Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 122 references

Neutrino pair annihilation driven jets from black-hole torus systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that neutrino pair annihilation over a black-hole accretion torus can launch relativistic outflows energetic enough to explain faint short gamma-ray bursts and GRB precursors, but not the brightest ones.

desk verdict Solid, honest simulation study that supports pair-annihilation-driven fireballs for faint sGRBs, but the 30% fitting-formula accuracy is an in-sample statistic and the BH-NS extrapolation is unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01679 v3 pith:MPLQS2JJ submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Kyohei Kawaguchi , Sho Fujibayashi , Masaru Shibata This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords neutrinopairannihilationblackhole-torussystemsshortgamma-rayburstsrelativisticoutflowsBoltzmanntransportMonte-CarloradiationhydrodynamicsGRBprecursorsaccretiondisk
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that neutrino-antineutrino pair annihilation above a black-hole accretion torus is a viable central engine for a specific class of gamma-ray bursts: the faint short bursts and precursor flashes, not the bright ones. Using axisymmetric general-relativistic radiation-viscous simulations with Monte-Carlo Boltzmann neutrino transport, the authors find that in most BH-torus configurations the annihilation energy deposited along the polar axis inflates a fireball and accelerates matter to terminal Lorentz factors above 100. The exceptions are low-spin black holes and high-viscosity tori, where baryon pollution chokes the outflow. The resulting isotropic-equivalent energies, $\lesssim 10^{51}\,{\rm erg}$ over $\lesssim 0.2\,{\rm s}$, fall short of the brightest short gamma-ray bursts but match a faint class and GRB precursors. The paper also provides a fitting formula tying the annihilation power to accretion rate, black-hole spin, and black-hole mass.

What carries the argument

The central quantity is the pair-annihilation energy deposition rate $L_{\rm pair}$, obtained by solving the Boltzmann equation for neutrino transport with a Monte-Carlo method and including non-thermal electron- and heavy-lepton-neutrino spectra. It sets the energy available to create an over-pressured fireball along the rotation axis; whether that fireball becomes a relativistic outflow is decided by how much baryon-rich matter from the torus resides in the funnel. The argument is carried by the scaling $L_{\rm pair} \propto \dot{M}^{9/4} r_{\rm ms}^{-39/8} M_{\rm BH}^{-3/2}$ and the fitting formula $L^{\rm fit}_{\rm pair}(\dot{M})$ with ignition and trapping accretion rates $\dot{M}_1$ and $\dot{M}_2$ that depend on the viscous parameter, black-hole spin, and black-hole mass.

What would settle it

Repeat the fiducial run with a polar-axis gas envelope of density comparable to post-merger ejecta (for instance, $10^7$-$10^8\,{\rm g/cm^3}$ out to $\sim 100\,{\rm km}$): if no component reaches $hw>100$, then pair annihilation alone does not launch relativistic fireballs under realistic merger conditions. A complementary observational check is a redshift-complete sample of compact-merger short GRBs: events above $E_{\rm iso}\sim 10^{51}\,{\rm erg}$ with durations well over 0.2 s would sit above the paper's ceiling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that neutrino-antineutrino pair annihilation alone can launch relativistic outflows from most black-hole-torus systems formed in compact-object mergers. In the simulations, the annihilation energy deposited in the low-density polar funnel creates a fireball that accelerates matter to terminal Lorentz factors above 100, with an engine duration near 0.1-0.2 s and isotropic-equivalent energies up to roughly $10^{51}$ erg. The exceptions are a non-spinning black hole and a high-viscosity torus, where matter blown off the torus pollutes the funnel. The authors also establish a nearly universal relation between the total annihilation power and the mass accretion rate, $\dot{M}^{9/4}$ at $\dot{M} \lesssim 1\,M_\odot/{\rm s}$, steeply increasing with black-hole spin through the ISCO radius and decreasing with black-hole mass, and package it in a fitting formula with about 30% accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The polar region above the black hole is taken to be nearly empty of gas because the simulation starts with only a black hole and a torus, with no surrounding merger ejecta; the authors call this the optimal condition for jet launching and note that a realistic dense envelope would suppress the fireball.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Faint short gamma-ray bursts with isotropic gamma-ray energy near or below $10^{50}$ erg can be produced by pair-annihilation-driven outflows if torus mass, spin, and black-hole mass are favorable and gamma-ray efficiency is around 10%.
  • GRB precursors with energies and timescales of about $10^{49}$-$10^{50}$ erg and about 0.1 s are a natural signature of this engine; the same engine cannot account for the bright short-GRB population.
  • The pair-annihilation engine duration of about 0.2 s, if radial stretching lengthens the observed burst by an order of magnitude, remains consistent with observed short-GRB durations; without stretching, only bursts shorter than about 0.2 s would be explained.
  • The fitting formula for $L_{\rm pair}(\dot{M})$ can be used as a cheap proxy for annihilation heating in three-dimensional MHD simulations where full neutrino transport is computationally prohibitive.
  • Equal-mass binary neutron star mergers with prompt black-hole formation and small tori are unlikely to power energetic pair-annihilation outflows; low-mass, rapidly spinning black-hole-neutron-star mergers are the more likely hosts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claimed robustness of the isotropic energy is right, a population-level test follows: low-luminosity compact-merger short GRBs should show an upper envelope near $10^{51}$ erg in $E_{\rm iso}$, and events above that require a magnetic or otherwise additional engine.
  • The simulations' early polar blow-up is partly an artifact of relaxing idealized initial data, so the natural next test is to initialize from a full merger simulation; if merger ejecta keeps the polar density high, fireball energies would drop and the viable parameter space would shrink.
  • The same pair-annihilation mechanism acting around a long-lived massive neutron star remnant could provide a sustained energy injection and may connect the model to delayed precursor or extended emission features, although the paper does not simulate that phase.
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. The manuscript presents axisymmetric general-relativistic viscous-hydrodynamics simulations of black-hole torus systems with Monte-Carlo Boltzmann neutrino transport, surveying black-hole spin, torus mass, viscosity parameter, and angular-momentum profile. It reports that neutrino-antineutrino pair annihilation launches relativistic fireballs in most models, with isotropic-equivalent energies ≲1e51 erg and durations ≲0.2 s, except for models with low BH spin or high viscosity. It also fits an updated scaling relation L_pair(Ṁ) (Eq. 13) claiming ~30% accuracy, and argues that pair-annihilation-driven outflows can account for faint short GRBs and GRB precursors but not the brightest sGRBs. Resolution and floor-density effects are assessed in Appendix A.

Significance. The study is, to my knowledge, the first systematic sweep of BH-torus parameter space with full Boltzmann neutrino transport that dynamically includes pair annihilation. Its main quantitative deliverables—isotropic-equivalent outflow energy and launching duration—are tested against resolution and floor-density variations and show roughly 20% stability, which is a genuine strength. The paper is also unusually candid about its limitations, including the idealized initial condition and the factor-of-2 resolution errors in intrinsic outflow energy and opening angle. If the fitting formula and its extrapolation are properly validated or reframed, the paper will provide a useful community resource: a semi-empirical L_pair(Ṁ) fitting formula, a falsifiable statement that pair annihilation alone cannot explain bright sGRBs, and a concrete target for the faint sGRB and GRB-precursor populations.

