pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28286 · v1 · pith:SO6QM2YNnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

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

Dmitry Shishkin , Noam Soker This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 02:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapse supernovaesupernova remnantsjittering jetsJWST observationspoint symmetryneutron star kicksSNR 0540-69.3
0
0 comments X

The pith

JWST images of SNR 0540-69.3 show point-symmetric inner ejecta shaped by multiple jet pairs launched after the neutron star received its kick.

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

The paper analyzes published JWST data on the core-collapse supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3 and identifies an approximate rotational symmetry of 189 degrees between its northwestern redshifted and southeastern blueshifted inner ejecta. This symmetry, together with surrounding clumps around cavities and a pair of opposing nozzles at a different angle, is interpreted within the jittering-jets explosion mechanism as the result of at least three pairs of jets launched by the neutron star. The symmetry center is offset from the current pulsar position, reinforcing an earlier claim that the neutron star received a kick before launching the jets. A reader would care because the morphology supplies morphological evidence that the explosion process itself, rather than later evolution, produced the observed structure.

Core claim

The inner ejecta of SNR 0540-69.3 display a point-symmetric morphology that was shaped by two and likely three or more pairs of jets launched by the neutron star after it acquired its kick velocity, consistent with the jittering-jets explosion mechanism.

What carries the argument

The point-symmetric morphology of the inner ejecta, identified by visual inspection and a quantitative symmetry-identification method and interpreted as the imprint of multiple jet-launching episodes.

If this is right

  • The neutron star launched the jet pairs after it had already received its kick velocity.
  • At least three distinct jet pairs are needed to account for the cavities, surrounding clumps, and the additional nozzle pair.
  • The remnant morphology matches expectations from three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the jittering-jets mechanism.
  • The same jet-launching process can explain point-symmetric features seen in some planetary nebulae.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar quantitative symmetry searches applied to other young core-collapse remnants could test whether the jittering-jets mechanism operates across multiple events.
  • Timing constraints between the neutron-star kick and subsequent jet episodes might be extracted from the offset between symmetry center and current pulsar position in additional remnants.
  • If the mechanism is general, future observations of more remnants should reveal a statistical preference for point-symmetric inner ejecta aligned with the pulsar kick direction.

Load-bearing premise

The observed symmetries and cavities result from jet pairs launched by the neutron star rather than from alternative shaping processes or observational effects.

What would settle it

New high-resolution imaging or velocity mapping that demonstrates the claimed rotational symmetry between the northwestern and southeastern ejecta does not exist or arises from unrelated structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28286 by Dmitry Shishkin, Noam Soker.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A figure adapted from Larsson et al. (2026) of images of SNR 0540-69.3 in [Fe ii] 1.644 µm emission in three Doppler shift intervals, from left to right: [−600, −100] km s−1 [100, 500] km s−1 , and [550, 1200] km s−1 . The white star marks the pulsar’s position. The white region just south of the pulsar was masked out due to contamination by a star. We marked the two cavities identified by Larsson et al. (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Application of the symmetry-identification method to the blue-shifted stacked image and the red-shifted stacked image. The lower-right panel is the red-shifted image of the surroundings of the northeast/far cavity, but at a slightly different velocity range than in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Images of SNR 0540-69.3 adapted from Larsson et al. (2026), with our marks of the nozzles by two double-headed arrows. We attribute the nozzles to a pair of jets at the end of the explosion process. The axis of the nozzles is at a large angle to the axis connecting the centers of the two spheres, which signify two cavities. We attribute the two cavities to another pair, or more, of jets at the end of the e… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We examine published JWST observations of the core-collapse supernova (CCSN) remnant SNR 0540-69.3 and identify a point-symmetric morphology in its inner ejecta. Within the framework of the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM), we interpret this morphology as evidence that the ejecta were shaped by two, and likely three or more, pairs of jets during the explosion process. Both visual inspection and a recently developed quantitative symmetry-identification method for astrophysical imaging reveal an approximate rotational symmetry between the northwestern redshifted ejecta and the southeastern blueshifted ejecta. Each side contains clumps (knots) surrounding a previously identified cavity, with the best quantitative correspondence obtained for a rotation of 189{\deg}. We further identify a symmetry center that is offset from the current pulsar position, strengthening an earlier claim for a pulsar kick. We interpret the pair of cavities and their surrounding clumpy structures as having been shaped by multiple jet-launching episodes. In addition, we identify a pair of opposing nozzles at a large angle to the cavities, which we attribute to another jet pair. Guided by the similarities to point-symmetric planetary nebulae shaped by jets and by recent three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the JJEM, we conclude that the inner ejecta were shaped by at least three jet pairs launched by the neutron star after it acquired its kick velocity, consistent with the JJEM.

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 paper examines JWST observations of the core-collapse supernova remnant SNR 0540-69.3 and identifies a point-symmetric morphology in its inner ejecta. Within the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) framework, it interprets this as evidence that the ejecta were shaped by two, and likely three or more, pairs of jets during the explosion. Both visual inspection and a quantitative symmetry-identification method reveal an approximate 189° rotational symmetry between the northwestern redshifted ejecta and the southeastern blueshifted ejecta, along with an offset symmetry center, cavities surrounded by clumps, and a pair of opposing nozzles. The authors conclude that the inner ejecta were shaped by at least three jet pairs launched by the neutron star after it acquired its kick velocity, consistent with the JJEM.

Significance. If the morphological interpretation is robust, the paper would provide observational support for the JJEM by linking specific point-symmetric features in a young CCSN remnant to multiple post-kick jet-launching episodes. The analysis benefits from high-resolution JWST imaging and the application of a quantitative symmetry method, which adds rigor beyond purely visual claims. The offset symmetry center also reinforces an earlier pulsar-kick argument. However, the overall significance remains interpretive and model-dependent.

major comments (2)
  1. [Symmetry identification and JJEM interpretation] The central claim (abstract and concluding paragraph) that the observed rotational symmetry (~189°), cavities, and nozzles uniquely support shaping by at least three JJEM jet pairs is load-bearing but rests on an interpretation that does not compare the morphology against predictions from alternative mechanisms (e.g., SASI or neutrino-driven convection). Without such differentiation or stated falsifiable predictions, the data are consistent with JJEM but do not exclude other shaping processes that could persist to the ~1000 yr remnant stage.
  2. [Quantitative symmetry-identification method] The quantitative symmetry method is presented as revealing the best correspondence at a 189° rotation, yet the manuscript supplies no statistical details, error analysis, robustness tests against noise or clump selection, or significance thresholds. This directly affects the reliability of identifying the jet-pair structures that underpin the JJEM conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to a 'recently developed quantitative symmetry-identification method' without providing a citation or brief description of its algorithm or validation.
  2. The text states 'two, and likely three or more' jet pairs but concludes 'at least three'; a consistent count should be used throughout.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and robustness of our claims. We address each major point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Symmetry identification and JJEM interpretation] The central claim (abstract and concluding paragraph) that the observed rotational symmetry (~189°), cavities, and nozzles uniquely support shaping by at least three JJEM jet pairs is load-bearing but rests on an interpretation that does not compare the morphology against predictions from alternative mechanisms (e.g., SASI or neutrino-driven convection). Without such differentiation or stated falsifiable predictions, the data are consistent with JJEM but do not exclude other shaping processes that could persist to the ~1000 yr remnant stage.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript presents the morphology as consistent with the JJEM without direct side-by-side comparisons to alternatives such as SASI or neutrino-driven convection. The central claim is framed as support for JJEM based on the point-symmetric features (multiple jet pairs, offset center) matching expectations from JJEM simulations and analogies to jet-shaped planetary nebulae, rather than a claim of uniqueness. To address the concern, we will revise the discussion to include a new subsection comparing the observed structures to predictions from other mechanisms, noting which features (e.g., the specific ~189° symmetry and post-kick jet activity) are more readily explained by JJEM. We will also articulate falsifiable predictions, such as the expectation of additional jet pairs detectable in deeper observations. This revision will clarify that the data are consistent with JJEM while acknowledging that other processes cannot be ruled out at present. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Quantitative symmetry-identification method] The quantitative symmetry method is presented as revealing the best correspondence at a 189° rotation, yet the manuscript supplies no statistical details, error analysis, robustness tests against noise or clump selection, or significance thresholds. This directly affects the reliability of identifying the jet-pair structures that underpin the JJEM conclusion.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include the requested statistical details on the quantitative symmetry-identification method. Although the method itself is described in a prior publication, the application here requires supporting analysis. We will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that provides: (i) the procedure for identifying the optimal 189° rotation, (ii) error estimates on the angle and symmetry center, (iii) robustness tests including variations in clump selection and simulated noise, and (iv) significance thresholds derived from comparisons to randomized rotations. These additions will allow independent assessment of the method's reliability and the identified jet-pair structures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Morphology-to-JJEM mapping relies on author-associated model framework and self-cited simulations without exclusion of alternatives

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "Within the framework of the jittering jets explosion mechanism (JJEM), we interpret this morphology as evidence that the ejecta were shaped by two, and likely three or more, pairs of jets during the explosion process."

    The morphology is mapped to jet pairs only by adopting the JJEM interpretive framework (developed by co-author Soker); the 'evidence' for JJEM is therefore the assumption of JJEM itself rather than an independent derivation.

  2. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "Guided by the similarities to point-symmetric planetary nebulae shaped by jets and by recent three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the JJEM, we conclude that the inner ejecta were shaped by at least three jet pairs launched by the neutron star after it acquired its kick velocity, consistent with the JJEM."

    The guiding simulations are of JJEM (prior work by the same group); the conclusion that the data are 'consistent with the JJEM' therefore traces back to self-cited model outputs rather than an external uniqueness proof.

full rationale

The paper's central claim reduces to interpreting observed point symmetry as multiple post-kick jet pairs 'within the framework of' JJEM and 'guided by' JJEM hydro simulations. This is load-bearing self-citation because JJEM is the model developed by co-author Soker; the interpretation step does not derive the jet-pair attribution from first principles or external benchmarks but adopts it by construction from the model. No independent falsification of alternatives is shown, so the 'support' for JJEM is not an independent test but a re-description inside the model. This qualifies as partial circularity (score 6) rather than full self-definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that observed morphology is produced by jets in the JJEM framework, with no free parameters or invented entities explicitly quantified in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Point-symmetric morphology in ejecta is produced by multiple jet pairs in the JJEM
    Invoked to link JWST data to the explosion mechanism based on similarity to planetary nebulae and simulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5825 in / 1249 out tokens · 73433 ms · 2026-06-29T02:40:37.615438+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

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Reproducing morphological features in the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 by simulating jittering jets

    Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.29527. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29527 —. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.12356, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.12356

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.12356

  2. [2]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.04896

    Akhmetali, A., Sultan Abylkairov, Y., Orel, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.04896. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04896

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Boffin, H. M. J., Miszalski, B., Rauch, T., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 773, doi: 10.1126/science.1225386

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1225386 2012

  4. [4]

    2000, Dr

    Bradski, G. 2000, Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools

    2000

  5. [5]

    L., Bozzetto, L

    Brantseg, T., McEntaffer, R. L., Bozzetto, L. M., Filipovic, M., & Grieves, N. 2014, ApJ, 780, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/50

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/50 2014

  6. [6]

    2025, PASP, 137, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/add08e —

    Braudo, J., Michaelis, A., Akashi, M., & Soker, N. 2025, PASP, 137, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/add08e —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.14364. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14364

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/add08e 2025

  7. [7]

    J., Hix, W

    Chen, C.-H., Lentz, E. J., Hix, W. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.09906. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09906 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    Clairmont, R., Steffen, W., & Koning, N. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2711, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2375 2022

  9. [9]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013 Eggenberger Andersen, O., O’Connor, E., Kovalenko, L.,

    Derlopa, S., Akras, S., Amram, P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1013 Eggenberger Andersen, O., O’Connor, E., Kovalenko, L.,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1013 2024

  10. [10]

    Andresen, H., & Couch, S. M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.01405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01405 Garc´ ıa-Segura, G., Taam, R. E., & Ricker, P. M. 2020, ApJ, 893, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8006 —. 2021, ApJ, 914, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfc4e

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8006 2026

  11. [11]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11796

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

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J

    Guerrero, M. A., Cazzoli, S., Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe2aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe2aa 2021

  13. [13]

    A., & Manchado, A

    Guerrero, M. A., & Manchado, A. 1998, ApJ, 508, 262, doi: 10.1086/306407

    work page doi:10.1086/306407 1998

  14. [14]

    Array programming with NumPy,

    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

  15. [15]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  16. [16]

    2025, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 75, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945

    Janka, H.-T. 2025, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 75, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945 2025

  17. [17]

    D., et al

    Larsson, J., Sollerman, J., Lyman, J. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a41

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a41 2021

  18. [18]

    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

  19. [19]

    Lundqvist, P., Lundqvist, N., & Shibanov, Y. A. 2022, A&A, 658, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141931

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141931 2022

  20. [20]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 023024, doi: 10.1103/7ytg-wzl8

    Luo, Y., Zha, S., & Kajino, T. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 023024, doi: 10.1103/7ytg-wzl8

    work page doi:10.1103/7ytg-wzl8 2026

  21. [21]

    S., Dopita, M

    Mathewson, D. S., Dopita, M. A., Tuohy, I. R., & Ford, V. L. 1980, ApJL, 242, L73, doi: 10.1086/183406

    work page doi:10.1086/183406 1980

  22. [22]

    Self-healing high-dimensional quantum key distribution using hybrid spin-orbit Bessel states

    McNamara, B. R., & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110625 2007

  23. [23]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24970

    Mezzacappa, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24970. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24970

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    F., V´ azquez, R., Olgu´ ın, L., Guill´ en, P

    Miranda, L. F., V´ azquez, R., Olgu´ ın, L., Guill´ en, P. F., & Mat´ ıas, J. M. 2024, A&A, 687, A123, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348173 Moraga Baez, P., Kastner, J. H., Balick, B., Montez, R., &

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348173 2024

  25. [25]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    Bublitz, J. 2023, ApJ, 942, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca401 2023

  26. [26]

    1987, PASP, 99, 1115, doi: 10.1086/132089

    Morris, M. 1987, PASP, 99, 1115, doi: 10.1086/132089

    work page doi:10.1086/132089 1987

  27. [27]

    A., Smith, N., Blair, W

    Morse, J. A., Smith, N., Blair, W. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 188, doi: 10.1086/503313

    work page doi:10.1086/503313 2006

  28. [28]

    D., Brinkman, E., Richardson, C

    Murphy, R. D., Brinkman, E., Richardson, C. J., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, 084005, doi: 10.1103/2bdz-783t

    work page doi:10.1103/2bdz-783t 2026

  29. [29]

    A., Hix, W

    Neopane, S., Sandoval, M. A., Hix, W. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.19490. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19490

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000957

    Mignone, A. 2016, Journal of Plasma Physics, 82, 635820601, doi: 10.1017/S0022377816000957

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377816000957 2016

  31. [31]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.17499

    Orlando, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.17499

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17499 2026

  32. [32]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.25846

    Pan, K.-C., & Li, Y.-F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.25846. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25846

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    A., Vallejo, S., & Coughlin, E

    Paradiso, D. A., Vallejo, S., & Coughlin, E. R. 2026, ApJ, 1004, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b85

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b85 2026

  34. [34]

    P., Slane, P

    Park, S., Hughes, J. P., Slane, P. O., Mori, K., & Burrows, D. N. 2010, ApJ, 710, 948, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/948

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/948 2010

  35. [35]

    2017, SSRv, 207, 137, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x

    Porth, O., Buehler, R., Olmi, B., et al. 2017, SSRv, 207, 137, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0344-x 2017

  36. [36]

    S., & Keppens, R

    Porth, O., Komissarov, S. S., & Keppens, R. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1082 Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., Guerrero, M. A., Duarte Puertas, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3326 Rechy-Garc´ ıa, J. S., Pe˜ na, M., & Vel´ azquez, P. F. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2758

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1082 2014

  37. [37]

    2026, ApJ, 1003, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae61ac

    Rusakov, A., Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2026, ApJ, 1003, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae61ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae61ac 2026

  38. [38]

    D., & Chaffee, F

    Campbell, R. D., & Chaffee, F. H. 2005, ApJL, 622, L53, doi: 10.1086/429586

    work page doi:10.1086/429586 2005

  39. [39]

    R., & Villar, G

    Sahai, R., Morris, M. R., & Villar, G. G. 2011, AJ, 141, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/134

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/134 2011

  40. [40]

    Sahai, R., & Trauger, J. T. 1998, AJ, 116, 1357, doi: 10.1086/300504

    work page doi:10.1086/300504 1998

  41. [41]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038

    Sahai, R., Alcolea, J., Balick, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06038

    arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Quantifying Symmetry: Transformation Information for Planetary Nebulae and Supernova Remnants

    Shishkin, D., & Michaelis, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07913, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07913

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07913 2026

  43. [43]

    1990, AJ, 99, 1869, doi: 10.1086/115465 —

    Soker, N. 1990, AJ, 99, 1869, doi: 10.1086/115465 —. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035019, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac49e6 —. 2024a, Universe, 10, 458, doi: 10.3390/universe10120458 —. 2024b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 49, doi: 10.33232/001c.120279 —. 2024c, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 12, doi: 10.21105/astro.2311.0328...

    work page doi:10.1086/115465 1990

  44. [44]

    2025a, PASA, 42, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.39 —

    Soker, N., & Shishkin, D. 2025a, PASA, 42, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.39 —. 2025b, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 035008, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/adb4cc

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.39 2025

  45. [45]

    Tafoya, D., Orosz, G., Vlemmings, W. H. T., Sahai, R., & P´ erez-S´ anchez, A. F. 2019, A&A, 629, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834632

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834632 2019

  46. [46]

    2025, MNRAS, 542, 2830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1390

    Tenhu, L., Larsson, J., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 2830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1390

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1390 2025

  47. [47]

    Tsai, T.-W., & Yang, H.-Y. K. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag727, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag727

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag727 2026

  48. [48]

    Resolution dependence in magnetohydrodynamic simulations of neutrino-driven core-collapse supernovae

    Varma, V., & M¨ uller, B. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag626, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag626

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag626 2026

  49. [49]

    Wang, N. Y. N., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.02203

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.02203 2025

  50. [50]

    2026, MNRAS, 548, stag325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag325

    Wesson, R., Gabler, M., Lyons, M., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 548, stag325, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag325

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag325 2026