Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

A double-degenerate scenario with a merger to explosion delay time to explain type Ia supernova SN 2020aeuh

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that SN 2020aeuh is explained by two merging white dwarfs that explode 1–2 years later, after the merger ejects a carbon-oxygen shell that the blast hits at about 50 days.

desk verdict A clear application of the DD-MED idea to SN 2020aeuh, but the quantitative case rests on an unquantified ~0.7 Msun mass loss that contradicts the only cited merger simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16757 v2 pith:ORETIR5Z submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.HE

Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Bw
keywords typeIasupernovaedouble-degeneratescenariomerger-to-explosiondelaylonelywhitedwarfcircumstellarmediumSN2020aeuhmergercarbon-oxygenCSM
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

The paper argues that SN 2020aeuh, a bright type Ia supernova whose ejecta ran into carbon-oxygen-rich, hydrogen- and helium-free circumstellar gas about 50 days after explosion, is best explained by a double-degenerate (DD) scenario in which a merger-to-explosion delay (MED) intervenes between the merging of two white dwarfs and the supernova. Two massive carbon-oxygen white dwarfs, of masses about $1.1\,M_\odot$ and $1.0\,M_\odot$, merge into a rapidly rotating 'lonely' white dwarf near the Chandrasekhar mass and eject roughly $0.7\,M_\odot$ of CO-rich gas through the second Lagrange point. After a delay of about 1–2 years the remnant explodes, and the blast wave hits that detached, H/He-deficient shell. This is, to the author's knowledge, the first specific supernova attributed to the DD-MED scenario, and it strengthens the broader claim that lonely-white-dwarf scenarios may account for most, if not all, normal SNe Ia.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the double-degenerate merger-to-explosion delay (DD-MED) scenario: two CO white dwarfs (here $M_1\simeq1.1\,M_\odot$ and $M_2\simeq1.0\,M_\odot$) merge, ejecting $\simeq0.65$–$0.8\,M_\odot$ of CO-rich gas in a nonspherical shell via the second Lagrange point, while the merged remnant relaxes into a lonely, rapidly rotating white dwarf of about $1.4\,M_\odot$. The delay $t_{\rm MED}\simeq1$–$2$ yr between merger and explosion allows the remnant to relax and leads to a roughly spherical explosion; the same delay sets the inner CSM radius via $R_{\rm inner}\simeq v_{\rm CSM,\ inner}\,t_{\rm MED}$, matching the observed interaction at about 50 days. A simple energy-budget argument converts the kinetic energy of the interacting ejecta (about a quarter of the total ejecta kinetic energy, with a radiative fraction of about half) into the observed radiated energy of $\simeq1.1\times10^{50}$ erg.

What would settle it

If a three-dimensional merger simulation of two $\sim1.05\,M_\odot$ CO white dwarfs that resolves the second Lagrange point finds less than $\sim0.1\,M_\odot$ ejected at speeds below $\sim2000$ km/s, the scenario's CSM mass budget fails; observationally, a direct measurement of SN 2020aeuh's CSM mass below $\sim0.3\,M_\odot$ or a CSM expansion velocity above $\sim5000$ km/s would likewise break the timing and energy match.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery claim is that the DD-MED scenario can account for all the observed properties of SN 2020aeuh (Table 1), including the abrupt onset and slower decline of CSM mass loss, the CSM expansion velocity below about 1500 km/s, the absence of very late radio emission, and the host galaxy's lack of recent star formation. The timing of the ejecta-CSM interaction, about 50 days after explosion, fixes the merger-to-explosion delay at $t_{\rm MED}\simeq 1$–$2$ yr for a CSM velocity of about $1200$ km/s. The scenario also explains why the CSM is carbon-oxygen rich and free of hydrogen and helium: it is the ejected outer layers of two CO white dwarfs, not the hydrogen-rich wind of a companion or a helium-rich transfer stream. The paper further suggests that the overluminosity of such SNe Ia may reflect exploding masses at the upper end of the distribution, possibly super-Chandrasekhar.

