Paper detail

How plausible are the proposed formation scenarios of CEMP-r/s stars?

CEMP-$r/s$ stars are metal-poor stars with enhanced abundances of carbon and heavy elements associated with the slow ($s$-) and rapid ($r$-) neutron-capture process. It is believed that carbon and $s$-elements were accreted from the wind of an AGB primary star, a scenario that is generally accepted to explain the formation of CEMP stars that are only enhanced in $s$-elements (CEMP-$s$ stars). The origin of $r$-element-enrichment in CEMP-$r/s$ stars is debated and many formation scenarios have been put forward. We aim to determine the likelihood of the scenarios proposed to explain the formation of CEMP-$r/s$ stars. We calculate the frequency of CEMP-$r/s$ stars among CEMP-$s$ stars for a variety of scenarios, and we compare it with that determined from an observed sample of CEMP-$r/s$ stars collected from the literature. The theoretical frequency of CEMP-$r/s$ stars predicted in most scenarios underestimates the observed ratio by at least a factor of 5. If the enrichments in $s$- and $r$-elements are independent, the model ratio of CEMP-$r/s$ to CEMP-$s$ stars is about 22%, that is approximately consistent with the lowest estimate of the observed ratio. However, this model predicts that about one third of all carbon-normal stars have [Ba/Fe] and [Eu/Fe] higher than 1, and that 40% of all CEMP stars have [Ba/Eu]$\le0$. Stars with these properties are at least ten times rarer in our observed sample. The $intermediate$ or $i$-process, which is supposedly active in some circumstances during the AGB phase, could provide an explanation of the origin of CEMP-$r/s$ stars, similar to that of CEMP-$s$ stars, in the context of wind mass accretion in binary systems. Further calculations of the nucleosynthesis of the $i$-process and of the detailed evolution of late AGB stars are needed to investigate if this scenario predicts a CEMP-$r/s$ star frequency consistent with the observations.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.