Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

A New Model for Electron-Capture Supernovae in Galactic Chemical Evolution

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A rare thermonuclear supernova branch explains the solar abundances of 48Ca, 50Ti, and 54Cr.

desk verdict A transparent proof-of-concept GCE model that combines tECSNe, cECSNe, and low-mass FeCCSNe to explain several neutron-rich isotopes, with the central caveat being that the tECSN rate is fitted to 48Ca and the yield pattern is admitted to be sensitive to uncertain inputs. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02236 v1 pith:2LNWXJ6N submitted 2019-08-06 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

S. Jones , B. Côté , F. K. Roepke , S. Wanajo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw26.30.-k98.35.-a
keywords electron-capturesupernovaethermonucleargalacticchemicalevolutionnucleosynthesissolarabundances48Ca50Ti54Cr
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a rare, partially thermonuclear kind of electron-capture supernova—the tECSN—is the long-sought source of the neutron-rich isotopes 48Ca, 50Ti, and 54Cr, which standard nucleosynthesis channels fail to produce. It embeds tECSN yields, gravitational-collapse ECSN yields, low-mass iron-core supernova yields, and rotating or non-rotating massive-star yields in a two-zone Milky Way chemical evolution model. The model reproduces the solar abundances of these isotopes, together with 58Fe, 64Ni, 82Se, 86Kr and several Zn–Zr isotopes, when tECSNe occur at about 0.5% of the core-collapse supernova rate—roughly 15% of all ECSNe—and the rest of the ECSNe collapse to neutron stars. Because the tECSN production factors are so large, this small rate is enough to fill the solar inventory, and the model introduces no new abundance tensions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the thermonuclear electron-capture supernova yield pattern, computed from three-dimensional deflagration simulations of a degenerate ONe core. Its importance is the low electron fraction of the ejecta, which drives strong overproduction of neutron-rich species: 48Ca, 50Ti, and 54Cr have overproduction factors large enough that only about 0.5% of the CCSN rate is needed to match the solar inventory of 48Ca. The companion machinery is the two-zone galactic chemical evolution code that folds these yields together with cECSN yields, low-mass FeCCSN yields, AGB yields, massive-star yields, and a Type Ia delay-time distribution through the Milky Way's star-formation history.

