alphaFeedback

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Four-hundred Very Metal-poor Stars Studied with LAMOST and Subaru. IV. Heavy Element Enhanced Stars

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

We perform a homogeneous analysis of 82 heavy-element-enhanced metal-poor stars from the\ LAMOST/Subaru sample, including 64 rr-process-enhanced stars, 2 limited-rr stars, and 16 stars exhibiting significant or moderate carbon enhancement (comprising 9 ss-process-enhanced, 2 rr-process-enhanced, 2 rr/ss, and 3 rr+ss stars). Systematic differences in [X/Eu]\mathrm{[X/Eu]} between rr-I and rr-II stars, together with their distinct dynamical properties, suggest that rr-II stars likely formed in low-mass dwarf galaxies where contamination from additional nucleosynthetic channels was minimal. We have also discovered a number of peculiar objects. We identify an extremely metal-poor rr-II star, J1158+0734 ([Fe/H]\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = -2.93), whose enhanced Zn abundance ([Zn/Fe]\mathrm{[Zn/Fe]} = +0.67) is best explained by yields from a high-energy, massive core-collapse supernova. The surface abundances of ss-process-enhanced stars exhibit pronounced dispersion, consistent with enrichment from AGB progenitors with diverse properties. Notably, one star, J2256+0215, reveals compelling evidence for additional evolutionary mixing, as indicated by its unusually low carbon abundance ([C/Fe]\mathrm{[C/Fe]} = +0.08) and extremely low 12^{12}C/13^{13}C ratio of 2.33. Additionally, we identify 3 rr+ss stars whose abundance patterns reveal combined contributions from both the rr- and ss-processes. We further propose a modified diagnostic scheme for the identification of CEMP-rr+ss stars, defined as: -0.2 ⩽\leqslant [La/Nd]\mathrm{[La/Nd]} ⩽\leqslant 0.2 and -0.5 ⩽\leqslant [Eu/Nd]\mathrm{[Eu/Nd]} ⩽\leqslant 0.0.

Introduction

Elements heavier than Fe are predominantly produced via neutron-capture processes. Although proton-capture (pp-process) and neutrino-induced (ν\nu-process, νp\nu p-process) reactions can contribute to the formation of a small fraction of heavy isotopes in explosive environments, neutron capture remains the dominant nucleosynthetic mechanism for heavy elements. Based on the relative rates of neutron capture and β\beta-decay, neutron-capture processes are classified into the slow neutron-capture process (ss-process), intermediate neutron-capture process (ii-process), and rapid neutron-capture process (rr-process).

The ss-process, characterized by a neutron capture rate significantly slower than β\beta-decay, operates at relatively low neutron densities (Nn≈105∼1010 cm−3N_n \approx10^5 \sim10^{10}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}) over extended timescales (103∼10410^3 \sim10^4 years). This process predominantly occurs during the thermal pulse (TP) phase of asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, where a weakly mixed convective boundary region forms between the He- and H-burning shells. Protons from the H-burning shell are transported into the He-intershell, where they are captured by 12C{}^{12}\mathrm{C} to form a thin 13C{}^{13}\mathrm{C} pocket. When temperatures reach ∼108 K\sim10^8\ \mathrm{K}, the 13C(α,n)16O{}^{13}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,n){}^{16}\mathrm{O} reaction is activated, releasing free neutrons and driving ss-process nucleosynthesis ([180, 73, 27]).

In contrast, the ii-process exhibits a distinct neutron production mechanism. In low-metallicity AGB stars during thermal pulses (TPs), convective overshooting can extend the mixing region to the base of the H-burning shell, triggering a proton ingestion event (PIE) ([50, 81, 80, 43, 44]). This leads to the reaction chain 12C(p,γ)13N(β+)13C{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(p,\gamma){}^{13}\mathrm{N}(\beta^+){}^{13}\mathrm{C}, resulting in neutron densities six orders of magnitude higher (Nn≈1013∼1016 cm−3N_n \approx10^{13} \sim10^{16}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}) than those in the ss-process, with nucleosynthetic timescales as short as days to years. This fundamental difference enhances the production of heavy elements near and beyond the second peak (Z≥56Z \ge56) ((Frebel 2018)). Beyond low- to intermediate mass AGB stars, potential astrophysical sites for the ii-process include super-AGB stars ([57, 104]) and rapidly accreting white dwarfs ([55, 56]).

The rr-process requires extreme neutron densities (Nn>1020 cm−3N_n > 10^{20}\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}) and proceeds on second-scale timescales, driving nucleosynthesis pathways far from the β\beta-stability valley. Due to its extreme astrophysical environment, the astrophysical site of the rr-process has long been debated. The detection of the neutron star merger (NSM) event GW170817 in 2017 and its associated kilonova AT2017gfo ((Abbott et al. 2017a,b; Metzger 2017; Tanaka et al. 2017; Villar et al. 2017)) provided the first direct evidence that NSMs are a viable rr-process site ([13, 45, 65]). However, the long merger timescales (107∼10810^7 \sim10^8 years; [58, 23, 48, 138]) of binary systems struggle to account for the observed rr-process enrichment in extremely metal-poor stars ([Fe/H] <−3< -3; [21]) in the Milky Way, suggesting the existence of prompt rr-process sources in the early Universe ([114]), such as magnetorotationally driven jet supernovae (MRDSNe) ([195, 140, 139]) or collapsar jets ([127, 165] (He et al. 2024)). However, these astrophysical sites have

not been conclusively confirmed by direct observational evidence. Therefore, the frequency of occurrence, yield variations of rr-process nucleosynthesis in different astrophysical environments, and their relative importance across different cosmic epochs remain critically important open questions.

Low-mass very metal-poor (VMP) stars ([Fe/H] <−2.0< -2.0) serve as ”fossil records” of early cosmic chemical evolution, having formed in interstellar gas clouds enriched by only one or a few nucleosynthetic events ([21, 66] (Frebel 2018)). These Population II stars provide unique observational tracers for studying galactic chemical evolution and neutron-capture processes. Spectral screening techniques utilizing Ca II H and K line strengths at both low-resolution (R ∼400\sim400) and medium-resolution (R ∼2000\sim2000) have demonstrated efficiency in identifying metal-poor stars ([Fe/H] <−1.0< -1.0). The HK objective-prism survey ([22]), together with subsequent large-scale spectroscopic surveys — including the Hamburg/ESO Survey ([46]), RAVE ([69]), SDSS ([115]), SEGUE ([197]), and the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) survey ([203, 54]) — have dramatically expanded the number of known metal-poor stars, resulting in hundreds of thousands of candidates. In parallel, wide-field photometric surveys, such as SkyMapper ([110]), the Pristine survey based on narrow-band Ca H&K photometry ([176, 177, 130]), and the Stellar Abundances and Galactic Evolution Survey (SAGES; [62, 95] (Gu et al. 2025)), have further improved the efficiency of identifying very and extremely metal-poor stars.

Utilizing such an extensive sample, distinct subclasses of heavy-element-enhanced stars have been identified. The seminal discovery of CS 22892–052 ([170, 171]) marked a pivotal advancement — an extremely metal-poor (EMP) star ([Fe/H] = -3.12) from the HK survey exhibiting extraordinary rr-process enhancement with [Eu/Fe] = 1.65 (approximately dozens of times higher than that in solar). Subsequent systematic investigations, notably the ”First Stars” program ([89]) and HERES survey ([47, 20]), have identified dozens of rr-process-enhanced stars through VLT/UVES spectroscopic observations. Based on their europium enrichment levels, these stars are classified into rr-I and rr-II stars ([21, 92]), as summarized in Table 1. Recent studies have further identified rr-process-enhanced stars with [Eu/Fe] >2.0> 2.0, named as rr-III stars ([37, 154]). The origin of these europium abundance variations remains contentious — whether they reflect birth environment differences ([90]) or distinct rr-process nucleosynthesis sources.

TypeDefinitionNNReference
r − I0.3≤[Eu/Fe]≤0.70.3 \le[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] \le0.7 and [Ba/Eu]<0.0[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] < 0.045Beers & Christlieb [21]; Holmbeck et al. [92]
r − II[Eu/Fe]>0.7[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] > 0.7 and [Ba/Eu]<0.0[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] < 0.019Beers & Christlieb [21]; Holmbeck et al. [92]
limited − r[Eu/Fe]<0.3[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] < 0.3, [Sr/Ba]>0.5[\mathrm{Sr}/\mathrm{Ba}] > 0.5, and [Sr/Eu]>0.0[\mathrm{Sr}/\mathrm{Eu}] > 0.02Frebel (2018)
CEMP − r[C/Fe]≥0.7[\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge0.7, [Eu/Fe]>0.7[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] > 0.7, and [Ba/Eu]<0.0[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] < 0.01Beers & Christlieb [21]; Aoki et al. [10]; Holmbeck et al. [92]
CEMP − s[C/Fe]≥0.7[\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge0.7 and [Ba/Fe]≥1.0[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge1.0<br>(1) [Eu/Fe]<1.0[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] < 1.0, [Ba/Eu]>0.0[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] > 0.0 and/or [La/Eu]>0.5[\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Eu}] > 0.5<br>(2) [Eu/Fe]≥1.0[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge1.0, [Ba/Eu]>1.0[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] > 1.0 and/or [La/Eu]>0.7[\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Eu}] > 0.78Goswami et al. [76]
CEMP − r/s[C/Fe]≥0.7[\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge0.7, [Ba/Fe]≥1.0[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge1.0, and [Eu/Fe]≥1.0[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge1.0<br>(1) 0.0≤[Ba/Eu]≤1.00.0 \le[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] \le1.0 and/or 0.0≤[La/Eu]≤0.70.0 \le[\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Eu}] \le0.71Goswami et al. [76]
CEMP − r + s[C/Fe]≥0.7[\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge0.7, −0.2≤[La/Nd]≤0.2-0.2 \le[\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}] \le0.2, and −0.5≤[Eu/Nd]≤0.0-0.5 \le[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Nd}] \le0.02This study
CEMP∗a^{*a}0.4<[C/Fe]<0.70.4 < [\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] < 0.74...

Table 1. Classification criteria of heavy-element-enhanced stars

Conversely, Honda et al. [94, 93] discovered two chemically peculiar stars (HD 122563 and HD 88609), designated as ”limited-rr” stars, which exhibit pronounced enhancement in light neutron-capture elements ([Sr/Ba]>0.5[\mathrm{Sr}/\mathrm{Ba}] > 0.5, [Sr/Eu]>0.0[\mathrm{Sr}/\mathrm{Eu}] > 0.0) but depleted heavy rr-process signatures ([Eu/Fe]<0.3[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] < 0.3). Their abundance patterns suggest nucleosynthetic origins either from the weak rr-process (Wanajo et al. [192]) or the light-element primary process (LEPP) (Travaglio et al. [183]). The R-Process Alliance has significantly advanced this field through multi-telescope observations (including GTC/HORuS and Magellan/MIKE high-resolution follow-ups), increasing the confirmed sample to approximately 580 rr-process-enhanced stars and 50 limited-rr stars ([85, 157, 61, 92, 19]).

A substantial population of metal-poor stars in the Galactic halo exhibit carbon enrichment ([C/Fe]≥0.7[\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] \ge0.7, Aoki et al. [10]), characterized by prominent molecular absorption features of CH, CN, and C2_2 in their spectra. Recent studies of large samples indicate that the fraction of carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP) stars increases significantly with decreasing metallicity. Specifically, the fraction rises to ∼40%\sim40\% for [Fe/H]≲−3[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \lesssim-3 and reaches ∼75%\sim75\% for [Fe/H]≲−4[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \lesssim-4 ([198, 120, 11, 145, 16, 15, 75]), underscoring the importance of understanding their origins. Based on their surface heavy-element abundance, CEMP stars are further divided into distinct subclasses: CEMP-no stars show no significant neutron-capture element enhancement, CEMP-ss stars exhibit clear enhancement of ss-process elements, CEMP-rr stars demonstrate pronounced rr-process elements enrichment, while CEMP-r/sr/s and CEMP-r+sr+s stars display concurrent enhancement of both ss- and rr-process elements. These different neutron-capture signatures imply different nucleosynthetic origins. Observational evidence suggests that CEMP-r/sr/s stars predominantly follow ii-process nucleosynthesis patterns ([81, 80, 43, 44]), whereas CEMP-r+sr+s stars are better explained by combined rr- and ss-process enrichment scenarios ([79, 159]). However, the classification criteria and astrophysical origins of these subclasses remain highly debated, particularly given the limited sample sizes — only about 41 confirmed CEMP-r/sr/s stars (Goswami et al. [76]) and two reported CEMP-r+sr+s stars in the literature.

The investigation of heavy-element-enhanced stars necessitates large, homogeneously analyzed samples of metal-poor stars to resolve the key outstanding questions in this field. By analyzing the large collection of low-resolution spectroscopic data (R∼1800R \sim1800) from the LAMOST survey (DR1 through DR5), we identified over 15,000 VMP star candidates through the methods of template matching of observed flux and line index matching (Li et al. 2018). Between 2014 and 2017, we obtained high-resolution follow-up spectra (R=36,000R = 36{,}000, λ=4000\lambda= 4000-6800 Å) for 385 bright targets (g<13.0g < 13.0 mag) using the Subaru Telescope/High Dispersion Spectrograph (HDS) (Noguchi et al. [141]), as reported in Aoki et al. (2022). Subsequent systematic analysis by Li et al. (2022) determined atmospheric parameters and abundances of 22 species for this VMP sample, while Zhang et al. [201] investigated the chemo-dynamical properties of this sample through friends-of-friends clustering algorithms. Building upon these foundations, this study focuses on metal-poor stars exhibiting heavy-element enhancements within this sample, aiming to provide new observational constraints on nucleosynthetic processes through detailed analysis of abundance patterns across distinct heavy-element-enhanced categories. This paper is structured as follows: § 2 details the methodology for deriving the abundances of neutron-capture elements, § 3 presents the discussion of the abundance results, including (1) the number of different heavy-element-enhanced stars based on established classification criteria, (2) comparison with literature values, and (3) the abundance characteristics of different types of heavy-element-enhanced stars. The conclusions and summary are presented in § 4.

Data

The sample analyzed in this study is drawn from the LAMOST/Subaru VMP star sample (Li et al. 2022), with the aim of investigating metal-poor stars exhibiting heavy-element enhancements. The sample selection process consists of two steps. First, an initial sample is identified based on the abundances reported by Li et al. (2022), following the classification criteria outlined in Table 1. Subsequently, the stellar classifications are confirmed based on the updated abundance data obtained in this work, thereby ensuring that all selected stars satisfy the criteria presented in Table 1. Table 2 provides the final stellar sample along with the corresponding atmospheric parameters. The distribution of TeffT_{\mathrm{eff}} versus log⁡g\log g for the stellar sample is shown in Figure 1, and is overlaid with four 12.5 Gyr Dartmouth isochrones (Dotter et al. [59]) at enhanced α\alpha-element abundance ([α/Fe]=0.4[\alpha/\mathrm{Fe}] = 0.4), covering metallicities from [Fe/H]=−2.50[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] = -2.50–−1.00-1.00 in steps of 0.5 dex. A more detailed discussion of the stellar classification is provided in § 3.1.

Name[Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] (dex)TeffT_{\mathrm{eff}} (K)log⁡g\log g (dex)ξt\xi_t (km s−1^{-1})σ[Fe/H]\sigma_{[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]} (dex)σTeff\sigma_{T_{\mathrm{eff}}} (K)σlog⁡g\sigma_{\log g} (dex)σξt\sigma_{\xi_t} (km s−1^{-1})Class
J0003+1556−2.3253022.312.110.11450.080.12r-I
J0006+0123−2.2756753.231.520.11530.040.08r-I
J0040+2729−2.8145741.342.160.11780.070.07r-II
J0041+3633−2.3751552.032.050.11740.060.06r-I
J0055+1857−2.3450432.671.500.09270.040.06r-I
J0119−0121−3.1962624.151.690.161640.060.30CEMP-s

Table 2. Atmospheric parameters of the sample stars

Figure 1. The distribution of TeffT_{\mathrm{eff}} versus log⁡g\log g for the sample stars, with Dartmouth isochrones overplotted (Dotter et al. [59]). The solid, dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines represent isochrones with an age of 12.5 Gyr and [α\alpha/Fe] = 0.4, corresponding to metallicities [Fe/H] = -1.0, -1.5, -2.0, and -2.5, respectively. The different subclasses of heavy-element-enhanced stars are represented by distinct colors and symbols. The average 1σ1\sigma uncertainties in TeffT_{\mathrm{eff}} and log⁡g\log g for the sample stars are indicated by error bars in the upper-left corner of the figure.

The abundances of neutron capture elements in our sample stars are derived from equivalent width (EW) measurements or spectral synthesis, with the results presented in Table 3. These abundances are expressed in three forms: absolute abundances, denoted as log⁡ϵ(X)=log⁡10(NX/NH)+12\log\epsilon(\mathrm{X}) = \log_{10}(N_{\mathrm{X}}/N_{\mathrm{H}}) + 12, and relative abundances, represented as [X/H]=log⁡10(NX/NH)−log⁡10(NX/NH)⊙[\mathrm{X}/\mathrm{H}] = \log_{10}(N_{\mathrm{X}}/N_{\mathrm{H}}) - \log_{10}(N_{\mathrm{X}}/N_{\mathrm{H}})_{\odot} and [X/Fe]=[\mathrm{X}/\mathrm{Fe}] = Note. a^{a}Stars within our sample exhibit moderate carbon enhancement but display pronounced enrichment in heavy elements.

