Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Jet-shaped filamentary ejecta in common envelope evolution

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Filamentary stellar ejecta traced to Rayleigh-Taylor instability

desk verdict A credible extension of the authors' CEJSN impostor simulations, but the Rayleigh-Taylor filament claim is undercut by a jet-injection region that is only about two cells wide at the resolution used. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09663 v3 pith:UX3NR36S submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Ron Schreier , Shlomi Hillel , Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords commonenvelopeevolutionneutronstarjetsRayleigh-Taylorinstabilitythree-dimensionalhydrodynamicsredsupergiantCEJSNimpostorrotationfilamentaryejecta
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to show that the filamentary, bubble-filled ejecta produced when a neutron star launches jets while spiraling inside a red supergiant envelope are shaped by Rayleigh-Taylor instability, not by the jet geometry alone. It runs three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations with three initial envelope rotation rates, up to a case where the equatorial centrifugal force is one quarter of gravity, and maps the envelope zones where the Rayleigh-Taylor growth time is about 0.16 to 0.8 years. The instability appears with and without rotation; rotation only makes the spiral pattern of the ejecta more prominent. The result gives observers a concrete reason to expect clumpy, filamentary ejecta in common-envelope-jets-supernova impostors, transients that mimic peculiar supernovae.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rayleigh-Taylor stability frequency $f_{\rm st} = (1/\rho)\sqrt{| -\vec{\nabla}P\cdot\vec{\nabla}\rho |}\,\mathrm{sgn}(-\vec{\nabla}P\cdot\vec{\nabla}\rho)$, evaluated on the simulation grid. Negative values mark zones where pressure and density gradients oppose one another, making $-1/f_{\rm st}$ approximately the instability growth time; positive values approximate the Brunt–Väisälä frequency of stable stratification. The instability is seeded by the jet-inflated high-pressure cavity around the neutron star, so the shape and location of that cavity, set by the prescribed cylindrical jet-deposition region and fixed spiral orbit, control where $f_{\rm st}$ becomes negative.

What would settle it

Run the fastest-rotating case again with the same total jet energy but deposited spherically instead of as two opposed cylindrical jets; if filaments of similar size still emerge, the Rayleigh-Taylor interpretation is supported, whereas if they disappear, the jet collimation is doing the shaping. A complementary check is to compare the widths of the dense filaments in the density maps with the fastest-growing Rayleigh-Taylor wavelength estimated from the $f_{\rm st}$ maps; a clear mismatch in scaling would count against the conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the same numerical framework as their earlier non-rotating study, the authors place a 12.5 solar-mass red supergiant envelope on a three-dimensional grid, add solid-body rotation at three strengths, and then inject bipolar jets from a neutron star following a fixed three-year spiral-in orbit. The jets inflate high-pressure, low-density cavities around the neutron star; as these cavities accelerate the denser envelope, the pressure and density gradients oppose each other, the defining condition for Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Maps of the stability frequency $f_{\rm st}$ identify unstable zones with growth times of about 0.16 and 0.8 years, well within the 2.3- to 3.8-year evolution shown in the density maps, and the authors interpret the dense filaments and low-density bubbles as the nonlinear outcome of these modes. Faster initial envelope rotation leaves the instability mechanism unchanged but makes the spiral structure of the ejecta more pronounced. Before the jets are switched on, the rotating envelope expands at the equator, contracts at the poles, oscillates non-radially for about two periods, and becomes convective, which the authors read as support for starting 3D common envelope simulations from unrelaxed one-dimensional stellar models.

