Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Chemical Evolution of R-process Elements in Stars (CERES): IV. An observational run-up of the third r-process peak with Hf, Os, Ir, and Pt

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using homogeneous high-resolution spectra of 52 metal-poor red giants, this paper argues that the r-process elements Os, Ir, and Pt form plateaus in europium-poor stars, decoupling from Eu and implying an early r-process channel that…

desk verdict A genuinely useful homogeneous sample of third-peak abundances with a plausible but not-yet-proven decoupling from Eu, limited by unquantified LTE systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00195 v1 pith:L6Q2SA2U submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Arthur Alencastro Puls , Jan Kuske , Camilla Juul Hansen , Linda Lombardo , Giorgio Visentin , Almudena Arcones , Raphaela Fernandes de Melo , Moritz Reichert
show 3 more authors
Piercarlo Bonifacio Elisabetta Caffau Stephan Fritzsche
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords r-processthirdpeakosmiumiridiumplatinumhafniummetal-poorstarsstellarabundances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper assembles a homogeneous set of Hf, Os, Ir, and Pt abundances for 52 metal-poor red giants using high-resolution, high signal-to-noise blue spectra, roughly doubling the available sample of third r-process peak elements. Its main result is that in stars with A(Eu) ≲ -1.8 dex, the abundances of Os, Ir, and Pt stop tracking europium and flatten onto plateaus near A(Os) ~ -0.7, A(Ir) ~ -0.6, and A(Pt) ~ +0.25 dex. The authors argue this decoupling contradicts the standard assumption that Eu and the third r-process peak elements are co-produced in the same nucleosynthesis events, and instead points to an additional early, primary r-process channel (or a non-universal r-process) that makes third-peak elements with little or no europium. If correct, these observations would mean the early chemical enrichment of the Universe involved at least one r-process source whose yield pattern differs from the one that produced the solar r-process residuals. The same data also show Ir systematically more abundant than Os, breaking the even-odd element pattern.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on fitting synthetic spectra to high-resolution blue and near-ultraviolet observations of 52 red giants, with abundances derived line-by-line for Hf ii at 3399.8 Å, Os i at 3301.565 Å and 4420.468 Å, Ir i at 3513.6 Å, and Pt i at 3301.8 Å. Because these lines are heavily blended, the machinery includes an empirical flagging rule that converts a Cayrel-type equivalent-width uncertainty, corrected by a blending term φ, into a minimum detectable abundance via curve-of-growth theory; a measurement is only a detection if the expected isolated line depth exceeds a 3-σ threshold. The abundances are then compared with synthetic yields from a nuclear reaction network run over representative trajectories of several proposed r-process sites, with variations in nuclear masses, beta-decay rates, and fission yields to test how much the conclusions depend on nuclear physics. The Pt i line, being the least blended, is used as the most reliable pillar of the Eu-poor plateau.

