Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

This paper argues that massive stars dominate carbon production in the Milky Way, with AGB stars contributing only 10–40% of solar carbon.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:10 UTC pith:ED3LRAUN

load-bearing objection This is a competent, honest extension of the Johnson et al. N-yield program to carbon: the qualitative claim that CCSN C yields rise with metallicity is robust, but the headline 10–40% AGB fraction is softer than it looks because it depends on assumed SN Ia Fe production. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.20752 v2 pith:ED3LRAUN submitted 2025-11-25 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

The galactic chemical evolution of carbon: Implications for stellar nucleosynthesis

Daniel A. Boyea , James W. Johnson , David H. Weinberg This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords galactic chemical evolutioncarbon nucleosynthesisAGB starscore-collapse supernovaetype Ia supernovaeabundance ratiosMilky Way disksubgiant stars
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Using a multi-zone chemical evolution model that tracks carbon from core-collapse supernovae and AGB stars separately, benchmarked against subgiant stars whose surface carbon reflects birth composition, the paper makes two connected claims. The observed rise of [C/Mg] with [Mg/H] is set by the total carbon yield versus metallicity; since all standard AGB yields decline with metallicity, massive-star carbon yields must rise with metallicity, as rotating massive-star models predict. The slope of [C/Mg] versus [Mg/Fe] at fixed [Mg/H] isolates delayed carbon production and implies AGB stars supply 10–40% of solar carbon (median ≈18–20%). The observed relation is more linear than AGB models predict, suggesting either that AGB carbon comes from lower-mass, longer-lived stars than models assume, or that the iron production rate is mis-assumed.

Core claim

Using a multi-zone chemical evolution model with separate tracking of carbon from core-collapse supernovae and AGB stars, benchmarked against subgiant stars whose surface carbon reflects their birth composition, the paper establishes two connected claims. The observed rise of [C/Mg] with [Mg/H] is set by the total carbon yield versus metallicity; since all standard AGB yields decline with metallicity, massive-star carbon yields must rise with metallicity, as rotating massive-star models predict. The slope of [C/Mg] versus [Mg/Fe] at fixed [Mg/H] isolates delayed carbon production and implies AGB stars supply 10–40% of solar carbon (median ≈18–20%). The observed relation is more linear than A

What carries the argument

Central is a multi-zone chemical evolution model with radial stellar migration, in which carbon is decomposed into two linear channels—prompt core-collapse supernova yields and delayed AGB yields ('process tracking'). Massive-star carbon is parameterized as y_CC_C = y0 + ζ(Z−Z_sun)/Z_sun, and AGB carbon by a scaling factor β_AGB with a solar-metallicity fraction f_AGB. The argument rides on two abundance planes: [C/Mg] versus [Mg/H], which at equilibrium encodes the metallicity dependence of total carbon yield, and [C/Mg] versus [Mg/Fe] at fixed [Mg/H], which encodes the timing of delayed carbon relative to type-Ia iron. Four independent AGB yield tables are tested.

Load-bearing premise

The 10–40% AGB carbon fraction rests on the assumed type-Ia supernova iron yield (7.8×10^-4 per solar mass of star formation) and its delay-time distribution (∝ t^-1.1, 150 Myr minimum); if delayed iron production differs, the inferred AGB fraction shifts roughly proportionally.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the type-Ia supernova delay-time distribution from volumetric rates showing a faster decline than t^-1.1 would shift the inferred AGB carbon fraction; a high-precision subgiant sample that reveals a concave [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] trend would remove the need for the lower-mass AGB shift; and AGB yields measured from resolved stars that do not decline with metallicity would break the claim that massive-star yields must rise.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The Sun's carbon is about 80% from massive stars; carbon joins the short list of elements whose solar abundance is CCSN-dominated.
  • Rotating massive-star nucleosynthesis models that make carbon yields rise with metallicity are supported, while non-rotating models with flat yields are disfavoured.
  • Standard AGB yield tables fail to reproduce the linearity of the [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] trend; either AGB carbon production must be shifted to lower-mass, longer-lived stars, or the assumed type-Ia iron yield/delay-time distribution must change.
  • The inferred ratio y_CC_C/y_Mg ≈ 4.2 at solar metallicity, with its positive metallicity gradient, becomes a quantitative target for stellar yield models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the AGB fraction is extracted from the timing of iron, an independent high-precision measurement of the type-Ia delay-time distribution would either confirm the 10–40% range or reveal that part of the inferred AGB 'delay' is an iron-production artefact.
  • Editorial inference: the same two-plane diagnostic can be applied to other elements produced by both prompt and delayed channels (nitrogen, fluorine, s-process species), yielding an empirical yield-metallicity map from existing subgiant samples.
  • Editorial inference: the model's predicted non-monotonic carbon yield—a dip in [C/O] near [O/H] ≈ −1.5—is a testable universal relation for metal-poor galaxies and damped Lyman-alpha systems, independent of star-formation history.
  • Editorial inference: because the models reach chemical equilibrium early, the [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] relation should be nearly universal across disk galaxies in equilibrium, with deviations flagging recent bursts—testable with stellar abundances in nearby disks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constrains the nucleosynthetic origin of carbon in the Milky Way disk using chemical evolution models benchmarked against APOGEE subgiant abundances. The authors build multi-zone GCE models with the public code vice, using four AGB yield tables and a linear metallicity-dependent CCSN yield parameterization (Eq. 9). An MCMC 'process tracking' fit to the [C/Mg]-[Mg/H] and [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] trends gives a total C/Mg yield ratio of ~4.2 at solar metallicity, a CCSN C yield that increases with metallicity, and an AGB yield fraction f_AGB of 10-40%, with median near 0.18-0.20 for most models. The paper also compares to gas-phase [C/O] data, finding that the fiducial model overpredicts [C/O] at [O/H]< -1, and proposes that a non-monotonic massive-star C yield may be required.

