Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Effect of positronium on the $\gamma$-ray spectra and energy deposition in Type Ia supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Positronium formation can cut the 511 keV line flux of Type Ia supernovae by about 70 percent around 100 days after explosion.

desk verdict TARDIS-HE is a genuinely useful new gamma-ray transport tool and the positronium study deserves a serious referee, but the 3γ continuum sampling is biased soft and the 2% deposition number needs a recheck before anyone quotes it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22992 v1 pith:7XY6SSPI submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE

Anirban Dutta , Andrew Fullard , Wolfgang Kerzendorf , J. T. O'Brien , Cecelia Powers , Stuart A Sim , Andreas Flörs , Or Graur This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords TypeIasupernovaepositronium511keVannihilationlinegamma-rayspectraMonteCarloradiativetransferenergydepositionTARDIS-HEratios
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

Type Ia supernovae are powered by radioactive decay, and their gamma-ray lines are readouts of the explosion; but one microphysical step is usually skipped: the positrons from 56Co decay can first bind with electrons into positronium, and when positronium decays, most of the time it emits three photons instead of two, smearing the sharp 511 keV annihilation line into a continuum. Using a new open-source Monte Carlo transport module coupled to the radiative transfer code TARDIS, the paper varies the positronium fraction from 0 to 100 percent and finds that full positronium formation cuts the 511 keV line flux by about 70 percent and increases deposited energy by up to 2 percent near 100 days. The paper argues that these are measurable, non-dominant but real effects that should be included when interpreting gamma-ray observations, and that missions such as the Compton Spectrometer and Imager could constrain positronium formation in nearby SNe Ia.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the indivisible energy-packet Monte Carlo transport in TARDIS-HE: gamma-ray packets representing radioactive decay radiation are moved through spherical, homologously expanding ejecta shells and interact through Compton scattering, pair production, and photoabsorption. The positronium channel is handled separately: a chosen positronium fraction $f_p$ diverts that share of annihilation packets into positronium, and 75 percent of those decay through the three-photon ortho-positronium channel, with photon energies sampled from the Ore–Powell distribution. That branching is what moves flux out of the 511 keV line into the continuum below it and shifts energy deposition.

What would settle it

Measure the 511 keV line and the continuum shape of a nearby Type Ia supernova around 100 days after explosion with a high-resolution gamma-ray spectrometer: if the line flux matches the no-positronium prediction or no ortho-positronium continuum appears, the assumed full positronium formation and fixed 75 percent three-photon branching are not realized in real ejecta.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that including positronium formation in gamma-ray transport changes predicted observables in a specific, quantifiable way. With a positronium fraction of unity and 75 percent of positronium decaying through the three-photon channel, the 511 keV line flux falls by roughly 70 percent at about 95 days in the delayed-detonation model, while the continuum below 511 keV brightens; energy deposition rises by up to 2 percent at late times because the softer three-photon continuum is more likely to be photoabsorbed. The paper also reports that the 511 keV to 1238 keV line ratio decreases in all four explosion models considered when positronium forms, and that low-energy 56Ni lines at 158 and 270 