Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 71 references

Heavy element nucleosynthesis in rotating proto-magnetar winds

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetar births produce a robust r-process past the third peak, even at 5e14 G fields.

desk verdict A transparent, genuinely new simulation campaign that does not yet support the headline 'generic third-peak r-process' claim, because the load-bearing entropy comes from unresolved numerical reconnection. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01094 v1 pith:HRKDMZFR submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.HE

Tejas Prasanna , Matthew S. B. Coleman , Todd A. Thompson , Brian D. Metzger , Anirudh Patel , Bradley S. Meyer This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords r-processnucleosynthesisproto-neutronstarwindsmagnetarsmagnetohydrodynamicsplasmoideruptionsthirdpeaknuclearreactionnetwork92Mop-isotope
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 sets out to answer a long-standing question in nuclear astrophysics: where do the heaviest elements come from? It argues that the neutrino-driven wind of a newborn neutron star, long thought to be too weak to make a third-peak r-process, becomes a prolific source if the star is born with a magnetar-strength magnetic field. Using axisymmetric MHD simulations with tracer particles and a nuclear reaction network, the authors find that high-entropy plasma is ejected quasi-periodically from the closed equatorial zone of the magnetosphere, reaching entropies that satisfy the Hoffman criterion for a robust r-process. They claim a robust r-process extending beyond the third peak is generic to magnetar birth, even at polar fields as low as about $5\times 10^{14}$ G, and estimate that magnetized winds could account for roughly 5--100% of the Galactic r-process inventory. If correct, this would make magnetar birth a major, potentially dominant, r-process site.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equatorial closed zone of the protoneutron-star magnetosphere, where magnetic tension traps wind material long enough for neutrino heating and magnetic reconnection at the current sheet to raise its entropy before it is ejected as a plasmoid. The argument is carried by the Hoffman criterion, $\zeta = S^3 / (1.28\,Y_e^3\,t_{\rm exp}) \ge 8 \times 10^9\ (k_B\ \mathrm{baryon}^{-1})^3\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$, evaluated near $T = 0.5$ MeV, where $\alpha$-particles assemble into seed nuclei; because $\zeta$ scales as $S^3$, modest entropy changes decide whether the outflow reaches the third peak. Tracer particles record density, temperature, electron fraction, and heating along each trajectory, and the nuclear network SkyNet turns those trajectories into final abundances.

What would settle it

Resolve the equatorial current sheet in a three-dimensional simulation, or impose a physical resistivity, and compare the entropy histories of equatorial tracers: if the sharp entropy spikes from reconnection disappear or shrink substantially, the Hall-mode yields that carry the robustness claim collapse. A complementary quantitative check is to measure the mass flux satisfying $\zeta \ge \zeta_{\rm crit}$ at $T = 0.5$ MeV in the neutrino-only mode as resolution increases; if it continues to trend to zero, the robust-yield claim depends on the unresolved reconnection entropy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a robust r-process extending beyond the third peak is generic to magnetar birth, not a special outcome. Every magnetized wind solution the authors study produces a network abundance distribution that reaches beyond $A \approx 195$, while the non-rotating, non-magnetic baseline reproduces the familiar failure. The mechanism is the periodic buildup and ejection of high-entropy plasmoids from the closed equatorial zone of the PNS magnetosphere: material trapped by magnetic tension is heated by neutrinos and by magnetic reconnection, then expelled with entropy high enough that the Hoffman parameter $\zeta = S^3 / (1.28\,Y_e^3\,t_{\rm exp})$ clears the threshold for a heavy r-process. The paper treats the total-entropy version (Hall mode) as the physical yields and the neutrino-heating-only version (H$\nu$ mode) as a conservative lower bound, and it is the Hall mode that underlies the robustness claim down to $5\times 10^{14}$ G.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the entropy boost from magnetic reconnection at the current sheet is physical and as large as the simulations show; if that entropy is mostly numerical, the robust third-peak production at weak fields is not established, and in the neutrino-only mode the third-peak yield at $B_0 = 4\times 10^{15}$ G already drops to zero at the highest resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single magnetar with $B_0 \gtrsim 3\times 10^{15}$ G can eject roughly $10^{-5}\,M_\odot$ of mass-number $A > 190$ material in the first ~10 s of cooling if the reconnection entropy is physical.
  • If all Galactic magnetars are born at $B_0 \sim 5\times 10^{14}{-}10^{15}$ G, magnetar winds could supply roughly 5--20% of the Galactic heavy r-process budget, rising to ~100% if most are born at $B_0 \gtrsim 3\times 10^{15}$ G.
  • Because the yields come with an overproduction of $A \lesssim 120$ elements, any chemical-evolution model built on these yields must also explain where the lighter r-process material goes, for example via convective fallback or a more accurate wind electron fraction.
  • Neutron-rich proto-neutron-star winds can produce about 4--40% of the Galactic abundance of $^{92}$Mo, a p-isotope usually associated with proton-rich environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reconnection-induced entropy is later found to be overestimated, the 'robust down to $5\times 10^{14}$ G' part of the claim would likely fail; the neutrino-heating-only calculations already show third-peak yields that are resolution-sensitive and vanish at high resolution for $B_0 = 4\times 10^{15}$ G.
  • The same machinery predicts a testable correlation between the distribution of magnetar birth fields and the scatter of r-process abundances in metal-poor stars: a population with many strong-field magnetars should enrich early and unevenly.
  • Because the paper stops before the relativistic wind phase, the total Galactic contribution could exceed the quoted 100% ceiling if the relativistic phase also produces heavy elements, which would force a compensating reduction in the neutron-star-merger contribution.
  • A three-dimensional treatment with resolved current sheets and fluid mixing would be the natural stress test, since mixing of tracer trajectories could erase the entropy spikes that currently drive the heavy yields.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper post-processes tracer-particle trajectories from axisymmetric MHD simulations of rotating and non-rotating proto-magnetar winds with the nuclear network SkyNet, computing r-process yields as a function of magnetic field, spin period, neutrino luminosity, and electron fraction. The central claim, stated in the abstract and repeated in Section 5, is that a robust r-process extending beyond the third peak is generic to magnetar birth, even at polar fields as weak as ~5e14 G, and that magnetar winds could supply 5-100% of the Galactic r-process inventory. The authors distinguish two entropy-input modes: 'Hall', which uses the total entropy from the MHD simulation at face value, and 'Hnu', which uses only the neutrino-heating contribution as a conservative lower bound. They also report overproduction of A<120 nuclei and significant production of 92Mo in neutron-rich winds.