Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

The Abundance Origin Of A Highly r-process-Enhanced r-II Star: LAMOST J020623.21+494127.9

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LAMOST J020623.21+494127.9, a metal-rich disk r-II star, has heavy elements made purely by the main r-process, but its Sr, Y, and Zr abundances do not fit the standard main r-process template, implying a second main r-process pattern…

desk verdict Interesting star, standard decomposition, but the 'non-universal main r-process' conclusion rests on comparing a single component to the total model and is not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06494 v1 pith:SXGDTWSC submitted 2025-05-10 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Muhammad Zeshan Ashraf , Wenyuan Cui , Hongjie Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords r-processr-IIstarabundancedecompositionneutron-captureelementsstellarabundancesMilkyWaythindiskmainLAMOSTJ020623.21+494127.9
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 studies LAMOST J020623.21+494127.9, a star in the Milky Way's thin disk that is strongly enriched in elements made by rapid neutron capture (the r-process). Using a five-component abundance decomposition for 25 elements, it finds that the star's heavy neutron-capture elements come purely from the main r-process, with no s-process contribution. It also finds that the standard main r-process pattern fails to match the observed strontium, yttrium, and zirconium, and concludes that another main r-process pattern may exist. The claim matters because it challenges the idea that the main r-process always produces one universal abundance pattern, and it suggests metal-rich disk stars can preserve a distinct r-process enrichment event.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a parametric abundance decomposition: $N_i = (C_{r,m}N_{i,r,m} + C_{\mathrm{pri}}N_{i,\mathrm{pri}} + C_{s,m}N_{i,s,m} + C_{\mathrm{sec}}N_{i,\mathrm{sec}} + C_{\mathrm{Ia}}N_{i,\mathrm{Ia}})\times 10^{[\mathrm{Fe/H}]}$, which predicts each element's abundance as a linear combination of five nucleosynthetic templates. The templates are the main r-process (the rapid neutron-capture mechanism that builds elements heavier than roughly $A\sim130$) and primary-process yields, the primary and secondary components from massive stars, the main s-process from a 1.5 solar-mass AGB model, and Type Ia supernova yields. Coefficients are obtained by minimizing $\chi^2$ against 25 observed abundances; the paper then compares observed and predicted ratios such as $[\mathrm{Sr/Eu}]$ to locate which component fails.

What would settle it

Take the observed 25 abundances and fit them with an r-process template generated by varying the electron fraction and neutron-richness of the ejecta rather than using the fixed template. If one set of physical conditions reproduces $[\mathrm{Sr/Eu}]=-1.4$, $[\mathrm{Y/Eu}]=-0.91$, and $[\mathrm{Zr/Eu}]=-0.65$ simultaneously with $\chi^2\approx1$, the second-pattern conclusion is an artifact of the fixed template; if no single pattern can, the paper's conclusion is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in this star the heavy neutron-capture elements ($Z\ge56$) are produced purely by the main r-process, while light elements trace massive-star nucleosynthesis; the best fit yields $C_{r,m}=18.05$, $C_{\mathrm{pri}}=1.36$, $C_{s,m}=0$, $C_{\mathrm{sec}}=1.18$, $C_{\mathrm{Ia}}=0.56$ with $\chi^2=1.31$. The same fit leaves Sr, Y, and Zr unexplained: Sr comes in at $[\mathrm{Sr/Eu}]=-1.4$ against a main-r-process prediction of $-1.03$, while Y and Zr exceed the model ($[\mathrm{Y/Eu}]_{\mathrm{obs}}=-0.91$ vs $-1.27$; $[\mathrm{Zr/Eu}]_{\mathrm{obs}}=-0.65$ vs $-0.97$). Because these offsets are systematic rather than random scatter, the paper concludes that the adopted main r-process pattern is incomplete and another main r-process pattern likely exists. It further attributes the star's unusual pattern, including underabundant Ce, Pr, and Nd relative to the solar r-process pattern, to a non-uniform r-process event, possibly a neutron-star merger or magneto-rotational supernova.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the adopted template patterns for the main r-process and the other components are the true yields of those processes, so if the main r-process pattern is not universal, the mismatch for Sr, Y, and Zr is an artifact of the template choice rather than evidence of a second pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The heavy neutron-capture elements ($Z\ge56$) in this star are produced entirely by the main r-process, making it a clean tracer of r-process yields.
  • The standard main r-process template cannot explain Sr, Y, and Zr simultaneously, so a second main r-process pattern is needed.
  • The zero s-process coefficient and the low $[\mathrm{Ba/Eu}]$ ratio rule out AGB mass transfer, placing the enrichment in the gas cloud from which the star formed.
  • Light elements (Na, Al, Sc, Cr, Mn, Ni) come mostly from massive stars, while Fe is split between SNe Ia and the primary process, so the star records a mixed enrichment event.
  • The underabundances of Ce, Pr, and Nd relative to the solar r-process pattern point to specific physical conditions (moderate neutron richness or enhanced neutrino flux) in the r-process site.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that a second main r-process pattern, if real, would show up in other r-II stars as the same Sr deficit and Y/Zr excess; a targeted search of thin-disk r-II stars could confirm whether the pattern is a genuine alternative channel.
  • A testable extension is to fit the star's 25 abundances with nucleosynthesis models that vary electron fraction rather than a fixed template; reproducing all elements with one such model would undercut the second-pattern claim.
  • Because the star sits in the thin disk at $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]=-0.54$, one can estimate how often high-yield r-process events must occur in the disk to produce even one such star, linking the result to merger rates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the r-process-enhanced star LAMOST J020623.21+494127.9, a thin-disk r-II star with [Eu/Fe]=+1.32 and [Fe/H]=-0.54, using a five-component abundance decomposition model (main r-process, primary, main s-process, secondary, and SNe Ia). The authors fit 25 elements, excluding Sr, Y, Zr, Lu, and Hf because the model 'fails to reproduce them accurately,' and obtain component coefficients C_r,m=18.05, C_pri=1.36, C_s,m=0, C_sec=1.18, C_Ia=0.56 with a quoted reduced chi-square of 1.31. They conclude that heavy neutron-capture elements are produced purely by the main r-process, that massive stars dominate light-element production, and that the adopted main r-process model does not adequately fit the observed data for lighter neutron-capture elements, suggesting the existence of another main r-process pattern.

Significance. The star itself is scientifically interesting: it is one of the few r-II stars in the Milky Way thin disk, with unusually high [Eu/H]=+0.78 and a relatively high metallicity of [Fe/H]=-0.54. If the claim of a non-universal main r-process pattern were established, it would be a meaningful contribution to the ongoing discussion of r-process site diversity. However, the manuscript's central new inference (that the adopted main r-process template is inadequate and another pattern must exist) rests on a logical conflation of the main-r component with the full five-component model, and on the post-hoc exclusion of the very elements used as evidence. The decomposition is carried out with standard templates and a familiar fitting procedure, and the fitted coefficients are not accompanied by uncertainties, so the quantitative strength of the 'pure main r-process' conclusion is difficult to assess. The paper would be most valuable after a rigorous revision that tests the full model, includes the excluded elements, and propagates uncertainties.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1 and Figure 1] The authors exclude Sr, Y, Zr, Lu, and Hf from the fit 'because the adopted component model fails to reproduce them accurately,' yet Section 2.3 uses the mismatches of Sr, Y, and Zr as primary evidence that the main r-process model is inadequate and that another main r-process pattern may exist. This is post-hoc and circular: elements excluded from the fit cannot later be used to judge the fit's validity without an independent justification, such as a separate test set or a clear physical reason for their exclusion that does not depend on the same residuals.
  2. [§2.3, Equation (1), and Figure 4] The comparison of observed [Y/Eu] and [Zr/Eu] with values calculated from the main r-process template alone (N_{i,r,m}) ignores the other terms in Equation (1). The total model abundance includes C_pri N_{i,pri}, and the primary component (Li et al. 2013b) explicitly contains weak r-process contributions to Sr, Y, and Zr, with a fitted coefficient C_pri=1.36. The observed [Y/Eu]_obs=-0.91 and [Zr/Eu]_obs=-0.65 being higher than [Y/Eu]_m,r=-1.27 and [Zr/Eu]_m,r=-0.97 is therefore expected from the action of the primary and secondary components, not evidence that the main r-process template is wrong. Indeed, the right panel of Figure 4 shows that the full model with the main-r component reproduces Y and Zr. The conclusion 'another main r-process pattern may exist' conflates the main-r component with the full model and is not supported by the presented analysis unless the total five-component prediction fails for these elements.
  3. [§2.1, Equation (2)] The fitted component coefficients are quoted without uncertainties, and the reduced chi-square is reported as a single number. Since the central claims include 'C_r,m is significantly higher' and 'C_s,m=0,' the absence of confidence intervals or a covariance analysis means the reader cannot distinguish a genuine dominance of the main r-process from an artifact of the template choices or the exclusion of five elements. The manuscript should propagate the observed abundance errors into the coefficients, and ideally explore how the exclusion of Sr, Y, Zr, Lu, and Hf affects the fitted values.
  4. [§4 and Abstract] The statement that heavy neutron-capture elements are 'produced purely by the main r-process' is presented as a finding, but it is a re-statement of the fitted value C_s,m=0 (with C_sec and C_pri also contributing to some neutron-capture elements). The observational support from [Ba/Eu]=-0.95 excludes a dominant s-process contribution, but it does not by itself establish 'purity' in the sense used here. The wording should be tempered to reflect that this is a fitted result conditional on the adopted templates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues: 'M≥10M ⊙' appears without proper spacing, 'V oort' in the reference list should be 'van de Voort', and Figure 1 uses '² = 1.31' where χ² is meant.
  2. [§2.1, Equation (2)] The chi-square expression is written as a fraction with (K - K_free) in the denominator, which is the reduced chi-square; the notation should be defined explicitly, and the distinction between χ² and χ²_ν should be maintained.
  3. [§2.1] The paper does not provide a table of the observed abundances and uncertainties from Xie et al. (2024) that were used in the fit, which makes the analysis non-reproducible; a table of input abundances and the adopted template values (or a reference to where they can be obtained) should be included.
  4. [§2.3, Equation (3)] Equation (3) is introduced without defining the notation [E_i/E_j]_k clearly; the subscript k is used both for the process and for the index in the sum in Equation (2), which may confuse readers.
  5. [References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted (e.g., Roederer et al. 2024 lacks a volume/page, and the entry 'Roederer, I., Beers, T., Hattori, K., et al. 2024, ApJ 7' is truncated); a careful bibliography cleanup is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'alternative main-r pattern' claim is built from a component-only comparison, not the full fitted model; the Y/Zr excess is forced by the primary/secondary terms of Eq. (1), so the central inference is not independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§2.3, final paragraph (after Fig. 4)]
    "In contrast, the observed ratios [Y/Eu]obs = −0.91 and [Zr/Eu]obs = −0.65 are higher than their respective calculated values from the main r-process, which are [Y/Eu]m,r = −1.27 and [Zr/Eu]m,r = −0.97. This suggests that while the main r-process contributes to the synthesis of lighter neutron-capture elements, the adopted main r-process model does not adequately fit the observed data. Therefore, another main r-process pattern may exist."

    The 'calculated values from the main r-process' are the template N_{i,r,m} taken from Li et al. (2013b) and inserted in Eq. (3); they are not predictions of the full five-component model. In Eq. (1), the model's Y and Zr also include C_pri N_{i,pri} and C_sec N_{i,sec}; with fitted C_pri = 1.36 and C_sec = 1.18, the total predicted Y/Eu and Zr/Eu exceed the main-r-only values by construction. The right panel of Fig. 4 shows that adding the main-r component reproduces Y and Zr. Thus the observed excess over [Y/Eu]_{m,r} and [Zr/Eu]_{m,r} is a built-in consequence of the decomposition, not evidence that the main-r template fails; the 'another main-r pattern' conclusion reduces to a comparison against a single additive term rather than the model.

full rationale

The decomposition against fixed templates is a legitimate modeling approach, and most of the paper's statements about light-element origins simply report fitted coefficients. The self-cited templates (Li et al. 2013a,b) are external empirical inputs and do not by themselves make the analysis circular. The circularity lies in the central inference in §2.3: the claimed failure of the main-r model is derived by comparing observed Y/Eu and Zr/Eu with the pure main-r template alone, although Equation (1) predicts those ratios to be higher because of the primary and secondary components. Since the right panel of Figure 4 fits Y and Zr with the full model, the 'alternative main-r pattern' is not an independent finding; it is a restatement of the component residual forced by the model's additive structure. This warrants a partial-circularity score of 6. No ad hominem is intended; the issue is the logic of the comparison, not the authors' self-citation per se.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest entirely on externally supplied yield templates and the Xie et al. (2024) abundances. The only fitted quantities are five linear coefficients; no new physical entity is introduced. The 'alternative main r-process pattern' is a hypothesised explanation for residuals, not an entity with defined parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • C_r,m = 18.05
    Fitted coefficient for the main r-process component in Equation (1), constrained by minimizing chi-square against 25 observed abundances.
  • C_pri = 1.36
    Fitted coefficient for the primary component from massive stars, determined by the same chi-square fit.
  • C_s,m = 0
    Fitted coefficient for the main s-process component; the fit returns zero, which is used to conclude no s-process contribution.
  • C_sec = 1.18
    Fitted coefficient for the secondary component, set by the chi-square minimization.
  • C_Ia = 0.56
    Fitted coefficient for the Type Ia supernova component, set by the chi-square minimization.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The adopted template abundance patterns from Li et al. (2013a, 2013b), Busso et al. (2001), and Timmes et al. (1995) correctly represent the pure yields of their respective processes.
    Equation (1) assumes a linear combination of these fixed patterns; if any template is wrong, the derived coefficients and the residual-based conclusion are invalid.
  • domain assumption The observed abundances from Xie et al. (2024), measured by spectrum synthesis on GTC/HORuS, are accurate and the stated uncertainties are correct.
    The fit weights each element by 1/Delta log N_i,obs; errors in the abundance dataset directly alter the chi-square and coefficients.
  • domain assumption The star's photospheric composition equals the composition of its birth cloud; no mass transfer, mixing, or post-formation enrichment occurred.
    Section 1 states the chemical profile reflects the gas cloud at birth; binary mass transfer is argued against by lack of radial-velocity variations, but internal mixing is not fully excluded.
  • standard math The chi-square statistic in Equation (2) is a valid measure of fit quality with K-K_free as the degrees-of-freedom scaling.
    Reduced chi-square interpretation is conventional, though the equation is typeset with the denominator as a product rather than a ratio, making the formula ambiguous.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Abundance Origin Of A Highly r-process-Enhanced r-II Star: LAMOST J020623.21+494127.9." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXGDTWSC

@misc{pith2026250506494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Abundance Origin Of A Highly r-process-Enhanced r-II Star: LAMOST J020623.21+494127.9},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXGDTWSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06494}
}
read the original abstract

Object LAMOST J020623.21+494127.9 (program star) in the thin disk of the Milky Way (MW) is reported as a highly r-process-enhanced (RPE) r-II star with[Eu/Fe]= +1.32 and [Fe/H]= -0.54. The chemical profile of the star reflects the intrinsic composition of the gas cloud present at its birth. Using an abundance decomposition method, we fit 25 elements from the abundance dataset, including 10 heavy neutron capture elements. We explore the astrophysical origin of the elements in this star through its abundance ratios and component ratios. We find that the contributions from the massive stars played a significant role in the production of light elements in the program star. Our analysis reveals that the heavy neutron-capture elements are produced purely by the main r-process. However, the adopted main r-process model does not adequately fit the observed data, suggesting another main r-process pattern may exist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The observed abundances are represented by red-filled circles, while the calculated abun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panels: The best fit of the calculated abundances in the program star (the solid line) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The observed and calculated abundance ratios, and component ratios of our program star. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of neutron-capture abundance ratios in RPE stars as a function of [Fe/H] and [Eu/Fe]: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the abundance fit with and without the contribution of the main [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panels: Comparison of the observed abundances of our program star with other known r-II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, PRL, 119, 161101 1

    Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2017, PRL, 119, 161101 1

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    M., Ryan, S

    Allen, D. M., Ryan, S. G., Rossi, S., Beers, T. C., & Tsangarides, S. A. 2012, A&A, 548, A34 7

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    C., Honda, S., & Carollo, D

    Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Honda, S., & Carollo, D. 2010, ApJL, 723, L201 7

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    2007, PASJ, 59, L15 2 Zeshan et al

    Aoki, W., Honda, S., Sadakane, K., & Arimoto, N. 2007, PASJ, 59, L15 2 Zeshan et al. 11

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    1999, ApJ, 525, 886 1

    Arlandini, C., K¨appeler, F., Wisshak, K., et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 886 1

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    2005, A&A, 439, 129 2, 7

    Barklem, P., Christlieb, N., Beers, T., et al. 2005, A&A, 439, 129 2, 7

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 284 1

    Bisterzo, S., Gallino, R., Straniero, O., Cristallo, S., & K¨appeler, F. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 284 1

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    1957, ApJ, 126, 357 1

    Burbidge, E., & Burbidge, G. 1957, ApJ, 126, 357 1

    work page 1957

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    2000, ApJ, 544, 302 2

    Burris, D., Pilachowski, C., Armandroff, T., et al. 2000, ApJ, 544, 302 2

    2000

  2. [10]

    2001, ApJ, 557, 802 3

    Busso, M., Gallino, R., Lambert, D., Travaglio, C., & Smith, V . 2001, ApJ, 557, 802 3

    2001

  3. [11]

    P., et al

    Cain, M., Frebel, A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 40 7

    2020

  4. [12]

    2001, Nature, 409, 691 2

    Cayrel, R., Hill, V ., Beers, T., et al. 2001, Nature, 409, 691 2

    2001

  5. [13]

    2021, RMP, 93, 015002 9

    Cowan, J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J., et al. 2021, RMP, 93, 015002 9

    2021

  6. [14]

    Q., Zhao, Y

    Cui, X. Q., Zhao, Y . H., Chu, Y . Q., et al. 2012, RAA, 12, 1197 3 Cˆot´e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 106 9

    2012

  7. [15]

    2022, A&A, 663, A70 1

    Farouqi, K., Thielemann, F., Rosswog, S., & Kratz, K. 2022, A&A, 663, A70 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 474 2

    Frebel, A. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 474 2

    2010

  9. [17]

    2007, ApJL, 660, L117 2

    Frebel, A., Christlieb, N., Norris, J., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L117 2

    2007

  10. [18]

    2022, Observations of R-Process Stars in the Milky Way and Dwarf Galaxies, Handbook of Nuclear Physics (Springer Nature Singapore), 1 2

    Frebel, A., & Ji, A. 2022, Observations of R-Process Stars in the Milky Way and Dwarf Galaxies, Handbook of Nuclear Physics (Springer Nature Singapore), 1 2

    2022

  11. [19]

    1998, ApJ, 497, 388 1

    Gallino, R., Arlandini, C., Busso, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, 388 1

    1998

  12. [20]

    Q., Zhang, L., Yang, G

    Han, W. Q., Zhang, L., Yang, G. C., et al. 2020, RAA, 20, 059 3

    2020

  13. [21]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 92 2

    Hansen, T., Holmbeck, E., Beers, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 92 2

    2018

  14. [22]

    2009, A&A, 504, 511 7

    Hayek, W., Wiesendahl, U., Christlieb, N., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 511 7

    2009

  15. [23]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 30 2

    Holmbeck, E., Hansen, T., Beers, T., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 30 2

    2020

  16. [24]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1189 7

    Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y ., & Wanajo, S. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1189 7

    2007

  17. [25]

    2005, NuPhA, 758, 603 1

    Ishimaru, Y ., Wanajo, S., Aoki, W., Ryan, S., & Prantzos, N. 2005, NuPhA, 758, 603 1

    2005

  18. [26]

    2006, ApJ, 645, 613 2

    Ivans, I., Simmerer, J., Sneden, C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 613 2

    2006

  19. [27]

    P., Frebel, A., Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., & Chiti, A. 2016, ApJ, 830, 93 2, 8

    2016

  20. [28]

    2013, ApJL, 775, L27 2

    Johnson, C., McWilliam, A., & Rich, R. 2013, ApJL, 775, L27 2

    2013

  21. [29]

    A., Goriely, S., & Janka, H

    Just, O., Bauswein, A., Pulpillo, R. A., Goriely, S., & Janka, H. T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 541 9

    2015

  22. [30]

    1998, ApJ, 503, L155 3

    Kobayashi, C., Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 1998, ApJ, 503, L155 3

    1998

  23. [31]

    2008, ApJ, 681, 1524 7

    Lai, D., Bolte, M., Johnson, J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1524 7

    2008

  24. [32]

    N., Aoki, W., Honda, S., et al

    Li, H. N., Aoki, W., Honda, S., et al. 2015, RAA, 15, 1264 7

    2015

  25. [33]

    2020, arXiv:2005.07210 3

    Liu, C., Fu, J., Shi, J., et al. 2020, arXiv:2005.07210 3

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    1999, ApJ, 524, 262 1

    MacFadyen, A., & Woosley, S. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262 1

    1999

  27. [35]

    V ., Kovtyukh, V

    Mishenina, T. V ., Kovtyukh, V . V ., Soubiran, C., Travaglio, C., & Busso, M. 2002, A&A, 396, 189 3

    2002

  28. [36]

    2018, ApJ, 865, 129 2, 3, 7, 8, 9

    Roederer, I., Sakari, C., Placco, V ., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 129 2, 3, 7, 8, 9

    2018

  29. [37]

    2012, ApJS, 203, 27 7

    Roederer, I., Lawler, J., Sobeck, J., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 27 7

    2012

  30. [38]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 27 2

    Roederer, I., Lawler, J., Den Hartog, E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 27 2

    2022

  31. [39]

    2023, Science, 382, 1177 2

    Roederer, I., Vassh, N., Holmbeck, E., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1177 2

    2023

  32. [40]

    2024, ApJ 7

    Roederer, I., Beers, T., Hattori, K., et al. 2024, ApJ 7

    2024

  33. [41]

    1996, ApJ, 471, 254 7

    Ryan, S., Norris, J., & Beers, T. 1996, ApJ, 471, 254 7

    1996

  34. [42]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 5607 6

    Saraf, P., Prieto, C., Sivarani, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5607 6

    2023

  35. [43]

    2008, ARA&A, 46, 241 1, 8

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J., & Gallino, R. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241 1, 8

    2008

  36. [44]

    1996, ApJ, 467, 819 2

    Sneden, C., McWilliam, A., Preston, G., et al. 1996, ApJ, 467, 819 2

    1996

  37. [45]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 936 7

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J., Lawler, J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 936 7

    2003

  38. [46]

    2023, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 94, 105 1

    Thielemann, F., Farouqi, K., Rosswog, S., & Kratz, K. 2023, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 94, 105 1

    2023

  39. [47]

    2011, PrPNP, 66, 346 1

    Thielemann, F., Arcones, A., K¨appeli, R., et al. 2011, PrPNP, 66, 346 1

    2011

  40. [48]

    X., Woosley, S

    Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 98, 617 3

    1995

  41. [49]

    2004, ApJ, 601, 864 1, 6 van de V oort, F., Pakmor, R., Grand, R

    Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Arnone, E., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 864 1, 6 van de V oort, F., Pakmor, R., Grand, R. J. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4867 9

    2004

  42. [50]

    2012, ApJL, 750, L22 1 12 Zeshan et al

    Winteler, C., K¨appeli, R., Perego, A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L22 1 12 Zeshan et al

    2012

  43. [51]

    2002, RvMP, 74, 1015 1

    Woosley, S., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. 2002, RvMP, 74, 1015 1

    2002

  44. [52]

    J., Shi, J., Yan, H

    Xie, X. J., Shi, J., Yan, H. L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L30 2, 3, 4

    2024

  45. [53]

    F., Zhao, G., Aoki, W., et al

    Xing, Q. F., Zhao, G., Aoki, W., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 631 7

    2019

  46. [54]

    2022, The Innovation, 3 3

    Yan, H., Li, H., Wang, S., et al. 2022, The Innovation, 3 3

    2022

  47. [55]

    H., Chu, Y

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y . H., Chu, Y . Q., Jing, Y . P., & Deng, L. C. 2012, RAA, 12, 723 3

    2012

  48. [56]

    L., et al

    Zhao, G., Mashonkina, L., Yan, H. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 225 3 ++

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.