Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper reports that stellar rotation can suppress or delay the magnetic instabilities that destroy a neutron star's field: a non-rotating model loses about 99% of its magnetic energy within about 4 Alfvén times, while rotating models re

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

In 3D GRMHD simulations, neutron star rotation delays Tayler, kink, and Parker instabilities, so faster-spinning models retain more magnetic energy over 10 Alfven times.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Rotation clearly delays magnetic energy decay in this 3D GRMHD scan, but the quantitative retention fractions are resolution-dependent; send it to review with a request for fast-rotator convergence runs. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.20220 v1 pith:WIIAG5AN submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Impact of rotation on magnetic field stability and orientation in isolated neutron stars

Fabrizio Venturi Pi\~nas , Anson Ka Long Yip , Patrick Chi-Kit Cheong , Milton Ruiz This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords neutron starsmagnetic field stabilitymagnetic instabilitiesstellar rotationgeneral-relativistic magnetohydrodynamicsTayler instabilityParker instabilitymagnetars
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks whether a neutron star's spin protects its magnetic field from the violent instabilities that otherwise rearrange and destroy it. Using three-dimensional general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of stars threaded by strong, purely poloidal, pulsar-like fields, it compares a non-rotating star with stars rotating up to half the mass-shedding limit. It finds that the non-rotating star loses about 99% of its initial magnetic energy within about 4 Alfvén times after the instabilities begin, while rotating stars retain much more (about 7.5% for slow rotation, 16.8% for intermediate, 59% for one fast case, and 19% for the fastest). In every model, the star spontaneously develops differential rotation, which winds the poloidal field into a toroidal component; rotation suppresses the Parker instability and delays the kink and Tayler instabilities. If correct, rotation is a first-order factor in how long neutron-star magnetic fields survive and how their geometry, including a growing tilt between the magnetic dipole and the spin axis, evolves.

Core claim

Rotation suppresses or at least delays the onset of magnetic instabilities in isolated neutron stars. The central quantitative claim is that, at a fixed phase of about 4 Alfvén times after instability onset, the non-rotating model retains only about 1% of its initial magnetic energy, whereas the rotating models retain 7.5% (P1U1), 16.8% (P1U2), 59.1% (P1U3), and 19.1% (P1U4). The paper also reports that all configurations spontaneously develop differential rotation, which produces a strong toroidal magnetic field component from an initially purely poloidal field, and that rotation suppresses the Parker instability and delays the kink instability, with the fastest model eventually becoming ki

What carries the argument

The paper's clock is the Alfvén time, tau_A = 2 R_NS sqrt(rho_avg)/B_avg, and its integral form, the Alfvén crossing time T_A = integral of dt/tau_A(t), which lets instability growth be compared across models whose fields decay at different rates. The key stabilizing mechanism is the Pitts–Tayler delay: when the rotation period T_r is shorter than the Alfvén time, instability growth shifts from the Alfvén timescale to roughly tau_A^2/T_r, and the paper defines a corresponding 'rotational crossing time' T_rot to test this. Supporting diagnostics are the split of magnetic energy into poloidal and toroidal components and the tilt angle zeta between the magnetic dipole and the rotation axis, com

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that the measured magnetic-energy fractions and instability delays are converged physical numbers, not artifacts of numerical dissipation; the paper's own resolution test changes the final energy fraction for model P1U2 by roughly a factor of 1.8, so this assumption is acknowledged but not established.

What would settle it

Re-run the same initial models at a resolution high enough that the magnetic-energy decay curve stops changing with grid spacing; if the rotating models then decay as fast as the non-rotating one, the rotation-stabilization claim collapses. Observationally, a young, rapidly spinning magnetar whose X-ray or radio decay implies magnetic-field destruction within a few Alfvén times would contradict the predicted rotation delay.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If rotation stabilizes the field, fast-spinning magnetars and young neutron stars should retain their magnetic energy for substantially longer than non-rotating ones, shifting predicted energy-release and electromagnetic-transient timescales.
  • The spontaneous development of differential rotation means initially poloidal configurations do not remain poloidal; evolution calculations must include the toroidal component created by field winding.
  • The growing tilt between the magnetic dipole and the spin axis implies that neutron-star obliquity is not a fixed initial condition but can change on Alfvén timescales, affecting spin-down and radio-pulse geometry.
  • Because the fastest rotating model eventually becomes unstable on the rotation-modified timescale, rotation is a delay mechanism rather than a permanent cure for field destruction.
  • The non-monotonic ordering (P1U3 retains the most energy) suggests an optimal spin range for magnetic-field survival, rather than a simple 'faster is safer' rule.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper starts with the magnetic dipole aligned with the spin axis; an immediate testable extension is whether an initially oblique field erases the stabilizing effect, since earlier work suggests some obliquity may be needed for the poloidal field to interact with rotation.
  • The resolution study implies that the quoted energy fractions are likely lower bounds: higher resolution produces a stronger toroidal field and faster decay in the one model tested, so the rotation-stabilization fractions may shift if dissipation is resolved away.
  • If the tilt-angle growth is real, rotating magnetic neutron stars should develop a time-varying mass quadrupole from the precessing magnetic deformation, potentially giving a gravitational-wave signature in ground-based detectors during magnetar outbursts.
  • A population-level check: if old, slowly spinning neutron stars show systematically weaker or more tangled magnetic fields than fast spinners of comparable age, that would support the claim that spin preserves field energy over long times.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D general-relativistic ideal-MHD simulations of uniformly rotating, isolated neutron stars threaded by strong poloidal magnetic fields. Five models are evolved from a non-rotating star (P1U0) to one near half the mass-shedding limit (P1U4). The authors report that all configurations spontaneously develop differential rotation, producing a toroidal magnetic component, and that non-rotating stars lose roughly 99% of their initial magnetic energy within about four Alfvén times after the onset of instability, while rotating models retain larger fractions at the same phase (7.5%–59%). They interpret the evolution in terms of Parker, varicose, and kink/Tayler instabilities and find that rotation delays or suppresses some of these modes. A magnetic-field tilt angle with respect to the rotation axis develops spontaneously. The paper includes atmosphere and resolution checks in Appendices A and B and explicitly cautions that the energy fractions in Table 3 are estimates.

Significance. If the main claim is robust, the paper would be a useful step toward understanding why neutron-star magnetic fields persist and how rotation affects internal field configuration and stability. The study is among the first to scan rotation rates from zero to near mass-shedding in full 3D GRMHD without imposed symmetries, which is a genuine strength. The paper also ships honest auxiliary tests: the atmosphere study (Appendix A) and resolution study (Appendix B) allow the reader to see the sensitivity of the results, and the authors state plainly where their numbers should be treated as estimates. However, the headline quantitative result—rotation retains up to ~30% (abstract) or 59% (Table 3) of the magnetic energy—is not numerically converged, and the rotation ordering is partly entangled with the atmosphere prescription. These issues affect the strength of the quantitative claim more than the qualitative trend.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B / Table 3 / Sec. 4.2] The quantitative retention fractions in Table 3 are not converged. For P1U2, increasing the finest resolution from ~345 m to ~173 m changes EBtot/EBtot0 at ~9.5 TA from 10.4% to 5.8%, a factor of ~1.8, and changes EBtor/EBtot from 16.9% to 29.6% (Table 4). The resolution test was performed only for P1U2; the strongest-stabilization cases P1U3 (59%) and P1U4 (19%) were not rerun at higher resolution. Because the MR/HR sequence (13.6%, 10.4%, 5.8%) is non-monotonic, the direction of the resolution trend is unclear, so the headline percentages should be presented as order-of-magnitude illustrations, or HR runs for P1U3/P1U4 should be supplied.
  2. [Sec. 2.2 / Appendix A / Table 4] The rotation comparison is partially confounded by the atmosphere treatment. P1U3 uses β^-1=10^-4 and P1U4 uses β^-1=10^-3, whereas P1U2 uses β^-1=10^-6. Appendix A shows for P1U2 that changing the atmosphere prescription changes EBtot/EBtot0 by about 2–3 percentage points but changes EBtor/EBtot from 9.3% to 16.9% and the tilt angle by a factor of nearly two (7.8° vs 14.6°). Since the higher-retention rotating models also have heavier atmospheres, part of the apparent stabilization could be an atmosphere effect rather than a rotation effect. Please either run common-atmosphere cases for P1U3/P1U4 or state explicitly that the Table 3 ordering is not controlled for this variation.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 / Figs. 1 and 5] The identification of specific instabilities (Parker, varicose, and kink/Tayler) is based on visual inspection of field-line morphology and cross-sectional changes, with no quantitative mode decomposition or growth-rate measurement. The qualitative energy-decay trend supports a rotation-induced delay, but the stronger claim that rotation suppresses the Parker instability and delays the kink mode would benefit from quantitative diagnostics, such as Fourier amplitudes of non-axisymmetric modes (e.g., m=1) or perturbation-energy evolution. Without such diagnostics, the mode attributions are suggestive rather than demonstrated.
  4. [Abstract / Table 3 / Sec. 4.2] The abstract states that highly rotating models retain 'up to ~30%' of their magnetic energy for at least ~10 Alfvén times, but Table 3 and Sec. 4.2 report P1U3 retaining 59% at TA−T=4 and continuing to decay. If the abstract refers to a later time for P1U3, the corresponding value should be quoted; if not, the abstract contradicts the paper's own table. This is a load-bearing quantitative claim and must be reconciled.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The EBtot0/W values appear internally inconsistent: P1U0 is listed as 4.26×10^-3 while P1U1–P1U4 are ~0.3. For B~10^17 G the magnetic-to-binding-energy ratio should be much smaller than unity for all models; please check the definition or the decimal placement.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The nonlinear poloidal term is written as 'ξ 1/2 Aϕ'; the exponent on Aϕ appears to be missing. If the intended term is quadratic in Aϕ, please fix the equation.
  3. [Sec. 2.4 / Eq. (17)] The definitions of ρavg and Bavg used to compute τA are not specified precisely; please state the averaging volume and whether it is time-dependent.
  4. [General] Some references are formatted inconsistently (e.g., 'Braithwaite, J. 2007' in the reference list and in-text style); please harmonize with the journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper reports numerical simulation results with independent diagnostics; headline quantities are outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that rotation delays or suppresses magnetic instabilities—is an output of GRMHD evolutions, not a quantity defined into existence. The timescales TA (Eq. 18), Trot (Eq. 26), and the instability-onset marker T (defined as the time at which EBtot drops by 10%) are diagnostic bookkeeping choices; none of the reported retained-energy fractions in Table 3 are imposed by these definitions or by the initial data. The initial magnetization constant kpol is chosen to set Bmax, and the initial models are stationary/axisymmetric, but the subsequent decay rates, toroidal fractions, and tilt angles are evolved, not fitted. The numerical method and code references (Gmunu/Cheong et al.; XNS/Bucciantini & Del Zanna; Pili et al.) are tool citations for a validated, open-source codebase, and the paper checks its results against external studies (Sur et al. 2022; Tsokaros et al. 2022; Braithwaite 2007), so no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation. The limitations the paper itself flags—Appendix A atmosphere sensitivity and Appendix B resolution sensitivity (P1U2HR changes EBtot/EBtot0 by ~1.8x)—are numerical-convergence/correctness caveats, not circularity: the conclusion is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported via self-citation to force the result. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, though the quantitative estimates should be interpreted with the stated resolution caveats.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerical modeling choices and interpretation assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are the setup choices listed above, and the axioms are the simplifications the simulations rely on.

free parameters (6)
  • Polytropic constant K = 218.23 km^2
    Sets the cold NS equation of state and TOV maximum mass around 1.64 Msun; chosen by hand, not fitted to magnetic data. Quantitative instability rates depend on stellar structure.
  • Central rest-mass density rho_c = about 7.9e14 g/cm^3
    Fixed across models to keep comparable NSs; a modeling choice that sets the dynamical timescale.
  • Poloidal magnetization constant kpol = chosen so Bmax about 1.5e17 G
    Controls magnetic field strength; sets the Alfven timescale and instability growth windows.
  • Nonlinear poloidal term xi = not specified
    Part of the XNS magnetization function that shapes the initial field distribution; value not reported in the text.
  • Atmosphere magnetic-to-gas pressure ratio beta^-1 = 1e-6 for P1U0-P1U2, 1e-4 for P1U3, 1e-3 for P1U4
    Numerical atmosphere density chosen empirically per model; varies with rotation and could confound cross-model comparison.
  • Finest grid resolution = 345 m canonical; 230 m medium; 173 m high
    Resolution is a numerical choice that changes the magnetic energy decay by a factor about 1.8 in P1U2HR, so it is load-bearing for quantitative claims.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD with perfect conductivity
    Used throughout the GRMHD evolution; resistivity is excluded, though Cheong et al. 2025 shows resistivity delays instabilities.
  • domain assumption xCFC approximation of the Einstein equations
    Spacetime is evolved with the extended conformal flatness approximation rather than full GR, which may affect strong-field dynamics.
  • domain assumption Gamma-law equation of state with Gamma=2
    Simplified polytropic EOS; no thermal transport, crust physics, or composition dependence.
  • domain assumption Initial purely poloidal, axisymmetric, stationary configurations
    Only one field topology is tested, so the claim about initial configurations is limited.
  • domain assumption Instability identification from field-line morphology
    Varicose, kink, and Parker modes are inferred from visual features rather than measured growth rates or linear stability analysis.
  • domain assumption Dynamically weak initial magnetic field (beta^-1 << 1)
    The field is strong in absolute terms but weak compared to gas pressure, so instabilities can be captured within the dynamical timescale.
  • domain assumption No crystalline crust is included
    The paper notes the crust may prevent magnetic energy dissipation and play a role in stability; omitting it may bias instability outcomes.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of rotation on magnetic field stability and orientation in isolated neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WIIAG5AN

@misc{pith2026250820220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of rotation on magnetic field stability and orientation in isolated neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WIIAG5AN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20220}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Neutron stars are the most compact horizonless objects in the Universe, exhibiting the strongest known magnetic fields. They are potential sources of coincident gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation across the entire spectrum. However, the internal configuration of their magnetic fields and the mechanisms that stabilize them remain open questions. As a step forward in understanding the timescale for the emergence of magnetic instabilities that disrupt stellar field configurations, we study the impact of stellar rotation using three-dimensional general relativistic numerical simulations of uniformly rotating, isolated neutron stars threaded by strong, poloidal, pulsar-like magnetic fields. The initial stellar configurations assume perfect conductivity and are stationary and axisymmetric. We explore a range of angular velocities, from non-rotating stars to those near the mass-shedding limit. We find that the stars spontaneously develop differential rotation, which triggers the appearance of a strong toroidal magnetic field component. Non-rotating neutron stars are unstable to the Tayler and Parker instabilities, which significantly change the magnetic field geometry. These instabilities lead to a rapid reduction of the initial magnetic energy by $\sim 99\%$ within $\sim 4$ Alfv\'en times of their onset. In contrast, rotation significantly delays the development of these instabilities and, in some cases, mitigates their effects. Highly rotating models retain up to $\sim 30\%$ of their magnetic energy for at least $\sim 10$ Alfv\'en times. Our results suggest that rotation plays a crucial role in stabilizing the magnetic field of neutron stars, regardless of its initial configuration.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Subgrid Modelling for Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics with Machine Learning

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    First neural-network subgrid model for special relativistic MHD reproduces 4x-higher-resolution magnetic field amplification in 3D Kelvin-Helmholtz tests at 44x speedup.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 14 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J., & Gibbons, M

    Acheson, D. J., & Gibbons, M. P. 1978, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 289, 459

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    2024, Phys

    Aguilera-Miret, R., Palenzuela, C., Carrasco, F., Rosswog, S., & Vigan`o, D. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 083014, 2407.20335 Akg¨un, T., Reisenegger, A., Mastrano, A., & Marchant, P. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2445, 1302.0273

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    2024, Astropart

    Ascenzi, S., Graber, V ., & Rea, N. 2024, Astropart. Phys., 158, 102935, 2401.14930

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Bamber, J., Tsokaros, A., Ruiz, M., & Shapiro, S. L. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 044038, 2411.00943

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    W., & Shapiro, S

    Baumgarte, T. W., & Shapiro, S. L. 2010, Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Begelman, M. C. 1998, Astrophys. J., 493, 291, astro-ph/9708142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    A., & Brown, G

    Bethe, H. A., & Brown, G. E. 1995, ApJ, 445, L129

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    1991, The Evolution of Neutron Star Magnetic Fields, ed

    Bhattacharya, D., & Srinivasan, G. 1991, The Evolution of Neutron Star Magnetic Fields, ed. J. Ventura & D. Pines (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 219–233

    work page 1991

  9. [9]

    1996, Astron

    Bonazzola, S., & Gourgoulhon, E. 1996, Astron. Astrophys., 312, 675, astro-ph/9602107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  10. [10]

    2009a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 763, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/397/2/763/2932157/mnras0397-0763.pdf ——

    Braithwaite, J. 2009a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 763, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/397/2/763/2932157/mnras0397-0763.pdf ——. 2009b, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 397, 763, 0810.1049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 450 ——

    Braithwaite, J., & Nordlund, A. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 450 ——. 2006, Astron. Astrophys., 450, 1077, astro-ph/0510316

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Braithwaite, J., & Spruit, H. C. 2004, Nature, 431, 819, astro-ph/0502043 ——. 2006a, Astron. Astrophys., 450, 1097, astro-ph/0510287 ——. 2006b, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 450, 1097–1106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    2007, A&A, 469, 275 14 Venturi, Yip, Cheong & Ruiz

    Braithwaite, J. 2007, A&A, 469, 275 14 Venturi, Yip, Cheong & Ruiz

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    2005, Phys

    Brandenburg, A., & Subramanian, K. 2005, Phys. Rep., 417, 1, astro-ph/0405052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  15. [15]

    2011, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 528, A101

    Bucciantini, N., & Del Zanna, L. 2011, Astronomy &amp; Astrophysics, 528, A101

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    D., & Murphy, J

    Burrows, A., Dessart, L., Livne, E., Ott, C. D., & Murphy, J. 2007, Astrophys. J., 664, 416, astro-ph/0702539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    E., & Kulkarni, S

    Camilo, F., Thorsett, S. E., & Kulkarni, S. R. 1994, ApJ, 421, L15

    1994

  18. [18]

    C.-K., Lam, A

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Lam, A. T.-L., Ng, H. H.-Y ., & Li, T. G. F. 2021a, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 508, 2279, 2012.07322 ——. 2021b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 2279–2301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    C.-K., Lin, L.-M., & Li, T

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Lin, L.-M., & Li, T. G. F. 2020, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 145015

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    C.-K., Ng, H

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Ng, H. H.-Y ., Lam, A. T.-L., & Li, T. G. F. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 38

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    C.-K., Pong, D

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Pong, D. Y . T., Yip, A. K. L., & Li, T. G. F. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 261, 22

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    C.-K., Tsokaros, A., Ruiz, M., Venturi, F., Chan, J

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Tsokaros, A., Ruiz, M., Venturi, F., Chan, J. C. L., Yip, A. K. L., & Ury¯u, K. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 063030, 2409.10508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    2010, Mon

    Ciolfi, R., Ferrari, V ., & Gualtieri, L. 2010, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 406, 2540, 1003.2148

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Ciolfi, R., Ferrari, V ., Gualtieri, L., & Pons, J. A. 2009a, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 397, 913, 0903.0556 ——. 2009b, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 397, 913, 0903.0556

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54, 174

    work page 1984

  26. [26]

    Bernuzzi, S., & Radice, D. 2023, GR-Athena++: General-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulations of neutron star spacetimes, 2311.04989 Cordero-Carri´on, I., Cerd´a-Dur´an, P., Dimmelmeier, H., Jaramillo, J. L.,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    2009, Physical Review D, 79

    Novak, J., & Gourgoulhon, E. 2009, Physical Review D, 79

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    2002, Phys

    Cutler, C. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 084025, gr-qc/0206051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  29. [29]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9

    work page 1992

  30. [30]

    R., & Hawley, J

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

    work page 1988

  31. [31]

    Modelling of isolated radio pulsars and magnetars on the fossil field hypothesis

    Ferrario, L., & Wickramasinghe, D. 2006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 367, 1323, astro-ph/0601258

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  32. [32]

    Flowers, E., & Ruderman, M. A. 1977, ApJ, 215, 302

    1977

  33. [33]

    Magneto-elastic oscillations and the damping of crustal shear modes in magnetars

    Gabler, M., Cerda-Duran, P., Font, J. A., Muller, E., & Stergioulas, N. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 410, 37, 1007.0856

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    Magneto-elastic oscillations of neutron stars: exploring different magnetic field configurations

    Gabler, M., Cerd´a-Dur´an, P., Font, J. A., M¨uller, E., & Stergioulas, N. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1811, 1208.6443

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 456, 639

    Geppert, U., & Rheinhardt, M. 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 456, 639

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    Glampedakis, K., & Lasky, P. D. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1638, 1501.05473

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Goldreich, P., & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869

    1969

  38. [38]

    1983, SIAM Review, 25, 35, https://doi.org/10.1137/1025002

    Harten, A., Lax, P., & Leer, B. 1983, SIAM Review, 25, 35, https://doi.org/10.1137/1025002

    doi:10.1137/1025002 1983

  39. [39]

    MPI-AMRVAC 3.0: updates to an open-source simulation framework

    Claes, N., & Bacchini, F. 2023, A&A, 673, A66, 2303.03026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    MPI-AMRVAC: a parallel, grid-adaptive PDE toolkit

    Keppens, R., Teunissen, J., Xia, C., & Porth, O. 2020, MPI-AMRV AC: a parallel, grid-adaptive PDE toolkit, 2004.03275

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    2024, Nature Astron., 8, 298, 2306.15721

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Shibata, M., & Sekiguchi, Y . 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 298, 2306.15721

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    2008a, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Shibata, M., & Yoshida, S. 2008a, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 024029, 0805.2712 ——. 2008b, Physical Review D, 78

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    2011, A&A, 532, A30

    Kiuchi, K., Yoshida, S., & Shibata, M. 2011, A&A, 532, A30

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    1997, MNRAS, 284, 311

    Konar, S., & Bhattacharya, D. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 311

    work page 1997

  45. [45]

    1954, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 223, 348

    Kruskal, M., & Schwarzschild, M. 1954, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A, 223, 348

    work page 1954

  46. [46]

    Lander, S. K. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 071101, 1211.3912

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    K., & Jones, D

    Lander, S. K., & Jones, D. I. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2162, 0903.0827 ——. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1730, 1010.0614

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2001, Astrophys. J., 550, 426, astro-ph/0002232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    Markey, P., & Tayler, R. J. 1973, MNRAS, 163, 77

    work page 1973

  50. [50]

    2008, A&A Rev., 15, 225, 0804.0250

    Mereghetti, S. 2008, A&A Rev., 15, 225, 0804.0250

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  51. [51]

    Parker, E. N. 1966, ApJ, 145, 811

    1966

  52. [52]

    Paschalidis, V ., Ruiz, M., & Shapiro, S. L. 2015, Astrophys. J. Lett., 806, L14, 1410.7392

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    G., Bucciantini, N., & Del Zanna, L

    Pili, A. G., Bucciantini, N., & Del Zanna, L. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 3541, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/439/4/3541/3981452/stu215.pdf ——. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 2821, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/447/3/2821/9387552/stu2628.pdf ——. 2017, Monthly Noti...

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    Pitts, E., & Tayler, R. J. 1985, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 216, 139, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/216/2/139/3499775/mnras216-0139.pdf

    work page 1985

  55. [55]

    Prendergast, K. H. 1956, ApJ, 123, 498

    work page 1956

  56. [56]

    Origin and evolution of neutron star magnetic fields

    Reisenegger, A. 2003, in International Workshop on Strong Magnetic Fields and Neutron Star, 33–49, astro-ph/0307133

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  57. [57]

    Magnetic fields of neutron stars

    Reisenegger, A. 2013, Magnetic fields of neutron stars, 1305.2542

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    On the maximum magnetic field amplification by the magnetorotational instability in core-collapse supernovae

    Rembiasz, T., Guilet, J., Obergaulinger, M., Cerd´a-Dur´an, P., Aloy, M. A., & M¨uller, E. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3316, 1603.00466

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    L., & Tsokaros, A

    Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Tsokaros, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 123017, 1810.08618 ——. 2021a, Front. Astron. Space Sci., 8, 39, 2102.03366

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Ruiz, M., Tsokaros, A., & Shapiro, S. L. 2021b, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 124049, 2110.11968

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    1988, Journal of Computational Physics, 77, 439

    Shu, C.-W., & Osher, S. 1988, Journal of Computational Physics, 77, 439

    work page 1988

  62. [62]

    D., & Stergioulas, N

    Sotani, H., Kokkotas, K. D., & Stergioulas, N. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 375, 261, astro-ph/0608626

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  63. [63]

    Spruit, H. C. 1999, A&A, 349, 189, astro-ph/9907138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  64. [64]

    Spruit, H. C. 2008, AIP Conf. Proc., 983, 391, 0711.3650

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [65]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3983–3993

    Sur, A., Cook, W., Radice, D., Haskell, B., & Bernuzzi, S. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 3983–3993

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Tayler, R. J. 1973, MNRAS, 161, 365

    work page 1973

  67. [67]

    Taylor, J. B. 1986, Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 741

    work page 1986

  68. [68]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1993, ApJ, 408, 194 ——. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255 ——. 1996, ApJ, 473, 322

    work page 1993

  69. [69]

    L., & Ury¯u, K

    Tsokaros, A., Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Ury¯u, K. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 128

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    Magneto-thermal evolution of neutron stars with coupled Ohmic, Hall and ambipolar effects via accurate finite-volume simulations

    Vigan`o, D., Garc´ıa-Garc´ıa, A., Pons, J. A., Dehman, C., & Graber, V . 2021, Comput. Phys. Commun., 265, 108001, 2104.08001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Precession of Isolated Neutron Stars II: Magnetic Fields and Type II Superconductivity

    Wasserman, I. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1020, astro-ph/0208378

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  72. [72]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015

    2002

  73. [73]

    Wright, G. A. E. 1973, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 162, 339, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/162/4/339/8073447/mnras162-0339.pdf

    work page 1973

  74. [74]

    Wright, G. A. E. 1973, MNRAS, 162, 339

    work page 1973

  75. [75]

    E., Chan´e, E., & Keppens, R

    Xia, C., Teunissen, J., Mellah, I. E., Chan´e, E., & Keppens, R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 30

    work page 2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.