What would settle it

If revised weak-reaction rates shift the ejected $^{48}$Ca/$^{50}$Ti ratio by more than about a factor of two away from the yield set used here, then a single tuned tECSN rate cannot simultaneously match $^{48}$Ca, $^{50}$Ti, and $^{54}$Cr; re-running the nucleosynthesis network with updated rates would reveal this.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that thermonuclear electron-capture supernovae do occur in nature and dominate the solar production of 48Ca, 50Ti, and 54Cr. The paper's fiducial model achieves this with tECSNe at 0.5% of the CCSN rate (0.6% with rotating massive stars), together with cECSNe at 4.5% and low-mass FeCCSNe at rates up to 15%. Removing cECSNe entirely and pairing tECSNe only with low-mass FeCCSNe or rotating stars also reproduces the same isotopes. The paper further shows that attempting to explain 48Ca with cECSNe alone requires a rate of about 65% of all CCSNe and overproduces many trans-iron isotopes by up to an order of magnitude, so the tECSN channel is essential to the fit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the computed mix of isotopes ejected by a thermonuclear electron-capture supernova—especially the ratio of calcium-48 to titanium-50—matches reality, even though that ratio depends on nuclear reaction rates and ignition conditions that remain uncertain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thermonuclear ECSNe become a defined astrophysical production site for 48Ca, 50Ti, and 54Cr, species for which no other appreciable source is known.
  • The required tECSN rate, about 0.5–0.7% of the CCSN rate, is compatible with population-synthesis and single-star rate estimates, so the model does not require new physics.
  • If about 85% of ECSNe still collapse to neutron stars, the usual explanations for low-mass, low-kick neutron stars and Be X-ray binaries remain intact.
  • The combined model matches nearly all Zn–Zr isotopes to within a factor of two, leaving only 84Sr and 96Zr as outliers.
  • Models without any cECSNe also succeed, implying that low-mass FeCCSNe can fully take over the role of gravitational-collapse ECSNe in chemical evolution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A concrete prediction follows for presolar grains: grains carrying excess 48Ca, 50Ti, and 54Cr should show a tECSN-like correlation between these isotopes, distinct from the cECSN pattern, and this can be checked with existing grain data.
  • If future weak-reaction-rate measurements lower the ejected 48Ca/50Ti ratio, the required tECSN rate will rise, pushing the 15% fraction upward and potentially making the model harder to reconcile with rate estimates.
  • Because population synthesis suggests the ECSN channel depends on metallicity, the model predicts that the relative contribution of tECSNe to 48Ca changed over cosmic time, which abundance trends in metal-poor stars would test.
  • The same model implies a specific diffuse galactic 60Fe injection tied to the tuned ECSN rates, offering a gamma-ray observability constraint on the model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) models, built on the open-source OMEGA+ code, that include thermonuclear electron-capture supernovae (tECSNe), gravitational-collapse ECSNe (cECSNe), low-mass Fe-core-collapse SNe (low-FeCCSNe), and rotating massive-star yields. The fiducial model underproduces 48Ca, 50Ti, 54Cr, and several Zn–Zr isotopes. Adding tECSNe at 0.5–0.6% of the CCSN rate reproduces solar 48Ca, while 50Ti and 54Cr come out within a factor of two; adding cECSNe at 4.5% or low-FeCCSNe at 6.5–15% fills the Zn–Zr region. The authors interpret this as evidence that roughly 15% of ECSNe may be partial thermonuclear explosions, with no new overproduction tensions. They explicitly frame the model as a proof of concept and acknowledge both the hand-tuned rates and the omission of r-process contributions in the Zn–Zr region.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper identifies tECSNe as a viable production site for 48Ca, 50Ti, and 54Cr, isotopes that have resisted a satisfactory astrophysical origin, and shows that their inclusion in GCE does not spoil the rest of the abundance pattern. The use of open-source code and published yield tables is a strength, and the paper is admirably explicit about its limitations: rates are hand-tuned, 84Sr and 96Zr are not matched, and the 48Ca/50Ti ratio is sensitive to uncertain weak rates and ignition conditions. However, because the tECSN rate is calibrated to reproduce 48Ca, the independent content of the central claim rests on the yield ratios from a single simulation family, and the paper does not quantify how sensitive the conclusions are to those yields. The significance is therefore conditional: the mechanism is plausible and important, but the current evidence is a proof-of-concept rather than a robust quantitative identification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 3.2.1] The tECSN rate is chosen to match solar 48Ca, so the match to 48Ca is a fitted value rather than a prediction. The independent claim is that the same yield pattern also gives 50Ti and 54Cr within a factor of two. Section 3.1 itself notes that the 48Ca/50Ti ratio is sensitive to weak reaction rates and ONe-core ignition conditions, and no sensitivity study is propagated into the GCE calculation. I request a quantitative exploration of plausible variations of the tECSN yield pattern (e.g., weak-rate uncertainties, ignition density and geometry, ejected-mass variations) and their effect on 48Ca, 50Ti, and 54Cr, or an explicit statement of which isotopes are calibration and which are predictions with associated error bars.
  2. [Section 3.2.3] The rates in the combined model (and in panels b–e of Figures 3 and 4) are hand-tuned 'to bring a maximum number of isotopes close to the Solar composition, within a factor of two.' The absence of an objective goodness-of-fit metric or uncertainty propagation makes it difficult to know whether the claimed simultaneous match is robust or the result of the specific tuned combination. In particular, the conclusion that roughly 15% of ECSNe are thermonuclear hinges on those rate choices; please provide a measure of how much each rate can vary before one of the matched isotopes (e.g., 48Ca, 50Ti, 54Cr, or 86Kr) leaves the factor-of-two band, or include a chi-square-style comparison across models.
  3. [Section 3.2.4 and Section 5] The models exclude r-process contributions, and the text states this was done 'in order to leave room for ECSNe and low-mass FeCCSNe.' This omission directly affects the Zn–Zr isotopes that the paper counts among its successes (e.g., 64Zn, 80,82Se, 84Kr, 74Se), because a future inclusion of r-process yields could overproduce these isotopes. Since the abstract lists Zn–Zr isotopes as part of the reproduction, the paper should state explicitly that the Zn–Zr matches are upper limits on the contributions of the new channels pending a treatment of the r-process, or include an order-of-magnitude estimate of the r-process contribution from existing yield sets.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2.2] There is a typo in 'Addionally' at the start of the second paragraph; it should be 'Additionally.'
  2. [Section 3.2.3] The phrase 'speep core-density gradient' should be 'steep core-density gradient.'
  3. [Section 3.2.3] The word 'superseeded' should be 'superseded.'
  4. [Section 4.2] The word 'smaler' should be 'smaller' in the sentence about tECSN ejecta masses.
  5. [Figure 3 and Figure 4 captions] The captions introduce the p-isotopes 74Se, 78Kr, and 84Sr in panels b–e without explaining that these isotopes are absent from the fiducial yield sets; please add a sentence clarifying this and why they appear only in the ECSN/FeCCSN models.
  6. [Section 2.2] The sentence 'with ejecta masses of 0.95 Msun and 0.011 Msun respectively' could be misread; specify that 0.95 Msun refers to the tECSN model and 0.011 Msun to the cECSN model, and add a note on whether the latter includes fallback.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The 48Ca match is a calibration target rather than a prediction, and the combined-model rates are hand-tuned, but the 50Ti/54Cr ratios are carried by fixed yield patterns.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.2 (ECSN rate calibration) and Sec. 3.2.1]
    "A tECSN rate that is no more than 0.5% of the CCSN rate is needed to reproduce all of the solar 48Ca for a CCSN-like DTD, which increases to 0.7% for and AIC-like DTD. ... The models all assume a CCSN-like DTD for ECSNe with tECSNe occurring at 0.5% of the CCSN rate in order to match the solar abundance of 48Ca by the time the Sun forms."

