Diversity in Hydrogen-rich Envelope Mass of Type II Supernovae. (III). The mass-loss and evolutionary pathways of the red supergiant progenitors

Andris Dorozsmai; Javier Silva-Farf\'an; Keiichi Maeda; Qiliang Fang; Takashi J. Moriya

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Diversity in Hydrogen-rich Envelope Mass of Type II Supernovae. (III). The mass-loss and evolutionary pathways of the red supergiant progenitors

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Most type II supernovae explode with less hydrogen envelope mass than single-star wind models predict, and partial stripping is common across the full progenitor luminosity range.

desk verdict A serious, well-built paper whose central 'deficit' and fP claims hinge on an acknowledged but untested nebular calibration; worth refereeing, with the calibration question as the main ask. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14665 v1 pith:5AGFK6QY submitted 2025-07-19 astro-ph.HE

Qiliang Fang , Takashi J. Moriya , Keiichi Maeda , Andris Dorozsmai , Javier Silva-Farfán This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords typeIIsupernovaeredsupergiantprogenitorshydrogen-richenvelopemassstellarlossbinaryinteractionnebularspectroscopyplateaulightcurvessupernova

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 tries to establish that the standard picture of type II supernovae (SNe II) as red supergiant (RSG) progenitors that lose mass only through steady winds is incomplete. Combining plateau phase light-curve fits with nebular spectroscopy for 32 SNe II, the authors derive the hydrogen-rich envelope mass $M_{\rm Henv}$ at fixed progenitor luminosity $\log L_{\rm prog}$ and then marginalize over the nebular-derived $\log L_{\rm prog}$ distribution. They find that nearly all objects have lower $M_{\rm Henv}$ than the default wind-model prediction at the same $\log L_{\rm prog}$, and that partially stripped progenitors appear across the whole luminosity range. They argue that stable binary mass transfer cannot produce the observed fraction of partially stripped RSGs without finely tuned orbital parameters, and that more compact progenitors would require effective temperatures inconsistent with field RSGs. If correct, ordinary SNe II come from diverse mass-loss histories, and light-curve-only inferences of progenitor mass are systematically biased for massive partially stripped progenitors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\log L_{\rm prog}$-weighted $M_{\rm Henv}$ distribution. A grid of MESA+STELLA models with $T_{\rm eff}\simeq3650$ K and artificially stripped hydrogen envelopes is fitted to multi-band plateau light curves at nine fixed $\log L_{\rm prog}$ values, giving $M_{\rm Henv}$, $E_K$ and $\log M_{\rm Ni}$ as functions of luminosity; nebular [O I] spectroscopy is then converted into a $\log L_{\rm prog}$ probability distribution through an empirical mass-luminosity relation, and the $M_{\rm Henv}$ posteriors are marginalized over it. The same machinery also reveals the all-or-nothing character of stable binary stripping, which follows from the flat entropy gradient in the RSG envelope and limits the binary-produced fraction of partially stripped stars.

What would settle it

Build a larger golden sample of SNe II with both nebular spectroscopy and pre-SN imaging; if the inferred $\log L_{\rm prog}$ from the mass-luminosity relation disagrees with direct imaging for a substantial fraction, or if a comparable sample yields $M_{\rm Henv}$ values at or above the KEPLER track at fixed $\log L_{\rm prog}$, the claim that almost all SNe II are partially stripped would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that almost all SNe II have experienced more hydrogen-envelope mass loss than standard single-star wind evolution predicts, at every progenitor luminosity. On the $\log L_{\rm prog}$--$M_{\rm Henv}$ plane, the 32 SNe II scatter widely and nearly all fall below the KEPLER wind-model track; the deficit is not confined to luminous progenitors. The paper shows that a higher effective temperature for the RSG (more compact progenitor) could in principle raise the inferred $M_{\rm Henv}$ and remove the discrepancy, but the required $T_{\rm eff}>4300$ K for roughly half the sample is not supported by field RSGs or pre-SN imaging. Among mass-loss channels, stable binary mass transfer strips almost all of the envelope once mass transfer begins, so the observed fraction of partially stripped RSGs ($f_P\simeq0.4$--$0.75$ depending on luminosity) exceeds the maximum that binary grids can produce with plausible orbital-parameter distributions. The authors conclude that SNe II, although the most common core-collapse class, arise from a mix of evolutionary pathways more diverse than standard models assume.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the empirical relation between nebular [O I]-derived ZAMS mass and progenitor luminosity, calibrated from only 13 SNe II with pre-SN images, applies universally to all 32 objects in the sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

