adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Uniting the Observed Dynamical Dark Energy Preference with the Discrepancies in Ωm and H0 across Cosmological Probes
Authors: Xianzhe TZ Tang, Dillon Brout, Tanvi Karwal, Chihway Chang, Vivian Miranda, Maria Vincenzi
Figure caption: Probability distributions of the fitted H0 values (in km s−1 Mpc−1) from BAO under the ΛCDM model, with (blue solid line) and without (blue dashed–dotted line; same as the one in the main text, right panel of Figure 3) direct rd calibration. The input H0 values from the DES24 w0waCDM background cosmologies are indicated by the gray dashed line. Both in the direct rd calibration and using a prior on Ωbh2, the BAO data prefer a higher H0 than what was simulated.
Paper: Uniting the Observed Dynamical Dark Energy Preference with the Discrepancies in Ωm and H0 across Cosmological Probes
Authors: Xianzhe TZ Tang, Dillon Brout, Tanvi Karwal, Chihway Chang, Vivian Miranda, Maria Vincenzi
Figure caption: Fisher matrix constraints on Ωm and H0 under a ΛCDM framework derived from mock data sets under the best-fit w0waCDM cosmology from DESI+DES-SN+Planck. The SN constraints are shown as vertical dashed lines with a solid central line (yellow), BAO constraints are represented by blue ellipses, and CMB constraints are shown as pink ellipses. The solid point/line is the maximum likelihood point calculated from Fisher. The fiducial cosmology is {w0 = −0.727, wa = −1.05, Ωm = 0.316, H0 = 67.24}.
Paper: Uniting the Observed Dynamical Dark Energy Preference with the Discrepancies in Ωm and H0 across Cosmological Probes
Authors: Xianzhe TZ Tang, Dillon Brout, Tanvi Karwal, Chihway Chang, Vivian Miranda, Maria Vincenzi
Figure caption: Illustrative profile likelihood curves (dashed) for cosmological parameters under the w0waCDM model, compared with the 1D posterior from our MCMC fit (solid). These were generated for mock CMB, BAO, and SN data in a ΛCDM universe, marked by the dotted vertical lines.
Paper: A New Age–Activity Relation For Solar Analogs that Accounts for Metallicity
Authors: Gabriela Carvalho-Silva, Jorge Meléndez, Anne Rathsam, J. Shejeelammal, Giulia Martos, Diego  Lorenzo-Oliveira, Lorenzo Spina, Débora Ribeiro Alves
Figure caption: Differential spectroscopic parameters of 18 Sco from multiple high-resolution instruments: UVES+VLT (U), HIRES+Keck (Hi), MIKE+Magellan (M), and HARPS (H). Horizontal lines indicate the mean value (dashed) and the ±1σ dispersion (dotted). The panels show the effective temperature (Teff), the surface gravity (﹩\mathrm{log}\,g﹩), and the metallicity ([Fe/H]). The stellar parameters are from several literature sources based on manual line-by-line differential equivalent width analyses (T. R. Monroe et al. 2013; J. Meléndez et al. 2014; I. Ramírez et al. 2014; P. E. Nissen 2015; L. Spina et al. 2016, 2018; F. Liu et al. 2020). The last data point (G. Martos et al. 2025, H3) is based on a differential line-by-line relative flux analysis using machine learning.
Paper: A New Age–Activity Relation For Solar Analogs that Accounts for Metallicity
Authors: Gabriela Carvalho-Silva, Jorge Meléndez, Anne Rathsam, J. Shejeelammal, Giulia Martos, Diego  Lorenzo-Oliveira, Lorenzo Spina, Débora Ribeiro Alves
Figure caption: AC diagram: activity proxy ﹩{R}_{{\rm{HK}}}^{{\prime} }﹩ against age color-mapped by metallicity as [Fe/H]. Triangles are metal-rich stars, diamonds are metal-poor stars, and circles are stars with solar metallicity. The Sun is shown with its usual symbol in black. The lines represent our proposed age–activity–metallicity relation (Equation (2)) for different values of [Fe/H]. The bottom panels are the residuals between the isochronal ages and those determined by the LO18 relation based on solar twins (left panel) and those determined by our metallicity–dependent relation (right panel).
Paper: A New Age–Activity Relation For Solar Analogs that Accounts for Metallicity
Authors: Gabriela Carvalho-Silva, Jorge Meléndez, Anne Rathsam, J. Shejeelammal, Giulia Martos, Diego  Lorenzo-Oliveira, Lorenzo Spina, Débora Ribeiro Alves
Figure caption: Relative percentage error in chromospheric ages based on individual measurements vs. the mean chromospheric activity index, ﹩\mathrm{log}{R}_{{\rm{HK}}}^{{\prime} }﹩. Each circle represents a star, where the values are computed from three randomly selected observations per star. Sizes represent their mean age (in gigayears), and colors indicate metallicity ([Fe/H]). The solid red line shows the linear regression fitted to the upper envelope (highest relative error per bin), while the blue dashed line is a linear regression across all data points.
Paper: A New Age–Activity Relation For Solar Analogs that Accounts for Metallicity
Authors: Gabriela Carvalho-Silva, Jorge Meléndez, Anne Rathsam, J. Shejeelammal, Giulia Martos, Diego  Lorenzo-Oliveira, Lorenzo Spina, Débora Ribeiro Alves
Figure caption: Comparison between isochronal ages and the AC relations from RP98, E. E. Mamajek & L. A. Hillenbrand (2008), LO16, and this work. Color mapping is the same as Figure 2.
Paper: The Impact of Molecular Hydrogen Cooling on the Galaxy Formation Threshold
Authors: Ethan O. Nadler
Figure caption: Left: median galaxy occupation fraction for MW subhalos predicted using our MW analog simulation. Results are shown using the NGM23 (blue) and BF20 (orange) Mcrit(z) models. Shaded bands show 16%–84% quantiles from bootstrap resampling. Dark (light) gray bands show the 68% (95%) confidence fgal MW satellite posterior from E. O. Nadler et al. (2020); the thin gray line shows the median and the dotted vertical red line shows the resolution limit from that study. The dashed black line shows fgal from the N. Ahvazi et al. (2024) semianalytic model, which includes H2 cooling. Right: MAHs for subhalos with 6 × 107 M⊙ < Mpeak < 3 × 108 M⊙, colored according to whether they exceed Mcrit from BF20 (orange), NGM23 (blue), or neither (dashed gray), where both Mcrit(z) models have been decreased by ﹩{\sigma }_{{\mathrm{log}}(M)}﹩.
Paper: The Impact of Molecular Hydrogen Cooling on the Galaxy Formation Threshold
Authors: Ethan O. Nadler
Figure caption: Left: median galaxy occupation fraction for isolated halos as a function of halo mass at z∘ = 1 (solid) and z∘ = 0 (dashed), generated by combining analytic MAHs with Mcrit(z) from NGM23 (blue) or BF20 (orange). Shaded bands show 16%–84% intrinsic scatter quantiles. Right: halo growth histories. Thin lines show MAHs with z∘ = 1 and M∘ = 2 × 108 M⊙, colored according to whether they exceed the mean Mcrit(z) from BF20 (orange), NGM23 (blue), or neither (dashed gray). Thick lines show the Mcrit(z) models.
Paper: The Impact of Molecular Hydrogen Cooling on the Galaxy Formation Threshold
Authors: Ethan O. Nadler
Figure caption: Halo mass thresholds for star formation. The thick blue line (which includes H2 cooling) shows our fiducial NGM23 model with DM–baryon streaming velocity ﹩{v}_{{\rm{str}}}(z)={\sigma }_{{\rm{str}}}(z)﹩. The thick orange line (which does not include H2 cooling) shows our fiducial BF20 model with zreion = 7. Shaded bands show the assumed 0.2 dex scatter in ﹩{\mathrm{log}}\,({M}_{{\rm{crit}}}(z))﹩. H2 and H I cooling-only limits from NGM23 are shown by dotted blue and orange lines, respectively.
