pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.23356 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Revisiting the Perseus Cluster III: Role of Aspherical Explosions on its Chemical Composition and Extension to Metal-Poor Stars and Galaxies

Shing-Chi Leung , Henry Yerdon , Seth Walther , Ken'ichi Nomoto , Aurora Simionescu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 18:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE
keywords supernovaecollapsarschemical abundancesPerseus Clustergalactic chemical evolutionmetal-poor starsaspherical explosionsnucleosynthesis
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Jet-induced explosions are required to match elemental abundances in the Perseus Cluster and Milky Way trends.

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

This paper extends spherical supernova models by calculating yields from aspherical jet-induced explosions of massive stars across metallicities. Detailed post-processing shows these models improve agreement with measured ratios of Si-group and Fe-group elements in the Perseus Cluster. The same yields produce diversity in nickel production and Ti-V relations while also reproducing zinc enrichment in metal-poor stars such as HE 1327-2326. When used in galactic chemical evolution calculations, the models indicate that collapsars must contribute to explain observed elemental patterns across the Milky Way. A reader would care because the result ties a specific explosion geometry to the chemical record of both clusters and individual stars.

Core claim

Jet-induced aspherical explosions produce chemical yields that fit the Si, S, Ar, Ca, Cr, Mn, and Ni ratios observed in the Perseus Cluster more closely than spherical models. These explosions generate a range of outcomes consistent with the observed spread in 56Ni mass versus ejecta mass and the Ti-V abundance relation. When the resulting yields are included in Milky Way chemical evolution models, collapsars prove necessary to reproduce multiple elemental trends, including the high zinc content of stars like HE 1327-2326.

What carries the argument

The jet-induced explosion mechanism, which drives aspherical outflows and enables targeted nucleosynthesis of odd-Z and iron-group elements through large post-processing networks.

If this is right

  • Collapsar models reproduce the observed diversity between 56Ni mass and ejecta mass.
  • The explosions account for the Ti-V relation seen in stellar abundances.
  • Collapsars produce significant changes in zinc abundance during galactic chemical evolution.
  • Metal-poor star observations can constrain both the rate and key parameters of collapsar events.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Early galactic chemical enrichment likely required a larger fraction of jet-driven events than spherical-only models assume.
  • Abundance patterns in the first galaxies may need aspherical explosion effects to match current observations.
  • High-redshift elemental ratio measurements could directly test the minimum collapsar contribution required.

Load-bearing premise

The jet-induced explosion models and post-processing network accurately capture production of odd-number elements and iron-group species without additional free parameters tuned to the target observations.

What would settle it

A set of elemental abundance ratios measured in a metal-poor star or galaxy cluster that cannot be reproduced by any linear combination of collapsar yields and standard spherical supernova yields would falsify the necessity of collapsars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.23356 by Aurora Simionescu, Henry Yerdon, Ken'ichi Nomoto, Seth Walther, Shing-Chi Leung.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (top panel) The pre-explosion density (blue lines) and temperature (orange lines) profiles for the M40-series. The solid lines correspond to the initial profile used in this work, and the dashed lines correspond to that from Nomoto et al. (2013a) used in Leung et al. (2023). (bottom panel) The pre-explosion chemical composition profile used for the M40 series (solid lines) and that from Nomoto et al. (2013… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The chemical composition [Xi/ 56Fe] for M40-100-100 after all short-lived radioactive isotopes have decayed. The two horizontal lines correspond to two times (upper line) and half (lower line) of the solar value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The elemental mass fraction [X/Fe] for M40-100- 100. values, and other elements are underproduced. Both models fail to produce enough Cl and K to be compat￾ible with the solar abundance. The overproduction of Zn and other elements in the new characteristic models, as we discuss in a later section, is an important feature that we can adapt to constrain their relative rates. 3. DEPENDENCE ON EXPLOSION MODELS… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The initial tracer distribution for both bound by gravity (blue circles) and ejected (pink triangles). The annotations and circles correspond to the element shell from the pre-explosion models for M20-100-100 (top panel), M30- 100-100 (middle panel) and M40-100-100 (bottom panel). overproduced; isotopes from S to Fe are well produced, including Co and Mn, but K and Sc are underproduced. The most significan… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (top panel) The isotopic mass fraction [X/56Fe] (in solar unit) for M20-050-100, M20-100-100 and M20-200-100. (middle panel) Same as the top panel but for M30-050-100, M30-100-100 and M30-200-100. (bottom panel) Same as the top panel but for M40-050-100, M40-100-100 and M40-200-100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (top panel) The elemenal mass fraction [X/56Fe] (in solar unit) for M20-050-100, M20-100-100 and M20-200- 100. (middle panel) Same as the top panel but for M30-050- 100, M30-100-100 and M30-200-100. (bottom panel) Same as the top panel but for M40-050-100, M40-100-100 and M40- 200-100. for high-density matter in the nuclear statistical equi￾librium. In the bottom panel, we plot the elements for the M40 ser… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (top panel) The [S/Fe] against [Si/Fe] for the models presented in this work, with observational data ob￾tained from the Perseus Cluster. (middle panel) Same as the top panel, but for [Ar/Fe] against [S/Fe]. (bottom panel) Same as the top panel, but for [Ca/Fe] against [S/Fe]. an inverted population of collapsar, opposite to the Sal￾paeter relation for ordinary stars. Then we apply the collapsar models to … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The 56Ni yield against ejecta for the models presented in this work. Observational data are taken from supernova surveys for superluminous SNe Ib/c (De Cia et al. 2018), SNe Ic-BL (Taddia et al. 2019), and luminous SNe Ib/c (Gomez et al. 2022). Such a high entropy, although the density is not high enough for nuclear statistical equilibrium, could push the nuclear reactions along the α-chain to the lower-h… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The left column shows the best runs for models including the LN18(Ka4) SN Ia yields, given data from the Milky Way via the SAGA database; the right column shows the same for models including the SK18 SN Ia yields. The top row shows the runs from models using the weak collapsar yields, the second row shows runs corresponding to the medium collapsar yields, and the last row shows the runs corresponding to t… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The chemical element evolution for the best models from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The Zn/Fe for various SN Ia models with our different Collapsar models. The Navy blue circle represents HE 1327-2326, a hyper-metal-poor star extremely dense with zinc. We include LN25-LN18Ka4-S (black triangles), LN25-LN18Ka4-M (green octagon), LN25-LN18Ka4-W (or￾ange pentagon), LN25-SK18-S (cyan star), LN25-SK18-M (red square), and LN25-SK18-W (purple cross) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The chemical abundances X/Fe for various col￾lapsar models. The included models are LN25-LN18Ka4-S (pink diamond), LN25-LN18Ka4-M (purple triangle), LN25- LN18Ka4-W (orange diamond), LN25-SK18-S (green X), LN25-SK18-M (lime circle), LN25-SK18-W (blue star). The error bars correspond to the measurements of the Perseus Cluster from Simionescu et al. (2019). lapsar is shown to be a robust source of Eu in the… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Perseus Cluster has been precisely measured by the legacy Hitomi telescope on the Si-group (Si, S, Ar, Ca) and Fe-group elements (Cr, Mn, Ni). These element abundance ratios provide insight into the typical behaviour of supernovae. In Paper II, we presented new massive star explosion models at various metallicity, assuming spherical explosions. We show that while the fitting is improved, some features (e.g., Ni/Fe) remain to be improved. In this article, we extend our calculation to an aspherical explosion using the jet-induced explosion mechanism. The detailed pre- and post-explosion chemical profiles are calculated with a large post-processing network to capture the production of odd-number elements (V, Mn, Cu) and iron-group elements. We further explore how the jet-driven explosions create the diversity of models which could be compatible with the observed diversity in terms of $^{56}$Ni-mass vs ejecta mass, Ti-V relation, and stellar abundances. Finally, we apply the new collapsar models in the Galactic Chemical Evolution context. We study how the galactic stars, including the Zn-enriched star HE 1327-2326, can put constraints on the relative rates of collapsar and some of its model parameters. We show that collapsar could lead to significant changes in some elements, e.g., Zn. Our study shows that the collapsar is a necessary component to explain multiple elemental trends observed in the Milky Way Galaxy.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends spherical supernova explosion models from Paper II to aspherical jet-induced (collapsar) explosions for massive stars at various metallicities. It computes detailed pre- and post-explosion chemical profiles with a large post-processing network to track odd-Z and iron-group elements, explores model diversity in 56Ni mass, ejecta mass, and Ti-V relations, and incorporates the yields into Galactic Chemical Evolution calculations. The central claim is that collapsars are a necessary component to reproduce multiple elemental trends in the Milky Way, including Zn enrichment in metal-poor stars such as HE 1327-2326 and abundance patterns in the Perseus Cluster.

Significance. If the necessity claim is substantiated, the work would provide a concrete mechanism linking jet-driven explosions to observed diversity in iron-group and odd-Z element ratios across metallicities, with direct implications for interpreting Hitomi Perseus data and metal-poor stellar abundances. The detailed post-processing network and extension to GCE represent a strength in connecting explosion physics to galactic trends.

major comments (3)
  1. [GCE application and abstract] The necessity claim for collapsars (stated in the abstract and GCE section) rests on the assertion that spherical models from Paper II cannot reproduce the same MW trends, yet no systematic parameter scan over spherical explosion energy, 56Ni mass, or mixing is reported to demonstrate that no alternative spherical combination achieves comparable fits to the Ti-V or Zn/Fe relations at the relevant metallicities.
  2. [Abstract and GCE results] Quantitative support for improved fits is absent: the abstract states that fitting is improved and that collapsars lead to significant changes (e.g., in Zn), but no error bars, chi-squared values, exclusion criteria, or direct comparison tables between spherical and aspherical yields in the GCE integration are provided, leaving the central claim vulnerable to unstated parameter tuning.
  3. [Galactic Chemical Evolution context] The GCE integration appears to calibrate collapsar rates and parameters against the same observed abundances (e.g., HE 1327-2326 Zn) that are then presented as predictions, without explicit separation of fitting data from validation data or cross-validation against independent constraints such as Perseus Cluster ratios.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model description] Notation for jet parameters (energy, opening angle) is introduced but not tabulated with explicit ranges or sensitivity tests; a table listing the explored parameter space would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Yield comparisons] The manuscript references Paper II for spherical models but does not include a concise side-by-side yield table for key elements (V, Mn, Zn, Ni) at the metallicities relevant to HE 1327-2326.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the necessity claim, add quantitative comparisons, and clarify the GCE methodology. Our responses focus on the scientific substance of the points raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The necessity claim for collapsars (stated in the abstract and GCE section) rests on the assertion that spherical models from Paper II cannot reproduce the same MW trends, yet no systematic parameter scan over spherical explosion energy, 56Ni mass, or mixing is reported to demonstrate that no alternative spherical combination achieves comparable fits to the Ti-V or Zn/Fe relations at the relevant metallicities.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of an explicit demonstration that no spherical parameter combination can match the observed trends. Paper II already varied explosion energy, 56Ni mass, and mixing over a broad range for spherical models, showing persistent shortfalls in Zn/Fe and certain odd-Z ratios at low metallicity. The revised manuscript adds a dedicated paragraph in the GCE section that summarizes those limitations from Paper II and explains the physical distinction: jet-driven aspherical explosions produce unique high-entropy conditions and neutron-rich pockets that enhance Zn production via specific alpha-rich freezeout pathways unavailable under spherical symmetry. While a new exhaustive spherical scan is beyond the scope of this work, the added discussion clarifies why such adjustments cannot replicate the collapsar yields. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Quantitative support for improved fits is absent: the abstract states that fitting is improved and that collapsars lead to significant changes (e.g., in Zn), but no error bars, chi-squared values, exclusion criteria, or direct comparison tables between spherical and aspherical yields in the GCE integration are provided, leaving the central claim vulnerable to unstated parameter tuning.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics strengthen the central claim. The revised manuscript now includes a new table (Table 5) that directly compares GCE predictions using only spherical yields versus the combined spherical-plus-collapsar yields. The table reports reduced chi-squared values for key ratios ([Zn/Fe], [Ti/V], [Mn/Fe]) against the metal-poor star sample and Perseus Cluster data, along with 1-sigma uncertainties on the model predictions derived from the yield variations. Exclusion criteria based on >3-sigma deviations are also stated explicitly. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The GCE integration appears to calibrate collapsar rates and parameters against the same observed abundances (e.g., HE 1327-2326 Zn) that are then presented as predictions, without explicit separation of fitting data from validation data or cross-validation against independent constraints such as Perseus Cluster ratios.

    Authors: We have revised the GCE section to make the distinction explicit. The collapsar rate and jet-energy parameter are calibrated solely to the Milky Way stellar abundance trends, including the Zn enhancement in HE 1327-2326 and other metal-poor stars. The Perseus Cluster abundance ratios (Si/Fe, S/Fe, Cr/Fe, Mn/Fe, Ni/Fe) from Hitomi are treated as an independent validation set and are not used in the rate calibration. A new paragraph and accompanying figure now show the model predictions for the cluster without any additional tuning, demonstrating consistency within observational uncertainties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Necessity claim for collapsars rests on GCE fits to MW abundances without independent validation against spherical alternatives

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "We apply the new collapsar models in the Galactic Chemical Evolution context. We study how the galactic stars, including the Zn-enriched star HE 1327-2326, can put constraints on the relative rates of collapsar and some of its model parameters. We show that collapsar could lead to significant changes in some elements, e.g., Zn. Our study shows that the collapsar is a necessary component to explain multiple elemental trends observed in the Milky Way Galaxy."

    The collapsar yields are inserted into GCE and tuned (via relative rates and parameters) to reproduce the same observed abundance trends (Zn enrichment, Ti-V, odd-Z ratios) that are then cited as evidence that collapsars are required. Without an explicit demonstration that spherical models from Paper II cannot achieve comparable fits through variation of explosion energy, 56Ni mass, or mixing, the 'necessity' is statistically forced by the fitting procedure itself.

full rationale

The paper builds jet-induced collapsar yields via post-processing, then inserts them into GCE simulations to match observed elemental trends (Zn, odd-Z/Fe ratios) in metal-poor stars and the Milky Way. The central claim that collapsars are 'necessary' follows directly from these fits. No systematic scan of spherical-explosion parameters from Paper II is reported to show that equivalent chi-squared cannot be reached by reparameterization alone, so the necessity statement reduces to a fitted result presented as an independent requirement. This matches the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern at moderate severity; the rest of the derivation (yield calculation, Perseus Cluster comparison) remains independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; free parameters for jet geometry and energy are implied but unspecified; relies on standard nucleosynthesis networks and the assumption that jet-induced explosions produce the observed diversity.

free parameters (1)
  • jet parameters (energy, opening angle, etc.)
    Likely adjusted to generate diversity in 56Ni mass and Ti-V relations matching observations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Jet-induced mechanism produces realistic pre- and post-explosion chemical profiles for odd-Z and iron-group elements
    Invoked when extending spherical models to aspherical cases.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5600 in / 1261 out tokens · 36834 ms · 2026-05-15T18:42:01.892635+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Numerical Simulations of MHD Turbulence in Accretion Disks

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270 —. 2003, in Turbulence and Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics, ed. E. Falgarone & T. Passot, Vol. 614, 329–348, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0203353

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  2. [2]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  3. [3]

    A., Tissera, P

    Bignone, L. A., Tissera, P. B., & Pellizza, L. J. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4921, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1132

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1132 2017

  4. [4]

    P., Drout, M

    Brauer, K., Ji, A. P., Drout, M. R., & Frebel, A. 2021, ApJ, 915, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b2 2021

  5. [5]

    Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.29.547 1957

  6. [6]

    Cameron, A. G. W. 1957, AJ, 62, 9, doi: 10.1086/107435

    work page doi:10.1086/107435 1957

  7. [7]

    2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034074 2004

  8. [8]

    1998, ApJL, 507, L131, doi: 10.1086/311691

    Cen, R. 1998, ApJL, 507, L131, doi: 10.1086/311691

    work page doi:10.1086/311691 1998

  9. [9]

    2004, ApJ, 608, 405, doi: 10.1086/392523

    Chieffi, A., & Limongi, M. 2004, ApJ, 608, 405, doi: 10.1086/392523 De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., Rubin, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9b6

    work page doi:10.1086/392523 2004

  10. [10]

    U., et al

    Ezzeddine, R., Frebel, A., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e7 2019

  11. [11]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 6008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3385

    Fraser, J., & Sch¨ onrich, R. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 6008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3385

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3385 2022

  12. [12]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670, doi: 10.1038/27150 —. 1999, A&AS, 138, 465, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999311

    work page doi:10.1038/27150 1998

  13. [13]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    Hosseinzadeh, G. 2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842 2022

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    Harris and K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  16. [16]

    N., Kobayashi, C., Tominaga, N., & Nomoto, K

    Hartwig, T., Ishigaki, M. N., Kobayashi, C., Tominaga, N., & Nomoto, K. 2023, ApJ, 946, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc6 2023

  17. [17]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/338487 2002

  18. [18]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 187, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/187 H¨ oflich, P., Wheeler, J

    Hjorth, J., Malesani, D., Jakobsson, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 187, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/187 H¨ oflich, P., Wheeler, J. C., & Wang, L. 1999, ApJ, 521, 179, doi: 10.1086/307521

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/187 2012

  19. [19]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 21

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  20. [20]

    N., Hartwig, T., Tarumi, Y., et al

    Ishigaki, M. N., Hartwig, T., Tarumi, Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1982

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1982 2021

  21. [21]

    A., Nomoto , K., et al

    Iwamoto, K., Mazzali, P. A., Nomoto, K., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 672, doi: 10.1038/27155

    work page doi:10.1038/27155 1998

  22. [22]

    T., Langanke, K., Marek, A., Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G., & M¨ uller, B

    Janka, H. T., Langanke, K., Marek, A., Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G., & M¨ uller, B. 2007, PhR, 442, 38, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.002 2007

  23. [23]

    S., Beers, T

    Jeong, M., Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc58a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc58a 2023

  24. [24]

    M., H¨ oflich, P

    Khokhlov, A. M., H¨ oflich, P. A., Oran, E. S., et al. 1999, ApJL, 524, L107, doi: 10.1086/312305

    work page doi:10.1086/312305 1999

  25. [25]

    N., Xie, J

    Kirby, E. N., Xie, J. L., Guo, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2c02

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2c02 2019

  26. [26]

    M., & Wilson, J

    LeBlanc, J. M., & Wilson, J. R. 1970, ApJ, 161, 541, doi: 10.1086/150558

    work page doi:10.1086/150558 1970

  27. [27]

    C., Chu, M

    Leung, S. C., Chu, M. C., & Lin, L. M. 2015a, MNRAS, 454, 1238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1923 —. 2015b, ApJ, 812, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/110

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1923

  28. [28]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2df

    Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 861, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2df —. 2020, ApJ, 888, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c1f —. 2024, ApJ, 974, 310, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6ddb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2df 2018

  29. [29]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21032, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21032

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Simionescu, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.21032, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.21032

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.21032 2025

  30. [30]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2f —

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 2020, ApJ, 889, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2f —. 2023, ApJ, 948, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbdf5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2f 2020

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 884, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3b5e

    Leung, S.-C., Zha, S., Chu, M.-C., Lin, L.-M., & Nomoto, K. 2019, ApJ, 884, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3b5e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3b5e 2019

  32. [32]

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

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790 M¨ uller, B. 2020, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41115-020-0008-5

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/307790 1999

  33. [33]

    1997, ApJ, 486, 1026, doi: 10.1086/304565

    Nagataki, S., Hashimoto, M.-a., Sato, K., & Yamada, S. 1997, ApJ, 486, 1026, doi: 10.1086/304565

    work page doi:10.1086/304565 1997

  34. [34]

    2006, ApJ, 647, 1255, doi: 10.1086/505618

    Nagataki, S., Mizuta, A., & Sato, K. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1255, doi: 10.1086/505618

    work page doi:10.1086/505618 2006

  35. [35]

    2003, ApJ, 596, 401, doi: 10.1086/377530

    Nagataki, S., Mizuta, A., Yamada, S., Takabe, H., & Sato, K. 2003, ApJ, 596, 401, doi: 10.1086/377530

    work page doi:10.1086/377530 2003

  36. [36]

    M., & Sato, K

    Nagataki, S., Shimizu, T. M., & Sato, K. 1998, ApJ, 495, 413, doi: 10.1086/305258

    work page doi:10.1086/305258 1998

  37. [37]

    Nucleosynthesis in Stars and the Chemical Enrichment of Galaxies

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013a, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956 —. 2013b, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

  38. [38]

    2001, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Nomoto, K., Maeda, K., Umeda, H., & Nakamura, T. 2001, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 264, The Influence of Binaries on Stellar Population Studies, ed. D. Vanbeveren, 507, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9723-4 36 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9723-4 2001

  39. [39]

    A., Tanvir, N

    Perley, D. A., Tanvir, N. R., Hjorth, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 8, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/8 2016

  40. [40]

    U., Preston, G

    Roederer, I. U., Preston, G. W., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/136 2014

  41. [41]

    U., Lawler, J

    Roederer, I. U., Lawler, J. E., Sobeck, J. S., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 27, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/27

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/27 2012

  42. [42]

    D., et al

    Salvaterra, R., Campana, S., Vergani, S. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/68

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/68 2012

  43. [43]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 3068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2416

    Sarkar, A., Su, Y., Truong, N., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2416

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2416 2022

  44. [44]

    J., Kasen D., Miles B

    Shen, K. J., Kasen, D., Miles, B. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2018, ApJ, 854, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8de 2018

  45. [45]

    1999, High Order ENO and WENO Schemes for Computational Fluid Dynamics, ed

    Shu, C.-W. 1999, High Order ENO and WENO Schemes for Computational Fluid Dynamics, ed. T. J. Barth & H. Deconinck (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 439–582, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-03882-6 5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03882-6 1999

  46. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3220

    Simionescu, A., Nakashima, S., Yamaguchi, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3220

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3220 2019

  47. [47]

    1998, IAUC, 6884, 1

    Soffitta, P., Feroci, M., Piro, L., et al. 1998, IAUC, 6884, 1

    work page 1998

  48. [48]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 1159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159

    Suda, T., Katsuta, Y., Yamada, S., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159 2008

  49. [49]

    2019, , 621, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834429

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834429

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834429 2019

  50. [50]

    Timmes, F. X. 1999, ApJS, 124, 241, doi: 10.1086/313257

    work page doi:10.1086/313257 1999

  51. [51]

    X., & Arnett, D

    Timmes, F. X., & Arnett, D. 1999, ApJS, 125, 277, doi: 10.1086/313271

    work page doi:10.1086/313271 1999

  52. [52]

    X., Hoffman, R

    Timmes, F. X., Hoffman, R. D., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, ApJS, 129, 377, doi: 10.1086/313407

    work page doi:10.1086/313407 2000

  53. [53]

    X., & Swesty, F

    Timmes, F. X., & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501, doi: 10.1086/313304

    work page doi:10.1086/313304 2000

  54. [54]

    X., Woosley, S

    Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 98, 617, doi: 10.1086/192172

    work page doi:10.1086/192172 1995

  55. [55]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 526, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/526

    Tominaga, N. 2009, ApJ, 690, 526, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/526

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/1/526 2009

  56. [56]

    2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063

    Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063

    work page doi:10.1086/513063 2007

  57. [57]

    K., Gallino, R., & Hillebrandt, W

    Travaglio, C., R¨ opke, F. K., Gallino, R., & Hillebrandt, W. 2011, ApJ, 739, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/93

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/2/93 2011

  58. [58]

    2002, ApJ, 565, 385, doi: 10.1086/323946

    Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2002, ApJ, 565, 385, doi: 10.1086/323946

    work page doi:10.1086/323946 2002

  59. [59]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 5903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2899 22

    Roman-Lopes, A. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2899 22

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2899 2021

  60. [60]

    Wang, R., & Spiteri, R. J. 2007, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 45, 5, doi: 10.1137/050637868

    work page doi:10.1137/050637868 2007

  61. [61]

    C., Yi, I., H¨ oflich, P., & Wang, L

    Wheeler, J. C., Yi, I., H¨ oflich, P., & Wang, L. 2000, ApJ, 537, 810, doi: 10.1086/309055

    work page doi:10.1086/309055 2000

  62. [62]

    E., Eastman R

    Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., & Schmidt, B. P. 1999, ApJ, 516, 788, doi: 10.1086/307131

    work page doi:10.1086/307131 1999

  63. [63]

    E., & MacFadyen, A

    Woosley, S. E., & MacFadyen, A. I. 1999, A&AS, 138, 499, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999325

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1999325 1999

  64. [64]

    2019a, ApJ, 883, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3640

    Zha, S., Chu, M.-C., Leung, S.-C., & Lin, L.-M. 2019a, ApJ, 883, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3640

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3640

  65. [65]

    2019b, ApJ, 886, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b4b

    Zha, S., Leung, S.-C., Suzuki, T., & Nomoto, K. 2019b, ApJ, 886, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b4b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b4b

  66. [66]

    E., & Heger, A

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2004, ApJ, 608, 365, doi: 10.1086/386300

    work page doi:10.1086/386300 2004

  67. [67]

    E., & MacFadyen, A

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & MacFadyen, A. I. 2003, ApJ, 586, 356, doi: 10.1086/367609

    work page doi:10.1086/367609 2003

  68. [68]

    E., & MacFadyen, A

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & MacFadyen, A. I. 2006, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 46, Journal of Physics Conference Series, ed. V. Reis, Dr. (IOP), 403–407, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/46/1/055 23

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/46/1/055 2006