Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Hyperaccreting Magnetised Neutron Stars inside Rotating Massive Envelopes: Low-Power Jets and Precursor Flares

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Strong magnetic fields at a neutron star's surface can completely halt hypercritical accretion and launch low-power precursor jets, while delaying black hole collapse.

desk verdict Solid, useful negative result on the NS engine in CEJSN; the paper's own claim that ordinary pulsar fields can reach the jet threshold via an alpha-omega dynamo is unsupported and contradicts its own axisymmetric results. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09395 v1 pith:GR4G5PMW submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.HE

Patrick Chi-Kit Cheong , Christopher L. Fryer , David Radice This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords commonenvelopeevolutionneutronstaraccretionhypercriticalGRMHDmagnetictowerjetlaunchingprecursorflareblackholeformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks what happens when a neutron star is engulfed by a massive companion's envelope and accretes at hypercritical rates. It uses axisymmetric general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations with neutrino transport and nuclear burning to show that envelope rotation alone forms a centrifugal barrier and a thick accretion disk, suppressing accretion and lowering neutrino luminosity. Adding magnetic fields, it finds that for initial surface fields above about $2.3 \times 10^{13}$ G, magnetic pressure can completely halt accretion at the neutron star surface, evacuate a low-density polar funnel, and launch low-power precursor jets with powers up to about $10^{46}$ erg/s. These jets delay the neutron star's collapse to a black hole and could appear as X-ray flares, but they lack the energy to unbind the massive envelope, so the subsequent black-hole-driven explosion remains the dominant outcome.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetically dominated polar funnel and the magnetic tower that creates it. Differential rotation of the hypercritical accretion flow amplifies the toroidal magnetic field through the $\Omega$-effect, giving linear field growth with time and toroidal energy growing as $E_{B,\rm tor} \propto t^2$; when the initial surface field exceeds ${\sim}2.3 \times 10^{13}$ G, the accumulated magnetic pressure halts equatorial accretion at the neutron star surface and evacuates a funnel where the magnetisation satisfies $\sigma_{\rm mag} > 1$. The jet power is then measured by integrating the energy flux only within that highly magnetised funnel.

What would settle it

Run the same hyperaccretion setup in full 3D with resolution that captures the fastest MRI mode and the same initial surface fields; if no magnetospheric barrier forms at $B_{\rm surf} \sim 2.3 \times 10^{13}$ G and no ${\sim}10^{46}$ erg/s polar outflow appears before the neutron star collapses, the 2D barrier is an artifact. On the observational side, a campaign that finds no X-ray flares coincident with the sudden disappearance of red supergiants would rule out the precursor-flare channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a magnetic barrier mechanism: a sufficiently magnetised neutron star with polar surface field $B_{\rm surf} \gtrsim 2.3 \times 10^{13}$ G, embedded in a rotating hypercritical accretion flow, can have its surface accretion completely halted by magnetic pressure. Differential rotation winds the poloidal field into a toroidal magnetic tower whose pressure evacuates a low-density polar funnel, enabling a mildly relativistic, collimated outflow with jet power of order $10^{46}$ erg/s. Because that power falls far short of the envelope's binding energy (${\sim}10^{51}$ erg total, ${\sim}10^{49}$ erg within the polar cone), the jet acts as a precursor that clears a funnel and delays black hole formation without unbinding the star; the eventual black-hole-driven accretion still controls the final explosion. The paper presents this as an extension of earlier non-rotating, unmagnetised hyperaccretion simulations to the rotating, magnetised regime.