pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.05000 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Multidimensional Nebular-Phase Calculations of Dynamically-Driven Double-Degenerate Double-Detonation Models for Type Ia Supernovae

J. M. Pollin , S. A. Sim , L. J. Shingles , R. Pakmor , F. P. Callan , C. E. Collins , F. K. Roepke , L. A. Kwok
show 2 more authors
A. Holas S. Srivastav
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 06:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords Type Ia supernovaedouble detonationnebular spectra3D modelswhite dwarf progenitorsasymmetric ejectaspectral synthesisprogenitor scenarios
0
0 comments X

The pith

Nebular-phase spectra from 3D double-detonation models tentatively favor detonation of only the primary white dwarf.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper calculates non-local thermodynamic equilibrium spectra in the nebular phase for Type Ia supernova models triggered by dynamical interaction between two white dwarfs. It examines both cases where only the primary detonates and where the secondary detonates as well, running simulations in one and three dimensions to capture the resulting asymmetries in the expanding material. These calculations demonstrate that three-dimensional structures change the ionisation balance and modify the widths, velocities, and shapes of spectral lines, sometimes producing features that look different depending on the observer's direction. Direct comparisons to observed spectra of normal Type Ia supernovae indicate that models with only the primary detonation align more closely with the data, although mismatches persist in several lines.

Core claim

In the dynamically-driven double-degenerate double-detonation scenario, full non-local thermodynamic equilibrium nebular-phase spectra computed in one and three dimensions show that multidimensional ejecta structures alter the overall ionisation balance, feature widths, and velocities, especially when the secondary white dwarf also detonates. Some element distributions then produce line profiles that appear centrally peaked from certain viewing angles and flat-topped from others. Both single- and double-detonation realisations reproduce most observed features from optical to mid-infrared wavelengths, yet the models yield inconsistent line shapes and relative strengths, including overly-promi

What carries the argument

Full non-local thermodynamic equilibrium nebular-phase spectrum calculations performed in one and three dimensions that track how innermost ejecta asymmetries affect ionisation and line formation.

If this is right

  • When the secondary white dwarf detonates, three-dimensional effects improve average agreement with observations compared to one-dimensional runs.
  • Line profiles can appear centrally peaked from some viewing angles and flat-topped from others when both white dwarfs detonate.
  • Both scenarios produce most observed spectral features from optical to mid-infrared, but neither consistently matches all line shapes and relative strengths.
  • Prominent optical Ar III emission appears in the models but conflicts with existing observational data.
  • More model realisations and additional mid-infrared observations are needed to test the viability of each scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • High-resolution mid-infrared spectra could distinguish the two scenarios by exposing differences in element distributions not visible at shorter wavelengths.
  • Asymmetric ejecta may help explain some of the diversity seen among Type Ia supernovae in large samples.
  • Varying the initial masses and separations of the white dwarf pairs in future simulations could reduce remaining mismatches with observations.

Load-bearing premise

The mismatches with observations, such as overly strong optical Ar III emission, are not mainly the result of limitations in the current model realisations or unaccounted physics.

What would settle it

A measurement of the strength of optical Ar III emission lines in nebular spectra of normal Type Ia supernovae; strong emission as predicted by the models but absent in data would support preferring the primary-only detonation scenario.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05000 by A. Holas, C. E. Collins, F. K. Roepke, F. P. Callan, J. M. Pollin, L. A. Kwok, L. J. Shingles, R. Pakmor, S. A. Sim, S. Srivastav.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Density of key species in the 3DOneExpl (top) and 3DTwoExpl (bottom) models, in the X-Y plane at cos( 𝜃 ) = 0 where the arrow in the top left panel indicate the direction of 𝜙 = 0°. The colour scale indicates the logarithmic density of each species. Note this snapshot is at 270 days after explosion, apart from 56Ni, which is shown at 0.002 days. models, respectively. To facilitate detailed comparisons, we … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 1D and angle-averaged 3D optical (top; ∼0.35–1µm), NIR (middle; ∼1–4µm), and MIR (bottom;∼4–30µm) spectra for the 1DOneExpl, 1DTwoExpl, 3DOneExpl and 3DTwoExpl models at 270 days post-explosion, compared to SN 2021aefx (Kwok et al. 2023). Observed spectra are corrected for redshift and extinction (Hosseinzadeh et al. 2022), and all spectra are scaled to a distance of 1 Mpc. Vertical grey lines indicate the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Ejecta properties for the 1DOneExpl model at 270 days. Each panel shows the 2D projection of the 1D property as a function of radial velocity: mass density (𝜌), electron temperature (𝑇𝑒), and ion populations of key species (O i, Ne ii, Ca ii, S i–iii, Ariii, Fe i–iii, Co iii, and Ni ii–iii). All panels share a common radial velocity scale, with inner and outer dashed circles marking velocities of 5,000 km … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ejecta properties for a slice (cos( 𝜃 ) = 0; i.e., the merger plane) through the 3DOneExpl model at 270 days. Each panel shows a 2D slice of the 3D ejecta mapped into velocity space, displaying: mass density (𝜌), electron temperature (𝑇𝑒), and ion populations of key species (O i, Ne ii, Ca ii, S i–iii, Ar iii, Fe i–iii, Co iii, and Ni ii–iii). Dashed circles mark radial velocities of 5,000 km s−1 and 10,00… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Integral of the normalised cumulative flux per unit wavelength over the range 0.4–14µm for both explosion scenarios and SN 2021aefx. Dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries between spectral regions as defined in Section 3. The top panel shows the normalised cumulative flux for the angle-averaged and spherically averaged cases. The middle and bottom panels show the normalised cumulative flux for diffe… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Nebular emission and absorption spectra for the 1DOneExpl model at 270 days across all wavelength ranges, from top to bottom: optical, NIR, lower MIR (∼4–15µm), and upper MIR (∼15–30 µm). The positive axis is colour-coded to indicate the emitting ions, based on each Monte Carlo packet’s last interaction. The negative axis shows the corresponding absorption contributions from each ion, which only appear in … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectra of the 3DOneExpl model for different viewing angles at 270 days post-explosion for the optical (top), NIR (middle), and MIR (bottom). The lines-of-sight shown are oriented around the merger plane (i.e., cos( 𝜃 ) = 0.0), where the most significant variation in synthetic observables occurs. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Viewing angle spectra for the 3DOneExpl model at cos( 𝜃 ) = 0 (i.e., the merger plane), with the respective orientations (i.e., 𝜙 = 0–360°) indicated in the first panel of each row, alongside the corresponding 1D profile from the 1DOneExpl model. Each spectrum is consistently offset, and where possible, compared to the observed spectra (black) of SN 2021aefx (Kwok et al. 2023). We show a set of prominent … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Velocity shifts (top) of the Fe ii 1.257µm, Fe iii 0.470µm, Co iii 0.5890µm, Ni iii 7.348µm and Fe iii 22.925µm features for different observer orientations at cos( 𝜃 ) = 0, 𝜙 = 0–360° (i.e., the merger plane), and the corresponding FWHM (bottom) for the 3DOneExpl model. The shaded re￾gions indicate the velocity limits determined by Kwok et al. (2023) for the corresponding features. These velocity limits … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The dynamically-driven double-degenerate double-detonation model has emerged as a promising progenitor candidate for Type Ia supernovae. In this scenario, the primary white dwarf ignites due to dynamical interaction with a companion white dwarf, which may also undergo a detonation. Consequently, two scenarios exist: one in which the secondary survives and another in which both white dwarfs detonate. In either case, substantial departures from spherical symmetry are imprinted on the ejecta. Here, we compute full non-local thermodynamic equilibrium nebular-phase spectra in 1D and 3D to probe the innermost asymmetries. Our simulations reveal that the multidimensional structures significantly alter the overall ionisation balance, width and velocity of features, especially when the secondary detonates. In this scenario, some element distributions may produce orientation-dependent line profiles that can be centrally peaked from some viewing-angles and somewhat flat-topped from others. Comparison to observations reveals that both scenarios produce most observed features from the optical to mid-infrared. However, the current model realisations do not consistently reproduce all line shapes or relative strengths, and yield prominent optical Ar III emission which is inconsistent with the data. When the secondary detonates, including 3D effects improves the average agreement with observations, however when compared to observations, particularly weak optical Co III emission and the presence of optical O I and near-infrared S I challenge its viability for normal Type Ia supernovae. Thus, overall, our comparisons with normal Type Ia's tentatively favour detonation of only the primary white dwarf, but we stress that more model realisations and mid-infrared observations are needed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents 1D and 3D non-LTE nebular-phase spectral calculations for dynamically-driven double-degenerate double-detonation Type Ia supernova models. It contrasts the case of primary-only detonation against the case in which both white dwarfs detonate, showing that multidimensional ejecta structures alter ionization balance, line widths, and velocity profiles (especially in the secondary-detonation scenario). Direct comparison with optical-to-mid-IR observations of normal SNe Ia indicates that both scenarios reproduce many observed features, yet prominent optical Ar III, weak Co III, and the presence of O I and S I features lead the authors to conclude that the data tentatively favor primary-only detonation, while stressing the need for additional model realizations and mid-IR data.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work supplies useful constraints on SN Ia progenitors by demonstrating that multidimensional nebular modeling can distinguish detonation scenarios through orientation-dependent line profiles and ionization changes. The explicit inclusion of 3D effects and the reproducible comparison to external observational datasets constitute clear strengths; the authors' own caveat that more realizations are required is appropriately cautious and enhances the paper's credibility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The tentative conclusion that observations favor primary-only detonation is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, yet it rests on the premise that the reported mismatches (prominent Ar III, weak Co III, O I, S I) are intrinsic rather than artifacts of the limited set of realizations explored. The abstract itself notes that 3D structures improve average agreement when the secondary detonates; without a quantitative assessment of how line strengths and ionization balance respond to variations in WD masses, ignition geometry, or non-LTE treatment, it remains possible that the current discrepancies could be mitigated by broader sampling of parameter space.
  2. [§4 or §5 (results/comparisons)] The manuscript does not appear to include a systematic exploration or table quantifying the sensitivity of the discrepant lines (Ar III, Co III, O I, S I) to changes in the underlying model parameters. If such an analysis exists in §4 or §5, it should be highlighted; otherwise the central claim that the mismatches challenge the secondary-detonation scenario requires additional support to be considered robust.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the viewing angles used for the 3D orientation-dependent profiles to allow readers to assess the claimed central-peaked versus flat-topped behavior.
  2. A short table summarizing the key line-strength ratios or equivalent widths for the discrepant features (Ar III, Co III, etc.) across the 1D and 3D models would improve clarity of the observational comparisons.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation of our results and caveats.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The tentative conclusion that observations favor primary-only detonation is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, yet it rests on the premise that the reported mismatches (prominent Ar III, weak Co III, O I, S I) are intrinsic rather than artifacts of the limited set of realizations explored. The abstract itself notes that 3D structures improve average agreement when the secondary detonates; without a quantitative assessment of how line strengths and ionization balance respond to variations in WD masses, ignition geometry, or non-LTE treatment, it remains possible that the current discrepancies could be mitigated by broader sampling of parameter space.

    Authors: We agree that the conclusion is tentative and depends on the specific realizations explored, as we already emphasize in the abstract and throughout the text. The mismatches, particularly the prominent optical Ar III emission, appear consistently in the secondary-detonation models we computed, while the primary-only case aligns better with the absence of this feature in observations. Although a broader parameter study could refine line strengths, the current discrepancies provide initial support for favoring primary-only detonation. We will revise the abstract to more explicitly frame the conclusion as dependent on the available models and to underscore the call for additional realizations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4 or §5 (results/comparisons)] The manuscript does not appear to include a systematic exploration or table quantifying the sensitivity of the discrepant lines (Ar III, Co III, O I, S I) to changes in the underlying model parameters. If such an analysis exists in §4 or §5, it should be highlighted; otherwise the central claim that the mismatches challenge the secondary-detonation scenario requires additional support to be considered robust.

    Authors: The manuscript does not contain a systematic sensitivity analysis or dedicated table for these lines, as the focus was on comparing the primary-only and double-detonation scenarios using the computed 1D and 3D models. We acknowledge that quantifying responses to variations in WD masses, ignition geometry, and non-LTE treatment would enhance robustness. Within the present work, the noted discrepancies are discussed in the context of the models at hand. In revision, we will expand the discussion in the results/comparisons section to explicitly address this limitation and to highlight the need for future parameter explorations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: comparisons rely on external simulations and independent observations

full rationale

The paper computes 1D and 3D non-LTE nebular spectra from pre-existing hydrodynamic double-detonation models and directly compares the resulting line profiles, ionization states, and feature strengths to published observational spectra of normal Type Ia supernovae. No parameters are fitted to the target data, no predictions are redefined in terms of the same fitted quantities, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or self-defined ansatz. The central claim (tentative preference for primary-only detonation) is an interpretive inference from mismatches with external data rather than a mathematical identity or fitted output. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on numerical simulations of supernova ejecta and radiative transfer, but specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are not detailed in the provided abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5888 in / 1219 out tokens · 75981 ms · 2026-05-19T06:15:33.979220+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    ARTIS Collaboration et al., 2024b, artis, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11230916 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11230916

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.11230916

  2. [2]

    J., Collins C

    ARTIS Collaboration Shingles L. J., Collins C. E., Holas A., Callan F., Sim S., 2024a, artistools, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.14337284 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14337284

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14337284

  3. [3]

    S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...339..558A 339, 558

    Anderson L. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...339..558A 339, 558

    work page doi:10.1086/167317 1989

  4. [4]

    Ashall C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..203A 975, 203

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6608 2024

  5. [5]

    S., 1980, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz

    Axelrod T. S., 1980, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    ApJL , eprint =

    Bildsten L., Shen K. J., Weinberg N. N., Nelemans G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662L..95B 662, L95

    work page doi:10.1086/519489 2007

  7. [7]

    S., Fesen R

    Black C. S., Fesen R. A., Parrent J. T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..649B 462, 649

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1680 2016

  8. [8]

    J., Khokhlov A

    Blondin S., Dessart L., Hillier D. J., Khokhlov A. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470..157B 470, 157

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2492 2017

  9. [9]

    J., Ramsbottom C

    Blondin S., Dessart L., Hillier D. J., Ramsbottom C. A., Storey P. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.170B 678, A170

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347147 2023

  10. [10]

    J., Townsley D

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2 2021

  11. [11]

    J., Townsley D

    Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240108011B p. arXiv:2401.08011

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.08011 2024

  12. [12]

    Boty \'a nszki J., Kasen D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa81d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845..176B 845, 176

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa81d8 2017

  13. [13]

    A., Kromer M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..967B 450, 967

    Bulla M., Sim S. A., Kromer M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..967B 450, 967

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv657 2015

  14. [14]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3816C 454, 3816

    Childress M. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.3816C 454, 3816

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2173 2015

  15. [15]

    E., Gronow S., Sim S

    Collins C. E., Gronow S., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2665 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.5289C 517, 5289

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2665 2022

  16. [16]

    E., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1289C 538, 1289

    Collins C. E., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1289C 538, 1289

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf261 2025

  17. [17]

    Das P., et al., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-025-02589-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02589-5 2025

  18. [18]

    De K., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0aec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873L..18D 873, L18

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0aec 2019

  19. [19]

    R., Hoeflich P., Gerardy C

    Diamond T. R., Hoeflich P., Gerardy C. L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806..107D 806, 107

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/107 2015

  20. [20]

    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

    work page doi:10.21105/astro.2306.03914 2023

  21. [21]

    K., Hillebrandt W., Seitenzahl I

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 2010

  22. [22]

    Fl \"o rs A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.2902F 491, 2902

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3013 2020

  23. [23]

    Fransson C., Jerkstrand A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/L2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814L...2F 814, L2

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/814/1/l2 2015

  24. [24]

    L., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..995G 661, 995

    Gerardy C. L., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/516728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...661..995G 661, 995

    work page doi:10.1086/516728 2007

  25. [25]

    T., Pakmor R., Kromer M., Seitenzahl I

    Gronow S., Collins C., Ohlmann S. T., Pakmor R., Kromer M., Seitenzahl I. R., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.169G 635, A169

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936494 2020

  26. [26]

    E., Sim S

    Gronow S., Collins C. E., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.155G 649, A155

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039954 2021

  27. [27]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l64 2010

  28. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  29. [29]

    J., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...231..116H 231, 116

    Hillier D. J., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...231..116H 231, 116

    work page 1990

  30. [30]

    J., Miller D

    Hillier D. J., Miller D. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...496..407H 496, 407

    work page doi:10.1086/305350 1998

  31. [31]

    Hoeflich P., Khokhlov A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457..500H 457, 500

    work page doi:10.1086/176748 1996

  32. [32]

    L., Nomoto K., Motohara K., Fesen R

    H \"o flich P., Gerardy C. L., Nomoto K., Motohara K., Fesen R. A., Maeda K., Ohkubo T., Tominaga N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...617.1258H 617, 1258

    work page doi:10.1086/425571 2004

  33. [33]

    Holas A., et al., 2025,

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    A., Shen K

    Hollands M. A., Shen K. J., Raddi R., Gaensicke B. T., Bauer E. B., Rebassa-Mansergas A., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250608081H p. arXiv:2506.08081

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Hosseinzadeh G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7cef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933L..45H 933, L45

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7cef 2022

  36. [36]

    A., 1960, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1960ApJ...132..565H 132, 565

    Hoyle F., Fowler W. A., 1960, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1960ApJ...132..565H 132, 565

    work page doi:10.1086/146963 1960

  37. [37]

    & Tutukov, A

    Iben I. J., Tutukov A. V., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190932 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJS...54..335I 54, 335

    work page doi:10.1086/190932 1984

  38. [38]

    JUWELS 2021, @doi [Journal of large-scale research facilities] 10.17815/jlsrf-7-183 , 7

    work page doi:10.17815/jlsrf-7-183 2021

  39. [39]

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 795--842, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_29 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_29

    Jerkstrand A., 2017, Spectra of Supernovae in the Nebular Phase. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 795--842, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_29 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_29

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_29 2017

  40. [40]

    Jerkstrand A., Fransson C., Maguire K., Smartt S., Ergon M., Spyromilio J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...546A..28J 546, A28

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219528 2012

  41. [41]

    Jiang J.-A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature23908 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.550...80J 550, 80

    work page doi:10.1038/nature23908 2017

  42. [42]

    Kashyap R., Fisher R., Garc \' a-Berro E., Aznar-Sigu \'a n G., Ji S., Lor \'e n-Aguilar P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/800/1/L7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800L...7K 800, L7

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/800/1/l7 2015

  43. [43]

    Kozma C., Fransson C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...390..602K 390, 602

    work page doi:10.1086/171311 1992

  44. [44]

    K., Spyromilio J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...437..983K 437, 983

    Kozma C., Fransson C., Hillebrandt W., Travaglio C., Sollerman J., Reinecke M., R \"o pke F. K., Spyromilio J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...437..983K 437, 983

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053044 2005

  45. [45]

    , author =

    Kromer M., Sim S. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15256.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398.1809K 398, 1809

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15256.x 2009

  46. [46]

    A., Fink M., R \"o pke F

    Kromer M., Sim S. A., Fink M., R \"o pke F. K., Seitenzahl I. R., Hillebrandt W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1067K 719, 1067

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1067 2010

  47. [47]

    A., Jha, S

    Kwok L. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acb4ec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944L...3K 944, L3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb4ec 2023

  48. [48]

    A., Siebert, M

    Kwok L. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c0d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...966..135K 966, 135

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c0d 2024

  49. [49]

    C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522367 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670.1275L 670, 1275

    Leonard D. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522367 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670.1275L 670, 1275

    work page doi:10.1086/522367 2007

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Li C., Hillier D. J., Dessart L., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21198.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.1671L 426, 1671

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21198.x 2012

  51. [51]

    J., Schultz D

    Liu W., Jeffery D. J., Schultz D. R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...483L.107L 483, L107

    work page doi:10.1086/310752 1997

  52. [52]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu Z.-W., R \"o pke F. K., Han Z., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23h2001L 23, 082001

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e 2023

  53. [53]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/185721 1990

  54. [54]

    Livne E., Arnett D., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...452...62L 452, 62

    work page doi:10.1086/176279 1995

  55. [55]

    S., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...361..244L 361, 244

    Livne E., Glasner A. S., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...361..244L 361, 244

    work page doi:10.1086/169189 1990

  56. [56]

    B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...384..725L 384, 725

    Lucy L. B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...384..725L 384, 725

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011756 2002

  57. [57]

    B., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...403..261L 403, 261

    Lucy L. B., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...403..261L 403, 261

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030357 2003

  58. [58]

    B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...429...19L 429, 19

    Lucy L. B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...429...19L 429, 19

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041656 2005

  59. [59]

    A., Leloudas G., Nomoto K., Motohara K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708.1703M 708, 1703

    Maeda K., Taubenberger S., Sollerman J., Mazzali P. A., Leloudas G., Nomoto K., Motohara K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1703 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...708.1703M 708, 1703

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/2/1703 2010

  60. [60]

    A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2991 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3254M 457, 3254

    Maguire K., Taubenberger S., Sullivan M., Mazzali P. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2991 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.3254M 457, 3254

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2991 2016

  61. [61]

    Maguire K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3567M 477, 3567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty820 2018

  62. [62]

    , keywords =

    Maoz D., Mannucci F., Brandt T. D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21871.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.3282M 426, 3282

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21871.x 2012

  63. [63]

    Maurer I., Jerkstrand A., Mazzali P. A., Taubenberger S., Hachinger S., Kromer M., Sim S., Hillebrandt W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19376.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.1517M 418, 1517

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19376.x 2011

  64. [64]

    A., Nomoto K., Patat F., Maeda K., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559.1047M 559, 1047

    Mazzali P. A., Nomoto K., Patat F., Maeda K., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559.1047M 559, 1047

    work page doi:10.1086/322420 2001

  65. [65]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2631M 450, 2631

    Mazzali P. A., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2631M 450, 2631

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv761 2015

  66. [66]

    A., Ashall C., Pian E., Stritzinger M

    Mazzali P. A., Ashall C., Pian E., Stritzinger M. D., Gall C., Phillips M. M., H \"o flich P., Hsiao E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.2905M 476, 2905

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty434 2018

  67. [67]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2809M 494, 2809

    Mazzali P. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2809M 494, 2809

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa839 2020

  68. [68]

    K., Pakmor R., Schneider F

    Mor \'a n-Fraile J., Holas A., R \"o pke F. K., Pakmor R., Schneider F. R. N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347769 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..44M 683, A44

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347769 2024

  69. [69]

    Motohara K., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/509919 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652L.101M 652, L101

    work page doi:10.1086/509919 2006

  70. [70]

    Noebauer U. M., Kromer M., Taubenberger S., Baklanov P., Blinnikov S., Sorokina E., Hillebrandt W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2093 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.2787N 472, 2787

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2093 2017

  71. [71]

    Nomoto K., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00168350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980SSRv...27..563N 27, 563

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00168350 1980

  72. [72]

    H., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...485..812N 485, 812

    Nugent P., Baron E., Branch D., Fisher A., Hauschildt P. H., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...485..812N 485, 812

    work page doi:10.1086/304459 1997

  73. [73]

    A., R \"o pke F

    Pakmor R., Kromer M., Taubenberger S., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., Hillebrandt W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747L..10P 747, L10

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/l10 2012

  74. [74]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/l8 2013

  75. [75]

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3107 2022

  76. [76]

    R., Ruiter A

    Pakmor R., Seitenzahl I. R., Ruiter A. J., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., Taubenberger S., Bieri R., Blondin S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.227P 686, A227

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449637 2024

  77. [77]

    M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L.105P 413, L105

    Phillips M. M., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L.105P 413, L105

    work page doi:10.1086/186970 1993

  78. [78]

    Polin A., Nugent P., Kasen D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873...84P 873, 84

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a 2019

  79. [79]

    Polin A., Nugent P., Kasen D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcccc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...906...65P 906, 65

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcccc 2021

  80. [80]

    M., Sim S

    Pollin J. M., Sim S. A., Pakmor R., Callan F. P., Collins C. E., Shingles L. J., Röpke F. K., Srivastav S., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1909 , 533, 3036

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1909 2024

Showing first 80 references.