Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Magnetic field generation in mergers of massive main-sequence stars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simulated merger of two massive main-sequence stars amplifies magnetic fields by more than ten orders of magnitude, leaving a large-scale, mostly toroidal field in the remnant.

desk verdict Solid follow-up to Paper I that convincingly shows robust magnetic amplification in a massive MS merger and identifies a plausible two-stage dynamo, but the leap to long-lived stellar magnetism rests on extrapolation beyond the simulated endpoint. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.13424 v3 pith:JXI7ATAF submitted 2025-12-15 astro-ph.SR

Sebastian T. Ohlmann , Fabian R. N. Schneider , Friedrich K. Roepke , Ruediger Pakmor , Philipp Podsiadlowski , Volker Springel This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellarmergersmagneticfieldsmassivestarsmagnetohydrodynamicsdynamomagneto-rotationalinstabilitycore-torusremnantmagnetars
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 sets out to show that the merger of two ordinary massive main-sequence stars can itself generate the strong magnetic fields seen on a minority of hot massive stars. In a 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a 9 and an 8 solar-mass star, the authors find that turbulence from Kelvin-Helmholtz and magneto-rotational instabilities first amplifies a tiny seed field, and then the remnant's ordered rotation winds it into a large-scale, mostly toroidal field—an amplification of more than ten orders of magnitude. The resulting star-torus object has a field geometry resembling configurations previously shown to be stable, and Ohmic-decay estimates place the field's lifetime beyond the star's remaining life. If correct, this gives a concrete formation channel for magnetic massive stars and for magnetic white dwarfs and magnetars as their descendants, independent of the initial magnetic seed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the star-torus remnant: a rotationally supported torus of about 3 solar masses, made mostly of the disrupted primary, surrounding the core of the secondary. The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage dynamo: Kelvin-Helmholtz and magneto-rotational instabilities in the accretion flow amplify the seed field at small scales (<0.2 solar radii), and then large-scale ordered azimuthal flows in the rotating remnant wind the field up, transferring magnetic energy to scales of several solar radii and producing a mostly toroidal, intertwined poloidal-toroidal configuration. The torus also holds about 60% of the binary's angular momentum and sets up the transition from solid-b

What would settle it

Continue the simulation until magnetic energy saturation and watch the large-scale toroidal component: if the field decays or loses coherence over a few Alfvén times, the merger pathway to long-lived magnetic massive stars fails. Alternatively, find a merger-product magnetic star whose large-scale interior field is predominantly poloidal, which would contradict the predicted mostly toroidal structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the merger of a 9 and an 8 solar-mass main-sequence star produces a star-torus remnant whose magnetic field is amplified by more than ten orders of magnitude, from a microgauss seed to roughly 1e8 gauss, ending large-scale and about 80–85% toroidal. Amplification happens in two stages: Kelvin-Helmholtz and magneto-rotational instabilities build small-scale fields, then ordered azimuthal flows drive a large-scale dynamo that moves magnetic energy to scales of several solar radii. The field reaches super-equipartition with turbulent kinetic energy in places but stays dynamically minor during the merger. The configuration resembles previously identified stable magnetic

Load-bearing premise

The field is still growing when the simulation stops at day six; the central claim that the remnant keeps a large-scale magnetic field over stellar lifetimes depends on the assumption that this still-evolving field will settle into the stable toroidal equilibrium it resembles rather than reconnect or decay.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mergers of massive main-sequence stars can account for the strong surface fields observed in roughly 7–10% of OBA stars, giving a clean evolutionary channel that does not rely on fossil fields.
  • The amplification is robust: differing resolution, initial binary separation, and seed-field strength leave the final field similar, so the details of the initial magnetic field do not matter.
  • The final field configuration is expected to be stable on thermal to nuclear timescales, and estimated Ohmic decay times (0.7–700 Gyr for ~1 solar-radius coherence) exceed the star's remaining lifetime.
  • About 60% of the binary's angular momentum ends in a sub-Keplerian torus, so the merger product has a particular rotation profile—solid-body core, Keplerian-like disk—that can be compared with observations of merged stars.
  • With only ~0.14% of the mass ejected, the magnetized remnant remains available to evolve further, eventually producing magnetic white dwarfs or magnetars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same small-scale-then-large-scale dynamo operates in white-dwarf and neutron-star mergers, the amplification mechanism may be universal, connecting magnetic massive stars, magnetic white dwarfs, and magnetars through a single merger channel.
  • A testable prediction follows: magnetic stars formed by mergers should show a large-scale interior field that is mostly toroidal, coherent over roughly a solar radius, which asteroseismology or spectropolarimetry of candidate merged stars could probe.
  • Because the simulation ends before amplification saturates, the strongest lifetime claim depends on continuing the run; a direct check is to evolve the remnant for several Alfvén times and see whether the large-scale toroidal field persists or reconnects.
  • If seed-field independence holds generally, every massive binary that merges should emerge magnetized the same way, which links the predicted ~10% merger fraction among massive stars to the observed ~7–10% magnetic fraction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes the magnetic-field evolution in 3D MHD simulations, performed with Arepo, of the merger of a 9 and an 8 solar-mass main-sequence star; the simulations were originally presented in Paper I. Starting from a weak 1 microgauss dipole seed field, the simulations follow the tidal disruption of the 9 solar-mass primary and the formation of a core-disk remnant. The authors report amplification of the maximum field to roughly 1e8 G, initially by Kelvin-Helmholtz and magneto-rotational instabilities on small scales, then by large-scale azimuthal motions that transfer magnetic energy to scales of several solar radii. At the final epoch considered (about 6 days after merger), the remnant has a mostly toroidal field (80-85% of magnetic energy), a core approaching solid-body rotation, and a sub-Keplerian disk. The paper claims insensitivity to resolution, initial separation, and seed-field strength, and argues that such mergers can form magnetic massive stars and possibly magnetar progenitors.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a valuable step toward understanding the origin of strong magnetic fields in about 10% of OBA stars and the possible formation of magnetars. The paper's strengths are the controlled numerical setup: a resolution comparison, a no-magnetic-field control run, power spectra that document the small-to-large-scale transfer, and divergence-error diagnostics. It is not circular: the magnetic outcome is not fitted to the observed magnetism of tau Sco or any other target. However, the simulation endpoint is not saturated and the seed-field robustness is asserted rather than demonstrated, so the strongest conclusions currently outrun the evidence. The work is nevertheless a significant contribution to the merger-magnetism literature, provided the overclaims are corrected.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.4, §5, Fig. 9] The central claim of a persistent large-scale field is not yet established by the simulated evolution. The paper itself states that the magnetic field strength 'still increases throughout the merger product at the end of the simulation' and that 'the amplification is not yet completely saturated'; the Conclusions add that 'the stability of the amplified magnetic fields needs to be assessed.' Since the field still has a non-negligible small-scale component and only a few Alfvén timescales have elapsed, the 80-85% toroidal fraction and the analogy to Braithwaite-Spruit equilibria are not sufficient to prove survival over stellar or pre-supernova timescales. Please either extend the simulations, add a quantitative stability assessment, or explicitly restrict the abstract/conclusions to the demonstrated amplification and geometry rather than implying long-term persistence.
  2. [Abstract, §5 vs. §2.2, Table 2] The statement that amplification is 'largely insensitive to ... seed magnetic-field strength' is unsupported by the runs listed. All magnetized models in Table 2 use the same initial dipole configuration with a surface field of 1 microgauss; the only control is a run without any magnetic field. No run varies the seed-field strength (or geometry). Since the abstract and conclusions use this insensitivity to argue that the initial seed is irrelevant, this claim needs at least one varied-seed run or a quantitative scaling argument; otherwise it should be removed or weakened.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (1), §4.1] The merger is initiated by an artificial angular-momentum loss term with timescale tau = 1.5e6 s (Eq. 1), rather than by starting from Roche-lobe overflow. The paper addresses this with a larger-separation run and a half-time comparison, but the initial-separation robustness claim rests on only two separations differing by 0.6 solar radii (6.4 vs 7.0 Rsun), both with the same loss term. Given that the pre-merger accretion stream is the first stage of field amplification, the sensitivity to tau and to the starting separation should be quantified more carefully, or the robustness statement should be limited to the tested range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 1] Typo: 'essentialy' should be 'essentially'; similar spacing issues ('di fferent', 'di fficult') appear throughout the text.
  2. [Fig. 11 caption] The caption says 'polar component of the magnetic field' but the plotted quantity is B_phi, which is the azimuthal/toroidal component. Please correct the wording to avoid confusion.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The Ohmic-decay estimate assumes a coherence scale of roughly 1 Rsun, but Fig. 11 shows sign-changing B_phi with structure on smaller scales. Please state explicitly how R is measured and give the temperature/scale values used for the quoted 0.7-700 Gyr range.
  4. [References] Braithwaite & Nordlund 2006a and 2006b appear to refer to the same article; consolidate into one entry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetic-field claims are measured simulation outputs, not fitted inputs; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a numerical MHD simulation study, not a derivation whose target is defined by its input. The central claim—magnetic field amplified by more than ten orders of magnitude into a mostly toroidal, large-scale configuration—is a measured outcome of the Arepo simulations, and no equation in the paper defines the final field in terms of an assumed field. The seed field (1 µG dipole) is a tested parameter, not a fitted one: Models 1–4 vary resolution, initial separation, and seed configuration (Table 2), and the abstract's robustness claim is supported by those runs rather than by construction. The stability and persistence arguments rest on external, non-author work: Braithwaite & Spruit (2004), Braithwaite & Nordlund (2006a), and Braithwaite & Cantiello (2013) for stable toroidal fractions, and the standard Spitzer-resistivity estimate (Eq. 2) for Ohmic decay. Self-citations appear but are not load-bearing: Paper I (Schneider et al. 2019, Nature) is the independently refereed source of the simulations being re-analyzed, and the present paper measures quantities from that data rather than importing conclusions; Schneider et al. (2020) and Varma et al. (2023) are cited conditionally for post-merger evolution and magnetar formation, which are secondary speculations, not the core 'field generation' result. External benchmarks (Pakmor et al. 2024; Kiuchi et al. 2024; Ryu et al. 2025; Vynatheya et al. 2025) support qualitative agreement from independent groups. The flagged limitation in Sect. 3.4—'the magnetic field strength still increases throughout the merger product at the end of the simulation, which means that the amplification is not yet completely saturated' and 'the simulation would need to be continued'—is a genuine extrapolation risk for the persistence claim (the simulation covers only ~6–10 d, a few Alfvén timescales), but it is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity: the simulated field is what it is, and the paper honestly states that the endpoint is not saturated. Score 1 reflects only the repeated self-citations and the conditional magnetar chain via Varma et al. (2023), none of which forces the central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation rests on standard modeling choices plus a few hand-set inputs. The most consequential are the artificially accelerated merger, the single 1 uG seed field, and the assumption that the 6-day endpoint represents the eventual stable magnetic state. Resolution and initial separation are explicitly tested; seed-field strength and long-term stability are not.

free parameters (3)
  • Angular-momentum loss timescale tau = 1.5e6 s
    Artificial braking term (Eq. 1) used to shrink the orbit to merger in feasible wall-clock time. The paper checks one shorter braking interval and one larger initial separation, but not the full Roche-lobe-overflow initial condition.
  • Seed surface magnetic field = 1 microgauss (dipole)
    All magnetized runs use the same 1 uG dipole seed. The paper claims insensitivity to seed-field strength, but no run with a different seed strength is reported.
  • Initial orbital separation = 6.4 R_sun (Models 1,2,4); 7.0 R_sun (Model 3)
    Set below Roche-lobe contact for computational feasibility. Robustness is checked with one larger separation, but the slower pre-merger mass-transfer phase is not simulated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MESA stellar models with solar composition, calibrated mixing, and no initial rotation adequately represent the two massive progenitors.
    The initial stellar structures are taken from MESA (Sect. 2.1); internal rotation and fossil fields of the progenitors are neglected, which could affect the merger and dynamo.
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD with Powell divergence control and the OPAL equation of state captures the dynamo on resolved scales.
    No explicit resistivity or ambipolar diffusion is used in the simulation; microphysical resistivity appears only in the post-hoc Spitzer estimate (Sect. 3.4).
  • domain assumption The kinetic energy in the radial and z directions is a valid proxy for turbulent kinetic energy.
    Used in Sect. 3.3 and Fig. 5 to measure saturation and the claimed super-equipartition; azimuthal kinetic energy is excluded because it is dominated by large-scale rotation.
  • domain assumption The Braithwaite-Spruit stability criterion applies to the simulated field configuration with 80-85% toroidal energy.
    Used to argue the final field is stable over long timescales (Sect. 3.4); the simulation itself does not follow the field to a saturated, relaxed state.
  • ad hoc to paper Artificial angular-momentum removal does not change the essential merger and dynamo physics.
    The merger is accelerated by the braking term in Eq. (1); the paper presents partial checks but cannot simulate the full, slower binary inspiral.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic field generation in mergers of massive main-sequence stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JXI7ATAF

@misc{pith2026251213424,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic field generation in mergers of massive main-sequence stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JXI7ATAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.13424}
}
abstract

Magnetic fields are found in many astrophysical objects, ranging from galaxy clusters to the interstellar medium of galaxies and neutron stars. Strong surface magnetic fields are also observed in about 7% of OBA-type stars, and stellar mergers are the likely origin of at least some of them. We investigated magnetic-field amplification during the merger of a 9 and an 8 $M_\odot$ main-sequence star using 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations from our previous work. We focused on the magnetic-field amplification mechanisms, field geometry, and the structure and properties of the resulting merger, in particular its rotational configuration. The merger produces a star-torus structure in which the core of the initially less massive star is surrounded by material from the primary. Initially, turbulent motions driven by Kelvin-Helmholtz and magneto-rotational instabilities generate small-scale magnetic fields. Subsequently, large-scale ordered azimuthal flows drive a larger-scale dynamo that amplifies and redistributes the magnetic energy to larger spatial scales, producing a remnant threaded by a strong large-scale magnetic field. The final magnetic configuration consists of intertwined poloidal and toroidal components, with a residual small-scale structure that resembles previously identified stable magnetic field equilibria. The amplification process is largely insensitive to the initial binary separation, numerical resolution, and seed magnetic-field strength. The central regions of the merger remnant rapidly approach solid-body rotation, transitioning to a Keplerian-like profile within the surrounding torus. Our results support stellar mergers as a viable pathway for the formation of strongly magnetic massive stars and potentially highly magnetized compact remnants, such as magnetic white dwarfs and magnetars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13424 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , where spherically averaged profiles of the density, the Mach number, and the deviation from hydrostatic equilibrium are shown at different times during the relaxation run. One can see that the density profile ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of density over time for Model 1. The upper row shows slices through the orbital plane (x–y), the lower row slices through a plane perpendicular to the orbital plane (x–z), connecting the cores of the two stars before they merge. The right-most panel includes a circle with radius 3 R⊙ to roughly indicate the disk–core boundary. face-on 5 R −5.0 d 0.2 d 0.7 d 5.0 d 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Passive Scalar (pr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of a passive scalar over time for Model 1. The passive scalar is initially 1 in the more massive star and 0 elsewhere. Slices are shown through the orbital plane (x–y). The right-most panel includes a circle with radius 3 R⊙ to roughly indicate the disk–core boundary. −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 Time [d] 0 2 4 6 8 Distance [ R ] Time of merger Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of orbital separation. The distance is computed be￾tween the centers of mass of both stars. The center of mass of each star is computed by using the corresponding passive scalar as a weight. stars merge after roughly 23 (Model 1) to 35 (Model 4) orbits1 ( [P…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of total magnetic energy (upper panel), ratio of mag￾netic to turbulent kinetic energy (middle panel), and magnetic energy in the cylindrical components of the magnetic field for Model 1 (lower panel). lobes of both stars ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of magnetic fields for Model 1. Shown is the absolute value of the magnetic field in the orbital plane (upper panel) and perpen￾dicular to the orbital plane (middle panel). In the lower panel, the ratio of magnetic pressure to gas pressure indicates where the…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Characterization of the core and disk of the post-merger object at 6 d after merger for Model 1. Shown are density (upper panel) and mass (lower panel) over radius. Lines marked with “polar” show cells with an angle to the orbital plane larger than π/4, those marked wi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Power spectra of kinetic energy (top panel) and magnetic energy (bottom panel) at different times for Model 1. Shown is the energy per wave number as a function of wave number ν = k/2π in inverse solar radii. star, which should rather be about 10 Myr. Hence, the magnet…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Density, angular velocity, specific angular momentum, and mag￾netic field profiles of the post-merger product at 2 d, 4 d and 6 d. The core–disk boundary is indicated by the dashed line. For comparison, the angular velocity profile for a Keplerian disk is plotted. ning…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The magnetic field structure of the merger product at t = 6 d is shown using line integral convolution. On top of the magnitude of the magnetic field (color-coded), the field lines are visualized in the corresponding plane by convolving a white noise texture with a ke…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the polar component of the magnetic field for Model 1. Shown is Bϕ in the orbital plane (upper row) and perpendicular to the orbital plane (lower row). The color scale is symmetric and logarithmic around 0; the inner part between −103 and 103 is linear. t…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of the relative error in the divergence of the magnetic field (rcell∇ · B/∥B∥) for Model 1 in the orbital plane (upper row) and perpendicular to it (lower row). The color scale is symmetric and logarithmic around 0; the inner part between −10−2 and 10−2 is l…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102 Article number, page 10 of 11 S. T. Ohlmann et al.: MS mergers

    2016

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101

    2017

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  4. [4]

    Babcock, H. W. 1947, PASP, 59, 112

    1947

  5. [5]

    Balbus, S. A. & Hawley, J. F. 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1

    1998

  6. [6]

    Bhat, P., Ebrahimi, F., & Blackman, E. G. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 818

    2016

  7. [7]

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. 2001, Stellar physics. V ol.1: Fundamental concepts and stellar equilibrium

    2001

  8. [8]

    & Cantiello, M

    Braithwaite, J. & Cantiello, M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2789

    2013

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    & Spruit, H

    Braithwaite, J. & Spruit, H. C. 2004, Nature, 431, 819

    2004

  2. [10]

    & Langer, N

    Braun, H. & Langer, N. 1995, A&A, 297, 483

    1995

  3. [11]

    1970, ApJ, 161, 561 de Mink, S

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1970, ApJ, 161, 561 de Mink, S. E., Sana, H., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 7

    1970

  4. [12]

    & Landstreet, J

    Donati, J.-F. & Landstreet, J. D. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 333

    2009

  5. [13]

    Dray, L. M. & Tout, C. A. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 61

    2007

  6. [14]

    C., & Schnack, D

    Ebrahimi, F., Prager, S. C., & Schnack, D. D. 2009, ApJ, 698, 233

    2009

  7. [15]

    E., Tout, C

    Ferrario, L., Pringle, J. E., Tout, C. A., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 2009, MNRAS, 400, L71

    2009

  8. [16]

    2015, A&A, 582, A45

    Fossati, L., Castro, N., Schöller, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A45

    2015

  9. [17]

    Friedman, J. L. & Schutz, B. F. 1975, ApJ, 199, L157

    1975

  10. [18]

    J., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al

    Frost, A. J., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 214

    2024

  11. [19]

    & Pejcha, O

    Gagnier, D. & Pejcha, O. 2024, A&A, 683, A4

    2024

  12. [20]

    Glebbeek, E., Gaburov, E., Portegies Zwart, S., & Pols, O. R. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3497

    2013

  13. [21]

    & Pols, O

    Glebbeek, E. & Pols, O. R. 2008, A&A, 488, 1017

    2008

  14. [22]

    H., Wade, G

    Grunhut, J. H., Wade, G. A., Neiner, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2432

    2017

  15. [23]

    Heller, M., Schneider, F. R. N., Henneco, J., Bronner, V . A., & Lau, M. Y . M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.14669

    2025

  16. [24]

    1983, Ap&SS, 96, 37

    Hellings, P. 1983, Ap&SS, 96, 37

    1983

  17. [25]

    2025, PhD thesis, Heidelberg University

    Henneco, J. 2025, PhD thesis, Heidelberg University

    2025

  18. [26]

    Henneco, J., Schneider, F. R. N., & Laplace, E. 2024, A&A, 682, A169

    2024

  19. [27]

    S., & Bodenheimer, P

    Henyey, L., Vardya, M. S., & Bodenheimer, P. 1965, ApJ, 142, 841

    1965

  20. [28]

    Hills, J. G. & Day, C. A. 1976, Astrophys. Lett., 17, 87

    1976

  21. [29]

    P., Schneider, F

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., Owocki, S. P., Schneider, F. R. N., & Smith, N. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 4276

    2021

  22. [30]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  23. [31]

    Justham, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Vink, J. S. 2014, ApJ, 796, 121

    2014

  24. [32]

    2024, Nature Astron- omy, 8, 298

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Shibata, M., & Sekiguchi, Y . 2024, Nature Astron- omy, 8, 298

    2024

  25. [33]

    & Shapiro, S

    Lai, D. & Shapiro, S. L. 1995, ApJ, 442, 259

    1995

  26. [34]

    Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1987, Fluid Mechanics (Course of Theoretical Physics: V olume 6), 2nd edn. (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann)

    1987

  27. [35]

    Landstreet, J. D. 1992, A&A Rev., 4, 35

    1992

  28. [36]

    C., Warren, J

    Lombardi, Jr., J. C., Warren, J. S., Rasio, F. A., Sills, A., & Warren, A. R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 939

    2002

  29. [37]

    & Heger, A

    Menon, A. & Heger, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4649

    2017

  30. [38]

    & Kusano, K

    Miyoshi, T. & Kusano, K. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics, 208, 315 Morán-Fraile, J., Röpke, F. K., Pakmor, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A41

    2005

  31. [39]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Morris, T. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2007, Science, 315, 1103

    2007

  32. [40]

    2002, A&A, 389, L51

    Munari, U., Henden, A., Kiyota, S., et al. 2002, A&A, 389, L51

    2002

  33. [41]

    T., Röpke, F

    Ohlmann, S. T., Röpke, F. K., Pakmor, R., & Springel, V . 2017, A&A, 599, A5

    2017

  34. [42]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 10

    2007

  35. [43]

    A., Röpke, F

    Ondratschek, P. A., Röpke, F. K., Schneider, F. R. N., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, L8

    2022

  36. [44]

    Ostriker, J. P. & Tassoul, J. L. 1969, ApJ, 155, 987

    1969

  37. [45]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 1392

    Pakmor, R., Bauer, A., & Springel, V . 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1392

    2011

  38. [46]

    2024, A&A, 691, A179

    Pakmor, R., Pelisoli, I., Justham, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A179

    2024

  39. [47]

    & Springel, V

    Pakmor, R. & Springel, V . 2013, MNRAS, 432, 176

    2013

  40. [48]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134

    Pakmor, R., Springel, V ., Bauer, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1134

    2016

  41. [49]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  42. [50]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  43. [51]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15 Pérez, F

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15 Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 21

    2015

  44. [52]

    & Joss, P

    Podsiadlowski, P. & Joss, P. C. 1989, Nature, 338, 401

    1989

  45. [53]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

    1992

  46. [54]

    C., & Rappaport, S

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Rappaport, S. 1990, A&A, 227, L9

    1990

  47. [55]

    G., Roe, P

    Powell, K. G., Roe, P. L., Linde, T. J., Gombosi, T. I., & de Zeeuw, D. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284

    1999

  48. [56]

    Rembiasz, T., Obergaulinger, M., Cerdá-Durán, P., Müller, E., & Aloy, M. A. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3782

    2016

  49. [57]

    Rogers, F. J. & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064

    2002

  50. [58]

    J., Swenson, F

    Rogers, F. J., Swenson, F. J., & Iglesias, C. A. 1996, ApJ, 456, 902

    1996

  51. [59]

    2025, ApJ, 980, L38

    Ryu, T., Sills, A., Pakmor, R., de Mink, S., & Mathieu, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, L38

    2025

  52. [60]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  53. [61]

    Schneider, F. R. N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18421

    2025

  54. [62]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 117

    2014

  55. [63]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Lau, M. Y . M., & Roepke, F. K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.00111

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Ohlmann, S. T., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2796

    2020

  57. [65]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Ohlmann, S. T., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 211

    2019

  58. [66]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Castro, N., & Fossati, L. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2355 Schöller, M., Hubrig, S., Fossati, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A66

    2016

  59. [67]

    A., Lombardi, Jr., J

    Sills, A., Faber, J. A., Lombardi, Jr., J. C., Rasio, F. A., & Warren, A. R. 2001, ApJ, 548, 323

    2001

  60. [68]

    E., Rest, A., et al

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Rest, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1466

    2018

  61. [69]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    Springel, V . 2010, MNRAS, 401, 791

    2010

  62. [70]

    2011, A&A, 528, A114

    Tylenda, R., Hajduk, M., Kami´nski, T., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A114

    2011

  63. [71]

    Varma, V ., Müller, B., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3622

    2023

  64. [72]

    K., Schneider, F

    Vetter, M., Röpke, F. K., Schneider, F. R. N., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A244

    2024

  65. [73]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.13736

    Vynatheya, P., Ryu, T., Wang, C., Sills, A., & Pakmor, R. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.13736

    2025

  66. [74]

    T., Tout, C

    Wickramasinghe, D. T., Tout, C. A., & Ferrario, L. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 675

    2014

  67. [75]

    H., & Chang, P

    Zhu, C., Pakmor, R., van Kerkwijk, M. H., & Chang, P. 2015, ApJ, 806, L1 Article number, page 11 of 11

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.