pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.13766 · v3 · pith:C226BHT7new · submitted 2025-04-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · nucl-ex· nucl-th

The impact of new (α, n) reaction rates on the weak s-process in metal-poor massive stars

Wenyu Xin , Chun-Ming Yip , Ken'ichi Nomoto , Xianfei Zhang , Shaolan Bi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 08:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR nucl-exnucl-th
keywords weak s-processmetal-poor starsmassive starsnucleosynthesisreaction rates17O(alpha,n)22Ne(alpha,n)stellar yields
0
0 comments X

The pith

Updated 17O(α,n) and 22Ne(α,n) rates increase weak s-process isotope production by tens of times in metal-poor massive stars.

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

This paper evolves four metal-poor massive star models at Z=10^{-3} with ZAMS masses 15, 20, 25 and 30 solar masses. It replaces default JINA REACLIB rates with new 17O(α,n)20Ne and 22Ne(α,n)25Mg rates from Best et al. and Wiescher et al., then compares the resulting yields of weak s-process isotopes. The new rates raise production by tens of times across carbon and neon burning stages, with the 17O+α channel dominant at all metallicities and the effect growing stronger in higher-mass stars. A reader would care because these stars dominate early-universe heavy-element enrichment, so revised rates alter the expected chemical fingerprints left in the oldest stellar populations.

Core claim

Adopting the new 17O(α,n)20Ne, 17O(α,γ)21Ne, 22Ne(α,n)25Mg and 22Ne(α,γ)26Mg rates increases the yields of ws-process isotopes by tens of times relative to JINA REACLIB defaults. The 17O+α reactions raise the process in every burning stage while the 22Ne+α reactions act mainly during carbon and neon burning; the 17O-driven enhancement grows more pronounced as stellar mass increases from 15 to 30 solar masses.

What carries the argument

The 17O(α,n)20Ne reaction, which supplies neutrons when the metallicity-limited 22Ne reservoir is small and 16O is abundant.

If this is right

  • Metal-poor massive stars contribute substantially more to certain s-process isotopes than models using older rates had indicated.
  • Yields of isotopes produced during carbon and neon burning must be recomputed with the updated rates for all metallicities below solar.
  • The relative importance of the weak s-process versus other neutron-capture channels shifts upward in the early universe.
  • More massive stars within the 15–30 solar-mass range experience the largest fractional increase in s-process output.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Galactic chemical-evolution calculations that rely on older massive-star yields may under-predict the s-process contribution at low metallicity.
  • Three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations could test whether convective overshoot or rotation changes the exposure of material to the 17O(α,n) neutron source.
  • Laboratory re-measurement of the 17O(α,n) cross section near the Gamow peak would directly tighten the yield predictions.

Load-bearing premise

One-dimensional stellar models with standard convective mixing and mass-loss prescriptions correctly place the temperature-density conditions where the adopted alpha-capture rates operate.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of predicted versus observed isotopic ratios among s-process elements in the atmospheres of extremely metal-poor halo stars or in the ejecta of core-collapse supernovae at low metallicity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13766 by Chun-Ming Yip, Ken'ichi Nomoto, Shaolan Bi, Wenyu Xin, Xianfei Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The (α, n)/(α, γ) ratio as a function of tempera￾ture for 22Ne+α (top) and 17O+α (bottom) reactions. This reaction competes with 22Ne(α, γ) 26Mg, which consumes 22Ne without releasing neutrons. In these shells, 16O is the most abundant isotope and acts as the main neutron poison through 16O(n, γ) 17O. Fortu￾nately, the neutrons absorbed by 16O can be released again via 17O(α, n)20Ne. Therefore, the availab… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The central temperature against the central den￾sity for the evolution of stars with M(ZAMS) = 15, 20, 25 and 30 M⊙. The grey dashed lines show the ignition lines of C burning, Ne burning, O burning and Si burning, where the energy generation rate by nuclear burning equals the energy loss rate by neutrino emissions. In the region on the left of the black line, stars are dynamically unsta￾ble due to the ele… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Kippenhahn diagram of the star with M(ZAMS) = 25 M⊙ The inner part of Mr = 0 − 14 M⊙ is shown. The blue, grey, and pink represent the convection, overshoot, and semiconvection regions, respectively. The or￾ange line is the isotherm line of 0.2 GK, and the red line shows the location of Mr = 1.84 M⊙. Between these two lines, the hatched region indicates where the ws-process is taken into consideration. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mass distribution of the Ye (red) and log ρ (blue) at t = tfinal.. The two black lines indicate where Mr = 1.84 M⊙ and T = 0.2 GK, respectively. The ws-process is assumed to occur interior to this isotherm. After core He burning, this region extends to Mr ∼ 6.0 M⊙, and the He and CO core masses are 7.8 and 4.96 M⊙, respectively. C burning ignites off-center at τ = 100.5 yr, nearly 3 years before the co… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The mass distribution of the main isotopes at t = tfinal from MESA. The two grey regions indicate where Mr ≤ 1.84 M⊙ and T ≤ 0.2 GK, respectively. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The mass distribution of log (V /U) at t = tfinal. The black diamonds are the location of M4, which is defined at the mass coordinate of specific entropy s = 4 erg g−1K −1 ). V U = − dlnP dlnMr = GM2 r 4πr4P (1) where U and V are defined in earlier studies (Schwarzschild 2015; Hayashi et al. 1962; Sugimoto & Nomoto 1980; Kippenhahn et al. 2013). As explained in detail in Xin et al. (2025), U relates to the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The chemical evolution in the OSi shell (Mr = 2.3 M⊙). In the top panels of (a) - (d), changes in the mass fractions X(i) of 4He, 12C, 16O, and 20Ne show the burning stages. X(Ga - Zr) and X(Nb - Th) are the cumulative mass fractions of the s-process isotopes from Ga to Zr (Z = 31 − 40) and Nb to Th (Z > 40), respectively. In the bottom panel, the changes in Xdef(i) of neutrons and 4He for the default rate… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The total mass fraction of the ws-process isotopes from A = 31 − 40 after He, C, and Ne burning. All values are normalized by the initial abundance, Xini = 7.87×10−8 . The total value is written above each pillar and the fractional contribution of each burning stage is written in the center of the box. With the new 17O+α reaction rates in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The abundance distributions of the ws-process elements at Mr = 1.84 - 7.3 M⊙ in the He core of the M(ZAMS) = 25 M⊙ star. The solid lines symbolize the “Ga - Zr” elements, while the dashed lines symbolize the heavier. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mr (M ) 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 X( i ) 4He 12C 16O 17O 20Ne 22Ne 28Si 56Ni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The distribution of the mass fractions of the main isotopes at Mr = 1.84 - 7.3 M⊙ obtained from the post￾processing calculation. Note that the mixing is not taken into consideration in the post-processing calculation because WinNet is a one-zone code. The comparison between this Figure and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The ratios of isotopic yields (from C to Zr) between new rates and default rates for M(ZAMS) = 15, 20, 25 and 30 M⊙, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The production factors of the elements from Cu to Zr. Each element is integrated from 15 to 30 M⊙ with the Salpeter IMF with γ = −2.35. In principle, the abundance of elements in the solar sys￾tem arises from the cumulative contributions of numer￾ous generations of stars with varying metallicities. Typ￾ically, the stars in the range 0.1Z⊙ < Z < Z⊙ contribute more than 90% to the solar abundance (Limongi &… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top: 22Ne(α, γ) 26Mg and 22Ne(α, n)25Mg reaction rates from different references. The gray dashed line shows the default rates in JINA REACLIB, which are from Longland et al. (2012). The red and blue lines represent the reaction rates reported in Adsley et al. (2021) and Wiescher et al. (2023). Bottom: 17O(α, γ) 21Ne and 17O(α, n)20Ne reaction rates from different references. The gray dashed lines show th… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Massive stars are significant sites for the weak s-process (ws-process). $^{22}$Ne and $^{16}$O are, respectively, the main neutron source and poison for the ws-process. In the metal-poor stars, the abundance of $^{22}$Ne is limited by the metallicity, so that the contribution of $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$, n)$^{25}$Mg reaction on the s-process is weaker. Conversely, the $^{17}$O($\alpha$, n)$^{20}$Ne reaction becomes more prominent in these stars due to the most abundant $^{16}$O in all metallicities. In this work, we calculate the evolution of four metal-poor models ($Z=10^{-3}$) for the Zero-Age Main-Sequence (ZAMS) masses of $M ({\rm ZAMS})=$ 15, 20, 25, and 30 M$_{\odot}$ to investigate the effect of reaction rates on the ws-process. We adopt the new $^{17}$O($\alpha$, n)$^{20}$Ne and $^{17}$O($\alpha, \gamma$)$^{21}$Ne reaction rates suggested by Best et al. (2013) and $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$, n)$^{25}$Mg and $^{22}$Ne($\alpha, \gamma$)$^{26}$Mg from Wiescher et al. (2023). The yields of the s-process isotope with updated reaction rates are compared with the results using default reaction rates from JINA REACLIB. We find that the new $^{17}$O+$\alpha$ reaction rates increase the ws-process mainly in all the stages, while the new $^{22}$Ne+$\alpha$ reaction rates only increase the ws-process in C and Ne burning stages. Updating these new reaction rates would increase the production of ws-process isotopes by tens of times. We also note that for more massive stars, the enhancement by new $^{17}$O+$\alpha$ reaction rates become more significant.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper calculates the evolution of four metal-poor (Z=10^{-3}) massive star models (15, 20, 25, 30 M⊙) to assess the effect of updated 17O(α,n)20Ne, 17O(α,γ)21Ne, 22Ne(α,n)25Mg and 22Ne(α,γ)26Mg reaction rates on the weak s-process. It reports that the new rates (from Best et al. 2013 and Wiescher et al. 2023) increase ws-process isotope yields by tens of times relative to JINA REACLIB defaults, with the 17O+α rates dominating the enhancement across burning stages and the effect strengthening with stellar mass.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim holds after addressing model sensitivities, the result would revise estimates of s-process contributions from low-metallicity massive stars, with direct consequences for galactic chemical evolution models of elements between Fe and Ba. The work supplies explicit yield comparisons for a grid of masses and metallicities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Stellar models] Stellar models section: the manuscript fixes standard 1D prescriptions for convection, overshooting, semiconvection and mass loss without any parameter variations or code comparisons. Because neutron exposure in C/Ne burning is known to be sensitive to these choices at the level of factors of several (comparable to the reported tens-of-times enhancement), the attribution of the yield increase primarily to the reaction-rate updates cannot be verified from the presented evidence.
  2. [Results] Yield comparison results: the abstract states that new rates increase production 'by tens of times,' yet no convergence tests, resolution studies, or details on how final yields are extracted from the models are supplied. This leaves the central quantitative claim load-bearing on untested numerical and post-processing choices.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and text would benefit from explicit statements of the default JINA REACLIB version and the precise temperature-density ranges over which the new rates differ most from the old ones.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful report and the recommendation for major revision. Below we respond point-by-point to the two major comments. We propose targeted revisions to improve clarity and context while preserving the paper's focus on the reaction-rate updates.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Stellar models] Stellar models section: the manuscript fixes standard 1D prescriptions for convection, overshooting, semiconvection and mass loss without any parameter variations or code comparisons. Because neutron exposure in C/Ne burning is known to be sensitive to these choices at the level of factors of several (comparable to the reported tens-of-times enhancement), the attribution of the yield increase primarily to the reaction-rate updates cannot be verified from the presented evidence.

    Authors: We agree that neutron exposure during C/Ne burning is sensitive to convective mixing and related prescriptions. The present study deliberately holds all stellar-model parameters fixed at their standard 1D values in order to isolate the effect of the updated 17O+α and 22Ne+α rates relative to the JINA REACLIB defaults. This controlled comparison is the central methodological choice. We will add an explicit paragraph in the stellar-models section (and a short discussion subsection) that acknowledges the known sensitivities, cites the relevant literature on mixing-parameter effects, and states that a full parameter survey lies outside the scope of this reaction-rate focused work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Yield comparison results: the abstract states that new rates increase production 'by tens of times,' yet no convergence tests, resolution studies, or details on how final yields are extracted from the models are supplied. This leaves the central quantitative claim load-bearing on untested numerical and post-processing choices.

    Authors: The reported yield ratios are obtained directly from the final surface abundances of the four stellar models after all burning stages. We will revise the manuscript to include a concise methods paragraph that (i) specifies the numerical resolution and time-step criteria used in the evolution calculations and (ii) describes the post-processing procedure by which the s-process isotope yields are extracted and normalized. Because the models were computed with the code's standard settings and no additional resolution studies were performed, we cannot supply new convergence tests in this revision; the added text will instead make the existing numerical choices transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: yields from externally sourced rates vs. JINA defaults

full rationale

The paper performs a direct numerical comparison of s-process yields in 1D stellar models using reaction rates taken from independent external sources (Best et al. 2013 for 17O+α; Wiescher et al. 2023 for 22Ne+α) against the JINA REACLIB defaults. No parameter is fitted inside the work, no prediction reduces to a self-defined input, and no load-bearing step relies on self-citation. The reported factor-of-tens enhancement is the computed difference between two sets of external rates; the derivation chain is self-contained against those benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the adopted reaction rates and on standard 1D stellar evolution assumptions; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced by this paper.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption 1D stellar evolution with standard mixing-length theory and convective boundaries accurately represents the temperature-density history experienced by the burning shells.
    Invoked implicitly when running the four ZAMS mass models; no sensitivity study provided.
  • domain assumption The reaction rates from Best et al. (2013) and Wiescher et al. (2023) are directly applicable without additional temperature-dependent corrections inside the stellar models.
    Stated adoption of the rates without further validation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5935 in / 1334 out tokens · 21289 ms · 2026-05-25T08:27:49.069839+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2021, PhRvC, 103, 015805, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.015805

    Adsley, P., Battino, U., Best, A., et al. 2021, PhRvC, 103, 015805, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.015805

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.015805 2021

  2. [2]

    1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  3. [3]

    C., et al

    Aoki, W., Honda, S., Beers, T. C., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 632, 611, doi: 10.1086/432862

    work page doi:10.1086/432862 2005

  4. [4]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 639, 897, doi: 10.1086/497906

    Aoki, W., Frebel, A., Christlieb, N., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 639, 897, doi: 10.1086/497906

    work page doi:10.1086/497906 2006

  5. [5]

    D., & Thielemann, F

    Arnett, W. D., & Thielemann, F. K. 1985, The Astrophysical Journal, 295, 589, doi: 10.1086/163402

    work page doi:10.1086/163402 1985

  6. [6]

    D., & Truran, J

    Arnett, W. D., & Truran, J. W. 1969, The Astrophysical Journal, 157, 339, doi: 10.1086/150072

    work page doi:10.1086/150072 1969

  7. [7]

    F., & Prantzos, N

    Baraffe, I., El Eid, M. F., & Prantzos, N. 1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 258, 357 The ws-process in massive stars17

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    2013, Physical Review C, 87, 045805, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.045805

    Best, A., Beard, M., G¨ orres, J., et al. 2013, Physical Review C, 87, 045805, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.045805

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.87.045805 2013

  9. [9]

    2011, Nature, 472, 454, doi: 10.1038/nature10000

    Chiappini, C., Frischknecht, U., Meynet, G., et al. 2011, Nature, 472, 454, doi: 10.1038/nature10000

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10000 2011

  10. [10]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833283

    Choplin, A., Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833283

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833283 2018

  11. [11]

    G., Schmiedekamp, A

    Couch, R. G., Schmiedekamp, A. B., & Arnett, W. D. 1974, The Astrophysical Journal, 190, 95, doi: 10.1086/152851

    work page doi:10.1086/152851 1974

  12. [12]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 189, 240, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240 2010

  13. [13]

    Timmes, F. X. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b83 2022

  14. [14]

    E., Petermann, I., et al

    Farmer, R., Fields, C. E., Petermann, I., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 227, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/22

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/22 2016

  15. [15]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    Justham, S. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc315

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc315 2023

  16. [16]

    Frischknecht, U., Hirschi, R., & Thielemann, F. K. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 538, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117794

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117794 2012

  17. [17]

    2024, PhRvL, 132, 182701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.182701

    Hammache, F., Adsley, P., Lamia, L., et al. 2024, PhRvL, 132, 182701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.182701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.182701 2024

  18. [18]

    1962, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 22, 1, doi: 10.1143/PTPS.22.1

    Hayashi, C., H¯ oshi, R., & Sugimoto, D. 1962, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 22, 1, doi: 10.1143/PTPS.22.1

    work page doi:10.1143/ptps.22.1 1962

  19. [19]

    Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 341, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/341 2010

  20. [20]

    2023, Slow Neutron-Capture Process in Evolved Stars, ed

    Hirschi, R. 2023, Slow Neutron-Capture Process in Evolved Stars, ed. I. Tanihata, H. Toki, & T. Kajino (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 3537–3571, doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-6345-2 118

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-6345-2 2023

  21. [21]

    D., Woosley, S

    Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 549, 1085, doi: 10.1086/319463

    work page doi:10.1086/319463 2001

  22. [22]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  23. [23]

    1989, Reports on Progress in Physics, 52, 945, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/52/8/002

    Kappeler, F., Beer, H., & Wisshak, K. 1989, Reports on Progress in Physics, 52, 945, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/52/8/002

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/52/8/002 1989

  24. [24]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 2013

  25. [25]

    A., & Yakovlev, D

    Kravchuk, P. A., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2014, Physical Review C, 89, 015802, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.015802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.89.015802 2014

  26. [26]

    2001, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 79, 1, doi: 10.1006/adnd.2001.0865

    Langanke, K., & Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G. 2001, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 79, 1, doi: 10.1006/adnd.2001.0865

    work page doi:10.1006/adnd.2001.0865 2001

  27. [27]

    P., & Arnould, M

    Langer, N., Arcoragi, J. P., & Arnould, M. 1989, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 210, 187

    work page 1989

  28. [28]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 592, 404, doi: 10.1086/375703

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 592, 404, doi: 10.1086/375703

    work page doi:10.1086/375703 2003

  29. [29]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 237, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24 2018

  30. [30]

    Longland, R., Iliadis, C., & Karakas, A. I. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 065809, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.065809

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.85.065809 2012

  31. [31]

    S., Weaver, T

    Meyer, B. S., Weaver, T. A., & Woosley, S. E. 1995, Meteoritics, 30, 325, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.1995.tb01131.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1995.tb01131.x 1995

  32. [32]

    Nishimura, N., Hirschi, R., Rauscher, T., St. J. Murphy, A., & Cescutti, G. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 1752, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx696

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx696 2017

  33. [33]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 706, 1184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1184

    Tsuruta, S. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 706, 1184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1184

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/2/1184 2009

  34. [34]

    1966, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 18, 384

    Osaki, Y. 1966, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 18, 384

    work page 1966

  35. [35]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA)

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

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

  36. [36]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  37. [37]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  38. [38]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  39. [39]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  40. [40]

    Peters, J. G. 1968, The Astrophysical Journal, 154, 225, doi: 10.1086/149753

    work page doi:10.1086/149753 1968

  41. [41]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 710, 1557, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1557

    Pignatari, M., Gallino, R., Heil, M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 710, 1557, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1557

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1557 2010

  42. [42]

    1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 234, 211

    Prantzos, N., Hashimoto, M., & Nomoto, K. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 234, 211

    work page 1990

  43. [43]

    M., Busso, M., Gallino, R., & Picchio, G

    Raiteri, C. M., Busso, M., Gallino, R., & Picchio, G. 1991a, The Astrophysical Journal, 371, 665, doi: 10.1086/169932

    work page doi:10.1086/169932

  44. [44]

    1991b, The Astrophysical Journal, 367, 228, doi: 10.1086/169622

    Pulone, L. 1991b, The Astrophysical Journal, 367, 228, doi: 10.1086/169622

    work page doi:10.1086/169622

  45. [45]

    M., Gallino, R., & Busso, M

    Raiteri, C. M., Gallino, R., & Busso, M. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 387, 263, doi: 10.1086/171078 18Xin et al

    work page doi:10.1086/171078 1992

  46. [46]

    1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 419, 207, doi: 10.1086/173476

    Kaeppeler, F. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 419, 207, doi: 10.1086/173476

    work page doi:10.1086/173476 1993

  47. [47]

    D., Woosley S

    Rauscher, T., Heger, A., Hoffman, R. D., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 576, 323, doi: 10.1086/341728

    work page doi:10.1086/341728 2002

  48. [48]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 268, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf033

    Reichert, M., Winteler, C., Korobkin, O., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 268, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf033

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf033 2023

  49. [49]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, The Astrophysical Journal, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    work page doi:10.1086/145971 1955

  50. [50]

    2015, Structure and Evolution of Stars, doi: 10.1515/9781400879175

    Schwarzschild, M. 2015, Structure and Evolution of Stars, doi: 10.1515/9781400879175

    work page doi:10.1515/9781400879175 2015

  51. [51]

    1980, Space Science Reviews, 25, 155, doi: 10.1007/BF00212318

    Sugimoto, D., & Nomoto, K. 1980, Space Science Reviews, 25, 155, doi: 10.1007/BF00212318

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00212318 1980

  52. [52]

    Janka, H. T. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 38, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/38 2016

  53. [53]

    S., El Eid, M

    The, L. S., El Eid, M. F., & Meyer, B. S. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 533, 998, doi: 10.1086/308677

    work page doi:10.1086/308677 2000

  54. [54]

    F., & Meyer, B

    The, L.-S., El Eid, M. F., & Meyer, B. S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 655, 1058, doi: 10.1086/509753

    work page doi:10.1086/509753 2007

  55. [55]

    X., & Arnett, D

    Timmes, F. X., & Arnett, D. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 125, 277, doi: 10.1086/313271

    work page doi:10.1086/313271 1999

  56. [56]

    Tur, C., Heger, A., & Austin, S. M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 1068, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1068

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/2/1068 2009

  57. [57]

    A., Zimmerman, G

    Weaver, T. A., Zimmerman, G. B., & Woosley, S. E. 1978, The Astrophysical Journal, 225, 1021, doi: 10.1086/156569

    work page doi:10.1086/156569 1978

  58. [58]

    J., & G¨ orres, J

    Wiescher, M., deBoer, R. J., & G¨ orres, J. 2023, European Physical Journal A, 59, 11, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00917-9

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00917-9 2023

  59. [59]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2007, Physics Reports, 442, 269, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009 2007

  60. [60]

    E., Heger A., Weaver T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.1015 2002

  61. [61]

    E., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 101, 181, doi: 10.1086/192237

    work page doi:10.1086/192237 1995

  62. [62]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11012

    Xin, W., Nomoto, K., & Zhao, G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.11012, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.11012

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.11012 2025

  63. [63]

    2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 034107, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/aca1ff

    Xin, W., Nomoto, K., Zhao, G., & Wu, W. 2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 034107, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/aca1ff

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/aca1ff 2023