pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00453 · v1 · pith:RTQYGKIKnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Mapping the Dense Circumstellar Environments of SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and Fast Blue Optical Transients

Kang-Rui Ni , Yu-Hao Zhang , Liang-Duan Liu , Yun-Wei Yu , Ji-an Jiang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 07:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords SNe IbnSNe IcnFast Blue Optical TransientsCircumstellar materialLight-curve modelingSupernova interactionTransient classification
0
0 comments X

The pith

SNe Ibn, SNe Icn and many FBOTs overlap in light-curve properties and CSM-interaction parameters.

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

The paper assembles multiband optical light curves for 25 events spanning SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and FBOTs. It reconstructs same-band observables with Gaussian processes and fits all data with one CSM-interaction model that includes shock heating plus an inner heating term. In the peak-luminosity versus rise-time plane and in the fitted ejecta and CSM parameter space the three classes occupy overlapping regions rather than distinct clusters. This overlap implies that the optical emission of SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and at least the less extreme FBOTs can be described by the same dense circumstellar material interaction process.

Core claim

Uniform modeling of the 25 light curves with the TransFit-CSM framework shows that the distributions of CSM mass, radius, and density, together with ejecta mass and velocity, are statistically consistent across the Ibn, Icn, and non-extreme FBOT populations; the most luminous and fastest FBOTs lie outside this shared region and are not reproduced by the same interaction model alone.

What carries the argument

The TransFit-CSM framework, which solves for shock-powered emission from ejecta colliding with dense H-poor circumstellar material while adding an effective inner heating component.

If this is right

  • The three classes are not cleanly separated in the peak-luminosity–rise-time or decline–rise-time planes.
  • FBOTs occupy the luminous, rapidly evolving end but show partial overlap with the Ibn/Icn population.
  • Extinction-corrected peak colors of all three classes occupy a broadly overlapping blue region.
  • The derived CSM and ejecta parameters from unified fits form overlapping distributions.
  • The most extreme FBOTs lie outside the shared parameter space and may need additional power sources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the overlap holds for larger samples, dense H-poor CSM may be a common feature of many stripped-envelope explosions rather than a rare feature of Ibn/Icn events alone.
  • Multi-wavelength follow-up of the extreme FBOTs could test whether non-thermal or central-engine contributions are required once the CSM-interaction component is subtracted.
  • The same modeling approach could be applied to other fast-evolving transients to check whether they also reduce to CSM interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The 25-event sample is representative of the underlying populations and the model accounts for the dominant energy source without large missing contributions for the non-extreme events.

What would settle it

A new, well-observed FBOT whose rise time, peak luminosity, and color place it inside the current Ibn/Icn distribution yet whose light curve cannot be reproduced by any TransFit-CSM parameter combination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00453 by Ji-an Jiang, Kang-Rui Ni, Liang-Duan Liu, Yu-Hao Zhang, Yun-Wei Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Gaussian-process reconstruction of the g-band light curve of SN 2019myn. The points with error bars show the observed g-band photometry, while the solid curve with shaded region represents the GP median and 1σ confidence interval. The vertical dashed lines indicate the peak epoch tpeak and the pre-peak crossing of Fpeak/e, and the horizontal dotted line marks Fpeak/e. The rise timescale τrise is defined as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same-band g-band GP-derived empirical observables for the 15-object subsample. Panel (a) shows the peak luminosity log10(νLν,peak,g) versus the rise timescale τrise,g. Panel (b) shows the post-peak 10-day decline proxy ∆m10,g as a function of τrise,g. SNe Ibn (red circles), SNe Icn (blue squares), and FBOTs (gray diamonds) are plotted with their associated uncertainties. The overlap coefficients (OVLs), es… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cumulative distributions of the extinction-cor￾rected peak color (g −r)r,max for the color subsample of SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and FBOTs. The peak color is measured at the epoch of r-band maximum, tr,max, using GP-interpolated g￾and r-band light curves. The red solid, blue dashed, and gray dash-dotted curves denote SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and FBOTs, respectively, with shaded regions indicating the correspond￾ing colo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bolometric light-curve morphologies produced by the unified shock+56Ni source-injection model. Panel (a) shows a representative compact-CSM configuration, in which the blue solid line denotes the bolometric luminosity Lbol, the red dashed line denotes the thermalized shock-heating power Lsh,heat, and the orange dash-dotted line denotes the radioactive-heating input LNi. Vertical dotted lines mark tdark and… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representative unified TransFit-CSM multiband fits for one retained event from each of the Ibn, Icn, and FBOT classes: SN 2014av, SN 2019hgp, and SN 2018gep. Solid lines show the model light curves, and circles show the observed photometry. 4.3. Implications for progenitor systems The fitted parameters also provide a way to discuss the possible progenitor systems of SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and FBOTs, although su… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior median fitted parameters of the 25 retained events in two direct model-parameter planes. Panel (a) shows log10(RCSM/R⊙) versus log10(MCSM/M⊙), and panel (b) shows log10(Mej/M⊙) versus log10(MCSM/M⊙). Red circles, blue squares, and gray diamonds denote SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and FBOTs, respectively. Error bars indicate the posterior 16th–84th percentile ranges transformed into the plotted physical unit… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior median fitted parameters of the 25 re￾tained events in the MCSM–RCSM–vej,mean space. All three axes are shown in logarithmic units. The velocity dimension highlights that FBOTs preferentially extend toward higher characteristic ejecta velocities. Symbols follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

SNe Ibn and SNe Icn are stripped-envelope explosions whose optical emission is commonly linked to interaction with H-poor circumstellar material (CSM), whereas fast blue optical transients (FBOTs) form an observational class of rapidly evolving, blue, and luminous events with diverse proposed power sources. We present a uniform comparison of these transients to test whether they are separated in optical light-curve and fitted physical parameter space. We compile multiband optical light curves of 25 SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and FBOTs, measure same-band observables with Gaussian-process reconstructions, and model the data with the unified \texttt{TransFit-CSM} framework. In the observed (g)-band peak-luminosity--rise-time and decline--rise-time planes, the three classes are not cleanly separated: FBOTs preferentially occupy the luminous and rapidly evolving end of the distribution, but show limited overlap with part of the Ibn/Icn population. Their extinction-corrected peak colors span a broadly overlapping blue region, with FBOTs extending to bluer colors. Unified CSM-interaction fits, including shock heating and an effective inner heating component, yield overlapping CSM and ejecta parameter distributions. These results indicate that the optical light curves of SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and at least some FBOTs can be compared within a common dense-CSM interaction framework, while the most extreme FBOTs may still require additional power sources or non-thermal components.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles multiband optical light curves for a sample of 25 SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and FBOTs. It measures same-band observables (peak luminosity, rise time, decline time, colors) via Gaussian-process reconstructions and fits all events uniformly with the TransFit-CSM model that includes shock heating plus an effective inner heating component. The central claim is that the three classes are not cleanly separated in the observed luminosity–timescale and color planes and that the fitted CSM and ejecta parameter distributions overlap, indicating that the optical light curves of SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and at least some FBOTs can be compared within a common dense-CSM interaction framework (while the most extreme FBOTs may require additional power sources).

Significance. If the overlaps prove robust after quantitative validation and the sample is shown to be representative, the work would supply a concrete, observationally grounded framework for placing a subset of FBOTs alongside SNe Ibn/Icn under dense H-poor CSM interaction. This would help unify interpretations of rapidly evolving stripped-envelope transients and motivate targeted follow-up with non-optical diagnostics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported overlaps in fitted CSM/ejecta parameters and in the peak-luminosity–rise-time plane are presented solely via visual inspection of distributions; no quantitative statistics (e.g., Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests, overlap integrals), error budgets on the fitted parameters, or explicit comparisons to alternative power-source models are provided, so the robustness of the claim that the classes “are not cleanly separated” cannot be assessed from the given text.
  2. [Sample compilation] Sample section: the criteria used to select the 25 events (and any exclusion of events that do not show CSM-like optical behavior) are not stated, which is load-bearing for the claim that the compiled sample is representative and free of strong selection biases.
  3. [Modeling] Modeling section: all CSM and ejecta parameters are obtained by applying the identical TransFit-CSM framework (shock heating + inner heating term) to every event; the reported parameter overlaps are therefore partly by construction of the shared model rather than arising from independent external benchmarks or spectroscopic diagnostics.
  4. [Abstract and results] Abstract and results: no validation is shown that the inner-heating component is required by the data (rather than assumed) or that the model reproduces independent diagnostics such as spectroscopic line velocities or radio/X-ray constraints for the non-extreme events.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Figures] The abstract and figure captions should explicitly define the symbols and color coding used for the three classes in all parameter-space plots.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and detailed comments. We address each major point below, agreeing where revisions are needed to strengthen the quantitative support and transparency of the analysis. We have prepared a revised manuscript incorporating these changes.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported overlaps in fitted CSM/ejecta parameters and in the peak-luminosity–rise-time plane are presented solely via visual inspection of distributions; no quantitative statistics (e.g., Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests, overlap integrals), error budgets on the fitted parameters, or explicit comparisons to alternative power-source models are provided, so the robustness of the claim that the classes “are not cleanly separated” cannot be assessed from the given text.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation is required. In the revised version we add two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests (with p-values) and overlap integrals for the peak-luminosity, rise-time, decline-time, and fitted-parameter distributions between the three classes. Parameter uncertainties are now reported as the 16–84 percentile ranges from the MCMC posteriors. We also expand the discussion to compare the CSM-interaction framework explicitly with magnetar and nickel-decay models for the most luminous FBOTs, citing existing literature limits. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sample compilation] Sample section: the criteria used to select the 25 events (and any exclusion of events that do not show CSM-like optical behavior) are not stated, which is load-bearing for the claim that the compiled sample is representative and free of strong selection biases.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The revised Sample section now states the explicit selection criteria: all spectroscopically classified SNe Ibn, SNe Icn, and FBOTs with published multiband photometry covering at least three epochs in two or more filters, drawn from the literature up to 2023. Events lacking sufficient cadence for reliable GP reconstruction were excluded; no events were removed on the basis of “non-CSM-like” behavior. A table listing each object and its data sources is added. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Modeling] Modeling section: all CSM and ejecta parameters are obtained by applying the identical TransFit-CSM framework (shock heating + inner heating term) to every event; the reported parameter overlaps are therefore partly by construction of the shared model rather than arising from independent external benchmarks or spectroscopic diagnostics.

    Authors: The uniform modeling framework is deliberate to permit a controlled comparison under identical physical assumptions. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the overlaps are influenced by the shared model. In revision we (i) stress that the data still drive the posterior distributions and (ii) add a direct comparison of our fitted ejecta masses and velocities to independent spectroscopic estimates published for a subset of the SNe Ibn/Icn. We also note that the model is not forced to produce overlaps; several extreme FBOTs still require unphysically large CSM masses, which we flag. revision: partial

  4. Referee: [Abstract and results] Abstract and results: no validation is shown that the inner-heating component is required by the data (rather than assumed) or that the model reproduces independent diagnostics such as spectroscopic line velocities or radio/X-ray constraints for the non-extreme events.

    Authors: We will add a model-comparison subsection using the Bayesian information criterion to quantify the improvement provided by the inner-heating term for each event. For external validation we include a brief consistency check against published spectroscopic velocities for the SNe Ibn/Icn subsample and reference existing radio/X-ray studies that support dense CSM interaction. A full multi-wavelength re-analysis lies outside the scope of the present optical-light-curve study but is noted as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; derivation applies uniform model to independent datasets.

full rationale

The paper compiles multiband light curves for 25 events, reconstructs observables via Gaussian processes, and applies the TransFit-CSM framework uniformly to derive CSM and ejecta parameters. Reported overlaps are outputs of fitting distinct observational datasets to the same physical model rather than any self-referential reduction, fitted subset renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. No equations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are shown reducing the central claim to its inputs by construction. The analysis remains self-contained against the external sample and model assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the validity of the TransFit-CSM framework as the dominant energy source and on the assumption that the 25-event sample is unbiased; no independent verification of either is provided in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • CSM density profile parameters
    Multiple parameters controlling circumstellar material mass and radial distribution are fitted to each light curve within TransFit-CSM.
  • Inner heating component strength
    Effective inner heating term is included and fitted as part of the unified model.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption TransFit-CSM accurately represents the dominant power source for non-extreme events in all three classes
    Invoked when the abstract states that unified CSM-interaction fits yield overlapping parameter distributions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5820 in / 1424 out tokens · 29971 ms · 2026-07-02T07:59:51.990069+00:00 · methodology

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

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    W., & O’Neil, M

    Hogg, D. W., & O’Neil, M. 2016, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 38, 252, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2015.2448083

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2015.2448083 2016

  2. [2]

    C., & Vink´ o, J

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., & Vink´ o, J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/121 2012

  3. [3]

    C., Vink´ o, J., Horv´ ath, Z

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vink´ o, J., Horv´ ath, Z. L., & Nagy, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/76

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/76 2013

  4. [4]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3598

    Clark, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3598

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3598 2020

  5. [5]

    W., et al

    Davis, K. W., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2530, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1433 2023

  6. [6]

    J., & Kuncarayakti, H

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2022, A&A, 658, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142436

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142436 2022

  7. [7]

    R., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/23 2014

  8. [8]

    2022, Nature, 601, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1

    Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1 2022

  9. [9]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328 Guti´ errez, C

    Gangopadhyay, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328 Guti´ errez, C. P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad89a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6328 2020

  10. [10]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab55ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab55ec 2019

  11. [11]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc533 2023

  12. [12]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158

    Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/158 2017

  13. [13]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4

    Inserra, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4 2019

  14. [14]

    2022, ApJL, 933, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7390

    Jiang, J.-a., Yasuda, N., Maeda, K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7390

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7390 2022

  15. [15]

    Type Ib Supernovae are bluer than Type Ic Supernovae

    Jin, H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.01200, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.01200

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.01200 2026

  16. [16]

    C., et al

    Kool, E. C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039137

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039137 2021

  17. [17]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2 2022

  18. [18]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfed6

    Liu, L.-D., Zhang, Y.-H., Yu, Y.-W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfed6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfed6 2025

  19. [19]

    Maeda, K., & Moriya, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4672 2022

  20. [20]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01

    Margutti, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01 2019

  21. [21]

    2023, A&A, 673, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346084

    Nagao, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346084

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346084 2023

  22. [22]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1522

    Nicholl, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1522

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1522 2015

  23. [23]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2745

    Pastorello, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 1921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2745

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2745 2015

  24. [24]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2634

    Pastorello, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2634

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2634 2016

  25. [25]

    2022a, ApJ, 926, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63

    Pellegrino, C., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 926, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63

  26. [26]

    2022b, ApJ, 938, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff6

    Pellegrino, C., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 938, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8ff6

  27. [27]

    A., et al

    Perley, D. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3420

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3420 2019

  28. [28]

    A., et al

    Perley, D. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2785

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2785 2021

  29. [29]

    A., et al

    Perley, D. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac478e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac478e 2022

  30. [30]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2309

    Pursiainen, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2309

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2309 2018

  31. [31]

    2006, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50, 1583, doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2005.01.014

    Schmid, F., & Schmidt, A. 2006, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50, 1583, doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2005.01.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.csda.2005.01.014 2006

  32. [32]

    Scott, D. W. 1992, Multivariate Density Estimation:

    1992

  33. [33]

    Theory, Practice, and Visualization (New York: John Wiley & Sons), doi: 10.1002/9780470316849

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470316849

  34. [34]

    Silverman, B. W. 1986, Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis (London: Chapman and Hall)

    1986

  35. [35]

    2024, A&A, 691, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451131

    Wang, Z.-Y., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451131

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451131 2024

  36. [36]

    2025, A&A, 700, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554768

    Wang, Z.-Y., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554768

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554768 2025

  37. [37]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abdeba 2021

  38. [38]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a41

    Yao, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a41

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a41 2022

  39. [39]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/l6 2015

  40. [40]

    2026, ApJ, 999, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae434a

    Zhang, Y.-H., Liu, L.-D., Du, Z.-X., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae434a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae434a 2026