adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Seismic Oscillations Excited by Giant Impacts in Directly Imaged Giant Planets
Authors: J. J. Zanazzi, Eugene Chiang, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Observed luminosity variation per unit wavelength ΔJλ/Jλ of β Pic b, for the ℓ = 0, n = 1 p-mode after 18 Myr following a merger with a Neptune-mass body (Figure 5). The luminosity variation caused by the heating and cooling of the photosphere ﹩{({\rm{\Delta }}{J}_{\lambda }/{J}_{\lambda })}_{{\rm{flux}}}﹩ (Equation (43)) dominates that from the variation of the planet’s projected area onto the sky plane ﹩{({\rm{\Delta }}{J}_{\lambda }/{J}_{\lambda })}_{{\rm{area}}}﹩ (Equation (42)).
Paper: Seismic Oscillations Excited by Giant Impacts in Directly Imaged Giant Planets
Authors: J. J. Zanazzi, Eugene Chiang, Yifan Zhou
Figure caption: Amplitudes due to work done by impactor heating ∣cheat∣, for modes with radial node numbers n and angular degrees ℓ, as indicated. The symbol size decreases with n, from n = 0 (f-modes, filled circles) to n = 10 (p-modes, open circles). We set η = 0.5 and rbub = 0.995Rp. Notice ∣cheat∣ is comparable to ∣cmom∣ for the f-modes and p-modes considered here (Figure 5).
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Results from the best-fit simulations of the CDM and SIDM IC suites, varying the initial dark matter mass of the Sgr progenitor. All SIDM interactions here assume a velocity-independent cross section of σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1. The left panel shows the trajectories of the progenitors in the orbital plane, rotated to place the present-day position on the x-axis. The gray triangle (with black outline) marks the target position of the progenitor. The middle (right) panel shows the stellar (dark matter) mass enclosed within 5 kpc of the progenitor, with squares marking the times of pericenters, a gray circle marking the observed estimates of these quantities from E. Vasiliev & V. Belokurov (2020), and the time axis shifted to place present day at time = 0. The black and blue curves correspond to the original CDM and SIDM simulations, provided in Figure 1, with initial halo mass MDM,s = 1010M⊙. The yellow and brown curves show the results for SIDM when the initial halo mass is increased to MDM,s = 5 × 1010 and 2 × 1011M⊙, respectively, keeping the initial stellar mass of the satellite constant. Note that the heavier satellites generally have larger initial velocities and more significant orbital decay, shortening the orbital period and allowing the satellites to reach present day in less time. The SIDM simulations do not reproduce the final dark matter mass of the satellite seen in CDM simulations, even when the progenitor is initialized with more mass.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Fraction of stellar (circles and dashed lines) and dark matter (squares and solid lines) mass lost between initialization and the first apocenter. The left panel shows the mass loss as a function of the velocity-independent cross section σ/mχ and the right panel as a function of the velocity scale η for a velocity-dependent cross section (using σ0/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1). Colors indicate the allowed types of self-interactions, with green being satellite–satellite only, pink being satellite–host only, and blue being both. In black is shown the range of mass losses observed from 11 CDM simulations varying the random seed of the initial conditions generator. There is little difference between our full SIDM simulations and the satellite–host only simulations, and little difference between satellite–satellite only simulations and the CDM simulations, which indicates that the enhanced SIDM mass loss is driven predominantly by ram-pressure evaporation at all model points.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: The stellar stream from the High Resolution suite for CDM (left) and SIDM (right). The SIDM interactions assume a velocity-independent cross section of σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1. The top row shows the stream in the XZ-plane of the Galactocentric coordinate system, with the Milky Way disk in the XY-plane and the Sun located at (−8.122, 0, 0.0208) kpc (marked by the gray star) (Astropy Collaboration et al. 2022). The bottom row shows the heliocentric distance of the stream particles as a function of heliocentric stream angle, Λ. The distributions are markedly similar, with the largest difference being the population of light blue, recently stripped stars at Λ ∼ −170° attaining significantly larger distances in CDM than in SIDM.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: The stellar (left) and dark matter (right) mass enclosed within 5 kpc of the progenitor for the best-fit simulations of the CDM and SIDM IC suites with MDM,s = 1010M⊙. Squares mark the times of pericenters. The time axis is shifted to place present day at time = 0. The “CDM” simulation (black) has no dark matter interactions; “sat–sat only” (green) has interactions between satellite dark matter particles; “sat–host only” (pink) has interactions between satellite and host dark matter particles; and “sat–sat + sat–host” (blue) has both satellite–satellite and satellite–host interactions. All SIDM interactions here assume a velocity-independent cross section of σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1. The gray circle in each panel is an estimate of the enclosed stellar/dark matter mass of Sgr from E. Vasiliev & V. Belokurov (2020). There is little difference between CDM and sat–sat only, and little difference between sat–host only and sat–sat + sat–host, indicating that ram-pressure evaporation is responsible for the enhanced mass loss observed for this SIDM model.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Heliocentric distance Dhelio vs. stream angle Λ for the spur region of the stellar stream for standard-resolution simulations varying the SIDM model parameters. The top row shows the CDM simulation alongside velocity-independent simulations with cross sections σ/mχ = {10, 20, 30, 40} cm2 g−1. The bottom row shows the CDM simulation again alongside velocity-dependent simulations with cross section σ0/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1 and velocity scale η = {100, 200, 300, 400} km s−1. The figures clearly show that as interaction strength increases (by increasing either σ0/mχ or η), the spur is increasingly suppressed.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: The final positions of dark matter particles in the High Resolution simulations for CDM (left) and SIDM (right). The SIDM interactions assume a velocity-independent cross section of σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1. The positions are shown in the orbital plane, rotated to place the progenitor (marked by a circle) on the x-axis. In CDM, the dark matter largely traces the stars, whereas in SIDM, the stream and progenitor are highly disrupted and most of the stripped dark matter is concentrated in the center of the host halo.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Results of the initial conditions scan for the velocity-independent SIDM model with σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g1 and initial satellite halo mass of MDM,s = 5 × 1010M⊙. Note that the points {vi, θi} = {80 km s−1,  75∘} and {80 km s−1,  80∘} have equal χ2 values to within 0.3%; we consider the scan converged on {vi, θi} = {80 km s−1,  75∘}.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Results of the initial conditions scan for the velocity-independent SIDM model with σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g1 and initial satellite halo mass of MDM,s = 1010M⊙. Points marked nan are simulations where the satellite progenitor was lost before the third pericenter.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Results of the initial conditions scan for CDM, showing convergence at vi = 60 km s−1 and θi = 75°.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Orbital trajectories of the “satellite–satellite + satellite–host” simulations from the SIDM1 and SIDM2 suites, shown in the orbital plane in native simulation coordinates. The left panel shows velocity-independent simulations with cross sections σ/mχ = {0, 10, 20, 30, 40} cm2 g−1. The right panel shows velocity-dependent simulations with cross-section normalization σ0/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1 and velocity scale η = {100, 200, 300, 400} km s−1, as well as the CDM and velocity-independent SIDM (η → ∞) simulations. The orbital trajectories are all quite similar, suggesting that the initial conditions adopted for these runs are nearly optimal.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Dark matter density profile of the satellite at 0.5 Gyr, varying SIDM model parameters. Each row corresponds to a different choice of allowed self-interactions: the top row shows simulations with only interactions between satellite and host particles (satellite–host only), the middle only between satellite particles (satellite–satellite only), and the bottom has both types of interactions. The black dashed line gives the profile of the satellite in CDM at the corresponding time.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Dark matter density profile of the satellite at 1.0 Gyr, varying SIDM model parameters. Each row corresponds to a different choice of allowed self-interactions: the top row shows simulations with only interactions between satellite and host particles (satellite–host only), the middle only between satellite particles (satellite–satellite only), and the bottom has both types of interactions. The black dashed line gives the profile of the satellite in CDM at the corresponding time.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Results of the initial conditions scan for the velocity-independent SIDM model with σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g1 and initial satellite halo mass of MDM,s = 2 × 1011M⊙. The scan is nearly converged on the point {vi, θi} = {100 km s−1,  65∘}, but we stopped the scan early because the fits were poor.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Evolution of the satellite dark matter density profile in a dark matter-only simulation evolving the satellite in isolation with σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1. Without the stellar component, we see the development of a core.
Paper: Effects of Dark Matter Self-interactions on Sagittarius and its Stream
Authors: Connor Hainje, Oren Slone, Mariangela Lisanti, Denis Erkal
Figure caption: Evolution of the satellite dark matter density profile in a simulation evolving the satellite in isolation with σ/mχ = 30 cm2 g−1. There is no evidence for the development of a core.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Left panel: multiband light curves of SN 2019hnl from Las Cumbres, ZTF, and ATLAS. Bars on the base of each panel denote the phases of photometric evolution in accordance with S. Valenti et al. (2016). The last nondetection was 1 day before the ATLAS detection in the o filter. Center panel: zoomed-in view from t0 − 5 days to t0 + 15 days. Right panel: zoomed-in view from tPT onwards.(The data used to create this figure are available in the online article.)(The data used to create this figure are available.)
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Color evolution of SN 2019hnl; photometrically similar SNe IIP SN 1999em (T. Faran et al. 2014), SN 2005ay (D. Y. Tsvetkov et al. 2006; M. Hicken et al. 2018), SN 2012A (T. de Jaeger et al. 2019), and SN 2023axu (M. Shrestha et al. 2024); and low-reddening SNe II SN 2003T (J. P. Anderson et al. 2014; L. Galbany et al. 2016), SN 2014G (T. de Jaeger et al. 2019), and SN 2014cx (S. Valenti et al. 2016). All points are corrected for both MW and host reddening, when applicable. SN 2019hnl’s B − V evolution is similar to, but on the bluer end of, these other SNe II.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Spectroscopic evolution of SN 2019hnl in optical wavelengths from +5 days to +428 days. Spectra smoothed with a Savitzky–Golay filter are plotted in black over the gray unsmoothed spectra.(The data used to create this figure are available in the online article.)(The data used to create this figure are available.)
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Upper panel: SN 2019hnl and comparison SN II from SNDAVIS in S50–MV parameter space. Lower panel: SN 2019hnl and comparison SN II from SNDAVIS in tPT–w0 parameter space. SN 2019hnl’s position in both parameter spaces is consistent with the general SNe II population.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Stacked color image of SN 2019hnl using the BVg bandpasses. SN 2019hnl is in the outskirts of the host, aligning with our low host reddening discussed in Section 3.1.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Left panel: no-CSM MESA + STELLA model grid heat map scatterplot, with lighter regions representing areas of greater likelihood. The maximum occurs at MZAMS = 10.0M⊙, E = 2.4 · 1050 erg, η = 1.7, and ﹩{M}_{{H}_{\,\rm{env}\,}}=4.3{M}_{\odot }﹩, within a locally likelier volume, introducing degeneracy. Right panel: CSM model grid heat map. The maximum occurs at ﹩\dot{M}=5\cdot 1{0}^{-3}{M}_{\odot }{\,\rm{yr}\,}^{-1}﹩ and twind = 24 yr, with degeneracy in twind. Contours representing the total CSM mass are plotted above the heat map. Similarly to the SNEC models, there appears to be degeneracy related to total CSM mass. Bottom panel: UBV light curves of all models, split by the inclusion of CSM. The best fits for each model set are shown in dashed lines. The early behavior of the light curve is nonreplicable without CSM, which also raises the B-band brightness to observed levels during the early decline. The plateau, fall therefrom, and 56Ni tail are all well reproduced aside from SN 2019hnl’s bluer-than-typical plateau discussed in Section 3.1.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Left panel: no-CSM SNEC model grid heat map. Lighter bins represent more likely models, i.e., better-fitting models. The maximum occurs at 10.5M⊙ and 5.75 · 1050 erg, with degeneracy present in both parameters. Right panel: CSM model grid heat map. The maximum occurs at extent 950R⊙ and ρ0 = 2.7 · 1018 g cm−1 but with significant degeneracy in ρ0. The parameter space near the maximum at ∼950R⊙ has similar likelihood, implying the presence of a CSM shell of radial extent ∼950R⊙ but without well-constrained density. Contours representing the total CSM mass are plotted above the heat map. Bottom panel: UBVgri light curves of all models, split by the presence of CSM. The presence of CSM is required to reproduce the photometry during the first 30 days but not afterwards.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Left panel: nebular spectrum of SN 2019hnl at +428d compared with scaled synthetic spectra from A. Jerkstrand et al. (2014) for varying progenitor masses. The nebular spectrum smoothed with a Savitzky–Golay filter is plotted above the gray unsmoothed spectrum. Center panel: zoomed-in view of the O Iλλ6300, 6364 doublet. The nearest model corresponds to a ZAMS mass of 12M⊙ and has a more intense profile, implying a ∼12M⊙ upper limit to ZAMS mass. Right panel: zoomed-in view of the Hα profile. The 12M⊙ model significantly overestimates the line intensity, implying that hydrogen may have been removed from the progenitor, possibly by envelope stripping.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Spectral comparison of SN 2019hnl with similar-phase spectra for SN 1999em (C. P. Gutiérrez et al. 2017; J. M. Silverman et al. 2017), SN 2023axu (M. Shrestha et al. 2024), and SN 2012A (L. Tomasella et al. 2013; J. M. Silverman et al. 2017). Upper panel: early spectra at ∼5 days. The pattern on the red side of the +29 day SN 2023axu spectrum is due to fringing. Center panel: plateau spectra during recombination at ∼30 days. Lower panel: nebular spectra at ∼427 days.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Pseudobolometric evolution comparison of SN 2019hnl and other SNe IIP from the SNDAVIS database, all synthesized from UBVgri photometry. SN 1999em displays a similar evolution up to the end of early decline, while SN 2023axu evolves analogously but almost uniformly dimmer by ∼0.4 mag.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: SN 2019hnl plotted with other SNe II from SNDAVIS in MV–56Ni parameter space. Our estimate for the 56Ni produced in SN 2019hnl lies within the range of typical 56Ni production for SNe II and near the photometrically similar SN 1999em and SN 2023axu.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: pEWs of the Fe λ5018 line for SN 2019hnl and the models discussed in L. Dessart et al. (2014). SN 2019hnl falls between the 0.4Z⊙ and Z⊙ models at early times but migrates to between the Z⊙ and 2Z⊙ models at +67 days.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: UBV light curves of the models with variable metallicity. The early behavior of the light curve is essentially invariant with metallicity, while minor variance begins to occur near and after the fall from plateau.
Paper: SN 2019hnl: A Type IIP Supernova with a Partially Stripped, Low-mass Progenitor
Authors: Aidan Martas, Stefano Valenti, Aravind P. Ravi, Yize Dong, K. Azalee Bostroem, Jeniveve Pearson, Manisha Shrestha, Jennifer E. Andrews, David J. Sand, Griffin Hosseinzadeh, Michael Lundquist, Emily Hoang, Darshana Mehta, Nicolás Meza Retamal, Saurabh W. Jha, Daryl Janzen, D. Andrew Howell, Curtis McCully, Daichi Hiramatsu, Craig Pellegrino
Figure caption: Velocity evolution of the Fe II and Hα lines in SN 2019hnl (points) compared to a sample of SNe II (bands) from C. P. Gutiérrez et al. (2017).