Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 139 references

The Tayler–Spruit dynamo can spin down neutron-star merger cores in a few hundred milliseconds and build massive neutron-rich disks with far more neutron-rich ejecta.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 03:47 UTC pith:RHXDRCGB

load-bearing objection First global GR neutrino-MHD run with a TS subgrid model; directional core spin-down and disk/ejecta changes look real inside the model, but the load-bearing closure is still unvalidated under merger conditions. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28556 v1 pith:RHXDRCGB submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.HE

Spinning down neutron-star merger remnants with the Tayler-Spruit dynamo: Global simulations reveal the formation of massive disks and neutron-rich ejecta

Harry Ho-Yin Ng , Elias R. Most This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron starsneutron star coresmagnetohydrodynamicsTayler-Spruit dynamobinary neutron-star mergersangular momentum transportkilonova ejectageneral relativity
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.

After two neutron stars merge, the leftover hot remnant is differentially rotating, and how magnetic fields move its angular momentum decides how long it lives, whether it collapses, and what light it produces. Outer layers can be spun by the magnetorotational instability, but the dense, stably stratified core has positive shear where that instability cannot run; the paper argues the Tayler–Spruit dynamo can operate there instead. The authors run the first long-term global general-relativistic neutrino-radiation magnetohydrodynamics simulations that include a mean-field subgrid model for this unresolved dynamo, starting from a realistic merger remnant. In those runs the dynamo is mainly active at high latitudes in the core, builds strong Maxwell stresses, flattens the core rotation profile on a few-hundred-millisecond timescale, and dumps mass and angular momentum into the disk. The disk becomes more massive, extended, magnetized, and neutron-rich, and the system launches substantially more neutron-rich ejecta—so omitting this process can mispredict remnant lifetime, collapse prospects, and multi-messenger signals.

Core claim

Global axisymmetric GR neutrino-radiation MHD simulations of a realistic long-lived merger remnant show that a subgrid Tayler–Spruit dynamo, active mainly in high-latitude core regions, generates Maxwell stresses that redistribute angular momentum on a spin-down timescale of a few hundred milliseconds, substantially flatten the core rotation profile, and transfer mass and angular momentum from the outer remnant into the disk, producing a more massive, extended, strongly magnetized, low-electron-fraction disk and substantially more neutron-rich ejecta than models without the dynamo.

What carries the argument

A relativistic mean-field subgrid dynamo: an isotropic α-effect κ proportional to the azimuthal Tayler–Spruit electromotive force (α_φφ only), with κ_TS set by the Fuller-style saturated Alfvén frequency, buoyancy, and shear, quenched by a local poloidal-to-toroidal saturation criterion and a neutrino-viscosity floor, and run together with a complementary MRI subgrid dynamo in negative-shear regions.

Load-bearing premise

That a simplified mean-field formula adapted from stellar-interior saturation rules correctly captures how the unresolved Tayler instability grows, saturates, and transports angular momentum inside a hot, neutrino-thick merger core.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional dissipative GRMHD run with physical neutrino viscosity and diffusivity that either develops self-sustained Tayler–Spruit action in the positive-shear core and produces core spin-down plus neutron-rich disk growth on a few-hundred-millisecond timescale, or shows that those effects do not appear under resolved neutron-star conditions.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Long-lived remnants can approach quasi-uniform rotation and lose centrifugal support within a few hundred milliseconds, lowering the mass threshold for delayed collapse for a given equation of state.
  • TS-fed disks become more massive, extended, and neutron-rich, increasing post-merger ejecta mass and strengthening the red kilonova component.
  • Stronger core fields can help launch magnetically dominated polar tower outflows and raise Poynting luminosity relative to MRI-only models.
  • Remnant-lifetime and maximum-mass inferences from multi-messenger data must account for core AM transport that is not captured by outer-layer MRI or constant-viscosity prescriptions.
  • Effective viscosities used as stand-ins for core stresses in long-term remnant models should be weaker, spatially localized, and time-dependent rather than fixed stellar formulae applied everywhere.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same core process operates near the stability limit, published delay-time and collapse-fraction forecasts for the neutron-star population may systematically overestimate remnant lifetimes until TS transport is included.
  • Because the paper’s axisymmetric towers already differ from existing three-dimensional MRI-only funnels, full 3D TS-plus-MRI runs are needed before claiming that polar jets or sGRB engine power are robustly enhanced.
  • The brief analogy to white-dwarf mergers implies that the same subgrid closure could reshape remnant disks and transient light curves in that setting, offering a cross-check outside neutron-star conditions.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first long-term, axisymmetric GR neutrino-radiation MHD simulations of a realistic BNS merger remnant that include a mean-field subgrid model for the unresolved Tayler–Spruit (TS) dynamo in the positive-shear, stably stratified core, combined with an MRI subgrid dynamo in negative-shear regions. Starting from a ϕ-averaged SFHo 2.5 M⊙ remnant, the authors find that the TS branch is active mainly at high latitudes in the core, amplifies core fields, and drives Maxwell stresses that flatten the core rotation profile on a few-hundred-millisecond timescale while transferring mass and angular momentum into the disk. Relative to an MRI-only control, this yields a more massive, extended, neutron-rich disk and substantially higher ejecta mass with lower Ye. Parameter variations in the TS saturation (ξ_TS) and efficiency (χ_TS) are explored, and implications are drawn for remnant spin-down, delayed collapse, and multi-messenger signals.

Significance. If the directional results hold under a more validated TS closure, the work would be an important advance: it identifies a currently omitted AM-transport channel in the positive-shear core and shows that it can reshape disk mass, composition, and late ejecta—quantities that set kilonova color and remnant lifetime. Strengths include a realistic post-merger initial condition, explicit MRI-only controls, ξ_TS and χ_TS scans (including Appendix C), physically motivated floors (stratification, neutrino-viscosity B_φ,crit), and transparent discussion of model limitations. The contribution is primarily methodological plus a conditional physical prediction, not a first-principles demonstration of the TS dynamo itself.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.1–2.2, Eqs. (1)–(11), Appendix C] Sec. 2.1–2.2 and Eqs. (1)–(11): The central claim that unmodelled TS action “qualitatively alter[s]” spin-down, disk formation, and multi-messenger signatures rests on an unvalidated mean-field closure (α_φφ-only EMF, Fuller et al. 2019 saturation adapted to cylindrical geometry, adiabatic Ledoux N_BV without neutrino-diffusion reduction, and the B_φ > B_φ,crit floor). Appendix C shows χ_TS = 0.01 suppresses the effect while χ_TS ≥ 0.1 recovers core flattening and disk spin-up, so the qualitative outcome is efficiency-dependent rather than robust across the full plausible range. The abstract and Sec. 4 should state more clearly that results are conditional on a Fuller-like upper-bound (or Spruit-calibrated χ_TS ∼ 0.1) closure, and should separate robust directional trends (core→disk AM/mass flux when the dynamo is active) from quantitative factors (order-of-magnitude Ṁ_ej, ΔM_disk ≃ 0.07
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (15), Fig. 6] Sec. 3.2, Eq. (15) and Fig. 6: The collapse-prospects claim and the critical-mass estimate M_crit ≈ 2.4 M⊙ are extrapolated from a single SFHo trajectory with initial core mass 2.27 M⊙ via a linear fit in the (J, M_g) plane. That fit is not an equilibrium sequence, does not vary EOS or binary mass ratio, and assumes the same AM-loss slope continues until M_max. This is too thin to support the abstract’s statement on collapse prospects. Either demote Eq. (15) to an illustrative estimate with explicit caveats, or add at least a second mass/EOS point (or a controlled comparison to viscous models) before quoting a critical mass.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.1–3.3.2] Sec. 3.3.1 versus Sec. 3.3.2: Axisymmetry (Cowling) forces all dynamo action into the subgrid model and is known to affect large-scale poloidal reorganization. The paper itself notes that the ξ_TS = 0 run fails to form a strong magnetic tower, in contrast to published 3D GRMHD results. Tower-driven polar outflows and Poynting luminosities should therefore not be used as primary evidence for the TS impact. The more defensible ejecta claim is the disk-driven, neutron-rich component tied to core→disk mass/AM transfer (Figs. 6, 8–10). Please restructure Sec. 3.3 so that multi-messenger conclusions emphasize disk ejecta and treat magnetic-tower results as tentative pending 3D tests.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 4] Fig. 4 and Sec. 3.2: The effective viscosity inferred from Maxwell stresses is reported to be at least an order of magnitude below the Fuller et al. stellar prescription ν_FPJ and “a few orders of magnitude lower” than constant viscosities used in prior remnant viscous-hydro studies. This is an important result, but it cuts both ways: it cautions against importing stellar ν_TS into merger models, yet it also means the simulated AM transport is weaker than many existing viscous calculations that already find strong spin-down. Please quantify how the reported τ_flat ∼ 100 ms after saturation compares to those viscous runs at matched ν, and clarify whether the qualitative disk/ejecta changes would survive if the true saturated stress were closer to the lower Spruit branch or further reduced by neutrino diffusion.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Title, abstract] Title and abstract use “Tayler-Spruit” / “T ayler–Spruit” inconsistently (including a spaced “T ayler” in the typeset title). Standardize spelling and en-dash usage.
  2. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1: The |κ| panels split TS (upper) and MRI (lower) half-planes; state explicitly in the caption that this is a visualization choice, not a physical north/south asymmetry of the model.
  3. [Eq. (2), Appendix A] Eq. (2) and Appendix A: The relativistic Ledoux form and pressure-normal projection are valuable; a one-sentence comparison of N_BV^2 along n_P versus spherical r (fraction of cells that change sign) would help readers judge geometric sensitivity.
  4. [Sec. 2.3] Sec. 2.3: The initial poloidal seed (A_0 → B_pol,max ∼ 10^14 G) and ϕ-averaging of the toroidal field via RMS are reasonable but should note how sensitive late TS activation is to the post-averaging B_tor relative to B_φ,crit in Eq. (3).
  5. [Fig. 2] Fig. 2 label “| (t)|” appears truncated; restore |κ|(t) or equivalent.
  6. [References] References: several entries are arXiv-only or incomplete (e.g., Barrère et al. 2026a,b; Cook & Bernuzzi 2026). Update citation keys and published status where possible before final submission.
  7. [Sec. 1, 2.1, Appendix A] Typographical: “processs” (Sec. 1), “for for an assessment” (Sec. 2.1), and “EV ALUATION” / “V ¨AIS ¨AL ¨A” spacing artifacts in Appendix A should be cleaned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: simulation outcomes under an externally motivated TS subgrid closure, not tautologies or fitted-as-prediction claims.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is a numerical experiment: a mean-field TS dynamo closure (κ_TS from Fuller/Spruit saturation adapted to cylindrical geometry, plus Most-style relativistic α-effect EMF) is inserted into axisymmetric GR ν-RMHD, and the reported AM redistribution, disk growth, and ejecta changes are measured outputs relative to an MRI-only control (ξ_TS = 0). The closure parameters χ_TS and ξ_TS are free efficiency/saturation knobs motivated by external stellar-dynamo theory and varied in the text and App. C; they are not fitted to the target remnant observables and then re-presented as predictions. Self-citations (Most 2023 mean-field electric field; authors’ codes and initial remnant) supply methodology and initial data, not a uniqueness theorem or a definition that forces the spin-down/disk/ejecta results. Eq. (15)’s linear collapse-mass extrapolation is a post-hoc fit to one trajectory, not a circular derivation of the main claim. Correctness risk about whether the unvalidated TI closure under merger conditions is adequate is real but is not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The load-bearing physics is imported TS saturation theory plus a new mean-field implementation. Free parameters set dynamo efficiency and quench level; domain assumptions include axisymmetry, conformal flatness, grey M1 neutrinos, and adiabatic buoyancy. The invented piece is the specific relativistic TS subgrid EMF used in the induction equation.

free parameters (5)
  • χ_TS (TS dynamo efficiency) = 0.1 (fiducial)
    Multiplies κ_TS; fiducial 0.1 chosen to match a Spruit-like reduction of the Fuller upper bound and to absorb unresolved α_ij anisotropy. Scanned at 0.01, 0.1, 1 in App. C.
  • ξ_TS (TS saturation quench parameter) = 1 (fiducial)
    Controls how close |B_R/B_φ| may approach the analytic saturation ratio before κ is quenched (Eq. 11). Fiducial 1; scanned 0, 0.1, 1, 4.
  • χ_MRI = 0.05
    Efficiency in the MRI mean-field κ_MRI prescription adapted from Sądowski et al. (2015).
  • ξ_MRI / σ_turb saturation level = ξ_MRI=4
    MRI quench factor from Most (2023) / Radice (2020) calibration (ξ_MRI=4).
  • Initial poloidal seed amplitude A_0 = B_pol,max ~ 10^14 G at insertion
    Sets B_pol,max ~ 10^14 G inserted 2 ms before merger in the 3D progenitor run; final remnant magnetization inherits this choice.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Tayler–Spruit cycle operates in stably stratified positive-shear regions with hierarchy ω_A ≪ Ω ≪ N_BV and saturates at the Fuller et al. (2019) relations adapted to cylindrical geometry (Eq. 1).
    Sec. 2.1; saturation and aspect ratios are taken from stellar-interior theory, not derived under merger Pm, neutrino viscosity, or cylindrical remnant structure.
  • ad hoc to paper Unresolved EMF is adequately represented by an isotropic mean-field e^μ = κ b^μ with only the α_φφ channel retained for TS (Eqs. 5–6, 10).
    Authors explicitly drop nondiagonal α_ij acting on poloidal field and absorb residual O(1) tensor uncertainty into χ_TS.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic Ledoux N_BV (thermal + composition) along the pressure normal is a conservative proxy; neutrino diffusion need not reduce buoyancy for the subgrid model.
    Sec. 2.1 and App. A; authors note diffusion-reduced buoyancy would enlarge TI-unstable scales but do not include it.
  • domain assumption TI is deactivated below a critical toroidal field set by neutrino viscosity (Eq. 3, Margalit et al. 2022 viscosity).
    Moment M1 transport does not supply shear viscosity; analytic ν_ν floor is imposed by hand.
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric 2.5D evolution with conformal flatness plus subgrid dynamos captures the secular AM transport of interest after GW damping.
    Sec. 2.3; Cowling’s theorem is acknowledged, so all dynamo action is by construction subgrid.
  • domain assumption Standard GRMHD, grey M1 neutrino transport, and SFHo EOS adequately describe the remnant thermodynamics and weak interactions for the reported ejecta Ye.
    Methods and App. B; composition of disk/ejecta inherits these microphysics choices.
invented entities (1)
  • Relativistic TS mean-field subgrid prescription (κ_TS, Δ_TS quench, combined TS+MRI EMF in the induction equation) no independent evidence
    purpose: To represent unresolved Tayler–Spruit dynamo action and the associated Maxwell stresses inside the positive-shear core during long global runs.
    Constructed in Sec. 2.1–2.2 by projecting saturated Tayler-mode perturbations onto α_φφ and coupling to Most (2023)-style mean-field electric field; not an independently measured transport law.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 34111 in / 4503 out tokens · 89736 ms · 2026-07-31T03:47:18.528199+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spinning down neutron-star merger remnants with the Tayler-Spruit dynamo: Global simulations reveal the formation of massive disks and neutron-rich ejecta." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHXDRCGB

@misc{pith2026260728556,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spinning down neutron-star merger remnants with the Tayler-Spruit dynamo: Global simulations reveal the formation of massive disks and neutron-rich ejecta},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHXDRCGB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28556}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Magnetic-field amplification and angular momentum (AM) transport critically shape the secular evolution, lifetime, and electromagnetic signatures of binary neutron-star merger remnants. While the magnetorotational instability can operate in the outer negative-shear regions of the neutron-star remnant and accretion disk, the positive-shear, stably stratified core may instead be susceptible to the Tayler-Spruit dynamo. We present the first global, long-term general-relativistic neutrino-radiation magnetohydrodynamics simulations of a neutron-star merger remnant incorporating the unresolved Tayler-Spruit dynamo through a new mean-field dynamo subgrid prescription. Our axisymmetric simulations starting from a realistic merger remnant show that the Tayler-Spruit dynamo is primarily active in high-latitude regions of the remnant core. The resulting Maxwell stresses redistribute AM on a spin-down timescale of a few hundred milliseconds, substantially flattening the core rotation profile and transferring mass and AM from the outer remnant into the disk. This produces a more massive, extended, and strongly magnetized disk with a low electron fraction, leading to substantially more neutron-rich ejecta. Our results demonstrate that currently unmodelled Tayler-Spruit dynamo action can qualitatively alter the rotational evolution, collapse prospects, disk formation, and multi-messenger signatures of long-lived neutron-star merger remnants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28556 by Elias R. Most, Harry Ho-Yin Ng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: From left to right: Meridional slices of the fiducial (ξTS = 1) model of the composition (Nµ) and thermal (NT ) contributions to the Brunt–V¨ais¨al¨a frequency, the absolute value of the isotropic α-effect coefficient, |κ|, and the rotational frequency, Ω/(2π). The snapshots are shown at t¯ = 40 ms (top row) during the TS-dynamo growth stage and t¯ = 300 ms (bottom row). In the |κ| panels, the upper half-p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Upper: Time evolution of the toroidal (solid) and poloidal (dashed) components of the magnetic energy in the merger remnant for all simulated dynamo saturation parameters, ξTS. Lower: Time evolution of mass-averaged |κ|, which, for ξTS > 0 models, is primarily TS-dominated. Different colors correspond to the ξTS = 0 model, without the TS dynamo, and to models with different values of the saturation paramet… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Radial profiles of angular momentum (AM) transport for the fiducial model (ξTS = 1) at z = 0. From top to bottom, we show the angular frequency, the local net AM change due to radial transport (∆JR in Eq. (13)), and the effective shear viscosity associated with the Maxwell stress νeff . Curves of different colors correspond to snapshots be￾tween t¯= 15 ms and t¯= 380 ms. constrained by buoyancy, neutrino v… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shear viscosity for the Tayler-Spruit dynamo at two different post-merger times, t¯. Shown are the (left) effec￾tive viscosity computed from the simulation with ξTS = 1, νeff , (right) analytic prescription used in stellar evolution, νFPJ (J. Fuller et al. 2019). Here, ρ is the baryon rest-mass density. derived for stars for different geometries of the back￾ground field and rotation profile to the cases of… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of gravitational mass and angular momentum (AM) for the remnant core, disk, and total core–disk system. The inner core, core and disk are defined by ρ > 1014 , > 1013 and < 1013 g cm−3 , respectively, and are represented by circle, ellipse and bow-tie markers; stars denote the total core–disk quantities. Disk quantities are shown on the upper and right axes. Hollow markers indicate the initial st… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Characteristic properties of outflows from the neutron-star remnant for the fiducial ξTS = 1 case. The meridional plane is shown at time t¯= 184 ms. (Left to right) Inverse plasma beta, β −1 , magnetic-field strength, |B|, poloidal-field strength, |B pol| = p B2 − BϕBϕ, entropy per baryon, s, and the asymptotic Lorentz factor, W∞, of unbound material at infinity. Streamlines in the |B| and W∞ panels indica… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass ejection rate, M˙ ej, computed at a spher￾ical radius of 550 km for all simulated dynamo saturation parameters, ξTS. 3.3.1. Magnetic tower outflows We begin by discussing outflows from the remnant for the fiducial case ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Normalized ejected mass distributions for all dynamo saturation parameters. From left to right, the panels show the distributions of electron fraction, Ye, entropy, s, and terminal velocity, v∞/c. et al. 2026). This picture is consistent with a number of recent GRMHD studies of merger remnants showing enhanced outflows (P. M¨osta et al. 2020; L. Combi & D. M. Siegel 2023; J. Bamber et al. 2024; A. Wen et a… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Electron-fraction profiles at t¯= 385 ms for the ξTS = 0 (left) and ξTS = 1 (right) models. Cyan contours denote rest-mass density as defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    2020, Phys

