Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Revisiting the Perseus Cluster I: Resolving the Si/S/Ar/Ca ratios by Stellar Convection

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that pairing a mixing length parameter of 2.2 with a semi-convection parameter of 0.03 in massive-star models brings core-collapse supernova yields of Si, S, Ar, and Ca into line with the Perseus Cluster's measured…

desk verdict Useful yield tables and a plausible mechanism, but the 'best fit' claim to Perseus is not actually demonstrated against the Hitomi data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21032 v2 pith:D25OJECQ submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Shing-Chi Leung , Ken'ichi Nomoto , Aurora Simionescu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords core-collapsesupernovaePerseusClusterintraclustermediumexplosivenucleosynthesismixinglengthparametersemi-convectionSi-groupelements
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

The paper sets out to explain a specific mismatch between supernova models and the measured composition of the hot gas in the Perseus Cluster: published spherical core-collapse models produce too much silicon and sulfur relative to iron, and too little argon and calcium. Its proposal is that the culprit is not nuclear physics but how convection is treated while the star evolves, specifically the mixing length parameter $\alpha$ and the semi-convection parameter $\alpha_{\rm SC}$. The paper concludes that the pair $(\alpha, \alpha_{\rm SC}) = (2.2, 0.03)$, applied to stars of 15 to 40 solar masses, produces Si/S/Ar/Ca ratios much closer to the Perseus data, with the $20\,M_\odot$ model as the main Si-group producer. If this is right, cluster abundance patterns become a working constraint on stellar convection rather than only on explosion physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of convection parameters $\alpha$ (mixing length, controlling convective mixing efficiency) and $\alpha_{\rm SC}$ (semi-convection diffusion). They act by rearranging the pre-collapse composition of the progenitor: a higher $\alpha$ produces a more extended, continuously growing Si core and more Ar and Ca in the Si shell, and in some cases merges convection zones in the Si and C+O layers; a higher $\alpha_{\rm SC}$ sharpens the O-Si boundary and reduces Si-group production. These pre-collapse differences are then converted into final yields by a 1D thermal-bomb explosion with a fixed $10^{51}$ erg energy and an imposed Fe-core mass cut, followed by a 495-isotope nucleosynthesis network that turns each fluid element's thermodynamic history into isotope yields.

What would settle it

A 3D neutrino-driven explosion of a 20 solar mass star that matches the Perseus Si/S/Ar/Ca ratios with no tuning of convection parameters, or a high-resolution X-ray measurement of another cluster where the (2.2, 0.03) yields predict the wrong Ar and Ca ratios, would count against the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the ratio problem for Si, S, Ar, and Ca can be resolved by changing how convective mixing shapes the pre-collapse star, without touching nuclear reaction rates. A larger $\alpha$ burns more oxygen into silicon-group material and extends the Ar- and Ca-rich zones in the ejecta, while a larger $\alpha_{\rm SC}$ suppresses the overproduction of Si and S relative to Ar and Ca, making the four elements more uniform. With $\alpha = 2.2$ and $\alpha_{\rm SC} = 0.03$, the $20\,M_\odot$ model gives $[\mathrm{Si}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, $[\mathrm{S}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, $[\mathrm{Ar}/\mathrm{Fe}]$, and $[\mathrm{Ca}/\mathrm{Fe}]$ all near $0.6$, a pattern close to the near-solar ratios observed in Perseus, while the 15 and 25 solar mass models underproduce these elements and the 40 solar mass model lands close to solar.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the 1D thermal-bomb explosion model, with its fixed $10^{51}$ erg energy and imposed Fe-core mass cut, faithfully reproducing the temperature and density history that determines explosive Si-group nucleosynthesis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the (2.2, 0.03) parameters, the 20 $M_\odot$ model produces Si, S, Ar, and Ca at nearly equal super-solar ratios, closely matching the Perseus pattern.
  • The 15 and 25 $M_\odot$ models underproduce the Si-group elements, so the stellar initial mass function and the relative core-collapse supernova rate at each mass become important for fitting cluster abundances.
  • The 40 $M_\odot$ model synthesizes Si-group elements close to solar, so more massive progenitors do not drive the Perseus signal.
  • Slightly super-solar CCSN Si-group yields can compensate for the slightly sub-solar Si-group yields of standard Type Ia supernova models when both are combined.
  • The same parameter pair can serve as a calibrated input for galactic and cluster chemical evolution calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the explanation holds, it implies that abundance anomalies previously read as evidence of aspherical explosions or altered reaction rates could partly be a stellar-convection effect; applying the same parameters to other clusters would test this generality.
  • The fitted pair may be partially degenerate with the explosion energy and mass cut; a grid that varies $E_{\rm expl}$ and $M_{\rm cut}$ at fixed $(\alpha,\alpha_{\rm SC})$ would show how much of the improvement is really due to convection.
  • With high-resolution X-ray spectra from XRISM, the model's predictions for minor elements such as K, Sc, and Mn could distinguish this convection-driven solution from alternatives that tune the explosion itself.
  • The models remove the hydrogen envelope after the main sequence, approximating binary evolution; recomputing with full envelopes would test whether single-star yields shift enough to weaken the Perseus fit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper uses the MESA stellar evolution code to compute 15–40 solar-mass progenitor models with varied mixing-length parameter α and semi-convection parameter α_SC, then explodes them with a 1D thermal-bomb hydrodynamics code and post-processes the ejecta with a larger nucleosynthesis network. The central claim is that the parameter pair (α, α_SC) = (2.2, 0.03) makes the Si/S/Ar/Ca yields of a 20 solar-mass model 'closest to the Perseus Cluster' and is 'required to fit' the observed pattern, primarily by making the four element ratios more uniform and by raising Ar and Ca relative to Si and S. The paper also compares against literature CCSN models and discusses implications for future XRISM observations.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a concrete way to reduce the long-standing discrepancy between spherical CCSN yield models and the near-solar Si-group ratios in the Perseus ICM without changing nuclear reaction rates. The study is systematic within its parameter grid, and the authors make the configuration files available on Zenodo and tabulate the yields in Appendix A, which aids reproducibility. However, the significance is currently limited because the claimed match to Perseus is not demonstrated quantitatively: no observed abundance ratios or uncertainties from Hitomi are quoted, no figure overlays model predictions on the data, and Table 2 shows the favored model to be ~0.6 dex supersolar in [X/Fe]. The qualitative trend that higher α raises Ar and Ca while higher α_SC flattens the Si-group pattern is useful, but the paper's headline conclusion goes beyond what the presented comparison supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §5.3, §6.3, Table 2] The central claim that (α, α_SC) = (2.2, 0.03) yields the pattern 'closest to the Perseus Cluster' is not supported by any quantitative comparison to the observed Perseus abundances. The paper never quotes the Hitomi Collaboration (2017) measured ratios or their uncertainties, and no figure overlays the model yields on the observed cluster abundances. Table 2 shows that M20A22S03 has [Si/Fe]=0.61, [S/Fe]=0.64, [Ar/Fe]=0.56, and [Ca/Fe]=0.64, i.e., all four ratios are about 0.6 dex (a factor of ~4) above solar, while §1.2 of the paper itself states that the Perseus ICM is in 'strikingly good agreement with the Solar ratios.' The 15, 25, and 40 solar-mass models in the same table have [X/Fe] between about -0.28 and +0.14, much closer to the observed absolute level, yet they are dismissed because their patterns are less uniform. Thus the selection of M20A22S03 and of (2.2, 0.03) is a pattern-shape-only, post-hoc choice. I request a defined goodness-of-fit measure (e.g., a chi-square over Si, S, Ar, Ca using Hitomi uncertainties, with a CCSN+SN Ia mixture) or a reframing of the conclusion as 'produces a uniform Si-group pattern' rather than 'fits Perseus.'
  2. [§2, §4.1] The explosion model fixes the explosion energy at 10^51 erg and deposits it as a thermal bomb in the innermost 0.1 solar mass inside the Fe-core mass cut. The paper's conclusion that convective parameters alone resolve the Perseus Si/S/Ar/Ca mismatch rests on this fixed explosion prescription. Since the yields of Si-group elements and the Fe normalization are sensitive to the mass cut and explosion energy, the fitted (α, α_SC) values could be compensating for explosion-model error rather than representing real stellar convection. Please test the sensitivity of the [Si/Fe], [S/Fe], [Ar/Fe], and [Ca/Fe] pattern of M20A22S03 to at least a modest variation in the explosion energy and mass cut, or discuss quantitatively why the conclusion is robust to these choices.
  3. [§5.3, §6.2, Table 5] The Perseus ICM is an IMF-integrated enrichment from many CCSNe and SNe Ia, but the paper compares individual CCSN yields directly to the cluster and does not construct a mixture of progenitor masses and SN Ia contributions. The paper itself notes in §6.2 that SNe Ia contribute a representative fraction of Si-group elements. Without an IMF-weighted CCSN+SN Ia synthesis, the statements that the 20 solar-mass model is the 'main producer' of Si-group elements and that its pattern is 'closest to the Perseus Cluster' are not a test of cluster enrichment. A simple mixture using the tabulated Chandrasekhar and sub-Chandrasekhar yields in Appendix A would show whether the claimed improvement survives when the cluster context is included.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1, §3] The model naming convention is inconsistent: M20A15S01 is listed with α=0.15, while §3 states α=0.1×YY and YY=15 should give α=1.5; similarly M20A20S03 is listed with α_SC=0.02 although the name implies α_SC=0.03. Please harmonize the table and the naming convention.
  2. [Figure 13, Figure 15, §5.3] The captions of Figures 13 and 15 list 'M20A22S01' in the plotted sequences, but the text and Table 2 describe the reference model as M20A22S03; please correct the captions.
  3. [§5.3] Bullet (2) of Section 5.3 refers to 'M40A220S03', which is a typo for M40A22S03.
  4. [§3, §5.2] The sentence 'We vary α between 1.5 to 2.2 and α_SC = 0.03 between 0.01 - 0.30' is garbled and should presumably read 'α_SC between 0.01 and 0.30.' In addition, §5.2 refers to 'M20A22S02', a model that does not appear in Table 1.
  5. [§6.1] The sentence 'The L20 model has the overall the closest elemental distribution' contains a grammatical error; it should be 'has overall the closest elemental distribution.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The conclusion that (alpha, alpha_SC)=(2.2,0.03) is 'required to fit' the Perseus Si/S/Ar/Ca pattern is a restatement of the parameter search used to select those values, with no independent quantitative comparison to the Hitomi data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 5.3 and Section 6.3 conclusions]
    "We search for the value pair that can reduce the discrepancy in the models. We conclude that a mixing length parameter of 2.2 and semi-convection parameter of 0.03 are required to fit these criteria. ... it appears that the parameter set α=2.2 and α_SC=0.03 has chemical abundance patterns which are the closest to the Perseus Cluster."

    The parameter pair is not derived from an independent first-principles constraint; it is the endpoint of the search described in the same sentences. The paper scans alpha and alpha_SC, judges models by how closely their Si/S/Ar/Ca pattern matches Perseus (in practice, by the uniformity of the four ratios, as in Table 2 and Section 5.2), and then reports the winning pair as 'required to fit these criteria.' No quantitative goodness-of-fit to the Hitomi abundances is defined, and no held-out comparison or CCSN+SN Ia mixture is constructed to test whether M20A22S03 actually predicts the Perseus pattern. The statement that (2.2, 0.03) 'may provide the abundance pattern that is closest' therefore restates the selection criterion rather than offering an out-of-sample prediction.

full rationale

The paper's stellar-evolution and explosive-nucleosynthesis pipeline (MESA plus thermal-bomb hydrodynamics plus the torch network) is a genuine calculation with internal physical content, and the trends in Si/O, Ar/O, and Ca/O with alpha and alpha_SC are computed rather than assumed. However, the central claim about Perseus is a parameter search presented as a fit: the paper explicitly seeks the (alpha, alpha_SC) pair that reduces the discrepancy with the Perseus pattern, then concludes that the selected pair is 'required' to fit and that M20A22S03 is 'closest' to Perseus. Because no quantitative distance to the Hitomi data and no independent validation (for example, testing the chosen pair on a different mass, metallicity, or observed quantity) is provided, the matching claim reduces to the selection criterion instead of constituting a prediction. The literature calibration of alpha approximately 1.786 for the Sun and approximately 2.1 for Betelgeuse offers external motivation that 2.2 is plausible, which prevents the exercise from being wholly vacuous, but it does not convert the fitted pair into a prediction. This is a partial circularity of the fitted-input-called-prediction type, specific to the Perseus conclusion; it is not a self-citation or uniqueness-import problem.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted convection parameters, a fixed thermal-bomb explosion energy and mass cut, and several domain assumptions about 1D modeling, H-envelope removal, and the small nuclear network. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or other invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • mixing_length_alpha = 2.2
    Selected from a grid alpha=1.5-2.2 as the value whose 20 solar mass yields are judged closest to the Perseus Si/S/Ar/Ca pattern (Section 5.3). Solar calibration gives 1.786 and Betelgeuse gives 2.1, so the value is system-dependent but not independently fixed for Perseus progenitors.
  • semi_convection_alpha_SC = 0.03
    Selected from a grid alpha_SC=0.01-0.10; the literature range spans 0.01-300 and an SMC calibration gives about 1, so this is a low value chosen to fit the target ratios.
  • explosion_energy = 1e51 erg
    Fixed to a typical CCSN energy for all models (Section 4.1); the final yields depend on it and it is not varied.
  • inner_mass_cut = Fe-core mass for each model (1.36-1.60 solar masses)
    The thermal bomb is deposited inside the Fe-core mass cut (Section 2 and Table 2); this determines what is ejected and directly affects Si-group yields.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mixing-length theory and the semi-convection prescription in MESA adequately represent convective mixing in the advanced burning phases of massive stars.
    The entire paper varies these two parameters and attributes yield changes to their effect on the pre-collapse composition (Sections 2 and 3).
  • domain assumption A 1D thermal-bomb explosion with fixed energy reproduces the explosive nucleosynthesis conditions for even-Z Si-group elements.
    Explosive nucleosynthesis uses a 1D reactive Lagrangian code with energy injected in the innermost 0.1 solar mass, not a self-consistent neutrino-driven mechanism (Sections 2 and 4.1).
  • domain assumption Removing the H-envelope after the main sequence does not materially change the advanced evolution of the C+O core.
    The authors strip the H-envelope and note in Section 6.2 that for single stars this could shift the He-core mass by about 5% and make the core more degenerate.
  • domain assumption A 21-isotope network is sufficient for the Si-group elements studied here.
    The MESA network represents neutron-rich species by 56Cr, and the authors admit in Section 6.2 that odd-Z and minor elements require a larger network.
  • domain assumption The Perseus Si/S/Ar/Ca ratios can be interpreted with solar-metallicity CCSN yields plus Type Ia yields.
    The motivating comparison in Simionescu et al. (2019) includes CCSN and SN Ia models, but this paper does not run a combined fit and assumes the 20 solar mass CCSN is the dominant Si-group contributor (Section 6.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the Perseus Cluster I: Resolving the Si/S/Ar/Ca ratios by Stellar Convection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D25OJECQ

@misc{pith2026250721032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the Perseus Cluster I: Resolving the Si/S/Ar/Ca ratios by Stellar Convection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D25OJECQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21032}
}
abstract

Chemical abundance measurements from stars in the Milky Way to the intragalactic medium in the Perseus Cluster have challenged the spherical explosion models. Models in the literature cannot closely match the observed element ratios, where Si, S are overproduced and Ar, Ca are underproduced. In this article, we explore the impact of the model parameters during the evolution of massive stars on the final explosive nucleosynthesis. We investigate the effects of a parametrized model of the convective process, including the mixing length parameter and the semi-convection parameter, on the production of Si-group elements. We search for the value pair that can reduce the discrepancy in the models. We conclude that a mixing length parameter of 2.2 and semi-convection parameter of 0.03 are required to fit these criteria. Using this updated value pair, we compute a sequence of massive star models from $M_{\rm ZAMS} = $ 15 -- 40 $M_{\odot}$. The high resolution data from future observations such as XRISM will provide further details on less constrained processes in stellar evolution and supernova explosion. Future comparison with supernova models of various progenitor metallicity will further shed light on the supernova population and their relative rates on cosmological scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (top panel) The Kippenhahn diagram of M20A15S01. The lines from top to bottom correspond to the mass coordinates of the He, C+O, Si and Fe cores. (bot￾tom panel) Same as the top panel but for the M20A20S01. the convection history in the C+O layer is observed in M20A15S01 but not in M20A22S01. However, no sig￾nificant changes are observed in the He layer. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (top panel) The Kippenhahn diagram of M20A22S01. The lines from top to bottom correspond to the mass coordinates of the He, C+O, Si and Fe cores. (bot￾tom panel) Same as the top panel but for the M20A22S03. to the consumption of 16O in the lower boundary of the Si-core. We remark that M20A20S01 also shows an extended O-inner boundary, but the mixing leads to a higher 16O in the overall O-layer. For 28Si, the diffusi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The pre-collapse isotopic abundance profiles for M20A15S01 (red solid line), M20A18S01 (green dotted line), M20A20S01 (blue dashed line), and M20A22S01 (purple dot￾dashed line) for 16O, 28Si, and 36Ar, respectively. 36Ar for M20A20S01, M20A20S03, M20A20S06 and M20A20S10. These models examine the role of αSC on the final chemical production. By contrasting the latter three models, a high αSC (S01-S10) leads to a more… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The pre-collapse abundance profile for M20A20S01 (red solid line), M20A20S03 (green dotted line), M20A20S06 (blue dashed line), and M20A20S10 (purple dot￾dashed line) for 16O, 28Si and 36Ar respectively. duction of Ar as shown by the reduced size of the Ar-rich zone an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density profile snapshots of M20A22S03 post￾collapse explosion at t = 0 (blue solid line), 1 s (orange dotted line), 5 s (green dashed line), 10 s (red dot-dashed line), and 50 s (purple solid line). The time t is measured from the onset of collapse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (top panel) The element mass ratio M(Si)/M(O) against α for all models for the 20 M⊙ model. The colours (blue, green, orange, red) stand for αSC = 0.01, 0.030.06, 0.10 respectively. (middle panel) Same as the top panel but for M(Ar)/M(O). (bottom panel) Same as the bot…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (top panel) The corresponding density of the fluid elements at their maximum temperature taken from the ex￾plosive hydrodynamics simulations for M20A18S01 (blue cir￾cles), M20A20S01 (orange triangles) and M20A22S01 (green squares). The black solid line corresponds to t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (top panel) The post-explosion 16O mass fraction in the ejecta for M20A18S01 (blue solid line), M20A20S01 (orange dotted line), M20A22S01 (green dashed line) and M20A22S03 (red dot-dashed line). (middle panel) Same as the top panel but for 28Si. (bottom panel) Same as…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (top panel) The isotope ratio X/16O for M20A18S01 (blue circles), M20A20S01 (orange triangles) and M20A22S01 (green triangles). (bottom panel) Same as the top panel but for M20A22S01 (blue circles) and M20A22S03 (orange triangles). We remind that the typical SN Ia mod…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (top panel) The isotopic abundance ratio for M15A22S03 (blue circles), M20A22S01 (orange triangles) and M25A22S03 (open black squares). The two horizontal lines correspond to 200% (top line) and 50%(bottom line) of the solar values. (bottom panel) Same as the top pane…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The 20 M⊙ CCSN explosion models assuming solar metallcity taken from this work (M20A22S03, blue cir￾cles), N20 (orange triangles), S20 (open black squares), and L20 (green pentagons). result of the large network where minor elements are tracked through the evolution. …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (top panel) The isotopic abundance ratio with respect to 32S for M15A22S03 (blue circles), M20A22S01 (orange triangles) and M25A22S03 (open black squares). The two horizontal lines correspond to 200% (top line) and 50%(bottom line) of the solar values. (bottom panel) …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Aguilar, G., et al

    Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  2. [2]

    1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter from the Big Bang to the Present18

    Arnett, D. 1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter from the Big Bang to the Present18

    1996

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 B¨ ohm-Vitense, E. 1958, ZA, 46, 108

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281

    Buder, S., Asplund, M., Duong, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1281 2018

  5. [5]

    M., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.29.547 1957

  6. [6]

    2013, Reviews of Modern Physics, 85, 245, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.245

    Burrows, A. 2013, Reviews of Modern Physics, 85, 245, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.245

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.85.245 2013

  7. [7]

    C., Skinner, M

    Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., Dolence, J. C., Skinner, M. A., & Radice, D. 2018, SSRv, 214, 33, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0450-9 de Plaa, J., Werner, N., Bleeker, J. A. M., et al. 2007, A&A, 465, 345, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066382

    doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0450-9 2018

  8. [8]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b Fern´ andez, R

    Justham, S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b Fern´ andez, R. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1563, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1563 Fern´ andez, R., M¨ uller, B., Foglizzo, T., & Janka, H.-T. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu408

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b 2019

Show all 86 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]

    2002, A&A, 392, 353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020912

    Foglizzo, T. 2002, A&A, 392, 353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020912

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Johnson, J

    Griffith, E., Weinberg, D. H., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6be

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    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

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    N., Kobayashi, C., Tominaga, N., & Nomoto, K

    Hartwig, T., Ishigaki, M. N., Kobayashi, C., Tominaga, N., & Nomoto, K. 2023, ApJ, 946, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbcc6

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    1989, A&A, 210, L5

    Hashimoto, M., Nomoto, K., & Shigeyama, T. 1989, A&A, 210, L5

    1989

  7. [15]

    J., & Dessart, L

    Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2019, A&A, 631, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935100 Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 478, doi: 10.1038/nature24301

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Burbidge, G

    Hoyle, F., Fowler, W. A., Burbidge, G. R., & Burbidge, E. M. 1956, Science, 124, 611, doi: 10.1126/science.124.3223.611

    1956 doi

  9. [17]

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

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    1999, ApJS, 125, 439, doi: 10.1086/313278

    Iwamoto, K., Brachwitz, F., Nomoto, K., et al. 1999, ApJS, 125, 439, doi: 10.1086/313278

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    2012, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2012, 01A309, doi: 10.1093/ptep/pts067

    Janka, H.-T., Hanke, F., H¨ udepohl, L., et al. 2012, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2012, 01A309, doi: 10.1093/ptep/pts067

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66, 341, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044747

    Janka, H.-T., Melson, T., & Summa, A. 2016, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66, 341, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044747

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    T., & Mueller, E

    Janka, H. T., & Mueller, E. 1996, A&A, 306, 167

    1996

  14. [22]

    C., Gupta, S

    Jordan, G. C., Gupta, S. S., & Meyer, B. S. 2003, PhRvC, 68, 065801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.065801

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, ApJ, 902, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8db

    Joyce, M., Leung, S.-C., Moln´ ar, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8db

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2003, A&A, 408, 621, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030863

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020a, ApJ, 900, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    doi

  18. [26]

    2020b, ApJ, 895, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e44

    Kobayashi, C., Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2020b, ApJ, 895, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8e44

    doi

  19. [27]

    J., & Sugimoto, D

    Langer, N., Fricke, K. J., & Sugimoto, D. 1983, A&A, 126, 207

    1983

  20. [28]

    2021a, ApJ, 909, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9c1

    Leung, S.-C., Diehl, R., Nomoto, K., & Siegert, T. 2021a, ApJ, 909, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9c1

    doi

  21. [29]

    2021b, ApJ, 915, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcbe

    Leung, S.-C., Fuller, J., & Nomoto, K. 2021b, ApJ, 915, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcbe

    doi

  22. [30]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2df —

    Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 861, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2df —. 2020, ApJ, 888, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c1f —. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.17226, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.17226

    2018 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbdf5

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 2023, ApJ, 948, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbdf5

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2021c, ApJ, 923, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c63

    Leung, S.-C., Wu, S., & Fuller, J. 2021c, ApJ, 923, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c63

    doi

  25. [33]

    2018, ApJS, 238, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aada4a Liebend¨ orfer, M., Mezzacappa, A., Thielemann, F.-K., et al

    Li, H., Tan, K., & Zhao, G. 2018, ApJS, 238, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aada4a Liebend¨ orfer, M., Mezzacappa, A., Thielemann, F.-K., et al. 2001, PhRvD, 63, 103004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.103004

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2003, ApJ, 592, 404, doi: 10.1086/375703

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 404, doi: 10.1086/375703

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/147

    Simionescu, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/147

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    2001, The chemical evolution of the Galaxy, Vol

    Matteucci, F. 2001, The chemical evolution of the Galaxy, Vol. 253, doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0967-6

    2001 doi

  29. [37]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 12, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 123-1

    Mernier, F., & Biffi, V. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 12, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 123-1

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    2016, A&A, 595, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628765

    Mernier, F., de Plaa, J., Pinto, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628765

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    S., et al

    Mernier, F., de Plaa, J., Kaastra, J. S., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630075

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, L95, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly134 19

    Mernier, F., Werner, N., de Plaa, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, L95, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly134 19

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    E., et al

    Mezzacappa, A., Liebend¨ orfer, M., Messer, O. E., et al. 2001, PhRvL, 86, 1935, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1935

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    Moll, R., & Woosley, S. E. 2013, ApJ, 774, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/137

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    1988, PhR, 163, 13, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(88)90032-4

    Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M. 1988, PhR, 163, 13, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(88)90032-4

    1988 doi

  36. [44]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Nomoto, K., & Leung, S.-C. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 1275, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 62 —. 2018, SSRv, 214, 67, doi: 10.1007/s11214-018-0499-0

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    1993, Nature, 364, 507, doi: 10.1038/364507a0

    Nomoto, K., Suzuki, T., Shigeyama, T., et al. 1993, Nature, 364, 507, doi: 10.1038/364507a0

    1993 doi

  39. [47]

    2006, NuPhA, 777, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    Maeda, K. 2006, NuPhA, 777, 424, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.05.008

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    R., et al

    Nomoto, K., Yamaoka, H., Pols, O. R., et al. 1994, Nature, 371, 227, doi: 10.1038/371227a0

    1994 doi

  41. [49]

    2009, ApJ, 706, 1184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1184

    Tsuruta, S. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1184

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

    2012, ApJL, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10 pandas development team, T

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  44. [52]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    E., et al

    Roberti, L., Pignatari, M., Brinkman, H. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554461 R¨ opke, F. K. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1103, doi: 10.1086/520830

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    J., & Wang, C

    Schootemeijer, A., Langer, N., Grin, N. J., & Wang, C. 2019, A&A, 625, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935046

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts402

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    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

  52. [60]

    J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

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

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    Siegert, T., Diehl, R., Krause, M. G. H., & Greiner, J. 2015, A&A, 579, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525877 Silva Aguirre, V., Ballot, J., Serenelli, A. M., & Weiss, A. 2011, A&A, 529, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015847

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3220

    Simionescu, A., Nakashima, S., Yamaguchi, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1701, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3220

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    G., Dupret, M

    Sonoi, T., Ludwig, H. G., Dupret, M. A., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833495

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 1159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159

    Suda, T., Katsuta, Y., Yamada, S., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 1159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

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

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Takahashi, T., Kokubun, M., Mitsuda, K., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, & M. Bautz, 99050U, doi:...

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    2009, ApJL, 705, L62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/L62

    Tamura, T., Maeda, Y., Mitsuda, K., et al. 2009, ApJL, 705, L62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/L62

    2009 doi

  60. [68]

    2019, in Nuclei in the Cosmos XV, Vol

    Thielemann, F.-K. 2019, in Nuclei in the Cosmos XV, Vol. 219, 125–134, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-13876-9 21

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    K., & Arnett, W

    Thielemann, F. K., & Arnett, W. D. 1985, ApJ, 295, 604, doi: 10.1086/163403

    1985 doi

  62. [70]

    Timmes, F. X. 1999, ApJS, 124, 241, doi: 10.1086/313257

    1999 doi

  63. [71]

    X., & Arnett, D

    Timmes, F. X., & Arnett, D. 1999, ApJS, 125, 277, doi: 10.1086/313271

    1999 doi

  64. [72]

    X., & Swesty, F

    Timmes, F. X., & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501, doi: 10.1086/313304

    2000 doi

  65. [73]

    X., Woosley, S

    Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 98, 617, doi: 10.1086/192172

    1995 doi

  66. [74]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 526, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/526

    Tominaga, N. 2009, ApJ, 690, 526, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/526

    2009 doi

  67. [75]

    2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063

    Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2007, ApJ, 660, 516, doi: 10.1086/513063

    2007 doi

  68. [76]

    1995, MNRAS, 277, 945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.3.945

    Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Yoshii, Y., et al. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.3.945

    1995 doi

  69. [77]

    2002, ApJ, 565, 385, doi: 10.1086/323946

    Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2002, ApJ, 565, 385, doi: 10.1086/323946

    2002 doi

  70. [78]

    S., Basu, S., Ong J., M

    Viani, L. S., Basu, S., Ong J., M. J., Bonaca, A., & Chaplin, W. J. 2018, ApJ, 858, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7eb

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    A., & Woosley, S

    Weaver, T. A., & Woosley, S. E. 1993, PhR, 227, 65, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(93)90058-L

    1993 doi

  72. [80]

    A., Zimmerman, G

    Weaver, T. A., Zimmerman, G. B., & Woosley, S. E. 1978, ApJ, 225, 1021, doi: 10.1086/156569 20

    1978 doi

  73. [81]

    C., & Harkness, R

    Wheeler, J. C., & Harkness, R. P. 1990, Reports on Progress in Physics, 53, 1467, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/53/12/001

    1990 doi

  74. [82]

    Haxton, W. C. 1990, ApJ, 356, 272, doi: 10.1086/168839

    1990 doi

  75. [83]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2015, ApJ, 810, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/34

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015

    2002 doi

  77. [85]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181, doi: 10.1086/192237

    1995 doi

  78. [86]

    2023, Nature, 618, 712, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06028-1 21

    Xing, Q.-F., Zhao, G., Liu, Z.-W., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 712, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06028-1 21

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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