The cuprate superconductors: a phenomenological overlook

Abstract: We, basing on the quantum critical point (QCP)($p = 0.19 $), propose a phenomenological description on high-$T_c$ superconductivity in the cuprate superconductors, and suggest it divides the whole doping region into two parts: the underdoped region ($p < 0.19 $) and the overdoped region ($ p> 0.19 $). The electrons in the former are localized and form the localized Fermi liquid, a kind of the non-Fermi liquid, where the carriers are the holes; the electrons in the latter are itinerant and form the Fermi liquid, where the carriers are the electrons.We further argue that localization is a prerequisite to the pseudogap; the superconductivity gap and coherence forms at the same time, which both share the same energy scale; coherence induces phonon around the node.

\section{Doping}

Fundamentally different from a conventional (band) insulator,
the parent compounds of the cuprate superconductors
is a Mott insulator\cite{Anderson1987}. Even it is half-filled,
one electron per unit cell and the other on-site orbit idle,
it cannot conduct. To a conventional insulator, however, such idle orbit can be
occupied and used to conduct electricity. It is the strong on-site
electron-electron repulsion that blocks such motion and makes
the electrons {\it localized}. \normalsize Does such localization
still exist in the doping compounds?

We consider two ultra doping cases: the ultra-low doping case ($ p\sim 2\%$)
and the ultra-high doping case.

With the introduction of very few holes, most of the electrons are still
localized and only some electrons around holes can
move by hopping to form conductivity: electrons form a {\it localized Fermi
liquid\normalsize}, a kind of the non-Fermi liquid. The carriers thus are holes
and their concentration is proportional to
the hole concentration $p$.

In the ultra-high doping case, holes are enough to make electrons
“live” apart, moving with very low mutual interference: electrons
are no longer localized and begin to itinerate, their density of possibility
filling respectively the whole copper oxide plane. That is to say,
the behaviour of electrons is like the Fermi liquid.
The carriers here are not holes but electrons and
their concentration is proportional to the concentration of electrons
$(1-p)$, not the concentration of holes $p$.

The above discussion implies the properties of the electrons in two ultra cases
are fundamentally different, for one is the
non-Fermi liquid and the other
is the Fermi liquid. What is responsible for the difference? Doping!
Although we just consider two ultra cases, it is reasonable to speculate
that the doping will lead the cuprate superconductors to evolve from the
non-Fermi liquid to the Fermi liquid in the whole doping region.
Therefore there is a point, at least, to distinguish
the two kinds of liquid, on both sides of which,
the physical properties should be fundamentally different. But where is it?
For now we cannot solve analytically the Hubbord model
in the strongly correlated system, we do not know the exact position of
this point and have to refer ourselves to experiment.

In fact, Tallon and Loram {\it et al.} \normalsize in 1999 had been already
aware of the existence of such point and called it
{\it quantum critical point} \normalsize (QCP)\cite{Tallon99}.
Subsequently they surveyed all the experimental results, which confirm
its existence: the physical properties on both sides of it are
fundamentally different\cite{Tallon01}.
Their works give us an explicit answer:
the critical point is in $p=0.19$ and it is $p=0.19$, not the
optimal doping point $p=0.16$, that divides the whole doping region
into two parts: the underdoped region with $ p<0.19$ and the overdoped
region with $p>0.19$.

The experiment by Uchida\cite{Uchida} also confirms that the carrier
concentration in the underdoped region is proportional to the hole
concentration ($p$) and that in the overdoped region is proportional to
the electron concentration ($1-p$).

In a summary, the electrons in the underdoped region perform as
the non-Fermi liquid and the electrons in the overdoped region perform as
the Fermi liquid. The former are localized by the on-site Coulomb repulsion
and pile up one by one, more similar to the solid; the latter are not
localized even with the on-site Coulomb repulsion, more similar to the gas.
We will see it is the fundamental starting point
to discuss the exotic properties in the cuprate superconductors.
In the following we will discuss the doping effects on gap.

\section{Pseudogap and superconductivity gap}
\subsection{Pseudogap}

In the conventional superconductors, interaction by exchanging
phonon induces electrons to pair as long as temperature
drops low enough, which forms quasiparticles and decreases the
energy of the system\cite{Cooper}.
The expectation of the paired operators in the superconductivity state
does not varnish and can be defined as the {\it energy gap\normalsize},
an energy scale to determine the critical temperature ($T_c$)\cite{BCS}.
In the common views, the quasiparticles arising from the paired electrons,
furthermore,
are in the boson mode and can form coherence at low enough temperature,
which implies there is a new energy scale independent of pairing.
It is considered that the pairing energy scale is lower than the
coherence energy scale
in the conventional superconductors and pairing once forms,
quasiparticles instantly form coherence and superconductivity emerges;
but in the cuprate superconductors, the pairing energy scale, on the contrary,
is higher than the coherence energy scale, as a result, the gap in the normal state,
known as the {\it pseudogap\normalsize}, a precursor to the
superconductivity gap, forms before coherence. All reviewed here
are called the {\it precursor pairing scenario\normalsize} in the
literature\cite{Emery}.

It is not difficult, in fact, to check such scenario by experiment,
or more explicitly, to see what happens when coherence is destroyed
by strong external field. Strong magnetic fields experiment\cite{Zheng_exp}
tells us the pseudogap still exists below the critical temperature ($T_c$) in the
underdoped region, when even the superconductivity gap, or the coherence,
is violated; there is no any gap, moreover, observed in the
overdoped region in the same condition, totally different from the
precursor pairing scenario.

What is the physical reason for the pseudogap?
We will see in the following that localization is responsible for the pseudogap.

The electons in the underdoped region, due to the on-site Coulomb repulsion,
are localized, or partly localized at
least, as discussed above. To decrease the energy of the system
with superexchange interaction, two adjacent electrons overlap by
resonating to form the singlet, very similar with Anderson's
RVB scenario\cite{Anderson1987}. But it is only the adjacent completely-localized
electrons, the electrons that cannot hop, not all the electrons,
that form the singlet, which is a little different from
the RVB scenario or the precursor pairing scenario.

Pairing makes the paired electrons inseparable and excludes the holes,
which only hop around them. That is to say, the paired electrons are
{\it frozen\normalsize}. Localization sustains the stability of pairing,
and in return, pairing strengthens localization. Were electrons itinerant
or movable, they would move apart and be free of the previous superexchange
interaction, which is fatal to the adjacent pairing.

But not all the electrons are localized.
A hole not only provides the electrons around it opportunities to hop,
but is also destructive to their localization,
and, furthermore, to their pairing.
It manifests the carriers do not pair and
the pseudogap paring is not the precursor to the superconductivity pairing.

In a summary, the pseudogap, or the normal-state gap, is only related to
the localized Fermi liquid
in the underdoped region and is not found in the Fermi liquid in the
overdoped region, as expected. In the copper oxide planes all the paired electrons
in the pseudogap state form an {\it electron glacier\normalsize} with the help of localization,
in which the unpaired electrons flow across the holes. Doping increases
the holes, which is destructive to localization, and more to
the electron ice. When the doping concentration $ p=0.19$,
the electron glacier avalanches
and the electrons' flow is free of the constraint from the holes. The electrons
begin to perform as the Fermi liquid.

In the Fermi liquid such mechanism cannot apply, for the electrons are
no longer localized but itinerant in the lattice and cannot pair respectively via
the superexchange interaction, or even they pair, they can easily fall apart.
It can be understood by considering only two electrons in the lattice:
they, due to the principle of uncertainty, exist in any possible
lattice and obtain very low possibility to pair in the neighborhood.
To sustain such pairing, a collective mechanism is needed, which is
{\it coherence\normalsize}.

\subsection{Coherence and superconductivity gap}
Coherence originates from the identity of the quasiparticles,
which consist of even fermions and are in boson mode.
The coherence-induced pairing, instead of
existing in partial electrons, applies to all electrons.
The electrons in coherence no longer move solely but participate
the collective resonance mode as quasiparticles.
The emergence of coherence implies electrons are in superconductivity.

Coherence in superconductivity shares the striking similarity
with that in the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC),
but also distinguishes itself from the latter,
which supports all the peculiarities shown in the cuprate superconductors
and also misleads the physicist.

We discuss the distinction between them first.

The chemical potential of the quasiparticles vanishes because
the number of the excited quasiparticles is not fixed.
There is no constraint, therefore, from the density of particles,
which gives the relation between the critical temperature
and the particle density in BEC. As a result, {\it all the energy
scale is included in the superconductivity gap and there is no
independent energy scale corresponding to coherence. }\normalsize
Though pairing of the carriers and coherence are considered as two
main characteristics of
superconductivity, it is that one implies two and two merges into one:

 {\it The pairing of carriers implies coherence, and vice versa}.\normalsize

Like the role of localization for the pseudogap
in the underdoped region, it is coherence that makes paired
carriers move together in the superconductivity state
and sustains the stability of pairing, whether in the underdoped region
or in the overdoped region.
The pairing of carriers provides the prerequisite to coherence
and in return, coherence keeps pairing stable;
they are interdependent and indispensable.
Once coherence is violated, the pairing of the carriers, whether in the
underdoped region or in the overdoped region,
disappears, so does superconductivity and the superconductivity
gap\cite{Zheng_exp}.

In the overdoped region, the electrons as carriers form pairing
and the superconductivity gap, the only candidate for the gap.
But in the underdoped
region, it becomes a little complicated. The paired carriers in
the superconductivity state cover both the pairs with pseudogap
and the pairs which are single in the normal state, which coexist
and do not compete with other. Two kinds of quasiparticles participate
coherence together, which manifests the quasiparticles
are identical in the pairing pattern, as a result of which, the two gaps
ought to choose the same wave function to pair and share the same
physical properties,
as suggested by the experiments\cite{Tsuei,STM,Nernst}.
\subsection{Coherence-induced phonon}
Although the superconductivity in the overdoped region originates from
the Fermi liquid, the same background as that in the conventional
metals, it identifies itself with new features, as a result of
fitting itself the special condition in the cuprate superconductors.

The quasiparticles, or the paired electrons,
even in the Fermi liquid, align in the different lattices and
transfer the variation of phase, or the thermal excitation in
a new way. Suppose an excitation off the node arises from some
quasiparticle, it transfers to another quasiparticle by the
identity of boson, and so on, which, sometimes called the
{\it phase fluctuation\normalsize} in the literature\cite{Emery},
gives an interpretation of “collective”.

The phase fluctuation, in nature, is a new kind of quasiparticle in
superconductivity, very similar with the {\it phonon\normalsize}
in BEC, or in superfluidity\cite{Landau,Leggett},
The coherence-induced phonon, responsible
for the phonon mode shown in the ARPRES experiments\cite{Shen},
dominates the thermal
excitation around the node, where the energy of the paired
quasiparticle varnishes,
though there is no explicit electron-phonon interaction
in the cuprate superconductors. The dispersion relation of the
phonon in superconductivity is just that of the paired quasiparticle, for the energy
of the paired quasiparticles in the node
is exactly zero. The anisotropy of the gap implies the anisotropy
of phonon.

Consequently, we have to revise the traditional
BCS theory to apply in the cuprate superconductors, mainly
replacing the fermion excitation of quasiparticles with
the excitation of phonon, a kind of boson.

Numerical result in rough approximation demonstrates the universal
relation between the critical temperature ($T_c$) and the
superconductivity gap ($\Delta _0$),
$ \frac{2\Delta _0 }{ k_{\rm B} T_c } = 4.3$,
does not exist, which is substituted by more complicated relationship.

\subsection{Amplitude of the gap}
The pairing, whether in the normal state or in the superconductivity
state, originates from the resonating between the two adjacent electrons.
The amplitude of paring characterizes the degree of resonating,
or more intuitively, the degree of overlapping.

