Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Journey to the center of the common envelope evolution. Inner dynamics of the post-dynamical inspiral

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the post-dynamical inspiral of a common-envelope binary stalls because the two cores become wrapped in a corotating, nearly hydrostatic shared envelope whose symmetry cancels the gravitational torque, leaving a slow…

desk verdict Careful, honest numerical study whose resolution criteria are solid and whose stall mechanism is real but conditional on no core accretion; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04419 v1 pith:2D4UIYGI submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.SR

Damien Gagnier , Ondrej Pejcha This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords commonenvelopeevolutionpost-dynamicalinspiralgravitationaltorquesofteninghydrostaticequilibriumcontactbinarykinetichelicitypolaroutflows
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

Post-dynamical common envelope inspiral is usually studied with simulations that stop early because of limited resolution and artificial softening of the gravitational potential around the two cores. This paper builds three-dimensional hydrodynamical models of that late phase with statically refined meshes and several softening prescriptions, and asks what actually slows the inspiral down. The answer is a shared, nearly hydrostatic envelope: within a few tens of orbits, the cores are wrapped in a corotating gas structure like a contact binary, and its symmetry suppresses the gravitational torque that would otherwise continue shrinking the orbit. For well-resolved runs, the inspiral timescale converges to about $10^5$ orbital periods for mass ratio $q=1/3$ and about $10^6$ orbital periods for $q=1$. Convergence requires a softening length at most $0.1$ orbital separations and a mesh spacing at most $6\times10^{-3}$ separations, which suggests that many published simulations are effectively under-resolved.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the corotating quasi-hydrostatic shared envelope that forms around the two cores, analogous to the common envelope of contact binaries. It works through a symmetry argument: hydrostatic equilibrium implies $\rho=\rho(\Phi)$, and the torque density $s\rho\,\partial\Phi/\partial\varphi$ is antisymmetric about the plane perpendicular to the orbital plane that contains the line joining the cores, so the net gravitational torque from the symmetric structure nearly vanishes. The quantitative criteria that let this structure survive in a simulation are the softening length $\epsilon\le0.1\,a_\mathrm{b}$ and the mesh spacing $\delta\le6\times10^{-3}\,a_\mathrm{b}$, because a larger softening radius weakens the hydrostatic support of the gas and a coarser grid fails to resolve the pressure gradients inside the softened regions. Among the tested prescriptions, the spline-softened potential gives the most accurate gradient outside the softening sphere.

What would settle it

Run the same binary-plus-envelope setup with numerical mass sinks that let the cores accrete: if the quasi-hydrostatic shared envelope fails to form, or the gravitational torque remains large and the inspiral timescale drops toward $\sim10^3$ orbital periods, then the no-accretion assumption is what produces the reported stall. Alternatively, a well-resolved simulation satisfying $\epsilon\le0.1\,a_\mathrm{b}$ and $\delta\le6\times10^{-3}\,a_\mathrm{b}$ that does not develop the contact-binary-like structure would falsify the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the dynamical inspiral of a binary inside a common envelope does not end because the gas corotates with the orbit, but because the two cores become embedded in a corotating, nearly hydrostatic structure resembling the shared envelope of a contact binary. In hydrostatic equilibrium the density is a function of the potential alone, $\rho=\rho(\Phi)$, while the gravitational torque density is antisymmetric with respect to the plane that contains both cores and is perpendicular to the orbital plane, so the product integrates to almost zero net torque. With that torque suppressed, the orbit contracts on a secular timescale of about $10^5$ orbital periods for $q=1/3$ and about $10^6$ orbital periods for $q=1$, rather than continuing the rapid dynamical plunge. The same simulations show that this quasi-hydrostatic state is only maintained when the gravitational softening length satisfies $\epsilon\le0.1\,a_\mathrm{b}$ and the intraorbital grid spacing satisfies $\delta\le6\times10^{-3}\,a_\mathrm{b}$, and that softer potentials and coarser grids create artificial asymmetries that mimic a stronger torque. The paper also argues that kinetic helicity is not segregated by hemisphere, so large-scale magnetic fields are unlikely to grow through the usual $\alpha$-effect, yet pressure-driven polar outflows appear even without magnetic fields.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two cores do not accrete any gas, so mass can pile up around them and build the nearly hydrostatic shared envelope that cancels the torque; if real cores swallow gas at a non-negligible rate, the stall mechanism and the quoted $10^5$ to $10^6$ orbital-period timescales would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Post-dynamical inspiral lasts on the order of $10^5$ to $10^6$ orbital periods, so post-common-envelope binaries emerge through a long quasistationary contraction rather than a fast continuation of the plunge.
  • Softening radii larger than $0.1\,a_\mathrm{b}$ or grid spacings larger than $6\times10^{-3}\,a_\mathrm{b}$ change more than the numerical accuracy: they generate artificial torques and qualitatively different envelope ejection, so published simulations in that regime need re-evaluation.
  • The transition from dynamical to post-dynamical inspiral is tied to the formation of the torque-suppressing hydrostatic envelope, giving a concrete physical criterion for where one phase ends and the other begins.
  • A large-scale magnetic dynamo through the $\alpha$-effect is unlikely in this phase, while centrifugally collimated, pressure-driven polar outflows can appear without any magnetic field.
  • Final orbital separation increases with mass ratio: $q=1$ binaries halt further out and shrink about ten times more slowly than $q=1/3$ binaries of the same total mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real cores accrete gas at non-negligible rates, the quasi-hydrostatic shared envelope would be drained and the torque-suppressing symmetry broken; the paper's own discussion suggests the inspiral timescale could then shorten toward roughly $10^3$ orbital periods. This is an editorial extrapolation from the no-accretion setup, not a result the simulations demonstrate.
  • The contact-binary analogy points to effects the paper does not model: the shared envelope could redistribute heat between the cores, and shear between the corotating envelope and non-synchronously spinning cores could drive enhanced magnetic activity, akin to the elevated activity observed in contact binaries.
  • A decisive numerical test would be to repeat the setup with mass sinks or subgrid accretion on the cores; if the hydrostatic envelope fails to form and the inspiral timescale drops, the no-accretion assumption is the load-bearing cause of the $10^5$–$10^6$ orbital-period numbers.
  • Because the paper's model grid intentionally covers only moderate mass ratios and circular orbits, the $q$ dependence and the residual envelope geometry could differ for extreme mass ratios or eccentric orbits, a regime the simulations do not address and which would need separate runs.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a numerical study of the post-dynamical inspiral phase of common envelope evolution, using statically refined 3D hydrodynamic simulations that include the binary and the intraorbital region. The authors vary the softening kernel, the softening length epsilon, and the grid resolution, and find that quantities such as the inspiral timescale and volume-averaged shear rate converge only for epsilon <= 0.1 a_b and delta <= 6e-3 a_b. In all well-resolved runs, a corotating, nearly hydrostatic envelope forms around the two cores, resembling the shared envelope of a contact binary. The authors argue that this structure suppresses the gravitational torque through a symmetry argument, leading to asymptotic inspiral timescales of about 1e5 P_orb for q = 1/3 and about 1e6 P_orb for q = 1. The paper also reports that the kinetic helicity shows no segregation, making large-scale alpha-effect dynamo action unlikely, and that intermittent pressure-driven polar outflows appear even without magnetic fields.