$M_{\rm Henv}$ must be treated as a free parameter in SN II light-curve modeling rather than fixed by $M_{\rm ZAMS}$ through a wind prescription.
Wind-model fits are biased low on $M_{\rm ZAMS}$ for massive partially stripped progenitors, which explains the steep, IMF-incompatible $M_{\rm ZAMS}$ distribution reported in earlier light-curve surveys.
Plateau light curves constrain the surface parameters $\{M_{\rm Henv}, E_K, \log M_{\rm Ni}\}$ but carry almost no information about $\log L_{\rm prog}$; core properties require nebular spectroscopy or pre-SN imaging.
Stable binary mass transfer yields mostly either effectively single or hydrogen-deficient outcomes, so the common partially stripped SNe II demand another channel: eruptive mass loss, unstable mass transfer or mergers, or unmodeled wind scatter.
If the envelope is compact (higher $T_{\rm eff}$) rather than partially stripped, the required $T_{\rm eff}$ for many events exceeds that of field RSGs, so compactness alone cannot explain the sample.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension: because the paper's effective-temperature rescaling is $M(T_{\rm eff})/M_0 = (T_{\rm eff}/3650\,{\rm K})^{2.52}$, SNe II with unusually warm RSG progenitors in pre-SN images should require larger $M_{\rm Henv}$ in light-curve fits if the compactness explanation is right.
The all-or-nothing binary result suggests that any observed population of partially stripped RSGs in binaries is probably caught mid-mass-transfer or formed by envelope ejection during unstable or common-envelope episodes; multidimensional simulations of those outcomes would directly test this.
If the nebular [O I]--$\log L_{\rm prog}$ relation has a hidden dependence on metallicity or explosion energy, the $f_P$ estimates and the KEPLER comparison would shift; the calibration on 13 objects is the first place to look.
The claim that plateau light curves cannot constrain $\log L_{\rm prog}$ implies that photometric-only surveys of SNe II will keep producing biased mass distributions unless they incorporate nebular spectroscopy or pre-SN imaging.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is the third in a series, but it genuinely adds new results: the 32-SN logLprog-MHenv diagram with nebular-weighted luminosities, a binary grid showing stable mass transfer strips envelopes all-or-nothing, the observed versus binary fP comparison, and the Teff-based argument against compact RSGs. It also shows cleanly that 'wind models' with MHenv tied to MZAMS systematically underestimate MZAMS for partially stripped progenitors (SNe 2013by, 2013fs, 2014G), which is a useful resolution of the Martinez et al. IMF incompatibility. The machinery is transparent: interpolation is checked against direct STELLA runs, MCMC posteriors are shown, and the MESA inlists are on Zenodo. That is real reproducible work.

Soft spots. The main one is exactly the one the authors name: the universal MZAMS,neb-logLprog calibration from 13 pre-SN-imaged SNe is the pivot for the whole sample. A 0.1-0.2 dex systematic offset in logLprog changes MHenv along the steep degeneracy and can move objects across the partially-stripped threshold, so the fP comparison in Figure 8, and to a lesser degree the 'almost all below KEPLER' claim, are sensitive to it. The stress-test note pushes this hard; I think it lands, but with a caveat. For the 13 golden-sample SNe, logLprog is direct pre-SN imaging, so the deficit is not entirely manufactured by the calibration. Still, the quantitative fP and the luminosity-dependent trends for the full 32 rely on the extrapolation, and there are roughly ten objects with [O I] below the M12 models that get flat logLprog values and extrapolated MHenv. The paper also notes its sample has an unknown selection function; it says it focuses on scatter rather than population statistics, which is honest, but the fP claim is a population claim. Minor: the Teff scaling in Equation 9 is fit to their own models and should not be treated as universal, though the argument in Figure 10 only needs it to be approximately right.