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that a 2D axisymmetric, MRI-limited simulation captures the dominant magnetic feedback; if full 3D dynamo action or unresolved MRI turbulence changes the accretion state, the predicted magnetic barrier and precursor jets could fail or look different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In models with $B_{\rm surf} \gtrsim 2.3 \times 10^{13}$ G, the accretion rate at 15 km can drop to zero, temporarily decoupling the neutron star from the infall and delaying prompt black hole formation.
  • The strongest magnetised models sustain jet powers of order $10^{46}$ erg/s at 500 km, sufficient for low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts or X-ray precursors but not for unbinding a red supergiant envelope.
  • Faster envelope rotation ($\eta=0.5$) widens the low-density polar funnel and lets the jet break out, while slower rotation ($\eta=0.3$) leaves the jet choked or stuttering.
  • Weakly magnetised or slowly rotating engines follow a quiet-collapse track in which the neutron star is overwhelmed by accretion and becomes a black hole, appearing as a failed supernova with little electromagnetic signal.
  • The magnetically cleared funnel left behind by the precursor jet provides a low-density channel that a later black-hole-driven engine could exploit to power a classical long gamma-ray burst.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the paper itself leaves open whether full 3D $\alpha$-$\Omega$ dynamo action amplifies fields beyond the 2D $\Omega$-effect alone, a natural extension is that the $B_{\rm surf} \sim 2.3 \times 10^{13}$ G threshold could be reached from more ordinary pulsar fields, making precursor jets more frequent than the 2D runs suggest.
  • The choked-jet channel implies a hot, high-entropy cocoon is deposited inside the star before collapse; a subsequent black hole jet would inherit this cavity, potentially producing a delayed, bright transient rather than an immediate one.
  • A direct observational test is to search for red supergiant 'disappearances' accompanied by a ${\sim}10^{46}$ erg/s X-ray flare lasting tens to hundreds of milliseconds; such events should be rarer than ordinary supernovae.
  • The very low $^{56}$Ni yield ($<10^{-9}\,M_\odot$) and pristine $Y_e \sim 0.5$ composition of the unbound ejecta imply that any optical counterpart of the precursor phase would be dim and red, distinguishable from a normal supernova.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents axisymmetric GRMHD simulations of a neutron star embedded in a rotating 15-solar-mass envelope, using grey two-moment neutrino transport and a 13-isotope nuclear network. The authors vary the envelope rotation parameter (eta = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5), the NS spin, and the initial surface magnetic field (B_surf from 4.64e10 to 4.64e13 G). They find that envelope rotation forms a centrifugal barrier and a thick disk, suppressing accretion and neutrino luminosity; that magnetic winding amplifies toroidal fields and drives magnetic towers; and that for B_surf >= 2.32e13 G accretion onto the NS can be halted, evacuating a polar funnel and launching low-power jets of order 1e46 erg/s. The diagnostic energy is found to be insufficient to unbind the massive envelope. The paper also argues that ordinary pulsar fields (B_surf ~1e12 G) need only a factor ~10 amplification to reach the jet-launching threshold, via the alpha-Omega dynamo or magnetic winding.

Significance. If the conditional strong-field results hold, this is a significant step: the study couples state-of-the-art microphysics to a systematic parameter survey of an underexplored common-envelope accretion regime, provides concrete precursor X-ray signatures, and sharpens the argument that a hyperaccreting NS alone cannot power the most energetic CEJSN events. The authors are also unusually explicit about their limitations, and the core forward-modeling framework is appropriate. However, the quantitative claims are restricted by axisymmetry, under-resolved MRI modes, a fixed metric, and a frozen NS core, and the paper's broad observational relevance currently rests on an amplification claim that is not demonstrated by the simulations.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV B, IV E, Fig. 7] The broadest astrophysical claim, that ordinary pulsar fields (B_surf ~1e12 G) can reach the jet-launching threshold B_surf ~2.32e13 G by only a factor ~10 amplification via the alpha-Omega dynamo or magnetic winding, is not supported by the simulations. The runs are axisymmetric, which by Cowling's theorem suppresses the alpha effect, and Fig. 7 shows that E_Bpol only decays after a transient, with no regeneration; the closest models, B_surf = 4.64e12 G, never launch a sustained jet. This is in direct tension with Sec. IV E, where the authors state that it remains an open question whether fully 3D amplification could generate sufficient magnetic pressure. Please either remove this claim, explicitly mark it as a speculative requirement supplied by physics outside the simulations, or provide a concrete dynamo/amplification model with quantitative support.
  2. [II B, IV A, IV C] The metric is held fixed and the MHD/radiation variables for r < 8 km are frozen during the evolution. Consequently, the simulations cannot track growth of the NS rest mass or approach to the maximum-mass limit, so the statements that the magnetic barrier 'delays prompt BH formation' and that the NS will eventually 'exceed its maximum mass limit and collapse into a BH' are extrapolations beyond the model. Please qualify these statements as inferences from the suppression of the accretion rate rather than directly simulated results, or extend the model to permit mass growth and collapse.
  3. [III B, IV E] The quantitative threshold B_surf ~2.32e13 G and the jet power ~1e46 erg/s depend on the MRI being at least partially captured, yet the authors state that Q_MRI < 8 can trigger refinement but the maximum resolution is capped and the fastest-growing MRI modes are not fully resolved. Because no convergence study is reported, it is unclear whether the threshold and jet power are robust or artifacts of limited resolution and axisymmetry. Please add resolution tests (or a dynamo closure) and, in the absence of such tests, present these quantities with explicit error bars or as order-of-magnitude limits rather than precise thresholds.
  4. [IV D, Fig. 14] The claim that the polar jet is 'very likely to drill through the polar overburden' is not directly supported by Fig. 14, where the diagnostic energy at t = 100 ms appears to fall well below E_bind,cone ~1e49 erg. The argument requires continuous energy injection over 1-2 s, which is not simulated; please recast this statement as a speculative extrapolation or provide a time-integrated breakout estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, 'and evacuates' should be 'and evacuating', and 'may launche' should be 'may launch'.
  2. [Figs. 5 and 7] The legends of Figs. 5 and 7 list the weakest magnetised model as B_surf = 4.64e11 G, while the text in Secs. II A 1 and III B uses B_surf = 4.64e10 G for B_c = 1e11 G. Please make the labels consistent across the figures and text.
  3. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is typographically ambiguous; please write A_phi = B_c r_c^3 sin(theta) / [2 (r^3 + r_c^3)] and state explicitly that B_c is the central field strength.
  4. [IV D] Section IV D cites 'Abrahams et al., in prep' without a reference; please add a citation or remove the attribution.
  5. [Abstract, II B] The phrase 'fully coupled' in the abstract should be clarified, since the metric is fixed and the NS interior is frozen; 'fully coupled' refers to the microphysical modules, not to full spacetime dynamics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the jet and precursor results are forward GRMHD outputs from stated initial B_surf, rotation, and microphysics; the Sec. IV B field-amplification argument is an unsupported extrapolation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims (jet power ~1e46 erg/s, accretion halt at B_surf >= 2.32e13 G, unbound mass ~1e-6 Msun, explosion energy ~1e46 erg) are outputs of a forward axisymmetric GRMHD simulation suite. The initial data are fixed independently: the stellar profile from MESA, the NS models from RNS, the magnetic field from Eq. (1) with specified B_c, and the rotation from Eq. (2) with specified eta. The jet power is a measured diagnostic (Eq. 4 restricted to sigma_mag > 1), not a fitted parameter. The analytic scalings r_circ = eta^2 r0 and E_Btor proportional to t^2 are presented as consistency checks and agree with the simulations; they are not used to construct the inputs. No equation is equal to its own output by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The soft spot flagged by the reader is real but is not circularity. Section IV B asserts that an ordinary pulsar field of ~1e12 G needs only a factor-of-ten amplification to reach the jet-launching threshold, achievable 'via the alpha-omega dynamo or continuous magnetic winding.' Yet Section III B states that 'because our simulations are restricted to 2D axisymmetry, Cowling's anti-dynamo theorem strictly prohibits the regeneration of poloidal flux via a non-axisymmetric, turbulent alpha-effect dynamo,' and Section IV E admits 'it remains an open question whether fully 3D magnetic field amplification could generate sufficient magnetic pressure to halt the hypercritical accretion and launch a successful jet before collapse occurs.' This is an internal tension between an astrophysical extrapolation and the model's acknowledged limitations, and it weakens the broader claim that ordinary pulsars can produce precursor flares. But the conditional result 'if B_surf >= 2.32e13 G, the accretion is halted and a ~1e46 erg/s jet can form' is directly simulated from the stated initial field strength; it does not depend on the amplification claim. The self-citations to [19] and to the Gmunu code papers are setup and method references and are not load-bearing for the new physical conclusions. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained; score 2 reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation and the flagged extrapolation as a correctness risk, not circularity.

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

The paper does not postulate new particles or forces. Its free parameters are initial-condition choices for rotation amplitude, NS spin, and magnetic field strength and profile. None of these are fitted to the specific transient predictions; instead they bracket a parameter space. The dominant assumptions are geometric (2D axisymmetry), numerical (fixed metric, frozen core), and physical (idealized rotation profile, standard EoS and network approximations).

free parameters (4)
  • Envelope rotation parameter eta = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 (sampled grid)
    Scales the sub-Keplerian rotation profile in Eq. (2); controls the centrifugal barrier radius r_circ = eta^2 r0. Chosen by hand to bracket infall regimes, not fitted to observations.
  • Initial surface magnetic field B_surf = 4.64e10, 4.64e12, 2.32e13, 4.64e13 G (sampled grid)
    Set via the central B_c in the vector potential Eq. (1). The jet-launching threshold is read off this sparse grid.
  • NS spin a_NS = 0, 0.20, 0.69
    Three rotation rates in Table I; all magnetised runs fix a_NS = 0.69. The hydrodynamic runs show negligible global effect.
  • Magnetic field radial scale r_c = 8 km
    Introduced in Eq. (1) to set the poloidal field profile; not varied across the suite.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 2D axisymmetry is representative of the real 3D accretion flow
    The entire simulation suite is axisymmetric; the authors state in Section IV E that this suppresses the alpha dynamo and limits MRI turbulence.
  • domain assumption Fixed metric and frozen NS core (r<8 km) do not alter the early accretion outcome
    Section II B: metric kept fixed entirely and MHD/radiation variables frozen inside r<8 km; BH collapse is inferred, not simulated.
  • domain assumption Idealized envelope rotation profile
    A spherically symmetric MESA 15 solar mass RSG is given a superimposed sub-Keplerian rotation (Eq. 2) rather than taken from a 3D common-envelope simulation; acknowledged in Section IV E.
  • domain assumption Hybrid EoS and 13-isotope network are adequate for the question
    DD2 plus helmeos interpolation and the aprox13 network are standard but approximate; free nucleons do not participate in the network.
  • standard math Cowling's anti-dynamo theorem applies
    Used in Section III B to explain the absence of poloidal field regeneration in axisymmetry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hyperaccreting Magnetised Neutron Stars inside Rotating Massive Envelopes: Low-Power Jets and Precursor Flares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GR4G5PMW

@misc{pith2026260809395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hyperaccreting Magnetised Neutron Stars inside Rotating Massive Envelopes: Low-Power Jets and Precursor Flares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GR4G5PMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09395}
}
abstract

The engulfment of a neutron star (NS) by a massive companion initiates a highly dynamic common-envelope (CE) evolution phase. As the NS spirals into the dense stellar core, it is subjected to hypercritical accretion rates that threaten to rapidly collapse the NS into a black hole (BH). However, if the infalling envelope possesses sufficient angular momentum and magnetic fields, the NS might survive longer and launch feedback-driving jets. To investigate this, we perform fully coupled, axisymmetric General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations of hyperaccreting NSs, featuring energy-integrated two-moment neutrino transport and a 13-isotope nuclear reaction network. We systematically vary the envelope rotation profile and the magnetic field strength of the NS surface ($B_{\rm surf} \sim 5 \times 10^{10} - 5 \times 10^{13}$~G). In non-magnetised models, we find that envelope rotation naturally forms a centrifugal barrier and a geometrically thick accretion disk, which suppresses the mass accretion rate and lowers the neutrino luminosity; conversely, the intrinsic spin of the NS has a negligible global impact. In magnetised models, the differential rotation of the accretion flow vigorously amplifies the toroidal magnetic field via the $\Omega$-effect, driving the expansion of magnetic towers. Crucially, for strong initial surface magnetic fields ($B_{\rm surf} \gtrsim 2.3 \times 10^{13}$~G), the intense magnetic pressure could completely halt the accretion flow at the NS surface and evacuates a low-density polar funnel. We conclude that while this highly magnetised NS engine successfully delays prompt BH formation and may launche low-power precursor jets (with powers up to ${\sim} 10^{46}~{\rm erg/s}$) capable of generating observable X-ray flares, it lacks the energy budget to unbind the massive envelope, setting the stage for a subsequent BH-driven explosion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Initial equatorial rotational profile of the cen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mass accretion rate at 5000 km ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Rest mass density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Specific angular momentum ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mass accretion rate at 5000 km ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Rest mass density ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time evolutions of the poloidal and toroidal mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Poloidal magnetic field strength ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Toroidal magnetic field ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Inverse plasma beta ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Inverse plasma beta ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Two-dimensional phase space distributions of the diagnostic explosion energy (heatmap) and unbound ejecta mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Angular profiles of the diagnostic explosion energy ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Time evolution of the nucleosynthetic yields for the gravitationally unbound ejecta across four central engine models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. X-ray luminosity as a function of time above 0.1 keV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We consider three different uniformly ro- tating configurations, as detailed in Table I, all sharing roughly the same gravitational mass of 1.4 M ⊙

    Neutron Star Models The NS models are generated with theRNScode [27], including modifications that enforce conformally flat con- ditions [28–32]. We consider three different uniformly ro- tating configurations, as detailed in Table I, all sharing roughly the same gravitational mass of 1.4 M ⊙. These initial configurations are constructed with a fixed uni-...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This represents the red super- giant phase, characterised by a large radius and a long lifetime, adopted from our previous study [19]

    Stellar Model The 15 M ⊙ extended post-main-sequence star at the terminal-age core helium burning stage is adopted as the stellar progenitor model. This represents the red super- giant phase, characterised by a large radius and a long lifetime, adopted from our previous study [19]. The stel- lar profiles are generated usingMESA(Modules for Exper- iments i...

    work page

  3. [3]

    wrinkling

    Simulation Suite To systematically isolate the effects of rotation before investigating full magnetorotational dynamics, we per- form two distinct series of simulations, comprising a total of 14 models. First, we consider a suite of six non-magnetised mod- els spanning the parameter spaceη∈ {0.1,0.3,0.5} × {R1,R2}. This combination allows us to explore th...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Ivanova, S

    N. Ivanova, S. Justham, X. Chen, O. De Marco, C. L. Fryer, E. Gaburov, H. Ge, E. Glebbeek, Z. Han, X.-D. Li, G. Lu, T. Marsh, P. Podsiadlowski, A. Potter, N. Soker, R. Taam, T. M. Tauris, E. P. J. van den Heuvel, and R. F. Webbink, Common envelope evolution: where we stand and how we can move forward, A&A Rev.21, 59 (2013), arXiv:1209.4302 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    R. E. Taam and E. L. Sandquist, Common Envelope Evo- lution of Massive Binary Stars, ARA&A38, 113 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Ivanova, S

    N. Ivanova, S. Justham, and P. Ricker,Common Enve- lope Evolution(2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    F. K. R¨ opke and O. De Marco, Simulations of common- envelope evolution in binary stellar systems: phys- ical models and numerical techniques, Living Re- views in Computational Astrophysics9, 2 (2023), arXiv:2212.07308 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    R. E. Taam, P. Bodenheimer, and J. P. Ostriker, Double core evolution. I. A 16 M sun star with a 1 M sun neutron- 20 star companion., ApJ222, 269 (1978)

    work page 1978

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    A. Grichener, Mergers of compact objects with cores of massive stars: evolutionary pathways, r-process nucle- osynthesis and multi-messenger signatures, Ap&SS370, 11 (2025), arXiv:2410.18813 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Benz and J

    W. Benz and J. G. Hills, Three-dimensional Hydrody- namical Simulations of Colliding Stars. III. Collisions and Tidal Captures of Unequal-Mass Main-Sequence Stars, ApJ389, 546 (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    P. J. T. Leonard, J. G. Hills, and R. J. Dewey, A New Way to Make Thorne-Zytkow Objects, ApJ423, L19 (1994)

    1994

  4. [12]

    MacLeod and E

    M. MacLeod and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, On the Accretion-fed Growth of Neutron Stars during Common Envelope, ApJ 798, L19 (2015), arXiv:1410.5421 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hillel, R

    S. Hillel, R. Schreier, and N. Soker, Three-dimensional simulations of the jet feedback mechanism in common envelope jets supernovae, MNRAS514, 3212 (2022), arXiv:2112.01459 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hutchinson-Smith, R

    T. Hutchinson-Smith, R. W. Everson, A. A. Twum, A. Batta, R. Yarza, J. A. P. Law-Smith, A. Vigna- G´ omez, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Rethinking Thorne- ˙Zytkow Object Formation: The Fate of X-Ray Binary LMC X-4 and Implications for Ultra-long Gamma-Ray Bursts, ApJ977, 196 (2024), a...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    R. W. Everson, T. Hutchinson-Smith, A. Vigna-G´ omez, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Rethinking Thorne-˙Zytkow Object Formation: Assembly via Common Envelope in Field Binaries, ApJ971, 132 (2024), arXiv:2310.08658 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    L. E. Williams, P. Chang, E. M. Levesque, and T. R. Quinn, Neutron Star-Main Sequence Collisions Robustly Form Dynamically Stable Thorne- ˙Zytkow Objects, ApJ 993, 61 (2025), arXiv:2510.16129 [astro-ph.SR]

    2025

  9. [17]

    Sakurai, R

    D. Sakurai, R. Akaho, and S. Yamada, Numerical Studies of Accretion Flows onto a Neutron Star Engulfed in a Massive Star, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.19236 (2026), arXiv:2604.19236 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. A. Chevalier, Neutron Star Accretion in a Stellar En- velope, ApJ411, L33 (1993)

    1993

  11. [19]

    R. A. Chevalier, Neutron star accretion in dense environ- ments., Phys. Rep.256, 95 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    R. A. Chevalier, Neutrino-cooled Accretion: Rotation and Stellar Equation of State, ApJ459, 322 (1996)

    1996

  13. [21]

    C. L. Fryer, W. Benz, and M. Herant, The Dynamics and Outcomes of Rapid Infall onto Neutron Stars, ApJ460, 801 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9509144 [astro-ph]

    1996 arXiv

  14. [22]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, D. Radice, and C. L. Fryer, Hyperac- creting neutron stars inside massive envelopes: The im- plausibility of Thorne-˙Zytkow objects, Phys. Rev. D114, 023018 (2026), arXiv:2604.23503 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Soker, A

    N. Soker, A. Grichener, and A. Gilkis, Diversity of common envelope jets supernovae and the fast transient AT2018cow, MNRAS484, 4972 (2019), arXiv:1811.11106 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Soker, Jets are the Most Robust Observable Ingredient of Common Envelope Evolution, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics25, 025023 (2025), arXiv:2412.04017 [astro-ph.SR]

    N. Soker, Jets are the Most Robust Observable Ingredient of Common Envelope Evolution, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics25, 025023 (2025), arXiv:2412.04017 [astro-ph.SR]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Papish, N

    O. Papish, N. Soker, and I. Bukay, Ejecting the envelope of red supergiant stars with jets launched by an inspi- ralling neutron star, MNRAS449, 288 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Gurjar, L

    D. Gurjar, L. Chamandy, E. G. Blackman, Y. Zou, B. Liu, and J. Nordhaus, Effect of Neutron Star Jets on Common Envelope Evolution, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2607.10267 (2026), arXiv:2607.10267 [astro- ph.SR]

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hillel, R

    S. Hillel, R. Schreier, and N. Soker, Simulating the con- vection in red super-giant stars: wobbling jets in common envelope evolution, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2607.13023 (2026), arXiv:2607.13023 [astro-ph.SR]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Anninos, M

    P. Anninos, M. E. Portman, S. R. Carmichael, R. D. Hoff- man, and A. Sieverding, r-process Nucleosynthesis from Hyperaccreting Neutron Stars in Common Envelopes, ApJ997, 88 (2026), arXiv:2511.18584 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  21. [29]

    Combi, C

    L. Combi, C. Thompson, D. M. Siegel, A. Philippov, and B. Ripperda, Magnetized Accretion onto Neutron Stars: From Photon-trapped to Neutrino-cooled Flows, ApJ987, 71 (2025), arXiv:2505.00300 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Stergioulas and J

    N. Stergioulas and J. L. Friedman, Comparing Models of Rapidly Rotating Relativistic Stars Constructed by Two Numerical Methods, ApJ444, 306 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9411032 [astro-ph]

    1995

  23. [31]

    G. B. Cook, S. L. Shapiro, and S. A. Teukolsky, Testing a simplified version of Einstein’s equations for numeri- cal relativity, Phys. Rev. D53, 5533 (1996), arXiv:gr- qc/9512009 [gr-qc]

    1996

  24. [32]

    Iosif and N

    P. Iosif and N. Stergioulas, On the accuracy of the IWM- CFC approximation in differentially rotating relativis- tic stars, General Relativity and Gravitation46, 1800 (2014), arXiv:1406.7375 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Iosif and N

    P. Iosif and N. Stergioulas, Equilibrium sequences of dif- ferentially rotating stars with post-merger-like rotational profiles, MNRAS503, 850 (2021), arXiv:2011.10612 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Iosif and N

    P. Iosif and N. Stergioulas, Models of binary neutron star remnants with tabulated equations of state, MNRAS 510, 2948 (2022), arXiv:2104.13672 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, N. Muhammed, P. Chawhan, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, High angular momentum hot differentially rotat- ing equilibrium star evolutions in conformally flat space- time, Phys. Rev. D110, 043015 (2024), arXiv:2402.18529 [...

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hempel and J

    M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, A statistical model for a complete supernova equation of state, Nucl. Phys. A 837, 210 (2010), arXiv:0911.4073 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, L.-M. Lin, and T. G. F. Li, Gmunu: toward multigrid based Einstein field equa- tions solver for general-relativistic hydrodynamics sim- ulations, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 145015 (2020), arXiv:2001.05723 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Paxton, L

    B. Paxton, L. Bildsten, A. Dotter, F. Herwig, P. Lesaf- fre, and F. Timmes, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA), ApJS192, 3 (2011), arXiv:1009.1622 [astro-ph.SR]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Paxton, M

    B. Paxton, M. Cantiello, P. Arras, L. Bildsten, E. F. Brown, A. Dotter, C. Mankovich, M. H. Montgomery, D. Stello, F. X. Timmes, and R. Townsend, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars, ApJS208, 4 (2013), arXi...

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Paxton, P

    B. Paxton, P. Marchant, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bild- sten, M. Cantiello, L. Dessart, R. Farmer, H. Hu, N. Langer, R. H. D. Townsend, D. M. Townsley, and F. X. Timmes, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astro- 21 physics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explosions, ApJS220...

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Paxton, J

    B. Paxton, J. Schwab, E. B. Bauer, L. Bildsten, S. Blinnikov, P. Duffell, R. Farmer, J. A. Goldberg, P. Marchant, E. Sorokina, A. Thoul, R. H. D. Townsend, and F. X. Timmes, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Convective Boundaries, Element Diffusion, and M...

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Paxton, R

    B. Paxton, R. Smolec, J. Schwab, A. Gautschy, L. Bild- sten, M. Cantiello, A. Dotter, R. Farmer, J. A. Goldberg, A. S. Jermyn, S. M. Kanbur, P. Marchant, A. Thoul, R. H. D. Townsend, W. M. Wolf, M. Zhang, and F. X. Timmes, Modules for Experiments in Stellar As- trophysics (MES...

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. S. Jermyn, E. B. Bauer, J. Schwab, R. Farmer, W. H. Ball, E. P. Bellinger, A. Dotter, M. Joyce, P. Marchant, J. S. G. Mombarg, W. M. Wolf, T. L. Sunny Wong, G. C. Cinquegrana, E. Farrell, R. Smolec, A. Thoul, M. Cantiello, F. Herwig, O. Toloza, L. Bild- sten, R. H. D. Towns...

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, A. T.-L. Lam, H. H.-Y. Ng, and T. G. F. Li, Gmunu: paralleled, grid-adaptive, general- relativistic magnetohydrodynamics in curvilinear ge- ometries in dynamical space-times, MNRAS508, 2279 (2021), arXiv:2012.07322 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, H. H.-Y. Ng, A. T.-L. Lam, and T. G. F. Li, General-relativistic Radiation Transport Scheme in Gmunu. I. Implementation of Two-moment-based Multi- frequency Radiative Transfer and Code Tests, ApJS267, 38 (2023), arXiv:2303.03261 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, A. Offermans, N. Muhammed, and P. Chawhan, Energy-dependent and Energy-integrated Two-moment General-relativistic Neutrino Transport Simulations of a Hypermassive Neu- tron Star, ApJ975, 116 (2024), arXiv:2407.16017 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P. C.-K. Cheong and C. L. Fryer, Toward First-principles Multimessenger Predictions: Coupling Nuclear Networks with General Relativistic Radiation Magnetohydrody- namics in Gmunu, ApJS284, 6 (2026), arXiv:2510.12978 [astro-ph.IM]

    2026 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Cavaglieri and T

    D. Cavaglieri and T. Bewley, Low-storage im- plicit/explicit Runge-Kutta schemes for the simulation of stiff high-dimensional ODE systems, Journal of Computational Physics286, 172 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Harten, P

    A. Harten, P. Lax, and B. Leer, On upstream differencing and godunov-type schemes for hyper- bolic conservation laws, SIAM Review25, 35 (1983), https://doi.org/10.1137/1025002

    1983 doi

  42. [50]

    Colella and P

    P. Colella and P. R. Woodward, The Piecewise Parabolic Method (PPM) for Gas-Dynamical Simulations, Journal of Computational Physics54, 174 (1984)

    1984

  43. [51]

    C. R. Evans and J. F. Hawley, Simulation of Magneto- hydrodynamic Flows: A Constrained Transport Model, ApJ332, 659 (1988)

    1988

  44. [52]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, D. Y. T. Pong, A. K. L. Yip, and T. G. F. Li, An Extension of Gmunu: General-relativistic Resistive Magnetohydrodynamics Based on Staggered- meshed Constrained Transport with Elliptic Cleaning, ApJS261, 22 (2022), arXiv:2110.03732 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    F. X. Timmes and F. D. Swesty, The Accuracy, Con- sistency, and Speed of an Electron-Positron Equation of State Based on Table Interpolation of the Helmholtz Free Energy, ApJS126, 501 (2000)

    2000

  46. [54]

    O’Connor, An Open-source Neutrino Radiation Hy- drodynamics Code for Core-collapse Supernovae, ApJS 219, 24 (2015), arXiv:1411.7058 [astro-ph.HE]

    E. O’Connor, An Open-source Neutrino Radiation Hy- drodynamics Code for Core-collapse Supernovae, ApJS 219, 24 (2015), arXiv:1411.7058 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    F. X. Timmes, Integration of Nuclear Reaction Networks for Stellar Hydrodynamics, ApJS124, 241 (1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    F. X. Timmes, R. D. Hoffman, and S. E. Woosley, An In- expensive Nuclear Energy Generation Network for Stellar Hydrodynamics, ApJS129, 377 (2000)

    2000

  49. [57]

    Betranhandy and E

    A. Betranhandy and E. O’Connor, Impact of neu- trino pair-production rates in core-collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D102, 123015 (2020), arXiv:2010.02261 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, T. Pitik, L. F. Longo Micchi, and D. Radice, Gamma-Ray Bursts and Kilonovae from the Accretion-induced Collapse of White Dwarfs, ApJ978, L38 (2025), arXiv:2410.10938 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Blagorodnova, R

    N. Blagorodnova, R. Kotak, J. Polshaw, M. M. Kasli- wal, Y. Cao, A. M. Cody, G. B. Doran, N. Elias-Rosa, M. Fraser, C. Fremling, C. Gonzalez-Fernandez, J. Har- manen, J. Jencson, E. Kankare, R.-P. Kudritzki, S. R. Kulkarni, E. Magnier, I. Manulis, F. J. Masci, S. Mat- tila, P....

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Schreier, S

    R. Schreier, S. Hillel, S. Shiber, and N. Soker, Simulating highly eccentric common envelope jet supernova impos- tors, MNRAS508, 2386 (2021), arXiv:2106.11601 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    R. W. M. Hatfull and N. Ivanova, Simulating a Stellar Binary Merger. II. Obtaining a Light Curve, ApJ982, 83 (2025), arXiv:2412.06583 [astro-ph.SR]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kirilov, D

    A. Kirilov, D. Calder´ on, O. Pejcha, and P. C. Duf- fell, Two-dimensional Radiation-hydrodynamic Simula- tions of Luminous Red Novae, ApJ994, L41 (2025), arXiv:2508.09257 [astro-ph.SR]

    2025

  55. [63]

    C. Mu, O. De Marco, L. C. Berm´ udez-Bustamante, R. Hirai, D. J. Price, L. Siess, M. Gonz´ alez-Bol ´ ıvar, M. Y. M. Lau, and N. Blagorodnova, Dust Forma- tion in Common Envelope Binary Interactions – III. Lightcurves, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2606.26495 (2026), arXiv:2606.26495...

    2026 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Sneppen, K

    A. Sneppen, K. Hotokezaka, and C. M. Irwin, Lumi- nous Red Novae as shock-powered transients I: Electron- scattering wings and deviations from Case B, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2607.15390 (2026), arXiv:2607.15390 [astro-ph.SR]

    2026 arXiv

  57. [65]

    C. L. Fryer, E. Burns, J. M. Colosimo, M. Ne- gro, and B. O’Connor, High-Energy Shock Break- out from Supernovae and Gamma-ray Bursts, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.00820 (2026), arXiv:2603.00820 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  58. [66]

    A. E. Niblett, D. A. Fryer, and C. L. Fryer, Studying the Power Sources behind Type Ic Supernovae, ApJ994, 259 (2025), arXiv:2501.15702 [astro-ph.HE]. 22

    2025

  59. [67]

    Shibata, S

    M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, S. Wanajo, K. Ioka, A. T.- L. Lam, and Y. Sekiguchi, Self-consistent scenario for jet and stellar explosions in collapsar: General relativis- tic magnetohydrodynamics simulation with a dynamo, Phys. Rev. D111, 123017 (2025), arXiv:2502.02077 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    M. J. Turk, B. D. Smith, J. S. Oishi, S. Skory, S. W. Skillman, T. Abel, and M. L. Norman, yt: A Multi-code Analysis Toolkit for Astrophysical Simulation Data, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series192, 9 (2011), arXiv:1011.3514 [astro-ph.IM]

    2011 arXiv

  61. [69]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Tay- lor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R ´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. She...

    2020

  62. [70]

    pandas development team, pandas-dev/pandas: Pan- das (2020)

    T. pandas development team, pandas-dev/pandas: Pan- das (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Wes McKinney, Data Structures for Statistical Comput- ing in Python, inProceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, edited by St´ efan van der Walt and Jarrod Millman (2010) pp. 56 – 61

    2010

  64. [72]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y...

    2020

  65. [73]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Computing in Science and Engineering9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  66. [74]

    T. A. Caswell, A. Lee, E. S. de Andrade, M. Droet- tboom, T. Hoffmann, J. Klymak, J. Hunter, E. Fir- ing, D. Stansby, N. Varoquaux, J. H. Nielsen, B. Root, R. May, O. Gustafsson, P. Elson, J. K. Sepp¨ anen, J.-J. Lee, D. Dale, hannah, D. McDougall, A. Straw, P. Hob- son, K. Su...

    2023

Pith tools

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