There are numerous models which lay down nucleosynthesis yields from CCSN explosions (Burbidge et al. 1957; Woosley & Weaver 1986, 1995; Thielemann et al. 1996; Heger & Woosley 2002, 2010; Rauscher et al. 2002; Kobayashi et al. 2006; Nomoto et al. 2006; Woosley & Heger 2007; Pignatari et al. 2015; Sukhbold et al. 2016). In this work, we utilize the zonal yield sets from Sukhbold et al. (2016; hereafter, S16), which used the modified 1D hydrodynamic code KEPLER4

4

https://2sn.org/kepler/doc/Introduction.html

 along with P-HOTB. P-HOTB stands for Prometheus-Hot Bubble and was used to study core collapse (Janka & Mueller 1996; Kifonidis et al. 2003), whereas KEPLER was used to evolve the star along zero age main sequence and calculate nucleosynthesis yields and light curves (Weaver et al. 1978). For models that exploded, isotopic yields were generated post explosion. The zonal yields were obtained for three particular models, 15.2 M⊙, 20.1 M⊙, and 25.2 M⊙, ∼200 s after the explosion, before any mixing could take place.5

5
T. Sukhbold (2017, private communication).
 Although all models in S16 data set assume solar metallicity and do not take into account the effects of rotation, they can account for (1) detailed neutrino transport calculations using an improved explosion mechanism, as compared to Rauscher et al. (2002) and Woosley and Heger (2007); (2) a central engine that considers matter inside the collapsed core, unlike certain other models that investigated only the matter exterior to the central engines used; and (3) unlike previous nucleosynthesis models, all models6

6
Each model has a particular progenitor mass.
 used here are not exploded by injecting artificial energy because (a) models below 15 M⊙ almost always explode, (b) models in 20–30 M⊙ rarely explode, and (c) most models above 30 M⊙ implode and become black holes (see Figure 14 in S16 for the probability of explosion of different progenitor masses). In fact, the few models above 30 M⊙ in which explosion does take place is due to their core being ripped apart by winds to sizes comparable to ∼15 M⊙. The decimals in the progenitor masses of these models might seem bizarre; the reason is that the authors have tried to explode all possible progenitor masses in steps of 0.1 M⊙ between 12 and 30 M⊙; however, 15.0, 15.1, 20.0, 25.0, and 25.1 M⊙ imploded in their simulations. This apparently small change in progenitor mass, which leads to an altogether different end scenario, is due to small but significant variations in the progenitor compactness (O’Connor & Ott 2011) rather than the central engine characteristics (Pejcha & Thompson 2015). This effect is more pronounced near progenitor masses of ∼20 M⊙ because the carbon burning stage changes to the radiative pathway from a convective mechanism. In fact, it has been recently shown that two similar progenitors with identical masses but slightly different input physics can lead to totally different scenarios (Sukhbold et al. 2017). Thus it is not unusual for such stark differences to show up between two similar progenitor stars. Throughout this paper, we frequently approximate 15.2–15, 20.1–20, and 25.2–25 M⊙ models for the sake of simplicity.
Citation: Weaver et al. 1978
Citation function: Uses