Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Black hole pulsars and monster shocks as outcomes of black hole--neutron star mergers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetized neutron stars swallowed by black holes can launch monster shocks and a transient black hole pulsar, producing fast radio bursts and X-ray/gamma-ray transients.

desk verdict Qualitative case is convincing; quantitative EM predictions rest on an unvalidated balding timescale and should be treated as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05760 v2 pith:3KJSZDNG submitted 2024-12-07 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Yoonsoo Kim , Elias R. Most , Andrei M. Beloborodov , Bart Ripperda This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords magneticshocksblackmagnetosphereburstemittedholemerger
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

Most black hole-neutron star mergers are expected to leave no debris around the black hole, so astronomers usually do not expect a light flash when they merge. This paper uses computer simulations to show that a strongly magnetized neutron star changes the story even when it is swallowed whole. As the neutron star spirals into the black hole, its magnetic field gets squeezed and launches powerful compressive waves. These waves steepen into so-called monster shocks as they travel outward, releasing energy and emitting radio and X-ray light.

After the neutron star disappears, the black hole keeps a small fraction of the magnetic field, which rearranges into a split-monopole pattern, like a bar magnet with the field lines pointing out from the north half and in to the south half. The rotating black hole drags this field around, creating a short-lived black hole pulsar that blows a striped magnetic wind. Magnetic reconnection in the wind turns some of the energy into particles and radiation.

The authors predict that these mergers could produce fast radio bursts and X-ray or gamma-ray bursts lasting tens of milliseconds. The simulations are complex and the paper is honest about limitations: the measured magnetic decay time in the simulation is artificially fast because of numerical resistivity, and some predictions rely on other unpublished work. Still, the qualitative picture is new and opens a fresh target for gravitational wave follow-up observations.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The load-bearing assertion is that non-disruptive BH-NS mergers with a magnetized neutron star generate two electromagnetic transients: 'a fast radio burst emitted by the shocks as they expand to large radii and an X/gamma-ray burst emitted by the e+/- outflow heated by magnetic dissipation' (abstract). If correct, such mergers are not EM-quiet. The paper's conclusion adds: 'Our ab-initio simulations demonstrate how both phenomena naturally occur in the complex dynamical spacetime of the BH-NS merger.'

Load-bearing premise

The physical faithfulness of the GRMHD treatment of the near force-free magnetosphere, specifically the reconnection-driven balding timescale. The simulation measures tau_Phi = 31 rg/c, but the authors state in Sec 4.3 that this is likely an order of magnitude shorter than kinetic results due to artificially high numerical resistivity, and that the results are mainly qualitative. The quantitative predictions then adopt tau_Phi = 100-500 rg/c from external kinetic simulations and beta_rec = 0.1, assuming the same physics transfers to the merger context. If the physical balding time or reconnection rate differs, the predicted luminosities and burst durations change.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of a non-disruptive black hole--neutron star merger with a strongly magnetized neutron star, and argues that such mergers can be electromagnetically bright rather than EM-quiet. The authors identify two transient mechanisms: (i) monster shocks formed from fast magnetosonic waves excited during the final plunge, which can later power radio emission, and (ii) a transient 'black hole pulsar' state in which the remnant BH's magnetosphere relaxes into a rotating split monopole and loses magnetic flux by reconnection and ringdown, producing a striped wind and an X/gamma-ray dissipation burst. The paper builds an analytic striped-wind model, calibrates it against the simulation, and uses it together with external kinetic-simulation inputs to produce light curves for the predicted transients.

Significance. If the qualitative picture is correct, the paper overturns the common assumption that non-disruptive BH--NS mergers are EM-quiet and provides concrete, falsifiable predictions for multi-messenger follow-up. The strengths of the paper are the ab-initio full numerical relativity GRMHD treatment with special flooring techniques, the multi-diagnostic evidence for monster shocks (vr<0 regions, E^2~B^2 plateaus) and for the split-monopole BH pulsar state (Omega_F approx Omega_H/2, rotating current sheets), and the transparent analytic model for the striped wind. The main weakness is that the quantitative light curves inherit two external parameters, tau_Phi and beta_rec, whose transfer from stationary, axisymmetric kinetic simulations to the ringing, non-axisymmetric post-merger magnetosphere is asserted but not demonstrated. The paper is more convincing as a qualitative discovery paper than as a quantitative transient-prediction paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.5, Eq. (16), Fig. 12] The quantitative X/gamma-ray burst prediction is built on tau_Phi = 100-500 rg/c and beta_rec = 0.1 taken from stationary, axisymmetric kinetic simulations (Bransgrove et al. 2021; Sironi & Spitkovsky 2014), whereas the merger simulation measures tau_Phi = 31 rg/c and Sec. 4.3 states that this measured value is likely dominated by unphysical numerical resistivity. Because LD(t) in Eq. (16) depends on tau_Phi through the prefactor exp(-2t/tau_Phi) and through Ei(2t/tau_Phi), a factor-of-3 to factor-of-16 uncertainty in tau_Phi changes the burst duration, peak luminosity, and late-time decay by comparable factors. The transfer of stationary-BH kinetic results to the ringing, non-axisymmetric post-merger magnetosphere needs to be justified, at minimum with a sensitivity study over tau_Phi and beta_rec and ideally with a higher-resolution or kinetic simulation showing that the measured tau_Phi approaches the adopted range in a merger-like configuration.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 8] In the aligned model, the early flux decay is explicitly dominated by BH ringdown, with tau_NP_phi approximately equal to tau_NP_psi, and the authors caution that the relative importance of ringdown and reconnection may change at higher resolution. The external tau_Phi values adopted in Fig. 12 come from a stationary split monopole and do not include QNM-assisted flux shedding. If ringdown-assisted balding is physical, the effective post-merger tau_Phi could be shorter than 100-500 rg/c during the first milliseconds, exactly when the modeled luminosity peaks. The authors should either quantify the ringdown contribution to flux shedding and show it is subdominant on the timescales of Fig. 12, or include it as a time-dependent tau_Phi(t) in the light-curve model.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (11)] The agreement between the analytic striped-wind model and the simulation is partly a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation, because tau_Phi is measured from the same simulation and BH,0 is fitted to the simulated Bphi profile. The independent cross-check via the horizon flux is reassuring, but the predictive use of Eq. (11) in Sec. 4.5 rests on external inputs whose applicability to the merger context is not established. The paper should explicitly separate calibration from prediction, state which quantities are free parameters, and avoid implying that the simulation alone determines the quantitative light curves.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 11 caption] The word 'polaritires' is a typo and should read 'polarities'.
  2. [Eq. (16)] The phrase 'exponential intergral' is a typo; it should read 'exponential integral'.
  3. [Sec. 5.2] The 'Thompson cross section' is a misspelling; the standard name is the Thomson cross section.
  4. [Sec. 4.5] The choice of defining the burst end time as the moment when LD(t) drops to 1/10 of its peak value is arbitrary and should be explicitly stated as an assumed criterion rather than presented as a unique duration measure.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The authors note that mapping their coordinate-dependent timescales to the fixed Kerr backgrounds used by Bransgrove et al. is nontrivial, but the comparison of tau_Phi with those studies is still made directly; a brief discussion of how this mapping affects the comparison would help the reader judge the discrepancy.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation's main results are self-contained, with a minor self-consistency check in the striped-wind comparison; quantitative light curves are calibrated by external kinetic-simulation parameters rather than derived.

  1. other [Sec. 4.4 (Eq. 11 and Fig. 11 comparison)]
    "Fig. 11 compares the θB = 30◦ simulation data with Eq.(11) on the equatorial plane, using τΦ = 31rg/c measured from the balding process (Sec. 4.3) and shifting t → t−tmerger. Our approximate analytic model shows a good agreement with the simulation result. The value of BH,0 fitted from the simulation data is 1.5 × 10−2B∗."

    The analytic model Eq. (11) is checked against the same simulation data that supply both of its non-universal inputs: τΦ is measured from the balding decay in Sec. 4.3, and BH,0 is fitted from the Bϕ profile. The agreement therefore shows that the exponential/1/r parameterization is internally consistent with the data, not that the model has independently predicted the striped-wind profile. The consistency check via ΦB = 2πrH^2 BH,0 uses the same horizon-flux data, so it is not an independent benchmark. This is a minor self-consistency issue, not a circular derivation of the paper's main transient claims.

