pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19490 · v1 · pith:V3VAJH2Znew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Simulation to a Newborn Supernova Remnant from a Low-mass Iron Core Star

Sudarshan Neopane , Michael A. Sandoval , W. Raphael Hix , J. Austin Harris , O. E. Bronson Messer , Eric J. Lentz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 18:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords supernova remnantscore-collapse supernovaehydrodynamic simulationsradioactive decay heatingasymmetric ejectaelectron capture supernovaeneutron star wind
0
0 comments X

The pith

3D simulations show neutron-star wind and decay heating create large-scale asymmetric plumes in a low-mass supernova remnant.

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

The paper runs hydrodynamic simulations of a 9.6 solar mass zero-metallicity star starting after shock revival and continuing for several years into the circumstellar medium phase. It compares 1D, 2D, and 3D runs to isolate the roles of neutron-star wind and radioactive decay heating. In 3D these effects stretch the initial plumes into extended structures that break out asymmetrically, then slow and fragment behind the main shock while preserving large-scale asymmetry. The resulting metal-rich ejecta appear relatively uniform and viewing-angle dependent, unlike the clumpy structure of Cas A, and the low explosion energy plus high Ni/Fe ratio point toward an electron-capture supernova signature. A 160-isotope network further shows that nearly a quarter of the heating comes from decay chains outside the usual nickel-56 sequence.

Core claim

In three-dimensional calculations the neutron-star wind and radioactive decay heating reshape the plume morphology into more extended large-scale structures; these structures produce an asymmetrical shock breakout, after which the leading plumes decelerate and fragment under the reverse shock while retaining the overall asymmetry. The projected ejecta morphology and velocities depend strongly on viewing angle. The metal-rich material remains relatively uniform and does not match the strongly inhomogeneous structure seen in Cas A. The 160-isotope decay network indicates that 24.4 percent of the radioactive heating arises from chains other than the canonical nickel-56 chain. The low explosion

What carries the argument

Three-dimensional hydrodynamic evolution of metal-rich plumes under combined neutron-star wind and multi-isotope radioactive decay heating, initialized from a post-revival 9.6 solar mass progenitor snapshot.

If this is right

  • The ejecta morphology and observed velocities become strongly dependent on the observer's viewing angle.
  • Leading plumes decelerate and fragment after breakout while the large-scale asymmetry persists.
  • A sizable fraction (24.4 percent) of the heating is supplied by decay chains other than nickel-56.
  • The combination of low explosion energy, low nickel-56 mass, and nickel-to-iron ratio above unity produces signatures resembling an electron-capture supernova.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the viewing-angle dependence holds, diversity among observed young remnants could arise from orientation rather than from fundamentally different explosion mechanisms.
  • The contribution of non-standard decay chains may alter late-time luminosity predictions in other low-energy supernova models.
  • Extending the same heating treatment to higher-mass progenitors could test whether the same plume-modification mechanism operates across the core-collapse range.

Load-bearing premise

The explosion energy, nickel yield, and post-revival density and velocity structure are taken directly from an earlier calculation rather than recomputed inside this simulation.

What would settle it

High-resolution imaging or spectroscopy of a young supernova remnant that either matches or fails to match the predicted viewing-angle dependence of ejecta velocities and the relatively uniform metal distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19490 by Eric J. Lentz, J. Austin Harris, Michael A. Sandoval, O. E. Bronson Messer, Sudarshan Neopane, W. Raphael Hix.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Density profile resulting from series of 1D runs at t = 4 × 107 s, highlighting effects of different physics. Vertical dashed gray line at r = 1.5 × 108 km represents progenitor surface at time of mapping to Flash-X. sities in the innermost ejecta (r < 109 km) as the wind accelerates this slower moving material into the reverse shock peak, which is also pushed slightly outward. Ef￾fects of the wind are fel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between 2DR1 (left) and 2DR6 (right) after 350 days. Top panel (a) shows the density profile, while the bottom panel (b) shows the mass fraction of 56Z (defined as 56Ni+56Co+56Fe). Note the (b) panel is zoomed in by a factor of 2. density as it did in 1D, in multi-D, pockets of metal-rich material heat themselves, expanding to reach lower den￾sity while compressing metal-poor regions around them… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Density slice-plot of the xy plane showing the evolution of plumes prior to shock-breakout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 56Ni+Tr slice-plot of the xy plane showing the compositional evolution of plumes prior shock-breakout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mollweide projection of shock breakout of pro￾genitor surface in each direction. to reverse as accretion becomes stronger. The shock is then fully in the He layer and, because of the compo￾sitional gradient, seeds for RT plumes have formed in regions behind the shock. By 10.0 s, continued accre￾tion to the NS has erased any resemblance of the cavity near the inner boundary. At this stage, the shock is at ≈… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density plot in the xy-plane at 1000 s and 4500 s comparing this work, using Flash-X (left), and MAS+21 D9.6-3D3D model, using FLASH (right). White ellipse shows region in Flash-X run that forms additional plumes. to propagate through the hydrogen layer with the metal rich RT plumes getting modified and growing in size faster than the overall expansion of the metal rich re￾gion (Figures 3 (g,h,i)). The sho… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Clump count comparison between this run and MAS+21 for different Fρ at 62000 s. fine the clump-forming region using the 56Ni+Tr den￾sity ρX ≡ ρ P i Xi , where the sum runs over 56Ni+Tr nuclei. Following M. Gabler et al. (2021), we determine the threshold ρX,min by requiring that the subset of cells with ρX ≥ ρX,min contains a fixed fraction Fρ of the to￾tal 56Ni+Tr mass in the domain. In this method, Fρ sp… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: xy-plane density slice showing the evolution CSM after shock breaks out of progenitor. 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 10 10 10 11 Radius [km] 0 10 20 30 V elo cit y [1 0 3 k m s −1 ] Avg. shock velocity 32 34 36 38 40 42 lo g (ρ r 3 ) [g] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average shock velocity (blue) of shock propagat￾ing through the progenitor and (black) progenitor ρr3 profile. shock, visible as a density gradient at ≈ 1.9 × 109 km, and the reverse shock, visible as a thin high-density near circular band at ≈ 1.6 × 109 km, is very prominent. By 20 days, the leading ejecta begins to catch up to the third reverse shock, and the largest plume starts to de￾form, as shown in … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: xy-plane slice showing the evolution of 56Ni+Tr mass fraction in CSM. Note change in plot limits as the ejecta expands into CSM. also form near the base of the expanding ejecta, as seen by comparing Figures 8(e,f) and 10(e,f). This compar￾ison shows that not every density plume corresponds to a metal-rich plume: some of the late-time develop￾ing, finger-like structures seen in the density field are produc… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 56Z (56Ni+56Co+56Fe) evolution in radial velocity space (90 bins of width 50 km s−1 ) for (a) entire evolution; (b) histograms at four times marked with horizontal dashed lines in left plot. new round of plumes are born as a result of shock break￾out, reaching maximum velocities of 3000 km s−1 (Fig￾ure 11(b)), within a few days after breakout. At the same time, the metal-rich core material is also accel￾e… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 4He iso-surface (blue) showing the plumes which contain the metal-rich ejecta, along with the planes that define the two line of sight (LOS) directions, represented by red arrow, at 6.6 days post-bounce for (a) plane with normal (LOS-max ) aligned with propagation of two of the largest plumes; and (b) plane with normal (LOS-min) transverse to propagation direction of three largest plumes. partially aligne… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Line of sight velocity distributions (60 bins of width 100 km s−1 ) for Ni, Co, Fe, Si+S, O, C, 44Ti, along the LOS-max (left) and LOS-min (right) at 6.6 days (top row), 78.2 days (middle row), and 3 years (bottom row). by 78.2 days, indicating that the fastest plume-aligned material has been slowed by the reverse shock. The outer C+O material, extending to high negative veloc￾ity, is slowed down more dra… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Column densities of Ni, Fe, S+Si, and 44Ti projected along two LOS at two different times. Top left 2 × 2 grid (a) shows the column densities along LOS-max at 6.6 day. Top right 2 × 2 grid (b) shows the column densities along LOS-min at 6.6 day. Bottom left 2 × 2 grid (c) shows the column densities along LOS-max at 3 year. Bottom right 2 × 2 grid (d) shows the column densities along LOS-min at 3 year [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Evolution of energy in the 3D D9.6 model. Nu￾clear energy curve shows cumulative decay energy scaled by 10 for visibility. 4.4. Global Evolution The acceleration and deceleration of the shock as it moves through the progenitor star and into the CSM, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Decay energy generation rate of radioactive isotopes during 3D D9.6 model evolution. Black line is energy generation rate obtained directly from the simulation. Thick gray dashed line is summed rate from all decay chains. Decay chains with maximum rates less than 1036 erg s−1 have been omitted for clarity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Supernova remnant observations show a high degree of asymmetry, mixing, and inhomogeneity. These asymmetries are seeded during the early seconds of the explosion and are further enhanced and modified as the shock and ejecta move through the stellar progenitor and into the circumstellar medium. We present simulations of a 9.6 solar mass zero-metallicity progenitor initialized after shock revival and evolved for several years when the ejecta is in the circumstellar medium. A suite of 1D and 2D simulations examines the effects of neutron-star wind and radioactive decay heating. In 1D, decay heating forms a low-density bubble that suppresses the reverse shock. While in 2D, the heating is localized to metal-rich pockets, inflating them and compressing the surrounding material into dense shells. In 3D the neutron-star wind and decay heating modify the plume morphology, producing more large-scale structures. The extended plume morphology leads to an asymmetrical shock breakout. After breakout, the leading plumes cannot keep up with the shock front, resulting in deceleration and fragmentation by the reverse shock while retaining the large-scale asymmetry. The projected ejecta morphology and velocities are strongly viewing angle dependent. The relatively uniform metal-rich distribution does not resemble the strongly inhomogeneous ejecta structure of Cas A. The 160-isotope decay network shows that 24.4% of the radioactive heating comes from decay chains other than the canonical Ni-56 chain. The low explosion energy, low Ni-56 yield, and Ni/Fe ratio greater than unity suggest an observational signature similar to an electron capture supernova.

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 1D, 2D, and 3D hydrodynamic simulations of the post-explosion evolution of a 9.6 solar mass zero-metallicity progenitor's ejecta, initialized after shock revival and evolved for several years into the circumstellar medium. It incorporates neutron-star wind and a 160-isotope radioactive decay network to examine effects on plume morphology, asymmetric shock breakout, reverse-shock fragmentation, and viewing-angle dependence of projected ejecta, while reporting that the metal-rich distribution does not resemble Cas A and that 24.4% of heating arises from non-Ni-56 chains; the low input explosion energy, Ni-56 yield, and Ni/Fe ratio >1 are taken to suggest an electron-capture supernova signature.

Significance. If the numerical results hold, the work would advance understanding of how explosion-seeded asymmetries evolve under NS wind and decay heating into late-time remnant structures for low-mass iron-core progenitors, with the 160-isotope network result providing a concrete quantification of non-canonical heating contributions that could inform observational diagnostics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and setup description: the claim that 'the low explosion energy, low Ni-56 yield, and Ni/Fe ratio greater than unity suggest an observational signature similar to an electron capture supernova' is based on fixed post-revival inputs taken from the 9.6 M⊙ model rather than quantities that emerge from the presented hydrodynamic evolution; this makes the ECSN inference conditional on an untested choice of initial state.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and numerical methods: no information is supplied on grid resolution, convergence tests, code validation against known problems, or error estimates for the 1D/2D/3D runs; without these the central morphological claims (plume inflation in 2D, large-scale structures and reverse-shock fragmentation in 3D) cannot be verified and risk being dominated by numerical artifacts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Title] The manuscript title contains an apparent grammatical construction ('Simulation to a Newborn...') that should be revised for standard English usage.
  2. Consider adding a short methods subsection or table that tabulates the adopted numerical resolutions and time-stepping criteria across dimensions to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report. We address the two major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and setup description: the claim that 'the low explosion energy, low Ni-56 yield, and Ni/Fe ratio greater than unity suggest an observational signature similar to an electron capture supernova' is based on fixed post-revival inputs taken from the 9.6 M⊙ model rather than quantities that emerge from the presented hydrodynamic evolution; this makes the ECSN inference conditional on an untested choice of initial state.

    Authors: We agree that the quoted parameters are taken directly from the 9.6 M⊙ progenitor model used to set the post-revival initial conditions and are not recomputed by the hydrodynamic evolution itself. The simulation conserves total energy and integrated yields but does not generate new values for these quantities. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that these characteristics are properties of the input model and that the calculations explore the subsequent evolution of an ECSN-like progenitor under NS wind and decay heating. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and numerical methods: no information is supplied on grid resolution, convergence tests, code validation against known problems, or error estimates for the 1D/2D/3D runs; without these the central morphological claims (plume inflation in 2D, large-scale structures and reverse-shock fragmentation in 3D) cannot be verified and risk being dominated by numerical artifacts.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current manuscript lacks these numerical details. We will add a new subsection to the methods section that reports the grid resolutions used in each dimensionality, the results of resolution-doubling convergence tests, validation against standard hydrodynamic test problems, and quantitative error estimates for the reported morphological features. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results follow from numerical integration of hydro equations

full rationale

The paper performs 1D/2D/3D hydrodynamic simulations initialized after shock revival with a fixed 9.6 M⊙ progenitor model, explosion energy, and Ni yield supplied as inputs. Morphology, plume evolution, asymmetric breakout, and reverse-shock fragmentation are direct outputs of the numerical solution with added source terms for NS wind and 160-isotope decay heating. The 24.4% non-Ni-56 heating fraction is likewise a simulation output. The ECSN-similarity statement is an inference drawn from the chosen input values rather than a derived prediction that reduces to those inputs by the paper's own equations. No self-definitional loops, fitted quantities renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citation chains appear in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the accuracy of the post-shock-revival initial conditions taken from a prior progenitor calculation, the implementation of the decay network and heating terms, and the assumption that 2D/3D hydrodynamics with the chosen resolution capture the dominant mixing and plume dynamics.

free parameters (1)
  • post-revival explosion energy and Ni-56 yield
    Taken as input from the progenitor model; the paper reports them as low but does not re-derive them.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard Euler equations with gravity and source terms govern the ejecta evolution
    Implicit in all hydrodynamical supernova-remnant simulations.
  • domain assumption The 160-isotope network accurately captures the dominant radioactive heating channels
    Invoked when reporting the 24.4% non-Ni-56 contribution.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5846 in / 1794 out tokens · 20412 ms · 2026-06-26T18:59:56.305599+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

60 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bhalerao, J., Park, S., Schenck, A., Post, S., & Hughes, J. P. 2019, ApJ, 872, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafafd

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

  2. [2]

    E., Harrison, F

    Boggs, S. E., Harrison, F. A., Miyasaka, H., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 670, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa2259

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa2259 2015

  3. [3]

    W., Blondin, J

    Bruenn, S. W., Blondin, J. M., Hix, W. R., et al. 2020, ApJS, 248, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7aff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7aff 2020

  4. [4]

    Chertkow, M. A. 2012, PhD thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

    2012

  5. [5]

    A., Messer, O

    Chertkow, M. A., Messer, O. E. B., Hix, W. R., et al. 2012, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 402, 012025

    2012

  6. [6]

    2012, doi: 10.1201/b12985

    Childs, H., Brugger, E., Whitlock, B., et al. 2012, doi: 10.1201/b12985

    work page doi:10.1201/b12985 2012

  7. [7]

    2008, http://h5py.alfven.org

    Collette, A. 2008, http://h5py.alfven.org

    2008

  8. [8]

    M., Carlson, J., Pajkos, M., et al

    Couch, S. M., Carlson, J., Pajkos, M., et al. 2021, Parallel Computing, 108, 102830, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2021.102830

    work page doi:10.1016/j.parco.2021.102830 2021

  9. [9]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 2010

  10. [10]

    K., et al

    Dubey, A., Antypas, K., Ganapathy, M. K., et al. 2009, Parallel Computing, 35, 512, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2009.08.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.parco.2009.08.001 2009

  11. [11]

    2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101168, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2022.101168 Fern´ andez, R

    Dubey, A., Weide, K., O’Neal, J., et al. 2022, SoftwareX, 19, 101168, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2022.101168 Fern´ andez, R. 2012, ApJ, 749, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/142 Fern´ andez, R., Quataert, E., Kashiyama, K., & Coughlin, E. R. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty306

    work page doi:10.1016/j.softx.2022.101168 2022

  12. [12]

    2000, ApJS, 131, 273–334, doi: 10.1086/317361

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 273–334, doi: 10.1086/317361

    work page doi:10.1086/317361 2000

  13. [13]

    M., Fowler, W

    Fuller, G. M., Fowler, W. A., & Newman, M. J. 1985, ApJ, 293, 1

    1985

  14. [14]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab116

    Gabler, M., Wongwathanarat, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3264, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab116

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab116 2021

  15. [15]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11796

    Giudici, B., Gabler, M., & Janka, H.-T. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11796

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    W., Harrison, F

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12997 2014

  17. [17]

    W., Fryer, C

    Grefenstette, B. W., Fryer, C. L., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/19

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/19 2017

  18. [18]

    1990, ApJL, 358, L57, doi: 10.1086/185779

    Hachisu, I., Matsuda, T., Nomoto, K., & Shigeyama, T. 1990, ApJL, 358, L57, doi: 10.1086/185779

    work page doi:10.1086/185779 1990

  19. [19]

    J., Janka, H

    Hammer, N. J., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1371, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1371

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1371 2010

  20. [20]

    Nature585, 357–362 (2020)

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  21. [21]

    A., Hix, W

    Harris, J. A., Hix, W. R., Chertkow, M. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa76de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa76de 2017

  22. [22]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJ, 724, 341, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341 25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/341 2010

  23. [23]

    1992, ApJ, 387, 294, doi: 10.1086/171081

    Herant, M., & Benz, W. 1992, ApJ, 387, 294, doi: 10.1086/171081

    work page doi:10.1086/171081 1992

  24. [24]

    A., Van Dyk, S

    Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 903, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01384-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01384-2 2021

  25. [25]

    R., & Thielemann, F.-K

    Hix, W. R., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1999, ApJ, 511, 862, doi: 10.1086/306692

    work page doi:10.1086/306692 1999

  26. [26]

    P., Rakowski, C

    Hughes, J. P., Rakowski, C. E., Burrows, D. N., & Slane, P. O. 2000, ApJL, 528, L109

    2000

  27. [27]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  28. [28]

    2018, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-285, 1

    Itagaki, K. 2018, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2018-285, 1

    2018

  29. [29]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Jerkstrand, A. 2017, Spectra of Supernovae in the Nebular Phase, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 795–842, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 29

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

  30. [30]

    A., et al

    Kane, J., Arnett, D., Remington, B. A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 528, 989, doi: 10.1086/308220

    work page doi:10.1086/308220 2000

  31. [31]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2003, A&A, 408, 621, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030863

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030863 2003

  32. [32]

    2000, NuPhA, 673, 481

    Langanke, K., & Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G. 2000, NuPhA, 673, 481

    2000

  33. [33]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae644d

    Larsson, J., Tegkelidis, C., Fransson, C., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae644d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae644d 2026

  34. [34]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 426, doi: 10.1086/319702

    work page doi:10.1086/319702 2001

  35. [35]

    M., & Yahil, A

    Lattimer, J. M., & Yahil, A. 1989, ApJ, 340, 426, doi: 10.1086/167404

    work page doi:10.1086/167404 1989

  36. [36]

    J., Hix, W

    Lentz, E. J., Hix, W. R., Harris, J. A., et al. 2026, ApJ, in preparation

    2026

  37. [37]

    2015, ApJL, 808, L42, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L42

    Melson, T., Janka, H.-T., Bollig, R., et al. 2015, ApJL, 808, L42, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L42

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/l42 2015

  38. [38]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab72a7

    Melson, T., Kresse, D., & Janka, H.-T. 2020, ApJ, 891, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab72a7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab72a7 2020

  39. [39]

    1991, A&A, 251, 505 M¨ uller, B., Tauris, T

    Mueller, E., Fryxell, B., & Arnett, D. 1991, A&A, 251, 505 M¨ uller, B., Tauris, T. M., Heger, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 3307, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz216

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz216 1991

  40. [40]

    Nadyozhin, D. K. 1994, ApJS, 92, 527, doi: 10.1086/192008

    work page doi:10.1086/192008 1994

  41. [41]

    1994, At

    Oda, T., Hino, M., Muto, K., Takahara, M., & Sato, K. 1994, At. Data Nuc. Data Tab., 56, 231

    1994

  42. [42]

    P., Slane, P

    Park, S., Hughes, J. P., Slane, P. O., et al. 2007, ApJL, 670, L121, doi: 10.1086/524406

    work page doi:10.1086/524406 2007

  43. [43]

    A., Hix, W

    Sandoval, M. A., Hix, W. R., Messer, O. E. B., Lentz, E. J., & Harris, J. A. 2021, ApJ, 921, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1d49

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1d49 2021

  44. [44]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab007f

    Vartanyan, D. 2019, ApJS, 241, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab007f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab007f 2019

  45. [45]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1691

    Stockinger, G., Janka, H.-T., Kresse, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2039, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1691

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1691 2020

  46. [46]

    A., Sutherland, P

    Swartz, D. A., Sutherland, P. G., & Harkness, R. P. 1995, ApJ, 446, 766, doi: 10.1086/175834

    work page doi:10.1086/175834 1995

  47. [47]

    1999, ApJS, 124, 241, doi: 10.1086/313257

    Timmes, F. 1999, ApJS, 124, 241, doi: 10.1086/313257

    work page doi:10.1086/313257 1999

  48. [48]

    X., & Swesty, F

    Timmes, F. X., & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501, doi: 10.1086/313304

    work page doi:10.1086/313304 2000

  49. [49]

    Toro, E. F. 2009, High–Order and TVD Schemes for Non–Linear Systems (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 493–529, doi: 10.1007/b79761 14

    work page doi:10.1007/b79761 2009

  50. [50]

    1991, ARA&A, 3, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00873456

    Trimble, V. 1991, ARA&A, 3, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00873456

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00873456 1991

  51. [51]

    2022, MNRAS, 518, 3475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3351

    Tsujimoto, T. 2022, MNRAS, 518, 3475, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3351

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3351 2022

  52. [52]

    P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & M¨ uller, E

    Utrobin, V. P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & M¨ uller, E. 2015, A&A, 581, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425513

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425513 2015

  53. [53]

    P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & M¨ uller, E

    Utrobin, V. P., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & M¨ uller, E. 2017, ApJ, 846, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8594

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8594 2017

  54. [54]

    2025a, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16314

    Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., Teryoshin, L., et al. 2025a, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16314

    arXiv

  55. [55]

    T.-H., Kasen, D., et al

    Vartanyan, D., Tsang, B. T.-H., Kasen, D., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 982, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e4

  56. [56]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  57. [57]

    A., Zimmerman, G

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

    work page doi:10.1086/156569 1978

  58. [58]

    2013, A&A, 552, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220636

    Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., & M¨ uller, E. 2013, A&A, 552, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220636

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220636 2013

  59. [59]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72de

    Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., M¨ uller, E., Pllumbi, E., & Wanajo, S. 2017, ApJ, 842, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa72de 2017

  60. [60]

    Wongwathanarat, A., M¨ uller, E., & Janka, H. T. 2015, A&A, 577, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425025

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425025 2015