What would settle it

Compute 3D non-LTE abundance corrections for the Os i 3301.565 Å, Ir i 3513.6 Å, and Pt i 3301.8 Å lines over the sample's metallicity range (-3.5 < [Fe/H] < -1.7). If the corrections vary with metallicity by roughly half a dex or more in the direction that brings Eu-poor stars back onto the Eu-correlation, the decoupling is an artifact. Alternatively, a space-based UV observation of several Eu-poor stars measuring these elements through independent transitions below 3000 Å that reproduces the plateaus would confirm the discovery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the third r-process peak elements Os, Ir, and Pt do not always scale with the rare-earth element Eu in metal-poor stars. For the 52 red giants in this study, the relation between A(Os), A(Ir), A(Pt) and A(Eu) is flat below A(Eu) ≈ -1.8 dex and only rises in more Eu-rich stars; the plateau values, roughly A(Os) ~ -0.7, A(Ir) ~ -0.6, and A(Pt) ~ +0.25 dex, are set by the low-metallicity end of the sample. Because Eu, Os, Ir, and Pt are all thought to be nearly pure r-process elements with small s-process contributions, a linear co-production relation would be expected; its breakdown implies that some early r-process events produced the third peak efficiently while making very little europium. A comparison with nucleosynthesis network calculations for neutron star mergers, their disks, and magneto-rotational supernovae finds no single modelled condition that reproduces the strongest third-peak enhancements, reinforcing the need for an additional or non-universal r-process channel. The paper also reports that in most of the sample Ir (Z=77) is more abundant than Os (Z=76), a monotonic rise toward Pt that breaks the usual even-odd abundance staggering.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the blue and near-ultraviolet Os, Ir, and Pt lines, modelled in 1D LTE with the adopted oscillator strengths and line-broadening data, recover the true stellar abundances at every metallicity with no metallicity-dependent systematic error large enough to create the observed Eu-poor plateau.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the decoupling is real, Eu cannot be used as a universal proxy for third r-process peak production in the most metal-poor stars; abundance patterns built on Eu alone will miss the early third-peak enrichment.
  • Nucleosynthesis models must include at least one additional primary r-process channel at early times that enhances Os, Ir, and Pt relative to Eu, since none of the tested neutron-star-merger, disk, or magneto-rotational-supernova conditions reproduces the strongest observed ratios.
  • The monotonic Os → Ir → Pt rise implies the third-peak shape in these stars differs from solar-scaled and r-II patterns, so stellar abundance comparisons should not assume a single universal r-process pattern.
  • The fact that Hf follows Eu while Os, Ir, and Pt do not, despite Hf having the largest s-process share among the four, suggests the s-process is not the driver of the Eu-poor tail; the divergence instead tracks position on the atomic table.
  • The successful ground-based measurement campaign demonstrates that large homogeneous samples of third-peak abundances are feasible without space-based UV spectroscopy, opening the way to wider surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to measure the same four elements in ultra-faint dwarf galaxies or in extremely metal-poor stars selected without Eu information; if the Pt plateau persists at A(Pt) ~ +0.25 for A(Eu) < -1.8, the case for a distinct early channel becomes stronger, while a scattered or Eu-tracking pattern would suggest the plateau is a selection effect of line detectability.
  • The authors note that metallicity-dependent LTE corrections are not yet computed; a focused 3D non-LTE calculation for the Os, Ir, and Pt lines at [Fe/H] < -2.5 would either confirm the plateau or collapse it, and that calculation is the cleanest near-term test.
  • If a non-universal r-process is the cause, the isotopically resolved Ir and Pt lines already used here could in principle be combined with fission-yield and mass-model variations to locate which nuclear input shifts the third peak relative to the lanthanides.
  • The contrast between Hf and the third-peak elements hints that elements just below the r-process peak and elements inside the peak may be produced in different freeze-out conditions or different ejection layers of the same event; this is not stated by the paper and would require yield-structure tests.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a homogeneous 1D LTE abundance analysis of Hf ii, Os i, Ir i, and Pt i in 52 metal-poor red giants observed with UVES/VLT. The authors fit ATLAS12/MOOG synthetic spectra to blue and near-UV lines, devise an empirical upper-limit classification based on the Cayrel formula, and propagate atmospheric, continuum, and fit uncertainties. They report that Os, Ir, and Pt anti-correlate with [Fe/H], that Ir exceeds Os in most stars (breaking the even/odd pattern), and that in stars with A(Eu) < -1.8 dex the third-peak elements flatten to plateaus (A(Os) ~ -0.7, A(Ir) ~ -0.6, A(Pt) ~ +0.25) instead of following the linear relation with Eu seen at higher A(Eu). They compare the derived ratios with a suite of r-process nucleosynthesis calculations (NSM, NSM-disk, MRSN, and varying nuclear inputs) and argue that the high Os/Eu and Pt/Eu ratios in the Eu-poor tail cannot be reproduced, pointing to an additional early r-process channel or a non-robust r-process. The paper includes a data release on Zenodo and a discussion of systematic caveats, including uncomputed metallicity-dependent LTE effects.

