Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Multi-dimensional NLTE radiative transfer for a double detonation Type Ia explosion model in the photospheric phase

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Full NLTE radiative transfer keeps double-detonation supernova spectra strongly viewing-angle dependent after peak and changes colours and light curves on observable scales.

desk verdict The first 2D NLTE photospheric-phase radiative transfer simulation for a double detonation model is a real step forward, but the headline post-peak viewing-angle claim is weaker than the abstract suggests and needs a quantitative treatment and an honest caveat about the model's acknowledged over-ionisation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07288 v1 pith:SJOY73QL submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

F. P. Callan , L. J. Shingles , S. A. Sim , C. E. Collins , J. M. Pollin , R. Pakmor , S. Gronow , F. K. Roepke
show 2 more authors
A. Holas I. R. Seitenzahl
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords radiativetransfernon-localthermodynamicequilibriumdoubledetonationTypeIasupernovaephotosphericphaseviewing-angledependenceMonteCarlomethods
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

The paper carries out the first multi-dimensional, full non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) radiative transfer simulation of the photospheric phase of a double detonation Type Ia supernova model, using the M10_02 model with a 1 $M_\odot$ carbon-oxygen core and 0.02 $M_\odot$ helium shell. It argues that departures from both spherical symmetry and local thermodynamic equilibrium are large enough to change synthetic observables at levels relevant to comparisons with real supernovae. The full NLTE treatment leaves the ejecta more ionised than an approximate NLTE treatment, giving bluer colours, slower optical declines, and no secondary near-infrared maximum, which moves the model closer to normal Type Ia supernovae but leaves it over-ionised after peak. The central result is that the NLTE simulation retains strong spectroscopic viewing-angle variation after peak, whereas the approximate treatment predicts markedly reduced variation. The paper concludes that multi-dimensionality and NLTE must be treated together when confronting these models with observations, and that the 0.02 $M_\odot$ helium shell is too massive to match normal SNe Ia over most lines of sight.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 2D cylindrical ejecta model constructed from the $\phi=90^\circ$ half-plane slice of the 3D M10_02 double detonation explosion model (a 1 $M_\odot$ carbon-oxygen core with a 0.02 $M_\odot$ helium shell), which preserves the model's approximate axial symmetry. The argument is carried by the two plasma treatments in the Monte Carlo radiative transfer code artis: the full NLTE solver (artis-nlte) that solves the equations of statistical equilibrium and includes non-thermal ionisation, and the approximate NLTE treatment (artis-classic) that tracks only ground-state photoionisation and assumes Boltzmann level populations. The quantity that does the work is the ionisation state: the full NLTE treatment produces a higher and longer-lasting ionisation level, which shifts the spectral energy distribution blueward, removes the secondary near-infrared maximum, and keeps the post-peak spectra strongly viewing-angle dependent. An adaptive NLTE solver that strips ionisation stages with negligible populations when the matrix becomes singular is what makes the multi-dimensional early-phase simulation numerically stable.

What would settle it

A 3D full-NLTE simulation of the same M10_02 ejecta, comparing post-peak spectroscopic viewing-angle variation directly to the 2D NLTE result, would settle whether the retained variation is a genuine ejecta property or an artifact of the 2D slice; if the variation collapses in 3D, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We show that a 2D NLTE radiative transfer simulation of the M10_02 double detonation model in the photospheric phase is feasible and changes the predicted observables at levels relevant to observations. Compared to an approximate NLTE treatment, the full NLTE calculation keeps the ejecta more ionised: the free electron fraction is higher, singly ionised species such as Fe II, Co II, Ti II and Ca II recombine later, and the spectrum stays bluer with slower optical light curve declines. The most striking difference is the near-infrared behaviour: the approximate treatment predicts a strong, early secondary I-band maximum, while no viewing angle in the NLTE simulation produces one, indicating that the ejecta remain over-ionised relative to normal SNe Ia after peak. Up to peak, the two treatments predict a similar scale of viewing-angle variation, but after peak the NLTE simulation continues to show strong spectroscopic dependence on viewing angle, most visibly in the Ti II absorption trough and Ca II near-infrared triplet, whereas the approximate treatment predicts markedly reduced variation as its lower ionisation state homogenises the opacities. As a result, no single 1D model reproduces the equatorial line of sight, and the model matches normal SNe Ia only for southern viewing angles; the northern and equatorial angles show excessive line blanketing from helium-shell burning products, which we interpret as evidence that a 0.02 $M_\odot$ helium shell is too massive for the majority of lines of sight.