Load-bearing premise

The scenario assumes, without quantitative support, that a white-dwarf merger can eject roughly 0.7 solar masses of carbon-oxygen gas at about 1200 kilometers per second through the second Lagrange point; the only cited merger simulation produces far less ejected mass, so the CSM mass and energy budget depend on this unverified ejection efficiency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SN 2020aeuh becomes the first observed supernova placed in the DD-MED channel, adding a new, empirically anchored member to the lonely-white-dwarf family.
  • The ~50-day CSM interaction time translates directly into a merger-to-explosion delay of 1–2 years, offering a concrete constraint on how long a post-merger white dwarf takes to relax before detonating.
  • The scenario predicts CO-rich, H/He-free CSM for DD-MED events, a clean observational discriminant against single-degenerate (hydrogen-rich) and double-detonation (helium-rich) channels.
  • If lonely-white-dwarf scenarios indeed produce most normal SNe Ia, the rate and delay-time distribution of SNe Ia depend on merger channels whose exploding remnants leave no surviving companion.
  • The combination of overluminosity (1991T-like) and CSM interaction in SN 2020aeuh hints that the most massive merging remnants, possibly super-Chandrasekhar, are the ones that both eject a massive CSM and explode at the bright end.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's CSM mass of ~0.7 solar masses exceeds the ~0.001–0.005 solar masses found in the cited merger simulation by two orders of magnitude; a dedicated three-dimensional simulation of a near-Chandrasekhar CO–CO merger, focused on mass loss through the second Lagrange point, would directly test this load-bearing extrapolation.
  • If the DD-MED channel produces a detectable CSM only for the most massive mergers, then many normal SNe Ia from lower-mass mergers may also be post-merger explosions but with no observable CSM; searching for faint, CO-rich CSM in late-time spectra of apparently normal SNe Ia would probe this possibility.
  • The nonspherical geometry invoked here (covering fraction $\beta\simeq0.5$) could be tested by polarimetric observations of similar events: a significant continuum polarization at early times would support the flattened-shell picture, whereas a spherical CSM would imply a different mass estimate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the peculiar SN Ia SN 2020aeuh, which shows delayed interaction with a hydrogen- and helium-poor CO-rich CSM, is explained by the double-degenerate merger-to-explosion delay (DD-MED) scenario. Two CO white dwarfs with M1 ≈ 1.1 Msun and M2 ≈ 0.95–1.1 Msun are assumed to merge, eject M_CSM ≈ 0.65–0.8 Msun through the second Lagrange point, and leave a ~1.4 Msun lonely WD that explodes after tMED ≈ 1–2 yr. The author argues that this scenario accounts for the observed CSM composition, mass, velocity, interaction delay, and lack of late radio emission, and that it is less problematic than SD, DDet, WWC, and CD alternatives. A crude rate estimate for SNe Ia with CO-rich CSM is also provided.

Significance. If the central mass budget could be established, the paper would be the first application of the DD-MED channel to a specific SN Ia and would support the broader 'lonely WD' framework for normal SNe Ia. The paper is clearly structured, with a useful comparison table and an explicit, if uncertain, rate estimate. However, the scenario's load-bearing assumption — that a WD-WD merger ejects ~0.7 Msun of CO-rich material — is not supported by any quantitative model and is in direct conflict with the only merger simulation cited in the paper. As a result, the current manuscript does not establish its central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (M_CSM and energy budget)] The scenario requires M_CSM ≈ 0.65–0.8 Msun to be ejected by a 1.1 + 1.0 Msun CO WD merger, but the only merger simulation cited in the paper (Raskin & Kasen 2013) finds ejected masses of ~0.001–0.005 Msun at ~2000 km/s. The sentence 'The lonely WD scenario lets the merger product relax and eject more mass' is not a quantitative mechanism; relaxation after merger would not by itself produce two orders of magnitude more L2 mass loss, and no reference or calculation is given. Because the radiated interaction energy E_rad ≈ 0.12 E_kin scales with the smaller of the interacting ejecta and CSM masses, replacing M_CSM = 0.7 Msun with the simulated 0.005 Msun would lower E_rad by a factor ~100, far below the observed ~1.1e50 erg. This mass budget is load-bearing and unsupported; the paper's own caveat 'More accurate treatment is needed' applies directly to this point.
  2. [Section 2 (inner CSM radius)] The claim that the DD-MED scenario 'explains' R_CSM,inner ≈ 3e15 cm is circular. Having fixed tMED ≈ 1.5 yr from the mean radius and v_CSM ≈ 1200 km/s, the paper sets v_CSM,inner ≈ 650 km/s so that v_CSM,inner × tMED = R_CSM,inner. The observed inner radius then imposes a required inner velocity rather than providing an independent verification of the scenario. The paper should present this as a consistency constraint and, ideally, compare the required 650 km/s with a predicted velocity profile from a merger/ejection model.
  3. [Table 1 / Section 2 (mass-loss history)] The row 'Abrupt rise and then longer drop in the mass loss of the CSM' is listed as a property explained by the DD-MED scenario, but the paper only asserts that mass transfer 'started in a short time ... declined over a longer period until full merger.' No calculation connects the binary evolution to the inferred CSM density profile, and the property itself is model-derived rather than directly observed. This weakens the Section 4 statement that the scenario 'can account for all the properties of SN 2020aeuh.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The text says 'This study is the first to account for a specific SN Ia within the CD-MED scenario, the other lonely WD scenario'; 'CD-MED' appears to be a typo for 'DD-MED,' since the paper consistently distinguishes the CD scenario from the DD-MED scenario.
  2. [References] The text cites 'Sharon & Kushnir 2025,' but the reference list contains 'Sharon, Kushnir, & Wygoda 2025' and 'Sharon, Kushnir, & Schinasi-Lemberg 2025'; the intended two-author reference appears to be missing.
  3. [Table 1 / Section 2] Table 1 lists v_CSM ≲ 1500 km/s, while the text adopts v_CSM ≈ 1200 km/s as the characteristic value; please reconcile these values or clarify that 1500 km/s is an upper bound and 1200 km/s is the adopted scaling.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (1)] The rate estimate in Eq. (1) depends on several order-of-magnitude guesses (α_DM, α_Ch, tMED,M) and is acknowledged as very uncertain; it would be clearer to label it explicitly as an illustrative estimate rather than a quantitative prediction.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Several quantitative 'explanations' reduce to fits: the inner CSM radius is reproduced by choosing v_CSM,inner after fixing tMED, M_CSM is the free mass difference M1+M2−M_lonely, and E_rad follows from chosen beta and xi_rad.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, inner-CSM-radius paragraph]
    "For a delay time of tMED ≃1.5 yr, an inner CSM velocity of vCSM,inner ≃650 km s−1 gives the observed inner CSM radius of RCSM,inner,D ≃vCSM,inner tMED ≃3.1×10^15 cm. This is the DD-MED explanation for the inner CSM radius."

    R_CSM,inner is an observed/modeled input from Tsalapatas et al. (2025). The paper fixes tMED≈1.5 yr in advance, then chooses v_CSM,inner≈650 km/s so that v·t equals the target radius. The 'explanation' is therefore the defining identity R=v·t with the velocity tuned to match; it is not an independent prediction of the radius.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, merger masses paragraph; Table 1 row 3]
    "The ejected mass is then MCSM ≃0.65−0.8M⊙... Merger of M1 ≃1.1 and M2 ≃1M⊙ leaves a lonely WD remnant of Mlonely ≃1.4M⊙."

    The 'account' of the CSM mass is just mass bookkeeping, M_CSM = M1+M2−M_lonely, with all three masses free parameters (M2 is allowed to be 0.95–1.1 M⊙ and M_lonely is taken to be ≈1.4 M⊙). No merger calculation fixes these values; they are chosen so that the leftover ejected mass is consistent with the lower end of the non-spherical CSM mass estimate. The observed CSM mass is thus an input, not a derived prediction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, energy-budget paragraph]
    "If a fraction ξrad ≃0.5 of this thermal energy is radiated, I find Erad ≃0.12 Ekin... Overall, the CSM mass of MCSM ≃0.7M⊙ can account for the radiated energy of Erad ≃1.1×10^50 erg, that Tsalapatas et al. (2025) calculate for SN 2020aeuh."

    Erad is computed as β·ξrad·(1/2)Ekin with β=0.5 and ξrad=0.5, which by construction gives Erad≈0.125Ekin ≈1.25×10^50 erg for Ekin≈10^51 erg, matching the target 1.1×10^50 erg. The two efficiency factors are not derived from the model; they are selected so the energy check passes. The sentence that M_CSM 'can account' for the energy is therefore a consistency fit rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The qualitative scenario comparison (Table 1 and Section 3) is independent: ruling out SD, DDet, WWC, and CD for SN 2020aeuh rests on composition and evolutionary arguments that do not feed back into the DD-MED numbers. The tMED≈1–2 yr estimate from R_CSM/v_CSM is a legitimate inference from the observed interaction radius and line-width velocity, and the CSM velocity itself is taken from observed line FWHMs. The circularity is concentrated in the quantitative 'can account' statements. The inner radius 'explanation' is circular because v_CSM,inner is chosen after fixing tMED to force R=v·t to equal the observed radius. The CSM mass 'explanation' is the free mass difference of chosen merger and remnant masses, and the radiated-energy check uses freely chosen β and ξrad. The only cited merger simulation (Raskin & Kasen 2013) gives 0.001–0.005 M⊙ ejected, and the paper's reply—'the lonely WD scenario lets the merger product relax and eject more mass'—is an unsupported assumption; this is a correctness/evidentiary weakness, not itself circularity, but it reinforces that the large M_CSM is an input rather than a derived result. Self-citations (Ilkov & Soker 2012; Soker 2019a, 2024a) frame the MED and lonely-WD concepts but are not the load-bearing step for the specific fits, so they do not raise the score on their own. Overall, several central 'predictions' reduce by construction to fitted parameters, giving a partial-circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several post hoc choices: the merging masses, the ejected mass, the sky coverage, the radiation efficiency, and the inner CSM velocity. The most consequential is the 0.7 Msun ejected CSM, which is not produced by any cited calculation and sits roughly two orders of magnitude above the only simulation quoted. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'lonely WD remnant' is a pre-existing scenario concept.

free parameters (6)
  • M1, M2 (merging WD masses) = M1~1.1 Msun, M2~0.95-1.1 Msun
    Chosen so the merger leaves a ~Chandrasekhar-mass lonely WD and ejects ~0.7 Msun; not independently constrained.
  • M_CSM (ejected CSM mass) = ~0.65-0.8 Msun
    Chosen to match the observationally inferred CSM mass after applying the non-spherical correction; no model produces this value.
  • beta (CSM sky coverage fraction) = ~0.5
    Assumed to allow a lower CSM mass than the 1-2 Msun spherical estimate; affects the energy and mass budget.
  • xi_rad / epsilon (radiation conversion efficiency) = ~0.5 / ~0.3
    Assumed so that the interaction radiates ~0.12-0.15 Ekin, matching Tsalapatas et al.'s Erad~1.1e50 erg.
  • v_CSM,inner (inner CSM velocity) = ~650 km/s
    Chosen so that tMED~1.5 yr reproduces the observed inner CSM radius R~3.1e15 cm.
  • alpha_DM, alpha_Ch, tMED,M (rate scalings) = 0.5, 0.2, 1e6 yr
    Crude scaling factors in the rough estimate of the fraction of SNe Ia with CO-rich CSM interaction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A WD-WD merger can eject ~0.7 Msun of CO-rich gas at ~1200 km/s through the second Lagrange point in a shell-like geometry.
    Invoked in Section 2 to supply the CSM mass and velocity; contradicted in magnitude by the only cited simulation (Raskin & Kasen 2013), which finds ~0.001-0.005 Msun.
  • domain assumption The merger remnant relaxes and does not explode immediately, with a delay of ~1-2 yr in this object.
    The MED concept is taken from the author's earlier work (Ilkov & Soker 2012; Neopane et al. 2022); it is not independently demonstrated for these masses.
  • domain assumption The observational model of SN 2020aeuh by Tsalapatas et al. (2025) correctly identifies the CSM as CO-rich, H/He-deficient, with the quoted masses, radii, and interaction time.
    The paper's argument builds directly on those inferred quantities without re-deriving them.
  • ad hoc to paper A non-spherical CSM covering beta ~0.5 of the sky can reproduce the interaction with a total mass of ~0.7 Msun.
    Introduced to reconcile the inferred 1-2 Msun spherical CSM mass with the merger-ejection expectation; no interaction model is computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A double-degenerate scenario with a merger to explosion delay time to explain type Ia supernova SN 2020aeuh." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ORETIR5Z

@misc{pith2026250716757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A double-degenerate scenario with a merger to explosion delay time to explain type Ia supernova SN 2020aeuh},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ORETIR5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16757}
}
read the original abstract

I suggest the double-degenerate (DD) scenario with a merger-to-explosion delay (MED) time (the DD-MED scenario) of about 1-2 years to explain the rare properties of the recently analyzed type Ia supernova (SN Ia) SN 2020aeuh. The rare properties are the SN Ia ejecta interacting with a carbon-oxygen (CO)-rich circumstellar material (CSM) at approximately 50 days post-explosion. In this DD-MED scenario, two massive CO white dwarfs (WDs), masses of M1=1.1Mo and M2=1Mo, merge to leave a rapidly rotating lonely WD of about the Chandrasekhar mass. The merger process ejects ~0.7Mo to form a nonspherical CO-rich CSM. At the explosion, there is a lonely WD and a detached hydrogen- and helium-deficient CSM. Studies proposed the other lonely WD scenario, the core-degenerate (CD) scenario, to explain several specific SNe Ia and SN Ia remnants. SN 2020aeuh is the first particular SN Ia that is attributed to the DD-MED scenario. Besides being slightly brighter than typical SNe Ia and the CSM interaction, SN 2020aeuh is a normal SN Ia. Therefore, this study strengthens the claim of earlier studies, which are based on other arguments, like the properties of SN Ia remnants, that the lonely WD scenarios, i.e., the DD-MED and CD scenarios, might account for most, if not all, normal SNe Ia. These earlier studies also argue that all SN Ia scenarios, whether lonely WD or not, might contribute to peculiar SNe Ia.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ablimit I., 2021, PASP, 133, 074201. Aleo P. D., Malanchev K., Sharief S., Jones D. O., Narayan G., Foley R. J., Villar V . A., et al., 2023, ApJS, 266,

    work page 2021

  2. [7]

    Bregman J

    Braudo J., Soker N., 2025, RAA, 25, 065012. Bregman J. N., Gnedin O. Y ., Seitzer P. O., Qu Z., 2024, ApJL, 968, L6. Burmester U. P., Ferrario L., Pakmor R., Seitenzahl I. R., 2025, MNRAS.tmp. Callan F. P., Collins C. E., Sim S. A., Shingles L. J., Pakmor R., Srivastav S., Pollin J. M., et al., 2025, MNRAS, 539,

    work page 2025

  3. [9]

    J., Townsley D

    Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., 2024, ApJ, 972,

    work page 2024

  4. [15]

    Ko T., Suzuki H., Kashiyama K., Uchida H., Tanaka T., Tsuna D., Fujisawa K., et al., 2024, ApJ, 969,

    work page 2024

  5. [16]

    M., Sim S

    Pollin J. M., Sim S. A., Pakmor R., Callan F. P., Collins C. E., Shingles L. J., R¨opke F. K., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 533,

    work page 2024

  6. [17]

    Wang Y .-H., Chen H.-P., Pan K.-C., 2025, ApJ, 989,

    Wang X., Meng X., 2025, A&A, 699, A35. Wang Y .-H., Chen H.-P., Pan K.-C., 2025, ApJ, 989,

    work page 2025

  7. [21]

    W., Maguire, K., & Sullivan, M

    Jha, S. W., Maguire, K., & Sullivan, M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 706 Joshi B. A., Strolger L.-G., Zenati Y ., 2024, ApJ, 974,

    work page 2019

  8. [22]

    B., 2019, MNRAS, 482,

    Zenati Y ., Toonen S., Perets H. B., 2019, MNRAS, 482,

    work page 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [27]

    J., 2020, IAUS, 357,

    Ruiter A. J., 2020, IAUS, 357,

    2020

  2. [28]

    J., Seitenzahl I

    Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., 2025, A&ARv, 33,

    2025

  3. [29]

    B., Zenati Y ., Toonen S., Bobrick A., 2019, arXiv:1910.07532

    Perets H. B., Zenati Y ., Toonen S., Bobrick A., 2019, arXiv:1910.07532. Phillips M. M., Ashall C., Brown P. J., Galbany L., Tucker M. A., Burns C. R., Contreras C., et al., 2024, ApJS, 273,

    2019 arXiv

  4. [30]

    2019, New Astron

    Ruiz-Lapuente, P. 2019, New Astron. Rev., 85, 101523 Schinasi-Lemberg E., Kushnir D., 2025, MNRAS, 536,

    2019

  5. [31]

