pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27829 · v1 · pith:CSKYUOALnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Can COSI detect γ-ray lines from rare isotopes produced in the astrophysical intermediate neutron-capture process?

Falk Herwig , Pavel Denissenkov , Eric Burns This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 11:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords i-processgamma-ray linesCOSInucleosynthesis22Na89Srpost-AGB starswhite dwarfs
0
0 comments X

The pith

COSI has up to a 5% chance of detecting gamma-ray lines from 22Na produced in the i-process, and 11% for 89Sr if observed promptly.

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

The paper calculates the likelihood that the COSI gamma-ray telescope can detect emission lines from radioactive isotopes created in the intermediate neutron-capture process. It focuses on candidate sites like post-AGB stars and rapidly accreting white dwarfs that may eject these isotopes. The estimates show low but non-zero probabilities during the mission lifetime, with higher chances for certain isotopes due to their production amounts and decay lifetimes. A positive detection would offer the first direct gamma-ray evidence for this nucleosynthesis pathway, separate from the slow and rapid processes.

Core claim

The central claim is that the probability of observing i-process emission lines during COSI's operational period is up to approximately 1%, rising to 11% for 89Sr if observed within a few days after ejection. Due to its long lifetime and large production from proton-capture reactions, 22Na has a higher detection probability of about 5%. Detection of long-lived neutron-rich isotopes such as 137Cs would provide the first direct gamma-ray signature of intermediate neutron-density nucleosynthesis, distinguishing the i process from classical s- and r-process pathways.

What carries the argument

Ejected yields of rare isotopes (22Na, 89Sr, 95Zr) from 1D and 3D simulations of convective-reactive fluid dynamics in post-AGB stars and RAWDs, combined with estimated source formation rates and distances within 1000 parsecs.

If this is right

  • Future space missions could increase the observation probability to several tens of percent.
  • Observing 89Sr lines soon after an event boosts the chance to 11%.
  • 22Na is more detectable due to its production via proton captures and longer lifetime.
  • Detection of 137Cs would distinguish i-process from s- and r-processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Such detections could help pinpoint the astrophysical sites of the i-process by linking gamma-ray observations to specific stellar events.
  • Non-detection might require revising the assumed ejection rates or yields from current simulations.
  • Extending the analysis to other isotopes or different distances could refine the probabilities further.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations of convective-reactive fluid dynamics accurately predict the ejected yields of i-process products and the formation rates of the source events.

What would settle it

A survey of the sky within 1000 parsecs during COSI's lifetime that finds no gamma-ray lines from 22Na or 89Sr at the predicted levels would challenge the detection probabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27829 by Eric Burns, Falk Herwig, Pavel Denissenkov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: assumes a representative distance of 500 pc to illustrate the detectability of a nearby future VLTP event. At the actual distance of Sakurai’s object (≈ 3– 3.5 kpc), the fluxes would be reduced by nearly a factor of 50 and fall below COSI’s sensitivity. Moreover, given that the 1994 eruption occurred over three decades ago, the decay of short-lived isotopes such as 22Na suppresses any present-day γ-ray sig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Photon fluxes from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. COSI 1-year, 3- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Maximum 1-year detection distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the nuclear $\gamma$-ray line emission from rare isotopes produced in the astrophysical intermediate neutron-capture process ($i$ process) and assess the prospects of observing these emissions with $\gamma$-ray telescopes. The astrophysical sites of the $i$ process remain uncertain, but two candidates with predicted rapid mass ejections at metallicities of stars in the solar neighborhood are post-asymptotic giant branch (post-AGB) stars, such as Sakurai's object (V4334 Sagittarii), and rapidly-accreting white dwarfs (RAWDs). Detailed 1D and 3D simulations indicate that the convective-reactive fluid dynamics responsible for $i$-process nucleosynthesis can lead to violent, non-radial outbursts resulting in mass ejections of $i$-process products. We calculate ejected yields of rare isotopes whose radioactive decays may produce detectable $\gamma$-ray lines, particularly in the 0.5-2 MeV range, focusing on $^{22}$Na, $^{89}$Sr, and $^{95}$Zr. We estimate the formation rates of these sources and the likelihood of detecting their $\gamma$-ray emissions within 1000 parsecs of the Sun. The probability of observing $i$-process emission lines during COSI's operational period is up to $\approx 1\%$, rising to $11\%$ for $^{89}$Sr if observed within a few days. Due to the long lifetime and large production of $^{22}$Na from proton-capture reactions its detection is more likely, with a probability of $\approx 5\%$. Future space missions could increase the observation probability to several tens of percent. Detection of long-lived neutron-rich isotopes such as $^{137}$Cs would provide the first direct $\gamma$-ray signature of intermediate neutron-density nucleosynthesis, distinguishing the $i$ process from classical s- and r-process pathways. (abridged)