Paper: The Impact of Molecular Hydrogen Cooling on the Galaxy Formation Threshold
Authors: Ethan O. Nadler
Figure caption: Left: halo mass thresholds for star formation, showing versions of the NGM23 model with ﹩{v}_{{\rm{str}}}=0﹩ (dashed), ﹩{v}_{{\rm{str}}}={\sigma }_{{\rm{str}}}﹩ (solid; our fiducial choice), and ﹩{v}_{{\rm{str}}}=2{\sigma }_{{\rm{str}}}﹩ (dotted–dashed). We only show Mcrit(z) scatter for the ﹩{v}_{{\rm{str}}}={\sigma }_{{\rm{str}}}﹩ case for clarity, but we marginalize over this scatter in all cases. Right: median galaxy occupation fraction for isolated halos, predicted by combining analytic MAHs with the models in the left panel, with z∘ = 1 (purple) and z∘ = 0 (blue). Shaded bands show 16%–84% intrinsic scatter quantiles for the ﹩{v}_{{\rm{str}}}={\sigma }_{{\rm{str}}}﹩ cases.
Paper: The Impact of Molecular Hydrogen Cooling on the Galaxy Formation Threshold
Authors: Ethan O. Nadler
Figure caption: Comparison between fgal predictions for the host used in this work (Halo004, solid), the host used in E. O. Nadler et al. (2020; Halo416, dashed), and the hosts used in V. Manwadkar & A. V. Kravtsov (2022; Caterpillar-4, dashed–dotted, and Caterpillar-53, dotted). Halo004 and Halo416 are shown at the “low resolution” described in Appendix D, which is comparable to the LX14 resolution of the Caterpillar hosts. Results are only shown for the BF20 model (orange). The orange shaded band shows 16%–84% quantiles from bootstrap resampling the Halo004 LR result. The gray shaded region shows the E. O. Nadler et al. (2020) posterior, as in Figure 3.
Paper: The Impact of Molecular Hydrogen Cooling on the Galaxy Formation Threshold
Authors: Ethan O. Nadler
Figure caption: Comparison between our fiducial simulation predictions for fgal (mparticle = 6.3 × 103 M⊙; solid) to a simulation of the same host at lower resolution (LR; mparticle = 5 × 104 M⊙; dashed). Results using the NGM23 model are shown in blue, and results using the BF20 model with zreion = 7 are shown in orange. Shaded bands show 16%–84% quantiles from bootstrap resampling. The gray shaded region shows the E. O. Nadler et al. (2020) posterior, as in Figure 3.
Paper: The Impact of Molecular Hydrogen Cooling on the Galaxy Formation Threshold
Authors: Ethan O. Nadler
Figure caption: Median galaxy occupation fraction for isolated halos, predicted by combining analytic MAHs with our fiducial NGM23 Mcrit(z) model, for z∘ = 1 (light blue) and z∘ = 0 (dark blue). Predictions are generated using ﹩{\sigma }_{{\mathrm{log}}(c)}=0.06\,{\rm{dex}}﹩ (dashed), ﹩{\sigma }_{{\mathrm{log}}(c)}=0.16\,{\rm{dex}}﹩ (solid; our fiducial choice), and ﹩{\sigma }_{{\mathrm{log}}(c)}=0.26\,{\rm{dex}}﹩ (dotted–dashed). The thin gray line shows the best-fit model from E. O. Nadler et al. (2020), for reference. Shaded bands show 16%–84% intrinsic scatter quantiles for the ﹩{\sigma }_{{\mathrm{log}}(c)}=0.16\,{\rm{dex}}﹩ cases; we marginalize over this scatter in all cases.
Paper: Betatron Cooling of Halo and Strahl Electrons in the Solar Wind
Authors: Weiduo Meng, Jianpeng Guo, Yan Chen, Zelin Wang, Huishan Fu, Yi Wang, Yong Wei
Figure caption: Electron phase space density (PSD) as a function of pitch angle (PA) and electron energy. (a) PSD outside the blob (during 22:46:21–22:54:32 UT); it is treated as the “source.” (b) PSD inside the blob (during 22:36:31–22:44:42 UT); it is treated as the “consequence.” Solid curves represent the Wind observations, and dashed curves represent the modeling results. The betatron factor Fb and Fermi factor Ff are shown. (c)–(d) PSDs of electrons (103–1113 eV) with different PAs during 22:46:21–22:54:32 UT (blue curve) and during 22:36:31–22:44:42 (green curve). The red curve represents the predicted values assuming betatron cooling. These PSDs follow approximately a power law with an index  ∼–3.2.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: (a) Vertical component of vector magnetic field of AR 11158. (b) Red (yellow) rectangle outlines boundary of ROI where field lines are traced from positive (negative) polarity region. (c) Vertical component of current density derived from the vector magnetogram data. Red and blue contours mark Jz of 20 and −20 mA m−2. (d) Contours of magnetic flux used in the analysis, shaded by red (blue) for positive (negative) polarities. Red cross mark indicates location of the maximum free-energy density point.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: Distribution of ∣DC/RC∣ for eruptive and noneruptive flares. Dashed vertical lines mark the mean value of each population.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: Degrees of current neutralization from 45 flare events calculated for different magnetic polarities.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: Distribution of critical heights for eruptive and noneruptive flares. Dashed vertical lines mark the mean value of each population.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: Conceptual models of various possible conditions of magnetic field configurations, electric net currents (Inet), and forces acting on a flux rope in an AR. Red arrows directed outward from the flux ropes represent the hoop force. Blue arrows directed toward the flux rope represent strapping forces due to the presence of external magnetic fields (Bext), represented as circles with dots. A horizontal dashed line represents the critical height of TI.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: (a) Masked regions of AR 11261 where magnetic fluxes are used to analyze the degree of current neutralization. Red (blue) shaded regions mark the relevant fluxes at positive (negative) polarities. The red cross mark shows the location of the maximum free-energy density point. (b) The decay index profile along the vertical line above the maximum free-energy density point. The dashed vertical line marks the threshold of TI.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: (a) Masked regions of AR 11967 where magnetic fluxes are used to analyze the degree of current neutralization. Red (blue) shaded regions mark the relevant fluxes at positive (negative) polarities. The red cross mark shows the location of maximum free-energy density point. (b) The decay index profile along vertical line above the maximum free-energy density point. The dashed vertical line marks the threshold of TI.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: Bz of ARs from SHARP vector magnetograms with high confidence level of disambiguity for events #1 to #24. Selected magnetic fluxes and locations of maximum free-energy density points are shown as red (positive) and blue (negative) shaded regions, and red cross marks, respectively. The length of the white solid lines represents a scale of 40 Mm.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: The distribution of S parameter for eruptive and noneruptive flares. Dashed vertical lines mark the mean value of each population.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: Bz of ARs from SHARP vector magnetograms with high confidence level of disambiguity for events #25 to #45. Selected magnetic fluxes and locations of maximum free-energy density points are shown as red (positive) and blue (negative) shaded regions, and red cross marks, respectively. The length of white solid lines represents a scale of 40 Mm.
Paper: Eruptivity of Flaring Active Regions Based on Electric Current Neutralization and Torus Instability Analysis
Authors: Johan Muhamad, Kanya Kusano
Figure caption: Plot of critical heights of decay index and degrees of current neutralization for eruptive and noneruptive flares. Critical heights are normalized by the mean value of all critical heights in the data set.
Paper: Betatron Cooling of Halo and Strahl Electrons in the Solar Wind
Authors: Weiduo Meng, Jianpeng Guo, Yan Chen, Zelin Wang, Huishan Fu, Yi Wang, Yong Wei
Figure caption: Solar wind parameters observed by the Wind spacecraft from 15:00 UT on 2013 February 5 to 01:00 UT the next day. From top to bottom: (a) omnidirectional differential energy fluxes of the 103–1113 eV electrons, (b) pitch angle (PA) distribution of the suprathermal electrons (∼265 eV), (c) interplanetary magnetic field strength (∣B∣), (d)–(e) elevation angle (θ) and azimuthal angle (ϕ) of field direction in the GSE coordinates, respectively, (f) proton density (Np), (g) proton velocity (Vp), (h) proton temperature (Tp), (i) magnetic pressure (PB), thermal pressure (PT), and total pressure (Ptot), and (j) proton β. The magenta vertical dashed line indicates the heliospheric current sheet (HCS) crossing. The gray shaded area indicates the heliospheric plasma sheet (HPS). Two blue vertical dashed lines mark the boundaries of the flux rope (FR). The yellow shaded area indicates the blob.
Paper: Betatron Cooling of Halo and Strahl Electrons in the Solar Wind
Authors: Weiduo Meng, Jianpeng Guo, Yan Chen, Zelin Wang, Huishan Fu, Yi Wang, Yong Wei
Figure caption: Electron omnidirectional differential fluxes and electron pitch angle (PA) distribution surrounding the blob. From top to bottom: (a)–(b) omnidirectional differential energy fluxes of the 0.92–8.87 keV and 103–1113 eV electrons, respectively, (c)–(h) electron PA distributions with central energies of 1113, 689, 427, 265, 165, and 103 eV, respectively, (i) proton density, and (j) interplanetary magnetic field magnitude and components in GSE coordinates. The yellow shaded region indicates the blob interval.
Paper: A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing
Authors: Alexander Saffer, Emmanuel Fonseca, Scott Ransom, Ingrid Stairs, Ryan Lynch, Deborah Good, Kiyoshi W. Masui, James W. McKee, Bradley W. Meyers, Swarali Shivraj Patil, Chia Min Tan
Figure caption: Top: the DM against the orbital phase (black) for J0348+0432 using the new CHIME/Pulsar data. The CHIME data were frequency scrunched to eight channels before applying the PulsePortraiture procedure. As seen in the plot, there is no significant trend with phase that could indicate the interaction between the orbital bodies and any extraneous matter that could affect the binary parameters. Note that superior conjunction, where the companion is in front of the pulsar and where we would most likely see excess dispersion, occurs at an orbital phase of 0.25. Bottom: same as the top, except now compared with time (red). We have also included the results from the DMX analysis (blue), which agree with the PulsePortraiture procedure. No trends are noticed to indicate any mass loss leading to an improper measure of the orbital parameters.
Paper: A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing
Authors: Alexander Saffer, Emmanuel Fonseca, Scott Ransom, Ingrid Stairs, Ryan Lynch, Deborah Good, Kiyoshi W. Masui, James W. McKee, Bradley W. Meyers, Swarali Shivraj Patil, Chia Min Tan
Figure caption: A comparison of the delays calculated between the DM and the assumption that the orbit is eccentric. We note that the DM error is roughly 1 order of magnitude larger than the delays induced by the eccentricity of the orbit. This is further evidence that there are no extraneous DM variations leading to a misunderstanding of our system.
Paper: A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing
Authors: Alexander Saffer, Emmanuel Fonseca, Scott Ransom, Ingrid Stairs, Ryan Lynch, Deborah Good, Kiyoshi W. Masui, James W. McKee, Bradley W. Meyers, Swarali Shivraj Patil, Chia Min Tan
Figure caption: J0348+0432 NS mass distribution obtained via Monte Carlo simulation of timing results.
Paper: A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing
Authors: Alexander Saffer, Emmanuel Fonseca, Scott Ransom, Ingrid Stairs, Ryan Lynch, Deborah Good, Kiyoshi W. Masui, James W. McKee, Bradley W. Meyers, Swarali Shivraj Patil, Chia Min Tan
Figure caption: J0348+0432 WD mass distribution obtained via Monte Carlo simulation of timing results.
Paper: A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing
Authors: Alexander Saffer, Emmanuel Fonseca, Scott Ransom, Ingrid Stairs, Ryan Lynch, Deborah Good, Kiyoshi W. Masui, James W. McKee, Bradley W. Meyers, Swarali Shivraj Patil, Chia Min Tan
Figure caption: Postfit timing residuals for J0348+0432 with the combined archival and newer CHIME data. Original data from GBT come from a drift scan survey (R. S. Lynch et al. 2013). The Arecibo data are parsed into two groups differentiated by the backend.
Paper: A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing
Authors: Alexander Saffer, Emmanuel Fonseca, Scott Ransom, Ingrid Stairs, Ryan Lynch, Deborah Good, Kiyoshi W. Masui, James W. McKee, Bradley W. Meyers, Swarali Shivraj Patil, Chia Min Tan
Figure caption: CHIME/Pulsar-only residuals plotted as a function of time and orbital phase. The analysis here yielded a best-fit reduced χ2 value of 1.0022.
Paper: A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing
Authors: Alexander Saffer, Emmanuel Fonseca, Scott Ransom, Ingrid Stairs, Ryan Lynch, Deborah Good, Kiyoshi W. Masui, James W. McKee, Bradley W. Meyers, Swarali Shivraj Patil, Chia Min Tan
Figure caption: Mass–mass plot for J0348+0432. The width of the lines is determined by the 1σ uncertainty in the value. The crossing point is the values for which the masses can be estimated. The black region is that disallowed by the requirement ﹩\sin i\leqslant 1﹩.
Paper: A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing
Authors: Alexander Saffer, Emmanuel Fonseca, Scott Ransom, Ingrid Stairs, Ryan Lynch, Deborah Good, Kiyoshi W. Masui, James W. McKee, Bradley W. Meyers, Swarali Shivraj Patil, Chia Min Tan
Figure caption: Pulse profile showing the relative flux for J0348+0432. Both the averaged (blue) and smoothed (red) profiles are shown.
Paper: A Neutron Capture Explanation for the 10 MeV Emission Line Seen in GRB 221009A
Authors: Jiahuan Zhu, Hua Feng, Tong Liu
Figure caption: Fermi/GBM BGO spectral fitting with a power law plus neutron capture model in four epochs, respectively, from left to right, in the time interval of 280–300 s, 300–320 s, 320–340 s, and 340–360 s since the trigger of GRB 221009A. The red and blue points represent the data from the two BGO detectors, b0 and b1, respectively.
Paper: A Neutron Capture Explanation for the 10 MeV Emission Line Seen in GRB 221009A
Authors: Jiahuan Zhu, Hua Feng, Tong Liu
Figure caption: Lorentz factor vs. half-opening angle of the neutron-rich ejecta given the best-fit Doppler factor in the four epochs. The shaded areas represent the 90% uncertainty range for each curve. The vertical dashed line marks the opening angle of the central jet at 0﹩\mathop{.}\limits^{\unicode{x000b0}}﹩8, which is the lower limit of θ. The dotted line represents a possible solution in the structured jet model (B. Zhang et al. 2024); the thick gray segment highlights the model-predicted Γn and θ during the four epochs.
Paper: A Neutron Capture Explanation for the 10 MeV Emission Line Seen in GRB 221009A
Authors: Jiahuan Zhu, Hua Feng, Tong Liu
Figure caption: Nucleosynthesis simulation results as a function of time and comparison with observations. Top: assumed density and output temperature as a function of time, compared with observed temperatures. Middle: evolution of the mass abundance for neutrons, protons, and alpha particles (multiplied by a factor of 1011). Bottom: evolution of the reaction rate against observations assuming a volume of 1027 cm3.