Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 49 references

SN 1181 shows no surviving helium-star companion, ruling out the single-degenerate channel and favoring a white-dwarf merger for this faint Type Iax supernova.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

SN 1181 has no surviving He-star or luminous hydrogen-rich companion down to M_g > 8 mag within 0.3 pc, ruling out the single-degenerate channel for this faint Type Iax supernova and pointing to a white-dwarf merger.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A well-built archival search that likely kills the He-donor channel for SN 1181; the caveats are real but not load-bearing, though the abstract overclaims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19705 v1 pith:CJJ3XILX submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

No Surviving Companion to the Galactic SN 1181: Evidence for a Double-Degenerate Channel for Type Iax Supernovae

Kohki Uno , Daichi Tsuna , Daichi Hiramatsu , Tomoya Kinugawa , Takatoshi Ko This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords SN 1181Type Iax supernovaesingle-degenerate channeldouble-degenerate channelhelium-star companionwhite dwarf mergersupernova remnantbinary evolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 sets out to settle whether the historical supernova SN 1181, a faint member of the Type Iax class, exploded via a white dwarf accreting from a helium-star companion (single-degenerate) or via the merger of two white dwarfs (double-degenerate). It searches the region around the remnant where a surviving helium star would be expected and finds nothing: every astrometrically measured source fails the distance and trajectory tests, and the remaining optical sources do not match helium-star spectra or the known hot-subdwarf population. Binary evolution calculations independently set the faintest possible helium-star companion at about absolute magnitude 6.5 in the g-band, while the survey reaches magnitudes fainter than 8, so the non-detection is meaningful. If correct, the single-degenerate helium-donor channel is excluded for this event, strengthening the case that faint Type Iax supernovae come from white-dwarf mergers, while bright ones like SN 2012Z come from helium-star donors. The result would make Type Iax supernovae a class with at least two distinct progenitor channels.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the progenitor system of SN 1181 was a double-degenerate white-dwarf merger, not a white dwarf accreting from a helium-star companion. It argues this by combining two independent lines of evidence. First, within a 30-arcsecond (about 0.3 parsec) radius around the remnant—the region a surviving companion could have been kicked to—all 16 sources with astrometric measurements are rejected on distance or proper-motion grounds, and the six sources seen only in optical survey photometry have spectral energy distributions inconsistent with helium-star atmosphere models and with the observed hot-subdwarf population. Second, binary stellar evolution calculations pred

What carries the argument

The argument hinges on the search for a surviving helium star—the stripped core of a donor that would have been left behind after the explosion—around the SN 1181 remnant. The paper uses astrometric parallax and proper-motion measurements to reject distant or non-trajectory-matching sources, and compares optical photometry of the remaining sources against helium-star atmosphere templates and the empirical hot-subdwarf population. A binary stellar evolution calculation supplies the theoretical floor: the minimum companion mass is about 0.3 solar masses, the minimum needed to sustain core helium burning, which translates to an absolute g-band magnitude of about 6.5. The survey's depth (about m

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that every viable helium-star donor in the single-degenerate channel is at least as bright as absolute magnitude ~6.5 in the g-band and falls within the adopted grid of temperatures, masses, and extinctions; a cooler, less massive, or more heavily obscured companion could hide below the detection limit while the single-degenerate channel remains viable.

What would settle it

A future deep observation (e.g., in the infrared or ultraviolet) that resolves a compact, hot, helium-rich point source within the ~0.3 parsec search region, whose proper motion traces back to SN 1181's explosion site and whose spectrum matches an evolved helium-star model outside the adopted parameter grid, would directly falsify the non-detection claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If SN 1181's progenitor was a double-degenerate merger, then faint Type Iax supernovae are not simply dimmer versions of bright ones; they arise from a distinct formation pathway.
  • The single-degenerate helium-donor channel cannot account for the faint SN Iax population, so theoretical models of pure deflagration in CO white dwarfs need a complementary mechanism.
  • The bound remnant of SN 1181 (the hot, fast-wind white dwarf) would be the surviving merged object rather than a partially burned remnant of a single white dwarf, changing expectations for its rotation and composition.
  • Future deep surveys of nearby SNe Iax should find that faint events lack surviving companions, while bright events like SN 2012Z show them—a testable dichotomy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same archival-search method could be applied to other historical or nearby supernova remnants to statistically constrain the fraction of Type Iax supernovae from each channel; this paper is a proof of concept for such searches.
  • The exclusion of luminous hydrogen-rich companions also weakens the red-source interpretation for SN 2008ha, but that source could still be a bound remnant; future spectra could distinguish between a companion and a remnant.
  • If the double-degenerate channel is correct for faint Type Iax supernovae, the rate of such events might be higher than previously assumed because white-dwarf mergers are common, potentially affecting estimates of the overall thermonuclear supernova rate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper searches for a surviving non-degenerate companion to the Galactic SN 1181 remnant within a 30″ (≈0.3 pc) radius using Gaia and Pan-STARRS1 archival data. Sixteen Gaia sources are rejected by parallax and proper-motion criteria, and six PS1-only sources are found inconsistent with He-star atmosphere models and with the known hot-subdwarf population. The authors further use BSE binary-population calculations to argue that any viable He-star donor in the single-degenerate (SD) channel has mass ≳0.3 M_sun and therefore M_g ≲ 6.5 mag, well above the PS1 detection limit of M_g > 8 mag. They conclude that the SD He-donor channel is ruled out for SN 1181 and that a double-degenerate (WD merger) channel is favored, with implications for the diversity of SN Iax progenitors.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, this is an important result: it would provide the first direct exclusion of a surviving He-star companion for a Galactic, faint SN Iax and would observationally support two distinct progenitor channels for SNe Iax (luminous SN 2012Z-like events from He-star donors versus faint events from WD mergers). The paper's strengths include the use of multiple independent constraints (Gaia astrometry, PS1 SEDs, empirical hot-subdwarf comparison, and binary-evolution mass limits), a deliberately conservative choice of atmospheric parameters intended to minimize predicted flux, and an extinction argument that extends to A_V ≈ 5. The margin between the predicted floor (M_g ≈ 6.5) and the observed limit (M_g > 8) is nominally healthy, but the robustness of that margin is exactly what needs to be scrutinized.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, bottom panel of Fig. 4] The central exclusion relies on converting the robust minimum He-star mass (0.3 M_sun) into M_g ≲ 6.5 mag using blackbody spectra, with the stated accuracy of ≈0.3 mag validated only against the T_eff = 20,000 K, log g = 6 Rauch models adopted in §2.2. The BSE tracks displayed in Fig. 4 span log10(T_eff/K) from ≈3.8 to 5.0; a 0.3 M_sun He star near its maximum radius could have T_eff well below 20,000 K, where line blanketing can suppress the g-band flux by significantly more than 0.3 mag relative to a blackbody. Since the exclusion margin is only 1.5 mag, a systematic of ≈1.5 mag in the g-band floor would make the PS1 limit non-excluding and would keep the SD He-donor channel viable. Please compute M_g along the full BSE tracks using a grid of atmosphere models covering the relevant T_eff, log g, and composition, or otherwise quantify the SED-uncertainty on the quoted floor.
  2. [§2.2 (final paragraph) and Abstract] The paper states in §2.2: “we cannot strictly exclude an unknown class of He star with properties unlike both of the adopted atmosphere models and currently known hot subdwarfs,” yet the Abstract concludes that the non-detection “rules out He-star and luminous hydrogen-rich companions.” This is an overclaim relative to the acknowledged limitation. If the aim is to “rule out” the SD channel, the unknown-class loophole must be closed or the conclusion appropriately qualified (e.g., “strongly disfavors” or “rules out within the adopted model space”). As written, the central claim is stronger than the evidence presented.
  3. [§2.2, Fig. 2 and 3] The SED comparison and the CMD comparison with hot subdwarfs adopt a narrow grid: T_eff = 20,000 K, log g = 6, M = 0.3–0.5 M_sun, and A_V = 2–5 mag. The red PS1 colors of P1–P6 could in principle be matched by a cooler He star (T_eff ~ 10,000–15,000 K) at lower extinction. The “conservative” choice is asserted but not demonstrated; the paper should show, with additional model tracks, that cooler He stars are either physically excluded or still detectable in at least one band. This is necessary to make the non-detection argument airtight.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.1] The Gaia rejection criteria (parallax consistency and proper-motion traceback to the explosion site within 3″) are described only qualitatively. Since this is the first and most decisive exclusion step, a compact table of parallaxes, proper motions, and the resulting status for the 16 sources would aid verification.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The color bar label appears as “log10 (Teff / K)” and is truncated in the draft; please clarify the axis label and ensure the range (3.8–5.0) is legible.
  3. [§2.2, footnote 8] The 5σ PS1 limiting magnitudes are quoted without band-by-band detection limits for the six candidates. It would be helpful to list which bands are detections versus upper limits in the figure or a table, since the argument partly depends on g-band upper limits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the non-detection argument is independent of the data it tests.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The companion search uses external Gaia and Pan-STARRS1 data and excludes candidates via astrometric criteria (§2.1) and SED comparisons against Rauch models and the Culpan hot-subdwarf catalog (§2.2). The theoretical floor M_g ≲ 6.5 mag comes from BSE population synthesis, with the 0.3 Msun minimum tied to the standard minimum He-core mass for nondegenerate He burning (Han et al. 2002; Kippenhahn et al. 2013), not to the photometry being tested. The blackbody-to-g-band calibration is checked against the same Rauch models within ≈0.3 mag (§3), so it is not an input fitted to the PS1 data. The paper's own caveat—'we cannot strictly exclude an unknown class of He star with properties unlike those of both the adopted atmosphere models and currently known hot subdwarfs'—is a robustness limitation about model coverage, not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. The only self-citations (Ko et al. 2024, 2026) are contextual prior searches and are not load-bearing; no step in the argument defines the predicted quantity in terms of the observed quantity or fits a parameter and then re-predicts it.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is the observational exclusion and the BSE-based brightness floor; it imports the SN 1181 remnant identification, the pure-deflagration SD expectation of a surviving donor, the 0.3 M_sun minimum-mass physics, the BSE formalism, and archive data quality from prior literature. No new entities are postulated. The free parameters are model-grid choices, all biased conservatively (toward fainter companions), so they cannot artificially produce the non-detection.

free parameters (10)
  • He-star template T_eff = 2×10^4 K
    §2.2: chosen (not fit) to minimize predicted g-band flux and produce red colors; hotter models would be brighter in bluer/redder bands, so this choice handicaps the detection argument in the authors' favor.
  • He-star template surface gravity log g = 6
    §2.2: fixed compact surface gravity to minimize radius and flux for the assumed mass; part of the conservative grid.
  • He-star template composition X_H/X_He = 0.2/0.8
    §2.2: He-rich composition expected for stripped donors; chosen conservatively to minimize optical flux.
  • He-star mass grid in SED comparison = 0.3–0.5 M_sun
    §2.2: lowest plausible donor masses from §3; more massive donors are brighter and would be detected, so this grid covers the faint end of the distribution.
  • Extinction A_V = 2.0–3.0 mag base; 5.0 mag tested
    §2.2: from field stars within 2′ and 3D dust maps, not fit to the candidates; the multi-band detectability argument absorbs A_V up to 5 mag.
  • Common-envelope efficiency α = 3
    §3: αλ formalism; authors verify the 0.3 M_sun floor is unchanged for αλ varied 0.01–100× default, so this choice does not drive the result.
  • BSE λ binding-energy parameter = default × 0.5
    §3: common-envelope prescription; robustness checked as with α, so it does not set the companion-mass floor.
  • Primary WD mass filter = 1.1–1.3 M_sun
    §3: motivated by prior modeling of the SN 1181 remnant (Kashiyama et al. 2019; Oskinova et al. 2020; Lykou et al. 2023); the 0.3 M_sun companion floor does not depend on this choice.
  • Adopted distance = 2.5 kpc
    §2: from Bailer-Jones et al. 2021 / Lykou et al. 2023; using 2.3 kpc shifts magnitudes by <0.2 mag, negligible versus the 1.5 mag margin.
  • Explosion-site acceptance radius = 3″ around the WD
    §2.1: derived from the ~30 km/s projected WD motion over 844 yr (≈2.1″); a model-based cut used to reject Gaia sources by proper-motion backtracking.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption IRAS 00500+6713 is the bound remnant of SN 1181 at D ≈ 2.3–2.5 kpc
    The search radius, distance scale, and magnitude limits all center on this identification from prior literature (Gvaramadze 2019; Oskinova 2020; Ritter 2021; Lykou 2023); if wrong, the search is misdirected. Not established in this paper.
  • domain assumption A successful SD He-donor event leaves both a bound WD remnant and a surviving He-star donor
    The premise that makes the companion search a decisive test; taken from pure-deflagration models (Jordan 2012; Kromer 2013; Fink 2014). The alternative — donor destroyed or driven below detectability — is not modeled here.
  • standard math Minimum mass for sustained nondegenerate He burning is ≈0.3 M_sun
    §3: floor of the companion-mass histogram from BSE; cited to Han et al. 2002 and Kippenhahn et al. 2013.
  • domain assumption BSE αλ common-envelope formalism covers the relevant binary evolution of 1–10 M_sun primaries with He-star donors
    §3: the population-synthesis output (Fig. 4) is the basis for both the mass floor and the M_g distribution; robustness to αλ is checked, but the formalism itself is imported.
  • domain assumption Archived Gaia parallaxes/proper motions and PS1 photometry are reliable at the quoted uncertainties in this crowded, extincted field
    §2: both the rejection of the 16 Gaia sources and the SED arguments trust archive values near the Galactic plane, where astrometric and photometric errors are largest.
  • domain assumption SN 1181's historical light curve (m_V ≈ −1.4 to 1.0; M_V ≈ −13 to −16) places it in the faint-Iax regime
    §1 and Fig. 5: classification via Ritter 2021 and Schaefer 2023; this frames the significance claim but is not needed for the non-detection itself.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No Surviving Companion to the Galactic SN 1181: Evidence for a Double-Degenerate Channel for Type Iax Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJJ3XILX

@misc{pith2026260719705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No Surviving Companion to the Galactic SN 1181: Evidence for a Double-Degenerate Channel for Type Iax Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJJ3XILX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19705}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Type Iax supernovae (SNe Iax) are the recently-established, yet peculiar subclass of thermonuclear supernovae, whose progenitor systems and explosion mechanisms remain debated. A leading scenario is a single-degenerate channel, in which a white dwarf accreting from a He-star companion undergoes a pure deflagration, leaving both a bound remnant and surviving companion. The Galactic SN 1181, whose distinctive properties are consistent with an SN Iax involving a weak explosion and bound white dwarf remnant, offers a unique opportunity to test this scenario. Here, we perform a deep search for a surviving He-star companion, a hallmark of the single-degenerate He-donor channel, within $30^{\prime\prime}$ ($\sim 0.3$ pc) of the remnant using archival Gaia and Pan-STARRS1 data. The parallaxes and proper motions exclude all Gaia sources, while the spectral energy distributions of the remaining Pan-STARRS1 sources are inconsistent with both the He-star spectral templates and known hot-subdwarf population. Binary evolution calculations predict a minimum mass of a companion with an absolute $g$-band magnitude of $M_{g} \lesssim 6.5$ mag, much brighter than the Pan-STARRS1 detection limit of $M_{g} > 8$ mag. Our non-detection rules out He-star and luminous hydrogen-rich companions for SN 1181, favoring a double-degenerate channel (i.e., a white dwarf merger). Adding to the luminous He-star companion identified in the pre-explosion imaging of SN 2012Z, our results provide direct evidence for multiple progenitor channels leading to SNe Iax.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19705 by Daichi Hiramatsu, Daichi Tsuna, Kohki Uno, Takatoshi Ko, Tomoya Kinugawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Pan-STARRS1 i-band image with the field-star identification. The dashed white circle marks the 30′′ search radius around the central remnant of SN 1181 (yellow cross). The identified sources are circled and color-coded by cross-match class: Pan-STARRS1-only (blue), Gaia-only (green), and both (orange). (b) Relative source positions in the tangential plane centered on SN 1181. The sources are color-code… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SEDs of the six companion candidates (P1–P6) with the He-star spectral models. Black filled circles are PS1 grizy PSF magnitudes with 1σ error bars, while open circles with downward arrows denote upper limits. Background spectra are the He-star atmosphere models with different masses, temperatures, and extinctions calculated by the extinction law of E. L. Fitzpatrick (1999) using RV = 3.1. Their fluxes are… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Color–magnitude diagram of the extinction– corrected absolute g-band magnitude (at the distance of SN 1181) and i−z color for the six companion candidates P1–P6 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the peak r-band magnitude of SN 1181 (based on historical records; A. Ritter et al. 2021; B. E. Schaefer 2023) and a sample of SN Iax taken from E. A. Zimmerman et al. (2026). SN 1181 belongs to the “faint” SN Iax group (based on S. Srivastav et al. 2022), which is not well reproduced by the standard pure deflagration models of CO WDs (M. Fink et al. 2014). Dotted lines show the peak magnitud… view at source ↗

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

49 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  2. [2]

    B., White, C

    Bauer, E. B., White, C. J., & Bildsten, L. 2019, ApJ, 887, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ea4 2019

  3. [3]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  4. [4]

    2022, A&A, 662, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243337 de Kool, M

    Culpan, R., Geier, S., Reindl, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243337 de Kool, M. 1990, ApJ, 358, 189, doi: 10.1086/168974

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243337 2022

  5. [5]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 2010

  6. [6]

    R., et al

    Fink, M., Kromer, M., Seitenzahl, I. R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 1762, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2315

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2315 2014

  7. [7]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  8. [8]

    J., McCully, C., Jha, S

    Foley, R. J., McCully, C., Jha, S. W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/29 2014

  9. [9]

    J., Van Dyk, S

    Foley, R. J., Van Dyk, S. D., Jha, S. W., et al. 2015, ApJL, 798, L37, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/L37 8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/2/l37 2015

  10. [10]

    J., Challis, P

    Foley, R. J., Challis, P. J., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/57 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/57 2013

  11. [11]

    Green, G. M. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    doi:10.21105/joss.00695 2018

  12. [12]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/25

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/25 2015

  13. [13]

    V., Gr¨ afener, G., Langer, N., et al

    Gvaramadze, V. V., Gr¨ afener, G., Langer, N., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 684, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1216-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1216-1 2019

  14. [15]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    arXiv 2000

  15. [16]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    arXiv 2002

  16. [17]

    Iben, I., J., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJS, 54, 335, doi: 10.1086/190932 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    doi:10.1086/190932 1984

  17. [19]

    Rossum, D. R. 2012, ApJL, 761, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/761/2/L23

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/761/2/l23 2012

  18. [20]

    E., et al

    Kaiser, N., Aussel, H., Burke, B. E., et al. 2002, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4836, Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries, ed. J. A. Tyson & S. Wolff, 154–164, doi: 10.1117/12.457365

    doi:10.1117/12.457365 2002

  19. [21]

    R., Kasliwal, M

    Karambelkar, V. R., Kasliwal, M. M., Maguire, K., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2e90

