Orbifolds in Numerical Relativity

Mihai Bondarescu

REVIEW

Orbifolds in Numerical Relativity

Mihai Bondarescu

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology · Submitted 13 Mar 2006 · 33 references

Pith's verdict: Useful catalog, unproven method: the orbifold framing is a nice map of symmetry reductions, but the proposed mode-isolation comparison is under-specified.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDgr-qc/0603047 (version 3)

Pith IDNTVIB5PS, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationMihai Bondarescu. "Orbifolds in Numerical Relativity." arXiv:gr-qc/0603047 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/NTVIB5PS

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Here's my take on Bondarescu's orbifold paper.

The genuinely useful part is the catalog. For someone who has only seen bitant, quadrant, octant grids in numerical relativity, the orbifold framing gives a clean way to see that these are just quotients by discrete symmetry groups, and the list of alternatives—π rotation, inversion, 90° rotation—with the same fundamental domain is worth having. The point that different symmetry groups allow different mode content to grow is plausible and stated in a way numerical relativists can actually use. I also think the review of existing grids and the citation pattern are accurate; the self-citation [4] is used for a geometric observation and doesn't bother me.

The soft spot is the central programmatic claim, in Section 1 and restated in Section 9: evolving the same initial data on different orbifolds with the same fundamental domain will let you study unstable modes individually because each orbifold suppresses a different set. That is asserted, not argued. The stress-test note is right: 'same fundamental domain' does not imply 'same initial data on the covering space.' The bitant orbifold uses reflection across the x1=0 plane; the alternative uses a 180° rotation about the x3 axis. Both have x1>0 as a fundamental domain, but extending a generic seed from that domain by the two different group actions produces different data on R^3. Unless the data are invariant under both group actions, the two runs don't start from the same physical configuration, and any difference could come from the data extension, not from mode suppression. The paper never states this invariance requirement. Even in the case where the data do match, the differences between evolutions could be driven by regularity conditions at the singular set or by outer boundary treatments, and the paper doesn't separate those effects. To make the proposal concrete, you need either a proof-of-principle simulation or at least a recipe that fixes the data, the boundary conditions, and a mode decomposition. Minor issues: the typos and informal tone don't help, but they're cosmetic.

Overall, this is a review with a good conceptual reframing and a premature method proposal. Numerical relativists will get value from the catalog; the mode-isolation idea is not yet a method. I would not desk-reject it—a referee could usefully push the author to add the invariance condition and a small demonstration—but as it stands the central assertion should not be taken at face value.

Referee report

Significance

As a catalog, the paper is useful: it connects nomenclature used in numerical relativity (bitant, π symmetry, quadrant, octant) to a common geometric framework and collects many relevant references. The description of known grids as orbifolds is accurate and could help practitioners transfer symmetry implementations between codes. The central proposal, if properly established, would provide a systematic way to design testbeds that isolate particular perturbation modes. However, the paper does not provide a derivation, numerical demonstration, or citation that would establish the mode-suppression claim, and the same-fundamental-domain comparison is under-specified. These are substantive gaps rather than presentation issues, so the present form cannot be accepted as a research contribution; it is a promising review note that requires major revision.

Major objections (2)

[Section 1; Section 9] The central proposal—“Since each orbifold suppresses a different set of unstable modes, evolving the same initial data on different orbifolds with the same fundamental domain will allow these unstable modes to be studied individually”—is asserted without derivation, numerical demonstration, or citation. The paper does not define the mode decomposition on the quotients, does not state the regularity conditions at the orbifold singularities that determine which modes are allowed, and does not explain how differences in evolutions would be attributed to mode content rather than to numerical resolution, boundary treatments, or gauge choices. Because this claim is the advertised novel contribution, it must either be supported by a concrete analysis (e.g., a harmonic decomposition on each quotient with explicit boundary conditions) or be explicitly presented as a conjecture to be tested.
[Section 4, Eqs. (3)–(6)] The discussion of alternatives to the bitant orbifold exposes a gap in the phrase “the same fundamental domain.” The groups generated by rx1, by rot_pi, and by (x1,x2,x3) ↦ (−x1,−x2,−x3) all have x1 > 0 as a fundamental domain, but they impose different identifications on the boundary x1 = 0 and hence different extensions of data from the domain to the full covering space R3. Data on x1 > 0 extend to genuinely different initial data on R3 unless the data are invariant under all three group actions. The paper does not state this invariance requirement or give examples of nontrivial data satisfying it. Without such a specification, differences between evolutions on “same-domain” orbifolds are not necessarily caused by allowed mode content, and the comparison proposed in Section 1 is not well defined.

Minor objections (5)

[Abstract] The sentence “We review orbifolds previously used in simulations also discuss some that have not been used yet” is missing a conjunction (“and”) between “simulations” and “discuss.”
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors (“grup”, “innitial”, “supresses”, “challanges”, “simmulation”, “immage”, “domanins”, “moding”) that should be corrected before publication.
[Section 3] The bullet list of “solutions of the Einstein Equations” compatible with bitant topology mixes four-dimensional space-times with three-dimensional spatial configurations; the paragraph should clarify that the 3+1 split is being used.
[Section 8] The statement “the orbifold R3/SO(3) will only have one dimension” is imprecise: the quotient is the half-line [0,∞) with an orbifold singularity at the origin, which is a one-dimensional object with boundary, not a smooth one-dimensional manifold; this distinction matters for regularity conditions.
[Sections 2 and 4] The notation for rotation groups is introduced informally: rot_α, rot_π, and the action in Eq. (10) should be defined consistently, and the “conic orbifold” terminology should be reconciled with the standard term “cyclic quotient singularity.”

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Numerical relativity has long been using orbifolds under the names bitant, quadrant, and octant grids, and the same initial data on same-domain orbifolds should let unstable modes be studied individually.

The reading

Numerical relativity has long been evolving spacetimes on symmetry-reduced grids—bitant, quadrant, octant, periodic, and axisymmetric setups—without calling them orbifolds. The paper argues that all of these are quotients $O=M/G$ of space by a group of isometries, and that the quotient's topology changes which perturbation modes a simulation can support. Its central proposal is that when the same initial data admit several orbifoldings with the same fundamental domain, each orbifold suppresses a different set of unstable modes, so comparing those evolutions lets each unstable mode be studied individually. If this works, simulations could run longer and numerical relativity would gain cheap testbeds for black-hole physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the orbifold $O=M/G$, in which points of the manifold $M$ are identified under a group $G$ of isometries; its fundamental domain is the computational grid and its singular set, the fixed points of $G$, is the grid's symmetry boundary. The mode-filtering property does the work: the bitant orbifold $G=\langle r_{x^1}\rangle$ forbids Kerr holes rotating in a plane containing $x^1$, while the alternative half-space orbifold generated by $\mathrm{rot}_\pi$ permits rotation in the $(x^1,x^2)$ plane but confines holes to the axis; the inversion orbifold has the same half-space domain with only one singular point, allowing equal-mass opposite-spin collisions without confining the orbit to a plane. These structural differences are what make same-domain comparisons informative.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the familiar symmetry reductions of numerical relativity are orbifolds in the sense $O=M/G$, where $M$ is a manifold and $G$ a group of its isometries; the standard bitant, quadrant, and octant grids correspond to modding $\mathbb{R}^3$ out by reflection groups, while periodic grids give the torus $T^3$ and axisymmetric reductions quotient by rotation groups. Because the orbifold's singular set and allowed symmetries filter the set of perturbation modes that can grow, choosing a different $G$ with the same fundamental domain selects different unstable modes. The paper proposes that evolving the same initial data on such same-domain orbifolds allows these unstable modes to be studied individually, and notes that orbifold topologies also yield new exact solutions of the Einstein equations, such as a Schwarzschild metric on the bitant orbifold that differs topologically from the full Schwarzschild solution.

Load-bearing premise

The proposal presupposes, without a numerical test, that differences between evolutions on same-domain orbifolds come from the orbifold's allowed mode structure rather than from numerical artifacts, boundary-condition details, or gauge choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Existing bitant, quadrant, and octant simulations can be understood as orbifold evolutions, so results and code tests from those runs carry topological information about mode content.
Running the same physical problem on several same-domain orbifolds gives a cheap testbed for identifying unstable modes and for extending simulation lifetime.
The alternative same-domain orbifolds described in the paper, such as $\pi$ symmetry plus bitant and the $\pi/2$-conic quadrant, allow rotating or orbiting binaries to be simulated on grids as small as a quadrant.
Orbifolding by continuous symmetry groups reduces dimensionality: $\mathbb{R}^3/\mathrm{SO}(3)$ gives a one-dimensional radial grid for single non-rotating holes, $\mathrm{SO}(2)$ gives axisymmetric 2+1 evolutions, and helical symmetry gives the quasi-equilibrium approximation.
Restricting known symmetric metrics to orbifolds gives new exact solutions of the Einstein equations that are locally identical but topologically distinct, such as the bitant Schwarzschild metric.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mode-filtering claim is correct, a natural diagnostic follows: a mode that grows on one orbifold but is forbidden on another with the same fundamental domain is physical, while numerical artifacts should not respect the orbifold's symmetry filter; this could help separate physical instabilities from gauge and constraint violations.
The least-singular inversion orbifold offers a testable extension for equal-mass opposite-spin collisions, predicting that the holes' orbit need not stay in any fixed plane, unlike all standard grids.
The same-domain comparison idea could be applied outside black-hole spacetimes, for instance to neutron-star or cosmological evolutions, whenever the initial data admit multiple discrete symmetry groups with the same domain.
Mode isolation by orbifold choice is only useful if the unstable modes are distinguished by their transformation under $G$; extending the list of candidate orbifolds with different representation content, rotations versus reflections, would sharpen which modes can be separated.

Original abstract

Numerical Relativity has been using orbifolds for a long time, although they appear under different names in the literature. We review orbifolds previously used in simulations also discuss some that have not been used yet but are likely to be useful in the future.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,245 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.02 · compares with prior results 0.09 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Numerical Relativity has been using orbifolds for a long time, although they appear under different names in the literature. We review orbifolds previously used in simulations also discuss some that have not been used yet but are likely to be useful in the future.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Numerical Relativity has been using orbifolds for a long time, although they appear under different names in the literature.	background 1.00	0.07	0.07	asserted 1.00
s1	We review orbifolds previously used in simulations also discuss some that have not been used yet but are likely to be useful in the future.	contribution 0.99	0.56	0.19	hedged possibility 0.79

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 1.00 · evidence from literature 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (33)

[4]

M. Bondarescu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14, 2187 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0504057]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[1]

L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 274, 285 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[2]

L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 261, 678 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[3]

William P. Thurston, Three-Dimensional Geome- try and Topology, Princeton University Press, 1997 [http://www.msri.org/publications/books/gt3m/]

View on Pith 1997
[5]

M. Alcubierre, B. Brugmann, P. Diener, M. Koppitz, D. Poll- ney, E. Seidel and R. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D 67, 084023 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0206072]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[6]

P. Laguna and D. Shoemaker, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 3679 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0202105]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[7]

M. Tiglio, L. Lehner and D. Neilsen, Phys. Rev. D 70, 104018 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0312001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[8]

The Cactus Code Web Page - http://www.cactuscode.org. 9

View on Pith
[9]

U. Sperhake, B. Kelly, P. Laguna, K. L. Smith and E. Schnetter, Phys. Rev. D 71, 124042 (2005) [arXiv:gr-qc/0503071]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[10]

P. Diener et al. , arXiv:gr-qc/0512108

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[11]

M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti and Y. Zlochower, arXiv:gr-qc/0511048

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

H. J. Yo, T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 66, 084026 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0209066]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[13]

M. Alcubierre and B. Brugmann, Phys. Rev. D 63, 104006 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0008067]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[14]

M. Alcubierre, S. Brandt, B. Brugmann, D. Holz, E. Seidel, R. Ta ka- hashi and J. Thornburg, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 273 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/9908012]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[15]

K. C. B. New, D. I. B. Choi, J. M. Centrella, P. MacNeice, M. F. Hu q and K. Olson, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084039 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/0007045]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[16]

C. Bona, J. Masso, E. Seidel and P. Walker, arXiv:gr-qc/98040 52

View on Pith
[17]

M. Alcubierre, B. Brugmann, D. Pollney, E. Seidel and R. Takaha shi, Phys. Rev. D 64, 061501 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0104020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[18]

B. Brugmann, Phys. Rev. D 54, 7361 (1996) [arXiv:gr-qc/9608050]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[19]

M. Bondarescu, M. Alcubierre and E. Seidel, Class. Quant. Grav . 19, 375 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0109093]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[20]

D. Garﬁnkle and G. C. Duncan, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044011 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0006073]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[21]

P. Anninos, D. Bernstein, S. R. Brandt, D. Hobill, E. Seidel and L. Smarr, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3801 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[22]

H. a. Shinkai and G. Yoneda, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 4799 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/0005003]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[23]

C. Bona and C. Palenzuela, Lect. Notes Phys. 617, 130 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0202101]. 10

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[24]

G. Calabrese, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 4025 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0404036]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[25]

M. Alcubierre et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 589 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0305023]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[26]

B. Szilagyi, R. Gomez, N. T. Bishop and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 62, 104006 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/9912030]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[27]

P. Anninos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 630 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9403011]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995
[28]

J. Masso, E. Seidel, W. M. Suen and P. Walker, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064015 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9804059]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[29]

C. Beetle, B. Bromley and R. H. Price, for arXiv:gr-qc/0602027

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[30]

E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclement, K. Taniguchi, J. A. Marck an d S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. D 63, 064029 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0007028]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[31]

E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclement and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev . D 65, 044020 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0106015]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[32]

C. Klein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124026 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0410095]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[33]

J. L. Friedman, K. Uryu and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 65, 064035 (2002) [Erratum-ibid. D 70, 129904 (2004)] [arXiv:gr-qc/0108070]. 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

How the literature uses it

1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [4]

M. Bondarescu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14, 2187 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0504057]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[2] [1]

L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 274, 285 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[3] [2]

L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 261, 678 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[4] [3]

William P. Thurston, Three-Dimensional Geome- try and Topology, Princeton University Press, 1997 [http://www.msri.org/publications/books/gt3m/]

View on Pith 1997

[5] [5]

M. Alcubierre, B. Brugmann, P. Diener, M. Koppitz, D. Poll- ney, E. Seidel and R. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D 67, 084023 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0206072]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[6] [6]

P. Laguna and D. Shoemaker, Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 3679 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0202105]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[7] [7]

M. Tiglio, L. Lehner and D. Neilsen, Phys. Rev. D 70, 104018 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0312001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[8] [8]

The Cactus Code Web Page - http://www.cactuscode.org. 9

View on Pith

[9] [9]

U. Sperhake, B. Kelly, P. Laguna, K. L. Smith and E. Schnetter, Phys. Rev. D 71, 124042 (2005) [arXiv:gr-qc/0503071]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[10] [10]

P. Diener et al. , arXiv:gr-qc/0512108

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[11] [11]

M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti and Y. Zlochower, arXiv:gr-qc/0511048

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [12]

H. J. Yo, T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 66, 084026 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0209066]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[13] [13]

M. Alcubierre and B. Brugmann, Phys. Rev. D 63, 104006 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0008067]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[14] [14]

M. Alcubierre, S. Brandt, B. Brugmann, D. Holz, E. Seidel, R. Ta ka- hashi and J. Thornburg, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 273 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/9908012]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[15] [15]

K. C. B. New, D. I. B. Choi, J. M. Centrella, P. MacNeice, M. F. Hu q and K. Olson, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084039 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/0007045]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[16] [16]

C. Bona, J. Masso, E. Seidel and P. Walker, arXiv:gr-qc/98040 52

View on Pith

[17] [17]

M. Alcubierre, B. Brugmann, D. Pollney, E. Seidel and R. Takaha shi, Phys. Rev. D 64, 061501 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0104020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[18] [18]

B. Brugmann, Phys. Rev. D 54, 7361 (1996) [arXiv:gr-qc/9608050]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[19] [19]

M. Bondarescu, M. Alcubierre and E. Seidel, Class. Quant. Grav . 19, 375 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0109093]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[20] [20]

D. Garﬁnkle and G. C. Duncan, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044011 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0006073]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[21] [21]

P. Anninos, D. Bernstein, S. R. Brandt, D. Hobill, E. Seidel and L. Smarr, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3801 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[22] [22]

H. a. Shinkai and G. Yoneda, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 4799 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/0005003]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[23] [23]

C. Bona and C. Palenzuela, Lect. Notes Phys. 617, 130 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0202101]. 10

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[24] [24]

G. Calabrese, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 4025 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0404036]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[25] [25]

M. Alcubierre et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 589 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0305023]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[26] [26]

B. Szilagyi, R. Gomez, N. T. Bishop and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 62, 104006 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/9912030]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[27] [27]

P. Anninos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 630 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9403011]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1995

[28] [28]

J. Masso, E. Seidel, W. M. Suen and P. Walker, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064015 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9804059]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[29] [29]

C. Beetle, B. Bromley and R. H. Price, for arXiv:gr-qc/0602027

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[30] [30]

E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclement, K. Taniguchi, J. A. Marck an d S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. D 63, 064029 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0007028]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[31] [31]

E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclement and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev . D 65, 044020 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0106015]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[32] [32]

C. Klein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124026 (2004) [arXiv:gr-qc/0410095]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[33] [33]

J. L. Friedman, K. Uryu and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 65, 064035 (2002) [Erratum-ibid. D 70, 129904 (2004)] [arXiv:gr-qc/0108070]. 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002