keV can distinguish explosion scenarios, disappearing into the continuum for the violent merger geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes a fixed fraction of positron annihilations goes through positronium and that 75 percent of those positronium atoms decay into three photons, but in a real supernova both numbers depend on local density, temperature, and ionization, so the 70 percent line reduction is tied to those assumed values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 511 keV line is not a clean measure of the 56Co positron yield; interpreting its flux without correcting for positronium redistribution would bias estimates of the radioactive mass.
  • The 511 keV to 1238 keV line ratio decreases with positronium formation in all four explosion models studied, offering an observational diagnostic for the positronium fraction that is less sensitive to absolute flux calibration.
  • Low-energy 56Ni lines at 158 and 270 keV survive in delayed-detonation, deflagration, and double-detonation models but are lost in the continuum for the violent merger model, so gamma-ray spectra can discriminate between explosion scenarios.
  • Energy deposition rises by up to 2 percent near 100 days, which feeds into late-time bolometric light curves and the UV-optical-IR emission powered by radioactive decay.
  • Future observations of late-phase spectra of a nearby Type Ia supernova could detect the ortho-positronium continuum and constrain the positronium fraction, refining models of radioactive energy transport.
  • If the claims hold, gamma-ray line-flux measurements used as explosion diagnostics must account for positronium formation even when the effect is not the dominant shaping process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 70 percent line reduction is an upper-end scenario attached to the paper's assumed 100 percent positronium formation and fixed 75 percent three-photon branching; a self-consistent model with a time- and density-dependent positronium fraction will likely place the effect somewhere between the paper's 0 and 70 percent endpoints.
  • The same line-versus-continuum redistribution should apply to other positron-producing transients, such as ejecta powered by 44Ti or 57Ni decay, where the neglected positronium channel would alter gamma-ray diagnostics similarly.
  • Because the ortho-positronium continuum is independent of ejecta composition while the Compton-scattered continuum is not, separating these two components in an observed spectrum could isolate the positronium contribution without requiring detailed abundance information.
  • A direct extension would replace the fixed 75 percent three-photon branch with a density- and temperature-dependent ortho-para conversion treatment and test whether the energy-deposition excess grows or shrinks at late times.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents TARDIS-HE, a new time-dependent Monte Carlo transport module for gamma rays built on the TARDIS radiative-transfer framework. The code uses indivisible energy packets, homologous expansion, and three opacity channels (Compton scattering, pair production, photoabsorption), and it reads decay chains and transition data from ENSDF to produce spectra and deposition curves. Positronium formation is included in a parameterized way: a fraction f_p of annihilation packets is assumed to form positronium, and 75% of those are assumed to decay through the three-photon channel. The authors validate the spectra against Summa et al. (2013) and the deposition against several published codes, then apply the code to four SN Ia models. The central quantitative result is that for f_p = 1 and a 75% three-photon branching, the 511 keV line flux is reduced by approximately 70% at around 95-100 days and the energy deposition is increased by up to 2%, compared with models without positronium.

Significance. If the implementation is correct, TARDIS-HE would be a useful open-source addition to the SN Ia gamma-ray modeling toolkit, and the paper gives a transparent parameter study of positronium's effect on line and continuum observables, including a discussion of COSI detectability. The code description is detailed enough that the emission and opacity treatments can be checked, and the comparison against multiple deposition codes is a strength. However, the headline numbers are directly tied to the assumed constant values of f_p and the three-gamma branching, and the three-gamma sampling appears inconsistent with the equal-energy indivisible-packet scheme, so the claimed 2% deposition enhancement is not yet established. The spectral validation is also weakened by a model-mass mismatch. These issues are fixable with a corrected sampling scheme and a same-model comparison, but they must be addressed before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A; §2.2–2.3, Eq. (7)] The three-gamma continuum sampling is inconsistent with the equal-energy indivisible-packet scheme. Equation (7) fixes every packet's rest-frame energy to E_tot/N_packet, so in such a scheme the emission frequency must be drawn from the source's energy spectrum. For positronium three-gamma decay, the Ore-Powell function F(x) in Eq. (A1) is the number distribution of photon energies; the physical continuum energy spectrum is proportional to xF(x). Sampling x from F(x) instead produces an emergent energy spectrum proportional to F(x), which is biased toward low photon energies. Because §4.1 attributes the 2% deposition increase to low-energy continuum photons being more readily photoabsorbed, this bias likely inflates that number, and it also shifts the continuum level subtracted under the 511 keV line. In addition, the manuscript does not state how many packets are created per three-gamma decay; since a three-photon decay has total energy 2 m_e c^2 while each equal-energy packet has energy E_tot/N_packet, the energy bookkeeping for this channel must be specified explicitly. The authors should sample from the energy-weighted distribution (or assign variable packet energies) and rerun the positronium cases.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 3] The spectral comparison against Summa et al. (2013) is not a clean validation because the two runs use different 56Ni masses: the text states that the ddt N100 model has 0.6 M_sun of 56Ni in Summa et al., while TARDIS-HE is run with 0.67 M_sun after normalization, and the late-phase flux difference is attributed to this mass difference. This means the comparison does not test whether the code reproduces the published absolute line and continuum fluxes. The authors should run the same 56Ni mass (or explicitly rescale the comparison) and quantify the residual difference.
  3. [§4.1, Fig. 5] The central quantitative claims — approximately 70% reduction in the 511 keV line flux and up to 2% increase in energy deposition — are reported without statistical or systematic uncertainties. With a finite packet count, the line and continuum fluxes carry Monte Carlo Poisson errors, and the specutils Gaussian-fit plus continuum-subtraction procedure adds a systematic component. The authors should report these uncertainties or, at minimum, demonstrate convergence with respect to packet number and show that the line-measurement method does not drive the quoted values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3] The text says positronium decays by two-gamma or three-gamma emission 'in the ratio of 1:4.5', which is inconsistent with the 75% three-gamma branching used throughout the paper; the statistical ratio from the 1:3 singlet-to-triplet spin weights is 1:3, and the lifetime ratio for ortho- to para-positronium is much larger than 4.5. Please check and correct this statement.
  2. [Abstract and §5] The phrase 'We find that full positronium formation can reduce the 511 keV line flux by approximately 70%' should be framed as conditional on the assumed input f_p = 1 and the assumed 75% three-gamma branching, since these quantities are not derived in this work; the current wording could be read as a prediction rather than a parameter-study result.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting inconsistencies, including 'radiaoctive' (Introduction), 'desposition' (§2.6 and Fig. 1), 'contin num opacity' (§4.1), and inconsistent rendering of 'tardis-he' (sometimes italic, sometimes roman). A careful copy edit is needed.
  4. [§4.2, last paragraph] The statement that 'the ortho-Ps continuum is independent of the composition of the ejecta' is true only for the intrinsic emission spectrum; after transport through the ejecta the observed continuum is modulated by Compton scattering and photoabsorption, so the sentence should be qualified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline 511 keV line reduction (~70%) is nearly the complement of the assumed 75% 3γ branching at f_p=1; the code transport itself is externally benchmarked and the deposition/line-ratio results are genuinely transport-dependent.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (positronium treatment) and Section 4.1 (Positronium contribution)]
    "For those that form positronium, 75 % decays to 3γ to form a continuum. [§2.3] … There is a decrease in flux in the 511 keV line by ∼70 % at around 95 days for a positronium fraction of 1. [§4.1]"

    With f_p=1 all annihilation packets form positronium, so by construction only the 25% para-Ps (2γ) branch can still put flux in the 511 keV line; the retained line flux is pinned near 25% of the no-positronium value plus 3γ contamination near the 511 keV endpoint. The reported ~70% reduction (Section 4.1) is therefore almost exactly the complement of the assumed 75% 3γ branching: the headline number is set by the input, and radiative transfer moves it by only ~5 points. Unlike the 2% deposition enhancement, which is genuinely transport-dependent, the 70% line reduction is an input echo dressed as a finding; the abstract itself juxtaposes the assumed 75% with the derived ~70% without noting that the second is nearly forced by the first.

full rationale

The new transport code is not circular: at f_p=0 the paper validates TARDIS-HE against externally published spectra (Summa et al. 2013, Figure 3) and a multi-code deposition comparison (Blondin et al. 2022, Figure 4), so the transport chain has independent support. There is no load-bearing self-citation: some benchmark-model papers list co-author S. Sim, but the compared outputs are external published results, not premises of this paper's positronium argument, and the Ps branching is cited to Ore & Powell (1949), Crannell et al. (1976), Leising & Clayton (1987), and Milne et al. (2004), none of which are the present authors. The paper also concedes in Section 5 that the positronium fraction and the 2γ/3γ ratio depend on density, temperature, and collisions, i.e., the inputs are honestly labeled as parameters. The one by-construction element is the headline 511 keV claim: with f_p=1 all annihilations form positronium and 75% of them are diverted to the 3γ continuum (Section 2.3), so the 511 keV line is reduced to about 25% plus small contamination before any transport; the reported ~70% reduction (Section 4.1) is thus nearly the complement of the assumed branching, echoing the input. The +2% deposition enhancement and the inter-model line-ratio comparisons are genuine transport outputs and are not circular. The Ore-Powell sampling issue raised in review (Appendix A samples equal-energy packet energies from the photon-number distribution F(x) instead of the energy distribution xF(x), biasing the continuum soft and plausibly inflating the deposition enhancement) is a distinct correctness concern, not a circularity, and is left out of the score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on a small number of input parameters and physical simplifications. The positronium fraction f_p is a free scanning parameter, not predicted. The fixed 75 percent 3γ branching ratio, local positron deposition, instantaneous photoabsorption, and simplified pair-production opacity are domain assumptions inherited from prior work. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Positronium fraction f_p = 0, 0.5, 1 (scanned, not fitted)
    The central results are given for f_p=1, but f_p is not derived from ejecta conditions; it is an input parameter varied to bracket the possible effect.
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Positronium fraction f_p and the 3γ decay branching ratio are constant over time and uniform across the ejecta.
    Section 2.3 sets a fixed f_p and 75 percent 3γ decay; Section 5 states that f_p actually changes over time as the ejecta evolves, so this simplification directly shapes the headline numbers.
  • domain assumption Positrons deposit their kinetic energy in the shell where they are created; positron transport is neglected.
    Section 3.2 states this and restricts deposition calculations to 100 days.
  • domain assumption The kinetic energy of β+ decay channels is deposited immediately as thermal energy.
    Section 2.1: 'The kinetic energy of the β+ – decay channels is assumed to be immediately deposited in the ejecta as thermal energy.'
  • domain assumption Photoabsorption deposits all packet energy in-situ and instantaneously.
    Section 2.5.2: 'Photoabsorption is a terminal event... the packet deposits all their energy after this interaction in-situ and instantaneously.'
  • domain assumption Pair production opacity depends only on Si and Fe-group mass fractions, using a simplified formula.
    Equations (9) and (10) use Z^2/m for Si and Fe only; this is an approximation for the ejecta composition.
  • domain assumption All electrons, bound and free, participate in Compton scattering with the Klein-Nishina cross-section.
    Section 2.4 justifies this because gamma-ray energies are much larger than electron binding energies.
  • domain assumption The ejecta undergoes homologous expansion, and the 1D spherical models from HESMA represent the ejecta structure.
    Section 2.2 assumes homology; Section 4.2 uses angle-averaged 1D profiles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of positronium on the $\gamma$-ray spectra and energy deposition in Type Ia supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XY6SSPI

@misc{pith2026250522992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of positronium on the $\gamma$-ray spectra and energy deposition in Type Ia supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XY6SSPI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22992}
}
abstract

Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) are powered by the radioactive decay of isotopes such as $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co, making their $\gamma$-ray spectra useful probes of the explosion mechanism and ejecta structure. Accurate interpretation of $\gamma$-ray observables, including line ratios and continuum fluxes, requires a detailed understanding of the microphysical processes that shape the spectra. One such process is positronium formation during electron-positron annihilation, which can redistribute flux from the 511 keV line into the surrounding continuum. To assess the impact of positronium on the emergent spectra, we developed a new open-source module TARDIS-HE, for time-dependent three-dimensional $\gamma$-ray transport, integrated into the radiative transfer code TARDIS. The code simulates $\gamma$-ray spectra and light curves from one-dimensional supernova ejecta models and allows for flexible incorporation of decay chains and opacity treatments. Using TARDIS-HE, we explore the effect of positronium formation by varying the positronium fraction from 0 % to 100 %, and assuming an extreme case where 75 % of positronium decays result in three-photon emission. We find that full positronium formation can reduce the 511 keV line flux by approximately 70 % and modestly enhance energy deposition by up to 2 % at around 100 days post-explosion, compared to models without positronium. These results demonstrate that while the effect is not dominant, positronium formation introduces measurable changes to $\gamma$-ray observables. Future observations with missions such as the Compton Spectrometer and Imager (COSI) may offer constraints on positronium formation in SNe Ia and help refine models of their radioactive energy transport.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of tardis-he 2.5. γ-ray packet transport The packet starts at its initial position with a given direction. Along the given direction, we then determine three distances - dinteraction, dtime, dboundary. We dis￾cuss the details of the distances in the next section (Sec￾tion 2.5.1). The packet is moved to the shortest distance and the specific event is handled. After the movement, the new position and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mass fractions of the elements at 2 days for the ddt N100 model (Seitenzahl et al. 2013). Since the ejecta model is defined at 100 secs, the composition is decayed to the starting time of the simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Energy deposited by γ-rays and positrons as a function of time normalized to the analytical deposition function. We show the comparison of tardis-he with other codes. the data for the codes has been taken from Blondin et al. (2022). in Section 4.1). In addition to the lines due to 56Ni and 56Co the spectra has a well defined continuum at the early phases. This is mostly due to Compton scattering of the γ-ray packets… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the γ-ray spectra at day 100 for the ddt model with varying positronium fraction. We use 5 × 107 packets in the simulation. The flux is calculated at 10 pc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: γ-ray spectra generated with tardis-he at 25, 50, and 100 days since explosion for four different SNe Ia models. All the models are run with 7 × 107 packets with an fp=1. The zoomed inset shows the region between 120 and 350 keV including the 158 and 270 keV lines of 5…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the (a) 511 keV line (b) 1238 keV line flux of 56Co and the ratio of these two line fluxes for different positronium fractions for the violent merger model. The flux is calculated at 10 pc. spots around the center of the WD. An initial subsonic deflagratio…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The sampling of the photon energies for the case of three photon decay as given by equation A1. In this example we draw 1 × 106 photon energies and uniformly binned in 100 bins. The abscissa is the photon energy in terms of electron rest mass energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of scattered photon angles. The red curve shows the scattering angle distribution as predicted by the Klein-Nishina equation. σT is the Thomson scattering cross-section, and x = hν/mec 2 where ν is the packet frequency. We use the partial cross-section as…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The energy deposited by the γ-rays and positrons normalized by the analytic deposition function for various time steps. Our implementation of calculating the Compton scattering can be tested against the theoretical calculation. The probability distribution of the scat…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1988, ApJ, 325, 820, doi: 10.1086/166052 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ambwani, K., & Sutherland, P. 1988, ApJ, 325, 820, doi: 10.1086/166052 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim,...

    work page doi:10.1086/166052 1988

  2. [2]

    I., & Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., & Bartunov, O. S. 1993, A&A, 273, 106

    1993

  3. [3]

    P., et al

    Blondin, S., Blinnikov, S., Callan, F. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244134

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244134 2022

  4. [4]

    L., & Leventhal, M

    Brown, B. L., & Leventhal, M. 1987, ApJ, 319, 637, doi: 10.1086/165484

    work page doi:10.1086/165484 1987

  5. [5]

    1990, ApJ, 360, 626, doi: 10.1086/169150

    Burrows, A., & The, L.-S. 1990, ApJ, 360, 626, doi: 10.1086/169150

    work page doi:10.1086/169150 1990

  6. [6]

    L., & Cashwell, E

    Carter, L. L., & Cashwell, E. D. 1975, 22, doi: 10.2172/4167844

    work page doi:10.2172/4167844 1975

  7. [7]

    Castor, J. I. 1972, ApJ, 178, 779, doi: 10.1086/151834

    doi:10.1086/151834 1972

  8. [8]

    2014, Nature, 512, 406, doi: 10.1038/nature13672 —

    Churazov, E., Sunyaev, R., Isern, J., et al. 2014, Nature, 512, 406, doi: 10.1038/nature13672 —. 2015, ApJ, 812, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/62

    doi:10.1038/nature13672 2014

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    A., & McKee, C

    Colgate, S. A., & McKee, C. 1969, ApJ, 157, 623, doi: 10.1086/150102

    1969 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Joyce, G., Ramaty, R., & Werntz, C

    Crannell, C. J., Joyce, G., Ramaty, R., & Werntz, C. 1976, ApJ, 210, 582, doi: 10.1086/154863

    1976 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Blondin, S., & Khokhlov, A

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Blondin, S., & Khokhlov, A. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu789 16

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, Science, 345, 1162, doi: 10.1126/science.1254738

    Diehl, R., Siegert, T., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 1162, doi: 10.1126/science.1254738

