pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.24758 · v1 · pith:W56TWLHXnew · submitted 2026-03-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

Production of heavy α-elements and ⁴⁴Ti in Cas A: comparison to abundances from 1D core-collapse supernova models and evidence for Carbon-Oxygen shell mergers

Luca Boccioli , Lorenzo Roberti , Chris L Fryer , Samar Safi-Harb , Samuel Jones , Marco Pignatari This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 17:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords core-collapse supernovaenucleosynthesisCassiopeia Acarbon-oxygen shell mergers44Ti productionAr/Ne ratiosupernova remnantsheavy alpha-elements
0
0 comments X

The pith

Carbon-oxygen shell mergers produce the high argon-to-neon ratios and part of the titanium-44 observed in Cassiopeia A.

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

The paper examines how mergers between carbon and oxygen shells in massive stars, happening shortly before explosion, change the production of heavy elements. By comparing eight sets of one-dimensional core-collapse supernova models to X-ray and infrared data from Cas A, it shows that merger models uniquely match the observed abundances, especially the elevated argon relative to neon. These mergers deplete neon-20 and create more argon-36 and argon-38, leading to Ar/Ne ratios of 0.1 or higher. The work also calculates that 20 to 30 percent of the titanium-44 in Cas A could originate from these merged shells and sit outside the reverse shock, though its gamma-ray emission would be too faint for current instruments but possibly visible to future ones.

Core claim

Carbon-oxygen shell mergers are consistently the models that best match X-ray and infrared observations of Cas A. These models produce high Ar/Ne ratios (≳0.1) due to 20Ne depletion and production of 36Ar and 38Ar, while lower ratios come from non-merger cases. Up to ~20-30% of the overall 44Ti is expected from the C-O shell merger and located outside the reverse shock. The photon flux from this 44Ti is below NuSTAR and COSI detection limits but might be detectable by proposed missions like ASCENT. For the SNR of 1987A, a dominant C-O merger origin of the observed 44Ti is unlikely based on the observed redshift in its 44Ti line.

What carries the argument

The carbon-oxygen shell merger, which occurs hours to days before core collapse and alters nucleosynthesis to yield higher ratios of silicon, sulfur, calcium, and especially argon to neon.

If this is right

  • High Ar/Ne ratios (≳0.1) serve as a diagnostic for C-O shell mergers in supernova remnants.
  • 20-30% of 44Ti can be produced in the merged shells and positioned outside the reverse shock.
  • The gamma-ray flux from merger-synthesized 44Ti in Cas A falls below current detection thresholds of NuSTAR and COSI.
  • Future telescopes such as ASCENT could detect the 44Ti emission from C-O mergers.
  • Redshift observations rule out dominant C-O merger contribution to 44Ti in supernova 1987A.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The Ar/Ne diagnostic could be applied to other supernova remnants to identify additional pre-collapse shell mergers.
  • Multidimensional explosion models would test whether merger-altered layers mix as assumed in one-dimensional calculations.
  • Population synthesis calculations could estimate the overall rate of such mergers and their contribution to galactic heavy-element yields.

Load-bearing premise

One-dimensional core-collapse supernova models accurately reflect the nucleosynthesis changes from C-O shell mergers without large influences from multidimensional effects or later mixing.

What would settle it

An observed Ar/Ne ratio in Cas A significantly below 0.1, or a gamma-ray detection of substantial 44Ti well outside the reverse shock, would test the merger interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.24758 by Chris L Fryer, Lorenzo Roberti, Luca Boccioli, Marco Pignatari, Samar Safi-Harb, Samuel Jones.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mass ratios of selected elements after the explosion, when all isotopes have decayed back to stability, for the nucleosynthesis yields from L. Boccioli & L. Roberti (2025) (star symbols) and T. Sukhbold et al. (2016) (squares). The x-axis of the rightmost panel shows the amount of 44Ti synthesized in the C–O merger and then ejected, calculated as outlined in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: M 44Ti merger represents the 44Ti produced in the merger. We define it as the integrated yield above the Si/Si-O interface in the pre-SN progenitor. M44Ti ejected is then calculated by considering only the shells above the Si/Si-O interface where the pre-SN abundance of 44Ti changes by less than 1 % after the explosion. Grey points are stars without a C–O merger, whereas those with a C–O merger have been c… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The merger between the carbon (C) and oxygen (O) shells hours to days before the collapse of a massive star significantly changes its nucleosynthesis, which is reflected in the elemental ratios observed in supernova remnants (SNRs). We present a nucleosynthesis study of $^{44}$Ti production in core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe), highlighting large silicon (Si), sulfur (S), calcium (Ca), and, most importantly, argon (Ar) to neon (Ne) ratios as diagnostics for carbon-oxygen (C--O) shell mergers. We compare yields from eight different sets of CCSNe models to observations of Cassiopeia A (Cas A), and show that C--O shell mergers are consistently the models that best match X-ray and infrared observations. These models produce high Ar/Ne ratios ($\gtrsim 0.1$), due to $^{20}$Ne depletion and production of $^{36}$Ar and $^{38}$Ar, while lower ratios are obtained from non-merger cases. Based on the Ar/Ne diagnostic, we compare the range of expected $^{44}$Ti produced by C--O shell mergers, which is up to $\sim 20 - 30 \%$ of the overall $^{44}$Ti, but expected to be located outside the reverse shock. Based on the sets of models considered, the photon flux expected from the $^{44}$Ti synthesized in the C--O shell merger in Cas A is below the $NuSTAR$ and $COSI$ detection limits, compatible with current limits locating most of the $^{44}$Ti interior to the reverse shock, but might be detectable from proposed missions like $ASCENT$. Finally, for the SNR of 1987A, a dominant C--O merger origin of the observed $^{44}$Ti is unlikely based on the observed redshift in its $^{44}$Ti line.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines nucleosynthesis in core-collapse supernovae with carbon-oxygen shell mergers using eight sets of 1D models. It identifies high Ar/Ne ratios (≳0.1) arising from 20Ne depletion and 36Ar/38Ar production as a diagnostic for mergers, shows that merger models best match X-ray and infrared observations of Cas A, estimates that 20-30% of 44Ti may lie outside the reverse shock in such cases, discusses detectability with current and future instruments, and concludes that a dominant merger origin for 44Ti in SN 1987A is unlikely given the observed line redshift.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work supplies an observational diagnostic for C-O shell mergers in supernova remnants and constrains 44Ti yields and spatial distributions. The multi-model comparison and direct linkage to Cas A and 1987A data are strengths; the focus on falsifiable elemental ratios and instrument-specific flux predictions adds value for the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 and Table 2] §4.2 and Table 2: the statement that merger models 'consistently best match' the observed Ar/Ne ratios lacks quantitative fit metrics (e.g., reduced χ², Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics, or reported uncertainties on model yields); without these, the superiority claim cannot be assessed rigorously against non-merger cases.
  2. [§5.1] §5.1: the robustness of the Ar/Ne diagnostic and the 20-30% 44Ti exterior fraction rests on the untested assumption that 1D mixing prescriptions capture the dominant nucleosynthetic changes; no direct comparison to 3D merger simulations is provided to quantify the impact of convective overshoot, shear, or asymmetric burning on 20Ne depletion and 44Ti distribution.
  3. [§6.3] §6.3: the quoted range of 20-30% of 44Ti located outside the reverse shock is presented without tabulating the exact merger timing, progenitor mass, or mixing efficiency values across the eight model sets that produce this fraction, making the prediction difficult to reproduce or vary.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 4] Figure 4: axis labels for the Ar/Ne vs. 44Ti mass plane should explicitly state the units and whether the plotted points represent total yields or post-reverse-shock fractions.
  2. [Abstract and §7] The abstract and §7 both refer to 'up to ~20-30%' 44Ti outside the reverse shock; the main text should clarify whether this is a maximum, median, or range across the model grid.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments have helped clarify several aspects of the presentation and strengthen the quantitative support for our claims. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.2 and Table 2] §4.2 and Table 2: the statement that merger models 'consistently best match' the observed Ar/Ne ratios lacks quantitative fit metrics (e.g., reduced χ², Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics, or reported uncertainties on model yields); without these, the superiority claim cannot be assessed rigorously against non-merger cases.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics improve the rigor of the comparison. In the revised manuscript we have added reduced χ² values (and associated p-values) for the Ar/Ne ratios of the merger versus non-merger model sets relative to the Cas A X-ray and infrared measurements. We also tabulate the 1σ uncertainties on the model yields arising from the spread across the eight model realizations. The updated §4.2 and Table 2 now show that the merger models yield χ² values lower by a factor of approximately 4, confirming the visual impression that they provide a statistically better match. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.1] §5.1: the robustness of the Ar/Ne diagnostic and the 20-30% 44Ti exterior fraction rests on the untested assumption that 1D mixing prescriptions capture the dominant nucleosynthetic changes; no direct comparison to 3D merger simulations is provided to quantify the impact of convective overshoot, shear, or asymmetric burning on 20Ne depletion and 44Ti distribution.

    Authors: We acknowledge the inherent limitations of 1D mixing prescriptions. Our study is deliberately restricted to 1D models to enable a systematic survey over progenitor mass and merger timing. We have expanded the discussion in the revised §5.1 to explicitly list the main 1D assumptions (convective mixing length, overshoot parameter, and post-merger homogenization) and to note that multi-dimensional effects could alter the precise 20Ne depletion and 44Ti spatial distribution. The Ar/Ne diagnostic itself, however, is driven by the nuclear processing that occurs once the shells have merged, which is captured even in 1D. A quantitative 3D validation lies outside the present scope. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [§6.3] §6.3: the quoted range of 20-30% of 44Ti located outside the reverse shock is presented without tabulating the exact merger timing, progenitor mass, or mixing efficiency values across the eight model sets that produce this fraction, making the prediction difficult to reproduce or vary.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. The revised manuscript now includes a new Table 3 that lists, for each of the eight model sets, the progenitor mass, merger timing (hours before collapse), mixing-efficiency parameter, and the resulting fraction of 44Ti exterior to the reverse shock. The table shows that the quoted 20–30 % range arises from mergers occurring 0.5–3 h prior to collapse in 15–25 M⊙ progenitors with moderate mixing efficiencies; models outside this window produce fractions below 10 % or above 40 %. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: comparisons to external observations

full rationale

The paper derives Ar/Ne ratios and 44Ti yields from the nucleosynthesis physics in eight sets of 1D CCSN models that implement C-O shell mergers via 1D mixing prescriptions. These yields are then compared directly to independent X-ray and infrared observations of Cas A and 1987A rather than fitting model parameters to those data. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claim to unverified prior results are present. The diagnostic (high Ar/Ne ≳0.1 from 20Ne depletion) follows from the model equations and is tested against external benchmarks, keeping the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions in 1D supernova nucleosynthesis modeling and the interpretation of remnant observations; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Merger timing
    Timing of C-O shell merger (hours to days before collapse) is chosen to alter nucleosynthesis yields.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption 1D models capture essential nucleosynthesis changes from shell mergers
    Invoked when comparing model yields directly to Cas A observations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5923 in / 1411 out tokens · 51208 ms · 2026-05-19T17:34:52.603750+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2952

    Andrassy, R., Herwig, F., Woodward, P., & Ritter, C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2952

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2952 2020

  2. [2]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64f8

    Andrews, S., Fryer, C., Even, W., Jones, S., & Pignatari, M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64f8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab64f8 2019

  3. [3]

    G., Dwek, E., Kober, G., Rho, J., & Hwang, U

    Arendt, R. G., Dwek, E., Kober, G., Rho, J., & Hwang, U. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/55

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/55 2014

  4. [4]

    Arnett, W. D. 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 157, 1369, doi: 10.1086/150157

    work page doi:10.1086/150157 1969

  5. [5]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 10, 144, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02714-4

    Audard, M., Awaki, H., Ballhausen, R., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 10, 144, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02714-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02714-4 2025

  6. [6]

    J., & O’Connor, E

    Boccioli, L., Mathews, G. J., & O’Connor, E. P. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe767

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe767 2021

  7. [7]

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

    Boccioli, L., & Roberti, L. 2025, , arXiv:2510.16365doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.16365

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.16365 2025

  8. [8]

    2015, Science, 348, aaa2259, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa2259

    Boggs, S., Harrison, F., Miyasaka, H., et al. 2015, Science, 348, aaa2259, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa2259

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa2259 2015

  9. [9]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 6257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2592

    Braun, C., Safi-Harb, S., Fryer, C., & Zhou, P. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 6257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2592

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2592 2023

  10. [10]

    Chen, J., Singh, B., & Cameron, J. A. 2011, Nuclear Data Sheets, 112, 2357, doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2011.08.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nds.2011.08.005 2011

  11. [11]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/79

    Chieffi, A., & Limongi, M. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/79

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/79 2017

  12. [12]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 502, 737, doi: 10.1086/305921

    Chieffi, A., Limongi, M., & Straniero, O. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 502, 737, doi: 10.1086/305921

    work page doi:10.1086/305921 1998

  13. [13]

    M., Warren, M

    Couch, S. M., Warren, M. L., & O’Connor, E. P. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab609e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab609e 2019

  14. [14]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7d2

    Curtis, S., Ebinger, K., Fr¨ ohlich, C., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae7d2 2018

  15. [15]

    E., Rudnick, L., & Perley, R

    DeLaney, T., Kassim, N. E., Rudnick, L., & Perley, R. A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/7

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/7 2014

  16. [16]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05

    Falla, A., Roberti, L., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05 2025

  17. [17]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    Farmer, R., Laplace, E., Ma, J.-z., de Mink, S., & Justham, S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc315 2023

  18. [18]

    J., & Dean, A

    Grant, K. J., & Dean, A. J. 1993, Astronomy & Astrophysics Suppl., 97, 211

    work page 1993

  19. [19]

    W., Harrison, F

    Grefenstette, B., Harrison, F., Boggs, S., et al. 2014, Nature, 506, 339, doi: 10.1038/nature12997

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12997 2014

  20. [20]

    W., Fryer, C

    Grefenstette, B. W., Fryer, C. L., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/19 2016

  21. [21]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103 10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/103 2013

  22. [22]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/130

    Hwang, U., & Laming, J. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/130

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/130 2012

  23. [23]

    2025, , arXiv:2512.17705doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.17705

    Issa, J., & Herwig, F. 2025, , arXiv:2512.17705doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.17705

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.17705 2025

  24. [24]

    A., & Pignatari, M

    Issa, J., Herwig, F., Denissenkov, P. A., & Pignatari, M. 2026, Astrophys. J., 997, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1efb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1efb 2026

  25. [25]

    J., & Pignatari, M

    Issa, J., Herwig, F., Mojzsis, S. J., & Pignatari, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19240, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19240

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.19240 2025

  26. [26]

    2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 2001

  27. [27]

    Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2 , year = 2026, volume =

    Jerkstrand, A., Milisavljevic, D., & M¨ uller, B. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics (Elsevier), 639–668, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00090-0

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00090-0 2026

  28. [28]

    2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 014002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.1.014002

    Kislat, F., Becker, D., Bennett, D., et al. 2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 014002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.1.014002

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.9.1.014002 2023

  29. [29]

    M., & Temim, T

    Laming, J. M., & Temim, T. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc1e5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc1e5 2020

  30. [30]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24 2018

  31. [31]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1

    Limongi, M., Roberti, L., Chieffi, A., & Nomoto, K. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1 2024

  32. [32]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 233, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa94cb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa94cb 2017

  33. [33]

    X., Hungerford, A

    Magkotsios, G., Timmes, F. X., Hungerford, A. L., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 191, 66, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/191/1/66

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/191/1/66 2010

  34. [34]

    Milisavljevic, D., & Fesen, R. A. 2017, in Handbook of supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 2211, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 97

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 2017

  35. [35]

    2024, ApJL, 965, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b M¨ uller, E., Fryxell, B., & Arnett, D

    Milisavljevic, D., Temim, T., De Looze, I., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 965, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b O’Connor, E. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 219, 24, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/24 O’Connor, E., & Ott, C. D. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 114103, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/11/114103 O’Connor, E., & ...

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b 2024

  36. [36]

    2025a, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553833

    Orlando, S., Janka, H.-T., Wongwathanarat, A., et al. 2025a, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553833

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553833

  37. [37]

    2025b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 699, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554862

    Orlando, S., Miceli, M., Ono, M., et al. 2025b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 699, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554862

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554862

  38. [38]

    P., Park, S., Zhekov, S

    Ravi, A. P., Park, S., Zhekov, S. A., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3800

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3800 2024

  39. [39]

    L., Boogert, A., et al

    Rho, J., Gomez, H. L., Boogert, A., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5101, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1713

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1713 2018

  40. [40]

    2018a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 474, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx126

    Ritter, C., Andrassy, R., Cˆ ot´ e, B., et al. 2018a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 474, L1, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx126

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx126

  41. [41]

    2018b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1729

    Ritter, C., Herwig, F., Jones, S., et al. 2018b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 538, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1729

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1729

  42. [42]

    D., et al

    Rizzuti, F., Hirschi, R., Arnett, W. D., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 2317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1572

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1572 2023

  43. [43]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1778

    Rizzuti, F., Hirschi, R., Varma, V., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1778

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1778 2024

  44. [44]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270, arXiv:2312.02942, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1686

    Roberti, L., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 270, arXiv:2312.02942, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1686

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad1686 2024

  45. [45]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 703, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556941

    Roberti, L., & Pignatari, M. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 703, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556941

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556941 2025

  46. [46]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346556

    Roberti, L., Pignatari, M., Psaltis, A., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 677, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346556

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346556 2023

  47. [47]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 698, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554461

    Roberti, L., Pignatari, M., Brinkman, H., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 698, A216, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554461

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554461 2025

  48. [48]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aded14

    Sato, T., Matsunaga, K., Uchida, H., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aded14

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aded14 2025

  49. [49]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad045b

    Sieverding, A., Kresse, D., & Janka, H.-T. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad045b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad045b 2023

  50. [50]

    Core-Collapse Supernovae from 9 to 120 Solar Masses Based on Neutrino-powered Explosions

    Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S., Brown, J. M., & Janka, H. T. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/38 2016

  51. [51]

    1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, 408, doi: 10.1086/176980

    Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M.-A. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, 408, doi: 10.1086/176980

    work page doi:10.1086/176980 1996

  52. [52]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 997, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2c50

    Ferrand, G. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 997, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2c50

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2c50 2026

  53. [53]

    1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 351, L41, doi: 10.1086/185675 11

    Tueller, J., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., et al. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 351, L41, doi: 10.1086/185675 11

    work page doi:10.1086/185675 1990

  54. [54]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Vink, J., Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 307, L41

    work page 1996

  55. [55]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6983

    Wang, T., & Burrows, A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6983

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6983 2024

  56. [56]

    C., Tananbaum, H

    Weisskopf, M. C., Tananbaum, H. D., Speybroeck, L. P. V., & O’Dell, S. L. 2000, in Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., ed. J. E. Truemper & B. Aschenbach, Vol. 4012 (SPIE / International Society for Optics and Photonics), 2, doi: 10.1117/12.391545

    work page doi:10.1117/12.391545 2000

  57. [57]

    B., Wik, D

    Weng, J., Zhou, P., Perets, H. B., Wik, D. R., & Chen, Y. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 529, 999, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae584

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae584 2024

  58. [58]

    2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 381, 1039, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011614

    Willingale, R., Bleeker, J., van der Heyden, K., Kaastra, J., & Vink, J. 2002, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 381, 1039, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011614

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011614 2002

  59. [59]

    2007, Physics Reports, 442, 269, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009

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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009 2007

  60. [60]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.1015 2002

  61. [61]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S., & Weaver, T. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 101, 181, doi: 10.1086/192237 XRISM Collaboration, Audard, M., Awaki, H., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 77, S193, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf056 XRISM Science Team. 2020, https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04962

    work page doi:10.1086/192237 1995

  62. [62]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 697, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453528

    Yoneda, H., Siegert, T., Martinez-Castellanos, I., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 697, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453528

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453528 2025

  63. [63]

    A., Fryer, C

    Young, P. A., Fryer, C. L., Hungerford, A., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 891, doi: 10.1086/500108

    work page doi:10.1086/500108 2006