. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Sep 28.

Published in final edited form as: Phys Rev D. 2018 Nov 12;98(10):103008. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.98.103008

TABLE IV.

Comparison of black hole and disk parameters from cases in Table III (bold) with the semianalytic and numeric results in previous studies for critical collapse at mass-shedding different EOS (characteristic mass) and magnetic fields. Here “H”, “I”, and “E + I” represent no magnetic field, interior magnetic field, and exterior plus interior magnetic field, respectively.

	M_BH/M			a_BH/M_BH			M_disk/M
n(M_⋆)	H	I	E + I	H	I	E + I	H	I	E + I
3.00	0.89^a	0.95^b	0.94	0.60	0.70	0.68	11.0%	6.0%	7.0%
(≳10⁶M_⊙)	0.87^c	0.95^d		0.71	0.68		13.0%	6.0%
	0.90^e	0.92		0.75	0.64		10.0%	6.0%
	0.90^f			0.70			7.0%
	0.91			0.75			9.0%
2.95	0.97^a		0.96	0.52		0.58	2.9%		3.0%
(~10⁵M_⊙)
2.90	0.99^a	0.99	0.99	0.45	0.53	0.52	1.1%	1.1%	1.5%
(~10⁴M_⊙)	0.99^g			0.53			1.4%
	0.99			0.53			1.4%

Table 2 in [38], fully analytic.

GRMHD simulation by [26] (model S1).

Table 2 in [38], analytic, using critical configuration in [18].

GRMHD simulation by [26] (model S2).

GR hydrodynamic simulation by [24].

GR hydrodynamic simulation by [26] (model S0).

Table 2 in [63] by setting R_p/R_e ≈ 2/3.