Erratum: A Detailed Observational Analysis of V1324 Sco, the Most Gamma-Ray-luminous Classical Nova to Date (ApJ, (2018) 852 (108) (DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa12a)

In the published article (Finzell et al. 2018), it was stated that the parameters that best fit the radio light curve were D = 14.8 ± 1.6 kpc, (1) Mej = 1.8 ± 0.6 × 10-5M 2 KEej = 3.8 ± 2.0 × 1045 erg, 3 which assumed an ejecta velocity vmax = 2600 ± 260 km s-1, a temperature of 104 K, and a filling factor of fV = (2.1 ± 0.7) × 10-2. Further down in the text, it was stated that an ejecta mass of 2.3 × 10-6 Me and an ejecta velocity of vmax = 2600 ± 260 km s-1 were derived using an assumed distance of D = 6.5 kpc (Finzell et al. 2015). The derived values did not match the assumed parameters. The original mass, (1.8 ± 0.6) × 10-5 M⊙, and ejecta energy, (3.8 ± 2.0) × 1045 erg, correspond to an assumed distance of D = 6.5 and ejecta velocity of vmax = 1150 km s-1, not D = 14.8 ± 1.6 kpc and vmax = 2600 ± 260 km s-1 that were originally stated. These values are derived from the composite variables fit to the radio light curve, Φ and (discussed in Appendix A of the published article). It is still true that the best-fit values are (Φ) = - log 24.487+0.031-0.033 and X = log 59.763+0.06-0.03. It was the translation of these dummy variables into physical values that caused the issue. If one uses the previously assumed parameter values-vmax = 2600 ± 260 km s-1, T = 104 K, and fV = (2.1 ± 0.7) × 10-2-then the derived distance, ejecta mass, and energy are D = 14.8 ± 1.6 kpc, Mej = (1.4 ± 0.5) × 10-4 Me, and KEej = (9.4 ± 4.9) × 1045 erg, respectively. While the increase in ejecta mass is substantial, it is still well within the realm of plausibility for classical novae (Yaron et al. 2005). Further, the argument made in Section 6.1-wherein the physical properties of V1324 Sco are compared to those of a luminous red nova-is still valid. The ejecta mass and energy are still too small, by more than an order of magnitude, for a luminous red nova. Finally, the ejecta mass values calculated in Appendix C of the published article, which use O I lines to constrain the ejecta density, now agree (within the stated uncertainty) with the mass derived from fitting the radio light curve. Overall, while this change is numerically significant, it does not affect any of the other conclusions in the published article. We apologize for any possible inconvenience.