Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Spatially resolved X-ray study of supernova remnants that host magnetars: Implication of their fossil field origin

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spatially resolved X-ray maps of three supernova remnants indicate magnetars form from stars below 20 solar masses.

desk verdict A careful, useful spatially resolved X-ray study; the sub-20 Msun magnetar progenitor claim is reasonably supported but not airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01922 v1 pith:L4HUQO7B submitted 2019-09-04 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Ping Zhou , Jacco Vink , Samar Safi-Harb , Marco Miceli This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords magnetarssupernovaremnantsX-rayspectroscopynucleosynthesisabundancesprogenitormassesfossilmagneticfieldsfallback
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

Magnetars are the most strongly magnetized neutron stars known, and their origin is debated between dynamo and fossil-field channels. By mapping X-ray emission across three supernova remnants that each host a magnetar, this paper tries to establish what kinds of stars and explosions make these objects. The authors find that all three remnants are enriched in oxygen and neon, are expanding into dense gas, and have low-to-normal explosion energies; from that they infer that the three magnetars formed from stars with initial masses below about 20 solar masses, in the range of normal B-type stars. If the inference holds, the dynamo route requiring very massive, rapidly spinning progenitors loses ground for these systems, and the fossil-field channel, in which the neutron star inherits a strong magnetic field from its parent star, becomes the probable origin of most magnetars.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is spatially resolved X-ray spectroscopy paired with supernova nucleosynthesis yield tables. Each remnant is divided with weighted Voronoi tessellation into bins containing similar photon counts, and the spectrum of every bin is fitted with an absorbed non-equilibrium ionization plane-parallel shock model (vpshock), returning temperature, ionization age, density, and element abundances as functions of position. Those maps yield gas and metal masses through the fitted emission normalizations and an assumed shell geometry, and Sedov–Taylor blast-wave relations turn radii and densities into ages and explosion energies. The abundance ratios and metal masses are then compared with core-collapse nucleosynthesis models for stars from 9 to 120 solar masses, and the molecular-shell sizes are compared with an empirical shell-radius versus initial-mass relation; the agreement between these two independent mass estimates is what converts line strengths into a claim about progenitor mass.

What would settle it

Take high-resolution X-ray spectra of Kes 73, RCW 103, and N49 that separate the O VII and O VIII line complexes and the Fe L-shell lines. If a second thermal component is required in most spatial bins and shifts the oxygen and neon abundances by more than the quoted uncertainties, the single-temperature fits that anchor the progenitor-mass estimates would be invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that magnetars can come from fairly ordinary stars. Spatially resolved Chandra spectra show Kes 73, RCW 103, and N49 to be oxygen- and neon-enhanced, iron-poor on average, with ambient densities above 1–2 cm$^{-3}$ and explosion energies between about $10^{50}$ erg and $2\times 10^{51}$ erg. Matching the observed abundance ratios and metal masses to core-collapse nucleosynthesis models, and separately using the sizes of surrounding molecular shells, the authors constrain the zero-age main-sequence masses (the masses the stars began their lives with) to 11–15 $M_\odot$ for Kes 73, less than about 13 $M_\odot$ for RCW 103, and about 13–17 $M_\odot$ for N49. The low-energy remnant RCW 103 is interpreted as a weak supernova with significant fallback, which explains its tiny oxygen and neon masses and sub-solar silicon and sulfur, and predicts that its magnetar 1E 161348-5055 is a relatively massive neutron star. Because the derived masses and energies contradict the millisecond-dynamo scenario, the paper concludes that a fossil field inherited from a magnetic B-type star is the probable formation channel, and notes that the share of core-collapse remnants hosting magnetars matches the incidence of strongly magnetic OB stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a single-temperature plasma model describes each small region of these remnants well enough that the fitted abundances, densities, and masses are unbiased; the paper itself notes that fitting a multi-temperature plasma with one temperature produces systematic abundance errors, so if two-temperature structure is actually present throughout the remnants, the nucleosynthesis comparison that sets the progenitor masses could be systematically wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these three remnants are representative, a large fraction of Galactic magnetars formed from progenitors below 20 solar masses, so progenitor searches should include ordinary B-type stars and not focus only on the most massive stars.
  • The low-to-normal explosion energies argue that these supernovae were not energized by millisecond magnetars, separating magnetar birth from the central-engine channel invoked for superluminous supernovae.
  • RCW 103's weak explosion with fallback predicts that its central object 1E 161348-5055 is a massive neutron star, and supports the fallback-disk explanation for its unusually long 6.67-hour spin period.
  • The consistency between the fraction of remnants hosting magnetars and the fraction of strongly magnetic OB stars implies that fossil magnetic fields are a quantitatively plausible formation channel for the magnetar population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not push this further, but if fossil fields are the main channel, the magnetar birth rate should track the incidence of magnetic massive stars rather than the overall formation rate of the most massive stars; comparing magnetar-hosting remnants in low-metallicity environments like the LMC with the Milky Way could test that.
  • The oxygen- and neon-enhanced, iron-poor abundance pattern could be used as a remote signpost: a remnant with this pattern and a low explosion energy is a candidate magnetar host even before its compact object is identified.
  • A direct test of the fallback interpretation is to measure the mass of 1E 161348-5055; a mass well above the canonical neutron star value would strengthen the weak-explosion-with-fallback scenario proposed here.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a spatially resolved X-ray spectroscopic study of three supernova remnants that host magnetars: Kes 73 (1E 1841–045), RCW 103 (1E 161348–5055), and N49 (SGR 0526–66). Using Chandra data and weighted Voronoi tessellation binning, the authors fit single-temperature NEI (vpshock) models to derive maps of temperature, abundances, density, and ionization timescale. From these they compute metal masses, remnant ages, and explosion energies. Comparing observed abundance ratios and metal masses with Sukhbold et al. (2016) nucleosynthesis models, plus using molecular-environment arguments, they conclude that the three magnetar progenitors had masses below 20 solar masses (11–15 Msun for Kes 73, ≲13 Msun for RCW 103, and ~13–17 Msun for N49), that the explosions had low-to-normal energies (10^50–2×10^51 erg) inconsistent with millisecond-magnetar central engines, and that RCW 103 likely resulted from a weak explosion with significant fallback. They argue these results support a fossil-field origin for magnetars over a dynamo origin.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides some of the most direct observational constraints on magnetar progenitors, suggesting that magnetars form from a wide range of initial masses and that low-energy supernovae can produce them without millisecond spin. The spatially resolved methodology is a clear strength: the adaptive binning and careful treatment of spectral uncertainties allow the authors to map abundance and density structures in a way that earlier integrated studies could not. The paper also makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction that the compact object in RCW 103 is a relatively massive neutron star as a result of fallback. The consistency between two independent mass constraints (nucleosynthesis ratios and molecular-shell environment) for at least Kes 73 and RCW 103 lends credibility to the qualitative conclusion. However, the quantitative progenitor masses rest on abundance measurements that the paper itself notes can be systematically biased by single-temperature spectral fits, and on comparisons of partially observed metal masses with total nucleosynthesis yields; these are the main sources of uncertainty in the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Table 2] The central mass and abundance results are derived from single-temperature vpshock fits, yet Sec. 3.1 explicitly states that fitting a multi-thermal plasma with a single temperature causes systematic errors in derived abundances, and that two-temperature components are often needed for large regions. Since the abundance patterns are the primary basis for the progenitor-mass conclusions, the paper should quantify this systematic uncertainty. A concrete test would be to fit a subset of bins (or the global spectra) with two-temperature models and show that the mass-weighted abundances and metal masses shift by less than the quoted statistical errors; without this, the claimed mass ranges such as 11–15 Msun for Kes 73 must be treated as model-dependent.
  2. [Secs. 4.2.1–4.2.3 and Eq. for MX] The observed metal masses MX are explicitly lower limits because not all ejecta may be heated to X-ray-emitting temperatures (acknowledged for Kes 73 and RCW 103). The paper then uses the small values of MO, MNe, and MS to exclude low-mass models (e.g., 'exclude progenitor models with mass less than 11 Msun' for Kes 73) and to infer fallback in RCW 103. If the metal masses are lower limits, this exclusion logic is only valid if the missing fraction is negligible or independently bounded. The paper should state explicitly how incomplete reverse-shock heating (or obscuration) affects each inferred mass range, and should discuss whether unheated ejecta could mimic the sub-solar Si and S abundances in RCW 103 without requiring fallback.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.2] For RCW 103, the nucleosynthesis comparison uses only the O/Mg and Ne/Mg ratios because Si/Mg and S/Mg are explicitly excluded as uninformative. The progenitor mass of ≲13 Msun therefore rests on a small subset of the abundance vector, together with the molecular-shell argument. Given that the single-temperature fits may systematically suppress some elements and enhance others, the paper should demonstrate that the O/Mg and Ne/Mg ratios are robust to the known NH–[O] degeneracy and to the choice of single versus multi-temperature models. Otherwise the RCW 103 mass constraint is not yet at the confidence level required to support the strong fallback scenario in the conclusions.
  4. [Sec. 4.3 and Fig. 8] For N49, the comparison uses solar-metallicity (W18) nucleosynthesis models for an LMC object, and the paper notes this may not be valid for lower-metallicity stars. The conclusion of a 13–17 Msun progenitor for N49 is also drawn largely from metal masses that are lower limits, and from a qualitative statement that a ~26 Msun star would overproduce the observed yields. Since the observed metal masses are incomplete, the upper bound of 17 Msun is particularly sensitive to unheated ejecta. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of how much mass could be missing (e.g., from the reverse-shock radius and ejecta profile) or soften the upper end of the N49 range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.3] The explosion energies are quoted as E0 ∼ 5.4×10^50 d_8.5^2.5 erg etc., but the distance scaling notation is not defined in the text; adding a sentence defining d_8.5, d_3.1, and d_50 would improve clarity.
  2. [Table 2] The table presents bin-averaged values and mass-averaged values, but the distinction is not fully described in the caption; a brief note defining how the bin-average and mass-average are computed would help the reader.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The Rb–MZAMS relation of Chen et al. (2013) is applied to Kes 73 and N49, but the paper notes it may not be valid for LMC metallicities; this caveat is appropriately mentioned for N49, but the same caveat should also be stated when the relation is used for Kes 73, whose metallicity is not explicitly discussed.
  4. [Sec. 4.2.3] The sentence 'The measured Si abundance of ~0.6 is clearly lower than the typical value of 0.87 in the LMC' is inconsistent with the Table 2 value [Si]=0.58 for N49; please check whether the quoted value refers to a specific region rather than the average, and clarify.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The discussion of the NH–[O] degeneracy for RCW 103 (high [O] at the two inner-east bins) is clear, but the same degeneracy is also mentioned for Kes 73 in Sec. 4.2; a cross-reference to the relevant figure or table would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: progenitor masses are derived from independent X-ray data compared with external nucleosynthesis grids and molecular-shell relations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — progenitor masses below about 20 solar masses and support for the fossil-field magnetar origin — rest on spatially resolved Chandra spectral fits whose abundance ratios and metal masses are then compared with the external Sukhbold et al. (2016) nucleosynthesis grid and the external Chen et al. (2013) molecular-shell radius–mass relation. Neither external benchmark is defined in terms of the paper's fitted parameters, and the progenitor-mass inference is a model comparison rather than a restatement of an input. The explosion energies are computed directly from the Sedov solution using the fitted densities and radii, not taken from a fit to the desired conclusion. Self-citations to Vink & Kuiper (2006) and Zhou & Vink (2018) appear as context, methodological precedent, or ancillary commentary, but the load-bearing numerical comparisons are made in the present paper against independent data or external models. The paper also explicitly acknowledges several systematic limitations — the single-temperature NEI approximation, the [O]–NH degeneracy, the possibility that metal masses are lower limits because of incomplete reverse-shock heating, and the uncertain applicability of the Rb–MZAMS relation to LMC metallicity — but these are correctness and systematic-uncertainty concerns, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no conclusion is equivalent by construction to its input. The analysis is therefore self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard X-ray spectral modeling assumptions (single-component NEI, atomic data), distances from literature, and nucleosynthesis and molecular-shell scaling relations. No new particles or forces are introduced. The most consequential choices are the volume filling factor and the single-component model, both acknowledged in the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • Distance to Kes 73 = 8.5 kpc (range 7.5-9.8 from prior HI/CO)
    Chosen from Tian and Leahy 2008 and Liu et al. 2017; explosion energy scales as d^2.5 and metal masses depend on distance.
  • Distance to RCW 103 = 3.1 kpc (upper limit 4.6 kpc)
    Reynoso et al. 2004; explosion energy scales as d^2.5.
  • Distance to N49 = 50 kpc (LMC)
    Standard LMC distance; affects masses and explosion energy.
  • X-ray emitting volume filling factor and shell geometry = Delta R = R/12, so f = 1/12; f in (1/12, 1) considered
    Density nH derived from spectral normalization using assumed shell geometry; nH scales as f^-1/2, giving up to a factor 3.5 uncertainty in nH and gas masses, and affecting metal masses and E0.
  • Solar abundance standard = Asplund et al. 2009
    Choice of solar abundances changes derived oxygen abundance by about 20 percent for RCW 103 compared with Grevesse and Sauval 1998, affecting abundance-based mass estimates.
  • Ne abundance tied to O in Kes 73 = [Ne] = [O]
    When the abundance cannot be constrained, Ne is tied to O, affecting the reported MNe and abundance ratios in Kes 73.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Sedov-Taylor self-similar solution applies to the three SNRs (E0 = 1/2.026 mu m_H n0 R^5 t^-2).
    Used in Section 3.3 to derive explosion energies and ages; assumes uniform ambient medium and Sedov phase.
  • domain assumption Electrons and ions are in temperature equilibrium (v_s = [16 kT_s / (3 mu m_H)]^1/2).
    Used in Section 3.3 for the Sedov age; the paper notes this holds given the relatively high ionization timescales.
  • domain assumption vpshock single-temperature NEI model adequately describes the shocked plasma in each bin.
    Section 3.1; the paper acknowledges multi-temperature components are often needed and cause systematic abundance errors.
  • domain assumption Sukhbold et al. (2016) nucleosynthesis yields (W18 and Z9.6) are applicable, including for the LMC metallicity of N49.
    Section 4.2.3; the authors rely on a private communication with Sukhbold that low metallicity affects mass loss but little core evolution below 30 solar masses.
  • domain assumption Molecular shell radius scales linearly with progenitor mass (Rb = 1.22 M_ZAMS / M_sun - 9.16 pc), Chen et al. 2013.
    Section 4.1; used to estimate 12 +/- 2 solar masses for Kes 73 and below 13 for RCW 103; the paper notes the relation may not be valid for LMC stars.
  • domain assumption Shock compression ratio of 4 and mass conservation give shell thickness Delta R = R/12 and ambient density n0 = nH/4.
    Section 3.1; used for density and mass estimates; changing the filling factor to f=1 alters derived masses.
  • domain assumption The associations between the magnetars and their SNRs are physically real.
    Assumed throughout; if any association were a chance superposition, all progenitor inferences for that object would fail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatially resolved X-ray study of supernova remnants that host magnetars: Implication of their fossil field origin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4HUQO7B

@misc{pith2026190901922,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatially resolved X-ray study of supernova remnants that host magnetars: Implication of their fossil field origin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4HUQO7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01922}
}
abstract

Magnetars are regarded as the most magnetized neutron stars in the Universe. Aiming to unveil what kinds of stars and supernovae can create magnetars, we have performed a state-of-the-art spatially resolved spectroscopic X-ray study of the supernova remnants (SNRs) Kes 73, RCW 103, and N49, which host magnetars 1E 1841-045, 1E 161348-5055, and SGR 0526-66, respectively. The three SNRs are O- and Ne-enhanced and are evolving in the interstellar medium with densities of >1--2 cm$^{-3}$. The metal composition and dense environment indicate that the progenitor stars are not very massive. The progenitor masses of the three magnetars are constrained to be < 20 Msun (11--15 Msun for Kes 73, < 13 Msun for RCW 103, and ~13 --17 Msun for N49). Our study suggests that magnetars are not necessarily made from very massive stars, but originate from stars that span a large mass range. The explosion energies of the three SNRs range from $10^{50}$ erg to ~2$\times 10^{51}$ erg, further refuting that the SNRs are energized by rapidly rotating (millisecond) pulsars. We report that RCW 103 is produced by a weak supernova explosion with significant fallback, as such an explosion explains the low explosion energy (~$10^{50}$ erg), small observed metal masses ($M_{\rm O}\sim 4\times 10^{-2}$ Msun and $M_{\rm Ne}\sim 6\times 10^{-3}$ Msun), and sub-solar abundances of heavier elements such as Si and S. Our study supports the fossil field origin as an important channel to produce magnetars, given the normal mass range ($M_{\rm ZAMS} < 20$ Msun) of the progenitor stars, the low-to-normal explosion energy of the SNRs, and the fact that the fraction of SNRs hosting magnetars is consistent with the magnetic OB stars with high fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01922 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panels: the merged Chandra images of three SNRs in the 0.3–7.0 keV energy band. Lower panels: the adaptively binned images with the magnetars removed. The colorbars show the counts number per pixel (100). 3. Results 3.1. Spectral fit and density calculation The X-ray emission of the three SNRs can be generally well fit￾ted with an absorbed non-equilibrium ionization (NEI) plasma model, although some regions mi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the best-fit parameters in RCW 103. The dashed circle indicates the outer boundary for density calculation. 0.71 0.87 1 1.2 1.3 1.5 reduced chi-squared 0 0.056 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.28 NH (E22 cm^-2) 0.5 0.59 0.67 0.75 0.83 0.91 kT (keV) 0 1E+12 2E+12 3E+12 4E+12 tau (s cm^-3) 0 2.3 4.6 6.9 9.2 11 density (cm^-3) 0 0.31 0.62 0.94 1.2 1.6 O 0 0.48 0.95 1.4 1.9 2.4 Ne 0 0.23 0.46 0.68 0.91 1.1 Mg 0 0.29 0.5… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the best-fit parameters in N49. The dashed circle indicates the outer boundary for density calculation. 4. Discussion The major goal of this paper is to explore which progenitor stars and which explosion mechanisms produce these SNRs and magnetars. The …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Azimuthal and radial profiles of the best-fit parameters in Kes 73 (top), RCW 103 (middle), and N49 (bottom). The position angle increases counterclockwise from the north where the position angle is 0◦ . The SNR radius is RS . The profiles of the post-shock density are…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted abundance ratios (left) and yields (right) of the SN ejecta as a function of the progenitor masses based on the CC SN nucleosyn￾thesis models by Sukhbold et al. (2016). The results of the 60 M and 120 M stars are out of range of the plot. Kes 73 O Ne Mg Si S …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the observed abundance ratios (top) and metal masses (bottom) with the nucleosynthesis models for a range of massive stars (dots) in Sukhbold et al. (2016). For the predicted abundances in the upper panels, we take the shocked ISM into account by assuming…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the metal masses in N49 with the nucleosynthe￾sis models of Sukhbold et al. (2016). The masses of Mg, Si, and Fe are not plotted because they are lower than the typical values in the LMC. measurement values given the variation of the LMC abundance. Theref…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Multiwavelength study of non-thermal emission in the Swift J1834.9-0846/W41 region

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Modeling favors a lepto-hadronic supernova remnant for the extended TeV emission from HESS J1834-087 plus a leptonic magnetar wind nebula for the central point-like source, with an implied magnetar birth spin period b...

  2. Non-thermal emission from the vicinity of the magnetar CXOU J171405.7-381031

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Both leptonic and lepto-hadronic models fit the CTB 37B gamma-ray spectrum; neutral-pion decay matches above ~10 TeV but needs ~10^51 erg in protons unless the remnant hits dense gas.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint 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 := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Inferring the parallax of Westerlund 1 from Gaia DR2

    Aghakhanloo , M., Murphy , J. W., Smith , N., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.06582

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

  5. [5]

    R., Hughes , J

    Banas , K. R., Hughes , J. P., Bronfman , L., & Nyman , L. A . 1997, , 480, 607

    1997

  6. [6]

    Blumer , H., Safi-Harb , S., Kothes , R., Rogers , A., & Gotthelf , E. V. 2019, , 1572

    2019

  7. [7]

    Borkowski , K. J. & Reynolds , S. P. 2017, , 846, 13

    2017

  8. [8]

    J., Rho , J., Reynolds , S

    Borkowski , K. J., Rho , J., Reynolds , S. P., & Dyer , K. K. 2001, , 550, 334

    2001

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    2009, , 397, 763

    Braithwaite , J. 2009, , 397, 763

    2009

  2. [10]

    & Spruit , H

    Braithwaite , J. & Spruit , H. C. 2004, , 431, 819

    2004

  3. [11]

    2019, MNRAS, accepted

    Braun, C., Safi-Harb, S., & Fryer, C. 2019, MNRAS, accepted

    2019

  4. [12]

    & Copin , Y

    Cappellari , M. & Copin , Y. 2003, , 342, 345

    2003

  5. [13]

    M., Dickel , J

    Carter , L. M., Dickel , J. R., & Bomans , D. J. 1997, , 109, 990

    1997

  6. [14]

    2013, , 769, L16

    Chen , Y., Zhou , P., & Chu , Y.-H. 2013, , 769, L16

    2013

  7. [15]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1999, , 511, 798

    1999

  8. [16]

    Chevalier , R. A. 2005, , 619, 839

    2005

  9. [17]

    A., Burrows , D

    D'A \` , A., Evans , P. A., Burrows , D. N., et al. 2016, , 463, 2394

    2016

  10. [18]

    N., & Stella , L

    Dall'Osso , S., Shore , S. N., & Stella , L. 2009, , 398, 1869

    2009

  11. [19]

    F., Kudritzki , R.-P., et al

    Davies , B., Figer , D. F., Kudritzki , R.-P., et al. 2009, , 707, 844

    2009

  12. [20]

    A., Mereghetti , S., Tiengo , A., & Bignami , G

    De Luca , A., Caraveo , P. A., Mereghetti , S., Tiengo , A., & Bignami , G. F. 2006, Science, 313, 814

    2006

  13. [21]

    & Statler , T

    Diehl , S. & Statler , T. S. 2006, , 368, 497

    2006

  14. [22]

    & Safi-Harb , S

    Ferrand , G. & Safi-Harb , S. 2012, Advances in Space Research, 49, 1313

    2012

  15. [23]

    & Wickramasinghe , D

    Ferrario , L. & Wickramasinghe , D. 2006, , 367, 1323

    2006

  16. [24]

    & Wickramasinghe , D

    Ferrario , L. & Wickramasinghe , D. 2008, , 389, L66

    2008

  17. [25]

    F., Najarro , F., Geballe , T

    Figer , D. F., Najarro , F., Geballe , T. R., Blum , R. D., & Kudritzki , R. P. 2005, , 622, L49

    2005

  18. [26]

    A., Burrows , D

    Frank , K. A., Burrows , D. N., & Park , S. 2015, , 810, 113

    2015

  19. [27]

    Fryer , C. L. 1999, , 522, 413

    1999

  20. [28]

    L., Andrews , S., Even , W., Heger , A., & Safi-Harb , S

    Fryer , C. L., Andrews , S., Even , W., Heger , A., & Safi-Harb , S. 2018, , 856, 63

    2018

  21. [29]

    P., Gonzalez , M

    Gavriil , F. P., Gonzalez , M. E., Gotthelf , E. V., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 1802

    2008

  22. [30]

    Green , D. A. 2014, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 42, 47

    2014

  23. [31]

    Green , D. A. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 7278

    2017

  24. [32]

    & Sauval , A

    Grevesse , N. & Sauval , A. J. 1998, , 85, 161

    1998

  25. [33]

    H., Wade , G

    Grunhut , J. H., Wade , G. A., & MiMeS Collaboration . 2012, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 465, Proceedings of a Scientific Meeting in Honor of Anthony F. J. Moffat, ed. L. Drissen , C. Robert , N. St-Louis , & A. F. J. Moffat , 42

    2012

  26. [34]

    A., Barrag \'a n , L., & Schulz , N

    Hanke , M., Wilms , J., Nowak , M. A., Barrag \'a n , L., & Schulz , N. S. 2010, , 509, L8

    2010

  27. [35]

    E., & Spruit , H

    Heger , A., Woosley , S. E., & Spruit , H. C. 2005, , 626, 350

    2005

  28. [36]

    & Lou , Y.-Q

    Hu , R.-Y. & Lou , Y.-Q. 2009, , 396, 878

    2009

  29. [37]

    & Bildsten , L

    Kasen , D. & Bildsten , L. 2010, , 717, 245

    2010

  30. [38]

    Kaspi , V. M. & Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 55, 261

    2017

  31. [39]

    2018 a , , 856, 18

    Katsuda , S., Morii , M., Janka , H.-T., et al. 2018 a , , 856, 18

    2018

  32. [40]

    J., & Nakamura , K

    Katsuda , S., Takiwaki , T., Tominaga , N., Moriya , T. J., & Nakamura , K. 2018 b , , 863, 127

    2018

  33. [41]

    S., Safi-Harb , S., Slane , P

    Kumar , H. S., Safi-Harb , S., Slane , P. O., & Gotthelf , E. V. 2014, , 781, 41

    2014

  34. [42]

    2011, , 412, 1473

    Li , W., Chornock , R., Leaman , J., et al. 2011, , 412, 1473

    2011

  35. [43]

    2007, , 666, L81

    Li , X.-D. 2007, , 666, L81

    2007

  36. [44]

    2017, , 851, 37

    Liu , B., Chen , Y., Zhang , X., et al. 2017, , 851, 37

    2017

  37. [45]

    F., & Papitto , A

    Martin , J., Rea , N., Torres , D. F., & Papitto , A. 2014, , 444, 2910

    2014

  38. [46]

    1999, Stellar magnetism

    Mestel , L. 1999, Stellar magnetism

    1999

  39. [47]

    D., Slane , P., Borkowski , K

    Morton , T. D., Slane , P., Borkowski , K. J., et al. 2007, , 667, 219

    2007

  40. [48]

    P., Clark , J

    Muno , M. P., Clark , J. S., Crowther , P. A., et al. 2006, , 636, L41

    2006

  41. [49]

    2009, , 61, S197

    Nakamura , R., Bamba , A., Ishida , M., et al. 2009, , 61, S197

    2009

  42. [50]

    2015, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Neiner , C., Mathis , S., Alecian , E., et al. 2015, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 305, Polarimetry, ed. K. N. Nagendra , S. Bagnulo , R. Centeno , & M. Jes \'u s Mart \' nez Gonz \'a lez , 61--66

    2015

  43. [51]

    2017, , 850, 55

    Nicholl , M., Guillochon , J., & Berger , E. 2017, , 850, 55

    2017

  44. [52]

    2013, , 51, 457

    Nomoto , K., Kobayashi , C., & Tominaga , N. 2013, , 51, 457

    2013

  45. [53]

    2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 424

    Nomoto , K., Tominaga , N., Umeda , H., Kobayashi , C., & Maeda , K. 2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 424

    2006

  46. [54]

    Olausen , S. A. & Kaspi , V. M. 2014, , 212, 6

    2014

  47. [55]

    Oliva , E., Moorwood , A. F. M., Drapatz , S., Lutz , D., & Sturm , E. 1999, , 343, 943

    1999

  48. [56]

    Ostriker, J. P. & McKee, C. F. 1988, Rev. Mod. Phys., 60, 1

    1988

  49. [57]

    T., Long , K

    Otsuka , M., van Loon , J. T., Long , K. S., et al. 2010, , 518, L139

    2010

  50. [58]

    P., Burrows , D

    Park , S., Hughes , J. P., Burrows , D. N., et al. 2003, , 598, L95

    2003

  51. [59]

    P., Slane , P

    Park , S., Hughes , J. P., Slane , P. O., et al. 2012, , 748, 117

    2012

  52. [60]

    2016, , 828, L13

    Rea , N., Borghese , A., Esposito , P., et al. 2016, , 828, L13

    2016

  53. [61]

    T., Rho , J., Tappe , A., et al

    Reach , W. T., Rho , J., Tappe , A., et al. 2006, , 131, 1479

    2006

  54. [62]

    M., Green , A

    Reynoso , E. M., Green , A. J., Johnston , S., et al. 2004, , 21, 82

    2004

  55. [63]

    & Kumar , H

    Safi-Harb , S. & Kumar , H. S. 2013, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 291, Neutron Stars and Pulsars: Challenges and Opportunities after 80 years, ed. J. van Leeuwen , 480--482

    2013

  56. [64]

    2018, , 473, 1705

    S \'a nchez-Cruces , M., Rosado , M., Fuentes-Carrera , I., & Ambrocio-Cruz , P. 2018, , 473, 1705

    2018

  57. [65]

    P., Gaetz , T

    Sasaki , M., Plucinsky , P. P., Gaetz , T. J., & Bocchino , F. 2013, , 552, A45

    2013

  58. [66]

    P., Gaetz , T

    Sasaki , M., Plucinsky , P. P., Gaetz , T. J., et al. 2004, , 617, 322

    2004

  59. [67]

    2017, , 599, A66

    Sch \"o ller , M., Hubrig , S., Fossati , L., et al. 2017, , 599, A66

    2017

  60. [68]

    Sedov , L. I. 1959, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics (Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics, New York: Academic Press, 1959)

    1959

  61. [69]

    E., Kahn , F

    Shull , Jr., P., Dyson , J. E., Kahn , F. D., & West , K. A. 1985, , 212, 799

    1985

  62. [70]

    E., Wade , G

    Shultz , M. E., Wade , G. A., Rivinius , T., et al. 2018, , 475, 5144

    2018

  63. [71]

    Smartt , S. J. 2009, , 47, 63

    2009

  64. [72]

    & Gilkis , A

    Soker , N. & Gilkis , A. 2017, , 851, 95

    2017

  65. [73]

    E., Brown , J

    Sukhbold , T., Ertl , T., Woosley , S. E., Brown , J. M., & Janka , H.-T. 2016, , 821, 38

    2016

  66. [74]

    & Woosley , S

    Sukhbold , T. & Woosley , S. E. 2014, , 783, 10

    2014

  67. [75]

    1950, Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, 201, 159

    Taylor , G. 1950, Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, 201, 159

    1950

  68. [76]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02849

    Temim , T., Slane , P., Sukhbold , T., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02849

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    1996, , 460, 408

    Thielemann , F.-K., Nomoto , K., & Hashimoto , M.-A. 1996, , 460, 408

    1996

  70. [78]

    & Duncan , R

    Thompson , C. & Duncan , R. C. 1993, , 408, 194

    1993

  71. [79]

    A., Chang , P., & Quataert , E

    Thompson , T. A., Chang , P., & Quataert , E. 2004, , 611, 380

    2004

  72. [80]

    Tian , W. W. & Leahy , D. A. 2008, , 677, 292

    2008

  73. [81]

    W., & Xu , R

    Tong , H., Wang , W., Liu , X. W., & Xu , R. X. 2016, , 833, 265

    2016

  74. [82]

    Truelove , J. K. & McKee , C. F. 1999, , 120, 299

    1999

  75. [83]

    2008, Advances in Space Research, 41, 503

    Vink , J. 2008, Advances in Space Research, 41, 503

    2008

  76. [84]

    & Kuiper , L

    Vink , J. & Kuiper , L. 2006, , 370, L14

    2006

  77. [85]

    A., Grunhut , J., Alecian , E., et al

    Wade , G. A., Grunhut , J., Alecian , E., et al. 2014, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 302, Magnetic Fields throughout Stellar Evolution, ed. P. Petit , M. Jardine , & H. C. Spruit , 265--269

    2014

  78. [86]

    2000, , 542, 914

    Wilms , J., Allen , A., & McCray , R. 2000, , 542, 914

    2000

  79. [87]

    Woosley , S. E. 2010, , 719, L204

    2010

  80. [88]

    Woosley , S. E. & Weaver , T. A. 1995, , 101, 181

    1995

  81. [89]

    & Li , X.-D

    Xu , K. & Li , X.-D. 2019, , 877, 138

    2019

  82. [90]

    T., et al

    Yamane , Y., Sano , H., van Loon , J. T., et al. 2018, , 863, 55

    2018

  83. [91]

    2008, , 60, 1143

    Yamauchi , S., Ueno , M., Koyama , K., & Bamba , A. 2008, , 60, 1143

    2008

  84. [92]

    & Vink , J

    Zhou , P. & Vink , J. 2018, , 615, A150

    2018

  85. [93]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  86. [94]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  87. [95]

    X a A ߽ <cd& y_OǜJox ?Lg7o>5\ i W Ɵ w VS9\ y u) ъ Y[a) ۞1 S8k ` 9 pr=b=/۞1g9JgGL=<V92=c#=@n . Iˆ B4,6ÝX Ѱ8rvhXK2N DR

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.