Load-bearing premise

The jets are inserted through a fixed cylindrical injection region with the neutron star's gravity omitted and its spiral-in orbit prescribed in advance, so the high-pressure bubble that seeds the instability is set by the injection geometry rather than by self-consistent accretion physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Filaments and bubbles should be generic in jet-driven common envelope events: any jet-inflated cavity that accelerates denser envelope gas will seed Rayleigh-Taylor modes.
  • Envelope rotation is a secondary effect for mass ejection; simulations that ignore rotation should still capture the instability and the basic clumpy morphology, while studies of spiral structure must include rotation.
  • Synthetic light curves and spectra of common-envelope-jets-supernova impostors should be built from clumpy, filamentary ejecta rather than smooth spherical shells, since the density maps show structure on scales a few times smaller than the stellar radius.
  • Starting 3D common envelope simulations from unrelaxed one-dimensional giant-star models remains defensible, because the resulting oscillations and convection mimic real red supergiant behavior and decay within about two periods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the characteristic size of the filaments should be set by the density scale height near the jet-inflated cavity, so varying the radius of the cylindrical injection region in controlled runs would test whether the filament spacing follows the cavity size or the intrinsic Rayleigh-Taylor wavelength.
  • Editorial inference: because the simulations omit the neutron star's gravity and accretion flow, the pressure distribution that seeds the instability is imposed; a simulation with an accreting point mass would show whether the same unstable zones survive when the gravitational well reshapes the cavity.
  • Editorial inference: if this mechanism operates, the clumpiness of a real common-envelope-jets-supernova impostor could be used as a probe of the red supergiant's density and pressure gradients at plunge-in, making high-cadence photometric and spectropolarimetric monitoring a test of the model.
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. The paper presents three-dimensional FLASH simulations of a neutron star spiraling inside a red supergiant envelope and launching jets, with emphasis on the effect of pre-existing envelope rotation. The authors first study the rotating envelope without jets, finding non-radial oscillations and convection, which they use to argue that 1D stellar models need not be relaxed before mapping to 3D. They then inject jets via a prescribed cylindrical energy/momentum deposition region around the neutron star and analyze the resulting ejecta morphology. The central new claim is that Rayleigh-Taylor instability, diagnosed by the sign of the dot product of the pressure and density gradients, forms the observed filamentary and bubble structures in the ejecta, with and without envelope rotation, and that faster rotation makes the spiral pattern more prominent.

Significance. If the Rayleigh-Taylor interpretation is correct, the paper provides a physical mechanism for the clumpy, filamentary ejecta expected in CEJSN impostors and, more broadly, for jet-envelope interactions in common envelope evolution. The study has several strengths: it extends earlier 3D jet-in-CEE simulations to rotating envelopes; it includes explicit resolution comparisons for the no-jet phase (Figure 1) and a multi-resolution morphology check for the jet phase (Figure 8); and it clearly states its main simplifications (fixed NS orbit, no NS gravity, inert inner core, under-resolved injection region). The RTI diagnostic is parameter-free, being computed directly from simulation fields, and the paper makes falsifiable statements about spiral prominence versus rotation rate. However, as detailed below, the causal RTI claim currently rests on correlational evidence and on a jet-injection region that is barely resolved, so the central conclusion needs additional support before it can be regarded as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, §3, §4 (Figs. 8–9)] The jet-envelope interaction region is a cylinder with base radius 4×10^12 cm and height 14×10^12 cm (Section 2). At the regular resolution used for the fiducial jetted runs, Δ = 3.90625×10^12 cm (Section 3), that cylinder is only about 2 cells across in radius and about 4 cells in height; even the 'higher-resolution' jet run in Figure 8 uses a cell size of about 3.125×10^12 cm, leaving the radius at about 1.3 cells. The pressure and density gradients entering the RTI diagnostic f_st (Eq. 3, Fig. 9) are therefore determined by the injection stencil and Cartesian grid rather than by a converged hydrodynamic flow. No RTI map is shown for a run with the injection region resolved by several cells or with an alternative injection geometry. The central conclusion that RTI forms the filaments is not supported until such a test is performed.
  2. [§4 (Fig. 9) and abstract] The abstract and Section 5 state that RTI forms the filamentary ejecta 'with and without envelope rotation,' but the RTI maps in Figure 9 are shown only for α = 0.5. No f_st maps or growth-time estimates are presented for the α = 0.25 and α = 0 cases, even though the text asserts that these cases are also prone to RTI. To make the general claim, the authors should either provide the analogous RTI analysis for the other rotation cases or rephrase the conclusion to refer specifically to the α = 0.5 case.
  3. [§4 (after Eq. 3)] The evidence that RTI causes the filaments is correlational: the paper shows that at two epochs the regions with f_st < 0 occupy the same areas as the filaments and that the nominal growth time (τ_RT ≈ 0.16 yr) is much shorter than the simulation duration (2.3–3.8 yr). This is necessary but not sufficient for the causal claim; the same maps could hold if the unstable zones are advected or stabilized. A stronger test would track unstable fluid parcels (e.g., with Lagrangian tracers) to see whether they grow into the observed density filaments, or would quantify the correlation between the initial unstable regions and the later density structure.
  4. [§2 and §4] The simulations omit the neutron star's gravity and prescribe the spiral-in orbit and the cylindrical jet-injection geometry. The high-pressure, low-density volumes that seed the RTI are therefore imposed by the injection scheme rather than arising from a self-consistent accretion flow. The authors acknowledge this simplification, but they do not assess how strongly the RTI conclusion depends on it. A sensitivity test that varies the injection cylinder dimensions or includes a Newtonian point mass for the NS would indicate whether the filamentary RTI pattern is robust or an artifact of the chosen prescription.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4 and Fig. 8] In Section 4 the text says 'we use only the regular resolution when including jets,' but Figure 8 and its caption describe jet simulations at three resolutions (labeled 0.714, 1, and 1.25); please clarify which runs were actually performed and why the earlier statement is retained.
  2. [§1 and §2] Section 1 contains the typo 'CEJSN importers' (should be 'CEJSN impostors'), and Section 2 has 'metalicity' instead of 'metallicity'.
  3. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) appears garbled in the typeset version ('ρ q − →∇P · − →∇ρ'); it should presumably read ρ / sqrt(|∇P · ∇ρ|). Please correct the rendering.
  4. [§3 and Fig. 9] The notation for the stability frequency is inconsistent: the text uses f_st, Eq. (3) uses f_st, Figure 9's caption uses fST, and the color bar label is '1/yr'. Please unify the notation.
  5. [Fig. 8] The caption states that the higher-resolution run uses a grid that is 'smaller due to the small cell size'; it would help to give the actual grid size in physical units for each resolution, as is done for the regular and high resolutions in Section 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Rayleigh-Taylor conclusion is a fresh diagnostic of the simulated fields, not a refit or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Rayleigh-Taylor instability shapes the filamentary ejecta in its 3D common-envelope simulations. That claim is supported by computing a local stability diagnostic (Eq. 3) directly from the simulation's density and pressure fields, then showing that the resulting unstable zones have growth times shorter than the simulated evolution time. No parameter is fitted to the observed filament morphology, and the diagnostic is not defined in terms of the filaments it is used to explain. The jet-injection prescription and neutron-star orbit are taken from the authors' earlier work, but Section 2 restates the setup, and the Rayleigh-Taylor analysis itself is new and independent of those citations. The statement that there is no need to relax cool-giant stellar models before transferring them to 3D grids is supported by the current simulations' oscillation and convection behavior, not merely by the earlier paper. The paper does contain self-citations, especially to Hillel, Schreier, & Soker (2023), but none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative mechanisms, and none supplies the central result by construction. The numerical-resolution concern raised by a skeptical reader is a matter of physical convergence and correctness, not circularity, and therefore does not affect the circularity score. Overall, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations.