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this paper would establish proto-magnetar winds as a potentially major, possibly dominant, Galactic r-process site, with concrete predictions for abundance patterns and for 92Mo production. The work is methodologically meritorious: it uses a forward MHD-to-network pipeline with tracer particles, a full reaction network, no fitting to the solar r-process pattern, and an explicit separation of the uncertain reconnection-heating channel from the neutrino-heating channel. That honest separation is also the source of the main weakness: the headline 'generic' claim relies on the Hall mode, whose reconnection contribution is explicitly unmodeled, while the conservative Hnu mode shows resolution-dependent yields that can vanish at the highest resolution considered. If the authors can either demonstrate convergence of the neutrino-only channel or clearly re-scope the claims as conditional on the reconnection entropy, the paper will be a valuable contribution to the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (11) and Table 1] The claim that a robust r-process is 'generic to magnetar birth' is carried by the Hall mode, in which the external heating fed to SkyNet is derived from the total entropy of the MHD simulation, including magnetic reconnection. The authors state in §3.3 that they 'do not know how much of this entropy increase is physical, due to lack of a physical model for the current sheet in our MHD simulations.' Since the reconnection heating is numerical resistivity at an unresolved current sheet, and since Eq. (12) gives a third-peak criterion scaling as S^3, a factor-of-order-unity overestimate of this term is sufficient to move a model across the threshold. The B0=5e14 G entry in Table 1 that supports the 'generic' wording is a Hall-mode, LR-only point; no Hnu or HR counterpart is presented for that field strength. The robustness claim therefore needs to be re-scoped to the neutrino-heating-only channel or accompanied by a quantitative uncertainty estimate for the reconnection entropy.
  2. [§4.1 and Table 2] The conservative Hnu mode is not resolution-converged at the parameter values used for the headline yield estimates. For B0=4e15 G with the QW EOS and Ye set to the average tracer value, Table 2 lists Mdot_A>190 = 1.6e-6 Msun/s at LR in Hall mode, 4.3e-7 at HR in Hall mode, and 0 at HR in Hnu mode, whereas the LR Hnu value is 1.2e-7 Msun/s. Thus the 'conservative lower bound' described in §3.3 switches from nonzero to exactly zero with resolution. The text of §4.1 itself attributes this to a threshold effect, but that does not resolve the problem: a lower bound that is resolution-dependent at the level of switching the third peak on and off is not a lower bound. The manuscript should either present a converged neutrino-only result or explicitly state that the conservative bound is not yet established.
  3. [§5, Tables 1-2] The Galactic inventory estimates of 5-100% and the statement that magnetars at B0~5e14-1e15 G can account for at least 5-20% of the A>190 budget are computed from LR Hall-mode yields, with the assertion that convergence will follow once the threshold effect is passed. Given the resolution sensitivity documented in §4.1, these numbers should be presented as an upper-envelope scenario tied to the uncertain reconnection heating, not as a robust central prediction. The separate Hnu-based estimate of ~4e-6 Msun of A>190 material in the first ~10 s also uses LR 256x128 values and then applies an ad hoc conservative factor; the formal systematic uncertainty from resolution and current-sheet modeling should be quantified or the claims narrowed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 9] The legend in Figure 9 appears as a long run of repeated '256 x 128' labels, making it impossible to distinguish the three resolution cases at a glance; please fix the legend so that each resolution is labeled once and clearly.
  2. [§5] There is a typo, 'throguhout', in the 92Mo discussion; it should read 'throughout'.