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2e90 2021

  20. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e97

    Kashiyama, K., Fujisawa, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2019, ApJ, 887, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e97

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e97 2019

  21. [23]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaedb7

    Kashyap, R., Haque, T., Lor´ en-Aguilar, P., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., & Fisher, R. 2018, ApJ, 869, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaedb7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaedb7 2018

  22. [24]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 2013

  23. [25]

    2026, PASJ, 78, 645, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag008

    Ko, T., Hirai, R., Sasaoka, T., & Shigeyama, T. 2026, PASJ, 78, 645, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psag008

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psag008 2026

  24. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d99

    Ko, T., Suzuki, H., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d99

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d99 2024

  25. [27]

    2013, MNRAS, 429, 2287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts498

    Kromer, M., Fink, M., Stanishev, V., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts498

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts498 2013

  26. [28]

    T., Pakmor, R., et al

    Kromer, M., Ohlmann, S. T., Pakmor, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv886

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv886 2015

  27. [29]

    V., Chornock, R., et al

    Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 453, doi: 10.1086/374200

    doi:10.1086/374200 2003

  28. [30]

    A., Ritter, A., et al

    Lykou, F., Parker, Q. A., Ritter, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb138

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb138 2023

  29. [31]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics

    Maeda, K. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. Edited by Cosimo Bambi and Andrea Santangelo, 75, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 85-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2022

  30. [32]

    2010, ApJ, 708, 1703, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1703

    Maeda, K., Taubenberger, S., Sollerman, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 1703, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1703

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/2/1703 2010

  31. [33]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031 2014

  32. [34]

    W., Foley, R

    McCully, C., Jha, S. W., Foley, R. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 512, 54, doi: 10.1038/nature13615

    doi:10.1038/nature13615 2014

  33. [35]

    W., Scalzo, R

    McCully, C., Jha, S. W., Scalzo, R. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bbd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bbd 2022

  34. [36]

    1982, ApJ, 253, 798, doi: 10.1086/159682

    Nomoto, K. 1982, ApJ, 253, 798, doi: 10.1086/159682

    doi:10.1086/159682 1982

  35. [37]

    M., Gvaramadze, V

    Oskinova, L. M., Gvaramadze, V. V., Gr¨ afener, G., Langer, N., & Todt, H. 2020, A&A, 644, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039232

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039232 2020

  36. [38]

    2013, ApJL, 770, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8

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

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

  37. [39]

    M., & Taam, R

    Pan, K.-C., Ricker, P. M., & Taam, R. E. 2013, ApJ, 773, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/49

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/49 2013

  38. [40]

    2003, A&A, 403, 709, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030412

    Rauch, T. 2003, A&A, 403, 709, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030412

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030412 2003

  39. [41]

    A., Lykou, F., et al

    Ritter, A., Parker, Q. A., Lykou, F., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2253

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2253 2021

  40. [42]

    M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al

    Rose, B. M., Baltay, C., Hounsell, R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.03081, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.03081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.03081 2021

  41. [43]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, A&A Rv, 33, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9

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

  42. [44]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad717

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad717 2023

  43. [45]

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

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F., R¨ opke, F. K., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts402

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts402 2013

  44. [46]

    J., & Bildsten, L

    Shen, K. J., & Bildsten, L. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1365, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1365

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/2/1365 2009

  45. [47]

    J., Huber, M

    Srivastav, S., Smartt, S. J., Huber, M. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac177 2022

  46. [48]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Taubenberger, S. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 317, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5 37

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

  47. [49]

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

    doi:10.1086/161701 1984

  48. [50]

    1973, ApJ, 186, 1007, doi: 10.1086/152565 9

    Whelan, J., & Iben, Icko, J. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007, doi: 10.1086/152565 9

    doi:10.1086/152565 1973

  49. [51]

    A., Gal-Yam, A., Groot, P

    Zimmerman, E. A., Gal-Yam, A., Groot, P. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.09096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.09096

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.09096 2026

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.