Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 109 references

On the nature of oscillating modes of proto-neutron stars

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By classifying modes by the energy of their restoring forces, this paper identifies four families of oscillations in proto-neutron stars and shows that the main high-frequency gravitational-wave emission is the PNS f-mode.

desk verdict Useful energy-based mode classification for PNS oscillations; central f-mode claim is credible but rests on a frequency-ordering convention rather than a direct free-surface energy measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10264 v1 pith:B3VGRL7H submitted 2026-08-10 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Dimitra Tseneklidou , Alejandro Torres-Forne , Pablo Cerda-Duran , Martin Obergaulinger , Jose Antonio Font This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords proto-neutronstarscore-collapsesupernovaegravitationalwaveasteroseismologystellaroscillationmodesmodeclassificationrestoring-forceenergyhigh-frequencyfeaturebuoyancyfrequency
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 aims to settle what actually oscillates when a newborn proto-neutron star rings behind a stalled supernova shock. It argues that the spectrum contains four coexisting families of modes—PNS f/p modes, shock f/p modes, core g-modes, and surface g-modes—and that the dominant high-frequency gravitational-wave emission is the PNS f-mode, an interface mode tied to the steep density gradient at the star's surface. To reach this, the authors replace node-counting with an energy-based classifier that measures the restoring forces doing the work of each mode. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the paper is right, the main gravitational-wave track becomes a direct probe of the proto-neutron star's mass and radius, turning a disputed feature into a tool for asteroseismology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the energy fraction $F=(M_2-M_g)/M_2$ (equivalently $F=(M_f+M_p+M_\alpha)/M_2$), computed by splitting the mode energy into work done by compression, a free surface, the gravitational potential, and buoyancy. It classifies a mode as f+p when $F>0.5$ and as a g-mode otherwise, and spatial integration over the core, PNS, and post-shock regions assigns each mode to one of four families. The total $M_2$ is derived from the perturbed ADM mass using a standing-wave displacement, with the $\psi^2$ metric contribution dropped.

What would settle it

Recompute $F$ for the reference model at several post-bounce times using the full second-order metric perturbation $\psi^2$ and the potential-energy form of $M_2$ rather than the kinetic proxy; if the mode that follows the high-frequency gravitational-wave track then has $F<0.5$, or if the lowest-frequency f+p-PNS mode is shown by an independent eigenfunction-tracking analysis to be a p-mode, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the mode spectrum of a proto-neutron star with a stalled accretion shock is not a single sequence but four distinct families, each living in a different region: f+p modes inside the PNS, f+p modes in the cavity between the PNS surface and the shock, g-modes in the core stable layer, and g-modes in the surface stable layer. The energy fraction $F=(M_2-M_g)/M_2$ separates f+p from g character, and the lowest-frequency f+p-PNS mode—present only when the PNS surface is included in the domain—matches the rising high-frequency track in the gravitational-wave spectrogram. The paper concludes that this track is the PNS f-mode, an interface mode produced by the strong density gradient at the PNS surface, not a g-mode.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the approximate energy fraction $F=(M_2-M_g)/M_2$ (Eqs. 37–38), built from a total energy that drops the $\psi^2$ metric terms (Eq. 23) and from an approximate force density (Eq. 28), still places the mode that tracks the high-frequency emission on the f+p side of the 0.5 threshold. The paper states that the $\psi^2$ contribution is small for most modes but is largest for the f-mode, which is exactly the mode the conclusion names.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the HFF is the PNS f-mode, its rising track tracks the contracting PNS's surface density gradient, giving a direct asteroseismic handle on PNS mass and radius.
  • The automatic classifier makes it practical to run the same mode identification over hundreds of simulations, replacing hand-tracked node counts with a consistent label for each mode.
  • PNS-only eigenvalue calculations misclassify surface g-modes and cannot capture shock f/p modes; calculations must extend to the shock to see the complete spectrum.
  • The strong avoided crossing between the PNS f-mode and the first core g-mode explains the break in the HFF frequency evolution around 0.4 s after bounce seen in several simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the HFF really is an interface mode, its frequency should respond sensitively to the accretion rate and the surface density scale height; a test would compare models with different accretion histories at fixed PNS mass.
  • The classifier's reliance on an approximate total energy means a natural next step is to include the full $\psi^2$ metric terms for a subset of snapshots; the paper's own numbers suggest the f-mode is exactly where this approximation is least safe.
  • The unresolved power gap—the narrow band where gravitational-wave emission is suppressed—probably needs interference or cancellation effects beyond the avoided crossing; the four mode families give a concrete setting to test that.
  • The same restoring-force energy split could be adapted to other multi-cavity oscillators, such as neutron-star merger remnants or accreting white dwarfs, wherever the total mode energy can be computed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physically motivated classification of linear oscillation modes of proto-neutron stars surrounded by a stalled accretion shock, based on the contribution of individual restoring forces (compression, free surface, gravitational potential, buoyancy) to the mode energy. The formalism is derived from a perturbation of the ADM mass and applied to eigenmodes computed with GREAT for 28 one-, two-, and three-dimensional core-collapse supernova simulations using two codes and six equations of state. The authors identify four mode families: PNS f+p modes, shock f+p modes, core g-modes, and surface g-modes, and they propose an automatic classification procedure based on an energy fraction F=(M2-Mg)/M2 and on the spatial localization of the mode energy. The central claim is that the dominant high-frequency GW feature (HFF) is the f-mode of the PNS, associated with the strong density gradient at the PNS surface, and that a prominent avoided crossing around 0.4 s post-bounce involves this f-mode and the first core g-mode.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is a valuable contribution to PNS asteroseismology: it offers a physically grounded resolution of a long-standing controversy about the nature of the HFF, and the automatic classification procedure is a step toward systematic universal-relation studies on large simulation ensembles. The analytic energy decomposition in Appendices B-C is carefully presented, the application to a diverse 28-model, two-code, multi-EoS dataset is a strength, and the paper is honest about its approximations (omitted psi^2 terms, approximate force density, empirical thresholds). The inclusion of independent checks via propagation diagrams and simple analytic estimates is commendable, although, as detailed below, the identification of the HFF mode as the PNS f-mode still rests partly on a frequency-ordering convention rather than on a direct computation of the free-surface energy contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV A/B and Sec. V A] The label 'f-mode' for the HFF is assigned by convention rather than by direct evaluation of the defining restoring force. Section IV B states that the lowest-frequency f+p-PNS mode is classified as the PNS f-mode because it is the lowest-frequency mode of the family and appears only when the PNS surface is included, and Section V A applies the same frequency-ordering convention automatically. However, Mf (Eq. 32) is never computed separately; the quantity actually used, Mf+p = M2 - Mg (Eq. 37), includes Mp and Malpha, so the mode labeled f-PNS could in principle be p1-PNS. The independent Kelvin-model estimate in Eq. (41) provides supporting evidence, but it is an idealized scaling relation and is not a direct computation of Mf. Since the central claim of the paper (abstract and Sec. VI) is that the HFF is the PNS f-mode, I request a direct evaluation of Mf (e.g., with a regularized or alternative treatment of the second derivatives in Eq. 32) for the HFF mode, or an equivalent diagnostic that explicitly shows that the free-surface restoring force dominates the energy of this mode.
  2. [Sec. II E/F and Sec. V A] The energy fraction F, which is the basis of the automatic classification, inherits the approximations in the energy functional: Eq. (23) omits psi^2 contributions and Eq. (28) uses an approximate force density. The paper acknowledges these omissions, but it does not quantify their impact. This matters because the classification threshold F=0.5 is used globally, and several modes have values of F near 0.5, for example the surface g-modes in restricted domains (Sec. IV B, Figs. 6-7) and modes near avoided crossings (Fig. 3). A sensitivity estimate of the neglected terms for a representative mode, especially those near the threshold, would establish that the classification is robust rather than dependent on the approximations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II C] The sentence after Eq. (11) repeats the phrase 'and the normalization of the eigenfunction' twice; please remove the duplicate.
  2. [Sec. II D] The underbrace labels for the restoring-force terms (compression, free surface, gravitational potential, buoyancy) are typeset after Eqs. (13)-(14) in a way that makes it unclear which terms they refer to; please reposition the braces so each label is directly under its corresponding term.
  3. [Sec. IV E] The comparison between analytic models and numerical eigenfrequencies in Fig. 11 uses frequency-rescaling factors of order unity for each family; please report the actual values of these rescaling factors, since without them the 'excellent matching' is partly by construction.
  4. [Sec. V A and Appendix D] The automatic classification relies on several empirical thresholds (e.g., the density threshold rho_thr=1e14 g/cm^3, the N^2 threshold 7e5 s^-2, and the velocity criterion 8e7 cm/s), but only the velocity versus density surface definitions are compared; a brief sensitivity test for rho_thr and the F=0.5 threshold would strengthen the claim of robustness across the 28 simulations.
  5. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption lists symbols for 1D, 2D, and 3D simulations but the description of the code symbols is a bit compressed; please clarify the notation in the caption or in the legend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classification is operational and the HFF=f-mode identification is independently supported by parameter-free analytic estimates.

full rationale

The paper's central classification uses the energy fraction F=(M2-Mg)/M2 as an operational criterion for f+p versus g character; this is a definition, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no mode label is used to adjust F. The critical claim that the HFF is the PNS f-mode rests on identifying the HFF with the lowest-frequency f+p-PNS mode, a frequency-ordering convention; however, the paper does not stop there. In Sec. IV C it explicitly acknowledges the potential circularity of the restricted-domain and energy-distribution diagnostics sharing the energy functional that defines the classification, and it complements them with independent propagation diagrams and, in Sec. IV D, with parameter-free analytic estimates. In particular, the Kelvin homogeneous-sphere estimate (Eq. 41) reproduces the frequency trend of the mode labeled f-PNS using only M_PNS and R_PNS, providing independent support. Self-citations to [31,34] for the eigenmode framework are methodological rather than load-bearing uniqueness claims, and the GREAT eigenvalue framework was validated against multidimensional simulations in prior work. The empirically chosen thresholds (F=0.5, density and velocity criteria) are classification inputs, not predictions derived from the outputs. The acknowledged omission of a direct computation of Mf (Eq. 32) is a verification gap for the f-mode label, but it is not a circular reduction: the label is not used to define the energy functional, and the independent analytic checks break any definitory loop. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

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

The central classification depends on empirically chosen thresholds for the PNS surface, stable regions, and density split, and on approximations in the mode energy (neglected psi^2 terms). No new physical entities are introduced; the 'outer free-surface f-mode' is an artifact of the boundary condition and is identified as such.

free parameters (6)
  • N^2 threshold = 7e5 s^-2
    Defines outer boundaries of core and surface stable regions and the core domain; chosen to cover the region while avoiding oscillatory boundaries (Sec. IV B).
  • PNS surface velocity threshold = 8e7 cm/s
    Empirically chosen velocity criterion for the PNS surface; the paper states 'the exact value of the threshold velocity has been found empirically' (Sec. IV B).
  • Core/surface g-mode density threshold = 1e14 g/cm^3
    Splits interior from exterior for g-mode family classification (Sec. V A).
  • Analytic rescaling factors = order unity, per panel
    Frequencies from analytic models are rescaled by a constant factor of order unity to compare with numerical modes (Sec. IV E, Fig. 11).
  • g-mode asymptotic constants S and epsilon_g = unspecified, close to unity
    Appear in Eq. (51) for asymptotic g-mode periods; stated to be constants close to unity but not fitted or reported.
  • Bhattacharyya coefficient thresholds = 0.5 and 0.7
    Thresholds for accepting and robustly identifying mode matches (Sec. IV C).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CFC approximation h_ij=0 and neglected shift perturbations for the perturbed metric
    Used in Sec. II A to reduce the metric; errors estimated at the ~10% level for PNS compactness, following [34].
  • domain assumption The background is a spherically symmetric hydrostatic equilibrium with zero velocity and no accretion flow
    Used throughout Sec. II; the paper notes the background accretion flow is not included (Sec. I), which affects shock p-modes (per [35]).
  • standard math The extremal mass-energy theorem: first-order ADM mass perturbation vanishes for hydrostatic equilibrium
    Used in Sec. II E to justify computing energy at second order (Refs. [70,71]).
  • standard math The force is conservative so work is half the force times displacement
    Proven for harmonic time dependence in Appendix C, using symmetry of the operator K_ij.
  • ad hoc to paper The psi^2 terms in the mode energy are negligible for classification purposes
    Invoked in Sec. II E-F to drop terms in Eqs. (23) and (28); the authors argue the impact is minor except for the f-mode, and even there minimal for most data.
  • domain assumption Eigenmodes computed with eta_1=0 at the shock correspond to physical modes of the PNS-shock system
    Used as the full-domain outer BC (Sec. II G, Fig. 2); boundary conditions at a stalled shock with accretion are more complex (see [35]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the nature of oscillating modes of proto-neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3VGRL7H

@misc{pith2026260810264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the nature of oscillating modes of proto-neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3VGRL7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10264}
}
read the original abstract

Newborn proto-neutron stars (PNS) are potential targets of gravitational wave asteroseismology, the study of the (inner) structure of stars via their oscillation modes. To prepare for the eventual detection of such modes by current and future gravitational wave observatories, theoretical studies have obtained the possible spectrum of oscillations. However, there has been disagreement when it comes to identifying and classifying specific modes according to the physical mechanism that excites them. In this paper, we present a novel scheme to classify the oscillation modes of a newly born PNS surrounded by a stalled accretion shock in core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe). Our classification is physically motivated, as it is based on the energy of the restoring forces of the mode. We investigate the nature of the modes by considering the different regions of the CCSN that they stem from. We apply this scheme to a set of 28 non-rotating 1D, 2D and 3D CCSN simulations performed with two different numerical codes and using different progenitors and equations of state. In that way, we find that there are different families of f-, p- and g-modes in the system, living in different areas. More specifically, we identify two families of f- and p-modes associated with the PNS and the shock, respectively, and two families of g-modes originating from the two convectively stable regions, one in the PNS core and one near its surface. We also find that the dominant high-frequency emission mode is the f-mode of the PNS, associated with the strong density gradient at its surface. Our classification procedure is automatic, performs consistently for all the models considered, and paves the way to systematic studies of the dependence of the mode frequencies on the PNS properties, with direct application to parameter estimation from future observations of gravitational wave signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10264 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Time evolution of the shock location for all models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectrum of the modes from the reference model clas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time-frequency diagram of the GW signal from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of the squared BV frequency, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the time evolution of mode frequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the time evolution of mode frequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the time evolution of mode frequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Example of a propagation diagram for the reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Radial distribution of the energy integrand for several selected modes at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Results from the simple analytical estimates of sec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Spectrum of the modes for different density thresh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Automatic classification of the four mode families [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. From left to right: upper plots: f-PNS and f-shock, bottom plots: g [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The f-mode of the PNS and the g [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Outlier elimination using the RANSAC fitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Under these assumptions, for a perturbation of spherical-harmonic degreel, the squared angular fre- quency is given by [see e.g

    PNS f- and p-modes To understand the behavior of the PNS f-mode fre- quency, we compare with that of a self-gravitating ho- mogeneous fluid sphere as an approximation for the PNS interior. Under these assumptions, for a perturbation of spherical-harmonic degreel, the squared angular fre- quency is given by [see e.g. 87, section 17.7] σ2 l = 2l(l−1) 2l+ 1 ...

  2. [2]

    This can be modeled following the work of Lamb ([92], see art

    Outer free surface f- and p-modes The outer free surface f-mode is associated with the presence of a low-density region layer surrounding the PNS, extending from its surface to the outer boundary of the domain, that behaves as a free surface. This can be modeled following the work of Lamb ([92], see art. 264. Eq. (9)), adopting the classical framework for...

  3. [3]

    However, the eigenvalue problem that we are solving is formulated in general relativity, and the frequencies obtained correspond to those measured by a distant observer

    Redshift correction The estimates above for f- and p-modes are computed in classical gravity. However, the eigenvalue problem that we are solving is formulated in general relativity, and the frequencies obtained correspond to those measured by a distant observer. Therefore, we should apply a gravita- tional redshift correction to these simple expressions,...

  4. [4]

    For this purpose, we de- tect the boundaries of the two stable regions (core and surface) using as a thresholdN 2 thr = 7×10 5 s−2

    g-modes For the case of g-modes, we can obtain the mode fre- quencies from the profile of the Brunt-V¨ ais¨ al¨ a frequency in the region hosting the mode. For this purpose, we de- tect the boundaries of the two stable regions (core and surface) using as a thresholdN 2 thr = 7×10 5 s−2. Note that, sinceN 2 is a relativistic expression, it does not need an...

  5. [5]

    Comparison with numerical eigenmodes In Fig. 10 we compare these simple estimates with the numerically computed eigenmodes for three of the cases considered in Section IV B, from top to bottom, the PNS, the extended PNS and the full domain. For the case of core g-modes, regardless of the domain considered, the analytical estimation (red lines) follows the...

  6. [6]

    S. W. Bruenn and A. Mezzacappa, ApJ433, L45 (1994)

    1994

  7. [7]

    J. M. Blondin, A. Mezzacappa, and C. DeMarino, ApJ 584, 971 (2003), astro-ph/0210634

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    The first order perturbation ofρh can be written as (ρh)1 = 1 + 1 c2s p1 −(ρh) 0 ξiB0i,(B3) as shown in [31]. Taking into account the definitions of enthalpy and energy density, its second-order perturba- tion will be given by (ρh)2 =e 2 +p 2.(B4) 26 Substituting the above relations in the perturbation of the relativistic energy density, Eq. (17), the 0th...

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    To determine whether modes computed using different domains represent the same physical mode, we compare their normalized radial energy distributions

    Depending on their frequency, many of these modes cross different propagation and evanescent regions. To determine whether modes computed using different domains represent the same physical mode, we compare their normalized radial energy distributions. Their sim- ilarity is qu...

  2. [10]

    Szczepa´ nczyk and M

    M. Szczepa´ nczyk and M. Zanolin, Galaxies10, 70 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Srivastava, S

    V. Srivastava, S. Ballmer, D. A. Brown, C. Afle, A. Bur- 6 Note that, according to [34],δˆαcan be written as a second spatial integral ofξ i. rows, D. Radice, and D. Vartanyan, Phys. Rev. D100, 043026 (2019), 1906.00084

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Janka, K

    H.-T. Janka, K. Langanke, A. Marek, G. Mart ´ ınez- Pinedo, and B. M¨ uller, Phys. Rept.442, 38 (2007), astro-ph/0612072

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Burrows and D

    A. Burrows and D. Vartanyan, Nature589, 29 (2021), 2009.14157

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Burrows and B

    A. Burrows and B. A. Fryxell, ApJ418, L33 (1993). 29

    1993

  7. [15]

    Andresen, B

    H. Andresen, B. M¨ uller, E. M¨ uller, and H.-T. Janka, MNRAS468, 2032 (2017), 1607.05199

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Foglizzo, P

    T. Foglizzo, P. Galletti, L. Scheck, and H. T. Janka, Astrophys. J.654, 1006 (2007), astro-ph/0606640

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. W. Murphy, C. D. Ott, and A. Burrows, ApJ707, 1173 (2009), 0907.4762

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. D. Murphy, A. Mezzacappa, E. J. Lentz, and P. Mar- ronetti, Phys. Rev. D112, 063062 (2025), 2503.06406

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Obergaulinger and M

    M. Obergaulinger and M. A. Aloy, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.469, L43 (2017), 1703.09893

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin,Handbook of Supernovae (Springer Cham, 2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    M¨ uller, Living Reviews in Computational Astro- physics6, 3 (2020), 2006.05083

    B. M¨ uller, Living Reviews in Computational Astro- physics6, 3 (2020), 2006.05083

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N

    P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. DeBrye, M. A. Aloy, J. A. Font, and M. Obergaulinger, ApJ779, L18 (2013), 1310.8290

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P. N. McDermott, H. M. van Horn, and J. F. Scholl, ApJ268, 837 (1983)

    1983

  16. [24]

    Kuroda, K

    T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, and T. Takiwaki, ApJ829, L14 (2016), 1605.09215

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M¨ uller, H.-T

    B. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, and A. Marek, ApJ766, 43 (2013), 1210.6984

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    L. Choi, A. Burrows, and D. Vartanyan, ApJ975, 12 (2024), 2408.01525

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, M

    P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, M. L´ opez, A. Favali, I. Di Palma, M. Drago, and F. Ricci, Phys. Rev. D111, 083022 (2025), 2501.11401

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Casallas-Lagos, J

    A. Casallas-Lagos, J. M. Antelis, C. Moreno, M. Zano- lin, A. Mezzacappa, and M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, Phys. Rev. D108, 084027 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Casallas-Lagos, M

    A. Casallas-Lagos, M. Szczepa´ nczyk, M. Zanolin, and A. Mezzacappa, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2607.21925 (2026), 2607.21925

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mezzacappa and M

    A. Mezzacappa and M. Zanolin, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2401.11635 (2024), 2401.11635

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Torres-Forn´ e, P

    A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, A. Passamonti, and J. A. Font, MNRAS474, 5272 (2018), 1708.01920

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Reisenegger and P

    A. Reisenegger and P. Goldreich, ApJ395, 240 (1992)

    1992

  25. [33]

    Ferrari, G

    V. Ferrari, G. Miniutti, and J. A. Pons, MNRAS342, 629 (2003), astro-ph/0210581

    2003 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Passamonti, M

    A. Passamonti, M. Bruni, L. Gualtieri, and C. F. Sop- uerta, Phys. Rev. D71, 024022 (2005), gr-qc/0407108

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Dimmelmeier, N

    H. Dimmelmeier, N. Stergioulas, and J. A. Font, MN- RAS368, 1609 (2006), astro-ph/0511394

    2006 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. J. Kr¨ uger, W. C. G. Ho, and N. Andersson, Phys. Rev. D92, 063009 (2015), 1402.5656

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Camelio, A

    G. Camelio, A. Lovato, L. Gualtieri, O. Benhar, J. A. Pons, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D96, 043015 (2017), 1704.01923

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, Phys. Rev. D94, 044043 (2016), 1608.01048

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. R. Westernacher-Schneider, Phys. Rev. D101, 083021 (2020), 2002.04468

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, MNRAS498, 3503 (2020), 2008.00419

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Morozova, D

    V. Morozova, D. Radice, A. Burrows, and D. Vartanyan, ApJ861, 10 (2018), 1801.01914

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Torres-Forn´ e, P

    A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, A. Passamonti, M. Obergaulinger, and J. A. Font, MNRAS482, 3967 (2019), 1806.11366

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Tseneklidou, R

    D. Tseneklidou, R. Luna, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, and A. Torres-Forn´ e, Phys. Rev. D112, 103032 (2025), 2503.16317

    2025

  36. [44]

    Sotani et al., Phys

    H. Sotani et al., Phys. Rev. D99, 123024 (2019), 1906.04354

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Tseneklidou, A

    D. Tseneklidou, A. Torres-Forn´ e, and P. Cerd´ a- Dur´ an, European Physical Journal C85, 1218 (2025), 2504.12183

    2025

  38. [46]

    J. R. Westernacher-Schneider et al., Phys. Rev. D100, 123009 (2019), 1907.01138

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Richers, C

    S. Richers, C. D. Ott, E. Abdikamalov, E. O’Connor, and C. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D95, 063019 (2017), 1701.02752

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sotani, T

    H. Sotani, T. Kuroda, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Phys. Rev. D96, 063005 (2017), 1708.03738

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Torres-Forn´ e, P

    A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, M. Obergaulinger, B. M¨ uller, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 051102 (2019), 1902.10048

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bizouard, P

    M.-A. Bizouard, P. Maturana-Russel, A. Torres-Forn´ e, M. Obergaulinger, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Christensen, J. A. Font, and R. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D103, 063006 (2021), 2012.00846

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bruel, M.-A

    T. Bruel, M.-A. Bizouard, M. Obergaulinger, P. Maturana-Russel, A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a- Dur´ an, N. Christensen, J. A. Font, and R. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D107, 083029 (2023), 2301.10019

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Jakobus, B

    P. Jakobus, B. M¨ uller, A. Heger, S. Zha, J. Pow- ell, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191201 (2023), 2301.06515

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    N. E. Wolfe, C. Fr¨ ohlich, J. M. Miller, A. Torres-Forn´ e, and P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, ApJ954, 161 (2023), 2303.16962

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Jakobus, B

    P. Jakobus, B. M¨ uller, and A. Heger, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2405.01449 (2024), 2405.01449

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J. A. Isenberg, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D17, 265 (2008), gr-qc/0702113

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    R¨ over, M.-A

    C. R¨ over, M.-A. Bizouard, N. Christensen, H. Dim- melmeier, I. S. Heng, and R. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D80, 102004 (2009), 0909.1093

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Pastor-Marcos, P

    C. Pastor-Marcos, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, D. Walker, A. Torres-Forn´ e, E. Abdikamalov, S. Richers, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D109, 063028 (2024), 2308.03456

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Nunes, G

    S. Nunes, G. Escrig, O. G. Freitas, J. A. Font, T. Fer- nandes, A. Onofre, and A. Torres-Forn´ e, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064037 (2024), 2403.04938

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Y. S. Abylkairov, M. C. Edwards, A. Ostrikov, Y. Tleukhanov, A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, J. A. Font, M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, and E. Abdikamalov, Phys. Rev. D112, 123056 (2025), 2510.15102

    2025

  52. [60]

    Akhmetali, Y

    A. Akhmetali, Y. Sultan Abylkairov, D. Orel, S. Nunes, A. Sakan, A. Zhunuskanov, M. Zaidyn, N. Ussipov, J. A. Font, and E. Abdikamalov, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2605.04896 (2026), 2605.04896

    2026 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Vartanyan et al., Phys

    D. Vartanyan et al., Phys. Rev. D107, 103015 (2023), 2302.07092

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M. C. Rodriguez, I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, C. Chirenti, and D. Radice, MNRAS523, 2236 (2023), 2304.00033

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dimmelmeier, J

    H. Dimmelmeier, J. A. Font, and E. M¨ uller, A&amp;A 388, 917 (2002), astro-ph/0204288

    2002 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. R. Wilson, G. J. Mathews, and P. Marronetti, Phys. Rev. D54, 1317 (1996), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1317

    1996 doi

  57. [65]

    Cordero-Carri´ on, P

    I. Cordero-Carri´ on, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, H. Dimmelmeier, J. L. Jaramillo, J. Novak, and E. Gourgoulhon, Phys. Rev. D79, 024017 (2009), 0809.2325

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Shibata and Y.-I

    M. Shibata and Y.-I. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D69, 084024 (2004), gr-qc/0402040. 30

    2004 arXiv

  59. [67]

    C. D. Ott, H. Dimmelmeier, A. Marek, H.-T. Janka, B. Zink, I. Hawke, and E. Schnetter, Classical and Quantum Gravity24, S139 (2007), astro-ph/0612638

    2007 arXiv

  60. [68]

    C. D. Ott, H. Dimmelmeier, A. Marek, H.-T. Janka, I. Hawke, B. Zink, and E. Schnetter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 261101 (2007), astro-ph/0609819

    2007 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, G

    P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, G. Faye, H. Dimmelmeier, J. A. Font, J. M. Ib´ a˜ nez, E. M¨ uller, and G. Sch¨ afer, A&amp;A439, 1033 (2005), astro-ph/0412611

    2005 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Dimmelmeier, J

    H. Dimmelmeier, J. A. Font, and E. M¨ uller, A&amp;A 393, 523 (2002), astro-ph/0204289

    2002 arXiv

  63. [71]

    B. K. Harrison, K. S. Thorne, M. Wakano, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation Theory and Gravitational Col- lapse(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965)

    1965

  64. [72]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. F. Schutz, MNRAS255, 119 (1992)

    1992

  65. [73]

    Blanchet, T

    L. Blanchet, T. Damour, and G. Schaefer, MNRAS242, 289 (1990)

    1990

  66. [74]

    K. S. Thorne, Reviews of Modern Physics52, 299 (1980)

    1980

  67. [75]

    T. G. Cowling, MNRAS101, 367 (1941)

    1941

  68. [76]

    Thomson, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London pp

    W. Thomson, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London pp. 583–616 (1863), ISSN 0261- 0523, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstl/article- pdf/doi/10.1098/rstl.1863.0028/1455492/rstl.1863.0028.pdf, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1863.0028

  69. [77]

    Gourgoulhon,3+1 Formalism in General Relativity, vol

    E. Gourgoulhon,3+1 Formalism in General Relativity, vol. 846 (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  70. [78]

    Enrico Fermi,

    K. S. Thorne, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,” Course XXXV pp. 166–280 (1965)

    1965

  71. [79]

    Typel, M

    S. Typel, M. Oertel, and T. Kl¨ ahn, Physics of Particles and Nuclei46, 633 (2015), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1134/S1063779615040061

    2015

  72. [80]

    K. S. Thorne and A. Campolattaro, Astrophys. J.149, 591 (1967)

    1967

  73. [81]

    O. Just, M. Obergaulinger, and H.-T. Janka, MNRAS 453, 3386 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    Dimmelmeier, J

    H. Dimmelmeier, J. Novak, and P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an,Co- CoNuT: General relativistic hydrodynamics code with dynamical space-time evolution, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.012 (2012), 1202.012

    2012

  75. [83]

    M¨ uller and H.-T

    B. M¨ uller and H.-T. Janka, MNRAS448, 2141 (2015), 1409.4783

    2015 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Marek, H

    A. Marek, H. Dimmelmeier, H.-T. Janka, E. M¨ uller, and R. Buras, A&amp;A445, 273 (2006), astro- ph/0502161

    2006

  77. [85]

    Obergaulinger et al

    M. Obergaulinger et al. (2026), in preparation

    2026

  78. [86]

    O’Connor and C

    E. O’Connor and C. D. Ott, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 114103 (2010), 0912.2393

    2010 arXiv

  79. [87]

    J. P. Cox,Theory of stellar pulsations.(Princeton Series in Astrophysics, 1983)

    1983

  80. [88]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, ApJ774, 17 (2013), 1207.2184

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    J. M. Lattimer and F. Douglas Swesty, Nuclear Physics A535, 331 (1991)

    1991

  82. [90]

    Banik, M

    S. Banik, M. Hempel, and D. Bandyopadhyay, ApJS 214, 22 (2014), 1404.6173

    2014 arXiv

  83. [91]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, ApJS197, 20 (2011), 1105.1666

    2011 arXiv

  84. [92]

    G. Shen, C. J. Horowitz, and S. Teige, Phys. Rev. C83, 035802 (2011), 1101.3715

    2011 arXiv

  85. [93]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, Phys. Rep.442, 269 (2007), astro-ph/0702176

    2007 arXiv

  86. [94]

    W. Unno, Y. Osaki, H. Ando, and H. Shibahashi,Non- radial Oscillations of Stars(University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1979)

    1979

  87. [95]

    S. Zha, O. Eggenberger Andersen, and E. P. O’Connor, Phys. Rev. D109, 083023 (2024), 2403.02067

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, J

    P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, J. A. Font, and H. Dimmelmeier, A&amp;A474, 169 (2007), astro-ph/0703597

    2007 arXiv

  89. [97]

    E. P. O’Connor and S. M. Couch, ApJ854, 63 (2018), 1511.07443

    2018 arXiv

  90. [98]

    NextGenerationEU

    identified two stable regions separated by a Ledoux convection zone. Despite a sign difference in our defi- nitions ofN 2, our qualitative findings align with those of [98]. Eggenberger & Andersen [94] found two posi- tiveN 2 regions; however, instead of a negativeN 2 layer, t...

  91. [99]

    Aerts, J

    C. Aerts, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, and D. W. Kurtz, Asteroseismology(2010)

    2010

  92. [100]

    Kailath, IEEE Transactions on Communication Technology15, 52 (1967)

    T. Kailath, IEEE Transactions on Communication Technology15, 52 (1967)

    1967

  93. [101]

    Lamb,Hydrodynamics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1932), 6th ed

    H. Lamb,Hydrodynamics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1932), 6th ed

    1932

  94. [102]

    Tassoul, ApJ358, 313 (1990)

    M. Tassoul, ApJ358, 313 (1990)

    1990

  95. [103]

    Eggenberger Andersen, S

    O. Eggenberger Andersen, S. Zha, A. da Silva Schneider, A. Betranhandy, S. M. Couch, and E. P. O’Connor, ApJ 923, 201 (2021), 2106.09734

    2021 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Andresen, X

    H. Andresen, X. Li, A. Betranhandy, E. P. O’Connor, S. Zha, and S. M. Couch, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity43, 145001 (2026), 2603.26408

    2026 arXiv

  97. [105]

    K.-C. Pan, C. Mattes, E. P. O’Connor, S. M. Couch, A. Perego, and A. Arcones, Journal of Physics G Nu- clear Physics46, 014001 (2019), 1806.10030

    2019 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Mezzacappa, P

    A. Mezzacappa, P. Marronetti, R. E. Landfield, E. J. Lentz, R. D. Murphy, W. Raphael Hix, J. A. Harris, S. W. Bruenn, J. M. Blondin, O. E. Bronson Messer, et al., Phys. Rev. D107, 043008 (2023), 2208.10643

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Foglizzo, A&amp;A392, 353 (2002), astro- ph/0206274

    T. Foglizzo, A&amp;A392, 353 (2002), astro- ph/0206274

    2002

  100. [108]

    M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, Commun. ACM24, 381–395 (1981), ISSN 0001-0782, URLhttps://doi. org/10.1145/358669.358692

    1981

  101. [109]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, et al., Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research12, 2825 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.