    The tECSN rate is not derived from an independent constraint but is chosen so that the model reproduces the solar 48Ca abundance. Therefore the later statement that the model 'reproduces' 48Ca is a check of the calibration, not an independent prediction. The 50Ti and 54Cr matches are partially independent because they use fixed yield ratios normalized through 48Ca, but the 48Ca match itself is forced by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2.3 (combined model rates)]
    "The rates have been tuned by hand to bring a maximum number of isotopes close to the Solar composition, within a factor of two. This model is not aimed to be the best-fit model, but rather a proof of concept that ECSNe and low-mass FeCCSNe can be combined together without creating any tension."

    In the combined model, the percentages of tECSNe, cECSNe, and low-FeCCSNe are free parameters adjusted to maximize agreement with the same solar abundances that are then reported as reproduced. This makes the global claim a fitting result rather than an a priori prediction. It does not erase the predictive content of the fixed yield patterns, but it lowers the evidentiary weight of the 'reproduce solar abundances' statement.

full rationale

The core derivation is not self-referential: the GCE code combines independent yield tables (Limongi & Chieffi 2018; Wanajo et al. 2018; Jones et al. 2019) with fixed IMF and DTD assumptions, and the match to 50Ti/54Cr relative to 48Ca is carried by the yield ratios, not by the rate normalization. The paper's own caveat about sensitivity of 48Ca/50Ti to weak rates and ignition conditions is a robustness concern, not circularity. However, the headline success for 48Ca is by construction: the tECSN rate is calibrated to reproduce solar 48Ca, and the combined-model rates are hand-tuned to improve the fit. So the paper is partially circular in its presentation of fitted values as reproduced abundances. No load-bearing self-citation circularity is present: Jones et al. (2019) yields are an external simulation input, not derived from solar data.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a chain of yield tables and rate assumptions from prior literature. The only genuinely new inputs are the fractional rates of the ECSN channels, which are tuned by hand to match the solar abundances. The yield patterns themselves come from earlier simulations by the same group and others.

