MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400273919 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348548

The story of SN 2021aatd: A peculiar 1987A-like supernova with an early-phase luminosity excess

2024· article· en· W4400273919 on OpenAlexaff
Tamás Szalai, Réka Könyves-Tóth, Andrea Nagy, D. Hiramatsu, Azalee Bostroem, D. A. Howell, Joseph Farah, C. McCully, Megan Newsome, Estefania Padilla Gonzalez, C. Pellegrino, G. Terreran, E. Berger, P. K. Blanchard, Sebastián Gómez, P. Székely, D. Bánhidi, I Bíró, I. Csányi, András Pál, Jeonghee Rho, J. Vinkó

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersEuropean CommissionNemzeti Kutatási Fejlesztési és Innovációs HivatalMagyar Tudományos AkadémiaHungarian Scientific Research FundNational Research, Development and Innovation OfficeNemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovaciós AlapNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSupernovaLuminosityAstrophysicsPhase (matter)PhysicsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. There is a growing number of peculiar events that cannot be assigned to any of the main classes. SN 1987A and a handful of similar objects, thought to be explosive outcomes of blue supergiant stars, is one of them: while their spectra closely resemble those of H-rich (IIP) SNe, their light curve (LC) evolution is very different. Aims. Here we present the detailed photometric and spectroscopic analysis of SN 2021aatd, a peculiar Type II explosion. While its early-time evolution resembles that of the slowly evolving double-peaked SN 2020faa (although at a lower luminosity scale), after ∼40 days its LC shape becomes similar to that of SN 1987A-like explosions. Methods. In addition to comparing LCs, color curves, and spectra of SN 2021aatd to those of SNe 2020faa, 1987A, and other objects, we compared the observed spectra with our own SYN++ models and with the outputs of published radiative transfer models. We also carried out a detailed modeling of the pseudo-bolometric LCs of SNe 2021aatd and 1987A with a self-developed semi-analytical code, assuming a two-component ejecta (core + shell), and involving the rotational energy of a newborn magnetar in addition to radioactive decay. Results. We find that the photometric and the spectroscopic evolution of SN 2021aatd can be well described with the explosion of a ∼15 M⊙ blue supergiant star. Nevertheless, SN 2021aatd shows higher temperatures and weaker Na I D and Ba II 6142 Å lines than SN 1987A, which is instead reminiscent of IIP-like atmospheres. With the applied two-component ejecta model (accounting for decay and magnetar energy), we can successfully describe the bolometric LC of SN 2021aatd, including the first ∼40-day phase showing an excess compared to 87A-like SNe, but being strikingly similar to that of the long-lived SN 2020faa. Nevertheless, finding a unified model that also explains the LCs of more luminous events (e.g., SN 2020faa) is still a matter of debate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae→French-language works237,207→