Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 254 references

Nebular spectra of SN 2023ixf show the ejecta are asymmetric with at least two Ni-rich plumes and a disk-like CSM.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 06:32 UTC pith:MZSDFD3U

load-bearing objection Dense multi-epoch optical–MIR coverage of SN 2023ixf yields a clean geometric template (disk-like CSM + ≥2 Ni plumes) that is new for this object and useful for 3-D models; dust is the main unmodeled soft spot but does not break the central claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02859 v1 pith:MZSDFD3U submitted 2026-07-03 astro-ph.HE

Evidence for Asymmetric Ejecta and Circumstellar Material in SN 2023ixf Inferred from Extensive Nebular-phase Observations

Brian Hsu , Nathan Smith , K. Azalee Bostroem , Jeniveve Pearson , David J. Sand , Lindsey A. Kwok , Jennifer E. Andrews , Bhagya M. Subrayan
show 29 more authors
Griffin Hosseinzadeh Manisha Shrestha Conor Ransome Moira Andrews Collin T. Christy Yize Dong Joseph Farah Alexei V. Filippenko Noah Franz Jared A. Goldberg Estefania Padilla Gonzalez Claudia P. Guti\'errez Emily Hoang D. Andrew Howell Saurabh W. Jha R\'eka K\H{o}nyves-T\'oth Michael Lundquist Curtis McCully Darshana Mehta Nicolas E. Meza Retamal Megan Newsome Aravind P. Ravi Jeonghee Rho Giacomo Terreran Stefano Valenti Sergiy Vasylyev X.-F. Wang Kathryn Wynn Yi Yang
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords Type II supernovaenebular spectroscopyejecta asymmetrycircumstellar materialnickel plumesJWSTSN 2023ixf
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.

The paper uses a long optical-to-mid-infrared spectral time series of the nearby Type II supernova 2023ixf, from roughly three months to two years after explosion, to map the geometry of both the exploded star and the gas that surrounded it. The H-alpha line evolves from a decay-powered core into high-velocity "horns" and an intermediate-width component; that intermediate component is recovered simply by scaling an early radioactive spectrum against a late shock-dominated spectrum, showing that the ejecta have crashed into dense, initially aspherical circumstellar material already swept up by the forward shock. At the same epochs, Mg I, Na I and neutral nickel lines are double-peaked, which the authors interpret as emission from at least two large nickel-rich plumes that heat the inner ejecta unevenly. Together the data support a picture of a disk-like CSM plus an intrinsically asymmetric explosion, rather than a spherical wind and spherical ejecta. A sympathetic reader cares because the same geometry appears in another nearby supernova observed with JWST and matches the large-scale plumes predicted by three-dimensional explosion simulations, so the result may be common rather than exotic.

Core claim

At intermediate epochs the H-alpha profile of SN 2023ixf is the linear sum of an early decay-powered component and a late shock-powered component; the residual intermediate-width emission is produced by ejecta interacting with dense, initially aspherical CSM that has already been swept up. Concurrent double-peaked Mg I 1.504 µm, Na I 2.206 µm and [Ni I] 3.12 µm lines require an asymmetric distribution of Ni-rich material consisting of at least two large plumes.

What carries the argument

Empirical profile decomposition: the intermediate-epoch H-alpha (and Pa-alpha, Br-alpha) is reconstructed by scaling and summing an early, mostly decay-powered spectrum against a late, mostly shock-powered spectrum; the same geometric templates (skewed Gaussians for double-peaked metal lines) are then applied to Mg I, Na I and [Ni I].

Load-bearing premise

The observed blue-red line asymmetries are treated as mostly intrinsic geometry rather than dust attenuation, even though carbon monoxide and thermal infrared excess already show that dust is present and growing.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution mid-infrared spectrum that either resolves clear double peaks in the ionized metal lines or shows that those lines remain single-peaked after resolution effects are removed, together with multi-wavelength radiative-transfer models that include clumpy dust and still fail to erase the intermediate-width H-alpha component.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a large optical+NIR spectral time series of the nearby Type II SN 2023ixf from +89 d to +749 d, supplemented by JWST NIRSpec/MIRI spectra. It documents the emergence of high-velocity “CSM horns” in H and He lines, reconstructs the intermediate-epoch (~+375 d) Hα (and Paα/Brα) profile as a linear combination of an early, largely decay-powered spectrum and a late, largely shock-powered spectrum, and thereby isolates an intermediate-width component attributed to ejecta interacting with previously aspherical dense CSM that has been swept up. Double-peaked profiles of Mg I 1.504 µm, Na I 2.206 µm and [Ni I] 3.12 µm are fitted with skewed Gaussians (plus a Lorentzian for the red [Ni I] peak) and interpreted, together with more symmetric MIR ionized lines, as evidence for at least two large Ni-rich plumes that heat the ejecta inhomogeneously. The authors propose a composite geometry consisting of a disk/torus-like CSM and a multi-plume ejecta.

Significance. If the geometric inferences hold, the work supplies one of the most complete multi-wavelength empirical maps of ejecta and CSM structure for a well-observed SN II, directly comparable to 3-D neutrino-driven simulations that produce Ni plumes and RTI fingers. The Hα scaling exercise is transparent and essentially parameter-free in shape, the double-peaked NIR/MIR fits use standard functional forms, and the data (including flux-calibrated spectra) are promised for public release. These are genuine strengths that make the paper a useful reference for both observers and modelers, even if some aspects of the dust-versus-geometry discussion remain provisional.

major comments (2)
  1. §5 (line-profile fits) and §6.3: The empirical fits deliberately omit dust absorption/scattering even though CO first-overtone and fundamental bands plus thermal IR excess already demonstrate that dust is present by the epochs being modelled. The paper correctly notes the weak wavelength dependence of red-wing suppression among Hα/Paα/Brα (Fig. 5) as evidence against pure dust attenuation, yet a quantitative estimate of the residual optical-depth effect on the double-peaked Mg I 1.504 µm and [Ni I] 3.12 µm profiles (or a simple clumpy-dust attenuation applied to the best-fit components) is still needed to show that the “at least two large Ni-rich plumes” conclusion is robust rather than provisional. Without it the central geometric claim rests on an assumption that the authors themselves flag as the main uncertainty.
  2. §4.1 and Fig. 8: The reverse-shock luminosity is computed under fixed Ṁ ≈ 10^{-4} M_⊙ yr^{-1}, v_wind = 25 km s^{-1} and a uniform draw of V_ej between the blue peak and the 99 % velocity edge. While the resulting L_sh ∝ t^{-0.3} trend matches independent UV and SED estimates, the adopted Ṁ is acknowledged to be extreme for normal RSGs; a short sensitivity test (varying Ṁ by a factor of a few or allowing a non-steady wind) would demonstrate that the claimed transition to shock dominance near +600 d is not an artifact of those fixed parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 4 and §3.1: The velocity zero-points for the [O I] and [Ca II] doublets are defined with respect to the bluer component; a brief explicit statement in the caption would avoid confusion when comparing to single-line species.
  2. §5.2 and Appendix A: The discussion of MIRI/LRS resolution smoothing of possible double peaks is useful; adding the actual resolving power (or FWHM in km s^{-1}) at each MIR line wavelength would make the argument fully quantitative.
  3. Table 1 / Table 2: A few exposure times and instrument modes are listed without the corresponding airmass or seeing; these are minor but would aid reproducibility.
  4. Throughout: Occasional typographical slips (e.g., “aspherical” vs. “asymmetric” usage is carefully defined early but occasionally blurred later; “Heiemission” missing space) should be cleaned in proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Data-driven empirical decomposition and line-profile fits; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations of prior SN 2023ixf papers by overlapping authors.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical inferences from new multi-epoch optical/NIR/MIR spectra, not first-principles derivations. The Hα reconstruction in §4.2 scales two independently observed templates (+138 d decay-dominated and +749 d shock-dominated) by the separately calculated L_sh/L_decay ratio at +378 d (itself from measured Hα velocities plus assumed constant Ṁ and v_wind from external X-ray/early-spectra constraints); the match is a consistency check that reveals an intermediate-width residual already present in the late template, not a prediction forced by construction. Double-peaked Mg I 1.504 µm, Na I 2.206 µm and [Ni I] 3.12 µm profiles are fit with free skewed-Gaussian/Lorentzian components (§5.1) whose parameters are then interpreted against 3-D simulation expectations; no uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is re-labeled a prediction. Self-citations (Bostroem+26, Jacobson-Galán+25, etc.) supply comparison L_sh values and early-time context but are not required for the geometric conclusions, which rest on the new line profiles. Dust is acknowledged as a caveat (§6.3) rather than hidden. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-as-prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness imported from the authors' prior work. Score 2 only for the presence of ordinary overlapping-author citations that do not close any logical circle.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central geometric claim rests on a handful of literature-derived numbers (mass-loss rate, wind velocity, 56Ni mass) treated as fixed, standard assumptions of homologous expansion and LTE line ratios, and the modeling choice to omit dust radiative transfer while still interpreting residual asymmetries as intrinsic. No new particles or forces are invented; the “plumes” and “disk-like CSM” are geometric configurations inferred from data rather than postulated entities.

free parameters (4)
  • wind mass-loss rate Ṁ = ≈10^{-4} M_⊙ yr^{-1}
    Fixed at ≈10^{-4} M_⊙ yr^{-1} from X-ray literature to compute reverse-shock luminosity L_sh; directly scales the shock-power curve used to argue the transition at ~+600 d.
  • wind velocity v_wind = 25 km s^{-1}
    Fixed at 25 km s^{-1} from early high-resolution spectra; enters the same L_sh calculation.
  • 56Ni mass M_Ni = 0.058 M_⊙
    Adopted as 0.058 M_⊙ (with T_0 = 264.6 d) from prior work to normalize the radioactive decay luminosity against which shock power is compared.
  • ejecta velocity sampling for reverse shock = U(|V_peak,blue|, |V_max,blue|)
    Monte-Carlo uniform draw between blue peak and 99 % blue edge of Hα; the resulting L_sh error bars depend on this choice.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Homologous expansion and power-law density profiles (s=2 wind, n=12 RSG envelope) for reverse-shock luminosity formula
    Invoked in §4.1 via Fransson et al. (1996) analytic formalism; standard but not re-derived.
  • domain assumption LTE intensity ratios for [O I] 6300/6364 and [Ca II] 7291/7324 in the optically thin limit
    Used in §§5.3–5.4 to interpret optical-depth evolution; classical atomic-physics result.
  • ad hoc to paper Dust attenuation is secondary to intrinsic geometry for the observed blue–red asymmetries at the epochs fitted
    Explicit modeling choice in §5 and discussed in §6.3; the paper notes CO and IR excess but does not include dust RT in the line fits that support the plume/disk claim.
  • domain assumption MIRI/LRS wavelength calibration correction of Kwok et al. (2025)
    Applied to place [Ni II] 6.636 µm and [Ar II] 6.985 µm; affects measured centroids of key MIR lines.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 53806 in / 3233 out tokens · 34292 ms · 2026-07-12T06:32:33.741505+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for Asymmetric Ejecta and Circumstellar Material in SN 2023ixf Inferred from Extensive Nebular-phase Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZSDFD3U

@misc{pith2026260702859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for Asymmetric Ejecta and Circumstellar Material in SN 2023ixf Inferred from Extensive Nebular-phase Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZSDFD3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02859}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present extensive optical and near-infrared (NIR) observations of the nearby Type II supernova (SN II) 2023ixf in the nebular phase from +89 days to +749 days after explosion, supplemented with NIR and mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy from the James Webb Space Telescope. The H$\alpha$ emission profile shows complex evolution, with the emergence of high-velocity components consistent with the outer ejecta interacting with extended, low-density circumstellar material (CSM). We find that the H$\alpha$ profile at an intermediate epoch (around +375 d) can be reconstructed by scaling an earlier decay-powered component and a later-phase shock-powered component, which revealed an additional intermediate-width component. This is consistent with the ejecta crashing into the initially aspherical dense CSM that has been swept-up by the forward shock. In the NIR, we find double-peaked emission from Mg I $1.504\ {\rm \mu m}$, Na I $2.206\ {\rm \mu m}$, and [Ni I] $3.12\ {\rm \mu m}$ between +200 d and +374 d, consistent with an asymmetric distribution of Ni-rich material that heats the ejecta inhomogeneously. We posit a disk-like CSM geometry and an ejecta geometry in which at least two large Ni-rich plumes lead to the observed line-profile diversity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02859 by Alexei V. Filippenko, Aravind P. Ravi, Bhagya M. Subrayan, Brian Hsu, Claudia P. Guti\'errez, Collin T. Christy, Conor Ransome, Curtis McCully, D. Andrew Howell, Darshana Mehta, David J. Sand, Emily Hoang, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, Giacomo Terreran, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Jared A. Goldberg, Jeniveve Pearson, Jennifer E. Andrews, Jeonghee Rho, Joseph Farah, Kathryn Wynn, K. Azalee Bostroem, Lindsey A. Kwok, Manisha Shrestha, Megan Newsome, Michael Lundquist, Moira Andrews, Nathan Smith, Nicolas E. Meza Retamal, Noah Franz, R\'eka K\H{o}nyves-T\'oth, Saurabh W. Jha, Sergiy Vasylyev, Stefano Valenti, X.-F. Wang, Yi Yang, Yize Dong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Optical (UBgV rizs) light curves of SN 2023ixf from LCO, corrected for Milky Way and host extinctions. The error bars of most observed magnitudes are smaller than the marker size (≲ 0.1 mag). The LCO photometry up to the first year (∼ 360 days) of SN 2023ixf’s evolution was previously presented by B. Hsu et al. (2025). New photometry presented in this work is highlighted in the gray shaded box. The times o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Optical spectra of SN 2023ixf from +89 days to +749 days after explosion, corrected for E(B − V )tot = 0.0387 mag and calibrated to optical photometry in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (continued) Jacobson-Gal´an et al. 2025; A. J. Nayana et al. 2025) and radiative-transfer models (L. Dessart et al. 2023a, 2026b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: NIR spectra of SN 2023ixf from +200 days to +695 days after explosion, corrected for E(B − V )tot = 0.0387 mag. Spectra with an asterisk are either published in S. H. Park et al. (2025) or supplemented from previous studies of SN 2023ixf (S. H. Park et al. 2025; W. V. Jacobson-Gal´an et al. 2025) to complete the temporal coverage relative to optical observations. Each telescope is denoted by a different co… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of selected prominent emission lines in SN 2023ixf. The rest-frame zero-velocity is marked with a black dashed line. The velocity of [O I] λλ6300, 6364 is measured with respect to the λ6300 line and the velocity of [Ca II] λλ7291, 7324 is measured with respect to the λ7291 line. Each line profile has been normalized to a linear pseudocontinuum. We note that He I 1.083 µm is blended with … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Line-profile comparison of several prominent emission features in SN 2023ixf at three different epochs, separated into four categories. A linear pseudocontinuum is subtracted from each line profile before normalizing to the emission peak. As we do not have optical or NIR spectra around +600 d, we use the +626 d LBT/MODS spectrum and the +659 d Keck/NIRES spectrum. This should not affect the line-profile co… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Line profiles of possible emission from [C I] λ8727 and [C I] λλ9824, 9850 at +307 d and +349 d. These pro￾files are not normalized to the local pseudocontinua owing to blending with nearby emission (e.g., Ca II NIR triplet in the case of [C I] λ8727). The profile of [O I] λλ6300, 6364 is shown for comparison, which aligns with the blueshifted emission peak of [C I] well, suggesting a common origin in the … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Line-profile comparison of several features in SN 2023ixf at around +250 d and +375 d after explosion. The optical and NIR spectra used in each panel are within ±7 days from each other. The vertical dashed lines denote the two emission peaks of [Ni I] 3.12 µm at −1500 km s−1 and +1300 km s−1 . Given that the two peaks of [Ni I] 3.12 µm line up well with various emission lines from IMEs, it is pos￾sible tha… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: The evolution of shock-power luminosity in SN 2023ixf (gray circles) derived from the Hα velocity, as￾suming a constant mass-loss rate of M˙ = 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 and a wind velocity of vwind = 25 km s−1 . The error bars correspond to 1σ uncertainty bounds calculated from a Monte Carlo procedure with 10,000 samples to estimate the ejecta velocity at the reverse shock. Estimates from UV observations (red star… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Line profiles of Hα, Paα, and Brα around +375 d. The profiles at this intermediate epoch (where both decay-powered emission and shock-powered emission are present) can be fit by scaling and combining line profiles from an earlier epoch with mostly decay-powered emission and a later epoch with mostly shock-powered emission. Through this simple scaling exercise, we find that the emission excess at ≈ −3000 km… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Line-profile fits for double-peaked Mg I 1.504 µm, Na I 2.206 µm, and [Ni I] 3.12 µm emission lines in SN 2023ixf at different epochs shown in solid gray. The line models for Mg I 1.504 µm and the nearby Mg I 1.488 µm are shown in dashed black. We display the similarly double-peaked profile of Mg I 3.867 µm at +253 d as an inset in the top-center panel. All three emission lines are well fit by two skewed … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Line-profile fits for broad and symmetric emission from IMEs ([Ar II] 6.985 µm and [Ne II] 12.813 µm) and IGEs ([Ni I] 11.308 µm, [Ni II] 6.636 µm, and [Co II] 10.521 µm) in SN 2023ixf at +253 d and +374 d shown in solid gray. All of these emission lines are well fit by a single Gaussian profile centered near rest velocity, but the derived parameters are subject to significant uncertainty owing to the poo… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Line-profile fits for [O I] λ5577 and [O I] λ6300, 6364 in SN 2023ixf at different epochs. The models for individual lines are shown in dashed black, and the composite fits are in solid gray. The [O I] λ5577 emission is well matched by a single Gaussian, with an additional blueshifted Gaussian to capture possible contamination from [Fe II]. Using the [O I] λ5577 and Mg I] λ4571 profiles as templates, the … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Line-profile fits for [Ca II] λλ7291, 7324 in SN 2023ixf at three different epochs. The fits for individual lines are shown in dashed black, and the composite fits are in solid gray. The [Ca II] emission is heavily blended with several weak lines from [Fe II] and [Ni II]. Each line in the [Ca II] λλ7291, 7324 doublet can be fit with three distinct Gaussians, consistent with contributions from both the inn… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The inferred ejecta and CSM structure for SN 2023ixf from our line-profile fits. Various shock-powered emission lines indicate the presence of an intermediate-width component from the ejecta crashing into swept-up, aspherical CSM. Various double-peaked profiles indicate that IMEs and IGEs follow a bipolar distribution, but do not have to follow axial symmetry along the poles. ably reproduce the strong blu… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

254 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al

    Abac, A. G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc681

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc681 2025

  2. [2]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al

    Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 2017

  3. [3]

    P., Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C

    Anderson, J. P., Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C. P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 671, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu610

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu610 2014

  4. [4]

    E., & Smith, N

    Andrews, J. E., & Smith, N. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 74, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty584

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty584 2018

  5. [5]

    E., Gallagher, J

    Andrews, J. E., Gallagher, J. S., Clayton, G. C., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 541, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/541

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/715/1/541 2010

  6. [6]

    E., Sand, D

    Andrews, J. E., Sand, D. J., Valenti, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab43e3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab43e3 2019

  7. [7]

    Angel, J. R. P., Hilliard, R. L., & Weymann, R. J. 1979, in The MMT and the Future of Ground-Based Astronomy, ed. T. C. Weekes, Vol. 385, 87 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 1979

  8. [8]

    2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2033

    Barmentloo, S., & Jerkstrand, A. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf2033, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2033

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2033 2026

  9. [9]

    1994, ApJ, 425, 264, doi: 10.1086/173983

    Basko, M. 1994, ApJ, 425, 264, doi: 10.1086/173983

    doi:10.1086/173983 1994

  10. [10]

    R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa255

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255 2020

  11. [11]

    K., Margutti, R., et al

    Berger, E., Keating, G. K., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4 2023

  12. [12]

    C., Orellana, M., Folatelli, G., et al

    Bersten, M. C., Orellana, M., Folatelli, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348183

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348183 2024

  13. [13]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 4659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2094

    Bevan, A. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2094

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2094 2018

  14. [14]

    Bevan, A., & Barlow, M. J. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2651

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2651 2016

  15. [15]

    J., & Milisavljevic, D

    Bevan, A., Barlow, M. J., & Milisavljevic, D. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4044, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2985

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2985 2017

  16. [16]

    G., et al

    Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Williams, G. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae380

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae380 2024

  17. [17]

    H., Weisheit, J

    Black, J. H., Weisheit, J. C., & Laviana, E. 1972, ApJ, 177, 567, doi: 10.1086/151733 B¨ oker, T., Arribas, S., L¨ utzgendorf, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142589

    work page doi:10.1086/151733 1972

  18. [18]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/160

    Bose, S., Sutaria, F., Kumar, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/160

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/160 2015

  19. [19]

    2019, ApJL, 873, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0558

    Bose, S., Dong, S., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2019, ApJL, 873, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0558

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0558 2019

  20. [20]

    A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace31c 2023

  21. [21]

    A., Sand, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Sand, D. J., Dessart, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7855

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7855 2024

  22. [22]

    A., Valenti, S., Sand, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae644e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae644e 2026

  23. [23]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

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

    doi:10.1086/673168 2013

  24. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 3153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz543