    Soker N., 2024c, arXiv:2406.07363

    Soker N., 2024b, RAA, 24, 015012. Soker N., 2024c, arXiv:2406.07363. Soker N., 2025, OJAp, 8,

    2025 arXiv

  6. [32]

    C., Johansson J., Sollerman J., Mold´on J., Moriya T

    Kool E. C., Johansson J., Sollerman J., Mold´on J., Moriya T. J., Mattila S., Schulze S., et al., 2023, Natur, 617,

    2023

  7. [34]

    A., Terreran G., McCully C., Newsome M., Burke J., Farah J., et al., 2024, ApJ, 964,

    Padilla Gonzalez E., Howell D. A., Terreran G., McCully C., Newsome M., Burke J., Farah J., et al., 2024, ApJ, 964,

    2024

  8. [36]

    Soker N., Bear E., 2023, MNRAS, 521,

    2023

  9. [49]

    R., Magee M., Angus C

    Wang Q., Rest A., Dimitriadis G., Ridden-Harper R., Siebert M. R., Magee M., Angus C. R., et al., 2024, ApJ, 962,

    2024

  10. [54]

    Raskin C., Kasen D., 2013, ApJ, 772,

    2013

  11. [67]

    K., Sharma N., Verma D., Gupta S., 2025, NewA, 120, 102411

    Gaba J., Thakur R. K., Sharma N., Verma D., Gupta S., 2025, NewA, 120, 102411. Glanz H., Perets H. B., Bhat A., Pakmor R., 2025, arXiv:2410.17306. Griffith O., Showerman G., Sarbadhicary S. K., Harris C. E., Chomiuk L., Sollerman J., Lundqvist P., et al., 2025, arXiv:2506.1907...

    2025

  12. [72]

    an ., Meng D., Xu Z., Maeda K., Doi M., Nomoto K., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2507.15609 Yang H.-W., Thomas Tam P.-H., Yang L., 2022, RAA, 22, 105014

    Wu W., Jiang J.-. an ., Meng D., Xu Z., Maeda K., Doi M., Nomoto K., et al., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2507.15609 Yang H.-W., Thomas Tam P.-H., Yang L., 2022, RAA, 22, 105014. Zenati Y ., Perets H. B., Dessart L., Jacobson-Gal´an W. V ., Toonen S., Rest A., 2023, ApJ, 944,

    2025 arXiv

  13. [92]

    D., Galbany L., et al., 2025, ApJ, 984,

    O’Hora J., Ashall C., Shahbandeh M., Hsiao E., Hoeflich P., Stritzinger M. D., Galbany L., et al., 2025, ApJ, 984,

    2025

  14. [116]

    Kobashi R., Lee S.-H., Tanaka T., Maeda K., 2024, ApJ, 961,

    2024

  15. [123]

    Iwata K., Maeda K., 2025, ApJ, 987,

    2025

  16. [127]

    J., 2025, arXiv:2507.06412

    Simotas K., Bildsten L., Prust L. J., 2025, arXiv:2507.06412. Soker N., 2018, SCPMA, 61, 49502. Soker N., 2019a, NewAR, 87, 101535. Soker N., 2019b, MNRAS, 490,

    2025 arXiv

  17. [159]

    Vink´o J., Szalai T., K¨onyves-T´oth R., 2023, Univ, 9,

    2023

  18. [187]

    Fisher A., Branch D., Hatano K., Baron E., 1999, MNRAS, 304,

    1999

  19. [196]

    A., Matteucci F., Della Valle M., Spitoni E., 2024, A&A, 689, A203

    Palicio P. A., Matteucci F., Della Valle M., Spitoni E., 2024, A&A, 689, A203. Pan K.-C., Ruiz-Lapuente P., Gonz ´alez Hern ´andez J. I., 2025, arXiv:2507.01331. Pearson J., Sand D. J., Lundqvist P., Galbany L., Andrews J. E., Bostroem K. A., Dong Y ., et al., 2024, ApJ, 960,

    2024

  20. [200]

    B., Bostroem K

    Bora Z., K ¨onyves-T´oth R., Vink ´o J., B ´anhidi D., B ´ır´o I. B., Bostroem K. A., B ´odi A., et al., 2024, PASP, 136, 094201. Braudo J., Soker N., 2024, OJAp, 7,

    2024

  21. [209]

