pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.23201 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Impact of stellar rotation on type II supernova progenitor masses from pre-explosion imaging

L. Martinez (1) , O. G. Benvenuto (1 , 2) , M. A. De Vito (1 , 2) ((1) Instituto de Astrof\'isica de La Plata , (2) Facultad de Ciencias Astron\'omicas y Geof\'isicas - UNLP) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 00:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords type II supernovaestellar rotationprogenitor massesred supergiantspre-explosion imagingstellar evolution models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar rotation causes only modest downward shifts in type II supernova progenitor mass estimates from pre-explosion imaging.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares initial mass estimates for red supergiant progenitors of type II supernovae obtained from non-rotating stellar evolution models against those from rotating models. Initial rotational velocities in the rotating models are drawn from the observed distribution in massive stars. Across comparisons of individual events, probability density functions, cumulative distributions, and the upper mass boundary, the rotating models produce slightly lower masses. These shifts remain smaller than typical observational and modeling uncertainties. The analysis yields an upper initial-mass limit of 20.4 solar masses with uncertainties of +2.3 and -1.9.

Core claim

When initial rotational velocities are sampled from the observed distribution in massive stars, rotating stellar evolution models yield progenitor initial mass estimates for type II supernovae that are slightly lower than those from non-rotating models, but the differences stay within current uncertainties. This holds for individual supernovae, overall probability distributions, cumulative functions, and the upper mass limit, which is inferred as 20.4^{+2.3}_{-1.9} M_⊙.

What carries the argument

Rotating stellar evolution models with initial velocities sampled from the observed distribution of massive star rotations, used to recompute initial masses from pre-explosion luminosities and compared to non-rotating models.

If this is right

  • Individual SN II progenitor mass estimates shift only slightly lower with rotation included.
  • The overall probability distribution of inferred masses moves modestly toward lower values.
  • The cumulative distribution of progenitor masses shows only minor changes.
  • The upper initial-mass limit remains 20.4 solar masses within uncertainties.
  • Adopting the observed rotation distribution produces small differences compared to non-rotating models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Other factors such as binary evolution may be more important than rotation for explaining any remaining mass discrepancies.
  • Non-rotating models remain adequate for most population-level studies of SN progenitors.
  • Future direct rotation measurements of nearby massive stars could refine the upper mass boundary further.

Load-bearing premise

The observed distribution of rotational velocities in massive stars accurately represents the initial rotational velocities of the specific type II supernova progenitors studied.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the initial rotation rates of a sample of SN II progenitors deviate enough from the general massive-star distribution to produce mass estimate shifts larger than the reported uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.23201 by 2), 2) ((1) Instituto de Astrof\'isica de La Plata, (2) Facultad de Ciencias Astron\'omicas y Geof\'isicas - UNLP), L. Martinez (1), M. A. De Vito (1, O. G. Benvenuto (1.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: HR diagrams for a subsample of stellar models. The left panel shows only non-rotating models. Coloured lines correspond to models with initial masses of 10, 15, 20, and 25 M⊙, while the remaining models are shown as faint grey lines. The right panel presents evolutionary tracks for stars with initial masses of 10, 15, 20, and 25 M⊙ and different initial rotational velocities as indicated in the panel label… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stellar luminosities at core carbon depletion for a range of initial masses and surface velocities. Only a subset of models is shown for visualisation purposes. lution code MESA2 , version 24.08.1 (Paxton et al. 2011, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019; Jermyn et al. 2023). Each stellar model was evolved from the ZAMS until core carbon depletion, which we 2 https://docs.mesastar.org/en/latest/ defined as the stage whe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Probability density of rotational velocities. Projected rotational velocities of young Galactic O-type stars from Holgado et al. (2022) with masses below 32 M⊙ are shown as a histogram. The deconvolved distribution, obtained using the method of Lucy (1974), is overplotted as a thick line. lium and other hydrogen-burning products to the surface, reduc￾ing the opacity and contributing to an increase in stell… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Initial-mass distribution of the progenitor of SN 2025pht using the DBR models. The solid vertical line corresponds to the median of the distribution, while dashed vertical lines are the 16th and 84th per￾centiles. recent SN II with a detected progenitor in pre-explosion im￾ages, and the first to be identified with the James Webb Space Telescope (Kilpatrick et al. 2025). We derived an initial mass of MZAMS… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Median of the initial-mass distribution of SN II progenitors in the sample, derived from non-rotating (green dots) and DBR models (or￾ange triangles). Error bars correspond to the 16th and 84th percentiles. 10 15 20 25 Initial mass (M ) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 Probability density Non-rotating models DBR models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probability density functions of the SN II progenitor initial mass, derived from non-rotating (dashed green line) and DBR models (solid orange line). 10 15 20 25 30 Initial mass (M ) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Cumulative distribution Median 68% 95% 99.7% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative distributions of initial masses for the SN II progeni￾tors in the sample derived from DBR models. form a statistical analysis of the complete sample. This analysis includes comparisons between the two sets of estimates for each SN, the construction of probability density functions (PDFs) and cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), and the determination of the upper mass boundary [PITH_FULL_IM… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Initial-mass distributions of the progenitor of SN 2025pht using non-rotating models (green solid bars) and DBR models including the contribution of mass gainers (grey dashed bars). puted assuming solar metallicity. Adopting specific metallicity values to each individual SN could lead to variations in the in￾ferred masses. We emphasise that the analysis of the RSG prob￾lem constitutes an additional, explor… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The initial masses of red supergiant (RSG) type II supernova (SN II) progenitors are commonly inferred from pre-explosion imaging by converting the progenitor luminosity into an initial mass estimate using non-rotating stellar evolution models. However, stellar rotation affects the evolution and may influence these estimates. We investigate how the observed distribution of rotational velocities in massive stars influences the progenitor initial masses of SNe II inferred from pre-SN imaging. We compare initial mass estimates obtained from non-rotating models with those derived from rotating models, where the initial rotational velocities of the stellar models are sampled from the observed distribution. We analyse the inferred progenitor initial masses by (i) comparing the results for each SN individually, (ii) examining the overall probability density function, (iii) constructing the cumulative distribution function, and (iv) determining the upper initial-mass boundary. In all cases, the distributions obtained from rotating models are slightly shifted towards lower masses, although the differences remain smaller than the typical uncertainties. When using the observed distribution of initial rotational velocities for massive stars, we infer an upper initial-mass limit for SN II progenitors of 20.4$^{+2.3}_{-1.9} M_{\odot}$. Taken together, these analyses demonstrate that stellar rotation has only a modest impact on progenitor mass estimates from pre-SN imaging within the current observational and model uncertainties when the observed distribution of initial rotational velocities is taken into account. Therefore, adopting this distribution leads to small differences compared to non-rotating models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that sampling initial rotational velocities for rotating stellar models from the observed distribution of massive stars produces only modest shifts toward lower inferred initial masses for Type II SN progenitors compared to non-rotating models. Individual SN comparisons, PDF, CDF, and upper-limit analyses all show differences smaller than typical uncertainties, yielding an upper initial-mass limit of 20.4^{+2.3}_{-1.9} M_⊙ and supporting the conclusion that rotation has limited impact on pre-explosion mass estimates when the observed velocity distribution is used.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing conditioning, the work strengthens the robustness of progenitor mass inferences from pre-SN imaging by quantifying rotation effects across multiple statistical tests (individual, PDF, CDF, upper-limit). It provides a concrete upper-mass bound and supports continued use of non-rotating tracks with small corrections, which is useful for population studies of SN II progenitors.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods and rotating-model analysis] The sampling procedure for rotating models (described in the methods and analysis sections): initial velocities are drawn directly from the observed distribution of massive stars without reweighting by the rotation-dependent probability of RSG formation and SN II outcome. Faster initial rotation enhances mixing and mass loss, lowering the likelihood of retaining a hydrogen envelope; applying the unconditioned distribution therefore leaves open whether the reported modest shifts and 20.4 M_⊙ limit would persist for the actual progenitor subset.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] The abstract and results sections refer to 'PDF' and 'CDF' analyses without explicitly defining the binning, kernel choice, or handling of upper limits in the text; a short methods paragraph would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Stellar models] Details on the specific rotating stellar grids (e.g., code version, overshooting parameters, mass-loss prescriptions) are referenced but not tabulated; adding a brief comparison table to the non-rotating grid would clarify the source of any mass shifts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and for identifying this important methodological point regarding the sampling of initial rotational velocities. We address the comment below and have revised the manuscript with additional discussion to clarify the approach and its implications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The sampling procedure for rotating models (described in the methods and analysis sections): initial velocities are drawn directly from the observed distribution of massive stars without reweighting by the rotation-dependent probability of RSG formation and SN II outcome. Faster initial rotation enhances mixing and mass loss, lowering the likelihood of retaining a hydrogen envelope; applying the unconditioned distribution therefore leaves open whether the reported modest shifts and 20.4 M_⊙ limit would persist for the actual progenitor subset.

    Authors: We agree that a fully conditioned analysis would weight the initial-velocity distribution by the rotation-dependent probability of a star retaining a hydrogen envelope and exploding as a Type II supernova. Our study instead samples directly from the observed distribution of massive-star velocities to quantify the typical effect on mass inferences when using realistic (unconditioned) inputs. Because faster rotators are less likely to become RSG progenitors, the true progenitor distribution would be skewed toward slower velocities, which would reduce the already-modest differences relative to non-rotating tracks and leave the 20.4 M_⊙ upper limit essentially unchanged or slightly lower. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section acknowledging this limitation, explaining why the unconditioned sampling provides a conservative estimate of rotation’s impact, and noting that a full reweighting would require population-synthesis modeling beyond the present scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives its central result—an upper initial-mass limit of 20.4 M_⊙ and the conclusion of only modest impact—by comparing mass estimates from non-rotating stellar evolution tracks against rotating tracks whose initial velocities are drawn from an externally observed distribution of massive-star rotations. This comparison is performed via four independent statistical summaries (per-SN differences, PDF, CDF, and boundary determination) whose outputs are not algebraically or statistically forced to equal the input distribution by construction. No parameter is fitted inside the paper and then relabeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The skeptic concern about conditioning the rotation distribution on RSG/SN II outcome is a question of assumption validity and selection bias, not a circular reduction of the reported result to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions in stellar astrophysics about model accuracy and the representativeness of observed velocities, without new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The observed distribution of rotational velocities in massive stars applies to the progenitors of type II supernovae.
    Used to sample initial velocities for the rotating stellar models.
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution models correctly map initial mass and rotation rate to the pre-explosion luminosity of red supergiants.
    Basis for converting observed progenitor luminosity into initial mass estimates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5627 in / 1538 out tokens · 51163 ms · 2026-05-15T00:26:56.389936+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z., et al

    Antoniadis, K., Zapartas, E., Bonanos, A. Z., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A178

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J

    Beasor, E. R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J. E. 2025, ApJ, 979, 117 Björklund, R., Sundqvist, J. O., Singh, S. M., Puls, J., & Najarro, F. 2023, A&A, 676, A109

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    & Limongi, M

    Chieffi, A. & Limongi, M. 2013, ApJ, 764, 21

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    & Beasor, E

    Davies, B. & Beasor, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2116

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    & Beasor, E

    Davies, B. & Beasor, E. R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 468 de Mink, S. E., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., Sana, H., & de Koter, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 166

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2021, A&A, 652, A137 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Eggenberger, P., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A137 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    J., Guo, N

    Eldridge, J. J., Guo, N. Y ., Rodrigues, N., Stanway, E. R., & Xiao, L. 2019, PASA, 36, e041

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    Eldridge, J. J. & Tout, C. A. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 87

    work page 2004

  12. [12]

    Endal, A. S. & Sofia, S. 1978, ApJ, 220, 279

    work page 1978

  13. [13]

    J., & Maeda, K

    Fang, Q., Moriya, T. J., & Maeda, K. 2025, ApJ, 986, 39

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    E., Petermann, I., et al

    Farmer, R., Fields, C. E., Petermann, I., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 22

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    V ., Matheson, T., & Ho, L

    Filippenko, A. V ., Matheson, T., & Ho, L. C. 1993, ApJ, 415, L103

    work page 1993

  16. [16]

    J., et al

    Fraser, M., Ergon, M., Eldridge, J. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1417

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    2013, A&A, 558, A103

    Georgy, C., Ekström, S., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A103

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, ApJ, 528, 368

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    E., & Spruit, H

    Heger, A., Woosley, S. E., & Spruit, H. C. 2005, ApJ, 626, 350

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    1909, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 1909, 210

    Hellinger, E. 1909, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 1909, 210

    work page 1909

  22. [22]

    A., Van Dyk, S

    Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 903

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Holgado, G., Simón-Díaz, S., Herrero, A., & Barbá, R. H. 2022, A&A, 665, A150

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    R., & McSwain, M

    Huang, W., Gies, D. R., & McSwain, M. V . 2010, ApJ, 722, 605

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    J., Sollerman, J., et al

    Jerkstrand, A., Smartt, S. J., Sollerman, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 2482

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    D., Izzo, L., Bentley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Izzo, L., Bentley, R. O., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2161

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    D., Suresh, A., Davis, K

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Suresh, A., Davis, K. W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, L10

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    1980, A&A, 91, 175

    Kippenhahn, R., Ruschenplatt, G., & Thomas, H.-C. 1980, A&A, 91, 175

    work page 1980

  31. [31]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer)

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer)

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, IOS Press, 87–90

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, IOS Press, 87–90

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    J., & Sugimoto, D

    Langer, N., Fricke, K. J., & Sugimoto, D. 1983, A&A, 126, 207

    work page 1983

  35. [35]

    M., Massey, P., Olsen, K

    Levesque, E. M., Massey, P., Olsen, K. A. G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1102

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 77

    Li, Y ., Chen, X.-h., & Chen, H.-l. 2019, ApJ, 870, 77

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 29

    Limongi, M., Roberti, L., Chieffi, A., & Nomoto, K. 2024, ApJS, 270, 29

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    2025, ApJ, 982, L55

    Luo, J., Zhang, L., Chen, B.-Q., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, L55

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars (Springer)

    Maeder, A. 2009, Physics, Formation and Evolution of Rotating Stars (Springer)

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    & Meynet, G

    Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 143

    work page 2000

  41. [41]

    C., Anderson, J

    Martinez, L., Bersten, M. C., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A143

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    C., Anderson, J

    Martinez, L., Bersten, M. C., Anderson, J. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A41

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    & Palacios, A

    Martins, F. & Palacios, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A16

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    Maund, J. R. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2202

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    & Maeder, A

    Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101

    work page 2000

  47. [47]

    1941, PASP, 53, 224

    Minkowski, R. 1941, PASP, 53, 224

    work page 1941

  48. [48]

    1980, PASJ, 32, 303

    Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., Yokoi, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1980, PASJ, 32, 303

    work page 1980

  49. [49]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15 Article number, page 10 L. Martinez et al.: Impact of rotation on SN II progenitor masses

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    2022, A&A, 660, A47

    Monpribat, E., Martinet, S., Courtin, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A47

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    L., & Valenti, S

    Morozova, V ., Piro, A. L., & Valenti, S. 2018, ApJ, 858, 15

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    1998, A&A, 335, 573

    Mowlavi, N., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., Schaerer, D., & Charbonnel, C. 1998, A&A, 335, 573

    work page 1998

  53. [53]

    K., & Yokoi, K

    Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F. K., & Yokoi, K. 1984, ApJ, 286, 644

    work page 1984

  54. [54]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A guide to NumPy, V ol. 1 (Trelgol Publishing USA) O’Neill, D., Kotak, R., Fraser, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, L1

    work page 2006

  55. [55]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    work page 2011

  56. [56]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    D., Prieto, J

    Pessi, T., Desai, D. D., Prieto, J. L., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A34

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Poelarends, A. J. T., Herwig, F., Langer, N., & Heger, A. 2008, ApJ, 675, 614

    work page 2008

  62. [62]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    work page 2012

  63. [63]

    2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    Smartt, S. J. 2015, PASA, 32, e016

    work page 2015

  65. [65]

    J., Eldridge, J

    Smartt, S. J., Eldridge, J. J., Crockett, R. M., & Maund, J. R. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1409

    work page 2009

  66. [66]

    J., Maund, J

    Smartt, S. J., Maund, J. R., Hendry, M. A., et al. 2004, Science, 303, 499

    work page 2004

  67. [67]

    Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A, 381, 923

    work page 2002

  68. [68]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 158 Takáts, K., Pignata, G., Pumo, M

    Straniero, O., Dominguez, I., Piersanti, L., Giannotti, M., & Mirizzi, A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 158 Takáts, K., Pignata, G., Pumo, M. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3137 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22 Van Dyk, S. D. 2025, Galaxies, 13, 33 Van Dyk, S. D., Bostroem, K. A., Zheng, W., et al. 2023, M...

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    Vink, J. S. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 203

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574

    work page 2001

  71. [71]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    2020, ApJ, 888, L12

    Wang, C., Langer, N., Schootemeijer, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, L12

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    2024, ApJS, 275, 33

    Wen, J., Yang, M., Gao, J., et al. 2024, ApJS, 275, 33

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    F., Hillis, T

    Williams, B. F., Hillis, T. J., Murphy, J. W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 39

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. 2007, Phys. Rep., 442, 269

    work page 2007

  76. [76]

    Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. 2015, ApJ, 810, 34

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    2024, ApJ, 969, L15

    Xiang, D., Mo, J., Wang, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, L15

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    Zahn, J. P. 1992, A&A, 265, 115

    work page 1992

  79. [79]

    E., Justham, S., et al

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A5 Article number, page 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa58097-25 Appendix A: Hertzsprung–Russell diagrams Figures A.1 and A.2 show HR diagrams for a subsample of stellar models. Each panel corresponds to a fixed initial mass and different initial rotational velocities. 3.63.84.04.24.4 3.6 3....

    work page 2019