Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 173 references

Supernovae from stellar mergers and accretors of binary mass transfer: Implications for Type IIP, 1987A-like and interacting supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For hydrogen-rich supernovae, the explosion energy, nickel yield, and neutron-star kick are set by the pre-collapse core's central specific entropy, not by the star's binary past.

desk verdict Useful and honest extension of the Paper I grid, but the history-independence claim is only tested within the thermal-timescale accretion approximation and the MNi–Eexpl relation is partly built into the engine; still deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06391 v1 pith:QWD5B7ZM submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

F.R.N. Schneider , E. Laplace , Ph. Podsiadlowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords binarymasstransferstellarmergersTypeIIsupernovaecore-collapsecentralspecificentropyneutronstarkicksSN1987A-likeinteracting
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

Most massive stars exchange mass with or merge into a companion, so most hydrogen-rich (Type II) supernovae probably come from binary products rather than genuine single stars. This paper asks whether those products explode differently, and its answer is largely no: once the pre-supernova core structure is fixed, the explosion energy, nickel yield, neutron-star kick, and remnant mass are the same regardless of whether the star evolved alone, accreted matter during Case A, B, or C mass transfer, or passed through a long-lived blue-supergiant phase. A single summary variable, the central specific entropy of the core at collapse, tracks the explosion outcomes, and the paper derives relations linking the ejected nickel mass to both the explosion energy and the neutron-star mass. These relations matter because nickel is observable in supernova light-curve tails, so they open a route from photometry to explosion energy and remnant mass. The same models also populate three observed supernova classes, reproducing long-plateau Type IIP explosions with large envelopes but small CO cores (e.g., SN 2015ba) and offering candidate progenitors for interacting SNe IIn.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the parametric neutrino-driven explosion model that takes the entire interior structure of each star at iron-core collapse as input and returns the explosion energy, nickel yield, neutron-star kick, and remnant mass, calibrated to the stellar models as described in the methods. The organizing variable is the central specific entropy $s_c$, the entropy per nucleon at the star's center, which collapses the many ways a star can be assembled into one number that predicts the explosion; the iron-core mass and the compactness parameter $\xi_{2.5}$ serve as interchangeable summary proxies. The second key mechanism is the physical chain linking nickel to explosion energy and remnant mass: the explosion energy sets the post-shock temperature, which decides how much ejecta is explosively burned to nickel, while the binding energy governing explodability also tracks the location of shock revival and hence the neutron-star mass. Finally, the SN classification is made by the pre-supernova position in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, with cool supergiants below $\log L/L_\odot = 5.5$ assigned to SNe IIP, hotter compact stars to SN 1987A-like events, and luminous or LBV-region stars to interacting SNe IIn.

What would settle it

Find a single Type II supernova whose progenitor is well characterized so its pre-collapse central entropy is pinned down by a stellar model, and whose nickel mass, explosion energy, and neutron-star mass are all measured, the last from a bound binary after the explosion: if it falls off the paper's $s_c$ relations or the $M_{\rm Ni}$-$M_{\rm NS,grav}$ line by much more than the quoted scatter, the claim that history does not matter fails. A more direct test is a genuine merger simulation followed to collapse, since a merged star with the same central entropy as a single star of identical core mass that explodes with a clearly different energy in a full neutrino-hydrodynamics run would break the core-structure-only picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for hydrogen-rich Type II supernovae from accretors and mergers, the explosion outcome, meaning the explosion energy $E_{\rm expl}$, nickel mass $M_{\rm Ni}$, neutron-star kick velocity, and gravitational mass of the neutron star, is determined by the pre-supernova core structure, summarized by the central specific entropy $s_c$, and shows no obvious dependence on the evolutionary history of the pre-supernova star. Single stars, Case A, B, and C accretors, and models that passed through a long-lived blue-supergiant phase all follow the same correlations with $s_c$; even the Case-A accretors with incomplete rejuvenation lie on the same trend. The paper further finds a tight linear relation between ejected nickel mass and neutron-star gravitational mass, $M_{\rm NS,grav}/M_\odot = (2.757 \pm 0.045)\, M_{\rm Ni}/M_\odot + (1.259 \pm 0.005)$, and an exponential relation between nickel mass and explosion energy, both largely independent of evolutionary history. These relations are anchored in the physics of neutrino-driven explosions, where a harder-to-explode core requires more intense neutrino heating, producing a more energetic explosion that burns more material to nickel, and where the same binding-energy scale sets the revived-shock location and hence the remnant mass. The paper then groups its models by pre-supernova position in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram into SNe IIP, SN 1987A-like, and interacting SNe IIn, finding that the first two classes share similar core structures and hence similar explosion properties but differ in envelope radius and mass, while the interacting class comes from more massive cores.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the parametric explosion engine correctly converts the pre-collapse core structure into explosion energy, nickel yield, neutron-star mass, and kick, and that modelling binary accretion and mergers as mass added on a thermal timescale to a single star, without merger mixing, captures the physics that matters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nickel masses measured from the tails of SN light curves give, through the derived relations, an estimate of the explosion energy to within about $0.3 \times 10^{51}$ erg and the neutron-star gravitational mass to within about $0.05\,M_\odot$, potentially breaking long-standing degeneracies in SN IIP modelling.
  • Binary mass accretors and stellar mergers naturally produce SNe IIP with plateau durations up to roughly 250 d, large ejecta masses, and small CO cores, matching objects like SN 2015ba that single-star channels struggle to explain.
  • SNe IIP and SN 1987A-like events come from stars with similar cores and therefore similar explosion energy and nickel ranges; what distinguishes them is the envelope, extended convective red supergiants versus compact radiative blue supergiants.
  • The plateau luminosity-velocity relation that underpins the standardised candle method is essentially unchanged by binary history, so accretors and mergers should not introduce large systematics in cosmological distance determinations from SNe IIP.
  • If luminous cool supergiants at $\log L/L_\odot \gtrsim 5.5$ shed mass through envelope instabilities before collapse, the predicted rate of interacting SNe IIn is compatible with the observed rate, and some $10^6\,L_\odot$ blue-supergiant merger products could be progenitors of SN 1961V-, SN 2005gl-, and SN 2010jl-like events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central-specific-entropy picture survives contact with more detailed explosion models, population synthesis of supernovae could be reduced to a mapping from one or two core summary variables to explosion outcomes, with all of Type II light-curve diversity residing in envelope properties rather than engine properties.
  • The same logic suggests a testable observational programme: for Type II SNe with well-measured nickel masses and independently determined neutron-star masses, such as neutron stars later found in binary systems, the linear $M_{\rm Ni}$-$M_{\rm NS,grav}$ relation predicts a tight trend, and a scatter well above the model's $0.05\,M_\odot$ would signal that rotation, magnetic fields, or merger mixin
  • Because the models treat mergers as pure mass accretion and omit helium mixing into envelopes, the fraction of post-main-sequence mergers that become long-lived blue supergiants, roughly 5-35% needed to match the observed 1987A-like rate, is a sharp test of how much mixing actually occurs in real stellar mergers.
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 uses 419 MESA stellar models of single stars and binary mass accretors/mergers approximated by thermal-timescale accretion onto single-star models, passes their pre-SN structures through the parametric Müller et al. (2016) explosion engine, and reports correlations of explosion energy, nickel mass, NS kick velocity, and NS gravitational mass with central specific entropy and with each other. It assigns SN types (IIP, 1987A-like, IIn) by HR-diagram position, derives IIP plateau light-curve properties via Goldberg et al. (2019) scalings, and compares the resulting properties and rates with observations, including long-plateau IIPs, 87A-like SNe, and luminous interacting SNe. The central claim is that explosion outcomes depend on the pre-SN core structure summarized by central entropy, not on whether the star evolved as a single star, an accretor, or a merger product.

Significance. If the correlations hold, the paper offers a compact predictive framework for SN outcomes and a physical explanation for the diversity of hydrogen-rich SNe from binary products. The strength of the paper is its large, systematic grid, the explicit treatment of many caveats, and the public availability of model data. The correlations with central entropy and the MNi–Eexpl and MNi–MNS relations are useful and will likely be widely cited. However, the manuscript's headline history-independence claim is tested only for thermal-timescale accretors, and the MNi–Eexpl relation is partly inherited from the assumed explosion engine; these caveats limit the strength of the conclusions as currently stated. I regard the central physics as defensible but in need of reframing and additional quantitative support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 2 and Sect. 3.1] The history-independence claim is not supported for actual stellar mergers. Every 'merger' in the grid is approximated by thermal-timescale accretion onto a non-rotating, unmixed single-star model, as stated in Sect. 2, where the paper acknowledges that Case-A accretion, merger mixing, rotation, magnetic fields, and net mass loss are not captured. Because the Müller et al. (2016) engine maps the full pre-SN interior structure into Eexpl, MNi, and MNS, a genuine merger remnant with a mixed, rotating, magnetized core could plausibly give different outcomes at the same central specific entropy. The Sect. 3.1 statement that 'the past evolutionary histories of pre-SN stars do not matter much for the exact SN explosion outcome but rather only the pre-SN core structure as summarised here by the central specific entropy' therefore overstates the scope of the test; it should be phrased as a statement about thermal-timescale accretors, or supported by additional models that include merger-specific physics or by a quantitative argument that the missing physics cannot change the correlations.
  2. [Sect. 3.1 and Sect. 3.2, Eq. (1)] The MNi–Eexpl correlation is largely built into the applied SN model rather than being an independent prediction. The paper states in Sect. 3.1 that 'this very connection of explosion energy and nickel yield via the post-shock temperature is implemented in the Müller et al. (2016) SN code applied here and thus explains the found correlation.' Consequently, Eq. (1) reflects the assumed engine calibration, and the abstract's phrase 'We find linear relations between the nickel mass and the SN explosion energy' should be accompanied by this caveat. Sect. 3.2 already notes the quantitative dependence on calibrations, but the framing in the abstract and conclusions should be similarly explicit, since the relation's existence is inherited rather than newly established by this work.
  3. [Sect. 4.3, Eq. (7)] The claimed rough compatibility of the model SN IIn rate with observations is not robust as presented. Equation (7) depends on the uncalibrated choices Mξ−peak ≈ 22 M⊙, ΔMξ−peak = 2 M⊙, MIbc = 30 M⊙, and MSN = 8 M⊙, and the paper gives 7% without exploring the sensitivity to these thresholds. Since this rate comparison is one of the paper's main observational tests, the estimate should be presented as an illustrative range with the adopted values varied, or with a transparent justification that the result is insensitive to them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption states 'Ejected nickel mass MNi (a) and squared SN velocity (vFe,50)^2 (b)', but the text in Sect. 3.5 refers to Fig. 9a when discussing the velocity–luminosity relation and Fig. 9b when discussing nickel mass; the panel labels or the caption order should be corrected.
  2. [Sect. 3.1] The claim of 'no obvious relation' between explosion properties and evolutionary history is based on Pearson correlation coefficients and visual comparison of quadratic fits; reporting the residual scatter separately for single stars and for each accretor case would make the history-independence claim more quantitative and easier to assess.
  3. [Sect. 3.3] The ad hoc 10^4 yr LBV-residence threshold is used to flag many models throughout the paper; a one-sentence sensitivity test or a justification in terms of the implied mass loss would help the reader judge how much weight to place on the flagged models.
  4. [Sect. 2] The sentence that the uncertainties in merger mass loss 'do not affect our results' is stronger than the surrounding discussion warrants: the same paragraph notes that late Case-B/C mergers can lose mass and produce progenitors (e.g., SN IIb) outside the grid, so the statement should be softened to clarify that it applies only to the effective mass-accretion events being modeled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derived relations are model outputs from a disclosed external explosion engine; the history-independence claim is internally consistent but limited by the accretion-only grid, which is a scope limitation rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: MESA single-star and accretion models produce pre-SN structures; the Muller et al. (2016) parametric SN code maps those structures to Eexpl, MNi, MNS, and vkick; correlations with central specific entropy are then fit and used for SN classification and light-curve scalings. The history-independence conclusion is an empirical statement about this grid: no residual dependence on Case A/B/C or a long-lived BSG phase is seen beyond sc, as shown by the scatter in Fig. 1. Explosion outputs are not defined by sc, and the correlations with sc are not identities imposed by an equation; they have real scatter. The MNi-Eexpl relation is explicitly traced to the implementation of explosive nucleosynthesis in the Muller et al. engine, but that engine is external, published, and independently supported (including by 3D simulations such as Burrows et al. 2024); a disclosed model mechanism is not a self-justifying fit. The MNi-MNS relation is derived transitively from correlations with sc and MFe and is not an equation imposed in the code. The main weakness is scope, not circularity: as Sect. 2 states, merger mixing, rotation, magnetic fields, and net mass loss in late Case-B/C mergers are not modeled, so the 'history does not matter' claim has not been tested for genuine merger remnants with different core composition or angular momentum at fixed sc. That is a robustness/correctness limitation. Minor self-citations (Paper I for the accretion approximation and sc proxy) are load-bearing only as model provenance; both are independently evaluated in this paper, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are modelling choices: the calibrated SN engine, the accretion approximation, the absence of LBV winds, and the HR-diagram-based SN typing. Free parameters include the NS/BH threshold, the ad-hoc LBV time threshold, and the rate-estimate mass limits. These are all explicitly disclosed by the authors.

free parameters (4)
  • NS/BH formation mass threshold = 2 M_sun
    Set as an assumption to discriminate NS vs BH formation (Sect. 2, mentioned in Sect. 3.2). It directly controls which models form NSs and therefore shapes the MNi-MNS relation at the high-mass end.
  • Compactness peak mass width Delta M_xi-peak and Ibc mass limits = 2 M_sun, M_Ibc = 30 M_sun, M_SN = 8 M_sun, M_xi-peak = 22 M_sun
    Used in Eq. (7) to estimate the SN IIn rate of about 7% from enhanced CSG mass loss. These limits are chosen from the models and from assumptions, not derived from data.
  • LBV residence time threshold for mass-loss flag = 10^4 yr
    Ad-hoc choice acknowledged in Sect. 3.3 footnote 5: 'The choice of the duration of 10^4 yr in the LBV region for flagging up models is ad-hoc.' It determines which models are treated as likely to lose mass and affects the parenthetical ranges in Table 1.
  • Quadratic fit coefficients for Eexpl, MNi, vkick vs sc = Not quoted in text, shown in Fig. 1
    Fits to the model data used to characterize the correlations. These are descriptive fits, not physical parameters, but they are fitted to the same data they summarize.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Thermal-timescale accretion onto single-star models approximates binary mass transfer and stellar mergers.
    Invoked in Sect. 2 as the modelling method. The paper states this cannot capture all merger physics, especially dynamic-timescale merging and mixing.
  • domain assumption The parametric SN engine of Müller et al. (2016) with the Schneider et al. (2021) calibration correctly maps pre-SN structure to Eexpl, MNi, MNS, and kick.
    Used throughout Sect. 3 to produce all explosion outcomes. The engine is a simplified, calibrated model of neutrino-driven explosions, not a 3D simulation.
  • domain assumption No enhanced LBV mass loss operates during evolution.
    Stated in Sect. 2: 'importantly, we did not use enhanced winds for stars possibly evolving into luminous-blue variables (LBVs).' The paper flags models that should have such loss but does not model it.
  • domain assumption The nuclear network, mixing prescriptions (overshooting 0.2 Hp, semiconvection alpha_sc = 0.1) and Dutch wind scaling are adequate for solar-metallicity massive star evolution.
    Standard stellar-modelling assumptions invoked in Sect. 2; they define the model grid and hence all derived quantities.
  • ad hoc to paper Pre-SN location in the HR diagram determines the SN type (SN IIP, 87A-like, IIn).
    Introduced in Sect. 3.3 and acknowledged as 'While this cannot be an accurate classification'. It is a modelling choice that shapes Table 1 and all type-resolved conclusions.
  • domain assumption The Goldberg et al. (2019) fitting formulae for Lp, tp, vFe accurately capture SN IIP light curves for these progenitors.
    Used in Sect. 3.5 to compute plateau properties. These are fits to radiation-hydrodynamics light curves, not direct simulations of the present models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supernovae from stellar mergers and accretors of binary mass transfer: Implications for Type IIP, 1987A-like and interacting supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWD5B7ZM

@misc{pith2026250706391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supernovae from stellar mergers and accretors of binary mass transfer: Implications for Type IIP, 1987A-like and interacting supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWD5B7ZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06391}
}
abstract

As most massive stars are born in binary and other multiple-star systems, many are expected to exchange mass with a companion star or merge with it during their lives. This means that most supernovae (SNe) are from such binary products. Here, we focus on hydrogen-rich Type II SNe from accretors of binary mass transfer and stellar mergers. We compute various SN properties such as the explosion energies, nickel yields, and neutron star (NS) kick velocities, but also consider NS masses. We find tight correlations between these parameters and, e.g., the central specific entropy and core compactness. However, there is no obvious relation between these explosion properties and the evolutionary history of the pre-SN stars. We find linear relations between the nickel mass and the SN explosion energy and the NS remnant mass. We further group our models into progenitors of SNe IIP, SN 1987A-like and interacting SNe, predict their SN and SN-progenitor properties and compare to observations. Accretors of binary mass transfer and stellar mergers naturally produce SNe IIP with long plateau durations from progenitors with relatively small CO-cores but large envelope masses (c.f. SN 2015ba). Our models give rise to tight relations between the plateau luminosity and the nickel mass as well as the SN ejecta velocity as inferred observationally for SNe IIP. We speculate that cool/red supergiants at $\log\,L/L_\odot\,{\geq}\,5.5$ encounter enhanced mass loss due to envelope instabilities and could then explode in interacting SNe IIn. The rate of such SNe from our models seems compatible with observations. Some of our binary models explode as $10^6\,L_\odot$ blue supergiants that may have encountered enhanced and/or eruptive mass loss shortly before their SNe and could thus help understand interacting SNe such as SN 1961V and SN 2005gl but also superluminous Type II SNe such as SN 2010jl. [abridged]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06391 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Explosion energy Eexpl, nickel mass MNi and NS kick velocity vkick as a function of central specific entropy sc of the SN progenitors of Case-A (panels a, d, g), Case-B (panels b, e, h) and Case-C accretors (panels c, f, i). Colours indicate the amount of accreted mass facc, and results for single-star models are shown for comparison. Pearson’s correlation coefficients ρ are provided, and to guide the eye and to all… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Nickel mass MNi as a function of explosion energy Eexpl. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Nickel mass MNi as a function of NS mass MNS,grav. Pearson’s correlation coefficients ρ are provided, and a linear fit to the complete data set is shown for the Case A, B and C accretors. data set ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hertzsprung–Russell diagram of the pre-SN locations of the single star and accretor models. In the left panel (a), we show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Central specific entropy sc as a function of CO core mass MCO at core collapse for the single-star and Case A and B ac￾cretor models. The Case C accretors are not shown to enhance the clarity of the diagram. The entropy peak at MCO ≈ 6–8 M⊙ associated with BH formation…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ejecta mass Mej (a) and SN progenitor radius Rcc (b) as a function of the SN explosion energy Eexpl. The symbols indicate our rough SN classification based on the position of the SN progenitors in the HR diagram. Single-star models are shown in light blue to distinguis…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: but are more broadly scattered and extend to lower val￾ues because of the larger range in ejecta masses. Moreover, our SNe IIn have the highest minimum nickel mass and are thus off￾set with respect to all other models. There is hardly any overlap of the SN 1987A-like a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plateau luminosity Lp,50 at 50 d after shock breakout and duration tp of SN IIP light curves for our single-star and accretor models following the scaling relations of Goldberg et al. (2019). Black crosses show models with likely large LBV-like mass loss. like explosio…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ejected nickel mass MNi (a) and squared SN velocity (vFe,50) 2 (b) as a function of plateau luminosity Lp,50 of our SN IIP models. The different symbols are for single stars, and Case A, B and C accretors with the accreted mass fraction facc indicated by the colours. L…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson, J. P. 2019, A&A, 628, A7

    2019

  2. [2]

    Arnett, W. D. 1980, ApJ, 237, 541

    1980

  3. [3]

    Arnett, W. D. & Meakin, C. 2011, ApJ, 733, 78

    2011

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  5. [5]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 5191

    Ballone, A., Costa, G., Mapelli, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5191

    2023

  6. [6]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1416

    Banerjee, S., Kroupa, P., & Oh, S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1416

    2012

  7. [7]

    M., Kochanek, C

    Basinger, C. M., Kochanek, C. S., Adams, S. M., Dai, X., & Stanek, K. Z. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1156

    2021

  8. [8]

    S., Fragos, T., Zevin, M., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Zevin, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A153

    2021

Show all 173 references
  1. [9]

    R., Hosseinzadeh, G., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Hosseinzadeh, G., Smith, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, arXiv:2309.16121

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J

    Beasor, E. R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J. E. 2025, ApJ, 979 [arXiv:2410.14027]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M., Crowther, P

    Bestenlehner, J. M., Crowther, P. A., Caballero-Nieves, S. M., et al. 2020, MN- RAS, 499, 1918

    2020

  4. [12]

    1961, Bull.~Astron.~Inst.~Netherlands, 15, 265

    Blaauw, A. 1961, Bull.~Astron.~Inst.~Netherlands, 15, 265

    1961

  5. [13]

    A., de Koter, A., Bestenlehner, J

    Brands, S. A., de Koter, A., Bestenlehner, J. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A36

    2022

  6. [14]

    A., Laplace, E., Schneider, F

    Bronner, V . A., Laplace, E., Schneider, F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski, Ph. 2025, Prep

    2025

  7. [15]

    2024, ApJ, 964, L16

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, ApJ, 964, L16

    2024

  8. [16]

    2007, A&A, 465, L29

    Cantiello, M., Yoon, S.-C., Langer, N., & Livio, M. 2007, A&A, 465, L29

    2007

  9. [17]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2012, ApJ, 752, L2

    2012

  10. [18]

    & Limongi, M

    Chieffi, A. & Limongi, M. 2020, ApJ, 890, 43

    2020

  11. [19]

    Chugai, N. N. 1991, Sov. Astron. Lett., 17, 210

    1991

  12. [20]

    Claeys, J. S. W., de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., Eldridge, J. J., & Baes, M. 2011, A&A, 528, A131

    2011

  13. [21]

    2018, PhD thesis, University of Oxford / University of Oxford

    Clayton, M. 2018, PhD thesis, University of Oxford / University of Oxford

    2018

  14. [22]

    & Kratter, K

    Conroy, C. & Kratter, K. M. 2012, ApJ, 755, 123

    2012

  15. [23]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 1072

    Costa, G., Ballone, A., Mapelli, M., & Bressan, A. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1072

    2022

  16. [24]

    A., Schnurr, O., Hirschi, R., et al

    Crowther, P. A., Schnurr, O., Hirschi, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 731

    2010

  17. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 2

    Curtis, S., Ebinger, K., Fröhlich, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 2

    2019

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 2421

    Dastidar, R., Misra, K., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2421

    2018

  19. [27]

    & Beasor, E

    Davies, B. & Beasor, E. R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 468

    2020

  20. [28]

    A., & Beasor, E

    Davies, B., Crowther, P. A., & Beasor, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3138

    2018

  21. [29]

    E., et al

    De, K., MacLeod, M., Jencson, J. E., et al. 2024, The Disappearance of a Massive Star Marking the Birth of a Black Hole in M31 de Jaeger, T. & Galbany, L. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.17243 de Jaeger, T., Galbany, L., González-Gaitán, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4860 de J...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    & Hillier, D

    Dessart, L. & Hillier, D. J. 2019, A&A, 625, A9 Di Carlo, U. N., Mapelli, M., Bouffanais, Y ., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1043

    2019

  23. [31]

    J., Izzard, R

    Eldridge, J. J., Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109

    2008

  24. [32]

    J., Xiao, L., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Xiao, L., Stanway, E. R., Rodrigues, N., & Guo, N. Y . 2018, Publ. Astron Soc Aust., 35, e049

    2018

  25. [33]

    2024, A&A, 685, arXiv:2308.01819

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, arXiv:2308.01819

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Ugliano, M

    Ertl, T., Janka, H.-T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Ugliano, M. 2016, ApJ, 818, 124

    2016

  27. [35]

    & Maeda, K

    Fang, Q. & Maeda, K. 2023, ApJ, 949, 93

    2023

  28. [36]

    J., & Matsumoto, T

    Fang, Q., Maeda, K., Ye, H., Moriya, T. J., & Matsumoto, T. 2025, ApJ, 978 [arXiv:2404.01776]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J., Groh, J

    Farrell, E. J., Groh, J. H., Meynet, G., & Eldridge, J. J. 2020, MNRAS, 494, L53

    2020

  30. [38]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 18

    Farrow, N., Zhu, X.-J., & Thrane, E. 2019, ApJ, 876, 18

    2019

  31. [39]

    J., Berger, E., Fox, O., et al

    Foley, R. J., Berger, E., Fox, O., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 32

    2011

  32. [40]

    & Benz, W

    Freitag, M. & Benz, W. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1133

    2005

  33. [41]

    J., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al

    Frost, A. J., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 214

    2024

  34. [42]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642

    Fuller, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642

    2017

  35. [43]

    2012, Science, 337, 927

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927

    2012

  36. [44]

    & Leonard, D

    Gal-Yam, A. & Leonard, D. C. 2009, Nature, 458, 865

    2009

  37. [45]

    C., Fox, D

    Gal-Yam, A., Leonard, D. C., Fox, D. B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, 372

    2007

  38. [46]

    Gall, E. E. E., Kotak, R., Leibundgut, B., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A25

    2018

  39. [47]

    A., et al

    Geen, S., Agrawal, P., Crowther, P. A., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 021001

    2023

  40. [48]

    R., Kochanek, C

    Gerke, J. R., Kochanek, C. S., & Stanek, K. Z. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3289

    2015

  41. [49]

    Glebbeek, E., Gaburov, E., Portegies Zwart, S., & Pols, O. R. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3497

    2013

  42. [50]

    Goldberg, J. A. & Bildsten, L. 2020, ApJ, 895, L45

    2020

  43. [51]

    A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B

    Goldberg, J. A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2019, ApJ, 879, 3 Götberg, Y ., de Mink, S. E., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A134 Gutiérrez, C. P., Anderson, J. P., Hamuy, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 90

    2019

  44. [52]

    M., Suntzeff, N

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

    2003

  45. [53]

    & Pinto, P

    Hamuy, M. & Pinto, P. A. 2002, ApJ, 566, L63

    2002

  46. [54]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288

    2003

  47. [55]

    1997, A&A, 327, 224

    Heger, A., Jeannin, L., Langer, N., & Baraffe, I. 1997, A&A, 327, 224

    1997

  48. [56]

    1983, Ap&SS, 96, 37

    Hellings, P. 1983, Ap&SS, 96, 37

    1983

  49. [57]

    1984, Ap&SS, 104, 83

    Hellings, P. 1984, Ap&SS, 104, 83

    1984

  50. [58]

    Henneco, J., Schneider, F. R. N., & Laplace, E. 2024, A&A, 682, A169

    2024

  51. [59]

    & Meyer, F

    Hillebrandt, W. & Meyer, F. 1989, A&A, 219, L3

    1989

  52. [60]

    Howell, D. A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 431

    2017

  53. [61]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90

    2007

  54. [62]

    2002, PhD thesis, University of Oxford, UK

    Ivanova, N. 2002, PhD thesis, University of Oxford, UK

    2002

  55. [63]

    2013, A&A~Rev., 21, 59

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A~Rev., 21, 59

    2013

  56. [64]

    2002, MNRAS, 334, 819

    Ivanova, N., Podsiadlowski, Ph., & Spruit, H. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 819

    2002

  57. [65]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Janka, H.-T. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 1095

    2017

  58. [66]

    J., et al

    Jerkstrand, A., Ergon, M., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, A12

    2015

  59. [67]

    Justham, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Vink, J. S. 2014, ApJ, 796, 121

    2014

  60. [68]

    & Woosley, S

    Kasen, D. & Woosley, S. E. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2205

    2009

  61. [69]

    2012, ApJ, 744, 10

    Kiewe, M., Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 10

    2012

  62. [70]

    & Cen, R

    Kimm, T. & Cen, R. 2014, ApJ, 788, 121

    2014

  63. [71]

    Kirshner, R. P. & Kwan, J. 1974, ApJ, 193, 27

    1974

  64. [72]

    2022, A&A, 662, A56

    Klencki, J., Istrate, A., Nelemans, G., & Pols, O. 2022, A&A, 662, A56

    2022

  65. [73]

    2016, in Position

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, in Position. Power Acad. Publ. Play. Agents Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt (IOS Press), 87– 90

    2016

  66. [74]

    S., Neustadt, J

    Kochanek, C. S., Neustadt, J. M. M., & Stanek, K. Z. 2024, ApJ, 962, 145

    2024

  67. [75]

    S., Szczygiel, D

    Kochanek, C. S., Szczygiel, D. M., & Stanek, K. Z. 2011, ApJ, 737, 76

    2011

  68. [76]

    M., & Hirschi, R

    Kozyreva, A., Kromer, M., Noebauer, U. M., & Hirschi, R. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3106

    2018

  69. [77]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    2012

  70. [78]

    2020, A&A, 638, A39

    Langer, N., Schürmann, C., Stoll, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A39

    2020

  71. [79]

    E., Justham, S., & Farmer, R

    Laplace, E., Götberg, Y ., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., & Farmer, R. 2020, A&A, 637, A6

    2020

  72. [80]

    Laplace, E., Schneider, F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski, Ph. 2025, A&A, 695 [arXiv:2409.02058]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Leonard, P. J. T. & Livio, M. 1995, ApJ, 447, L121

    1995

  74. [82]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

    Li, W., Leaman, J., Chornock, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1441

    2011

  75. [83]

    C., Warren, J

    Lombardi, Jr., J. C., Warren, J. S., Rasio, F. A., Sills, A., & Warren, A. R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 939

    2002

  76. [84]

    D., Bersier, D., James, P

    Lyman, J. D., Bersier, D., James, P. A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 328

    2016

  77. [85]

    F., Kasen, D., et al

    Ma, X., Hopkins, P. F., Kasen, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3614

    2016

  78. [86]

    J., et al

    Maguire, K., Kotak, R., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 403, L11

    2010

  79. [87]

    & Broekgaarden, F

    Mandel, I. & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Rev. Relativ., 25, 1

    2022

  80. [88]

    2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy No

    Mapelli, M. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy No. 16, 16

    2021

  81. [89]

    & Bodensteiner, J

    Marchant, P. & Bodensteiner, J. 2024, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 62, 21

    2024

  82. [90]

    Matsumoto, J., Asahina, Y ., Takiwaki, T., Kotake, K., & Takahashi, H. R. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1752

    2022

  83. [91]

    McDonald, S. L. E., Davies, B., & Beasor, E. R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3132

    2022

  84. [92]

    & Heger, A

    Menon, A. & Heger, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4649

    2017

  85. [93]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 438

    Menon, A., Utrobin, V ., & Heger, A. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 438

    2019

  86. [94]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15

    2017

  87. [95]

    Moriya, T. J. & Menon, A. 2024, Blue Supergiants as a Progenitor of Intermediate-Luminosity Red Transients

    2024

  88. [96]

    J., Sorokina, E

    Moriya, T. J., Sorokina, E. I., & Chevalier, R. A. 2018, Space~Sci.~Rev., 214, 59

    2018

  89. [97]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Morris, T. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2007, Science, 315, 1103

    2007

  90. [98]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Morris, T. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 515 Müller, B., Heger, A., Liptai, D., & Cameron, J. B. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 742 Müller, B., Melson, T., Heger, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 491

    2009

  91. [99]

    2015, PASJ, 67, 107 Article number, page 16 F.R.N

    Nakamura, K., Takiwaki, T., Kuroda, T., & Kotake, K. 2015, PASJ, 67, 107 Article number, page 16 F.R.N. Schneider et al.: Supernovae from stellar mergers and accretors of binary mass transfer O’Connor, E. & Ott, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 730, 70

    2015

  92. [100]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2006, A Guide to NumPy, V ol. 1 (Trelgol Publishing USA) Özel, F. & Freire, P. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 401 Paczy´nski, B. 1967, Acta Astron., 17, 355

    2006

  93. [101]

    L., Navasardyan, H., et al

    Pastorello, A., Pumo, M. L., Navasardyan, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A141

    2012

  94. [102]

    2004, MNRAS, 347, 74

    Pastorello, A., Zampieri, L., Turatto, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 74

    2004

  95. [103]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  96. [104]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  97. [105]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  98. [106]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  99. [107]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  100. [108]

    2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; from Space Debris to Cosmology, 189–211

    Pejcha, O. 2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; from Space Debris to Cosmology, 189–211

    2020

  101. [109]

    & Prieto, J

    Pejcha, O. & Prieto, J. L. 2015, ApJ, 799, 215

    2015

  102. [110]

    Petrovic, J., Langer, N., & van der Hucht, K. A. 2005, A&A, 435, 1013

    2005

  103. [111]

    1992, PASP, 104, 717

    Podsiadlowski, P. 1992, PASP, 104, 717

    1992

  104. [112]

    2017a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.03973

    Podsiadlowski, P. 2017a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.03973

    arXiv

  105. [113]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

    1992

  106. [114]

    C., & Rappaport, S

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Rappaport, S. 1990, A&A, 227, L9

    1990

  107. [115]

    & Joss, P

    Podsiadlowski, Ph. & Joss, P. C. 1989, Nature, 338, 401

    1989

  108. [116]

    Popov, D. V . 1993, ApJ, 414, 712

    1993

  109. [117]

    L., Cosentino, S

    Pumo, M. L., Cosentino, S. P., Pastorello, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS [arXiv:2303.10478]

    2023 arXiv

  110. [118]

    L., Zampieri, L., Spiro, S., et al

    Pumo, M. L., Zampieri, L., Spiro, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3013

    2017

  111. [119]

    L., Villar, V

    Ransome, C. L., Villar, V . A., Tartaglia, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 965, 93

    2024

  112. [120]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A66

    2019

  113. [121]

    L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, Phys.~Rev.~D, 100, 043027 Rodríguez, Ó. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 897 Rodríguez, Ó., Clocchiatti, A., & Hamuy, M. 2014, AJ, 148, 107 Röpke, F. K. & De Marco, O. 2023, Living Rev. Comput. Astrophys., 9, 2

    2019

  114. [122]

    2025, ApJ, 980, L38

    Ryu, T., Sills, A., Pakmor, R., de Mink, S., & Mathieu, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L38

    2025

  115. [123]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  116. [124]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  117. [125]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 117

    2014

  118. [126]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Lau, M. Y . M., & Roepke, F. K. 2025, Stellar Mergers and Common-Envelope Evolution

    2025

  119. [127]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Ohlmann, S. T., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2796

    2020

  120. [128]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Ohlmann, S. T., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 211

    2019

  121. [129]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Laplace, E. 2023, ApJ, 950, L9

    2023

  122. [130]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, Ph., & Laplace, E. 2024, A&A, 686, A45

    2024

  123. [131]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, Ph., & Müller, B. 2021, A&A, 645, A5 Schrøder, S. L., MacLeod, M., Loeb, A., Vigna-Gómez, A., & Mandel, I. 2020, ApJ, 892, 13

    2021

  124. [132]

    2010, ApJ, 719, 722

    Schwab, J., Podsiadlowski, Ph., & Rappaport, S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 722

    2010

  125. [133]

    Secunda, A., Cen, R., Kimm, T., Götberg, Y ., & de Mink, S. E. 2020, ApJ, 901, 72

    2020

  126. [134]

    2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    Shivvers, I., Modjaz, M., Zheng, W., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 054201

    2017

  127. [135]

    Smartt, S. J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 63

    2009

  128. [136]

    Smartt, S. J. 2015, Publ. Astron Soc Aust., 32, e016

    2015

  129. [137]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487

    2014

  130. [138]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

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

    2017

  131. [139]

    A., et al

    Smith, N., Li, W., Miller, A. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 63

    2011

  132. [140]

    2010, AJ, 139, 1451

    Smith, N., Miller, A., Li, W., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1451

    2010

  133. [141]

    S., & de Koter, A

    Smith, N., Vink, J. S., & de Koter, A. 2004, ApJ, 615, 475

    2004

  134. [142]

    L., et al

    Spiro, S., Pastorello, A., Pumo, M. L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2873

    2014

  135. [143]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 130

    Sravan, N., Marchant, P., & Kalogera, V . 2019, ApJ, 885, 130

    2019

  136. [144]

    1969, ApJ, 156, 541

    Stothers, R. 1969, ApJ, 156, 541

    1969

  137. [145]

    E., Brown, J

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

    2016

  138. [146]

    & Woosley, S

    Sukhbold, T. & Woosley, S. E. 2014, ApJ, 783, 10

    2014

  139. [147]

    E., & Heger, A

    Sukhbold, T., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2018, ApJ, 860, 93

    2018

  140. [148]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 3607

    Suwa, Y ., Tominaga, N., & Maeda, K. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3607

    2019

  141. [149]

    2016, A&A, 588, A5

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A5

    2016

  142. [150]

    D., Sollerman, J., et al

    Taddia, F., Stritzinger, M. D., Sollerman, J., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A140

    2012

  143. [151]

    2023, ApJ, 945, 19

    Takahashi, K., Takiwaki, T., & Yoshida, T. 2023, ApJ, 945, 19

    2023

  144. [152]

    M., Kramer, M., Freire, P

    Tauris, T. M., Kramer, M., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 170

    2017

  145. [153]

    M., Langer, N., Moriya, T

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, L23

    2013

  146. [154]

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

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123

    2015

  147. [155]

    Temaj, D., Schneider, F. R. N., Laplace, E., Wei, D., & Podsiadlowski, Ph. 2024, A&A, 682, A123

    2024

  148. [156]

    L., Chen, T.-W., et al

    Terreran, G., Pumo, M. L., Chen, T.-W., et al. 2017, Nat. Astron., 1, 713

    2017

  149. [157]

    Utrobin, V . P. & Chugai, N. N. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6227 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1976, 73, 35 van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Callister, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 17

    2024

  150. [158]

    1991, A&A, 252, 159

    Vanbeveren, D. 1991, A&A, 252, 159

    1991

  151. [159]

    2013, A&A, 552, A105

    Vanbeveren, D., Mennekens, N., Van Rensbergen, W., & De Loore, C. 2013, A&A, 552, A105

    2013

  152. [160]

    Varma, V ., Müller, B., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3622 Vigna-Gómez, A., Justham, S., Mandel, I., de Mink, S. E., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2019, ApJ, 876, L29

    2023

  153. [161]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nat. Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  154. [162]

    2024, ApJ, 975, L20

    Wang, C., Bodensteiner, J., Xu, X.-T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, L20

    2024

  155. [163]

    Wei, D., Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A87

    2024

  156. [164]

    & Langer, N

    Wellstein, S. & Langer, N. 1999, A&A, 350, 148

    1999

  157. [165]

    R., Bessell, M

    Wood, P. R., Bessell, M. S., & Fox, M. W. 1983, ApJ, 272, 99

    1983

  158. [166]

    & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. & Fuller, J. 2021, ApJ, 906, 3

    2021

  159. [167]

    Wu, S. C. & Fuller, J. 2022, ApJ, 930, 119

    2022

  160. [168]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 3970

    Yoon, S.-C. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3970

    2017

  161. [169]

    & Cantiello, M

    Yoon, S.-C. & Cantiello, M. 2010, ApJ, 717, L62

    2010

  162. [170]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 10

    Yoon, S.-C., Dessart, L., & Clocchiatti, A. 2017, ApJ, 840, 10

    2017

  163. [171]

    C., Woosley, S

    Yoon, S. C., Woosley, S. E., & Langer, N. 2010, ApJ, 725, 940

    2010

  164. [172]

    E., Izzard, R

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Izzard, R. G., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A29

    2017

  165. [173]

    E., Justham, S., et al

    Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A5 Article number, page 17 A&A proofs: manuscript no. sn-properties Appendix A: Model data Table A.1: Pre-SN and SN explosion properties of the presented stellar models. Mini Case facc tcc Mcc MCO sc SN Mrm Mej ...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.