Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Stochasticity in Stellar Yields Reflected in Theoretical Dust Masses Estimates Across all Type II Supernova Progenitors

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that pre-explosion nucleosynthesis, not the explosion itself, sets the dust-mass ceiling in core-collapse supernovae, with silicate dust dominating at 0.02–0.9 solar masses and stochastic shell-merging producing large…

desk verdict A useful mass-resolved map of CCSN dust upper limits, but the headline stochasticity claim depends on an unresolved numerical-versus-physical question the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12933 v1 pith:IKYSW5VQ submitted 2025-08-18 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Archana Purushothaman , Arkaprabha Sarangi , S. K. Jeena This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords core-collapsesupernovaesupernovadustsilicateamorphouscarbonstellaryieldsshellmergingcompactnessparameterformationchemistry
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 aims to establish that the maximum dust mass a core-collapse supernova can form is fixed by the star's pre-explosion yield composition, not by the explosion itself. The authors feed the onion-shell abundances of a 200-model stellar grid spanning 9–120 $M_\odot$ into a published dust-formation chemistry model, finding that O-rich silicate dust dominates with upper limits of 0.02–0.9 $M_\odot$ that grow with progenitor mass, while amorphous carbon never exceeds 0.05 $M_\odot$. A central result is stochasticity: between neighbouring progenitor masses, predicted silicate masses jump by up to an order of magnitude because shell-merging (convective boundary mixing) enriches the O/Si/Mg zone in silicon. Since less compact progenitors are both more likely to explode and more likely to have undergone such mixing, the paper concludes that the supernovae we observe should preferentially be the dust-rich ones. If correct, this turns supernova dust mass into a diagnostic of stellar evolutionary channels and explains why many remnants host dust masses near or above 0.5 $M_\odot$.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a stratified-zone dust budget: the ejecta is divided into unmixed Si/S, O/Si/Mg, He/C, and H zones; CO forms first and sequesters C and O in equal numbers; silicate mass is then limited by the least abundant of Mg, Si, or O in the stoichiometry of [Mg$_2$SiO$_4$]$_n$, and amorphous carbon mass by the carbon left over in the He/C zone after CO. This converts a nucleosynthesis grid into dust upper limits. The second mechanism is the compactness parameter $\xi_{2.5}$, defined as $2.5/R(2.5\,M_\odot)$ with the radius where infall velocity exceeds 1000 km/s, used as a tracer of shell merging and explosion likelihood to connect dust mass to evolutionary channel.

