Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Unequal Mass Binary Neutron Star Simulations with Neutrino Transport: Ejecta and Neutrino Emission

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Twelve unequal-mass neutron-star merger simulations find that dynamical ejecta exceed 0.01 solar masses only for the softest equation of state, with ejecta electron fraction and velocity falling as mass asymmetry grows.

desk verdict Useful new simulation set for unequal-mass BNS mergers, but the headline 'only SFHo exceeds 0.01 Msun' is not robust to the Bernoulli/ut systematic the authors themselves cite. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00655 v1 pith:YYFWW2KX submitted 2019-08-01 gr-qc

Trevor Vincent , Francois Foucart , Matthew D. Duez , Roland Haas , Lawrence E. Kidder , Harald P. Pfeiffer , Mark A. Scheel This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords binaryneutronstarmergersunequalmassrationeutrinotransportdynamicalejectaelectronfractionkilonovanumericalrelativityr-processnucleosynthesis
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 tries to establish reliable relations between the parameters of a merging neutron-star binary and what the merger emits: how much mass is thrown off, how neutron-rich and fast that material is, and how many neutrinos are radiated. The authors run twelve simulations spanning mass ratios from about 0.76 to 1 and total masses from about 2.5 to 2.9 solar masses, using three nuclear-theory equations of state and a transport scheme that tracks neutrino number density so lepton number is conserved. They find that dynamical ejecta (material thrown off in the first milliseconds of the merger) exceed 0.01 solar masses only for the softest equation of state, SFHo, and that average ejecta electron fraction and velocity both decrease as binary asymmetry increases. These trends matter because they connect gravitational-wave-inferred binary properties to the kilonova light curves and r-process nucleosynthesis expected after such mergers.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a gray two-moment neutrino transport scheme that evolves, for each neutrino species, the energy and momentum densities together with the neutrino number density, giving an on-the-fly estimate of the average neutrino energy and exact conservation of total lepton number. The unbound-ejecta accounting uses the relativistic Bernoulli condition $h u_t < -1$ applied to matter more than 50 solar masses from the remnant, integrated up to 7.5 ms after merger.

What would settle it

Recompute the ejected mass with the geodesic criterion $u_t < -1$ instead of $h u_t < -1$; if no SFHo model then exceeds $0.01\,M_\odot$, or a DD2 or LS220 model does, the central ejecta-mass claim fails. Evolving the non-collapsing remnants beyond 7.5 ms would also test whether matter flagged unbound near the grid edge is truly escaping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across twelve simulations, the paper reports that the total dynamical ejecta mass exceeds $0.01\,M_\odot$ only for the SFHo equation of state, with a weak dependence on mass ratio; LS220 and DD2 eject less. Ejecta electron fractions span roughly $0.06$ to $0.48$ with a mean near $0.2$, increase over time as neutrino irradiation acts on the outflow, and decrease with binary asymmetry. Asymptotic ejecta velocities span roughly $0.05c$ to $0.7c$, with averages between $0.2c$ and $0.3c$, and also decrease with asymmetry. Remnant disk mass at 7.5 ms post-merger increases with both binary asymmetry and stiffness of the equation of state, while the disk electron fraction is higher for softer equations of state. Neutrino emission is strongest for the softest equation of state; electron-neutrino luminosity and its angular distribution show no significant mass-ratio dependence, while heavy-lepton neutrino luminosity increases with asymmetry in these models.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on identifying unbound matter with the Bernoulli condition $h u_t < -1$, which the authors note can overestimate the ejected mass by as much as a factor of two relative to the alternative $u_t < -1$ criterion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Kilonova models for unequal-mass binaries should use dynamical ejecta masses around $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}\,M_\odot$, exceeding $0.01\,M_\odot$ only when the equation of state is soft.
  • Greater mass asymmetry lowers both the average velocity and electron fraction of the ejecta, which should push kilonova emission redder and shift r-process yields toward heavier, more neutron-rich elements.
  • Disk masses at 7.5 ms grow with asymmetry and stiffness, and all but the promptly collapsing equal-mass LS220 model leave a disk large enough to supply the GW170817 kilonova if 25 to 50 percent of the disk is later ejected.
  • Electron-neutrino luminosity is insensitive to mass ratio, so neutrino-driven wind properties may be approximately universal across mass ratio for a fixed equation of state.
  • Heavy-lepton neutrino luminosity rises with mass asymmetry in this model set, although the paper attributes part of that dependence to the accompanying increase in total mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's unbound-mass criterion can overestimate ejecta by up to a factor of two, the absolute dynamical masses may be systematically high even if the ranking across equations of state survives.
  • I infer from the velocity trend that core-bounce ejecta, not tidal ejecta, set the average speed in near-equal-mass mergers; if so, highly asymmetric binaries may lack the fast blue kilonova component.
  • These trends imply that a gravitational-wave event with measured mass ratio could be used to predict whether its kilonova is lanthanide-rich mainly from the compactness of the neutron stars, a testable prediction once more events with broadband light curves are observed.
  • A natural extension would be to run the same transport scheme beyond 7.5 ms, since the paper notes its disk mass is still growing; if disk-driven winds dominate the total ejecta, the dynamical-ejecta trends in this paper would constrain only the early kilonova peak.
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 paper presents twelve new general-relativistic binary neutron star merger simulations performed with the SpEC code, using the SFHo, LS220, and DD2 equations of state and a gray two-moment neutrino transport scheme that evolves neutrino number density in addition to energy and flux. The binary mass ratios range from about 0.76 to 1.0, and the simulations are evolved up to 7.5 ms post-merger or to collapse. The authors report the mass, electron fraction, and asymptotic velocity of the dynamical ejecta, the disk masses, and the neutrino luminosities and angular distributions. Their central claims are that total dynamical ejecta exceeds 0.01 solar masses only for the SFHo equation of state, that ejecta electron fraction and average velocity decrease with increasing mass asymmetry, that disk mass increases with mass asymmetry and equation-of-state stiffness, and that neutrino emission is strongest for the softest equation of state.

Significance. If the reported trends hold, this simulation set is a valuable addition to the effort of connecting binary parameters to kilonova-relevant ejecta properties. The strengths of the paper include the use of an established code (SpEC), a neutrino transport scheme with improved lepton-number conservation, a systematic variation of equation of state and mass ratio, and a candid discussion of numerical limitations. The authors explicitly quantify their resolution-error estimate, state that the disk mass has not converged, and describe the known systematic uncertainty in the Bernoulli unbound criterion. Those admissions are commendable, but they also directly bear on the headline quantitative claims, and the current presentation does not fully reconcile the headline statements with the stated uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II J, Eq. (60), Eq. (64), Table III] The headline claim that total dynamical ejecta exceeds 0.01 solar masses only for SFHo is not robust under the uncertainties stated in the paper. The Bernoulli criterion hut<-1 is acknowledged in Section II J to yield as much as twice the ejected mass of the ut<-1 criterion, citing Kastaun and Galeazzi 2015, yet this systematic is not included in the error estimate Delta Mej = 0.5 Mej + 1e-4 solar masses in Eq. (64), which covers only resolution and regridding effects. In Table III, S12132 and S12156 have total ejecta masses of 1.574e-2 and 1.802e-2 solar masses; if the Bernoulli criterion overestimates by a factor of two, both fall below 0.01 solar masses, while applying the 50 percent resolution error to S12144 raises it above 0.01 solar masses. The abstract and conclusion should either be reworded to present this as a tentative statement, or the analysis should report both unbound criteria and incorporate the criterion choice into the error budget.
  2. [Section III B 2, Figs. 8 and 9, Table I] The claimed monotonic decrease of ejecta electron fraction and average asymptotic velocity with increasing mass asymmetry is inferred from three SFHo models (S12132, S12144, S12156) and from even fewer non-collapsing runs for the other equations of state, with no measure of statistical significance. Because the lower-mass neutron star is held fixed while the higher mass is varied, total binary mass increases with mass asymmetry, so the attribute 'mass asymmetry' is not cleanly separated from total mass; Section III C correctly notes this confounding for neutrino luminosity, but the ejecta trends are presented without a similar caveat. Given the admitted non-monotonic ejecta-mass behavior in Section III B 1 and the 50 percent error estimate, the paper should either provide explicit error bars on the plotted distributions or reframe these statements as suggestive trends rather than robust findings.
  3. [Section III B 3, Eq. (65), Fig. 10] The conclusion that disk mass increases with mass asymmetry and equation-of-state stiffness is based on a disk-mass definition with an arbitrary density threshold, and the paper itself states that Mdisk has not converged by 7.5 ms post-merger. Since the ordering of disk masses could change if the simulations were evolved longer, and since this trend is used in the discussion of kilonova powering, the conclusion should be labeled as provisional or accompanied by a convergence check, such as a comparison at multiple post-merger times or at a second resolution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] The word 'preformed' should be 'performed'; the same typo appears in both the abstract and the introduction.
  2. [Section II D] In the sentence introducing the number-density evolution equation, 'te evolution' should be 'the evolution'.
  3. [Section II J] The subscript 'Mon' in Eq. (60) appears to be a typo for 'Mej'.
  4. [Section III B 1] The text says 'we can make predictions on expected trends' and later describes results that do not fit the narrative; some transition between expectation and outcome would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports independent simulation outputs, and its self-citations are standard code/method reuse rather than derivation-by-construction.

full rationale

This paper presents twelve new numerical-relativity simulations and reports trends in ejecta mass, electron fraction, velocity, disk mass, and neutrino emission. There is no fitted parameter that is later relabeled as a prediction, no equation whose output is equivalent to its input by construction, and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' own prior work to force a choice. The ejecta mass is defined through the Bernoulli criterion hut < -1 in Eq. (60); the choice of this criterion is justified by the authors' earlier paper [30], which is a published, independent numerical study rather than a parameter fit to the present data, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the known factor-of-two systematic relative to the ut < -1 criterion via [78]. That acknowledged systematic is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. The neutrino transport scheme and SpEC infrastructure are cited from prior code papers by overlapping authors, but this is standard method reuse; the cited papers are externally published and the scheme is not tuned to reproduce the paper's reported trends. The headline claims are direct outputs of the simulations, compared with and contrasted to prior independent work such as Sekiguchi et al. and Lehner et al., which further demonstrates that the results are not forced by construction. Under the requested standard, no circular step can be exhibited with specific equations reducing to inputs, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the numerical solution of general-relativistic radiation hydrodynamics with three tabulated equations of state and a gray two-moment neutrino scheme. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced. The main load-bearing inputs are modeling choices and analysis thresholds, which are listed above.

free parameters (4)
  • Unbound matter radius threshold = 50 M_sun
    Matter is counted as unbound only if it is at least 50 solar masses from the remnant center (Eq. 60). The paper calls this threshold arbitrary and says it comfortably excludes material near the remnant; the resulting ejecta mass depends on this choice.
  • Disk mass density threshold = 10^13 g/cm^3
    Disk mass is defined as matter with density below 10^13 g/cm^3 (Eq. 65). The paper notes the disk mass drifts over time and has not converged by 7.5 ms, so the threshold and measurement time affect the reported disk-mass trends.
  • Polar versus equatorial division angle = 30 degrees
    Polar ejecta is defined as matter within 30 degrees of the z-axis. The fractions of polar versus equatorial ejecta in Table III depend on this chosen cutoff.
  • Unbound criterion choice = hut < -1
    The paper selects the Bernoulli criterion hut < -1 over the ut < -1 criterion because it is considered more accurate in SpEC, while noting that the Bernoulli criterion can give up to twice the ejecta mass of the alternative. This choice directly sets every ejecta mass in Table III.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption General relativity and ideal radiation hydrodynamics describe binary neutron star mergers in the first 7.5 ms.
    The entire evolution scheme is built on these equations (Sections II A through II F). No alternative gravity or non-ideal fluid effects are considered.
  • domain assumption The gray two-moment neutrino transport with Minerbo closure and the listed opacity reactions adequately approximates neutrino-matter interactions.
    Section II D describes the scheme and explicitly neglects inelastic scattering and neutrino-antineutrino annihilation, which could affect lepton number deposition and neutrino temperatures.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic fields are negligible over the simulated timescales.
    The paper states in Section II K and the Conclusion that MHD effects are not expected to affect the remnant evolution over 7.5 ms, while noting they could drive additional outflows from the disk on longer timescales.
  • ad hoc to paper The Bernoulli criterion with full conversion of thermal energy to kinetic energy and no r-process heating identifies unbound matter.
    Section II J introduces this criterion and acknowledges that it neglects out-of-NSE evolution and can produce twice the ejecta mass of the ut criterion, so the ejecta mass claims rest on this modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The three tabulated equations of state (SFHo, LS220, DD2) are representative of nuclear matter in the relevant density and temperature range.
    Section II G states that each EOS has known deviations from chiral effective field theory or flow constraints but is compatible with current neutron star observations. The EOS choice directly sets compactness and all derived trends.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unequal Mass Binary Neutron Star Simulations with Neutrino Transport: Ejecta and Neutrino Emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YYFWW2KX

@misc{pith2026190800655,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unequal Mass Binary Neutron Star Simulations with Neutrino Transport: Ejecta and Neutrino Emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YYFWW2KX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00655}
}
abstract

We present twelve new simulations of unequal mass neutron star mergers. The simulations were preformed with the SpEC code, and utilize nuclear-theory based equations of state and a two-moment gray neutrino transport scheme with an improved energy estimate based on evolving the number density. We model the neutron stars with the SFHo, LS220 and DD2 equations of state (EOS) and we study the neutrino and matter emission of all twelve models to search for robust trends between binary parameters and emission characteristics. We find that the total mass of the dynamical ejecta exceeds $0.01M_\odot$ only for SFHo with weak dependence on the mass-ratio across all models. We find that the ejecta have a broad electron fraction ($Y_e$) distribution ($\approx 0.06-0.48$), with mean $0.2$. $Y_e$ increases with neutrino irradiation over time, but decreases with increasing binary asymmetry. We also find that the models have ejecta with a broad asymptotic velocity distribution ($\approx 0.05-0.7c$). The average velocity lies in the range $0.2c - 0.3c$ and decreases with binary asymmetry. Furthermore, we find that disk mass increases with binary asymmetry and stiffness of the EOS. The $Y_e$ of the disk increases with softness of the EOS. The strongest neutrino emission occurs for the models with soft EOS. For (anti) electron neutrinos we find no significant dependence of the magnitude or angular distribution or neutrino luminosity with mass-ratio. The heavier neutrino species have a luminosity dependence on mass-ratio but an angular distribution which does not change with mass-ratio.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00655 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. M-R curves for each of the equations of states used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The evolution of rest mass density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Density ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Density ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The electron fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Anti-electron neutrino energy density (first mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Disk masses at 7.5 ms post-merger or just before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Electron neutrino luminosity for the 12132 models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Neutrino luminosity for DD2 runs up to around 7.5 ms across neutrino species. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Neutrino flux density moment as a function of angle for different EOSs at 7.5 ms post-merger. The angle is defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Electron fraction distribution for the off-grid ejecta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Direct Measurement of the Accretion Disk Formed in Prompt Collapse Mergers with Future Gravitational-Wave Observatories

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The postmerger ringdown frequency of promptly collapsing binary neutron star mergers is correlated with accretion disk mass, allowing a proposed 10 percent measurement with third-generation gravitational wave detectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (GROND, SALT Group, Oz- Grav, DFN, INTEGRAL, Virgo, Insight-Hxmt, MAXI Team, Fermi-LAT, J-GEM, RATIR, IceCube, CAAS- TRO, LWA, ePESSTO, GRAWITA, RIMAS, SKA South Africa/MeerKAT, H.E.S.S., 1M2H Team, IKI-GW Follow-up, Fermi GBM, Pi of Sky, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), Dark Energy Survey, MASTER, As- troSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride I...

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., ”Astrophys. J. Lett.” 848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Ajello, A

    M. Ajello, A. Allafort, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, G. Bar- biellini, M. Baring, D. Bastieri, R. Bellazzini, B. Berenji, E. Bissaldi, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 861, 85 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, and et al., ArXiv e-prints (2018), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Mochkovitch, M

    R. Mochkovitch, M. Hernanz, J. Isern, and X. Martin, Nature 361, 236 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    W. H. Lee and W. L. Kluzniak, Astroph. J. 526, 178 (1999)

    1999

  8. [8]

    Black Hole - Neutron Star Mergers as Central Engines of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    H.-T. Janka, T. Eberl, M. Ruffert, and C. L. Fryer, Astrophys. J. 527, L39 (1999), astro-ph/9908290

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    K. P. Mooley, A. T. Deller, O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, G. Hallinan, S. Bourke, D. A. Frail, A. Horesh, A. Corsi, and K. Hotokezaka, Nature (London) 561, 355 (2018), arXiv:1806.09693 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Li and B

    L.-X. Li and B. Paczynski, Astrophys. J.507, L59 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807272 [astro-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. M. Lattimer and D. N. Schramm, Astrophys. J. 210, 549 (1976)

    1976

  4. [12]

    Rosswog, M

    S. Rosswog, M. Liebendoerfer, F. Thielemann, M. Davies, W. Benz, et al., Astron.Astrophys. 341, 499 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811367 [astro-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. R. Kulkarni, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), astro-ph/0510256

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    B. D. Metzger, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, S. Darbha, E. Quataert, A. Arcones, D. Kasen, R. Thomas, P. Nu- gent, I. V. Panov, and N. T. Zinner, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 406, 2650 (2010), arXiv:1001.5029 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. D. Metzger, Living Reviews in Relativity 20, 3 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    M. M. Kasliwal, E. Nakar, L. P. Singer, D. L. Kaplan, D. O. Cook, A. Van Sistine, R. M. Lau, C. Fremling, O. Gottlieb, J. E. Jencson, S. M. Adams, U. Feindt, K. Hotokezaka, S. Ghosh, D. A. Perley, P.-C. Yu, T. Pi- ran, J. R. Allison, G. C. Anupama, A. Balasubrama- nian, K. W. ...

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D. A. Coulter, R. J. Foley, C. D. Kilpatrick, M. R. Drout, A. L. Piro, B. J. Shappee, M. R. Siebert, J. D. Simon, N. Ulloa, D. Kasen, B. F. Madore, A. Murguia- Berthier, Y.-C. Pan, J. X. Prochaska, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, A. Rest, and C. Rojas-Bravo, Science 358, 1556 (2017), arXiv:1...

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chornock, E

    R. Chornock, E. Berger, D. Kasen, P. S. Cowperthwaite, M. Nicholl, V. A. Villar, K. D. Alexander, P. K. Blan- chard, T. Eftekhari, W. Fong, R. Margutti, P. K. G. Williams, J. Annis, D. Brout, D. A. Brown, H.-Y. Chen, M. R. Drout, B. Farr, R. J. Foley, J. A. Frieman, C. L. Frye...

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. S. Cowperthwaite et al., Astrophys. J. 848, L17 (2017), arXiv:1710.05840 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kasen, B

    D. Kasen, B. Metzger, J. Barnes, E. Quataert, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Nature 551, 80 (2017), arXiv:1710.05463 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C. D. Kilpatrick, R. J. Foley, D. Kasen, A. Murguia- Berthier, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, D. A. Coulter, M. R. Drout, A. L. Piro, B. J. Shappee, K. Boutsia, C. Contreras, F. Di Mille, B. F. Madore, N. Morrell, Y.-C. Pan, J. X. Prochaska, A. Rest, C. Rojas-Bravo, M. R. Siebert, J. D. Sim...

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    McCully, D

    C. McCully, D. Hiramatsu, D. A. Howell, G. Hossein- zadeh, I. Arcavi, D. Kasen, J. Barnes, M. M. Shara, T. B. Williams, P. V¨ ais¨ anen, S. B. Potter, E. Romero- Colmenero, S. M. Crawford, D. A. H. Buckley, J. Cooke, I. Andreoni, T. A. Pritchard, J. Mao, M. Gromadzki, and J. B...

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nicholl, E

    M. Nicholl, E. Berger, D. Kasen, B. D. Metzger, J. Elias, C. Brice˜ no, K. D. Alexander, P. K. Blan- chard, R. Chornock, P. S. Cowperthwaite, T. Eftekhari, W. Fong, R. Margutti, V. A. Villar, P. K. G. Williams, W. Brown, J. Annis, A. Bahramian, D. Brout, D. A. Brown, H.-Y. Che...

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    E. Pian, P. D’Avanzo, S. Benetti, M. Branchesi, E. Bro- cato, S. Campana, E. Cappellaro, S. Covino, V. D’Elia, J. P. U. Fynbo, F. Getman, G. Ghirlanda, G. Ghis- ellini, A. Grado, G. Greco, J. Hjorth, C. Kouveliotou, A. Levan, L. Limatola, D. Malesani, P. A. Mazzali, A. Melandr...

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. J. Smartt, T.-W. Chen, A. Jerkstrand, M. Cough- lin, E. Kankare, S. A. Sim, M. Fraser, C. Inserra, K. Maguire, K. C. Chambers, M. E. Huber, T. Kr¨ uhler, G. Leloudas, M. Magee, L. J. Shingles, K. W. Smith, D. R. Young, J. Tonry, R. Kotak, A. Gal-Yam, J. D. Ly- man, D. S. Ho...

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Soares-Santos, D

    M. Soares-Santos, D. E. Holz, J. Annis, R. Chornock, K. Herner, E. Berger, D. Brout, H.-Y. Chen, R. Kessler, M. Sako, S. Allam, D. L. Tucker, R. E. Butler, A. Palmese, Z. Doctor, H. T. Diehl, J. Frieman, B. Yanny, H. Lin, D. Scolnic, P. Cowperthwaite, E. Neilsen, J. Marriner, ...

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    N. R. Tanvir, A. J. Levan, C. Gonz´ alez-Fern´ andez, O. Korobkin, I. Mandel, S. Rosswog, J. Hjorth, P. D’Avanzo, A. S. Fruchter, C. L. Fryer, T. Kan- gas, B. Milvang-Jensen, S. Rosetti, D. Steeghs, R. T. Wollaeger, Z. Cano, C. M. Copperwheat, S. Covino, V. D’Elia, A. de Ugart...

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P. A. Evans, S. B. Cenko, J. A. Kennea, S. W. K. Emery, N. P. M. Kuin, O. Korobkin, R. T. Wollaeger, C. L. Fryer, K. K. Madsen, F. A. Harrison, Y. Xu, E. Nakar, K. Ho- tokezaka, A. Lien, S. Campana, S. R. Oates, E. Troja, A. A. Breeveld, F. E. Marshall, S. D. Barthelmy, A. P. ...

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    L. S. Collaboration, V. Collaboration, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12907 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Lehner, S

    L. Lehner, S. L. Liebling, C. Palenzuela, O. Caballero, E. O’Connor, M. Anderson, and D. Neilsen, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00501 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Radice, F

    D. Radice, F. Galeazzi, J. Lippuner, L. F. Roberts, C. D. Ott, and L. Rezzolla, arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.02426 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 051102 (2011), arXiv:1105.2125 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Ruffert, H.-T

    M. Ruffert, H.-T. Janka, and G. Schaefer, Astron. As- trophys. 311, 532 (1996), astro-ph/9509006

    1996 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Rosswog and M

    S. Rosswog and M. Liebend¨ orfer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 342, 673 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302301 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  27. [37]

    Wanajo, Y

    S. Wanajo, Y. Sekiguchi, N. Nishimura, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Astrophys.J.Lett. 789, L39 (2014), arXiv:1402.7317 [astro-ph.SR]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Palenzuela, S

    C. Palenzuela, S. L. Liebling, D. Neilsen, L. Lehner, O. L. Caballero, E. O’Connor, and M. Anderson, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044045 (2015), arXiv:1505.01607 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [39]

    M. B. Deaton, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, C. D. Ott, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Muhlberger, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, The Astrophysical Journal 776, 47 (2013)

    2013

  30. [40]

    Foucart, M

    F. Foucart, M. B. Deaton, M. D. Duez, E. OConnor, C. D. Ott, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Physical Review D 90, 024026 (2014)

    2014

  31. [41]

    Foucart, R

    F. Foucart, R. Haas, M. D. Duez, E. O’Connor, C. D. Ott, L. Roberts, L. E. Kidder, J. Lippuner, H. P. Pfeif- fer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044019 (2016), arXiv:1510.06398 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [43]

    K. S. Thorne, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 194, 439 (1981)

    1981

  33. [44]

    Shibata, K

    M. Shibata, K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, and Y. Suwa, Progress of Theoretical Physics 125, 1255 (2011), arXiv:1104.3937 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [45]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Physical Review D 91, 064059 (2015)

    2015

  35. [46]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, K. Hotokezaka, S. A. Fromm, S. Bernuzzi, and L. F. Roberts, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 869, 130 (2018)

    2018

  36. [47]

    Foucart, E

    F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, L. Roberts, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D94, 123016 (2016), arXiv:1607.07450 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [48]

    http://www.black-holes.org/SpEC.html

  38. [49]

    Lindblom, M

    L. Lindblom, M. A. Scheel, L. E. Kidder, R. Owen, and O. Rinne, Class. Quantum Grav. 23, S447 (2006), gr- qc/0512093

    2006

  39. [50]

    Harten, P

    A. Harten, P. D. Lax, and B. van Leer, SIAM Review 25, 35 (1983)

    1983

  40. [51]

    X.-D. Liu, S. Osher, and T. Chan, J. Comput. Phys. 115, 200 (1994)

    1994

  41. [52]

    Jiang and C.-W

    G.-S. Jiang and C.-W. Shu, J. Comput. Phys. 126, 202 (1996)

    1996

  42. [53]

    Foucart, L

    F. Foucart, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and S. A. Teukol- sky, Physical Review D 77, 124051 (2008)

    2008

  43. [54]

    H. P. Pfeiffer, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Comput. Phys. Commun. 152, 253 (2003), gr-qc/0202096

    2003 arXiv

  44. [55]

    Tacik, F

    N. Tacik, F. Foucart, H. P. Pfeiffer, R. Haas, S. Os- sokine, J. Kaplan, C. Muhlberger, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kid- der, M. A. Scheel, et al., Physical Review D 92, 124012 (2015)

    2015

  45. [56]

    R. Haas, C. D. Ott, B. Szil´ agyi, J. D. Kaplan, J. Lip- 23 puner, M. A. Scheel, K. Barkett, C. D. Muhlberger, T. Dietrich, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. E. Kidder, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D D93, 124062 (2016), arXiv:1604.00782 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [57]

    H. P. Pfeiffer and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D 67, 044022 (2003)

    2003

  47. [58]

    H. P. Pfeiffer, D. A. Brown, L. E. Kidder, L. Lindblom, G. Lovelace, and M. A. Scheel, Classical and Quantum Gravity 24, S59 (2007)

    2007

  48. [59]

    Pretorius, Classical and Quantum Gravity 22, 425 (2005)

    F. Pretorius, Classical and Quantum Gravity 22, 425 (2005)

    2005

  49. [60]

    Szil´ agyi, International Journal of Modern Physics D 23, 1430014 (2014)

    B. Szil´ agyi, International Journal of Modern Physics D 23, 1430014 (2014)

    2014

  50. [61]

    Foucart, E

    F. Foucart, E. OConnor, L. Roberts, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Physical Review D 94, 123016 (2016)

    2016

  51. [62]

    G. N. Minerbo, J.Quant.Spec.Radiat.Transf. 20, 541 (1978)

    1978

  52. [63]

    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. Szil´ agyi, Phys. Rev. D91, 124021 (2015), arXiv:1502.04146 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [64]

    Shibata, K

    M. Shibata, K. Kiuchi, Y.-i. Sekiguchi, and Y. Suwa, Progress of Theoretical Physics 125, 1255 (2011)

    2011

  54. [65]

    Burrows, S

    A. Burrows, S. Reddy, and T. A. Thompson, Nuc. Phys. A 777, 356 (2006), astro-ph/0404432

    2006 arXiv

  55. [66]

    Borges, M

    R. Borges, M. Carmona, B. Costa, and W. S. Don, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 3191 (2008)

    2008

  56. [67]

    Walecka, Annals of Physics 83, 491 (1974)

    J. Walecka, Annals of Physics 83, 491 (1974)

    1974

  57. [68]

    J. M. Lattimer and F. D. Swesty, Nuclear Physics A 535, 331 (1991)

    1991

  58. [69]

    Hempel, T

    M. Hempel, T. Fischer, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and M. Liebend¨ orfer, Astrophys.J. 748, 70 (2012), arXiv:1108.0848 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  59. [70]

    Hempel, M

    M. Hempel, M. Oertel, S. Typel, and T. Klhn, Proceedings, (NIC-XIV): June 19-24, 2016, JPS Conf. Proc. 14, 010802 (2017), arXiv:1703.03772 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  60. [71]

    A. W. Steiner, J. M. Lattimer, and E. F. Brown, ApJ Letters 765, L5 (2013), arXiv:1205.6871 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  62. [73]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, and et al., ArXiv e-prints (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [74]

    Bauswein, T

    A. Bauswein, T. Baumgarte, and H.-T. Janka, Physical review letters 111, 131101 (2013)

    2013

  64. [75]

    J. M. Lattimer, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 62, 485 (2012), arXiv:1305.3510 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [76]

    Rezzolla and O

    L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti, Relativistic hydrodynamics (Oxford University Press, 2013)

    2013

  66. [78]

    Kastaun and F

    W. Kastaun and F. Galeazzi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064027 (2015), arXiv:1411.7975 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  67. [79]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024001 (2013), arXiv:1212.0905 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  68. [80]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and T. Wada, Phys. Rev. D 90, 041502 (2014), arXiv:1407.2660 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [81]

    Neilsen, S

    D. Neilsen, S. L. Liebling, M. Anderson, L. Lehner, E. OConnor, and C. Palenzuela, Physical Review D 89, 104029 (2014)

    2014

  70. [82]

    Fernandez, A

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

    2019 arXiv

  71. [83]

    Dietrich and M

    T. Dietrich and M. Ujevic, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 105014 (2017), arXiv:1612.03665 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [84]

    Barnes and D

    J. Barnes and D. Kasen, Astrophys. J. 775, 18 (2013), arXiv:1303.5787 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  73. [85]

    Lippuner and L

    J. Lippuner and L. F. Roberts, Astrophys. J. 815, 82 (2015), arXiv:1508.03133 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  74. [86]

    Kasen, N

    D. Kasen, N. R. Badnell, and J. Barnes, Astrophys. J. 774, 25 (2013), arXiv:1303.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  75. [87]

    Kawaguchi, K

    K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and M. Tanaka, arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.07711 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  76. [88]

    Foucart, D

    F. Foucart, D. Desai, W. Brege, M. D. Duez, D. Kasen, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.01159 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  77. [89]

    B. D. Metzger, (2017), arXiv:1710.05931 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  78. [90]

    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

  79. [91]

    D. M. Siegel and B. D. Metzger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 231102 (2017), arXiv:1705.05473 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  80. [92]

    O. Just, A. Bauswein, R. Ardevol Pulpillo, S. Goriely, and H.-T. Janka, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 448, 541 (2015), arXiv:1406.2687 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  81. [93]

    Fern´ andez and B

    R. Fern´ andez and B. D. Metzger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 435, 502 (2013), arXiv:1304.6720 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  82. [94]

    Hanauske, K

    M. Hanauske, K. Takami, L. Bovard, L. Rezzolla, J. A. Font, F. Galeazzi, and H. St¨ ocker, Physical Review D 96, 043004 (2017)

    2017

  83. [95]

    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

  84. [96]

    Loken, D

    C. Loken, D. Gruner, L. Groer, R. Peltier, N. Bunn, M. Craig, T. Henriques, J. Dempsey, C.-H. Yu, J. Chen, L. J. Dursi, J. Chong, S. Northrup, J. Pinto, N. Knecht, and R. V. Zon, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 256, 012026 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.