Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Three-dimensional Structure of Incomplete Carbon-Oxygen Detonations in Type Ia Supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper finds that three-dimensional carbon-oxygen detonations in Type Ia supernovae are robust, self-sustaining cellular waves, unlike their one- and two-dimensional counterparts, with a cell size roughly five times the carbon…

desk verdict First 3D simulations of incomplete CO detonations in the SN Ia outer-layer regime; the 3D-vs-2D robustness contrast is new and credible, but the quantitative cell size rests on symmetry-wall confinement that still needs a periodic-boundary check. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19190 v1 pith:2JELAKDC submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-ph

A. Khokhlov , I. Dominguez , A.Y. Chtchelkanova , P. Hoeflich , E. Baron , K. Krisciunas , M. Phillips , N. Suntzeff
show 1 more author
L. Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-ph
keywords hydrodynamicsdetonationwavescellularstructurenuclearreactionsnucleosynthesissupernovae:generalwhitedwarfsinstabilities
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

Type Ia supernova explosions can drive detonation waves through the low-density, carbon-rich outer layers of a white dwarf, where carbon burning is incomplete. The paper finds that such detonations behave completely differently in three dimensions than in one or two: in 3D they are robust, self-sustaining cellular waves, while 1D and 2D versions are unstable and decay. The cell size is roughly five carbon half-reaction lengths, a relation that holds over the density range studied. If true, the production of intermediate-mass elements and the chemical inhomogeneities seen in early supernova light curves can be predicted from 3D simulations, and previous 2D-based models need revision.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cellular detonation structure of a Chapman-Jouguet carbon detonation, quantified by the carbon half-reaction length $x_C$, the distance from the leading shock at which half of the initial $^{12}$C is consumed. The argument is carried by the interplay between the leading shock and transverse reaction waves: in 3D, triple-point collisions and transverse waves re-accelerate burning behind weak shock sections, maintaining a self-sustaining cellular regime with $l_c \simeq 5 x_C$. The simulations use the adaptive-mesh reactive-flow code ALLA with a 13-species nuclear network, and the key diagnostics are head-on Schlieren images that reveal detonation cells in the plane perpendicular to propagation.

What would settle it

Run the identical 3D setup with periodic or non-reflecting transverse boundary conditions in a tube several times wider than $50 x_C$; if the detonation decays or the cell size departs from $l_c \simeq 5 x_C$, the boundary setup, not intrinsic 3D physics, is responsible for the claimed robustness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In three dimensions, incomplete carbon-oxygen detonations settle into a quasi-steady cellular regime in which transverse reaction waves re-energize a leading shock that would otherwise decay. The averaged 3D structure closely resembles the steady one-dimensional ZND reaction zone, but carbon is consumed slightly faster and slightly more silicon is produced. The detonation cell size is estimated as $l_c \simeq 5 x_C$ at every background density from $5\times 10^5$ to $10^6$ g cm$^{-3}$, and the relation appears independent of tube width and numerical resolution. In carbon-poor mixtures ($X_C = 0.3$), the same cellular instability triggers a transition to oxygen burning, so the detonation can no longer be treated as quasi-steady. These results imply that dimensionality matters for detonation modeling of SN Ia outer layers: 2D simulations produce cell sizes about 50 times larger and over-predict intermediate-mass elements and residual carbon.