    B., Jones D

    Hoogendam W. B., Jones D. O., Ashall C., Shappee B. J., Foley R. J., Tucker M. A., Huber M. E., et al., 2025b, arXiv, arXiv:2502.17556. Hubov´a D., Pejcha O., 2019, MNRAS, 489,

    2019 arXiv

  22. [244]

    Wang B., 2018, RAA, 18,

    2018

  23. [348]

    J., Boos S

    Shen K. J., Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., 2024, ApJ, 975,

    2024

  24. [477]

    J., Bildsten L., 2025, arXiv:2507.19722 Li L.-H., Liu D.-D., Wang B., 2023, RAA, 23, 075010

    Kumar G., Prust L. J., Bildsten L., 2025, arXiv:2507.19722 Li L.-H., Liu D.-D., Wang B., 2023, RAA, 23, 075010. Lim G., Im M., Paek G. S. H., Yoon S.-C., Imsng Team, 2024, ASPC, 536, 29 6 Liu Z.-W., R¨opke F. K., Han Z., 2023, RAA, 23, 082001. Livio, M., & Mazzali, P. 2018, Ph...

    2025 arXiv

  25. [891]

    P., Perets H., Hallakoun N., 2023, MNRAS, 518,

    Igoshev A. P., Perets H., Hallakoun N., 2023, MNRAS, 518,

    2023

  26. [1087]

    Meng X., Podsiadlowski P., 2017, MNRAS, 469,

    2017

  27. [1135]

    T., 2024, ApJ, 966, 150

    Zingale M., Chen Z., Rasmussen M., Polin A., Katz M., Smith Clark A., Johnson E. T., 2024, ApJ, 966, 150

    2024

  28. [1404]

    O., Fisher R

    Casabona G. O., Fisher R. T., 2024, ApJL, 962, L31. Court T., Badenes C., Lee S.-H., Patnaude D., Bravo E., 2025, arXiv:2507.20828 Cui Y ., Meng X., Podsiadlowski P., Song R., 2022, A&A, 667, A154. Das P., Seitenzahl I. R., Ruiter A. J., R¨opke F. K., Pakmor R., V ogt F. P. A....

    2024

  29. [1541]

    H., Maguire K., Dimitriadis G., Smith M., Reusch S., Lacroix L., Galbany L., et al., 2025a, A&A, 694, A11

    Terwel J. H., Maguire K., Dimitriadis G., Smith M., Reusch S., Lacroix L., Galbany L., et al., 2025a, A&A, 694, A11. Terwel J. H., Maguire K., Sollerman J., Wiseman P., Chen T. X., Graham M. J., Laher R. R., et al., 2025b, A&A, 697, A143. Tsalapatas K., Sollerman J., Chiba R.,...

    2025

  30. [1695]

    Ito D., Sano H., Nakazawa K., Mitsuishi I., Fukui Y ., Sudou H., Takaba H., 2025, ApJ, 978,

    2025

  31. [2430]

    Soker N., 2024a, OJAp, 7,

    Soker N., 2022, RAA, 22, 035025. Soker N., 2024a, OJAp, 7,

    2022

  32. [3036]

    M., Sim S

    Pollin J. M., Sim S. A., Shingles L. J., Pakmor R., Callan F. P., Collins C. E., Roepke F. K., et al., 2025, arXiv:2507.05000. Rajavel N., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., 2025, ApJ, 979,

    2025 arXiv

  33. [3041]

    Sharon A., Kushnir D., Wygoda N., 2025, MNRAS, 540,

    2025

  34. [3247]

    Sharon A., Kushnir D., Schinasi-Lemberg E., 2025, MNRAS, 540,

    2025

  35. [4561]

    Soker N., Kashi A., Garc ´ıa-Berro E., Torres S., Camacho J., 2013, MNRAS, 431,

    2013

  36. [4763]

    B., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2507.16907 Mor´an-Fraile J., Holas A., R ¨opke F

    Michaelis A., Perets H. B., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2507.16907 Mor´an-Fraile J., Holas A., R ¨opke F. K., Pakmor R., Schneider F. R. N., 2024, A&A, 683, A44. Neopane S., Bhargava K., Fisher R., Ferrari M., Yoshida S., Toonen S., Bravo E., 2022, ApJ, 925,

    2025

  37. [6223]

    Ilkov M., Soker N., 2012, MNRAS, 419,

    2012

Pith tools

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