pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23818 · v1 · pith:RGI762ABnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Composition of Radiation-Driven Winds from Type I X-ray Bursts

Jason S. Pero , Nevin N. Weinberg This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords X-ray burstsradiation-driven windsphotospheric radius expansionneutron starsnuclear ashesconvectionMESA simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

X-ray bursts igniting deep enough launch winds carrying nuclear ashes from intermediate-mass to iron-peak elements.

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

The paper uses stellar evolution simulations to follow Type I X-ray bursts from accretion through the phase where radiation drives a wind off the neutron star surface. It shows that only bursts igniting at column depths of 5 x 10^8 g cm^{-2} or greater mix enough freshly made nuclear material into the ejected wind. The precise mix of elements in that wind changes with how deep the ignition occurs, whether the accreted fuel is pure helium or mixed hydrogen-helium, and how convection is treated while the burst is rising.

Core claim

Bursts igniting at column depths greater than or equal to 5 x 10^8 g cm^{-2} produce ash-enriched winds, with ejecta ranging from intermediate-mass to iron-peak elements depending on ignition depth, accretion composition, and the treatment of convection.

What carries the argument

MESA simulations of photospheric radius expansion bursts that include the full hydrodynamic wind phase and track nuclear burning plus mixing.

If this is right

  • Winds from deep ignitions can explain absorption lines of intermediate-mass elements seen by NICER in some PRE bursts.
  • The ejected composition becomes a direct diagnostic of the ignition conditions on the neutron star.
  • Changing how semiconvection or convective boundaries are defined alters the range of elements that reach the wind.
  • Mixed hydrogen-helium accretion produces different ash mixes than pure helium accretion at the same depth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Observed wind compositions could be inverted to constrain the depth at which bursts ignite on a given neutron star.
  • The sensitivity to convection treatment suggests that better mixing physics would narrow the predicted range of ejecta compositions.
  • If winds remove significant ash, they may change the long-term composition of material that remains on the neutron star surface.

Load-bearing premise

The several different ways of modeling convection during the burst rise capture the main mixing processes that set the wind's final composition.

