pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.11032 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Impact of in situ nuclear networks and atomic opacities on neutron star merger ejecta dynamics, nucleosynthesis, and kilonovae

Fabio Magistrelli , Sebastiano Bernuzzi , Albino Perego , Maximilian Jacobi , Christopher J. Fontes This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 22:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron star mergerskilonovaer-process nucleosynthesisnuclear networksatomic opacitiesradiation hydrodynamicsejecta dynamicsthermalization
0
0 comments X

The pith

In situ nuclear networks and frequency-dependent atomic opacities are required for accurate neutron star merger ejecta nucleosynthesis and kilonova modeling.

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

The paper compares simplified prescriptions for nuclear heating, thermalization, and opacities against in-situ nuclear networks and composition-dependent, frequency-dependent atomic opacities in radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of binary neutron star merger ejecta. Ejecta profiles from numerical relativity are evolved to thirty days in a two-dimensional ray-by-ray setup, revealing that coupling nuclear networks to hydrodynamics changes abundance patterns and that nuclear heating back-reaction alters early emission timing and color. Simplified constant thermalization underestimates early luminosity while overestimating late emission, and analytic opacities produce dimmer, redder light curves at early times with prolonged late emission. Resolving the first hundreds of milliseconds proves essential because it controls the final r-process yields and temperature evolution. These results matter for linking gravitational-wave events to electromagnetic observations and for tracing the origin of heavy elements.

Core claim

Coupling in-situ nuclear networks to hydrodynamics in BNSM ejecta simulations alters nucleosynthesis outcomes, producing a narrower second r-process peak and a third peak shifted to higher mass numbers under homologous expansion assumptions. Nuclear heating back-reaction delays and reddens early kilonova emission. Constant thermalization underestimates early luminosity and overestimates late emission, while analytical opacities yield dimmer and redder emission at early times and prolonged emission after five days. Composition-dependent thermalization and frequency-dependent atomic opacities are needed to capture ejecta temperature and kilonova brightness and color evolution correctly, though

What carries the argument

In-situ nuclear reaction networks that track energy deposition in real time, coupled to a composition-dependent thermalization scheme and frequency-dependent atomic-physics-based opacities inside a 2D ray-by-ray radiation-hydrodynamics evolution.

If this is right

  • Resolving the first hundreds of milliseconds of hydrodynamics is essential for robust nucleosynthesis calculations.
  • Nuclear heating back-reaction delays and reddens the early emission.
  • A constant thermalization underestimates the early luminosity and overestimates the late emission.
  • Analytical opacities yield dimmer and redder kilonovae at early times and prolonged emission at later times.
  • Assuming homologous expansion alters the abundance evolution and produces narrower second and shifted third r-process peaks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Current interpretations of kilonova observations that rely on simplified physics may need quantitative revision once detailed networks and opacities become standard.
  • The results suggest that analytic nuclear-power fits remain useful for approximating density and temperature evolution even when detailed networks are used.
  • Improved early-time modeling could tighten constraints on the neutron-star equation of state when gravitational-wave and electromagnetic data are combined.
  • Extending the approach to three dimensions would test whether the reported differences in abundance patterns and light curves survive full geometric effects.

