Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 99 references

The Evolution of Hypervelocity Supernova Survivors and the Outcomes of Interacting Double White Dwarf Binaries

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

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

Pith's one-line read The coolest hypervelocity stars are the cooling remnants of white dwarfs stripped to nearly nothing before their companions exploded as Type Ia supernovae.

desk verdict A plausible and honest first model for the cool D6 and LP 40-365 survivors, with the key caveat that the initial fully convective structure is assumed, not yet derived from hydrodynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04451 v1 pith:W2LUCKU3 submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Ken J. Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords hypervelocitystarswhitedwarfsTypeIasupernovaeD6scenariodoubledwarfbinariesKelvin-HelmholtzcontractionLP40-365stellarevolution
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 the coolest hypervelocity stars produced by double white dwarf binaries are not merely shock-heated white dwarfs but the shrunken, nearly massless remnants of companion white dwarfs that lost almost all of their mass before and during their primary's Type Ia supernova explosion. Using stellar evolution calculations of initially fully convective, centrally heated stars, the author shows that D6-2's temperature, luminosity, and age match a $0.02\,M_\odot$ helium-rich contracting track, while D6-1 and D6-3 match a $0.15\,M_\odot$ carbon/oxygen-rich track. Extending the same models to oxygen/neon composition reproduces the LP 40-365 hypervelocity stars, which are interpreted as kicked survivors of partial oxygen deflagrations in near-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarfs. If correct, the paper pins the rate of survivors like D6-2 at roughly 2% of Type Ia supernovae and survivors like D6-1/D6-3 at 0.2%, and it connects these explosions to SN 2003fg-like transients.

What carries the argument

The central object is the initially fully convective, centrally heated low-mass star, built with MESA using custom Rosseland mean opacity tables for He-rich, C/O-rich, and O/Ne-rich compositions. These models evolve by Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction: they move down the fully convective Hayashi track at nearly constant effective temperature (about 6000 K), then, once the core becomes radiative, bounce to hotter temperatures and higher luminosities and settle onto the white-dwarf cooling sequence. The tracks serve as the theoretical map against which observed luminosities, effective temperatures, and ages of D6 and LP 40-365 survivors are compared, and their luminosities over time feed the rate estimate.

What would settle it

Detailed spectral fitting of D6-2 that measures its surface gravity and C/He abundance ratio: if the inferred mass is much above $0.02\,M_\odot$, or if the photospheric pressure is high enough to form the molecular C$_2$ bands that the current spectrum excludes, the Kelvin-Helmholtz contracting-remnant explanation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the cool D6 hypervelocity stars are the Kelvin-Helmholtz contracting remnants of He or C/O white dwarfs that lost most of their mass and were heated to the center, with D6-2 matched by a $0.02\,M_\odot$ He-rich track and D6-1/D6-3 by a $0.15\,M_\odot$ C/O-rich track. The same initial-condition models, with O/Ne-rich composition, reproduce the LP 40-365 class, interpreted as kicked remnants of near-Chandrasekhar-mass O/Ne white dwarfs partially disrupted by oxygen deflagrations. The paper also derives that roughly 2% of Type Ia supernovae eject a D6-2-like survivor and 0.2% eject a D6-1/D6-3-like survivor.

Load-bearing premise

The entire identification rests on the assumption that a companion white dwarf that loses most of its mass becomes an initially fully convective, centrally heated star whose internal entropy is uniform; the paper constructs such stars rather than deriving them from hydrodynamic simulations, and Section 5 concedes the initial models are 'at best an approximation'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a companion white dwarf loses enough mass before or during the primary's explosion, it becomes a fully convective, very low-mass star whose cooling evolution matches the cool D6 survivors.
  • The observed population implies that about 2% of Type Ia supernovae leave behind a D6-2-like He-rich survivor, and about 0.2% leave a D6-1/D6-3-like C/O-rich survivor, the latter rate being consistent with SN 2003fg-like events.
  • The hottest D6 survivors are likely cases where only the surface layers of the companion were heated, not fully convective stars, pointing to a distinct channel.
  • The LP 40-365 stars are the low-mass kicked remnants of O/Ne white dwarfs that approached the Chandrasekhar mass and underwent partial oxygen deflagrations; their explosions may appear as SN Iax or SN 2002es-like transients depending on the presence of an extended shell.
  • Interacting double white dwarf binaries can produce a wide range of outcomes, including long-lived merger remnants, two-star Type Ia supernovae, hypervelocity survivors, and iron core-collapse supernovae from O/Ne mergers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct measurement of D6-2's surface gravity from an upcoming high-resolution spectrum would test the $0.02\,M_\odot$ interpretation: the model predicts a photosphere far more tenuous than standard white-dwarf analyses assume.
  • The paper's cooling tracks imply the existence of very red, low-mass C/O-rich survivors that current color-based Gaia searches may miss; a dedicated red search could raise the inferred 0.2% rate.
  • The same fully convective initial condition, if applied to O/Ne remnants, suggests LP 40-365 stars and the coolest D6 stars could form a continuous sequence of stripped white dwarfs, distinguished only by composition and kick velocity.
  • If the D6-2 association with supernova remnant G70.0-21.5 is real, the low ejection velocity of a $0.02\,M_\odot$ remnant remains a puzzle that hydrodynamic simulations of the kick must resolve, possibly requiring a different mass-loss history.
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. The paper calculates MESA evolutionary tracks of initially fully convective, centrally heated low-mass stars with He-rich, C/O-rich, and O/Ne-rich compositions, and compares them to the observed hypervelocity supernova survivors. It argues that the three coolest D6 stars are the Kelvin-Helmholtz contracting remnants of companion white dwarfs that lost most of their mass before and during the primary's explosion: D6-2 is matched by a 0.02 Msun He-rich track, while D6-1, D6-3, and possibly J1235-3752 are matched by a 0.15 Msun C/O-rich track. From the paucity of detected candidates the paper infers that roughly 2% of SNe Ia leave a D6-2-like survivor and 0.2% leave a D6-1/D6-3-like survivor. It further argues that the LP 40-365 class of hypervelocity stars are low-mass O/Ne-rich remnants of near-Chandrasekhar-mass O/Ne white dwarfs that underwent partial oxygen deflagrations. The paper closes with speculative diagrams of interacting double white dwarf outcomes.

Significance. If the central interpretation is correct, the paper provides the first quantitative explanation of the cool D6 hypervelocity stars and derives observationally motivated rates for the D6 channel, which is an important constraint on Type Ia supernova progenitor models. It also offers a concrete evolutionary connection between LP 40-365 stars and partial oxygen deflagrations of near-Chandrasekhar-mass O/Ne white dwarfs, and makes testable predictions, such as the existence of very red, very low-mass hypervelocity survivors. The MESA calculations are standard, the opacity treatment is described clearly, and the input files are publicly available at the cited Zenodo DOI. The paper is also honest about its limitations, explicitly noting in Section 5 that the initially fully convective models are 'at best an approximation' and flagging the D6-2 velocity puzzle. The main weakness is that the inferred survivor masses and the resulting rates rest on this assumed initial structure, which is not derived from hydrodynamic simulations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 5] The initial conditions are load-bearing but not derived. Section 2 states that 'we construct hot, fully convective stars' with a chosen composition, while Section 5 concedes that 'our initially fully convective models are at best an approximation of the actual initial conditions of these stars.' Because the Hayashi-track effective temperature and the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale set the inferred masses, the D6-2 mass of 0.02 Msun, the D6-1/D6-3 mass of 0.15 Msun, and the rates in Section 3 all depend on the assumption that the post-impact remnant is homogeneous, fully convective, and centrally heated. If the real remnant retains composition gradients, a residual He layer, a degenerate core, or a different entropy profile, the inferred masses change and with them the rate estimates. Please either support this initial condition with a concrete argument or a parameter exploration (e.g., varying the entropy profile, residual He-shell mass, or degree of central heating) showing that the observed HR positions and ages are robust to such variations, or explicitly reframe the results as conditional on the assumed initial structure.
  2. [Section 2.1] The D6-2 velocity puzzle is an internal tension in the central mass inference. The paper states that D6-2's 'relatively low ejection velocity of 1050 km/s presents a puzzle' because the SN ejecta should naively accelerate a 0.02 Msun remnant to higher velocities, and it defers the resolution to future hydrodynamic simulations. Since the 0.02 Msun mass itself is inferred from the assumed Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling track and the association with G70.0-21.5, the paper should quantify whether any plausible momentum-deposition efficiency can simultaneously reproduce the cooling age and the observed low velocity. If the G70.0-21.5 association is instead a coincidence, the age and hence the inferred mass could be larger, which would remove the tension but also change the rate estimate. Please provide a quantitative discussion of this trade-off.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Figures 1-2] The observational properties of the three coolest D6 stars are estimated using He-atmosphere WD color relations even though 'these stars are clearly not He atmosphere WDs,' and no extinction correction is applied. The errors shown are only from parallax uncertainties. This systematic uncertainty directly affects the claimed agreement between the tracks and D6-1, D6-3 (0.15 Msun) and D6-2 (0.02 Msun). Please estimate how much plausible C/O- or He-rich atmosphere models and a reasonable range of extinction (e.g., 0.1-0.5 mag in the Gaia bandpass) would shift the derived Teff and luminosity, and whether the inferred masses would move by more than the spacing between adjacent tracks in Figures 1 and 2.
  4. [Section 3] The rate inversion assumes that the observed sample is complete for the stated selection criteria (MG < 20, proper motion > 50 mas/yr, tangential velocity > 600 km/s). The simulated histograms in Figures 4 and 5 count all stars in the model Galaxy that satisfy these criteria, and the paper then equates the detection of one D6-2-like star with a 2% rate and three C/O-rich survivors with a 0.2% rate. However, the actual discovery of D6 candidates depends on the completeness of the underlying Gaia and follow-up surveys, which is likely distance- and color-dependent and is not quantified here. Without a completeness model, the inferred rates should be presented as upper limits or as rates conditional on an assumed detection efficiency. Please either add a completeness estimate or soften the wording of the rate conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] There is a typo in the text: 'the stream from a a more massive C/O secondary WD' should read 'the stream from a more massive C/O secondary WD.'
  2. [Figure captions] The axis labels '104105' and '10□2' in the figure captions appear to be missing multiplication signs and superscripts; they should read e.g. '10^4 10^5' on the effective-temperature axis.
  3. [Table 1] The table header is rendered as 'T able 1' rather than 'Table 1.'
  4. [Section 2.1] The statement that 'the parameters of the three hottest D6 stars can be matched by a model with a mass ≳ 0.5 Msun' is not tied to a specific track in Figure 1 or Figure 2; please specify which model (composition and mass) is being compared and show it in the figures or in a separate figure.
  5. [Section 3] The simulated histograms use fixed ejection velocities for each survivor population, but the observed velocities (and hence the derived t_midplane values) have uncertainties that are not propagated into the histograms; a sentence acknowledging this limitation would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: survivor masses are fitted parameters in a forward MESA evolution calculation, but the Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling timescales, age comparisons, and rate estimates provide independent physical content.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is a forward stellar-evolution calculation: it constructs initially fully convective stars with specified masses and compositions, evolves them in MESA, and compares the resulting tracks to observed D6 and LP 40-365 stars. The masses (0.02, 0.15, ~0.25 Msun) are free parameters in this comparison, so the visual agreement in Figures 1-3 is a fit rather than an ab initio prediction; however, this is parameter inference, not circularity. The paper does not rename the fitted masses as predictions: it explicitly derives masses from the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale scaling and the observed ages, and the cooling timescale, effective temperatures, and luminosity evolution are genuine physical outputs of the models. The rate estimates in Section 3 are inverse-detection-efficiency calculations: they ask how many stars like D6-2 or D6-1/D6-3 would be seen if every SN Ia produced such a survivor, then divide the observed count by that expectation. This is statistically conditioned on the tracks but is not a tautology, and the resulting ~0.2% C/O-survivor rate is checked against the independent SN 2003fg rate. Section 5's admission that the fully convective initial models are 'at best an approximation' flags a model limitation and a dependence on future hydrodynamical simulations, not a circular step; the initial condition is physically motivated by mass loss and ejecta heating (Section 1), not defined in terms of the output tracks. Self-citations (Shen et al. 2018b, 2024; Shen & Bildsten 2014) provide background context and prior results; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for this paper's calculation. No equation in the paper is shown to equal its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. I therefore find no significant circularity.

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

The paper's central claim rests on a small number of fitted survivor masses, an assumed initial fully convective structure, and standard Galactic population assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The main epistemic weight falls on whether the fully convective initial condition is physically realized, which the paper itself identifies as an approximation.

free parameters (6)
  • D6-2 survivor mass = 0.02 M_sun (He-rich)
    Selected so the MESA KH-contraction track passes through D6-2's observed L, Teff, and age (Fig. 2).
  • D6-1/D6-3 survivor mass = 0.15 M_sun (C/O-rich)
    Selected to match their observed positions and ages (Fig. 1).
  • J1235-3752 survivor mass = ~0.25 M_sun (inferred)
    The paper states a 0.25 M_sun C/O model would evolve through its position at a later age.
  • LP 40-365 survivor masses = 0.1 to 0.3 M_sun (O/Ne-rich)
    Grid of masses chosen to bracket the observed LP 40-365 stars (Fig. 3).
  • Initial heating luminosity = L > 10 L_sun
    Initial entropy chosen such that the outgoing luminosity exceeds 10 L_sun; the paper says the precise value is unimportant for ages of interest.
  • Ejection velocities for rate estimate = 1050 and 2300 km/s
    Adopted for the two survivor populations in the population synthesis (Section 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed hypervelocity stars are surviving companions of SN Ia explosions (D6 scenario).
    Taken from Shen et al. (2018b) and El-Badry et al. (2023); the paper builds on this interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper The companion WD can be converted into a fully convective, centrally heated low-mass star by mass loss and ejecta impact.
    Assumed at start of Section 2 ('we construct hot, fully convective stars'); not derived from hydrodynamics; Section 5 concedes it is an approximation.
  • domain assumption MESA stellar evolution with the custom CMFGEN-based opacities correctly models these stars.
    Standard tooling assumption; opacity tables are calculated in LTE following Schwab et al. (2016).
  • domain assumption t_midplane (travel time from the Galactic midplane) is a valid proxy for survivor age.
    Used in Figures 1-3 and Section 3; the paper notes negative values for stars moving toward the plane.
  • domain assumption In the rate estimate, the Milky Way disk model and extinction law are correct.
    Section 3 uses a 300 pc scale height, 2.6 kpc scale length, 5e10 M_sun stellar mass, 5e-3 yr^-1 SN Ia rate, AG=0.85 mag/kpc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Evolution of Hypervelocity Supernova Survivors and the Outcomes of Interacting Double White Dwarf Binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W2LUCKU3

@misc{pith2026250204451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Evolution of Hypervelocity Supernova Survivors and the Outcomes of Interacting Double White Dwarf Binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W2LUCKU3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04451}
}
read the original abstract

The recent prediction and discovery of hypervelocity supernova survivors has provided strong evidence that the "dynamically driven double-degenerate double-detonation" (D6) Type Ia supernova scenario occurs in Nature. In this model, the accretion stream from the secondary white dwarf in a double white dwarf binary strikes the primary white dwarf violently enough to trigger a helium shell detonation, which in turn triggers a carbon/oxygen core detonation. If the secondary white dwarf survives the primary's explosion, it will be flung away as a hypervelocity star. While previous work has shown that the hotter observed D6 stars can be broadly understood as secondaries whose outer layers have been heated by their primaries' explosions, the properties of the cooler D6 stars have proven difficult to reproduce. In this paper, we show that the cool D6 stars can be explained by the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction of helium or carbon/oxygen white dwarfs that underwent significant mass loss and core heating prior to and during the explosion of their white dwarf companions. We find that the current population of known D6 candidates is consistent with ~2% of Type Ia supernovae leaving behind a hypervelocity surviving companion. We also calculate the evolution of hot, low-mass oxygen/neon stars and find reasonable agreement with the properties of the LP 40-365 class of hypervelocity survivors, suggesting that these stars are the kicked remnants of near-Chandrasekhar-mass oxygen/neon white dwarfs that were partially disrupted by oxygen deflagrations. We use these results as motivation for schematic diagrams showing speculative outcomes of interacting double white dwarf binaries, including long-lived merger remnants, Type Ia supernovae, and several kinds of peculiar transients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Luminosity vs. effective temperature of hyper￾velocity stars with compositions similar to D6-1, D6-2, and D6-3, shown as error bars, and evolutionary tracks of ini￾tially fully convective C/O-rich stars from MESA, with masses as labeled. Colors and circles correspond to the labeled ages. J0927-6335 is displayed in green because it has a negative travel time from the midplane. photospheric metal ratios. The C/O-rich … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the results of our He-rich simulations, again compared to known D6 survivors. The hottest D6 stars are out of reach of even the highest mass case we consider, 0.3 M⊙, as He WDs have a maximum mass of 0.45 M⊙, and the companion WD must lose significant mass to be converted into a fully convective star by the primary’s ejecta impact. While J1235-3752 might be plausibly explained as a 0.3 M⊙ He-rich star based on… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of detectable hypervelocity survivors, assuming all SNe Ia eject a 0.02 M⊙ He-rich companion at a velocity of 1050 km s−1 . The criteria for detection are as listed in the figure and described in the text. D6-2’s midplane time is as labeled. 0 2 4 6 8 tmidpla…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Speculative outcomes of interacting double WDs binaries, as a function of primary WD mass, M1, and sec￾ondary WD mass, M2. All binaries are assumed to undergo dynamical timescale mass transfer (Shen 2015), and the pri￾mary WD is assumed to possess its birth structure a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    B., Chandra, V., Shen, K

    Bauer, E. B., Chandra, V., Shen, K. J., & Hermes, J. J. 2021, ApJL, 923, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac432d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac432d 2021

  3. [3]

    B., White, C

    Bauer, E. B., White, C. J., & Bildsten, L. 2019, ApJ, 887, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4 2019

  4. [4]

    B., Pakmor, R., et al

    Bhat, A., Bauer, E. B., Pakmor, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451371

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451371 2025

  5. [5]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  6. [6]

    Blondin, S., Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 3931, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3058

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3058 2018

  7. [7]

    J., Dessart, L., Shen, K

    Boos, S. J., Dessart, L., Shen, K. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2024a, submitted (arXiv:2410.22276), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.22276

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.22276

  8. [8]

    J., Townsley, D

    Boos, S. J., Townsley, D. M., & Shen, K. J. 2024b, ApJ, 972, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2 12 Shen

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Miles, B. J. 2021, ApJ, 919, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 7, doi: 10.21105/astro.2310.16554

    Braudo, J., & Soker, N. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 7, doi: 10.21105/astro.2310.16554

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2016, ApJ, 821, 28, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/28

    Brooks, J., Bildsten, L., Schwab, J., & Paxton, B. 2016, ApJ, 821, 28, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/28

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, ApJ, 843, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79a6

    Paxton, B. 2017, ApJ, 843, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79a6

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Howell, D

    Cao, Y., Kulkarni, S. R., Howell, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 521, 328, doi: 10.1038/nature14440

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    L., et al

    Chandra, V., Hwang, H.-C., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 6122, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac883

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Shingles, L

    Collins, C. E., Shingles, L. J., Sim, S. A., et al. 2024, submitted (arXiv:2411.11643), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.11643

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 14, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1766

    Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Br¨ uggen, M., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 14, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1766

    2014 doi

  9. [18]

    2024, A&A, accepted (arXiv.2409.04200), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04200

    Dimitriadis, G., Burgaz, U., Deckers, M., et al. 2024, A&A, accepted (arXiv.2409.04200), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04200

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    Lau, H. H. B. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2180

    2015 doi

  11. [20]

    J., Chandra, V., et al

    El-Badry, K., Shen, K. J., Chandra, V., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 28, doi: 10.21105/astro.2306.03914

    2023 arXiv

  12. [21]

    A., Neustadt, J

    Fesen, R. A., Neustadt, J. M. M., Black, C. S., & Koeppel, A. H. D. 2015, ApJ, 812, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/37

    2015 doi

  13. [22]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 Fitz Axen, M., & Nugent, P. 2023, ApJ, 953, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd5d

    2010 doi

  14. [23]

    D., Brennan, S

    Fraser, M., Stritzinger, M. D., Brennan, S. J., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.07278, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.07278

    2021 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    2022, Nature, 601, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1

    Gal-Yam, A., Bruch, R., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, Nature, 601, 201, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04155-1

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    V., et al

    Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/142 G¨ ansicke, B. T., Koester, D., Raddi, R., Toloza, O., &

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    Kepler, S. O. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1761 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P. E., Cukanovaite, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2672

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1846

    Ghosh, A., & Kushnir, D. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 286, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1846

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    B., Bhat, A., & Pakmor, R

    Glanz, H., Perets, H. B., Bhat, A., & Pakmor, R. 2024, submitted (arXiv:2410.17306), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17306

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    T., et al

    Gronow, S., Collins, C., Ohlmann, S. T., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936494

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    E., Sim, S

    Gronow, S., Collins, C. E., Sim, S. A., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2021, A&A, 649, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039954

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    2010, ApJL, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    Guillochon, J., Dan, M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rosswog, S. 2010, ApJL, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    2010 doi

  23. [32]

    1961, PASJ, 13, 450

    Hayashi, C. 1961, PASJ, 13, 450

    1961

  24. [33]

    2011, CMFGEN: Probing the Universe through

    Hillier, J. 2011, CMFGEN: Probing the Universe through

    2011

  25. [34]

    A., Sullivan, M., Nugent, P

    Howell, D. A., Sullivan, M., Nugent, P. E., et al. 2006, Nature, 443, 308, doi: 10.1038/nature05103

    2006 doi

  26. [35]

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

    2007 doi

  27. [36]

    Iben, Jr., I., Nomoto, K., Tornambe, A., & Tutukov, A. V. 1987, ApJ, 317, 717, doi: 10.1086/165318

    1987 doi

  28. [37]

    J., & Tutukov, A

    Iben, I. J., & Tutukov, A. V. 1991, ApJ, 370, 615, doi: 10.1086/169848 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Polin, A., Foley, R. J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab94b8

    1991 doi

  29. [38]

    2014, ApJ, 797, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/83

    Jones, S., Hirschi, R., & Nomoto, K. 2014, ApJ, 797, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/83

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    K., Pakmor, R., et al

    Jones, S., R¨ opke, F. K., Pakmor, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628321

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    K., Fryer, C., et al

    Jones, S., R¨ opke, F. K., Fryer, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834381

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 140, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/aaedb710.48550/arXiv.1811.00013

    Kashyap, R., Haque, T., Lor´ en-Aguilar, P., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., & Fisher, R. 2018, ApJ, 869, 140, doi: 10.3847/ 1538-4357/aaedb710.48550/arXiv.1811.00013

    2018 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    O., Koester, D., & Ourique, G

    Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., & Ourique, G. 2016, Science, 352, 67, doi: 10.1126/science.aad6705

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    L., & Li, D

    Kremer, K., Piro, A. L., & Li, D. 2021, ApJL, 917, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac13a0

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    A., Fink, M., et al

    Kromer, M., Sim, S. A., Fink, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1067, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1067

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    Lu, W., Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    1980, PASJ, 32, 303 13

    Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., Yokoi, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1980, PASJ, 32, 303 13

    1980

  39. [48]

    Moll, R., Raskin, C., Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2014, ApJ, 785, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/105 Mor´ an-Fraile, J., Holas, A., R¨ opke, F. K., Pakmor, R., &

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    Schneider, F. R. N. 2024, A&A, 683, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347769

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    1968, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 39, 619, doi: 10.1143/PTP.39.619

    Murai, T., Sugimoto, D., H¯ oshi, R., & Hayashi, C. 1968, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 39, 619, doi: 10.1143/PTP.39.619

    1968 doi

  42. [51]

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

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

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    1982, ApJ, 253, 798, doi: 10.1086/159682 —

    Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 253, 798, doi: 10.1086/159682 —. 1984, ApJ, 277, 791, doi: 10.1086/161749

    1982 doi

  44. [53]

    K., & Hillebrandt, W

    Pakmor, R., Hachinger, S., R¨ opke, F. K., & Hillebrandt, W. 2011, A&A, 528, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015653

    2011 doi

  45. [54]

    K., et al

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 61, doi: 10.1038/nature08642

    2010 doi

  46. [55]

    2012, ApJL, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10

    2012 doi

  47. [56]

    2013, ApJL, 770, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., & Springel, V. 2013, ApJL, 770, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    B., & Toonen, S

    Pakmor, R., Zenati, Y., Perets, H. B., & Toonen, S. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4734, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab686

    2021 doi

  49. [58]

    P., Collins, C

    Pakmor, R., Callan, F. P., Collins, C. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5260, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3107

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    2024, A&A, 691, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451352

    Pakmor, R., Pelisoli, I., Justham, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451352

    2024 doi

  51. [60]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 942, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv337

    Papish, O., Soker, N., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., & Aznar-Sigu´ an, G. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 942, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv337

    2015 doi

  52. [61]

    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

    2011 doi

  53. [62]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

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

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

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

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  57. [66]

    B., Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P

    Perets, H. B., Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2010, Nature, 465, 322, doi: 10.1038/nature09056

    2010 doi

  58. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a

    Polin, A., Nugent, P., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJ, 873, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    A., G¨ ansicke, B

    Raddi, R., Hollands, M. A., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 479, L96, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly103

    doi

  60. [69]

    A., Koester, D., et al

    Raddi, R., Hollands, M. A., Koester, D., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 858, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab899 —. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1618

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    M., & Shen, K

    Rajavel, N., Townsley, D. M., & Shen, K. J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada034

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/75

    Raskin, C., Kasen, D., Moll, R., Schwab, J., & Woosley, S. 2014, ApJ, 788, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/75

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

    Timmes, F. X. 2012, ApJ, 746, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/62

    2012 doi

  64. [73]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2024, A&A Rv, accepted (arXiv:2412.01766), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01766

    2024 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    J., Sim, S

    Ruiter, A. J., Sim, S. A., Pakmor, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts423

    2013 doi

  66. [75]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 5303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty586 —

    Schwab, J. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty586 —. 2019, ApJ, 885, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab425d —. 2021, ApJ, 906, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87e

    2018 doi

  67. [76]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 3461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2249

    Schwab, J., Quataert, E., & Kasen, D. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2249

    2016 doi

  68. [77]

    J., Quataert, E., Dan, M., & Rosswog, S

    Schwab, J., Shen, K. J., Quataert, E., Dan, M., & Rosswog, S. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 190, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21993.x

    2012

  69. [78]

    Shen, K. J. 2015, ApJL, 805, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L6

    2015 doi

  70. [79]

    J., & Bildsten, L

    Shen, K. J., & Bildsten, L. 2014, ApJ, 785, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/61

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    J., Bildsten, L., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Shen, K. J., Bildsten, L., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2012, ApJ, 748, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/35

    2012 doi

  72. [81]

    J., Blondin, S., Kasen, D., et al

    Shen, K. J., Blondin, S., Kasen, D., et al. 2021a, ApJL, 909, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe69b

    doi

  73. [82]

    J., Boos, S

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2024, ApJ, 975, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7379

    2024 doi

  74. [83]

    J., Boos, S

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., Townsley, D. M., & Kasen, D. 2021b, ApJ, 922, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2304

    doi

  75. [84]

    J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

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

    doi

  76. [85]

    J., Quataert, E., & Pakmor, R

    Shen, K. J., Quataert, E., & Pakmor, R. 2019, ApJ, 887, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5370

    2019 doi

  77. [86]

    J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B

    Shen, K. J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 865, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b

    doi

  78. [87]

    R., Foley, R

    Siebert, M. R., Foley, R. J., Zenati, Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad037f

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    A., R¨ opke, F

    Sim, S. A., R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, ApJL, 714, L52, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/1/L52

    2010 doi

  80. [89]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9ee

    Tanikawa, A., Nomoto, K., & Nakasato, N. 2018, ApJ, 868, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9ee

    2018 doi

  81. [90]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b6

    Tanikawa, A., Nomoto, K., Nakasato, N., & Maeda, K. 2019, ApJ, 885, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b6

    2019 doi

  82. [91]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Taubenberger, S. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (New York: Springer), 317, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 37 14 Shen

    2017 doi

  83. [92]

    M., Miles, B

    Townsley, D. M., Miles, B. J., Shen, K. J., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJL, 878, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab27cd

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    2017, Science, 357, 680, doi: 10.1126/science.aam8378

    Vennes, S., Nemeth, P., Kawka, A., et al. 2017, Science, 357, 680, doi: 10.1126/science.aam8378

    2017 doi

  85. [94]

    2024, A&A, 682, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348286

    Werner, K., Reindl, N., Rauch, T., El-Badry, K., & B´ edard, A. 2024, A&A, 682, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348286

    2024 doi

  86. [95]

    Wong, T. L. S., White, C. J., & Bildsten, L. 2024, ApJ, 973, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a11

    2024 doi

  87. [96]

    2023a, MNRAS, 525, 6295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2636

    Wu, C., Xiong, H., Han, Z., & Wang, B. 2023a, MNRAS, 525, 6295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2636

    doi

  88. [97]

    2023b, ApJL, 944, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f3

    Wu, C., Xiong, H., Lin, J., et al. 2023b, ApJL, 944, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6f3

    doi

  89. [98]

    2003, A&A, 412, L53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034607

    Yoon, S.-C., & Langer, N. 2003, A&A, 412, L53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034607

    2003 doi

  90. [99]

    B., Dessart, L., et al

    Zenati, Y., Perets, H. B., Dessart, L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf65

    2023 doi

  91. [100]

    Zhang, M., Fuller, J., Schwab, J., & Foley, R. J. 2019, ApJ, 872, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb34

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.