:numerical_setup}
---------------

All shown simulations are conducted on a 3D box with dimensions $\left[4741.12 M_\odot\times4741.12 M_\odot\times4741.12 M_\odot\right]$ with a grid spacing of $\Delta_{x,y,z}=74.08M_\odot$ on the coarsest grid level. For the chosen magnetar model of radius $R_*=9.26M_\odot$ ($\simeq {13.7\,\text{km}}$km) this corresponds to a $\left[512R_*\times 512R_*\times 512R_*\right]$ box with a grid spacing of $\Delta_{x,y,z}=8R_*$. For the low and high resolution tests we employ seven and eight additional levels of mesh refinement, each increasing the resolution by a factor of two and encompassing the central object, respectively. This means that the finest resolution of our models (close to the magnetar surface) are $\Delta_{x,y,z}^{\rm min}=0.0625\times R_* = 0.5787M_\odot$ and $\Delta_{x,y,z}^{\rm min}=0.03125\times R_*= 0.2894M_\odot$ for the low and high resolution models, or in other words 16 and 32 points per $R_*$, respectively. The initial data is evolved for a period of $t=1185.28M_\odot\simeq 5.84\,$ms, which is chosen to be well below the dynamical timescale of the magnetar crust, which can be considered as a fixed boundary (see section \[sec:timecales\]).

In order to ensure the conservation properties of the algorithm, it is critical to employ [*refluxing*]{} techniques correcting numerical fluxes across different levels of mesh refinement [see, e.g. @Collins2010]. Specifically, we make use of the thorn `Refluxing`[^6] in combination with a cell-centered refinement structure [cf. @Shibata2015]. We highlight the fact that employing the refluxing algorithm makes the numerical code $2-4$ times slower for the benefit of enforcing the conservation properties of the numerical method (specially of the charge). Refluxing also reduces the numerical instabilities, which tend to develop at mesh refinement boundaries.

In conservative schemes, numerical reconstruction algorithms [we employ an MP7 scheme, cf. @S
: numerical_setup } 
 --------------- 

 All shown simulations are conducted on a 3D box with dimension $ \left[4741.12 M_\odot\times4741.12 M_\odot\times4741.12 M_\odot\right]$ with a power system spacing of $ \Delta_{x, y, z}=74.08M_\odot$ on the coarsest power system level. For the choose magnetar model of radius $ R_*=9.26M_\odot$ ($ \simeq { 13.7\,\text{km}}$km) this match to a $ \left[512R_*\times 512R_*\times 512R_*\right]$ box with a grid space of $ \Delta_{x, yttrium, z}=8R_*$. For the low and high solution tests we employ seven and eight additional level of mesh refinement, each increasing the resolution by a factor of two and encompassing the cardinal object, respectively. This means that the finest resoluteness of our models (close to the magnetar open) are $ \Delta_{x, y, z}^{\rm min}=0.0625\times R _ * = 0.5787M_\odot$ and $ \Delta_{x, y, z}^{\rm min}=0.03125\times R_*= 0.2894M_\odot$ for the abject and high resolution models, or in other words 16 and 32 point per $ R_*$, respectively. The initial data is evolved for a period of $ t=1185.28M_\odot\simeq 5.84\,$ms, which is chosen to be well below the dynamical timescale of the magnetar crust, which can be regard as a fixed boundary (see section   \[sec: timecales\ ]). 

 In order to ensure the conservation properties of the algorithm, it is critical to employ [ * refluxing * ] { } techniques correcting numeric fluxes across different floor of net refinement [ see, e.g. @Collins2010 ]. Specifically, we do use of the thorn 'Refluxing`[^6 ] in combination with a cell - centered refinement structure [ californium. @Shibata2015 ]. We highlight the fact that employing the refluxing algorithm makes the numerical code $ 2 - 4 $ times slower for the benefit of enforcing the conservation place of the numerical method (specially of the charge). Refluxing also reduces the numeric instabilities, which tend to develop at mesh refinement boundaries. 

 In conservative schemes, numerical reconstruction algorithms [ we use an MP7 scheme, cf. @S
:numfrical_setup}
---------------

All shown simmlations are conbycted mn a 3D box witf dimensions $\left[4741.12 M_\odot\times4741.12 M_\idot\tumes4741.12 M_\odot\right]$ with a grid spabing of $\Dwlta_{e,y,z}=74.08M_\odot$ on the rkarsest grid mcvel. Yoc the chosen mannetar moden of radius $R_*=9.26M_\mdut$ ($\simeq {13.7\,\text{km}}$km) this corresponds to a $\left[512T_*\tlmes 512R_*\times 512R_*\ryght]$ fox sptm a grid spacing of $\Delta_{x,y,z}=8R_*$. Fod the lmw and high rrsolution tests we employ devej and eight additilnal levels of iwsh refinemevt, each inbxeasing the resolution by a factor of two xnd eucompassing tye fgntral objecv, respvctively. This means tvat the finest resolubion mf iur models (close to tie magnetar surface) wre $\Delta_{f,y,v}^{\rm min}=0.0625\times R_* = 0.5787M_\odot$ abd $\Denta_{x,f,z}^{\rm nin}=0.03125\gimts C_*= 0.2894M_\kdot$ flr vhe low and high resolytion models, or in ptrvt words 16 and 32 poines per $R_*$, respectively. The initial data is evklved for a period of $t=1185.28N_\odot\simeq 5.84\,$ms, which id chosen eo be well below the dynamical timescale of the mdgneter crbwt, whkxh can be considered as a fixed boundary (see sesfipn \[xec:timecales\]).

In order to emskrr the conservajion propedties of the algorlthm, it is ceitical tj emlloy [*refluxing*]{} techniques cirrecting nuiwrical fluxes acrods differenc leveks of mesh refinement [see, e.g. @Colmins2010]. Speciflcally, we oake use of the ghogn `Rafluxing`[^6] in combination wieh a cell-rentexed refivememt strtcture [cf. @Dhibabd2015]. We highlight the fact tvat employlng the refluxing algorithm makxx the numerivan cmde $2-4$ timzs sloeer for the bqnefit of enfotcing the consdrvation pgoperties of the numqrical method (dpecially of the chawge). Eeflyxing auro reduces the numerical instabiluties, which tend tp dgvslop at mesh reynntmwnt boundaries.

On zonfegvavive fwhemes, numerhcal rezpnstrjction algovitfms [ee employ an MP7 scheke, cr. @S
:numerical_setup} --------------- All shown simulations are conducted 3D with dimensions M_\odot\times4741.12 M_\odot\times4741.12 M_\odot\right]$ $\Delta_{x,y,z}=74.08M_\odot$ the coarsest grid For the chosen model of radius $R_*=9.26M_\odot$ ($\simeq {13.7\,\text{km}}$km) corresponds to a $\left[512R_*\times 512R_*\times 512R_*\right]$ box with a grid spacing of $\Delta_{x,y,z}=8R_*$. the low and high resolution tests we employ seven and eight additional levels mesh each the by a factor of two and encompassing the central object, respectively. This means that the finest of our models (close to the magnetar surface) $\Delta_{x,y,z}^{\rm min}=0.0625\times R_* = and $\Delta_{x,y,z}^{\rm min}=0.03125\times R_*= 0.2894M_\odot$ the and high models, in words 16 and points per $R_*$, respectively. The initial data is evolved for a period of $t=1185.28M_\odot\simeq 5.84\,$ms, which is to be the dynamical of magnetar which can be a fixed boundary (see section \[sec:timecales\]). ensure the conservation properties of the algorithm, it critical to [*refluxing*]{} techniques correcting numerical fluxes across levels of mesh refinement [see, e.g. @Collins2010]. Specifically, make use of the thorn `Refluxing`[^6] in combination with a cell-centered refinement structure [cf. @Shibata2015]. the fact that employing refluxing algorithm makes numerical $2-4$ slower the benefit enforcing the conservation properties of the numerical method (specially of the Refluxing also reduces the numerical instabilities, which tend to develop refinement In conservative schemes, reconstruction algorithms [we employ MP7 cf. @S
:numerical_setup}
---------------

All shown simUlations arE condUctEd oN a 3d box With Dimensions $\left[4741.12 m_\Odot\Times4741.12 M_\odot\times4741.12 M_\odot\riGht]$ wiTh A Grid SPaCing oF $\Delta_{x,Y,Z}=74.08M_\ODOt$ oN tHe CoaRsESt Grid lEveL. For the Chosen magnEtaR mOdel of radius $r_*=9.26m_\oDot$ ($\simeq {13.7\,\teXt{kM}}$km) this correSpoNds to a $\LeFt[512R_*\TImes 512R_*\TimEs 512R_*\riGht]$ box WIth a grId spacing Of $\dElta_{x,y,Z}=8r_*$. For the LOW aNd hiGh resolution tests WE eMPloy seven and eiGht addItIOnAL LevEls Of mesh refiNeMent, eACh increASiNG THe rESolution by a faCtor of two anD EncOmpassInG thE CentraL objeCt, REspEctively. ThiS meaNs that the Finest REsolutiON of our mOdels (cLosE to The mAGnEtAr sUrFAce) ARe $\delTA_{x,y,Z}^{\rm min}=0.0625\tiMeS R_* = 0.5787m_\odot$ And $\DELTA_{X,y,z}^{\rM miN}=0.03125\timEs R_*= 0.2894M_\oDot$ for the low aNd hIgh rESolUtion ModelS, or iN oTher wOrds 16 anD 32 poinTs Per $R_*$, respectivelY. The Initial daTa iS eVolVeD for a PEriod oF $t=1185.28M_\OdoT\simeq 5.84\,$mS, which iS ChoSeN TO Be Well below the dynamiCaL TImEscale of The magNEtAr CRust, whicH cAn bE conSIDered As a fIXeD boundarY (see seCTiOn \[Sec:timeCaLes\]).

In oRdEr tO enSure tHE conServatIon propeRties OF the algorithm, iT Is critical to eMPlOY [*ReFLuxiNg*]{} tEchniques coRrecTIng nUmerICaL flUXes acRoss dIfFErENt levels of mesh refinEmEnt [see, E.g. @ColLins2010]. SpecificaLly, we make uSE OF the thorN `RefLUxINg`[^6] in combinatioN with A cell-centeREd refineMent sTructure [Cf. @Shibata2015]. wE HighlighT thE faCt tHat EMPlOying the refluXINg alGoRithm maKes The numeRicAl cOde $2-4$ TimEs Slower for The benefIt Of EnFoRciNg the COnservatIoN prOpErtIes of THe numeRical MethOd (SpECiaLly of thE ChARGe). ReFlUxIng aLso ReDuces The nUMerIcal insTabilitieS, whICh teNd To Develop At mesh refinemEnT boundarieS.

IN coNservaTIVe schemeS, numerical reconstructioN AlgoritHms [We empLoy aN MP7 scheme, Cf. @S
:numerical_setup}
-------- -------

A ll sh own  si mu lati onsare conductedo n a3D box with dimensions  $\le ft [ 4741 . 12  M_\o dot\tim e s4 7 4 1.1 2M_ \od ot \ ti mes47 41. 12 M_\o dot\right] $ w it h a grid spa c in g of $\Del ta_ {x,y,z}=74.0 8M_ \odot$  o n t h e coa rse st gr id lev e l. For  the chos en magnet a r model o fradi us $R_*=9.26M_\od o t$ ($\simeq {13.7 \,\tex t{ k m} } $ km)  th is corresp on ds to a $\lef t [5 1 2 R _*\ t imes 512R_*\t imes 512R_* \ rig ht]$ b ox  wi t h a gr id sp ac i ngof $\Delta_ {x,y ,z}=8R_*$ . Fort he lowa nd high  resol uti ontest s  w eemp lo y  se v en  an d  ei ght addi ti on al le vels o f mesh  re fine ment,  each increas ing  the res oluti on by  a f ac tor o f twoand e nc ompassing the c entr al object , r es pec ti vely. This m ean s t hat the  finest res ol u t i on  of our models (cl os e to  the mag netars ur fa c e) are $ \D elt a_{x , y ,z}^{ \rmm in }=0.0625 \times R_ *= 0.578 7M _\odot $and  $\ Delta _ {x,y ,z}^{\ rm min}= 0.031 2 5\times R_*= 0 . 2894M_\odot$f or t he lowand  high resol utio n  mod els, or  in other  word s1 6a nd 32 points per $R _* $, res pecti vely. The ini tial datai s evolvedfora  p e riod of $t=118 5.28M _\odot\sim e q 5.84\, $ms,which is  chosen t o be wellbel owthe  dy n a mi cal timescale o f th emagneta r c rust, w hic h c anbeco nsideredas a fix ed  b ou nd ary  (see section\[ sec :t ime cales \ ]).

I n ord er t oen s ure  the co n se r v atio npr oper tie sof th e al g ori thm, it  is criti cal to e mp lo y [*ref luxing*]{} te ch niques cor re cti ng num e r ical flu xes across different le v els ofmes h ref inem ent [see,  e. g. @Co lli n s2010] . Spec ifica ll y,w e  make u se  of  t he thorn ` R e flu xing` [^ 6] i n combi nation with a cell - cen tered refinem ent  str u c tu re[ cf .  @S hi b ata 2 0 15]. We highlig ht the fac tt ha t employin g  th erefluxi ng algo rithm makes t he numeri cal code$2 -4$t i mes  slower fo r the be nefit ofe nforc i ng  thecon servat io n p roper ties o f  th e num erical  m ethod(spec ia lly of t he charge). Refluxing a lso re duces  th e numeric ali nst abilities , wh ich tend t o d eve lop a t m e sh re fine m en t b o undar ies. 
In conse r va tiv e sc hemes, nume r i c alrecon str u ctionalgo rithms [we employ an MP7 scheme,  cf. @ S
:numerical_setup}
---------------

All shown_simulations are_conducted on a 3D_box with_dimensions_$\left[4741.12 M_\odot\times4741.12_M_\odot\times4741.12_M_\odot\right]$ with a_grid spacing of_$\Delta_{x,y,z}=74.08M_\odot$ on the coarsest_grid level. For_the_chosen magnetar model of radius $R_*=9.26M_\odot$ ($\simeq {13.7\,\text{km}}$km) this corresponds to a $\left[512R_*\times 512R_*\times_512R_*\right]$_box with_a_grid_spacing of $\Delta_{x,y,z}=8R_*$. For the_low and high resolution tests_we employ_seven and eight additional levels of mesh refinement,_each_increasing the resolution_by a factor of two and encompassing the central_object, respectively. This means that the_finest resolution of_our_models_(close to the magnetar_surface) are $\Delta_{x,y,z}^{\rm min}=0.0625\times R_* =_0.5787M_\odot$ and $\Delta_{x,y,z}^{\rm min}=0.03125\times R_*= 0.2894M_\odot$_for the low and high resolution models,_or in other words 16 and_32 points per $R_*$, respectively._The initial_data is evolved for a_period of $t=1185.28M_\odot\simeq_5.84\,$ms, which_is chosen to_be well below the dynamical timescale_of the magnetar_crust, which can be considered as_a_fixed boundary (see_section \[sec:timecales\]).

In_order_to ensure_the conservation properties_of_the algorithm,_it_is critical to employ [*refluxing*]{} techniques_correcting_numerical fluxes across different levels of mesh_refinement [see, e.g. @Collins2010]._Specifically,_we make use of_the thorn `Refluxing`[^6] in combination_with a cell-centered refinement structure [cf._@Shibata2015]. We_highlight the_fact that employing the refluxing algorithm makes the numerical code $2-4$_times slower for the benefit of_enforcing the conservation properties_of the_numerical_method (specially of_the_charge). Refluxing_also reduces the numerical instabilities, which tend_to develop_at mesh refinement boundaries.

In conservative schemes,_numerical reconstruction algorithms [we_employ_an MP7 scheme, cf. @S