Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 77 references

Hydrodynamical modelling of Type IIb SNe

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Most Type IIb supernovae arise from low-mass progenitors whose envelopes were stripped by binary companions.

desk verdict Solid new grid-fitting work with a clean degeneracy result, but the headline IMF fractions rest on an unpublished mass conversion and the draft is not yet ready. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00543 v1 pith:VNPD4LW3 submitted 2025-05-31 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Mattias Ergon , Maximilian Stritzinger , Francesco Taddia , Jesper Sollerman , Claes Fransson This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw
keywords TypeIIbsupernovaeHYDEhydrodynamicalcodestripped-envelopehelium-coremassinitialfunctionbinaryprogenitorchannelnickel-56photosphericvelocities
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

Using a new one-dimensional hydrodynamic code, HYDE, and a grid of exploding bare helium-core models, this paper fits the bolometric lightcurves and photospheric velocities of 17 Type IIb supernovae. The fits imply that most Type IIb progenitors are low-mass stars: 56 percent have initial masses below 15 $M_\odot$ and 81 percent below 20 $M_\odot$, a distribution close to a standard Salpeter IMF but with an under-population above 25 $M_\odot$. Because single stars below about 25 $M_\odot$ are not expected to lose their hydrogen envelopes before core collapse, the authors conclude that either binary interaction dominates the production of Type IIb SNe or our understanding of single-star mass loss is flawed. The paper also shows that fits using only the lightcurve are completely degenerate along the $M_{\mathrm{ej}}^2/E_{\mathrm{ej}} = \mathrm{const}$ curve, and that adding photospheric velocities makes the derived helium-core mass and explosion energy robust for well-sampled SNe.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by HYDE, a one-dimensional hydrodynamical code built on the diffusion approximation, which treats the explosion as a thermal bomb and follows the coupled radiation-hydrodynamics of the ejecta with standard opacity tables, an opacity floor calibrated against more detailed codes, and Monte-Carlo deposition of radioactive decay energy. The model grid is built from solar-metallicity bare helium-core progenitors evolved with MESA to the verge of core collapse, spanning helium-core masses $2.5$ to $10\,M_\odot$, explosion energies from $0.4\times10^{51}$ to $6\times10^{51}$ erg, $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$ masses from $0.015$ to $0.3\,M_\odot$, and mixing parameters. The key object is the helium-core mass, because for Type IIb SNe the hydrogen envelope is nearly gone and the helium-core mass is directly linked to the initial stellar mass; the automated fitter minimizes relative residuals of the diffusion-phase lightcurve, the tail lightcurve, and the photospheric velocity evolution, and propagates errors in distance, extinction, and velocity.

