Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Revisiting the Suzaku spectrum of the Galactic SNR W 49 B: non-detection of iron K-shell charge exchange emission and refined ejecta mass ratios of iron-group elements

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 The claimed charge-exchange emission in W49B is an artifact of missing atomic lines.

desk verdict A careful reanalysis that makes the reported CX detection in W49B much less secure, but the 'fully attributable' claim overreaches the evidence; worth reviewing with a request to tone down the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13255 v2 pith:XQKKYZYH submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.HE

Makoto Sawada , Toshiki Sato , Keiichi Maeda , Koki Itonaga This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords W49BsupernovaremnantchargeexchangeemissiondielectronicrecombinationironK-shellrecombiningplasmaSuzakuXISejectamassratios
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 revisits the Suzaku spectrum of the supernova remnant W49B and argues that the previously reported Fe XXV charge-exchange (CX) emission in the 8–9 keV band is not real. By fitting the same data with two independent spectral codes, AtomDB and SPEX, and by adjusting for possible detector gain miscalibration, the authors find that the excess flux largely disappears when the more complete code is used. They trace the residual to dielectronic recombination satellite lines from high-shell transitions that are missing from the current atomic databases, and estimate the missing flux by extrapolating a power-law trend. If correct, the claimed direct spectroscopic support for the conduction-cooling scenario disappears, and the recombining plasma in W49B is better explained by adiabatic cooling. The paper also refines the Fe-group ejecta mass ratios, Mn/Cr and Ni/Fe, finding them consistent with both Type Ia and spherical core-collapse nucleosynthesis models.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the side-by-side comparison of two collisional-plasma spectral codes, AtomDB and SPEX, used as probes of atomic-data completeness rather than as interchangeable fitters. The decisive element is the identification of missing dielectronic recombination (DR) satellite lines — emission lines produced when an ion captures a free electron and emits a photon — for high principal quantum number transitions (n>5 in AtomDB, n>10 in SPEX). By plotting the SPEX-computed line fluxes as a function of n for He-like and Li-like iron transitions, the authors find a clean power law, roughly $n^{-3}$.4, that breaks at the database truncation; extrapolating this trend gives the missing flux of 2.3e-6 $s^{-1}$ $cm^{-2}$ for He-like and 1.2e-6 $s^{-1}$ $cm^{-2}$ for Li-like lines, which accounts for roughly half the apparent CX excess.

What would settle it

A high-resolution X-ray spectrum of W49B in the 8–9 keV band, for example from XRISM, that either resolves the predicted high-n dielectronic recombination satellite lines and shows them continuing on the $n^{-3}$.4 trend, or that reveals a residual broad excess not explainable by any version of the atomic codes, would directly confirm or reject the claim that the excess is entirely a missing-line artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the 8–9 keV excess previously attributed to Fe XXV charge exchange emission in the Suzaku spectrum of W49B is fully attributable to systematic errors in the spectral codes, specifically to missing dielectronic recombination satellite lines at high principal quantum numbers. Comparing the same recombining-plasma model fit in AtomDB v3.0.9 and SPEX v3.08.01, the authors show that the broad Gaussian representing the claimed CX feature drops from a 6–7σ detection in AtomDB to 2–3σ in SPEX, and to near 1.8σ after accounting for the missing high-n satellite flux estimated from an $n^{-3}$.4 trend. They conclude that there is no observational evidence for CX emission in this remnant at the previously reported level, and that a real CX component, if present, must be much weaker. They additionally provide revised Mn/Cr and Ni/Fe ejecta mass ratios that resolve the prior discrepancy with nucleosynthesis models.

