Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Relativistic gas accretion onto supermassive black Hole binaries from inspiral through merger

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 3D general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulation that follows a supermassive black hole binary from a relaxed disk through merger finds a tenfold drop in accretion and a 50 percent electromagnetic brightening at coalescence.

desk verdict Genuine first: a full GRMHD+NR SMBHB inspiral-to-merger from a relaxed CBD at 20M; the bolometric jump is real simulation output but hostage to an ad hoc cooling law, so read the lightcurve numbers as model-dependent. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06389 v5 pith:UQHDUHKT submitted 2025-02-10 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Lorenzo Ennoggi , Manuela Campanelli , Yosef Zlochower , Scott C. Noble , Julian Krolik , Federico Cattorini , Jay V. Kalinani , Vassilios Mewes
show 3 more authors
Michail Chabanov Liwei Ji Maria Chiara de Simone
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords supermassiveblackholebinariesaccretiondisksgeneralrelativisticmagnetohydrodynamicsnumericalrelativitygravitationalwavecounterpartsminidiskdynamicsmagneticfluxregulationjets
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

This paper claims to present the first three-dimensional general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulation that carries a supermassive black hole binary and its surrounding gas from a realistic, relaxed circumbinary disk at $20M$ separation through roughly 200 orbits of inspiral, the merger, and the early postmerger stage. The physical payoff is a concrete picture of how the accretion flow transforms: mass keeps flowing toward the binary even after it decouples from the disk, but the accretion rate onto the black holes drops by about a factor of ten; the minidisks drain and dissolve around $2000M$ before coalescence; and the electromagnetic luminosity (defined as the volume-integrated cooling rate) declines by about a factor of four during the inspiral, then jumps by about 50 percent within roughly $100M$ of merger, probably with an equally abrupt spectral change. The paper also argues that accretion ram pressure regulates the magnetic flux attached to the black hole horizons, which explains the inspiral decline in horizon flux and sets the stage for the jet launched by the merger remnant. If these results hold, they identify the electromagnetic signature that could accompany and help localize a supermassive black hole merger in the LISA era, and the two-code hand-off method removes a major obstacle to simulating this regime.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two pieces of machinery. The first is the 'hand-off' pipeline: a long, roughly 165-orbit equilibration of the circumbinary disk in the SphericalNR GRMHD code, which uses a spherical mesh and a post-Newtonian approximate binary spacetime, followed by interpolation of all MHD primitive fields and the electromagnetic potentials onto a Cartesian grid with box-in-box mesh refinement built around a Bowen-York puncture spacetime matched to the same orbital frequency; the interior of the excised cavity is filled with a smoothly ramped atmosphere and a vector potential that rises from zero between $15M$ and $35M$, so no shock wave is seeded at the hand-off. The second piece is the radiative cooling law of Eqs. (39)--(40): a Keplerian cooling timescale $t_{\rm cool}=2\pi\sqrt{r^3/M}$ and a rate $L_{\rm cool}=(\rho\epsilon/t_{\rm cool})[(s-s_0)/s_0 + |(s-s_0)/s_0|]^q$ with target entropy $s_0=0.01$ and $q=1/2$, which the paper uses to define the electromagnetic luminosity as the volume integral of $L_{\rm cool}$. The mechanism proposed for the magnetic flux behavior is an order-of-magnitude balance between accretion ram pressure and magnetic pressure, giving a horizon flux $\Phi_B\sim f_{\rm geom}\,(\dot{M} c A_{\rm BH})^{1/2}$, which is shown to track both the inspiral decline and the post-merger jump in flux.

What would settle it

Run the same $20M$ equal-mass, nonspinning configuration with a radiation-transport treatment or a much shorter cooling timescale and compare the volume-integrated luminosity within $100M$ of merger: if it no longer rises by about 50 percent in that window, or if the luminosity stops tracking the independently computed heating rate $dQ/dt$ in the $r\le 15M$ sphere, the central lightcurve claim fails. A cheaper check is to double the disk density and test the predicted ram-pressure scaling of horizon flux $\Phi_B \propto (\dot{M} A_{\rm BH})^{1/2}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a supermassive black hole binary embedded in gas can now be simulated seamlessly from a realistic, relaxed initial state through merger, and that this full evolution changes the expected phenomenology: the binary does not progressively starve its surroundings. Mass continues to flow inward after the binary decouples from the circumbinary disk, yet the accretion rate onto the black holes falls by about a factor of ten and levels off well before merger; the minidisks oscillate between disk-like and stream-like states, exchange mass through sloshing, and dissolve about $2000M$ before coalescence; and the electromagnetic luminosity, defined through the cooling rate, declines by about a factor of four over the $\sim 10^4M$ inspiral before jumping by about 50 percent within roughly $100M$ of merger, as shocks triggered by the sudden change in the gravitational potential dissipate energy in the remaining gas. The same simulation attributes the magnetic flux evolution to accretion ram pressure: the flux on the horizons falls by a factor of about three while $\dot{M}$ falls tenfold, and at merger roughly $2.5\times$ the pre-merger horizon flux attaches to the remnant, whose spin of about 0.68 then launches a Poynting-flux-dominated jet.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the paper's own cooling prescription (Eqs. 39--40, discussed in Sec. IV B), an ad hoc law that sets a Keplerian cooling timescale and drives every fluid element toward a fixed target entropy, and the electromagnetic luminosity is defined as the integral of that law, so if real gas radiates differently -- for instance because it is optically thick -- the predicted dimming and the 50 percent merger brightening could both change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • During the last $\sim 10^4M$ of inspiral the bolometric luminosity should fade by roughly a factor of four, then rise by about 50 percent within a $\sim 100M$ window around merger, with a sharp spectral change as the emission region contracts toward the remnant.
  • Near merger the accretion rate is a poor proxy for luminosity: the radiative efficiency jumps by about a factor of four because the abrupt change in the gravitational potential drives dissipative shocks through the remaining gas, while the total accretion rate stays essentially flat.
  • The merged remnant accretes at nearly the same rate as the pre-merger binary and, with dimensionless spin about 0.68, launches a mildly relativistic Poynting-flux-dominated jet whose power jumps by roughly a factor of five at merger; a sudden jet turn-on is a possible signature that two slowly spinning black holes have merged.
  • Mass is not progressively starved from the gap: the gas within $40M$ of the binary stays roughly constant through the inspiral, and the inner cavity's mass, after falling by a factor of about ten, regains about a quarter of its initial value before merger.
  • Simulations started at $10$--$12M$ separations show well-defined accretion streams much longer than this run does, implying that late-inspiral gas morphology is set by the binary's earlier history rather than by the final orbits alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A two-point test of the ram-pressure mechanism: rerun the same configuration with the disk density doubled and check whether the horizon flux saturation scales as $\Phi_B \propto \dot{M}^{1/2}$; if the flux does not move with the square root of the accretion rate, the regulation mechanism needs revision.
  • Because the luminosity is defined as the integral of the ad hoc cooling law, the 50 percent jump is a prediction about where and how fast gas is heated, not about how photons escape; a radiation-transport rerun is the natural check, and the jump could be softened by optical-depth effects the paper explicitly flags.
  • The comparison this paper draws with 2D Newtonian hydrodynamics, which shows a flat post-merger luminosity instead of a step, invites a controlled experiment: evolve the same initial conditions with a Newtonian potential inside the same code to isolate the relativistic origin of the brightening.
  • If the brightness jump and spectral flip are generic for equal-mass mergers, EM follow-up of LISA triggers should be planned at day-scale cadence around the expected merger window, since the brightening lasts about half a day for a $10^8\,M_\odot$ system by the paper's own scaling.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-stage GRMHD plus numerical relativity framework for supermassive black hole binary accretion. A circumbinary disk is first evolved to a quasi-steady turbulent state with the SphericalNR code in a fixed, post-Newtonian binary spacetime with the inner cavity excised; the evolved MHD fields are then interpolated onto a Cartesian mesh and handed off to IllinoisGRMHD, which evolves the same equal-mass, nonspinning binary through inspiral, merger, and early postmerger using the full Einstein equations. The production run starts from a coordinate separation of about 20M and reaches merger near t≈113600M. The authors report that accretion onto the individual holes declines by roughly a factor of 10 while inflow from the circumbinary disk continues, that the minidisks dissolve about 2000M before merger, that the EM luminosity, defined as the volume integral of the prescribed cooling sink, falls by about a factor of 4 during inspiral and then rises by about 50% at merger, and that the magnetic flux threading the horizons is regulated by accretion ram pressure. The central methodological claim is that this is the first 3D GRMHD plus numerical relativity simulation connecting a relaxed CBD at 20M all the way through merger.

Significance. If the core methodological claim stands, the paper represents a substantial advance: it removes an important limitation of previous work by combining a realistically relaxed circumbinary disk with a full numerical-relativity spacetime through merger, and it provides a foundation for future studies with spins, mass ratios, eccentricity, and more physical radiation treatment. The gas-dynamical results, such as the dissolution of the minidisks, the chaotic multi-stream late inspiral, and the near-continuity of the postmerger accretion rate, are informative and are likely to be more robust to the modeling choices than the luminosity curve. The hand-off consistency checks in Sec. III B and the comparison with earlier work in Sec. IV A 2 lend credibility to the pipeline. However, the quantitative lightcurve is a diagnostic of an ad hoc cooling law rather than a radiation prediction, and the headline numbers come from a single production run without a quantitative convergence study, so the strength of the quantitative observational claims is currently limited.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV B; Eqs. (39)-(40), (54)] The headline lightcurve is not a prediction from radiation physics but a diagnostic of the prescribed cooling law. Equation (54) defines LEM as the volume integral of Lcool, and Lcool (Eqs. (39)-(40)) is an entropy-damping sink with a Keplerian cooling timescale, a fixed target entropy s0=0.01, exponent q=1/2, and additional ad hoc damping zones near the horizons (Sec. II D 2). The factor ~4 inspiral decline and the ~50% merger jump are therefore properties of this particular cooling prescription. The argument in Sec. III C 3 that LEM closely tracks dQ/dt does not resolve the model dependence, because dQ/dt in Eq. (55) is inferred from an internal-energy budget that contains the same Lcool sink. I request either sensitivity tests varying the normalization of tcool, s0, q, and the damping radii to show that the qualitative lightcurve and the merger jump survive, or an explicit reframing of the lightcurve as a simulation-dependent proxy rather than an observational prediction in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [II C 3 and Sec. III] All quantitative claims, including the factor ~10 accretion decline, the factor ~4 luminosity decline, the ~50% merger jump, and the ram-pressure scaling of horizon flux, are taken from a single production run at finest resolution M/64. The only reported variation is a preliminary numerical-relativity run with a smaller refinement box, which is not a resolution study and for which only the total gas mass near merger is compared. Because the paper emphasizes quantitative factors, please provide a convergence assessment for the key diagnostics (accretion rates, minidisk masses, LEM, and horizon magnetic flux), even if only over a shorter time window or at one coarser and one finer resolution.
  3. [II C 2 and III D 1] The hand-off fills the excised cavity with zero vector potential and ramps Ai from zero at r=15M to the full interpolated values at r=35M, introducing an artificial magnetic-field configuration in precisely the region where the horizon flux and its merger-time evolution are later measured. The paper notes the artificial field in Sec. III B, but does not assess its effect on the claimed ram-pressure regulation of the horizon flux in Sec. III D 1 or on the postmerger Poynting flux. Please add a sensitivity discussion, and ideally a test with a different smoothing radius or initial field topology, to show that the flux evolution is not dominated by the hand-off prescription.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (19)] In Eq. (19), the second term in parentheses appears to contain index typos: 'T^{0K}' and '∂iα' should likely read 'T^{0k}∂kα'.
  2. [III C 3] The sentence 'LEM follows dQ/dt very closely (Fig. 14)' should cite Fig. 17, since dQ/dt is shown there rather than in Fig. 14.
  3. [II B 1] The initial torus is constructed using a single Kerr spacetime with dimensionless spin χ=1.25, which exceeds the Kerr bound; if this is an intentional pseudo-spin chosen to approximate the binary's quadrupole moment, this should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] In the Fig. 6 caption, 'spherical surface centered of coordinate radius' should be 'spherical surface centered at coordinate radius'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation's central results are dynamical outputs of the coupled GRMHD and Einstein equations, and the lightcurve follows from an explicitly labeled ad hoc cooling prescription rather than a fitted or self-defined quantity.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims—the roughly tenfold drop in horizon accretion, the dissolution of minidisks ~2000M before merger, the ram-pressure regulation of horizon magnetic flux, and the postmerger jet—are outputs of the coupled GRMHD and Einstein equations evolved from a prerelaxed circumbinary disk; no parameter is fitted to these target results. The hand-off consistency checks (Figs. 5–6) provide internal evidence that the interpolation step does not encode the final answers, and the comparisons to prior work, including [25], are external benchmarks rather than a self-citation chain. The one quantity that could look self-referential is LEM, defined in Eq. (54) as the volume integral of the cooling sink Lcool, with Lcool given by the entropy-damping prescription in Eqs. (39)–(40). That prescription is indeed ad hoc and not radiation transport, but the paper explicitly says so: Sec. IV B states 'our cooling rate prescription is ad hoc and does not account for the detailed mechanisms of EM radiation,' and Sec. V calls for 'more accurate radiation transport models.' Because tcool, s0, and q are chosen a priori and are not fit to the luminosity decline or the ~50% merger jump, the lightcurve is a forward prediction under a stated modeling assumption, not a reduction of the prediction to its own inputs. This is a physical modeling caveat, not circularity. The paper is heavily self-cited, as is common for a code-and-method extension paper, but no load-bearing argument rests on an unverified self-citation, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to forbid alternatives. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim rests on standard GRMHD plus a set of hand-chosen initial conditions and cooling parameters. Most are physically motivated and inherited from prior work; none are fit to the target results, but several directly shape the headline lightcurve. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • Cooling entropy target and exponent = s0 = 0.01, q = 1/2
    Eq. (40) sets the cooling rate from the entropy excess over s0; this directly sets LEM and shapes the lightcurve.
  • Cooling timescale normalization = tcool = 2π sqrt(r^3/M)
    Eq. (39) assumes a local Keplerian period rather than a radiative microphysics timescale; the amplitude of Lcool follows from this choice.
  • Cooling damping radii near horizons = 0.35M, 1M, 0.9M, 1.2M
    Sec. II D 2 hand-chosen to avoid cooling inside the apparent horizons and ISCO; these radii affect the near-horizon luminosity and the merger jump.
  • Initial magnetic field strength = Plasma internal energy / magnetic energy = 100
    Sec. II B 1 sets the initial field by choosing Aφ,0; this controls the magnetic flux available for the ram pressure claim.
  • Hand-off smoothing radii = r1 = 13M, r2 = 15M, rA = 35M
    Sec. II C 2 uses these radii for the polynomial smooth-fill of the excised cavity; the artificial magnetic field between 15M and 35M is a direct consequence.
  • Atmosphere density and pressure floors = ρfloor = 2e-10, ufloor = 2e-12
    Floor values are numerical choices that can affect low-density cavity dynamics, minidisk destruction, and luminosity in diffuse regions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD with infinite conductivity
    Eq. (4) assumes Fμνuν = 0, so no resistivity or magnetic reconnection microphysics is modeled.
  • domain assumption Gas does not self-gravitate
    Sec. II A states the stress-energy tensor is dropped from Einstein's equations; valid for the low gas masses modeled but excludes back-reaction.
  • domain assumption Ideal fluid equation of state with Γ = 5/3
    Eq. (31) closes the system; the paper argues the gas is not relativistically hot, but cooling and shocks may locally violate this.
  • ad hoc to paper The ad hoc cooling sink term represents all radiative losses
    Eqs. (39)-(41) replace radiation transport; the paper explicitly acknowledges this in Sec. IV B, and LEM is defined as the integral of this sink.
  • domain assumption The CBD snapshot at t = 99200M is a representative quasi-steady initial condition
    Sec. III A shows quasi-steady accretion from around 93000M, but the hand-off occurs only about 6000M into that stage, so the specific lump phase is imprinted on the inspiral run.
  • domain assumption The PN spacetime used during CBD equilibration is accurate enough at 20M separation
    Sec. II B 2 and II C 1 use a PN binary spacetime; the hand-off to full NR introduces a small gauge difference in separation of about 0.25 percent, assumed unimportant for gas dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic gas accretion onto supermassive black Hole binaries from inspiral through merger." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQHDUHKT

@misc{pith2026250206389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic gas accretion onto supermassive black Hole binaries from inspiral through merger},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQHDUHKT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06389}
}
read the original abstract

Accreting supermassive black hole binaries are powerful multimessenger sources emitting both gravitational and EM radiation. Understanding the accretion dynamics of these systems and predicting their distinctive EM signals is crucial to informing and guiding upcoming efforts aimed at detecting gravitational waves produced by these binaries. To this end, accurate numerical modeling is required to describe both the spacetime and the magnetized gas around the black holes. In this paper, we present two key advances in this field of research. First, we have developed a novel 3D GRMHD framework that combines multiple numerical codes to simulate the inspiral and merger of supermassive black hole binaries starting from realistic initial data and running all the way through merger. Throughout the evolution, we adopt a simple but functional prescription to account for gas cooling through photon emission. Next, we have applied our new computational method to follow the time evolution of a circular, equal-mass, nonspinning black hole binary for ~200 orbits, starting from a separation of 20r_g and reaching the postmerger evolutionary stage of the system. We have shown how mass continues to flow toward the binary even after the binary "decouples" from its surrounding disk, but the accretion rate onto the black holes diminishes. We have identified how the minidisks orbiting each black hole are slowly drained and eventually dissolve as the binary compresses. We confirm previous findings that the system's luminosity decreases by a factor of a few during inspiral; however, we observe an abrupt increase by ~50% in this quantity at the time of merger, likely accompanied by an equally abrupt change in spectrum. Finally, we have demonstrated that during the inspiral, fluid ram pressure regulates the fraction of the magnetic flux transported to the binary that attaches to the black holes' horizons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06389 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mass density distribution before (left panels) and after (right panels) the hand-off step from SphericalNR to IllinoisGRMHD. The right panels show the innermost mesh refinement boundaries. A few points, especially in the low-density polar region and in the disk’s magnetized corona, have been set to atmosphere. ∆tcoarse/∆xcoarse = 1/32, where ∆tcoarse and ∆xcoarse are the timestep and spatial resolution on the same l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Face-on (top panels) and edge-on (bottom panels) views of the mass density distribution in the CBD at different stages of its evolution with SphericalNR. The snapshots only show the central part of the computational domain, which extends to a maximum coordinate radius r = 20000 M. occurs around t ≃ 93000 M, is signaled by the forma￾tion of a density concentration (the “lump”: see [18, 19]) which modulates the accret… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass accretion rate onto the inner edge of the computational domain during the whole CBD evolution with SphericalNR. A solid vertical blue line at t ≃ 99200 M marks the time of hand-off to the inspiral and merger part of the simulation. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 r [M] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 (r)/ 0 Inner domain boundary Initial profile Time average 100000 110000 120000 130000 140000 150000 t[M] [PI… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Surface density in the CBD from t = 93000 M to t = 150120 M during the SphericalNR evolution. Colored curves show radial profiles of Σ (r)/ Σ0 (with Σ0 ≃ 0.126 in code units) at different times with a time resolution of 2400 M. The dotted and dashed curves are the init…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Equatorial distributions of the Lorentz factor (top panels) and squared-magnitude of the magnetic field in the fluid’s frame (bottom panels) in the CBD (left panels) and inspiral+merger (right panels) simulations at the time of hand-off. The magnetic field map after th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of various quantities during the first ∼2300 M of evolution after the hand-off for the CBD (teal) and inspiral (red) simulations. [Top panel] Accretion rate on a spherical surface centered of coordinate radius r = 20 M centered around the binary’s center of m…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Binary separation in coordinate distance as a function of time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Equatorial slices of the mass density distribution from the early inspiral to the postmerger stages of the NR evolution. Time advances from left to right and from top to bottom. Black circular lines mark the 15 M, 20 M, 30 M, and 50 M radii. Note the progressive spread…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Polar slices of the distributions of the Lorentz factor (top panels) and magnetization b 2/2ρ during the early inspiral (left), late inspiral (center), and postmerger (right) stages. Note that we extended the colorbar limits in the plot of the postmerger distribution o…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Equatorial slices of inverse plasma beta β −1 ≡ b 2/2P during the early inspiral (left), late inspiral (center), and postmerger (right) stages. of 10 over the first ∼10500 M of the inspiral (i.e., from t ≃ 99200 M to t ≃ 109700 M), but in the ∼4000 M from the end of t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: [Top panel] Mass accretion rate on the black holes’ apparent horizons. [Middle panel] Minidisk masses, with minidisk regions being defined as spherical volumes around each puncture with radius r = 0.45 a, where a is the coordinate orbital separation. The apparent hori…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Masses in a spherical volume of coordinate radius r = 15 M (blue) and in spherical shells 15 M < r ≤ 30 M (orange) and 30 M < r ≤ 40 M (green) around the binary’s center of mass. rate at which sloshing carries mass from one minidisk to the other varies at the beat fre…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Power spectra of the quantities shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: [Top panel] Total accretion rate onto the binary (i.e., sum of the blue and red curves in the top panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Power spectrum of LEM in a sphere of coordinate radius r = 100 M around the center of mass of the binary. The spectrum is computed using the same numerical techniques described in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Equatorial slices showing the increase in temperature T ≡ P/ρ in the vicinity of the black holes from ∼1000 M before merger (left panel) to ∼1000 M after (right panel). 10 2 10 1 M(t)[M] Merger 10 4 10 3 U(t)[M] Merger 100000 102500 105000 107500 110000 112500 115000 …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mass (top panel), internal energy (middle panel), and heating rate (bottom panel) in a spherical volume of coordinate radius r = 15 M centered around the binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Projection of the magnetic field lines on the equatorial (left panels) and meridional (right panels) planes shortly before merger (upper panels) and after merger (lower panels) superimposed onto the mass density distribution. The merger remnant forces the magnetic fie…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Total magnetic field energy (dark teal) and the poloidal (gold) and toroidal (magenta) contributions to the magnetic field energy in spherical volumes of coordinate radius r = 1 M centered on the inspiralling punctures or on the merger remnant. The choice r = 1 M ensu…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Magnetic flux through several different surfaces in the inner portion of the cavity region around the binary as a function of time: a disk of coordinate radius R = 20 M in the equatorial plane where we excise the intersection with the black hole horizons (light blue);…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Equatorial (top panels) and polar (bottom panels) slices of the vertical magnetic field component |Bz | in the early inspiral (left panels), shortly (∼620 M) before merger (central panels), and ∼4200 M after merger (right panels). Note the progressive accretion of ver…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: [Upper panel] Accretion-rate-normalized magnetic flux (see Eq. (62)) on the horizons. [Lower panel] Poynting flux on a spherical surface with coordinate radius r = 100 M around the binary’s center of mass. Note the sharp increase of both quantities at merger. dynamics…

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. $\textit{BMAD}$-Circumbinary Magnetically Arrested Disks around Stellar or Black Hole Binaries: Hot Accretion Flows, Disk Properties, and Angular Momentum Transfer

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Circumbinary accretion disks can enter a magnetically arrested state, and in weakly cooled or adiabatic regimes the resulting magnetic flux eruptions may drive the binary orbit to shrink.

  2. The implications of stochastic gas torques for asymmetric binaries in the LISA band

    gr-qc 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hydrodynamic stochastic gas torques do not bias the recovered binary parameters of EMRI/IMRI signals in LISA, but they can bias or hide the inferred accretion disk torque amplitude and slope.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    poloidal

    Character of the magnetic field We now direct our attention to the dynamics of the EM field. The magnetic field changes in a number of ways during inspiral and does so especially dramatically at the time of merger. For example, the relative sizes of the magnetic field’s components near the black hole horizons shift sharply toward a greater contribution fr...

  2. [2]

    (60) Here Si denotes the Poynting vector which, in the ideal MHD limit, is given by Si = B2vi − vjBj vi

    Poynting flux The EM field also generates Poynting flux, whose total amount can be found by a surface integral analogous to that used for magnetic flux: FS ≡ Z S d2σi √−g Si . (60) Here Si denotes the Poynting vector which, in the ideal MHD limit, is given by Si = B2vi − vjBj vi . (61) Note that surfaces appropriate to describing total Poynt- ing flux may...

  3. [3]

    EM luminosity

    Luminosity In this section, we report on the time evolution of the EM luminosity in the inner parts of the system. In the literature, the term “EM luminosity” (or simply “lumi- nosity”) sometimes refers to the volume-integrated cool- ing rate and at other times to the Poynting luminosity; in this work we follow the former convention and define the EM lumi...

  4. [4]

    decoupling

    New features A very large literature now exists regarding the fluid dynamics of binary accretion. Features such as the cav- ity within ∼ 2a of the center of mass and the minidisks around each of the partners in the binary have been ex- tensively discussed. Our simulation has demonstrated that essentially all these features change dramatically when two bla...

  5. [5]

    de- couples

    Contrast with previous work The chaotic gas dynamics in the gap region that we ob- serve close to merger contrasts sharply with some cognate previous work. The most dramatic contrast is with the work of [119], who used 2D Newtonian hydrodynamics combined with orbital evolution given by the quadrupole gravitational wave radiation rate. In their calculation...

  6. [6]

    Surface integrals We developed CactusSurfaceIntegrals, an MPI- parallel C++ code capable of calculating the integrals of various quantities of physical interest over planar, spherical, or cylindrical surfaces embedded in Cactus grids with Cartesian topology and box-in-box mesh re- finement. Since the main application of the code is (for now) the analysis ...

  7. [7]

    Each MPI task is assigned a chunk of the integra- tion surface

  8. [8]

    Each point on the surface chunk is assigned the Cactus grid component with the finest available resolution that overlaps that point

Show all 173 references
  1. [9]

    All the needed fields are interpolated on each point of the surface chunk using the previously assigned grid patch

  2. [10]

    A typical binary black hole simulation involves multi- ple MPI processes, so that the GRMHD fields are scat- tered across multiple files (possibly one file per process)

    The integral(s) is (are) computed by each MPI rank on the corresponding surface chunk, then the local contributions are summed and written to file. A typical binary black hole simulation involves multi- ple MPI processes, so that the GRMHD fields are scat- tered across multipl...

  3. [11]

    V olume integrals We also developed CactusVolumeIntegrals, an MPI-parallel C++ code to compute spherical volume in- tegrals over Cactus grids with Cartesian topology and box-in-box mesh refinement. As in CactusSurfaceIn- tegrals, the center of the sphere can either be fixed in...

  4. [12]

    Note that the code must run as many MPI processes as there are files to read

    Each MPI process reads one and only one Cactus HDF5 file containing the information about how the GRMHD fields are laid out in the simulation domain. Note that the code must run as many MPI processes as there are files to read

  5. [13]

    All grid components in each file are checked for overlap against the integration sphere by means of Arvo’s algorithm [158]

  6. [14]

    This step in- volves collective MPI operations

    All MPI processes must know which grid compo- nents overlap the integration sphere (no matter which files those components belong to), so that only the components with the finest available res- olution are used in the integration. This step in- volves collective MPI operations

  7. [15]

    The contri- bution from each grid point is weighed by a fac- tor 1 /2rl, where rl ∈ {0, 1, 2,

    Each MPI process calculates the integral(s) over all grid components (or part of them) with the finest available resolution that overlap the sphere and be- long to the corresponding HDF5 file. The contri- bution from each grid point is weighed by a fac- tor 1 /2rl, where rl ∈ ...

  8. [16]

    D. N. Schramm, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supple- ments 28, 243 (1992)

    1992

  9. [17]

    P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton University Press, 1993)

    1993

  10. [18]

    Schneider, Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology (Springer, 2006)

    P. Schneider, Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology (Springer, 2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, Annual Review of Astron- omy and Astrophysics 51, 511 (2013), arXiv:1304.7762 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bogdanovi´ c, M

    T. Bogdanovi´ c, M. C. Miller, and L. Blecha, Living Reviews in Relativity 25, 3 (2022), arXiv:2109.03262 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Volonteri, F

    M. Volonteri, F. Haardt, and P. Madau, Astrophys. J. 582, 559 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0207276 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, B. C. Mundim, H. Nakano, Y. Zlochower, and H.-P. Bischof, Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity 27, 084034 (2010), arXiv:1001.3834 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA Collaboration and InPTA Collaboration), Astronomy & Astrosphysics 678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Colpi et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.07571 (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Colpi et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.07571 (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. , Living Reviews in Relativity 26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dal Canton, A

    T. Dal Canton, A. Mangiagli, S. C. Noble, J. Schnittman, A. Ptak, A. Klein, A. Sesana, and J. Camp, Astrophys. J. 886, 146 (2019), arXiv:1902.01538 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. C. Duffell, A. J. Dittmann, D. J. D’Orazio, A. Fran- chini, K. M. Kratter, A. B. T. Penzlin, E. Ragusa, M. Si- wek, C. Tiede, H. Wang, J. Zrake, A. M. Dempsey, Z. Haiman, A. Lupi, M. Pirog, and G. Ryan, Astrophys. J. 970, 156 (2024), arXiv:2402.13039 [astro-ph.SR]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    E. M. Guti´ errez, L. Combi, and G. Ryan, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.14843 (2024), arXiv:2405.14843 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. C. Noble and J. H. Krolik, in preparation

  22. [30]

    J. E. Pringle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 248, 754 (1991)

    1991

  23. [31]

    Artymowicz and S

    P. Artymowicz and S. H. Lubow, Astrophys. J. 421, 651 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    A. I. MacFadyen and M. Milosavljevi´ c, Astrophys. J. 672, 83 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0607467 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J.-M. Shi, J. H. Krolik, S. H. Lubow, and J. F. Hawley, Astrophys. J. 749, 118 (2012), arXiv:1110.4866 [astro- ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. C. Noble, B. C. Mundim, H. Nakano, J. H. Krolik, M. Campanelli, Y. Zlochower, and N. Yunes, Astrophys. J. 755, 51 (2012), arXiv:1204.1073 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    B. D. Farris, P. Duffell, A. I. MacFadyen, and Z. Haiman, Astrophys. J. 783, 134 (2014), arXiv:1310.0492 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Shi and J

    J.-M. Shi and J. H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 807, 131 (2015), arXiv:1503.05561 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. B. Bowen, M. Campanelli, J. H. Krolik, V. Mewes, and S. C. Noble, Astrophys. J. 838, 42 (2017), arXiv:1612.02373 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    D. B. Bowen, V. Mewes, S. C. Noble, M. Avara, M. Campanelli, and J. H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 879, 76 (2019), arXiv:1904.12048 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Artymowicz and S

    P. Artymowicz and S. H. Lubow, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 467, L77 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    M. J. Avara, J. H. Krolik, M. Campanelli, S. C. Noble, D. Bowen, and T. Ryu, Astrophys. J. 974, 242 (2024), arXiv:2305.18538 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. R. Westernacher-Schneider, J. Zrake, A. Mac- Fadyen, and Z. Haiman, Astrophys. J. 962, 76 (2024), arXiv:2307.01154 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Roedig, J

    C. Roedig, J. H. Krolik, and M. C. Miller, Astrophys. J. 785, 115 (2014), arXiv:1402.7098 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    B. D. Farris, P. Duffell, A. I. MacFadyen, and Z. Haiman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 446, L36 (2015), arXiv:1406.0007 [astro- ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    d’Ascoli, S

    S. d’Ascoli, S. C. Noble, D. B. Bowen, M. Campanelli, J. H. Krolik, and V. Mewes, Astrophys. J. 865, 140 (2018), arXiv:1806.05697 [astro-ph.HE]. 35

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    E. M. Guti´ errez, L. Combi, S. C. Noble, M. Campan- elli, J. H. Krolik, F. L´ opez Armengol, and F. Garc ´ ıa, Astrophys. J. 928, 137 (2022), arXiv:2112.09773 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Nagele, J

    C. Nagele, J. Krolik, and S. Noble, in preparation

  39. [47]

    B. E. Kinch, S. C. Noble, J. D. Schnittman, and J. H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 904, 117 (2020), arXiv:2009.01914 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    B. D. Farris, R. Gold, V. Paschalidis, Z. B. Etienne, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 221102 (2012), arXiv:1207.3354 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    R. Gold, V. Paschalidis, Z. B. Etienne, S. L. Shapiro, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064060 (2014), arXiv:1312.0600 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    R. Gold, V. Paschalidis, M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro, Z. B. Etienne, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 90, 104030 (2014), arXiv:1410.1543 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Paschalidis, J

    V. Paschalidis, J. Bright, M. Ruiz, and R. Gold, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 910, L26 (2021), arXiv:2102.06712 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. C. Bright and V. Paschalidis, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 520, 392 (2023), arXiv:2210.15686 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cattorini, B

    F. Cattorini, B. Giacomazzo, F. Haardt, and M. Colpi, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103022 (2021), arXiv:2102.13166 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cattorini, S

    F. Cattorini, S. Maggioni, B. Giacomazzo, F. Haardt, M. Colpi, and S. Covino, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters 930, L1 (2022), arXiv:2202.08282 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fedrigo, F

    G. Fedrigo, F. Cattorini, B. Giacomazzo, and M. Colpi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2309.03949 (2023), arXiv:2309.03949 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cattorini, B

    F. Cattorini, B. Giacomazzo, M. Colpi, and F. Haardt, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043004 (2024), arXiv:2309.05738 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Manikantan, V

    V. Manikantan, V. Paschalidis, and G. Bozzola, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.11955 (2024), arXiv:2411.11955 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. C. Noble, J. H. Krolik, M. Campanelli, Y. Zlochower, B. C. Mundim, H. Nakano, and M. Zilh˜ ao, Astrophys. J. 922, 175 (2021), arXiv:2103.12100 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    F. G. Lopez Armengol, L. Combi, M. Campanelli, S. C. Noble, J. H. Krolik, D. B. Bowen, M. J. Avara, V. Mewes, and H. Nakano, Astrophys. J.913, 16 (2021), arXiv:2102.00243 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Combi, F

    L. Combi, F. G. Lopez Armengol, M. Campanelli, S. C. Noble, M. Avara, J. H. Krolik, and D. Bowen, As- trophys. J. 928, 187 (2022), arXiv:2109.01307 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    B. C. Mundim, H. Nakano, N. Yunes, M. Campanelli, S. C. Noble, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D89, 084008 (2014), arXiv:1312.6731 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Ireland, B

    B. Ireland, B. C. Mundim, H. Nakano, and M. Campan- elli, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104057 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Nakano, B

    H. Nakano, B. Ireland, M. Campanelli, and E. J. West, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 247001 (2016), arXiv:1608.01033 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Combi, F

    L. Combi, F. G. L. Armengol, M. Campanelli, B. Ire- land, S. C. Noble, H. Nakano, and D. Bowen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044041 (2021), arXiv:2103.15707 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Combi and S

    L. Combi and S. M. Ressler, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2403.13308 (2024), arXiv:2403.13308 [gr-qc]

    2024

  58. [66]

    Mewes, Y

    V. Mewes, Y. Zlochower, M. Campanelli, I. Ruchlin, Z. B. Etienne, and T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D 97, 084059 (2018), arXiv:1802.09625 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Mewes, Y

    V. Mewes, Y. Zlochower, M. Campanelli, T. W. Baumgarte, Z. B. Etienne, F. G. L. Armengol, and F. Cipolletta, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104007 (2020), arXiv:2002.06225 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    L. Ji, V. Mewes, Y. Zlochower, L. Ennoggi, F. G. L. Armengol, M. Campanelli, F. Cipolletta, and Z. B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104005 (2023), arXiv:2305.01537 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Z. B. Etienne, V. Paschalidis, R. Haas, P. M¨ osta, and S. L. Shapiro, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 175009 (2015), arXiv:1501.07276 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  62. [70]

    L. R. Werneck, Z. B. Etienne, A. Murguia-Berthier, R. Haas, F. Cipolletta, S. C. Noble, L. Ennoggi, F. G. Lopez Armengol, B. Giacomazzo, T. Assump¸ c˜ ao, J. Faber, T. Gupte, B. J. Kelly, and J. H. Krolik, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044037 (2023), arXiv:2208.14487 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Darmois, Les ´ equations de la gravitation einsteini- enne, M´ emorial des sciences math´ ematiques No

    G. Darmois, Les ´ equations de la gravitation einsteini- enne, M´ emorial des sciences math´ ematiques No. 25 (Gauthier-Villars, 1927)

    1927

  64. [72]

    Four` es-Bruhat, Acta Mathematica88, 141 (1952)

    Y. Four` es-Bruhat, Acta Mathematica88, 141 (1952)

    1952

  65. [73]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, General Relativity and Gravitation 40, 1997 (2008), arXiv:gr- qc/0405109 [gr-qc]

    2008

  66. [74]

    Gourgoulhon, 3+1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Relativity , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    ´E. Gourgoulhon, 3+1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Relativity , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  67. [75]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 59, 024007 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9810065 [gr-qc]

    1998 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Shibata and T

    M. Shibata and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5428 (1995)

    1995

  69. [77]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlo- chower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0511048 [gr-qc]

    2006

  70. [78]

    J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111102 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511103 [gr-qc]

    2006 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Banyuls, J

    F. Banyuls, J. A. Font, J. M. Ib´ a˜ nez, J. M. Mart ´ ı, and J. A. Miralles, Astrophys. J. 476, 221 (1997)

    1997

  72. [80]

    Bonazzola, E

    S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandcl´ ement, and J. Novak, Phys. Rev. D 70, 104007 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0307082 [gr-qc]

    2004

  73. [81]

    Shibata, K

    M. Shibata, K. Ury¯ u, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D 70, 044044 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407036 [gr-qc]

    2004 arXiv

  74. [82]

    J. D. Brown, Phys. Rev. D 79, 104029 (2009), arXiv:0902.3652 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  75. [83]

    P. J. Montero and I. Cordero-Carri´ on, Phys. Rev. D85, 124037 (2012), arXiv:1204.5377 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  76. [84]

    T. W. Baumgarte, P. J. Montero, I. Cordero-Carri´ on, and E. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044026 (2013), arXiv:1211.6632 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  77. [85]

    P. J. Montero, T. W. Baumgarte, and E. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084043 (2014), arXiv:1309.7808 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Sanchis-Gual, P

    N. Sanchis-Gual, P. J. Montero, J. A. Font, E. M¨ uller, and T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104033 (2014), arXiv:1403.3653 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  79. [87]

    T. W. Baumgarte, P. J. Montero, and E. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064035 (2015), arXiv:1501.05259 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Zilh˜ ao, S

    M. Zilh˜ ao, S. C. Noble, M. Campanelli, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024034 (2015), arXiv:1409.4787 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Goodale, G

    T. Goodale, G. Allen, G. Lanfermann, J. Mass´ o, T. Radke, E. Seidel, and J. Shalf, in High Perfor- 36 mance Computing for Computational Science — VEC- PAR 2002, edited by J. M. L. M. Palma, A. A. Sousa, J. Dongarra, and V. Hern´ andez (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, Berlin, He...

    2002

  82. [90]

    L¨ offler, J

    F. L¨ offler, J. Faber, E. Bentivegna, T. Bode, P. Di- ener, R. Haas, I. Hinder, B. C. Mundim, C. D. Ott, E. Schnetter, G. Allen, M. Campanelli, and P. Laguna, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 115001 (2012), arXiv:1111.3344 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Zilh˜ ao and F

    M. Zilh˜ ao and F. L¨ offler, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics A 28, 1340014-126 (2013), arXiv:1305.5299 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Schnetter, S

    E. Schnetter, S. H. Hawley, and I. Hawke, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, 1465 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0310042 [gr-qc]

    2004 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Schnetter, P

    E. Schnetter, P. Diener, E. N. Dorband, and M. Tiglio, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23, S553 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0602104 [gr-qc]

    2006 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Schnetter, Carpet documentation, https: //einsteintoolkit.org/arrangementguide/Carpet/ documentation.html (2003)

    E. Schnetter, Carpet documentation, https: //einsteintoolkit.org/arrangementguide/Carpet/ documentation.html (2003)

    2003

  87. [95]

    Schnetter, Carpet bitbucket repository, https:// bitbucket.org/eschnett/carpet/src/master

    E. Schnetter, Carpet bitbucket repository, https:// bitbucket.org/eschnett/carpet/src/master

  88. [96]

    D. S. Balsara, S. Garain, and C.-W. Shu, Journal of Computational Physics 326, 780 (2016)

    2016

  89. [97]

    Castro, B

    M. Castro, B. Costa, and W. S. Don, Journal of Com- putational Physics 230, 1766 (2011)

    2011

  90. [98]

    Tchekhovskoy, J

    A. Tchekhovskoy, J. C. McKinney, and R. Narayan, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society379, 469 (2007), arXiv:0704.2608 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Rembiasz, M

    T. Rembiasz, M. Obergaulinger, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, E. M¨ uller, and M. A. Aloy, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 456, 3782 (2016), arXiv:1508.04799 [astro-ph.SR]

    2016 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Rembiasz, M

    T. Rembiasz, M. Obergaulinger, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, M.-´A. Aloy, and E. M¨ uller, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series 230, 18 (2017), arXiv:1611.05858 [astro- ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  93. [101]

    J. F. Mahlmann, M. A. Aloy, V. Mewes, and P. Cerd´ a- Dur´ an, Astronomy & Astrophysics 647, A58 (2021), arXiv:2007.06599 [physics.comp-ph]

    2021

  94. [102]

    Harten, P

    A. Harten, P. D. Lax, and B. van Leer, SIAM Review 25, 35 (1983), https://doi.org/10.1137/1025002

    1983 doi

  95. [103]

    Kreiss and J

    H. Kreiss and J. Oliger, Methods for the approximate so- lution of time dependent problems , GARP Publications Series (SELBSTVERL.) FEBR, 1973)

    1973

  96. [104]

    Schnetter and B

    E. Schnetter and B. J. Kelly, Dissipation documen- tation, https://einsteintoolkit.org/thornguide/ CactusNumerical/Dissipation/documentation.html

  97. [105]

    Hawke, Method of Lines (MoL) bitbucket repository, https://bitbucket.org/cactuscode/ cactusnumerical/src/master/MoL/ ()

    I. Hawke, Method of Lines (MoL) bitbucket repository, https://bitbucket.org/cactuscode/ cactusnumerical/src/master/MoL/ ()

  98. [106]

    Hawke, Method of Lines (MoL) documenta- tion, https://einsteintoolkit.org/thornguide/ CactusNumerical/MoL/documentation.html ()

    I. Hawke, Method of Lines (MoL) documenta- tion, https://einsteintoolkit.org/thornguide/ CactusNumerical/MoL/documentation.html ()

  99. [107]

    R. J. Spiteri and S. J. Ruuth, SIAM Jour- nal on Numerical Analysis 40, 469 (2002), https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036142901389025

    2002 doi

  100. [108]

    Zlochower, H

    Y. Zlochower, H. Nakano, B. C. Mundim, M. Campan- elli, S. Noble, and M. Zilh˜ ao, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124072 (2016)

    2016

  101. [109]

    Ireland, O

    B. Ireland, O. Birnholtz, H. Nakano, E. West, and M. Campanelli, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024015 (2019), arXiv:1904.03443 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Kastaun and F

    W. Kastaun and F. Galeazzi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064027 (2015), arXiv:1411.7975 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Foucart, P

    F. Foucart, P. M¨ osta, T. Ramirez, A. J. Wright, S. Darbha, and D. Kasen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123010 (2021), arXiv:2109.00565 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  104. [112]

    J. M. Bowen and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D 21, 2047 (1980)

    1980

  105. [113]

    Brandt and B

    S. Brandt and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 3606 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9703066 [gr-qc]

    1997 arXiv

  106. [114]

    G. B. Cook, Living Reviews in Relativity 3, 5 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0007085 [gr-qc]

    2000 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Ansorg, B

    M. Ansorg, B. Br¨ ugmann, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 70, 064011 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0404056 [gr-qc]

    2004 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Haas, ReadInterpolate documentation, https://einsteintoolkit.org/thornguide/ EinsteinInitialData/ReadInterpolate/ documentation.html (2020)

    R. Haas, ReadInterpolate documentation, https://einsteintoolkit.org/thornguide/ EinsteinInitialData/ReadInterpolate/ documentation.html (2020)

    2020

  109. [117]

    Haas, ReadInterpolate bitbucket reposi- tory, https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/ einsteininitialdata/src/master/ReadInterpolate

    R. Haas, ReadInterpolate bitbucket reposi- tory, https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/ einsteininitialdata/src/master/ReadInterpolate

  110. [118]

    The HDF Group, Hierarchical Data Format, version 5, https://github.com/HDFGroup/hdf5

  111. [119]

    Prasad, A

    V. Prasad, A. Gupta, S. Bose, and B. Krishnan, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044019 (2022), arXiv:2106.02595 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Prasad, Phys

    V. Prasad, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044033 (2024)

    2024

  113. [121]

    Brown, P

    D. Brown, P. Diener, O. Sarbach, E. Schnetter, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D 79, 044023 (2009), arXiv:0809.3533 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Schnetter, McLachlan documentation, https: //einsteintoolkit.org/arrangementguide/ McLachlan/documentation.html (2009)

    E. Schnetter, McLachlan documentation, https: //einsteintoolkit.org/arrangementguide/ McLachlan/documentation.html (2009)

    2009

  115. [123]

    Schnetter, P

    E. Schnetter, P. Diener, J. Tao, and I. Hinder, McLachlan bitbucket repository, https://bitbucket. org/einsteintoolkit/mclachlan/src/master

  116. [124]

    Thornburg, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, 743 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0306056 [gr-qc]

    J. Thornburg, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, 743 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0306056 [gr-qc]

    2004 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Thornburg, AHFinderDirect documentation, https://einsteintoolkit.org/thornguide/ EinsteinAnalysis/AHFinderDirect/documentation

    J. Thornburg, AHFinderDirect documentation, https://einsteintoolkit.org/thornguide/ EinsteinAnalysis/AHFinderDirect/documentation. html ()

  118. [126]

    Thornburg, AHFinderDirect bitbucket reposi- tory, https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/ einsteinanalysis/src/master/AHFinderDirect ()

    J. Thornburg, AHFinderDirect bitbucket reposi- tory, https://bitbucket.org/einsteintoolkit/ einsteinanalysis/src/master/AHFinderDirect ()

  119. [127]

    Dreyer, B

    O. Dreyer, B. Krishnan, D. Shoemaker, and E. Schnet- ter, Phys. Rev. D 67, 024018 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0206008 [gr-qc]

    2003

  120. [128]

    Schnetter, B

    E. Schnetter, B. Krishnan, and F. Beyer, Phys. Rev. D 74, 024028 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604015 [gr-qc]

    2006 arXiv

  121. [129]

    L. B. Szabados, Living Reviews in Relativity7, 4 (2004)

    2004

  122. [130]

    Schnetter and R

    E. Schnetter and R. Haas, QuasiLocalMeasures documentation, https://einsteintoolkit.org/ thornguide/EinsteinAnalysis/QuasiLocalMeasures/ documentation.html (2017)

    2017

  123. [131]

    Schnetter and R

    E. Schnetter and R. Haas, QuasiLocalMeasures bitbucket repository, https://bitbucket.org/ einsteintoolkit/einsteinanalysis/src/master/ QuasiLocalMeasures

  124. [132]

    Colella and P

    P. Colella and P. R. Woodward, Journal of Computa- tional Physics 54, 174 (1984)

    1984

  125. [133]

    S. C. Noble, C. F. Gammie, J. C. McKinney, and L. Del Zanna, Astrophys. J. 641, 626 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0512420 [astro-ph]

    2006

  126. [134]

    L. M. Krauth, J. Davelaar, Z. Haiman, J. R. 37 Westernacher-Schneider, J. Zrake, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526, 5441 (2023), arXiv:2304.02575 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Welch, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroa- coustics 15, 70 (1967)

    P. Welch, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroa- coustics 15, 70 (1967)

    1967

  128. [136]

    J. C. McKinney and C. F. Gammie, Astrophys. J. 611, 977 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404512 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  129. [137]

    J. F. Hawley and J. H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 641, 103 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512227 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Shiokawa, J

    H. Shiokawa, J. H. Krolik, R. M. Cheng, T. Pi- ran, and S. C. Noble, Astrophys. J. 804, 85 (2015), arXiv:1501.04365 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Piran, G

    T. Piran, G. Svirski, J. Krolik, R. M. Cheng, and H. Sh- iokawa, Astrophys. J.806, 164 (2015), arXiv:1502.05792 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  132. [140]

    T. Ryu, J. Krolik, T. Piran, S. C. Noble, and M. Avara, Astrophys. J. 957, 12 (2023), arXiv:2305.05333 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Steinberg and N

    E. Steinberg and N. C. Stone, Nature (London) 625, 463 (2024), arXiv:2206.10641 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  134. [142]

    D. J. Price, D. Liptai, I. Mandel, J. Shep- herd, G. Lodato, and Y. Levin, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.09381 (2024), arXiv:2404.09381 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  135. [143]

    J. H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 709, 774 (2010), arXiv:0911.5711 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  136. [144]

    J. D. Schnittman, J. H. Krolik, and S. C. Noble, As- trophys. J. 769, 156 (2013), arXiv:1207.2693 [astro- ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Milosavljevi´ c and E

    M. Milosavljevi´ c and E. S. Phinney, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters 622, L93 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0410343 [astro-ph]

    2005

  138. [146]

    E. M. Guti´ errez, L. Combi, G. E. Romero, and M. Cam- panelli, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 532, 506 (2024), arXiv:2301.04280 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  139. [147]

    D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 436, 2997 (2013), arXiv:1210.0536 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  140. [148]

    P. J. Armitage and P. Natarajan, Astrophys. J. 634, 921 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508493 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  141. [149]

    M. C. Miller, M. Freitag, D. P. Hamilton, and V. M. Lauburg, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 631, L117 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507133 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  142. [150]

    Sesana, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 224014 (2013), arXiv:1307.2600 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Sesana, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 224014 (2013), arXiv:1307.2600 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  143. [151]

    Gualandris, F

    A. Gualandris, F. M. Khan, E. Bortolas, M. Bonetti, A. Sesana, P. Berczik, and K. Holley-Bockelmann, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society511, 4753 (2022), arXiv:2201.08646 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  144. [152]

    Bogdanovi´ c, C

    T. Bogdanovi´ c, C. S. Reynolds, and M. C. Miller, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 661, L147 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0703054 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  145. [153]

    M. C. Miller and J. H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 774, 43 (2013), arXiv:1307.6569 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  146. [154]

    K. A. Sorathia, J. H. Krolik, and J. F. Hawley, Astro- phys. J. 777, 21 (2013), arXiv:1309.0290 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  147. [155]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D 74, 041501 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604012 [gr-qc]

    2006 arXiv

  148. [156]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Mer- ritt, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 659, L5 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0701164 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  149. [157]

    Keppel, D

    D. Keppel, D. A. Nichols, Y. Chen, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124015 (2009), arXiv:0902.4077 [gr- qc]

    2009 arXiv

  150. [158]

    D. A. Hemberger, G. Lovelace, T. J. Loredo, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, B. Szil´ agyi, N. W. Taylor, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064014 (2013), arXiv:1305.5991 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  151. [159]

    S. M. Ressler, L. Combi, B. Ripperda, and E. R. Most, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.10944 (2024), arXiv:2410.10944 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  152. [160]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 231102 (2011), arXiv:1108.2009 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  153. [161]

    C. O. Lousto and J. Healy, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 141101 (2015), arXiv:1410.3830 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  154. [162]

    C. O. Lousto, J. Healy, and H. Nakano, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044031 (2016), arXiv:1506.04768 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  155. [163]

    Kesden, D

    M. Kesden, D. Gerosa, R. O’Shaughnessy, E. Berti, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 081103 (2015), arXiv:1411.0674 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  156. [164]

    C. O. Lousto and J. Healy, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124074 (2016), arXiv:1601.05086 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  157. [165]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 97, 084002 (2018), arXiv:1801.08162 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  158. [166]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collabora- tion, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  159. [167]

    Narayan, I

    R. Narayan, I. V. Igumenshchev, and M. A. Abramow- icz, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 55, L69 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305029 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  160. [168]

    Tchekhovskoy, R

    A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society418, L79 (2011), arXiv:1108.0412 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  161. [169]

    Ripperda, M

    B. Ripperda, M. Liska, K. Chatterjee, G. Musoke, A. A. Philippov, S. B. Markoff, A. Tchekhovskoy, and Z. Younsi, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 924, L32 (2022), arXiv:2109.15115 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  162. [170]

    E. R. Most and H.-Y. Wang, The Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters 973, L19 (2024), arXiv:2408.00757 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  163. [171]

    J. M. Stone, P. D. Mullen, D. Fielding, P. Grete, M. Guo, P. Kempski, E. R. Most, C. J. White, and G. N. Wong, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.16053 (2024), arXiv:2409.16053 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  164. [172]

    Tiwari, C.-H

    V. Tiwari, C.-H. Chan, T. Bogdanovi´ c, Y.-F. Jiang, S. W. Davis, and S. Ferrel, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2502.18584 (2025), arXiv:2502.18584 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  165. [173]

    Arvo, A simple method for box-sphere intersection testing, in Graphics Gems (Academic Press Profes- sional, Inc., USA, 1990) p

    J. Arvo, A simple method for box-sphere intersection testing, in Graphics Gems (Academic Press Profes- sional, Inc., USA, 1990) p. 335–339

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.