Superluminous supernovae at redshifts of 2.05 and 3.90
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rare class of 'superluminous' supernovae that are about ten or more times more luminous at their peaks than other types of luminous supernova has recently been found at low to intermediate redshifts. A small subset of these events have luminosities that evolve slowly and result in radiated energies of up to about 1051 ergs. Therefore, they are probably examples of 'pair-instability' or 'pulsational pair-instability' supernovae with estimated progenitor masses of 100 to 250 times that of the Sun. These events are exceedingly rare at low redshift, but are expected to be more common at high redshift because the mass distribution of the earliest stars was probably skewed to high values. Here we report the detection of two superluminous supernovae, at redshifts of 2.05 and 3.90, that have slowly evolving light curves. We estimate the rate of events at redshifts of 2 and 4 to be approximately ten times higher than the rate at low redshift. The extreme luminosities of superluminous supernovae extend the redshift limit for supernova detection using present technology, previously 2.36 (ref. 8), and provide a way of investigating the deaths of the first generation of stars to form after the Big Bang.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".