Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

The Challenges of Modeling Astrophysical Reacting Flows

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that strongly coupling nuclear reactions to hydrodynamics, rather than treating them separately, gives more accurate and cheaper stellar explosion simulations.

desk verdict A clear status report on SDC and GPU integration from a group doing real work, but the truly new performance numbers are preliminary and the flagship accuracy/efficiency claim is delegated to the group's own earlier papers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12491 v1 pith:S6YV7KUU submitted 2024-11-19 astro-ph.IM

Michael Zingale , Khanak Bhargava , Ryan Brady , Zhi Chen , Simon Guichandut , Eric T. Johnson , Max Katz , Alexander Smith Clark This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords astrophysicalreactingflowsoperatorsplittingspectraldeferredcorrectionssimplified-SDCStrangnuclearreactionnetworksGPUintegrationTypeIasupernovae
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

Stellar explosions and late-stage burning are driven by nuclear reactions acting on hydrodynamic timescales. The standard approach in astrophysics has been operator splitting, which treats reactions and flow separately and often forces users to cut the timestep to preserve accuracy. The paper argues that a strongly coupled time-integration method, simplified spectral deferred corrections (simplified-SDC), lets reactions see the hydrodynamic flow within a timestep, producing second-order accuracy without the timestep penalty. It reports that in a double detonation Type Ia supernova study, simplified-SDC is both more accurate and computationally cheaper than Strang splitting. The paper also surveys practical choices for stiff reaction integrators and GPU offloading, concluding that explicit stabilized integrators can beat implicit ones in some regimes and that entire GPU-resident integration is viable at scale.

What carries the argument

The central object is the simplified-SDC time-integration update, Equation (2): $$\frac{d\mathbf{U}}{dt} = [\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{U})]^{n+1/2} + \mathbf{R}(\mathbf{U}),$$ where $\mathbf{U}$ is the conserved state, $[\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{U})]^{n+1/2}$ is the hydrodynamic advection term constructed once at the time midpoint by characteristic tracing and treated as piecewise-constant-in-time during the reaction evolution, and $\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{U})$ is the reaction source. This construction lets the reaction integrator see the net effect of advection over the full timestep, removing the need to cut the timestep below the hydrodynamic CFL limit for explosive flows. The paper also leans on the variable-order implicit VODE integrator ported to a templated C++ header, the explicit Runge-Kutta-Chebyshev integrator, and the strategy of capping ODE steps with a Jacobian-retry fallback to manage GPU thread divergence.

What would settle it

A head-to-head convergence test on a detonation with a rapidly varying advective field, comparing simplified-SDC against Strang splitting with a fully resolved timestep sequence, would settle the claim: if simplified-SDC requires timestep cutting to match Strang's accuracy, or if its cost per accurate solution exceeds Strang's, the central efficiency and accuracy claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that operator splitting, the long-standing default for coupling reactions and hydrodynamics in astrophysical codes, can be replaced by a simplified spectral deferred corrections (simplified-SDC) integration that is both more accurate and less expensive on genuinely coupled problems. In the paper's own words, 'the simplified-SDC integration is more accurate than Strang splitting and also computationally less expensive,' based on their double detonation SN Ia study. The mechanism is Equation (2): the conserved state is advanced by integrating the reaction ODEs while an advective term constructed at the time midpoint is held piecewise-constant-in-time, so burning responds immediately to compression and expansion rather than after a split step. A further finding is that on GPUs, running the entire ODE integrator as a device kernel, with a step cap and application-level retry, gives speedups such as a 1.7x faster 3D massive-star simulation on AMD GPUs, and that an explicit stabilized integrator (RKC) can be nearly twice as fast as the implicit VODE for layered X-ray burst flames in the early, cooler phase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that treating the advective term as piecewise-constant-in-time over the full timestep captures how the hydrodynamic flow changes the thermodynamic state well enough for second-order accuracy; in rapidly varying flows like detonations, a fast-changing advective field could invalidate the coupling and the efficiency comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If simplified-SDC delivers what the paper reports, explosive astrophysical flows like detonations and X-ray bursts can be simulated on the natural hydrodynamic timestep rather than a reaction-limited timestep, making multidimensional models of Type Ia supernovae and novae substantially cheaper.
  • Second-order accuracy in the reaction-flow coupling means nucleosynthesis yields and energy deposition will be more reliable in regimes where operator splitting with constant-temperature burning drops to first order, changing predictions for explosion outcomes.
  • The GPU-resident integrator approach, with step caps and retries, makes whole-simulation GPU offloading practical, allowing 3D reacting-flow runs on exascale machines at an order-of-magnitude speedup over CPU nodes.
  • Problem-dependent integrator choice, such as using explicit RKC for cooler layers and implicit VODE for hotter regions, could become a standard optimization in reacting-flow codes, tailoring the integrator to the local thermodynamic regime.
  • Combining NSE tables with simplified-SDC gives a second-order accurate treatment of the transition to nuclear statistical equilibrium, allowing massive-star cores to be included self-consistently instead of excised or approximated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's efficiency claim for simplified-SDC is demonstrated on detonations; a natural extension is to test the method on other strongly coupled regimes such as deflagration-to-detonation transition or convective-reactive shells, where the frozen-advection assumption may be pushed harder.
  • If the step-cap-and-retry strategy works as described, it suggests a general GPU pattern for stiff ODE systems: bound the per-zone work, fail loudly, and redo the whole AMR level with a smaller timestep, rather than letting thread divergence dictate cost.
  • The comparison of RKC vs VODE is limited to the early, cooler phase of layered X-ray bursts; a future study could map the crossover temperature and network size where explicit stabilized methods lose their advantage, providing a rule of thumb for code users.
  • The paper does not analyze the error of the piecewise-constant advection term in strongly dynamic flows; a quantitative convergence study varying the flow unsteadiness would clarify when simplified-SDC's second-order claim degrades and whether a higher-order reconstruction of $\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{U})$ is worth the cost.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper is a review-style report from the AMReX-Astro group on algorithmic challenges in modeling astrophysical reacting flows. It contrasts the standard operator-splitting approach with strongly coupled time-integration methods, focusing on the simplified spectral deferred correction (simplified-SDC) method defined by Eq. (2), in which the advective term is evaluated at the midpoint and held piecewise constant during the reaction integration. The manuscript also discusses integrator choices (VODE vs. Runge-Kutta-Chebyshev), handling of nuclear statistical equilibrium via tables, GPU porting of the entire integration pipeline, and reports several performance numbers such as strong scaling to O(10^3) nodes, a 1.7x speedup for a massive-star simulation, and RKC being almost twice as fast as VODE for a layered X-ray burst model. The central quantitative claim is that simplified-SDC is more accurate and computationally less expensive than Strang splitting for double detonation Type Ia supernova progenitors, citing prior work [53].

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper describes methodology that could meaningfully improve both accuracy and throughput for astrophysical reacting-flow simulations, and the open-source availability of the AMReX-Astro suite and Microphysics package is a genuine strength. The paper also provides a useful community-oriented summary of integrator choices, NSE treatment, and GPU-offload strategies, and its claims about RKC integrators under specific thermodynamic conditions are falsifiable and actionable. However, the paper is largely a summary of the group's own prior results, and the most load-bearing assertions—particularly the superiority of simplified-SDC over Strang splitting—are not demonstrated with any numerical evidence inside this manuscript. The frozen-advection approximation in Eq. (2) is a real correctness-risk point that the paper does not address with a convergence study, so the significance of the efficiency claims depends on external validation that is only cited, not shown.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (2)] The paper's central quantitative claim—that simplified-SDC is more accurate than Strang splitting and computationally less expensive for double detonations—is asserted in §3.2 with a citation to [53] but is not demonstrated anywhere in this manuscript. The accuracy of the method rests on Eq. (2), where the advective term [A(U)]^{n+1/2} is constructed once at the midpoint and held constant during the reaction ODE integration. No convergence study, error norm, or timestep-refinement test is shown for this frozen-advection approximation in strongly dynamic detonation flows. Because the efficiency advantage over Strang splitting depends on avoiding timestep cuts, the reader cannot tell whether the method remains second-order in this regime or whether the reported cost savings would survive an accuracy-matched comparison. Please add at least one representative convergence test (e.g., a detonation tube problem refined in dt and dx) or explicitly restrict the claim to the setup in [53] and summarize the accuracy metrics from that paper.
  2. [§3.1.1] The reported 1.7x speedup for the massive-star simulation is obtained by capping the number of ODE integration steps at 5000 and allowing failed burns to retry with a different Jacobian approximation. This is a truncation of the reaction integration, not a relaxation of the tolerance, and the manuscript provides no validation that the capped/retried solution matches the uncapped one. Please report the maximum difference in relevant quantities (electron fraction, energy, composition), the fraction of zones that hit the cap or retry, and the distribution of ODE steps, and compare wall-clock time against an uncapped baseline at the same accuracy.
  3. [§2, §3.1.2] The performance claims—strong scaling to O(10^3) nodes in Figure 1, 'almost twice as fast' RKC in §3.1.2, and 'order-of-magnitude faster' GPUs in §2—are single measurements without error bars, problem-size details, or full hardware/software configuration. For a paper whose stated theme is efficiency, these numbers need enough context to be reproducible or at least interpretable: number of zones, network size, integrator tolerances, GPU model, and wall-clock measurement methodology. Repeated runs to assess variability would also strengthen the claims.
  4. [Introduction] The introduction states that strongly-coupled time-integration methods 'can be more efficient than operator splitting on a variety of problems,' but the only operator-splitting comparison in the paper is the double-detonation case from [53]; the other examples compare integrator choices (RKC vs VODE), NSE-table treatment, or GPU implementations rather than splitting. Please either temper the generalization or cite specific additional examples with the same level of detail.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2, §3.2, §3.1.1] There are several typos: 'one-another' should be 'one another'; 'where were were able' should be 'where we were able'; 'Futhermore' should be 'Furthermore'; 'cutout' should be 'cut out.'
  2. [§3.1.1] The phrase 'a 15M⊙ star' should use a space as 'a 15 M⊙ star', and $O(100)$ should be typeset in math mode.
  3. [Figure 1] The right panel's y-axis is labeled 'wallclock time / step' with no units; please specify seconds per step and enlarge the legend, since the four curve labels are difficult to read.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The notation n+1/2 should be defined before it is used, explaining that this is a midpoint value obtained from the piecewise-parabolic characteristic tracing, prior to introducing the piecewise-constant treatment.
  5. [References] Reference [24] has 'Isseu' in the journal name; it should be 'Issue.'
  6. [§2] The sentence 'the reactions explicitly sees what advection does' should read 'the reactions explicitly see what advection does.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper is a review that supports its claims with published, open-source simulation studies rather than deriving them from its own equations.

full rationale

This paper is a review of the authors' algorithmic developments for astrophysical reacting flows. Equation (2) defines the simplified-SDC update, but the accuracy and efficiency claims are not derived from Eq. (2) in this manuscript; they are asserted with citations to prior published studies ([16], [53], [54]) that use the open-source AMReX-Astro codes. No parameter is fitted and then relabeled as a prediction, and no equation is shown to be equivalent to its own input by construction. The central quantitative claim (Section 3.2) that simplified-SDC is more accurate and less expensive than Strang splitting for double detonations is attributed to an ApJ paper with publicly available code, which constitutes code-reproduced, externally checkable evidence. Heavy self-citation is present throughout, but it is evidential rather than definitional: the cited results are peer-reviewed and reproducible, so the claims do not reduce to a self-citation chain. The paper also uses hedged language ('it seems to remove some of the stiffness') and explicitly notes that performance benefits are problem-dependent, further indicating that no result is being forced by definition. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters are fitted to data in the mathematical claims. The performance comparisons rest on hand-chosen solver settings (tolerances, step caps) and domain assumptions about the reactive-flow equations and the simplified-SDC frozen-advection approximation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • VODE/RKC integrator tolerances = not stated
    The reported VODE versus RKC speed comparison (Section 3.1.2) depends on the absolute and relative error tolerances chosen for each integrator; these are not reported and can change the ranking.
  • ODE step cap and Jacobian retry threshold = cap < 5000 steps
    The 1.7x speedup on Frontier (Section 3.1.1) is produced by capping the number of ODE integration steps below 5000 and allowing a retry with a different Jacobian type; this cap is a hand-chosen performance heuristic.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The reactive flow is governed by dU/dt = A(U) + R(U) in conservative form, with advection and reactions separable at the PDE level.
    Section 1, Eq (1). Standard for compressible reactive hydrodynamics; the whole operator-splitting discussion presupposes this split.
  • ad hoc to paper The advective term [A(U)]^(n+1/2) may be held piecewise constant in time during the reaction integration.
    Section 1, Eq (2). This is the simplified-SDC approximation that the accuracy and efficiency claims rely on; no proof of its validity for detonation-scale flows is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption NSE states can be tabulated as functions of density, temperature, and electron fraction, and the table can be interpolated for energy release and electron fraction evolution.
    Section 3.1.1. Adopted from prior thermonuclear supernova work (e.g., [35,37,38]) and used to replace a 19-isotope network in the iron core.
  • standard math Operator splitting formally breaks down for stiff reactive flows as shown by Sportisse [1].
    Introduction and Section 3.2. This established numerical analysis result motivates the search for strongly coupled methods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Challenges of Modeling Astrophysical Reacting Flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6YV7KUU

@misc{pith2026241112491,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Challenges of Modeling Astrophysical Reacting Flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6YV7KUU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12491}
}
read the original abstract

Stellar evolution is driven by the changing composition of a star from nuclear reactions. At the late stages of evolution and during explosive events, the timescale can be short and drive strong hydrodynamic flows, making simulations of astrophysical reacting flows challenging. Over the past decades, the standard approach to modeling reactions in simulation codes has been operator splitting, using implicit integrators for reactions. Here we explore some of the assumptions in this standard approach and describe some techniques for improving the efficiency and accuracy of astrophysical reacting flows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12491 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (left) the evolution of the programming languages used in Castro, showing the sharp decline in Fortran to the fully C++ codebase today (right) strong scaling for a 3D XRB flame (from [12]) on the OLCF Summit (6 GPUs / node) and Frontier (8 GPUs / node) machines. We see good scaling to O(103 ) nodes. splitting on a variety of problems. Here we review our algorithmic development for modeling astrophysical reacting flo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mach number, vorticity, mean molecular weight, and energy generation rate for a 15 M⊙ star in the inner 15% of the simulation domain. The black contour in each panel shows the boundary between when we assume NSE and when we integrate the network. 3.1.2. Example: X-ray bursts and explicit integrators. In chemical combustion, [46] showed that stabilized explicit integrators, like Runge-Kutta-Chebyshev (RKC) [47], can … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Slice through a 3D simulation of layered convection in an XRB. On the left is vorticity, showing the convective field in the main fuel layer. Only the lower part of the domain is shown—the region above the fuel layer is low density material intended to give the atmosphere room to expand as it heats up. On the right is the energy generation rate, showing two distinct layers: He burning beneath H burning. We ported th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Zingale M, Katz M P, Nonaka A and Rasmussen M 2022 The Astrophysical Journal 936 6 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac8478

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8478 2022

  2. [53]

    Zingale M, Chen Z, Rasmussen M, Polin A, Katz M, Clark A S and Johnson E T 2024 The Astrophysical Journal 966 150 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad3441

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3441 2024

  3. [1]

    Sportisse B 2000 Journal of Computational Physics 161 140–168 ISSN 0021-9991 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021999100964957

    work page 2000

  4. [2]

    Zingale M, Timmes F X, Fryxell B, Lamb D Q, Olson K, Calder A C, Dursi L J, Ricker P, Rosner R, MacNeice P and Tufo H M 2001 Astrophysical Journal Supplement 133 195–220

    work page 2001

  5. [3]

    org/10.3847/1538-4357/abada7

    Fields C E and Couch S M 2020 The Astrophysical Journal 901 33 URL https://dx.doi. org/10.3847/1538-4357/abada7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abada7 2020

  6. [4]

    Rivas F, Harris J A, Hix W R and Messer O E B 2022 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2205.12370 (Preprint 2205.12370)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [5]

    Meeting the Challenges of Modeling Astrophysical Thermonuclear Explosions: Castro, Maestro, and the AMReX Astrophysics Suite

    Zingale M, Almgren A S, Barrios Sazo M G, Beckner V E, Bell J B, Friesen B, Jacobs A M, Katz M P, Malone C M, Nonaka A J, Willcox D E and Zhang W 2018 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1031 012024 ISSN 1742-6588, 1742-6596 ( Preprint 1711.06203) URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1031/1/012024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    Zhang W, Almgren A, Beckner V, Bell J, Blaschke J, Chan C, Day M, Friesen B, Gott K, Graves D, Katz M, Myers A, Nguyen T, Nonaka A, Rosso M, Williams S and Zingale M 2019 JOSS 4 1370 ISSN 2475-9066 URL https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01370

    doi:10.21105/joss.01370 2019

Show all 55 references
  1. [7]

    Almgren A S, Beckner V E, Bell J B, Day M S, Howell L H, Joggerst C C, Lijewski M J, Nonaka A, Singer M and Zingale M 2010 ApJ 715 1221–1238 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 (Preprint 1005.0114) URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/715/2/1221

    2010 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Almgren A, Sazo M B, Bell J, Harpole A, Katz M, Sexton J, Willcox D, Zhang W and Zingale M 2020 Journal of Open Source Software 5 2513 URL https://doi.org/10.21105/ joss.02513

    2020

  3. [9]

    Fan D, Nonaka A, Almgren A S, Harpole A and Zingale M 2019 Astrophysical Journal 887 212 (Preprint 1908.03634)

    2019 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Almgren A S, Bell J B, Lijewski M J, Luki´ c Z and Van Andel E 2013Astrophysical Journal 765 39 (Preprint 1301.4498)

    arXiv

  5. [11]

    Katz M P, Almgren A, Sazo M B, Eiden K, Gott K, Harpole A, Sexton J M, Willcox D E, Zhang W and Zingale M 2020 Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis SC ’20 (IEEE Press) ISBN 9781728199986 URL https://dl.acm...

    2020

  6. [12]

    Zingale M, Eiden K and Katz M 2023 The Astrophysical Journal 952 160 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ace04e

    2023 doi

  7. [13]

    Colella P 1990 J. Comput. Phys. 87 171–200 ISSN 0021-9991 URL https://doi.org/10. 1016/0021-9991(90)90233-q

    1990

  8. [14]

    Colella P and Woodward P R 1984 J. Comput. Phys. 54 174–201 ISSN 0021-9991 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

    1984 doi

  9. [15]

    Zingale M, Katz M P, Willcox D E and Harpole A 2021 Research Notes of the AAS 5 71 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/abf3cb

    2021 doi

  10. [17]

    Dutt A, Greengard L and Rokhlin V 2000 BIT Numerical Mathematics 40(2) 241–266

  11. [18]

    Bourlioux A, Layton A T and Minion M L 2003 Journal of Computational Physics 189 651–675

    2003

  12. [19]

    Zingale M, Katz M P, Bell J B, Minion M L, Nonaka A J and Zhang W 2019 ApJ 886 arXiv:1908.03661 ISSN 1538-4357 accepted to ApJ ( Preprint 1908.03661) URL https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e1d

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Smith A I, Johnson E T, Chen Z, Eiden K, Willcox D E, Boyd B, Cao L, DeGrendele C J and Zingale M 2023 The Astrophysical Journal 947 65 URL https://dx.doi.org/ 10.3847/1538-4357/acbaff

    2023 doi

  14. [21]

    Arnett W D and Truran J W 1969 Astrophysical Journal 157 339

    1969

  15. [22]

    Woosley S E, Arnett W D and Clayton D D 1973 Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 26 231

    1973

  16. [23]

    Fryxell B A, M¨ uller E and Arnett D 1989 MPA Preprint 449

    1989

  17. [24]

    Hix W R and Meyer B S 2006 Nuclear Physics A 777 188–207 ISSN 0375-9474 special Isseu on Nuclear Astrophysics URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0375947404011005

    2006

  18. [25]

    Timmes F X 1999 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 124 241 URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1086/313257

    1999 doi

  19. [26]

    Fryxell B, Olson K, Ricker P, Timmes F X, Zingale M, Lamb D Q, MacNeice P, Rosner R, Truran J W and Tufo H 2000 Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 131 273–334

    2000

  20. [27]

    Longland R, Martin D and Jos´ e J 2014 Astronomy and Astrophysics 563 A67 ( Preprint 1401.5762)

    2014 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Brown P N, Byrne G D and Hindmarsh A C 1989 SIAM J. Sci. and Stat. Comput. 10 1038–1051 ISSN 0196-5204, 2168-3417 URL https://doi.org/10.1137/0910062

    1989 doi

  22. [29]

    Henry de Frahan M T, Rood J S, Day M S, Sitaraman H, Yellapantula S, Perry B A, Grout R W, Almgren A, Zhang W, Bell J B and Chen J H 2022 The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 37 115–131 URL https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10943420221121151

    2022

  23. [30]

    Balos C J, Day M, Esclapez L, Felden A M, Gardner D J, Hassanaly M, Reynolds D R, Rood J, Sexton J M, Wimer N T and Woodward C S 2024 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2405.01713 (Preprint 2405.01713)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Weaver T A, Zimmerman G B and Woosley S E 1978 ApJ 225 1021 ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357 URL https://doi.org/10.1086/156569

    1978 doi

  25. [32]

    Mott D R, Oran E S and van Leer B 2000 Journal of Computational Physics 164 407–428 ISSN 0021-9991 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0021999100966051

    2000

  26. [33]

    Guidry M W and Harris J A 2013 Computational Science & Discovery 6 015002 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1749-4699/6/1/015002

    2013 doi

  27. [34]

    Kushnir D and Katz B 2020 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493 5413– 5433 (Preprint 1912.06151)

    2020 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Ma H, Woosley S E, Malone C M, Almgren A and Bell J 2013 Astrophysical Journal 771 58 (Preprint 1305.2433)

    2013 arXiv

  29. [36]

    com/mnras/article-pdf/482/4/4346/26779042/sty2951.pdf) URL https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/sty2951

    Bravo E, Badenes C and Mart ´ ınez-Rodr ´ ıguez H 2018 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 482 4346–4363 ISSN 0035-8711 ( Preprint https://academic.oup. com/mnras/article-pdf/482/4/4346/26779042/sty2951.pdf) URL https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/sty2951

    2018 doi

  30. [37]

    Townsley D M, Calder A C, Asida S M, Seitenzahl I R, Peng F, Vladimirova N, Lamb D Q and Truran J W 2007 Astrophysical Journal 668 1118–1131 (Preprint 0706.1094)

    2007 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Seitenzahl I R, Townsley D M, Peng F and Truran J W 2009 Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 95 96–114

    2009

  32. [39]

    Zingale M, Chen Z, Johnson E T, Katz M P and Smith Clark A 2024 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2403.14786 (Preprint 2403.14786)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    M¨ uller B, Melson T, Heger A and Janka H T 2017 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 472 491–513 (Preprint 1705.00620)

    2017 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Yadav N, M¨ uller B, Janka H T, Melson T and Heger A 2020Astrophysical Journal 890 94 (Preprint 1905.04378)

    1905 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Varma V and M¨ uller B 2023Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 526 5249– 5262 (Preprint 2307.04833)

    arXiv

  36. [43]

    Yoshida T, Takiwaki T, Kotake K, Takahashi K, Nakamura K and Umeda H 2019 The Astrophysical Journal 881 16 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b9d

    2019 doi

  37. [44]

    Yoshida T, Takiwaki T, Kotake K, Takahashi K, Nakamura K and Umeda H 2021 The Astrophysical Journal 908 44 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abd3a3

    2021 doi

  38. [45]

    Fields C E and Couch S M 2020 Astrophysical Journal 901 33 (Preprint 2008.04266)

    2020 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Niemeyer K E and Sung C J 2014 Journal of Computational Physics 256 854– 871 ISSN 0021-9991 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0021999113006396

    2014

  40. [47]

    Sommeijer B, Shampine L and Verwer J 1998 Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 88 315–326 ISSN 0377-0427 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0377042797002197

    1998

  41. [48]

    Johnson P, Zingale M, Johnson E T, Smith A and Niemeyer K E 2023 Research Notes of the AAS 7 282 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/ad175d

    2023 doi

  42. [49]

    Guichandut S, Zingale M and Cumming A 2024 The Astrophysical Journal 975 250 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad81f7

    2024 doi

  43. [50]

    Strang G 1968 SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 5 506–517 ISSN 0036-1429, 1095-7170 URL https: //doi.org/10.1137/0705041

    1968 doi

  44. [51]

    Astrophys

    M¨ uller E 1986Astron. Astrophys. 162 103–108

  45. [52]

    Cabez´ on R M, Garc ´ ıa-Senz D and Bravo E 2004The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 151 345 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/382352

    doi

  46. [54]

    Zingale M, Eiden K, Cavecchi Y, Harpole A, Bell J B, Chang M, Hawke I, Katz M P, Malone C M, Nonaka A J, Willcox D E and Zhang W 2019 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1225 012005 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1225/1/012005

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Stone C P and Davis R L 2013 Journal of Propulsion and Power 29 764–773 ( Preprint https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B34874) URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.B34874

    2013 doi

Pith tools

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