Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Rotational Dynamics in Pulsational Pair-Instability Supernovae: Implications for Mass-Loss and Transient Events

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rapid rotation makes pulsational pair-instability supernovae eject less mass and shine as hydrogen-poor, Type Ib/c-like transients.

desk verdict A systematic rotating-PPISN grid with a useful proof-of-concept shell-collision transient; the rotation-ejection trend is real but wind-limited, and the correlation stats need cleaning up. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21307 v1 pith:DC4EVQMA submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.HE

Trang N. Huynh , Emmanouil Chatzopoulos , Nageeb Zaman This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsationalpair-instabilitysupernovaestellarrotationshellcollisionshydrogen-poortransientsmassivestarmasslossevolutionmodelingTypeIb/csuperluminous
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

Pulsational pair-instability supernovae (PPISNe) erupt when the cores of very massive stars lose pressure to electron-positron pair production, and this paper asks what happens when those progenitors also spin. From a grid of one-dimensional stellar evolution models of 85–140 $M_\odot$ stars at 10% solar and solar metallicity, with surface rotation from zero to 70% of critical, the paper finds that rotation systematically lowers the mass and kinetic energy of each ejected shell while rotational mixing strips hydrogen and enriches later ejecta in carbon and oxygen. It then simulates the collision of two hydrogen-poor shells in a 95 $M_\odot$ model at 50% critical rotation and obtains a transient peaking at $4.8$ – $6.3 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, with early C II/O II emission and later Mg I/O absorption. The paper concludes that rotating PPISN shell collisions are a viable channel for moderate-luminosity, hydrogen-poor transients with Type Ib/c-like light curves, but not for the most luminous superluminous supernovae. The reason this matters is that rotation, not just mass, molds what a dying very massive star shows us and what elements it returns to its galaxy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rotating-progenitor grid: one-dimensional stellar evolution models run from the zero-age main sequence through all pair-instability pulses, with rotation parameterized by the surface-to-critical angular velocity ratio $\Omega/\Omega_{\rm crit}$ and with wind mass loss following a rotating-star prescription. The argument's quantitative spine is a correlation matrix over the grid showing strong ties between ejected mass, shell kinetic energy, and peak shell velocity, and the negative trend of both ejected mass and energy with rotation. For the transient model, the central mechanism is a two-shell collision assembled by taking the hydrodynamic profile of the first pulse at the time of the second ejection and letting the faster second pulse catch the first; its radiative output is then evolved with radiation-hydrodynamics and Monte Carlo radiative transfer to produce the light curve and synthetic spectra.

What would settle it

Re-run the same mass-rotation grid with the wind mass-loss rates artificially suppressed or replaced by a different rotating-wind prescription and check whether the negative correlation between $\Omega/\Omega_{\rm crit}$ and ejected mass persists; observationally, a rotating PPISN candidate whose ejected shell mass and H-poor composition can be measured from its light curve and nebular spectra would also test the predicted ejecta scale of roughly 1–10 $M_\odot$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, rotation is a first-order control on PPISN behavior, not a minor correction. The models show that higher initial rotation drives stronger wind-driven mass loss and chemically homogeneous mixing, so the star enters the pair-instability regime smaller and more tightly bound; consequently, pulse ejecta masses and shell kinetic energies fall (correlation coefficients roughly $-0.64$ and $-0.49$ against $\Omega/\Omega_{\rm crit}$), while later pulses become hydrogen-poor with oxygen fractions reaching roughly 60–80%. The same physics lowers the zero-age main-sequence mass threshold for PPI—a 90 $M_\odot$ rotating model behaves comparably to a roughly 123 $M_\odot$ non-rotating model—and shortens the interpulse gap to tens of days, making shell collisions more likely. For the chosen 95 $M_\odot$, $\Omega/\Omega_{\rm crit}=0.5$ case, the second, oxygen-rich shell catches the first within about two weeks and the collision produces a bolometric peak of $4.8$ – $6.3\times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ that the paper characterizes as closer to Type Ib/c supernovae such as SN 1994I than to luminous SLSNe-I like PTF12dam, with a rapid rise and steep decline.

Load-bearing premise

The central rotation-ejection trend rests on the adopted prescription for rotationally enhanced wind mass loss; if those winds are overestimated, the reduced ejected mass at high rotation is a modeling artifact rather than a property of real stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed ZAMS mass, faster rotation reduces ejected mass and kinetic energy, so rotating PPISN progenitors should produce systematically fainter single-pulse transients than non-rotating ones of the same initial mass.
  • Rapid rotation lowers the mass threshold for PPI, so stars near 90 $M_\odot$ that would otherwise collapse quietly can, if spun up, produce PPISN eruptions and leave behind black holes near the lower edge of the mass gap.
  • The hydrogen-poor, carbon- and oxygen-enriched shells from later pulses mean that rotating PPISN shell collisions will show H-poor spectra with strong C/O features, matching Type Ib/c, Ibn, or Icn events rather than hydrogen-rich IIn-like eruptions.
  • Interpulse delays of tens of days make collisions likely while the first shell is still dense, producing the moderate-luminosity, fast-declining transients the paper simulates.
  • At solar metallicity, stronger winds strip the core so that higher ZAMS masses (140–160 $M_\odot$) end as PPISNe rather than full PISNe, shifting both the transient type and the remnant mass with metallicity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If rotationally enhanced winds are the true cause of the suppressed ejecta, varying the wind normalization in a companion grid should shift the trend; a grid with winds artificially disabled would separate the angular-momentum effect from the mass-loss effect.
  • The modeled collision's spectra, with weak Si II and strong C/O and He features, offer a specific template for classifying fast-evolving H-poor transients; applying this template to a larger sample of FBOTs and FELTs could test whether any observed events are actually rotating PPISN shell collisions.
  • Because some models retain substantial core angular momentum at collapse (surface velocities of 200–800 km s$^{-1}$), a fraction of the most luminous SLSNe-I might still come from rotating PPISN progenitors if fallback accretion or magnetar spin-down adds the missing energy—an extension the paper notes but does not model.
  • The trend of lower ejected mass at higher rotation also implies that rotating PPISN progenitors put more mass into the remnant, which would shift estimates of black hole mass distributions and metal yields in early galaxies if applied to population synthesis.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a grid of 1D MESA models of rotating pulsational pair-instability supernova (PPISN) progenitors with ZAMS masses 85–160 Msun, metallicities of 0.1 Zsun and Zsun, and rotation rates Omega/Omegacrit = 0, 0.2, 0.5, and 0.7. It reports per-pulse ejected masses, energies, peak velocities, compositions, and interpulse times, and uses correlation analysis to argue that rapid rotation reduces PPISN mass ejection and kinetic energy while producing H-poor, C/O-enriched shells. The paper then selects one model (95 Msun, Omega/Omegacrit = 0.5) for STELLA radiation-hydrodynamics modeling of a two-shell collision and SuperLite spectral synthesis, finding a transient peaking near L_bol ~ 4.8–6.3 x 10^42 erg/s whose light curve and spectra more closely resemble Type Ib/c supernovae than SLSNe-I. Results are compared with selected non-rotating models from Woosley (2017).

Significance. If the central trends hold, the paper gives a useful extension of PPISN theory: rotating progenitors lower the PPI mass threshold, shorten interpulse intervals, and can produce moderate-luminosity, H-poor transients from shell collisions. The work is forward-modeled from MESA, STELLA, and SuperLite, and prior rotating PPISN results are used only for comparison, so the central analysis is not circular. Strengths include the detailed numerical setup, public inlists on Zenodo, and explicit acknowledgment of the 1D/spherical-symmetry limitation and of the uncertain core rotation at collapse. However, the rotation-suppression claim rests on an untested wind mass-loss prescription, the correlation analysis is statistically under-specified, and the light-curve and spectral conclusions rest on a single selected model. The significance is real but conditional on those load-bearing points being addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, Figure 1] The correlation analysis is the quantitative basis for the rotation-suppression claim, but the sample is defined inconsistently: the text first says the matrix is based on 33 models, then says it is derived from approximately 40 models, and Table 1 actually contains 36 rows (33 new 10% Zsun models plus three Woosley comparison models), with additional solar-metallicity models in Table 2. The reported r values have no uncertainties, significance levels, or statement of whether the unit of analysis is a model or an individual pulse. Please report n, the exact inclusion criteria, and bootstrap or analytical confidence intervals; without these, the 'strong correlations' cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Section 3.1, Section 2.1, Table 1] The conclusion that rapid rotation reduces PPISN mass ejection is mediated by the adopted wind mass-loss prescription and is not robustly tested. The lower final masses at higher Omega/Omegacrit (e.g., the 85 Msun model has M_final = 51.98, 48.96, and 48.81 Msun for Omega/Omegacrit = 0.2, 0.5, and 0.7) show that the reduced ejecta masses are inherited from pre-PPI wind stripping, and Section 2.1 adopts the Brott, Vink, Hamann, and Nieuwenhuijzen/de Jager rates with a factor-of-10 clumping reduction without any sensitivity study. Table 1 also contains a direct counterexample to a monotonic trend: the 110 Msun model ejects 6.24 Msun at Omega/Omegacrit = 0.0 but 13.49 Msun at Omega/Omegacrit = 0.5. The authors should test at least one alternative wind prescription or clumping factor and report whether the rotation-ejection correlation survives.
  3. [Section 3.4, Table 1] The negative correlation between Omega/Omegacrit and ejected mass is computed on a censored sample: high-rotation, high-ZAMS-mass models such as 110 Msun at 0.2, 115 Msun at 0.2, 120 Msun at 0.2, and 130 Msun at 0.2–0.7 become full PISNe and are excluded because they disrupt entirely, ejecting far more mass than any PPISN survivor. Including these outcomes, or even the 110 Msun 0.0-versus-0.5 pair, would weaken or reverse the r = -0.64 trend. The claim 'rotation appears to reduce mass ejection' should be restricted to PPISN survivors or re-framed as conditional on the star not crossing the PISN threshold.
  4. [Section 4, Figures 10–11] The light-curve and spectral conclusions rest on a single model, the 95 Msun, Omega/Omegacrit = 0.5 case, even though Section 3.4 identifies three shell-collision candidates (85 Msun at 0.5, 85 Msun at 0.7, and 95 Msun at 0.5). No argument is given that this model is representative of rotating PPISN shell collisions, and the two methods used to construct the collision profile produce a spread in peak luminosity (4.8 versus 6.3 x 10^42 erg/s) with no discussion of which is more physical. The authors should either justify the choice of this single model or compute at least one additional collision model to show that the inferred Type Ib/c-like luminosity and spectral appearance are not idiosyncratic to this particular shell mass, velocity, and interpulse time.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a missing word: 'rotationally-induced chemical mixing PPISN-driven episodic mass-loss' should read 'mixing in PPISN-driven episodic mass-loss.'
  2. [Section 3.4] The text states that density profiles show 'concentration of most ejected mass in a narrow, dense shell expanding at SN-like velocities (a few km/s in most cases)', which contradicts the tabulated peak velocities of thousands of km/s; this should be 'a few thousand km/s' or the sentence should be clarified.
  3. [Table 1 note] The table note says 'where A, B, D show the standard mass loss rate multiplied by a factor of 1/2, 1/4, and 0, respectively,' but the text in Sections 3 and 3.5 assigns T110B a 1/4 factor and T123A a 1/2 factor; the note appears to reverse these labels.
  4. [Section 4, Table 3] The text says the second ejection is '8 x 10^49 erg more energetic' than the first, but Table 3 gives E_tot,sh = 0.18 x 10^50 erg for pulse 1 and 0.78 x 10^50 erg for pulse 2, a difference of 0.60 x 10^50 erg = 6.0 x 10^49 erg; the quoted number should be corrected.
