arxiv: 2601.15187 · v4 · submitted 2026-01-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

The early r-process nucleosynthesis scenarios

Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 12:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords r-processnucleosynthesisvery metal-poor starssupernovaeheavy elementsearly universemagnetorotationalCEJSN

0 comments

The pith

The magnetorotational r-process scenario best accounts for elements below the third peak while the common envelope jets supernova scenario explains the third peak in the early Universe.

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

The paper compares seven r-process nucleosynthesis scenarios against the abundance patterns seen in very metal-poor stars. It concludes that the magnetorotational scenario fits the observed scatter and the correlation of lighter r-process elements with iron production. The common envelope jets supernova scenario is singled out for the third r-process peak because those elements show no such correlation with iron. Other proposed sites such as neutron star mergers receive only secondary roles, while magnetar winds and accretion-induced collapses fall short of the data. A reader would care because the comparison isolates the dominant formation channels for heavy elements in the first generations of stars.

Core claim

The author concludes that the magnetorotational r-process scenario is the primary contributor to r-process elements below the third peak, and the common envelope jets supernova (CEJSN) r-process scenario is the main source for the third peak. These conclusions are reached by requiring the scenarios to explain the large scatter in r-process abundances of very metal-poor stars, the correlation between light r-process and iron, and the absence of correlation for the third peak with iron.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is matching each r-process scenario to three observational constraints from very metal-poor stars: large abundance scatter, light r-process correlation with iron, and third-peak lack of correlation with iron.

If this is right

The magnetorotational scenario accounts for the production of lighter r-process elements in the early Universe.
The CEJSN scenario dominates the formation of third-peak r-process elements.
Binary neutron star mergers may contribute to the third peak but are not the main source.
Scenarios involving magnetars, newborn neutron star winds, and white dwarf collapse are minor contributors at best.
Further exploration of the diversity in CEJSN events is needed to refine the model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

This suggests that early r-process enrichment occurred through distinct supernova channels rather than primarily through mergers.
Observations of additional metal-poor stars could reveal abundance patterns unique to each scenario.
It points to rapid heavy element production tied to specific core-collapse events in the first generations of stars.

Load-bearing premise

The patterns in r-process abundances of very metal-poor stars directly trace the output of individual nucleosynthesis sites without being dominated by mixing, dilution, or multiple overlapping events.

What would settle it

The discovery of very metal-poor stars in which third-peak r-process elements correlate strongly with iron abundance would falsify the claim that the CEJSN scenario is the dominant site for the third peak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15187 by Israel), Noam Soker (Technion.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: A figure demonstrating the large scatter in rprocess nucleosynthesis at early times with the ratio [Eu/Fe]. The scatter at late times suggests that r-process sites that yield a large mass of r-process elements also dominate at later times (i.e., present). Observational data taken from Cayrel et al. (2004), Honda et al. (2004), Hansen et al. (2012), Hansen et al. (2014), Roederer et al. (2014) and Zhao et … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

I compare seven actively studied r-process nucleosynthesis scenarios against observed properties of r-process elements in the early Universe, and conclude that the most likely scenario to contribute to the site of elements below the third r-process peak is the magnetorotational r-process scenario, and that of the third peak is the common envelope jets supernova (CEJSN) r-process scenario. The collapsar and CEJSN r-process scenario might also contribute to the lighter r-process elements, and the binary neutron star (NS-NS) merger r-process scenario might contribute to the third r-process peak. The magnetar, the wind from the newly born NS, and the accretion-induced collapse of a white dwarf r-process scenarios fall short in explaining observations. They might exist, but cannot be major contributors to the r-process in the early Universe. To constrain r-process scenarios in the early Universe, I require that they explain the large scatter in the r-process abundances of very metal-poor stars, account for the correlation between light r-process nucleosynthesis and iron production, and the lack of correlation between the third peak r-process production and iron production, as inferred from very metal-poor stars. I discuss the diversity of the CEJSN r-process scenario and encourage extending its exploration.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Soker's paper ranks existing r-process scenarios by matching them to scatter and iron correlations in very metal-poor stars, favoring magnetorotational events for lighter elements and CEJSN for the third peak, but stays at qualitative comparison without new calculations.

read the letter

The core point is that this paper filters seven r-process scenarios against three observational properties from very metal-poor stars: the large scatter in r-process abundances, the correlation of lighter r-process elements with iron, and the lack of such correlation for the third peak. It concludes magnetorotational supernovae work best for the lighter stuff and common-envelope jet supernovae for the third peak, while magnetars, NS winds, and accretion-induced collapse fall short. Collapsars and NS-NS mergers get partial credit as possible contributors. No new yields or mechanisms appear here; the work is a synthesis that applies existing data as constraints. That approach has value because it forces attention onto those specific statistical patterns that any viable site must reproduce in the early galaxy. The paper spells out the logic clearly enough that a reader can see why the favored scenarios align better on paper. The main limitation is that the ranking rests on narrative consistency rather than quantitative galactic chemical evolution runs. There are no yield tables integrated over populations, no dilution or mixing prescriptions tested, and no error bars or simulation outputs to show that the preferred channels actually recover the observed distributions while the others do not. The argument assumes the nucleosynthesis differences map fairly directly onto the scatter and correlations, which may overlook overlapping events or variable enrichment. This is the kind of paper that helps people working on early chemical evolution keep the observational tests in view. It does not deliver a definitive answer or new data, so it is not essential reading for everyone, but the constraints it emphasizes are worth discussing. I would send it for peer review so referees can weigh whether the qualitative filters are strong enough on their own or whether the authors need to add at least a simple model comparison to support the preferences.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript evaluates seven r-process nucleosynthesis scenarios (magnetorotational, CEJSN, collapsar, NS-NS merger, magnetar, NS wind, and AIC) by comparing them to three observational properties of r-process elements in very metal-poor stars: the large scatter in abundances, the correlation between light r-process elements and iron, and the lack of correlation between the third r-process peak and iron. It concludes that the magnetorotational scenario is the most likely contributor to elements below the third peak, the CEJSN scenario to the third peak, with possible secondary roles for collapsar/CEJSN and NS-NS merger, while the remaining three scenarios are insufficient as major contributors in the early Universe.

Significance. If the qualitative ranking holds after quantitative testing, the work provides a useful prioritization framework for r-process sites in early galactic chemical evolution and encourages deeper study of the CEJSN channel's diversity. The synthesis of multiple scenarios against a consistent set of constraints is a strength, but the absence of explicit yield tables or chemical-evolution integrations limits the immediate impact on model-building.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and concluding discussion] The central ranking of the magnetorotational scenario for light r-process elements and CEJSN for the third peak rests on the assumption that nucleosynthesis yields translate directly into the observed scatter and Fe correlations once integrated over early galactic populations. No galactic chemical evolution calculations, dilution/mixing prescriptions, or integrated yield predictions are presented to demonstrate that the favored channels reproduce the statistical patterns while the disfavored ones (magnetar, NS wind, AIC) do not. This is load-bearing for the conclusions (see abstract and the section on constraints from VMP stars).
[Section on observational constraints from very metal-poor stars] The attribution of the lack of third-peak/Fe correlation and the presence of light-r/Fe correlation solely to specific scenarios overlooks potential effects from overlapping events or inhomogeneous mixing in the early Universe. Without quantitative modeling to isolate these contributions, the mapping from scenario to observed pattern remains a consistency argument rather than a tested prediction (see the section discussing observational constraints).

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract lists the seven scenarios but does not name them explicitly in the opening sentence; adding the full list would improve readability.
Some scenario descriptions could benefit from a brief table summarizing key yield characteristics (e.g., peak production, typical event rate) for direct comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important limitations in the scope of our qualitative comparison. We address each major comment below, clarifying the basis of our arguments while acknowledging where quantitative modeling would strengthen the work. We propose targeted revisions to improve clarity without altering the manuscript's core conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and concluding discussion] The central ranking of the magnetorotational scenario for light r-process elements and CEJSN for the third peak rests on the assumption that nucleosynthesis yields translate directly into the observed scatter and Fe correlations once integrated over early galactic populations. No galactic chemical evolution calculations, dilution/mixing prescriptions, or integrated yield predictions are presented to demonstrate that the favored channels reproduce the statistical patterns while the disfavored ones (magnetar, NS wind, AIC) do not. This is load-bearing for the conclusions (see abstract and the section on constraints from VMP stars).

Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit galactic chemical evolution (GCE) integrations means our ranking rests on qualitative consistency with the observed patterns rather than direct statistical reproduction. The large scatter, light-r/Fe correlation, and third-peak/Fe decoupling are used as direct filters on viable sites: magnetorotational events naturally link light r-process production to iron-producing core-collapse supernovae, while CEJSN events can decouple the third peak from iron. Disfavored scenarios (magnetar, NS wind, AIC) are tied to standard iron-producing channels and would be expected to induce correlations inconsistent with the data even before full integration. We will revise the abstract and concluding discussion to explicitly frame the analysis as a consistency-based prioritization framework and to recommend future GCE studies with yield tables for quantitative validation. revision: partial
Referee: [Section on observational constraints from very metal-poor stars] The attribution of the lack of third-peak/Fe correlation and the presence of light-r/Fe correlation solely to specific scenarios overlooks potential effects from overlapping events or inhomogeneous mixing in the early Universe. Without quantitative modeling to isolate these contributions, the mapping from scenario to observed pattern remains a consistency argument rather than a tested prediction (see the section discussing observational constraints).

Authors: We acknowledge that inhomogeneous mixing and overlapping events could modulate the observed correlations and scatter. The large scatter itself, however, is a signature of rare events with limited mixing, which aligns with the low rates expected for magnetorotational and CEJSN channels. Overlapping would tend to erase distinctions, yet the persistence of the light-r/Fe correlation alongside the absence of a third-peak/Fe correlation points to physically distinct production sites. We will expand the observational constraints section to discuss how mixing and overlap might affect the patterns and to note that our mapping remains a consistency argument pending quantitative modeling. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; conclusions rest on external stellar observations

full rationale

The paper ranks r-process scenarios by their ability to match independent observational constraints from very metal-poor stars (large abundance scatter, light r-process/Fe correlation, absent third-peak/Fe correlation). These constraints are drawn from external data rather than from any internal parameters, fits, or definitions within the scenarios themselves. No equations, self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claims to the paper's own inputs are present. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard interpretations of stellar abundance data as direct tracers of early nucleosynthesis events.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Abundance patterns in very metal-poor stars directly reflect contributions from specific r-process events in the early universe.
Invoked when using scatter and iron correlations as primary constraints on scenario viability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5519 in / 1151 out tokens · 54842 ms · 2026-05-16T12:07:41.594587+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Double Neutron Star Delay Times Across Cosmic Metallicities: The Role of Helium Star Progenitors
astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Simulations show double neutron star mergers peak 80-250 million years after star formation across metallicities, with 15% quick mergers and over 20% delayed over a billion years.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

[1]

2018, ApJS, 238, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 Alencastro Puls, A., Kuske, J., Hansen, C

Abohalima, A., & Frebel, A. 2018, ApJS, 238, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 Alencastro Puls, A., Kuske, J., Hansen, C. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A294, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452537

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aadfe9 2018
[2]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26625, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.26625

Anoardo, S., Mucciarelli, A., Palla, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.26625, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.26625

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.26625 2025
[3]

2024, ApJS, 274, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f

Bandyopadhyay, A., Ezzeddine, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f 2024
[4]

2020, ApJL, 902, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc0d

Banerjee, P., Wu, M.-R., & Yuan, Z. 2020, ApJL, 902, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc0d

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abbc0d 2020
[5]

2019, ApJL, 881, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3215

Bartos, I., & M´ arka, S. 2019, ApJL, 881, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3215

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3215 2019
[6]

2025, ApJ, 984, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc300

Batziou, E., Glas, R., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc300

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc300 2025
[7]

2016a, ApJL, 829, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L13 —

Beniamini, P., Hotokezaka, K., & Piran, T. 2016a, ApJL, 829, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L13 —. 2016b, ApJ, 832, 149, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/149

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l13 2041
[8]

2024, ApJ, 966, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd

Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2024, ApJ, 966, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd 2024
[9]

2025, PSJ, 6, 75, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/adbbd6

Bishop, S., Stanciu, I., Cabr´ e, A., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 75, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/adbbd6

work page doi:10.3847/psj/adbbd6 2025
[10]

P., Drout, M

Brauer, K., Ji, A. P., Drout, M. R., & Frebel, A. 2021, ApJ, 915, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b2

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b2 2021
[11]

2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M., et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034074 2004
[12]

A., & Metzger, B

Cehula, J., Thompson, T. A., & Metzger, B. D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae358

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae358 2024
[13]

S., & Siegel, D

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add0af 2025
[14]

C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L

Cheong, P. C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L. F., & Radice, D. 2025, ApJL, 978, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada1cc 7

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada1cc 2025
[15]

2017, , 848, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c

Chornock, R., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c 2017
[16]

M., & Metzger, B

Combi, L., Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.19799, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.19799 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.19799 2025
[17]

2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36 2022
[18]

2021, MNRAS, 506, 4374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2003

Dvorkin, I., Daigne, F., Goriely, S., Vangioni, E., & Silk, J. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2003

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2003 2021
[19]

2025, European Physical Journal A, 61, 207, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01668-5

Farouqi, K., Frebel, A., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2025, European Physical Journal A, 61, 207, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01668-5

work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01668-5 2025
[20]

K., Rosswog, S., & Kratz, K

Farouqi, K., Thielemann, F. K., Rosswog, S., & Kratz, K. L. 2022, A&A, 663, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141038

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141038 2022
[21]

Improved lanthanide constraints for the kilonova AT 2017gfo

Gillanders, J. H., Flors, A., & Ferreira da Silva, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.24257. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24257

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[22]

2011, ApJL, 738, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L32

Goriely, S., Bauswein, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2011, ApJL, 738, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L32

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/l32 2011
[23]

2023, MNRAS, 523, 221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1449 —

Grichener, A. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1449 —. 2025, Ap&SS, 370, 11, doi: 10.1007/s10509-025-04402-1

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1449 2023
[24]

2022, ApJL, 926, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4f68

Grichener, A., Kobayashi, C., & Soker, N. 2022, ApJL, 926, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4f68

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac4f68 2022
[25]

2019a, ApJ, 878, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5d —

Grichener, A., & Soker, N. 2019a, ApJ, 878, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5d —. 2019b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.06328, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.06328 —. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 263, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acaa9f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5d 1909
[26]

J., Blum, M., Weinberg, D

Griffith, E. J., Blum, M., Weinberg, D. H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02122, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.02122

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.02122 2025
[27]

2018, MNRAS, 477, 2366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty797

Halevi, G., & M¨ osta, P. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty797

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty797 2018
[28]

D., Abrahams, S

Hall-Smith, A. D., Abrahams, S. E. D., Laird, A. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.06464. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06464

work page arXiv 2026
[29]

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

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

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/123 2014
[30]

J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al

Hansen, C. J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118643

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118643 2012
[31]

T., Simon, J

Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a52

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a52 2024
[32]

T., Roederer, I

Hansen, T. T., Roederer, I. U., Shah, S. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554123

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554123 2025
[33]

R., Venn, K

Hayes, C. R., Venn, K. A., Waller, F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acebc0

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acebc0 2023
[34]

J., & Kobayashi, C

Haynes, C. J., & Kobayashi, C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3389

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3389 2019
[35]

E., Gerasimov, R., & Kirby, E

Henderson, L. E., Gerasimov, R., & Kirby, E. N. 2025a, ApJL, 992, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a4a

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a4a 2041
[36]

2025b, ApJ, 983, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe7d

Gerasimov, R., & Manwadkar, V. 2025b, ApJ, 983, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe7d

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbe7d
[37]

C., Lee, Y

Hirai, Y., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf10a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf10a 2025
[38]

M., & Andrews, J

Holmbeck, E. M., & Andrews, J. J. 2024, ApJ, 963, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e52

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e52 2024
[39]

2004, ApJ, 607, 474, doi: 10.1086/383406

Honda, S., Aoki, W., Kajino, T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 474, doi: 10.1086/383406

work page doi:10.1086/383406 2004
[40]

D., et al

Issa, D., Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc694

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc694 2025
[41]

P., Drout, M

Ji, A. P., Drout, M. R., & Hansen, T. T. 2019, ApJ, 882, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3291

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3291 2019
[42]

P., Frebel, A., Simon, J

Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., & Chiti, A. 2016, ApJ, 830, 93, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/93

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/93 2016
[43]

P., Simon, J

Ji, A. P., Simon, J. D., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acad84

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acad84 2023
[44]

2024, ApJ, 971, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f8e

Jin, S., & Soker, N. 2024, ApJ, 971, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f8e

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f8e 2024
[45]

A., Obergaulinger, M., & Nagataki, S

Just, O., Aloy, M. A., Obergaulinger, M., & Nagataki, S. 2022, ApJL, 934, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac83a1

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac83a1 2022
[46]

2017, Nat, 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

work page doi:10.1038/nature24453 2017
[47]

M., Kasen , D., Lau , R

Kasliwal, M. M., Kasen, D., Lau, R. M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz007

work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz007 2022
[48]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20436, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20436

Kobayashi, C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20436, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20436

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20436 2025
[49]

I., & Lugaro, M

Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abae65 2020
[50]

2023, ApJL, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

Kobayashi, C., Mandel, I., Belczynski, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad82 2023
[51]

2025, ApJ, 990, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf0f7

Kuske, J., Arcones, A., & Reichert, M. 2025, ApJ, 990, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf0f7

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf0f7 2025
[52]

2025, MNRAS, 537, 1889, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf142

Leicester, B., Bekki, K., & Tsujimoto, T. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 1889, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf142

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf142 2025
[53]

J., Gompertz, B

Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024
[54]

A., et al

Liu, Z., Grohs, E., Lund, K. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1298

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1298 2025
[55]

2025, ApJ, 982, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bd

Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2025, ApJ, 982, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bd

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bd 2025
[56]

Metzger, B. D. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.05931, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1710.05931 8

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1710.05931 2017
[57]

Molero, M., Arcones, A., Montes, F., & Hansen, C. J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.13372, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.13372

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.13372 2025
[58]

2021, MNRAS, 505, 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1429 M¨ osta, P., Roberts, L

Molero, M., Romano, D., Reichert, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1429 M¨ osta, P., Roberts, L. F., Halevi, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ec

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1429 2021
[59]

R., Lee, T.-S

Mumpower, M. R., Lee, T.-S. H., Lloyd-Ronning, N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e3

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e3 2025
[60]

P., Ji, A

Naidu, R. P., Ji, A. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589 2022
[61]

2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 159, doi: 10.33232/001c.146360

Negro, M., Wadiasingh, Z., Younes, G., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 159, doi: 10.33232/001c.146360

work page doi:10.33232/001c.146360 2025
[62]

2017, ApJL, 836, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5dee

Thielemann, F.-K. 2017, ApJL, 836, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5dee

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5dee 2017
[63]

2015, ApJ, 810, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/109

Nishimura, N., Takiwaki, T., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2015, ApJ, 810, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/109

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/109 2015
[64]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.00721, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.00721

Okada, H., Aoki, W., Tominaga, N., & Honda, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.00721, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.00721

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00721 2025
[65]

2025, AJ, 169, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc126

Ou, X., Yelland, A., Chiti, A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adc126

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adc126 2025
[66]

2025, A&A, 699, A209, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554535

Palla, M., Molero, M., Romano, D., & Mucciarelli, A. 2025, A&A, 699, A209, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554535

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554535 2025
[67]

2015, Mon

Papish, O., Soker, N., & Bukay, I. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astro. Soc., 449, 288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv345

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv345 2015
[68]

D., Cehula, J., et al

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc9b0 2041
[69]

D., Goldberg, J

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adceb7
[70]

2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017
[71]

Gamma-ray Signatures of r-Process Radioactivity from the Collapse of Magnetized White Dwarfs

Pitik, T., Qia, Y.-Z., Radice, D., & Kasen, D. 2026a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.08792. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.08792

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[72]

2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.21291

Pitik, T., Radice, D., Kasen, D., et al. 2026b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.21291. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21291

work page arXiv
[73]

M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Holmbeck, E

Placco, V. M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Holmbeck, E. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad077e

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad077e 2023
[74]

Prasanna, T., Coleman, M. S. B., & Thompson, T. A. 2024, ApJ, 973, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d90

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d90 2024
[75]

Prasanna, T., Coleman, M. S. B., Thompson, T. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae093a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae093a 2025
[76]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19305

Qiumu, W.-Z., Chen, M.-H., Chen, Q.-H., & Liang, E.-W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19305. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19305

work page arXiv 2025
[77]

T., Roederer, I

Racca, M., Hansen, T. T., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A282, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556947

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556947 2025
[78]

2018, ApJ, 869, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

Radice, D., Perego, A., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054 2018
[79]

C., Fong, W., Kilpatrick, C

Rastinejad, J. C., Fong, W., Kilpatrick, C. D., Nicholl, M., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, ApJ, 979, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9c77

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9c77 2025
[80]

´A., et al

Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., Aloy, M. ´A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3185

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3185 2023

Showing first 80 references.