Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The Dust Echo Emission of Fast Blue Optical Transients and Application to the Near-Infrared Excess of AT 2018cow

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The near-infrared excess of the fast blue optical transient AT 2018cow is a thermal dust echo from a pre-existing circumstellar shell that the flash largely evaporates within about a day.

desk verdict A solid evolutionary echo model for AT 2018cow's NIR excess whose headline dust mass and distance inherit an assumed density profile and grain-size distribution, making the quantitative claims softer than the reported posteriors suggest. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19897 v2 pith:O4GRDY7B submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Jing-Yao Li , Yun-Wei Yu , Liang-Duan Liu , Ming-Yan Xiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords astrophysicaldustprocessescircumstellarcarbonaceousgrainslightcurvesinfraredastronomysupernovaefastblueopticaltransientsecho
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper's central claim is that the near-infrared excess of AT 2018cow is thermal emission from a pre-existing dusty circumstellar shell that is heated and partially destroyed by the transient's own flash. The authors build a time-dependent model in which the flash evaporates a dust-free cavity within about a day, leaving behind only larger grains close to the cavity and a size distribution that varies with radius, and in which every surviving grain is continuously heated by the fading transient. With a single parameter set, this evolutionary echo model reproduces the multi-band light curves and spectra from about 3 to 38 days, something the authors argue a direct single-temperature fit of the infrared spectra cannot do consistently. The corrected dust shell has a mass of roughly $3\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ and lies at distances up to about $5\times10^{17}$ cm, much larger than empirical fits suggest, with all grain temperatures broadly distributed and evolving in time. A sympathetic reader would care because the result turns the infrared excess into a probe of the progenitor's mass-loss history and circumstellar environment.

What carries the argument

The paper's central mechanism is a time-dependent dust-heating and evaporation calculation. Each grain balances the heating from the evolving photospheric radiation field against cooling by thermal emission and mass loss by sublimation, with evaporation rate $\dot a=-\zeta\exp(-E_b/k_\mathrm{B}T_d)$; this sets the dust-free cavity radius by energy conservation rather than by an optical-depth criterion. Outside the cavity, the minimum surviving grain size grows with radius because small grains are destroyed first, and the echo luminosity at observer time $t$ is the light-travel-delayed integral over that radius- and size-dependent population. The calculation turns a single evolving input light curve into a self-consistent, multi-temperature, time-dependent dust echo.

