pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30839 · v1 · pith:7FXJTV5Lnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Magnetar Formation from Accretion Induced Collapse of White Dwarfs

Lu\'is Felipe Longo Micchi , Patrick Chi-Kit Cheong , David Radice This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 01:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords accretion-induced collapseproto-magnetarmagnetar formationgeneral relativistic MHDwhite dwarf collapsemagnetic instabilityneutrino MHDgravitational waves
0
0 comments X

The pith

Accretion-induced collapse of white dwarfs produces proto-magnetars that become unstable when magnetic energy exceeds rotational energy.

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

The paper runs nine axisymmetric general-relativistic neutrino magnetohydrodynamic simulations of collapsing, rapidly rotating, magnetized white dwarfs. These show the formation of a hot, strongly magnetized proto-magnetar surrounded by a long-lived accretion disk. Magnetic energy grows in an approximately universal pattern when scaled to its value at bounce. Once magnetic energy surpasses rotational energy near 10^52 erg the core becomes unstable and drives episodic flux expulsion, mass ejection, and flare-like energy release. A sympathetic reader would care because the results supply a concrete formation pathway for magnetars together with observable signatures in gravitational waves and electromagnetic transients.

Core claim

The collapse produces a rapidly rotating proto-magnetar of 1.15-1.45 solar masses spinning at 2.9-4.9 kHz, surrounded by a persistent accretion disk. The remnant stays strongly magnetized above 10^13 G and hot above 20 MeV for at least 1 s after bounce, with surface poloidal fields around 10^12 G and toroidal fields around 10^14 G. Global oscillations in the first 10 ms drive gravitational-wave emission and modulate the poloidal magnetic field. Magnetic energy normalized to its bounce value follows an approximately universal evolution. When magnetic energy exceeds rotational energy of roughly 10^52 erg the remnant core becomes unstable, producing episodic magnetic flux expulsion, mass ejecti

What carries the argument

The instability threshold at which magnetic energy exceeds rotational energy (~10^52 erg), which triggers episodic magnetic flux expulsion and mass ejection.

If this is right

  • The proto-magnetar interior remains magnetized above 10^13 G and hot above 20 MeV up to 1 s post-bounce, with both maxima inside the inner 10 km.
  • Surface poloidal fields reach 10^12 G and toroidal fields reach 10^14 G, with strong toroidal components extending into the equatorial region.
  • Global oscillations during the first 10 ms drive gravitational-wave emission and coherent modulation of poloidal magnetic-field energy.
  • Stronger initial magnetic fields produce lower final rotation rates of the remnant.
  • A persistent accretion disk surrounds the remnant for at least 1 s after bounce.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism supplies a possible channel linking AIC events to observed magnetar flares through the episodic release of magnetic energy.
  • The reported universal magnetic-energy evolution could permit prediction of the onset of instability largely independent of the precise initial field strength.
  • Gravitational-wave signals from the early oscillations may be detectable and help distinguish AIC from other core-collapse channels.
  • If realistic three-dimensional field geometries or rotation profiles disrupt coherence, the instability threshold would shift or disappear.

Load-bearing premise

The initial white-dwarf models are assumed to be in rapid rotation with prescribed poloidal magnetic fields that remain coherent through collapse.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional simulation of the same initial conditions in which magnetic-field coherence is lost before magnetic energy reaches rotational energy would falsify the reported instability threshold and universal evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30839 by David Radice, Lu\'is Felipe Longo Micchi, Patrick Chi-Kit Cheong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Here we show the central density (estimated by the position of maximum density) and the corresponding fluid’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gravitational wave signal recovered from our models by means of the moment of inertia, see Equation 3. All our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Total neutrino luminosities and average energies as a function of time for each one of the neutrino flavors. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temperature and density profiles for model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Angular momentum and mass of the PNS as a function of time. We define the PNS as the region with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial (z=0) rotational profiles of our models at the equatorial plane for 3 different times. At bounce times, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial (at z=0) rotational profile of Bt0p1e12 as a function of time. Here we see in more detail that the PNS’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We find that, when the Rayleigh’s criteria is vio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spherical radial momentum density (top row) and angular velocity (bottom row) profiles for the Bt0p1e12 profile. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Magnetic field’s energy and maximum value for each of its components. Solid, dashed, and dotted lines display [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temporal evolution of the radial profile of the Bt2e9p1e9, as representative of the lower magnetized models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as in figure 10 but for model Bt0p1e12. We note that the ejection is enhanced at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Energy evolution of the PNS interior (ρ > 1011g/cm−3 ). In the left panel, we see that the magnetic energy configurations at bounce seem to follow a quasi-linear relation between the toroidal and poloidal field energy (in log￾space). The middle panel shows the PNS energy evolution but with a normalization by the full magnetic energy at the time of bounce (E tbounce Btot ). The PNS evolution exhibits norma… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Magnetic energy and poloidal-to-toroidal ratio profiles of Bt0p1e12. The vector field depicted in the image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Here we show the magnetic luminosity (left panels) and the integrated released magnetic energy (right panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Maximum value of the magnetic field’s divergence ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We aim to characterize the post-collapse evolution of accretion-induced collapse (AIC) remnants of rapidly rotating, magnetized white dwarfs, focusing on their rotational, magnetic, and thermal structure, as well as the development of instabilities and their energy content. We perform nine axis-symmetric general-relativistic neutrino magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of collapsing, rapidly rotating, magnetized white dwarfs. The simulations follow the system from collapse through bounce and up to $\sim$1 s post-bounce. The simulations are performed by the conformally flat general relativistic neutrino MHD code \texttt{Gmunu}. The collapse produces a rapidly rotating proto-magnetar surrounded by a persistent accretion disk lasting at least $\sim 1$ s after bounce. The remnant mass and spin span 1.15--1.45 $M_{\odot}$ and 2.9--4.9 kHz, respectively, with stronger initial magnetic fields generally leading to lower rotation rates. During the first $\sim 10$ ms, the proto-magnetar exhibits global oscillations that drive both gravitational-wave emission and coherent modulation of the poloidal magnetic field energy. The magnetic energy evolution, normalized to its bounce value, follows an approximately universal behavior across all models. The remnant interior remains strongly magnetized ($\gtrsim 10^{13}$ G) and hot ($\gtrsim 20$ MeV) up to 1 s after bounce, with maxima of both quantities co-located in the inner $\sim 10$ km. The magnetic field topology shows surface poloidal fields of ${\sim}10^{12}$ G and toroidal fields of ${\sim}10^{14}$ G, with strong toroidal components extending into the equatorial region. When the magnetic energy exceeds the rotational energy ($\sim 10^{52}$ erg), the remnant core becomes unstable, leading to episodic magnetic flux expulsion, mass ejection, and flare-like activity in which magnetic energy is released and thermalized in the surrounding material.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports results from nine axisymmetric general-relativistic neutrino magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the accretion-induced collapse of rapidly rotating, magnetized white dwarfs. It finds that the proto-magnetar remnants have masses 1.15-1.45 M_sun and spins 2.9-4.9 kHz, exhibit global oscillations driving GW emission, show approximately universal normalized magnetic-energy evolution, remain strongly magnetized (B ≳ 10^13 G) and hot (T ≳ 20 MeV) for ~1 s post-bounce, and become unstable when magnetic energy exceeds rotational energy (~10^52 erg), triggering episodic flux expulsion, mass ejection, and flare-like activity.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a concrete numerical pathway for magnetar formation via AIC, including quantitative links between initial WD parameters and final spin/magnetic structure, plus a proposed trigger for episodic energy release. The use of multiple models showing consistent normalized trends and the inclusion of GR neutrino MHD are positive features. The axisymmetric restriction, however, directly limits the robustness of the reported E_mag > E_rot instability threshold.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'when the magnetic energy exceeds the rotational energy (~10^52 erg), the remnant core becomes unstable, leading to episodic magnetic flux expulsion...' is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion on magnetar formation and flare activity, yet it rests entirely on axisymmetric runs in which prescribed poloidal fields remain coherent. No control tests or discussion address how non-axisymmetric modes (MRI, Tayler, kink) could redistribute or reconnect flux on dynamical timescales and cap E_mag below E_rot.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'the magnetic energy evolution, normalized to its bounce value, follows an approximately universal behavior across all models' underpins the generality of the instability criterion, but the abstract provides no quantitative comparison of absolute energies or explicit demonstration that the normalization does not artificially enforce similarity; this weakens the cross-model claim without further verification in the results.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The description of surface poloidal (~10^12 G) and toroidal (~10^14 G) fields and their equatorial extension would benefit from a brief statement of how these values are extracted (e.g., at what radius or time post-bounce) to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below, noting revisions where appropriate. The work is limited to axisymmetric simulations, which we acknowledge as a key caveat for the instability claim.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that 'when the magnetic energy exceeds the rotational energy (~10^52 erg), the remnant core becomes unstable, leading to episodic magnetic flux expulsion...' is load-bearing... yet it rests entirely on axisymmetric runs in which prescribed poloidal fields remain coherent. No control tests or discussion address how non-axisymmetric modes (MRI, Tayler, kink) could redistribute or reconnect flux on dynamical timescales and cap E_mag below E_rot.

    Authors: We agree this is a substantive limitation of the axisymmetric setup. In our 2D GR neutrino MHD runs the coherent poloidal fields allow E_mag to grow above E_rot and trigger the observed episodic expulsion and flares. Non-axisymmetric modes could plausibly redistribute flux faster and prevent the threshold from being reached. We will add an explicit discussion of this caveat in the revised manuscript, including references to relevant 3D MHD literature, while noting that full verification requires 3D simulations. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The statement that 'the magnetic energy evolution, normalized to its bounce value, follows an approximately universal behavior across all models' underpins the generality... but the abstract provides no quantitative comparison of absolute energies or explicit demonstration that the normalization does not artificially enforce similarity; this weakens the cross-model claim without further verification in the results.

    Authors: The results section (Figures 5–7 and accompanying text) already presents both normalized and absolute magnetic-energy curves for all nine models, showing that absolute peak values range from ~0.8–3.2 imes 10^52 erg while the normalized growth tracks remain similar. The normalization is used only to compare relative evolution rates; absolute energies are reported separately and vary systematically with initial WD spin and B-field strength. We will revise the abstract to include a short clause on the absolute energy range and the consistency of the normalized trends to make this distinction clearer. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Effects of non-axisymmetric modes (MRI, Tayler, kink) on whether E_mag can exceed E_rot, which cannot be tested without 3D simulations beyond the scope of this work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results follow from direct numerical evolution of GRMHD equations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims derive from nine axisymmetric GR neutrino-MHD simulations evolved with the Gmunu code from collapse through ~1 s post-bounce. Magnetic-energy evolution, instability onset when E_mag exceeds E_rot, and associated flux expulsion are reported as observed outcomes of the time-dependent equations under the stated initial conditions; no algebraic reduction, parameter fitting followed by reprediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain is present that would make the reported thresholds equivalent to the inputs by construction. The simulation framework is self-contained and externally falsifiable via independent codes or 3D extensions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the fidelity of the initial white-dwarf configurations and the numerical implementation of GRMHD plus neutrino transport; no new physical entities are postulated, but the reported instability depends on the assumption that the chosen initial magnetic topologies survive collapse without 3D disruption.

free parameters (3)
  • initial white-dwarf rotation rate
    Chosen to be rapid; directly sets the final spin range 2.9-4.9 kHz
  • initial magnetic field strength
    Varied across models; controls final field topology and whether magnetic energy exceeds rotational energy
  • initial white-dwarf mass and composition
    Sets the remnant mass window 1.15-1.45 Msun
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric geometry is sufficient to capture the global oscillations and flux-expulsion episodes
    Invoked by performing all nine runs in 2D; 3D effects could alter the reported instability
  • domain assumption Conformally flat GR approximation plus the chosen neutrino treatment accurately describes the collapse and early cooling
    Standard for the Gmunu code but limits the fidelity of thermal and magnetic evolution

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5907 in / 1501 out tokens · 34810 ms · 2026-07-01T01:47:56.018242+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Abdikamalov,E.B.,Ott,C.D.,Rezzolla,L.,etal.2010,Phys.Rev.D, 81, 044012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.044012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.044012 2010

  2. [2]

    Arunachalam, P., Macias, P., & Foley, R. J. 2025, GRB 230307A Formed No Dust or Was Not a Binary Neutron Star Merger. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16121

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, 197, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc300

    Batziou, E., Glas, R., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, 197, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc300

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc300 2025

  4. [4]

    J., Deems, S., Furlani, T

    Boerner, T. J., Deems, S., Furlani, T. R., Knuth, S. L., & Towns, J. 2023, in Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Comput- ing, PEARC ’23 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 173–176, doi:10.1145/3569951.3597559

    work page doi:10.1145/3569951.3597559 2023

  5. [5]

    2008, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 685, L19, doi:10.1086/592350

    Burlon, D., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2008, The Astrophys- ical Journal, 685, L19, doi:10.1086/592350

    work page doi:10.1086/592350 2008

  6. [6]

    N., Gropp, J

    Burrows, D. N., Gropp, J. D., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2023, GRB Coor- dinates Network, 33429, 1

    2023

  7. [7]

    B., Fuller, J., et al

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K. B., Fuller, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 39, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y 2021

  8. [8]

    A., Lee, A., de Andrade, E

    Caswell, T. A., Lee, A., de Andrade, E. S., et al. 2023, mat- plotlib/matplotlib: REL: v3.7.1, v3.7.1, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/ zenodo.7697899

    2023

  9. [9]

    2015, Journal of Computational Physics, 286, 172, doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.01.031

    Cavaglieri, D., & Bewley, T. 2015, Journal of Computational Physics, 286, 172, doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.01.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.01.031 2015

  10. [10]

    1931, The Astrophysical Journal, 74, 81, doi:10

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1931, The Astrophysical Journal, 74, 81, doi:10. 1086/143324

    1931

  11. [11]

    C.-K., Lam, A

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Lam, A. T.-L., Ng, H. H.-Y., & Li, T. G. F. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2279, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2606

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2606 2021

  12. [12]

    C.-K., Lin, L.-M., & Li, T

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Lin, L.-M., & Li, T. G. F. 2020, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 145015, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab8e9c

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab8e9c 2020

  13. [13]

    C.-K., Ng, H

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Ng, H. H.-Y., Lam, A. T.-L., & Li, T. G. F. 2023, ApJS, 267, 38, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd931

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd931 2023

  14. [14]

    C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L. F., & Radice, D. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978, L38, doi:10.3847/ 2041-8213/ada1cc

    2025

  15. [15]

    C.-K., Pong, D

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Pong, D. Y. T., Yip, A. K. L., & Li, T. G. F. 2022, ApJS, 261, 22, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6cec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6cec 2022

  16. [16]

    Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54, 174, doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8 1984

  17. [17]

    M., & Metzger, B

    Combi, L., Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, Jet-driven explosion of an accretion-induced white-dwarf collapse via a magnetorota- tional dynamo.https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.19799 Article number, page 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 t tbounce [ms] 1050 1051 Luminosity [erg/s] 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 t tbounce [ms] 1048 1049 ...

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33407, 1

    Dalessi, S., & Fermi GBM Team. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33407, 1

    2023

  19. [19]

    J., Meegan, C., & Fermi GBM Team

    Dalessi, S., Roberts, O. J., Meegan, C., & Fermi GBM Team. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33411, 1

    2023

  20. [20]

    Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Livne, E., & Ott, C. D. 2007, ApJ, 669, 585, doi:10.1086/521701

    work page doi:10.1086/521701 2007

  21. [21]

    D., et al

    Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Ott, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063, doi:10.1086/503626

    work page doi:10.1086/503626 2006

  22. [22]

    A., & Swift Team

    Evans, P. A., & Swift Team. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33419, 1 Fermi GBM Team. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33405, 1

    2023

  23. [23]

    Ferrario, L., de Martino, D., & Gänsicke, B. T. 2015, Space Sci. Rev., 191, 111, doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 2015

  24. [24]

    2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1025, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012

    Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D., & Kawka, A. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1025, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012 2020

  25. [25]

    N., & Komissarov, S

    Gourgouliatos, K. N., & Komissarov, S. S. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 475, L125, doi:10.1093/ mnrasl/sly016

    2018

  26. [26]

    Array programming with NumPy,

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

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

  27. [27]

    1983, SIAM Review, 25, 35, doi:10

    Harten, A., Lax, P., & Leer, B. 1983, SIAM Review, 25, 35, doi:10. 1137/1025002

    1983

  28. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Kashyap,R.,Haque,T.,Lorén-Aguilar,P.,García-Berro,E.,&Fisher, R. 2018, ApJ, 869, 140, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaedb7

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  29. [29]

    2020, IAU Symposium, 357, 60, doi:10.1017/ S1743921320000745

    Kawka, A. 2020, IAU Symposium, 357, 60, doi:10.1017/ S1743921320000745

    2020

  30. [30]

    2025, Mon

    Kuroda, T., Kawaguchi, K., & Shibata, M. 2025, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 541, 1649, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1065

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1065 2025

  31. [31]

    M., & Swesty, D

    Lattimer, J. M., & Swesty, D. F. 1991, Nucl. Phys. A, 535, 331, doi:10.1016/0375-9474(91)90452-C Liebendörfer, M. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1042, doi:10.1086/466517 Longo Micchi, L. F., Radice, D., & Chirenti, C. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 6359, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2420

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9474(91)90452-c 1991

  32. [32]

    The ATNF Pulsar Catalogue

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, As- tronomical Journal, 129, 1993, doi:10.1086/428488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  33. [33]

