Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 117 references

Enrichment of the Galactic disc with neutron-capture elements: Mo and Ru

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New measurements of molybdenum and ruthenium in 209 and 162 Galactic disc stars show that present chemical evolution models underproduce both elements at all disc metallicities, pointing to a missing nucleosynthesis source such as LEPP…

desk verdict First extended disc sample of Mo and Ru is a useful observational step, but the claimed underproduction for Mo is sensitive to an unvalidated gf zero-point tied to an external solar reference. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02992 v1 pith:NDB3DBTM submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.GA

Tamara Mishenina , Marco Pignatari , Tatiana Gorbaneva , Claudia Travaglio , Benoit Côté , Friedrich-Karl Thielemann , Caroline Soubiran This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords molybdenumrutheniumneutron-captureelementsGalacticchemicalevolutiondiscs-processr-processLEPP
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 measures the abundance of the neutron-capture elements molybdenum (Mo) and ruthenium (Ru) in 209 and 162 stars of the Milky Way disc, the first large sample covering metallicities from $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = -1.0$ to $+0.3$. It compares these measurements with several Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) simulations that include the standard nucleosynthesis sources: the slow and weak s-process, the rapid r-process, and the p-process. The central finding is that every model considered underproduces Mo and Ru relative to the observed disc abundances, by roughly 0.1 to 0.4 dex. The paper concludes that the disc requires an additional, not-yet-included nucleosynthesis source, such as the lighter-element primary process (LEPP), the intermediate i-process, or rare stellar events. A sympathetic reader would care because this pinpoints a concrete gap in the current inventory of where heavy elements are made.

What carries the argument

The observational machinery is LTE spectral synthesis of two Mo I lines (5506, 5533 Å) and three Ru I lines (4080, 4584, 4757 Å) in high-resolution, high-signal-to-noise disc-star spectra, yielding abundances for 209 and 162 stars respectively with an average error of 0.14 dex. The theoretical machinery is a suite of Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) simulations, including a two-zone open-source model, that fold in stellar yields from AGB stars, massive stars, supernovae, and r-process events. The comparison works by plotting $\mathrm{[Mo/Fe]}$ and $\mathrm{[Ru/Fe]}$ against $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ and overlaying model evolution tracks, which exposes the systematic underproduction. The paper also uses the isotopic decomposition of Mo and Ru (p-only, s-only, and r-only isotopes) as a diagnostic for which processes would need to be added, notably LEPP, the lighter-element primary process, and the i-process, an intermediate neutron-capture process.

What would settle it

Compute non-LTE corrections for the Mo I 5506/5533 Å and Ru I 4080/4584/4757 Å lines across the stellar parameter range of the sample ($-1.0 < \mathrm{[Fe/H]} < +0.3$, $T_{\mathrm{eff}} \sim 4600$–$6200$ K) using updated atomic data, and re-derive the disc abundances; if the corrected $\mathrm{[Mo/Fe]}$ and $\mathrm{[Ru/Fe]}$ values at the metal-poor end shift up by more than about 0.2 dex, the model underproduction claimed here could be a measurement artifact rather than a missing nucleosynthesis source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the canonical stellar sources of heavy elements—AGB stars making the main s-process, massive stars making the weak s-process, neutron-star mergers or magneto-rotational supernovae making the r-process, and explosive p-process sites—do not produce enough molybdenum and ruthenium to match what is observed in Galactic disc stars. Even the most Mo-rich and Ru-rich GCE simulations, including those that add a LEPP component or vary the timing of r-process enrichment, remain below the data at essentially all metallicities in the disc. The paper further shows that Mo and Ru do not correlate tightly with each other in disc stars, while Ru scatters more against Ba and Eu, suggesting that Ru is substantially produced by an extra source that is probably not an s-process source because Mo and Ru receive similar s-process contributions. The conclusion is that the origin of Mo and Ru remains open, and that new stellar sites or processes must be added to chemical evolution calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the Mo I and Ru I lines are formed under local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), so that the missing non-LTE corrections are small and cancel when the abundances are measured relative to the Sun; if those corrections grow with metallicity, the reported underproduction could shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current GCE simulations need an additional source of Mo and Ru beyond main and weak s-process, standard r-process, and p-process to match disc observations.
  • The decoupling of Ru from Mo, Ba, and Eu implies that the extra Ru source must produce ruthenium without proportionally enriching molybdenum, which rules out a simple scaled s-process enhancement.
  • At $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} < -0.2$, the timing of r-process enrichment (short delay versus a $t^{-1}$ delay distribution) changes predicted Mo and Ru levels, so these elements become new constraints on the delay times of neutron-star mergers.
  • The large scatter in $\mathrm{[Mo/Eu]}$ and $\mathrm{[Mo/Fe]}$ at low metallicity supports enrichment by rare, stochastic events rather than by numerous ordinary supernovae, motivating inhomogeneous GCE studies.
  • Mo and Ru abundances in disc stars can serve as a test bed for proposed sites such as the i-process in post-AGB stars or rare stellar events, because each makes a distinct isotopic signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not explored in the paper is to apply non-LTE corrections to the same lines; if those corrections are metallicity-dependent, the slope of $\mathrm{[Mo/Fe]}$ versus $\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ would change and might erase part of the claimed shortfall.
  • The paper's logic implies that isotopic abundance patterns in meteorites or presolar grains (for example anomalies in $^{95}$Mo or $^{97}$Mo) could discriminate between an i-process and a LEPP origin for the missing Mo, since each process leaves a different isotope fingerprint.
  • The same LTE spectral-synthesis approach is commonly used for the neighbouring first-peak elements Sr, Y, and Zr; if non-LTE effects matter for Mo I and Ru I, they may also bias those elements, so the missing-source puzzle could extend across the whole first peak.
  • A testable extension would be to measure Mo and Ru in dwarf galaxies with similar metallicity spread; because their star-formation histories differ from the disc, they would separate contributions from prompt massive-star and delayed merger r-process sources.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new LTE abundances of molybdenum and ruthenium for 209 and 162 F-, G-, and K-type stars in the Galactic disc, derived from two Mo I and three Ru I lines. The authors report [Mo/Fe] and [Ru/Fe] trends over -1.0 < [Fe/H] < +0.3, compare these with literature data for halo stars, and juxtapose the combined dataset with published Galactic chemical evolution models (Prantzos et al. 2018, Travaglio et al. 2004, and OMEGA+ models). Their central claim, stated in Section 5, is that existing GCE models with standard s-process, r-process, and p-process sources underproduce Mo and Ru in the Galactic disc, implying additional nucleosynthesis contributions such as LEPP, the i-process, or rare stellar events.

Significance. If the abundance scale is secure, this is a valuable observational contribution: it provides the first extended disc sample for Mo and Ru, cross-checks stellar parameters against nine literature studies, gives per-star and systematic errors, and compares with several independent GCE model sets without fitting any model parameters to the new data. The conclusion that standard nucleosynthesis sources underproduce Mo and Ru is a falsifiable constraint on r-process sites, LEPP, and the i-process. The main caveat, discussed below, is that the absolute zero-point of the [Mo/Fe] and [Ru/Fe] measurements is not independently validated, and this zero-point enters directly into the claimed discrepancy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Section 4, Table 3, Figs. 7-8] The central underproduction claim depends on the absolute zero-point of [Mo/Fe] and [Ru/Fe]. The abundances are derived using log gf values from the VALD database and normalized to the external solar abundances of Asplund et al. (2009), but the Sun is not analyzed with the same lines and gf values in this paper. A uniform error of 0.1-0.2 dex in the adopted gf therefore does not cancel in the solar-relative normalization and shifts all stellar [Mo/Fe] and [Ru/Fe] values directly. The reported discrepancies are about 0.1 dex for Mo and 0.2-0.4 dex for Ru (bottom panels of Figs. 7 and 8), so a zero-point offset of this size could substantially reduce or remove the discrepancy, especially for Mo. The error budget in Table 3 includes atmospheric-parameter and fitting errors but omits gf uncertainty. Please add a solar analysis using the same lines and gf values, or an equivalent independent calibration, and propagate the resulting zero-point uncertainty into the GCE comparison.
  2. [Section 4 and Section 5] The paper states that no NLTE calculations for Mo or Ru are currently available and argues that NLTE corrections should be negligible and 'leveled using our analysis relative to the Sun.' Because the paper does not actually analyze the Sun, the leveling argument is not demonstrated from the presented data. Neutral-species NLTE effects can be metallicity- and temperature-dependent, and if they vary by ~0.1 dex across the sample, the shape of the [X/Fe] trends and the magnitude of the underproduction could change. I request either a quantitative estimate of possible NLTE corrections for these lines or a clear statement, with supporting line-formation arguments, of why the corrections should be constant across the sample. This is important because the conclusion in Section 5 explicitly relies on the LTE-based discrepancy.
  3. [Section 3.1, Table 3] The systematic error budget is estimated from only two stars, HD154345 and HD82106, which have similar parameters (Teff around 5500 K and 4800 K, both near solar metallicity). The sample spans Teff from about 4400 to 6200 K and [Fe/H] down to about -1.0, and line-formation sensitivity can vary across this range. A two-star estimate may not capture the systematic uncertainty for the cooler or more metal-poor stars. This does not invalidate the main claim, but the stated 'average error of 0.14 dex' should be presented as a lower bound, or the error analysis should be extended to a wider parameter range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Table 4] The text says that for HD 22879 'our upper limit for [Ru/Fe] is consistent' with Hansen et al. (2014), but Table 4 lists ours as >0.51, which is a lower limit, not an upper limit. Please correct the wording or the symbol.
  2. [Table A2 and Section 2] Table A2 shows individual atmospheric-parameter differences as large as Delta(Teff) = -380 K and Delta([Fe/H]) = -0.39 for HD 224930 when compared with Takeda (2007). The general statement of 'good agreement' should be qualified or these outliers discussed, since they are larger than the nominal parameter uncertainties.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption describes the OMEGA+ curves as 'marked with black dot, dashed and solid line'; the wording is ambiguous. Please specify which line style corresponds to the short-delay-time and delay-time-distribution setups as in the legend.
  4. [Abstract and Section 3.1] The abstract states an average error of 0.14 dex, while Section 3.1 reports a range of 0.12 to 0.16 dex for Ru and Mo. Please define the abstract value as the average of the quoted range or give per-element average errors.
  5. [Section 3] The adopted line list for the five Mo I and Ru I lines is not tabulated. For reproducibility, please provide the wavelengths, excitation potentials, and log gf values for the lines used, along with the line-list source version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the observational abundances are new data, and the GCE comparison relies on external models, with the authors' own OMEGA+ runs corroborated by independent simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that existing GCE simulations underproduce Mo and Ru relative to new stellar observations. The derivation chain is observational: LTE spectral synthesis with VALD oscillator strengths and the Asplund et al. (2009) solar reference is used to obtain [Mo/Fe] and [Ru/Fe], and these are then compared with published GCE predictions. No parameter is fitted to the observed Mo/Ru data and then renamed a prediction; the nucleosynthesis yields and GCE codes are external inputs. The OMEGA+ models are co-authored by some of the present authors, but the same underproduction conclusion is also shown for the independent Prantzos et al. (2018) and Travaglio et al. (2004) models, so the central result is not forced by self-citation. The paper's own caveats about LTE and the absence of NLTE corrections, and the fact that the error budget omits oscillator-strength zero-point uncertainties, are legitimate accuracy concerns, but they are not circularity: an assumed systematic offset in the absolute abundance scale would weaken the comparison, not make the model output equivalent to the input. The Mo/Ru abundance correlations and scatter analyses are also independent observational characterizations rather than derivations from the models. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or references.

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

The paper's conclusion rests on the assumptions that LTE line formation is adequate, the adopted solar abundances and line data are correct, the atmospheric parameters inherited from previous studies are accurate, and the GCE yields of AGB stars, CCSNe, and neutron star mergers are representative. No free parameters are fitted to the Mo and Ru data; the two OMEGA+ r-process delay time variants are model choices, not fits. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LTE line formation and negligible NLTE corrections for the Mo I and Ru I lines used
    Invoked in Sections 3 and 4; if NLTE corrections vary with metallicity, the reported underproduction could be spurious.
  • domain assumption Adopted solar abundances log A(Mo)=1.88 and log A(Ru)=1.75 from Asplund et al. (2009)
    Used as the zero point for [Mo/Fe] and [Ru/Fe]; a systematic error here shifts all ratios.
  • domain assumption Stellar atmospheric parameters from earlier papers by the same group are accurate within stated errors
    Abundances are derived from these parameters; cross-checks with nine literature studies show general agreement.
  • domain assumption GCE yields from Cristallo et al. (2015), Ritter et al. (2018c), and Iwamoto et al. (1999) are representative of the true nucleosynthesis sources
    The underproduction conclusion compares observations to these yield sets; if the yields were underestimated, no missing process would be needed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enrichment of the Galactic disc with neutron-capture elements: Mo and Ru." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDB3DBTM

@misc{pith2026190802992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enrichment of the Galactic disc with neutron-capture elements: Mo and Ru},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDB3DBTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02992}
}
abstract

We present new observational data for the heavy elements molybdenum (Mo, Z = 42) and ruthenium (Ru, Z = 44) in F-, G-, and K-stars belonging to different substructures of the Milky Way. The range of metallicity covered is --1.0 $<$ [Fe/H] $<$ +0.3. The spectra of Galactic disc stars have a high resolution of 42,000 and 75,000 and signal-to-noise ratio better than 100. Mo and Ru abundances were derived by comparing the observed and synthetic spectra in the region of Mo I lines at 5506, 5533 \AA~ for 209 stars and Ru I lines at 4080, 4584, 4757 \AA~ for 162 stars using the LTE approach. For all the stars, the Mo and Ru abundance determinations are obtained for the first time with an average error of 0.14 dex. This is the first extended sample of stellar observations for Mo and Ru in the Milky Way disc, and together with earlier observations in halo stars it is pivotal in providing a complete picture of the evolution of Mo and Ru across cosmic timescales. The Mo and Ru abundances were compared with those of the neutron-capture elements (Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, Sm, Eu). The complex nucleosynthesis history of Mo and Ru is compared with different Galactic Chemical Evolution (GCE) simulations. In general, present theoretical GCE simulations show underproduction of Mo and Ru at all metallicities compared to observations. This highlights a significant contribution of nucleosynthesis processes not yet considered in our simulations. A number of possible scenarios are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02992 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. [Mo/Fe] and [Ru/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H]. The stars belonging to the thin and thick discs are marked with small black and red circles, respectively. The stars classified into the Hercules stream are marked with asterisks while non-classified stars are depicted as open circles. The error bar is marked with a cross in the upper-right corner. 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 [Mo/Fe] Teff, K [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dependence of [Mo/Fe] on Teff . bution of the r-process in the metal-poor star CS 22892- 052 and used as a reference of the r-process contribution in Travaglio et al. (2004). Despite such a higher s-process con￾tribution obtained in OMEGA+ calculations, the requirement for having additional sources for Mo at low metallicity is con￾sistent with the results of other GCE simulations referred to in this paper. Concernin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Dependence of [Ru/Fe] on Teff . different results with a higher [Ru/Fe] trend using the short delay time setup. On the other hand, even in the most op￾timistic conditions, at metallicities lower than solar ones, the GCE model yield is 0.2 dex lower as compared to the observations. Despite the fact that the r-process contributes to a small fraction of the solar Mo, and a half of that of Ru, it becomes more significan… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed [Mo/Fe] (top panel) and [Ru/Fe] (bottom panel) as a function of [Fe/H] resulted from the comparison of our sample of stellar data with those reported by other authors. Symbols are specified in the figure: Hansen14 G and Hansen14 D refer to giant and dwarf star…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trends of log A(El) where El = Ru, Ba, and Eu vs. log A(Mo) for thin disc stars (small black circles) and thick disc stars (red circles). c 2015 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top Panel: evolution of [Mo/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H] predicted by the chemical evolution models of Prantzos et al. (2018) and Travaglio et al. (2004) as compared to the observation data (markers are specified in the figure). For Prantzos et al. (2018) simulations, t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panel: evolution of [Ru/Fe] as a function of [Fe/H] predicted by by the OMEGA+ code, the short delay time (r - process) and delay time distribution (r - process) marked with black dot, dashed and solid line, respectively, as compared to the observational data (mark…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of [Mo/Eu] as a function of [Fe/H]. Bisterzo S., Travaglio C., Wiescher M., K¨appeler F., Gallino R., 2017, ApJ, 835, 97 Bliss J., Arcones A., Qian Y.-Z., 2018, ApJ, 866, 105 Brewer M.-M., Carney B. W., 2006, AJ, 131, 431 Busso M., Gallino R., Wasserburg G. J…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    Z., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez J

    Adibekyan V. Z., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez J. I., Delgado Mena E., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Israelian G., Figueira P., Bertran de Lis S., 2014, , 564, L15

    2014

  4. [4]

    M., Porto de Mello G

    Allen D. M., Porto de Mello G. F., 2007, , 474, 221

    2007

  5. [5]

    Anders E., Grevesse N., 1989, , 53, 197

    1989

  6. [6]

    Arcones A., Montes F., 2011, , 731, 5

    2011

  7. [7]

    Arlandini C., K \"a ppeler F., Wisshak K., Gallino R., Lugaro M., Busso M., Straniero O., 1999, , 525, 886

    1999

  8. [8]

    Arnould M., 1976, , 46, 117

    1976

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    Arnould M., Goriely S., 2003, , 384, 1

    2003

  2. [10]

    Arnould M., Goriely S., Takahashi K., 2007, , 450, 97

    2007

  3. [11]

    J., Scott P., 2009, , 47, 481

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

    2009

  4. [12]

    Baranne A. et al. , 1996, , 119, 373

    1996

  5. [13]

    Battistini C., Bensby T., 2016, , 586, A49

    2016

  6. [14]

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

    2014

  7. [15]

    Bisterzo S., Travaglio C., Wiescher M., K \"a ppeler F., Gallino R., 2017, , 835, 97

    2017

  8. [16]

    Bliss J., Arcones A., Qian Y.-Z., 2018, , 866, 105

    2018

  9. [17]

    W., 2006, , 131, 431

    Brewer M.-M., Carney B. W., 2006, , 131, 431

    2006

  10. [18]

    J., 1999, , 37, 239

    Busso M., Gallino R., Wasserburg G. J., 1999, , 37, 239

    1999

  11. [19]

    L., 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0405087

    Castelli F., Kurucz R. L., 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0405087

    2004 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cescutti G., Romano D., Matteucci F., Chiappini C., Hirschi R., 2015, , 577, A139

    2015

  13. [21]

    Choplin A., Hirschi R., Meynet G., Ekstr \"o m S., Chiappini C., Laird A., 2018, , 618, A133

    2018

  14. [22]

    Chruslinska M., Belczynski K., Klencki J., Benacquista M., 2018, , 474, 2937

    2018

  15. [23]

    J., Ritter C., Pignatari M., Belczynski K., 2018 a , , 854, 105

    C \^o t \'e B., Denissenkov P., Herwig F., Ruiter A. J., Ritter C., Pignatari M., Belczynski K., 2018 a , , 854, 105

    2018

  16. [24]

    C \^o t \'e B. et al. , 2019, , 875, 106

    2019

  17. [25]

    C \^o t \'e B. et al. , 2018 b , , 855, 99

    2018

  18. [26]

    W., Herwig F., Pignatari M., Jones S., Fryer C

    C \^o t \'e B., Ritter C., O'Shea B. W., Herwig F., Pignatari M., Jones S., Fryer C. L., 2016, , 824, 82

    2016

  19. [27]

    W., O'Shea B

    C \^o t \'e B., Silvia D. W., O'Shea B. W., Smith B., Wise J. H., 2018 c , , 859, 67

    2018

  20. [28]

    J., Rose W

    Cowan J. J., Rose W. K., 1977, , 217, 51

    1977

  21. [29]

    J., Sneden C., Lawler J

    Cowan J. J., Sneden C., Lawler J. E., Aprahamian A., Wiescher M., Langanke K., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Thielemann F.-K., 2019, arXiv e-prints 1901.01410

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cristallo S., Straniero O., Piersanti L., Gobrecht D., 2015, , 219, 40

    2015

  23. [31]

    Dauphas N., Rauscher T., Marty B., Reisberg L., 2003, Nuclear Physics A, 719, C287

    2003

  24. [32]

    Z., Sousa S

    Delgado Mena E., Tsantaki M., Adibekyan V. Z., Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez J. I., Israelian G., 2017, , 606, A94

    2017

  25. [33]

    Eichler M. et al. , 2018, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 45, 014001

    2018

  26. [34]

    I., Pfeiffer B., Cowan J

    Farouqi K., Kratz K.-L., Mashonkina L. I., Pfeiffer B., Cowan J. J., Thielemann F.-K., Truran J. W., 2009, , 694, L49

    2009

  27. [35]

    Feltzing S., Fohlman M., Bensby T., 2007, , 467, 665

    2007

  28. [36]

    Freiburghaus C., Rosswog S., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, , 525, L121

    1999

  29. [37]

    Frischknecht U. et al. , 2016, , 456, 1803

    2016

  30. [38]

    Fr \"o hlich C., Hatcher D., Perdikakis G., Nikas S., 2017, in 14th International Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos (NIC2016), Kubono S., Kajino T., Nishimura S., Isobe T., Nagataki S., Shima T., Takeda Y., eds., p. 010505

    2017

  31. [39]

    o hlich C., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Liebend \

    Fr \"o hlich C., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Liebend \"o rfer M., Thielemann F.-K., Bravo E., Hix W. R., Langanke K., Zinner N. T., 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 142502

    2006

  32. [40]

    L., Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Dominik M., Kalogera V., Holz D

    Fryer C. L., Belczynski K., Wiktorowicz G., Dominik M., Kalogera V., Holz D. E., 2012, , 749, 91

    2012

  33. [41]

    , 2018, , 616, A11

    Gaia Collaboration et al. , 2018, , 616, A11

    2018

  34. [42]

    Gallino R., Arlandini C., Busso M., Lugaro M., Travaglio C., Straniero O., Chieffi A., Limongi M., 1998, , 497, 388

    1998

  35. [43]

    Goriely S., Bauswein A., Janka H.-T., 2011, , 738, L32

    2011

  36. [44]

    Goriely S., Jos \'e J., Hernanz M., Rayet M., Arnould M., 2002, , 383, L27

    2002

  37. [45]

    J., Andersen A

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

    2014

  38. [46]

    Herwig F., 2005, , 43, 435

    2005

  39. [47]

    D., Woosley S

    Hoffman R. D., Woosley S. E., Fuller G. M., Meyer B. S., 1994, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 26, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, p. 1363

    1994

  40. [48]

    D., Woosley S

    Hoffman R. D., Woosley S. E., Qian Y.-Z., 1997, , 482, 951

    1997

  41. [49]

    M., Meyer B

    Howard W. M., Meyer B. S., Woosley S. E., 1991, , 373, L5

    1991

  42. [50]

    I., Simmerer J., Sneden C., Lawler J

    Ivans I. I., Simmerer J., Sneden C., Lawler J. E., Cowan J. J., Gallino R., Bisterzo S., 2006, , 645, 613

    2006

  43. [51]

    R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, , 125, 439

    Iwamoto K., Brachwitz F., Nomoto K., Kishimoto N., Umeda H., Hix W. R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, , 125, 439

    1999

  44. [52]

    K \"a ppeler F., Gallino R., Bisterzo S., Aoki W., 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 157

    2011

  45. [53]

    I., Lattanzio J

    Karakas A. I., Lattanzio J. C., 2014, , 31, e030

    2014

  46. [54]

    Katz D., Soubiran C., Cayrel R., Adda M., Cautain R., 1998, , 338, 151

    1998

  47. [55]

    V., Soubiran C., Belik S

    Kovtyukh V. V., Soubiran C., Belik S. I., Gorlova N. I., 2003, , 411, 559

    2003

  48. [56]

    Kratz K.-L., Farouqi K., M \"o ller P., 2014, , 792, 6

    2014

  49. [57]

    , Piskunov N.E

    Kupka F. , Piskunov N.E. , Ryabchikova T.A. , Stempels H. C. , Weiss W. W. , 1999, A&AS, 138

    1999

  50. [58]

    Limongi M., Chieffi A., 2018, , 237, 13

    2018

  51. [59]

    Maeder A., Meynet G., Chiappini C., 2015, , 576, A56

    2015

  52. [60]

    Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Fischer T., Huther L., 2014, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 41, 044008

    2014

  53. [61]

    Mashonkina L., Gehren T., 2001, , 376, 232

    2001

  54. [62]

    A., 2015, , 454, 1585

    Mishenina T., Gorbaneva T., Pignatari M., Thielemann F.-K., Korotin S. A., 2015, , 454, 1585

    2015

  55. [63]

    Mishenina T. et al. , 2017, , 469, 4378

    2017

  56. [64]

    Mishenina T., Pignatari M., Gorbaneva T., Bisterzo S., Travaglio C., Thielemann F.-K., Soubiran C., 2019, , 484, 3846

    2019

  57. [65]

    V., Kovtyukh V

    Mishenina T. V., Kovtyukh V. V., 2001, , 370, 951

    2001

  58. [66]

    V., Pignatari M., Korotin S

    Mishenina T. V., Pignatari M., Korotin S. A., Soubiran C., Charbonnel C., Thielemann F.-K., Gorbaneva T. I., Basak N. Y., 2013, , 552, A128

    2013

  59. [67]

    V., Soubiran C., Bienaym \'e O., Korotin S

    Mishenina T. V., Soubiran C., Bienaym \'e O., Korotin S. A., Belik S. I., Usenko I. A., Kovtyukh V. V., 2008, , 489, 923

    2008

  60. [68]

    V., Soubiran C., Kovtyukh V

    Mishenina T. V., Soubiran C., Kovtyukh V. V., Korotin S. A., 2004, , 418, 551

    2004

  61. [69]

    Montes F. et al. , 2007, , 671, 1685

    2007

  62. [70]

    F., Halevi G., Ott C

    M \"o sta P., Roberts L. F., Halevi G., Ott C. D., Lippuner J., Haas R., Schnetter E., 2018, , 864, 171

    2018

  63. [71]

    A., Prugniel P., Soubiran C., 2004, , 116, 693

    Moultaka J., Ilovaisky S. A., Prugniel P., Soubiran C., 2004, , 116, 693

    2004

  64. [72]

    Nishimura N., Rauscher T., Hirschi R., Murphy A. S. J., Cescutti G., Travaglio C., 2018, , 474, 3133

    2018

  65. [73]

    Nishimura N., Sawai H., Takiwaki T., Yamada S., Thielemann F.-K., 2017, , 836, L21

    2017

  66. [74]

    Nishimura S., Kotake K., Hashimoto M.-a., Yamada S., Nishimura N., Fujimoto S., Sato K., 2006, , 642, 410

    2006

  67. [75]

    E., Schuster W

    Nissen P. E., Schuster W. J., 2011, , 530, A15

    2011

  68. [76]

    Perruchot S. et al. , 2008, in , Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, p. 70140J

    2008

  69. [77]

    C., 2011, , 742, 21

    Peterson R. C., 2011, , 742, 21

    2011

  70. [78]

    C., 2013, , 768, L13

    Peterson R. C., 2013, , 768, L13

    2013

  71. [79]

    A., 2018, , 861, 40

    Philcox O., Rybizki J., Gutcke T. A., 2018, , 861, 40

    2018

  72. [80]

    Pignatari M., Gallino R., Heil M., Wiescher M., K \"a ppeler F., Herwig F., Bisterzo S., 2010, , 710, 1557

    2010

  73. [81]

    Pignatari M., Gallino R., Meynet G., Hirschi R., Herwig F., Wiescher M., 2008, , 687, L95

    2008

  74. [82]

    Pignatari M., G \"o bel K., Reifarth R., Travaglio C., 2016 a , International Journal of Modern Physics E, 25, 1630003

    2016

  75. [83]

    Pignatari M. et al. , 2016 b , , 225, 24

    2016

  76. [84]

    X., Herwig F., Hirschi R., 2018, , 221, 37

    Pignatari M., Hoppe P., Trappitsch R., Fryer C., Timmes F. X., Herwig F., Hirschi R., 2018, , 221, 37

    2018

  77. [85]

    Prantzos N., Abia C., Limongi M., Chieffi A., Cristallo S., 2018, , 476, 3432

    2018

  78. [86]

    o hlich C., F \

    Rauscher T., Dauphas N., Dillmann I., Fr \"o hlich C., F \"u l \"o p Z., Gy \"u rky G., 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 066201

    2013

  79. [87]

    D., Woosley S

    Rauscher T., Heger A., Hoffman R. D., Woosley S. E., 2002, , 576, 323

    2002

  80. [88]

    Rayet M., Arnould M., Hashimoto M., Prantzos N., Nomoto K., 1995, , 298, 517

    1995

  81. [89]

    E., Tomkin J., Lambert D

    Reddy B. E., Tomkin J., Lambert D. L., Allende Prieto C., 2003, , 340, 304

    2003

  82. [90]

    R., Pignatari M., Jones S., 2018 a , , 474, L1

    Ritter C., Andrassy R., C \^o t \'e B., Herwig F., Woodward P. R., Pignatari M., Jones S., 2018 a , , 474, L1

    2018

  83. [91]

    F., Fryer C

    Ritter C., C \^o t \'e B., Herwig F., Navarro J. F., Fryer C. L., 2018 b , , 237, 42

    2018

  84. [92]

    Ritter C., Herwig F., Jones S., Pignatari M., Fryer C., Hirschi R., 2018 c , , 480, 538

    2018

  85. [93]

    Roederer I. U. et al. , 2012, , 203, 27

    2012

  86. [94]

    U., Preston G

    Roederer I. U., Preston G. W., Thompson I. B., Shectman S. A., Sneden C., Burley G. S., Kelson D. D., 2014, , 147, 136

    2014

  87. [95]

    Sakari C. M. et al. , 2018, , 854, L20

    2018

  88. [96]

    M., Barnes J., Metzger B

    Siegel D. M., Barnes J., Metzger B. D., 2019, , 569, 241

    2019

  89. [97]

    Spite F., Spite M., Barbuy B., Bonifacio P., Caffau E., Fran c ois P., 2018, , 611, A30

    2018

  90. [98]

    M., Limongi M., Salaris M., 1995, , 440, L85

    Straniero O., Gallino R., Busso M., Chiefei A., Raiteri C. M., Limongi M., Salaris M., 1995, , 440, L85

    1995

  91. [99]

    C., Ruffert M., Janka H.-T., Hix W

    Surman R., McLaughlin G. C., Ruffert M., Janka H.-T., Hix W. R., 2008, , 679, L117

    2008

  92. [100]

    Takeda Y., 2007, , 59, 335

    2007

  93. [101]

    F., Meyer B

    The L.-S., El Eid M. F., Meyer B. S., 2007, , 655, 1058

    2007

  94. [102]

    Travaglio C., Gallino R., Arnone E., Cowan J., Jordan F., Sneden C., 2004, , 601, 864

    2004

  95. [103]

    K., Hillebrandt W., 2015, , 799, 54

    Travaglio C., Gallino R., Rauscher T., R \"o pke F. K., Hillebrandt W., 2015, , 799, 54

    2015

  96. [104]

    K., Gallino R., Hillebrandt W., 2011, , 739, 93

    Travaglio C., R \"o pke F. K., Gallino R., Hillebrandt W., 2011, , 739, 93

    2011

  97. [105]

    Tsymbal V., 1996, 108, 198

    1996

  98. [106]

    Wanajo S., Janka H.-T., Kubono S., 2011, , 729, 46

    2011

  99. [107]

    J., Otsuki K., 2001, , 554, 578

    Wanajo S., Kajino T., Mathews G. J., Otsuki K., 2001, , 554, 578

    2001

  100. [108]

    Wanajo S., M \"u ller B., Janka H.-T., Heger A., 2018, , 852, 40

    2018

  101. [109]

    Wehmeyer B., Fr \"o hlich C., C \^o t \'e B., Pignatari M., Thielemann F.-K., 2019, , 487, 1745

    2019

  102. [110]

    Wehmeyer B., Pignatari M., Thielemann F.-K., 2015, , 452, 1970

    2015

  103. [111]

    a ppeli R., Perego A., Arcones A., Vasset N., Nishimura N., Liebend \

    Winteler C., K \"a ppeli R., Perego A., Arcones A., Vasset N., Nishimura N., Liebend \"o rfer M., Thielemann F.-K., 2012, , 750, L22

    2012

  104. [112]

    E., Hoffman R

    Woosley S. E., Hoffman R. D., 1992, , 395, 202

    1992

  105. [113]

    E., Howard W

    Woosley S. E., Howard W. M., 1978, , 36, 285

    1978

  106. [114]

    D., 2016, , 463, 2323

    Wu M.-R., Fern \'a ndez R., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Metzger B. D., 2016, , 463, 2323

    2016

  107. [115]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  108. [116]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  109. [117]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.