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a rectangular tube with symmetry boundary conditions in the transverse directions captures the behavior of an unconfined three-dimensional detonation; if those boundaries suppress antisymmetric or oblique transverse modes, the measured robustness and cell size could be partly a numerical boundary effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Three-dimensional incomplete C-detonations in SN Ia outer layers can be treated as quasi-steady cellular waves with a predictable cell scale of about five carbon half-reaction lengths.
  • Two-dimensional simulations of detonation waves in SNe Ia need to be re-examined, because they over-predict intermediate-mass elements and residual $^{12}$C by producing much larger cells and intermittent decay.
  • In carbon-poor compositions ($X_C \leq 0.3$), the detonation transitions to O-burning, so little oxygen remains in the outer layers and the burning must be modeled as fully non-stationary.
  • Chemical inhomogeneities from the cellular structure persist for 20-30 $x_C$ behind the shock, freezing out in the outer layers and potentially producing the observed early light-curve bumps and polarization fluctuations.
  • The outcome depends on the geometry of the exploding star, meaning progenitor and explosion geometry can affect the nucleosynthesis of intermediate-mass elements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $l_c \simeq 5 x_C$ holds over a wider density range, the cell size could be used as a subgrid mixing-length prescription in full-star SN Ia simulations without resolving each cell.
  • The 2D-versus-3D contrast may be a general property of detonations with low energy release, suggesting terrestrial combustion studies of marginally unstable detonations should benchmark 3D rather than 2D calculations.
  • The sharp transition to O-burning near $X_C \simeq 0.3$ offers an observable diagnostic: the relative abundances of intermediate-mass elements and residual oxygen in outer ejecta could constrain the C/O ratio of the progenitor's outer layers.
  • Testing the symmetry-boundary assumption with a broader set of boundary conditions would strengthen the case before applying the results to unconfined explosion geometries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents 2D and 3D reactive-flow simulations of incomplete carbon detonations at densities 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0×10^6 g cm^-3 for C/O = 1 mixtures and at 1.0×10^6 g cm^-3 for a C/O = 0.3/0.7 mixture, using a 13-species alpha network with the ALLA AMR code. The central claim is that 3D CO detonations are strikingly more robust than their 1D and 2D counterparts: they settle into a quasi-steady cellular regime with velocity near the Chapman-Jouguet value and a cell size lc ≈ 5 x_C, whereas 2D detonations undergo repeated weakening and wall-bounce reinitiation. The paper also reports that, in the carbon-poor run, temperature fluctuations at triple-point collisions trigger a transition to oxygen burning, and it connects the resulting chemical inhomogeneities to early light-curve bumps and polarization features in SNe Ia.

Significance. If the 3D robustness and the relation lc ≈ 5 x_C survive an unconfined geometry, this is an important result: it would imply that low-density incomplete C-detonations in SNe Ia are self-sustaining cellular waves whose structure and nucleosynthetic products can be predicted only by 3D simulations, and that existing 2D detonation models overpredict intermediate-mass elements and residual carbon. The paper is commendably free of fitted parameters: the ZND initial conditions come from independent 1D theory, the cell size, stability properties, and O-burning transition are emergent outputs of the time-dependent calculations, and the resolution study spans n_c = 12.3, 24.5, and 49 at a fixed density. The density scan and the explicit 2D/3D comparison are also strengths. The main risk to the central claim is the use of symmetry boundary conditions in the transverse directions, which are not tested against periodic or open-boundary 3D runs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 / 4.2] The paper's central claim that the 3D detonation is intrinsically robust and that lc ≈ 5 x_C is established only in a rectangular tube with symmetry (reflecting) boundary conditions in the Y and Z directions. The statement in Section 4.2 that 'the obtained results do not depend on ... the boundary conditions' is not supported by any 3D test with periodic or non-reflecting transverse boundaries; the two widths W = 20.8 x_C and W = 41.7 x_C vary the domain size but not the boundary type, and the cited support is from 2D studies at higher densities. This is not a merely formal point, because in the paper's own 2D simulations (Section 4.4) the detonation is repeatedly re-initiated by transverse waves reflecting off the side walls, with a quasi-period that scales with W, showing that wall reflections are dynamically active. Since the 3D tube is only about 4-8 cell sizes wide, the observed cellular pattern and the measured lc could in part be selected by the symmetry planes, which enforce standing-wave nodal conditions and can suppress antisymmetric or oblique transverse modes. Please provide a 3D run with periodic or open transverse boundaries, or a substantially wider unconfined domain, to confirm that the cellular regime and lc ≈ 5 x_C persist without reflecting walls; alternatively, the 'intrinsic' wording should be replaced by a statement that the result is obtained under symmetry boundary conditions, with the uncertainty explicitly discussed.
  2. [Section 4.5 / Figs. 12-14] The conclusion that carbon-poor mixtures (X_C = 0.3) undergo a rapid transition to O-burning and must be treated as fully non-stationary is based on a single simulation at rho0 = 10^6 g cm^-3. No entry for this run appears in Table 2, so the resolution (n_c), domain size, and run duration are not documented, and no resolution or width variation is shown for this composition. Because this result is used to argue that merger-progenitor outer layers may leave little oxygen and that quasi-steady detonation treatment fails for X_C <= 0.3, please provide the missing run parameters and at least one additional run at a different resolution, density, or domain width to demonstrate that the O-detonation transition is not a numerical artifact.
  3. [Section 4.3 / Fig. 9] The cell-size estimate lc ≈ 5 x_C is derived by visually identifying '3-4 detonation cells' across a tube of width W = 20.8 x_C, with the wider run shown only as a quarter cross-section. No quantitative cell-size measurement, statistics, or uncertainty is reported, and the resolution comparison is qualitative. Because this relation is a central quantitative result quoted in the abstract, please describe the measurement procedure (for example, triple-point trajectories, shock-front modulation spectra, or a histogram of cell spacings) and give a value with an uncertainty range. The current 'roughly estimate' is a useful first statement, but it is not yet a calibrated measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 10 / Table 2] The caption of Fig. 10c refers to run '5e6B' but Table 2 lists the run at rho0 = 0.5 × 10^6 g cm^-3 as '5e5B'; please make the run identifiers consistent.
  2. [Appendix B] Appendix B appears to be recycled from a manuscript about terrestrial detonations: it describes 'a new massively parallel AMR code HSCD for first-principles reactive Navier-Stokes numerical simulations ... in terrestrial gases,' which does not belong in this astrophysical paper. Please rewrite or remove this appendix so that the numerical-method description matches the ALLA code used in the body of the paper.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] The notation for the carbon mass fraction alternates between X_C in the tables and X12_C in the text and figures; please unify the notation to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Section 4.3] For reproducibility, please state explicitly whether the '3-4 cells across the width' count refers to the full W = 20.8 x_C tube or to the quarter section shown in Fig. 9d, since the two interpretations give different estimates of lc.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the multidimensional detonation properties are emergent simulation outputs, not fitted inputs or renamed prior results.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs—3D cellular robustness, lc ~ 5 x_C, and the transition to O-burning at X_C = 0.3—are emergent from time-dependent reactive Euler simulations with a specified 13-species alpha network and EOS. ZND initial conditions are taken from the authors' earlier one-dimensional work (Domínguez & Khokhlov 2011), but that is an independent steady-state calculation used only to initialize the multidimensional runs and to define the scaling length x_C; it is not the target result. The cell size is estimated from resolved cellular structure, not fitted, and the paper demonstrates resolution independence (runs 1e6C, 1e6C1, 1e6C2) and width independence (runs 1e6C vs 1e6D). Self-citations to prior 1D stability analysis and to Khokhlov & Dominguez 2015 are contextual; the key instability and O-detonation transition are shown in the present simulations, not merely borrowed. The assertion in Section 4.2 that results do not depend on boundary conditions is supported only by two tube widths and by 2D studies, and no 3D periodic or non-reflecting transverse-boundary run is reported; this is a validity concern about extrapolation to unconfined detonations, but it is not a definitional circularity. Appendix B contains an apparent editorial boilerplate passage about terrestrial HSCD/Navier-Stokes simulations that is inconsistent with the Euler solver described in Section 3.1; it is an artifact and does not enter the derivation chain. No equation or fitted parameter is equivalent by construction to any predicted quantity in this paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The listed inputs are scenario-defining choices, not fitted constants; none is tuned to reproduce the central claims. The only ad hoc numerical choice is the initial perturbation, which the paper argues does not affect the outcome. The main burden sits in the domain assumptions: constant density background, alpha-network kinetics, and symmetry boundary conditions.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial carbon mass fraction X_C = 0.5 and 0.3 by mass
    Two compositions chosen to represent single-degenerate (C/O ~ 1) and double-degenerate (C-poor) progenitor scenarios; not fitted to the detonation results.
  • Background density rho_0 = 0.5, 0.7, 1.0 x 10^6 g/cc
    Defines the incomplete C-burning regime; the paper reports similar cell-size scaling across these values, so the parameter is scanned rather than tuned.
  • Initial perturbation radius = r_p = 0.25 x_C, amplitude not stated
    Ad hoc trigger for transverse instabilities; the paper claims results are independent of initial perturbations but provides no quantitative amplitude.
  • Tube width W = 20.8 or 41.7 x_C
    Chosen wide enough to allow unconfined cells; width independence is tested at 1e6 g/cc by comparing runs 1e6C and 1e6D.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Euler equations with a degenerate electron EOS and an alpha network adequately describe detonation physics in this regime.
    Section 3.1; no radiation transport, magnetic fields, or physical viscosity beyond numerical dissipation is included.
  • domain assumption The truncated 8-species alpha network matches the full alpha network for rho_0 <= 1e6 g/cc.
    Section 3.1; the authors state they verified this but do not show the verification in the paper.
  • domain assumption Reaction rates from Fowler et al. (1978), Woosley et al. (1978), Thielemann (1993), with Yakovlev & Shalybkov (1989) screening, are accurate enough.
    Section 3.1; no independent rate-uncertainty analysis is presented.
  • standard math ZND detonation solutions from Dominguez & Khokhlov (2011) are valid initial conditions and reference states.
    Section 3.2; standard ZND detonation theory is used without modification.
  • ad hoc to paper A constant-density rectangular tube with symmetry Y/Z boundaries reproduces an unconfined detonation in SN Ia outer layers.
    Section 3.2; no density gradient is included, and symmetry planes may suppress non-symmetric transverse modes.
  • domain assumption The wave propagates freely at Chapman-Jouguet conditions after the cellular regime develops.
    Section 4.2 states the 3D detonation propagates with D ~ D_CJ, but the long-time behavior and interaction with expansion are not simulated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-dimensional Structure of Incomplete Carbon-Oxygen Detonations in Type Ia Supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JELAKDC

@misc{pith2026250119190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-dimensional Structure of Incomplete Carbon-Oxygen Detonations in Type Ia Supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JELAKDC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19190}
}
abstract

Carbon-oxygen (CO) detonation with reactions terminating either after burning of C$^{12}$ in the leading C$^{12}$ + C$^{12}$ reaction or after burning of C$^{12}$ and O$^{16}$ to Si-group elements may occur in the low-density outer layers of exploding white dwarfs and be responsible for the production of intermediate-mass elements observed in the outer layers of Type Ia supernovae. Basic one-dimensional properties of CO-detonations have been summarized in our previous work. This paper presents the results of two- and three-dimensional numerical simulations of low-density CO-detonations and discusses their multidimensional stability, cellular structure, and propagation through a constant low-density background. We find three-dimensional CO detonations to be strikingly different from their one-dimensional and two-dimensional counterparts. Three-dimensional detonations are significantly more robust and capable of propagating without decay compared to highly unstable and marginal one- and two- dimensional detonations. The detonation cell size and whether burning of C$^{12}$ in a three-dimensional detonation wave is followed by the subsequent O$^{16}$ burning is sensitive to both the background density and the initial C$^{12}$ to O$^{16}$ mass ratio. We also discuss the possible implications for understanding the observed early time bumps in light-curves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19190 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three-dimensional computational setup (Sect. 3.2). Computational domain is a “tube” of length 𝐿 and cross-section 𝑊 ×𝑊. The initial steady-state solution (T and P) is mapped onto a mesh with the leading shock, 𝑆, facing the right X-boundary. Supersonic inflow with parameters of unburned matter and velocity −𝐷 is imposed on the right. Zero-gradient boundary conditions are imposed on the left. Symmetry boundary condit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Half-reaction thickness, 𝑥𝐶, of a steady state one-dimensional detonation as a function of initial density 𝜌0 for two initial carbon mass fraction, X12 C . (a) X12 C = 0.5 and (b) X12 C = 0.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Initial stage of the development of a cellular Detonation structure in the 1e6C2 simulation run. Temperature is shown in XY (a) and XZ (b) orthogonal planes passing through the centerline of the computational domain. The temperature range is 𝑇 = {0 − 4 × 109 }K. Color palette is explained in Appendix A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cellular Schematics. Rhomboidal shape of a detonation cell: (1) incident waves, (2) Mach stems, (3) transversal waves and (4) collision points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) 𝑇 and (b) lg 𝑃 for a three-dimensional cellular detonation at 𝜌0 = 106 g cm−3 (run 1e6C2) at 𝑡 = 50𝑡𝑐 in the XZ-plane passing through the centerline of the computational domain. The temperature and pressure range shown in the figure is 𝑇 = {0 − 4 × 109 }K and lg 𝑃 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mass fractions (a) X12 C and (b) X28 Si for a three-dimensional cellular detonation at 𝜌0 = 106 g cm−3 (run 1e6C2) at 𝑡 = 50𝑡𝐶 in the XZ-plane passing through the centerline of the computational domain. X12 C = {0 − 0.5}; X28 Si = {0 − 0.6}. Color palette is explained …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Y and Z-components, (a) 𝑢𝑦 and (b) 𝑢𝑧 , of a fluid velocity for a three-dimensional cellular detonation at 𝜌0 = 106 g cm−3 (run 1e6C2) at 𝑡 = 50𝑡𝐶 in the XZ-plane passing through the centerline of the computational domain. Velocity range is 𝑢𝑦,𝑧 = ± 6 × 108 cm s−1 . Co…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Averaged one-dimensional structure of a three-dimensional cellular CJ detonation at 𝜌0 = 106 g cm−3 (run 1e6C2) at 𝑡 = 50𝑡𝐶. Top to bottom: (1) 𝑃, (2) 𝜌, (3) 𝑢𝑥/108 cm s−1 , (4) 𝑇/109K, (5) X12 C , X16 O , and X28 Si as a function of X-coordinate. Dashed lines show the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schlieren images in the YZ-plane (𝑆𝑥) of a three-dimensional CJ cellular detonation at 𝜌0 = 106 g cm−3 from runs (a) 1e6C2, (b) 1e6C1, (c) 1e6C, and (d) 1e6D. Runs 1e6C,C1,C2 were done in the same computational domain but with different numerical resolutions 𝑛 ≃ 12.3, …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schlieren 𝑆𝑥 images in the YZ-plane for a three-dimensional cellular CJ detonation at different densities. (a) run 1e6D, 𝜌0 = 106 g cm−3 , 𝑡 = 0.046 s. (b) run 7e5B, 𝜌0 = 7×105 g cm−3 , 𝑡 = 0.091 s. (c) run 5e6B, 𝜌0 = 5×105 g cm−3 , 𝑡 = 0.49 s. Detonation propagates t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Two-dimensional cellular detonation at 𝜌0 = 106 g cm−3 (run 1e6C2-2D). The size of the computational domain is L=200 km and W=25 km, as for the three-dimensional run 1e6C2. Temperature is shown in the XZ-plane passing through the centerline of the computational domain…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Temperature evolution of the detonation front for 0.3 C and 0.7 O mass fraction, at 𝜌0 = 106 g cm−3 (similar to run 1e6C2) for t=50, 123 and 223 𝑡𝐶 in the XZ-plane passing through the centerline of the computational domain. 𝑇 = {0 − 5 × 109𝐾. Color palette is explaine…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mass fraction of X16 O , same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Mass fraction of X28 Si , same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Schematic of Schlieren visualization. Detonation propagates through the computational domain from left to right. A frontal (head-on) Schlieren image 𝑆𝑥 is generated by integrating along the X-axis of an absolute value of the orthogonal component of the density gradien…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    cheat sheet

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  5. [5]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  6. [6]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  7. [7]

    2023, , 948, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/acad78

    Aldoroty , L., Wang , L., Hoeflich , P., et al. 2023, , 948, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/acad78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acad78 2023

  8. [8]

    W., & Murdin , P

    Alsabti , A. W., & Murdin , P. 2017, Handbook of Supernovae (Berlin: Springer), 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5

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

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al

    Ashall , C., Lu , J., Shappee , B. J., et al. 2022, , 932, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7235

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Wheeler , J

    Boisseau , J. R., Wheeler , J. C., Oran , E. S., & Khokhlov , A. M. 1996, , 471, L99, 10.1086/310338

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    2010, ApJL, 711, L66, 10.1088/2041-8205/711/2/L66

    Bravo , E., Dom \' nguez , I., Badenes , C., Piersanti , L., & Straniero , O. 2010, ApJL, 711, L66, 10.1088/2041-8205/711/2/L66

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    Buckley , D. A. H., Bagnulo , S., Britto , R. J., et al. 2021, , 506, 4621, 10.1093/mnras/stab1791

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Sand , D

    Burke , J., Howell , D. A., Sand , D. J., & Hosseinzadeh , G. 2022 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.11201, 10.48550/arXiv.2208.11201

    2022 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    A., Sand , D

    Burke , J., Howell , D. A., Sand , D. J., et al. 2022 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.07681, 10.48550/arXiv.2207.07681

    2022 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    M., Burns , C

    Contreras , C., Phillips , M. M., Burns , C. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabaf8

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    1928, Mathematische Annalen, 100, 32, 10.1007/BF01448839

    Courant , R., Friedrichs , K., & Lewy , H. 1928, Mathematische Annalen, 100, 32, 10.1007/BF01448839

    1928 doi

  9. [17]

    R., et al

    Deckers , M., Maguire , K., Magee , M. R., et al. 2022, , 512, 1317, 10.1093/mnras/stac558

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Rest , A., et al

    Dimitriadis , G., Foley , R. J., Rest , A., et al. 2019, , 870, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb0

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2001, , 557, 279, 10.1086/321661

    Dom \' nguez , I., H \"o flich , P., & Straniero , O. 2001, , 557, 279, 10.1086/321661

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    2003, , 74, 938

    ---. 2003, , 74, 938

    2003

  13. [21]

    2011, , 730, 87, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/87

    Dom \' nguez , I., & Khokhlov , A. 2011, , 730, 87, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/87

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    1979, Detonation (Los Alamos Series in Basic and Applied Sciences, Berkeley: University of California Press)

    Fickett , W., & Davis , C. 1979, Detonation (Los Alamos Series in Basic and Applied Sciences, Berkeley: University of California Press)

    1979

  15. [23]

    A., Woosley , S

    Fowler , W. A., Woosley , S. E., & Engelbrecht , C. A. 1978, , 226, 984, 10.1086/156679

    1978 doi

  16. [24]

    N., Wheeler , J

    Gamezo , V. N., Wheeler , J. C., Khokhlov , A. M., & Oran , E. S. 1999, , 512, 827, 10.1086/306784

    1999 doi

  17. [25]

    1996, , 457, 500, 10.1086/176748

    Hoeflich , P., & Khokhlov , A. 1996, , 457, 500, 10.1086/176748

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, in Nuclei in the Cosmos XV, Vol

    Hoeflich , P., Ashall , C., Fisher , A., et al. 2019, in Nuclei in the Cosmos XV, Vol. 219, 187--194, 10.1007/978-3-030-13876-9_31

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, , 520, 560, 10.1093/mnras/stad172

    Hoeflich , P., Yang , Y., Baade , D., et al. 2023, , 520, 560, 10.1093/mnras/stad172

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    1993, A&A, 268, 570

    H \"o flich , P., Mueller , E., & Khokhlov , A. 1993, A&A, 268, 570

    1993

  21. [29]

    H \"o flich , P., & Schaefer , B. E. 2009, , 705, 483, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/483

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Valenti , S., et al

    Hosseinzadeh , G., Sand , D. J., Valenti , S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 845, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8402

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Lundqvist , P., et al

    Hosseinzadeh , G., Sand , D. J., Lundqvist , P., et al. 2022, , 933, L45, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7cef

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Hoyle , F., & Fowler , W. A. 1960, ApJ, 132, 565, 10.1086/146963

    1960 doi

  25. [33]

    C., Hoeflich , P., Weatherford , C

    Hristov , B., Collins , D. C., Hoeflich , P., Weatherford , C. A., & Diamond , T. R. 2018, ApJ, 858, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7f2

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.15580, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.15580

    Iwata , K., & Maeda , K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.15580, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.15580

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    1999, YASS, Yet Another Stiff Solver that works, Naval Research Laboratory Technical Memorandoum Reports

    Khokhlov , A. 1999, YASS, Yet Another Stiff Solver that works, Naval Research Laboratory Technical Memorandoum Reports

    1999

  28. [36]

    2015, in ICDERS, Vol

    Khokhlov , A., & Dominguez , I. 2015, in ICDERS, Vol. 297, Proceedings of the 25th International Colloquium on the Explosion of Reactive Systems, 113.07

    2015

  29. [37]

    2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Khokhlov , A., Dom \' nguez , I., Bacon , C., et al. 2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 453, Advances in Computational Astrophysics: Methods, Tools, and Outcome, ed. R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta , M. Limongi , & A. Tornamb \`e , 107

    2012

  30. [38]

    Khokhlov , A. M. 1989 a , , 239, 785, 10.1093/mnras/239.3.785

    1989 doi

  31. [39]

    1989 b , , 239, 785

    ---. 1989 b , , 239, 785

    1989

  32. [40]

    1991, , 245, 114

    ---. 1991, , 245, 114

    1991

  33. [41]

    1998, Journal of Computational Physics, 143, 519, 10.1006/jcph.1998.9998

    ---. 1998, Journal of Computational Physics, 143, 519, 10.1006/jcph.1998.9998

    1998

  34. [42]

    Lee , J. H. S. 1984, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 16, 311–336

    1984

  35. [43]

    2008, The Detonation Phenomenon

    ---. 2008, The Detonation Phenomenon

    2008

  36. [44]

    H., Brown , P

    Marion , G. H., Brown , P. J., Vink \'o , J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 92, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/92

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    1974, Nauchn

    Nadyozhin , D. 1974, Nauchn. Inf., 32, 3

    1974

  38. [46]

    Q., Moon , D.-S., Drout , M

    Ni , Y. Q., Moon , D.-S., Drout , M. R., et al. 2023 a , , 959, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0640

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2023 b , , 946, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca9be

    ---. 2023 b , , 946, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca9be

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    1982, , 257, 780, 10.1086/160031

    Nomoto , K. 1982, , 257, 780, 10.1086/160031

    1982 doi

  41. [49]

    S., & Boris , J

    Oran , E. S., & Boris , J. P. 2000, Numerical Simulation of Reactive Flow

    2000

  42. [50]

    A., Sollerman , J., Schulze , S., et al

    Perley , D. A., Sollerman , J., Schulze , S., et al. 2022, , 927, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac478e

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Cristallo , S., & Tornamb \'e , A

    Piersanti , L., Yungelson , L. R., Cristallo , S., & Tornamb \'e , A. 2019, , 484, 950, 10.1093/mnras/stz033

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    Y., Chambers , J., Ahmed , K., Gamezo , V

    Poludnenko , A. Y., Chambers , J., Ahmed , K., Gamezo , V. N., & Taylor , B. D. 2019, Science, 366, aau7365, 10.1126/science.aau7365

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    S., & Khokhlov , A

    Remming , I. S., & Khokhlov , A. M. 2014, ApJ, 794, 87, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/87

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Holoien , T

    Shappee , B. J., Holoien , T. W. S., Drout , M. R., et al. 2019, , 870, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec79

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    2009, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 32, 83

    Shepherd , J. 2009, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 32, 83

    2009

  48. [56]

    1993, private communication

    Thielemann , F. 1993, private communication

    1993

  49. [57]

    K., Nomoto , K., & Yokoi , K

    Thielemann , F. K., Nomoto , K., & Yokoi , K. 1986, , 158, 17

    1986

  50. [58]

    X., & Swesty , F

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

    2000 doi

  51. [59]

    X., Zingale , M., Olson , K., et al

    Timmes , F. X., Zingale , M., Olson , K., et al. 2000, , 543, 938, 10.1086/317135

    2000 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, , 962, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0edb

    Wang , Q., Rest , A., Dimitriadis , G., et al. 2024, , 962, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0edb

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    Webbink , R. F. 1984, , 277, 355, 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  54. [62]

    E., Fowler , W

    Woosley , S. E., Fowler , W. A., Holmes , J. A., & Zimmerman , B. A. 1978, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 22, 371, 10.1016/0092-640X(78)90018-9

    1978 doi

  55. [63]

    E., Weaver , T

    Woosley , S. E., Weaver , T. A., & Taam , R. E. 1980, in Texas Workshop on Type I Supernovae, ed. J. C. Wheeler , 96--112

    1980

  56. [64]

    G., & Shalybkov , D

    Yakovlev , D. G., & Shalybkov , D. A. 1989, Sov. Sci. Rev. E. Astrophysics and Space Physics, 7, 311

    1989

  57. [66]

    CfA4: Light Curves for 94 Type Ia Supernovae

    Campana, S, Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2008, Nature, 2006, 442, 1008 @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment @comment ################### Hamuy ################ @comment ############...

    1972 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.