Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 minor 2 cited by

SACRA-K: A Performance-Portable Numerical Relativity Code with Kokkos

T0 review · 0 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Relativity code ported to GPU runs 10x faster, matching original

desk verdict Validated Kokkos port of SACRA-MPI to GPU/APU with ~10x speedup; honest about scaling limits read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08743 v1 pith:TJ566S4R submitted 2026-07-09 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMgr-qc

Ming-Zhe Han , Kenta Kiuchi , Masaru Shibata This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMgr-qc PACS 04.25.D04.30.-w04.40.Dg95.30.Lz
keywords numericalrelativityperformanceportabilityKokkosgravitationalwavesbinaryneutronstarsadaptivemeshrefinementGPUaccelerationBSSNformulation
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 presents SACRA-K, a rewrite of the Fortran numerical-relativity code SACRA-MPI into C++ using the Kokkos library, which allows a single source code to run on CPUs, GPUs, and APUs from different vendors. The authors validate that the port reproduces the original code's gravitational-wave waveforms across binary black hole, black hole–neutron star, and binary neutron star configurations to accuracy at or below the distinguishability threshold of current gravitational-wave detectors, preserves pi-symmetry at the bitwise level, and achieves second-order convergence for binary neutron star mergers. In the smallest test configuration, SACRA-K runs roughly an order of magnitude faster on NVIDIA A100 or AMD MI300A accelerators than the Fortran code on a 72-core CPU node, and the authors measure weak scaling up to 256 accelerator devices with efficiencies of 77–83% relative to a 32-device baseline.

What carries the argument

Kokkos performance-portability library (abstracts CUDA, HIP, OpenMP backends); BSSN formulation with Z4c constraint damping for spacetime evolution; box-in-box Berger-Oliger adaptive mesh refinement with time subcycling; finite-difference (4th-order centered/upwind) for geometry and finite-volume PPM/HLLC for hydrodynamics; ghost-buffer communication via GPU-aware MPI; team-scratch memory optimisation on AMD APU

What would settle it

If the waveform discrepancies between SACRA-K and SACRA-MPI were found to exceed the distinguishability threshold of current gravitational-wave detectors during the inspiral phase, or if the pi-symmetry were broken at the bitwise level, or if the BNS convergence order fell below second order, the port would be deemed physically invalid. On the performance side, if the per-device throughput advantage over CPU did not hold at production-relevant resolutions or if weak scaling efficiency collapsed below 50% at moderate device counts, the practical utility claim would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an established, physics-rich numerical-relativity code (SACRA-MPI) can be ported to a performance-portable C++/Kokkos framework (SACRA-K) without sacrificing physical fidelity, gaining approximately an order of magnitude in throughput on modern accelerators. The correctness of the port is established by three independent checks: waveform agreement with the parent code at or below detector-distinguishability thresholds, exact bitwise preservation of pi-symmetry, and second-order convergence in binary neutron star merger simulations. The performance gain is demonstrated per-device in the smallest configuration and the scaling behaviour is characterised across up to 26

Load-bearing premise

The headline 10x speedup is established only for the smallest configuration (4 accelerators), while production-scale simulations requiring many more devices face a strong-scaling efficiency that drops to about 10% at 256 devices, driven by the growing fraction of ghost-buffer cells relative to active cells as subdomains shrink. The claim that GPU acceleration enables large parameter-space surveys depends on weak-scaling behaviour that, while reasonable, is measured on a less

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the port fidelity holds at production resolutions, gravitational-wave waveform libraries for binary neutron star and black hole–neutron star systems can be generated at roughly one-tenth the previous computational cost, enabling broader parameter-space surveys.
  • The Kokkos-based approach demonstrated here provides a template for porting other established Fortran numerical-relativity codes to heterogeneous architectures without rewriting the underlying physics.
  • The observed strong-scaling degradation (10% efficiency at 256 devices) signals that future production runs will need either larger per-device workloads or algorithmic changes to ghost-buffer communication to maintain throughput.
  • The post-merger phase divergence between SACRA-K and SACRA-MPI suggests that high-precision post-merger waveforms may be intrinsically sensitive to floating-point-level differences, a limitation that affects all GPU-ported NR codes, not just this one.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The weak scaling results (77–83% at 256 devices relative to a 32-device baseline) suggest that production-scale simulations using hundreds of devices will achieve effective throughput well below the headline 10x speedup, though still substantially above CPU-only performance.
  • The strong-scaling bottleneck from the fixed 6-cell ghost buffer implies that reducing buffer width or adopting asynchronous communication overlap could yield disproportionate gains at high device counts, a direction the authors acknowledge but have not yet implemented.
  • If the second-order convergence ceiling is set by the approximate Riemann solver and stellar surfaces, then higher-order hydrodynamics schemes would be needed to improve convergence beyond what is reported, independent of the hardware port.
  • The exact bitwise pi-symmetry preservation under Kokkos parallel reductions (with -ffp-contract=off) indicates that reproducibility of symmetry properties on GPUs is achievable but requires compiler-flag-level control, which may not transfer automatically to other codes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents SACRA-K, a C++ port of the Fortran numerical relativity code SACRA-MPI, built on the Kokkos performance-portability library. The port retains the physics modules of the parent code (BSSN with Z4c constraint damping, Berger-Oliger AMR, HRSC hydrodynamics from NANASI) while enabling execution on CPUs, NVIDIA GPUs, and AMD APUs from a single source. The authors validate the port through code-to-code waveform comparisons (BBH, BHNS, BNS), a bitwise pi-symmetry test, and a four-resolution self-convergence test for BNS. Performance is benchmarked on A100 and MI300A hardware, showing roughly an order-of-magnitude speedup over the Fortran code on a 72-core CPU node in the smallest configuration, with strong and weak scaling measured up to 256 devices.

Significance. Performance-portable numerical relativity codes are of growing importance to the field as computing architectures diversify and next-generation detectors demand higher-fidelity waveforms. SACRA-MPI is an established code with a strong track record in BNS and BHNS science; porting it to GPU/APU architectures via Kokkos is a valuable contribution. The validation suite is thorough and the acceptance criteria are well-motivated, grounded in inter-code scatter, resolution-dependent variation, and detector distinguishability thresholds. The honest reporting of scaling limitations (strong scaling efficiency dropping to ~10% at 256 devices due to fixed ghost-buffer overhead) is commendable. The pi-symmetry test, showing exact bitwise preservation to the roundoff floor, is a particularly strong correctness check on the Kokkos parallelization. The work is a solid engineering contribution that enables future science campaigns on heterogeneous architectures.

minor comments (8)
  1. Abstract: The statement that waveform discrepancies 'remain at or below the distinguishability threshold of current gravitational-wave detectors' is not qualified for the BNS post-merger phase, where phase differences grow to O(1) rad (Section 3.1.3, Figure 4). The body text is transparent about this and correctly argues that post-merger signal is not the primary target for current detector waveform modeling, but the abstract should be qualified to avoid overgeneralization.
  2. Section 3.1.1: The BBH extraction radius r_0 = 24 M_sun is acknowledged as insufficiently large for scientific runs. The authors argue that the finite-radius bias is 'largely common mode' between the two codes. This is reasonable, but a sentence noting that the measured discrepancy may underestimate the total error with respect to the asymptotic waveform would strengthen the discussion.
  3. Section 3.1.2: The BHNS consistency test meets the acceptance criteria only marginally, with |ΔA|/A riding the 10^-3 line in late inspiral and |Δφ_GW| touching 10^-2 rad just before merger. The authors attribute this to the sensitivity of finite-volume reconstruction at the stellar surface to floating-point operation ordering. This is plausible, but a brief quantitative comparison to the inter-resolution spread at similar configurations would help contextualize whether this marginality is a concern for production runs at higher N.
  4. Section 4.1, Table 1: The zone-cycles-per-second metric is defined in the text but the exact zone-cycle count formula (number of level evolutions times active cells per level) could be stated more explicitly, perhaps as an equation, to aid reproducibility of the benchmark.
  5. Section 4.2: The strong scaling degradation to ~10% efficiency at 256 devices is attributed to the growing buffer-to-active-cell ratio. The 6-cell ghost buffer width is set by the stencil requirements (fourth-order finite differencing plus KO dissipation). It would be useful to note whether a smaller buffer is feasible at lower stencil order or whether this is a fundamental constraint of the current numerical scheme.
  6. Section 2.4: The statement that the entire evolution is carried out on the device through Kokkos kernels is clear, but the specific optimization for the AMD APU (team scratch for 8^3 tiles) is described only briefly. A sentence or two on whether this optimization is also applicable to NVIDIA GPUs (or why it is APU-specific) would help readers understand the portability of the optimization strategy.
  7. Figure 2: The y-axis label for the bottom panel uses |Δφ_GW| while the text uses both |Δφ_GW| and |Δφ|. Standardizing the notation (the text uses |Δϕ_GW| with a phi symbol in some places and |Δφ_GW| with a varphi in others) would improve readability.
  8. Section 2.2: The sentence describing the fallback to HLLE solver 'wherever the intermediate state would be unphysical' could briefly clarify how frequently this fallback occurs in practice for the test configurations, as it affects the effective order of the hydrodynamics scheme (not stated explicitly).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: SACRA-K is a code port validated against external benchmarks, independent codes, and self-convergence tests with no self-definitional or fitted-input-as-prediction patterns.

full rationale

SACRA-K is a port of SACRA-MPI from Fortran to C++/Kokkos. Its central claims are validated through three independent strategies: (1) code-to-code comparison against SACRA-MPI, which is an independently published code (T. Yamamoto et al. 2008) with its own validation history; (2) bitwise pi-symmetry preservation, which is a direct numerical test with no fitted parameters; and (3) a self-convergence test at four resolutions (N=92,108,124,188) using the standard ansatz (Eq. 28) to extract convergence order, yielding p_conv ~ 2 as expected from the method-of-lines with third-order PPM reconstruction and an approximate Riemann solver. The acceptance thresholds (|Delta phi_GW| <= 10^-2 rad, |Delta A|/A <= 10^-3) are derived from external cross-code comparison studies (Hannam et al. 2009; Hinder et al. 2014; Lovelace et al. 2016) and detector distinguishability criteria (Lindblom et al. 2008; Flanagan & Hughes 1998), not from the authors' own prior results. The convergence test configuration matches K. Kiuchi (2025), but this is used for cross-validation against an independently reported convergence order, not as a self-definitional input. The performance claims (speedup, scaling) are direct measurements with no fitted parameters or ansatz. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or mathematical objects. All evolved variables (W, gamma_tilde, K, A_tilde, Gamma_tilde, Theta, alpha, beta, B) are standard BSSN+Z4c fields. The free parameters are standard numerical choices in NR codes, not fitted to produce a specific result. The Kokkos library and FUKA initial data solver are external tools.

free parameters (8)
  • sigma_KO = 0.5
    Kreiss-Oliger dissipation coefficient, set by hand (Section 2.2). Standard value in BSSN codes.
  • Courant factor = 0.5
    Time step constraint per refinement level (Section 2.2). Standard choice.
  • kappa_1 = 0.005 M_sun^-1
    Z4c damping parameter (Section 3). Chosen for constraint propagation control.
  • kappa_2 = 0
    Z4c damping parameter (Section 3). Set to zero.
  • eta = 0.36 M_sun^-1 (default), 0.03 M_sun^-1 (convergence test)
    Shift damping parameter (Section 3). The convergence test uses a different value to match K. Kiuchi (2025).
  • b (PPM limiter) = 3
    Steep min-mod limiter parameter for PPM reconstruction (Section 2.2).
  • Gamma_th = 1.8 (DD2 tests), 5/3 (H4 convergence test)
    Thermal adiabatic index for the hybrid EOS (Section 2.1.2, Section 3.3).
  • f_cut = 0.8 m Omega_0 / (2 pi)
    Cutoff frequency for fixed frequency integration of Psi4 (Section 2.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BSSN formulation with Z4c constraint propagation is a valid and stable formulation of the Einstein equations for compact binary evolution.
    Section 2.1.1. This is the foundational evolution scheme, inherited from SACRA-MPI and widely used in the NR community.
  • domain assumption The moving puncture gauge (1+log slicing, hyperbolic Gamma driver) is appropriate for evolving puncture black holes.
    Section 2.1.1, Equations (6)-(8). Standard gauge choice in NR.
  • domain assumption A perfect fluid without magnetic fields is a sufficient matter model for the validation configurations studied.
    Section 2.1.2. The paper explicitly states it evolves matter as a perfect fluid without magnetic fields, deferring MHD to future work.
  • domain assumption The box-in-box Berger-Oliger AMR with 2:1 refinement ratio and time subcycling correctly handles the multiscale nature of compact binary mergers.
    Section 2.2.1. Inherited from SACRA-MPI (T. Yamamoto et al. 2008).
  • domain assumption Kokkos provides performance portability across CUDA, HIP, and OpenMP backends without altering numerical results.
    Section 2.4. The paper compiles with -fno-fast-math to mitigate floating-point non-determinism, but the fundamental assumption is that Kokkos dispatches identical kernels across backends.
  • domain assumption The FUKA initial data solver produces physically valid initial data for BBH, BHNS, and BNS configurations.
    Section 3. External dependency (L. J. Papenfort et al. 2021).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SACRA-K: A Performance-Portable Numerical Relativity Code with Kokkos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJ566S4R

@misc{pith2026260708743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SACRA-K: A Performance-Portable Numerical Relativity Code with Kokkos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJ566S4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08743}
}
abstract

We present SACRA-K (SimulAtor for Compact objects in Relativistic Astrophysics with Kokkos), a performance-portable numerical relativity code ported from the Fortran code SACRA-MPI to C++ with the Kokkos library. SACRA-K retains the physics and numerical methods of SACRA-MPI, namely a Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura (BSSN) spacetime evolution with Z4c constraint propagation and a box-in-box Berger-Oliger adaptive mesh refinement, together with the high resolution shock capturing scheme for the general relativistic hydrodynamics from NANASI, while gaining cross vendor portability. We validate the port against SACRA-MPI across binary black hole, black hole neutron star, and binary neutron star configurations. Across these tests, the waveform discrepancies are well below both the scatter among independent numerical relativity codes and the resolution dependent variation within a given code, and remain at or below the distinguishability threshold of current gravitational-wave detectors; the $\pi$ symmetry is preserved exactly at the bitwise level; and the gravitational wave phase of the binary neutron star merger exhibits second order convergence. In the smallest test configuration, SACRA-K runs about an order of magnitude faster on the NVIDIA A100 GPU cluster or the AMD MI300A APU cluster than the Fortran SACRA-MPI on the CPU cluster, and we measure its scaling up to 256 accelerator devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic figures of the AMR scheme in SACRA-K. Panel (a): hierarchical computational domain structure. For 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ ℓfix each level consists of a single cubic patch centered on the coordinate origin (fixed levels, black). For ℓfix < ℓ ≤ ℓmax each level consists of two patches that follow the two compact objects (moving levels, red). Successive levels are related by a 2:1 refinement ratio, so the grid spacing halves … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Waveform comparison between SACRA-K and SACRA-MPI Fortran for the BBH case. Top: real part of the l = m = 2 mode of h l,m extracted on a sphere, for SACRA-MPI Fortran (blue solid) and SACRA-K (orange dashed). Middle: relative amplitude difference |∆A|/A. Bottom: absolute GW phase difference |∆ϕGW|. The horizontal black dotted lines denote the acceptance criteria, 10−3 for the relative ampli￾tude difference and 10−2 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: π symmetry preservation diagnostic for an equal mass non spinning BNS evolution at resolution N = 102. The momentum components |Px| and |Py| are shown in the upper and lower panels; in each panel the ADM and fluid linear momenta are drawn in blue and orange, respective…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Self convergence of the SACRA-K BNS merger simulation at four resolutions, N = 92 (blue solid), 108 (or￾ange dashed), 124 (green dash dotted), and 188 (red dot￾ted), shown against the retarded time tret. Top: dominant strain mode D0h 22 + /m0. Second: gravitational wav…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Strong scaling of SACRA-K on the Viper APU cluster at a fixed total problem size (N = 144). Stars show the strong scaling efficiency, the achieved speedup divided by the ideal linear speedup, against the number of APU devices, from the four device 2 × 2 × 1 baseline to…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Weak scaling of SACRA-K on the Viper APU clus￾ter at a fixed subdomain size per device. The weak scaling ef￾ficiency tbase/tn is shown against the number of APU devices for two per device loads, N = 50 (blue) and N = 100 (or￾ange), each normalized to the four device ba…

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. Celephais: efficient spectral initial data code for precessing compact binaries

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Celephais constructs spectrally accurate binary-neutron-star and black-hole-neutron-star initial data with arbitrary spin orientations, using a sparse Jacobian, adaptive hp-refinement, and PN-informed eccentricity reduction.

  2. GRACE: An Open-Source Framework for GPU-Accelerated Numerical Relativity

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    GRACE is a validated, open-source, Kokkos+p4est GPU-portable framework that evolves ideal GRMHD with constrained transport self-consistently coupled to Z4c Einstein equations on fixed or adaptive meshes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 111403, doi: 10.1103/kw5g-d732

    work page doi:10.1103/kw5g-d732 2025

  2. [2]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  3. [3]

    Physical Review Letters , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  4. [4]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  5. [5]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  6. [6]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 011001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  7. [7]

    2006, Phys

    Meter, J. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 111102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.111102 2006

  8. [8]

    Phoebus: Performance Portable GRRMHD for Relativistic Astrophysics

    Barker, B., Gogilashvili, M., Rodriguez-Bueno, J., et al. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09146

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    W., & Shapiro, S

    Baumgarte, T. W., & Shapiro, S. L. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 024007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.024007

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    J., & Colella, P

    Berger, M. J., & Colella, P. 1989, Journal of computational Physics, 82, 64

    1989

  3. [11]

    2015, Phys

    Bernuzzi, S., Nagar, A., Dietrich, T., & Damour, T. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 161103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.161103

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2014, Living Rev

    Blanchet, L. 2014, Living Rev. Rel., 17, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-2

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    B., & Pretorius, F

    Buonanno, A., Cook, G. B., & Pretorius, F. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 124018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.124018

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    1999, Phys

    Buonanno, A., & Damour, T. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 084006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.084006

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    2006, Phys

    Zlochower, Y. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 111101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111101 Carter Edwards, H., Trott, C. R., & Sunderland, D. 2014, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 74, 3202, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2014.07.003

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, Phys

    Chatziioannou, K., Klein, A., Yunes, N., & Cornish, N. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 104004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104004

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Colella, P., & Woodward, P. R. 1984, J. Comput. Phys., 54, 174, doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(84)90143-8

    1984 doi

  10. [18]

    H., Sivaraman, P., Kitson, J., et al

    Davis, J. H., Sivaraman, P., Kitson, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08950, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08950 Del Zanna, L., Bucciantini, N., & Londrillo, P. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 400, 397, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021641

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    2017, Phys

    Dietrich, T., Bernuzzi, S., & Tichy, W. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 121501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.121501

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, Gen

    Dietrich, T., Hinderer, T., & Samajdar, A. 2021, Gen. Rel. Grav., 53, 27, doi: 10.1007/s10714-020-02751-6

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2021, https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.09882

    Evans, M., et al. 2021, https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.09882

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    2025, Phys

    Ferguson, D., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 044043, doi: 10.1103/gk7x-9cds

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    W., & Sundar, H

    Fernando, M., Neilsen, D., Zlochower, Y., Hirschmann, E. W., & Sundar, H. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 064035, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.064035

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2025, Astrophys

    Fields, J., Zhu, H., Radice, D., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 276, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad9687

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Flanagan, E. E., & Hughes, S. A. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 4566, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4566

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08139

    Foucart, F., Laguna, P., Lovelace, G., Radice, D., & Witek, H. 2022, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08139

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2023, Astrophys

    Fujibayashi, S., Kiuchi, K., Wanajo, S., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 942, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    2026a, https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07668

    Gao, Y., Han, M.-Z., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2026a, https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07668

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    2026b, Phys

    Gao, Y., Hayashi, K., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2026b, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 023011, doi: 10.1103/w8gq-3d54

    doi

  22. [30]

    K., & Moszkowski, S

    Glendenning, N. K., & Moszkowski, S. A. 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 67, 2414, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.2414

    1991 doi

  23. [31]

    W., & O’Shea, B

    Grete, P., Glines, F. W., & O’Shea, B. W. 2021, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 32, 85, doi: 10.1109/TPDS.2020.3010016

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Miller, J

    Grete, P., Dolence, J. C., Miller, J. M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.12309, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.12309

    2022 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2026, Phys

    Habib, S., et al. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 104062, doi: 10.1103/5sxn-knwz

    2026 doi

  26. [34]

    Hamilton, M. C. B., & Messman, W. A. 2025, Class. Quant. Grav., 42, 095012, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adccb1

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2009, Phys

    Hannam, M., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 084025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084025

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    2010, Nucl

    Hempel, M., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2010, Nucl. Phys. A, 837, 210, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.02.010

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, Phys

    Hilditch, D., Bernuzzi, S., Thierfelder, M., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 084057, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.084057 15

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2014, Class

    Hinder, I., et al. 2014, Class. Quant. Grav., 31, 025012, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/31/2/025012

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    2025, Phys

    Ji, L., Haas, R., Zlochower, Y., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 024049, doi: 10.1103/bqpq-5cp9

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    1996, Journal of Computational Physics, 126, 202, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1996.0130

    Jiang, G.-S., & Shu, C.-W. 1996, Journal of Computational Physics, 126, 202, doi: 10.1006/jcph.1996.0130

    1996 doi

  33. [41]

    V., et al

    Kalinani, J. V., et al. 2025, Class. Quant. Grav., 42, 025016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad9c11

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

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

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

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, Phys

    Kawaguchi, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 044044, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044044

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, Phys

    Kiuchi, K. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 084008, doi: 10.1103/zmdc-xkcm

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    2015, Phys

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

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    2023, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Fujibayashi, S., Hayashi, K., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 011401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.011401

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    E., Sekiguchi, Y., & Shibata, M

    Kiuchi, K., Held, L. E., Sekiguchi, Y., & Shibata, M. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 124041, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.124041

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2020, Phys

    Shibata, M. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 084006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.084006

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2017, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Kawaguchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 084060, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084060

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

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

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

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

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

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

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    1973, Methods for the approximate solution of time dependent problems No

    Kreiss, H., & Oliger, J. 1973, Methods for the approximate solution of time dependent problems No. 10 (International Council of Scientific Unions, World Meteorological Organization)

    1973

  45. [53]

    2025a, Phys

    Kuan, H.-J., Kiuchi, K., & Shibata, M. 2025a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 141403, doi: 10.1103/j3zk-z17h

    doi

  46. [54]

    2025b, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02115

    Kuan, H.-J., Markin, I., Ujevic, M., et al. 2025b, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02115

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    1998, Astrophys

    Li, L.-X., & Paczynski, B. 1998, Astrophys. J. Lett., 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    1998 doi

  48. [56]

    J., & Brown, D

    Lindblom, L., Owen, B. J., & Brown, D. A. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 124020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.124020

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    2016, Class

    Lovelace, G., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 244002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/24/244002

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    2020, JCAP, 03, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    Maggiore, M., et al. 2020, JCAP, 03, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    Metzger, B. D. 2020, Living Rev. Rel., 23, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    D., Martinez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Martinez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 406, 2650, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    2005, Mon

    Mignone, A., & Bodo, G. 2005, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 364, 126, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09546.x

    2005 doi

  54. [62]

    2015, Class

    Nakano, H. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 177002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/17/177002

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Tootle, S

    Papenfort, L. J., Tootle, S. D., Grandcl´ ement, P., Most, E. R., & Rezzolla, L. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 024057, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.024057

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    J., Sewall, J

    Pennycook, S. J., Sewall, J. D., & Lee, V. W. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1611.07409, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.07409

    2016 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    Prather, B. S. 2025, KHARMA: Flexible, Portable Performance for GRMHD, doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-8522-3 5 P¨ urrer, M., & Haster, C.-J. 2020, Phys. Rev. Res., 2, 023151, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023151

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    2025, Class

    Radice, D., Gamba, R., Zhu, H., & Rashti, A. 2025, Class. Quant. Grav., 42, 185003, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adfffa

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    2025, Phys

    Rashti, A., Gamba, R., Chandra, K., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 104078, doi: 10.1103/n5pz-qv3x

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    2011, Class

    Reisswig, C., & Pollney, D. 2011, Class. Quant. Grav., 28, 195015, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/28/19/195015

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    A., et al

    Scheel, M. A., et al. 2025, Class. Quant. Grav., 42, 195017, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adfd34

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    R., et al

    Shankar, S., M¨ osta, P., Brandt, S. R., et al. 2023, Class. Quant. Grav., 40, 205009, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/acf2d9

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    2016, Numerical Relativity, doi: 10.1142/9692

    Shibata, M. 2016, Numerical Relativity, doi: 10.1142/9692

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    2019, Ann

    Shibata, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2019, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 69, 41, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023625

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    1995, Phys

    Shibata, M., & Nakamura, T. 1995, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 5428, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5428

    1995 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Mullen, P

    Stone, J. M., Mullen, P. D., Fielding, D., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae3717

    2026 doi

  67. [75]

    2022, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 33, 805, doi: 10.1109/TPDS.2021.3097283

    Trott, C., Lebrun-Grandie, D., Arndt, D., et al. 2022, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 33, 805, doi: 10.1109/TPDS.2021.3097283

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    Typel, S., Ropke, G., Klahn, T., Blaschke, D., & Wolter, H. H. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 015803, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.015803

    2010 doi

  69. [77]

    2008, Phys

    Yamamoto, T., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 064054, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.064054

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.12009, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.12009

    Zhang, W., Myers, A., Gott, K., Almgren, A., & Bell, J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.12009, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.12009

    2020 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    2025, Astrophys

    Zhu, H., Fields, J., Zappa, F., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 278, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adcf96

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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