$10^{11}~ {\rm g}~{\rm cm}^{-3}$. The PNS contraction is similar among the 1D, 2D, and 3D models. Although the PNS contraction potentially affect the evolution of the shock [@hanke13; @suwa13], in our cases that are unchanged by the difference of the dimension and that are not main agent to explain the divergence of the shock evolution in 1D, 2D and 3D. The PNS contraction is slightly stronger in the later postbounce phase in 1D ($\gtrsim 150$ ms postbounce, compare blue with green and red lines)) compared to 2D and 3D because no shock revival was obtained in the 1D model and heavier PNS and slightly deeper gravitational potential are obtained compared to that of the multi-D models. In the figure, three more lines (solid, dashed, dotted gray lines) are plotted, in which we estimate the evolution of the PNS radius based on the fitting formula (equation (1) of @scheck06) by changing a final radius of PNS $R_{\rm f}$ for a given set of an exponential timescale of $t_{\rm ib} = 1$ s and an initial radius of PNS $R_{\rm i} =$ 85 km. As can be seen, the dashed gray line ($R_{\rm f} = 12$ km) can most closely reproduce our 