What would settle it

A concrete check: for progenitors near 20 $M_\odot$, the model predicts an anti-correlation between O-rich dust mass and compactness—the 20.5 $M_\odot$ model, with strong shell merging, should yield several times more silicate than the 19.5 $M_\odot$ model. Late-time JWST mid-infrared dust mass measurements for supernovae whose pre-explosion imaging pins the progenitor into that narrow mass range would confirm or break the correlation; a second falsifier is finding any CCSN remnant with a well-determined progenitor that hosts more than 0.9 $M_\odot$ of newly formed dust, which would exceed the yield-limited upper bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a zone-by-zone abundance budget converts published stellar yields into theoretical dust upper limits: after CO molecules lock up carbon and oxygen in equal numbers, each zone's dust mass is capped by its least abundant dust constituent, giving [Mg$_2$SiO$_4$]$_n$ silicate masses of 0.02–0.9 $M_\odot$ that rise with initial mass, and amorphous carbon masses of 0.012–0.043 $M_\odot$ concentrated below about 15 $M_\odot$. The large fluctuations in silicate mass trace fluctuations in silicon and magnesium in the O/Si/Mg zone, which the paper attributes to shell-merging events before explosion; in the 19.5–21 $M_\odot$ range, O-rich dust mass anti-correlates with the compactness parameter, tying high dust yield to low compactness and hence to explodability. Comparing yields from two stellar-evolution codes for the same progenitor gives dust masses differing by factors of 2–5, so the paper concludes that final dust yield is governed by stochastic stellar yields and pre-explosion nucleosynthesis, while explosion properties set only the timescales of dust formation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the run-to-run jumps in silicon and magnesium abundances across the stellar models are physical shell-merging events rather than numerical noise in one-dimensional evolution codes; if the jumps are artifacts, the predicted dust-mass scatter is an artifact too.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any core-collapse supernova with a progenitor between 9 and 120 $M_\odot$ forms at most 0.025–0.9 $M_\odot$ of dust in the ejecta, so reported dust masses above 0.9 $M_\odot$ from a single CCSN would require dust that is not newly formed in the ejecta.
  • For progenitors up to 30 $M_\odot$, the analytic fits (a power law with upper and lower bounds for O-rich dust, a broken quadratic for C-rich dust, and a logarithmic relation for CO) let observers translate an inferred progenitor mass into an expected dust yield and composition.
  • Progenitors that experienced shell-merging should be less compact, more likely to explode, and more dust-rich, which predicts that observed SN remnants are biased toward the high end of the dust-mass distribution.
  • Dust-mass estimates for a single progenitor carry a factor-of-2-to-5 model uncertainty from stellar evolution codes, so progenitor masses inferred from infrared dust observations are at least that uncertain.
  • Explosion energy, $^{56}$Ni mass, and clumpiness set how fast dust forms but not how much; therefore late-time dust mass, not early-time dust, is the observable tied to stellar yields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not pursue it, but the shell-merging scatter in one-dimensional models may be partly numerical; the comparison with a second stellar-evolution code suggests the broader trend of higher and fluctuating O-rich dust masses persists across codes, so the qualitative conclusion may survive even if individual spikes do not.
  • A testable extension: pair late-time JWST dust-mass measurements with pre-explosion progenitor imaging for supernovae near 20 $M_\odot$; the predicted anti-correlation between dust mass and compactness can be checked directly once explosion outcomes are known.
  • The unmixed stratified-zone assumption sets an upper limit; the paper's qualitative claim that mixing would cut amorphous carbon while leaving silicates roughly unchanged could be quantified with three-dimensional mixing prescriptions, potentially shifting the 0.9 $M_\odot$ cap.
  • The wide gap between the upper and lower power-law bounds for O-rich dust implies that dust mass alone cannot pin down a progenitor's mass; combining dust with an independent compactness or explodability indicator would give much sharper constraints.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper computes theoretical upper limits on dust masses in core-collapse supernovae from pre-explosion elemental yields of the Sukhbold et al. (2016) KEPLER grid for progenitors of 9-120 solar masses. The authors use a stratified-zone dust formation model with CO molecule formation followed by condensation of silicates, alumina, and amorphous carbon, limiting dust mass by the least abundant constituent element in each zone. They report that O-rich silicate dust dominates, increasing with progenitor mass from about 0.025 to 0.9 solar masses, and that C-rich dust remains below about 0.05 solar masses. They provide best-fit functions for O-rich dust, C-rich dust, and CO mass up to 30 solar masses. A large scatter in silicate dust masses is found and attributed to shell merging and convective boundary mixing stochasticity in the KEPLER models, with an inferred anti-correlation with compactness and explodability. A comparison with MESA (Laplace et al. 2021) yields dust masses 2-5 times larger for the same progenitor masses.

Significance. If the results are robust, the upper-limit framework is a simple and useful mapping from published stellar yields to observable dust masses, and it provides a concrete theoretical target for interpreting mid-IR dust observations of CCSNe. The MESA/KEPLER comparison usefully quantifies model-dependent uncertainty in SN dust predictions. However, the headline stochasticity claim and the proposed role of dust mass as a probe of stellar evolutionary channels hinge on whether the order-of-magnitude variations in Si and Mg yields across the KEPLER grid are physical shell-merger events rather than numerical artifacts of 1D stellar evolution. The paper itself acknowledges this debate but does not resolve it, so the central interpretive claim remains conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The central claim that 'a large stochastic variation is found in the predicted masses of silicate dust, which correlates with the randomness of shell-merger events' rests on interpreting the ~80-fold difference in Si mass between the 19.5 and 20.5 Msun KEPLER models (Figure 3 top) as an astrophysical feature. The manuscript itself states in Section 5.1 that 'There is debate if such stochasticity arises due to numerical effects, rather than being physical' and cites 3D simulations as suggestive but not conclusive. Because this scatter underlies the abstract's stochasticity claim and the proposed use of dust mass as a probe of stellar evolutionary channels, the authors need to provide convergence tests (e.g., resolution, timestep, or convective-boundary-mixing sensitivity for the 19-21 Msun region) or explicitly reframe the claim as conditional on the physical interpretation of the KEPLER models. Without this, the headline result is not robust to the numerical-artifact alternative.
  2. [Section 3 and Figure 1] Pre-explosion yields are used for essentially all 200 progenitors, but the validation that pre- and post-explosion alpha-element abundances are comparable is shown only for two cases, 15 and 20 Msun (Figure 1 middle panels). Since the dust upper limits are element-limited by O, Si, and Mg masses in the O/Si/Mg zone, and since the most dramatic dust-mass spikes occur at 19-26 Msun, the authors should show post-explosion comparisons for additional masses in that range or quantify the expected explosive nucleosynthesis corrections. Without broader validation, the absolute upper limits (e.g., 0.9 Msun at 25.5 Msun) are not fully supported.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Figure 3] The claimed anti-correlation between O-rich dust mass and compactness is not statistically quantified. The authors note that 'a straight forward correlation between the two is not visible' in the full sample and rely on a zoomed-in 19.5-21 Msun window. A correlation coefficient, significance estimate, or a larger sample is needed to support the inference that less-compact, more-explodable progenitors produce more dust. As written, the conclusion is overinterpreted from a small subset of the grid.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6] The text says 'We further compare the Si and Mg abundances, shown in Figure 2 (right)' but the relevant panel appears to be Figure 5 (right); please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Reference list] The reference 'Shahbandeh, M., Sarangi, A., Temim, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6048' is listed twice; only one entry is needed.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption begins with 'T op' (and later 'Y op'); these should be 'Top' and 'Top' respectively.
  4. [Section 5.2] The base of the logarithm in Eq. (5) is not specified; please state whether it is natural log or base 10.
  5. [Section 4] The statement 'All the zones are efficient in forming silicate dust' is followed by 'the majority of silicates are formed in the O/Si/Mg zone'; please clarify whether all zones contribute significantly or the O/Si/Mg zone dominates, since the upper-limit calculation appears to aggregate contributions.
  6. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract states dust masses range from 0.02 to 0.9 Msun, while Section 5 states 0.025 to 0.9 Msun; please make the numbers consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Dust-mass stochasticity is a stoichiometric mirror of input yield stochasticity; the upper-limit derivation is otherwise self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 5 and Section 5.1 (limiting-reagent dust prescription; attribution of silicate fluctuations)]
    "previous models have found for the cases of 12, 15, 19 or 20 M⊙ progenitors (A. Sarangi et al. 2018; A. Sarangi 2022), that the final dust mass in each zone is limited by the abundance of the least abundant element among the dust constituents in each zone, after CO molecules are formed. ... We find that the large fluctuations in silicate mass can be attributed to the significant fluctuations in the mass of Si and Mg in the O-core."

    Silicate dust mass is defined by the limiting abundance among Mg, Si, and O in the O/Si/Mg zone. Therefore, the reported scatter in silicate dust masses is a stoichiometric rescaling of the input Si/Mg yields from Sukhbold et al. (2016). The paper's claim that dust stochasticity correlates with the randomness of shell-merger events is thus a restatement of input yield stochasticity rather than an independent prediction; the correlation is built in by construction. This does not invalidate the upper-limit values, but it means the headline stochasticity claim carries no information beyond the adopted stellar yields.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any dust observations: dust masses are computed as upper limits from published KEPLER/MESA yields using a limiting-reagent stoichiometry, so the core arithmetic is self-contained. The best-fit functions in Section 5.2 are descriptive fits to those computed masses, not predictions. Self-citations to Sarangi et al. (2018) and Sarangi (2022) supply the dust-formation chemistry, but that chemistry is external to this paper and not the target result, so it is not load-bearing circularity. The one mild circularity is interpretive: silicate dust mass is defined by the abundance of Si/Mg in the O/Si/Mg zone, so the reported stochasticity in dust mass is a rescaling of the input yield stochasticity; the paper's attribution of this scatter to shell-merger randomness therefore carries no independent evidential weight beyond the yields themselves. The paper itself concedes the unresolved numerical-versus-physical status of the underlying yield scatter in Section 5.1, which is a correctness risk rather than a circularity. Overall score 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central dust mass estimates are abundance-limited post-processing of external stellar yield grids, so the main input is the assumption that pre-explosion alpha abundances survive explosion and that CO chemistry sets the limiting element. The aluminum scaling is the only genuinely paper-specific free parameter used inside the derivation; the best-fit coefficients reported in Section 5.2 are descriptive fits to the paper's own output and are not load-bearing for the central upper-limit values.

free parameters (1)
  • Al abundance scaling = O/Al ratio from post-explosion KEPLER 15 Msun model, scaled to all progenitors
    Section 4: pre-explosion aluminum is altered by explosive burning, so a single post-explosion O/Al ratio from the 15 Msun KEPLER model is applied to every progenitor. This choice affects all alumina dust masses in the grid.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CO molecules form first and lock up carbon and oxygen, with dust formation limited by the least abundant constituent element after CO formation.
    Taken from previous dust chemistry models (Sarangi and Cherchneff 2013, 2015; Sarangi et al. 2018); used in Section 5 to convert abundances into dust upper limits. It is standard in this subfield but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The ejecta is stratified into unmixed zones (Si/S, O/Si/Mg, He/C, H) with chemical composition from stellar evolution models.
    Section 4 states this assumption. If macroscopic mixing between zones occurs, carbon-rich dust mass could decrease substantially; the authors argue qualitatively that silicate upper limits remain robust, but they do not model mixed cases.
  • domain assumption Pre-explosion abundances of alpha elements (O, Mg, Si) equal post-explosion abundances in the dust-forming zones.
    Section 3 and Figure 1 middle: the pre/post comparison is shown only for 15 and 20 solar mass progenitors, then applied to all 200 models in the grid.
  • domain assumption Yield stochasticity in the Sukhbold et al. (2016) KEPLER grid is physical rather than a numerical artifact.
    Section 5.1 notes the debate but proceeds to interpret silicate dust scatter as shell merging; 3D simulations are cited as supporting a physical origin but not conclusively.
  • domain assumption The compactness parameter traces the likelihood and degree of shell merging and explodability for progenitor models.
    Section 5.1 uses compactness from Ertl et al. (2016) and the shell-merging correlation from Davis et al. (2019) to connect dust mass variations to stellar structure. This is external prior work applied here.
  • domain assumption All available limiting element condenses into dust, i.e. 100 percent condensation efficiency, giving an upper limit.
    Section 5 defines the theoretical upper limit this way. The comparison to observations in Section 7 implicitly treats the ceiling as a realistic bound, although inefficiencies and dust destruction would lower real masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochasticity in Stellar Yields Reflected in Theoretical Dust Masses Estimates Across all Type II Supernova Progenitors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IKYSW5VQ

@misc{pith2026250812933,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochasticity in Stellar Yields Reflected in Theoretical Dust Masses Estimates Across all Type II Supernova Progenitors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IKYSW5VQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12933}
}
read the original abstract

Core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are among the primary sources of dust in galaxies. In this study, we derive theoretical upper limits on dust masses as a function of supernova (SN) progenitors with initial masses between 9 and 120 Msun, based on previously established models of dust formation chemistry in CCSNe. We find that O-rich dust, particularly silicates, dominates the dust budget, with masses ranging from 0.02 to 0.9 Msun, and that the total mass of O-rich dust increases with progenitor mass. C-rich amorphous carbon dust is significant for lower-mass progenitors (up to 15 Msun), but its mass never exceeds 0.05 Msun. For progenitors up to 30 Msun, we provide best-fit functions describing the masses of O-rich dust, C-rich dust, and CO molecules. A large stochastic variation is found in the predicted masses of silicate dust, which correlates with the randomness of shell-merger events in the pre-explosion phases of massive stars. Furthermore, we show that the dust mass for a given progenitor can vary by a factor of 2-5, reflecting differences in pre-explosion abundance profiles predicted by the stellar evolution codes KEPLER and MESA. We emphasize that the final dust yield in CCSNe is primarily determined by stochastic stellar yields and uncertainties in pre-explosion nucleosynthesis, while explosion properties mainly influence the timescales of dust formation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Dwek, E., Kober, G., Rho, J., & Hwang, U

