Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Fast dynamic ejecta in neutron star mergers

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that fast ejecta (above $0.4c$) from neutron star mergers come from two mechanisms — a spray from the contact interface and a dominant bounce of the compressed remnant — and that prompt collapse to a black hole still…

desk verdict Plausible two-mechanism picture for fast NSM ejecta, with a genuinely new prompt-collapse result, but the 30/70 split is a resolution-sensitive number the paper itself doesn't fully back. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18813 v3 pith:HU7FFFFE submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.HE

S. Rosswog , N. Sarin , E. Nakar , P. Diener This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarmergersdynamicejectafastpromptcollapsekilonovaafterglowshockbreakoutgeneralrelativistichydrodynamicsequationofstate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Fast ejecta from neutron star mergers — the small fraction of matter leaving the merger at velocities above $0.4c$ — are often treated as a single population. This paper argues, using full general-relativistic Lagrangian simulations, that they form through two distinct mechanisms: roughly 30% are sprayed sideways from the shear interface where the two stars first touch, and the remaining ~70% are thrown out when the strongly compressed central remnant bounces back. The bounce component is more isotropic and faster by about $0.1c$, so its leading parts can catch up with and shock the spray component. Even a merger that promptly collapses to a black hole still emits fast ejecta with similar properties, because the outer layers bounce even as the inner core is swallowed. If correct, these mechanisms tie the fast ejecta — and their observable shock-breakout gamma-ray flares and radio kilonova afterglows — to the equation of state and binary parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the Lagrangian particle hydrodynamics code SPHINCS_BSSN, which solves the full Einstein equations on an adaptive mesh while evolving matter with freely moving SPH particles; each run uses two million particles with a finest grid spacing of 369 m. Because particles carry their identities, the authors can identify ejecta 'branches' in a velocity-versus-radius plot at a given snapshot and then trace each branch backward to its launch site at first contact. This backward tracing is what separates the equatorial 'spray' component from the nearly isotropic 'bounce' component and reveals that the bounce follows strong compression of the remnant. The mass-momentum profile $M(>\gamma\beta)$ is the quantitative diagnostic connecting the simulations to observations.

