pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.16365 · v4 · pith:LNP3TJAQnew · submitted 2025-10-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Explodability matters: how realistic neutrino-driven explosions change explosive nucleosynthesis yields

Luca Boccioli , Lorenzo Roberti This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 06:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords core-collapse supernovaeexplosive nucleosynthesisneutrino-driven explosionsstellar progenitorsyield calculationsiron-peak elementsmass cut
0
0 comments X

The pith

Realistic neutrino-driven supernova models produce lower iron-peak element yields than piston and bomb prescriptions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how explosion modeling choices affect nucleosynthesis in core-collapse supernovae across many progenitors from FRANEC, KEPLER, and MESA codes. It runs explosions with the GR1D+ code, which includes neutrino transport and time-dependent mixing-length convection, then computes yields via SkyNet post-processing. These simulations produce explosion energies and remnant masses consistent with observed type II-P, IIb, and Ib supernovae and recent 3D work. Compared with piston and bomb models, the realistic approach reduces Fe-peak production while explodability variations mainly alter lighter-element yields. Accurate yields matter for tracing element origins and galactic chemical evolution.

Core claim

Piston and bomb models artificially increase the production of Fe-peak elements relative to neutrino-driven explosions, while differences in which progenitors explode create discrepancies primarily in the lighter elements.

What carries the argument

The GR1D+ spherically symmetric model with state-of-the-art neutrino transport and time-dependent mixing-length convection, which sets realistic explosion energy and mass cut before SkyNet yield calculation.

If this is right

  • Galactic chemical evolution calculations should replace piston and bomb yields with neutrino-driven results to avoid overestimating iron-group elements.
  • Explodability differences among progenitors shift production of oxygen, silicon, and other lighter elements more than simple models indicate.
  • Yield tables for rotating, low-metallicity, and binary stars become available with energies and remnant masses matching type II-P, IIb, and Ib observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Incorporating these yields into chemical evolution codes could change predicted metallicity patterns in dwarf galaxies.
  • Three-dimensional explosion simulations may refine the element-by-element differences found here.
  • Binary evolution channels could amplify the lighter-element discrepancies if their explodability differs from single-star cases.

Load-bearing premise

The one-dimensional-plus model with mixing-length convection treatment captures the essential multi-dimensional dynamics and neutrino transport that fix the final explosion energy and mass cut.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of predicted nickel-56 or calcium yields against observed abundances in supernova remnants or metal-poor stars would show whether realistic models match better than piston and bomb results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.16365 by Lorenzo Roberti, Luca Boccioli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of explosion energies and ejected 56Ni masses ob￾tained from the explosion simulations in this work (indicated by stars) with estimates based on hydrodynamical or semi-analytical modeling of observed light curves. The shaded circles and squares represent sim￾ulations of stripped (i.e., with less than 0.01M⊙ of hydrogen in the en￾velope) and ultra-stripped (i.e., with less than 0.01M⊙ of helium i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: This figure shows a clear correlation between the explosion en￾ergy and the gravitational mass of a cold neutron star at the end of the simulation, where different colors refer to the different sets of simula￾tions described in Section 2. A similar correlation is also found in 3D simulations (Burrows et al. 2024a). value of the mixing length, that can be calibrated against multi￾D simulations as well as ot… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The abundances for selected isotopes after the explosive nucleosynthesis are shown for three selected progenitors from LC18 (left) and WH07 (middle and right). The solid lines show the results from the explosion simulated in this work with GR1D, the dashed lines show the bomb model of LC18, and the dotted lines show the piston model of WH07. The progenitor on the left was chosen to be the one for which the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Explodability of progenitor stars from Woosley & Heger (2007) as obtained in this work (upper panel) and by Curtis et al. (2019) (bot￾tom panel. Successful explosions, defined as simulations for which the shock is successfully revived and crosses 500 km, are shown as green bands. Failed explosions are shown as black bands. 13 15 20 25 30 40 60 80 120 0 km/s z = z 13 15 20 25 30 40 60 80 120 150 km/s 13 15 … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Explodability of progenitor stars from Limongi & Chieffi (2018) as obtained in this work, shown as a function of initial rotational veloc￾ity at the beginning of the Main Sequence, and metallicity. Successful explosions, defined as simulations for which the shock is successfully revived and crosses 500 km, are shown as green bands. Failed explo￾sions are shown as black bands. if neutrino interactions are i… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The left panel shows the total yields of 44 Ti and 56 Ni for the nucleosynthesis calculations carried out in this work. Different colors refer to the different sets adopted in this paper. The right panel shows the same quantities, but the nucleosynthesis calculations are the ones carried out in the original LC18, F23, and WH07 papers. In addition to that, we also show the results from C19, who exploded the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ye distributions of the ejecta color-coded by the ZAMS mass of the progenitor star for each of the three sets of simulations. Notice that we separated the single and binary stars of F23 in the bottom two panels. Lower mass stars reach higher Ye, as is also seen in 3D simulations (Melson et al. 2015; Müller et al. 2019; Stockinger et al. 2020; Sandoval et al. 2021; Wang & Burrows 2024c) 0.2 0.4 0.6 ξ2.0 2 4… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Total Yield of 44Ti (left) and 57Ni (right) multiplied by a factor of 105 and 103 , respectively. The cyan symbols refer to a nucleosynthesis calculation that mimics one where 10 GK is used as the NSE threshold (although see text for a detailed explanation of how that was actually done). The increase in the yield of both isotopes compared to the stan￾dard run (blue symbols) shows that part of the discrepan… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mass cuts obtained in this work (blue dots) compared to the ones obtained by WH07 (red squares) and C19 (green triangles) for the explosions of the progenitors from WH07. As expected, the mass cut correlates with compactness (except for one outlier of WH07). Notice that we find mass cuts that are larger compared to C19 and WH07, who instead find comparable values. The reason is that our explosions are tri… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ratio of the yields obtained in this work to the yields obtained by previous works, each weighted by a Salpeter IMF and subsequently normalized to one. The red line shows the ratio of our yields to the original ones from WH07, for which every star explodes. The cyan line is the same as the red, except that we impose our explodability on the yields of WH07. This means that for the 12, 14, 15, 18, and 100 M… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Logarithmic ratio [X/O] of element X and Oxygen with re￾spect to their solar ratio. We use the solar abundances by Asplund et al. (2009). A value of zero indicates the same ratio found in the solar sys￾tem. The yields of each star have been weighted by a Salpeter IMF and then normalized to one. The blue line refers to the yields obtained in this work; in red, we show the yields from WH07 assuming that eve… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mass cut (upper panels) and explosion energies (bottom panels) for the LC18 progenitor models. The mass cut is also equal to the bary￾onic mass of the cold neutron star. Red squares refer to the original ex￾plosion models of LC18, and blue circles refer to the explosions carried out in this work. Left panels show each quantity as a function of initial ZAMS mass, right panels are instead as a function of p… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ratio of the yields obtained in this work to the yields obtained by LC18, each weighted by a Salpeter IMF and averaged over the IDORV, and subsequently normalized to one. The red line shows the ratio of our yields to the original ones from LC18, for which every star explodes. The cyan line is the same as the red, except that we impose our explodability on the yields of LC18, analogously to what was done i… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Logarithmic ratio [X/O] of element X and Oxygen with respect to their solar ratio. We use the solar abundances by Asplund et al. (2009). A value of zero indicates the same ratio found in the solar system. The yields of each star have been weighted by a Salpeter IMF, averaged over the IDORV and then normalized to one. The blue line refers to the yields obtained in this work; in red, we show the yields from… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Mass cut for single (upper panels) and binary (bottom panels) stars for the F23 progenitor models. The mass cut is also equal to the baryonic mass of the cold neutron star. Red squares refer to the orig￾inal explosion models of F23, and blue circles refer to the explosions carried out in this work. Left panels show each quantity as a function of initial ZAMS mass, right panels are instead as a function of… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Logarithmic ratio [X/O] of element X and Oxygen with re￾spect to their solar ratio. We use the solar abundances by Asplund et al. (2009). A value of zero indicates the same ratio found in the solar sys￾tem. The yields of each star have been weighted by a Salpeter IMF and then normalized to one. The top and bottom panels show the results for single and binary stars, respectively. The blue line refers to th… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Explosive nucleosynthesis is affected by many uncertainties, particularly regarding assumptions and prescriptions adopted during the evolution of the star. Moreover, simple explosion models are often used in the literature, which can introduce large errors in the assumed explosion energy and mass cut. In this paper, our goal is to analyze the explosion properties and nucleosynthesis of a large range of progenitors from three different stellar evolution codes: FRANEC, KEPLER, and MESA. In particular, we will show the differences between the neutrino-driven explosions simulated in this work with the much simpler bomb and piston models that are typically widely used in the literature. We will then focus on the impact of different explodabilities and different explosion dynamics on the nucleosynthetic yields. We adopt the neutrino-driven core-collapse supernova explosion code GR1D+, i.e. a spherically symmetric model with state-of-the-art microphysics and neutrino transport and a time-dependent mixing-length model for neutrino-driven convection. We carry out explosions up to several seconds after bounce, and then calculate the nucleosynthetic yields with the post-processing code SkyNet. We find that our 1D+ simulations yield explosion energies and remnant masses in agreement with observations of type II-P, IIb, and Ib supernovae, as well as with the most recent 3D simulations of the explosion. We provide a complete set of yields for all the stars simulated, including rotating, low-metallicity, and binary progenitors. Finally, we find that piston and bomb models, compared to more realistic neutrino-driven explosions, can artificially increase the production of Fe-peak elements, whereas the different explodability tends to cause discrepancies in the lighter elements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper simulates neutrino-driven core-collapse supernovae for progenitors from FRANEC, KEPLER, and MESA using the GR1D+ code (1D with state-of-the-art microphysics, neutrino transport, and time-dependent mixing-length convection). Explosions are evolved to several seconds post-bounce, nucleosynthesis yields are post-processed with SkyNet, and results are compared to standard piston and bomb models. The central claims are that GR1D+ yields match observed Type II-P/IIb/Ib energies and remnant masses as well as recent 3D simulations, that piston/bomb models artificially boost Fe-peak production, and that explodability differences primarily affect lighter-element yields. A full yield table for rotating, low-metallicity, and binary progenitors is provided.

Significance. If the central comparisons hold, the work supplies a large, observationally anchored set of yields from more realistic neutrino-driven explosions and quantifies systematic offsets introduced by the piston/bomb approximations that dominate the literature. This directly improves inputs for galactic chemical evolution and supernova yield libraries, while the reported agreement with 3D results and observed energies strengthens the practical utility of the 1D+ dataset.

major comments (1)
  1. [Comparison of explosion models and nucleosynthesis yields] The section comparing piston/bomb models to GR1D+ runs does not state whether the simple models were executed with the identical final explosion energy and remnant mass (or mass cut) that each GR1D+ progenitor produces. Without per-progenitor matching of these boundary conditions, the reported Fe-peak overproduction in piston/bomb models cannot be unambiguously attributed to the artificial nature of those prescriptions rather than to inconsistent E_exp or M_rem values. This matching is load-bearing for the Fe-peak part of the central claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Introduction and results] The abstract and introduction refer to 'different explodabilities' driving lighter-element discrepancies, but the manuscript should add a short table or figure that isolates the explodability effect (e.g., by holding E_exp and mass cut fixed across models).
  2. [Methods and figures] Figure captions and text should explicitly note the post-bounce time at which explosion energy and remnant mass are measured for the GR1D+ runs, to facilitate direct comparison with piston/bomb setups.
  3. [Nucleosynthesis post-processing] A brief statement on the sensitivity of the SkyNet post-processing to the adopted mass cut and fallback prescription would help readers assess robustness of the lighter-element trends.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for identifying this key point about the model comparisons. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly address the concern and strengthen the clarity of our central claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section comparing piston/bomb models to GR1D+ runs does not state whether the simple models were executed with the identical final explosion energy and remnant mass (or mass cut) that each GR1D+ progenitor produces. Without per-progenitor matching of these boundary conditions, the reported Fe-peak overproduction in piston/bomb models cannot be unambiguously attributed to the artificial nature of those prescriptions rather than to inconsistent E_exp or M_rem values. This matching is load-bearing for the Fe-peak part of the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that explicit per-progenitor matching of explosion energy and remnant mass is essential for isolating the effects of the explosion mechanism. In our work, the piston and bomb models were run with the identical final explosion energy and mass cut (remnant mass) obtained from each GR1D+ simulation for the corresponding progenitor. This matching was performed to ensure a fair comparison and to attribute differences in Fe-peak yields specifically to the artificial nature of the piston/bomb prescriptions rather than to differences in E_exp or M_rem. However, we acknowledge that the original manuscript did not state this matching procedure with sufficient clarity. We have revised Section 3.2 (and the associated figure captions) to explicitly describe how the boundary conditions were matched on a per-progenitor basis and have added a sentence confirming that the GR1D+ values of E_exp and M_rem were adopted directly for the piston and bomb runs. With this clarification, the reported Fe-peak overproduction is now unambiguously linked to the simplified explosion prescriptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper performs forward 1D+ hydrodynamic simulations of neutrino-driven explosions with GR1D+ (including time-dependent mixing-length convection and state-of-the-art neutrino transport), followed by post-processing nucleosynthesis yields via SkyNet. Explosion energies and remnant masses are reported to agree with external observational benchmarks (Type II-P, IIb, Ib supernovae) and recent 3D simulations, rather than being fitted or defined in terms of the nucleosynthesis outputs. Direct comparisons to piston and bomb models are executed as separate runs; no equations, parameters, or self-citations reduce the reported yield differences (Fe-peak or lighter elements) to inputs by construction. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing self-referential steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on the standard microphysics and neutrino transport already implemented in GR1D+ plus the assumption that 1D mixing-length convection approximates the convective engine; no new free parameters are introduced beyond those already present in the cited codes.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The time-dependent mixing-length model for neutrino-driven convection in GR1D+ adequately represents the multi-dimensional convective engine that determines explodability.
    Invoked when the authors state that their 1D+ simulations produce explosion energies and remnant masses in agreement with observations and 3D results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5843 in / 1472 out tokens · 26879 ms · 2026-05-18T06:39:05.373824+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Production of heavy $\alpha$-elements and $^{44}$Ti in Cas A: comparison to abundances from 1D core-collapse supernova models and evidence for Carbon-Oxygen shell mergers

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Core-collapse supernova models including C-O shell mergers best match observed elemental ratios in Cas A, indicating mergers occur and contribute up to 20-30% of 44Ti outside the reverse shock.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 118 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Radice, D., et al

    Abdikamalov, E., Ott, C. D., Radice, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 70

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    M., Kochanek, C

    Adams, S. M., Kochanek, C. S., Gerke, J. R., & Stanek, K. Z. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1445

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 972

    Andrassy, R., Herwig, F., Woodward, P., & Ritter, C. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 972

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    P., Andersen, O

    Andresen, H., O’Connor, E. P., Andersen, O. E., & Couch, S. M. 2024, A&A, 687, A55

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    & Quataert, E

    Antoni, A. & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1229

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    T., & Scheck, L

    Arcones, A., Janka, H. T., & Scheck, L. 2007, A&A, 467, 1227

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    & Thielemann, F

    Arcones, A. & Thielemann, F. K. 2013, JPhG, 40, 013201

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    & Thielemann, F.-K

    Arcones, A. & Thielemann, F.-K. 2023, A&ARv, 31, 1

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Arnett, W. D. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1369

    work page 1969

  10. [10]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785

    work page 1982

  11. [11]

    Arnett, W. D. 1987, ApJ, 319, 136

    work page 1987

  12. [12]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    B., Baron, E., & Thielemann, F

    Aufderheide, M. B., Baron, E., & Thielemann, F. K. 1991, ApJ, 370, 630

    work page 1991

  14. [14]

    V ., Laird, A

    Battino, U., Roberti, L., Lawson, T. V ., Laird, A. M., & Todd, L. 2024, Universe, 10, 204

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V . A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    & Fragione, G

    Boccioli, L. & Fragione, G. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 023007

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    J., & O’Connor, E

    Boccioli, L., Mathews, G. J., & O’Connor, E. P. 2021, ApJ, 912, 29

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    J., Suh, I.-S., & O’Connor, E

    Boccioli, L., Mathews, G. J., Suh, I.-S., & O’Connor, E. P. 2022, ApJ, 926, 147

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    & Roberti, L

    Boccioli, L. & Roberti, L. 2024, Univ, 10 [arXiv:2403.12942]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    J., & Chieffi, A

    Boccioli, L., Roberti, L., Limongi, M., Mathews, G. J., & Chieffi, A. 2023, ApJ, 949, 17

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Bohm-Vitense, E. 1958, Z. Astrophys., 46, 108

    work page 1958

  22. [22]

    Bruenn, S. W. 1985, ApJS, 58, 771

    work page 1985

  23. [23]

    W., Lentz, E

    Bruenn, S. W., Lentz, E. J., Hix, W. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 123

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    T., & Kifonidis, K

    Buras, R., Rampp, M., Janka, H. T., & Kifonidis, K. 2006, A&A, 447, 1049

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    M., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, RvMP, 29, 547

    work page 1957

  26. [26]

    Burrows, A., Reddy, S., & Thompson, T. A. 2006, NuPhA, 777, 356

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    & Vartanyan, D

    Burrows, A. & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Natur, 589, 29

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    2023, ApJ, 957, 68

    Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., & Wang, T. 2023, ApJ, 957, 68

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    2018, ApJL, 852, L19

    Chan, C., Müller, B., Heger, A., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2018, ApJL, 852, L19

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Couch, S. M. & Ott, C. D. 2015, ApJ, 799, 5

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    M., Warren, M

    Couch, S. M., Warren, M. L., & O’Connor, E. P. 2020, ApJ, 890, 127

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 2

    Curtis, S., Ebinger, K., Fröhlich, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 2

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    & Prantzos, N

    Diehl, R. & Prantzos, N. 2020, in Handbook of nuclear physics, ed. I. Tanihata, H. Toki, & T. Kajino (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 1–83

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 1

    Ebinger, K., Curtis, S., Fröhlich, C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 1

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    2020, ApJ, 888, 91 Eggenberger Andersen, O., O’Connor, E., Andresen, H., da Silva Schneider, A., & Couch, S

    Ebinger, K., Curtis, S., Ghosh, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, 91 Eggenberger Andersen, O., O’Connor, E., Andresen, H., da Silva Schneider, A., & Couch, S. M. 2025, ApJ, 980, 53 Eggenberger Andersen, O., Zha, S., da Silva Schneider, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 201

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    T., Woosley, S

    Ertl, T., Janka, H. T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Ugliano, M. 2016, ApJ, 818, 124

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 21

    Falla, A., Roberti, L., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2025, ApJ, 991, 21

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Fang, Q., Nagakura, H., & Moriya, T. J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.20675

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    E., & Justham, S

    Farmer, R., Laplace, E., de Mink, S. E., & Justham, S. 2021, ApJ, 923, 214

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    E., & Justham, S

    Farmer, R., Laplace, E., Ma, J.-z., de Mink, S. E., & Justham, S. 2023, ApJ, 948, 111

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    2017, PASA, 34, e067

    Fischer, T., Bastian, N.-U., Blaschke, D., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e067

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    2024, PrPNP, 137, 104107

    Fischer, T., Guo, G., Langanke, K., et al. 2024, PrPNP, 137, 104107

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    J., Lucente, G., Padilla-Gay, I., & Patwardhan, A

    Friedland, A., Li, D. J., Lucente, G., Padilla-Gay, I., & Patwardhan, A. V . 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.02055 Fröhlich, C., Hauser, P., Liebendörfer, M., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 637, 415 Fröhlich, C., Martínez-Pinedo, G., Liebendörfer, M., et al. 2006b, PhRvL, 96, 142502

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    2017, in Handbook of supernovae, ed

    Gal-Yam, A. 2017, in Handbook of supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 195–237

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 929, 43

    Ghosh, S., Wolfe, N., & Fröhlich, C. 2022, ApJ, 929, 43

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    & Sauval, A

    Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161

    work page 1998

  47. [47]

    & Schaffner-Bielich, J

    Hempel, M. & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2010, NuPhA, 837, 210

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    Hix, W. R. & Thielemann, F. K. 1999, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 109, 321

    work page 1999

  49. [49]

    Horowitz, C. J. 2002, PhRvD, 65, 043001

    work page 2002

  50. [50]

    J., Caballero, O

    Horowitz, C. J., Caballero, O. L., Lin, Z., O’Connor, E., & Schwenk, A. 2017, PhRvC, 95, 025801

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1818

    Imasheva, L., Janka, H.-T., & Weiss, A. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1818

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 116

    Imasheva, L., Janka, H.-T., & Weiss, A. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 116

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    2017, in Handbook of supernovae, ed

    Janka, H.-T. 2017, in Handbook of supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1095–1150

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Janka, H. T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.14836

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    2021, A&A, 656, A58

    Laplace, E., Justham, S., Renzo, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A58

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    V ., Pignatari, M., Stancliffe, R

    Lawson, T. V ., Pignatari, M., Stancliffe, R. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 886

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    J., Bruenn, S

    Lentz, E. J., Bruenn, S. W., Hix, W. R., et al. 2015, ApJL, 807, L31

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    2024, Master’s thesis, Stockholm University, Department of Astronomy/ Stockholm University, Department of Astronomy Liebendörfer, M., Whitehouse, S

    Li, X. 2024, Master’s thesis, Stockholm University, Department of Astronomy/ Stockholm University, Department of Astronomy Liebendörfer, M., Whitehouse, S. C., & Fischer, T. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1174

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. & Chieffi, A. 2003, ApJ, 592, 404

    work page 2003

  61. [61]

    & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. & Chieffi, A. 2018, ApJS, 237, 13

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. & Chieffi, A. 2020, ApJ, 902, 95

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    & Roberts, L

    Lippuner, J. & Roberts, L. F. 2017, ApJS, 233, 18

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    Litvinova, I. Y . & Nadezhin, D. K. 1985, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 11, 145

    work page 1985

  65. [65]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 106

    Liu, T., Wei, Y .-F., Xue, L., & Sun, M.-Y . 2021, ApJ, 908, 106

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    work page 2003

  67. [67]

    & Janka, H

    Marek, A. & Janka, H. T. 2009, ApJ, 694, 664

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    2015, ApJL, 801, L24

    Melson, T., Janka, H.-T., & Marek, A. 2015, ApJL, 801, L24

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    S., Mathews, G

    Meyer, B. S., Mathews, G. J., Howard, W. M., Woosley, S. E., & Hoffman, R. D. 1992, ApJ, 399, 656

    work page 1992

  70. [70]

    Mezzacappa, A., Endeve, E., Messer, O. E. B., & Bruenn, S. W. 2020, LRCA, 6, 4

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    2024, ApJL, 965, L27 Müller, B

    Milisavljevic, D., Temim, T., De Looze, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L27 Müller, B. 2020, LRCA, 6, 3 Müller, B., Janka, H.-T., & Marek, A. 2012, ApJ, 756, 84 Article number, page 16 of 23 Boccioli & Roberti: Neutrino-driven explosive nucleosynthesis Müller, B., Melson, T., Heger, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 491 Müller, B., Tauris, T. M., Heger, A....

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    2015, PASJ, 67, 107 Navó, G., Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., & Arcones, A

    Nakamura, K., Takiwaki, T., Kuroda, T., & Kotake, K. 2015, PASJ, 67, 107 Navó, G., Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., & Arcones, A. 2023, ApJ, 951, 112

    work page 2015

  73. [73]

    Neustadt, J. M. M., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 516

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Z., & Meyer, B

    Ning, H., Qian, Y . Z., & Meyer, B. S. 2007, ApJL, 667, L159

    work page 2007

  75. [75]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 457 O’Connor, E

    Nomoto, K., Kobayashi, C., & Tominaga, N. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 457 O’Connor, E. 2015, ApJS, 219, 24 O’Connor, E. & Ott, C. D. 2010, CQGra, 27, 114103

    work page 2013

  76. [76]

    Patton, R. A. & Sukhbold, T. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2803

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    & Prieto, J

    Pejcha, O. & Prieto, J. L. 2015, ApJ, 806, 225

    work page 2015

  78. [78]

    M., & Käppeli, R

    Perego, A., Cabezón, R. M., & Käppeli, R. 2016, ApJS, 223, 22

    work page 2016

  79. [79]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 275

    Perego, A., Hempel, M., Fröhlich, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 275

    work page 2015

  80. [80]

    Popov, D. V . 1993, ApJ, 414, 712

    work page 1993

Showing first 80 references.