Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 98 references

Stellar Population and Metal Production in AGN Disks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stars born in AGN disks collapse to black holes, not supernovae, yet can fling about a solar mass of iron into the disk.

desk verdict New and worth refereeing, but the headline Fe yield rests on two unverified assumptions and the observational match is partial. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06973 v1 pith:UQKGQDZ5 submitted 2025-01-12 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Chris L. Fryer , Jiamu Huang , Mohamad Ali-Dib , Amaya Andrews , Zhenghao Xu , Douglas N. C. Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords AGNdisksmassivestarcollapsenucleosynthesisiron-peakelementsblackholeformationquasarbroadlineregionabundanceratiosgravitationalwaves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that massive stars born inside the dense disks around supermassive black holes follow a uniquely different life: they accrete gas up to hundreds of solar masses, shed most of it in winds, and end their lives as ~12 solar mass cores that collapse directly to black holes. If these cores are rotating fast enough, a debris disk forms around the new black hole, and winds from that disk eject roughly one solar mass of iron and other iron-peak elements into the AGN disk. Because ordinary supernovae are suppressed in these stars, this iron injection is the main observable fingerprint of star formation inside AGN disks. The authors show that the predicted abundance ratios, notably high C/O and Fe/Mg with low Mg/O, can be compared with quasar broad-line-region spectra, turning nucleosynthetic yields into a probe of how many such systems exist and how many stellar-mass black holes are embedded in AGN disks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the spin-up of post-main-sequence AGN disk stars: because their post-main-sequence lifetime ($10^3$-$10^4$ yr) is comparable to the turnover time of gravito-turbulent eddies in the disk, the angular momentum of freshly accreted gas is not randomized, allowing surface rotation speeds up to $\sim$200 km s$^{-1}$. At collapse, this angular momentum places a fraction of the stellar material into a disk outside the newborn black hole. The disk wind, assumed to eject 20% of the disk mass (chosen from a 1-30% literature range), carries material that passes through nuclear statistical equilibrium and emerges as iron-peak elements; the yield scales linearly with this assumed fraction. The jet from the disk, powered by accretion following the collapsar prescription, also drives a pressure wave that disrupts the outer star, and the yields from stellar winds, disk winds, and stellar disruption are combined and post-processed with a nuclear reaction network.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to compute the rotation profile at collapse with a stellar evolution code that self-consistently treats angular momentum transport and magnetic braking in the AGN disk environment: if the distribution of surface rotation speeds at collapse peaks well below 100 km s$^{-1}$, disks do not form and the predicted iron yield drops to zero. Observationally, measuring C/O, Mg/O, and Fe/Mg in individual quasar broad line regions with photoionization modelling, and finding them inconsistent with the AGN disk star pattern (high C/O and Fe/Mg, low Mg/O), would rule out this channel as a dominant iron source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, even though the ~12 $M_\odot$ CO cores of AGN disk stars collapse directly to black holes without a supernova, a sufficiently fast spin at collapse ($\sim$200 km s$^{-1}$) makes the collapsing material settle into a debris disk outside the innermost stable circular orbit, and winds from that disk eject roughly 0.77 $M_\odot$ of iron in the fiducial model (about 1 $M_\odot$ including model variations) into the AGN disk. The ejecta has three components: pre-collapse stellar winds rich in C, O, and N; disk winds that fuse material into iron-peak elements; and outer stellar material disrupted by the wind. The paper's stated conclusion is that these disks generate jet-driven explosions that produce large amounts of iron-peak elements and release roughly one solar mass of iron into the AGN disk, providing a directly observable diagnostic for the formation and fate of these stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that post-main-sequence AGN disk stars actually reach surface rotation speeds near 200 km s$^{-1}$ at collapse; if angular-momentum transport or longer eddy times keep them slower, no debris disk forms and the ~1 M_sun iron yield disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The iron injected by AGN disk stars can account for the super-solar iron abundances inferred in quasar broad line regions at high redshift, before thermonuclear supernovae become common.
  • Nucleosynthetic yields from AGN disk stars can act as a rate diagnostic: matching the predicted abundance ratios to observed spectra constrains the formation rate of stars and embedded black holes in AGN disks.
  • The fastest-spinning collapse models produce bar-mode gravitational waves that could be detectable out to the Virgo cluster, offering a coincident gravitational-wave signature of these events.
  • The predicted abundance patterns, with elevated C/O and Fe/Mg and depressed Mg/O, distinguish AGN disk stars from field core-collapse and thermonuclear supernovae in observed spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If AGN disks were common at high redshift, the roughly one solar mass of iron ejected per collapsing star could make this channel a non-negligible source of cosmic iron enrichment beyond the host galaxy, a possibility the paper does not quantify.
  • Because the iron yield scales linearly with the assumed disk-wind mass fraction (1-30%), a future magnetohydrodynamic simulation that pins down this fraction would sharpen the prediction without changing the qualitative claim.
  • The rotation argument depends on the post-main-sequence lifetime being comparable to the eddy turnover time; a direct simulation of angular momentum transport in AGN disk stars would test whether the 200 km s$^{-1}$ case is typical or exceptional, and the yield would adjust accordingly.
  • Applying the same photoionization modelling to individual quasars with known Eddington ratios, rather than composite spectra, could separate ionization effects from abundance effects and provide a stronger test of the predicted yield pattern.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Using MESA stellar models that follow the Ali-Dib & Lin (2023) prescription, this paper tracks massive stars embedded in AGN disks to the onset of Si burning, then applies collapsar-type collapse models to compute remnant masses, disk formation, and nucleosynthetic yields. The stars end as roughly 12-12.5 Msun C/O cores; slow rotators (vrot = 5, 20, 100 km/s) collapse silently to black holes, whereas the vrot = 200 km/s models form a debris disk (Mdisk ~ 6-9 Msun) whose assumed 20% wind, post-processed with the NuGrid TPPNP network, yields 0.77-1.87 Msun of iron (Table 3), plus roughly 0.7-1.7 Msun of unburned stellar material from disruption of the envelope. Comparing the combined yields with BLR abundance ratios inferred from CLOUDY models (Tables 4 and 5), the authors find Si/O and Fe/O in rough agreement, while C/O is over-predicted and Mg/O under-predicted by more than an order of magnitude. They conclude that rotating AGN-disk stars can inject roughly 1 Msun of Fe per event into the AGN disk, and that such yields may constrain the formation rate of these systems.

Significance. If the mechanism operates, this is a genuinely new nucleosynthetic channel: stars that collapse directly to black holes in AGN disks can still enrich their host disk in iron-peak elements through collapsar-like debris-disk winds, with implications for BLR abundances and high-redshift Fe enrichment. The qualitative result is physically plausible and builds on established collapsar physics (Popham et al. 1999; MacFadyen & Woosley 1999). Strengths of the paper are its use of established codes (MESA, NuGrid TPPNP, CLOUDY); forward modeling with no fitting to the observational constraints, so the yield calculation is not circular; transparent reporting of the mismatches in Table 5; and falsifiable predictions, namely high C/O, low Mg/O, and high Fe/C for disk-forming AGN stars (Figures 9-12). The quantitative claim of roughly 1 Msun of Fe is, however, conditional on two load-bearing assumptions, vrot ~ 200 km/s at collapse (Section 2) and the 20% disk-wind mass fraction (Section 3.2), which are neither bounded nor subjected to sensitivity analysis, and the paper acknowledges related simplifications (analytic wind, neglected shock burning) in Section 4.2.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Table 2, Fig. 3] The entire iron signal of the paper is carried by the v200 models: Table 2 gives Mdisk = 0 for v5, v20, and v100, and Table 3 lists zero disk Fe for these models, so the disk-formation threshold sits between 100 and 200 km/s. The Section 2 justification for vrot ~ 200 km/s is a qualitative timescale argument whose own text allows the rotation speed at collapse to range "from negligible to small, ~O(0.1), fraction of vKep(Rrot)" — i.e., from roughly zero to roughly 200 km/s — and the "comprehensive evaluation" of the rotational properties is explicitly deferred to future work. Because the Fe yield vanishes below this threshold, the headline result in Section 6 ("release (~1 Msun) Fe yield into the AGN disk") is contingent on the upper end of the admitted plausible range. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of the vrot distribution at collapse, or explicitly reframe the disk Fe yield as a conditional upper limit.
  2. [§3.2 and §4.2, Table 3] The disk-wind mass-loss fraction is a single-point choice: Section 3.2 assumes that 20% of the disk mass is ejected, citing a 1-30% literature range (Kaltenborn et al. 2023), and Section 4.2 states that the iron yield depends on this fraction. The Table 3 disk Fe yield (0.77 Msun for v200) therefore scales linearly over the cited range, from roughly 0.04 to 1.16 Msun. The same 20% is applied without discussion to the stellar-disruption fraction in Section 4.2 even though the two processes have different physics, and the 10% jet-to-pressure-wave conversion efficiency and the wind velocity of half the escape speed (Section 3.2) are likewise single-point picks. The central number would be adequately bounded by a one-line scaling or a small sensitivity table, and its absence makes "~1 Msun Fe" appear more precise than the stated input range supports.
  3. [§5.5 and §6, Table 5] Table 5 shows that the fiducial AGN model over-predicts C/O and under-predicts Mg/O by more than an order of magnitude, and Section 5.5 itself states that "the high C/O ratio from AGN disk stars would place strong limits on the yield contributions from these stars." This is in tension with Section 6's claim that the results "generally support the proposition" that the BLR abundances can be qualitatively attributed to embedded disk stars, and with Section 5.5's statement that the Fe yield is "more than adequate to explain" the high-redshift [Fe/H], which requires an event rate that is never computed in the paper. The conclusions should be reframed to state explicitly that the C/O and Mg/O discrepancies limit the allowed AGN-star contribution, and that the Fe-injection claim is conditional on the rotation and wind assumptions of Sections 2 and 3.2.
  4. [§4.2 and §4.3] The paper acknowledges in Section 4.2 that the disk wind is modeled as a simplified adiabatic analytic wind and assumes that the shock of the disk wind propagating through the star does not drive further burning, noting that this is likely to alter the yields. This simplification is not bounded, although the direction is partly known from the paper's own discussion in Section 4.3, which notes that a strong shock can produce considerable Si; partial incineration of the roughly 0.7-1.7 Msun of C/O-rich disruption ejecta could add to the iron-peak budget. The reported Fe yield should therefore be characterized as a lower bound, or the sensitivity to shock burning should be estimated quantitatively.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1 vs. Fig. 3] The text states that "models with initial rotation velocities above 100 km/s have sufficiently high angular momenta to form a disk (Figure 3)," but the Figure 3 caption says "above 200 km/s" and Table 2 gives Mdisk = 0 for v100; please reconcile the threshold statement and the caption.
  2. [Table 2] The mass accounting for the disk-forming models is unclear: for v200, Mfi = 12.5 Msun while Mremnant + Mdisk = 19.4 Msun, and combining the 20% wind (1.54 Msun) with the roughly 0.74 Msun of disruption ejecta does not obviously conserve mass with the quoted remnant. Please define the time at which Mremnant is evaluated and state how disk feeding, wind ejection, and disruption enter the bookkeeping.
  3. [§6] The sentence "...under-predict Mg/O and over-predict C/O by about an order of magnitude from, while the Si/O ratio..." is grammatically broken; the stray "from" should be removed.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract's phrase "consisting of neutron stars or blacks" should read "black holes."
  5. [§5.5] The statement that "the Fe/O of the AGN-disk stars is larger than the observationally inferred value" is stronger than Table 5 supports: the AGN range (-0.2 to 0.0) overlaps the observed range (-0.4 +/- 0.5) within the stated errors, so the claim should be qualified as a central-value comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fe yields are forward-modeled from MESA stellar structures and nuclear-network post-processing; the v200 disk-formation threshold and 20% disk-wind mass fraction are explicit, untuned assumptions, not fits to the BLR abundance ratios.

full rationale

The paper's central Fe-yield claim is obtained by a forward chain: MESA stellar evolution of AGN-disk stars, angular-momentum-based disk formation around the collapsed remnant, analytic disk/jet outflow models, and NuGrid TPPNP nuclear-network post-processing of the ejected trajectories. Nothing in this chain is calibrated to the observed BLR abundance ratios that are compared in Section 5. The two most sensitive inputs, the vrot ~ 200 km/s spin-up and the 20% disk-wind mass fraction, are explicitly presented as assumptions rather than derived from the target observations: Section 2 states that a comprehensive evaluation of the most likely rotational properties will be examined elsewhere, and Section 3.2 adopts 20% from a cited 1-30% literature range. If these inputs were fitted to the BLR constraints, one would expect agreement; instead, Table 5 shows the fiducial AGN-disk model over-predicts C/O and Fe/Mg and under-predicts Mg/O by about an order of magnitude, which is the signature of a genuine forward prediction rather than a post-hoc match. The self-citations (Cantiello et al. 2021, Ali-Dib & Lin 2023, Huang et al. 2023, Kaltenborn et al. 2023, Popham et al. 1999) supply prior evolutionary models, disk-wind parameterizations, and CLOUDY-based line-ratio abundance inferences, but none of them encodes the present Fe-yield result or is used as a uniqueness constraint to forbid alternatives. The observed N/O and Fe/Mg values imported from Huang et al. (2023) are derived from BLR emission-line photoionization modeling, independent of the yield calculation in this paper. No equation in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central yield numbers are governed by two hand-picked fractions (20% disk wind, 20% disruption) and by an argued, unverified stellar rotation speed. The evolutionary track and BLR abundance modeling rely on prior domain assumptions from the same research group. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Disk-wind mass-loss fraction = 20% of disk mass (range 1-30% from Kaltenborn et al. 2023)
    Assumed in Section 3.2; Fe yield in Table 3 scales linearly with this fraction. If 1%, Fe yield drops to about 0.04 M_sun.
  • Stellar disruption ejecta fraction = 20% of exterior stellar material
    Assumed in Section 4.2 ('we set this fraction to 20%'), controls C, O, Mg yields from disruption.
  • Jet-to-pressure-wave conversion efficiency = 10% of jet power
    Assumed in Section 3.2 ('we assume 10% of the jet power goes into driving this pressure wave'), affects explosion strength but little mass yield.
  • Disk-wind ejecta velocity = 1/2 of escape velocity
    Assumed in Section 3.2; affects energy budget but not composition strongly.
  • Stellar surface rotation velocity (vrot) = 5, 20, 100, 200 km/s (fiducial v200)
    Varied to sample range; only v200 (and v200lowZ/lowden) form disks and produce Fe. The expected value is argued, not measured.
  • Accretion disk alpha viscosity = 0.01
    Adopted from Deng et al. (2020) for disk accretion timescales.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AGN disk stars accrete to about 630 M_sun and lose mass to about 25-30 M_sun before post-main-sequence evolution (metamorphic track).
    From Cantiello et al. (2021) and Ali-Dib & Lin (2023), used throughout Section 2. Not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Radiative envelope prevents efficient extra mixing, so the star does not remain on the main sequence indefinitely.
    Adopted from Ali-Dib & Lin (2023), Section 2; this determines the post-main-sequence structure.
  • domain assumption CO cores >= 8 M_sun collapse to black holes without supernova.
    Using Fryer et al. (2012, 2022) prescriptions, Section 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk wind can be modeled as an adiabatically expanding analytic wind and shock burning in the star is neglected.
    Section 4.2: 'we assume that the ejecta expands adiabatically, using a simple analytic disk wind model'; 'we further assume that the shock of the disk wind propagating through the star does not drive further burning.' The authors note this is likely to alter yields.
  • domain assumption BLR line ratios can be interpreted with CLOUDY models assuming a solar abundance distribution for alpha elements with Z = 3 Z_sun.
    Section 5.3; the observed abundance ratios depend on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar Population and Metal Production in AGN Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQKGQDZ5

@misc{pith2026250106973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar Population and Metal Production in AGN Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQKGQDZ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06973}
}
read the original abstract

As gravitational wave detections increase the number of observed compact binaries (consisting of neutron stars or blacks), we begin to probe the different conditions producing these binaries. Most studies of compact remnant formation focus either on stellar collapse from the evolution of field binary stars in gas-free environments or the formation of stars in clusters where dynamical interactions capture the compact objects, forming binaries. But a third scenario exists. In this paper, we study the fate of massive stars formed, accrete gas, and evolve in the dense disks surrounding supermassive black holes. We calculate the explosions produced and compact objects formed by the collapse of these massive stars. Nucleosynthetic yields may provide an ideal, directly observable, diagnostic of the formation and fate of these stars in active galactic nuclei. We present a first study of the explosive yields from these stars, comparing these yields with the observed nucleosynthetic signatures in the disks around supermassive stars with quasars. We show that, even though these stars tend to form black holes, their rapid rotation leads to disks that can eject a considerable amount of iron during the collapse of the star. The nucleosynthetic yields from these stars can produce constraints on the number of systems formed in this manner, but further work is needed to exploit variations from the initial models presented in this paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Average atomic mass of our stars at collapse as a function of the enclosed mass coordinate. We vary the rotation speed to include outer star spin-up from 5-200 km s−1 . We also include a model with embedded in a lower metallicity disk and a model at lower metallicity - see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Entropy versus enclosed mass for the same suite of models as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Specific angular momentum profiles for the models described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accretion rate onto the black hole as a function of time for the models described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Power of the wind outflows assuming 20% of the disk mass is ejected with an excess energy set to 1/2 the escape velocity. These winds will further contribute to ejecting the star. collapses to a black hole (within a few seconds). This short-lived neutron-star phase can…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ejected masses of the elements for all our models. The diamonds represent our different AGN-disk stars. The purple dots correspond to ther￾monuclear supernovae and the cyan dots represent core-collapse supernovae. 4 YIELDS: COMPARISON OF AGN STARS TO FIELD STARS We hav…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Abundance mass fractions of C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si versus mass in our v200 AGN-disk star (top) and a 15 M⊙ field star (bottom). The large C/O core leads to very little variation of the abundances as a function of enclosed mass. Most of the N is destroyed in these stars pr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ejecta ratios of C to O and Si to O for our AGN models (with disk, disruption, and stellar ejecta combined), modest energy core-collapse supernova models (cyan), and thermonuclear supernova models (purple), as compared to solar ratios (black dashed line). We see here t…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ejecta ratios of Mg and Fe to C for our AGN models, modest energy core-collapse supernova models (cyan), and thermonuclear supernova models (purple), as compared to solar ratios (black dashed line). 5 YIELDS OBSERVED IN AGN DISKS By comparing the calculated yields fro…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: CLOUDY line intensity ratio Mg ii/Hβ for Z = 3Z⊙. The colored curves correspond to different models with various densities and ionizing flux. The grey dashed contour lines show the corresponding ionization pa￾rameter, U ∝ ionizing flux/electron number density. This in…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top Panel: CLOUDY line intensity ratio Mg ii/C iv for Z = 3Z⊙. The scatter shows Mg ii/C iv for each of the grid pairs with 18 ≤ log ϕ ≤ 21 cm−2 s −1 and 9 ≤ log nH ≤ 11 cm−3 . The solid black curve marks the LOC average for Mg ii/C iv over the full range of the ioniz…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Top: Line intensity ratio Fe ii/Mg ii for Zα = Z⊙, with a solar iron abundance. The colored curves correspond to different models with various densities and ionizing flux. The grey dashed contour lines show the corresponding ionization parameter, U. To first order, th…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Top: Line intensity ratio Fe iiλ4570 blend/Hβ for Zα = Z⊙ and hydrogen column density log NH = 25 cm−2 , with super-solar iron abundance, (Fe/H) = 10(Fe/H)⊙ by number. The contour curves cor￾respond to different models with various densities and ionizing flux. The gre…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott B. P. et al. , 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040

    2019

  2. [2]

    Abbott R. et al. , 2021, Phys. Rev. X, 11, 021053

    2021

  3. [3]

    Abbott R. et al. , 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039

    2023

  4. [4]

    Abbott R. et al. , 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 022001

    2024

  5. [5]

    Ali-Dib M., Lin D. N. C., 2023, , 526, 5824

    2023

  6. [6]

    Andrews S., Fryer C., Even W., Jones S., Pignatari M., 2020, , 890, 35

    2020

  7. [7]

    Arca Sedda M., Naoz S., Kocsis B., 2023, Universe, 9, 138

    2023

  8. [8]

    Artymowicz P., Lin D. N. C., Wampler E. J., 1993, , 409, 592

    1993

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Bader G., Deuflhard P., 1983, Numer. Math. (Heidelb.), 41, 373

    1983

  2. [10]

    Baldwin J., Ferland G., Korista K., Verner D., 1995, , 455, L119

    1995

  3. [11]

    Barth A. J. et al. , 2013, , 769, 128

    2013

  4. [12]

    Belczy \'n ski K., Bulik T., Zbijewski W., 2000, , 355, 479

    2000

  5. [13]

    Belczynski K. et al. , 2020, , 636, A104

    2020

  6. [14]

    A., Green R

    Boroson T. A., Green R. F., 1992, , 80, 109

    1992

  7. [15]

    C., Michaely E., 2021, , 505, 3844

    Britt D., Johanson B., Wood L., Miller M. C., Michaely E., 2021, , 505, 3844

    2021

  8. [16]

    Broekgaarden F. S. et al. , 2021, , 508, 5028

    2021

  9. [17]

    S., Lin D

    Cantiello M., Jermyn A. S., Lin D. N. C., 2021, , 910, 94

    2021

  10. [18]

    R., Karp A

    Cash J. R., Karp A. H., 1990, ACM Trans. Math. Softw., 16, 201

    1990

  11. [19]

    Chatzikos M. et al. , 2023, , 59, 327

    2023

  12. [20]

    Chen Y.-X., Jiang Y.-F., Goodman J., Lin D. N. C., 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12017

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C., 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10868

    Chen Y.-X., Jiang Y.-F., Goodman J., Ostriker E. C., 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10868

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Chen Y.-X., Lin D. N. C., 2023, , 522, 319

    2023

  15. [23]

    Chen Y.-X., Lin D. N. C., 2024, , 967, 88

    2024

  16. [24]

    C., 2003, , 115, 592

    Constantin A., Shields J. C., 2003, , 115, 592

    2003

  17. [25]

    Davidson K., Netzer H., 1979, Reviews of Modern Physics, 51, 715

    1979

  18. [26]

    B., Lin D

    Davies M. B., Lin D. N. C., 2020, , 498, 3452

    2020

  19. [27]

    W., 2011, , 739, 56

    De Rosa G., Decarli R., Walter F., Fan X., Jiang L., Kurk J., Pasquali A., Rix H. W., 2011, , 739, 56

    2011

  20. [28]

    Deng H., Mayer L., Latter H., 2020, , 891, 154

    2020

  21. [29]

    Deuflhard P., 1983, Numer. Math. (Heidelb.), 41, 399

    1983

  22. [30]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., 2016, , 462, 3302

    2016

  23. [31]

    J., Done C., Jin C., Landt H., Ward M

    Ferland G. J., Done C., Jin C., Landt H., Ward M. J., 2020, , 494, 5917

    2020

  24. [32]

    Floris A., Marziani P., Panda S., Sniegowska M., D'Onofrio M., Deconto-Machado A., del Olmo A., Czerny B., 2024, , 689, A321

    2024

  25. [33]

    L., Andrews S., Even W., Heger A., Safi-Harb S., 2018, , 856, 63

    Fryer C. L., Andrews S., Even W., Heger A., Safi-Harb S., 2018, , 856, 63

    2018

  26. [34]

    L., Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Dominik M., Kalogera V., Holz D

    Fryer C. L., Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Dominik M., Kalogera V., Holz D. E., 2012, , 749, 91

    2012

  27. [35]

    L., Benz W., Herant M., 1996, , 460, 801

    Fryer C. L., Benz W., Herant M., 1996, , 460, 801

    1996

  28. [36]

    L., Holz D

    Fryer C. L., Holz D. E., Hughes S. A., 2002, , 565, 430

    2002

  29. [37]

    L., Olejak A., Belczynski K., 2022, , 931, 94

    Fryer C. L., Olejak A., Belczynski K., 2022, , 931, 94

    2022

  30. [38]

    L., Woosley S

    Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Hartmann D. H., 1999, , 526, 152

    1999

  31. [39]

    Gaskell M., Thakur N., Tian B., Saravanan A., 2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e210112

    2022

  32. [40]

    Goodman J., 2003, , 339, 937

    2003

  33. [41]

    C., 2004, , 608, 108

    Goodman J., Tan J. C., 2004, , 608, 108

    2004

  34. [42]

    Gottlieb O., Jacquemin-Ide J., Lowell B., Tchekhovskoy A., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2023, , 952, L32

    2023

  35. [43]

    T., Ferland G

    Hamann F., Korista K. T., Ferland G. J., Warner C., Baldwin J., 2002, , 564, 592

    2002

  36. [44]

    Harris C. R. et al. , 2020, , 585, 357

    2020

  37. [45]

    L., Woosley S

    Heger A., Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Langer N., Hartmann D. H., 2003, , 591, 288

    2003

  38. [46]

    Huang J., Lin D. N. C., Shields G., 2023, , 525, 5702

    2023

  39. [47]

    D., 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  40. [48]

    S., Dittmann A

    Jermyn A. S., Dittmann A. J., McKernan B., Ford K. E. S., Cantiello M., 2022, , 929, 133

    2022

  41. [49]

    Jones S., Hirschi R., Pignatari M., Heger A., Georgy C., Nishimura N., Fryer C., Herwig F., 2015, , 447, 3115

    2015

  42. [50]

    Jones S. et al. , 2019 a , Astron. Astrophys., 622, A74

    2019

  43. [51]

    Jones S. W. et al. , 2019 b , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 485, 4287

    2019

  44. [52]

    37, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, pp

    Ju \'a rez Y., Maiolino R., M \'u jica R., 2009, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, Vol. 37, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, pp. 163--164

    2009

  45. [53]

    Kaltenborn M. A. R., Fryer C. L., Wollaeger R. T., Belczynski K., Even W., Kouveliotou C., 2023, , 956, 71

    2023

  46. [54]

    T., Goad M

    Korista K. T., Goad M. R., 2004, , 606, 749

    2004

  47. [55]

    Kritos K., Strokov V., Baibhav V., Berti E., 2024, , 110, 043023

    2024

  48. [56]

    U., Tauris T

    Kruckow M. U., Tauris T. M., Langer N., Kramer M., Izzard R. G., 2018, , 481, 1908

    2018

  49. [57]

    I., Woosley S

    MacFadyen A. I., Woosley S. E., 1999, , 524, 262

    1999

  50. [58]

    MacLeod M., Lin D. N. C., 2020, , 889, 94

    2020

  51. [59]

    Maeder A., Meynet G., 2010, , 54, 32

    2010

  52. [60]

    M., Oliva E., 2003, , 596, L155

    Maiolino R., Juarez Y., Mujica R., Nagar N. M., Oliva E., 2003, , 596, L155

    2003

  53. [61]

    S., 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1

    Mandel I., Broekgaarden F. S., 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1

    2022

  54. [62]

    Marziani P. et al. , 2018, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 5, 6

    2018

  55. [63]

    Matsuoka K., Nagao T., Maiolino R., Marconi A., Park D., Taniguchi Y., 2017, , 608, A90

    2017

  56. [64]

    McKernan B., Ford K. E. S., 2024, , 531, 3479

    2024

  57. [65]

    Nagao T., Marconi A., Maiolino R., 2006a, , 447, 157

  58. [66]

    E., Pogge R

    Osterbrock D. E., Pogge R. W., 1985, , 297, 166

    1985

  59. [67]

    Paczynski B., 1978, , 28, 91

    1978

  60. [68]

    Panda S., 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 850409

    2022

  61. [69]

    Paxton B. et al. , 2013, , 208, 4

    2013

  62. [70]

    E., 1988, , 330, 751

    Persson S. E., 1988, , 330, 751

    1988

  63. [71]

    Petrushevska T. et al. , 2023, , 669, A140

    2023

  64. [72]

    Pignatari M. et al. , 2016, , 225, 24

    2016

  65. [73]

    E., Fryer C., 1999, , 518, 356

    Popham R., Woosley S. E., Fryer C., 1999, , 518, 356

    1999

  66. [74]

    N., Giacobbo N., Santoliquido F., Spera M., Ballone A., Iorio G., 2020, , 497, 1563

    Rastello S., Mapelli M., Di Carlo U. N., Giacobbo N., Santoliquido F., Spera M., Ballone A., Iorio G., 2020, , 497, 1563

    2020

  67. [75]

    L., Chatterjee S., Rasio F

    Rodriguez C. L., Chatterjee S., Rasio F. A., 2016, , 93, 084029

    2016

  68. [76]

    Romagnolo A., Belczynski K., Klencki J., Agrawal P., Shenar T., Sz \'e csi D., 2023, , 525, 706

    2023

  69. [77]

    Sarkar A. et al. , 2021, , 907, 12

    2021

  70. [78]

    Schindler J.-T. et al. , 2020, , 905, 51

    2020

  71. [79]

    Seitenzahl I. R. et al. , 2013, , 429, 1156

    2013

  72. [80]

    R., Townsley D

    Seitenzahl I. R., Townsley D. M., 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, Alsabti A. W., Murdin P., eds., Springer International Publishing, p. 1955

    2017

  73. [81]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , 500, 33

    1973

  74. [82]

    C., 2014, , 513, 210

    Shen Y., Ho L. C., 2014, , 513, 210

    2014

  75. [83]

    A., Ludwig R

    Shields G. A., Ludwig R. R., Salviander S., 2010, , 721, 1835

    2010

  76. [84]

    A., 2022, , 517, 4034

    Stevenson S., Clarke T. A., 2022, , 517, 4034

    2022

  77. [85]

    W., Marziani P., Dultzin-Hacyan D., 2000, , 38, 521

    Sulentic J. W., Marziani P., Dultzin-Hacyan D., 2000, , 38, 521

    2000

  78. [86]

    A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2005, , 630, 167

    Thompson T. A., Quataert E., Murray N., 2005, , 630, 167

    2005

  79. [87]

    X., 1999, Astrophys

    Timmes F. X., 1999, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 124, 241

    1999

  80. [88]

    Trefoloni B. et al. , 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21867

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Vanden Berk D. E. et al. , 2001, , 122, 549

    2001

  82. [90]

    Verner E., Bruhweiler F., Johansson S., Peterson B., 2009, Physica Scripta Volume T, 134, 014006

    2009

  83. [91]

    P., Joly M., V \'e ron P., 2004, , 417, 515

    V \'e ron-Cetty M. P., Joly M., V \'e ron P., 2004, , 417, 515

    2004

  84. [92]

    Wang S. et al. , 2022, , 925, 121

    2022

  85. [93]

    Yang J. et al. , 2021, , 923, 262

    2021

  86. [94]

    Yang Y. et al. , 2019, , 123, 181101

    2019

  87. [95]

    Zevin M. et al. , 2021, , 910, 152

    2021

  88. [96]

    Zhang X., Wang T., Gary F., He Z., Wang Y., 2024, , 971, 6

    2024

  89. [97]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence a...

  90. [98]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.