Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Nebular spectra of kilonovae with detailed recombination rates -- I. Light r-process composition

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that replacing the constant recombination rate with element-specific, temperature-dependent dielectronic recombination rates for five light r-process elements changes the predicted late-time kilonova spectra: zirconium…

desk verdict New DR rate tables for five light r-process elements really do change nebular kilonova model spectra; the central sensitivity claim holds, but the headline Rb-line weakening rests on an uncalculated RR rate and needs a caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18345 v3 pith:LXJ4E3FY submitted 2025-01-30 astro-ph.HE physics.atom-ph

Smaranika Banerjee , Anders Jerkstrand , Nigel Badnell , Quentin Pognan , Niamh Ferguson , Jon Grumer This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.atom-ph
keywords kilonovanebularspectradielectronicrecombinationr-processelementsnon-LTEspectralsynthesisatomicdatazirconiumselenium
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

This paper asks whether the way recombination is treated in kilonova models matters for what those models predict we should see. The authors compute dielectronic recombination rates for five light r-process elements (Se, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr) and put them into a non-LTE spectral synthesis code. Compared with the usual shortcut of a single constant recombination rate, the new rates change the ionization balance and temperature, and thereby change which spectral lines appear. Zirconium becomes the dominant player, selenium's predicted mid-infrared signature moves from [Se III] at 4.55 μm to [Se I] at 5.03 μm, and the previously proposed Rb I doublet near 7802–7949 Å weakens. The point is that interpreting late-time kilonova spectra hinges on getting recombination microphysics right.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the dielectronic recombination (DR) rate coefficient, a two-step resonant process in which a free electron excites a bound electron and is captured, with radiative stabilization competing against autoionization. The authors compute these rates with the HULLAC atomic-structure code for the five elements, resolve energy levels within 2 eV of each ion's ionization threshold, and sum over autoionizing levels using the Burgess–Nussbaumer–Storey branching-ratio formula. The DR rates feed, together with an Axelrod-formula radiative recombination proxy, into the SUMO non-LTE spectral synthesis code, where they change the ionization balance, temperature, and emergent spectrum.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the radiative recombination rate of Rb II at roughly 3,000–10,000 K: if it exceeds about $10^{-11}$ $cm^{3}$ $s^{-1}$, an order of magnitude above the iron proxy, the model's Rb I 7802/7949 Å weakening collapses. Alternatively, obtain a nebular kilonova spectrum at about 10–25 days with enough sensitivity to check whether the 5.03 μm [Se I] line appears while the 4.55 μm [Se III] line is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the constant total recombination rate of $10^{-11}$ $cm^{3}$ $s^{-1}$ used in earlier nebular-phase kilonova models is a poor stand-in for the element-dependent, temperature-dependent dielectronic recombination rates of Se, Rb, Sr, Y, and Zr. Computed rates at 10,000 K span roughly 2×$10^{-12}$ to 5×$10^{-11}$ $cm^{3}$ $s^{-1}$ for II→I, $10^{-13}$ to 5×$10^{-11}$ for III→II, and 2×$10^{-15}$ to $10^{-11}$ for IV→III. Zr stands out with relatively high rates because its 4d-shell gives a dense, low-lying level structure; Rb II's DR is negligible below 15,000 K. In SUMO models at 10 and 25 days, the new rates lower ionization and temperature, make Zr I a strong coolant and line-blanketing agent, suppress the Rb I and [Se III] features, and bring out [Se I] 5.03 μm. The paper concludes that detailed recombination rates are required to correctly interpret t≳10-day kilonova spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The total recombination rate used in the spectral models sums new dielectronic rates with radiative recombination rates taken from an iron formula (Axelrod 1980) that is assumed to hold for all heavier elements; for rubidium this proxy sets the Rb I abundance, and if the true Rb II radiative recombination rate were an order of magnitude higher, the predicted weakening of the Rb I lines would not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Late-time kilonova spectral identification must be redone with element-specific, temperature-dependent recombination rates, not a single constant.
  • Zirconium's role in light-r-process kilonova spectra is more prominent than previous models suggested, with Zr I blanketing optical flux.
  • The [Se I] 5.03 μm line becomes a candidate diagnostic for selenium, replacing the [Se III] 4.55 μm prediction, and is testable with JWST if a kilonova occurs within about 100 Mpc.
  • The Rb I lines at 7802 and 7949 Å are weakened, lowering confidence in rubidium as the cause of the AT2017gfo 7500–7900 Å feature.
  • Other r-process elements outside Se, Rb, Sr, Y, and Zr also need detailed DR rates before nebular kilonova spectra can be reliably interpreted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same strong element dependence holds for heavier r-process elements such as Ce and Nd, the nebular spectra of heavy-r-process kilonovae may also reshuffle, meaning current line identifications for those elements rest on the same constant-rate assumption.
  • Because the paper shows recombination rates affect temperature indirectly through the cooling abilities of the ions that become abundant, any temperature-sensitive observable, such as line ratios within a single ion, could serve as an indirect probe of recombination microphysics.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same HULLAC DR calculations to Ba, La, and Ce, the next r-process peak, and check whether zirconium-like dominance shifts to another element, which would change predicted near-infrared spectra at 25–40 days.
  • Since the steady-state approximation used here breaks down beyond about 100 days, and recombination rates are already this influential at 25 days, the ionization balance at later epochs could shift even more; time-series modeling could quantify that drift.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes dielectronic recombination (DR) rate coefficients with HULLAC for the light r-process elements Se, Rb, Sr, Y, and Zr, for the recombination stages II-I, III-II, and IV-III, and combines them with Fe-based radiative recombination (RR) rates from the Axelrod (1980) formula. It benchmarks the Se results against NIST threshold energies and against the independent total recombination rates of Sterling & Witthoeft (2011). These rates are then used in the SUMO non-LTE spectral synthesis code to compute kilonova nebular spectra at 10 and 25 days for a light r-process composition, comparing with a model that uses the previous constant recombination rate of 1e-11 cm3 s-1. The authors report that the new rates lower the ionization fraction and temperature, make Zr a more dominant spectral actor through line blanketing, weaken the Rb I 7802/7949 A lines and the [Se III] 4.55 micron line, and bring out a [Se I] 5.03 micron feature. The central conclusion is that detailed recombination rates substantially change modeled nebular spectra.

Significance. If the results hold, this is an important step for kilonova nebular-phase modeling. The paper provides new, physically motivated DR rates for five elements that have not been available before, benchmarks them where possible, and demonstrates that the previously used constant recombination rate is inadequate. The spectral comparison is clean in the sense that the new rates are not fitted to the target spectra; the differences between old and new models are emergent. The paper also makes explicit, falsifiable line predictions, notably the [Se I] 5.03 micron feature and the weakening of Rb I lines, which can be tested with future JWST or ground-based observations. However, one headline result, the Rb I line weakening, rests on an uncalculated and explicitly acknowledged RR proxy for Rb, and the paper does not quantify the sensitivity of that prediction to the proxy. This limits the strength of the advertised spectral conclusions even though the broader claim about the importance of detailed recombination rates is well supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Section 4.3] The predicted weakening of the Rb I 7802/7949 A lines is load-bearing for the abstract and for the discussion of the AT2017gfo 7500-7900 A feature, but it rests almost entirely on the Fe radiative recombination proxy of Axelrod (1980). As the authors state, the DR rate for Rb II is negligible at the relevant temperatures (Section 3.1 and Figure 2), so the total Rb II-I rate is set by the Fe-based RR rate. Section 4.3 notes that this proxy places Rb II-I about two orders of magnitude below the old constant rate, and that the Rb I abundance drops proportionally. The authors also explicitly state that the true Rb RR rate is unknown. A factor-of-ten higher true RR rate would raise the new-model Rb I fraction from 3.3e-4 to roughly 3e-3 in the innermost zone; this is still below the old-model value of 0.017, but line strength is not linear in abundance because of optical depth effects and the competing Zr I blanketing. I ask the authors to supply a sensitivity test with the RR proxy varied by at least an order of magnitude, or to reframe the abstract and Section 4.3 so that the Rb line weakening is presented as conditional on this untested assumption.
  2. [Section 4 and Table 2] The new model applies the detailed recombination rates only to Se, Rb, Sr, Y, and Zr; the remaining elements in the composition, including Kr, which contributes roughly 25 percent of the electron population in Table 2, retain the old constant recombination rate. The comparison between old and new models is therefore not a test of replacing all constant rates with detailed rates. This is a legitimate scoping choice for a first paper in a series, but the broader statements in Section 5 that accurate recombination rates are critical for interpreting t >~ 10 day kilonova spectra should be accompanied by an explicit statement that, for the present model, five of the ten composition elements still use the previous constant treatment. Please clarify this limitation at the point where the conclusions are drawn.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, page 2] The text refers to 'Te (Z= 34)'; tellurium has Z=52, while Z=34 is selenium. Please correct this typo.
  2. [Section 4, models] It would be helpful to state explicitly whether the 'old' model uses the same updated collision strengths and NIST energy-level corrections as the 'new' model. The current wording implies that the old model is identical to Pognan et al. (2023), but the collision-strength scaling and level updates appear to apply to both models; clarifying this will avoid misattributing the spectral differences.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 4] The composition is described as Z=31-40 in Section 4 but as Z=30-40 in the Summary; please make these consistent.
  4. [Figure 10 caption] The caption says 'Detailed ionization structure changes (innermost zone)' but could specify that this is for the five elements with new recombination rates, and the legend I-II-III-IV should be defined in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new recombination rates are computed from atomic structure and benchmarked against independent codes; the acknowledged Rb RR proxy is an uncertainty, not a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The new DR rates are produced from HULLAC structure calculations (Eqs. 2-3) with stated configuration sets, benchmarked against NIST threshold energies (Fig. 1) and independently against AUTOSTRUCTURE calculations of Sterling & Witthoeft (2011) for Se (Sec. 3.3, Fig. 6). No parameter is fitted to the target spectra; the old constant rate and the new total rates are both inputs to the SUMO NLTE solver, and the ionization, temperature, and emergent spectra (Figs. 8-12) are computed consequences. The RR rates are taken from the Axelrod (1980) Fe analytical formula and applied to heavier elements (Sec. 3.2); this is an acknowledged assumption and limitation, and for Rb II to I it is the dominant determinant of the predicted weakening of the Rb I lines (Sec. 4.3). That makes the Rb result sensitivity-dependent, but not circular: the Fe proxy is an external empirical input, not a fitted or redefined version of the predicted Rb I abundance, and the authors explicitly flag the unknown Rb RR rate. The self-citations to prior work by the same group (Pognan et al. 2023 for the old model and SUMO modelling, Banerjee et al. 2022/2024 for HULLAC setup) are contextual and are not used to force the central claim; the central claim is supported by the independent code comparison and by the model-to-model response. No load-bearing step reduces, by construction, to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The spectral predictions rest on several approximations carried over from prior work or introduced here: the Fe RR proxy for all elements, hydrogenic photoionization cross-sections, the steady-state assumption, HULLAC's approximate atomic structure, a particular r-process composition, and an ad hoc collision strength scaling. These are the main sources of uncertainty beyond the new DR calculations.

free parameters (3)
  • Collision strength scaling factor = 10 (multiplicative on Axelrod 1980 values)
    Section 4: chosen ad hoc to improve consistency with Bromley et al. (2023) collision strengths; affects thermal excitation and cooling rates in the spectral models.
  • Autoionizing state energy window = 2 eV
    Section 2.2: only autoionizing levels within 2 eV of the ionization threshold are included in the DR rate calculation; a numerical truncation that affects DR rates, especially for ions such as Rb whose autoionizing levels lie far above threshold.
  • Baseline constant recombination rate (old model) = 1e-11 cm3 s-1
    Input from Pognan et al. (2023) used for the old-model comparison; not fitted here but defines the baseline spectra the new model is compared against.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper RR rates for all elements are approximated by Fe rates from Axelrod (1980)
    Section 3.2: 'The RR rate is estimated for Fe using the analytical method by Axelrod (1980)... and assumed to represent the heavier elements as well.' This is load-bearing for the total recombination rates and the predicted Rb line weakness.
  • domain assumption Photoionization cross-sections are hydrogenic for all elements
    Section 4 and Appendix B: 'We use hydrogenic cross-sections in our radiative transfer simulations.' Adopted from Pognan et al. (2023); affects ionization balance.
  • domain assumption Steady-state approximation holds at t=10 and 25 days
    Appendix C: Assumes instantaneous re-emission of deposited energy; Pognan et al. (2022a) shows validity for t<100 days for most ejecta.
  • domain assumption HULLAC central-field atomic structure is accurate to about 5% in thresholds
    Section 3: Threshold energies agree with NIST to about 5% (15% for Se I and Sr II). DR rates are sensitive to near-threshold level structure, and the level of accuracy is not fully quantified.
  • domain assumption Light r-process composition from Wanajo et al. (2014) Ye=0.35 trajectory
    Section 4: The spectral models use this composition, limited to Z=31-40; results may differ for other compositions or heavier elements.
  • ad hoc to paper Collision strengths scaled by 10 times Axelrod values
    Section 4: 'We use a default collision strength of 10 times the Axelrod (1980) value... to improve consistency with new r-process calculations (Bromley et al. 2023).' Introduced ad hoc for the models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nebular spectra of kilonovae with detailed recombination rates -- I. Light r-process composition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXJ4E3FY

@misc{pith2026250118345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nebular spectra of kilonovae with detailed recombination rates -- I. Light r-process composition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXJ4E3FY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18345}
}
read the original abstract

To investigate spectra of kilonovae in the NLTE phase (t>= 1 week), we perform atomic calculations for dielectronic recombination (DR) rates for the light r-process elements Se (Z = 34), Rb (Z = 37), Sr (Z = 38), Y (Z = 39), and Zr (Z = 40) using the HULLAC code. For the different elements, our results for the DR rate coefficients for recombining from the ionization states of II to I, III to II, and IV to III vary between 2x10^{-12} - 5x10^{-11} cm^3/s, 10^{-13} - 5x10^{-11} cm^3/s and 2x10^{-15} - 10^{-11} cm^3/s, respectively, at a temperature of T = 10,000 K. Using this new atomic data (DR), we study the impact on kilonova model spectra at phases of t = 10 days and t = 25 days after the merger using the spectral synthesis code SUMO. Compared to models using the previous treatment of recombination as a constant rate, the new models show significant changes in ionization and temperature, and correspondingly, in emergent spectra. With the new rates, we find that Zr (Z = 40) plays a yet more dominant role in kilonova spectra for light r-process compositions. Further, we show that previously predicted mid-infrared (e.g. [Se III] 4.55 mum) and optical (e.g. Rb I 7802, 7949 {\AA}) lines weaken in the new model. Instead [Se I] 5.03 mum emerges as a signature. These results demonstrate the importance of considering the detailed microphysics for modelling and interpreting the late-time kilonova spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18345 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The ratio between the (ground state) ionization threshold energies obtained from HULLAC to those provided in the NIST database (Kramida et al. 2020). The results show good agreement across all the different elements considered. els spanning from threshold to E ∼ 10 eV, possible to populate also at low electron temperatures. The values of the DR rates are also quite different between the two ions at all temperatures … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The dielectronic recombination (DR) rates as function of temperature for the different elements. The different panels represent different recombination stages (upper left: II to I, upper right: III to II, bottom: IV to III). peratures (T < 10, 000 K), contrary to assumptions of a temperature-independent value of 10−11 cm3 s −1 used in earlier spectral calculations (Pognan et al. 2023). This assumption might affect t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of energy levels of Rb I (red) and Y I (blue). The vertical lines are the ionization thresholds for the respective elements. The autoionizing levels are to the right of the thresholds. The figure demonstrates that DR can be efficient at low temperatures for Y II to Y I recombination, but not for Rb II to Rb I. 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of transitions Transition Energy (eV) Ra… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of number of transitions from the autoionization levels for neutral Rb I (left) and neutral Y I (right). The solid lines represent radiative stabilisation and the dashed lines represent autoionization. 4, respectively (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radiative recombination (RR) rates (to ground state) as a function of temperatures for Fe calculated using the analytical method by Axelrod (1980) for different ionizations. and thermalization physics described in Kasen & Barnes 2019 and Waxman et al. (2019). For t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The total recombination rates (DR total plus RR ground state) as a function of temperature. The RR is the value for Fe taken from Axelrod (1980). The black curves are the total recombination rates taken from Sterling & Witthoeft (2011), shown for comparison. The differ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The total recombination rates (DR calculated from HULLAC + RR ground calculated from the analytical formula for Fe from Axelrod 1980) for different ions at five different temperatures. The different panels represent different recombination stages (upper left: II to I, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact on electron fraction (left) and temperature (right) of using the new recombination rates, at t = 10 days. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 v/c 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 Electron fraction 25d Old New 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 v/c 3000 3500 4000 4500 Temp…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Detailed ionization structure changes (innermost zone) for the five elements with new recombination rates, at 10d (left) and 25d (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spectrum at 10d of model using old rates (left) and new rates (right), showing the significant impact of the new recombination rates. Specific contributions by Se I (yellow, dashed line) and Se III (blue, dotted line) are plotted. 10 4 Wavelength [Å] 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

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. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Multi-Peaked Non-Thermal Light Curves from Magnetar-Powered Gamma-Ray Bursts

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Magnetar-powered GRBs should show three separate non-thermal emission peaks, with a pulsar wind nebula dominating radio emission for years (SN/LGRBs) or days (KN/SGRBs) after the burst.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 14 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 doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    , Oɰ6җ̕fRu F׊ P@g iӉL2g9k plɁ_m ęF +HyP

