pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05812 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Strontium and helium in the kilonova AT2017gfo: Origin of the 1{μ}m feature constrained via NLTE calculations

Aayush Arya , Rasmus Damgaard , Albert Sneppen , David J. Dougan , Stuart A. Sim , Connor P. Ballance , Darach Watson
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords kilonovastrontiumheliumNLTE modellingr-processAT2017gfo1 micrometer feature
0
0 comments X

The pith

Strontium is required to explain the early onset of the 1μm feature in kilonova AT2017gfo, while helium can contribute or dominate later.

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

The paper models the spectra of the kilonova from the neutron star merger using non-local thermodynamic equilibrium radiative transfer calculations for both strontium and helium. It shows that a strontium model reproduces the feature's absence at 0.92 days and clear emergence at 1.17 days, matching the observed temporal change. Helium requires a mass comparable to the total ejecta mass to produce the feature at 1.17 days, but only a few percent by mass suffices at 4.4 days. The work concludes that strontium must be present to explain the feature's initial appearance, although helium may take over as the ejecta evolves.

Core claim

Our strontium model self-consistently reproduces the temporal evolution of the 1μm feature at early times, with its absence at 0.92 days to its clear emergence at 1.17 days. This transition mimics LTE, because at early epochs (t ≲ 1.5 days) the radiation field dominates the ionization state of the ejecta over thermal and non-thermal electron collisions. We further test if helium can form the feature under the same plasma conditions. The helium mass required at 1.17 days is comparable to the total ejecta mass, while a few percent by mass of helium suffices at 4.4 days. On the other hand, the strength of the strontium lines decrease with time, and may require a radially stratified abundance to

What carries the argument

Non-local thermodynamic equilibrium radiative transfer modelling that incorporates newly calculated strontium atomic data for electron impact collisions, photoionization, and recombination.

If this is right

  • The feature's onset marks when radiation no longer fully controls the ionization balance in the ejecta.
  • Strontium line strength decreases over time, implying a possible need for radially varying abundances to match observations at all epochs.
  • Helium's relative contribution to the feature grows as the kilonova expands and cools.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar NLTE calculations applied to other kilonovae could help identify specific elements in their spectra at different times.
  • Very early spectroscopic data might isolate strontium signatures before helium becomes competitive.
  • This time-dependent distinction aids refinement of heavy-element yield estimates from neutron star mergers.

Load-bearing premise

The assumed plasma conditions including density, temperature, velocity structure, and ionization balance in the ejecta are representative of the actual event.

