Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Stream impact ignites a helium detonation in every white-dwarf model the authors simulated, including realistic thin helium shells and smooth core-shell transitions.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 14:58 UTC pith:XUQFRJU2

load-bearing objection A credible, honest 2D follow-up that shows stream impact can ignite realistic thin helium shells, but no resolution study and a sub-circumference domain mean the propagation claims should be taken with a grain of salt. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18572 v1 pith:XUQFRJU2 submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.SR

Stream-Driven Ignition of a Realistic Undisturbed Helium Shell on a White Dwarf

Nethra Rajavel , Dean M. Townsley , Ken J. Shen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords Type Ia supernovaedouble-detonation mechanismdynamically driven double degenerate double detonation (D6)helium detonationwhite dwarfstream impactdetonation ignitionnucleosynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to show that the helium detonation powering the double-detonation model of Type Ia supernovae can arise naturally when the accretion stream from a companion white dwarf slams into a primary white dwarf whose outer layers have a realistic composition profile. Using two-dimensional simulations with thin helium shells and a smooth transition into the carbon-oxygen core, the authors find that every case they tried ignites a helium detonation, usually near the core-shell transition but not necessarily at the stream impact point. The ignition mechanism varies: direct compression at impact, hot spots in helium-rich pockets, or interactions between neighboring burning regions. All but one of the cases sustain a detonation that propagates at least partway around the surface, and the ash is dominated by intermediate-mass elements with nothing heavier than chromium-48 in significant amounts. If correct, this removes a major uncertainty in the D6 progenitor scenario: the helium detonation does not need an artificial hot spot.

Core claim

The central discovery is that stream impact ignites a helium detonation on a white dwarf with a realistic, unmixed post-helium-burning composition profile — thin helium shell and smooth core-shell transition — in every simulated case: 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, and 1.0 solar masses plus a 0.001-solar-mass accreted layer, each with a thin and a thick stream. Ignition occurs near where the 12C abundance rises inside the helium-rich shell, at densities higher than the undisturbed profile's transition density because the stream compresses and folds the surface layers. The authors interpret this as the first demonstration that stream-initiated helium detonations can be produced with realistic thin shells, ra

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the realistic white-dwarf composition profile: a stellar-evolution-derived model for each mass, mapped so that abundance, temperature, and density vary continuously through a resolved core-shell transition where 12C and 4He abundances cross. This replaces the artificial sharp interface used in earlier local studies. Around it sits the two-dimensional plane-parallel stream-impact setup with a smooth parabolic stream mask, adaptive mesh refinement down to roughly 10 km, and periodic side boundaries that mimic flow around the surface. The argument runs through the compression of this transition layer by the stream: the 12C-rich transition region is pushed inward and l

Load-bearing premise

That the two-dimensional plane-parallel computational domain, with periodic side boundaries and a width shorter than the white dwarf's circumference, preserves the ignition and propagation behavior that a full three-dimensional spherical surface would show.

What would settle it

Run the 0.9-solar-mass thin-stream case in three dimensions on the full spherical surface. If no propagating helium detonation forms there — or if ignition fails — the paper's conclusion that stream impact reliably ignites realistic helium shells would be a two-dimensional artifact.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • All nine simulated stream/WD combinations ignite a helium detonation; eight sustain a propagating detonation, and the one failure (the 1.0 solar-mass thick-stream case) dies because two simultaneous detonations collide.
  • Ignition occurs near the core-shell transition in every case, at densities up to roughly 10^5 g/cm^3, higher than the undisturbed profile's transition density; the stream's compression of the transition layer is what makes ignition possible.
  • The ignition point can be up to about 10^9 cm from the stream impact point, so the helium detonation is not confined to the hemisphere facing the companion; the supernova's asymmetry axis and the companion's direction may be independent.
  • Detonation propagation is frequently one-sided in these two-dimensional runs, and in the 1.0 solar-mass thin-stream case it fizzles after traveling about half the surface; the authors argue this is likely a two-dimensional geometry effect rather than a statement about three dimensions.
  • Nucleosynthesis is dominated by 28Si and 32S, with no significant yield above 48Cr, consistent with observed Type Ia supernovae showing no high-velocity iron-group elements; this strengthens the claim that D6 produces normal Type Ia supernovae.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If these two-dimensional results carry to three dimensions, ignition may be even more robust: the paper itself notes that colliding detonations that fizzle in 2D could instead merge and strengthen in 3D, so some failed cases might succeed in reality.
  • The consistent ignition at the 12C-rich transition layer suggests a testable lever: suppressing carbon there should delay or prevent ignition, reinforcing earlier findings that carbon pollution helps helium detonations propagate.
  • If ignition points are as scattered as Figure 11 suggests, observed supernova remnants where both a surviving companion's direction and the ejecta asymmetry axis can be measured should show no fixed alignment between the two; the paper does not pursue this observable consequence.
  • Because the paper varies only four masses and two stream widths, the viability boundary of the D6 model remains unmapped; extending to lower or higher white-dwarf masses or non-solar helium-shell masses would test how far the result generalizes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the FLASH code in two dimensions to simulate a helium accretion stream impacting the surface of a carbon-oxygen white dwarf, with plane-parallel geometry and realistic MESA-generated composition profiles for 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, and 1.0+0.001 Msun WDs. Nine configurations are run, varying stream half-width and, in one case, stream density. The authors report that all configurations ignite a helium detonation, that ignition typically occurs near the compressed core-shell transition, and that all but one configuration sustain a propagating surface detonation. They emphasize that ignition can occur far from the stream impact point and that nucleosynthesis is dominated by intermediate-mass elements. The central claim is that this is the first demonstration of stream-initiated helium detonations using realistic thin helium shells with smooth core-shell transitions.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a meaningful step forward for the D6 double-detonation scenario: it moves from artificial discontinuous shell profiles to MESA-derived profiles and shows that stream impact can ignite detonations under more realistic conditions. The finding that ignition can occur far from the impact point, and that the location is tied to the compressed transition region, has concrete implications for the asymmetry axis of SNe Ia ejecta. The paper has clear strengths: no fitted or target-encoded parameters are introduced, the simulation matrix is clean, the main results are tabulated, and the animations are publicly available. However, the load-bearing numerical choices—10 km minimum resolution, a 2e9 cm domain shorter than the stellar circumference, and 2D plane-parallel geometry—are not validated with convergence or domain-size tests, and the abstract overstates the propagation outcomes for at least one case. These issues must be addressed before the conclusions can be regarded as robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, §3, Table 1] No resolution-convergence study is presented for the minimum cell size of ≈10 km, which is central to the ignition and propagation claims. The 1.0 Msun case in Shen et al. (2024) required 3.17 km resolution even to assess propagation, and the present work identifies ignition via small hot spots and thin 4He-rich tendrils (e.g., §3.1, Figure 5). Without a resolution study, the distinction among fizzle, one-sided propagation, and full traversal—which forms the paper's main qualitative conclusions—could be numerical. Please add convergence tests for at least one ignition case and one failure case.
  2. [§2.3, §4, Table 1] The computational domain width is 2.00e9 cm for all models, while the WD circumferences are 3.36–4.30e9 cm. The paper adopts a periodic lateral boundary and cites Rajavel et al. (2025) for the claim that domain size does not change whether ignition occurs. That earlier test used a discontinuous shell/core profile, which may not transfer to the realistic, folded composition profiles used here. Moreover, the text attributes one-sided propagation and detonation collisions to 2D confinement. Given that the abstract claims 'capable of traversing the WD surface,' the sub-circumference domain is a load-bearing limitation. Please provide a domain-size test with the realistic profiles, or temper the traversal claims accordingly.
  3. [Abstract; §3.3; §5] The abstract states that 'all models but one sustain a propagating detonation capable of traversing the WD surface,' but §3.3 reports that the 1.0 Msun thin-stream detonation 'propagates a little more than halfway around the WD surface before fizzling out.' This case is not counted as the one exception in the abstract, and Table 1 lists its propagation direction as 'left' with no indication of the partial traversal. The wording is internally inconsistent. Please clarify which cases fully traverse the surface and correct the abstract and summary counts.
  4. [§2.1] The mapping of the 1D MESA profiles into the 2D hydrostatic equilibrium is a nontrivial modification: the 'fluff' region acquires a temperature of order 1e8 K instead of the original ≈2.5e4 K, and the density profile 'increasingly diverges from the 1D WD profile toward the interior.' Since the paper's central novelty is the use of a realistic, unmixed profile, the fidelity of this remapped profile to the input MESA profile should be quantified. Please compare the remapped density, temperature, and composition profiles to the original MESA profiles in the ignition region, and demonstrate that the differences do not affect the ignition outcome.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The mask definition is clear but the notation r_m is introduced before its geometric meaning is fully explained; a small diagram or explicit formula for m as a function of d_stream would improve readability.
  2. [Figure 10 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'r_m = 0.75×10^8 cm and)' should read 'and ρ_stream = 1.25×10^4 g cm^-3'.
  3. [§3.4, Figure 10] The text says a hot spot 'appears to form' at t=3.1 s and then 'seems to propagate a detonation until t=3.2 s' before fizzling. The figure shows a small region, but the quantitative criteria for what counts as ignition versus a fizzle are not stated. Please define the operational definition of ignition used to populate Table 1.
  4. [Table 1] The table would benefit from a column or footnote indicating whether each detonation fully traversed the surface (or the fraction of the circumference traversed). This would resolve the ambiguity in the 'all but one' statements.
  5. [§4] The discussion of nucleosynthesis claims 'no elements heavier than 48Cr with mass fractions above 0.01' but the text elsewhere mentions 44Ti and 48Cr with mass fractions between 0.1 and 0.01. The threshold language should be made uniform (e.g., 'mass fraction > 0.01') to avoid apparent contradictions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the ignition and propagation results are emergent from stated simulation inputs; self-citations provide setup and profiles, not target-encoded predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a direct numerical experiment: a mass-transfer stream with specified density, velocity, width, and composition is injected into a FLASH domain initialized from MESA-derived WD profiles, and the ignition time, location, and propagation behavior are read off the resulting time evolution. No parameter is fitted to the headline claim that all cases ignite, and no diagnostic quantity is defined in terms of the outcome it is used to predict. The ignition points, distances from impact, propagation directions, and nucleosynthesis products are emergent. The main self-citations (Rajavel et al. 2025 for the stream setup, Shen et al. 2024 for the WD profiles and prior detonation-propagation benchmarks) are used as inputs and background, not as a substitute for the present simulations; the new combination is not encoded in those inputs. The reduced domain and 2D plane-parallel geometry are acknowledged limitations (§4: 'in three dimensions, the ignition mechanism and detonation morphology may differ...' and 'the simulated surface domain is smaller than the full stellar circumference'), and the paper even flags that detonations traverse a shorter distance than in reality. These are approximation choices affecting fidelity, not circular reductions. The abstract's 'capable of traversing the WD surface' slightly overstates the 1.0 M_sun thin-stream case, which the text says fizzles about halfway around, but this is an internal consistency/accuracy concern rather than circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the result, and no known result is merely relabeled. The paper is therefore self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on chosen simulation parameters (stream density, velocity, angle, width, domain size, resolution) and domain assumptions about 2D plane-parallel geometry. No new physical entities are introduced; the WD profiles come from prior MESA work. The most consequential choices are the stream parameters, which are not derived from a global binary simulation, and the 2D geometry.

free parameters (5)
  • stream density = 2.5e4 g cm^-3 (one run: 1.25e4 g cm^-3)
    Chosen from prior local stream models (§2.3, Table 1), not derived from a global binary mass-transfer simulation; the ignition result depends on it.
  • stream entry velocity and angle = 1.3e9 cm s^-1, 35.54°
    Set in §2.3; these determine impact heating and compression and are not derived within this paper.
  • stream half-width = r_stream = 1e8 cm (thick) or 0.5e8 cm (thin); r_m = 1.25e8 or 0.75e8 cm
    Chosen in §2.3 as the two explored stream thicknesses; affects where and whether ignition occurs.
  • domain size = 2e9 cm wide × 1e9 cm high
    Chosen for computational cost; smaller than WD circumferences (3.36–4.30e9 cm), as noted in §4. This is a numerical-scale choice that the central claim depends on.
  • minimum cell size = ≈10 km
    AMR refinement floor stated in §2; no convergence study is performed in this paper, so detonation ignition and propagation may be resolution-sensitive.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Plane-parallel approximation of the WD surface with periodic lateral boundaries mimics the spherical surface
    Invoked in §2: "assuming a plane-parallel approximation for the WD surface" and periodic boundary conditions "so that the flow of material in the model domain mimics the flow of material around a spherical surface."
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional geometry captures the essential ignition and propagation physics
    The paper explicitly acknowledges in §4: "our simulations are performed in two dimensions. In three dimensions, the ignition mechanism and detonation morphology may differ."
  • domain assumption MESA profiles from Shen et al. (2024) are realistic remnants of prior helium-shell burning
    Used as the physical basis for the WD structure; §2.1 maps these profiles into FLASH. The realism of the profile is a premise, not demonstrated within this paper.
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic remapping with a 10^8 K outer fluff preserves the relevant shell structure
    §2.1 states the fluff has higher temperature (10^8 K) than the MESA profile (~25,000 K) and that the density profile diverges from the 1D profile toward the interior; stability is verified only for several seconds in 1D.
  • domain assumption FLASH 4.6 with the 55-isotope MESA network correctly models helium detonation ignition and propagation
    The nuclear and hydrodynamic solver choices in §2 are assumed adequate; no independent validation of the network or resolution is provided in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21948 in / 14045 out tokens · 163760 ms · 2026-08-01T14:58:46.757327+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stream-Driven Ignition of a Realistic Undisturbed Helium Shell on a White Dwarf." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUQFRJU2

@misc{pith2026260718572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stream-Driven Ignition of a Realistic Undisturbed Helium Shell on a White Dwarf},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUQFRJU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18572}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The dynamically driven double degenerate double detonation (D$^6$) model has emerged as a promising progenitor scenario for Type Ia supernovae. In this model, a carbon-oxygen white dwarf (WD) in a close double WD binary undergoes a double-detonation triggered by dynamical mass transfer from its companion. The mass transfer stream directly impacts the surface of the primary WD, potentially igniting a helium detonation in the surface layer. The resulting shock converges in the core, triggering a carbon detonation that ultimately unbinds the star. While previous studies have demonstrated the viability of this mechanism, the conditions under which the helium shell ignites remain uncertain. We perform two-dimensional simulations using FLASH to study helium detonation ignition driven by stream impact on a carbon-oxygen WD with a realistic, unmixed composition profile left at the end of the previous helium-shell burning phase before the WD was formed. We model WDs with masses of 0.8, 0.9, and 1.0 $,M_\odot$ and vary stream properties for each case. We find that stream impact leads to helium ignition in all cases, with ignition occurring at varying distances from the impact point. Ignition consistently occurs near the core-shell transition, highlighting the importance of a realistic WD profile. However, the ignition mechanism differs between models and can arise from interactions of neighboring hot, mixed regions rather than a single point. Ultimately, all models but one sustain a propagating detonation capable of traversing the WD surface further reinforcing the viability of the D$^6$ model as a progenitor scenario for Type Ia supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18572 by Dean M. Townsley, Ken J. Shen, Nethra Rajavel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: 1D abundance profiles of different mass WDs taken from K. J. Shen et al. (2024) that are used in this work. Note that only the region inside the domain of our models is shown here. For clarity, only the most abundant species are displayed. of the applied mask for the top boundary condition. The mask is defined as so: 1. The shortest distance from a point on the bound￾ary (guard) cells of the domain to the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic showing how the mask is defined for the stream at the top boundary. 4. If dstream is greater than rstream but less than rm, the mask value is set to |(rm − dstream)/(rm − rstream)|. 5. We define each parameter using the following example equation: density = ρstream × m + ρzerogradient × (1 − m) Doing so ensures that we don’t have any sharp gradi￾ents at the stream edges. 2.3. Choice of cases stud… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Zoomed in snapshots of the ignition of a helium detonation in temperature for the case where a thick stream impacts a 0.9 M⊙ WD. propagating detonation when a hot spot was introduced at the core–shell transition region. For the 1.0 M⊙ and 1.1 M⊙ cases, an additional accreted layer (0.001 M⊙ and 0.002 M⊙, respectively) was required to propagate a helium detonation. They also found that models ca￾pable of su… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of temperature showing the ignition and propagation of a helium detonation for the case where a thin stream (rstream = 0.5 × 108 cm and rm = 0.75 × 108 cm) impacts a 0.9 M⊙ WD. The ignition occurs away from the stream impact point and propagates to the left around the WD. The white contour lines connect points at which the 4He mass fraction equals the 12C mass fraction. In the top-left plot the w… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zoomed in snapshots of temperature, 4He mass fraction and 12C mass fraction at different times leading up to the ignition for the case where a thin stream impacts the surface of a 0.9 M⊙ WD. does not develop into a propagating detonation. This burning near the stream impact point fizzles roughly 0.3 s after it occurs. At t = 6.61 s, ignition occurs again at a point to the left of the stream impact point. S… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 28Si and 40Ca mass fractions produced after the detonation propagates through a stratified region on the WD surface of a 4He-poor 12C-rich layer sandwiched by 4He-rich 12C-poor layers in the case where a thin stream impacts a 0.9 M⊙ WD. The presence of such a stratified region causes the production of higher mass elements, mainly 40Ca, in the inte￾rior of the stratified region as the detonation passes thro… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Zoomed in snapshots of temperature, 4He mass fraction and 12C mass fraction at different times leading up to the ignition for the case where a thin stream impacts the surface of a 0.8 M⊙ WD. viously, both cases ignited and developed a propagating detonation. In the thick stream case, ignition occurs shortly after the stream impacts the surface, at t = 2.48 s. The detonation propagates to both the left and … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Snapshots of temperature showing two ignitions produced one after the other in the case where a thick stream (rstream = 108 cm and rm = 1.25×108 cm) impacts a 1.0 M⊙ WD. The helium detonations eventually collide and fizzle out. The white contour lines connect points at which the 4He mass fraction equals the 12C mass fraction. ized temperature spikes exceeding 109 K occur during the simulation, these events… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Snapshots of log density for the 1.0 + 0.001 M⊙ case where a thick stream impacts the surface. Ignition occurs at ti = 2.1 s and the resulting helium detonation propagates around the WD.The white contour lines connect points at which the 4He mass fraction equals the 12C mass fraction. The black arrows point to the propagating helium detonation. Despite ignition at two points, these detonations collide and … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Location of the ignition point in each of our simulations. The size of the point indicates the stream width, therefore large points are cases with the thick streams. The one case with a lower stream density is shown in a lighter color. This plot shows that the the ignition point for the helium detonation can lie anywhere on the surface and does not have to be near the stream impact point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Zoomed in temperature snapshots showing an example of a hot spot that ignites but immediately fails to propagate in the 1.0 + 0.001 M⊙ case where a thin, lower density stream (rstream = 0.5 × 108 cm, rm = 0.75 × 108 cm and) impacts the surface of the WD. + 0.001 M⊙ configuration by simulating thick, thin, and thin lower-density streams. Similar to K. J. Shen et al. (2024), all of our 1.0 + 0.001 M⊙ runs s… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Location of the ignition point with respect to the transition region. The transition region is defined as the vertical location at which the 4He and 12C abundances are equal.In the simulation, the stream impact and resulting ad￾dition of 4He mostly compresses the surface and moves the transition layer downward. The final position of the transi￾tion region just before ignition is indicated by open boxes, t… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Rajamuthukumar, A. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12197, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.12197

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.12197 2025

  2. [2]

    J., Townsley, D

    Boos, S. J., Townsley, D. M., & Shen, K. J. 2024, ApJ, 972, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5da2 2024

  3. [3]

    Miles, B. J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac07a2 2021

  4. [4]

    E., Gronow, S., Sim, S

    Collins, C. E., Gronow, S., Sim, S. A., & R¨ opke, F. K. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5289, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2665

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2665 2022

  5. [5]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89

    Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJ, 737, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/89 2011

  6. [6]

    K., et al

    Dubey, A., Antypas, K., Ganapathy, M. K., et al. 2009, Parallel Computing, 35, 512, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2009.08.001

    doi:10.1016/j.parco.2009.08.001 2009

  7. [7]

    C., Daley, C., et al

    Dubey, A., Calder, A. C., Daley, C., et al. 2013, The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 27, 360, doi: 10.1177/1094342012464404

    work page doi:10.1177/1094342012464404 2013

  8. [8]

    C., et al

    Dubey, A., Antypas, K., Calder, A. C., et al. 2014, The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 28, 225, doi: 10.1177/1094342013505656

    doi:10.1177/1094342013505656 2014

  9. [9]

    J., Chandra, V., et al

    El-Badry, K., Shen, K. J., Chandra, V., et al. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 28, doi: 10.21105/astro.2306.03914

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 2486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1831

    Fenn, D., Plewa, T., & Gawryszczak, A. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1831

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1831 2016

  11. [11]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 2010

  12. [12]

    2000, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361 Garc ´ ıa-Senz, D., Cabez´ on, R

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361 Garc ´ ıa-Senz, D., Cabez´ on, R. M., & Dom ´ ınguez, I. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7d

    doi:10.1086/317361 2000

  13. [13]

    Truran, J. W. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty421

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty421 2018

  14. [14]

    T., et al

    Gronow, S., Collins, C., Ohlmann, S. T., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A169, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936494

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936494 2020

  15. [15]

    E., Sim, S

    Gronow, S., Collins, C. E., Sim, S. A., & Ropke, F. K. 2021, A&A, 649, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039954

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039954 2021

  16. [16]

    2010, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 709, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64 17

    Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Dan, M., & Rosswog, S. 2010, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 709, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64 17

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l64 2010

  17. [17]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/14

    Holcomb, C., Guillochon, J., De Colle, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 771, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/14 2013

  18. [18]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca013

    Iwata, K., & Maeda, K. 2022, ApJ, 941, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca013

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca013 2022

  19. [19]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  20. [20]

    M., Oran, E

    Khokhlov, A. M., Oran, E. S., & Wheeler, J. C. 1997, ApJ, 478, 678, doi: 10.1086/303815

    doi:10.1086/303815 1997

  21. [21]

    S., & Gupta, S

    Kumar, H., Gupta, A., Malu, S. S., & Gupta, S. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 35, doi: 10.1007/s12036-023-09931-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-023-09931-1 2023

  22. [22]

    2017, A&A, 606, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629788

    Liu, D., Wang, B., Wu, C., & Han, Z. 2017, A&A, 606, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629788

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629788 2017

  23. [23]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e 2023

  24. [24]

    Livne, E., & Glasner, A. S. 1991, ApJ, 370, 272, doi: 10.1086/169813

    doi:10.1086/169813 1991

  25. [25]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031 2014

  26. [26]

    Michaelis, A., Hillman, Y., & Perets, H. B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.20904. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.20904

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Moll, R., & Woosley, S. E. 2013, ApJ, 774, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/137

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/137 2013

  28. [28]

    M., & Bildsten, L

    Moore, K., Townsley, D. M., & Bildsten, L. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/97

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/2/97 2013

  29. [29]

    2013, ApJL, 770, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8

    Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., & Springel, V. 2013, ApJL, 770, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/L8

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/770/1/l8 2013

  30. [30]

    P., Collins, C

    Pakmor, R., Callan, F. P., Collins, C. E., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5260, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3107

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3107 2022

  31. [31]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  32. [32]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  33. [33]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  34. [34]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  35. [35]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  36. [36]

    C., & Lamb, D

    Plewa, T., Calder, A. C., & Lamb, D. Q. 2004, ApJL, 612, L37, doi: 10.1086/424036

    work page doi:10.1086/424036 2004

  37. [37]

    M., Sim, S

    Pollin, J. M., Sim, S. A., Pakmor, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1909

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1909 2024

  38. [38]

    M., & Shen, K

    Rajavel, N., Townsley, D. M., & Shen, K. J. 2025, ApJ, 979, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada034

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada034 2025

  39. [39]

    Timmes, F. X. 2012, ApJ, 746, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/62 R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., Schmidt, W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1132, doi: 10.1086/521347

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/62 2012

  40. [40]

    C., Tiwari, V., Bobrick, A., et al

    Roy, N. C., Tiwari, V., Bobrick, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 932, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac75e7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac75e7 2022

  41. [41]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, A&A Rv, 33, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9

    doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9 2025

  42. [42]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 388, doi: 10.1086/305696

    Saio, H., & Nomoto, K. 1998, ApJ, 500, 388, doi: 10.1086/305696

    doi:10.1086/305696 1998

  43. [43]

    Shen, K. J. 2025, ApJ, 982, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb42e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb42e 2025

  44. [44]

    Almost All Carbon/Oxygen White Dwarfs Can Host Double Detonations

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19417, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19417

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19417 2024

  45. [45]

    J., & Moore, K

    Shen, K. J., & Moore, K. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/46

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/1/46 2014

  46. [46]

    J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B

    Shen, K. J., Boubert, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b 2018

  47. [47]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9ee

    Tanikawa, A., Nomoto, K., & Nakasato, N. 2018, ApJ, 868, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9ee

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae9ee 2018

  48. [48]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b6

    Tanikawa, A., Nomoto, K., Nakasato, N., & Maeda, K. 2019, ApJ, 885, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b6 2019

  49. [49]

    M., Miles, B

    Townsley, D. M., Miles, B. J., Shen, K. J., & Kasen, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 878, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab27cd

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab27cd 2019

  50. [50]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/9 2011

  51. [51]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355, doi: 10.1086/161701

    doi:10.1086/161701 1984

  52. [52]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1986, ARA&A, 24, 205, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.24.090186.001225

    arXiv 1986

  53. [53]

    J., ZuHone, J., et al

    Zingale, M., Dursi, L. J., ZuHone, J., et al. 2002, ApJS, 143, 539, doi: 10.1086/342754

    doi:10.1086/342754 2002