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, , 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  5. [5]

    Axelrod , T. S. 1980, Late time optical spectra from the Nickel(56) Model for type I supernovae

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    Badnell , N. R. 1986, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 19, 3827, 10.1088/0022-3700/19/22/023

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3700/19/22/023 1986

  7. [7]

    R., Petrini , D., & Stoica , S

    Badnell , N. R., Petrini , D., & Stoica , S. 1997, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 30, L665, 10.1088/0953-4075/30/19/006

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/30/19/006 1997

  8. [8]

    2024, , 968, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4029

    Banerjee , S., Tanaka , M., Kato , D., & Gaigalas , G. 2024, , 968, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4029

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4029 2024

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.06861

    Banerjee , S., Tanaka , M., Kato , D., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.06861. 2204.06861

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2020, , 901, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae61

    Banerjee , S., Tanaka , M., Kawaguchi , K., Kato , D., & Gaigalas , G. 2020, , 901, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae61

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2001, , 71, 169, 10.1016/S0022-4073(01)00066-8

    Bar-Shalom , A., Klapisch , M., & Oreg , J. 2001, , 71, 169, 10.1016/S0022-4073(01)00066-8

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    J., McCann , M., Loch , S

    Bromley , S. J., McCann , M., Loch , S. D., & Ballance , C. P. 2023, , 268, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5a1

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    1964, , 139, 776, 10.1086/147813

    Burgess , A. 1964, , 139, 776, 10.1086/147813

    1964 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Foley , R

    Coulter , D. A., Foley , R. J., Kilpatrick , C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556, 10.1126/science.aap9811

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Berger , E., Villar , V

    Cowperthwaite , P. S., Berger , E., Villar , V. A., et al. 2017, , 848, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2022, , 939, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    Domoto , N., Tanaka , M., Kato , D., et al. 2022, , 939, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Piro , A

    Drout , M. R., Piro , A. L., Shappee , B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570, 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Eichler , D., Livio , M., Piran , T., & Schramm , D. N. 1989, , 340, 126, 10.1038/340126a0

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    Freiburghaus , C., Rosswog , S., & Thielemann , F. K. 1999, , 525, L121, 10.1086/312343

    1999 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, Computer Physics Communications, 237, 184, 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.10.032

    Froese Fischer , C., Gaigalas , G., J \"o nsson , P., & Biero \'n , J. 2019, Computer Physics Communications, 237, 184, 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.10.032

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    H., Smartt , S

    Gillanders , J. H., Smartt , S. J., Sim , S. A., Bauswein , A., & Goriely , S. 2022, , 515, 631, 10.1093/mnras/stac1258

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Gu , M. F. 2008, Canadian Journal of Physics, 86, 675, 10.1139/P07-197

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, , 506, 5863, 10.1093/mnras/stab1975

    Hotokezaka , K., Tanaka , M., Kato , D., & Gaigalas , G. 2021, , 506, 5863, 10.1093/mnras/stab1975

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, , 515, L89, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac071

    ---. 2022, , 515, L89, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac071

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, , 526, L155, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad128

    ---. 2023, , 526, L155, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad128

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Jerkstrand , A. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 795, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_29

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2011, , 530, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015937

    Jerkstrand , A., Fransson , C., & Kozma , C. 2011, , 530, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015937

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    2019, , 876, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2

    Kasen , D., & Barnes , J. 2019, , 876, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, , 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

    Kasen , D., Metzger , B., Barnes , J., Quataert , E., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2017, , 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2018, , 865, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aade02

    Kawaguchi , K., Shibata , M., & Tanaka , M. 2018, , 865, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aade02

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, , 889, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f6

    ---. 2020, , 889, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f6

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    2012, , 426, 1940, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x

    Korobkin , O., Rosswog , S., Arcones , A., & Winteler , C. 2012, , 426, 1940, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x

    2012

  25. [33]

    T., Fryer , C

    Korobkin , O., Wollaeger , R. T., Fryer , C. L., et al. 2021, , 910, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1b5

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Ralchenko , Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team

    Kramida, A., Yu. Ralchenko , Reader, J., & and NIST ASD Team . 2020, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.8), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2021, April 15]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2020

  27. [35]

    Kulkarni , S. R. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro. astro-ph/0510256

    2005 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M., & Schramm , D

    Lattimer , J. M., & Schramm , D. N. 1974, , 192, L145, 10.1086/181612

    1974 doi

  29. [37]

    1998, , 507, L59, 10.1086/311680

    Li , L.-X., & Paczy \'n ski , B. 1998, , 507, L59, 10.1086/311680

    1998 doi

  30. [38]

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

    Metzger , B. D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G., Darbha , S., et al. 2010, , 406, 2650, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    2010

  31. [39]

    Moore , C. E. 1971, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 3, 154--155

    1971

  32. [40]

    E., Johansson , S., & Kurucz , R

    Nilsson , A. E., Johansson , S., & Kurucz , R. L. 1991, , 44, 226, 10.1088/0031-8949/44/3/003

    1991 doi

  33. [41]

    Nussbaumer , H., & Storey , P. J. 1983, , 126, 75

    1983

  34. [42]

    Palmer , B. A. 1977, PhD thesis, Purdue University, Indiana

    1977

  35. [43]

    2017, , 850, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9

    Perego , A., Radice , D., & Bernuzzi , S. 2017, , 850, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, , 526, 5220, 10.1093/mnras/stad3106

    Pognan , Q., Grumer , J., Jerkstrand , A., & Wanajo , S. 2023, , 526, 5220, 10.1093/mnras/stad3106

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2022 a , , 510, 3806, 10.1093/mnras/stab3674

    Pognan , Q., Jerkstrand , A., & Grumer , J. 2022 a , , 510, 3806, 10.1093/mnras/stab3674

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2022 b , , 513, 5174, 10.1093/mnras/stac1253

    ---. 2022 b , , 513, 5174, 10.1093/mnras/stac1253

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    P., Badnell , N

    Preval , S. P., Badnell , N. R., & O'Mullane , M. G. 2019, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 52, 025201, 10.1088/1361-6455/aaf3f4

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    1997, , 55, 310, 10.1088/0031-8949/55/3/009

    Reader , J., & Acquista , N. 1997, , 55, 310, 10.1088/0031-8949/55/3/009

    1997 doi

  41. [49]

    2018, , 615, A132, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732117

    Rosswog , S., Sollerman , J., Feindt , U., et al. 2018, , 615, A132, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732117

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2017, , 96, 123012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123012

    Shibata , M., Fujibayashi , S., Hotokezaka , K., et al. 2017, , 96, 123012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123012

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    J., Chen , T

    Smartt , S. J., Chen , T. W., Jerkstrand , A., et al. 2017, , 551, 75, 10.1038/nature24303

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, , 690, A398, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450317

    Sneppen , A., Watson , D., Damgaard , R., et al. 2024, , 690, A398, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450317

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    H., & Heintz , K

    Sneppen , A., Watson , D., Gillanders , J. H., & Heintz , K. E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.02258, 10.48550/arXiv.2312.02258

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    Sterling , N. C. 2011, , 533, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117471

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    C., & Witthoeft , M

    Sterling , N. C., & Witthoeft , M. C. 2011, , 529, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/201116718

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    A., et al

    Tanaka , M., Utsumi , Y., Mazzali , P. A., et al. 2017, , 69, 102, 10.1093/pasj/psx121

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    2018, , 852, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0cb

    Tanaka , M., Kato , D., Gaigalas , G., et al. 2018, , 852, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0cb

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    2017, , 69, 101, 10.1093/pasj/psx118

    Utsumi , Y., Tanaka , M., Tominaga , N., Yoshida , M., & et al. 2017, , 69, 101, 10.1093/pasj/psx118

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Yang , S., et al

    Valenti , S., Sand , D. J., Yang , S., et al. 2017, , 848, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    2014, , 789, L39, 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L39

    Wanajo , S., Sekiguchi , Y., Nishimura , N., & et al. 2014, , 789, L39, 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L39

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Selsing , J., et al

    Watson , D., Hansen , C. J., Selsing , J., et al. 2019, , 574, 497, 10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    O., & Kushnir , D

    Waxman , E., Ofek , E. O., & Kushnir , D. 2019, , 878, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f71

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    T., Fryer , C

    Wollaeger , R. T., Fryer , C. L., Fontes , C. J., et al. 2019, , 880, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab25f5

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    T., Fryer , C

    Wollaeger , R. T., Fryer , C. L., Chase , E. A., et al. 2021, , 918, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0d03

    2021 doi

  57. [65]

    2017, , 851, L48, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07d

    Yang , S., Valenti , S., Cappellaro , E., et al. 2017, , 851, L48, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07d

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.