an optically thin spectral index far from the assumed ν^-1 would invalidate the density and speed estimates, removing the basis for the common-CSM claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If LFBOTs indeed share a common dense circumburst medium, future radio monitoring should continue to find 10 GHz peaks at tens to a hundred days and luminosities clustered near 10^39 erg/s, allowing the 'common channel' hypothesis to be tested with larger samples.
  • The merger-progenitor scenario predicts a specific mass-loss history immediately before the explosion; deep X-ray and UV precursor searches timed close to the optical peak could distinguish it from alternatives such as tidal disruption events.
  • The outlier AT2024aehp implies that some fast blue optical transients may be a bridge to tidal disruption events; longer-term optical and radio follow-up of new LFBOTs will determine how common plateau and late-rebrightening behavior is.
  • The host-galaxy properties—star-forming galaxies of 10^9–10^11 solar masses, with offsets intermediate between core-collapse supernovae and long gamma-ray bursts—provide a new statistical benchmark for progenitor models.
  • The paper's finding that host-galaxy masses appear consistent with both core-collapse supernovae and superluminous supernova hosts, after accounting for selection bias, suggests LFBOTs do not require an extreme dwarf-galaxy environment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The uniformity conclusion rests on the same model for every event; if the true shock is more relativistic or contains significant thermal electrons, the derived densities and the apparent CSM similarity could be partly a modeling artifact rather than a property of the progenitors.
  • A selection effect may be inflating the apparent uniformity: only LFBOTs with radio emission luminous enough to be detected and followed are included, and the sample is still small enough that one or two outliers would not be surprising.
  • If the merger scenario is right, LFBOT rates should track star formation and be enhanced in regions of massive binary production; measuring the volumetric rate and spatial distribution with the next generation of optical surveys will provide a direct test.
  • The apparent AT2024aehp–TDE resemblance suggests that classifying transients purely on fast optical evolution and radio detection may lump together distinct physical origins; a systematic search for optical plateaus in all future LFBOTs could reveal the true diversity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents multiwavelength (optical, X-ray, radio/mm) observations of six ZTF-selected LFBOTs, increasing the published sample by about 50%. Five of the six show 10 GHz radio light curves that peak near t_rest ≈ 50–100 d with peak luminosities 10^38–10^40 erg/s, while AT2024aehp shows an unusual optical plateau and late-time radio brightening. Using the Chevalier (1998) synchrotron self-absorption formalism, the authors convert radio SED fits into shock radius, velocity, energy, CSM density, and wind parameter, and combine these with host-galaxy offsets and prospector-based host properties. They conclude that the broadly uniform radio behavior implies a similar circumburst medium, favoring a progenitor channel in which mass is lost shortly before the terminal event, such as a massive star merging with a compact object.

Significance. If the inference holds, this is an important result: a sample of six new LFBOTs with homogeneous multiwavelength coverage, plus one clear outlier in AT2024aehp, would substantially strengthen the case for a common progenitor channel. The host-galaxy offset and mass/SFR analyses are useful additions, and the eROSITA precursor search is a thoughtful new constraint. The paper is also candid about model limitations, which is commendable. However, the central quantitative claim — that similar radio light curves imply a similar dense CSM and hence a merger progenitor — is built on model assumptions that the paper's own fits violate, and the abstract's summary numbers are inconsistent with the tables. The qualitative uniformity of the radio light curves is valuable, but the common-CSM conclusion is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Table 9; §4.1] The abstract states a fast (v = 0.1–0.3c) shock in a dense medium with n_e ≈ 10^3–10^4 cm^-3. Table 9 gives fitted velocities of v/c = 0.57 ± 0.05 (AT2023fhn, 73 d), 0.38 ± 0.02, 0.32 ± 0.03, 0.53 ± 0.04, and 0.16 ± 0.02. Two fitted epochs exceed 0.5c, and §5.2 acknowledges Γβ > 0.5. The fitted n_e values in Table 9 range from 22 to ~3100 cm^-3 (0.022 to 3.1 in units of 10^3 cm^-3), while §4.1 states “10–100 cm^-3 at radii of 10^17 cm.” The abstract is therefore not a fair summary of the quantitative results, and the paper’s own numbers are internally inconsistent.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (7); Table 8] Equation (7) assumes an electron power-law index p = 3, which gives an optically thin slope a2 = −(p−1)/2 = −1. The fitted slopes in Table 8 are a2 = −0.69 ± 0.08, −0.87 ± 0.08, −1.06 ± 0.06, −0.55 ± 0.04, and −0.67 ± 0.09. Three of these are discrepant at >3σ from −1, and the unweighted mean is about −0.77. Because the Chevalier (1998) inversion in Eqs. (2)–(6) uses p = 3 to relate ν_p and F_p to R, B, n_e, and E, the derived densities and speeds are not secure when the data reject p = 3. A sensitivity analysis over p (and over ϵ_e, ϵ_B, f) is needed before claiming that the CSM densities are similar across events.
  3. [§4.1, Eqs. (2)–(6); Table 9; §5.2] The model assumes a spherical, nonrelativistic shock. Table 9 lists v/c = 0.57 and 0.53 for AT2023fhn at 73 d and AT2023vth at 110 d, respectively, corresponding to Γβ > 0.5; §5.2 admits this. In this regime the Chevalier (1998) scalings used for R, B, n_e, and E are not quantitatively valid. The paper cites relativistic corrections (Margalit & Quataert 2024; Ferguson & Margalit 2025) but does not apply them. Thus the derived CSM densities, and any statement that the CSM is “similar” across events, currently rest on assumptions that the data themselves violate.
  4. [§5.1; Abstract; §6] The central inference — “consistent radio behavior implies a similar circumburst medium” — is presented as a conclusion in the abstract and summary. The observational support is a qualitative similarity of 10 GHz light curves in a sample selected for radio/X-ray detection. The mapping from those light curves to CSM density is precisely the model-dependent step criticized above; different combinations of p, ϵ_e, ϵ_B, f, and geometry could produce similar observed curves from different CSM densities. To support the merger-progenitor preference, the authors should either demonstrate that the inferred CSM parameters are robust across the allowed parameter space, or explicitly weaken the conclusion to “consistent with” a common CSM rather than “implies.”
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: “F ast Blue” should be “Fast Blue”.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The caption gives the wind velocity unit as “1000 km s^-2”; this should be “km s^-1”.
  3. [§2.4.3; Table 6] For AT2024aehp, the text says the NOEMA observation was taken “>100 d after optical discovery,” while Table 6 gives t_obs = 155 d and t_rest ≈ 127 d. Please make the reference epoch explicit and consistent.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The factor +2.5 log10(1+z) in the absolute-magnitude conversion is not a general k-correction unless a specific spectral slope is assumed. Please state the assumed SED slope or use a proper k-correction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central inference rests on independent radio light-curve data plus a standard, externally published model inversion, not on a reduction to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that similar 10 GHz radio light curves among optically selected LFBOTs imply a similar circumburst medium—is not circular. The peak frequency νp and peak flux Fp are empirical fit parameters to observed SEDs (Eq. 7), not quantities defined in terms of the conclusions. Equations 2–6 are standard Chevalier (1998) synchrotron self-absorption inversions with clearly stated external assumptions (equipartition ϵe=ϵB=1/3, filling factor f=0.5, electron index p=3, spherical nonrelativistic shock, wind-like density profile). These assumptions are model inputs, not the target inference. The uniformity of the 10 GHz light curves is an independent observational result: the paper explicitly acknowledges the detection-selection effect (radio must be luminous enough to detect) but did not require a specific peak time or brightening behavior, so the observed t_rest≈50–100 d peaks and 10^39–10^40 erg s^-1 luminosities are not constructed by the selection. The t^-5/3 fit to AT2024aehp (Fig. 12) is presented as a comparison to TDEs, not as a predicted relation. The paper's own Section 5.2 candidly flags violations of the model assumptions (Γβ>0.5 for some epochs, optically thin slopes inconsistent with ν^-1), which are correctness risks and model-dependence concerns, not circularity. Self-citations to prior LFBOT papers set parameter conventions (e.g., f=0.5, p=3), but these are standard values traceable to independent literature (Chevalier & Fransson 2006; Soderberg et al. 2010a) and do not carry the load of the central conclusion. No target result is used as an input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior work. The derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is not circular, but it is assumption-heavy: the derived CSM densities are not direct measurements and depend on f, ϵ_e/ϵ_B, p, spherical wind geometry, and a nonrelativistic shock. The paper lists these caveats in Section 5.2, but the abstract presents the resulting speeds/densities more strongly than Table 9 supports.

free parameters (6)
  • Filling factor f = 0.5
    Chosen in Section 4.1 following prior LFBOT studies; f enters radius, energy, and density derivations, though with weak power-law dependence.
  • Equipartition fractions ϵ_e = ϵ_B = 1/3
    Assumed in Section 4.1 following Soderberg et al. (2010a); shock radius, B, energy, and CSM density scale with these fractions, so the inferred 'dense medium' depends on them.
  • Electron power-law index p and optically thin slope a2 = p=3 assumed; fitted a2 varies from -0.55 to -1.06
    Set to 3 in Section 4.1, but the paper notes most fitted optically thin slopes are not ν^{-1} (Table 8, Section 5.2), an internal inconsistency unless p varies.
  • Per-epoch SED peak frequency ν_p and flux F_p = e.g., AT2023fhn 71–77 d: νp=4.0 GHz, Fp=232 μJy; 5 fits in Table 8
    Fitted to each radio SED with Equation 7; these measured values are inputs to Equations 2–6. They are empirical fits, not independent physical predictions.
  • Broken power-law smoothness s and optically thick slope a1 = s=1, a1=5/2
    Fixed in Section 4.1 following prior LFBOT work; for most epochs the thick-side slope is not constrained by detections.
  • prospector host-galaxy stellar mass, SFR, age, dust τ = Table 2 values: log M/M☉ = 8.9–10.8
    Posterior medians from photometric SED fitting (Section 4.3); metallicity is fixed via the Gallazzi et al. (2005) relation rather than fitted. These are fitted quantities, not independent measurements.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Chevalier (1998) synchrotron self-absorption equations apply to the radio SED
    Used in Section 4.1 to invert F_p, ν_p into radius, B, energy, density; assumes optically thick slope 5/2 and a specific source geometry.
  • domain assumption Shock is spherical, nonrelativistic, and in energy equipartition
    Stated in Section 4.1; Section 5.2 admits Γβ > 0.5 for some epochs, violating the nonrelativistic assumption.
  • domain assumption CSM is a spherical stellar wind with Ṁ/v_w = 4π m_p R² n_e
    Introduced in Section 4.1 to convert n_e to mass-loss rate; the 'consistent mass loss' conclusion requires this wind geometry.
  • domain assumption Swift non-detections correspond to a power-law spectrum with photon index Γ=2
    Section 2.3; all X-ray upper limits and the inferred luminosity limits rely on this assumed spectrum.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy SEDs are described by FSPS with Chabrier IMF, Calzetti dust, and parametric SFH; metallicity follows Gallazzi et al. mass-metallicity relation
    Section 4.3; the host masses and SFRs used in population comparisons depend on these choices.
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM with H0=67.4 km/s/Mpc and Ωm=0.315
    Used to convert redshifts to distances and luminosities; standard and not load-bearing.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 51842 in / 14739 out tokens · 154665 ms · 2026-08-03T07:49:41.332675+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present multiwavelength observations and analysis of six luminous fast blue optical transients (LFBOTs) discovered in Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) survey data. We identified these LFBOTs from their fast light-curve evolution ($t_{1/2}\leq 12 $d), blue colors at peak brightness ($g-r\leq-0.5 $mag), a visible host galaxy, high optical luminosity ($M_g<-20$), and an X-ray or radio detection. With the exception of AT2024aehp (ZTF24abygbss), these transients exhibit peaks in their $10\,$GHz radio light curves at $t_{\text{rest}} \approx 50-100$ d, with peak radio luminosities ranging from $10^{38}-10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Modeling the radio emission as synchrotron radiation indicates a fast ($v=0.1-0.3c$) shock in a dense ($n_e\approx10^{3}-10^{4}$ cm$^{-3}$) medium. The X-ray emission varies by $\approx2$ orders of magnitude in luminosity ($10^{42}-10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$) at $t_{\text{rest}}\sim20 $d. Analysis of the host-galaxy photometry and spectroscopy for each transient shows that they are predominantly nonnuclear (a few kpc offset) with star-forming host galaxies of stellar masses $10^{9}-10^{11} ,M_\odot$. Unlike all other LFBOTs to date, AT2024aehp exhibited a luminous ($M<-19 $mag) plateau in the optical light curve; spectra during this plateau phase showed a featureless blue continuum. The $6-15$ GHz radio emission of AT2024aehp brightened by over an order of magnitude from $t_{\text{rest}} \approx70 $d to $t_{\mathrm{rest}} \approx130 $d. The mostly consistent radio behavior between optically selected LFBOTs implies a similar circumburst medium, leading us to prefer a progenitor scenario in which mass is lost in a consistent way shortly prior to the terminal event, such as a massive star merging with a compact object.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18926 by Alexei V. Filippenko, Andrew Drake, Anna Y. Q. Ho, Ashley A. Chrimes, Avishay Gal Yam, Ben Margalit, Ben Rusholme, Cassie Sevilla, Chang Liu, Christoffer Fremling, Daniel A. Perley, Genevieve Schroeder, George Helou, Gokul P Srinivasaragavan, Harsh Kumar, Igor Andreoni, Ivan Altunin, Jacob L. Wise, James Freeburn, Jesper Sollerman, Kailai Wang, Kaustav K. Das, K-Ryan Hinds, Maggie L. Li, Mansi M. Kasliwal, Mary Gerhart, Matthew J. Graham, Michael Bremer, Michael Camilo, Michael W. Coughlin, Nabeel Rehemtulla, Natalie LeBaron, Natalya Johnson, Nayana A.J., Ping Chen, Poonam Chandra, Rupak Roy, Russ R. Laher, Sam Rose, Sophia Risin, Steve Schulze, Thomas G. Brink, Weikang Zheng, Yi Yang, Yuhan Yao, Yu-Jing Qin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Optical light curves of each LFBOT (points), as well as the light curve of AT2018cow (thick gray line, where dashed lines mark the connection to the last upper limit). The left-hand ordinate values display the E(B − V ) corrected absolute AB magnitude (Oke & Gunn 1983) and are shared for all plots. The right-hand ordinate displays the apparent AB magnitude. Each filter has a unique marker color and style. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spectra of each LFBOT and/or its host galaxy. For each spectrum we indicate the observer-frame epoch and instrument used. The light (dark) line is the unbinned (binned with bin size of 3 ˚A) spectrum. The green shaded rectangles show galactic narrow emission lines that were used to determine a redshift. The spectra are displayed with an arbitrary vertical offset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 0.3–10 keV X-ray light curves of the six LFBOTs in this paper, in comparison to those of other LFBOTs, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), and low-luminosity GRBs. Open symbols with downward-facing triangles mark 3-σ upper limits. Data are from Pian et al. (2000), Tiengo et al. (2004), Campana et al. (2006), Soderberg et al. (2006b), Ho et al. (2020b), Coppejans et al. (2020), Yao et al. (2022), Perley et al. (2021),… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radio light curves at 10 GHz of the LFBOTs with data presented in this paper, compared with other known LFBOTs, long GRBs (LGRBs), low-luminosity GRBs (LL￾GRBs), and core-collapse supernovae with non-relativistic ejecta (SNe). We measure time after peak light in the tran￾sient’s rest frame. Data from Kulkarni et al. (1998), Berger et al. (2003), Soderberg et al. (2006a), van der Horst et al. (2008), Soderb… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radio and millimeter SED of each LFBOT at different observer-frame epochs. Observations taken within a few days are grouped into one epoch. Non-detections are signified by an unfilled marker and a downward pointing arrow. For clarity, we omit some non-detections. For epochs with sufficient data points, we display the broken power-law fit to the SED as a dashed line. Data from Chrimes et al. (2024a) for… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Millimeter-wave (100 GHz) light curves in com￾parison to other LFBOTs, long-duration gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs), low-luminosity GRBs (LLGRBs), and tidal dis￾ruption events (TDEs). AT2022abfc and AT2023fhn only have an upper limit. AT2023fhn has been shifted slightly to the left for clarity. Data are from Kulkarni et al. (1998); Zauderer et al. (2011); Perley (2013); Corsi et al. (2014); Laskar et al. (2016);… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Inferred parameters from our synchrotron self-absorption modeling. Some epochs do not include the self-absorption peak and merely constrain its location; the corresponding upper limits on parameters are marked with arrows. Values for other objects are obtained from Ho et al. (2019) and Ho et al. (2023c); and Perley et al. (2026) for AT2024wpp. We label each object and the observer-frame time after peak lig… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The cumulative distribution of host-galaxy offsets for LFBOTs, as well as fast radio bursts (FRBs; Bhandari et al. 2022), LGRBs (Blanchard et al. 2016; Lyman et al. 2017), short GRBs (SGRBs; Fong et al. 2022), CCSNe (Kelly & Kirshner 2012; Schulze et al. 2021), Type Ia SNe (Wang et al. 2013), SLSNe (Lunnan et al. 2015; Schulze et al. 2021), and Ca-rich transients (De et al. 2020). The offsets for pre￾vious… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Best-fit host-galaxy spectra and photometry from prospector (color) as well as the input photometry (black circles with error bars). Note that the parameters reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Median mass and SFR for each LFBOT’s host galaxy in comparison to the host galaxies of other energetic transients. Colored lines show error bars, though they may be smaller than the marker for some points. days after peak light. Its radio emission displayed a substantial rebrightening over 100 days after its discov￾ery. Out of all the LFBOTs discussed, AT2024aehp is one of the closest to the nucleus of it… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Gaussian KDEs for the LFBOT host-galaxy masses (black) in comparison to the Gaussian KDEs for each of the weighted mass distributions from the Taggart & Perley (2021) CCSN/SLSN host-galaxy population (dashed red). 0 5 10 15 20 trest (d) 17 18 19 20 21 M g AT2024aehp AT2018cow + 1 t 5 3 decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Optical g-band light curves for AT2024aehp (pink points) and AT2018cow (gray line). AT2018cow rep￾resents a typical LFBOT light curve. We also show a best fit of a t −5/3 decay to the AT2024aehp light curve. The time axis is measured in the rest frame of each transient, where trest = 0 refers to the peak of the optical light curve. ysis should ensure that results are robust to different choices for these … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Implications of the UV/optical Plateau of AT2018cow

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

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

  2. Compact Objects Merging with Stars as an Origin of Ultra-Long Gamma-Ray Bursts and Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    SN 2011kl is broadly consistent with an LFBOT light-curve model and ULGRB hosts match LFBOT/LGRB environments, supporting a shared He-CO merger progenitor for a subset of both classes.

  3. The Environments of Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients: Evidence for a Compact Object and Wolf-Rayet Star Merger Origin

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    LFBOT hosts are star-forming and moderately metal-poor, with many events offset from bright light, favoring a compact-object–Wolf-Rayet merger origin over TDEs or standard CCSNe.

  4. Radio Emission from Fast Blue Optical Transients Powered by Trans-relativistic Shocks in Confined Circumstellar Material

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A synchrotron forward-shock model with confined broken-power-law CSM explains FBOT radio diversity via shock transition out of the dense shell, yielding trans-relativistic velocities of 0.1-0.5c and high but brief mas...

  5. Constraints on Late-Time Flaring from Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients using the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and the Zwicky Transient Facility

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    TESS and ZTF observations of 12 LFBOTs yield no late-time flares after SSO attribution, constraining central engine lifetimes to hundreds of days or less.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

10 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    W., Kool, E

    Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Kool, E. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bc7 Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R., Pooley, G., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 154, doi: 10.1038/nature01998 Bhandari, S., Heintz, K. E., Aggarwal, K., et al. 2...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2021

  2. [10]

    Ho 29 T able 4.Optical Spectroscopy Object UTC Datet obs (days) Redshift Telescope/Inst

    34 GN-2024B-Q-128; PI A. Ho 29 T able 4.Optical Spectroscopy Object UTC Datet obs (days) Redshift Telescope/Inst. Lines Detected AT2022abfc 20221201 10 0.212 Gemini-S/GMOS Ca H&K, Mg I AT2023fhn 20230419 7 0.24 Gemini-S/GMOS Hα, [N II] AT2023fhn 20230420 8 0.24 P200/DBSP Hα AT2023fhn 20230426 14 0.24 Keck-I/LRIS Hα, [N II], [S II] AT2023hkw 20230512 12 0....

    2020

  3. [11]

    (2025) and did not report a flux error or RMS

    ∗∗This measurement was obtained from Shoval et al. (2025) and did not report a flux error or RMS. 33 T able 7.Host-Galaxy Photometry ObjectGALEXLegacy/Pan-STARRSNEOWISE FUV NUVg r i z w1w2w3 AT2022abfc — 21.550 19.057 18.124 17.698 17.464 17.356 17.568 15.875 AT2023fhn — 20.913 19.452 18.912 18.606 18.566 18.796 18.755 — AT2023hkw — 21.898 20.706 19.669 —...

    2025

  4. [21]

    Ho 33 Project ID VLA/23B-138; PI A

    The fast fading and possible high peak luminosity from the photometric redshift of the host galaxy (SDSSz ph = 0.17±0.09) motivated us to trigger follow-up observa- 31 https://www.wis-tns.org/ 32 GN-2024B-Q-128; PI A. Ho 33 Project ID VLA/23B-138; PI A. Ho tions. We acquired spectroscopy of the candidate using GMOS on Gemini South on December 23, 2024

    2024

  5. [31]

    by the Automatic Learning for the Rapid Classification of Events (ALeRCE) broker (Forster et al. 2024). On August 1, a redshift ofz= 0.2270 was deter- mined by Gillanders et al. (2024) and an X-ray detection was reported by Margutti et al. (2024). On August 2, we obtained a long-slit spectrum of AT 2024qfm with GMOS on Gemini-North under a ToO program 32 ...

    2024

  6. [34]

    We reported the rapid evolution and high luminosity (Sevilla et al

    The spectrum shows narrow Hα, [NII], and [SII] emission lines that correspond toz= 0.170. We reported the rapid evolution and high luminosity (Sevilla et al. 2024). Radio and X-ray observations initially resulted in non- detections, and the optical light curve flattened out in a way uncharacteristic of LFBOTs (Schroeder et al. 2025). A subsequent radio ep...

    2024

  7. [2010]

    Numerical Modeling of Relativistic Effects in Synchrotron-Emitting Shocks

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/23 Duev, D. A., Mahabal, A., Masci, F. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3582, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2357 Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJL, 346, L13, doi: 10.1086/185567 Faber, S. M., Phillips, A. C., Kibrick, R. I., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16313 2014

  8. [2019]

    The Fritz mar- shal uses the open-source software packageSkyPortal (Coughlin et al

    to coordinate detection, analysis, and follow-up observations of transients. The Fritz mar- shal uses the open-source software packageSkyPortal (Coughlin et al. 2023). A.1.AT2022abfc/ZTF22abvrxkk AT2022abfc was first detected by ZTF on November 21, 2022 (MJD = 59904.344; Fremling 2022). ZTF non- detections prior to the first observation and ZTF detec- tio...

    2023

  9. [2023]

    The blue colors, fast fading, high luminos- ity, and detected emission throughout the electromag- netic spectrum confirmed it as an LFBOT

    and the VLA (10 GHz) on June 15 (Ho 2023a). The blue colors, fast fading, high luminos- ity, and detected emission throughout the electromag- netic spectrum confirmed it as an LFBOT. TheChandra X-ray detections and a subset of this transient’s VLA ra- dio observations are already published by Chrimes et al. (2024a). A.3.AT2023hkw/ZTF23aaimsja ZTF first de...

    2023

  10. [2024]

    and ZTFReST (Andreoni et al. 2021). The rapid fad- ing was publicly reported by Fastfinder (Fulton et al. 2024). The transient itself was reported to the Tran- sient Name Server (TNS

    2021