full rationale

Score 2 reflects one minor self-consistency check, not load-bearing circularity. The paper's central results—monster shock formation, relaxation to a rotating split monopole, horizon-flux balding, and the BH pulsar state—are direct outputs of the GRMHD simulations and are not defined in terms of the claimed transients. Comparisons with Beloborodov (2023), Bransgrove et al. (2021), and Selvi et al. (2024) are external benchmarks, and the paper explicitly treats its dissipative balding rate as numerically polluted: 'We therefore treat our results mainly qualitatively... and defer quantitative conclusions to an analytical model' (Sec. 4.3). The striped-wind validation in Fig. 11 uses τΦ and BH,0 taken from the same simulation, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction; the horizon-flux cross-check uses the same data. The Fig. 12 light curves adopt τΦ = 100–500 rg/c from Bransgrove et al. (2021) and βrec = 0.1 from Sironi & Spitkovsky (2014); these are external, calibrated inputs (one from a co-authored paper) and are a legitimate modeling choice, not a circular derivation. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in by citation. The quantitative EM predictions carry physics risk, but not circularity.

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

The simulation itself is the primary evidence, but the analytic models rely on a fitted magnetic field amplitude and on balding timescales that are either numerically contaminated or imported from other simulations. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • B_H,0/B* (split-monopole field amplitude) = 1.5e-2
    Fit to the simulation data to match the toroidal field model Eq (11) in Sec 4.4. Independent flux estimate gives nearly the same value, but it is still a fitted amplitude from the same simulation.
  • tau_Phi (balding timescale, measured) = 31 rg/c for inclined models, 23 rg/c early for aligned
    Measured from horizon magnetic flux decay in Sec 4.3; the authors state it is dominated by numerical resistivity and an order of magnitude shorter than kinetic results.
  • tau_Phi (physical input for predictions) = 100 rg/c and 500 rg/c
    Adopted from high-resolution kinetic simulations (Bransgrove et al. 2021) and used in the dissipation luminosity model in Sec 4.5 because the simulated value is unphysical.
  • beta_rec (reconnection rate) = 0.1
    Fixed to the value from kinetic plasma simulations (Sironi & Spitkovsky 2014) in the dissipation luminosity model Eq (14)-(16).
  • B* (initial NS surface field) = 1.9e16 G in the runs
    Chosen for numerical convenience; the paper argues results scale with magnetization and beta, and observables are quoted per B*. It is an input scale, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ideal GRMHD equations with specialized floors reproduce the near force-free magnetospheric dynamics of a collisionless pair plasma.
    The entire simulation strategy depends on this, following Tchekhovskoy et al. 2013, Parfrey & Tchekhovskoy 2017, and Most et al. 2024a. The paper concedes in Sec 4.3 that numerical resistivity makes the balding timescale an order of magnitude too short, so this premise is only partially satisfied.
  • domain assumption The neutron star is swallowed whole with negligible tidal disruption, so no baryonic matter surrounds the remnant BH.
    Stated in Sec 2 via the chosen masses and APR4 EOS, citing Foucart 2012; this justifies the baryon-free outflow assumption in Sec 5.2 and unblocked FRB in Sec 5.1.
  • domain assumption The remnant BH relaxes to a Kerr BH with measured M=9.2 Msun and a=0.57.
    Used throughout Sec 4 to define Omega_H and QNM frequencies; this is a standard outcome of GR merger simulations.
  • standard math Fast magnetosonic waves in a dipole field steepen into monster shocks when delta B ~ B_bg/2, per the analytical model of Beloborodov 2023.
    Used in Sec 3 to identify and interpret the shocks; the criteria vr<0 and E^2~B^2 are diagnostics from this model.
  • standard math For a split-monopole magnetosphere around a Kerr BH, the field line angular velocity is Omega_F ~ Omega_H/2.
    Used in Sec 4.1 and 4.4; from Komissarov 2004b and Armas et al. 2020, valid to <1% for a<=0.7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black hole pulsars and monster shocks as outcomes of black hole--neutron star mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KJSZDNG

@misc{pith2026241205760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black hole pulsars and monster shocks as outcomes of black hole--neutron star mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KJSZDNG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05760}
}
abstract

The merger of a black hole (BH) and a neutron star (NS) in most cases is expected to leave no material around the remnant BH; therefore, such events are often considered as sources of gravitational waves without electromagnetic counterparts. However, a bright counterpart can emerge if the NS is strongly magnetized, as its external magnetosphere can experience radiative shocks and magnetic reconnection during/after the merger. We use magnetohydrodynamic simulations in the dynamical spacetime of a merging BH--NS binary to investigate its magnetospheric dynamics. We find that compressive waves excited in the magnetosphere develop into monster shocks as they propagate outward. After swallowing the NS, the BH acquires a magnetosphere that quickly evolves into a split monopole configuration and then undergoes an exponential decay (balding), enabled by magnetic reconnection and also assisted by the ring-down of the remnant BH. This spinning BH drags the split monopole into rotation, forming a transient pulsar-like state. It emits a striped wind if the swallowed magnetic dipole moment is inclined to the spin axis. We predict two types of transients from this scenario: (1) a fast radio burst emitted by the shocks as they expand to large radii and (2) an X/$\gamma$-ray burst emitted by the $e^\pm$ outflow heated by magnetic dissipation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05760 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Merger of the BH–NS binary in our simulations, where the neutron star is swallowed whole. The entire process shown in this figure happens in less than one millisecond. for the magnetospheric dynamics we study, since we fix the properties of the magnetosphere in terms of dimen￾sionless quantities such as magnetization σ = b 2/ρ, and plasma β = 2P/b2 , where b 2 is the magnetic energy den￾sity, ρ the rest-mass density… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Poloidal structure (cut in the yz plane) of the perturbed magnetosphere of the BH–NS binary 0.9 ms before merger for the aligned (θB = 0◦ ) model. Fast magnetosonic waves have toroidal electric fields E ϕ (left), and Alfvén waves have toroidal magnetic perturbations δBϕ (right). Streamlines show fluid velocity in the left panel and magnetic field lines in the right panel. The BH and NS are shown with a black and blu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Monster shocks launched from BH–NS mergers. Shown here are the Lorentz factor (left panels) and the radial spatial velocity (right panels) on the meridional (xz) plane. Dashed orange circles are light spheres with the radius r = c(t − tmerger). (Top) Simulation snapshot from the aligned model (θB = 0◦ ). A monster shock can be found near x ≃ 250km, with its characteristic feature of a plasma moving radially inward (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Post-merger magnetosphere of the remnant black hole having settled down to a rotating split monopole. The physical quantities are shown in the xz plane. Left: fluid Lorentz factor γ. Right: ratio of the thermal pressure pth to the rest energy density ρc2 . Black solid …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Angular velocity of magnetic field lines threading the apparent BH horizon for θB = 0◦ simulation. Shown are the distribution of ΩF for each latitude and the stationary axisymmetric force-free solution ΩF ≃ ΩH/2 (red dashed line). We then analyze the time evolution of …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A spacetime diagram of the approximate electric current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time evolution of the current sheet inclination angle χ for the θB = 30◦ , 60◦ models. dipole mode of ϕ2 to monitor the electromagnetic mod￾ulation in the magnetosphere.6 We show the imaginary part of ϕ (l=1,m=1) 2 and ψ (l=2,m=2) 4 (hereafter denoted simply as ϕ2 and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: total magnetic flux extracted on a spherical surface r = 2.4rg near the apparent horizon. The result from θB = 30◦ (cyan solid line) and θB = 60◦ (orange solid line) are lying almost on top of each other. Middle: imaginary part of (l, m) = (1, 1) mode of the Maxwe…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Imaginary part of the Maxwell Newman-Penrose scalar ϕ (l=1,m=1) 2 , corresponding approximately to outgoing fast magnetosonic waves, on the vertical (xz) plane normalized with the magnitude of magnetic field for the aligned case θB = 0◦ at t − tmerger = 1.05 ms [PITH_…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Pulsar-like striped wind from the remnant black hole at t − tmerger = 7.0ms from θB = 30◦ simulation. We show the toroidal magnetic field B ϕ with the magnetic field lines on the equatorial (xy) plane in both panels. The remnant black hole is shown with a black circle…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Toroidal magnetic field of the striped wind |B ϕ (r)| on the equatorial plane along the xˆ axis. Alternat￾ing signs (polaritires) of B ϕ in each stripes are denoted with different colors. The dashed line shows the fit with Eq. (11). We also find that the rotation angu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The dissipation luminosity from a BH pul￾sar LD(t) computed with an analytic model developed in Sec. 4.5, normalized with LD,43 ≡ LD/(1043erg s−1 ) and B∗,13 ≡ B∗/(1013G). Due to a high (unphysical) numerical resistivity in our simulation, we construct the light curve…

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. Implications of Magnetic Flux-Disk Mass Correlation in Black Hole-Neutron Star Mergers for GRB sub-populations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    BH-NS merger simulations find a nearly universal dimensionless magnetic flux on the black hole across two decades of disk mass, which, extrapolated with prior long-term runs, implies all BH-NS mergers produce long-dur...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    n 0 "k #d TM R 1k o _ ^Gϯ ->OO- 'O_޾<2oo<ȯ 赖 N M5*წ?H2A>]A>| 6kh1Wwr ۯd6o߾ﳥVB:[ : 7 A߯yA» ȥ7v |nﵔw|<(- ?|,z ? aB# e Hr ϝg Q&X?US - wW@Yvx1 v#bxuPbH

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 970, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  5. [5]

    2020, Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 896, L44, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2020

  6. [6]

    2021, Astrophys

    ---. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 915, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e 2021

  7. [7]

    R., & Ravenhall, D

    Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, Phys. Rev. C, 58, 1804, 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1804 1998

  8. [8]

    2003, Phys

    Alcubierre, M., Bruegmann, B., Diener, P., et al. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 084023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.084023

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.67.084023 2003

Show all 126 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Nature Astron., 5, 46, 10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3

    Anand, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astron., 5, 46, 10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Armas, J., Cai, Y., Comp\`ere, G., Garfinkle, D., & Gralla, S. E. 2020, JCAP, 04, 009, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/04/009

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    W., & Shapiro, S

    Baumgarte, T. W., & Shapiro, S. L. 2003, Astrophys. J., 585, 930, 10.1086/346104

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 843, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, Astrophys

    ---. 2020, Astrophys. J., 896, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, Astrophys

    ---. 2021, Astrophys. J., 921, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac17e7

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, Astrophys

    ---. 2023, Astrophys. J., 959, 34, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf659

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2010, Phys

    Bernuzzi, S., & Hilditch, D. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 084003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084003

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, Mon

    Biscoveanu, S., Landry, P., & Vitale, S. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 518, 5298, 10.1093/mnras/stac3052

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 179, 433, 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  11. [19]

    Bogovalov, S. V. 1999, Astron. Astrophys., 349, 1017, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9907051

    1999 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3099, 10.21105/joss.03099

    Bozzola , G. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3099, 10.21105/joss.03099

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, Phys

    Bransgrove, A., Ripperda, B., & Philippov, A. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 055101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.055101

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, Phys

    Carrasco, F., Shibata, M., & Reula, O. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 063004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063004

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Carrasco, F., Vigan\`o, D., Palenzuela, C., & Pons, J. A. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 484, L124, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz016

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2017, Space Sci

    Cerutti, B., & Beloborodov, A. 2017, Space Sci. Rev., 207, 111, 10.1007/s11214-016-0315-7

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, Astron

    Cerutti, B., & Philippov, A. 2017, Astron. Astrophys., 607, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731680

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    A., & Dubus, G

    Cerutti, B., Philippov, A. A., & Dubus, G. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 642, A204, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038618

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    2010, Phys

    Chawla, S., Anderson, M., Besselman, M., et al. 2010, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 111101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.111101

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    Y., & Beloborodov, A

    Chen, A. Y., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 795, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L22

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Y., Yuan, Y., Li, X., & Mahlmann, J

    Chen, A. Y., Yuan, Y., Li, X., & Mahlmann, J. F. 2022. 2210.13506

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., & Papadopoulos, D. B. 2013, Astrophys. J., 765, 113, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/113

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Dai, Z. G. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 873, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0b45

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2007, Astron

    Del Zanna, L., Zanotti, O., Bucciantini, N., & Londrillo, P. 2007, Astron. Astrophys., 473, 11, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077093

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    J., & Levin, J

    D'Orazio, D. J., & Levin, J. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 064059, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.064059

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Levin, J., Murray, N

    D'Orazio, D. J., Levin, J., Murray, N. W., & Price, L. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 023001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023001

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Drenkhahn, G., & Spruit, H. C. 2002, Astron. Astrophys., 391, 1141, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020839

    2002 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Liu, Y

    Duez, M. D., Liu, Y. T., Shapiro, S. L., & Stephens, B. C. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 024028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.024028

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    E., Lehner, L., Liebling, S

    East, W. E., Lehner, L., Liebling, S. L., & Palenzuela, C. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 912, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf566

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    B., Liu, Y

    Etienne, Z. B., Liu, Y. T., Paschalidis, V., & Shapiro, S. L. 2012 a , Phys. Rev. D, 85, 064029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.064029

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    B., Paschalidis, V., Haas, R., M\"osta, P., & Shapiro, S

    Etienne, Z. B., Paschalidis, V., Haas, R., M\"osta, P., & Shapiro, S. L. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 175009, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/17/175009

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    B., Paschalidis, V., & Shapiro, S

    Etienne, Z. B., Paschalidis, V., & Shapiro, S. L. 2012 b , Phys. Rev. D, 86, 084026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.084026

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, Class

    Fern\'andez, R., Foucart, F., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, Class. Quant. Grav., 34, 154001, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa7a77

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, Phys

    Foucart, F. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 124007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124007

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, Phys

    Foucart, F., Hinderer, T., & Nissanke, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 081501, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.081501

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    E., Pfeiffer, H

    Foucart, F., Kidder, L. E., Pfeiffer, H. P., & Teukolsky, S. A. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 124051, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124051

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    2021, Astrophys

    Fragione, G. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 923, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3bcd

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Goldreich, P., & Julian, W. H. 1969, Astrophys. J., 157, 869, 10.1086/150119

    1969 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.1 , v1.13.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.11255513

    Gommers , R., Virtanen , P., Haberland , M., et al. 2024, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.13.1 , v1.13.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.11255513

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2023 a , Astrophys

    Gottlieb, O., Issa, D., Jacquemin-Ide, J., et al. 2023 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 953, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/acec4a

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2023 b , Astrophys

    Gottlieb, O., et al. 2023 b , Astrophys. J. Lett., 954, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aceeff

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2006, Phys

    Grandclement, P. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 124002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.124002

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    ---. 2010, J. Comput. Phys., 229, 3334, 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.01.005

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    2022, Phys

    Hayashi, K., Fujibayashi, S., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 023008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023008

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, Phys

    Hayashi, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Sekiguchi, Y., & Shibata, M. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 123001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123001

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2013, Phys

    Hilditch, D., Bernuzzi, S., Thierfelder, M., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 084057, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.084057

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    A., & Langdon , A

    Hoshino , M., Arons , J., Gallant , Y. A., & Langdon , A. B. 1992, , 390, 454, 10.1086/171296

    1992 doi

  49. [57]

    R., Bezares, M., Liebling, S., & Palenzuela, C

    Izquierdo, M. R., Bezares, M., Liebling, S., & Palenzuela, C. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 083017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083017

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    T., Eberl, T., Ruffert, M., & Fryer, C

    Janka, H. T., Eberl, T., Ruffert, M., & Fryer, C. L. 1999, Astrophys. J. Lett., 527, L39, 10.1086/312397

    1999 doi

  51. [59]

    V., & Ciolfi, R

    Kastaun, W., Kalinani, J. V., & Ciolfi, R. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 023018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023018

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, Mon

    Kawaguchi, K., Domoto, N., Fujibayashi, S., et al. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 535, 3711, 10.1093/mnras/stae2594

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    2016, Astrophys

    Kawaguchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Tanaka, M. 2016, Astrophys. J., 825, 52, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/52

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    2015, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Sekiguchi, Y., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 064034, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.064034

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    2004 b , Mon

    ---. 2004 b , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 350, 407, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07446.x

    2004

  56. [65]

    2021, Living Rev

    Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2021, Living Rev. Rel., 24, 5, 10.1007/s41114-021-00033-4

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

    2012, Astrophys

    Lai, D. 2012, Astrophys. J. Lett., 757, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L3

    2012 doi

  58. [67]

    M., & Schramm, D

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, Astrophys. J. Lett., 192, L145, 10.1086/181612

    1974 doi

  59. [68]

    L., Thompson, C., & Hanna, C

    Lehner, L., Palenzuela, C., Liebling, S. L., Thompson, C., & Hanna, C. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 104035, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.104035

    2012 doi

  60. [69]

    J., & Garcia-Saenz, S

    Levin, J., D'Orazio, D. J., & Garcia-Saenz, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 123002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123002

    2018 doi

  61. [70]

    1998, Astrophys

    Li, L.-X., & Paczynski, B. 1998, Astrophys. J. Lett., 507, L59, 10.1086/311680

    1998 doi

  62. [71]

    2012, Class

    Loffler, F., et al. 2012, Class. Quant. Grav., 29, 115001, 10.1088/0264-9381/29/11/115001

    2012 doi

  63. [72]

    Londrillo, P., & Del Zanna, L. 2004, J. Comput. Phys., 195, 17, 10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09.016

    2004 doi

  64. [73]

    2014, Mon

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 442, 9, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    2014 doi

  65. [74]

    Lyubarsky, Y., & Kirk, J. G. 2001, Astrophys. J., 547, 437, 10.1086/318354

    2001 doi

  66. [75]

    Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2003, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 339, 765, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06221.x

    2003

  67. [76]

    Lyutikov, M., & McKinney, J. C. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 084019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.084019

    2011 doi

  68. [77]

    MacDonald, D., & Thorne, K. S. 1982, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 198, 345

    1982

  69. [78]

    Martineau, T., Foucart, F., Scheel, M., et al. 2024. 2405.06819

    2024 arXiv

  70. [79]

    T., & Levin, J

    McWilliams, S. T., & Levin, J. 2011, Astrophys. J., 742, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/90

    2011 doi

  71. [80]

    Metzger, B. D. 2020, Living Rev. Rel., 23, 1, 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0

    2020 doi

  72. [81]

    Michel, F. C. 1982, Rev. Mod. Phys., 54, 1, 10.1103/RevModPhys.54.1

    1982 doi

  73. [82]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Levin, J., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2015, Astrophys. J. Lett., 814, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/L20

    2015 doi

  74. [83]

    R., Beloborodov, A

    Most, E. R., Beloborodov, A. M., & Ripperda, B. 2024 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 974, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7e1f

    2024 doi

  75. [84]

    R., Kim, Y., Chatziioannou, K., & Legred, I

    Most, E. R., Kim, Y., Chatziioannou, K., & Legred, I. 2024 b , Astrophys. J. Lett., 973, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad785c

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    R., Nathanail, A., & Rezzolla, L

    Most, E. R., Nathanail, A., & Rezzolla, L. 2018, Astrophys. J., 864, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ef

    2018 doi

  77. [86]

    R., Papenfort, L

    Most, E. R., Papenfort, L. J., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3588, 10.1093/mnras/stz2809

    2019 doi

  78. [87]

    R., Papenfort, L

    Most, E. R., Papenfort, L. J., Tootle, S. D., & Rezzolla, L. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 506, 3511, 10.1093/mnras/stab1824

    2021 doi

  79. [88]

    R., & Philippov, A

    Most, E. R., & Philippov, A. A. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 956, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfdae

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    2014, Astrophys

    Nathanail, A., & Contopoulos, I. 2014, Astrophys. J., 788, 186, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/186

    2014 doi

  81. [90]

    R., & Rezzolla, L

    Nathanail, A., Most, E. R., & Rezzolla, L. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 469, L31, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx035

    2017 doi

  82. [91]

    2013, Mon

    Palenzuela, C. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 431, 1853, 10.1093/mnras/stt311

    2013 doi

  83. [92]

    2019, Phys

    Pan, Z., & Yang, H. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 043025, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043025

    2019 doi

  84. [93]

    J., Tootle, S

    Papenfort, L. J., Tootle, S. D., Grandcl\'ement, P., Most, E. R., & Rezzolla, L. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 024057, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.024057

    2021 doi

  85. [95]

    2017, Astrophys

    Parfrey, K., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 851, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c85

    2017 doi

  86. [96]

    B., & Shapiro, S

    Paschalidis, V., Etienne, Z. B., & Shapiro, S. L. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 021504, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.021504

    2013 doi

  87. [97]

    Paschalidis, V., Ruiz, M., & Shapiro, S. L. 2015, Astrophys. J. Lett., 806, L14, 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L14

    2015 doi

  88. [98]

    J., Andersson, N., Jones, D

    Penner, A. J., Andersson, N., Jones, D. I., Samuelsson, L., & Hawke, I. 2012, Astrophys. J. Lett., 749, L36, 10.1088/2041-8205/749/2/L36

    2012 doi

  89. [99]

    2012, Mon

    Petri, J. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 424, 605, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21238.x

    2012

  90. [100]

    A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

    Philippov, A., Uzdensky, D. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 876, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1590

    2019 doi

  91. [101]

    A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

    Philippov, A. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2015, Astrophys. J. Lett., 801, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L19

    2015 doi

  92. [102]

    Piro, A. L. 2012, Astrophys. J., 755, 80, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/80

    2012 doi

  93. [103]

    2020, Phys

    Poudel, A., Tichy, W., Br\"ugmann, B., & Dietrich, T. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 104014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.104014

    2020 doi

  94. [104]

    Ruiz, M., Paschalidis, V., Tsokaros, A., & Shapiro, S. L. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 124077, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.124077

    2020 doi

  95. [105]

    L., & Tsokaros, A

    Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Tsokaros, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 123017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123017

    2018 doi

  96. [106]

    H., & Hawke, I

    Schnetter, E., Hawley, S. H., & Hawke, I. 2004, Class. Quant. Grav., 21, 1465, 10.1088/0264-9381/21/6/014

    2004 doi

  97. [107]

    2024, Astrophys

    Selvi, S., Porth, O., Ripperda, B., & Sironi, L. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 968, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4a5b

    2024 doi

  98. [108]

    Shapiro, S. L. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 101303, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.101303

    2017 doi

  99. [109]

    Sironi, L., Plotnikov, I., N\"attil\"a, J., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 035101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.035101

    2021 doi

  100. [110]

    2014, Astrophys

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, Astrophys. J. Lett., 783, L21, 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    2014 doi

  101. [111]

    Stein, L. C. 2019, J. Open Source Softw., 4, 1683, 10.21105/joss.01683

    2019 doi

  102. [112]

    P., et al

    Tacik, N., Foucart, F., Pfeiffer, H. P., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 225012, 10.1088/0264-9381/33/22/225012

    2016 doi

  103. [113]

    2014, Astrophys

    Tanaka, M., Hotokezaka, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 780, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/31

    2014 doi

  104. [114]

    W., Faber, J

    Taniguchi, K., Baumgarte, T. W., Faber, J. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 084005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084005

    2007 doi

  105. [115]

    2008, Phys

    ---. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 044003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.044003

    2008 doi

  106. [116]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, Astrophys. J., 711, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/50

    2010 doi

  107. [117]

    2016, Mon

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 457, 3384, 10.1093/mnras/stv2869

    2016 doi

  108. [118]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., Spitkovsky, A., & Li, J. G. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 435, L1, 10.1093/mnrasl/slt076

    2013 doi

  109. [119]

    Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, Phys. Rev. Lett., 29, 1114, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.1114

    1972 doi

  110. [120]

    1973, Astrophys

    ---. 1973, Astrophys. J., 185, 635, 10.1086/152444

    1973 doi

  111. [121]

    2024, Matplotlib: Visualization with Python, v3.9.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13308876

    The Matplotlib Development Team . 2024, Matplotlib: Visualization with Python, v3.9.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13308876

    2024 doi

  112. [122]

    2004, Class

    Thornburg, J. 2004, Class. Quant. Grav., 21, 743, 10.1088/0264-9381/21/2/026

    2004 doi

  113. [123]

    S., Hinderer, T., Piro, A

    Tsang, D., Read, J. S., Hinderer, T., Piro, A. L., & Bondarescu, R. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 011102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.011102

    2012 doi

  114. [124]

    A., & Spitkovsky, A

    Uzdensky, D. A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, Astrophys. J., 780, 3, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/3

    2014 doi

  115. [125]

    2025, Phys

    Vanthieghem, A., & Levinson, A. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 134, 035201, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.035201

    2025 doi

  116. [126]

    2019, Astrophys

    Zhang, B. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 873, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ae8

    2019 doi

  117. [127]

    2019, Astrophys

    Zhong, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Deng, C.-M. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 883, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40c5

    2019 doi

  118. [128]

    G., Campanelli, M., & Lousto, C

    Zlochower, Y., Baker, J. G., Campanelli, M., & Lousto, C. O. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 024021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.024021

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.