Specieslog⁡ϵ⊙\log\epsilon_{\odot}log⁡ϵ\log\epsilon[X/H][X/Fe]σstat\sigma_{\mathrm{stat}}σsys\sigma_{\mathrm{sys}}σtot\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}σ[X/Fe]\sigma_{\mathrm{[X/Fe]}}NN
J0003+1556
Sr II2.871.29−1.580.650.110.020.110.161
Y II2.21−0.15−2.36−0.130.040.040.060.127
Zr II2.580.80−1.780.450.080.040.090.142
Ba II2.180.16−2.020.210.070.070.100.155
La II1.10−0.76−1.860.370.080.040.090.142
Ce II1.58−0.34−1.920.310.110.040.120.161
Pr II0.72........................
Nd II1.42−0.26−1.680.550.050.040.060.136
Sm II0.96−0.67−1.630.600.080.040.090.142
Eu II0.52−1.06−1.580.650.080.060.100.152
Gd II1.07........................
Dy II1.10−0.45−1.550.680.110.050.120.161
Ho II0.48........................
Hf II0.85........................
Os I1.40........................
Pb I1.75........................

Table 3. Elemental abundances of the sample stars. Note. (This table is available in its entirety in machine-readable form.)

Note. (This table is available in its entirety in machine-readable form.)

log⁡10(NX/NFe)−log⁡10(NX/NFe)⊙\log_{10}(N_X/N_{\mathrm{Fe}}) - \log_{10}(N_X/N_{\mathrm{Fe}})_\odot. The line list utilized in this study is compiled from numerous literature sources ([52, 132, 88] (Li et al. 2022)), with atomic parameters updated using the VALD database ([155, 142]). EW measurements are performed using the Tool for Automatic Measurement of Equivalent-width (TAME) (Kang & Lee [108]), which applies theoretical Gaussian/Voigt profile fitting to normalized observed spectra. The abundances are derived using an updated version of the abundance analysis code MOOG (Sneden [172]), incorporating Rayleigh scattering as coherent and isotropic scattering (Sobeck et al. [173]). Specifically, the abundances are derived from the EW measurements using the MOOG ”abfind” driver. In cases where an element has fewer than three measurable spectral lines or when the standard deviation of abundances from multiple lines exceeds 0.15, spectral synthesis is performed using the MOOG ”synth” driver. The analysis employs 1D plane-parallel, hydrostatic model atmospheres from the α\alpha-enhanced ATLAS NEWODF grid (Castelli & Kurucz [38]), assuming local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and excluding convective overshooting effects. The molecular and blended atomic line lists used in spectral synthesis are generated with the LINEMAKE code (Placco et al. [146]), an open-source line list generator. We verified that the atomic parameters in these lists are consistent with the VALD database. Subsequent test calculations confirmed that any discrepancies yield abundance differences that fall well within our quoted uncertainties.

Elemental abundances

Li et al. (2022) reported the stellar atmospheric parameters and light-element abundances for the stars in our sample, and we therefore directly adopt their published values. However, the surface chemical composition of stars undergoes significant variation during stellar evolution. Owing to the CNO cycle, first dredge-up (FDU) mixing, and additional mixing along the red giant branch, sub-giant and red giant branch stars typically exhibit carbon depletion and nitrogen enhancement ([39, 77, 145]). This effect is particularly critical for the identification and analysis of CEMP stars, requiring evolutionary corrections to their carbon abundances in order to ensure accurate classification ([145]). To properly account for these evolutionary effects, we additionally measure the abundances of key diagnostic elements in CEMP stars: nitrogen abundances derived from the CN molecular band at 4215 Å, oxygen abundances from the forbidden [O I] lines at 6300 Å and 6363 Å, and carbon isotopic ratios determined from 12^{12}CH and 13^{13}CH molecular features in the 4217–4230

A spectral region. All results are presented in Table 4. In addition, Figure 2 illustrates the spectral synthesis of these elements for the ss-process enhanced star J2256+0215. Furthermore, the effects of hyperfine structure (HFS) and isotopic shifts (IS) on the abundance determination are taken into account for Sr, Ba, La, Pr, Eu, and Pb. In the calculations of synthetic spectra, the isotope ratios for different elements are taken from Prantzos et al. [147]. Specifically, the solar rr-process isotope ratios are adopted for rr-process-enhanced metal-poor stars and limited-rr stars, while solar ss-process isotope ratios are applied to CEMP-ss stars. Since the solar heavy-element abundance pattern represents the combined outcome of both rr- and ss-process nucleosynthesis, we adopt solar isotopic ratios for CEMP-r+sr+s stars and CEMP-r/sr/s stars that display simultaneous enhancements from both neutron-capture processes. The solar reference abundances are taken from Asplund et al. [18]. In the following, we describe in detail the derivation of neutron-capture element abundances for our sample and the spectral lines used in the analysis.

Figure 2. Spectral synthesis of the 12CH^{12}\mathrm{CH} and 13CH^{13}\mathrm{CH} around 4215 Å, CN λ4215\lambda4215, and [O I] λ6300\lambda6300 features for the CEMP-s star J2256+0215. The observed spectra are shown as black data points. The best-fits are represented by solid red lines. For the 12CH^{12}\mathrm{CH} and 13CH^{13}\mathrm{CH} spectral synthesis, the red shaded regions indicate 12C/13C^{12}\mathrm{C}/^{13}\mathrm{C} isotope ratios of 80/20 and 60/40, respectively. In other panels, the red shaded areas correspond to the ±0.2 dex uncertainties associated with the best-fit. Spectral synthesis calculations excluding the elements of interest are shown as black dashed lines.

Name[Fe/H][C/Fe][C/Fe]corr_{\mathrm{corr}}12C/13C{}^{12}\mathrm{C}/{}^{13}\mathrm{C}[N/Fe][O/Fe][Ba/Eu]RV mean (km s−1^{-1})σ\sigma (km s−1^{-1})nnp(χ2)p(\chi^2)zzBinaryClass
J0006+0123-2.270.740.75>6.69>6.69<2.74<2.74...-1.05-65.890.1930.622...NoCEMP-r
J2333+0505-2.430.500.5511.5<1.96<1.96...-0.92-136.920.0820.6850.406NoCEMP*-r
J0119-0121-3.192.422.42>10.11>10.11<3.58<3.58......-71.547.8790.000...YesCEMP-s
J0824+3025-2.722.212.21............18.332.6420.0005.296YesCEMP-s
J0949+2707-2.902.002.00............-104.6130.1730.000...YesCEMP-s
J1003-0358-2.181.311.31............98.990.2920.1481.448NoCEMP-s
J1011+3524-2.251.421.42>32.33>32.33<2.10<2.102.88...54.190.3830.158...NoCEMP-s
J1020+4046-2.942.372.3710.11<2.64<2.64......-91.162.9220.0005.862YesCEMP-s
J1044-0358-2.131.311.31............90.510.1120.5680.572NoCEMP-s
J1434+3540-1.910.720.728.091.85......-201.161.6330.000...YesCEMP-s
J2256+0215-2.270.080.442.332.291.091.02-161.050.2920.1371.486NoCEMP*-s
J1551+2040-2.480.750.763.55......0.51-74.100.0020.9940.008NoCEMP-r/s
J0446+2124-2.820.560.574.56......0.23-62.890.1920.7050.379NoCEMP*-r/s
J2114-0616-2.550.640.905.251.690.900.62-161.110.2440.002...YesCEMP-r+s
J2257+3859-2.651.261.2615.67......0.21-374.80...1.........CEMP-r+s
J0653+4735-2.410.550.608.090.790.780.0976.080.3650.508...NoCEMP*-r+s

Table 4. Carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen abundances, 12C/13C{}^{12}\mathrm{C}/{}^{13}\mathrm{C} ratios, and radial-velocity statistics for the CEMP stars in our sample. The last column lists their CEMP subclasses; asterisks (*) denote stars that exhibit moderately enhanced carbon abundances (0.4<[C/Fe]corr<0.70.4 < [\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}]_{\mathrm{corr}} < 0.7) after evolutionary corrections are applied.

Strontium, yttrium, and zirconium. The abundance of Sr is derived from the Sr II lines at 4077, 4161 and 4215 Å, with HFS and IS adopted from Borghs et al. [32] and Buchinger et al. [34].The resonance lines Sr II 4077 and 4215 are detectable in all sample stars, typically yielding Sr abundances with standard deviations below 0.1 dex when derived from these two lines. In contrast, the Sr II 4161 transition is significantly weaker and is only detectable in three stars within our sample. For Y, most stars exhibit detectable absorption in at least five Y II lines, and we directly adopt the abundance results derived from EW measurements. The Zr abundance is determined from 1 to 6 Zr II lines per star, with most stars exhibiting consistent abundances (σ∼0.15\sigma\sim0.15 dex) across different Zr II transitions.

Barium, lanthanum, and cerium. The abundance of Ba is derived from five Ba II lines, with the HFS in spectrum synthesis referenced from Wendt et al. [194], van Hove et al. [186], and Villemos et al. [190]. The Ba II lines at λ4554\lambda4554 and λ4934\lambda4934 exhibit greater saturation effects and show stronger sensitivity to isotopic ratios assumed in the calculation compared to the lines at λ5853\lambda5853, λ6141\lambda6141, λ6496\lambda6496. When using solar rr-process isotope ratios, the Ba abundances derived from these two lines are systematically lower by more than 0.2 dex compared to those obtained with solar ss-process isotope ratio. The La abundance is derived through spectral synthesis of 12 La II lines, incorporating HFS constants from Lawler et al. [118], Furmann et al. [71], and Furmann et al. [70]. In contrast to Ba II transitions, La II lines show relatively weaker absorption features and are dominated by the 139^{139}La isotope in solar material. For Ce, we detect an average of six Ce II lines per star in our sample and derive the abundances through EW measurements.

Praseodymium, neodymium, and samarium. The Pr abundance is derived from spectral synthesis of nine Pr II lines, with particular attention to HFS effects (Ginibre [74]; Ivarsson et al. [96]; Rivest et al. [149]) and potential line blending. Within our sample, the Pr II line at 4179 Å demonstrates the highest detection rate, followed by Pr II transitions at 4143 Å and 4222 Å. However, the Pr II 4179 feature shows significant blending with Cr II and V I, as well as with Nd II on its red wing. The line list includes 31 Nd II and 15 Sm II transitions. On average, about eight Nd II lines and four Sm II lines are detected per star. In most cases, the standard deviation among the abundances derived from different lines remains small (σ<0.15\sigma< 0.15 dex).

Europium, gadolinium, dysprosium, holmium and hafnium. As Eu is a representative rr-process element, 95 % of its abundance in solar material originates from the rr-process. We derived the Eu abundance through spectral synthesis from Eu II 4129 Å and 4205 Å lines, with HFS and IS adopted from Lawler et al. [119]. The Eu II 4129 Å line is blended with Sc I 4129.752 Å, Ti II 4129.724 Å, Fe II 4129.692 Å, as well as CN and CH molecular features. However, under metal-poor conditions, the impact of these blends on the abundance analysis is negligible.

Notably, the left wing of Eu II 4205 line is significantly blended with a CH molecular band, as shown in Figure 3, requiring careful evaluation when incorporating this feature into the final abundance determination. The Gd abundance is derived from six Gd II lines, with spectral synthesis employed when necessary to ensure the reliability of the abundance determination. The Dy abundance is derived from three Dy II lines at 4073 Å, 4077 Å, and 4103 Å. The λ4077\lambda4077 line appears on the right wing of Sr II 4077 Å, while the λ4103\lambda4103 line is located redward of the Hδ\delta line at 4101.76 Å. Although the strong Hδ\delta absorption affects the local continuum level near this line, spectral synthesis yields abundances consistent with those derived from the Dy II 4077 Å line within the measurement uncertainties (0.15 dex). Within our sample, weak absorption features are detected for Ho II λ4152\lambda4152 in one star and Hf II λ4093\lambda4093 in six stars.

Spectral synthesis of Sr II, Ba II, and Eu II features

Figure 3. Spectral synthesis of the Sr II λ4215, Ba II λ6496, and Eu II λ4205 features for the rr-II star J0040+2729, the rr-I star J1459+0444, the limited-rr star J1345+0513, and (d) the CEMP-r+sr+s star J0653+4735. The observed spectra are represented by black data points. The best fits are shown as solid red lines, with associated uncertainties of 0.2 dex indicated by the shaded red regions. The spectral synthesis excluding the elements of interest are displayed as black dashed lines.

Osmium and lead. As the third peak of the rr-process, the abundance of Os is derived through three lines: Os I λ4135\lambda4135, λ4260\lambda4260, and λ4420\lambda4420. The left wing of the Os I λ4260\lambda4260 is affected by Fe I λ4260\lambda4260, while the Os I λ4420\lambda4420 line shows significant blending with Sm, Nd, and CH molecular features. The Pb abundance is derived from the Pb I λ4057\lambda4057 line, incorporating HFS and IS effects (Bouazza et al. [33]). For CEMP-s stars, the ss-process isotopic ratio of Pb at low-metallicity is adopted (Van Eck et al. [185]), as the enhanced neutron-to-seed ratio in metal-poor environments preferentially produces heavier elements through the ss-process nucleosynthesis pathway.

For the actinides (such as Th and U), no corresponding absorption features are detected in our sample. The strongest absorption lines of Th and U are located at Th II 4019.129 Å and U II 3859.571 Å, respectively, which are not covered in our spectra. Detecting these features requires highresolution, high signal-to-noise, blue-end spectra [162, 124].

Abundance Uncertainties

The total uncertainties (σtot\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}) in elemental abundances determinations arise from two primary sources: statistical errors (σstat\sigma_{\mathrm{stat}}) associated with spectral measurements and systematic errors (σsys\sigma_{\mathrm{sys}}) related to the determination of atmospheric parameters. These distinct uncertainty components are presented separately in columns (6)-(8) of Table 3. The σtot\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}} is determined through quadrature summation of σstat\sigma_{\mathrm{stat}} and σsys\sigma_{\mathrm{sys}}, expressed as:

σtot=σstat2+σsys2.(1)\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}} = \sqrt{\sigma_{\mathrm{stat}}^2 + \sigma_{\mathrm{sys}}^2}. \tag*{(1)}

The σstat\sigma_{\mathrm{stat}} component primarily incorporates errors originating from EW measurements, continuum normalization, and line blending effects. For a given element XX, σstat\sigma_{\mathrm{stat}} is quantitatively estimated as:

σstat={σXN,N≥4max⁡(σXN,σFe IN),N<4(2)\sigma_{\mathrm{stat}} = \begin{cases} \frac{\sigma_X}{\sqrt{N}}, & N \ge4 \\ \max\left(\frac{\sigma_X}{\sqrt{N}}, \frac{\sigma_{\mathrm{Fe\,I}}}{\sqrt{N}}\right), & N < 4 \end{cases} \tag*{(2)}

where σX\sigma_X represents the standard deviation of abundances derived from individual spectral lines and NN denotes the number of measured lines. This statistical error can be significantly minimized through the measurement of a substantial number of spectral lines. For neutron-capture elements such as Y, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, and Sm, most stellar spectra in our sample typically exhibit more than four detectable lines.

The σsys\sigma_{\mathrm{sys}} component primarily arises from uncertainties in atmospheric parameters, including effective temperature (TeffT_{\mathrm{eff}}), surface gravity (log⁡g\log g), metallicity ([Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]), and microturbulent velocity (ξ\xi). To estimate σsys\sigma_{\mathrm{sys}}, each atmospheric parameter is independently varied by its respective 1σ1\sigma uncertainty, and the corresponding abundance variations are combined in quadrature, as shown in the following equation:

σsys=[(∂log⁡ϵ∂TeffΔTeff)2+(∂log⁡ϵ∂log⁡gΔlog⁡g)2+(∂log⁡ϵ∂[Fe/H]Δ[Fe/H])2+(∂log⁡ϵ∂ξΔξ)2]1/2(3)\sigma_{\mathrm{sys}} = \left[ \left(\frac{\partial\log\epsilon}{\partial T_{\mathrm{eff}}}\Delta T_{\mathrm{eff}}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{\partial\log\epsilon}{\partial\log g}\Delta\log g\right)^2 + \left(\frac{\partial\log\epsilon}{\partial[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]}\Delta[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]\right)^2 + \left(\frac{\partial\log\epsilon}{\partial\xi}\Delta\xi\right)^2 \right]^{1/2} \tag*{(3)}

Notably, sensitivity analyses reveal that elemental abundances demonstrate significantly greater dependence on TeffT_{\mathrm{eff}} variations compared to other atmospheric parameters.

Results and Discussion

Classification of the sample stars

Based on the elemental abundances derived from our analysis, we systematically reclassify the sample stars. Following conventional methodologies, metallicity ([Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]) and carbon abundances ([C/Fe][\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}]) serve as primary diagnostics for identifying metal-poor stars and their CEMP subclasses [21]. To investigate nucleosynthetic origins, we utilize Ba and Eu as tracers of the ss-process and rr-process, respectively, enabling the differentiation of stars with distinct enrichment histories. For rr-process-enhanced stars, while previous studies adopted an empirical threshold of [Eu/Fe]=1.0[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] = 1.0 to distinguish between rr-I and rr-II stars [21], recent work by Holmbeck et al. [92] has statistically refined this criterion. Through kk-medoids clustering and Gaussian mixture modeling of abundance data from the R-Process Alliance, they established [Eu/Fe]=0.7[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] = 0.7 as the optimal threshold for rr-II classification. Consequently, this study applies the updated criterion ([Eu/Fe]>0.7[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Fe}] > 0.7) to identify rr-II and CEMP-rr stars. Stars exhibiting anomalous light neutron-capture element ratios such as elevated [Sr/Ba][\mathrm{Sr}/\mathrm{Ba}] and [Sr/Eu][\mathrm{Sr}/\mathrm{Eu}], are flagged as candidates for the ’limited-rr’ process (Frebel 2018). CEMP stars are further classified (CEMP-ss, CEMP-r/sr/s) based on their surface heavy-element abundances, according to the classification criteria established by Goswami et al. [76]. Table 1 additionally includes a subset of stars classified as CEMP-r+sr+s. Frebel (2018) proposed empirical selection criteria of 0.0<[Ba/Eu]<+0.50.0 < [\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] < +0.5 and −1.0<[Ba/Pb]<−0.5-1.0 < [\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Pb}] < -0.5 to identify objects exhibiting mixed rr- and ss-process signatures. Our analysis reveals that these criteria do not effectively identify CEMP-r+sr+s stars in the current sample. Therefore, this study introduces more robust selection standards to improve the reliability of identification, as discussed in § 3.4.2.

Our final catalog comprises 82 heavy-element-enhanced metal-poor stars, including 45 rr-I stars, 19 rr-II stars, 2 limited-rr stars, 1 CEMP-rr star, 8 CEMP-ss stars, 1 CEMP-r/sr/s star, and 2 candidate CEMP-r+sr+s stars. In addition, our sample includes four stars with moderate carbon abundances (0.4<[C/Fe]<0.70.4 < [\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] < 0.7) that do not strictly meet the formal classification criteria for CEMP stars. However, given that their neutron-capture abundance patterns closely resemble those of specific CEMP subclasses, we classify these objects as moderately CEMP stars. For clarity, these stars are explicitly marked with asterisks (*) in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 4. This notation highlights their close connection to the classic CEMP subclasses regarding heavy-element enrichment, while retaining the information about their only moderate carbon enhancement. Unless otherwise specified, subsequent discussions and figures include these moderately carbon-enhanced stars within the CEMP heavy-element-enhanced subcategories.

The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram shown in Figure 1 reveals a clear dichotomy, with rr-process-enhanced stars, limited-rr stars, CEMP-rr stars, as well as both CEMP-r/sr/s and CEMP-r+sr+s stars predominantly occupying the sub-giant and red giant branches, whereas CEMP-ss stars are predominantly found on the main sequence and turn-off region. This can be interpreted as evidence that CEMP-ss stars are formed via mass transfer from companion stars, and the accreted material has not yet been significantly diluted by convection during their subsequent evolution to the red giant branch.

Comparison with Literature

Li et al. (2022) reported neutron-capture element abundances (Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, La, and Eu) for this sample. As shown in Figure 4, our new abundance measurements exhibit excellent agreement with their values for Y, Zr, and Ba in most stars, falling within the typical measurement uncertainties of ±0.15\pm0.15 dex. However, systematic discrepancies emerge for the Ba abundances of CEMP-ss, CEMP-r/sr/s and CEMP-r+sr+s stars, with our results systematically higher by approximately 0.15 dex. This discrepancy stems primarily from differing assumptions regarding isotopic ratios: we employ solar ss-process isotopic ratios for CEMP-ss stars and solar isotopic ratios for CEMP-r/sr/s and CEMP-r+sr+s stars, whereas Li et al. (2022) apply rr-process ratios uniformly. As demonstrated in § 2.1, through spectrum synthesis tests, this fundamental difference in assumption can introduce variations exceeding 0.2 dex in derived Ba abundances, particularly for the Ba II λ4554 and λ4934 features.

Comparison plots of Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, La, and Eu abundances

Figure 4. Comparison of Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, La, and Eu abundances derived in this work with those reported by Li et al. (2022). The solid line indicates perfect agreement between our measurements and Li et al. (2022) values, while the dashed lines represent the ±0.15\pm0.15 dex deviation thresholds. The mean 1σ1\sigma uncertainties for each elemental abundance are displayed in the upper-left corner of the corresponding panel.

For Sr, La, and Eu, our derived abundances exhibit systematic offsets of 0.1-0.2 dex toward lower values compared to Li et al. (2022). These discrepancies primarily arise from methodological differences in spectral analysis. Our study employed the ’synth’ driver in MOOG for spectrum synthesis to derive the abundances, whereas Li et al. (2022) utilized the ’blends’ driver, which determines abundances through EW measurements. This distinction becomes particularly significant cant for severely blended or asymmetric spectral features. A prominent example is the Eu II λ\lambda 4205 line, whose left wing exhibits strong contamination from the CH molecular band. This blending effect depresses the entire wing profile and introduces profile asymmetry, leading to an overestimation of the EW. Consequently, the EW-based ’blends’ driver yields systematically higher Eu abundances by approximately 0.15 dex compared to the synthesis approach. For La, the differences arise from both line selection and blending effects: while Li et al. (2022) primarily used four La II lines, our analysis incorporated more additional transitions, enabling more robust abundance determinations with reduced uncertainties (σ<0.1\sigma< 0.1 dex).

Figure 5 presents the [X/Fe] versus [Fe/H] distributions for our stellar sample, with comparative data from Roederer et al. [151] and Alencastro Puls et al. [7]. As expected from our sample selection, the abundances of most neutron-capture elements in our sample are systematically higher than those reported in the literature. Notably, we observe that the abundances of the first-peak elements (Sr, Y, Zr) show overlapping distributions among r-I, r-II, CEMP-r, and limited-r stars, while CEMP-s, CEMP-r/s and CEMP-r+s stars exhibit systematically elevated abundances. The abundance stratification becomes even more pronounced in the lanthanide region (57 ≤Z≤\leq Z \leq 71): CEMP-s and CEMP-r/s stars occupy the highest [X/Fe] region, followed by CEMP-r+s stars and r-II stars, while CEMP-r, r-I and limited-r stars show the lowest enhancement. The significant scatter in [X/Fe] observed across the entire metallicity range reflects the diverse nucleosynthetic origins of heavy elements

in these metal-poor stars. For r-process-enhanced stars, the surface abundances of heavy elements primarily originate from NSMs or specific types of core-collapse supernovae. The considerable dispersion in surface [r/Fe] ratios at low metallicities reflects both the infrequency of r-process events — where only one main r-process event may occur per 100-1000 ordinary supernovae — and the inhomogeneous mixing of the interstellar medium in the early Milky Way ([51]). Conversely, the surface elemental abundances of CEMP-s stars primarily result from s-process nucleosynthesis in low- to medium-mass AGB companion stars. Particularly noteworthy are two CEMP-s stars in our sample that exhibit extreme enhancement in barium abundance ([Ba/Fe] >> +2.0), which simultaneously display the highest observed abundances of most s-process elements (Ba, La, Ce and Pb). This suggests variations in both the initial masses of their progenitor AGB stars and the efficiency of s-process nucleosynthesis. Furthermore, the observed abundances in CEMP-s stars may be influenced by two main factors: binary orbital parameters, which affect mass transfer efficiency, and differences in the mixing and dilution processes within stellar envelopes.

r-process-enhanced stars

Abundance pattern fitting

This section focuses on the r-process-enhanced stars in our sample — including the r-I, r-II, limited-r, and CEMP-r categories — with their neutron-capture element abundance patterns presented in Figure 6. The abundances of these stars are scaled to the solar r-process using the following formula:

Figure 6. TOP panel: Abundance patterns of rr-process-enhanced stars. The solid black line represents the solar rr-process abundance pattern. The blue circles, yellow squares, grayish blue diamonds and purple triangles with error bars correspond to rr-I, rr-II, limited-rr and CEMP-rr stars, respectively. Bottom panel: MAD of scaled abundances for different elements in the rr-I and rr-II stars. The black solid and dashed lines indicate MAD values of 0 and 0.15 dex, respectively.

log⁡ϵ(X)=log⁡ϵ(X)∗+Or(4)\log\epsilon(X) = \log\epsilon(X)_* + O_r \tag*{(4)}
Or=∑iNlog⁡ϵ(X)r−log⁡ϵ(X)∗σX2∑iN1σX2(5)O_r = \frac{\sum_{i}^{N}\frac{\log\epsilon(X)_r-\log\epsilon(X)_*}{\sigma_X^2}}{\sum_{i}^{N}\frac{1}{\sigma_X^2}} \tag*{(5)}

where log⁡ϵ(X)∗\log\epsilon(X)_* and σX\sigma_X represent the observed abundance and its associated uncertainty for element XX in each star, respectively, and log⁡ϵ(X)r\log\epsilon(X)_r denotes the corresponding solar rr-process residuals abundance from Prantzos et al. [147]. The parameter OrO_r represents a scaling coefficient for the observed stellar abundances. It is derived from the weighted abundance difference between the solar rr-process pattern and the observed abundances for NN elements with atomic number Z≥56Z \ge56.

The abundances of light neutron-capture element (Z=38Z = 38, 39, 40) in rr-process-enhanced stars exhibit significant deviations from the solar rr-process abundance pattern. As shown in the upper panel of Figure 6, most stars display elevated abundances of Sr and Zr relative to solar rr-process values, while Y abundances remain systematically lower. This indicates a more complex origin for these elements and suggests that the solar rr-process may not be a suitable reference for these light neutron-capture elements (Frebel & Ji [65]). Furthermore, we note that NLTE corrections for Y become particularly significant at low metallicities. In metal-poor red giants, when [Fe/H]≤−3[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \leq-3, the NLTE corrections for low-excitation-potential (EP) Y II lines can exceed 0.5 dex (Storm & Bergemann [179]). However, among the nine Y II lines employed in this study, seven possess medium EP values, for which the NLTE corrections in metal-poor red giants generally remain below 0.05 dex. Consequently, the mean NLTE correction for log⁡ϵ(Y)\log\epsilon(\mathrm{Y}) in our sample is approximately +0.15 dex.

In our sample, the abundance variations of light neutron-capture elements among different stars exceed 1 dex, with limited-rr stars exhibiting the most pronounced first-peak element enhancements, a characteristic that correlates with their relative deficiency in heavy neutron-capture elements. In rr-I and rr-II stars, the median absolute deviations (MADs) of the Sr scaled abundances — obtained by applying Equation (4) — exceed 0.2 dex. This value is significantly larger than the dispersion observed for the heavy neutron-capture elements. In contrast, the scaled Y and Zr abundances in these stars show significantly lower dispersion (MAD ≤0.13\le0.13 dex). This trend has been demonstrated by Saraf et al. [158], who showed that [Sr/Fe] exhibits markedly greater scatter than [Y/Fe] and [Zr/Fe] with increasing [Eu/Fe]. These observations imply a stronger nucleosynthetic coupling between Y and Zr and heavy neutron-capture elements in rr-process-enhanced stars. Roederer et al. [152] conducted a detailed analysis of eight metal-poor stars with relatively complete light neutron-capture element measurements, showing that when normalized to the solar rr-process Zr abundance, the star-to-star dispersion among the abundances of Se, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, and Te decreases substantially (MAD ≤0.13\le0.13 dex). This

Figure 5. [X/Fe] versus [Fe/H] abundance ratios for the sample stars, with comparative data from Roederer et al. [151] (gray filled circles) and Alencastro Puls et al. [7] (black crosses) overplotted. The solar reference values ([X/Fe] = 0) are indicated by the gray dashed line.

consistency suggests the existence of an astrophysical site producing a universal abundance pattern for light neutron-capture elements. Potential sites for this process include: (1) neutrino-driven wind in core-collapse supernovae (Roberts et al. [150]; Arcones & Montes [14]; Akram et al. [6]); (2) electron-capture supernovae with progenitor masses of 8–10 M⊙_\odot (Kitaura et al. [111]; Janka et al. [99]; Wanajo et al. [191]); or (3) quark deconfinement supernovae (Fischer et al. [63]). The characteristically high electron fraction (YeY_{\mathrm{e}}) in these environments would suppress the efficient production of heavier rr-process nuclides.

In contrast, the heavy neutron-capture elements (Z≥56Z \ge56) exhibit a relatively uniform abundance pattern that closely matches the solar rr-process abundances, consistent with their predominant production through the main rr-process. However, Ba and Pr abundances demonstrate notable dispersion compared to other heavy neutron-capture elements. This scatter in Pr abundances primarily originates from eight rr-process-enhanced stars exhibiting anomalously high Pr abundances, with their average [Pr/Eu] value reaching 0.47. This starkly contrasts with the solar rr-process range of [Pr/Eu]r=−0.31[\mathrm{Pr}/\mathrm{Eu}]_{\mathrm{r}} = -0.31 to −0.18-0.18. This phenomenon has also been observed by Xie et al. [196] in their study of rr-process-enhanced stars within the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE). It is noteworthy that the Pr abundances in these stars are mainly derived from the Pr II line at 4179 Å. Spectral synthesis of the Pr II λ4179\lambda4179 feature in three representative stars (Figure 7) reveals potential explanations for the elevated abundances: (1) unidentified line-blending effects influencing the Pr abundance measurements; or (2) additional nucleosynthetic contributions that enhance Pr production through currently unidentified mechanisms.

Spectral synthesis of the Pr II $\lambda4179$ for three r-I stars

Figure 7. Spectral synthesis of the Pr II λ4179\lambda4179 for three rr-I stars. The observed spectra are represented by black data points. The best fits are shown as solid red lines, with associated uncertainties of 0.2 dex indicated by the shaded red regions. The spectral synthesis excluding the elements of interest are displayed as black dashed lines.

In the Galactic halo, rr-process-enhanced stars with [Fe/H]>−2.6[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] > -2.6 could exhibit ss-process contamination (Simmerer et al. [166]), demonstrating systematically enhanced barium abundances relative to stars with pure rr-process patterns. To quantify the ss-process contribution to elemental abundances in these stars, we employ the following formulation:

log⁡ϵ(X)=log⁡10(10log⁡ϵ(X)r+Or+10log⁡ϵ(X)s+Os)(6)\log\epsilon(X) = \log_{10}\left(10^{\log\epsilon(X)_{\mathrm{r}}+O_{\mathrm{r}}} + 10^{\log\epsilon(X)_{\mathrm{s}}+O_{\mathrm{s}}}\right) \tag*{(6)}
Fs=1N∑iN10log⁡ϵ(X)s+Os10log⁡ϵ(X)(7)F_{\mathrm{s}} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_i^N \frac{10^{\log\epsilon(X)_{\mathrm{s}}+O_{\mathrm{s}}}}{10^{\log\epsilon(X)}} \tag*{(7)}

where log⁡ϵ(X)r\log\epsilon(X)_{\mathrm{r}} and log⁡ϵ(X)s\log\epsilon(X)_{\mathrm{s}} denote the abundance of element XX in the solar rr-process and solar ss-process (Prantzos et al. [147]), respectively, and OrO_{\mathrm{r}} and OsO_{\mathrm{s}} represent their corresponding dilution factors, which are derived through χ2\chi^2 minimization between the model and observations. The parameter FsF_{\mathrm{s}} represents the average fractional contribution of the ss-process to the abundance of elements with Z≥56Z \ge56.

Figure 8 shows the distribution of FsF_{\mathrm{s}} as a function of [Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] for rr-I and rr-II stars in our sample. Over the metallicity range −3.5<[Fe/H]<−1.5-3.5 < [\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] < -1.5, we observe an increase in FsF_{\mathrm{s}} with increasing metallicity, a trend consistent with the delayed contribution of ss-process nucleosynthesis. In the early universe, compared to prompt enrichment rr-process sources such as MRDSNe or collapsars, low- and intermediate-mass AGB stars only contribute significantly to chemical enrichment at higher metallicities owing to their longer evolutionary timescales. Statistical analysis further reveals a significant positive correlation between FsF_{\mathrm{s}} and [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] (r=0.83r = 0.83, p<0.001p < 0.001), indicating that stars with greater ss-process contributions systematically exhibit higher [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] ratios, confirming [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] is a good indicator. Meanwhile, only a small fraction of stars in the sample (∼21%\sim21\%) retain pure solar rr-process patterns (Fs=0F_{\mathrm{s}} = 0), while the remaining ∼79%\sim79\% exhibit values in the range 0<Fs≤0.250 < F_{\mathrm{s}} \le0.25. It should be emphasized that Fs>0F_{\mathrm{s}} > 0 does not necessarily imply a definite ss-process contribution, as the FsF_{\mathrm{s}} calculation is based solely on the solar rr-process and ss-process patterns given by Prantzos et al. [147]. However, the [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] ratio of the solar rr-process varies across literature studies, ranging from approximately −0.81-0.81 to −0.90-0.90 (Sneden et al. [169]; Bisterzo et al. [30]; Prantzos et al. [147]). In addition, insufficient deposition of fission fragments may lead to a Eu deficiency, which can also cause a mild elevation in [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] ([Ba/Eu]∗−[Ba/Eu]pure−r<0.2[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}]_* - [\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}]_{\mathit{pure-r}} < 0.2 dex; Roederer et al. [153]). Therefore, considering the uncertainties in the rr-process, we suggest that a star can be reasonably interpreted as having ss-process contamination only when [Ba/Eu]≥−0.65[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] \ge-0.65, which corresponds to Fs≥10%F_{\mathrm{s}} \ge10\%.

Figure 8. The variation of ss-process contribution fraction (FsF_s) as a function of [Fe/H] in rr-I and rr-II stars. The color scale represents the corresponding [Ba/Eu] values for individual stars. The red shaded area indicates the region where 0≤Fs≤0.100 \leq F_s \leq0.10, encompassing stars that we consider to be essentially free from ss-process contamination, as discussed in the main text.

Notably, our sample contains several extremely metal-poor stars ([Fe/H]<−3.0[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] < -3.0) that exhibit detectable ss-process contributions, most prominently J1641+0334 ([Fe/H]=−3.2[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] = -3.2) with [Ba/Eu]=−0.34[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] = -0.34 and Fs=20.4%F_{\mathrm{s}} = 20.4\%. This unexpected finding implies the operation of ss-process production mechanisms in the early Universe, potentially facilitated by rotating massive stars (Frischknecht et al. [67, 68]; Choplin et al. [42]). At low metallicity ([Fe/H]≲−2.5[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \lesssim-2.5) and high rotational velocities (vrot≳300v_{\mathrm{rot}} \gtrsim300–500 km s−1500\ \mathrm{km\ s}^{-1}), rotation strongly enhances the mixing between the hydrogen- and helium-burning shells, promoting the CNO cycle to produce primary 14N{}^{14}\mathrm{N}. Through the reaction chain 14N(α,γ)18F(e+νe)18O(α,γ)22Ne{}^{14}\mathrm{N}(\alpha,\gamma){}^{18}\mathrm{F}(e^{+}\nu_{\mathrm{e}}){}^{18}\mathrm{O}(\alpha,\gamma){}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}, additional 22Ne{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne} is synthesized, and activation of the neutron source reaction 22Ne(α,n)25Mg{}^{22}\mathrm{Ne}(\alpha,n){}^{25}\mathrm{Mg} efficiently triggers the ss-process chain.

To establish the metallicity threshold for significant ss-process enrichment, we apply the method described in Lombardo et al. [125], utilizing the mean shift clustering algorithm with kernel density estimation1 to analyze [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] versus [Ba/H][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{H}] distribution of our sample stars. The results reveal three distinct groups in this abundance space (Figure 9). Specifically, (1) the group with low [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] and low [Ba/H][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{H}] (green) corresponds to stars dominated by the pure rr-process, with median [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] and [Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] values of approximately −0.74-0.74 and −2.98-2.98, respectively; (2) the intermediate group (blue), located between the other two, exhibits transitional characteristics in both [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] and [Ba/H][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{H}], with median [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] and [Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] values of −0.61-0.61 and −2.58-2.58; and (3) the group with high [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] and relatively higher [Ba/H][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{H}] (purple) shows clear r+sr+s mixed signatures, with median [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] and [Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] values of approximately -0.50 and -2.18. To assess the reliability of the clustering results, we fit the [Ba/H][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{H}] distribution using Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) with 1 to 4 components and evaluate model performance using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; [5]) to balance goodness-of-fit against model complexity, thereby avoiding overfitting or underfitting. The analysis shows that a three-component GMM provides the optimal fit (AIC = 73.17; see the upper panel of Figure 9), likewise supporting the presence of three physically distinct groups in the [Ba/H][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{H}] distribution. Among these, the intermediate group (blue cluster) plays a particularly crucial role. This group not

Figure 9. Top panel: Histogram of the [Ba/H] distribution in rr-process-enhanced stars, overlaid with a three-component GMM fit. Bottom panel: The [Ba/Eu] versus [Ba/H] distribution, where the sample stars are classified into three distinct clusters (color-coded) using mean shift clustering algorithm.

only displays a large dispersion in [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] (-0.61 ±\pm 0.14 dex), but its median [Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] and [Ba/H][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{H}] values also lie between those of the pure rr-process and r+sr+s mixed groups, exhibiting the expected transitional behavior. Furthermore, its median ss-process contribution fraction, FsF_s, reaches 10.7%, indicating that once the metallicity increases to [Fe/H]≥−2.6[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \geq-2.6, ss-process yields from AGB stars begin to exert a non-negligible influence on the heavy-element abundances. Consequently, this intermediate group naturally delineates the key metallicity interval in which ss-process nucleosynthesis transitions from a minor to a significant contributor to chemical enrichment in the early Galaxy.

The differences between the r-I and r-II stars in [X/Eu]

This section investigates the elemental abundance ratios of rr-I and rr-II stars, revealing differences in their nucleosynthetic origins. Correlation analyses of [X/Eu] versus [Eu/Fe] ratios demonstrate statistically significant distributional divergences between these two groups, with Ho, Hf, and Pb excluded from the graphical analysis due to insufficient data points (N<5N < 5).

The most striking disparity emerges in the light neutron-capture elements [Sr, Y, Zr/Eu], as shown in Figure 10, where rr-I stars exhibit systematically elevated [X/Eu] ratios exceeding those of rr-II stars by 0.36 dex on average. These results align closely with the earlier findings by Mashonkina et al. [131], who reported comparable enhancements of 0.36 dex for [Sr/Eu] and 0.33 dex for [Zr/Eu] in rr-I stars. Notably, this discrepancy cannot be entirely attributed to the mean offset in [Eu/Fe] between the two stellar types (Δ\Delta [Eu/Fe] = 0.53 dex). Even when controlling for ss-process contamination through strict selection of ”Pure rr” samples (Fs<10%F_s < 10\%), rr-I stars still exhibit significantly elevated [Sr, Y, Zr/Eu] values by 0.29 dex. For the heavy neutron-capture element range (Z≥56Z \geq56), the difference in [X/Eu] between rr-I and rr-II stars becomes substantially smaller, with a mean offset of only 0.1 dex. Furthermore, these differences progressively decrease with increasing atomic number. Although [Os/Eu] ratios appear slightly lower in rr-I stars compared to rr-II stars, this observation lacks statistical significance due to the limited sample size (one rr-I star versus eight rr-II stars with Os abundance measurements) and requires verification through expanded datasets.

Figure 10. [X/Eu] ratios in rr-I and rr-II stars. The solid line connects data points representing all rr-I and rr-II stars, while the dashed line corresponds to rr-I and rr-II stars exhibiting pure rr-process enhancement (Fs<10%F_s < 10\%). The green dashed-line shows the [X/Eu] ratios of stars in the Reticulum II dwarf galaxy (Ji et al. 2016b) for comparison.

The systematic differences in the [X/Eu] ratios between rr-I and rr-II stars, particularly the notably lower [Sr, Y, Zr/Eu] in rr-II stars, may be attributed to the differences in the relative contributions of the main and weak rr-processes in these two subclasses. A plausible scenario is that rr-II stars experience stronger enrichment from the main rr-process compared to rr-I stars. At the same time, rr-II stars may receive a level of weak rr-process contribution comparable to that of rr-I stars, or they may experience more limited, possibly negligible, weak rr-process pollution. Furthermore, the differences in the balance between the main and weak rr-process contributions may also be closely linked to the environments in which these stars form. As shown in Figure 10, rr-process-enhanced stars in the ultra-faint dwarf galaxy Reticulum II exhibit systematically lower abundances of light neutron-capture elements compared to rr-II stars in the Galactic halo (Ji et al. 2016a,b; Ji & Frebel 2018). Due to its low mass, the rr-process elements in Reticulum II are thought to originate predominantly from a single main rr-process event [24, 156]. This suggests that rr-II stars with high Eu abundances likely formed in dwarf galaxies similar to Reticulum II, where contamination from the weak rr-process in core-collapse supernovae is relatively limited, naturally leading to their lower [Sr, Y, Zr/Eu] ratios.

To investigate the relationship between the surface Eu abundance of stars and their birth environments, and to address whether rr-II stars preferentially originate in dwarf galaxies, we compute the kinematic properties of rr-process-enhanced stars in our sample [201]. To improve statistical robustness, we incorporate additional rr-process-enhanced stars from the literature, primarily from the compilation by Shank et al. [163] based on the R-Process Alliance and other sources. Photo-astrometric distances from Anders et al. [9] and astrometric data from Gaia DR3 [72] are used to calculate the dynamical and orbital parameters of these stars. Only stars with reliable astrometry (RUWE <1.4< 1.4) and relatively precise distances (σd/d<0.4\sigma_d/d < 0.4) are retained, resulting in a final sample of 1602 stars. We adopt a Galactocentric Cartesian coordinate system and assume the position and velocity of the Sun to be (X,Y,Z)⊙=(−8.21,0.0,0.0208)(X, Y, Z)_\odot= (-8.21, 0.0, 0.0208) kpc [135, 26] and (U,V,W)⊙=(11.1,12.24,7.25)(U, V, W)_\odot= (11.1, 12.24, 7.25) km s−1^{-1} [160], respectively, with a local standard of rest velocity VLSR=233.1V_{\mathrm{LSR}} = 233.1 km s−1^{-1}. Using the AGAMA software [188] and the Milky Way gravitational potential model from McMillan [135], dynamical and orbital properties are computed, including orbital energy (EE), orbital pericentric radius (rperir_{\mathrm{peri}}), orbital apocentric radius (rapor_{\mathrm{apo}}), orbital eccentricity (ee), maximum height from the Galactic plane (ZmaxZ_{\mathrm{max}}), and actions (JrJ_r, JϕJ_\phi, JzJ_z).

Based on the kinematic and orbital properties of the sample stars and machine-learning techniques (Li et al. 2024), we classify them into two categories: in-situ stars, which are more likely to have formed within the Milky Way, and ex-situ stars, which are more likely to have originated in accreted dwarf galaxies. Figure 11 shows the fraction of ex-situ stars as a function of [Eu/Fe]. To account for measurement uncertainties in [Eu/Fe], we perform 100 times Monte Carlo resampling within ±0.15\pm0.15 dex for each star. The proportion of stars in each bin, relative to the total sample size, is indicated above the corresponding data point. Due to the small number of stars with [Eu/Fe] >1.5> 1.5 (N=14N = 14 in the original sample), they are merged into a single bin, represented by a black solid square. The results show that the fraction of ex-situ stars increases with [Eu/Fe], and this trend persists up to [Eu/Fe] ≈1.5\approx1.5. However, for stars with [Eu/Fe] >1.5> 1.5, the ex-situ fraction does not increase further, which may be due to the limited sample size.

Figure 11. Accreted fraction of stars as a function of [Eu/Fe]. The red solid line represents the ex-situ fraction across different [Eu/Fe] bins, derived using a machine-learning based approach. Stars with [Eu/Fe] > 1.5 are grouped into a single bin, denoted by a black solid square. The percentage above each point indicates the proportion of samples in that bin relative to the total sample size. The sample combines r-process-enhanced stars from this work with the literature compilation from Shank et al. [163].

These results suggest that stars with higher [Eu/Fe] are more likely to have formed in dwarf galaxies later accreted by the Milky Way [90]. Compared to the rapid chemical evolution and prolonged star formation history of the Milky Way, stars in dwarf galaxies have a lower probability of being contaminated by core-collapse supernovae. This results in lower abundances of light neutron-capture elements and Fe in their birth gas clouds, leading to lower [Sr, Y, Zr/Eu] and higher [Eu/Fe].

The above discussion is based on a fundamental assumption that the abundance patterns produced by the weak rr-process and the main rr-process do not exhibit significant variation. However, it is important to note that even within the same astrophysical site, intrinsic variations in rr-process yields may occur, which can likewise lead to differences in the abundance ratios between light and heavy neutron-capture elements. For example, Nishimura et al. [139] demonstrate with magnetorotationally driven jet supernova (MRDSN) models that in the case of L^ν=0.6\hat{L}_\nu= 0.6, the yields of [Sr, Y, Zr/Eu] are higher by approximately 1.44 dex compared to the L^ν=0.1\hat{L}_\nu= 0.1 scenario.

Zn-rich star: J1158+0734

In our sample, we identify an extremely metal-poor ([Fe/H] = -2.93) rr-II star ([Eu/Fe] = 1.03), J1158+0734, which exhibits significant Zn enrichment ([Zn/Fe] = 0.67) along with moderate Ni enhancement ([Ni/Fe] = 0.20), as illustrated in Figure 12. The abundance pattern of this star aligns well with the solar rr-process pattern (Fs=0F_s = 0, [Ba/Eu] = -0.85), as shown in Figure 13, indicating that its heavy element originated predominantly from a single, vigorous rr-process event. Only several dozen stars with similar characteristics have been identified to date [20, 8, 49, 151, 82, 98, 199].

Figure 12. The relationship between [Zn/Fe] and [Fe/H]. The gray circles represent all metal-poor stars in the LAMOST/Subaru sample (Li et al. (2022)), while the green circles denote r-process-enhanced stars within the sample. J1158+0734 is highlighted with a magenta pentagon. The mean abundance errors for the entire dataset are indicated in the upper right corner.

Figure 13. Top panel: Neutron-capture element abundance pattern of J1158+0734. Observational data (red points with error bars) are compared with the solar rr-process (black) and three theoretical rr-process nucleosynthesis models: NSM (orange), MRDSN (green), and Collapsar (dusty purple). Bottom panel: Residuals (Δlog⁡ϵ\Delta\log\epsilon) between observed abundances and three rr-process theoretical models.

The nucleosynthetic origin of Zn, the heaviest iron-peak element, remains incompletely understood. Observations reveal that halo stars with -2.5 ≲\lesssim [Fe/H] ≲\lesssim -1 typically exhibit [Zn/Fe] ≈0.2\approx0.2 [112]. However, at lower metallicities ([Fe/H] << -3), [Zn/Fe] shows a pronounced enhancement, increasing as metallicity decreases [148]. In extreme cases, such as a star with [Fe/H] = -5.2, [Zn/Fe] can reach 0.8 [60], suggesting high Zn production efficiency in the early Universe. Theoretical models predict significant Zn yields from the deepest ejecta of hypernovae, which are characterized by high explosion energies and entropies (Kobayashi et al. [113]). Additionally, massive stars formed in the early universe are expected to have rapid rotation (Meynet et al. [137]). Recent studies propose that MRDSNe — supernovae with strong magnetic fields and rapid rotation — can produce extreme Zn enhancements up to [Zn/Fe] ∼+1.5\sim+1.5 (Nishimura et al. [140, 139]; Tsujimoto & Nishimura [184]). The strength of the magnetic fields in these events further modulates the degree of rr-process enrichment, a scenario that is supported by the rr-process enhanced EMP star SMSS 2003-1142 (Yong et al. [199]).

To investigate the origin of the light elements on the surface of J1158+0734, we employ the Bayesian inference framework proposed by Jiang et al. [103] to model its surface light-element abundances. For the supernova models, we use the zero-metallicity core-collapse supernova (CCSN) yields calculated by Heger & Woosley [87], which cover progenitor masses (MM) in the range of 10–100 M⊙M_{\odot} and explosion energies (EE) from 0.3×10510.3 \times10^{51} to 105210^{52} erg. Following the description of Jiang et al. [103], we consider only models with rotation-induced mixing (i.e., log⁡fmix>−3.0\log f_{\mathrm{mix}} > -3.0) and further exclude low-mass hypernova models (M<20M⊙M < 20 M_{\odot} with E≥1051E \ge10^{51} erg) to avoid unrealistic nucleosynthetic yields. The set of light elements selected for abundance pattern fitting also follows their methodology, including C, Na, α\alpha-elements (Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti), and iron-peak elements (V, Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni). Because of significant discrepancies between observed abundances and theoretical predictions, Sc and Cr are excluded. Furthermore, we extend the element set to include Zn, aiming to explore the progenitor properties of stars with enhanced Zn abundances. The fitting quality is assessed using the reduced chi-square statistic (χν2=χ2/(N−1)\chi_{\nu}^{2}=\chi^{2}/(N-1)), where NN represents the number of neutron-capture elements involved in the fitting. This approach reduces the dependence of the χ2\chi^{2} value on the number of measured abundances, preventing misleading assessments of the fit quality.

Our analysis indicates that the light-element abundances of J1158+0734 are best reproduced by a progenitor star with a mass of 31.5 M⊙M_{\odot} and an explosion energy of 3.0 BB (where B=1051B = 10^{51} erg), as shown by the dark red solid line in Figure 14. This suggests that its chemical enrichment originated from a massive star with hyper energetic astrophysical source. This result is consistent with the findings of Ezzeddine et al. [60] and Yong et al. [199], who demonstrate that CCSN models with progenitor masses of 25 M⊙M_{\odot} and explosion energies of 5×10515 \times10^{51} erg or 105210^{52} erg successfully reproduce the light-element patterns observed in Zn-enhanced stars.

Figure 14. Light-element abundance pattern of J1158+0734. The observed abundances are shown as black data points with error bars, where the open black points denote elements excluded from the fitting process, as described in the main text. The dark red solid line represents the best-fit CCSN model with a progenitor mass of M=31.5 M⊙M = 31.5\,M_\odot and an explosion energy of E=3.0×1051E = 3.0 \times10^{51} erg. In addition, the light red solid lines illustrate the CCSN abundance patterns corresponding to progenitor properties with posterior probability density >1%> 1\%.