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 ejected yields of rare i-process isotopes (primarily 22Na, 89Sr, 95Zr) from 1D/3D simulations of post-AGB stars and RAWDs, folds these with estimated source formation rates within 1000 pc, and derives detection probabilities for gamma-ray lines with COSI (up to ~1% overall, 11% for 89Sr if observed promptly, ~5% for 22Na). It argues that detection of long-lived species such as 137Cs would furnish the first direct gamma-ray signature distinguishing the i-process from s- and r-process pathways.

Significance. If the simulation-derived yields and rates prove reliable, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable forecast for an observational test of i-process nucleosynthesis with an approved mission (COSI), thereby linking nuclear astrophysics simulations to high-energy gamma-ray astronomy and highlighting the diagnostic power of neutron-rich isotopes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / probability estimates] Abstract and probability-calculation section: the headline probabilities (~1%, 11%, ~5%) are obtained by folding simulation yields with formation rates, yet no Monte-Carlo variation, no range on ejected masses, and no observational anchor for outburst frequency are supplied; every quoted percentage therefore scales directly with these two unquantified inputs.
  2. [Simulation yields and mass ejection] Section describing 1D/3D convective-reactive models: the premise that these simulations accurately predict ejected yields and violent mass ejections is load-bearing for all detection probabilities, but no sensitivity study or comparison to alternative yield sets is presented.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states it is abridged; the full text should clarify whether any quantitative details on error propagation or rate assumptions were omitted in the abridgement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of uncertainty quantification in our probability estimates. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / probability estimates] Abstract and probability-calculation section: the headline probabilities (~1%, 11%, ~5%) are obtained by folding simulation yields with formation rates, yet no Monte-Carlo variation, no range on ejected masses, and no observational anchor for outburst frequency are supplied; every quoted percentage therefore scales directly with these two unquantified inputs.

    Authors: We agree that the headline probabilities are directly proportional to the adopted yields and source rates, which carry substantial uncertainties. The formation rates rely on the observed occurrence of post-AGB events like Sakurai's object and theoretical estimates for RAWDs, while ejected masses are taken from specific published simulations without explicit variation. In revision we will add a dedicated subsection in the methods and results that (i) tabulates the central values and plausible ranges drawn from the literature (e.g., factor-of-3–10 variations in outburst frequency and ejected mass), (ii) shows how the detection probabilities scale with these inputs, and (iii) presents the headline numbers as order-of-magnitude estimates rather than precise forecasts. This will make the dependence explicit without altering the central conclusions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Simulation yields and mass ejection] Section describing 1D/3D convective-reactive models: the premise that these simulations accurately predict ejected yields and violent mass ejections is load-bearing for all detection probabilities, but no sensitivity study or comparison to alternative yield sets is presented.

    Authors: The yields and mass-ejection events are taken from the 1D and 3D convective-reactive calculations reported in the cited literature for post-AGB stars and RAWDs; these remain the most detailed models available for i-process nucleosynthesis in these sites. We acknowledge, however, that no dedicated sensitivity study or systematic comparison to alternative yield sets (e.g., different nuclear rates or mixing prescriptions) is included. In revision we will expand the relevant section to (i) briefly summarize the key assumptions of the adopted models, (ii) note the absence of a full sensitivity analysis as a limitation, and (iii) include a short comparison, where data exist, to other published yield estimates for the same isotopes. A comprehensive sensitivity study would require new simulations beyond the scope of the present work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper derives its headline detection probabilities (≈1% overall, 11% for 89Sr, ≈5% for 22Na) by folding ejected yields of 22Na/89Sr/95Zr with estimated source formation rates inside 1000 pc. These yields are taken from cited 1D/3D convective-reactive simulations of post-AGB and RAWD outbursts, which are external inputs rather than quantities defined or fitted inside the probability calculation itself. No equation or step reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction, and no self-citation chain is invoked as a uniqueness theorem that forces the result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external simulation benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger is approximate because only the abstract is available; key assumptions extracted from it concern simulation accuracy and source properties.

free parameters (2)
  • Ejected isotope yields
    Derived from 1D/3D simulations of post-AGB and RAWD events; values not specified in abstract but central to probabilities.
  • Source formation rates and distances
    Estimated for solar neighborhood sources within 1000 pc; used to compute detection likelihoods.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Convective-reactive fluid dynamics in post-AGB stars and RAWDs produce violent mass ejections of i-process products.
    Invoked to justify use of simulation yields for 22Na, 89Sr, 95Zr.
  • domain assumption COSI sensitivity allows detection of lines in 0.5-2 MeV range from decays of these isotopes.
    Basis for all probability calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5896 in / 1501 out tokens · 44516 ms · 2026-06-29T11:16:52.470236+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Burns, C

    E. Burns, C. L. Fryer, I. Agullo, J. Andrews, E. Aydi, M. G. Baring, E. Baron, P. G. Boorman, M. A. Boroumand, E. Borowski, F. S. Broekgaarden, P. Chan- dra, E. Chatzopoulos, H.-Y. Chen, K. A. Chipps, F. Civano, L. Comisso, A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no, P. Dang, C. M. Deibel, T. Eftekhari, C. Elliott, R. J. Foley, C. J. Fontes, C. L. Fryer, A. Gall, G. R. Gal...

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Tomsick, S

    J. Tomsick, S. Boggs, A. Zoglauer, D. H. Hartmann, M. Ajello, E. Burns, C. Fryer, C. Karwin, C. Kier- ans, A. Lowell, J. Malzac, J. Roberts, P. Saint-Hilaire, A. Shih, T. Siegert, C. Sleator, T. Takahashi, F. Tavec- chio, E. Wulf, J. Beechert, H. Gulick, A. Joens, H. Lazar, E. Neights, J. C. Martinez Oliveros, S. Matsumoto, T. Melia, H. Yoneda, M. Amman, ...

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Vassh, X

    N. Vassh, X. Wang, M. Larivi` ere, T. Sprouse, M. R. Mumpower, R. Surman, Z. Liu, G. C. McLaughlin, P. Denissenkov, and F. Herwig, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 052701 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Sch¨ onfelder, K

    V. Sch¨ onfelder, K. Bennett, J. J. Blom, H. Bloe- men, W. Collmar, A. Connors, R. Diehl, W. Hermsen, A. Iyudin, R. M. Kippen, J. Kn¨ odlseder, L. Kuiper, G. G. Lichti, M. McConnell, D. Morris, R. Much, U. Oberlack, J. Ryan, G. Stacy, H. Steinle, A. Strong, R. Suleiman, R. van Dijk, M. Varendorff, C. Winkler, and O. R. Williams, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl.1...

    2000

  5. [5]

    Bouchet, E

    L. Bouchet, E. Jourdain, and J.-P. Roques, Astrophys. J. 801, 142 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    M. M. M. Pleintinger, R. Diehl, T. Siegert, J. Greiner, and M. G. H. Krause, Astron. Astrophys.672, A53 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Siegert, R

    T. Siegert, R. Diehl, A. C. Vincent, F. Guglielmetti, M. G. H. Krause, and C. Boehm, Astron. Astrophys. 595, A25 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Siegert, A

    T. Siegert, A. Coc, L. Delgado, R. Diehl, J. Greiner, M. Hernanz, P. Jean, J. Jos´ e, P. Molaro, M. M. M. Pleintinger, V. Savchenko, S. Starrfield, V. Tatis- cheff, and C. Weinberger, Astron. Astrophys.615, A107 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    Foug` eres, F

    C. Foug` eres, F. de Oliveira Santos, J. Jos´ e, C. Michelagnoli,et al., Nature Communications 14, 4536 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    Busso, R

    M. Busso, R. Gallino, and G. J. Wasserburg, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.37, 239 (1999). 10

    1999

  11. [11]

    J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, and F.- K. Thielemann, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 015002 (2021), arXiv:1901.01410 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    J. J. Cowan and W. K. Rose, Astrophys. J.212, 149 (1977)

    1977

  13. [13]

    R. A. Malaney, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.223, 683 (1986)

    1986

  14. [14]

    K¨ appeler, R

    F. K¨ appeler, R. Gallino, S. Bisterzo, and W. Aoki, Re- views of Modern Physics83, 157 (2011)

    2011

  15. [15]

    F. K. Thielemann, A. Arcones, R. K¨ appeli, M. Liebend¨ orfer, T. Rauscher, C. Winteler, C. Fr¨ ohlich, I. Dillmann, T. Fischer, G. Martinez-Pinedo, K. Lan- ganke, K. Farouqi, K. L. Kratz, I. Panov, and I. K. Korneev, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics66, 346 (2011)

    2011

  16. [16]

    Wiedeking, S

    M. Wiedeking, S. Goriely, M. Guttormsen, F. Herwig, A.-C. Larsen, S. N. Liddick, D. M¨ ucher, A. L. Richard, S. Siem, and A. Spyrou, Nature Reviews Physics7, 696 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Asplund, D

    M. Asplund, D. L. Lambert, T. Kipper, D. Pollacco, and M. D. Shetrone, Astron. Astrophys.343, 507 (1999)

    1999

  18. [18]

    Evanset al., MNRAS493, 1277 (2020)

    A. Evanset al., MNRAS493, 1277 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Herwig, Astrophys

    F. Herwig, Astrophys. Space Sci.275, 15 (2001)

    2001

  20. [20]

    H. W. Duerbeck, W. Liller, C. Sterken, S. Benetti, A. M. van Genderen, J. Arts, J. D. Kurk, M. Janson, T. Voskes, E. Brogt, T. Arentoft, A. van der Meer, and R. Dijkstra, Astron. J.119, 2360 (2000)

    2000

  21. [21]

    Herwig, M

    F. Herwig, M. Pignatari, P. R. Woodward, D. H. Porter, G. Rockefeller, C. L. Fryer, M. Bennett, and R. Hirschi, Astrophys. J.727, 89 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    Battich, M

    T. Battich, M. M. Miller Bertolami, A. M. Serenelli, S. Justham, and A. Weiss, Astron. Astrophys.680, L13 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    T. C. Beers and N. Christlieb, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.43, 531 (2005)

    2005

  24. [24]

    Bisterzo, R

    S. Bisterzo, R. Gallino, O. Straniero, S. Cristallo, and F. K¨ appeler, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.422, 849 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Dardelet, C

    L. Dardelet, C. Ritter, P. Prado, E. Heringer, C. Higgs, S. Sandalski, S. Jones, P. Denisenkov, K. Venn, M. Bertolli, M. Pignatari, P. Woodward, and F. Herwig, inXIII Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC XIII)(2014) p. 145

    2014

  26. [26]

    Hampel, R

    M. Hampel, R. J. Stancliffe, M. Lugaro, and B. S. Meyer, Astrophys. J.831, 171 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Hampel, A

    M. Hampel, A. I. Karakas, R. J. Stancliffe, B. S. Meyer, and M. Lugaro, Astrophys. J.887, 11 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Choplin, L

    A. Choplin, L. Siess, and S. Goriely, Astron. Astrophys. 667, A155 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    P. A. Denissenkov, F. Herwig, P. Woodward, R. Andrassy, M. Pignatari, and S. Jones, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.488, 4258 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Stephens, F

    D. Stephens, F. Herwig, P. Woodward, P. Denissenkov, R. Andrassy, and H. Mao, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 504, 744 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Jadhav, M

    M. Jadhav, M. Pignatari, F. Herwig, E. Zinner, R. Gallino, and G. R. Huss, Astrophys. J. Lett.777, L27 (2013)

    2013

  32. [32]

    Fujiya, P

    W. Fujiya, P. Hoppe, E. Zinner, M. Pignatari, and F. Herwig, Astrophys. J. Lett.776, L29 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    N. Liu, M. R. Savina, A. M. Davis, R. Gallino, O. Straniero, F. Gyngard, M. J. Pellin, D. G. Willing- ham, N. Dauphas, M. Pignatari, S. Bisterzo, S. Cristallo, and F. Herwig, Astrophys. J.786, 66 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    Mishenina, M

    T. Mishenina, M. Pignatari, G. Carraro, V. Kovtyukh, L. Monaco, S. Korotin, E. Shereta, I. Yegorova, and F. Herwig, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.446, 3651 (2015)

    2015

  35. [35]

    Choplin, S

    A. Choplin, S. Goriely, and L. Siess, Astron. Astrophys. 667, L13 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    P. A. Denissenkov, F. Herwig, U. Battino, C. Rit- ter, M. Pignatari, S. Jones, and B. Paxton, Astrophys. J. Lett.834, L10 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    Hajduk, A

    M. Hajduk, A. A. Zijlstra, F. Herwig, P. A. M. van Hoof, F. Kerber, S. Kimeswenger, D. L. Pollacco, A. Evans, J. A. Lop´ ez, M. Bryce, S. P. S. Eyres, and M. Matsuura, Science308, 231 (2005)

    2005

  38. [38]

    Herwig, T

    F. Herwig, T. Bl¨ ocker, N. Langer, and T. Driebe, Astron. Astrophys.349, L5 (1999)

    1999

  39. [39]

    Herwig, Astrophys

    F. Herwig, Astrophys. J. Lett.554, L71 (2001)

    2001

  40. [40]

    Herwig, P

    F. Herwig, P. R. Woodward, P.-H. Lin, M. Knox, and C. Fryer, Astrophys. J. Lett.792, L3 (2014)

    2014

  41. [41]

    Wesson, X.-W

    R. Wesson, X.-W. Liu, and M. J. Barlow, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society340, 253 (2003)

    2003

  42. [42]

    Wesson, M

    R. Wesson, M. J. Barlow, X.-W. Liu, P. J. Storey, B. Er- colano, and O. De Marco, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society383, 1639 (2008)

    2008

  43. [43]

    Montoro-Molina, M

    B. Montoro-Molina, M. A. Guerrero, and J. A. Toal´ a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526, 4359 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    X. Fang, E. Garc´ ıa-Berro, M. A. Guerrero, A. Chiotel- lis, M. R. Schreiber, T. Bl¨ ocker, J. A. Toal´ a, and L. G. Althaus, The Astrophysical Journal797, 100 (2014)

    2014

  45. [45]

    M. M. Miller Bertolami, Galaxies12, 83 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    G´ omez-Gomar, M

    J. G´ omez-Gomar, M. Hernanz, J. Jos´ e, and J. Isern, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society296, 913 (1998)

    1998

  47. [47]

    Han and P

    Z. Han and P. Podsiadlowski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 350, 1301 (2004)

    2004

  48. [48]

    We use the standard stellar spectroscopy notation [A/B] = log 10[N⋆(A)/N⋆(B)]−log 10[N⊙(A)/N⊙(B)], whereN ⋆ andN ⊙ are number densities of elements A and B in a star and the Sun

  49. [49]

    Choplin, L

    A. Choplin, L. Siess, and S. Goriely, Astron. Astrophys. 648, A119 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    Denissenkov, G

    P. Denissenkov, G. Perdikakis, F. Herwig, H. Schatz, C. Ritter, M. Pignatari, S. Jones, S. Nikas, and A. Spy- rou, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics45, 055203 (2018)

    2018

  51. [51]

    Weiss and J

    A. Weiss and J. W. Truran, Astron. Astrophys.238, 178 (1990)

    1990

  52. [52]

    R. D. Gehrz, J. W. Truran, R. E. Williams, and S. Star- rfield, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific110, 3 (1998)

    1998

  53. [53]

    Jos´ e, A

    J. Jos´ e, A. Coc, and M. Hernanz, Astrophys. J.520, 347 (1999)

    1999

  54. [54]

    A. F. Iyudin, K. Bennett, H. Bloemen, R. Diehl, W. Hermsen, J. Kn¨ odlseder, G. G. Lichti, J. Ryan, V. Sch¨ onfelder, A. W. Strong, and C. Winkler, Astro- physical Letters and Communications38, 371 (1999)

    1999

  55. [55]

    Starrfield, M

    S. Starrfield, M. Bose, C. Iliadis, W. R. Hix, C. E. Wood- ward, and R. M. Wagner, Astrophys. J.962, 191 (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    E. P. J. van den Heuvel, D. Bhattacharya, K. Nomoto, and S. A. Rappaport, Astron. Astrophys.262, 97 (1992)

    1992

  57. [57]

    T. E. Woods and M. Gilfanov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 1770 (2016)

    2016

  58. [58]

    Cˆ ot´ e, P

    B. Cˆ ot´ e, P. Denissenkov, F. Herwig, A. J. Ruiter, C. Rit- ter, M. Pignatari, and K. Belczynski, Astrophys. J.854, 105 (2018). 11

    2018

  59. [59]

    M. A. Guerrero, X. Fang, M. M. Miller Bertolami, G. Ramos-Larios, H. Todt, A. Alarie, L. Sabin, L. F. Mi- randa, C. Morisset, C. Kehrig, and S. A. Zavala, Nature Astronomy2, 784 (2018)

    2018

  60. [60]

    D. Elia, S. Molinari, E. Schisano, J. D. Soler, M. Merello, D. Russeil, M. Veneziani, A. Zavagno, A. Noriega- Crespo, L. Olmi, M. Benedettini, P. Hennebelle, R. S. Klessen, S. Leurini, R. Paladini, S. Pezzuto, A. Trafi- cante, D. J. Eden, P. G. Martin, M. Sormani, A. Coletta, T. Colman, R. Plume, Y. Maruccia, C. Mininni, and S. J. Liu, Astrophys. J.941, 1...

    2022

  61. [61]

    M. A. Guerreroet al., ApJ857, 80 (2018)

    2018

  62. [62]

    Reindlet al., MNRAS464, L51 (2017)

    N. Reindlet al., MNRAS464, L51 (2017)

    2017

  63. [63]

    G. C. Claytonet al., ApJ771, 130 (2013)

    2013

  64. [64]

    Karinkuzhi, S

    D. Karinkuzhi, S. Van Eck, S. Goriely, L. Siess, A. Joris- sen, A. Choplin, A. Escorza, S. Shetye, and H. Van Winckel, Astron. Astrophys.677, A47 (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    B. S. Meyer, D. D. Clayton, and L.-S. The, Astrophys. J. Lett.540, L49 (2000)

    2000

  66. [66]

    H ingestion into He-burning convection zones in super-AGB stellar models as a potential site for intermediate neutron-density nucleosynthesis

    S. Jones, C. Ritter, F. Herwig, C. Fryer, M. Pignatari, M. G. Bertolli, and B. Paxton, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.455, 3848 (2016), arXiv:1510.07417 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    P. A. Denissenkov, F. Herwig, G. Perdikakis, and H. Schatz, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.503, 3913 (2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    Martinet, A

    S. Martinet, A. Choplin, S. Goriely, and L. Siess, Astron. Astrophys.684, A8 (2024)

    2024

  69. [69]

    Frontera, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.10845 (2025), arXiv:2502.10845 [astro-ph.IM]

    F. Frontera, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.10845 (2025), arXiv:2502.10845 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    Virgilli, H

    E. Virgilli, H. Halloin, and G. Skinner, inHandbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, edited by C. Bambi and A. Sangangelo (2022) p. 44

    2022

  71. [71]

    Shutt, B

    T. Shutt, B. Trbalic, E. Charles, N. Di Lalla, O. Hitch- cock, S. Jett, R. Linehan, S. Luitz, G. Madejski, A. Pe˜ na- Perez, and Y.-T. Tsai, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.14841 (2025), arXiv:2502.14841 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025