Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 143 references

A core-collapse supernova in a binary can look like different classes of interacting transients depending on viewing angle, with peak brightness varying by about fivefold and late-time color by 1.5 magnitudes.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 04:20 UTC pith:M6L5BYCD

load-bearing objection The end-to-end pipeline is useful and the qualitative viewing-angle effect is plausible, but the factor-of-five headline contrast is not demonstrated by the 1D line-of-sight treatment. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28519 v2 pith:M6L5BYCD submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.HE

Same explosion, many faces: numerical modeling reveals viewing angle as a driver of diversity for core-collapse SNe in binary systems

Soham Mandal , Raphael Baer-way , Shazrene Mohamed , Irene Salmaso , Poonam Chandra , Maryam Modjaz This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapse supernovaebinary stellar evolutioncircumstellar mediumRoche lobe overflowsupernova light curvesviewing-angle effectsradiation hydrodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that much of the observed variety among interacting Type II supernovae can be produced by a single explosion viewed from different directions, because mass lost through the outer Lagrange point of a binary system builds a disk-like, equatorially enhanced circumstellar envelope. Combining binary evolution models, three-dimensional hydrodynamics for the gas, and one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics along three sightlines through that gas, the authors find the same explosion can vary in peak brightness by a factor of about five, in late-time B-V color by about 1.5 magnitudes, and in 100-day UV luminosity by six orders of magnitude, depending on whether the observer looks down the binary axis, at 45 degrees, or in the orbital plane. They also show that fitting such light curves with standard one-dimensional models that assume isolated progenitors and spherical winds biases inferred explosion properties by up to 50% and inferred mass-loss rates by more than 200%. If correct, the result would change how surveys classify interacting transients and would push the field toward multidimensional modeling of supernova environments.

Core claim

The central claim is that a core-collapse supernova in a wide binary that undergoes stable Roche lobe overflow explodes into a strongly aspherical circumstellar medium, and that the same explosion can therefore masquerade as qualitatively different interacting transients. Mass shed non-conservatively through the L2 point, carrying specific angular momentum close to that at L2, is collimated by binary gravity into an equatorial, spiral-structured outflow; density contrasts reach two orders of magnitude between equator and pole. When the explosion is computed along three directions through this medium, peak luminosities differ by factors of about five, bolometric luminosity at roughly 100 days

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a pipeline that converts binary mass-loss history into direction-dependent light curves. A binary stellar-evolution model with a 16-solar-mass donor provides the mass-transfer rate and orbital dynamics; a three-dimensional hydrodynamics code turns the L2 outflow, with specific angular momentum 0.8 times the L2 value, into an equatorial spiral CSM; and three radial density and velocity columns at viewing angles 0, 45, and 90 degrees are sliced out of that 3D model and appended to the same core-collapse ejecta profile. Each column is evolved with a one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics code that carries frequency-dependent opacities and two-temperature thermodyn

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that three independent one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics runs, one per sightline, capture what a genuinely three-dimensional ejecta-CSM interaction would do; the paper itself notes this is likely to fail most at early times, when lateral energy transport and non-radial shocks are strongest.

What would settle it

Run a fully three-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics calculation for the same 16-solar-mass explosion in the q55 p26 CSM model: if the equatorial-to-polar contrast in peak luminosity, late-time B-V, and 100-day UV flux shrinks or reverses once lateral radiation transport is included, the viewing-angle diversity is an artifact of the column approximation. Observationally, for a sample of interacting Type II SNe with independent orientation constraints (for example spectropolarimetry), test whether inferred mass-loss rate and explosion energy correlate with viewing direction as predicted; absen

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Events currently classified as distinct interacting subtypes could be the same binary-origin explosion seen from different directions, so classification statistics would need a geometry axis.
  • Equatorial observers should see late-time, blue, undulating interaction, while polar observers should see a fast-declining event; this is a testable prediction for coordinated optical and UV monitoring.
  • Steep effective density profiles (up to r^-4) seen along polar directions can arise from a steady L2 outflow, so steep CSM profiles do not by themselves require eruptive mass loss.
  • Standard one-dimensional fitting of such events will systematically mis-estimate explosion energy, nickel mass, and CSM mass, so inference pipelines need to marginalize over CSM geometry.
  • Late-time UV monitoring is the strongest discriminator, since the interaction luminosity decays slowest at blue and UV wavelengths in equatorial directions.
  • The factor-of-five peak luminosity spread and the parameter-inference biases quantify the danger of interpreting interacting SNe with spherical, isolated-progenitor assumptions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the ~30-day light-curve undulations generated by the spiral density crests could be used to estimate the binary orbital period or the spiral pitch angle from photometry alone.
  • Inference: the same viewing-angle geometry should also imprint correlated signatures in early-time flash spectroscopy and spectropolarimetry; a search for such correlations in archival interacting SNe would test the model without new simulations.
  • Inference: because the lowest-mass-ratio model shows the strongest feedback between non-conservative mass transfer and Roche-lobe shrinkage, even stronger viewing-angle dependence may appear outside the explored grid, for example at mass ratios below 0.55 or at lower metallicity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper builds a multiscale modeling pipeline for core-collapse supernovae in wide binaries that undergo stable Roche lobe overflow. MESA binary evolution models provide mass-loss histories; the 3D hydro code Sprout models the resulting equatorially enhanced, spiral-structured CSM from L2 outflow; and direction-dependent 1D Stella radiation-hydrodynamics runs produce multi-band light curves along three sightlines (θ = 0°, 45°, 90°) for five binary configurations. The authors report that viewing angle alone can change peak luminosities by factors of ~5 and late-time B−V colors by ~1.5 mag, that such events can mimic different interacting Type II subclasses, and that fitting these light curves with spherical isolated-progenitor grids biases inferred explosion parameters and mass-loss rates. They conclude that binary-shaped CSM and orientation effects can account for a substantial part of observed interacting CCSN diversity.

Significance. The qualitative message—that a single explosion in an aspherical binary-generated CSM can masquerade as different SN subclasses depending on viewing angle—is timely and observationally relevant for Rubin/LSST-era transient surveys. The pipeline is well structured and uses established codes (MESA, Sprout, Stella); the inference-bias experiment against the external Moriya et al. (2023) grid is a useful diagnostic and not circular, since no target observables are fitted to produce the light curves. The main quantitative claims, however, rest on the direction-dependent 1D approximation whose limitations the authors themselves acknowledge, and several headline numbers are not consistently supported by the results shown. If the quantitative claims can be either better supported or appropriately qualified, the work will make a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, §3.4] The central quantitative claims—factor ~5 peak luminosity differences and ~1.5 mag B−V spread—are not established by the direction-dependent 1D method. An observer at a given viewing angle receives disk-integrated flux over many impact parameters, not the bolometric luminosity of a spherical model with that line-of-sight density profile. The θ=90° run imposes the dense equatorial profile at every angle, while the θ=0° run imposes the sparse polar profile over the whole sphere; neither captures the projection or lateral transport of a genuinely 3D interaction. The validation in §3.4 checks convergence of R_ph, v_ph, T_ph among 1D runs, not this projection/diffusion effect. Since §3.4 admits the limitations are 'most severe' at the earliest epochs—precisely where the factor ~5 and color claims live—the abstract's numbers should be presented as upper limits or supported by a genuinely multi
  2. [Abstract vs §5] The abstract states 'peak luminosities differing by factors of ~5 and late-time B−V colors varying by ~1.5 mag.' The body does not provide a quantitative B−V range, and §5 item 3 reports only a factor ≈3 contrast in bolometric luminosity at ~100 days, while §3.5 describes the bolometric angular variation as 'seemingly modest.' Please specify the band, epoch, and model row(s) behind the '~5' and '1.5 mag' numbers, or amend the abstract/conclusion to match the demonstrated values.
  3. [§4.2, Table 2, Abstract] The claimed inference biases are not consistent with Table 2. The abstract/conclusion say 'errors of about 50%' for inferred explosion properties; however, Table 2 lists E_exp = 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, and 3.0 × 10^51 erg for a true value of 10^51 erg in several rows, i.e., errors of 150–250%. Similarly, the inferred mass-loss rate for q75 p26 in the equatorial direction (log10 Mdot = −2.5) is ~30 times the true value quoted in the table note, while the text/abstract says '>200%.' Please correct the summary statements and/or the table, and discuss the spread across viewing angles explicitly.
  4. [§2.2, §5] The Sprout CSM models use a polytropic EOS (γ = 5/3) with no radiative cooling or magnetic fields and are run for ten orbits. The equator-to-pole density contrast (two orders of magnitude) and the velocity structure are the physical ingredients driving the viewing-angle result. The text acknowledges these omissions in §5 but does not quantify their effect. A comparison to a run with simple radiative cooling or a discussion based on published L2-outflow simulations with cooling is needed before the quantitative magnitudes of the light-curve diversity can be considered robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 caption] Typo: 'interaction sigantures' should be 'interaction signatures'; also the table caption appears as 'T able 1'.
  2. [§2.3] Please state explicitly that each Stella run is a 1D spherical calculation, so the three viewing angles amount to three independent spherical explosions with different CSM profiles; as written, the reader may infer 3D ray-tracing.
  3. [Figures 9 and 10] Define the line styles/symbols for viewing angles in the captions or legends; currently θ notation is introduced only in the text.
  4. [§4.2] The sentence 'We run fits by iterating against the entire grid of models' is vague; specify the minimization scheme and the grid size (228016) in the text rather than only in the reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward-modeled light curves from independent codes; acknowledged 1D approximations are modeling limitations, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is forward and self-contained: MESA binary evolution produces mass-loss histories; Sprout converts these into 3D CSM structures; angle-dependent 1D profiles are extracted and fed to Stella, an independent radiation-hydrodynamics code, which computes multi-band light curves. The claimed viewing-angle diversity is a computed output of Stella, not a restatement of the input density contrasts: it required solving time-dependent radiation hydrodynamics with frequency-dependent opacities, and the paper explicitly verifies convergence of photospheric properties and identifies early epochs as the regime where the 1D radial-column approximation is least reliable (Sec. 3.4). The inference-bias analysis (Sec. 4.2) fits the synthetic light curves to an external Moriya et al. (2023) grid; this is a diagnostic application, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Citations to author-developed tools (Sprout) and co-authored observational papers (e.g., Salmaso et al. 2026) are context or comparative data, not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The abstract's factor of ~5 peak-luminosity contrast is not exactly reproduced by the body's factor of ~3 at late times, but this is an internal-consistency / quantitative-support concern, not circularity. No equation or fitted quantity reduces by construction to its own input, so no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The equatorially enhanced CSM is a model output, not an ad hoc input. The central claim depends on a chain of domain assumptions about RLOF mass transfer, L2 outflow properties, quasi-steady CSM structure, and the adequacy of 1D line-of-sight radiation hydrodynamics, plus several fixed explosion parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • Explosion energy E_exp = 1e51 erg
    Fixed across all models in Section 2.1.5; controls the light curve luminosity and interaction timing.
  • 56Ni mass = 0.04 Msun
    Fixed across all models in Section 2.1.5; affects late-time radioactive tail.
  • L2 outflow specific angular momentum factor = 0.8 h_L2
    Adopted in Section 2.2 from Scherbak et al. 2025; sets the CSM geometry and spiral structure.
  • L2 outflow radial velocity = 0.01 r_L2 Omega
    Adopted in Section 2.2; sets the CSM density scale and velocity contrast.
  • Mass transfer efficiency beta_eff = 1 until critical rotation, 0 after
    Prescribed in Equation 1 via disk-mediated accretion; governs envelope stripping and total mass loss.
  • Stellar mixing and wind calibration parameters = various
    Includes alpha_MLT=1.5, alpha_sc=1.0, overshoot lengths, thermohaline efficiency 2.0, rotational diffusion multiplier 0.033, and wind scaling 1.0, set in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Stable RLOF mass transfer is described by the Kolb-Ritter optically thick prescription with a disk-mediated accretion efficiency that drops to zero at critical rotation.
    Section 2.1.4, Equation 1. The entire CSM mass and envelope stripping history depend on this prescription.
  • domain assumption The L2 outflow carries specific angular momentum 0.8 h_L2 and radial velocity 0.01 r_L2 Omega.
    Section 2.2, taken from Scherbak et al. 2025; appropriate for the near-unity mass ratios at late evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The CSM hydrodynamics can be modeled with a polytropic EOS, gamma=5/3, without radiative cooling or magnetic fields.
    Section 2.2. The conclusion explicitly notes these neglected processes may influence morphology and density contrast.
  • domain assumption Ten orbits of Sprout simulation achieve a quasi-steady state representative of the pre-explosion CSM.
    Section 3.2. No convergence study is presented to show that longer integration preserves the density contrasts.
  • ad hoc to paper Independent 1D Stella calculations along three radial lines of sight capture the observable effects of a 3D ejecta-CSM interaction.
    Sections 2.3 and 3.4. The authors state multi-D radiation transport and non-radial shock geometry are absent and are most limiting at early epochs.
  • domain assumption Explosion energy and 56Ni mass are independent of prior binary evolution.
    Section 2.1.5, justified by references to Pejcha & Prieto 2015, Ertl et al. 2016, and Sukhbold et al. 2016.
  • domain assumption Solar metallicity, OPAL opacities, and the approx21 reaction network are adequate for the progenitor models.
    Section 2.1.1. All models assume Z=0.0154 and standard MESA input physics.
  • domain assumption Turning off binary mass transfer during the final ~10 years before core collapse does not affect the outcome.
    Section 2.1.5, argued from the short carbon-burning-to-collapse interval; plausible but not directly verified in the models.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25426 in / 12982 out tokens · 143162 ms · 2026-08-05T04:20:59.904513+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Same explosion, many faces: numerical modeling reveals viewing angle as a driver of diversity for core-collapse SNe in binary systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M6L5BYCD

@misc{pith2026260728519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Same explosion, many faces: numerical modeling reveals viewing angle as a driver of diversity for core-collapse SNe in binary systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M6L5BYCD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28519}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Observable properties of core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) depend sensitively on the circumstellar material (CSM) formed by pre-explosion mass loss from the progenitor star. Since a large fraction of CCSN progenitors reside in binaries, both the progenitor structure and surrounding CSM can be significantly impacted by binary interaction. Yet, its impact on the observed CCSN landscape remains poorly constrained. In this work, we investigate CCSNe from binary systems undergoing stable Roche lobe overflow. We construct a suite of binary evolution models in \texttt{MESA} with a fixed initial primary mass ($16M_{\odot}$), exploring secondary masses in the range $12-15M_{\odot}$ and initial orbital periods $>500$ days. We generate three-dimensional (3D) CSM structures from the resulting mass-loss histories and orbital dynamics, extract angle-dependent density profiles along three lines of sight, and compute multi-band light curves with the radiation-hydrodynamics code \texttt{Stella}. We find that binary-driven CSM develops highly aspherical morphologies, governed by the orbital period and the mass ratio. Interaction between SN ejecta and this structured medium produces pronounced viewing-angle dependence in the light curves, with peak luminosities differing by factors of $\sim5$ and late-time $B-V$ colors varying by $\sim1.5$ mag depending on observer orientation. We further show that interpreting such events with one-dimensional frameworks assuming isolated progenitors and spherical winds can introduce biases up to $50\%$ for inferred explosion properties and $>200\%$ for inferred mass-loss rates. Our results are consistent with a substantial fraction of interacting Type II SN diversity arising from binary-shaped asymmetric CSM and viewing-angle effects, motivating multidimensional approaches to interpreting these transients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28519 by Irene Salmaso, Maryam Modjaz, Poonam Chandra, Raphael Baer-Way, Shazrene Mohamed, Soham Mandal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Cartoon illustration (not to scale) of the physical scenario considered in this work. Stable, non-conservative Roche lobe overflow (RLOF) from the donor star produces an equatorially enhanced circumstellar medium (CSM). The donor subsequently undergoes core-collapse, and the resulting SN ejecta interacts with the asymmetric CSM. Angle-dependent light curves are obtained by considering representative viewin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the method used here. Binary stellar models are evolved in MESA up to the core collapse of the initially more massive star. The resulting mass-loss rates from the binary, as well as the orbital dynamics, are used as initial conditions in the hydrodynamics code Sprout to compute 3D CSM models. Direction-dependent 1D profiles are extracted from the Sprout models and appended to the core … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of donor star parameters in binary sys￾tems undergoing Case C (post helium burning) Roche lobe overflow (RLOF). Top: Envelope mass of the donor as a function of time prior to core collapse. Bottom: Time evolu￾tion of the donor stellar radius (R∗, dashed lines) and donor’s Roche lobe radius (RL, solid lines). RLOF begins when the donor radius approaches the Roche lobe radius. rameters (including C… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 2D density (left panels), velocity magnitude (middle panels), and temperature (right panels) slices for q55 p26 hydrodynamic CSM model, shown for both the equatorial plane (x-y plane, top panels) and the meridional plane (x-z plane, bottom panels). These slices were extracted after the model reached a quasi-steady state (see Section 3.2). The angular momentum and gravitational potential of the binary syste… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Direction-dependent 1D hydrodynamic profiles of our CSM models. Top left: density profiles for the q55 p26 models in the polar, oblique, and equatorial directions (θ = 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ respectively, where θ is the angle between the observer’s line of sight and the binary axis). The density profiles become steeper overall (particularly at large distances) as one moves away from the equatorial plane toward… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bolometric (top left), U-band (top right), B-band (bottom left), and R-band (bottom right) light curves from our models in the absence of CSM. The light curves span a continuum of CCSNe subtypes (Types IIL, IIb and Ib) depending on the envelope mass of the progenitor at core collapse (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of photosphere radius (top panel), ve￾locity (middle panel) and temperature (bottom panel) in the q55 p26 SN explosion models with binary-driven CSM as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Bolometric (top left), UV (λ ≤ 320 nm, top right), and R-band (bottom left) light curves from the q55 p26 model, interacting with binary generated CSM along different lines of sight. The B-V color evolution of these models is also shown (bottom right). Luminosity due to ejecta-CSM interaction increases with increased CSM mass along the line of sight (maximum for the equatorial direction), and is found to r… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: B-band light curves in the equatorial (left panel, solid curves) and polar directions (right panel, dashed curves) from all models with significant terminal mass loss. Light curves from the q55 p26 and q95 p22 models, assuming no CSM, are included for ease of comparison. Binary interaction strongly alters the envelope mass and terminal mass-loss rate from the progenitor (identical at ZAMS for all of these… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of light curves from the q55 p26 models with some observed interacting transients. Left: Light curves viewed along polar (θ = 0◦ ) and oblique (θ = 45◦ ) directions exhibit short-lived CSM interactions and a sharp decline after ∼ 80 − 100 days, similar to SNe 2023ixf and 2023ldh. Right: By contrast, light curves viewed along the equatorial (θ = 90◦ ) direction exhibit sustained CSM interaction … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A comparison of the best-fit model from the grid of Type II SN light curves in Moriya et al. (2023) to the q55 p26 bolometric light curves at viewing angles θ = 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ . For easier visualisation, we adjust the bolometric luminosities of the latter two by factors of 10 and 100, respectively. exclude the early phase from our fits. It is important to note that this phase is also affected by shock… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A comparison of the best-fit model from the grid of Type II SN light curves in Moriya et al. (2023) to the q55 p26 bolometric light curves at viewing angles θ = 0◦ , 45◦ , and 90◦ . For easier visualisation, we adjust the bolometric luminosities of the latter two by factors of 10 and 100, respectively. time similarity in the lightcurves but do not match the rise or decline time). We compute the CSM mass f… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., M¨ uller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al

    Aguilera-Dena, D. R., M¨ uller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A134

    2023

  2. [2]

    D., Malanchev, K., Sharief, S., et al

    Aleo, P. D., Malanchev, K., Sharief, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 9

    2023

  3. [3]

    P., James, P

    Anderson, J. P., James, P. A., Habergham, S. M., Galbany, L., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2015, PASA, 32, e019

    2015

  4. [4]

    1999, NuPhA, 656, 3

    Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, NuPhA, 656, 3

    1999

  5. [5]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 266

    Aryan, A., Higgins, E., Nicholl, M., Chen, T.-W., & Liu, Y.-H. 2025, ApJ, 994, 266

    2025

  6. [6]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141

    2021

  7. [7]

    R., Davies, B., & Smith, N

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., & Smith, N. 2021, ApJ, 922, 55

    2021

  8. [8]

    R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994

    2020

  9. [9]

    G., et al

    Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Williams, G. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1104

    2024

  10. [10]

    2004, Ap&SS, 290, 13

    Blinnikov, S., & Sorokina, E. 2004, Ap&SS, 290, 13

    2004

  11. [11]

    I., & Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., & Bartunov, O. S. 1993, A&A, 273, 106

    1993

  12. [12]

    I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V. A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454

    1998

  13. [13]

    I., R¨ opke, F

    Blinnikov, S. I., R¨ opke, F. K., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 229

    2006

  14. [14]

    R., Saumon, D., & Starrett, C

    Blouin, S., Shaffer, N. R., Saumon, D., & Starrett, C. E. 2020, ApJ, 899, 46

    2020

  15. [15]

    J., Barmentloo, S., Schulze, S., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Barmentloo, S., Schulze, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.08768

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Schulze, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 46

    2021

  17. [17]

    J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al

    Bruch, R. J., Gal-Yam, A., Yaron, O., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 119

    2023

  18. [18]

    2007, ApJ, 661, 1094

    Salaris, M. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1094

    2007

  19. [19]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157

    1975

  20. [20]

    2018, SSRv, 214, 27

    Chandra, P. 2018, SSRv, 214, 27

    2018

  21. [21]

    Soderberg, A. M. 2015, ApJ, 810, 32

    2015

  22. [22]

    A., Chugai, N., Milisavljevic, D., & Fransson, C

    Chandra, P., Chevalier, R. A., Chugai, N., Milisavljevic, D., & Fransson, C. 2020, ApJ, 902, 55

    2020

  23. [23]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2012, ApJL, 752, L2

    2012

  24. [24]

    N., Blinnikov, S

    Chugai, N. N., Blinnikov, S. I., Cumming, R. J., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1213

    2004

  25. [25]

    I., Dewitt, H

    Chugunov, A. I., Dewitt, H. E., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2007, PhRvD, 76, 025028

    2007

  26. [26]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240 de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., & van der Hucht, K. A. 1988, A&AS, 72, 259 de Mink, S. E., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., Sana, H., & de

    2010

  27. [27]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04259

    Dessart, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.04259

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    2024, A&A, 685, A169

    Langer, N. 2024, A&A, 685, A169

    2024

  29. [29]

    Dessart, L., & Hillier, D. J. 2019, A&A, 625, A9 —. 2022, A&A, 660, L9

    2019

  30. [30]

    J., Woosley, S., et al

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Woosley, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2189 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

    2015

  31. [31]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368

    1983

  32. [32]

    Crockett, R. M. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 774

    2013

  33. [33]

    2018, PASA, 35, e049

    Guo, N.-Y. 2018, PASA, 35, e049

    2018

  34. [34]

    2024, A&A, 685, A58

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58

    2024

  35. [35]

    2026, A&A, 706, A169

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A169

    2026

  36. [36]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 124 Core-collapse SNe in binaries21

    Ugliano, M. 2016, ApJ, 818, 124 Core-collapse SNe in binaries21

    2016

  37. [37]

    Fassia, A., Meikle, W. P. S., Vacca, W. D., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1093

    2000

  38. [38]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

    2005

  39. [39]

    Filippenko, A. V. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309

    1997

  40. [40]

    L., et al

    Fransson, C., Sollerman, J., Strotjohann, N. L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A79

    2022

  41. [41]

    2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200467

    Fraser, M. 2020, Royal Society Open Science, 7, 200467

    2020

  42. [42]

    M., Fowler, W

    Fuller, G. M., Fowler, W. A., & Newman, M. J. 1985, ApJ, 293, 1

    1985

  43. [43]

    O., et al

    Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 471

    2014

  44. [44]

    L., Sansom, A

    Ganss, R., Pledger, J. L., Sansom, A. E., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2374

    2025

  45. [45]

    Gilkis, A., Laplace, E., Arcavi, I., Shenar, T., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3094

    2025

  46. [46]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403

    2017

  47. [47]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

    2020

  48. [48]

    Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S. E. 2000, ApJ, 528, 368

    2000

  49. [49]

    J., & Dessart, L

    Hillier, D. J., & Dessart, L. 2019, A&A, 631, A8

    2019

  50. [50]

    A., Moriya, T

    Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., Moriya, T. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 55

    2021

  51. [51]

    A., et al

    Hsu, B., Smith, N., Goldberg, J. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 148

    2025

  52. [52]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  53. [53]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752 —. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

    1993

  54. [54]

    1996, ApJS, 102, 411 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Itoh, N., Hayashi, H., Nishikawa, A., & Kohyama, Y. 1996, ApJS, 102, 411 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Dessart, L., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L42

    1996

  55. [55]

    2012, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2012, 01A309

    Janka, H.-T., Hanke, F., H¨ udepohl, L., et al. 2012, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2012, 01A309

    2012

  56. [56]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    2023

  57. [57]

    Jin, H., Langer, N., Ercolino, A., & de Mink, S. E. 2026, A&A, 707, A56

    2026

  58. [58]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140

    2024

  59. [59]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502

    2017

  60. [60]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385 Kurf¨ urst, P., Bless, G., Fiˇ s´ ak, J., et al

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385 Kurf¨ urst, P., Bless, G., Fiˇ s´ ak, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.15428

    work page arXiv 1990

  61. [61]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Snow, T. P., & Lindholm, D. M. 1995, ApJ, 455, 269

    1995

  62. [62]

    2000, Nuclear Physics A, 673, 481

    Langanke, K., & Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G. 2000, Nuclear Physics A, 673, 481

    2000

  63. [63]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    2012

  64. [64]

    F., & Fricke, K

    Langer, N., El Eid, M. F., & Fricke, K. J. 1985, A&A, 145, 179

    1985

  65. [65]

    2021, A&A, 656, A58

    Laplace, E., Justham, S., Renzo, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A58

    2021

  66. [66]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Law, N. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Dekany, R. G., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1395

    2009

  67. [67]

    A., & Leahy, J

    Leahy, D. A., & Leahy, J. C. 2015, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2, 4

    work page 2015

  68. [68]

    2025, A&A, 703, A168

    Li, G., Wang, X., Yang, Y., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A168

    work page 2025

  69. [69]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    H., & Shu, F

    Lubow, S. H., & Shu, F. H. 1975, ApJ, 198, 383

    1975

  71. [71]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14875

    Ma, J.-Z., Justham, S., Pakmor, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14875

    arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    2026, PASJ, 78, L1

    Maeda, K., Kuncarayakti, H., Nagao, T., et al. 2026, PASJ, 78, L1

    2026

  73. [73]

    Maeda, K., & Moriya, T. J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 25

    2022

  74. [74]

    Mandal, S., & Duffell, P. C. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 269, 30

    work page 2023

  75. [75]

    Margalit, B., Quataert, E., & Ho, A. Y. Q. 2022, ApJ, 928, 122

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    2024, A&A, 683, A154

    Ertini, K. 2024, A&A, 683, A154

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 105

    Matsuoka, T., & Sawada, R. 2024, ApJ, 963, 105

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    2011, A&A, 526, A156

    Mauron, N., & Josselin, E. 2011, A&A, 526, A156

    2011

  79. [79]

    T., Duffell, P

    McDowell, A. T., Duffell, P. C., & Kasen, D. 2018, ApJ, 856, 29

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    P., & Arcavi, I

    Modjaz, M., Guti´ errez, C. P., & Arcavi, I. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 717

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.