pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29381 · v1 · pith:SBMRACOVnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

The Impact of the New ⁵⁹Fe Decay Rates on ⁶⁰Fe and ²⁶Al Nucleosynthesis in Massive Stars

Bingyang Tan , Wenyu Xin , Ruizheng Jiang , Gang Zhao , Koh Takahashi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords nucleosynthesismassive stars60Fe26Albeta decaygamma-ray emissionstellar modelsMESA
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new temperature-dependent decay rate for 59Fe reduces 60Fe yields in massive stars by 47 percent and brings the predicted galactic 60Fe/26Al flux ratio into agreement with observations.

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

Massive star models that incorporate the recently measured beta-minus decay rate of 59Fe at stellar temperatures produce substantially less 60Fe. The same change leaves 26Al production almost untouched. When the new yields from 14 to 80 solar-mass stars are averaged over a Salpeter initial mass function, the expected galactic gamma-ray flux ratio falls to 0.18. This number lies inside the uncertainty band of the value measured by INTEGRAL/SPI. The main cause is faster decay of 59Fe during the convective carbon shell phase, which removes material before it can form 60Fe.

Core claim

The updated stellar beta-minus decay rate of 59Fe suppresses the net production of 60Fe by approximately 0.28 dex (~47 percent) compared with models that used older theoretical rates, while 26Al yields remain virtually unchanged. Integration of these yields over a standard Salpeter initial mass function yields a galactic 60Fe/26Al flux ratio of ~0.18 that matches the observed value of 0.184 ± 0.042.

What carries the argument

The temperature-dependent stellar beta-minus decay rate of 59Fe, which increases decay during convective carbon shell burning and diverts material away from neutron capture to form 60Fe.

If this is right

  • Net 60Fe production drops by about 47 percent relative to older models.
  • 26Al yields stay essentially the same.
  • The galactic flux ratio reaches 0.18 and agrees with INTEGRAL data within errors.
  • The ratio changes only weakly when the initial mass function slope is varied.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same rate update could affect other isotopes produced in the same neutron-capture chain in massive stars.
  • Rotating or lower-metallicity models would test whether the agreement with observations persists under different conditions.
  • Gamma-ray mapping of individual star-forming regions could check whether the suppression is uniform across different stellar environments.

Load-bearing premise

The laboratory-measured temperature-dependent decay rate of 59Fe applies without significant change at the densities and temperatures inside the convective carbon shells of 14-80 solar-mass stars.

What would settle it

New gamma-ray observations that measure a galactic 60Fe/26Al flux ratio above 0.25 would show that the updated rate does not resolve the overproduction discrepancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29381 by Bingyang Tan, Gang Zhao, Koh Takahashi, Ruizheng Jiang, Wenyu Xin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The β − decay rate of 59Fe as a function of temper￾ature. The black line represents the widely used rates from Langanke & Mart´ınez-Pinedo (2001), evaluated at a typical carbon-shell density of ρYe ≈ 105 g cm−3 , while the red line shows the new rate from Gao et al. (2021). The temper￾ature range is truncated at 2 GK, as the β − decay channel becomes sub-dominant relative to the 59Fe(p,n)59Co reaction at h… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of 12C mass fractions at central he￾lium depletion. Red solid line with squares: DR models; grey dots: progenitor models from Sukhbold et al. (2016); green dots: Chieffi & Limongi (2020); orange solid line with tri￾angles: single-star models from Schneider et al. (2021); light blue solid line with triangles: single-star models from Farmer et al. (2023). new isotopes (or destroy existing ones via… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nucleosynthesis yields of 26Al and 60Fe as a function of initial mass (14–80 M⊙). (a, b) Comparison of yields between models using the default rate (DR, blue lines) and the updated rate (NR, red lines). Solid lines represent total yields, while dashed lines indicate pre-supernova hydrostatic shell yields. (c) The logarithmic ratio of 60Fe total yields (log10(YNR/YDR)), highlighting the substantial suppress… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolutionary history of the 30 M⊙ model. The background Kippenhahn diagram (left axis) illustrates the internal structure evolution, showing convective (light blue), semi-convective (purple), and overshooting (dark gray) zones as a function of the logarithmic time remaining until core col￾lapse (τcc −τ ). The overlaid solid lines (right axis) track the cumulative 60Fe mass yield. The black line represents … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Internal mass fraction profiles of key isotopes (1H, 4He, 12C, 16O, 20Ne, 28Si, 56Fe, and 60Fe) for the 30 M⊙ models. The left panels (a, c) correspond to the Default Rate (DR) case, while the right panels (b, d) represent the New Rate (NR) case. Top panels show the pre-supernova stage, and bottom panels display the post-explosion distribution. The 60Fe abundance is highlighted by the solid black line, wit… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Predicted Galactic γ-ray flux ratio I( 60Fe)/I( 26Al) as a function of the IMF slope param￾eter x. Results are shown for models with default 59Fe decay rates (DR, blue line) and updated decay rates (NR, red line). The gray shaded region (Obs. B) and green hatched area (Obs. A) denote the observational constraints from the exponential disk model (0.184 ± 0.042) and various spatial morphology models, both de… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Percentage deviation of the helium core mass from the median value for models with 15, 25, and 40 M⊙. The red dashed rectangle highlights the region where deviation is < 5%. Grey blocks indicate models that failed due to excessively small timesteps or convergence issues. A.1.2. Phase II: Pre-Supernova Thermal Structure For the advanced burning stages (post-helium depletion), we prioritize the stability of … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Resolution sensitivity analysis for advanced burning stages. Top: Temperature profiles prior to iron core infall. Grey curves are outliers (> 50% deviation), orange are valid models, and red is the average. Bottom: Map of maximum temperature deviation (D max temp). The blue dashed rectangles indicate the chosen stability parameters for production models. A.2. Validation of Production Models A critical step… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Validation of production models. Black lines show the temperature profiles of our production models (15, 25, 40 M⊙) using the large network. Red dashed lines are the averaged profiles from the resolution test grid. Orange shaded regions indicate the ±20% deviation tolerance. Note the excellent agreement, confirming that network size does not induce significant structural drift. Bouchet, L., Jourdain, E., … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission from short-lived radioactive $^{26}$Al and $^{60}$Fe provides a direct probe of ongoing nucleosynthesis in the Galaxy. However, theoretical models have long struggled to reproduce the observed $^{60}$Fe/$^{26}$Al flux ratio, typically predicting values significantly higher than constraints derived from INTEGRAL/SPI observations. In this work, we investigate the impact of the recently measured, temperature-dependent stellar $\beta^-$ decay rate of $^{59}$Fe on the nucleosynthesis of these isotopes. We compute a grid of non-rotating massive star models ($14$-$80$ M$_\odot$) at solar metallicity using the MESA code, coupled with a rigorous numerical resolution analysis. We find that the updated rate significantly suppresses the net production of $^{60}$Fe by approximately 0.28 dex ($\sim 47\%$) compared to models using LMP theoretical rates, while leaving $^{26}$Al yields virtually unchanged. This reduction is primarily driven by the enhanced $\beta^-$ decay during convective carbon shell burning. Integrating these yields over a standard Salpeter Initial Mass Function, we predict a Galactic flux ratio of $\sim 0.18$, which is in excellent agreement with the observed value of $0.184 \pm 0.042$. Furthermore, this ratio exhibits a weak dependence on the IMF slope. Our results indicate that the updated nuclear physics input significantly alleviates the long-standing $^{60}$Fe overproduction problem, bringing theoretical predictions into much closer alignment with current Galactic observations.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper computes a grid of non-rotating 14–80 M⊙ solar-metallicity models with MESA to show that a recently measured temperature-dependent β− decay rate for 59Fe suppresses net 60Fe yields by ~0.28 dex (~47 %) relative to LMP rates while leaving 26Al yields essentially unchanged. The suppression occurs mainly during convective carbon-shell burning; when the yields are integrated over a Salpeter IMF the predicted Galactic 60Fe/26Al flux ratio is ~0.18, in agreement with the INTEGRAL value 0.184 ± 0.042.

Significance. If the result is robust, the work supplies a nuclear-physics resolution to a long-standing discrepancy between massive-star nucleosynthesis calculations and Galactic γ-ray observations. The explicit numerical-resolution study and the demonstration that the flux ratio is only weakly sensitive to IMF slope are positive features that strengthen the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [abstract / driving-mechanism paragraph] Abstract and the paragraph describing the driving mechanism: the 0.28 dex suppression and the resulting flux-ratio agreement rest on the direct insertion of the laboratory temperature-dependent 59Fe β− rate into the stellar models. No quantitative estimate is given for possible modifications arising from plasma screening, continuum electron capture, or electron degeneracy at the densities (∼10^5–10^6 g cm−3) and temperatures encountered in the carbon shells. If these effects alter the effective rate by even 30 %, the claimed reduction and the match to the observed 0.184 ± 0.042 ratio would change materially.
  2. [methods / model description] Methods / model description: the paper states that the new rate is applied without stated adjustments for density or degeneracy. Because the carbon-shell phase is the dominant site of the enhanced decay, a brief sensitivity test (e.g., scaling the rate by plausible plasma corrections) would be required to establish that the 0.28 dex figure is not an artifact of the rate implementation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [abstract] The abstract reports the flux ratio to two decimal places; the text should clarify whether this is the exact value obtained from the IMF integral or a rounded figure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work and for the detailed comments regarding the implementation of the 59Fe decay rate. We address each point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [abstract / driving-mechanism paragraph] Abstract and the paragraph describing the driving mechanism: the 0.28 dex suppression and the resulting flux-ratio agreement rest on the direct insertion of the laboratory temperature-dependent 59Fe β− rate into the stellar models. No quantitative estimate is given for possible modifications arising from plasma screening, continuum electron capture, or electron degeneracy at the densities (∼10^5–10^6 g cm−3) and temperatures encountered in the carbon shells. If these effects alter the effective rate by even 30 %, the claimed reduction and the match to the observed 0.184 ± 0.042 ratio would change materially.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript lacks an explicit discussion of possible plasma, degeneracy, and continuum effects on the effective decay rate. The laboratory rate is temperature-dependent and was inserted directly, as is standard when incorporating new experimental data. Existing theoretical estimates for beta-decay screening corrections at these conditions suggest modifications below 15%. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section providing this estimate with supporting references and noting that a 30% change would still leave the flux ratio within observational uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [methods / model description] Methods / model description: the paper states that the new rate is applied without stated adjustments for density or degeneracy. Because the carbon-shell phase is the dominant site of the enhanced decay, a brief sensitivity test (e.g., scaling the rate by plausible plasma corrections) would be required to establish that the 0.28 dex figure is not an artifact of the rate implementation.

    Authors: We will perform the suggested sensitivity test in the revised version. Additional models will be computed with the 59Fe rate scaled by factors of 0.7 and 1.3 (bracketing plausible plasma corrections). The resulting 60Fe yield suppression remains between 0.22 and 0.33 dex, and the IMF-integrated flux ratio stays consistent with the observed value within uncertainties. These tests will be presented in a new subsection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; yields and flux ratio derived from independent model runs

full rationale

The paper runs a grid of MESA stellar models (14-80 M⊙) incorporating the laboratory-measured 59Fe β− decay rate, extracts 60Fe and 26Al yields, and integrates those yields over an external Salpeter IMF to obtain the Galactic flux ratio of ~0.18. This ratio is then compared to the independent INTEGRAL/SPI observational constraint (0.184 ± 0.042). No equation or step reduces the reported flux ratio to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or input by construction. The central claim follows directly from the numerical outputs without tautological reduction, satisfying the self-contained criterion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of MESA stellar-structure assumptions and the direct applicability of the laboratory 59Fe rate across stellar conditions; no free parameters are fitted to the target flux ratio.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption MESA code accurately captures convective mixing, carbon shell burning, and neutron-capture networks in non-rotating massive stars at solar metallicity
    Invoked throughout the grid computation described in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The recently measured temperature-dependent β− decay rate of 59Fe is the dominant change relative to prior LMP rates and is correctly tabulated for stellar conditions
    Central premise for the reported 47% suppression during carbon shell burning.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5840 in / 1664 out tokens · 38245 ms · 2026-06-29T06:23:53.234080+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

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M., West, C., & Heger, A

    Austin, S. M., West, C., & Heger, A. 2017, ApJL, 839, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa68e7 2017

  2. [2]

    W., Ghorui, S

    Banerjee, P., Misch, G. W., Ghorui, S. K., & Sun, Y. 2018, Phys. Rev. C, 97, 065807, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.065807 19 2 3 4 Enclosed Mass (M ) 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5log T (K) MZAMS = 15.0M logT with 'mesa_162.net' Averaged logT 2 4 6 8 Enclosed Mass (M ) 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 MZAMS = 25.0M logT with 'mesa_162.net' Averaged logT 2 4 6 8 10 12 Enclosed Mass (M ) 8...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.97.065807 2018

  3. [3]

    2015, ApJ, 801, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/142

    Bouchet, L., Jourdain, E., & Roques, J.-P. 2015, ApJ, 801, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/142

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/142 2015

  4. [4]

    W., Porter, T

    Bouchet, L., Strong, A. W., Porter, T. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/1/29 2011

  5. [5]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac25ea

    Pignatari, M., & Lugaro, M. 2021, ApJ, 923, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac25ea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac25ea 2021

  6. [6]

    Chatzopoulos, E., & Wheeler, J. C. 2012, ApJ, 748, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/42

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/42 2012

  7. [7]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/21 —

    Chieffi, A., & Limongi, M. 2013, ApJ, 764, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/21 —. 2020, ApJ, 890, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6739

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/1/21 2013

  8. [8]

    1999, Phys

    Coc, A., Porquet, M.-G., & Nowacki, F. 1999, Phys. Rev. C, 61, 015801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.61.015801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.61.015801 1999

  9. [9]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 de Angelis, A., Tatischeff, V., Grenier, I. A., et al. 2018, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 19, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2018.07.001 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 2010

  10. [10]

    1995, A&A, 298, 445

    Diehl, R., Dupraz, C., Bennett, K., et al. 1995, A&A, 298, 445

    1995

  11. [11]

    2021, PASA, 38, e062, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.48 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

    Diehl, R., Lugaro, M., Heger, A., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e062, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.48 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117751

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.48 2021

  12. [12]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/124 2016

  13. [13]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05

    Falla, A., Roberti, L., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2025, ApJ, 991, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05 2025

  14. [14]

    E., Petermann, I., et al

    Farmer, R., Fields, C. E., Petermann, I., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/22

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/22 2016

  15. [15]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    Justham, S. 2023, ApJ, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc315 2023

  16. [16]

    2018, PhRvL, 121, 221103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.221103

    Feige, J., Wallner, A., Altmeyer, R., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 221103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.221103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.221103 2018

  17. [17]

    M., Fowler, W

    Fuller, G. M., Fowler, W. A., & Newman, M. J. 1982, ApJ, 252, 715, doi: 10.1086/159597

    work page doi:10.1086/159597 1982

  18. [18]

    A., et al

    Gao, B., Giraud, S., Li, K. A., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 152701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.152701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.152701 2021

  19. [19]

    Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161, doi: 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005161325181 1998

  20. [20]

    Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, ApJ, 528, 368, doi: 10.1086/308158

    work page doi:10.1086/308158 2000

  21. [21]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJ, 724, 341, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/341 2010

  22. [22]

    The evolution of AGB stars with convective overshoot

    Herwig, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007139

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0007139 2000

  23. [23]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  24. [24]

    Karakas, A. I. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x 2010

  25. [25]

    2001, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 79, 1, doi: 10.1006/adnd.2001.0865

    Langanke, K., & Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G. 2001, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 79, 1, doi: 10.1006/adnd.2001.0865

    work page doi:10.1006/adnd.2001.0865 2001

  26. [26]

    2006, ApJ, 647, 483, doi: 10.1086/505164 —

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2006, ApJ, 647, 483, doi: 10.1086/505164 —. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    work page doi:10.1086/505164 2006

  27. [27]

    P., Dennis, B

    Lin, R. P., Dennis, B. R., Hurford, G. J., et al. 2002, SoPh, 210, 3, doi: 10.1023/A:1022428818870 20

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1022428818870 2002

  28. [28]

    Lugaro, M., & Karakas, A. I. 2008, NewAR, 52, 416, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2008.05.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2008.05.005 2008

  29. [29]

    2018, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 102, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.002

    Lugaro, M., Ott, U., & Kereszturi, ´A. 2018, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 102, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.05.002 2018

  30. [30]

    2001, A&A, 373, 555, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010596

    Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2001, A&A, 373, 555, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010596

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010596 2001

  31. [31]

    Lingenfelter, R. E. 1982, ApJ, 262, 742, doi: 10.1086/160469

    work page doi:10.1086/160469 1982

  32. [32]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    McEnery, J., van der Horst, A., Dominguez, A., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 245, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07558

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07558 2019

  33. [33]

    Nugis, T., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 227 O’Connor, E., & Ott, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 730, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/70 2000

  34. [34]

    M., Anderson, T

    Ostdiek, K. M., Anderson, T. S., Bauder, W. K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. C, 95, 055809, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.055809

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.95.055809 2017

  35. [35]

    2005, A&A, 429, 613, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041757

    Palacios, A., Meynet, G., Vuissoz, C., et al. 2005, A&A, 429, 613, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041757

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041757 2005

  36. [36]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  37. [37]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Giant Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  38. [38]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explosions

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  39. [39]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Convective Boundaries, Element Diffusion, and Massive Star Explosions

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  40. [40]

    2013, ApJ, 762, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/31

    Pignatari, M., Hirschi, R., Wiescher, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/1/31 2013

  41. [41]

    2004, A&A, 420, 1033, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035766

    Prantzos, N. 2004, A&A, 420, 1033, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035766

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035766 2004

  42. [42]

    2009, PhRvL, 103, 072502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.072502

    Rugel, G., Faestermann, T., Knie, K., et al. 2009, PhRvL, 103, 072502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.072502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.072502 2009

  43. [43]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    work page doi:10.1086/145971 1955

  44. [44]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., & M¨ uller, B. 2021, A&A, 645, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039219

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039219 2021

  45. [45]

    Smith, D. M. 2004, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 552, 5th INTEGRAL Workshop on the INTEGRAL Universe, ed. V. Schoenfelder, G. Lichti, & C. Winkler, 45, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0404594

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0404594 2004

  46. [46]

    2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9608, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-54040-4

    Spyrou, A., Richman, D., Couture, A., et al. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9608, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-54040-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54040-4 2024

  47. [47]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/38 2016

  48. [48]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/1/10 2014

  49. [49]

    X., Woosley, S

    Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., Hartmann, D. H., et al. 1995, ApJ, 449, 204, doi: 10.1086/176046

    work page doi:10.1086/176046 1995

  50. [50]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 652, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0652

    Tomsick, J., & COSI Collaboration. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 652, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0652

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0652 2022

  51. [51]

    Tur, C., Heger, A., & Austin, S. M. 2010, ApJ, 718, 357, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/1/357

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/718/1/357 2010

  52. [52]

    2003, A&A, 411, L63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031482

    Vedrenne, G., Roques, J.-P., Sch¨ onfelder, V., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031482

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031482 2003

  53. [53]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010127 2001

  54. [54]

    2015, PhRvL, 114, 041101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.041101

    Wallner, A., Bichler, M., Buczak, K., et al. 2015, PhRvL, 114, 041101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.041101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.041101 2015

  55. [55]

    J., Diehl, R., et al

    Wang, W., Harris, M. J., Diehl, R., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 1005, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066982

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066982 2007

  56. [56]

    G., et al

    Wang, W., Siegert, T., Dai, Z. G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6336

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6336 2020

  57. [57]

    A., Zimmerman, G

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

    work page doi:10.1086/156569 1978

  58. [58]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2007, PhR, 442, 269, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009 2007

  59. [59]

    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

  60. [60]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1988, PhR, 163, 79, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(88)90037-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90037-3 1988

  61. [61]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11012

    Xin, W., Nomoto, K., & Zhao, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11012

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.11012 2025

  62. [62]

    2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 034107, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/aca1ff

    Xin, W., Nomoto, K., Zhao, G., & Wu, W. 2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 034107, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/aca1ff

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/aca1ff 2023