Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 139 references

Resistive GRMHD simulations of neutron-star mergers show the electric field parallel to the magnetic field can reach 10% of the total field in low-density disks, an effect ideal MHD sets to zero.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 03:58 UTC pith:B3D4NC3D

load-bearing objection Solid BAM infrastructure paper with careful tests; the 10% parallel-E number is real under their setup but rests on a density-only conductivity that zeros outside the star. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11670 v1 pith:B3D4NC3D submitted 2026-07-13 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Extending the infrastructure of the BAM code towards resistive general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics: tests and first applications

Matthew Beaudoin , Maximilano Ujevic , Ramon Jaeger , Anna Neuweiler , Henrique Gieg , Kenta Kiuchi , Tim Dietrich This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords resistive GRMHDbinary neutron starsmagnetic reconnectionOhmic dissipationnumerical relativitypost-merger remnantsIMEX time integration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Ideal magnetohydrodynamics freezes magnetic field lines into the fluid and forces the electric field to be perpendicular to the magnetic field. That approximation works well inside dense neutron-star matter, but it cannot capture Ohmic dissipation or magnetic reconnection that may matter once densities drop after a merger. This paper extends the BAM numerical-relativity code so that finite electrical conductivity can be evolved consistently with the Einstein equations and the fluid. After an extensive battery of special-relativistic shock, wave, and blast-wave tests, the authors run isolated neutron stars and short binary-neutron-star mergers with a density-dependent conductivity. They find that the parallel electric-field component, identically zero in ideal MHD, can grow to roughly 10 percent of the total electric field strength in the low-density post-merger disk. The result suggests that non-ideal physics is not negligible for the long-term evolution of merger remnants and for the conditions that launch jets or produce electromagnetic flares.

Core claim

In binary-neutron-star mergers evolved with resistive GRMHD, the electric-field component parallel to the magnetic field reaches values up to about 10 percent of the total electric-field strength in the low-density disk around the remnant, while remaining negligible inside the dense stellar cores; this component is identically zero under the ideal-MHD approximation.

What carries the argument

A resistive GRMHD module that evolves the electric field with an implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta integrator, an isotropic scalar Ohm's law, hyperbolic divergence cleaning, and a density-tracking conductivity profile that interpolates between highly conductive stellar interiors and a vacuum exterior.

Load-bearing premise

Electrical conductivity is prescribed by a simple density-tracking isotropic scalar that is zero outside the star and constant inside; realistic temperature- and composition-dependent conductivities are not yet used.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution resistive BNS simulations that employ temperature- and composition-dependent conductivities and measure whether the parallel electric-field fraction in the post-merger disk still reaches order 10 percent, or drops to levels consistent with pure numerical noise.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Long-term post-merger remnant evolution and jet-launching calculations must retain finite conductivity at least in low-density regions.
  • Magnetic reconnection and Ohmic dissipation become accessible mechanisms for energy release and electromagnetic flares once the ideal-MHD constraint is dropped.
  • Mass-ejection diagnostics and magnetic-field amplification rates acquire a measurable dependence on conductivity that ideal-MHD runs cannot capture.
  • The same infrastructure can later incorporate anisotropic or force-free exterior currents without rewriting the evolution scheme.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 10 percent parallel electric field survives more realistic microphysics, polar-jet models that currently assume ideal MHD may systematically mis-estimate Poynting flux and reconnection rates.
  • The same resistive framework offers a controlled route to test whether mean-field dynamo or Hall terms alter the large-scale field topology that ideal MHD currently produces.
  • A clean observational discriminator would be a late-time electromagnetic signature whose spectrum or polarization depends on residual resistivity in the disk.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the BAM numerical-relativity code from ideal to resistive GRMHD by evolving the electric field with an IMEX Runge–Kutta scheme, hyperbolic divergence cleaning, and an isotropic scalar Ohm’s law. After an extensive suite of special-relativistic benchmarks (shock tubes, monopole cleaning, Alfvén wave, current sheet, blast waves, charged vortex, rotor, KHI) and isolated magnetized TOV stars, the authors present short BNS evolutions at several conductivities and compare them to BAM’s ideal module. The main application result is that the electric-field component parallel to B, identically zero in ideal GRMHD, can reach up to ~10% of |E| in low-density post-merger regions under their density-tracking conductivity profile.

Significance. Resistive GRMHD BNS simulations remain scarce; a validated resistive module in a widely used NR code is a genuine community contribution. The test suite is thorough, with direct comparisons to analytic solutions and to BAM’s independent ideal implementation, and the IMEX/primitive-recovery infrastructure is described carefully enough to be useful. The first BNS applications are preliminary (piecewise-polytropic EOS, modest resolution, simplified σ) but already indicate where non-ideal effects may matter. Strengths include explicit convergence checks (current sheet, charged vortex), multi-resolution BNS runs, and honest discussion of atmosphere and exterior treatments. If the caveats on conductivity modeling are stated clearly, the paper is a solid methods-plus-first-applications contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and §V C (Figs. 26–27): the headline claim that E∥/|E| reaches ~10% in the post-merger disk is measured with the density-tracking profile of Eq. (73), which forces σ→0 below D_thr and yields an electrovacuum exterior. The paper itself notes (§IV J) that a force-free exterior is more realistic and that the present choice is for simplicity. In vacuum Maxwell evolution a nonzero parallel component is not surprising; the 10% figure therefore cannot yet be read as a robust statement about non-ideal plasma physics inside a conducting disk. Please either (i) rephrase the abstract/conclusion to state that the result is under this specific σ model and electrovacuum exterior, or (ii) add a controlled comparison (even 2D or short 3D) with a phenomenological force-free current of the type already sketched in the code, so the reader can judge how much of the signal survives a more physical e
  2. §V D and Fig. 28: ejecta masses for the ideal module and the σ0=10^6 resistive runs differ by ~50–100% (HM case >100%), which the text attributes to “implementation differences” (conservative-to-primitive, timestepping, EM–spacetime coupling, lapse). That systematic is larger than the reported physical trend with conductivity in the LM series. Before using ideal-vs-resistive ejecta differences to support physical conclusions, quantify the ideal–resistive discrepancy more carefully (e.g., identical reconstruction/Riemann settings where possible, or a controlled σ→∞ limit study) and assign a clearer numerical uncertainty so the conductivity trend is not overstated.
minor comments (6)
  1. §II D / footnote 1: the conversion factor between code conductivity and cgs units is given once; a short table or explicit statement of what σ0=10^2, 10^4, 10^6 correspond to in s^−1 (and relative to expected crust/core values) would help non-specialists place the runs.
  2. §III C: the choice of light-speed characteristic speeds for the LLF solver is justified, but the text should briefly note how this affects the ideal-limit comparison in the BNS runs (extra numerical diffusion relative to the ideal module’s eigenstructure).
  3. Figs. 26–27: isodensity contours are helpful; adding a panel or inset of σ (or D) on the same slices would make the connection between low conductivity and high E∥ immediate.
  4. §IV J / Fig. 21: the Ohmic-diffusion timescale argument is clear for σ0=10^2 vs 2×10^2; a one-line estimate of λ_B used would make the comparison fully quantitative.
  5. Table I naming (LMσ2_R1 etc.) is dense; a short legend in the caption mapping superscripts to σ0 values would improve readability.
  6. Minor typography: “bamcode”/“bam” capitalization is inconsistent in the title and body; “Heaviside–Lorentz” and unit conventions are fine but could be stated once in a dedicated paragraph for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the 10% parallel-E result is a direct numerical measurement under a free conductivity ansatz, not a tautology or fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper implements a standard resistive GRMHD system (Maxwell + isotropic Ohm’s law + IMEX time integration) following external literature (Palenzuela et al., Dionysopoulou et al., Izquierdo et al.). Validation consists of external analytic benchmarks (shock tube, Alfvén wave, self-similar current sheet, charged vortex, etc.) and side-by-side comparison with BAM’s independent ideal-GRMHD module. The conductivity profile (Eq. 73) is an explicit free-parameter ansatz (density-tracking, zero in the atmosphere) chosen for numerical exploration, not fitted to any target observable. The strongest claim—E∥/|E| reaching ~10% in the low-density post-merger disk—is simply the measured value of Eq. (75) on the evolved fields; it is identically zero only in the ideal limit by construction of Ohm’s law, so the non-zero result is a genuine output of the resistive evolution, not a re-labeling of an input. No uniqueness theorem, self-citation chain, or fitted parameter is load-bearing for the claim. Minor self-citations (e.g., to the authors’ prior ideal-GRMHD paper) supply only the base infrastructure and are independently cross-checked. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external tests; any limitations are physical (simplified EOS, electrovacuum exterior) rather than circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard 3+1 GR and Maxwell equations plus a handful of modeling choices (isotropic Ohm’s law, density-tracking conductivity, piecewise-polytropic EOS, atmosphere floor). No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual numerical knobs (σ₀, atmosphere fractions, cleaning rates) chosen for exploration rather than fitted to force the 10% result.

free parameters (4)
  • σ₀ (maximum conductivity) = 10²–10⁶
    Hand-chosen values 10², 10⁴, 10⁶ (code units) used to span resistive-to-ideal regimes; results depend quantitatively on this choice.
  • atmosphere fraction f_atm and threshold f_thr = f_atm=10^{-11}, f_thr=1.1
    Set to 10⁻¹¹ and 1.1 for BNS runs; controls the vacuum exterior and therefore the low-density parallel-E region.
  • divergence-cleaning rates κ_ϕ = κ_ψ = 1
    Fixed to 1 for all production runs after a monopole test; affects constraint damping but not the central parallel-E claim.
  • initial magnetic-field strength A_b = 1000 (BNS)
    Set to 1000 for BNS (B~2.6×10¹⁵ G) and 1 for TOV; chosen by hand to produce dynamically interesting fields.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Isotropic scalar Ohm’s law J^i = q v^i + W σ [E^i + ε^{ijk} v_j B_k − (v·E) v^i]
    Adopted from Palenzuela et al. and Dionysopoulou et al.; neglects Hall, dynamo, and anisotropic terms that may matter in magnetospheres (Sec. II D).
  • domain assumption Piecewise-polytropic fit to SLy EOS plus thermal Γ_th=1.75
    Used for all GR runs; authors explicitly note restriction to simplified EOS (abstract, Sec. V).
  • ad hoc to paper Density-tracking conductivity profile σ = σ₀ max(1 − D_thr/D, 0)²
    Phenomenological switch between ideal interior and vacuum exterior (Eq. 73); not derived from microphysics.
  • standard math 3+1 Einstein equations in Z4c formulation with 1+log and Γ-driver
    Standard NR infrastructure already present in BAM (Sec. II A).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 40604 in / 2734 out tokens · 23819 ms · 2026-07-14T03:58:01.476550+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Many astrophysical phenomena, including pulsars and short gamma-ray bursts, are associated with the extremely strong magnetic fields present in neutron stars and neutron star mergers. While the ideal magnetohydrodynamic approximation, which assumes infinite conductivity, provides an excellent description of the neutron-star interior, it cannot capture non-ideal processes such as Ohmic dissipation and magnetic reconnection. To overcome this limitation, we present an extension of the numerical-relativity code BAM incorporating a resistive general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) description. We validate the new implementation through an extensive suite of special-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic benchmark tests and by performing stable simulations of isolated and binary neutron star systems. For the latter, we investigate the impact of finite conductivity on magnetic-field amplification, mass ejection, and non-ideal GRMHD effects. In particular, we find that the component of the electric field parallel to the magnetic field, which is zero in the ideal case, can reach up to 10% of the total electric field strength. This highlights the potential importance of non-ideal effects for accurately modeling the long-term evolution of post-merger remnants, particularly in low-density regions. Although the present study is restricted to simplified piecewise-polytropic equations of state, it demonstrates the capabilities of the new resistive GRMHD framework and paves the way for future investigations employing more realistic microphysics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11670 by Anna Neuweiler, Henrique Gieg, Kenta Kiuchi, Matthew Beaudoin, Maximilano Ujevic, Ramon Jaeger, Tim Dietrich.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the 𝑦-component of the magnetic field at 𝑡 = 0.4 for 𝜎0 = 106 at three resolutions (𝑛𝑥 = 100, 200, 400) compared to a high-resolution (𝑛𝑥 = 8000) “exact” reference solution using bam’s ideal MHD module. We observe that a higher-resolution simulation leads to better capturing of shocks and discontinuities. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Shock tube tests with the same initial conditions as in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. One-dimensional slice along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The profile of the magnetic field component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Spatial convergence for the self-similar current sheet test. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Result from the cylindrical blast wave test shown at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Result from the cylindrical blast wave test shown at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Result from the spherical blast wave test. The left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Result from the spherical blast wave test. The center panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Simulation results for the stationary charged vortex. The left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Simulation results for the stationary charged vortex. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Two-dimensional plots of the pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Two-dimensional plots of the magnetic pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Density plots showing vortex formation via the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability for three values of uniform conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. The top panel shows the perturbed velocity difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Evolution of the TOV star simulation for varying con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Hamiltonian constraint values for the runs described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Three-dimensional snapshots of the LM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Three-dimensional snapshots of the HM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. Maximum magnetic field for the runs described in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Relative electric field parallel to the magnetic field for the LM simulations with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Relative electric field parallel to the magnetic field for the HM simulations with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Unbound ejecta profiles at radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_28.png] view at source ↗

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

139 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    850, L39 (2017), arXiv:1710.05836 [astro-ph.HE]

    B.P.Abbottet al.(LIGOScientific,Virgo),Astrophys.J.Lett. 850, L39 (2017), arXiv:1710.05836 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Arcaviet al., Nature551, 64 (2017), arXiv:1710.05843 [astro-ph.HE]

    I. Arcaviet al., Nature551, 64 (2017), arXiv:1710.05843 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    ej [" ] 103 LMid R1 LMf2 R1 LMf4 R1 LMf6 R1 0•0 2•5 5•0

    D.Kasen,B.Metzger,J.Barnes,E.Quataert,andE.Ramirez- Ruiz,Nature551,80(2017),arXiv:1710.05463[astro-ph.HE]. 24 FIG. 27. Relative electric field parallel to the magnetic field for the HM simulations with𝜎0 ={10 2,10 4,10 6}at the R1 resolution. Each row shows snapshots for one simulation in the𝑥𝑦-plane, while each column represents different times in the si...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Goldsteinet al., Astrophys

    A. Goldsteinet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L14 (2017), arXiv:1710.05446 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Savchenkoet al., Astrophys

    V. Savchenkoet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L15 (2017), arXiv:1710.05449 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Brandenburg and K

    A. Brandenburg and K. Subramanian, Physics Reports417, 1 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    M. Ruiz, R. N. Lang, V. Paschalidis, and S. L. Shapiro, Astro- phys.J.Lett.824,L6(2016),arXiv:1604.02455[astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    Mösta, D

    P. Mösta, D. Radice, R. Haas, E. Schnetter, and S. Bernuzzi, Astrophys. J. Lett.901, L37 (2020), arXiv:2003.06043 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    K.Kiuchi,A.Reboul-Salze,M.Shibata,andY.Sekiguchi,Nat Astron8, 298 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    D.R.Lorimer,LivingRev.Rel.11,8(2008),arXiv:0811.0762 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    T. M. Tauriset al., Astrophys. J.846, 170 (2017), arXiv:1706.09438 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    D. J. Price and S. Rosswog, Science312, 719 (2006)

    2006

  14. [14]

    Kiuchi, P

    K. Kiuchi, P. Cerdá-Durán, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D92, 124034 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Giacomazzo, J

    B. Giacomazzo, J. Zrake, P. C. Duffell, A. I. MacFadyen, and R. Perna, ApJ809, 39 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    Aguilera-Miret, J.-E

    R. Aguilera-Miret, J.-E. Christian, S. Rosswog, and C. Palen- zuela, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.542, 3067 (2025), arXiv:2504.10604 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    E. M. Gutiérrez, D. Radice, J. Fields, and J. M. Stone, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.20953 (2026), arXiv:2601.20953 [astro- ph.HE]. 25

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    M. D. Duez, Y. T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, M. Shibata, and B. C. Stephens, Physical Review Letters96, 031101 (2006)

    2006

  19. [19]

    D87, 121302 (2013)

    D.M.Siegel,R.Ciolfi,A.I.Harte,andL.Rezzolla,Phys.Rev. D87, 121302 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    R.Aguilera-Miret, C.Palenzuela, F.Carrasco,andD.Viganò, Phys. Rev. D108, 103001 (2023), arXiv:2307.04837 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    E. R. Most, Phys. Rev. D108, 123012 (2023), arXiv:2311.03333 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Reboul-Salze, P

    A. Reboul-Salze, P. Barrère, K. Kiuchi, J. Guilet, R.Raynaud, S. Fujibayashi, and M. Shibata, Astron. Astrophys.699, A4 (2025), arXiv:2411.19328 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society179, 433 (1977)

    1977

  24. [24]

    Rezzolla, B

    L. Rezzolla, B. Giacomazzo, L. Baiotti, J. Granot, C. Kou- veliotou, and M. A. Aloy, The Astrophysical Journal732, L6 (2011)

    2011

  25. [25]

    K.Kiuchi,K.Kyutoku,Y.Sekiguchi,M.Shibata,andT.Wada, Physical Review D90, 041502 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    Palenzuela, S

    C. Palenzuela, S. L. Liebling, D. Neilsen, L. Lehner, O. L. Caballero,E.O’Connor,andM.Anderson,PhysicalReviewD 92, 044045 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D97, 124039 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    W. Cook, B. Daszuta, J. Fields, P. Hammond, S. Albanesi, F. Zappa, S. Bernuzzi, and D. Radice, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 277, 3 (2025), arXiv:2311.04989 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    E. M. Gutiérrez, W. Cook, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, J. Fields, P. Hammond, B. Daszuta, H. Bandyopadhyay, and M. Jacobi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.18995 (2025), arXiv:2506.18995 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Chabanov, S

    M. Chabanov, S. D. Tootle, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, The Astrophysical Journal945, L14 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Schianchi, P

    A.Neuweiler,T.Dietrich,B.Brügmann,E.Giangrandi,K.Ki- uchi, F. Schianchi, P. Mösta, S. Shankar, B. Giacomazzo, and M. Shibata, Physical Review D110, 084046 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Musolino, L

    C. Musolino, L. Rezzolla, and E. R. Most, Astrophys. J. Lett. 984, L61 (2025), arXiv:2410.06253 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Kiuchi, inNew Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations, edited by C

    K. Kiuchi, inNew Frontiers in GRMHD Simulations, edited by C. Bambi, Y. Mizuno, S. Shashank, and F. Yuan (Springer Nature, Singapore, 2025) pp. 529–572

    2025

  34. [34]

    Schmitt and P

    A. Schmitt and P. Shternin, Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr.457, 455 (2018), arXiv:1711.06520 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Harutyunyan and A

    A. Harutyunyan and A. Sedrakian, Physical Review C94, 025805 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Harutyunyan, A

    A. Harutyunyan, A. Sedrakian, N. T. Gevorgyan, and M. V. Hayrapetyan, Physical Review C109, 055804 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Harutyunyan, A

    A. Harutyunyan, A. Nathanail, L. Rezzolla, and A. Sedrakian, European Physical Journal A54, 191 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Dionysopoulou, D

    K. Dionysopoulou, D. Alic, C. Palenzuela, L. Rezzolla, and B. Giacomazzo, Physical Review D88, 044020 (2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    Palenzuela, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society431, 1853 (2013)

    C. Palenzuela, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society431, 1853 (2013)

    2013

  40. [40]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, D. Y. T. Pong, A. K. L. Yip, and T. G. F. Li, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series261, 22 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Franceschetti and R

    K. Franceschetti and R. De Pietri, Physical Review D111, 124033 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Azizi, S

    S. Azizi, S. Shankar, P. Mösta, R. Haas, and E. Schnetter, A resistive MHD module in the GPU-accelerated GRMHD code GRaM-X (2025), arXiv:2510.18968 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Palenzuela, L

    C. Palenzuela, L. Lehner, M. Ponce, S. L. Liebling, M. An- derson, D. Neilsen, and P. Motl, Physical Review Letters111, 061105 (2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    Neilsen, and P

    C.Palenzuela,L.Lehner,S.L.Liebling,M.Ponce,M.Ander- son, D. Neilsen, and P. Motl, Physical Review D88, 043011 (2013)

    2013

  45. [45]

    Ponce, C

    M. Ponce, C. Palenzuela, L. Lehner, and S. L. Liebling, Phys. Rev. D90, 044007 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    Dionysopoulou, D

    K. Dionysopoulou, D. Alic, and L. Rezzolla, Physical Review D92, 084064 (2015)

    2015

  47. [47]

    Brügmann, J

    B. Brügmann, J. A. González, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sper- hake, and W. Tichy, Physical Review D77, 024027 (2008)

    2008

  48. [48]

    Thierfelder, S

    M. Thierfelder, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Brügmann, Physical Re- view D84, 044012 (2011)

    2011

  49. [49]

    Palenzuela, L

    C. Palenzuela, L. Lehner, O. Reula, and L. Rezzolla, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society394, 1727 (2009)

    2009

  50. [50]

    Mbarek, J

    R. Mbarek, J. Wu, and E. R. Most, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2605.24083 (2026), arXiv:2605.24083 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Bernuzzi and D

    S. Bernuzzi and D. Hilditch, Physical Review D81, 084003 (2010)

    2010

  52. [52]

    Brügmann, Physical Review D88, 084057 (2013)

    D.Hilditch,S.Bernuzzi,M.Thierfelder,Z.Cao,W.Tichy,and B. Brügmann, Physical Review D88, 084057 (2013)

    2013

  53. [53]

    C.Bona,J.Stela,J.Massó,andE.Seidel,inProceedings of the Seventh Marcel Grossman Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation, and Relativistic Field Theories(1996) p. 410

    1996

  54. [54]

    Alcubierre, B

    M. Alcubierre, B. Brügmann, P. Diener, M. Koppitz, D. Poll- ney,E.Seidel,andR.Takahashi,PhysicalReviewD67,084023 (2003)

    2003

  55. [55]

    C. R. Evans and J. F. Hawley, The Astrophysical Journal332, 659 (1988)

    1988

  56. [56]

    Shankar, P

    S. Shankar, P. Mösta, S. R. Brandt, R. Haas, E. Schnetter, and Y. de Graaf, Class. Quantum Grav.40, 205009 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    Kiuchi, L

    K. Kiuchi, L. E. Held, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D106, 124041 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Z. B. Etienne, Y. T. Liu, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D82, 084031 (2010)

    2010

  59. [59]

    Cipolletta, J

    F. Cipolletta, J. V. Kalinani, B. Giacomazzo, and R. Ciolfi, Class. Quantum Grav.37, 135010 (2020)

    2020

  60. [60]

    Dedner, F

    A. Dedner, F. Kemm, D. Kröner, C. D. Munz, T. Schnitzer, and M. Wesenberg, Journal of Computational Physics175, 645 (2002)

    2002

  61. [61]

    S.L.Liebling,L.Lehner,D.Neilsen,andC.Palenzuela,Phys. Rev. D81, 124023 (2010)

    2010

  62. [62]

    A. J. Penner, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.414, 1467 (2011), arXiv:1011.2976 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  63. [63]

    Mösta, B

    P. Mösta, B. C. Mundim, J. A. Faber, R. Haas, S. C. Noble, T. Bode, F. Löffler, C. D. Ott, C. Reisswig, and E. Schnetter, Classical and Quantum Gravity31, 015005 (2014)

    2014

  64. [64]

    Deppeet al., Phys

    N. Deppeet al., Phys. Rev. D105, 123031 (2022), arXiv:2109.12033 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    Palenzuela, B

    C. Palenzuela, B. Miñano, D. Viganò, A. Arbona, C. Bona- Casas, A. Rigo, M. Bezares, C. Bona, and J. Massó, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 185007 (2018), arXiv:1806.04182 [physics.comp-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    S. S. Komissarov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society382, 995 (2007)

    2007

  67. [67]

    Tsamparlis,Special Relativity: An Introduction with 200 Problems and Solutions(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    M. Tsamparlis,Special Relativity: An Introduction with 200 Problems and Solutions(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  68. [68]

    Harutyunyan and A

    A. Harutyunyan and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. C94, 025805 (2016), arXiv:1605.07612 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [69]

    J. A. Pons and D. Viganò, Living Rev Comput Astrophys5, 3 (2019)

    2019

  70. [70]

    Harutyunyan, A

    A. Harutyunyan, A. Sedrakian, N. T. Gevorgyan, and M. V. Hayrapetyan, Phys. Rev. C109, 055804 (2024), arXiv:2309.00893 [astro-ph.HE]. 26

    arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Petrosyan, A.Harutyunyan, andA.Sedrakian,Phys.Rev.D 113, 063032 (2026), arXiv:2512.01044 [astro-ph.HE]

    T. Petrosyan, A.Harutyunyan, andA.Sedrakian,Phys.Rev.D 113, 063032 (2026), arXiv:2512.01044 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    U.M.Ascher,S.J.Ruuth,andR.J.Spiteri,AppliedNumerical Mathematics25, 151 (1997)

    1997

  73. [73]

    Pareschi and G

    L. Pareschi and G. Russo, J Sci Comput25, 129 (2005)

    2005

  74. [74]

    M. R. Izquierdo, L. Pareschi, B. Miñano, J. Massó, and C. Palenzuela, Class. Quantum Grav.40, 145014 (2023)

    2023

  75. [75]

    Brügmann, Physical Review D54, 7361 (1996)

    B. Brügmann, Physical Review D54, 7361 (1996)

    1996

  76. [76]

    Brügmann, International Journal of Modern Physics D8, 85 (1999)

    B. Brügmann, International Journal of Modern Physics D8, 85 (1999)

    1999

  77. [77]

    T.Dietrich,S.Bernuzzi,M.Ujevic,andB.Brügmann,Physical Review D91, 124041 (2015)

    2015

  78. [78]

    Bernuzzi and T

    S. Bernuzzi and T. Dietrich, Physical Review D94, 064062 (2016)

    2016

  79. [79]

    M. J. Berger and J. Oliger, Journal of Computational Physics 53, 484 (1984)

    1984

  80. [80]

    M. J. Berger and P. Colella, Journal of Computational Physics 82, 64 (1989)

    1989

Showing first 80 references.