- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Numerical simulations of black hole-neutron star mergers with equal and near-equal mass ratios

Ivan Markin1,*, Mattia Bulla2,3,4, and Tim Dietrich1,5

  • *Contact author: ivan.markin@uni-potsdam.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 114, 024008 – Published 15 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/bjs5-ytrp

Abstract

The detection of GW230529_181500 suggested the existence of more symmetric black hole-neutron star mergers where the black hole mass can be as low as 2.6 times that of the neutron star. Black hole-neutron star binaries with even more symmetric mass ratios are expected to leave behind massive disks capable of driving bright electromagnetic transients like kilonovae. Currently, there is only a limited number of numerical-relativity simulations of black hole-neutron star mergers in this regime, which are vital for accurate gravitational waveform models and analytical fitting formulas for the remnant properties. Insufficient accuracy of these may lead to misclassification of real events and potentially missed opportunities to locate their electromagnetic counterparts. To fill this gap in the parameter space coverage, we perform simulations of black hole-neutron star mergers with mass ratios q∈{1,1/2,1/3}. We find the gravitational waveform models do not show good agreement with the numerical waveforms, with dephasing at the level of around 1 rad at the merger. We find that the masses of the dynamical ejecta and disk are in good agreement with the available fitting formulas. The analytical formulas for the remnant black hole are in excellent agreement for the black hole mass, but are less accurate with the predictions for its spin. Moreover, we analyze the remnant disk structure and dynamics, deriving the rotation law and identifying global trapped g mode density oscillations. We distinguish three types of accretion in the postmerger and find modulation of the accretion rate by the global oscillations of the disk. Finally, we model the kilonova emission these systems would produce and find that most of them are potentially detectable by the Vera C. Rubin Observatory within four days after merger, and by DECam within two days after merger if located at a distance of 200 Mpc.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (138)

  1. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, and VIRGO Collaborations), Observation of gravitational waves from two neutron star–black hole coalescences, Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L5 (2021).
  2. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), Observation of gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 2.5–4.5M⊙ compact object and a neutron star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 970, L34 (2024).
  3. F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan, and J. E. McClintock, The black hole mass distribution in the galaxy, Astrophys. J. 725, 1918 (2010).
  4. W. M. Farr, N. Sravan, A. Cantrell, L. Kreidberg, C. D. Bailyn, I. Mandel, and V. Kalogera, The mass distribution of stellar-mass black holes, Astrophys. J. 741, 103 (2011).
  5. B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, M. De Yoreo, and S. E. Thorsett, The neutron star mass distribution, Astrophys. J. 778, 66 (2013).
  6. R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, PSR J0952−0607: The fastest and heaviest known galactic neutron star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022).
  7. R. M. O’Leary, F. A. Rasio, J. M. Fregeau, N. Ivanova, and R. W. O’Shaughnessy, Binary mergers and growth of black holes in dense star clusters, Astrophys. J. 637, 937 (2006).
  8. D. Clausen, S. Sigurdsson, and D. F. Chernoff, Black hole-neutron star mergers in globular clusters, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 428, 3618 (2013).
  9. C. S. Ye, W.-f. Fong, K. Kremer, C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, G. Fragione, and F. A. Rasio, On the rate of neutron star binary mergers from globular clusters, Astrophys. J. Lett. 888, L10 (2020).
  10. M. A. Sedda, Dissecting the properties of neutron star—black hole mergers originating in dense star clusters, Commun. Phys. 3, 43 (2020).
  11. A. Gupta, D. Gerosa, K. G. Arun, E. Berti, W. M. Farr, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Black holes in the low mass gap: Implications for gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103036 (2020).
  12. J. Samsing and K. Hotokezaka, Populating the black hole mass gaps in stellar clusters: General relations and upper limits, Astrophys. J. 923, 126 (2021).
  13. P. Mahapatra, D. Chattopadhyay, A. Gupta, F. Antonini, M. Favata, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and K. G. Arun, Possible binary neutron star merger history of the primary of GW230529, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123030 (2025).
  14. J. C. Siegel et al., Investigating the lower mass gap with low-mass x-ray binary population synthesis, Astrophys. J. 954, 212 (2023).
  15. M. A. Abramowicz, M. Bejger, and M. Wielgus, Collisions of neutron stars with primordial black holes as fast radio bursts engines, Astrophys. J. 868, 17 (2018).
  16. W. E. East and L. Lehner, Fate of a neutron star with an endoparasitic black hole and implications for dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124026 (2019).
  17. F. Capela, M. Pshirkov, and P. Tinyakov, Constraints on primordial black holes as dark matter candidates from capture by neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 87, 123524 (2013).
  18. V. Takhistov, Transmuted gravity wave signals from primordial black holes, Phys. Lett. B 782, 77 (2018).
  19. Y. Génolini, P. Serpico, and P. Tinyakov, Revisiting primordial black hole capture into neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083004 (2020).
  20. M. Sasaki, V. Takhistov, V. Vardanyan, and Y.-l. Zhang, Establishing the nonprimordial origin of black hole–neutron star mergers, Astrophys. J. 931, 2 (2022).
  21. C. B. Richards, T. W. Baumgarte, and S. L. Shapiro, Accretion onto a small black hole at the center of a neutron star, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104009 (2021).
  22. T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Primordial black holes captured by neutron stars: Relativistic point-mass treatment, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123012 (2024).
  23. T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Primordial black holes captured by neutron stars: Simulations in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023021 (2024).
  24. T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Can premature collapse form black holes in the upper and lower mass gaps?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 191401 (2025).
  25. F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, S. Nissanke, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Numerical simulations of neutron star-black hole binaries in the near-equal-mass regime, Phys. Rev. D 99, 103025 (2019).
  26. T. Martineau, F. Foucart, M. A. Scheel, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Black hole-neutron star binaries near neutron star disruption limit in the mass regime of event GW230529, Classical Quantum Gravity 43, 015015 (2026).
  27. R. Matur, I. Hawke, and N. Andersson, Signatures of low-mass black hole–neutron star mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 534, 2894 (2024).
  28. F. Foucart, T. Hinderer, and S. Nissanke, Remnant baryon mass in neutron star-black hole mergers: Predictions for binary neutron star mimickers and rapidly spinning black holes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 081501 (2018).
  29. K. Hayashi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Properties of the remnant disk and the dynamical ejecta produced in low-mass black hole-neutron star mergers, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043007 (2021).
  30. R. Matur, I. Hawke, and N. Andersson, Impact of black hole spin on low-mass black hole-neutron star mergers, arXiv:2508.06341.
  31. C. J. Krüger and F. Foucart, Estimates for disk and ejecta masses produced in compact binary mergers, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103002 (2020).
  32. R. Narayan, B. Paczynski, and T. Piran, Gamma-ray bursts as the death throes of massive binary stars, Astrophys. J. Lett. 395, L83 (1992).
  33. L.-X. Li and B. Paczynski, Transient events from neutron star mergers, Astrophys. J. Lett. 507, L59 (1998).
  34. H. T. Janka, T. Eberl, M. Ruffert, and C. L. Fryer, Black hole: Neutron star mergers as central engines of gamma-ray bursts, Astrophys. J. Lett. 527, L39 (1999).
  35. S. Rosswog, Mergers of neutron star black hole binaries with small mass ratios: Nucleosynthesis, gamma-ray bursts and electromagnetic transients, Astrophys. J. 634, 1202 (2005).
  36. W. H. Lee and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, The progenitors of short gamma-ray bursts, New J. Phys. 9, 17 (2007).
  37. B. D. Metzger, Kilonovae, Living Rev. Relativity 23, 1 (2020).
  38. J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, S. Khan, E. Nitoglia, F. Pannarale, T. Dietrich, and M. Hannam, Modeling the gravitational wave signature of neutron star black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124059 (2020).
  39. A. Matas et al., Aligned-spin neutron-star–black-hole waveform model based on the effective-one-body approach and numerical-relativity simulations, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043023 (2020).
  40. A. Gonzalez, R. Gamba, M. Breschi, F. Zappa, G. Carullo, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Numerical-relativity-informed effective-one-body model for black-hole–neutron-star mergers with higher modes and spin precession, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084026 (2023).
  41. A. Gonzalez, S. Bernuzzi, A. Rashti, F. Brandoli, and R. Gamba, Black-hole—neutron-star mergers: new numerical-relativity simulations and multipolar effective-one-body model with spin precession and eccentricity, arXiv:2507.00113.
  42. I. Markin, A. Neuweiler, A. Abac, S. V. Chaurasia, M. Ujevic, M. Bulla, and T. Dietrich, General-relativistic hydrodynamics simulation of a neutron star–sub-solar-mass black hole merger, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064025 (2023).
  43. F. Douchin and P. Haensel, A unified equation of state of dense matter and neutron star structure, Astron. Astrophys. 380, 151 (2001).
  44. M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Statistical model for a complete supernova equation of state, Nucl. Phys. A837, 210 (2010).
  45. S. Typel, G. Ropke, T. Klahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Composition and thermodynamics of nuclear matter with light clusters, Phys. Rev. C 81, 015803 (2010).
  46. S. Typel, M. Oertel, and T. Klähn, CompOSE CompStar online supernova equations of state harmonising the concert of nuclear physics and astrophysics compose.obspm.fr, Phys. Part. Nucl. 46, 633 (2015).
  47. J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Constraints on a phenomenologically parameterized neutron-star equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124032 (2009).
  48. M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Klähn, and S. Typel, Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017).
  49. S. Typel et al. (CompOSE Core Team), CompOSE reference manual, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 221 (2022).
  50. A. Bauswein, H. T. Janka, and R. Oechslin, Testing approximations of thermal effects in neutron star merger simulations, Phys. Rev. D 82, 084043 (2010).
  51. E. O’Connor and C. D. Ott, A new open-source code for spherically-symmetric stellar collapse to neutron stars and black holes, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 114103 (2010).
  52. T. Dietrich, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, F. Zappa, A. Perego, B. Brügmann, S. V. Chaurasia, R. Dudi, W. Tichy, and M. Ujevic, CoRe database of binary neutron star merger waveforms, Classical Quantum Gravity 35, 24LT01 (2018).
  53. A. Gonzalez et al., Second release of the CoRe database of binary neutron star merger waveforms, Classical Quantum Gravity 40, 085011 (2023).
  54. L. J. Papenfort, S. D. Tootle, P. Grandclément, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, New public code for initial data of unequal-mass, spinning compact-object binaries, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024057 (2021).
  55. P. Grandclement, kadath: A spectral solver for theoretical physics, J. Comput. Phys. 229, 3334 (2010).
  56. J. W. York, Jr., Conformal “thin sandwich” data for the initial-value problem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1350 (1999).
  57. H. P. Pfeiffer and J. W. York, Jr., Extrinsic curvature and the Einstein constraints, Phys. Rev. D 67, 044022 (2003).
  58. H. P. Pfeiffer, D. A. Brown, L. E. Kidder, L. Lindblom, G. Lovelace, and M. A. Scheel, Reducing orbital eccentricity in binary black hole simulations, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S59 (2007).
  59. B. Bruegmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sperhake, and W. Tichy, Calibration of moving puncture simulations, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024027 (2008).
  60. M. Thierfelder, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Bruegmann, Numerical relativity simulations of binary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044012 (2011).
  61. T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, M. Ujevic, and B. Brügmann, Numerical relativity simulations of neutron star merger remnants using conservative mesh refinement, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124041 (2015).
  62. S. Bernuzzi and T. Dietrich, Gravitational waveforms from binary neutron star mergers with high-order weighted-essentially-nonoscillatory schemes in numerical relativity, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064062 (2016).
  63. D. Hilditch, S. Bernuzzi, M. Thierfelder, Z. Cao, W. Tichy, and B. Bruegmann, Compact binary evolutions with the Z4c formulation, Phys. Rev. D 88, 084057 (2013).
  64. M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlochower, Accurate evolutions of orbiting black-hole binaries without excision, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006).
  65. J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Gravitational wave extraction from an inspiraling configuration of merging black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111102 (2006).
  66. J. M. Marti, J. M. Ibanez, and J. A. Miralles, Numerical relativistic hydrodynamics: Local characteristic approach, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3794 (1991).
  67. F. Banyuls, J. A. Font, J. M. A. Ibanez, J. M. A. Marti, and J. A. Miralles, Numerical 3+1 general relativistic hydrodynamics: A local characteristic approach, Astrophys. J. 476, 221 (1997).
  68. L. Anton, O. Zanotti, J. A. Miralles, J. M. Marti, J. M. Ibanez, J. A. Font, and J. A. Pons, Numerical 3+1 general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics: A local characteristic approach, Astrophys. J. 637, 296 (2006).
  69. J. A. Font, Numerical hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics in general relativity, Living Rev. Relativity 11, 7 (2008).
  70. R. Borges, M. Carmona, B. Costa, and W. S. Don, An improved weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 3191 (2008).
  71. M. J. Berger and P. Colella, Local adaptive mesh refinement for shock hydrodynamics, J. Comput. Phys. 82, 64 (1989).
  72. D. A. B. Iozzo, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, J. Moxon, M. A. Scheel, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and S. A. Teukolsky, Extending gravitational wave extraction using Weyl characteristic fields, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024039 (2021).
  73. M. Boyle, D. Iozzo, L. Stein, A. Khairnar, H. Rüter, M. Scheel, V. Varma, and K. Mitman, scri (2025) 10.5281/zenodo.17080831.
  74. C. J. Woodford, M. Boyle, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Compact binary waveform center-of-mass corrections, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124010 (2019).
  75. K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, H. Nakano, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Black hole-neutron star binary merger: Dependence on black hole spin orientation and equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 92, 024014 (2015).
  76. E. Nakar, The electromagnetic counterparts of compact binary mergers, Phys. Rep. 886, 1 (2020).
  77. T. Hinderer et al., Distinguishing the nature of comparable-mass neutron star binary systems with multimessenger observations: GW170817 case study, Phys. Rev. D 100, 06321 (2019).
  78. M. W. Coughlin, T. Dietrich, B. Margalit, and B. D. Metzger, Multimessenger Bayesian parameter inference of a binary neutron star merger, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, L91 (2019).
  79. G. Raaijmakers et al., The challenges ahead for multimessenger analyses of gravitational waves and kilonova: A case study on GW190425, Astrophys. J. 922, 269 (2021).
  80. E. A. Chase, B. O’Connor, C. L. Fryer, E. Troja, O. Korobkin, R. T. Wollaeger, M. Ristic, C. J. Fontes, A. L. Hungerford, and A. M. Herring, Kilonova detectability with wide-field instruments, Astrophys. J. 927, 163 (2022).
  81. K. Kunnumkai, A. Palmese, M. Bulla, T. Dietrich, A. M. Farah, and P. T. H. Pang, Kilonova emission from GW230529 and mass gap neutron star-black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 112, 123005 (2025).
  82. A. Buonanno, L. E. Kidder, and L. Lehner, Estimating the final spin of a binary black hole coalescence, Phys. Rev. D 77, 026004 (2008).
  83. C. O. Lousto, M. Campanelli, Y. Zlochower, and H. Nakano, Remnant masses, spins and recoils from the merger of generic black-hole binaries, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 114006 (2010).
  84. V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033015 (2019).
  85. I. Markin, A. Puecher, M. Bulla, and T. Dietrich, Challenging a binary neutron star merger interpretation of GW230529, Phys. Rev. D 113, 024031 (2026).
  86. O. Gottlieb et al., Large-scale evolution of seconds-long relativistic jets from black hole–neutron star mergers, Astrophys. J. Lett. 954, L21 (2023).
  87. S. Fujibayashi, M. Shibata, S. Wanajo, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and Y. Sekiguchi, Mass ejection from disks surrounding a low-mass black hole: Viscous neutrino-radiation hydrodynamics simulation in full general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083029 (2020).
  88. J. Karkowski, W. Kulczycki, P. Mach, E. Malec, A. Odrzywołek, and M. Piróg, Self-gravitating axially symmetric disks in general-relativistic rotation, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104017 (2018).
  89. L. G. Fishbone and V. Moncrief, Relativistic fluid disks in orbit around Kerr black holes, Astrophys. J. 207, 962 (1976).
  90. D. M. Siegel and B. D. Metzger, Three-dimensional general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of remnant accretion disks from neutron star mergers: Outflows and r-process nucleosynthesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 231102 (2017).
  91. R. Fernández, A. Tchekhovskoy, E. Quataert, F. Foucart, and D. Kasen, Long-term GRMHD simulations of neutron star merger accretion discs: Implications for electromagnetic counterparts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 3373 (2019).
  92. S. Fahlman and R. Fernández, Long-term 3D MHD simulations of black hole accretion discs formed in neutron star mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 513, 2689 (2022).
  93. L. Rezzolla, L. Baiotti, B. Giacomazzo, D. Link, and J. A. Font, Accurate evolutions of unequal-mass neutron-star binaries: properties of the torus and short GRB engines, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 114105 (2010).
  94. Z. B. Etienne, Y. T. Liu, V. Paschalidis, and S. L. Shapiro, General relativistic simulations of black hole-neutron star mergers: Effects of magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D 85, 064029 (2012).
  95. F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, L. Roberts, M. D. Duez, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Ott, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Post-merger evolution of a neutron star-black hole binary with neutrino transport, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124021 (2015).
  96. J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Rotating black holes: Locally nonrotating frames, energy extraction, and scalar synchrotron radiation, Astrophys. J. 178, 347 (1972).
  97. A. T. Okazaki, S. Kato, and J. Fukue, Global trapped oscillations of relativistic accretion disks, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 39, 457 (1987).
  98. M. A. Nowak and R. V. Wagoner, Diskoseismology: Probing accretion disks. II. G-modes, gravitational radiation reaction, and viscosity, Astrophys. J. 393, 697 (1992).
  99. C. A. Perez, A. S. Silbergleit, R. V. Wagoner, and D. E. Lehr, Relativistic diskoseismology. 1. Analytical results for “gravity modes”, Astrophys. J. 476, 589 (1997).
  100. R. V. Wagoner, Relativistic diskoseismology, Phys. Rep. 311, 259 (1999).
  101. M. A. Abramowicz and P. C. Fragile, Foundations of black hole accretion disk theory, Living Rev. Relativity 16, 1 (2013).
  102. J. Brink, M. Geyer, and T. Hinderer, Astrophysics of resonant orbits in the Kerr metric, Phys. Rev. D 91, 083001 (2015).
  103. W. Fu and D. Lai, Effects of magnetic fields on the diskoseismic modes of accreting black holes, Astrophys. J. 690, 1386 (2009).
  104. C. S. Reynolds and M. C. Miller, On the time variability of geometrically-thin black hole accretion disks I: The search for modes in simulated disks, Astrophys. J. 692, 869 (2009).
  105. M. Ortega-Rodríguez, H. Solís-Sánchez, J. A. Arguedas-Leiva, R. V. Wagoner, and A. Levine, Do magnetic fields destroy black hole accretion disk g-modes?, Astrophys. J. 809, 15 (2015).
  106. X. Yang, H.-J. Lü, J. Rice, and E.-W. Liang, Discovery of high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation in short-duration gamma-ray bursts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 537, 2313 (2025).
  107. C. Chirenti, S. Dichiara, A. Lien, M. C. Miller, and R. Preece, Kilohertz quasiperiodic oscillations in short gamma-ray bursts, Nature (London) 613, 253 (2023).
  108. K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Gravitational waves from spinning black hole-neutron star binaries: Dependence on black hole spins and on neutron star equations of state, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064018 (2011).
  109. M. Bulla, POSSIS: Predicting spectra, light curves and polarization for multi-dimensional models of supernovae and kilonovae, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 5037 (2019).
  110. M. Bulla, The critical role of nuclear heating rates, thermalization efficiencies, and opacities for kilonova modelling and parameter inference, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 520, 2558 (2023).
  111. S. Rosswog and O. Korobkin, Heavy elements and electromagnetic transients from neutron star mergers, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 536, 2200306 (2024).
  112. R. T. Wollaeger, O. Korobkin, C. J. Fontes, S. K. Rosswog, W. P. Even, C. L. Fryer, J. Sollerman, A. L. Hungerford, D. R. van Rossum, and A. B. Wollaber, Impact of ejecta morphology and composition on the electromagnetic signatures of neutron star mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 3298 (2018).
  113. M. Tanaka, D. Kato, G. Gaigalas, and K. Kawaguchi, Systematic opacity calculations for kilonovae, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 496, 1369 (2020).
  114. A. Neuweiler, T. Dietrich, M. Bulla, S. V. Chaurasia, S. Rosswog, and M. Ujevic, Long-term simulations of dynamical ejecta: Homologous expansion and kilonova properties, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023016 (2023).
  115. R. Fernández, E. Quataert, J. Schwab, D. Kasen, and S. Rosswog, The interplay of disc wind and dynamical ejecta in the aftermath of neutron star–black hole mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449, 390 (2015).
  116. K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, K. Taniguchi, and T. Wada, High resolution magnetohydrodynamic simulation of black hole-neutron star merger: Mass ejection and short gamma ray bursts, Phys. Rev. D 92, 064034 (2015).
  117. V. Nedora, S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, B. Daszuta, A. Endrizzi, A. Perego, A. Prakash, M. Safarzadeh, F. Schianchi, and D. Logoteta, Numerical relativity simulations of the neutron star merger GW170817: Long-term remnant evolutions, winds, remnant disks, and nucleosynthesis, Astrophys. J. 906, 98 (2021).
  118. M. Bulla, K. Kyutoku, M. Tanaka, S. Covino, J. R. Bruten, T. Matsumoto, J. R. Maund, V. Testa, and K. Wiersema, Polarized kilonovae from black hole–neutron star mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 501, 1891 (2021).
  119. M. Fukugita, T. Ichikawa, J. E. Gunn, M. Doi, K. Shimasaku, and D. P. Schneider, The Sloan digital sky survey photometric system, Astron. J. 111, 1748 (1996).
  120. v. Ivezić et al. (LSST Collaboration), LSST: From science drivers to reference design and anticipated data products, Astrophys. J. 873, 111 (2019).
  121. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES and NOAO Data Lab Collaborations), The dark energy survey data release 1, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 239, 18 (2018).
  122. I. Markin and T. Dietrich, Numerical simulations of black hole-neutron star mergers with equal and near-equal mass ratios—initial data, 10.5281/zenodo.18374717 (2026).
  123. I. Markin and T. Dietrich, Numerical simulations of black hole-neutron star mergers with equal and near-equal mass ratios—waveforms, 10.5281/zenodo.18377211 (2026).
  124. B. Szilágyi, J. Blackman, A. Buonanno, A. Taracchini, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, T. Chu, L. E. Kidder, and Y. Pan, Approaching the post-Newtonian regime with numerical relativity: A compact-object binary simulation spanning 350 gravitational-wave cycles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 031102 (2015).
  125. M. Boyle et al., The SXS collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations, Classical Quantum Gravity 36, 195006 (2019).
  126. M. A. Scheel et al., The SXS collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations, Classical Quantum Gravity 42, 195017 (2025).
  127. J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Third RIT binary black hole simulations catalog, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104018 (2020).
  128. D. Sun, S. Ma, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Gauge boundary conditions to mitigate CoM drift in BBH simulations, Phys. Rev. D 113, 044016 (2026).
  129. N. Oreskes, The scientific consensus on climate change, Science 306, 1686 (2004).
  130. P. T. Doran and M. K. Zimmerman, Examining the scientific consensus on climate change, EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 90, 22 (2009).
  131. J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, S. A. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024 (2013).
  132. J. Cook, N. Oreskes, P. T. Doran, W. R. L. Anderegg, B. Verheggen, E. W. Maibach, J. S. Carlton, S. Lewandowsky, A. G. Skuce, S. A. Green, D. Nuccitelli, P. Jacobs, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, and K. Rice, Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 048002 (2016).
  133. M. Lynas, B. Z. Houlton, and S. Perry, Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 114005 (2021).
  134. K. F. Myers, P. T. Doran, J. Cook, J. E. Kotcher, and T. A. Myers, Consensus revisited: Quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among earth scientists 10 years later, Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104030 (2021).
  135. I. Markin, Calcium: Tracking carbon footprint of computing, https://codeberg.org/unkaktus/calcium (2026), version v1.10.0.
  136. I. Markin, unkaktus/calcium: Release v1.7.1 (2025) 10.5281/zenodo.17338858.
  137. J. Yuventi and R. Mehdizadeh, A critical analysis of power usage effectiveness and its use in communicating data center energy consumption, Energy Build. 64, 90 (2013).
  138. G. für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Göttingen, GWDG setzt auf klimafreundlichen IT-Betrieb, https://gwdg.de/about-us/press-releases/2021/press-release-4-2021/ (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 114, 024008– Published 15 July, 2026
  • Received 2 February 2026
  • Accepted 26 May 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation