Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A low-mass iron-core explosion, evolved for years with wind and full decay heating, keeps large-scale plumes, is strongly viewing-angle dependent, and looks ECSN-like rather than Cas A.

desk verdict Solid multi-year 3D extension of the 9.6 Msun Chimera/MAS+21 setup with real new numbers (24.4% non-56Ni heating, LOS maps, reverse-shock processing), but the causal claim that wind+decay produce the large plumes rests on one full-physics 3D run versus a different-code baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.19490 v2 pith:V3VAJH2Z submitted 2026-06-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Sudarshan Neopane , Michael A. Sandoval , W. Raphael Hix , J. Austin Harris , O. E. Bronson Messer , Eric J. Lentz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapsesupernovahydrodynamicsremnantscircumstellarmatterradioactivedecayheatingneutron-starwindejectamorphologyelectron-capture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper follows a 9.6 solar-mass zero-metallicity iron-core supernova from shortly after shock revival through shock breakout and several years into the circumstellar medium. Using suites of 1D, 2D, and a full 3D run, it isolates how a neutron-star wind and radioactive decay heating reshape the ejecta. Decay heating forms a central low-density bubble in 1D that slows the reverse shock; in multi-D the heat is locked in metal-rich pockets that inflate, merge, and drive dense shells. In 3D those effects produce more large-scale plumes, an asymmetrical breakout, and plumes that later decelerate and fragment at the reverse shock while still preserving global asymmetry. Projected maps and line-of-sight velocities therefore depend strongly on viewing angle. A 160-isotope decay network shows that roughly a quarter of the radioactive heating is not from the usual nickel-56 chain, and the low energy, low nickel yield, and Ni/Fe greater than one give an electron-capture-like observational signature rather than the strongly inhomogeneous metal pattern of Cas A.

What carries the argument

The 160-isotope decay-only network (with local deposition of gamma energy reduced by optical depth and a fixed 20 percent neutrino loss) together with a parametrized spherical power-law neutron-star wind: these supply the late-time energy and momentum that inflate metal-rich pockets, merge plumes, and alter reverse-shock interaction.

What would settle it

Compare multi-epoch, multi-angle maps of metal-line velocities and column densities in a young low-energy remnant: if the metal distribution is strongly inhomogeneous like Cas A, or if non-56Ni decay chains contribute far less than ~24 percent of the heating budget, the claimed morphology and energy partition fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Neutron-star wind plus full 160-isotope decay heating modify the 3D plume morphology of a low-mass iron-core explosion so that more large-scale structures form, shock breakout becomes asymmetrical, and after breakout the leading plumes decelerate and fragment at the reverse shock while retaining large-scale asymmetry; the resulting metal-rich distribution stays relatively uniform, projected morphology and velocities are strongly viewing-angle dependent, 24.4 percent of radioactive heating comes from non-56Ni chains, and the global yields and energetics match an electron-capture-like signature.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes a spherical power-law neutron-star wind for only the first few seconds, a smooth steady wind around the star, and simple fixed fractions for neutrino and gamma-ray energy escape; if the real wind or surroundings are strongly uneven, the plume sizes and reverse-shock shredding change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed remnant morphology and line profiles from such explosions must be interpreted jointly with viewing angle; a compact image need not mean weak mixing.
  • Electron-capture-like events can arise from low-mass iron cores, not only ONeMg cores, when energy and Ni/Fe are used as diagnostics.
  • Radioactive heating budgets that ignore all chains except 56Ni understate early inflation of metal-rich plumes by tens of percent.
  • Late-time reverse-shock interaction with large plumes seeds small-scale structure without erasing the global asymmetry set at breakout.
  • Uniform metal composition across plumes distinguishes this class from Cas A-like remnants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If wind anisotropy or clumpy CSM are added, the large-plume preference may weaken and Cas A-like metal contrasts could appear even at low energy.
  • The same viewing-angle maps could be used as priors for reconstructing 3D ejecta from incomplete multi-wavelength data of young remnants.
  • Including cosmic-ray and non-thermal losses after a few years would further decelerate the outer plumes and may erase some of the residual large-scale asymmetry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents long-term Flash-X hydrodynamical simulations of a 9.6 M☉ zero-metallicity iron-core progenitor, initialized from a Chimera neutrino-driven explosion (D9.6-sn160) after shock revival and evolved through shock breakout into a steady-wind CSM for up to ~3 years. A controlled 1D sequence (1DR1–6) and a 2D pair isolate the effects of NS cooling, a spherical power-law NS wind, and a 160-isotope decay network (with neutrino and optical-depth-dependent γ losses). The single full-physics 3D run is compared to the earlier FLASH calculation of the same progenitor (MAS+21). The authors report that decay heating forms a low-density bubble in 1D and inflates metal-rich pockets in 2D; that the 3D plume morphology is more large-scale than MAS+21, producing asymmetrical breakout and reverse-shock fragmentation that retains large-scale asymmetry; that projected morphology and LOS velocities are strongly viewing-angle dependent; that 24.4% of radioactive heating comes from non-56Ni chains; and that the low explosion energy, low 56Ni yield, and Ni/Fe > 1 give an ECSN-like observational signature, while the relatively uniform metal distribution does not resemble Cas A.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful bridge from a state-of-the-art multi-species explosion model to multi-year remnant morphology for a low-mass CCSN. Strengths that should be credited include: (i) a clean 1D/2D physics-isolation suite that cleanly separates wind vs. decay effects on density structure; (ii) in-situ 160-isotope decay tracking that yields a concrete, quantitative result (24.4% non-56Ni heating) rather than assuming only the 56Ni chain; (iii) explicit energy-budget closure and decay-power decomposition (Figs. 15–16); and (iv) carefully constructed dual-LOS velocity and column-density diagnostics that make the viewing-angle dependence falsifiable for this realization. These are genuine advances over breakout-only calculations of the same progenitor. The main scientific value is descriptive and diagnostic for this ECSN-like event class, not a general theory of remnant asymmetry.

major comments (4)
  1. Abstract and §4.1 / Fig. 7: The central causal claim that “in 3D the neutron-star wind and decay heating modify the plume morphology, producing more large-scale structures” is not isolated by the presented experiments. Only one 3D realization (full physics) is run; the comparison baseline is MAS+21, which differs simultaneously in hydro scheme (Flash-X/WENOz5 vs FLASH), NS wind, decay heating, and CSM. The manuscript itself states (§4.1) that “it is not possible to establish precisely which change is driving this difference.” That admission is correct and load-bearing: the abstract, §4 opening, and §5 conclusions currently over-attribute the clump-size shift and asymmetrical breakout to wind+decay. Either (a) add at least one controlled 3D variant (e.g., no-wind or no-decay) sufficient to support the causal language, or (b) systematically soften all causal wording to “consistent with / d
  2. §2.2, Eqs. (1)–(4) and §4.1: The spherically symmetric power-law NS wind is applied only until 2.65 s and is identified as a primary driver of additional RT plumes (Fig. 6 white ellipse; clump statistics in Fig. 7). No 3D sensitivity to the wind indices, normalization, or duration is shown, nor is an anisotropic wind considered. Because the multi-year reverse-shock interaction and viewing-angle conclusions inherit the breakout plume geometry, the manuscript needs either a short 3D wind-sensitivity test or an explicit limitation statement that the late-time morphology is conditional on this particular early wind prescription and cannot yet be generalized.
  3. §4.3 and Figs. 12–14: The strong viewing-angle dependence is convincingly demonstrated for this single realization, but the text sometimes reads as a general remnant-interpretation rule. Please state clearly that LOS-max/LOS-min bracket the geometry of this model’s three dominant plumes, and that the quantitative velocity peaks (e.g., ~2100 km s−1 plume component at 6.6 d) and column-density contrasts are realization-specific pending additional 3D engines/progenitors.
  4. §5 (ECSN comparison): The low E_exp (~1.68×10^50 erg), low 56Ni (~2.6×10^−3 M☉), and [Ni/Fe]≈1.7 are useful and well motivated relative to Hiramatsu et al. (2021) / SN 2018zd. However, the progenitor is an Fe-core model, not an ONeMg ECSN. The claim of an “ECSN-like observational signature” is defensible if framed as a degeneracy in global diagnostics; please avoid language that could be read as identifying the explosion mechanism, and note which observables (if any) would break the Fe-core vs true-ECSN degeneracy.
minor comments (8)
  1. §4, data availability: “doi: xxx” is a placeholder; replace with the actual OLCF Constellation DOI or remove the claim until the archive is public.
  2. Title: “Simulation to a Newborn…” is non-idiomatic; consider “Simulation of a Newborn…” or “From Explosion to a Newborn…”.
  3. Fig. 1 caption and §3.1: Clarify that 1DR6 lies on top of 1DR5 because γ escape is negligible while the ejecta remain optically thick, so readers do not misread the curves as identical physics.
  4. §2.5 / Eq. (7): State whether κ_γ = 0.06 cm^2 g^−1 is held fixed in composition and energy, and whether the 20% neutrino loss fraction is applied uniformly to all chains or only motivated by 56Ni/56Co.
  5. Fig. 16: The dense multi-chain legend is hard to parse in grayscale; consider grouping minor chains or moving the full list to a table with integrated energy fractions.
  6. Typographical: “zero-metalicity” → “zero-metallicity” (§2.7); “nucleosynthesic” → “nucleosynthetic” (§2.7); occasional missing spaces before citations.
  7. §4.2: The third reverse shock at the H/CSM interface is important; a single panel annotating forward shock, reverse shock, and contact discontinuity at one post-breakout epoch would help non-specialist readers.
  8. References: Ensure arXiv-only entries (e.g., Giudici et al. 2025; Vartanyan et al. 2025a) are updated if journal versions exist by acceptance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward hydro outcomes from an independent Chimera initial condition plus stated prescriptions; measured outputs are not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing results (plume morphology changes, asymmetrical breakout, reverse-shock fragmentation, viewing-angle dependence of projected morphology/velocities, the 24.4% non-56Ni decay-heating fraction, and ECSN-like diagnostics) are forward hydrodynamical and network outputs of a mapped Chimera explosion model plus explicitly stated sub-grid prescriptions (spherical power-law NS wind Eqs. 1–4, r^{-2} CSM, 20% neutrino loss, optical-depth gamma deposition). None of these quantities is defined in terms of the claimed result, fitted to the late-time morphology and then re-presented as a prediction, or forced by a uniqueness theorem. Self-citations (MAS+21; Lentz et al. 2026 in prep.) supply the initial condition and a comparison baseline, not a self-justifying uniqueness claim; the 1D/2D suite and the 3D run compute density, composition, clump statistics (F_ρ method), LOS velocity histograms, and decay-chain energy budgets as measured outputs. The paper itself notes that fewer small / more large clumps cannot be isolated solely to decay heating versus wind or hydro scheme (Sec. 4.1, Fig. 7)—a causal-isolation limitation, not circularity. No self-definitional identity, fitted-input-as-prediction, ansatz-smuggled uniqueness, or renaming of a known empirical law is present. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central morphological and heating claims rest on a standard hydro + nuclear network framework plus a handful of conventional but non-unique sub-grid choices (power-law wind, steady CSM, fixed neutrino-loss fraction, Compton opacity). No new particles or forces are invented; free parameters are the usual astrophysical knobs rather than fits to the final remnant data.

free parameters (5)
  • NS wind power-law indices and normalization = indices fixed; amplitude from map-time average
    rho_w ~ t^{-7/2}, e_w ~ t^{-7/6} taken from Wongwathanarat et al.; normalization set by averaging cells at map time; applied only until 2.65 s. Directly affects early plume compression.
  • neutrino cooling timescale tau_c = 3.0 s
    Exponential mass-loss formula uses tau_c = 3.0 s following Fernandez et al. 2018; controls how quickly NS gravitational mass decreases.
  • neutrino energy-loss fraction = 0.20
    Fixed 20% of decay energy assumed lost to neutrinos (motivated by 56Ni/56Co values ~19%); remainder subject to optical-depth gamma escape.
  • gamma opacity kappa_gamma = 0.06 cm2 g^{-1}
    Compton-scattering opacity fixed at 0.06 cm2 g^{-1} (Swartz et al.); used for local deposition fraction 1-exp(-tau).
  • inner excision radius and progressive block dropping = 500 km; 2% criterion
    NS excised at 500 km; blocks dropped when r < 2% of min shock radius; affects late-time mass and energy accounting near origin.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Helmholtz EOS remains valid after extension of lower density/temperature limits to 1e-18 g cm^{-3} and 0.1 K (with T floor 500 K in CSM).
    Section 2.4; required for multi-year CSM evolution.
  • domain assumption Steady, spherically symmetric r^{-2} wind adequately represents the CSM for the first few years.
    Section 2.3; adopted from Wongwathanarat et al.; controls reverse-shock formation after breakout.
  • domain assumption Compton scattering dominates gamma opacity and the optical-depth integral along radial rays is sufficient for local deposition.
    Section 2.5; standard approximation but ignores angle-dependent transport.
  • domain assumption The Chimera D9.6-sn160-3D explosion model at 466.6 ms supplies a faithful asymptotic ejecta composition and energy.
    Section 2.7; all subsequent morphology inherits this initial condition.
  • standard math WENOz5/TVD hybrid reconstruction plus HLLC fluxes adequately capture RT plume growth without excessive numerical diffusion.
    Section 2; standard high-order hydro choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulation to a Newborn Supernova Remnant from a Low-mass Iron Core Star." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3VAJH2Z

@misc{pith2026260619490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulation to a Newborn Supernova Remnant from a Low-mass Iron Core Star},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3VAJH2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.19490}
}
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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19490 by the authors.

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 felt as far a… view at source ↗
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. This acc… view at source ↗
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 ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
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]
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. …
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 …
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 requ…
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_…
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 pr…
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 den…
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…
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 …
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-…
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…
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_FU…
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…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Long-lived intermittent accretion disks in the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) of core-collapse supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Viscous angular-momentum transport and jet feedback can keep intermittent accretion disks around newborn neutron stars alive long enough to launch the energetic jet pairs seen in some supernova remnants.

  2. JWST observations support the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) for the core-collapse supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    JWST data on SNR 0540-69.3 reveals point-symmetric ejecta morphology consistent with shaping by at least three jet pairs, supporting the jittering-jets explosion mechanism.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    doi:10.1016/j.parco.2021.102830 2021

Show all 60 references
  1. [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

    2010 doi

  2. [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

    2009 doi

  3. [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, ...

    2022 doi

  4. [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

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Fowler, W

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

    1985

  6. [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

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2025

  8. [16]

    W., Harrison, F

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

    2014 doi

  9. [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

    2017 doi

  10. [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

    1990 doi

  11. [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

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  13. [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

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

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

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

    1992 doi

  16. [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

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    R., & Thielemann, F.-K

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

    1999 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Rakowski, C

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

    2000

  19. [27]

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

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

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

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

    2018

  21. [29]

    2017, Spectra of Supernovae in the Nebular Phase, 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

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    A., et al

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

    2000 doi

  23. [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

    2003 doi

  24. [32]

    2000, NuPhA, 673, 481

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

    2000

  25. [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

    2026 doi

  26. [34]

    M., & Prakash, M

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

    2001 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Yahil, A

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

    1989 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Hix, W

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

    2026

  29. [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

    2015 doi

  30. [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

    2020 doi

  31. [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

    1991 doi

  32. [40]

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

    1994 doi

  33. [41]

    1994, At

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

    1994

  34. [42]

    P., Slane, P

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

    2007 doi

  35. [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

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

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

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

    2019 doi

  37. [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

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Sutherland, P

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

    1995 doi

  39. [47]

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

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

    1999 doi

  40. [48]

    X., & Swesty, F

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

    2000 doi

  41. [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

    2009 doi

  42. [50]

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

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

    1991 doi

  43. [51]

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

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

    2022 doi

  44. [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

    2015 doi

  45. [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

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

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

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

  47. [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

    doi

  48. [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

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    A., Zimmerman, G

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

    1978 doi

  50. [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

    2013 doi

  51. [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

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

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

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.