pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31416 · v1 · pith:PMGCUIHDnew · submitted 2026-06-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Impact of Sub-2.5 MeV 12C+12CResonances on the Production of Elements from C to Pd in Core-Collapse Supernovae

L. Roberti , S. Palmerini , A. Falla , L. Boccioli , F. Andreis , A. Chieffi , M. La Cognata , M. Limongi
show 5 more authors
M. Masci A. Nurmukhanbetova A. Oliva R. Spart\'a A.Tumino
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 03:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords 12C+12C reactioncarbon burnings-process nucleosynthesiscore-collapse supernovaestellar evolutionmassive starspre-supernova structurenucleosynthesis yields
0
0 comments X

The pith

Increased 12C+12C reaction rate changes pre-supernova structure and boosts s-process production of elements heavier than iron in core-collapse supernova ejecta

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

The paper calculates non-rotating solar-metallicity stellar models from 15 to 40 solar masses with a more efficient 12C+12C rate and finds that this extends the central carbon burning phase while producing larger convective cores. The resulting pre-supernova structures activate the 13C(α,n) neutron source more effectively in early carbon shells, raising s-process yields of elements heavier than iron. These pre-explosion structural shifts set the final ejecta composition more strongly than variations in the thermal bomb explosion method itself. A sympathetic reader would care because the work ties one nuclear rate directly to the expected chemical output of massive-star deaths.

Core claim

Non-rotating models at solar metallicity with initial masses of 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, and 40 solar masses show that a more efficient 12C+12C rate extends the duration of the central carbon burning phase, develops more massive convective cores, and leads to a different and less compact pre-supernova structure. These structural differences significantly impact nucleosynthesis by enhancing the production of elements heavier than Fe through more efficient activation of the 13C(α,n) neutron source in the early carbon burning shells. The differences in the chemical composition of the core-collapse supernova ejecta are primarily determined by these pre-supernova structural changes, which dominate

What carries the argument

The sub-2.5 MeV 12C+12C reaction rate, which sets the length of central carbon burning and the size of convective cores and thereby controls activation of the 13C(α,n) neutron source for s-process nucleosynthesis

If this is right

  • Central carbon burning lasts longer and convective cores grow more massive
  • Pre-supernova structures become less compact
  • s-process nucleosynthesis produces more elements heavier than Fe via stronger 13C(α,n) activation in carbon shells
  • Ejecta composition differences are driven mainly by pre-supernova structure rather than explosion details
  • Yields from carbon to palladium shift, with the largest changes above iron

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the rate increase holds, galactic chemical evolution models would predict higher contributions from core-collapse supernovae to elements from strontium to palladium
  • Abundance patterns in supernova remnants or metal-poor star atmospheres could be compared directly to the predicted yields
  • The effect might change in rotating models or at low metallicity, where convective boundaries and mixing differ

Load-bearing premise

Non-rotating models at solar metallicity without rotation or extra mixing capture the dominant physics that sets convective core sizes and neutron source activation

What would settle it

A laboratory measurement or theoretical calculation showing the 12C+12C rate below 2.5 MeV is not increased, or supernova remnant abundance data showing no excess of s-process elements heavier than iron

