arxiv: 2512.24257 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Improved lanthanide constraints for the kilonova AT 2017gfo

J. H. Gillanders , A. Flors , R. Ferreira da Silva This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 19:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

keywords kilonovaAT 2017gfolanthanider-processatomic dataTARDISspectroscopyopacity

0 comments

The pith

Improved lanthanide line lists require a twenty times lower mass fraction to fit the spectrum of kilonova AT 2017gfo.

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

The paper applies newly available, more complete atomic line data for lanthanide elements to radiative transfer models of the kilonova AT 2017gfo. Using the TARDIS code on the 3.4-day spectrum, the authors show that the observed features are matched with a lanthanide mass fraction of roughly 0.0025 in the line-forming region. This is about twenty times smaller than values inferred in earlier studies that relied on incomplete line lists. The reduction occurs because the fuller data better accounts for the cumulative opacity from lanthanides, preventing the need to invoke large abundances to explain the spectrum. Such a revision affects estimates of the total r-process material produced in the neutron star merger.

Core claim

Incorporating updated and more complete lanthanide line lists into TARDIS modeling of the photospheric spectrum of AT 2017gfo at 3.4 days demonstrates that the data can be reproduced with a lanthanide mass fraction X_ln approximately equal to 2.5 times 10 to the minus 3, a value twenty times lower than previously claimed. This result follows from the improved estimation of the total contribution of lanthanides to the observed opacity.

What carries the argument

The TARDIS radiative transfer code combined with expanded lanthanide atomic line lists, which provide a more accurate total opacity calculation for these elements in the ejecta.

Load-bearing premise

That the TARDIS models with the new lanthanide lines fully capture the dominant opacity without large systematic errors from omitted lines of other elements or from the assumed ejecta structure.

What would settle it

Independent modeling of the same spectrum with complete atomic data for additional r-process elements that still requires a lanthanide fraction near 5 percent to achieve a fit would falsify the low value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24257 by A. Flors, J. H. Gillanders, R. Ferreira da Silva.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Comparison of the best-fitting tardis model from Gillanders et al. (2022) (blue) with the observed 3.4 d X-shooter spectrum of AT 2017gfo (black). Regions of strong telluric absorption are shaded. We also show the resultant spectrum obtained by re-generating this best-fitting model with the updated tardis code and its corrected relativistic treatment (orange), to illustrate the impact this correction has … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Top: Updated best-fitting models compared with the 3.4 d X-shooter spectrum of AT 2017gfo (black). Regions of strong telluric absorption in the observations are shaded. The re-scaled 𝑇 = 3200 K model that closely matches that of Gillanders et al. (2022) is again shown (red). The same model generated with our updated atomic data set is plotted for comparison (blue). Note how the entire SED has changed shape… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Top: Comparison between our new best-fitting model (blue), our old best-fitting model (red), and the 3.4 d X-shooter spectrum of AT 2017gfo (black). Regions of strong telluric absorption are again shaded. This bestfitting model was obtained with a modified version of the 𝑌𝑒−0.29a composition profile. Bottom: Model decomposition plot for our new best-fitting model. of ejecta may contain heavier𝑟-process s… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison between the Solar 𝑟-process distributions of Goriely (1999) (black) and Prantzos et al. (2020) (blue), the 𝑌𝑒−0.29a composition profile of Gillanders et al. (2022) (orange), and our re-scaled composition profile invoked in this work (red). All distributions have been re-scaled such that they have identical 52Te relative mass fractions. Elements of interest have been labelled, and shaded regions … view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Spectroscopic observations of the kilonova AT 2017gfo provide a unique opportunity to identify signatures from individual heavy elements freshly synthesised via the r-process, the nucleosynthetic channel responsible for producing $\sim$half of all trans-iron-group elements. Limitations in the available atomic data have historically hampered comprehensive line identification studies; however, renewed interest has led to the generation of improved (more complete and accurately calibrated) line lists for r-process species. Here we demonstrate the utility of such data, by exploiting newly generated line lists for the lanthanides to model the photospheric-phase 3.4d X-shooter spectrum of AT 2017gfo with the radiative transfer tool TARDIS. We find the data can only be reproduced by invoking a substantially diminished lanthanide mass fraction ($X_{\textsc{ln}}$) than that proposed by previous studies. Specifically, our model necessitates $X_{\textsc{ln}} \approx 2.5 \times 10^{-3}$ in the line-forming region, a value $20 \times$ lower than previously claimed. This substantial reduction in $X_{\textsc{ln}}$ is driven by our inclusion of much more complete lanthanide line information that enables better estimation of their total contribution to the observations. We encourage future modelling works to exploit all atomic data advances, and also encourage continued efforts to generate the necessary data for the remaining r-process species of interest.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

New lanthanide line lists force a 20x lower X_ln to fit the 3.4d spectrum of AT 2017gfo, but the result rests on an untested 1D ejecta structure.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper uses newly generated lanthanide line lists inside TARDIS to model the 3.4-day X-shooter spectrum of AT 2017gfo and ends up needing X_ln around 2.5e-3, roughly 20 times smaller than earlier estimates. The reduction comes directly from the more complete opacity contribution once the extra lines are included, so the fit requires less lanthanide material to match the observed features. That is the concrete new result. The work does a straightforward job of showing the practical effect of better atomic data on an existing code and a well-known event. It is a clear demonstration that prior line lists were missing significant opacity, and the authors are right to push for wider use of the updated lists. The soft spot is the lack of any test against changes in the assumed 1D density power law or photosphere velocity. The stress-test concern holds up: shifting those parameters moves the optical-depth surface and can alter the abundance needed to reproduce line depths by a large factor, even with identical atomic data. The abstract gives no sign that such variations were checked, so the exact factor of 20 is tied to the fiducial structure. The paper is aimed at people who model kilonova spectra and r-process yields. Anyone updating nucleosynthesis calculations or planning follow-up observations of future events will want the revised number. It is a modest but useful incremental step rather than a new method. I would send it to peer review; the core claim is verifiable with the new data and the limitation is easy to flag for revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper models the photospheric-phase 3.4 d X-shooter spectrum of kilonova AT 2017gfo using the TARDIS radiative transfer code together with newly generated lanthanide line lists. It reports that the spectrum can be reproduced only with a lanthanide mass fraction X_ln ≈ 2.5 × 10^{-3} in the line-forming region, a value stated to be 20× lower than previous claims, and attributes the reduction to the more complete opacity contribution captured by the updated atomic data.

Significance. If the central result holds after robustness checks, the work would revise downward the lanthanide abundance required to explain AT 2017gfo spectra, tightening constraints on r-process yields in neutron-star mergers. Credit is due for incorporating recent atomic-data advances into a standard radiative-transfer framework and for producing a concrete, observationally testable abundance value.

major comments (2)

[Modeling description (abstract and §3)] The headline claim (X_ln ≈ 2.5 × 10^{-3}, 20× lower) is obtained by varying only the lanthanide mass fraction inside a single fixed 1D TARDIS model. No explicit tests are shown that vary the density power-law index or the velocity coordinate of the photosphere; because the new line lists increase total opacity and therefore shift the τ=1 surface, even modest changes in the adopted ejecta structure can alter the X_ln needed to match observed line depths by a large factor.
[Results and discussion] The paper states that the spectrum 'can only be reproduced' with the lower X_ln once the new line lists are included, yet no direct side-by-side comparison is presented of the same density/velocity structure run with the old versus new lanthanide data. Without that differential test it remains unclear how much of the factor-of-20 reduction is genuinely due to the improved atomic data versus differences in the underlying ejecta model.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The notation X_ln (or X_{ln}) should be defined explicitly on first use and the precise radial region over which it is assumed constant should be stated.
[Figures and methods] Figure captions (or the methods section) should list the exact density power-law index, photospheric velocity, and temperature structure adopted for the fiducial model so that the result can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Modeling description (abstract and §3)] The headline claim (X_ln ≈ 2.5 × 10^{-3}, 20× lower) is obtained by varying only the lanthanide mass fraction inside a single fixed 1D TARDIS model. No explicit tests are shown that vary the density power-law index or the velocity coordinate of the photosphere; because the new line lists increase total opacity and therefore shift the τ=1 surface, even modest changes in the adopted ejecta structure can alter the X_ln needed to match observed line depths by a large factor.

Authors: We acknowledge that our primary models hold the ejecta density profile and photospheric velocity fixed while varying only X_ln. The referee correctly notes that increased opacity from the new line lists will shift the τ=1 surface, and that modest changes to the underlying structure could affect the precise X_ln required. To address this, we will add a new subsection in the revised manuscript presenting additional TARDIS runs that vary the density power-law index (e.g., ±0.5 around the fiducial value) and the photospheric velocity coordinate. These tests will demonstrate that the factor-of-20 reduction in X_ln remains robust within the range of structures consistent with the observed spectrum, thereby isolating the dominant role of the improved atomic data. revision: yes
Referee: [Results and discussion] The paper states that the spectrum 'can only be reproduced' with the lower X_ln once the new line lists are included, yet no direct side-by-side comparison is presented of the same density/velocity structure run with the old versus new lanthanide data. Without that differential test it remains unclear how much of the factor-of-20 reduction is genuinely due to the improved atomic data versus differences in the underlying ejecta model.

Authors: We agree that an explicit differential test with identical ejecta parameters is necessary to quantify the contribution of the new line lists. In the submitted manuscript the model was optimized using the updated data, so a direct old-versus-new comparison under the same density and velocity structure was not shown. We will add this comparison to the revised version, including a figure that overlays the synthetic spectra obtained with the previous lanthanide line lists (under the same TARDIS configuration) against those with the new lists. This will clearly illustrate the increase in total opacity and the consequent reduction in required X_ln attributable to the atomic-data improvement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Fitted lanthanide mass fraction presented as model necessity

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
"our model necessitates X_ln ≈ 2.5 × 10^{-3} in the line-forming region, a value 20 × lower than previously claimed."

The X_ln value is determined by varying the lanthanide mass fraction inside the TARDIS radiative-transfer calculation until the synthetic spectrum reproduces the observed features. The reported 'necessitated' abundance is therefore the tuned parameter that matches the data rather than a quantity derived independently of the fit.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is obtained by adjusting X_ln in a TARDIS model until the synthetic spectrum matches the observed 3.4 d data. The reported value is therefore the fitted parameter that reproduces the line depths once the new line lists are included; it is not an independent prediction or first-principles derivation. The new atomic data supply an independent input, but the headline abundance constraint reduces directly to the fit. No self-citation load-bearing or definitional circularity is present in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on fitting one abundance parameter inside a standard radiative-transfer code whose atomic data and ejecta assumptions are taken as given.

free parameters (1)

X_ln = 2.5e-3
Lanthanide mass fraction in the line-forming region, adjusted to match the observed spectrum.

axioms (1)

domain assumption TARDIS assumptions for photospheric-phase radiative transfer (density profile, velocity field, and level populations)
Standard code assumptions invoked to generate the synthetic spectrum that is then matched to data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5572 in / 1238 out tokens · 39338 ms · 2026-05-16T19:11:54.557869+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Strontium and helium in the kilonova AT2017gfo: Origin of the 1{\mu}m feature constrained via NLTE calculations
astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

NLTE calculations indicate strontium is required to explain the onset of the 1μm feature at early times in AT2017gfo, while helium can dominate at later epochs with plausible masses.
Exploring the diversity of kilonovae with 3D radiative transfer I. The polar direction
astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Dynamical ejecta from neutron star mergers reproduce key spectral properties of AT2017gfo in polar views, with features from Sr II, La III and other ions appearing at earlier times than observed.
The early r-process nucleosynthesis scenarios
astro-ph.HE 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 3.0

Magnetorotational r-process best explains lighter elements and CEJSN explains the third peak based on scatter and iron correlations in early metal-poor stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L12, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017
[2]

T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...78B 773, 78

Bauswein A., Goriely S., Janka H. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/78 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...78B 773, 78

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/78 2013
[3]

Bi \'e mont E., Palmeri P., Quinet P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1017049314691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Ap&SS.269..635B 269, 635

work page doi:10.1023/a:1017049314691 1999
[4]

P., Landi E., Mason H

Dere K. P., Landi E., Mason H. E., Monsignori Fossi B. C., Young P. R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1997368 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&AS..125..149D 125, 149

work page doi:10.1051/aas:1997368 1997
[5]

P., Del Zanna G., Young P

Dere K. P., Del Zanna G., Young P. R., Landi E., Sutherland R. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab05cf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..241...22D 241, 22

