Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Evidence of .Ia Supernova Detonations in 3D Hydrodynamical Simulations of Double Degenerate Mergers

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A merging oxygen-neon white dwarf and helium white dwarf can detonate as a .Ia supernova while the primary survives.

desk verdict Honest 3D merger simulations show a plausible new .Ia pathway for ONe WD + He WD, but the case rests on a forced-inspiral approximation that the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08237 v1 pith:IF6VRR4J submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Uri Pierre Burmester , Lilia Ferrario , Rüdiger Pakmor , Ivo R. Seitenzahl This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw97.80.-d95.30.Lz
keywords whitedwarfmergersheliumdetonation.Iasupernovaeoxygen-neondwarfsdoubledegeneratebinaries3Dhydrodynamicsimulationsthermonucleartransients
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

The paper reports 3D hydrodynamic simulations of a $1.1\,M_\odot$ oxygen-neon white dwarf accreting from a $0.35\,M_\odot$ helium white dwarf. It finds that a helium detonation ignites on its own at the base of the accreted helium layer, runs around the star, and ejects $0.103\,M_\odot$ of material in a sub-luminous .Ia supernova, while the primary survives and resumes accreting. The result matters because realistic oxygen-neon-plus-helium mergers have been largely unexplored, and it gives a concrete pathway to faint, fast thermonuclear transients that is distinct from Type Ia supernovae. The paper also shows that replacing the realistic chemical profile with a constant-composition structure and lengthening the inspiral time produces a Type Ia explosion that destroys the primary, so the realistic setup changes the conclusion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the self-ignition of a helium detonation at the base of the accreted helium layer of the ONe primary; in the canonical case the layer reaches $\rho = 6.7\times 10^{5}\ \mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$ and $T = 2.9\times 10^{8}\ \mathrm{K}$ before burning. That detonation wave encircles the star and converges on the far side, but in the realistic models it does not ignite the oxygen-neon core, leaving a survivor. The contrast case is the x-scissor mechanism, in which the converging helium detonation fronts compress the core at the opposite point and, when the core has enough carbon and the convergence is hot enough, ignite a secondary carbon detonation that destroys the white dwarf; the paper uses this to explain why the idealized H-150 model becomes a Type Ia while the realistic models do not.

What would settle it

Repeat the canonical C-120 setup with inspiral velocities of $25\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and $100\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ while holding everything else fixed; a qualitative change in whether the helium detonation ignites, or a transition to a core detonation, would show that the .Ia conclusion depends on the chosen artificial inspiral rate rather than on the merger physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a merger of a $1.1\,M_\odot$ ONe white dwarf with a $0.35\,M_\odot$ helium white dwarf, a helium detonation starts spontaneously at the base of the accreted helium layer, at densities around $6.7\times 10^{5}\ \mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$ and temperatures around $2.9\times 10^{8}\ \mathrm{K}$, and propagates around the star. In the canonical C-120 run, this releases about $8.4\times 10^{49}\ \mathrm{erg}$, ejects $0.103\,M_\odot$ dominated by unburned helium, silicon, and sulfur, leaves the ONe core intact, imparts a $\sim 59\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ kick, and lets accretion resume within less than one orbit. Because the ejected nickel is only about $1.3\times 10^{-4}\,M_\odot$, the predicted transient is much fainter than standard .Ia models. The paper further claims that with a constant-composition primary and a longer inspiral, the same convergence of the helium detonation front follows the x-scissor mechanism and triggers a secondary carbon detonation that destroys the primary as a Type Ia, so the realistic chemical structure is what suppresses the Type Ia outcome.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that artificially speeding up the loss of orbital angular momentum to about 1.5 orbits at a constant $50\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ leaves the accreted helium layer in the same state that a real, much slower gravitational-radiation-driven merger would produce; if that shortcut is wrong, the .Ia outcome is an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Oxygen-neon white dwarfs merging with helium white dwarfs should appear as .Ia events with roughly $0.1\,M_\odot$ of ejecta rich in helium, silicon, and sulfur and very little $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$.
  • In the canonical short-inspiral case the binary survives: the primary keeps most of its mass, the secondary is shocked but intact, and accretion resumes within one orbit.
  • Longer inspiral phases shred the secondary before detonation, leaving the primary surrounded by a puffy accretion disk and tidal debris, so different inspiral times may represent different epochs of the same merger.
  • With a constant-composition primary and a long inspiral, the helium detonation's convergence ignites a secondary carbon detonation through the x-scissor mechanism, producing a Type Ia that destroys the primary; this is a caution that idealized inputs can manufacture Type Ia outcomes.
  • Extending the canonical run about 370 seconds past detonation produced no further thermonuclear events, so the system does not show immediate repeated bursts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the inspiral routine compresses gravitational-radiation-driven angular momentum loss into about 1.5 orbits, a real merger would accrete for much longer at a lower rate; the thermal and compositional state of the helium layer in that slow phase is exactly the regime the current simulations shortcut, so the .Ia verdict should be tested against longer, lower-inspiral-rate runs.
  • The predicted nickel yield near $10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ makes these transients extremely faint and fast; wide-field surveys for faint optical transients in old stellar populations, rather than standard SN Ia searches, would be the natural way to find them.
  • The sensitivity of the Type Ia outcome to the primary's chemical structure suggests that population-synthesis estimates of Type Ia rates from ONe+He mergers should be treated cautiously, since replacing realistic profiles with homogeneous ones changes the explosion channel.
  • Because the canonical event leaves a surviving, mildly kicked ONe white dwarf with helium-contaminated outer layers, one could look for such survivors in kinematic or abundance surveys as an independent check of this pathway.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 reports 3D moving-mesh (AREPO) hydrodynamical simulations of a 1.1 solar-mass ONe white dwarf merging with a 0.35 solar-mass helium white dwarf, using realistic C19 chemical profiles for the primary. An accelerated 'INSPIRAL' routine removes angular momentum at 50 km/s for about 1.5 orbits to mimic gravitational-radiation-driven inspiral. In the canonical C-120 run, a helium detonation ignites at the base of the helium layer, encircles the primary, and ejects 0.103 solar masses, leaving a surviving primary and a secondary that resumes accretion. Outcomes are compared across inspiral times (C-150, C-180) and against homogeneous-composition primaries (H-120, H-150). H-150 produces a full SN Ia via the scissors mechanism, which the authors attribute to the idealized composition and long inspiral. The paper concludes that the .Ia detonation pathway is the most realistic outcome for ONe+He WD binaries, while warning against unrealistic chemical structures and angular-momentum-loss enhancements.

Significance. If robust, this is a valuable new progenitor channel for sub-luminous .Ia SNe from ONe+He WD binaries, extending Paper I's CO+He results to ONe primaries with realistic chemical profiles. The use of self-consistent C19 profiles, the 13- and 55-species network comparison, and the public AREPO code are concrete strengths. The paper makes a falsifiable prediction: a .Ia-like transient with a very low 56Ni yield (order 10^-4 solar masses) from a surviving ONe WD. The main risk is that the central claim is conditional on the INSPIRAL prescription and on unresolved detonation scales, both of which the paper itself acknowledges.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.2] The central claim that .Ia detonation is the realistic merger outcome rests on the INSPIRAL approximation (Sec. 2), but its representativeness is not demonstrated. The paper itself notes that the true binary would accrete at a lower rate for a much longer time (Sec. 3.2), and Table 2 shows that the outcome changes qualitatively with inspiral time: H-150, with a longer inspiral and homogeneous composition, yields a full SN Ia rather than a .Ia event. Because the C-120 vs H-150 comparison conflates two changes (composition and inspiral time), the paper does not isolate which parameter drives the transition. I request a quantitative test of the inspiral approximation: for example, a series of runs with different inspiral velocities at fixed stopping separation, or a 1D/2D long-timescale accretion calculation that shows the He-layer mass, entropy, and composition at ignition are insensitive to the accelerated-inspiral history. Without such a test, the canonical status of C-120 is an unvalidated choice.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.2] The helium detonation itself is not resolved: the paper states 'we cannot fully resolve this down to the length scale of centimetres' (Sec. 3.2), and the ignition conditions are read from cell-averaged variables. For thermonuclear detonations, unresolved ignition can be a numerical artifact, and the paper concedes that the H-150 secondary detonation is 'a marginal event' where 'numerics may play a role' (Sec. 4.2). Since the paper's core claim is that a detonation occurs, this resolution limitation is load-bearing. The authors should provide at least one resolution test (e.g., a factor-of-two decrease in target cell mass for C-120) or a quantitative estimate of the error in the ignition density and temperature, and should clearly separate robust .Ia behavior from the marginal H-150 event in the conclusions.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Table 3] The explosion energy E_det in Table 2 is derived from the change in nuclear composition (Sec. 3.2) without an error estimate, and the unbound ejecta masses in Table 3 are quoted without uncertainties. This matters for the paper's main comparison with .Ia models: the C-120 56Ni yield (1.26e-4 solar masses) is used in Sec. 4.1 to argue that the event is '.Ia but far less luminous,' yet the same table lists C-150's 56Ni as 9.71e-12 solar masses, i.e., eight orders of magnitude lower, and the caption itself warns that such values 'should not be considered as reliable estimates.' With a diagnostic that varies by eight orders of magnitude between two runs that are otherwise both classified as .Ia, a meaningful comparison to Shen et al. (2010) requires either robust error bars or a clear statement of which yields are converged.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.2] 'a average accretion rate' is a typo for 'an average'; the value 4.54e-4 solar masses per second is quoted without an error bar and should be described as a time-averaged estimate.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 and title] The conclusion that the events 'will resemble .Ia SN, albeit far less luminous' is softer than the title's 'Evidence of .Ia Supernova Detonations'; consider a more cautious title or abstract phrasing, because the low 56Ni yield may also be consistent with other sub-luminous classes.
  3. [Sec. 2] The INSPIRAL routine is described only by its velocity and time; for reproducibility, the paper should give the explicit functional form of the tidal force or cite a detailed description beyond Paper I.
  4. [Table 2] The column 'a2[km]' is consistent with text values in cm, but the units in the header are easy to overlook; a dual-unit header would help avoid confusion.
  5. [Fig. 7] The density subplot lacks a label for the y-axis range; consider using the same axis limits as the composition panels for readability.
  6. [Code availability] The statement mentions a private development branch; specifying the exact commit/version and input parameter files would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the .Ia detonation outcome is an emergent simulation result benchmarked against external models; self-citations concern numerical methods only.

full rationale

The central claim—that a helium detonation ignites at the base of the helium layer and ejects 0.103 Msun while the primary survives—is an emergent outcome of AREPO simulations using the Helmholtz EOS and REACLIB-based nuclear networks (Sections 2 and 3.2). No parameter is fitted to the predicted .Ia observables: the inspiral-time parameter is varied (T = 120, 150, 180 s) and the paper reports that outcomes depend on it qualitatively (Table 2), so the simulation does not select the input to force the answer. The choice of C-120 as canonical is argued from physical reasoning about realistic angular-momentum loss and an L1-density diagnostic, not from matching the detonation outcome. The only self-citations are to Paper I (Burmester et al. 2023) and Pakmor et al. (2021) for the INSPIRAL routine and network integration; these are numerical techniques whose use is explicitly labeled an approximation ('we must resort to a method of approximating the result of this period of evolution', Section 2), and the paper openly discusses the limitation that the true system would accrete at a lower rate for longer. External anchors include the Shen et al. (2010) .Ia models, the Gronow et al. (2020) scissors mechanism, and observed transients (SN2010X, SN2016hnk, ZTF sample), which are independent checks rather than self-referential inputs. The admitted limitations—cm-scale detonation ignition not resolved (Section 3.2) and the H-150 secondary detonation called 'a marginal event' where 'numerics may play a role' (Section 4.2)—are correctness risks, not circularity, and are flagged by the authors themselves. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the numerical setup: the inspiral approximation, the stellar model, and the nuclear reaction network. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are simulation controls chosen by the authors, not fitted to observations.

free parameters (4)
  • inspiral_time = 120, 150, 180 s across models
    Controls the duration of accelerated angular momentum loss; outcomes depend qualitatively on it (Table 2).
  • inspiral_velocity = 50 km/s
    Constant rate at which the binary separation is reduced during the inspiral routine (Section 2).
  • initial_orbital_period = 125 s
    Initial orbital period of the binary before inspiral (Section 2.1).
  • homogeneous_primary_composition = 5% C12, 55% O16, 30% Ne20, 10% Mg24
    Used for comparison H models to test the effect of chemical profile (Section 2.1).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The INSPIRAL routine, which reduces the separation at a constant 50 km/s for about 1.5 orbits, adequately approximates the angular momentum loss from gravitational radiation for the merger outcome.
    Stated in Section 2: the authors cannot follow the full inspiral, so they accelerate it; the outcome depends on this parameter.
  • domain assumption The C19 hydrogen-deficient ONe model with a thin He layer of about 4e-4 M_sun is representative of real ONe WDs from 9-10.5 M_sun ZAMS progenitors.
    From Camisassa et al. (2019); used as the primary WD structure.
  • domain assumption The 55-species nuclear reaction network captures the relevant nucleosynthesis and energy generation for the detonation.
    The paper compares 13-species and 55-species outcomes in Appendix A, noting significant differences in isotope yields, but uses 55-species for final results.
  • ad hoc to paper The unresolved helium detonation (ignition determined from cell-averaged variables) propagates around the WD in a physically correct manner.
    The authors state they cannot resolve the detonation down to centimeter scales (Section 4.2), yet the propagation of the detonation is central to the .Ia outcome.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence of .Ia Supernova Detonations in 3D Hydrodynamical Simulations of Double Degenerate Mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IF6VRR4J

@misc{pith2026250708237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence of .Ia Supernova Detonations in 3D Hydrodynamical Simulations of Double Degenerate Mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IF6VRR4J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08237}
}
abstract

We report detailed 3D simulations of 1.1 $\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ Oxygen-Neon (ONe) white dwarfs (WDs) merging with a 0.35 $\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ helium WD, conducted with the moving-mesh hydrodynamic code AREPO. The simulations utilise self-consistent chemical profiles for the primary WD which were generated by a stellar evolution code incorporating the effects of semi-degenerate carbon burning. We find that a helium detonation is ignited at the base of the helium layer, starting a thermonuclear runaway which encircles the WD and ejects material as a sub-luminous supernovae. Our canonical simulation, (C-120), ejects 0.103 $\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ of primarily $^{4}\mathrm{He}$, $^{28}\mathrm{Si}$, and $^{32}\mathrm{S}$, after which the primary begins accreting again from the surviving secondary. Our results depend qualitatively on the "inspiral time" simulation parameter, which describes the length of a period of accelerated angular momentum loss. For example, the binary does not survive when inspiral time is too long. We compare the results using our self-consistent chemical profiles to a constant-composition WD structure and find the same explosion pattern when the inspiral time is short. However, we are able to obtain a typical Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) which destroys the primary by using the constant-composition structure and long inspiral. The shock-convergence in this simulation follows the "x-scissor mechanism" described by Gronow et al. in 2020, and causes a secondary detonation due to higher temperatures and higher number density of $^{12}\mathrm{C}$ at the convergence site. These results highlight the potential for unrealistic outcomes when conducting simulations that incorporate unrealistically large enhancements in angular momentum losses and (or) non-realistic chemical structures for the primary WD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08237 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radial chemical composition profile of the WD structures computed by C19. We show here the elements included in the initial 5-species network. Note that C19’s original model included several other isotopes, such as Ne22 and Na23, which are not included in the initial network. Hence, the total is less than unity - the 3D equivalent to the 1D structure reapportioned the weighting to the five remaining species to norma… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of density for the C-120 model. The time 𝑡 = 0 indicates the end of the inspiral period and the onset of significant mass transfer. A disturbance forms at the base of the helium layer which encircles the primary and ejects approximately 0.103 solar mass of material from the binary. The location of the heavier elements in the last panel can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Accretion onto the primary as well as mass loss of the secondary is presented on the left, while the effective accretion rate is given on the right. Accreted particles are identified using the “Passive Scalar” labels which identify the particle’s origin. Bound particles originating from the secondary which are now primarily under the gravitational influence of the primary are classified as accreted. The area of grav… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-variation of the composition of all simulated mass (primary & secondary) for case C-120. The 𝑦-axis gives the percentage of mass made up by a specific species. “Other” indicates the summation of all species in the network not listed in the legend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Location of primitive variables and species at the onset of the helium detonation at the base of the helium layer. velocities of > 30 × 103 km s−1 . We can also observe very high variability in the composition at low velocities - this is likely due to interactions with…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A map of the heavy ejecta and surviving binary for the C-120 case approximately 50 seconds after the detonation has encircled the primary. We observe that the secondary (at the bottom left of the left-hand side plot) has begun to transfer matter onto the primary again …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of densities and compositions in velocity space ≈ 50 s after detonation for the C-120 model. The high-velocity region is dominated by unburnt 4He. The higher velocities are also dominated by lower density particles. is (𝑀𝑊𝐷, 𝑀𝑒𝑛𝑣) = (1.0, 0.1) M⊙. These si…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Density, temperature, and chemical composition against time in the 𝑥 𝑦-plane (the orbital plane of the binary) for the simulations of a chemically homogeneous structure with inspiral time of 150 s. The quantity 𝜌𝑣2 is also included – this is a proxy for the kinetic ene…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Density, temperature, and chemical composition against time in the 𝑥 𝑦-plane (the orbital plane of the binary) for the simulations of the C-150 model. See the previous figure for further explanation of the 𝜌𝑣2 quantity. research was undertaken with the assistance of re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Weinberg N

    Bildsten L., Shen K. J., Weinberg N. N., Nelemans G., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/519489 , 662, L95

    doi:10.1086/519489 2007

  2. [2]

    P., Ferrario L., Pakmor R., Seitenzahl I

    Burmester U. P., Ferrario L., Pakmor R., Seitenzahl I. R., Ruiter A. J., Hole M., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1394 , 523, 527

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1394 2023

  3. [3]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833822 , 625, A87

    Camisassa M. E., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833822 , 625, A87

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833822 2019

  4. [4]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0135 , 1, 1

    Crocker R. M., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0135 , 1, 1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0135 2017

  5. [5]

    Dan M., Rosswog S., Br \"u ggen M., Podsiadlowski P., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1766 , 438, 14

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1766 2014

  6. [6]

    De K., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb45c , 905, 58

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb45c 2020

  7. [7]

    C., Thompson C., 1992, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/186413 , 392, L9

    Duncan R. C., Thompson C., 1992, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/186413 , 392, L9

    doi:10.1086/186413 1992

  8. [8]

    J., Cescutti G., Seitenzahl I

    Eitner P., Bergemann M., Hansen C. J., Cescutti G., Seitenzahl I. R., Larsen S., Plez B., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936603 , 635, A38

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936603 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2306.03914 , 6

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/57 , 767, 57

    Foley R. J., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/57 , 767, 57

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    D., 1989, MPA Green Report, 449

    Fryxell B., M \"u ller E., Arnett W. D., 1989, MPA Green Report, 449

    1989

  4. [12]

    M., Reichert M., Lechuga A

    Garc \'i a-Senz D., Cabez \'o n R. M., Reichert M., Lechuga A. S., Escart \'i n J. A., Psaltis A., Arcones A., Thielemann F.-K., 2024, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449863 , 688, A218

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Hivon E., Banday A

    G \'o rski K. M., Hivon E., Banday A. J., Wandelt B. D., Hansen F. K., Reinecke M., Bartelmann M., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/427976 , 622, 759

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    Graur O., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae949 , 530, 4950

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    T., Pakmor R., Kromer M., Seitenzahl I

    Gronow S., Collins C., Ohlmann S. T., Pakmor R., Kromer M., Seitenzahl I. R., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936494 , 635, A169

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    A., 1960, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/146963 , 132, 565

    Hoyle F., Fowler W. A., 1960, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/146963 , 132, 565

    1960 doi

  10. [18]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    V., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94b8 , 896, 165

    Jacobson-Gal \'a n W. V., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94b8 , 896, 165

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    W., 2017, in , Handbook of Supernovae

    Jha S. W., 2017, in , Handbook of Supernovae . Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 375--401, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_42

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Jones S., et al., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834381 , 622, A74

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    M., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L98 , 723, L98

    Kasliwal M. M., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L98 , 723, L98

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Kawka A., Ferrario L., Vennes S., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad553 , 520, 6299

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Kilic M., et al., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt151 , 438, L26

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Han Z., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e , 23, 082001

    Liu Z.-W., R \"o pke F. K., Han Z., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e , 23, 082001

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M

    Lorimer D. R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M. A., Narkevic D. J., Crawford F., 2007, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1147532 , 318, 777

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Sim S

    Marquardt K. S., Sim S. A., Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., Ohlmann S. T., Kromer M., Pakmor R., R \"o pke F. K., 2015, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525761 , 580, A118

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    Nomoto K., Kondo Y., 1991, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/185922 , 367, L19

    1991 doi

  21. [29]

    T., Roepke F

    Ohlmann S. T., Roepke F. K., Pakmor R., Springel V., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629692 , 599, A5

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Pakmor R., Bauer A., Springel V., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19591.x , 418, 1392

    2011

  23. [31]

    K., Hillebrandt W., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21383.x , 424, 2222

    Pakmor R., Edelmann P., R \"o pke F. K., Hillebrandt W., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21383.x , 424, 2222

    2012

  24. [32]

    J., Ohlmann S

    Pakmor R., Springel V., Bauer A., Mocz P., Munoz D. J., Ohlmann S. T., Schaal K., Zhu C., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2380 , 455, 1134

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    B., Toonen S., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab686 , 503, 4734

    Pakmor R., Zenati Y., Perets H. B., Toonen S., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab686 , 503, 4734

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Pakmor R., et al., 2022, arXiv:2203.14990 [astro-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A., Farber R

    Richardson G. A., Farber R. J., 2024, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad5d8c , 8, 174

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    J., 2020, @doi [IAU Symposium] 10.1017/S1743921320000587 , 357, 1

    Ruiter A. J., 2020, @doi [IAU Symposium] 10.1017/S1743921320000587 , 357, 1

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Seitenzahl I

    Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., 2025, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9 , 33, 1

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Ferrario L., Belczynski K., Seitenzahl I

    Ruiter A. J., Ferrario L., Belczynski K., Seitenzahl I. R., Crocker R. M., Karakas A. I., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz001 , 484, 698

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Meakin C

    Seitenzahl I. R., Meakin C. A., Townsley D. M., Lamb D. Q., Truran J. W., 2009a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/515 , 696, 515

    doi

  32. [40]

    R., Meakin C

    Seitenzahl I. R., Meakin C. A., Lamb D. Q., Truran J. W., 2009b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/642 , 700, 642

    doi

  33. [41]

    J., Bildsten L., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1365 , 699, 1365

    Shen K. J., Bildsten L., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1365 , 699, 1365

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Kasen D., Weinberg N

    Shen K. J., Kasen D., Weinberg N. N., Bildsten L., Scannapieco E., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/767 , 715, 767

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b , 865, 15

    Shen K. J., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b , 865, 15

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    Siess L., 2010, @doi [VizieR Online Data Catalog] 10.26093/cds/vizier.35120010 , 351, J/A+A/512/A10

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15715.x , 401, 791

    2010

  38. [46]

    X., Swesty F

    Timmes F. X., Swesty F. D., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/313304 , 126, 501

    2000 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Khalack V., Ferrario L., Alper E

    Vennes S., Nemeth P., Kawka A., Thorstensen J. R., Khalack V., Ferrario L., Alper E. H., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aam8378 , 357, 680

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , 17, 261

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Weinberger R., Springel V., Pakmor R., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab908c , 248, 32

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.