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31416 by A. Chieffi, A. Falla, A. Nurmukhanbetova, A. Oliva, A.Tumino, F. Andreis, L. Boccioli, L. Roberti, M. La Cognata, M. Limongi, M. Masci, R. Spart\'a, S. Palmerini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Upper panels: branching ratios of α (green), p (red), and n (black) exit channel of the 12C +12 C reac￾tion rates from CF88 (left Caughlan & Fowler 1988) and measured by the Trojan Horse Method(THM Tumino et al. 2018). Lower panel: the THM/CF88 ratio of the total rate. 2. METHODS In this paper we use the same code adopted by Chieffi et al. (2021, namely the FRANEC code). Differences are discussed in detail… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Central C burning ignition: temperature (upper left), density (upper right), duration (lower left), and maximum size of the convective core (lower right) for the CF88 (red) and THM (blue) models. C ignition is identified by the formation of a convective core, or when the central C mass fraction decreases by 15% otherwise; C exhaustion is defined when the central mass fraction drops below 10−3 [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Upper panel: 20Ne mass fraction left by central C burning for CF88 (red) and THM (blue) models. Lower panel: the maximum size of the convective core during Ne burning for CF88 (red) and THM (blue) models ogous properties were already noted by Bennett et al. (2012); Pignatari et al. (2013); Chieffi et al. (2021). Up to 22 M⊙, CF88 models develop two consecutive C con￾vective shells that vanish prior to cent… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Kippenhahn diagrams for the CF88 (left) and THM (right) models between 15 and 20 M⊙. mass (and hence, obviously, with the initial mass) and since the nuclear reaction rate of the 12C +12 C scales with the square of the 12C abundance, above a certain mass the difference between the two rates is not so crit￾ical in determining the further evolution of a star. For both these reasons the differences between mo… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Central temperature versus central density diagrams for each mass. The progressively smaller dots represent: C ignition (see text), X(12C)< 0.2, and X(12C)< 0.1. The pentagon represents C exhaustion (X(12C)< 10−3 ), the diamond symbol represents the Ne ignition (formation of a convective core), and the triangle symbol represents Ne exhaustion (X(20Ne)< 10−3 ), for CF88 (red) and THM (blue) models. The blac… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The compactness ξ2.5 at the pre-supernova stage for CF88 (red) and THM (blue) models. et al. 2025). Although compactness is often used to de￾termine whether a massive star explodes as a supernova or collapses directly into a black hole (e.g., O'Connor & Ott 2011), recent work showed that this simplified picture is not replicated in more sophisticated simula￾tions. More recent explodability criteria (Boccio… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio between THM and CF88 yields for each model at the pre-supernova stage (see text). The gray band identifies a factor of 2 variation. ond convective shells, igniting at 0.65 M⊙, T = 830 MK, ρ = 1.53 × 105 g cm−3 and at 1.20 M⊙, T = 980 MK, ρ = 1.66 × 105 g cm−3 , respectively. In the THM case, instead, they are mostly produced at lower temperature and density by the first C shell, igniting at 1.10 M⊙, … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effective fluxes (see text) at the bottom of the first and second C shell in the CF88 case (left and central panels) and in the THM case (right panel) in the 15 M⊙ models. Red bars identify the 22Ne(α, n)25Mg and 13C(α, n)16O neutron sources. each shell in the moment of maximum production of the s−process elements. The effective fluxes, namely the difference between the fluxes of the forward and reverse re… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ratio between THM and CF88 yields for each model, in the case of Set A (see text). The gray band identifies a factor of 2 variation. have more narrow Sii , Ox, Nex, and Cx burning regions, but slightly larger Sic regions. As reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between the abundances before (dashed lines) and after (solid lines) the explosion in the case of the 15 M⊙ CF88 (upper panels) and THM (lower panels) model for the Set A (left panels) and Set B (right panels) explosions. The vertical solid black line represent the mass-cut that divides the supernova ejecta from the remnant mass. The gray bands in the plots mark each explosive burning stage in … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ratio between THM and CF88 yields for each model, in the case of Set B (see text). The gray band identifies a factor of 2 variation. resonances can lead to significant changes in the struc￾ture, evolution, and nucleosynthesis of stellar models compared to those calculated with a 12C +12 C rate such as the CF88 one, which does not take them into account. For a comprehensive review of the 12C +12 C reaction… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Stable isotopic yield ratios between Set A and Set B for each CF88 model. The gray band identifies a factor of 2 variation. 1989). A more narrow Nex region would partially suppress these productions, which is particularly evident in the cases of the s−only nuclei 70,72Ge, 76Se, 80Kr, and 98Ru and the r−process nuclei 70Zn, 76Ge and 82Se. Although [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We explore the impact of a more efficient 12C+12C reaction on the structure and nucleosynthesis of massive stars. We calculate non-rotating stellar models with initial masses of 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, and 40 Msun and solar metallicity by means of the FRANEC code. Furthermore, we simulate the core-collapse supernova of these models with the thermal bomb technique, using two different approaches to inject the thermal energy into the pre-supernova structure. Our results show that a more efficient 12C+12C rate extends the duration of the central carbon burning phase, developing more massive convective cores and leading to a different and less compact pre-supernova structure with respect to models calculated with a standard 12C+12C rate. These structural differences significantly impact nucleosynthesis. In particular, an increased rate enhances the production of elements heavier than Fe, produced by the s-process nucleosynthesis and driven by the more efficient activation of the 13C($\alpha$,n) neutron source in the early carbon burning shells. We find that the differences in the chemical composition of the core-collapse supernova ejecta are primarily determined by these pre-supernova structural changes, which dominate over the effects of different explosion prescriptions.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper explores the impact of an enhanced 12C+12C reaction rate on the structure and nucleosynthesis of non-rotating massive stars (15-40 Msun, solar metallicity) using the FRANEC code. It finds that the enhanced rate extends carbon burning, leads to more massive convective cores and less compact pre-SN structures, enhancing s-process yields through more efficient 13C(α,n) activation in early carbon burning shells. Pre-SN structural changes dominate the differences in CCSN ejecta composition over variations in explosion prescriptions using the thermal bomb technique.

Significance. If the results hold, this demonstrates a direct computational chain from nuclear rate to pre-SN structure to s-process yields in CCSNe, with the use of multiple initial masses and two distinct thermal bomb prescriptions providing evidence that structural effects outweigh explosion variations within the modeled setup. The explicit non-rotating, solar-metallicity framework allows clear isolation of the rate effect.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that pre-SN structural changes 'dominate over the effects of different explosion prescriptions' is well-supported by the two thermal bomb approaches described, but the scope is limited to non-rotating models; a sentence noting that rotation (known to affect core sizes and 13C reservoirs) is outside the present study would clarify the domain of the dominance claim without altering the central result.
  2. The manuscript should confirm that the 12C+12C rate enhancement factor is applied consistently across all burning phases and that no post-hoc adjustments were made to match external data; this is implied by the forward simulation approach but would benefit from explicit statement in the methods.
  3. Ensure all yield comparisons (e.g., elements from C to Pd) are presented with both rate cases side-by-side in tables or figures to allow direct assessment of the s-process enhancement magnitude.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and positive recommendation for minor revision. The summary accurately reflects our main results on the effects of an enhanced 12C+12C rate on stellar structure and s-process yields in non-rotating models. No specific major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward simulations with rate as independent input

full rationale

The paper runs non-rotating FRANEC stellar models with two different 12C+12C rate inputs (standard vs. enhanced sub-2.5 MeV resonances) and compares the resulting pre-SN structures and post-explosion yields. The rate modification is an external nuclear-physics input; the structural changes (convective-core size, compactness) and consequent 13C(α,n) activation are computed outputs, not fitted or redefined quantities. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or uniqueness theorem is invoked to justify the central claim. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external nuclear data and standard stellar-evolution codes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard assumptions of non-rotating solar-metallicity stellar models and the thermal bomb explosion method; the 'more efficient' rate is an input variation rather than a fitted parameter or new entity.

free parameters (1)
  • 12C+12C rate enhancement
    The paper varies the rate to represent sub-2.5 MeV resonances but does not report a specific fitted multiplier; treated as an external input.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Non-rotating stellar models with solar metallicity accurately represent the relevant massive stars
    Explicitly stated as the model setup in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Thermal bomb technique with two energy-injection approaches sufficiently approximates core-collapse supernova dynamics for nucleosynthesis purposes
    Used to simulate the explosions and compare prescriptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5849 in / 1418 out tokens · 64106 ms · 2026-07-01T03:22:48.793571+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

70 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    E., O'Connor, E., Andresen, H., da Silva Schneider , A., & Couch, S

    Andersen, O. E., O'Connor, E., Andresen, H., da Silva Schneider , A., & Couch, S. M. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada899

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada899 2025

  2. [2]

    1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00030-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(99)00030-5 1999

  3. [3]

    D., Bahcall , J

    Arnett , W. D., Bahcall , J. N., Kirshner , R. P., & Woosley , S. E. 1989, , 27, 629, 10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.003213

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.27.090189.003213 1989

  4. [4]

    2003, , 384, 1, 10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00242-4

    Arnould , M., & Goriely , S. 2003, , 384, 1, 10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00242-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(03)00242-4 2003

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  6. [6]

    A., & Iben , Jr., I

    Becker , S. A., & Iben , Jr., I. 1980, , 237, 111, 10.1086/157850

    work page doi:10.1086/157850 1980

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Bennett , M. E., Hirschi , R., Pignatari , M., et al. 2012, , 420, 3047, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20193.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20193.x 2012

  8. [8]

    2011, Phys

    Best, A., G\"orres, J., Couder, M., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev. C, 83, 052802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.052802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.052802 2011

  9. [9]

    2013, Phys

    Best, A., Beard, M., G\"orres, J., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 87, 045805, 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.045805

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.87.045805 2013

  10. [10]

    2024, Physical Review D, 110, 023007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023007

    Boccioli, L., & Fragione, G. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 023007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.023007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.023007 2024

  11. [11]

    Boccioli, L., Gogilashvili, M., Murphy, J., & O'Connor, E. P. 2025 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 1182, 10.1093/mnras/staf066

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf066 2025

  12. [12]

    Explodability matters: how realistic neutrino-driven explosions change explosive nucleosynthesis yields

    Boccioli , L., & Roberti , L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.16365, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.16365

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.16365 2025

  13. [13]

    Production of heavy $\alpha$-elements and $^{44}$Ti in Cas A: comparison to abundances from 1D core-collapse supernova models and evidence for Carbon-Oxygen shell mergers

    Boccioli , L., Roberti , L., Fryer , C. L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.24758, 10.48550/arXiv.2603.24758

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.24758 2026

  14. [14]

    J., & Chieffi, A

    Boccioli, L., Roberti, L., Limongi, M., Mathews, G. J., & Chieffi, A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc06a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc06a 2023

  15. [15]

    P., & Kasen, D

    Boccioli, L., Vartanyan, D., O'Connor, E. P., & Kasen, D. 2025 b , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 540, 3885, 10.1093/mnras/staf963

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf963 2025

  16. [16]

    W., Lentz, E

    Bruenn, S. W., Lentz, E. J., Hix, W. R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 123, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/123

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/123 2016

  17. [17]

    W., Sieverding, A., Lentz, E

    Bruenn, S. W., Sieverding, A., Lentz, E. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb65

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbb65 2023

  18. [18]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc1c

    Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., & Wang, T. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfc1c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acfc1c 2023

  19. [19]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e

    Burrows, A., Wang, T., & Vartanyan, D. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad319e 2024

  20. [20]

    M., Kratz , K.-L., Palmerini , S., Akram , W., & Antonuccio-Delogu , V

    Busso , M. M., Kratz , K.-L., Palmerini , S., Akram , W., & Antonuccio-Delogu , V. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 956633, 10.3389/fspas.2022.956633

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2022.956633 2022

  21. [21]

    R., & Fowler, W

    Caughlan, G. R., & Fowler, W. A. 1988, Atom.\ Data Nucl.\ Data Tables, 40, 283

    1988

  22. [22]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28c

    Chan, C., M \"u ller, B., Heger, A., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28c 2018

  23. [23]

    1998, ApJ, 502, 737

    Chieffi, A., Limongi, M., & Straniero, O. 1998, ApJ, 502, 737

    1998

  24. [24]

    2021, , 916, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac06ca

    Chieffi , A., Roberti , L., Limongi , M., et al. 2021, , 916, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac06ca

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac06ca 2021

  25. [25]

    J., et al

    Chieffi , A., Courtin , S., deBoer , R. J., et al. 2025, European Physical Journal A, 61, 280, 10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01759-3

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01759-3 2025

  26. [26]

    2020, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1668, 012006, 10.1088/1742-6596/1668/1/012006

    Choplin, A., & Hirschi, R. 2020, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1668, 012006, 10.1088/1742-6596/1668/1/012006

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1668/1/012006 2020

  27. [27]

    2019, , 870, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7d2

    Curtis , S., Ebinger , K., Fr \"o hlich , C., et al. 2019, , 870, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae7d2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae7d2 2019

  28. [28]

    2025, , 702, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/202555326

    Dumont , T., Bonhomme , A., Griffiths , A., et al. 2025, , 702, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/202555326

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555326 2025

  29. [29]

    E., Sukhbold, T., & Ugliano, M

    Ertl, T., Janka, H.-T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Ugliano, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 124, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/124 2016

  30. [30]

    2025, , 991, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05

    Falla , A., Roberti , L., Limongi , M., & Chieffi , A. 2025, , 991, 21, 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa05 2025

  31. [31]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1803, 10.1093/mnras/stv2723

    Frischknecht, U., Hirschi, R., Pignatari, M., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1803, 10.1093/mnras/stv2723

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2723 2016

  32. [32]

    2020, , 124, 192701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.192701

    Fruet , G., Courtin , S., Heine , M., et al. 2020, , 124, 192701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.192701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.192701 2020

  33. [33]

    Fynbo , H. O. U., Diget , C. A., Bergmann , U. C., et al. 2005, Nature, 433, 136

    2005

  34. [34]

    R., Brown , E

    Gasques , L. R., Brown , E. F., Chieffi , A., et al. 2007, , 76, 035802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.035802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.76.035802 2007

  35. [35]

    A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B

    Goldberg, J. A., Bildsten, L., & Paxton, B. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 879, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab22b6 2019

  36. [36]

    2025, Ann

    Janka, H.-T. 2025, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 75, 425, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945 2025

  37. [37]

    1989, Rep

    K \"a ppeler , F., Beer , H., & Wisshak , K. 1989, Rep. Prog. Phys., 52, 945

    1989

  38. [38]

    Kasen, D., & Woosley, S. E. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 2205, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/2205

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/2205 2009

  39. [39]

    2012, , 50, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    Langer , N. 2012, , 50, 107, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534 2012

  40. [40]

    Laplace , E., Schneider , F. R. N., & Podsiadlowski , P. 2025, , 695, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451077

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451077 2025

  41. [41]

    2003, , 592, 404, 10.1086/375703

    Limongi , M., & Chieffi , A. 2003, , 592, 404, 10.1086/375703

    work page doi:10.1086/375703 2003

  42. [42]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e8

    Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e8 2020

  43. [43]

    2024, , 270, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1

    Limongi , M., Roberti , L., Chieffi , A., & Nomoto , K. 2024, , 270, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1 2024

  44. [44]

    , & Chieffi, A

    Limongi, M. , & Chieffi, A. 2018, , 237, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

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

  45. [45]

    J., Rizzuti , F., et al

    Lombardo , L., Hansen , C. J., Rizzuti , F., et al. 2025, , 693, A293, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452283

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452283 2025

  46. [46]

    2022, , 660, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141858

    Monpribat , E., Martinet , S., Courtin , S., et al. 2022, , 660, A47, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141858

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141858 2022

  47. [47]

    Nucleosynthesis in Stars and the Chemical Enrichment of Galaxies

    Nomoto , K., Kobayashi , C., & Tominaga , N. 2013, , 51, 457, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140956 2013

  48. [48]

    O Connor, E., & Ott, C. D. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 70, 10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/70 2011

  49. [49]

    2021, , 921, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1786

    Palmerini , S., Busso , M., Vescovi , D., et al. 2021, , 921, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1786

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1786 2021

  50. [50]

    Pejcha, O., & Prieto, J. L. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 225, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/225

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/225 2015

  51. [51]

    2010, , 710, 1557, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1557

    Pignatari , M., Gallino , R., Heil , M., et al. 2010, , 710, 1557, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1557

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

  52. [52]

    2016, International Journal of Modern Physics E, 25, 1630003, 10.1142/S0218301316300034

    Pignatari , M., G \"o bel , K., Reifarth , R., & Travaglio , C. 2016, International Journal of Modern Physics E, 25, 1630003, 10.1142/S0218301316300034

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218301316300034 2016

  53. [53]

    2013, , 762, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/31

    Pignatari , M., Hirschi , R., Wiescher , M., et al. 2013, , 762, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/762/1/31 2013

  54. [54]

    2020, , 491, 1832, 10.1093/mnras/stz3154

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3154 2020

  55. [55]

    2018, , 476, 3432, 10.1093/mnras/sty316

    Prantzos , N., Abia , C., Limongi , M., Chieffi , A., & Cristallo , S. 2018, , 476, 3432, 10.1093/mnras/sty316

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty316 2018

  56. [56]

    2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 066201, 10.1088/0034-4885/76/6/066201

    Rauscher , T., Dauphas , N., Dillmann , I., et al. 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 066201, 10.1088/0034-4885/76/6/066201

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/76/6/066201 2013

  57. [57]

    2021, , 502, 2495, 10.1093/mnras/stab158

    Rizzuti , F., Cescutti , G., Matteucci , F., et al. 2021, , 502, 2495, 10.1093/mnras/stab158

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab158 2021

  58. [58]

    2024 a , , 272, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad391d

    Roberti , L., Limongi , M., & Chieffi , A. 2024 a , , 272, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad391d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad391d 2024

  59. [59]

    2024 b , , 270, 28, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1686

    ---. 2024 b , , 270, 28, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1686

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad1686 2024

  60. [60]

    2025, , 703, L15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202556941

    Roberti , L., & Pignatari , M. 2025, , 703, L15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202556941

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556941 2025

  61. [61]

    2024 c , , 686, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449994

    Roberti , L., Pignatari , M., Fryer , C., & Lugaro , M. 2024 c , , 686, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449994

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449994 2024

  62. [62]

    E., et al

    Roberti , L., Pignatari , M., Brinkman , H. E., et al. 2025, , 698, A216, 10.1051/0004-6361/202554461

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554461 2025

  63. [63]

    , Pignatari, M

    Roberti, L. , Pignatari, M. , Psaltis, A. , et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A22, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346556

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346556 2023

  64. [64]

    2007, , 98, 122501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.122501

    Spillane , T., Raiola , F., Rolfs , C., et al. 2007, , 98, 122501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.122501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.122501 2007

  65. [65]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 6, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/6

    Summa, A., Hanke, F., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 6, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/6

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/6 2016

  66. [66]

    2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 572, 10.1093/mnras/staf317

    Sykes, B., & M \"u ller, B. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 572, 10.1093/mnras/staf317

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf317 2025

  67. [67]

    X., Woosley , S

    Timmes , F. X., Woosley , S. E., & Weaver , T. A. 1996, APJ, 457, 834. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...457..834T

    1996

  68. [68]

    2018, , 557, 687, 10.1038/s41586-018-0149-4

    Tumino , A., Spitaleri , C., La Cognata , M., et al. 2018, , 557, 687, 10.1038/s41586-018-0149-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0149-4 2018

  69. [69]

    A., & Dolence, J

    Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., Radice, D., Skinner, M. A., & Dolence, J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3091, 10.1093/mnras/sty809

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty809 2018

  70. [70]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys., 74, 1015

    2002