Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Early Emission from Double Detonation Type Ia Supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In double detonation Type Ia supernovae, the collision of the carbon-oxygen detonation with the previously detonated helium layer produces a ~5-second soft X-ray flash of about $6\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, followed by a…

desk verdict A useful analytic blueprint for a unique early X-ray signature of double detonations, but the headline signal hinges on an unverified velocity profile and one scaling law has an internal inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14290 v1 pith:4N4NV2JH submitted 2025-07-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Anthony L. Piro , Ehud Nakar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR PACS 97.60.Bw97.20.Rp
keywords doubledetonationTypeIasupernovaewhitedwarfsshockbreakoutcoolingearlyemissionsoftX-raytransients
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 predicts that double detonation (DD) Type Ia supernovae, in which a surface helium detonation triggers a carbon-oxygen white dwarf to explode, should emit a distinctive early light curve when the two detonation fronts collide. The authors identify three signatures: a brief shock breakout flash, a roughly five-second soft X-ray flash from planar shock breakout cooling at about $6\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, and a 12 to 24 hour optical/ultraviolet shock cooling signal at $3$ to $10\times10^{40}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$. The planar X-ray phase matters because it is unique to the shallow velocity profile of the detonated helium layer, unlike the steep stellar-edge profile assumed in ordinary shock breakout calculations. If these predictions hold, the X-ray flash provides a clean observational fingerprint for identifying DD explosions and separating them from competing Type Ia supernova models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the velocity profile of the detonated helium layer. Because the helium detonation moves roughly perpendicular to the layer's density gradient, the whole shell is accelerated to a common characteristic velocity $v_1\approx1.3\times10^9\,\mathrm{cm\,s^{-1}}$ with a shallow gradient and a maximum $v_{1,\max}\sim2v_1$, and only a small fraction $f\sim10^{-2}$ of the shell mass sits near that maximum. In such a shallow profile the dynamical time of the breakout layer is much longer than its diffusion time, so radiation can diffuse inward to additional shocked material during the planar phase, producing the luminosity $L_{\rm pl}\approx6\times10^{43}\kappa_{0.1}^{-1/2}f_{-2}^{1/2}m_{-2}^{0.65}M_1^{-0.9}E_{51}^{5/4}\eta_{0.4}^2\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ lasting $t_{\rm pl}\approx4$ s. The collision velocity $v_2$ of the CO ejecta is set by the steep $\rho\propto v^{-n}$ outer profile with a shock acceleration factor of 2 from pressure gradients, and the later shock cooling signal is governed by the collision energy and a recombination-modified diffusion radius.

What would settle it

Run a high-resolution 3D simulation of the double detonation resolving the helium shell's velocity profile: if the maximum helium-layer velocity $v_{1,\max}$ is found to exceed the collision shock velocity $v_2$ for typical shell masses, the predicted breakout and planar X-ray flash cannot occur. Observationally, X-ray monitoring of a Type Ia supernova within roughly 20 Mpc caught within seconds of explosion would either detect the ~5 s, $6\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ soft X-ray flash or rule it out for that event.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the collision between the outgoing carbon-oxygen (CO) detonation and the previously detonated helium layer produces three observable features whose timing and luminosity follow from simple scaling relations. The shock breakout itself is likely dim ($\lesssim10^{41}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$) and short ($\lesssim10$ s), but the subsequent planar breakout cooling phase is bright: about $6\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ for about 4 s at temperatures near $4\times10^6$ K, i.e. soft X-rays. This phase arises because the helium layer's shallow velocity profile lets the diffusion wave move inward in mass coordinates during the planar expansion, tapping additional shock-heated material. Later, the thermal energy deposited by the collision, $E_{\rm col}\approx (m/4)(v_2-v_1)^2$, is released as shock cooling emission peaking at $3$-$10\times10^{40}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ around 12-24 hours after the explosion, with recombination of intermediate-mass elements in the helium ashes modifying the light curve for large helium shell masses. The paper frames the planar X-ray phase as a unique probe of the double detonation mechanism, since no other proposed early emission process predicts it.

Load-bearing premise

The whole breakout and planar X-ray flash depend on the helium layer's fastest material moving at only about twice its characteristic velocity; if the helium layer is moving faster than the collision shock, the flash never happens, a possibility the authors explicitly flag.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A double detonation within roughly 20 Mpc should appear as a ~5 s soft X-ray flash at about $6\times10^{43}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, bright enough for wide-field X-ray monitors to catch during the first seconds after explosion.
  • The day-long shock cooling phase should be visible in optical/UV at absolute magnitudes around -12.5 to -13.5, making it a target for rapid-cadence UV surveys out to about 50 Mpc.
  • For large helium shell masses ($m\gtrsim0.02\,M_\odot$), recombination makes the shock cooling peak earlier and brighter than a simple adiabatic cooling curve, with timescales near 1 day.
  • Because no other proposed early SN Ia emission process produces the planar X-ray flash, its detection would be direct evidence for the double detonation mechanism.
  • The direct shock breakout flash is expected to be too faint and short-lived ($\lesssim10^{41}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, $\lesssim10$ s) to serve as a practical detection channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable threshold not emphasized in the paper: events with more massive or faster helium layers may lack the X-ray flash yet still show the day-long shock cooling signal, so correlating the presence of the flash with inferred helium mass could separate the two predictions.
  • If the planar flash is detected together with the UV shock cooling excess, that pairing would be very difficult for competing models (companion collision, radioactive nickel mixing, circumstellar interaction) to reproduce, strengthening the diagnostic power beyond the flash alone.
  • The model implies that a substantial fraction of SNe Ia caught within a day of explosion should show a faint UV excess if the DD channel is common; future wide-field UV surveys can constrain the DD fraction by counting how often this signal appears.
  • The recombination treatment predicts a specific color evolution during the first day, from about 9000 K toward the recombination temperature near 7000 K, which could distinguish DD shock cooling from other early blue or red excesses in existing samples.
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. This paper presents an analytical model for the early electromagnetic emission from double-detonation (DD) Type Ia supernovae, focusing on the collision between the fast outer ejecta of the CO core detonation and the previously detonated He shell. Three emission components are identified: a prompt shock breakout flash, a longer planar shock-breakout cooling phase, and a subsequent shock-cooling signal lasting roughly a day. The principal new claim is that the planar cooling phase, with luminosity ~6e43 erg/s lasting ~4-5 s in soft X-rays, is a unique observational signature of the DD mechanism because of the shallow velocity gradient in the detonated He layer. The shock-cooling signal at ~3-10e40 erg/s in the optical/UV is also predicted, with a treatment of recombination in the He-shell ashes. The authors discuss detection prospects with Swift, Einstein Probe, and Ultrasat.

Significance. If the assumptions about the He-shell structure hold, the planar X-ray phase would be a genuinely new and falsifiable diagnostic for the DD channel, distinct from other early-emission mechanisms in SNe Ia. The analytical scalings are transparent, derived from standard shock physics and energy/diffusion arguments, and the paper is candid about the main uncertainties. The recombination treatment during shock cooling is a useful addition to previous early-emission models. However, the central prediction is conditional on an uncalibrated velocity profile for the He-detonated layer, and at least one quoted scaling appears internally inconsistent. The paper is likely to be influential if these issues are addressed through a parameter study or comparison with existing DD simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (7), (15), (16)] The existence and luminosity of the planar phase, the paper's central new prediction, rest entirely on the adopted values v1,max ~ 2v1 and f ~ 0.01. The authors acknowledge in Section 2.1 that 'in principle v1,max could be higher, and shock breakout might not even happen,' but they do not extract either quantity from the DD simulations they cite for the time delay (Boos et al. 2021). Because L_pl scales as (v2 - v1,max)^2 and the breakout mass as (v2 - v1,max)^-3, a modest increase in v1,max or a decrease in f can eliminate or drastically weaken the predicted signal. The manuscript should include either a direct measurement of the He-shell velocity and density profile from existing simulations or an explicit parameter survey showing how the planar luminosity and timescale depend on v1,max/v2 and f over the plausible range, including the no-breakout case.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (15)] The mass scaling in Eq. (15) does not follow from the displayed expression. Substituting v2 = 3.7 x 10^9 m_-2^-0.14 M_-0.36 E^1/2 cm/s into L_pl = (pi f m / kappa)^1/2 (c/v2)^1/2 (v2 - v1,max)^2 v2 and holding v1,max, f, kappa, E, and M fixed gives L_pl proportional to m^0.15, not m^0.65 as printed in the second line. The numerical coefficient is evaluated at the fiducial m = 0.01 M_sun, so the fiducial luminosity may be approximately correct, but the quoted power-law index is not derivable from the algebra. This needs correction or an explicit statement of any additional mass dependence in f or v1,max that would produce the quoted exponent.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (23)-(27)] The recombination treatment assumes that once the temperature falls below T_rec, the emission is described by L_rec = 4 pi sigma_SB r_rec^2 T_rec^4 and that the internal energy is radiated at the recombination radius. This is a reasonable plateau-type approximation, but the transition between the non-recombined and recombined regimes is drawn as a sharp boundary at T_rec = 7000 K in Figure 2. The sensitivity of the predicted luminosity and timescale to T_rec is significant because L_rec scales as T_rec^2 and t_rec as T_rec^-1, yet T_rec is treated as a fixed input. A brief discussion of the likely range of T_rec for He-shell ashes and the effect on the predicted shock-cooling signal would strengthen the quantitative claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, paragraph before Eq. (11)] In the sentence beginning 'If we donate f as the fraction,' the word 'donate' should be 'denote.'
  2. [Section 2.1, text after Eq. (3)] The phrase 'sub-Chandrasakhar' is misspelled; it should be 'sub-Chandrasekhar.'
  3. [Section 4, first paragraph] The sentence 'It will likely be fairly dim at ≲ ×10^41 erg s^-1' appears to be missing a numerical coefficient before the '×'; please check the intended value (e.g., 'a few × 10^41').
  4. [Section 2.3 and Figure 2 caption] The text states that numerical estimates in Section 2.3 use the v2 >> v1 limit, while the Figure 2 caption says the plot does not approximate v2 >> v1; please clarify which curves or regions correspond to each treatment.
  5. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract lists a 'shock breakout flash' as one of the three features, but Section 2.1 concludes that the breakout is likely too dim to observe; consider softening the abstract wording to distinguish the unobservable prompt flash from the brighter planar phase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the luminosity and timescale predictions follow from stated physical inputs, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for the claimed predictions. The planar-phase luminosity (Eq. 15), breakout properties (Eqs. 7-10), and shock-cooling luminosity (Eqs. 21-27) are constructed from energy, diffusion, and shock-jump scalings with explicit inputs: v1, v1,max, f, Delta t, M, m, E, kappa, and n. None of these inputs is fitted to the predicted emission signals; there is no observational data set being reproduced, so no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern applies. The assumptions v1,max ~ 2v1 and f ~ 10^-2 are declared free parameters with an explicit caveat that breakout might not occur, not derived from the target luminosities. The self-citations to Nakar (2020) and Nakar & Piro (2014) support related shock-breakout and envelope-collision physics, but the DD-specific collision geometry and the resulting planar phase are derived here from stated first-principles arguments; the cited works are not used as a uniqueness theorem or an unverified premise that forces the result. The apparent inconsistency in the m-scaling of Eq. (15) relative to its displayed expression is a correctness or arithmetic concern, not circularity, because the expression is not constructed from the quantity it claims to predict. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own input, and the central predictions retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimates depend on several hand-chosen fiducial parameters (f, v1,max, kappa, Trec) and on standard DD and shock physics from prior literature. The paper does not fit to data, so the parameters are assumptions rather than fits.

free parameters (5)
  • f = 0.01
    Fraction of He shell mass at velocity near v1,max; sets planar luminosity Eq. (15). Chosen by hand.
  • v1,max/v1 ratio = 2
    Maximum He layer velocity; determines whether breakout occurs and its radius/luminosity. Assumed, not derived.
  • opacity kappa = 0.1 cm^2/g
    Used for breakout mass, planar diffusion, and shock cooling. Typical for He ashes at relevant temperatures.
  • recombination temperature Trec = 7000 K
    Sets recombination radius and luminosity; chosen as fiducial.
  • collision energy prefactor = 1/4
    Assumed prefactor for inelastic collision energy Eq. (17).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Self-similar steep density profile rho proportional to v^-n after CO detonation (Eq. 1, Chevalier & Soker 1989)
    Used to compute v2, breakout radii, and all collision energies.
  • domain assumption Double detonation geometry: He layer detonates, expands at v1 about 1.3e9 cm/s, then CO detonates after Delta t about 3 s
    Sets collision radius and timescales; consistent with simulations cited.
  • domain assumption He-detonated layer has a shallow velocity profile with no steep tail, so planar phase exists
    Central to planar phase; based on rarefaction wave argument in Sec. 2.1.
  • ad hoc to paper v1,max about 2 v1 and f about 0.01 are representative values
    No simulation or measurement provided; the authors flag that v1,max could be higher and breakout might not occur.
  • domain assumption Recombination wave model with Trec = 7000 K analogous to Type IIP plateau
    Used for recombination-modified shock cooling in Sec. 2.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Emission from Double Detonation Type Ia Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4N4NV2JH

@misc{pith2026250714290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Emission from Double Detonation Type Ia Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4N4NV2JH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14290}
}
abstract

A popular model for Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) is the detonation of a CO white dwarf (WD) that is triggered by the prior detonation of a thin surface layer of helium, known as a double detonation (DD). We explore the unique early electromagnetic signatures that are expected from collision of the CO detonation with the He detonation. The three features are (1) a shock breakout flash, (2) a stage of planar shock breakout cooling, and finally (3) shock cooling emission from the thermal energy released by the collision. The planar phase is unique to the unusual density profile of the He-detonated layer in comparison to the steep profile at a stellar edge as is usually considered for shock breakout. The shock cooling emission can be modified by recombination, and we explore these effects. All together, we expect an initial flash dominated by the planar phase of $\sim6\times10^{43}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$, which lasts ~5 s in the soft X-rays. This is followed by ~12-24 hrs of shock cooling at a luminosity of $3-10\times10^{40}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ in the optical/UV. We discuss prospects for detection of this early DD emission with current and upcoming surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14290 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of a quadrant of a DD, highlighting the key velocities considered in this model. The total system is broken into two regions, (1) the detonating He surface layer with mass m (orange) and (2) the detonating CO WD with mass M (blue). For velocities v > vt (dotted line), the core is imparted with a steep gradient ρ ∝ v −n due to the detona￾tion shock propagating into the edge of the star. In contrast, the prior… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Contours of constant luminosity (blue) and timescale (red) expected for shock cooling emission from a DD as a function of the WD mass M and the He surface layer mass m. The initial He-detonation velocity is set to v1 = 1.3×109 cm s−1 with a delay of ∆t = 3 s from the initia￾tion of the He detonation to the unbinding of the core. We fix the explosion energy of the core detonation to E = 1051 erg and use an opacity of… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., et al

    Ashall, C., Lu, J., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 932, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7235

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7235 2022

  2. [2]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Ben-Ami, S., Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12181, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1218105, doi: 10.1117/12.2629850

    doi:10.1117/12.2629850 2022

  3. [3]

    J., Townsley, D

    Boos, S. J., Townsley, D. M., & Shen, K. J. 2024, ApJ, 972, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2 2024

  4. [4]

    Miles, B. J. 2021, ApJ, 919, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2 2021

  5. [5]

    A., Sand, D

    Burke, J., Howell, D. A., Sand, D. J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.07681, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.07681

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.07681 2022

  6. [6]

    A., & Soker, N

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

    doi:10.1086/167545 1989

  7. [7]

    J., Rest, A., et al

    Dimitriadis, G., Foley, R. J., Rest, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 870, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb0

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb0 2019

  8. [8]

    Fink, M., Hillebrandt, W., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2007, A&A, 476, 1133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078438

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078438 2007

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4000

    Govreen-Segal, T., Youngerman, N., Palit, I., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 313, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4000

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2010, ApJL, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    Guillochon, J., Dan, M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rosswog, S. 2010, ApJL, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    1996, ApJ, 457, 500, doi: 10.1086/176748

    Hoeflich, P., & Khokhlov, A. 1996, ApJ, 457, 500, doi: 10.1086/176748

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Shappee, B

    Hoogendam, W. B., Shappee, B. J., Brown, P. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad33ba

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 1025, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1025

    Kasen, D. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1025, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1025

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    2010, ApJ, 716, 781, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/781

    Katz, B., Budnik, R., & Waxman, E. 2010, ApJ, 716, 781, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/781

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Fink, M., et al

    Kromer, M., Sim, S. A., Fink, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1067, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1067

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 4428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw962

    Kromer, M., Fremling, C., Pakmor, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 4428, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw962

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, PASJ, 67, 54, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv028

    Kutsuna, M., & Shigeyama, T. 2015, PASJ, 67, 54, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv028

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    2019, ApJL, 872, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0285

    Levanon, N., & Soker, N. 2019, ApJL, 872, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0285

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    J., & Stancliffe, R

    Liu, Z.-W., Moriya, T. J., & Stancliffe, R. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1192, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2076

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Livne, E., & Glasner, A. S. 1991, ApJ, 370, 272, doi: 10.1086/169813

    1991 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d8

    Maeda, K., Jiang, J.-a., Shigeyama, T., & Doi, M. 2018, ApJ, 861, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8d8

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/37

    Maeda, K., Kutsuna, M., & Shigeyama, T. 2014, ApJ, 794, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/37

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    R., & Maguire, K

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

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    D., & McKee, C

    Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJ, 510, 379, doi: 10.1086/306571

    1999 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Mazzali, P

    Moriya, T. J., Mazzali, P. A., Ashall, C., & Pian, E. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 6035, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1386 8 Piro & Nakar

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, PhR, 886, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008

    Nakar, E. 2020, PhR, 886, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Nakar, E., & Piro, A. L. 2014, ApJ, 788, 193, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/193

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M

    Ni, Y. Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.06287, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.06287

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

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

    Noebauer, U. M., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2787, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2093

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    1982, ApJ, 257, 780, doi: 10.1086/160031

    Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 257, 780, doi: 10.1086/160031

    1982 doi

  25. [33]

    Nugent, P., Baron, E., Branch, D., Fisher, A., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1997, ApJ, 485, 812, doi: 10.1086/304459

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Collins, C

    Pakmor, R., Callan, F. P., Collins, C. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5260, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3107

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 942, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv337

    Papish, O., Soker, N., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., & Aznar-Sigu´ an, G. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 942, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv337

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Chang, P., & Weinberg, N

    Piro, A. L., Chang, P., & Weinberg, N. N. 2010, ApJ, 708, 598, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/598

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    L., & Morozova, V

    Piro, A. L., & Morozova, V. S. 2014, ApJL, 792, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L11 —. 2016, ApJ, 826, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/96

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    L., & Nakar, E

    Piro, A. L., & Nakar, E. 2014, ApJ, 784, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/85

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    2019, ApJ, 873, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a

    Polin, A., Nugent, P., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJ, 873, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    1960, CPAM, 13, 353, doi: 10.1002/cpa.3160130303

    Sakurai, A. 1960, CPAM, 13, 353, doi: 10.1002/cpa.3160130303

    1960 doi

  33. [41]

    J., & Bildsten, L

    Shen, K. J., & Bildsten, L. 2014, ApJ, 785, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/61

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Blondin, S., Kasen, D., et al

    Shen, K. J., Blondin, S., Kasen, D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 909, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe69b

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Boos, S

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19417, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19417

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

    Shen, K. J., Kasen, D., Miles, B. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2018a, ApJ, 854, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8de

    doi

  37. [45]

    J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B

    Shen, K. J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2018b, ApJ, 865, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b

    doi

  38. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    D., Shappee, B

    Stritzinger, M. D., Shappee, B. J., Piro, A. L., et al. 2018, ApJL, 864, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd46

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Taam, R. E. 1980, ApJ, 242, 749, doi: 10.1086/158509

    1980 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b6

    Tanikawa, A., Nomoto, K., Nakasato, N., & Maeda, K. 2019, ApJ, 885, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b6

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Miles, B

    Townsley, D. M., Miles, B. J., Shen, K. J., & Kasen, D. 2019, ApJL, 878, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab27cd

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Moore, K., & Bildsten, L

    Townsley, D. M., Moore, K., & Bildsten, L. 2012, ApJ, 755, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/4

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Tucker, M. A. 2025, MNRAS, 538, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae121

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    T., & Shen, K

    Werner, K., El-Badry, K., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Shen, K. J. 2024, A&A, 689, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451635

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    E., & Kasen, D

    Woosley, S. E., & Kasen, D. 2011, ApJ, 734, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/38

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Taam, R

    Woosley, S. E., Taam, R. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1986, ApJ, 301, 601, doi: 10.1086/163926

    1986 doi

  48. [56]

    E., & Weaver, T

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

    1994 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 9957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3691

    Xi, G., Wang, X., Li, G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3691

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1506.07735, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1506.07735

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Feng, H., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1506.07735, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1506.07735

    2015 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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