Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Prospects for Time-Domain and Multi-Messenger Science with eXTP

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read eXTP's combined timing, polarimetry, and wide-field monitoring will detect X-ray counterparts across the multi-messenger transient sky and discriminate between competing emission models.

desk verdict A solid, comprehensive eXTP white paper whose main quantitative forecast—joint BNS/GRB detections—needs a sensitivity analysis before its point estimates are quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08368 v2 pith:I3LWBPSM submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Shu-Xu Yi , Wen Zhao , Ren-Xin Xu , Xue-Feng Wu , Giulia Stratta , Simone Dall'Osso , Yan-Jun Xu , Andrea Santangelo
show 70 more authors
Silvia Zane Shuang-Nan Zhang Hua Feng Huan Yang Junjie Mao Junqiang Ge Lijing Shao Mi-Xiang Lan He Gao Lin Lin Ning Jiang Qingwen Wu Tong Liu Yun-Wei Yu Xiang-Yu Wang Jin Zhang Dafne Guetta Jin-Jun Geng Di Xiao Yong-Feng Huang Yacheng Kang Tian-Yong Cao Zhen Zhang Zhenwei Lyu Zhen Pan Yunfeng Chen Yong Gao Ang Li Yu-Cong Fu Shuo Xiao Wei-Yang Wang Fayin Wang Zhenyin Zhao Weihua Lei Rong-Feng Shen Lixin Dai Guang-Lei Wu Liang-Duan Liu Bing Li Xilong Fan Xing-Jiang Zhu Youjun Lu Fan Xu Kangfa Cheng Da-Bin Lin Xiao-Hong Zhao Jun-Jie We Bin-Bin Zhang Ji-Rong Mao Yongquan Xue Xinwen Shu Wenjie Zhang Wei-Li Lin Achille Fiore Zhuo Li Antonio Martin-Carrillo Joseph Fisher Fei Xie Ye Li Sandro Mereghetti Shao-Lin Xiong Yu-Han Yang Eleonora Troja Zi-Gao Dai Da-Ming We En-Wei Liang J.E. Horvath G. R. Cunha Sampaio L.G. Barao L. M. de Sa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 95.85.Nv98.70.Rz97.60.Gb95.55.Ka14.60.Lm
keywords eXTPtime-domainastronomymulti-messengerX-raypolarimetrygravitational-wavecounterpartsgamma-rayburstsmagnetarstidaldisruptionevents
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

This paper makes the case that the enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry mission (eXTP), planned for launch in 2030, is the first X-ray facility designed to cover the full range of time-domain and multi-messenger transients: gravitational-wave counterparts, gamma-ray bursts, magnetar bursts and fast radio bursts, tidal disruption events, supernovae, and neutrino- or TeV-emitting active galactic nuclei. The argument is concrete: the mission combines a large-area focusing telescope with microsecond-scale timing, an X-ray polarimeter sensitive to a few percent polarization, and a wide-field coded-mask monitor with arcminute localization, so the same event can be caught in prompt emission, plateau, and afterglow while its polarization is measured. The paper derives specific expected outcomes, including tens of joint detections of binary neutron-star mergers with third-generation gravitational-wave detectors, hundred-fold improvements in distance estimation when the X-ray prompt emission is localized, and polarization measurements that separate synchrotron from photospheric GRB emission, magnetar from black-hole central engines, and proton-synchrotron from inverse-Compton neutrino models. If these capabilities work as designed, the 2030s multi-messenger network would no longer be a set of disjoint detectors but a single observational system in which eXTP supplies the X-ray dimension.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the triple-instrument payload plus its pointing strategy. SFA (2750 cm² effective area at 1.5 keV, 10 µs timing, about 180 eV spectral resolution) carries the timing and spectroscopy; PFA (2–8 keV polarimetry with a 99% minimum detectable polarization of about 2% in 1 Ms for a milliCrab source, and 1.7% for bright GRB X-ray flares) carries the model-discriminating polarization channel; W2C (1.1 sr field of view, 10–600 keV, about 5 arcmin source localization) provides the alerts and the wide-field burst census. The argument works by mapping each source class onto the instrument that matches its timescale and brightness: sub-millisecond magnetar bursts and GRB precursors to SFA's high count-rate timing; GRB plateaus, flares, and afterglows to PFA's polarization reach; and gamma-ray bursts, magnetar bursts, and jetted TDEs to W2C's sky coverage, with a 30-degree-per-5-minute slew bringing the narrow-field instruments to bear within minutes of an alert.

What would settle it

Run the eXTP/W2C follow-up of a third-generation gravitational-wave network for one year and count joint detections with on-axis (viewing angle below five degrees) short-GRB prompt emission: if the number falls clearly below the roughly 8 per year lower bound implied by Table 1 (Einstein Telescope), the assumed merger rate and jet fraction are jointly falsified, and the science case would need the lower-rate population models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, in the paper's own terms, is that eXTP's particular instrument combination gives it a unique and decisive role in the multi-messenger era: the Spectroscopic Focusing Array (SFA) supplies high-throughput X-ray spectroscopy and timing, the Polarimetry Focusing Array (PFA) supplies the first sensitive X-ray polarimetry of transients, and the Wide-band and Wide-field Camera (W2C) supplies 1.1-steradian monitoring with arcminute localization. By simulating observations and folding in current source populations, the paper shows that eXTP can detect the prompt X-ray counterparts of binary neutron-star mergers out to redshift about 0.9 with Cosmic Explorer, measure GRB plateau polarization at rates up to roughly 173–328 per year, see X-ray counterparts of extragalactic fast radio bursts within about 25 Mpc, and measure supermassive black-hole spins to about 10% accuracy from reflection spectra of extreme-mass-ratio inspiral hosts. The discovery being asserted is a matching: the planned payload's capabilities are sufficient, across nearly all classes, to turn the open questions of transient astrophysics into concrete observables.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted joint neutron-star merger detection rates assume the local merger rate is $106^{+190}_{-84}$ Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$ and that half of all gravitational-wave-triggered mergers launch a GRB-like jet with a Gaussian structured profile; if the true rate is at the low end or the jet fraction is lower, the yearly joint detections can drop by up to an order of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the Einstein Telescope, eXTP/W2C should jointly detect about $41^{+74}_{-33}$ binary-neutron-star prompt gamma-ray events per year for on-axis jets, enough to constrain the gravitational-wave speed to roughly $10^{-18}$ and to build a Hubble-constant sample.
  • A W2C localization of about 5 arcminutes, combined with the gravitational-wave sky map, shrinks the luminosity-distance uncertainty for a 1 Gpc binary-neutron-star merger from roughly +247/–180 Mpc to +27/–25 Mpc in the paper's simulation.
  • The PFA's 1.7% minimum detectable polarization for bright GRB X-ray flares yields an upper bound of roughly 173–328 plateau-phase polarization detections per year.
  • W2C can detect the X-ray counterparts of extragalactic fast radio bursts within about 25 Mpc at 3-sigma confidence, directly testing magnetar versus merger origins.
  • A 900 ks SFA exposure on a bright wet-EMRI host AGN measures the supermassive black-hole spin to better than 10% at 1-sigma, calibrating reflection-spectroscopy spin measurements against independent space-based gravitational-wave measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the BNS merger rate is actually near the lower end of the adopted range, the Einstein Telescope joint detection rate falls to roughly 8 per year or fewer, so the mission's gravitational-wave science is hostage to population statistics that may not be known until the detectors are running.
  • The paper treats each source class with a single representative observable, but its polarization diagnostics are stackable: a campaign combining plateau, flare, and afterglow polarimetry across many GRBs could test whether polarization evolution tracks central-engine activity in a way the paper's per-event simulations do not quantify.
  • A natural extension the paper does not develop is a neutrino-triggered target-of-opportunity strategy: the neutrino-blazar coincidence analysis motivates X-ray polarimetry of neutrino alerts, but no rate estimate is given for how often eXTP would be slewed by next-generation neutrino observatories.
  • If the 2-microsecond absolute timing is realized on orbit, eXTP would serve as a celestial time-reference for inter-satellite correlation and navigation, a capability that would further bind future space-based gravitational-wave and X-ray missions into one timing network.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This collaboration white paper presents the science case of the enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry mission (eXTP) for time-domain and multi-messenger astronomy. After summarizing the three instruments (SFA, PFA, W2C), it surveys expected contributions in gravitational-wave counterparts (BNS and BH-NS mergers, EMRIs, SMBBHs, strange-star systems, magnetar precursors), gamma-ray bursts (prompt polarization, X-ray flashes, plateaus, flares, afterglows, and quantum-gravity tests), magnetars and FRB/LPT connections, tidal disruption events, supernovae (shock breakout, SLSNe, FBOTs), and neutrino/TeV AGN sources. The quantitative centerpieces are the joint BNS prompt-emission detection rates in Table 1 (e.g., 41+74/-33 per year for Einstein Telescope at viewing angles <= 5 degrees, assuming a 50% jet-launching fraction and a median local BNS rate of 106 Gpc^-3 yr^-1) and simulation-based projections for SFA spectra of EMRI hosts, QPO significance in ASASSN-14li, magnetar timing and polarimetry, and GRB plateau polarization yields. The paper is a prospects document rather than a derivation; the limitations paragraph in Section 8 acknowledges population uncertainties, but the headline estimates are not accompanied by a sensitivity analysis.

Significance. If the projections hold, the paper makes a credible case that eXTP's combination of large effective area, microsecond timing, wide-field monitoring, and focusing polarimetry will be unique among 2030s X-ray facilities for transient science. Strengths include the explicit connection of the rates to stated population models (log-normal delay model, LVK BNS rate), instrument-response simulations with background models for the SFA spectra and polarization, and a Bayesian parameter-estimation example quantifying the claimed order-of-magnitude improvement in luminosity distance from joint W2C localization. The paper is not circular: its inputs come from external population models and its predictions are falsifiable. The main weakness is that the headline forecast in Table 1 does not propagate the dominant systematic uncertainties (jet-launching fraction, structured-jet parameters), so the point estimates are easy to over-read; the abstract's 'ensures' language is stronger than the underlying estimates justify. Several instrument specifications are also quoted inconsistently within the text.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1, Table 1] The joint-detection numbers in Table 1 rest on two optimistic inputs: a local BNS merger rate rho0 = 106+190/-84 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 adopted from [32], and the assumption that half of all GW-triggered BNS mergers launch a GRB 170817A-like Gaussian structured jet. The quoted errors (e.g., 41+74/-33 per year for ET at theta_obs <= 5 degrees) propagate the merger-rate spread but never vary the jet-launching fraction f_jet or the structured-jet parameters, even though f_jet is the dominant systematic. The text's justification for f_jet = 0.5 ('the local event rate density of short GRBs is typically lower than rho0,BNS by a factor of a few') does not by itself pin down f_jet, because the observed short-GRB rate and the jet geometry/beaming factors are degenerate; values of f_jet in the range 0.1-1.0 are consistent with the same comparison once that degeneracy is accounted for. Taking f_jet = 0.1 together with the lower bound of the merger-rate prior reduces the ET theta_obs <= 5 degree row from 41+74/-33 to of order one to two per year, an order of magnitude below the headline, and the same assumption drives the 6+11/-5 yearly W2C short-GRB trigger rate quoted earlier in the section. The Section 8 limitation paragraph acknowledges population statistics as a dominant uncertainty but does not identify the jet-launching fraction as a free parameter or give a sense of scale. I request a sensitivity table (rows for the lower/median/upper merger-rate bounds, columns for f_jet = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0) and calibration of the abstract and Section 8 language ('ensures', 'transformative new insights') to the conservative end of that table.
  2. [Section 1 vs. Section 4.2] The time resolution of the SFA is quoted as 10 microseconds in the payload description in Section 1, but Section 4.2 and related passages use 2 microseconds throughout, including 'high time resolution (2 us)', 'absolute time resolution (2 us)', a derived time-delay localization accuracy of about 0.007 degrees, and a pulsar-navigation accuracy of about 600 meters. All of the quantitative capabilities in Section 4.2 (discovery of roughly 100 microsecond substructure in magnetar bursts, the false-coincidence rate of 0.4 per second, and the localization and navigation numbers) scale linearly with the assumed time resolution, so a factor of five in this specification changes the scientific case. The two values must be reconciled with the mission baseline before the simulation claims of Section 4.2 can be evaluated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1 vs. Section 2.1] The W2C field of view is given as approximately 1500 square degrees (FWZR) in Section 1 and as about 1.1 sr (roughly 3600 square degrees) in Section 2.1; since the W2C-triggered short-GRB rate (about 6+11/-5 per year) and the claim that a ~100 deg^2 localization is less than one-tenth of the FoV both depend on this number, the correct value should be fixed and the affected estimates recomputed.
  2. [Section 3.3] The stated upper limit of 173-328 plateau detections per year is derived from the fraction (99%) of Swift-detected plateaus above the eXTP/PFA flux threshold; because the Swift sample is flux-limited, this fraction is not representative of the full GRB plateau population, and the estimate should be recomputed from an unbiased flux distribution or explicitly presented as conditional on the Swift-selection bias.
  3. [Section 2.3.4] The statement that roughly 45 SFA observations (FoV ~0.022 deg^2) suffice to follow up a PTA localization region of ~10 deg^2 is inconsistent with the stated numbers by about an order of magnitude; the source-count arithmetic in this paragraph should be re-derived.
  4. [Section 4.3] The claimed W2C detection reach of 25 Mpc for FRB X-ray counterparts assumes a universal X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio of ~10^5 derived from the single galactic event FRB 200428 and further assumes that nearly all non-repeating FRBs have radio luminosity above 10^43 erg/s; both assumptions are extrapolations and should be presented with the spread of the FRB luminosity function.
  5. [Section 3.1] The high polarization-degree predictions (PD > 60%) from the hybrid electron model in Figure 4 are computed for specific combinations of the bulk Lorentz factor and the thermal-electron fraction; the text should state which parameter combinations are actually testable with the PFA's MDP for realistic GRB fluxes, since for the MDP quoted in Section 3.4 (~10% for bright flares) the lower-PD model curves would be indistinguishable.
  6. [Throughout (typos and format)] The manuscript contains production artifacts and typos that should be cleaned before publication: 'First Author, et al.' in the running header and citation line, 'Received ; accepted', 'V ol. No.', 'Table 4.4' instead of 'Table 4', inconsistent 'LPT'/'LTP' acronyms, 'MPD' for 'MDP' in Section 2.1, 'Shukura & Sunyeav' for Shakura & Sunyaev, and 'ofen shonw', 'diffent', and 'localziaiton' in Sections 6.4 and 2.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; quantitative claims are explicit extrapolations from external population models and instrument sensitivities, with self-citations used only as inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a prospects/white-paper document, not a derivation. Its principal quantitative claims (Table 1 joint BNS/GRB rates, Section 3.3 plateau detection numbers, Section 3.5 afterglow polarization rates) are computed by combining instrument effective areas, thresholds, and external population distributions. Equation (1) integrates an adopted local BNS rate (from [32]) with a log-normal delay model ([40]), and the jet-launching fraction is stated as an explicit assumption: 'we assume that half of all GW-triggered events can successfully launch a relativistic jet with a Gaussian structured profile, producing GRB 170817A-like short GRBs.' The resulting numbers are conditional forecasts, not fitted outputs. Section 8 itself acknowledges that 'the ultimate scientific returns of eXTP will be influenced by astrophysical uncertainties.' Self-citations such as [12], [18], [40], [75], and [276] supply instrument parameters or prior model predictions; they are not used to prove the mission's capabilities, and those prior works are externally published models with stated assumptions rather than the present paper's conclusions. No equation is defined in terms of its own target, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Criticisms about optimistic assumptions (e.g., the 50% jet fraction or the upper end of the BNS rate prior) are robustness concerns about forecasting uncertainty, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecasts rest on several hand-chosen parameters (jet launching fraction, AGN fraction, number of plunges, viewing angle threshold, FRB X-ray luminosity ratio) and on domain assumptions from prior works (log-normal delay distribution, Gaussian structured jets, wet EMRI rate framework, QPE-EMRI connection, and the specified eXTP instrument performance). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • BNS jet launching fraction = 0.5
    Section 2.1 assumes half of all GW-triggered BNS mergers launch a relativistic jet with a Gaussian structured profile; this directly scales the predicted joint detection rates in Table 1.
  • AGN fraction fAGN = 1%
    Section 2.2 assumes fAGN=1% for wet EMRI rate estimates in Table 2; variation in this fraction changes the rates by an order of magnitude.
  • Number of plunges per dry EMRI Np = 10
    Section 2.2 sets Np=10 for dry EMRI rates; the last row of Table 2 scales linearly with Np.
  • Off-axis viewing angle threshold theta_obs = 5 degrees
    Table 1 splits events at theta_obs=5 degrees; the threshold is chosen to separate on-axis and off-axis jet detections, affecting the ratio of the two columns.
  • FRB X-ray-to-radio luminosity ratio = 10^5
    Section 4.3 assumes LX/Lradio ~ 10^5 for all FRBs to estimate X-ray luminosity of non-repeating FRBs; this determines the detectability distance of about 25 Mpc.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard LambdaCDM cosmology with the given comoving volume element (Eq. 2)
    Used in Eq. (1) to compute the BNS merger rate; the cosmological parameters are taken from prior literature but not stated explicitly in the paper.
  • domain assumption Log-normal delay-time distribution for BNS mergers (from Zhu et al. [40])
    Section 2.1 states 'we adopt the log-normal delay model here for quick and simple simulations'; the choice affects the redshift distribution of mergers and hence detection rates.
  • domain assumption Gaussian structured jet profile for short GRBs
    Section 2.1 assumes 'a relativistic jet with a Gaussian structured profile, producing GRB 170817A-like short GRBs'; this determines which viewing angles produce detectable prompt emission.
  • domain assumption The wet EMRI rate framework of [72,73,75]
    Section 2.2 uses the differential wet EMRI rate in Eq. (5) and the alpha-disk and beta-disk models to estimate rates in Table 2; these models are not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption QPEs are caused by EMRI-disk collisions
    Section 2.2.2 relies on the EMRI plus accretion disk model for QPEs to connect eXTP observations to LISA-detected EMRIs; this is an active and debated hypothesis.
  • domain assumption eXTP instrument performance as specified in Section 1
    All detection estimates (e.g., MDP 1.7%, effective areas, time resolution) assume the mission meets its design goals; if actual performance is worse, the detection rates decline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospects for Time-Domain and Multi-Messenger Science with eXTP." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I3LWBPSM

@misc{pith2026250608368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospects for Time-Domain and Multi-Messenger Science with eXTP},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I3LWBPSM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08368}
}
read the original abstract

In this new era of time-domain and multi-messenger astronomy, various new transients and new phenomena are constantly being discovered thanks to the rapid advances in observations, which provide the excellent opportunity to study the physics in the extreme environments. The enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry mission (eXTP), planned to be launched in 2030, has several key advantages, including advanced polarimetry, high sensitivity & large effective area, and wide energy range coverage, which make it a groundbreaking project in high-energy astrophysics. In this article, we briefly introduce the potential time-domain and multi-messenger targets for eXTP, including gravitational-wave (GW) counterparts, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), magnetars and fast radio bursts (FRBs), tidal disruption events (TDEs), supernovae, high energy neutrinos and TeV active galactic nucleus (AGNs), and so on. We discuss the advantages of future eXTP observations for detecting these sources, their detection capabilities, the abilities to distinguish theoretical models, and their applications in gravity and cosmology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Physics and Astrophysics of Black Holes with eXTP

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    eXTP’s larger effective area and simultaneous polarimetry will tighten black-hole spin and Kerr-deviation constraints relative to NICER for the same exposure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [32]

    04195. 540 F. M. Rieger, Universe8, 607 (2022), arXiv:

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    1 S. B. Cenko, P. A. Whitelock, L. Cadonati, V . Connaughton, R. Davies, R. Fender, P. J. Groot, M. M. Kasliwal, T. Murphy, S. Nissanke, A. Sesana, S. Yoshida, and B. Zhang, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2007.05546 (2020), arXiv: 2007.05546. 2 W. Yuan, C. Zhang, Y . Chen, and Z. Ling, inHandbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, (edited by C. Bambi and A. Sanga...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [565]

    First Author, et al

    and reproduced by permission of the AAS. First Author, et al. Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. ( ) V ol. No.-41 lin, J.-P. Coulon, S. T. Countryman, P. Couvares, E. E. Cowan, D. M. Coward, M. J. Cowart, D. C. Coyne, R. Coyne, K. Craig, J. D. E. Creighton, T. D. Creighton, J. Cripe, S. G. Crowder, A. M. Cruise, A. Cumming, L. Cunningham, E. Cuoco, T. D. Cant...

    arXiv 2016

  4. [664]

    The X-Ray Polarization Signature of Quiescent Magnetars: Effect of Magnetospheric Scattering and Vacuum Polarization

    420 R. Fern ´andez and S. W. Davis, ApJ730, 131 (2011), arXiv: 1101.0834. 421 J.-J. Geng, B. Zhang, and Y .-F. Huang, ApJ831, L10 (2016), arXiv: 1609.02508. 422 T. R. Marsh, B. T. G ¨ansicke, S. H ¨ummerich, F. J. Hambsch, K. Bernhard, C. Lloyd, E. Breedt, E. R. Stan- way, D. T. Steeghs, S. G. Parsons, O. Toloza, M. R. Schreiber, P. G. Jonker, J. van Roes...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  5. [698]

    Kasen and L

    498 D. Kasen and L. Bildsten, ApJ717, 245 (2010), arXiv: 0911.0680. 499 M. Nicholl, S. J. Smartt, A. Jerkstrand, C. Inserra, M. McCrum, R. Kotak, M. Fraser, D. Wright, T. W. Chen, K. Smith, D. R. Young, S. A. Sim, S. Valenti, D. A. Howell, F. Bresolin, R. P. Kudritzki, J. L. Tonry, M. E. Huber, A. Rest, A. Pastorello, L. Tomasella, E. Cappellaro, S. Benet...

    arXiv 2010

  6. [960]

    Brooks, J

    531 J. Brooks, J. Schwab, L. Bildsten, E. Quataert, B. Pax- ton, S. Blinnikov, and E. Sorokina, ApJ850, 127 (2017), arXiv: 1710.09464. 532 Y .-W. Yu, A. Chen, and X.-D. Li, ApJ877, L21 (2019), arXiv: 1904.11840. 533 Y .-W. Yu, A. Chen, and B. Wang, ApJ870, L23 (2019), arXiv: 1812.06631. 534 Y . Zenati, H. B. Perets, and S. Toonen, MNRAS486, 1805 (2019), a...

    arXiv 2017

  7. [1506]

    08827. 527 R. Sawada, K. Kashiyama, and Y . Suwa, ApJ927, 223 (2022), arXiv: 2112.10782. 528 T. J. Moriya and J. J. Eldridge, MNRAS461, 2155 (2016), arXiv: 1603.00033. 529 R. Mor, E. Livne, and T. Piran arXiv: 2203.08292. 530 M. M. Kasliwal, S. R. Kulkarni, A. Gal-Yam, O. Yaron, R. M. Quimby, E. O. Ofek, P. Nugent, D. Poznanski, J. Jacobsen, A. Sternberg,...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [1509]

    02165. 147 X. Guo, Q. Yu, and Y . Lu, ApJ978, 104 (2025), arXiv: 2411.14150. 148 Q. Hu, M. Li, R. Niu, and W. Zhao, PRD103, 064057 (2021), arXiv: 2006.05670. 149 R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, B. Hu, C. Liu, Y . Lu, W.-T. Ni, W.-H. Ruan, N. Seto, G. Wang, and Y .-L. Wu, Funda- mental Research4, 1072 (2024), arXiv: 2305.04551. 150 J. M. Lotz, P. Jonsson, T. J. Cox,...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 33 references
  1. [1704]

    03602. 320 J. Granot, T. Piran, and R. Sari, ApJ513, 679 (1999), arXiv: astro-ph/9806192. 321 S. Covino, D. Malesani, G. Ghisellini, D. Lazzati, S. di Serego Alighieri, M. Stefanon, A. Cimatti, M. Della Valle, F. Fiore, P. Goldoni, N. Kawai, G. L. Israel, E. Le Floc’h, I. F. M...

    1999 arXiv

  2. [1710]

    04671. 419 A. M. Beloborodov, ApJ762, 13 (2013), arXiv:

    2013

  3. [1807]

    544 IceCube Collaboration, M

    08794. 544 IceCube Collaboration, M. G. Aartsen, M. Acker- mann, J. Adams, J. A. Aguilar, M. Ahlers, M. Ahrens, I. Al Samarai, D. Altmann, K. Andeen, T. Anderson, I. Ansseau, G. Anton, C. Arg ¨uelles, J. Auffenberg, S. Axani, H. Bagherpour, X. Bai, J. P. Barron, S. W. Barwick,...

    2018 arXiv

  4. [1904]

    12263. 42 Y . Kang, C. Liu, J. Zhu, and L. Shao, Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica53, 100014 (2023). 43 B. B. Zhang, B. Zhang, H. Sun, W. H. Lei, H. Gao, Y . Li, L. Shao, Y . Zhao, Y . D. Hu, H. J. L¨u, X. F. Wu, X. L. Fan, G. Wang, A. J. Castro-Tirado, S. Zhang...

    2023 arXiv

  5. [1905]

    333 Y .-Z

    03413. 333 Y .-Z. Fan, D.-M. Wei, and D. Xu, MNRAS376, 1857 (2007), arXiv: astro-ph/0702006. 334 P. Soffitta, L. Baldini, R. Bellazzini, E. Costa, L. La- tronico, F. Muleri, E. Del Monte, S. Fabiani, M. Minuti, M. Pinchera, C. Sgro’, G. Spandre, A. Trois, F. Am- ici, H. Anders...

    2007 arXiv

  6. [1907]

    11462. 469 L. L. Thomsen, L. Dai, E. Kara, and C. Reynolds, ApJ 925, 151 (2022), arXiv: 2109.03477. 470 Z. Zhang, L. L. Thomsen, L. Dai, C. S. Reynolds, J. A. Garc´ıa, E. Kara, R. Connors, M. Masterson, Y . Yao, and T. Dauser, ApJ977, 157 (2024), arXiv: 2407.08596. 471 M. Vick...

    2022 arXiv

  7. [1910]

    First Author, et al

    04512. First Author, et al. Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. ( ) V ol. No.-62 308 A. D. Falcone, D. Morris, J. Racusin, G. Chincarini, A. Moretti, P. Romano, D. N. Burrows, C. Pagani, M. Stroh, D. Grupe, S. Campana, S. Covino, G. Tagli- aferri, R. Willingale, and N. Gehrels, ApJ...

    2007 arXiv

  8. [1982]

    458 D. R. Pasham, R. A. Remillard, P. C. Fragile, A. Franchini, N. C. Stone, G. Lodato, J. Homan, D. Chakrabarty, F. K. Baganoff, J. F. Steiner, E. R. Coughlin, and N. R. Pasham, Science363, 531 (2019), arXiv: 1810.10713. 459 W.-H. Lei and B. Zhang, ApJ740, L27 (2011), arXiv: ...

    2019 arXiv

  9. [2003]

    04848. 395 R. Luo, B. J. Wang, Y . P. Men, C. F. Zhang, J. C. Jiang, H. Xu, W. Y . Wang, K. J. Lee, J. L. Han, B. Zhang, R. N. Caballero, M. Z. Chen, X. L. Chen, H. Q. Gan, Y . J. Guo, L. F. Hao, Y . X. Huang, P. Jiang, H. Li, J. Li, Z. X. Li, J. T. Luo, J. Pan, X. Pei, L. Qia...

    2020 arXiv

  10. [2005]

    05574. 25 V . Kalogera et al. (2021), arXiv: 2111.06990. 26 S.-N. Zhang, Y . Liu, S. Yi, Z. Dai, and C. Huang, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1604.02537 (2016), arXiv: 1604.02537. 27 T. Liu, G. E. Romero, M.-L. Liu, and A. Li, ApJ826, 82 (2016), arXiv: 1602.06907. 28 B. Zhang, ApJ827, L...

    2021 arXiv

  11. [2107]

    00533. 200 Z. Miao, E. Zhou, and A. Li, The Astrophysical Journal 964, 31 (2024). 201 E. Troja, S. Rosswog, and N. Gehrels, Astrophys. J. 723, 1711 (2010), arXiv: 1009.1385. 202 S. Xiao et al., Astrophys. J.970, 6 (2024), arXiv: 2205.02186. 203 Z. Zhang, S.-X. Yi, S.-N. Zhang,...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [2111]

    01641. 344 W. Zhu, H. Xu, D. Zhou, L. Lin, B. Wang, P. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Niu, Y . Chen, C. Li, L. Meng, K. Lee, B. Zhang, Y . Feng, M. Ge, E. G¨o˘g¨us ¸, X. Guan, J. Han, J. Jiang, P. Jiang, C. Kouveliotou, D. Li, C. Miao, X. Miao, Y . Men, C. Niu, W. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Xu, R....

    2023 arXiv

  13. [2205]

    14216. 141 A. Sesana, F. Shankar, M. Bernardi, and R. K. Sheth, MNRAS463, L6 (2016), arXiv: 1603.09348. 142 N. A. Webb, M. Coriat, I. Traulsen, J. Ballet, C. Motch, F. J. Carrera, F. Koliopanos, J. Authier, I. de la Calle, M. T. Ceballos, E. Colomo, D. Chuard, M. Frey- berg, T...

    2016 arXiv

  14. [2211]

    First Author, et al

    04727. First Author, et al. Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. ( ) V ol. No.-61 289 Y . F. Huang, Z. G. Dai, and T. Lu, MNRAS332, 735 (2002), arXiv: astro-ph/0112469. 290 F. Xu, Y .-F. Huang, and J.-J. Geng, A&A679, A103 (2023), arXiv: 2304.09051. 291 R. Sari, ApJ524, L43 (1999), ...

    2002 arXiv

  15. [2311]

    18221. 158 J. Geng, B. Li, and Y . Huang, The Innovation2, 100152 (2021), arXiv: 2103.04165. 159 X.-L. Zhang, Y .-F. Huang, and Z.-C. Zou, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences11, 1409463 (2024), arXiv: 2404.00363. 160 E. Witten, PRD30, 272 (1984). First Author, et al. Sci...

    2021 arXiv

  16. [2347]

    Franchini, M

    84 A. Franchini, M. Bonetti, A. Lupi, G. Miniutti, E. Bor- tolas, M. Giustini, M. Dotti, A. Sesana, R. Arcodia, and T. Ryu, A&A675, A100 (2023), arXiv: 2304.00775. 85 I. Linial and B. D. Metzger, Astrophys. J.957, 34 (2023), arXiv: 2303.16231. 86 H. Tagawa and Z. Haiman, Mon. ...

    2023 arXiv

  17. [2402]

    15067. 536 V . I. Romansky, A. M. Bykov, and S. M. Osipov, Advances in Space Research74, 4290 (2024), arXiv: 2402.10497. First Author, et al. Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. ( ) V ol. No.-74 537 D. R. Pasham, W. C. G. Ho, W. Alston, R. Remillard, M. Ng, K. Gendreau, B. D. Metzg...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [2409]

    05978. 418 F. Coti Zelati, N. Rea, J. A. Pons, S. Campana, and P. Esposito, MNRAS474, 961 (2018), arXiv:

    2018

  19. [2424]

    Mao and J

    262 J. Mao and J. Wang, ApJ776, 17 (2013), arXiv:

    2013

  20. [2503]

    01156. 467 E. Kara, J. M. Miller, C. Reynolds, and L. Dai, Nature 535, 388 (2016), arXiv: 1606.06736. 468 L. L. Thomsen, J. Lixin Dai, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, E. Kara, and C. Reynolds, ApJ884, L21 (2019), arXiv:

    2016 arXiv

  21. [3217]

    496 W. D. Arnett, ApJ253, 785 (1982). 497 S. E. Woosley, ApJ719, L204 (2010), arXiv:

    1982

  22. [3868]

    Sillanpaa, S

    127 A. Sillanpaa, S. Haarala, M. J. Valtonen, B. Sundelius, and G. G. Byrd, ApJ325, 628 (1988). 128 A. Veledina, J. Poutanen, A. Bocharova, A. Di Marco, S. V . Forsblom, F. La Monaca, J. Podgorn´y, S. S. Tsy- gankov, A. A. Zdziarski, V . Ahlberg, D. A. Green, F. Muleri, L. Rho...

    1988 arXiv

  23. [5124]

    138 M. L. Saade, D. Stern, M. Brightman, Z. Haiman, S. G. Djorgovski, D. D’Orazio, K. E. S. Ford, M. J. Graham, H. D. Jun, R. P. Kraft, B. McKernan, A. Vikhlinin, and D. J. Walton, ApJ900, 148 (2020), arXiv: 2001.08870. 139 B. X. Hu, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, K. L. Smith, B. ...

    2020 arXiv

  24. [5257]

    263 H. C. Spruit, F. Daigne, and G. Drenkhahn, A & A369, 694 (2001), arXiv: astro-ph/0004274. 264 M.-X. Lan, X.-F. Wu, and Z.-G. Dai, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics21, 055 (2021), arXiv: 2008.10746. 265 H.-B. Wang and M.-X. Lan, ApJ946, 12 (2023), arXiv: 2306.16634. 26...

    2001 arXiv

  25. [6482]

    191 E. R. Most and A. A. Philippov, Astrophys. J. Lett.893, L6 (2020), arXiv: 2001.06037. 192 P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, Astrophys. J.157, 869 (1969). 193 Z. Zhang and R. Zhang, Chin. Phys.49, 085102 (2025), arXiv: 2503.20501. 194 S. Dall’Osso and E. M. Rossi, MNRAS428, 51...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.