Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

TransFit: An Efficient Framework for Transient Light-Curve Fitting with Time-Dependent Radiative Diffusion

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TransFit claims that solving a time-dependent dimensionless diffusion equation computes supernova light curves with Monte Carlo-level accuracy at semi-analytic speed, including early shock-cooling phases.

desk verdict A useful fast light-curve solver with a correct core idea, but the printed PDE is missing the heating-amplitude factor and the reported Sedona validation is absent; fixable, not rejectable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13825 v1 pith:WUH722II submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

Liang-Duan Liu , Yu-Hao Zhang , Yun-Wei Yu , Ze-Xin Du , Jing-Yao Li , Guang-Lei Wu , Zi-Gao Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords supernovaelightcurvesradiativediffusionArnettmodelshockcoolingmagnetarspin-downtime-domainsurveysnickel-56heating
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

TransFit claims that solving a generalized, time-dependent energy-conservation equation—rather than assuming a temperature profile of fixed shape as Arnett-like models do—yields supernova light curves nearly as accurate as Monte Carlo radiative transfer but fast enough for survey-scale fitting. The framework follows the diffusion of radiation through homologously expanding ejecta, allows the heating source to be spatially distributed (radioactive nickel or a central engine), and evolves the temperature profile in time. If correct, it lets observers fit the full bolometric light curve, including early shock-cooling and the diffusion-delayed rise, for thousands of transients instead of only the peak and tail. The paper demonstrates this with fits to SN 1993J and SN 2011kl.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless energy-diffusion equation $\partial e/\partial y = x^{-2}\partial_x[D(x,y)\partial_x e] + S(x,y)$, with $D(x,y)=x^2\eta_{ej}(x)^{-1}(R_{\max}/R_0)$ as the diffusion coefficient and $S(x,y)=\eta_{ej}(x)\xi_{heat}(x)f_{heat}(y)(R_{\max}/R_0)$ as the heating source; here $x=r/R_{\max}$ is the comoving radius and $y=t/t_{diff}$ is time in units of the characteristic diffusion time. This equation carries the argument because it replaces the fixed-shape single mode of the Arnett model with a full numerical solution: a Crank-Nicolson finite-difference scheme on a tridiagonal grid whose inner boundary condition can represent either a reflecting core or a central-engine luminosity and whose outer boundary uses the Eddington surface condition. The bolometric luminosity is then read directly from the diffusive flux at the outer grid cell.

What would settle it

Fit a supernova that has an independent ejecta-mass constraint, for example from nebular spectroscopy, with TransFit using opacities of 0.1 and 0.4 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$; if the inferred ejecta mass and kinetic energy shift by more than the observational uncertainties, the single-opacity assumption is the practical bottleneck. A second check is to compare the predicted rise time against a frequency-dependent time-dependent radiative-transfer calculation for an event with strong line blanketing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a dimensionless diffusion equation for the internal energy density, $\partial e/\partial y = x^{-2}\partial_x[D(x,y)\partial_x e] + S(x,y)$, solved on a comoving grid, captures the light-curve signatures that semi-analytic models miss. Unlike Arnett-type solutions based on separation of variables and a single diffusion timescale, TransFit lets a radiative diffusion wave propagate through an evolving energy profile. That evolution is what produces the early 'dark phase' before diffusion breakout, the shock-cooling dip, and the sensitivity to the nickel mixing radius; it also makes the transition from shock cooling to radioactive or magnetar power self-consistent. The authors report agreement with Monte Carlo radiative transfer simulations across a range of transient scenarios, and reproduce the double-peaked SN 1993J light curve and the magnetar-powered SN 2011kl light curve.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes one time-independent gray opacity for the entire ejecta and keeps the diffusion approximation valid down to optical depth near unity; real supernovae have wavelength- and time-dependent line opacity, and gamma-ray leakage matters in the late tail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Early-time behavior—the shock-cooling dip, the diffusion-delayed dark phase, and the rise to the nickel-powered peak—can be modeled in one self-consistent framework rather than patched together.
  • Arnett's law, which equates peak luminosity with the instantaneous heating rate, breaks down for centrally concentrated heating; TransFit implies that nickel masses and engine parameters inferred from Arnett fits can be systematically biased.
  • Because a single model evaluation costs a fraction of a second, Bayesian parameter estimation becomes practical for the thousands of transients expected from wide-field time-domain surveys.
  • The spatial distribution of heating (nickel mixing radius or central engine) becomes a fit parameter rather than a fixed input, and the model handles radioactive and magnetar power sources with the same machinery.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single gray-opacity assumption is the weakest link, re-fitting a sample with slightly different opacity values would show how much of the measured scatter in ejecta mass and nickel mass is an opacity artifact rather than astrophysics.
  • The same normalized diffusion equation with a different heating function could be applied to kilonovae and fast blue optical transients, giving a uniform cross-class fitting tool.
  • The explicitly evolving temperature profile could be mapped to filter-specific magnitudes more consistently than the paper's bolometric-plus-effective-temperature treatment, which would strengthen multi-band fits.
  • The duration of the pre-breakout dark phase could serve as an early alert diagnostic, since it is sensitive to ejecta mass and opacity within days of discovery.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TransFit, a one-dimensional time-dependent radiation-diffusion model for supernova and transient light curves. The model solves a dimensionless energy-conservation partial differential equation for the internal-energy density of homologously expanding ejecta, with radioactive or central-engine heating, using a Crank-Nicolson finite-difference scheme. The authors explore how the light-curve morphology depends on ejecta mass, kinetic energy, opacity, initial thermal energy, progenitor radius, density profile, nickel mixing, and magnetar parameters, compare the model with Arnett and one-zone semi-analytic models, and apply it to SN 1993J and SN 2011kl. The abstract and introduction also claim validation against Monte Carlo radiative transfer codes such as Sedona.