Also small: the boxcar mixing simplification and 1D limitation are stated in the text; not a flaw, but worth remembering when someone overinterprets exact MHenv values.

Who this is for: SN II light-curve modellers, the RSG mass-loss community, and binary population folks. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send to review, and ask the authors to (a) quantify how much the MZAMS,neb-logLprog slope and zero-point uncertainty propagates into MHenv and fP, ideally with a sensitivity analysis, and (b) state more clearly which conclusions survive using only the golden sample.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives hydrogen-rich envelope masses (MHenv) for 32 Type II supernovae by fitting plateau-phase, multi-band light curves with a MESA+STELLA grid of RSG progenitor models in which the hydrogen envelope is artificially stripped to varying degrees. The degeneracy between MHenv and progenitor luminosity is broken using nebular [O I] measurements converted to logLprog through a mass-luminosity relation calibrated on 13 SNe with pre-SN imaging (Fang et al. 2025c). The central finding is that nearly all SNe II fall below the KEPLER single-star wind prediction in the logLprog-MHenv plane, implying widespread partial stripping, and that stable binary mass transfer alone cannot reproduce the observed partially-stripped fraction fP without fine-tuned orbital parameters. The paper also examines alternative wind prescriptions, binary evolution, compact RSG alternatives, and the implications for the 'IMF incompatibility' reported in earlier light-curve modeling studies.

Significance. If robust, the result challenges the standard single-star wind mass-loss paradigm for SN II progenitors and supports a diversity of mass-loss and evolutionary pathways. The paper is strong in several respects: the MESA inlists are made publicly available on Zenodo, the interpolation is validated against direct STELLA runs, MCMC posteriors are shown for representative objects, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the key universality assumption in §3.3. However, the quantitative claims—the MHenv deficit relative to KEPLER and the fP comparison in Figure 8—rest on an untested calibration and on extrapolations below the model grid. The significance is therefore provisional: the conclusion is plausible and well-argued, but its load-bearing calibration needs direct sensitivity testing before the population-level claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§3.3, Figure 5, Figure 8] The central conclusion depends on the untested universal MZAMS,neb-logLprog relation calibrated with 13 pre-SN-imaged SNe in Fang et al. (2025c). A systematic shift of 0.1–0.2 dex in logLprog propagates through the steep MHenv-logLprog anticorrelation shown in the left panel of Figure 3, changing both the inferred deficit relative to KEPLER and the partially-stripped fraction fP in Figure 8. The manuscript states this universality as the key assumption but does not quantify the impact of its failure. I request a sensitivity analysis, for example recomputing MHenv and fP under shifted calibration slopes/intercepts or performing leave-one-out cross-validation on the 13 golden-sample objects, and reporting how the abstract-level conclusions move.
[§3.3, Table A1] For the many objects in Table A1 with [O I] below the M12 models, logLprog is set to a flat distribution around 4.43–4.45 dex, and MHenv is obtained by extrapolation below the M10/M11 grid points, as explicitly stated in §3.3 ('In cases that l<4.52 dex... m is estimated from the extrapolation of the M10 and M11 models'). These faint objects populate the low-logLprog bin where fP is as high as 0.42, so this extrapolation is load-bearing for Figure 8. The analysis should either extend the grid below M10, or assign and propagate a clearly quantified extrapolation uncertainty into the logLprog-weighted MHenv distributions.
[§4.3, Eq. (9)] The Teff scaling relation M(Teff)/M0 = (Teff/3650 K)^2.52 is derived from a small set of SN 2023ixf model comparisons and is used without any uncertainty estimate to infer the Teff distribution in Figure 10 and to argue against the compact-RSG alternative. Because Eq. (9) is the quantitative basis for excluding compact progenitors, its exponent should be validated across the model grid and quoted with an uncertainty, or the strength of the §4.3 conclusion should be reduced accordingly.
[§4.2.2, Figure 8] The definition of 'partially stripped' as 2 M⊙ < MHenv < MS_Henv − 1 M⊙ uses an arbitrary 1 M⊙ margin, and the observed fP is measured relative to the KEPLER MS_Henv track. The claim that stable binary mass transfer cannot account for fP without fine-tuning depends on this threshold and on the adopted single-star track. The authors should show how fP changes for alternative margins (e.g., 0.5, 1.5, and 2 M⊙) and for the de Jager and Yang single-star tracks, to demonstrate that the fine-tuning conclusion is not an artifact of the threshold choice.

minor comments (4)

[§6] In the first paragraph of the conclusion, 'artificailly' should be 'artificially'.
[§3.2, Figure 2] The text says 'Figure 1 shows the projected corner plots' but the corner plot is labeled Figure 2; the cross-reference should be corrected.
[Table A1] The derived MHenv values with their 68% CIs are not tabulated, even though MHenv is the paper's primary product; adding them to Table A1 or to a machine-readable table would greatly improve reproducibility.
[§3.1, Eq. (5)] The weighting function contains a fixed 10−6 regularizer; please state briefly whether the results are sensitive to this choice or, if it is negligible, say so explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MHenv is a free parameter recovered from the light-curve grid, and the self-cited logLprog calibration is anchored to external pre-SN imaging rather than to the light-curve fits.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (1) build 58,846 MESA+STELLA light-curve models with MHenv artificially varied; (2) fit MHenv, EK, and logMNi at fixed logLprog by MCMC; (3) break the logLprog degeneracy using logLprog values from nebular [O I] via the Fang et al. (2025c) mass-luminosity relation; (4) compare the resulting logLprog-MHenv points to single-star wind and binary-model tracks. Step (2) treats MHenv as an unrestricted free parameter, as the paper states that 'we do not impose any specific mass-loss model as a prior in the light curve modeling,' so the inferred low MHenv values are not forced by construction. Step (3) is the only place where a result from the same authors' prior work is load-bearing, but that relation is calibrated with pre-SN imaging of 13 SNe, an external benchmark not involving this paper's light-curve fits; the paper explicitly flags the universality of that calibration as a key assumption needing a larger golden sample. The Teff scaling in Eq. 9 is a fit to model outputs used only in a robustness argument, not an input to the main inference, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The remaining concerns (systematic zero-point uncertainty in the 13-SN calibration shifting logLprog and hence the partially-stripped fraction fP) are accuracy risks, not circularity: a 0.1-0.2 dex shift would change the comparison frame, but nothing in the derivation is defined in terms of the conclusion it supports.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the universal golden-sample MLR, the freely stripped MESA+STELLA grid, and the wind/binary population assumptions. These are all model assumptions rather than measured facts; no new physical entities are introduced. The MLR universality and the flat binary distributions are the most consequential inputs.

free parameters (3)

MZAMS,neb-logLprog calibration slope and intercept = not quoted; from Fang et al. (2025c)
A linear regression between [O I]-inferred MZAMS,neb and pre-SN-imaging logLprog from 13 golden SNe is used to assign logLprog to all 32 SNe. A shift in slope or intercept changes the logLprog weights and the final logLprog-MHenv relation.
Teff scaling exponent (Eq. 9) = 2.52
Fitted from the model grid comparison of MHenv inferred with RSG models at different Teff. Used in §4.3 to estimate the Teff required to avoid partial stripping; it is a model-calibrated relation, not directly fitted to SNe data.
'Partially stripped' threshold margin = 1 Msun
In §4.2.1, partially stripped primaries are defined by MHenv < M_S_Henv - 1 Msun. This chosen margin determines NP and the predicted maximum fP, and affects the comparison with observed fractions.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption MESA single-star models with alpha_MLT=2.5 and fov=0.004 reproduce RSG Teff about 3650 K and match the KEPLER MHe core-logLprog relation.
Invoked in §2.1 to justify that the freely stripped model grid represents RSG progenitors; the match to KEPLER cores is used later when comparing with KEPLER MHenv predictions.
domain assumption Plateau light curves depend almost exclusively on MHenv, EK, and logMNi at fixed logLprog (radius), with logLprog only weakly constrained by the light curve itself.
Established from scaling relations and the 4-parameter fit in §5.2; it underlies the decision to fix logLprog and later weight by nebular logLprog. If false, the whole logLprog weighting scheme is invalid.
domain assumption Nebular [O I] fractional flux traces the oxygen mass and thus MZAMS,neb through the Jerkstrand et al. spectral models.
Used in §3.3 to convert nebular spectra into a logLprog distribution. The oxygen diagnostic is standard but carries model dependence from stellar evolution and nebular modeling.
ad hoc to paper A universal MZAMS,neb-logLprog relation calibrated on 13 SNe with pre-SN images applies to all SNe II in the sample.
Stated as the key assumption in §3.3. The golden sample is small and one object (SN 2013ej) is an outlier; universality is untested. If false, logLprog values for 19 SNe without pre-SN images are biased.
domain assumption Stable binary mass transfer with Kolb scheme, rotation-limited accretion, and flat initial qi/logRsep distributions represents the binary population.
The binary grid in §2.2.2 and the fP calculation in §4.2.2 rest on these prescriptions. The all-or-nothing stripping result follows from the entropy-gradient argument, which is model dependent.
domain assumption One-dimensional hydrostatic evolution and shock propagation with boxcar composition mixing (without density mixing) are adequate for plateau light curves.
Acknowledged in §2.1 and the conclusion; multidimensional convection, pulsation, and RTI-driven density mixing may alter light curves and inferred MHenv.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diversity in Hydrogen-rich Envelope Mass of Type II Supernovae. (III). The mass-loss and evolutionary pathways of the red supergiant progenitors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5AGFK6QY

@misc{pith2026250714665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diversity in Hydrogen-rich Envelope Mass of Type II Supernovae. (III). The mass-loss and evolutionary pathways of the red supergiant progenitors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5AGFK6QY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14665}
}

abstract

We present a comprehensive analysis of 32 type II supernovae (SNe II) with plateau phase photometry and late phase ($nebular$) spectroscopy available, aiming to bridge the gap between the surface and core of their red supergiant (RSG) progenitors. Using \texttt{MESA}\,+\texttt{STELLA}, we compute an extensive grid of SN II light curve models originating from RSG with effective temperatures $T_{\rm eff}$ around 3650\,K and hydrogen-rich envelopes artificially stripped to varying degrees. These models are then used to derive the hydrogen-rich envelope masses $M_{\rm Henv}$ for SNe II from their plateau phase light curves. Nebular spectroscopy further constrains the progenitor RSG's luminosity log\,$L_{\rm prog}$, and is employed to remove the degeneracies in light curve modeling. The comparison between log\,$L_{\rm prog}$-$M_{\rm Henv}$ reveals that $M_{\rm Henv}$ spans a broad range at the same log\,$L_{\rm prog}$, and almost all SNe II have lower $M_{\rm Henv}$ than the prediction of the default stellar wind models. We explore alternative wind prescriptions, binary evolution models, and the possibility of more compact RSG progenitors. Although binary interaction offers a compelling explanation for the non-monotonicity and large scatter in the log\,$L_{\rm prog}$-$M_{\rm Henv}$ relation, the high occurrence rate of partially-stripped RSGs cannot be accounted for by stable binary mass transfer alone without fine-tuned orbital parameters. This highlights that, despite being the most commonly observed class of core-collapse SNe, SNe II likely originate from a variety of mass-loss histories and evolutionary pathways that are more diverse and complex than typically assumed in standard stellar evolution models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14665 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The corner plot of the posterior distributions of the parameters {MHenv, EK, log MNi, σµ} obtained using the emcee routine for SN 2013by, with fixed log Lprog = 4.96 (M15 models). ure 1 shows the projected corner plots for SN 2013by with log Lprog = 4.96 (M15 models). In principle, we can apply the same method to simultaneously optimize {log Lprog, MHenv, EK, log MNi} (see Hiramatsu et al. 2021 for example). Howeve… view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** The interpolation to θ = {4.3, 0.25, -1.63}, and logLprog = 4.72 (M12 model). The upper and middle panels illustrate the pre-computed grid points of EK and log MNi of M12 models with MHenv = 4.0 and 4.5 M⊙, respectively. The blue cross is the position of θ = {4.3, 0.25, -1.63} on the EKlog MNi plane, and the orange triangles are the grid points that contribute to the interpolation (θi ∈ θclose). Lower panel: The in… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The results of the emcee inference for the multi-band light curves of SN 2013by. Left panels: The optimized MHenv, EK and log MNi as functions of log Lprog (MZAMS). The error bars represent the 68% CIs of the posterior distributions. Middle panel: The optimized V -band light curves for SN 2013by, with different fixed log Lprog (MZAMS) indicated by the color-bar. Despite the models have a broad range of log Lprog, th… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The posterior MHenv of SN 2013by, weighted by log Lprog of the progenitor RSG. Left panel: The light blue scatter points represent the median values and 68% CIs of the posterior MHenv from light curve modeling as function of log Lprog (MZAMS). The black histogram repre…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The comparison between the progenitor luminosity log Lprog, inferred from nebular spectroscopy, and the MHenv inferred from light curve modeling. The error bars are the 68% CIs of the posterior distributions, and different individual SNe are represented by different …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Upper panels: same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Initial mass ratio (qi) versus initial separation (log Rsep,i) for binary evolution models with a fixed initial primary mass (represented by its MZAMS). Different colors indicate distinct evolutionary outcomes, while unfilled regions represent non-convergent cases. Eac…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Upper panel: Fraction of binary systems in which the primary star evolves into a partially stripped RSG by the end of the calculation, shown as function of log Rsep,max. Different colors correspond to different initial primary masses. Solid lines represent cases where…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The effect of RSG progenitors Teff on light curve modeling of SN 2023ixf. Left panel: Optimized V -band light curves for SN 2023ixf with different RSG progenitor properties. Red solid line: log Lprog = 5.0 and Teff = 3650 K (this work); Blue solid line: log Lprog = 4.7…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Upper panel: Cumulative distribution of the progenitor Teff for SNe II in the sample, assuming their MHenv follows predictions from KEPLER models. The shaded region represents the 68% CI for the Teff of M-type RSGs observed in the field. Vertical arrows indicate Teff …

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Upper panels: The optimized multi-band light curves for SNe 2013by (left), 2013fs (middle) and 2014G (right), using the wind models. Lower panels: the nebular spectra of these 3 SNe (black), pre-processed and normalized following the procedure outlined in Fang et al. …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Comparison of the measurements in this work and the inferred {log Lprog, MHenv, EK, log MNi} values from light curve modeling. Upper left panel: comparison between log Lprog inferred from nebular spectroscopy and the values from 4-parameter fit; Upper right panel: com…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[3]

A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6 Goldberg, J. A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2020, ApJ, 891,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6 2020
[4]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243,

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2015
[5]

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/5

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/5
[10]

& Ivanova, N

doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 Pavlovskii, K. & Ivanova, N. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv619 Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98 Popham, R. & Narayan, R. 1991, ApJ, 370, 604. doi:10.1086/169847 Popov, D. V. 1993, ApJ, 414, 712. doi:10.1086/173117 Pledger, J. L. & Shara, M. M. 20...

doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2015
[15]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7205 Goldberg, J. A. & Bildsten, L. 2020, ApJL, 895, L45. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9300 Goldberg, J. A., Jiang, Y.-F., & Bildsten, L. 2022, ApJ, Numerical Simulations of Convective Three-dimensional Red Supergiant Envelopes, 929, 2, 156. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab3 Goldberg, J. A., Jiang, Y.-F., & Bildsten, L. 2022, ApJ, Shock Brea...

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7205 2020
[16]

2013, ApJS, 208,

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208,

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2013
[19]

L., Elias-Rosa, N., et al

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b3 Takáts, K., Pumo, M. L., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 368. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2203 Takáts, K., Pignata, G., Pumo, M. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3137. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv857 Teja, R. S., Singh, A., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b3 2014
[25]

2016, MNRAS, 461, 2003

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afe Yuan, F., Jerkstrand, A., Valenti, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2003. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1419 Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935854 Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037744 Zapartas, E., de Wit, S., An...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.07335 2016

Show all 26 references

[34]

S., Singh, A., Sahu, D

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac610b Teja, R. S., Singh, A., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954,

2023 doi
[36]

J., & Maeda, K

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8d5a Fang, Q., Moriya, T. J., & Maeda, K. 2025, ApJ, 986, 1, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adceae Faran, T., Poznanski, D., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 844. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu955 Farmer, R., Fields, C. E., Petermann, I., et al. 2016, ApJS...

2025 doi
[61]

M., Schneider, F

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88 Moreno, M. M., Schneider, F. R. N., Röpke, F. K., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A72. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142731 Moriya, T. J., Subrayan, B. M., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2023, PASJ, 75, 634. doi:10.1093/pasj/psad024 Moriya, T. J. & Menon, A. 2024, PA...

2022 doi
[63]

L., & Valenti, S

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/63 Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., & Valenti, S. 2018, ApJ, 858, 15. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a6 Murai, Y., Tanaka, M., Kawabata, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4209. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae170 Neustadt, J. M. M., Kochanek, C. S., & Smith, M. R. 2024, MNRA...

2018
[93]

& Adams, S

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2da Sukhbold, T. & Adams, S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2578. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa059 Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., & Crowther, P. A. 2023, MNRAS. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad690 Szalai, T., Vinkó, J., Könyves-Tóth, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 19. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/...

2020 doi
[111]

J., Groh, J

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc315 Farrell, E. J., Groh, J. H., Meynet, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1, L53. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa035 Farrell, E. J., Groh, J. H., Meynet, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4, 4659. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1360 Ferrari, L., Folatelli, G., Ertini, K., et al...

2020 doi
[117]

S., Milisavljevic, D., Margutti, R., et al

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3f Black, C. S., Milisavljevic, D., Margutti, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 5. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8999 Blanton, E. L., Schmidt, B. P., Kirshner, R. P., et al. 1995, AJ, 110, 2868. doi:10.1086/117735 Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., et...

2017 doi
[132]

J., Eldridge, J

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7955 Smartt, S. J., Eldridge, J. J., Crockett, R. M., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 3, 1409. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14506.x Smartt, S. J. 2015, PASA, 32, e016. doi:10.1017/pasa.2015.17 Smith, N., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1522...

2009
[139]

2018, MNRAS, 475, 3959

doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/139 Huang, F., Wang, X.-F., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 3959. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty066 Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Inserra, C., Pastorello, A., Turatto, M., et al. 2013, A&...

2018
[143]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 1009

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dc5 Dastidar, R., Misra, K., Singh, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1009. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab831 Dastidar, R., Misra, K., Valenti, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A260. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452507 Davies, B. & Beasor, E. R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 468. doi:10...

2021 doi
[155]

S., Goldberg, J

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdf5e Teja, R. S., Goldberg, J. A., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 44. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67d9 Temaj, D., Schneider, F. R. N., Laplace, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A123. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347434 Terreran, G., Jerkstrand, A., Benetti, S., ...

2024 arXiv
[271]

L., Villar, V

doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2012 Ransome, C. L., Villar, V. A., Tartaglia, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 93. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2df7 Ravi, A. P., Valenti, S., Dong, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv:2411.02493. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.02493 Reguitti, A., Pumo, M. L., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2...

2024 doi arXiv
[438]

A., et al

doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2647 Menon, A., Ercolino, A., Urbaneja, M. A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L42. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2074 Meynet, G., Chomienne, V., Ekström, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A60. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424671 Meza-Retamal, N., Dong, Y., Bostroem, K. A., et al....

2024 doi
[615]

2003, ApJ, 582, 905

doi:10.1086/322450 Hamuy, M. 2003, ApJ, 582, 905. doi:10.1086/344689 Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 Haynie, A. & Piro, A. L. 2023, ApJ, 956, 98. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf844 Heger, A. & Langer, N...

2003 doi arXiv
[940]

2015, PASA, 32, e015

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/940 Yoon, S.-C. 2015, PASA, 32, e015. doi:10.1017/pasa.2015.16 Yoon, S.-C., Dessart, L., & Clocchiatti, A. 2017, ApJ, 840,

2015 doi
[1871]

2015, ApJ, 806, 160

doi:10.1093/mnras/stt864 Bose, S., Sutaria, F., Kumar, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 160. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/160 Bose, S., Kumar, B., Misra, K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455,

2015 doi
[2139]

J., Waldman, R., et al

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21374.x Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1745. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt861 Dessart, L., Gutierrez, C. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1856. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu417 Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2019, A&A, 625,...

2012
[2712]

2019, ApJL, 873, L3

doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2351 Bose, S., Dong, S., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2019, ApJL, 873, L3. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0558 Burrows, A. & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w Burrows, A., Wang, T., Vartanyan, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 63. doi:10.3847...

2019 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [3]

A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6 Goldberg, J. A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2020, ApJ, 891,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6 2020

[2] [4]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243,

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2015

[3] [5]

doi:10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/5

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/5

[4] [10]

& Ivanova, N

doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 Pavlovskii, K. & Ivanova, N. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv619 Perley, D. A., Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 35. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd98 Popham, R. & Narayan, R. 1991, ApJ, 370, 604. doi:10.1086/169847 Popov, D. V. 1993, ApJ, 414, 712. doi:10.1086/173117 Pledger, J. L. & Shara, M. M. 20...

doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2015

[5] [15]

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7205 Goldberg, J. A. & Bildsten, L. 2020, ApJL, 895, L45. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9300 Goldberg, J. A., Jiang, Y.-F., & Bildsten, L. 2022, ApJ, Numerical Simulations of Convective Three-dimensional Red Supergiant Envelopes, 929, 2, 156. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab3 Goldberg, J. A., Jiang, Y.-F., & Bildsten, L. 2022, ApJ, Shock Brea...

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7205 2020

[6] [16]

2013, ApJS, 208,

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208,

doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2013

[7] [19]

L., Elias-Rosa, N., et al

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b3 Takáts, K., Pumo, M. L., Elias-Rosa, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 368. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2203 Takáts, K., Pignata, G., Pumo, M. L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3137. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv857 Teja, R. S., Singh, A., Sahu, D. K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930,

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b3 2014

[8] [25]

2016, MNRAS, 461, 2003

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afe Yuan, F., Jerkstrand, A., Valenti, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 2003. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1419 Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935854 Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037744 Zapartas, E., de Wit, S., An...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.07335 2016