    Burrows, A., Radice, D., & Vartanyan, D. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz543

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz543 2019

  25. [25]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 2715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3223

    Burrows, A., Radice, D., Vartanyan, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3223

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3223 2020

  26. [26]

    L., & O’Brien, T

    Byard, P. L., & O’Brien, T. P. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 934–941, doi: 10.1117/12.395415

    work page doi:10.1117/12.395415 2000

  27. [27]

    Nayana, A. J. 2024, ApJL, 963, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad275d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad275d 2024

  28. [28]

    A., & Fransson, C

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

    doi:10.1086/173557 1994

  29. [30]

    2010, A&A, 524, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015507

    Chiavassa, A., Collet, R., Casagrande, L., & Asplund, M. 2010, A&A, 524, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015507

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015507 2010

  30. [31]

    2009, A&A, 506, 1351, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911780

    Chiavassa, A., Plez, B., Josselin, E., & Freytag, B. 2009, A&A, 506, 1351, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911780

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911780 2009

  31. [32]

    2015, PASP, 127, 406, doi: 10.1086/680598

    Chilingarian, I., Beletsky, Y., Moran, S., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 406, doi: 10.1086/680598

    doi:10.1086/680598 2015

  32. [33]

    V., Li, W., & Silverman, J

    Chornock, R., Filippenko, A. V., Li, W., & Silverman, J. M. 2010, ApJ, 713, 1363, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/1363

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/2/1363 2010

  33. [34]

    N., Fabrika, S

    Chugai, N. N., Fabrika, S. N., Sholukhova, O. N., et al. 2005, Astronomy Letters, 31, 792, doi: 10.1134/1.2138766

    work page doi:10.1134/1.2138766 2005

  34. [35]

    P., Pumo, M

    Cosentino, S. P., Pumo, M. L., & Cherubini, S. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 2894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf861

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf861 2025

  35. [36]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907

    doi:10.1086/382907 2004

  36. [37]

    J., Gouiffes, C., Bouchet, P., & Lucy, L

    Danziger, I. J., Gouiffes, C., Bouchet, P., & Lucy, L. B. 1989, IAUC, 4746, 1 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H. G., et al. 1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Third Reference Cat. of Bright Galaxies (RC3) (de Vaucouleurs+ 1991),, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VII/155. Originally published in: Springer-Verlag: New York, (1991)

    1989

  37. [38]

    M., Ashall, C., Baron, E., et al

    DerKacy, J. M., Ashall, C., Baron, E., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f87

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f87 2026

  38. [39]

    2025, A&A, 703, A287, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555664

    Dessart, L. 2025, A&A, 703, A287, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555664

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555664 2025

  39. [40]

    P., Kuncarayakti, H., Fox, O

    Dessart, L., Guti´ errez, C. P., Kuncarayakti, H., Fox, O. D., & Filippenko, A. V. 2023a, A&A, 675, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345969 Asymmetries in SN 2023ixf31

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345969

  40. [41]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 439, 671, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053217

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053217 2005

  41. [42]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2020, A&A, 643, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039287

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039287 2020

  42. [43]

    Radiative-transfer models for dusty Type II supernovae

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Sarangi, A. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.10928, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.10928

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.10928

  43. [44]

    Janka, H. T. 2021a, A&A, 652, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140839

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140839

  44. [45]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt861 2013

  45. [46]

    J., & Wilk, K

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Wilk, K. D. 2018, A&A, 619, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833278

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833278 2018

  46. [47]

    J., Woosley, S

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Woosley, S. E., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2023b, A&A, 677, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346626

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346626

  47. [48]

    V., Bostroem, K

    Dessart, L., Jacobson-Galan, W. V., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05145, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.05145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05145

  48. [49]

    2025b, A&A, 704, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556304

    Dessart, L., Kotak, R., Jacobson-Gal´ an, W., et al. 2025b, A&A, 704, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556304

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556304

  49. [50]

    C., Hillier, D

    Dessart, L., Leonard, D. C., Hillier, D. J., & Pignata, G. 2021b, A&A, 651, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140281

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140281

  50. [51]

    SN2023ixf: ultraviolet-to-infrared radiative-transfer modeling of the nebular-phase evolution until 1000 days

    Dessart, L., Jacobson-Galan, W. V., Bostroem, K. A., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.14081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.14081

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14081

  51. [52]

    E., et al

    Dickinson, D., Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 7767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3631

