Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Mixing neutron star material into the jets in the common envelope jets supernova r-process scenario

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the common-envelope jets supernova r-process scenario, a dense accretion disk around a neutron star can penetrate the star's crust, and Kelvin-Helmholtz mixing feeds neutron-rich crust material into the jets, raising r-process yields…

desk verdict Plausible order-of-magnitude argument that CEJSN disks can entrain NS crust, but the crust-fluidization assumption is unquantified, so the yield is an upper limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02411 v2 pith:VN5XNYLM submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords r-processnucleosynthesiscommonenvelopejetssupernovaneutronstarcrustKelvin-Helmholtzinstabilityaccretiondiskheavyelement
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

In the common-envelope jets supernova (CEJSN) r-process scenario, a neutron star plunges into the core of a massive evolved star, accretes at about 0.05 solar masses per second, and launches jets. This paper argues that the resulting high-density accretion disk does not stop at the neutron star's surface: it can penetrate the outer crust down to the density where disk and crust match, and the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability then mixes neutron-rich crust material from layers tens of times denser into the disk. The jets carry this material out, so each event could eject roughly 0.01-0.03 solar masses of r-process elements. The author presents this as strengthening the CEJSN scenario as one of several r-process sites, not as the main site.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability acting at the interface between the Keplerian accretion disk and the much slower neutron-star crust. The key derived scale is the density ratio $q_\rho \equiv \rho_{\rm cr}/\rho_d$; the instability condition reduces to $q_\rho \lesssim 86 (\Delta q_v/0.5)^2$, which sets how deep the mixing reaches. Combining that with the crust mass-density relation $M_{\rm cr}(>\rho) \approx 10^{-4} (\rho/10^{12}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}})\,M_\odot$ gives the entrained mass, up to about $0.01\,M_\odot$. A supporting ingredient is the claim that magnetic fields cannot suppress the instability unless $B \gtrsim 3\times 10^{16}\,\mathrm{G}$, far above typical neutron-star fields.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional simulation that resolves the mixing layer (scale height $H_\rho \approx 0.01 R_{\rm NS}$), includes neutrino cooling and a realistic solid-crust equation of state, and shows that the crust stays solid and the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability stops at the surface would falsify the $0.01\,M_\odot$ entrainment claim; a softer observable falsifier is CEJSN candidates whose r-process ejecta mass comes out below $0.01\,M_\odot$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the accretion disk in the CEJSN r-process scenario is dense enough to eat into the neutron star's crust, and that the shear between the disk and the crust drives Kelvin-Helmholtz mixing that pulls neutron-rich material from the deep inner crust into the disk. Using the disk density $\rho_d \approx 10^{12}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$ from earlier scalings, the disk penetrates to the equal-density level, and the Kelvin-Helmholtz condition (with shear $\Delta q_v \sim 0.5$) keeps the instability alive up to density ratios $q_\rho \approx 86$, i.e. densities of a few $\times 10^{13}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$. The mass above that depth is about $0.01\,M_\odot$ of original cold crust; because accretion replenishes the crust on a timescale of about 0.002 s while the event lasts 10-100 s, the total entrained mass could reach about $0.03\,M_\odot$. Entraining this neutron-rich material lowers the electron fraction and enlarges the neutron reservoir, so the estimated r-process ejecta per event rises to $0.01$-$0.03\,M_\odot$. The paper does not claim CEJSNe are the main r-process site; it claims they are a contributing site, consistent with evidence that two or more sites are needed.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation treats the neutron-star crust as a continuous fluid with a smooth density gradient, but the outer and inner crust are solid lattices at the relevant densities; the paper only asserts that dissipated kinetic energy can liquefy the mixed material and does not show that melting outruns neutrino cooling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each CEJSN r-process event can eject 0.01-0.03 solar masses of r-process elements, making rare early-Universe events viable heavy-element sources.
  • Neutron-rich crust material guarantees a low electron fraction in the jet-launching region even for accretion rates below the previously quoted threshold.
  • The heaviest r-process nuclei, including third-peak and actinide tracers, are likely products of the inner, crust-enriched disk because that material has the lowest electron fraction and highest density.
  • The scenario supports the claim that at least two r-process sites contribute to galactic nucleosynthesis, with CEJSNe acting on short delay times in the young Universe.
  • Future simulations must resolve density scale heights of about 0.01 neutron-star radii and include both the disk and the neutron star, a dynamical range of about three orders of magnitude.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If crust entrainment operates, the abundance pattern of CEJSN r-process ejecta should carry a signature of neutron-star crust composition that differs from neutron-star merger ejecta; comparing predicted iridium-to-europium and lanthanide fractions with observed metal-poor stars could test this beyond what the paper computes.
  • The same shear-mixing argument could be applied to other configurations where a dense disk forms on a compact object with a solid crust, such as accreting white dwarfs; the paper cites numerical work there without developing the analogy.
  • Magnetic fields far below about 10^16 gauss do not suppress the instability in this estimate, but a CEJSN system with a magnetar-strength field in a stabilizing geometry could cut the entrained mass sharply; current r-process-rich star observations cannot yet distinguish this case.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a new mechanism in the common-envelope jets supernova (CEJSN) r-process scenario: the high-density accretion disk around a neutron star (NS) that enters a massive stellar core can penetrate the NS crust, and Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (KHI) can mix neutron-rich crust material into the inner disk. Using scaling relations for the disk density (Eq. 1), a fitted crust pressure-density relation (Eq. 4), and a KHI criterion (Eqs. 7-15), the author estimates that up to ~0.01 M_sun of original NS crust material can be entrained, and possibly ~0.03 M_sun with replenishment, with this material then carried out by jets and contributing to r-process nucleosynthesis. The paper explicitly frames the result as strengthening, not replacing, the CEJSN r-process scenario.

Significance. If the mechanism operates, it would provide a new channel for supplying neutron-rich material to the r-process in CEJSNe and would help explain large per-event r-process yields. The paper is commendably transparent: it uses published scaling relations, fits no free parameters to the claimed yield, explicitly acknowledges key assumptions, and calls for numerical simulations. The algebraic derivation of the KHI condition (Eqs. 11-14) is internally consistent, and the manuscript is clearly written. However, the central quantitative claim rests on two unverified physical steps: treating the solid NS crust as a fluid for KHI, and assuming that the mixed boundary-layer material is ejected in jets rather than accreted. Both are acknowledged but not quantitatively supported, so the claimed 0.01-0.03 M_sun yield remains conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (7)-(15) and Eq. (17)] The KHI analysis treats the NS crust as a fluid with a continuous density gradient, but at densities of rho_cr ~ 10^12-10^13 g cm^-3 the outer and inner crust is a Coulomb solid. The paper itself concedes this ('which is a solid') and supports fluidization only with the qualitative statement that a calculation without neutrino cooling gives T > 10^11 K and that 'nonetheless, the dissipated energy can turn the solid mixed crust material to liquid.' No dissipation rate, neutrino-cooling timescale, melting timescale, or steady-state temperature is provided. This is load-bearing because the KHI criterion in Eq. (7) is derived for two fluids and does not apply to an elastic solid; if the crust remains solid, the shear is accommodated in the disk's boundary layer and the entrained mass in Eq. (17) is not secured. The manuscript should provide a quantitative estimate of the local heating and cooling balance in the boundary layer, or demonstrate that KHI can operate on a partially molten or elastic interface, before the 0.01 M_sun claim is accepted.
  2. [Section 4] The final r-process yield also depends on the assumption that the mixed crust-disk material is ejected in the jets. The text states 'The proposed scenario assumes that the crust-disk mixed material is ejected from the disk and is part of the jets' material,' but no model or estimate of the ejection fraction from the boundary layer is given. A boundary layer can accrete rather than eject, and the mass mixed into the disk (Eq. 17) need not be launched. Since the abstract's 0.01-0.03 M_sun yield depends on this step, the manuscript should either provide a quantitative basis for the ejection fraction or clearly label the 0.01-0.03 M_sun value as an upper limit conditional on efficient jet launching from the mixed layer.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, after Eq. (17)] The phrase 'at a density of 10^12 g cm^-2' should read '10^12 g cm^-3'.
  2. [Section 4, first paragraph] The text '0.05 M_sun yr^-1' appears to be a typo; it should be '0.05 M_sun s^-1' to be consistent with Eq. (1) and the rest of the paper.
  3. [Section 2, relativistic-effects paragraph] The expression '2GMMN/(c^2 RNS)' contains a typographical error ('MMN'); it should be 'GMNS'.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The relation between d(rho_cr)/rho_cr and (rho_cr - rho_d)/((rho_cr + rho_d)/2) is easy to misread because of missing parentheses; adding an explicit definition or parentheses would improve clarity.
  5. [Section 3, mixing-depth assumption] The assumption that the mixing depth is of the order of the KHI wavelength is ad hoc, and the subsequent statement that a 'more accurate treatment should yield a deeper mixing length' is not substantiated; either justify this claim or remove it.
  6. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract's '0.01-0.03 M_sun' conflates the newly entrained mass with the total r-process yield from earlier CEJSN models; it would be clearer to state explicitly that the entrained mass is added to an already 0.01-0.03 M_sun scenario.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction is present: the entrained-mass estimate is a new physical calculation from published inputs, with no fitted parameter calibrated to the claimed result.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the disk density (Eq. 1, from Grichener & Soker 2019a) through the hydrostatic crust mass–density relation (Eq. 6, from Cehula et al. 2024) and the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability criterion (Eq. 7) to the mixing-depth condition (Eqs. 14–15) and the entrained mass (Eq. 17). Each step is an explicit formula with stated inputs; the only free parameter, the shear-velocity fraction Δqv, is not fitted to the resulting mass but appears quadratically in the prediction. The self-citations (Grichener & Soker 2019a,b) supply the CEJSN scenario's disk properties and previous r-process yield estimates, but the new entrainment claim does not reduce to those papers by definition; it is a separate physical estimate. The acknowledged weak point is the fluidization of the solid NS crust: Section 3 states the study 'does not go into the details of the mixing process ... which is a solid' and only asserts that 'the dissipated energy can turn the solid mixed crust material to liquid' without a neutrino-cooling-aware melting timescale. That is a correctness or robustness risk, not a circularity, because the analysis does not define the entrained mass in terms of the r-process yield or fit the solid-to-liquid transition to the output. The paper is therefore not circular in the sense of the seven enumerated patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The estimate depends on the disk density normalization from Grichener & Soker 2019a, the NS crust mass-density relation from Chamel & Haensel 2008 and Cehula et al. 2024, and two hand-set assumptions: the shear velocity Delta_qv and the equality between mixing depth and KHI wavelength. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Delta_qv (normalized shear velocity between disk and NS crust) = 0.3-0.8, reference 0.5
    The KHI mixing depth and entrained mass scale as (Delta_qv)^2. The paper chooses this range based on expectations of NS rotation without a spin model; the 0.01 M_sun yield is proportional to this hand-set value.
  • Crust pressure-density normalization in Eq. (4) = 1.5e30 erg cm^-3 per 1e12 g cm^-3
    The paper fits this line to Figure 29 of Chamel & Haensel (2008). It is an input from external NS EOS literature, not fitted to the paper's own prediction, but it directly sets the Mcr vs density relation.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kelvin-Helmholtz instability criterion for incompressible fluids without surface tension (Eq. 7)
    Used to derive the instability condition and mixing depth; standard fluid mechanics.
  • domain assumption Accretion disk density and scale height scaling laws from Grichener & Soker (2019a) based on Chevalier (1996), extrapolated to the NS surface (Eqs. 1-2)
    The entire estimate assumes these scaling laws hold at r=12 km; the paper flags this as a preliminary treatment.
  • domain assumption NS crust density-pressure profile from Chamel & Haensel (2008) and mass-density relation from Cehula et al. (2024) (Eqs. 4-6)
    The entrained mass uses a hydrostatic relation Mcr = 4 pi R^4 P/(GM) that assumes the crust is in hydrostatic equilibrium and the pressure-density fit is accurate at rho~10^12-10^14 g/cm^3.
  • ad hoc to paper Mixing depth is of order the KHI wavelength lambda (Section 3)
    The paper assumes dr=lambda; it later states a more accurate treatment would yield a deeper mixing length of 2.5-4.5 H_rho, so this is a conservative but unjustified choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Dissipated kinetic energy in the boundary layer melts the solid crust, allowing fluid entrainment (Section 3)
    No quantitative melting or cooling calculation is provided; if the crust remains solid, the KHI mechanism does not operate.
  • domain assumption The mixed material is ejected from the boundary layer into the jets (Section 4)
    The paper explicitly states this is an assumption; the yield estimate requires that jets launch from the innermost boundary layer and carry the entrained mass.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixing neutron star material into the jets in the common envelope jets supernova r-process scenario." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VN5XNYLM

@misc{pith2026250202411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixing neutron star material into the jets in the common envelope jets supernova r-process scenario},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VN5XNYLM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02411}
}
read the original abstract

I find that the accretion disk around the neutron star (NS) that enters the core of a massive evolved star in the frame of the common-envelope jets supernova (CEJSN) r-process scenario can penetrate the crust of the NS, mix neutron-rich crust material into the disk, and enrich the jets that the disk launches with the neutron-rich material. As the NS accretes at high rates from the core inside which it revolves, it forms an accretion disk with high density. In the CEJSN r-process scenario, the very high density in the accretion disk results in low electron fraction gas, enabling the r-process. Jets carry the r-process elements out. The new claim in this study is that the high-density accretion disk destroys part of the NS crust and entrains this mass. The Kelvin-Helmholtz instability mixes material from the deeper crust. The total neutron-rich mass that the disk mixes and the jets carry can be up to ~0.01Mo. Enriching the accretion disk with neutron-rich material ensures a low electron fraction as required by the r-process nucleosynthesis and the ejection of massive r-process ejecta, 0.01-0.03Mo. I strengthen the CEJSN r-process scenario, but do not claim it is the main r-process site. I only claim that two or more r-process sites contribute to r-process nucleosynthesis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJ, 902, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc0d

    Banerjee, P., W u, M.-R., & Yuan, Z. 2020, ApJ, 902, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc0d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abbc0d 2020

  2. [2]

    N., & Jos´ e, J

    Bellomo, M., Shore, S. N., & Jos´ e, J. 2024, A&A, 690, A361, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348740

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348740 2024

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1891, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1690

    Beniamini, P., & Hotokezaka, K. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1891, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1690

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1690 2020

  4. [4]

    2016a, ApJ, 829, L 13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L13 —

    Beniamini, P., Hotokezaka, K., & Piran, T. 2016a, ApJ, 829, L 13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L13 —. 2016b, ApJ, 832, 149, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/149

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l13

  5. [5]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2024, ApJ, 966, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd 2024

  6. [6]

    P., Drout, M

    Brauer, K., Ji, A. P., Drout, M. R., & Frebel, A. 2021, ApJ, 915 , 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b2 2021

  7. [7]

    Pearson, J. M. 2020, A&A, 635, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937236

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937236 2020

  8. [8]

    A., & Metzger, B

    Cehula, J., Thompson, T. A., & Metzger, B. D. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae358

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae358 2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    2008, Living Reviews in Relativity , 11, 10, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2008-10

    Chamel, N., & Haensel, P. 2008, Living Reviews in Relativity , 11, 10, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2008-10

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1996, ApJ, 459, 322, doi: 10.1086/176895

    1996 doi

  3. [11]

    Chornock, R., Berger, E., & Kasen. et al. , D. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., & Arcones.et al. , A. 2019, Astrophy. J, 875, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, The Astrophysi cal Journal, 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysi cal Journal, 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2003

    Dvorkin, I., Daigne, F., Goriely, S., Vangioni, E., & Silk, J . 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2003

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    K., Rosswog, S., & Kratz, K

    Farouqi, K., Thielemann, F. K., Rosswog, S., & Kratz, K. L. 2022, A&A, 663, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141038 Fran¸ cois, P., Depagne, E., Hill, V., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 9 35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077706

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Fujimoto, M. Y. 1993, ApJ, 419, 768, doi: 10.1086/173528

    1993 doi

  8. [16]

    2011, ApJ, 738, L32 , doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L32

    Goriely, S., Bauswein, A., & Janka, H.-T. 2011, ApJ, 738, L32 , doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L32

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1449 —

    Grichener, A. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 221, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1449 —. 2025, Ap&SS, 370, 11, doi: 10.1007/s10509-025-04402-1

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, ApJ, 926, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4f68

    Grichener, A., Kobayashi, C., & Soker, N. 2022, ApJ, 926, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4f68

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2019a, ApJ, 878, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5d —

    Grichener, A., & Soker, N. 2019a, ApJ, 878, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5d —. 2019b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.06328, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1909.06328 6 Soker —. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Societ y, 6, 263, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acaa9f

    1909 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty797

    Halevi, G., & M ¨osta, P. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty797

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    J., & Kobayashi, C

    Haynes, C. J., & Kobayashi, C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3389

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    M., & Andrews, J

    Holmbeck, E. M., & Andrews, J. J. 2023, Total r-process Yield s of Milky W ay Neutron Star Mergers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03847

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    2024, arXiv e-pri nts, arXiv:2410.02852, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02852

    Issa, D., Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-pri nts, arXiv:2410.02852, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02852

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    P., Drout, M

    Ji, A. P., Drout, M. R., & Hansen, T. T. 2019, Astrophy. J, 882, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3291

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    P., Frebel, A., Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., & Chiti, A. 2016, ApJ, 830, 93, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/93

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f8e

    Jin, S., & Soker, N. 2024, ApJ, 971, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f8e

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., & Barnes. et al. , J. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Kasen, D., & Lau

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kasen, D., & Lau. et al. , R. M. 2019, Mon. Not. R. Astro. Soc., 510, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz007

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 17 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, ApJ, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

    Kobayashi, C., Mandel, I., Belczynski, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2005, ApJ, 629, 341, doi: 10.1086/431354

    Kohri, K., Narayan, R., & Piran, T. 2005, ApJ, 629, 341, doi: 10.1086/431354

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Natu re, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    M., & Lovelace, R

    Long, M., Romanova, M. M., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 2005, ApJ, 634, 1214, doi: 10.1086/497000

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 877, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2049

    Macias, P., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 877, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2049

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.0863 0, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08630

    Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.0863 0, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08630

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Margalit, B., Berger, E., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 110 , doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Metzger, B. D. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.05931, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1710.05931

    2017 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2021, MNRAS, 505 , 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1429

    Molero, M., Romano, D., Reichert, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505 , 2913, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1429

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    P., Ji, A

    Naidu, R. P., Ji, A. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/109

    Nishimura, N., Takiwaki, T., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2015, ApJ, 810, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/109

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    2015, Mon

    Papish, O., Soker, N., & Bukay, I. 2015, Mon. Not. R. Astro. Soc., 449, 288, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv345

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    D., Cehula, J., et al

    Patel, A., Metzger, B. D., Cehula, J., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-p rints, arXiv:2501.09181, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09181

    doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    D., Goldberg, J

    Patel, A., Metzger, B. D., Goldberg, J. A., et al. 2025b, arXi v e-prints, arXiv:2501.17253. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17253 P´ erez-Azor ´ ın, J. F., Miralles, J. A., & Pons, J. A. 2006, A&A, 451, 1009, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054403

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., & Benetti. et al. , S. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    K., & Chhajlani, R

    Prajapati, R., Das Soni, Sanghvi, R. K., & Chhajlani, R. K. 20 09, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A, 64, 455, doi: 10.1515/zna-2009-7-808

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    Prasanna, T., Coleman, M. S. B., & Thompson, T. A. 2024, ApJ, 973, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d90

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Z., & W asserburg, G

    Qian, Y. Z., & W asserburg, G. J. 2007, Phys. Rep., 442, 237, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.006

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19305

    Qiumu, W.-Z., Chen, M.-H., Chen, Q.-H., & Liang, E.-W. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.19305. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19305

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    ´A., et al

    Reichert, M., Obergaulinger, M., Aloy, M. ´A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3185

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab029

    Arcones, A. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab029

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Agarwal, A., Barnes, J., et al

    Siegel, D. M., Agarwal, A., Barnes, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d04

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Nature, 569, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    2025, arXiv e-pr ints, arXiv:2503.16946

    Storm, N., Bergemann, M., Eitner, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-pr ints, arXiv:2503.16946. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16946

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J., & Fernando, H

    Strang, E. J., & Fernando, H. J. S. 2001, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 428, 349, doi: 10.1017/S0022112000002706

    2001 doi

  47. [55]

    2021, ApJ, 920, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2c75 van de Voort, F., Pakmor, R., Bieri, R., & Grand, R

    Tsujimoto, T. 2021, ApJ, 920, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2c75 van de Voort, F., Pakmor, R., Bieri, R., & Grand, R. J. J. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac710 W anajo, S., Sekiguchi, Y., Nishimura, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 7 89, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L...

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    2012, ApJ, 750, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L22 W orley, A., Krastev, P

    Winteler, C., K ¨appeli, R., Perego, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L22 W orley, A., Krastev, P. G., & Li, B.-A. 2008, ApJ, 685, 390, doi: 10.1086/589823

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac721c

    Yamazaki, Y., He, Z., Kajino, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac721c

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    S., et al

    Yong, D., Kobayashi, C., Da Costa, G. S., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03611-2 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in the astro-ph s...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.