We note that the best-fit model does not fully reproduce the high Zn abundance observed in J1158+0734 and slightly overestimates the abundances of Fe and Co. Based on a systematic analysis of light-element abundances in 40 EMP stars, Jiang et al. [103] show that progenitor properties are highly sensitive to the abundance pattern: even small variations within the observational uncertainties can lead to substantial changes in the inferred progenitor mass and explosion energy. Therefore, in addition to reporting the progenitor mass and explosion energy corresponding to the best-fit solution, we also provide the posterior probability density distributions of these properties (Figure 15) to more comprehensively reflect the relative probabilities across the property space. In Figure 14, we present the abundance patterns of core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) corresponding to progenitor properties with posterior probability density >1%> 1\% (approximately consistent with a 3σ3\sigma confidence region), shown as light-red solid curves. The two-dimensional posterior probability density distribution indicates that the progenitor capable of reproducing the overall light-element abundances of J1158+0734 is more likely to lie in the massive (M∼20M \sim20–40 M⊙40\,M_\odot) and high-energy (E∼5×1051E \sim5 \times10^{51} erg) region. However, a non-negligible posterior probability also persists in the lower-mass (M∼15 M⊙M \sim15\,M_\odot) and lower-energy (E∼1.2×1051E \sim1.2 \times10^{51} erg) region, even though progenitors in this region cannot adequately reproduce the star’s elevated Zn abundance. This result suggests that, while the best-fit solution favors a massive, high-energy explosion, weaker explosion scenarios cannot be statistically excluded. Further tests indicate that excluding the Zn abundance from the fitting procedure does not significantly alter the best-fit progenitor mass and explosion energy. However, it does affect the resulting two-dimensional posterior probability density distribution in the mass–energy plane. When Zn is not used as a fitting

Figure 15. Probability density distribution of the progenitor derived from the light-element abundances of J1158+0734. The color scale indicates the joint probability density across different combinations of progenitor mass and explosion energy. The histogram at the top (right) shows the marginal probability distribution of progenitor mass (explosion energy), obtained by integrating over all possible explosion energies (masses).

constraint, the posterior probability density increases in the lower-mass and lower-energy region of the parameter space. This behavior demonstrates that the Zn abundance provides substantial constraining power on the progenitor properties.

To investigate the nucleosynthetic origin of the neutron-capture elements on the surface of J1158+0734, we compare its observed abundance pattern with theoretical predictions from three distinct rr-process models: NSMs (Just et al. [106]), MRDSNe (Nishimura et al. [139]), and collapsars (He et al. 2024), as shown in Figure 13. In the heavy neutron-capture element region, EMP stars ([Fe/H] ∼\sim -3) exhibit striking agreement with the solar rr-process residuals, indicating that early-Universe rr-process events already produce a highly stable and universal abundance pattern across the lanthanide region.

Among the three proposed rr-process production sites, the NSM model provides the best match to the observed abundance patterns of the light neutron-capture elements (Sr, Y, Zr), the stable lanthanides (Ba-Dy), and the third rr-process peak (e.g., Os). The best-fitting NSM model corresponds to a 1.35 + 1.8 M⊙M_\odot neutron-star binary merger computed with the SFHO equation of state. The merger produces a rapidly spinning black-hole–accretion-disk system (spin parameter ABH≈0.8A_{\mathrm{BH}} \approx0.8), with a disk mass of ∼0.1M⊙\sim0.1 M_\odot and a viscosity parameter of αvis∼0.05\alpha_{\mathrm{vis}} \sim0.05. This system ejects a total of ∼0.03M⊙\sim0.03 M_\odot of rr-process material. However, a substantial fraction of NSMs requires several hundred Myr to multiple Gyr of the delay time ([58, 25]). This characteristic makes it difficult for NSMs to contribute widely to rr-process enrichment in the early Galaxy ([17, 193]). Consequently, although NSMs are capable of producing rr-process yields consistent with observations, attributing the abundances observed at [Fe/H] ∼\sim -3 solely to standard NSM events generally requires exceptionally short delay times or special host environments, such as that inferred for Reticulum II.

For the collapsar scenario, the predicted abundances of the light neutron-capture elements are systematically lower than the observed values. This discrepancy arises because current collapsar models consider only the relatively narrow jet-nucleosynthesis channel within the black-hole accretion-disk system, while neglecting the contribution from disk winds. In the heavy neutron-capture region (Z≥63Z \geq63), the collapsar model also exhibits significant deviations from the observations. This behavior results from the production of abundant fission fragments and free neutrons through β\beta-decay chains and neutron-induced fission, which activates ii-process and ss-process reaction pathways and leads to an abundance pattern with pronounced odd-even structures in the range 140<A<170140 < A < 170 (He et al. 2024).

For the MRDSN scenario, the abundance pattern that best matches the observations corresponds to the case with L^ν=0.4\hat{L}_\nu= 0.4. This model reproduces the overall rr-process abundance trend, though notable discrepancies persist in the Z=56Z = 56–60 (Ba–Nd) region. Under the L^ν=0.4\hat{L}_\nu= 0.4 condition, the MRDSN jet ejecta maintain a low electron fraction and high entropy, enabling the synthesis of nuclei across a broad mass range—from the light neutron-capture elements to the third rr-process peak. Consequently, such events are considered potential rr-process enrichment sources in the early Universe. Moreover, given that this star exhibits a relatively high Zn abundance together with extremely low metallicity—both characteristic nucleosynthetic signatures predicted by MRDSN models—we consider an MRDSN a likely source of the elemental enrichment observed on its surface, provided that both the light and heavy elements in J1158+0734 originate from the same progenitor.

It is important to note that the differences among rr-process models in the lanthanide region arise not only from astrophysical conditions but also from significant uncertainties in nuclear physics inputs (Kajino et al. [107]). Variations in nuclear mass models, β\beta-decay rates, and fission fragment distributions all influence the resulting abundance patterns. Consequently, uncertainties in nuclear physics inputs constitute a major limitation in precisely identifying the astrophysical origin of the rr-process. It is also noteworthy that observational constraints in key diagnostic regions of the rr-process remain limited. These regions typically exhibit pronounced abundance variations across different rr-process models, particularly between the first and second rr-process peaks (e.g., Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag), within the lanthanides (Tm, Lu), and in the third rr-process peak (Ir, Pt). The spectral lines of these elements lie predominantly in the blue/ultraviolet wavelength range (λ<4000\lambda< 4000 Å), which makes accurate abundance measurements especially challenging. Future spectroscopic observations with high signal-to-noise ratios (S/N >> 100) in the blue–UV range will enable a more comprehensive determination of the neutron-capture element abundances in J1158+0734.

CEMP stars

CEMP stars are conventionally defined as stars exhibiting [Fe/H] << -1.0 and [C/Fe] >> 1.0 (Beers & Christlieb [21]). A more detailed classification criterion was subsequently developed by Aoki et al. [10] through their analysis of 64 CEMP stars, incorporating both carbon abundance thresholds ([C/Fe] ≥\geq +0.7) and luminosity criteria. Application of this refined classification criterion to our sample identifies 12 confirmed CEMP stars, with their specific subclasses listed in Column (14) of Table 4. Particularly noteworthy are several objects marked with asterisks in Table 4, which exhibit carbon abundances slightly below the enhancement threshold after accounting for evolutionary effects. They demonstrate heavy-element patterns similar to their categorized analogues, as described in § 3.1. Such cases may indicate that their surface carbon has undergone additional mixing, leading to carbon depletion, as described in § 3.4.1.

It is worth noting that the criterion for classifying CEMP stars may be significantly influenced by the initial carbon abundances of a stellar system and its subsequent chemical evolution history. Recent observations reveal that dwarf galaxies possess global carbon abundances distinct from those of the Milky Way ([175, 97, 167, 187, 168, 126, 161]). Consequently, in systems with intrinsically low mean [C/Fe], signatures of carbon enrichment are expected to manifest below the conventional +0.7 threshold, consistent with the moderately carbon-enhanced (CEMP*) stars identified in our sample. Despite these potential environmental differences, the CEMP* stars do not display the retrograde motions or extreme JϕJ_{\phi} values typically associated with accreted dwarf-galaxy debris; instead, they exhibit orbital kinematics consistent with in-situ Milky Way halo membership. To further clarify this issue, future systematic studies of the kinematics of stars with moderate carbon enhancement (e.g., 0.4<[C/Fe]<0.70.4 < [\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] < 0.7) are essential to investigate whether they originate from specific dwarf galaxy systems, thereby providing deeper insights into their formation mechanisms.

CEMP-s stars

Our sample contains eight CEMP-s stars, which exhibit high effective temperatures (Teff>6000T_{\mathrm{eff}} > 6000 K), substantial surface gravities (log⁡g>3.5\log g > 3.5), and faint magnitudes (Vaverage≈14.09V_{\mathrm{average}} \approx14.09). These characteristics lead to significantly weakened absorption features and an average signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) ≈43\approx43 at 4500 Å. These observational constraints hinder precise measurements of neutron-capture element abundances, restricting our analysis to only limited number of elements in most CEMP-s stars. For instance, in J1020+4046, only Sr and Ba abundances are detectable. Notably, we successfully measured the abundance of Pb, a characteristic third-peak ss-process element, in only two CEMP-s stars. Our sample contains J2256+0215, a star with [C/Fe] = 0.07 but exhibits a significant ss-process enhancement, suggesting a common origin with CEMP-s stars but requiring additional carbon depletion mechanisms to explain its current composition.

To investigate the origin of surface elements in our CEMP-s sample, we evaluate binarity through radial velocity measurements. For each star, we compile radial velocity data determined from high-resolution Subaru spectroscopic observations ((Aoki et al. 2022)), supplemented by Gaia DR3 ([72]), LAMOST DR112, APOGEE DR17 ([4]), and RAVE DR6 ([178]) measurements for comparison. It is important to emphasize that, when using LAMOST DR11 data, we retain only observations with FIBERMASK=0FIBERMASK = 0 in order to avoid radial velocity biases introduced by fiber anomalies. For stars with multi-epoch observations, we first compute the weighted mean radial velocity, using the inverse square of the measurement uncertainties as weights, which serves as the reference baseline. We then compute a chi-square statistic from the deviations of each epochal measurement from this weighted mean to quantify the level of radial-velocity scatter. Finally, a chi-square test is applied to determine whether these deviations can be reasonably explained by the reported observational uncertainties, thereby assessing whether the star exhibits significant radial-velocity variability. In particular, we calculate the corresponding pp-value from the chi-square distribution, and stars with p<0.01p < 0.01 are classified as radial-velocity variable candidates. For stars with only two radial-velocity measurements (N=2N = 2), the chi-square test becomes statistically unreliable because the degrees of freedom are limited to one. In such cases, we additionally employ an error-weighted velocity-difference metric, defined as z=∣Δv∣/σΔvz = |\Delta v|/\sigma_{\Delta v}, to assess whether the observed radial-velocity difference is significant relative to the combined measurement uncertainties. Stars with z>3z > 3 are considered to exhibit significant radial-velocity variations. Table 4 presents the weighted mean and standard deviation of the NN radial-velocity measurements for these stars, together with the corresponding pp-values (or zz-values for N=2N = 2) and the assessment of their binary nature based on the available data. The individual radial-velocity measurements from different surveys for each star are provided in Table A1.

NameObservation DateVhelioV_{\mathrm{helio}} (km s−1^{-1})ClassSource
J0006+01232016/11/19−65.90±0.20-65.90 \pm0.20CEMP-rr(1)
J0006+01232012/10/12−68.60±3.85-68.60 \pm3.85CEMP-rr(2)
J0006+01232016/01/01−63.80±3.10-63.80 \pm3.10CEMP-rr(3)
J2333+05052016/11/16−136.9±0.20-136.9 \pm0.20CEMP*−r-r(1)
J2333+05052016/01/01−137.18±0.66-137.18 \pm0.66CEMP*−r-r(3)

Table A1. Heliocentric radial velocities of CEMP stars from different surveys and high-resolution spectroscopic measurements in the literature.

Among the nine CEMP-s stars in our sample (including J2256+0215), five exhibit significant radial velocity variations. This strongly supports the conclusion that their surface abundance patterns originate from mass transfer from more massive AGB companions, which have since evolved into undetectable white dwarf remnants (Bisterzo et al. 2011, 2012). The remaining four stars show no detectable variations across two to three radial-velocity measurements. With the exception of J2256+0215, all CEMP-s stars in our sample display elevated carbon abundances (A(C)>7.1\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{C}) > 7.1) — a characteristic strongly correlated with binarity in the study of Yoon et al. [200], who analyzed 57 CEMP stars with established companion status. This suggests that even these seemingly single CEMP-s stars may have acquired their surface composition through binary interaction, possibly with their current orbital configurations preventing the detection of radial velocity variations.

Our examination of [X/Fe][\mathrm{X}/\mathrm{Fe}] versus [Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] trends in § 3.2 reveals substantial abundance dispersion among CEMP-s stars, particularly for ss-process elements. The [Sr/Fe][\mathrm{Sr}/\mathrm{Fe}] ratios span over 0.9 dex, while [Ba/Fe][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Fe}] variations exceed 1.8 dex, which suggests that these stars are enriched by progenitor AGB stars exhibiting diverse properties. Additionally, the observed abundance patterns may further depend on the amount of material transferred from the AGB companions, as well as the degree of dilution and mixing within the recipient stars. To constrain the nature of these progenitors, we employ a grid of AGB nucleosynthesis models [27] spanning stellar masses from 1.3 M⊙M_{\odot} to 2.0 M⊙M_{\odot}, [Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] from -3.6 to -1.0, and ss-process efficiencies ranging from ST/150 to 2×\timesST, in order to fit the observed abundance patterns of CEMP-s stars. Our fitting methodology incorporates several constraints: including consistency in the overall neutron-capture element distribution, the star’s [Fe/H][\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] as a metallicity indicator, and key light element ratios ([Na/Fe][\mathrm{Na}/\mathrm{Fe}], [Mg/Fe][\mathrm{Mg}/\mathrm{Fe}]) that sensitively trace progenitor mass. Table 5 summarizes the optimal model parameters for each CEMP-s star, along with diagnostic abundance ratios (columns (2)–(8)) that collectively characterize the properties of their AGB progenitors.

Name[Fe/H]Star[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{Star}}[Na/Fe][\mathrm{Na}/\mathrm{Fe}][Mg/Fe][\mathrm{Mg}/\mathrm{Fe}][ls/Fe][\mathrm{ls}/\mathrm{Fe}][hs/Fe][\mathrm{hs}/\mathrm{Fe}][Pb/hs][\mathrm{Pb}/\mathrm{hs}][hs/ls][\mathrm{hs}/\mathrm{ls}]MAGB (M⊙)M_{\mathrm{AGB}}\ (M_{\odot})[Fe/H]AGB[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{AGB}}STOsO_{\mathrm{s}}
CEMP-s
J0119-0121-3.191.941.121.392.591.231.201.3-3.00ST/120.56
J0824+3025-2.72...0.511.272.26...0.991.3-2.60ST/180.10
J0949+2707-2.901.831.111.972.98...1.012.0-2.60ST/6-0.20
J1003-0358-2.180.380.300.781.58...0.801.3-2.30ST/12-0.40
J1011+3524-2.250.410.450.491.49...1.001.3-2.60ST/90.10
J1020+4046-2.940.730.510.351.16...0.811.3-2.60ST/3-0.20
J1044-0358-2.130.590.380.701.33...0.631.3-2.00ST0.30
J1434+3540-1.910.280.400.581.290.840.711.3-2.00ST/12-0.80
J2256+0215-2.270.820.380.701.130.430.042.0-2.60ST/24-1.40
CEMP-r+s
J0653+4735-2.410.190.480.321.090.850.771.4-2.60ST/9-1.30
J2114-0616-2.550.610.340.211.270.781.061.5-2.60ST/6-1.60
J2257+3859-2.650.380.380.381.171.170.791.3-3.00ST/12-0.30

Table 5. Best-fit AGB ss-process models for CEMP-ss and CEMP-r+sr+s stars.

Our sample contains two notable stars, J0119-0121 and J0949+2707, both of which exhibit exceptional enhancements in heavy ss-process element ([hs/Fe]>2.5[\mathrm{hs}/\mathrm{Fe}] > 2.5) along with significantly elevated Na and Mg abundances ([Na/Fe]>1.5[\mathrm{Na}/\mathrm{Fe}] > 1.5; [Mg/Fe]>1.0[\mathrm{Mg}/\mathrm{Fe}] > 1.0). These chemical signatures indicate enrichment from relatively massive AGB progenitors, as higher-mass AGB stars experience more frequent third dredge-up (TDU) events during thermal pulses, resulting in increased production of Na, Mg, and ss-process elements. In addition, metallicity plays a crucial role in AGB ss-process nucleosynthesis: in low-metallicity environments, the reduced number of initial iron seed nuclei allows more neutrons to be captured per seed, thereby significantly enhancing the efficiency of the ss-process and favoring the production of heavy ss-peak elements (e.g., Ba, La, Ce) as well as Pb.