What would settle it

Run one equal-mass configuration (for example APR3 with $2\times1.3\,M_\odot$) at substantially higher resolution, or with a different method that resolves the shear interface to roughly $20$ m, and re-measure the mass with $v_\infty>0.4c$ and its division into spray versus bounce branches. A bounce fraction that drops below the spray fraction, or fast-ejecta masses that change by more than the stated few $10^{-5}\,M_\odot$, would show that the 30/70 partition is resolution-dominated rather than a physical signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the mildly relativistic dynamic ejecta seen in merger simulations are not a single outflow. By color-coding SPH particles according to the velocity branch they lie on and tracing them backward, the authors find a first 'spray' pulse emitted from the contact interface along the orbital plane (about 30% of the mass with $v_\infty>0.4c$) and later 'bounce' pulses (about 70%) launched when the remnant rebounds from deep general-relativistic compression. The bounce ejecta are more spherical and faster by $\sim0.1c$, so they interact with and brake against earlier spray ejecta, shaping the final angular distribution. The discovery extends to prompt collapse: even when a black hole forms within a free-fall time, fast ejecta appear, with slow material swallowed and fast material escaping, so the observable fast component resembles that of non-collapsing cases.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that fast ejecta split roughly 30/70 into spray and bounce assumes that two-million-particle runs with a finest grid spacing of 369 m resolve the small fast-moving ejecta population. The authors state that peak velocities are likely resolution-limited, that matter at even higher velocities is too low in mass to be resolved, and that they do not fully trust the highest-velocity part of the distribution; if that fast tail is under-resolved, the measured split and the dominance of the bounce could be numerical artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the spray component stays near the orbital plane while the bounce component expands almost isotropically, the angular distribution of fast ejecta is set by the collision between consecutive pulses, not by a single launch event.
  • Prompt collapse does not suppress fast ejecta; instead it removes the slow material, making the ejecta velocity distribution peak above $0.2c$ and giving the kilonova afterglow a distinct early-time rise that could act as a merger-outcome diagnostic.
  • Softer equations of state produce larger peak velocities and more detectable kilonova afterglow; stiffer equations of state produce steeper mass-momentum profiles, so radio observations before peak can discriminate between equations of state.
  • The ejecta mass-momentum profile is better described by an exponential or a broken power law with an extra shallow segment at $0.1\lesssim\gamma\beta\lesssim0.2$, which changes predicted afterglow light curves compared with standard broken-power-law assumptions.
  • A cocoon-driven shock breaking out of these fast ejecta yields a short gamma-ray flare of $10^{45}$-$10^{47}$ erg lasting $0.001$-$1$ s, with parameters consistent with the GRB seen from GW170817 for a jet-launch delay near 1 s.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: if the bounce component is the dominant fast-ejecta channel and its strength tracks the softness of the equation of state, then early radio observations of mergers could serve as an equation-of-state diagnostic that is independent of gravitational-wave tidal measurements.
  • Editorial extension: the authors' resolution caveat implies the true fast tail extends beyond the simulated $\sim0.8c$, so the cutoff-based shock-breakout estimates are lower limits; power-law-extrapolated estimates may be closer to reality, and the 30/70 split could shift once finer resolutions resolve more of the spray component.
  • Editorial extension: the same two-mechanism picture may apply to neutron star-black hole mergers and to mergers with stronger magnetic fields or neutrino losses, none of which are included here; those processes could alter the relative importance of spray versus bounce.
  • Editorial extension: a direct cross-check would be to compare tracer-particle histories from an Eulerian grid code on the same binaries; if that code also finds a spray-first, bounce-second sequence with a 30/70 split, the mechanism is method-independent, and if not, the split is likely tied to the SPH treatment of the contact interface.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using full-GR Lagrangian SPH simulations (SPHINCS_BSSN) with two million particles, this paper studies fast dynamic ejecta (v > 0.4c) in nine neutron star merger configurations covering four equations of state and several mass ratios. By identifying velocity-radius branches in the ejecta and tracing particles backward, the authors distinguish two ejection mechanisms: a 'spray' component from the shear interface at first contact, confined mostly to the orbital plane, and a 'bounce' component from the strongly compressed central remnant bouncing back, ejected more isotropically. They report that roughly 30% of fast ejecta are spray and 70% bounce, with bounce material reaching about 0.1c higher velocities, and they find a similar fast-ejecta component even in the one prompt-collapse case (SLy_14_14). They fit mass-momentum profiles M(>γβ) with a broken power law, use these to compute kilonova afterglow light curves, and apply shock-breakout theory to predict gamma-ray/X-ray flares. The paper's central claim is that these two mechanisms account for the mildly relativistic ejecta and have EOS-dependent observational signatures.

Significance. If the mechanism identification and the 30/70 split hold up, this is an important step: prior work identified fast ejecta but did not cleanly separate a two-component origin. The Lagrangian particle tracing here gives a direct and visually convincing kinematic identification of the spray and bounce episodes, and the prompt-collapse simulation is suggestive. The paper also produces concrete, falsifiable predictions for kilonova afterglow detectability (MeerKAT/DSA-2000) and for shock-breakout gamma-ray flares, with the explicit caveat that these depend on extrapolating a barely resolved fast tail. Strengths include the full-GR treatment, the particle-history approach, the survey of four equations of state, and the honest discussion of resolution limitations. However, the quantitative central claim—the 30/70 split—is not yet backed by a convergence test or per-run uncertainty quantification, and the prompt-collapse generalization rests on a single published run. These points prevent acceptance as a quantitative account, though the mechanism identification itself is plausible and well illustrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 5 (first paragraph after Tab. 2)] The 30%/70% spray/bounce split is reported as a single global number, without per-run values, uncertainties, or a statement of how the particles were partitioned into the two components. Table 2 shows that the fast ejecta mass m_ej,0.4 varies by a factor of about seven across runs (from 1.3e-4 to 9.0e-4 M_sun), so a single ratio without scatter is not evaluable. Please report the split per simulation, state the exact selection criteria (the three unbound criteria of Sec. 5 plus the v>0.4c threshold), and provide an uncertainty estimate, e.g., by bootstrap resampling over particles.
  2. [Sec. 5, Case I] The paper explicitly states that peak velocities are resolution-limited, that faster ejecta exist but are too low-mass to be resolved, and that 'we do not fully trust the velocity distribution shown in Fig. 15 at the highest velocities.' Because the bounce component is claimed to be the faster one, an unresolved high-velocity tail would preferentially remove bounce mass and could bias the 30/70 ratio toward the spray component. The comparison with Rosswog et al. 2022 in Sec. 5 changes both the code version and the particle-to-mesh mapping, so it cannot serve as a clean convergence test. Please provide a resolution study (even a single higher-resolution run) or a quantitative estimate of the unresolved mass fraction and its expected partitioning between spray and bounce.
  3. [Sec. 4.5] The claim that prompt collapse ejects fast matter with 'similar properties' to the non-collapsing case is based on a single simulation included in the paper (SLy_14_14), with only a vague reference to 'other simulations' that are not listed in Tab. 1. Since the prompt-collapse case drives a distinctive kilonova afterglow prediction in Sec. 5.1 (the dashed curve in Fig. 16), either provide details of those additional runs (masses, EOS, collapse time, fast-ejecta properties) or explicitly state that the prompt-collapse result is a single-case demonstration that requires further study.
  4. [Sec. 4.6] The fast-ejecta masses reported here are larger by an order of magnitude than those in Radice et al. (2018) and Combi & Siegel (2023). The paper proposes an explanation (their higher vacuum density) but does not test it. Since the 30/70 split is a mass ratio, agreement with independent codes on absolute fast-ejecta mass is relevant to its robustness. Please either quantify the sensitivity of the fast-ejecta mass and the spray/bounce split to the background density and resolution, or present a side-by-side comparison that isolates the cause of the discrepancy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.2] There is a typo in the sentence following Eq. (9): 'the the color temperature' should read 'the color temperature'.
  2. [Fig. 18 caption] In the caption, the symbol 't_bo' is used for both the pulse duration and the typical photon energy; please use 'T_bo' for the temperature to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [References] Gutiérrez et al. (2024a) and (2024b) are both listed with the same arXiv identifier (2408.15973); if these are distinct papers please provide the correct identifiers, and if they are the same, merge the citations.
  4. [Sec. 5.1 and Eq. (1)] The fitted broken power-law parameters (γ0β0, s_ft, s_KN) that feed the afterglow calculations are described qualitatively but not tabulated. Please provide a table of these fitted parameters for each simulation so the afterglow predictions can be reproduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mechanism identification and forward-model predictions are derived from simulation output, not assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are obtained by post-processing Lagrangian SPH simulations in full GR, not by fitting a parameter to a target observable and then re-predicting it. The two-component (spray/bounce) mechanism is identified by tracing particles through the simulation (Sec. 4, Figs. 6-8); the 30%/70% split is a measured count of particles assigned to the identified branches, not an input. The kilonova-afterglow and shock-breakout sections are forward calculations: the broken power-law and exponential fits to the simulated mass-momentum profile (Sec. 5, Eq. 1, Fig. 15) are inputs to external models (Sadeh et al. 2023 via Redback; Nakar 2020), and the predicted quantities (radio light curves, breakout gamma-ray fluences) are not the same as the fitted quantities. No free parameter is tuned to reproduce the predicted observables, and the paper does not claim to validate its simulation by the afterglow or breakout signals. Self-citations appear only for code/method descriptions (Rosswog & Diener 2021; Diener et al. 2022; Rosswog et al. 2022, 2023) and for the breakout theory review (Nakar 2020); none is used to forbid alternatives or to justify the mechanism claim. The Sec. 5 caveats that peak velocities are resolution-limited and that the highest-velocity distribution is not fully trusted are correctness/convergence risks, not circularity: they bound the predictions but do not reduce them to their inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism claim is an interpretation of numerical simulation output. The main inputs are the assumed equations of state, the GR-SPH code's standard methods, and the unbound-particle criteria, none of which are new inventions. The free parameters listed are those fitted to the simulated velocity profiles for afterglow predictions or assumed as fiducial microphysics values; they do not enter the core two-mechanism identification but shape the observational forecasts.

free parameters (9)
  • gamma0*beta0 (mass-momentum break point) = not tabulated; varies per simulation (Fig. 15)
    Fitted to each simulation's cumulative mass-velocity profile in Eq. (1) and used as input to the kilonova afterglow model in Sec. 5.1.
  • s_ft (fast-tail slope) = not tabulated; varies per simulation
    Fitted to the high-velocity end of each mass-momentum profile in Eq. (1); stiffer EOSs give larger s_ft.
  • s_KN (Klein-Nishina slope) = not tabulated; varies per simulation
    Fitted to the 0.2 < gamma*beta < gamma0*beta0 segment in Eq. (1).
  • alpha (high-velocity power-law index for breakout case II) = 6-9 (8 used in example)
    Fit to the simulated mass-momentum profiles in Sec. 5.2 to extrapolate beyond resolved velocities; labeled an upper limit.
  • M0 (mass-momentum normalization) = 10^-3 M_sun (assumed)
    Set to 10^-3 M_sun in Sec. 5.1 as a fiducial value consistent with other numerical work; not measured from the simulations.
  • n (ambient ISM density) = 0.1 cm^-3
    Assumed in the kilonova afterglow model in Sec. 5.1; not fitted to the simulations.
  • p (electron power-law index) = 2.5
    Assumed in the kilonova afterglow model in Sec. 5.1; not fitted to the simulations.
  • epsilon_e (electron energy fraction) = 0.1
    Assumed in the kilonova afterglow model in Sec. 5.1; not fitted to the simulations.
  • epsilon_b (magnetic field energy fraction) = 0.01
    Assumed in the kilonova afterglow model in Sec. 5.1; not fitted to the simulations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The piecewise polytropic cold EOS plus a thermal component with adiabatic index Gamma_th = 1.75 adequately captures the thermodynamic behavior of neutron star matter in the merger.
    Invoked in Sec. 2 for all simulations; no neutrino transport or magnetic fields are included, which the authors note may affect ejecta.
  • standard math The SPHINCS_BSSN code correctly solves the full Einstein equations (BSSN) coupled to SPH matter in the regime of these mergers.
    The code is described in earlier papers (Rosswog and Diener 2021; Diener et al. 2022; Rosswog et al. 2022, 2023); the present paper does not re-derive or validate the code.
  • domain assumption Removing particles with lapse below alpha_cut = 0.02 in the black-hole case does not affect the outside evolution.
    Stated in Sec. 3: particles are 'already safely inside of the forming apparent horizon' and their removal has no impact on outside evolution. This is needed for the prompt-collapse ejecta measurement.
  • domain assumption FUKA initial data accurately represents equilibrium irrotational binary neutron stars.
    The initial data solver FUKA is used to construct the starting configuration (Sec. 2), and residual oscillations are attributed to imperfect translation to particles.
  • standard math The shock breakout theory of Nakar (2020) and the scalings used in Eqs. (2)-(10) are valid to order of magnitude.
    Used in Sec. 5.2 to derive breakout emission properties; the authors explicitly caution the theory is approximate and in some regimes based on assumptions that need validation.
  • domain assumption The choice of unbound criteria (-E U0 > 0, v_rad > 0, r > 150 km) identifies true dynamical ejecta.
    Used in Sec. 5 to select ejecta; standard in the field but affects all mass and velocity statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast dynamic ejecta in neutron star mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HU7FFFFE

@misc{pith2026241118813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast dynamic ejecta in neutron star mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HU7FFFFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18813}
}
abstract

The ejection of neutron-rich matter is one of the most important consequences of a neutron star merger. While the bulk of the matter is ejected at fast, but non-relativistic velocities ($\sim0.2c$), a small amount of mildly relativistic dynamic ejecta have been seen in a number of numerical simulations. Such ejecta can have far reaching observational consequences ranging from the shock breakout burst of gamma-rays promptly after the merger, to an early ($\sim 1$ hour post-merger) blue kilonova precursor signal, to synchrotron emission years after the merger ("kilonova afterglow"). These all potentially carry the imprint of the binary system parameters and the equation of state. By analyzing Lagrangian simulations in full General Relativity, performed with the code SPHINCS_BSSN, we identify two ejection mechanisms for fast ejecta: i) about 30\% of the ejecta with {$v> 0.4c$} are "sprayed out" from the shear interface between the merging stars and escape along the orbital plane and ii) the remaining $\sim$ 70\% of the fast ejecta result from the central object "bouncing back" after strong, general-relativistic compression. This "bounce component" is ejected in a rather isotropic way and reaches larger velocities (by $\sim0.1c$) so that its faster parts can catch up with and shock slower parts of the spray ejecta. Even for a case that promptly collapses to a black hole, we find fast ejecta with similar properties to the non-collapsing case, while slower matter parts are swallowed by the forming black hole. We discuss observational implications of these fast ejecta, including shock breakout and kilonova afterglow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Logarithmic density distribution (𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 ) in the orbital plane of the simulation with 2 × 1.3 M⊙ and the MPA1-EOS (run MPA1_13_13). The color bar shows the logarithm of mass density in cgs units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zoom into the impact region of run MPA1_12_18 (MPA1-EOS, masses of 1.2 and 1.8 M⊙) which is also shown in the previous plot. Color-coded is the logarithm of the specific internal energy (cgs units). initially rather evenly spread across the initial neutron stars, see panel 2 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Density in orbital plane for the case where the merger results in a prompt black hole formation, run SLy_14_14(2 ×1.4 M⊙; SLY-EOS). The color bar shows the logarithm of mass density in cgs units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Maximum values (in cgs, scaled) of the mass density (left) and minimum values of the lapse function (right), both at the particle positions. summary section. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Identification (at 𝑡 = 9.85 ms) of three ejection pulses for run APR3_13_13. We color code the three pulses visible in the left panel: the dark blue "spray ejecta" emerge when matter is sprayed out from the stellar interfaces at first contact. The second pulse (red) is…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Particles of run APR3_13_13 are color-coded according to the velocity waves they belong to, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The spray component (dark blue) is launched in predominantly equatorial direction, the two bounce components are launched predominantly spherically, but their expansion is hindered by the previously launched wave(s). The colours here indicate the different ejection com…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Unbound particles are color-coded according to their velocities at infinity: ejecta slower that 0.2𝑐 (at infinity) are shown in dark blue,particles between 0.2 and 0.4𝑐 in cyan, between 0.4 and 0.6𝑐 in orange and the fastest ones (> 0.6𝑐) are shown in red. MNRAS 000, 1…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: EOS-dependence of the ejecta velocities (in units of 𝑐; each time 2 × 1.3 M⊙). Shown are each time the particle velocities at 5 ms after merger for the SLy (softest), APR3, MPA1 and the MS1b (stiffest) EOS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Even the case which results in a prompt collapse to a black hole, run SLy_14_14, produces fast ejecta. As in the other cases, the first branch is due to the "spray component" while the second comes from a single "bounce". Velocities are shown in units of 𝑐. also in si…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ejecta fraction of all ejecta binned according to velocity at infinity, each panel shows one equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ejecta fraction of the polar ejecta (|Θ| < 30◦ ) binned according to velocity at infinity. MNRAS 000, 1–18 (2022) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ejecta fraction of the equatorial ejecta (|Θ| ≥ 30◦ ) binned according to velocity at infinity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Logarithm of the mass (in solar units) of the ejecta that has a velocity > 𝛾𝛽. The left panel shows the results for all ejecta, the right panel shows the results for the polar region (defined as being within 30◦ of the binary rotation axis). MNRAS 000, 1–18 (2022) [P…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Kilonova afterglow in radio (at 1GHz) for a merger at 200Mpc for a binary of two 1.3 𝑀⊙ (with the prompt collapse scenario shown as a dashed blue curve) neutron stars with different EOSs. The horizontal grey band indicates the rms sensitivity limits from one hour of o…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Velocities as a function of the angle from the binary rotation axis (in degrees). The left panel shows the average velocity while the right panel shows the maximum velocity. All velocities are asymptotic values "at infinity". If the shock is relativistic in the upstre…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Properties of the breakout emission in the phase-space of the shock breakout Lorentz factor (in the observer frame) and the time delay between the merger and the deposition of energy (e.g., in the form of a jet) that drives the shock. The accuracy of all properties is…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Sketch of the ejection mechanisms of mildly relativistic ejecta: first matter is "sprayed" out from the interface between the two neutron stars, this matter is ejected predominantly along the orbital plane (dark blue). Sub￾sequent bounces of the central remnant launch…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Probing Binary Neutron Star Merger Ejecta and Remnants with Gravitational Wave and Radio Observations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-consistent forecast shows well-localized binary neutron star mergers with possible neutron star remnants will be detectable in radio at rates from a few per year now to hundreds per year with next-generation detectors.

  2. High-Density Sound Speed and Post-Merger Dynamics

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The slope of the high-density sound-speed curve shifts the post-merger gravitational-wave peak frequency and ejecta mass, and that peak frequency partially correlates with an integrated 'intrinsic tidal response' — bu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., et al., 2017a, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017a, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2017b, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017b, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  3. [3]

    Aguilera-Miret R., Palenzuela C., Carrasco F., Rosswog S., Vigan \`o D., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.110h3014A 110, 083014

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.083014 2024

  4. [4]

    R., Ravenhall D

    Akmal A., Pandharipande V. R., Ravenhall D. G., 1998, @doi [Phys. Rev. C] 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PhRvC..58.1804A 58, 1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1804 1998

  5. [5]

    Oxford University Press

    Alcubierre M., 2008, Introduction to 3+1 Numerical Relativity . Oxford University Press

    2008

  6. [6]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...64A 551, 64

    doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017

  7. [7]

    W., Shapiro S

    Baumgarte T. W., Shapiro S. L., 1999, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.024007 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhRvD..59b4007B 59, 024007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.024007 1999

  8. [8]

    W., Shapiro S

    Baumgarte T. W., Shapiro S. L., 2010, Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein's Equations on the Computer . Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 9780521514071, Cambridge

    2010

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Bauswein A., Goriely S., Janka H.-T., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/78 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...773...78B 773, 78

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    M., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...28C 944, 28

    Combi L., Siegel D. M., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acac29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...944...28C 944, 28

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9811 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017Sci...358.1556C 358, 1556

    Coulter D. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9811 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017Sci...358.1556C 358, 1556

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Sneden C., Lawler J

    Cowan J. J., Sneden C., Lawler J. E., Aprahamian A., Wiescher M., Langanke K., Martinez-Pinedo G., Thielemann F.-K., 2021, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RvMP...93a5002C 93, 015002

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    D., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921..161D 921, 161

    Dean C., Fern \'a ndez R., Metzger B. D., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1f20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921..161D 921, 161

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Diener P., Rosswog S., Torsello F., 2022, @doi [European Physical Journal A] 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00725-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022EPJA...58...74D 58, 74

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Dietrich T., Bernuzzi S., Ujevic M., Tichy W., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044045 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..95d4045D 95, 044045

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Douchin F., Haensel P., 2001, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...380..151D 380, 151

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1570D 358, 1570

    Drout M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1570D 358, 1570

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    N., 1989, Nature, 340, 126

    Eichler D., Livio M., Piran T., Schramm D. N., 1989, Nature, 340, 126

    1989

  11. [19]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9580 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017Sci...358.1565E 358, 1565

    Evans P. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9580 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017Sci...358.1565E 358, 1565

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Faran T., Sari R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7fd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943...97F 943, 97

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Frankfurt University/Kadath Initial Data solver 2023, https://kadath.obspm.fr/

    2023

  14. [22]

    Freiburghaus C., Rosswog S., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, ApJ, 525, L121

    1999

  15. [23]

    Gottlieb O., Nakar E., Piran T., Hotokezaka K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1462 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479..588G 479, 588

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Govreen-Segal T., Nakar E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524..403G 524, 403

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Govreen-Segal T., Youngerman N., Palit I., Nakar E., Levinson A., Bromberg O., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad4000 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528..313G 528, 313

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    M., Bhattacharya M., Radice D., Murase K., Bernuzzi S., 2024b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240815973G p

    Guti \'e rrez E. M., Bhattacharya M., Radice D., Murase K., Bernuzzi S., 2024b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.15973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240815973G p. arXiv:2408.15973

    doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    Hajela A., et al., 2022, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927L..17H 927, L17

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Hotokezaka K., Kiuchi K., Kyutoku K., Okawa H., Sekiguchi Y.-i., Shibata M., Taniguchi K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvD..87b4001H 87, 024001

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    Hotokezaka K., Kiuchi K., Shibata M., Nakar E., Piran T., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867...95H 867, 95

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Nakar E., Singer L

    Kasliwal M. M., Nakar E., Singer L. P., Kaplan D. L., et al. 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9455 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1559K 358, 1559

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1583K 358, 1583

    Kilpatrick C. D., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1583K 358, 1583

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    Kiuchi K., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., Kyutoku K., Sekiguchi Y., Shibata M., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124034 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2015PhRvD..92l4034K 92, 124034

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    Kiuchi K., Kawaguchi K., Kyutoku K., Sekiguchi Y., Shibata M., Taniguchi K., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvD..96h4060K 96, 084060

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    Kiuchi K., Reboul-Salze A., Shibata M., Sekiguchi Y., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..298K 8, 298

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    Korobkin O., Rosswog S., Arcones A., Winteler C., 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940

    2012

  28. [37]

    R., 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.10256K

    Kulkarni S. R., 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005astro.ph.10256K

    2005

  29. [38]

    Kyutoku K., Ioka K., Shibata M., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slt128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.437L...6K 437, L6

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Schramm D

    Lattimer J. M., Schramm D. N., 1974, ApJ, (Letters), 192, L145

    1974

  31. [40]

    Li L.-X., Paczy \'n ski B., 1998, @doi [ApJL] 10.1086/311680 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...507L..59L 507, L59

    1998 doi

  32. [41]

    D., 2019, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019LRR....23....1M 23, 1

    Metzger B. D., 2019, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019LRR....23....1M 23, 1

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    D., et al., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.2650M 406, 2650

    Metzger B. D., et al., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.406.2650M 406, 2650

    2010

  34. [43]

    D., Bauswein A., Goriely S., Kasen D., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu2225 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1115M 446, 1115

    Metzger B. D., Bauswein A., Goriely S., Kasen D., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu2225 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.446.1115M 446, 1115

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    J., 2005, Reports on Progress in Physics, 68, 1703

    Monaghan J. J., 2005, Reports on Progress in Physics, 68, 1703

    2005

  36. [45]

    P., et al., 2018a, preprint, http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2018arXiv180609693M ( @eprint arXiv 1806.09693 )

    Mooley K. P., et al., 2018a, preprint, http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2018arXiv180609693M ( @eprint arXiv 1806.09693 )

    arXiv

  37. [46]

    P., et al., 2018b, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature25452 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554..207M 554, 207

    Mooley K. P., et al., 2018b, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature25452 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554..207M 554, 207

    doi

  38. [47]

    P., Anderson J., Lu W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.610..273M 610, 273

    Mooley K. P., Anderson J., Lu W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.610..273M 610, 273

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    D., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0375-9474(96)00187-X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996NuPhA.606..508M 606, 508

    M \"u ller H., Serot B. D., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0375-9474(96)00187-X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996NuPhA.606..508M 606, 508

    1996 doi

  40. [49]

    L., 1987, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91611-X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhLB..199..469M 199, 469

    M \"u ther H., Prakash M., Ainsworth T. L., 1987, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91611-X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhLB..199..469M 199, 469

    1987 doi

  41. [50]

    Rep.] 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhR...886....1N 886, 1

    Nakar E., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rep.] 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhR...886....1N 886, 1

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    Nakar E., Piran T., 2011, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature10365 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.478...82N 478, 82

    2011 doi

  43. [52]

    Nakar E., Sari R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/88 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...88N 747, 88

    2012 doi

  44. [53]

    Nedora V., Radice D., Bernuzzi S., Perego A., Daszuta B., Endrizzi A., Prakash A., Schianchi F., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab2004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5908N 506, 5908

    2021 doi

  45. [54]

    Nicholl M., et al., 2017, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017ApJ...848L..18N 848, L18

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    Pacilio C., Maselli A., Fasano M., Pani P., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.101101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvL.128j1101P 128, 101101

    2022 doi

  47. [56]

    V., Kastaun W., Mi \ n ano B., Vigan \`o D., 2022, @doi [Phys

    Palenzuela C., Aguilera-Miret R., Carrasco F., Ciolfi R., Kalinani J. V., Kastaun W., Mi \ n ano B., Vigan \`o D., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.106b3013P 106, 023013

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    J., Tootle S

    Papenfort L. J., Tootle S. D., Grandcl \'e ment P., Most E. R., Rezzolla L., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.024057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhRvD.104b4057P 104, 024057

    2021 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Most E

    Papenfort L. J., Most E. R., Tootle S., Rezzolla L., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac964 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.3646P 513, 3646

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    J., 2012, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.011 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JCoPh.231..759P 231, 759

    Price D. J., 2012, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.011 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JCoPh.231..759P 231, 759

    2012 doi

  51. [60]

    Price D., Rosswog S., 2006, Science, 312, 719

    2006

  52. [61]

    F., Ott C

    Radice D., Galeazzi F., Lippuner J., Roberts L. F., Ott C. D., Rezzolla L., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.3255R 460, 3255

    2016 doi

  53. [62]

    A., Bernuzzi S., Roberts L

    Radice D., Perego A., Hotokezaka K., Fromm S. A., Bernuzzi S., Roberts L. F., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869..130R 869, 130

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    S., Lackey B

    Read J. S., Lackey B. D., Owen B. J., Friedman J. L., 2009, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhRvD..79l4032R 79, 124032

    2009 doi

  55. [64]

    F., Kasen D., Lee W

    Roberts L. F., Kasen D., Lee W. H., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2011, ApJL, 736, L21

    2011

  56. [65]

    Rosswog S., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/497062 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...634.1202R&db_key=AST 634, 1202

    2005 doi

  57. [66]

    Rosswog S., 2009, New Astronomy Reviews, 53, 78

    2009

  58. [67]

    Rosswog S., 2010a, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/27/11/114108 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CQGra..27k4108R 27, 114108

    doi

  59. [68]

    Rosswog S., 2010b, J. Comp. Phys., 229, 8591

  60. [69]

    Rosswog S., 2013, @doi [Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions Series A] 10.1098/rsta.2012.0272 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RSPTA.37120272R 371, 20272

    2013

  61. [70]

    Rosswog S., 2015a, @doi [Living Reviews of Computational Astrophysics (2015)] 10.1007/lrca-2015-1 , http://computastrophys.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrca-2015-1/ 1

    2015 doi

  62. [71]

    Rosswog S., 2015b, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv225 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1405.6034R 448, 3628

    arXiv

  63. [72]

    Rosswog S., 2020a, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.4230R 498, 4230

    doi

  64. [73]

    Rosswog S., 2020b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898...60R 898, 60

    doi

  65. [74]

    arXiv:2411.19228

    Rosswog S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.19228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241119228R p. arXiv:2411.19228

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    Rosswog S., Diener P., 2021, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/1361-6382/abee65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021CQGra..38k5002R 38, 115002

    2021 doi

  67. [76]

    SPHINCS\_BSSN: Numerical Relativity with Particles

    Rosswog S., Diener P., 2025, Chapter "SPHINCS\_BSSN: Numerical Relativity with Particles" in book "New Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations"

    2025

  68. [77]

    Rosswog S., Korobkin O., 2024, @doi [Annalen der Physik] 10.1002/andp.202200306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AnP...53600306R 536, 2200306

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    Rosswog S., Liebend\"orfer M., Thielemann F.-K., Davies M., Benz W., Piran T., 1999, A &\ A, 341, 499

    1999

  70. [79]

    B., Thielemann F.-K., Piran T., 2000, A&A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000A 360, 171

    Rosswog S., Davies M. B., Thielemann F.-K., Piran T., 2000, A&A, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000A 360, 171

    2000

  71. [80]

    Rosswog S., Diener P., Torsello F., 2022, @doi [Symmetry] 10.3390/sym14061280 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Symm...14.1280R 14, 1280

    2022 doi

  72. [81]

    Rosswog S., Torsello F., Diener P., 2023, @doi [Front. Appl. Math. Stat.] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.06226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230606226R 9

    2023 doi arXiv

  73. [82]

    Sadeh G., Guttman O., Waxman E., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac3260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2102S 518, 2102

    2023 doi

  74. [83]

    arXiv:2403.07047

    Sadeh G., Linder N., Waxman E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.07047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240307047S p. arXiv:2403.07047

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [84]

    Sarin N., Omand C. M. B., Margalit B., Jones D. I., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2609 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4949S 516, 4949

    2022 doi

  76. [85]

    Sarin N., H \"u bner M., Omand C. M. B., Setzer C. N., et al. 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.1203S 531, 1203

    2024 doi

  77. [86]

    Shibata M., Nakamura T., 1995, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5428 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PhRvD..52.5428S 52, 5428

    1995 doi

  78. [87]

    Shibata M., Taniguchi K., Ury \= u K., 2005, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.084021 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005PhRvD..71h4021S&db_key=AST 71, 084021

    2005 doi

  79. [88]

    Springel V., 2010, @doi [ARAA] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130914 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA\

    2010 doi

  80. [89]

    N., 1982, Astrophys

    Symbalisty E., Schramm D. N., 1982, Astrophys. Lett., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApL....22..143S 22, 143

    1982

  81. [90]

    D., Papenfort L

    Tootle S. D., Papenfort L. J., Most E. R., Rezzolla L., 2021, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac350d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922L..19T 922, L19

    2021 doi

  82. [91]

    Zappa F., Bernuzzi S., Radice D., Perego A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.1481Z 520, 1481

    2023 doi

  83. [92]

    H., Werneck L

    Zenati Y., Krolik J. H., Werneck L. R., Murguia-Berthier A., Etienne Z. B., Noble S. C., Piran T., 2023, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf714 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..161Z 958, 161

    2023 doi

  84. [93]

    H., Werneck L

    Zenati Y., Krolik J. H., Werneck L. R., Etienne Z. B., Noble S. C., Murguia-Berthier A., Schnittman J. D., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971...50Z 971, 50

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.