Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Once a giant, (almost) always a giant: Partial Tidal Disruption Events of Giant Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Partial tidal disruptions of giant stars by supermassive black holes leave the surviving core to re-inflate into a new giant of nearly the same radius and roughly twice the luminosity of a normal giant of the same mass, and this sequence…

desk verdict Solid MESA grid with a genuinely new prediction, but the spherical-wind stripping leaves the quantitative results conditional until tested against 3D hydrodynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15346 v1 pith:BR5COXE7 submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.HE

Nuria Navarro Navarro , Tsvi Piran This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords partialtidaldisruptioneventsgiantstarssupermassiveblackholesMESAstellarevolutioncoderemnantswhitedwarfsGalacticcenterasteroseismology
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

Most tidal disruptions of giant stars by supermassive black holes are partial: the dense core survives while part of the envelope is torn away. Using the MESA stellar evolution code, this paper shows that the stripped remnant re-inflates within a thermal timescale to a giant of nearly the same radius as its progenitor, with roughly twice the luminosity of a normal giant of the same mass, and a lifetime barely changed before white-dwarf collapse. The authors argue that low-mass giants in the Galactic center (below about 0.9 solar masses) are therefore likely remnants of such events, and that repeated passages can strip the star successively down to about 0.6–0.7 solar masses. They expect a few dozen to a few hundred such remnants in the Milky Way nucleus.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the giant's extreme core–envelope structure: a helium-burning core of about 0.5–0.6 solar masses, roughly $10^{6}$ times denser than the envelope, survives the tidal encounter while the tenuous hydrogen envelope is partially peeled off. The paper models the peeling in MESA as a spherical, thermally relaxed wind (relax_mass_to_remove_H_env), then follows the remnant's evolution to the white-dwarf phase. The approximate bound-mass relation $M(r) \approx \frac{4\pi}{3}\int_0^r \rho(r')r'^2\,dr' \approx (r/r_p)^3 M_{\rm BH}$ (Ryu et al. 2020b) links pericenter to stripped mass and drives the successive-PTDE scenario, in which each re-inflated giant returns to the same pericenter and loses progressively less mass.

What would settle it

One could run a full 3D hydrodynamical simulation of a 1 solar-mass horizontal-branch giant on a parabolic orbit around a $10^{6}$ solar-mass black hole with pericenter about 130 gravitational radii, and follow the resulting remnant for roughly $10^{5}$ years; if the envelope does not re-expand to approximately the progenitor radius, or if the core's mass or burning structure is altered significantly, the spherical-wind approximation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a giant partially stripped by a supermassive black hole does not end its life as a bare core: after a short relaxation of order the thermal timescale, the remnant expands back to a giant with a radius comparable to the progenitor's. The remnant has a slightly more massive and denser core relative to its total mass, a more tenuous envelope, a luminosity about twice that of an ordinary giant of the same total mass, and a lifetime until white-dwarf collapse that differs from the progenitor's by only a few million years. Because stars below roughly 0.9 solar masses cannot reach the giant stage within the age of the Universe, any such light giant near the Galactic center would be identifiable as a partial-tidal-disruption survivor. If the remnant's orbit is unchanged, the sequence is repeated: each encounter removes less mass, and the star converges to a light giant of about 0.6–0.7 solar masses before it eventually becomes a white dwarf.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that removing part of the envelope as a slow, spherical, thermally relaxed wind in MESA produces the same remnant structure as the real, impulsive, aspherical tidal stripping by the black hole, which the paper justifies by the envelope being pure hydrogen with negligible chemical gradient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Galactic center should contain dozens to hundreds of low-mass (<~0.9 solar-mass) giants that are too light to have evolved into giants within the age of the Universe, and asteroseismology could identify them.
  • A single partial TDE is not the end: successive encounters at the same pericenter strip less and less mass, driving the remnant toward about 0.6–0.7 solar masses.
  • Stripped giants shine about twice as brightly as ordinary giants of the same mass, which may distinguish them in HR diagrams, though not unambiguously.
  • The stripping barely changes the remnant's lifetime, so its white-dwarf formation time remains close to that of the progenitor.
  • The same physics would produce a population of stripped giants around intermediate-mass black holes in globular clusters, signaling the black hole's presence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the spherical-wind approximation is wrong—for instance, if the impulsive encounter heats or mixes the residual envelope—then the factor-of-two luminosity boost and the repeated-PTDE sequence would be weaker; this is testable with a 3D simulation of the encounter itself.
  • Because the orbital return time (~2.5×10^5 yr) is comparable to the thermal relaxation time, some remnants may be re-disrupted before fully re-inflating, which would change the mass stripped in the next encounter.
  • The convergence to ~0.6–0.7 solar masses implies a floor set by the core mass; once the envelope is too thin to re-inflate, further encounters would expose the core and quickly produce a helium white dwarf, a distinct endpoint to search for.
  • The predicted remnant population could be confused with field stripped giants produced by binary interactions, so spatial concentration near the Galactic center is the key observational discriminator.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the long-term evolution of remnants left by partial tidal disruption events (PTDEs) of horizontal-branch giant stars by supermassive black holes. The authors use MESA to evolve 1, 1.5, 2, and 3 Msun stars at 0.1 Zsun, strip a fraction of the envelope with an artificial spherical wind, and follow the remnant to white-dwarf formation. They find that the stripped stars re-expand to a radius comparable to the progenitor's, have luminosities about a factor of two larger than ordinary giants of the same total mass, have lifetimes that differ from their progenitors by only a few million years, and, if their orbits survive, undergo successive PTDEs that converge to a 0.6-0.7 Msun giant. They estimate that a few dozen to a few hundred such remnants may currently reside in the Galactic center.

Significance. If the mapping from an impulsive, aspherical PTDE to a thermally relaxed spherical wind is correct, the paper provides concrete and falsifiable predictions: low-mass (<0.9 Msun) giants in the Galactic center, identifiable by asteroseismology, with a characteristic luminosity excess and a repeated-PTDE convergence mass. The paper also sharpens the argument that giant TDEs around black holes above about 3e5 Msun are partial and that the usual tidal-radius estimates need revision. The MESA setup is well documented, with provided inlists, a detailed appendix, and resolution tests, which are notable strengths. However, the central results rest on an untested equivalence between a quasi-static, thermally relaxed mass-loss process and the actual impulsive, aspherical tidal encounter; the paper acknowledges this limitation, but the main predictions depend on it.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (Methods)] The central assumption of the paper—that removing envelope mass with the MESA routine relax_mass_to_remove_H_env over a thermal timescale reproduces the remnant of an impulsive partial TDE—is load-bearing but untested. The text itself notes that t_p << t_KH, so the real remnant is not in thermal equilibrium along the relaxation path. The argument that the envelope is hydrogen only rules out compositional mixing; it does not rule out shock heating, adiabatic expansion, aspherical oscillations, or prompt additional mass loss during the dynamical encounter. Since the re-inflation radius, the factor-of-two luminosity excess, and the 0.6-0.7 Msun repeated-PTDE convergence mass all follow from the post-disruption mass and entropy profile, the paper needs either a 3D hydrodynamic test of this equivalence or a 1D sensitivity study that varies the stripping duration and the entropy of the retained envelope. As it stands, the results describe thermally relaxed wind-stripped giants, not necessarily PTDE remnants.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2), and Figs. 2, 11, 12] The stripped mass is estimated with M(r) ≈ (r/r_p)^3 M_BH from Ryu et al. (2020b), which the paper says was calibrated for main-sequence stars. The order-unity correction factor is dismissed for giants without a quantitative test. Because Eq. (2) sets the mass lost in every event and therefore drives the successive-PTDE sequence, an uncalibrated relation for steep giant density profiles could systematically change the claimed convergence mass and the remnant population estimate. Please validate Eq. (2) against giant-specific hydrodynamic PTDE simulations, or provide a sensitivity analysis over the correction factor and show that the conclusions are robust.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Fig. 12] The return-time estimate in the text is 2π R_h^{3/2}/(G M_BH) ≈ 2.5×10^5 yr, but Fig. 12 states that the time between successive disruptions is 2×10^6 yr. The discrepancy is not explained. Since the number of repeated PTDEs and the resulting final remnant mass depend on the cadence of disruptions relative to the thermal relaxation and radius-recovery timescales, the adopted timing should be justified and the inconsistency reconciled.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typos appear in several places: 'Schwarzchild' in the captions of Figs. 2 and 11 and in Section 2, 'comparision' in Section 2, 'dicussion' in Section 3, and 'preZAMS' in the caption of Fig. 10 should be 'pre-ZAMS'.
  2. [Fig. 13 and Appendix] The resolution test is shown for a 1 Msun, 1 Zsun star, while the main simulations use 0.1 Zsun; please state whether the chosen mesh_delta_coeff and time_delta_coeff were also tested at 0.1 Zsun and whether the conclusions are unchanged.
  3. [Section 4, discussion of Fig. 5] The phrase 'unless ≲ 0.15 Msun of the envelope mass is retained' appears to state the opposite of the intended condition; rephrase to indicate that a giant structure is recovered when at least about 0.15 Msun of envelope mass remains.
  4. [Section 5, rate estimate] The rate estimate should spell out that 'a TDE per 10^4-10^5 yr' is the assumed total Galactic TDE rate and that the approximately 10% giant fraction is then applied; otherwise the resulting 'few dozen to a few hundred' is not transparent.
  5. [Section 3 and Appendix] The Zenodo DOI for the inlists is given in the Appendix; it would be helpful to also cite it in Section 3 where relax_mass_to_remove_H_env is introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the remnant-structure predictions are computed with MESA from standard stellar physics, and the Ryu et al. (2020b) mass-stripping relation is an independent hydrodynamical calibration rather than a fitted input or self-referential constraint.

full rationale

The central derivation is a MESA stellar-evolution calculation: the authors evolve 1-3 Msun giants with standard input physics, strip envelope mass with the relax_mass_to_remove_H_env routine, and then evolve the remnant to the white-dwarf phase. The main outputs (return to a giant radius comparable to the progenitor, luminosity higher by a factor of about 2 than a same-mass normal giant, and lifetime changes of a few Myr) are computed outcomes of stellar structure, not parameters fitted to those targets. The stripped mass fractions are chosen grid inputs, and the comparison stars are unperturbed MESA models, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction step. The mass-stripping relation in Eq. 2 is cited to Ryu et al. (2020b), a paper co-authored by Piran, but that relation is an independent hydrodynamical calibration with stated assumptions; it is used to map pericenter distance to stripped mass and to iterate successive PTDEs, not to define the remnant structure results. The convergence of repeated PTDEs to 0.6-0.7 Msun is a computed endpoint of iterating Eq. 2 on MESA remnant profiles and reflects the giants' dense core properties, not an assumed value. The paper explicitly acknowledges the main physical limitation in Section 3: the real PTDE is impulsive and aspherical while the MESA stripping is a spherical quasi-static wind, and tp << tKH, so the simulations describe the thermally relaxed remnant after about 1e5 years. That is a validity caveat about matching the model to the real event, not a circular reduction of the predictions to the inputs. No self-definitional, self-citation-chain, uniqueness-import, or renaming pattern is present.

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

No constants are fitted to the target data. The main free choices are the simulation grid (masses, metallicities, stripped fractions, stripping times) and the input TDE rate for the population estimate. The physical axioms are standard MESA input physics plus two domain assumptions: the use of Eq. (2) from Ryu et al. (2020b) to map pericenter to stripped mass, and the equivalence of a spherical wind to a real partial disruption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Stripped mass fraction ΔM/M = sampled values 0.15 to 0.65
    The amount of envelope removed is chosen by hand for each simulation to sample the parameter space. The results are reported as a function of this choice, not fitted to it.
  • Core He fraction at stripping f_He = 0.25, 0.50, 0.75
    The evolutionary phase at which stripping occurs is chosen by hand. The conclusion that stripped stars die earlier or later depends on this choice.
  • Progenitor mass and metallicity grid = 1, 1.5, 2, 3 solar masses; Z = 0.1 Z_sun
    The stellar grid is a modeling choice. The paper argues Z = 0.1 Z_sun represents stars that reach the giant phase at the current age of the universe.
  • Assumed Galactic TDE rate and remnant lifetime = 1 per 10^4 to 10^5 years; few times 10^7 years
    The population estimate of a few dozen to a few hundred remnants depends on these order-of-magnitude input values, which are not measured in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The mass-radius relation for a giant at the tidal radius is governed by Eq. (2) from Ryu et al. (2020b), and the correction factor is negligible for giants.
    The paper uses this relation to map pericenter distance to stripped mass, including in the successive PTDE scenario. The correction factor is dismissed without detailed justification for giant profiles.
  • ad hoc to paper A spherical, thermally relaxed mass loss (wind) in MESA reproduces the structure of a remnant after an impulsive, aspherical partial TDE.
    The authors state that because the envelope is hydrogen with no chemical gradient, hydrodynamic effects can be ignored. This is not tested against 3D simulations and is the key simplification of the paper.
  • domain assumption The remnant's orbit is not significantly changed by the partial disruption, allowing repeated PTDEs at the same pericenter.
    In Section 4.1 the momentum loss is estimated to be much smaller than the orbital momentum, so the remnant returns to the same pericenter. This is an order-of-magnitude estimate, not a detailed orbital calculation.
  • standard math Standard MESA input physics (MLT convection, opacities, nuclear reaction rates) is adequate for the evolution of stripped giants.
    The paper uses MESA's standard choices for EOS, opacities, and nuclear rates, with no overshoot. These are accepted tools in stellar evolution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Once a giant, (almost) always a giant: Partial Tidal Disruption Events of Giant Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BR5COXE7

@misc{pith2026241115346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Once a giant, (almost) always a giant: Partial Tidal Disruption Events of Giant Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BR5COXE7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15346}
}
abstract

Tidal disruption events (TDEs) of giant stars by supermassive black holes (SMBH) differ significantly from those of main sequence ones. Most (all for SMBH of more than a~ few times 10^5 m_\odot) giant-TDEs are partial: only a fraction of the envelope is torn apart. The dense stellar core and the rest of the envelope remain intact. In this work, we explore, using the stellar evolution code MESA, the fate of the remnants. We find that after a short period, comparable to the thermal time scale, the remnant returns to a giant structure with a radius comparable to the progenitor giant one, a slightly larger luminosity (as compared with a regular giant with the same mass), and a comparable lifetime until it collapses to a white dwarf. If such a giant with a mass less than approx 0.9 m_\odot is discovered, it can be identified as an outlier - a giant that is too light for the current age of the Universe. If the remnant orbit is not perturbed significantly during the encounter, the remnant will undergo successive partial tidal disruptions until its mass is $0.6-0.7 m_\odot$. We expect a few dozen to a few hundred such remnants in the Galactic nucleus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density profiles as a function of mass and radius for 1𝑚⊙, 1.5𝑚⊙, 2𝑚⊙ and 3𝑚⊙ giants in the horizontal branch at the time when the core He fraction 𝑓He = 0.50, compared to solar parameters (mass, 𝑚⊙, radius, 𝑅⊙ and average density, 𝜌⊙). During this stage, the core is ∼ 106 times denser than the envelope. 2. FULL AND PARTIAL TIDAL DISRUPTIONS A star that passes near a SMBH is torn apart if the tidal forces of the SMB… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The orbital pericenter distance, 𝑟p, in units of the grav￾itational radius 𝑟g as a function of the stripped mass for horizontal branch giants with 𝑓He = 0.50 and different masses and for different SMBH masses. The red region marks 4𝑟g which is the minimal pericenter distance for an orbit with zero orbital energy around a Schwarzchild black hole. For a comparision 𝑅t given by Eq. 1 is marked by a thin black dashed do… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radius as a function of time during the late phases of the evolution (TAMS to WD) of the stars that we study, 1𝑚⊙, 1.5𝑚⊙, 2𝑚⊙ and 3𝑚⊙ with metallicity 0.1𝑍⊙. The black dots indicate the three stripping times that we will consider later. Those times are characterized by the He fraction ( 𝑓He = 0.75, 0.5 and 0.25). where 𝑀(𝑟) is the giant mass up to radius r 2. The ejected mass satisfies Δ𝑀 = 𝑀★ − 𝑀(𝑟) [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Each dot corresponds to a configuration simulated. The configurations are characterized by the progenitor’s mass, the total mass after disruption and the He fraction at stripping. Red dots describe unstripped stars, the rest are stars that have been stripped [PITH_FUL…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density and radius vs. the Lagrangian mass coordinate before (dashed-black line) and after stripping and thermal relaxation of a 2𝑚⊙ star, for different stripped masses Δ𝑀 = 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.1, 1.3𝑚⊙ or Δ𝑀/𝑀 = 0, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65 (from right t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kippenhahn diagrams from the beginning of the red giant phase until the stars enter the WD phase of representative stripped stars, with the same resulting mass of 1.1𝑚⊙. A dashed vertical red line marks the time of the stripping. Hatched green areas correspond to conve…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radius vs. time of stars stripped at 𝑓He = 0.50 compared to their progenitor for different progenitor masses and different total mass of the remnants, 𝑀∗. The time coordinate has been shifted so that all stars become WDs at the same time, which is set to 𝑡 = 0 [PITH_F…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radius vs. time of stars stripped to the same 𝑀∗ at different 𝑓He compared to their 1 solar mass progenitor. The time coordinate has been shifted so that the progenitor becomes WDs at 𝑡 = 0. Star that are stripped earlier (high 𝑓He die later). 𝑟p. A typical progenitor …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radius vs. time of giants with (approximately) the same mass after the stripping, 𝑀∗. The time coordinate has been shifted so that they all become white dwarfs at the same time which is set as t=0. For stripped stars we show only the evolution after the stripping momen…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A Kippenhahn diagram of a 2𝑚⊙ giant that undergoes successive PTDE (marked by dashed rad lines) at the same pericenter of ≈ 130𝑟g. The time between disruptions is 2×106 yr. The remnant returns each time to a giant stage (after ∼ 6 × 104 yr and then the disrupted mass …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Stripped mass fraction, Δ𝑀/𝑀, vs. 𝑟p (in units of𝑟g) for different giants that arise in successive PTDEs of a 2𝑚⊙ giant by a 106𝑚⊙ SMBH. The disruptions occur at 130𝑟g, marked by a horizon￾tal line. The red region marks 4𝑟g, which is the minimal pericenter distance fo…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: HR diagram track of a 𝑀 = 1𝑚⊙, 1𝑍⊙ star from pre zero￾age MS to WD for different temporal and spatial resolution values. The chosen final values correspond to the green line, mesh=0.6 and time=1. The stripping process is performed using the MESA flags relax_initial_ma…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1999, NuPhA, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, NuPhA, 656, 3, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

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

  2. [2]

    1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 297, 727

    Bloecker, T. 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 297, 727

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    R., Saumon, D., & Starrett, C

    Blouin, S., Shaffer, N. R., Saumon, D., & Starrett, C. E. 2020, ApJ, 899, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e75 Bogdanović, T., Cheng, R. M., & Amaro-Seoane, P. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/99

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e75 2020

  4. [4]

    Y., Pietrinferni, A., Catelan, M., & Salaris, M

    Cassisi, S., Potekhin, A. Y., Pietrinferni, A., Catelan, M., & Salaris, M. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1094, doi: 10.1086/516819

    doi:10.1086/516819 2007

  5. [5]

    I., Dewitt, H

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.025028 2007

  6. [6]

    P., & Giuli, R

    Cox, J. P., & Giuli, R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure (Cambridge Scientific Publishers)

    work page 1968

  7. [7]

    H., Amthor, A

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

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

  8. [8]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585, doi: 10.1086/428642

    doi:10.1086/428642 2005

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    M., Fowler, W

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

    1985 doi

  2. [10]

    2014, ApJL, 786, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L12

    Guillochon, J., Loeb, A., MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2014, ApJL, 786, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L12

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295, doi: 10.1038/254295a0

    1975 doi

  4. [12]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752, doi: 10.1086/172958 —. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381 Irwin,A.W.2004,TheFreeEOSCodeforCalculatingtheEquation of State for Stellar Interiors. http://freeeos.sourceforge.net/

    1993 doi

  5. [13]

    1996, ApJS, 102, 411, doi: 10.1086/192264

    Itoh, N., Hayashi, H., Nishikawa, A., & Kohyama, Y. 1996, ApJS, 102, 411, doi: 10.1086/192264

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Schwab, J., Bauer, E., Timmes, F

    Jermyn, A. S., Schwab, J., Bauer, E., Timmes, F. X., & Potekhin, A. Y. 2021, ApJ, 913, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf48e

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Bauer, E

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

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1990, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    1990

  9. [17]

    H., & Piran, T

    Krolik, J. H., & Piran, T. 2011, ApJ, 743, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/134

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

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

    Langanke, K., & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2000, Nuclear Physics A, 673, 481, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00131-7

    2000 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Murphy, S

    Li, Y., Bedding, T. R., Murphy, S. J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 673, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01648-5

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134

    2012 doi

  13. [22]

    2023, A&A, 671, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245746

    Matteuzzi, M., Montalbán, J., Miglio, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245746

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv007

    McDonald, I., & Zijlstra, A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv007

    2015 doi

  15. [24]

    1994, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 56, 231, doi: 10.1006/adnd.1994.1007 11

    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 11

    1994

  16. [25]

    S., Sanjayan, S., & Sahoo, S

    Ostrowski, J., Baran, A. S., Sanjayan, S., & Sahoo, S. K. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 4646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3751

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    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

  18. [27]

    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

  19. [28]

    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

  20. [29]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    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

  22. [31]

    Y., & Chabrier, G

    Potekhin, A. Y., & Chabrier, G. 2010, Contributions to Plasma Physics, 50, 82, doi: 10.1002/ctpp.201010017

    2010 doi

  23. [32]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/119

    Poutanen, J. 2017, ApJ, 835, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/119

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  25. [34]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  26. [35]

    J., & Nayfonov, A

    Rogers, F. J., & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064, doi: 10.1086/341894

    2002 doi

  27. [36]

    M., Stone, N

    Rossi, E. M., Stone, N. C., Law-Smith, J. A. P., et al. 2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 40, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00818-7

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020a, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cf —. 2020b, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3cd —. 2020c, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce

    doi

  29. [38]

    Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., & van Horn, H. M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713, doi: 10.1086/192204

    1995 doi

  30. [39]

    1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 306, 35, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02445.x

    Syer, D., & Ulmer, A. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 306, 35, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02445.x

    1999

  31. [40]

    X., & Swesty, F

    Timmes, F. X., & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501, doi: 10.1086/313304

    2000 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.