Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 62 references

Gas-induced perturbations on the gravitational wave in-spiral of live post-Newtonian LISA massive black hole binaries: 0.1 disk aspect ratio

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Gas torques from a 0.1-aspect-ratio circumbinary disk shift the orbital phase of a 10^6 solar-mass black hole binary by 0.12 radians over 600 cycles.

desk verdict The paper gives a concrete 0.12 rad gas-induced phase shift for a 0.1 aspect ratio disk but the number sits on a single run with fixed isothermal thermodynamics and a persistently circular equal-mass orbit. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.20787 v1 pith:GVODNZ5W submitted 2026-06-18 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Mudit Garg , Alessia Franchini , Alessandro Lupi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords massiveblackholebinariescircumbinarydisksgravitationalwavesLISAhydrodynamicspost-Newtonianorbitalphaseshiftmulti-messengerastronomy
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

The paper runs 3D hydrodynamics simulations of an equal-mass quasi-circular massive black hole binary inside a locally isothermal prograde circumbinary disk. The binary dynamics include 2.5 post-Newtonian corrections so that gas torques act together with gravitational-wave emission as the separation shrinks from 55 to 46 Schwarzschild radii. The authors measure the resulting orbital phase shift and find it reaches 0.12 radians after 600 cycles, a size LISA could resolve at redshift 1. A reader cares because this shows the gaseous environment can leave a detectable imprint on the early LISA-band waveform.

What carries the argument

Coupled 3D hydrodynamics evolution of the circumbinary disk with live 2.5 post-Newtonian binary dynamics that includes both gas torques and gravitational-wave emission.

What would settle it

LISA measurement of the accumulated orbital phase shift for a z=1, 10^6 solar-mass binary at the frequencies corresponding to 55-46 Schwarzschild radii radii would be either consistent or inconsistent with the reported 0.12 rad value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The simulation tracks an equal-mass 10^6 solar-mass MBHB embedded in a locally isothermal circumbinary disk of aspect ratio 0.1. Gravitational and accretion torques are measured both with and without concurrent gravitational-wave emission. The gas-induced orbital phase shift accumulated over 600 orbital cycles equals 0.12 rad, which LISA should detect at z approximately 1. The accretion time series morphology changes only modestly once gravitational-wave emission becomes the dominant driver.

Load-bearing premise

The disk stays locally isothermal with a fixed 0.1 aspect ratio while the binary remains equal-mass and quasi-circular throughout the run.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LISA detection of the phase shift together with LSST or Roman detection of accretion-rate modulation would jointly constrain the circumbinary-disk environment.
  • The reported torques and phase shift apply specifically to the 0.1 aspect-ratio, locally isothermal, equal-mass quasi-circular case.
  • The accretion time series shows modest morphological change once gravitational-wave emission dominates the evolution.
  • The binary is followed only from 55 to 46 Schwarzschild radii, the early part of its LISA-band inspiral.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the measured phase shift is confirmed, LISA waveform templates may need environmental corrections to avoid systematic errors in inferred masses or distances.
  • Varying the disk aspect ratio or thermodynamics in follow-up runs would show how sensitive the phase shift is to those parameters.
  • Growth of binary eccentricity beyond the quasi-circular assumption would likely change the accumulated phase shift and therefore the LISA signal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports 3D hydrodynamical simulations of an equal-mass, quasi-circular 10^6 M_⊙ MBHB embedded in a prograde, locally isothermal circumbinary disk with fixed aspect ratio h=0.1. Using 2.5PN corrections, the authors evolve the binary from 55 to 46 Schwarzschild radii while tracking gaseous torques, accretion, and the resulting orbital phase accumulation. They measure a gas-induced orbital phase shift of 0.12 rad over 600 cycles and conclude that this shift is detectable by LISA at z≈1, with additional implications for multi-messenger observations via accretion modulation.

Significance. If the reported 0.12 rad phase shift is robust, the work provides a concrete, numerically derived prediction for an environmental effect on GW inspiral in the early LISA band. The combination of live 3D hydrodynamics with post-Newtonian binary evolution and the explicit torque measurements (with and without GW emission) strengthens the case for multi-messenger constraints on circumbinary disks. The result is novel for the h=0.1 regime.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that LISA can detect the 0.12 rad gas-induced phase shift at z=1 rests on a single simulation with fixed h=0.1, locally isothermal thermodynamics, and the assumption that the binary remains equal-mass and quasi-circular. No tests of alternative thermodynamics, cavity-induced eccentricity growth, or torque sensitivity to these choices are reported, so the numerical value does not automatically generalize.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the 0.12 rad phase shift is stated without accompanying error bars, resolution study, or torque-convergence diagnostics. Because this number is the load-bearing quantitative result for the detectability conclusion, its numerical reliability cannot be assessed from the given information.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'for the first time for the 0.1 aspect ratio disk' would benefit from a brief comparison sentence to prior work at other aspect ratios to clarify the incremental advance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report. Below we address the two major comments point by point. We agree that the reported phase shift is specific to the chosen parameters and that additional numerical diagnostics would strengthen the result. We propose targeted revisions to the abstract and methods to clarify these points without altering the core findings of the single simulation presented.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that LISA can detect the 0.12 rad gas-induced phase shift at z=1 rests on a single simulation with fixed h=0.1, locally isothermal thermodynamics, and the assumption that the binary remains equal-mass and quasi-circular. No tests of alternative thermodynamics, cavity-induced eccentricity growth, or torque sensitivity to these choices are reported, so the numerical value does not automatically generalize.

    Authors: The study is deliberately scoped to an equal-mass, quasi-circular binary in a locally isothermal disk with fixed h=0.1, as this regime had not previously been explored with live 3D hydrodynamics coupled to 2.5PN evolution. The 0.12 rad phase shift is therefore reported specifically for these choices. We agree that the numerical value does not automatically generalize to different thermodynamics or to cases with eccentricity growth. In revision we will modify the abstract to state explicitly that the result applies to the simulated setup and to note the limitations for broader application, while retaining the detectability statement for the reported case. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the 0.12 rad phase shift is stated without accompanying error bars, resolution study, or torque-convergence diagnostics. Because this number is the load-bearing quantitative result for the detectability conclusion, its numerical reliability cannot be assessed from the given information.

    Authors: The 0.12 rad value is obtained by direct time integration of the measured gaseous torques (with and without GW emission) over the 600 orbital cycles. No formal resolution study or error bars appear in the current manuscript. We acknowledge that this limits independent assessment of numerical reliability. Performing additional resolution runs is computationally expensive, but we can add a paragraph in the methods section describing the grid resolution, softening lengths, and any internal torque-convergence checks already performed during the production run. We will also qualify the abstract statement to indicate that the quoted phase shift is the measured value from the reported simulation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: phase shift is direct numerical output from hydro+PN simulation

full rationale

The central result (0.12 rad gas-induced phase shift over 600 cycles) is reported as a direct measurement from 3D hydrodynamics simulations of an equal-mass quasi-circular MBHB with 2.5PN corrections in a fixed locally isothermal CBD. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked in the provided text to derive this value; it is presented as simulation output. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; free parameters and axioms cannot be audited in detail. The aspect ratio 0.1 and locally isothermal assumption are stated choices whose impact on the phase shift is not quantified here.

free parameters (1)
  • disk aspect ratio 0.1
    Chosen value that sets the disk thickness and therefore the strength of gaseous torques; no justification or sensitivity test given in abstract.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption locally isothermal equation of state
    Assumed throughout the hydro simulation; standard in many CBD studies but not derived or tested in the provided abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gas-induced perturbations on the gravitational wave in-spiral of live post-Newtonian LISA massive black hole binaries: 0.1 disk aspect ratio." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GVODNZ5W

@misc{pith2026260620787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gas-induced perturbations on the gravitational wave in-spiral of live post-Newtonian LISA massive black hole binaries: 0.1 disk aspect ratio},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GVODNZ5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.20787}
}
abstract

We perform 3D hydrodynamics simulations of an equal-mass quasi-circular live $10^6~{\rm M}_\odot$ massive black hole binary (MBHB) embedded in a prograde, locally isothermal circumbinary disk (CBD) with $0.1$ aspect ratio. The binary evolution is driven by the gaseous torques and its dynamics is described with $2.5$ post-Newtonian corrections. This approach allows us to track the influence of the CBD on a gravitational-wave (GW) driven MBHB inspiral from $55$ to $46$ Schwarzschild radii, i.e., at its early evolution in the LISA band at redshift $z\sim1$. For the first time for the $0.1$ aspect ratio disk, we report the measurement of gravitational and accretion torques with and without concurrent GW emission. We also report how the morphology of the accretion time series onto the MBHB modestly alters when GW emission is the dominant binary evolutionary mechanism. Lastly, we find that the gas-induced orbital phase-shift is $0.12$ rad over $600$ orbital cycles, which LISA should detect at $z=1$. Our results have implications for multi-messenger astronomy, since observation of accretion rate modulation by LSST/Roman surveys and phase-shift by LISA will provide crucial information on the complex environment surrounding MBHBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Column density (Σ) plots at three semi-major axes: 54.5 rs (left panel), 50 rs (middle panel), and 46.5 rs (right panel) for the binary evolution under both GW and gas varying from ∼ 10 to 6×103 g/cm2 . The plots cover a region [−5a, 5a]. Similar to Franchini et al. (2024), both the binary and the cavity shrink with time. at the same phase (set to π) as much as our temporal resolution allows, such that we can mimic … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 100−orbit moving time-average of accretion torque (ξacc; top panel), gravitational torque (ξgrav; mid￾dle panel), and their sum (ξacc+grav; lower panel) be￾tween the start of the simulation and 600PB for both MR gas+2.5PN (solid blue line) and MR gas+2PN (red dashed line) setups. For each panel, we also show respective mean value for each curve over the whole 600PB duration. Here { ¯ξacc, ¯ξgrav, ¯ξacc+grav} are ∼ {… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Eddington fraction fEdd evolution as a function of time in binary orbits between 500PB and 520PB. Right: Logarithmic spectrogram of the flux, normalized by the maximum, at different Ω (normalized by the ΩB) between 100PB and 600PB. The white dashed lines represen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amaro-Seoane et al., Living Reviews in Relativity 26, 2 (2023), ISSN 1433-8351, URLhttps://link

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  2. [2]

    , eprint =

    Armitage, P. J., & Natarajan, P. 2002, ApJL, 567, L9, doi: 10.1086/339770

    work page doi:10.1086/339770 2002

  3. [3]

    G., Belgacem, E., Benkel, R., et al

    Arun, K. G., Belgacem, E., Benkel, R., et al. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00036-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00036-9 2022

  4. [4]

    Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    Auclair, P., Bacon, D., Baker, T., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41114-023-00045-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-023-00045-2 2023

  5. [5]

    J., Krolik, J

    Avara, M. J., Krolik, J. H., Campanelli, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5bda

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5bda 2024

  6. [6]

    Barausse, V

    Barausse, E., Cardoso, V., & Pani, P. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 104059, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104059

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.104059 2014

  7. [7]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307, doi: 10.1038/287307a0

    work page doi:10.1038/287307a0 1980

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-2

    Blanchet, L. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-2

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    1942, Principles of stellar dynamics (University of Chicago Press)

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1942, Principles of stellar dynamics (University of Chicago Press)

    1942

  3. [11]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07571

    Colpi, M., Danzmann, K., Hewitson, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07571

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3976

    MacFadyen, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3976

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    J., & Ryan, G

    Dittmann, A. J., & Ryan, G. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 6158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac935

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Ryan, G., & Miller, M

    Dittmann, A. J., Ryan, G., & Miller, M. C. 2023, ApJL, 949, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd183 D’Orazio, D. J., & Charisi, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16896, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16896 D’Orazio, D. J., & Duffell, P. C. 2021, ApJL, 914, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/a...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Dittmann, A

    Duffell, P. C., Dittmann, A. J., D’Orazio, D. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a7e

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, 084006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084006

    Duque, F., Kejriwal, S., Sberna, L., Speri, L., & Gair, J. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 084006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084006

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    B., Coppi, P

    Escala, A., Larson, R. B., Coppi, P. S., & Mardones, D. 2004, ApJ, 607, 765, doi: 10.1086/386278

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/134 9

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, A&A, 686, A288, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449206

    Franchini, A., Bonetti, M., Lupi, A., & Sesana, A. 2024, A&A, 686, A288, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449206

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, ApJL, 929, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac63a2

    Franchini, A., Lupi, A., & Sesana, A. 2022, ApJL, 929, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac63a2

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 1458, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2234

    Franchini, A., Sesana, A., & Dotti, M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1458, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2234

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2024a, MNRAS, 532, 4060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1764

    Garg, M., Derdzinski, A., Tiwari, S., Gair, J., & Mayer, L. 2024a, MNRAS, 532, 4060, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1764

    doi

  15. [23]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2711

    Mayer, L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2711

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae10b4

    Garg, M., Franchini, A., Lupi, A., Bonetti, M., & Mayer, L. 2025, ApJ, 993, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae10b4

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Garg, M., Mayer, L., Wu, Y., Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, Y., & Lin, D. N. C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.20971, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.20971

    2026 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2024b, MNRAS, 535, 3283, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2605

    Garg, M., Sberna, L., Speri, L., Duque, F., & Gair, J. 2024b, MNRAS, 535, 3283, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2605

    doi

  19. [27]

    Garg, M., Tiede, C., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2024c, MNRAS, 534, 3705, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2357

    doi

  20. [28]

    2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer Singapore), 24, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 24-1

    Gong, X., Xu, S., Gui, S., Huang, S., & Lau, Y.-K. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer Singapore), 24, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 24-1

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2009, ApJ, 700, 1952, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1952

    Haiman, Z., Kocsis, B., & Menou, K. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1952, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1952

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.14990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.14990

    Haiman, Z., Xin, C., Bogdanovi´ c, T., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.14990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.14990

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv195

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addecb

    Jiang, Y.-F., Blaes, O., Kaul, I., & Zhang, L. 2025, ApJ, 988, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addecb

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Just, A., & Merritt, D

    Khan, F. M., Just, A., & Merritt, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/89

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    2025, Reports on Progress in Physics, 88, 056901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be

    Li, E.-K., Liu, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al. 2025, Reports on Progress in Physics, 88, 056901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., & Romanova, M. M. 2014, Fluid Dynamics Research, 46, 041401, doi: 10.1088/0169-5983/46/4/041401

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    I., & Milosavljevi´ c, M

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2008, ApJ, 672, 83, doi: 10.1086/523869

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 244008, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/24/244008

    Mayer, L. 2013, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30, 244008, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/24/244008

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    2003, AIP Conf

    Milosavljevic, M., & Merritt, D. 2003, AIP Conf. Proc., 686, 201, doi: 10.1063/1.1629432 Mu˜ noz, D. J., Lai, D., Kratter, K., & Miranda, R. 2020, ApJ, 889, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d33

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    C., & Pessah, M

    Murphy, G. C., & Pessah, M. E. 2015, ApJ, 802, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/139 O’Neill, D., Tiede, C., D’Orazio, D. J., Haiman, Z., &

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0ca8 pandas development team, T

    MacFadyen, A. 2025, ApJ, 993, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0ca8 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas:

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Pandas, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    doi

  37. [45]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology

    1964

  38. [46]

    2011, ApJL, 732, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L26

    Preto, M., Berentzen, I., Berczik, P., & Spurzem, R. 2011, ApJL, 732, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L26

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Ragusa, E., Lodato, G., & Price, D. J. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1081

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Combi, L., Ripperda, B., & Li, X

    Ressler, S. M., Combi, L., Ripperda, B., & Li, X. 2025, ApJL, 993, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae11ab

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  43. [51]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.23006, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.23006

    Siwek, M., Ho, M., & Bellinger, E. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.23006, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.23006

    2026 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    Siwek, M., Weinberger, R., & Hernquist, L. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, Physical Review X, 13, 021035, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.021035

    Speri, L., Antonelli, A., Sberna, L., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 021035, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.021035

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Tiede, C., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3551

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba432

    Tiede, C., Zrake, J., MacFadyen, A., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ApJ, 900, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba432

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/49

    Vasiliev, E., Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2015, ApJ, 810, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/49

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 3164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2009

    Xin, C., & Haiman, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3164, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2009

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2021, ApJL, 909, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd1c

    Zrake, J., Tiede, C., MacFadyen, A., & Haiman, Z. 2021, ApJL, 909, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd1c

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 6143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac299

    Mayer, L. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 6143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac299

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    A., et al

    Zwick, L., Tiede, C., Trani, A. A., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 103005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103005

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 063005, doi: 10.1103/lz7k-bvjf 10 log10Σ[g/cm2] 3 1 2 LR MR HR Figure A1.Same as Fig

    Zwick, L., Hendriks, K., O’Neill, D., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 063005, doi: 10.1103/lz7k-bvjf 10 log10Σ[g/cm2] 3 1 2 LR MR HR Figure A1.Same as Fig. 1 but comparing column densities ata= 54.5r s for the gas+2.5PN setup at different resolutions: LR (left panel), MR (middle pane...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.