Significance. If the inference holds, this is an important result: it favors massive stars as the dominant source of solar carbon (AGB contributing only ~20%), reviving the case for metallicity-dependent CCSN C yields consistent with rotating models of Limongi & Chieffi (2018). The study's strengths are its systematic exploration of four AGB yield tables, multiple SFHs, yield-scale degeneracies, and a systematic error term in the likelihood; the process-tracking MCMC is a clean and powerful way to map abundance trends into yield constraints. The qualitative conclusion about the CCSN yield-metallicity trend is on solid ground. However, the quantitative 10-40% AGB fraction is conditioned on fixed SN Ia Fe yield and DTD assumptions, and the paper's own sensitivity tests indicate that the upper bound is not a full systematic envelope. The low-metallicity gas-phase discrepancy further suggests the adopted linear CCSN yield model is incomplete. These issues are acknowledged in the text, but they are load-bearing for the headline claim and should be addressed in revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6.2, Table C1, Fig. 9] The headline result that AGB stars produce 10-40% of solar C is not a full systematic envelope: it is computed with the SN Ia Fe yield fixed at 7.82×10^-4 per stellar mass and DTD fixed at t^-1.1 with 150 Myr minimum (Table 2). A 1.2× increase in the SN Ia Fe yield alone changes f_AGB from 0.178 to 0.252 for FRUITY (Table C1), a ~40% relative shift, and §5.4 shows that a more rapidly declining DTD would linearize the [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] relation in the same way as shifting AGB yields to lower masses. The quoted 98th-percentile upper limit of 0.4 therefore does not include plausible joint variations of these Fe-delivery parameters; a modest combined perturbation could push the inferred fraction above 40%. To make the headline robust, the authors should marginalize over the SN Ia Fe yield and DTD shape (e.g., over the range of published rates and DTDs) or present the constraint explicitly as co
  2. [§7, Fig. 10] The gas-phase comparison reveals that the fiducial model overpredicts [C/O] by ~0.2 dex at [O/H]≈-1, and the GSE-like single-zone model fares worse, a discrepancy the paper itself calls a 'breakdown of our fiducial yield prescription' (§7). Because the linear CCSN yield model (Eq. 9) is used in the MCMC inference, the true low-metallicity behavior may be non-monotonic, as the paper suggests in its four-stage scenario. If a more flexible CCSN yield (e.g., piecewise or polynomial) is required to match the gas-phase data, the inferred solar-metallicity f_AGB could shift outside the quoted 10-40% range, since the yield at solar metallicity is tied to the low-metallicity plateau in the fiducial model. The authors should test this explicitly by re-running the MCMC with a yield parameterization that also fits the gas-phase [C/O] data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (5)] f_AGB as defined in Eq. (5) is the ratio of IMF-averaged yields at solar metallicity, not the actual fraction of the Sun's birth C abundance; the abstract and conclusions should consistently use 'yield fraction' to avoid overstating the meaning, though the text does note this caveat.
  2. [Appendix A, Table A1 & Appendix C, Table C1] There is an internal naming inconsistency: 'FRUITYshifted' in Table A1 has β_AGB=1.29 while the 'mass shift 0.7' row has β_AGB=2.34, and Table C1 lists 'FRUITYshifted' with β_AGB=1.29. Clarify which entry corresponds to the MCMC best fit and which to the illustrative shift model, otherwise readers cannot tell which parameters produced the 'FRUITY shifted' curves in Figs. 8-9.
  3. [Fig. 3, right panel] The caption 'ATON reaches a minimum of -3 at a time of 0.3 Gyr' is ambiguous; specify the units and meaning (e.g., cumulative yield in units of 10^-4 or a dimensionless cumulative fraction).
  4. [Data Availability] The statement that 'Data and code are happily available upon request' is welcome but weaker than a permanent public repository. Since the analysis uses public tools (vice, Turing.jl), providing the fitting scripts and processed yield tables would make the results fully reproducible.
  5. [§4, Table 2] The SN Ia Fe yield is quoted as 7.82×10^-4 per stellar mass, but the text says 2.2×10^-3 events per M_sun and 0.355 M_sun of Fe per event; state explicitly that 7.82×10^-4 = rate × Fe mass, and specify the DTD normalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: f_AGB is reported as an MCMC-inferred parameter, not as an independent prediction, and the paper tests against external gas-phase data.

full rationale

The central quantitative result—AGB stars produce 10–40% of solar C—is not a hidden prediction derived from its own inputs. It is explicitly presented as an MCMC inference: Section 6.1 fits β_AGB, y_low, and ζ_CC to the APOGEE [C/Mg]-[Mg/H] and [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] trends, and Section 6.2 reports the resulting f_AGB. Equation 5 defines f_AGB from the fitted yields, but the paper labels this an 'inferred AGB fraction' (Fig. 9), not an independent prediction. Using observed trends to estimate yield parameters is standard parameter estimation, not circularity. The qualitative claim that CCSN C yields rise with metallicity is likewise a comparison between the observed [C/Mg]-[Mg/H] trend and independent AGB yield tables (FRUITY, ATON, Monash, NuGrid); it does not reduce to the model inputs. Self-citations to Johnson et al. (2021, 2023a, 2025b) and Weinberg et al. (2024) supply the GCE framework, SN Ia Fe yields, and DTD, but these are externally anchored (Maoz & Mannucci 2012; Rodríguez et al. 2023) and the paper explicitly tests sensitivity to them. Section 6.2 states that a 1.2× change in SN Ia Fe yield shifts f_AGB by ~1.2×, and Section 5.4 notes that a more rapidly declining DTD would also linearize the [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] relation; these are acknowledged degeneracies and model dependencies, not hidden identities. Finally, the gas-phase [C/O] comparison in Section 7 is an external test, and the paper reports that its fiducial model overestimates [C/O] at low metallicity—falsification-like behavior rather than confirmation by construction. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks; the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on fitted yield parameters (beta, y0, zeta, sigma_sys) plus literature yield tables and the SN Ia Fe prescription. No new physical entities are postulated; the mass-shift is a modification of existing yields, not a new entity.

free parameters (5)
  • beta_AGB_C (AGB yield scaling factor) = Fiducial 2.57; MCMC best-fit FRUITY 1.55±0.04; range 0.59–3.06 across models
    Uniform multiplier applied to published AGB C yield tables (Eq. 4); inferred by MCMC from APOGEE [C/Mg] trends.
  • y0 (CCSN C yield at solar metallicity) = Fiducial 18.7e-4; MCMC FRUITY 22.3e-4 (Table C1)
    Constant term of Eq. 9; sets overall C/Mg normalization; fit to subgiant data.
  • zeta_CC_C (CCSN C yield metallicity slope) = Fiducial 7.9e-4; MCMC FRUITY 7.2e-4
    Slope term of Eq. 9; controls [C/Mg]-[Mg/H] slope; fit to subgiant data.
  • sigma_sys (systematic uncertainty term) = 0 or 0.05 dex
    Ad hoc Gaussian term added to likelihood (Eq. 16) to account for survey systematics; chosen by hand.
  • AGB progenitor-mass shift factor = 0.5, 0.7, 1, 1.5 (0.7 preferred)
    Artificial multiplier on AGB progenitor masses to extend carbon delay times; chosen post hoc to linearize [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] (Section 5.4).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Subgiant photospheric C abundances approximate birth abundances after gravitational settling reincorporation.
    Section 2 argues subgiants are unaffected by first dredge-up; the entire observational benchmark depends on this premise.
  • domain assumption The four AGB yield tables (FRUITY, ATON, Monash, NuGrid) are representative of true AGB C yields and delay times.
    Section 3.1; results are tested across these tables but the true yield table could lie outside this set, especially in mass dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper The CCSN C yield is a linear function of metallicity (Eq. 9).
    Section 3.2; no derivation is provided, and the authors note higher-order polynomials improve agreement, so linearity is a simplifying parameterization.
  • domain assumption SN Ia Fe enrichment follows t^-1.1 DTD with 150 Myr minimum delay and fixed Fe yield per event.
    Table 2 and Section 4; Section 6.2 explicitly states this choice directly impacts the inferred AGB fraction.
  • domain assumption Mg yield is metallicity-independent and representative of alpha elements.
    Section 4 and Eq. 11 use Mg as the reference element; if Mg yields vary with metallicity, the [C/Mg] interpretation changes.
  • domain assumption Kroupa IMF and Larson mass-lifetime relation are adopted for yield integration.
    Section 3.1/4; the IMF weighting sets the relative CCSN and AGB contributions.
  • ad hoc to paper Process-tracking linearity: total C abundance is a linear combination of CCSN and AGB process abundances.
    Section 6.1; the approximation neglects second-order metallicity-feedback effects, which the authors argue are small.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31473 in / 15001 out tokens · 157923 ms · 2026-08-03T20:10:41.256278+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Carbon (C) is thought to be produced by both core collapse supernovae (CCSN) and asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, but the relative contributions of these two sources are uncertain. We investigate the astrophysical origin of C using models of Galactic chemical evolution (GCE) appropriate for the Milky Way disk. We benchmark our results against APOGEE subgiant abundances. The trend between [C/Mg] and [Mg/H] is set by the total C yield as a function of metallicity. Observations indicate a gently rising [C/Mg] with [Mg/H], but AGB C production is predicted to decline with metallicity. Our sample therefore favours a scenario in which CCSN yields rise with metallicity to offset declining AGB C yields and drive a subtle increase in [C/Mg] with [Mg/H]. This result is consistent with massive star nucleosynthesis models incorporating rotation. The [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] trend is sensitive to delayed enrichment and therefore constrains the amount of AGB C production. Given the slope of this relation, we find that AGB stars likely account for 10-40 per cent of C at solar metallicity. Artificially shifting the AGB C yields towards lower mass stars with longer lifetimes also improves agreement with the observed [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] trend, possibly indicating a discrepancy with stellar evolution predictions or our assumed Fe production rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.20752 by Daniel A. Boyea, David H. Weinberg, James W. Johnson.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The [C/Mg] ratio versus [Mg/H] (left) and [Mg/Fe] (right) for the Roberts et al. (2024) sample of APOGEE subgiants. Left: High- and low-𝛼 stars are shown in blue and orange, respectively, using the separation defined in Eq. 2. The black points represent the median trend along the low-𝛼 sequence. Right: Stars are colour-coded by their [Mg/H] abundance. The black points show the median [C/Mg]-[Mg/Fe] sequenc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The net fractional C yield from AGB stars as a function of initial stellar mass and metallicity. Each panel represents yields from one of four AGB studies from the literature: FRUITY, ATON, Monash, NuGrid (see Section 3.1). The black dotted line shows 𝑦 AGB C = 0 for reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: The integrated C yield from AGB stars, 𝑦 AGB C , as a function of metallicity for each yield table, calculated 10 Gyr after a stellar population forms. (Note that the shape of the integrated yields arises from our linear interpolation of yields in 𝑍. Changing to linear interpolation in log 𝑍 does not substantially affect our results.) Right: Cumulative C production as a function of age for a single s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: IMF-integrated C yields from massive stars plotted as a function of metallicity. The right axis provides the equivalent CCSN [C/Mg] ratio, assuming our fiducial 𝑦Mg yield. The black line is our fiducial massive star yield (see Eq. 9). Yields are shown for tables from Limongi & Chieffi (2018, LC18, blue circles), NuGrid (P16, orange hexagons), Sukhbold et al. (2016, S16, green square and diamond), Nomoto et… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of gas-phase C abundances in our fiducial model for [C/Mg] versus [Mg/H] (left) and [Mg/Fe] (right). Each line represents a zone at a different Galactic radius, colour-coded by lookback time. We plot zones at 1 kpc intervals between 2 and 15 kpc. Evolution in [C/Mg] with [Mg/H] varies substantially between regions of the Galaxy, while evolution with [Mg/Fe] is more uniform. −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The median low-𝛼 [C/N] ratio as a function of [Mg/H] for our fiducial model (blue line), compared with APOGEE subgiants (medians as black points with 16th and 84th percentile ranges as grey bars). Stars are binned into 20 equal-number bins. Combining our results with the suggested N yield from Johnson et al. (2023a) (rescaled to our adopted yields) explains the thin-disk evolution of both C and N. trends m… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trends in [C/Mg] with [Mg/H] (left) or [Mg/Fe] (right). Stars are binned into 20 (left) or 12 (right) equal-number bins. The left panel only shows low-𝛼 stars, and the right panel shows stars where −0.15 ≤ [Mg/H] ≤ −0.05. Coloured lines represent the median [C/Mg] in bins of [Mg/H] or [Mg/Fe] for each model. Black points and grey dashes represent the median and 16th-84th percentiles of [C/Mg] in each bin i… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: The population-averaged yield ratio, 𝑦 tot C /𝑦 CC Mg, based on our MCMC fits to the [C/Mg]-[Mg/H]-[Mg/Fe] relation. We also show individual samples from the FRUITY MCMC model. Middle: Posterior distribution of 𝑓 AGB C from MCMC samples for each model. We show models without 𝜎sys (circles) and with 𝜎sys = 0.05 dex additional uncertainty (triangles). In each case, the thick line is the 16th-94th perce… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gas-phase C abundances. We plot the present-day gas-phase abundances predicted by our fiducial model as a thick blue line and the evolution of the 𝑅 = 8 kpc zone as a solid black line. The black dotted line is a simple, one-zone model for a GSE-like dwarf galaxy. Points represent measurements for MW stars (yellow stars), MW H ii regions (recombination lines, orange pentagons), extragalactic H ii regions f… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. JWST high-contrast spectroscopy with speckle modelling: Atmospheric retrievals of the T dwarf companion HD 19467 B

    astro-ph.EP 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Joint speckle-atmosphere retrievals on JWST spectra of HD 19467 B and a field T dwarf detect H2O, CH4, CO, CO2 and NH3, yield carbon isotopic ratios of 154 and 85 respectively, and show near-solar metallicity with sub...

  2. Are Nucleosynthetic Yields Universal? Interpreting the Multi-Elemental Abundances of Quiescent Galaxies over Cosmic Time Using Milky Way Stars

    astro-ph.GA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Milky Way abundance trends act as effective empirical proxies for nucleosynthetic yields, recovering alpha and Fe-peak abundances in quiescent galaxies with 0.05 dex median offset versus 0.23 dex for theory, indicatin...

  3. Towards a measurement of the primordial helium isotope ratio

    astro-ph.CO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New VLT observations of He I* absorbers yield a primordial ³He/⁴He ratio of (1.15^{+0.24}_{-0.21})×10^{-4} consistent with standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis, plus an updated stellar yield scaling factor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

4 extracted references · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M., Nissen P

    Abdurro’uf et al., 2022, ApJS, 259, 35 Amarsi A. M., Nissen P. E., Skúladóttir Á., 2019, A&A, 630, A104 Amorín R., et al., 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0052 Andrews B. H., Weinberg D. H., Schönrich R., Johnson J. A., 2017, ApJ, 835, 224 Arellano-Córdova K. Z., et al., 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, L23 Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, A&A, 558, A3...

    arXiv 2022

  2. [3]

    (2018) yield modelswithnewreactionratesandincreasedmixing.Thesechanges allowforanimprovedtreatmentofs–processisotopesintheirmodels

    update the Ritter et al. (2018) yield modelswithnewreactionratesandincreasedmixing.Thesechanges allowforanimprovedtreatmentofs–processisotopesintheirmodels. However, between these models, the only updates are for masses 2 and3 M⊙ at metallicities𝑍=0.01,0.02,0.001,0.002. Because the yield tables included in Battino et al. (2019,

    2018

  3. [4]

    (2018) definitions of yields, we recalculate these yields from the publicly available data onhttps: //astrohub.uvic.ca

    are inconsistent with the Ritter et al. (2018) definitions of yields, we recalculate these yields from the publicly available data onhttps: //astrohub.uvic.ca. The total ejected mass of𝑋from an AGB star is given by 𝑀𝑋,ej = ∫ 𝑍𝑋,surf(𝑡)¤𝑚(𝑡)𝑑𝑡(B1) where𝑍 𝑋,surf is the surface abundance of𝑋,¤𝑚is the mass loss rate, and the integral is taken over the entire ...

    2018

  4. [2021]

    These models use the NuGrid MPPNP post-processing toolkit on modelsrunusingthemesastellarevolutioncode(Paxtonetal.2011)

    yield tables and describe their incorporation intovice. These models use the NuGrid MPPNP post-processing toolkit on modelsrunusingthemesastellarevolutioncode(Paxtonetal.2011). Battino et al. (2019,

    2011