Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 107 references

A general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics extension to mesh-less schemes in the code GIZMO

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents the first mesh-less solver for general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics.

desk verdict First meshless GRMHD implementation, and the first-mover claim holds up; the tuned cleaning speed and missing code release are the main soft spots. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15775 v1 pith:VIFLI47N submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMphysics.comp-phphysics.plasm-ph

Giacomo Fedrigo , Alessandro Lupi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMphysics.comp-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords GRMHDmesh-lessmethodsdivergencecleaningHLLsolverGIZMOmagnetizedaccretionblackholedisksnumericalastrophysics
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

The paper claims that the equations of general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics (GRMHD) can be solved on the mesh-less, particle-like discretization used by the GIZMO code, and that this is the first mesh-free numerical scheme to do so. The motivation is physical: magnetized plasma around black holes, especially in active galactic nuclei, has so far required grid codes, while Lagrangian schemes preserve mass, angular momentum, and adaptive resolution more naturally. The authors extend GIZMO's existing general-relativistic hydrodynamics with an HLL Riemann solver that includes magnetic fields, an explicit volume evolution, and a divergence-cleaning scheme that combines Powell source terms with a general-relativistic version of Dedner hyperbolic cleaning. They demonstrate the scheme on special-relativistic shock tubes, loop advection, a magnetic rotor, and cylindrical and spherical blast waves, and on general-relativistic tests of a magnetized neutron star and Bondi accretion onto a black hole. If the claim holds, cosmological simulations that reach down to black-hole horizons can carry magnetic fields through the full dynamical range without switching to a grid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the coupling of GIZMO's mesh-less finite-volume discretization with a general-relativistic divergence-cleaning scheme. In the mesh-less method, each fluid element carries a volume defined by a kernel weight, and fluxes are computed with a one-dimensional HLL Riemann solver at element faces; the two modes, MFM and MFV, differ only in the assumed face velocity. The new GRMHD components are an explicit volume update over the timestep, needed because the magnetic terms in the conserved momentum and energy depend on volume-squared; a reconstruction of $W v^i$ rather than $v^i$ at faces to avoid superluminal velocities; and the Powell plus Dedner cleaning, in which the scalar field $\hat{\psi}$ obeys a mass-weighted advection equation and enters Rusanov fluxes for the field components. The cleaning parameters are the damping constant $K$ and the speed-increase factor $f$, with fiducial values $K=0.1$ and $f=1$, except $f=2.5$ for the neutron star and $K=0.75$ for the blast waves.

