Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The First Day of a Type Ia Supernova from a Double-Degenerate Binary

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A white-dwarf collision in a Type Ia supernova creates a hot wake: half the sky brightens early, then dims by 15% at day one.

desk verdict First-day light curves for double-degenerate SN Ia: testable predictions, but the wake's homology mapping from 1000 s to 2 hr needs stiffer justification. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19722 v1 pith:34SHTYJ7 submitted 2025-07-26 astro-ph.HE

Gabriel Kumar , Logan J. Prust , Lars Bildsten This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords typeIasupernovaedouble-degeneratebinarieswhitedwarfdonorssupernovaejectainteractionearlylightcurvesradiationhydrodynamicsshock-heatedwakeviewing-angledependence
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

Type Ia supernovae in double-degenerate binaries—systems of two white dwarfs—are expected to slam into the surviving donor star at the moment of detonation. This paper uses hydrodynamical plus radiation-transport simulations to argue that the collision sculpts a hot, low-density, high-velocity wake in the ejecta. The consequence is a distinctive two-stage light-curve signature: in the first few hours the explosion is brighter than $10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ over more than half the sky, with the wake side about four times brighter than the back side; by one day the same viewing directions are about 15 percent dimmer than a normal Type Ia because the wake's modified density structure changes how radioactive heating is radiated. Detecting this pattern would identify the double-degenerate channel and its orientation on the sky.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conical wake: a low-density, high-temperature channel in the ejecta downstream of the donor, bounded by a bow shock and a recompression shock, in which the radial velocity is increased by as much as about 50 percent. The argument is carried by two coupled stages: first, a hydrodynamical simulation of the ejecta–donor collision that maps the wake's density, temperature, and velocity structure at $t=1000$ s; second, a homologous evolution of each ejected parcel with $\rho\propto t^{-3}$ and $^{56}$Ni heating, followed by an implicit radiation-hydrodynamics calculation that produces the angle-dependent light curves. The wake's protrusion is what makes the shocked emission visible over more than half the sky, and its low density is what makes the photosphere recede and the wake direction dim at one day.

What would settle it

A full three-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamical run that evolves the ejecta continuously from $t=1000$ s without the homologous-expansion approximation would either preserve or erase the wake's high-velocity protrusion and one-day density deficit; the claim fails if the protrusion or the 15 percent dip disappears. Observationally, a nearby Type Ia caught within hours with dense multi-band coverage that shows no angle-dependent excess and no one-day dip in any orientation would also contradict the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the collision between Type Ia ejecta and a Roche-lobe-filling white dwarf donor leaves a permanent conical imprint on the ejecta: a low-density, radiation-pressure-dominated wake bounded by a bow shock and a weaker recompression shock, with ejecta accelerated by up to about 50 percent so that the shocked material protrudes ahead of the unperturbed ejecta. Evolving this structure homologously with $^{56}$Ni heating and computing angle-dependent radiation transport, the authors find that the hot shocked gas yields $L>10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ over more than half the sky in the first few hours. At later times the photosphere within the wake cools and recedes in velocity space, so that by about 12 hours nickel heating dominates the luminosity and, by one day, observers looking directly into the wake see about 15 percent less light than observers on the back side: 86 percent of the back-side value at $\theta=18^\circ$ and 93 percent at $\theta=38^\circ$ for their fiducial nickel mass fraction $X_{56}=0.04$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the ejecta structure computed at $t=1000$ s can be carried to $t=2$ hr as purely homologous spherical expansion, with each parcel's density scaling as $t^{-3}$ and only $^{56}$Ni heating changing its entropy; if the wake's transverse pressure gradients or non-radial velocities matter during this phase, the protrusion that drives both the early overbrightness and the one-day dimming would be different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An observer looking into the wake at $\theta\approx 18^\circ$ would see about $1.5\times10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at 2.9 hours, roughly four times the back-side luminosity at that time.
  • Although the strongest contrast is confined to $\theta\lesssim 55^\circ$ (about 20 percent of the sky), the protruding shocked ejecta produces a measurable effect over more than half the sky in the first hours.
  • After roughly 12 hours, radioactive nickel heating dominates the light curve and most viewing angles converge to nearly the same emission, so the wake signal becomes a deficit rather than an excess.
  • At one day, observers at $\theta=18^\circ$ and $38^\circ$ see respectively 86 percent and 93 percent of the back-side luminosity, a persistent $\approx 15$ percent underbrightness in the wake direction.
  • The predicted early luminosity of order $2\times10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$ corresponds to $M_{\rm Bol}\approx -12$, fainter than almost all SNe are caught at, so detecting the signal requires very early, deep observations such as those that caught SN 2018aoz.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the one-day underbrightness persists to the light-curve peak, the double-degenerate channel would imprint an orientation-dependent offset on Type Ia distance measurements, potentially adding scatter that current standardization does not remove.
  • The high-velocity protrusion of the wake provides a plausible geometric origin for the two distinct ejecta velocities reported in some Type Ia supernovae; synthesizing spectra along wake sight lines could test this.
  • Because the donor is modeled as a fixed rigid sphere, the computed wake contrast is likely an upper limit; simulations with a moving, mass-losing donor would bracket the observable range and could reduce the early excess.
  • A search of archival early light curves for the paired signature—an early excess followed by a one-day dip—could separate companion interaction from competing $^{56}$Ni-in-the-outer-ejecta explanations for early emission.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper simulates the interaction between Type Ia supernova ejecta and a Roche-lobe-filling white dwarf donor in a double-degenerate binary, using Athena++ in a 3D spherical wedge. The hydrodynamics run to t=1000 s produces a low-density, high-temperature conical wake behind the donor, with a bow shock and a recompression shock. The ejecta that has exited the outer boundary is then evolved homologously (rho ∝ t^-3) with uniform 56Ni heating to t=2 hr, mapped onto a spherical grid, and followed with 3D radiation-hydrodynamics simulations to 23.9 hr. From these simulations the authors obtain angle-dependent bolometric light curves, finding an early excess (peak ~1.5e40 erg/s at θ=18°, t=2.9 hr) that is visible from a large fraction of the sky, and a late-time deficit: at ~1 day, observers looking into the wake see roughly 86% of the backside luminosity, i.e., a ~15% dimming, attributed to the modified density structure of the wake.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a concrete, viewing-angle-dependent observable signature of a double-degenerate Type Ia supernova progenitor: an early excess with a broad sky coverage and a late-time dimming for observers aligned with the wake. This would be directly relevant to early-time surveys and to the interpretation of events like SN 2018aoz. The work is strengthened by several good practices: the Athena++ setup and analysis scripts are deposited on Zenodo; the radiation transport is checked for self-consistency by comparing the photospheric flux with Eq. (18) and the diffusive flux with the analytical slope; and the results are anchored against the analytic models of Piro (2012) and Kasen (2010). The main weaknesses are the approximate homology extension for the wake material, the artificially high absorption opacity, and the uniform 56Ni distribution; these are acknowledged in the text but not all are quantitatively tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4.2] The homology assumption used to evolve the ejecta from t=1000 s to t=2 hr is not demonstrated for the wake material, which is the material that determines the paper's central results. The justification given in §3 is that P/(rho v^2/2) << 1 and v_theta << v_r at rout. However, Fig. 3 shows density discontinuities at both the bow shock and the recompression shock at rout, and the shocked wake is radiation-pressure-dominated (lower right panel). For this gas, the pressure-to-ram ratio is not shown to be small locally, and the presence of the recompression shock at the outflow boundary means the flow is still being processed by pressure gradients when the homologous mapping is applied. Because the protruding, high-velocity wake drives both the early overbrightness and the late-time 15% dimming, an error in its density structure propagates directly into both headline claims. Please provide the θ-profile of P/(rho v^2/2) at rout for the shocked material (θ ≲ 20°), or otherwise demonstrate that the wake structure is converged (e.g., by extending the hydrodynamical run to later times or by comparing with a direct 3D RHD simulation).
  2. [§4] The abstract states that the hot, high-velocity, shocked ejecta 'yields L>10^40 ergs/s over half the sky in the first few hours.' This is stronger than what the paper reports quantitatively. In §4.2 the peak luminosity at t=2.9 hr is 1.52e40 erg/s for θ=18°, and the text says the effect of the shock can be seen at angles up to θ=142°; the latter statement is about the excess over the backside, not about exceeding 10^40 erg/s. The paper does not show a map of L(t,θ) demonstrating that the >10^40 erg/s region covers half the sky. Please either revise the abstract to match the actual angle-resolved light curves (e.g., 'an excess over the backside visible over more than half the sky') or provide the additional data that support the luminosity-threshold claim.
  3. [§4.2 and Fig. 9] The radiation-hydrodynamics calculations use an artificially high absorption opacity, κa=0.03 cm^2/g, with κs=0.17 cm^2/g, chosen to keep the total opacity at the Thomson value of 0.2 cm^2/g while ensuring strong gas-radiation coupling. No sensitivity test is presented for this choice. The late-time dimming mechanism relies on the photosphere cooling and receding in velocity space within the wake; the location of the photosphere and the degree of gas-radiation coupling depend on the absorption-to-scattering ratio, not only on the total opacity. A calculation with a more realistic (much smaller) κa could give a different effective photosphere and therefore a different dimming amplitude. Please either run a case with lower κa (or κa→0 in the free-streaming limit) or provide a quantitative argument that the bolometric light curves are insensitive to κa/κs at fixed total opacity.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2] The light curves in Figs. 8 and 9 are averages over 8 θ bins, but the text does not state how many observers fall in each bin or the exact bin boundaries; the θ=18° curve, in particular, should be identified as a bin average or a single ordinate.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'dimmer than that of a normal type Ia supernova by 15 percent' is based on a comparison with the unshocked backside of the same ejecta model, not with an observed or independently modeled normal Type Ia. Please qualify this wording (e.g., 'than the unshocked backside of the same model') to avoid overstating the comparison.
  3. [§4] The phrase 'artificially high absorption scattering' in the opacity description should be 'artificially high absorption opacity' to distinguish it from the scattering opacity.
  4. [§4.2 and Fig. 9] The integration is run to 23.9 hr, but the text and abstract refer to 'by one day'; please say '~1 day' or report the exact final time consistently.
  5. [§3, Eq. (7)] The 56Ni heating expression includes only the 56Ni→56Co decay; for completeness, the text could note that the 56Co decay is negligible on the first-day timescale of interest.
  6. [§4.2, Kasen comparison] When comparing with Kasen (2010) Eq. (22), the text should state the assumed donor mass, orbital separation, and ejecta parameters used for that extrapolation, since the result is sensitive to these choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the light curves are simulation outputs from an independent radiation-hydrodynamics calculation, and the self-citations are input or method references rather than load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) an Athena++ Euler simulation of the ejecta-donor collision produces the wake density and temperature structure; (2) this structure is homologously evolved to t=7200 s with 56Ni heating; (3) independent Athena++ radiation-hydrodynamics simulations (Jiang 2021) generate angle-dependent light curves; and (4) results are checked against the external analytic model of Piro (2012). The headline numbers (L>10^40 erg/s over half the sky; 15% dimming at one day) are outputs of this chain, not quantities fitted to themselves. The homologous-expansion assumption in Section 3 is an approximation justified by P/(rho v^2/2) << 1 and v_theta << v_r; even if this check is insufficient for the low-density wake, that is a validity or accuracy risk, not circularity, because the light curves are not defined in terms of the assumption. Self-citations to Prust et al. (2025), Wong et al. (2024), Bauer et al. (2019), and Shen & Bildsten (2014) provide numerical setup details, the Gaussian ejecta profile, donor parameters, and the assumed double-detonation channel; none of these is a uniqueness theorem or a fitted result that forces the claimed predictions. The paper also explicitly flags limitations (grey transfer, no color calculations, persistence to peak unknown), which supports the interpretation that the claims are contingent simulation outputs rather than definitions or renamed inputs. No circular step can be quoted because no fitted parameter is recycled into a prediction and no target quantity is used to define an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The light curves depend on a small set of explicitly chosen parameters (uniform X56=0.04/0.08, opacity split with artificial kappa_a=0.03) and domain assumptions (homology after 1000 s, rigid reflective donor, grey radiation transport). No free parameters are fitted to the target observables, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • 56Ni mass fraction X56 = 0.04 (also 0.08 in comparison run)
    Assumed uniform in the ejecta; sets the balance between radioactive and shock heating. The paper notes detonation models span over an order of magnitude for this value.
  • Absorption opacity kappa_a = 0.03 cm^2/g
    Chosen, with kappa_s=0.17, to give total Thompson opacity 0.2 cm^2/g while artificially enhancing gas-radiation coupling, explicitly stated as artificial in Section 4.
  • Scattering opacity kappa_s = 0.17 cm^2/g
    Chosen so kappa_s+kappa_a=0.2 cm^2/g, the electron-scattering value for hydrogen-free ejecta.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ejecta exiting the simulation at rout=10.8 R_sun is in homology and radial flow, so density of each Lagrangian parcel scales as rho proportional to t^{-3} from t=1000 s onward.
    Used in Section 3 to evolve the ejecta to 2 hr before radiation-hydro; justified only by P/(rho v^2/2) much less than 1 and v_theta about 100 km/s much less than v_r (Fig. 3).
  • domain assumption The donor is modeled as a rigid, reflective spherical boundary that does not respond to the impact.
    Stated in Section 2; eliminates mass loss and donor motion, and is acknowledged to give an upper limit on momentum transfer but also shapes the wake structure.
  • domain assumption Gas and radiation are in local thermodynamic equilibrium, with internal energy u = a_r T^4 + (3/2) rho k_B T/(mu m_p).
    Used in Section 2 to close the Euler equations; appropriate for the dense, optically thick ejecta but an assumption for the shocked, low-density wake.
  • ad hoc to paper 56Ni is distributed uniformly throughout the ejecta with mass fraction X56.
    Stated in Sections 3 and 5 as a choice 'for the purposes of this initial exploration'; real detonation models have a radially varying and uncertain nickel distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper The total opacity is set to the electron-scattering value 0.2 cm^2/g, with an artificially high absorption component to couple gas and radiation.
    Described in Section 4; the artificial kappa_a may affect the early thermal coupling and light-curve rise even though total opacity is fixed.
  • domain assumption Radiative transfer is solved in the grey (frequency-integrated) approximation.
    Used in Section 4; prevents calculation of colors or line formation, which the paper acknowledges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The First Day of a Type Ia Supernova from a Double-Degenerate Binary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34SHTYJ7

@misc{pith2026250719722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The First Day of a Type Ia Supernova from a Double-Degenerate Binary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34SHTYJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19722}
}
abstract

Supernovae in binary star systems involve a hydrodynamical interaction between the ejecta and a binary companion. This collision results in shock heating and a modified density structure for the ejecta, both of which affect the light curve. As highlighted by Kasen, these considerations are particularly relevant for type Ia supernovae, as the companion is expected to be Roche-lobe filling at the time of the explosion. We simulate here the interaction between type Ia supernova ejecta and a white dwarf donor using Athena++, finding the formation of a low-density wake extending to higher velocities than the unperturbed ejecta. Radiation hydrodynamics is then used to generate synthetic light curves for the first day after the explosion for a range of viewing angles. We find that the hot, high-velocity, shocked ejecta yields $L>10^{40}$ ergs/s over half the sky in the first few hours. The photosphere within the shock-heated ejecta cools and recedes in velocity space, partially obscuring it from view, as heating from radioactive nickel becomes increasingly important in driving the supernova's luminosity. By one day after the explosion, the luminosity measured by observers looking directly into the wake is dimmer than that of a normal type Ia supernova by 15 percent due to the modified density structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of our numerical setup highlighting sev￾eral features of the resulting wake. 2. HYDRODYNAMICAL INTERACTION AND THE WAKE STRUCTURE We perform hydrodynamical simulations using Athena++ (Stone et al. 2020), which solves the Eu￾ler equations ∂ρ ∂t + ∇ · ρv = 0, (1) ∂ρv ∂t + ∇ · (ρvvT + PI) = 0, (2) ∂u ∂t + ∇ · (e + P) v = 0 (3) for material with density ρ, fluid velocity v, pressure P, energy density e = u + ρv2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Slice plots showing density (top) and temperature (bottom) on the ϕ = 0 plane 200 seconds after the supernova. The red arrows indicate the location of the secondary shock. the shocked ejecta. The widening of the shock cone is also apparent in this plot, encompassing θ ≲ 50◦ by the end of the run. This means that roughly 18% of the ejecta (by solid angle) has experienced shock heating. Furthermore, whereas the unshoc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Several properties of the ejecta measured at rout = 10.8 R⊙ plotted vs θ at various times. The density (upper left) shows a rapid dropoff at small θ, differing from Kasen (2010). The transverse velocity (upper right) illustrates the positions of the shocks and shows rarefaction waves between them. The temperature (lower left) reveals that the shock-heated ejecta is much hotter than the unshocked gas, causing much of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Slice plots showing density (top) and temperature (bottom) on the ϕ = 0 plane after evolving the material leaving the edge of the original simulation to t = 2 hours after the explosion for X56 = 0.04. cost. The fluid evolves according to the Euler equations ∂I ∂t + cn …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature as a function of θ at τ = 1 (inte￾grated radially) for a set of times after the explosion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plots showing temperature and the τ = 1 and τ = 10 optical thickness isolines on the ϕ = 0 plane at t = 5.0 hrs (top) and t = 18.5 hrs (bottom) assuming X56 = 0.04 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radiation energy density at the measurement radius Rm vs θ at various times. steadily decreasing with θ. The noise in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Luminosity vs time for X56 = 0.04 from t ≈ 2 to 8 hrs. The legend provides the angle from which the observer views the supernova. We compare against the light curve predicted by Piro (2012) labeled “Analytics” describing a supernova without shock-heated ejecta [PITH_F…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Luminosity vs time for X56 = 0.04 up to ≈1 day after the supernova at various viewing angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Luminosity vs time for X56 = 0.08 from t ≈ 2 to 8 hrs. The legend provides the angle from which the observer views the supernova. We compare against the light curve predicted by Piro (2012) labeled “Analytics” describing a supernova without shock-heated ejecta [PITH_…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Illustration of spherically-symmetric ejecta im￾pacting a spherical donor, with variable definitions. The ejecta momentum is decomposed into its components tan￾gential and normal to the donor surface, the latter being imparted to the donor. Eliminating σ and pimp, thi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ideal momentum transfer efficiency ηideal versus R/a, based on (A5). For R/a = 0, (A5) reproduces the result for planar ejecta ηideal = 1/2. Using the Gaussian ejecta profile presented in Wong et al. (2024) and truncating material with v > vmax, this evaluates to ptot…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A double-degenerate scenario with a merger to explosion delay time to explain type Ia supernova SN 2020aeuh

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The author proposes that SN 2020aeuh's early carbon-oxygen circumstellar interaction is the delayed explosion of a merged white dwarf, about one to two years after the merger.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B., White, C

    Bauer, E. B., White, C. J., & Bildsten, L. 2019, ApJ, 887, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4 2019

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2 2021

  4. [4]

    J., Dawson, K

    Brown, P. J., Dawson, K. S., Harris, D. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/18 Di Stefano, R., Voss, R., & Claeys, J. S. W. 2011, ApJL, 738, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/738/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/18 2012

  5. [5]

    J., Chandra, V., et al

    El-Badry, K., Shen, K. J., Chandra, V., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 28, doi: 10.21105/astro.2306.03914

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    2012, ApJL, 756, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L4

    Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K. 2012, ApJL, 756, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L4

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/l4 2012

  7. [7]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

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

  8. [8]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6a0

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., & Yamada, S. 2018, ApJ, 864, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6a0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad6a0 2018

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    A., Shen, K

    Hollands, M. A., Shen, K. J., Raddi, R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf950

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    B., Jones, D

    Hoogendam, W. B., Jones, D. O., Ashall, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.17556, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.17556

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2340

    Hu, M., Wang, L., Wang, X., & Wang, L. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 246, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2340

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb3a4

    Iskandar, A., Wang, X., Esamdin, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb3a4

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe303 14

    Jiang, Y.-F. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe303 14

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2011, ApJL, 730, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/L34

    Justham, S. 2011, ApJL, 730, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/L34

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16388748

    Kumar, G., Prust, L., & Bildsten, L. 2025, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16388748

    2025 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]

    J., & Stancliffe, R

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

    doi

  12. [20]

    M., R¨ opke, F

    Liu, Z.-W., Tauris, T. M., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2015b, A&A, 584, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526757

    doi

  13. [21]

    R., & Maguire, K

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

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., et al

    Magee, M. R., Maguire, K., Kotak, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936684

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Sim, S

    Magee, M. R., Sim, S. A., Kotak, R., & Kerzendorf, W. E. 2018, A&A, 614, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832675

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    2000, ApJS, 128, 615, doi: 10.1086/313392

    Marietta, E., Burrows, A., & Fryxell, B. 2000, ApJS, 128, 615, doi: 10.1086/313392

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    H., Brown, P

    Marion, G. H., Brown, P. J., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 92, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/92

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Mihalas, D., & Mihalas, B. W. 1984, Foundations of radiation hydrodynamics (Oxford University Press,New

    1984

  19. [27]

    https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5734165

    York, NY). https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5734165

  20. [28]

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

    Ni, Y. Q., Moon, D.-S., Drout, M. R., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 959, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0640 —. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 568, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01603-4 —. 2023b, ApJ, 946, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca9be —. 2025, ApJ, 983, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbbb7

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    P., Mushotzky, R., Shaya, E

    Olling, R. P., Mushotzky, R., Shaya, E. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 521, 332, doi: 10.1038/nature14455

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Piro, A. L. 2012, ApJ, 759, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/83

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    L., & Morozova, V

    Piro, A. L., & Morozova, V. S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 96, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/96

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    L., & Nakar, E

    Piro, A. L., & Nakar, E. 2013, ApJ, 769, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/67 —. 2014, ApJ, 784, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/85

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Sim, S

    Pollin, J. M., Sim, S. A., Pakmor, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1909

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Kumar, G., & Bildsten, L

    Prust, L. J., Kumar, G., & Bildsten, L. 2025, ApJ, 982, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb7db

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    B., Baumgarte, T

    Richards, C. B., Baumgarte, T. W., & Shapiro, S. L. 2021, Relativistic Bondi accretion for stiff equations of state, OUP, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab161

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, A&A Rv, 33, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    J., & Bildsten, L

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

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Boos, S

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., Townsley, D. M., & Kasen, D. 2021, ApJ, 922, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2304

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B

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

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9ee

    Tanikawa, A., Nomoto, K., & Nakasato, N. 2018, ApJ, 868, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9ee

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Wong, T. L. S., White, C. J., & Bildsten, L. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a11

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Zhang, M., Fuller, J., Schwab, J., & Foley, R. J. 2019, ApJ, 872, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb34

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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