Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Jets shaped the narrow pipe structures seen across some planetary nebulae and core-collapse supernova remnants.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 23:46 UTC pith:AF2FUD3M

load-bearing objection This is incremental work in the JJEM series that adds a few PNe examples and one simulation but stays at visual resemblance without numbers or alternative checks. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.03961 v3 pith:AF2FUD3M submitted 2026-05-05 astro-ph.HE

The jet-shaped pipe morphology in planetary nebulae and core-collapse supernova remnants

Jessica Braudo , Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords planetary nebulaecore-collapse supernova remnantsjetsmorphologyexplosion mechanismhydrodynamic simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper compares images of planetary nebulae and two core-collapse supernova remnants that both show a narrow faint zone called a pipe running side to side. It presents examples of PNe with pipes or opposite narrow lobes and argues that in some cases the lobes can merge into a single pipe. A three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulation of a massive star exploded by three pairs of jets reproduces narrow opposite lobes that can later merge into a pipe. The authors conclude from the morphological match that the same jet activity shaped the pipes in the observed CCSNRs. This adds to a series of papers arguing that the jittering jets explosion mechanism is the main way core-collapse supernovae occur.

Core claim

Qualitative similarity between the pipe morphology in two CCSNRs and jet-shaped PNe, together with a hydrodynamic simulation of three jet pairs that produces merging narrow lobes, indicates that jets shaped the pipes in both classes of objects and thereby supports the jittering jets explosion mechanism as the primary process for core-collapse supernovae.

What carries the argument

The pipe, defined as a narrow faint zone extending from side to side, formed when opposite jet-driven lobes merge.

Load-bearing premise

Visual resemblance between observed pipe and lobe shapes and the output of one jet simulation means the same jet process actually created the observed features rather than other mechanisms or projection effects.

What would settle it

Finding a CCSNR with a clear pipe but no morphological or kinematic signatures of jets, or a simulation of non-jet processes that still produces a comparable pipe.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • More CCSNRs should exhibit pipe or lobe structures traceable to jet activity.
  • The two opposite narrow lobes seen in some PNe can evolve into a single pipe through later merging.
  • Morphological comparisons between PNe and CCSNRs can serve as a diagnostic for the explosion mechanism in supernovae.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If jets dominate the shaping, kinematic maps of CCSNRs should show velocity signatures aligned with the pipe axis.
  • The same jet-pair geometry might appear in other supernova remnant classes if the mechanism is general.
  • Future high-resolution imaging surveys could test whether pipe frequency correlates with progenitor mass or rotation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper compares 'pipe' morphologies (narrow faint zones extending side-to-side) in two core-collapse supernova remnants (CCSNRs) with similar features in jet-shaped planetary nebulae (PNe), presents additional PNe with opposite narrow lobes, and reports a 3D hydrodynamic simulation of a massive-star explosion using three pairs of jets in the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM). It concludes from qualitative image similarity that jets shaped the pipes in the CCSNRs and PNe, and that this supports JJEM as the primary CCSN explosion mechanism.

Significance. If the morphological analogy were supported by quantitative metrics and exclusion of alternatives, the work would add incremental morphological evidence for jet activity in CCSNRs and contribute to the ongoing debate on CCSN mechanisms. As presented, the qualitative nature of the comparisons limits its ability to distinguish JJEM from other processes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and simulation section] Abstract and the section on the hydrodynamic simulation: the claim that the three-pair jet run 'reproduces two opposite narrow lobes' that 'can merge later to form a pipe' rests on visual inspection alone; no quantitative similarity metrics (aspect ratios, surface-brightness profiles, spatial scales, or shape descriptors), parameter values, resolution tests, or time-sequence overlays are reported, rendering the match non-falsifiable.
  2. [Morphology comparison section] The section comparing CCSNR and PN morphologies: the inference that jets shaped the observed pipes in the two CCSNRs is drawn directly from qualitative resemblance to the PNe and the JJEM simulation, without any statistical test or error analysis on the morphological match and without addressing whether Rayleigh-Taylor/Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities, asymmetric ejecta, or line-of-sight projection could produce comparable faint zones.
  3. [Discussion section] Discussion section: the paper interprets the pipe features inside the JJEM framework advocated in prior works by the same authors, but provides no independent test (e.g., predicted velocity fields, abundance patterns, or multi-wavelength signatures) that would break the interpretive loop between assumed jet origin and observed morphology.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'in some cases the two opposite narrow lobes might merge,' but the manuscript does not specify the fraction of PNe for which this occurs or provide observational examples of intermediate stages.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions and text should clarify whether the displayed images are in the same wavelength band and whether any processing (e.g., continuum subtraction) was applied uniformly to CCSNRs and PNe.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful report. We address each major comment below, indicating revisions where appropriate. Our responses focus on the manuscript's scope as a qualitative morphological study within an ongoing series of papers.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and simulation section] Abstract and the section on the hydrodynamic simulation: the claim that the three-pair jet run 'reproduces two opposite narrow lobes' that 'can merge later to form a pipe' rests on visual inspection alone; no quantitative similarity metrics (aspect ratios, surface-brightness profiles, spatial scales, or shape descriptors), parameter values, resolution tests, or time-sequence overlays are reported, rendering the match non-falsifiable.

    Authors: We agree that the simulation comparison is presented qualitatively. In revision we will expand the simulation section to report the specific jet parameters (velocities, opening angles, durations), grid resolution, and a brief description of the time evolution showing lobe formation and potential merging. Quantitative metrics such as aspect ratios are not reported because the simulation and observations operate at vastly different physical scales and involve projection effects that preclude direct numerical comparison; we will add an explicit statement to this effect. The match remains visual by design, consistent with the paper's morphological focus. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Morphology comparison section] The section comparing CCSNR and PN morphologies: the inference that jets shaped the observed pipes in the two CCSNRs is drawn directly from qualitative resemblance to the PNe and the JJEM simulation, without any statistical test or error analysis on the morphological match and without addressing whether Rayleigh-Taylor/Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities, asymmetric ejecta, or line-of-sight projection could produce comparable faint zones.

    Authors: We acknowledge the absence of statistical tests and alternative explanations. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph discussing why Rayleigh-Taylor or Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities are unlikely to produce the observed narrow, side-to-side faint zones (based on their typical morphology in CCSNR simulations) and briefly address projection effects. Statistical tests on small samples with heterogeneous image quality are not feasible here; we will note this limitation explicitly rather than claim a statistical demonstration. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion section] Discussion section: the paper interprets the pipe features inside the JJEM framework advocated in prior works by the same authors, but provides no independent test (e.g., predicted velocity fields, abundance patterns, or multi-wavelength signatures) that would break the interpretive loop between assumed jet origin and observed morphology.

    Authors: The manuscript's stated goal is morphological comparison to strengthen the case for JJEM as one element in a series of papers; it does not claim to provide independent tests such as velocity fields or abundance patterns. Such tests lie outside the present scope and would require new observational data or separate simulations. We will revise the discussion to clarify the paper's limited but complementary role within the broader JJEM argument rather than implying it stands alone. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; morphological analogy stands as independent interpretive step

full rationale

The paper advances its claim solely through qualitative comparison of observed pipe and lobe morphologies in CCSNRs and PNe against a single hydrodynamic simulation initialized with three jet pairs inside the JJEM framework. No equations, fitted parameters, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are invoked as load-bearing premises that reduce the final suggestion (jets shaped the pipes) back to the inputs by construction. The simulation output is presented as a demonstration that such features are possible under jets, not as a statistical prediction or renamed empirical pattern. The series reference is contextual framing rather than the sole justification for the analogy. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external image data and does not match any enumerated circularity pattern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the domain assumption that morphological similarity between observed objects and a chosen jet simulation indicates shared physical origin, plus the background premise that the JJEM framework is the appropriate lens for interpreting both PNe and CCSNR shapes.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Morphological similarity to a jet simulation implies that jets physically shaped the observed pipe and lobe structures.
    Invoked when the paper concludes jets shaped the pipes from qualitative resemblance alone.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5765 in / 1324 out tokens · 11855 ms · 2026-06-30T23:46:31.488363+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We compare images of core-collapse supernova (CCSN) remnants (CCSNRs) and jet-shaped planetary nebulae (PNe) that have a narrow, faint zone extending from side to side, termed a pipe, with a hydrodynamical numerical simulation exploding a massive star with three pairs of jets in the framework of the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM), and conclude that jets shaped the pipes in these CCSNRs and PNe. We present two jet-shaped PNe with a pipe and three PNe with two opposite narrow jet-shaped lobes, and argue that in some cases the two opposite narrow lobes might merge to form one long, faint zone extending from side to side of the PN, namely, a pipe. From the qualitative similarity of the pipe morphology of the two CCSNRs we analyze with the pipe of the PNe, we suggest that jets also shaped the pipe of these CCSNRs. We strengthen this conclusion with a three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulation that reproduces two opposite narrow lobes, similar to those observed in PNe with lobes. These lobes can merge later to form a pipe. This paper is another in a series that strengthen the case for the JJEM as the primary explosion mechanism of CCSNe by comparing CCSNR morphologies with those of jet-shaped PNe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03961 by Israel), Jessica Braudo, Noam Soker (Technion.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An image of the Cygnus Loop CCSNR in the visible band adapted from Raymond et al. (2023); the marks in white are from Shishkin et al. (2024), who identified the pipe and a point-symmetric morphology. Soker & Akashi (2025) argued that the cavity is a circum-jet ring. The pipe is the long, dark, north-south region; the white-dashed line covers a short portion of it. claim it was shaped by a pair of opposite … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Images of SNR G292.0+1.8. (a) An image from the Chandra site (Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Penn State/Park et al. 2007; Optical: Pal.Obs. DSS): Red (0.580-710 and 0.880-950 keV), Orange (0.980-1.100 keV), Green (1.280-1.430 keV), Blue (1.810-2.050 and 2.400-2.620 keV); Optical (white). We added labeling for the two ears identified by Bear et al. (2017) as jet-shaped structures, as well as for the north and sout… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Emission-line maps of PN NGC 6720 adapted from Wesson et al. (2026b), who conducted and analyzed observations by the William Herschel Telescope on La Palma. Each map indicates the emitting species and the associated creation energy. The contours are of [Fe v] emission and represent the iron bar; collisional excitation of Fe4+ (54.8 eV ionization potential) produces this line. Images are on a linear surface… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Emission-line maps of PN NGC 6720 adapted from Wesson et al. (2026b), who conducted and analyzed observations by the William Herschel Telescope on La Palma. Each map indicates the emitting species and the associated creation energy. The contours are of [Fe v] emission and represent the iron bar; collisional excitation of Fe4+ (54.8 eV ionization potential) produces this line. Images are on a linear surface… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An image of the multipolar PN NGC 2371 adapted from G´omez-Gonz´alez et al. (2020). We added the dashed red line to indicate the pipe. Red, green, and blue correspond to [N ii], Hα, and [O iii], respectively. M 1-41 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An image of the multipolar PN NGC 2371 adapted from G´omez-Gonz´alez et al. (2020). We added the dashed red line to indicate the pipe. Red, green, and blue correspond to [N ii], Hα, and [O iii], respectively. Zhang et al. (2012) to emphasize the extended bipolar structure. These lines are similar to the filaments that bound the pipe in the PN NGC 6720 and in the CC￾SNRs, the Cygnus Loop, and SNR G292.0+1.8… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: IR JWST images of NGC 6720 adapted from Wesson et al. (2026b) and based on Wesson et al. (2024). We added the marks of the filaments and pipe. (a) MIRI F1000W with contours of [Fe v] 4227 ˚A. (b) MIRI F560W, which emphasizes H2 emission. launch the three jet pairs into an initially spherically symmetric Wolf–Rayet (WR) stellar model of a collaps￾ing massive stellar core. The innermost region of the initial… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: IR JWST images of NGC 6720 adapted from Wesson et al. (2026b) and based on Wesson et al. (2024). We added the marks of the filaments and pipe. (a) MIRI F1000W with contours of [Fe v] 4227 ˚A. (b) MIRI F560W, which emphasizes H2 emission. Overall, we argue that the pipe of PN NGC 6720 has significant morphological similarities with the pipe of the Cygnus Loop, and the pipe of NGC 2371 with that of SNR G292.… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An IR Spitzer image of PN M 1-41 adapted from Zhang et al. (2012): blue, green and red correspond to 3.6 µm, 5.8 µm, and 8.0 µm, respectively. They drew the dashed lines to sketch the extended bipolar structures. We term them filaments and term the pipe. Each of the six jets carries the same mass and en￾ergy, mj = 1.6 × 1031 g and Ek,j = 2 × 1050 erg, respec￾tively, and is active for the same duration ∆tj(… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Planetary nebulae that show two jet-shaped lobes (or more) that we suggest might later evolve to one long pipe. (a) An HST image of the young PN Hen 3-401 (Credit: European Space Agency and Pedro Garcma-Lario at ESA ISO Data Center) (b) A composite image of PN Hen 2-320 adapted from Hsia et al. (2014): blue is Hα, green is Hα+[N ii], and red is [N ii]. We added the marks of filaments and the pipe. ergy, we… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Planetary nebulae that show two jet-shaped lobes (or more) that we suggest might later evolve to one long pipe. (a) An HST image of the young PN Hen 3-401 (Credit: European Space Agency and Pedro Garcma-Lario at ESA ISO Data Center) (b) A composite image of PN Hen 2-320 adapted from Hsia et al. (2014): blue is Hα, green is Hα+[N ii], and red is [N ii]. We added the marks of filaments and the pipe. pear, le… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Similar to view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A velocity map in the same plane as the upper panel of view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Three-dimensional visualization of the gas den￾sity in the simulation presented in Figures 8 - 10, and at the same time. The image is composed of three equidensity semi-transparent surfaces, as indicated by the color bar, in units of g cm−3 . The black lines are the three axes of the jet pairs, two of which lie in the y = 0 plane and appear as a single line in the upper panel. We point at the pipe. centra… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Long-lived intermittent accretion disks in the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) of core-collapse supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Viscous angular-momentum transport and jet feedback can keep intermittent accretion disks around newborn neutron stars alive long enough to launch the energetic jet pairs seen in some supernova remnants.

  2. JWST observations of a planetary nebula support jet-driven explosion of core-collapse supernova remnant RCW 103

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Morphological similarity between JWST images of planetary nebula PMR 1 and X-ray images of CCSN remnant RCW 103 indicates that two pairs of jets shaped RCW 103, supporting the jittering-jets explosion mechanism.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 12 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Formation of neutron stars via accretion-induced collapse and core-merger-induced collapse inside planetary nebulae from white dwarf binaries

    Ablimit, I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03985, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03985

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.03985 2024

  2. [2]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 4794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty029 —

    Akashi, M., Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 4794, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty029 —. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 137, doi: 10.33232/001c.144674

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty029 2018

  3. [3]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 2754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2479 —

    Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2479 —. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.29527. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29527 —. 2026b, in preparation

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2479 2018

  4. [4]

    Parameter Estimation Horizon of Core-Collapse Supernovae with Current and Next-Generation Gravitational-Wave Detectors

    Akhmetali, A., Sultan Abylkairov, Y., Orel, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.04896. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04896

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 47, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10020047

    Alcolea, J., Ag´ undez, M., Bujarrabal, V., et al. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 47, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10020047

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10020047 2022

  6. [6]

    1987, AJ, 94, 671, doi: 10.1086/114504

    Balick, B. 1987, AJ, 94, 671, doi: 10.1086/114504

    work page doi:10.1086/114504 1987

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJ, 889, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651

    Balick, B., Frank, A., & Liu, B. 2020, ApJ, 889, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651 2020

  8. [8]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 1770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2125

    Bear, E., Grichener, A., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2125

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2125 2017

  9. [9]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 045008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e

    Bear, E., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 045008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/adc24e 2025

  10. [10]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx431 —

    Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx431 —. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1053

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx431 2017

  11. [11]

    Bhalerao, J., Park, S., Schenck, A., Post, S., & Hughes, J. P. 2019, ApJ, 872, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafafd

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

  12. [12]

    Boffin, H. M. J., Miszalski, B., Rauch, T., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 773, doi: 10.1126/science.1225386

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1225386 2012

  13. [13]

    2025, PASP, 137, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/add08e —

    Braudo, J., Michaelis, A., Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2025, PASP, 137, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/add08e —. 2026, in preparation

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/add08e 2025

  14. [14]

    Impacts of Multidimensional Progenitor Perturbations on Core-Collapse Supernova Explosions

    Chen, C.-H., Lentz, E. J., Hix, W. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.09906. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09906

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    Clairmont, R., Steffen, W., & Koning, N. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2375 2022

  16. [16]

    Clark, N., Peeters, E., Cox, N. L. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf826

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf826 2025

  17. [17]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca

    Danehkar, A. 2022, ApJS, 260, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca 2022

  18. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013 Eggenberger Andersen, O., O’Connor, E., Kovalenko, L.,

    Derlopa, S., Akras, S., Amram, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013 Eggenberger Andersen, O., O’Connor, E., Kovalenko, L.,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1013 2024

  19. [19]

    Andresen, H., & Couch, S. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.01405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01405

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    F., Esquivel, A., & Raga, A

    Estrella-Trujillo, D., Hern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, L., Vel´ azquez, P. F., Esquivel, A., & Raga, A. C. 2019, ApJ, 876, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab12e1 2019

  21. [21]

    and Olson, K

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361 12 Garc´ ıa-Segura, G., Manchado, A., Toal´ a, J. A., Guerrero, M. A., & Castro-Tirado, A. J. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 3867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1744 Garc´ ıa-Segura, G., Taam, R. E., & Ricker, P. M. 2020, ApJ, 893, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8006 —. 2021, ApJ, 914, 111, d...

    work page doi:10.1086/317361 2000

  22. [22]

    P., & Williams, T

    Ghavamian, P., Hughes, J. P., & Williams, T. B. 2005, ApJ, 635, 365, doi: 10.1086/497283

    work page doi:10.1086/497283 2005

  23. [23]

    S., Blair, W

    Ghavamian, P., Long, K. S., Blair, W. P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/39 2012

  24. [24]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796

    Giudici, B., Gabler, M., & Janka, H.-T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11796 G´ omez-Gonz´ alez, V. M. A., Toal´ a, J. A., Guerrero, M. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 959, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1542

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1542 2025

  25. [25]

    2003, ApJL, 583, L91, doi: 10.1086/368122

    Gonzalez, M., & Safi-Harb, S. 2003, ApJL, 583, L91, doi: 10.1086/368122

    work page doi:10.1086/368122 2003

  26. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1449

    Grichener, A. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1449

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1449 2023

  27. [27]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 1226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx534

    Grichener, A., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1226, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx534

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx534 2017

  28. [28]

    A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J

    Guerrero, M. A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2aa 2021

  29. [29]

    A., & Manchado, A

    Guerrero, M. A., & Manchado, A. 1998, ApJ, 508, 262, doi: 10.1086/306407

    work page doi:10.1086/306407 1998

  30. [30]

    J., Smith, N., Su, K

    Hrivnak, B. J., Smith, N., Su, K. Y. L., & Sahai, R. 2008, ApJ, 688, 327, doi: 10.1086/591960

    work page doi:10.1086/591960 2008

  31. [31]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/25

    Hsia, C.-H., Chau, W., Zhang, Y., & Kwok, S. 2014, ApJ, 787, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/25 2014

  32. [32]

    2025, Ann

    Janka, H.-T. 2025, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 75, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945 2025

  33. [33]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 28, doi: 10.3390/galaxies8020028 —

    Jones, D. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 28, doi: 10.3390/galaxies8020028 —. 2025, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 55, 200, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2025.55.3.200

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies8020028 2020

  34. [34]

    H., Moraga Baez, P., Balick, B., et al

    Kastner, J. H., Moraga Baez, P., Balick, B., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 993, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0706

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0706

  35. [35]

    H., Wilner, D

    Kastner, J. H., Wilner, D. J., Ryder, D., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 981, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adace1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adace1

  36. [36]

    2025, NewA, 116, 102346, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2024.102346 37

    Kumar, A. 2025, NewA, 116, 102346, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2024.102346

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2024.102346 2025

  37. [37]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 39, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040039

    Kwok, S. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 39, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040039

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12040039 2024

  38. [38]

    Current Unsolved Problems in Planetary Nebulae Research

    Kwok, S., Balick, B., Chu, Y.-H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.22999. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22999

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    2009, ApJ, 706, 441, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/441

    Lee, H.-G., Koo, B.-C., Moon, D.-S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 441, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/441

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/441 2009

  40. [40]

    P., et al

    Lee, J.-J., Park, S., Hughes, J. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 861, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/861 Lemi` ere, A., Castelletti, G., & Maza, N. L. 2026, A&A, 705, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556224

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/2/861 2010

  41. [41]

    Q., Morris, M

    Li, Y. Q., Morris, M. R., & Sahai, R. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 44, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040044

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies12040044 2024

  42. [42]

    A Path to Constraints on Common Envelope Ejection in Massive Binaries: Full Evolutionary Reconstruction of Three Black Hole X-ray Binaries

    Li, Z., Wei, D., Jia, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.10440, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.10440 Liebend¨ orfer, M., Rampp, M., Janka, H. T., &

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.10440 2026

  43. [43]

    2005, ApJ, 620, 840, doi: 10.1086/427203

    Mezzacappa, A. 2005, ApJ, 620, 840, doi: 10.1086/427203

    work page doi:10.1086/427203 2005

  44. [44]

    J., Plucinsky, P

    Long, X., Patnaude, D. J., Plucinsky, P. P., & Gaetz, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 932, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac704b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac704b 2022

  45. [45]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 023024, doi: 10.1103/7ytg-wzl8

    Luo, Y., Zha, S., & Kajino, T. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 023024, doi: 10.1103/7ytg-wzl8

    work page doi:10.1103/7ytg-wzl8 2026

  46. [46]

    M1-92: AGB interruption and isotopic ratio paradox. Chemistry and morpho-kinematics from improved shapemol modelling

    Masa, E., Alcolea, J., Santander-Garc´ ıa, M., et al. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 63, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12050063 —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.12569. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12569

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3390/galaxies12050063 2024

  47. [47]

    Core Collapse Supernova Modeling: The Next Ten Years

    Mezzacappa, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24970. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24970

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01589.x , keywords =

    Miranda, L. F., Torrelles, J. M., Guerrero, M. A., Aaquist, O. B., & Eiroa, C. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 243, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01611.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01611.x 1998

  49. [49]

    F., V´ azquez, R., Olgu´ ın, L., Guill´ en, P

    Miranda, L. F., V´ azquez, R., Olgu´ ın, L., Guill´ en, P. F., & Mat´ ıas, J. M. 2024, A&A, 687, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348173

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348173 2024

  50. [50]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 1040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1315 Moraga Baez, P., Kastner, J

    Miszalski, B., Manick, R., Van Winckel, H., & Miko lajewska, J. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1315 Moraga Baez, P., Kastner, J. H., Balick, B., Montez, R., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1315 2019

  51. [51]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    Bublitz, J. 2023, ApJ, 942, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca401 2023

  52. [52]

    1987, PASP, 99, 1115, doi: 10.1086/132089

    Morris, M. 1987, PASP, 99, 1115, doi: 10.1086/132089

    work page doi:10.1086/132089 1987

  53. [53]

    D., Brinkman, E., Richardson, C

    Murphy, R. D., Brinkman, E., Richardson, C. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.21895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.21895

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21895 2025

  54. [54]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e17

    Narita, T., Uchida, H., Vink, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e17 2024

  55. [55]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.17499

    Orlando, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.17499

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17499 2026

  56. [56]

    2025a, A&A, 696, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553833 —

    Orlando, S., Janka, H.-T., Wongwathanarat, A., et al. 2025a, A&A, 696, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553833 —. 2025b, A&A, 696, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553902

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553833

  57. [57]

    2025c, A&A, 699, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554862

    Orlando, S., Miceli, M., Ono, M., et al. 2025c, A&A, 699, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554862

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554862

  58. [58]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.25846

    Pan, K.-C., & Li, Y.-F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.25846. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25846 13

    work page arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 664, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1129

    Papish, O., & Soker, N. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 664, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1129

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1129 2014

  60. [60]

    On the Origin of Mass Ejection in Failed Supernovae

    Paradiso, D. A., Vallejo, S., & Coughlin, E. R. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.05289. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05289

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    P., Slane, P

    Park, S., Hughes, J. P., Slane, P. O., et al. 2007, ApJL, 670, L121, doi: 10.1086/524406 —. 2004, ApJL, 602, L33, doi: 10.1086/382276

    work page doi:10.1086/524406 2007

  62. [62]

    Park, S., Roming, P. W. A., Hughes, J. P., et al. 2002, ApJL, 564, L39, doi: 10.1086/338861

    work page doi:10.1086/338861 2002

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

    Parker, Q. A., Acker, A., Frew, D. J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 79, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10950.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10950.x 2006

  64. [64]

    L., Winkler, P

    Plunkett, A. L., Winkler, P. F., Long, K. S., & Milisavljevic, D. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae469f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae469f 2026

  65. [65]

    C., Seok, J

    Raymond, J. C., Seok, J. Y., Koo, B.-C., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace692 Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., Guerrero, M. A., Duarte Puertas, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3326 Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., Pe˜ na, M., & Vel´ azquez, P. F. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2758

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace692 2023

  66. [66]

    An Exploration of the Equation of State Dependence of Core-Collapse Supernova Explosion Outcomes and Signatures

    Rusakov, A., Burrows, A. S., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.09025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    D., & Chaffee, F

    Campbell, R. D., & Chaffee, F. H. 2005, ApJL, 622, L53, doi: 10.1086/429586

    work page doi:10.1086/429586 2005

  68. [68]

    2007, AJ, 134, 2200, doi: 10.1086/522944

    Sahai, R., Morris, M., S´ anchez Contreras, C., & Claussen, M. 2007, AJ, 134, 2200, doi: 10.1086/522944

    work page doi:10.1086/522944 2007

  69. [69]

    Sahai, R., & Trauger, J. T. 1998, AJ, 116, 1357, doi: 10.1086/300504

    work page doi:10.1086/300504 1998

  70. [70]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038

    Sahai, R., Alcolea, J., Balick, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06038

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Sahai, R., Van de Steene, G., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc91c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc91c 2025

  72. [72]

    E., Corradi, R

    Schwarz, H. E., Corradi, R. L. M., & Melnick, J. 1992, A&AS, 96, 23

    work page 1992

  73. [73]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 125018, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad8ead

    Shen, J.-Y., Bao, B.-W., & Zhang, L. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 125018, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad8ead

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad8ead 2024

  74. [74]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0332

    Shishkin, D., Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2025, ApJ, 992, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0332

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0332 2025

  75. [75]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 281, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8138

    Shishkin, D., Kaye, R., & Soker, N. 2024, ApJ, 975, 281, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8138

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8138 2024

  76. [76]

    Quantifying Symmetry: Transformation Information for Planetary Nebulae and Supernova Remnants

    Shishkin, D., & Michaelis, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07913, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07913

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07913 2026

  77. [77]

    1990, AJ, 99, 1869, doi: 10.1086/115465 —

    Soker, N. 1990, AJ, 99, 1869, doi: 10.1086/115465 —. 2022a, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 122003, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9782 —. 2022b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035019, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac49e6 —. 2024a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 31, doi: 10.33232/001c.117147 —. 2024b, Galaxies, 12, 29, doi: 10.3390/galax...

    work page doi:10.1086/115465 1990

  78. [78]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 54770, doi: 10.33232/001c.154770

    Soker, N., & Akashi, M. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 54770, doi: 10.33232/001c.154770

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.154770 2025

  79. [79]

    , keywords =

    Soker, N., & Bisker, G. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10313.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10313.x 2006

  80. [80]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c83

    Soker, N., & Gilkis, A. 2017, ApJ, 851, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c83 2017

Showing first 80 references.