    Palenzuela, C. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 103006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103006

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.103006 2020

  3. [3]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, Astrophys. J., 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  4. [4]

    Bamber, J., Tsokaros, A., Ruiz, M., & Shapiro, S. L. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 024046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024046 Barr` ere, P., Guilet, J., Gallet, B., & Raynaud, R. 2026a, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02182 Barr` ere, P., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Reboul-Salze, A. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 695, A183, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451337 Barr` ere, P., G...

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Janka, H. T. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 668, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244172 Barr` ere, P., Reboul-Salze, A., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2026b, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    W., & Janka, H.-T

    Bauswein, A., Baumgarte, T. W., & Janka, H.-T. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 131101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.131101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.131101 2013

  7. [7]

    D., & Oron, E

    Bekenstein, J. D., & Oron, E. 1978, Phys. Rev. D, 18, 1809, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.1809

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.18.1809 1978

  8. [8]

    2021, Astrophys

    Beniamini, P., & Lu, W. 2021, Astrophys. J., 920, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1678

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1678 2021

  9. [9]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.06015

    Bernuzzi, S., Breschi, M., Daszuta, B., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.06015. https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.06015 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    I., Dunina-Barkovskaya, N

    Blinnikov, S. I., Dunina-Barkovskaya, N. V., & Nadyozhin, D. K. 1996, Astrophys. J., Supp., 106, 171, doi: 10.1086/192334

    doi:10.1086/192334 1996

  11. [11]

    2017, Phys

    Bovard, L., Martin, D., Guercilena, F., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 124005. https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09630

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    2016, Mon

    Breu, C., & Rezzolla, L. 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 459, 646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw575

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw575 2016

  13. [13]

    2013, Mon

    Bucciantini, N., & Del Zanna, L. 2013, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 428, 71, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts005

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts005 2013

  14. [14]

    2024, Mon

    Cassing, M., & Rezzolla, L. 2024, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 532, 945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1527

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1527 2024

  15. [15]

    2015, Journal of Computational Physics, 286, 172

    Cavaglieri, D., & Bewley, T. 2015, Journal of Computational Physics, 286, 172

    2015

  16. [16]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01208

    Celora, T., Palenzuela, C., Vigan` o, D., & Aguilera-Miret, R. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01208

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    D., Most, E

    Chabanov, M., Tootle, S. D., Most, E. R., & Rezzolla, L. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 945, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbbc5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbbc5 2023

  18. [18]

    D., Foucart, F., Cheong, P

    Chawhan, P., Duez, M. D., Foucart, F., Cheong, P. C.-K., & Muhammed, N. 2026, Class. Quant. Grav., 43, 095026, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ae62ee

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ae62ee 2026

  19. [19]

    C.-K., Foucart, F., Duez, M

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Foucart, F., Duez, M. D., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 975, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7825

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7825 2024

  20. [20]

    C.-K., Lam, A

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Lam, A. T.-L., Ng, H. H.-Y., & Li, T. G. F. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 2279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2606

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2606 2021

  21. [21]

    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, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd931

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd931 2023

  22. [22]

    V., & Giacomazzo, B

    Ciolfi, R., Kastaun, W., Kalinani, J. V., & Giacomazzo, B. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 023005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.023005 2019

  23. [23]

    Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54, 174, doi: DOI:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

    doi:10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8 1984

  24. [24]

    Combi, L., & Siegel, D. M. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 231402, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.231402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.231402 2023

  25. [25]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21659

    Cook, W., & Bernuzzi, S. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21659

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Cowling, T. G. 1933, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 94, 39, doi: 10.1093/mnras/94.1.39

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/94.1.39 1933

  27. [27]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kr¨ oner, D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    arXiv 2002

  28. [28]

    K., et al

    Dietrich, T., Moldenhauer, N., Johnson-McDaniel, N. K., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 124007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.124007 2015

  29. [29]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049 2017

  30. [30]

    Werneck, L. R. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 023040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023040

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.023040 2025

  31. [31]

    D., Liu, Y

    Duez, M. D., Liu, Y. T., Shapiro, S. L., & Stephens, B. C. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 104030, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.104030

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.104030 2004

  32. [32]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  33. [33]

    Shapiro, S. L. 2015a, Class. Quantum Grav., 32, 175009, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/17/175009 Fermi-LAT Collaboration. 2017, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05450 Fern´ andez, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., Foucart, F., & Kasen, D. 2019, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 482, 3373, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2932

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    2026, Phys

    Fields, J., Radice, D., & Hammond, P. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 043056, doi: 10.1103/sqjg-l87v

    doi:10.1103/sqjg-l87v 2026

  35. [35]

    D., Kidder, L

    Foucart, F., Duez, M. D., Kidder, L. E., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.063007 2018

  36. [36]

    2018, Astrophys

    Shibata, M. 2018, Astrophys. J., 860, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabafd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabafd 2018

  37. [37]

    2020, Post-merger Mass Ejection of Low-mass Binary Neutron Stars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00474

    Fujibayashi, S., Wanajo, S., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2020, Post-merger Mass Ejection of Low-mass Binary Neutron Stars, https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00474

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    2019, Astrophys

    Fuller, J., & Ma, L. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b 2019

  39. [39]

    L., & Jermyn, A

    Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Jermyn, A. S. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 3661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz514

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz514 2019

  40. [40]

    2025, Phys

    Gavassino, L. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, L081306, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L081306

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.l081306 2025

  41. [41]

    C., MacFadyen, A

    Giacomazzo, B., Zrake, J., Duffell, P. C., MacFadyen, A. I., & Perna, R. 2015, Astrophys. J., 809, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/39

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/39 2015

  42. [42]

    2019, Astrophys

    Gill, R., Nathanail, A., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16da

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16da 2019

  43. [43]

    2018, Mon

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2018, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 473, 576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2357

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2357 2018

  44. [44]

    D., Quataert, E., et al

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 958, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e 2023

  45. [45]

    2012, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol

    Gourgoulhon, E. 2012, Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol. 846, 3+1 Formalism in General Relativity (Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24525-1

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24525-1 2012

  46. [46]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 3992

    Guilet, J., M¨ uller, E., & Janka, H.-T. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 3992

    2015

  47. [47]

    E., Becerra, L., Kantor, E

    Gusakov, M. E., Becerra, L., Kantor, E. M., Reisenegger, A., & Valdivia, J. A. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 114, 023019, doi: 10.1103/2h7n-g6nq 18 Guti´ errez, E. M., Radice, D., Fields, J., & Stone, J. M. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20953 Guti´ errez, E. M., Cook, W., Radice, D., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18995

    arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    2017, Phys

    Hanauske, M., Takami, K., Bovard, L., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 043004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.043004 2017

  49. [49]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  50. [50]

    D., & van Leer, B

    Harten, A., Lax, P. D., & van Leer, B. 1983, SIAM Rev., 25, 35, doi: 10.1137/1025002

    doi:10.1137/1025002 1983

  51. [51]

    2022, Phys

    Hayashi, K., Fujibayashi, S., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 023008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.023008 2022

  52. [52]

    2013, Phys

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 024001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.024001 2013

  53. [53]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  54. [54]

    H.-Y., Chabanov, M., & Rezzolla, L

    Jiang, J.-L., Ng, H. H.-Y., Chabanov, M., & Rezzolla, L. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 103043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.103043 2025

  55. [55]

    V., Ciolfi, R., Campanelli, M., et al

    Kalinani, J. V., Ciolfi, R., Campanelli, M., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J. Lett., 1000, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae402a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae402a 2026

  56. [56]

    2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    doi:10.1038/nature24453 2017

  57. [57]

    2022, Phys

    Kashyap, R., Das, A., Radice, D., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103022

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.103022 2022

  58. [58]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9455

    doi:10.1126/science.aap9455 2017

  59. [59]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1583, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0073

    doi:10.1126/science.aaq0073 2017

  60. [60]

    2015, Phys

    Shibata, M. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 124034, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124034

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.124034 2015

  61. [61]

    2018, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Sekiguchi, Y., & Shibata, M. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 124039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124039

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.124039 2018

  62. [62]

    2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11299

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Sekiguchi, Y., & Shibata, M. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 298, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Shibata, M., & Sekiguchi, Y. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 298, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y 2024

  64. [64]

    1998, Astrophys

    Kluzniak, W., & Ruderman, M. 1998, Astrophys. J. Lett., 505, L113, doi: 10.1086/311622

    work page doi:10.1086/311622 1998

  65. [65]

    2019, Astrophys

    Koeppel, S., Bovard, L., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 872, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0210 K¨ olsch, M., Dietrich, T., Ujevic, M., & Br¨ ugmann, B. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 044026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.044026

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0210 2019

  66. [66]

    T.-L., & Shibata, M

    Lam, A. T.-L., & Shibata, M. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    M., & Schramm, D

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, Astrophys. J. Lett., 192, L145, doi: 10.1086/181612

    doi:10.1086/181612 1974

  68. [68]

    L., Palenzuela, C., et al

    Lehner, L., Liebling, S. L., Palenzuela, C., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 184002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/18/184002 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor, et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/18/184002 2016

  69. [69]

    T., & Shapiro, S

    Liu, Y. T., & Shapiro, S. L. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 044009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.044009 L¨ offler, F., Faber, J., Bentivegna, E., et al. 2012, Class. Quantum Grav., 29, 115001, doi: doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/11/115001 L¨ u, H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., Li, Y., & Lasky, P. D. 2015, Astrophys. J., 805, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/89

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.044009 2004

  70. [70]

    1996, Mon

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1996, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 279, 389, doi: 10.1093/mnras/279.2.389

    doi:10.1093/mnras/279.2.389 1996

  71. [71]

    2019, Mon

    Ma, L., & Fuller, J. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 488, 4338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2009

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2009 2019

  72. [72]

    S., Metzger, B

    Margalit, B., Jermyn, A. S., Metzger, B. D., Roberts, L. F., & Quataert, E. 2022, Astrophys. J., 939, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b01

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b01 2022

  73. [73]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 850, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c 2017

  74. [74]

    2017, Astrophys

    Margutti, R., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Letters, 848, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057 2017

  75. [75]

    Mbarek, R., Wu, J., & Most, E. R. 2026, Astrophys. J. Lett., 1005, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae7971

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae7971 2026

  76. [76]

    D., & Fern´ andez, R

    Metzger, B. D., & Fern´ andez, R. 2014, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 441, 3444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu802

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu802 2014

  77. [77]

    D., Thompson, T

    Metzger, B. D., Thompson, T. A., & Quataert, E. 2018, Astrophys. J., 856, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab095

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab095 2018

  78. [78]

    D., Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 406, 2650, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x Miravet-Ten´ es, M., Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, P., Obergaulinger, M., &

    arXiv 2010

  79. [79]

    Font, J. A. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 517, 3505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2888

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2888 2022

  80. [80]

    P., Nakar, E., Hotokezaka, K., et al

    Mooley, K. P., Nakar, E., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2018a, Nature, 554, 207, doi: 10.1038/nature25452

    doi:10.1038/nature25452

Showing first 80 references.