What would settle it

A volume-limited sample of nearby Type IIb SNe with pre-explosion imaging that resolves a majority of progenitors at initial masses above about 20 $M_\odot$ would contradict the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an empirical statement about Type IIb progenitors: fitting the observed bolometric lightcurves and photospheric velocities of 17 Type IIb SNe to hydrodynamic explosion models of bare helium cores yields helium-core masses that, after conversion through stellar models, give a distribution of initial masses with 56 percent below 15 $M_\odot$ and 81 percent below 20 $M_\odot$, and an under-population above 25 $M_\odot$ relative to a Salpeter IMF. Since standard single-star evolution at solar metallicity expects hydrogen-envelope loss only above roughly 25 $M_\odot$, the paper states the implication plainly: either the binary channel dominates Type IIb production or single-star mass loss is not understood. The same fits establish correlations between explosion energy and initial mass and between $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$ mass and explosion energy, and they identify the error structure of the method: distance and extinction errors land mainly in the derived nickel mass, while photospheric velocity errors land mainly in the helium-core mass and explosion energy. The central discovery therefore has two layers: a claim about what most Type IIb progenitors are, and a methodological claim about how lightcurve and velocity data must be combined to measure them.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that solar-metallicity, non-rotating stellar models with standard single-star mass loss correctly turn a fitted helium-core mass into an initial stellar mass; if those mass-loss rates are wrong, the claimed IMF fractions and the binary-dominance conclusion shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If most Type IIb SNe come from stars below 20 $M_\odot$, then binary mass transfer rather than single-star winds must be the dominant hydrogen-stripping mechanism, and a substantial fraction of Type IIb remnants should have surviving companion stars.
  • Photospheric velocity evolution is not optional: without it, fits are completely degenerate along the $M_{\mathrm{ej}}^2/E_{\mathrm{ej}}=\mathrm{const}$ curve, so helium-core mass and explosion energy cannot be separated from the bolometric lightcurve alone.
  • Distance and extinction errors propagate mainly into the derived $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$ mass, while photospheric velocity errors propagate mainly into the helium-core mass and explosion energy; improving velocity measurements is therefore the most effective path to sharper progenitor-mass estimates.
  • The reported correlations between explosion energy, initial mass, and $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$ mass support a picture in which more massive progenitors explode more energetically and synthesize more radioactive nickel, in agreement with earlier sample studies based on simpler models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if binary stripping dominates Type IIb production, deep imaging of recent Type IIb remnants should reveal surviving companion stars for a substantial fraction of events; the paper does not quantify a predicted detection rate.
  • Inference: applying the same grid-fitting method to Type Ib and Ic SNe, whose ejecta masses are similarly low, could test whether the binary channel dominates those classes as well; the paper flags this as desirable but does not perform it.
  • Inference: because the derived explosion energy is almost proportional to the opacity floor in HYDE, recalibrating that floor with a code that treats line opacity consistently could shift the absolute energy scale and the slope of the energy-mass correlation, while helium-core masses would be less affected.
  • Inference: for future surveys of stripped-envelope SNe, the error analysis suggests that multi-epoch spectroscopic velocity measurements add more constraining power per observation than additional photometric epochs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents HYDE, a one-dimensional hydrodynamical code based on flux-limited diffusion, and uses it to construct a grid of supernova models from solar-metallicity bare helium-core MESA progenitors. The grid is fitted, via an automated procedure, to the bolometric lightcurves and photospheric velocities of 17 Type IIb SNe, yielding helium-core masses, explosion energies, 56Ni masses and mixing parameters, and explosion epochs. The authors derive correlations among explosion energy, helium-core mass and 56Ni mass, and convert the helium-core masses to initial masses to compare the sample with a Salpeter IMF. They report that 56% and 81% of the SNe have initial masses below 15 and 20 solar masses, respectively, and conclude that either the binary channel dominates Type IIb production or single-star mass-loss is poorly understood. The paper also includes an analysis of degeneracies and error propagation, a comparison with previous modelling of individual SNe and with the Lyman et al. (2014) sample, and an explicit discussion of limitations.