Significance. If the derivation and validation were sound, TransFit would fill a practical niche: a fast finite-difference solver that relaxes the self-similar temperature-profile assumption of Arnett-like models while remaining inexpensive enough for survey-scale fitting. The numerical scheme in Appendix B is a standard Crank-Nicolson discretization and is likely stable, and the parameter study reproduces several expected qualitative trends, including the effects of nickel mixing, gray opacity, ejecta mass, and magnetar spin-down. The comparison with Arnett and one-zone models usefully illustrates when Arnett's law fails. However, as written the central dimensionless equation is internally inconsistent, and the promised Sedona validation is absent, so the paper's main claims currently rest on unverified or incorrect derivations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (13)] The dimensionless source term as printed omits the heating amplitude. Substituting Eqs. (7)-(10) into Eq. (1) yields a source term S = (rho0 tdiff epsilon_heat0 / u0) eta_ej(x) xi_heat(x) f_heat(y) (Rmax/R0), whereas Eq. (13) defines S without the prefactor rho0 tdiff epsilon_heat0 / u0. Taken literally, the partial differential equation no longer depends on epsilon_heat0 (and hence on MNi or engine luminosity), so varying MNi would leave e(x,y) and therefore Lbol unchanged, contradicting Figure 3. The normalization u0 = rho0 tdiff epsilon_heat0 is introduced only in §4.1 near Eq. (50), not in the general derivation, and adopting it makes ETh,in dependent on epsilon_heat0 through Eq. (15), which is inconsistent with Section 3.4 and Table 1, where ETh,in and MNi are treated as independent inputs. The authors must either include the explicit prefactor in Eq. (13) or state the normalization and its consequences for the free parameters; the current text is internally inconsistent.
  2. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and Section 1 state that validation comparisons with sophisticated Monte Carlo radiative transfer simulations such as Sedona demonstrate excellent agreement across a variety of transient scenarios, but no Sedona comparison appears anywhere in the body, the appendices, or the figures. The actual comparisons are limited to the Arnett and one-zone analytic models and to two observed objects. Since this is a central validation claim for the framework, the authors need either to add genuine Sedona comparison runs or to substantially soften the wording so that the claim matches the content of the paper.
  3. [§5, Tables 1 and 2] The paper describes these applications as fits, but no inference procedure is presented. Tables 1 and 2 give point values for Mej, MNi, EK, R0, ETh,in, Pi, and Bd, yet there is no likelihood function, no prior distributions, no search or MCMC algorithm, no convergence check, and no reported uncertainties or goodness-of-fit statistics. The text says that 'identical priors' are used without defining them. Moreover, because the model parameters are adjusted to reproduce the same light curves that are then shown as agreement, the comparison is at best an illustrative model match and cannot serve as validation. The authors should either describe an actual fitting methodology with uncertainties or explicitly present these as manually tuned illustrative models.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (15)] The integrand appears as 4πr^2 a u dr, but u already denotes the internal-energy density; the factor a is likely a typographical artifact and should be removed.
  2. [Eq. (22)] The optical depth is written as tau0 = kappa0 rho0 R0 I_tau, with kappa0, while the opacity elsewhere is denoted kappa; the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Figure 2] The legend does not display the xheat values used in the mixing-radius comparison, which makes the qualitative trend difficult to evaluate directly from the figure.
  4. [§2.2 and §3.1] It is unclear whether central-engine heating enters through the source term S(x,y) or through the inner boundary condition f_ib(y) of Eq. (27); the text says the source term is 'incorporated into this inner boundary condition,' but Section 3.1 also motivates a radial heating profile for centrally concentrated heating. The authors should clarify how the two descriptions are reconciled to avoid double counting.
  5. [§1 and §3.3] The introduction promises flexibility for 'compositionally dependent opacity variations,' but Section 3.3 implements a single, time-independent gray opacity; this should either be clarified as a future extension or the introductory claim should be adjusted.
  6. [Throughout] There are several small typographical errors, including 'the the' in the captions of Figures 4 and 5 and 'bolometric ligtcurve' in Section 5.2; these should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TransFit is a forward numerical solver; the two SN applications are openly fits, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The core derivation starts from a stated energy-conservation equation (Eq. 1) and reduces it to a dimensionless PDE (Eq. 11) with boundary conditions (Section 2.2) and a Crank-Nicolson scheme (Appendix B). The resulting bolometric luminosity (Eq. 33, B20) is an output of solving that PDE, not a fitted quantity. Section 5 explicitly frames the SN 1993J and SN 2011kl comparisons as fitting published light curves with listed parameters (Tables 1 and 2), so those comparisons are not out-of-sample predictions. The self-citations (e.g., Liu et al. 2018b for photospheric radius behavior, Yu et al. 2017/2018 for magnetar contexts) are contextual remarks and do not carry any uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the model choice. No cited prior work by the authors is used as the sole justification of the central equation. One caveat: Eq. (13) as printed omits the amplitude factor rho0*tdiff*epsilon_heat0/u0 that the reduction of Eq. (1) would produce; this is an internal-consistency or presentation issue, not a circularity, and it does not make any prediction equivalent to an input by construction. The abstract's claimed Sedona validation is not shown in this manuscript, which is a missing-support issue rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard radiation-dominated diffusion with homologous expansion. The ledger above lists the physically-motivated assumptions the solver inherits and the parameters that are tuned by hand in the Section 5 fits. None of the assumptions is unique to TransFit, but each is load-bearing for the claimed accuracy.

free parameters (9)
  • Mej (ejecta mass) = 1.8 Msun (SN 1993J); 1.4 Msun (SN 2011kl)
    Adjusted by hand to fit the observed light curves in Section 5; not independently measured.
  • MNi (nickel mass) = 0.10 Msun (SN 1993J); not used for magnetar model of SN 2011kl
    Adjusted to match peak luminosity and tail of SN 1993J.
  • EK (kinetic energy) = 1.5e51 erg (SN 1993J); 5.0e51 erg (SN 2011kl)
    Chosen to match rise time and width of the peaks.
  • ETh,in (initial thermal energy) = 4e49 erg (SN 1993J); not constrained for SN 2011kl
    Tuned to reproduce the early shock-cooling dip in SN 1993J; this quantity is degenerate with R0 and opacity.
  • R0 (initial radius) = 3.1e13 cm (SN 1993J); fixed at 10 Rsun for magnetar scenarios
    Sets the early diffusion timescale; fitted for SN 1993J, fixed for SN 2011kl.
  • kappa (gray opacity) = 0.2 cm2/g (assumed in both fits)
    A standard electron-scattering value chosen by hand; not fit, but strongly affects peak time and luminosity.
  • xheat (mixing radius) = 0.2 (default, not fitted)
    Controls the spatial extent of 56Ni heating; affects peak shape (Fig. 2); fixed in fits rather than constrained.
  • Pi (initial magnetar spin period) = 10.8 ms (SN 2011kl)
    Fitted to reproduce the peak luminosity and rise time of SN 2011kl.
  • Bd (dipole magnetic field) = 5e14 G (SN 2011kl)
    Fitted to match the spin-down timescale and post-peak decline of SN 2011kl.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Homologous expansion from the chosen initial time with Rmax = R0 + vmax t.
    Used throughout Section 2 (Eq. 5) to define the comoving coordinate and density scaling; breaks down during shock propagation and for interaction-powered transients.
  • domain assumption Radiation pressure dominates and the equation of state is u = aT^4 (P = u/3).
    Appendix A shows Prad/Pgas >> 1 for canonical parameters; used to derive the dimensionless diffusion equation.
  • domain assumption A single, time-independent gray opacity kappa describes the ejecta at all depths and times.
    Section 3.3, Eq. (39); line opacity and wavelength dependence are explicitly deferred to future work. Load-bearing because kappa sets the diffusion timescale.
  • domain assumption Eddington (plane-parallel, gray-atmosphere) boundary condition at the photosphere.
    Section 2.2, Eqs. (28)-(32); this fixes the outer boundary condition for the diffusion solver.
  • domain assumption Heating sources are either a step-function 56Ni distribution (Eq. 35) or a central magnetar dipole spin-down luminosity (Eq. 37-38).
    These functional forms are adopted rather than derived; real nickel distributions and engine thermalization are more complex, and the thermalization efficiency is unconstrained.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TransFit: An Efficient Framework for Transient Light-Curve Fitting with Time-Dependent Radiative Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WUH722II

@misc{pith2026250513825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TransFit: An Efficient Framework for Transient Light-Curve Fitting with Time-Dependent Radiative Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WUH722II}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13825}
}
abstract

Modeling the light curves (LCs) of luminous astronomical transients, such as supernovae, is crucial for understanding their progenitor physics, particularly with the exponential growth of survey data. However, existing methods face limitations: efficient semi-analytical models (e.g., Arnett-like) employ significant physical simplifications (like time-invariant temperature profiles and simplified heating distributions), often compromising accuracy, especially for early-time LCs. Conversely, detailed numerical radiative transfer simulations, while accurate, are computationally prohibitive for large datasets. This paper introduces TransFit, a novel framework that numerically solves a generalized energy conservation equation, explicitly incorporating time-dependent radiative diffusion, continuous radioactive or central engine heating, and ejecta expansion dynamics. The model accurately captures the influence of key ejecta properties and diverse heating source characteristics on light curve morphology, including peak luminosity, rise time, and overall shape. Furthermore, TransFit provides self-consistent modeling of the transition from shock-cooling to $^{56}$Ni}-powered light curves. By combining physical realism with computational speed, TransFit provides a powerful tool for efficiently inverting LCs and extracting detailed physical insights from the vast datasets of current and future transient surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13825 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal and spatial evolution of the ejecta temperature T as a function of normalized radius r/Rmax and time. where fib(y) is a time-dependent function specifying the inner boundary condition for a centrally located heating source. The outer boundary condition governs the transition of photons from the optically thick interior to free escape at the photosphere or the outer edge of the ejecta. At the surface, we ado… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Impact of the heat source distribution, the heat￾ing is uniformly mixed out to xheat, on supernova bolometric lightcurves. the ejecta temperature as a function of normalized ra￾dius and time on a logarithmic color scale (from 106 K in red to 103 K in blue). Initially, the ejecta is nearly isothermal and extremely hot; thereafter it cools from the outer layers inward via radiative diffusion and adi￾abatic expansion. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of the mass of 56Ni MNi, on supernova bolometric lightcurves. light curves 1 . A massive star may collapse into a neu￾tron star with an initial spin period Pi of order millisec￾onds. The rotational kinetic energy of such a neutron star is Erot = INS 2  2π Pi 2 ≃ 2.5 × 1052P −2 ms  MNS 1.4M⊙ 3/2 erg, (36) where Pms = Pi/(1 ms) defines the initial period in mil￾liseconds, MNS is the neutron star mass, and t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of the the dipole magnetic field strength Bd and magnetar initial spin period Pi, on supernova bolometric lightcurves. The dashed lines represent the central-engine heating rate. field strength Bd and the magnetar’s initial spin pe￾riod Pi affect the bolometric …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of the the ejecta mass Mej and initial kinetic energy EK, on supernova bolometric lightcurves. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (days) 10 38 10 39 10 40 10 41 10 42 10 43 B olo m etric L u min o sity (e r g s 1 ) Mej = 5.0 M EK = 10 51 erg MNi = 0.2 M ETh, in = 10 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of the opacity κ, on supernova bolometric lightcurves. 0.34 cm2 g −1 . This opacity is critical for modeling ra￾diation transport in ionized astrophysical environments, such as the interiors of hot stars, where electron scatter￾ing dominates. In rapidly expandin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of the the initial thermal energy ETh,in and initial progenitor radius R0, on supernova bolometric lightcurves. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Normalized Radius r/Rmax 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 D e n sity p r o file ej(x) Uniform density Exponential density Broken power…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Normalized ejecta density profiles ηej(x) versus normalized radius r/Rmax for five models: uniform, exponential, broken power law, W7, and DDT100. Right: Corresponding bolometric light curves. At default parameters, the peak luminosity and decline rate are nearly…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the evolution of the internal temperature profile in supernova ejecta between our model (left) and an Arnett-like model (right). Temperature (K) is plotted versus normalized radius r/Rmax, with each curve color-coded by post-explosion time (days) as indic…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Compares bolometric light-curve predictions from TransFit (solid blue line), the onezone model (dotted green), and the Arnett model (dashed orange). The left panel shows a radioactive-decay–powered scenario, while the right panel illustrates a magnetar-powered scenari…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Bolometric light-curve fits for SN 1993J (left) and SN 2011kl (right). Observations (circles with error bars) are compared to three theoretical models: TransFit (solid blue), the Arnett model (dashed orange), and the one-zone model (dotted green). Bolometric data for …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Theoretical light-curve and temperature evolution. Top: Absolute magnitudes in the u, g, r, i, and z bands (offset vertically for clarity) as a function of time. Bottom: Evolution of the effective temperature Teff (solid black line) alongside the band-specific tempera…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. X-rays breaking out of pre-explosion ejecta mark a supernova's first light

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    EP260321a is a thermal soft X-ray shock breakout from a ~300 R_⊙ CSM shell around a stripped-envelope progenitor, followed by SN Ic-BL 2026gzf.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arnett, W. D. 1979, ApJL, 230, L37, doi: 10.1086/182957 —. 1980, ApJ, 237, 541, doi: 10.1086/157898 —. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785, doi: 10.1086/159681

    doi:10.1086/182957 1979

  2. [2]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21096

    Aryan, A., Chen, T.-W., Yang, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.21096

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.21096 2025

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  4. [4]

    C., Benvenuto, O

    Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O. G., Orellana, M., & Nomoto, K. 2016, ApJL, 817, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/L8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/817/1/l8 2016

  5. [5]

    I., & Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., & Bartunov, O. S. 1993, A&A, 273, 106

    1993

  6. [6]

    I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V. A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454, doi: 10.1086/305375

    doi:10.1086/305375 1998

  7. [7]

    J., & Khokhlov, A

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Khokhlov, A. M. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts484

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts484 2013

  8. [8]

    G., & Maeda, K

    Cano, Z., Johansson Andreas, K. G., & Maeda, K. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2761, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw122

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw122 2016

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    Cano, Z., Wang, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    C., & Vinko, J

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

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790, doi: 10.1086/160126

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    A., & Fransson, C

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

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Soderberg, A. M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/97

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & Slane, P

    Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 141, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/141

    Gao, H., Lei, W.-H., You, Z.-Q., & Xie, W. 2016, ApJ, 826, 141, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/141

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, ApJ, 883, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e

    Gong, Y., Liu, X., Cao, Y., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab391e

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Kann, D

    Greiner, J., Mazzali, P. A., Kann, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 523, 189, doi: 10.1038/nature14579

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Bianco, F

    Hambleton, K. M., Bianco, F. B., Street, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 105002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acdb9a

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    J., & Dessart, L

    Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 252, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21192.x

    2012

  13. [21]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Inserra, C., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/128

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/110

    Ioka, K., Hotokezaka, K., & Piran, T. 2016, ApJ, 833, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/110

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Schady, P., Olivares E., F., et al

    Kann, D. A., Schady, P., Olivares E., F., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629162

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Kasen, D. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer), 939, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 32

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    C., & Nugent, P

    Kasen, D., Thomas, R. C., & Nugent, P. 2006, ApJ, 651, 366, doi: 10.1086/506190

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2019, ApJ, 878, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f09 —. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    X., Zhu, Z

    Li, W. X., Zhu, Z. P., Zou, X. Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17034, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17034

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    2018a, ApJ, 856, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab157

    Liu, L.-D., Wang, L.-J., Wang, S.-Q., & Dai, Z.-G. 2018a, ApJ, 856, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab157

    doi

  22. [30]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73d9

    Liu, L.-D., Wang, S.-Q., Wang, L.-J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa73d9

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    2018b, ApJL, 868, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeff6 24 Liu et al

    Liu, L.-D., Zhang, B., Wang, L.-J., & Dai, Z.-G. 2018b, ApJL, 868, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeff6 24 Liu et al

    doi

  24. [32]

    D., & McKee, C

    Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJ, 510, 379, doi: 10.1086/306571

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2224

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    D., & Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., & Piro, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu247

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Blinnikov, S. I., Tominaga, N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts075

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/63

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Nagy, A. P. 2018, ApJ, 862, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aace56

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    P., & Vink´ o, J

    Nagy, A. P., & Vink´ o, J. 2016, A&A, 589, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527931

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3869, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1522

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    K., & Yokoi, K

    Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F. K., & Yokoi, K. 1984, ApJ, 286, 644, doi: 10.1086/162639

    1984 doi

  34. [42]

    P., & Gunn, J

    Ostriker, J. P., & Gunn, J. E. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1395, doi: 10.1086/150160

    1969 doi

  35. [43]

    A., & Eastman, R

    Pinto, P. A., & Eastman, R. G. 2000, ApJ, 530, 744, doi: 10.1086/308376

    2000 doi

  36. [44]

    L., & Nakar, E

    Piro, A. L., & Nakar, E. 2013, ApJ, 769, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/67

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Levan, A

    Rastinejad, J. C., Levan, A. J., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08889, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.08889

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    W., Treffers, R

    Richmond, M. W., Treffers, R. R., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 1994, AJ, 107, 1022, doi: 10.1086/116915

    1994 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu350

    Scalzo, R., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu350

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts402

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    1994, ApJ, 420, 341, doi: 10.1086/173564

    Shigeyama, T., Suzuki, T., Kumagai, S., et al. 1994, ApJ, 420, 341, doi: 10.1086/173564

    1994 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Sollerman, J., & Benetti, S

    Stritzinger, M., Mazzali, P. A., Sollerman, J., & Benetti, S. 2006, A&A, 460, 793, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065514

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    X., Liu, L

    Sun, H., Li, W. X., Liu, L. D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02315, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02315 van Dalen, J. N. D., Levan, A. J., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbc7e

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al

    Villar, V. A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c5

    Wang, S.-Q., Cano, Z., Wang, L.-J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c5

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, Science China

    Wang, T., Liu, G., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, Science China

    2023

  48. [56]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    doi

  49. [57]

    Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    E., Eastman, R

    Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., Weaver, T. A., & Pinto, P. A. 1994, ApJ, 429, 300, doi: 10.1086/174319

    1994 doi

  51. [59]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1986, ARA&A, 24, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.24.090186.001225

    1986

  53. [61]

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

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

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    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

  55. [63]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6e5

    Yu, Y.-W., Liu, L.-D., & Dai, Z.-G. 2018, ApJ, 861, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6e5

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

    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

  58. [66]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Yuan, X., Li, Z., Liu, X., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11445, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VIII, ed. H. K. Marshall, J. Spyromilio, & T. Usuda, 114457M, doi: 10.1117/12.2562334

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.