Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Deciphering the explosion mechanism of Type-Ia SNe using their remnants I: general properties and a case study on Tycho's SNR

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the typical size of iron-group versus intermediate-mass-element substructures inside a supernova remnant fingerprints the explosion mechanism, and that Tycho's remnant best matches a double-detonation model.

desk verdict A promising new observable for SN Ia explosion mechanisms, but the Tycho verdict is not secured until environment and projection effects are ruled out. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10752 v2 pith:WEABKB2H submitted 2025-08-14 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Soham Mandal , Núria Torres-Albà , Carles Badenes , Shazrene Mohamed This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR PACS 97.60.Bw98.38.Mz
keywords TypeIasupernovaesupernovaremnantsdoubledetonationTycho'sSNRhydrodynamicalsimulationsturbulentsubstructuresiron-groupelementsexplosionmechanisms
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 are thermonuclear explosions of white dwarfs, and astronomers want to know which explosion mechanism produced each one. This paper proposes a new observational handle: inside the expanding remnant, turbulent clumps dominated by iron-group elements should have a typical size that differs from clumps dominated by silicon or sulfur, and the size difference depends on the explosion mechanism. Using 3D hydrodynamical simulations covering several mechanisms, the authors show this size contrast is a clear property of the models. Applied to Tycho's supernova remnant, the observed substructure sizes are most consistent with a sub-Chandrasekhar white dwarf exploded by the double-detonation mechanism. The method opens a way to link individual historical supernovae to their explosion physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the element-resolved turbulent substructure field of a supernova remnant: the small-scale density and composition clumps produced by hydrodynamic instabilities during the explosion and remnant evolution. The paper uses 3D hydrodynamical simulations of several Type Ia explosion mechanisms to compute the typical size of iron-group-dominated versus intermediate-mass-element-dominated substructures. The diagnostic is the size difference between these two populations, which the simulations show is governed by the explosion mechanism rather than by details of the surrounding medium. This size contrast is then compared with observed substructure sizes in Tycho's remnant to inf

What would settle it

High-resolution X-ray or optical maps of a second historical remnant with an independently known explosion mechanism (e.g., one with a light-echo spectrum matching a specific explosion model) that show no systematic size difference between iron-group and intermediate-mass-element substructures, or a size contrast opposite to the simulated one, would falsify the claim that size difference is governed by the explosion mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the explosion mechanism of a Type Ia supernova leaves a measurable imprint in the small-scale structure of its remnant. In three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations, the authors find that substructures enriched in iron-group elements have a typical size that differs systematically from substructures enriched in intermediate-mass elements such as silicon and sulfur within the same remnant, and that this size difference is set by the explosion mechanism. Applying this size-difference diagnostic to Tycho's supernova remnant, the authors conclude that the observed structure best matches a model in which a sub-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf exploded through th

Load-bearing premise

The inference for Tycho depends on the simulated model suite containing a model close to the real progenitor and environment; if the true explosion mechanism is missing from the grid, the comparison assigns the remnant to the least-wrong simulated mechanism rather than the true one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the size difference is genuine, observers can use resolved element maps of other historical remnants to infer explosion mechanisms.
  • Tycho's assignment to double detonation would motivate searches for companion or environment signatures consistent with a sub-Chandrasekhar progenitor.
  • The method could be combined with light-echo spectra to tie an inferred mechanism to the supernova's actual observed colors and velocities.
  • The simulations suggest that element-specific substructure sizes are a new observable for distinguishing Chandrasekhar-mass from sub-Chandrasekhar-mass explosions.
  • Differences in clump size between iron and intermediate-mass elements could be detected in remnants at a range of ages, extending the sample beyond Tycho.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the size contrast survives further numerical checks, it may serve as a standard diagnostic that can be applied to remnants without needing full spectral reconstruction, complementing light echoes.
  • The same element-resolved substructure statistics might be sensitive to viewing angle or asymmetry, so future work should quantify projection effects before applying to a large sample.
  • The paper's conclusion for Tycho is conditional on the model suite; a mechanism absent from the grid would be misattributed. Testing against a remnant whose progenitor is independently known would validate the size-difference method.
  • One could attempt a direct observational test: measure the power spectrum of iron versus silicon emission in Tycho at the highest available resolution and check whether the size contrast matches the simulated ratio.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method to identify the explosion mechanism of Type-Ia supernovae by analyzing the typical sizes of small-scale turbulent substructures of different elements (iron-group vs. intermediate-mass elements) in supernova remnants (SNRs). The authors report 3D hydrodynamical models showing that the Fe/IME substructure size ratio is governed by the explosion mechanism, and they apply the method to Tycho's SNR, concluding that its observed structure is most consistent with a sub-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf that exploded via the double-detonation mechanism. The central claim is that this size-based diagnostic provides a direct link between explosion models and SNR observations.

Significance. If established, the method would be a valuable new observable for connecting individual Type-Ia SNe to their explosion mechanisms, complementing light-curve/spectral diversity studies and exploiting the legacy of remnant observations. The paper appears to be a forward-modeling study, which is not circular in design. However, the abstract alone does not demonstrate that the diagnostic is robust to environmental and projection effects, nor does it provide statistical or grid-coverage details. The strength of the claim in the abstract exceeds what can be verified from the available information; the method's practical utility hinges on the full manuscript containing careful control runs and uncertainty quantification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The assertion that the Fe/IME substructure size difference is 'governed by the explosion mechanism' is not secured against alternative drivers. In Tycho, Fe is in the innermost ejecta that has not yet encountered the reverse shock, while Si/S has been shocked. The turbulence scale in the shocked component may depend primarily on ambient density and remnant age, whereas the Fe structure preserves free expansion. Without control runs that vary ambient density, age, and projection geometry, the inferred preference for double detonation could absorb a reverse-shock radius mismatch rather than the mechanism. This point is load-bearing for the Tycho inference and must be addressed by explicit tests.
  2. [Abstract] The ranking 'most consistent with our suite' is only meaningful if the model suite adequately covers Tycho's progenitor and environment. The abstract does not state what mechanisms, WD masses, explosion energies, ambient density ranges, or mixing treatments are included. If the true mechanism (e.g., a Chandrasekhar-mass delayed detonation with a different ambient medium) is absent or under-resolved, the comparison would assign Tycho to the least-wrong model. Suite completeness and parameter coverage are essential to the central claim and are not visible from the abstract.
  3. [Abstract] No statistical methodology or uncertainty quantification is visible. The abstract reports that Tycho's structure is 'most consistent' with one model, but does not state how 'typical size' is defined, how the comparison is scored, or how observational errors, model stochasticity, and projection effects are propagated. Without error estimates, the 'most consistent' statement lacks quantitative support and could be a poor fit among many equally poor fits. The full text must provide the statistical framework and demonstrate that the mechanism preference is statistically significant.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The term 'typical size' is not defined. It would help to specify whether it refers to clump radius, power-spectrum knee, or some other measure, and to state the units.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'extended ejecta' is ambiguous in the context of SNRs; presumably it refers to the observable remnant structure. Clarifying might avoid confusion.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'sub-Chandrasekhar mass WD via the double-detonation mechanism' but does not specify the helium-ignition vs. other variants, which could be relevant given that the size-difference diagnostic depends on the nucleosynthesis and spatial distribution of Fe and IMEs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found in the available text; the method is a forward-model comparison, not a definitional or fitted-input reduction.

full rationale

The only text available is the abstract. The derivation chain described is: three-dimensional hydrodynamical models are computed for different explosion mechanisms; the models predict a difference in typical substructure size between iron-group and intermediate-mass-element regions; this predicted relation is then compared to observed substructure sizes in Tycho's SNR, yielding a model preference. This is a standard forward-model comparison. Nothing in the abstract defines the observable in terms of the mechanism, nor fits the mechanism to the observable and then repackages it as a prediction. The quoted statements are predictions from independent simulations. The concern raised in the skeptic note (that the size ratio may depend on reverse-shock radius, projection, or environment) is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity concern. Without the full text, no equation-level or citation-level reduction can be exhibited, and per the hard rules, circularity cannot be claimed on speculation. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only assessment: no invented entities are apparent from the abstract; free parameters and axioms are inferred from the method description and cannot be exhaustively enumerated without the full text.

free parameters (1)
  • Simulation suite input parameters (WD mass, explosion energy, ambient ISM density, mixing) = Not provided in abstract
    The model grid is not described in the abstract. If any parameters were selected to reproduce Tycho's observed clump statistics, they function as free parameters affecting the central comparison. Cannot be resolved without full text.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Standard 3D hydrodynamics equations faithfully model SNR ejecta evolution down to the reported substructure scales.
    Invoked implicitly by the use of 3D hydrodynamical models; plausible, but resolution-dependent and not verifiable from the abstract.
  • domain assumption The simulated explosion mechanisms (including sub-Chandrasekhar double detonation) span the space of plausible models for Tycho's SNR.
    The 'most consistent with our suite' claim is only meaningful relative to the suite; completeness of the model grid is load-bearing and not demonstrated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Turbulent substructure sizes in the ejecta survive to the observed remnant epoch without being erased or rescaled by reverse-shock processing, ISM interaction, or projection effects.
    The method maps simulated substructure sizes to observed Tycho structure; this mapping is a premise that cannot be checked from the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deciphering the explosion mechanism of Type-Ia SNe using their remnants I: general properties and a case study on Tycho's SNR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEABKB2H

@misc{pith2026250810752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deciphering the explosion mechanism of Type-Ia SNe using their remnants I: general properties and a case study on Tycho's SNR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEABKB2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10752}
}
read the original abstract

Type-Ia supernovae (SNe), or runaway thermonuclear explosions of white dwarfs (WDs), play a critical role in the chemical evolution of galaxies, and are important cosmological distance indicators due to their 'standardizable' lightcurves. Growing evidence, however, suggests greater diversity in their observed lightcurves (and spectra) than thought previously. This is usually attributed to a variety of WD explosion mechanisms and progenitor system properties, but a direct link between the explosion mechanisms and Type-Ia SN observables remains elusive. Here we present a novel approach to identify explosion mechanisms of Type-Ia SNe, by analyzing the sizes of small-scale turbulent substructures of different elements in their extended ejecta, i.e., in Supernova Remnants (SNRs). Our three-dimensional hydrodynamical models show that substructures in an SNR dominated by iron-group elements may have a typical size different from substructures dominated by intermediate mass elements (e.g., Si, S) in the same SNR. This size difference is governed by the explosion mechanism. Applying this approach to Tycho's SNR, we find that its observed structure is most consistent with an SNR model in our suite that originated from a sub-Chandrasekhar mass WD via the double-detonation mechanism. Extending this method to other well-characterized SNRs can let us connect the inferred explosion mechanism to the associated historical SNe, which often have spectra reconstructed through light echo observations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Deciphering the explosion mechanism of Type Ia SNe using their remnants II: a deep dive into double detonations with SNR 0509-67.5

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The substructure sizes in SNR 0509-67.5 indicate a double detonation explosion of a ~1 solar mass carbon-oxygen white dwarf with a helium shell of 0.05 to 0.1 solar masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    588 w_< ????E \̭<= ,Tր/ ` uZK/ ۷o o:ujϥ0; wqGٳ碞wÆ Ư_2 yz8 X _-5 r.Iؽ >N8qQί; t|s [ břp PY R[/Ok@ K/ <sqr( zzzc X<sYG[c= k׮: 琧S yZ R:sO i ׎ ;b֭|0

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  4. [4]

    D., Malanchev , K., Sharief , S., et al

    Aleo , P. D., Malanchev , K., Sharief , S., et al. 2023, , 266, 9

    2023

  5. [5]

    J., Mazzali , P

    Aouad , C. J., Mazzali , P. A., Hachinger , S., et al. 2022, , 515, 4445

    2022

  6. [6]

    2012, , 426, 1793

    Ar \'e valo , P., Churazov , E., Zhuravleva , I., Hern \'a ndez-Monteagudo , C., & Revnivtsev , M. 2012, , 426, 1793

    2012

  7. [7]

    Arnett , W. D. 1969, , 5, 180

    1969

  8. [8]

    D., Truran , J

    Arnett , W. D., Truran , J. W., & Woosley , S. E. 1971, , 165, 87

    1971

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    A., Pian , E., & James , P

    Ashall , C., Mazzali , P. A., Pian , E., & James , P. A. 2016, , 463, 1891

    2016

  2. [10]

    J., & Bravo , E

    Badenes , C., Borkowski , K. J., & Bravo , E. 2005, , 624, 198

    2005

  3. [11]

    J., Hughes , J

    Badenes , C., Borkowski , K. J., Hughes , J. P., Hwang , U., & Bravo , E. 2006, , 645, 1373

    2006

  4. [12]

    Badenes , C., Bravo , E., & Hughes , J. P. 2008, , 680, L33

    2008

  5. [13]

    A., & Krause , O

    Besel , M. A., & Krause , O. 2012, , 541, L3

    2012

  6. [14]

    P., et al

    Blondin , S., Matheson , T., Kirshner , R. P., et al. 2012, , 143, 126

    2012

  7. [15]

    J., Lyerly , W

    Borkowski , K. J., Lyerly , W. J., & Reynolds , S. P. 2001, , 548, 820

    2001

  8. [16]

    2018, , 852, L6

    Boty \'a nszki , J., Kasen , D., & Plewa , T. 2018, , 852, L6

    2018

  9. [17]

    2019, , 482, 4346

    Bravo , E., Badenes , C., & Mart \' nez-Rodr \' guez , H. 2019, , 482, 4346

    2019

  10. [18]

    R., Gorczyca , T

    Bryans , P., Badnell , N. R., Gorczyca , T. W., et al. 2006, , 167, 343

    2006

  11. [19]

    Bryans , P., Landi , E., & Savin , D. W. 2009, , 691, 1540

    2009

  12. [20]

    P., Ballet , J., & Decourchelle , A

    Cassam-Chena \" , G., Hughes , J. P., Ballet , J., & Decourchelle , A. 2007, , 665, 315

    2007

  13. [21]

    1931, , 74, 81

    Chandrasekhar , S. 1931, , 74, 81

    1931

  14. [22]

    A., Blondin , J

    Chevalier , R. A., Blondin , J. M., & Emmering , R. T. 1992, , 392, 118

    1992

  15. [23]

    A., & Klein , R

    Chevalier , R. A., & Klein , R. I. 1978, , 219, 994

    1978

  16. [24]

    2012, in High Performance Visualization--Enabling Extreme-Scale Scientific Insight (Chapman and Hall/CRC), 357--372

    Childs, H., Brugger, E., Whitlock, B., et al. 2012, in High Performance Visualization--Enabling Extreme-Scale Scientific Insight (Chapman and Hall/CRC), 357--372

    2012

  17. [25]

    M., Polin , A., et al

    De , K., Kasliwal , M. M., Polin , A., et al. 2019, , 873, L18

    2019

  18. [26]

    DES Collaboration , Abbott , T. M. C., Acevedo , M., et al. 2024, , 973, L14

    2024

  19. [27]

    J., & Khokhlov , A

    Dessart , L., Blondin , S., Hillier , D. J., & Khokhlov , A. 2014, , 441, 532

    2014

  20. [28]

    C., & MacFadyen , A

    Duffell , P. C., & MacFadyen , A. I. 2011, , 197, 15

    2011

  21. [29]

    V., Dewey , D., & Bauer , F

    Dwarkadas , V. V., Dewey , D., & Bauer , F. 2010, , 407, 812

    2010

  22. [30]

    C., et al

    Ferrand , G., Tanikawa , A., Warren , D. C., et al. 2022, , 930, 92

    2022

  23. [31]

    C., Ono , M., et al

    Ferrand , G., Warren , D. C., Ono , M., et al. 2019, , 877, 136

    2019

  24. [32]

    2021, , 906, 93

    ---. 2021, , 906, 93

    2021

  25. [33]

    R., et al

    Fink , M., Kromer , M., Seitenzahl , I. R., et al. 2014, , 438, 1762

    2014

  26. [34]

    2019, in The Extragalactic Explosive Universe: the New Era of Transient Surveys and Data-Driven Discovery, 19

    Floers , A. 2019, in The Extragalactic Explosive Universe: the New Era of Transient Surveys and Data-Driven Discovery, 19

    2019

  27. [35]

    2020, , 491, 2902

    Fl \"o rs , A., Spyromilio , J., Taubenberger , S., et al. 2020, , 491, 2902

    2020

  28. [36]

    E., Sim , S

    Gronow , S., Collins , C. E., Sim , S. A., & R \"o pke , F. K. 2021, , 649, A155

    2021

  29. [37]

    Hamilton , A. J. S., Sarazin , C. L., & Chevalier , R. A. 1983, , 51, 115

    1983

  30. [38]

    J., & Wheeler , J

    Hansen , C. J., & Wheeler , J. C. 1969, , 3, 464

    1969

  31. [39]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  32. [40]

    M., Prieto , J

    Hicken , M., Garnavich , P. M., Prieto , J. L., et al. 2007, , 669, L17

    2007

  33. [41]

    2025, , 986, 216

    Holland-Ashford , T., Slane , P., & Williams , B. 2025, , 986, 216

    2025

  34. [42]

    A., Sullivan , M., Nugent , P

    Howell , D. A., Sullivan , M., Nugent , P. E., et al. 2006, , 443, 308

    2006

  35. [43]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  36. [44]

    1977, , 29, 813

    Itoh , H. 1977, , 29, 813

    1977

  37. [45]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  38. [46]

    2003, , 593, 788

    Kasen , D., Nugent , P., Wang , L., et al. 2003, , 593, 788

    2003

  39. [47]

    P., et al

    Katsuda , S., Petre , R., Hughes , J. P., et al. 2010, , 709, 1387

    2010

  40. [48]

    2015, , 808, 49

    Katsuda , S., Mori , K., Maeda , K., et al. 2015, , 808, 49

    2015

  41. [49]

    Khokhlov , A. M. 1991, , 245, L25

    1991

  42. [50]

    S., Shappee , B

    Kochanek , C. S., Shappee , B. J., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2017, , 129, 104502

    2017

  43. [51]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov , A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  44. [52]

    M., Usuda , T., et al

    Krause , O., Birkmann , S. M., Usuda , T., et al. 2008 a , Science, 320, 1195

    2008

  45. [53]

    2008 b , , 456, 617

    Krause , O., Tanaka , M., Usuda , T., et al. 2008 b , , 456, 617

    2008

  46. [54]

    Kromer , M., Ohlmann , S., & R \"o pke , F. K. 2017, , 88, 312

    2017

  47. [55]

    A., Fink , M., et al

    Kromer , M., Sim , S. A., Fink , M., et al. 2010, , 719, 1067

    2010

  48. [56]

    Y., Ashall , C., et al

    Kumar , S., Hsiao , E. Y., Ashall , C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17134

    2025

  49. [57]

    P., Sim , S

    Lach , F., Callan , F. P., Sim , S. A., & R \"o pke , F. K. 2022, , 659, A27

    2022

  50. [58]

    M., Kulkarni , S

    Law , N. M., Kulkarni , S. R., Dekany , R. G., et al. 2009, , 121, 1395

    2009

  51. [59]

    A., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Huppenkothen , D., Badenes , C., & Pooley , D

    Lopez , L. A., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Huppenkothen , D., Badenes , C., & Pooley , D. A. 2011, , 732, 114

    2011

  52. [60]

    A., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Pooley , D

    Lopez , L. A., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Pooley , D. A., & Jeltema , T. E. 2009, , 691, 875

    2009

  53. [61]

    A., Allison , J., et al

    LSST Science Collaboration , Abell , P. A., Allison , J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201

    2009 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J., Wang , Q

    Lu , F. J., Wang , Q. D., Ge , M. Y., et al. 2011, , 732, 11

    2011

  55. [63]

    Mandal, S., & Duffell, P. C. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 269, 30

    2023

  56. [64]

    C., Polin , A., & Milisavljevic , D

    Mandal , S., Duffell , P. C., Polin , A., & Milisavljevic , D. 2023, , 956, 130

    2023

  57. [65]

    2024, , 972, 87

    ---. 2024, , 972, 87

    2024

  58. [66]

    S., Sim , S

    Marquardt , K. S., Sim , S. A., Ruiter , A. J., et al. 2015, , 580, A118

    2015

  59. [67]

    2018, , 865, 151

    Mart \' nez-Rodr \' guez , H., Badenes , C., Lee , S.-H., et al. 2018, , 865, 151

    2018

  60. [68]

    2005, , 443, 649

    Mattila , S., Lundqvist , P., Sollerman , J., et al. 2005, , 443, 649

    2005

  61. [69]

    A., Sauer , D

    Mazzali , P. A., Sauer , D. N., Pastorello , A., Benetti , S., & Hillebrandt , W. 2008, , 386, 1897

    2008

  62. [70]

    2012, , 545, A96

    Melinder , J., Dahlen , T., Menc \' a Trinchant , L., et al. 2012, , 545, A96

    2012

  63. [71]

    1982, , 257, 780

    Nomoto , K. 1982, , 257, 780

    1982

  64. [72]

    K., & Yokoi , K

    Nomoto , K., Thielemann , F. K., & Yokoi , K. 1984, , 286, 644

    1984

  65. [73]

    2024, , 977, 118

    Orlando , S., Greco , E., Hirai , R., et al. 2024, , 977, 118

    2024

  66. [74]

    2012, , 747, L10

    Pakmor , R., Kromer , M., Taubenberger , S., et al. 2012, , 747, L10

    2012

  67. [75]

    J., Lee , S.-H., Slane , P

    Patnaude , D. J., Lee , S.-H., Slane , P. O., et al. 2017, , 849, 109

    2017

  68. [76]

    A., Fremling , C., Sollerman , J., et al

    Perley , D. A., Fremling , C., Sollerman , J., et al. 2020, , 904, 35

    2020

  69. [77]

    1999, , 517, 565

    Perlmutter , S., Aldering , G., Goldhaber , G., et al. 1999, , 517, 565

    1999

  70. [78]

    Phillips , M. M. 1993, , 413, L105

    1993

  71. [79]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 940, L28

    Polin, A., Duffell, P., & Milisavljevic, D. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 940, L28

    2022

  72. [80]

    Pskovskii , I. P. 1977, , 21, 675

    1977

  73. [81]

    L., Suntzeff , N

    Rest , A., Welch , D. L., Suntzeff , N. B., et al. 2008 a , , 681, L81

    2008

  74. [82]

    2008 b , , 680, 1137

    Rest , A., Matheson , T., Blondin , S., et al. 2008 b , , 680, 1137

    2008

  75. [83]

    J., Sinnott , B., et al

    Rest , A., Foley , R. J., Sinnott , B., et al. 2011, , 732, 3

    2011

  76. [84]

    G., Filippenko , A

    Riess , A. G., Filippenko , A. V., Challis , P., et al. 1998, , 116, 1009

    1998

  77. [85]

    K., Kromer , M., Seitenzahl , I

    R \"o pke , F. K., Kromer , M., Seitenzahl , I. R., et al. 2012, , 750, L19

    2012

  78. [86]

    J., & Seitenzahl , I

    Ruiter , A. J., & Seitenzahl , I. R. 2025, , 33, 1

    2025

  79. [87]

    2004, , 612, 357

    Ruiz-Lapuente , P. 2004, , 612, 357

    2004

  80. [88]

    Rust , B. W. 1974, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 6, 450

    1974

  81. [89]

    A., Pian , E., et al

    Sasdelli , M., Mazzali , P. A., Pian , E., et al. 2014, , 445, 711

    2014

  82. [90]

    A., Aldering , G., Antilogus , P., et al

    Scalzo , R. A., Aldering , G., Antilogus , P., et al. 2010, , 713, 1073

    2010

  83. [91]

    R., & Townsley , D

    Seitenzahl , I. R., & Townsley , D. M. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 1955

    2017

  84. [92]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann , F., R \"o pke , F

    Seitenzahl , I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann , F., R \"o pke , F. K., et al. 2013, , 429, 1156

    2013

  85. [93]

    A., R \"o pke , F

    Sim , S. A., R \"o pke , F. K., Hillebrandt , W., et al. 2010, , 714, L52

    2010

  86. [94]

    2010, , 401, 791

    Springel , V. 2010, , 401, 791

    2010

  87. [95]

    A., Benetti , S., & Hillebrandt , W

    Stehle , M., Mazzali , P. A., Benetti , S., & Hillebrandt , W. 2005, , 360, 1231

    2005

  88. [96]

    A., Stanishev , V., et al

    Tanaka , M., Mazzali , P. A., Stanishev , V., et al. 2011, , 410, 1725

    2011

  89. [97]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Taubenberger , S. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 317

    2017

  90. [98]

    K., & McKee , C

    Truelove , J. K., & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 120, 299

    1999

  91. [99]

    2006, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Vink , J. 2006, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 604, The X-ray Universe 2005, ed. A. Wilson , 319

    2006

  92. [100]

    2012, , 20, 49

    Vink , J. 2012, , 20, 49

    2012

  93. [101]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    ---. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 2063

    2017

  94. [102]

    2003, , 591, 1110

    Wang , L., Baade , D., H \"o flich , P., et al. 2003, , 591, 1110

    2003

  95. [103]

    C., & Blondin , J

    Warren , D. C., & Blondin , J. M. 2013, , 429, 3099

    2013

  96. [104]

    A., & Meschede, M

    Wieczorek, M. A., & Meschede, M. 2018, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 19, 2574

    2018

  97. [105]

    A., Badenes , C., et al

    Yamaguchi , H., Eriksen , K. A., Badenes , C., et al. 2014, , 780, 136

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.