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3631 2024

  52. [53]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc108

    Dickinson, D., Milisavljevic, D., Garretson, B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc108

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc108 2025

  53. [54]

    J., Valenti, S., et al

    Dong, Y., Sand, D. J., Valenti, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef18

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acef18 2023

  54. [55]

    2026, astropy/specutils: v2.4.0, v2.4.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20489805

    Earl, N., O’Steen, R., Tollerud, E., et al. 2026, astropy/specutils: v2.4.0, v2.4.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20489805

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20489805 2026

  55. [56]

    D., Benetti, S., et al

    Elias-Rosa, N., Van Dyk, S. D., Benetti, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac510

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac510 2018

  56. [57]

    Oxygen issue in Core Collapse Supernovae

    Elmhamdi, A. 2011, AcA, 61, 179, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1109.2318

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1109.2318 2011

  57. [58]

    J., Chugai, N., et al

    Elmhamdi, A., Danziger, I. J., Chugai, N., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 939, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06150.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06150.x 2003

  58. [59]

    2022, A&A, 666, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243448

    Ergon, M., & Fransson, C. 2022, A&A, 666, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243448

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243448 2022

  59. [60]

    2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    Fabricant, D., Fata, R., Epps, H., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 075004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab1d78 2019

  60. [61]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 111, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02120-8

    Fang, Q., Maeda, K., Kuncarayakti, H., & Nagao, T. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 111, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02120-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02120-8 2024

  61. [62]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f60

    Fang, Q., Maeda, K., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f60

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4f60 2022

  62. [63]

    J., Ferrari, L., et al

    Fang, Q., Moriya, T. J., Ferrari, L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 978, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d5a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d5a 2025

  63. [64]

    Andrews, J. E. 2024, A&A, 687, L20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450440

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450440 2024

  64. [65]

    2025, A&A, 703, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556652

    Ferrari, L., Folatelli, G., Ertini, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556652

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556652 2025

  65. [66]

    E., & Couch, S

    Fields, C. E., & Couch, S. M. 2020, ApJ, 901, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abada7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abada7 2020

  66. [67]

    E., & Couch, S

    Fields, C. E., & Couch, S. M. 2021, ApJ, 921, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac24fb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac24fb 2021

  67. [68]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1982, PASP, 94, 715, doi: 10.1086/131052

    doi:10.1086/131052 1982

  68. [69]

    A., Beacom, J

    Flinner, N., Tucker, M. A., Beacom, J. F., & Shappee, B. J. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 174, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acefc4

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acefc4 2023

  69. [70]

    2025, A&A, 698, A213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554128

    Maeda, K. 2025, A&A, 698, A213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554128

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554128 2025

  70. [71]

    Forde, S., & Goldberg, J. A. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 135, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adde46

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/adde46 2025

  71. [72]

    Fransson, C., Lundqvist, P., & Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 461, 993, doi: 10.1086/177119

    doi:10.1086/177119 1996

  72. [73]

    D., Gomez, S., et al

    Franz, N., Alexander, K. D., Gomez, S., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae346e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae346e 2026

  73. [74]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 47, doi: 10.33232/001c.120130

    Fuller, J., & Tsuna, D. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 47, doi: 10.33232/001c.120130

    doi:10.33232/001c.120130 2024

  74. [75]

    L., Fesen, R

    Gerardy, C. L., Fesen, R. A., H¨ oflich, P., & Wheeler, J. C. 2000, AJ, 119, 2968, doi: 10.1086/301390

    doi:10.1086/301390 2000

  75. [76]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Gimeno, G., Roth, K., Chiboucas, K., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99082S, doi: 10.1117/12.2233883

    doi:10.1117/12.2233883 2016

  76. [77]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11796

    Giudici, B., Gabler, M., & Janka, H.-T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11796

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11796 2025

  77. [78]

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

    Goldberg, J. A., Jiang, Y.-F., & Bildsten, L. 2022a, ApJ, 929, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab3

  78. [79]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e3

  79. [80]

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

    Goldberg, J. A., Jiang, Y.-F., Bildsten, L., & Cantiello, M. 2026, ApJL, 998, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae37ec

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae37ec 2026

  80. [81]

    Gong, T. H. 2024, Open European Journal on Variable Stars, 252, 1, doi: 10.5817/OEJV2024-0252

    work page doi:10.5817/oejv2024-0252 2024

Showing first 80 references.