pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20596 · v1 · pith:TBDXDCLJnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Binary Neutron Star Merger Evolution and r-Process Enrichment in the Milky Way Disk

Joon Young Lee , Hsin-Yu Chen , Muhammed Saleem This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 04:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords binary neutron star mergersr-process enrichmentMilky Way diskgravitational wavesshort gamma-ray burstsstellar abundancesmerger ratenucleosynthesis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Binary neutron star mergers with evolving enrichment efficiency better explain Milky Way r-process abundances than non-evolving ones.

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

This paper tests if binary neutron star mergers can account for all r-process elements in the Milky Way disk when their efficiency is allowed to change with cosmic time. The authors combine data from LIGO gravitational wave detections, short gamma-ray bursts, local neutron star populations, and chemical compositions of disk stars. They find that models with evolution in merger rate or yield are vastly preferred, by Bayes factors over 10 to the 20. This evolution might come from changes in how often mergers happen or how much material they produce at different redshifts. If correct, it offers a way for neutron star mergers to be the main source despite earlier difficulties in matching observations.

Core claim

Scenarios with additional evolution in the binary neutron star merger rate or the average r-process yield are strongly preferred over non-evolving scenarios, with Bayes factors exceeding 10^{20}, when jointly fitting gravitational-wave observations, short gamma-ray burst data, Galactic neutron star populations, and stellar abundance measurements in the Milky Way disk. The required evolution is quantified and compared to observations and theoretical predictions, showing tension with short gamma-ray burst observations and population synthesis models but consistency with stochastic gravitational-wave background constraints.

What carries the argument

Joint Bayesian analysis of multiple observational datasets to compare parametric evolution in merger rate and r-process yield against non-evolving models.

If this is right

  • The evolved models are in tension with short gamma-ray burst observations and predictions from population synthesis models.
  • The evolved scenarios remain consistent with current stochastic gravitational-wave background constraints.
  • The results provide a quantitative framework for evaluating BNS mergers as the sole r-process production channel.
  • Quantified evolution in merger rate and yield can be directly compared with theoretical predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the required evolution is real, it may point to missing physics in binary population models such as changes in star formation or binary properties at high redshift.
  • Future gravitational wave observations could measure the merger rate evolution independently and test the required parameters.
  • Similar evolution might be needed to explain r-process patterns in other galaxies or in the early universe.
  • The tension with short gamma-ray burst data suggests potential inconsistencies in how these bursts trace merger rates.

Load-bearing premise

Any evolution needed can be described by simple parametric functions of redshift in the merger rate or yield, without significant systematic errors in the combined datasets from LIGO, sGRBs, Galactic NS, and stellar abundances.

What would settle it

Observation of a binary neutron star merger rate evolution with redshift that is inconsistent with the specific evolution parameters favored by the stellar abundance data, or new short gamma-ray burst observations that align better with non-evolving models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20596 by Hsin-Yu Chen, Joon Young Lee, Muhammed Saleem.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Median of the inferred [Eu/Fe]–[Fe/H] tracks compared against disk-star abundance measurements from C. Battistini & T. Bensby (2016). Bottom: Median of the inferred overall r -process enrichment efficiency as a function of redshift (Eq. 1). We also overplot a re-normal￾ized SFH from P. Madau & T. Fragos (2017) for comparison of the peak location (black dotted line). are inferred to be β = 1.70+0.30 −0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Median comoving BNS merger rate densities as a function of redshift for scenarios with evolution. The cir￾cles represent the Delayed population, and squares for the FM. For comparison, the dark brown and light brown curves show the sGRB rates from M. Zevin et al. (2022) and M. Pracchia & O. S. Salafia (2026), respectively. The black line shows the BNS merger rate from a population synthesis study (F. Santo… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median of the BNS formation efficiency η0 · ϵ as a function of [Fe/H]. We also plot the median trend sum￾marized in L. A. C. van Son et al. (2024), which shows no correlation between formation efficiency and metallicity, in contrast to the scenarios explored here. metallicity (M. Gallegos-Garcia et al. 2023; A. Chat￾taraj et al. 2026). A direct comparison with the models considered in these studies may hel… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The origin of half of the rapid neutron-capture nucleosynthesis (r-process) elements in the Universe remains an open question. Binary neutron star (BNS) mergers have been shown to face difficulties in reproducing the observed r-process enrichment in Milky Way disk stars. However, their r-process enrichment efficiency may evolve with redshift beyond the star formation history, potentially due to evolution in the merger rate or the average r-process yield in the early Universe. In this paper, we explore the possibility that BNS mergers with an evolving enrichment efficiency could serve as the sole r-process production channel. By jointly comparing gravitational-wave observations from LIGO--Virgo--KAGRA, short gamma-ray bursts, Galactic neutron star populations, and stellar abundance measurements in Milky Way disk stars, we find that scenarios with additional evolution are strongly preferred over non-evolving scenarios, with Bayes factors exceeding $10^{20}$. We quantify the required evolution in both the merger rate and yield, and directly compare them with observations and theoretical predictions. We find that the evolved scenarios are in tension with short gamma-ray burst observations and predictions from multiple population synthesis models, while remaining consistent with current stochastic gravitational-wave background constraints. Our results provide a quantitative framework for evaluating whether BNS mergers with evolving enrichment efficiency can account for the observed r-process enrichment history of Milky Way disk stars.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that binary neutron star (BNS) mergers can serve as the sole r-process production channel in the Milky Way disk if their enrichment efficiency evolves with redshift beyond the star formation history. Using a joint likelihood from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational-wave observations, short gamma-ray bursts, Galactic neutron star populations, and stellar abundance measurements, it reports that evolving scenarios are strongly preferred over non-evolving ones with Bayes factors exceeding 10^{20}. The required evolution in merger rate and average yield is quantified and compared to observations and population synthesis predictions, revealing tension with sGRB data but consistency with stochastic gravitational-wave background constraints.

Significance. If the central result on the strong preference for evolving BNS scenarios holds after robustness checks, the work would be significant for constraining the role of BNS mergers in galactic chemical evolution and r-process nucleosynthesis. The joint multi-messenger approach that combines GW, sGRB, and abundance data provides a useful quantitative framework for testing whether BNS can account for observed enrichment without additional sources. Credit is due for the direct comparison of fitted evolution parameters against theoretical predictions from population synthesis models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported Bayes factor exceeding 10^{20} is presented without details on data-selection cuts, prior choices, or systematic error budgets in the joint likelihood. This makes it unclear whether the decisive preference for evolving scenarios would survive modest changes in modeling assumptions or inclusion of additional systematic uncertainties from any one dataset.
  2. [Joint likelihood analysis] Joint analysis of stellar abundances: The evolution in merger rate and average r-process yield is quantified by fitting directly to the Milky Way disk stellar abundance measurements that the model is intended to explain. This raises a circularity concern, as the 'required evolution' may reduce to adjustments in the free parameters rather than emerging as independent predictions from the underlying physics.
  3. [Comparison with observations] Comparison with sGRB observations: The tension with short gamma-ray burst data is reported after performing the joint fit that includes stellar abundances. A more robust assessment would quantify how this post-hoc tension impacts the overall model preference or explore whether alternative parameterizations of redshift evolution could reduce the reported Bayes factor while remaining consistent with all datasets.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from briefly specifying the functional forms adopted for the redshift evolution of the merger rate and yield to improve immediate clarity for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below in a point-by-point manner. Revisions have been made to improve clarity and robustness where the concerns are valid.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The reported Bayes factor exceeding 10^{20} is presented without details on data-selection cuts, prior choices, or systematic error budgets in the joint likelihood. This makes it unclear whether the decisive preference for evolving scenarios would survive modest changes in modeling assumptions or inclusion of additional systematic uncertainties from any one dataset.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and main text would benefit from more explicit details on these aspects to allow readers to assess robustness. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the methods section (now Section 3) to list the precise data-selection cuts applied to each dataset, the full prior ranges and functional forms for all parameters, and a dedicated paragraph on the systematic error budget adopted in the joint likelihood. We have also added a new robustness subsection (Section 4.4) that repeats the Bayes-factor calculation after modest variations in cuts and priors; the preference for evolving models remains above 10^{18} in all cases examined. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Joint likelihood analysis] Joint analysis of stellar abundances: The evolution in merger rate and average r-process yield is quantified by fitting directly to the Milky Way disk stellar abundance measurements that the model is intended to explain. This raises a circularity concern, as the 'required evolution' may reduce to adjustments in the free parameters rather than emerging as independent predictions from the underlying physics.

    Authors: The concern is well taken. While the abundance data are indeed part of the joint likelihood, the evolution parameters are constrained simultaneously by three independent datasets (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA rates, sGRB redshift distributions, and Galactic NS population statistics) that do not involve the stellar abundances. The resulting best-fit evolution is then compared a posteriori to population-synthesis predictions and to sGRB observations. We have added a clarifying paragraph in Section 4.2 that explicitly separates the role of each dataset and shows the posterior on the evolution parameters when abundances are withheld; the preference for non-zero evolution persists, albeit at lower significance. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Comparison with observations] Comparison with sGRB observations: The tension with short gamma-ray burst data is reported after performing the joint fit that includes stellar abundances. A more robust assessment would quantify how this post-hoc tension impacts the overall model preference or explore whether alternative parameterizations of redshift evolution could reduce the reported Bayes factor while remaining consistent with all datasets.

    Authors: We have added a quantitative decomposition (new Figure 7 and accompanying text) that isolates the contribution of the sGRB likelihood to the total evidence; removing the sGRB data lowers the Bayes factor from >10^{20} to approximately 10^{12} but does not reverse the preference for evolving models. We also tested two alternative functional forms for the redshift evolution (a broken power law and a logistic transition) and report the resulting Bayes factors and tension metrics in the revised Section 5.2. A exhaustive scan of every conceivable parameterization lies beyond the scope of the present work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model comparison and posterior quantification are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper conducts a standard Bayesian model comparison between non-evolving and evolving BNS merger/yield scenarios using a joint likelihood constructed from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data, short GRB observations, Galactic NS populations, and Milky Way stellar abundances. The reported Bayes factor >10^20 is the ratio of marginal evidences for the two model classes and does not reduce to the data by construction. The quantification of required evolution consists of posterior constraints on parametric redshift-dependent functions, which are subsequently compared to external theoretical predictions and other observations. No self-definitional steps, fitted quantities renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that BNS mergers can be treated as the sole r-process source once two free evolution parameters are introduced; these parameters are fitted to the very abundance data the model aims to reproduce.

free parameters (2)
  • redshift evolution of merger rate
    Parameter introduced to allow the rate of BNS mergers to change with cosmic time so that the model matches observed stellar abundances.
  • redshift evolution of average r-process yield
    Parameter introduced to allow the amount of r-process material per merger to change with cosmic time.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Binary neutron star mergers are the only r-process production channel under consideration
    The paper explicitly explores whether evolving BNS mergers can serve as the sole channel.
  • domain assumption The four observational datasets (GW, sGRB, Galactic NS, stellar abundances) can be combined in a single likelihood without dominant unmodeled systematics
    The joint comparison and Bayes-factor calculation presuppose this compatibility.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5775 in / 1610 out tokens · 47718 ms · 2026-05-21T04:23:10.916264+00:00 · methodology

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

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  2. [2]

    2007, Physics Reports, 450, 97–213, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002

    Arnould, M., Goriely, S., & Takahashi, K. 2007, Physics Reports, 450, 97–213, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002 2007

  3. [3]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    Ashton, G., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  4. [4]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 586, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527385

    Battistini, C., & Bensby, T. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 586, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527385

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527385 2016

  5. [5]

    S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Fryer, C

    Behroozi, P. S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Fryer, C. L. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 792, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/123

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/123 2014

  6. [6]

    Binary neutron star formation and the origin of GW170817

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Olejak, A., et al. 2018, Binary neutron star formation and the origin of GW170817, https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.10065

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1589

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 4847–4854, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1589

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1589 2019

  8. [8]

    2024, Ultrafast compact binary mergers, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02269

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2024, Ultrafast compact binary mergers, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02269

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    S., Stevenson, S., & Thrane, E

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Stevenson, S., & Thrane, E. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8879

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8879 2022

  10. [10]

    L., Pilachowski, C

    Burris, D. L., Pilachowski, C. A., Armandroff, T. E., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 544, 302–319, doi: 10.1086/317172

    work page doi:10.1086/317172 2000

  11. [11]

    2025, The chemical enrichment histories across the Milky Way disk, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20160 11 T able 4.68% credible intervals of the parameter inference

    Casamiquela, L. 2025, The chemical enrichment histories across the Milky Way disk, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20160 11 T able 4.68% credible intervals of the parameter inference. Model Local Rate [Gpc −3 yr−1] mej [M⊙]β Delayed δDelayed z⋆ Delayed βF M δF M z⋆ F M fF M M1 127.4+117.0 −46.5 0.07+0.04 −0.03 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · M2 89.0+...

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 448, 557–569, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053622

    Spite, M. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 448, 557–569, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053622

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053622 2006

  13. [13]

    Double Neutron Star Delay Times Across Cosmic Metallicities: The Role of Helium Star Progenitors

    Chattaraj, A., Andrews, J. J., Briel, M., et al. 2026, Double Neutron Star Delay Times Across Cosmic Metallicities: The Role of Helium Star Progenitors, https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.03128

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    S., & Siegel, D

    Chen, H.-Y., Landry, P., Read, J. S., & Siegel, D. M. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add0af 2025

  15. [15]

    2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 016903, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aae6b5

    Christensen, N. 2018, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 016903, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aae6b5

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aae6b5 2018

  16. [16]

    M., & Metzger, B

    Combi, L., Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.19799 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db 2025

  17. [17]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52 —

    Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52 2012

  18. [18]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , 358, 1570

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049 2017

  19. [19]

    Implications of low neutron star merger rates for gamma-ray bursts, r-process production and Galactic double neutron stars

    Fishbach, M., Ji, A. P., fai Fong, W., et al. 2026, Implications of low neutron star merger rates for gamma-ray bursts, r-process production and Galactic double neutron stars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Implications of low neutron star merger rates for gamma-ray bursts, r-process production and Galactic double neutron stars

    Fishbach, M., Ji, A. P., Fong, W.-f., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05059, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.05059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05059 2026

  21. [21]

    Frebel, A., & Ji, A. P. 2023, Observations of R-Process Stars in the Milky Way and Dwarf Galaxies, https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09188

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 525, L121, doi: 10.1086/312343

    Freiburghaus, C., Rosswog, S., & Thielemann, F.-K. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 525, L121, doi: 10.1086/312343

    work page doi:10.1086/312343 1999

  23. [23]

    Gallegos-Garcia, M., Berry, C. P. L., & Kalogera, V. 2023, Evolutionary Origins of Binary Neutron Star Mergers: Effects of Common Envelope Efficiency and Metallicity, https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15693

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2011–2030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1999

    Giacobbo, N., & Mapelli, M. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2011–2030, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1999

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1999 2018

  25. [25]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  26. [26]

    J., & Kobayashi, C

    Haynes, C. J., & Kobayashi, C. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 483, 5123–5134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3389

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3389 2018

  27. [27]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005, doi: 10.1142/s0218271818420051 Kr¨ uger, C

    Hotokezaka, K., Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005, doi: 10.1142/s0218271818420051 Kr¨ uger, C. J., & Foucart, F. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.101.103002

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271818420051 2018

  28. [28]

    Wide Jets or Low Rates: Reconciling Short GRB and Gravitational-Wave Neutron Star Merger Rates

    Kunnumkai, K., Palmese, A., O’Connor, B., Farah, A., & Magana Hernandez, I. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05046, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.05046

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.05046 2026

  29. [29]

    M., & Schramm, D

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, ApJL, 192, L145, doi: 10.1086/181612

    work page doi:10.1086/181612 1974

  30. [30]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x

    Li, W., Chornock, R., Leaman, J., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1473–1507, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x 2011

  31. [31]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    Madau, P., & Fragos, T. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 2017

  32. [32]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e 12

    Maoz, D., & Graur, O. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e 12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6e 2017

  33. [33]

    S., Zheng, Z., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    McCarthy, K. S., Zheng, Z., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 5220–5229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3206

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3206 2020

  34. [34]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16776.x

    Metzger, B. D., Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 2650–2662, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x 2010

  35. [35]

    Molero, M., Arcones, A., Montes, F., & Hansen, C. J. 2025, Constraining r-process nucleosynthesis with multi-objective Galactic chemical evolution models, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.13372

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    J., Vigna-G´ omez, A., Stevenson, S., et al

    Neijssel, C. J., Vigna-G´ omez, A., Stevenson, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3740–3759, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2840

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2840 2019

  37. [37]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029 2017

  38. [38]

    D., Goldberg, J

    Patel, A., Metzger, B. D., Goldberg, J. A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 985, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adceb7 2025

  39. [39]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 4275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty840

    Paul, D. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty840

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty840 2018

  40. [40]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology

    work page 1964

  41. [41]

    Phinney, E. S. 2001, https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  42. [42]

    1992, ApJL, 389, L45, doi: 10.1086/186345 —

    Piran, T. 1992, ApJL, 389, L45, doi: 10.1086/186345

    work page doi:10.1086/186345 1992

  43. [43]

    2026, Collapse of Magnetized White Dwarfs as site of Heavy Element Formation and Kilonova Signal, https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21291

    Pitik, T., Radice, D., Kasen, D., et al. 2026, Collapse of Magnetized White Dwarfs as site of Heavy Element Formation and Kilonova Signal, https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21291

    work page arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Pracchia, M., & Salafia, O. S. 2026, Short gamma-ray burst progenitors have short delay times, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03861

    work page arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    ´A., & Arcones, A

    Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., Eichler, M., Aloy, M. ´A., & Arcones, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab029

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab029 2021

  46. [46]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 878, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab24df

    Safarzadeh, M., & Berger, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 878, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab24df

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab24df 2019

  47. [47]

    M., et al

    Saleem, M., Chen, H.-Y., Siegel, D. M., et al. 2026, Mergers Fall Short: Non-merger Channels Required for Galactic Heavy Element Production, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06020

    work page arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Santoliquido, F., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., Bouffanais, Y., & Artale, M. C. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 4877–4889, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab280

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab280 2021

  49. [49]

    Siegel, D. M. 2019, The European Physical Journal A, 55, doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12888-9

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12888-9 2019

  50. [50]

    M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Nature, 569, 241–244, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0 2019

  51. [51]

    2006, Bayesian Anal., 1, 833, doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    work page doi:10.1214/06-ba127 2006

  52. [52]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132–3158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  53. [53]

    C., Ruffert, M., Janka, H.-T., & Hix, W

    Surman, R., McLaughlin, G. C., Ruffert, M., Janka, H.-T., & Hix, W. R. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 679, L117–L120, doi: 10.1086/589507 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration and the KAGRA Collaboration. 2025, Upper Limits on the Isotropic Gravitational-Wave Background from the first part of LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth Obser...

    work page doi:10.1086/589507 2008

  54. [54]

    J., Haggard, D., Drout, M

    Vieira, N., Ruan, J. J., Haggard, D., Drout, M. R., & Fern´ andez, R. 2025, Spectroscopic r-Process Abundance Retrieval for Kilonovae III: Linking Spectral and Light Curve Modeling of the GW170817 Kilonova, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10696 Vigna-G´ omez, A., Neijssel, C. J., Stevenson, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4009, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2463

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2463 2025

  55. [55]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1970–1981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1352

    Wehmeyer, B., Pignatari, M., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1970–1981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1352

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1352 2015

  56. [56]

    2022, Nature, 603, 599, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    Xiang, M., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Nature, 603, 599–603, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04496-5 2022

  57. [57]

    S., et al

    Yong, D., Kobayashi, C., Da Costa, G. S., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 223–226, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03611-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03611-2 2021

  58. [58]

    E., Adhikari, S., et al

    Zevin, M., Nugent, A. E., Adhikari, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 940, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac91cd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac91cd 2022