Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Propagating Uncertainties from Nuclear Physics to Gamma-rays in Core Collapse Supernovae

Chris L Fryer, Hendrik Schatz, Samuel Jones, Atul Kedia, Richard Longland, Fabio Magistrelli, Gerard Navo, Joshua Issa, Patrick A Young, Alison M. Laird, Jeffery C. Blackmon, Almudena Arcones, Samuel Cupp, Carla Frohlich, Falk Herwig, Aimee Hungerford, Chen-Qi Li, G. C. McLaughlin, Bradley S. Meyer, Matthew R. Mumpower, Yong-Zhong Qian

TL;DR

This work evaluates how uncertainties in both astrophysical modeling and nuclear reaction physics propagate into nucleosynthetic yields and their gamma-ray signatures in core-collapse supernovae. It highlights major astrophysical sources of uncertainty—progenitor structure, explosive trajectories, and electron fraction evolution—and couples them with nuclear-physics uncertainties in reaction rates and networks, illustrating their combined impact on observable isotopes such as $^{56}$Ni, $^{44}$Ti, and shell-burning products. Through sensitivity studies and Monte Carlo propagation, the paper demonstrates that nuclear-rate uncertainties can be as large as the astrophysical ones for key gamma-ray emitters, underscoring a need for coordinated experimental measurements and theory to constrain the relevant reactions (e.g., $^{23}$Na$(\alpha,p)^{26}$Mg and $^{44}$Ti$(\alpha,p)^{47}$V). It also discusses multi-D explosion physics, OC-shell mergers, and continuous engine activity as crucial sources of trajectory variation that shape yields, and argues that upcoming gamma-ray detectors will provide direct, transformative constraints on the supernova engine and progenitor structure. Overall, the study maps a path to leverage gamma-ray observations to probe dense matter and neutrino physics in CCSNe by systematically reducing the dominant uncertainties.

Abstract

Nuclear yields are powerful probes of supernova explosions, their engines and their progenitors. In addition, as we improve our understanding of these explosions, we can use nuclear yields to probe dense matter and neutrino physics, both of which play a critical role in the central supernova engine. Especially with upcoming gamma-ray detectors that can directly detect radioactive isotopes out to increasing distances from gamma-rays emitted during their decay, nuclear yields have the potential to provide some of the most direct probes of supernova engines and stellar burning. To utilize these probes, we must understand and limit the uncertainties in their production. Uncertainties in the nuclear physics can be minimized by combining both laboratory experiments and nuclear theory. Similarly, astrophysical uncertainties caused by simplified explosion trajectories can be minimized by higher-fidelity stellar-evolution and supernova-engine models. This paper reviews the physics and astrophysics uncertainties in modeling nucleosynthetic yields, identifying the key areas of study needed to maximize the potential of supernova yields as probes of astrophysical transients and dense-matter physics.

Propagating Uncertainties from Nuclear Physics to Gamma-rays in Core Collapse Supernovae

TL;DR

This work evaluates how uncertainties in both astrophysical modeling and nuclear reaction physics propagate into nucleosynthetic yields and their gamma-ray signatures in core-collapse supernovae. It highlights major astrophysical sources of uncertainty—progenitor structure, explosive trajectories, and electron fraction evolution—and couples them with nuclear-physics uncertainties in reaction rates and networks, illustrating their combined impact on observable isotopes such as Ni, Ti, and shell-burning products. Through sensitivity studies and Monte Carlo propagation, the paper demonstrates that nuclear-rate uncertainties can be as large as the astrophysical ones for key gamma-ray emitters, underscoring a need for coordinated experimental measurements and theory to constrain the relevant reactions (e.g., NaMg and TiV). It also discusses multi-D explosion physics, OC-shell mergers, and continuous engine activity as crucial sources of trajectory variation that shape yields, and argues that upcoming gamma-ray detectors will provide direct, transformative constraints on the supernova engine and progenitor structure. Overall, the study maps a path to leverage gamma-ray observations to probe dense matter and neutrino physics in CCSNe by systematically reducing the dominant uncertainties.

Abstract

Nuclear yields are powerful probes of supernova explosions, their engines and their progenitors. In addition, as we improve our understanding of these explosions, we can use nuclear yields to probe dense matter and neutrino physics, both of which play a critical role in the central supernova engine. Especially with upcoming gamma-ray detectors that can directly detect radioactive isotopes out to increasing distances from gamma-rays emitted during their decay, nuclear yields have the potential to provide some of the most direct probes of supernova engines and stellar burning. To utilize these probes, we must understand and limit the uncertainties in their production. Uncertainties in the nuclear physics can be minimized by combining both laboratory experiments and nuclear theory. Similarly, astrophysical uncertainties caused by simplified explosion trajectories can be minimized by higher-fidelity stellar-evolution and supernova-engine models. This paper reviews the physics and astrophysics uncertainties in modeling nucleosynthetic yields, identifying the key areas of study needed to maximize the potential of supernova yields as probes of astrophysical transients and dense-matter physics.
Paper Structure (20 sections, 12 equations, 22 figures, 2 tables)

This paper contains 20 sections, 12 equations, 22 figures, 2 tables.

Figures (22)

  • Figure 1: Comparison of the energy transport between a Rosseland gray (single group) opacity and a 100 (multi-)group opacity for a 2 (solid), 1.2 (dashed), 1.0 (dotted) $M_\odot$ star. The different colors correspond to different compositions for the star.
  • Figure 2: Comparison of the OC-shell merger mixing uncertainties issaImpact3DMacro2025issa3DMacroPhysics2025 and explosive nucleosynthesis 2018MNRAS.480..538R to pre-supernova nucleosynthesis 2018MNRAS.480..538R for radioactive isotopes.
  • Figure 3: Overproduction of $^{44}\mathrm{Ti}$ for the mixing cases described in issaImpact3DMacro2025issa3DMacroPhysics2025. The lower x-axis is the rate of ingesting C-shell material into the O shell in $\mathrm{M_\odot}\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ for the 1D mixing length theory (circles) and 3D-inspired with mixing profile downturn (squares) cases. The upper x-axis denotes quenched (diamonds) cases and are labelled by (center of the mixing efficiency dip in Megameters, extent of the dip in $\mathrm{cm}^{2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}$). Size indicates distance from $\mathrm{OP}=0$ and color indicates magnitude. Median $\mathrm{OP}=-0.4$ and the explosive production of $^{44}\mathrm{Ti}$2018MNRAS.480..538R has an $\mathrm{OP}=0.6$
  • Figure 4: Log of density times radius cubed for 3 different stellar models as a function of radius in a star for 3 different stellar models from 2002NewAR..46..463H: 15, 20, and 25 M$_{\odot}$. If this value is increasing, $\alpha < 3$ and the shock will decelerate. Conversely, if it is decreasing, the shock will accelerate. $\rho r^3$ tends to increase in convective regions, decreasing in radiative regions of the star (the shaded regions correspond to convective regions in the 15 M$_\odot$ star.
  • Figure 5: Temperature versus time for trajectories of carbon-shell material from 3-dimensional Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics simulations 2020ApJ...895...82V of an asymmetric supernova (solid lines). The dashed curves show analytic solutions of these same trajectories. The simulated results underestimate the peak temperature for these models by, in some cases, more than 50%. However, the analytic model assuming ballistic trajectories, a common assumption, does not capture the deceleration, cooling the ejecta too quickly. A deceleration term is required to match the simulated results. Note that Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics and Eulerian codes typically perform equally poorly in capturing the peak shock temperature 2006ApJ...643..292F
  • ...and 17 more figures