What would settle it

Take continued JHK and WISE photometry of AT 2018cow out to 100 to 300 days after explosion: the model predicts a light-crossing plateau followed by a roughly $t^{-3}$ decline with smoothly cooling dust temperatures, so any observed infrared light curve that stays flat, rebrightens, or shows spectral features inconsistent with cooling carbonaceous grains would contradict the echo interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the near-infrared excess of AT 2018cow is an echo of the transient's radiation reprocessed by a pre-existing dusty shell. The flash evaporates every grain within roughly $2\times10^{16}$ cm in less than a day, creating a dust-free cavity; further out, smaller grains are destroyed while larger ones survive, so the minimum surviving grain size grows with distance from the source. Each surviving grain is heated and cooled continuously, and because grains of different sizes sit at different temperatures, the echo is a multi-temperature blackbody that evolves as the transient fades. With one parameter set, the model reproduces the optical-to-NIR light curves and the spectra from 3 to 38 days, whereas independent single-temperature fits require dust mass and radius that change with time in ways the authors argue are unphysical. The fitted shell has a mass of roughly $3\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$, extends to about $5\times10^{17}$ cm, and implies a total CSM mass of order $3\times10^{-2}\,M_\odot$ and a mass-loss rate near $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The pre-existing dust shell is assumed to have a density that falls off as the cube of the distance and to be made of carbon grains with the standard interstellar size distribution, with values taken from other astronomical contexts rather than measured for AT 2018cow; the fitted dust mass, CSM mass, and mass-loss rate scale directly with those assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The near-infrared excess of AT 2018cow can be explained without invoking nonthermal emission: it is thermal radiation from dust heated by the transient, so the excess becomes a direct probe of the circumstellar environment.
  • Previous single-epoch spectral fits underestimated the dust mass and its distance; the self-consistent echo fit places the shell at about $5\times10^{17}$ cm with a mass near $3\times10^{-4}\,M_\odot$.
  • The dust temperature in the echo is neither unique nor constant: at any single epoch small grains near the cavity are hotter, and all temperatures decline as the FBOT fades.
  • The inferred CSM mass ($\sim3\times10^{-2}\,M_\odot$) and mass-loss rate ($10^{-6}$ to $10^{-4}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$) favour an evolved massive progenitor, possibly an ultra-stripped star in a binary, and motivate combined dust and radio modelling.
  • Dust echoes in future nearby FBOTs can be used to map the geometry and mass-loss history of their progenitors, provided the infrared light curves are followed for months.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the evolutionary echo picture is right, the first few days of NIR colour evolution in a future FBOT should show a systematic reddening as the smallest, hottest grains near the cavity are destroyed first; rapid-cadence JHK photometry could test this directly.
  • The high derived dust mass implies a dense CSM that should also absorb or scatter radio emission at early times; existing radio upper limits for AT 2018cow could therefore already provide an independent check on the fitted dust density.
  • The same evaporation-plus-echo calculation should apply to other luminous transients that show infrared echoes, such as tidal disruption events and superluminous supernovae, potentially revealing that their dust masses are systematically underestimated by single-temperature fits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a time-dependent model of infrared dust echo emission from fast blue optical transients (FBOTs), in which the transient's radiation evaporates the innermost dust, producing a dust-free cavity and a transition zone where only larger grains survive, and the surviving grains are continuously heated and cool as the FBOT luminosity evolves. The model is applied to AT 2018cow: an Arnett/magnetar-powered FBOT light curve plus a dust shell with n(r) ∝ r^-3 and a graphite power-law grain size distribution are used to fit the optical-to-NIR light curves and seven epochs of spectra with a single parameter set. The authors find a dust shell mass of about 3×10^-4 M_sun, an outer radius of about 5×10^17 cm, and an implied CSM mass of about 3×10^-2 M_sun, and argue that these quantities are substantially larger than those obtained by independent single-temperature blackbody fits to individual NIR spectra, whose parameters vary unphysically with time.

Significance. If the model is accepted, it is a useful advance over epoch-by-epoch spectral fitting: it provides a physically self-consistent explanation of the NIR excess of AT 2018cow, avoids time-varying dust mass and radius, and predicts a distinctive evolution of the dust temperature distribution. The model is transparent and the underlying grain heating, evaporation, and echo integrals are standard. The central quantitative conclusions, however, remain contingent on unconstrained assumptions about the density profile and grain properties, so the headline claim that the dust mass and distance are much larger than found by direct fitting should be read as conditional on those assumptions. The comparison with direct single-temperature fits is heuristically valuable but needs to be made more quantitative to be fully convincing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 and Eq. (23)] In §2 the dust shell is fixed to n(r) = n_d (r/R*)^-3 with R* = 10^16 cm (Eq. 1) and to graphite grains with a^-3.5 from 0.001 to 10 microns; the authors themselves note that these ISM values may not truly be applicable to FBOTs. The headline dust mass is directly tied to these choices: Eq. (23) gives M_d ∝ n_d R*^3 a_max^3 (a_max/a_min)^(1-alpha) ln(R_out/R_ev,min), and the echo integral in Eq. (16) weights each shell by n(r) r, so a steeper or shallower density slope changes which radii dominate the observed flux. A change of the density index from -3 to -2 or -4, or a truncated grain size distribution, can plausibly shift the fitted n_d and R_out by much more than the quoted ±0.01 dex posterior uncertainties. I therefore ask for a quantitative sensitivity study over plausible density slopes (e.g., -2, -3, -4), grain-size power-law indices in the stated 2.0-4.5 range, and grain compositions, reporting how M_d, R_out, and the claimed factor-of-several increase over direct fits change. Without this, the central quantitative claim is not robust.
  2. [§3.3 and Table 1] The posterior uncertainties in Table 1 (log10 n_d = -2.37^{+0.00}_{-0.01}, log10 R_out = 17.77^{+0.01}_{-0.01}) are conditional on all the fixed profile and grain choices, and the NIR data set consists of only a few JHK epochs plus two private NEOWISE points, one of which is explicitly tentative. These errors should not be presented as constraints on the physical dust distribution; they measure only the narrowest part of the model uncertainty. The paper should either state this limitation prominently in the results, or preferably quote parameter ranges obtained from the sensitivity analysis requested above. In addition, the two-step fitting procedure (FBOT parameters fixed from optical bands before the dust echo is fit to z/JHK/W) means that the dust parameters inherit any bias in the optical-only FBOT fit; a simultaneous fit or a demonstration that the optical parameters are unchanged when the echo is included would remove this concern.
  3. [§3.4 and Fig. 7] The comparison with direct empirical fits is weakened by the fact that the comparison model is deliberately a single-temperature blackbody, so the time-varying T_dust, M_dust, and R_dust in Fig. 7 are a predicted artifact of using the wrong spectral model on a multi-temperature distribution. To make the claim that the evolutionary echo model gives larger mass and distance quantitative, I ask the authors to apply their single-temperature fitting procedure to mock spectra generated from their own best-fit model and demonstrate that it reproduces the same order-of-magnitude underestimates and time evolution shown in Fig. 7. This would isolate the effect of the fitting method from the effect of the assumed density profile and would strengthen the paper's main contrast.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (23)] In Eq. (23), the first integral's radial limits are printed as R_out and R_ev,min; the lower limit should be R_ev,min.
  2. [§3.3 and footnote 2] The W1 and W2 photometry come from private communication, and the W1 point is tentative; please publish these measurements in a machine-readable table, including exact epochs, uncertainties, and upper limits, so that the fit can be reproduced.
  3. [§3.4] The direct spectral fitting method is not fully specified; please state explicitly whether each spectrum is fit with a two-component model (a blue photospheric blackbody plus a single-temperature dust blackbody), and how the blue component is treated, so that the comparison with previous literature is reproducible.
  4. [§3.3 and Fig. 2] The z-band residual noted in the text is not quantified; a residual panel or a root-mean-square deviation for each band would help the reader judge the quality of the multi-band fit.
  5. [§2 and Eq. (8)] The text around Eq. (8) discusses the absorption depth of the dust shell before dust destruction; please clarify that this estimate applies to the unperturbed shell and that after evaporation the effective inner edge is R_ev, not the original R_in, which the model then treats as irrelevant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the dust-echo model is a forward model fitted to the data; the derived mass and distance are model-dependent outputs, not inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

I found no circular step in the derivation chain. The dust shell density profile (Eq. 1) and grain size distribution (Eq. 2) are stated assumptions, and the fitted parameters n_d and R_out are converted into a dust mass through Eq. 23; this is a standard model-dependent inference, not an equivalence between input and output by construction. The abstract's comparison with single-temperature spectral fits is a physical argument that a multi-temperature, time-evolving echo can explain the data with constant dust parameters, not a renaming of fitted values as predictions. The phrase 'model-predicted spectra' in Section 3.3 refers to spectra computed from the same best-fit parameters used for the light-curve fit, so it is a fit diagnostic rather than an out-of-sample prediction; this is loose wording, but the central claim does not reduce to that comparison. The evaporation cavity and echo light curve follow from external microphysics (Waxman & Draine 2000 evaporation, Draine absorption coefficients) and are anchored to external data (Perley et al. 2019, NEOWISE). No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used. Model dependence on the assumed r^-3 profile and ISM grain properties is a correctness/systematic-uncertainty concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The dust echo amplitude is set by n_d and R_out, the incident radiation by the magnetar parameters, and the mass-loss conclusions by the gas-to-dust ratio; all are fitted or adopted from literature, so the central claim is a fit to the same dataset, not an independent prediction.

free parameters (10)
  • M_ej = 0.03 M_sun
    Ejecta mass fitted to the optical light curves through the Arnett diffusion timescale (Table 1, Eq. 10).
  • P_i = 16.71 ms
    Initial magnetar spin period fitted to the optical light curves (Table 1, Eq. 12).
  • B_p = 10^1.32 x 10^14 G (~2.1e15 G)
    Dipolar magnetic field strength; the quoted posterior uncertainty of +0.00/-0.00 suggests a degenerate or pinned parameter (Table 1).
  • v_ej = 7.41e9 cm/s
    Ejecta expansion velocity fitted to the light curves (Table 1).
  • kappa_X = 10^1.59 cm2/g
    X-ray opacity of the ejecta controlling magnetar wind absorption (Table 1, Eq. 11).
  • kappa = 0.23 cm2/g
    Optical opacity of the ejecta, fitted within the prior range (Table 1).
  • T_floor = 1.16e4 K
    Floor photospheric temperature at late times (Eq. 13), introduced as a free parameter to match the optical decline.
  • t_shift = 1.01 days
    Time shift aligning the explosion zero point with the first observation (Section 3.3).
  • n_d = 10^-2.37 cm^-3
    Dust number density at R*; it directly scales the echo flux and the derived dust mass (Eqs. 8 and 23).
  • R_out = 10^17.77 cm
    Outer radius of the dust shell; sets the echo duration and the CSM size (Table 1).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The FBOT bolometric light curve follows the Arnett (1982) diffusion solution with magnetar spin-down power and X-ray absorption (Eqs. 9-12).
    The transient emission model is assumed, and the dust echo conclusions inherit any error in the assumed incident radiation field.
  • domain assumption A pre-existing dust shell with number density n(r) = n_d (r/R*)^-3 between R_in and R_out (Eq. 1).
    The power-law index -3 is adopted from Bright et al. (2022), not measured for AT 2018cow; it directly sets the dust mass and CSM mass estimates.
  • domain assumption Dust grains are carbonaceous with an MRN-like size distribution alpha = 3.5 over 0.001 to 10 micron (Eq. 2).
    The authors state ISM values may not apply to FBOT environments but adopt them to reduce the number of free parameters.
  • standard math Evaporation follows Waxman and Draine (2000) with zeta = 4.13e6 cm/s and binding energy E_b = 7.5 eV (Eq. 7).
    Standard dust sublimation physics taken from the literature.
  • standard math The dust absorption coefficients Q_abs come from Draine's public opacity tables over 10^-3 to 10^3 micron (Eq. 3).
    External data product referenced by URL; its accuracy is not verified within the paper.
  • domain assumption A canonical gas-to-dust mass ratio of 100:1 converts the dust mass to a CSM mass (Section 4).
    The CSM mass of about 3e-2 M_sun and the mass-loss rate conclusions scale with this adopted ratio.
  • ad hoc to paper The FBOT spectrum is a blackbody at T_ph, with a floor temperature T_floor imposed at late times (Eq. 13).
    T_floor is introduced as a free parameter without physical derivation and affects the late-time IR heating of the dust.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Dust Echo Emission of Fast Blue Optical Transients and Application to the Near-Infrared Excess of AT 2018cow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4GRDY7B

@misc{pith2026250419897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Dust Echo Emission of Fast Blue Optical Transients and Application to the Near-Infrared Excess of AT 2018cow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4GRDY7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19897}
}
read the original abstract