free parameters (5)
  • tECSN rate fraction = 0.5% of CCSN rate (non-rotating); 0.6% with rotating massive stars
    Set to reproduce the solar abundance of 48Ca; Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.4.
  • cECSN rate fraction = 4.5% (Fig. 3b) and 3.0% (Fig. 3e) of CCSN rate
    Hand-tuned to improve Zn-Zr isotopes; Section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.
  • low-FeCCSN u8.1 rate fraction = 15% (Fig. 3c) and 10% (Fig. 3e) of CCSN rate
    Hand-tuned; Section 3.2.3.
  • low-FeCCSN z9.6 rate fraction = 6.5% (Fig. 3d) and 1.0% (Fig. 3e) of CCSN rate
    Hand-tuned; Section 3.2.3.
  • GCE recalibration (gas fraction, outflows) for rotating models = not specified
    Free re-calibration to recover fit when switching to rotating yields; Section 3.2.4.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kroupa (2001) IMF
    Used for all stellar populations; Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Yield tables from Limongi & Chieffi 2018, Cristallo et al. 2015, and Seitenzahl et al. 2013 N100
    Adopted as inputs for massive stars, low/intermediate stars, and SNe Ia; Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption CCSN-like delay-time distribution for ECSNe
    Assumed in Section 2.2; AIC-like DTD considered but not used for main results.
  • domain assumption tECSN, cECSN, and low-FeCCSN yield sets (Jones et al. 2019, Wanajo et al. 2013, Wanajo et al. 2018) are accurate
    The GCE results inherit these yields; Section 2.2 and Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption Solar abundance pattern as target at Sun's formation after 8.5 Gyr
    Used for normalization of X/X_solar; Section 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Model for Electron-Capture Supernovae in Galactic Chemical Evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2LNWXJ6N

@misc{pith2026190802236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Model for Electron-Capture Supernovae in Galactic Chemical Evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2LNWXJ6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02236}
}
abstract

We examine the contribution of electron-capture supernovae (ECSNe), low-mass SNe from collapsing Fe cores (FeCCSNe), and rotating massive stars to the chemical composition of the Galaxy. Our model includes contributions to chemical evolution from both thermonuclear ECSNe (tECSNe) and gravitational collapse ECSNe (cECSNe). We show that if ECSNe are predominantly gravitational collapse SNe but about 15% are partial thermonuclear explosions, the model is able to reproduce the solar abundances of several important and problematic isotopes including $^{48}$Ca, $^{50}$Ti and $^{54}$Cr together with $^{58}$Fe, $^{64}$Ni, $^{82}$Se and $^{86}$Kr and several of the Zn--Zr isotopes. A model in which no cECSNe occur, only tECSNe with low-mass FeCCSNe or rotating massive stars, proves also very successful at reproducing the solar abundances for these isotopes. Despite the small mass range for the progenitors of ECSNe and low-mass FeCCSNe, the large production factors suffice for the solar inventory of the above isotopes. Our model is compelling because it introduces no new tensions with the solar abundance distribution for a Milky Way model -- only tending to improve the model predictions for several isotopes. The proposed astrophysical production model thus provides a natural and elegant way to explain one of the last uncharted territories on the periodic table of astrophysical element production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top Panel: Comparison of ejected compositions from the thermonuclear ECSN model of Jones et al. (2019, solid lines) and the gravitational collapse e8.8 ECSN model of Wanajo et al. (2013, dashed lines). Bottom Panel: Comparison of ejected compositions from the u8.1 (solid lines) and z9.6 (dashed lines) low-mass FeCCSN models of Wanajo et al. (2018). All compositions have first been normalized to the solar isotopic co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top Panel: Rate of SN events over the course of the simulation. We assume the Sun forms after 8.5 Gyr of evolution. Bottom Panel: Integrated number of SN events. The broad bands show the predicted contribution of ECSNe, assuming the progenitors are single stars (SAGB, red bands) or accreting ONe WDs (AIC, green bands). For the red bands, the lower and upper values correspond to 0.5 % and 5 % the rate of CCSNe. The f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Galaxy model composition relative to solar when the Sun forms. Panel a: Fiducial model without ECSN and low￾mass Fe CCSN (low-FeCCSNe). Panel b: Predictions assuming a combination of thermonuclear SNe (tECSNe) and gravitational collapse ECSNe (cECSNe). Panel c: Combination of tECSNe and lowFeCCSNe (u8.1). Panel d: Combination of tECSNe and lowFeCCSNe (z9.6). Panel e: Combination of tECSNe, cECSNe, and lowFeCCSNe (u8… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L12

    2017

  2. [2]

    J., Hix, W

    Brachwitz, F., Dean, D. J., Hix, W. R., et al. 2000, ApJ, 536, 934

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Busso, M., Gallino, R., & Wasserburg, G. J. 1999, ARA&A, 37, 239 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Lugaro, M., Reifarth, R., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.07828 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Silvia, D. W., O’Shea, B. W., Smith, B., & Wise, J. H. 2018, ApJ, 859, 67

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.01410

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 40

    Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Piersanti, L., & Gobrecht, D. 2015, ApJS, 219, 40

    2015

  6. [6]

    Lau, H. H. B. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2599

    2015

  7. [7]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJ, 724, 341

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    2005

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

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

    2007

  2. [10]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    1999

  3. [11]

    K., Pakmor, R., et al

    Jones, S., R¨ opke, F. K., Pakmor, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A72

    2016

  4. [12]

    K., Fryer, C., et al

    Jones, S., R¨ opke, F. K., Fryer, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A74 K¨ appeler, F., Gallino, R., Bisterzo, S., & Aoki, W. 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 157

    2019

  5. [13]

    Kromer, M., Ohlmann, S., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2017, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 88, 312

    2017

  6. [14]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  7. [15]

    2000, Nuclear Physics A, 673, 481

    Langanke, K., & Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G. 2000, Nuclear Physics A, 673, 481

    2000

  8. [16]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.11438

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.11438

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 13

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13

    2018

  10. [18]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

    2014

  11. [19]

    S., Krishnan, T

    Meyer, B. S., Krishnan, T. D., & Clayton, D. D. 1996, ApJ, 462, 825

    1996

  12. [20]

    1987, ApJ, 318, 307 M¨ uller, B

    Miyaji, S., & Nomoto, K. 1987, ApJ, 318, 307 M¨ uller, B. 2016, PASA, 33, e048

    1987

  13. [21]

    Nittler, L. R., O’D. Alexander, C. M., Liu, N., & Wang, J. 2018, ApJL, 856, L24

    2018

  14. [22]

    1984, ApJ, 277, 791 —

    Nomoto, K. 1984, ApJ, 277, 791 —. 1987, ApJ, 322, 206

    1984

  15. [23]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457

    2013

  16. [24]

    Poelarends, A. J. T. 2007, PhD thesis, Utrecht University

    2007

  17. [25]

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

    2008

  18. [26]

    Poelarends, A. J. T., Wurtz, S., Tarka, J., Cole Adams, L., & Hills, S. T. 2017, ApJ, 850, 197

    2017

  19. [27]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    Cristallo, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    2018

  20. [28]

    A., Koester, D., et al

    Raddi, R., Hollands, M. A., Koester, D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05061

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    F., & Fryer, C

    Ritter, C., Cˆ ot´ e, B., Herwig, F., Navarro, J. F., & Fryer, C. L. 2018, ApJS, 237, 42

    2018

  22. [30]

    J., Belczynski, K., & Fryer, C

    Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., & Fryer, C. 2009, ApJ, 699, 2026

    2009

  23. [31]

    J., Ferrario, L., Belczynski, K., et al

    Ruiter, A. J., Ferrario, L., Belczynski, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 698

    2019

  24. [32]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 3390

    Schwab, J., Bildsten, L., & Quataert, E. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3390

    2017

  25. [33]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156

    2013

  26. [34]

    2018, A&A, 614, A99

    Siess, L., & Lebreuilly, U. 2018, A&A, 614, A99

    2018

  27. [35]

    M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123 V¨ olkening, J., & Papanastassiou, D. A. 1990, ApJL, 358, L29 10 Jones, Cˆot´e, R¨opke & Wanajo

    2015

  28. [36]

    2011, ApJL, 726, L15+ —

    Wanajo, S., Janka, H.-T., & M¨ uller, B. 2011, ApJL, 726, L15+ —. 2013, ApJL, 767, L26

    2011

  29. [37]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 40

    Wanajo, S., M¨ uller, B., Janka, H.-T., & Heger, A. 2018, ApJ, 852, 40

    2018

  30. [38]

    Woosley, S. E. 1997, ApJ, 476, 801

    1997

  31. [39]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.