Significance. If the Eu-poor plateau is real, it is an important constraint on r-process nucleosynthesis: it would imply that the third r-process peak can be produced in events that yield little Eu, challenging the assumption that Eu and third-peak elements are co-produced in all r-process sites and supporting the emerging picture of a non-universal r-process. The paper's strengths are the careful treatment of upper limits, the homogeneous analysis of a relatively large sample (roughly doubling published detections of third-peak elements), the explicit uncertainty budget, and the systematic exploration of nuclear physics uncertainties in the model comparison. The data products will be useful for future Galactic chemical evolution studies. However, the central astrophysical claim is currently not fully secured because the analysis is 1D LTE and the authors explicitly defer metallicity-dependent LTE calculations, which are needed to rule out a systematic origin of the plateau.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5.1, Fig. 8] The central claim of a decoupling between the third r-process peak elements and Eu in the Eu-poor tail assumes that 1D LTE abundance derivations are free of metallicity-dependent systematic errors that could create the plateau. The paper explicitly states that 'metallicity-dependent LTE effects in Os, Ir, and Pt abundances... are still yet to be computed' (Section 3.5.1). The accompanying argument that such corrections 'should be similar in all the three (Os, Ir, Pt) species' is not sufficient: Os, Ir, and Pt are measured from different lines (3301.565/4420.468 Å for Os, 3513.6 Å for Ir, 3301.8 Å for Pt), with different lower excitation potentials (0.0, 0.0, and 0.814 eV), different ionization stages, and different blends, so their NLTE and granulation corrections need not track one another with metallicity. Since the Eu-poor tail is formed by the lowest-metallicity stars ([Fe/H] < -2.5), a metallicity-dependent bias of order the plateau amplitude (~0.4-0.9 dex) could produce the observed pattern. I ask the authors to provide a quantitative bound on these effects (e.g., NLTE or 3D corrections on representative model atmospheres, or validation with independent lines or space-based data) or to explicitly downgrade the decoupling claim to a tentative result pending such calculations.
  2. [Section 3.5.1, Fig. 8] The existence of the plateau is asserted from visual inspection of Fig. 8 rather than demonstrated statistically. No test is presented that compares the null hypothesis of a single linear relation between A(X) and A(Eu) against a broken-linear or plateau model, and no quantitative statement is made about the scatter in the Eu-poor subset relative to the quoted uncertainties. Given that the plateau offsets (~0.4-0.9 dex) are comparable to the typical measurement uncertainties (0.15-0.3 dex), a statistical test (e.g., a likelihood-ratio test or a correlation analysis restricted to A(Eu) < -1.8) is needed to establish that the flattening is significant and not a selection effect or noise.
  3. [Section 3.6, Fig. 10] The conclusion that current r-process models cannot reproduce the high Os/Eu and Pt/Eu ratios relies on a limited set of representative trajectories and on the assumed nuclear physics inputs. The authors themselves note that 'the mass-weighted sum of multiple tracer particles would solidify our results' and that nuclear physics uncertainties are large, as shown by the wide spread among the model points and their poor agreement with the solar r-residual pattern. Without a more complete exploration of ejecta conditions and a quantitative treatment of mixing or multiple enrichment (which the authors state is likely for their stars), the model-data mismatch should be framed as a constraint on the modeled yields rather than as direct evidence for a new r-process channel. The abstract's statement that the results 'contradict a co-production scenario' should therefore be softened until both the observational systematics (Major comment 1) and the model uncertainties are addressed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, second paragraph] The sentence contains a duplicated article: 'the the Ultraviolet and Visual Echelle Spectrograph' should read 'the Ultraviolet and Visual Echelle Spectrograph'.
  2. [Section 2.2, Table 1] The text states isotopic fractions for Pt 'for the isotopes 192, 194, 195, 196, and 198 of Pt', but Table 1 lists a line for 190Pt as well; please include 190 in the list or state that its fraction is negligible.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (5)] The definition of phi is difficult to follow; a short verbal explanation of RWpure and of the subtracted-flux integral, and a statement that phi is in dex, would improve readability.
  4. [Figure 8 caption] The marker convention 'Triangles pointing down show upper limits for either Hf, Os, or Ir, and detections for Eu' is ambiguous because the y-axis element changes from panel to panel; please specify the convention in terms of upper limits in the plotted quantity.
  5. [Section 3.5.1] The sentence 'the existence of a large scatter below the A(Os,Ir) < -1.0 threshold may be currently invisible due to the corresponding spectral lines being too weak' would benefit from a brief explanation of why this is a detection-threshold effect rather than a physical claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the third-peak abundances are measured from observed spectra and compared with independent nucleosynthesis calculations that are not fit to the data; the self-cited survey inputs (parameters, N, Eu) are separate measurements whose assumptions do not include the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) atmospheric parameters and N, Eu, Ba abundances adopted from companion CERES papers (Papers I-III), which are independent spectroscopic measurements from the same survey; (2) Hf, Os, Ir, and Pt abundances obtained by chi-square fitting of MOOG/ATLAS12 synthetic spectra to UVES observations, using externally published atomic data (Lawler, Quinet, Xu, Hartog); (3) comparison of the derived A(X)-versus-A(Eu) patterns and ratios with WinNet nucleosynthesis calculations across multiple r-process sites (NSM_R, NSM_J, NSM-DISK, MRSN) and multiple nuclear physics inputs (FRDM2012, D3C*, Mumpower, FRDM1995, SkM*, UNEDF1). No parameter of the models is fitted to the observed abundances, so the central claim ('need for an additional early r-process channel') is an inference from a model-data mismatch, not a quantity defined in terms of its own inputs. The self-citations are non-load-bearing under the independence rules: Paper I parameters come from Gaia photometry and Fe lines; Paper II N abundances come from the 3360 Å NH band; Paper III Eu/Ba come from separate Eu II and Ba lines; WinNet is a public code with stated physical inputs; the MRSN trajectories are simulations with assumptions that do not include the third-peak decoupling. The internal consistency argument that LTE corrections would affect Os, Ir, and Pt similarly is an assumption, and the paper explicitly acknowledges it ('metallicity-dependent LTE effects in Os, Ir, and Pt abundances... are still yet to be computed'), along with other caveats (single representative trajectories, possible systematic bias toward larger Pt abundances). These are correctness risks and falsifiability statements, not circular reductions. The possible reliance on upper limits and selection effects in the Eu-poor tail is a data-quality concern, not a definitional equivalence. No step of the argument reduces by construction to a fit or to an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters in the sense of fitting a model to data; the abundances are derived quantities. The load-bearing assumptions are the 1D LTE treatment, the external atomic data, the stellar parameters from Paper I, and the representativeness of the nucleosynthesis trajectories. No new physical entities (particles, forces, etc.) are postulated; the 'additional r-process channel' is an interpretive hypothesis rather than an invented entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption 1D, local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) line formation is valid for the Hf, Os, Ir, and Pt lines in the analyzed red giants.
    Invoked in Section 2.1, where MOOG and ATLAS12 models are used to fit synthetic spectra. The authors note in Section 3.5.1 that metallicity-dependent NLTE effects have not been computed, so this assumption is load-bearing for the derived abundances and trends.
  • domain assumption The adopted atomic data (log gf values, hyperfine and isotopic splitting, van der Waals damping) accurately represent the line formation of the measured species.
    Used in Section 2.2 and Table 1, drawing on Linemake, VALD, and literature sources. The NH blend near the Hf line is explicitly discussed as sensitive to the adopted NH log gf values, and the authors replace some VALD values with Linemake values for consistency.
  • domain assumption The stellar parameters (Teff, log g, [Fe/H], vt) from Paper I, derived via Gaia photometry and the Koch-Hansen et al. method, are accurate.
    The model atmospheres used for abundance derivation are based on these parameters. Any systematic error in the atmospheric parameters propagates into the abundance ratios and the observed trends.
  • domain assumption The nucleosynthesis calculations with WinNet, using single representative trajectories for NSM, NSM-DISK, and MRSN, are representative enough to test the observed abundance ratios.
    Section 3.6 uses these calculations to evaluate whether current models can reproduce the observed Os/Eu and Pt/Eu ratios. The authors caution that using mass-weighted sums of multiple tracer particles would solidify the results, and that nuclear physics uncertainties are large.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemical Evolution of R-process Elements in Stars (CERES): IV. An observational run-up of the third r-process peak with Hf, Os, Ir, and Pt." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L6Q2SA2U

@misc{pith2026241200195,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemical Evolution of R-process Elements in Stars (CERES): IV. An observational run-up of the third r-process peak with Hf, Os, Ir, and Pt},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L6Q2SA2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00195}
}
read the original abstract

The third r-process peak (Os, Ir, Pt) is poorly understood due to observational challenges, with spectral lines located in the blue or near-ultraviolet region of stellar spectra. These challenges need to be overcome for a better understanding of the r-process in a broader context. To understand how the abundances of the third r-process peak are synthesised and evolve in the Universe, a homogeneous chemical analysis of metal-poor stars using high quality data observed in the blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum (< 400 nm) is necessary. We provide a homogeneous set of abundances for the third r-process peak (Os, Ir, Pt) and Hf, increasing by up to one order of magnitude their availability in the literature. A classical 1D, local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) analysis of four elements (Hf, Os, Ir, Pt) is performed, using ATLAS model atmospheres to fit synthetic spectra in high resolution (> 40,000), high signal-to-noise ratio, of 52 red giants observed with UVES/VLT. Due to the heavy line blending involved, a careful determination of upper limits and uncertainties is done. The observational results are compared with state-of-the-art nucleosynthesis models. Our sample displays larger abundances of Ir (Z=77) in comparison to Os (Z=76), which have been measured in a few stars in the past. The results also suggest decoupling between abundances of third r-process peak elements with respect to Eu (rare earth element) in Eu-poor stars. This seems to contradict a co-production scenario of Eu and the third r-process peak elements Os, Ir, and Pt in the progenitors of these objects. Our results are challenging to explain from the nucleosynthetic point of view: the observationally derived abundances indicate the need for an additional early, primary formation channel (or a non-robust r-process).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00195 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the method employed for classification of detec￾tions and upper limits. The solid lines are curves of constant [Hf/Fe]min calculated for CES 0031-1647 using Eq. 6 and a curve of growth model generated with MOOG for the Hf ii 3399.8 Å line to convert RWmin to Hf abundances. Their colour scale corresponds to the [Hf/Fe]min labelled in each solid line. The dotted grey line corresponds to the [Hf/Fe] mea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Portion of spectra surrounding the Hf ii line at 3399.8 Å for two stars in our sample. Black dots represent the observed spectra. The red solid lines represent the best fit, with their respective [Hf/Fe] shown on the right. Blue dash-dotted lines show synthetic spectra without Hf. Golden dashed lines represent synthetic spectra when N is removed. Grey dotted lines correspond to the synthetic spectra without neither … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. [X/Fe] versus [C/N] ratio from Paper II. Triangles represent upper limits. Open/filled triangles follow the same classification of star markers. 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 [N/Fe] 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 [Hf/N] 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 log g [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of spectral fit in Os, Ir, and Pt lines. Black mark￾ers: observed spectra. Red solid line: best fit. Blue dash-dotted line: spectrum with the species of interest removed. Orange shaded areas: ± 0.3 dex interval around the best fit. Species creating the stronge…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: [Hf,Os,Ir,Pt/Fe] plotted against metallicity [Fe/H], with BD +17 3248 (Roederer et al. 2010), CS 22892−052 (Sneden’s star, Sneden et al. 2003), CS 31082−001 (Hill et al. (2002) for Hf, Barbuy et al. (2011) for Os, Ir, Pt), HD 108317 (Roederer et al. 2014b), HD 160617 (…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The four species under study plotted against each other in terms of A(X). Markers are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A(Hf,Os,Ir,Pt), from this work, compared to A(Eu) (Paper III). Markers are coloured by metallicity. Triangles pointing to the left rep￾resent upper limits in A(Eu) and detections in the element represented in the y-axis. Triangles pointing down show upper limits for ei…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Box plots representing the distributions of A(Hf,Os,Ir,Pt) in our sample. The orange lines represent the medians. The grey dashed line is the solar-scaled abundance, normalised to the median of the Os abun￾dances from this work. Open black circles are the outliers in o…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A(Pt/Eu) vs A(Os/Eu) for observations and nucleosynthesis calculations. Black circles with error bars are abundance detections de￾rived in this work, while left-facing triangles are upper limits in Os. Sneden’s star is depicted in brown, while the solar r- (s-) residu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Black hole-neutron star binaries with high spins and large mass asymmetries: III. Properties of the ejected material and its electromagnetic signatures

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    High-spin, high-mass-ratio black hole–neutron star mergers eject 0.02–0.06 solar masses of neutron-rich (Y_e≈0.05) debris whose kilonovae are infrared-bright, optically dark, and match late-time AT2017gfo while stayin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    & Martínez-Pinedo, G

    Arcones, A. & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2011, , 83

    2011

  4. [4]

    & Thielemann, F.-K

    Arcones, A. & Thielemann, F.-K. 2022, , 31

    2022

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott , P

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

    2009

  6. [6]

    2011, , 534, A60

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

    2011

  7. [7]

    S., Piskunov , N., & O'Mara , B

    Barklem , P. S., Piskunov , N., & O'Mara , B. J. 2000, , 142, 467

    2000

  8. [8]

    L., Lund, K

    Barnes, J., Zhu, Y. L., Lund, K. A., et al. 2021, , 918, 44

    2021

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    1982, , 386, 79

    Bartel, J., Quentin, P., Brack, M., Guet, C., & Håkansson, H.-B. 1982, , 386, 79

    1982

  2. [10]

    Bast, R., Gomes, A. S. P., Saue, T., et al. 2023, DIRAC23

    2023

  3. [11]

    2014, , 787, 10

    Bisterzo , S., Travaglio , C., Gallino , R., Wiescher , M., & K \"a ppeler , F. 2014, , 787, 10

    2014

  4. [12]

    Brooke, J. S. A., Bernath, P. F., & Western, C. M. 2015, , 143

    2015

  5. [13]

    M., Burbidge , G

    Burbidge , E. M., Burbidge , G. R., Fowler , W. A., & Hoyle , F. 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547

    1957

  6. [14]

    2010, , 268, 255

    Caffau, E., Ludwig, H.-G., Steffen, M., Freytag, B., & Bonifacio, P. 2010, , 268, 255

    2010

  7. [15]

    1988, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Cayrel , R. 1988, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 132, The Impact of Very High S/N Spectroscopy on Stellar Physics, ed. G. Cayrel de Strobel & M. Spite , 345

    1988

  8. [16]

    C., Barklem, P

    Christlieb, N., Beers, T. C., Barklem, P. S., et al. 2004, , 428, 1027

    2004

  9. [17]

    P., & Castilho, B

    Coelho, P., Barbuy, B., Meléndez, J., Schiavon, R. P., & Castilho, B. V. 2005, , 443, 735

    2005

  10. [18]

    J., Sneden , C., Beers , T

    Cowan , J. J., Sneden , C., Beers , T. C., et al. 2005, , 627, 238

    2005

  11. [19]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, , 189, 240

    2010

  12. [20]

    2019, , 875, 106

    Côté, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, , 875, 106

    2019

  13. [21]

    2000, in , Vol

    Dekker , H., D'Odorico , S., Kaufer , A., Delabre , B., & Kotzlowski , H. 2000, in , Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood , 534--545

    2000

  14. [22]

    2015, , 808, 30

    Eichler, M., Arcones, A., Kelic, A., et al. 2015, , 808, 30

    2015

  15. [23]

    J., Barbuy, B., et al

    Ernandes, H., Castro, M. J., Barbuy, B., et al. 2023, , 524, 656

    2023

  16. [24]

    Fernandes de Melo, R., Lombardo, L., Alencastro Puls, A., et al. 2024,

    2024

  17. [25]

    M., Bernath, P

    Fernando, A. M., Bernath, P. F., Hodges, J. N., & Masseron, T. 2018, , 217, 29

    2018

  18. [26]

    L., Massa, D., Gordon, K

    Fitzpatrick, E. L., Massa, D., Gordon, K. D., Bohlin, R., & Clayton, G. C. 2019, , 886, 108

    2019

  19. [27]

    & Bland-Hawthorn , J

    Freeman , K. & Bland-Hawthorn , J. 2002, , 40, 487

    2002

  20. [28]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  21. [29]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2016, , 595, A2

    2016

  22. [30]

    J., Bergemann, M., Collet, R., et al

    Gallagher, A. J., Bergemann, M., Collet, R., et al. 2020, , 634, A55

    2020

  23. [31]

    J., Ludwig, H.-G., Ryan, S

    Gallagher, A. J., Ludwig, H.-G., Ryan, S. G., & Aoki, W. 2015, , 579, A94

    2015

  24. [32]

    J., Ryan, S

    Gallagher, A. J., Ryan, S. G., García Pérez, A. E., & Aoki, W. 2010, , 523, A24

    2010

  25. [33]

    J., Ryan, S

    Gallagher, A. J., Ryan, S. G., Hosford, A., et al. 2012, , 538, A118

    2012

  26. [34]

    J., Andersen , A

    Hansen , C. J., Andersen , A. C., & Christlieb , N. 2014 a , , 568, A47

    2014

  27. [35]

    J., Koch, A., Mashonkina, L., et al

    Hansen, C. J., Koch, A., Mashonkina, L., et al. 2020, , 643, A49

    2020

  28. [36]

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

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

    2014

  29. [37]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357

    2020

  30. [38]

    Hartog, E. A. D., Herd, M. T., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2005, , 619, 639

    2005

  31. [39]

    2018, , 478, 1795

    Hartwig, T., Yoshida, N., Magg, M., et al. 2018, , 478, 1795

    2018

  32. [40]

    2002, , 387, 560

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

    2002

  33. [41]

    M., Frebel, A., McLaughlin, G

    Holmbeck, E. M., Frebel, A., McLaughlin, G. C., et al. 2019, , 881, 5

    2019

  34. [42]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  35. [43]

    M., Huth, S., et al

    Jacobi, M., Guercilena, F. M., Huth, S., et al. 2023, , 527, 8812

    2023

  36. [44]

    I., & Lugaro , M

    Kobayashi , C., Karakas , A. I., & Lugaro , M. 2020, , 900, 179

    2020

  37. [45]

    J., Hansen, C

    Koch-Hansen, A. J., Hansen, C. J., Lombardo, L., et al. 2021, , 645, A64

    2021

  38. [46]

    & Takahashi, K

    Kodama, T. & Takahashi, K. 1975, , 239, 489

    1975

  39. [47]

    2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 030001

    Kondev, F., Wang, M., Huang, W., Naimi, S., & Audi, G. 2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 030001

    2021

  40. [48]

    2015, Journal of Computational Chemistry, 36, 1286

    Koput, J. 2015, Journal of Computational Chemistry, 36, 1286

    2015

  41. [49]

    2012, , 85

    Kortelainen, M., McDonnell, J., Nazarewicz, W., et al. 2012, , 85

    2012

  42. [50]

    A., & Cowan, J

    Krishnaswamy-Gilroy, K., Sneden, C., Pilachowski, C. A., & Cowan, J. J. 1988, , 327, 298

    1988

  43. [51]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 14

    2005

  44. [52]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2014, Robert L. Kurucz on-line database of observed and predicted atomic transitions

    2014

  45. [53]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2016, Robert L. Kurucz on-line database of observed and predicted atomic transitions

    2016

  46. [54]

    Kurucz , R. L. & Bell , B. 1995, Atomic line list

    1995

  47. [55]

    M., Mackie , F., Ravenhall , D

    Lattimer , J. M., Mackie , F., Ravenhall , D. G., & Schramm , D. N. 1977, , 213, 225

    1977

  48. [56]

    E., Hartog, E

    Lawler, J. E., Hartog, E. A. D., Labby, Z. E., et al. 2007, , 169, 120

    2007

  49. [57]

    Le Roy, R. J. 2017, , 186, 167

    2017

  50. [58]

    2009, Landolt B \"o rnstein [ [arXiv] 0901.1149 ]

    Lodders , K., Palme , H., & Gail , H.-P. 2009, Landolt B \"o rnstein [ [arXiv] 0901.1149 ]

    2009 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2022, , 665, A10

    Lombardo, L., Bonifacio, P., Fran c ois, P., et al. 2022, , 665, A10

    2022

  52. [60]

    J., Rizzuti, F., et al

    Lombardo, L., Hansen, C. J., Rizzuti, F., et al. 2024, A&A, submitted

    2024

  53. [61]

    A., Engel, J., McLaughlin, G

    Lund, K. A., Engel, J., McLaughlin, G. C., et al. 2023, , 944, 144

    2023

  54. [62]

    & Zhao , G

    Magain , P. & Zhao , G. 1993, , 268, L27

    1993

  55. [63]

    Magg, M., Nordlander, T., Glover, S. C. O., et al. 2020, , 498, 3703

    2020

  56. [64]

    1970, Journal de Chimie Physique, 67, 25

    Malicet, J., Brion, J., & Guenebaut, H. 1970, Journal de Chimie Physique, 67, 25

    1970

  57. [65]

    2016, , 93

    Marketin, T., Huther, L., & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2016, , 93

    2016

  58. [66]

    2016, , 116

    Martin, D., Arcones, A., Nazarewicz, W., & Olsen, E. 2016, , 116

    2016

  59. [67]

    2017, , 604, A129

    Mashonkina, L., Jablonka, P., Pakhomov, Y., Sitnova, T., & North, P. 2017, , 604, A129

    2017

  60. [68]

    & Zhao, G

    Mashonkina, L. & Zhao, G. 2006, , 456, 313

    2006

  61. [69]

    Mashonkina, L. I. & Belyaev, A. K. 2019, Astronomy Letters, 45, 341

    2019

  62. [70]

    W., Sneden , C., & Searle , L

    McWilliam , A., Preston , G. W., Sneden , C., & Searle , L. 1995, , 109, 2757

    1995

  63. [71]

    B., Berglund, M., et al

    Meija, J., Coplen, T. B., Berglund, M., et al. 2016, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 88, 293

    2016

  64. [72]

    2019, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 21, 3564

    Melosso, M., Bizzocchi, L., Tamassia, F., et al. 2019, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 21, 3564

    2019

  65. [73]

    D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G., Darbha , S., et al

    Metzger , B. D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G., Darbha , S., et al. 2010, , 406, 2650

    2010

  66. [74]

    2021, , 505, 2913

    Molero, M., Romano, D., Reichert, M., et al. 2021, , 505, 2913

    2021

  67. [75]

    1995, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 59, 185

    Moller, P., Nix, J., Myers, W., & Swiatecki, W. 1995, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 59, 185

    1995

  68. [76]

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

    Mumpower, M. R., Jaffke, P., Verriere, M., & Randrup, J. 2020, , 101

    2020

  69. [77]

    R., Surman, R., Fang, D.-L., et al

    Mumpower, M. R., Surman, R., Fang, D.-L., et al. 2015, , 92

    2015

  70. [78]

    2019, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 125, 1

    Möller, P., Mumpower, M., Kawano, T., & Myers, W. 2019, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 125, 1

    2019

  71. [79]

    2016, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 109–110, 1

    Möller, P., Sierk, A., Ichikawa, T., & Sagawa, H. 2016, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 109–110, 1

    2016

  72. [80]

    C., Jaidane, N., Kwato Njock, M

    Owono Owono, L. C., Jaidane, N., Kwato Njock, M. G., & Ben Lakhdar, Z. 2007, , 126

    2007

  73. [81]

    2001, , 688, 587

    Panov, I., Freiburghaus, C., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2001, , 688, 587

    2001

  74. [82]

    & Reiher, M

    Peng, D. & Reiher, M. 2012, Theoretical Chemistry Accounts, 131

    2012

  75. [83]

    K., & Cescutti, G

    Perego, A., Thielemann, F. K., & Cescutti, G. 2021, r-Process Nucleosynthesis from Compact Binary Mergers (Springer Singapore), 1--56

    2021

  76. [84]

    E., Kupka , F., Ryabchikova , T

    Piskunov , N. E., Kupka , F., Ryabchikova , T. A., Weiss , W. W., & Jeffery , C. S. 1995, , 112, 525

    1995

  77. [85]

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

    Placco, V. M., Almeida-Fernandes, F., Holmbeck, E. M., et al. 2023, , 959, 60

    2023

  78. [86]

    M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I

    Placco, V. M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the AAS, 5, 92

    2021

  79. [87]

    2006, , 448, 1207

    Quinet, P., Palmeri, P., Bi \'e mont, \'E ., et al. 2006, , 448, 1207

    2006

  80. [88]

    2024, , 529, 3197

    Reichert, M., Bugli, M., Guilet, J., et al. 2024, , 529, 3197

    2024

  81. [89]

    J., Hanke, M., et al

    Reichert, M., Hansen, C. J., Hanke, M., et al. 2020, , 641, A127

    2020

  82. [90]

    A., & Arcones, A

    Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., Eichler, M., Aloy, M. A., & Arcones, A. 2021,

    2021

  83. [91]

    2023, , 268, 66

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

    2023

  84. [92]

    Roederer , I. U. & Lawler , J. E. 2012, , 750, 76

    2012

  85. [93]

    U., Lawler, J

    Roederer, I. U., Lawler, J. E., Den Hartog, E. A., et al. 2022, , 260, 27

    2022

  86. [94]

    U., Lawler , J

    Roederer , I. U., Lawler , J. E., Sobeck , J. S., et al. 2012, , 203, 27

    2012

  87. [95]

    U., Preston , G

    Roederer , I. U., Preston , G. W., Thompson , I. B., et al. 2014 a , , 147, 136

    2014

  88. [96]

    U., Sakari, C

    Roederer, I. U., Sakari, C. M., Placco, V. M., et al. 2018, , 865, 129

    2018

  89. [97]

    U., Schatz, H., Lawler, J

    Roederer , I. U., Schatz, H., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2014 b , , 791, 32

    2014

  90. [98]

    U., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Roederer, I. U., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., & Cowan, J. J. 2010, , 714, L123–L127

    2010

  91. [99]

    2013, , 430, 2585

    Rosswog, S., Piran, T., & Nakar, E. 2013, , 430, 2585

    2013

  92. [100]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  93. [101]

    J., et al

    Simmerer , J., Sneden , C., Cowan , J. J., et al. 2004, , 617, 1091

    2004

  94. [102]

    J., & Gallino , R

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

    2008

  95. [103]

    J., Lawler , J

    Sneden , C., Cowan , J. J., Lawler , J. E., et al. 2003, , 591, 936

    2003

  96. [104]

    Sneden , C. A. 1973, PhD thesis, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

    1973

  97. [105]

    E., Annis, J., et al

    Soares-Santos, M., Holz, D. E., Annis, J., et al. 2017, , 848, L16

    2017

  98. [106]

    2005, , 430, 655

    Spite , M., Cayrel , R., Plez , B., et al. 2005, , 430, 655

    2005

  99. [107]

    G., Müller, T., Gidofalvi, G., Lischka, H., & Shepard, R

    Szalay, P. G., Müller, T., Gidofalvi, G., Lischka, H., & Shepard, R. 2011, Chemical Reviews, 112, 108

    2011

  100. [108]

    1955, Physik der Sternatmospharen, MIT besonderer Berucksichtigung der Sonne

    Unsold , A. 1955, Physik der Sternatmospharen, MIT besonderer Berucksichtigung der Sonne

    1955

  101. [109]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  102. [110]

    J., Selsing, J., et al

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

    2019

  103. [111]

    2012, , 750, L22

    Winteler , C., K \"a ppeli , R., Perego , A., et al. 2012, , 750, L22

    2012

  104. [112]

    Wu, M.-R., Fernández, R., Martínez-Pinedo, G., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, , 463, 2323

    2016

  105. [113]

    2007, , 104, 52

    Xu, H., Svanberg, S., Quinet, P., Palmeri, P., & Bi \'e mont, \'E . 2007, , 104, 52

    2007

  106. [114]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint doi url journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year adsurl label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state befo...

  107. [115]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.