Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Mass-transferring binary stars as progenitors of interacting hydrogen-free supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 argues that a second phase of mass transfer in helium-star/main-sequence binaries, starting less than about 20,000 years before core collapse, can eject up to 0.8 solar masses of hydrogen-free material that forms a circumbinary…

desk verdict Plausible new binary channel for Type Ibn SNe, but the headline rate rests on an unresolved mass-transfer stability criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09893 v2 pith:QBWK6NXJ submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Andrea Ercolino , Harim Jin , Norbert Langer , Luc Dessart This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords binaryevolutionCaseBCmasstransferheliumstarsTypeIbnsupernovaecircumstellarmaterialcircumbinarydiskstripped-envelope
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 proposes a specific binary path for making the circumstellar shells seen around a class of hydrogen-poor supernovae. In a binary where a stripped helium star orbits a main-sequence companion, the helium star can swell in its final tens of thousands of years and dump up to 0.8 solar masses of helium-rich material toward the companion. If that material settles into a circumbinary disk, the supernova ejecta would hit the disk and shine like a Type Ibn supernova, with the masses, radii, and light-curve shapes inferred for many observed events. Combining the binary grid with a population calculation, the authors estimate that about 10 to 12 percent of stripped-envelope supernovae could come from this channel, matching the observed Type Ibn fraction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Case BC RLOF: a second phase of Roche-lobe overflow that begins after core helium exhaustion, when the stripped helium star (a HeS with mass below ~3.4 M_sun) expands by 1-2 orders of magnitude in radius within a few thousand years. The mass lost in this phase is clocked by how early the star starts filling its Roche lobe; the paper maps that duration to the transferred mass (about 0.8 M_sun if overflow begins 20 kyr before collapse). The companion accretes almost nothing, so the unaccreted helium-rich gas is lost from the binary, and, if it is ejected through the outer Lagrangian point, it settles into a circumbinary disk whose inner radius is a few times the binary separation. A simple momentum-conserving collision model between the supernova ejecta and this disk, with a density profile and half-opening angle, yields the interaction luminosity that shapes the light curve.

What would settle it

A converged binary evolution model of a qi = 0.5, 12-14 solar-mass binary that applies the Marchant (2017) radiation-driven ejection limit and finds the system merges during Case B RLOF would falsify the channel and its ~10-12% rate prediction, because all the rerun models in this paper would then be unstable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that low-mass helium stars (below about 3.4 solar masses at core helium exhaustion) expand dramatically in the last ~20,000 years before core collapse, and in a binary this expansion can restart Roche-lobe overflow (Case BC mass transfer) onto a main-sequence companion. The donor loses 0.1 to 0.8 solar masses of hydrogen-free material, almost all of which escapes the binary because the companion is already spinning at critical rotation. If this material forms a bound circumbinary disk, a simple inelastic-collision model shows that the ejecta of the exploding donor convert up to tens of percent of their kinetic energy into radiation, reproducing the circumstellar masses, ejecta masses, CSM radii, and bell-shaped light curves inferred for many Type Ibn supernovae and a few Type Icn events. Mapping the mass-loss onto a full binary grid and weighting by the initial mass function gives up to ~12% of stripped-envelope supernovae from this channel, in line with the observed ~9.2% Type Ibn fraction.

Load-bearing premise

The rate claim stands on the assumption that the first mass-transfer phase (Case B RLOF) leaves the binary bound; the paper adopts a stability criterion (Pauli et al.) under which the rerun binaries survive, whereas the stricter Marchant (2017) criterion would make all of the qi = 0.5 rerun models merge and remove the channel entirely.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Type Ibn supernovae with low ejecta mass and high CSM mass (Mej ~ 1 M_sun, MCSM 0.1-1 M_sun) are plausibly the explosions of these Case BC binaries rather than of single stars.
  • The CSM around many interacting H-poor SNe is expected to be disk-like rather than spherical, with interaction delayed by hours to about a day as the ejecta reach the inner disk edge.
  • About one in ten stripped-envelope supernovae should show interaction features of the kind the channel predicts, matching the observed Type Ibn fraction.
  • Systems that start mass transfer earlier strip more mass: 20 kyr before collapse gives ~0.8 M_sun of CSM, while 1 kyr gives ~0.1 M_sun, producing a spread in interaction strength.
  • The surviving binaries after the supernova should often be Be X-ray binaries or, later, merged neutron-star/white-dwarf pairs, a testable population prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the disk geometry is confirmed by spectropolarimetry or line-profile modeling of Type Ibn SNe, the channel would simultaneously explain their light curves and their uncommon narrow-line persistence, which spherical CSM models struggle to reproduce.
  • The rate estimate depends on the adopted Case B stability criterion; settling that criterion observationally (e.g., through the number of Be-star secondaries near stripped stars) would sharpen the prediction.
  • A direct extension would be to compute spectral synthesis of these exploding donors with the CBD included; the paper leaves that to future work, but it is the decisive next test.
  • The same mass-transfer clock should apply to Type Icn/Ic-CSM SNe with Mej < 1.5 M_sun, since those also fall in the model parameter space, implying a continuum between Ibn and some Icn events from one binary channel.
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 proposes that H-free (helium-star) donors in close binaries with main-sequence companions can undergo a late phase of Roche-lobe overflow (Case BC RLOF) within ~20 kyr of core collapse, ejecting up to ~0.8 Msun of H-free material that forms a circumbinary disk. The authors argue that this channel can explain the inferred CSM masses, radii, ejecta masses, and light-curve morphologies of many Type Ibn SNe and some Type Icn SNe, and that population synthesis of a large binary grid yields about 10-12% of stripped-envelope SNe from this channel, matching the observed Type Ibn fraction of ~9.2%. The paper is based on 44 rerun binary models with improved physics and a mapping method to estimate Case BC RLOF properties across the full grid.

Significance. If the channel is robust, this would identify a specific, quantitative binary progenitor for a class of interacting H-poor supernovae, connecting binary evolution models to observed transients and providing a testable rate. The manuscript is strong in several respects: the binary evolution calculations are detailed and the authors transparently discuss uncertainties; the mapping method in Sect. 5.1 and Appendix B is a practical tool for extrapolating from rerun models to a large grid; and the comparison with observed MCSM, Mej, and RCSM in Sect. 6 is systematic and clearly presented. The paper also explicitly flags its own limitations, including the unresolved mass-transfer stability criterion and the numerical origin of Case X RLOF, which is commendable but also means the central quantitative claims are less secure than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 7.2.2 and Sect. 5.6] The central rate claim (up to ~12% of stripped-envelope SNe, Sect. 5.6 and Conclusions) is contingent on the stability of Case B RLOF, which the authors themselves show is unresolved. In Sect. 7.2.2, the Marchant (2017) criterion (Eq. 5) is applied to the rerun models with qi = 0.5, and all of them are flagged as unstable during Case B RLOF (Fig. 16), implying merger rather than survival to Case BC RLOF. The less stringent Pauli (2020) criterion leaves most of the rerun models stable, but the manuscript does not establish which criterion is correct. The population synthesis in Sect. 5.6 uses the grid's stability criteria from Sect. 2.4, which do not include the Marchant limit, so the reported rate does not account for the possibility that most of the parameter space is removed. This is a load-bearing issue: the 12% figure and the claimed agreement with the observed ~9.2% Type Ibn fraction would collapse if the Marchant criterion holds. I request a quantitative exploration of this dependence, e.g., recomputing the rate under the Marchant criterion or providing a compelling argument for why the Pauli criterion is preferred.
  2. [Sect. 4.2.3 and Sect. 7.3.2] Half of the rerun models undergo Case X RLOF and fail to reach core collapse, and the manuscript states that the small-scale over/undershooting of 0.008 H_P introduced after core C burning is the direct cause of this behavior (Sect. 7.3.2), noting that these numerical settings 'lack physical backing' and were introduced for convergence. While the paper excludes the effect of Case X on the SN properties by using data at 1 yr before termination (Sect. 4.3), this does not resolve the physical fate of those systems: if Case X RLOF is a numerical artifact, the affected models would likely evolve differently and not explode with the proposed CSM structure; if it is real, the explosion during CE evolution would produce qualitatively different observational signatures. Since half of the rerun models are affected, this uncertainty propagates to the population estimate and the comparison with observed SNe. The paper should quantify how the exclusion or reclassification of Case X models affects the rate (Sect. 5.6) and the MCSM-Mej distributions (Fig. 11).
  3. [Sect. 5.5 and Fig. 13] The claimed qualitative agreement with Type Ibn light curves is based on a simplified model in which the CBD parameters (half-opening angle θ, density slope s, inner and outer radii, and explosion energy Ekin) are freely chosen. The manuscript itself describes this as 'very crude' and notes that radiation transport is neglected (Sect. 5.5). As a proof of concept this is acceptable, but the paper's abstract and conclusions present the light-curve morphology match as supporting evidence for the channel. Since the parameter space is large, the current analysis does not demonstrate that the models make distinctive, falsifiable predictions beyond what a generic disk-like CSM with adjustable parameters would produce. I recommend either reframing the light-curve comparison explicitly as an existence proof, or providing a more systematic exploration showing what range of θ, s, and Rin-Rout is required to match the observed Type Ibn sample and which observed events cannot be accommodated under any plausible choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sect. 5.6] The abstract states 'up to ~10%' of stripped-envelope SNe while Sect. 5.6 and the Conclusions state ~12%; please make these numbers consistent and report the uncertainty or range.
  2. [General] There are several typographical errors, including 'particularily' (Sects. 4.2.1 and 5.5), 'sorrunding' (Sect. 6.1), 'mash' for 'match' (Sect. 5.5), and '6end' in Table 1 note. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Sect. 5.3] The notation fM is used both for the mass fraction in Eq. (2) and for the angle-dependent fraction in Eq. (4) with different definitions; please disambiguate these symbols to avoid confusion.
  4. [Fig. 12] The bar chart of spatial distributions is dense and difficult to read, especially the overlapping hatched regions; consider presenting the key radii and masses in a table or in separate panels for clarity.
  5. [Sect. 3.3] The phrase 'in logarithmic steps of 0.01' for initial mass is ambiguous; please specify whether the step is 0.01 dex or 0.01 Msun.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the channel's CSM masses and rate come from stellar and binary evolution models and are compared with observed Type Ibn/Icn properties after the fact; the unconstrained CBD geometry and unresolved Case B stability criterion are acknowledged uncertainties, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The binary evolution models produce H-free donors that expand and fill their Roche lobes shortly before core collapse, and the unaccreted transferred mass provides an upper limit on CSM mass; this quantity is computed from stellar structure and binary evolution, not from the observed SNe. The population-synthesis estimate of roughly 12% of stripped-envelope SNe is obtained by assigning an IMF and flat log-period and mass-ratio distributions to the binary grid and counting Case BC RLOF systems, and the observed 9.2% Type Ibn fraction is used only as a post-hoc comparison, not as a fitted target. The light-curve models in Sect. 5.5 explicitly introduce half-opening angle, density slope, and disk radii as parameters 'not constrained by our models' and present the result as a 'proof of concept,' so the qualitative bell-shape agreement is a demonstration of plausibility rather than a hidden parameter fit. The main caveats, namely the sensitivity to the Marchant versus Pauli Case B stability criterion in Sect. 7.2.2 and the uncertain CSM geometry, are openly discussed physical uncertainties and do not reduce any prediction to its own input. No load-bearing self-citation chain is used: the previous papers by the authors provide numerical settings and the underlying grid, but the key comparisons are against independent observed events and externally published stability criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on MESA binary models with adopted input physics, the mapping from single He-star models to the binary grid, the stability of Case B RLOF, complete inefficiency of Case BC accretion, and the assumed formation of a bound circumbinary disk. The main free parameters are the unconstrained disk properties (theta, s, R_in, R_out, v_CSM) used in the light-curve models, plus the adopted NS mass and initial binary distributions. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (6)
  • Circumbinary disk half-opening angle θ = 5°, 10°, 15°, 30°, 90°
    Unconstrained parameter chosen in the light-curve models (Sect 5.5); smaller angles make interaction dimmer and briefer.
  • Circumbinary disk density slope s = -1 (fiducial), 0, -2
    Assumed rho proportional to r^s for the disk; not derived from binary models (Sect 5.5).
  • Circumbinary disk inner radius R_in = 10^13 cm
    Set at 2-3 times the binary separation following Artymowicz & Lubow (1994); controls interaction onset (Sect 5.2).
  • Circumbinary disk outer radius R_out = 10^15 cm
    Adopted conservative photoevaporation-limited extent scaled from Tuna & Metzger (2023); not computed for these binaries (Sect 5.2).
  • CSM expansion velocity v_CSM = 10 km/s, with 5 and 20 km/s tests
    Assumed constant in the expanding-CSM scenario; not measured (Sect 5.4).
  • Neutron star mass M_ns = 1.35 Msun, range 1.20 to 1.50
    Adopted to convert final stellar mass to ejecta mass; affects f_M and ejecta composition estimates (Sect 4.3).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption MESA (r10398) with approx21 network adequately models late-stage evolution to core collapse
    Sect 2.2. Authors note the approx21 network is suboptimal for low-mass cores (Farmer et al. 2016); this could affect late radius evolution that drives Case BC RLOF.
  • domain assumption Case B RLOF is stable for the rerun qi = 0.5 models
    Sect 7.2.2. Under the Marchant (2017) criterion all these models are unstable and would merge; the authors rely on Pauli (2020) and Pavlovskii & Ivanova (2015). The 12 percent rate hinges on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Case BC RLOF is completely inefficient (f = 0); all transferred mass leaves the binary
    Sect 2.4 and Appendix A. If accretion is efficient, no CSM forms, eliminating the proposed interaction channel.
  • domain assumption Unaccreted mass exits through the outer Lagrangian point and forms a bound circumbinary disk retaining at least 80 percent of the mass
    Sect 5.2 and 7.4, citing Pejcha et al. (2016). The qualitative Type Ibn/Icn light-curve agreement requires this geometry; an isotropic wind is shown to be too faint.
  • ad hoc to paper Small-scale over/undershooting of 0.008 H_P after core C burning
    Sect 2.3 and 7.3.2. Adopted for numerical convergence; the authors show it directly causes the He/CO shell merger and Case X RLOF, and it may alter final core structure.
  • domain assumption Yoon (2017) / Nugis & Lamers (2000) wind mass-loss prescription for He stars
    Sect 7.1. Weaker winds (Vink 2017) would shift the Case BC parameter space to lower initial masses and could leave an H-rich envelope, changing the predicted SN types and rates.
  • domain assumption Salpeter IMF with flat log P and log q initial distributions for population synthesis
    Sect 5.6. The 12 percent rate estimate is computed under these standard assumptions; they are not calibrated against the observed binary population here.
  • domain assumption Explosion energies, nickel masses, and NS masses from 1D explosion recipes
    Sect 4.3. Mueller et al. (2016) and Mandel & Mueller (2020) prescriptions are applied to the three models reaching CC; the authors caution the values are uncertain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass-transferring binary stars as progenitors of interacting hydrogen-free supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBWK6NXJ

@misc{pith2026241209893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass-transferring binary stars as progenitors of interacting hydrogen-free supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBWK6NXJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09893}
}
abstract

Stripped-envelope supernovae (SNe) are H-poor transients produced at the end of the life of massive stars that previously lost their H-rich envelope. Their progenitors are thought to be donor stars in mass-transferring binary systems, which were stripped of their H-rich envelopes some $10^6$yr before core collapse. A subset of the stripped-envelope SNe exhibit spectral and photometric features indicative of interaction between their ejecta and nearby circumstellar material (CSM). We examine whether mass transfer during, or shortly before, core collapse in massive binary systems can produce the CSM inferred from the observations of interacting H-poor SNe. We select 44 models from a comprehensive grid of detailed binary evolution models in which the mass donors are H-free and explode while transferring mass to a main-sequence companion. We find that in these models, mass transfer starts less than $\sim20$kyr before, and often continues until the core collapse of the donor star. Up to $0.8M_\odot$ of H-free material are removed from the donor star during this phase, which may produce a He-rich circumbinary material. We explore plausible assumptions for its spatial distribution at the time of explosion. When assuming that the CSM accumulates in a circumbinary disk, we find qualitative agreement with the supernova and CSM properties inferred from observed Type Ibn SNe, and to a lesser extent with constraints from Type Icn SNe. We find that our mass transferring stripped envelope SN progenitor models may produce up to $\sim$10% of all stripped envelope supernovae. The binary channel proposed in this work can qualitatively account for the observed key properties and rate of interacting H-poor SNe. Models for the evolution of the circumbinary material and the spectral evolution of exploding progenitors from this channel are needed to further test its significance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the radius of single HeS models as a function of time during and after core carbon burning, with t = 0 set at core carbon depletion. The square markers indicate core carbon ignition, circles in￾dicate the time when the first carbon shell develops, and stars mark the end of the calculation. For the lowest mass model, no endpoint is shown (see Sect. 3.1). the end of core He burning to assess which models … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The log Pi − qi diagram for the binary grid of models from Jin et al. (in prep.), with M1,i = 12.6 M⊙, where each pixel represents one detailed binary evolution model. The color coding represents the mass of the primary star at core helium depletion. The solid lines cover the models where the radius of a single HeS of the same mass (cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Time evolution of the primary star in model M1,i = 13.5 M⊙, qi = 0.50 and Pi = 6.3 d from the onset of Case B RLOF (left), during core He burning (center), and until the end of the run (right). Top: Kippenhahn diagram in which the outermost boundaries are colored corresponding to the most abundant element just below (see legend on the right) and colored patches based on the dominating mixing mechanism (see legend on… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A zoom in on the Kippenhahn diagram close to the edge of the CO-core where the Ne-burning shell ignites at a mass coordinate of 1.54 M⊙ and develops a convective region just above it which then merges with the He-burning shell after about 10 d. The solid lines, and pat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The spectroscopic HR-diagram of the binary-stripped models explored in this work, color-coded by the mass at core He-depletion MHe−dep (cf., [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mass loss as a function of time prior to the end of the run for the set of models with M1,i = 12.6 M⊙ with different initial orbital period, marked by different colors. The three different panels highlight different time scales. RLOF much earlier. A stronger phase foll…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Maps showing the ∆MRLOF−BC (top) and the amount lost after M˙ RLOF exceeds 10−4 M⊙ yr−1 (i.e., ∆M (4) RLOF−BC, bottom) in the MHe−dep− RRL,1 diagram. The scatter highlight the models, and the map is linearly interpolated between them. The dashed curves correspond to th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scatter plot showing the compactness parameter ξm = (m/ M⊙)/(R(m)/1000 km) for m = 1.75 M⊙ (triangle marker) and 2.5 M⊙ (circle marker) as a function of the final CO-core. The results of both the single (red) and binary-stripped HeS models (blue) are shown. The compact…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Properties of the primaries as a function of the final CO-core mass of the primary star. The markers are colored as a function of MHe-dep, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The CSM in our models at the time of the SN, according to various estimates, versus the SN ejecta mass. The CSM mass given by ∆MRLOF−BC (white, with black outline) and ∆M (4) RLOF−BC (black) is shown. CSM mass estimates for models in the binary grid are given as small…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Bar chart of the spatial distribution of material from the SN progenitor models 1 yr prior to the end of the run for the models run in this work. Color bars highlight the envelope (blue filled bar) and the regions where the CSM would be found (hatched bars) if it were…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Interaction-powered light curves for model B12.3p25.1 assuming a constantly-expanding CSM (left panel), a CBD-like CSM (right panel), and a comparison between the two with different explosion energies (center panel). In each panel, two observations are shown, namely t…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between model data and parameters inferred from observed Type Ibn SNe (blue-scale colored markers), with different markers associated to different SNe, and different colors for the same SN highlighting different references. Estimates inferred from the model…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The log Pi − qi diagram of the the Case B binary models in the binary grid from Jin et al. (in prep.) with M1,i = 12.6 M⊙, color￾coded based on the amount of mass expected to be shed during Case BC RLOF. The hatching indicates models that are flagged as having under￾g…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The same Kippehnahn plot shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Population Synthesis Study on the Binary Origin of Type Ibn Supernovae

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Binary population synthesis shows low-mass helium stars in close binaries can account for the observed Type Ibn supernova rate, but He star compact object mergers cannot.

  2. The progenitors and circumstellar environments of stripped-envelope interacting supernovae from BPASS

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using BPASS, only binary progenitors whose mass loss forms a circum-binary disc reproduce the luminosities and rise times of stripped-envelope interacting supernovae.

  3. Stellar Tidal Disruptions by Newborn Neutron Stars or Black Holes: A Mechanism for Hydrogen-poor (Super)luminous Supernovae and Fast Blue Optical Transients

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A newborn compact object that tidally disrupts its binary companion can power hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae and fast blue optical transients at roughly the observed rates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

164 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    R., Langer , N., Antoniadis , J., et al

    Aguilera-Dena , D. R., Langer , N., Antoniadis , J., et al. 2022, , 661, A60

    2022

  4. [4]

    R., Langer , N., Moriya , T

    Aguilera-Dena , D. R., Langer , N., Moriya , T. J., & Schootemeijer , A. 2018, , 858, 115

    2018

  5. [5]

    R., M \"u ller , B., Antoniadis , J., et al

    Aguilera-Dena , D. R., M \"u ller , B., Antoniadis , J., et al. 2023, , 671, A134

    2023

  6. [6]

    & Lubow , S

    Artymowicz , P. & Lubow , S. H. 1994, , 421, 651

    1994

  7. [7]

    M., & Grevesse , N

    Asplund , M., Amarsi , A. M., & Grevesse , N. 2021, , 653, A141

    2021

  8. [8]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Bellm , E. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Graham , M. J., et al. 2019, , 131, 018002

    2019

Show all 164 references
  1. [9]

    A., et al

    Ben-Ami , S., Gal-Yam , A., Mazzali , P. A., et al. 2014, , 785, 37

    2014

  2. [10]

    2023, , 946, 30

    Ben-Ami , T., Arcavi , I., Newsome , M., et al. 2023, , 946, 30

    2023

  3. [11]

    & Langer , N

    Braun , H. & Langer , N. 1995, , 297, 483

    1995

  4. [12]

    J., Sollerman , J., Irani , I., et al

    Brennan , S. J., Sollerman , J., Irani , I., et al. 2024, , 684, L18

    2024

  5. [13]

    2022, , 939, 105

    Brethauer , D., Margutti , R., Milisavljevic , D., et al. 2022, , 939, 105

    2022

  6. [14]

    Burrows , A., Hayes , J., & Fryxell , B. A. 1995, , 450, 830

    1995

  7. [15]

    C., & Vinko , J

    Chatzopoulos , E., Wheeler , J. C., & Vinko , J. 2012, , 746, 121

    2012

  8. [16]

    C., Vinko , J., Horvath , Z

    Chatzopoulos , E., Wheeler , J. C., Vinko , J., Horvath , Z. L., & Nagy , A. 2013, , 773, 76

    2013

  9. [17]

    2024, , 625, 253

    Chen , P., Gal-Yam , A., Sollerman , J., et al. 2024, , 625, 253

    2024

  10. [18]

    Chugai , N. N. 2009, , 400, 866

    2009

  11. [19]

    Chugai , N. N. 2022, Astronomy Letters, 48, 163

    2022

  12. [20]

    N., Blinnikov , S

    Chugai , N. N., Blinnikov , S. I., Cumming , R. J., et al. 2004, , 352, 1213

    2004

  13. [21]

    Claeys , J. S. W., de Mink , S. E., Pols , O. R., Eldridge , J. J., & Baes , M. 2011, , 528, A131

    2011

  14. [22]

    2020, , 492, 2208

    Clark , P., Maguire , K., Inserra , C., et al. 2020, , 492, 2208

    2020

  15. [23]

    Darwin , G. H. 1879, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series I, 29, 168

  16. [24]

    W., Taggart , K., Tinyanont , S., et al

    Davis , K. W., Taggart , K., Tinyanont , S., et al. 2023, , 523, 2530

    2023

  17. [25]

    P., Ercolino , A., Jin , H., & Langer , N

    Dessart , L., Guti \'e rrez , C. P., Ercolino , A., Jin , H., & Langer , N. 2024, , 685, A169

    2024

  18. [26]

    & Hillier , D

    Dessart , L. & Hillier , D. J. 2022, , 660, L9

    2022

  19. [27]

    J., & Kuncarayakti , H

    Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., & Kuncarayakti , H. 2022, , 658, A130

    2022

  20. [28]

    J., Li , C., & Woosley , S

    Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., Li , C., & Woosley , S. 2012, , 424, 2139

    2012

  21. [29]

    J., Livne , E., et al

    Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., Livne , E., et al. 2011, , 414, 2985

    2011

  22. [30]

    J., Sukhbold , T., Woosley , S

    Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., Sukhbold , T., Woosley , S. E., & Janka , H. T. 2021, , 656, A61

    2021

  23. [31]

    J., Woosley , S

    Dessart , L., Hillier , D. J., Woosley , S. E., & Kuncarayakti , H. 2023, , 677, A7

    2023

  24. [32]

    R., & Langer , N

    Dessart , L., Yoon , S.-C., Aguilera-Dena , D. R., & Langer , N. 2020, , 642, A106

    2020

  25. [33]

    Dewi , J. D. M. & Pols , O. R. 2003, , 344, 629

    2003

  26. [34]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04583

    Dong , Y., Tsuna , D., Valenti , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04583

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R., G \"o tberg , Y., Ludwig , B

    Drout , M. R., G \"o tberg , Y., Ludwig , B. A., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1287

    2023

  28. [36]

    L., Langer , N., Dunstall , P

    Dufton , P. L., Langer , N., Dunstall , P. R., et al. 2013, , 550, A109

    2013

  29. [37]

    2024, , 685, A58

    Ercolino , A., Jin , H., Langer , N., & Dessart , L. 2024, , 685, A58

    2024

  30. [38]

    E., Sukhbold , T., & Janka , H

    Ertl , T., Woosley , S. E., Sukhbold , T., & Janka , H. T. 2020, , 890, 51

    2020

  31. [39]

    E., Petermann , I., et al

    Farmer , R., Fields , C. E., Petermann , I., et al. 2016, , 227, 22

    2016

  32. [40]

    2022, , 601, 201

    Gal-Yam , A., Bruch , R., Schulze , S., et al. 2022, , 601, 201

    2022

  33. [41]

    2020, , 889, 170

    Gangopadhyay , A., Misra , K., Hiramatsu , D., et al. 2020, , 889, 170

    2020

  34. [42]

    2022, , 930, 127

    Gangopadhyay , A., Misra , K., Hosseinzadeh , G., et al. 2022, , 930, 127

    2022

  35. [43]

    1990, , 245, 597

    Gautschy , A., Glatzel , W., Gautschy , A., & Glatzel , W. 1990, , 245, 597

    1990

  36. [44]

    & Saio , H

    Gautschy , A. & Saio , H. 1995, , 33, 75

    1995

  37. [45]

    S., Eldridge , J

    Gilkis , A., Vink , J. S., Eldridge , J. J., & Tout , C. A. 2019, , 486, 4451

    2019

  38. [46]

    R., Ji , A

    G \"o tberg , Y., Drout , M. R., Ji , A. P., et al. 2023, , 959, 125

    2023

  39. [47]

    A., et al

    Guillochon , J., Nicholl , M., Villar , V. A., et al. 2018, , 236, 6

    2018

  40. [48]

    2024, , 530, 4461

    Guo , Y.-L., Wang , B., Chen , W.-C., et al. 2024, , 530, 4461

    2024

  41. [49]

    Habets , G. M. H. J. 1986, , 165, 95

    1986

  42. [50]

    2014, , 565, A27

    Hainich , R., R \"u hling , U., Todt , H., et al. 2014, , 565, A27

    2014

  43. [51]

    R., Gr \"a fener , G., & Liermann , A

    Hamann , W. R., Gr \"a fener , G., & Liermann , A. 2006, , 457, 1015

    2006

  44. [52]

    Hastings , B., Langer , N., Wang , C., Schootemeijer , A., & Milone , A. P. 2021, , 653, A144

    2021

  45. [53]

    Heger , A., Langer , N., & Woosley , S. E. 2000, , 528, 368

    2000

  46. [54]

    2023, , 523, 6011

    Hirai , R. 2023, , 523, 6011

    2023

  47. [55]

    2018, , 864, 119

    Hirai , R., Podsiadlowski , P., & Yamada , S. 2018, , 864, 119

    2018

  48. [56]

    Ho , A. Y. Q., Perley , D. A., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2023, , 949, 120

    2023

  49. [57]

    1994, , 428, 654

    Hollenbach , D., Johnstone , D., Lizano , S., & Shu , F. 1994, , 428, 654

    1994

  50. [58]

    2017, , 836, 158

    Hosseinzadeh , G., Arcavi , I., Valenti , S., et al. 2017, , 836, 158

    2017

  51. [59]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  52. [60]

    2017, , 837, 84

    Janka , H.-T. 2017, , 837, 84

    2017

  53. [61]

    M., M \"u ller , B., & Li , X.-D

    Jiang , L., Chen , W.-C., Tauris , T. M., M \"u ller , B., & Li , X.-D. 2023, , 945, 90

    2023

  54. [62]

    M., Chen , W.-C., & Fuller , J

    Jiang , L., Tauris , T. M., Chen , W.-C., & Fuller , J. 2021, , 920, L36

    2021

  55. [63]

    J., & Proffitt , C

    Jin , H., Langer , N., Lennon , D. J., & Proffitt , C. R. 2024, , 690, A135

    2024

  56. [64]

    2021, , 649, A163

    Karamehmetoglu , E., Fransson , C., Sollerman , J., et al. 2021, , 649, A163

    2021

  57. [65]

    2018, , 481, L141

    Kleiser , I., Fuller , J., & Kasen , D. 2018, , 481, L141

    2018

  58. [66]

    2022, , 662, A56

    Klencki , J., Istrate , A., Nelemans , G., & Pols , O. 2022, , 662, A56

    2022

  59. [67]

    S., Shappee , B

    Kochanek , C. S., Shappee , B. J., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2017, , 129, 104502

    2017

  60. [68]

    & Ritter , H

    Kolb , U. & Ritter , H. 1990, , 236, 385

    1990

  61. [69]

    C., Karamehmetoglu , E., Sollerman , J., et al

    Kool , E. C., Karamehmetoglu , E., Sollerman , J., et al. 2021, , 652, A136

    2021

  62. [70]

    U., Tauris , T

    Kruckow , M. U., Tauris , T. M., Langer , N., Kramer , M., & Izzard , R. G. 2018, , 481, 1908

    2018

  63. [71]

    Kulkarni , S. R. 2013, The Astronomer's Telegram, 4807, 1

    2013

  64. [72]

    E., Justham , S., & Farmer , R

    Laplace , E., G \"o tberg , Y., de Mink , S. E., Justham , S., & Farmer , R. 2020, , 637, A6

    2020

  65. [73]

    M., Kulkarni , S

    Law , N. M., Kulkarni , S. R., Dekany , R. G., et al. 2009, , 121, 1395

    2009

  66. [74]

    K., & Han , Z

    Liu , Z.-W., R \"o pke , F. K., & Han , Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001

    2023

  67. [75]

    M., R \"o pke , F

    Liu , Z.-W., Tauris , T. M., R \"o pke , F. K., et al. 2015, , 584, A11

    2015

  68. [76]

    2023, , 519, 1409

    Lu , W., Fuller , J., Quataert , E., & Bonnerot , C. 2023, , 519, 1409

    2023

  69. [77]

    Lucy , L. B. 1991, , 383, 308

    1991

  70. [78]

    & Moriya , T

    Maeda , K. & Moriya , T. J. 2022, , 927, 25

    2022

  71. [79]

    & M \"u ller , B

    Mandel , I. & M \"u ller , B. 2020, , 499, 3214

    2020

  72. [80]

    2017, PhD thesis, Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms University of Bonn, Germany

    Marchant , P. 2017, PhD thesis, Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms University of Bonn, Germany

    2017

  73. [81]

    M., & Moriya , T

    Marchant , P., Langer , N., Podsiadlowski , P., Tauris , T. M., & Moriya , T. J. 2016, , 588, A50

    2016

  74. [82]

    Marchant , P., Pappas , K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia , M., et al. 2021, , 650, A107

    2021

  75. [83]

    D., Chornock , R., et al

    Margutti , R., Metzger , B. D., Chornock , R., et al. 2019, , 872, 18

    2019

  76. [84]

    & Sawada , R

    Matsuoka , T. & Sawada , R. 2024, , 963, 105

    2024

  77. [85]

    Mattila , S., Meikle , W. P. S., Lundqvist , P., et al. 2008, , 389, 141

    2008

  78. [86]

    J., Nicholl , M., et al

    Moore , T., Smartt , S. J., Nicholl , M., et al. 2023, , 956, L31

    2023

  79. [87]

    M \"u ller , B., Heger , A., Liptai , D., & Cameron , J. B. 2016, , 460, 742

    2016

  80. [88]

    J., Jerkstrand , A., et al

    Nicholl , M., Smartt , S. J., Jerkstrand , A., et al. 2015, , 452, 3869

    2015

  81. [89]

    & Lamers , H

    Nugis , T. & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2000, , 360, 227

    2000

  82. [90]

    & Ott , C

    O'Connor , E. & Ott , C. D. 2011, , 730, 70

    2011

  83. [91]

    2021, , 505, 2485

    Ogata , M., Hirai , R., & Hijikawa , K. 2021, , 505, 2485

    2021

  84. [92]

    & Maeda , K

    Ouchi , R. & Maeda , K. 2017, , 840, 90

    2017

  85. [93]

    1971, , 21, 1

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1971, , 21, 1

    1971

  86. [94]

    J., et al

    Pastorello , A., Benetti , S., Brown , P. J., et al. 2015 a , , 449, 1921

    2015

  87. [95]

    J., Mattila , S., et al

    Pastorello , A., Smartt , S. J., Mattila , S., et al. 2007, , 447, 829

    2007

  88. [96]

    2015 b , , 449, 1941

    Pastorello , A., Wyrzykowski , ., Valenti , S., et al. 2015 b , , 449, 1941

    2015

  89. [97]

    2020, Master's thesis, Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms University of Bonn, Germany

    Pauli , D. 2020, Master's thesis, Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms University of Bonn, Germany

    2020

  90. [98]

    R., Wang , C., & Marchant , P

    Pauli , D., Langer , N., Aguilera-Dena , D. R., Wang , C., & Marchant , P. 2022, , 667, A58

    2022

  91. [99]

    & Ivanova , N

    Pavlovskii , K. & Ivanova , N. 2015, , 449, 4415

    2015

  92. [100]

    2011, , 192, 3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3

    2011

  93. [101]

    2013, , 208, 4

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

    2013

  94. [102]

    2015, , 220, 15

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

    2015

  95. [103]

    B., et al

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

    2018

  96. [104]

    2019, , 243, 10

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

    2019

  97. [105]

    D., & Tomida , K

    Pejcha , O., Metzger , B. D., & Tomida , K. 2016, , 455, 4351

    2016

  98. [106]

    A., Terreran , G., et al

    Pellegrino , C., Howell , D. A., Terreran , G., et al. 2022 a , , 938, 73

    2022

  99. [107]

    A., Vink \'o , J., et al

    Pellegrino , C., Howell , D. A., Vink \'o , J., et al. 2022 b , , 926, 125

    2022

  100. [108]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18291

    Pellegrino , C., Modjaz , M., Takei , Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.18291

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    A., Fremling , C., Sollerman , J., et al

    Perley , D. A., Fremling , C., Sollerman , J., et al. 2020, , 904, 35

    2020

  102. [110]

    A., Sollerman , J., Schulze , S., et al

    Perley , D. A., Sollerman , J., Schulze , S., et al. 2022, , 927, 180

    2022

  103. [111]

    Petrovic , J., Langer , N., & van der Hucht , K. A. 2005, , 435, 1013

    2005

  104. [112]

    C., & Hsu , J

    Podsiadlowski , P., Joss , P. C., & Hsu , J. J. L. 1992, , 391, 246

    1992

  105. [113]

    J., Maguire , K., Boian , I., et al

    Prentice , S. J., Maguire , K., Boian , I., et al. 2020, , 499, 1450

    2020

  106. [114]

    2023, , 959, L10

    Pursiainen , M., Leloudas , G., Schulze , S., et al. 2023, , 959, L10

    2023

  107. [115]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10869

    Qin , Y., Zhu , J.-P., Meynet , G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10869

    2024 arXiv

  108. [116]

    & Shiode , J

    Quataert , E. & Shiode , J. 2012, , 423, L92

    2012

  109. [117]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03000

    Richards , S., Eldridge , J., Ghodla , S., & Briel , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03000

    2024

  110. [118]

    C., & Cox , J

    Saio , H., Wheeler , J. C., & Cox , J. P. 1984, , 281, 318

    1984

  111. [119]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161

    1955

  112. [120]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

    Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  113. [121]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02054

    Schulze , S., Gal-Yam , A., Dessart , L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02054

    2024 arXiv

  114. [122]

    & Langer , N

    Sch \"u rmann , C. & Langer , N. 2024, , 691, A174

    2024

  115. [123]

    D., et al

    Shivvers , I., Zheng , W., Van Dyk , S. D., et al. 2017, , 471, 4381

    2017

  116. [124]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith , N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 403

    2017

  117. [125]

    & Arnett , W

    Smith , N. & Arnett , W. D. 2014, , 785, 82

    2014

  118. [126]

    D., Mauerhan , J

    Smith , N., Kilpatrick , C. D., Mauerhan , J. C., et al. 2017, , 466, 3021

    2017

  119. [127]

    E., Phinney , E

    Soberman , G. E., Phinney , E. S., & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 1997, , 327, 620

    1997

  120. [128]

    2019, , 885, 130

    Sravan , N., Marchant , P., & Kalogera , V. 2019, , 885, 130

    2019

  121. [129]

    L., Ofek , E

    Strotjohann , N. L., Ofek , E. O., Gal-Yam , A., et al. 2021, , 907, 99

    2021

  122. [130]

    & Woosley , S

    Sukhbold , T. & Woosley , S. E. 2014, , 783, 10

    2014

  123. [131]

    J., & Takiwaki , T

    Suzuki , A., Moriya , T. J., & Takiwaki , T. 2019, , 887, 249

    2019

  124. [132]

    2024, , 961, 67

    Takei , Y., Tsuna , D., Ko , T., & Shigeyama , T. 2024, , 961, 67

    2024

  125. [133]

    M., Langer , N., Moriya , T

    Tauris , T. M., Langer , N., Moriya , T. J., et al. 2013, , 778, L23

    2013

  126. [134]

    M., Langer , N., & Podsiadlowski , P

    Tauris , T. M., Langer , N., & Podsiadlowski , P. 2015, , 451, 2123

    2015

  127. [135]

    D., Pols , O

    Temmink , K. D., Pols , O. R., Justham , S., Istrate , A. G., & Toonen , S. 2023, , 669, A45

    2023

  128. [136]

    2008, , 687, 1208

    Tominaga , N., Limongi , M., Suzuki , T., et al. 2008, , 687, 1208

    2008

  129. [137]

    L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A

    Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A. N., et al. 2018, , 130, 064505

    2018

  130. [138]

    2016, , 833, 133

    Tramper , F., Sana , H., & de Koter , A. 2016, , 833, 133

    2016

  131. [139]

    & Metzger , B

    Tuna , S. & Metzger , B. D. 2023, , 955, 125

    2023

  132. [140]

    & Pastorello , A

    Turatto , M. & Pastorello , A. 2014, in Supernova Environmental Impacts, ed. A. Ray & R. A. McCray , Vol. 296, 63--67

    2014

  133. [141]

    J., Prieto , J

    Vallely , P. J., Prieto , J. L., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2018, , 475, 2344

    2018

  134. [142]

    2024, , 688, A128

    Valli , R., Tiede , C., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al. 2024, , 688, A128

    2024

  135. [143]

    A., Berger , E., Metzger , B

    Villar , V. A., Berger , E., Metzger , B. D., & Guillochon , J. 2017, , 849, 70

    2017

  136. [144]

    J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al

    Vinciguerra , S., Neijssel , C. J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al. 2020, , 498, 4705

    2020

  137. [145]

    Vink , J. S. 2017, , 607, L8

    2017

  138. [146]

    2016, , 458, 1253

    Vlasis , A., Dessart , L., & Audit , E. 2016, , 458, 1253

    2016

  139. [147]

    2024, , 530, 3906

    Wang , Q., Goel , A., Dessart , L., et al. 2024, , 530, 3906

    2024

  140. [148]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.14147

    Warwick , B., Lyman , J., Pursiainen , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.14147

    2024 arXiv

  141. [149]

    Wei , D., Schneider , F. R. N., Podsiadlowski , P., et al. 2024, , 688, A87

    2024

  142. [150]

    & Langer , N

    Wellstein , S. & Langer , N. 1999, , 350, 148

    1999

  143. [151]

    2023, , 958, 138

    Willcox , R., MacLeod , M., Mandel , I., & Hirai , R. 2023, , 958, 138

    2023

  144. [152]

    Woosley , S. E. 2019, , 878, 49

    2019

  145. [153]

    Woosley , S. E. & Heger , A. 2015, , 810, 34

    2015

  146. [154]

    E., Langer , N., & Weaver , T

    Woosley , S. E., Langer , N., & Weaver , T. A. 1995, , 448, 315

    1995

  147. [155]

    E., Sukhbold , T., & Kasen , D

    Woosley , S. E., Sukhbold , T., & Kasen , D. N. 2021, , 913, 145

    2021

  148. [156]

    E., Weaver , T

    Woosley , S. E., Weaver , T. A., & Taam , R. E. 1980, in Texas Workshop on Type I Supernovae, ed. J. C. Wheeler , 96--112

    1980

  149. [157]

    & Fuller , J

    Wu , S. & Fuller , J. 2021, , 906, 3

    2021

  150. [158]

    Wu , S. C. & Fuller , J. 2022 a , , 940, L27

    2022

  151. [159]

    Wu , S. C. & Fuller , J. 2022 b , , 930, 119

    2022

  152. [160]

    T., Melson , T., & Heger , A

    Yadav , N., M \"u ller , B., Janka , H. T., Melson , T., & Heger , A. 2020, , 890, 94

    2020

  153. [161]

    M., et al

    Yao , Y., De , K., Kasliwal , M. M., et al. 2020, , 900, 46

    2020

  154. [162]

    2017, , 470, 3970

    Yoon , S.-C. 2017, , 470, 3970

    2017

  155. [163]

    2017, , 840, 10

    Yoon , S.-C., Dessart , L., & Clocchiatti , A. 2017, , 840, 10

    2017

  156. [164]

    C., Woosley , S

    Yoon , S. C., Woosley , S. E., & Langer , N. 2010, , 725, 940

    2010

Pith tools

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