For J0119-0121, the best-fitting model (χν2=4.38\chi^2_{\nu} = 4.38, considering only elements with Z≥38Z \ge38) corresponds to an AGB progenitor with a mass of 1.3 M⊙M_{\odot} and a metallicity of [Fe/H]=−3.0[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] = -3.0, adopting an ss-process efficiency of ST/12 and a dilution factor of 0.56 dex. A positive dilution factor may indicate that the natal gas cloud of J0119-0121 is already mildly enriched in ss-process material prior to its formation, or it may simply reflect uncertainties arising from the simplified treatment of AGB nucleosynthetic yields and mass-transfer/mixing processes. The star’s relatively high Na, Mg, and heavy ss-process element abundances likely represent characteristic signatures of ss-process nucleosynthesis operating in low-metallicity environments. Zhang et al. [202] reported that the best-fitting AGB progenitor model for J0119-0121 is 1.4 M⊙M_{\odot} with [Fe/H]=−2.6[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] = -2.6 and ST/7.5. This small difference from the parameter set compared to Zhang et al. [202] primarily arises from differences in the adopted observational abundance data. Zhang et al. [202] derived additional heavy-element abundances, including Eu, Er, and Yb, from ultraviolet–blue spectra. Moreover, their adopted Mg abundance ([Mg/Fe]=0.94[\mathrm{Mg}/\mathrm{Fe}] = 0.94) is lower than the value reported by Li et al. (2022), which reduces the need for invoking a relatively higher-mass AGB progenitor. Using their observational data, we also obtain a good fit with the 1.4 M⊙M_\odot, [Fe/H] = -2.6, ST/4.5 model (χν2=4.28\chi_\nu^2 = 4.28), consistent with the results of Zhang et al. [202]. The abundance pattern of J0949+2707 is best reproduced by a model with [Fe/H] = -2.6, a progenitor mass of 2.0 M⊙M_\odot, and an s-process efficiency of ST/6 with a dilution factor of -0.20 dex, although models employing 1.4 and 2.0 M⊙M_\odot (ST/9, [Fe/H] = -2.6) also yield reasonable fits. Constraints for this object remain limited, as only Ba and La among the heavy s-process elements are currently detected.

J2256+0215 is a VMP giant star ([Fe/H] = -2.27; TeffT_{\rm eff} = 5044 K; log⁡g\log g = 1.68) that exhibits pronounced s-process enrichment ([Ba/Fe] = +1.38; [Ba/Eu] = +1.02). Its observed heavy-element abundance pattern is well reproduced by a 2.0 M⊙M_\odot AGB model at [Fe/H] = -2.6 with s-process efficiency of ST/24, as illustrated in Figure 16. The model requires a dilution factor of -1.40, which aligns with FDU predictions. This star also shows a markedly enhanced [C + N/Fe] ratio of 1.6, a characteristic commonly found in CEMP-s stars ([C + N/Fe] ≳\gtrsim 1) (Masseron et al. [133]; Hansen et al. [82]). Notably, its evolution-corrected carbon abundance is only moderately enhanced ([C/Fe]corr_{\rm corr} = 0.44), indicating that the surface carbon abundance has undergone additional depletion during stellar evolution, accompanied by a corresponding increase in nitrogen. The carbon isotopic ratio (12^{12}C/13^{13}C) serves as a key diagnostic of internal mixing processes. Primordial gas generally exhibits high values of 12^{12}C/13^{13}C > 70 (Spite et al. [174]). Standard convective models predict that the FDU reduces this ratio from (∼\sim 60–80) to (∼\sim 20–30). As the star evolves toward the red giant branch (RGB) bump, a molecular weight inversion triggered by 3^3He burning initiates thermohaline mixing (Charbonnel & Zahn [41]). This process rapidly transports material into layers where CN cycling is efficient, thereby reducing the 12^{12}C/13^{13}C ratio toward the CNO-cycle equilibrium value of ∼\sim 3–4 (Gratton et al. [77]; Spite et al. [174]; McCormick et al. [134]; Lagarde et al. [117]). For J2256+0215, the measured 12^{12}C/13^{13}C ratio is only 2.3 ±\pm 1.5, and its luminosity (log⁡(L/L⊙)\log(L/L_\odot) = 2.426) is comparable to both the RGB-bump luminosity reported by Gratton et al. [77] (log⁡(L/L⊙)≈\log(L/L_\odot) \approx 2) and the extrapolated RGB-bump luminosity for EMP stars from Spite et al. [174] (log⁡(L/L⊙)≈\log(L/L_\odot) \approx 2.6). These properties together strongly suggest that the star has undergone deep extra mixing driven by thermohaline instability. Furthermore, the mixing efficiency is likely enhanced by additional processes—such as rotation-induced (Maeder & Meynet [128]; Charbonnel & Lagarde [40]; Lagarde et al. [116]) or magnetically mediated mixing (Maeder & Meynet (2004); Busso et al. [36])—which accelerate surface carbon depletion and promote nitrogen enrichment.

Figure 16. Top panel: The abundance pattern of J2256+0215, where solid red circles with error bars represent the observed abundances, and the blue solid line illustrates the theoretical AGB s-process model predictions for a 2.0 M⊙M_\odot star with [Fe/H] = -2.6 and ST/24. Bottom panel: Residuals between observed abundances and theoretical model predictions.

The remaining CEMP-s stars in our sample show no significant Na or Mg enhancements ([Na/Fe] < 1.0, [Mg/Fe] < 1.0), consistent with enrichment from lower-mass AGB

progenitors (1.3 M⊙M_\odot). However, our modeling reveals substantial variation in the 13^{13}C pocket sizes — indicative of differences in s-process efficiencies — among these progenitors, ranging from ST to ST/18. These variations are clearly reflected in the corresponding light s-process ([ls/Fe]) and heavy s-process ([hs/Fe]) abundance ratios. Notably, J0824+3025 exhibits the lowest s-process efficiency (ST/18) while displaying the highest [ls/Fe] and [hs/Fe] values. For 1.3 M⊙M_\odot AGB models at [Fe/H] = -2.6, both [ls/Fe] and [hs/Fe] increase as the s-process efficiency decreases across the ST/1.5 to ST/30 range. Although the [Pb/hs] ratio could provide additional constraints on s-process efficiency, Pb is detected only in J1434+3540. This star shows a relatively low [Pb/hs] ratio, consistent with its higher metallicity, where the reduced neutron-to-seed ratio suppresses production at the third s-process peak. However, our best-fit AGB model yields a [Pb/hs] ratio that is 0.61 dex lower than the observed value. While low-metallicity or high s-process efficiency models can better reproduce [Pb/hs], they still have difficulty in simultaneously matching the observed [ls/Fe] and [hs/Fe] ratios.

CEMP-r/s and CEMP-r+s stars

In contrast to CEMP-s stars, CEMP-r/s and CEMP-r+s stars exhibit enhancements in both s-process elements (e.g., Ba, La, Ce) and r-process elements (e.g., Eu, Gd, Dy). We identified five such stars in our sample, as presented in Table 4. Among them, J0446+2124 and J0653+4735 display only moderate carbon enrichment ([C/Fe]corr_{\rm corr} = 0.57 ±\pm 0.30 and 0.6 ±\pm 0.10, respectively). To investigate their origins, we employ composite models combining solar r-process and AGB s-process abundance patterns (Bisterzo et al. [27]), as well as i-process models (Choplin et al. [44]) to fit their Note. [ls/Fe]=13([Sr/Fe]+[Y/Fe]+[Zr/Fe])[\mathrm{ls}/\mathrm{Fe}] = \frac{1}{3}([\mathrm{Sr}/\mathrm{Fe}] + [\mathrm{Y}/\mathrm{Fe}] + [\mathrm{Zr}/\mathrm{Fe}]); [hs/Fe]=13([Ba/Fe]+[La/Fe]+[Ce/Fe])[\mathrm{hs}/\mathrm{Fe}] = \frac{1}{3}([\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Fe}] + [\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Fe}] + [\mathrm{Ce}/\mathrm{Fe}])

surface abundance patterns, as illustrated in Figure 17, Figure 18, and Figure A1. It is important to note that the fitting procedure excludes the light neutron-capture elements (e.g., Sr, Y, Zr), as their abundances could be significantly affected by additional nucleosynthetic processes, particularly the weak rr-process. The results demonstrate systematic overabundances of 0.4–1.56 dex relative to solar rr-process predictions in the Ba-Nd region (Z=56-60) and excesses of 0.2-1.0 dex compared to AGB ss-process model predictions in the Eu-Dy region (Z=63-71) for all investigated stars. These systematic discrepancies strongly indicate the necessity of adopting more complicated nucleosynthesis mechanisms to fully explain the observed abundance patterns.

Figure 17. Abundance patterns of CEMP-r/sr/s stars in our sample. The observed abundances are represented by yellow solid circle with error bars. Theoretical predictions are shown as follows: the solar rr-process abundance pattern (red dotted line), AGB ss-process abundance pattern (blue dashed line), combined solar rr-process with AGB ss-process abundance pattern (black solid line), and ii-process abundance pattern (yellow solid line). The bottom panel of each plot displays the corresponding residuals between the observed abundances and both the r+sr+s-process and ii-process model predictions.

Figure 18. The abundance pattern of J0653+4735, a representative CEMP-r+sr+s star in our sample, with symbols and line styles following the same conventions as in Figure 17.

Figure A1. The abundance pattern of two CEMP-r+sr+s stars J2114-0616 and J2257+3859 in our sample, with symbols and line styles following the same conventions as in Figure 17.

J0446+2124 and J1551+2040 exhibit distinctive heavy-element abundance patterns that cannot be fully reproduced by either r+sr+s-process composite models or ii-process nucleosynthesis models (Figure 17). In particular, the observed Gd abundance in J0446+2124 and the Dy abundance in J1551+2040 are underpredicted by approximately 0.35 dex in all theoretical models. This discrepancy suggests either contributions from unrecognized nucleosynthetic processes or the need for refinement in model parameters. It should be emphasized that the relatively low S/N ∼20\sim20 of these spectra introduce significant uncertainties of up to ±0.25\pm0.25 dex in the derived neutron-capture element abundances, potentially affecting the interpretation of such model–data mismatches.

In contrast, J0653+4735, J2114-0616, and J2257+3859 exhibit markedly different abundance pattern signatures that are well reproduced by r+sr+s-process composite models, as shown in Figure 18 and A1. These fits yield a mean reduced chi-square value of χν2=1.79\chi_{\nu}^{2}=1.79 (range: 1.01-2.54), with residuals generally below 0.15 dex in the Ba-Pb region (Z=56-82). Among these, J0653+4735 is particularly noteworthy, showing the best fit (χν2=1.01\chi_{\nu}^{2}=1.01), which significantly outperforms the corresponding ii-process model (χν2=7.22\chi_{\nu}^{2}=7.22), while also exhibiting the highest rr-process contribution fraction (Fr=54%F_{\mathrm{r}}=54\%). These results strongly support an origin involving the mixing of AGB ss-process material with rr-process-enriched gas, with the best-fit AGB progenitor parameters presented in Table 5. The best-fit AGB model for J0653+4735 corresponds to a 1.4 M⊙M_{\odot} AGB star with [Fe/H]=−2.6[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=-2.6 and an ss-process efficiency of ST/9. It is crucial to recognize that these conclusions are drawn from currently available abundance data, and significant discrepancies remain between r+sr+s-process and ii-process predictions in the heavier lanthanide region (Z=68, 70; Er, Yb) and the third rr-process peak (Z=76-78; Os, Ir, Pt). Due to observational limitations, reliable abundance measurements in these regions are only available for Os (Z=76). Future blue-end spectroscopic observations will be essential for obtaining additional neutron-capture element abundances to further constrain these nucleosynthesis models.

Given the extreme rarity of CEMP-r+sr+s stars, we further compile CEMP-r+sr+s and CEMP-r/sr/s stars reported in the literature and fit their abundance patterns using the same method. To ensure the robustness of the results, we select only stars that satisfy both Fr>30%F_{\mathrm{r}}>30\% and Fs>30%F_{\mathrm{s}}>30\%, and we prioritize samples with a larger number of measured elemental abundances (N≥9N \geq9). Furthermore, we require the reduced chi-square of the fit to satisfy χν2<2.6\chi_{\nu}^{2}<2.6, which indicates that the model predictions account for the observed abundances within approximately 1.5σ1.5\sigma. In addition, the fit must be superior to that obtained under the ii-process scenario. After applying these strict criteria, we have identified 12 CEMP-

r+sr+s candidates, including two previously confirmed cases reported in the literature: RAVE J094921.8-161722 (Gull et al. [79]) and GIU J190734.24-315102.1 (Sbordone et al. [159]). The identification of CEMP-r+sr+s stars based solely on elemental abundance ratios remains challenging, as highlighted in previous studies (Frebel 2018; Gull et al. [79]). This difficulty largely arises from the limited sample size of currently known CEMP-r+sr+s stars. Based on the only CEMP-r+sr+s star known at the time, RAVE J094921.8-161722 (Gull et al. [79]),

(Gull et al. [79]), Frebel (2018) proposed empirical criteria suggesting the use of 0.0 < [Ba/Eu] < +0.5 and -1.0 < [Ba/Pb] < -0.5 as thresholds for classifying these stars. However, our observations reveal limitations in the practical application of these criteria. Within our sample, only J0653+4735 fully satisfies the proposed conditions ([Ba/Eu] = 0.09±0.12, [Ba/Pb] = -0.82±0.14). Notably, J2114-0616 exhibits a marginally elevated Ba excess ([Ba/Eu] = 0.62±0.11), whereas J2257+3859 shows that its [Ba/Pb] ratio falls slightly below the designated range ([Ba/Pb]=−1.20±0.14[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Pb}] = -1.20 \pm0.14). Although these values deviate from the standard criteria, they remain within the 2σ2\sigma uncertainty range. Moreover, among the twelve literature-reported CEMP-r+sr+s stars re-confirmed in this study, only three satisfy the criteria. These results collectively suggest that the existing empirical thresholds may not fully capture the chemical characteristics of CEMP-r+sr+s stars, indicating a need for reassessment and potential revision.

To explore more robust diagnostic indicators, we perform a dispersion analysis of various heavy-element abundance ratios across the 15 CEMP-r+sr+s stars from this study and the literature. The results show that the [La/Nd][\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}] (MAD = 0.05, std = 0.09) and [La/Sm][\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Sm}] (MAD = 0.075, std = 0.09) ratios exhibit the smallest median absolute deviations and standard deviations, indicating relatively high internal consistency within the CEMP-r+sr+s sample. In contrast, the [Ba/Eu][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Eu}] (MAD = 0.13, std = 0.24) and [Ba/Pb][\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Pb}] (MAD = 0.18, std = 0.29) ratios display significantly larger star-to-star dispersion. However, in the [La/Nd][\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}] versus [La/Sm][\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Sm}] diagram, CEMP-r+sr+s stars do not separate clearly from CEMP-ss stars, largely because the ss-process significantly contributes to La, Nd, and Sm, thereby diminishing the diagnostic power of these ratios. In light of this limitation, we introduce the [Eu/Nd][\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Nd}] ratio (MAD = 0.08, std = 0.13 for 15 CEMP-r+sr+s stars), which also shows relatively low dispersion. In solar abundances, La and Eu are representative elements of the ss- and rr-processes, respectively, while Nd receives comparable contributions from both processes. Our choice of these three elements is motivated not only by the relatively small dispersion observed in the abundance ratio space of CEMP-r+sr+s stars, but more importantly by the fact that, in most high-resolution optical spectra of CEMP-r+sr+s stars, all three elements are relatively easy to detect, thereby ensuring the reliability and comparability of the analysis.

As shown in Figure 19, in the [La/Nd][\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}]–[Eu/Nd][\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Nd}] distribution of various heavy-element-enhanced stars, CEMP-r+sr+s stars are mostly concentrated in the region defined by −0.1<[La/Nd]<0.2-0.1 < [\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}] < 0.2 and −0.5<[Eu/Nd]<−0.1-0.5 < [\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Nd}] < -0.1. Only three stars lie on the boundary grid lines offset by 0.1 dex, corresponding to [La/Nd]=−0.2[\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}] = -0.2 and [Eu/Nd]=0.0[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Nd}] = 0.0, respectively. This concentration suggests that these stars have experienced efficient mixing of ss- and rr-process materials, with their heavy-element abundance patterns reflecting contributions from both neutron-capture processes.

Figure 19. The relation between [La/Nd] and [Eu/Nd] for different types of heavy-element enhanced stars. Red pentagrams denote CEMP-r+sr+s stars, cyan pentagons denote CEMP-r/sr/s stars, yellow triangles denote CEMP-ss stars, and green filled circles denote rr-I and rr-II stars. The stars analyzed in this work are highlighted with black borders. Literature data for CEMP-r+sr+s, CEMP-r/sr/s, and CEMP-ss stars are primarily taken from the compilation of Goswami et al. [76], with additional contributions from Cui et al. [52], Placco et al. [144], Hansen et al. [82, 84], Hollek et al. [91], Gull et al. [79], Sbordone et al. [159], Karinkuzhi et al. [109], Shejeelammal & Goswami [164]. The black dashed lines outline the region where −0.1<[La/Nd]<0.2-0.1 < [\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}] < 0.2 and −0.5<[Eu/Nd]<−0.1-0.5 < [\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Nd}] < -0.1, highlighting the concentration of CEMP-r+sr+s stars. The red dashed grid indicates the region where CEMP-r+sr+s stars are concentrated after accounting for the 0.1 dex uncertainties in the left boundary of [La/Nd] and the upper boundary of [Eu/Nd].

In chemical abundance space, this region is clearly separated from the majority of CEMP-ss stars and rr-process-enhanced stars, although a few objects are still located near the boundary. For instance, the rr-I star J0159+1219, situated in the red shaded area, exhibits an ss-process contribution of Fs=25%F_s = 25\% to its surface abundances—the highest FsF_s value among all rr-process-enhanced stars in our sample. However, due to its high Pr abundance, the r+sr+s model fails to adequately fit its surface abundances. Another rr-I star, J1730+4143, also shows a relatively high ss-process contribution (Fs=22%F_s = 22\%). Considering the uncertainties in the boundary criteria, we propose that stars satisfying −0.2≤[La/Nd]≤0.2-0.2 \leq[\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}] \leq0.2 and −0.5≤[Eu/Nd]≤0.0-0.5 \leq[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Nd}] \leq0.0 be classified as CEMP-r+sr+s stars.

However, we note a significant overlap between CEMP-r/sr/s and CEMP-r+sr+s stars in this parameter space, further indicating that one or a few abundance ratios alone are insufficient to unambiguously distinguish the two subclasses. More diagnostic nucleosynthetic features or independent observational constraints are still needed. Notably, we find that [Eu/Nd][\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Nd}] in CEMP-r/sr/s stars increases with [La/Nd][\mathrm{La}/\mathrm{Nd}], revealing a correlation between the rr-process element (Eu) and the ss-process element (La), which suggests that these elements may originate from the same astrophysical site. In contrast, such a correlation is not evident in CEMP-r+sr+s stars. It is important to emphasize that the current classification criteria for CEMP-r+sr+s remain empirical, based on available data. Future work should incorporate physical models to establish more robust standards, particularly for clearly distinguishing between CEMP-r/sr/s and CEMP-r+sr+s stars.

In the LAMOST/Subaru sample, the occurrence probability of rr-process-enhanced stars (rr-I, rr-II, and CEMP-rr) is fr=66/385≈17.1%f_r = 66/385 \approx17.1\%, while that of ss-process-enhanced stars is fs=9/385≈2.3%f_s = 9/385 \approx2.3\%. The fraction of stars that simultaneously exhibit both rr- and ss-process signatures is frs=3/385≈0.8%f_{rs} = 3/385 \approx0.8\%, a value close to the simple product fr×fsf_r \times f_s. This similarity suggests that the surface enhancements of rr- and ss-process elements in r+sr+s stars may originate from two independent physical events. From this interpretation, variations of radial velocities are expected because ss-process excesses are attributed to the mass transfer from the companion AGB stars. The results show that, for J2114-0616, four radial-velocity observations over an eight-year baseline reveal a clear variation. It is noteworthy that this apparent variation arises from a single measurement obtained with a LAMOST low-resolution spectrum. By contrast, over a 3–4 year monitoring baseline, J0653+4735 and J0446+2124 exhibit no statistically significant variations, and thus cannot be confirmed as members of binary systems. For J1551+2040 and J2257+3859, the lack of long-term radial-velocity data from different surveys prevents any assessment of their possible binarity. Among the twelve CEMP-r+sr+s stars from the literature that are re-confirmed in this work, eight exhibit significant radial-velocity variations, indicating potential binarity. These results suggest that the formation scenario of CEMP-r+sr+s stars may be diverse. Jonsell et al. [105] and Goswami et al. [76] discuss multiple formation scenarios for CEMP-r+sr+s stars. In these frameworks, the rr-process elements are usually attributed to the pollution of the natal gas clouds by neutron star mergers or special types of supernovae in the early Universe, whereas the origins of the ss-process elements are more diverse. For CEMP-r+sr+s stars that exhibit clear radial-velocity variations, the surface ss-process enrichment is most likely acquired through mass transfer in binary systems, including Roche-lobe overflow (RLOF), wind Roche-lobe overflow (WRLOF), or stellar wind accretion Hansen et al. [83].

One possible explanation for the origin of CEMP-r+sr+s stars without detection of radial velocity variation is that these stars belong to binary systems with extremely long orbital periods (on the order of 10310^{3}–10410^{4} days) and very low velocity amplitudes (semi-amplitude <100< 100 m s−1^{-1}). Hansen et al. [83] find in their orbital study of 19 CEMP-ss and 3 CEMP-r/sr/s stars that more than 35% of the sample have orbital periods longer than 3000 days, with HE 2201-0345 reaching as long as 10093 days. At present, however, the observational precision and time baselines of our sample are insufficient to confirm the existence of such long-period binaries, and future high-precision, long-term monitoring is essential to test this hypothesis. Moreover, in such wide binary systems, achieving sufficiently efficient mass transfer to reproduce the observed ss-process abundances of CEMP-r+sr+s stars remains a theoretical challenge Abate et al. [1].

Another scenario assumes that the ss-process elements originate from stellar winds ejected by TP-AGB stars during intense thermal-pulse phases. The material, enriched in carbon and ss-process products, can locally pollute the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM), thereby producing significant ss-process enhancements on small spatial scales. However, the efficiency of this mechanism depends on several factors, including the nucleosynthetic yields and total mass ejected by TP-AGB stars, the dilution mass of the injected material, and the inhomogeneity and turbulent mixing timescales of the local ISM. If the enriched material is rapidly accreted by subsequent stars before turbulent mixing occurs (i.e., tacc≪tmixt_{\mathrm{acc}} \ll t_{\mathrm{mix}}), for example within dense clusters or local gravitational potential wells, the local enrichment can be preserved and imprinted in the chemical signatures of the next stellar generation. Conversely, if the mixing timescale is short, the enrichment signal is quickly diluted and becomes difficult to retain.

A third possibility involves rapidly rotating, metal-poor massive stars, which in their late evolutionary stages inject ss-process products into the early ISM through rotation-induced mixing and stellar wind ejection [137, 143, 67, 68, 42]. The models of Choplin et al. [42] show that rotation-induced mixing in stars of 25 M⊙M_{\odot} with vini≈500v_{\mathrm{ini}} \approx500 km s−1^{-1} can reproduce abundance patterns similar to those of CEMP-ss stars. However, current models still fail to simultaneously account for the observed abundances of Na, Mg, and Pb, indicating that the nucleosynthesis processes in spinstars require more refined modeling and observational constraints.

Although the above mechanisms can, in principle, provide plausible explanations for the formation of CEMP-r+sr+s stars, quantitative validation requires more complex stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis models, as well as binary evolution simulations that include long orbital periods and wind accretion processes. A detailed exploration of these issues lies beyond the scope of this study.

Conclusion

This study presents a systematic investigation of heavy-element-enhanced metal-poor stars selected from the LAM-OST/Subaru sample. The final sample comprises 64 rr-process-enhanced stars (45 rr-I and 19 rr-II), as well as 2 limited-rr stars. In addition, the sample contains 12 CEMP stars (8 CEMP-ss, 1 CEMP-rr, 1 CEMP-r/sr/s, 2 CEMP-r+sr+s), alongside 4 moderately carbon-enhanced stars (0.4 <[C/Fe]<0.7< [\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] < 0.7), which exhibit heavy-element abundance patterns consistent with those of the ss, rr, r/sr/s, and r+sr+s subclasses, respectively. The identification of these heavyelement-enhanced metal-poor stars, combined with a homogeneous analysis of this statistically significant sample, provides crucial observational constraints on nucleosynthetic processes in the early Galaxy.

The abundance patterns of rr-process-enhanced stars reveal significant deviations of light neutron-capture elements (Sr, Y, Zr) from the solar rr-process abundance pattern, exhibiting pronounced star-to-star scatter exceeding 1 dex. Notably, Y and Zr exhibit a tight correlation with heavy rr-process elements (MAD ∼0.13\sim0.13 dex), while Sr displays substantially greater dispersion (MAD >0.20> 0.20 dex). In contrast, heavy neutron-capture elements (56≤Z≤7656 \le Z \le76) generally align well with the solar rr-process pattern, with several notable exceptions. Pr shows anomalous enhancement ([Pr/Eu] ≈0.47\approx0.47) in eight rr-process-enhanced stars, potentially reflecting unidentified mixing effects or additional nucleosynthetic channels. Ba exhibits a marked departure from the solar rr-process pattern, suggesting that the sample stars may experience varying degrees of ss-process contamination (Fs≤0.25F_s \le0.25). Furthermore, cluster analysis reveals that ss-process signatures become increasingly prominent at [Fe/H] >−2.6> -2.6.

A comparison of [X/Eu] abundance ratios reveals systematic differences between rr-I and rr-II stars. Specifically, rr-I stars exhibit significantly elevated [X/Eu] ratios for light neutron-capture elements (e.g., Sr, Y, Zr), with an average offset of ∼0.36\sim0.36 dex, whereas for heavy neutron-capture elements (Z≥56Z \ge56), the discrepancy between rr-I and rr-II stars diminishes to ∼0.1\sim0.1 dex and decreases further with increasing atomic number. Dynamical evidence indicates that rr-II stars with higher [Eu/Fe] are more likely to have originated from low-mass dwarf galaxies accreted by the Milky Way. Consequently, they experienced less contamination from additional nucleosynthetic processes—particularly the weak rr-process—and thus retained a more “pure” signature of the main rr-process.

Among rr-process-enhanced stars, we identify an EMP ([Fe/H] =−2.93= -2.93) rr-II star, J1158+0734, which exhibits significant Zn enrichment ([Zn/Fe] =0.67= 0.67). Its light-element abundance pattern is best reproduced by the yields of a CCSN with a progenitor mass of 31.5 M⊙31.5\,M_\odot and an explosion energy of 3×10513 \times10^{51} erg. The probability density distribution of its progenitor properties also favors high-energy, massive supernovae, indicating that such events efficiently synthesize Zn in the early Galactic environment. At the same time, the theoretical nucleosynthesis yields from NSMs and MRDSNe are both able to reproduce the observed neutron-capture element abundance pattern of J1158+0734 reasonably well. However, given the substantial uncertainties that persist in current rr-process models, together with the extremely low metallicity of this star and its significantly enhanced Zn abundance, we favor MRDSNe as the predominant origin of its surface heavy elements.

The CEMP-ss stars in our sample show significant dispersion in their ss-process element abundances. This variation likely originates from enrichment by a range of AGB progenitors with differing properties, including masses of 1.31.3–2.0 M⊙2.0\,M_\odot, metallicities of −3.0-3.0 to −2.3-2.3, and ss-process efficiencies from ST/24 to ST. Among these stars, J2256+0215 is particularly notable, as its surface neutron-capture abundance pattern is well reproduced by an AGB model with a progenitor mass of 2.0 M⊙2.0\,M_\odot, [Fe/H] =−2.6= -2.6 and an ss-process efficiency of ST24. However, this star shows an anomalously low carbon abundance ([C/Fe] =0.08= 0.08), and its extremely low 12C/13C{}^{12}\mathrm{C}/{}^{13}\mathrm{C} ratio of 2.33 provides strong evidence that additional mixing occurs during its evolution. Such mixing is likely driven by thermohaline instability and may be further enhanced through rotation-induced or magnetically mediated mechanisms.

In our sample, five stars exhibit simultaneous enhancements of both ss-process and rr-process elements, accompanied by moderate to significant carbon enrichment. Among them, three stars show heavy-element abundance patterns that are well reproduced by a combination of solar rr-process and AGB ss-process contributions, indicating that their enrichment is more consistent with r+sr+s dual contributions rather than the ii-process. Using the same analysis approach, we re-confirm twelve CEMP-r+sr+s candidates previously reported in the literature. Taken together with our results, nine stars display significant radial-velocity variations, supporting the interpretation that their carbon and ss-process elements originate from binary mass transfer. However, six CEMP-r+sr+s stars show no detectable radial-velocity variations, suggesting alternative enrichment mechanisms such as long-period binary systems, local pollution from nearby AGB winds, or ss-process nucleosynthesis in rapidly rotating massive stars. Nevertheless, high-precision, long-baseline radial-velocity monitoring remains essential for constraining their formation pathways. Based on the available abundance data, we propose that [La/Nd] and [Eu/Nd] serve as more stable diagnostic ratios for identifying CEMP-r+sr+s stars, and we recommend a revised definition: Stars satisfying −0.2≤-0.2 \leq [La/Nd] ≤0.2\leq0.2 and −0.5≤-0.5 \leq [Eu/Nd] ≤0.0\leq0.0 could be classified as CEMP-r+sr+s. Even so, the significant overlap with CEMP-r/sr/s stars in this parameter space demonstrates that abundance ratios alone are insufficient for a clear observational distinction between the two subclasses, and future work must incorporate additional nucleosynthetic or dynamical diagnostics to establish more robust classification criteria.

In the future, with the continued progress of ongoing spectroscopic surveys such as LAMOST, GALAH, Gaia-ESO, and APOGEE, together with forthcoming next-generation projects including 4MOST, WEAVE, and SDSS-V, the availability of larger stellar samples will enable the systematic identification and investigation of heavy-element-enhanced stars, particularly extremely rr-process enhanced stars and CEMP-r+sr+s stars. At the same time, detailed analyses of high-resolution ultraviolet–blue spectra for these peculiar stars (to be presented in forthcoming work) will provide more complete heavy-element abundance patterns and place critical constraints on the nucleosynthetic origins of their surface compositions. By combining large-scale survey data with targeted high-resolution follow-up observations, this research program will establish a solid foundation for advancing our understanding of the early chemical evolution of the Galaxy and the astrophysical sites of multiple neutron-capture processes.

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous referee for the constructive comments and efficient review, which have significantly improved the manuscript. This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China Nos. 2024YFA1611903 and 2023YFE0107800, the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant No. 12222305, the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences grant No. XDB1160103, the International Partnership Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences grant No. 178GJHZ2022040GC, and the science research grants from the China Manned Space Project, the CAS Project for Young Scientists in Basic Research No. YSBR-092. This work was also supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant Nos. 20H05855, 21H04499, 22K03688, and 23HP8014.

This research is based on data collected at Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. We are honored and grateful for the opportunity of observing the Universe from Maunakea, which has cultural, historical, and natural significance in Hawaii. Guoshoujing Telescope (the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope, LAMOST) is a National Major Scientific Project built by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Funding for the project has been provided by the National Development and Reform Commission. It is operated and managed by the National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences. This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission Gaia (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia), processed by the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the Gaia Multilateral Agreement. This work has made use of the VALD database (https://vald.astro.uu.se/vald.php), operated at Uppsala University, the Institute of Astronomy RAS in Moscow, and the University of Vienna.

Facilities: LAMOST, Subaru Software: MOOG ([172]), TAME ([108]), Linemake ([146]), iSpec ([31]), Agama ([188]), TOPCAT ([182])

Appendix information

Table A1 summarizes the heliocentric radial velocities of the CEMP stars compiled from various sources. Figure A1 presents the abundance patterns of two additional CEMP-r+sr+s stars in our sample.

References: (1) Subaru high-resolution spectroscopy ((Aoki et al. 2022)); (2) LAMOST DR11; (3) Gaia DR3; (4) RAVE DR6; (5) APOGEE DR17 (This table is available in its entirety in machine-readable form.)

References

  1. [1]Abate, C., Pols, O. R., Karakas, A. I., & Izzard, R. G. 2015, A&A, 576, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424739DOI
  2. [4]Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4414
  3. [5]Akaike, H. 1973, Biometrika, 60, 255, doi: 10.1093/biomet/60.2.255DOI
  4. [6]Akram, W., Farouqi, K., Hallmann, O., & Kratz, K.-L. 2020, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 227, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 01009, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202022701009
  5. [7]Alencastro Puls, A., Kuske, J., Hansen, C. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A294, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452537DOI
  6. [8]Allen, D. M., Ryan, S. G., Rossi, S., Beers, T. C., & Tsangarides, S. A. 2012, A&A, 548, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015615DOI
  7. [9]Anders, F., Khalatyan, A., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142369DOI
  8. [10]Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Christlieb, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 492, doi: 10.1086/509817DOI
  9. [11]Aoki, W., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/13DOI
  10. [13]Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature24291DOI
  11. [14]Arcones, A., & Montes, F. 2011, ApJ, 731, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/5DOI
  12. [15]Arentsen, A., Placco, V. M., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4082, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2062DOI
  13. [16]Arentsen, A., Starkenburg, E., Aguado, D. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1343DOI
  14. [17]Argast, D., Samland, M., Thielemann, F.-K., & Qian, Y.-Z. 2004, A&A, 416, 997, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034265DOI
  15. [18]Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222DOI
  16. [19]Bandyopadhyay, A., Ezzeddine, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6f0f
  17. [20]Barklem, P. S., Christlieb, N., Beers, T. C., et al. 2005, A&A, 439, 129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052967DOI
  18. [21]Beers, T. C., & Christlieb, N. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134057DOI
  19. [22]Beers, T. C., Preston, G. W., & Shectman, S. A. 1992, AJ, 103, 1987, doi: 10.1086/116207DOI
  20. [23]Belczynski, K., Kaska, A. R., Arca-Sedda, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732428DOI
  21. [24]Beniamini, P., Hotokezaka, K., & Piran, T. 2016, ApJ, 832, 149, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/149DOI
  22. [25]Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1589DOI
  23. [26]Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813DOI
  24. [27]Bisterzo, S., Gallino, R., Straniero, O., Cristallo, S., & Käppeler, F. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1529, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16369.xDOI
  25. [30]Bisterzo, S., Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Wiescher, M., & Käppeler, F. 2014, ApJ, 787, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/10DOI
  26. [31]Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofré, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945
  27. [32]Borghs, G., De Bisschop, P., Van Hove, M., & Silverans, R. E. 1983, Hyperfine Interactions, 15, 177, doi: 10.1007/BF02159735DOI
  28. [33]Bouazza, S., Gough, D. S., Hannaford, P., Lowe, R. M., & Wilson, M. 2000, PhRvA, 63, 012516, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.012516DOI
  29. [34]Buchinger, F., Ramsay, E. B., Arnold, E., et al. 1990a, PhRvC, 41, 2883, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.41.2883DOI
  30. [36]Busso, M., Wasserburg, G. J., Nollett, K. M., & Calandra, A. 2007, ApJ, 671, 802, doi: 10.1086/522616DOI
  31. [37]Cain, M., Frebel, A., Ji, A. P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab97baDOI
  32. [38]Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, in Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F. Gray, Vol. 210, A20, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087
  33. [39]Charbonnel, C. 1995, ApJL, 453, L41, doi: 10.1086/309744DOI
  34. [40]Charbonnel, C., & Lagarde, N. 2010, A&A, 522, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014432DOI
  35. [41]Charbonnel, C., & Zahn, J.-P. 2007, A&A, 467, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077274DOI
  36. [42]Choplin, A., Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., & Ekström, S. 2017, A&A, 607, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731948DOI
  37. [43]Choplin, A., Siess, L., & Goriely, S. 2022, A&A, 667, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244360DOI
  38. [44]Choplin, A., Siess, L., Goriely, S., & Martinet, S. 2024, A&A, 684, A206, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348957DOI
  39. [45]Chornock, R., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905cDOI
  40. [46]Christlieb, N., Schörck, T., Frebel, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 484, 721, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078748DOI
  41. [47]Christlieb, N., Beers, T. C., Barklem, P. S., et al. 2004, A&A, 428, 1027, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041536DOI
  42. [48]Chruslinska, M., Belczynski, K., Klencki, J., & Benacquista, M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2923DOI
  43. [49]Cohen, J. G., Christlieb, N., Thompson, I., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/56DOI
  44. [50]Cowan, J. J., & Rose, W. K. 1977, ApJ, 212, 149, doi: 10.1086/155030DOI
  45. [51]Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015002, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015002
  46. [52]Cui, W. Y., Sivarani, T., & Christlieb, N. 2013a, A&A, 558, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321597DOI
  47. [54]Deng, L.-C., Newberg, H. J., Liu, C., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 735, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/003
  48. [55]Denissenkov, P. A., Herwig, F., Battino, U., et al. 2017, ApJL, 834, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L10DOI
  49. [56]Denissenkov, P. A., Herwig, F., Woodward, P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1921DOI
  50. [57]Doherty, C. L., Gil-Pons, P., Siess, L., Lattanzio, J. C., & Lau, H. H. B. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2180DOI
  51. [58]Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52DOI
  52. [59]Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremović, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654DOI
  53. [60]Ezzeddine, R., Frebel, A., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14e7DOI
  54. [61]Ezzeddine, R., Rasmussen, K., Frebel, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d1aDOI
  55. [62]Fan, Z., Zhao, G., Wang, W., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace04aDOI
  56. [63]Fischer, T., Wu, M.-R., Wehmeyer, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab86b0DOI
  57. [65]Frebel, A., & Ji, A. P. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.09188, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.09188
  58. [66]Frebel, A., & Norris, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 631, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423DOI
  59. [67]Frischknecht, U., Hirschi, R., & Thielemann, F. K. 2012, A&A, 538, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117794DOI
  60. [68]Frischknecht, U., Hirschi, R., Pignatari, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2723DOI
  61. [69]Fulbright, J. P., Wyse, R. F. G., Ruchti, G. R., et al. 2010, ApJL, 724, L104, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/724/1/L104DOI
  62. [70]Furmann, B., Elantkowska, M., Stefańska, D., Ruczkowski, J., & Dembczyński, J. 2008a, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 41, 235002, doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/41/23/235002
  63. [71]Furmann, B., Ruczkowski, J., Stefańska, D., Elantkowska, M., & Dembczyński, J. 2008b, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 41, 215004, doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/41/21/215004
  64. [72]Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940
  65. [73]Gallino, R., Arlandini, C., Busso, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, 388, doi: 10.1086/305437
  66. [74]Ginibre, A. 1989, PhyS, 39, 694, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/39/6/005DOI
  67. [75]Goswami, A., Shejeelammal, J., Goswami, P. P., & Purandardas, M. 2024, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 93, 406, doi: 10.25518/0037-9565.11730
  68. [76]Goswami, P. P., Rathour, R. S., & Goswami, A. 2021, A&A, 649, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038258DOI
  69. [77]Gratton, R. G., Sneden, C., Carretta, E., & Bragaglia, A. 2000, A&A, 354, 169
  70. [79]Gull, M., Frebel, A., Cain, M. G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacbc3DOI
  71. [80]Hampel, M., Karakas, A. I., Stancliffe, R. J., Meyer, B. S., & Lugaro, M. 2019, ApJ, 887, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe8DOI
  72. [81]Hampel, M., Stancliffe, R. J., Lugaro, M., & Meyer, B. S. 2016, ApJ, 831, 171, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/171DOI
  73. [82]Hansen, T., Hansen, C. J., Christlieb, N., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 173, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/173DOI
  74. [83]Hansen, T. T., Andersen, J., Nordström, B., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527409DOI
  75. [84]Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346168DOI
  76. [85]Hansen, T. T., Holmbeck, E. M., Beers, T. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabaccDOI
  77. [87]Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2010, ApJ, 724, 341, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/341DOI
  78. [88]Hill, V., Christlieb, N., Beers, T. C., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629092DOI
  79. [89]Hill, V., Plez, B., Cayrel, R., et al. 2002, A&A, 387, 560, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020434DOI
  80. [90]Hirai, Y., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf10aDOI
  81. [91]Hollek, J. K., Frebel, A., Placcco, V. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/121DOI
  82. [92]Holmbeck, E. M., Hansen, T. T., Beers, T. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9c19DOI
  83. [93]Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y., & Wanajo, S. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1189, doi: 10.1086/520034DOI
  84. [94]Honda, S., Aoki, W., Ishimaru, Y., Wanajo, S., & Ryan, S. G. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1180, doi: 10.1086/503195DOI
  85. [95]Hong, J., Beers, T. C., Lee, Y. S., et al. 2024, ApJS, 273, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4a6fDOI
  86. [96]Ivarsson, S., Litzén, U., & Wahlgren, G. M. 2001, Phys, 64, 455, doi: 10.1238/Physica.Regular.064a00455DOI
  87. [97]Jablonka, P., North, P., Mashonkina, L., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525661DOI
  88. [98]Jacobson, H. R., Keller, S., Frebel, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/171DOI
  89. [99]Janka, H. T., Müller, B., Kitaura, F. S., & Buras, R. 2008, A&A, 485, 199, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079334DOI
  90. [103]Jiang, R., Li, H., Zhao, G., Xing, Q., & Xin, W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05712, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05712DOI
  91. [104]Jones, S., Ritter, C., Herwig, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3848, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2488DOI
  92. [105]Jonsell, K., Barklem, P. S., Gustafsson, B., et al. 2006, A&A, 451, 651, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054470DOI
  93. [106]Just, O., Bauswein, A., Ardevol Pulpillo, R., Goriely, S., & Janka, H. T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv009DOI
  94. [107]Kajino, T., Aoki, W., Balantekin, A. B., et al. 2019, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 107, 109, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02.008DOI
  95. [108]Kang, W., & Lee, S.-G. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3162, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21613.xDOI
  96. [109]Karinkuzhi, D., Van Eck, S., Goriely, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038891DOI
  97. [110]Keller, S. C., Schmidt, B. P., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2007, PASA, 24, 1, doi: 10.1071/AS07001DOI
  98. [111]Kitaura, F. S., Janka, H. T., & Hillebrandt, W. 2006, A&A, 450, 345, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054703DOI
  99. [112]Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65DOI
  100. [113]Kobayashi, C., Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., & Ohkubo, T. 2006, ApJ, 653, 1145, doi: 10.1086/508914DOI
  101. [114]Kobayashi, C., Mandel, I., Belczynski, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82DOI
  102. [115]Kollmeier, J. A., Zasowski, G., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.03234, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.03234DOI
  103. [116]Lagarde, N., Decressin, T., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118331DOI
  104. [117]Lagarde, N., Minkevičiūtė, R., Drazdauskas, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348336DOI
  105. [118]Lawler, J. E., Bonvallet, G., & Sneden, C. 2001a, ApJ, 556, 452, doi: 10.1086/321549DOI
  106. [119]Lawler, J. E., Wickliffe, M. E., den Hartog, E. A., & Sneden, C. 2001b, ApJ, 563, 1075, doi: 10.1086/32407
  107. [120]Lee, Y. S., Beers, T. C., Masseron, T., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/132DOI
  108. [124]Lin, Y., Li, H., Jiang, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc8a3DOI
  109. [125]Lombardo, L., Hansen, C. J., Rizzuti, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A293, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452283DOI
  110. [126]Lucchesi, R., Jablonka, P., Skúladóttir, Á., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A266, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348093DOI
  111. [127]MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790DOI
  112. [128]Maeder, A., & Meynet, G. 2000, A&A, 361, 159, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006405DOI
  113. [130]Martin, N. F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347633DOI
  114. [131]Mashonkina, L., Christlieb, N., Barklem, P. S., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913825DOI
  115. [132]Mashonkina, L., Christlieb, N., & Eriksson, K. 2014, A&A, 569, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424017DOI
  116. [133]Masseron, T., Johnson, J. A., Plez, B., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911744
  117. [134]McCormick, C., Majewski, S. R., Smith, V. V., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4418, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2156DOI
  118. [135]McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759DOI
  119. [137]Meynet, G., Ekström, S., & Maeder, A. 2006, A&A, 447, 623, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053070DOI
  120. [138]Neijssel, C. J., Vigna-Gómez, A., Stevenson, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3740, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2840DOI
  121. [139]Nishimura, N., Sawai, H., Tak iwaki, T., Yamada, S., & Thielemann, F. K. 2017, ApJL, 836, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5deeDOI
  122. [140]Nishimura, N., Takiwaki, T., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2015, ApJ, 810, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/109DOI
  123. [141]Noguchi, K., Aoki, W., Kawanomoto, S., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 855, doi: 10.1093/pasj/54.6.855DOI
  124. [142]Pakhomov, Y. V., Ryabchikova, T. A., & Piskunov, N. E. 2019, Astronomy Reports, 63, 1010, doi: 10.1134/S1063772919120047DOI
  125. [143]Pignatari, M., Gallino, R., Meynet, G., et al. 2008, ApJL, 687, L95, doi: 10.1086/593350DOI
  126. [144]Placco, V. M., Frebel, A., Beers, T. C., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/104DOI
  127. [145]Placco, V. M., Frebel, A., Beers, T. C., & Stancliffe, R. J. 2014, ApJ, 797, 21, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/21DOI
  128. [146]Placco, V. M., Sneden, C., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 92, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abf651DOI
  129. [147]Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Cristallo, S., Limongi, M., & Chieffi, A. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3154DOI
  130. [148]Primas, F., Brugamyer, E., Sneden, C., et al. 2000, in The First Stars, ed. A. Weiss, T. G. Abel, & V. Hill, 51, doi: 10.1007/10719504_7
  131. [149]Rivest, R. C., Izawa, M. R., Rosner, S. D., et al. 2002, Canadian Journal of Physics, 80, 557, doi: 10.1139/p02-009
  132. [150]Roberts, L. F., Woosley, S. E., & Hoffman, R. D. 2010, ApJ, 722, 954, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/954DOI
  133. [151]Roederer, I. U., Preston, G. W., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/136DOI
  134. [152]Roederer, I. U., Cowan, J. J., Pignatari, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85bcDOI
  135. [153]Roederer, I. U., Vash, N., Holmbeck, E. M., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1177, doi: 10.1126/science.adf1341DOI
  136. [154]Roederer, I. U., Beers, T. C., Hattori, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad57bfDOI
  137. [155]Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, PhyS, 90, 054005, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005DOI
  138. [156]Safarzadeh, M., & Scannapieco, E. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1706DOI
  139. [157]Sakari, C. M., Placco, V. M., Farrell, E. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9dfDOI
  140. [158]Saraf, P., Allende Prieto, C., Sivarani, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2206DOI
  141. [159]Sbordone, L., Hansen, C. J., Monaco, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037908DOI
  142. [160]Schönrich, R., Binney, J., & Dehnen, W. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.xDOI
  143. [161]Sestito, F., Ardern-Arentsen, A., Vitali, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A333, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451258DOI
  144. [162]Shah, S. P., Ezzeddine, R., Ji, A. P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8afDOI
  145. [163]Shank, D., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca322DOI
  146. [164]Shejeelammal, J., & Goswami, A. 2022, ApJ, 934, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7aacDOI
  147. [165]Siegel, D. M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Nature, 569, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0DOI
  148. [166]Simmerer, J., Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1091, doi: 10.1086/424504DOI
  149. [167]Skúladóttir, Á., Tolstoy, E., Salvadori, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424782DOI
  150. [168]Skúladóttir, Á., Vanni, I., Salvadori, S., & Lucchesi, R. 2024, A&A, 681, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346231DOI
  151. [169]Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., & Gallino, R. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 241, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145207DOI
  152. [170]Sneden, C., Preston, G. W., McWilliam, A., & Searle, L. 1994, ApJL, 431, L27, doi: 10.1086/187464DOI
  153. [171]Sneden, C., Cowan, J. J., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 936, doi: 10.1086/375491DOI
  154. [172]Sneden, C. A. 1973, PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin
  155. [173]Sobeck, J. S., Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 175, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/175DOI
  156. [174]Spite, M., Cayrel, R., Hill, V., et al. 2006, A&A, 455, 291, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065209DOI
  157. [175]Starkenburg, E., Hill, V., Tolstoy, E., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220349DOI
  158. [176]Starkenburg, E., Martin, N., Youakim, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1068DOI
  159. [177]Starkenburg, E., Aguado, D. S., Bonifacio, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3838, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2276DOI
  160. [178]Steinmetz, M., Matijevič, G., Enke, H., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9ab9DOI
  161. [179]Storm, N., & Bergemann, M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2488DOI
  162. [180]Straniero, O., Gallino, R., Busso, M., et al. 1995, ApJL, 440, L85, doi: 10.1086/187767
  163. [182]Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29
  164. [183]Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Arnone, E., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 864, doi: 10.1086/380507DOI
  165. [184]Tsujimoto, T., & Nishimura, N. 2018, ApJL, 863, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad86bDOI
  166. [185]Van Eck, S., Goriely, S., Jorissen, A., & Plez, B. 2003, A&A, 404, 291, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030447DOI
  167. [186]van Hove, M., Borghs, G., de Bisschop, P., & Silverans, R. E. 1985, Zeitschrift fur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei, 321, 215, doi: 10.1007/BF01493440
  168. [187]Vanni, I., Salvadori, S., Skúladóttir, Á., Rossi, M., & Koutsouridou, I. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2910DOI
  169. [188]Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2672DOI
  170. [190]Villemoes, P., Arnesen, A., Heijkenskjold, F., & Wannstrom, A. 1993, Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular Physics, 26, 4289, doi: 10.1088/0953-4075/26/22/030DOI
  171. [191]Wanajo, S., Janka, H.-T., & Müller, B. 2011, ApJL, 726, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/726/2/L15DOI
  172. [192]Wanajo, S., Kajino, T., Mathews, G. J., & Otsuki, K. 2001, ApJ, 554, 578, doi: 10.1086/321339DOI
  173. [193]Wehmeyer, B., Pignatari, M., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1970, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1352DOI
  174. [194]Wendt, K., Ahmad, S. A., Ekström, C., et al. 1988, Zeitschrift fur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei, 329, 407, doi: 10.1007/BF01294345DOI
  175. [195]Winteler, C., Käppeli, R., Perego, A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L22DOI
  176. [196]Xie, R., Li, H., Zhang, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 985, 250, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcb a6
  177. [197]Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., Newberg, H. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4377, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4377DOI
  178. [198]Yong, D., Norris, J. E., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/762/1/27DOI
  179. [199]Yong, D., Kobayashi, C., Da Costa, G. S., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03611-2DOI
  180. [200]Yoon, J., Beers, T. C., Placco, V. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 20, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/20DOI
  181. [201]Zhang, R., Matsuno, T., Li, H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a6DOI
  182. [202]Zhang, S., Li, H., Zhao, G., Aoki, W., & Matsuno, T. 2019, PASJ, 71, 89, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz071DOI
  183. [203]Zhao, G., Chen, Y.-Q., Shi, J.-R., et al. 2006, ChJAA, 6, 265, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/6/3/01DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_a2hgyq5d
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Physics and Astronomy

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents