Progenitors and explosion properties of supernova remnants hosting central compact objects: II. A global systematic study with a comparison to nucleosynthesis models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Core-collapse explosions of massive stars leave behind neutron stars, with a known diversity that includes the ‘Central Compact Objects’ (CCOs). Typified by the neutron star discovered near the centre of the Cas A supernova remnant (SNR), CCOs have been observed to shine only in X-rays. To address their supernova progenitors, we perform a systematic study of SNRs that contain a CCO and display X-ray emission from their shock-heated ejecta. We make use of X-ray data primarily using the Chandra X-ray observatory, complemented with XMM–Newton. This study uses a systematic approach to the analysis of each SNR aimed at addressing the supernova progenitor as well as the explosion properties (energy and ambient density). After fitting for the ejecta abundances estimated from a spatially resolved spectroscopic study, we compare the data to six nucleosynthesis models making predictions on supernova ejecta yields in core-collapse explosions. We find that the explosion models commonly used by the astrophysics community do not match the ejecta yields for any of the SNRs, suggesting additional physics, for example multidimensional explosion models or updated progenitor structures, are required. Overall we find low-mass (≤25 solar masses) progenitors among the massive stars population and low-energy explosions (<1051 ergs). We discuss degeneracies in our model fitting, particularly how altering the explosion energy affects the estimate of the progenitor mass. Our systematic study highlights the need for improving on the theoretical models for nucleosynthesis predictions as well as for sensitive, high-resolution spectroscopy observations to be acquired with next generation X-ray missions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".