Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Complete survey of r-process conditions: the (un-)robustness of the r-process(-es)

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that no single astrophysical condition produces the full r-process abundance pattern from first to third peak, and that observed patterns require a superposition of at least two or three components.

desk verdict A serious parametric r-process atlas that shows no single smooth condition reproduces the full solar pattern; the 'required' wording overshoots the evidence, but the grid and taxonomy are solid contributions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00092 v1 pith:A4TZXN6Z submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Jan Kuske , Almudena Arcones , Moritz Reichert This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords r-processnucleosynthesisneutronstarmergerselectronfractionentropyexpansiontimescalefissioncyclingabundancepatterns
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the observed heavy-element pattern of the r-process—the rapid neutron-capture process that makes about half of the elements heavier than iron—cannot come from a single astrophysical condition. The authors run 120,000 idealized nucleosynthesis trajectories that vary only the initial electron fraction, entropy, and expansion timescale, and find that although many conditions produce nearly identical abundances between the second and third r-process peaks, none reproduces the full first-to-third-peak solar pattern. They conclude that a superposition of at least two or three distinct components is required. If right, every measured r-process pattern, including those in old metal-poor stars, is a mixture of several ejecta contributions rather than the fingerprint of one site.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parametric density history of Eq. (1): an exponential decay with timescale $\tau$ followed by homologous expansion, $\rho(t)=\rho_0\exp(-t/\tau)$ for $t\le 3\tau$ and $\rho(t)=\rho_0(3\tau/et)^3$ after. Starting from nuclear statistical equilibrium at $T_0=7$ GK, each trajectory is fixed by the electron fraction $Y_{e,0}$, specific entropy $s_0$, and $\tau$, and is evolved with the WinNet network (7583 nuclei, FRDM2012 masses, Talys rates, Mumpower fission yields). The analysis is organized by the neutron-to-seed ratio $Y_n/Y_{\rm seed}$ and the average seed mass $\bar A_{\rm seed}$ at 3 GK, which together set which peaks can be reached, and by fission cycling, which makes the second-to-third-peak pattern insensitive to details. A difference metric $d_{i,j}$ over mass fractions groups the 120,000 outcomes into eight nucleosynthesis clusters (G0–G7).

What would settle it

Compute nucleosynthesis for a single hydrodynamic trajectory with a non-monotonic (shock-dominated) density profile and neutrino interactions, and check whether its final abundances reproduce the solar r-process residuals from first to third peak within the paper's own difference metric; alternatively, search stellar abundance catalogues for a star whose pattern matches a single G5-condition trajectory better than any two- or three-component mixture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the r-process is simultaneously robust and composite. A broad plateau of conditions—roughly neutron-to-seed ratios from about 50 upward, where fission cycling operates—produces the same second-to-third-peak abundance pattern, which explains why this region of the pattern looks similar across different stars and events. Yet only 1.4 percent of the surveyed conditions produce all three peaks, and those underproduce the first-to-second-peak region relative to solar. The first-peak (L) component is only matched by a narrow set of conditions near $Y_{e,0}\approx0.3$ that current hydrodynamic simulations do not commonly produce, prompting the authors to split it into an L and an M component, with a robust H component above the second peak. A three-component fit with relative weights near 50/25/25 percent reproduces the solar r-process residuals and the patterns of main r-process stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the smooth density history of Eq. (1)—an exponential drop followed by homologous expansion, with no shocks and no explicit neutrino reactions—adequately represents the trajectories that actually matter for the r-process; the paper itself notes that non-monotonic density profiles cause its largest disagreements with hydrodynamical tracers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every observed r-process pattern, solar or stellar, should be modeled as a blend of at least two or three abundance components rather than as the output of a single trajectory.
  • The robustness of the second-to-third-peak region is explained by a plateau of conditions, not by a unique site, so matching that region alone cannot identify the astrophysical source.
  • The eight nucleosynthesis groups give a compact way to pick representative conditions for nuclear-physics sensitivity studies and for comparisons to new stellar abundance data.
  • The narrow L-component conditions that current simulations miss point to a missing or underrepresented ejecta component, possibly an additional r-process site or a fission-produced mid-mass contribution.
  • The roughly constant L/H mixing ratio in the Sun and main r-process stars becomes a quantitative constraint on any model of r-process enrichment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This suggests a direct test of the paper's blind spot: running the same network on non-monotonic, shock-like density templates to see whether a single trajectory outside the smooth family can already produce the full first-to-third-peak pattern.
  • The near-constant L/H mixing ratio in the Sun and main r-process stars could indicate a single dominant enrichment channel rather than stochastic mixing of many events; the paper documents the pattern but does not interpret its origin.
  • The M-component overproduces the rare-earth region with the symmetric fission yields used here; switching to a narrower fission-yield prescription could change the fitted weights or make the M-component unnecessary.
  • The discrete peak-threshold grouping ($>10^{-2}$ mass fraction) makes trajectories near group borders extremely sensitive; a probabilistic assignment of conditions to groups would quantify how sharp those borders really are.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses the open-source WinNet network to calculate r-process nucleosynthesis for 120,000 parametric trajectories spanning electron fraction (100 values), entropy (100 values), and expansion timescale (12 values), using the smooth density history of Eq. (1). It groups the final abundance patterns into eight classes (G0–G7), compares the parametric results to hydrodynamical tracer trajectories (mean difference d=0.23), maps where the second and third r-process peaks match solar locations and heights, and fits L/M/H component combinations to the solar r-process residuals and to metal-poor stars. The central claim is that no single surveyed condition reproduces the full first-to-third-peak r-process pattern and that a superposition of at least two or three components is required.

Significance. The survey itself is a substantial community resource: a large, openly reproducible grid that can select representative conditions for observational and nuclear-physics studies, and the finding that a broad region of parameter space produces a robust second-to-third-peak pattern is a useful physical insight. The quantitative comparison to hydrodynamic trajectories gives confidence in the parametric model for smooth ejecta. However, the manuscript's headline conclusion is stated more strongly than the evidence: the negative existential is tested only on a finite, smooth, neutrino-free family, and the 'required' wording is not justified by the component fits in Sect. 5.2.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sect. 5.2; Eq. (1); Fig. 11] The negative existential that no single condition produces the full first-to-third-peak r-process pattern is only probed inside the smooth density family of Eq. (1) on a grid with 12 expansion timescales. The paper itself states in Sect. 2.1 that this parameterization cannot include shocks or similar non-monotonic conditions self-consistently, and Sect. 4 identifies non-monotonic density evolution as the cause of the worst validation outlier (NSM-DISK_W1, d=1.12 in Fig. 11). A single astrophysical trajectory outside this family, or a narrow region between the discrete grid points, could in principle produce the full solar-normalized pattern. The claim should be restated as 'no single condition within the surveyed smooth parametric family was found,' and the word 'required' should be removed or explicitly qualified.
  2. [Sect. 5.2; Eq. (8); Fig. 13] The statement that 'a combination of at least three components is necessary' is not established by the presented analysis. The L-, M-, and H-components are fitted separately to different Z-intervals, with 52<=Z<=54 excluded, the approximate weights 50/25/25 are quoted without a described fitting procedure or uncertainty estimate, and no global comparison of two-component versus three-component fits over the full abundance range is reported. Since the section is labeled preliminary and future work is promised, the evidence supports the conclusion that a three-component superposition can reproduce the solar and stellar patterns, not that at least three components are necessary.
  3. [Sect. 3.3; Sect. 5.2; Table 2] The group definitions and the central claim use different criteria. G5 is defined as '1st+2nd+3rd' using the threshold sum_A X(A)>10^-2 and contains 1697 conditions, yet Sect. 5.2 concludes that no single condition produces all three peaks 'at once' and that even the G5 conditions underproduce first-to-second-peak elements relative to solar. Please reconcile these statements by applying one quantitative, solar-normalized distance metric (for example Eq. (8) over Z=35-83) both to the grouping diagnostics and to the central conclusion, and state explicitly whether G5 should count as a single condition producing the full pattern.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (7)] Please specify the base of the logarithm in Eq. (7) and clarify how the normalization by A_max=250 interacts with the restriction to mass fractions above 10^-7; as written, the denominator is not equal to the number of mass numbers included in the sum.
  2. [Abstract; Sect. 6] The abstract says 'at least two or three conditions or components,' while Sect. 6 concludes 'at least three components is necessary'; please make the required number consistent and define what distinguishes a condition from a component.
  3. [Fig. 5] In the typeset figure, the sub-panel labels are repeated multiple times within each row; please reformat the figure so that each panel is identified once and the varied parameters are clear from the layout.
  4. [Sect. 4] The comparison uses 'up to 100 randomly selected trajectories per model'; please report the random seed or provide a mechanism for selecting the same tracers so that the comparison is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central grid result is an independent negative existential, and the component fits in Sect. 5.2 are illustrative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that no single parametric condition produces the full first-to-third-peak r-process pattern and that a superposition is required—is a negative existential obtained from a fixed, pre-specified grid of 120,000 trajectories (Sect. 2.1). No parameter was tuned to make the full pattern appear or disappear, and the search is not redefined after inspecting the solar abundances. The absence of such a condition is therefore an independent result of the survey, limited only by the chosen parametric family and grid resolution. The validation in Sect. 4 against external hydrodynamic trajectories is a benchmark, not an input: the density-profile fit to Eq. (1) is a modeling approximation, and the comparison metric Eq. (7) is applied to independent tracer nucleosynthesis. WinNet (Reichert et al. 2023) is open-source, and the hydrodynamic comparisons are external, so the self-citations do not carry the argument. In Sect. 5.2, the L/M/H component weights are fitted, but the conclusion that no single condition matches the full solar pattern is established earlier in Sect. 3.3 and Sect. 5.1 by direct comparison, not by the component fits. The two- and three-component decompositions are presented as demonstrations of how a superposition could work, with their weights explicitly called best fits; the claim that a superposition is 'required' rests on the single-condition search, not on the fitted weights. Caveats about the smooth-density parameterization, the finite grid, and the arbitrary X>10^-2 'produced' threshold are scope and robustness concerns, not circularity. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, so no circular step reduces its central result to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central grid search rests on the smooth homologous-expansion modeling assumption and on nuclear data choices that are not varied. The analysis thresholds (peak bins, 1e-2 production cut, distance-metric floor) shape the group classification and hence the strength of the 'no single full pattern' claim. The observational component decomposition adds fitted weights without documented uncertainties. No new physical entities are proposed; the L/M/H labels are descriptive mixture components.

free parameters (6)
  • Grid resolution (Ye, s, tau) = 100 x 100 x 12 values; Ye: 0.005-0.5, s: 1-290 kB/nuc, tau: 0.25-600 ms
    The central 'no single condition' claim is a statement about this discrete grid; unsampled intermediate conditions could in principle produce a full pattern, so the discrete choice is load-bearing.
  • Peak-production threshold = sum of X(A) > 1e-2
    Defines whether a peak is counted as produced in Sect. 3.3. Changing this threshold changes how many conditions fall into G5 (full pattern) and thus the strength of the no-single-condition claim.
  • Peak mass bins = 73-91 (1st), 121-138 (2nd), 186-203 (3rd)
    Used for group classification and for the Gaussian peak fits; conclusions about co-production of peaks depend on these exact boundaries.
  • Distance-metric minimum mass fraction = X > 1e-7
    Eq. (7) ignores mass fractions below 1e-7 when computing abundance differences, affecting group dispersion values and hydro-model agreement numbers.
  • Heating activation density = rho < 1e11 g/cm3
    Ad hoc switch in Sect. 2.2 to avoid artificial entropy loss from freely escaping neutrinos at high density; affects the temperature evolution of low-entropy, low-Ye trajectories.
  • L/M/H component weights = approximately 0.50 : 0.25 : 0.25
    Fitted in Sect. 5.2 to solar r-residuals to demonstrate the three-component superposition; no optimization or uncertainty is documented.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Smooth homologous expansion with the density profile of Eq. (1) represents all r-process conditions of interest.
    Used to generate every trajectory; Sect. 2.1 admits shocks cannot be included; Sect. 4 reports largest discrepancies for non-monotonic profiles.
  • domain assumption Varying Ye,0 captures the nucleosynthetic effect of neutrinos.
    Sect. 2.2: neutrino reactions are omitted because Ye,0 is varied directly; this misses neutrino-induced processes such as the nu p-process in neutrino-driven winds.
  • standard math NSE at T0=7 GK with the Timmes EOS gives the initial density.
    Sect. 2.1 and Fig. 2; standard nuclear statistical equilibrium assumption, but EOS is uncertain above 1e11 g/cm3.
  • domain assumption The adopted nuclear data (FRDM2012 masses, TALYS rates, Mumpower et al. 2020 fission yields, REACLIB beta decays) are accurate enough for the conclusions.
    Sect. 2.2 inputs; the paper itself notes sensitivity of peak positions and third-to-second ratio to fission yields and neutron-capture cross sections (Sect. 5.1).
  • domain assumption Solar r-process residuals from Sneden et al. (2008) are a valid reference pattern.
    Sect. 5 uses them as the main reference while acknowledging s-process modeling uncertainties and that they average many r-process events; the component fits therefore inherit these uncertainties.
  • ad hoc to paper The peak bins and production threshold used to define the eight groups are appropriate diagnostics.
    Introduced in Sect. 3.3 for this survey; the 'no full single condition' claim is sensitive to these choices, although the authors test some interval variations for L-component.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complete survey of r-process conditions: the (un-)robustness of the r-process(-es)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4TZXN6Z

@misc{pith2026250600092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complete survey of r-process conditions: the (un-)robustness of the r-process(-es)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4TZXN6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00092}
}
read the original abstract

Heavy elements are synthesized by the r-process in neutron star mergers and potentially in rare supernovae linked to strong magnetic fields. Expensive hydrodynamic simulations of these extreme environments are usually post-processed to calculate the nucleosynthesis. In contrast, here we follow a site-independent approach based on three key parameters: electron fraction, entropy, and expansion timescale. Our model reproduces the results based on hydrodynamic simulations. Moreover, the 120 000 astrophysical conditions analyzed allow us to systematically and generally explore the astrophysical conditions of the r-process, also beyond those found in current simulations. Our results show that a wide range of conditions produce very similar abundance patterns explaining the observed robustness of the r-process between the second and third peak. Furthermore, we cannot find a single condition that produces the full r-process from first to third peak. Instead, a superposition of at least two or three conditions or components is required to reproduce the typical r-process pattern as observed in the solar system and very old stars. The different final abundances are grouped into eight nucleosynthesis clusters, which can be used to select representative conditions for comparisons to observations and investigations of the nuclear physics input.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density and temperature evolution for a selection of conditions: Two extreme expansion timescales with sev￾eral initial entropies and electron fractions are shown. The density profile is described by Eq. (1), while the temperature is calculated from the Timmes EOS, including the entropy increase from nuclear heating. This leads to non-monotonic behaviors for low initial entropies. using the expansion of Lippuner & R… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Initial densities as a function of entropy s0 and electron fraction Ye,0 as calculated from NSE at a temper￾ature of 7 GK. The black line marks initial densities of 1011 g cm−3 , above which the EOS is less precise as it does not include nuclear contributions. 1912) as sion =  Pion ρ + Eion 1 T − ηionkBNion ρ (2) = kBNA A¯ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Initial NSE mass fractions of protons, neutrons, alphas, and heavies (A > 4), as well as the average mass and proton numbers of heavies. and a shifted third peak due to neutron captures after freeze-out (see e.g., Arcones & Martinez-Pinedo 2011). Higher entropies correspond to less seed nuclei, which also increase the neutron-to-seed ratio. The expansion timescale sets the time interval in which alpha particles can … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final abundances for different initial electron fractions. The solar r-process residuals from Sneden et al. (2008) are shown as black dots, normalized to Y (A = 151) = 2 · 10−5 . s0 ≳ 2 kB/nuc, the threshold Ye,0 for the production of second and third peaks increases w…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Final mass fractions of protons, alphas, and different groups of nuclei. Their dependence on the initial electron fraction Ye,0 is shown for a variety of initial entropies s0 (rows) and expansion timescales τ (columns). Eichler et al. (2019); Holmbeck et al. (2019), hi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Final mass fractions as a function of mass number for the eight nucleosynthesis groups summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Regions in the parameter space that produce the eight nucleosynthesis groups G0 to G7 from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average mass number of heavy nuclei (A > 4) at 3 GK for τ = 2 ms. The solid and dashed lines are the neutron-to-seed and alpha-to-seed ratios at 3 GK, respec￾tively. Below entropies of about 13 kB/nuc, the values are almost identical to the initial NSE values of A¯heav…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mapping of trajectories from different astrophysical simulations, summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average mass fraction difference between the final abundances of trajectories and our model, as defined in Eq. (7). The colors represent the different hydrodynamical models. The solid line is the mean, while the left and right dashed lines mark the lower and upper 1σ …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: Center mass number of second r-process peak as obtained by a Gaussian fit. The agreement with solar is best for the white regions, while in the blue (red) areas the peak shifts to lower (higher) mass numbers. Center: Same for the third r-process peak. Right: Sam…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Symbols show stellar abundances, scaled to Ru (Z = 44): Solar r residuals (squares), main r￾process stars (dots) from Sneden et al. (2003); Roederer et al. (2022), limited r-process stars (crosses) from Honda et al. (2007). Solid lines show model abundances scaled to …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 —. 2017b, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  2. [2]

    2011, PhRvC, 83, 045809, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045809

    Arcones, A., & Martinez-Pinedo, G. 2011, PhRvC, 83, 045809, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.045809

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.045809 2011

  3. [3]

    Arcones, A., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2013, J. Phys. G, 40, 013201, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/40/1/013201

    doi:10.1088/0954-3899/40/1/013201 2013

  4. [4]

    2007, Phys

    Arnould, M., Goriely, S., & Takahashi, K. 2007, Phys. Rept., 450, 97, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002 2007

  5. [5]

    2020, PhRvC, 101, 055807, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.055807

    Bliss, J., Arcones, A., Montes, F., & Pereira, J. 2020, PhRvC, 101, 055807, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.055807

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.101.055807 2020

  6. [6]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaadbe

    Bliss, J., Witt, M., Arcones, A., Montes, F., & Pereira, J. 2018, ApJ, 855, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaadbe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaadbe 2018

  7. [7]

    2017, PhRvD, 96, 124005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.124005 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al

    Bovard, L., Martin, D., Guercilena, F., et al. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 124005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.124005 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.124005 2017

  8. [8]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Rev. Mod. Phys., 93, 15002, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015002

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.015002 2021

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Piro, A

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

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24cf Fern´ andez, R., & Metzger, B

    Eichler, M., Sayar, W., Arcones, A., & Rauscher, T. 2019, ApJ, 879, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab24cf Fern´ andez, R., & Metzger, B. D. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1312

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    1999, ApJ, 516, 381, doi: 10.1086/307072

    Freiburghaus, C., Rembges, J., Rauscher, T., et al. 1999, ApJ, 516, 381, doi: 10.1086/307072

    1999 doi

  5. [13]

    1985, ApJ, 293, 1, doi: 10.1086/163208

    Fuller, G., Fowler, W., & Newman, M. 1985, ApJ, 293, 1, doi: 10.1086/163208

    1985 doi

  6. [14]

    1999, A&A, 342, 881

    Goriely, S. 1999, A&A, 342, 881

    1999

  7. [15]

    J., Montes, F., & Arcones, A

    Hansen, C. J., Montes, F., & Arcones, A. 2014, ApJ, 797, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/123

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Primas, F

    Hansen, C. J., & Primas, F. 2011, A&A, 525, L5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015743 18Kuske, Arcones, Reichert

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    1997a, Nucl

    Hoffman, R., Woosley, S., & Qian, Y.-Z. 1997a, Nucl. Phys. A, 621, 397, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(97)00278-9

    doi

  10. [18]

    D., Woosley, S

    Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E., & Qian, Y.-Z. 1997b, ApJ, 482, 951, doi: 10.1086/304181

    doi

  11. [19]

    M., Frebel, A., McLaughlin, G

    Holmbeck, E. M., Frebel, A., McLaughlin, G. C., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2a01

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1189, doi: 10.1086/520034

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y., & Wanajo, S. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1189, doi: 10.1086/520034

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Arcones, A., Cˆ ot´ e, B., et al

    Horowitz, C. J., Arcones, A., Cˆ ot´ e, B., et al. 2019, J. Phys. G, 46, 083001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ab0849

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Huth, S., et al

    Jacobi, M., Guercilena, F. M., Huth, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 527, 8812, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3738

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    2020, Nucl

    Khuyagbaatar, J. 2020, Nucl. Phys. A, 1002, 121958, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.121958

    2020

  16. [24]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, Sci, 358, 1583, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0073

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, Eur

    Koning, A., Hilaire, S., & Goriely, S. 2023, Eur. Phys. J. A, 59, 131, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01034-3

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x

    Korobkin, O., Rosswog, S., Arcones, A., & Winteler, C. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x

    2012

  19. [27]

    2001, Atom

    Langanke, K., & Martinez-Pinedo, G. 2001, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl., 79, 1, doi: 10.1006/adnd.2001.0865

    2001

  20. [28]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2015, ApJ, 815, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/82

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/2

    Martin, D., Perego, A., Arcones, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/2

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Mendoza-Temis, J. D. J., Wu, M.-R., Langanke, K., et al. 2015, PhRvC, 92, 055805, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.055805

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Meyer, B. S. 2002, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207227

    2002 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    S., & Brown, J

    Meyer, B. S., & Brown, J. S. 1997, ApJS, 112, 199, doi: 10.1086/313032

    1997 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 2974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1577 M¨ oller, P., Mumpower, M

    Molero, M., Magrini, L., Matteucci, F., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1577 M¨ oller, P., Mumpower, M. R., Kawano, T., & Myers, W. D. 2019, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl., 125, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2018.03.003 M¨ oller, P., Sierk, A. J., Ichikawa, T., Iwam...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2015, PhRvC, 91, 024310, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024310 M¨ oller, P., Sierk, A

    Mumpower, M. 2015, PhRvC, 91, 024310, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024310 M¨ oller, P., Sierk, A. J., Ichikawa, T., & Sagawa, H. 2017, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl., 109–110, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.adt.2015.10.002 M¨ osta, P., Roberts, L. F., Halevi, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 171, doi: ...

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, Prog

    Aprahamian, A. 2016, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 86, 86, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Jaffke, P., Verriere, M., & Randrup, J

    Mumpower, M. R., Jaffke, P., Verriere, M., & Randrup, J. 2020, PhRvC, 101, 054607, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.054607

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Steiner, A. W. 2017, J. Phys. G, 44, 034003, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/44/3/034003

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    2006, ApJ, 642, 410, doi: 10.1086/500786

    Nishimura, S., Kotake, K., Hashimoto, M.-a., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 410, doi: 10.1086/500786

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    Obergaulinger, M., & Aloy, M. ´A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, L43, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx046

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    1994, Atom

    Oda, T., Hino, M., Muto, K., Takahara, M., & Sato, K. 1994, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl., 56, 231, doi: 10.1006/adnd.1994.1007

    1994

  33. [41]

    2005, Nucl

    Panov, I., Kolbe, E., Pfeiffer, B., et al. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 747, 633, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.09.115

    2005 doi

  34. [42]

    V., Korneev, I

    Panov, I. V., Korneev, I. Y., Rauscher, T., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911967

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    D., Cehula, J., et al

    Patel, A., Metzger, B. D., Cehula, J., et al. 2025a, ApJL, 984, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc9b0

    doi

  36. [44]

    D., Goldberg, J

    Patel, A., Metzger, B. D., Goldberg, J. A., et al. 2025b, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17253

    doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    M., et al

    Perego, A., Rosswog, S., Cabez´ on, R. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3134, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1352

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt037

    Piran, T., Nakar, E., & Rosswog, S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt037

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3154

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3154

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Pruet, J., & Fuller, G. M. 2003, ApJS, 149, 189, doi: 10.1086/376753

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7da7

    Psaltis, A., Arcones, A., Montes, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7da7

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2dfb

    Psaltis, A., Jacobi, M., Montes, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2dfb

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Qian, Y.-Z., & Wasserburg, G. J. 2001, ApJ, 559, 925, doi: 10.1086/322367 —. 2007, Phys. Rept., 442, 237, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.006

    2001 doi

  44. [52]

    Z., & Woosley, S

    Qian, Y. Z., & Woosley, S. E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 331, doi: 10.1086/177973

    1996 doi

  45. [53]

    ´A., et al

    Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., Aloy, M. ´A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 518, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3185

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    ´A., & Arcones, A

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

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf033

    Reichert, M., Winteler, C., Korobkin, O., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf033

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 2096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1979

    Ricigliano, G., Jacobi, M., & Arcones, A. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1979

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    U., Lawler, J

    Roederer, I. U., Lawler, J. E., Den Hartog, E. A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cbc Complete R-Process Survey19

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    U., Vassh, N., Holmbeck, E

    Roederer, I. U., Vassh, N., Holmbeck, E. M., et al. 2023, Sci, 382, adf1341, doi: 10.1126/science.adf1341

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts708

    Rosswog, S., Piran, T., & Nakar, E. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts708

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    1911, Ann

    Sackur, O. 1911, Ann. d. Phys., 341, 958, doi: 10.1002/andp.19113411505

    1911 doi

  53. [61]

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

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

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    J., & Gallino, R

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., & Gallino, R. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145207

    2008

  55. [63]

    J., Lawler, J

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 936, doi: 10.1086/375491

    2003 doi

  56. [64]

    R., & Meyer, B

    Surman, R., Engel, J., Bennett, J. R., & Meyer, B. S. 1997, PhRvL, 79, 1809, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1809

    1997 doi

  57. [65]

    2016, ApJ, 817, 163, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/163

    Suzuki, T., Toki, H., & Nomoto, K. 2016, ApJ, 817, 163, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/163

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    1912, Ann

    Tetrode, H. 1912, Ann. d. Phys., 343, 434, doi: 10.1002/andp.19123430708

    1912 doi

  59. [67]

    X., & Arnett, D

    Timmes, F. X., & Arnett, D. 1999, ApJS, 125, 277, doi: 10.1086/313271

    1999 doi

  60. [68]

    2018, ApJ, 868, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0f2

    Wanajo, S. 2018, ApJ, 868, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae0f2

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    2012, ApJL, 750, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L22

    Winteler, C., K¨ appeli, R., Perego, A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L22

    2012 doi

  62. [70]

    E., & Hoffman, R

    Woosley, S. E., & Hoffman, R. D. 1992, ApJ, 395, 202, doi: 10.1086/171644

    1992 doi

  63. [71]

    Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2156

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ae7

    Zha, S., M¨ uller, B., & Powell, J. 2024, ApJ, 969, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ae7

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.