pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.20446 · v1 · pith:WWUNSOT3new · submitted 2026-01-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Probing the Diversity of Type Ia Supernova Remnants in 3-D Hydrodynamic Simulations with X-ray Spectral Synthesis

Yusei Fujimaru , Shiu-Hang Lee , Gilles Ferrand , Daniel Patnaude , Shigehiro Nagataki , R\"udiger Pakmor , Samar Safi-Harb , Friedrich K. R\"opke
show 2 more authors
Anne Decourchelle Ivo R. Seitenzahl
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 15:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Type Ia supernovaesupernova remnantsX-ray spectroscopy3D hydrodynamic simulationsexplosion mechanismsnon-equilibrium ionizationFe-K alpha linesprogenitor diversity
0
0 comments X

The pith

3-D simulations of Type Ia supernova remnants produce diverse X-ray spectra from different explosion models.

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

The paper carries out three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations that start with six different Type Ia explosion models and evolve each one self-consistently for a thousand years into the remnant stage. It then generates synthetic X-ray spectra at roughly one electron-volt resolution while including non-equilibrium ionization. A reader would care because Type Ia supernovae serve as distance indicators across the universe, yet their progenitor systems and explosion physics remain uncertain; the remnant X-ray emission offers a direct window into those differences. The calculations show that the models produce noticeably distinct spectra, with line centroids, luminosities, and asymmetric red- and blueshifted profiles that arise from the three-dimensional ejecta geometry.

Core claim

By evolving two pure-deflagration, two delayed-detonation, and two double-detonation models inside a uniform medium for 1000 years with full non-equilibrium ionization, and then synthesizing X-ray spectra from the resulting three-dimensional distributions, the study obtains the first self-consistent spectra that connect the supernova explosion phase directly to observable remnant properties. These spectra exhibit clear inter-model diversity together with asymmetric line profiles produced by the three-dimensional structure of the shocked ejecta.

What carries the argument

Self-consistent 3-D hydrodynamic evolution of supernova remnants from explosion models, followed by X-ray spectral synthesis at high resolution.

If this is right

  • Different explosion models leave distinct imprints in the X-ray spectra of their remnants after a thousand years.
  • Three-dimensional ejecta distributions produce observable red- and blueshifted line profiles that high-resolution spectrometers can detect.
  • The simulated diversity supplies qualitative constraints on which progenitor systems and explosion mechanisms are viable.
  • An efficient numerical scheme now makes systematic three-dimensional parameter surveys of supernova remnants practical.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same modeling framework could be applied to remnants expanding into non-uniform interstellar media to match individual observed objects more closely.
  • Line-of-sight velocity signatures predicted by the simulations offer a direct test for instruments such as XRISM Resolve.
  • Statistical comparison of many observed remnants against these model grids could begin to favor or disfavor entire classes of explosion scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

Evolving the six chosen explosion models for 1000 years inside a uniform ambient medium with non-equilibrium ionization is sufficient to reproduce the observed diversity of real Type Ia remnants without requiring more complex density structures or additional microphysical processes.

What would settle it

X-ray spectra of several observed Type Ia supernova remnants that display identical Fe-K alpha centroid energies and line luminosities, independent of any inferred differences in progenitor or environment, would contradict the predicted inter-model diversity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20446 by Anne Decourchelle, Daniel Patnaude, Friedrich K. R\"opke, Gilles Ferrand, Ivo R. Seitenzahl, R\"udiger Pakmor, Samar Safi-Harb, Shigehiro Nagataki, Shiu-Hang Lee, Yusei Fujimaru.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: For illustration, we show 1-D radial profiles of the initial density at 3 years, which were obtained for six Type Ia SN explosion models by spherically averaging the 3-D initial conditions. Although the simulations are fully 3-D, this 1-D representation provides a clearer view of the radial structure. Up to 3 years, SNRs are assumed to expand freely [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Initial abundance distribution for each model. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distribution of emission measure (EM) of IME and IGE elements in the shocked plasma over the R nedt–Te phase space, where R nedt is the ionization time. Panels from left to right correspond to different evolutionary stages at 100, 400, 700, and 1000 years after explosion. Each row corresponds to the SNR from a particular explosion model. At each epoch, the solid and dashed contours indicate the 80% and… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of EM from Si in the shocked plasma over the Tion-velocity phase space at 400 years. Here, vion is the projected velocity of Si along three orthogonal line-of-sights in the X, Y and Z directions respectively from the left to right panels, which shows the effect of Doppler shift on the emission lines and its dependence on the observing angle. Tion is the temperature of Si in the shocked pla… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Unshocked mass fractions of several important elements in the ejecta for each model. From top left to bottom right, the panels correspond to 100, 400, 700, and 1000 years, respectively. The unshocked mass fraction of element i is defined as Mi,unshocked/(Mi,shocked + Mi,unshocked) within the ejecta. Moreover, they tend to have fewer IGEs and more IMEs, consistent with the smaller mass of the exploding WD. … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Shocked ejecta masses of the same elements as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The centroid energy and line luminosity of Fe-Kα for the six SNR models at four different ages, in comparison with Type Ia SNR observations (Yamaguchi et al. 2014). The colored symbols are the estimated values from the simulations, without the effect of Doppler shifts from bulk motion. Their errorbars show the maximum possible effect from Doppler shift over all possible viewing angles, which evolves with t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the synthesis of the volume-integrated broadband X-ray spectrum from our SNR models. Here we are showing an example using the N100ddt model at 400 years. The silver line shows the raw spectrum before applying the effects of thermal broadening and Doppler shift. The magenta line shows the spectrum with thermal broadening taken into account. The navy line shows the final spectrum with Doppler… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A comparison between the volume-integrated broadband spectra of shocked ejecta at 400 years from the six 3-D SNR models and their averaged, spherically symmetric 1-D versions. The 1-D hydrodynamic simulations are performed by first deriving spherically symmetric initial conditions from averaging over the 3-D data, followed by a synthesis of their X-ray spectra using a method identical to the 3-D case. Bot… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A comparison of the volume-integrated X-ray spectra from the six explosion models at four SNR ages. The solid lines show the spectrum from the shocked ejecta. The dashed lines show the spectrum from the shocked ISM. The line-of-sight directions are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A comparison of line-of-sight specific emission line profiles of Si-Kα and Fe-Kα at 400 years. The spectra are extracted from a 0.5 ′ × 0.5 ′ region (see yellow square, approximately the pixel size of XRISM Resolve) at the center of each SNR for three line-of-sight directions. All the SNRs are assumed to be at a 2.5 kpc distance here. A stronger dependence of the profiles on the viewing angle can be seen … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel: The distribution of EM of extracted regions (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Type Ia supernovae (SNe), thermonuclear explosions of white dwarfs in binary systems, are widely used as standard candles owing to the empirical width-luminosity relation of their light curves. Recent theoretical and observational studies indicate a diversity of progenitor systems and explosion mechanisms. In the supernova remnant (SNR) phase, the diversity in Fe-K$\alpha$ centroid energies and line luminosities suggests variations in the underlying explosion mechanisms. X-ray spectra of SNRs, which trace shocked ejecta and the surrounding medium, are crucial diagnostics of progenitor systems and explosion physics. Thanks to recent advances in spectroscopy with XRISM, high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy enables 3-D diagnostics, including line-of-sight velocities. In this study, we perform 3-D hydrodynamic simulations of SNRs from six Type Ia explosion models: two each of pure deflagration, delayed detonation, and double detonation. Each model is evolved for 1000 years in a uniform medium, consistently accounting for non-equilibrium ionization. Our efficient numerical scheme enables systematic parameter surveys in full 3-D. From these models, we synthesize X-ray spectra with $\sim$1 eV resolution, exceeding XRISM/Resolve's spectral resolution. This work presents the first calculation of X-ray spectra for Type Ia SNRs derived from 3-D hydrodynamic simulations that follow the evolution self-consistently from the SN phase into the SNR phase. Our results show inter-model diversity in the X-ray spectra. Asymmetric, red- and blueshifted line profiles arise from the 3-D ejecta distributions. These findings demonstrate that 3-D SNR modeling can reproduce the observed diversity of Type Ia SNRs and provide qualitative constraints on progenitor systems and explosion mechanisms.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first self-consistent 3-D hydrodynamic simulations of Type Ia supernova remnants evolved from six explosion models (two each of pure deflagration, delayed detonation, and double detonation) for 1000 years in a uniform ambient medium, incorporating non-equilibrium ionization. X-ray spectra are synthesized at ~1 eV resolution, revealing inter-model diversity in spectral features and asymmetric, red- and blueshifted line profiles arising from 3-D ejecta distributions. The central claim is that these simulations demonstrate that 3-D SNR modeling can reproduce the observed diversity of Type Ia SNRs and provide qualitative constraints on progenitors and explosion mechanisms.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is significant for establishing a direct link between explosion models and high-resolution X-ray diagnostics of SNRs, particularly with upcoming XRISM data. The self-consistent evolution from SN to SNR phase and the efficient 3-D scheme enabling parameter surveys represent clear technical advances over prior 1-D or post-processed approaches. Credit is due for the systematic comparison across multiple explosion classes and the production of synthetic spectra exceeding current instrumental resolution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] The central claim that the modeled inter-model diversity reproduces observed Type Ia SNR diversity rests on the assumption of a uniform ambient medium (stated in the abstract and simulation setup). This setup omits clumpy or gradient ISM structures that could independently shift line centroids, luminosities, and velocity profiles, potentially making the reported diversity an artifact of the idealized environment rather than a robust diagnostic of explosion physics.
  2. [Results] Quantitative comparisons between the synthesized spectra and specific observed SNRs (e.g., measured Fe-Kα centroid energies or line luminosities from Chandra or XRISM data) are not provided to substantiate the claim that the models reproduce the observed diversity. Without such benchmarks, the qualitative demonstration of inter-model differences remains suggestive but not yet load-bearing for the diversity-reproduction conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'six Type Ia explosion models' without naming the specific published models or providing citations; adding these details would improve traceability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for the synthesized spectra should explicitly note the energy resolution (~1 eV) and the line-of-sight integration method to aid readers in assessing the 3-D velocity shifts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us clarify the scope and limitations of our study. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to better contextualize our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] The central claim that the modeled inter-model diversity reproduces observed Type Ia SNR diversity rests on the assumption of a uniform ambient medium (stated in the abstract and simulation setup). This setup omits clumpy or gradient ISM structures that could independently shift line centroids, luminosities, and velocity profiles, potentially making the reported diversity an artifact of the idealized environment rather than a robust diagnostic of explosion physics.

    Authors: We agree that a uniform ambient medium is an idealization and that real ISM inhomogeneities could contribute to observed spectral variations. Our primary goal was to isolate the effects of explosion physics by holding the ambient medium fixed, thereby demonstrating that 3-D ejecta asymmetries from different explosion models alone can generate diverse line profiles and spectral features. We have revised the abstract and added a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section acknowledging this limitation, emphasizing that the reported diversity represents a lower bound from explosion mechanisms and that future work incorporating clumpy or gradient media will be needed to assess combined effects. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Quantitative comparisons between the synthesized spectra and specific observed SNRs (e.g., measured Fe-Kα centroid energies or line luminosities from Chandra or XRISM data) are not provided to substantiate the claim that the models reproduce the observed diversity. Without such benchmarks, the qualitative demonstration of inter-model differences remains suggestive but not yet load-bearing for the diversity-reproduction conclusion.

    Authors: We acknowledge that quantitative matches to individual observed SNRs would provide stronger support. Our study is the first to perform self-consistent 3-D evolution from explosion to SNR phase across multiple models and to synthesize spectra at ~1 eV resolution; the focus is therefore on establishing the methodology and showing that inter-model differences arise naturally. We have expanded the discussion to include qualitative comparisons of our simulated Fe-Kα centroid ranges and line asymmetries with published observational ranges from Chandra and other instruments, while noting that detailed quantitative fitting to specific remnants (accounting for their unique ages and environments) lies beyond the present scope and will be addressed in follow-up work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a forward-modeling pipeline: six published explosion models are evolved self-consistently in 3-D hydrodynamics for 1000 yr inside a uniform ambient medium with non-equilibrium ionization, after which X-ray spectra are synthesized at ~1 eV resolution. The reported inter-model diversity in line centroids, luminosities, and velocity shifts is an emergent output of this simulation chain, not a quantity fitted to or defined from the same observational data being interpreted. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input-as-prediction reductions, or load-bearing self-citations collapse the central claim back to its inputs. The work remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as XRISM spectra; the uniform-medium choice is an explicit modeling assumption, not a circular redefinition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard hydrodynamic equations, non-equilibrium ionization solvers, and six previously published explosion models; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard equations of hydrodynamics and non-equilibrium ionization
    Used to evolve the remnant for 1000 years in a uniform medium.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5904 in / 1308 out tokens · 41313 ms · 2026-05-21T15:15:50.905343+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.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We simulate the evolution of SNRs using a 3-D Eulerian hydrodynamic code with NEI treatment based on the PPMLR scheme implemented in VH-1... For the NEI calculations, we used the ionization and recombination rates from the Astrophysical Plasma Emission Database (APED) of the Atomic Database for Astrophysicists (ATOMDB)

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  2. [2]

    J., & Bravo, E

    Badenes, C., Borkowski, K. J., & Bravo, E. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 624, 198, doi: 10.1086/428829

    work page doi:10.1086/428829 2005

  3. [3]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, 1373, doi: 10.1086/504399

    Bravo, E. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 645, 1373, doi: 10.1086/504399

    work page doi:10.1086/504399 2006

  4. [4]

    J., & Dominguez, I

    Badenes, C., Bravo, E., Borkowski, K. J., & Dominguez, I. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 593, 358, doi: 10.1086/376448

    work page doi:10.1086/376448 2003

  5. [5]

    M., & Ellison, D

    Blondin, J. M., & Ellison, D. C. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 560, 244, doi: 10.1086/322499

    work page doi:10.1086/322499 2001

  6. [6]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 988, L58, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade138

    Collaboration, X., Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 988, L58, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade138

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade138 2025

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20828, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.20828

    Court, T., Badenes, C., Lee, S.-H., Patnaude, D., & Bravo, E. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20828, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.20828

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.20828 2025

  8. [8]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165f

    Court, T., Badenes, C., Lee, S.-H., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad165f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad165f 2024

  9. [9]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    Cruise, M., Guainazzi, M., Aird, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 36, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3 2025

  10. [10]

    R., Ruiter, A

    Das, P., Seitenzahl, I. R., Ruiter, A. J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02589-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02589-5 2025

  11. [11]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 509, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913666

    Fraschetti, F. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 509, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913666

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913666 2010

  12. [12]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/34

    Ferrand, G., Decourchelle, A., & Safi-Harb, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/34

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/34 2012

  13. [13]

    C., et al

    Ferrand, G., Tanikawa, A., Warren, D. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 930, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5c58

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5c58 2022

  14. [14]

    C., Ono, M., et al

    Ferrand, G., Warren, D. C., Ono, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a3d —. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc951

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a3d 2019

  15. [15]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1602

    Ferrand, G., Pakmor, R., Fujimaru, Y., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1602

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1602 2025

  16. [16]

    2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 514, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    Fink, M., R¨ opke, F., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 514, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 2010

  17. [17]

    R., et al

    Fink, M., Kromer, M., Seitenzahl, I. R., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 1762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2315

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2315 2014

  18. [18]

    V., et al

    Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/142 25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/142 2012

  19. [19]

    2025, A&A, 693, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450518

    Godinaud, L., Acero, F., Decourchelle, A., & Ballet, J. 2025, A&A, 693, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450518

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450518 2025

  20. [20]

    T., Borkowski, K

    Guest, B. T., Borkowski, K. J., Ghavamian, P., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4e 2023

  21. [21]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    Guillochon, J., Dan, M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rosswog, S. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l64 2010

  22. [22]

    J., & Tutukov, A

    Iben, I. J., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJS, 54, 335, doi: 10.1086/190932

    work page doi:10.1086/190932 1984

  23. [23]

    L., Awaki, H., et al

    Ishisaki, Y., Kelley, R. L., Awaki, H., et al. 2022, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 12181, SPIE, 409–430, doi: 10.1117/12.2630654

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2630654 2022

  24. [24]

    W., et al

    Koss, M., Aftab, N., Allen, S. W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.00253, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.00253

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.00253 2025

  25. [25]

    1990, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Livne, E. 1990, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 354, May 10, 1990, p. L53-L55., 354, L53, doi: 10.1086/185721

    work page doi:10.1086/185721 1990

  26. [26]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.02422 Mart´ ınez-Rodr´ ıguez, H., Lopez, L

    Mandal, S., Ghavamian, P., Das, P., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02422, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.02422 Mart´ ınez-Rodr´ ıguez, H., Lopez, L. A., Auchettl, K., et al. 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08681, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2006.08681

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02422 2025

  27. [27]

    1983, Astrophysical

    Morrison, R., & McCammon, D. 1983, Astrophysical

    work page 1983

  28. [28]

    270, July 1, 1983, p

    Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 270, July 1, 1983, p. 119-122., 270, 119, doi: 10.1086/161102

    work page doi:10.1086/161102 1983

  29. [29]

    1982, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol

    Nomoto, K. 1982, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 253, Feb. 15, 1982, p. 798-810., 253, 798, doi: 10.1086/159682

    work page doi:10.1086/159682 1982

  30. [30]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 770, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., & Springel, V. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 770, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/l8 2013

  31. [31]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5260, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3107

    Pakmor, R., Callan, F., Collins, C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5260, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3107

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3107 2022

  32. [32]

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

    Patnaude, D. J., Lee, S.-H., Slane, P. O., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/101

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/2/101 2015

  33. [33]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565, doi: 10.1086/307221

    Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 517, 565, doi: 10.1086/307221

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/307221 1999

  34. [34]

    M., Sim, S

    Pollin, J. M., Sim, S. A., Pakmor, R., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 3036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1909

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1909 2024

  35. [35]

    C., Ghavamian, P., Bohdan, A., et al

    Raymond, J. C., Ghavamian, P., Bohdan, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc528

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc528 2023

  36. [36]

    S., Kara, E

    Reynolds, C. S., Kara, E. A., Mushotzky, R. F., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12678, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII, ed. O. H. Siegmund & K. Hoadley, 126781E, doi: 10.1117/12.2677468

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2677468 2023

  37. [37]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, The astronomical journal, 116, 1009, doi: 10.1086/300499

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  38. [38]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 33, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9 2025

  39. [39]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, 321, doi: 10.1086/425960

    Durouchoux, P. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, 321, doi: 10.1086/425960

    work page doi:10.1086/425960 2005

  40. [40]

    B., Bodaghee, A., et al

    Safi-Harb, S., Burdge, K. B., Bodaghee, A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.07673, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2311.07673

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.07673 2023

  41. [41]

    Williams, B. J. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add932

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add932 2025

  42. [42]

    2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 61, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz036

    Sawada, M., Tachibana, K., Uchida, H., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 71, 61, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz036

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz036 2019

  43. [43]

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

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 1156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts402

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts402 2013

  44. [44]

    V., Frank, K

    Siegel, J., Dwarkadas, V. V., Frank, K. A., & Burrows, D. N. 2020, ApJ, 904, 175, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbfa9 2020

  45. [45]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/33

    Slane, P., Lee, S.-H., Ellison, D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/33

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/1/33 2014

  46. [46]

    K., Brickhouse, N

    Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., & Liedahl, D. A. 2005, Highlights of Astronomy, 13, 666, doi: 10.1017/S1539299600016786

    work page doi:10.1017/s1539299600016786 2005

  47. [47]

    G., Johnson, H

    Stone, A. G., Johnson, H. T., Blondin, J. M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 233, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac300f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac300f 2021

  48. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.01176, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.01176

    Ferrand, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.01176, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.01176

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.01176 2025

  49. [49]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, Astrophysical Journal, 277, 355, doi: 10.1086/161701

    work page doi:10.1086/161701 1984

  50. [50]

    1973, Astrophysical Journal, Vol

    Whelan, J., & Iben, I. 1973, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 186, pp. 1007-1014 (1973), 186, 1007, doi: 10.1086/152565

    work page doi:10.1086/152565 1973

  51. [51]

    J., Borkowski, K

    Williams, B. J., Borkowski, K. J., Ghavamian, P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 129, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/129 26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/129 2013

  52. [52]

    J., Ghavamian, P., Seitenzahl, I

    Williams, B. J., Ghavamian, P., Seitenzahl, I. R., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac81ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac81ca 2022

  53. [53]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  54. [54]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 910, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abee8a

    Yamaguchi, H., Acero, F., Li, C.-J., & Chu, Y.-H. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 910, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abee8a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abee8a 2021

  55. [55]

    A., Badenes, C., et al

    Yamaguchi, H., Eriksen, K. A., Badenes, C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/136 2013

  56. [56]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 785, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L27

    Yamaguchi, H., Badenes, C., Petre, R., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 785, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/785/2/l27 2014

  57. [57]

    2018, A&A, 615, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731583

    Zhou, P., & Vink, J. 2018, A&A, 615, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731583

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731583 2018

  58. [58]

    A., Vikhlinin, A., Tremblay, G

    ZuHone, J. A., Vikhlinin, A., Tremblay, G. R., et al. 2023, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl. https://ui. adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ascl.soft01024Z/abstract

    work page 2023