pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2602.15255 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Helium superluminous SN 2021bnw : an explosion of a massive star with a pre-outburst

Alexandra Kozyreva , Matteo Bugli , Alexey Mironov , Petr Baklanov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 21:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords superluminous supernovaecore-collapse supernovaecircumstellar interactionhelium-rich supernovaelight curve modelingmassive star explosionsradiative transfer
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

SLSN 2021bnw was a core-collapse explosion of a star with initial mass of at least 61 solar masses, aided by magnetorotational effects and circumstellar interaction.

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

The paper models the pseudo-bolometric light curve of the helium-rich superluminous supernova 2021bnw with hydrodynamics radiative-transfer simulations. It finds that ejecta of 15 to 22.5 solar masses containing 1.7 solar masses of nickel-56 and 4 foe of energy, colliding with 7 solar masses of circumstellar material, reproduces the observations closely. Early data match the cooling of a 0.5 solar mass shell with 0.7 foe. The authors exclude a pulsational pair-instability origin and conclude the event was a core-collapse explosion of a star of at least 61 solar masses. This adds a concrete case to the debate over whether all superluminous events require a magnetar or can arise from conventional massive-star death channels.

Core claim

Best-fit models include 15-22.5 solar masses of ejecta enriched with 1.7 solar masses of nickel-56 and carrying 4 foe of energy, colliding with 7 solar masses of circumstellar matter, which match the observed light curve. The early data can be explained as cooling of an expanding shell of 0.5 solar masses and 0.7 foe. We tend to exclude a pulsational pair-instability origin for SLSN 2021bnw and conclude that it was preferably a core-collapse explosion of a star with initial mass of not less than 61 solar masses aided by magnetorotational effects.

What carries the argument

STELLA hydrodynamics radiative-transfer simulations that fit the light curve to radioactive heating, explosion energy, and collision with circumstellar material.

If this is right

  • A star of initial mass at least 61 solar masses can end its life as a helium-rich superluminous supernova via core collapse.
  • Magnetorotational effects can supply the extra energy needed to match the observed brightness in such events.
  • About 7 solar masses of circumstellar material is required to power the main light curve through interaction.
  • The very early light curve traces the cooling of a thin, fast-expanding shell ejected shortly before explosion.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Other helium-rich superluminous supernovae that resist magnetar fits may be explained by the same core-collapse plus circumstellar-interaction channel.
  • Very massive stars can apparently retain enough helium until core collapse under conditions that also produce dense pre-explosion mass loss.
  • Late-time spectra or remnant searches could test for the expected nickel and magnetorotational signatures.

Load-bearing premise

The specific combination of ejecta mass, nickel mass, explosion energy, and circumstellar mass is the unique physical solution and the simulations capture all relevant physics without major systematic bias.

What would settle it

A successful fit of the same light curve using a pulsational pair-instability model or a pure magnetar-powered model with substantially different parameters would falsify the core-collapse plus circumstellar-interaction solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.15255 by Alexandra Kozyreva, Alexey Mironov, Matteo Bugli, Petr Baklanov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pseudo-bolometric LCs of the STELLA mod￾els m6W1 (purple), m7W1 (green), m8W2 (grey), m2W1 (light blue), and m1W5 (red), and he90W2 (dark blue), to￾gether with SN 2021bnw (circles). The numbers in legend are: ejecta mass, CSM mass, and CSM radius. Full list of physical parameters of the models can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Superluminous supernovae (SLSNe) remain an intriguing topic in supernova (SN) transient astronomy. While the majority of SLSNe are shown to be explained by energy streaming from the newly born magnetar, there are others which are powered by different mechanisms. We analyse the pseudo-bolometric light curve of the nearby helium-rich SLSN 2021bnw. We built models and run hydrodynamics radiative-transfer simulations with STELLA. Our best-fit models include 15-22.5 Msun of ejecta enriched with 1.7 Msun of 56 Ni and carrying energy of 4 foe, and colliding w ith 7 Msun of circumstellar matter which match the observed light curve very well. The early data can be explained as cooling of an expanding shell with the mass of 0.5 Msun and kinetic energy of 0.7 foe. We tend to exclude a pulsational pair-instability (PPISN) origin for SLSN 2021bnw. Instead we conclude that SLSN 2021bnw was preferably a core-collapse explosion of a star with the initial mass of not less than 61 Msun aided by magnetorotational effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the pseudo-bolometric light curve of the helium-rich superluminous supernova SN 2021bnw using hydrodynamics and radiative-transfer simulations with the STELLA code. It presents best-fit models consisting of 15-22.5 solar masses of ejecta enriched with 1.7 solar masses of 56Ni and carrying 4 foe of energy, interacting with 7 solar masses of circumstellar material, which match the observed light curve. The early data are explained by cooling of a 0.5 solar mass expanding shell with 0.7 foe kinetic energy. The authors exclude a pulsational pair-instability supernova origin and conclude that SN 2021bnw was a core-collapse explosion of a star with initial mass of at least 61 solar masses, aided by magnetorotational effects.

Significance. If the parameter combination is demonstrated to be unique and the mapping from ejecta mass to ZAMS mass is robust under quantified uncertainties, this would provide a concrete alternative to the magnetar model for at least one helium-rich SLSN and useful constraints on pre-explosion mass loss in very massive stars. The deployment of full 1D hydro plus radiative-transfer simulations is a methodological strength that allows direct comparison to the observed light curve.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the models with ejecta mass 15-22.5 Msun, 1.7 Msun 56Ni, 4 foe, and 7 Msun CSM 'match the observed light curve very well' is not accompanied by any quantitative goodness-of-fit metric or residual plot, nor by a demonstration that other physically plausible combinations (different Ni mass, lower energy, or pure magnetar powering) cannot achieve comparable agreement.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and modeling description: the inference that the progenitor had ZAMS mass not less than 61 Msun rests on the adopted ejecta-mass range without any presented stellar-evolution grid, explicit mass-loss prescription, or uncertainty quantification on the ejecta-to-ZAMS mapping; this step is load-bearing for the central claim.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the exclusion of a PPISN origin is asserted without any specific PPISN model light curve, spectral comparison, or feature (e.g., expected nickel mass or expansion velocity) shown to be inconsistent with the data.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typographical error 'w ith' (should read 'with').

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. We address each major comment below, indicating the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the models with ejecta mass 15-22.5 Msun, 1.7 Msun 56Ni, 4 foe, and 7 Msun CSM 'match the observed light curve very well' is not accompanied by any quantitative goodness-of-fit metric or residual plot, nor by a demonstration that other physically plausible combinations (different Ni mass, lower energy, or pure magnetar powering) cannot achieve comparable agreement.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative goodness-of-fit metric and residual analysis would improve the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will add the reduced chi-squared value for the best-fit model together with a residual plot. Our parameter survey showed that combinations with substantially different nickel masses or explosion energies fail to reproduce the peak luminosity, rise time and late-time slope simultaneously; we will add a short summary of these trials. Pure magnetar models are disfavored by the helium-rich spectra and the required magnetar parameters, but we will expand the discussion to make this comparison explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and modeling description: the inference that the progenitor had ZAMS mass not less than 61 Msun rests on the adopted ejecta-mass range without any presented stellar-evolution grid, explicit mass-loss prescription, or uncertainty quantification on the ejecta-to-ZAMS mapping; this step is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the ZAMS-mass inference requires additional supporting material. The ejecta-mass range is obtained directly from the STELLA fits; we will add a reference to published stellar-evolution grids for massive helium stars, state the adopted wind mass-loss prescription, and include a brief discussion of the uncertainties in the ejecta-to-ZAMS mapping. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the exclusion of a pulsational pair-instability supernova origin is asserted without any specific PPISN model light curve, spectral comparison, or feature (e.g., expected nickel mass or expansion velocity) shown to be inconsistent with the data.

    Authors: We will revise the text to provide a more explicit justification. We will compare the derived nickel mass (1.7 solar masses) and expansion velocities to the lower nickel yields and distinct light-curve morphologies predicted by published PPISN models, thereby clarifying why a PPISN origin is disfavored. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard parameter fitting with independent simulation content

full rationale

The paper describes building models and running STELLA hydrodynamics radiative-transfer simulations to identify best-fit parameters (ejecta mass 15-22.5 Msun, 1.7 Msun Ni, 4 foe, 7 Msun CSM) that reproduce the observed light curve. This is standard forward modeling rather than a claimed prediction that reduces to the inputs by construction. The progenitor mass inference (>=61 Msun ZAMS) follows from mapping the fitted ejecta mass under standard assumptions, but no self-definitional loop, fitted quantity renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation is exhibited in the text. The simulations supply independent physical content, so the derivation chain does not collapse to tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several fitted parameters chosen to reproduce the light curve and on standard assumptions about supernova hydrodynamics and radiative transfer.

free parameters (6)
  • ejecta mass = 15-22.5 Msun
    Adjusted between 15 and 22.5 solar masses to match the observed light curve
  • nickel-56 mass = 1.7 Msun
    Set to 1.7 solar masses to provide radioactive decay power
  • explosion energy = 4 foe
    Set to 4 foe carried by the ejecta
  • CSM mass = 7 Msun
    Set to 7 solar masses for interaction with ejecta
  • pre-outburst shell mass = 0.5 Msun
    Set to 0.5 solar masses for early cooling emission
  • shell kinetic energy = 0.7 foe
    Set to 0.7 foe for the early shell
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption STELLA hydrodynamics and radiative-transfer code accurately models supernova ejecta and circumstellar interaction
    Invoked when stating that the simulations match the light curve
  • domain assumption Core-collapse mechanism aided by magnetorotational effects can produce the required explosion energy in stars above 61 solar masses
    Used to interpret the best-fit model as a core-collapse event

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5539 in / 1631 out tokens · 49576 ms · 2026-05-15T21:19:54.801380+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Our best-fit models include 15-22.5 Msun of ejecta enriched with 1.7 Msun of 56Ni and carrying energy of 4 foe, and colliding with 7 Msun of circumstellar matter which match the observed light curve very well.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    \'A ., & Obergaulinger , M

    Aloy, M. Á., & Obergaulinger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 4365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3273 2021

  2. [2]

    and Rakavy, G

    Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, Physical Review Letters, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.18.379 1967

  3. [3]

    S., & Kazhdan, Y

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Kazhdan, Y. M. 1967, Soviet Ast., 10, 604

    work page 1967

  4. [4]

    S., Popov, I

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., Popov, I. P., & Samokhin, A. A. 1976, Ap&SS, 41, 287, doi: 10.1007/BF00646184

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00646184 1976

  5. [5]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 1132, doi: 10.1086/308588

    Iwamoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1132, doi: 10.1086/308588

    work page doi:10.1086/308588 2000

  6. [6]

    I., Dunina-Barkovskaya, N

    Blinnikov, S. I., Dunina-Barkovskaya, N. V., & Nadyozhin, D. K. 1996, ApJS, 106, 171, doi: 10.1086/192334

    work page doi:10.1086/192334 1996

  7. [7]

    I., Eastman R., Bartunov O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V. A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454, doi: 10.1086/305375

    work page doi:10.1086/305375 1998

  8. [8]

    P., et al

    Blondin, S., Blinnikov, S., Callan, F. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244134

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244134 2022

  9. [9]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 5622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad496

    Bugli, M., Guilet, J., Foglizzo, T., & Obergaulinger, M. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 5622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad496

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad496 2023

  10. [10]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2161

    Bugli, M., Guilet, J., & Obergaulinger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2161

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2161 2021

  11. [11]

    Bugli, M., Guilet, J., Obergaulinger, M., Cerdá-Durán, P., & Aloy, M. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 58, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3483

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3483 2020

  12. [12]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 2007

  13. [13]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H

    Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H. T. 2020, ApJ, 890, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458 2020

  14. [14]

    A., & Novikova, M

    Fadeyev, Y. A., & Novikova, M. F. 2004, Astronomy Letters, 30, 707, doi: 10.1134/1.1808057

    work page doi:10.1134/1.1808057 2004

  15. [15]

    The nearby He-rich superluminous supernova SN 2021bnw at photospheric phases

    Fiore, A., Kozyreva, A., Yan, L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.12948. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12948

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    and Hoyle, F

    Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1964, ApJS, 9, 201, doi: 10.1086/190103

    work page doi:10.1086/190103 1964

  17. [17]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty369

    Fuller, J., & Ro, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1853, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty369

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty369 2018

  18. [18]

    2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 Gräfener, G

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927, doi: 10.1126/science.1203601 Gräfener, G. 2021, A&A, 647, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040037

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1203601 2012

  19. [19]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 2764, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3819

    Obergaulinger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2764, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3819

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3819 2021

  20. [20]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487

    work page doi:10.1086/338487 2002

  21. [21]

    2004, A&A, 425, 649, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041095

    Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2004, A&A, 425, 649, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041095

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041095 2004

  22. [22]

    2025, MNRAS, 543, 2796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1470

    Hirschi, R., Goodman, K., Meynet, G., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2796, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1470

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1470 2025

  23. [23]

    1994, ApJL, 437, L115, doi: 10.1086/187696

    Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., Höflich, P., et al. 1994, ApJL, 437, L115, doi: 10.1086/187696

    work page doi:10.1086/187696 1994

  24. [24]

    E., & Heger, A

    Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2011, ApJ, 734, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/102 8 A. Kozyreva, et al

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/102 2011

  25. [25]

    2026a, PISN light curve collection computed with hydrodynamics radiative-transfer code STELLA, 1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18421741

    Kozyreva, A. 2026a, PISN light curve collection computed with hydrodynamics radiative-transfer code STELLA, 1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18421741

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18421741

  26. [26]

    2026b, Helium superluminous SN 2021bnw: an explosion of a massive star with a pre-outburst, 1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18406187

    Kozyreva, A. 2026b, Helium superluminous SN 2021bnw: an explosion of a massive star with a pre-outburst, 1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18406187

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18406187

  27. [27]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcbe

    Leung, S.-C., Fuller, J., & Nomoto, K. 2021, ApJ, 915, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcbe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfcbe 2021

  28. [28]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Blinnikov, S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5 2019

  29. [29]

    Collapsars - Gamma-Ray Bursts and Explosions in "Failed Supernovae"

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/307790 1999

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426

    Marchant, P., Renzo, M., Farmer, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426 2019

  31. [31]

    2023, A&A, 679, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347514

    Hirschi, R. 2023, A&A, 679, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347514

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347514 2023

  32. [32]

    D., & Ro, S

    Matzner, C. D., & Ro, S. 2021, ApJ, 908, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd03b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd03b 2021

  33. [33]

    A., Deng , J., Nomoto , K., et al

    Mazzali, P. A., Deng, J., Nomoto, K., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1018, doi: 10.1038/nature05081

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05081 2006

  34. [34]

    2005, A&A, 429, 581, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047106

    Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2005, A&A, 429, 581, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047106

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20047106 2005

  35. [35]

    The origin of the dust in high-redshift quasars: the case of SDSS J1148+5251

    Moriya, T., Tominaga, N., Blinnikov, S. I., Baklanov, P. V., & Sorokina, E. I. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 199, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18689.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18689.x 2011

  36. [36]

    J., Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Blinnikov, S. I., Tominaga, N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts075

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts075 2013

  37. [37]

    J., Chen, T.-W., & Langer, N

    Moriya, T. J., Chen, T.-W., & Langer, N. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/177

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/177 2017

  38. [38]

    J., Marchant, P., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Marchant, P., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2020, A&A, 641, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038903

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038903 2020

  39. [39]

    J., Sorokina, E

    Moriya, T. J., Sorokina, E. I., & Chevalier, R. A. 2018, Space Science Review, 214, 59, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0493-6 Müller, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.18952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.18952

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0493-6 2018

  40. [40]

    M., Taubenberger, S., Blinnikov, S., Sorokina, E., & Hillebrandt, W

    Noebauer, U. M., Taubenberger, S., Blinnikov, S., Sorokina, E., & Hillebrandt, W. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2197

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2197 2016

  41. [41]

    Obergaulinger, M., & Aloy, M. Á. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4942, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab295

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab295 2021

  42. [42]

    2020, in Handbook of Nuclear Physics

    Obergaulinger, M., & Reichert, M. 2020, in Handbook of Nuclear Physics. ISBN: 978-981-15-8818-1. Springer, 90, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1_90-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1_90-1 2020

  43. [43]

    Poidevin, F., Omand, C. M. B., Könyves-Tóth, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad830

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad830 2023

  44. [44]

    2021, MNRAS, 503, 2108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab614

    Powell, J., Müller, B., & Heger, A. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 2108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab614

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab614 2021

  45. [45]

    , author Heald , G.H

    Quataert, E., & Shiode, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x 2012

  46. [46]

    Rahman, N., Janka, H.-T., Stockinger, G., & Woosley, S. E. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac758

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac758 2022

  47. [47]

    , year = 1967, month = jun, volume =

    Rakavy, G., & Shaviv, G. 1967, ApJ, 148, 803, doi: 10.1086/149204

    work page doi:10.1086/149204 1967

  48. [48]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae561

    Reichert, M., Bugli, M., Guilet, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae561

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae561 2024

  49. [49]

    ´A., et al

    Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., Aloy, M. Á., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3185

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3185 2023

  50. [50]

    2020, A&A, 640, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037710

    Renzo, M., Farmer, R., Justham, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037710

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037710 2020

  51. [51]

    M., Agarwal, A., Barnes, J., et al

    Siegel, D. M., Agarwal, A., Barnes, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d04 2022

  52. [52]

    M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Nature, 569, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0 2019

  53. [53]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/266

    Tolstov, A., Nomoto, K., Blinnikov, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/266

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/266 2017

  54. [54]

    2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag626

    Varma, V., & Müller, B. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag626 2026

  55. [55]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, 3846, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1860

    Varma, V., Müller, B., & Hirschi, R. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3846, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1860

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1860 2025

  56. [56]

    Vink, J. S. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 412, Very Massive Stars in the Local Universe, ed. J. S. Vink, 77, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09596-7_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09596-7_4 2015

  57. [57]

    Wagoner, R. V. 1969, ARA&A, 7, 553, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.07.090169.003005

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.07.090169.003005 1969

  58. [58]

    C., Chatzopoulos, E., Vinkó, J., & Tuminello, R

    Wheeler, J. C., Chatzopoulos, E., Vinkó, J., & Tuminello, R. 2017, ApJL, 851, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9d84

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9d84 2017

  59. [59]

    E., Hirschi, R., Varma, V., et al

    Whitehead, E. E., Hirschi, R., Varma, V., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, staf2245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2245

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2245 2026

  60. [60]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 2017

  61. [61]

    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

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.1015 2002

  62. [62]

    T., Melson, T., & Heger, A

    Yadav, N., Müller, B., Janka, H. T., Melson, T., & Heger, A. 2020, ApJ, 890, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab66bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab66bb 2020

  63. [63]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.13758

    Yan, L., Perley, D., Schulze, S., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.13758. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.13758

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    2010, ApJL, 717, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L62

    Yoon, S.-C., & Cantiello, M. 2010, ApJL, 717, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L62

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/l62 2010

  65. [65]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv3002

    Yoshida, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., & Ishii, T. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 457, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv3002

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv3002 2016

  66. [66]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 1114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt794

    Yusof, N., Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1114, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt794

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt794 2013

  67. [67]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2c3

    Zhu, J., Jiang, N., Dong, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2c3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc2c3 2023