A near-infrared (NIR) excess has been discovered in the emission of the representative fast blue optical transient (FBOT): AT 2018cow. It was suggested that this NIR excess could be emitted by the dust surrounding the source and, thus, could provide a probe into the nature of its progenitor. We develop a model to describe the influence of the FBOT emission on the environmental dust and, as a result, a dust-free evaporation cavity can be formed on a timescale of one day. Outside this cavity, the surviving dust grains can have different size distributions at different distances to the source. With such a special dust environment, we fit the multi-wavelength light curves of AT 2018cow by taking into account the evolutionary dust echo of the FBOT emission. It is found that the dust temperature can vary with time along with the evolution of the irradiating FBOT emission. Even at a fixed time, the dust temperature can be distributed in a wide range rather than having only a unique value. Furthermore, both the mass of the dust shell and its distance to the FBOT are found to be much larger than those derived with a direct empirical fitting of the NIR spectra but without considering the evolutionary relationship between the spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic diagram of the model (not to scale). 3. APPLICATION TO AT 2018COW 3.1. FBOT Emission Since the focus of this paper is on the dust echo of FBOTs, the calculation of the FBOT emission would be simply implemented by according to the analytical solution of Arnett (1982). Specifically, the bolometric luminosity of the FBOT emission is given by: Lrad(t) = e −  t tdiff 2 Z t 0 2Lsd(t ′ ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Fitting to the multi-wavelength light curves of AT 2018cow. Right: A comparison between the model-predicted spectra and observational ones at seven time points. The dashed and dotted lines represent the FBOT and dust echo emission, respectively. the central source (Dwek 1983; Pearce & Evans 1984; Dwek 1985). The delayed time can be expressed as τd = r c (1 − cos θ), (15) which depends on the angle θ of the dir… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Parameter posteriors of the fittings of AT 2018cow. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The bolometric light curves of the FBOT (solid blue) and dust echo (solid red) emission for parameters de￾rived from the fitting of AT 2018cow. The dotted lines show the UV (1015−17Hz) and IR (1011−13Hz) components of the FBOT. The dashed line is the echo of the FBOT e…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The dust parameters (solid circles) for the spectral fittings of AT 2018cow for seven different times as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients as "Failed" Gravitational-wave Sources: Helium Core$-$Black Hole Mergers Following Delayed Dynamical Instability

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Luminous fast blue optical transients may be the aftermath of a black hole merging with a companion star's helium core after prolonged mass transfer, producing a super-Eddington accretion flare.

  2. The Most Luminous Known Fast Blue Optical Transient AT 2024wpp: Unprecedented Evolution and Properties in the Ultraviolet to the Near-Infrared

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    AT 2024wpp radiated more than 10^51 erg in 45 days, showing persistent 20,000 K blackbody emission, two-velocity hydrogen and helium lines, and a near-infrared excess, indicating an accretion-powered compact object.

  3. Implications of the UV/optical Plateau of AT2018cow

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785, doi: 10.1086/159681

    doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  2. [2]

    S., Margutti, R., Matthews, D., et al

    Bright, J. S., Margutti, R., Matthews, D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 112

    2022

  3. [3]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568

    Brooks, J., Schwab, J., Bildsten, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568 2017

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18985

    Chen, C., & Shen, R.-F. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18985

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 651, 381

    2006

  6. [6]

    A., & Irwin, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Irwin, C. M. 2011, ApJL, 729, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L6

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/l6 2011

  7. [7]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 866

    Chugai, N. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400, 866

    2009

  8. [8]

    1998, Physical Review Letters, 81, 4301

    Dai, Z., & Lu, T. 1998, Physical Review Letters, 81, 4301

    1998

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    M., Ofek, E

    De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2018, Science, 362, 201, doi: 10.1126/science.aas8693

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Draine, B., & Lee, H. M. 1984, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 285, Oct. 1, 1984, p. 89-108. Research supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation., 285, 89

    1984

  3. [11]

    A., Smith, L

    Drissen, L., Crowther, P. A., Smith, L. J., et al. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 546, 484

    2001

  4. [12]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 23

    2014

  5. [13]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/23

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    1983, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Dwek, E. 1983, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 274, Nov. 1, 1983, p. 175-183., 274, 175 —. 1985, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 297, Oct. 15, 1985, p. 719-723. NASA-supported research., 297, 719