  5. [Figure 12 caption] The caption refers to 'SN2005bj' in the phase remark and in the list of transients, but the object compared throughout the text is SN 2002bj; this should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: results are forward MESA/STELLA/SuperLite predictions; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central results are forward simulations: MESA evolves rotating PPISN progenitors from ZAMS through the pulsational pair-instability phases; STELLA computes the light curve of a two-shell collision; SuperLite produces synthetic spectra. The rotation-ejection trend emerges from the adopted wind mass-loss prescriptions (Brott 2011, Vink 2001, Hamann 1995, Nieuwenhuijzen & de Jager 1990), which are standard model inputs rather than parameters fitted to the target outputs. The strong correlation between ejected mass and kinetic energy is a physically meaningful consequence of shell energetics, not an algebraic identity: Etot,sh is defined as the total energy of the ejected material, and the paper explicitly interprets the r about 0.95 correlation as reflecting energy conservation. No parameter is tuned to reproduce SN 1994I, PTF12dam, AT2018cow, or any observed transient; the peak luminosity and decline rate are predictions of the model. Citations to Chatzopoulos and Wheeler (2012a,b) and to the authors' own SuperLite code are used for context, comparison, or code provenance, and they are not the evidence that the computed trends are true. Even the one potentially fragile step, attributing reduced ejecta at high Omega/Omegacrit to rotationally enhanced winds, is a physical-assumption sensitivity issue rather than circularity, because the models are recomputed from stated input physics with publicly available inlists and codes. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-chain circularity is present; the score of 2 reflects only the existence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All central claims are computed with standard stellar evolution and radiation transport codes; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The ledger entries above are modeling choices and domain assumptions that the results inherit.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial rotation grid values = Omega/Omegacrit = 0.0, 0.2, 0.5, 0.7
    Chosen grid inputs that define the parameter space; not fitted to observations, but the rotation-ejection correlation depends on this sampling.
  • MESA mixing calibration = alpha_MLT=2.0, alpha_S=1.0, f=0.01, f0=0.005
    Hand-chosen standard values for convection, semiconvection, and overshooting; they affect core sizes and pulse timing.
  • Wind clumping reduction factor = Hamann wind rate reduced by factor 10
    Adopted to account for wind clumping; directly affects how much envelope mass survives to the PPI phase and therefore the rotation-ejection trend.
  • PPISN hydro solver activation thresholds = integrated Gamma1-4/3 < 0.01, v_max > 50 km/s, q=0.9
    Algorithmic choices inherited from the MESA ppisn test suite; they set when and how far pulses are hydrodynamically evolved.
  • STELLA and SuperLite numerical settings = 2^20 source particles, 6000 wavelength groups, Rosseland tau truncation at 100
    Numerical resolution choices for the radiation transport; convergence is not demonstrated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pair instability is triggered when the global adiabatic index drops below 4/3, and this criterion is adequate for identifying pulses.
    Used in Section 2.1 as the instability condition for activating hydrodynamics; it is the standard PPI criterion.
  • domain assumption MESA's 1D shellular rotation treatment captures the rotational mixing, angular momentum transport, and rotationally enhanced mass loss of these massive stars.
    Invoked throughout the analysis; the authors acknowledge in Section 6 that 1D and spherical symmetry likely underestimate multidimensional asymmetries.
  • domain assumption The adopted wind mass-loss prescriptions (Brott, Vink, Hamann, Nieuwenhuijzen and de Jager) are accurate for ZAMS masses of 85-160 solar masses at Z and 0.1 Z.
    These prescriptions determine envelope stripping before PPI and are central to the claimed negative correlation between rotation and ejected mass.
  • domain assumption The two ejected shells expand homologously and spherically in the STELLA collision setup.
    Assumed in Sections 2.2 and 4 to combine pulse profiles and compute the shell-collision light curve.
  • ad hoc to paper The single 95 solar mass, Omega/Omegacrit=0.5 model selected for radiation transport is representative of PPISN shell collisions from rotating progenitors.
    The model was chosen because its second pulse is faster and its interpulse interval is short; it is not a statistical sample of the grid (Section 4).
  • domain assumption SuperLite's NLTE treatment, which computes rate matrices only for hydrogen, is sufficient for the H-poor spectra modeled here.
    Used in Section 2.3; since the shells are H-poor, most line formation is for C, O, He, Mg, and Ca, whose NLTE treatment is not detailed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rotational Dynamics in Pulsational Pair-Instability Supernovae: Implications for Mass-Loss and Transient Events." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DC4EVQMA

@misc{pith2026250721307,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rotational Dynamics in Pulsational Pair-Instability Supernovae: Implications for Mass-Loss and Transient Events},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DC4EVQMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21307}
}
read the original abstract

Pulsational pair-instability supernovae (PPISNe) are transient events occurring in progenitor stars with helium cores of approximately 32-65 solar masses, where rapid electron-positron pair production induces pressure loss, collapse, and pulsations driving episodic mass loss. The number, strength, and duration of these pulses can lead to shell collisions that produce shock-powered transients, potentially explaining some of the most luminous events, such as superluminous supernovae, and other rare transients. Rapid progenitor rotation lowers the PPISN mass threshold and influences the dynamics, energetics, and chemical composition of PPISN-driven pulses. In this study, we computed 1D evolutionary models of massive, rotating PPISN progenitor stars with zero-age main-sequence masses of 85-140 solar masses and solar metallicity and 10% solar metallicity. Our analysis reveals strong correlations between PPISN ejected mass and total energy as well as between ejected mass and peak ejected shell velocity. Additionally, moderate correlations indicate that higher initial PPISN progenitor mass leads to greater mass ejection and energy release, while negative correlations show that rapid rotation appears to reduce mass ejection and kinetic energy of the shells. Subsequent pulses lead to hydrogen-poor, carbon- and oxygen-enriched ejected shells, indicating the effect of rotationally-induced chemical mixing in PPISN-driven episodic mass loss with implications for their transients. We model the light curve and synthetic spectra that arise from the collision of two H-poor shells for one of our models using the radiation transport code SuperLite. We find that shock-heated H-poor PPISN shell collisions from rapidly rotating progenitors can lead to moderately luminous H-poor transients that share some similarities with observed SLSN-I events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21307 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correlation matrix on the stellar parameters based on the 33 models presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density (left), temperature (middle), and velocity (right) as a function of radius from the base (inner radius) to the outer edge of the unbound shell material in the pulses of the 85 M⊙ models with Ω/Ωcrit= 0.2 (black solid lines), Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 (red dashed lines), and Ω/Ωcrit= 0.7 (green dotted lines). Profiles are plotted just after the onset of each pulse’s expansion phase, when velocities reach a maximum and hom… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The mass fraction of 4He (triangle), 12C (square), and 16O (circle) as a function of radius from the center of the pulses of the 85 M⊙ models with Ω/Ωcrit= 0.2 (black solid lines), Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 (red dashed lines), and Ω/Ωcrit= 0.7 (green dotted lines). Note that the mass fraction of 4He for the 85 M⊙ model at Ω/Ωcrit= 0.2 is ≈ 10−2 , below the minimum mass fraction shown here. 0 2 4 R (cm) 1e13 8 7 6 5 Pulse 1 log (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Density (left), temperature (middle), and velocity (right) as a function of radius from the base (inner radius) to the outer edge of the unbound shell material in the pulses of the 90 M⊙ models with Ω/Ωcrit= 0.2 (black solid lines), Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 (red dashed lines) and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mass fraction of 4He (triangle), 12C (square), and 16O (circle) as a function of radius from the center of the two pulses. (Top row) Model 90 M⊙ with various rotational velocities: Ω/Ωcrit= 0.2 (black solid lines), Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 (red dashed lines) and Ω/Ωcrit= 0.7 (…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density (left), temperature (middle), and velocity (right) as a function of radius from the base (inner radius) to the outer edge of the unbound shell material in the pulses of the 115 M⊙ models with Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 (red dashed lines) and Ω/Ωcrit= 0.7 (green dotted lines)…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The mass fraction of 4He (triangle), 12C (square), and 16O (circle) as a function of radius from the center of the two pulses of the 115 M⊙ models with Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 (red dashed lines) and Ω/Ωcrit= 0.7 (green dotted lines). 2 × 1012 3 × 1012 4 × 1012 R (cm) 10−18 10−15 …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Logarithmic plots showing the mass fraction (Xi) of various isotopes ( 4He, 12 C, 14 N, 16 O, 28 Si, 20 Ne, 24 Mg, 32 S, 36 Ar, 40 Ca) as a function of radius (cm) in the 95 M⊙, Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5, at two stages: Pulse 1 (left) and Pulse 2 (right). T123A’s first pulse is H-r…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Velocity and mass structure of the two-shell collision for the 95 M⊙ model with Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5. (a) Top panel: Following Method 1, the red line indicates the dis￾continuity at R= 1013 cm where the second ejecta catches up to the tail of the first. The mass axis shows th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The bolometric light curve of the two-shell col￾lision for the rotating 95 M⊙model at Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 using two methods mentioned where the time axis starts from the first ejection. The ’x’ symbols label the peak luminosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the B-band absolute magnitude evolution with other observed supernovae and the shell collision model for the 95 M⊙at Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5. The phase is with respect to the maximum brightness. The adopted maximum light dates in MJD and Distance (Mpc) for each sup…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Spectroscopic evolution of the H-poor shell collision for the 95 M⊙ model rotating at Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 produced by the SuperLite code between -12 days and +27 days of the peak luminosity of the shell–collision light curve. The red bands represent key features: the Ca ii b…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the 95 M⊙, Ω/Ωcrit= 0.5 PPI shell collision model spectra with observed SNe best-matched from Duperfit at different epochs where we show the model spectra in black line at ϕ = −12d on the first column and at ϕ = +2d on the right column. The observed spec…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baer, M. J. 2024,, v0.1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10992738

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10992738 2024

  2. [2]

    1967, PhRvL, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, PhRvL, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.18.379 1967

  3. [3]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 1132, doi: 10.1086/308588

    Iwamoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 532, 1132, doi: 10.1086/308588

    doi:10.1086/308588 2000

  4. [4]

    I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V. A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454, doi: 10.1086/305375

    doi:10.1086/305375 1998

  5. [5]

    I., R¨ opke, F

    Blinnikov, S. I., R¨ opke, F. K., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 229, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054594

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054594 2006

  6. [6]

    R., Arnett, W

    Bond, J. R., Arnett, W. D., & Carr, B. J. 1984, ApJ, 280, 825, doi: 10.1086/162057

    doi:10.1086/162057 1984

  7. [7]

    E., Cantiello, M., et al

    Brott, I., de Mink, S. E., Cantiello, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016113

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016113 2011

  8. [8]

    D., & Murphy, J

    Burrows, A., Dessart, L., Livne, E., Ott, C. D., & Murphy, J. 2007, ApJ, 664, 416, doi: 10.1086/519161

    doi:10.1086/519161 2007

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Chatzopoulos, E., & Wheeler, J. C. 2012a, ApJ, 748, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/42

    doi

  2. [10]

    Chatzopoulos, E., & Wheeler, J. C. 2012b, ApJ, 760, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/154

    doi

  3. [11]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/30

    Dexter, J., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 772, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/30

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    V., Barth, A

    Filippenko, A. V., Barth, A. J., Matheson, T., et al. 1995, ApJL, 450, L11, doi: 10.1086/309659 23

    1995 doi

  5. [13]

    M., et al

    Folatelli, G., Contreras, C., Phillips, M. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1039, doi: 10.1086/500531

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Hoyle, F

    Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1964, ApJS, 9, 201, doi: 10.1086/190103

    1964 doi

  7. [15]

    Fraley, G. S. 1968, Ap&SS, 2, 96, doi: 10.1007/BF00651498

    1968 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Hungerford, A

    Fryer, C. L., Hungerford, A. L., Wollaeger, R. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1036

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, A&A, 625, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834599

    Gagnier, D., Rieutord, M., Charbonnel, C., Putigny, B., & Espinosa Lara, F. 2019, A&A, 625, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834599

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Mazzali, P., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 624, doi: 10.1038/nature08579

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    J., & El Eid, M

    Glatzel, W., Fricke, K. J., & El Eid, M. F. 1985, A&A, 149, 413

    1985

  12. [20]

    Z., & Margutti, R

    Guillochon, J., Parrent, J., Kelley, L. Z., & Margutti, R. 2017, ApJ, 835, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/64

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Koesterke, L., & Wessolowski, U

    Hamann, W. R., Koesterke, L., & Wessolowski, U. 1995, A&A, 299, 151

    1995

  14. [22]

    Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, ApJ, 528, 368, doi: 10.1086/308158

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 532, doi: 10.1086/338487

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    D., van Son, L

    Hendriks, D. D., van Son, L. A. C., Renzo, M., Izzard, R. G., & Farmer, R. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4130, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2857

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2000, A&A, 360, 952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007139

    Herwig, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007139

    2000 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    A., Sullivan, M., Perrett, K., et al

    Howell, D. A., Sullivan, M., Perrett, K., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1190, doi: 10.1086/497119

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    1994, ApJL, 437, L115, doi: 10.1086/187696

    Iwamoto, K., Nomoto, K., H¨ oflich, P., et al. 1994, ApJL, 437, L115, doi: 10.1086/187696

    1994 doi

  20. [28]

    E., & Heger, A

    Kasen, D., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2011, ApJ, 734, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/102

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Langer, N. 1997, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 120, Luminous Blue Variables: Massive Stars in Transition, ed. A. Nota & H. Lamers, 381

    1997

  22. [30]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba33

    Leung, S.-C., Blinnikov, S., Nomoto, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba33

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Blinnikov, S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1069, doi: 10.1086/520054

    Maeda, K., Tanaka, M., Nomoto, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1069, doi: 10.1086/520054

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2000, ARA&A, 38, 143, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.143

    Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 143, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.143

    2000 doi

  27. [35]

    Marchant, P., & Moriya, T. J. 2020, A&A, 640, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038902

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426

    Marchant, P., Renzo, M., Farmer, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Marchant, P., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Marchant, P., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2020, A&A, 641, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038903

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Smartt, S. J., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2013, Nature, 502, 346, doi: 10.1038/nature12569

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    1990, A&A, 231, 134

    Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & de Jager, C. 1990, A&A, 231, 134

    1990

  32. [40]

    W., El Eid, M

    Ober, W. W., El Eid, M. F., & Fricke, K. J. 1983, A&A, 119, 61

    1983

  33. [41]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/1

    Pastorello, A., Cappellaro, E., Inserra, C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/1

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Fraser, M., et al

    Pastorello, A., Kochanek, C. S., Fraser, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 197, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2668

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    E., et al

    Poznanski, D., Chornock, R., Nugent, P. E., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 58, doi: 10.1126/science.1181709

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Maguire, K., Smartt, S

    Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 865, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd90

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    M., Aldering, G., Wheeler, J

    Quimby, R. M., Aldering, G., Wheeler, J. C., et al. 2007, ApJL, 668, L99, doi: 10.1086/522862

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Khatami, D., et al

    Rest, A., Garnavich, P. M., Khatami, D., et al. 2018a, Nature Astronomy, 2, 307, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0423-2

    doi

  44. [52]

    W., van Dyk, S

    Richmond, M. W., van Dyk, S. D., Ho, W., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 327, doi: 10.1086/117785

    1996 doi

  45. [53]

    2005, ApJ, 633, 1031, doi: 10.1086/444450

    Ferrara, A. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1031, doi: 10.1086/444450

    2005 doi

  46. [54]

    J., et al

    Smith, N., Li, W., Foley, R. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1116, doi: 10.1086/519949

    2007 doi

  47. [55]

    R., & Wilson, W

    Sreenivasan, S. R., & Wilson, W. J. F. 1985, ApJ, 292, 506, doi: 10.1086/163183

    1985 doi

  48. [56]

    D., Taddia, F., Burns, C

    Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., Burns, C. R., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730843

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/266

    Tolstov, A., Nomoto, K., Blinnikov, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 266, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/266

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2876 24

    Tolstov, A., Nomoto, K., Sorokina, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2876 24

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

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

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

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 362, 295, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0008183

    2000 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    2023,, r1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8111119

    Wagle, G. 2023,, r1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8111119

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Chatzopoulos, E., Wollaeger, R

    Wagle, G. A., Chatzopoulos, E., Wollaeger, R. T., & Fontes, C. J. 2023, ApJ, 953, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda23

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Zimmerman, G

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

    1978 doi

  57. [65]

    2021,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.019

    Wollaeger, R., & van Rossum, D. 2021,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.019

    2021

  58. [66]

    T., & van Rossum, D

    Wollaeger, R. T., & van Rossum, D. R. 2014, ApJS, 214, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/28

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJL, 719, L204, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L204

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    Woosley, S. E. 2018, ApJ, 863, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad044

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A. 2007, Nature, 450, 390, doi: 10.1038/nature06333

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2006, ApJ, 637, 914, doi: 10.1086/498500

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2007, PhR, 442, 269, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009

    2007 doi

  65. [73]

    2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    Yaron, O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668, doi: 10.1086/666656

    2012 doi

  66. [74]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv3002

    Yoshida, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., & Ishii, T. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv3002

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    R., Smartt, S

    Young, D. R., Smartt, S. J., Valenti, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913004

    2010 doi

Pith tools

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