Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 46 references

Relativistic Common-envelope Dynamics of a Stellar-mass Black Hole II: Kerr Black Hole

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Density gradients dominate black hole spin in common-envelope accretion

desk verdict First GRHD study of BHL accretion in a common envelope with a Kerr (spinning) black hole, extending prior Schwarzschild work. The fitting formulas are the main deliverable but have a structural problem the authors don't acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07462 v1 pith:IE7VLC2M submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Alejandro Cruz-Osorio , Fabio D. Lora-Clavijo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords commonenvelopeevolutionBondi-Hoyle-LyttletonaccretionKerrblackholegeneralrelativistichydrodynamicsmassratebremsstrahlungluminositydensitygradientframedragging
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 presents the first general-relativistic hydrodynamic simulations of a spinning (Kerr) stellar-mass black hole accreting from the envelope of a red supergiant star, in the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton regime. Across 66 two-dimensional models varying black hole spin, Mach number, and envelope density gradient, the authors find that the density gradient in the stellar envelope has a more significant impact on the mass accretion rate than either the black hole's spin or the flow's Mach number. The authors provide analytical fitting formulas (Eqs. 7-11) with fitted coefficients that encode the dependence of mass accretion rate, radial and angular momentum transfer rates, and bremsstrahlung luminosity on these three parameters. The simulations also show that density gradients deflect the downstream shock cone away from the stellar core, that bow shocks form upstream and create subsonic regions, and that frame-dragging from black hole spin produces measurable but comparatively modest distortions near the event horizon. The fitting formulas are offered as tools for population synthesis models of binary evolution, though the authors note that three-dimensional calibration is needed before direct observational application.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the analytical fitting formulas (Eqs. 7-11), which express the logarithm of each normalized accretion quantity as a product of polynomial functions of the dimensionless spin parameter a★, the density gradient parameter ερ, and the Mach number M. The simulations use the BHAC code to solve the general-relativistic hydrodynamics equations in the Valencia formulation on a fixed Kerr spacetime (test-fluid approximation), with an ideal-gas equation of state (γ=5/3) and an exponentially stratified envelope density profile.

What would settle it

Run the same simulations in full 3D for a subset of the parameter space and check whether the fitting formulas reproduce the accretion rates and whether density gradients still dominate over spin and Mach number.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that, for a black hole embedded in a common envelope, the local density gradient in the envelope is the dominant driver of variations in mass accretion rate, momentum transfer, and thermal luminosity — more so than the black hole's spin or the Mach number of the relative flow. This is quantified through five fitting formulas that express each quantity as a separable product of functions of spin, density gradient, and Mach number, with fitted coefficients determined from the 66-model parameter survey. A secondary finding is that the shock cone morphology is controlled primarily by the density gradient (which deflects the cone) and the Mach number (which sets the opening

Load-bearing premise

The two-dimensional slab geometry assumes that density and pressure gradients perpendicular to the simulation plane are negligible. Since the paper's main deliverables — the fitting formulas for mass accretion rate, momentum rates, and luminosity — are volume-integrated quantities, neglecting the third spatial dimension could bias the absolute values and potentially the relative ranking of which parameter matters most.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Population synthesis models of binary evolution can use the fitting formulas to estimate black hole growth rates during common-envelope phases without running full hydrodynamic simulations, provided the three-dimensional corrections are calibrated.
  • The finding that density gradients dominate over spin suggests that simplified common-envelope models that neglect envelope stratification may systematically misestimate accretion rates and momentum transfer.
  • The proportionality between bremsstrahlung luminosity and mass accretion rate, if it holds in 3D, provides a way to infer accretion rates from thermal signatures of shocked gas, even though the photons themselves are trapped and reprocessed in the optically thick envelope.
  • The shock-cone deflection angle could serve as a diagnostic of the local density gradient in systems where the cone morphology is observable or inferable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If density gradients dominate accretion in 2D, the three-dimensional case may amplify this effect, since real envelopes have gradients along all spatial directions rather than just one — the 2D result could be a lower bound on the influence of stratification.
  • The test-fluid approximation is well-justified by the compactness ratio, but if the black hole accretes enough mass to grow significantly during the common-envelope phase, the back-reaction on spacetime might become non-negligible over secular timescales, potentially modifying the fitting formulas for late-stage evolution.
  • The separability of the fitting formulas (each quantity is a product of independent functions of spin, gradient, and Mach number) may break down in regimes where nonlinear coupling between these parameters becomes important, such as very high spin combined with steep gradients — the 66-model grid may not sample these corners adequately.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents 2D general-relativistic hydrodynamic simulations of Bondi–Hoyle–Lyttleton accretion onto a stellar-mass Kerr black hole embedded in a red supergiant common envelope. The authors use the BHAC code to explore 66 models spanning five black hole spins, six Mach numbers, and six density gradients. The study reports flow morphologies (shock cones, bow shocks, subsonic regions) and provides empirical fitting formulas for the mass accretion rate, radial and angular momentum rates, and bremsstrahlung luminosity as functions of spin, Mach number, and density gradient. The test-fluid approximation is justified via a compactness argument. The paper is positioned as a first GR study of this problem and a stepping stone toward 3D simulations.

Significance. The paper provides a systematic GRHD parameter survey of BHL accretion in a common-envelope context with a rotating black hole, which is a genuinely new combination. The use of a well-tested code (BHAC) and the explicit justification of the test-fluid approximation via the compactness ratio are strengths. The fitting formulas (Eqs. 7–11) are falsifiable in the sense that they make specific quantitative predictions that future 3D simulations can test. The qualitative flow morphologies are consistent with prior BHL studies, lending credibility to the simulation infrastructure. However, the central deliverable—the fitting formulas—rests on assumptions that limit their predictive power, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.2, Eqs. (7)–(11): The fitting formulas assume multiplicative separability between the spin-dependent factor and the Mach-number-dependent factor. However, the 66-model suite is structured as two non-overlapping slices: Table 1 varies a★ and ε_ρ at fixed M=2 (30 models), and Table 2 varies M and ε_ρ at fixed a★=0 (36 models). No simulation has both a★≠0 and M≠2. Consequently, any cross-term dependence (e.g., a★×M or a★×M²) is entirely unconstrained by the data. If frame-dragging effects interact with the Mach number—a physically plausible scenario given that both the shock-cone geometry and the subsonic region size depend on M while frame-dragging acts on the post-shock flow—the formulas would be qualitatively wrong in the joint (a★, M) parameter space they claim to cover. This is load-bearing because the formulas are presented as valid across the full parameter space. The authors must
  2. §2.1, paragraph beginning 'It is worth noting that the 2D simulations captures the essential physical processes': The 2D slab geometry assumes out-of-plane gradients are negligible, and the authors acknowledge this 'may introduce biases in volume-integrated quantities such as the mass and momentum accretion rates and the bremsstrahlung luminosity.' Since the fitting formulas (Eqs. 7–11) are precisely for these volume-integrated quantities, the 2D limitation directly affects the quantitative reliability of the paper's main output. The authors acknowledge this qualitatively in §4, but the fitting formulas are presented without any error bars or quantitative discussion of the expected systematic offset from 3D. At minimum, the manuscript should state explicitly in §3.2–3.3 that the fitting coefficients carry an unquantified systematic uncertainty from the 2D geometry, and the formulas'适用范围
  3. §3.2, Eqs. (7)–(11): No goodness-of-fit metric (R², χ², RMS residual) is reported for any of the five fitting formulas. Without these metrics, a reader cannot assess whether the formulas provide an adequate description of the simulation data or identify where the largest residuals occur. This is essential for formulas that are intended for use in population synthesis codes. Please add a quantitative measure of fit quality, ideally with a residual plot or table showing the maximum deviation for each formula.
minor comments (7)
  1. §2, Eq. (4): The density profile uses ε_ρ in the exponent as ε_ρ(r−r₀)/r_acc, but the text later refers to the gradient parameter as both ε_ρ and ε (e.g., §3.1 uses ε while §2 uses ε_ρ). Please unify the notation.
  2. §2, Eq. (6): The pressure formula appears to mix a polytropic and ideal-gas EOS. The expression p_in = c²_{s,∞}/(Γ−1) · Γ(Γ−1)^{−c²_{s,∞}/Γ} · ρ_in is unusual; please clarify its derivation or cite the source.
  3. §3.2, Eq. (7): The formula has a log on the left-hand side but the right-hand side is a product of polynomial factors. Please confirm that the fitting was performed in log-space and state this explicitly.
  4. Figure 3: The color bar labels use notation like '□1.0' which is unclear. Please use standard colorbar formatting.
  5. §3.3: The statement 'this supports the assumption in the literature that these two quantities are proportional, i.e., Ṁ₀ ∝ L_BR' is made without a quantitative comparison. A simple scatter plot of L_BR vs. Ṁ₀ across all 66 models would strengthen this claim.
  6. §4: 'as the stellar black hole approached to the red giant star core' should read 'approaches'.
  7. The abstract states 'offering first insights into general relativistic hydrodynamics modelling of the secular evolution of the common envelope phase.' The phrase 'secular evolution' may overstate the scope, given that the simulations are local and steady-state; consider softening to 'local accretion dynamics'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. All three major comments identify legitimate gaps that we will address in the revised manuscript. Specifically: (1) the fitting formulas assume multiplicative separability between spin and Mach-number dependence, but no simulation probes the joint (a★ ≠ 0, M ≠ 2) parameter space, so cross-terms are unconstrained—we will add explicit caveats and scope restrictions. (2) The 2D geometry introduces unquantified systematic uncertainty in the volume-integrated fitting formulas—we will state this explicitly alongside the formulas. (3) No goodness-of-fit metrics are reported—we will add R² values and maximum residuals for all five formulas. We agree with all three points and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.2, Eqs. (7)–(11): The fitting formulas assume multiplicative separability between the spin-dependent factor and the Mach-number-dependent factor. However, the 66-model suite is structured as two non-overlapping slices: Table 1 varies a★ and ε_ρ at fixed M=2 (30 models), and Table 2 varies M and ε_ρ at fixed a★=0 (36 models). No simulation has both a★≠0 and M≠2. Consequently, any cross-term dependence (e.g., a★×M or a★×M²) is entirely unconstrained by the data. If frame-dragging effects interact with the Mach number—a physically plausible scenario given that both the shock-cone geometry and the subsonic region size depend on M while frame-dragging acts on the post-shock flow—the formulas would be qualitatively wrong in the joint (a★, M) parameter space they claim to cover. This is load-bearing because the formulas are presented as valid across the full parameter space.

