pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.24083 · v2 · pith:4ZQK45FPnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Hadronic Processes, Plasma Evolution and Neutrino Emission in Magnetic Towers of Neutron-Star Merger Remnants

Rostom Mbarek , Jiaxi Wu , Elias R. Most This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 15:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron star mergersmagnetic reconnectionhadronic processespair productionneutrino emissionproton-proton collisionsmagnetar remnantsmagnetic towers
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hadronic proton-proton collisions dominate pair loading and neutrino production in magnetic towers of neutron star merger remnants.

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

The paper establishes that purely leptonic pair-loading mechanisms are inefficient in the strongly radiative magnetic towers because of rapid pitch-angle damping and population of low Landau levels. Magnetic reconnection instead accelerates protons to mildly relativistic energies, after which inelastic proton-proton collisions produce pions whose decay chains drive electromagnetic cascades with multiplicity around 4 at 10^15 Gauss. This hadronic channel supplies the bulk of the pairs and channels dissipated magnetic energy into the electron-positron population that can power nonthermal emission farther out. The same process also generates a nonthermal neutrino tail up to hundreds of MeV that is spectrally distinct from the thermal cooling burst and potentially observable from nearby sources.

Core claim

Magnetic reconnection is the viable acceleration channel once current sheets reach collisionless scales. Protons accelerated to gamma greater than or equal to 1.3 undergo inelastic collisions that inject large-pitch-angle pions; neutral-pion decay then initiates gamma to electron-positron cascades with multiplicity approximately 4 at B equals 10^15 G. This route dominates pair loading, channels most dissipated magnetic energy into the pair population, and seeds a nonthermal neutrino spectrum from charged-pion decay extending to about 300 MeV times sigma_p over 5, distinct from thermal emission and detectable within 100 kpc.

What carries the argument

Inelastic proton-proton collisions triggered by magnetic reconnection, which initiate pion-driven electromagnetic cascades for pair production.

If this is right

  • Hadronic cascades supply the perpendicular momentum that leptonic channels cannot maintain.
  • Most dissipated magnetic energy is channeled into the electron-positron population that powers nonthermal emission at larger radii.
  • Charged-pion decay produces a nonthermal neutrino tail up to roughly 300 MeV that is spectrally distinct from the thermal cooling burst.
  • The neutrino signal is detectable from sources within approximately 100 kpc.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Multi-messenger detections combining neutrinos and electromagnetic signals from nearby mergers could constrain the magnetic-field strength and reconnection efficiency inside the towers.
  • The same hadronic loading mechanism may operate in other high-magnetization astrophysical outflows where reconnection occurs in radiative environments.
  • Incorporating hadronic processes into global simulations would allow quantitative predictions for the neutrino fluence and its dependence on magnetization parameter sigma_p.

Load-bearing premise

Current sheets in the towers thin to collisionless scales in this strongly radiative regime, allowing reconnection to accelerate protons to mildly relativistic energies where proton-proton collisions become effective.

What would settle it

Non-detection of a nonthermal neutrino component above the thermal burst in a neutron-star merger event within 100 kpc, or direct evidence that current sheets remain thicker than collisionless scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24083 by Elias R. Most, Jiaxi Wu, Rostom Mbarek.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Left) Map of temperature, T, and (Right) the out- -of-plane current density normalized to the magnetic field strength Jy/|B| = (∇ × B)y/|B| in the basal region of the tower, with overplotted magnetic field lines. The cyan contour marks the HMNS boundary (ρ ≳ 1011g cm−3 ), and the lime contour marks the magnetic tower region (ρ ≲ 109 g cm−3 ). Narrow current sheets indicate candidate reconnection sites for… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Characteristic timescales versus magnetic field strength B. Over the relevant field range, the inelastic pp timescale, tpp, lies below proton synchrotron, tsyn,p, so hadronic collisions domi￾nate over direct proton radiative losses for small proton pitch angles, αp. At high B, charged-pion synchrotron, tsyn,π± , becomes faster than pion decay, tdecay,π. Once B ≳ BQ, single-photon magnetic conversion is ext… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel: Calorimetric pair yield per injected proton Ne±/p for different proton γp for B = 1015 and 1016 G. These are upper limits; see text. Lower panel: Lab-frame pion pitch an￾gle sin απ for several pion CM emission angles θ ′ (Appendix F). Increasing beaming at high γp suppresses the effective pair yield relative to the calorimetric estimate. A proton confined long enough to undergo multiple inelas… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Power densities (left axis, erg cm−3 s −1 ) and characteristic photon energies (right axis, eV) versus magnetic field, B, for the main radiative channels. The hadronic chan￾nels (pp → π 0 → 2γ and π ± synchrotron) are normalized as P = k facc UB/tA with facc = 0.1 and k = 0.17; the dotted black line shows the reference facc UB/tA. Electron synchrotron uses the supply-limited fraction fe = me/mp. Proton and… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Binary neutron star mergers can form short-lived magnetar-like remnants whose magnetically dominated polar towers reach $B\sim10^{15}$--$10^{16}\,\mathrm{G}$, but the microphysical composition of these outflows remains poorly understood. Combining tower geometries from GRMHD simulations with an analytic treatment of QED and hadronic processes, we argue that magnetic reconnection is the most viable particle acceleration channel in this strongly radiative regime, where the current sheets thin to collisionless scales. Purely leptonic pair loading -- including resonant inverse Compton scattering of soft photons -- is bottlenecked by rapid pitch-angle damping and the tendency of one-photon magnetic conversion to populate low Landau levels. Once protons reach mildly relativistic energies ($\gamma_p\gtrsim1.3$), however, inelastic proton-proton ($pp$) collisions inject large-pitch-angle pions that drive $\pi^0\to2\gamma\to e^\pm$ cascades with multiplicity $\mathcal{M}_{\rm cas}\simeq4$ at $B=10^{15}\,\mathrm{G}$, supplying the perpendicular momentum the leptonic channel cannot maintain. This hadronic route dominates pair loading and channels most of the dissipated magnetic energy into the $e^\pm$ population that could power the nonthermal emission emerging at larger radii. Charged-pion decay, modulated by $\pi^\pm$ synchrotron cooling, further seeds a nonthermal neutrino tail up to $\sim 300\,(\sigma_p/5)\,\mathrm{MeV}$, spectrally distinct from the thermal cooling burst and detectable from sources within $\sim 100\,\mathrm{kpc}$

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that in the magnetically dominated polar towers (B∼10^15–10^16 G) of short-lived magnetar-like remnants from binary neutron-star mergers, magnetic reconnection is the dominant acceleration channel; once protons reach γ_p≳1.3, inelastic pp collisions inject large-pitch-angle pions that drive π^0→2γ→e± cascades (M_cas≃4 at 10^15 G), dominating pair loading, channeling dissipated magnetic energy into the e± population, and seeding a nonthermal neutrino tail up to ∼300(σ_p/5) MeV.

Significance. If the hadronic route is shown to operate, the work supplies a concrete microphysical pathway linking GRMHD tower geometries to observable nonthermal emission and a spectrally distinct neutrino signal from sources within ∼100 kpc, while highlighting the limitations of purely leptonic channels under strong radiative and QED constraints.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (and the analytic treatment of current-sheet evolution): the assertion that current sheets thin to collisionless (skin-depth) scales despite rapid radiative cooling, pair production, and pitch-angle damping at B∼10^15 G is load-bearing for the activation of the pp channel and the claimed dominance of hadronic pair loading, yet no explicit comparison of thinning timescale versus radiative loss length or QED-modified critical Lundquist number is supplied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. The single major comment identifies a genuine gap in the explicit timescale comparison supporting the current-sheet thinning claim. We address it below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and the analytic treatment of current-sheet evolution): the assertion that current sheets thin to collisionless (skin-depth) scales despite rapid radiative cooling, pair production, and pitch-angle damping at B∼10^15 G is load-bearing for the activation of the pp channel and the claimed dominance of hadronic pair loading, yet no explicit comparison of thinning timescale versus radiative loss length or QED-modified critical Lundquist number is supplied.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison of the current-sheet thinning timescale against the radiative loss length (and a discussion of any QED modification to the critical Lundquist number) is not supplied in the present manuscript and would strengthen the argument. In the revised version we will add a concise analytic estimate in the current-sheet evolution section (and a corresponding sentence in the abstract) that compares τ_thin ∼ L/v_in to the synchrotron and inverse-Compton loss times at B ∼ 10^15 G, together with a brief note on how one-photon pair production alters the effective Lundquist threshold. This addition will directly support the claim that sheets reach collisionless scales and thereby activate the pp channel. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation combines external GRMHD geometries with standard analytic QED/hadronic cross-sections

full rationale

The paper's central argument—that reconnection in radiative towers allows protons to reach γ_p ≳1.3 where pp collisions dominate pair loading via M_cas ≃4 cascades—rests on imported tower geometries from prior GRMHD runs and textbook cross-sections for inelastic pp, pion decay, and magnetic pair production. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the target observables and then re-labeled as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled via self-citation; the thinning of current sheets to collisionless scales is stated as a premise rather than derived from the paper's own outputs. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its conclusions and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; ledger entries are inferred from stated conditions in the abstract. Full paper likely contains additional parameters from the GRMHD runs.

free parameters (2)
  • M_cas = 4
    Cascade multiplicity stated as ≃4 at B=10^15 G; appears as an output of the analytic treatment.
  • neutrino energy upper limit = 300 MeV
    Stated as ~300 (σ_p/5) MeV; depends on assumed proton energy scale.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Current sheets thin to collisionless scales allowing reconnection
    Invoked to establish reconnection as viable acceleration channel in the radiative regime.
  • domain assumption Protons reach γ_p ≳1.3
    Required threshold for inelastic pp collisions to inject pions with large pitch angles.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5825 in / 1428 out tokens · 50836 ms · 2026-06-30T15:01:20.337306+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 99 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A., et al

    Abi, B., Acciarri, R., Acero, M. A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.03005, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2002.03005 Ackermann et al., M. 2013, Science, 339, 807, doi: 10.1126/science.1231160

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.03005 2020

  2. [2]

    2022, Astrophys

    Aguilera-Miret, R., Viganò, D., & Palenzuela, C. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 926, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a7 2022

  3. [3]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

    Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., Axelsson, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e 2019

  4. [4]

    Alawashra, M., Benáˇcek, J., Pohl, M., & Medvedev, M. V . 2025, Physics of Plasmas, 32, 113903, doi: 10.1063/5.0286700

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0286700 2025

  5. [5]

    2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 030401, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401

    An, F., An, G., An, Q., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 030401, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/3/030401 2016

  6. [6]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f

    Ball, D., Özel, F., Psaltis, D., Chan, C.-K., & Sironi, L. 2018, ApJ, 853, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa42f 2018

  7. [7]

    Bamber, J., Tsokaros, A., Ruiz, M., & Shapiro, S. L. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 024046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024046

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.024046 2024

  8. [8]

    G., & Harding, A

    Baring, M. G., & Harding, A. K. 2001, ApJ, 547, 929, doi: 10.1086/318390

    work page doi:10.1086/318390 2001

  9. [9]

    R., & Kirk, J

    Bell, A. R., & Kirk, J. G. 2008, Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 200403, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.200403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.200403 2008

  10. [10]

    M., & Thompson, C

    Beloborodov, A. M., & Thompson, C. 2007, ApJ, 657, 967, doi: 10.1086/508917

    work page doi:10.1086/508917 2007

  11. [11]

    2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102, doi: 10.1063/1.3264103

    Bhattacharjee, A., Huang, Y .-M., Yang, H., & Rogers, B. 2009, Physics of Plasmas, 16, 112102, doi: 10.1063/1.3264103

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3264103 2009

  12. [12]

    G., Ridgers, C

    Blackburn, T. G., Ridgers, C. P., Kirk, J. G., & Bell, A. R. 2014, PhRvL, 112, 015001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.015001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.015001 2014

  13. [13]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3099, doi: 10.21105/joss.03099

    Bozzola, G. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3099, doi: 10.21105/joss.03099

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03099 2021

  14. [14]

    A., & Begelman, M

    Cerutti, B., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2012, ApJ, 746, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/148

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/148 2012

  15. [15]

    R., Uzdensky, D

    Cerutti, B., Werner, G. R., Uzdensky, D. A., & Begelman, M. C. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21, 056501, doi: 10.1063/1.4872024

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4872024 2014

  16. [16]

    D., Most, E

    Chabanov, M., Tootle, S. D., Most, E. R., & Rezzolla, L. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 945, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbbc5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbbc5 2023

  17. [17]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acffc6

    Chernoglazov, A., Hakobyan, H., & Philippov, A. 2023, ApJ, 959, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acffc6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acffc6 2023

  18. [18]

    Chowdhry, S., & Loureiro, N. F. 2025, Journal of Plasma Physics, 91, E148, doi: 10.1017/S0022377825100949

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377825100949 2025

  19. [19]

    2020, General Relativity and Gravitation, 52, 59, doi: 10.1007/s10714-020-02714-x

    Ciolfi, R. 2020, General Relativity and Gravitation, 52, 59, doi: 10.1007/s10714-020-02714-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-020-02714-x 2020

  20. [21]

    Combi, L., & Siegel, D. M. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 231402, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.231402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.231402 2023

  21. [22]

    M., Bernuzzi, S., et al

    Cook, W., Gutiérrez, E. M., Bernuzzi, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.19342, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.19342

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.19342 2025

  22. [23]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0fe1

    Curtis, S., Bosch, P., Mösta, P., et al. 2024, ApJL, 961, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0fe1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0fe1 2024

  23. [24]

    M., Perego, A., et al

    Cusinato, M., Guercilena, F. M., Perego, A., et al. 2021, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00743-5

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00743-5 2021

  24. [25]

    K., & Harding, A

    Daugherty, J. K., & Harding, A. K. 1983, ApJ, 273, 761, doi: 10.1086/161411

    work page doi:10.1086/161411 1983

  25. [26]

    K., & Harding, A

    Daugherty, J. K., & Harding, A. K. 1986, ApJ, 309, 362, doi: 10.1086/164608

    work page doi:10.1086/164608 1986

  26. [27]

    Decoene, V ., Guépin, C., Fang, K., Kotera, K., & Metzger, B. D. 2020, JCAP, 04, 045, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/045

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/045 2020

  27. [28]

    1966, Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 626, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.38.626

    Erber, T. 1966, Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 626, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.38.626

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.38.626 1966

  28. [29]

    B., Paschalidis, V ., Haas, R., Mösta, P., & Shapiro, S

    Etienne, Z. B., Paschalidis, V ., Haas, R., Mösta, P., & Shapiro, S. L. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 175009, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/17/175009 15

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/17/175009 2015

  29. [30]

    Fang, K., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Astrophys. J., 849, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6a 2017

  30. [31]

    Farrar, G. R. 2025, PhRvL, 134, 081003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.081003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.081003 2025

  31. [32]

    2026, Phys

    Fields, J., Radice, D., & Hammond, P. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 043056, doi: 10.1103/sqjg-l87v

    work page doi:10.1103/sqjg-l87v 2026

  32. [33]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/102 2015

  33. [34]

    A., & Zeller, G

    Formaggio, J. A., & Zeller, G. P. 2012, Reviews of Modern Physics, 84, 1307, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1307

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.84.1307 2012

  34. [35]

    D., et al

    Foucart, F., Haas, R., Duez, M. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 044019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.044019 2016

  35. [36]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc2

    Fujibayashi, S., Wanajo, S., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abafc2 2020

  36. [37]

    2003, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 501, 418, doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X

    Fukuda, S., Fukuda, Y ., Hayakawa, T., et al. 2003, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 501, 418, doi: 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)00425-x 2003

  37. [38]

    2013, Phys

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., Wu, X.-F., & Dai, Z.-G. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 043010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043010 2013

  38. [39]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/39

    Perna, R. 2015, ApJ, 809, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/39

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/39 2015

  39. [40]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/81

    Gill, R., & Thompson, C. 2014, ApJ, 796, 81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/81

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/81 2014

  40. [41]

    L., Baring, M

    Gonthier, P. L., Baring, M. G., Eiles, M. T., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 043014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.043014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.043014 2014

  41. [42]

    D., Quataert, E., et al

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 958, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e 2023

  42. [43]

    2001, Phys

    Bonazzola, S. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 064029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.064029 Gutiérrez, E. M., Radice, D., Fields, J., & Stone, J. M. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20953

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.63.064029 2001

  43. [44]

    Hakobyan, H., Ripperda, B., & Philippov, A. A. 2023, ApJL, 943, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb264

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb264 2023

  44. [45]

    2017, Phys

    Hanauske, M., Takami, K., Bovard, L., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 043004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.043004 2017

  45. [46]

    K., & Lai, D

    Harding, A. K., & Lai, D. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2631, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/69/9/R03

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/69/9/r03 2006

  46. [47]

    K., Wadiasingh, Z., & Baring, M

    Harding, A. K., Wadiasingh, Z., & Baring, M. G. 2025, ApJ, 991, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa06

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa06 2025

  47. [48]

    Array programming with NumPy,

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  48. [49]

    2010, Nucl

    Hempel, M., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2010, Nucl. Phys. A, 837, 210, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.02.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.02.010 2010

  49. [50]

    2013, PhRvD, 88, 044026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044026

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 044026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044026

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.044026 2013

  50. [51]

    G., Harding, A

    Hu, K., Baring, M. G., Harding, A. K., & Wadiasingh, Z. 2022, ApJ, 940, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9611

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9611 2022

  51. [52]

    G., Wadiasingh, Z., & Harding, A

    Hu, K., Baring, M. G., Wadiasingh, Z., & Harding, A. K. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz995 2019

  52. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Hyper-Kamiokande Proto-Collaboration, :, Abe, K., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.04163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1805.04163

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  53. [54]

    M., & Vila, G

    Kafexhiu, E., Aharonian, F., Taylor, A. M., & Vila, G. S. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 123014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.123014 2014

  54. [55]

    2015, SSRv, 191, 545, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0132-9

    Kagan, D., Sironi, L., Cerutti, B., & Giannios, D. 2015, SSRv, 191, 545, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0132-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0132-9 2015

  55. [56]

    V ., Ciolfi, R., Campanelli, M., et al

    Kalinani, J. V ., Ciolfi, R., Campanelli, M., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J. Lett., 1000, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae402a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae402a 2026

  56. [57]

    2006, ApJ, 647, 692, doi: 10.1086/505189

    Kamae, T., Karlsson, N., Mizuno, T., Abe, T., & Koi, T. 2006, ApJ, 647, 692, doi: 10.1086/505189

    work page doi:10.1086/505189 2006

  57. [58]

    R., Aharonian, F

    Kelner, S. R., Aharonian, F. A., & Bugayov, V . V . 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 034018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.034018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.034018 2006

  58. [59]

    S., Murase, K., Bartos, I., et al

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., Bartos, I., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 043020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.043020 2018

  59. [60]

    S., Murase, K., Mészáros, P., & Kiuchi, K

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., Mészáros, P., & Kiuchi, K. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8d14

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8d14 2017

  60. [62]

    2015, Phys

    Shibata, M. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 124034, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124034

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.124034 2015

  61. [63]

    2018, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Sekiguchi, Y ., & Shibata, M. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 124039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.124039 2018

  62. [64]

    2024, Nature Astron., 8, 298, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Shibata, M., & Sekiguchi, Y . 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 298, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y 2024

  63. [65]

    2018, Phys

    Kyutoku, K., & Kashiyama, K. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 103001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.103001 2018

  64. [66]

    2015, Phys

    Liu, Y .-H., Guo, F., Daughton, W., Li, H., & Hesse, M. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 095002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.095002 2015

  65. [67]

    2012, Class

    Loffler, F., et al. 2012, Class. Quant. Grav., 29, 115001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/29/11/115001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/11/115001 2012

  66. [68]

    F., Schekochihin, A

    Loureiro, N. F., Schekochihin, A. A., & Cowley, S. C. 2007, Physics of Plasmas, 14, 100703, doi: 10.1063/1.2783986

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2783986 2007

  67. [69]

    2003, Mon

    Lynden-Bell, D. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1360, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06506.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06506.x 2003

  68. [70]

    2022, Phys

    Mbarek, R., Haggerty, C., Sironi, L., Shay, M., & Caprioli, D. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 145101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.145101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.145101 2022

  69. [71]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16776.x

    Medin, Z., & Lai, D. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16776.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16776.x 2010

  70. [72]

    D., & Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., & Piro, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu247

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu247 2014

  71. [73]

    Most, E. R. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123012 2023

  72. [74]

    R., Papenfort, L

    Most, E. R., Papenfort, L. J., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 490, 3588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2809 16

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2809 2019

  73. [75]

    R., & Quataert, E

    Most, E. R., & Quataert, E. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 947, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca84 Mösta, P., Radice, D., Haas, R., Schnetter, E., & Bernuzzi, S. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 901, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb6ef

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acca84 2023

  74. [76]

    S., & Metzger, B

    Mukhopadhyay, M., Kimura, S. S., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, Astrophys. J., 987, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc913

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc913 2025

  75. [77]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 103020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103020

    Murase, K. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 103020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103020 2024

  76. [78]

    2009, Phys

    Murase, K., Meszaros, P., & Zhang, B. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 103001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.103001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.103001 2009

  77. [79]

    Musolino, C., Rezzolla, L., & Most, E. R. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 984, L61, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adcd6d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adcd6d 2025

  78. [80]

    2022, Phys

    Palenzuela, C., Aguilera-Miret, R., Carrasco, F., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 023013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.023013 2022

  79. [81]

    V ., & Mignone, A

    Pavan, A., Ciolfi, R., Kalinani, J. V ., & Mignone, A. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 3483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1810

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1810 2021

  80. [82]

    2017, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 44, 084007, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/aa7bdc

    Perego, A., Yasin, H., & Arcones, A. 2017, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 44, 084007, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/aa7bdc

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa7bdc 2017

Showing first 80 references.