Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Spectroscopic and kinematic analyses of a warm survivor of a D6 supernova

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper reports that SDSSJ1637+3631 is the surviving donor of a D6 type Ia supernova, based on a carbon–oxygen atmosphere enriched with intermediate-mass elements and a Galactocentric speed of roughly 1900–2000 km/s.

desk verdict Solid single-object analysis with a genuinely new kinematic fit, but the D6 confirmation language is stronger than the prior-dependent velocity evidence supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08081 v1 pith:KNCZ7PB4 submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Mark A. Hollands , Ken. J. Shen , Roberto Raddi , Boris T. Gaensicke , Evan B. Bauer , Alberto Rebassa-Mansergas This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords D6supernovasurvivingdonorwhitedwarfhyper-runawaystardoubledetonationtypeIastellarkinematicschemicalabundances
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 reports that the faint, fast-moving star SDSSJ1637+3631 is the surviving donor of a type Ia supernova produced by the dynamically-driven double-degenerate double-detonation (D6) mechanism. New optical spectroscopy shows a carbon-plus-oxygen dominated atmosphere, with no hydrogen or helium, and clear enhancements of silicon, sulphur, and calcium relative to a CO white-dwarf core; the paper matches this to a core polluted by 1–3 percent D6 ejecta. The star's parallax is too imprecise to yield a distance on its own, so the paper uses the spectroscopic surface gravity ($\log g = 6.3 \pm 0.3$ dex) together with a prior on white-dwarf masses to infer a distance of about 5 kpc, giving a tangential velocity of about 1950 km/s and a Galactocentric speed near 2000 km/s. Tracing the orbit backward in a model of the Milky Way's potential places the explosion in the inner few kiloparsecs of the disc, about 4.5 million years ago, with an ejection speed near 1870 km/s. If correct, the discovery adds a warm, precisely analysed member to the small class of D6 survivors and strengthens the case that the D6 channel produces real type Ia supernovae.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a Bayesian distance–velocity model that fuses the low-precision Gaia parallax, the spectroscopic surface gravity, broadband photometry, and a prior on the donor's pre-explosion mass. Because $M_* \propto g D^2$ for a fixed solid angle, the measured $\log g$ converts the weak parallax into a distance estimate, and that distance scales the measured proper motion into the extreme tangential velocity. A second stage integrates the orbit backward through the MWPotential2014 Galactic potential and weights candidate ejection sites by the stellar mass density, and a third stage adds an ejection-speed prior derived from Roche-lobe geometry at the time of explosion, which tightens the inferred distance, site, and flight time.

What would settle it

A future astrometric measurement (for example from Gaia DR4) that returns a parallax implying a distance below about 2 kpc would place the tangential velocity under 1000 km/s, directly falsifying the kinematic evidence for a D6 origin; a direct mass measurement from gravitational redshift or asteroseismology that puts the star outside the assumed white-dwarf mass range would similarly undercut the distance inference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SDSSJ1637+3631 is the ejected, surviving donor of a D6 type Ia supernova. The paper's case has two pillars. First, the atmospheric composition: carbon and oxygen dominate in a roughly 1:2 ratio, hydrogen and helium are absent, and silicon, sulphur, and calcium are enriched compared with a CO white-dwarf core by amounts consistent with 1–3 percent of accreted D6 ejecta, once the slowest, nickel-dominated ejecta is assumed to be removed by radioactive-decay-driven winds (this last step is needed because iron is not enhanced). Second, the kinematics: although the Gaia parallax is only $0.33 \pm 0.48$ mas, the spectroscopic $\log g$ plus a two-component Gaussian prior on pre-explosion white-dwarf mass yields a distance $\approx 5$ kpc, a tangential velocity $1950^{+810}_{-530}$ km/s, and a Galactocentric speed $\approx 1900$–$2000$ km/s; the paper states that this extreme velocity 'essentially confirms' the D6 interpretation. The authors then integrate the orbit backward through a Milky Way potential to find an ejection site in the inner few kpc of the disc (not the Galactic centre), an ejection speed of $1870^{+360}_{-300}$ km/s, and a flight time of $4.5^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ Myr.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing assumption is that SDSSJ1637+3631 was a normal carbon–oxygen white dwarf before the explosion, with a mass drawn from the observed field white-dwarf mass distribution; if its pre-explosion mass lies outside that range, the derived distance and velocity could drop substantially and the kinematic case for a D6 origin would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The D6 mechanism now has a warm survivor with measured abundances for eight elements, giving a direct test of double-detonation nucleosynthesis yields.
  • The inferred ejection speed and flight time localise the explosion to the inner few kpc of the Galactic disc, excluding the Galactic centre and favouring disc origin with 83 percent probability.
  • The match between the observed Si/S/Ca enhancements and a CO core plus 1–3 percent ejecta supports the idea that nickel-rich low-velocity ejecta is removed by decay-powered winds, which shapes the observable composition of survivors.
  • The technique of using spectroscopic $\log g$ to convert an imprecise parallax into a distance and velocity can be applied to other candidate supernova survivors.
  • The tension between the inferred donor mass and age and the evolutionary tracks indicates that either the atmospheric models' atomic data or the donor evolution calculations need revision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed pre-explosion mass distribution is too narrow, the derived distance and velocity could shrink dramatically; a future Gaia astrometric solution with a significant parallax would immediately test whether the star is truly a hyper-runaway.
  • The sulphur over-prediction relative to the model may be an atomic-data artifact, but if it persists in better data it would suggest double-detonation models produce too much sulphur, a testable prediction for future yield calculations.
  • The same Bayesian kinematic pipeline could be applied to other candidate survivors with weak parallaxes, turning a spectroscopic $\log g$ into a distance and velocity constraint and potentially expanding the D6 census.
  • Because the paper's own evolutionary comparisons find age and mass tensions, the D6 survivor class may be systematically older or less massive than current tracks predict, which would affect estimates of the D6 rate from the survivor population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new GTC/OSIRIS spectroscopy of SDSSJ1637+3631 and a detailed model atmosphere analysis. The star is found to have Teff = 15680 ± 250 K, log g = 6.3 ± 0.3 dex, and a C+O-dominated composition with enhancements in Si, S, and Ca, which the authors interpret as a CO white dwarf core polluted by ~1–3% of D6 supernova ejecta. Because the Gaia parallax is inconclusive, the authors combine the spectroscopic log g with a prior on the white dwarf mass (a two-component Gaussian for normal CO WDs convolved with a uniform fractional mass-loss) and P(D) ∝ D^2 to infer a distance of about 5.4 kpc, implying a Galactocentric speed of about 1900 km/s. This extreme speed, together with the composition, is used to claim that the object is the ejected surviving donor of a D6 supernova. The paper then constructs an orbit-tracing Bayesian model that localizes the ejection site to the inner few kpc of the Galactic disc and yields a time of flight of about 4.5 Myr. The authors also compare their results with evolutionary tracks and disclose significant disagreements in the inferred donor mass and age.

Significance. If the central identification is correct, SDSSJ1637+3631 becomes one of the best-characterized D6 survivors, with the most complete abundance set for a warm D6 star and a carefully constructed kinematic framework. The paper provides honest discussion of many systematic uncertainties and makes public the data and a reproducible stellar-atmosphere analysis. The main strength is the spectral analysis itself, which includes a large line list and explicit uncertainty estimation through grid comparisons. The kinematic confirmation, however, rests on a distance inference that is largely driven by the assumed mass prior rather than by direct measurement, and the paper itself identifies a substantial disagreement with evolutionary predictions. Thus the significance is real but conditional on the prior assumptions being correct.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4] The kinematic confirmation is prior-dominated. The Gaia parallax (0.33 ± 0.48 mas) is essentially uninformative, and the distance posterior (D = 6.1+2.6-1.6 kpc) is driven by the adopted prior on the current white dwarf mass, specifically the O'Brien et al. (2024) two-component Gaussian for normal CO WDs convolved with a uniform fractional mass loss. Since M* ∝ g D^2 for a fixed solid angle, the distance is largely a reparameterization of this mass prior. The statement that this 'extreme velocity essentially confirms' the D6 interpretation is therefore stronger than the data alone support. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of v⊥ to the mass prior, for example by repeating the fit with a flat mass prior or with a prior informed by the Shen (2025) evolutionary tracks, and should temper the language of confirmation accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.2] The age discrepancy with the Shen (2025) evolutionary tracks is a direct challenge to the kinematic interpretation. The paper derives a current mass of about 0.42 Msun and a time of flight of 4.5 Myr, while the Shen (2025) tracks imply a donor mass of 0.18–0.20 Msun and an age of about 12 Myr for the observed Teff and luminosity. The authors call the age disagreement 'egregious' but do not resolve it. If the evolutionary tracks are closer to reality, the distance and hence the tangential velocity would drop substantially (to roughly 1200 km/s or less for a 0.2 Msun current mass), placing the object near or below the nominal 1000 km/s D6 threshold. The paper needs to either demonstrate that the kinematic result is robust to the evolutionary-model tension, or explicitly state that the D6 identification currently rests primarily on the adopted mass prior.
  3. [Section 3.1] The chemical consistency argument is weakened by the strong sulphur discrepancy. With the preferred q = 3% ejecta mass fraction, the model reproduces the silicon and calcium enhancements but overpredicts sulphur by 0.7 dex, which is more than 2σ above the measurement. The authors offer several plausible explanations (atomic data quality, yield model overprediction, or systematic abundance offsets), but no quantitative resolution. Since the D6 identification is based on both composition and kinematics, this unresolved >2σ discrepancy in a key element should be addressed more thoroughly, for instance by exploring whether alternative D6 ejecta models with different integration limits or nickel-removal prescriptions can match all three IMEs simultaneously.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3 and Table 2] There is an inconsistency in the helium upper limit: Section 3 reports log(He/C) < -1.5 dex, while Table 2 lists log(He/C) < -2.0 dex. Please harmonize the two values and state which one is the final 99th percentile limit.
  2. [Figure 8 caption] The caption for Figure 8 states 'All symbols have the same meaning as in Figure 8,' which should presumably refer to Figure 5. Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Section 5.4] The paper notes that a preliminary investigation suggests the density of D6 stars does not drop significantly within 10 kpc along this sightline, but no details are given. Since the distance prior affects the kinematic results, the authors should either provide a quantitative derivation or explicitly state the associated uncertainty in the distance and velocity.
  4. [Section 5, Eq. (3)] The inclusion of ρ_ej as a multiplicative 'likelihood' term is non-standard, as the authors acknowledge. The paper should clarify that this term acts as a joint prior approximated within the likelihood for technical convenience, and discuss possible biases in the posterior (e.g., an over-weighting of high-density regions not compensated by the prior volume).
  5. [Section 4, abstract] The abstract and Section 4 use the phrase 'essentially confirms' for the D6 identification. Given the prior dependence of the velocity, a more cautious phrasing, such as 'provides additional support' or 'is consistent with', would better reflect the actual evidential weight.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Velocity-based confirmation of D6 is partly circular: the extreme velocity is a re-parameterization of the assumed CO-WD mass prior.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, 'Confirming the D6 nature of SDSSJ1637+3631' (distance/mass prior paragraph and closing sentence)]
    "Essentially, for some fixed solid-angle for the stellar disc, M★ ∝ g D². ... For the mass, we assume that SDSSJ1637+3631 was a normal CO core white dwarf (as evidenced by its spectrum) that lost some unknown fraction of its mass ... convolved with a uniformly distributed fractional mass loss. ... Scaling by the proper-motion ... yields v⊥ = 1950+810−530 km/s ... this extreme velocity essentially confirms that SDSSJ1637+3631 is indeed the ejected survivor of a D6 explosion."

    The Gaia parallax is only 0.3319±0.4776 mas, so the distance is not directly measured. The posterior on D is essentially the adopted prior on M★ propagated through M★∝gD² and P(D)∝D², and since v⊥ = 318 km/s/kpc × D, the quoted 'extreme velocity' is a re-parameterization of the input assumption that SDSSJ1637+3631 is a roughly normal-mass CO white dwarf that may have been partially stripped—i.e. a D6-like donor. The paper's own Section 5.2 finds that the D6 evolutionary tracks (Shen 2025) imply M★≈0.18–0.20 M⊙, which would lower D to ≈3.3–3.7 kpc and v⊥ to ≈1000–1200 km/s, near the D6 threshold; the paper only avoids this by keeping the normal-WD-mass prior. Thus the kinematic 'confirmation' is not an independent measurement but is largely forced by the input prior.

full rationale

The central identification of SDSSJ1637+3631 as a D6 survivor is not wholly circular: the large proper motion (67 mas/yr) and radial velocity (384 km/s) are measured, the C+O-dominated composition is compared to published yield models (Boos et al. 2021), and the mass prior is partly anchored to an external white-dwarf mass distribution (O'Brien et al. 2024). However, the decisive kinematic claim—that the object's 'extreme velocity essentially confirms' D6—reduces by construction to the assumed mass prior, as D and hence v⊥ are derived from M★∝gD² under a weakly informative parallax. The paper is transparent about the resulting tension with Shen (2025) evolutionary tracks in Section 5.2, but the confirmation language in Section 4 overstates the independence of the velocity evidence. The abundance comparison also involves post-hoc choices of q (1–3%) and the nickel cutoff (11000 km/s), but these are presented as consistency checks rather than as predictions, so they do not constitute a separate circular step. The self-citations (Shen et al. 2018, Boos et al. 2021, Shen 2025) are external simulation results used openly and are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem; they are therefore not load-bearing circularity on their own. Overall, one key predictive pillar reduces to its input, warranting a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central D6 claim rests on several imported assumptions: a standard CO white dwarf mass prior (which sets the distance and velocity), representative D6 ejecta yields, a Milky Way potential and stellar density model, the donor mass-radius relation at explosion, and the action of radioactive-decay winds. The paper states most of these explicitly, and where it is uncertain (e.g. the distance prior) it is flagged as a limitation. Two fitted numbers (q and the nickel cutoff) are introduced to make the abundance model match the data.

free parameters (2)
  • Ejecta mass fraction q = 0.03 (0.01 as an alternative)
    Chosen by hand to reproduce the observed silicon and calcium enhancement over the CO core; sulphur is then over-predicted by 0.7 dex (Section 3.1).
  • Nickel-rich ejecta velocity cutoff = 11000 km/s
    Introduced to exclude ejecta with more than 10% nickel mass fraction, motivated by the absence of iron; without this, the accreted ejecta would be iron-dominated and contradict the observed Fe abundance (Section 3.1, Eq. 1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The pre-explosion donor was a CO-core white dwarf drawn from a standard mass distribution (O'Brien et al. 2024) after uniform fractional mass loss between 0 and 1.
    Adopted in Section 4 to construct the distance likelihood together with log g; the inferred distance and hence velocity depend directly on this prior. If the true mass is outside the prior, the ~2000 km/s velocity claim weakens.
  • ad hoc to paper The stellar mass density from the bulge and disc components of MWPotential2014 is proportional to the probability of a D6 ejection site.
    Included in the likelihood (Eq. 3) as rho_ej and used to localize the ejection site; the authors note the density need not be strictly proportional to the binary number density (Section 5).
  • domain assumption The Boos et al. (2021) 1 M_sun, thinnest-helium-shell, equatorial-ejection yield model is representative of D6 ejecta composition.
    Used in Section 3.1 to compute the I_Z integrals. The authors report that ratios are fairly consistent across their models, but the assumption selects one grid point.
  • domain assumption The donor radius at explosion follows the Bedard et al. (2020) mass-radius relation for He-atmosphere white dwarfs evaluated at the current Teff (15,680 K).
    Used in Section 5.3 (Fit 2) to restrict the orbital velocity via Eq. (5); the results are flagged as subject to the unknown donor Teff at explosion.
  • domain assumption The distance prior P(D) proportional to D^2 (constant space density along the line of sight) is valid out to the star's distance.
    Stated in Section 4 and discussed as a limitation in Section 5.4; the authors argue a preliminary population model does not show significant drop within 10 kpc, but this is not demonstrated here.
  • domain assumption Radioactive decay powered winds remove essentially all ejecta with nickel mass fractions above 10% from the donor.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to reconcile the observed Fe non-detection with the nickel-rich slow ejecta; the paper cites Shen & Schwab (2017) and Bhat et al. (2025) for support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopic and kinematic analyses of a warm survivor of a D6 supernova." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KNCZ7PB4

@misc{pith2026250608081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopic and kinematic analyses of a warm survivor of a D6 supernova},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KNCZ7PB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08081}
}
abstract

SDSSJ163712.21+363155.9 is a candidate hyper-runaway star, first identified from its unusual spectrum in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which exhibits oxygen, magnesium, and silicon lines redshifted by several $100\,$km/s, leading to the suggestion it was ejected from a thermonuclear supernova. We have acquired GTC OSIRIS spectroscopy of SDSSJ1637+3631 establishing a warm ($T_\mathrm{eff}=15680\pm250\,$K) carbon+oxygen dominated atmosphere, that is also abundant in the intermediate mass elements silicon, sulphur, and calcium. We interpret SDSSJ1637+3631 as the donor to an accreting white dwarf that exploded in a dynamically-driven double-degenerate double-detonation (D6) type Ia supernova, where the current composition is consistent with a CO white dwarf core, enriched with intermediate mass elements from deposited supernova ejecta. While SDSSJ1637+3631 has a low-precision Gaia parallax, our spectroscopic surface gravity ($\log g=6.3\pm0.3\,$dex) helps constrain its tangential velocity to $1950^{+810}_{-530}\,$km/s, providing additional support to the D6 mechanism. Under the assumption that SDSSJ1637+3631 is a D6 survivor, we construct a kinematic model combining all astrometric, spectroscopic, and photometric information, but also including the structure and gravitational potential of the Milky Way. Our model localises the ejection site to the inner few kpc of the Galactic disc (though excluding the Galactic centre), with an ejection speed of $1870^{+360}_{-300}\,$km/s, and a $4.5^{+0.4}_{-0.5}\,$Myr time of flight.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GTC OSIRIS spectrum of SDSS J1637+3631 (grey) with best fitting model (red). The top panel shows the entire GTC dataset in physical flux units. Subsequent panels show portions of the spectral range with fluxes normalised to one, and with labelled spectral features. All panels are in vacuum wavelengths with the data shifted to the rest frame. MNRAS 000, 1–15 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Atmospheric number fractions for SDSS J1637+3631 (blue circles) compared with the hot D6 star, J0927−6335 (green pentagons); the oxygen-rich white dwarf, SDSS J1240+6710 (orange hexagons); and one star in the LP 40−365 class, J1603−6613 (red octagons). Bottom: Atmospheric mass fractions of SDSS J1637+3631 compared with the predicted core com￾position for a 0.57 M⊙ white dwarf (green dot dash), and the same mode… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Corner plot to our fit to the distance, mass, and radius of SDSS J1637+3631, using the parallax, log 𝑔, and photometry as constraints. to provide a large number of samples from the posterior distribution. The corner plot for our parameters of interest, 𝐷, 𝑀★ and 𝑅★ are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot for a subset of parameters in Fit 1. The derived parameter 𝑀★ is also included, where 𝑀★ = 𝑓 𝑀don. Similarly 𝑣gc is determined from the modulus of the individual components of v. The distance, 𝐷, is shown over the same range as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ejection site and trajectory of SDSS J1637+3631 viewed along the three Cartesian axes, using posterior parameters from Fit 1. The current location of SDSS J1637+3631 and its distance uncertainty are shown by the green circle. The probability density for the ejection si…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of runaway stars associated with su￾pernovae. For SDSS J1637+3631, the distance used is from our kinematic analysis (Fit 1). The solid red square only uses the Gaia photometry and inferred distance, whereas the hollow square uses synthetic p…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot for 𝑣orb and 𝑀don. The bounds inferred for 𝑇eff = 15 680 K are shown by the dashed lines. 𝑃(𝐷) ∝ 𝐷 2 , assumes a constant density of objects along the line of sight. This is likely to be true close to the Galactic plane, but will inevitably drop off at dist…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ejection site and trajectory of SDSS J1637+3631 using posterior parameters from Fit 2. All symbols have the same meaning as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ApJ Lett.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  4. [4]

    B., Chandra V., Shen K

    Bauer E. B., Chandra V., Shen K. J., Hermes J. J., 2021, @doi [ApJ Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac432d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923L..34B 923, L34

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac432d 2021

  5. [5]

    B \'e dard A., Bergeron P., Brassard P., Fontaine G., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...93B 901, 93

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe 2020

  6. [6]

    S., Berry D

    Bell G. S., Berry D. S., Graves S. F., Currie M. J., Draper P. W., 2024, in Hugo B. V., Van Rooyen R., Smirnov O. M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 535, Astromical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXXI. p. 455

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    B., Pakmor R., Shen K

    Bhat A., Bauer E. B., Pakmor R., Shen K. J., Caiazzo I., Rajamuthukumar A. S., El-Badry K., Kerzendorf W. E., 2025, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.114B 693, A114

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451371 2025

  8. [8]

    J., Townsley D

    Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., Caldwell S., Miles B. J., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919..126B 919, 126

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2 2021

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    J., Townsley D

    Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972..200B 972, 200

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Bovy J., 2015, @doi [ApJS] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..216...29B 216, 29

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Braudo J., Soker N., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2310.16554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E...7B 7, 7

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chandra V., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.6122C 512, 6122

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    J., 1993, A&A, 1993A&A...275L...5C 275, L5

    Cunto W., Mendoza C., Ochsenbein F., Zeippen C. J., 1993, A&A, 1993A&A...275L...5C 275, L5

    1993

  6. [14]

    J., Berry D

    Currie M. J., Berry D. S., Jenness T., Gibb A. G., Bell G. S., Draper P. W., 2014, in Manset N., Forshay P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII. p. 391

    2014

  7. [15]

    Dan M., Rosswog S., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737...89D 737, 89

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    P., 1983, ApJ, 1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    Eggleton P. P., 1983, ApJ, 1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    1983

  9. [17]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2023, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.21105/astro.2306.03914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..28E 6, 28

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A., Renzo M., Rossi E

    Evans F. A., Renzo M., Rossi E. M., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2334 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.5344E 497, 5344

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    K., 2007, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...476.1133F 476, 1133

    Fink M., Hillebrandt W., R \"o pke F. K., 2007, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...476.1133F 476, 1133

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Hillebrandt W., Seitenzahl I

    Fink M., R \"o pke F. K., Hillebrandt W., Seitenzahl I. R., Sim S. A., Kromer M., 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...514A..53F 514, A53

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    Fink M., et al., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt2315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.1762F 438, 1762

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...57F 767, 57

    Foley R. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767...57F 767, 57

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    GRAVITY Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615L..15G 615, L15

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    T., Koester D., Raddi R., Toloza O., Kepler S

    G \"a nsicke B. T., Koester D., Raddi R., Toloza O., Kepler S. O., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa1761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.4079G 496, 4079

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Geier S., et al., 2015, @doi [Sci] 10.1126/science.1259063 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...347.1126G 347, 1126

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Clayton G

    Gordon K. D., Clayton G. C., Decleir M., Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., Misselt K. A., Tollerud E. J., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...86G 950, 86

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Guillochon J., Dan M., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Rosswog S., 2010, @doi [ApJ Lett.] 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709L..64G 709, L64

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Putterman O., Hollands M

    Hermes J. J., Putterman O., Hollands M. A., Wilson D. J., Swan A., Raddi R., Shen K. J., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2021, @doi [ApJ Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac00a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914L...3H 914, L3

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    G., 1988, @doi [Nat] 10.1038/331687a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.331..687H 331, 687

    Hills J. G., 1988, @doi [Nat] 10.1038/331687a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.331..687H 331, 687

    1988 doi

  23. [31]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [Nat Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-020-1028-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..663H 4, 663

    Hollands M. A., et al., 2020, @doi [Nat Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-020-1028-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..663H 4, 663

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Horne K., 1986, PASP, 1986PASP...98..609H 98, 609

    1986

  25. [33]

    P., Perets H., Hallakoun N., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6223I 518, 6223

    Igoshev A. P., Perets H., Hallakoun N., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3488 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.6223I 518, 6223

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Irrgang A., Kreuzer S., Heber U., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A..48I 620, A48

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Li W., Swift B

    Jha S., Branch D., Chornock R., Foley R. J., Li W., Swift B. J., Casebeer D., Filippenko A. V., 2006, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/504599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..189J 132, 189

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Jones S., et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A..74J 622, A74

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Open Source Softw.] 10.21105/joss.04634 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JOSS....7.4634K 7, 4634

    Karamanis M., Nabergoj D., Beutler F., Peacock J., Seljak U., 2022a, @doi [J. Open Source Softw.] 10.21105/joss.04634 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JOSS....7.4634K 7, 4634

    doi

  30. [38]

    A., Nabergoj D., Seljak U., 2022b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1644K 516, 1644

    Karamanis M., Beutler F., Peacock J. A., Nabergoj D., Seljak U., 2022b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1644K 516, 1644

    doi

  31. [39]

    O., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2526 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.3413K 455, 3413

    Kepler S. O., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2526 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455.3413K 455, 3413

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    M., 1991, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...245..114K 245, 114

    Khokhlov A. M., 1991, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...245..114K 245, 114

    1991

  33. [41]

    R., Moss A., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..159K 965, 159

    Kilic M., Bergeron P., Blouin S., Jewett G., Brown W. R., Moss A., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965..159K 965, 159

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Koester D., 2010, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana,, 2010MmSAI..81..921K 81, 921

    2010

  35. [43]

    E., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz3081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2465K 491, 2465

    Koposov S. E., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz3081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2465K 491, 2465

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Ralchenko Reader J., and NIST ASD Team 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver

    Kramida A., Yu. Ralchenko Reader J., and NIST ASD Team 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2025, March 13]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2024

  37. [45]

    Kromer M., et al., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sts498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.2287K 429, 2287

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    Li W., et al., 2003, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/374200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..453L 115, 453

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    Livne E., 1990, @doi [ApJ Lett.] 10.1086/185721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...354L..53L 354, L53

    1990 doi

  40. [48]

    R., 1989, PASP, 1989PASP..101.1032M 101, 1032

    Marsh T. R., 1989, PASP, 1989PASP..101.1032M 101, 1032

    1989

  41. [49]

    McCully C., et al., 2014, @doi [Nat] 10.1038/nature13615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.512...54M 512, 54

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    Miyamoto M., Nagai R., 1975, PASJ, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975PASJ...27..533M 27, 533

    1975

  43. [51]

    F., Frenk C

    Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/304888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490..493N 490, 493

    1997 doi

  44. [52]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8687O 527, 8687

    O'Brien M. W., et al., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8687O 527, 8687

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Pakmor R., Kromer M., Taubenberger S., Springel V., 2013, @doi [ApJ Lett.] 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770L...8P 770, L8

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    Pakmor R., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.5260P 517, 5260

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Perlmutter S., et al., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/307221 , 1999ApJ...517..565P 517, 565

    1999 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Koester D., G \"a nsicke B

    Raddi R., Hollands M. A., Koester D., G \"a nsicke B. T., Gentile Fusillo N. P., Hermes J. J., Townsley D. M., 2018a, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858....3R 858, 3

    doi

  49. [57]

    A., G \"a nsicke B

    Raddi R., Hollands M. A., G \"a nsicke B. T., Townsley D. M., Hermes J. J., Gentile Fusillo N. P., Koester D., 2018b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479L..96R 0pt 479, L96

    doi

  50. [58]

    Raddi R., et al., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1489R 489, 1489

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    X., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746...62R 746, 62

    Raskin C., Scannapieco E., Fryer C., Rockefeller G., Timmes F. X., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746...62R 746, 62

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    G., et al., 1998, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/300499 , 1998AJ....116.1009R 116, 1009

    Riess A. G., et al., 1998, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/300499 , 1998AJ....116.1009R 116, 1009

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Casey A

    Ruffini N. J., Casey A. R., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz2176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489..420R 489, 420

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Seitenzahl I

    Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., 2025, @doi [A&AR] 10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&ARv..33....1R 33, 1

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    D., 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A.162S 685, A162

    Scholz R. D., 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A.162S 685, A162

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    R., Cescutti G., R \"o pke F

    Seitenzahl I. R., Cescutti G., R \"o pke F. K., Ruiter A. J., Pakmor R., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322599 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559L...5S 559, L5

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    J., 2025, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb42e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...982....6S 982, 6

    Shen K. J., 2025, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb42e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...982....6S 982, 6

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    J., Bildsten L., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...61S 785, 61

    Shen K. J., Bildsten L., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...61S 785, 61

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Schwab J., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..180S 834, 180

    Shen K. J., Schwab J., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..180S 834, 180

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Idan I., Bildsten L., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/693 , 2009ApJ...705..693S 705, 693

    Shen K. J., Idan I., Bildsten L., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/693 , 2009ApJ...705..693S 705, 693

    2009 doi

  61. [69]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...15S 865, 15

    Shen K. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...15S 865, 15

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Boos S

    Shen K. J., Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..127S 975, 127

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    V., Arunachalam P., Kerzendorf W., Hughes J

    Shields J. V., Arunachalam P., Kerzendorf W., Hughes J. P., Biriouk S., Monk H., Buchner J., 2023, @doi [ApJ Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd6a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950L..10S 950, L10

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    E., 1980, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/158509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...242..749T 242, 749

    Taam R. E., 1980, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/158509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...242..749T 242, 749

    1980 doi

  65. [73]

    Tanikawa A., Nomoto K., Nakasato N., Maeda K., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885..103T 885, 103

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    K., Nomoto K., Yokoi K., 1986, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...158...17T 158, 17

    Thielemann F. K., Nomoto K., Yokoi K., 1986, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...158...17T 158, 17

    1986

  67. [75]

    R., Khalack V., Ferrario L., Alper E

    Vennes S., Nemeth P., Kawka A., Thorstensen J. R., Khalack V., Ferrario L., Alper E. H., 2017, @doi [Sci] 10.1126/science.aam8378 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...357..680V 357, 680

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    Rev.] 10.1016/j.newar.2012.04.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NewAR..56..122W 56, 122

    Wang B., Han Z., 2012, @doi [New Astron. Rev.] 10.1016/j.newar.2012.04.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012NewAR..56..122W 56, 122

    2012 doi

  69. [77]

    Werner K., Reindl N., Rauch T., El-Badry K., B \'e dard A., 2024a, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348286 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A..42W 682, A42

    doi

  70. [78]

    T., Shen K

    Werner K., El-Badry K., G \"a nsicke B. T., Shen K. J., 2024b, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689L...6W 689, L6

    doi

  71. [79]

    Wong T. L. S., White C. J., Bildsten L., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973...65W 973, 65

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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