    Authors: The referee is correct. Our 66-model suite consists of two orthogonal slices: Table 1 probes (a★, ε_ρ) at fixed M=2, and Table 2 probes (M, ε_ρ) at fixed a★=0. No simulation simultaneously has a★≠0 and M≠2. The multiplicative separability assumed in Eqs. (7)–(11) is therefore an ansatz, not a result constrained by data in the joint (a★, M) subspace. We agree that cross-terms such as a★×M are physically plausible: frame-dragging acts on the post-shock flow whose geometry and extent depend on M, so an interaction is not implausible. We will revise the manuscript to state this limitation explicitly in §3.2. Specifically, we will: (i) add a paragraph after Eq. (11) noting that the fitting formulas assume separability and that no simulation constrains cross-terms in the joint (a★, M) space; (ii) restrict the claimed validity of the formulas to the two slices actually simulated, noting that extrapolation to the joint parameter space is untested; and (iii) add a corresponding caveat in §4. We note that the M=2 slice does include all five spin values, so the spin dependence at that Mach number is directly constrained, and the a★=0 slice constrains the Mach dependence for a non-rotating hole. The separability assumption interpolates between these two constrained limits. This is a reasonable first-order approximation, but it should be stated as such, and we will do so. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §2.1, paragraph beginning 'It is worth noting that the 2D simulations captures the essential physical processes': The 2D slab geometry assumes out-of-plane gradients are negligible, and the authors acknowledge this 'may introduce biases in volume-integrated quantities such as the mass and momentum accretion rates and the bremsstrahlung luminosity.' Since the fitting formulas (Eqs. 7–11) are precisely for these volume-integrated quantities, the 2D limitation directly affects the quantitative reliability of the paper's main output. The authors acknowledge this qualitatively in §4, but the fitting formulas are presented without any error bars or quantitative discussion of the expected systematic offset from 3D. At minimum, the manuscript should state explicitly in §3.2–3.3 that the fitting coefficients carry an unquantified systematic uncertainty from the 2D geometry, and the formulas'适用范围

    Authors: We agree. The fitting formulas in Eqs. (7)–(11) are for volume-integrated quantities (mass accretion rate, momentum rates, bremsstrahlung luminosity), and the 2D slab geometry introduces a systematic uncertainty that we have acknowledged qualitatively in §4 but not alongside the formulas themselves. This is a valid concern. In the revised manuscript, we will add an explicit statement in §3.2 (immediately after the fitting formulas) and in §3.3 noting that the fitting coefficients carry an unquantified systematic uncertainty from the 2D geometry, and that the formulas should be regarded as first-order approximations requiring calibration against 3D simulations before quantitative use in population synthesis. We note that previous studies (Gracia-Linares & Guzmán 2015; Kim & Most 2024, cited in our manuscript) found that 2D BHL simulations reproduce the main qualitative trends seen in 3D while revealing quantitative differences, which provides some evidence that the systematic offset is moderate rather than order-unity, but we agree this does not substitute for a direct 3D calibration. We will also add a sentence in the abstract noting the 2D limitation more prominently. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §3.2, Eqs. (7)–(11): No goodness-of-fit metric (R², χ², RMS residual) is reported for any of the five fitting formulas. Without these metrics, a reader cannot assess whether the formulas provide an adequate description of the simulation data or identify where the largest residuals occur. This is essential for formulas that are intended for use in population synthesis codes. Please add a quantitative measure of fit quality, ideally with a residual plot or table showing the maximum deviation for each formula.

    Authors: This is a fair and straightforward point. We will add goodness-of-fit metrics for all five fitting formulas. Specifically, we will compute and report the R² value and the maximum absolute residual (in dex, since the formulas are in log space) for each of Eqs. (7)–(11). We will present these in a small table in §3.2. We will also add a residual plot (or a panel in Figure 3) showing the deviation of the fitting formula from the simulation data as a function of the relevant parameters, so that readers can identify where the largest residuals occur. This will allow users of the formulas to assess their reliability quantitatively. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Empirical fitting formulas with fitted coefficients are standard simulation-based prescriptions, not circular derivations

full rationale

The paper presents 66 GRHD simulations and provides analytical fitting formulas (Eqs. 7-11) with coefficients fitted to the simulation outputs. The coefficients (μ_i, r_i, p_i, l_i) are explicitly stated as fitted values, and the formulas are presented as empirical fits, not as first-principles derivations or predictions. The paper does not claim the fitting formulas are predictions from a derivation chain; rather, it states they 'provide analytical fits' and 'a quantitative description' of the simulation data. The self-citations (Cruz-Osorio & Rezzolla 2020; Cruz-Osorio et al. 2012, 2023) are used for methodology justification (numerical setup, coordinate mapping, boundary conditions) and are not load-bearing for the central claim in a circular way — the simulation results are independently generated by the BHAC code solving the GRHD equations. The test-fluid approximation is justified by an explicit compactness calculation (C_RSG/C_BH ≈ 8.5×10^-8). While the fitting formulas assume separability between spin and Mach-number dependence without cross-terms, and no hold-out validation is performed, these are limitations of the empirical approach (correctness/extrapolation risks) rather than circularity. The paper does not rename a known result, does not define quantities in terms of themselves, and does not invoke a self-citation chain that reduces to its inputs. The central deliverable — simulation data and empirical fits to that data — is self-contained against the simulation outputs it describes. This is standard practice for simulation-based prescriptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions. All physics (Kerr metric, ideal fluid, BHL accretion, bremsstrahlung) is standard. The free parameters are either simulation inputs (a★, M, ερ) or fitted coefficients for the empirical formulas. The 2D geometry is the main ad hoc assumption.

free parameters (9)
  • μ_i (i=0..3) = (7.82e-3, 1.3, 2.76, 2.94)
    Fitted coefficients for mass accretion rate formula, Eq. 7
  • r_i (i=0..6) = (0.064, -0.045, 1.240, 2.44, 2.93, 0.94, -0.20)
    Fitted coefficients for radial momentum rate formula, Eq. 9
  • p_i (i=0..6) = (-0.054, 0.021, -0.087, 8.66, -0.19, 0.30, 0.12)
    Fitted coefficients for angular momentum rate formula, Eq. 8
  • l_i (i=0..5) = (0.0021, 0.577, 5.318, 1.655, 3.0, 3.1)
    Fitted coefficients for bremsstrahlung luminosity formula, Eq. 11
  • ερ = 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25
    Density gradient parameter, swept as input across simulations
  • a★ = -15/16, -1/2, 0, +1/2, +15/16
    Black hole spin parameter, swept as input across simulations
  • M∞ = 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0
    Mach number, swept as input across simulations
  • cs,∞ = 0.1 (Table 1), 0.07 (Table 2)
    Asymptotic sound speed, fixed per parameter table
  • Γ = 5/3
    Adiabatic index, chosen for cold degenerate electron fluid
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Test-fluid approximation: matter has negligible effect on background spacetime geometry
    Section 2: justified by compactness ratio C_RSG/C_BH ≈ 8.5e-8. Reasonable for this system.
  • ad hoc to paper 2D equatorial-plane simulation captures essential physics of 3D accretion
    Section 2.1: authors acknowledge this is a first step and that 3D is needed. The axiom is load-bearing for all quantitative results.
  • domain assumption Exponential density profile is a valid local approximation to stellar envelope
    Section 2, Eq. 4: motivated as first-order approximation following MacLeod & Ramirez-Ruiz (2015). Standard in the literature.
  • domain assumption Steady state is reached by t ~ 20 r_acc/v∞
    Section 3: no convergence test shown for this claim in the present paper; references Cruz-Osorio & Rezzolla (2020) for consistency tests.
  • domain assumption Bremsstrahlung cooling timescale >> dynamical timescale, so radiative cooling is dynamically unimportant
    Section 3.3: stated without quantitative comparison for the specific parameters used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic Common-envelope Dynamics of a Stellar-mass Black Hole II: Kerr Black Hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IE7VLC2M

@misc{pith2026260707462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic Common-envelope Dynamics of a Stellar-mass Black Hole II: Kerr Black Hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IE7VLC2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07462}
}
read the original abstract

The common envelope phase plays a critical role in binary system evolution. In this study, we investigate the mass and momentum accretion rates during the interaction between a stellar mass black hole and the envelope of a red supergiant using simplified two dimensional simulations. We explore various Mach numbers and density gradients, finding that our simulations align with previous Bondi Hoyle Lyttleton accretion analyses. We observe the formation of a shock cone in the downstream flow, bow shocks in specific configurations, and subsonic regions within shocked flows. The shock cone is dragged when significant pressure gradients are present in the common envelope, with additional dragging near the black hole for highly rotating cases. We provide analytical fits for mass and momentum accretion rates, as well as bremsstrahlung luminosity, as functions of black hole spin, density gradients, and Mach number, offering first insights into general relativistic hydrodynamics modelling of the secular evolution of the common envelope phase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Logarithm of the normalised rest mass density. Left panels illustrate common envelope morphology, when varying the black hole spin 𝑎★, and the initial density gradient 𝜖𝜌 by keeping the Mach number fixed at M∞ = 2.0, we show only the representative cases. The top panels depict the entire numerical domain, while the bottom panels provide a close-up view near the black hole vicinity. Right panels show the effects on t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Logarithm of the Mach number of the common envelope. Similarly to figure 1, left panelsshown representative models for black hole spin versus density gradient with fixed Mach number M∞ = 2.0. The Right panels illustrate models for Newtonian Mach number versus density gradients for a Schwarzschild black hole. Streamlines of the fluid velocity are represented by white lines. Subsonic regions are shown in blue, while s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mass accretion rates, radial and angular momentum, and bremsstrahlung luminosity. In the top panels we show the two dimensional accretion rates as function of the black hole spin 𝑎★ and density gradient 𝜖𝜌. In the Bottom panels we show the accretion rates as function of the Newtonian Mach number M and the density gradient 𝜖𝜌. tion of observable emission. The result is quantified in Equation (11). For convenience, an… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ib \'a \ n ez J

    Banyuls F., Font J. A., Ib \'a \ n ez J. M., Mart \' J. M., Miralles J. A., 1997, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/303604 , 476, 221

    work page doi:10.1086/303604 1997

  2. [2]

    S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..97B 635, A97

    Bavera S. S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..97B 635, A97

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936204 2020

  3. [3]

    Bondi H., 1952, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952MNRAS.112..195B 112, 195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/112.2.195 1952

  4. [4]

    Bondi H., Hoyle F., 1944, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1944MNRAS.104..273B 104, 273

    work page 1944

  5. [5]

    D., 2016, @doi [Mon

    Cruz-Osorio A., Lora-Clavijo F. D., 2016, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stw1149 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.3193C 460, 3193

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1149 2016

  6. [6]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab89aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894..147C 894, 147

    Cruz-Osorio A., Rezzolla L., 2020, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab89aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...894..147C 894, 147

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab89aa 2020

  7. [7]

    MNRAS , author =

    Cruz-Osorio A., Lora-Clavijo F. D., Guzm \'a n F. S., 2012, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21794.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426..732C 426, 732

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21794.x 2012

  8. [8]

    The shocks during the accretion of an ultrarelativistic supersonic gas onto a rotating black hole

    Cruz-Osorio A., Lora-Clavijo F. D., Guzm \'a n F. S., 2013, in Uren\ na-L \'o pez L. A., Becerril-B \'a rcenas R., Linares-Romero R., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1548, American Institute of Physics Conference Series. pp 323--327 ( @eprint arXiv 1307.4108 ), @doi 10.1063/1.4817064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AIPC.1...

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1063/1.4817064 2013

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    J., Lora-Clavijo F

    Cruz-Osorio A., Sanchez-Salcedo F. J., Lora-Clavijo F. D., 2017, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stx1815 , 471, 3127

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Font J

    Cruz-Osorio A., Rezzolla L., Lora-Clavijo F. D., Font J. A., Herdeiro C., Radu E., 2023, @doi [Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics] 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JCAP...08..057C 2023, 057

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    D \"o nmez O., Zanotti O., Rezzolla L., 2011, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18003.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.1659D 412, 1659

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Edgar R., 2004, @doi [New Astronomy Review] 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NewAR..48..843E 48, 843

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Munz C

    Einfeldt B., Roe P. L., Munz C. D., Sjogreen B., 1991, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/0021-9991(91)90211-3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991JCoPh..92..273E 92, 273

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Liu Y

    Farris B. D., Liu Y. T., Shapiro S. L., 2010, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084008 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvD..81h4008F 81, 084008

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    Astrophys., http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    Foglizzo T., Ruffert M., 1999, Astron. Astrophys., http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    1999

  8. [16]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042201 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    Foglizzo T., Galletti P., Ruffert M., 2005, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042201 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Ib \'a \ n ez J

    Font J. A., Ib \'a \ n ez J. M., 1998a, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 298, 835

  10. [18]

    A., Ib \'a \ n ez J

    Font J. A., Ib \'a \ n ez J. M., 1998b, Astrophys. J., 494, 297

  11. [19]

    A., Ib \'a \ n ez J

    Font J. A., Ib \'a \ n ez J. M., Papadopoulos P., 1998, Astrophys. J., 507, L67

    1998

  12. [20]

    A., Ib \'a \ n ez J

    Font J. A., Ib \'a \ n ez J. M., Papadopoulos P., 1999, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02459.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.305..920F 305, 920

    1999 doi

  13. [21]

    Gafton E., Rosswog S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.4790G 487, 4790

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...23G 812, 23

    Gracia-Linares M., Guzm \'a n F. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...23G 812, 23

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    D., van Leer B., 1983, @doi [SIAM Rev.] 10.1137/1025002 , 25, 35

    Harten A., Lax P. D., van Leer B., 1983, @doi [SIAM Rev.] 10.1137/1025002 , 25, 35

    1983 doi

  16. [24]

    A., 1939, in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society

    Hoyle F., Lyttleton R. A., 1939, in Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. p. 405

    1939

  17. [25]

    Ivanova N., et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews] 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    arXiv:2201.11753

    Kaaz N., Murguia-Berthier A., Chatterjee K., Liska M., Tchekhovskoy A., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220111753K p. arXiv:2201.11753

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J., Delmont P., Vlasis A., van der Holst B., 2012, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.020 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2012JCoPh.231..718K 231, 718

    Keppens R., Meliani Z., van Marle A. J., Delmont P., Vlasis A., van der Holst B., 2012, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.020 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2012JCoPh.231..718K 231, 718

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240912359K p

    Kim Y., Most E. R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.12359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240912359K p. arXiv:2409.12359

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    L \'o pez-C \'a mara D., Moreno M \'e ndez E., De Colle F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.2057L 497, 2057

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Guzm \'a n F

    Lora-Clavijo F. D., Guzm \'a n F. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3144L 429, 3144

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Cruz-Osorio A., Moreno M \'e ndez E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219...30L 219, 30

    Lora-Clavijo F. D., Cruz-Osorio A., Moreno M \'e ndez E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219...30L 219, 30

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    MacLeod M., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2015a, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...798L..19M 798, L19

    doi

  25. [33]

    J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/41 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...41M 803, 41

    MacLeod M., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2015b, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/41 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803...41M 803, 41

    doi

  26. [34]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...56M 838, 56

    MacLeod M., Antoni A., Murguia-Berthier A., Macias P., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...838...56M 838, 56

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8140 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845..173M 845, 173

    Murguia-Berthier A., MacLeod M., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Antoni A., Macias P., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8140 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845..173M 845, 173

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    R., Fromm C

    Olivares H., Porth O., Davelaar J., Most E. R., Fromm C. M., Mizuno Y., Younsi Z., Rezzolla L., 2019, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935559 , 629, A61

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems

    Paczynski B., 1976, in Eggleton P., Mitton S., Whelan J., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems. p. 75

    1976

  30. [38]

    J., 2011, @doi [Mon

    Penner A. J., 2011, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18480.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.tmp..490P p. 490

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    I., Shapiro S

    Petrich L. I., Shapiro S. L., Teukolsky S. A., 1988, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.1781 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988PhRvL..60.1781P 60, 1781

    1988 doi

  32. [40]

    I., Shapiro S

    Petrich L. I., Shapiro S. L., Stark R. F., Teukolsky S. A., 1989, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/167013 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...336..313P 336, 313

    1989 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Keppens R., 2014, @doi [Astrophys

    Porth O., Xia C., Hendrix T., Moschou S. P., Keppens R., 2014, @doi [Astrophys. J., Supp.] 10.1088/0067-0049/214/1/4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..214....4P 214, 4

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    Porth O., Olivares H., Mizuno Y., Younsi Z., Rezzolla L., Moscibrodzka M., Falcke H., Kramer M., 2017, @doi [Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology] 10.1186/s40668-017-0020-2 , 4, 1

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Oxford University Press, @doi 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528906.001.0001

    Rezzolla L., Zanotti O., 2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics . Oxford University Press, @doi 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528906.001.0001

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics . Wiley-VCH

    1986

  37. [45]

    W., Osher S

    Shu C. W., Osher S. J., 1988, J. Comput. Phys., 77, 439

    1988

  38. [46]

    Zanotti O., Roedig C., Rezzolla L., Del Zanna L., 2011, @doi [Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19451.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.2899Z 417, 2899

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.