    1983

  7. [15]

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

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

    2013

  8. [16]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Dwek, E., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 1768

    2010

  9. [17]

    D., & Smith, N

    Fox, O. D., & Smith, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1925

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 7

    2011

  11. [19]

    2019, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 305

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 305

    2019

  12. [20]

    2009, Nature, 462, 624

    Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P., Ofek, E., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 624

    2009

  13. [21]

    2014, Nature, 509, 471

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471

    2014

  14. [22]

    2014, Nature, 511, 326 11

    Gall, C., Hjorth, J., Watson, D., et al. 2014, Nature, 511, 326 11

    2014

  15. [23]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/178 Gonz´ alez-Tor` a, G., Wittkowski, M., Davies, B., Plez, B., &

    Ginzburg, S., & Balberg, S. 2012, ApJ, 757, 178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/178 Gonz´ alez-Tor` a, G., Wittkowski, M., Davies, B., Plez, B., &

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A76

    Kravchenko, K. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A76

    2023

  17. [25]

    2022, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac910

    Gottlieb, O., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Margutti, R. 2022, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac910

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    E., Nugent, P

    Harris, C. E., Nugent, P. E., & Kasen, D. N. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 100

    2016

  19. [27]

    Ho, A. Y. 2022, in The Landscape of Relativistic Stellar Explosions (Springer), 217–258

    2022

  20. [28]

    Y., Phinney, E

    Ho, A. Y., Phinney, E. S., Ravi, V., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 73

    2019

  21. [29]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c7d

    Hotokezaka, K., Kashiyama, K., & Murase, K. 2017, ApJ, 850, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8c7d

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.06402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.06402

    Hu, R.-C., Zhu, J.-P., Qin, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.06402, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.06402

    2023 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697

    Inserra, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697

    2019

  24. [32]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 31

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Hu, X., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 911, 31

    2021

  25. [33]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 245

    2010

  26. [34]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2010, ApJL, 723, L98, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L98

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 73

    Kochanek, C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 73

    2011

  28. [36]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 628, L123

    Mattila, S. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 628, L123

    2005

  29. [37]

    Kuin, N. P. M., Wu, K., Oates, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2505

    2019

  30. [38]

    Laor, A., & Draine, B. T. 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 402, no. 2, p. 441-468., 402, 441

    1993

  31. [39]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba33

    Leung, S.-C., Blinnikov, S., Nomoto, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba33

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 77

    Li, J.-Y., Wang, S.-Q., Gan, W.-P., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 77

    2022

  33. [41]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L13

    Li, L., Zhong, S.-Q., Xiao, D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 963, L13

    2024

  34. [42]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2

    Liu, J.-F., Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., & Zhang, B. 2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 935, L34

    Liu, J.-F., Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., & Zhang, B. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 935, L34

    2022

  36. [44]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 992

    Lyman, J., Galbany, L., S´ anchez, S., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 992

    2020

  37. [45]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 30

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 30

    2014

  38. [46]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 18

    Margutti, R., Metzger, B., Chornock, R., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 18

    2019

  39. [47]

    S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K

    Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 217, Oct. 15, 1977, p. 425-433. NSF-supported research., 217, 425

    1977

  40. [48]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 69

    Meisner, A., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 69

    2018

  41. [49]

    D., & Perley, D

    Metzger, B. D., & Perley, D. A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 74 Micha lowski, M. J., Kamphuis, P., Hjorth, J., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A106

    2023

  42. [50]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 888, L24

    Mohan, P., An, T., & Yang, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 888, L24

    2020

  43. [51]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 623

    Mor, R., Livne, E., & Piran, T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 623

    2023

  44. [52]

    J., & Eldridge, J

    Moriya, T. J., & Eldridge, J. J. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1471

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 912, L9

    Nayana, A., & Chandra, P. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 912, L9

    2021

  46. [54]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 55

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, 55

    2017

  47. [55]

    O., Cameron, P., Kasliwal, M., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Cameron, P., Kasliwal, M., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 659, L13

    2007

  48. [56]

    R., Ho, W

    Pasham, D. R., Ho, W. C., Alston, W., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 249

    2022

  49. [57]

    1984, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol

    Pearce, G., & Evans, A. 1984, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 136, no. 2, July 1984, p. 306-312., 136, 306

    1984

  50. [58]

    A., Vink´ o, J., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    A., Mazzali, P

    Perley, D. A., Mazzali, P. A., Yan, L., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 1031

    2019

  52. [60]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 44

    Petropoulou, M., Kamble, A., & Sironi, L. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 44

    2016

  53. [61]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 457

    Pozzo, M., Meikle, W., Fassia, A., et al. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 352, 457

    2004

  54. [62]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 865, L3

    Prentice, S., Maguire, K., Smartt, S., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 865, L3

    2018

  55. [63]

    M., Aldering, G., Wheeler, J

    Quimby, R. M., Aldering, G., Wheeler, J. C., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 668, L99

    2007

  56. [64]

    M., Khatami, D., et al

    Rest, A., Garnavich, P. M., Khatami, D., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 307, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0423-2 Rivera Sandoval, L., Maccarone, T., Corsi, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 480, L146

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 485, L93

    Roychowdhury, S., Arabsalmani, M., & Kanekar, N. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 485, L93

    2019

  58. [66]

    Sarangi, A., Dwek, E., & Arendt, R. G. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 859, 66

    2018

  59. [67]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53ae 12

    Sawada, R., Kashiyama, K., & Suwa, Y. 2022, ApJ, 927, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53ae 12

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    L., & Teukolsky, S

    Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 2024, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars: the physics of compact objects (John Wiley & Sons)

    2024

  61. [69]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 467

    Smith, N., Chornock, R., Li, W., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 686, 467

    2008

  62. [70]

    J., et al

    Smith, N., Li, W., Foley, R. J., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 666, 1116

    2007

  63. [71]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 3073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2195

    Takahashi, K. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2195

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 549, A79

    Szalai, T., & Vink´ o, J. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 549, A79

    2013

  65. [73]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A39

    Tartaglia, L., Pastorello, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A39

    2020

  66. [74]

    M., Langer, N., Moriya, T

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 778, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/2/L23

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv990

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    M., Kramer, M., Freire, P

    Tauris, T. M., Kramer, M., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e89

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    D., Jiang, Y.-F., & White, C

    Tuna, S., Metzger, B. D., Jiang, Y.-F., & White, C. J. 2025, Time-Dependent Radiation Transport Simulations of Infrared Echoes from Dust-Shrouded Luminous Transients. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13157

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 537, 796

    Waxman, E., & Draine, B. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 537, 796

    2000

  71. [79]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1868

    2010

  72. [80]

    2021, ApJ, 910, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdeba

    Xiang, D., Wang, X., Lin, W., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abdeba

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    2019a, ApJL, 877, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f85

    Yu, Y.-W., Chen, A., & Li, X.-D. 2019a, ApJL, 877, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1f85

    doi

  74. [82]

    2019b, ApJL, 870, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf960

    Yu, Y.-W., Chen, A., & Wang, B. 2019b, ApJL, 870, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf960

    doi

  75. [83]

    2015, ApJL, 806, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L6

    Yu, Y.-W., Li, S.-Z., & Dai, Z.-G. 2015, ApJL, 806, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L6

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    2013, ApJL, 776, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L40

    Yu, Y.-W., Zhang, B., & Gao, H. 2013, ApJL, 776, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L40

    2013 doi

  77. [85]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27

    Yu, Y.-W., Zhu, J.-P., Li, S.-Z., L¨ u, H.-J., & Zou, Y.-C. 2017, ApJ, 840, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    B., & Toonen, S

    Zenati, Y., Perets, H. B., & Toonen, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz316

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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