Merger and Mass Ejection of Neutron-Star Binaries

Kenta Hotokezaka; Masaru Shibata

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 11 cited by

Merger and Mass Ejection of Neutron-Star Binaries

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Numerical-relativity simulations of neutron-star mergers predict the ejected matter that powers kilonovae, and their predictions broadly match GW170817.

desk verdict Solid, honest review of NS merger mass ejection, but the abstract's 'broad agreement' with GW170817 is a step stronger than the body's caveat and leans on the unverified alpha_vis assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02350 v1 pith:3EKDWPBM submitted 2019-08-06 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Masaru Shibata , Kenta Hotokezaka This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc

keywords neutron-starmergernumericalrelativitykilonovagravitationalwavesr-processnucleosynthesismassejectionGW170817equationofstate

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review argues that full general-relativistic simulations of neutron-star mergers have matured into a reliable guide to what happens when these binaries collide: how gravitational waves are emitted, how neutron-rich matter is ejected, and what electromagnetic signals follow. The central claim is that the predicted properties of the ejected matter—its mass, velocity, and electron fraction—agree broadly with the optical and infrared observations of GW170817, the first binary neutron star merger seen in both gravitational waves and light. If this is right, neutron-star mergers are established as a major site of r-process nucleosynthesis, and kilonovae become readable probes of the merger process and of the neutron-star equation of state.

What carries the argument

The machinery is numerical relativity in full general relativity, equipped with finite-temperature equations of state, neutrino radiation transport, and magnetohydrodynamics; it supplies the merger remnant, the ejecta mass, velocity, and electron fraction. The load-bearing microphysical input is the turbulent viscosity, expected from magnetic turbulence to give a viscous parameter of order $10^{-2}$, because it sets the viscous timescale and therefore how much post-merger ejecta leaves the system. The observational bridge is the kilonova: radioactive decay heat, dominated by $\beta$-decay at early times, diffuses out on a timescale that depends on the ejecta mass, velocity, and opacity, and the opacity jumps by a factor of roughly a hundred between lanthanide-free and lanthanide-rich ejecta. That opacity contrast converts the electron-fraction distribution into the two-component blue-and-red light curve seen in GW170817.

What would settle it

A future gravitational-wave event with a well-constrained viewing angle whose blue kilonova is fainter than the roughly 0.03 solar masses of lanthanide-free ejecta predicted by numerical relativity would break the claimed agreement; the same test could come from a high-resolution magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a post-merger disk finding an effective viscous parameter far below 0.01.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery the review organizes is that a neutron-star merger does not eject one uniform blob but several distinct components. Dynamical ejecta, launched within milliseconds by shock heating and tidal torques, carry a broad range of electron fractions ($Y_e$ from about 0.05 to 0.5) and move at 0.15–0.3 times the speed of light. A later, slower component is driven out over hundreds of milliseconds by turbulent magnetohydrodynamic viscosity from the remnant massive neutron star and its accretion disk; this post-merger ejecta is less neutron-rich ($Y_e$ roughly 0.2–0.5) when a neutron star survives long enough to irradiate it with neutrinos. Because high-$Y_e$ ejecta cannot make lanthanides, it stays relatively transparent and produces a bright blue kilonova, while low-$Y_e$ ejecta makes lanthanides, becomes opaque, and produces a redder, longer-lasting infrared glow. The review's key empirical assertion is that applying this picture to GW170817, with the remnant ejecting roughly 0.03 solar masses or more, reproduces the observed optical and near-infrared light curves.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted amount of post-merger ejecta relies on turbulent viscosity inside the remnant being as strong as the highest-resolution simulations suggest; if that turbulence is much weaker, the ejected mass falls below what GW170817's brightness requires.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Kilonova light curves become diagnostics of the merger remnant: a bright blue component signals a long-lived massive neutron star whose neutrino irradiation raises the electron fraction, while a purely red kilonova points to prompt black-hole formation or a black hole-neutron star merger.
Future binary neutron star mergers observed in both gravitational waves and light will test the predicted ejecta masses and velocity structure, turning each event into a measurement of the neutron-star equation of state.
The predicted wide range of electron fractions in dynamical ejecta places neutron-star mergers among the viable sites for the r-process, capable of producing elements with mass numbers above about 70.
The mildly relativistic high-velocity component of the dynamical ejecta should produce a long-lived radio synchrotron afterglow, so continued radio monitoring of nearby mergers probes the ejecta velocity distribution directly.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not develop this, but if later events reproduce the same two-component structure, the kilonova's color can be used as a clock for the remnant neutron star's lifetime: longer-lived remnants should produce bluer and brighter blue components.
An implication left implicit is that the same machinery offers a clean way to distinguish black hole-neutron star mergers from binary neutron star mergers: the former should produce a lanthanide-rich red kilonova with little or no blue component, because there is no neutrino-bright remnant to raise the electron fraction.
A testable extension would be to compare the assumed viscosity strength against the spread of inferred ejecta masses across a sample of events; if events systematically require far less post-merger ejecta, the viscous mechanism behind the blue kilonova would need revision.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

The one thing to know: this is a commissioned Annual Review article, not a research paper. It doesn't present new simulations or data. It's a synthesis, and judged as one, it's solid. Shibata and Hotokezaka have written a well-organized summary of what numerical relativity predicts for NS merger mass ejection and the resulting electromagnetic signals, with useful equations and a clear table of ejecta properties. It covers both binary NS and BH-NS mergers, dynamical and viscosity-driven ejecta, r-process yields, kilonova light curves, and synchrotron afterglows. If you want one compact reference for the state of the field in 2019, this is it.

The review also earns credit for being honest at the level of detail. It distinguishes the phenomenological opacity fit in Fig. 4 from the NR-based light curves in Fig. 7, and it explicitly says in Sec. 5.1 that it is not yet clear whether every kilonova agrees with the predictions and that future events are needed. That level of hedging in the body is appropriate.

The soft spot is the abstract. "We emphasize that the predictions of the numerical-relativity simulations agrees broadly with the optical and infrared observations of GW170817" is a bit stronger than what the body actually supports. The agreement depends on the post-merger ejecta, and the mass of that ejecta scales directly with the assumed viscous parameter alpha_vis. The review states this dependence (Eq. 1, Sec. 3.3.1), citing ~0.01 M_sun for alpha_vis/0.02. If the effective alpha_vis in the remnant is an order of magnitude smaller—which is possible because the disk-derived values are extrapolated to a hypermassive neutron star—the early blue component largely disappears. The later disk wind is slower and has different Ye, so it can't simply fill in. The body actually notes this uncertainty implicitly, but the abstract doesn't. That's a real inconsistency in framing, though not a fatal flaw in the review.

The citation pattern is fine: it leans on the authors' own simulation papers, but independent groups (Foucart, Radice, Dietrich, etc.) are cited for the same conclusions, and the review doesn't suppress dissenting work.

Who is this for? Anyone wanting a readable tour of the field or a reference to cite for the current understanding of NS merger ejecta. It deserves serious peer review as a review article—meaning a knowledgeable referee to check the synthesis and the claim about agreement, not to require new results.

My take: if it crossed my desk, I'd send it to a referee and ask specifically whether the abstract's 'broad agreement' claim should be softened to match the alpha_vis caveat. The paper is otherwise a keeper.

Best,

[Your name]

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of numerical-relativity predictions for the merger of binary neutron stars and black hole–neutron star binaries, focusing on merger remnant evolution, dynamical and viscosity-driven mass ejection, r-process nucleosynthesis, and the associated electromagnetic counterparts. The second half compares these predictions with the kilonova and afterglow observations of GW170817 and concludes that numerical-relativity-based models are broadly consistent with the optical and near-infrared data, while noting on p. 21 that future events are required to establish the standard picture.

Significance. If its central claim is accepted, this review provides a valuable quantitative synthesis of the field: it collects the key scaling relations (Eqs. 1–20), summarizes the dependence of ejecta properties on binary parameters and equation of state, and makes falsifiable statements about late-time radio emission and the need for future events. The authors are transparent in several places, noting, for example, that the opacity distribution in Fig. 4 is phenomenological and that the agreement with GW170817 is based on a particular simulation-motivated model. The consistency of the broad picture with independent simulations by other groups is a strength and supports the review's usefulness. The main advertised result, however, is more categorical in the abstract than in the body, and the quantitative support for the 'broad agreement' statement rests in part on an assumed turbulent-viscosity parameter whose value is not an output of the simulations.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and §5.1] The abstract states that 'the predictions of the numerical-relativity simulations agrees broadly with the optical and infrared observations of GW170817.' This is stronger than the evidence assembled in the body. The direct comparison in Fig. 7 is one specific radiation-transfer model built on one set of numerical-relativity ejecta and a fixed viewing angle of about 25°, while the left panel of Fig. 4 explicitly uses a phenomenological opacity distribution chosen to fit the data. The text itself notes on p. 21 that 'it is not yet clear whether every kilonova agrees with the prediction of numerical relativity.' I recommend rewording the abstract and the closing sentence of §5.1 to say that the results are 'consistent with' or 'broadly compatible with' the currently favored simulation-based models, rather than that the predictions agree broadly with observations.
[§3.3.1 and Eq. (1)] The viscosity-driven ejecta mass from the massive neutron star remnant is quoted as about 0.01 solar masses times (alpha_vis/0.02), and the associated timescale in Eq. (1) is linear in alpha_vis. The value alpha_vis ~ 1e-2 is justified by citing high-resolution MHD simulations of accretion disks (Refs. 102–104), but applying disk-motivated alpha_vis to a differentially rotating hypermassive neutron star is an extrapolation. If the effective alpha_vis in the remnant is an order of magnitude smaller, the early blue ejecta component in the GW170817 comparison (Fig. 7) would drop well below the roughly 0.03 solar masses that §5.1 says is needed, and the 'broad agreement' claim loses quantitative support. The manuscript should state this assumption as a caveat in §5.1 or quantify how the Fig. 7 conclusion depends on alpha_vis.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract] The phrase 'the predictions ... agrees broadly' should be 'agree broadly'.
[§2.1] The sentence about the neutrino luminosity contains a typo: 'decease' should be 'decrease'.
[§2.1, Eq. (1)] The symbol H is defined as the 'maximum size of the turbulent vortex'; in the standard alpha-disk context H usually denotes the disk scale height. Please clarify whether H in Eq. (1) is the turbulent eddy size or a geometric scale height.
[§3.3.2] The sentence beginning 'The values of Ye within the dynamical ejecta vary widely' appears in the subsection on viscous disk-driven ejection and should refer to 'this ejecta component' rather than 'the dynamical ejecta'.
[Fig. 4 and §5.1] Figure 4 is introduced in §4.2.1, but the observed GW170817 data are first discussed in §5.1; please add an explicit cross-reference from §5.1 to the left and right panels of Fig. 4 and specify which curves are heating rates and which are bolometric light curves.
[References] Reference 81 lists the journal as 'Phys. Rev. F'; the correct journal is Physical Review D. Reference 83 is incomplete (arXiv only) and should be updated if a published version exists.
[§4.2.1] There is a doubled comma in 'r-process nucleosynthesis,, that is'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's broad-agreement claim rests on independent simulation predictions and observational comparisons, not on inputs redefined as outputs.

full rationale

The paper is a review whose central claim is that numerical-relativity simulations predict merger ejecta properties that agree broadly with GW170817 optical and infrared observations. The predictions cited (dynamical ejecta masses, velocities, electron fractions, and post-merger viscous ejecta) are obtained from general-relativistic MHD simulations with stated microphysical inputs; they are not fitted to the GW170817 light curves. The alpha_vis ~ 1e-2 adopted in Eq. (1) is an input assumption motivated by independent high-resolution MHD accretion-disk simulations, not a parameter inferred from the kilonova data, so its uncertainty is a robustness concern rather than a circular reduction. Figure 7 is based on Ref. 137, which includes an author of this review, but the calculation is a published radiation-transfer model on numerical-relativity ejecta and is externally falsifiable; the review also presents independent models (Kasen et al., Villar et al., Nakar et al., Waxman et al.) that support the same qualitative conclusion. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it is claimed to predict, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore, despite heavy self-citation and a genuine input assumption, the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review, so the ledger lists the parameters and assumptions inherited from the cited simulations and illustrative models. The main fitted quantities are the opacity and ejecta properties in Fig. 4. The viscosity parameter alpha_vis is the most consequential assumption for the post-merger ejecta mass. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

Photon opacity kappa for fast and slow ejecta (Fig. 4 left) = 1 cm^2/g for v > 0.15c; 7 cm^2/g for v <= 0.15c
Explicitly described in the Fig. 4 caption as phenomenological and fitted to the bolometric data; used in the illustrative light-curve model.
Ejecta mass and velocity for beta-decay-only model (Fig. 4 left) = 0.06 M_sun, 0.15c
Set by hand to reproduce the GW170817 bolometric light curve (Section 4.2.3).
Ejecta mass and velocity for alpha-decay model (Fig. 4 right) = 0.02 M_sun, 0.1c
Supposed values for the alpha-decay case, stated in the caption and text.
Initial abundances of A = 222 to 225 nuclei = YA = 4.0e-5, 2.7e-5, 4.1e-5, 2.7e-5
Taken from the DZ31 nuclear mass model of Wu et al. (120); these values control the alpha-decay heating rate and are not derived in this review.
Viscous parameter alpha_vis = 0.02
Used in Eq. 1 and in the estimate Mej_vis ~ 0.01 M_sun (alpha_vis/0.02) in Section 3.3.1; assumed to be the saturated value from MHD turbulence.
Synchrotron microphysics parameters (epsilon_B, epsilon_e, p, ISM density n) = epsilon_B = epsilon_e = 0.1, p = 2.2, n = 1e-3 cm^-3 for Fig. 5
Chosen representative values for afterglow light curves; the text notes the peak flux is sensitive to these parameters.
Opacity evolution parameters in the temporal variation model = kappa_M ~ 0.3 cm^2/g, gamma ~ 0.6, t_M ~ 1 d
Reported in Section 5.1 from Ref. (129) as a model for GW170817; these are fitted parameters of that model.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption General relativity and ideal/resistive magnetohydrodynamics provide a valid description of neutron-star mergers.
The entire review is based on numerical relativity simulations; this is the foundational modeling assumption (Sections 2 and 3).
domain assumption The r-process occurs in neutron-rich merger ejecta and powers the kilonova emission.
The standard interpretation of GW170817's UV/optical/IR emission; used throughout Section 4.
ad hoc to paper MHD turbulence saturates at a level equivalent to alpha_vis ~ 0.01 to 0.02 in merger remnants and disks.
This value sets the viscous timescales and ejecta masses in Eq. 1, Eq. 2, and Section 3.3.1; it is inferred from accretion disk simulations, not directly measured in mergers.
domain assumption Approximate neutrino transport in current simulations captures the electron fraction evolution of the ejecta.
The predicted broad Ye distribution (0.05 to 0.5) and the lanthanide-free component depend on neutrino irradiation and weak interactions (Sections 3.1.3 and 3.3).
domain assumption Microphysical parameters for synchrotron emission (epsilon_B, epsilon_e, p) take representative values inferred from other astrophysical sources.
Used for the afterglow flux estimates in Section 4.3 and Fig. 5; these are not measured for this event.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Merger and Mass Ejection of Neutron-Star Binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3EKDWPBM

@misc{pith2026190802350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Merger and Mass Ejection of Neutron-Star Binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3EKDWPBM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02350}
}

read the original abstract

Mergers of binary neutron stars and black hole-neutron star binaries are one of the most promising sources for the ground-based gravitational-wave (GW) detectors and also a high-energy astrophysical phenomenon as illustrated by the observations of gravitational waves and electromagnetic (EM) waves in the event of GW170817. Mergers of these neutron-star binaries are also the most promising site for r-process nucleosynthesis. Numerical simulation in full general relativity (numerical relativity) is a unique approach to the theoretical prediction of the merger process, GWs emitted, mass ejection process, and resulting EM emission. We summarize our current understanding for the processes of neutron star mergers and subsequent mass ejection based on the results of the latest numerical-relativity simulations. We emphasize that the predictions of the numerical-relativity simulations agrees broadly with the optical and infrared observations of GW170817.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

The Lorentzian geometry of relaxation
nucl-th 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

Causality forces purely relaxational dispersion relations to follow spacelike trajectories on the Lorentzian {iω,ik} plane, producing universal bounds on diffusivity, viscosity, time-dilation deviations, and hydrodyna...
From Multimessenger Inference to Simulations: A Ranked Ensemble of Finite-Temperature Equations of State
astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The paper constructs a 12-member ensemble of finite-temperature neutron star equations of state that spans the posterior from multimessenger and nuclear-physics constraints and releases simulation-ready tables.
Subsolar-mass binary mergers of strange stars and neutron stars: gravitational waves and ejecta
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Subsolar strange star mergers produce a lower post-merger-to-cutoff GW frequency ratio than neutron star mergers, cleanly separating the two classes across equations of state and mass ratios.
Direct Measurement of the Accretion Disk Formed in Prompt Collapse Mergers with Future Gravitational-Wave Observatories
gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The postmerger ringdown frequency of promptly collapsing binary neutron star mergers is correlated with accretion disk mass, allowing a proposed 10 percent measurement with third-generation gravitational wave detectors.
A set of distinctive properties ruling the prompt emission of GRB 230307A and other long {\gamma}-ray bursts from compact object mergers
astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

GRB 230307A and several other long merger-candidate bursts show exponential evolution of pulse intensity, waiting time, duration, and spectral peak energy, contrasting with supernova-associated long bursts.
nmma: An extended Bayesian framework for Nuclear Multimessenger Astronomy in the Era of Next-Generation Detectors
astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

nmma now jointly samples nuclear EoS parameters with GW and EM data via TOV emulators and Fiesta surrogates, delivering 20–60× speedups and future H0–nuclear constraints.
Inferring Neutron Star Nuclear Properties from Gravitational-Wave and Gamma-Ray Burst Observations
astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

By matching LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA merger rates to gamma-ray burst rates, the authors infer that the dividing mass between short and long bursts is about 1.36 times the maximum neutron star mass.
superB/NRPy: Scalable, Task-Based Numerical Relativity for 3G Gravitational Wave Science
gr-qc 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

superB/NRPy automatically generates distributed-memory Charm++ code from NRPy's BlackHoles@Home modules, showing bitwise agreement with the OpenMP version and strong scaling to 7168 cores.
Neutrino flavor instabilities in a binary neutron star merger remnant: Roles of a long-lived hypermassive neutron star
astro-ph.HE 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In a long-lived hypermassive neutron star merger remnant, fast flavor instabilities occur transiently and locally while collisional flavor instabilities persist widely in the disk for about one second.
Neutrino pair annihilation driven jets from black-hole torus systems
astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Neutrino pair annihilation in black hole-torus systems launches relativistic fireballs with isotropic energies up to about 10^51 erg and durations around 0.1 s, which can account for faint short GRBs and GRB precursors.
Neutrinos from explosive transients at the dawn of multi-messenger astronomy
astro-ph.HE 2024-12 unverdicted

This review summarizes the state of neutrino emission from supernovae and neutron-star mergers, covering thermal and high-energy signals, flavor conversion, and multi-messenger detection strategies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · cited by 11 Pith papers

[1]

Abadie et al

J. Abadie et al. [LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 624, 223 (2010)

2010
[2]

Accadia et al

T. Accadia et al. [Virgo Collaboration], Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 025005 (2011) [Erratum-ibid. 28, 079501 (2011)]:

2011
[3]

Akutsu et al., Prog

T. Akutsu et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 013F01 (2018)

2018
[4]

B. P. Abbott et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

2017
[5]

J. M. Lattimer and D. N. Schramm, Astrophys. J. Lett. 192, L145 (1974)

1974
[6]

Eichler, M

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

1989
[7]

Thielemann, M

F.-K. Thielemann, M. Eichler, I. V. Panov, and B. Wehmeyer, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 67, 253 (2017)

2017
[8]

M. D. Davies, W. Benz, T. Piran, and F. K. Thielemann, Astrophys. J. 431, 742 (1996)

1996

Show all 150 references

[9]

Ruﬀert, H.-Th

M. Ruﬀert, H.-Th. Janka, K. Takahashi and G. Schaefer, Astron. Astrophys. 319, 122 (1997)

1997
[10]

Freiburghaus, S

C. Freiburghaus, S. Rosswog, and F.-K. Thielemann, Astrophys. J. 525, L121 (1998)

1998
[11]

Rosswog, M

S. Rosswog, M. Liebendoerfer, F.-K. Thielemann, M. B. Davies, W. Benz, and T. Piran, Astron. Astrophys. 341 499 (1999)

1999
[12]

Li and B

L.-X. Li and B. Paczh´ nski, Astrophys. J. 507, L59 (1998)

1998
[13]

B. D. Metzger, G. Martinez-Pinedo, S. Darbha, E. Quataert, A. Arcones, D. Kasen, T. Thomas, P. Nugent, I. V. Panov, and N. T. Zinner, Mon. Not. Roy. Soc. 406, 2650 (2010)

2010
[14]

L. F. Roberts, D. Kasen, W. H. Lee, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astrophys, J. 736, L21 (2011)

2011
[15]

Goriely, A

S. Goriely, A. Bauswein, and H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J. Lett. 738, L32 (2011)

2011
[16]

Korobkin, S

O. Korobkin, S. Rosswog, A. Arcones, and C. Winteler, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 426, 1940 (2012)

2012
[17]

Barnes and D

J. Barnes and D. Kasen, Astrophys. J. 775, 18 (2013)

2013
[18]

Tanaka and K

M. Tanaka and K. Hotokezaka, Astrophys. J. 775, 113 (2013)

2013
[19]

LIGO Scientic Collaboration and VIRGO Collaboration et al., Astrophys. J. 848, L12 (2017)

2017
[20]

Tanaka et al

M. Tanaka et al. Pub. Astron. Soc. Japan 69, 102 (2017)

2017
[21]

Arcavi et al., Nature 551, 64 (2017)

I. Arcavi et al., Nature 551, 64 (2017)

2017
[22]

D. A. Coulter et al., Science 358, 1556 (2017)

2017
[23]

P. S. Cowperthwaite et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L17 (2017)

2017
[24]

M. R. Drout et al., Science 358,1570 (2017)

2017
[25]

P. A. Evans et al., Science 358, 1565 (2017)

2017
[26]

M. M. Kasliwal et al., Science 358, 1559 (2017)

2017
[27]

Pian, et al., Nature 551, 67 (2017)

E. Pian, et al., Nature 551, 67 (2017)

2017
[28]

S. J. Smartt et al., Nature 551, 75 (2017). 22 Shibata and Hotokezaka

2017
[29]

N. R. Tanvir et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L27 (2017)

2017
[30]

Nakar and T

E. Nakar and T. Piran, Nature 478, 82 (2011)

2011
[31]

Shibata, Phys

M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104052 (1999)

1999
[32]

Shibata and K

M. Shibata and K. Ury¯ u, Phys. Rev. D 61, 064001 (2000)

2000
[33]

M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Ott, and S. A. Teukolsky, Class. Quantum Grav. 27, 114106 (2010)

2010
[34]

Sekiguchi, K

Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 051102 (2011)

2011
[35]

M. B. Deaton, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, E. OConnor, C. D. Ott, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Muhlberger, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szil´ agyi, Astrophys. J.776, 47 (2013)

2013
[36]

Foucart, M

F. Foucart, M. B. Deaton, M. Duez, E. OConnor, C. D. Ott, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiﬀer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Phys. Rev. D 90, 024026 (2014)

2014
[37]

Palenzuela, S.L

C. Palenzuela, S.L. Liebling, D. Neilsen, L. Lehner, O.L. Caballero, E. O’Connor, and M. Anderson, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044045 (2015)

2015
[38]

Sekiguchi, K

Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064059 (2015)

2015
[39]

Foucart, E

F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, L. Roberts, L. E. Kidder, J. Lippuner, H. P. Pfeiﬀer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D 94, 123016 (2016)

2016
[40]

Kiuchi, K

K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and T. Wada, Phys. Rev. D 90, 041502 (2014)

2014
[41]

Kiuchi, P

K. Kiuchi, P. Cerda-Duran, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124034 (2015)

2015
[42]

Kiuchi, Y

K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, K. Taniguchi, and T. Wada, Phys. Rev. D 92, 064034 (2015)

2015
[43]

Hotokezaka, K

K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, Y. -i. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata and K. Taniguchi,Phys. Rev. D 87, 024001 (2013)

2013
[44]

Foucart, M

F. Foucart, M. B. Deaton, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, I. MacDonald, C. D. Ott, H. P. Pfeiﬀer, M. A. Scheel, B. Szil´ agyi, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D87, 084006 (2013)

2013
[45]

Bauswein, S

A. Bauswein, S. Goriely, H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J. 773, 78 (2013)

2013
[46]

Lovelace, M

G. Lovelace, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiﬀer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szil´ agyi, Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 135004 (2013)

2013
[47]

Kyutoku, K

K. Kyutoku, K. Ioka, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 88, 041503(R) (2013)

2013
[48]

Foucart, E

F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, L. Roberts, M. Duez, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Ott, H. P. Pfeiﬀer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124021 (2015)

2015
[49]

Foucart, R

F. Foucart, R. Haas, M. D. Duez, E. O’Connor, C. D. Ott, L. Roberts, L. E. Kidder, J. Lippuner, H. P. Pfeiﬀer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044019 (2016)

2016
[50]

Sekiguchi, K

Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124046 (2016)

2016
[51]

Lehner, S

L. Lehner, S. L. Liebling, C. Palenzuela, O. L. Caballero, E. O’Connor, M. Anderson, and D. Neilsen, Class. Quantum Grav. 33, 184002 (2016)

2016
[52]

Radice, F

D. Radice, F. Galeazzi, J. Lippuner, L. F. Roberts, C. D. Ott, and L. Rezzolla, Mon. Not. R. Soc. Astron. 460, 3255 (2016)

2016
[53]

Foucart, D

F. Foucart, D. Desai, W. Brege, M. D. Duez, D. Kasen, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiﬀer, and M. A. Scheel, Class. Quantum Grav. 34, 044002 (2017)

2017
[54]

Kyutoku, K

K. Kyutoku, K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 023009 (2018)

2018
[55]

Dietrich, M

T. Dietrich, M. Ujevic, W. Tichy, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024029 (2017)

2017
[56]

Dietrich, S

T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, M. Ujevic, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 95, 044045 (2017)

2017
[57]

Bovard, D

L. Bovard, D. Martin, F. Guercilena, A. Arcones, and L. Rezzolla, and O. Korobkin, Phys. Rev. D 96, 124005 (2017)

2017
[58]

Radice, A

D. Radice, A. Perego, K. Hotokezaka, S. A. Fromm, S. Bernuzzi, and L. Roberts, Astrophys. J. 869, 130 (2018). www.annualreviews.org • Neutron star merger 23

2018
[59]

Wanajo, Y

S. Wanajo, Y. Sekiguchi, N. Nishimura, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Astrophys. J. Lett. 789, L39 (2014)

2014
[60]

Fern´ andez, F

R. Fern´ andez, F. Foucart, D. Kasen, J. Lippuner, D. Desai, and L. F. Roberts, Class. Quantum Grav. 34, 154001 (2017)

2017
[61]

Fern´ andez and B

R. Fern´ andez and B. D. Metzger, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 435, 502 (2013)

2013
[62]

B. D. Metzger and R. Fern´ andez, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 441, 3444 (2014)

2014
[63]

Perego, S

A. Perego, S. Rosswog, R. Cabezon, O. Korobkin, R. Kaeppeli, A. Arcones, M. Liebendoerfer, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 443, 3134 (2014)

2014
[64]

Fern´ andez, D

R. Fern´ andez, D. Kasen, B. D. Metzger, and E. Quataert, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 446, 750 (2015)

2015
[65]

O. Just, A. Bauswein, R. A. Pulpillo, S. Goriely, and H.-Th. Janka, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 448, 541 (2015)

2015
[66]

D. M. Siegel and B. D. Metzger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 231102 (2017)

2017
[67]

Fujibayashi, K

S. Fujibayashi, K. Kiuchi, N. Nishimura, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Astrophys. J 860, 64 (2018)

2018
[68]

Fern´ andez, A

R. Fern´ andez, A. Tchekhovskoy, E. Quataert, F. Foucart, D. Kasen, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 3373 (2019)

2019
[69]

Baumgrate, S.L

T.W. Baumgrate, S.L. Shapiro, and M. Shibata, Astrophys. J. Lett. 528, L28 (2000)

2000
[70]

Shibata, Numerical Relativity (World Scientiﬁc, 2016)

M. Shibata, Numerical Relativity (World Scientiﬁc, 2016)

2016
[71]

P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010)

2010
[72]

Antoniadis et al., Science, 340, 448 (2013)

J. Antoniadis et al., Science, 340, 448 (2013)

2013
[73]

Shibata, K

M. Shibata, K. Taniguchi, and K. Ury¯ u, Phys. Rev. D 71, 084021 (2005)

2005
[74]

Shibata and K

M. Shibata and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev D 73, 064027 (2006)

2006
[75]

Kiuchi, Y

K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064037 (2009)

2009
[76]

Hotokezaka, K

K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Kiuchi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 124008 (2011)

2011
[77]

Hotokezaka, K

K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, T. Muranushi, Y. -i. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata and K. Taniguchi,Phys. Rev. D 88, 044026 (2013)

2013
[78]

Takami, L

K. Takami, L. Rezzolla, and L. Baiotti, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064001 (2015)

2015
[79]

Dietrich, S

T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, M. Ujevic, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124041 (2015)

2015
[80]

Bernuzzi, D

S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, C. D. Ott, L. F. Roberts, P. Moesta, and F. Galeazzi, Phys. Rev. D 94, 024023 (2016)

2016
[81]

Ciolﬁ, W

R. Ciolﬁ, W. Kastaun, B. Giacomazzo, A. Endrizzi, D. M Siegel, and R. Perna, Phys. Rev. F 95, 063016 (2017)

2017
[82]

T. M. Tauris, et al., Astrophys. J. 846, 170 (2017)

2017
[83]

N. Pol, M. McLaughlin, and D. R. Lorimer, arXiv:1811.04086

arXiv
[84]

S. A. Balbus and J. F. Hawley, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1 (1998)

1998
[85]

Meszaros and M

P. Meszaros and M. J. Rees, Astrophys. J. 397, 570 (1992)

1992
[86]

Ruﬀert and H.-Th

M. Ruﬀert and H.-Th. Janka, Astron. Astrophys. 344, 573 (1996)

1996
[87]

Di Matteo, R

T. Di Matteo, R. Perna, and R. Narayan, Astrophys. J. 579, 706 (2002)

2002
[88]

W. H. Lee, E. Ramirez-Ruiz and D. Page, Astrophys. J. 632, 421 (2005)

2005
[89]

Setiawan, M

S. Setiawan, M. Ruﬀert and H.-Th. Janka, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 352, 753 (2004)

2004
[90]

Shibata, Y

M. Shibata, Y. Sekiguchi, and R. Takahashi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 118, 257 (2007)

2007
[91]

Chen and A

W.-X. Chen and A. M. Beloborodov, Astrophys. J. 657, 383 (2007)

2007
[92]

R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 179, 433 (1977)

1977
[93]

J. C. McKinney, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 368, 1561 (2006)

2006
[94]

Paschalidis, M

V. Paschalidis, M. Ruiz, and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J. 806, L14 (2015)

2015
[95]

M. Ruiz, R. N. Lang, V. Paschlidis, and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J. 824, L6 (2016)

2016
[96]

M. D. Duez, Y.-T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, and B. C. Stephens, Phys. Rev. D 69, 104030 (2004)

2004
[97]

Shibata, K

M. Shibata, K. Kiuchi, and Y. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 95, 083005 (2017). 24 Shibata and Hotokezaka

2017
[98]

D. J. Price and S. Rosswog, Science 312, 719 (2006)

2006
[99]

Kiuchi, K

K. Kiuchi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 97, 124039 (2018)

2018
[100]

Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability (Oxford University Press, 1961)

S. Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability (Oxford University Press, 1961)

1961
[101]

N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys. 24, 337 (1973)

1973
[102]

J. F. Hawley, S. A. Richers, X. Guan, and J. H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 772, 102 (2013)

2013
[103]

T. K. Suzuki and S. Inutsuka, Astrophys. J. 784, 121 (2014)

2014
[104]

J. M. Shi, J. M. Stone, and C. X. Huang, Mon. Not. R. Soc. Astron. 456, 2273 (2016)

2016
[105]

J. L. Friedman, J. R. Ipser, and L. Parker, Astrophys. J. 304, 115 (1986)

1986
[106]

Cook, S.L

G.B. Cook, S.L. Shapiro, and S.A Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 423, 823 (1994)

1994
[107]

Shibata and K

M. Shibata and K. Ury¯ u, Phys. Rev. D 74, 121503(R) (2006)

2006
[108]

Kyutoku, M

K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 82, 044049 (2010)

2010
[109]

Kyutoku, H

K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064018 (2011)

2011
[110]

Foucart, M

F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 83, 024005 (2012)

2012
[111]

Foucart, M

F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, B. Szil´ agyi, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 85, 044015 (2012)

2012
[112]

Kawaguchi, K

K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, H. Nakano, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 92, 024014 (2015)

2015
[113]

Kyutoku, K

K. Kyutoku, K. Ioka, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044028 (2015)

2015
[114]

Hotokezaka, K

K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, M. Shibata, E. Nakar, and T. Piran, Astrophys. J. 867, 95 (2018)

2018
[115]

Lippuner and L

J. Lippuner and L. F. Roberts, Astrophys. J. 815, 82 (2015)

2015
[116]

Kasen, R

D. Kasen, R. Fern´ andez, B. D. Metzger, Mon. Not. R. Astro. Soc. 450, 1777 (2015)

2015
[117]

Lippuner, R

J. Lippuner, R. Fern´ andez, L. Robert, F. Foucart, D. Kasen, B. D. Metzger, and C. D. Ott, Mon. Not. R. Soc. Astron. 472, 904 (2017)

2017
[118]

Qian and S

Y.-Z. Qian and S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J. 471, 331 (1996)

1996
[119]

Hotokezaka, R

K. Hotokezaka, R. Sari, and T. Piran, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 468, 91 (2017)

2017
[120]

M.-R. Wu, J. Barnes, G. Martinez-Pinedo, B. D. Metzger arXiv:1808.10459

arXiv
[121]

Hotokezaka, S

K. Hotokezaka, S. Wanajo, M. Tanaka, A. Bamba, Y. Terada, and T. Piran, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 459, 35 (2016)

2016
[122]

Zhu, et al., Astrophys

Y. Zhu, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 863, L23 (2018)

2018
[123]

Barnes, D

J. Barnes, D. Kasen, M.-R. Wu, G. Martinez-Pinedo, Astrophys. J. 829, 110 (2016)

2016
[124]

Kasen and J

D. Kasen and J. Barnes, arXiv:1807.03319

arXiv
[125]

Kasen, N

D. Kasen, N. R. Badnell, and J. Barnes, Astrophys. J. 774, 25 (2013)

2013
[126]

Tanaka et al., Astrophys

M. Tanaka et al., Astrophys. J. 852, 109 (2018)

2018
[127]

R. T. Wollaeger et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Soc. 478, 3298 (2018)

2018
[128]

Hotokezaka1, S

K. Hotokezaka1, S. Nissanke, G. Hallinan, T. J. W. Lazio, E. Nakar, and T. Piran, Astrophys. J. 831, 190 (2016)

2016
[129]

Waxman, E

E. Waxman, E. Ofek, D. Kushnir, and A. Gal-Yam, Mon. Not. Roy. Soc. 481, 3423 (2018)

2018
[130]

Arcavi Astrophys

I. Arcavi Astrophys. J. 855, L23 (2018)

2018
[131]

M. M. Kasliwal, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Soc., L41 (2019)

2019
[132]

Kasen, B

D. Kasen, B. D. Metzger, J. Barnes, E. Quataert and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Nature 551, 7678 (2017)

2017
[133]

A. A. Villar et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 851, L21 (2017)

2017
[134]

Nakar, O

E. Nakar, O. Gottlieb, T. Piran, M. M. Kasliwal and G. Hallinan, Astrophys. J. 867, 18 (2018)

2018
[135]

Perego, D

A. Perego, D. Radice, and S. Bernuzzi, Astrophys. J. Lett. 850, L37 (2017)

2017
[136]

Shibata, S

M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123012 (2017)

2017
[137]

Kawaguchi, M

K. Kawaguchi, M. Shibata, and M. Tanaka, Astrophys. J. Lett. 865, L21 (2018). www.annualreviews.org • Neutron star merger 25

2018
[138]

Troja, et al., Nature 551, 71 (2017)

E. Troja, et al., Nature 551, 71 (2017)

2017
[139]

Hallinan, et al., Science 358, 6370 (2017)

G. Hallinan, et al., Science 358, 6370 (2017)

2017
[140]

K. P. Mooley, et al., Nature 554, 7691 (2018)

2018
[141]

Troja, et al., Mon

E. Troja, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. 487, L18 (2018)

2018
[142]

K. P. Mooley, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 868, L21 (2018)

2018
[143]

Margutti, et al., Astrophys

R. Margutti, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 856, L18 (2018)

2018
[144]

K. P. Mooley, et al., Nature 561, 7723 (2018)

2018
[145]

B. P. Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017)

2017
[146]

Gottlieb, E

O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, T. Piran, and K. Hotokezaka, Mon. Not. Roy. Soc. 479, 588 (2018)

2018
[147]

Ruiz and S

M. Ruiz and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084063 (2017)

2017
[148]

Nagakura, K

H. Nagakura, K. Hotokezaka, Y. Sekiguchi and M. Shibata, Astrophys. J. Lett. 784, L28 (2014)

2014
[149]

Murguia-Berthier, G

A. Murguia-Berthier, G. Montes, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, F. De Colle and W. H. Lee, Astrophys. J. Lett. 788, L8 (2014)

2014
[150]

P. C. Duﬀell, E. Quataert, and A. I. MacFadyen, Astrophys. J. 813, 64 (2015). 26 Shibata and Hotokezaka

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abadie et al

J. Abadie et al. [LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 624, 223 (2010)

2010

[2] [2]

Accadia et al

T. Accadia et al. [Virgo Collaboration], Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 025005 (2011) [Erratum-ibid. 28, 079501 (2011)]:

2011

[3] [3]

Akutsu et al., Prog

T. Akutsu et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 013F01 (2018)

2018

[4] [4]

B. P. Abbott et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

2017

[5] [5]

J. M. Lattimer and D. N. Schramm, Astrophys. J. Lett. 192, L145 (1974)

1974

[6] [6]

Eichler, M

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

1989

[7] [7]

Thielemann, M

F.-K. Thielemann, M. Eichler, I. V. Panov, and B. Wehmeyer, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 67, 253 (2017)

2017

[8] [8]

M. D. Davies, W. Benz, T. Piran, and F. K. Thielemann, Astrophys. J. 431, 742 (1996)

1996