What would settle it

Run the magnetic-rotor or Balsara4 test with the user factor lowered to $f=0.1$ while keeping $K=0.1$; if the maximum $|\partial_i B^i|/|B|$ grows monotonically or primitive-variable recovery fails before the nominal end time, then the tuned cleaning speed is load-bearing in exactly the way the paper assumes. Alternatively, compare the magnetized TOV star at four times the resolution: the MFM mode shows a magnetic-field amplification by about a factor 1.6 after roughly 13 dynamical times, so if that amplification persists or grows with resolution rather than decaying, the scheme's long-term equilibrium behavior is not yet convergent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a mesh-less finite-volume scheme can evolve the ideal GRMHD equations in curved spacetime and pass the standard battery of relativistic MHD validation tests. Working in the 3+1 Valencia formulation, the authors write the equations in conservative form and solve them with a single-state HLL (Harten-Lax-van Leer) Riemann solver whose wave speeds come from the relativistic magnetosonic dispersion relation. To keep the magnetic-field divergence under control they combine Powell's eight-wave source terms with a hyperbolic divergence-cleaning scalar field, deriving both from a modification of Maxwell's equations consistent with the 3+1 decomposition; the scalar field is advected and damped at a local magnetosonic speed augmented by a user factor rather than at the speed of light, in order to preserve hierarchical time-stepping. The scheme reproduces exact or reference solutions for the special-relativistic shock tubes, loop advection, magnetic rotor, and blast waves, and it evolves both a magnetized Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff star and magnetized Bondi accretion onto a non-spinning black hole in Kerr-Schild coordinates. A new energy-entropy switch cures internal-energy overestimation in strongly magnetized, supersonic, isentropic regions such as the Bondi flow inside the horizon.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme's safety rests on the assumption that a cleaning speed set to a local magnetosonic speed augmented by a user factor, rather than the speed of light, removes magnetic-divergence errors fast enough to protect the numerical step that recovers physical fluid quantities from the evolved conserved ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both mesh-less modes, MFM and MFV, pass the SRMHD and GRMHD tests; MFV preserves magnetic topology better in the TOV equilibrium, while MFM conserves particle masses exactly and reaches higher density peaks in the rotor test.
  • Because the implementation accepts generic equations of state and user-supplied metrics, with flat and Kerr metrics already available in Boyer-Lindquist and Kerr-Schild coordinates, the same machinery can be applied to spinning black holes and, in future extensions, to dynamically evolving spacetimes.
  • The magnetized Bondi test in Kerr-Schild coordinates confirms that the scheme can carry a magnetized accretion flow smoothly across the event horizon, which is what a full AGN-disk simulation inside the horizon will require.
  • The paper's own comparisons show that particle-motion artifacts, such as oscillations at strong shocks and slow magnetic noise in MFM mode, can be reduced by a close-packed lattice initialization, a smoother kernel, or more diffusive slope limiters, so the practical accuracy of the method is tunable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the first-implementation claim holds, the natural next comparison is against constrained-transport or vector-potential moving-mesh GRMHD codes at equal resolution; those alternative divergence controls may set the bar for how much the Powell plus Dedner cleaning costs in accuracy on long-run disk simulations.
  • The choice to cap the cleaning speed below the speed of light means residual divergence will never be exactly zero; one testable extension is to make the factor $f$ adaptive, high in strongly magnetized regions and low elsewhere, to see whether cleaning quality and step-size savings can both improve.
  • The MFM magnetic-topology drift seen in the TOV test suggests that mass-conserving schemes may need a small amount of numerical resistivity or a better face-velocity estimate before they can be trusted for decades-long accretion-disk evolution; the paper does not claim to solve that.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics (GRMHD) extension to the mesh-less code GIZMO, building on the earlier GRHD implementation of Lupi (2023). The authors formulate ideal GRMHD in the 3+1 Valencia form, implement a single-state HLL Riemann solver with magnetosonic wave speeds, evolve particle volumes explicitly to handle the volume dependence of the magnetic conserved variables, and use a Noble et al. (2006) conservative-to-primitive inversion. To control div B, they implement Powell 8-wave source terms together with a hyperbolic Dedner cleaning field psi, with the cleaning speed set to an augmented local magnetosonic speed. The scheme is validated on a broad set of problems: monopole damping, Balsara shock tubes, loop advection, magnetic rotor, cylindrical and spherical blast waves in Minkowski spacetime, and magnetized TOV and Bondi accretion in Schwarzschild/Kerr-Schild backgrounds. The central claim is that this is the first GRMHD scheme in a mesh-free environment and that GIZMO can now evolve ideal GRMHD on a moving particle discretization.

Significance. If the implementation is robust, the significance is high: it would bring GRMHD into a widely used mesh-less astrophysical code, enabling quasi-Lagrangian simulations of black-hole accretion and cosmological-AGN setups without the grid-alignment and conservation problems of fixed meshes. The paper's strengths are its validation against independent exact solutions (the Giacomazzo & Rezzolla RMHD Riemann solver, analytic TOV and Bondi solutions), the breadth of the test suite, and the unusually honest reporting of numerical artifacts and limitations. The central claim is not circular because the tests compare against externally computed exact solutions rather than fitted outputs. The main open questions concern robustness: the divergence-cleaning parameters and speed are tuned per test, the MFM TOV run shows a 1.6x magnetic-field growth at about 13 dynamical times, and the magnetized Bondi test requires the energy-entropy switch. These issues do not invalidate the proof-of-concept, but they need to be addressed before the scheme can be considered ready for the advertised BH-accretion applications.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.3, Eq. (30), Appendix B] The divergence-cleaning robustness for the advertised BH-accretion applications is not demonstrated. The Dedner speed is ch = vms(1+f)/(1+f vms^2) and the damping term in Eq. (30) is proportional to alpha*sigma*ch*D*psi; as vms goes to zero, both advection and damping of the psi field vanish. The paper chooses K=0.1 (0.75 for blast waves) and f=1 (2.5 for the TOV) and justifies them by 'extensive tests', but it provides no parameter-robustness or resolution study. Appendix B shows that with Powell terms alone a strong monopole is damped by only an order of magnitude at t=10, so in low-vms regions the only active error-control mechanism is weak. Because the conservative-to-primitive inversion in Sec. 3.2.3 is stated to be sensitive to nonzero div B, please add quantitative tests in low-magnetosonic-speed regions, with varied f and K, and a resolution study for the Bondi or another BH-accretion-like setup that reports div B and inversion failures.
  2. [4.2.1, Figs. 12-13] The MFM TOV evolution is not fully satisfactory as a validation of long-term equilibrium maintenance. The paper reports that after about 13 dynamical times the magnetic field undergoes a topological rearrangement and its maximum intensity grows by a factor of about 1.6, with a delayed central-density increase of about 2 percent. This is attributed to small perturbations introduced by the MFM frame-velocity prescription. Since MFM is the mass-conserving mode that the paper emphasizes, and since BH-accretion simulations are inherently long-time evolutions, this artifact should be quantified (e.g. with a convergence study and a time-to-failure measure) and, if possible, mitigated or bounded. Without such a study, the statement that the scheme can evolve GRMHD in MFM mode for astrophysical applications is not yet supported.
  3. [4.2.2 and Appendix A] The magnetized Bondi test requires the optional energy-entropy switch; without it, the specific internal energy is overestimated by a factor of 1.5 at the horizon and the radial velocity is underestimated. The switch is only valid for adiabatic, shock-free flows, yet realistic BH accretion flows contain shocks and dissipation. The paper should state the resulting scope limitation explicitly at the point where the Bondi test is used to support the BH-accretion motivation, and should either demonstrate that the switch is not needed for shock-containing flows or clarify that the present scheme is validated only for smooth, isentropic accretion regions. This is load-bearing for the claim that GIZMO-GRMHD can self-consistently simulate from cosmological scales down to the BH event horizon.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The name 'Schwarzchild' is misspelled; it should be 'Schwarzschild'.
  2. [4.1.1] The sentence 'higher K values result in inefficient cleaning while too low K values lead to system instabilities' is confusing in view of Fig. 1, where K=1 visibly damps the monopole faster. Please rephrase to distinguish damping speed from the fidelity of the magnetic-field evolution.
  3. [Fig. 13] The y-axis label 'log(Bmax)' is inconsistent with the linear tick labels shown in the figure; please correct the label or the axis.
  4. [1, Introduction] The 'first mesh-less GRMHD scheme' claim would be easier to evaluate if the term 'mesh-less' were explicitly defined in contrast to moving-mesh schemes, with a brief statement of how the cited moving-mesh GRMHD implementations (e.g. Fragile et al. 2019) differ from the present approach.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GRMHD scheme is validated against independent exact solutions, and the Dedner parameter choices are disclosed calibration rather than predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that GIZMO can evolve ideal GRMHD on a mesh-less discretization, and the evidence for that claim is a set of standard SRMHD and GRMHD benchmark tests compared against independent reference solutions. The governing equations in Sec. 2 follow the Valencia formulation and prior GRMHD literature, and the numerical implementation in Sec. 3 is a new extension of the previously published GRHD code (Lupi 2023). No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the outcomes it is used to predict, and the validation targets are external: the exact relativistic RMHD Riemann solver of Giacomazzo & Rezzolla (2006), the analytic TOV equilibrium, and the Michel/Bondi accretion solution. The Dedner cleaning parameters K and f are explicitly tuned: Sec. 3.3 states 'After extensive tests of the scheme, we have opted for defining sigma = K/dx, with K = 0.1' and 'In our tests, we typically assume f = 1'. This is transparent calibration of free parameters, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction; the paper does not claim these values were derived from first principles. The self-citations to the original GIZMO methods papers and to Lupi (2023) provide the base discretization and GRHD machinery, but the GRMHD extension, Riemann solver modifications, volume evolution, and divergence cleaning are newly presented and tested here. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no alternative scheme is excluded by self-citation. The potential concern that the cleaning speed c_h vanishes in regions of small magnetosonic speed is a robustness or validation-coverage question rather than a circularity, because the paper openly reports the parameter choices and compares outcomes to external solutions. Overall, the derivation and validation chain is self-contained with respect to its own inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GRMHD formalism and on the paper-specific Dedner cleaning parameter choices (K and f). The invented entity is a numerical scalar field, not a physical mechanism.

free parameters (2)
  • Dedner damping parameter K = K = 0.1 default; K = 0.75 for blast wave tests
    Chosen after extensive tests (Sec. 3.3) to balance damping strength against stability. The value is tuned per test family, not derived from first principles.
  • Dedner advection speed augmentation factor f = f = 1 default; f = 2.5 for the magnetized TOV test
    Augments the local magnetosonic speed used as the cleaning advection speed. Tuned per test to provide effective divergence cleaning without breaking hierarchical time-stepping.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math 3+1 ADM decomposition of spacetime with lapse, shift, and spatial metric (Eq. 1)
    Standard GR formalism used in all 3+1 GRMHD codes; cited to Arnowitt et al. 2008.
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD: infinite conductivity, no viscosity or heat conduction
    Assumed in Sec. 2; imposes u_nu F^{mu nu} = 0.
  • domain assumption The meshless finite-volume and finite-mass discretization converges to the GRMHD equations in the continuum limit
    Basis of GIZMO; established in Hopkins 2015 and assumed here for the relativistic extension.
  • domain assumption Gamma-law equation of state for all tests
    Used in all validation runs; the paper notes other EoS are supported but not tested.
  • ad hoc to paper Local magnetosonic speed augmented by f is an adequate Dedner advection speed
    Sec. 3.3 sets c_h = v_ms (1+f)/(1+f v_ms^2) instead of c_h = c to preserve hierarchical time-stepping. This is a paper-specific choice, not a standard derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • Dedner scalar field psi
    purpose: Hyperbolic divergence cleaning: advects and damps magnetic field divergence errors
    Introduced in Eqs. (27)-(30) as a numerical cleaning field, not a physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics extension to mesh-less schemes in the code GIZMO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIFLI47N

@misc{pith2026250615775,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics extension to mesh-less schemes in the code GIZMO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIFLI47N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15775}
}
read the original abstract

The profound comprehension of the evolution and phenomenology of an Active Galactic Nucleus requires an accurate exploration of the dynamics of the magnetized gaseous disk surrounding the massive black hole in the centre. Many numerical simulations have studied this environment using elaborate grid-based codes, but in recent years, new mesh-less schemes have exhibited excellent conservation properties and good accuracy at a more moderate computational cost. Still, none implement general relativistic magnetic fields, a fundamental ingredient to model an accretion disk around a massive black hole. We present here a general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics (GRMHD) scheme working within the mesh-less framework of the code \texttt{GIZMO}. We implement the hyperbolic divergence cleaning procedure, consistently extended to general relativistic effects, to keep the magnetic field divergence under safe levels. We benchmark the scheme against various relativistic magnetohydrodynamics stress tests, considering different dimensionalities and both a Minkowski or a Schwarzchild/Kerr background. To date, this is the first GRMHD scheme working in a mesh-free environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15775 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the monopole test. Two-dimensional slice at z = 0 of the magnetic field divergence at the initial time (left) and at three later times. Top panels display the solution with damping parameter K = 0.1 and the bottom panels with K = 1. is done by considering the Rusanov fluxes between each pair of interacting particles FHLL = 1 2 (FL + FR) − λ˜ 2 (UR − UL), (31) for the decoupled (B ⊥, ψˆ) system, where λ˜… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Slice at y = y0 of primitive quantities at time t = 0.4 of the Balsara1 test. The magnetic field divergence in units of the magnetic field intensity is plotted in the seventh panel. Blue squares (Powell) and red triangles (Dedner) mark the MFM solutions, while cyan stars (Powell) and orange circles (Dedner) indicate the MFV ones. In the bottom panel, we display the specific internal energy when the problem is initia… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Slice at time t = 0.4 and constant y of the primitive quantities from the Balsara4 test performed in the MFM mode. The magnetic field divergence in units of its intensity is plotted in the bottom panel. Blue squares mark the solution computed with Powell terms only, while red triangles indicate the one computed with the complete divergence cleaning scheme. The high resolution run is displayed with orange circles. Qu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic field loop advection performed in MFM mode. The top panels display the magnetic field intensity along the x direction multiplied by 103 , whereas the bottom panels show the magnetic pressure Pmag = b 2 /2 multiplied by 107 . Snapshots are taken at the initial …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relativistic magnetic rotor problem at time t=0.4, performed in MFM mode. We plot 2D maps for the rest mass density (top-left), the gas pressure (top-right), the magnetic pressure (bottom-left) and the Lorentz factor with magnetic field lines (bottom-right). sity ρ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic rotor test 1D slices along y = 0.5 (left panels) and x = 0.5 (right panels) of (from top to bottom) rest mass density, gas pressure, magnetic pressure, Lorentz factor and magnetic field divergence normalized to the magnetic field intensity, at time t = 0.4. We…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The cylindrical blast wave problem at time t = 3, performed in MFM mode. We plot 2D maps for the rest mass density (top-left), the gas pressure (top-right), the magnetic field x-component (bottom-left) and its y-component (bottom-right). −4 −2 0 2 4 x −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pressure distributions in the blast wave problem for three different run: (left) MFV mode, equal-volume particles, using a cubic spline as kernel function; (center) MFV mode, equal-mass particles, using a Wendland C4 as kernel function; (right) fixed particle positions…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cylindrical blast wave test 1D slices along y = 0 (left panels) and x = 0 (right panels) of (from top to bottom) rest mass density, gas pressure, magnetic pressure, Lorentz factor and magnetic field divergence in units of the magnetic field intensity, at time t = 3. We…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Two dimensional slices at t = 4 and y = 0 of the spherical blast wave problem, evolved in MFM mode. We report the gas pressure in the left panel and the Lorentz factor with the magnetic field lines distribution overlaid in the right panel. of B does not alter the hydr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Initial magnetic field configuration of the TOV test. We plot the magnetic pressure with superimposed magnetic field lines. The red circle marks the star radius (defined as the point where P = 10−8Pmax), while the blue one indicates the radius at which the magnetic fi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radial profile of TOV equilibrium at t = 0, t ≈ 16tdyn and t ≈ 28tdyn for the MFM (purple circles) and the MFV (red triangles) run. The black dashed line marks the exact solution. The MFM solution at time t ≈ 50tdyn is displayed as a lime dashed line. 0.98 0.99 1.00 1…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of the central TOV rest mass density (top) and the maximum value of the magnetic field (bottom) for the MFM (purple) and MFV (red) run. divergence errors, we implemented a general relativistic version of the Powell "8-wave" (Powell et al. 1999) and of the De…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Rest-mass density ρ, coordinate velocity ˜v r , specific internal energy ϵ and magnetic field B r radial profile of the magnetized Bondi accretion test, performed both in the MFM (purple circles) and MFV (orange triangles) modes, at time t = 100M. We plot results of t…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., Liebling , S., & Neilsen , D

    Anderson , M., Hirschmann , E. W., Liebling , S., & Neilsen , D. 2006, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23, 6503

    2006

  2. [2]

    A., et al

    Ant \'o n , L., Zanotti , O., Miralles , J. A., et al. 2006, Astrophysical Journal, 637, 296

    2006

  3. [3]

    Arnowitt , R., Deser , S., & Misner , C. W. 2008, General Relativity and Gravitation, 40, 1997–2027

    2008

  4. [4]

    2024, Computer Physics Communications, 295, 108966

    Aunai , N., Smets , R., Ciardi , A., et al. 2024, Computer Physics Communications, 295, 108966

    2024

  5. [5]

    Balbus , S. A. & Hawley , J. F. 1991, Astrophysical Journal, 376, 214

    1991

  6. [6]

    2001, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement, 132, 83

    Balsara , D. 2001, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement, 132, 83

    2001

  7. [7]

    A., Ib \'a \ n ez , J

    Banyuls , F., Font , J. A., Ib \'a \ n ez , J. M., Mart \' , J. M., & Miralles , J. A. 1997, Astrophysical Journal, 476, 221

    1997

  8. [8]

    & Stone , J

    Beckwith , K. & Stone , J. M. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement, 193, 6

    2011

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Berger , M. J. & Colella , P. 1989, Journal of Computational Physics, 82, 64

    1989

  2. [10]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 575, A103

    Blakely , P., Nikiforakis , N., & Henshaw , W. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 575, A103

    2015

  3. [11]

    C., & Blecha , L

    Bogdanovi \'c , T., Miller , M. C., & Blecha , L. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 3

    2022

  4. [12]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 690, A194

    Bollati , F., Lupi , A., Dotti , M., & Haardt , F. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 690, A194

    2024

  5. [13]

    & Wu , C

    Brio , M. & Wu , C. C. 1988, Journal of Computational Physics, 75, 400

    1988

  6. [14]

    & Giacomazzo , B

    Cattorini , F. & Giacomazzo , B. 2024, Astroparticle Physics, 154, 102892

    2024

  7. [15]

    & Etienne , Z

    Chang , P. & Etienne , Z. B. 2020, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 496, 206

    2020

  8. [16]

    V., Giacomazzo , B., & Ciolfi , R

    Cipolletta , F., Kalinani , J. V., Giacomazzo , B., & Ciolfi , R. 2020, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 135010

    2020

  9. [17]

    & Ressler , S

    Combi , C. & Ressler , S. M. 2024, A binary black hole metric approximation from inspiral to merger

    2024

  10. [18]

    Combi , L., Armengol , F. G. L., Campanelli , M., et al. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, 044041

    2021

  11. [19]

    & Dehnen , W

    Cullen , L. & Dehnen , W. 2010, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 408, 669

    2010

  12. [20]

    & Hawley , J

    De Villiers , J. & Hawley , J. F. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 458

    2003

  13. [21]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

    Dedner , A., Kemm , F., Kr \"o ner , D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

    2002

  14. [22]

    & Aly , H

    Dehnen , W. & Aly , H. 2012, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 425, 1068

    2012

  15. [23]

    2003, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 400, 397

    Del Zanna , L., Bucciantini , N., & Londrillo , P. 2003, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 400, 397

    2003

  16. [24]

    2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 473, 11

    Del Zanna , L., Zanotti , O., Bucciantini , N., & Londrillo , P. 2007, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 473, 11

    2007

  17. [25]

    D., Liu , Y

    Duez , M. D., Liu , Y. T., Shapiro , S. L., Shibata , M., & Stephens , B. C. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 031101

    2006

  18. [26]

    D., Liu , Y

    Duez , M. D., Liu , Y. T., Shapiro , S. L., & Stephens , B. C. 2005, Physical Review D, 72, 024028

    2005

  19. [27]

    Duffell , P. C. & MacFadyen , A. I. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 197, 15

    2011

  20. [28]

    B., Paschalidis , V., Haas , R.and M \"o sta , P., & Shapiro , S

    Etienne , Z. B., Paschalidis , V., Haas , R.and M \"o sta , P., & Shapiro , S. L. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 175009

    2015

  21. [29]

    B., Paschalidis , V., Liu , Y

    Etienne , Z. B., Paschalidis , V., Liu , Y. T., & Shapiro , S. L. 2012, Physical Review D, 85, 024013

    2012

  22. [30]

    Evans , C. R. & Hawley , J. F. 1988, Astrophysical Journal, 332, 659

    1988

  23. [31]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 477, 4543

    Fambri , F., Dumbser , M., K \"o ppel , S., Rezzolla , L., & Zanotti , O. 2018, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 477, 4543

    2018

  24. [32]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 103024

    Fedrigo , G., Cattorini , F., Giacomazzo , B., & Colpi , M. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 103024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Font , J. A. 2008, Living Reviews in Relativity, 11, 7

    2008

  26. [34]

    C., Nemergut , D., Shaw , P

    Fragile , P. C., Nemergut , D., Shaw , P. L., & Anninos , P. 2019, Journal of Computational Physics: X, 2, 100020

    2019

  27. [35]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A288

    Franchini , A., Bonetti , M., Lupi , A., & Sesana , A. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A288

    2024

  28. [36]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 929, L13

    Franchini , A., Lupi , A., & Sesana , A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 929, L13

    2022

  29. [37]

    & Nitadori , K

    Gaburov , E. & Nitadori , K. 2011, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 414, 129

    2011

  30. [38]

    F., McKinney , J

    Gammie , C. F., McKinney , J. C., & Tóth , G. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 589, 444

    2003

  31. [39]

    Gardiner , T. A. & Stone , J. M. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics, 205, 509

    2005

  32. [40]

    2024, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 2410.17305 ]

    Garg , M., Franchini , A., Lupi , A., Bonetti , M., & Mayer , L. 2024, arXiv e-prints [ [arXiv] 2410.17305 ]

    2024

  33. [41]

    G., Miller , M

    Giacomazzo , B., Baker , J. G., Miller , M. C., Reynolds , C. S., & van Meter , J. R. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 752, L15

    2012

  34. [42]

    & Rezzolla , L

    Giacomazzo , B. & Rezzolla , L. 2006, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 562, 223

    2006

  35. [43]

    & Rezzolla , L

    Giacomazzo , B. & Rezzolla , L. 2007, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 24, S235

    2007

  36. [44]

    & Monaghan , J

    Gingold , R. & Monaghan , J. 1977, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 181, 375

    1977

  37. [45]

    Y., Guszejnov , D., Hopkins , P

    Grudić , M. Y., Guszejnov , D., Hopkins , P. F., Offner , S. S. R., & Faucher-Giguère , C. 2021, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 506, 2199

    2021

  38. [46]

    Y., Hopkins , P

    Guszejnov , D., Grudić , M. Y., Hopkins , P. F., Offner , S. S. R., & Faucher-Giguère , C. 2021, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 502, 3646

    2021

  39. [47]

    D., & Leer , B

    Harten , A., Lax , P. D., & Leer , B. 1983, SIAM Review, 25, 35

    1983

  40. [48]

    L., & Wilson , J

    Hawley , J., Smarr , L. L., & Wilson , J. 1984, Astrophysical Journal, 277, 296

    1984

  41. [49]

    & Tang , H

    He , P. & Tang , H. 2012, Computers & Fluids, 60, 1

    2012

  42. [50]

    2024 a , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7

    Hopkins , P., Squire , J., Su , K., et al. 2024 a , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7

    2024

  43. [51]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2015, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 450, 53

    2015

  44. [52]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2016, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 462, 576

    2016

  45. [53]

    Hopkins , P. F. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1712.01294

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    F., Grudic , M

    Hopkins , P. F., Grudic , M. Y., Kremer , K., et al. 2024 b , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 71

    2024

  47. [55]

    F., Grudic , M

    Hopkins , P. F., Grudic , M. Y., Su , K., et al. 2024 c , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 18

    2024

  48. [56]

    Hopkins , P. F. & Raives , M. J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 455, 51

    2016

  49. [57]

    F., Squire , J., Quataert , E., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Squire , J., Quataert , E., et al. 2024 d , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 20

    2024

  50. [58]

    F., Wetzel , A., Kereš , D., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Wetzel , A., Kereš , D., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 480, 800

    2018

  51. [59]

    F., Wetzel , A., Wheeler , C., et al

    Hopkins , P. F., Wetzel , A., Wheeler , C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 519, 3154

    2023

  52. [60]

    V., Narayan , R., & Abramowicz , M

    Igumenshchev , I. V., Narayan , R., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, Astrophysical Journal, 592, 1042

    2003

  53. [61]

    F., & Jacquemin-Ide , J

    Kaaz , N., Liska , M., Tchekhovskoy , A., Hopkins , P. F., & Jacquemin-Ide , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01877

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kerr , R. P. 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett., 11, 237

    1963

  55. [63]

    E., Field , S

    Kidder , L. E., Field , S. E., Foucart , F., et al. 2017, Journal of Computational Physics, 335, 84–114

    2017

  56. [64]

    L., Shibata , K., & Kudoh , T

    Koide , S., Meier , D. L., Shibata , K., & Kudoh , T. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 536, 668

    2000

  57. [65]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 522, 727

    Koide , S., Shibata , K., & Kudoh , T. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 522, 727

    1999

  58. [66]

    Koide , S., Shibata , K., Kudoh , T., & Meier , D. L. 2002, Science, 295, 1688

    2002

  59. [67]

    Komissarov , S. S. 1999, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 303, 343

    1999

  60. [68]

    & Vila , J

    Lanson , N. & Vila , J. 2008 a , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 46, 1912

    2008

  61. [69]

    & Vila , J

    Lanson , N. & Vila , J. 2008 b , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 46, 1935

    2008

  62. [70]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 455, 4274

    Lecoanet , D., McCourt , M., Quataert , E., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 455, 4274

    2016

  63. [71]

    L., Lehner , L., Neilsen , D., & Palenzuela , C

    Liebling , S. L., Lehner , L., Neilsen , D., & Palenzuela , C. 2010, Physical Review D, 81, 124023

    2010

  64. [72]

    & Price , D

    Liptai , D. & Price , D. J. 2019, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 485, 819

    2019

  65. [73]

    Liska , M. T. P., Chatterjee , K., Issa , D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 263, 26

    2022

  66. [74]

    T., Shapiro , S

    Liu , Y. T., Shapiro , S. L., Etienne , Z. B., & Taniguchi , K. 2008, Physical Review D, 78, 024012

    2008

  67. [75]

    1977, Astronomical Journal, 82, 1013

    Lucy , L. 1977, Astronomical Journal, 82, 1013

    1977

  68. [76]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 519, 1115

    Lupi , A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 519, 1115

    2023

  69. [77]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 654, L6

    Lupi , A., Bovino , S., & Grassi , T. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 654, L6

    2021

  70. [78]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 470, 1673

    Lupi , A., Volonteri , M., & Silk , J. 2017, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 470, 1673

    2017

  71. [79]

    2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 600, A124

    Mainetti , D., Lupi , A., Campana , S., et al. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 600, A124

    2017

  72. [80]

    Michel , F. C. 1972, Astrophysics and Space Science, 15, 153

    1972

  73. [81]

    & Bodo , G

    Mignone , A. & Bodo , G. 2006, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 368, 1040

    2006

  74. [82]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 393, 1141

    Mignone , A., Ugliano , M., & Bodo , G. 2009, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 393, 1141

    2009

  75. [83]

    & Kusano , K

    Miyoshi , T. & Kusano , K. 2005, Journal of Computational Physics, 208, 315

    2005

  76. [84]

    & Rezzolla , L

    Mizuno , Y. & Rezzolla , L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13824

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    C., Faber , J

    M \"o sta , P., Mundim , B. C., Faber , J. A., et al. 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31, 015005

    2014

  78. [86]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 55, L69

    2003

  79. [87]

    W., & Millward , R

    Neilsen , D., Hirschmann , E. W., & Millward , R. S. 2006, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23, S505

    2006

  80. [88]

    C., Gammie , C

    Noble , S. C., Gammie , C. F., McKinney , J. C., & Del Zanna , L. 2006, Astrophysical Journal, 641, 626

    2006

  81. [89]

    Oppenheimer , J. R. & Volkoff , G. M. 1939, Physical Review, 55, 374

    1939

  82. [90]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 418, 1392

    Pakmor , R., Bauer , A., & Springel , V. 2011, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 418, 1392

    2011

  83. [91]

    Palenzuela , C., Lehner , L., & Liebling , S. L. 2010, Science, 329, 927

    2010

  84. [92]

    Penner , A. J. 2011, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 414, 1467

    2011

  85. [93]

    G., Roe , P

    Powell , K. G., Roe , P. L., Linde , T. J., Gombosi , T. I., & De Zeeuw , D. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 154, 284

    1999

  86. [94]

    Price , D. J. 2008, Journal of Computational Physics, 227, 10040

    2008

  87. [95]

    Price , D. J. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 759

    2012

  88. [96]

    & Hayfield , T

    Read , J. & Hayfield , T. 2012, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 422, 3037

    2012

  89. [97]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 401, 791

    Springel , V. 2010, Monthly Notices of the RAS, 401, 791

    2010

  90. [98]

    A., Teuben , P., Hawley , J

    Stone , J., Gardiner , T. A., Teuben , P., Hawley , J. F., & Simon , J. B. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 137

    2008

  91. [99]

    Stone , J. M. & Norman , M. L. 1992, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement, 80, 753

    1992

  92. [100]

    Tolman , R. C. 1939, Physical Review, 55, 364

    1939

  93. [101]

    S., Price , D

    Tricco , T. S., Price , D. J., & Bate , M. R. 2016, Journal of Computational Physics, 322, 326

    2016

  94. [102]

    2022, Journal of Computational Physics, 470, 111596

    Tu , X., Wang , Q., Zheng , H., & Gao , L. 2022, Journal of Computational Physics, 470, 111596

    2022

  95. [103]

    & Odstrčil , D

    Tóth , G. & Odstrčil , D. 1996, Journal of Computational Physics, 128, 82

    1996

  96. [104]

    2024, Cosmological simulations with the Open GADGET 3 code

    Valentini , M. 2024, Cosmological simulations with the Open GADGET 3 code

    2024

  97. [105]

    2007, in Kerr Fest: Black Holes in Astrophysics, General Relativity and Quantum Gravity

    Visser , M. 2007, in Kerr Fest: Black Holes in Astrophysics, General Relativity and Quantum Gravity

    2007

  98. [106]

    1995, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 4, 389–396

    Wendland , H. 1995, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 4, 389–396

    1995

  99. [107]

    & Shu , C

    Wu , K. & Shu , C. 2020, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42, A2230

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.