Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

The failed failed-supernova scenario of M31-2014-DS1

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The failed-supernova explanation for M31-2014-DS1 would make the star fade too slowly and shine too bright, so the paper says the fading is more likely a dusty binary interaction.

desk verdict Worth reading and worth refereeing, but the fine-tuning argument has a factor-of-η slip: Eq. (4) treats the full fallback mass as jet-launching mass, ignoring the ≳99% centrifugal-barrier loss the paper itself accepts. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.14497 v2 pith:O4A42QDC submitted 2026-01-20 astro-ph.HE

Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords failedsupernovaeM31-2014-DS1fallbackaccretionintermediate-luminosityopticaltransientsjet-drivenexplosionsblackholeformationneutrino-drivenexplosionmechanismconvectiveangularmomentum
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

Astronomers watching the yellow supergiant M31-2014-DS1 saw it fade dramatically around 2014, and one proposal explained the fade as a failed supernova: most of the star's core collapsed into a black hole while a small amount of infalling gas powered a long, faint glow. This paper argues that the fallback gas, stirred by convection in the star's envelope, would naturally form small accretion disks that launch jets, and those jets would either blow away the remaining bound gas within months or shine far brighter than observed. The author therefore finds the failed-supernova scenario requires fine-tuned, unlikely parameters—less than one percent of the bound gas accreted while jets somehow avoid shutting down the backflow for a decade. The conclusion is that M31-2014-DS1 supports neither a failed supernova nor the neutrino-driven explosion mechanism that predicts them, and the event is more plausibly a type II intermediate-luminosity optical transient in which a binary interaction ejected dust that obscures the star.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parameter j_conv = v_conv r, the specific angular momentum of the convective cells in the envelope, taken from a stripped yellow-supergiant model and used to set the initial radius R_d,0 of a fallback disk around the black hole (equation 1). Around this disk the argument builds a short quantitative chain: the disk radius sets the escape and terminal velocity of a disk wind (equation 6), the assumed jet mass fraction f_j and jet velocity set whether jets unbind the remaining bound gas (equations 3–4), and the radiative cooling time of the outflow interaction zone (equation 5) converts the outflow power into a predicted luminosity (equation 7). The equations scale ste

What would settle it

Detect the predicted X-ray emission from M31-2014-DS1: the paper estimates that outflow interaction should radiate at least an order of magnitude above the observed luminosity (L_X ≳ 10^36 erg/s), so a detection near that level in the next few years would falsify the paper's conclusion, while continued upper limits would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the decade-long fading of M31-2014-DS1 is hard to reproduce in the proposed failed-supernova picture. Taking the standard estimate that the pre-collapse envelope's convection gives infalling gas a specific angular momentum of about 7×10^18 cm^2 s^-1, the first fallback material forms an accretion disk near one solar radius around a five-solar-mass black hole. If that disk launches jets carrying even a tenth of a percent of the accreted mass, the jets' energy exceeds the binding energy of the remaining bound envelope, so the backflow should be cut off within the first year rather than feeding the black hole for years. Even in the inefficient case w

Load-bearing premise

The whole critique leans on assumptions about how much spin the star's churning outer layers give the infalling gas and how efficiently the resulting disk turns that gas into jets; if either value is far smaller than assumed, the predicted excess brightness and the fine-tuning problem disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • M31-2014-DS1 should no longer be cited as observational support for the failed-supernova scenario or for black-hole formation through low-energy explosions with long-term fallback.
  • The observed upper limits on X-ray and sub-millimeter emission are consistent with a picture in which fallback accretion shuts off early, rather than powering a decade-long fade.
  • The type II intermediate-luminosity optical transient scenario—where a violent binary interaction ejects dusty gas that obscures the central source—becomes the more likely explanation for the event.
  • Within the neutrino-driven explosion framework, the event cannot be used as evidence that a non-negligible fraction of massive stars collapse quietly into black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same over-luminosity test could be applied to other failed-supernova candidates: any candidate showing a decade-long fade without bright X-ray or radio emission would face the same tension between fallback models and observations.
  • The argument turns a single-event debate into a general diagnostic: the ratio of expected fallback luminosity to observed luminosity may help separate genuine black-hole-forming collapses from dust-veiled binary eruptions.
  • Because the conclusion depends steeply on the assumed convective angular momentum and jet-launching efficiency, a grid of stripped-star models with varied masses and metallicities would sharpen or soften the fine-tuning claim.
  • If the binary-interaction scenario is right, the source may reappear or show an eccentric-orbit signature in future observations—a concrete test that the paper's author previously predicted for this object.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper critiques the failed-supernova interpretation of the fading yellow supergiant M31-2014-DS1 proposed by De et al. (2024, 2026). It argues that the convective pre-collapse envelope supplies stochastic angular momentum, causing fallback material to form an accretion disk at ~1 R_sun around the newly formed black hole. The paper claims that (i) the resulting jittering jets or disk winds would unbind most of the bound mass and shut down backflow within the first year, so De et al.'s requirement of continued inefficient accretion for >10 years is fine-tuned; and (ii) even if most bound mass is ejected by the centrifugal barrier, the implied outflow power of ~3.7e5 L_sun, radiated after rapid cooling in the interaction region, is an order of magnitude or more above the observed luminosity. The author concludes that M31-2014-DS1 is more likely a type II ILOT (binary interaction with dust ejection) and does not support the failed-supernova scenario of the neutrino-driven mechanism.

Significance. If the arguments hold, the paper would remove a recently claimed observational support for the neutrino-driven failed-supernova mechanism and strengthen the alternative type II ILOT interpretation. It is a timely contribution to an active debate, and its strength lies in translating the scenario into simple order-of-magnitude estimates that can be checked with multi-wavelength observations. The paper is transparent about its limitations ('I cannot completely rule out the failed-supernova scenario') and does not overclaim its certainty. However, the central estimates depend on parameters imported from the author's own jittering-jets framework and a single stellar model co-authored by the author. The paper does not provide simulations or new observations, and its conclusions are only as robust as these parameter choices. The over-luminosity argument, in particular, is a falsifiable prediction that could be decisive, but it requires a sensitivity analysis to be fully convincing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (3)–(4)] The derivation sets the mass that launches jets equal to the entire still-bound mass M_b accreted between 0.5 and 1 yr. But the manuscript itself states (Sec. 2, just after Eq. 1) that De et al. (2026) find that ≳99% of the initially bound material is expelled by the random angular momentum barrier, and calls this 'unavoidable.' Therefore the mass that actually reaches the inner disk and can power jets is M_acc = η M_b with η ≲ 0.01, not M_b. Inserting η into Eq. (4) gives v_b ≈ η f_j v_jet. For η=0.01 and f_j=10^-3, v_b≈1 km/s, far below the ≈50 km/s escape speed; even f_j=0.01 gives only ≈10 km/s. The claim that 'for typical f_j=0.01–0.1 the initial accretion will completely shut down backflow' thus implicitly assumes η=1, which is inconsistent with the paper's own premise. The fine-tuning argument should be restated with η explicit, and the region in (η, f_j) that actually unbinds the
  2. [§3, Eq. (7) and Fig. 1] The over-luminosity constraint relies on j_conv ≈ 7×10^18 cm^2 s^-1 from one stellar model (Cohen et al. 2025) with M_* = 9.5 M_sun, whereas the De et al. (2026) failed-supernova model has a progenitor of M ≈ 6.7 M_sun at explosion. The wind power scales as v_d,wind^2 ∝ j_conv^-2. A factor 2 increase in j_conv (to 1.4×10^19) lowers \bar E_d,wind from 3.7×10^5 L_sun to ≈9×10^4 L_sun, and a factor 3 lowers it to ≈4×10^4 L_sun, no longer 'an order of magnitude or more' above the observed ≈10^4 L_sun. Since convective velocities in stripped stars can plausibly vary by factors of a few, the author should either compute j_conv for the actual De et al. progenitor or demonstrate that the result is insensitive to the mass and stripping history. Without this, the luminosity argument is not robust.
  3. [§3, Eq. (7)] The calculation implicitly assumes that essentially all of the kinetic power of the centrifugal-barrier wind is radiated after interaction with the bound/ejected gas. However, the wind from a rotating accretion disk is likely anisotropic, and Beasor et al. (2026) find the obscuring dust distribution is non-spherical. The paper does not estimate the covering factor or the fraction of the wind that actually shocks against dense bound gas. If a substantial fraction of the outflow escapes through low-density polar regions, the radiated luminosity could be well below the value in Eq. (7). A quantitative geometric estimate (or an argument that jittering changes the wind direction on a timescale short compared to the 10-yr evolution) is needed before the luminosity constraint can be considered decisive.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The axes lack units; please specify radius in R_sun, velocity in km/s, and mass in M_sun. Also, 'striped' should be 'stripped.'
  2. [§2, paragraph before Eq. (2)] The statement that the mass accreted between 0.5 and 1 yr equals the mass still bound after 1 yr follows from a ∝t^-2 fallback rate, but this should be stated explicitly to make the derivation transparent.
  3. [§3, Eq. (5)] The cooling function Λ depends on metallicity and ionization state; please state the assumed abundance (e.g., solar) and the temperature range. Also define n_H explicitly and whether it is the pre-shock or post-shock density.
  4. [§2, Eq. (3)] The inequality sign in Eq. (3) is not explained; if v_jet=10^5 km/s and f_j=10^-3, the ratio is 4000, not larger. Please clarify whether '>' accounts for possible relativistic jets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the critique tests the failed-supernova model against its own parameters and external observations; self-citations are prominent but not used to define the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) fallback accretion with stochastic angular momentum would launch jets/winds that shut down backflow, and (ii) the resulting outflow would radiate roughly an order of magnitude above the observed luminosity. Both are forward-model arguments: the bound mass, shell density, black-hole mass, and fallback rate are taken from De et al. (2024, 2026), and the observed luminosities are taken from Beasor et al. (2026) and De et al. (2026). The only self-cited inputs are the convective angular-momentum scale j_conv from Cohen, Bear & Soker (2025) and the 'typical' jet efficiency f_j from the author's jittering-jets framework. These are assumptions imported into the test, not quantities fitted to M31-2014-DS1; the predicted luminosity scales with them but is not identical to them by construction. A possible inconsistency noted by a reader—that Eqs. (3)-(4) use the full fallback mass as accreted mass while the same scenario invokes a >99% centrifugal-barrier loss—is a quantitative consistency concern about the argument, not a case of the paper deriving its conclusion from its own premises in a definitionally forced way. The self-citations to Soker (2024) and related JJEM papers support the alternative ILOT scenario, but the paper does not claim to prove that scenario from M31-2014-DS1; its main finding is that the failed-supernova scenario is not forced by the data. No circular reduction is exhibited.

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

The paper is not a from-first-principles derivation; it imports scenario parameters from De et al. (2026) and a convective-angular-momentum value from a co-authored stellar model. The load-bearing free choices are the jet mass-loading fraction and the assumed post-shock temperature; both enter the fine-tuning and luminosity conclusions.

free parameters (4)
  • jet mass-loading fraction f_j = assumed 1e-3–1e-1
    The fine-tuning argument (Eqs. 3–4) and the conclusion that jets shut down backflow depend directly on this unmeasured ratio; a value far below 1e-3 would remove the jet feedback.
  • post-shock temperature T = 1e8 K
    Used in Eq. (5) to estimate the radiative cooling time; varying T changes tau_cool and the quantitative edge of the over-luminosity argument.
  • bound mass M_b = 0.05 M_sun
    Adopted from De et al. (2026) for the luminosity estimate in Eq. (7); it is an input, not independently measured.
  • convective specific angular momentum j_conv = 7e18 cm^2 s^-1
    Taken from the Cohen et al. (2025) stellar model; Eqs. (1), (6), and (7) scale with j_conv and j_conv^-1, yet no uncertainty or stellar-model variation is explored.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The stripped post-red-supergiant model of Cohen et al. (2025) represents the M31-2014-DS1 progenitor and gives j_conv ≈ 7e18 cm^2 s^-1.
    Figure 1 and Section 2 use this value; if the real progenitor had much lower convective angular momentum, the disk radius (Eq. 1) and wind luminosity (Eq. 7) would shrink.
  • domain assumption Fallback gas with stochastic angular momentum forms intermittent accretion disks that launch jets carrying f_j of the accreted mass at ~1e5 km/s.
    This is the JJEM framework developed largely by the author; it is not independently tested for this specific event.
  • domain assumption The outflow terminal velocity equals the Keplerian velocity at the initial disk radius (Eq. 6).
    Used to derive v_d,wind ≈ 950 km/s; other outflow speeds would change the luminosity estimate.
  • domain assumption The radiative cooling time at constant pressure with Lambda ≥ 3e-23 erg cm^3 s^-1 applies, so most interaction energy is radiated.
    Section 3, Eq. (5); the over-luminosity conclusion depends on this fast-cooling assumption.
  • domain assumption The De et al. (2026) scenario parameters—ejected mass 0.1 M_sun, bound mass 0.05 M_sun, shell 40–80 AU, n_H ≈ 1e10 cm^-3, M_BH = 5 M_sun, fallback rate ∝ t^-2—are correct.
    The critique is conditional on these values; different geometry or masses would change the luminosity and fine-tuning arguments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The failed failed-supernova scenario of M31-2014-DS1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4A42QDC

@misc{pith2026260114497,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The failed failed-supernova scenario of M31-2014-DS1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4A42QDC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.14497}
}
read the original abstract

I examine a recently proposed failed-supernova scenario for the fading of the yellow supergiant event M31-2014-DS1, and find that it requires unlikely fine-tuned parameters to work, if at all. In the failed-supernova scenario, most of the yellow supergiant collapsed to form a black hole. Due to the energy carried by neutrinos from the cooling, collapsing core, gravity decreases, leading to the ejection of a small fraction of the outer envelope, some of which remains bound. The fallback accreted gas possesses large angular-momentum fluctuations due to the pre-collapse envelope convection. The fallback material forms intermittent accretion disks around the black hole that launch jets (or disk wind), which unbind most of the bound material. The failed-supernova scenario for M31-2014-DS1 requires that only <1% of the bound material be accreted by the black hole, but the jets do not shut down the backflow for over 10 years. I find this fine-tuned requirement unlikely. I also find that, due to the rapid radiative cooling of the outflow interaction zone with the outer gas, the expected radiation is about an order of magnitude or more above the observed value. These, as well as earlier challenges raised against the failed-supernova scenario, make the alternative type II intermediate-luminosity optical transient scenario, in which fading is due to dust ejection in a violent binary interaction, more likely. The fading event M31-2014-DS1 does not support the failed-supernova scenario predicted by the neutrino-driven explosion mechanism of core-collapse supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.14497 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — A stellar model of a post-red-supergiant star, a yel￾low supergiant, which was stripped of most of its hydrogen-rich envelope (from Cohen et al. (2025)). The initial stellar mass was MZAMS = 20M⊙. At the time shown, the total mass is M∗ = 9.5M⊙, the total hydrogen mass is MH = 1.6M⊙, the stel￾lar luminosity is L∗ = 7.9 × 104L⊙, the effective temperature is Teff = 4680 K, and its radius is R∗ = 427R⊙. The blue line… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 4968, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx816

    Dai, X. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4968, doi:10.1093/mnras/stx816

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx816 2017

  2. [2]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.16308, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.16308

    Antoni, A., Jiang, Y.-F., & Quataert, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.16308, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.16308

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.16308 2025

  3. [3]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3776 2022

  4. [4]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a9d 2022

  5. [5]

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

    Beasor, E. R., Davies, B., Smith, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5994, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa255 2020

  6. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad21fa 2024

  7. [7]

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

    Beasor, E. R., Smith, N., & Jencson, J. E. 2025, ApJ, 979, 117, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8f3f 2025

  8. [8]

    R., Smith, N., Pearson, J., et al

    Beasor, E. R., Smith, N., Pearson, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.05317.https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05317

    arXiv 2026

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

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

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, ApJ, 964, L16, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e —. 2025, ApJ, 987, 164, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd04

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Fraser, M

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

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.16375, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.16375

    Cohen, Y., Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.16375, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.16375

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    E., et al

    De, K., MacLeod, M., Jencson, J. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14778.https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14778 —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.05774. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05774

    2024

  5. [13]

    J., Edgar, R

    Gaetz, T. J., Edgar, R. J., & Chevalier, R. A. 1988, ApJ, 329, 927, doi:10.1086/166437

    1988 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Kochanek, C

    Gerke, J. R., Kochanek, C. S., & Stanek, K. Z. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3289, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv776

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Gilkis, A., Laplace, E., Arcavi, I., Shenar, T., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 3094, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf884

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

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

    Gilkis, A., & Soker, N. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 4011, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu257

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

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

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

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04386.https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04386

    Healy, S., Horiuchi, S., & Ashall, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.04386.https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04386

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Humphreys, R. M. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 164, doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab5191

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Janka, H. T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.14836, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.14836 The failed scenario of M31-2014-DS1i 5

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Neustadt, J

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

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    E., & Remillard, R

    McClintock, J. E., & Remillard, R. A. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis, Vol. 39, 157–213, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0306213

    2006 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2011, MNRAS, 416, 1697, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18671.x —

    Papish, O., & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1697, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18671.x —. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 664, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1129

    2011

  18. [26]

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

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

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

    Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2021, MNRAS, 508, L43, doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab105 —. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 4224, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1075

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 112, doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/112 —

    Soker, N. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 112, doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/112 —. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 095020, doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ace9b3 —. 2024, Universe, 10, 458, doi:10.3390/universe10120458 —. 2025, New A, 121, 102453, doi:1...

    2021

  21. [29]

    L., Ofek, E

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

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Wang, N. Y. N., Shishkin, D., & Soker, N. 2024, ApJ, 969, 163, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad487f —. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.02203, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.02203

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    2025, A&A, 697, A167, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452401 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template

    Zapartas, E., de Wit, S., Antoniadis, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A167, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452401 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in the astro-phsect...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.