Load-bearing premise

The missing-flux estimate assumes that the line flux versus principal quantum number n follows the roughly $n^{-3}$.4 power law seen up to n=8–9 in SPEX, and that the truncation of the atomic database at n=10 is the entire cause of the residual; if the trend flattens or steepens, or if unmodeled Be-like DR satellites or line-spread effects contribute differently, a real CX component at lower flux cannot be excluded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the previously reported Fe XXV CX detection in W49B can no longer be cited as direct evidence for conduction cooling, so the rarefaction/adiabatic-cooling scenario becomes the leading explanation for its recombining plasma.
  • The revised Fe-group mass ratios, Mn/Cr near 0.6 and Ni/Fe near 0.05, bring W49B into agreement with both Type Ia and spherical core-collapse nucleosynthesis models with a low progenitor mass (<~20 solar masses).
  • The analysis implies that significance claims for weak, broad features in CCD-resolution spectra of hot plasmas must include atomic-code systematics as part of the error budget, not just statistical errors.
  • Future high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy (for example with XRISM) is required to either resolve the predicted high-n DR satellite lines or set meaningful upper limits on any genuine CX emission in this remnant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the n^-3.4 extrapolation is correct, the same missing-flux effect should affect other recombining supernova remnants analyzed with these codes, potentially biasing reported line fluxes and abundance ratios in those objects as well.
  • The strong dependence of the Ni/Fe ratio on the choice of spectral code, driven by the blending of Ni Healpha and Fe Hebeta, suggests that abundance ratios involving blended line complexes are less trustworthy than ratios like Mn/Cr that come from cleaner lines; future work should prefer unblended diagnostics.
  • A testable extension would be to re-run these fits with a hypothetical code that includes DR satellites up to n=20; if the 8–9 keV residual disappears entirely, the claim is confirmed, whereas a persistent excess would revive the CX interpretation at lower flux.
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 reanalyzes Suzaku XIS spectra of the Galactic SNR W49B using two independent spectral codes, AtomDB v3.0.9 and SPEX v3.08.01, with and without an XIS gain-scale adjustment. The authors find that the 8-9 keV excess previously reported as Fe XXV charge exchange emission is reduced from 6-7 sigma with AtomDB to 2-3 sigma with SPEX. They estimate that high-shell dielectronic recombination satellite lines missing from SPEX contribute 2.3e-6 and 1.2e-6 s^-1 cm^-2 of flux, obtained by extrapolating the n^-3.4 line-flux trend to higher principal quantum numbers, and conclude that the previously reported CX flux is fully attributable to systematic errors in the atomic codes. The paper also derives revised Mn/Cr and Ni/Fe ejecta mass ratios and compares them with Type Ia and core-collapse nucleosynthesis models, concluding that both Type Ia and low-mass spherical core-collapse models remain viable.

Significance. If fully accepted, the central result is an important cautionary tale for X-ray spectroscopy of recombining SNRs: it removes the claimed direct spectroscopic support for charge exchange and conduction cooling in W49B and demonstrates that atomic-code incompleteness can masquerade as a spectral line at CCD resolution. The cross-code comparison itself is convincing and is the paper's strongest contribution; the reduction from 6-7 sigma to 2-3 sigma is a robust finding that does not depend on the detailed missing-line extrapolation. The revised Fe-group mass ratios, especially the lower Mn/Cr ratio, are a useful update to the literature, though they are secondary to the CX discussion. The main weakness is that the 'fully attributable' conclusion is quantitatively supported only at the 45-67% level, with the remainder assigned to Be-like satellites without calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Figure 5, Abstract, §5] The claim that the 8-9 keV excess is 'fully attributable' to missing DR satellite lines is stronger than the evidence presented. The missing-flux estimates of 2.3e-6 and 1.2e-6 s^-1 cm^-2 are obtained by extrapolating the SPEX n^-3.4 line-flux trend beyond the calculated n range (He-like n>10, Li-like n>9) to infinity, with no uncertainty quoted. These estimates account for 45% (no-gain) and 67% (gain-adjusted) of the measured broad Gaussian flux. The remaining flux is assigned to unmodeled Be-like DR satellites without a quantitative calculation. The conclusion in the Abstract and in §4.1/§5 should therefore be either backed by a calculation or bound of the Be-like contribution, or softened to a statement that the excess is consistent with missing high-n lines and is not a significant CX detection, with an upper limit on any residual CX component.
  2. [§4.1, Figure 5] The n^-3.4 power-law extrapolation is an unvalidated assumption that is load-bearing for the 'full attribution' claim. High-n DR satellite fluxes need not follow the same power law as the n=4-8 points used for the fit; autoionization versus radiative branching, finite-density effects, and n-mixing can all change the n-dependence. The sudden drop at n=10 in SPEX is consistent with the stated calculation cutoff, but it does not establish that the true flux continues as n^-3.4 to infinite n. Please add sensitivity tests with alternative extrapolations (e.g., n^-3, n^-4, or truncation at different n_max) and quote the resulting range of missing flux. The current reduced significances of 1.8 sigma and 0.7 sigma are computed by subtracting a no-uncertainty estimate from the measured Gaussian flux, so they inherit this uncertainty.
  3. [§3.3, Table 2] The paper's non-detection conclusion would be more robustly stated as an upper limit on CX flux, independent of the missing-line attribution. Even in the SPEX no-gain fit, the broad Gaussian has a flux of 0.78 +/- 0.40e-5 s^-1 cm^-2 with Delta chi^2 = -10.1, i.e., a 2-3 sigma residual that is not formally significant. The central claim does not require proving that the residual is entirely composed of missing DR lines; it requires showing that any CX component is below a meaningful detection threshold. Please provide an explicit upper limit on Fe XXV CX flux in the 8-9 keV band from the SPEX fits, and use that as the basis for the conclusion alongside the missing-line discussion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3, §5] The narrow 6.4 keV line centroid is consistently found at 6.44-6.46 keV, not at the neutral Fe I K-alpha energy of 6.40 keV; the text notes this, but the abstract and summary refer only to the CX non-detection. Please make the status of the 6.4 keV feature explicit in the summary.
  2. [§4.2] The statement that the previous Mn/Cr discrepancy is 'nearly two times smaller' and the quoted mass ratio of approximately 0.6 cannot be directly verified from Table 1, because the conversion from abundance ratio to mass ratio is not shown. Please give the numerical values for Mn/Cr and Ni/Fe mass ratios for each code and gain setting, with errors.
  3. [Figure 6] The measurement crosses in Figure 6 are described only in the caption; a short table or paragraph in §4.2 with the numerical values and error bars would make the comparison with nucleosynthesis models reproducible and would support the qualitative statements about which models are favored.
  4. [§3.1, §4.1] The factor 1.7 improvement from adding the 2015 XIS3 data is a simple scaling of the statistical error, not a re-fit; the statement that the significance would 'barely reach' 3 sigma should be labeled as an estimate, since background and gain properties may differ between the 2009 and 2015 observations.
  5. [Figure 5] Since the extrapolation is central to the paper, please consider providing the line fluxes used in Figure 5 as a small table or electronic supplement, so that readers can reproduce the missing-flux calculation and test alternative extrapolations.
  6. [Figure 2 caption] The label 'XIS' in the top panel is ambiguous; please specify 'XIS 0 + XIS 3' and clarify which model spectrum corresponds to the red and blue curves in the close-up panel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the non-detection claim rests on an independent code-to-code comparison and an extrapolated missing-flux estimate, not on a quantity that is fitted from or defined by the residual.

full rationale

The paper's non-detection of Fe XXV CX in W49B rests on two independent results. First, direct spectral fits with AtomDB and SPEX yield different residuals in 8-9 keV; adding a broad Gaussian at fixed 0.2 keV width gives 6-7 sigma significance with AtomDB but 2-3 sigma with SPEX (Section 3.3). This significance drop is a direct comparison of two independent spectral codes, not a fitted prediction. Second, the estimated missing flux (2.3e-6 and 1.2e-6 s^-1 cm^-2) is obtained in Section 4.1 and Figure 5 by extrapolating the SPEX-calculated line-flux trend n^-3.4 to higher principal quantum numbers. That estimate is computed from the code's own atomic data and compared with the measured Gaussian flux; it is not obtained by fitting the residual, so the comparison is not circular. The text explicitly notes the missing flux accounts for only ~45% (no gain) or ~67% (gain-adjusted) of the measured Gaussian flux and that the remaining flux is attributed to unmodeled Be-like DR satellites ('which may explain the remaining flux') - an acknowledged extrapolation rather than a construction that guarantees equality. Self-citations (Sawada et al. 2019, 2024; Sato et al. 2020) are used for context (e.g., the inefficiency of proton ionization) and are not the load-bearing evidence for the CX non-detection. Thus no step reduces by definition, by fitted input, or by self-citation chain to its own input. The 'fully attributable' wording is stronger than the 45-67% accounting and the unquantified remaining lines, but that is a question of evidence strength, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend primarily on the atomic plasma codes and the n^-3.4 extrapolation rather than on the fitted astrophysical parameters; the fitted abundances and plasma parameters are standard model degrees of freedom. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • Gain adjustment fgain = 6.65e-4
    Linear energy-grid stretch to absorb XIS gain uncertainty; changes tau by over an order of magnitude and affects CX significance.
  • Emission measure EM = (2.27-3.31)e59 cm^-3
    Normalization of recombining plasma model, free in fits.
  • Initial temperature kTinit = 2.84-3.16 keV
    Sets initial charge-state distribution in vvrnei/neij.
  • Current electron temperature kTe = 1.40-1.45 keV
    Determines spectral shape of the recombining plasma.
  • Recombination timescale tau = <0.7 to 13e10 cm^-3 s
    Controls current charge-state distribution; extremely sensitive to gain adjustment.
  • ZCr abundance = 4.88-8.40 solar
    Chromium abundance, free in spectral fits.
  • ZMn abundance = 3.86-7.15 solar
    Manganese abundance, free in spectral fits.
  • ZFe abundance = 3.49-6.60 solar
    Iron abundance, free in spectral fits.
  • ZNi abundance = 2.98-5.73 solar
    Nickel abundance, free in spectral fits.
  • Power-law index for line flux vs n = -3.4
    Fit to SPEX line fluxes vs principal quantum number n; used in missing-flux extrapolation.
  • Fixed Gaussian 1-sigma width for CX search = 0.2 keV
    Fixed value adopted from Suzuki et al. 2024; not fitted, and changing it would alter the measured flux and significance.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption AtomDB v3.0.9 and SPEX v3.08.01 compute all included line emissivities correctly and are mutually independent beyond their stated truncations.
    Invoked throughout Section 3.2 and 4.1; the cross-code comparison is only meaningful if each code is correct for the lines it includes.
  • domain assumption The recombining NEI plasma parameterization (vvrnei / neij) is an adequate description of the W49B ejecta emission in 5-11 keV.
    Section 3.1 and Table 1; baseline fits assume a single-temperature recombining plasma with free Fe-group abundances.
  • domain assumption Suzaku XIS background subtraction with vignetting correction is valid.
    Section 3.1; the result depends on the background-subtracted spectrum.
  • domain assumption Distance 11.3 kpc and column density NH=5e22 cm^-2 are correct.
    Section 3.1; adopted from literature (Brogan & Troland 2001; Keohane et al. 2007).
  • ad hoc to paper Line flux vs principal quantum number n follows a power law with index about -3.4 beyond the calculated n range.
    Figure 5, Section 4.1; used to estimate missing flux in SPEX, the load-bearing step in attributing the excess to missing lines.
  • domain assumption The 8-9 keV residual is dominated by atomic model incompleteness rather than unmodeled instrumental response.
    Section 4.1; the RMF line-spread-function wing uncertainty is acknowledged for 6.4 keV but not quantitatively assessed for 8-9 keV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the Suzaku spectrum of the Galactic SNR W 49 B: non-detection of iron K-shell charge exchange emission and refined ejecta mass ratios of iron-group elements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQKKYZYH

@misc{pith2026241213255,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the Suzaku spectrum of the Galactic SNR W 49 B: non-detection of iron K-shell charge exchange emission and refined ejecta mass ratios of iron-group elements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQKKYZYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13255}
}
read the original abstract

The origin of the recombining plasma in several Galactic SNRs has been debated. A plausible mechanism would be a rapid cooling in the past, either by adiabatic or conductive process. A recent spectral study of W 49 B reported a possible charge exchange (CX) emission due to collisions between the shock-heated ejecta and external cold clouds, which could be a direct support for the conduction cooling scenario. However, a potentially large systematic uncertainty in the spectral analysis has not been examined. In this paper, we revisit the Suzaku spectrum of W 49 B with taking into account the systematic uncertainties in spectral codes and instrumental gain calibration. We find that the previously reported CX flux is fully attributable to dielectronic recombination satellite lines of high-shell transitions that are missing from the present version of the spectral codes. We also report refined Fe-group ejecta mass ratios, which, in comparison to those in the literatures, show a better agreement with theoretical expectations from nucleosynthesis models, either of Type Ia explosions or spherical core-collapse explosions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13255 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-ray image in 5.0–9.5 keV with XIS 0 and XIS 3 combined. The blue contours are from the 4.1–8.0 keV image with Chandra. The source and background regions for spectral analysis are shown with a solid circle and dashed annulus, respectively. terstellar absorption column density of 5 × 1022 cm−2 (Keohane et al. 2007). We will quote the statistical errors at the 90% confi￾dence interval. The recombining plasma model ha… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray spectrum of W 49 B with XIS 0 and XIS 3 combined in 5.0-11.0 keV (left) and its close-up view in 8.0–9.2 keV. The top panels show the observed spectrum and the best-fit model with the gain adjustment applied. The middle and bottom panels show the residuals of the data from the best-fit model, normalized by the standard error, for the fits using AtomDB and SPEX, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Mn/Cr abundance ratio agrees well between the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two dimensional distribution of the change in the fit statistic (∆χ 2 ) for the Mn vs. Cr abundances (left panels) and the Ni vs. Fe abundances (right panels) for the fittings with the gain adjustment. Top panels are for the results with AtomDB and the bottom panels ar…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Furthermore, the resonance line fluxes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral model comparison in Fe Heγ–RRC (top) as well as those in Fe Heα (bottom left), Fe Heβ (bottom right). In each subfigure, the top panel shows model spectra calculated with AtomDB v3.0.9 (red) and SPEX v3.08.01 (blue), while the bottom panel shows the ratio betw…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of line fluxes calculated with SPEX over the upper-level principal quantum number for He-like ions (left) and Li-like ions (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Mn/Cr vs. Ni/Fe ejecta mass ratios of W 49 B compared with nucleosynthesis models for Ia (left) and CC (right) explosions. The thick and thin crosses show the best-fit results with and without the gain adjustment, respectively, to indicate the magnitude of the syst…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The main jet axis of the W49B supernova remnant

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The two ears and three arcs in W49B are identified as jet-inflated structures and remnants of circum-jet rings, implying W49B was not a type Ia supernova.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4346

    Bravo, E., Badenes, C., & Martínez-Rodríguez, H. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4346

    2019

  2. [2]

    Brogan, C. L. & Troland, T. H. 2001, ApJ, 550, 799

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 119

    2023

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 63

    Court, T., Badenes, C., Lee, S.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 63

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A., Cenko, S

    Dilday, B., Howell, D. A., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 942 Förster, F., Moriya, T. J., Maureira, J. C., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 808

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    M., Suntzeff, N

    Hamuy, M., Phillips, M. M., Suntzeff, N. B., et al. 2003, Nature, 424, 651

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    K., Nobukawa, M., & Koyama, K

    Hirayama, A., Yamauchi, S., Nobukawa, K. K., Nobukawa, M., & Koyama, K. 2019, PASJ, 71, 37 Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, 12

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Hwang, U., Petre, R., & Hughes, J. P. 2000, ApJ, 532, 970

    work page 2000

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    2008, PASJ, 60, S85

    Hyodo, Y ., Tsujimoto, M., Hamaguchi, K., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, S85

    2008

  2. [10]

    2007, PASJ, 59, S113

    Ishisaki, Y ., Maeda, Y ., Fujimoto, R., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, S113

    2007

  3. [11]

    & Masai, K

    Itoh, H. & Masai, K. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 885

    1989

  4. [12]

    Jerkstrand, A., Maeda, K., & Kawabata, K. S. 2020, Science, 367, 415

    2020

  5. [13]

    T., Ozaki, M., Nagase, F., et al

    Kawasaki, M. T., Ozaki, M., Nagase, F., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 897

    2002

  6. [14]

    W., Reach, W

    Keohane, J. W., Reach, W. T., Rho, J., & Jarrett, T. H. 2007, ApJ, 654, 938

    2007

  7. [15]

    & Nomoto, K

    Leung, S.-C. & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 861, 143

    2018

  8. [16]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 80

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 80

    2023

  9. [17]

    & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13

    2018

  10. [18]

    Lodders, K., Palme, H., & Gail, H. P. 2009, Landolt B&ouml;rnstein, 4B, 712

    2009

  11. [19]

    A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Castro, D., & Pearson, S

    Lopez, L. A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Castro, D., & Pearson, S. 2013, ApJ, 764, 50

    2013

  12. [20]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 1897

    Maeda, K., Jiang, J.-a., Doi, M., Kawabata, M., & Shigeyama, T. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1897

    2023

  13. [21]

    & Nomoto, K

    Maeda, K. & Nomoto, K. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1163

    2003

  14. [22]

    Moriya, T. J. 2012, ApJL, 750, L13

    2012

  15. [23]

    2006, Nucl

    Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Kobayashi, C., & Maeda, K. 2006, Nucl. Phys. A, 777, 424

    2006

  16. [24]

    G., et al

    Ohnishi, T., Koyama, K., Tsuru, T. G., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, 527

    2011

  17. [25]

    2021, ApJL, 913, L34

    Ohshiro, Y ., Yamaguchi, H., Leung, S.-C., et al. 2021, ApJL, 913, L34

    2021

  18. [26]

    2009, ApJL, 706, L71

    Ozawa, M., Koyama, K., Yamaguchi, H., Masai, K., & Tamagawa, T. 2009, ApJL, 706, L71

    2009

  19. [27]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 123

    Sano, H., Yoshiike, S., Yamane, Y ., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 123

    2021

  20. [28]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 104

    Sato, T., Bravo, E., Badenes, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 104

    2020

  21. [29]

    P., & Williams, B

    Sato, T., Sawada, M., Maeda, K., Hughes, J. P., & Williams, B. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.17957

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 112

    Sato, T., Yoshida, T., Umeda, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 112

    2023

  23. [31]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 1158

    Sawada, M., Gu, L., & Yamazaki, R. 2024, PASJ, 76, 1158

    2024

  24. [32]

    & Koyama, K

    Sawada, M. & Koyama, K. 2012, PASJ, 64, 81

    2012

  25. [33]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 61

    Sawada, M., Tachibana, K., Uchida, H., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 61

    2019

  26. [34]

    2012, PASJ, 64, 24

    Shimizu, T., Masai, K., & Koyama, K. 2012, PASJ, 64, 24

    2012

  27. [35]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

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

    2017

  28. [36]

    E., Brown, J

    Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Brown, J. M., & Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38

    2016

  29. [37]

    K., Nobukawa, M., & Katsuda, S

    Suzuki, N., Yamauchi, S., Nobukawa, K. K., Nobukawa, M., & Katsuda, S. 2024, PASJ, 76, 265

    2024

  30. [38]

    Tashiro, M. S. 2022, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31, 2230001

    2022

  31. [39]

    2008, PASJ, 60, S11

    Tawa, N., Hayashida, K., Nagai, M., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, S11

    2008

  32. [40]

    2012, PASJ, 64, 141 XRISM Collaboration

    Uchida, H., Koyama, K., Yamaguchi, H., et al. 2012, PASJ, 64, 141 XRISM Collaboration. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.00676

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    2009, ApJL, 705, L6

    Yamaguchi, H., Ozawa, M., Koyama, K., et al. 2009, ApJL, 705, L6

    2009

  34. [42]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, H., Tanaka, T., Wik, D. R., et al. 2018, ApJL, 868, L35

    2018

  35. [43]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 728

    Yamauchi, S., Nobukawa, M., & Koyama, K. 2021, PASJ, 73, 728

    2021

  36. [44]

    A., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Yaron, O., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510

    2017

  37. [45]

    & Vink, J

    Zhou, P. & Vink, J. 2018, A&A, 615, A150

    2018

  38. [46]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 244

    Zhou, X., Miceli, M., Bocchino, F., Orlando, S., & Chen, Y . 2011, MNRAS, 415, 244

    2011

Pith tools

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