What would settle it

A measured elemental abundance pattern in the wind of a single burst whose ignition column depth can be independently determined from its light curve or recurrence time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23818 by Jason S. Pero, Nevin N. Weinberg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Temperature as a function of column depth for ignition at yb = 5 × 108 g cm−2 assuming pure He accretion (left panel) and mixed H/He accretion (right panel). The different line colors correspond to different times during the burst rise, with time labeled in seconds and t = 0 corresponding to the start of the radiation-driven wind. Squares indicate the top of the convection zone yc and the dashed vertical l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of the top of the convection zone yc as a function of base temperature Tb during the burst rise (before wind launch) for models with pure He accretion (left panel) and mixed H/He accretion (right panel). The horizontal dotted lines denote the wind base ywb, color coded by the respective models. models compared to the pure He models (see also Fig￾ure 2 discussed next). As described in GC23, this i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial profiles of the wind structure at different times for ignition at yb = 5×108 g cm−2 assuming pure He accretion (left panels) and mixed H/He accretion (right panels). The panels show, from top to bottom, the mass density ρ, temperature T, optical depth τ , wind velocity v, and mass loss rate M˙ w. Each curve is terminated at the location where the optical depth τ = 1. The circles indicate the locatio… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Wind properties evaluated at the photosphere rph as a function of time for the four burst ignition depths (listed at the top) assuming pure He accretion (left panels) and mixed H/He accretion (right panels). The panels show, from top to bottom, the evolution of the photospheric radius rph, the optical depth τ , the wind velocity v, and the mass loss rate M˙ w. Overall, we find that the deeper the ignition,… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mass fraction of elements during the maximum radial extent of the wind as a function of column depth (bottom axis) and radius (top axis) for our baseline y5e8 model. The left panel is the pure He accretion model at t = 11.2 s, while the right panel is the mixed H/He accretion model at t = 18.4 s (corresponding to each model’s time of maximum rph). The line styles are shown in the right panel key and repres… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the wind composition profile for the y5e8 model with mixed H/He accretion assuming a semiconvection efficiency parameter αsc = 0.5. The top row (left to right) shows the profiles at t = 0.05, t = 2, and t = 4 s and the bottom row (left to right) shows them at t = 6, t = 10, and t = 16 s. The vertical dashed-dotted line indicates the location of the photosphere. cretion composition on the wind … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Composition of the wind at the photosphere (r = rph) at the time of maximum rph for the pure He models (squares) and the mixed H/He models (circles). Each panel corresponds to a different ignition depth: yb = 3 × 108 , 5 × 108 , 1 × 109 , and 5 × 109 g cm−2 (top to bottom). For the mixed H/He models, we shows results for three values of the semiconvection efficiency parameter αsc = 0, 0.1, 0.5. The pure He… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Composition of the wind at the photosphere (r = rph) at the time of maximum rph assuming mixed H/He accretion. Each panel corresponds to a different treatment of convection: the Ledoux criterion, the Schwarschild crite￾rion, predictive mixing, and CPM (top to bottom). Within each panel, we show results for the four ignition depths: yb = 3 × 108 , 5 × 108 , 1 × 109 , and 5 × 109 g cm−2 . The gray open circl… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Composition of the wind at the photosphere (r = rph) at the time of maximum rph for mixed H/He accretion with yb = 5 × 108 g cm−2 . The top panel shows results with nuclear burning turned on and turned off (net on and net off, respectively) during the wind phase. The bottom panel shows the accretion composition and the wind composition assuming a realistic solar abundance accretion rather than the 12C-only… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent NICER observations of photospheric radius expansion (PRE) X-ray bursts reveal absorption features consistent with photospheres enriched in intermediate-mass elements. These features may arise from radiation-driven winds that eject freshly synthesized nuclear ashes, offering a new probe of X-ray bursts and neutron star properties. Motivated by these observations, we use the MESA stellar evolution code to simulate PRE bursts from accretion through the hydrodynamic wind phase. We model a range of ignition depths for both pure helium and mixed hydrogen/helium accretion and explore several prescriptions for convection during burst rise. We find that the wind abundances depend sensitively on both ignition depth and convective treatment, including the efficiency of semiconvective mixing and the prescription used to define convective boundaries. Bursts igniting at column depths greater than or equal to 5 x 10^8 g cm^-2 produce ash-enriched winds, with ejecta ranging from intermediate-mass to iron-peak elements depending on ignition depth, accretion composition, and the treatment of convection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses MESA to simulate photospheric radius expansion Type I X-ray bursts from accretion through the wind phase. It models a range of ignition column depths for pure-He and mixed H/He accretion, explores multiple convection prescriptions (semiconvective efficiency and boundary definitions), and concludes that ignitions at column depths ≥5×10^8 g cm^{-2} produce radiation-driven winds enriched in intermediate-mass to iron-peak elements, with the precise composition depending on ignition depth, accretion composition, and convective treatment.

Significance. If the simulation results are robust, the work would connect NICER absorption features in PRE bursts to the ejection of nuclear ashes, providing a new observational probe of burst ignition conditions and neutron-star properties. The forward simulation approach against external nuclear-reaction libraries is a positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [section describing convective prescriptions during burst rise] The headline claim that deep ignitions (≥5×10^8 g cm^{-2}) generically produce ash-enriched winds rests on the assumption that the explored semiconvective efficiencies and convective-boundary prescriptions capture the dominant mixing physics that transports ashes to the surface. The manuscript reports sensitivity to these choices but does not demonstrate that the result survives weaker mixing or the inclusion of additional transport (e.g., rotational shear or wave-driven mixing), which would directly affect the wind composition.
  2. [results section on wind abundances] The reported dependence of wind abundances on ignition depth and convection treatment is presented as a central result, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative bounds on how far the free parameters (ignition column depth, semiconvective mixing efficiency) can be varied before the ash-enrichment threshold disappears. This leaves the robustness of the ≥5×10^8 g cm^{-2} cutoff untested against plausible variations in the mixing treatment.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract uses the character 'x' for multiplication in '5 x 10^8'; standard astronomical notation employs ×.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important questions about the robustness of our mixing results, which we address below. We propose targeted revisions to better delineate the scope of the modeled physics.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [section describing convective prescriptions during burst rise] The headline claim that deep ignitions (≥5×10^8 g cm^{-2}) generically produce ash-enriched winds rests on the assumption that the explored semiconvective efficiencies and convective-boundary prescriptions capture the dominant mixing physics that transports ashes to the surface. The manuscript reports sensitivity to these choices but does not demonstrate that the result survives weaker mixing or the inclusion of additional transport (e.g., rotational shear or wave-driven mixing), which would directly affect the wind composition.

    Authors: We agree that the results are tied to the MESA convective prescriptions we varied (semiconvective efficiency and boundary definitions). The abstract and results section already qualify the findings as depending on convective treatment, and we do not claim the outcome is independent of mixing physics. Additional mechanisms such as rotational shear or wave-driven mixing are outside the scope of the present MESA setup and would require new model development. We will revise the discussion to explicitly state the range of mixing physics considered and to flag the potential effects of unmodeled transport as a limitation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [results section on wind abundances] The reported dependence of wind abundances on ignition depth and convection treatment is presented as a central result, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative bounds on how far the free parameters (ignition column depth, semiconvective mixing efficiency) can be varied before the ash-enrichment threshold disappears. This leaves the robustness of the ≥5×10^8 g cm^{-2} cutoff untested against plausible variations in the mixing treatment.

    Authors: The manuscript already varies ignition depth across a grid that brackets the 5×10^8 g cm^{-2} threshold and tests multiple semiconvective efficiencies, with the enrichment threshold persisting in all cases examined. While an exhaustive scan of every plausible parameter combination is not feasible, the explored range covers the values typically adopted in the literature. We will add a supplementary table or figure that tabulates wind composition versus the two free parameters to make the sensitivity more quantitative. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward simulations against external libraries

full rationale

The paper performs forward MESA simulations of PRE bursts, varying ignition depth, accretion composition, and convection prescriptions (semiconvective efficiency, boundary definitions). Wind compositions are direct outputs of these runs using external nuclear-reaction libraries. No equations reduce by construction to inputs, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. The sensitivity to convection is explicitly explored and reported rather than assumed away, keeping the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only information limits the ledger to the modeling framework itself; no explicit free parameters are fitted to data in the summary, but the results hinge on choices internal to the MESA implementation.

free parameters (2)
  • ignition column depth
    Central parameter varied across a range; results are reported as functions of this depth rather than fitted to observations.
  • semiconvective mixing efficiency
    One of several convective prescriptions explored; its value affects the reported elemental yields.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption MESA stellar evolution code accurately captures the coupled hydrodynamics, nuclear burning, and radiative transfer during the burst rise and wind phase.
    The entire study is performed inside this code; no independent verification of its burst-wind module is mentioned.
  • domain assumption The chosen nuclear reaction network and convective boundary definitions are adequate to determine the final ash composition that reaches the wind.
    Invoked when the authors state that abundances depend on convective treatment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5699 in / 1496 out tokens · 25169 ms · 2026-06-26T07:02:43.066166+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    1999, NuPhA, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, NuPhA, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00030-5 1999

  2. [2]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 694, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452878

    Barra, F., Barret, D., Pinto, C., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 694, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452878

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452878 2025

  3. [3]

    1998, in NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, Vol

    Bildsten, L. 1998, in NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, Vol. 515, NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, ed. R. Buccheri, J. van Paradijs, & A. Alpar, 419

    1998

  4. [4]

    C., & Lamb, F

    Boutloukos, S., Miller, M. C., & Lamb, F. K. 2010, ApJL, 720, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/L15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/720/1/l15 2010

  5. [5]

    1998 , Bdsk-Url-1 =

    Brown, E. F., & Bildsten, L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 915, doi: 10.1086/305419

    work page doi:10.1086/305419 1998

  6. [6]

    I., Dewitt, H

    Chugunov, A. I., Dewitt, H. E., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2007, PhRvD, 76, 025028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.025028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.025028 2007

  7. [7]

    2003, ApJ, 595, 1077, doi: 10.1086/377446

    Cumming, A. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1077, doi: 10.1086/377446

    work page doi:10.1086/377446 2003

  8. [8]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 544, 453

    Cumming, A., & Bildsten, L. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 544, 453

    2000

  9. [9]

    Cumming, A., Macbeth, J., in ’t Zand, J. J. M., & Page, D. 2006, ApJ, 646, 429, doi: 10.1086/504698

    work page doi:10.1086/504698 2006

  10. [10]

    and Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240

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

  11. [11]

    1983, PASJ, 35, 17

    Ebisuzaki, T., Hanawa, T., & Sugimoto, D. 1983, PASJ, 35, 17

    1983

  12. [12]

    1985 , month =

    Fuller, G. M., Fowler, W. A., & Newman, M. J. 1985, ApJ, 293, 1, doi: 10.1086/163208

    work page doi:10.1086/163208 1985

  13. [13]

    K., & Keek, L

    Galloway, D. K., & Keek, L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Timing Neutron Stars:

    2021

  14. [14]

    K., & Keek , L

    Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 209–262, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3

  15. [15]

    2008 , Bdsk-Url-1 =

    Galloway, D. K., Muno, M. P., Hartman, J. M., Psaltis, D., & Chakrabarty, D. 2008, ApJS, 179, 360, doi: 10.1086/592044

    work page doi:10.1086/592044 2008

  16. [16]

    K., in’t Zand, J., Chenevez, J., et al

    Galloway, D. K., in’t Zand, J., Chenevez, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9f2e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab9f2e 2020

  17. [17]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace43c

    Guichandut, S., & Cumming, A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace43c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace43c 2023

  18. [18]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa13

    Zamfir, M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa13 2021

  19. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  20. [20]

    S., & Bodenheimer, P

    Henyey, L., Vardya, M. S., & Bodenheimer, P. 1965, ApJ, 142, 841, doi: 10.1086/148357

    work page doi:10.1086/148357 1965

  21. [21]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 638, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936895 —

    Herrera, Y., Sala, G., & Jos´ e, J. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 638, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936895 —. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 678, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346190

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936895 2020

  22. [22]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  23. [23]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.20499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.20499 17 in’t Zand, J

    Iaria, R., Di Salvo, T., Anitra, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.20499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.20499 17 in’t Zand, J. J. M., & Weinberg, N. N. 2010, A&A, 520, A81

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.20499 2025

  24. [24]

    1996, ApJ, 470, 1015, doi: 10.1086/177926

    Itoh, N., Nishikawa, A., & Kohyama, Y. 1996, ApJ, 470, 1015, doi: 10.1086/177926

    work page doi:10.1086/177926 1996

  25. [25]

    K., Chenevez, J., Strohmayer, T

    Jaisawal, G. K., Chenevez, J., Strohmayer, T. E., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcc24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcc24 2025

  26. [26]

    S., Bauer, E

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

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

  27. [27]

    C., & Melia, F

    Joss, P. C., & Melia, F. 1987, ApJ, 312, 700

    1987

  28. [28]

    C., & Melia, F

    Joss, P. C., & Melia, F. 1987, ApJ, 312, 700, doi: 10.1086/164913

    work page doi:10.1086/164913 1987

  29. [29]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1595 , eprint =

    Kaiser, E. A., Hirschi, R., Arnett, W. D., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 1967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1595

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1595 2020

  30. [30]

    Kippenhahn, R., Ruschenplatt, G., & Thomas, H. C. 1980, A&A, 91, 175

    1980

  31. [31]

    2000, NuPhA, 673, 481, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00131-7

    Langanke, K., & Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G. 2000, NuPhA, 673, 481, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00131-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(00)00131-7 2000

  32. [32]

    2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    Lodders, K., & Palme, H. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science Supplement, 72, 5154

    2009

  33. [33]

    C., et al

    Medin, Z., von Steinkirch, M., Calder, A. C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/102

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/102 2016

  34. [34]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafede

    Meisel, Z., Merz, G., & Medvid, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafede

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

  35. [35]

    Miller, M. C. 2013, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    C., & Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., & Lamb, F. K. 2016, European Physical Journal A, 52, 63, doi: 10.1140/epja/i2016-16063-8

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16063-8 2016

  37. [37]

    1994, ApJ, 433, 276, doi: 10.1086/174643

    Nobili, L., Turolla, R., & Lapidus, I. 1994, ApJ, 433, 276, doi: 10.1086/174643

    work page doi:10.1086/174643 1994

  38. [38]

    1994, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 56, 231, doi: 10.1006/adnd.1994.1007 ¨Ozel, F., & Freire, P

    Oda, T., Hino, M., Muto, K., Takahara, M., & Sato, K. 1994, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 56, 231, doi: 10.1006/adnd.1994.1007 ¨Ozel, F., & Freire, P. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 401, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322

    work page doi:10.1006/adnd.1994.1007 1994

  39. [39]

    1986, ApJ, 302, 519, doi: 10.1086/164012

    Paczynski, B., & Proszynski, M. 1986, ApJ, 302, 519, doi: 10.1086/164012

    work page doi:10.1086/164012 1986

  40. [40]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

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

  41. [41]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  42. [42]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  43. [43]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  44. [44]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  45. [45]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb726

    Peng, Z., Li, Z., Pan, Y., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb726

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb726 2025

  46. [46]

    1985, ApJ, 289, 634

    Quinn, T., & Paczynski, B. 1985, ApJ, 289, 634

    1985

  47. [47]

    1985, ApJ, 289, 634, doi: 10.1086/162927

    Quinn, T., & Paczynski, B. 1985, ApJ, 289, 634, doi: 10.1086/162927

    work page doi:10.1086/162927 1985

  48. [48]

    2024, wmwolf/py mesa reader: 0.3.5, 0.3.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13697200

    Schwab, J., Wolf, B., Zingale, M., et al. 2024, wmwolf/py mesa reader: 0.3.5, 0.3.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13697200

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13697200 2024

  49. [49]

    W., Lattimer, J

    Steiner, A. W., Lattimer, J. M., & Brown, E. F. 2010, ApJ, 722, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/33

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/33 2010

  50. [50]

    New Views of Thermonuclear Bursts

    Strohmayer, T., & Bildsten, L. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0301544

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0301544 2003

  51. [51]

    E., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al

    Strohmayer, T. E., Altamirano, D., Arzoumanian, Z., et al. 2019, ApJL, 878, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab25eb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab25eb 2019

  52. [52]

    2011, A&A, 527, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015845

    Suleimanov, V., Poutanen, J., & Werner, K. 2011, A&A, 527, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015845

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015845 2011

  53. [53]

    2024, MESA SDK for Mac OS, 24.7.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13768941

    Townsend, R. 2024, MESA SDK for Mac OS, 24.7.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13768941

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13768941 2024

  54. [54]

    , author Gommers, R

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  55. [55]

    A., Zimmerman, G

    Weaver, T. A., Zimmerman, G. B., & Woosley, S. E. 1978, ApJ, 225, 1021

    1978

  56. [56]

    N., Bildsten, L., & Schatz, H

    Weinberg, N. N., Bildsten, L., & Schatz, H. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1018

    2006

  57. [57]

    Yu, H., & Weinberg, N. N. 2018, ApJ, 863, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad045

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad045 2018

  58. [58]

    2025, , 696, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453142

    Yu, W., Li, Z., Pan, Y., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453142

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453142 2025

  59. [59]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb71c

    Zhen, G., Liu, H., Dohi, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb71c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb71c 2025