Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Super-Eddington accretion onto black holes and its application to fallback accretion

T0 review · 2 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 Steady spherical super-Eddington accretion onto a black hole splits into two analytic solution branches, and the predicted fallback luminosity is correspondingly faint.

desk verdict A genuinely useful analytic advance with one load-bearing self-consistency gap in the isothermal branch at high accretion rates; deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16893 v1 pith:4C7RI42M submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.HE

Tamar Faran , Eliot Quataert This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords super-Eddingtonaccretionsphericalblackholefallbackfailedsupernovaeradiationpressureboundarylayertheorytrappingradius
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 works out what steady, spherical, radiation-dominated accretion onto a black hole looks like when the inflow is highly super-Eddington. It shows that in the near-free-fall limit the fluid equations split into two solution families: one that becomes isothermal at large radii, with trapping radius $r_{\rm tr}=3\dot{m} r_S$, and one in which the temperature vanishes as a power law of radius, with $r_{\rm tr}=(\dot{m}/2)r_S$. Using boundary layer theory, the paper derives analytic solutions for both branches. The rest-frame luminosity escaping the photosphere is suppressed by roughly a factor of $\dot{m}$ relative to the diffusive luminosity, which strongly lowers the predicted emission from fallback accretion after a failed supernova. For realistic red and yellow supergiant progenitors, the spherical fallback luminosity is orders of magnitude below the measured fading sources in NGC 6946 and M31, pointing instead to accretion of the turbulent convective envelope.

What carries the argument

The central object is a single second-order ordinary differential equation, Eq. (15), for $\Psi$, a dimensionless measure of how far the flow departs from free fall, with $\Psi'$ proportional to the diffusive luminosity. Introducing $\chi=\Psi-2\dot{e}=2(\Lambda_a-\Lambda_d)$, twice the difference between the advective and diffusive dimensionless luminosities, and linearizing in the small parameter $\delta=1/\dot{m}$ reduces the problem to a linear second-order ODE, Eq. (18). The sign of $\chi$ near the bifurcation point $x_{\rm bf}\simeq 1-\delta$ selects the branch: $\chi<0$ produces a boundary layer at $x=1$ and the isothermal solutions, while $\chi>0$ produces a boundary layer at $x_{\rm bf}$ and the power-law solutions. Boundary layer theory supplies the analytic approximations, and because the sonic point lies outside the photosphere, the integration constant $\dot{e}$ is fixed by outer boundary conditions rather than by smooth passage through the singularity.

What would settle it

Integrate the full nonlinear equation (15) with the photosphere placed inside the adiabatic sonic radius; if a smooth transonic solution appears that matches neither analytic branch, the two-branch classification fails. Observationally, a confirmed fallback-powered transient whose late-time luminosity follows the spherical $t^{-5/3}$ law would validate the branch, while a brighter source with a shallower decay would favor the turbulent-envelope interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a given dimensionless accretion rate $\dot{m}\gg 1$, steady spherical radiation-pressure-dominated accretion in the free-fall limit admits two types of solutions: flows that become isothermal at large radii and flows whose temperature at infinity vanishes as a power law of radius. The trapping radius, where the advective and diffusive luminosities balance, is $r_{\rm tr}=3\dot{m} r_S$ on the isothermal branch and $r_{\rm tr}=(\dot{m}/2)r_S$ on the power-law branch. Beyond the trapping radius on the isothermal branch the diffusive and advective luminosities nearly cancel, so the rest-frame luminosity at the photosphere is a factor of order $\dot{m}$ smaller than the diffusive luminosity. In the fallback application, a fully ionized inflow gives $L_{\rm obs}\propto \dot{m}^2$ early, $\propto \dot{m}$ in the cooling-dominated regime, and $\propto \dot{m}^{5/3}$ once gas pressure dominates; with recombination, the ionization luminosity is $L_{\rm ion}\propto \dot{m}$ for radiation-dominated fronts and $\propto \dot{m}^{4/3}$ for gas-dominated fronts. At about five years after collapse, the spherical fallback luminosity from red or yellow supergiant progenitors is several orders of magnitude below the luminosities of the NGC 6946 and M31 fading sources, so those sources are instead likely powered by accretion of the turbulent convective envelope.

Load-bearing premise

The classification into two branches rests on the flow staying essentially in free fall out to the photosphere, so the adiabatic sonic point remains outside the solved region and the integration constant $\dot{e}$ is fixed by outer boundary conditions; if the flow becomes subsonic near the photosphere, the two-branch picture would need to be revised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • - The trapping radius differs by a factor of six between the branches ($3\dot{m} r_S$ versus $(\dot{m}/2)r_S$), so the radius at which photons first escape depends on which branch the flow selects.
  • - The photospheric rest-frame luminosity is suppressed by $1/\dot{m}$ relative to the diffusive luminosity, so Eddington-scaled estimates that neglect this suppression overpredict the light from spherical super-Eddington accretion.
  • - For a fully ionized fallback inflow, the predicted light curve steepens from $t^{-10/3}$ (proportional to $\dot{m}^2$) to $t^{-5/3}$ (proportional to $\dot{m}$), and finally to $t^{-25/9}$ (proportional to $\dot{m}^{5/3}$) as gas pressure becomes dominant.
  • - With recombination, the ionization luminosity scales as $L_{\rm ion}\propto \dot{m}$ for radiation-pressure-dominated fronts and $L_{\rm ion}\propto \dot{m}^{4/3}$ for gas-pressure-dominated fronts, agreeing with earlier radiation-hydro simulations.
  • - Spherical fallback accretion after a failed supernova is far fainter than the fading sources in NGC 6946 and M31 at ages of several years, so those sources likely require accretion of the turbulent convective envelope.

Reading between the lines

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

  • - A testable extension: because the two branches have different trapping radii and temperature profiles, time-dependent or slightly non-spherical implementations of the same equations should reveal which branch the boundary conditions select, allowing simulations to be checked against the analytic scalings.
  • - The two ionization scalings imply a discriminating observational test: a confirmed fallback-powered transient whose late-time luminosity decays as $t^{-5/3}$ would be in the radiation-dominated regime, while a $t^{-20/9}$ decay would indicate gas-pressure dominance.
  • - If turbulent convective envelope accretion powers the observed fading sources, their late-time luminosities should track the envelope's binding energy and convective properties rather than the black hole mass alone; comparing several failed-supernova candidates would test this.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies steady, spherical, radiation-pressure-dominated super-Eddington accretion onto a Schwarzschild black hole in the free-fall limit. The authors reduce the fluid equations to a second-order ODE for the dimensionless variable Psi, linearize it by assuming small deviations from free fall, and use boundary-layer theory to obtain analytic solutions for two branches: an isothermal branch with trapping radius r_tr = 3 mdot r_S and rest-frame luminosity suppressed by a factor ~mdot^{-1} relative to the diffusive luminosity, and a power-law branch with r_tr = (mdot/2) r_S. These scalings are then applied to fallback accretion following failed supernovae, including a treatment of recombination/ionization fronts, and are used to argue that spherical fallback accretion cannot explain the observed fading sources in NGC 6946 and M31; the authors instead attribute those sources to accretion of the turbulent convective envelope of the supergiant progenitor.

Significance. If the analytic solutions are valid, the paper provides compact, parameter-free scalings for a problem with a long theoretical history, and it connects those scalings to concrete observational predictions. The comparison with the Zampieri et al. (1998) numerical simulations in Fig. 8, the use of realistic MESA progenitor profiles, and the explicit testable prediction that slowly rotating Wolf-Rayet or blue-supergiant collapses should be genuinely faint are clear strengths. The internal agreement between the boundary-layer solution and the numerical integration of the nonlinear ODE in Figs. 4 and 6 is also a valuable check. The paper is generally clearly written and the astrophysical application is timely.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (case z_bf<0) and §6, summary item 1] The claim that the adiabatic sonic point 'does not play a role in the dynamics of the flow inside the photosphere' is not reconciled with the statement in §3 that in the isothermal branch 'the flow may become subsonic either slightly below or above the photosphere.' Using Eq. (11) with f_tau=1, Eq. (9), and the isothermal-branch pressure profile (39), the photospheric Mach number is M_ph^2 ~ 5e12 (M/10 M_sun)^{-1} (T_ph/10^4 K)^{-4} mdot^{-4} up to order-unity factors. For T_ph = 10^4 K and M = 10 M_sun, M_ph drops below unity once mdot is of order 10^3, which is within the range shown in Figs. 1 and 2 and used in the fallback application. In that regime the sonic point lies inside the photosphere-to-horizon domain, so the eigenvalue e_dot is no longer fixed by the outer boundary conditions, and the boundary-layer solution (35)-(36) is not a self-consistent free-fall solution. The paper should either derive and impose an explicit supersonicity criterion and restrict the two-branch classification to the regime where it holds, or redo the eigenvalue analysis with the sonic-point crossing condition; it should also state whether the fallback conclusions in §5 survive in the regime actually realized by the MESA models.
  2. [§3, Eq. (18)] The linearization of Eq. (15) by discarding the Psi^2, Psi'^2, Psi e_dot, and Psi' e_dot terms is not justified by a controlled asymptotic expansion. The supporting argument that O(e_dot) = Psi is an order-of-magnitude estimate (Appendix B), and the resulting Eq. (18) is validated numerically only for the specific models shown in Figs. 4 and 6 (mdot = 700, M = 10 M_sun for the isothermal branch; mdot = 700 for the power-law branch). The analytic scalings L proportional to mdot^2 and r_tr = 3 mdot r_S used throughout §5 are derived from this linearized equation, but the fallback application uses accretion rates up to mdot ~ 10^12 (Fig. 10). Please provide an explicit estimate of the neglected terms over the full parameter range used in the paper, or restrict the analytic predictions to the region where the linearization is controlled.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) is presented without derivation; since it is the foundation of the subsequent analysis, a derivation in an appendix (or a clear reference to a previous work) would help the reader verify the coefficients F1 and F2.
  2. [§5, Eq. (53)] The criterion in Eq. (53) is stated as an order-of-magnitude inequality, and the text concludes that the flow 'will thus likely settle onto the isothermal branch,' while the summary presents this as a definite selection. Please give the quantitative condition for the actual MESA models and state the resulting branch choice explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] Figure 8 would be easier to use if each segment of the luminosity curve were labeled with its governing equation number (Eq. 56, Eq. 57, and the gas-pressure-dominated scaling) directly in the caption, rather than only by the inequalities in the legend.
  4. [§5.2, Eqs. (60)-(61)] The statement that T_g,ph is 'typically of order T_rec/2' is imported from Zampieri et al. (1998); please state explicitly how this estimate enters the normalization of Eqs. (60) and (61), since those normalizations set the vertical offset of the dashed lines in Fig. 8.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the two branches, trapping radii, and luminosity scalings are derived from the governing ODE with boundary-condition-determined constants, then benchmarked against numerical and external simulations.

full rationale

The analytic derivation is self-contained: Eq. (18) (the free-fall linearization of Eq. (15)) is solved with boundary-layer expansions, with branch selection determined by the sign of z = chi'/chi near x_bf (Sec. 3) and with integration constants fixed by the photospheric temperature/pressure boundary condition through Eqs. (9) and (11), not by the luminosities being predicted. The trapping radii in Eqs. (29) and (36) are zeros of the resulting chi solutions, and the mdot^2, mdot, and mdot^(4/3) scalings in Secs. 5.1-5.2 follow algebraically from the analytic pressure/velocity profiles, radiation-pressure balance, and ionization/recombination energetics. The amplitudes are checked against exact numerical integrations of the nonlinear ODE (Figs. 4 and 6) and against the external Zampieri et al. (1998) simulations, so the fallback comparisons are not fit to the simulated points. The self-citation to Faran et al. (2019) supplies a recombination-layer optical-depth approximation that is benchmarked against those independent simulations and does not underpin the central two-branch result. Two manuscript caveats are noted: Sec. 3 states that in the isothermal branch the flow 'may become subsonic either slightly below or above the photosphere,' which is a domain-consistency caveat to the free-fall assumption, and the MESA models are cited as 'Antoni et al. in prep'; neither is a circularity because no prediction is defined in terms of the target luminosity and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a modest set of physical assumptions: steady spherical radiation-dominated flow with Thomson opacity and the diffusion approximation (flagged in Section 2), the free-fall linearization (Eqs. 16-18), the placement of the sonic point outside the domain (Section 3), and Chevalier (1989)'s self-similar fallback law plus MESA progenitor inputs (Section 5). Two fitted or chosen quantities matter: the amplitude C1 of the isothermal analytic solution, calibrated to the numerical ODE, and the assumed photospheric temperature T_ph around 1e4 K. No new particles, forces, or other invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • C1 (isothermal branch amplitude) = approximately 1.3e-12 mdot^(1/2) M10 T_inf,4^4, calibrated to the numerical ODE solution
    Fixes the amplitude of the isothermal-branch analytic luminosity and rest-frame luminosity (Eqs. 35 and 37). The scaling form is derived, but the numeric prefactor is matched to the numerical integration of Eq. (15) rather than derived in closed form from the photospheric boundary condition.
  • T_ph (photospheric temperature) = about 1e4 K, assumed for the fully ionized case
    The paper argues T_ph is pinned near 1e4 K by the balance of compressional heating with atomic cooling (Section 5), but the value is an input to all luminosity predictions (e.g., Eq. 56) and is uncertain; the recombination analysis uses T_rec and T_ph near T_rec/2.
  • E_sh (shock/explosion energy) = 1e48 erg, chosen for the fiducial light curve
    Sets the cooling envelope phase and the initial accretion rate scale in Fig. 11. The paper notes the late-time accretion luminosity is insensitive to E_sh over 1e45 to 1e49 erg because the bound mass is nearly constant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Steady, spherically symmetric accretion with radiation pressure dominating gas pressure (gamma = 4/3) and Thomson-scattering opacity, in a Paczynski-Wiita potential, with photon transport treated by the diffusion approximation and the outer boundary at optical depth unity.
    Introduced in Section 2, Eqs. (2a)-(2c); neglects rotation, turbulence, gas pressure, and self-gravity. The paper verifies p_r much greater than p_g at the photosphere a posteriori (Eq. 51).
  • ad hoc to paper The flow is close enough to free fall that Eq. (15) can be linearized into Eq. (18) by dropping Psi^2, Psi'^2, Psi*edot, and Psi'*edot terms.
    Motivated in Section 2.2 by Psi approximately epsilon*delta^2 << 1 at the photosphere and Psi approximately epsilon approximately 0 near the horizon; validated numerically only for the parameters shown in Figs. 4 and 6.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic sonic point (movable singularity) lies outside the solution domain, so the eigenvalue edot is fixed by outer boundary conditions rather than sonic-point crossing.
    Stated in Section 3: 'The singularity is not encountered when the photosphere is in the free-falling region.' Tension: Section 3 also says the isothermal branch may become subsonic near the photosphere.
  • domain assumption Fallback accretion rate follows Chevalier (1989)'s self-similar solution Mdot = (8/9) pi^(5/3) (2GM) rho_0 t_0^(8/3) t^(-5/3), with initial conditions from MESA progenitor models.
    Eqs. (49)-(50) in Section 5; assumes the outermost bound shell sets the accretion rate and that the flow is steady at small radii.
  • ad hoc to paper The photospheric temperature is pinned near 1e4 K by the balance of compressional heating with atomic cooling, and the recombination/ionization front treatment follows Faran et al. (2019).
    Sections 5.1-5.2; the paper itself flags this as 'the (probably incorrect) assumption that this balance can maintain a fully ionized photosphere' and notes dust formation is neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Super-Eddington accretion onto black holes and its application to fallback accretion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4C7RI42M

@misc{pith2026250716893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Super-Eddington accretion onto black holes and its application to fallback accretion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4C7RI42M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16893}
}
read the original abstract

We study the problem of steady-state spherical accretion onto a black hole, in which the internal energy of the flow is governed by radiation and photon diffusion dominates the energy flux at large radii. In the free-fall limit, the fluid equations can admit two types of solutions for a given accretion rate: (1) accretion flows that become isothermal at large radii and (2) solutions in which the temperature at infinity vanishes as a power law of the radius. Using boundary layer theory, we obtain analytic solutions for the two cases and apply our results to fallback accretion onto a black hole following a failed supernova explosion. We give predictions for the observational signature of fallback accretion using realistic progenitor properties from MESA, both for a fully ionized inflow and for the more realistic case in which recombination/ionization take place due to low photospheric temperatures. The observed fading sources coincident with the failed-supernova candidates in NGC 6946 and M31 are too luminous to be powered by spherical accretion onto newly formed black holes; the observed sources are instead likely due to accretion of the turbulent, convective envelope of the supergiant progenitor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16893 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Diffusive luminosity (solid lines) and advective luminosity (dashed lines) for a range of ˙m values and black hole masses of 10M⊙ and 100M⊙ (top panel), the rest frame luminosity (middle panel) and the corresponding tempera￾ture, independent of the mass of the black hole (bottom panel). The boundary conditions are Ld(r → 0) = 0 and a photospheric temperature Tph = 104 K. m  =600 m  =800 m  =1000 10 100 1000 104 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bifurcating solutions around xbf ≃ 1 − δ, desig￾nated by the red point. The curves can cross the x-axis only through infinity at the positions marked by the dashed lines. at xbf ≃ 1 − δ. Since a(x) < 0 at x > xbf , a bound￾ary layer can exist at x = 1, but not at x = 0. In §4 we employ boundary layer theory to obtain solutions for χ in the two branches. We will show that the negative branch forms a boundary layer at… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analytic and non-linear numerical solution for the isothermal branch, with parameters ˙m = 700, M = 10M⊙ and a photospheric temperature of T = 104K. where pph is the value of the pressure at the photosphere, set by the boundary conditions. Below the trapping radius, wh…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the diffusive and the advec￾tive luminosities for the same conditions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Leading order analytic solution (Eq 47) and ex￾act non-linear numerical solution for the low temperature branch, using ˙m = 700 and M = 10M⊙. The analytic so￾lution does not describe the temperature well beyond the trapping radius, as higher order corrections are requi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the diffusive and the advec￾tive luminosities derived from exact numerical integration of Eq (15) for the same conditions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The observed luminosity from fallback accretion onto a M = 10M⊙ black hole for a photospheric temperature Tph = 104 K, as a function of accretion rate ˙m relative to Eddington (defined in eq. 7). The black line is the prediction for the luminosity emitted by a flow tha…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The binding energy of the material exterior to a given mass coordinate, including both the gravitational po￾tential energy and the internal energy of the material, for our H-rich red supergiant model and H-poor yellow supergiant model. For a wide range of explosion ene…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The expected light curve of a low energy core-collapse explosion leading to black hole formation, computed for the properties of our H-rich red supergiant (RSG) and H-poor yellow supergiant (YSG) MESA progenitor models; we assume an explosion energy of 1048 erg and a …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Kochanek, C

    Adams, S. M., Kochanek, C. S., Gerke, J. R., Stanek, K. Z., & Dai, X. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx816

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx816 2017

  2. [2]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 1229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2328

    Antoni, A., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2328

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2328 2023

  3. [3]

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

    Beasor, E. R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J. E. 2025, ApJ, 979, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3f 2025

  4. [4]

    Begelman, M. C. 1978, MNRAS, 184, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/184.1.53

    doi:10.1093/mnras/184.1.53 1978

  5. [5]

    M., & Orszag, S

    Bender, C. M., & Orszag, S. A. 1978, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers 18

    work page 1978

  6. [6]

    Blondin, J. M. 1986, ApJ, 308, 755, doi: 10.1086/164548

    work page doi:10.1086/164548 1986

  7. [7]

    1974, ApJ, 189, 147, doi: 10.1086/152780

    Buff, J., & McCray, R. 1974, ApJ, 189, 147, doi: 10.1086/152780

    doi:10.1086/152780 1974

  8. [8]

    2021, Nature, 589, 29, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w

    Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w 2021

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07831, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07831

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07831, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07831

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1989, ApJ, 346, 847, doi: 10.1086/168066

    1989 doi

  3. [11]

    Davies, B., & Beasor, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2116, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2734

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    E., et al

    De, K., MacLeod, M., Jencson, J. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14778

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    Ugliano, M. 2016, ApJ, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab218a Fern´ andez, R., Quataert, E., Kashiyama, K., & Coughlin, E

    Faran, T., Goldfriend, T., Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2019, ApJ, 879, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab218a Fern´ andez, R., Quataert, E., Kashiyama, K., & Coughlin, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty306

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Flammang, R. A. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.833 —. 1984, MNRAS, 206, 589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/206.3.589

    1982 doi

  8. [16]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 4011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu257

    Gilkis, A., & Soker, N. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 4011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu257

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe59e

    Ivanov, M., & Fern´ andez, R. 2021, ApJ, 911, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe59e

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Neustadt, J

    Kochanek, C. S., Neustadt, J. M. M., & Stanek, K. Z. 2024, ApJ, 962, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18d7

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Lovegrove, E., & Woosley, S. E. 2013, ApJ, 769, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/109

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    E., & Zhang, W

    Lovegrove, E., Woosley, S. E., & Zhang, W. 2017, ApJ, 845, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b7d

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Nadezhin, D. K. 1980, Ap&SS, 69, 115, doi: 10.1007/BF00638971

    1980 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 904, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2010, ApJ, 725, 904, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/904

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Quataert, E., Lecoanet, D., & Coughlin, E. R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L83, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz031

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2012, ApJL, 750, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L31

    Robertson, B., & Goldreich, P. 2012, ApJL, 750, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L31

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    2009, A&A, 508, 751, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912495

    Vink, J. 2009, A&A, 508, 751, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912495

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    Smartt, S. J. 2015, PASA, 32, e016, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.17

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Eldridge, J

    Smartt, S. J., Eldridge, J. J., Crockett, R. M., & Maund, J. R. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1409, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14506.x

    2009

  20. [28]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    1984, ApJ, 284, 394, doi: 10.1086/162419

    Vitello, P. 1984, ApJ, 284, 394, doi: 10.1086/162419

    1984 doi

  22. [30]

    L., & Wasserman, I

    Zampieri, L., Colpi, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Wasserman, I. 1998, ApJ, 505, 876, doi: 10.1086/306192

    1998 doi

Pith tools

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