Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Inhomogeneous stellar mixing in the final hours before the Cassiopeia A supernova

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Cassiopeia A supernova remnant preserves chemical evidence of a shell merger in the star's final hours before collapse.

desk verdict A new, well-measured compositional pattern in Cas A's O-rich ejecta, but the claim that it proves a pre-supernova shell merger is overstated because post-explosion mixing is not ruled out. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07563 v1 pith:BMZYXX3A submitted 2025-07-10 astro-ph.HE

Toshiki Sato , Kai Matsunaga , Hiroyuki Uchida , Satoru Katsuda , Koh Takahashi , Hideyuki Umeda , Tomoya Takiwaki , Ryo Sawada
show 5 more authors
Takashi Yoshida Ko Nakamura Yui Kuboike Paul P. Plucinsky John P. Hughes
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords massivestarsshellmergerCassiopeiaAsupernovaremnantsX-rayspectroscopystellarnucleosynthesiscore-collapsesupernovaepre-supernovaasymmetry
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 reports the first observational evidence that the final stellar burning stage can reshape the inside of a massive star in the last hours before it explodes. Using deep Chandra X-ray spectra of fifteen oxygen-rich ejecta knots in the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant, the authors measure the ratios Ne/Mg and Si/Mg and find they vary by nearly an order of magnitude from one knot to the next, with neon-poor, silicon-rich knots sitting beside neon-rich, silicon-poor knots. They interpret this as the fingerprint of a "shell merger," a violent event in which the oxygen-burning shell swallowed the outer carbon/neon-burning shell, burning inward-drawn neon and carrying silicon outward, without fully homogenizing the layer before collapse. If the interpretation is right, Cassiopeia A is a fossil of a process that theorists have only simulated, and it explains both the remnant's famously low neon abundance and its asymmetric explosion.

What carries the argument

The two diagnostics that carry the argument are the mass ratios Ne/Mg and Si/Mg in fifteen spatially distinct O-rich regions, chosen because neon, magnesium, and silicon all coexist in the shell-merger convection zone and so avoid the systematic uncertainties that affect oxygen-based ratios. The theoretical side rests on the Si mass radius $M_r(\mathrm{Si}=0.05)$, defined as the maximum mass radius at which the silicon mass fraction exceeds 0.05 in one-dimensional pre-supernova models: models that have undergone a shell merger reach $\gtrsim 3.0\,M_\odot$ while standard models stay below $2.5\,M_\odot$. Plotting the observed knots against 1,499 such models shows the remnant straddling the two families, and a comparison with a three-dimensional shell-merger simulation reproduces the coexistence of large-scale O/Si-rich material with small surviving O/Ne-rich clumps.

What would settle it

A dedicated three-dimensional simulation of the explosion and remnant phase that starts from a homogeneous O/Ne-rich progenitor and reproduces the observed Ne/Mg–Si/Mg anti-correlation through post-explosion mixing alone would falsify the shell-merger interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Cassiopeia A's oxygen-rich ejecta contain a frozen record of a shell merger that began less than roughly $10^4$ seconds before gravitational collapse. The observed anti-correlation between Ne/Mg and Si/Mg across the remnant places some knots in the O/Ne-rich regime expected of progenitors that never merged their shells and others in the O/Si-rich regime expected after a merger. The coexistence of both regimes in the same remnant implies the merger did not homogenize the O-rich layer, leaving multi-scale compositional inhomogeneities and asymmetric velocity fields. This, the authors argue, is the first direct evidence that the final burning phase rapidly alters the pre-supernova interior, seeding the asymmetries that facilitate the explosion and influence the neutron star's kick and spin.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the observed neon-poor, silicon-rich knots were produced inside the progenitor before the explosion, and that no post-explosion process—such as Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities or reverse-shock processing—could create the same anti-correlation from an initially homogeneous O/Ne-rich ejecta.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pre-supernova asymmetry seeds explosion asymmetries and helps revive the stalled shock in neutrino-driven supernova models.
  • Cassiopeia A's low Ne/O, long noted from optical and X-ray data, finds a natural explanation: shell burning consumed Ne in the merged layer, rather than exotic nucleosynthesis.
  • The inferred last-hours timescale ($\sim 10^4$ s) sets a constraint on convection and mixing speed in the final burning stage.
  • The neutron-star kick and spin of the remnant can be linked to the low-mode convective flow asymmetries seeded by the shell merger.
  • Progenitor models without shell mergers cannot reproduce the observed composition, narrowing the acceptable initial mass range toward roughly 17–20 $M_\odot$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence not pursued here: other young oxygen-rich remnants whose progenitors fall in the ~15–20 $M_\odot$ range should show a similar Ne/Mg–Si/Mg scatter, while remnants of lower- or higher-mass stars should not.
  • The degree of surviving inhomogeneity could be read as a clock: the smaller the O/Ne-rich clumps, the closer the collapse followed the shell merger, so mapping more knots could time the pre-supernova interior.
  • Because the authors note that rotation and binary stripping can alter shell-merger mixing, comparing the scatter in Cassiopeia A with that in remnants with stripped-envelope histories could test single-star against binary evolution.
  • A finer angular map with future X-ray instruments could reveal whether the inhomogeneity continues to smaller scales, tightening the comparison with the 3D simulation's clump sizes.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes deep Chandra ACIS-S spectra of 15 O-rich ejecta knots in Cassiopeia A and reports a correlated decrease of Ne/Mg with increasing Si/Mg across these regions. Comparing the observed ratios to 1D pre-supernova models from Sukhbold et al. (2018), the authors argue that the Cas A progenitor experienced a shell merger in its final hours, that the merger inhomogeneously mixed the O-rich layer, and that the remnant today preserves both O/Ne-rich and O/Si-rich ejecta. They further infer that the shell merger began ≲10^4 s before collapse and that this pre-supernova asymmetry helped shape the explosion.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, this would be the first direct observational evidence of a shell merger in a massive star's final hours, with substantial implications for explosion asymmetries, neutron-star kicks, and remnant morphology. The spectral analysis is careful: the authors use a deep 1 Ms Chandra dataset, fit two different plasma models, and justify the choice of Ne/Mg and Si/Mg over O-based ratios. The comparison against a large public progenitor grid is transparent, and the paper clearly acknowledges several limitations. The observational data are valuable regardless of the astrophysical conclusion. However, the central inference currently rests on a verbal argument against post-explosion mixing that is not backed by any quantitative test, and the shell-merger classification threshold is ad hoc. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 4] The central claim that the observed Ne/Mg–Si/Mg anti-correlation cannot be produced by post-explosion mixing is not supported by any quantitative analysis. Section 3 states that the trend 'would be difficult to explain' by post-explosion mixing, and Section 4 asserts that 'post-supernova mixing alone would not explain the inhomogeneity,' but no mixing calculation or simulation is presented. This is a critical gap because a simple two-component mixture of an O/Ne-rich plasma (e.g., NE-a in Table A3: Ne/Mg ≈ 5.1, Si/Mg ≈ 0.31) with an Si-rich explosive product (e.g., SE-2: Ne/Mg ≈ 1.4, Si/Mg ≈ 8.8) naturally produces decreasing Ne/Mg with increasing Si/Mg, the same direction as the observed trend. The authors' statement that the reduction in Ne cannot be explained by mixing appears to assume that the Si-rich component must itself be Ne-rich, but explosive oxygen-burning products are Ne-poor, so dilution does lower Ne/Mg. The authors themselves concede in Section 4 that future work must 'compare the effects of mixing during the neutrino-driven explosion and the remnant phase,' which is precisely the test that is missing for the current conclusion. Without such a test, the data are equally consistent with post-explosion mixing of two reservoirs, and the pre-supernova shell-merger interpretation is not established.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 4] The definition of the shell-merger group relies on the hand-chosen threshold Mr(Si=0.05) ≥ 3 M⊙. This threshold is introduced visually ('we found that models with Mr(Si=0.05) ≳ 3 M⊙ form an isolated group') and is not derived from a physical principle or from the observational data. The paper does not test whether the conclusions change for threshold values such as 2.8 or 3.2 M⊙, nor for the alternative O-rich layer definition of oxygen mass fraction > 0.4. Because the central interpretation is that the observed points fall into two distinct progenitor groups, a sensitivity analysis of this classification is required.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 4 and Table A3] The comparison between local observational ratios and 1D model-averaged compositions is not apples-to-apples. The models are 1D and the plotted mass ratios are averages over the entire O-rich layer (oxygen mass fraction > 0.4), while the observations are 2-arcsec regions that may sample only a small portion of that layer, possibly with substantial explosive-nucleosynthesis contributions. The high Si, S, Ar, and Ca abundances in SE-2 (Table 1) are reminiscent of explosive oxygen burning, yet the paper classifies this region as O-rich stellar ejecta solely on the basis of Fe/O < 0.2. The authors acknowledge the 1D/3D issue in Sections 2 and 4, but they do not quantify how much of the observed Si in the O/Si-rich knots could be explosive in origin. This is a load-bearing ambiguity: if the Si-rich knots are dominated by explosive products, the comparison to pre-supernova shell-merger models is invalid.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3 heading] The heading 'DATA ANALYIS' contains a typo and should read 'DATA ANALYSIS'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains typos: 'C-/-Ne-burning shell' and 'arrrow' should be corrected.
  3. [Table A2 caption] The caption says 'Same as Table A2' but should refer to Table 1.
  4. [Section 3, paragraph on spectral fitting] The sentence 'The increase in Si accompanying the decrease in Ne would be difficult to explain the effects of post-explosion mixing' is ungrammatical; consider rewording to '...difficult to explain as the effects of post-explosion mixing'.
  5. [Appendix A] The statement that the low Ne/O ratio 'can only be explained by stars undergoing shell mergers' is too strong given the mixing degeneracy acknowledged in Appendix B, and should be softened.
  6. [Figure 4 caption] The caption should explicitly define all plotting symbols and the color scale (mass ranges and Mr(Si=0.05)), as the current description is incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparison uses the external Sukhbold et al. (2018) model grid, and the observed Ne/Mg and Si/Mg data are not fitted to the shell-merger diagnostic.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: extract Chandra ACIS-S spectra from 15 O-rich regions, fit plasma models to obtain Ne/Mg and Si/Mg, overlay these ratios on the 1D pre-supernova grid of Sukhbold et al. (2018), classify models by the mass radius Mr(Si=0.05), and conclude that the observed spread across 'O-/Ne-rich' and 'O-/Si-rich' groups implies inhomogeneous shell-merger mixing. The threshold Mr(Si=0.05) >= 3 M⊙ is defined from the model grid, not tuned to the Cassiopeia A data, so the comparison is not a fitted-input-called-prediction. The observed anti-correlation is an independent spectroscopic measurement. Self-citations appear (Matsunaga et al. 2024; Sato et al. 2025; Yoshida et al. 2019, 2021), but the key model dataset is external, and the same assumptions are supported by non-self citations such as Woosley & Weaver (1995) and Thielemann et al. (1996). The paper's weakest point is the verbal dismissal of post-explosion mixing in Section 3 and Section 4 ('post-supernova mixing alone would not explain the inhomogeneity'), which is a quantitative-support gap rather than a circular reduction; no equation or fitted parameter is reused as its own conclusion. The conditional framing in Section 2 ('assuming a shell merger as the origin of the low Ne abundance') is an explicit assumption, not a hidden equivalence. Overall the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations and a conditional argument structure; this does not rise to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumptions about the nucleosynthetic origin of the ejecta, the validity of 1D models and the Mr(Si=0.05) tracer, and the behavior of post-explosion mixing. The chosen thresholds (Si fraction 0.05, mass radius 3 M⊙, O fraction 0.4) are analysis choices on the model grid, not fitted to Cas A.

free parameters (4)
  • Mr(Si=0.05) radius threshold = ≥3.0 M⊙
    Hand-defined boundary on the 1D model grid to classify shell-merger models; not fitted to Cas A data, but the specific value influences which models are called shell mergers.
  • Si fraction threshold in Mr(Si=0.05) = 0.05
    Choice of threshold for defining the Si-rich region in model profiles; changing this value changes the model classification.
  • O-rich layer mass fraction threshold = O mass fraction > 0.4
    Used to compute theoretical Ne/Mg and Si/Mg in pre-SN models; changing this cutoff changes the model ratios.
  • Region selection (2 arcsec radius, 15 regions) = N = 15, r = 2 arcsec
    The observed mass ratios depend on the specific regions chosen by eye from the three-color image, which may bias the inferred spread.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The O-rich ejecta in Cas A were synthesized during hydrostatic nucleosynthesis, and explosive nucleosynthesis does not significantly alter Ne/Mg and Si/Mg in this material.
    Invoked in Section 4 when computing theoretical mass ratios from pre-SN models ('assuming that the effects of explosive nucleosynthesis can be ignored') and in Appendix A. If false, the direct comparison of observed ejecta composition to pre-SN models would be invalid.
  • domain assumption The 1D pre-supernova models of Sukhbold et al. (2018) provide a valid description of the O-rich layer composition and its dependence on shell mergers for the Cas A progenitor.
    The entire model comparison uses these 1D models; the authors acknowledge that 1D and 3D mixing differ.
  • domain assumption The mass radius Mr(Si=0.05) is a reliable proxy for the occurrence and extent of shell mergers.
    Used in Section 4 and Appendix C to classify models into shell-merger and non-shell-merger groups; if this proxy fails, the interpretation of the two observed groups collapses.
  • domain assumption Post-explosion mixing and reverse-shock processing cannot reproduce the observed anti-correlation between Ne/Mg and Si/Mg.
    Stated in Section 3 without a quantitative baseline model; the argument is verbal.
  • domain assumption The 15 selected regions are representative of the O-rich ejecta and avoid pile-up contamination.
    Selection by eye from a three-color image could bias the measured abundance spread; Section 3 and Figure 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inhomogeneous stellar mixing in the final hours before the Cassiopeia A supernova." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BMZYXX3A

@misc{pith2026250707563,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inhomogeneous stellar mixing in the final hours before the Cassiopeia A supernova},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BMZYXX3A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07563}
}
abstract

Understanding stars and their evolution is a key goal of astronomical research and has long been a focus of human interest. In recent years, theorists have paid much attention to the final interior processes within massive stars, as they can be essential for revealing neutrino-driven supernova mechanisms and other potential transients of massive star collapse. However, it is challenging to observe directly the last hours of a massive star before explosion, since it is the supernova event that triggers the start of intense observational study. Here we report evidence for a final phase of stellar activity known as a ``shell merger'', an intense shell burning in which the O-burning shell swallows its outer C-/Ne-burning shell, deep within the progenitor's interior moments before the supernova explosion. In the violent convective layer created by the shell merger, Ne, which is abundant in the stellar O-rich layer, is burned as it is pulled inward, and Si, which is synthesized inside, is transported outward. The remnant still preserves some traces of such Ne-rich downflows and Si-rich upflows in the O-rich layer, suggesting that inhomogeneous shell-merger mixing began just hours ($\lesssim 10^4$ s) before its gravitational collapse. Our results provide the first observational evidence that the final stellar burning process rapidly alters the internal structure, leaving a pre-supernova asymmetry. This breaking of spherical symmetry facilitates the explosion of massive stars and influences various supernova and remnant characteristics, including explosion asymmetries and the neutron star's kick and spin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07563 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sketch of a slice through the interior of a massive star in the process of a “shell merger”. The shells are drawn roughly to scale by mass, but the plumes are a coarse representation of the expected complex convective “fingers”. An intense O shell burning merges with the outer C-/-Ne-burning shell burning, forming a larger convective layer. In the merged layer, the extended convection effi￾ciently brings Ne into t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inhomogeneous elemental distribution in Cassiopeia A observed by Chandra. The difference in the mixing ratio of blue and green colors clearly shows the different composition in the O-rich ejecta, where red, green, and blue include emission within energy bands of 6.54–6.92 keV (Fe Heα), 1.76-1.94 keV (Si Heα), and 0.60-0.85 keV (O lines), respectively. The ejecta highlighted in red and green are products of explosive… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A sequence of four X-ray spectra showing the gradual change of composition among O-rich ejecta regions in Cassiopeia A. From left to right, the compositions gradually change from O-/Ne-rich to O-/Si-rich. The solid red line shows the best-fit plasma model. The best-fit parameters of these fits are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inhomogeneous shell-merger mixing suggested by Si/Mg and Ne/Mg ratios. The remnant retains characteristics of stars that underwent a shell merger (O-/Si-rich: lower right of panel) and those that did not (O-/Ne-rich: upper left of panel), suggesting that the shell merg…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of compositional variations in O-rich ejecta within Cassiopeia A and those in a 3D stellar simulation that underwent a shell merger (N. Yadav et al. 2020). (a) This image of Cassiopeia A was obtained by subtracting the Si band (1.76–1.94 keV) flux from the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pre-supernova internal structure of Cassiopeia A inferred from its neutron star mass and ejecta mass. The vertical axis shows the core mass, M4, enclosed at the point where the entropy in the progenitor exceeds a value of 4 kB baryon−1 , which is similar to the neutron…

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. Potassium abundances in extremely metal poor stars: Implications for nucleosynthesis in the final stages of massive star evolution

    astro-ph.SR 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Potassium-to-iron and potassium-to-calcium ratios in seven extremely metal-poor stars show ~0.1 dex scatter, implying K production in massive stars or supernovae is decoupled from the processes driving Na/Mg variation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  2. [2]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2952

    Andrassy, R., Herwig, F., Woodward, P., & Ritter, C. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2952

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2952 2020

  3. [3]

    D., & Meakin, C

    Arnett, W. D., & Meakin, C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/78

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/78 2011

  4. [4]

    1994, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 433, L41, doi: 10.1086/187543 13 Figure A9

    Bazan, G., & Arnett, D. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 433, L41, doi: 10.1086/187543 13 Figure A9. Mass fraction profiles for characteristic progenitor models in T. Sukhbold et al. (2018). Top: a progenitor model with a standard O-/Ne-rich layer. Middle: a progenitor model that has undergone a shell merger, forming a Ne-poor O-/Si-rich layer. Bo...

    doi:10.1086/187543 2018

  5. [5]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf82e

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf82e 2021

  6. [6]

    2021, Nature, 589, 29, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w 14 T able A3.Elemental mass ratios in each O-rich region

    Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2021, Nature, 589, 29, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w 14 T able A3.Elemental mass ratios in each O-rich region. The errors are 1 σ level. MNe/MO MMg/MO MSi/MO MSi/MMg MNe/MMg NE-a (1.3 +0.1 −0.2)×10−1 (2.5+0.1 −0.3)×10−2 (7.7+0.7 −1.0)×10−3 (3.1+0.3 −0.5)×10−1 5.1+0.4 −0.9 NE-b (4.4 +1.1 −0.5)×10−2 (1.5+0.2 −0.1)×10−2 (1.1+0....

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w 2021

  7. [7]

    C., Skinner, M

    Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., Dolence, J. C., Skinner, M. A., & Radice, D. 2018, SSRv, 214, 33, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0450-9

    doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0450-9 2018

  8. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    A., & Kirshner, R

    Chevalier, R. A., & Kirshner, R. P. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal, 233, 154, doi: 10.1086/157377

    1979 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Oishi, J

    Chevalier, R. A., & Oishi, J. 2003, ApJL, 593, L23, doi: 10.1086/377572

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 1695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2470

    Collins, C., M¨ uller, B., & Heger, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 1695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2470

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    M., & Ott, C

    Couch, S. M., & Ott, C. D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 778, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L7

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Ott, C

    Couch, S. M., & Ott, C. D. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/5 De Looze, I., Milisavljevic, D., Temim, T., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad855d

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    Ugliano, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 124, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Hammell, M

    Fesen, R. A., Hammell, M. C., Morse, J., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 636, 859, doi: 10.1086/498092

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    Fryer, C. L. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 601, L175, doi: 10.1086/382044

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 367, 619, doi: 10.1086/169657

    Fryxell, B., Mueller, E., & Arnett, D. 1991, The Astrophysical Journal, 367, 619, doi: 10.1086/169657

    1991 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Harrison, F

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

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Janka, H

    Hammer, N. J., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1371, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1371

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 1154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2898

    Mandel, I. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 1154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2898

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Rakowski, C

    Hughes, J. P., Rakowski, C. E., Burrows, D. N., & Slane, P. O. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 528, L109, doi: 10.1086/312438

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Badenes, C., et al

    Hwang, U., Laming, J. M., Badenes, C., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal l, 615, L117, doi: 10.1086/426186

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e

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

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8db

    Joyce, M., Leung, S.-C., Moln´ ar, L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8db

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/168

    Kato, C., Delfan Azari, M., Yamada, S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 168, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/168

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab092

    Katsuda, S., Morii, M., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab092

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Do, T., de Mink, S

    Kerzendorf, W. E., Do, T., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 623, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732206

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    T., & M¨ uller, E

    Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Janka, H. T., & M¨ uller, E. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 408, 621, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030863 15

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 535, 402, doi: 10.1086/308821

    Lai, D., & Goldreich, P. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 535, 402, doi: 10.1086/308821

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    Laplace, E., Justham, S., Renzo, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 656, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Laplace, E., Schneider, F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2025, A&A, 695, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451077

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5284

    Matsunaga, K., Uchida, H., Enokiya, R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5284

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Milisavljevic, D., & Fesen, R. A. 2015, Science, 347, 526, doi: 10.1126/science.1261949

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 965, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b M¨ uller, B., Melson, T., Heger, A., & Janka, H.-T

    Milisavljevic, D., Temim, T., De Looze, I., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 965, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad324b M¨ uller, B., Melson, T., Heger, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1962...

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5dba

    Ono, M., Nagataki, S., Ferrand, G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5dba

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    L., & Bocchino, F

    Orlando, S., Miceli, M., Pumo, M. L., & Bocchino, F. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 822, 22, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/22

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    T., et al

    Orlando, S., Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H. T., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 645, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039335

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    T., Wongwathanarat, A., et al

    Orlando, S., Janka, H. T., Wongwathanarat, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553833

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1778

    Rizzuti, F., Hirschi, R., Varma, V., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1778

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 2765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2949

    Saio, H., Nandal, D., Meynet, G., & Ekstr¨ om, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 2765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2949

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab822a

    Sato, T., Yoshida, T., Umeda, H., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab822a

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, Nature, 592, 537, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03391-9

    Sato, T., Maeda, K., Nagataki, S., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 537, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03391-9

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc68d

    Sato, T., Matsunaga, K., Sawada, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc68d

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Sukhbold, T., & Woosley, S. E. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/10

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    E., & Heger, A

    Sukhbold, T., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2da

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/162

    Takahashi, K., & Yamada, S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 794, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/162

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, 408, doi: 10.1086/176980

    Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M.-A. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, 408, doi: 10.1086/176980

    1996 doi

  41. [49]

    Vartanyan, D., Coleman, M. S. B., & Burrows, A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 4689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3702

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Vartanyan, D., Tsang, B. T. H., Kasen, D., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e4

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    2004, NewAR, 48, 61, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2003.11.008

    Vink, J. 2004, NewAR, 48, 61, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2003.11.008

    2004 doi

  44. [52]

    S., & Bleeker, J

    Vink, J., Kaastra, J. S., & Bleeker, J. A. M. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 307, L41

    1996

  45. [53]

    Wang, T., Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., & Coleman, M. S. B. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 543, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2691

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72de

    Wongwathanarat, A., Janka, H.-T., M¨ uller, E., Pllumbi, E., & Wanajo, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72de

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015

    2002 doi

  48. [56]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, The The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 101, 181, doi: 10.1086/192237

    1995 doi

  49. [57]

    T., Melson, T., & Heger, A

    Yadav, N., M¨ uller, B., Janka, H. T., Melson, T., & Heger, A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab66bb

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    G., Ho, W

    Yakovlev, D. G., Ho, W. C. G., Shternin, P. S., Heinke, C. O., & Potekhin, A. Y. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 1977, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17827.x

    2011

  51. [59]

    2016, Physical Review D, 93, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123012

    Yoshida, T., Takahashi, K., Umeda, H., & Ishidoshiro, K. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.123012

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    R., et al

    Yoshida, T., Takiwaki, T., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, L20, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab067

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b9d

    Yoshida, T., Takiwaki, T., Kotake, K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b9d

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Fryer, C

    Young, P. A., Fryer, C. L., Hungerford, A., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 891, doi: 10.1086/500108

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.