Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

A single slope parameter can encode the conditions under which a star's heavy elements formed.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 23:31 UTC pith:EAAQNZQB

load-bearing objection A useful descriptive slope index for heavy-element abundance patterns, but the physical interpretation tied to freeze-out parameters rests on an admitted working hypothesis that is only defensible for the negative-slope stars. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15373 v1 pith:EAAQNZQB submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.SR

Stellar heavy-element slope index

Gerd Roepke , Friedrich K. Roepke , David Blaschke This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords heavy-element abundancesr-process universalityfreeze-outslope parameterdifferential abundance analysischemical taggingstellar nucleosynthesisLagrange parameters
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that a star's heavy-element abundance pattern—the relative amounts of elements heavier than zinc—can be summarized by one continuous slope parameter, d_Z, defined by fitting [Z/H] to atomic number Z. The authors argue that this slope is physically meaningful: in their heavy-element freeze-out picture, the initial distribution of heavy nuclei is set by three Lagrange parameters (a temperature-like parameter and neutron and proton chemical potentials), and the slope is especially sensitive to the proton chemical potential. If correct, the well-known near-universal heavy-element pattern in stars, and the deviations from it seen in some stars, would reduce to a one-parameter family tied to formation conditions, rather than requiring mixtures of several distinct nucleosynthesis sites. The paper shows the slope working on several observed cases—metal-poor stars, r-I vs r-II pairs, actinide-enhanced stars, and stars in the same stellar stream—and argues it can serve as a diagnostic for identifying co-natal stellar populations.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the observed heavy-element differential abundance, [Z/H], is well described, to first order, by a straight line in atomic number Z, [Z/H]=c_Z(Z_0)+d_Z(Z−Z_0), and that the slope d_Z is a meaningful stellar index rather than a fitting artifact. Within the HEFO (heavy-element freeze-out) model, the initial abundance pattern is fixed when expanding hot dense matter falls out of equilibrium, with the distribution governed by Lagrange parameters λ_T, λ_n, and λ_p. Numerical variations show that the relative shift of the initial mass-fraction distribution with respect to the Sun is controlled mostly by λ_T for overall normalization and by λ_p for the tilt—i.e., th

What carries the argument

The slope parameter d_Z, defined by [Z/H] = c_Z(Z_0) + d_Z (Z−Z_0) for heavy elements, is the central object. Working alongside it is the HEFO (heavy-element freeze-out) concept, in which the initial heavy-nucleus distribution is described by a generalized Gibbs distribution controlled by three Lagrange parameters—λ_T (a generalized temperature), λ_n (neutron chemical potential), and λ_p (proton chemical potential). The argument operates by relating the observed elemental slope d_Z to the mass-fraction slope d_A of the initial distribution under the approximation that the mapping mirrors the solar configuration, and by assuming the initial-to-final slope is nearly invariant for heavy nuclei

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated by the authors as a working hypothesis, is that the slope of the heavy-element mass distribution at freeze-out is essentially the same as the final observed slope (below the lead region), so late-stage neutron evaporation, alpha decay, and fission do not systematically distort the relative pattern differently from star to star.

What would settle it

If a high-precision abundance pattern for any individual star over 38≤Z≤80 cannot be represented by a single straight line in [Z/H]—for example, the slope changes between the strontium-zirconium region and the barium-europium region—then the central single-slope claim collapses for that object. A second decisive test is computational: starting from a HEFO initial distribution, evolve through neutron evaporation, alpha decay, and fission; if the final slope differs measurably from the initial slope even with the lead region excluded, the working hypothesis connecting d_Z to freeze-out condition