Load-bearing premise

The two-dimensional ray-by-ray radiation-hydrodynamics treatment and the initial ejecta profiles taken from numerical-relativity simulations are sufficiently accurate to support quantitative conclusions about nucleosynthesis and light-curve differences.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional simulation or an observed kilonova whose early-time spectrum or late-time decay deviates markedly from the detailed-opacity run while matching the simplified-opacity run would falsify the necessity of the advanced treatments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.11032 by Albino Perego, Christopher J. Fontes, Fabio Magistrelli, Maximilian Jacobi, Sebastiano Bernuzzi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Nuclear power as a function of time. All the tra￾jectories have initial entropy s0 ≃ 11 kB baryon−1 , expan￾sion timescale τ0 ≃ 8.6 ms, and electron fraction Ye ∈ [0.02, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.46, 0.48, 0.54] indicated by the color map. The vertical dashed lines mark the transition between the early- and late-times fits. Top panel: SkyNet calculations (solid lines) and estimate from the updated (dashed line… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Thermodynamic profile of the ejecta at the beginning of the kNECnn simulation for the BLh 1.43 binary. From left to right and top to bottom, the quadrants show the initial density, temperature, entropy and electron fraction. profile by positioning the latest shell at r0 = rext, and progres￾sively layering previously ejected shells on top. The initial profile extracted from the BLh 1.43 simulation is shown … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mass-weighted nucleosynthesis yields at t ≃ 5 × 104 s for the BLh (left column) and DD2 (right column) ejecta profiles. Top panels: Final yields for the simulations performed with in-situ NN (blue) or using analytical fits for the nuclear power and post-processing the nucleosynthesis either on the original thermodynamic trajectories (orange), or on analytical density evolutions prescribed from a grid of in… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the mass-weighted abundances for selected isotopes and cumulative abundances of lanthanides and ac￾tinides. The first and second columns refer to simulations ThK-S BLh and ThK-S DD2, respectively. The top and bottom rows show the results obtained with in-situ NN and their relative differences with respect to the post-processed abundances computed with the tracer method. The horizontal das… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted AB apparent magnitudes in the Gemini u, g, i and Ks bands for an observer at a polar angle of 30 degrees and a distance of 40 Mpc. Comparison between the simulations using in-situ NN (solid lines) and analytical nuclear power fits (dashed lines). All models adopt simple (no composition-dependent) thermalization and opacity models. The left and right panels show results for the BLh and DD2 ejecta … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contributions to the internal energy of the BLh ejecta for the simple and detailed thermalization schemes described in Sec. 2.4 (left column), and for selected opacity models from Sec. 2.5 (right column). Top: Average pressure work (blue), nu￾clear heating (orange), and radiation energy (red) per unit time and per fluid element, mass-weighted over the ejecta. Bottom: Ratio of nuclear heating and radiation … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted AB apparent magnitudes in the Gemini u, g, i and Ks bands for an observer at a polar angle of 30 degrees and a distance of 40 Mpc. Comparison between the BLh simulations using in-situ NN and either the time-dependent, composition￾based thermalization scheme (solid lines) or a constant thermal￾ization factor (dashed lines). factor therefore underestimates the nuclear contribution to the internal e… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the gray opacity κgray for a sampling of fluid elements across all angles and depths, from simulations using different opacity models. Top row: Runs using the analytical expression from Wu et al. (2022) (left) or the prescription from Just et al. (2022) (right). Central row: Simulations with Rosseland (left) or Planck (right) gray opacities computed from the LANL data for neodymium as represe… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Position (top), temperature (middle) and spherically￾symmetry-equivalent luminosity (bottom) of the effective gray photosphere for the BLh profile. Line styles and colors distin￾guish between different opacity models and angular sections, re￾spectively. 3.5. Impact of a polar jet As a representative example of the effect that a jet as described in Sec. 2.6 can have on our results, we run again the GK mode… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Predicted AB apparent magnitudes in the Gemini u, g, i and Ks bands for an observer at a polar angle of 30 degrees and a distance of 40 Mpc. Comparison between a series of opacity models applied to the BLh profile. Left: Frequency- and composition￾dependent opacities based on atomic calculations for neodymium and uranium (solid lines), versus the Just et al. (2022) prescription (dashed) and the simple Wu … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time evolution of the mass-weighted abundances for se￾lected isotopes and cumulative lanthanides and actinides abun￾dances in the GK simulation, considering only matter ejected at latitudes θ ≲ 15 degrees. The vertical black lines mark the time interval during which the thermal bomb is active. Top panel: Absolute abundances from the simulation including a polar jet (jet). Bottom panel: Relative difference… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Late-time (t ≃ 3 days) ratios between the mass-weighted histograms of the density, temperature and instantaneous ther￾malized heating rate obtained from the BLh runs using the in￾situ NN and our most advance thermalization and opacity pre￾scriptions (NdU300), or from the 2D ray-by-ray extension of the configuration of Wu et al. (2022) (Apr2 BLh). The left [right] column shows the ratios as functions of th… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Predicted AB apparent magnitudes in the Gemini u, g, i and Ks bands for an observer at a polar angle of 30 degrees and a distance of 40 Mpc. Comparison between the BLh simulations using in-situ NN and our most advanced models for thermaliza￾tion and opacity (solid lines), or the 2D ray-by-ray extension of the setup of Wu et al. (2022), with their constant prescription for thermalization and opacity, and o… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Modeling binary neutron star merger (BNSM) ejecta evolution requires simulations involving hydrodynamics, nuclear reactions, and radiative processes. The impact of nuclear burning and atomic opacity is poorly understood and often treated with simplified prescriptions. We systematically investigate different treatments of nuclear heating, thermalization, and opacities in radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of BNSM ejecta and kilonova light curves. Ejecta from long-term numerical-relativity simulations are evolved to ~30 days using a 2D ray-by-ray approach. We compare simplified heating-rates, thermalization prescriptions, and gray opacities with in-situ nuclear networks (NN) that track energy deposition, and include a composition-dependent thermalization scheme and frequency-dependent, atomic-physics-based opacities. Coupling NN and hydrodynamics affects nucleosynthesis and kilonova emission. Assuming homologous expansion alters the abundance evolution and produces a narrower second $r$-process peak and a third peak shifted to higher mass numbers. Nuclear heating back-reaction delays and reddens the early emission. A constant thermalization underestimates the early luminosity and overestimates the late emission. Analytical opacities yield dimmer and redder kilonovae at early times ($t\lesssim$ hour) and a prolonged emission at $t\gtrsim5$ days. Resolving the first hundreds of milliseconds of hydrodynamics is essential for robust nucleosynthesis calculations, and composition-dependent thermalization and frequency-dependent, atomic opacities are needed to accurately capture the ejecta temperature and kilonova brightness and color evolution. Analytic nuclear-power fits with simplified thermalization and opacities can reproduce the density and temperature evolution of the ejecta. [Abridged].

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript systematically compares simplified prescriptions for nuclear heating, thermalization, and opacities against in-situ nuclear networks, composition-dependent thermalization, and frequency-dependent atomic opacities in 2D ray-by-ray radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of neutron star merger ejecta. Using long-term numerical-relativity ejecta profiles evolved to ~30 days, it reports that coupling nuclear networks to hydrodynamics alters r-process abundance patterns (narrower second peak, shifted third peak), that nuclear heating back-reaction delays and reddens early emission, that constant thermalization underestimates early luminosity while overestimating late emission, and that analytic opacities produce dimmer/redder early kilonovae with prolonged late emission. The central conclusion is that resolving the first hundreds of milliseconds of hydrodynamics and employing detailed thermalization and opacities are required for robust nucleosynthesis and kilonova predictions.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is significant for kilonova and r-process modeling because it provides a controlled, side-by-side demonstration that common simplifications can produce order-unity errors in early light-curve timing, color, and late-time luminosity. The use of realistic NR initial conditions and in-situ networks supplies concrete benchmarks that future simulations can adopt. These findings directly inform the interpretation of upcoming multi-messenger observations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Methods (2D ray-by-ray radiation-hydrodynamics)] The quantitative attribution of differences in nucleosynthesis yields and kilonova brightness/color to nuclear networks versus simplified heating, and to frequency-dependent opacities versus gray/analytic ones, rests on the 2D ray-by-ray radiation-hydrodynamics solver accurately capturing energy deposition and radiative transfer (abstract and methods description). Ray-by-ray methods neglect lateral photon transport, which can bias temperature and opacity evolution in asymmetric, optically thick ejecta during the first hours to days. This approximation may therefore contaminate the reported shifts in early luminosity and the claimed necessity of detailed physics; a direct test or error estimate against a full multi-dimensional transport scheme is required to support the central claims.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that analytic nuclear-power fits can reproduce the density and temperature evolution; a brief quantitative comparison (e.g., fractional differences in temperature at selected times) would strengthen this statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below, providing a point-by-point response. We have revised the manuscript to strengthen the discussion of methodological limitations while maintaining that our comparative results remain robust.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The quantitative attribution of differences in nucleosynthesis yields and kilonova brightness/color to nuclear networks versus simplified heating, and to frequency-dependent opacities versus gray/analytic ones, rests on the 2D ray-by-ray radiation-hydrodynamics solver accurately capturing energy deposition and radiative transfer (abstract and methods description). Ray-by-ray methods neglect lateral photon transport, which can bias temperature and opacity evolution in asymmetric, optically thick ejecta during the first hours to days. This approximation may therefore contaminate the reported shifts in early luminosity and the claimed necessity of detailed physics; a direct test or error estimate against a full multi-dimensional transport scheme is required to support the central claims.

    Authors: We agree that ray-by-ray radiative transfer is an approximation that neglects lateral photon transport, which can introduce biases in highly asymmetric and optically thick regions during the early phases. However, because we apply the identical 2D ray-by-ray solver to every simulation in our controlled comparison (varying only the nuclear network, thermalization, and opacity treatments), the relative differences in nucleosynthesis, temperature evolution, and kilonova light curves attributable to these physics choices are internally consistent and not contaminated by the transport method. Any systematic offset from neglecting lateral transport affects all models equally and does not alter the demonstrated impact of in-situ networks versus analytic heating or frequency-dependent opacities versus gray prescriptions. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section (new subsection 2.3) explicitly discussing the limitations of the ray-by-ray approach, referencing prior validation studies in the kilonova literature, and providing an order-of-magnitude estimate of the possible bias on early luminosity (approximately 10-20% at t < 1 day based on comparisons in the cited works). A full 3D multi-group transport comparison lies beyond the computational scope of the present study but is identified as a priority for future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper performs side-by-side radiation-hydrodynamics simulations of BNSM ejecta that compare independent treatments (in-situ nuclear networks vs. simplified heating rates, composition-dependent thermalization vs. constant prescriptions, frequency-dependent atomic opacities vs. gray/analytic ones). The central conclusions—that early hydrodynamics resolution and detailed opacities/thermalization affect nucleosynthesis and kilonova evolution—follow directly from the numerical differences produced by these distinct modules. No load-bearing step reduces a claimed prediction to a parameter fitted against the same data, nor does any result rest on a self-citation chain that is itself unverified. The 2D ray-by-ray transport and initial NR profiles are stated modeling choices whose accuracy is an external assumption, not a definitional tautology inside the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the accuracy of the initial ejecta profiles taken from numerical-relativity simulations, the completeness of the nuclear reaction network, and the validity of the atomic opacity tables; no new free parameters are introduced beyond those already present in the cited nuclear and opacity databases.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The initial density, velocity, and composition profiles from long-term numerical-relativity simulations are representative of realistic binary neutron star merger ejecta.
    Invoked when the paper states that ejecta from NR simulations are evolved to 30 days.
  • domain assumption The 2D ray-by-ray radiation transport approximation captures the dominant radiative effects in the expanding ejecta.
    Used throughout the radiation-hydrodynamics evolution.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 1604 out tokens · 30882 ms · 2026-05-16T22:52:23.539781+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Gamma-ray Signatures of r-Process Radioactivity from the Collapse of Magnetized White Dwarfs

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Simulations predict time-dependent gamma-ray lines from r-process and iron-peak decays in accretion-induced white dwarf collapse, detectable to ~10 Mpc and absent in neutron star mergers.

  2. Effects of magnetically driven shocks on nucleosynthesis and kilonovae from neutron star mergers

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Magnetically driven shocks from neutron star merger remnants can reheat ejecta to nuclear statistical equilibrium, alter r-process yields, and produce observable changes in kilonova color and light curves.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 100 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2017 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L13

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2017 b , Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2017 c , Astrophys. J., 848, L12

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., X9, 011001

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Arnett , W. D. 1982, Astrophys. J., 253, 785

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    2016, Astrophys

    Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Martinez-Pinedo, G. 2016, Astrophys. J., 829, 110

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    L., Lund, K

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

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    2020, Phys

    Bauswein, A., Blacker, S., Vijayan, V., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 141103

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    2013, Astrophys

    Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013, Astrophys. J. Lett., 774, L23

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Berger, M. et al. 2010, [Online, accessed on July 2023], National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    2020, Gen

    Bernuzzi, S. 2020, Gen. Rel. Grav., 52, 108

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    2025, Mon

    Bernuzzi, S., Magistrelli, F., Jacobi, M., et al. 2025, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 256, 271

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M

    Bersten, M. C., Benvenuto, O., & Hamuy, M. 2011, Astrophys. J., 729, 61

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    & Logoteta, D

    Bombaci, I. & Logoteta, D. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 609, A128

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Brown, D. A. et al. 2018, Nucl. Data Sheets, 148, 1

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    C.-K., Foucart, F., Ng, H

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Foucart, F., Ng, H. H.-Y., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 043036

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Chiesa, L., Perego, A., & Guercilena, F. M. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 962, L24

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    E., Bauswein, A., Sim, S

    Collins, C. E., Bauswein, A., Sim, S. A., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 521, 1858

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    & Siegel, D

    Combi, L. & Siegel, D. M. 2023, Astrophys. J., 944, 28

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    C \^o t \'e , B. et al. 2021, Science, 371, 945

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Coulter, D. A. et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Rev. Mod. Phys., 93, 15002

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    2024, Astrophys

    Curtis, S., Bosch, P., M\"osta, P., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 961, L26

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    H., Amthor , A

    Cyburt , R. H., Amthor , A. M., Ferguson , R., et al. 2010, Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl., 189, 240

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    Davis , A. M. 2022, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 72

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Dimotakis , P. E. 2005, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 37, 329

    work page 2005

  27. [27]

    Drout, M. R. et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126

    work page 1989

  29. [29]

    2025, Astrophys

    Fields, J., Zhu, H., Radice, D., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 276, 35

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    2020, Mon

    Fontes, C., Fryer, C., Hungerford, A., Wollaeger, R., & Korobkin, O. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 493, 4143

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    J., Fryer, C

    Fontes, C. J., Fryer, C. L., Wollaeger, R. T., Mumpower, M. R., & Sprouse, T. M. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 519, 2862

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    D., Hebert, F., et al

    Foucart, F., Duez, M. D., Hebert, F., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 902, L27

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    D., et al

    Foucart, F., Haas, R., Duez, M. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev., D93, 044019

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    L., Hungerford, A

    Fryer, C. L., Hungerford, A. L., Wollaeger, R. T., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 961, 9

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    2020, Astrophys.\ J., 901, 122

    Fujibayashi , S., Wanajo , S., Kiuchi , K., et al. 2020, Astrophys.\ J., 901, 122

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Ghirlanda, G. et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    H., Smartt, S

    Gillanders, J. H., Smartt, S. J., Sim, S. A., Bauswein, A., & Goriely, S. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 515, 631

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Gompertz, B. P. et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 860, 62

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    S., Curtis, S., M \"o sta, P., Kasen, D., & Brethauer, D

    Groenewegen, L. S., Curtis, S., M \"o sta, P., Kasen, D., & Brethauer, D. 2025 [ [arXiv] 2508.00062 ]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    M., Bhattacharya, M., Radice, D., Murase, K., & Bernuzzi, S

    Gutierrez, E. M., Bhattacharya, M., Radice, D., Murase, K., & Bernuzzi, S. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 063031

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    2020, Mon

    Hamidani, H., Kiuchi, K., & Ioka, K. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 491, 3192

    work page 2020

  42. [42]

    & Schaffner-Bielich, J

    Hempel, M. & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2010, Nucl. Phys., A837, 210

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    & Nakar, E

    Hotokezaka, K. & Nakar, E. 2019 [ [arXiv] 1909.02581 ]

    work page arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    2025 [ [arXiv] 2503.17445 ]

    Jacobi, M., Magistrelli, F., Loffredo, E., et al. 2025 [ [arXiv] 2503.17445 ]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    2022, Mon

    Just, O., Kullmann, I., Goriely, S., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 510, 2820

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    & Barnes , J

    Kasen , D. & Barnes , J. 2019, Astrophys.\ J., 876, 128

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Origin of the heavy elements in binary neutron-star mergers from a gravitational wave event

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., Quataert, E., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature [ [arXiv] 1710.05463 ], [Nature551,80(2017)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    2024, Mon

    Kawaguchi, K., Domoto, N., Fujibayashi, S., et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 535, 3711

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    2025, Phys

    Kawaguchi, K., Fujibayashi, S., & Shibata, M. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 023015

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    2021, Astrophys

    Kawaguchi, K., Fujibayashi, S., Shibata, M., Tanaka, M., & Wanajo, S. 2021, Astrophys. J., 913, 100

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    2023, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Fujibayashi, S., Hayashi, K., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 011401

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    2024, Nature Astron., 8, 298

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Shibata, M., & Sekiguchi, Y. 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 298

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    2012, Mon

    Korobkin, O., Rosswog, S., Arcones, A., & Winteler, C. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 426, 1940

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    Korobkin, O. et al. 2019 [ [arXiv] 1905.05089 ]

    work page arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Korobkin, O. et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 910, 116

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Levermore , C. D. & Pomraning , G. C. 1981, , 248, 321

    work page 1981

  57. [57]

    & Paczynski, B

    Li, L.-X. & Paczynski, B. 1998, Astrophys.J., 507, L59

    work page 1998

  58. [58]

    & Roberts, L

    Lippuner, J. & Roberts, L. F. 2015, Astrophys. J., 815, 82

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    & Roberts, L

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

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    2021, Astron

    Logoteta, D., Perego, A., & Bombaci, I. 2021, Astron. Astrophys., 646, A55

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    A., Somasundaram, R., McLaughlin, G

    Lund, K. A., Somasundaram, R., McLaughlin, G. C., et al. 2024 [ [arXiv] 2408.07686 ]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    2024, Astrophys

    Magistrelli, F., Bernuzzi, S., Perego, A., & Radice, D. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 974, L5

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    2015, Astrophys

    Martin, D., Perego, A., Arcones, A., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J., 813, 2

    work page 2015

  64. [64]

    & Goriely, S

    Martinet, S. & Goriely, S. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 694, A180

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    & Langanke, K

    Martinez-Pinedo, G. & Langanke, K. 2023, Eur. Phys. J. A, 59, 67

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    2010, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., 406, 2650

    Metzger, B., Martinez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., 406, 2650

    work page 2010

  67. [67]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J., 814, 63

    work page 2015

  68. [68]

    R., Sprouse, T

    Mumpower, M. R., Sprouse, T. M., Miller, J. M., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 970, 173

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    R., Surman, R., McLaughlin, G

    Mumpower, M. R., Surman, R., McLaughlin, G. C., & Aprahamian, A. 2016, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 86, 86, [Erratum: Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 87, 116--116 (2016)]

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    2020, Mon

    Nativi, L., Bulla, M., Rosswog, S., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 500, 1772

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    2021, Astrophys

    Nedora, V., Bernuzzi, S., Radice, D., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 906, 98

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    1986, Astrophys

    Paczynski, B. 1986, Astrophys. J., 308, L43

    work page 1986

  73. [73]

    2019, Eur

    Perego, A., Bernuzzi, S., & Radice, D. 2019, Eur. Phys. J., A55, 124

    work page 2019

  74. [74]

    2017, Astrophys

    Perego, A., Radice, D., & Bernuzzi, S. 2017, Astrophys. J., 850, L37

    work page 2017

  75. [75]

    K., & Cescutti , G

    Perego , A., Thielemann , F. K., & Cescutti , G. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, 1

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    Perego, A. et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 925, 22

    work page 2022

  77. [77]

    2022, Mon

    Pognan, Q., Jerkstrand, A., & Grumer, J. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 513, 5174

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    2024, Mon

    Pognan, Q., Wu, M.-R., Mart\' nez-Pinedo, G., et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 536, 2973

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    2020, Mon

    Prantzos , N., Abia , C., Cristallo , S., Limongi , M., & Chieffi , A. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 491, 1832

    work page 2020

  80. [80]

    2022, Mon

    Radice, D., Bernuzzi, S., Perego, A., & Haas, R. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 512, 1499

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.