major comments (3)
  1. [V C, Eqs. (13)–(16); VI A] The claimed 30% accuracy of Eq. (13) is an in-sample fit statistic, not a predictive validation. The text states that the remaining exponents in L0, Ṁ1, and Ṁ2 are 'assigned as simple rational numbers that approximately reproduce the numerical fits' and then reports that the formula reproduces the simulations within 30%; no holdout model or cross-validation is presented. This matters because Sec. VI A extrapolates the formula to BH-NS configurations (M_BH=3.7 Msun, χ≈0.9, M_torus≈0.3 Msun) outside the simulated grid and concludes that the spin enhancement and mass suppression 'approximately compensate.' In-sample agreement cannot bound the error of that extrapolation. Please add an out-of-sample test (e.g., leave-one-model-out fits or one additional simulation at a new parameter point), or explicitly restate the BH-NS estimate as an unvalidated interpolation/extrapolation with an order-of-magnitude uncertainty rather than a quantitative prediction.
  2. [IV; V C; Fig. 4] For MT01s095 and MT03s095, L_pair is computed only in regions with ρ ≤ 1e11 g/cm3, yet Eq. (13) is presented as the total pair-annihilation deposition rate and these models are used in the fit shown in Fig. 4. The excluded high-density region is asserted not to contribute to driving relativistic outflows, but no estimate is given for its contribution to the total L_pair. Because these are the highest-spin models and are central to the spin-scaling part of Eq. (13), the fitting formula is calibrated to a truncated quantity for them. Please quantify the excluded fraction and show that the fit is insensitive to the cutoff, or relabel Eq. (13) as applying to the low-density, outflow-relevant deposition rate.
  3. [VI B; Abstract; VII] The initial data contain a bare BH-torus system with no surrounding merger-ejecta envelope, and Sec. VI B correctly calls this an 'optimal condition' for fireball formation. Since the polar density is the controlling factor for baryon loading (cf. MT01s08v015, where high viscosity shuts off the outflow), the statements that 'pair annihilation leads to the formation of relativistic fireballs in most cases' and that E_iso values are reliable within an order of magnitude should be presented as upper-limit results under idealized conditions, not as generic predictions for BNS or BH-NS remnants. The abstract and Sec. VII should carry this qualifier explicitly; currently only Sec. VI B does.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Table II] MT03s08 has t90^iso = 0.23 s for hw > 100, while the abstract says durations are ≲0.2 s; the wording should be harmonized (e.g., 'about 0.2 s' or quoting 0.23 s).
  2. [V C, Eq. (14)] The exponent on αvis,0.05 in Eq. (14) is not written explicitly; please write αvis,0.05^{1} or otherwise clarify that the linear dependence is intended.
  3. [V C] The analytic estimate L_pair ∝ r^{-39/8} M^{27/8} Ṁ^{9/4} folds in f ∝ rhat^{-1/2} measured from Fig. 3; please label the resulting power-law as a consistency check rather than an independent derivation, since the same simulation set supplies f.
  4. [VI A] The claim that the spin enhancement and BH-mass suppression 'approximately compensate' for the BH-NS case should cite the uncertainty in the fitted exponents (e.g., the difference between the numerical r^{-5} and the analytic r^{-39/8}) and be tied to the validation issue raised in Major Comment 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (13) is an in-sample fit, but it is explicitly labeled as a fitting formula and the main fireball/outflow conclusions rest on direct simulation outputs with independent comparisons.

full rationale

The closest thing to a circular step is the 30% accuracy statement for Eq. (13) in Sec. V C, since L0, Mdot1, and Mdot2 are fit parameters and 'the results of the simulations ... are reproduced within 30% error by Eq. (13)' is an in-sample residual, not a holdout prediction. However, the paper consistently calls Eq. (13) a fitting formula and does not base the central claim of pair-annihilation-driven relativistic fireballs on it; that claim is established by direct simulation measurements of Lpair and Ljet,>Gamma (Eqs. 6 and 7) and by the control without pair annihilation cited from the authors' prior work [89], which is a legitimate numerical result rather than a uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled through self-citation. The Sec. VI A application to BH-NS remnants is an extrapolation using the fitted scaling exponents, and the paper flags the idealized initial profile as the optimal condition, acknowledging that realistic polar envelopes would suppress the outflow; this is a stated limitation, not a definitional loop. Comparisons to the independent works [76] and [98] for neutrino luminosity and pair-annihilation scaling provide external anchors. The remaining self-citations ([88,89]) introduce the numerical method and are not load-bearing in the sense of forbidding alternatives. Thus no derivation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard GR and neutrino transport assumptions, plus a set of modeling choices (alpha-viscosity, 2D symmetry, idealized initial torus, numerical floor) that the authors themselves flag as sources of order-unity uncertainty. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • L0, Mdot1, Mdot2 fitting parameters of Eq. (13) = L0 = 4.2e52 erg/s * alpha_vis,0.05 * r_ms,0.8^(5/8) * M_BH,3; Mdot1 = 0.020 M_sun/s * alpha_vis,0.05^(5/3) *…
    Fitted to the simulation data in Fig. 4; exponents partly chosen as rational numbers to reproduce the numerical fits and partly anchored to scalings from Zalamea and Beloborodov (2011).
  • Effective alpha-viscosity parameter alpha_vis = 0.05 default; varied 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15
    Chosen by hand to parametrize angular momentum transport; outflow launching and Lpair depend strongly on it, and it is not derived from MHD.
  • Numerical floor density rho_floor,0 = 1 g/cm^3 (and 0.1 g/cm^3 in MT01s08DF01)
    Imposed as lower bound on conserved rest-mass density; the terminal Lorentz factor of the outflow increases by about an order of magnitude when the floor is lowered by 10x.
  • Initial torus entropy per baryon = 6 k_B
    Set for all models; affects torus structure and neutrino emission, but not systematically varied.
  • MC packet target Ntrg = 120 (36 for MT01s095, MT03s095)
    Chosen for cost; MC shot noise estimated below 10%, but high-spin models required a density cut on Lpair to avoid fluctuations.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Fixed Kerr-Schild background metric for the black hole
    The spacetime is not evolved; the metric is prescribed for given BH mass and spin (Sec II).
  • domain assumption Axisymmetry and equatorial plane symmetry
    Matter and radiation are evolved in 2D; non-axisymmetric effects such as the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the jet edge are suppressed by construction (Sec II, Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Alpha-viscosity prescription for angular momentum transport
    MHD turbulence is modeled via Shakura-Sunyaev alpha viscosity with alpha_vis=0.05 default; the actual angular momentum transport and heating are not solved (Sec II, Sec VI A).
  • domain assumption Neutrino interaction rates from Bruenn (1985) and Horowitz (2002)
    Electron/positron captures, pair annihilation and iso-energy scattering rates are taken from cited literature (Sec II).
  • ad hoc to paper Idealized initial condition: isolated torus without merger ejecta envelope
    The polar region starts free of baryon pollution; authors state this is an optimal condition for jet launching and that real merger remnants likely have high-density matter along the axis (Sec VI B).
  • ad hoc to paper Restriction of Lpair integral to rho <= 10^11 g/cm^3 for MT01s095 and MT03s095
    Applied to avoid MC shot noise in high-density torus regions; may undercount Lpair if those regions contribute (Sec IV, Fig. 3 caption).
  • ad hoc to paper Use of f proportional to r_ms^(-1/2) from their own Fig. 3 in the analytic scaling estimate
    The analytic estimate of Lpair scaling uses their own measured efficiency relation as input, which partially embeds the result into the derivation (Sec V C).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino pair annihilation driven jets from black-hole torus systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPLQS2JJ

@misc{pith2026250601679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino pair annihilation driven jets from black-hole torus systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPLQS2JJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01679}
}
abstract

We perform axisymmetric general relativistic radiation-viscous hydrodynamics simulations of black hole (BH)-torus systems with full Boltzmann Monte-Carlo neutrino transport to investigate the role of neutrino-antineutrino pair annihilation in launching relativistic outflows. Our models span a wide range of BH spins, torus masses, and viscosity parameters. We find that the pair annihilation leads to the formation of relativistic fireballs in most cases, except for those with low black-hole spin and high viscosity. The isotropic-equivalent energies of these outflows reach $\lesssim 10^{51}\,{\rm erg}$ with durations $\lesssim 0.2\,{\rm s}$. While this is insufficient to explain the brightest short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs), our results suggest that the pair annihilation may account for some low-luminosity sGRBs and GRB precursors. We also provide updated scaling relations for the pair annihilation energy deposition rate as a function of accretion rate, and discuss the sensitivity of outflow properties to numerical resolution and floor density.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Snapshots of the fiducial model (MT01s08) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mass accretion rate onto the BH as a function of time. The top left, top right, bottom left, and bottom right panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Total pair annihilation deposition rate as a function of the accretion rate to the BH for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Snapshots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Left panel) Luminosity of the relativistic outflow for the fiducial model. The results for the models with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Isotropic luminosity of the relativistic outflow with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Left panel) Latitudinal profile of the isotropic outflow luminosity averaged over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. (Left panel) Latitudinal profile of the isotropic outflow luminosity averaged over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [89]

    Kawaguchi, S

    K. Kawaguchi, S. Fujibayashi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023015 (2025), arXiv:2410.02380 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Paczynski, ApJ 308, L43 (1986)

    B. Paczynski, ApJ 308, L43 (1986)

    1986

  3. [2]

    Goodman, ApJ 308, L47 (1986)

    J. Goodman, ApJ 308, L47 (1986)

    1986

  4. [3]

    W. Fong, E. Berger, and D. B. Fox, ApJ 708, 9 (2010), arXiv:0909.1804 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [4]

    W.-f. Fong, A. E. Nugent, Y. Dong, E. Berger, K. Pa- terson, R. Chornock, A. Levan, P. Blanchard, K. D. Alexander, J. Andrews, B. E. Cobb, A. Cucchiara, D. Fox, C. L. Fryer, A. C. Gordon, C. D. Kilpatrick, R. Lunnan, R. Margutti, A. Miller, P. Milne, M. Nicholl, D. Perley, J. Rastinejad, A. R. Escorial, G. Schroeder, N. Smith, N. Tanvir, and G. Terreran, ...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    A. E. Nugent, W.-F. Fong, Y. Dong, J. Leja, E. Berger, M. Zevin, R. Chornock, B. E. Cobb, L. Z. Kelley, C. D. Kilpatrick, A. Levan, R. Margutti, K. Paterson, D. Per- ley, A. R. Escorial, N. Smith, and N. Tanvir, ApJ 940, 57 (2022), arXiv:2206.01764 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    O’Connor, E

    B. O’Connor, E. Troja, S. Dichiara, P. Beniamini, S. B. Cenko, C. Kouveliotou, J. B. Gonz´ alez, J. Durbak, P. Gatkine, A. Kutyrev, T. Sakamoto, R. S´ anchez- Ram ´ ırez, and S. Veilleux, MNRAS515, 4890 (2022), arXiv:2204.09059 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Iwamoto, P

    K. Iwamoto, P. A. Mazzali, K. Nomoto, H. Umeda, T. Nakamura, F. Patat, I. J. Danziger, T. R. Young, T. Suzuki, T. Shigeyama, T. Augusteijn, V. Doublier, J.-F. Gonzalez, H. Boehnhardt, J. Brewer, O. R. Hain- aut, C. Lidman, B. Leibundgut, E. Cappellaro, M. Tu- ratto, T. J. Galama, P. M. Vreeswijk, C. Kouveliotou, J. van Paradijs, E. Pian, E. Palazzi, and F...

    arXiv 1998

Show all 122 references
  1. [8]

    K. Z. Stanek, T. Matheson, P. M. Garnavich, P. Mar- tini, P. Berlind, N. Caldwell, P. Challis, W. R. Brown, R. Schild, K. Krisciunas, M. L. Calkins, J. C. Lee, N. Hathi, R. A. Jansen, R. Windhorst, L. Echevarria, D. J. Eisenstein, B. Pindor, E. W. Olszewski, P. Hard- ing, S. T...

    2003 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. I. MacFadyen and S. E. Woosley, ApJ 524, 262 (1999), astro-ph/9810274

    1999 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Shibata, S

    M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, S. Wanajo, K. Ioka, A. T.-L. Lam, and Y. Sekiguchi, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2502.02077 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Nakar, Phys

    E. Nakar, Phys. Rept. 442, 166 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0701748

    2007

  5. [12]

    Berger, Ann

    E. Berger, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 43 (2014), arXiv:1311.2603 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    B. P. Gompertz et al., Nature Astron. 7, 67 (2023), arXiv:2205.05008 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    J. C. Rastinejad et al., Nature 612, 223 (2022), arXiv:2204.10864 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Troja et al., Nature 612, 228 (2022), arXiv:2209.03363 [astro-ph.HE]

    E. Troja et al., Nature 612, 228 (2022), arXiv:2209.03363 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    A. J. Levan et al. (JWST), Nature 626, 737 (2024), arXiv:2307.02098 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    R. D. Blandford and D. G. Payne, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 199, 883 (1982)

    1982

  11. [18]

    S. S. Komissarov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 359, 801 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501599

    2005 arXiv

  12. [19]

    J. C. McKinney, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 368, 1561 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603045

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    M. V. Barkov and S. S. Komissarov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 385, 28 (2008), arXiv:0710.2654 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [21]

    S. S. Komissarov and M. V. Barkov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 397, 1153–1168 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Tchekhovskoy, R

    A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKin- ney, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418, L79 (2011), arXiv:1108.0412 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Bromberg and A

    O. Bromberg and A. Tchekhovskoy, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 456, 1739 (2016), arXiv:1508.02721 [astro- ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Gottlieb, A

    O. Gottlieb, A. Lalakos, O. Bromberg, M. Liska, and A. Tchekhovskoy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 510, 4962 (2022), arXiv:2109.14619 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Hayashi, K

    K. Hayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, (2024), arXiv:2410.10958 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    B. D. Metzger, D. Giannios, T. A. Thompson, N. Buc- ciantini, and E. Quataert, MNRAS 413, 2031 (2011), arXiv:1012.0001 [astro-ph.HE]. 21

    2011 arXiv

  20. [27]

    M¨ osta, D

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

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    E. R. Most and E. Quataert, Astrophys. J. Lett. 947, L15 (2023), arXiv:2303.08062 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kiuchi, A

    K. Kiuchi, A. Reboul-Salze, M. Shibata, and Y. Sekiguchi, Nature Astron. 8, 298 (2024), arXiv:2306.15721 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Meszaros and M

    P. Meszaros and M. J. Rees, ApJ 405, 278 (1993)

    1993

  24. [31]

    Jaroszynski, A&A 305, 839 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9506062 [astro-ph]

    M. Jaroszynski, A&A 305, 839 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9506062 [astro-ph]

    1996

  25. [32]

    Popham, S

    R. Popham, S. E. Woosley, and C. Fryer, ApJ 518, 356 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9807028 [astro-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. Hotokezaka, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 41 (2019), arXiv:1908.02350 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Kyutoku, M

    K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Living Rev. Rel. 24, 5 (2021), arXiv:2110.06218 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Shibata, S

    M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D96, 123012 (2017), arXiv:1710.07579 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Fujibayashi, K

    S. Fujibayashi, K. Kiuchi, N. Nishimura, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Astrophys. J. 860, 64 (2018), arXiv:1711.02093 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Fujibayashi, M

    S. Fujibayashi, M. Shibata, S. Wanajo, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and Y. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083029 (2020), arXiv:2001.04467 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Hayashi, S

    K. Hayashi, S. Fujibayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D106, 023008 (2022), arXiv:2111.04621 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Hayashi, K

    K. Hayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123001 (2023), arXiv:2211.07158 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Kiuchi, S

    K. Kiuchi, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hayashi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 011401 (2023), arXiv:2211.07637 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [41]

    O. Just, V. Vijayan, Z. Xiong, S. Goriely, T. Soulta- nis, A. Bauswein, J. Guilet, H. T. Janka, H.-T. Janka, and G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L12 (2023), arXiv:2302.10928 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Shibata, S

    M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, and Y. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063026 (2021), arXiv:2109.08732 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Shibata, S

    M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, and Y. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043022 (2021), arXiv:2102.01346 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Muller, H.-T

    B. Muller, H.-T. Janka, and H. Dimmelmeier, Astro- phys. J. Suppl. 189, 104 (2010), arXiv:1001.4841 [astro- ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Fujibayashi, K

    S. Fujibayashi, K. Takahashi, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shi- bata, Astrophys. J. 919, 80 (2021), arXiv:2102.04467 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Fujibayashi, Y

    S. Fujibayashi, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and S. Wanajo, Astrophys. J. 956, 100 (2023), arXiv:2212.03958 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Fujibayashi, A

    S. Fujibayashi, A. T.-L. Lam, M. Shibata, and Y. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023031 (2024), arXiv:2309.02161 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Shibata, S

    M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, A. T.-L. Lam, K. Ioka, and Y. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043051 (2024), arXiv:2309.12086 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Kuroda and M

    T. Kuroda and M. Shibata, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 152 (2023), arXiv:2307.06192 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Shibagaki, T

    S. Shibagaki, T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, T. Takiwaki, and T. Fischer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531, 3732 (2024), arXiv:2309.05161 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Kuroda and M

    T. Kuroda and M. Shibata, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, L107 (2024), arXiv:2404.02792 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [52]

    D. Issa, O. Gottlieb, B. Metzger, J. Jacquemin-Ide, M. Liska, F. Foucart, G. Halevi, and A. Tchekhovskoy, (2024), arXiv:2410.02852 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    S. W. Bruenn, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 58, 771 (1985)

    1985

  47. [54]

    Stellar Collapse (Springer Netherlands, 2004)

    2004

  48. [55]

    Galeazzi, W

    F. Galeazzi, W. Kastaun, L. Rezzolla, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064009 (2013), arXiv:1306.4953 [gr- qc]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Neilsen, S

    D. Neilsen, S. L. Liebling, M. Anderson, L. Lehner, E. O’Connor, and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104029 (2014), arXiv:1403.3680 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [57]

    H. R. Takahashi and K. Ohsuga, ApJ 772, 127 (2013), arXiv:1306.0049 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Sadowski, R

    A. Sadowski, R. Narayan, J. C. McKinney, and A. Tchekhovskoy, MNRAS 439, 503 (2014), arXiv:1311.5900 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [59]

    J. C. McKinney, A. Tchekhovskoy, A. Sadowski, and R. Narayan, MNRAS441, 3177 (2014), arXiv:1312.6127 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Sadowski, R

    A. Sadowski, R. Narayan, A. Tchekhovskoy, D. Abarca, Y. Zhu, and J. C. McKinney, MNRAS 447, 49 (2015), arXiv:1407.4421 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shi- bata, Phys. Rev. D91, 064059 (2015), arXiv:1502.06660 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Foucart, E

    F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, L. Roberts, M. D. Duez, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Ott, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Phys. Rev. D91, 124021 (2015), arXiv:1502.04146 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D93, 124046 (2016), arXiv:1603.01918 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Radice, F

    D. Radice, F. Galeazzi, J. Lippuner, L. F. Roberts, C. D. Ott, and L. Rezzolla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 3255 (2016), arXiv:1601.02426 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Radice, S

    D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, and R. Haas, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 512, 1499 (2022), arXiv:2111.14858 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Kiuchi, L

    K. Kiuchi, L. E. Held, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shi- bata, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2205.04487 (2022), arXiv:2205.04487 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [67]

    L. Sun, M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro, and A. Tsokaros, Phys. Rev. D 105, 104028 (2022), arXiv:2202.12901 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [68]

    L. R. Werneck et al., Phys. Rev. D 107, 044037 (2023), arXiv:2208.14487 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Foucart, P

    F. Foucart, P. C.-K. Cheong, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kid- der, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2407.15989 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Ruffert and H

    M. Ruffert and H. T. Janka, Astron. Astrophys. 344, 573 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9809280

    1999 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Setiawan, M

    S. Setiawan, M. Ruffert, and H.-T. Janka, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 352, 753 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0402481

    2004

  65. [72]

    Setiawan, M

    S. Setiawan, M. Ruffert, and H. T. Janka, Astron. As- trophys. 458, 553 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509300

    2006 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Richers, D

    S. Richers, D. Kasen, E. O’Connor, R. Fern´ andez, and C. D. Ott, Astrophys. J. 813, 38 (2015), arXiv:1507.03606 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Perego, H

    A. Perego, H. Yasin, and A. Arcones, J. Phys. G 44, 084007 (2017), arXiv:1701.02017 [astro-ph.HE]. 22

    2017 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Sumiyoshi, S

    K. Sumiyoshi, S. Fujibayashi, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shi- bata, Astrophys. J. 907, 92 (2021), arXiv:2010.10865 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [76]

    O. Just, M. Obergaulinger, H. T. Janka, A. Bauswein, and N. Schwarz, Astrophys. J. Lett. 816, L30 (2016), arXiv:1510.04288 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Fujibayashi, Y

    S. Fujibayashi, Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, and M. Shibata, Astrophys. J. 846, 114 (2017), arXiv:1703.10191 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Abdikamalov, A

    E. Abdikamalov, A. Burrows, C. D. Ott, F. L¨ offler, E. O’Connor, J. C. Dolence, and E. Schnetter, ApJ755, 111 (2012), arXiv:1203.2915 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Roth and D

    N. Roth and D. Kasen, ApJS 217, 9 (2015), arXiv:1404.4652 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  73. [80]

    B. R. Ryan, J. C. Dolence, and C. F. Gammie, ApJ807, 31 (2015), arXiv:1505.05119 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  74. [82]

    J. M. Miller, B. R. Ryan, J. C. Dolence, A. Burrows, C. J. Fontes, C. L. Fryer, O. Korobkin, J. Lippuner, M. R. Mumpower, and R. T. Wollaeger, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023008 (2019), arXiv:1905.07477 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    J. M. Miller, B. R. Ryan, and J. C. Dolence, ApJS 241, 30 (2019), arXiv:1903.09273 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Foucart, M

    F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, F. Hebert, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Astrophys. J. Lett. 902, L27 (2020), arXiv:2008.08089 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Foucart, M

    F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, F. H´ ebert, L. E. Kidder, P. Ko- varik, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, ApJ 920, 82 (2021), arXiv:2103.16588 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    N. Roth, P. Anninos, P. B. Robinson, J. L. Peterson, B. Polak, T. K. Mangan, and K. Beyer, ApJ 933, 226 (2022), arXiv:2206.01760 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    M. R. Izquierdo, J. F. Abalos, and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043044 (2024), arXiv:2312.09275 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Kawaguchi, S

    K. Kawaguchi, S. Fujibayashi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023026 (2023), arXiv:2209.12472 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [90]

    J. A. Font, J. M. Ib´ a˜ nez, and P. Papadopoulos, ApJ 507, L67 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805269 [astro-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Shibata, K

    M. Shibata, K. Kiuchi, and Y.-i. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 95, 083005 (2017), arXiv:1703.10303 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  83. [92]

    S. A. Balbus and J. F. Hawley, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1 (1998)

    1998

  84. [93]

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

    1973

  85. [94]

    C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D 65, 043001 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0109209

    2002 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Meszaros and M

    P. Meszaros and M. J. Rees, Astrophys. J. 530, 292 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908126

    2000 arXiv

  87. [96]

    B. D. Metzger, A. L. Piro, and E. Quataert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.390, 781 (2008), arXiv:0805.4415 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Chen and A

    W.-X. Chen and A. M. Beloborodov, Astrophys. J. 657, 383 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607145

    2007 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Zalamea and A

    I. Zalamea and A. M. Beloborodov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 410, 2302 (2011), arXiv:1003.0710 [astro- ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Agarwal, D

    A. Agarwal, D. M. Siegel, B. D. Metzger, and C. Nagele, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2503.15729 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  91. [100]

    M. A. Aloy, H. T. Janka, and E. Muller, eConf C041213, 0109 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0408291

    2004 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Birkl, M

    R. Birkl, M. A. Aloy, H. T. Janka, and E. Mueller, Astron. Astrophys. 463, 51 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0608543

    2007

  93. [102]

    Liu, F.-W

    Z.-Y. Liu, F.-W. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhu, Research in As- tronomy and Astrophysics 21, 254 (2021)

    2021

  94. [103]

    Janka, P

    H.-T. Janka, P. A. Mazzali, M. A. Aloy, and E. Pian, As- trophys. J. 645, 1305 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509722

    2006 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Troja, S

    E. Troja, S. Rosswog, and N. Gehrels, ApJ 723, 1711 (2010), arXiv:1009.1385 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Xiao et al., Astrophys

    S. Xiao et al., Astrophys. J. 970, 6 (2024), arXiv:2205.02186 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Kiuchi, Y

    K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D80, 064037 (2009), arXiv:0904.4551 [gr- qc]

    2009 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Dietrich, M

    T. Dietrich, M. Ujevic, W. Tichy, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Bruegmann, Phys. Rev. D95, 024029 (2017), arXiv:1607.06636 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Schianchi, M

    F. Schianchi, M. Ujevic, A. Neuweiler, H. Gieg, I. Markin, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123011 (2024), arXiv:2402.16626 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Karakas, R

    B. Karakas, R. Matur, and M. Ruffert, arXiv (2024), arXiv:2405.13687 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  101. [110]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, T. Muranushi, Y.-i. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044026 (2013), arXiv:1307.5888 [astro- ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Astrophys. J. 876, L31 (2019), arXiv:1903.01466 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  103. [112]

    Gottlieb, S

    O. Gottlieb, S. Moseley, T. Ramirez-Aguilar, A. Murguia-Berthier, M. Liska, and A. Tchekhovskoy, Astrophys. J. Lett. 933, L2 (2022), arXiv:2205.01691 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  104. [113]

    Foucart, Mon

    F. Foucart, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475, 4186 (2018), arXiv:1708.08452 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  105. [114]

    Kyutoku, K

    K. Kyutoku, K. Ioka, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D92, 044028 (2015), arXiv:1502.05402 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  106. [115]

    Kyutoku, H

    K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064018 (2011), arXiv:1108.1189 [astro- ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  107. [116]

    Rosswog, Astrophys

    S. Rosswog, Astrophys. J. 634, 1202 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508138 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  108. [117]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D77, 084015 (2008), arXiv:0711.1410 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Z. B. Etienne, Y. T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, and T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D79, 044024 (2009), arXiv:0812.2245 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  110. [119]

    Lovelace, M

    G. Lovelace, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilegyi, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 135004 (2013), arXiv:1302.6297 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  111. [120]

    Foucart, T

    F. Foucart, T. Hinderer, and S. Nissanke, Phys. Rev. D98, 081501 (2018), arXiv:1807.00011 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  112. [121]

    Fern´ andez, A

    R. Fern´ andez, A. Tchekhovskoy, E. Quataert, F. Fou- cart, and D. Kasen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482, 3373 (2019), arXiv:1808.00461 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  113. [122]

    I. M. Christie, A. Lalakos, A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Fern´ andez, F. Foucart, E. Quataert, and D. Kasen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 490, 4811 (2019), arXiv:1907.02079 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  114. [123]

    Fujibayashi, M

    S. Fujibayashi, M. Shibata, S. Wanajo, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and Y. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 102, 23 123014 (2020), arXiv:2009.03895 [astro-ph.HE]. Appendix A: Grid resolution and density floor effects The finite grid resolution and presence of floor density in the simulations...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.