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A measurement of d_Z from stellar spectra yields a physical constraint on the proton chemical potential and temperature at the epoch of heavy-element freeze-out, not just a descriptive fit.
  • Observed deviations from r-process universality need not imply multiple distinct nucleosynthesis sites; a continuous range of freeze-out conditions can reproduce them.
  • Differential abundance analysis between two stars isolates the slope and removes systematic offsets, making the slope a cleaner observable than absolute abundances for comparing stellar populations.
  • The slope parameter can be used to chemically tag kinematically associated stars, e.g., members of a stellar stream, identifying common formation environments even when absolute abundances differ.
  • Late-stage decay of superheavy nuclei must be accounted for when extracting d_Z, because alpha decay and fission feed the lead and rare-earth regions and would otherwise bias the fitted slope.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • I would extend the logic to a testable correlation: if d_Z tracks the proton chemical potential, then among stars of fixed [Fe/H], d_Z should correlate with neutron-capture element ratios that are sensitive to neutron richness (e.g., Eu/Ba, or actinide-to-lanthanide ratios). The paper does not make this prediction explicitly.
  • The slope concept could be imported into Galactic chemical evolution models as a continuous observable that replaces discrete site classes such as 'light' and 'heavy' r-process components; this would let abundance surveys map the distribution of freeze-out conditions across the Galaxy, an application the paper gestures at but does not develop.
  • A concrete numerical check: initialize a reaction network with the HEFO freeze-out distribution for a chosen (λ_T, λ_n, λ_p) and compute the final abundance slope; a systematic mismatch with d_Z from linear fits to observed stars would show where the slope-invariance approximation fails.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a phenomenological 'heavy-element slope index' d_Z, defined as the least-squares slope of [Z/H] against atomic number Z (Eq. 2), and applies it to a series of published stellar abundance datasets: HD 222925, Honda stars, r-I/r-II differential pairs, limited-r stars, the lead/actinide-boost object EC 22536–5304, CS 31082-001, halo dwarf/giant samples, and members of stellar streams. The slope is interpreted through the heavy-element freeze-out (HEFO) framework, in which the initial abundance pattern is set by three Lagrange parameters (λ_T, λ_n, λ_p); the paper argues that d_Z varies between stars and is particularly sensitive to λ_p. It explicitly acknowledges that the connection between the observed final slope and the initial freeze-out slope is a working hypothesis and that the astrophysical sites remain unidentified.

Significance. If robust, the slope index offers a compact continuous descriptor of heavy-element abundance patterns, potentially useful for chemical tagging of stellar populations and for comparison with nucleosynthesis models. The empirical fits are straightforward and reproducible from the cited data. The paper is also unusually transparent: it labels its main interpretive assumption as a working hypothesis, discusses excluded data points, and does not oversell site identification. However, the physical interpretation is not yet quantitatively supported, and the empirical slopes are presented without uncertainties. The significance of the central claim is therefore conditional on additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, Fig. 5] The central link between observation and theory is the assumption that the observed elemental slope d_Z (Eq. 2, final abundances) can be identified with the initial HEFO mass-fraction slope d_A^ini (Eq. 3). Figure 5 demonstrates λ_p sensitivity only for initial distributions. Section 3.1 states that α-decay and fission contributions remain an open problem, and §3.3 says branching ratios are broadly unconstrained. For stars with large superheavy tails (HD 222925, EC 22536–5304, actinide-boost objects), the assumption is not justified. A quantitative estimate of how post-freeze-out processes distort the slope—or a restatement of the claim that d_Z is a purely empirical index—is required.
  2. [§3 (Figs. 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14)] The fitted slopes are quoted to several significant figures without standard errors or goodness-of-fit measures. The text notes 'large error bars' in Fig. 3, but no uncertainty accompanies any d_Z value. Because the paper's empirical message is that slopes differ between stars (e.g., +0.0201 vs −0.030 vs ~0.003), the reader cannot assess significance without σ_dZ. Please report regression uncertainties and, ideally, a bootstrap or leave-one-out sensitivity check, and state how element-to-element systematic errors are treated.
  3. [§2.3 and §3.3 (Figs. 3, 11)] The fits exclude data points (Zcg=82 in Fig. 3; Ce and Pb/Bi in Fig. 11) on physical grounds, but no analysis shows how sensitive the slope is to those choices. The fitted atomic-number ranges also vary from 38–63 (Fig. 12) to 38–81 (Fig. 11), making slopes across figures not directly comparable. Please provide fits with and without excluded points, or a quantitative justification based on residuals, and state the Z range used in each slope comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] Typos: 'at at freeze-out' and 'therprocess' appear in this section; they should read 'at freeze-out' and 'the r-process'.
  2. [§3.3 / Fig. 11] The figure caption writes 'EC 22563–5304' while the text uses 'EC 22536–5304'; please unify the spelling.
  3. [§2.5 / §3.3] After introducing the working hypothesis, the paper occasionally refers to the slope as defined with respect to the initial distribution (e.g., §3.3), even though the numerical fits are to final observed abundances. Consistent terminology would avoid confusion.
  4. [§2.2] The solar Lagrange parameters are taken from Blaschke et al. (2025), which calibrates the same HEFO model against solar abundances. This is an internal calibration rather than an independent anchor; state this explicitly when using solar-relative slopes to infer physical conditions.
  5. [§4.3] The IBBN discussion is speculative and not needed for the main result; please mark it clearly as an outlook paragraph or move it to a dedicated subsection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

The empirical slope d_Z is a direct linear fit to observed [Z/H]; the HEFO link is an explicitly labeled working hypothesis, not a construction-level reduction. Only minor self-citational framing.

full rationale

No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input. The central quantity d_Z is defined in Eq. (2) as the least-squares slope of observed [Z/H] versus Z and is evaluated directly from externally published abundances (Roederer et al. 2022b; Honda et al. 2007; Saraf et al. 2025; Xylakis-Dornbusch et al. 2024), independent of the HEFO model. The HEFO relation (Eq. 1) and the solar/Honda Lagrange parameters are inherited from the authors' prior work (Blaschke et al. 2025; Röpke et al. 2025), and Fig. 5 is a model calculation illustrating that λ_p tilts the initial relative mass-fraction distribution; it is not a fit to the stellar d_Z values reported here. The paper explicitly postpones the quantitative inversion ('leaving the exact multi-dimensional inversion to pinpoint definite values for the Lagrange parameters to future studies'). The connection between observed d_Z and the freeze-out slope d_A is made through a stated 'working hypothesis' and a 'first-order approximation' that the element-to-mass mapping mirrors the solar configuration; the paper also concedes that superheavy decay branching ratios are 'broadly unconstrained'. These are acknowledged limitations in the physical interpretation, not circular reductions. The only mild concern is that the HEFO framework is justified partly through same-author citations, but those citations are not used to manufacture the observed slope values, so the central empirical content remains independent. This is a normal, non-circular phenomenological paper with a modest score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central empirical content (slope fits) does not depend on these parameters, but the HEFO interpretation does. The solar Lagrange parameters are fitted to solar data in prior same-author work and reused here without re-derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • Solar Lagrange temperature λ_T^⊙ = 5.2904 MeV
    Fitted to solar heavy-element distribution in Blaschke et al. (2025), used as reference in Fig. 5.
  • Solar neutron chemical potential λ_n^⊙ = 940.2941 MeV
    Fitted to solar heavy-element distribution in Blaschke et al. (2025), used as reference in Fig. 5.
  • Solar proton chemical potential λ_p^⊙ = 845.0553 MeV
    Fitted to solar heavy-element distribution in Blaschke et al. (2025), used as reference in Fig. 5.
  • Honda star Lagrange parameters (λ_T, λ_n, λ_p) = 4.555 MeV, 940.944 MeV, 842.349 MeV
    Adopted from Blaschke et al. (2025) to produce the Honda star initial distribution in Fig. 7.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper HEFO concept: heavy elements freeze out at high temperature (~5 MeV) with a distribution governed by Lagrange parameters λ_T, λ_n, λ_p (Eq. 1).
    This is a model assumption particular to the authors' framework, not a standard NSE treatment.
  • domain assumption Linear initial distribution: the coarse-grained initial mass fraction X̂_A^ini is approximately linear in A over 76≤A≤208 (Eq. 3).
    The paper approximates the initial mass fraction distribution as linear to define the slope d_A.
  • domain assumption Slope invariance under decay: the slope of the A-metallicity is nearly invariant under post-freeze-out decays; 'the differential initial slope d_A^ini ... is essentially identical to the final observed differential slope d_A^fin' (Sect. 2.5).
    This assumption is load-bearing for relating observed slopes to initial conditions, but is stated without detailed justification.
  • domain assumption Solar-mirror mapping between X_A and Y_Z: 'we assume that the structural mapping between these two quantities mirrors the solar configuration' (Sect. 2.5).
    Used to relate the elemental abundance slope d_Z to the mass-fraction slope d_A; a first-order approximation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19142 in / 11112 out tokens · 98455 ms · 2026-08-01T23:31:29.572346+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The distribution of heavy elements in stars is described using a phenomenological approach, in which Lagrange parameters related to temperature and the chemical potentials of protons and neutrons are introduced within a freeze-out concept. Slope parameters are considered which describe the gross behavior of the distribution of the heavy elements. Universality and deviations from universality are discussed, and various examples are provided. These slope parameters may be of interest for characterizing the conditions under which heavy elements form, but the astrophysical sites where heavy elements are produced remain to be determined.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15373 by David Blaschke, Friedrich K. Roepke, Gerd Roepke.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Adopted solar abundances of elements A(Z) (Lodders 2021) and coarse-grained distribution Aˆ(Zcg). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Atomic Number (Z) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 A(Z) HD 222925 coarse grained HD 222925 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Heavy-element coarse-grained distribution for HD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratios [Z/H] for HD 222925 given in Roederer et al. (2022b). The coarse-grained distribution is also shown, dotted lines to guide the eyes. A least square fit is also shown: [Z/H] = −1.74 + 0.02013 Z. heavy-element distribution has been interpreted as a signature of common conditions at which heavy elements are formed. The overall ubiquity of the rapid neutron-capture mechanism con￾firms that it is a wides… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative mass-fraction distribution for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative abundances [Z/H] of HD 88609 (Honda 1) and HD 122563 (Honda 2) (Honda et al. 2007). The linear fits yield [Z/H] = −1.653−0.03096 Z for HD 88609 and [Z/H] = −1.75− 0.02671 Z for HD 122563. Article number, page 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rather than invoking a step-like distribution of varying ori￾gins, this work introduces a continuous slope parameter to char￾acterize the distribution of heavy elements. Light elements are excluded when modeling the physical conditions at HEFO. Re￾cent observational analyses (see, e.g., Roederer et al. (2025)) separate the respective contributions of the r- and s-processes. The observational data for key i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Initial mass distributions Xˆ ini,⊙ Aˆ for the Sun (black) and Xˆ ini,Honda Aˆ for the Honda star (red). The final values Xˆ fin,Honda Aˆ incorporate either exclusive α-decay for nuclei with A > 208 (green, *) or exclusive fission for A > 232 (blue, x). The total mass fraction of heavy elements with A ≥ 212 is quantified as M212 = P Aˆ≥212 Xˆini Aˆ . These unstable nuclei undergo α-decay and fission, ultim… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differential-abundance pattern ∆A(Z) of the r-I star HD 107752 with respect to the r-II star CS 31082-0001 (Saraf et al. 2025). The linear fit yields ∆A(Z) = 0.2207 − 0.01956 Z. In a study on the origin of neutron-capture elements, Saraf et al. (2025) performed a differential-abundance analysis between the r-I star HD 107752 and the r-II star CS 31082- 0001. The abundance difference as a function of atomic… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Differential abundances ∆[Z/H] for three limited-r stars from Xylakis-Dornbusch et al. (2024). The linear fits yield ∆[Z/H]∗ 2 ,∗ 1 = −0.6286+0.01411 Z and ∆[Z/H]∗ 3 ,∗ 1 = 1.6316 − 0.03742 Z. ber is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Abundance difference ∆ log(nZ/ P i ni) of EC 22536– 5304 relative to LS IV–14o116 from Dorsch et al. (2026). Linear fit: −5.196 + 0.08552 Z Article number, page 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Averaged stellar abundances [Z/H] for halo dwarfs and giants from Hansen et al. (2012). The linear fits are calculated over the atomic number range 38 ≤ Z ≤ 63: −1.508 + 0.0126 Z for dwarfs, and −2.401 + 0.01168 Z for giants. Such properties include stellar mass, angular momentum, or magnetic field strength. Furthermore, a significant fraction of Article number, page 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Heavy-element abundances [Z/H] for stars associ￾ated with the Willka Yaku and Turranburra stellar streams, using data from Webber et al. (2026). The abundance pat￾tern of the reference r-process-enhanced star HD 222925 (Roederer et al. 2022b) is included for comparison. 30 40 50 60 70 Atomic Number (Z) -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 ∆ [Z/H] WY2-WY1 WY3-WY1 WY3 - WY1 WY2 - WY1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗

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

52 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J., et al

    Alencastro Puls, A., Kuske, J., Hansen, C. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A294

    2025

  2. [2]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  3. [3]

    R., Usman, S

    Atzberger, K. R., Usman, S. A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astro- physics, 8, 68

    2025

  4. [4]

    2011, A&A, 534, A60

    Barbuy, B., Spite, M., Hill, V ., et al. 2011, A&A, 534, A60

    2011

  5. [5]

    Beers, T. C. & Christlieb, N. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 531

    2005

  6. [6]

    K., & Röpke, G

    Blaschke, D., Röpke, F. K., & Röpke, G. 2025, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 12, 1733496

    2025

  7. [7]

    & Price-Whelan, A

    Bonaca, A. & Price-Whelan, A. M. 2025, New A Rev., 100, 101713

    2025

  8. [8]

    E., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, M. E., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29, 547

    1957

  9. [9]

    2025, A&A, 704, A238

    Caffau, E., Steffen, M., Molaro, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A238

    2025

  10. [10]

    2024, A&A, 690, A97

    Contursi, G., de Laverny, P., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A97

    2024

  11. [11]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015002

    2021

  12. [12]

    & Wiescher, M

    Diehl, R. & Wiescher, M. 2026, European Physical Journal A, 62, 45

    2026

  13. [13]

    S., Deprince, J., et al

    Dorsch, M., Jeffery, C. S., Deprince, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.21772

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 5362

    Ernandes, H., Barbuy, B., Friaça, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5362

    2022

  15. [15]

    H., et al

    Geha, M., Mao, Y .-Y ., Wechsler, R. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 118

    2024

  16. [16]

    2025, Eur

    Gonin, M., Hasinger, G., Blaschke, D., Ivanytskyi, O., & Röpke, G. 2025, Eur. Phys. J. A, 61, 170

    2025

  17. [17]

    C., et al

    Gudin, D., Shank, D., Beers, T. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 79

    2021

  18. [18]

    2021, ApJ, 912, 52

    Gull, M., Frebel, A., Hinojosa, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 52

    2021

  19. [19]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 58

    Han, W., Zhang, L., Yang, G., Niu, P., & Zhang, B. 2018, ApJ, 856, 58

    2018

  20. [20]

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

    Hansen, C. J., Montes, F., & Arcones, A. 2014, ApJ, 797, 123

    2014

  21. [21]

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

    Hansen, C. J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A31

    2012

  22. [22]

    2002, A&A, 387, 560

    Hill, V ., Plez, B., Cayrel, R., et al. 2002, A&A, 387, 560

    2002

  23. [23]

    M., Surman, R., Roederer, I

    Holmbeck, E. M., Surman, R., Roederer, I. U., McLaughlin, G. C., & Frebel, A. 2023, ApJ, 951, 30

    2023

  24. [24]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1189

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y ., & Wanajo, S. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1189

    2007

  25. [25]

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y ., Wanajo, S., & Ryan, S. G. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1180

    2006

  26. [26]

    S., Placco, V

    Jeong, M., Lee, Y . S., Placco, V . M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.29246

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 37

    Kuske, J., Arcones, A., & Reichert, M. 2025, ApJ, 990, 37

    2025

  28. [28]

    2025, ApJ, 984, L43

    Lin, Y ., Li, H., Jiang, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, L43

    2025

  29. [29]

    & Roberts, L

    Lippuner, J. & Roberts, L. F. 2017, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 233, 18

    2017

  30. [30]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220

    2003

  31. [31]

    2021, Space Sci

    Lodders, K. 2021, Space Sci. Rev., 217, 44

    2021

  32. [32]

    2023, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 73, 315

    Lugaro, M., Pignatari, M., Reifarth, R., & Wiescher, M. 2023, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 73, 315

    2023

  33. [33]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    2023, ApJ, 947, L24 National Nuclear Data Center

    Morishita, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, L24 National Nuclear Data Center. 2024, NuDat 3.0,https://www.nndc.bnl. gov/nudat/, accessed: 2024-07-28

    2023

  35. [35]

    B., Pais, H., & Röpke, G

    Natowitz, J. B., Pais, H., & Röpke, G. 2023, Phys. Rev. C, 107, 014618

    2023

  36. [36]

    & Wasserburg, G

    Qian, Y .-Z. & Wasserburg, G. J. 2000, Phys. Rep., 333, 77

    2000

  37. [37]

    & Wasserburg, G

    Qian, Y .-Z. & Wasserburg, G. J. 2001, ApJ, 552, L55

    2001

  38. [38]

    T., Roederer, I

    Racca, M., Hansen, T. T., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A282

    2025

  39. [39]

    E., & Lambert, D

    Ramya, P., Reddy, B. E., & Lambert, D. L. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3188

    2012

  40. [40]

    H., Cowan, J

    Rauscher, T., Applegate, J. H., Cowan, J. J., Thielemann, F.-K., & Wiescher, M. 1994, ApJ, 429, 499

    1994

  41. [41]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 66

    Reichert, M., Winteler, C., Korobkin, O., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 66

    2023

  42. [42]

    U., Cowan, J

    Roederer, I. U., Cowan, J. J., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 975

    2010

  43. [43]

    U., Placco, V

    Roederer, I. U., Placco, V . M., Karakas, A. I., Den Hartog, E. A., & Beers, T. C. 2025, ApJ, 995, 2

    2025

  44. [44]

    U., Vassh, N., Holmbeck, E

    Roederer, I. U., Vassh, N., Holmbeck, E. M., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1177 Röpke, G. 1987, Physics Letters B, 185, 281 Röpke, G., Blaschke, D., & Röpke, F. K. 2025, Universe, 11, 323

    2023

  45. [45]

    C., et al

    Saraf, P., Sivarani, T., Beers, T. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 78 Siqueira Mello, C., Spite, M., Barbuy, B., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A122

    2025

  46. [46]

    J., & Gallino, R

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., & Gallino, R. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241

    2008

  47. [47]

    M., Remus, R.-S., & Dolag, K

    Stoiber, J., Valenzuela, L. M., Remus, R.-S., & Dolag, K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.14280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    & Cowan, J

    Thielemann, F.-K. & Cowan, J. J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.17246 Van Eck, S., Goriely, S., Jorissen, A., & Plez, B. 2001, Nature, 412, 793

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    J., Selsing, J., et al

    Watson, D., Hansen, C. J., Selsing, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 497

    2019

  50. [50]

    B., Hansen, T

    Webber, K. B., Hansen, T. T., Marshall, J. L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 114

    2026

  51. [51]

    Wehmeyer, B., Pignatari, M., & Thielemann, F. K. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 452, 1970

    2015

  52. [52]

    T., Beers, T

    Xylakis-Dornbusch, T., Hansen, T. T., Beers, T. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A123 Article number, page 12

    2024