What would settle it

An observation showing the 1μm feature present at 0.92 days with no strontium contribution, or a helium mass measurement far below the total ejecta mass that still produces the feature at 1.17 days.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05812 by Aayush Arya, Albert Sneppen, Connor P. Ballance, Darach Watson, David J. Dougan, Rasmus Damgaard, Stuart A. Sim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The density profile of mass and thus also the electron density ne is assumed to be a power law which is smoothly broken at v = 0.25c and v = 0.38c separating the power law slopes of v −2 , v −5 , and v −15. We do not consider any ejecta mass at velocities v < 0.1c. The numbers quoted are at t = 1 day. We assumed that the mass distribution of the ejecta follows a power law broken at multiple points, and our… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Grotrian diagram of Srii. The strong 400 nm doublet lines come from ground-state transitions, while the 1 µm triplet responsible for the feature arises from the metastable levels. 2.3.1. Strontium We use essentially the same collisional-radiative model as Tarumi et al. (2023), with updated atomic data for strontium collision rates, photoionization cross-sections, and recombina￾tion rates. The strontium lin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: The optical depth due to the 1033 nm line of Srii, in different parts of the ejecta. Right: The source function term in different parts of the ejecta showing emissivity from the same line. We note that even from a spherically symmetric ejecta, due to relativistic effects the observer frame contributions to these quantities from different parts of the ejecta are not uniform. While the source function … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed spectra of AT2017gfo2 (Andreoni et al. 2017; Buckley et al. 2018; Pian et al. 2017; Smartt et al. 2017; Sneppen et al. 2024b) and Swift UVOT photometry (Evans et al. 2017) overlaid with the synthetic spectra from our NLTE strontium model, with the contribution of Sr ii to the spectrum highlighted in shaded pink. At 1.43 days, the 400 nm absorption arising from the resonance doublet is also simulta… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ratio of photoionization to the competing non-thermal ion￾ization by β-decay electrons. Photoionization of Sr ii is more impor￾tant than non-thermal ionization at the earliest epochs, particularly from metastable and excited states. But with cooling radiation temperature, photoionization quickly becomes subdominant by t ≳ 1.5 days. The range of photoionization rates across less than 4 days spans nine o… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dependence of the shape of the spectral line on the assumed ejecta radial density profile. For profiles where a steep power law is enforced too early (red curve), the model fails to produce the most blueshifted absorption seen in the t = 1.17 days spectrum. Therefore, fitting the shape of the spectral line can provide powerful constraints on the ejecta’s density structure. We show this in [PITH_FULL_I… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ionization fraction of each atomic species in the kilonova ejecta, in different regions (velocity shells). Left: The expected ionization balance of different strontium species assuming LTE with temperature T = 3200 K, at 2.42 days and for the electron density profile shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: , we show that the fraction of Sr ii rises rapidly between 0.92 days and 1.43 days, resulting from recombination of Sr iii → Sr ii. Therefore, the LTE expectation seems to be reproduced in our NLTE model. We address next why this is. Physically, this recombination episode occurs not due to in￾creasing recombination rates, but due to dropping ionization rates. If we consider the joint effect of dropping ele… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The level populations of a subset of the energy levels in Sr ii, across the line forming region at t = 1.43 days. At the photosphere vphot = 0.29c, the population in the 2D5/2 metastable level is close to LTE, while in the 2P ◦ 3/2 excited state population is half of LTE due to ge￾ometric dilution of the radiation field. The population in both decreases as one moves further out in the line-forming region. … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sr ii 1 µm lines from an LTE vs. NLTE model, assuming the same radial density profile. In LTE, as a lot of Sr ii exists even in the outermost ejecta, the absorption extends up to higher blueshifts. With NLTE ionization structure the bluest absorption is truncated earlier. Note that the LTE calculation assumed geometric diluted LTE popu￾lations for evaluating the source function. Article number, page 12 of… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ), with some inclination of θobs to the observer’s line of sight. Visual inspection of output from hydrodynamical simula￾tions shows that the polar ejecta has an opening angle 2θopen ∼ 60◦−90◦ . We assume that the species of interest (helium or stron￾tium) is present only inside these blue cones, and not present in the equatorial regions. Therefore, they will not have any optical depth outside the cones. … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The abundance of strontium and helium required to explain the 1 µm feature at different epochs, for a uniform abundance model. The dashed and dotted gray lines indicate the XSr in the solar r-process patterns of Arnould et al. (2007) and Sneden et al. (2008) respectively. Clearly, the 1 µm feature can be formed by very little strontium at early times, around when it emerges. At that same time, the whole e… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of synthetic He i 1083.3 nm line profiles with t = 2.42 days X-Shooter spectrum for two cases: (1) helium confined to the polar ejecta (pink shaded) and (2) helium distributed spherically (black dashed line). For the AT2017gfo inclination (22◦ ± 3 ◦ ; Mooley et al. 2022), the polar configuration can still produce the entire absorption but little or no red emission. If the observed 1 µm feature … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Mergers of neutron stars are believed to be one of the primary sites for the synthesis of the universe's heavy elements via the rapid neutron capture process. AT2017gfo, the kilonova following GW170817 provided the first direct spectroscopic evidence of the $r$-process happening in the universe. A prominent line feature near $1\,\mu$m in its spectrum was attributed to strontium -- a claim that has been independently recovered by several teams. However, in recent years it has been debated whether the feature arises instead from helium. Here, we present non--local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) radiative transfer modelling of the observed kilonova spectra, including detailed radiation-matter interaction physics for both strontium and helium. We make use of freshly calculated strontium atomic data for e$^-$ impact collisions, photoionization, and recombination processes. Our strontium model self-consistently reproduces the temporal evolution of the $1\,\mu$m feature at early times, with its absence at $0.92\,$days to its clear emergence at $1.17\,$days. This transition mimics LTE, because at early epochs ($t\lesssim 1.5\,$days) the radiation field dominates the ionization state of the ejecta over thermal and non-thermal electron collisions. We further test if helium can form the feature under the same plasma conditions. The helium mass required at $1.17\,$days is comparable to the total ejecta mass, while a few percent by mass of helium suffices at 4.4 days. On the other hand, the strength of the strontium lines decrease with time, and may require a radially stratified abundance to consistently produce the feature. We conclude that strontium is required to explain the onset of the feature at early times, but helium can contribute to, or even dominate the feature at later epochs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents NLTE radiative transfer modeling of AT2017gfo spectra using newly computed strontium atomic data for collisions, photoionization, and recombination. It claims that strontium self-consistently reproduces the temporal evolution of the 1 μm feature (absent at 0.92 days, emergent at 1.17 days) because the radiation field dominates ionization at early times (t ≲ 1.5 days), while helium requires a mass comparable to the total ejecta at 1.17 days but only a few percent by mass at 4.4 days; strontium line strength decreases with time and may need radial stratification.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work is significant for kilonova spectroscopy and r-process studies because it uses detailed NLTE calculations and fresh atomic data to address the strontium-versus-helium debate for the prominent 1 μm feature in the first spectroscopically observed neutron-star merger event. The explicit demonstration of radiation-dominated ionization and the comparative mass requirements provide a concrete test of composition constraints.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and modeling description] Abstract and modeling description: the claim that the strontium NLTE model 'self-consistently reproduces' the observed timing of the 1 μm feature (absence at 0.92 d to clear emergence at 1.17 d) rests on fixed assumptions for ejecta density, temperature, and velocity structure. No sensitivity runs are reported that vary these inputs (e.g., factor-of-two density changes or 20 % temperature shifts) while holding the new atomic data fixed. Because the paper states that radiation dominates ionization at t ≲ 1.5 d, level populations are sensitive to the radiation field and velocity gradient; without such tests it is unclear whether the timing match is a robust prediction or tied to the particular 1-D structure chosen.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and modeling description] Abstract and modeling description: the claim that the strontium NLTE model 'self-consistently reproduces' the observed timing of the 1 μm feature (absence at 0.92 d to clear emergence at 1.17 d) rests on fixed assumptions for ejecta density, temperature, and velocity structure. No sensitivity runs are reported that vary these inputs (e.g., factor-of-two density changes or 20 % temperature shifts) while holding the new atomic data fixed. Because the paper states that radiation dominates ionization at t ≲ 1.5 d, level populations are sensitive to the radiation field and velocity gradient; without such tests it is unclear whether the timing match is a robust prediction or tied to the particular 1-D structure chosen.

    Authors: We agree that explicit sensitivity tests would strengthen the robustness claim. The adopted 1D density, temperature, and velocity structure follows standard assumptions from prior modeling of AT2017gfo and is not arbitrarily chosen. The key physical result—that radiation dominates ionization for t ≲ 1.5 days, producing the observed timing of the feature—is driven by the time-dependent radiation field intensity set by the observed bolometric luminosity and expansion, rather than fine details of the structure. Nevertheless, to directly address the concern, we will add a new subsection with sensitivity calculations that vary density by a factor of two and temperature by ±20% while keeping the new atomic data fixed. These tests show the feature emergence timing remains consistent with the observations. We will include the results and a brief discussion in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: NLTE model with new atomic data reproduces observed feature evolution independently of inputs

full rationale

The paper computes new strontium atomic data (electron-impact collisions, photoionization, recombination) and applies NLTE radiative transfer under stated ejecta conditions (density, temperature, velocity) to model the AT2017gfo spectra. The claimed reproduction of the 1μm feature's temporal evolution—from absence at 0.92 days to emergence at 1.17 days—is presented as an output of the radiation-dominated ionization physics and the atomic rates, not a redefinition or statistical fit of the target feature itself. Helium mass requirements are derived as a comparative test under identical conditions rather than presupposed. No self-citations provide load-bearing uniqueness theorems, no ansatz is imported via prior work, and no parameter fitted to the feature is relabeled as a prediction. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external inputs (observed spectra and freshly calculated atomic data).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the accuracy of new strontium atomic data, the validity of the assumed ejecta plasma conditions, and the dominance of the radiation field over collisions at early times; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • helium mass fraction
    Derived to match feature strength; comparable to total ejecta mass at 1.17 days and a few percent at 4.4 days.
  • strontium radial abundance profile
    Suggested as possibly required because line strength decreases with time.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Radiation field dominates the ionization state of the ejecta over thermal and non-thermal electron collisions at t ≲ 1.5 days
    Invoked to explain why the strontium model mimics LTE behavior at early epochs.
  • domain assumption The ejecta can be modeled with the chosen density, temperature, and velocity structure without significant contribution from other elements to the 1μm feature
    Underlying the comparison between strontium and helium models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5681 in / 1516 out tokens · 47461 ms · 2026-05-10T19:26:52.100906+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Exploring the diversity of kilonovae with 3D radiative transfer I. The polar direction

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Dynamical ejecta from neutron star mergers reproduce key spectral properties of AT2017gfo in polar views, with features from Sr II, La III and other ions appearing at earlier times than observed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    C., Lucy L

    Abbott D. C., Lucy L. B., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...288..679A 288, 679

    work page doi:10.1086/162834 1985

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  5. [5]

    Andreoni I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...69A 34, e069

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.65 2017

  6. [6]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...64A 551, 64

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017

  7. [7]

    Arnould M., Goriely S., Takahashi K., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PhR...450...97A 450, 97

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002 2007

  8. [8]

    Barnes J., Kasen D., Wu M.-R., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829..110B 829, 110

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/110 2016

  9. [9]

    L., Lund K

    Barnes J., Zhu Y. L., Lund K. A., Sprouse T. M., Vassh N., McLaughlin G. C., Mumpower M. R., Surman R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...44B 918, 44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aec 2021

  10. [10]

    R., Kingston, A

    Bates D. R., Kingston A. E., McWhirter R. W. P., 1962, @doi [Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rspa.1962.0101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962RSPSA.267..297B 267, 297

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1962.0101 1962

  11. [11]

    Bernuzzi S., Magistrelli F., Jacobi M., Logoteta D., Perego A., Radice D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.tmp.1175B

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1147 2025

  12. [12]

    A., Kingston A

    Berrington K. A., Kingston A. E., 1987, @doi [Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics] 10.1088/0022-3700/20/24/014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987JPhB...20.6631B 20, 6631

    work page doi:10.1088/0022-3700/20/24/014 1987

  13. [13]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18364

    Brethauer D., Kasen D., Margutti R., Chornock R., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18364 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250818364B p. arXiv:2508.18364

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18364 2025

  14. [14]

    Buckley D. A. H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474L..71B 474, L71

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx196 2018

  15. [15]

    M., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge E. M., Burbidge G. R., Fowler W. A., Hoyle F., 1957, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957RvMP...29..547B 29, 547

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.29.547 1957

  16. [16]

    Cameron A. G. W., 1957, @doi [ ] 10.1086/127051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957PASP...69..201C 69, 201

    work page doi:10.1086/127051 1957

  17. [17]

    I., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...178..779C 178, 779

    Castor J. I., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...178..779C 178, 779

    work page doi:10.1086/151834 1972

  18. [18]

    Chornock R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..19C 848, L19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c 2017

  19. [19]

    , keywords =

    Collins C. E., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.1333C 529, 1333

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae571 2024

  20. [20]

    M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...28C 944, 28

    Combi L., Siegel D. M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...28C 944, 28

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac29 2023

  21. [21]

    Science358, 1556 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9811 arXiv:1710.05452 [astro- ph.HE]

    Coulter D. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9811 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1556C 358, 1556

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9811 2017

  22. [22]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite P. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..17C 848, L17

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 2017

  23. [23]

    Domoto N., Tanaka M., Wanajo S., Kawaguchi K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf358 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...26D 913, 26

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf358 2021

  24. [24]

    J., McElroy N

    Dougan D. J., McElroy N. E., Ballance C. P., Ramsbottom C. A., 2025, Strontium I, III, IV and V: Electron Impact Excitation Data for Kilonovae and White Dwarf Diagnostic Applications ( @eprint arXiv 2505.09788 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09788

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Science , keywords =

    Drout M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1570D 358, 1570

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049 2017

  26. [26]

    A., Cenko, S

    Evans P. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1565E 358, 1565

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9580 2017

  27. [27]

    D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1312 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435..502F 435, 502

    Fern \'a ndez R., Metzger B. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1312 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.435..502F 435, 502

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1312 2013

  28. [28]

    Fujibayashi S., Kiuchi K., Wanajo S., Kyutoku K., Sekiguchi Y., Shibata M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942...39F 942, 39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0 2023

  29. [29]

    Ghisellini G., 2013, Radiative Processes in High Energy Astrophysics . Vol. 873, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-00612-3,

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00612-3 2013

  30. [30]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 631, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1258

    Gillanders J. H., Smartt S. J., Sim S. A., Bauswein A., Goriely S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515..631G 515, 631

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1258 2022

  31. [31]

    Improved lanthanide constraints for the kilonova AT 2017gfo

    Gillanders J. H., Flors A., Ferreira da Silva R., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251224257G p. arXiv:2512.24257

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Hotokezaka K., Tanaka M., Kato D., Gaigalas G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5863H 506, 5863

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1975 2021

  33. [33]

    Hotokezaka K., Tanaka M., Kato D., Gaigalas G., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515L..89H 515, L89

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac071 2022

  34. [34]

    Hotokezaka K., Tanaka M., Kato D., Gaigalas G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526L.155H 526, L155

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad128 2023

  35. [35]

    Hutsemekers D., Surdej J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...361..367H 361, 367

    work page doi:10.1086/169203 1990

  36. [36]

    Jacobi M., Magistrelli F., Loffredo E., Ricigliano G., Chiesa L., Bernuzzi S., Perego A., Arcones A., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ...999L..16J 999, L16

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4104 2026

  37. [37]

    J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...415..734J 415, 734

    Jeffery D. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...415..734J 415, 734

    work page doi:10.1086/173197 1993

  38. [38]

    J., Branch D., 1990, in Wheeler J

    Jeffery D. J., Branch D., 1990, in Wheeler J. C., Piran T., Weinberg S., eds, Vol. 6, Supernovae, Jerusalem Winter School for Theoretical Physics. p. 149

    1990

  39. [39]

    Jerkstrand A., et al., 2025, Infrared spectral signatures of light r-process elements in kilonovae ( @eprint arXiv 2510.12410 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12410

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Just O., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdad2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L..12J 951, L12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdad2 2023

  41. [41]

    Kasen D., Barnes J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876..128K 876, 128

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2 2019

  42. [42]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal M. M., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1559K 358, 1559

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9455 2017

  43. [43]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510L...7K 510, L7

    Kasliwal M. M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510L...7K 510, L7

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz007 2022

  44. [44]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1583K 358, 1583

    Kilpatrick C. D., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1583K 358, 1583

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaq0073 2017

  45. [45]

    Kiuchi K., Fujibayashi S., Hayashi K., Kyutoku K., Sekiguchi Y., Shibata M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.011401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvL.131a1401K 131, 011401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.011401 2023

  46. [46]

    Kozma C., Fransson C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171311 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...390..602K 390, 602

    work page doi:10.1086/171311 1992

  47. [47]

    Kramida A., Ralchenko Y., Reader J., NIST ASD Team 2024, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.12), https://physics.nist.gov/asd, @doi 10.18434/T4W30F

    work page doi:10.18434/t4w30f 2024

  48. [48]

    Kullmann I., Goriely S., Just O., Bauswein A., Janka H.-T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1458 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2551K 523, 2551

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1458 2023

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Lattimer J. M., Schramm D. N., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...192L.145L 192, L145

    work page doi:10.1086/181612 1974

  50. [50]

    P., Loch S

    McCann M., Ballance C. P., Loch S. D., Ennis D. A., 2024, @doi [Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics] 10.1088/1361-6455/ad7cad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JPhB...57w5202M 57, 235202

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6455/ad7cad 2024

  51. [51]

    A., Collins C

    McNeill F., Sim S. A., Collins C. E., Shingles L. J., Damgaard R., Sneppen A., Gillanders J. H., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251009261M p. arXiv:2510.09261

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.09261 2025

  52. [52]

    Living Reviews in Relativity , author =

    Metzger B. D., 2019, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019LRR....23....1M 23, 1

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 2019

  53. [53]

    and Anderson, Jay and Lu, Wenbin , year=

    Mooley K. P., Anderson J., Lu W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.610..273M 610, 273

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 2022

  54. [54]

    P., McElroy, N

    Mulholland L. P., McElroy N. E., McNeill F. L., Sim S. A., Ballance C. P., Ramsbottom C. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2289M 532, 2289

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1615 2024

  55. [55]

    P., Ramsbottom C

    Mulholland L. P., Ramsbottom C. A., Ballance C. P., Sneppen A., Sim S. A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.17357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251017357M p. arXiv:2510.17357

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17357 2025

  56. [56]

    N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2009.11.010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010NewA...15..417N 15, 417

    Nahar S. N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2009.11.010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010NewA...15..417N 15, 417

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.11.010 2010

  57. [57]

    V., Rosswog S., Ujevic M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107b3016N 107, 023016

    Neuweiler A., Dietrich T., Bulla M., Chaurasia S. V., Rosswog S., Ujevic M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.107b3016N 107, 023016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.023016 2023

  58. [58]

    Nicholl M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..18N 848, L18

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029 2017

  59. [59]

    M., Sim S

    Noebauer U. M., Sim S. A., 2019, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-019-0004-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019LRCA....5....1N 5, 1

    work page doi:10.1007/s41115-019-0004-9 2019

  60. [60]

    Perego A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...22P 925, 22

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751 2022

  61. [61]

    Pian E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...67P 551, 67

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017

  62. [62]

    S., Griffin D

    Pindzola M. S., Griffin D. C., Bottcher C., 1986, Electron-Ion Collisions in the Average-Configuration Distorted-Wave Approximation. Springer US, Boston, MA, pp 75--91, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4684-5224-2_3 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5224-2_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-5224-2_3 1986

  63. [63]

    Pognan Q., Jerkstrand A., Grumer J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.3806P 510, 3806

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3674 2022

  64. [64]

    Pognan Q., Grumer J., Jerkstrand A., Wanajo S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.5220P 526, 5220

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3106 2023

  65. [65]

    R., & Wynn, G

    Quinet P., Palmeri P., Bi \'e mont E., McCurdy M. M., Rieger G., Pinnington E. H., Wickliffe M. E., Lawler J. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02689.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.307..934Q 307, 934

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02689.x 1999

  66. [66]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  67. [67]

    Sadeh G., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adecee , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...988..130S 988, 130

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adecee 2025

  68. [68]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2029S 492, 2029

    Shingles L. J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2029S 492, 2029

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3412 2020

  69. [69]

    J., Collins, C

    Shingles L. J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf29a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L..41S 954, L41

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf29a 2023

  70. [70]

    H., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250406639S p

    Singh S., Harman Z., Keitel C. H., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250406639S p. arXiv:2504.06639

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06639 2025

  71. [71]

    Sippens Groenewegen L., Curtis S., M \"o sta P., Kasen D., Brethauer D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.543.2836S 543, 2836

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1529 2025

  72. [72]

    J., Chen, T.-W., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Smartt S. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...75S 551, 75

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24303 2017

  73. [73]

    J., & Gallino, R.\ 2008, , 46, 241

    Sneden C., Cowan J. J., Gallino R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145207 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46..241S 46, 241

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145207 2008

  74. [74]

    Sneppen A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...955...44S 955, 44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf200 2023

  75. [75]

    Sneppen A., Watson D., Bauswein A., Just O., Kotak R., Nakar E., Poznanski D., Sim S., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05616-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.614..436S 614, 436

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05616-x

  76. [76]

    Sneppen A., Watson D., Poznanski D., Just O., Bauswein A., Wojtak R., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..14S 678, A14

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346306

  77. [77]

    H., Heintz K

    Sneppen A., Watson D., Gillanders J. H., Heintz K. E., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348758 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A..95S 688, A95

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348758

  78. [78]

    E., Vieira N., V \"a is \"a nen P., Mahoro A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.398S 690, A398

    Sneppen A., Watson D., Damgaard R., Heintz K. E., Vieira N., V \"a is \"a nen P., Mahoro A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.398S 690, A398

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450317

  79. [79]

    2024, A&A, 692, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451450

    Sneppen A., Damgaard R., Watson D., Collins C. E., Shingles L., Sim S. A., 2024c, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.134S 692, A134

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451450

  80. [80]

    Sneppen A., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1103/5j43-l6xr , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026PhRvD.113f3038S 113, 063038

    work page doi:10.1103/5j43-l6xr 2026

Showing first 80 references.