Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Accretion from a shock-inflated companion: double-peaked supernova lightcurve with periodic modulations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Neutron-star accretion from a shock-inflated companion explains SN2022jli's double-peaked, periodically modulated lightcurve.

desk verdict A transparent, quantitatively thorough model for accretion from a shock-inflated companion that explains SN2022jli's second peak, but its 'must accrete' threshold inherits an uncalibrated pressure assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14284 v1 pith:YBVV6LXB submitted 2025-07-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Wenbin Lu (UC Berkeley) , Savannah Cary (UC Berkeley) , Daichi Tsuna (Caltech) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR PACS 97.60.Bw97.60.Jd97.80.-d
keywords supernovalightcurvesneutronstaraccretionstripped-envelopesupernovaebinarycompanionsSN2022jlishock-inflatedstarsinternalshocksgamma-rayandneutrinoemission
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

Stripped-envelope supernovae that explode inside close binaries should not be treated as isolated fireballs. The paper argues that when the pre-explosion separation is below roughly 20 solar radii, the supernova's blast wave shock-heats the companion star, inflating its envelope until it expands past the orbit. The newborn neutron star then periodically plunges through that inflated envelope and captures gas, so accretion is not a rare special case but an unavoidable phase. The delayed inflation (months) makes a second optical peak; the per-orbit capture makes it periodically modulated; and the stratified disk wind produces efficiently radiating internal shocks, delayed GeV gamma-rays and neutrinos from proton-proton collisions, and narrow hydrogen recombination lines from photoionized slow wind. Applying this chain to the Type Ic supernova SN2022jli reproduces its double-peaked, 12.4-day-modulated lightcurve, delayed GeV emission, and narrow Balmer lines with a pre-supernova separation of 10-20 solar radii.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the temporarily inflated companion envelope, whose delayed expansion converts a close binary into an episodic accretion system. The argument hinges on the inequality $R_{\max}(a_0)>a_0$: since the post-explosion pericenter is always $\leq a_0$, envelope inflation beyond the original orbit guarantees gravitational capture. The accompanying machinery is Bondi-Hoyle capture with the density scale height as the effective cross-section, magnetospheric disk truncation that can place the neutron star in a propeller state with a few-percent efficiency, and internal shocks between adjacent episodes of disk wind at $r\sim10^{14}$ cm; inverse-Compton cooling makes those shocks radiative, and $pp$ collisions make them sources of delayed gamma-rays and neutrinos.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulation of a supernova striking a 2-10 $M_\odot$ companion at separations of 10-20 $R_\odot$ that measures the actual ratio $P_{\rm sh}/P_{\rm ram}$ would settle the claim: a ratio well below unity would make $R_{\max}<a_0$ and remove the guaranteed-accretion condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that neutron-star accretion from a shock-inflated companion is a sufficient and quantitatively predictive explanation for the peculiar Type Ic supernova SN2022jli. In the authors' one-dimensional picture the ejecta's ram pressure sets a post-shock pressure, producing an entropy jump; evolving the shocked layers gives a maximum radius $R_{\max}\simeq 70\,R_\odot\,(a_0/10\,R_\odot)^{-8/5}(M_*/2\,M_\odot)^{1/3}$ and a time to maximum radius $t_{\max}\simeq 290\,\mathrm{d}\,(a_0/10\,R_\odot)^{-12/5}$. Because the post-supernova pericenter is at most the pre-supernova separation $a_0$, the condition $R_{\max}(a_0)>a_0$ inverts to $a_0\lesssim20\,R_\odot\,(M_*/2\,M_\odot)^{0.1}$, so accretion must occur for separations below about 20 solar radii. Each orbit then captures of order $10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ by Bondi-Hoyle accretion, and a propeller-state neutron star can release about $10^{48}$ erg per episode. The paper shows that internal shocks between radially stratified disk-wind episodes are radiatively efficient through inverse-Compton cooling, that $pp$ collisions turn a few percent of the outflow energy into 100 MeV-10 PeV gamma-rays and neutrinos, and that photoionization of the slowest wind produces H$\alpha$. It concludes that this single chain explains the delayed onset and rapid shutoff of the second peak, the 12.4-day modulations, the delayed GeV emission, and the narrow Balmer lines of SN2022jli, fixing the pre-supernova separation at 10-20 solar radii.

Load-bearing premise

The expansion history depends on the 1D quasi-hydrostatic assumption that the post-shock pressure equals the ejecta ram pressure, $P_{\rm sh}\simeq P_{\rm ram}$ (eq. 5); if sideways escape of shocked gas lowers this ratio, $R_{\max}$ shrinks and the $a_0\lesssim20\,R_\odot$ accretion condition weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any bound post-explosion binary with $a_0\lesssim20\,R_\odot$, neutron-star accretion from the inflated companion is a required phase, not a rare outcome.
  • The second lightcurve peak is delayed by months because the envelope expands on the timescale $t_{\max}\simeq290\,\mathrm{d}\,(a_0/10\,R_\odot)^{-12/5}$, and it shuts off when Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction removes the envelope.
  • Periodic modulation at the post-supernova orbital period is a direct observable signature of per-orbit accretion episodes and should be searched for in other Type Ib/c supernovae.
  • GeV gamma-rays are absorbed in the ejecta for roughly the first 100 days by Bethe-Heitler pair production, so the high-energy emission is naturally delayed relative to the optical second peak.
  • Hydrogen recombination lines from the photoionized slow disk wind can appear even in hydrogen-poor supernovae, making narrow H$\alpha$ a marker of close-binary accretion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the model is correct, systematic searches for orbital-period modulation in the late-time lightcurves of Type Ib/c supernovae would measure the rate of close pre-supernova binaries; this is a test the paper motivates but does not carry out.
  • The predicted neutrino luminosity is comparable to the GeV luminosity, so a sufficiently nearby analogue should be detectable by current neutrino telescopes; the paper states the prediction but does not compute its horizon.
  • Because the separation window of 10-20 solar radii matches the expected outcome of common-envelope evolution, confirming the SN2022jli interpretation would support the population-synthesis picture in which many stripped-envelope supernovae come from very tight binaries.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the interaction of a newborn neutron star with a companion star whose envelope is shock-inflated by the supernova ejecta. It develops a 1D quasi-hydrostatic entropy-jump model (Sec. 2, Eq. 12), evolves the shocked companion with MESA (Sec. 3), and derives empirical scalings for the maximum inflated radius and the time to reach it (Eqs. 24-25). From these, the authors argue that for bound post-supernova orbits, R_max > a_0 is a sufficient condition for neutron star accretion, yielding a_0 <~ 20 R_sun (Eq. 26). The paper then computes Bondi-Hoyle mass capture, magnetospheric accretion power, radiative internal shocks, and hadronic pp-collision high-energy emission (Secs. 4-5), and applies the model to SN2022jli, inferring a pre-supernova separation of about 10-20 R_sun and explaining the double-peaked lightcurve, 12.4-day modulation, delayed GeV emission, and narrow Balmer lines (Sec. 6).

Significance. If the central scaling holds, the model offers a self-consistent and observationally testable explanation for the peculiar properties of SN2022jli, and it generates several falsifiable predictions: a PeV neutrino flux comparable to the GeV luminosity, late-time detection of an inflated companion, and periodic variability tied to the post-supernova orbital period. The paper is transparent about its main simplifications, explicitly flagging that the pressure ratio P_sh/P_ram requires calibration, and it validates the entropy-jump profile against earlier hydrodynamic work by Hirai et al. (2018). The analytic scalings (Eqs. 24-26) are simple and useful for future population-synthesis and observational work. The main limitation is that the central 'must occur' claim is conditional on the uncalibrated P_sh = P_ram assumption, so the significance of the paper depends on whether that assumption survives numerical calibration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (5) and end of Sec. 2] The assumption P_sh = P_ram is load-bearing. Through Eq. (12) it sets the entropy jump that initializes every MESA model, and through Eqs. (24)-(25) it determines both the sufficient condition for accretion (Eq. 26) and the timing-based separation constraint for SN2022jli (Eq. 101). The authors explicitly state that the exact ratio P_sh/P_ram 'needs to be calibrated against numerical simulations in future works' because oblique shocks and sideways escape of shocked gas can reduce P_sh relative to the 1D hydrostatic value. A modest reduction, say P_sh/P_ram ~ 0.3, would shrink the inflated radius and shorten t_max, potentially moving the threshold in Eq. (26) well below 20 R_sun and changing the inferred separation for SN2022jli. As written, the abstract's 'must occur' is too strong. Please either calibrate this ratio with simulations, or marginalize over a plausible range of P_sh/P_ram and report how the threshold and the SN2022jli inference shift; otherwise the wording should be softened to 'is predicted to occur under the 1D quasi-hydrostatic assumption.'
  2. [Sec. 6.2, Fig. 15] The constructed lightcurve model does not reproduce the sharp onset and rapid shutoff of SN2022jli's second peak; the authors state this explicitly in the text. Because delayed onset and rapid shutoff are among the observed properties the model claims to explain (Table 1), this is a gap between the machinery and the application. Moreover, the orbit-averaged treatment in Eq. (90) cannot by construction produce the 12.4-day periodic modulation that is a central observed feature. The speculative mechanisms offered (accretion feedback, or a sudden propeller-state transition) are not demonstrated. Please either implement a concrete mechanism that produces sharp transitions and periodic modulation, or explicitly label the double-peaked lightcurve match as qualitative and list which observed features are reproduced only schematically.
  3. [Sec. 6.2, Eqs. (25) and (101)] The bound 50 <= t_max <= 270 d is inconsistent with the quoted 10 <= a_0 <= 30 R_sun in Eq. (101). Using Eq. (25), t_max = 290 d (a_0/10 R_sun)^(-12/5), the timing limits give a_0 approximately 10.7-20.8 R_sun; for example, a_0 = 27 R_sun gives t_max ~ 27 d, below the 50 d lower limit. The abstract and the Summary instead quote 10-20 R_sun, which is consistent with Eq. (25). Please correct Eq. (101) or explicitly justify why the conservative range extends to 30 R_sun despite the timing relation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 5.2] The word 'hardronic' should be 'hadronic' (also in the phrase 'hardronic pp collisions' in Sec. 5.2).
  2. [Sec. 6.2] There is a typo: 'lighturve' should be 'lightcurve' in the sentence about the delayed onset of the second peak.
  3. [Sec. 6, item (iii)] 'psudo-bolometric' should be 'pseudo-bolometric'.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (31)] The symbol Gamma is used for d ln P/d ln rho while gamma = 5/3 is already used for the adiabatic index. Since Gamma is order unity and adopted as 1.5, this notation is easy to confuse; please rename one of the two quantities.
  5. [Sec. 5.3, Fig. 15] The caption of Fig. 15 would benefit from stating explicitly that the lightcurve is a single representative model and that the periodic modulation is not included in this plot.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central accretion condition is a forward MESA-based result benchmarked against external simulations; the SN2022jli constraints are fits with an openly acknowledged pressure-normalization caveat, not reductions by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward model, not a tautology. Eq. (5) assumes P_sh≈P_ram; eq. (12) turns this into an entropy jump; MESA evolves the star to give Rmax and tmax (eqs. 24–25); eq. (26) is then a geometric sufficient condition (Rmax>a0 ⇒ rp≤a0<star radius) evaluated with an emergent, simulation-derived Rmax, and the Rmax/tmax behavior is checked against independent hydrodynamical/stellar-evolution work (Hirai et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2023) in §2 and §3.2. The SN2022jli separation a0~10–20 Rsun (eq. 101) is obtained by comparing the modeled tmax(a0) to an observed 50–270 d window; that is a fit/calibration, not a prediction forced by construction. The GeV and Hα estimates (eqs. 83, 103) are order-of-magnitude forward expressions; when compared with SN2022jli they require parameter choices (ΔMcap, ϵp, Mion), and the paper says so explicitly. The one weak point is the normalization: the authors state at the end of Sec. 2 that 'the exact ratio of Psh/Pram needs to be calibrated against numerical simulations in future works', and since eq. (12) enters logarithmically into the entropy jump, both eq. (26) and eq. (101) inherit this uncertainty. That is a correctness/assumption risk, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define Rmax in terms of a0, nor fit eq. (26) to the SN2022jli lightcurve. The only self-citation used as supporting evidence is 'Cary et al., in prep' (§6.3) to argue ΔMcap could be larger for the GeV luminosity; this is minor and not load-bearing for the central accretion condition.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is a multi-stage semi-analytic pipeline: shock entropy injection, MESA envelope evolution, Bondi capture, magnetospheric accretion, internal shock radiation. Each stage introduces parameters or assumptions from prior literature or the authors' own calibrations. The central a0<20 Rsun condition depends mainly on Eej, the P_sh=P_ram assumption, and the MESA grid, while the SN2022jli application additionally depends on chosen lightcurve parameters and an upward revision of Delta M_cap supported only by in-prep simulations.

free parameters (9)
  • E_ej = 10^51 erg (assumed typical)
    Ejecta energy enters the ram pressure (eq. 1) and therefore sets P_sh and the entire Rmax scaling; the model is degenerate in E_ej and a0.
  • Gamma = 1.5
    Empirical factor relating density scale height to pressure scale height (eq. 32), from the authors' MESA models; directly sets the Bondi capture mass and disk properties.
  • p = 0.5
    Power-law index for radial accretion rate scaling in the disk (eq. 46), taken from literature simulations; controls accretion efficiency and luminosity.
  • alpha h^2 = 0.01
    Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter; sets disk radius (eq. 44) and viscous timescale (eq. 43).
  • mu_B = 10^31.5 G cm^3
    Magnetic dipole moment, chosen Crab-like; determines Alfven radius and propeller/accretor state and efficiency.
  • P (spin period) = 30 ms
    Neutron star spin period, chosen similar to Crab; determines propeller power and efficiency.
  • epsilon_p = 0.1
    Fraction of shock energy into non-thermal protons; sets GeV and neutrino luminosity.
  • epsilon_B = 10^-4
    Magnetic energy fraction in shocks; sets maximum particle energies (eq. 80).
  • Lightcurve parameters (epsilon, P_orb, M*, a0, rp, Mej, MNi) = epsilon=3%, P_orb=10d, M*=2Msun, a0=18Rsun, rp=12Rsun, Mej=3Msun, MNi=0.1Msun
    Chosen to represent SN2022jli in the crude Arnett lightcurve model (Sec 5.3, Fig 15), not derived from first principles.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption P_sh = P_ram (eq. 5)
    The post-shock pressure in the companion's envelope is set equal to the ejecta ram pressure; the authors note this ratio needs calibration against multidimensional simulations.
  • domain assumption Quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium of shocked envelope (Sec 2)
    The shock-heated outer layers are assumed to relax hydrostatically on a timescale shorter than the ram-pressure variation; motivates the 1D entropy injection.
  • domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle capture radius is min(H_rho, r_B) (eq. 34)
    Based on simulations by MacLeod et al.; using H_rho rather than r_B for inhomogeneous envelopes is load-bearing for Delta M_cap.
  • domain assumption MESA entropy injection method reproduces shock impact (Sec 3.1)
    The entropy jump from the analytic model is injected over dt=1e4 s following Bauer et al.; the resulting Rmax and tmax scalings are empirical fits to these simulations.
  • domain assumption Magnetospheric accretion and propeller torque prescriptions (Sec 4.2)
    Equations 47-56 follow Davidson & Ostriker, Ghosh & Lamb, Eksi et al., Piro & Ott; these prescriptions carry known uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Internal shocks are radiatively efficient via inverse-Compton cooling (Sec 5.1)
    The conclusion that the shocks convert most kinetic energy to radiation depends on estimates of free-free seed photon density and Compton y-parameter.
  • ad hoc to paper A fraction of Type Ib/c progenitors are close binaries (Introduction)
    The paper assumes a population of He+MS binaries at a0 ~ 10-20 Rsun, motivated by Drout et al. 2023 and Gotberg et al. 2023, to make the scenario relevant.
  • ad hoc to paper Rmax and tmax empirical scalings (eqs. 24-25)
    These power-law fits to the authors' own MESA grid are used to derive eq. 26 and the SN2022jli a0 constraint; they are not derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accretion from a shock-inflated companion: double-peaked supernova lightcurve with periodic modulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YBVV6LXB

@misc{pith2026250714284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accretion from a shock-inflated companion: double-peaked supernova lightcurve with periodic modulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YBVV6LXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14284}
}
read the original abstract

We study the observational signatures from the interactions between a newly born neutron star and a companion star that is impacted by the supernova ejecta. We focus on the cases with bound post-explosion orbits, where the neutron star may periodically gravitationally capture gas from the companion. We find that neutron star accretion must occur if the pre-supernova binary separation is less than about 20 Rsun. This is because the stellar radius expands beyond this radius before the shock-inflated envelope undergoes Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction back to the main sequence. We then consider the internal shocks formed between adjacent episodes of disk wind. The shocks efficiently convert the wind kinetic energy into radiation (due to inverse-Compton cooling), which heats up the supernova ejecta located at much larger radii. The extra heating powers bright optical emission that is periodically modulated on the orbital timescale. The shocks also accelerate non-thermal particles which produce gamma-ray and neutrino emission from 100 MeV to 10 PeV via hardronic pp collisions. The high-energy photons leak out of the supernova ejecta after a delay of several months to one year. Photo-ionization of the slowest parts of the disk wind produces hydrogen recombination lines. We then use the model to explain the puzzling Type Ic supernova SN2022jli which shows a double-peaked optical lightcurve along with many peculiar properties, including delayed onset and rapid shutoff of the second peak, periodic modulations, delayed GeV emission, and narrow Balmer lines. Under this model, SN2022jli had a close-by companion at a pre-supernova binary separation of 10 to 20 Rsun, likely due to an earlier phase of common-envelope evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14284 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Simplified 1D hydrostatic configuration of the interac￾tion between the supernova ejecta (blue regions) and the star (or￾ange regions). In this picture, the ejecta provides a quasi-steady ram pressure Pram = ρejv 2 ej, which initially drives a forward shock (FS) into the star. As the FS propagates to a layer of mass co￾ordinate m where the unperturbed pressure P(m) is comparable to the ran pressure Pram, the FS st… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Radius evolution (black lines) after the ejecta’s impact for a M∗ = 2M⊙ main-sequence companion star placed at different pre-supernova orbital separations a0 (as shown by the horizontal orange lines). The grey region at t < 104 s marks the heat-injection episode which mimics the entropy jump due to shock-heating. to be flat, meaning that ∆s(m > M∗ − mex,min) = ∆s(m = M∗ − mex,min). (20) In all our simulations, we … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. — Evolution of an ejecta-impacted M∗ = 2M⊙ main￾sequence star on the HR diagram. The colored lines correspond to different pre-supernova orbital separations a0. Along each line, three filled circles indicate different times since the impact t = 1, 10, 100 yr. The black dotted lines show different stellar radii R∗ = 0.1, 1, 10, 100R⊙. The thick orange dotted line marks the main sequence, and the orange star represent… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Black lines show the density profiles of the M∗ = 2M⊙ star near maximum radius (R∗ ≈ Rmax) for different pre-supernova orbital separations a0. The blue solid line shows the unperturbed density profile. inflated star, we roughly expect tmax ∝ R 3/2 maxM −1/2 ∗ . On th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — The maximum radius Rmax (lower panel) and the time to reach the maximum radius tmax (upper panel) for each of the models. In the upper panel, the cyan region marks the time be￾tween t = 50 and 270 day when the inferred energy injection occurs in SN2022jli (Chen et al…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Geometry of the post-supernova binary system. bound to the neutron star is given by the Bondi radius (Edgar 2004) rB(r) = 2GMns v 2 + c 2 s , (28) where cs is the adiabatic sound speed of the surrounding gas, and we have ignored the companion star’s gravita￾tional po…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Upper panel: Captured mass per orbit ∆Mcap (eq. 34) and the energy release ∆E = ϵ∆Mcapc 2 for different pericenter radii rp/R⊙ and a fiducial accretion efficiency ϵ = 0.01. Since ∆Mcap only depends weakly on the post-supernova semimajor axis a (as long as the orbit i…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Total power from the neutron star-disk system as a function of the accretion rate in the outer disk M˙ d and the spin period P = 2π/Ω. We fix the following parameters: magnetic dipole moment µB = 1031.5 G cm3 (similar to the Crab Pulsar), index for the radial scalin…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Geometry of the system on lengthscales from 1014 to 1016 cm. extreme limit (if rA ≃ rlc). The slowest outflow is launched from the outer disk near r ∼ rd ∼ 0.3R⊙, so the minimum speed is of the order vmin ∼ p GMns/rd ∼ 108 cm s−1 (roughly the local Keplerian speed).…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — Opacity at high photon energies for a mock supernova ejecta composition: 10% He, 30% C, 40% O, 10% Ne, 5% Si, and 5% Fe-group. The sources of opacity include Bethe-Heitler pair production (Hubbell et al. 1980) in red dash-dotted line, Klein￾Nishina (KN) electron sca…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — Constraints on the magnitude of the natal kick vk,min < vk < vk,max. The thin black lines are for the maximum kicks vk,max and the thick blue lines are for the minimum vk,min. For each companion star mass M∗ and pre-supernova separation a0, the allowed vk lies in be…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: — The left panel shows the entropy profiles before (black dotted) and after (colored lines) shock heating. The right panel shows the radius evolution of the star in different cases. The default case (blue solid line) of has heating time ∆t = 104 s and minimum exterior…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Searching for core-collapse supernovae in binaries with ZTF

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    With only 30 to 75 days of observations, standard ZTF monitoring would recover just a few to ten percent of periodic binary-accretion signals in core-collapse supernovae, implying many such systems are missed.

  2. Implications of the UV/optical Plateau of AT2018cow

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A wind-and-irradiation disk model fits the AT2018cow UV plateau with accretor masses from 1.4 to ~100 solar masses, removing the need for a >200 solar-mass black hole.

  3. Magnetar Engines in Broad-lined Type Ic Supernovae and a Unified Picture for Magnetar-powered Stripped-envelope Supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Broad-lined Type Ic supernovae are powered by magnetar engines, showing a universal ejecta-mass versus initial-spin correlation across stripped-envelope supernova types that supports a common progenitor framework.

  4. Magnetar Engines in Broad-lined Type Ic Supernovae and a Unified Picture for Magnetar-powered Stripped-envelope Supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fitting 80 SNe Ic-BL lightcurves with a magnetar-plus-Ni model reveals a universal ejecta-mass–spin-period anti-correlation linking SNe Ic-BL, SLSNe, and FBOTs to a common magnetar origin.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Instrumentation] 10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/P03012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JInst..12P3012A 12, P03012

    Aartsen M. G., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Instrumentation] 10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/P03012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JInst..12P3012A 12, P03012

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012 2017

  2. [2]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159681 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253..785A 253, 785

    Arnett W. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159681 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...253..785A 253, 785

    doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  3. [3]

    B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1071A 697, 1071

    Atwood W. B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697.1071A 697, 1071

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  4. [4]

    M., Sunyaev R

    Basko M. M., Sunyaev R. A., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/175.2.395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976MNRAS.175..395B 175, 395

    doi:10.1093/mnras/175.2.395 1976

  5. [5]

    B., White C

    Bauer E. B., White C. J., Bildsten L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...68B 887, 68

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4 2019

  6. [6]

    C., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.187..237B 187, 237

    Begelman M. C., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.187..237B 187, 237

    doi:10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 1979

  7. [8]

    arXiv:2410.21381

    Cartier R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241021381C p. arXiv:2410.21381

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.21381 2024

  8. [9]

    Cary S., Lu W., Leung C., Wong T. L. S., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250710682C p. arXiv:2507.10682

    arXiv 2025

Show all 117 references
  1. [10]

    C., Vinko J., Horvath Z

    Chatzopoulos E., Wheeler J. C., Vinko J., Horvath Z. L., Nagy A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...76C 773, 76

    2013 doi

  2. [11]

    Chen H.-P., Rau S.-J., Pan K.-C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc9af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949..121C 949, 121

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    Chen P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06787-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.625..253C 625, 253

    2024 doi

  4. [13]

    S., Narayan R., Natarajan P., Su K.-Y., Ricarte A., Chatterjee K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959L..22C 959, L22

    Cho H., Prather B. S., Narayan R., Natarajan P., Su K.-Y., Ricarte A., Chatterjee K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959L..22C 959, L22

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    N., Utrobin V

    Chugai N. N., Utrobin V. P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512L..71C 512, L71

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    Crumley P., Caprioli D., Markoff S., Spitkovsky A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5105C 485, 5105

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    P., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179..585D 179, 585

    Davidson K., Ostriker J. P., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179..585D 179, 585

    1973 doi

  8. [17]

    W., Antoni A., Mandel I., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ac6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..130D 897, 130

    De S., MacLeod M., Everson R. W., Antoni A., Mandel I., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9ac6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897..130D 897, 130

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    J., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.4304D 449, 4304

    Dessart L., Audit E., Hillier D. J., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.4304D 449, 4304

    doi

  10. [19]

    J., Woosley S., Livne E., Waldman R., Yoon S.-C., Langer N., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2189D 453, 2189

    Dessart L., Hillier D. J., Woosley S., Livne E., Waldman R., Yoon S.-C., Langer N., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2189D 453, 2189

    doi

  11. [20]

    R., Langer N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.106D 642, A106

    Dessart L., Yoon S.-C., Aguilera-Dena D. R., Langer N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.106D 642, A106

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    Dexter J., Kasen D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...30D 772, 30

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...97D 741, 97

    Drout M. R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...97D 741, 97

    2011 doi

  14. [23]

    R., G \"o tberg Y., Ludwig B

    Drout M. R., G \"o tberg Y., Ludwig B. A., Groh J. H., de Mink S. E., O'Grady A. J. G., Smith N., 2023, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.ade4970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...382.1287D 382, 1287

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    Edgar R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NewAR..48..843E 48, 843

    2004 doi

  16. [25]

    Y., Hernquist L., Narayan R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623L..41E 623, L41

    Ek s i K. Y., Hernquist L., Narayan R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623L..41E 623, L41

    2005 doi

  17. [26]

    J., Maund J

    Eldridge J. J., Maund J. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461L.117E 461, L117

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    J., Izzard R

    Eldridge J. J., Izzard R. G., Tout C. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12738.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384.1109E 384, 1109

    2008

  19. [28]

    J., Fraser M., Smartt S

    Eldridge J. J., Fraser M., Smartt S. J., Maund J. R., Crockett R. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436..774E 436, 774

    2013 doi

  20. [29]

    E., Sukhbold T., Janka H

    Ertl T., Woosley S. E., Sukhbold T., Janka H. T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...890...51E 890, 51

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    V., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..309F 35, 309

    Filippenko A. V., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.309 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..309F 35, 309

    1997 doi

  22. [31]

    Folatelli G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...825L..22F 825, L22

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929L..15F 929, L15

    Fox O. D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929L..15F 929, L15

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    Frank J., King A., Raine D. J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  25. [34]

    A., Arnett W

    Fryxell B. A., Arnett W. D., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...243..994F 243, 994

    1981 doi

  26. [35]

    K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    1979 doi

  27. [36]

    G \"o tberg Y., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959..125G 959, 125

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    M., Quataert E., Kim C.-G., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.11711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240511711G p

    Guo M., Stone J. M., Quataert E., Kim C.-G., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2405.11711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240511711G p. arXiv:2405.11711

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    M., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ARA&A..22..425H 22, 425

    Hillas A. M., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ARA&A..22..425H 22, 425

    1984

  30. [39]

    Hirai R., Podsiadlowski P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.4544H 517, 4544

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    Hirai R., Sawai H., Yamada S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...66H 792, 66

    2014 doi

  32. [41]

    Hirai R., Podsiadlowski P., Yamada S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864..119H 864, 119

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    Hober O., Bear E., Soker N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1846H 516, 1846

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    H., Gimm H

    Hubbell J. H., Gimm H. A., verb I., 1980, @doi [Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data] 10.1063/1.555629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JPCRD...9.1023H 9, 1023

    1980 doi

  35. [44]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    Jermyn A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    Kamae T., Karlsson N., Mizuno T., Abe T., Koi T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..692K 647, 692

    2006 doi

  37. [46]

    Kasen D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708.1025K 708, 1025

    2010 doi

  38. [47]

    Kasen D., Bildsten L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...717..245K 717, 245

    2010 doi

  39. [48]

    Kashiyama K., Quataert E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2656K 451, 2656

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    N., Takabe H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..828K 721, 828

    Kato T. N., Takabe H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721..828K 721, 828

    2010 doi

  41. [50]

    arXiv:2304.03360

    Khatami D., Kasen D., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2304.03360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230403360K p. arXiv:2304.03360

    2023 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    King A., Lasota J.-P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682L..22K 682, L22

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    arXiv:2506.00931

    Ko T., Kinugawa T., Tsuna D., Hirai R., Takei Y., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2506.00931 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250600931K p. arXiv:2506.00931

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [53]

    L., Lachat M., Rasio F

    Kremer K., Lu W., Rodriguez C. L., Lachat M., Rasio F. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e0c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...75K 881, 75

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    C., Lu W., Piro A

    Kremer K., Lombardi J. C., Lu W., Piro A. L., Rasio F. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933..203K 933, 203

    2022 doi

  46. [55]

    E., Justham S., Farmer R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A...6L 637, A6

    Laplace E., G \"o tberg Y., de Mink S. E., Justham S., Farmer R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A...6L 637, A6

    2020 doi

  47. [57]

    M., R \"o pke F

    Liu Z.-W., Tauris T. M., R \"o pke F. K., Moriya T. J., Kruckow M., Stancliffe R. J., Izzard R. G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...584A..11L 584, A11

    2015 doi

  48. [58]

    Lovelace R. V. E., Romanova M. M., Bisnovatyi-Kogan G. S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/275.2.244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.275..244L 275, 244

    1995 doi

  49. [59]

    R., Gotberg Y., Lang D., Laroche A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.18632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250518632L p

    Ludwig B., Drout M. R., Gotberg Y., Lang D., Laroche A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.18632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250518632L p. arXiv:2505.18632

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [60]

    D., Bersier D., James P

    Lyman J. D., Bersier D., James P. A., Mazzali P. A., Eldridge J. J., Fraser M., Pian E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..328L 457, 328

    2016 doi

  51. [61]

    MacLeod M., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...41M 803, 41

    2015 doi

  52. [62]

    MacLeod M., Antoni A., Murguia-Berthier A., Macias P., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...56M 838, 56

    2017 doi

  53. [63]

    Margalit B., Quataert E., Ho A. Y. Q., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac53b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928..122M 928, 122

    2022 doi

  54. [64]

    Marietta E., Burrows A., Fryxell B., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/313392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..128..615M 128, 615

    2000 doi

  55. [65]

    R., Pastorello A., Mattila S., Itagaki K., Boles T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..128M 833, 128

    Maund J. R., Pastorello A., Mattila S., Itagaki K., Boles T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..128M 833, 128

    2016 doi

  56. [66]

    D., Margalit B., Kasen D., Quataert E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3311M 454, 3311

    Metzger B. D., Margalit B., Kasen D., Quataert E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3311M 454, 3311

    2015 doi

  57. [67]

    D., Beniamini P., Giannios D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857...95M 857, 95

    Metzger B. D., Beniamini P., Giannios D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857...95M 857, 95

    2018 doi

  58. [68]

    A., Stone J

    Miller K. A., Stone J. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..890M 489, 890

    1997 doi

  59. [69]

    Moore T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acfc25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956L..31M 956, L31

    2023 doi

  60. [70]

    A., Suleimanov V

    Mushtukov A. A., Suleimanov V. F., Tsygankov S. S., Poutanen J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.2539M 454, 2539

    2015 doi

  61. [71]

    K., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...92..527N 92, 527

    Nadyozhin D. K., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJS...92..527N 92, 527

    1994 doi

  62. [72]

    Narayan R., Yi I., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...452..710N 452, 710

    1995 doi

  63. [73]

    Ogata M., Hirai R., Hijikawa K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1439 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.2485O 505, 2485

    2021 doi

  64. [74]

    M., Taam R

    Pan K.-C., Ricker P. M., Taam R. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760...21P 760, 21

    2012 doi

  65. [75]

    Parfrey K., Tchekhovskoy A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..34P 851, L34

    2017 doi

  66. [76]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...33P 822, 33

    Parfrey K., Spitkovsky A., Beloborodov A. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822...33P 822, 33

    2016 doi

  67. [77]

    Park J., Caprioli D., Spitkovsky A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhRvL.114h5003P 114, 085003

    2015 doi

  68. [78]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  69. [79]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  70. [80]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  71. [81]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  72. [82]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  73. [83]

    B., Li Z., Lombardi James C

    Perets H. B., Li Z., Lombardi James C. J., Milcarek Stephen R. J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..113P 823, 113

    2016 doi

  74. [84]

    L., Ott C

    Piro A. L., Ott C. D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..108P 736, 108

    2011 doi

  75. [85]

    C., Hsu J

    Podsiadlowski P., Joss P. C., Hsu J. J. L., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...391..246P 391, 246

    1992 doi

  76. [86]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.1559P 485, 1559

    Prentice S. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.1559P 485, 1559

    2019 doi

  77. [87]

    M., 2016, @doi [Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology] 10.1186/s40668-016-0015-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ComAC...3....2R 3, 2

    Rimoldi A., Portegies Zwart S., Rossi E. M., 2016, @doi [Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology] 10.1186/s40668-016-0015-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ComAC...3....2R 3, 2

    2016 doi

  78. [88]

    M., Ustyugova G

    Romanova M. M., Ustyugova G. V., Koldoba A. V., Lovelace R. V. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...616L.151R 616, L151

    2004 doi

  79. [89]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  80. [90]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  81. [91]

    Shivvers I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa54a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129e4201S 129, 054201

    2017 doi

  82. [92]

    W., Murdin P., eds, , Handbook of Supernovae

    Smith N., 2017, in Alsabti A. W., Murdin P., eds, , Handbook of Supernovae. p. 403, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_38

    2017 doi

  83. [93]

    V., Chornock R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.1522S 412, 1522

    Smith N., Li W., Filippenko A. V., Chornock R., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.1522S 412, 1522

    2011

  84. [94]

    Spitkovsky A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673L..39S 673, L39

    2008 doi

  85. [95]

    M., Pringle J

    Stone J. M., Pringle J. E., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04138.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..461S 322, 461

    2001

  86. [96]

    M., Pringle J

    Stone J. M., Pringle J. E., Begelman M. C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03024.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.310.1002S 310, 1002

    1999

  87. [97]

    R., Hirai R., Crowther P

    Sun N.-C., Maund J. R., Hirai R., Crowther P. A., Podsiadlowski P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.6000S 491, 6000

    2020 doi

  88. [98]

    Taddia F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...574A..60T 574, A60

    2015 doi

  89. [99]

    Taddia F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A.136T 609, A136

    2018 doi

  90. [100]

    M., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2123T 451, 2123

    Tauris T. M., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.2123T 451, 2123

    2015 doi

  91. [101]

    S., Zytkow A

    Thorne K. S., Zytkow A. N., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...212..832T 212, 832

    1977 doi

  92. [102]

    Tsuna D., Lu W., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/add158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...986...84T 986, 84

    2025 doi

  93. [103]

    Tsuna D., Takei Y., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psad041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASJ...75L..19T 75, L19

    2023 doi

  94. [104]

    D., de Mink S

    Van Dyk S. D., de Mink S. E., Zapartas E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818...75V 818, 75

    2016 doi

  95. [105]

    A., Ferland G

    Verner D. A., Ferland G. J., Korista K. T., Yakovlev D. G., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465..487V 465, 487

    1996 doi

  96. [106]

    M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449L.153W 449, L153

    Wang Y. M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309649 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449L.153W 449, L153

    1995 doi

  97. [107]

    C., Lecar M., McKee C

    Wheeler J. C., Lecar M., McKee C. F., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...200..145W 200, 145

    1975 doi

  98. [108]

    C., Johnson V., Clocchiatti A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1295W 450, 1295

    Wheeler J. C., Johnson V., Clocchiatti A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1295W 450, 1295

    2015 doi

  99. [109]

    J., Quataert E., Gammie C

    White C. J., Quataert E., Gammie C. F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab718e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891...63W 891, 63

    2020 doi

  100. [110]

    E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.204W 719, L204

    Woosley S. E., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.204W 719, L204

    2010 doi

  101. [111]

    E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...49W 878, 49

    Woosley S. E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...49W 878, 49

    2019 doi

  102. [112]

    E., Langer N., Weaver T

    Woosley S. E., Langer N., Weaver T. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...448..315W 448, 315

    1995 doi

  103. [113]

    E., Sukhbold T., Kasen D

    Woosley S. E., Sukhbold T., Kasen D. N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913..145W 913, 145

    2021 doi

  104. [114]

    Yoon S.-C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32...15Y 32, e015

    2015 doi

  105. [115]

    Yuan F., Wu M., Bu D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761..129Y 761, 129

    2012 doi

  106. [116]

    Yuan F., Gan Z., Narayan R., Sadowski A., Bu D., Bai X.-N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...804..101Y 804, 101

    2015 doi

  107. [117]

    Zapartas E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...842..125Z 842, 125

    2017 doi

  108. [118]

    Zhu J.-P., Liu L.-D., Yu Y.-W., Mandel I., Hirai R., Zhang B., Chen A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970L..42Z 970, L42

    2024 doi

  109. [119]

    C., Harding A

    de Jager O. C., Harding A. K., Michelson P. F., Nel H. I., Nolan P. L., Sreekumar P., Thompson D. J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176726 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457..253D 457, 253

    1996 doi

Pith tools

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