Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 36 references

A period-increasing oscillation signal in a long gamma-ray burst

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that GRB 131122B contains a phase-coherent oscillation whose period rises from 1.27 to 4.02 seconds in 16.75 seconds, the fastest period evolution claimed in an electromagnetic astrophysical signal.

desk verdict A transparent, honestly hedged candidate report for the first evolving-period QPO in a GRB, with a genuinely interesting signal but a detection significance that hinges on one tuned four-parameter fit and an under-counted trial factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00873 v1 pith:24IED66R submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.HE

Tian-Ci Zheng , Stefano Covino , Yun Wang , Xiang-Dong Li , Da-Ming Wei , Zhi-Ping Jin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsquasi-periodicoscillationsperiodevolutionchirpsignalLense-Thirringprecessionintermediate-massblackholestidaldisruptionevents
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

GRB 131122B, a long gamma-ray burst, shows eight pulses whose separations grow steadily over a 16.75-second interval. The paper argues that these pulses are the crests of a single oscillation whose frequency falls as $f(t)=6.31(t-2.26\,\mathrm{s})^{-1}$ Hz, so the period increases from 1.27 s to 4.02 s. If that reading is correct, this is the most rapidly evolving periodic signal ever identified in electromagnetic astrophysics, comparable in chirp rate to gravitational waves from merging neutron stars. The authors propose that the oscillation is Lense-Thirring precession of a misaligned accretion disk around an intermediate-mass black hole of roughly $10^3$ solar masses that has torn apart a star. The claim matters because it would make time-resolved gamma-ray timing a direct probe of a newborn GRB central engine.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a logarithmic chirp model. Instead of assuming a constant period, the paper models the phase as $\theta(t)=A\ln(t-B)+C$, sets $\theta_n=2n\pi$ for the $n$-th pulse maximum, and fits $A=39.64$, $B=2.26$ s, and $C=-2.88$ to the eight peak times. That single phase law converts the growing inter-pulse intervals into a constant phase step of $2\pi$; stretching the light curve into phase space then makes the oscillation a stationary sinusoid, testable with wavelet and Lomb-Scargle methods. The same stretched phase is fed into a Gaussian-process kernel so that the evolving-period hypothesis can be compared quantitatively with a noise-only model, yielding a Bayes factor of $\ln\mathrm{BF}=12.31$ before trial-factor correction.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a longer, high-cadence light curve of the same sky region: the fitted phase law $\theta(t)=39.64\ln(t-2.26)-2.88$ predicts each maximum at $\theta=2n\pi$, so a ninth pulse would have to arrive at a sharply specified time, and its absence would break the coherent-chirp interpretation. Independently, re-fitting the eight peaks with the phase assignment left free should recover the same logarithmic form; if a free-phase fit rejects it, the period series is an artifact of the $2n\pi$ assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is a phase-coherent chirp in GRB 131122B. Fitting the eight pulse maxima with the phase law $\theta(t)=39.64\ln(t-2.26)-2.88$ assigns each successive maximum an integer multiple of $2\pi$, giving peak times at 10.63, 12.06, 13.72, 15.67, 17.95, 20.61, 23.73, and 27.38 s after trigger and periods of 1.27, 1.50, 1.78, 2.10, 2.47, 2.91, 3.42, and 4.02 s. The equivalent instantaneous frequency is $f(t)=6.31(t-2.26)^{-1}$ Hz. The paper claims this is the fastest period evolution found in any electromagnetic astrophysical signal, comparable to gravitational-wave chirps, and interprets it as the precession of a tilted disk around an intermediate-mass black hole of order $10^3\,M_\odot$ produced by a tidal disruption event, while also considering an oblate magnetar alternative and noting that its required ellipticity and field decay lack independent evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the eight spikes are successive crests of one single oscillator whose phase advances smoothly, so tagging each peak with phase $2n\pi$ is physically meaningful; if the spikes are independent pulses whose spacings happen to grow, the 1.27-to-4.02 second period evolution is an interpolation, not a measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the signal is real, GRB 131122B has the fastest period evolution yet seen in any electromagnetic astrophysical signal, comparable to gravitational-wave chirps from compact mergers.
  • A misaligned accretion disk precessing around an intermediate-mass black hole of roughly $10^3$ solar masses can reproduce the observed $f(t)\propto(t-2.26\,\mathrm{s})^{-1}$ evolution and the roughly 20-second duration.
  • The period-increasing oscillation would make GRB 131122B the first GRB with an evolving quasi-periodic oscillation, distinguishing its central engine from the stable kilohertz QPOs reported in short GRBs.
  • High-cadence timing of GRB light curves becomes a direct probe of a newly born central engine's precession, complementing gravitational-wave chirp measurements.
  • If instead the oscillation comes from an oblate magnetar, its ellipticity must be roughly $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$ and its internal toroidal field must decay rapidly on the burst timescale, a configuration the paper notes has no independent evidence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: because the sample was preselected by eye for widening pulse spacings, the effective trial factor may exceed the roughly 1000-event correction used in the paper's Section 2.6, and a blind automated search for monotone-spacing chirps across a complete gamma-ray burst catalog would give a cleaner significance estimate.
  • If the precessing-disk interpretation is correct, the changing viewing angle should modulate the time-resolved gamma-ray spectrum in step with the phase $\theta(t)$, so future bursts with enough photons could check for a spectral-phasing correlation.
  • The same logarithmic-phase formalism could be applied to other multi-pulse GRBs and to magnetar giant flares; a population of chirping bursts with mass estimates clustering near $10^3\,M_\odot$ would strengthen the intermediate-mass black hole interpretation.
  • The paper's phase law makes a sharp prediction for any continuing oscillation: each subsequent maximum must occur at $\theta=2n\pi$, so a ninth pulse would have a uniquely predicted arrival time, and searching archival data of the same poorly localized sky region for continued emission could test coherence without new observations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports a candidate quasi-periodic oscillation in GRB 131122B whose period increases from 1.27 s to 4.02 s over 16.75 s. The analysis pipeline combines visual selection of a burst with eight distinct spikes, a log-chirp phase fit to the peak times, band-pass filtering, background subtraction with a smooth broken power law, WWZ and Lomb-Scargle analyses in a stretched phase space, and a Gaussian Process Bayes-factor comparison. The authors propose both an intermediate-mass black hole tidal disruption event and an oblate magnetar as possible physical origins. They report a trial-corrected significance of about 2.8 sigma and explicitly state that the true significance is likely lower.

Significance. If confirmed, this would be the first report of an evolving QPO in GRB prompt emission and, as the authors note, the fastest period evolution claimed in any electromagnetic astrophysical signal. The manuscript is honest and transparent: uncertainties are quoted, the caveats about trial factors and start/end times are stated, and the physical interpretation is clearly separated from the detection analysis. However, the statistical support for the central detection claim is currently modest, and the most distinctive cross-checks are built from the same fitted phase model. The paper is best read as a candidate report; its value depends on whether the authors can supply a full end-to-end false-alarm test and reframe the phase-space results as diagnostics rather than independent confirmations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.5, Eq. (7)] The 'Stretched' light curve is defined by replacing the time axis with the fitted phase θ(t) = 39.64 ln(t − 2.26) + θ_s, where the parameters come from the same eight visually selected peak times fitted in Section 2.4. The Lomb-Scargle peak at 1/(2π) per rad and the horizontal WWZ ridge are therefore constructed to be consistent with constant periodicity in the stretched variable; they are diagnostics of the fitted phase mapping, not independent evidence for an oscillation. This should be stated explicitly, and the terms 'confirmation' or 'verification' should be avoided for this step.
  2. [Section 2.6] The Bayes factor ln BF = 12.31 compares a noise-only model with a QPO model whose stretch transformation is derived from the same peak times that were used to identify the candidate. The trial-factor correction of about 1,000 events accounts for the number of GRBs screened, but not for the visual selection criterion of 'a consistent increasing or decreasing trend' in Section 2.1, the choice of the 10.0–28.3 s analysis window, or the number of candidate phase models and filter choices. The authors' own statement that the actual significance will likely be lower than the reported figure is an admission that the 2.8 sigma value is an upper bound. A full null simulation of the complete pipeline, including the visual screening step, is required to estimate a false-alarm probability.
  3. [Section 2.4] The quoted periods 1.27–4.02 s are computed as 2π/Ω(t) at the model peak times using the fitted parameters N_θ = 39.64 and t_s = 2.26. They are therefore predictions of the assumed log-chirp model rather than independently measured cycle durations. Because the same eight eye-identified peak times were used to fit that model, the period list should not be presented as an empirical measurement without propagating the full parameter uncertainty and the uncertainty in the peak times. The comparison in Fig. 6 and the claim of the 'quickest evolution among all electromagnetic events' in Section 4 should be reframed as model-dependent, or the instantaneous periods should be measured directly, for example by fitting individual pulses.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The sentence 'The caught of time-increasing frequency in the gravitational wave signals is the evidence of upon opinion' is ungrammatical and unclear; it should be revised.
  2. [Section 2.5, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) has an extra closing parenthesis: k(|t_i − t_j|) = σ² exp(−c2|t_i − t_j|) cos(2πf |t_i − t_j|))).
  3. [Section 2.5] The frequency unit '/rad' is nonstandard; please clarify whether the LSP peak at 1/(2π) is in cycles per radian (dimensionless) or in radians per radian, and use a consistent notation.
  4. [Figure 6] The vertical axis label 'log(|P|/P) (ss 2)' appears to contain a typo; the units and quantity should be defined clearly.
  5. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'Without considering that GRB 131122B has a very large redshift, e.g., z > 9, the BH mass should exceed 100 M_sun' is ambiguous; please specify what is being assumed about the redshift in that limit.
  6. [Table 1] The prior for B is listed as 'Truncated N(0, 5)', while the text says 'a truncated positive Normal distribution'; please state the truncation bounds and clarify whether B is the same parameter as t_s in Eq. (2).
  7. [Section 2.2] The band-pass filter cutoffs of 0.2 Hz and 2.0 Hz are chosen a priori; please provide a short justification or show that the reported results are insensitive to reasonable variations of these values.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Phase-space 'Stretched' peak and 1.27–4.02 s period range are re-expressions of the fitted log-chirp; GP significance is honest but selection-limited.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.5 (Stretching Light curve and constant periodicity in phase space), Fig. 5e/5f]
    "we transform the Scaled light curve into phase space by substituting the derived relation θ(t) for t in the light curve, i.e., V (θ) = 17.30cosθ, the resulting light curve is labeled as “Stretched” ... In phase space, the Stretched light curve can be modeled by a constant period ... Both methods reveal a signal at the frequency 1/2π (/rad)."

    The phase variable θ(t)=39.64 ln(t−2.26)+θ_s was fit so that the eight visually selected peaks occur at θ=2nπ (Section 2.1). Substituting that fitted θ(t) for t turns the best-fit model V(t)=17.30 cos θ(t) into exactly V(θ)=17.30 cos θ. A cosine has period 2π in its own argument by definition, so the LSP/WWZ peak at 1/(2π) per rad is an algebraic restatement of the fit, not an independent confirmation of periodicity. Any monotone mapping t→θ would make the model curve 'periodic' in the new coordinate if the model is a cosine of that mapping.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.4 (Evolution form of periodicity)]
    "Based on the derived θ(t), we estimate the real peak times (tθ=2nπ) of each pulse to occur at 10.63 s, 12.06 s, 13.72 s, 15.67 s, 17.95 s, 20.61 s, 23.73 s, and 27.38 s, with corresponding periods (Ppeak = 2π/Ω(tθ=2nπ)) of 1.27 s, 1.50 s, 1.78 s, 2.10 s, 2.47 s, 2.91 s, 3.42 s, and 4.02 s. Thus, the observed QPO signature shows a progression of periods, increasing from 1.27 s to 4.02 s in a 16.75-second interval."

    The periods labeled 'observed' are computed from the fitted chirp: Ω(t)=Nθ/(t−t_s), P=2π/Ω, with Nθ=39.64 and t_s=2.26 fit to the same eight peaks, evaluated at model peak times t_{θ=2nπ}. The 16.75 s interval is the span of these model times. The headline period range 1.27–4.02 s is therefore a re-expression of the fit parameters, not an independent measurement of cycle lengths; the 'progression' is guaranteed by the monotonically decreasing Ω(t) once the logarithmic model is adopted.

full rationale

The paper's central detection rests on two pillars. First, the phase-space 'Stretched' analysis substitutes the fitted θ(t)=39.64 ln(t−2.26)+θ_s for t, so V(θ)=17.30 cos θ by construction; the LSP/WWZ peak at 1/(2π) per rad is an identity, not independent evidence. Second, the quoted period evolution 1.27 s→4.02 s is computed from the same fitted Nθ and t_s via P=2π/Ω(t), evaluated at model peak times; the '16.75-second interval' is the span of those model times. The underlying empirical input is only that eight visually selected pulse spacings grow. The GP analysis (Section 2.6) is a genuine model comparison with free F and B, and the paper honestly applies a ~1000-event trial factor and acknowledges the start/end-time ambiguity, but it still uses the log-stretch functional form selected from the same data; this is a statistical selection effect rather than a by-construction circularity. The self-citations (Zheng et al. 2024; Covino et al. 2020/2022) are methodological and not load-bearing. Overall, the detection claim is partially circular: the two supporting diagnostics are re-expressions of the fitted chirp, so the quoted periods and the phase-space 'confirmation' do not independently validate the oscillation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted layers: the background subtraction (six to eight fitted parameters) and the log-chirp model (Nθ, ts, θs, NV). The reported periods are computed from fitted values, the phase-space confirmation is defined by the same fit, and the IMBH-TDE interpretation adds a postulated central engine without independent evidence. The GP analysis and the un-stretched WWZ ridge provide the only partially independent checks.

free parameters (6)
  • Nθ (log-chirp phase normalization) = 39.64 +0.92/-0.92
    Fitted to the eight peak times; sets the chirp rate f(t) = 6.31 (t - 2.26)^-1 Hz and therefore all reported periods (Section 2.4).
  • ts (time shift in ln(t - ts) phase model) = 2.26 +0.16/-0.17 s
    Fitted singularity time of the 1/(t - ts) frequency law; the derived periods are highly sensitive to it (Section 2.4).
  • θs (phase offset) = 2.88 +1.67/-1.72 rad
    Fitted phase shift, degenerate within 2π as the authors note (Section 2.4).
  • NV (oscillation amplitude) = 17.30 +0.90/-0.87 counts/bin
    Fitted amplitude of V(t) = NV cos θ(t) against the Scaled light curve (Section 2.4).
  • Median background parameters (Aq, a1,q, a2,q, tb,q, Ah, a2,h, tb,h; a1,h and w fixed) = see Fig. 8 corner plot
    Fitted to the observed light curve to define the Scaled residual; a1,h is fixed at -27 and w at -1/3 by hand (Section 2.3).
  • Band-pass filter cutoffs = 0.2 Hz and 2.0 Hz
    Chosen, not fitted; the pulse train and WWZ ridge are only visible within this band (Section 2.2).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The eight visually identified spikes are the maxima of a single phase-coherent oscillation, with the nth peak assigned phase θn = 2nπ.
    If the spikes are independent pulses, the phase assignment is tautological and θ(t) is only an interpolation. Sections 2.1 and 2.4.
  • domain assumption The period evolves as a logarithmic chirp θ = A ln(t - B) + C (Eq. 2).
    The functional form is assumed a priori; no comparison is made against other monotone chirp forms, e.g., quadratic phase. Section 2.1.
  • ad hoc to paper A two smooth-broken power law with a1,h fixed at -27 and w = -1/3 models the low-frequency background; subtracting it does not create the periodic residual.
    The fix exists to stop the Median from tracking the fifth pulse; robustness is partially tested in Appendix A.2. Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption Noise in the Gaussian process is a damped random walk plus an exponentially decaying co-sinusoid, with the log-stretched cosine kernel as the signal model (Eqs. 5-7).
    The Bayes factor of 12.31 is conditional on these kernel choices and priors (Table 1). Section 2.6.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective number of independent trials is about 1,000 GRBs with at least four peaks.
    The trial-factor correction does not count trials from the visual screen or from choices of functional form, time window, and filter band. Section 2.6.
  • standard math Standard time-series methods (WWZ, Lomb-Scargle, Gaussian process regression) behave as published.
    Reliance on Foster 1996 and the GP framework of Huebner et al. 2022 and Gurpide and Middleton 2025. Section 2.
  • domain assumption For the physical model, Lense-Thirring precession, Bardeen-Petterson alignment, and TDE fallback timescales apply to a newborn GRB disk, with spin a = 0.9 and viscosity α = 0.1.
    Standard XRB prescriptions carried to a relativistic newborn disk; the mass constraints in Section 4.1 follow from these formulas and from assumed redshifts z = 0 or 2.
invented entities (2)
  • Intermediate-mass black hole (about 10^3 solar masses, allowed range 390 to 5,860 M⊙ depending on redshift) as the central engine of GRB 131122B
    purpose: Explains the claimed period-increasing chirp via Lense-Thirring precession of a misaligned disk in a tidal disruption event.
    The mass bounds are derived from the assumed precession model and assumed redshift; the burst has no host galaxy, redshift, or afterglow, so no external handle exists. Section 4.1.
  • Oblate magnetar with ellipticity 10^-3 to 10^-2 and toroidal field decaying as B_t ∝ t^ζ with -1/2 ≤ ζ ≤ -1/4
    purpose: Alternative engine that could produce the same chirp through free precession with decaying ellipticity.
    The authors state 'the independent evidence is currently lacking'. Section 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A period-increasing oscillation signal in a long gamma-ray burst." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24IED66R

@misc{pith2026250700873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A period-increasing oscillation signal in a long gamma-ray burst},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24IED66R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00873}
}
read the original abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), the brightest electromagnetic bursts in the universe, are believed to originate from ultra-relativistic jets launched by the rapidly rotating central engine, either a disk-surrounded newly formed black hole (BH) or a magnetar. Such a central engine potentially possesses rapidly evolving physical characteristics, as it is just born. The caught of time-increasing frequency in the gravitational wave signals is the evidence of upon opinion. Here we report a possible oscillatory signal identified in GRB 131122B with periods increasing from 1.27 seconds to 4.02 seconds in a time interval of 16.75 seconds. Such a peculiar oscillation signal has not been identified in GRBs before and its periodic evolution could also be the quickest one found in the electromagnetic radiation window of astrophysics. The precession of a misaligned accretion disk caused by the tidal disruption of a star by an intermediate-mass BH may be responsible for this signal. This finding could open a new window to reveal the nature of the hiding central engine of GRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The light curves of GRB 131122B recorded by individual detectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fitting the phase angle and peak time relationship of GRB 131122B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bandpass filter result and the 2D plane contour plot of the WWZ power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling the observed light curve. a, The fitting of observed light curve with a two smooth-broken power law function. The light curve is recorded by n4 detectors with energy covering 8 -900 keV. The data adopted in the fit covers a time range from 10.0 seconds to 28.3 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The time-evolving periodicity of the oscillation signal of GRB 131122B. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: |P˙ |/P − P diagram. The two GW events are adopted from Abbott et al. (2016, 2017), the potential pTDE candidates are from Lin et al. (2020) and Liu et al. (2024), and the XRBs are taken from Zhang et al. (2024). The eight pulses of GRB 131122B are denoted with red sta…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: BH mass dependent parameters. The initial and the end precess radii (RBP,ini and RBP,end) align with the time of the first and the last peak time, and the subscript indices 0 and 2 for RBP,ini and T0 represent the scenarios at different redshifts. 4.1. Intermediate-mas…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Corner plot of posterior parameter distribution in the median fit procedure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Demonstration for fitting procedure with unfixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The periodogram given by LSP for fitting procedure using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The time-resolved spectral analysis of GRB 131122B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The Ep,z - Eγ,iso diagram. The samples that type I and type II GRBs with known redshifts are adopted from (Minaev & Pozanenko 2020). The trajectory of GRB 131122B at different redshifts, represented by the black solid line, and the black star is for a redshift of 0.3 …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 —. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [2]

    2023, ARA&A, 61, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    Aigrain, S., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508 2023

  3. [3]

    2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

  4. [4]

    M., & Petterson, J

    Bardeen, J. M., & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJL, 195, L65, doi: 10.1086/181711

    doi:10.1086/181711 1975

  5. [5]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  6. [6]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  7. [7]

    J., Østgaard, N., G¨ oC ¸§¨ u¸ s, E., et al

    Castro-Tirado, A. J., Østgaard, N., G¨ oC ¸§¨ u¸ s, E., et al. 2021, Nature, 600, 621, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04101-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04101-1 2021

  8. [8]

    B., Butler, N

    Cenko, S. B., Butler, N. R., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 224, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/224

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/224 2010

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    C., & Preece, R

    Chirenti, C., Dichiara, S., Lien, A., Miller, M. C., & Preece, R. 2023, Nature, 613, 253, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05497-0

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bd4

    Covino, S., Landoni, M., Sandrinelli, A., & Treves, A. 2020, ApJ, 895, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bd4

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 2841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac596

    Covino, S., Tobar, F., & Treves, A. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac596

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Dyda, S., & Reynolds, C. S. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2008.12381, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2008.12381

    2020 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    2013, PhRvD, 88, 067304, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.067304

    Fan, Y.-Z., Wu, X.-F., & Wei, D.-M. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 067304, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.067304

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Meegan, C

    Fishman, G. J., Meegan, C. A., Wilson, R. B., et al. 1994, ApJS, 92, 229, doi: 10.1086/191968

    1994 doi

  7. [15]

    1996, AJ, 112, 1709, doi: 10.1086/118137

    Foster, G. 1996, AJ, 112, 1709, doi: 10.1086/118137

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    L., Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., & Hartmann, D. H. 1999, ApJ, 526, 152, doi: 10.1086/307992

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Antonini, F., et al

    Godet, O., Lombardi, J. C., Antonini, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/105

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    2016, A&A, 589, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527642 G´ urpide, A., & Middleton, M

    Guidorzi, C., Dichiara, S., & Amati, L. 2016, A&A, 589, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527642 G´ urpide, A., & Middleton, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.05602, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.05602 H¨ ubner, M., Huppenkothen, D., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 17, doi: 10....

    2016 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    R., & Motta, S

    Ingram, A. R., & Motta, S. E. 2019, NewAR, 85, 101524, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101524

    2019

  12. [20]

    1918, Physikalische Zeitschrift, 19, 156

    Lense, J., & Thirring, H. 1918, Physikalische Zeitschrift, 19, 156

    1918

  13. [21]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 199, doi: 10.1126/science.1207143

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    C.-C., Hu, C.-P., Li, K.-L., et al

    Lin, L. C.-C., Hu, C.-P., Li, K.-L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3372

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    Liska, M., Hesp, C., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L81, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx174

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    J., et al

    Liu, Z., Ryu, T., Goodwin, A. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348682

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 437, doi: 10.1086/518088

    Masada, Y., Kawanaka, N., Sano, T., & Shibata, K. 2007, ApJ, 663, 437, doi: 10.1086/518088

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    Mastichiadis, A., Petropoulou, M., & Kylafis, N. D. 2022, A&A, 662, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243397

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    Y., & Pozanenko, A

    Minaev, P. Y., & Pozanenko, A. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3611

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2005, PhRvL, 94, 201101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.201101

    Shibata, M. 2005, PhRvL, 94, 201101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.201101

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    1998, ApJL, 492, L59, doi: 10.1086/311075

    Stella, L., & Vietri, M. 1998, ApJL, 492, L59, doi: 10.1086/311075

    1998 doi

  23. [31]

    1999, ApJ, 514, 180, doi: 10.1086/306909 von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C

    Ulmer, A. 1999, ApJ, 514, 180, doi: 10.1086/306909 von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C. A., Paciesas, W. S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    J., & Lai, D

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Lai, D. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 695, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv955

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    Zhang, B., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a00

    Zhang, Z., Liu, H., Rawat, D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a00

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad234c

    Zheng, T.-C., Wei, D.-M., Wang, Y., Zhou, H., & Li, L. 2024, ApJ, 964, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad234c

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ee4

    Zou, L., Zheng, T.-C., Yang, X., et al. 2021, ApJL, 921, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ee4

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.