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab05cf 2019
[6]

Domoto N., Tanaka M., Wanajo S., Kawaguchi K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...26D 913, 26

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf358 2021
[7]

Domoto N., Tanaka M., Kato D., Kawaguchi K., Hotokezaka K., Wanajo S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...939....8D 939, 8

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36 2022
[8]

J., McElroy N

Dougan D. J., McElroy N. E., Ballance C. P., Ramsbottom C. A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.541..367D 541, 367

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1013 2025
[9]

L., Ballance C

Dunleavy N. L., Ballance C. P., Ramsbottom C. A., Johnson C. A., Loch S. D., Ennis D. A., 2022, @doi [Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics] 10.1088/1361-6455/ac8089 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JPhB...55q5002D 55, 175002

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6455/ac8089 2022
[10]

N., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1038/340126a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.340..126E 340, 126

Eichler D., Livio M., Piran T., Schramm D. N., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1038/340126a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.340..126E 340, 126

work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989
[11]

Fl \"o rs A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3083F 524, 3083

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2053 2023
[12]

P., Sampaio J

Fl \"o rs A., Ferreira da Silva R., Marques J. P., Sampaio J. M., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07785 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250707785F p. arXiv:2507.07785

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07785 2025
[13]

K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...525L.121F 525, L121

Freiburghaus C., Rosswog S., Thielemann F. K., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...525L.121F 525, L121

work page doi:10.1086/312343 1999
[14]

H., McCann M., Sim S

Gillanders J. H., McCann M., Sim S. A., Smartt S. J., Ballance C. P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.3560G 506, 3560

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1861 2021
[15]

H., Smartt S

Gillanders J. H., Smartt S. J., Sim S. A., Bauswein A., Goriely S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515..631G 515, 631

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1258 2022
[16]

H., Sim S

Gillanders J. H., Sim S. A., Smartt S. J., Goriely S., Bauswein A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3688 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.2918G 529, 2918

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3688 2024
[17]

Goriely S., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...342..881G 342, 881

work page 1999
[18]

Goriely S., Bauswein A., Janka H.-T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738L..32G 738, L32

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/l32 2011
[19]

L., Lema \^ tre J

Goriely S., Sida J. L., Lema \^ tre J. F., Panebianco S., Dubray N., Hilaire S., Bauswein A., Janka H. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.242502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.111x2502G 111, 242502

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.242502 2013
[20]

T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3894G 452, 3894

Goriely S., Bauswein A., Just O., Pllumbi E., Janka H. T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1526 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3894G 452, 3894

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1526 2015
[21]

F., 2008, @doi [Canadian Journal of Physics] 10.1139/p07-197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008CaJPh..86..675G 86, 675

Gu M. F., 2008, @doi [Canadian Journal of Physics] 10.1139/p07-197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008CaJPh..86..675G 86, 675

work page doi:10.1139/p07-197 2008
[22]

Hjorth J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..31H 848, L31

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9110 2017
[23]

Hotokezaka K., Tanaka M., Kato D., Gaigalas G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526L.155H 526, L155

work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad128 2023
[24]

T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..541J 448, 541

Just O., Bauswein A., Ardevol Pulpillo R., Goriely S., Janka H. T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448..541J 448, 541

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv009 2015
[25]

e L., Rynkun P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2670K 535, 2670

Kato D., Tanaka M., Gaigalas G., Kitovien \. e L., Rynkun P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535.2670K 535, 2670

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2504 2024
[26]

E., Sim S

Kerzendorf W. E., Sim S. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu055 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..387K 440, 387

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu055 2014
[27]

Korobkin O., Rosswog S., Arcones A., Winteler C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.1940K 426, 1940

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x 2012
[28]

L., 2018, in Workshop on Astrophysical Opacities

Kurucz R. L., 2018, in Workshop on Astrophysical Opacities. p. 47

work page 2018
[29]

Kurucz R., Bell B., 1995, Robert Kurucz CD-ROM, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995KurCD..23.....K 23

work page 1995
[30]

M., Schramm D

Lattimer J. M., Schramm D. N., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...192L.145L 192, L145

work page doi:10.1086/181612 1974
[31]

Li L.-X., Paczy \'n ski B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311680 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...507L..59L 507, L59

work page doi:10.1086/311680 1998
[32]

D., Ballance C

McCann M., Bromley S., Loch S. D., Ballance C. P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.4723M 509, 4723

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3285 2022
[33]

P., Loch S

McCann M., Ballance C. P., Loch S. D., Ennis D. A., 2024, @doi [Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics] 10.1088/1361-6455/ad7cad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JPhB...57w5202M 57, 235202

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6455/ad7cad 2024
[34]

P., McNeill F., Sim S

McCann M., Ballance C. P., McNeill F., Sim S. A., Ramsbottom C. A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540.2923M 540, 2923

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf866 2025
[35]

D., 2019, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019LRR....23....1M 23, 1

Metzger B. D., 2019, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019LRR....23....1M 23, 1

work page doi:10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 2019
[36]

G., Vernon I., Goldstein M., Benson A

Metzger B. D., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.2650M 406, 2650

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x 2010
[37]

P., McElroy N

Mulholland L. P., McElroy N. E., McNeill F. L., Sim S. A., Ballance C. P., Ramsbottom C. A., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2289M 532, 2289

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1615
[38]

P., McNeill F., Sim S

Mulholland L. P., McNeill F., Sim S. A., Ballance C. P., Ramsbottom C. A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.3423M 534, 3423

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2331
[39]

P., Ramsbottom C

Mulholland L. P., Ramsbottom C. A., Ballance C. P., Sneppen A., Sim S. A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.17357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251017357M p. arXiv:2510.17357

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17357 2025
[40]

a ppeli R., Arcones A., Liebend \

Perego A., Rosswog S., Cabez \'o n R. M., Korobkin O., K \"a ppeli R., Arcones A., Liebend \"o rfer M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.3134P 443, 3134

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1352 2014
[41]

Perego A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...22P 925, 22

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751 2022
[42]

Pian E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...67P 551, 67

work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017
[43]

Pognan Q., Grumer J., Jerkstrand A., Wanajo S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.5220P 526, 5220

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3106 2023
[44]

Prantzos N., Abia C., Cristallo S., Limongi M., Chieffi A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.1832P 491, 1832

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3154 2020
[45]

Quinet P., Palmeri P., 2020, @doi [Atoms] 10.3390/atoms8020018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Atoms...8...18Q 8, 18

work page doi:10.3390/atoms8020018 2020
[46]

K., Davies M

Rosswog S., Liebend \"o rfer M., Thielemann F. K., Davies M. B., Benz W., Piran T., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...341..499R 341, 499

work page 1999
[47]

J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf29a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L..41S 954, L41

Shingles L. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf29a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L..41S 954, L41

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf29a 2023
[48]

J., Chen, T

Smartt S. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...75S 551, 75

work page doi:10.1038/nature24303 2017
[49]

T., Ballance C

Smyth R. T., Ballance C. P., Ramsbottom C. A., Johnson C. A., Ennis D. A., Loch S. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.052705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvA..97e2705S 97, 052705

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.97.052705 2018
[50]

Sneppen A., Watson D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...675A.194S 675, A194

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346421 2023
[51]

N., 1982, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApL....22..143S 22, 143

Symbalisty E., Schramm D. N., 1982, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApL....22..143S 22, 143

work page 1982
[52]

Tanaka M., Kato D., Gaigalas G., Kawaguchi K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1369T 496, 1369

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1576 2020
[53]

J., Haggard D., Ford N., Drout M

Vieira N., Ruan J. J., Haggard D., Ford N., Drout M. R., Fern \'a ndez R., Badnell N. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acae72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944..123V 944, 123

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acae72 2023
[54]

J., Haggard D., Ford N

Vieira N., Ruan J. J., Haggard D., Ford N. M., Drout M. R., Fern \'a ndez R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962...33V 962, 33

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1193 2024
[55]

A., Noebauer U

Vogl C., Sim S. A., Noebauer U. M., Kerzendorf W. E., Hillebrandt W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A..29V 621, A29

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833701 2019
[56]

Wanajo S., Sekiguchi Y., Nishimura N., Kiuchi K., Kyutoku K., Shibata M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789L..39W 789, L39

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/l39 2014
[57]

Watson D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.574..497W 574, 497

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3 2019
[58]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

work page