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    K., Anupama, G

    Dutta, A., Sahu, D. K., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac366f

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, astropy/specutils: v1.19.0, v1.19.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14042033

    Earl, N., Tollerud, E., O’Steen, R., et al. 2024, astropy/specutils: v1.19.0, v1.19.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14042033

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, URILIGHT: Time-dependent Monte-Carlo radiative-transfer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2209.012

    Elbaz, Y. 2022, URILIGHT: Time-dependent Monte-Carlo radiative-transfer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2209.012

    2022

  8. [16]

    R., et al

    Fink, M., Kromer, M., Seitenzahl, I. R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2315

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Challis, P

    Foley, R. J., Challis, P. J., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/57

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    1998, MNRAS, 296, 913, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01421.x G´ omez-Gomar, J., Isern, J., & Jean, P

    Gomez-Gomar, J., Hernanz, M., Jose, J., & Isern, J. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 913, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01421.x G´ omez-Gomar, J., Isern, J., & Jean, P. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.29511115.x

    1998

  11. [19]

    M., et al

    Graur, O., Zurek, D., Shara, M. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 31, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/31

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    T., et al

    Gronow, S., Collins, C., Ohlmann, S. T., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936494

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    J., & Dessart, L

    Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 252, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21192.x

    2012

  15. [23]

    J., & Miller, D

    Hillier, D. J., & Miller, D. L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 407, doi: 10.1086/305350

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Wheeler, J

    Hoeflich, P., Khokhlov, A. M., & Wheeler, J. C. 1995, ApJ, 444, 831, doi: 10.1086/175656 H¨ oflich, P., Wheeler, J. C., & Khokhlov, A. 1998, ApJ, 492, 228, doi: 10.1086/305018

    1995 doi

  17. [25]

    J., & Caplan, M

    Horowitz, C. J., & Caplan, M. E. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 131101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.131101

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    1969, National Bureau of Standards Report NSRDS-NBS29, Washington DC

    Hubbell, J. 1969, National Bureau of Standards Report NSRDS-NBS29, Washington DC

    1969

  19. [27]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    2011, A&A, 530, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015937

    Jerkstrand, A., Fransson, C., & Kozma, C. 2011, A&A, 530, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015937

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    2012, A&A, 546, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219528

    Jerkstrand, A., Fransson, C., Maguire, K., et al. 2012, A&A, 546, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219528

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2006, AJ, 132, 189, doi: 10.1086/504599

    Jha, S., Branch, D., Chornock, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 189, doi: 10.1086/504599

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Maguire, K., & Sullivan, M

    Jha, S. W., Maguire, K., & Sullivan, M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 706, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0858-0

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2011, Nuclear Data Sheets, 112, 1513, doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2011.04.004

    Junde, H., Su, H., & Dong, Y. 2011, Nuclear Data Sheets, 112, 1513, doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2011.04.004

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    Karshenboim, S. G. 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 3879, doi: 10.1142/S0217751X04020142

    2004 doi

  26. [34]

    C., & Nugent, P

    Kasen, D., Thomas, R. C., & Nugent, P. 2006, ApJ, 651, 366, doi: 10.1086/506190

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    E., & Sim, S

    Kerzendorf, W. E., & Sim, S. A. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu055

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Khokhlov, A. M. 1991, A&A, 245, 114

    1991

  29. [37]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Kromer, M., Ohlmann, S., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2017, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 88, 312, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1706.09879

    2017 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kromer, M., & Sim, S. A. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1809, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15256.x

    2009

  32. [40]

    D., & Clayton, D

    Leising, M. D., & Clayton, D. D. 1987, ApJ, 323, 159, doi: 10.1086/165816

    1987 doi

  33. [41]

    V., Chornock, R., et al

    Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 453, doi: 10.1086/374200

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    2018, PhR, 736, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.02.002

    Livio, M., & Mazzali, P. 2018, PhR, 736, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.02.002

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    1995, ApJ, 452, 62, doi: 10.1086/176279

    Livne, E., & Arnett, D. 1995, ApJ, 452, 62, doi: 10.1086/176279

    1995 doi

  36. [44]

    Lucy, L. B. 2005, A&A, 429, 19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041656

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    R., & Maguire, K

    Magee, M. R., & Maguire, K. 2020, A&A, 642, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037870

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    R., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., & Sim, S

    Magee, M. R., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., & Sim, S. A. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3533, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab201

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3318, doi: 10.21105/joss.03318

    Malins, A., & Lemoine, T. 2022, Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3318, doi: 10.21105/joss.03318

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    A., The, L

    Milne, P. A., The, L. S., & Leising, M. D. 1999, ApJS, 124, 503, doi: 10.1086/313262

    1999 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Hungerford, A

    Milne, P. A., Hungerford, A. L., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 1101, doi: 10.1086/423235 Mohoroviˇ ci´ c, S. 1934, Astronomische Nachrichten, 253, 93, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.19342530402

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    Nadyozhin, D. K. 1994, ApJS, 92, 527, doi: 10.1086/192008

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al

    Noebauer, U. M., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2093 O’Brien, J. T., Kerzendorf, W. E., Fullard, A., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2358

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    Ore, A., & Powell, J. L. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1696, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1696

    1949 doi

  45. [53]

    K., et al

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 61, doi: 10.1038/nature08642

    2010 doi

  46. [54]

    2012, ApJL, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10 pandas development team, T

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    1962, PhD thesis, Howard University, Washington DC 17

    Pankey, Titus, J. 1962, PhD thesis, Howard University, Washington DC 17

    1962

  48. [56]

    Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJL, 413, L105, doi: 10.1086/186970

    1993 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Sobol, I

    Pozdnyakov, L. A., Sobol, I. M., & Syunyaev, R. A. 1983, Astrophys. Space Phys. Res., 2, 189

    1983

  50. [58]

    M., et al

    Prantzos, N., Boehm, C., Bykov, A. M., et al. 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 1001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1001

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    Pskovskii, I. P. 1977, Soviet Ast., 21, 675 R¨ opke, F. K., Kromer, M., Seitenzahl, I. R., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L19

    1977 doi

  52. [60]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, A&A Rv, 33, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    B., & Lightman, A

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

    1979

  54. [62]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts402

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 4517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1745 —

    Sharon, A., & Kushnir, D. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 4517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1745 —. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1227

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 924, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2378

    Sharon, A., Kushnir, D., & Schinasi-Lemberg, E. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 924, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2378

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    Sim, S. A. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 154, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11271.x

    2007

  58. [66]

    A., & Mazzali, P

    Sim, S. A., & Mazzali, P. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1681, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12600.x

    2008

  59. [67]

    2013, A&A, 554, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220972

    Summa, A., Ulyanov, A., Kromer, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220972

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    A., Sutherland, P

    Swartz, D. A., Sutherland, P. G., & Harkness, R. P. 1995, ApJ, 446, 766, doi: 10.1086/175834

    1995 doi

  61. [69]

    Utrobin, V. P. 2004, Astronomy Letters, 30, 293, doi: 10.1134/1.1738152

    2004 doi

  62. [70]

    Veigele, W. J. 1973, Atomic Data, 5, 51, doi: 10.1016/S0092-640X(73)80015-4

    1973 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Zimmerman, G

    Weaver, T. A., Zimmerman, G. B., & Woosley, S. E. 1978, ApJ, 225, 1021, doi: 10.1086/156569

    1978 doi

  64. [72]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355, doi: 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  65. [73]

    1995, The Quantum Theory of Fields Wes McKinney

    Weinberg, S. 1995, The Quantum Theory of Fields Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    1995 doi

  66. [74]

    T., & van Rossum, D

    Wollaeger, R. T., & van Rossum, D. R. 2014, ApJS, 214, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/28

    2014 doi

  67. [75]

    T., van Rossum, D

    Wollaeger, R. T., van Rossum, D. R., Graziani, C., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/2/36

    2013 doi

  68. [76]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1994, ApJ, 423, 371, doi: 10.1086/173813

    1994 doi

  69. [77]

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

    Wygoda, N., Elbaz, Y., & Katz, B. 2019a, MNRAS, 484, 3941, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz145 —. 2019b, MNRAS, 484, 3951, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz146

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.