    Arendt, R. G., Dwek, E., Kober, G., Rho, J., & Hwang, U. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/55

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/55 2014

  2. [2]

    Banerjee, D. P. K., Evans, A., Geballe, T. R., et al. 2018, ApJL, 867, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aae94f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aae94f 2018

  3. [3]

    M., & Fortenberry, R

    Bell, K. M., & Fortenberry, R. C. 2025, Molecules, 30, doi: 10.3390/molecules30081650

    work page doi:10.3390/molecules30081650 2025

  4. [4]

    C., Orellana, M., Folatelli, G., et al

    Bersten, M. C., Orellana, M., Folatelli, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348183

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348183 2024

  5. [5]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 642, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/642 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Jones, S., Herwig, F., & Pignatari, M

    Cherchneff, I., & Dwek, E. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 642, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/642 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Jones, S., Herwig, F., & Pignatari, M. 2020, ApJ, 892, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab77ac

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/642 2009

  6. [6]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 3921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3415 De Looze, I., Barlow, M

    Davis, A., Jones, S., & Herwig, F. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3415 De Looze, I., Barlow, M. J., Swinyard, B. M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3309, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2837

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3415 2019

  7. [7]

    2011, ApJ, 727, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/63

    Dwek, E., & Cherchneff, I. 2011, ApJ, 727, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/63

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/2/63 2011

  8. [8]

    Dwek, E., Sarangi, A., & Arendt, R. G. 2019, ApJL, 871, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf9a8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf9a8 2019

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    Ugliano, M. 2016, ApJ, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Chugai, N., et al. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 325, 907, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04282.x 10

    2001

  3. [11]

    Andrews, J. E. 2024, A&A, 687, L20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450440

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, Nature, 511, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature13558

    Gall, C., Hjorth, J., Watson, D., et al. 2014, Nature, 511, 326, doi: 10.1038/nature13558

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Plane, J

    Gobrecht, D., Hashemi, S. R., Plane, J. M. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347546

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    A., et al

    Hsu, B., Smith, N., Goldberg, J. A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.07874, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.07874

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    E., Pearson, J., Beasor, E

    Jencson, J. E., Pearson, J., Beasor, E. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace618

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 3115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2657

    Jones, S., Hirschi, R., Pignatari, M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2657

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace4ca

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Kotak, R., Meikle, W. P. S., Farrah, D., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, 306, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/306

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    Laplace, E., Justham, S., Renzo, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, ApJL, 958, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0da8

    Liu, C., Chen, X., Er, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0da8

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2017, Dust and Molecular Formation in Supernovae (Springer), 2125, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 130

    Matsuura, M. 2017, Dust and Molecular Formation in Supernovae (Springer), 2125, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 130

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    2011, Science, 333, 1258, doi: 10.1126/science.1205983

    Matsuura, M., Dwek, E., Meixner, M., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1258, doi: 10.1126/science.1205983

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    J., et al

    Matsuura, M., Dwek, E., Barlow, M. J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 800, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/50

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2003, A&A, 404, 975, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030512

    Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2003, A&A, 404, 975, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030512

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    J., & Singh, A

    Moriya, T. J., & Singh, A. 2024, PASJ, 76, 1050, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae070

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Neustadt, J. M. M., Kochanek, C. S., & Smith, M. R. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3073

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab932

    Milisavljevic, D., & De ˆA Looze, I. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2133, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab932

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    R., et al

    Niu, Z., Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4e3 O’Connor, E., & Ott, C. D. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/70