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, it is an important conceptual advance for common envelope evolution: it identifies the stall of the dynamical inspiral with the formation of a hydrostatic, contact-binary-like shared envelope rather than with gas corotation or reduced Bondi-Hoyle drag. The convergence thresholds for softening and intraorbital resolution are practically useful and imply that many published CEE simulations are under-resolved. Strengths include the parameter-free symmetry argument, the systematic resolution and softening survey, the detailed comparison of softening kernels in Appendix B, and a transparent discussion of the no-accretion idealization. The main quantitative conclusions, however, inherit the limitations of that idealization, and the headline timescales should be scoped accordingly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.1, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The central stall mechanism and the headline timescales are conditional on the absence of core accretion. Section 3.2.1 states that the mass accumulation and hydrostatic equilibrium are "permitted by the absence of core mass accretion," Section 3.2.3 gives Eq. (17) showing how accretion modifies da_b/dt, and Section 4.3 concedes that numerical mass sinks could increase the gravitational torque and shorten the timescale. Section 4.1 further notes that significant core accretion can shorten the timescale to about 1e3 P_orb. Since real cores have finite radii and may accrete, the quoted values of ~1e5 P_orb (q=1/3) and ~1e6 P_orb (q=1) are an upper-limit result of the non-accreting setup rather than a robust prediction for CEE. I recommend either including exploratory runs with mass sinks or explicitly reframing the abstract and conclusions to present these values as idealized non-accreting limits, with the caveat that the stall mechanism itself may be weakened if accretion disrupts the rho = rho(Phi) symmetry.
  2. [Section 3.2.3, Figs. 6-7, Table 1] The stated antisymmetry conditions are not the symmetry of the two-core potential. Equations (14) and (15) describe central inversion about an individual core, which is not a symmetry of the binary potential for either q=1 or q=1/3 unless the companion's potential is negligible. The correct argument is reflection across the plane containing the two cores and perpendicular to the orbital plane, under which rho(x,y,z)=rho(x,-y,z) and dPhi/dphi(x,y,z)=-dPhi/dphi(x,-y,z); this is valid for any mass ratio and preserves the intended conclusion. These equations should be corrected and the accompanying text revised, since they constitute the load-bearing derivation of the torque suppression.
  3. [Section 3.2.3, Figs. 6-7, Table 1] The asymptotic timescales are inferred from torque averages over the last 500 orbits, yet the implied orbital separation change over that interval is only about 0.5% for q=1/3 (tau ~ 9e4 P_orb) and about 0.03% for q=1 (tau ~ 1.5e6 P_orb). The paper does not report the time series of the torque or the variance and convergence of the 500-orbit average, so it is unclear whether these extremely small mean torques are significant above numerical noise or are influenced by rare events and transients. Please provide the torque time series and a measure of the averaging error (for example, running averages or standard deviations) to support the claimed asymptotic values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Fig. 9] The simulation labels "E005.S.l.q033" and "E05.S.l.q033" should read "E005.S.l.q03" for consistency with Table 1.
  2. [Section 2.1] The description "r_i = sqrt(x_i^2+y_i^2+z_i^2) is the distance to the binary's center of mass" is confusing; it should read "r_i is the position vector of each core relative to the binary's center of mass."
  3. [Section 3.3] There is a typo "In our in simulations" that should be corrected to "In our simulations."
  4. [Appendix A] The sentence "See Eq. (1 for an example..." has a missing closing parenthesis after Eq. (1).
  5. [Throughout] The spelling of the softening prescription is inconsistent ("Ruffert" and "Ruffert"); please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the torque-suppression mechanism and the 1e5-1e6 P_orb timescales are emergent outputs of resolved numerical experiments and a parameter-free symmetry argument, not fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The central claim, that the post-dynamical inspiral stalls because the cores become embedded in a corotating, nearly hydrostatic shared envelope whose symmetry suppresses the gravitational torque, is not equivalent to any input of the model. The hydrostatic condition is checked directly in the simulations (Fig. 5, normalized deviation), and the torque suppression follows from the parameter-free antisymmetry argument of Eqs. (14) and (15) applied to the simulated density field. The headline inspiral timescales of approximately 1e5 P_orb (q=1/3) and approximately 1e6 P_orb (q=1) are measured outputs of the live-orbit runs (Table 1, Fig. 7), with convergence tested against softening radius and resolution; they are not fitted parameters relabeled as predictions. Equation (16) is an exact angular-momentum bookkeeping relation in the stated no-accretion setup, and Eq. (17) is an explicit generalization that the authors do not use to produce their headline numbers. The paper transparently states in Section 4.3 that implementing mass sinks could break the hydrostatic equilibrium and shorten the timescale to about 1e3 P_orb; this is a disclosed physical limitation of the idealized model, not a circular step. Self-citations to Gagnier & Pejcha (2023, 2024) provide the initial-condition construction and prior dynamical context, but the stall mechanism and timescales are not imported from those works. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and the contact-binary analogy is presented as an interpretation of an independently simulated structure rather than as the source of the result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on chosen spin-up parameters (beta, m), the chosen envelope mass and radius, and the scanned softening and resolution values. No target quantity was fitted to produce the timescales; they are simulation outputs. The most consequential unverified premise is the absence of core accretion, which the authors discuss as a limitation.

free parameters (6)
  • beta (spin-up parameter) = 0.1
    Sets the excess angular momentum injected into the envelope in Eq. (2); chosen to emulate the preceding dynamical phase, not derived from the simulated evolution.
  • m (angular momentum profile exponent) = 100
    Shape parameter in the Morris and Podsiadlowski spin-up prescription, Eq. (2); chosen by hand.
  • M_env (envelope mass) = 2 in code units
    Total envelope mass beyond the binary orbit; chosen for the idealized model and kept fixed across all runs.
  • R* (primary radius) = 50 in code units
    Sets the envelope scale; chosen for consistency with the authors' prior works.
  • softening length epsilon = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5 a_b
    Scanned input parameter; the paper's convergence criterion (epsilon <= 0.1 a_b) is inferred by comparing these runs.
  • grid spacing delta = 0.003052, 0.006104, 0.01221, 0.04883, 0.09766 a_b
    Resolution levels 8 down to 3; the convergence threshold delta <= 6e-3 a_b is inferred from these runs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Compressible Euler equations with an ideal-gas polytropic equation of state and gas self-gravity ignored
    Sections 2.1 and 2.2 treat the envelope as a Gamma=5/3 polytrope with no self-gravity; standard for idealized common-envelope models but not a proven property of real envelopes.
  • ad hoc to paper Envelope initially in hydrostatic equilibrium and spun up according to Eq. (2) with beta=0.1 and m=100
    Used to emulate the outcome of the preceding dynamical phase; the spin-up profile is prescribed, not computed from a prior evolution.
  • domain assumption Cores are non-accreting point masses on circular orbits with eccentricity fixed to zero
    Section 2 and Eq. (16) evolve only the semi-major axis through gravitational torques; no mass accretion term is included, which is a load-bearing simplification.
  • ad hoc to paper Gravitational softening shapes with the convention h = 14 epsilon / 5 are representative
    Section 3.1 and Appendix B adopt this convention for consistency with prior studies while explicitly acknowledging that it is arbitrary and does not imply equivalence between softening methods.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial inner-envelope density and pressure are built from the latitude and time averaged multipole potential (Eqs. A.4 to A.12), with weak gradient discontinuities at r< and r>
    Appendix A constructs the intraorbital initial conditions; the authors state the resulting discontinuities slightly disrupt hydrostatic equilibrium but are weak enough to ignore.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Journey to the center of the common envelope evolution. Inner dynamics of the post-dynamical inspiral." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2D4UIYGI

@misc{pith2026241204419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Journey to the center of the common envelope evolution. Inner dynamics of the post-dynamical inspiral},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2D4UIYGI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04419}
}
abstract

Three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of common envelope evolution are often terminated soon after the initial dynamical plunge of the companion transitions into a long-lasting post-dynamical inspiral with slowly varying semi-major axis, $a_\text{b}$. This premature termination is often due to insufficient numerical resolution and challenges associated with the softening of the gravitational potential of the two cores. In this work, we use statically-refined 3D hydrodynamical simulations to study binaries orbiting inside a common envelope, exploring the effects of varying numerical resolution, $\delta$, gravitational potential softening prescriptions, and the associated softening lengthscale, $\epsilon$. We find that quantities such as the binary inspiral timescale or the volume-averaged shearing rate typically converge to asymptotic values only for $\epsilon \le 0.1 a_\text{b}$ and $\delta \le 6 \times 10^{-3}a_\text{b}$ with smaller $\epsilon$ requiring correspondingly smaller $\delta$. After a few tens of binary orbits, the two cores become surrounded by a corotating, nearly hydrostatic gas structure, resembling the shared envelope of a contact binary. We propose that this structure is responsible for the slowing down of the dynamical inspiral, leading to an asymptotic inspiral timescale of approximately $10^5$ orbital periods for a binary mass ratio $q=1/3$, and approximately $10^6$ orbital periods for a binary mass ratio $q=1$. By investigating kinetic helicity, we argue that the magnetic field is unlikely to organize into large-scale structures via the usual $\alpha$--effect during the post-dynamical phase. Even in the absence of magnetic fields, we observe intermittent polar outflows collimated by partially centrifugally evacuated polar funnels. (abridged)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04419 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshot of the gas density cross section in the xy plane for simulation E005.S.l.q1 after ∼ 2550 orbits. gravitational torque contribution from the quasihydrostatic re￾gions. We emphasize that the reduction in gravitational torque arises from the formation of a corotating quasi-hydrostatic equi￾librium structure, rather than from simply gas corotation, as is often assumed. Maintaining the hydrostatic equilibrium ne… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Zoomed-in snapshot of the gas density cross section in the xy (top row) and xz planes (at y = 0, bottom row) after ∼ 300 orbits, for ϵ = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.5 from left to right, for q = 1 with fixed orbital separation and using the spline softening method. The fourth snapshot correspond to the low resolution simulation run E02.S.f.q1.vlr. Solid black lines indicate equipotentials of the smoothed binary potential.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zoomed-in snapshot of the gas density cross section in the xy (top row) and xz planes (at y = 0, bottom row) after ∼ 2100 orbits, for ϵ = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5 from left to right, for q = 1/3 with live orbital separation and using the spline softening method. The black dashed line illustrates the intersection between the orbital plane and the plane orthogonal to the orbital plane and parallel to the ri − rj v… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Zoomed-in snapshot of the gas density cross section in the xy (top row) and xz planes (at y = 0, bottom row) after ∼ 2100 orbits, for ϵ = 0.05, 0.2, and 0.5 from left to right, for q = 1 with live orbital sep￾aration and using the spline softening method. The black das…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Close-up view of the normalized deviation from hydrostatic equilibrium in the xy plane, after 1500 orbits for simulation run E005.S.l.q03. The cross and plus signs respectively indicate the position of the primary’s core and of the companion. The white circles mark the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gravitational torque averaged over the last 50 orbital periods as a function of the softening radius ϵ, for all of our q = 1 simulations with fixed orbital separation. q = 1, where sufficient angular momentum has been injected into the envelope to clear, at least parti…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a): Orbital separation evolution for all “live” binary sim￾ulations (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Enclosed gas mass for various values of ϵ using the spline￾softening formulation. from the shock heating in the binary’s vicinity can eventually quench polar accretion, and, doing so, limit the polar outflow in the opposite hemisphere ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Snapshot of the gas density cross-section in the xz-plane after 2150 orbits, for simulations E005.S.l.q033 (panel a) and E005.S.l.q1 (panel b). their gravitational wave signals. Investigating this in more detail should be the focus of future studies. Simulation run E05…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Snapshots of the gas density, radial velocity, normalized Bernoulli parameter, temperature ratio T/Tvir, specific entropy, and Mach number in the xz plan for simulation E05.S.l.q1 after ∼ 2250 orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Snapshots of the gas density, Mach number, and specific entropy in the xy plan for simulation E02.S.l.q1 after ∼ 2250 orbits. Article number, page 11 of 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Zoomed-in snapshot of the kinetic helicity h = u ′′ · ∇ × u ′′ cross section at t = 41 P i orb (left) and t = 2000 P i orb (right), for simulation E01.S.l.q03 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Absolute horizontal shear rate in the orbital plane after ∼ 300 orbits with fixed separation, for q = 1 with a spline softening formulation, and for ϵ = 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, and 0.05, increasing from left to right and top to bottom in a clockwise direction. The bottom left …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Absolute horizontal shear rate on the orbital plane after ∼ 650 orbits, for q = 1/3 with a spline softening formulation, and for ϵ = 0.5, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, and 0.05, increasing from left to right and top to bottom in a clockwise direction. The cross and plus signs respec…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Volume- and time-averaged absolute shear rate within a cube of side length 2ab centered on the binary’s center of mass, averaged over the last 50 orbital periods for simulations with q = 1 and fixed orbital separation, as a function of the softening radius ϵ. Referenc…

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. Jets are the most robust observable ingredient of common envelope evolution

    astro-ph.SR 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new count of 50 post-common-envelope planetary nebulae shows jet morphologies are about 40% more common than dense equatorial outflows, making jets the most robust observable product of common envelope evolution.

  2. Constraining the physical structure of the circumstellar environment of V838 Monocerotis remnant

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A torus, jets, and inner ellipsoid model reproduces most H-band interferometry and low polarization of V838 Mon, but leaves the K-band closure phases unexplained.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Armitage , P. J. 1998, , 501, L189

    1998

  4. [4]

    J., Krolik , J

    Avara , M. J., Krolik , J. H., Campanelli , M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.18538

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Blagorodnova , N., Karambelkar , V., Adams , S. M., et al. 2020, , 496, 5503

    2020

  6. [6]

    B., Campanelli , M., Krolik , J

    Bowen , D. B., Campanelli , M., Krolik , J. H., Mewes , V., & Noble , S. C. 2017, , 838, 42

    2017

  7. [7]

    2005, ApJ, 625, 539

    Brandenburg , A. 2005, ApJ, 625, 539

    2005

  8. [8]

    2012, Space Science Rev., 169, 123

    Brandenburg , A., Sokoloff , D., & Subramanian , K. 2012, Space Science Rev., 169, 123

    2012

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    G., Frank , A., Carroll-Nellenback , J., & Tu , Y

    Chamandy , L., Blackman , E. G., Frank , A., Carroll-Nellenback , J., & Tu , Y. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4028

    2020

  2. [10]

    G., Frank , A., et al

    Chamandy , L., Blackman , E. G., Frank , A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3727

    2019

  3. [11]

    G., et al

    Chamandy , L., Carroll-Nellenback , J., Blackman , E. G., et al. 2024, , 528, 234

    2024

  4. [12]

    G., Campanelli , M., et al

    Combi , L., Lopez Armengol , F. G., Campanelli , M., et al. 2022, , 928, 187

    2022

  5. [13]

    M., Li , H., Mishra , B., & Li , S

    Dempsey , A. M., Li , H., Mishra , B., & Li , S. 2022, , 940, 155

    2022

  6. [14]

    Dittmann , A. J. & Ryan , G. 2021, ApJ, 921, 71

    2021

  7. [15]

    R., Stone , J

    Dong , R., Rafikov , R. R., Stone , J. M., & Petrovich , C. 2011, , 741, 56

    2011

  8. [16]

    C., Dittmann , A

    Duffell , P. C., Dittmann , A. J., D'Orazio , D. J., et al. 2024, , 970, 156

    2024

  9. [17]

    C., D'Orazio , D., Derdzinski , A., et al

    Duffell , P. C., D'Orazio , D., Derdzinski , A., et al. 2020, , 901, 25

    2020

  10. [18]

    2004, , 48, 843

    Edgar , R. 2004, , 48, 843

    2004

  11. [19]

    D., Duffell , P., MacFadyen , A

    Farris , B. D., Duffell , P., MacFadyen , A. I., & Haiman , Z. 2015, , 446, L36

    2015

  12. [20]

    & Pejcha , O

    Gagnier , D. & Pejcha , O. 2023, , 674, A121

    2023

  13. [21]

    & Pejcha , O

    Gagnier , D. & Pejcha , O. 2024, , 683, A4

    2024

  14. [22]

    1999, , 517, 767

    Garc \' a-Segura , G., Langer , N., R \'o \.z yczka , M., & Franco , J. 1999, , 517, 767

    1999

  15. [23]

    M., & Taam , R

    Garc \' a-Segura , G., Ricker , P. M., & Taam , R. E. 2018, , 860, 19

    2018

  16. [24]

    E., & Ricker , P

    Garc \' a-Segura , G., Taam , R. E., & Ricker , P. M. 2020, , 893, 150

    2020

  17. [25]

    & Katz , N

    Hernquist , L. & Katz , N. 1989, , 70, 419

    1989

  18. [26]

    P., Schneider , F

    Hirai , R., Podsiadlowski , P., Owocki , S. P., Schneider , F. R. N., & Smith , N. 2021, , 503, 4276

    2021

  19. [27]

    Hjellming , M. S. & Taam , R. E. 1991, , 370, 709

    1991

  20. [28]

    2018, , 477, 2349

    Iaconi , R., De Marco , O., Passy , J.-C., & Staff , J. 2018, , 477, 2349

    2018

  21. [29]

    2013, , 21, 59

    Ivanova , N., Justham , S., Chen , X., et al. 2013, , 21, 59

    2013

  22. [30]

    & Kim , W.-T

    Kim , H. & Kim , W.-T. 2007, , 665, 432

    2007

  23. [31]

    2010, , 725, 1069

    Kim , W.-T. 2010, , 725, 1069

    2010

  24. [32]

    & Rogachevskii , I

    Kleeorin , N. & Rogachevskii , I. 2008, , 77, 036307

    2008

  25. [33]

    & Pudritz , R

    Konigl , A. & Pudritz , R. E. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings , A. P. Boss , & S. S. Russell , 759

    2000

  26. [34]

    Kramer , M., Schneider , F. R. N., Ohlmann , S. T., et al. 2020, , 642, A97

    2020

  27. [35]

    Kuiper , G. P. 1941, , 93, 133

    1941

  28. [36]

    M., Renzo , M., Rau , S., & Vigna-G \'o mez , A

    Landri , C., Ricker , P. M., Renzo , M., Rau , S., & Vigna-G \'o mez , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15932

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    & Cao , X

    Li , J. & Cao , X. 2019, , 872, 149

    2019

  30. [38]

    M., Li , S., Li , H., & Li , J

    Li , Y.-P., Dempsey , A. M., Li , S., Li , H., & Li , J. 2021, , 911, 124

    2021

  31. [39]

    C., J., Holtzman , W., Dooley , K

    Lombardi , J. C., J., Holtzman , W., Dooley , K. L., et al. 2011, , 737, 49

    2011

  32. [40]

    Lubow , S. H. 1991, ApJ, 381, 259

    1991

  33. [41]

    Lucy , L. B. 1968, , 151, 1123

    1968

  34. [42]

    & Meyer-Hofmeister , E

    Meyer , F. & Meyer-Hofmeister , E. 1979, , 78, 167

    1979

  35. [43]

    & Brandenburg , A

    Mitra , D. & Brandenburg , A. 2012, , 420, 2170

    2012

  36. [44]

    Moffatt, H. K. 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 3663

    2014

  37. [45]

    Moody , M. S. L., Shi , J.-M., & Stone , J. M. 2019, , 875, 66

    2019

  38. [46]

    Mor \'a n-Fraile , J., Schneider , F. R. N., R \"o pke , F. K., et al. 2023, , 672, A9

    2023

  39. [47]

    M., Schneider , F

    Moreno , M. M., Schneider , F. R. N., R \"o pke , F. K., et al. 2022, , 667, A72

    2022

  40. [48]

    & Podsiadlowski , P

    Morris , T. & Podsiadlowski , P. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 2

    2006

  41. [49]

    & Podsiadlowski , P

    Morris , T. & Podsiadlowski , P. 2007, Science, 315, 1103

    2007

  42. [50]

    & Podsiadlowski , P

    Morris , T. & Podsiadlowski , P. 2009, , 399, 515

    2009

  43. [51]

    Mu \ n oz , D. J. & Lithwick , Y. 2020, ApJ, 905, 106

    2020

  44. [52]

    J., Miranda , R., & Lai , D

    Mu \ n oz , D. J., Miranda , R., & Lai , D. 2019, ApJ, 871, 84

    2019

  45. [53]

    Nandez , J. L. A. & Ivanova , N. 2016, , 460, 3992

    2016

  46. [54]

    & Hanawa , T

    Nobuta , K. & Hanawa , T. 1999, , 510, 614

    1999

  47. [55]

    Ogilvie , G. I. 2007, , 374, 131

    2007

  48. [56]

    T., R \"o pke , F

    Ohlmann , S. T., R \"o pke , F. K., Pakmor , R., & Springel , V. 2016 a , , 816, L9

    2016

  49. [57]

    o pke , F. K., Pakmor , R., Springel , V., & M \

    Ohlmann , S. T., R \"o pke , F. K., Pakmor , R., Springel , V., & M \"u ller , E. 2016 b , , 462, L121

    2016

  50. [58]

    A., R \"o pke , F

    Ondratschek , P. A., R \"o pke , F. K., Schneider , F. R. N., et al. 2022, , 660, L8

    2022

  51. [59]

    Ostriker , E. C. 1999, ApJ, 513, 252

    1999

  52. [60]

    1976, in Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed

    Paczynski , B. 1976, in Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton , S. Mitton , & J. Whelan , Vol. 73, 75

    1976

  53. [61]

    Papaloizou , J. C. B., Nelson , R. P., & Masset , F. 2001, A&A, 366, 263

    2001

  54. [62]

    2021, , 910, L26

    Paschalidis , V., Bright , J., Ruiz , M., & Gold , R. 2021, , 910, L26

    2021

  55. [63]

    L., et al

    Passy , J.-C., De Marco , O., Fryer , C. L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 52

    2012

  56. [64]

    2014, , 788, 22

    Pejcha , O. 2014, , 788, 22

    2014

  57. [65]

    D., Tyles , J

    Pejcha , O., Metzger , B. D., Tyles , J. G., & Tomida , K. 2017, , 850, 59

    2017

  58. [66]

    Penzlin , A. B. T., Booth , R. A., Nelson , R. P., Sch \"a fer , C. M., & Kley , W. 2024, , 532, 3166

    2024

  59. [67]

    Penzlin , A. B. T., Kley , W., Audiffren , H., & Sch \"a fer , C. M. 2022, , 660, A101

    2022

  60. [68]

    Proctor , M. R. E. 2007, , 382, L39

    2007

  61. [69]

    Prust , L. J. & Chang , P. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5809

    2019

  62. [70]

    A., De Marco , O., Iaconi , R., Tout , C

    Reichardt , T. A., De Marco , O., Iaconi , R., Tout , C. A., & Price , D. J. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 631

    2019

  63. [71]

    R \"o pke , F. K. & De Marco , O. 2023, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 9, 2

    2023

  64. [72]

    1993, , 280, 141

    Ruffert , M. 1993, , 280, 141

    1993

  65. [73]

    B., Armitage , P

    Salvesen , G., Simon , J. B., Armitage , P. J., & Begelman , M. C. 2016, , 457, 857

    2016

  66. [74]

    T., Schneider , F

    Sand , C., Ohlmann , S. T., Schneider , F. R. N., Pakmor , R., & R \"o pke , F. K. 2020, A&A, 644, A60

    2020

  67. [75]

    L., Taam , R

    Sandquist , E. L., Taam , R. E., & Burkert , A. 2000, , 533, 984

    2000

  68. [76]

    L., Taam , R

    Sandquist , E. L., Taam , R. E., Chen , X., Bodenheimer , P., & Burkert , A. 1998, , 500, 909

    1998

  69. [77]

    H., Lubow , S

    Shi , J.-M., Krolik , J. H., Lubow , S. H., & Hawley , J. F. 2012, ApJ, 749, 118

    2012

  70. [78]

    2019, , 488, 5615

    Shiber , S., Iaconi , R., De Marco , O., & Soker , N. 2019, , 488, 5615

    2019

  71. [79]

    Shu , F. H. & Lubow , S. H. 1981, , 19, 277

    1981

  72. [80]

    Silant'ev , N. A. 2000, , 364, 339

    2000

  73. [81]

    Spruit , H. C. 2010, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, ed. T. Belloni , Vol. 794, 233

    2010

  74. [82]

    Spruit , H. C. & Uzdensky , D. A. 2005, , 629, 960

    2005

  75. [83]

    & Singh , N

    Sridhar , S. & Singh , N. K. 2014, , 445, 3770

    2014

  76. [84]

    E., De Marco , O., Macdonald , D., et al

    Staff , J. E., De Marco , O., Macdonald , D., et al. 2016, , 455, 3511

    2016

  77. [85]

    Steenbeck , M., Krause , F., & R \"a dler , K. H. 1966, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 21, 369

    1966

  78. [86]

    2006, , 56, 199

    Stepien , K. 2006, , 56, 199

    2006

  79. [87]

    M., Tomida , K., White , C

    Stone , J. M., Tomida , K., White , C. J., & Felker , K. G. 2020, , 249, 4

    2020

  80. [88]

    & Metzger , B

    Tuna , S. & Metzger , B. D. 2023, , 955, 125

    2023

  81. [89]

    2011, , 528, A114

    Tylenda , R., Hajduk , M., Kami \'n ski , T., et al. 2011, , 528, A114

    2011

  82. [90]

    2024, , 688, A128

    Valli , R., Tiede , C., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al. 2024, , 688, A128

    2024

  83. [91]

    K., Schneider , F

    Vetter , M., Roepke , F. K., Schneider , F. R. N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07841

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    & Walter , F

    Vilhu , O. & Walter , F. M. 1987, , 321, 958

    1987

  85. [93]

    Webbink , R. F. 2008, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 352, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. E. F. Milone , D. A. Leahy , & D. W. Hobill , 233

    2008

  86. [94]

    Wei , D., Schneider , F. R. N., Podsiadlowski , P., et al. 2024, , 688, A87

    2024

  87. [95]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2855

    Zou, Y., Frank, A., Chen, Z., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 2855

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.