Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

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

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A newborn neutron star or black hole kicked into its main-sequence companion can tidally disrupt it, and the resulting super-Eddington accretion wind can power the roughly $10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ transients seen as luminous Type Ibc…

desk verdict A credible new engine for some SLSNe-Ibc and FBOTs, but the peak luminosity rests on an unvalidated disk-radius assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03316 v2 pith:3AU4R7PI submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Daichi Tsuna (Caltech) , Wenbin Lu (UC Berkeley) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords tidaldisruptioneventssuper-Eddingtonaccretionfastblueopticaltransientssuperluminoussupernovaeneutronstarnatalkicksstripped-envelopediskwindsAT2018cow
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

The paper proposes that a single overlooked channel can produce several classes of luminous hydrogen-poor transients: a newborn neutron star or black hole, kicked toward its main-sequence companion during a stripped-envelope supernova, tidally disrupts the companion and begins accreting it far above the Eddington rate. The accretion disk blows off a fast wind that collides with the expanding supernova ejecta, and the shock converts a large share of the wind's kinetic energy into radiation. The model produces optical transients peaking near $10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (absolute magnitude roughly $-19$ to $-21$) lasting days to months, matching luminous Type Ibc supernovae and fast blue optical transients such as AT2018cow. A Monte-Carlo rate estimate puts the disruption fraction near $0.1$--$1\%$ of stripped-envelope supernovae, consistent with the rarity of these events. Because the disrupted companion is hydrogen-rich, the model also supplies late-time hydrogen emission, bumpy light curves, and pre-peak excesses that are difficult for the magnetar-spindown picture to explain.

What carries the argument

The engine is a super-Eddington accretion disk around a newborn neutron star or black hole, fed by the tidally disrupted companion. The load-bearing identities are the disk-wind kinetic luminosity $L_{\rm kin}(t) \approx \frac{p}{2(1-p)} \frac{G M_{\rm NS}|\dot M_{\rm disk}|}{R_{\rm NS}} (R_{\rm NS}/r_{\rm disk})^p$ and the initial disk parameters $M_{\rm disk,0}=M_{\rm NS}$, $r_{\rm disk,0}=(2M_{\rm NS}/M_*)R_*$, which set the total wind energy budget of $\sim10^{50}$ erg. The wind collides with the supernova ejecta in a thin-shell wind nebula, whose expansion is evolved with the same equations used for magnetar-wind nebulae, and the efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm rad}$ with which shocked-wind energy becomes radiation is computed from free-free and inverse-Compton cooling. A Monte-Carlo calculation of post-supernova orbits, using a natal-kick distribution, converts the geometric condition that the closest approach lies inside the stellar radius into a predicted event rate.

What would settle it

Run a 3D hydrodynamic simulation of a $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star colliding with a $2$--$10\,M_\odot$ main-sequence star at pericenter inside the stellar radius: if the bound debris mass comes out well below one neutron-star mass, or the disk circularizes at a radius much smaller than $(2M_{\rm NS}/M_*)R_*$, then the wind energy in equations (15)--(16) and the predicted $\sim10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ peaks do not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the tidal disruption of a main-sequence companion by a newborn compact remnant is a viable central engine for the brightest hydrogen-poor supernovae and fast blue optical transients. For companions heavier than the remnant, the conventional tidal radius lies inside the star, so the paper adopts an initial disk of about one neutron-star mass at a radius set by the Bondi scale, $r_{\rm disk,0} = (2M_{\rm NS}/M_*)R_*$, and follows its viscous evolution with a one-zone disk model that sheds mass through a wind. The wind kinetic luminosity, roughly $L_{\rm kin,0} \sim 3\times10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$ with total energy $E_{\rm kin,0}\sim4\times10^{50}$ erg for a $10\,M_\odot$ companion, is injected into a homologously expanding supernova ejecta through a shocked wind nebula, with a semi-analytic radiative efficiency computed from free-free and inverse-Compton cooling. The output peaks near $10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for days to months and populates the same peak-magnitude versus rise-time region as luminous Type Ibc supernovae, while low-ejecta-mass progenitors reproduce the fast evolution, X-ray reprocessing time, and late hydrogen lines of AT2018cow-like FBOTs; a $5\,M_\odot$ black-hole remnant brightens the peak by roughly a magnitude, reaching the brightest superluminous supernovae.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that a disrupted companion leaves an accretion disk holding about one neutron star's worth of mass starting at a radius guessed from a simple scaling argument, rather than measured from a self-consistent simulation; if the real disk is lighter or more compact, the wind energy and the predicted brightness drop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Luminous Type Ibc supernovae and AT2018cow-like fast blue optical transients can be powered by super-Eddington accretion after a companion is disrupted, in roughly $0.1$--$1\%$ of stripped-envelope supernovae.
  • Late-time hydrogen emission at roughly 100--400 days after explosion, with $L_{H\alpha}/L_{\rm rad}\sim1\%$, is a direct prediction, matching the delayed appearance of hydrogen lines in a subset of superluminous supernovae and fast blue optical transients.
  • Multiple partial disruptions before the final one produce delayed, repeated energy injection, naturally yielding bumpy light curves and pre-peak excesses in superluminous supernovae.
  • A $5\,M_\odot$ black-hole remnant raises the peak brightness by about one magnitude, extending the model to the brightest superluminous supernovae at $-21$ to $-22$ mag.
  • Low-mass helium-star progenitors with ejecta mass $\lesssim1\,M_\odot$ reproduce the fast rise, low nickel mass, and the roughly 20-day X-ray to optical transition observed in AT2018cow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the model is right, radio and X-ray follow-up of nearby luminous fast blue optical transients should reveal non-thermal emission from the collisionless wind-ejecta shock, a signature the paper leaves to future work.
  • The multiple-encounter branch predicts that some superluminous supernovae should show quasi-periodic modulation on the orbital timescale before the final disruption; a systematic search in high-cadence light curves could test this directly.
  • The rate estimate inherits the assumed neutron-star kick distribution, so better constraints on black-hole kick magnitudes from Galactic binaries or gravitational-wave observations would sharpen the predicted fraction and could be compared with observed superluminous supernova and fast blue optical transient rates.
  • Late-time hydrogen-line surveys offer a clean discriminant between this engine and magnetar spin-down: the model predicts H$\alpha$ tracks the bolometric luminosity at roughly a fixed 1\% ratio, whereas magnetar-powered ejecta should be hydrogen-free.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that a newborn neutron star or black hole, kicked into its main-sequence companion after a stripped-envelope supernova, can tidally disrupt the companion and accrete it at highly super-Eddington rates. The resulting disk wind shocks the SN ejecta and powers a transient with peak luminosity ~1e44 erg/s, optical peaks of -19 to -21 mag, and durations of days to months. The authors build a one-zone disk evolution model with wind injection into a homologously expanding ejecta, compute the radiative efficiency of the shocked wind semi-analytically, and compare the resulting light curves to luminous Type Ibc SNe, superluminous SNe, and the FBOT AT2018cow. They also perform a Monte-Carlo estimate of the fraction of Type Ibc SNe leading to such disruptions (0.1-2%) and discuss late-time Halpha emission, X-ray reprocessing, circumstellar medium signatures, and multiple encounters.

Significance. If the mechanism operates, it is a genuinely new route to hydrogen-poor luminous transients and FBOTs, with natural explanations for late-time Halpha emission, bumpy light curves, and low 56Ni yields that are awkward for the standard magnetar model. The paper is clearly written, the light-curve code is public, and the authors are appropriately cautious about many uncertainties. The Monte-Carlo rate calculation uses independently measured kick distributions and an independently simulated disruption criterion, which is a strength. However, the central quantitative claims depend on initial disk parameters and a disruption criterion that are extrapolated beyond the regime of existing SPH simulations; until those are validated or bracketed, the model should be regarded as promising but not fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (5)-(6), (15)-(16)] The initial disk mass and radius, Mdisk,0 = MNS and rdisk,0 = (2MNS/M*)R*, are scaling assumptions rather than results of hydrodynamics for the relevant mass ratio M*/MNS ~ 2-7. Since Lkin,0 is proportional to Mdisk,0/rdisk,0^2, a factor of about 2 increase in rdisk,0 (e.g., toward the ~2R* disk radius found in Kremer et al. 2022a for M*/MBH = 1-2) or a factor of about 3 decrease in Mdisk,0 reduces the wind energy budget in Eq. (16) by an order of magnitude, pushing the predicted peak below the claimed ~1e44 erg/s. The paper notes this limitation but does not quantify its effect on the light curves; Figure 2 shows the disk evolution for Mdisk,0/MNS = 0.1 but not the resulting peak luminosity. The authors should either validate the initial disk parameters with hydrodynamics at M*/MNS > 2, or present the peak magnitude and rise time as functions of Mdisk,0 and rdisk,0 and delineate the parameter region that actually matches luminous Ibc SNe and FBOTs.
  2. [Section 4.1, Figure 9] The disruption fraction is computed using the criterion rcl < R*, which is calibrated by Kremer et al. (2022a) for full disruptions with 1 <= M*/MBH <= 2. For a 1.4 Msun neutron star and M* = 7-10 Msun, the tidal radius rT = (MNS/M*)^(1/3) R* lies well inside the star, so an encounter with rcl ~ R* may lead only to partial stripping or a grazing collision rather than full tidal disruption. The resulting 0.1-2% rate estimate is therefore likely an upper limit, and the claimed compatibility with the rates of luminous Ibc SNe and FBOTs is not yet established. Please use a mass-ratio-dependent disruption criterion or explicitly quantify how much the rate changes under the extrapolation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (28)] The bolometric light curves are extended into the regime tau_ej < 1 where the diffusion approximation and the thermalization factor (1 - exp(-tau_ej)) become invalid; the authors flag this issue for the r-band magnitude but should also mark or truncate the bolometric curves in the nebular phase.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (38)-(45)] The black-hole kick distribution is assumed to be log-uniform between 10 and 2000 km/s; the rate estimate would benefit from a clear statement of how sensitive the disruption fraction is to this assumed prior, especially given the large spread in the literature.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (50)] The Halpha luminosity is estimated under the ionization-bounded assumption with a single epsilon_ion = 30 eV; the transition to a density-bounded regime for low-ejecta-mass systems is discussed only qualitatively, and a quantitative boundary or a brief parameter scan would strengthen the claimed spectral diversity.
  4. [Throughout] The title and Table 1 contain spacing artifacts ('F ast', 'T ransients', 'T able'), and the caption of Figure 2 uses 'Mdisk/MNS = 0.1 and Mdisk/MNS = 1' while the y-axis label uses X/X0, which is slightly confusing; please harmonize the notation.
  5. [Section 5 / Code availability] The public code link is a positive feature, but a versioned release or a persistent DOI would make the reproducibility claim more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: disk parameters are explicit assumptions, not fitted outputs, and the only author-overlapping citation supplies independent SPH evidence.

full rationale

All load-bearing inputs are either independent empirical constraints (kick distribution from Hobbs et al. 2005; binary and ejecta parameters from Zapartas et al. 2017 and Gomez et al.) or explicit model assumptions (Mdisk,0 = MNS, rdisk,0 = (2MNS/M*)R*, alpha, H/R, p = 0.5). These assumptions are not fitted to the target light curves: the predicted Lrad(t) follows from integrating equations 27-31 with the stated initial conditions, and the model is then compared to data over a range of parameters. The only author-overlapping citation is Kremer et al. (2022a), which supplies the disruption criterion and bound fraction via externally falsifiable, code-based SPH simulations whose assumptions do not include the present radiative model, so it is independent support rather than a circular premise. The appendix's epsilon_rad is a semi-analytic cooling calculation, not a restatement of the output luminosity. The H-alpha luminosity in eq. (50) follows from ionization balance and is checked against observed line strengths rather than used to define them. Therefore no derivation step reduces by construction to its own input; the strong sensitivity of eq. (15) to the assumed disk mass and radius is a parameter-uncertainty issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a series of domain assumptions about binary properties, disk formation, and accretion physics, none of which are derived from first principles in this paper. The most consequential are the initial disk parameters, the wind power-law index, and the disruption criterion, all taken from prior simulations with uncertain applicability to the mass ratios considered here.

free parameters (9)
  • tTDE = 2, 10, 30 days (varied)
    Time of full disruption relative to SN; controls onset of wind injection and thus peak brightness and rise time.
  • alpha(H/R)^2 = 3e-3, 1e-2, 3e-2 (fiducial 1e-2)
    Dimensionless viscosity and geometric factor; sets viscous timescale and accretion power.
  • M* = 3, 10, 20 M_sun (varied)
    Companion mass; sets radius and disk radius via R* = R_sun (M*/M_sun)^0.6.
  • p = 0.5 (fixed)
    Power-law index of disk mass inflow rate; motivated by simulations, affects wind power and disk evolution.
  • Mdisk,0 = 1.4 M_sun (M_NS)
    Assumed initial disk mass equal to NS mass; not derived from hydrodynamics for this mass ratio.
  • rdisk,0 = (2 M_NS / M*) R*
    Assumed initial disk radius from Bondi-like scaling; critical for viscous time and energy.
  • MBH (BH model) = 5 M_sun
    Chosen BH remnant mass for the alternative model; not constrained by observations.
  • epsilon_ion = 30 eV
    Assumed energy cost per hydrogen ionization in H-alpha estimate, eq. (48).
  • xi = 0.5
    Assumed fraction of wind luminosity directed inward to ionize the slow wind, eq. (48).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Main-sequence mass-radius relation R* = R_sun (M*/M_sun)^0.6
    Used in eq. (4) and (6) for disruption criterion and disk radius.
  • domain assumption Full disruption occurs when pericenter rp <= R*
    Adopted from Kremer et al. (2022a) SPH simulations; used in Monte Carlo rate estimate (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption SN ejecta is homologous with power-law density profile rho proportional to r^-1
    Standard assumption for SN ejecta, eq. (17).
  • domain assumption Disk wind mass inflow rate follows Mdot(r) proportional to r^p with p=0.5
    From Blandford & Begelman (1999) and recent simulations; underpins wind luminosity eq. (14).
  • domain assumption NS natal kicks follow Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution with sigma=265 km/s
    From Hobbs et al. (2005); used in rate Monte Carlo, eq. (38).
  • domain assumption BH natal kicks are log-uniform from 10 to 2000 km/s
    Based on recent studies (Burrows et al. 2024; Nagarajan & El-Badry 2025); highly uncertain.
  • domain assumption Opacities kappa = 0.07 cm^2/g and kappa_gamma = 0.03 cm^2/g
    Typical for stripped-envelope SNe; used in diffusion and gamma-ray trapping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar Tidal Disruptions by Newborn Neutron Stars or Black Holes: A Mechanism for Hydrogen-poor (Super)luminous Supernovae and Fast Blue Optical Transients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3AU4R7PI

@misc{pith2026250103316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar Tidal Disruptions by Newborn Neutron Stars or Black Holes: A Mechanism for Hydrogen-poor (Super)luminous Supernovae and Fast Blue Optical Transients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3AU4R7PI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03316}
}
abstract

Hydrogen-poor supernovae (SNe) of Type Ibc are explosions of massive stars that lost their hydrogen envelopes, typically due to interactions with a binary companion. We consider the case where the natal kick imparted to the neutron star (NS) or black hole (BH) remnant brings the compact object to a collision with a main-sequence companion, eventually leading to full tidal disruption of the companion. Subsequently, super-Eddington accretion onto the NS/BH launches a powerful, fast wind which collides with the SN ejecta and efficiently converts the kinetic energy of the wind into radiation. The radiation is reprocessed by the surrounding ejecta into a luminous ($\sim 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at peak), days to months-long transient with optical peaks from $-19$ to $-21$ mag, comparable to (super)luminous Type Ibc SNe and fast blue optical transients (FBOTs) like AT2018cow. From a Monte-Carlo analysis we estimate the fraction of tidal disruptions following SNe in binaries to be $\sim 0.1$--$1$\%, roughly compatible with the event rates of these luminous SNe. At the broad-brush level, our model reproduces the multi-wavelength and spectral observations of FBOTs, and has the potential to explain peculiar features seen in some (super)luminous SNe which are difficult to reproduce by the conventional magnetar spindown mechanism, such as late-time hydrogen lines, bumpy light curves, and pre-peak excess.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03316 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic picture of our model for Type I (super-)luminous SNe and fast blue optical transients (not to scale). A newborn compact object from a stripped-envelope (Type Ibc) SN receives a natal kick, that leads to encounter with its main-sequence companion. The subsequent disruption and circularization of the companion result in strong outflows via super￾Eddington accretion onto the compact object, energizing the SN … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the disk mass and radius, for two cases of Mdisk with Mdisk/MNS = 0.1 and Mdisk/MNS = 1. Dotted lines (almost overlapping with the solid lines) show the analytical solution under Mdisk ≪ MNS. We assume rdisk,0 = R⊙, MNS = 1.4M⊙ for the numerical calculations. by integrating over r as Lkin(t)≈ p 2(1 − p) GMNS|M˙ disk| RNS  RNS rdisk p , (14) where we have used RNS ≪ rdisk. From the analysis above, we c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dynamics of the wind nebula solved in Section 2.2 for a typical SN Ibc ejecta with Mej = 3 M⊙, Eexp = 1051 erg. Left panel: Time evolution of the wind nebula radius Rneb(t) (solid lines) and the characteristic ejecta radius Rej(t) (dashed lines), varying M∗. Note that the lines for different M∗ nearly overlap. Right panel: Time-dependent masses of the swept-up disk wind (solid lines) and the swept-up SN ejecta Mej(r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curves for the fiducial SN ejecta of Mej = 3 M⊙, Eej = 1051 erg. We consider the fiducial model parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the light curves for the four SN ejecta models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The absolute r-band magnitude at peak versus rise time to r-band peak. Stars show our NS model with col￾ors separated by the SN ejecta models, with varied tTDE = [2, 10, 30] days and fixed M∗ = 10 M⊙, α(H/R) 2 = 10−2 . The data points show the measurements for samples …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of SNe where the companion star is tidally disrupted by the newborn NS/BH under our criterion. The two panels show cases for a 1.4 M⊙ NS and 5 M⊙ BH remnant, with different prescriptions for the natal kick distribution (see main text). Bands indicate the range…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. AT2019ijn: a fast-rising, slow-decaying blue optical transient with exceptionally bright radio emission

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    AT2019ijn combines LFBOT-like fast optical rise and blue color with slow decay and radio luminosity peaking late at 2e31 erg/s/Hz, best fit as an off-axis jetted IMBH TDE.

  2. Implications of the UV/optical Plateau of AT2018cow

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A wind-and-irradiation disk model fits the AT2018cow UV plateau with accretor masses from 1.4 to ~100 solar masses, removing the need for a >200 solar-mass black hole.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abad35 —

    Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2020, ApJ, 901, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abad35 —. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4053, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3897

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abad35 2020

  2. [2]

    A., Kasen, D., et al

    Arcavi, I., Howell, D. A., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 210, doi: 10.1038/nature24030

    doi:10.1038/nature24030 2017

  3. [3]

    Arnett, W. D. 1980, ApJ, 237, 541, doi: 10.1086/157898 —. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785, doi: 10.1086/159681

    doi:10.1086/157898 1980

  4. [4]

    Atri, P., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2335

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2335 2019

  5. [6]

    1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    Brandt, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    doi:10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 1995

  6. [7]

    S., Margutti, R., Matthews, D., et al

    Bright, J. S., Margutti, R., Matthews, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4506

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4506 2022

  7. [8]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc1c

    Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., & Wang, T. 2023, ApJ, 957, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc1c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfc1c 2023

  8. [9]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07831, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07831

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07831, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07831

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.07831 2024

Show all 135 references
  1. [10]

    2024, Nature, 625, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06787-x

    Chen, P., Gal-Yam, A., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 625, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06787-x

    2024 doi

  2. [11]

    R., Piro, A

    Chen, Y., Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace964

    2023 doi

  3. [12]

    A., & Irwin, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Irwin, C. M. 2011, ApJL, 729, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/729/1/L6

    2011 doi

  4. [13]

    A., & Soker, N

    Chevalier, R. A., & Soker, N. 1989, ApJ, 341, 867, doi: 10.1086/167545

    1989 doi

  5. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9561

    Natarajan, P. 2024, ApJ, 977, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9561

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    L., Margutti, R., Terreran, G., et al

    Coppejans, D. L., Margutti, R., Terreran, G., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8cc7

    2020 doi

  7. [16]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 5105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz232

    Crumley, P., Caprioli, D., Markoff, S., & Spitkovsky, A. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5105, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz232

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    B., Benz, W., & Hills, J

    Davies, M. B., Benz, W., & Hills, J. G. 1992, ApJ, 401, 246, doi: 10.1086/172056 De Cia, A., Gal-Yam, A., Rubin, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9b6 de Mink, S. E., Cottaar, M., & Pols, O. R. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V...

    1992 doi

  9. [18]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

    Koter, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

    2013 doi

  10. [19]

    Janka, H. T. 2021, A&A, 656, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141927

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    C., & Prieto, J

    Dessart, L., Leonard, D. C., & Prieto, J. L. 2020, A&A, 638, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037854

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/30

    Dexter, J., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 772, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/30

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Soderberg, A. M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/97

    2011 doi

  14. [23]

    2019, ApJL, 876, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5

    Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Margalit, B., et al. 2019, ApJL, 876, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18a5

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    1983 doi

  16. [25]

    Crockett, R. M. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 774, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1612

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12738.x

    2008

  18. [27]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09893, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09893 23

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.09893, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09893 23

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

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

    Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Janka, H. T. 2020, ApJ, 890, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    W., Hutchinson-Smith, T., Vigna-G´ omez, A., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Everson, R. W., Hutchinson-Smith, T., Vigna-G´ omez, A., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2024, ApJ, 971, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad595e

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    R., Vincenzi, M., et al

    Frohmaier, C., Angus, C. R., Vincenzi, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3607

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac317

    Fuller, J., & Lu, W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac317

    2022 doi

  23. [32]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 305, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051819

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    Hosseinzadeh, G. 2022, ApJ, 941, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9842

    2022 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2270

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    Gottlieb, O., & Metzger, B. D. 2024, ApJL, 974, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7d82

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G. 2024, ApJ, 973, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fe7 Guti´ errez, C. P., Mattila, S., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad89a5

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3007

    Hirai, R., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4544, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3007

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6a0

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., & Yamada, S. 2018, ApJ, 864, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6a0

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Phinney, E. S., Ravi, V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bcf

    2020 doi

  32. [41]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    R., Lyne, A

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    2005

  34. [43]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 1846, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2373

    Hober, O., Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1846, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2373

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    D., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac67dd

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    W., Twum, A

    Hutchinson-Smith, T., Everson, R. W., Twum, A. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f3

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    W., et al

    Inserra, C., Nicholl, M., Chen, T. W., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx834

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    2023, A&A, 678, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245231

    Karamehmetoglu, E., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245231

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    2010 doi

  40. [49]

    D., & Bildsten, L

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B. D., & Bildsten, L. 2016, ApJ, 821, 36, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/36

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/94

    Margutti, R. 2016, ApJ, 818, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/94

    2016 doi

  42. [51]

    N., & Takabe, H

    Kato, T. N., & Takabe, H. 2010, ApJ, 721, 828, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/828

    2010 doi

  43. [52]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 3926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1681

    Kinugawa, T., Horiuchi, S., Takiwaki, T., & Kotake, K. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 3926, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1681

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 Kıro˘ glu, F., Kremer, K., Biscoveanu, S., Gonz´ alez Prieto, E., & Rasio, F

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 Kıro˘ glu, F., Kremer, K., Biscoveanu, S., Gonz´ alez Prieto, E., & Rasio, F. A. 2025a, ApJ, 979, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada26b Kıro˘ glu, F., Lombardi, Jr., J. ...

    2013 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    G., & Pols, O

    Klencki, J., Nelemans, G., Istrate, A. G., & Pols, O. 2020, A&A, 638, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037694

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5feb

    Koshimoto, N., Kawanaka, N., & Tsuna, D. 2024, ApJ, 973, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5feb

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    C., Lu, W., Piro, A

    Kremer, K., Lombardi, J. C., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., & Rasio, F. A. 2022a, ApJ, 933, 203, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714f

    doi

  48. [57]

    L., et al

    Kremer, K., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb14

    2021 doi

  49. [58]

    L., Lachat, M., & Rasio, F

    Kremer, K., Lu, W., Rodriguez, C. L., Lachat, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2019, ApJ, 881, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e0c

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    L., & Lombardi, J

    Kremer, K., Mockler, B., Piro, A. L., & Lombardi, J. C. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2239

    2023 doi

  51. [60]

    S., Kıro˘ glu, F., et al

    Kremer, K., Ye, C. S., Kıro˘ glu, F., et al. 2022b, ApJL, 934, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7ec4

    doi

  52. [61]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba33

    Leung, S.-C., Blinnikov, S., Nomoto, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba33

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.05968, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.05968

    Li, S., Liang, Y.-F., Liao, N.-H., Lei, L., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.05968, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.05968

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [63]

    C., J., Proulx, Z

    Lombardi, J. C., J., Proulx, Z. F., Dooley, K. L., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 441, doi: 10.1086/499938

    2006 doi

  55. [64]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    D., Bersier, D., James, P

    Lyman, J. D., Bersier, D., James, P. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 328, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2983

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    G., & Lorimer, D

    Lyne, A. G., & Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature, 369, 127, doi: 10.1038/369127a0

    1994 doi

  58. [67]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 5618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1640

    Lyutikov, M., & Toonen, S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1640

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2733

    Mandel, I. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2733

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    Marchant, P., Pappas, K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039992 24

    2021 doi

  61. [70]

    D., Chornock, R., et al

    Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., Chornock, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01

    2019 doi

  62. [71]

    S., Matthews, D

    Margutti, R., Bright, J. S., Matthews, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf1fd

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    D., & Goldberg, J

    Matsumoto, T., Metzger, B. D., & Goldberg, J. A. 2025, ApJ, 978, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93a9

    2025 doi

  64. [73]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 932, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3311, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2224

    2015 doi

  66. [75]

    D., et al

    Migliori, G., Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2764

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    J., Nicholl, M., et al

    Moore, T., Smartt, S. J., Nicholl, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 956, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfc25

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    J., Liu, Z.-W., & Izzard, R

    Moriya, T. J., Liu, Z.-W., & Izzard, R. G. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv934

    2015 doi

  69. [78]

    J., Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 6210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1352

    2022 doi

  70. [79]

    J., Sorokina, E

    Moriya, T. J., Sorokina, E. I., & Chevalier, R. A. 2018, SSRv, 214, 59, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0493-6

    2018 doi

  71. [80]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/63

    2015 doi

  72. [81]

    2025, PASP, 137, 034203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adb6d6

    Nagarajan, P., & El-Badry, K. 2025, PASP, 137, 034203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adb6d6

    2025 doi

  73. [82]

    1995, ApJ, 444, 231, doi: 10.1086/175599

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 444, 231, doi: 10.1086/175599

    1995 doi

  74. [83]

    D., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al

    Neill, J. D., Sullivan, M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/15

    2011 doi

  75. [84]

    2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34, doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atab092

    Nicholl, M. 2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34, doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atab092

    2021 doi

  76. [85]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf470

    Chornock, R. 2019, ApJ, 871, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf470

    2019 doi

  77. [86]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334

    2017 doi

  78. [87]

    Nicholl, M., & Smartt, S. J. 2016, MNRAS, 457, L79, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv210

    2016 doi

  79. [88]

    D., et al

    Nicholl, M., Srivastav, S., Fulton, M. D., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf0ba

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    Ofek, E. O. 2014, MAAT: MATLAB Astronomy and Astrophysics Toolbox, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1407.005

    2014

  81. [90]

    Omand, C. M. B., & Sarin, N. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3645

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    E., & Ferland, G

    Osterbrock, D. E., & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  83. [92]

    2015, PhRvL, 114, 085003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    Park, J., Caprioli, D., & Spitkovsky, A. 2015, PhRvL, 114, 085003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.085003

    2015 doi

  84. [93]

    R., Ho, W

    Pasham, D. R., Ho, W. C. G., Alston, W., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 249, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01524-8

    2021 doi

  85. [94]

    B., Li, Z., Lombardi, James C., J., & Milcarek, Stephen R., J

    Perets, H. B., Li, Z., Lombardi, James C., J., & Milcarek, Stephen R., J. 2016, ApJ, 823, 113, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/113

    2016 doi

  86. [95]

    A., Quimby, R

    Perley, D. A., Quimby, R. M., Yan, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 13, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/13

    2016 doi

  87. [96]

    A., Mazzali, P

    Perley, D. A., Mazzali, P. A., Yan, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3420

    2019 doi

  88. [97]

    L., & Morozova, V

    Piro, A. L., & Morozova, V. S. 2014, ApJL, 792, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L11

    2014 doi

  89. [98]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246, doi: 10.1086/171341

    1992 doi

  90. [99]

    J., Maguire, K., Smartt, S

    Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 865, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd90

    2018 doi

  91. [100]

    Quataert, E., Lecoanet, D., & Coughlin, E. R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L83, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz031

    2019 doi

  92. [101]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    2019 doi

  93. [102]

    B., & Sigurdsson, S

    Repetto, S., Davies, M. B., & Sigurdsson, S. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2799, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21549.x Rodr ´ ıguez,´O., Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2023, ApJ, 955, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2bd

    2012

  94. [103]

    M., et al

    Roy, R., Sollerman, J., Silverman, J. M., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527947

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  96. [105]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  97. [106]

    Shen, R.-F., & Matzner, C. D. 2014, ApJ, 784, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/87

    2014 doi

  98. [107]

    1990, ApJL, 361, L23, doi: 10.1086/185818

    Shigeyama, T., Nomoto, K., Tsujimoto, T., & Hashimoto, M.-A. 1990, ApJL, 361, L23, doi: 10.1086/185818

    1990 doi

  99. [108]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 —. 2015, PASA, 32, e016, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.17

    2009 doi

  100. [109]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    2014 doi

  101. [110]

    V., & Chornock, R

    Smith, N., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., & Chornock, R. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.17229.x

    2011

  102. [111]

    2017, ApJ, 851, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c83

    Soker, N., & Gilkis, A. 2017, ApJ, 851, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c83

    2017 doi

  103. [112]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 4972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz364

    Soker, N., Grichener, A., & Gilkis, A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz364

    2019 doi

  104. [113]

    2008, ApJL, 673, L39, doi: 10.1086/527374

    Spitkovsky, A. 2008, ApJL, 673, L39, doi: 10.1086/527374

    2008 doi

  105. [114]

    M., Pringle, J

    Stone, J. M., Pringle, J. E., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1002, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.03024.x 25

    1999

  106. [115]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  107. [116]

    R., Crowther, P

    Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., Crowther, P. A., & Liu, L.-D. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L66, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac023

    2022 doi

  108. [117]

    S., & Dopita, M

    Sutherland, R. S., & Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253, doi: 10.1086/191823

    1993 doi

  109. [118]

    D., Bersten, M., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Bersten, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730844

    2018 doi

  110. [119]

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

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv990

    2015 doi

  111. [120]

    C., & Fuller, J

    Tsuna, D., Matsumoto, T., Wu, S. C., & Fuller, J. 2024, ApJ, 966, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3637

    2024 doi

  112. [121]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9632

    Uno, K., & Maeda, K. 2020, ApJ, 897, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9632

    2020 doi

  113. [122]

    Perets, H. B. 2024, A&A, 685, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348357

    2024 doi

  114. [123]

    Wang, Y.-H., Perna, R., & Armitage, P. J. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 6005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab802

    2021 doi

  115. [124]

    C., Lecar, M., & McKee, C

    Wheeler, J. C., Lecar, M., & McKee, C. F. 1975, ApJ, 200, 145, doi: 10.1086/153771

    1975 doi

  116. [125]

    Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204 —. 2019, ApJ, 878, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b41

    2010 doi

  117. [126]

    C., & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. C., & Fuller, J. 2022, ApJL, 940, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b3d

    2022 doi

  118. [127]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 3941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz145

    Wygoda, N., Elbaz, Y., & Katz, B. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz145

    2019 doi

  119. [128]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/108

    Yan, L., Quimby, R., Ofek, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/108

    2015 doi

  120. [129]

    A., et al

    Yan, L., Lunnan, R., Perley, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8993

    2017 doi

  121. [130]

    Yao, Y., Ho, A. Y. Q., Medvedev, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a41

    2022 doi

  122. [131]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    Yuan, F., & Narayan, R. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141003

    2014 doi

  123. [132]

    2012, ApJ, 761, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/129

    Yuan, F., Wu, M., & Bu, D. 2012, ApJ, 761, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/129

    2012 doi

  124. [133]

    E., Van Dyk, S

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7467

    2017 doi

  125. [134]

    Zhang, W., & Fryer, C. L. 2001, ApJ, 550, 357, doi: 10.1086/319734

    2001 doi

  126. [135]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 125016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9c4b

    Zhang, W., Shu, X., Chen, J.-H., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 125016, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9c4b

    2022 doi

  127. [136]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8

    Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad63a8

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.