Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Difficulties of two exploding white dwarfs to account for type Ia supernovae with bimodal nebular emission profiles

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that when two white dwarfs explode together, their ejecta separates too slowly to produce the fastest observed bimodal supernova lines.

desk verdict Short, honest toy-model challenge to Tucker (2024) with a genuinely new fv table and inner-mass estimate, but the headline 'up to ~7000 km/s' is not fully supported by the single-mass parameter scan. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03262 v3 pith:RPSJQ6YK submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Jessica Braudo , Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfstypeIasupernovaeclosebinariesdoubledegeneratemergersbimodalemissionlinesnebularspectraejectadynamicssupernovascenarios
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tests the idea that the two-peaked ('bimodal') emission lines seen in some type Ia supernovae are produced by two white dwarfs that explode at the same time. Unlike simpler treatments that let the ejecta vanish instantly, the authors follow each expanding shell while it is still feeling the gravity of the other star's ejecta. They find that the two ejecta clouds end up receding from each other at only 70-86 percent of the pre-explosion orbital speed, at most about 5,400 km/s for two 0.94 solar-mass white dwarfs. Observed bimodal profiles have separations up to about 7,000 km/s, and the fast cases that come closest leave less than 15 percent of the ejecta mass in the inner region that could form a separate peak. The paper therefore argues that two-exploding-white-dwarf scenarios have trouble explaining the most widely split bimodal supernovae and that other explanations should be sought.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a non-hydrodynamic 'expanding-shell' model in which the ejecta of each white dwarf is sliced into 65 spherical shells with homologous terminal velocities, and a shell stops feeling the other ejecta once it crosses that ejecta's center of mass. The key dimensionless quantity is $f_v$, the ratio of the terminal run-away velocity of the inner ejecta's center of mass to the pre-explosion orbital velocity of the white dwarf; a second parameter, $\beta$, scales the shell velocities at the numerical explosion time to their terminal values to mimic the fact that the ejecta is still accelerating. The paper also defines the inner ejecta as the shell mass that never engulfs the other ejecta's center of mass, since only that mass can form a separate emission peak. This construction is what converts the finite expansion time into a quantitative reduction of the final separation velocity and a limit on the mass available for a bimodal feature.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulation of the violent merger of two equal-mass, $0.94\,M_\odot$ carbon-oxygen white dwarfs that follows the post-explosion collision and directly measures the relative velocity of the two ejecta centers of mass: if the separation exceeds about $5{,}500$ km s$^{-1}$ while more than 15 percent of the ejecta remains in the low-velocity inner region, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the finite expansion time of the ejecta is dynamically important in two-white-dwarf explosions. Each $0.94\,M_\odot$ white dwarf is replaced by 65 homologous shells, and the gravity of the not-yet-engulfed shells of one ejecta bends and slows the other ejecta's center of mass. In the twelve cases studied, the final speed of each inner ejecta center of mass is a factor $f_v = v_{\rm RA}/v_{\rm orb} = 0.697$--$0.864$ of the pre-explosion orbital speed of $3{,}148$ km s$^{-1}$, giving separation velocities $v_{\rm sep}=2v_{\rm RA}$ between $4{,}200$ and $5{,}440$ km s$^{-1}$. The paper further claims that only the inner ejecta, whose expansion velocity is below $v_{\rm sep}$, can contribute to a separate emission peak, and that in energetic explosions this inner mass is below 15 percent of the ejecta mass. Because the observed bimodal profiles demand separations up to about $7{,}000$ km s$^{-1}$, the paper concludes that the violent merger channel and similar two-exploding-WD channels cannot easily produce the widest bimodal profiles.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted separation velocities and inner masses come from a gravitational-only calculation that ends where the two ejecta collide, so the whole quantitative argument assumes that the collision, shocks, and mixing do not change the result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For two equal-mass $0.94\,M_\odot$ white dwarfs, the maximum separation the model can produce is about $5{,}440$ km s$^{-1}$, so bimodal profiles demanding roughly $6{,}000$--$7{,}000$ km s$^{-1}$ fall outside this channel's reach.
  • The fastest case needs a $2\times10^{51}$ erg explosion and still leaves less than about 15 percent of the ejecta in the inner region, so a prominent two-peaked line would have to be made by a minority of the mass.
  • Lower-energy explosions keep more mass in the inner ejecta but drop the separation to about $4{,}200$--$4{,}700$ km s$^{-1}$, meaning the two requirements move in opposite directions.
  • Any treatment of two-exploding-WD ejecta that lets the ejecta leave the system instantly overestimates the final velocity separation; the pre-explosion orbital velocity cannot be neglected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the toy model stops at the collision of the two inner ejecta, a full hydrodynamical run that follows that collision and any mixing could shift the $5{,}440$ km s$^{-1}$ ceiling; until such a run exists, the quantitative limits here are best read as order-of-magnitude.
  • The paper's own suggested alternative, a fast low-mass 'iron bullet' like the one inferred in Tycho's remnant, is observationally testable: a bimodal SN Ia whose narrow peaks are accompanied by faint, high-velocity iron features would support that route rather than two exploding white dwarfs.
  • Only equal-mass $0.94\,M_\odot$ pairs are explored, so unequal-mass pairs, such as a near-Chandrasekhar accretor with a lower-mass donor, could in principle come closer to the observed separations and remain an untested corner of the scenario.
  • The same finite-expansion-time reduction should apply to any surviving companion engulfed by slow inner ejecta, which suggests the ~10 percent velocity corrections already found in single-explosion systems may be a general feature of ejecta-binary interactions.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a simple non-hydrodynamical dynamical model of the ejecta of two simultaneously exploding white dwarfs (WDs). Each WD ejecta is represented by 65 homologous spherical shells that interact only gravitationally, with shells ceasing to exert a force after crossing the other ejecta's center of mass. For equal-mass WDs (M1=M2=0.94 Msun), three explosion energies (1e51, 1.5e51, 2e51 erg) and four initial-velocity fractions (beta = 0.85-1), the authors find that the terminal separation velocity between the two ejecta centers of mass is fv = 0.697-0.864 of the pre-explosion orbital velocity, giving vsep = 4200-5440 km/s. They also find that the inner ejecta mass (shells with expansion velocity below vsep) is below 15% of the ejecta mass in the most energetic cases. The paper argues that these results challenge Tucker (2024)'s claim that two-exploding-WD scenarios can explain bimodal SN Ia nebular profiles with velocity separations up to about 7000 km/s, and it suggests alternative explanations such as an iron bullet.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a useful, transparent counterpoint to a recent interpretation of bimodal SN Ia profiles, with falsifiable predictions (vsep and inner mass) and a simple numerical setup that is easy to reproduce. The authors are explicit about the model's simplifications and check time-step convergence; the 12-case grid brackets the dependence on explosion energy and beta. The key physical insight — that the finite expansion time of the ejecta reduces the effective separation velocity relative to the pre-explosion orbital velocity — is worth stating and should be incorporated into more realistic models. However, the headline claim about separations up to 7000 km/s requires an extrapolation beyond the simulated mass, and the neglect of the ejecta collision leaves the quantitative results conditional on an untested assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2), Table 2] The parameter scan fixes M1=M2=0.94 Msun. With the adopted aex, Eq. (2) gives vorb=3148 km/s, so the initial relative velocity is only 2vorb = 6296 km/s, already below the ~7000 km/s separations cited in the abstract and Section 4. Tucker (2024) obtains vsep >= 6000 km/s for combined mass >= 1.8 Msun, and vsep ~ 7000 km/s requires even larger mass; the simulated mass pair is therefore not the relevant one for the highest observed separations. Neither fv nor the inner mass is computed for higher total masses, and the inner-mass result is mass-dependent because the criterion vin < vsep depends on vsep. The abstract's 'up to ~7000 km/s' is an extrapolation; the paper should either extend the scan to higher masses or present a scaling argument showing that fv and the inner-mass fraction are insensitive to the total mass.
  2. [Section 2, Table 2 note, Section 4] The model assumes the two ejecta interact only gravitationally until one shell crosses the other's center of mass, and the Table 2 note states 'our non-hydrodynamical simulation does not follow the collision'. Since the ejecta shells move toward each other with relative speeds of thousands of km/s, the collision will shock, decelerate, and mix the material; the final separation velocity and the mass that can form distinct emission peaks could differ from the toy-model values. Section 4 asserts that neglected effects 'will likely strengthen our claims', but no test of this is provided. The quantitative results (vsep = 4200-5440 km/s and inner mass < 15%) are therefore conditional on the collision being dynamically irrelevant. The paper should either include a sensitivity test with a simple momentum-conserving collision treatment or explicitly frame the results as an upper/lower limit under this assumption.
  3. [Section 3, definition of inner ejecta] The paper equates the mass in shells with expansion velocity below vsep with the mass that contributes to one peak of the bimodal line profile. This is a mass-based proxy; whether these shells actually produce a distinct emission peak depends on the line emission measure of the inner ejecta relative to the broad component, which requires at least a velocity-convolved emission profile. The manuscript does not demonstrate that the resulting velocity distribution is bimodal in the observed sense, so the claimed difficulty for bimodal profiles rests on an untested mapping from inner mass fraction to line morphology.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Table 2] The units 'Mo' should be written as M_sun; the full text uses the symbol M⊙, so the abstract and table should be consistent.
  2. [Section 1] The citation 'section 2 in the first astro-ph version of Soker, García-Berro, & Althaus 2014' is unconventional and difficult to verify; please cite the published version or give a stable arXiv identifier.
  3. [References] There are multiple entries for 'Soker 2024' with different venues; these should be disambiguated in the text (e.g., Soker 2024a, 2024b) to avoid confusion.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The phrase 'The WDs' ejecta is rotating around each other' should be 'The WDs' ejecta are rotating around each other' for grammatical agreement.
  5. [Table 2 note] The note 'our non-hydrodynamical simulation does not follow the collision' should be a separate sentence with a capital letter: 'Our non-hydrodynamical simulation does not follow the collision.'
  6. [Throughout] There are a few minor typographical issues such as 'e.g,' instead of 'e.g.,' in Section 1 and 'vsep ≳' formatting; a careful proofread would be beneficial.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: fv and inner mass are computed from stated inputs; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing method reference.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, fv (Eq. 3) and the terminal inner ejecta mass, are outputs of a stated gravity-only shell integration, not fitted to the bimodal SN Ia data it criticizes. Inputs are external and parameter-free: M1=M2=0.94 Msun with radii from Bedard et al. (2020), density profiles scaled from Gronow et al. (2021)/HESMA, explosion energies 1-2e51 erg, and beta=0.85-1 (Eq. 1). The final separation vsep = 2 fv vorb_s follows from Eqs. (2) and (3) once fv is computed; no observed vsep enters the calculation. The inner-ejecta selection criterion (shells with expansion velocity below vsep) is a physical condition used to identify which mass can form a separate peak, not an assertion of the conclusion. The self-citations to Braudo & Soker (2024) for the MATLAB scheme and to Soker (2024) for the scenario classification table are contextual and do not carry the load-bearing argument. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The unmodeled ejecta collision (Table 2 note) and the restriction to a single mass pair (0.94+0.94 Msun) are scope/limitation issues, not circularity; at most they weaken the extrapolation to ~7000 km/s cases. Score 1 reflects a minor non-load-bearing self-citation, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All central quantities in Table 2 are outputs, not fitted values, so the comparison with observed separations is not circular. However, the quantitative outputs are conditional on four manually chosen inputs (Eexp, beta, MWD, aex) and on the paper's simplifying axioms: homologous spherical ejecta, gravitational-only interaction, simultaneous equal-mass explosion, and neglect of the ejecta collision. The authors explicitly flag the collision neglect.