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    J., & Barlow, M

    Owen, P. J., & Barlow, M. J. 2015, ApJ, 801, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/141

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    L., & Shara, M

    Pledger, J. L., & Shara, M. M. 2023, ApJL, 953, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace88b

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2012

    Qin, Y.-J., Zhang, K., Bloom, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2012

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Jacobson-Galan, W., Kilpatrick, C., & Tartaglia, A

    Ransome, C., Villar, V. A., Jacobson-Galan, W., Kilpatrick, C., & Tartaglia, A. 2024, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 243, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 213.13

    2024

  29. [37]

    D., & Woosley, S

    Rauscher, T., Heger, A., Hoffman, R. D., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 576, 323, doi: 10.1086/341728

    2002 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Banerjee, D

    Rho, J., Geballe, T. R., Banerjee, D. P. K., et al. 2018, ApJL, 864, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad77f

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    R., et al

    Rho, J., Evans, A., Geballe, T. R., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd850

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1778

    Rizzuti, F., Hirschi, R., Varma, V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1778

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    E., et al

    Roberti, L., Pignatari, M., Brinkman, H. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554461

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.14896

    Sarangi, A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.14896. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14896

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/107

    Sarangi, A., & Cherchneff, I. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/107

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    2015, A&A, 575, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424969

    Sarangi, A., & Cherchneff, I. 2015, A&A, 575, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424969

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    Sarangi, A., Matsuura, M., & Micelotta, E. R. 2018, SSRv, 214, 63, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0492-7

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20574

    Sarangi, A., Zsiros, S., Szalai, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.20574, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.20574

    2025 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.00053

    Schneider, R., & Maiolino, R. 2023, http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.00053

    2023 arXiv

  40. [49]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 6048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1681

    Shahbandeh, M., Sarangi, A., Temim, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 6048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1681

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    D., Temim, T., et al

    Shahbandeh, M., Fox, O. D., Temim, T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 262, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adce77

    2025 doi

  42. [51]

    S., Moriya, T

    Singh, A., Teja, R. S., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7955

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    Sluder, A., Milosavljevi´ c, M., & Montgomery, M. H. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5580, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2060 11

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737

    2009 doi

  45. [54]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16050, 1

    Soraisam, M., Matheson, T., Andrews, J., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16050, 1

    2023

  46. [56]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  47. [57]

    Sukhbold, T., & Woosley, S. E. 2014, ApJ, 783, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/10

    2014 doi

  48. [58]

    E., & Heger, A

    Sukhbold, T., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2018, ApJ, 860, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2da

    2018 doi

  49. [59]

    D., Pejcha, O., & M¨ uller, T

    Szalai, T., Zs´ ıros, S., Fox, O. D., Pejcha, O., & M¨ uller, T. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab10df

    2019 doi

  50. [60]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12950, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12950

    Szalai, T., Zs´ ıros, S., Jencson, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.12950, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.12950

    2025 doi arXiv

  51. [61]

    G., et al

    Temim, T., Dwek, E., Arendt, R. G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/129 van Breemen, J. M., Min, M., Chiar, J. E., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811142 Van Dyk, S. D., Srinivasan, S., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 27, ...

    2017 doi

  52. [62]

    A., Zimmerman, G

    Weaver, T. A., Zimmerman, G. B., & Woosley, S. E. 1978, ApJ, 225, 1021, doi: 10.1086/156569

    1978 doi

  53. [63]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2eb8

    Wesson, R., & Bevan, A. 2021, ApJ, 923, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2eb8

    2021 doi

  54. [64]

    M., Barlow, M

    Wesson, R., Bevan, A. M., Barlow, M. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2505

    2023 doi

  55. [65]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009

    2007 doi

  56. [66]

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

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015

    2002 doi

  57. [68]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995b, ApJS, 101, 181, doi: 10.1086/192237

    doi

  58. [69]

    2024, Science China

    Xiang, D., Mo, J., Wang, L., et al. 2024, Science China

    2024

  59. [70]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 219514, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2267-0

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.