Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 26 references

GenASiS: General Astrophysical Simulation System. II. Self-gravitating Baryonic Matter

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new GPU-accelerated Poisson and finite-volume solver passes known Newtonian collapse tests, and adiabatic core-collapse supernova models show shock speed and kinetic energy anti-correlated with progenitor compactness.

desk verdict Solid methods paper with credible solver validation; the headline anti-correlation is under-quantified but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.02507 v2 pith:ZW7KQRQH submitted 2026-01-22 astro-ph.HE physics.comp-ph

Christian Y. Cardall , Reuben D. Budiardja , R. Daniel Murphy , Eirik Endeve This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph MSC 85A1585-0865M08 PACS 95.30.Lz97.60.Bw
keywords core-collapsesupernovaeNewtonianself-gravityPoissonsolverfinite-volumemethodsGPUaccelerationtabularequationsofstatecompactnessparameteradiabaticcollapsebenchmark
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 introduces the Newtonian self-gravity and updated finite-volume capabilities of GenASiS, a simulation system aimed at core-collapse supernovae. The authors test a multipole Poisson solver and a shock-capturing fluid solver on homogeneous spheroids, on dust collapse, and on self-similar polytropic collapse, all of which match known solutions. They then simulate the adiabatic collapse, bounce, and prompt explosion of eleven pre-supernova progenitors with a tabulated equation of state, finding that the average shock speed and total kinetic energy of the explosion are inversely correlated with the mass at the onset of collapse and with the compactness parameter—most tightly with compactness. Because the same solvers run efficiently on GPUs, the paper proposes this adiabatic benchmark as a reproducible standard for comparing core-collapse supernova codes before neutrino transport is added.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a multipole Poisson solver: it expands the Green's function 1/|r−r′| in real spherical harmonics, computes angular moments of the density in each radial shell, and performs outward and inward radial integrations to obtain regular and irregular moments—so the cost scales with the number of radial shells times a modest number of multipole terms. The fluid dynamics rests on a finite-volume method with parabolic reconstruction constrained to be monotone, explicit time stepping, a tabulated baryonic equation of state, and a spherical-coordinate mesh that coarsens angular cell blocks near the origin and polar axis so that the explicit time-step limit is set by the radial c

What would settle it

Run the adiabatic explosion for the same eleven progenitors with the outer boundary extended well beyond 10^4 km (or record the full shock-radius time series) and recompute average shock speed; similarly vary the compactness mass cut in the compactness definition over a range such as 1.5–3.5 solar masses. If the anti-correlation with compactness becomes noisy or reverses, the claimed trend depends on the measurement window and the single mass scale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that GenASiS now handles Newtonian self-gravity and baryonic fluid dynamics reliably: a multipole Poisson solver converges to the analytic potential of homogeneous spheroids, and the fluid solver reproduces the collapse of a dust sphere, a dust spheroid, and a self-similar polytropic sphere. In the adiabatic collapse, bounce, and prompt explosion of eleven pre-supernova progenitors, the paper finds that the explosions are prompt, remain spherically symmetric in 1D, 2D, and 3D, and that the average shock expansion speed and total kinetic energy are inversely correlated with the mass at the onset of collapse and with the compactness parameter evaluated at 2.5

Load-bearing premise

The headline result rests on two hand-picked measurement definitions—the average shock speed from first detection to just before the outer boundary at about 10^4 km, and the compactness at a single mass cut of 2.5 solar masses—rather than on the solver validation itself; if these definitions are not representative, the inverse correlation could be an artifact of how the explosion and the progenitor structure were measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the validation holds, GenASiS becomes a production-capable Newtonian self-gravity code for problems with tabulated equations of state, including relativistic approximations that fit into a Poisson-like framework.
  • The proposed adiabatic collapse-bounce-explosion benchmark could become a community standard: persistent code-to-code differences on this simplified problem could be traced to mesh, reconstruction, gravity solver, or equation-of-state handling before neutrino transport is added.
  • The tight inverse correlation between shock speed and compactness gives a quantitative baseline: in adiabatic models, more compact cores explode more slowly and with less kinetic energy, informing expectations for 'explodability' studies with more complete physics.
  • The reported speedup of roughly 15x for GPU over CPU-only runs indicates the solvers are practical on current accelerator-based supercomputers, making the benchmark reproducible on such machines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the compactness–vigour anti-correlation survives the addition of neutrinos and multidimensional stochasticity, a single pre-collapse measurement (the 2.5-solar-mass compactness) could serve as a quick predictor of explosion kinetic energy in supernova models.
  • Because the average shock speed is a two-point estimate truncated by the outer boundary at about 10^4 km, the headline correlation may depend on boundary placement and shock-detection criteria; moving the boundary outward or using a shock-radius time series would test this.
  • The coarsening-block technique for spherical-coordinate singularities could transfer to other central or polar problems—self-gravitating cloud collapse, accretion disks, or any spherical-grid simulation—regardless of the application domain.
  • The released dataset would allow re-analysis with different compactness mass cuts (say 1.5–3.5 solar masses) or integral density measures, which might reveal whether the single mass scale of 2.5 solar masses is the optimal predictor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This methods paper (GenASiS II) adds Newtonian self-gravity and updated finite-volume hydrodynamics to the GenASiS framework. The Poisson solver uses a multipole expansion with GPU offloading, and the fluid solver uses parabolic reconstruction, tabulated baryonic equations of state, and angular coarsening to handle spherical-coordinate singularities. The new solvers are validated against four external test problems: the analytic potential of homogeneous spheroids, the collapse of a homogeneous dust sphere, the collapse of a homogeneous dust spheroid, and the self-similar polytropic collapse solution of Yahil and collaborators. The paper then presents adiabatic collapse, bounce, and explosion simulations of 11 pre-supernova progenitors, proposes this problem as a community benchmark, and reports that the average shock speed and total kinetic energy are inversely correlated with the progenitor mass at collapse and with the compactness parameter.

Significance. The solver-validation component is strong and is the main scientific contribution: the four external benchmarks are genuine, with independently derived reference solutions, and the reported convergence behavior (Figures 5, 7, 9, 12) is consistent with the expected orders. The public dataset and released code are valuable assets, and the proposed adiabatic benchmark is well timed given known code-to-code differences in core-collapse supernova modeling. The headline physical trend in §3.5 is plausible and physically motivated, but its robustness is not yet established because it rests on several definitional choices that are not tested. If those choices are demonstrated to be inconsequential, or if the claims are suitably qualified, the paper would be a solid contribution to the CCSN methods literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.5, Eq. (67), Figures 19–20] The headline physical claim—average shock speed and total kinetic energy inversely correlated with collapse mass and compactness—rests on two hand-chosen definitions. The average shock speed is a two-point estimate: 'first detected' and 'just before the shock passes the grid boundary' at r_out≈1.09×10^4 km, but the detection criterion is not specified and the trajectory is truncated. Compactness is evaluated only at m=2.5 M_sun (Eq. 67), and the time at which the total kinetic energy is evaluated is not stated. No sensitivity tests are reported for these choices. Since this trend is proposed as a benchmark baseline expectation, please specify the shock-detection algorithm, test alternative detection criteria and outer-boundary placements, show compactness at several m values (e.g., 1.5, 2.0, 3.0 M_sun), and report correlation coefficients. Without these, the 'especially tight' anti-corre
  2. [§2.3 and §3.5] Near the coordinate singularities the code coarsens angular blocks and, in the collapse runs, zeroes lateral momenta in the first polar cell and within 0.1 r_core. These operations can suppress non-radial degrees of freedom by construction, yet the paper claims the 3D runs remain spherically symmetric and are 'visually indistinguishable' from 1D/2D. A quantitative comparison (e.g., L1 or L∞ differences between 1D, 2D, and 3D radial profiles) and a test with the lateral-momentum zeroing disabled or with varied coarsening thresholds should be reported to show that the benchmark result is not an artifact of this regularization.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (21)] The summation over r∈{R,I} is easy to misread as requiring both regular and irregular terms at every radius; in fact the two terms are mutually exclusive Green's-function pieces. Please rewrite the expression with interior and exterior contributions clearly labeled.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (8)–(16)] The symbol A^a_lm is used both for angular kernel functions and for angular moments of the source (Eq. 14). Different notation for the moments (e.g., calligraphic A) would avoid confusion.
  3. [§3.4] Please state how D(0)=1.75 is selected from Yahil (1983) and how the error in the numerically integrated ODE reference solution is controlled; as written, the reference solution is not fully reproducible from the text.
  4. [§3.5 and Abstract] The abstract's 'multidimensional computations' covers 2D for all eleven progenitors but only S12, S25, and S40 in 3D. Please state this explicitly in the abstract or conclusions to avoid overgeneralization.
  5. [§3.5, Figure 19] The evaluation time and definition of 'total kinetic energy' used in Figure 19 should be stated in the caption or text; currently the reader must infer it from context.
  6. [§2.3] Typo: 'neighbhors' should be 'neighbors'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: solver validation uses external analytic and semi-analytic benchmarks, and the headline explosion correlations are direct simulation outputs rather than fitted or definitionally forced quantities.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained against external references. The Poisson solver is tested against the analytic potential of homogeneous spheroids from Binney & Tremaine (2008); dust collapse is compared with the parametric solution and the Lin et al. (1965) ODE system; polytropic collapse is compared with the self-similar solution of Yahil (1983) and Yahil & Lattimer (1982). These are independent, externally supplied solutions, not quantities re-derived from the code's own outputs. The headline anti-correlation between average shock speed / kinetic energy and progenitor collapse mass / compactness is a reported property of simulation results, not a fitted parameter or an analytic identity. Compactness (Eq. 67) and the two-point shock-speed definition are explicit measurement choices, and while their robustness could be questioned, they do not make the trend true by construction: compactness is computed from the progenitor structure, while shock speed and kinetic energy are extracted from the dynamical evolution. Self-citations (Paper I, Budiardja & Cardall 2019, Cardall 2021) document prior code infrastructure and numerical techniques; they do not supply the physical conclusions or suppress alternatives. The paper also states its own limitations, notably that the adiabatic models omit neutrino physics and that multidimensional stochastic dynamics may alter the trends, which further indicates the claims are presented as empirical numerical findings rather than as necessary consequences of imposed assumptions. No step in the paper reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central validation is done against externally published analytic and semi-analytic solutions (Binney & Tremaine; Lin et al. 1965; Yahil & Lattimer 1982; Yahil 1983), so the paper's physics load is moderate. Analysis-relevant free choices: compactness mass scale m=2.5 M_sun, mesh aspect-ratio design, multipole truncation L, and CFL factor C; the reference ODE solutions depend on one value (D(0)=1.75) adopted from Yahil (1983). The paper-specific devices (coarsening, momentum zeroing) and the Newtonian+adiabatic+LS220 physics package bound the generality of the explosion benchmarks. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Compactness mass threshold m = 2.5 M_sun (Eq. 67) = 2.5 M_sun
    Hand-chosen scale at which compactness ξ_m is evaluated at the onset of collapse; the 'especially tight' anti-correlation of Figure 20 is specific to this value, with no sensitivity scan over m.
  • Angular-to-radial resolution ratio N_θ/N_core = 32/25 = 32/25
    Chosen in §2.1 so r_core Δθ/Δr_min ≈ 2.45, deliberately biasing resolution toward radial variations; an analysis-affecting mesh design choice.
  • Maximum multipole degree L = L=12 for runs; L=20 for spheroid convergence tests
    Truncation of the multipole expansion (§2.2); justified by the convergence tests in Figure 5, but fixed as a hand-set accuracy control in production runs.
  • Courant factor C = 0.7
    Standard CFL safety factor in Eq. (33), chosen by numerical practice (§3).
  • Self-similar reference boundary value D(0)=1.75 for γ=1.30 = 1.75
    Adopted from Yahil (1983) Table 2 to generate the polytropic reference solution (Figure 10); an upstream-published input, not fitted here, but load-bearing for the §3.4 test.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Newtonian gravity: ∇²Φ = S with S = 4πGρ (Eqs. 1, 38)
    The gravity model of the paper; the authors explicitly note full general relativity would be ideal and that the Poisson solver is a foundation for Newtonian and approximate-relativistic treatments (§1, §2.2).
  • standard math Multipole expansion (Eq. 3) reproduced with real angular kernels; truncation at L gives accurate potentials for quasi-spherical sources
    Standard spherical-harmonic expansion; convergence behavior verified in Figure 5 for the spheroid test.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic evolution without neutrino transport is the intended physics of the benchmark
    Stated as 'adiabatic (without neutrino interactions) collapse' (§3.5); the authors self-declare the resulting explosions are a code-comparison test 'not directly relevant to comparisons with astronomical observations' (§4).
  • domain assumption Woosley & Heger (2007) pre-SN progenitor models, 1D and spherically symmetric, are valid initial conditions with collapse already underway and outer boundary at ≈10^4 km in the oxygen shell
    All explosion trends in Figures 17-20 inherit the structure, mass, and compactness of these externally generated models (§3.5).
  • domain assumption LS220 equation of state (Lattimer & Swesty 1991) via stellarcollapse.org routines captures baryonic matter including the nuclear phase transition
    The EOS determines bounce and explosion dynamics; its phase transition is implicated in the acknowledged r≈10 km numerical artifact (Figure 15).
  • domain assumption The dust-spheroid reference ODEs (Eqs. 53-55) of Lin et al. (1965), as corrected here, are correct
    The paper asserts a typographic error in Eq. (21) of Lin et al. (1965) and provides the correction; the §3.3 validation depends on that asserted external result.
  • standard math The Yahil-Lattimer self-similar ODE system (Eqs. 61-66), integrated through the critical point with a monotonic-density forcing, is the correct reference
    Reference solution generation (§3.4) requires linearization at the critical point and an imposed monotonic density decrease; external in origin, but its numerical generation involves paper-specific choices.
  • ad hoc to paper Angular coarsening blocks and zeroing of lateral momenta within 0.1 r_core and the first polar cell do not corrupt the spherical symmetry of the solutions
    Paper-specific numerical devices (§2.1, §2.3) for coping with coordinate singularities; the 1D/2D/3D agreement is the evidence they are benign, but the devices are not independently benchmarked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GenASiS: General Astrophysical Simulation System. II. Self-gravitating Baryonic Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZW7KQRQH

@misc{pith2026260202507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GenASiS: General Astrophysical Simulation System. II. Self-gravitating Baryonic Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZW7KQRQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.02507}
}
read the original abstract

GenASiS (General Astrophysical Simulation System) is a code being developed initially and primarily, though not exclusively, for the simulation of core-collapse supernovae on the world's leading capability supercomputers. This paper -- the second in a series -- documents capabilities for Newtonian self-gravitating fluid dynamics, including tabulated microphysical equations of state treating nuclei and nuclear matter (`baryonic matter'). Computation of the gravitational potential of a spheroid, and simulation of the gravitational collapse of dust and of an ideal fluid, provide tests of self-gravitation against known solutions. In multidimensional computations of the adiabatic collapse, bounce, and explosion of spherically symmetric pre-supernova progenitors -- which we propose become a standard benchmark for code comparisons -- we find that the explosions are prompt and remain spherically symmetric (as expected), with an average shock expansion speed and total kinetic energy that are inversely correlated with the progenitor mass at the onset of collapse and the compactness parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.02507 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example 2D spherical coordinate mesh, in coordinate space (left) and physical space (right), showing the full mesh extent (top) and a region closer to r = 0 (bottom). For r > rcore = 1.25 the radial cell width ∆r ∝ r, yielding a constant polar/radial cell aspect ratio r ∆θ/∆r (here ≈ 2.45). For r < rcore the cell radial width ∆rmin is uniform and the polar/radial aspect ratio rapidly decreases with decreasing r. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example 3D spherical coordinate mesh, in coordinate space (top) and physical space (bottom), showing the full mesh extent (left) and a region closer to r = 0 (right), with the r = 0.25 plane exposed in coordinate space (upper right). The coarsening blocks (randomly colored) now appear along the polar axis as well as near the origin and are now two-dimensional, with the block size in each angular dimension determi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example field, sinusoidal in polar (2D, 3D) and azimuthal (3D) angles and displayed in coordinate space, has been coarsened by averaging over the blocks displayed in Figures 1 and 2. tends to zero as r → 0, and the azimuthal cell width r sin θ ∆ϕ tends to zero as θ → 0 and θ → π for all r. This difficulty has been dealt with in a number of ways; see for instance Asaithambi & Mahesh (2017); Skinner et al. (2019); … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three-slice of the computed gravitational potential (left) and its relative error (right) for a three-dimensional oblate spheroid with e = 0.9. For both plots, the shape of the spheroid is outlined in black. 1e-07 1e-06 1e-05 1e-04 1e-03 1000 L1 Error 1 / ∆rmin e = 0.0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: L1 error of the potential as a function of resolution (left) computed with L = 20 and number of multipole terms L (right) computed with Nθ = 384 for spheroids with different eccentricities. The solid and dashed black lines are references for first- and second-order con…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density profile of the spherical dust collapse prob￾lem with Newtonian gravity and Nθ = 192, showing the ini￾tial (red points) and final (t ≈ 0.9544 t∞, blue points and black analytic solution) states. Computed results for 1D, 2D, and 3D are visually indistinguishable.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: L1 error of density as a function of resolution for the spherical dust collapse problem in 1D. The solid black line is a reference for first-order convergence, expected for a discontinuous problem. 2D and 3D L1 errors, not plotted here, have the same values as 1D for t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Three-slice of initial (left) and final (right) density of the three-dimensional collapse of a dust spheroid with Nθ = 192. 1e-02 1e-01 400 800 1600 L1 Error 1 / ∆rmin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: L1 error of density as a function of resolution for the collapse of a dust spheroid in 2D. The solid black line is a reference for first-order convergence, expected for a discontinuous problem. 3D L1 errors, not plotted here, have the same values as 2D for the resoluti…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plot of dimensionless variables D, −V , and M versus X, obtained by numerically integrating Equa￾tions (61)-(66) with D(0) = 1.75 and γ = 1.30. where κ is the polytropic constant and γ is the adia￾batic index. The structure of spherically symmetric self￾similar collap…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Number density and velocity profiles of the 1D collapse of a polytropic sphere with Nθ = 192 and ∆rmin ≈ 1.067 × 10−1 km), showing the computed (blue points) and reference (black line) solutions at t ≈ [0, 4.961 × 10−2 , 5.900 × 10−2 , 6.069 × 10−2 ] s. Computed resul…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: L1 error of density as a function of resolution for the collapse of a polytropic sphere in 1D. The solid and dashed black lines are references for first- and second-order convergence, respectively. 2D and 3D L1 errors, not plotted here, are indistinguishable from 1D f…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Global energy measures (internal+kinetic, gravitational, kinetic, total, and change in the total) for adiabatic model S12 as a function of time for three different resolutions (Nθ = 128, 192, 256 and ∆rmin ≈ (1.600, 1.067, 0.8000) × 10−1 km, denoted by curves of incre…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Central values of baryon density, electron fraction, temperature, and entropy per baryon as a function of time for adiabatic models S12 (red), S25 (green), and S40 (blue), for three different resolutions (Nθ = 128, 192, 256 and ∆rmin ≈ (1.600, 1.067, 0.8000) × 10−1 km…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Profiles from adiabatic model S12 for three different resolutions (Nθ = 128, 192, 256 and ∆rmin ≈ (1.600, 1.067, 0.8000) × 10−1 km, denoted by orange, green, and blue curves of increasing thickness) at about 0.2 s after bounce. Focusing on the region near r ≈ 10 km re…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Snapshots of the 3D version of adiabatic model S12 (animated version available online). In order to give a sense of the dynamic range in radius implicated in gravitational collapse, bounce, and explosion, the middle two rows are zoomed in on a closer view. The grey su…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Shock radius in adiabatic models evolved from eleven Woosley & Heger (2007) pre-supernova progenitors as a function of post-bounce time. Shock radius curves for all progenitors are shown in lightweight grey curves in each panel. For clarity, selected curves are highli…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Density profiles in adiabatic models evolved from eleven Woosley & Heger (2007) pre-supernova progenitors at approximately 0.4 s after bounce. Density profiles for all progenitors are shown in lightweight grey curves in each panel. For clarity, selected profiles are h…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The average shock expansion speed and total kinetic energy in adiabatic models are not monotonic as a function of the zero-age main sequence mass with which the models are labeled (left panel). In mirror image, the stellar mass at the onset of collapse and the compact…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The average shock speed and total kinetic energy in adiabatic models are inversely correlated with both the stellar mass at the onset of collapse (left panel) and with the compactness parameter (right panel). Both are more closely (anti-)correlated with compactness, a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 341, 377, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.04.025

    Asaithambi, R., & Mahesh, K. 2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 341, 377, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.04.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2017.04.025 2017

  2. [2]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics, 2nd edn

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics, 2nd edn. (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  3. [3]

    W., Blondin, J

    Bruenn, S. W., Blondin, J. M., Hix, W. R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 248, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7aff

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab7aff 2020

  4. [4]

    D., & Cardall, C

    Budiardja, R. D., & Cardall, C. Y. 2019, Parallel Computing, 88, 102544, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2019.102544

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    D., & Cardall, C

    Budiardja, R. D., & Cardall, C. Y. 2022, Computer Physics Communications, 281, 108505, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108505

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Cardall, C. Y. 2021, Fluids, 6, 366, doi: 10.3390/fluids6100366 22Cardall et al. 1.0e+04 1.5e+04 2.0e+04 2.5e+04 S12 S13 S14 S15 S20 S23 S25 S27 S30 S35 S40 4.0e-04 5.0e-04 6.0e-04 7.0e-04 8.0e-04 9.0e-04 Shock Speed (km/s) Kinetic Energy (M_Sun c2) Models 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 S12 S13 S14 S15 S20 S23 S25 S27 S30 S35 S40 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Col...

    work page doi:10.3390/fluids6100366 2021

  7. [7]

    Y., & Budiardja, R

    Cardall, C. Y., & Budiardja, R. D. 2015, ApJL, 813, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/813/1/L6 —. 2023, Computer Physics Communications, 282, 108518, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108518

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Y., & Budiardja, R

    Cardall, C. Y., & Budiardja, R. D. 2026, GenASiS (General Astrophysical Simulation System): Self-gravitating Baryonic Matter - Test Problems Dataset, doi: 10.13139/OLCF/3011754

    arXiv 2026

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    2014, ApJS, 210, 17 Cordero-Carri´ on, I., Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., Dimmelmeier, H., et al

    Mezzacappa, A. 2014, ApJS, 210, 17 Cordero-Carri´ on, I., Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., Dimmelmeier, H., et al. 2009, PhRvD, 79, 024017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.024017

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Graziani, C., & Flocke, N

    Couch, S. M., Graziani, C., & Flocke, N. 2013, ApJ, 778, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/181

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Y., Budiardja, R

    Endeve, E., Cardall, C. Y., Budiardja, R. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/26

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 1219, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/1219

    Mezzacappa, A. 2010, ApJ, 713, 1219, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/1219

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    Y., Budiardja, R

    Endeve, E., Cardall, C. Y., Budiardja, R. D., Mezzacappa, A., & Blondin, J. M. 2013, Physica Scripta Volume T, 155, 014022, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/2013/T155/014022 Flanagan, ´E. ´E. 1999, PhRvL, 82, 1354, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1354

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Isenberg, J. A. 2008, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 17, 265, doi: 10.1142/S0218271808011997

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    2025, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 75, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945

    Janka, H.-T. 2025, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 75, 425, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-100945

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, Phys

    Ji, L., Mewes, V., Zlochower, Y., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 104005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.104005 K¨ appeli, R., & Mishra, S. 2016, A&A, 587, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527815

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    M., & Swesty, F

    Lattimer, J. M., & Swesty, F. D. 1991, Nuclear Physics A, 535, 331, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(91)90452-C

    1991 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Mestel, L., & Shu, F

    Lin, C. C., Mestel, L., & Shu, F. H. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1431, doi: 10.1086/148428

    1965 doi

  11. [19]

    2006, A&A, 445, 273, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052840 GenASiS: Self-gravitating Baryonic Matter23 M¨ uller, B

    Buras, R. 2006, A&A, 445, 273, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052840 GenASiS: Self-gravitating Baryonic Matter23 M¨ uller, B. 2020, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41115-020-0008-5 M¨ uller, E., & Steinmetz, M. 1995, Computer Physics Communications,...

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    L., Endeve, E., et al

    Pochik, D., Barker, B. L., Endeve, E., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 253, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd700

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Flannery, B. P. 2007, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press)

    2007

  14. [22]

    2019, ApJS, 241, 7

    Vartanyan, D. 2019, ApJS, 241, 7

    2019

  15. [23]

    R., Mathews, G

    Wilson, J. R., Mathews, G. J., & Marronetti, P. 1996, PhRvD, 54, 1317, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1317

    1996 doi

  16. [24]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2007, PhR, 442, 269

    2007

  17. [25]

    1983, ApJ, 265, 1047, doi: 10.1086/160746

    Yahil, A. 1983, ApJ, 265, 1047, doi: 10.1086/160746

    1983 doi

  18. [26]

    Yahil, A., & Lattimer, J. M. 1982, in NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, Vol. 90, NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, ed. M. J. Rees & R. J. Stoneham, 53–70

    1982

Pith tools

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