In the pseudogap state, the less the holes, the more crowded the
electrons, the more possibility to overlap and the larger the pseudogap;
in the superconductivity state, the less the carriers, the more
fragile coherence, the less possibility to overlap and the smaller
superconductivity gap.

The crowdedness in the underdoped region does not change with temperature, therefore, nor
does the amplitude of the pseudogap; but in the overdoped region,
it becomes a little different: the thermal excitation leads to
the excitation of phonon, which does not affect pairing,
therefore, the amplitude of the superconductivity gap, likewise,
does not change with temperature. All in all, the amplitude of
gap, no matter which kind of gap, does not change with temperature,
as suggested by the experiment\cite{STM}.

Compared with the pseudogap in the normal state, the superconductivity
gap, a product of the collective condensation, is more fragile and
therefore, has smaller gap amplitude and lower critical temperature.
\section{The normal state}
\subsection{Normal state in the overdoped region}
In the overdoped region the electrons are in the state of
the antiferromagnetic Fermi liquid(AFL), in which the effect
of the spin density fluctuations dominates the properties
in the thermal equilibrium state and is especially responsible
for the linear resistivity\cite{Millis}.

In transportation, electrons avoid the spin-flip process
to decrease the resistivity by exchanging the momentum only, leaving
the spin unchanged in the scattering, or keeping the original
spin order, which, we name as {\it superexchange transportation}.
\normalsize

\subsection{Normal state in the underdoped region}
Though the spin density fluctuations still take effects in the
underdoped region, the localization of the electrons plays
a decisive role and generates new features, one of which, the
pseudogap, for example, has been discussed above, dividing the
normal state into two parts:
\subsubsection{Normal state without the pseudogap}
The electrons in the thermal equilibrium without external field
can be in spin-disorder, but in transportation
“the hopping of an isolated hole
leaves a line of misaligned spins in its wake”\cite{Orenstein},
which, known as {\it frustration}\normalsize, produces a great
many of spin-flip processes and consumes additional unnecessary
energy.
Frustration, therefore, needs to be avoided as possible, thus
the charge order and spin order is the only alternative.
In some special doping point, for example, $p=\frac{1}{8}$,
frustration varnishes and electrons flow orderly between the
domain walls, which is the so-called {\it stripe}\normalsize,
as discovered in Ref\cite{Tranquada}.
In the very low doping area, holes are so rare that it hard to
form spin order, as a result, frustration dominates transportation.

To obtained the charge and spin order, massive spin-flip processes
are inevitable at the very beginning of transportation,
which leads to that the initial resistivity
is by far larger than the static resistivity.

Had the charge and spin order been determined, the spin density
fluctuations would dominate the properties of the electrons.
This is why the resistivity in the normal state without gap
shares the similar dependence on temperature, whether
in the underdoped region or in the overdoped region.

\subsubsection{Normal state with the pseudogap}
The paired electrons in the normal state, unlike those in
the superconductivity state, do not form a
collective behaviour. The excitation from the paired quasiparticles
melts them into liquid, or depair them. As temperature increases,
the quasiparticles varnish gradually. Though the evolution of the
pseudogap is different
from the superconductivity gap, the critical temperature ($T^\ast$)
can be calculated by similar method, for the melted electrons
are equivalent to the mixture of the quasiparticles in the ground
state and  in the excited state.

In a summary, the pseudogap is like a floating ice on the Fermi
sea in the momentum space and melts gradually till the critical temperature ($T^\ast$).

When the electrons form pseudogap, they are frozen and do not
participate transportation, they also decouple from
other electrons. The spin density fluctuation, therefore,
only emerges from the unpaired electrons.
As temperature increases, the number of unpaired electrons
increases, which makes the resistivity deviate from the linear
behaviour\cite{Timusk}.
\section{Summary}
After above discussion, we summarize our arguments in the following:
\begin{enumerate}
	\item The hole concentration $p =0.19$ is a quantum
		critical point, dividing the whole doping region into
		two parts: the underdoped region ($p < 0.19 $) and
		the overdoped region ($ p> 0.19 $). The electrons
		 in the former are localized and form the localized Fermi
		liquid, a kind of the non-Fermi liquid, where the carriers
		are holes; the electrons in the latter are itinerant
		and form the Fermi liquid, where the carriers are
		the electrons themselves.
	\item Gap is a way to decrease the energy of the system. But
		 different from the pairing in the
		conventional superconductors, the pairing in the
		cuprate superconductors only arises from two adjacent electrons
		and decouple them from the others.

		The normal state gap, or the pseudogap, a gap without
		coherence, only originates from the localized Fermi liquid for
		localization is a prerequisite to keeping no-coherence
		pairing stable. The paired quasiparticles in the normal state,
		instead of varnishing suddenly in the critical point,
		 decrease gradually and varnish finally
		in the critical temperature.
	\item

		Superconductivity is the condensation of the
		adjacently-paired carriers, whether in the underdoped region or
		in the overdoped region. The pairing of the carriers immediately
		implies coherence. If coherence is violated, the pairing of
		carriers varnishes.

		Coherence induces a new quasiparticle {\it phonon\normalsize},
		a kind of boson, which is responsible for the
		excitation of the quasiparticles around the node.
		The boson distribution, instead of the fermion distribution,
		therefore, is applied in the calculation.
	\item The pseudogap coexists with the superconductivity gap in
		the superconductivity state of the underdoped region.
		Once coherence is violated, only the pseudogap is left.
	\item A new kind of spin order,  stripes,
		forms in transportation in the underdoped
		region to avoid frustration.

\end{enumerate}
There are still a lot of issues without definite answers:
\begin{enumerate}
	\item The properties in the normal state need quantitative results
		to fit the experimental results, especially in the
		underdoped region.

	\item We believe the pseudogap in other compound, for example,
		the manganeses\cite{Shen_pg},
		should share the same physical essence as in the
		cuprate superconductors, but details need further examination.
	\item When stripe forms, the $2$-dimension superconductivity
		turns into $1$-dimension superconductivity.
		Its details also need further examination.
\end{enumerate}

We once expect our suggestion can cover all the issues
in the cuprate superconductors and construct
an overwhelming theory. But its complexity is beyond our own ability.
Even so, we believe it will provide a promising understanding on HTSC.
No river, after all, can support a large ship in its origin.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
The author is grateful to Dr. C.-G. Ma and F.-W. Shu for help discussions.
This work was supported in part by Natural Science Foundation of ChongQing
under the Grant 2009JJ1304.

Superconductivity (cond-mat.supr-con); Strongly Correlated Electrons (cond-mat.str-el)


Evidence for r-process delay in very metal-poor stars

Abstract: The abundances of r-process elements of very metal-poor stars capture the history of the r-process enrichment in the early stage of star formation in a galaxy. Currently, various types of astrophysical sites including neutron star mergers, magneto-rotational supernovae, and collapsars, are suggested as the origin of r-process elements. The time delay between the star formation and the production of r-process elements is the key to distinguish these scenarios with the caveat that the diffusion of r-process elements in the interstellar medium may induce the delay in r-process enrichment because r-process events are rare. Here we study the observed Ba abundance data of very metal-poor stars as the tracer of the early enrichment history of r-process elements. We find that the gradual increase of [Ba/Mg] with [Fe/H], which is remarkably similar among the Milky Way and classical dwarfs, requires a significant time delay (100 Myr -- 1 Gyr) of r-process events from star formation rather than the diffusion-induced delay. We stress that this conclusion is robust to the assumption regarding s-process contamination in the Ba abundances because the sources with no delay would overproduce Ba at very low metallicities even without the contribution from the s-process. Therefore we conclude that sources with a delay, possibly neutron star mergers, are the origins of r-process elements.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}

Neutron-capture processes are responsible for the synthesis of the heaviest elements in the Universe \citep{2003Sneden}.
\citet{1957_BBFH} classify them into two, namely the slow-process ({\it s}-process) and the rapid-process ({\it r}-process). The astrophysical sites that predominantly contribute to the production of {\it s}-process elements are the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars \citep{1957_BBFH, 1988Hollowell_TPAGB, 2004Travaglio_sprocess} while the origin of {\it r}-process elements remains one of the biggest  mysteries in nuclear astrophysics.

Recently, the observations of the gravitational wave signal and its electromagnetic counterpart from a neutron star merger (NSM), GW170817, provided us with evidence that NSMs eject copious amounts of $r$-process elements (see, e.g., \citealt{Margutti2020} for a recent review).
The merger rate and the mass of the ejected {\it r}-process elements derived from the observations of GW170817 agree remarkably well with those estimated from the $r$-process elemental abundances of Galactic stars  and  ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (UFDs) \citep{Eichler1989,Ji16_RetII,2016Beniamini_UFD,Cote2018, 2018Hotokezaka_Beniamini_rprocess_abundance,Rosswog2018} as well as geological measurements of radioactive isotopes \citep{hotokezaka2015,Tsujimoto2017,Bartos2019,Cote2020,2020Beniamini_diffusion}.

Even though the NSM scenario for the origin of $r$-process elements successfully explains the total amount of $r$-process elements in the Milky Way, it encounters potential obstacles to the delays between binary formation and merger. For example, a chemical evolution model with a delay time distribution of $\propto \Delta t^{-1}$ has difficulty explaining the distribution of stellar Eu abundances at higher metallicities ${\rm [Fe/H]}\gtrsim -1$ \citep{2018Hotokezaka_Beniamini_rprocess_abundance,2019Cote_onezone_MW}.
To overcome this difficulty, several effects have been considered such as neutron star natal kicks, steep delay time distribution, and turbulent diffusion \citep{Wehmeyer2015MNRAS,Simonetti2019,Tsujimoto2019ApJ,Banerjee2020,Dvorkin2020}. This observation is one of the major arguments in support of $r$-process elements being predominantly produced by astrophysical phenomena other than NSMs, such as magneto-rotational supernovae (MRSNe,  \citealt{Nishimura15_MRSNe, Nishimura17_iprocess}), peculiar magnetar formation \citep{Metzger2008ApJ,Thompson2018}, common envelope jet supernovae \citep{2019NoamSoker}, and collapsars \citep{Siegel19_collapsar}. These latter phenomena are associated with the death of massive stars, and therefore they have no delay times between star formation and {\it r}-process enrichment.

A critical question for the origin of $r$-process elements is: do we have any direct observational evidence supporting the delay between star formation and the production of $r$-process elements, or are $r$-process elements preferentially produced in the early Universe?
We can infer the history of metal enrichment in the Universe through the elemental abundance ratio and the overall metallicity of stars, e.g., the distribution of stellar abundances on a [{\it r}/Mg] - [Fe/H] plot.
This paper aims to infer the time delay of {\it r}-process element production in a largely model-independent fashion and to clarify the origin of {\it r}-process elements. \citet{2004Ishimaru} assert that the origin of the {\it r}-process elements should not be the highest-mass stars using three stars with low Eu abundances at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} \sim -3$. However, such measurements can be reconciled if $r$-process events are sufficiently rare because the  diffusion process delays the  chemical enrichment.
Here we use Ba abundances of very metal-poor stars  ($\mathrm{[Fe/H]} < -2$) as the sample.
With Ba abundances, which are available in a larger number of stars, we can distinguish the intrinsic delay of the $r$-process from the diffusion delay.
In section 2, we briefly describe the scenarios for the astrophysical phenomena suggested as the origin of $r$-process elements.  In section 3, we give the compilation of observed data and discuss the trend in the data. In section 4, we discuss the implication of the delay on the origin of the {\it r}-process in the Universe.

\section{Scenarios for the {\it r}-process and delay times}

    The scenarios for the origin of $r$-process elements are generally classified into three categories according to the relation between the star formation rate (SFR) and the production rate of $r$-process elements: (i) the delay scenario (NSM model), (ii) the no-delay scenario (Rare SN model), and (iii) the ``negative" delay scenario (Collapsar model; the origin of ``negative" delays is explained below). Any astrophysical scenario for the origin of $r$-process elements falls into one of the three categories. For all the scenarios we assume that $\alpha$-elements are predominantly produced by normal core-collapse SNe (ccSNe) and that the $r$-process events are rare, e.g., $\sim 1/1000$ of ccSNe. Here we briefly discuss these scenarios.

    {\it (i) The delay scenario (NSM model)}:
    A prominent feature of NSMs is a significant time delay after the formation of the progenitor stars. In fact, GW170817 occurred in a galaxy with weak star formation activity, suggesting that the time delay between the binary formation and merger is $\sim 1$--$10$ Gyr \citep{Blanchard2017,Levan2017}. The delay times of NSMs are widely distributed from a few tens of Myr to longer than a Hubble time, which is described by the delay-time distribution function, $DTD$:
    \begin{eqnarray}
    \dot{N}_r(t) \propto \int_0^t dt' DTD(\Delta t)SFR(t'),
    \end{eqnarray}
    where $\dot{N}_r$ is the rate of the $r$-process events, $\Delta t=t-t'$ is a time between binary neutron star (BNS) formation and merger, and $SFR$ is the star formation rate.
    The form of $DTD$ is often
    assumed to be $\propto \Delta t^{-1}$ with a minimum delay $\Delta t_{\rm min}$. \cite{2019Beniamini_FastMergingBNS} find a somewhat steeper power law, $DTD\propto  \Delta t^{-1.3}$ with $\Delta t_{\rm min} \sim 35\,{\rm Myr}$, inferred from the orbital separations of the Galactic BNS. In addition, the redshift distribution of short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is consistent with a ${ DTD} \propto \Delta t^{-1}$ with $\Delta t_{\rm min}\approx 20\,{\rm Myr}$ \citep{Wanderman2015}.

   {\it (ii) The no-delay scenario (Rare SN model)}:
   Peculiar ccSNe such as MRSNe and peculiar magnetar formation are proposed to produce heavy $r$-process elements \citep{Nishimura15_MRSNe,Metzger2008ApJ,Thompson2018}.
   Since the evolution of the fraction of these peculiar ccSNe to normal ccSNe evolves is unknown, we assume here that it is constant with time during the Galaxy's evolution. The production rate of $r$-process elements is then proportional to that of $\alpha$-elements, i.e., $\dot{N}_r(t)\propto SFR(t)$.

   {\it (iii)  The ``negative" delay scenario (Collapsar model)}: \cite{Siegel19_collapsar} propose that the massive outflow from the central engine of long GRBs, i.e., collapsars, can be  the site of the $r$-process\footnote{The nucleosynthesis of heavy elements in collapsars is still under debate \citep{Fujibayashi2020}.}. A ``negative" delay is somewhat counter-intuitive, when discussing $r$-process enrichment associated with the death of massive stars (which of course occurs after their birth, not before). It should instead be understood in an averaged sense. ``Negative" delays from star formation to $r$-process enrichment are a result of the fact that long GRBs preferentially occur in environments with large specific SFR and low metallicities \citep{Svensson2010MNRAS,Palmerio2019A&A}. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the redshift distribution of long GRB which peaks at a  higher redshift than the cosmic SFR \citep{Wanderman}.
   Therefore, we assume that the production ratio of $r$-process elements to $\alpha$-elements decreases with time in this scenario:
   \begin{eqnarray}
    \dot{N}_r(t) \propto A(t)SFR(t),
   \end{eqnarray}
   where $A(t)$ is a decreasing function, which takes into account the enhancement of the event rate of collapsars at the earlier times. In what follows, we assume $A(t)\propto t^{-0.5}$ motivated by the relation between the long GRB rate and cosmic SFR at $z\lesssim 3$ \citep{Wanderman}. We caveat that the rate of long GRB in the very early Universe is not well constrained. We note, however, that the ``negative" delay scenario is not necessarily limited to collapsars and would apply to other sources which peak at greater $z$ than the Cosmic star formation.

\section{{\it r}-process delay inferred from very metal-poor stars}

    \begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{EuBa_FeH2.pdf}
    \caption{[Eu/Ba] evolution at the lowest metallicity (upper limits in orange triangles, measurements in blue points). The dotted line shows the {\it r}-process value ([Eu/Ba] = 0.7; \citealt{2008Sneden_review}). Stars with $[\mathrm{C}/\mathrm{Fe}] < 0.5$ are plotted. For $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] < -2$ stars, the evolution of [Eu/Ba] is only $\sim 0.2$ dex, meaning that the contribution of the {\it s}-process to the Ba production is not dominant.}
    \label{fig:EuBa_FeH}
    \end{figure}

    We now turn to constrain the early enrichment history of $r$-process elements by using the {\it r}-process abundances of very metal-poor stars.
    Europium (Eu) is the most commonly used as the {\it r}-process tracer element. However, since the absorption lines of Eu are not so strong, the Eu measurements are often unavailable for very metal-poor stars. In such cases, barium (Ba) abundances are used as the tracer of $r$-process elements instead of Eu \citep{fran2007A&A,Duggan2018ApJ}. Here we study Ba abundance evolution at the low metallicity range of $-4\lesssim {\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -2$. Although Ba is also produced by the {\it s}-process, the production is dominated by the {\it r}-process at this metallicity range. Figure~\ref{fig:EuBa_FeH} shows the [Eu/Ba] of metal-poor stars in the Milky Way. The value of [Eu/Ba] gradually decreases as the contribution of {\it s}-process sets in at $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \gtrsim -2.0$. Stars with metallicity lower than that have values of [Eu/Ba] consistent with the {\it r}-process.
    \footnote{The exception is the {\it s}-enhanced carbon-enhanced metal-poor (CEMP-{\it s}) stars. These stars are part of binaries, and the compositions of the stars are dominated by mass-transfer from the companions. Such stars are not included in this work.}.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Schematic4.pdf}
    \caption{
    A schematic figure showing the evolution of [Ba/Mg] against [Fe/H]. A sharp increase of the median [Ba/Mg] is expected at very low [Fe/H]. This is as a result of the inhomogeneity effect described in the text, which holds for times short relative to the mixing time, where the Ba enrichment at a given location is largely dominated by one event. At $-3.5 \lesssim \mathrm{[Fe/H]} \lesssim -2.0$ the inhomogeneity effect is weak and the [Ba/Mg] trend is determined by the delay of {\it r}-process enrichment. At $-2.0 \lesssim \mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ contributions from {\it s}-process becomes important and we see the increase in [Ba/Mg] with increasing [Fe/H].}
    \label{fig:Ba evolution}
\end{figure}

    Figure~\ref{fig:Ba evolution} shows a schematic figure of the [Ba/Mg] evolution against [Fe/H]. The Galaxy was metal-poor at early times, and as a result, stars formed very early shape the curve on the left. At such extremely low metallicities, the chemical inhomogeneity of the interstellar medium (ISM) plays an important role because the event rate of the $r$-process is much lower than normal SNe. The {\it r}-process elements in the ISM at a given location originate from a single enrichment event \citep{2020Beniamini_diffusion}. The volume fraction of the highly enriched ISM is very small and therefore typical stars (outside of the enriched areas) have very low [Ba/Mg]. This inhomogeneity effect quickly disappears  as more events start to contribute to the enrichment at each location, and the [Ba/Mg] track now represents the intrinsic delay of {\it r}-process element production. At $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} \gtrsim -2$, the {\it s}-process starts to contribute significantly to the Ba abundances. As we are interested in constraining the $r$-process enrichment, in what follows, we will focus on very metal poor stars with $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} \lesssim -2$.

    The top-left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:Model comparison} plots the abundances of the observed metal poor stars.
    To quantitatively discuss the implications, we over-plot two curves, ``linear mean'' and median. The linear mean $\mu(\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg})$ is defined as:
    \begin{equation}
        \mu(\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}) =\frac{1}{N_\mathrm{star}} \sum_{i}^{N_\mathrm{star}} 10^{[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}]_{i}},\label{eq:mean}
    \end{equation}
    where the index $i$ runs from 1 to the number of stars in each [Fe/H] bin.
    We ignore stars with upper limits. The curves were mostly unchanged even if we assume all upper limit stars to have $\mathrm{[Ba/Mg]} = -10$.

    \begin{figure*}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=2\columnwidth]{all_alpha1_woJINA_D02_v4.pdf}
    \caption{
    Evolution of [Ba/Mg] against [Fe/H] in observed stars and in our diffusion model. Top-left panel: observed distribution. The data is obtained in JINAbase \citep{2018JINA}. Stars with high carbon abundance ($\mathrm{[C/Fe]} > 0.5$) are excluded.
    The three other panels are the synthetic observations of our model. Top-right panel: results of the NSM model. Bottom-left panel: results of SNe model. Bottom-right panel: results of the collapsar model. The SFR is $\propto t^{\alpha}$ and here we choose $\alpha=1$ in all the cases. For the NSM model, we use a power-law DTD $\propto t^{-1}$ with a minimum delay time of $20 \mathrm{Myr}$. For the SNe model {\it r}-process enrichment occurs concurrently with star formation. For the collapsar model we assume the rate to be proportional to $SFR(t)\times t^{-0.5}$, so that the {\it r}-process enrichment preferentially occur before the Fe and Mg enrichment. The diffusion coefficient $D$ is set to $D = 0.2\ \mathrm{kpc^{2}/Gyr}$ for all the models. The curves labeled by $1$-zone are the result of the one-zone modeling, in which the instantaneous mixing is assumed, i.e., $D\rightarrow \infty$.}
    \label{fig:Model comparison}
    \end{figure*}

    The interpretation of the increasing trend of [Ba/Mg] with [Fe/H] has to be treated with caution. Although the time delay would certainly be the reason for the increase, the inhomogeneity effect could also make a pseudo-increasing trend on the median even without time delay, as we have shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Ba evolution}. This is because the abundance distribution has a long tail on the high-abundance end. The skewed abundance distribution naturally arises in the elemental abundance distribution of the ISM in a galaxy. Initially, one {\it r}-process event enriches a small portion of the ISM to a very high degree, and it dilutes to the whole galaxy as time passes. If we measure the distribution of the {\it r}-process element abundances of the ISM before complete mixing, the median would always be less than the ``one-zone'' prediction, for which instantaneous mixing is assumed.

    In contrast, the linear mean, $\mu([\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}])$, is robust to the inhomogeneity of the distribution of {\it r}-process elements.
    It gives appropriate weights to both {\it r}-rich and {\it r}-poor gas. The deviation from a one-zone model arises because we are comparing the medians, which overestimate the importance of volumetrically dominant {\it r}-poor gas.
    If we assume that Mg and Fe distributions are homogeneous, and we sample the whole system with a sufficient resolution, the linear mean exactly matches the one-zone model with the instant mixing approximation. Therefore we conclude that the increase in the linear mean $\mu([\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}])$ is a result of the time delay between the production of Mg and $r$-process elements. The remaining problems are the validity of the assumptions. Namely, (i) the homogeneity of the denominator (Mg) and the x-axis (Fe), and (ii) a sufficient sampling of the volume. Although validating these conditions is difficult, we expect that such effects would deviate the linear mean symmetrically from the one-zone calculation. Therefore it is unlikely that the inhomogeneity effect alone gives the clear increasing trend suggested by the observations.

    An independent argument is the gradual increase of the median [Ba/Mg]. As we explained above, the inhomogeneity effect can make an increasing trend in the median. However, the increase occurs exponentially, and therefore it would be very abrupt in this case.
    We can estimate the typical [Fe/H] range of the increase by the total volume fraction of {\it r}-rich bubbles. Here we estimate the range ($\Delta[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]$) from $[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}] \sim -2.0$ to $[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}] \sim -0.5$ assuming that the one-zone value [Ba/Mg]$_\mathrm{1zone}$ is $\sim -0.5$. The volume of each {\it r}-rich bubble ($1 \sigma$ region) is $\sim \sigma^{3}$. The median of [Ba/Mg] roughly converges to [Ba/Mg]$_\mathrm{1zone}$ when the total volume fraction of {\it r}-rich bubbles becomes $\sim 1$.
    The typical volume of each bubble and the number of bubbles grow as $\propto t^{3/2}$ and $t^{\alpha+1}$, respectively. Here we have assumed $(SFR\ density) \propto t^{\alpha}$. Thus the total volume fraction $V_\mathrm{tot, 1 \sigma}$ grows as $\propto t^{\alpha+5/2}$. Since [Fe/H] increases logarithmically with the number density of stars formed, we have $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \sim (1+\alpha)\log_{10}(t)+const.$ Therefore, the value of [Fe/H] when the [Ba/Mg] converges to [Ba/Mg]$_\mathrm{1zone}$ is
    \begin{equation}
        [\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \approx \log_{10}(V_\mathrm{tot, 1 \sigma})\cdot \frac{(\alpha+1)}{(\alpha+5/2)}+const.
    \end{equation}
    We can follow the same procedure to derive the [Fe/H] when the median of [Ba/Mg] surpasses [Ba/Mg]$_\mathrm{1zone} - 1.5$ by substituting $V_\mathrm{tot, 3 \sigma} = 3^{3} \cdot V_\mathrm{tot, 1 \sigma}$ for $V_\mathrm{tot, 1 \sigma}$\footnote{Assuming a Gaussian distribution, $10^{-1.5}\times e^{-0.5} \simeq e^{-3.95} = e^{-7.9/2}$, therefore a region of size $\sqrt{7.9} \sigma \simeq 3 \sigma$ has [Ba/Mg] value higher than [Ba/Mg]$_\mathrm{1zone} - 1.5$. The volume of a $3 \sigma$ region is $3^3$ times that of the $1 \sigma$ region. Therefore the total volume fraction of the $3 \sigma$ regions becomes 1 when that of $1 \sigma$ regions is $1/3^{3}$.}. Finally, $\Delta \mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ can be derived as
    $\Delta[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \approx \log_{10}(3^{3})\cdot (\alpha+1)/(\alpha+5/2)$, and thus, we obtain the range that the diffusion increase occurs as $0.56\lesssim \Delta[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] < 1.4$ for  $\alpha>0$.
    However, the observational data show a slower increase,
    $\Delta [\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \sim 2.0$,
    which a diffusion-induced increase cannot reproduce.

    To demonstrate the effects we have discussed, we run a Monte Carlo simulation of the chemical enrichment of the early phase of the Milky Way evolution, $<0.5\,{\rm Gyr}$. Note that our model is also applicable to the chemical evolution of other galaxies simply by adopting another SFR evolution. Although our model does not capture outflow from galaxies \citep{2018Emerick}, we expect this not to be problematic as we are discussing short timescales. Figure~\ref{fig:Model comparison} contains three panels from our model calculations. Here we briefly summarize our synthetic models. We prepare a ${\rm kpc^3}$ box filled with hydrogen with a constant density, $\approx 20\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$. The SFR is taken as $SFR \propto t^{\alpha}$, and is normalized such that the mean ccSN rate is $10^{3}\,{\rm Myr^{-1}kpc^{-3}}$.  Fe and Mg are injected randomly in space with a rate proportional to the SFR.
    We assume that each ccSN produces $m_{\rm Fe}=0.04M_{\odot}$ (e.g. \citealt{Nakar2016ApJ}) and $m_{\rm Mg}=0.05M_{\odot}$ and each r-process event produces $m_{\rm Ba}=3\cdot 10^{-4}M_{\odot}$.
    We fix the overall rate of the {\it r}-process events at $\sim 1/1000$ of ccSNe \citep{2016Beniamini_UFD,2018Hotokezaka_Beniamini_rprocess_abundance}.

    We follow the dilution of the produced Fe, Mg, and {\it r}-process elements in the ISM via turbulent mixing with the method used in \citet{hotokezaka2015,2020Beniamini_diffusion}. The number density of an element $X$ at position $\vec{r}$ at time $t$ is:
    \begin{equation}
        n_X(\vec{r}, t) = \sum_{t_{j}<t-t_{*}} \frac{N_{X}}{K_{j}(\Delta t_{j})}\exp\biggl[-\frac{|\vec{r}-\vec{r}_{j}|^{2}}{4D\Delta t_{j}} \biggr]
    \end{equation}
    where $N_X$ is the total number of the element $X$ produced by each event,
    $t_{j}, \vec{r}_{j}$ are time and spatial position of the $j$-th event, $\Delta t_{j} = t - t_{j}$, $K_{j}(\Delta t_{j}) = (4\pi D\Delta t_{j})^{3/2}$ and $D$ is the diffusion coefficient\footnote{Once $K_j$ reaches the volume of the box, we fix $K_j$ in order to avoid an artificial leakage of the elements \citep{2020Beniamini_diffusion}. }.
    Following the results of \cite{2020Beniamini_diffusion} we set the $D$ to $0.2\ \mathrm{kpc^{2}/Gyr}$ for the simulation. We track stars formed at random positions in the box. Their abundances are given by the ISM abundances at their birthplaces and times of birth.

    Figure~\ref{fig:Model comparison} shows the results of synthetic data obtained with our models. Also shown is the abundance evolution obtained by using the one-zone models and the linear mean  calculated with the same procedures as the real data (equation \ref{eq:mean}).
    As we stated above, the mean traces the one-zone prediction in all the models.  The SN and Collapsar models overproduce stars with ${\rm [Ba/Mg]>0}$ compared with the observed distribution.
    It is clear that this overproduction of Ba cannot be solved by adding the $s$-process contribution.
    Furthermore, it is also clear from the figure that
    the [Ba/Mg] very quickly converges to the one-zone lines within $\sim 0.5\,{\rm dex}$ in [Fe/H]. Therefore
    the observed gradual rise in [Ba/Mg] results from the intrinsic time delay in the production of $r$-process elements relative to the production of Mg, i.e., $r$-process events' delay from ccSNe.
    This result supports the idea that NSMs are the source of
    $r$-process elements in the low metallicity region ${\rm [Fe/H]}\lesssim -2$. We also performed a simulation with $DTD\propto \Delta t^{-1.3}$ motivated by \cite{2019Beniamini_FastMergingBNS} and obtain a result similar to that with $DTD\propto \Delta t^{-1}$.
    Finally, we also examine [Eu/Mg] in figure \ref{fig:EuMg}. While the stars with Eu detection do not show a clear increasing trend in [Eu/Mg] compared to [Ba/Mg]. However, this is consistent with the rise in [Ba/Mg] if the stars with upper limits on Eu are accounted for.

    Figure~\ref{fig:dwarf} shows the [Ba/Mg] distribution for stars in classical dwarf galaxies.  Remarkably, the same increasing [Ba/Mg] - [Fe/H] relation holds also for dwarf galaxies despite the fact that the time scale of chemical enrichment of the dwarf galaxies is longer than that of the MW, although the number of data points may not be very compelling. One can expect that such a similarity arises if (i) the time dependence of their SFHs, i.e. the values of $\alpha$, are similar, (ii)  the DTD is very approximately $\propto \Delta t^{-1}$,  (iii) $t_{\rm min}$ is shorter than the time scale of chemical enrichment  of the galaxies, e.g., the time scale on which a galaxy evolves to ${\rm [Fe/H]}\sim -3$, (iv) the $s$-process and SNe Ia have not contributed significantly to the Ba and Fe abundances, respectively. Therefore the similarity seen in Fig. \ref{fig:dwarf} supports our conclusion of  $r$-process delay and suggests that the scenarios with a constant delay time such as $\Delta t = 100\,{\rm Myr}$ are less likely. We have ignored here the outflow efficiency that may be different between galaxies and have a significant impact on the stellar abundances of a galaxy \citet{2018Emerick}. Even without considering this effect, the similarity persists robustly.
    Note that here we omit UFDs because they are so small that  they likely have experienced none or only one $r$-process event in the past \citep{2016Beniamini_UFD}. In this case, the distribution of the stellar $r$-process abundances is significantly different from that of galaxies that experienced multiple events and does not reflect the delay
    \citep{Safarzadeh2017MNRAS,Beniamini_retain_2018,Tarumi2020MNRAS}.

    \begin{figure}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{dwarf_BaMg_FeH3.pdf}
        \caption{[Ba/Mg] - [Fe/H] plot for classical dwarf galaxies. Circles are detections and downward triangles are upper limits. The data for these galaxies are obtained from the SAGA database \citep{SAGA_dwarf}.
        The gray dots are stars in the MW, and the black dots are mean abundances of globular clusters in MW halo \citep{2005Pritzl_MWandSgr_GC}.
        The dwarf galaxies are on the same track of the Milky Way stars, supporting the interpretation that the gradual rise of [Ba/Mg] is caused by the intrinsic delay of $r$-process events.
        }
        \label{fig:dwarf}
    \end{figure}

\section{Conclusions and discussions}

    The observed abundance distribution of [Ba/Mg] of the Galactic very metal poor stars clearly shows that [Ba/Mg] significantly increases as [Fe/H] increases at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} < -2.0$.
    Such an increase is attributed to the intrinsic time delay of the $r$-process events and/or the delay induced by chemical diffusion in the ISM.
    We showed that the increase of the linear mean and the gradual increase of the median  require an intrinsic time delay of the production of $r$-process elements and cannot be explained solely by the diffusion-induced delay. Therefore we conclude that {\it r}-process element production occurs with significant delays at this metallicity range, which is naturally expected in the NSM scenario (Figure \ref{fig:Model comparison} and  see also \citealt{Matteucci2014MNRAS,Hirai2015ApJ,Wehmeyer2015MNRAS,2019Cote_onezone_MW,Simonetti2019,Voort2020MNRAS}).
    Any rare SN such as MRSNe and collapsars are not expected to have a significant time delay between the {\it r}-process production and Mg production.
    Consequently, SN models overproduce Ba at very low metallicities even if the contribution of the $s$-process to the Ba abundances is completely ignored.
    Therefore such sources are incompatible with the observed trend.
    We conclude that this is a new line of evidence supporting  NSMs as the origin of {\it r}-process elements at least in low metallicity environments [Fe/H] $\lesssim -2$. Note that it is important to use Ba as the tracer. If we do the same analysis for Eu only with the detected samples, the increasing trend we have discussed is buried under noisy behavior (see \S  \ref{sec:EuMg}). By including upper limits as zero abundance, we see a trace of the increasing trend as in Ba.

    The [Ba/Mg] abundances of very metal poor stars in some dwarf galaxies also support the existence of significant time delays. Although the sample is small and dwarf galaxies have a different star formation history, most stars are on the same track as the Milky Way stars  (Figure \ref{fig:dwarf} and see also \citealt{Reichert2020A&A}). Therefore the ``delay'' is likely a common feature, which can be tested with  larger samples of the Ba abundances of dwarf galaxies.

    Note that Ba is detected in most metal-poor stars as pointed out by \citet{2013Roederer_BaSrFloor}. The apparent ``floor'' of Ba abundance might indicate that some unknown neutron-capture processes are working in addition to the {\it r}-process source. The existence of such an event is also supported from Ba abundances of UFDs \citep{2020Tarumi_sprocess}.
    In this case, the intrinsic increase of [{\it r}/Mg] may be steeper than suggested by the Ba observations. However, our argument regarding the increasing mean still holds: stars with such low Ba abundances do not affect the linear mean [Ba/Mg] anyway.

    It is possible that a significant fraction of the very metal-poor stars originally formed in dwarf galaxies that are now disrupted. Even in this case our argument remains the same. As Figure~\ref{fig:dwarf} shows, the secular evolution is present in each dwarf galaxy. To explain the ubiquitous increasing trend among dwarf galaxies, a delay in {\it r}-process enrichment is necessary.

    Some globular clusters (GCs) show internal spread of {\it r}-process element abundances. The short duration of the star formation makes it difficult for delayed sources to occur within active star formation. However, considering the small internal spread of metallicity within each GC, the difficulty is common also to other origins. It is natural to expect that the star formation in a GC quenches before massive stars contribute to its chemical enrichment. Therefore no {\it r}-process events can contribute to the enrichment of this system. One possible solution, is the Eu spread in ISM. The formation process of GCs is poorly understood, and an investigation of the origin of such {\it r}-process spread would be interesting.

    Further investigation would be needed to explain the $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}] \sim 0$ trends seen at the higher metallicities (e.g. \citealt{2020_GALAH_DR3} for stars in the Milky Way), which supports shorter or no time delay of the {\it r}-process events. One difference from the lower [Fe/H] regime is the timescale. At the relatively higher metallicities, [$\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}$] $\gtrsim -1$, where $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}] \sim 0$ is seen, it reflects delays of $1$--$10\,\mathrm{Gyr}$. A similar feature is also found for the Sculptor dwarf galaxy.
    At $-2 < [\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] < -1$ where  \cite{2019Skuladottir_Sculptor} report $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}] \sim 0$, they also found increasing $[\mathrm{Ba}/\mathrm{Mg}]$, which is clear evidence of the delayed contribution from AGB stars.
    Recently,  \cite{Matsuno2021} studied the $r$-process enrichment of Gaia-Enceladus stars. While they found a significant excess in the $r$-process abundance normalized by an $\alpha$-element, i.e., $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}] \sim 0.3$, $[\mathrm{Eu}/\mathrm{Mg}]$ does not evolve with [Fe/H].
    The fact that {\it r}-process delays are seen at $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \lesssim -2$ and not at $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \gtrsim -1$ may indicate that the typical time delay of NSM is the order of a few $ 100\ \mathrm{Myr}$, consistent with constraints from the Galactic BNS population \citep{2019Beniamini_FastMergingBNS}.

    The typical delay time of NSM is comparable to or longer than the one of AGB stars. The reason that significant contributions of AGB stars come in only at higher metallicity is likely the metallicity dependence of the {\it s}-process. At the lowest metallicity of $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] \lesssim -2$, the amount of seed nuclei for the {\it s}-process nucleosynthesis is small (see, e.g. \citealt{2011Kappeler_sprocess_review}). Therefore, it is naturally expected and consistent with observation that the contribution of AGB stars comes in later than the {\it r}-process in NSM.

    As mentioned in \S \ref{sec:Intro}, it was recently suggested that the natal kicks of BNS can play an important role in shaping the $r$-process abundance distribution \citep{Banerjee2020}. This requires the typical center of mass kicks to be $\Delta v_{\rm cm}\gtrsim 100\ \mbox{km s}^{-1}$. This, however, is in contrast with an analysis of the kinematics of Galactic BNS which suggests that most systems were born with $\Delta v_{\rm cm}<10\ \mbox{km s}^{-1}$ and finding the inferred kicks to be uncorrelated with the observed GW merger times \citep{BP2016}. Indeed if kicks had played an important role in the MW chemical evolution, it would have been more difficult to explain the observed $r$-process abundance in Reticulum II (see \citealt{2016Beniamini_natalkicks}), whereas the measured abundances in Reticulum II and in classical dwarfs are fully in agreement with estimates from BNS \citep{2016Beniamini_UFD}. An independent constraint comes from short GRBs. The offset distribution of those GRBs relative to the centers of their host galaxies is found to be fully consistent with the underlying distribution of stellar material in the host galaxies \citep{PB2021}. This strongly suggests that the effects of kicks are subdominant in determining the merger locations of BNS.

    In summary, we found that a significant increase of [{\it r}/Mg] at the lowest metallicity stars requires a delay of $100\ \mathrm{Myr} \sim 1\ \mathrm{Gyr}$  between star formation and the production of $r$-process elements. No-delay and negative delay sources are incompatible with the observed data, even if we consider the inhomogeneity effect. Since NSMs naturally introduce a comparable delay, it is promising as the origin of {\it r}-process in the Universe.

\acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments.
We also thank Yutaka Hirai, Tadafumi Matsuno, Naoki Yoshida, Brian Metzger, and Daniel Siegel for insightful comments.
Y. T. is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20J21795. K. H. is supported by JSPS Early-Career Scientists Grant Number 20K14513. The research of P. B. was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF5076.

\vspace{5mm}

Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA); High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena (astro-ph.HE)


Neutron-Capture Element Abundances in Magellanic Cloud Planetary Nebulae

Abstract: We present near-infrared spectra of ten planetary nebulae (PNe) in the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (LMC and SMC), acquired with the FIRE and GNIRS spectrometers on the 6.5-m Baade and 8.1-m Gemini South Telescopes, respectively. We detect Se and/or Kr emission lines in eight of these objects, the first detections of n-capture elements in Magellanic Cloud PNe. Our abundance analysis shows large s-process enrichments of Kr (0.6-1.3 dex) in the six PNe in which it was detected, and Se is enriched by 0.5-0.9 dex in five objects. We also estimate upper limits to Rb and Cd abundances in these objects. Our abundance results for the LMC are consistent with the hypothesis that PNe with 2--3 M$_{\odot}$ progenitors dominate the bright end of the PN luminosity function in young gas-rich galaxies. We find no significant correlations between s-process enrichments and other elemental abundances, central star temperature, or progenitor mass, though this is likely due to our small sample size. We determine S abundances from our spectra and find that [S/H] agrees with [Ar/H] to within 0.2 dex for most objects, but is lower than [O/H] by 0.2-0.4 dex in some PNe, possibly due to O enrichment via third dredge-up. Our results demonstrate that n-capture elements can be detected in PNe belonging to nearby galaxies with ground-based telescopes, allowing s-process enrichments to be studied in PN populations with well-determined distances.

\section{INTRODUCTION} \label{intro}

Emission lines of neutron(\emph{n})-capture elements (atomic number $Z>30$) were first identified in a planetary nebula (PN) in 1994 \citep{pb94}, and since have been detected in more than 100 Galactic PNe \citep[e.g.,][]{sharpee07, sterling08, garcia-rojas15}.  Trans-iron elements can be produced by slow \emph{n}-capture nucleosynthesis (the ``\emph{s}-process'') in asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, and transported to the stellar envelope by third dredge-up (TDU) before being expelled via stellar winds and PN ejection \citep{karakas14}.  Comparisons of empirically-determined \emph{s}-process enrichments in PNe to theoretical predictions provide valuable constraints to models of AGB nucleosynthesis \citep{karakas09, sterling16}.

To date, nebular \emph{n}-capture element abundance determinations have almost exclusively been limited to Galactic PNe, whose primarily statistical distances can have substantial uncertainties \citep[though improved calibrations to statistical distance scales show promise for better accuracies;][and references therein]{frew16}.  Because of the uncertain distances, it has not been possible to study \emph{s}-process enrichments along the PN luminosity function \citep[PNLF,][]{jacoby89} -- which prevents robust estimates of the fraction of PNe that are \emph{s}-process enriched \citep{sterling08} -- or as a function of initial stellar mass.

Extragalactic PNe do not suffer from the distance uncertainties that plague Galactic objects.  However this advantage comes at a cost, as the large distances of these PNe render the detection of faint emission lines difficult.  Nevertheless, it is possible to detect \emph{n}-capture elements in Local Group PNe with sufficiently large-aperture telescopes.

The Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (LMC and SMC) are optimal targets for such a study, given their relative proximity \citep[50 and 60~kpc, respectively;][]{keller06}, minimal foreground extinction, and relatively well-studied PN populations.  A significant fraction of LMC and SMC PNe have been identified \citep{reid14, dravskovic15}, and elemental abundances have been determined in a large number of these objects \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{ld06}.  In addition, progenitor star masses have been estimated for some PNe in these galaxies \citep{villaver03, villaver04, villaver07}.

In this letter we present the detection of near-infrared $[$\ion{Kr}{3}$]$ and $[$\ion{Se}{4}$]$ emission lines in ten bright LMC and SMC PNe.  To our knowledge these are the first detections of \emph{n}-capture elements in extragalactic PNe other than the Sagittarius Dwarf \citep{wood06, otsuka11}.

\section{OBSERVATIONS AND REDUCTIONS}

\defcitealias{shaw10}{S10}
\defcitealias{tsamis03}{T03}
\defcitealias{ld06}{LD06}
\defcitealias{meatheringham91b}{MD91}

In Table~\ref{objects} we provide an observing log and nebular and stellar parameters for our sample.  Nine of the ten PNe were observed with the Folded-Port InfraRed Echellette (FIRE) spectrograph \citep{simcoe13} on the 6.5-m Baade Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory.  We used a 0\farcs75 slit width to provide a resolution $R=4800$ in echelle mode, covering the spectral range 0.83--2.45~$\mu$m.  Because the targets have diameters comparable to or smaller than the slit width, light loss primarily occurred due to seeing conditions, which were typically less than 1\arcsec\ but ranged from 2\arcsec --4\arcsec\ for LMC~SMP~73 and SMC~SMP~15.  We nodded along the slit in ABBA sequences for maximum observing efficiency.  The data were reduced using the FIREHOSE IDL reduction pipeline\footnote{Available at http://web.mit.edu/\~{}rsimcoe/www/FIRE/}.  Th-Ar lamps were used to wavelength calibrate the spectra, and A0V standard stars were observed for each object to perform relative flux calibrations and telluric corrections.

\begin{deluxetable}{llccccccccrcc}
\tablecolumns{13}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Observing Log and Nebular Properties}
\tablehead{
\colhead{} & \colhead{PN} & \colhead{Date} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Int.} & \colhead{$T_{\mathrm{e}}[$\ion{O}{3}$]$} & \colhead{$n_e$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Log} & \colhead{Log} & \colhead{$T_{\rm eff}$\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$M_{\rm init}$\tablenotemark{c}} \\
\colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Observed} & \colhead{Inst.} & \colhead{Time (s)} & \colhead{(10$^3$ K)} & \colhead{(10$^3$ cm$^{-3}$)} & \colhead{$c_{\rm H\beta }$} & \colhead{$m_{5007}$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{C/O\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{N/O} & \colhead{(10$^3$ K)} & \colhead{(M$_{\odot}$)}}
\startdata
LMC & SMP 6  & 2013-01-22 & FIRE  & 4600 & 13.3 & 11.8 & 0.04 & 15.53  & \nodata & --0.99 & 140.0 & \nodata \\
    & SMP 47 & 2013-01-22 & FIRE  & 2100 & 14.7 & 4.8  & 0.42 & 15.28  & 0.37    & 0.45   & 150.0 & \nodata \\
    & SMP 62 & 2006-08-16 & GNIRS & 1120 & 15.9 & 3.4  & 0.06 & 14.67  & --0.85  & --0.26 & 100.0 & \nodata \\
    & SMP 63 & 2013-01-21 & FIRE  & 3840 & 11.9 & 7.4  & 0.11 & 15.17  & 0.01    & --0.34 & 38.8  & 1.5--2.0 \\
    & SMP 73 & 2013-08-12 & FIRE  & 5600 & 11.7 & 4.5  & 0.34 & 14.93  & 0.18    & --0.63 & 135.0 & \nodata \\
    & SMP 85 & 2013-01-21 & FIRE  & 2400 & 11.7 & 31.4 & 0.42 & 16.15  & 0.64    & --0.74 & 46.0  & \nodata  \\
    & SMP 99 & 2013-01-21 & FIRE  & 4320 & 12.7 & 2.29 & 0.35 & 14.98  & 0.28    & --0.60\tablenotemark{d} & 124.0 & \nodata \\
SMC & SMP 15 & 2013-08-11 & FIRE  & 5400 & 12.0 & 5.0  & 0.04 & 15.67  & 0.12    & --0.37 & 58.0  & \nodata  \\
    & SMP 17 & 2013-08-12 & FIRE  & 8000 & 12.2 & 2.9  & 0.06 & 15.52  & 0.19    & --0.83 & 58.4  & 1.0      \\
    & SMP 20 & 2013-08-11 & FIRE  & 7200 & 13.8 & 3.9  & 0.0  & 16.12  & 0.51    & --0.79 & 86.5  & 1.0--1.5 \\
    & SMP 20 & 2006-08-16 & GNIRS & 1120 &      &      &      &        &         &        &       &          \\
\tableline
\enddata
\label{objects}
\tablecomments{Nebular temperatures, densities, extinction coefficients, N/O, and (unless specified) C/O abundances are from \citet[][hereafter S10]{shaw10} for SMP~17 and 20, \citet[][T03]{tsamis03} for SMP~63, \citet[][MD91]{meatheringham91b} for SMP~99, and \citet[][LD06]{ld06} for the remaining PNe.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Apparent $[$\ion{O}{3}$]$~5007 magnitudes computed from absolute fluxes (corrected for foreground extinction) measured with the \emph{Hubble Space Telescope} \citep{stanghellini03, shaw06}, with the exceptions of SMP~85 and SMP~99 \citepalias{ld06}, using the relation $m_{5007} = -2.5\mathrm{log}F_{5007} - 13.74$ \citep{jacoby89}.}
\tablenotetext{b}{C/O abundances are from the references above, with the exceptions of SMP~62 and SMP~17 \citep{aller87}, SMP~85 \citep{dopita94}, and SMP~15 and SMP~20 \citep{stanghellini09}.}
\tablenotetext{c}{References for central star temperatures: SMP~62 \citep{aller87}, SMP~85 \citep{dopita94}, SMP~63 \citep{villaver03}, SMP~17 and 20 \citep{villaver04}, and \citet{dopita91b} for all other PNe.  Estimated progenitor masses $M_{\rm init}$ are from \citet{villaver03, villaver04}.}
\tablenotetext{d}{N/O ratio from \citet{dopita91b}}
\end{deluxetable}

LMC~SMP~62 and SMC~SMP~20 were observed in the $K$~band with the Gemini Near-InfraRed Spectrograph (GNIRS) on the 8.1-m Gemini South telescope.  We used the 111~l/mm grating in third order with a 0\farcs45$\times$99\arcsec\ slit, for an effective resolving power of $R=4000$ in the wavelength range 2.1--2.3~$\mu$m.  The data were taken in queue mode under observing program GS-2006B-Q-51.  We beam-switched by nodding the target along the slit.  The wavelength scale was established with an Ar arc lamp, and A0V standard stars were observed for flux calibration and telluric absorption corrections.  The data were reduced using the FIGARO software package \citep{shortridge93}.  Fluxes and upper limits in the Gemini $K$~band spectrum of SMP~20 agree well with our FIRE data, and we restrict our analysis to the FIRE data for this PN.

\section{LINE MEASUREMENTS AND ABUNDANCE ANALYSIS} \label{abundances}

The FIRE spectra are very rich, with 80--110 emission lines detected in LMC objects and 60--85 in SMC PNe.  We detect metal lines including $[$\ion{C}{1}$]$, $[$\ion{P}{2}$]$, $[$\ion{S}{2}$]$, $[$\ion{S}{3}$]$, $[$\ion{Fe}{3}$]$, $[$\ion{Kr}{3}$]$, and $[$\ion{Se}{4}$]$, and several LMC PNe exhibit H$_2$ lines.  We have also detected $[$\ion{Kr}{6}$]$~1.2333~$\mu$m\footnote{All wavelengths reported in this paper are vacuum wavelengths.} in LMC~SMP~47 and SMP~99, and will discuss this identification in a forthcoming paper.  Notably, Kr and/or Se were detected in all seven of the observed LMC PNe, and in one of the three SMC objects (Figure~\ref{profiles}).

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\epsscale{0.8}
\plotone{f1.eps}
\caption{$[$\ion{Kr}{3}$]$~2.1986 (left panels) and $[$\ion{Se}{4}$]$~2.2864~$\mu$m (right panels) detections in selected LMC PNe and SMC~SMP~17.  Vertical dashed lines correspond to the typical observed wavelength of each feature in LMC/SMC PNe.}
\label{profiles}
\end{figure}

We measured line fluxes by integrating under the profile of each line above a local continuum using IDL routines, varying the continuum placement to estimate flux uncertainties.  Gaussian fits were performed for blended features.  We also measured 3-$\sigma$ upper limits to the $[$\ion{Rb}{4}$]$~1.5973, $[$\ion{Cd}{4}$]$~1.7203, and $[$\ion{Ge}{6}$]$~2.1930~$\mu$m lines identified by \citet{sterling16} and to $[$\ion{Se}{3}$]$ features.  Line fluxes and intensities relative to \ion{H}{1}~Br$\gamma$ are reported in Table~\ref{linelist}.

\begin{deluxetable}{lccccl}
\tablecolumns{6}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Line Identifications and Intensities}
\tablehead{
\colhead{} & \colhead{Observed} & \colhead{Lab.} & \colhead{$F$/$F$(Br$\gamma$)} & \colhead{$I$/$I$(Br$\gamma$)} & \colhead{}\\
\colhead{Line ID} & \colhead{$\lambda$ ($\mu$m)} & \colhead{$\lambda$ ($\mu$m)} & \colhead{($\times 100$)} & \colhead{($\times 100$)} & \colhead{Comments}}
\startdata
\multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{LMC SMP 6}} \\
\cline{1-6}
\ion{H}{1}     &     0.8368 & 0.8361 &   (3.66$\pm$0.93)E+00 &   (6.59$\pm$1.68)E+00 & : \\
\ion{H}{1}     &     0.8401 & 0.8395 &   (4.81$\pm$1.09)E+00 &   (8.61$\pm$1.94)E+00 & \\
\ion{H}{1}     &     0.8447 & 0.8440 &   (8.56$\pm$1.33)E+00 &   (1.52$\pm$0.24)E+01 & \\
\ion{H}{1}     &     0.8477 & 0.8470 &   (9.20$\pm$1.47)E+00 &   (1.63$\pm$0.26)E+01 & \\
\ion{H}{1}     &     0.8513 & 0.8505 &   (1.07$\pm$0.20)E+01 &   (1.89$\pm$0.36)E+01 & \\
\ion{H}{1}     &     0.8555 & 0.8548 &   (7.64$\pm$1.70)E+00 &   (1.33$\pm$0.30)E+01 & \\
\ion{H}{1}     &     0.8608 & 0.8601 &   (1.16$\pm$0.11)E+01 &   (2.00$\pm$0.20)E+01 & \\
\vdots      &  \vdots & \vdots &     \vdots              &         \vdots           & \vdots   \\
\cline{1-6}
\tableline
\enddata
\label{linelist}
\tablecomments{Table~\ref{linelist} is published in its entirety as an online supplement.  A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.  Measured fluxes and intensities are on the scale $F$(\ion{H}{1}~Br~$\gamma$)~=~$I$(\ion{H}{1}~Br~$\gamma$)~=~100.  Marginal detections are marked with a colon.}
\end{deluxetable}

For our abundance analysis, we adopt extinction coefficients, temperatures, densities, and ionic abundances used in ionization correction factors (ICFs) from the literature (see Table~\ref{objects} for references).  We adopt 10\% uncertainties for He ionic abundances from the literature, and 30\% for those of O and Ar.  \citetalias{meatheringham91b} and \citetalias{ld06} do not report ionic abundances, and we derived these values from their listed intensities.

We calculated ionic and elemental abundances with the PyNeb analysis package \citep{luridiana15}, using the atomic data sources of \citet[][see their Table~5]{garcia-rojas15}, with the exceptions of Rb$^{3+}$, Cd$^{3+}$, and Ge$^{5+}$ for which we use the atomic data of \citet{sterling16}.  To minimize uncertainties due to errors in the flux calibration or adopted extinction coefficients, we computed ionic abundances relative to nearby \ion{H}{1} lines: 11--3 for lines with wavelengths $\leq$1.0~$\mu$m, Pa$\beta$ for the $J$~band, Br$\zeta$ for $H$~band lines, and Br$\gamma$ in the $K$~band.

The $[$\ion{Se}{4}$]$~2.2864~$\mu$m line can be contaminated by H$_2$~3-2~S(2)~2.2870~$\mu$m in PNe with fluorescent H$_2$ emission \citep{dinerstein01}, and this must be accounted for when computing Se$^{3+}$/H$^+$ abundances.  The strengths of H$_2$ lines from the $v=2$ and $v=3$ levels in LMC~SMP~47 and 85 are indicative of fluorescent excitation of moderately dense gas. For such conditions, the intensity of H$_2$~3-2~S(2) is about 0.8 times that of the 3-2~S(3) line \citep[e.g., model 14 of][for which $n = 3 \times 10^3$~cm$^{-3}$]{bvd87}.  We use these values to correct the measured fluxes at 2.287~$\mu$m for the contribution of H$_2$. The absence of the 3-2~S(3) line indicates that such corrections are not needed for the other PNe.

We report ionic abundances in Table~\ref{ionicf}.  The error bars include uncertainties in the line fluxes, and assumed error bars of 1000~K in $T_{\rm e}$ and 20\% for $n_{\rm e}$ values from the literature.  All abundance uncertainties were propagated via Monte Carlo simulations.

\begin{landscape}
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
\tablecolumns{11}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Ionic Abundances and Ionization Correction Factors}
\tablehead{
\colhead{} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{SMC} & \colhead{SMC} & \colhead{SMC} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{SMP 6} & \colhead{SMP 47} & \colhead{SMP 62 (GNIRS)} & \colhead{SMP 63} & \colhead{SMP 73} & \colhead{SMP 85} & \colhead{SMP 99} & \colhead{SMP 15} & \colhead{SMP 17} & \colhead{SMP 20}}
\startdata
\multicolumn{11}{c}{\textit{Derived Ionic Abundances}} \\
\cline{1-11}
S$^{+}$/H$^+$   & (1.9$\pm$1.0)E-07 & (3.6$\pm$1.5)E-07 & (3.6$\pm$1.1)E-07\tablenotemark{a} & (1.2$\pm$0.9)E-07 & (4.9$\pm$3.3)E-07 & (1.8$\pm$1.3)E-07 & (2.1$\pm$1.3)E-07 & (2.5$\pm$2.0)E-07 & (1.2$\pm$0.6)E-07 & (2.7$\pm$1.6)E-08 \\
S$^{2+}$/H$^+$  & (1.2$\pm$0.2)E-06 & (2.7$\pm$0.4)E-06 & (8.1$\pm$2.4)E-07\tablenotemark{a} & (1.7$\pm$0.4)E-06 & (2.0$\pm$0.5)E-06 & (1.4$\pm$0.3)E-06 & (1.5$\pm$0.3)E-06 & (1.4$\pm$0.3)E-06 & (1.0$\pm$0.3)E-06 & (2.5$\pm$0.4)E-07 \\
Ge$^{5+}$/H$^+$ & $\leq$6.6E-11      & $\leq$3.3E-10      & $\leq$2.4E-10                       & $\leq$1.4E-10      & $\leq$2.2E-10      & $\leq$1.9E-10      & $\leq$1.5E-10      & $\leq$2.2E-10      & $\leq$5.5E-11      & $\leq$1.5E-10      \\
Se$^{2+}$/H$^+$ & $\leq$1.0E-09      & $\leq$1.4E-09      & \nodata                              & $\leq$4.7E-09      & $\leq$9.1E-09      & $\leq$6.6E-09      & $\leq$2.9E-09      & $\leq$7.9E-09      & $\leq$1.2E-09      & $\leq$1.2E-09      \\
Se$^{3+}$/H$^+$ & (7.2$\pm$1.0)E-10 & (1.9$\pm$0.6)E-10 & (7.4$\pm$2.6)E-11                  & (7.2$\pm$0.8)E-10 & (1.9$\pm$0.3)E-09 & (3.1$\pm$0.9)E-10 & (2.0$\pm$0.2)E-09 & $\leq$3.4E-11      & (7.5$\pm$1.9)E-10 & $\leq$2.4E-11      \\
Kr$^{2+}$/H$^+$ & (7.7$\pm$1.6)E-10 & (1.5$\pm$0.3)E-10 & $\leq$3.6E-10                       & (8.7$\pm$1.4)E-10 & $\leq$5.8E-10      & (2.6$\pm$0.7)E-09 & (2.2$\pm$0.2)E-09 & $\leq$3.1E-10      & (3.7$\pm$1.3)E-10 & $\leq$2.4E-10      \\
Rb$^{3+}$/H$^+$ & $\leq$1.6E-10      & $\leq$2.3E-10      & \nodata                              & $\leq$3.7E-10      & $\leq$8.7E-09      & $\leq$4.1E-10      & $\leq$3.2E-10      & $\leq$9.8E-10      & $\leq$8.8E-11      & $\leq$1.9E-10      \\
Cd$^{3+}$/H$^+$ & $\leq$5.7E-11      & $\leq$1.2E-10      & \nodata                              & $\leq$1.4E-10      & $\leq$7.6E-10      & $\leq$2.3E-10      & $\leq$1.6E-10      & $\leq$4.6E-10      & $\leq$1.2E-10      & $\leq$7.7E-11      \\
\cutinhead{\textit{Ionic Abundances from the Literature and ICFs}\tablenotemark{b}} \\
He$^+$/H$^+$   & (6.0$\pm$0.6)E-02 & (8.2$\pm$0.8)E-02 & (7.3$\pm$0.7)E-02  & (1.1$\pm$0.1)E-01 & (7.0$\pm$0.7)E-02 & (7.6$\pm$0.8)E-02 & (8.8$\pm$0.9)E-02 & (9.3$\pm$0.9)E-02 & (1.4$\pm$0.1)E-01 & (1.4$\pm$0.1)E-01 \\
He$^{2+}$/H$^+$ & (3.9$\pm$0.4)E-02 & (3.8$\pm$0.4)E-02 & (2.5$\pm$0.3)E-02 & (3.0$\pm$0.3)E-04 & (2.2$\pm$0.2)E-02 & \nodata             & (2.1$\pm$0.2)E-02 & (2.3$\pm$0.2)E-02 & (1.0$\pm$0.1)E-03 & \nodata             \\
O$^+$/H$^+$    & (4.9$\pm$1.5)E-05 & (9.7$\pm$2.9)E-06 & (8.5$\pm$2.5)E-06 & (4.5$\pm$1.3)E-06 & (3.1$\pm$0.9)E-05 & (5.0$\pm$1.5)E-05 & (3.1$\pm$0.9)E-05 & (6.7$\pm$2.0)E-06 & (6.8$\pm$2.0)E-06 & (2.0$\pm$0.6)E-06 \\
O$^{2+}$/H$^+$  & (1.6$\pm$0.5)E-04 & (1.1$\pm$0.3)E-04 & (1.0$\pm$0.3)E-04 & (1.9$\pm$0.6)E-04 & (3.1$\pm$0.9)E-04 & (7.6$\pm$2.3)E-05 & (2.0$\pm$0.6)E-04 & (1.1$\pm$0.3)E-04 & (1.6$\pm$0.5)E-04 & (5.4$\pm$1.6)E-05 \\
Ar$^{2+}$/H$^+$ & (3.4$\pm$1.0)E-07 & (6.6$\pm$2.0)E-07 & \nodata             & (6.4$\pm$1.9)E-07 & (6.4$\pm$1.9)E-07 & (3.4$\pm$1.0)E-07 & (5.8$\pm$1.7)E-07 & (2.9$\pm$0.9)E-07 & (2.6$\pm$0.8)E-07 & (1.0$\pm$0.3)E-07 \\
ICF(O)         & 1.38$\pm$0.27     & 1.27$\pm$0.21     & 1.19$\pm$0.17       & 1.00               & 1.18$\pm$0.16     & 1.00               & 1.13$\pm$0.13     & 1.14$\pm$0.14      & 1.00               & 1.00 \\
ICF(Ar)        & 1.68$\pm$1.09     & 1.89$\pm$1.22     & \nodata             & 1.68$\pm$1.09     & 1.72$\pm$1.12     & 1.08$\pm$0.71     & 1.54$\pm$1.00     & 1.77$\pm$1.15      & 1.61$\pm$1.05     & 1.62$\pm$1.06 \\
ICF(S)         & 1.55$\pm$0.27       & 2.06$\pm$0.33       & 1.97$\pm$0.31       & 2.24$\pm$0.36       & 1.84$\pm$0.30       & 1.00                & 1.54$\pm$0.25       & 2.06$\pm$0.33       & 1.95$\pm$0.31  & 1.00                       \\
ICF(Se)        & 2.98$\pm$2.15       & 2.09$\pm$1.72       & 1.91$\pm$1.55       & 1.37$\pm$1.48       & 1.92$\pm$1.74       & 2.67$\pm$1.78       & 1.95$\pm$1.78       & 1.73$\pm$1.44       & 1.42$\pm$1.63  & 1.40$\pm$1.18              \\
ICF(Kr)        & 2.83$\pm$1.74       & 3.73$\pm$2.01       & 4.58$\pm$3.70       & 3.85$\pm$2.61       & 3.66$\pm$2.51       & 1.64$\pm$0.58       & 2.74$\pm$1.65       & 3.88$\pm$2.38       & 3.46$\pm$2.39  & 1.59$\pm$0.47              \\
ICF(Rb, Cd)    & 1.80$\pm$0.78       & 1.38$\pm$0.61       & \nodata             & 1.02$\pm$0.43       & 1.30$\pm$0.56       & 1.65$\pm$0.61       & 1.31$\pm$0.54       & 1.20$\pm$0.52       & 1.05$\pm$0.44  & 1.04$\pm$0.43              \\
\tableline
\enddata
\label{ionicf}
\tablenotetext{a}{Derived from \citetalias{ld06} intensities}
\tablenotetext{b}{See text}
\end{deluxetable}
\end{landscape}

To convert ionic abundances to elemental abundances, we employ the ICF formulae of \citet{delgado-inglada14} for light elements and those of \citet{sterling15, sterling16} for \emph{n}-capture elements.  Uncertainties to the ICFs are the recommendations of \cite{delgado-inglada14} for O, S, and Ar, and were propagated from the ionic and elemental abundances used in the ICF prescriptions for \emph{n}-capture elements.  In the case of the Kr ICF, we use Equation~1 of \citet{sterling15}, which depends on S$^{2+}$/S, rather than Equation~2 (which uses Ar$^{2+}$/Ar), since $[$\ion{Ar}{3}$]$ lines were not detected in SMP~62 \citepalias{ld06} and the derived Ar abundance in SMP~85 is larger than the solar value \citep{asplund09} and appears to be inaccurate.  The two equations produce Kr ICFs that agree to within 25\% for our targets except for SMC~SMP~20 (in which Kr is not detected), with no systematic trends.  Therefore this choice does not affect our results.

In Table~\ref{abund} we give elemental abundances relative to the solar values of \citet{asplund09}, with uncertainties accounting for those in the ionic abundances and ICFs.  Our derived O abundances agree with literature values \citepalias{meatheringham91b, tsamis03, ld06, shaw10} to within 25\% or better, while those for Ar show more scatter but agree to within 40\% for most PNe.  Our S abundances are factors of 2--14 lower than the values of \citetalias{ld06}, in line with the findings of \citet{bernard-salas08} and \citet{shaw10}.

\begin{landscape}
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccc}
\tablecolumns{11}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Elemental Abundances}
\tablehead{
\colhead{} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{LMC} & \colhead{SMC} & \colhead{SMC} & \colhead{SMC} \\
\colhead{} & \colhead{SMP 6} & \colhead{SMP 47} & \colhead{SMP 62} & \colhead{SMP 63} & \colhead{SMP 73} & \colhead{SMP 85} & \colhead{SMP 99} & \colhead{SMP 15} & \colhead{SMP 17} & \colhead{SMP 20}}
\startdata
$[$O/H$]$      & --0.23$\pm$0.12     & --0.50$\pm$0.12     & --0.57$\pm$0.12                      & --0.39$\pm$0.11     & --0.09$\pm$0.12     & --0.59$\pm$0.08     & --0.28$\pm$0.11     & --0.55$\pm$0.12     & --0.48$\pm$0.11     & --0.95$\pm$0.11 \\
$[$S/H$]$      & --0.80$\pm$0.17     & --0.32$\pm$0.17     & --0.76$\pm$0.18                      & --0.52$\pm$0.18     & --0.46$\pm$0.18     & --0.92$\pm$0.08     & --0.70$\pm$0.19     & --0.59$\pm$0.18     & --0.77$\pm$0.18     & --1.68$\pm$0.06 \\
$[$Ar/H$]$     & --0.65$\pm$0.26     & --0.30$\pm$0.26     & \nodata                              & --0.37$\pm$0.26     & --0.36$\pm$0.26     &   0.17$\pm$0.25     & --0.45$\pm$0.26     & --0.69$\pm$0.26     & --0.78$\pm$0.26     & --1.18$\pm$0.26 \\
\cline{1-11}
$[$Se/H$]$     & --0.01$\pm$0.25     & --0.74$\pm$0.30     & --1.19$\pm$0.30                      & --0.35$\pm$0.27     &   0.21$\pm$0.29     & --0.43$\pm$0.24     &   0.25$\pm$0.24     & $\leq$--1.57        & --0.32$\pm$0.32     & $\leq$--1.82   \\
$[$Se/S$]$     & 0.80$\pm$0.28       & --0.42$\pm$0.33     & --0.43$\pm$0.33                      &   0.17$\pm$0.30     &   0.67$\pm$0.32     & 0.50$\pm$0.25       & 0.95$\pm$0.28       & $\leq$--0.97         & 0.45$\pm$0.34      & $\leq$--0.14    \\
$[$Se/Ar$]$    & 0.64$\pm$0.33       & --0.44$\pm$0.36     & \nodata                              &   0.02$\pm$0.34     &   0.57$\pm$0.35     & --0.59$\pm$0.32     & 0.70$\pm$0.32       & $\leq$--0.87         & 0.47$\pm$0.37      & $\leq$--0.64    \\
$[$Kr/H$]$     & 0.09$\pm$0.22       & 0.49$\pm$0.20       & $\leq$--0.04                         & 0.27$\pm$0.23       & $\leq$0.08          & 0.38$\pm$0.16       & 0.52$\pm$0.21       & $\leq$--0.17        & --0.15$\pm$0.25       & $\leq$--0.67   \\
$[$Kr/S$]$     & 0.89$\pm$0.26       & 0.81$\pm$0.24       & $\leq$0.72                           & 0.79$\pm$0.27       & $\leq$0.53          & 1.30$\pm$0.17       & 1.23$\pm$0.26       & $\leq$0.42          & 0.62$\pm$0.29         & $\leq$1.01     \\
$[$Kr/Ar$]$    & 0.74$\pm$0.31       & 0.80$\pm$0.30       & \nodata                              & 0.64$\pm$0.32       & $\leq$0.44          & 0.21$\pm$0.28       & 0.97$\pm$0.31       & $\leq$0.52          & 0.63$\pm$0.33         & $\leq$0.51     \\
$[$Rb/H$]$     & $\leq$--0.07        & $\leq$--0.01        & \nodata                              & $\leq$0.06          & $\leq$0.53          & $\leq$0.31          & $\leq$0.10          & $\leq$0.55          & $\leq$--0.56          & $\leq$--0.23   \\
$[$Rb/S$]$     & $\leq$0.73          & $\leq$0.30          & \nodata                              & $\leq$0.58          & $\leq$0.99          & $\leq$1.23          & $\leq$0.80          & $\leq$1.14          & $\leq$0.21            & $\leq$1.45  \\
$[$Rb/Ar$]$    & $\leq$0.58          & $\leq$0.29          & \nodata                              & $\leq$0.43          & $\leq$0.89          & $\leq$0.14          & $\leq$0.54          & $\leq$1.25          & $\leq$0.22            & $\leq$0.95  \\
$[$Cd/H$]$     & $\leq$0.30          & $\leq$0.49          & \nodata                              & $\leq$0.44          & $\leq$1.28          & $\leq$0.87          & $\leq$0.60          & $\leq$1.03          & $\leq$0.38            & $\leq$0.19   \\
$[$Cd/S$]$     & $\leq$1.11          & $\leq$0.80          & \nodata                              & $\leq$0.96          & $\leq$1.74          & $\leq$1.79          & $\leq$1.31          & $\leq$1.62          & $\leq$1.15            & $\leq$1.87   \\
$[$Cd/Ar$]$    & $\leq$0.95          & $\leq$0.79          & \nodata                              & $\leq$0.81          & $\leq$1.64          & $\leq$0.70          & $\leq$1.05          & $\leq$1.73          & $\leq$1.16            & $\leq$1.37   \\
\tableline
\enddata
\label{abund}
\tablecomments{Abundances $[$X/H$]$~=~log(X/H)$_{\rm PN} -$~log(X/H)$_{\odot}$, computed from the ionic abundances and ICFs in Table~\ref{ionicf}.}
\end{deluxetable}
\end{landscape}

\section{ABUNDANCE PATTERNS AND ENRICHMENTS}

\subsection{Evidence for Third Dredge-Up and Choice of a Metallicity Reference} \label{lightelm}

TDU conveys C-rich and \emph{s}-process enriched material to the envelopes of AGB stars \citep{karakas14}, and therefore C-rich PNe can be expected to exhibit \emph{s}-process enrichments.  With the exceptions of LMC~SMP~62 \citep{aller87} and SMP~6 (no C abundance available), all PNe in our sample have C/O ratios of unity or larger, and thus experienced TDU.

To determine whether a PN is \emph{s}-process enriched it is necessary to compare \emph{n}-capture element abundances to that of an element representative of the metallicity $[$Fe/H$]$, since Fe abundances cannot be accurately determined in nebulae due to depletion into dust \citep[e.g.,][]{delgado-inglada14a}.  In LMC field giants, $\alpha$-elements such as O, Mg, Si, Ca, and Ti are approximately solar relative to Fe ($[\alpha$/Fe$]=-0.1$ to 0.1) at the average LMC metallicity of $[$Fe/H$]=-0.5$ \citep[e.g.,][]{lapenna12, vanderswaelmen13}.  Similarly, in SMC red giants $[\alpha$/Fe$]=0.0$--0.1 \citep{mucciarelli14}.  Therefore $\alpha$-elements appear to be good tracers of $[$Fe/H$]$ in these galaxies.

Of the $\alpha$-species, oxygen is the most widely-used metallicity tracer in PNe since its abundance is usually the most accurately determined.  However, models of AGB nucleosynthesis predict that at low metallicities TDU can enrich O, although the amount of enrichment differs among different AGB evolutionary codes \citep[e.g.,][]{cristallo15, ventura15b, karakas16}.  Furthermore, these calculations all show that for initial masses $\gtrsim 4$~M$_{\odot}$, O can be depleted by the CNO cycle during hot bottom burning (HBB: H-burning at the base of the convective envelope).

\citetalias{ld06} found evidence for both O enrichment and destruction in a sample of 183 LMC and SMC PNe.  We find similar effects in our abundance analysis.  In several of our observed PNe, $[$O/(S, Ar)$]=0.2$--0.4, indicating that TDU may have enhanced O in their progenitor stars.  In contrast the Type~I PN LMC~SMP~47, which likely experienced HBB based on its large N/O ratio \citepalias{ld06}, has subsolar $[$O/(S, Ar)$]$, indicating that O depletion may have occurred.  For some PNe, $[$O/(S, Ar)$]$ is solar within the abundance uncertainties, but for uniformity we use S and Ar as tracers of $[$Fe/H$]$ for all of our targets.

\subsection{Neutron-Capture Element Abundances}

In assessing whether our targets are self-enriched by \emph{s}-process nucleosynthesis, it should be noted that the initial abundances of \emph{n}-capture elements in the progenitor stars of our sample may not follow the solar abundance pattern, due to the different star formation histories and chemical evolution of the Magellanic Clouds compared to the Milky Way.  Various studies find different ratios of trans-iron element abundances relative to Fe in pre-AGB LMC stars.  The case of the SMC appears simpler, if only because there are few \emph{n}-capture element abundance determinations in its red giant stars.

Se, Kr, and Rb lie on or below the first (``light-\emph{s},'' or ls) \emph{s}-process peak, but these elements have not been detected in the spectra of late-type stars in the LMC or SMC.  Instead we compare our results with Y and Zr, two light-\emph{s} elements that are relatively well-studied in stars.  \citet{pompeia08} found $[$ls/Fe$]=-0.4$ to --0.5~dex in inner-disk LMC stars, while $[$ls/Fe$]$ is approximately solar in clusters \citep{colucci12} and the disk stars investigated by \citet{vanderswaelmen13}.  For elements belonging to the second (``heavy-\emph{s},'' or hs) peak (e.g., La), abundances from the above studies give $[$hs/Fe$]=0.2$--0.5.  In SMC Cepheids, \citet{luck98} found that $[$ls/Fe$]$ is slightly subsolar (--0.20 to --0.05 dex) while $[$hs/Fe$]$ is 0.1--0.3~dex.

Based on this information, we consider Se, Kr, and Rb to be enriched in LMC and SMC PNe if their abundances relative to S or Ar are larger than solar.  Kr is strongly enriched in all PNe in which it was detected, by 0.6~dex (SMP~63) to as much as 1.3~dex (SMP~85 and SMP~99) in LMC PNe, and by 0.6~dex in SMC~SMP~17.  Se is also enriched in five of the targets, by 0.5--0.9~dex in the LMC and 0.5~dex in SMP~17.

The derived Se and Kr enrichment factors in these PNe generally agree with model predictions for these metallicities \citep{cristallo15, karakas16}.  Given that these models predict that elements in the second \emph{s}-process peak should be more strongly enriched at low metallicities than those in the first peak, the large Se and Kr enrichments indicate that even greater enhancements of heavier \emph{n}-capture elements can be expected.  While our nominal upper limits on [Cd/(S, Ar)] do not conform to this expectation, we note that our Cd abundances in two Galactic PNe are lower than predicted by models \citep{sterling16}, which suggests that the disagreement is likely due to uncertainties in the atomic data and/or ICF for this element.

The Type~I PN LMC~SMP~47 has both C/O and N/O ratios exceeding unity, suggesting that it experienced TDU after the cessation of HBB and has a progenitor mass $\sim$3.5~M$_{\odot} \leq M < 6$~M$_{\odot}$ \citep{ventura15b}.  The Rb abundance can also place limits on the progenitor mass, since this element can be strongly enriched if $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$, \textit{n})$^{25}$Mg dominates neutron production \citep{gh09, karakas12} as opposed to $^{13}$C($\alpha$, \textit{n})$^{16}$O, the neutron source in less massive AGB stars.  SMP~47 shows no significant enrichment of Rb, indicating that the $^{13}$C source dominated neutron production in its progenitor and that its initial mass is $\lesssim$~5.5~M$_{\odot}$ \citep{karakas16}.  This limit agrees with the predictions of \citet{ventura15b}.

The fact that the distances to the Magellanic Clouds are well known enables us to study the enrichment patterns as a function of PN luminosity and progenitor mass.  Since this is a brightness-limited sample, we preferentially selected objects at the bright end of the PNLF, whose formation mechanism has been widely debated \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{ciardullo05}.  The substantial Se and especially Kr enrichments in the LMC PNe\footnote{Due to the detection of Se and Kr in just one SMC PN, a similar conclusion cannot be drawn at present for the SMC.} are consistent with the interpretation (based on single-star evolution) that such bright PNe are primarily produced by stars with initial masses of 2--3~M$_{\odot}$ \citep[which are expected to have the largest \emph{s}-process enrichments; e.g.,][]{cristallo15, karakas16}.  The estimated progenitor mass (1.5--2.0~M$_{\odot}$) for SMP~63 \citep{villaver03} approximately agrees with this interpretation, but progenitor masses for our other LMC targets are unknown.  Interestingly, this result appears to be at odds with the statistical analysis of \citet{badenes15}, who found that the most luminous PNe in the LMC ($L_{5007} \geq 4\times10^{34}$~erg~s$^{-1}$, corresponding to $m_{5007} \leq 18.44$) predominantly arise from stars with initial masses 1.0--1.2~M$_{\odot}$.  Binary star formation mechanisms cannot be dismissed for luminous PNe \citep[e.g.,][]{ciardullo05}, but comparisons of CNO abundances to nucleosynthesis models \citep{ventura15b} and the progenitor masses computed by \citet{villaver03, villaver07} provide evidence for a range of initial stellar masses (from $\sim$1~M$_{\odot}$ to as high as 6-8~M$_{\odot}$) for LMC PNe within a few magnitudes of the bright cutoff.  Our current sample is too small to support strong conclusions regarding progenitor mass distributions.  Determinations of \emph{s}-process enhancements in a larger number of Magellanic Cloud PNe are needed for statistically meaningful constraints on the progenitors of luminous PNe in gas-rich galaxies.

We find no significant correlations between \emph{s}-process enrichments and other nebular and stellar parameters, including C/O and N/O, central star temperature, and progenitor mass.  The small size of our sample clearly limits our ability to test these relations, but the success of our observations demonstrates that it is feasible to expand this study to other PNe in the Magellanic Clouds.  The \emph{James Webb Space Telescope} will enable such investigations to be extended to more distant Local Group galaxies, as well as to PNe well below the bright cutoff of the PNLF in these systems.

\acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous referee, whose helpful suggestions improved this paper.  We are grateful to M.\ Reiter and R.\ Simcoe for their valuable advice regarding the reduction of FIRE data, and to J.\ Wood for her role in obtaining the Gemini data.  NCS acknowledges support from the NSF through award AST-0901432, and IUR acknowledges partial support from NSF grant PHY~14-30152 (Physics Frontier Center / JINA-CEE).  The Gemini Observatory is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnolog\'ia e Innovaci\'on Productiva (Argentina), and Minist\'erio da Ci\^encia, Techologia e Inova\c{c}\~ao (Brazil).  This work has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System and the FRUITY Database of nucleosynthetic yields from AGB stars (fruity.oa-teramo.inaf.it).

\bibliographystyle{apj}

Solar and Stellar Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR); Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA)