adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: NGDEEP Epoch 1: The Faint End of the Luminosity Function at z ∼ 9–12 from Ultradeep JWST Imaging
Authors: Gene C. K. Leung, Micaela B. Bagley, Steven L. Finkelstein, Henry C. Ferguson, Anton M. Koekemoer, Pablo G. Pérez-González, Alexa Morales, Dale D. Kocevski, Guang Yang, 光 杨, Rachel S. Somerville, Stephen M. Wilkins, L. Y. Aaron Yung, Seiji Fujimoto, Rebecca L. Larson, Casey Papovich, Nor Pirzkal, Danielle A. Berg, Jennifer M. Lotz, Marco Castellano, Óscar A. Chávez Ortiz, Yingjie Cheng, Mark Dickinson, Mauro Giavalisco, Nimish P. Hathi, Taylor A. Hutchison, Intae Jung, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Priyamvada Natarajan, Barry Rothberg
Figure caption: Same as Figure 3 but for sources at z ∼ 11.
Paper: NGDEEP Epoch 1: The Faint End of the Luminosity Function at z ∼ 9–12 from Ultradeep JWST Imaging
Authors: Gene C. K. Leung, Micaela B. Bagley, Steven L. Finkelstein, Henry C. Ferguson, Anton M. Koekemoer, Pablo G. Pérez-González, Alexa Morales, Dale D. Kocevski, Guang Yang, 光 杨, Rachel S. Somerville, Stephen M. Wilkins, L. Y. Aaron Yung, Seiji Fujimoto, Rebecca L. Larson, Casey Papovich, Nor Pirzkal, Danielle A. Berg, Jennifer M. Lotz, Marco Castellano, Óscar A. Chávez Ortiz, Yingjie Cheng, Mark Dickinson, Mauro Giavalisco, Nimish P. Hathi, Taylor A. Hutchison, Intae Jung, Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe, Priyamvada Natarajan, Barry Rothberg
Figure caption: Same as Figure 3 but for sources at z ∼ 9.
Paper: Magnitude Estimates for the Carrington Flare in 1859 September: As Seen from the Original Records
Authors: Hisashi Hayakawa, Sabrina Bechet, Frédéric Clette, Hugh S. Hudson, Hiroyuki Maehara, Kosuke Namekata, Yuta Notsu
Figure caption: Carrington’s sunspot drawings on 1859 September 1, in corrected orientations: (a) Carrington’s published close-up drawing (Carrington 1859); (b) Carrington’s original close-up drawing (RAS MS Carrington 1, v. 2, f. 64a); and (c) Carrington’s original whole-disk drawing (RAS MS Carrington 3, v. 2, f. 313a). These images are reproduced by courtesy of the Royal Astronomical Society and were presented partially processed in Figure 2 of Hayakawa et al. (2019).
Paper: Magnitude Estimates for the Carrington Flare in 1859 September: As Seen from the Original Records
Authors: Hisashi Hayakawa, Sabrina Bechet, Frédéric Clette, Hugh S. Hudson, Hiroyuki Maehara, Kosuke Namekata, Yuta Notsu
Figure caption: Sample picture showing the strong intensity contrast between the projected solar image and direct sunlight falling on an identical white projection sheet, as photographed at the Royal Observatory of Belgium (ROB) in Brussels on 2023 April 4 at 14:21 UT (picture courtesy of Olivier Boulvin). Here, the telescope has an aperture of 16 cm and it projects a 25 cm solar-disk image. This historical Merz–Grubb telescope from the late 19th century has been used for the sunspot drawings at the ROB since about 1885, and its optics are comparable to the instrument used by Carrington (https://www.sidc.be/uset/telescopewlvisual.php#).
Paper: Magnitude Estimates for the Carrington Flare in 1859 September: As Seen from the Original Records
Authors: Hisashi Hayakawa, Sabrina Bechet, Frédéric Clette, Hugh S. Hudson, Hiroyuki Maehara, Kosuke Namekata, Yuta Notsu
Figure caption: Screenshot of the DigiSun analysis of Carrington’s WL flare emission regions (projected images). Here, we have isolated the areas of the initial flaring regions A and B (two white patches on the left), as they correspond to the impulsive phase, while those in C and D appeared only on the flare decay phase (Carrington 1859). The left-side images are reproduced by courtesy of the Royal Astronomical Society (see Figure 1).
Paper: Magnitude Estimates for the Carrington Flare in 1859 September: As Seen from the Original Records
Authors: Hisashi Hayakawa, Sabrina Bechet, Frédéric Clette, Hugh S. Hudson, Hiroyuki Maehara, Kosuke Namekata, Yuta Notsu
Figure caption: Comparisons of the WLF equivalent area in arcsec2 (EA flare× (contrast – 1), following Wang (2009), and GOES SXR flux in W m−2, following Table 1 of Wang (2009), on the basis of Hinode/SOT WLF observations. The red and blue error bars include those for flare areas and resultant magnitude estimates from our photometric discussions. The gray shades indicate error margins for those for flare areas and resultant magnitude estimates from this figure’s fitting parameters. The advantage of this purely empirical method is that in this estimation we do not make any assumptions about flare temperature and spectral shape.
Paper: Magnitude Estimates for the Carrington Flare in 1859 September: As Seen from the Original Records
Authors: Hisashi Hayakawa, Sabrina Bechet, Frédéric Clette, Hugh S. Hudson, Hiroyuki Maehara, Kosuke Namekata, Yuta Notsu
Figure caption: The photopic sensitivity curve for the human eye (+), with weighting for photospheric temperature (blue) and 10,000 K (red) blackbody spectra, normalized to peak, according to CIE (2019).
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Sample images from our star injection routine. The upper-left image shows the central 0.″5 × 0.″5 of a Galactic center frame from 2014 May 19 with no artificial star injected. This frame was chosen for its typical data quality (Strehl ratio ∼0.27), typical Sgr A* brightness of K = 16.8 mag, and Sgr A* being relatively unconfused by known stars. In the remaining images above, a K = 16.5 mag star is injected into the images with respective distances from Sgr A* labeled and random orientations. We then ran our PSF fitting program Starfinder on each image to determine the photometric bias in our measurement of Sgr A*'s flux. This procedure was repeated for five similar frames, and the average values of the photometric bias induced by the injected stars are displayed at the bottom of each image. As a general trend, the photometric bias decreases with increasing distance. We repeated this procedure for injected star brightnesses ranging from K = 14–18 mag.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Sample observed K  s  light curves of Sgr A* displaying bright flux excursions. Dashed lines show the 95th and 50th percentile flux values from the historical distribution. Top row: pre-2019 light curves with high observed flux densities. The brightest event from 45 nights of pre-2019 observations is shown on the left (2010 May 5), with a maximum flux density of ∼2 mJy. Middle row: two out of six nights in 2019 far exceed historical levels. Shown on the right is the brightest ever event (2019 May 13) first reported in Do et al. (2019), with a peak flux density of ∼5.6 mJy more than doubling the highest pre-2019 flux density. Bottom row: post-2019 light curves containing bright flux excursions do not reach the levels of either pre-2019 or 2019. The brightest event from 18 nights of post-2019 observations is shown on the right (2022 May 21), reaching ∼0.9 mJy.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Flux distributions before and after confusion corrections for epochs affected by stellar confusion. From 2005–2009 (blue), we make corrections for S0-104 and S0-102. In 2021–2022 (orange), we make corrections for S0-61 and S0-38. We see that the distributions are shifted to lower flux densities upon removal of the photometric bias. Despite reflecting different epochs that are affected by confusion from different stars, these two corrected flux distributions appear to be quite similar.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Sample of faint K  s  light curves of Sgr A*. Dashed lines show the 95th and 50th percentile flux values from the historical distribution. Comparing to Figure 10, we see that Sgr A* displays a range of variability at both low and high levels. Top row: faint pre-2019 light curves. Middle row: faint 2019 light curves. We see that even the faintest nights in 2019 display flux densities that are higher than the faintest pre- and post-2019 nights. Bottom row: faint post-2019 light curves.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: 1σ band of the fitted PSD slope α as a function of the ratio of the standard deviation of red noise (α = 2.5) to the standard deviation of white noise for 103 light curves with the post-2019 sampling. We see that a more prevalent white-noise component causes a shallower PSD slope to be measured.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Flux distributions of Sgr A* scaled to compare peaks and shapes of the pre-2019 distribution (blue), 2019 distribution (black), and 2019 distribution with the brightest night removed (gold), with dashed lines showing the distribution medians. Although removing the brightest night lowers the high-flux end of the 2019 distribution, the peak of the 2019 distribution remains elevated with respect to the historical distribution, and the 2019 median is unchanged.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Measured and inferred flux distributions for the pre-2019 (left), 2019 (middle), and post-2019 (right) epochs. The values of nondetections in the inferred distributions are estimated from neighboring flux measurements in the light curves.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: 1σ bands for the measured structure function slope β with input PSD slope α for simulated light curves with the time sampling of the pre-2019 (blue), 2019 (black), and post-2019 (orange) observations. We perform a linear fit to these simulations to convert between the structure function slope and PSD slope in the data.
Paper: Luminous Radio Emission from the Superluminous Supernova 2017ens at 3.3 yr after Explosion
Authors: Raffaella Margutti, J. S. Bright, D. J. Matthews, D. L. Coppejans, K. D. Alexander, E. Berger, M. Bietenholz, R. Chornock, L. DeMarchi, M. R. Drout, T. Eftekhari, W. V. Jacobson-Galán, T. Laskar, D. Milisavljevic, K. Murase, M. Nicholl, C. M. B. Omand, M. Stroh, G. Terreran, B. A. VanderLey
Figure caption: The field of SN 2017ens observed at 6 GHz with the VLA on 2021 January 28 showing the onset of radio emission from the source at F  ν  = 38 ± 5 μJy. The grayscale image shows flux density per beam and ranges between −10 and 40 μJy; the synthesized beam, with major and minor axes of 0.″37 and 0.″29 at a position angle of 26.°6, is shown in black in the bottom left corner of the image. The red cross shows the radio position, R.A. = 12h04m09.ˢ384(1), decl. = ﹩-01^\circ 55^{\prime} 52.56(2)^{\prime\prime} ﹩, which is consistent with the optical position of the transient, shown by the blue cross; see Section 2.
Paper: Quiescent Low-mass Galaxies Observed by JWST in the Epoch of Reionization
Authors: Viola Gelli, Stefania Salvadori, Andrea Ferrara, Andrea Pallottini, Stefano Carniani
Figure caption: Example of stellar (ρ ⋆, left) and gas (ρ gas, right) density maps of a system at z = 6 within the SERRA simulations. The field of view of 100 kpc × 100 kpc contains six galaxies. The insets show two zoomed regions, each of size 2 kpc × 2 kpc, centered on a typical quiescent (﹩\mathrm{log}{M}_{\star }/{M}_{\odot }=7.96﹩) and active (﹩\mathrm{log}{M}_{\star }/{M}_{\odot }=8.97﹩) galaxy, as indicated.
Paper: Quiescent Low-mass Galaxies Observed by JWST in the Epoch of Reionization
Authors: Viola Gelli, Stefania Salvadori, Andrea Ferrara, Andrea Pallottini, Stefano Carniani
Figure caption: Star formation rate (SFR) as a function of the age of the Universe (t H) for some SERRA galaxies simulated up to different redshifts, color-coded with the final stellar mass. Filled curves and names denote galaxies that are quiescent at the end of the simulations (30% of the sample).
Paper: Quiescent Low-mass Galaxies Observed by JWST in the Epoch of Reionization
Authors: Viola Gelli, Stefania Salvadori, Andrea Ferrara, Andrea Pallottini, Stefano Carniani
Figure caption: Duty cycle f duty as a function of the stellar mass of quiescent (filled) and active (hollow) galaxies, colored with the average age of the stellar population. The average trend of f duty with the mass is shown through the gray circles. The three points with error bars are the values inferred for JADES-GS-z7-01-QU using different spectral fitting codes (BAGPIPES by Carnall et al. 2018; PROSPECTOR by Johnson et al. 2021; BEAGLE by Chevallard & Charlot 2016) derived from Table 1 of Looser et al. (2023). The histograms in the upper panels show the stellar mass distribution of active and quiescent low-mass galaxies.
Paper: Quiescent Low-mass Galaxies Observed by JWST in the Epoch of Reionization
Authors: Viola Gelli, Stefania Salvadori, Andrea Ferrara, Andrea Pallottini, Stefano Carniani
Figure caption: Spectral energy distributions of simulated galaxies at z = 7.3 compared with JADES-GS-z7-01-QU (left panel), and corresponding star formation histories (right). Shown in the two figures are the SEDs and SFHs for (a) Lilium with two stellar metallicities as indicated (green), (b) an idealized top-hat SFH model with constant SFR (gray), and (c) Lilium with a modified SFH featuring an abrupt quenching ≈5 Myr after the main peak of star formation and observed after Δt quench varying between 15 and 20 Myr (orange). The black curve in the right panel shows the fraction of stellar mass formed for Lilium.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Comparisons (top: pre-2019, middle: 2019, bottom: post-2019) of the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of observed data (solid black lines) with the median (blue dashed lines) and 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ intervals (blue shaded contours) of 10,000 simulated light curves with the respective time sampling. The parameters to generate the simulated light curves were drawn from the log-normal, red-noise posterior of Witzel et al. (2018). These simulations show that while the 2019 data are inconsistent with model predictions at the >3σ level, the pre- and post-2019 activity generally agrees with the model at the 1σ–2σ level. We note that our 2019 data includes additional observations from late 2019 that were not incorporated into the analysis of Do et al. (2019).