Load-bearing premise

The 2D cylindrical ejecta model, built from a single half-plane slice of the 3D M10_02 explosion, is assumed to capture the full 3D structure for NLTE radiative transfer, since no 3D NLTE simulation is performed to confirm this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • To judge double detonation models against normal Type Ia supernovae, radiative transfer must combine multi-dimensional geometry with a full NLTE treatment; approximate NLTE alone can erase genuine viewing-angle diversity after peak.
  • The M10_02 model cannot reproduce normal SNe Ia over the majority of lines of sight because its 0.02 $M_\odot$ helium shell produces excessive line blanketing; lower helium-shell masses are required for most viewing angles, although some southern angles already match well.
  • The complete absence of a secondary near-infrared maximum across all viewing angles indicates that the NLTE ejecta remain over-ionised after peak, so some additional recombination mechanism, such as density clumping, is needed in the models.
  • 1D NLTE models constructed from a given direction do not reproduce the corresponding 2D line of sight: the 1D model gives brighter blue light curves and a different Ca II NIR triplet evolution, so 1D treatments can mislead when used for spectral interpretation.
  • The width-luminosity position of the model shifts with the NLTE treatment: full NLTE gives slower declines and bluer peak colours, placing the model in better agreement with the observed normal SNe Ia distribution than the approximate treatment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the post-peak retention of viewing-angle variation is a generic property of full NLTE treatments of asymmetric explosions, then previous multi-dimensional studies using approximate NLTE may have underestimated the intrinsic spectroscopic scatter expected from double detonation models, which could affect how observed SNe Ia diversity is interpreted.
  • The adaptive NLTE solver that enables this 2D simulation makes it plausible to extend full NLTE to 3D for other asymmetric explosion channels, such as violent mergers or gravitationally confined detonations; the computational cost reported in the paper suggests such simulations will be expensive but within reach of current high-performance facilities.
  • The paper's finding that excited-state photoionisation of Ca II drives the NIR triplet differences, and that the bluest edges suffer Monte Carlo noise, suggests that packet-frequency biasing in short-wavelength regions could improve future simulations and might change the quantitative strength of the high-velocity Ca II feature.
  • The over-ionisation after peak, if confirmed by future 3D NLTE simulations, would strengthen the case that small-scale clumping is a missing ingredient in all current photospheric-phase SNe Ia models, not just double detonations.
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 the first multi-dimensional NLTE photospheric-phase radiative transfer simulation for a Type Ia supernova explosion model, applied to the double detonation model M10_02 (1 Msun CO core + 0.02 Msun He shell) of Gronow et al. (2021). The simulation is two-dimensional, built from a phi=90 degree slice of the 3D explosion model, and is compared with (i) a 2D simulation using the approximate NLTE treatment artis-classic, (ii) a 1D NLTE simulation based on the equatorial direction, (iii) observations of SN 2011fe and the Hicken et al. (2009) sample. The central claims are that NLTE and multi-dimensionality both matter on observational scales, that the full NLTE treatment produces a bluer SED and slower optical declines than the approximate treatment, and that after peak the 2D NLTE simulation retains strong spectroscopic viewing-angle variation whereas the approximate-NLTE simulation predicts significantly reduced variation. The paper further concludes that the 0.02 Msun He-shell mass is too large for the model to resemble normal SNe Ia over most lines of sight.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is an important technical and scientific step: it is the first demonstration that multi-dimensionality and full NLTE must be treated simultaneously when evaluating explosion models against photospheric-phase observations of SNe Ia. The work has significant strengths beyond the headline result: the comparisons are carefully controlled (same ejecta model, same atomic data, same virtual-packet scheme); the 2D slice is cross-checked against other 2D constructions and a 3D artis-classic run; nothing is fitted to SN 2011fe or the Hicken sample, so the predictions are genuinely falsifiable; and the adaptive NLTE solver described in Appendix A is a valuable methodological development. The paper also makes a concrete, testable prediction, namely that the M10_02 configuration fails to produce a secondary NIR maximum for any viewing angle. For these reasons the result warrants publication once the load-bearing caveats identified below are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.3, Figure 7] The headline claim that 'after peak, our 2D NLTE simulation retains a strong viewing-angle dependence in its spectra whereas our simulation of the same ejecta model using an approximate NLTE treatment predicts significantly reduced spectroscopic viewing-angle variation' is supported only by visual inspection of Figure 7. To make this claim quantitative, please provide a metric of spectroscopic variation across the five viewing angles (for example, the RMS or median absolute deviation of flux in the Ti II trough and Ca II NIR triplet regions, or a full-spectrum RMS-difference curve as a function of epoch) together with Monte Carlo uncertainties estimated from the packet seed. The absence of error bars is particularly consequential because Appendix D concedes that the high-velocity Ca II photoionisation rates, which control the high-velocity Ca II NIR triplet that is central to the retained angle dependence, 'could be somewhat impacted by Monte Carlo noise'; a quantified demonstration is needed to show that the NLTE-vs-classic difference in post-peak angle variation is larger than the Monte Carlo noise.
  2. [Section 3.3.1 and Section 4] The post-peak retention of viewing-angle variation is produced by the same high ionisation state that the paper itself identifies as unphysical: no viewing angle produces a secondary NIR maximum, and the text states that the ejecta 'remain over-ionised relative to observations after peak.' The retained angle variation is therefore argued from a model state that is acknowledged to be deficient. If the over-ionisation were reduced by a physically plausible mechanism such as clumping, which the paper itself suggests in Section 3.3.1, the post-peak angle variation could move toward the classic result, weakening the conclusion that multi-dimensionality and NLTE must be treated together. Please either qualify the central claim explicitly in the abstract and conclusions, or provide a test (for example, a calculation with enhanced recombination/clumping in the relevant regions) showing that the retained angle variation is not an artefact of the over-ionised state.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 3] The 2D cylindrical ejecta model is validated against the full 3D M10_02 model only with artis-classic simulations, not with full NLTE. Given that the paper's central claim concerns the interaction of multi-dimensional geometry with full NLTE, the possibility remains that angle-dependent radiative coupling in the true 3D structure behaves differently under full NLTE than in the reduced 2D slice. Please either present a 3D NLTE test at a few representative epochs (even with reduced packet number, clearly labelled as a convergence check), or provide a quantitative argument showing why the classic-run validation is sufficient to guarantee that the post-peak NLTE viewing-angle-retention claim is not an artefact of the slice geometry.
  4. [Appendix D] The paper states that the excited-state Ca II photoionisation rates, which drive the high-velocity Ca II population and hence the most striking spectroscopic differences between simulations, 'could be somewhat impacted by Monte Carlo noise.' Since this is a load-bearing quantity for both the 1D-vs-2D comparison and the NLTE-vs-classic angle-dependence claim, the paper should attach a quantitative estimate of the resulting uncertainty in the Ca II photoionisation rate and in the synthetic spectra, rather than relying on the qualitative concession in the appendix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The preprint title contains 'T ype' with a space; this should be corrected to 'Type'.
  2. [Throughout] Code names such as 'artis-nlte' and '1Dartis-nlte' are inconsistently spaced; please use consistent formatting such as '1D artis-nlte' and '2D artis-nlte'.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption states 'log(normalised flux) + offset' but does not define the offset values; please state the vertical offset and normalisation used.
  4. [Section 3.1.2, Figure 7] The highlighted region for the Ca II NIR triplet is described as only covering the observed feature, with the high-velocity component appearing just blueward of it; consider extending the shading so the reader can directly see the high-velocity component in the figure.
  5. [Table 1] The derived light-curve quantities (rise time, peak magnitude, Delta m_15) would benefit from a statement of Monte Carlo noise, either as quoted uncertainties or as an assertion that the noise is negligible relative to the quoted differences; this would strengthen the 1D vs 2D comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all load-bearing ingredients (3D explosion model, atomic data, Monte Carlo RT methods) are independent inputs, and the claimed NLTE-vs-classic and viewing-angle differences are simulation outputs, not fitted or self-defined quantities.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The ejecta structure comes from the externally published Gronow et al. (2021) 3D M10_02 explosion simulation; the atomic data come from the cmfgen compilation; and the radiative transfer code artis is prior published work (Sim 2007; Kromer & Sim 2009; Shingles et al. 2020). No parameter is fitted to SN 2011fe or to the Hicken sample: the comparison data are used only as reference context, and the over-ionisation conclusion is a post-hoc interpretation of the missing NIR secondary maximum, not a constraint used to set simulation parameters. The central claim—that after peak the 2D NLTE run retains spectroscopic viewing-angle variation while the approximate-NLTE classic run does not—is a computed output of two separate simulations of the same ejecta model with the same atomic data, not an identity by construction. The validation of the 2D reduction via artis-classic slices and a 3D classic run is a methodological robustness check, and the absence of a 3D NLTE run is a stated limitation, not a circular step. Similarly, Appendix D's admission that high-velocity Ca II photoionisation rates 'could be somewhat impacted by Monte Carlo noise' is an acknowledged uncertainty. The citation of Collins et al. (2025) to argue that the 1D comparison is a lower limit is supporting context and not the load-bearing derivation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-cited uniqueness result is invoked to forbid alternatives. Consequently, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks on the circularity axis, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data are fitted to observations. The free parameters listed are computational/atomic-model choices, not tuned to reproduce SN 2011fe. The main unstated burden is the 2D-to-3D reduction and the atomic data completeness, both acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (2)
  • NLTE level truncation per ion = 100 levels for Z<20; 200 levels for Z>=20
    Chosen in Section 2.1 to balance memory and cost. Higher levels are collapsed into a superlevel with Boltzmann populations, which can alter recombination and ionization balance and hence the predicted line blanketing and NIR light curves.
  • Monte Carlo packet number = 5e7 packets for 2D simulations; 3e7 for 1D
    Chosen to balance signal-to-noise and cost. Appendix D states that Ca II excited-state photoionization rates in high-velocity regions may be affected by Monte Carlo noise, so this choice has a direct, acknowledged effect on uncertainty.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 2D phi=90 half-plane slice represents 3D M10_02 ejecta for NLTE radiative transfer.
    Section 2.2 validates the slice choice only with artis-classic; no 3D NLTE simulation is run. The viewing-angle and post-peak retention claims depend on this geometric reduction.
  • domain assumption The selected atomic data set with limited ion stages (neutral species omitted above Ne, five IGE stages) is sufficient.
    Section 2.1 states neutral species had negligible impact in preliminary simulations, but the exact cmfgen-based atomic data version is not fully specified, so completeness cannot be independently checked.
  • domain assumption Grey approximation in optically thick cells and LTE for the first three time steps do not affect conclusions.
    Section 2.1 adopts these practical approximations; they are standard but unquantified in the 2D NLTE context.
  • domain assumption The Gronow et al. (2021) M10_02 explosion model has the correct ejecta structure for the double detonation channel.
    All conclusions about He-shell mass and viewing-angle dependence inherit the composition and density structure of this prior hydrodynamical model.
  • domain assumption The Spencer-Fano treatment of non-thermal leptons from Kozma & Fransson (1992) is valid for these ejecta conditions.
    Section 2.1 relies on this standard framework for non-thermal ionization and heating; it is a physical model assumption, not machine-checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-dimensional NLTE radiative transfer for a double detonation Type Ia explosion model in the photospheric phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJOY73QL

@misc{pith2026260807288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-dimensional NLTE radiative transfer for a double detonation Type Ia explosion model in the photospheric phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJOY73QL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07288}
}
abstract

Previous radiative transfer calculations have shown that both multi-dimensionality and NLTE (non local thermodynamic equilibrium) effects impact the synthetic observables predicted for Type Ia supernova explosion models. Here we carry out a 2D NLTE radiative transfer simulation in the photospheric phase for a double detonation model with a 1 M$_{\odot}$ carbon-oxygen core and 0.02 M$_{\odot}$ helium shell. The predicted observables demonstrate that departures from both spherical symmetry and local thermodynamic equilibrium are significant on scales relevant to comparisons with observations. The NLTE treatment leads to a bluer spectral energy distribution, more slowly declining optical-band light curves, changes to the near-infrared light curve shapes, and differences in the evolution of key spectral features. Although substantial viewing-angle variation is predicted for the model, the scale of the variation is not significantly impacted by NLTE effects up to peak. However, after peak, our 2D NLTE simulation retains a strong viewing-angle dependence in its spectra whereas our simulation of the same ejecta model using an approximate NLTE treatment predicts significantly reduced spectroscopic viewing-angle variation. The NLTE treatment leads to improved agreement with normal Type Ia supernovae, primarily due to the increased ionisation state of the simulation, although the absence of a secondary near-infrared maximum suggests that the ejecta remain over-ionised relative to observations after peak. Despite the improved agreement, many viewing angles still show excessive line blanketing, suggesting that the 0.02 M$_{\odot}$ helium-shell mass of the current model is too large to reproduce normal Type Ia supernovae over the majority of lines of sight.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: 2D ejecta model composition for key species at 100 s after explosion. The boundaries of the solid angle cone that the 1D ejecta model is generated from is displayed with dashed lines for reference. Bottom: 1D ejecta model composition shown on the same 2D coordinate system for ease of comparison. The 𝜃 = 0 ◦ and 𝜃 = 180◦ viewing angles are displayed for reference. 0 10 20 30 vr (10 3 km/s) −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 2D and 1D ejecta model densities at 100 s after explosion. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulated light curves for five different viewing angles from our 2D artis-nlte and artis-classic simulations as well as our 1D artis-nlte simulation. The normal SN Ia 2011fe is plotted for reference (Richmond & Smith 2012; Tsvetkov et al. 2013). 10 20 30 40 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 U-B 10 20 30 40 B-V 10 20 30 40 V-R 10 20 30 40 R-I Time [days] Δ m 2D NLTE 0° 2D Classic 0° 2D NLTE 45° 2D Classic 45° 2D NLTE 90… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Free electron fraction, defined as the ratio of the free electron density to the total particle number density (𝑛e/𝑛tot; left three columns), where 𝑛tot includes free electrons, ions, and neutral atoms, and electron temperature (right three columns), at 9.5, 19.5, and …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Number densities of Fe ii, Fe iii and Fe iv at 9.5 d and 29.5 d after explosion for the 2D artis-nlte simulation. Bottom: Same for the 2D artis-classic simulation. contribution also becoming visible (strongest absorption at ∼15 000 km s −1 for all cases). In contr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated spectra for five different viewing angles from our 2D artis-nlte and artis-classic simulations as well as our 1D artis-nlte simulation at 9.5, 19.5 (around peak) and 29.5 d after explosion (left, middle and right panels). The normal SN Ia 2011fe is plotted fo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Viewing angle variation of peak light curve brightness, rise time to peak and Δm15 in bolometric, U-, B- and V-band for the 2D artis-nlte and artis-classic simulations. The same five viewing angles as Figures 3 and 7 are plotted with the 1D artis-nlte simulation also i…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Decline rate versus peak magnitude in B- and V-band for the five viewing angles of our 2D artis-nlte and artis-classic simulations considered in Figures 3, 7 and 9. The corresponding values for the 1D artis-nlte simulation and the sample of normal SNe Ia from Hicken e…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...339..558A 339, 558

    Anderson L. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...339..558A 339, 558

    doi:10.1086/167317 1989

  2. [2]

    S., 1980, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz

    Axelrod T. S., 1980, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz

    1980

  3. [3]

    Blondin S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A.163B 668, A163

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244134 2022

  4. [4]

    J., Ramsbottom C

    Blondin S., Dessart L., Hillier D. J., Ramsbottom C. A., Storey P. J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A.170B 678, A170

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347147 2023

  5. [5]

    J., Townsley D

    Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., Caldwell S., Miles B. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...919..126B 919, 126

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2 2021

  6. [6]

    J., Townsley D

    Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972..200B 972, 200

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2 2024

  7. [7]

    J., Dessart L., Townsley D

    Boos S. J., Dessart L., Townsley D. M., Shen K. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/add400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987...54B 987, 54

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add400 2025

  8. [8]

    A., Kromer M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv657 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..967B 450, 967

    Bulla M., Sim S. A., Kromer M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv657 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..967B 450, 967

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv657 2015

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    P., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.1404C 539, 1404

    Callan F. P., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.1404C 539, 1404

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Gronow S., Sim S

    Collins C. E., Gronow S., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2665 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.5289C 517, 5289

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Sim S

    Collins C. E., Sim S. A., Shingles L. J., Gronow S., R \"o pke F. K., Pakmor R., Seitenzahl I. R., Kromer M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4447C 524, 4447

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    E., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1289C 538, 1289

    Collins C. E., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.1289C 538, 1289

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Blondin S., Khokhlov A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3249D 441, 3249

    Dessart L., Hillier D. J., Blondin S., Khokhlov A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu789 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3249D 441, 3249

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Ergon M., Fransson C., Jerkstrand A., Kozma C., Kromer M., Spricer K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A.156E 620, A156

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    K., Hillebrandt W., Seitenzahl I

    Fink M., R \"o pke F. K., Hillebrandt W., Seitenzahl I. R., Sim S. A., Kromer M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...514A..53F 514, A53

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Gall E. E. E., Taubenberger S., Kromer M., Sim S. A., Benetti S., Blanc G., Elias-Rosa N., Hillebrandt W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21999.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..994G 427, 994

    2012

  9. [17]

    P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    Gardner J. P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006SSRv..123..485G 123, 485

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    T., Pakmor R., Kromer M., Seitenzahl I

    Gronow S., Collins C., Ohlmann S. T., Pakmor R., Kromer M., Seitenzahl I. R., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A.169G 635, A169

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Sim S

    Gronow S., Collins C. E., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A.155G 649, A155

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Guillochon J., Dan M., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Rosswog S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709L..64G 709, L64

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Hicken M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..331H 700, 331

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    J., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...231..116H 231, 116

    Hillier D. J., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...231..116H 231, 116

    1990

  16. [24]

    J., Miller D

    Hillier D. J., Miller D. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...496..407H 496, 407

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    Hoeflich P., Khokhlov A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176748 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457..500H 457, 500

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    Holas A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...698A.269H 698, A269

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3581J 449, 3581

    Jack D., Baron E., Hauschildt P. H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3581J 449, 3581

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Kasen D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506588 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...649..939K 649, 939

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    Kozma C., Fransson C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171311 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...390..602K 390, 602

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15256.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.tmp.1110K 398, 1809

    Kromer M., Sim S. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15256.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.tmp.1110K 398, 1809

    2009

  24. [32]

    A., Fink M., R \"o pke F

    Kromer M., Sim S. A., Fink M., R \"o pke F. K., Seitenzahl I. R., Hillebrandt W., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719.1067K 719, 1067

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1706.09879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MmSAI..88..312K 88, 312

    Kromer M., Ohlmann S., R \"o pke F. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1706.09879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MmSAI..88..312K 88, 312

    2017 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adf062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...989L..33K 989, L33

    Kwok L. A., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adf062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...989L..33K 989, L33

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Han Z., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23h2001L 23, 082001

    Liu Z.-W., R \"o pke F. K., Han Z., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RAA....23h2001L 23, 082001

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Livne E., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185721 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...354L..53L 354, L53

    1990 doi

  29. [37]

    B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011756 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    Lucy L. B., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011756 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  30. [38]

    B., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030357 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    Lucy L. B., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030357 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041656 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    Lucy L. B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041656 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2809M 494, 2809

    Mazzali P. A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2809M 494, 2809

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Nomoto K., 1980, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/BF00168350 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980SSRv...27..563N 27, 563

    1980 doi

  34. [42]

    Nomoto K., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159682 , http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1982ApJ...253..798N&db_key=AST 253, 798

    1982 doi

  35. [43]

    H., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304459 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...485..812N 485, 812

    Nugent P., Baron E., Branch D., Fisher A., Hauschildt P. H., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304459 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...485..812N 485, 812

    1997 doi

  36. [44]

    E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.480..344N 480, 344

    Nugent P. E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.480..344N 480, 344

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    K., Sim S

    Pakmor R., Kromer M., R \"o pke F. K., Sim S. A., Ruiter A. J., Hillebrandt W., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08642 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.463...61P 463, 61

    2010 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Hillebrandt W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A.117P 528, A117

    Pakmor R., Hachinger S., R \"o pke F. K., Hillebrandt W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A.117P 528, A117

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    A., R \"o pke F

    Pakmor R., Kromer M., Taubenberger S., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., Hillebrandt W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/747/1/L10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747L..10P 747, L10

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    Pakmor R., Kromer M., Taubenberger S., Springel V., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770L...8P 770, L8

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Pakmor R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.5260P 517, 5260

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Ruiter A

    Pakmor R., Seitenzahl I. R., Ruiter A. J., Sim S. A., R \"o pke F. K., Taubenberger S., Bieri R., Blondin S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449637 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A.227P 686, A227

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Pakmor R., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...706A.239P 706, A239

    2026 doi

  44. [52]

    Pereira R., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201221008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...554A..27P 554, A27

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    Polin A., Nugent P., Kasen D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873...84P 873, 84

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Sim S

    Pollin J. M., Sim S. A., Pakmor R., Callan F. P., Collins C. E., Shingles L. J., R \"o pke F. K., Srivastav S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3036P 533, 3036

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    M., et al., 2026a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2605.29038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260529038P p

    Pollin J. M., et al., 2026a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2605.29038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260529038P p. arXiv:2605.29038

    doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    M., Callan F

    Pollin J. M., Callan F. P., Collins C. E., Holas A., Shingles L. J., Pakmor R., R \"o pke F. K., Sim S. A., 2026b, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/ae8395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026RNAAS..10..172P 10, 172

    doi

  49. [57]

    M., et al., 2026c, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.548ag735P 548, stag735

    Pollin J. M., et al., 2026c, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stag735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026MNRAS.548ag735P 548, stag735

    doi

  50. [58]

    W., Smith H

    Richmond M. W., Smith H. A., 2012, @doi [JAAVSO] 10.48550/arXiv.1203.4013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JAVSO..40..872R 40, 872

    2012 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    J., Seitenzahl I

    Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&ARv..33....1R 33, 1

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    Sato Y., Nakasato N., Tanikawa A., Nomoto K., Maeda K., Hachisu I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...807..105S 807, 105

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    Sato Y., Nakasato N., Tanikawa A., Nomoto K., Maeda K., Hachisu I., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...67S 821, 67

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Schipani P., et al., 2018, in Evans C. J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII. p. 107020F ( @eprint arXiv 1807.08828 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2307349

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J., Blondin S., Kasen D., Dessart L., Townsley D

    Shen K. J., Blondin S., Kasen D., Dessart L., Townsley D. M., Boos S., Hillier D. J., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abe69b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...909L..18S 909, L18

    doi

  56. [64]

    J., Boos S

    Shen K. J., Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., Kasen D., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2304 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...68S 922, 68

    doi

  57. [65]

    J., Boos S

    Shen K. J., Boos S. J., Townsley D. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..127S 975, 127

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2029S 492, 2029

    Shingles L. J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2029S 492, 2029

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    o rs A., Sim S. A., Collins C. E., R \

    Shingles L. J., Fl \"o rs A., Sim S. A., Collins C. E., R \"o pke F. K., Seitenzahl I. R., Shen K. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac902 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.6150S 512, 6150

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Collins C

    Shingles L. J., Collins C. E., Holas A., Callan F., Sim S., 2025, artistools , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.7728326 , https://github.com/artis-mcrt/artistools

    2025 doi

  61. [69]

    A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11271.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..154S 375, 154

    Sim S. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11271.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.375..154S 375, 154

    2007

  62. [70]

    A., Fink M., Kromer M., R \"o pke F

    Sim S. A., Fink M., Kromer M., R \"o pke F. K., Ruiter A. J., Hillebrandt W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20162.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.3003S 420, 3003

    2012

  63. [71]

    E., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158509 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...242..749T 242, 749

    Taam R. E., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158509 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...242..749T 242, 749

    1980 doi

  64. [72]

    M., Miles B

    Townsley D. M., Miles B. J., Shen K. J., Kasen D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab27cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878L..38T 878, L38

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    Y., Shugarov S

    Tsvetkov D. Y., Shugarov S. Y., Volkov I. M., Goranskij V. P., Pavlyuk N. N., Katysheva N. A., Barsukova E. A., Valeev A. F., 2013, @doi [Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso] 10.48550/arXiv.1311.3484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CoSka..43......

    2013 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    D., Hillier D

    Wilk K. D., Hillier D. J., Dessart L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2816 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474.3187W 474, 3187

    2018 doi

  68. [76]

    D., Hillier D

    Wilk K. D., Hillier D. J., Dessart L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.2221W 494, 2221

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    E., Kasen D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/38 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...38W 734, 38

    Woosley S. E., Kasen D., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/38 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...38W 734, 38

    2011 doi

  70. [78]

    E., Weaver T

    Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173813 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...423..371W 423, 371

    1994 doi

  71. [79]

    artis collaboration et al., 2025, artis, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.16684298 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16684298

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.