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

The RTI claim rests on a standard stability criterion, the assumed jet-envelope coupling, and the treatment of the unrelaxed rotating envelope as physical. No new particles or forces are introduced; the listed free parameters are hand-chosen simulation inputs that set jet power, rotation, and injection geometry, all of which directly influence the claimed filament formation.

free parameters (4)
  • Jet power reduction factor zeta = 7.5e-5
    Chosen in Section 2 to make jets weak enough not to obscure rotation effects; directly sets jet energy deposition, the driver of the high-pressure regions and RTI.
  • Initial rotation parameter alpha = 0.25 and 0.5
    Selected in Section 2 (equation 1) as the two rotation cases. The alpha = 0.5 case has centrifugal force one quarter of gravity at the equator; faster rotation is not simulated.
  • NS spiral-in stopping radius a_SR = 300 Rsun
    Set in Section 4 for numerical reasons to keep the NS outside the inert core radius of 176 Rsun; truncates the inspiral and affects where the jet deposits energy.
  • Jet-envelope interaction cylinder radius and height = base radius 4e12 cm, height 14e12 cm
    Numerical injection region in Section 2. The size of this cylinder sets the initial scale of the high-pressure bubble and therefore the seed scale of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability; it is a numerical choice, not a physical parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The unrelaxed 1D stellar model, transported to 3D and allowed to oscillate, is a valid representation of a real RSG envelope for CEE simulations.
    Section 3 and Summary: the paper strengthens the claim from Hillel et al. (2023) that no relaxation is needed because RSGs oscillate and convect, while conceding the oscillations are not driven by the same mechanism as real RSG pulsations.
  • domain assumption The neutron star affects the envelope only through the prescribed jets; its gravitational force is neglected.
    Section 4 states "The simulations do not explicitly include the gravity of the NS and reveal the sole roles of the jets." This is an important simplification because the NS's gravity would also influence the envelope flow and spiral structure.
  • domain assumption Jet power is set by a BHL accretion rate reduced by a constant factor zeta = 7.5e-5, with a fixed spiral-in orbit.
    Section 2 and 4: energy and momentum are inserted into a cylinder around the NS; the jet power is not computed self-consistently from the actual accretion flow.
  • standard math The Rayleigh-Taylor growth time can be estimated by tau approximately rho / sqrt(grad P dot grad rho), assuming perturbation wavelength equals the density scale height.
    Equation (2), attributed to Priest (1982). The assumption on wavelength is stated but not validated against the perturbation spectrum in the simulation.
  • domain assumption The inner 20% of the stellar radius is an inert fixed core with a stationary gravitational field, and the envelope is an ideal gas with gamma = 5/3 plus radiation pressure.
    Section 2 numerical setup; the fixed inner core and stationary gravity reduce computational cost but modify the deep envelope's dynamical response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jet-shaped filamentary ejecta in common envelope evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UX3NR36S

@misc{pith2026250109663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jet-shaped filamentary ejecta in common envelope evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UX3NR36S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09663}
}
read the original abstract

We conduct three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamical simulations of common envelope evolution (CEE) of a neutron star (NS) that launches jets as it spirals in inside the envelope of a rotating red supergiant (RSG) stellar envelope and find that Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities form filamentary ejecta. We first study the 3D RSG envelope properties before we launch the jets. Adding envelope rotation causes the RSG envelope to expand in the equatorial plane and contract along the poles, leading to non-radial oscillations that decay after two oscillation periods, like the radial oscillation of the non-rotating model. In addition, the envelope becomes convective with large vortices, as in the non-rotating case. Since RSG stars oscillate and have envelope convection, we strengthen the claim that there is no need to relax one-dimensional stellar models of cool giant stars when transporting them to 3D grids. When adding jets, the 3D simulations that include pre-set envelope rotation show that envelope rotation leads to more prominent spiral structures of the ejecta than in the non-rotating case. We map the envelope zones that are Rayleigh-Taylor unstable and conclude that this instability forms the filamentary ejecta, with and without envelope rotation. The jet-inflated high-pressure volumes around the NS accelerate the envelope, a process prone to Rayleigh-Taylor instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. compares the high-resolution simulation with the regular-resolution simulation, both without jets. This figure shows the average radii of the tracers of two initial spherical shells 800R⊙ < r < 850R⊙ and 600R⊙ < r < 650R⊙. The oscillation of the envelope for two cycles before decaying is evident. The period between the two maxima is ≃ 1.7 yr. For comparison, the Keplerian orbital period on the surface of the un￾pert… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. presents, by dashed lines in three colors, the average radius of the two shells for three simulations with different initial rotation velocities according to equation (1); all lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Density maps in the x = 0 meridional plane of the α = 0.5 no-jet simulations emphasizing the non-radial oscillations. The upper four panels are of the regular resolution at four times: t = 12 days (top left panel), at the first maximum of the oscillation according to the dashed-green line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Tracer maps of two shells in the meridional x = 0 plane at t = 12 days (top left), t = 0.92 yr (first maximum in the oscillator motion; top right panel), t = 1.8 yr (first minimum; second left), and t = 2.7 yr (second right). The two panels in the third row present o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Velocity vectors on top of density maps in a quarter of the meridional x = 0 plane at t = 0.92 yr (left) and at t = 2.3 yr (right). Note that we simulate the entire volume, but for clarity, present only one-quarter of the plane. The upper and lower panels are for the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Velocity vectors on top of density maps in the merid￾ional x = 0 plane at t = 2.3 yr for the regular-resolution simulation (top) and the high-resolution simulation (bottom) with α = 0.5. The largest arrow corresponds to a velocity of 53 km s−1 . found and discussed i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Density maps of the three simulations with α = 0, 0.25 and 0.5, left to right, at t = 3.8 yr. The first three rows are for different planes parallel to the equatorial plane; the insets show the distance of each plane from the equatorial plane in units of 1012 cm, nam…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Density maps of three simulations with different resolutions, all with α = 0.5. The density maps are at t = 3.8 yr and in the same four planes as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Maps of fST according to equation 3, in the z = 21 × 1012 cm plane at t = 2.3 yr (top), x = 67 × 1012 cm plane at t = 2.3 yr (middle), and z = 21 × 1012 cm plane at t = 3.8 yr (bottom). Units are in 1/ yr according to the color bar. Zones with positive values are sta…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Mass-feeding of jet-launching white dwarfs in grazing and common envelope evolution

    astro-ph.SR 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    White dwarfs entering a giant's envelope may grow a one-solar-radius accretion disk that launches jets powered by gravitational energy, explaining jet-shaped planetary nebulae and luminous red novae.

  2. The jet-feedback mechanism in common envelope evolution of planetary nebula progenitors

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    From 1D MESA simulations with spherically symmetric energy injection, the authors derive crude negative jet feedback coefficients chi_AGB ≈ 0.5 (M2/0.1 M_sun)^-1 and chi_RGB ≈ 0.8 (M2/0.1 M_sun)^-1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J., & Livio, M

    Armitage, P. J., & Livio, M. 2000, ApJ, 532, 540 Berm´ udez-Bustamante L. C., De Marco O., Siess L., Price D. J., Gonz´ alez-Bol ´ ıvar M., Lau M. Y. M., Mu C., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 533,

    work page 2000

  2. [7]

    2017b, MNRAS, 464, 4028 Jin S., Soker N., 2024, ApJ, 971,

    Iaconi, R., Reichardt, T., Staff, J., De Marco, O., Passy, J.-C., Price, D., Wurster, J., & Herwig, F. 2017b, MNRAS, 464, 4028 Jin S., Soker N., 2024, ApJ, 971,

    work page 2024

  3. [21]

    M., & Taam, R

    Springer Dordrecht, Holland, Netherlands Ricker, P. M., & Taam, R. E. 2012, ApJ, 746, 74 Roepke F. K., De Marco O., 2023, Living Rev Comput Astrophys, 9, 2 Rosselli-Calderon A., Yarza R., Murguia-Berthier A., Rohoza V., Everson R. W., Antoni A., MacLeod M., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2404.08037. Sabach, E., Hillel, S., Schreier, R., & Soker, N. 2017, MNRA...

    arXiv 2012

  4. [24]

    Grichener A., Soker N., 2021, MNRAS, 507,

    work page 2021

  5. [28]

    On the nature of jets from a main sequence companion at the onset of common envelope evolution

    Soker N., 2022, RAA, 22, 122003. Soker N., 2023, arXiv:2303.05880. Soker N., 2025, RAA, 25, 025023. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/adb15b Soker N., Gilkis A., 2018, MNRAS, 475,

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [61]

    Grichener A., Sabach E., Soker N., 2018, MNRAS, 478,

    work page 2018

  7. [96]

    doi:10.3390/galaxies6030096 Shiber S., Iaconi R., 2024, MNRAS, 532,

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies6030096 2024

  8. [117]

    & Soker, N

    Shiber, S. & Soker, N. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2584 Soker N., 1992, ApJ, 389,

    work page 2018

Show all 35 references
  1. [189]

    L., De Marco O., De Colle F., Lopez-Camara D., Moreno Mendez E., Carrillo-Santamaria J., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2502.02933 Kuruwita, R

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f8e Juarez-Garcia A. L., De Marco O., De Colle F., Lopez-Camara D., Moreno Mendez E., Carrillo-Santamaria J., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2502.02933 Kuruwita, R. L., Staff, J., & De Marco, O. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 486 Landri C., Ricker P. M., Renzo M., Rau S., Vign...

    2025 arXiv

  2. [221]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.18813 Grichener A., Cohen C., Soker N., 2021, ApJ, 922,

    Grichener A., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2410.18813. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.18813 Grichener A., Cohen C., Soker N., 2021, ApJ, 922,

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [234]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2012, ApJ, 752, L2 Fryxell, B., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 273 Gagnier D., Pejcha O., 2024, A&A, 683, A4. Gilkis A., Soker N., Kashi A., 2019, MNRAS, 482,

    2012

  4. [464]

    G., Lucchini S., 2014, MNRAS, 440, L16

    Blackman E. G., Lucchini S., 2014, MNRAS, 440, L16. Chamandy L., Blackman E. G., Frank A., Carroll-Nellenback J., Zou Y., Tu Y., 2019, MNRAS, 490,

    2014

  5. [628]

    Soker N., 2016, NewAR, 75,

    2016

  6. [692]

    Shiber S., Iaconi R., De Marco O., Soker N., 2019, MNRAS, 488,

    2019

  7. [1198]

    Soker N., Grichener A., Gilkis A., 2019, MNRAS, 484,

    2019

  8. [1575]

    Vetter M., R¨opke F

    Unger L., Grichener A., Soker N., 2025, arXiv, arXiv:2411.15652. Vetter M., R¨opke F. K., Schneider F. R. N., Pakmor R., Ohlmann S. T., Lau M. Y. M., Andrassy R., 2024, A&A, 691, A244. Vetter M., Roepke F. K., Schneider F. R. N., Pakmor R., Ohlmann S., Mor´ an-Fraile J., Lau M...

    2025

  9. [1651]

    R., Zou A., Blackman E., Liu B., Nordhaus J., 2024, eas..conf, 438 Hillel S., Schreier R., Soker N., 2022, MNRAS, 514,

    Gurjar D., Chamandy L. R., Zou A., Blackman E., Liu B., Nordhaus J., 2024, eas..conf, 438 Hillel S., Schreier R., Soker N., 2022, MNRAS, 514,

    2024

  10. [1818]

    Grichener A., Soker N., 2019, ApJ, 878,

    2019

  11. [1895]

    C., Nordhaus J., 2022, MNRAS, 516,

    Wilson E. C., Nordhaus J., 2022, MNRAS, 516,

    2022

  12. [1898]

    G., Frank A., Tu Y., Liu B., Zou Y., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 528,

    Chamandy L., Carroll-Nellenback J., Blackman E. G., Frank A., Tu Y., Liu B., Zou Y., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 528,

    2024

  13. [2189]

    G., Frank A., 2022, MNRAS, 514,

    Zou Y., Chamandy L., Carroll-Nellenback J., Blackman E. G., Frank A., 2022, MNRAS, 514,

    2022

  14. [2659]

    C., Siess L., Price D

    Gonz´ alez-Bol ´ ıvar M., De Marco O., Berm´ udez-Bustamante L. C., Siess L., Price D. J., 2024, MNRAS, 527,

    2024

  15. [3041]

    G., Nordhaus J., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 497,

    Zou Y., Frank A., Chen Z., Reichardt T., De Marco O., Blackman E. G., Nordhaus J., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 497,

    2020

  16. [3181]

    Grichener A., 2023, MNRAS, 523,

    2023

  17. [3212]

    Hillel S., Schreier R., Soker N., 2023, ApJ, 955,

    2023

  18. [3634]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 2057 Moreno M

    L´ opez-C´ amara, D., Moreno M´ endez, E., & De Colle, F. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2057 Moreno M. M., Schneider F. R. N., R ¨opke F. K., Ohlmann S. T., Pakmor R., Podsiadlowski P., Sand C., 2022, A&A, 667, A72. Moreno M´ endez, E., L´ opez-C´ amara, D., & De Colle, F. 2017, MNRAS, 47...

    2020

  19. [3727]

    G., Carroll-Nellenback J., Liu B., Tu Y., Nordhaus J., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 480,

    Chamandy L., Frank A., Blackman E. G., Carroll-Nellenback J., Liu B., Tu Y., Nordhaus J., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 480,

    2018

  20. [4182]

    Shiber S., 2018, Galax, 6,

    2018

  21. [4492]

    C., Nordhaus J., 2020, MNRAS, 497,

    Wilson E. C., Nordhaus J., 2020, MNRAS, 497,

    2020

  22. [4669]

    Law-Smith J. A. P., Everson R. W., Ramirez-Ruiz E., de Mink S. E., van Son L. A. C., G ¨otberg Y., Zellmann S., et al., 2020, arXiv:2011.06630 L´ opez-C´ amara, D., De Colle, F., & Moreno M´ endez, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3646 L´ opez-C´ amara D., De Colle F., Moreno M´ endez E.,...

    2020 arXiv

  23. [4748]

    Schreier R., Hillel S., Soker N., 2023, MNRAS, 520,

    2023

  24. [4972]

    E., De Marco, O., Macdonald, D., Galaviz, P., Passy, J.C., Iaconi, R., & Mac Low, M.-M 2016a, MNRAS, 455, 3511 Trabucchi M., Wood P

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz364 Staff, J. E., De Marco, O., Macdonald, D., Galaviz, P., Passy, J.C., Iaconi, R., & Mac Low, M.-M 2016a, MNRAS, 455, 3511 Trabucchi M., Wood P. R., Mowlavi N., Pastorelli G., Marigo P., Girardi L., Lebzelter T., 2021, MNRAS, 500,

    doi

  25. [5462]

    Lau M. Y. M., Hirai R., Price D. J., Mandel I., Bate M. R., 2025, arXiv:2503.20506 Lau M. Y. M., Hirai R., Price D. J., Mandel I., 2022b, MNRAS, 516,

    2025 arXiv

  26. [5615]

    Shiber S., Schreier R., Soker N., 2016, RAA, 16,

    2016

  27. [9145]

    Gonz´ alez-Bol ´ ıvar M., De Marco O., Lau M. Y. M., Hirai R., Price D. J., 2022, MNRAS, 517,

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.