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Light curve of Sgr A* containing all observations in this study with time gaps between epochs removed, displayed in linear space (top) and logarithmic space (bottom). The observations are separated into pre-2019 (blue), 2019 (black), and post-2019 (orange). Dashed lines show the percentage of fluxes fainter than that level in the pre-2019 sample. Only detections that cross zero with >1σ significance are shown. The bottom ∼5% of frames are not displayed due to either being not detected at all or not detected with >1σ significance.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Top: pre-2019 (blue), 2019 (black), and post-2019 (orange) flux distributions of the nonvariable stars S1-1 (left) and S1-33 (right). Bottom: nightly mean and standard deviation of S1-1 (black) and S1-33 (blue) from 2005–2022. The inter- and intra-night scatters of S1-1 and S1-33 are less than ∼5%, indicating we are able to consistently reproduce flux densities at this level.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Comparison of observed magnitudes for Galactic center sources between the photometric calibration of Do et al. (2019) and the new calibration in this work (Gautam et al. 2023, in preparation), as a function of magnitude in the new calibration. We see that sources are systematically fainter by about 10% with the new calibration.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Structure functions of the pre-2019 (blue), 2019 (black), and post-2019 (orange) light curves. We see that the 2019 light curves have higher variance than the pre-2019 light curves, and the post-2019 light curves have lower variance than the pre-2019 light curves.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Sample power-law fits to the rms fluxes for stars within 1″ of Sgr A* within the typical Sgr A* flux range. Shown here are the fits for three observing epochs (2010 May 5, 2019 May 13, 2022 May 21). We perform this procedure for each of the 69 nights in our sample and use the respective power-law fits to determine the uncertainties on the Sgr A* flux measurements.
Paper: Near-infrared Flux Distribution of Sgr A* from 2005–2022: Evidence for an Enhanced Accretion Episode in 2019
Authors: Grant C. Weldon, Tuan Do, Gunther Witzel, Andrea M. Ghez, Abhimat K. Gautam, Eric E. Becklin, Mark R. Morris, Gregory D. Martinez, Shoko Sakai, Jessica R. Lu, Keith Matthews, Matthew W. Hosek, Zoë Haggard
Figure caption: Measured flux distributions of Sgr A* scaled to compare peaks and shapes of the pre-2019 (blue), 2019 (black), and post-2019 (orange) distributions, with dashed lines showing the distribution medians. We find that the 2019 flux distribution is elevated with respect to the pre- and post-2019 distributions.
Paper: Change of Spectral Properties of Magnetic Field Fluctuations across Different Types of Interplanetary Shocks
Authors: Byeongseon Park, Alexander Pitňa, Jana Šafránková, Zdeněk Němeček, Oksana Krupařová, Vratislav Krupař, Lingling Zhao, Ashok Silwal
Figure caption: Upper panels: up- (black) and downstream (red) spectra with their median lines for FF (a), FR (b), SF (c), and SR (d) shocks. The MFI noise floor (Woodham et al. 2018) is represented by a green solid line, and SNR5 is a green dashed line. Lower panels: histograms of spectral indices in the upstream and downstream inertial range, ﹩{\alpha }_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{up}}﹩ (black), and ﹩{\alpha }_{\mathrm{in}}^{\mathrm{down}}﹩ (red), the upstream and downstream transition range ﹩{\alpha }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{\mathrm{up}}﹩ (green), and ﹩{\alpha }_{\mathrm{tr}}^{\mathrm{down}}﹩ (blue) for FF (e), FR (f), SF (g), and SR (h). D in and ﹩{D}_{\mathrm{tr}}﹩ in the top denote the maximum difference between the up- and downstream cumulative distributions for the inertial and transition ranges, respectively.
Paper: Luminous Radio Emission from the Superluminous Supernova 2017ens at 3.3 yr after Explosion
Authors: Raffaella Margutti, J. S. Bright, D. J. Matthews, D. L. Coppejans, K. D. Alexander, E. Berger, M. Bietenholz, R. Chornock, L. DeMarchi, M. R. Drout, T. Eftekhari, W. V. Jacobson-Galán, T. Laskar, D. Milisavljevic, K. Murase, M. Nicholl, C. M. B. Omand, M. Stroh, G. Terreran, B. A. VanderLey
Figure caption: Radio specific luminosity L  ν  from SN 2017ens in the context of other Type I super-luminous supernovae (SLSNe-I; triangles and stars for upper limits and measurements, respectively), normal H-poor core-collapse SNe (light gray squares), long GRBs at cosmological distances (dark gray dots) and in the local Universe (black dots) at ν ≈ 6  GHz rest frame. GRB and SN data collected from Soderberg et al. (2010), Chandra & Frail (2012), Margutti et al. (2014), and references therein. For SLSNe-I, we select observations carried out in the rest-frame frequency range 3–8 GHz. SLSN-I references: Chandra et al. (2009, 2010), Chomiuk et al. (2011), Kasliwal et al. (2016), Nicholl et al. (2016, 2018), Bright et al. (2017), Bose et al. (2018), Coppejans et al. (2018), Hatsukade et al. (2018, 2021b), Schulze et al. (2018), Eftekhari et al. (2019, 2021), Law et al. (2019), Mondal et al. (2020), and Chandra et al. (2021).