Pith.

High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena · arXiv:2611.05880 v1 · submitted 4 Nov 2026 · 79 references

The kinematic Kelvin-Helmholtz instability-driven dynamo: implications for merging compact objects

James R. Beattie, Amitava Bhattacharjee, Elias R. Most, Bart Ripperda, Alexander Philippov, Ralf S. Klessen, Salvatore Cielo

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“Binary neutron star (BNS) mergers excite a Kelvin–Helmholtz instability (KHI) in the shear layer between them. It is parasitized upon by the magnetic field to form a powerful magnetic dynamo.”

more of the abstract

Using a large ensemble of high-resolution visco-resistive KHI-driven dynamo simulations we construct analytical, asymptotic in Reynolds number ($\rm{Re}$) models for the magnetic field growth rates and mean vertical field dynamo onset times. Our models suggest that in the $\rm{Re} \gg 1$ limit, the mean vertical field is seeded immediately, kinematic growth rates become asymptotic in $\rm{Re}$, and the dynamo moves out of the kinematic stage on $\mathcal{O}(0.1\,\rm{ms})$ timescales, readily attaining magnetar-strength fields during this transition. This suggests that most global BNS merger simulations are not time-resolving the correct KHI-driven dynamo regime.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4-flash · 5 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up. A solid numerical and analytical study of the KHI-driven dynamo in BNS mergers, central claim of Re-independence is well-supported in the simulated range but extrapolation to astrophysical Re remains a plausible assumption, not a proof. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 6 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 79 references say.

The paper says, at §Discussion, b109–b124

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

Extrapolation to BNS Reynolds numbers: The paper bases its BNS predictions on the high-Re limit of the model, but the simulations only reach Re=16,384 (Pm=1), whereas BNS mergers have Re≈5×10⁵–5×10⁶, a factor 30–300 higher. The constancy of γ_E over a factor 32 in Re (512–16,384) is striking, but the extrapolation assumes that no new regime (e.g., from neutrally buoyant eddies at extremely high Re, or from Pm effects) appears beyond the simulated range.

more of objection 1

The authors should explicitly discuss the uncertainty of this extrapolation and, if possible, provide a physical argument (beyond the k_ν > δ₀⁻¹ condition) that the growth rate cannot rise further. They already note that the Pm scaling weakens at high Re and needs further study (b204–b205), which is good but is buried in the End Matter; this caveat should be stated more prominently when the BNS numbers are presented.

The paper says, at §Numerical Models and §Results (Fig. 5a)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

Pm dependence at high Re: All simulations with Re≥512 (the Re-independent regime) are performed at Pm=1. The BNS value of Pm is uncertain and could be large (e.g., due to neutrino viscosity and Ohmic resistivity). The paper shows some Pm variation at Re=1,024 (Fig. 2a inset, Fig. 4b inset), but not in the asymptotic regime.

more of objection 2

It is possible that at high Re and high Pm the growth rate depends on Rm, which could alter the BNS prediction. The authors should discuss whether the Re-independence is expected to hold for large Pm, or whether the required condition k_ν > δ₀⁻¹ combined with Pm>1 might still lead to a Rm-dependence.

The paper says, at §Results (Fig. 3, §Stage 2)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

RTI growth-rate model: Equation (4) gives γ^∞_{RTI}t_Δ ∝ Re^{1/3}, but this derivation assumes a constant effective acceleration g_eff and Atwood number A. In the simulations, g_eff and A evolve as the billows roll up. The paper uses this scaling only to motivate the Re^{-1/3} delay (Eq. 5) and fits the prefactor separately for each Mach number, which is appropriate.

more of objection 3

However, the authors should clarify that the Re^{-1/3} scaling is not a direct measurement but a fit to the predicted exponent; the fit is good (Fig. 4b) but the physical basis for the prefactor (ln(ξ_nl/ξ_0)) is not constrained. This does not undermine the main claim, but the discussion should be tempered to avoid overinterpreting the RTI modeling.

6 minor objections

The paper says, at §End Matter, Eq. (A6) and surrounding text

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 6

Typo: 'The magnetic perme- ability to set to unity.' should read 'The magnetic permeability is set to unity.' (line b167).

The paper says, at §Introduction, b8

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 6

The abstract says the dynamo moves out of the kinematic stage on O(0.1 ms) timescales, while the text in §Discussion says t≲0.5 ms. Please harmonize the numbers and state how the 0.1 ms figure is obtained (e.g., from the growth rate and the required number of e-folds).

show 4 more

The paper says, at §Supplemental Material, Fig. S3 and §V

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 6

The caption of Fig. S3 uses '⟨B,2_z⟩' with a comma; should be '⟨B_z^2⟩'. Also, the description in §V states that the analysis pertains to Re≤4,096 due to data cadence; this is fine, but it would be helpful to note whether the high-Re (8,192 and 16,384) runs are consistent with the Re^{-1/3} extrapolation (e.g., by checking the onset time from lower-cadence data).

The paper says, at §Results, Fig. 1

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 6

The figure labels '1σ 2σ 3σ' for the energy fluctuations are not defined in the caption or text; the text says these fluctuations occupy <1% of the volume. Please define what these curves represent (e.g., percentiles of the volume distribution of magnetic energy).

The paper says, at §Results, Fig. 4a

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 6

The inset shows γ_z t_Δ with a reference line at 0.02. The text states that γ_z depends weakly on Re, but the plotted values range from about 0.01 to 0.03. A brief comment on the scatter and whether it correlates with M_Δ would be helpful.

The paper says, at §References

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 6

Reference [22] appears as a duplicate of [9]; both are Kiuchi et al. 2026a. Please check and merge if appropriate. Also, reference [73] is cited in the text but appears to be Skoutnev et al. 2021 (which is already [52]); please verify the numbering.

What would settle it

Run a simulation at Re=32768 (double the current maximum) with the same setup (Pm=1, M_Δ=1, N_grid≈2304³). Measure γ_E t_Δ via the paper's fitting protocol (Supplemental Material §IV). If the value remains within 0.02±0.01, the asymptotic claim is strengthened. If it deviates, the extrapolation is incomplete and a revised scaling would be needed before the claim can be applied at BNS parameters.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4-flash · 5 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up confidence high
  2. Skeptic agrees 1 min 42 s · 24,602 tokens read, 9,032 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 15 s · 25,487 tokens read, 1,083 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 3 major objections, 6 minor 32 s · 24,958 tokens read, 2,663 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

Jim,

This paper does something genuinely useful: it shows that the kinematic KHI-driven dynamo in a BNS-relevant shear layer saturates its growth rate at high Reynolds number, rather than scaling as Re1/2 as a standard turbulence dynamo would. That is a clear, clean result. The simulation suite is extensive – Re from 64 to 16,384, three Mach numbers, and a range of Pm – and the analytical models for the three stages (winding, RTI-driven breakup, then exponential growth) match the numerics convincingly. The vertical-field onset time ∝ Re−1/3 is a nice touch and holds up. The paper is well written and the figures are effective.

The load-bearing weakness is the extrapolation from Re ∼ 104 to the BNS regime of ∼ 5×105–106. The stress-test concern is real: the Lorentz-work diagnostic that pins the peak at δ₀⁻¹ has only been tested up to Re = 16,384, and all high-Re runs are at Pm = 1. In principle a separate population of dissipative-scale eddies could kick in at higher Re and raise γE. The authors flag this themselves – they note the Pm scaling weakens at high Re and needs further study – so the paper is honest about the gap. But the quantitative predictions (γE ∼ 0.02/tΔ, t_delay ≲ 0.1 ms) do rest on an untested assumption. It is a plausible assumption, grounded in a clear physical condition (kν > δ₀⁻¹), but it remains an assumption.

Who benefits from reading this? Anyone working on magnetic field amplification in compact-object mergers or on shear-layer dynamos generally. The three-stage framework is an advance in conceptual clarity even if the exact numbers shift. The paper deserves a serious referee – the core numerical evidence is strong, the modeling is careful, and the implications for global BNS simulations are important enough that the community needs to engage with the claim, whether or not the extrapolation holds. My recommendation: send it to peer review.

The strongest objection

The paper's central claim—that the kinematic KHI-driven dynamo becomes asymptotically Re-independent—is supported by data up to Re=16384 at Pm=1. The key evidence is that for Re≥512 the peak Lorentz work shifts from k_ν to ≈δ₀⁻¹ (inset of Fig. 5a). The physical mechanism (k_ν>δ₀⁻¹) is clear, and the constancy of γ_E over a factor 32 in Re (512–16384) is striking. However, the astrophysical Re is 30–300 times larger. The paper does not rule out that at such extreme Re a separate population of dissipative-scale eddies (resolved because k_ν≫δ₀⁻¹) could transfer energy to the magnetic field at a higher rate, raising γ_E above 0.02/t_Δ. The Lorentz work diagnostic has not been tested above Re=16384. Moreover, all high-Re data are at Pm=1; the BNS value of Pm is uncertain and could be large. The authors note that Pm scaling weakens at high Re and needs further study (b204–b205). Hence while the scenario is plausible, the quantitative predictions (γ_E~0.02/t_Δ, t_delay≲0.1 ms) rest on an untested extrapolation.

The reader correctly identified the extrapolation to astrophysical Reynolds numbers as the weakest assumption. My analysis confirms that this is the most load-bearing concern: the central claim of Re-independence is well-supported within the simulated range (Re up to 16384) by a plausible mechanism, but the jump to BNS parameters (Re~5e5–5e6) is unverified. The paper acknowledges the limitation (b204–b205) and does not overstate its conclusions. No other structural weakness is apparent; the winding model, RTI delay scaling, and Lorentz work analysis are internally consistent and match the simulation data. The concrete test would provide direct evidence one way or another, but given the paper's own caveats the current verdict remains appropriate.

The referee's report

If the central result—asymptotic Re-independence of the kinematic KHI-driven dynamo—holds at astrophysical Reynolds numbers, it has major implications for BNS merger physics: it implies ultra-fast field amplification that current global simulations miss, and it provides a concrete criterion (k_ν > δ₀⁻¹) for when convergence can be expected. The study is technically impressive: it spans a factor 256 in Re, uses up to 2304³ grid points, supports its analytic models with detailed spectral and Lorentz-work diagnostics, and provides a clear physical mechanism (the Lorentz work peak fixes at the shear-layer scale once the viscous scale moves below it). The predictions for the vertical-field onset (t_delay ∝ Re^{-1/3}) and for the saturation field strength are directly testable in future higher-resolution simulations. The paper also identifies the RTI as the key symmetry-breaking agent, which is a useful insight for the community.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

The paper argues that the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (KHI) in binary neutron star mergers does not drive a standard turbulence dynamo. Instead, the kinematic growth rates become independent of Reynolds number (Re) in the high-Re limit, and the mean vertical magnetic field is seeded immediately by the breakup of KHI billows via the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. The dynamo passes through the kinematic stage in about 0.1 ms, reaching magnetar-strength fields. This implies that global merger simulations currently do not resolve the correct dynamo regime, as they lack the necessary resolution to capture the Re-independent growth and immediate vertical field seeding.

What carries the argument. The central mechanism is the Rayleigh-Taylor instability (RTI) of the KHI billows, which leads to three-dimensional velocities and enables dynamo action. The scaling $t_{\text{delay}} \propto \text{Re}^{-1/3}$ comes from the fastest-growing RTI mode balancing viscosity. The asymptotic growth rate $\gamma_E \sim 0.02/t_\Delta$ arises when the viscous wavenumber exceeds the inverse shear-layer thickness, shifting the peak Lorentz work from the viscous scale to the shear-layer scale.

Core claim. The central discovery is that the KHI-driven dynamo in BNS mergers exhibits three distinct kinematic stages, culminating in a dynamo whose growth rate is asymptotically independent of Re, scaling as $\gamma_E \sim 0.02/t_\Delta$, where $t_\Delta$ is the shear time. This contrasts with the standard turbulence dynamo prediction $\gamma_E \propto \text{Re}^{1/2}$. The vertical magnetic field is amplified after a delay scaling as $t_{\text{delay}} \propto \text{Re}^{-1/3}$, which vanishes at high Re, leading to immediate seeding. The magnetic spectra evolve from a winding spectrum $\propto k^0$ to a Kazantsev spectrum $\propto k^{3/2}$.

The premise it rests on. The paper assumes that the asymptotic behavior observed in simulations up to Re = 16384 continues to hold at the astrophysical Reynolds numbers of BNS mergers (Re ~ 5e5–5e6), and that no additional physics (such as general relativity, neutrino cooling, or compositional gradients) alters the dynamo regime.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

If the model holds at astrophysical Reynolds numbers (Re $\sim 5 \times 10^5 - 5 \times 10^6$), most global BNS merger simulations currently resolve a wrong kinematic dynamo regime and require either extremely fine subgrid models or cm-scale resolution.

The dynamo reaches magnetar-strength fields ($\sim 3 \times 10^{16}$ G) within about 0.5 ms, supporting magnetic central-engine models for short gamma-ray bursts.

The immediate seeding of a vertical mean field provides a seed for subsequent large-scale dynamo action and jet launching, without requiring a separate process.

The growth-rate independence implies that at high Re the dynamo efficiency is set by the outer-scale shear time rather than small-scale viscosity, making it robust to the exact value of Re.

The KHI dynamo may operate in other astrophysical shear layers, such as in core-collapse supernova shocks and galaxy-cluster cold fronts, where the Re is moderate.

If the Re-independence persists at even higher Re (beyond the simulation range), the saturation level of the magnetic field in BNS mergers may be determined solely by the available kinetic energy and shear time, not by microphysics. This would make predictions more robust but also imply that field strengths could reach the maximum allowed by equipartition.

The prompt seeding of vertical field suggests that the Taylor-Spruit or αΩ dynamo operating on longer post-merger timescales could start from a stronger seed than previously assumed, potentially leading to faster growth of large-scale magnetic flux.

The explicit resolution requirement ($\Delta x \sim 6$ cm to capture the fastest-growing RTI) is far beyond current capabilities, implying that for the foreseeable future subgrid models must incorporate the scaling laws derived here.

Future simulations could test the model by running local boxes at fixed Re, Pm, and Mach number but with different seed field strengths to verify that the dynamo onset and growth rates are insensitive to the initial magnetic energy (as long as it remains kinematic).

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

Binary neutron star (BNS) mergers excite a Kelvin–Helmholtz instability (KHI) in the shear layer between them. It is parasitized upon by the magnetic field to form a powerful magnetic dynamo. Using a large ensemble of high-resolution visco-resistive KHI-driven dynamo simulations we construct analytical, asymptotic in Reynolds number ($\rm{Re}$) models for the magnetic field growth rates and mean vertical field dynamo onset times. Our models suggest that in the $\rm{Re} \gg 1$ limit, the mean vertical field is seeded immediately, kinematic growth rates become asymptotic in $\rm{Re}$, and the dynamo moves out of the kinematic stage on $\mathcal{O}(0.1\,\rm{ms})$ timescales, readily attaining magnetar-strength fields during this transition. This suggests that most global BNS merger simulations are not time-resolving the correct KHI-driven dynamo regime.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-11-05

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.66

“This suggests that most global BNS merger simulations are not time-resolving the correct KHI-driven dynamo regime.”

How the main claim is stated: hedged possibility 0.99

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.20 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.94 · compares with prior results 0.30 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Binary neutron star (BNS) mergers excite a Kelvin--Helmholtz instability (KHI) in the shear layer between them. background 1.00 0.17 0.04 asserted 1.00
It is parasitized upon by the magnetic field to form a powerful magnetic dynamo. background 0.91 0.15 0.08 asserted 1.00
Using a large ensemble of high-resolution visco-resistive KHI-driven dynamo simulations we construct analytical, asymptotic in Reynolds number ($\rm{Re}$) models for the magnetic field growth rates and mean vertical field dynamo onset times. method 0.69 0.96 0.07 asserted 1.00
Our models suggest that in the $\rm{Re} \gg 1$ limit, the mean vertical field is seeded immediately, kinematic growth rates become asymptotic in $\rm{Re}$, and the dynamo moves out of the kinematic stage on $\mathcal{O}(0.1\,\rm{ms})$ timescales, readily attaining magnetar-strength fields during this transition. result 0.94 0.89 0.53 hedged possibility 0.85
This suggests that most global BNS merger simulations are not time-resolving the correct KHI-driven dynamo regime. interpretation 1.00 0.33 0.51 hedged possibility 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.93 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-11-05: 1 request, 4,450 input tokens.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (6)
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. shows extremely short-wavelength RTI modes, which grow fastest in the inviscid limit, √ γRTI ∝ k, disrupting the billows. Increasing viscosity lowers Re∆ and shifts the fastest-growing modes toward longer wavelengths. Further, by increasing the magnetization from Emag ≈ 10−6Ekin,0 to Emag,0 ≈ 10−3Ekin,0 we can suppress secondary shear instabilities that disrupt the RTI fingers [79]. Hence we run a Emag ≈ 10−3Ekin,0, Re∆ = 1,024, Pm∆ = 1, M∆ = 0.5 simulation and show |ω| = |∇ × u| in the xy and yz planes as three￾dimensional modes become unstable in Figure S2. The top panel shows…

Showing 1 of the paper's 6 figures. Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (79)
  1. [1] D. J. Price and S. Rosswog, Science312, 719 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603845 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [2] M. Chabanov, S. D. Tootle, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.945, L14 (2023), arXiv:2211.13661 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [3] C. Zhu, R. Pakmor, M. H. van Kerkwijk, and P. Chang, Astrophys. J. Lett.806, L1 (2015) on Pith
  4. [4] K. Kiuchi, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Physical Review D92, 124034 (2015), arXiv:1509.09205 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [5] F. R. N. Schneider, S. T. Ohlmann, P. Podsiadlowski, F. K. R¨ opke, S. A. Balbus,et al., Nature574, 211 (2019) on Pith
  6. [6] R. Pakmor, I. Pelisoli, S. Justham, A. S. Rajamuthuku- mar, F. K. R¨ opke,et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 691, A179 (2024), arXiv:2407.02566 [astro-ph.SR]. 7 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [7] D. Radice and I. Hawke, Living Reviews in Compu- tational Astrophysics10, 1 (2024), arXiv:2402.03224 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [8] S. T. Ohlmann, F. R. N. Schneider, F. K. R¨ opke, R. Pak- mor, P. Podsiadlowski,et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 713, A6 (2026), arXiv:2512.13424 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [9] K. Kiuchi, A. Reboul-Salze, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.11299 (2026), arXiv:2606.11299 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [10] E. M. Guti´ errez, D. Radice, J. Fields, and J. M. Stone, arXiv e-prints 10.48550/arXiv.2601.20953 (2026), arXiv:2601.20953 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXivdoi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20953
  11. [11] K. Kiuchi, A. Reboul-Salze, M. Shibata, and Y. Sekiguchi, Nature Astronomy8, 298 (2024) on Pith
  12. [13] H. H.-Y. Ng and E. R. Most, (2026), arXiv:2607.28556 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [14] R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.179, 433 (1977) on Pith
  14. [15] B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley,et al., Astrophys. J. Letters.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [16] I. Arcavi, G. Hosseinzadeh, D. A. Howell, C. McCully, D. Poznanski,et al., Nature (London)551, 64 (2017), arXiv:1710.05843 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [17] P. M¨ osta, D. Radice, R. Haas, E. Schnetter, and S. Bernuzzi, Astrophys. J. Lett.901, L37 (2020), arXiv:2003.06043 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [18] E. R. Most and E. Quataert, Astrophys. J. Lett.947, L15 (2023), arXiv:2303.08062 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [19] L. Combi and D. M. Siegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 231402 (2023), arXiv:2303.12284 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [20] K. Hayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 211407 (2025), arXiv:2410.10958 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [21] K. Kiuchi, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hayashi, K. Kawaguchi, Q. Pognan,et al., (2026), arXiv:2608.27555 [astro- ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 59 more
  1. [22] K. Kiuchi, A. Reboul-Salze, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shi- bata, arXiv e-prints 10.48550/arXiv.2606.11299 (2026), arXiv:2606.11299 on PithPith's reviewarXivdoi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.11299
  2. [23] B. Margalit, A. S. Jermyn, B. D. Metzger, L. F. Roberts, and E. Quataert, Astrophys. J.939, 51 (2022), arXiv:2206.10645 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [24] E. R. Most, Phys. Rev. D108, 123012 (2023), arXiv:2311.03333 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [25] A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, G. W. Hammett, J. L. Maron, and J. C. McWilliams, New Journal of Physics 4, 84 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207503 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [26] A. K. Galishnikova, M. W. Kunz, and A. A. Schekochihin, Physical Review X12, 041027 (2022), arXiv:2201.07757 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [27] J. R. Beattie, C. Federrath, N. Kriel, P. Mocz, and A. Seta, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.524, 3201 (2023), arXiv:2209.10749 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [28] N. Kriel, M. R. Krumholz, P. J. Armstrong, J. R. Beattie, and J. Schober, Physical Review E113, 045208 (2026), arXiv:2509.09949 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [29] R. Aguilera-Miret, D. Vigan` o, and C. Palenzuela, Astro- phys. J. Lett.926, L31 (2022), arXiv:2112.08406 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [30] K. Kiuchi, inNew Frontiers in GRMHD Simula- tions, Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmol- ogy, edited by C. Bambi, Y. Mizuno, S. Shashank, and F. Yuan (Springer, Singapore, 2025) pp. 529–572, arXiv:2405.10081 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [31] A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, S. F. Taylor, J. L. Maron, and J. C. McWilliams, The Astrophysical Journal 612, 276 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0312046 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [32] F. Rincon, Journal of Plasma Physics85, 205850401 (2019), arXiv:1903.07829 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [33] A. P. Kazantsev, Sov. Phys. JETP26, 1031 (1968) on Pith
  13. [34] R. M. Kulsrud and S. W. Anderson, Astrophys. J.396, 606 (1992) on Pith
  14. [36] N. Kriel, J. R. Beattie, A. Seta, and C. Federrath, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society513, 2457 (2022), arXiv:2204.00828 [astro-ph.SR] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [37] N. Kriel, J. R. Beattie, C. Federrath, M. R. Krumholz, and J. K. J. Hew, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.537, 2602 (2025), arXiv:2310.17036 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [38] E. R. Most and S. J. Dunham, (2026), arXiv:2609.21923 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [39] K. Dionysopoulou, D. Alic, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D92, 084064 (2015), arXiv:1502.02021 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [40] M. Miravet-Ten´ es, I. Hawke, R. Matur, and A. J. Wright, (2026), arXiv:2609.12998 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [41] with first-order-flux correction [42] and fifth-order TENO5 flux reconstruction [43] inathenak[44]. In a periodic domain of sizeLwe initialize two freely decay- ing, perturbed shear layers with half-widthδ 0 = 0.025L, velocity jump ∆U, density contrast 8/3, and uniform pressur... on Pith
  20. [42] T. Miyoshi and K. Kusano, Journal of Computational Physics208, 315 (2005) on Pith
  21. [43] M. N. Lemaster and J. M. Stone, Astrophys. J.691, 1092 (2009), arXiv:0809.4005 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [44] L. Fu, X. Y. Hu, and N. A. Adams, Journal of Compu- tational Physics305, 333 (2016) on Pith
  23. [45] J. M. Stone, P. D. Mullen, D. Fielding, P. Grete, M. Guo,et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.283, 27 (2026), arXiv:2409.16053 [astro-ph.IM] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  24. [46] D. Lecoanet, M. McCourt, E. Quataert, K. J. Burns, G. M. Vasil,et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society455, 4274 (2016), arXiv:1509.03630 [astro-ph.IM] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [47] See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for the run inventory, initial stretching model, energy and spectral diagnostics, and secondary- instability and vertical-field onset analysis on Pith
  26. [48] C. Palenzuela, R. Aguilera-Miret, F. Carrasco, R. Ciolfi, J. V. Kalinani,et al., Physical Review D106, 023013 (2022), arXiv:2112.08413 [gr-qc] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [49] Y. B. Zel’dovich, Soviet Physics JETP4, 460 (1957) on Pith
  28. [50] T. G. Cowling, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society94, 39 (1933) on Pith
  29. [51] Y. Matsumoto and M. Hoshino, Geophysical Research Letters31, L02807 (2004) on Pith
  30. [52] H. N. Dixit and R. Govindarajan, Journal of Fluid Me- chanics646, 415 (2010) on Pith
  31. [53] V. Skoutnev, E. R. Most, A. Bhattacharjee, and A. A. Philippov, The Astrophysical Journal921, 75 (2021) on Pith
  32. [54] Movies showing different slice orientations and three- dimensional fly-throughs are available here on Pith
  33. [55] InitiallyA= (ρ h −ρ l)/(ρh +ρ l) = 5/11, whereρ l andρ h are the densities of the light and dense fluids on Pith
  34. [56] C. Musolino, L. Rezzolla, and E. R. Most, Astrophys. J. Lett.984, L61 (2025), arXiv:2410.06253 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  35. [57] J. Schober, D. Schleicher, C. Federrath, R. Klessen, and R. Banerjee, Physical Review E85, 026303 (2012), arXiv:1109.4571. 8 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  36. [58] P. Grete, B. W. O’Shea, K. Beckwith, W. Schmidt, and A. Christlieb, Physics of Plasmas24, 092311 (2017), arXiv:1706.06339 [physics.plasm-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  37. [59] J. R. Beattie, A. N. Kolborg, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, and C. Federrath, Astrophys. J.994, 193 (2025), arXiv:2501.09855 [astro-ph.GA] on PitharXiv
  38. [60] S. Merlini, J. R. Beattie, and V. Valenzuela- Villaseca, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.21672 (2026), arXiv:2605.21672 [physics.plasm-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  39. [61] A. Beresnyak, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 035002 (2012), arXiv:1109.4644 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  40. [62] J. Guilet, A. Bauswein, O. Just, and H.-T. Janka, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 1879 (2017), arXiv:1610.08532 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  41. [63] L. Gavassino, Physical Review D111, 10.1103/phys- revd.111.l081306 (2025) on Pithdoi:10.1103/phys-
  42. [64] A. Reboul-Salze, P. Barr` ere, K. Kiuchi, J. Guilet, R. Raynaud,et al., Astron. Astrophys.699, A4 (2025), arXiv:2411.19328 [astro-ph.HE] on PitharXiv
  43. [65] H. H.-Y. Ng and E. R. Most, arXiv e-prints 10.48550/arXiv.2607.28556 (2026), arXiv:2607.28556 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXivdoi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.28556
  44. [66] B. Tripathi, A. E. Fraser, P. W. Terry, E. G. Zweibel, M. J. Pueschel,et al., Nature649, 848 (2026), arXiv:2608.12530 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  45. [67] H.-S. Chan, O. Gottlieb, J. Jacquemin-Ide, M. Cantiello, and M. Renzo, Astrophys. J. Letters.1007, L41 (2026), arXiv:2605.12931 [astro-ph.HE] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  46. [68] The corresponding wavelength is λ∞R TI= 2π 16ν 2R Au2θ 1/3 .(6) Using ∆U= 0.3c,u θ = ∆U/2,δ 0 = 50 m, density ra- tioρ h/ρl = 8/3, Atwood numberA= 5/11≃0.4545, and kinematic viscosityν ν = 107 cm2 s−1 [62–64, 73], for the BNS system we obtainλ ∞R TI ≈6 cm, below the spa- tial ... on Pith
  47. [69] J. Guilet, J. Sato, and T. Foglizzo, The Astrophysical Journal713, 1350 (2010), arXiv:0910.3953 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  48. [70] E. Roediger, R. P. Kraft, W. R. Forman, P. E. J. Nulsen, and E. Churazov, The Astrophysical Journal764, 60 (2013), arXiv:1211.4874 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  49. [71] K. Ferri` ere, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion62, 014014 (2020), arXiv:1912.08237 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  50. [72] J. Fontane and L. Joly, Journal of Fluid Mechanics612, 237 (2008) on Pith
  51. [73] Y. Matsumoto and K. Seki, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Space Physics112, A06223 (2007) on Pith
  52. [74] V. Skoutnev, E. R. Most, A. Bhattacharjee, and A. A. Philippov, The Astrophysical Journal921, 75 (2021), arXiv:2106.04787 [physics.flu-dyn] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  53. [75] J. R. Beattie, C. Federrath, N. Kriel, J. K. J. Hew, and A. Bhattacharjee, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.542, 2669 (2025), arXiv:2312.03984 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  54. [76] T. Berlok and C. Pfrommer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society485, 908 (2019), arXiv:1902.01403 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  55. [77] J. R. Beattie and A. Bhattacharjee, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 165202 (2026) on Pith
  56. [78] D. B. Fielding, B. Ripperda, and A. A. Philippov, Astro- phys. J. Letters.949, L5 (2023), arXiv:2211.06434 [astro- ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  57. [79] J. R. Beattie, C. Federrath, R. S. Klessen, S. Cielo, and A. Bhattacharjee, Nature Astronomy9, 1195 (2025), arXiv:2504.07136 [astro-ph.GA] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  58. [80] J. M. Stone and T. Gardiner, Astrophys. J.671, 1726 (2007), arXiv:0709.0452 [astro-ph] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  59. [81] B. Sullivan and A. Kaszynski, Journal of Open Source Software4, 1450 (2019). 9 END MA TTER Equations and numerical methods. We solve the compressible, Newtonian magnetohy- drodynamics equations in the triply periodic domain [−L/2, L/2]3, ∂tρ+∇·(ρu) = 0,(A1) ∂t(ρu) +∇·[ρuu+ (P+... on Pith

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment