Accretion-Induced Collapse of Dark Matter Admixed White Dwarfs -- II: Rotation and Gravitational-wave Signals

Lap-Ming Lin; Ming-chung Chu; Shing-Chi Leung; Shuai Zha

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 70 references

Accretion-Induced Collapse of Dark Matter Admixed White Dwarfs -- II: Rotation and Gravitational-wave Signals

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 Gravitational-wave peak ratios can reveal a dark matter core inside a collapsing white dwarf.

desk verdict Careful, genuinely new numerical study whose central EOS-robustness claim is not yet supported because the EOS tests were run only without dark matter. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05150 v1 pith:HABBOFTM submitted 2019-08-14 astro-ph.HE

Shuai Zha , Ming-Chung Chu , Shing-Chi Leung , Lap-Ming Lin This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords darkmattergravitationalwaveswhitedwarfsaccretion-inducedcollapseproto-neutronstarcorebouncenuclearequationofstatenumericalhydrodynamics

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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 paper argues that the burst of gravitational waves emitted when a rotating, dark-matter-admixed white dwarf collapses can reveal the presence and mass of the dark matter core. Around the moment of core bounce, the waveform has three characteristic amplitude spikes; the ratios between those spikes are nearly invariant for ordinary white dwarfs but shift systematically as the dark-matter core mass grows. Using axisymmetric hydrodynamical simulations, the paper shows that these ratios break the degeneracy between rotation rate and dark-matter mass, and that a core heavier than 0.03 solar masses can be identified even without pinning down the nuclear equation of state. This matters because stellar-collapse observations could then probe dark matter in a way direct-search experiments cannot.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the set of amplitude ratios and rescalings derived from the bounce gravitational-wave spikes. The collapse is simulated with a two-dimensional (axisymmetric) Newtonian hydrodynamics code with an effective general-relativistic potential, a parameterized electron-capture profile, and a degenerate-electron-gas white dwarf; the dark matter is treated as a non-rotating, stationary fluid whose gravity is added to the Poisson equation. From the waveforms, the paper defines $h_1$, $h_2$, $h_3$ as the amplitudes of the three spikes around bounce and shows that $h_2/h_1$ and $h_3/h_1$ depend strongly on $M_\mathrm{DM}$ while being only mildly sensitive to $\beta_\mathrm{ic,b}$; the rescaled quantities $h_1^* \equiv h_1/[1-15.36(M_\mathrm{DM}/M_\odot)]$ and $h_2^* \equiv h_2/[3.24-(1-11.6(M_\mathrm{DM}/M_\odot))^{-1}]$ then each collapse onto a universal curve against $\beta_\mathrm{ic,b}$. This two-step procedure — ratios for detection, rescalings for parameter extraction — is what carries the argument.

What would settle it

A detected accretion-induced-collapse burst whose peak-amplitude ratios match the dark-matter-free values $h_2/h_1=-2.14\pm0.14$ and $h_3/h_1=1.37\pm0.04$ while the absolute amplitudes imply a high $\beta_\mathrm{ic,b}$ would contradict the predicted DM shift; and an event yielding rescaled amplitudes ($h_1^*,h_2^*$) that do not fall on a single universal curve would falsify the parameter-retrieval scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the collapse-bounce gravitational-wave signal of an accreting white dwarf carries a measurable imprint of an admixed dark-matter core. In the simulations, the quantities that govern the collapse—bounce time, central density at bounce, and proto-neutron-star mass—depend on the dark-matter mass $M_\mathrm{DM}$ and the inner-core rotation parameter $\beta_\mathrm{ic,b}$ in a factorised way, and the amplitudes $h_1$, $h_2$, $h_3$ of the three dominant waveform spikes inherit this dependence. The ratios $h_2/h_1$ and $h_3/h_1$, which are nearly invariant for ordinary white dwarfs (about $-2.14$ and $1.37$), deviate systematically with $M_\mathrm{DM}$, and the rescaled amplitudes $h_1^*$ and $h_2^*$ each follow a universal monotonic relation with $\beta_\mathrm{ic,b}$. The paper concludes that a dark-matter core mass $M_\mathrm{DM} \geq 0.03\,M_\odot$ can be inferred even within nuclear-equation-of-state uncertainties, and that smaller cores could be inferred if the equation of state is better constrained.

Load-bearing premise

The dark matter core is assumed to stay fixed and rigid while the white dwarf collapses around it, pulling on the ordinary matter only through a constant gravitational field; if the collapse compresses, heats, or mixes with that core, the calibrated relations between dark-matter mass, rotation, and wave amplitudes no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A gravitational-wave detection of an accretion-induced collapse could double as an indirect dark-matter detection from a stellar-scale object, something direct searches cannot probe.
If the inner-core rotation parameter can be pinned down from the absolute wave amplitude, the peak-amplitude ratios give the dark-matter core mass, breaking the rotation–dark-matter degeneracy.
The proto-neutron star left behind is lighter when the dark-matter core is heavier, shifting the frequency of post-bounce g-mode gravitational waves by up to roughly 20%; combining bounce and g-mode signals strengthens the inference.
For dark-matter cores above 0.03 solar masses the identification survives nuclear-equation-of-state uncertainty; below that, it hinges on a better-constrained equation of state.

Reading between the lines

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

If the stationary-core assumption is relaxed, the dark-matter core itself would be compressed and heated during collapse, likely raising the bounce density and shrinking the amplitude ratios; two-fluid dynamical simulations would bound this systematic.
The universal rescaling curves suggest a direct parameter-estimation recipe for future detectors: measure $h_1$ and $h_2$, invert on $h_1^*(\beta)$ and $h_2^*(\beta)$, and the crossing point gives $(M_\mathrm{DM}, \beta_\mathrm{ic,b})$; the recipe's practicality depends on calibrating the electron-capture profile, which neutrino-transport simulations can provide.
The same ratio-based fingerprint could be searched for in ordinary core-collapse supernova waveforms, where the 'extra central mass' would be the compact remnant itself rather than dark matter; the detection logic transfers.
The paper's claim that the 0.03 solar-mass threshold is insensitive to equation-of-state choice rests on only three nuclear equations of state; a wider ensemble, including exotic compositions, would map how far the threshold moves.

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

Bottom line: this is a solid extension of the group's DM-admixed white dwarf program, and it earns peer review, but the headline 0.03 Msun inference threshold is not yet demonstrated. The EOS uncertainty band in Fig. 11 comes from Appendix B, which varies the nuclear EOS only for MDM=0 models. DM changes the collapse trajectory enough (bounce delayed from 33 to 93 ms, central bounce density down by ~30%) that you cannot simply assume the peak-ratio sensitivity is EOS-independent. That is an evidentiary gap, not a demonstrated failure, but it should be fixed before the abstract claim is taken at face value.

What is actually new and good: these are the first axisymmetric simulations of rotating DM-admixed WDs through AIC with GW extraction. The peak-ratio observables h2/h1 and h3/h1 are raw simulation outputs, not fits, so they are not circularly defined. The convergence tests (Appendix D), the initial central-density test (Appendix C), and the comparison with Abdikamalov et al. (2010) using their Ye profile all support the core dynamics. The rescaling relations for h1 and h2 are calibrated and tested on the same simulations, which is a weak test, but it is standard forward-model calibration, and the authors are appropriately cautious about microphysics uncertainties elsewhere.

Soft spots, in proportion: the stationary, non-rotating DM core is a real simplification. If the collapsing baryons compress, heat, or mix with the DM, the bounce density and PNS mass shift, and the calibrated h1, h2 relations could move. The authors flag it as future work, which is honest, but it means the quantitative inference pipeline is model-dependent in a way not yet quantified. Also, the detection context is sobering: Galactic AIC rates around 1e-4 to 1e-3 per year put LIGO detection at the margin, and the paper says so itself. That does not undercut the physics, but it does temper the "new indirect DM channel" framing.

The citation pattern is fine: the paper builds on its own previous work, cites the relevant AIC and CCSN GW literature, and the comparison to Abdikamalov et al. is a genuine check, not a strawman.

Who is this for: anyone working on DM effects in compact objects, AIC nucleosynthesis or transients, or GW bursts from stellar collapse. A serious referee should engage with it. The main request should be DM-plus-EOS runs for the threshold claim, or a clearly stated downgrade of that claim.

Recommendation: send to peer review with an expectation of revision. The core simulation work is careful and reproducible enough to warrant referee time; the inference claim needs strengthening or softening.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents axisymmetric, Newtonian hydrodynamical simulations of accretion-induced collapse (AIC) of rotating white dwarfs that contain a central, static, non-rotating dark matter core, modeled as 1 GeV fermionic DM. The authors vary the admixed DM mass MDM and the initial rotation rate, and extract the burst gravitational-wave signals using the quadrupole formula. They find that DM delays the plunge and bounce, lowers the central density and inner-core mass at bounce, and reduces the proto-neutron star mass. The gravitational waveforms exhibit three characteristic spikes around bounce; the amplitude ratios h2/h1 and h3/h1 depend on both MDM and the inner-core rotation parameter beta_ic,b, which is used to break the degeneracy between these two parameters. The paper also proposes rescaling relations for h1 and h2 to retrieve MDM and beta_ic,b, discusses the detectability with advanced LIGO, and estimates the effect of DM on PNS g-mode frequencies.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful and original contribution to the gravitational-wave literature on AIC: it adds DM admixture as a new physical degree of freedom, proposes a concrete observable (bounce-peak amplitude ratios) for disentangling DM mass from rotation, and connects the result to a possible indirect DM detection channel. The paper includes several checks that strengthen confidence in the core dynamics: convergence tests in Appendix D, comparison of three nuclear EOSs in Appendix B, central-density variation tests in Appendix C, and a waveform comparison with Abdikamalov et al. (2010) in Section 4.1. The peak-amplitude ratios are raw simulation outputs rather than fitted quantities, so the central observable is not circularly defined. The main significance, if the DM+EOS robustness can be established, is a potential new probe of DM in stellar collapse.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.2 / Section 3.3] The central claim in the abstract that a DM core with MDM >= 0.03 Msun can be inferred 'even within the uncertainties of nuclear matter equation of state' is not directly supported by the simulations as presented. The light-shaded EOS uncertainty bands in Fig. 11 are taken from Appendix B, which compares HShen, LS220, and SFHo only for rotating AIC models without DM admixture. DM changes the bounce conditions substantially (Table E1: for the R5 series, rho_c,b decreases from 3.85e14 to 2.73e14 g/cm3 and tb increases from 33.2 to 93.1 ms as MDM goes from 0 to 0.04 Msun), so there is no demonstrated basis to assume that the EOS sensitivity of h2/h1 and h3/h1 is the same for DM-admixed collapses. The same caveat applies to the central-density robustness test in Appendix C, which appears to vary rho_c only for MDM=0. This is an evidentiary gap rather than a demonstrated failure, but the 0.03 Msun threshold requires either additional DM+EOS simulations or a more limited claim restricted to a fixed EOS.
[Section 3.3 / Eqs. (17)-(18)] The two-fluid model assumes that the DM core is stationary and non-rotating, affecting the baryons only through a fixed external gravitational potential. Because the DM core's gravitational pull is the physical mechanism that changes the bounce density and the GW peak ratios used for MDM inference, this assumption is load-bearing. A dynamical response of the DM core to the collapsing baryons, or even a different assumed DM density profile, could shift rho_c,b, Mic,b, and hence h1, h2, and h3. I would like to see a concrete robustness test, such as a time-dependent DM potential or an explicit check with an altered DM profile, or at minimum a clear statement in the abstract and conclusions that the inference applies only within this modeling assumption.
[Section 3.3 / Richers et al. (2017)] The retrieval procedure for MDM and beta_ic,b is calibrated and tested on the same set of simulations from which Eqs. (17) and (18) are fitted. This demonstrates internal consistency but not predictive power: an independent set of simulations, for example with different Ye parameterizations, rotation laws, or mass grids, is needed to establish that the h1* and h2* relations are universal enough for an actual GW observation. As written, the 'in principle' retrieval claim is somewhat stronger than the evidence provided.
[Section 3.3 / Richers et al. (2017)] The paper cites roughly 30% variations in h2 (and in h1 - h2) with electron-capture rate variations, yet the >0.03 Msun threshold is framed only against EOS uncertainties. Since the DM indicator is built from h2/h1, the electron-capture uncertainty could also overlap the MDM=0 and MDM=0.03 signal separation. A quantitative statement of how much of the h2/h1 difference between MDM=0 and MDM>=0.03 remains after combined EOS and electron-capture uncertainties is needed to support the headline claim.

minor comments (3)

[Section 2.1 / Eq. (5)] The fitted coefficient in Eq. (5) should specify the fit range and the number of models used, and the sentence containing 'W e found' in Section 2.1 contains a typographical spacing error.
[Table E1 / Table E2] The model labeling in Tables E1 and E2 should be cross-checked; in particular, the footnote 'aAlso Rmax-DM4' is unclear because R5-DM4 appears in the R5 block and Rmax-DM4 is not listed as a separate row.
[Appendix C / Fig. C1] The caption of Fig. C1 states that GW amplitudes are multiplied by a constant to match h1, but the constant is not given; please state explicitly that this rescaling does not affect the amplitude ratios used in the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GW peak ratios are raw simulation outputs and the rescaling relations are openly calibrated, not derived from the target claim.

full rationale

The paper's central observable — the ratios h2/h1 and h3/h1 between GW peak amplitudes around bounce — are direct outputs of hydrodynamical simulations, not quantities defined in terms of MDM or beta_ic,b by construction. The degeneracy-breaking claim rests on the simulated dependence of these ratios on MDM at fixed beta_ic,b (Fig. 11), which is an empirical forward-model result. The rescaling relations h*1 and h*2 (Eqs. 17-18) are calibrated fits to the same simulation ensemble; the paper explicitly cautions that the exact functional forms await better-constrained microphysics (Sec. 3.3: 'a firm retrieval of MDM awaits for better constrained microphysics inputs'), so they are not presented as independent predictions. No load-bearing step reduces by definition: Table 2 recomputes, rather than imports, the non-rotating Paper I results, and the Paper I citation is used only for qualitative agreement. The apparent weak point — Appendix B's EOS-uncertainty bands are computed only for MDM=0 and then used to support the MDM >= 0.03 Msun inference threshold — is an evidentiary gap (DM+EOS runs are missing), not a circular argument, so it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claims rest on the fidelity of the hydrodynamics (Newtonian plus effective GR potential), the assumed static DM core, the parametrized electron capture, axisymmetry, and the nuclear EOS. The empirical rescaling relations in Eqs. 17-18 introduce fitted coefficients that the inference procedure depends on.

free parameters (5)

DM particle mass m_DM = 1 GeV
Chosen by hand to match light DM constraints (Barkana 2018); sets compactness of DM core and hence the gravitational effect on collapse.
Fitted slope in MWD vs beta_ini = 3.04 +/- 0.02
Eq. 5, fit to initial rotating WD models generated by Hachisu method.
alpha(MDM) parameters = 3.24 and 11.6
Eq. 11, fitted to make Delta[M_ic,b]/alpha(MDM) linear in beta_ic,b across MDM.
h1 rescaling coefficient = 15.36
Eq. 17, fitted to collapse h1 onto a universal curve as a function of beta_ic,b.
h2 rescaling coefficient = alpha(MDM) of Eq. 11
Eq. 18, fitted to make h2 universal vs beta_ic,b.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Newtonian hydrodynamics with the Case A effective GR potential approximates general relativistic collapse for these configurations.
Used in Section 2.2; validated for the bounce signal against CFC GR simulations of Abdikamalov et al. (2010) in Section 4.1, but not for later ringdown phases.
domain assumption Dark matter is a collisionless, non-annihilating ideal Fermi gas of 1 GeV particles, non-rotating, and stationary during collapse.
Sections 2.1-2.2; DM affects baryons only through fixed gravity; DM dynamics are deferred to future work.
domain assumption The progenitor white dwarf rotates uniformly.
Section 2.1; differential rotation is acknowledged as future work and could change beta_ic,b and GW amplitudes.
domain assumption Electron capture is parameterized by a universal Ye = Ye(rho) relation from a non-DM GR1D AIC simulation.
Section 2.2 and Appendix A; assumes DM does not alter the Ye(rho) trajectory; the authors note electron-capture microphysics uncertainty (Nagakura et al. 2019).
domain assumption Axisymmetry: non-axisymmetric instabilities do not affect the bounce GW signal.
Section 3.1; beta_ic,b < 9% is below the dynamical instability threshold, but low-beta instabilities require 3D simulations.
domain assumption LS220 nuclear EOS is representative for the DM inference; other EOSs are tested only for DM-free models.
Section 2.2 and Appendix B; HShen, LS220, and SFHo produce similar bounce waveforms, but EOS-robustness of the DM signature is not directly simulated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accretion-Induced Collapse of Dark Matter Admixed White Dwarfs -- II: Rotation and Gravitational-wave Signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HABBOFTM

@misc{pith2026190805150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accretion-Induced Collapse of Dark Matter Admixed White Dwarfs -- II: Rotation and Gravitational-wave Signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HABBOFTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05150}
}

abstract

We present axisymmetric hydrodynamical simulations of accretion-induced collapse (AIC) of dark matter (DM) admixed rotating white dwarfs (WD) and their burst gravitational-wave (GW) signals. For initial WD models with the same central baryon density, the admixed DM is found to delay the plunge and bounce phases of AIC, and decrease the central density and mass of the proto-neutron star (PNS) produced. The bounce time, central density and PNS mass generally depend on two parameters, the admixed DM mass $M_\mathrm{DM}$ and the ratio between the rotational kinetic and gravitational energies of the inner core at bounce $\beta_\mathrm{ic,b}$. The emitted GWs have generic waveform shapes and the variation of their amplitudes $h_+$ show a degeneracy on $\beta_\mathrm{ic,b}$ and $M_\mathrm{DM}$. We found that the ratios between the GW amplitude peaks around bounce allow breaking the degeneracy and extraction of both $\beta_\mathrm{ic,b}$ and $M_\mathrm{DM}$. Even within the uncertainties of nuclear matter equation of state, a DM core can be inferred if its mass is greater than 0.03 $M_{\odot}$. We also discuss possible DM effects on the GW signals emitted by PNS g-mode oscillations. GW may boost the possibility for the detection of AIC, as well as open a new window in the indirect detection of DM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05150 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Density profiles of NM and DM for two nonrotating WD models. The black solid line is the NM density profile for the WD without DM admixture. The red dashed and dotted lines are the NM and DM density profiles, respectively, for the WD with 0.04 M⊙ of DM admixture. atoms in the very early universe detected by EDGES (Bowman et al. 2018). The rotation law for AIC or SN Ia progenitors is uncertain and depends on how t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** βini (left) and fractional increment of MWD relative to M (0) WD in the non-rotating case (right) for the initial rotating WDs, with different MDM. βini shows a quadratic relation with Ωini for slow rotation (βini . 0.7%) and is proportional to the relative increment of MWD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Central density evolution for the first 20 ms (left) and entire time interval (right) of AIC simulations starting from models listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The β parameter of the inner core at tb, βic,b, as a function of Ωini for different MDM. The mass of the inner core at the bounce, Mic,b, is another important parameter for AIC, which affects the strength of the bounce shock and also correlates with the GW amplitude. A…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Relative differences of tb (left) and ρc,b (right) between the rotating and non-rotating models with the same MDM as a function of βic,b. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: GW waveform of AIC without DM admixture starting for the slowest (upper panel), moderately (middle panel), and fastest (lower panel) rotating WDs. In the middle panel, the blue dashed (red dotted) curve is the same as the upper (lower) panel but multiplied with a cons…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: GW waveforms of AICs starting from DM admixed rotating WDs, with the same initial angular velocity Ωini = 5 rad/s but different MDM. -5 0 5 10 15 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Ratios between the amplitudes of GW spikes (h1,2,3 defined in the text) around tb as a function of βic,b for different MDM. In both panels, the thick shaded region represents the variation due to different βic,b and the light shaded region due to different EOSs. 0 2 4…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[1]

B., Ott, C

Abdikamalov, E. B., Ott, C. D., Rezzolla, L., et al. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 044012

work page 2010
[2]

T., et al

Andresen, H., M¨ uller, E., Janka, H. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2238

work page 2019
[3]

Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448

2013
[4]

M., & Rezzolla, L

Baiotti, L., de Pietri, R., Manca, G. M., & Rezzolla, L. 2007, PhRvD, 75, 044023

work page 2007
[5]

2018, Nature, 555, 71

Barkana, R. 2018, Nature, 555, 71

2018
[6]

2018, Tech

Barsotti, L., Fritschel, P., Evans, M., & Gras, S. 2018, Tech. Rep. LIGO-T1800042-v5. dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800042/public

work page 2018
[7]

2018, RvMP, 90, 045002

Bertone, G., & Hooper, D. 2018, RvMP, 90, 045002

work page 2018
[8]

J., & Mahesh, N

Mozdzen, T. J., & Mahesh, N. 2018, Nature, 555, 67

work page 2018

Show all 70 references

[9]

2015, PhRvL, 115, 141301

Bramante, J. 2015, PhRvL, 115, 141301

2015
[10]

2015, PhRvL, 115, 111301 Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., DeBrye, N., Aloy, M

Brito, R., Cardoso, V., & Okawa, H. 2015, PhRvL, 115, 111301 Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., DeBrye, N., Aloy, M. A., Font, J. A., &

2015
[11]

2013, ApJ, 779, L18 Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., Quilis, V., & Font, J

Obergaulinger, M. 2013, ApJ, 779, L18 Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., Quilis, V., & Font, J. A. 2007, CoPhC, 177, 288 Cerme˜ no, M., P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, M.´A., & Silk, J. 2017, PASA, 34, e043

2013
[12]

2017, A&A, 605, A106

Choplin, A., Coc, A., Meynet, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A106

2017
[13]

D., et al

Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Ott, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063

2006
[14]

A., & M¨ uller, E

Dimmelmeier, H., Font, J. A., & M¨ uller, E. 2002, A&A, 393, 523

2002
[15]

D., Marek, A., & Janka, H.-T

Dimmelmeier, H., Ott, C. D., Marek, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2008, PhRvD, 78, 064056

2008
[16]

Einasto, J., Saar, E., Kaasik, A., & Chernin, A. D. 1974, Nature, 252, 111

1974
[17]

2018, PhRvD, 97, 123007

Ellis, J., H¨ utsi, G., Kannike, K., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 123007

2018
[18]

2019, ApJ, 876, 18

Farrow, N., Zhu, X.-J., & Thrane, E. 2019, ApJ, 876, 18

2019
[19]

2018, A&A, 618, A124

Fink, M., Kromer, M., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A124

2018
[20]

S., & Evans, C

Finn, L. S., & Evans, C. R. 1990, ApJ, 351, 588

1990
[21]

Fryer, C., Benz, W., Herant, M., & Colgate, S. A. 1999, ApJ, 516, 892

1999
[22]

Fuller, J., & Ott, C. D. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L71

2015
[23]

E., Sutton, P., Stuver, A., et al

Gossan, S. E., Sutton, P., Stuver, A., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 042002

2016
[24]

2018, PhRvD, 98, 115027 19

Riggins, P. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 115027 19

2018
[25]

W., Rajendran, S., & Varela, J

Graham, P. W., Rajendran, S., & Varela, J. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 063007

2015
[26]

1986, ApJS, 61, 479

Hachisu, I. 1986, ApJS, 61, 479

1986
[27]

J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al

Hansen, C. J., Primas, F., Hartman, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A31

2012
[28]

2011, CQGra, 28, 094013

Hild, S., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al. 2011, CQGra, 28, 094013

2011
[29]

K., & Ruiter, A

Hillebrandt, W., Kromer, M., R¨ opke, F. K., & Ruiter, A. J. 2013, FrPhy, 8, 116

2013
[30]

2012, ARNPS, 62, 407

Janka, H.-T. 2012, ARNPS, 62, 407

2012
[31]

K., Fryer, C., et al

Jones, S., R¨ opke, F. K., Fryer, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A74

2019
[32]

S., Janka, H.-T., & Hillebrandt, W

Kitaura, F. S., Janka, H.-T., & Hillebrandt, W. 2006, A&A, 450, 345

2006
[33]

Kouvaris, C., & Nielsen, N. G. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 063526

2015
[34]

M., & Swesty, F

Lattimer, J. M., & Swesty, F. D. 1991, NuPhA, 535, 331

1991
[35]

2010, ApJ, 718, 60

Lee, J., & Komatsu, E. 2010, ApJ, 718, 60

2010
[36]

2011, PhRvD, 84, 107301 —

Leung, S.-C., Chu, M.-C., & Lin, L.-M. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 107301 —. 2015a, ApJ, 812, 110 —. 2015b, MNRAS, 454, 1238

2011
[37]

2013, PhRvD, 87, 123506

Leung, S.-C., Chu, M.-C., Lin, L.-M., & Wong, K.-W. 2013, PhRvD, 87, 123506

2013
[38]

2018, ApJ, 861, 143 —

Leung, S.-C., & Nomoto, K. 2018, ApJ, 861, 143 —. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.10007

2018 arXiv
[39]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.11438

Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Suzuki, T. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.11438

2019 arXiv
[40]

C., Zha, S., Chu, M

Leung, S. C., Zha, S., Chu, M. C., Lin, L. M., & Nomoto, K. 2019, in prep. Liebend¨ orfer, M. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1042

2019
[41]

1994, JCoPh, 115, 200

Liu, X.-D., Osher, S., & Chan, T. 1994, JCoPh, 115, 200

1994
[42]

G., Stovall, K., Freire, P

Martinez, J. G., Stovall, K., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 143

2015
[43]

Moenchmeyer, R., Schaefer, G., Mueller, E., & Kates, R. E. 1991, A&A, 246, 417

1991
[44]

2018, ApJ, 861, 10

Morozova, V., Radice, D., Burrows, A., & Vartanyan, D. 2018, ApJ, 861, 10

2018
[45]

2016, PhRvD, 93, 083009 M¨ uller, B., Janka, H.-T., & Marek, A

Mukhopadhyay, P., & Schaﬀner-Bielich, J. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 083009 M¨ uller, B., Janka, H.-T., & Marek, A. 2013, ApJ, 766, 43

2016
[46]

W., Ott, C

Murphy, J. W., Ott, C. D., & Burrows, A. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1173

2009
[47]

2019, ApJS, 240, 38

Nagakura, H., Furusawa, S., Togashi, H., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 38

2019
[48]

1991, ApJL, 367, L19 O’Connor, E

Nomoto, K., & Kondo, Y. 1991, ApJL, 367, L19 O’Connor, E. 2015, ApJS, 219, 24

1991
[49]

2017, RvMP, 89, 015007

Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Kl¨ ahn, T., & Typel, S. 2017, RvMP, 89, 015007

2017
[50]

Ott, C. D. 2009, CQGra, 26, 063001

2009
[51]

D., Abdikamalov, E., O’Connor, E., et al

Ott, C. D., Abdikamalov, E., O’Connor, E., et al. 2012, PhRvD, 86, 024026 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R., & Santos Villarreal, A. 2012, ApJ, 757, 55

2012
[52]

A., Couch, S

Pajkos, M. A., Couch, S. M., Pan, K.-C., & O’Connor, E. P. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.09055

2019 arXiv
[53]

M., & Thielemann, F.-K

Pan, K.-C., Liebend¨ orfer, M., Couch, S. M., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2018, ApJ, 857, 13

2018
[54]

L., & Kulkarni, S

Piro, A. L., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2013, ApJL, 762, L17

2013
[55]

L., & Thompson, T

Piro, A. L., & Thompson, T. A. 2014, ApJ, 794, 28 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209

2014 arXiv
[56]

2019, ApJ, 876, L9

Nagakura, H. 2019, ApJ, 876, L9

2019
[57]

2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 195015

Reisswig, C., & Pollney, D. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 195015

2011
[58]

2018, PhRvL, 121, 021304

Ren, X., Zhao, L., Abdukerim, A., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 021304

2018
[59]

2017, PhRvD, 95, 063019

Sullivan, C. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 063019

2017
[60]

J., Ferrario, L., Belczynski, K., et al

Ruiter, A. J., Ferrario, L., Belczynski, K., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 698

2019
[61]

2017, MNRAS, 472, 3390

Schwab, J., Bildsten, L., & Quataert, E. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3390

2017
[62]

2010, ApJ, 719, 722

Schwab, J., Podsiadlowski, P., & Rappaport, S. 2010, ApJ, 719, 722

2010
[63]

Schwab, J., & Rocha, K. A. 2019, ApJ, 872, 131

2019
[64]

2011, ApJS, 197, 20

Shen, H., Toki, H., Oyamatsu, K., & Sumiyoshi, K. 2011, ApJS, 197, 20

2011
[65]

A., Burrows, A., & Dolence, J

Skinner, M. A., Burrows, A., & Dolence, J. C. 2016, ApJ, 831, 81

2016
[66]

W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T

Steiner, A. W., Hempel, M., & Fischer, T. 2013, ApJ, 774, 17 Torres-Forn´ e, A., Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., Obergaulinger, M., M¨ uller, B., & Font, J. A. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.10048

2013 arXiv
[67]

2019, MNRAS, 482, 351

Dolence, J. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 351

2019
[68]

2018, MNRAS, 481, 439

Wang, B. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 439

2018
[69]

2014, PhRvC, 89, 025803

Xiang, Q.-F., Jiang, W.-Z., Zhang, D.-R., & Yang, R.-Y. 2014, PhRvC, 89, 025803

2014
[70]

2004, A&A, 419, 623

Yoon, S.-C., & Langer, N. 2004, A&A, 419, 623

2004

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

B., Ott, C

Abdikamalov, E. B., Ott, C. D., Rezzolla, L., et al. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 044012

work page 2010

[2] [2]

T., et al

Andresen, H., M¨ uller, E., Janka, H. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2238

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448

2013

[4] [4]

M., & Rezzolla, L

Baiotti, L., de Pietri, R., Manca, G. M., & Rezzolla, L. 2007, PhRvD, 75, 044023

work page 2007

[5] [5]

2018, Nature, 555, 71

Barkana, R. 2018, Nature, 555, 71

2018

[6] [6]

2018, Tech

Barsotti, L., Fritschel, P., Evans, M., & Gras, S. 2018, Tech. Rep. LIGO-T1800042-v5. dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800042/public

work page 2018

[7] [7]

2018, RvMP, 90, 045002

Bertone, G., & Hooper, D. 2018, RvMP, 90, 045002

work page 2018

[8] [8]

J., & Mahesh, N

Mozdzen, T. J., & Mahesh, N. 2018, Nature, 555, 67

work page 2018