free parameters (4)
  • Eexp (total explosion energy) = 1, 1.5, 2 x 10^51 erg
    Three values chosen to span weak to energetic SNe Ia; the fv and inner-mass results depend on this choice.
  • beta (initial expansion velocity fraction) = 0.85, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0
    Ad hoc parameter encoding the delay in reaching terminal velocity in a pressure-free code (Eq. 1); drives the spread in fv.
  • MWD (each WD mass) = 0.94 Msun
    Taken from Tucker (2024), who required combined mass >= 1.8 Msun for high vsep; central numbers are computed only for this mass.
  • aex (initial separation at explosion) = (R1+R2)/2 ~ 0.018 Rsun
    Assumes the WDs are merging at explosion, following Tucker (2024); the final velocity scales as aex^-1/2, so this choice sets the velocity scale.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each WD's ejecta expands homologously and spherically with terminal velocity proportional to radius.
    Section 2: 'we take each WD ejecta to be at its terminal expansion velocity and homologous'; ignores pressure gradients and explosion asymmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper Only ejecta shells that have not yet crossed the other ejecta's center of mass exert gravitational acceleration on it; crossed shells no longer interact.
    Section 2: a crossed shell 'does not influence anymore' the other ejecta; this replaces a full hydrodynamical treatment of overlapping ejecta.
  • ad hoc to paper The ejecta-ejecta collision has no effect on terminal velocities or inner masses.
    Table 2 note: 'our non-hydrodynamical simulation does not follow the collision'; main quantitative results assume no hydrodynamic coupling.
  • domain assumption The two WDs explode simultaneously with equal masses and initial orbital velocities from Eq. (2).
    Setup of Section 2; real violent merger may be asymmetric or staggered, which the authors note could complicate the picture.
  • standard math Newtonian gravity with spherical shells applies at these orbital scales and speeds.
    Used throughout Section 2; appropriate for 0.94 Msun WDs with aex ~0.018 Rsun.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Difficulties of two exploding white dwarfs to account for type Ia supernovae with bimodal nebular emission profiles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RPSJQ6YK

@misc{pith2026241203262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Difficulties of two exploding white dwarfs to account for type Ia supernovae with bimodal nebular emission profiles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RPSJQ6YK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03262}
}
read the original abstract

We use a simple dynamical scheme to simulate the ejecta of type Ia supernova (SN Ia) scenarios with two exploding white dwarfs (WDs) and find that the velocity distribution of the ejecta has difficulties accounting for bimodal emission line profiles with a large separation between the two emission peaks. The essence of the dynamical code is in including the fact that the ejecta does not leave the system instantaneously. We find that the final separation velocity between the centers of masses of the two WDs' ejecta is ~80% of the pre-explosion WDs' orbital velocity, i.e., we find separation velocities of 4200-5400 km/s for two WDs of masses M1=M2=0.94 Mo. The lower separation velocities we find challenge scenarios with two exploding WDs to explain bimodal emission line profiles with observed velocity separations of up to ~7000 km/s. Only the mass in the ejecta of one WD with an explosion velocity lower than the separation velocity contributes to one peak of the bimodal profile; this is the inner ejecta. We find the inner ejecta to be only <15% of the ejecta mass in energetic explosions. Less energetic explosions yield higher inner mass but lower separation velocities. We encourage searching for alternative explanations of bimodal line profiles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03262 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The inner ejecta mass of one WD as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The velocity of the center of mass of the inner ejecta of one WD relative to the center of mass of the binary system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Malanchev K., Sharief S., Jones D

    Aleo P. D., Malanchev K., Sharief S., Jones D. O., Narayan G., Foley R. J., Villar V . A., et al., 2023, ApJS, 266,

    work page 2023

  2. [7]

    Exploring the range of impacts of helium in the spectra of double detonation models for Type Ia supernovae

    Bregman J. N., Gnedin O. Y ., Seitzer P. O., Qu Z., 2024, ApJL, 968, L6. Callan F. P., Collins C. E., Sim S. A., Shingles L. J., Pakmor R., Srivastav S., Pollin J. M., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2408.03048. Cui Y ., Meng X., Podsiadlowski P., Song R., 2022, A&A, 667, A154. Cui Z., Li X.-D., 2022, RAA, 22, 025001. DerKacy J. M., Ashall C., Hoeflich P., Bar...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [9]

    B´edard A., Bergeron P., Brassard P., Fontaine G., 2020, ApJ, 901,

    work page 2020

  4. [16]

    M., Sim S

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad4f7e Pollin J. M., Sim S. A., Pakmor R., Callan F. P., Collins C. E., Shingles L. J., R¨opke F. K., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 533,

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad4f7e 2024

  5. [17]

    P., Badenes C., Bravo E., Seitenzahl I

    Yamaguchi H., Hughes J. P., Badenes C., Bravo E., Seitenzahl I. R., Mart´ınez-Rodr´ıguez H., Park S., et al., 2017, ApJ, 834,

    work page 2017

  6. [20]

    J., Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, arXiv:2412.01766 Ruiz-Lapuente, P. 2019, New Astron. Rev., 85, 101523 Schinasi-Lemberg E., Kushnir D., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2410.02849. Sharon A., Kushnir D., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2407.06859. Sharon A., Kushnir D., Schinasi-Lemberg E., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2407.07417. Shen K. J., Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., 2024, arXiv, arX...

    arXiv 2025

  7. [22]

    T., 2024, ApJ, 966, 150

    Zingale M., Chen Z., Rasmussen M., Polin A., Katz M., Smith Clark A., Johnson E. T., 2024, ApJ, 966, 150

    2024

  8. [29]

    B., Zenati Y ., Toonen S., Bobrick A., 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1910.07532

    Perets H. B., Zenati Y ., Toonen S., Bobrick A., 2019, arXiv, arXiv:1910.07532. Phillips M. M., Ashall C., Brown P. J., Galbany L., Tucker M. A., Burns C. R., Contreras C., et al., 2024, ApJS, 273,

    arXiv 2019

Show all 30 references
  1. [31]

    Soker N., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2406.07363

    Soker N., 2024, RAA, 24, 015012. Soker N., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2406.07363. 8 Jessica Braudo, Noam Soker Soker N., Garc´ıa-Berro E., Althaus L. G., 2014, MNRAS, 437, L66. Tanikawa A., Nomoto K., Nakasato N., Maeda K., 2019, ApJ, 885,

    2024 arXiv

  2. [32]

    K., 2017, MmSAI, 88,

    Kromer M., Ohlmann S., R ¨opke F. K., 2017, MmSAI, 88,

    2017

  3. [49]

    R., Magee M., Angus C

    Wang Q., Rest A., Dimitriadis G., Ridden-Harper R., Siebert M. R., Magee M., Angus C. R., et al., 2024, ApJ, 962,

    2024

  4. [93]

    J., Townsley D

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., 2024, ApJ, 972,

    2024 doi

  5. [103]

    B., Hamers A

    Toonen S., Perets H. B., Hamers A. S., 2018, A&A, 610, A22. Tsebrenko D., Soker N., 2015, MNRAS, 453,

    2018

  6. [116]

    Kobashi R., Lee S.-H., Tanaka T., Maeda K., 2024, ApJ, 961,

    2024

  7. [124]

    Zenati Y ., Perets H

    Yang H.-W., Thomas Tam P.-H., Yang L., 2022, RAA, 22, 105014. Zenati Y ., Perets H. B., Dessart L., Jacobson-Gal´an W. V ., Toonen S., Rest A., 2023, ApJ, 944,

    2022

  8. [159]

    J., Tucker M

    Vallely P. J., Tucker M. A., Shappee B. J., Brown J. S., Stanek K. Z., Kochanek C. S., 2020, MNRAS, 492,

    2020

  9. [166]

    A., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2408.00840

    Tucker M. A., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2408.00840. Uchida H., Kasuga T., Maeda K., Lee S.-H., Tanaka T., Bamba A., 2024, ApJ, 962,

    2024 arXiv

  10. [187]

    L., 2015, MNRAS, 454, L61

    Dong S., Katz B., Kushnir D., Prieto J. L., 2015, MNRAS, 454, L61. Glanz H., Perets H. B., Bhat A., Pakmor R., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2410.17306. Gronow S., Collins C. E., Sim S. A., R ¨opke F. K., 2021, A&A, 649, A155. Guo B., Meng X., Tian Z., Luo J., Liu Z., 2025, RAA, 25, 0150...

    2015

  11. [196]

    P., Collins C

    Pakmor R., Callan F. P., Collins C. E., de Mink S. E., Holas A., Kerzendorf W. E., Kromer M., et al., 2022, MNRAS, 517,

    2022

  12. [200]

    B., Bostroem K

    Bora Z., K ¨onyves-T´oth R., Vink ´o J., B ´anhidi D., B ´ır´o I. B., Bostroem K. A., B ´odi A., et al., 2024, PASP, 136, 094201. Braudo J., Soker N., 2024, OJAp, 7,

    2024

  13. [244]

    Wang B., 2018, RAA, 18,

    2018

  14. [312]

    Lim G., Im M., Paek G

    Li L.-H., Liu D.-D., Wang B., 2023, RAA, 23, 075010. Lim G., Im M., Paek G. S. H., Yoon S.-C., Imsng Team, 2024, ASPC, 536, 29 Liu Z.-W., R¨opke F. K., Han Z., 2023, RAA, 23, 082001. Livio, M., & Mazzali, P. 2018, Physics Reports, 736, 1 Maeda, K., & Terada, Y . 2016, Internat...

    2023

  15. [942]

    J., Lundqvist P., Galbany L., Andrews J

    Pearson J., Sand D. J., Lundqvist P., Galbany L., Andrews J. E., Bostroem K. A., Dong Y ., et al., 2024, ApJ, 960,

    2024

  16. [3036]

    M., Shen K

    Rajavel N., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2408.10981. Ruiter A. J., 2020, IAUS, 357,

    2024 arXiv

  17. [3553]

    Vink´o J., Szalai T., K¨onyves-T´oth R., 2023, Univ, 9,

    2023

  18. [4734]

    A., Matteucci F., Della Valle M., Spitoni E., 2024, A&A, 689, A203

    Palicio P. A., Matteucci F., Della Valle M., Spitoni E., 2024, A&A, 689, A203. Papish O., Soker N., Garc ´ıa-Berro E., Aznar-Sigu ´an G., 2015, MNRAS, 449,

    2024

  19. [4763]

    Michaely E., 2021, MNRAS, 500,

    2021

  20. [5260]

    A., R¨opke F

    Pakmor R., Kromer M., Taubenberger S., Sim S. A., R¨opke F. K., Hillebrandt W., 2012, ApJL, 747, L10. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10 Pakmor R., Zenati Y ., Perets H. B., Toonen S., 2021, MNRAS, 503,

    2012 doi

  21. [5543]

    K., Pakmor R., Schneider F

    Mor´an-Fraile J., Holas A., R ¨opke F. K., Pakmor R., Schneider F. R. N., 2024, A&A, 683, A44. O’Hora J., Ashall C., Shahbandeh M., Hsiao E., Hoeflich P., Stritzinger M. D., Galbany L., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2412.09352 Padilla Gonzalez E., Howell D. A., Terreran G., McCul...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [6223]

    Ito D., Sano H., Nakazawa K., Mitsuishi I., Fukui Y ., Sudou H., Takaba H., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2405.11285. Jha, S. W., Maguire, K., & Sullivan, M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 706 Ko T., Suzuki H., Kashiyama K., Uchida H., Tanaka T., Tsuna D., Fujisawa K., et al., 2024, ApJ, 969,

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.