    2022, Nature, 612, 236, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05404-7

    Mei, A., Banerjee, B., Oganesyan, G., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 236, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05404-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05404-7 2022

  34. [34]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J., 814, 63, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/63 2015

  35. [35]

    H.-Y., Cheong, P

    Ng, H. H.-Y., Cheong, P. C.-K., Lam, A. T.-L., & Li, T. G. F. 2024, ApJS, 272, 9, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2fbd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2fbd 2024

  36. [36]

    C., & Woosley, S

    Niemeyer, J. C., & Woosley, S. E. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 475, 740, doi:10.1086/303544

    work page doi:10.1086/303544 1997

  37. [37]

    1991, ApJ, 367, L19, doi:10.1086/185922

    Nomoto, K., & Kondo, Y. 1991, ApJ, 367, L19, doi:10.1086/185922

    work page doi:10.1086/185922 1991

  38. [38]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.02566, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.02566 —

    Pakmor, R., Pelisoli, I., Justham, S., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.02566, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.02566 —. 2024b, A&A, 691, A179, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451352 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, lat- est, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.02566 2020

  39. [39]

    doi:10.1086/345444 , eprint =

    Piersanti, L., Gagliardi, S., Iben, Icko, J., & Tornambé, A. 2003a, ApJ, 583, 885, doi:10.1086/345444 —. 2003b, ApJ, 598, 1229, doi:10.1086/378952

    work page doi:10.1086/345444

  40. [40]

    2015, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 95–114, doi:10.1093/mnras/ stv1972

    Pitik, T., Radice, D., Kasen, D., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 549, stag899, doi:10.1093/mnras/ stag899

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/ 2026

  41. [41]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 1499, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac589

    Radice, D., Bernuzzi, S., Perego, A., & Haas, R. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 1499, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac589

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac589 2022

  42. [42]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w 2022

  43. [43]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, The Astronomy and Astro- physics Review, 33, 1, doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00158-9 2025

  44. [44]

    2004, ApJ, 615, 444, doi:10.1086/423976

    Saio, H., & Nomoto, K. 2004, ApJ, 615, 444, doi:10.1086/423976

    work page doi:10.1086/423976 2004

  45. [45]

    Stergioulas, N., & Friedman, J. L. 1995, ApJ, 444, 306, doi:10.1086/ 175605

    1995

  46. [46]

    Strutt, J. W. 1917, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, 93, 148, doi:10.1098/rspa.1917.0010

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1917.0010 1917

  47. [47]

    2007, PASJ, 59, 771, doi:10.1093/pasj/59.4.771

    Suwa, Y., Takiwaki, T., Kotake, K., & Sato, K. 2007, PASJ, 59, 771, doi:10.1093/pasj/59.4.771

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/59.4.771 2007

  48. [48]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 228, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3 2022

  49. [49]

    J., Smith, B

    Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 9, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/ 1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/ 2011

  50. [50]

    2003, ApJ, 595, 1094, doi:10

    Uenishi, T., Nomoto, K., & Hachisu, I. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1094, doi:10. 1086/377248

    2003

  51. [51]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 6033, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2983

    Varma, V., Müller, B., & Obergaulinger, M. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 6033, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2983

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2983 2021

  52. [52]

    SciPy1.0: FundamentalalgorithmsforscientificcomputinginPython,

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Meth- ods, 17, 261, doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. Stéfan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56 – 61, doi:10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  53. [53]

    2022, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.,512,328,doi:10.1093/mnras/stac399

    Wu, Z., Ricigliano, G., Kashyap, R., Perego, A., & Radice, D. 2022, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.,512,328,doi:10.1093/mnras/stac399

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac399 2022

  54. [54]

    2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi:10

    Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi:10. 1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    2022

  55. [55]

    C., & Langer, N

    Yoon, S. C., & Langer, N. 2004, A&A, 419, 623, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361:20035822 —. 2005, A&A, 435, 967, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042542

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042542 2004

  56. [56]

    H., & Chang, P

    Zhu, C., Pakmor, R., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & Chang, P. 2015, ApJ, 806, L1, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L1 Article number, page 14 Luís Felipe Longo Micchi et al.: Magnetar Formation from Accretion Induced Collapse of White Dwarfs 0 500 1000 1500 2000 t tbounce [ms] 10 26 10 23 10 20 10 17 10 14 10 11 ( B)max [code] 0 500 1000 1500 2000 t tbounce [ms] 10 17...

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/l1 2015