Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 155 references

Gamma rays as a signature of r-process producing supernovae: remnants and future Galactic explosions

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 Gamma-ray lines could prove supernovae make r-process elements

desk verdict A concrete, useful target list for COSI, but the remnant detectability maps ignore the Doppler broadening the paper itself computes, so the specific targets aren't yet secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14991 v2 pith:IWXW7DEI submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.HE

Zhenghai Liu , Evan Grohs , Kelsey A. Lund , G. C. McLaughlin , M. Reichert , Ian U. Roederer , Rebecca Surman , Xilu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords r-processnucleosynthesismagnetorotationalsupernovaeMeVgamma-rayastronomysupernovaremnants126Snand126Sblines60Fe60CoCOSInext-generationdetectors
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

The paper argues that gamma-ray observations can settle whether core-collapse supernovae produce r-process elements. Using a two-dimensional magnetorotational supernova model that ejects neutron-rich jet material, it computes the MeV gamma-ray spectra from radioactive decays over timescales of days to millenia. It claims that the 666 and 695 keV lines of 126Sb, fed by long-lived 126Sn, would be detectable in about eleven known supernova remnants and are a distinctive signature of r-process production. It also claims that enhanced 60Fe, seen as 60Co lines at 1173 and 1332 keV, would indicate the neutron-rich conditions favorable to the r-process, and that a future Galactic MR-SN would show second-peak and weak r-process lines at 10 days, 100 days, and 6 years. If detected, these lines would be direct evidence of r-process nucleosynthesis in supernovae; non-detection would constrain the yields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 35OC-RS magnetorotational supernova model, a two-dimensional simulation with neutrino transport whose jet ejects neutron-rich material. Nucleosynthesis along tracer trajectories and shock-heated outflow is evolved with the PRISM reaction network; the gamma-ray spectra are built from beta-decay flows using ENDF/B-VIII.0 and ENSDF decay intensities. The emitted photons are then propagated through an expanding, mixed ejecta with Doppler broadening and absorption, and a geometric estimate of positron annihilation adds the 511 keV and positronium contributions. Observability is set by published line and continuum sensitivities of INTEGRAL/SPI, COSI, and next-generation instruments such as GRAMS and AMEGO, scaled to one-year or burst observing times. This chain converts a hydrodynamical nucleosynthesis model into concrete predictions of detectable lines in specific remnants.

What would settle it

Observe the Vela region with COSI or a next-generation MeV telescope: the paper predicts 126Sb lines at 666 and 695 keV and 60Co lines at 1173 and 1332 keV with fluxes above SPI's existing 60Fe upper limit of about $1.1\times10^{-5}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, so a targeted search that fails to find these lines in Vela Junior or Vela SNR would directly contradict the model's central prediction. A second, independent check would be to measure a remnant's 60Fe mass from the 1332 keV line and find it closer to standard CCSN yields (about $3.7\times10^{-5}$ solar masses) than to the MR-SN yield ($8.3\times10^{-3}$ solar masses).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an observation of 126Sb gamma rays in a supernova remnant stands out as a signature of an r-process-producing supernova. For the 35OC-RS magnetorotational supernova model, the paper predicts $2.5\times10^{-4}$ solar masses of 126Sb, enough to place roughly eleven known remnants above the line sensitivities of COSI or next-generation MeV telescopes at their adopted ages and distances. It further predicts that the same neutron-rich jet boosts the 60Fe yield to $8.3\times10^{-3}$ solar masses, making the 60Co 1173 and 1332 keV lines detectable in all twelve remnants considered and distinguishing MR-SNe from standard neutrino-driven supernovae at distances beyond a few kiloparsecs. For a future Galactic explosion, the calculation shows that second-peak r-process isotopes (132Te, 131I, 132I) appear above backgrounds at ten days, weak r-process isotopes (103Ru, 106Rh, 95Nb) at one hundred days, and 125Sb with the third-peak isotope 194Ir at about six years. The paper presents this as a concrete observational test of whether any core-collapse supernova channel makes r-process elements.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the assumption that roughly 0.3 solar masses of infalling material seen in the simulation will be re-ejected by the jet and follow the same nucleosynthesis as the existing jet ejecta; this choice nearly doubles the 60Fe yield and is what puts twelve remnants above the 60Co detection threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A positive detection of the 126Sb lines in any listed remnant would be direct evidence that the r-process reached the second peak in that supernova.
  • A non-detection at the predicted fluxes would place quantitative upper limits on r-process and 60Fe yields, constraining MR-SN models and possibly ruling out the magnetorotational origin for that remnant.
  • Detecting 60Co beyond about 4–5 kpc with next-generation instruments, or beyond 0.3 kpc with COSI, would favor an MR-SN over a standard neutrino-driven explosion, while a modest 60Co abundance in a nearby remnant would favor a standard CCSN.
  • Combined measurements of 126Sb and 60Co in one remnant would discriminate among explosion mechanisms: substantial 60Co without 126Sb suggests a neutron-rich but second-peak-failing outflow, and 126Sb without 60Co would motivate exotic supernova models.
  • A future Galactic MR-SN would show a time-ordered sequence of r-process lines (second peak at 10 days, weak r-process at 100 days, 125Sb and 194Ir at 6 years) that could measure the weak-to-second-peak ratio and how far the neutron-capture chain extended.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could apply the same flux calculation to other proposed r-process supernova channels, such as collapsars; any neutron-rich outflow that makes second-peak nuclei should produce similar 126Sb and 125Sb lines, so the detection strategy is broader than magnetorotational supernovae alone.
  • A longer-duration magnetohydrodynamic simulation that follows the infalling blob through re-ejection would directly test the 60Fe yield; until then, the twelve-remnant 60Co count should be read with that modeling choice in mind.
  • Existing archival data from SPI may already be able to search for the 126Sb 666 keV line in Vela or Vela Junior, since the paper notes SPI's Vela 60Fe upper limit is an order of magnitude below the predicted flux; a re-analysis could provide a near-term test before COSI launches.
  • If both 126Sb and 60Co are seen together in the same remnant, the ratio of their fluxes would measure the neutron richness of the ejected jet material and could be compared with abundance patterns in metal-poor stars.
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 uses the 35OC-RS magnetorotational supernova (MR-SN) model of Reichert et al. (2021) together with the PRISM network to compute gamma-ray spectra from radioactive decays in the ejecta, for both a future Galactic supernova and known supernova remnants. It predicts that second-peak r-process isotopes such as 126Sb (from 126Sn) and neutron-rich isotopes such as 60Co (from 60Fe) would be detectable in roughly eleven to twelve known Galactic remnants with COSI or next-generation MeV instruments, and that a future Galactic MR-SN would show r-process lines at 10 days (132Te, 131I, 132I), 100 days (103Ru, 106Rh, 95Nb), and 6 years (125Sb, 194Ir). The authors compare their predicted fluxes with published line and continuum sensitivities for INTEGRAL/SPI, COSI, AMEGO, and GRAMS, and argue that a detection of 126Sb would be a distinctive signature of r-process nucleosynthesis in a supernova.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, the paper offers a concrete, isotope-specific observational program for identifying r-process production in core-collapse supernovae, with falsifiable predictions for upcoming MeV instruments. The study has clear strengths: it builds on a published MR-SN simulation with tracer-based nucleosynthesis, validates the resulting abundance pattern against external metal-poor star data (Fig. 2b), explicitly propagates nuclear-mass uncertainties, and includes a detailed treatment of absorption and Doppler broadening in Appendix B. The qualitative conclusion that 126Sb and other second-peak lines are distinctive r-process signatures is well motivated. However, as detailed below, the specific remnant detectability claims are not yet secure because the comparison with line sensitivities is made inconsistently with the Doppler-broadened spectra the paper itself computes, and because a central 60Fe yield rests on an unverified infall-re-ejection assumption.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.4, Fig. 6, Figs. 4-5] The remnant detectability maps compare the total prompt photon flux in each line against published narrow-line sensitivities, even though the paper itself computes Doppler broadening of these lines (Eq. B9, Sec. 2.4, left panels of Fig. 6). A line broadened to roughly 2% energy width, as shown for 126Sb and 60Co, will be spread over several independent detector resolution bins; for a fixed significance the required total flux increases approximately as the square root of the number of resolution elements. Repeating the comparison with the broadened spectra would move sources near threshold (e.g., Vela Junior with COSI, and possibly Crab, IC443, or others) below detectability. The specific list of detectable remnants is therefore not secure until the maps in Figs. 4 and 5 are recomputed with the broadened line profiles and an explicit spectral extraction significance.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and Table 4] The adopted COSI line sensitivity for the 666/695 keV 126Sb lines is internally inconsistent: Sec. 3.1 uses Sl = 4e-6 ph/cm2/s, while Table 4 lists 4.2e-7 ph/cm2/s (with two years of observation time) for the same lines. This factor-of-ten discrepancy directly changes the COSI detection range quoted in Fig. 4 and the claim that Vela Junior and Vela SNR are above COSI sensitivity. Please state which value is correct, normalize observation times consistently, and re-evaluate the affected remnant conclusions.
  3. [Sec. 2.1 and Appendix D, Table 5 footnote] The central remnant claim for 60Co (twelve remnants, Fig. 5 top) relies on the 60Fe yield of 8.3e-3 M_sun, which is not a simulated result but an estimate obtained by assuming that the 0.3 M_sun infalling blob (Fig. 1, right panel) is re-ejected in the jet and follows the same nucleosynthesis as the existing jet ejecta except for the main r-process. The footnote to Table 5 states that the base simulation gives 4e-3 M_sun. If the blob instead accretes onto the protoneutron star, the 60Co fluxes roughly halve, removing the COSI detection of Vela Junior and some next-generation detections. The paper should either present this as a model-dependent range with the lower-yield case shown explicitly, or support the infall-re-ejection assumption with a dynamical argument or simulation.
  4. [Table 1 and Figs. 4-5] The quantitative remnant counts are based on single adopted values from often wide published ranges (e.g., IC443 age 3000-30000 yr adopted as 30000 yr; Vela Junior distance 0.5-1 kpc adopted as 0.7 kpc; G11.2-0.3 age 1400-2400 yr adopted as 2400 yr). Because the detectability boundary in Figs. 4 and 5 is steep in distance and, for 60Co, in age, these point choices directly affect whether individual remnants appear above threshold. The paper should show the remnant positions with error bars or as ranges, and state how many remnants remain detectable under the extreme ends of the adopted intervals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The top panel caption reads 'MN-SN model'; this should be 'MR-SN model'.
  2. [Sec. 3.1] The text refers to 'Jellyfish SNR (IC441)'; the standard name used elsewhere in the paper is IC443.
  3. [Sec. 4] The text states that 44Ti has a half-life of 60 days; its half-life is 59.1 years, and this typo should be corrected to avoid confusing 44Ti with 44Sc.
  4. [Sec. 2.5] The reference to 'Tables C and C in Appendix C' should be to the numbered tables (Tables 3 and 4) for the compiled continuum and line sensitivities.
  5. [Sec. 4] The sentence referring to 'SN 1987' should read 'SN 1987A'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the gamma-ray predictions are derived from an external MR-SN model and a nuclear network, then compared with published sensitivities; no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is linear and self-contained: the 35OC-RS MR-SN model from Reichert et al. (2021) supplies thermodynamic trajectories; the PRISM reaction network computes abundances; Eq. 1 converts those abundances into prompt gamma spectra; Sec. 2.4 and Appendix B add radiative transfer and Doppler broadening; and the resulting fluxes are compared with externally published COSI, GRAMS, AMEGO, and SPI sensitivities. No step fits a parameter to the target remnant fluxes or to the claimed detectable lines. The 126Sb and 60Fe yields are computed from the nuclear network and model trajectories, not adjusted to make the predicted remnants observable. The comparison with metal-poor stellar abundances in Fig. 2b and the use of independent instrument sensitivity tables provide external grounding. The explicit assumption that the 0.3 M_sun infalling material is re-ejected (Sec. 2.1 and Table D footnote) is a stated modeling choice, not a fitted input, and the paper acknowledges the resulting uncertainty. The apparent mismatch between the COSI line sensitivity quoted in Sec. 3.1 and Table 4, and the use of prompt total photon fluxes rather than broadened line profiles in the remnant detectability maps, are correctness or robustness concerns, not circularity: no prediction is equivalent by construction to its input. Self-citations to Reichert et al., Wang et al., and Sprouse et al. describe the adopted model and methods rather than invoking an unverified uniqueness theorem or prohibitive ansatz. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; MR-SNe and all isotopes are pre-existing concepts. The free parameters in this calculation are modeling choices (remnant age/distance adoption, ejecta velocity) rather than fitted constants, while the central assumptions are the representativeness of the 35OC-RS model, the re-ejection of infalling material, full ejection, and the chosen nuclear data set.

free parameters (2)
  • Adopted remnant ages and distances = Cas A 340 yr/3.3 kpc; IC443 30000 yr/1.5 kpc; Vela Junior 2400 yr/0.7 kpc; etc. (Table 1)
    The observability flags in Figs 4-5 depend on these choices; several quantities have wide literature ranges (e.g., IC443 age 3000-30000 yr), and the adopted single values are not varied or propagated.
  • Ejecta outer velocity v_ej = 0.015c
    Sets the Doppler broadening and the timescale for the ejecta to become optically thin (about 4 years). Adopted from Draine (2011) and Reynolds (2017), not fitted to the target data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 2D MR-SN model 35OC-RS (Reichert et al. 2021) is representative of r-process-producing core-collapse supernovae.
    Used throughout as the source of all yields and trajectories; the paper states MR-SNe are 'a proxy' for r-process-producing supernovae (Sec 1).
  • ad hoc to paper The infalling 0.3 M_sun blob will be re-ejected in the jet and follow the same nucleosynthesis as existing jet ejecta, except for the main r-process material.
    Stated in Sec 2.1; boosts the 60Fe yield from 4e-3 to 8.3e-3 M_sun (Table D footnote) and underpins the remnant 60Co detectability claims.
  • domain assumption 100% of the shock-ejected outflow is ejected; the paper treats the resulting beta-plus spectrum as an upper limit.
    Sec 2.1; if fallback occurs, early-time 56Ni/56Co fluxes and 44Ti yields would be lower.
  • domain assumption FRDM masses and Möller beta-decay rates are the representative nuclear inputs; alternatives are shown only as a band in Fig 2.
    Sec 2.1; the gamma-ray flux predictions use this single set, so the quoted line fluxes inherit its uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Published 3-sigma continuum and line sensitivities (SPI, COSI, AMEGO, GRAMS, e-ASTROGAM) and the stated observation-time rescaling are adequate.
    Sec 2.5 and Appendix C; the detectability conclusions are direct comparisons to these numbers, some of which disagree internally (see red flags).
  • domain assumption The 'uniform mix' spherical ejecta model with complete mixing is adequate for radiative transfer.
    Sec 2.4; Appendix B says an alternative layered-jet model does not change results substantially, but only for the two configurations tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gamma rays as a signature of r-process producing supernovae: remnants and future Galactic explosions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IWXW7DEI

@misc{pith2026250614991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gamma rays as a signature of r-process producing supernovae: remnants and future Galactic explosions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IWXW7DEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14991}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the question of whether core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) can produce rapid neutron capture process (r-process) elements and how future MeV gamma-ray observations could address this. Rare types of CCSNe characterized by substantial magnetic fields and rotation, known as magnetorotational supernovae (MR-SNe), are theoretically predicted to produce these elements, although direct observational evidence is lacking. We suggest that this critical question be addressed through the study of some of the eleven CCSN remnants located within 10 kpc, as well as through the detection of gamma-ray emission from a future Galactic supernova. We use a two-dimensional MR-SN model to estimate the expected gamma flux stemming from nuclear decays in the range of a few tens of keV to a few MeV. Our results indicate that an observation of Sn-126 (Sb-126) in a remnant stands out as a signature of an r-process-producing supernova. Since the neutron-rich conditions that lead to the production of the r-process could also enhance the production of Fe-60, the detection of substantial Fe-60 (Co-60) would be indicative of favorable conditions for the r-process. In the case of a future supernova explosion, when the evolution of the spectrum is studied over ten days to a few years, a rich picture emerges. At various epochs, second peak r-process isotopes such as Sb-125, I-131, Te-132, I-132 and La-140 produce gamma-ray signals that emerge above the background from explosive burning products and electron-positron annihilation. The weak r-process isotopes Nb-95, Ru-103, Rh-106 also have periods of prominence. While MR-SNe are predicted to have a relatively small main r-process contribution, third peak isotopes like Ir-194 could still be above next-generation MeV gamma instrument sensitivities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14991 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshot of the MR-SN model 35OC-Rs from Reichert et al. (2021) at the end of the simulation time (1.306 s). Left Panel: Tracers are drawn from the jet material in the multi-colored region; the colormap corresponds to the electron fraction (Ye). This material was unbound at the end of the simulation time; however, since the simulation ends before the explosion is complete, additional material (purple region, refer t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Final abundances for ejecta from the model shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The light curves of the beta-decay gamma-ray emission from the MR-SN shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observability of 126Sb 666 keV line with COSI (light and dark pink region) and next-generation telescopes (light pink region) if a supernova remnant originated from an MR-SN described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gamma-ray spectra of four known supernova remnants, assuming they are remnants from the MR-SN event shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Theoretically calculated gamma-ray spectra of the MR-SN model shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spectra of the MR-SN at 10 kpc at 100 days post explosion. At this time, the decays of 56Ni and 56Co are still significant, and the annihilation contribution from para-positronium and ortho-positronium is strong. However, between 0.55 MeV and 0.75 MeV, there is a wind…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spectra of the MR-SN at 10 kpc at 6 years after the explosion. The energy windows for the r-process lines are significantly expanded, and the isotopes 125Sb and 106Rh dominate the region between 0.55 MeV and 0.75 MeV. The contributions from 56Ni and 56Co are significa…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Sketch of the geometric setup used to estimate the positron annihilation signal. The ejecta is represented as a sphere of radius Rmax, shown as the dark purple circle. At a radial coordinate r, we define an auxiliary ℓ-sphere with radius ℓ and elevation angle θ, shown…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

155 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

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

    2021

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017 a , , 848, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  3. [3]

    2017 b , , 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    ---. 2017 b , , 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  4. [4]

    M., Metzger , B

    Agarwal , A., Siegel , D. M., Metzger , B. D., & Nagele , C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15729, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15729

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15729 2025

  5. [5]

    D., Berger , E., Fong , W., et al

    Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., Fong , W., et al. 2017, , 848, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d 2017

  6. [6]

    Study of the IC 443 region with the HAWC observatory

    Alfaro , R., Alvarez , C., Araya , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.12613, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12613

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12613 2025

  7. [7]

    E., Chow , K., DeLaney , T., et al

    Allen , G. E., Chow , K., DeLaney , T., et al. 2015, , 798, 82, 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/82

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/2/82 2015

  8. [8]

    2017, , 472, 51, 10.1093/mnras/stx1936

    Ambrocio-Cruz , P., Rosado , M., de la Fuente , E., Silva , R., & Blanco-Pi \ n on , A. 2017, , 472, 51, 10.1093/mnras/stx1936

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1936 2017

Show all 155 references
  1. [9]

    2020, , 890, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64f8

    Andrews , S., Fryer , C., Even , W., Jones , S., & Pignatari , M. 2020, , 890, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64f8

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Aramaki , T., Adrian , P. O. H., Karagiorgi , G., & Odaka , H. 2020, Astroparticle Physics, 114, 107, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.07.002

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, , 31, 1, 10.1007/s00159-022-00146-x

    Arcones , A., & Thielemann , F.-K. 2023, , 31, 1, 10.1007/s00159-022-00146-x

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, , 612, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732411

    Arias , M., Vink , J., de Gasperin , F., et al. 2018, , 612, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732411

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    C., & Qian, Y.-Z

    Banerjee, P., Haxton, W. C., & Qian, Y.-Z. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 201104, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.201104

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Lund , K

    Barnes , J., Zhu , Y. L., Lund , K. A., et al. 2021, , 918, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aec

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2013, , 774, L23, 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L23

    Berger , E., Fong , W., & Chornock , R. 2013, , 774, L23, 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L23

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    2025, , 6, 75, 10.3847/PSJ/adbbd6

    Bishop , S., Stanciu , I., Cabr \'e , A., et al. 2025, , 6, 75, 10.3847/PSJ/adbbd6

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Harrison , F

    Boggs , S. E., Harrison , F. A., Miyasaka , H., et al. 2015, Science, 348, 670, 10.1126/science.aaa2259

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Miltich , W., & Reynolds , S

    Borkowski , K. J., Miltich , W., & Reynolds , S. P. 2020, , 905, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/abcda7

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Reynolds , S

    Borkowski , K. J., Reynolds , S. P., & Roberts , M. S. E. 2016, , 819, 160, 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/160

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Reynolds , S

    Borkowski , K. J., Reynolds , S. P., Williams , B. J., & Petre , R. 2018, , 868, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaedb5

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Porter , T

    Bouchet , L., Strong , A. W., Porter , T. A., et al. 2011, , 739, 29, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/1/29

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Chadwick , M

    Brown , D. A., Chadwick , M. B., Capote , R., et al. 2018, Nuclear Data Sheets, 148, 1, 10.1016/j.nds.2018.02.001

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Burrows , A., & The , L

    Bussard , R. W., Burrows , A., & The , L. S. 1989, , 341, 401, 10.1086/167503

    1989 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, , 680, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347300

    Camilloni , F., & Becker , W. 2023, , 680, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347300

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2004, , 416, 1117, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    Cayrel , R., Depagne , E., Spite , M., et al. 2004, , 416, 1117, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034074

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, , 919, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1267

    Chen , M.-H., Li , L.-X., Lin , D.-B., & Liang , E.-W. 2021, , 919, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1267

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, , 90, 101548, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101548

    Churazov , E., Bouchet , L., Jean , P., et al. 2020, , 90, 101548, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101548

    2020

  20. [28]

    2019, , 875, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

    C \^o t \'e , B., Eichler , M., Arcones , A., et al. 2019, , 875, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Rev. Mod. Phys., 93, 015002, 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015002

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    S., Berger , E., Villar , V

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

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Frohlich, C., et al

    Curtis, S., Miller, J. M., Frohlich, C., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 945, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/acba16

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    H., Amthor , A

    Cyburt , R. H., Amthor , A. M., Ferguson , R., et al. 2010, , 189, 240, 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/240

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    A., et al

    de Angelis , A., Tatischeff , V., Grenier , I. A., et al. 2018, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 19, 1, 10.1016/j.jheap.2018.07.001

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Rudnick , L., & Perley , R

    DeLaney , T., Kassim , N. E., Rudnick , L., & Perley , R. A. 2014, , 785, 7, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/7

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    1951, Physical Review, 82, 455, 10.1103/PhysRev.82.455

    Deutsch , M. 1951, Physical Review, 82, 455, 10.1103/PhysRev.82.455

    1951 doi

  28. [37]

    Duflo , J., & Zuker , A. P. 1995, , 52, R23, 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.R23

    1995 doi

  29. [38]

    Dwek , E., & Arendt , R. G. 2015, , 810, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/75

    2015 doi

  30. [39]

    F., Fry , B

    Ertel , A. F., Fry , B. J., Fields , B. D., & Ellis , J. 2023, , 947, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb699

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    D., & Wallner , A

    Fields , B. D., & Wallner , A. 2023, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 73, 365, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-011823-045541

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    L., Faestermann , T., et al

    Fimiani , L., Cook , D. L., Faestermann , T., et al. 2012, in 43rd Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 1279

    2012

  33. [42]

    L., Faestermann , T., et al

    Fimiani , L., Cook , D. L., Faestermann , T., et al. 2014, in 45th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 1778

    2014

  34. [43]

    2015, , 91, 124021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.124021

    Foucart , F., O'Connor , E., Roberts , L., et al. 2015, , 91, 124021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.124021

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    2007, , 476, 935, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077706

    Fran c ois , P., Depagne , E., Hill , V., et al. 2007, , 476, 935, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077706

    2007 doi

  36. [45]

    2018, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 68, 237, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021141

    Frebel , A. 2018, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 68, 237, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021141

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    J., Fields , B

    Fry , B. J., Fields , B. D., & Ellis , J. R. 2015, , 800, 71, 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/71

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    M., Kusenko, A., & Takhistov, V

    Fuller, G. M., Kusenko, A., & Takhistov, V. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 061101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.061101

    2017 doi

  39. [48]

    Ginzburg , V. L. 1979, Theoretical physics and astrophysics (Pergamon Press), https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-023066-5.50003-1

    1979 doi

  40. [49]

    Goriely , S., Chamel , N., & Pearson , J. M. 2013, , 88, 061302, 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.061302

    2013 doi

  41. [50]

    A., Lutovinov , A

    Grebenev , S. A., Lutovinov , A. A., Tsygankov , S. S., & Winkler , C. 2012, , 490, 373, 10.1038/nature11473

    2012 doi

  42. [51]

    Green , D. A. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 14, 10.1007/s12036-024-10038-4

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    W., Harrison , F

    Grefenstette , B. W., Harrison , F. A., Boggs , S. E., et al. 2014, , 506, 339, 10.1038/nature12997

    2014 doi

  44. [53]

    W., Fryer , C

    Grefenstette , B. W., Fryer , C. L., Harrison , F. A., et al. 2017, , 834, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/19

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    Heger , A., Langer , N., & Woosley , S. E. 2000, , 528, 368, 10.1086/308158

    2000 doi

  46. [55]

    Honda , S., Aoki , W., Ishimaru , Y., Wanajo , S., & Ryan , S. G. 2006, , 643, 1180, 10.1086/503195

    2006 doi

  47. [56]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 35, 10.1093/mnras/stw404

    Hotokezaka, K., Wanajo, S., Tanaka, M., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 35, 10.1093/mnras/stw404

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    F., Diehl , R., Bloemen , H., et al

    Iyudin , A. F., Diehl , R., Bloemen , H., et al. 1994, , 284, L1

    1994

  49. [58]

    P., Frebel, A., Chiti, A., & Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Chiti, A., & Simon, J. D. 2016, Nature, 531, 610, 10.1038/nature17425

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    W., M\"oller, H., Fryer, C

    Jones, S. W., M\"oller, H., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 4287, 10.1093/mnras/stz536

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    2017, , 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

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

    2017 doi

  52. [61]

    2024, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol

    Kierans , C., & ComPair Team . 2024, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 21, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 500.04

    2024

  53. [62]

    2004, , 93, 171103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.171103

    Knie , K., Korschinek , G., Faestermann , T., et al. 2004, , 93, 171103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.171103

    2004 doi

  54. [63]

    2023, , 943, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

    Kobayashi , C., Mandel , I., Belczynski , K., et al. 2023, , 943, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    2019, , 123, 072701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.072701

    Koll , D., Korschinek , G., Faestermann , T., et al. 2019, , 123, 072701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.072701

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 030001, 10.1088/1674-1137/abddae

    Kondev, F., Wang, M., Huang, W., Naimi, S., & Audi, G. 2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 030001, 10.1088/1674-1137/abddae

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

    M., Fryer , C

    Korobkin , O., Hungerford , A. M., Fryer , C. L., et al. 2020, , 889, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64d8

    2020 doi

  58. [67]

    2012, , 85, 024304, 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024304

    Kortelainen , M., McDonnell , J., Nazarewicz , W., et al. 2012, , 85, 024304, 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024304

    2012 doi

  59. [68]

    M., Usuda , T., et al

    Krause , O., Birkmann , S. M., Usuda , T., et al. 2008, Science, 320, 1195, 10.1126/science.1155788

    2008 doi

  60. [69]

    D., Johnson , W

    Kurfess , J. D., Johnson , W. N., Kinzer , R. L., et al. 1992, , 399, L137, 10.1086/186626

    1992 doi

  61. [70]

    2019, , 886, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ff2

    Larsson , J., Fransson , C., Alp , D., et al. 2019, , 886, 147, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ff2

    2019 doi

  62. [71]

    Leising , M. D. 1988, , 332, 516, 10.1038/332516a0

    1988 doi

  63. [72]

    2019, , 872, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf961

    Li , L.-X. 2019, , 872, 19, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf961

    2019 doi

  64. [73]

    2006, , 50, 474, 10.1016/j.newar.2006.06.005

    Limongi , M., & Chieffi , A. 2006, , 50, 474, 10.1016/j.newar.2006.06.005

    2006 doi

  65. [74]

    2018, , 237, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    ---. 2018, , 237, 13, 10.3847/1538-4365/aacb24

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    2022, , 2022, 013, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/08/013

    Lucchetta , G., Ackermann , M., Berge , D., & B \"u hler , R. 2022, , 2022, 013, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/08/013

    2022 doi

  67. [76]

    MacFadyen, A., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, Astrophys. J., 524, 262, 10.1086/307790

    1999 doi

  68. [77]

    N., Tuohy , I

    Manchester , R. N., Tuohy , I. R., & Damico , N. 1982, , 262, L31, 10.1086/183906

    1982 doi

  69. [78]

    2016, , 93, 025805, 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.025805

    Marketin , T., Huther , L., & Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G. 2016, , 93, 025805, 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.025805

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    W., Jean , P., Alexis , A., & Diehl , R

    Martin , P., Strong , A. W., Jean , P., Alexis , A., & Diehl , R. 2012, , 543, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118721

    2012 doi

  71. [80]

    M., Share , G

    Matz , S. M., Share , G. H., Leising , M. D., et al. 1988, , 331, 416, 10.1038/331416a0

    1988 doi

  72. [81]

    Mayer , M. G. F., Becker , W., Predehl , P., & Sasaki , M. 2023, , 676, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346691

    2023 doi

  73. [82]

    McEnery, J., Horst, A. v. d., Dominguez, A., et al. 2019, Bulletin of the AAS, 51, 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07558

    2019 doi arXiv

  74. [83]

    Metzger , B. D. 2017, Living Reviews in Relativity, 20, 3, 10.1007/s41114-017-0006-z

    2017 doi

  75. [84]

    S., Mathews , G

    Meyer , B. S., Mathews , G. J., Howard , W. M., Woosley , S. E., & Hoffman , R. D. 1992, , 399, 656, 10.1086/171957

    1992 doi

  76. [85]

    M., Sprouse , T

    Miller , J. M., Sprouse , T. M., Fryer , C. L., et al. 2020, , 902, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e3

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    R., Kawano , T., & Myers , W

    M \"o ller , P., Mumpower , M. R., Kawano , T., & Myers , W. D. 2019, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 125, 1, 10.1016/j.adt.2018.03.003

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    J., Ichikawa , T., Iwamoto , A., & Mumpower , M

    M \"o ller , P., Sierk , A. J., Ichikawa , T., Iwamoto , A., & Mumpower , M. 2015, , 91, 024310, 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024310

    2015 doi

  79. [88]

    J., Ichikawa , T., & Sagawa , H

    M \"o ller , P., Sierk , A. J., Ichikawa , T., & Sagawa , H. 2016, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 109, 1, 10.1016/j.adt.2015.10.002

    2016 doi

  80. [89]

    F., Halevi , G., et al

    M \"o sta , P., Roberts , L. F., Halevi , G., et al. 2018, , 864, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ec

    2018 doi

  81. [90]

    R., Kawano , T., Sprouse , T

    Mumpower , M. R., Kawano , T., Sprouse , T. M., et al. 2018, , 869, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaeaca

    2018 doi

  82. [91]

    K., & Deputovich , A

    Nadyozhin , D. K., & Deputovich , A. Y. 2002, , 386, 711, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011844

    2002 doi

  83. [92]

    Nishimura , N., Sawai , H., Takiwaki , T., Yamada , S., & Thielemann , F. K. 2017, , 836, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5dee

    2017 doi

  84. [93]

    2015, , 810, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/109

    Nishimura , N., Takiwaki , T., & Thielemann , F.-K. 2015, , 810, 109, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/109

    2015 doi

  85. [94]

    Obergaulinger , M., & Aloy , M. \'A . 2017, , 469, L43, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx046

    2017 doi

  86. [95]

    2023, Nucleosynthesis in Jet-Driven and Jet-Associated Supernovae (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 3877--3914, 10.1007/978-981-19-6345-2_90

    Obergaulinger, M., & Reichert, M. 2023, Nucleosynthesis in Jet-Driven and Jet-Associated Supernovae (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 3877--3914, 10.1007/978-981-19-6345-2_90

    2023 doi

  87. [96]

    A., et al

    Orlando , E., Bottacini , E., Moiseev , A. A., et al. 2022, , 2022, 036, 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/036

    2022 doi

  88. [98]

    D., Cehula , J., et al

    Patel , A., Metzger , B. D., Cehula , J., et al. 2025, , 984, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/adc9b0

    2025 doi

  89. [99]

    2019, , 567, 200, 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., Gallenne , A., et al. 2019, , 567, 200, 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    2019 doi

  90. [100]

    E., & Fryer, C

    Popham, R., Woosley, S. E., & Fryer, C. 1999, Astrophys. J., 518, 356, 10.1086/307259

    1999 doi

  91. [101]

    M., et al

    Prantzos , N., Boehm , C., Bykov , A. M., et al. 2011, Reviews of Modern Physics, 83, 1001, 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1001

    2011 doi

  92. [102]

    Z., Vogel, P., & Wasserburg, G

    Qian, Y. Z., Vogel, P., & Wasserburg, G. J. 1998, Astrophys. J., 506, 868, 10.1086/306285

    1998 doi

  93. [103]

    2020, Ann

    Radice, D., Bernuzzi, S., & Perego, A. 2020, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 70, 95, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-013120-114541

    2020 doi

  94. [104]

    \'A ., et al

    Reichert , M., Obergaulinger , M., Aloy , M. \'A ., et al. 2023, , 518, 1557, 10.1093/mnras/stac3185

    2023 doi

  95. [105]

    \'A ., & Arcones , A

    Reichert , M., Obergaulinger , M., Eichler , M., Aloy , M. \'A ., & Arcones , A. 2021, , 501, 5733, 10.1093/mnras/stab029

    2021 doi

  96. [106]

    E., Downs , G

    Reichley , P. E., Downs , G. S., & Morris , G. A. 1970, , 159, L35, 10.1086/180473

    1970 doi

  97. [107]

    2006, , 647, L41, 10.1086/507300

    Renaud , M., Vink , J., Decourchelle , A., et al. 2006, , 647, L41, 10.1086/507300

    2006 doi

  98. [108]

    Reynolds , S. P. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Springer), 1981, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_89

    2017 doi

  99. [109]

    P., Borkowski , K

    Reynolds , S. P., Borkowski , K. J., & Gwynne , P. H. 2018, , 856, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3d3

    2018 doi

  100. [110]

    L., Metzger , B

    Ripley , J. L., Metzger , B. D., Arcones , A., & Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G. 2014, , 438, 3243, 10.1093/mnras/stt2434

    2014 doi

  101. [111]

    F., Lippuner , J., Duez , M

    Roberts , L. F., Lippuner , J., Duez , M. D., et al. 2017, , 464, 3907, 10.1093/mnras/stw2622

    2017 doi

  102. [112]

    U., & Lawler , J

    Roederer , I. U., & Lawler , J. E. 2012, , 750, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/76

    2012 doi

  103. [113]

    U., Lawler , J

    Roederer , I. U., Lawler , J. E., Sneden , C., et al. 2008, , 675, 723, 10.1086/526452

    2008 doi

  104. [114]

    U., Mateo , M., Bailey , III, J

    Roederer , I. U., Mateo , M., Bailey , III, J. I., et al. 2016, , 151, 82, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/82

    2016 doi

  105. [115]

    U., Cowan , J

    Roederer , I. U., Cowan , J. J., Pignatari , M., et al. 2022, , 936, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85bc

    2022 doi

  106. [116]

    P., Schanne , S., von Kienlin , A., et al

    Roques , J. P., Schanne , S., von Kienlin , A., et al. 2003, , 411, L91, 10.1051/0004-6361:20031501

    2003 doi

  107. [117]

    R., Timmes , F

    Seitenzahl , I. R., Timmes , F. X., & Magkotsios , G. 2014, , 792, 10, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/10

    2014 doi

  108. [118]

    2024, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol

    Shutt , T. 2024, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 21, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, 500.05

    2024

  109. [119]

    M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Nature, 569, 241, 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0

    2019 doi

  110. [121]

    2015 b , , 579, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525877

    ---. 2015 b , , 579, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525877

    2015 doi

  111. [122]

    J., Salvadori , S., & Choplin , A

    Sk \'u lad \'o ttir , \'A ., Hansen , C. J., Salvadori , S., & Choplin , A. 2019, , 631, A171, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936125

    2019 doi

  112. [123]

    Smith , J. D. T., Rudnick , L., Delaney , T., et al. 2009, , 693, 713, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/713

    2009 doi

  113. [124]

    2025, Astroparticle Physics, 172, 103135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2025.103135

    Soleti, S., Gómez-Cadenas, J., Apilluelo, J., et al. 2025, Astroparticle Physics, 172, 103135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2025.103135

    2025

  114. [125]

    M., Mumpower , M

    Sprouse , T. M., Mumpower , M. R., & Surman , R. 2021, , 104, 015803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.015803

    2021 doi

  115. [126]

    2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9608, 10.1038/s41467-024-54040-4

    Spyrou , A., Richman , D., Couture , A., et al. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9608, 10.1038/s41467-024-54040-4

    2024 doi

  116. [127]

    W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T

    Steiner, A. W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 17, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/17

    2013 doi

  117. [128]

    E., Brown , J

    Sukhbold , T., Ertl , T., Woosley , S. E., Brown , J. M., & Janka , H. T. 2016, , 821, 38, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  118. [129]

    C., & Hix, W

    Surman, R., McLaughlin, G. C., & Hix, W. R. 2006, Astrophys. J., 643, 1057, 10.1086/501116

    2006 doi

  119. [130]

    C., Ruffert, M., Janka, H

    Surman, R., McLaughlin, G. C., Ruffert, M., Janka, H. T., & Hix, W. R. 2008, Astrophys. J. Lett., 679, L117, 10.1086/589507

    2008 doi

  120. [131]

    2023, , 958, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad00ae

    Suzuki , H., Tanaka , T., Inoue , T., Uchida , H., & Narita , T. 2023, , 958, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad00ae

    2023 doi

  121. [132]

    Takahashi , K., Witti , J., & Janka , H. T. 1994, , 286, 857

    1994

  122. [133]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 652, 10.22323/1.395.0652

    Tomsick , J., & COSI Collaboration . 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 652, 10.22323/1.395.0652

    2022 doi

  123. [134]

    A., et al

    Tomsick, J. A., et al. 2019. 1908.04334

    2019 arXiv

  124. [135]

    2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 745, 10.22323/1.444.0745

    ---. 2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 745, 10.22323/1.444.0745

    2023 doi

  125. [136]

    S., Krivonos , R

    Tsygankov , S. S., Krivonos , R. A., Lutovinov , A. A., et al. 2016, , 458, 3411, 10.1093/mnras/stw549

    2016 doi

  126. [137]

    van de Voort , F., Pakmor , R., Grand , R. J. J., et al. 2020, , 494, 4867, 10.1093/mnras/staa754

    2020 doi

  127. [138]

    2024, Phys

    Vassh, N., Wang, X., Lariviere, M., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 052701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.052701

    2024 doi

  128. [139]

    A., Guillochon , J., Berger , E., et al

    Villar , V. A., Guillochon , J., Berger , E., et al. 2017, , 851, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84

    2017 doi

  129. [140]

    2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 976, 10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.097

    Vink , J. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 35, 976, 10.1016/j.asr.2005.01.097

    2005 doi

  130. [141]

    M., Kaastra , J

    Vink , J., Laming , J. M., Kaastra , J. S., et al. 2001, , 560, L79, 10.1086/324172

    2001 doi

  131. [142]

    2016, , 532, 69, 10.1038/nature17196

    Wallner , A., Feige , J., Kinoshita , N., et al. 2016, , 532, 69, 10.1038/nature17196

    2016 doi

  132. [143]

    B., Hotchkis , M

    Wallner , A., Froehlich , M. B., Hotchkis , M. A. C., et al. 2021, Science, 372, 742, 10.1126/science.aax3972

    2021 doi

  133. [144]

    2024 a , , 962, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12b8

    Wang , T., & Burrows , A. 2024 a , , 962, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12b8

    2024 doi

  134. [145]

    2024 b , , 974, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6983

    ---. 2024 b , , 974, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6983

    2024 doi

  135. [146]

    J., Diehl , R., et al

    Wang , W., Harris , M. J., Diehl , R., et al. 2007, , 469, 1005, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066982

    2007 doi

  136. [147]

    2024, MeV Gamma-ray Astronomy in the Multi-messenger Era and the Future Mission

    Wang, X. 2024, MeV Gamma-ray Astronomy in the Multi-messenger Era and the Future Mission

    2024

  137. [148]

    D., & Lien , A

    Wang , X., Fields , B. D., & Lien , A. Y. 2019, , 486, 2910, 10.1093/mnras/stz993

    2019 doi

  138. [149]

    2021 a , in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Wang , X., Vassh , N., Sprouse , T., et al. 2021 a , in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2021, APS April Meeting Abstracts, D09.007

    2021

  139. [150]

    2020, , 903, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbe18

    Wang , X., N3AS Collaboration , Vassh , N., et al. 2020, , 903, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbe18

    2020 doi

  140. [151]

    M., Ellis , J., et al

    Wang , X., Clark , A. M., Ellis , J., et al. 2021 b , , 923, 219, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d90

    2021 doi

  141. [152]

    2023, , 948, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbeaa

    ---. 2023, , 948, 113, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbeaa

    2023 doi

  142. [153]

    2019, Nature, 574, 497, 10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    Watson, D., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 497, 10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    2019 doi

  143. [154]

    Weinberger , C., Diehl , R., Pleintinger , M. M. M., Siegert , T., & Greiner , J. 2020, , 638, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037536

    2020 doi

  144. [155]

    E., Wilson , J

    Woosley , S. E., Wilson , J. R., Mathews , G. J., Hoffman , R. D., & Meyer , B. S. 1994, , 433, 229, 10.1086/174638

    1994 doi

  145. [156]

    S., et al

    Yong , D., Kobayashi , C., Da Costa , G. S., et al. 2021, , 595, 223, 10.1038/s41586-021-03611-2

    2021 doi

  146. [157]

    W., & Zuo , P

    Zhu , H., Tian , W. W., & Zuo , P. 2014, , 793, 95, 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/95

    2014 doi

  147. [158]

    2024, Experimental Astronomy, 57, 2, 10.1007/s10686-024-09920-4

    Zhu , J., Zheng , X., Feng , H., et al. 2024, Experimental Astronomy, 57, 2, 10.1007/s10686-024-09920-4

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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