Significance. If the population-level results are correct, the paper would substantially strengthen the case that most Type IIb SNe arise from low-mass progenitors stripped by binary interaction, and it would provide one of the first hydrodynamical-model-based parameter studies of a sizeable Type IIb sample. The paper has clear technical strengths: the HYDE code is tested against analytic solutions, energy conservation, the Bersten et al. (2012) model, and low-mass hydrogen-envelope calculations; the fitting procedure includes explicit error propagation from distance, extinction and photospheric velocities; and the degeneracy analysis in Sect. 5.5 is informative. The authors are also transparent about the main limitations. However, the central quantitative claims—the 56%/81% initial-mass fractions and, to a lesser degree, the E-M_He correlation—depend on choices and conversions that are not yet fully documented or propagated, so the population-level conclusions are not reproducible from the manuscript as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 5.6.2 / Fig. 18] The headline fractions (56% below 15 M_sun and 81% below 20 M_sun) and the comparison to a Salpeter IMF require converting the fitted helium-core masses in Tables 2 and 3 into initial stellar masses, but the manuscript never presents this M_He-to-M_init conversion or its uncertainty. Section 3.1 describes only solar-metallicity non-rotating 15 M_sun MESA models with adjusted mass-loss; no mapping for the full 2.5-10 M_sun grid is given. Because the single-star mass-loss prescriptions entering that conversion are the same physics against which the binary-channel conclusion is contrasted, the two branches of the dichotomy are not independent as quantified. Please provide the conversion (a figure, table or fitting formula), justify its applicability to binary-stripped progenitors, and propagate its systematic uncertainty into the quoted percentages.
  2. [Sect. 3.5 / Fig. 9] The opacity floor is calibrated by private communication (Bersten et al. 2012), and Fig. 9 shows that the inferred explosion energy is almost proportional to this floor over the plotted range, while the helium-core mass changes by roughly 25%. Because the explosion energy enters the E-M_He and E-M_Ni correlations directly, the sample-level conclusions in Sect. 5.6.1 need a propagated systematic: either refit the sample with the opacity floor varied across its plausible range, or add a floor-induced systematic term to the fitted exponents and report how the correlation indexes shift. The current single-model sensitivity study does not establish the effect on the sample statistics.
  3. [Sect. 3.2, footnote 1; Sect. 5] SNe 1996cb, 2003bg, 2011ei and 2011fu were fitted with an older grid based on mass-scaled 4 M_sun models with fixed Mix_Ni, while the final grid is not yet computed for M_He>7 M_sun and E>2.2x10^51 erg. These are the extreme, high-mass objects that anchor the high-mass end of the E-M_He relation and the >25 M_sun IMF bin. Please either recompute these fits with the final grid or quantify the offset between the old and new grids over their overlapping parameter space; without this, the high-mass statistics remain provisional.
  4. [Sect. 5.5 / 5.6.1 / Fig. 17] The paper notes that the E-M_He correlation is partly aligned with the M_ej^2/E_ej degeneracy curve, but it does not quantify how much of the fitted power-law index 1.8 survives when the covariance of the fits is taken into account. Several SNe in the sample (e.g., 2009K, 2011ei, 1996cb, 2011fu) have strongly degenerate contours in the E-M_He plane, so an unweighted power-law fit can bias the exponent. Please show the correlation with error ellipses or covariance information, or restrict the fit to SNe whose contours are well closed, and report the resulting index.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sect. 2.2 vs Sect. 3.5] The helium-core opacity floor is given as 0.025 cm2 g^-1 in Sect. 2.2 but as 0.024 g^-1 cm2 in Sect. 3.5; the values should be made consistent.
  2. [Sect. 3.3, text near Eq. (7)] The text says an increase of explosion energy or decrease of ejecta mass should 'decrease the photospheric velocity', but Eq. (7) shows the photospheric velocity increasing with E and decreasing with M_ej; the wording needs to be corrected.
  3. [Fig. 18 caption] The caption lists bins as '8-15, 15-20, 20-25 and 25-30 M_sun', whereas the text in Sect. 5.6.2 says '10-15, 15-20, 20-25 and 25-30 M_sun'; these should be reconciled.
  4. [Sect. 3.2, footnote 4] Footnote 4 says 'a fixed mixing of the 56Ni (M_Ni=1.0)', which appears to be a typo for Mix_Ni=1.0; the notation should be corrected.
  5. [Sect. 5.6.2] The text contains the placeholder '(references)' after 'has been proposed by several authors'; the citations should be filled in.
  6. [Various] Several passages state that settings 'will be changed for the final version of the model grid', that zero error bars 'will be fixed in the final version', and that a figure 'only include[s]' a subset of SNe; these statements should be resolved in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: fit outputs are not defined by the inputs, and the IMF-conversion gap is a reproducibility concern, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained: observed bolometric lightcurves and photospheric velocities are least-squares fitted to a precomputed HYDE/MESA grid, yielding M_He, E, and M_Ni as genuine fit outputs (Sect. 5.2). These quantities are not defined in terms of the conclusions drawn from them. The M_ej^2/E_ej degeneracy is explicitly identified and quantified in Sect. 5.5, and the E-M_He correlation in Sect. 5.6.1 is flagged as partially aligned with that degeneracy, with agreement with the independent Lyman et al. (2014) results cited as a check. The opacity floor, a key input, is calibrated against the external STELLA code (Sect. 2.2), not against the target supernovae. The genuine weakness is the unstated M_He-to-M_initial conversion behind the Sect. 5.6.2 IMF bins and the 56%/81% fractions: the manuscript never displays the relation or propagates its uncertainty, so the quantitative population claim is not reproducible as written. That omission is a reproducibility and systematic-error problem, however, not a circular reduction; the initial masses are not defined by the observed lightcurves, and the abstract itself allows the alternative that single-star mass-loss is flawed. The same-author citations (E14a/E14b) supply data-reduction tools and a comparison object, but the population conclusion does not rest on a self-citation chain. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Score 2 reflects minor self-citations and the undocumented mass conversion, not demonstrated circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of modeling assumptions: bare helium-core representation, a calibrated opacity floor, a simplified nuclear mixing prescription, a fixed mass cut, and a MESA-based mass-lossing mapping from helium-core to initial mass. None of these are independently testable within the paper, and the quoted parameter uncertainties do not include their systematic contributions.

free parameters (7)
  • Opacity floor in helium core = 0.024 g^-1 cm^2 (0.01 in H envelope)
    Chosen following Bersten et al. (2012, private communication) to compensate missing line opacity; explosion energy is almost proportional to this value (Sect. 3.5).
  • Photospheric velocity systematic error = 15%
    Assumed in the fitting to propagate velocity uncertainties into derived parameters (Sect. 5.2).
  • Explosion energy E (per SN) = 0.64-3.60 x 10^51 erg in Tables 2-3
    Free parameter fitted to each SN bolometric lightcurve and velocity.
  • Helium-core mass M_He (per SN) = 2.62-7.50 M_sun in Tables 2-3
    Free parameter fitted; drives the IMF and the binary-channel conclusion.
  • 56Ni mass M_Ni (per SN) = 0.032-0.231 M_sun in Tables 2-3
    Free parameter fitted; its correlation with E is a result.
  • 56Ni mixing fraction Mix_Ni (per SN) = 0.80-1.60 in Tables 2-3
    Free parameter controlling the 56Ni distribution; older grid for some SNe fixed it at 1.0.
  • Explosion epoch (per SN) = JD values in Tables 2-3
    Fitted within hard limits from detections and non-detections.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Type IIb SNe are well approximated by explosions of bare helium cores; the hydrogen envelope only affects the early cooling phase and photospheric velocities during the diffusion phase.
    Used to build the grid and to justify fitting the diffusion phase and tail (Sect. 1, 4).
  • domain assumption The helium-core mass is directly linked to initial mass via solar-metallicity, non-rotating MESA models with standard mass-loss.
    Used to convert fitted M_He to initial masses and compare to the IMF (Sect. 3.1, 5.6.2).
  • domain assumption Gray diffusion approximation with an opacity floor is adequate for bolometric lightcurves; line opacity and non-LTE effects are neglected.
    Central to HYDE; the paper states bolometric lightcurves depend critically on opacity and that line opacity is missing (Sect. 2.2, 3.5).
  • ad hoc to paper Mass cut fixed at 1.5 M_sun; explosion energy injected as thermal bomb at this location.
    Simplifies the explosion; fallback is not treated correctly (Sect. 3.2, 3.5).
  • ad hoc to paper 56Ni mass fraction declines linearly with ejecta mass, controlled by Mix_Ni.
    Parametrizes nucleosynthesis without a reaction network (Sect. 3.2).
  • domain assumption The observed sample, though heterogeneous, is treated as representative for IMF comparison.
    Salpeter IMF comparison in Sect. 5.6.2; paper acknowledges sample is likely biased (Sect. 5.6).
  • domain assumption The bolometric correction determined from SN 2011dh applies to all Type IIb SNe in the sample.
    Used to compute pseudo-bolometric lightcurves (Sect. 5.1).
  • domain assumption Photospheric velocity from Fe II 5169 A absorption minimum corresponds to the model photospheric velocity.
    Used to fit velocities; some SNe use SYNOW or MC code velocities instead (Sect. 5.2, Appendices).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydrodynamical modelling of Type IIb SNe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VNPD4LW3

@misc{pith2026250600543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydrodynamical modelling of Type IIb SNe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VNPD4LW3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00543}
}
abstract

We present HYDE, a new one-dimensional hydrodynamical code, and use it to construct a grid of supernova (SN) models based on solar-metallicity bare helium-core models evolved to the verge of core-collapse with MESA STAR. This grid is suited to model Type IIb SNe, which progenitor stars are thought to have lost all but a tiny fraction of their hydrogen envelopes. Using an automated procedure we fit the bolometric lightcurves and photospheric velocities for a large sample of (17) Type IIb SNe to the grid of SN models. We find that the distribution of initial masses for the sample can be reasonably well described by a standard Salpeter IMF, although there is an under-population in the >25 M$_\odot$ range. The fractions of SNe with initial masses <15 M$_\odot$ and <20 M$_\odot$ are 56 and 81 percent, respectively, suggesting either the binary channel to dominate the production of Type IIb SNe or a flaw in our understanding of single-star mass-loss. We find correlations between the explosion energy, initial mass and mass of $^{56}$Ni; the explosion energy increases with initial mass and the mass of $^{56}$Ni increases with explosion energy. The method used allows us to determine the errors in the model parameters arising from the observed quantities and the degeneracy of the solution. We find that an error in the distance and extinction propagates mainly to the derived mass of $^{56}$Ni, whereas an error in the photospheric velocity propagates mainly to the derived helium-core mass and explosion energy. Fits using the bolometric lightcurve alone are completely degenerate along the M$_{\mathrm{ej}}^{2}$/E$_{\mathrm{ej}}$=const curve, whereas fits using also the photospheric velocities are quite robust for well-sampled SNe. Finally, we provide a description and tests of the HYDE code, and a discussion of the limitations of the method used.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00543 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bolometric lightcurve for the 4 M⊙ bare helium-core model from Nomoto & Hashimoto (1988) as modelled with HYDE (black) and the adjusted version of the Bersten et al. (2012) He4 model presented in E14a (blue). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Phase (days) 41.0 41.5 42.0 42.5 43.0 43.5 lo g L (erg s 1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Progression of model bolometric lightcurves calculated with HYDE for a 15 M⊙ MESA model with the mass-loss adjusted to yield a final mass of 11.0, 8.0, 6.0, 5.0, 4.8, 4.6, 4.4, 4,2, 4.1, 4.05 and 4.0 M⊙, colour coded from blue (11.0 M⊙) to red (4.0 M⊙). The explo￾sion parameters were E=1.0×1051erg, MNi=0.1 M⊙ and MixNi=MHe/M (Sect. 3). 2.5. Tests of the code The homologous behaviour has been tested by comparison to … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The change in the total energy minus the net energy gained (black solid line) calculated with HYDE for a model with MHe=4.0 M⊙, E=1.0×1051erg, MNi=0.1 M⊙ and MixNi=1.0, where the net energy gained is given by the sum of the explosion energy, radioactive heat￾ing and radiative losses. For comparison we also show the thermal (red solid line), kinetic (blue solid line), gravitational (yellow solid line), ionization (cy… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model bolometric lightcurves for day 1-100 showing the de￾pendence on MHe (2.5-7.0 M⊙; upper left panel), E (0.4-2.2×1051 erg; upper right panel), MNi (0.05-0.25 M⊙; lower left panel) and MixNi (0.6- 1.0; lower right panel). Low to high values are displayed in blue to …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model photospheric velocities for day 1-100 showing the dependence on MHe (2.5-7.0 M⊙; upper left panel), E (0.4-2.2×1051 erg; upper right panel), MNi (0.05-0.25 M⊙; lower left panel) and MixNi (0.6-1.0; lower right panel). Low to high values are displayed in blue to r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the temperature (left panel) and density (right panel) profiles between 1 and 282 seconds (shock breakout) in 10 loga￾rithmically spaced intervals for the 4 M⊙ helium-core model, where the time has been colour coded from blue (early) to red (late). 0.4 0.5…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of temperature profile for the 4 M⊙ helium-core model. The position of the recombination front of helium (black trian￾gles), the photosphere (red circles) and the thermalization surface (blue squares) have been marked, and each temperature profile annotated w…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper panels: Model bolometric lightcurves (left panel) and photosheric velocities (right panel) for day 1-100 showing the depen￾dence on the opacity floor (0.012-0.048 g−1 cm2 ). Low to high values are displayed in blue to red colour coding and the model parameters ar…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Upper panels: Progression of model bolometric lightcurves (left panel) and photospheric velocities (right panel) calculated with HYDE for a 15 M⊙ MESA model with the mass-loss adjusted to yield a final mass of 4.2, 4.15, 4.1, 4.05, 4.025 and 4.0 M⊙, colour coded from …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the temperature (left panel) and density (right panel) profiles between shock breakout (0.3 days) and the luminosity minimum (11 days) in 10 logarithmically spaced intervals for the 4.05 M⊙ MESA model, where the time has been colour coded from blue (early…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Bolometric lightcurve (upper panels) and photospheric velocity evolution (middle panels) for the best-fit models as compared to the observed UV to MIR pseudo-bolometric lightcurve and estimated photospheric velocity evolution for the CSP sample of Type IIb SNe. The lo…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Bolometric lightcurve (upper panels) and photospheric velocity evolution (middle panels) for the best-fit models as compared to the observed UV to MIR pseudo-bolometric lightcurve and estimated photospheric velocity evolution for the sample of individually studied Typ…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Sensitivity of the derived ejecta energy (upper panels), ejecta mass (middle panels) and mass of 56Ni (lower panels) to a change in the distance (left panels), extinction (middle panels) and photospheric velocities (right panels). For consistency the changes in all qu…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Model bolometric lightcurve (upper panels) and photospheric velocity evolution (middle panels) as compared to the observed UV to MIR pseudo-bolometric lightcurve and estimated photospheric velocity evolution for SN 2011dh. Models with a normalized standard deviation <…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: E versus MHe (left panel), MNi versus MHe (middle panel) and MNi versus E (right panel) for our sample of Type IIb SNe (black circles), where we also show power-law fits as red dashed lines. 10 15 20 25 30 M (M ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of SNe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Number of SNe with initial mass in the 8-15, 15-20, 20-25 and 25-30 M⊙ bins for our sample of Type IIb SNe (red) as compared to a standard Salpeter IMF (black). relatively massive hydrogen envelopes. We find an error in the distance and extinction to propagate mainly …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexander, D. R. & Ferguson, J. W. 1994, ApJ, 437, 879

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785

    1982

  3. [3]

    C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M

    Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 61

    2011

  4. [4]

    C., Benvenuto, O

    Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. G., Nomoto, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 31

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V . A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454

    1998

  6. [6]

    J., Immler, S., & Swift Satellite Team

    Brown, P. J., Immler, S., & Swift Satellite Team. 2008, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram, 1403, 1

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    2014, MNRAS

    Bufano, F., Pignata, G., Bersten, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1098

    Cano, Z. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1098

    2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    V ., Blondin, S., & Narayan, G

    Chu, J., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V ., Blondin, S., & Narayan, G. 2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1271, 1

    2008

  2. [10]

    2013, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 3557, 1 Article number, page 16 of 17 M

    Ciabattari, F., Mazzoni, E., Donati, S., et al. 2013, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 3557, 1 Article number, page 16 of 17 M. Ergon et al.: Hydrodynamical modelling of Type IIb SNe

    2013

  3. [11]

    2011, Central Bureau Electronic Tele- grams, 2827, 1

    Ciabattari, F., Mazzoni, E., Jin, Z., et al. 2011, Central Bureau Electronic Tele- grams, 2827, 1

    2011

  4. [12]

    2001, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

    Deng, J., Qiu, Y ., & Hu, J. 2001, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

    2001

  5. [13]

    2011, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 2902, 1 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Drescher, C., Parker, S., Brimacombe, J., et al. 2011, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 2902, 1 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146

    2011

  6. [14]

    Eldridge, J. J. & Stanway, E. R. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1019

    2009

  7. [15]

    & Burrows, A

    Ensman, L. & Burrows, A. 1992, ApJ, 393, 742

    1992

  8. [16]

    Epstein, R. I. 1981, ApJ, 244, L89

    1981

  9. [17]

    Falk, S. W. & Arnett, W. D. 1977, ApJS, 33, 515

    1977

  10. [18]

    C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al

    Folatelli, G., Bersten, M. C., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 7

    2014

  11. [19]

    D., Azalee Bostroem, K., Van Dyk, S

    Fox, O. D., Azalee Bostroem, K., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 17

    2014

  12. [20]

    J., et al

    Fraser, M., Ergon, M., Eldridge, J. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1417

    2011

  13. [21]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47

    2001

  14. [22]

    B., Li, W., & Filippenko, A

    Griffith, C., Cenko, S. B., Li, W., & Filippenko, A. V . 2009, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 1685, 1

    2009

  15. [23]

    2006, A&A, 457, 1015

    Hamann, W.-R., Gräfener, G., & Liermann, A. 2006, A&A, 457, 1015

    2006

  16. [24]

    A., et al

    Hamuy, M., Deng, J., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1612

    2009

  17. [25]

    Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

    1996

  18. [26]

    Imshennik, V . S. & Popov, D. V . 1992, AZh, 69, 497

    1992

  19. [27]

    R., Nakasato, N., et al

    Iwamoto, K., Young, T. R., Nakasato, N., et al. 1997, ApJ, 477, 865

    1997

  20. [28]

    Jacques, C., Pimentel, E., & Monard, L. A. G. 2004, IAU Circ., 8418, 1

    2004

  21. [29]

    2014, In preparation

    Jerkstrand, A., Ergon, M., Smartt, S., et al. 2014, In preparation

    2014

  22. [30]

    2011, A&A, 530, A45

    Jerkstrand, A., Fransson, C., & Kozma, C. 2011, A&A, 530, A45

    2011

  23. [31]

    2012, A&A, 546, A28

    Jerkstrand, A., Fransson, C., Maguire, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A28

    2012

  24. [32]

    H., Lasher, G., Chan, K

    Karp, A. H., Lasher, G., Chan, K. L., & Salpeter, E. E. 1977, ApJ, 214, 161

    1977

  25. [33]

    D., Illingworth, G

    Kelson, D. D., Illingworth, G. D., Tonry, J. L., et al. 2000, ApJ, 529, 768

    2000

  26. [34]

    & Fransson, C

    Kozma, C. & Fransson, C. 1992, ApJ, 390, 602

    1992

  27. [35]

    B., Sahu, D

    Kumar, B., Pandey, S. B., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 308

    2013

  28. [36]

    M., Massey, P., Olsen, K

    Levesque, E. M., Massey, P., Olsen, K. A. G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 973

    2005

  29. [37]

    Litvinova, I. I. & Nadezhin, D. K. 1983, Ap&SS, 89, 89

    1983

  30. [38]

    Litvinova, I. Y . & Nadezhin, D. K. 1985, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 11, 145

    1985

  31. [39]

    Lucy, L. B. 1999, A&A, 345, 211

    1999

  32. [40]

    2014, ArXiv e-prints

    Lyman, J., Bersier, D., James, P., et al. 2014, ArXiv e-prints

    2014

  33. [41]

    J., et al

    Maguire, K., Jerkstrand, A., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3451

    2012

  34. [42]

    2011, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 2777, 1

    Marples, P., Parker, S., Stritzinger, M., Drescher, C., & Bock, G. 2011, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 2777, 1

    2011

  35. [43]

    R., Fraser, M., Ergon, M., et al

    Maund, J. R., Fraser, M., Ergon, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L37

    2011

  36. [44]

    R., Smartt, S

    Maund, J. R., Smartt, S. J., Kudritzki, R. P., Podsiadlowski, P., & Gilmore, G. F. 2004, Nature, 427, 129

    2004

  37. [45]

    Mazzali, P. A. 2000, A&A, 363, 705

    2000

  38. [46]

    A., Deng, J., Hamuy, M., & Nomoto, K

    Mazzali, P. A., Deng, J., Hamuy, M., & Nomoto, K. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1624

    2009

  39. [47]

    Mazzali, P. A. & Lucy, L. B. 1993, A&A, 279, 447

    1993

  40. [48]

    & Weibel Mihalas, B

    Mihalas, D. & Weibel Mihalas, B. 1984, Foundations of radiation hydrodynam- ics

    1984

  41. [49]

    M., et al

    Milisavljevic, D., Margutti, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 71

    2013

  42. [50]

    Monard, L. A. G. 2005, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 106, 1

    2005

  43. [51]

    1991, A&A, 251, 505

    Mueller, E., Fryxell, B., & Arnett, D. 1991, A&A, 251, 505

    1991

  44. [52]

    & Zwitter, T

    Munari, U. & Zwitter, T. 1997, A&A, 318, 269

    1997

  45. [53]

    1996, IAU Circ., 6524, 1

    Nakano, S., Aoki, M., Garnavich, P., Kirshner, R., & Berlind, P. 1996, IAU Circ., 6524, 1

    1996

  46. [54]

    & Hashimoto, M

    Nomoto, K. & Hashimoto, M. 1988, Phys. Rep., 163, 13

    1988

  47. [55]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  48. [56]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  49. [57]

    2009, Central Bureau Electronic Tele- grams, 1663, 1

    Pignata, G., Maza, J., Hamuy, M., et al. 2009, Central Bureau Electronic Tele- grams, 1663, 1

    2009

  50. [58]

    Piro, A. L. & Morozova, V . S. 2014, ApJ, 792, L11

    2014

  51. [59]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3224

    Poznanski, D. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3224

    2013

  52. [60]

    X., & Bloom, J

    Poznanski, D., Prochaska, J. X., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1465

    2012

  53. [61]

    2004, IAU Circ., 8425, 1

    Pugh, H., Park, S., & Li, W. 2004, IAU Circ., 8425, 1

    2004

  54. [62]

    1996, IAU Circ., 6527, 1

    Qiao, Q., Li, W., Qiu, Y ., et al. 1996, IAU Circ., 6527, 1

    1996

  55. [63]

    1999, AJ, 117, 736

    Qiu, Y ., Li, W., Qiao, Q., & Hu, J. 1999, AJ, 117, 736

    1999

  56. [64]

    W., Treffers, R

    Richmond, M. W., Treffers, R. R., Filippenko, A. V ., & Paik, Y . 1996, AJ, 112, 732

    1996

  57. [65]

    W., Treffers, R

    Richmond, M. W., Treffers, R. R., Filippenko, A. V ., et al. 1994, AJ, 107, 1022

    1994

  58. [66]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  59. [67]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  60. [68]

    1994, ApJ, 420, 341

    Shigeyama, T., Suzuki, T., Kumagai, S., et al. 1994, ApJ, 420, 341

    1994

  61. [69]

    2004, IAU Circ., 8422, 2

    Shimasaki, K., Li, W., Yamaoka, H., & Itagaki, K. 2004, IAU Circ., 8422, 2

    2004

  62. [70]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

    2014

  63. [71]

    2014, ArXiv e-prints Takáts, K

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Leloudas, G., et al. 2014, ArXiv e-prints Takáts, K. & Vinkó, J. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2783

    2014

  64. [72]

    I., et al

    Taubenberger, S., Navasardyan, H., Maurer, J. I., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2140

    2011

  65. [73]

    Y ., V olkov, I

    Tsvetkov, D. Y ., V olkov, I. M., Baklanov, P., Blinnikov, S., & Tuchin, O. 2009, Peremennye Zvezdy, 29, 2

    2009

  66. [74]

    2003 Van Dyk, S

    Turatto, M., Benetti, S., & Cappellaro, E. 2003 Van Dyk, S. D., Zheng, W., Fox, O. D., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 37 V on Neumann, J. & Richtmyer, R. D. 1950, Appl. Phys., 21, 232

    2003

  67. [75]

    M., Aldering, G., Nugent, P., & Chassagne, R

    Wood-Vasey, W. M., Aldering, G., Nugent, P., & Chassagne, R. 2003, IAU Circ., 8082, 1

    2003

  68. [76]

    E., Eastman, R

    Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., Weaver, T. A., & Pinto, P. A. 1994, ApJ, 429, 300

    1994

  69. [77]

    Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181 Article number, page 17 of 17

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.