  3. [§2.4] The description of the electron fraction treatment could be clearer: the MHD simulations evolve Ye with neutrino rates, but the SkyNet initial Ye is sometimes set by hand to values that differ from the tracer-averaged value. The approximation is justified in the text, but a brief statement of the resulting systematic effect on Mdot_A>190 would help the reader interpret Figure 10 and Tables 1-2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the abundances are forward outputs of MHD trajectories plus an independent nuclear network, and the stated caveats are modeling uncertainties rather than input-output equivalences.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward post-processing calculation: Athena++ MHD simulations with tracer particles produce thermodynamic trajectories (density, temperature, entropy, electron fraction), and SkyNet independently integrates a nuclear network with an external heating term (Eq. 11) that reproduces the MHD entropy. The yields of A>190 are not fitted to the solar r-process pattern, and no parameter is adjusted to force a third peak. The Hoffman criterion (Eq. 12) is used only as a diagnostic and to interpret threshold behavior; the reported yields come from the network itself. The prior papers cited for the MHD dynamics and neutrino heating (Prasanna et al. 2022, 2023, 2024) are separate forward simulations with stated assumptions that do not include the nucleosynthesis output, so they are dependencies rather than circular inputs. The paper explicitly flags its main uncertainty in Section 3.3 ('we do not know how much of this entropy increase is physical, due to lack of a physical model for the current sheet in our MHD simulations'), and Section 4.1 shows resolution sensitivity, including the vanishing Hnu third-peak yield at B0=4e15 G in the HR run. These are robustness concerns about the physicality and convergence of the reconnection-heated entropy, not circularity: the entropy is an input, but it is not defined in terms of the predicted yields. The Galactic 5-100% estimate is a conditional extrapolation from those yields and external rates, not a renamed fit. No equation reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its free parameters are the hand-set electron fraction and, to a lesser extent, the density extrapolation exponent. The main load-bearing assumption is the physicality of the entropy gained from magnetic reconnection in the current sheet, which the authors themselves flag as uncertain.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial electron fraction Ye in SkyNet = varied 0.40-0.54, plus 'avg' along tracer path
    The yields of A>190 elements change by orders of magnitude with Ye. Ye is not computed self-consistently in the MHD runs; it is set by hand in the network calculations (Section 2.4).
  • Late-time density extrapolation exponent a = 3
    Tracer density beyond the simulation boundary is extrapolated as rho ~ t^-a with a=3. The paper tests a=1-4 and finds the abundances insensitive, so the impact of this choice is low.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 2D axisymmetric MHD with aligned magnetic and rotation axes captures the essential dynamics of proto-magnetar winds
    Invoked in Section 2.1. Real magnetars are 3D and may have oblique rotation, which could change plasmoid formation and ejection.
  • domain assumption Ye freezes out close to the PNS surface and is constant along the tracer path
    Section 2.4 states this citing earlier work; changes of a few percent are neglected, but r-process yields are exponentially sensitive to Ye.
  • domain assumption Entropy increase from numerical reconnection is physically representative (Hall mode is an upper bound)
    Section 3.3: no physical current-sheet model exists; the paper itself identifies this as the main uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic MHD is sufficient for the early cooling phase; later relativistic wind is ignored
    Section 5: only the wind before the relativistic transition (at roughly 7-20 s) is modeled. The later relativistic phase could add extra yields.
  • standard math Nuclear reaction network rates and NSE initial composition are correct
    SkyNet is a standard network; initial composition is assumed to be in NSE at the tracer release point (Section 2.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heavy element nucleosynthesis in rotating proto-magnetar winds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HRKDMZFR

@misc{pith2026250701094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heavy element nucleosynthesis in rotating proto-magnetar winds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HRKDMZFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01094}
}
abstract

The astrophysical origin of elements synthesized through the rapid neutron capture process ($r-$process) is a long standing mystery. The hot and dense environments of core-collapse supernovae have been suggested as potential $r-$process sites, particularly the neutrino-driven wind from the newly-born protoneutron star (PNS). Wind models that neglect the potential effects of strong magnetic fields and/or rapid rotation of the PNS typically fail to achieve the necessary conditions for production of the third $r-$process peak, but robustly produce a limited or weak $r-$process for neutron-rich winds. Axisymmetric magnetohydrodynamic simulations of rotating and non-rotating PNS winds with magnetar-strength fields reveal that high entropy material is quasi-periodically ejected from the equatorial closed zone of the PNS magnetosphere. Here, we post-process tracer particle trajectories from these simulations using a nuclear reaction network in order to explore the resulting nucleosynthesis across a range of PNS magnetic field strengths, rotation rates, and neutrino luminosities (cooling phase after core-bounce). We find that a robust $r-$process up to and beyond the third peak is generic to magnetar birth, even for magnetic fields as weak as $\sim 5\times 10^{14}$ G. Depending on the distribution of magnetic field strengths and rotation at birth, we estimate that magnetized PNS winds could account for $\sim 5-100\%$ of the Galactic $r-$process inventory, extending up to the third peak. The robust $r-$process in our calculations is accompanied by overproduction of elements with mass number $\rm A\lesssim 120$ compared to the Solar abundances. We also find that $^{92}\rm Mo$ (a $p-$isotope) is produced in significant quantities in neutron-rich winds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01094 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three snapshots (left to right) from our fiducial simulation (at a polar magnetic field B0 = 4 × 1015 G for a non￾rotating PNS) showing 2D maps of radial velocity vr (left half of each panel) and entropy (right half of each panel). We show the structure of the magnetic field during magnetic reconnection and subsequent plasmoid eruption. The outer boundary shown here is at a radius of 100 km (though the full simulati… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial location (top panel), polar angle (middle panel), and entropy (bottom panel) of a few tracers from the wind simulation of a non-rotating PNS at a polar magnetic field strength B0 = 4×1015 G. Based on the polar angle of the initial tracer release, various physical and thermodynamic tracer paths are possible as shown. Tracers released close to the PNS equator are trapped for a significant amount of time before … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The left panel shows average abundance per baryon for a non-rotating, non-magnetic (NRNM) PNS while the middle panel shows average abundance per baryon for a non-rotating PNS at a polar magnetic field B0 = 4 × 1015 G. The abundance distributions shown are averages of those obtained by all the tracers. The right panel compares the abundance patterns (normalized to the first r−process peak) in these two cases with the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized abundance pattern for different values of PNS polar magnetic field B0 (in 1015 G), spin period P⋆ (in millisecond; Ω⋆ = 2π/P⋆ = 0 indicates a non-rotating PNS), neutrino luminosity Lν¯e (in 1051 ergs s−1 ), electron fraction Ye used to the set the initial co…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mass flux of elements with mass number A > 190 as a function of polar magnetic field (left panel), PNS spin period (middle panel), and neutrino luminosity (right panel). P⋆ is the PNS spin period in millisecond, B0 is the PNS magnetic field in units of 1015 G, Lν¯e is …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time-averaged mass flux (estimated using the hydrodynamic quantities) through the T = 0.5 MeV surface as a function of entropy for various resolutions (indicated as Nr × Nθ in the top-right corner). 2), the yield of A > 190 elements is M˙ A>190 = 0, versus M˙ A>190 = 1…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mass flux (estimated using the hydrodynamic quantities) through the T = 0.5 MeV surface that satisfies the Hoffman criterion (Eq. 12) for production of the third r−process peak (Hoffman et al. 1997) as a function of reso￾lution (indicated as Nr × Nθ in the top-right co…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Entropy along the tracer path for different resolutions (indicated as Nr × Nθ at the top right of each panel) at a PNS polar magnetic field B0 = 4 × 1015 G for a non-rotating PNS. Entropy shown here is from neutrino heating only (mode Hν in Tables 1 and 2). to the calc…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average abundance per baryon for various val￾ues of electron fraction Ye used in the nucleosynthesis calcu￾lations to set the initial composition. The MHD simulation corresponding to these nucleosynthesis calculations has been run with the Helmholtz EOS for a non-rota…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Production factor (Eq. 13) of various isotopes of Molybdenum (Mo) normalized to the maximum production factor of the isotopes of Mo. The line labels are PNS polar magnetic field B0 in units of 1015 G and neutrino luminosity Lν¯e in units of 1051 ergs s−1 . All the cal…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2007, PhR, 450, 97, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002

    Arnould, M., Goriely, S., & Takahashi, K. 2007, PhR, 450, 97, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002 2007

  2. [2]

    A., Yang, C.-C., & Zhu, Z

    Baronett, S. A., Yang, C.-C., & Zhu, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 275, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae272 Barr` ere, P., Guilet, J., Reboul-Salze, A., Raynaud, R., &

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae272 2024

  3. [3]

    Janka, H. T. 2022, A&A, 668, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244172

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244172 2022

  4. [4]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    Kouveliotou, C. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1391 2019

  5. [6]

    M., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29, 547, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.29.547 1957

  6. [7]

    Burrows, A., Hayes, J., & Fryxell, B. A. 1995, ApJ, 450, 830, doi: 10.1086/176188

    doi:10.1086/176188 1995

  7. [8]

    Burrows, A., & Lattimer, J. M. 1986, ApJ, 307, 178, doi: 10.1086/164405

    doi:10.1086/164405 1986

  8. [9]

    A., & Metzger, B

    Cehula, J., Thompson, T. A., & Metzger, B. D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae358

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae358 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [10]

    Center, O. S. 1987, Ohio Supercomputer Center. http://osc.edu/ark:/19495/f5s1ph73

    1987

  2. [11]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv042

    Cerutti, B., Philippov, A., Parfrey, K., & Spitkovsky, A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv042

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    Coleman, M. S. B. 2020, ApJS, 248, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab82ff Cˆ ot´ e, B., Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad67 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    K., Siegel, D

    Desai, D. K., Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJ, 954, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acea83

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    C., Shapiro, S

    Duncan, R. C., Shapiro, S. L., & Wasserman, I. 1986, ApJ, 309, 141, doi: 10.1086/164587

    1986 doi

  6. [15]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9, doi: 10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  7. [16]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    1989 doi

  8. [17]

    2006, MNRAS, 367, 1323, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10058.x Fr¨ ohlich, C., Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Liebend¨ orfer, M., et al

    Ferrario, L., & Wickramasinghe, D. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1323, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10058.x Fr¨ ohlich, C., Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Liebend¨ orfer, M., et al. 2006, PhRvL, 96, 142502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.142502

    2006

  9. [18]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    Hakobyan, H., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2023, ApJ, 943, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 20

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    W., & Eastwood, J

    Hockney, R. W., & Eastwood, J. W. 1981, Computer Simulation Using Particles

    1981

  12. [21]

    D., Woosley, S

    Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E., Fuller, G. M., & Meyer, B. S. 1996a, ApJ, 460, 478, doi: 10.1086/176986 —. 1996b, ApJ, 460, 478, doi: 10.1086/176986

    doi

  13. [22]

    D., Woosley, S

    Hoffman, R. D., Woosley, S. E., & Qian, Y. Z. 1997, ApJ, 482, 951, doi: 10.1086/304181

    1997 doi

  14. [23]

    Hu, R., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, ApJ, 939, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac961d

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  16. [25]

    T., & Mueller, E

    Janka, H. T., & Mueller, E. 1995, ApJL, 448, L109, doi: 10.1086/309604 —. 1996, A&A, 306, 167

    1995 doi

  17. [26]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    M., & Schramm, D

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, ApJL, 192, L145, doi: 10.1086/181612

    1974 doi

  19. [28]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2017, ApJS, 233, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa94cb

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    2020, Solar Elemental Abundances, Oxford University Press, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.145

    Lodders, K. 2020, Solar Elemental Abundances, Oxford University Press, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.145

    2020

  21. [30]

    2021, SSRv, 217, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8

    Lodders, K. 2021, SSRv, 217, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00825-8

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    F., & Papitto, A

    Martin, J., Rea, N., Torres, D. F., & Papitto, A. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1594

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    D., Thompson, T

    Metzger, B. D., Thompson, T. A., & Quataert, E. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1130, doi: 10.1086/526418

    2008 doi

  24. [33]

    S., Krishnan, T

    Meyer, B. S., Krishnan, T. D., & Clayton, D. D. 1998, ApJ, 498, 808, doi: 10.1086/305562

    1998 doi

  25. [34]

    S., Mathews, G

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

    1992 doi

  26. [35]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/109

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

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    2000, ApJ, 533, 424, doi: 10.1086/308632

    Otsuki, K., Tagoshi, H., Kajino, T., & Wanajo, S.-y. 2000, ApJ, 533, 424, doi: 10.1086/308632

    2000 doi

  28. [37]

    P., Frebel, A., Naidu, R

    Ou, X., Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Naidu, R. P., & Limberg, G. 2024, ApJ, 974, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6f9b

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    D., Cehula, J., et al

    Patel, A., Metzger, B. D., Cehula, J., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09181, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09181

    doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    D., Goldberg, J

    Patel, A., Metzger, B. D., Goldberg, J. A., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17253, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17253

    doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    K., & Cescutti, G

    Perego, A., Thielemann, F. K., & Cescutti, G. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, ed. C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, & K. D. Kokkotas, 13, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 13-1

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    Miralles, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 513, 780, doi: 10.1086/306889

    1999 doi

  33. [42]

    Thompson, T. A. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 3008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2651 —. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3141, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2948

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    Prasanna, T., Coleman, M. S. B., & Thompson, T. A. 2024, ApJ, 973, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d90

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    2006, ApJ, 644, 1028, doi: 10.1086/503891

    Buras, R. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1028, doi: 10.1086/503891

    2006 doi

  36. [45]

    Hoffman, R. D. 2005, ApJ, 623, 325, doi: 10.1086/428281

    2005 doi

  37. [46]

    Qian, Y. Z. 2000, ApJL, 534, L67, doi: 10.1086/312659

    2000 doi

  38. [47]

    Z., & Wasserburg, G

    Qian, Y. Z., & Wasserburg, G. J. 2007, PhR, 442, 237, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.006

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    Z., & Woosley, S

    Qian, Y. Z., & Woosley, S. E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 331, doi: 10.1086/177973

    1996 doi

  40. [49]

    Roberts, L. F. 2012, ApJ, 755, 126, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/126

    2012 doi

  41. [50]

    F., Reddy, S., & Shen, G

    Roberts, L. F., Reddy, S., & Shen, G. 2012, PhRvC, 86, 065803, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.065803

    2012 doi

  42. [51]

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

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

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    M., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, ApJ, 858, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabaec

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    D., Brown, T

    Simon, J. D., Brown, T. M., Mutlu-Pakdil, B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca9d1

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    J., & Gallino, R

    Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., & Gallino, R. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145207

    2008

  46. [55]

    M., Tomida, K., White, C

    Stone, J. M., Tomida, K., White, C. J., & Felker, K. G. 2020, ApJS, 249, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929b

    2020 doi

  47. [56]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1993, ApJ, 408, 194, doi: 10.1086/172580

    1993 doi

  48. [57]

    Thompson, T. A. 2003, ApJL, 585, L33, doi: 10.1086/374261

    2003 doi

  49. [58]

    A., Burrows, A., & Meyer, B

    Thompson, T. A., Burrows, A., & Meyer, B. S. 2001, ApJ, 562, 887, doi: 10.1086/323861

    2001 doi

  50. [59]

    A., & ud-Doula, A

    Thompson, T. A., & ud-Doula, A. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 5502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty480

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    X., & Swesty, F

    Timmes, F. X., & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501, doi: 10.1086/313304

    2000 doi

  52. [61]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Uzdensky, D. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 780, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/3 van der Velden, E. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2004, doi: 10.21105/joss.02004

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 5900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2887

    Vartanyan, D., & Burrows, A. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 5900, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2887

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, L14, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00178.x 21

    Vink, J., & Kuiper, L. 2006, MNRAS, 370, L14, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00178.x 21

    2006

  55. [64]

    D., Metzger, B

    Vlasov, A. D., Metzger, B. D., Lippuner, J., Roberts, L. F., & Thompson, T. A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 1522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx478

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    D., Metzger, B

    Vlasov, A. D., Metzger, B. D., & Thompson, T. A. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1667

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    2006, ApJ, 647, 1323, doi: 10.1086/505483

    Wanajo, S. 2006, ApJ, 647, 1323, doi: 10.1086/505483

    2006 doi

  58. [67]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/46

    Wanajo, S., Janka, H.-T., & Kubono, S. 2011, ApJ, 729, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/46

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    J., & Otsuki, K

    Wanajo, S., Kajino, T., Mathews, G. J., & Otsuki, K. 2001, ApJ, 554, 578, doi: 10.1086/321339

    2001 doi

  60. [69]

    J., Burrows, A., Coleman, M

    White, C. J., Burrows, A., Coleman, M. S. B., & Vartanyan, D. 2022, ApJ, 926, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4507

    2022 doi

  61. [70]

    E., & Hoffman, R

    Woosley, S. E., & Hoffman, R. D. 1992, ApJ, 395, 202, doi: 10.1086/171644

    1992 doi

  62. [71]

    E., Wilson, J

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

    1994 doi

  63. [72]

    M., et al

    Zevin, M., Kremer, K., Siegel, D. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab498b

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.