Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The two alternative explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae: 2024 status report

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that jets, not neutrinos, are the primary engine of core-collapse supernovae, with neutrino heating acting as a booster rather than the driver.

desk verdict A clear, self-aware polemic for the jittering-jets mechanism; worth reading as a challenge to the neutrino-mechanism consensus, but its central claim goes beyond what the evidence supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08555 v1 pith:35PQ46WM submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.HE

Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapsesupernovaeneutrinomechanismjittering-jetsexplosionsupernovaremnantspointsymmetryfailedenergyneutronstarmasses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper contends that the long-standing neutrino mechanism, in which delayed neutrino heating revives the stalled shock after core collapse, cannot be the primary cause of most core-collapse supernovae. It assembles three observational contradictions: simulated neutrino-driven explosions produce too little energy for typical neutron-star masses, the mechanism predicts many failed supernovae that do not appear in surveys, and it cannot produce the point-symmetric remnant morphologies now identified in twelve supernova remnants. The alternative jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) is proposed as the primary engine: the newborn neutron star launches several to tens of pairs of jets in changing directions, exploding the star, while neutrino heating plays a supporting role that boosts the jet energy. A sympathetic reader would care because this reorders decades of simulation effort: if right, future supernova models must include jets, and neutrino-only simulations describe a secondary effect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM), in which the newborn neutron star or black hole launches several to tens of pairs of jets with stochastically varying directions, exploding the star before neutrino heating expels core material. The quantitative machinery is the specific angular momentum parameter $j_{\rm conv} \equiv v_{\rm conv} r$: pre-collapse core convection supplies seed angular-momentum fluctuations, amplified behind the stalled shock into intermittent accretion disks around the neutron star when $j_{\rm conv} \gtrsim 0.1\text{--}0.25\, j_{d,\rm NS} \simeq 2\times10^{15}\text{--}5\times10^{15}\,\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$. The same convection supplies the density and velocity perturbations that neutrino-mechanism simulations need, so the required seed perturbations are comparable in both pictures. The morphological diagnostic that carries the argument is point symmetry in supernova remnants: opposite pairs of features around the center, expected from jittering jets and reportedly absent in neutrino-mechanism simulations.

What would settle it

A high-resolution 3D simulation of the neutrino mechanism with full or significantly improved neutrino transport that explodes a typical $11\text{--}15\,M_\odot$ progenitor, leaves a roughly $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star, and produces an explosion energy near $10^{51}$ erg without any jets would falsify the energy-crisis argument; conversely, a secure detection of a large population of failed supernovae would falsify the JJEM's no-failed-supernova prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the delayed-neutrino mechanism is not the primary explosion mechanism of core-collapse supernovae; neutrino heating contributes non-negligible energy but cannot supply the observed roughly $10^{51}$ erg explosions. The evidence is threefold. First, recent 3D simulations, when compared with the observed neutron-star mass distribution, reach typical explosion energies only for neutron stars more massive than about $1.5\text{--}1.7\,M_\odot$, while most neutron stars are lighter. Second, the neutrino mechanism's predicted population of failed supernovae is contradicted by recent searches and by re-analyses of candidates such as N6946-BH1 and M31-2014-DS1. Third, point-symmetric morphologies found in twelve supernova remnants, including Cassiopeia A, the Vela remnant, and the Crab Nebula, are naturally produced by jets but not by neutrino-driven explosions in current simulations. The paper concludes that the jittering-jets explosion mechanism, boosted by neutrino heating, is the primary explosion mechanism of core-collapse supernovae.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on current 3D neutrino-mechanism simulations being a fair representation of what neutrino heating alone can do; if their low explosion energies are numerical artifacts of limited resolution or approximate neutrino transport, the energy crisis disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the neutrino mechanism is only a booster, then 3D supernova simulations that exclude jets cannot be used to predict explosion energies, remnant morphologies, or the fraction of failed supernovae.
  • The observed rarity of failed supernovae becomes a direct prediction of the JJEM, since angular momentum fluctuations in the outer envelope can launch jets even when the core collapses to a black hole.
  • Point-symmetric morphology in a supernova remnant becomes a positive diagnostic for jet activity, so imaging more remnants should reveal additional jittering-jet cases.
  • Neutrino heating still shapes the explosion energy, so neutrino emission and nucleosynthesis predictions remain largely valid and cannot distinguish the two mechanisms; gravitational-wave spectra may differ, with roughly $10\text{--}30$ Hz cocoon emission in the JJEM versus roughly $100\text{--}2000$ Hz convection and standing-shock-instability emission in the neutrino mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the JJEM is primary, then the energy shortfall in neutrino-only simulations is not necessarily a numerical defect but an expected feature: jets supply the missing energy, so such simulations should systematically underproduce energy for common, lower-mass neutron stars.
  • The same pre-collapse convection that seeds both mechanisms may also power pre-explosion envelope activity, suggesting a unified route from late-stage core convection to both the explosion trigger and the circumstellar material seen around events such as SN 2023ixf and SN 2024ggi.
  • A testable extension: gravitational-wave observatories sensitive near $10\text{--}30$ Hz should see a low-frequency cocoon component in nearby core-collapse supernovae if jittering jets operate, a signal absent in the neutrino mechanism.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper compares the delayed-neutrino mechanism and the jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) for core-collapse supernovae, focusing on results from 2024. The author argues that recent 3D neutrino-mechanism simulations produce explosion energies too low to be the primary driver, that the predicted population of failed supernovae is not observed, and that 12 point-symmetric supernova remnants are naturally explained by jittering jets but not by neutrino-driven explosions. He concludes that JJEM is the primary explosion mechanism, with neutrino heating playing only a boosting role. The paper also discusses pre-collapse convection as a common seed-perturbation source and proposes a link between core convection and pre-explosion envelope activity.

Significance. If the paper's conclusions were correct, they would overturn the standard paradigm for core-collapse supernovae. The paper is useful as a compilation of recent 2024 results and as a clear articulation of a minority position, and it makes at least one falsifiable prediction (the reappearance of M31-2014-DS1). However, the central claim is not supported by the evidence presented: the energy comparison is selective, the failed-supernova argument is inconclusive, and the morphological evidence is circular. The paper is therefore of limited value as a rigorous status report, though it may serve as a provocative perspective piece.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 1] The energy-crisis argument is not a valid test of whether the neutrino mechanism can supply observed explosion energies. The comparison selects only exploding models (the non-exploding MZAMS = 12.25 and 14 solar-mass cases are omitted), excludes the MZAMS = 25 and 60 solar-mass models with only a qualitative 'very small fraction' argument rather than an IMF-weighted accounting, takes the upper end of reported energy ranges, and treats energies evaluated over about 4 seconds as asymptotic values. The paper itself concedes in Section 5 that future simulations may yield higher explosion energies, so the conclusion that the neutrino mechanism cannot be the primary explosion mechanism is not established by this comparison.
  2. [Section 2, point 5 (failed supernovae)] The argument that the absence of failed supernovae contradicts the neutrino mechanism is not decisive because the observational status is explicitly under debate, as the paper notes with references to Beasor et al. 2024b, Kochanek 2024, and De et al. 2024. The dismissal of N6946-BH1 and M31-2014-DS1 as type II ILOTs rests on the author's own ILOT/JJEM scenarios; for M31-2014-DS1 the estimate that 0.01 solar masses accreted through intermittent disks yields 10^51 erg is a model-dependent assumption, not a constraint from those observations. Thus the paper does not demonstrate that the neutrino-mechanism prediction of a failed-SN population is contradicted.
  3. [Section 1 and Section 2, point 7] The point-symmetric morphology evidence is circular as presented. All 12 listed CCSNRs are attributed to jittering jets by Soker and collaborators, and the assertion that point-symmetric features are jet imprints is part of the JJEM framework rather than an independent observational test. The fact that current neutrino-mechanism simulations do not produce such morphologies (e.g., Vartanyan et al. 2024) does not prove that the neutrino mechanism cannot, especially since those simulations may not include all relevant physics.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5] The overall conclusion overstates what the evidence supports. At most, the paper shows that current 3D neutrino-mechanism simulations face challenges in reproducing the highest observed explosion energies and that some CCSNRs have point-symmetric features; this is weaker than the claim that the neutrino mechanism cannot be the primary explosion mechanism of CCSNe. The conclusion also relies on the unproven assumption that jittering jets always operate before neutrino heating can revive the shock.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, point 2] There is a typo in 'Gravitaional waves' which should read 'Gravitational waves'.
  2. [Section 3] The expression 'Eexp = 0.54 − 0.72 erg' should be 'Eexp = 0.54−0.72 foe' (foe = 10^51 erg).
  3. [Figure 1 and surrounding text] The description is inconsistent: the text refers to a 'dotted-purple line' while the figure caption calls it a 'dashed-purple line', and the symbol for the explosion energy is written as both 'eexp' and 'Eexp'.
  4. [References] Several references appear to be duplicated or misnumbered: Soker (2024h) and Soker (2024i) have identical journal and article identifiers, and Muller (2024a) and Muller (2024b) share the same arXiv number.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's central morphological evidence for JJEM is a self-citation loop: point-symmetric CCSNRs are attributed to jittering jets in the author's own papers and then cited as decisive support that rules out the neutrino mechanism.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 1 (list of 12 CCSNRs) and Section 2, point 7]
    "The list of 12 point-symmetric CCSNRs with attributed morphologies to the JJEM is as follows: SNR 0540-69.3 (Soker 2022a), the Vela CCSNR (Soker 2023b; Soker & Shishkin 2024), CTB 1 (Bear & Soker 2023), Cassiopeia A (Bear & Soker 2024), Puppis A (Bear et al. 2024), the Cygnus Loop (Shishkin et al. 2024), N63A (Soker 2024c), SN 1987A (Soker 2024d,e), G321.3–3.9 (Soker 2024f; Shishkin & Soker 2025), G107.7-5.1 (Soker 2024f), W44 (Soker 2024g), and the Crab Nebula (Shishkin & Soker 2024)."

    Every listed attribution of a point-symmetric CCSNR to the JJEM is to papers by Soker and coauthors, and the 'robust point-symmetric morphologies' that 'decisively strongly support the JJEM' are the same features those papers interpreted as jet imprints. The JJEM defines its diagnostic — opposite structural features imprinted by jittering jets — as point symmetry; the remnants are then classified as jet-shaped using that definition, and the same classification is cited as confirmation that jets are primary. The neutrino mechanism is ruled out on the strength of this self-attribution chain rather than on an external, independently established jet signature.

full rationale

The energy-crisis and failed-supernova arguments are not circular: Section 3 compares published neutrino-mechanism simulation energies against observed NS masses, and those simulation outputs are external inputs, not fitted parameters of this paper. The author even concedes that 'Future simulations of the neutrino mechanism may result in higher explosion energies,' so the energy deficit is a debatable extrapolation rather than a circular reduction. The circularity sits in the morphological pillar, which the abstract calls 'the most challenging issue.' All 12 point-symmetric CCSNRs used to rule out the neutrino mechanism are attributed to jittering jets in papers by the same group, and the same papers are cited for the claim that the neutrino mechanism cannot explain such morphologies. Because the JJEM's diagnostic is the very interpretation used to classify the remnants, the morphological support reduces to self-attribution. That makes the paper's 'JJEM is primary' conclusion partly constructed from its own framework, although the energy discussion remains independent content. Score 6 reflects partial circularity in the central claim, not a fully self-contained derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed existence of jittering jets with no direct detection, on a free threshold for disk formation, and on the assumption that current neutrino simulations are representative. The energy crisis uses simulation energies from external groups, but the interpretation of those numbers as ruling out the neutrino mechanism is an extra step.

free parameters (3)
  • j_conv threshold for intermittent accretion disks = 0.1-0.25 j_d,NS (i.e., ~2e15-5e15 cm^2/s)
    Section 4.1: the specific angular momentum required for accretion disk formation is assumed to be 0.1-0.25 of the NS disk value. The paper states the needed perturbation magnitude in the JJEM 'is still a free parameter.'
  • Jet mass-to-energy conversion efficiency = 5% (0.05)
    Section 2, point 5: the estimate that M31-2014-DS1 would produce an explosion energy of ~1e51 erg uses 'releases 5% of its mass.' The efficiency is chosen ad hoc.
  • Wave power coupling efficiency eta_c = <0.1
    Section 4.2, Eq. (2): introduced to estimate envelope energy deposition from core convection, but not used in the central claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A newborn NS or black hole launches several to tens of pairs of jets with stochastic directions (JJEM postulate)
    Section 1. This is the foundational postulate of the JJEM and is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Jets start to operate before the neutrino mechanism can revive the shock
    Section 5: 'Jets start to operate before the neutrino mechanism might have operated.' This is asserted without a quantitative timing model.
  • domain assumption Current 3D neutrino-mechanism simulations capture the energy budget of the real mechanism
    Section 3: the energy crisis argument relies on the representativeness of Burrows et al. and Janka & Kresse simulations.
invented entities (1)
  • Jittering jets from intermittent accretion disks around the newborn NS/BH
    purpose: Proposed as the primary CCSN explosion engine, replacing neutrino heating as the main driver
    The jets themselves are not directly observed; their existence is inferred from point-symmetric remnant morphologies interpreted by the author's group. No independent detection of such jets exists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The two alternative explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae: 2024 status report." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/35PQ46WM

@misc{pith2026241108555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The two alternative explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae: 2024 status report},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/35PQ46WM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08555}
}
read the original abstract

In comparing the two alternative explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe), I examine recent three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamical simulations of CCSNe in the frame of the delayed-neutrino explosion mechanism (neutrino mechanism) and argue that these valuable simulations show that neutrino heating can supply a non-negligible fraction of the explosion energy but not the observed energies, hence cannot be the primary explosion mechanism. In addition to the energy crisis, the neutrino mechanism predicts many failed supernovae that are not observed. The most challenging issue of the neutrino mechanism is that it cannot account for point-symmetric morphologies of CCSN remnants, many of which were identified in 2024. These contradictions with observations imply that the neutrino mechanism cannot be the primary explosion mechanism of CCSNe. The alternative jittering-jets explosion mechanism (JJEM) seems to be the primary explosion mechanism of CCSNe; neutrino heating boosts the energy of the jittering jets. Even if some simulations show explosions of stellar models (but usually with energies below observed), it does not mean that the neutrino mechanism is the explosion mechanism. Jittering jets, which simulations do not include, can explode the core before the neutrino heating process does. Morphological signatures of jets in many CCSN remnants suggest that jittering jets are the primary driving mechanism, as expected by the JJEM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08555 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mass distribution of NSs adapted from Ozel & Freire ¨ (2016) (three solid lines; scale on left). With a dashed-purple line and one solid-orange line, I added the explosion energy as a function of NS mass as Burrows et al. (2024a) obtained in their simulations of the neutrino mechanism (see text for more details). The units of explosion energy (right axis) are foe = 1051 erg. The only simulations of Burrows et al. (2… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The main jet axis of the W49B supernova remnant

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The two ears and three arcs in W49B are identified as jet-inflated structures and remnants of circum-jet rings, implying W49B was not a type Ia supernova.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., Kochanek, C

    Adams, S. M., Kochanek, C. S., Gerke, J. R., Stanek, K. Z., & Dai, X. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4968, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx816

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx816 2017

  2. [2]

    P., Andersen, O

    Andresen, H., O’Connor, E. P., Andersen, O. E., & Couch, S. M. 2024, A&A, 687, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449776

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449776 2024

  3. [3]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3776 —

    Antoni, A., & Quataert, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3776 —. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 1229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2328

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3776 2022

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11453, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11453

    Bear, E., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11453, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.11453

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.11453 2024

  5. [5]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad07 —

    Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2018, ApJ, 855, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad07 —. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 266, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1392 —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.07625, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.07625

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07625 2018

  6. [6]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a9d

    Bear, E., Soker, N., & Kashi, A. 2022, ApJ, 934, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a9d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a9d 2022

  7. [7]

    R., Hosseinzadeh, G., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Hosseinzadeh, G., Smith, N., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 964, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad21fa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad21fa

  8. [8]

    R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J

    Beasor, E. R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J. E. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14027. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14027

    arXiv

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Nugent, R

    Bietenholz, M. F., & Nugent, R. L. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2416, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2112

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, 023007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023007

    Boccioli, L., & Fragione, G. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 023007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023007

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Boccioli, L., Gogilashvili, M., Murphy, J., & O’Connor, E. P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17232, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.17232

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2024, Universe, 10, 148, doi: 10.3390/universe10030148

    Boccioli, L., & Roberti, L. 2024, Universe, 10, 148, doi: 10.3390/universe10030148

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf82e

    Bollig, R., Yadav, N., Kresse, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 915, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf82e

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Sand, D

    Bostroem, K. A., Sand, D. J., Dessart, L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7855

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2024a, ApJL, 964, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024a, ApJL, 964, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e

    doi

  8. [16]

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., Vartanyan, D., & Coleman, M. S. B. 2024b, ApJ, 963, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2353

    doi

  9. [17]

    A., & Fraser, M

    Byrne, R. A., & Fraser, M. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1308

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3745

    Cohen, T., & Soker, N. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3745

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Chatzopoulos, E., Arnett, W

    Couch, S. M., Chatzopoulos, E., Arnett, W. D., & Timmes, F. X. 2015, ApJL, 808, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L21

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    E., et al

    De, K., MacLeod, M., Jencson, J. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14778. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14778

    2024

  13. [21]

    J., & Audit, E

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Audit, E. 2017, A&A, 605, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730942

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    E., & Couch, S

    Fields, C. E., & Couch, S. M. 2020, ApJ, 901, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abada7

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Fiorillo, D. F. G., Heinlein, M., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 083040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083040

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 47, doi: 10.33232/001c.120130

    Fuller, J., & Tsuna, D. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 47, doi: 10.33232/001c.120130

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 4011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu257 —

    Gilkis, A., & Soker, N. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 4011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu257 —. 2016, ApJ, 827, 40, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/40 9

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, ApJ, 826, 178, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/178

    Gilkis, A., Soker, N., & Papish, O. 2016, ApJ, 826, 178, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/178

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07287

    Hiramatsu, D., Berger, E., Gomez, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07287. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07287

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints

    Chen, L.-W. 2024, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16189

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hwang, U., & Laming, J. M. 2012, ApJ, 746, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/130

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Igoshev, A. P. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa958 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf2ec

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e

    Janka, H.-T. 2017, ApJ, 837, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    T., & Kresse, D

    Janka, H. T., & Kresse, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13817, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13817

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx240

    Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx240

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae589

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Neustadt, J

    Kochanek, C. S., Neustadt, J. M. M., & Stanek, K. Z. 2024, ApJ, 962, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18d7

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Moiseenko, S

    Kondratyev, I. A., Moiseenko, S. G., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09521. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09521

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Laplace, E., Schneider, F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02058, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02058

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    P., Bersten, M

    Martinez, L., Anderson, J. P., Bersten, M. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142555

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Sim, S

    Maunder, T., Callan, F. P., Sim, S. A., Heger, A., & M¨ uller, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.20829, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.20829

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Mayer, M. G. F., Becker, W., Predehl, P., & Sasaki, M. 2023, A&A, 676, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346691

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Wolfe, N

    Meskhi, M. M., Wolfe, N. E., Dai, Z., et al. 2022, ApJL, 932, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7054

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Lentz, E

    Mezzacappa, A., Bruenn, S. W., Lentz, E. J., et al. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 488, 8th International Conference of Numerical Modeling of Space Plasma Flows (ASTRONUM 2013), ed. N. V. Pogorelov, E. Audit, & G. P. Zank, 102, doi: 10.485...

    2014 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    E., et al

    Mezzacappa, A., Marronetti, P., Landfield, R. E., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 043008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043008

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Yoon, S.-C., Gr¨ afener, G., & Blinnikov, S

    Moriya, T. J., Yoon, S.-C., Gr¨ afener, G., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2017, MNRAS, 469, L108, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx056 M¨ uller, B. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.18952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.18952 —. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.18952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.18952 M¨ ...

    2017 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08367, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08367

    Nakamura, K., Takiwaki, T., Matsumoto, J., & Kotake, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08367, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08367

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    D., Burrows, A., Livne, E., & Ott, C

    Nordhaus, J., Brandt, T. D., Burrows, A., Livne, E., & Ott, C. D. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 103016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.103016

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    T., et al

    Orlando, S., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039335 ¨Ozel, F., & Freire, P. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 401, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Quataert, E., Lecoanet, D., & Coughlin, E. R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L83, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz031

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    Quataert, E., & Shiode, J. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L92, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01264.x

    2012

  42. [50]

    Ro, S., & Matzner, C. D. 2017, ApJ, 841, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d5c

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    T., Kifonidis, K., & M¨ uller, E

    Scheck, L., Plewa, T., Janka, H. T., Kifonidis, K., & M¨ uller, E. 2004, PhRvL, 92, 011103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.011103

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1361

    Fischer, T. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1361

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    H., & Quataert, E

    Shiode, J. H., & Quataert, E. 2014, ApJ, 780, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/96

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11014

    Shishkin, D., Kaye, R., & Soker, N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11014. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11014

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, L43, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab105 —

    Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2021, MNRAS, 508, L43, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab105 —. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1075 —. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.07938. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07938 —. 2025, In preparation

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1302.5037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.5037 —

    Soker, N. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1302.5037, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.5037 —. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 112, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/112 —. 2022a, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035019, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac49e6 —. 2022b, Resear...

    2013 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02626, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02626

    Soker, N., & Shishkin, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02626, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02626

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2024, ApJL, 964, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3064

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, ApJ, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38 van Baal, B. F. A., Jerkstrand, A., Wongwathanarat, A., &

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1603

    Janka, H.-T. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1603

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    Varma, V., M¨ uller, B., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3247

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2585

    Dolence, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2585

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    Vartanyan, D., Tsang, B. T. H., Kasen, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03434. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03434

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Wang, N. Y. N., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2024, ApJ, 969, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad487f

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5009

    Wang, T., & Burrows, A. 2024, ApJ, 969, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5009

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

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

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    Wu, S., & Fuller, J. 2021, ApJ, 906, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87c

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    C., & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. C., & Fuller, J. 2022, ApJ, 930, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac660c

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    2024, ApJL, 969, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b3

    Xiang, D., Mo, J., Wang, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b3

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 4916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3342

    Xu, F., Geng, J.-J., Wang, X., Li, L., & Huang, Y.-F. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3342

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    2008, ApJ, 679, 607, doi: 10.1086/587732

    Yamasaki, T., & Foglizzo, T. 2008, ApJ, 679, 607, doi: 10.1086/587732

    2008 doi

  64. [72]

    Yang, H., & Chevalier, R. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 153, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/153

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    N., et al

    Yao, J., Zhu, W., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 788, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01360-w

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07335

    Zapartas, E., de Wit, S., Antoniadis, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07335, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07335

    2024 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02072, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.02072

    Zha, S., M¨ uller, B., & Powell, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.02072, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.02072

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5da4

    Zhang, J., Dessart, L., Wang, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5da4

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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