Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 154 references

Revisiting GRB 060218: new insights into low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts from a revised shock breakout model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GRB 060218's strange prompt emission may be a fast-thermalizing shock breakout from a large low-mass envelope.

desk verdict The first quantitative test of the INERT shock breakout model on GRB 060218 fits the XRT light curve well, but the abstract overstates the model's reach on the early blackbody; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06736 v1 pith:24KAWQWL submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.HE

Christopher M. Irwin , Kenta Hotokezaka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords shockbreakoutGRB060218low-luminositygamma-rayburstsx-rayspectrafree-freeemissionblackbodythermalizationchokedjets
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 argues that three puzzling features of the low-luminosity gamma-ray burst GRB 060218 — the unexpectedly bright optical emission within about 100 seconds, the simultaneous blackbody and power-law X-ray components, and the peak energy that decays faster than $t^{-1}$ — are produced by one mechanism: an INERT shock breakout. In this regime the shocked gas and radiation start out of thermal equilibrium but reach equilibrium in less than the light-crossing time of an extended envelope, so light-travel delays blend hot free-free emission with cooler blackbody emission in the observed spectrum. The paper builds a spectral model from this idea and shows that it reproduces the XRT light curve well, the BAT light curve and early optical flux acceptably, and the steeply decaying peak energy. Matching the data implies an envelope radius near $3\times10^{13}$ cm, an envelope mass near $0.1\,M_\odot$, and roughly $3\times10^{50}$ erg deposited in the envelope. If the model is right, the strange prompt phase of GRB 060218 is a predictable consequence of shock breakout from a peculiar low-mass extended envelope, probably powered by a choked jet.

What carries the argument

The central object is the INERT breakout ('initially non-equilibrium rapid thermalization breakout'), defined by the ordering $t_{\rm bo} < t_{\rm eq} < t_{\rm lc}$: the shock-heated gas starts out of thermal equilibrium with the radiation, reaches equilibrium in a time shorter than the envelope's light-crossing time. This ordering is what turns light-travel delays into a spectral blender: at any instant the line-of-sight region is already thermalized and emits a blackbody, while higher-latitude regions are still seen in their earlier non-equilibrium state and emit a self-absorbed free-free spectrum. The model's six spectral parameters — breakout luminosity and temperature, temperature-decay index, diffusion time, light-crossing time, and equilibrium time — are tied to four physical breakout parameters (envelope mass, radius, deposited energy, and density-profile index), and the paper shows that the six are overconstrained yet still admit a degenerate solution. The INERT ordering is the load-bearing identity: it converts three separate observational puzzles into corollaries of a single time-ordering.

What would settle it

Observe a future nearby low-luminosity GRB from its very first seconds: if a strong $\sim 0.1$ keV blackbody component is present in the X-ray spectrum at times well before the predicted equilibrium time of roughly 2000 s, the INERT ordering fails, because the model demands pure free-free emission before $t_{\rm eq}$. Conversely, if the free-free component is still visible after $t_{\rm lc}+t_{\rm eq}\approx 5000$ s, the predicted hand-off from free-free to blackbody dominance would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that GRB 060218's prompt emission was an INERT shock breakout: a shock moving at roughly $0.1c$ through the edge of a large, low-mass envelope, fast enough that the post-shock gas and radiation are initially out of thermal equilibrium, but slow enough that they thermalize within the $\sim 3000$ s light-crossing time. Because the observer sees different latitudes of the breakout surface with different time delays, the spectrum is a blend: a self-absorbed free-free component that is spectrally broad, peaking in hard X-rays while also producing the early optical light, plus a $\sim 0.1$ keV blackbody from regions that have already thermalized. The fast decay of the peak energy is the temperature evolution of the non-equilibrium flow, which can be as steep as $T_{\rm obs}\propto t^{-2.2}$ in the underlying model. The paper fits the observed light curves with spectral parameters ($L_{\rm bo}\approx 4\times10^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$, $T_{\rm obs,bo}\approx 9$ keV, $t_{\rm bo}\approx 100$ s, $t_{\rm eq}\approx 2000$ s, $t_{\rm lc}\approx 3000$ s, $\alpha\approx 1.6$) that satisfy the INERT ordering and are consistent with an envelope of radius $\sim 3\times10^{13}$ cm, mass $\sim 0.1\,M_\odot$, and deposited energy $\sim 3\times10^{50}$ erg.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the shock velocity at breakout lies in a narrow window near $0.1c$ and the density at the breakout site is high enough that gas and radiation reach equilibrium within the light-crossing time; the paper infers this condition from the same model it uses to explain the data, rather than from a direct measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The prompt X-ray and early optical emission of GRB 060218 are produced by the same breakout shell, so the $\sim 100$ s optical excess needs no separate mechanism beyond the free-free tail of the breakout spectrum.
  • The $\sim 0.1$ keV blackbody component should appear only after the equilibrium time ($\approx 2000$ s), then cool slowly as $T_{\rm BB}\propto t^{-0.3}$, and its emission radius is $\sim 3\times10^{13}$ cm because it forms at an electron-scattering optical depth $\tau\sim 100$, resolving the earlier discrepancy with a much smaller blackbody radius.
  • Only a narrow range of breakout velocities around $0.1c$ produces coexisting blackbody and free-free components; faster breakouts should show pure non-equilibrium (Band-like) spectra and slower ones pure blackbody spectra, predicting which llGRBs resemble GRB 060218.
  • The envelope properties needed for the prompt X-rays ($R\sim 3\times10^{13}$ cm, $M\sim 0.1\,M_\odot$) match those independently inferred from the optical peak at half a day, and the required deposited energy of $\gtrsim 10^{50}$ erg points to a choked jet rather than ordinary supernova ejecta.
  • INERT breakouts should preferentially have peak energies in the 0.3–10 keV band, making soft-X-ray missions the natural discovery tool for this class of transients.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the INERT regime is real, the same light-travel blending should appear in any sufficiently fast breakout from an extended envelope, so double-peaked Type Ic-bl supernovae without a detected GRB should also occasionally show a two-component (blackbody plus flat free-free) X-ray spectrum; this is a testable prediction for archives of nearby stripped-envelope supernovae.
  • The model implies a characteristic spectral morphology — a flat $\nu^0$ self-absorbed free-free spectrum that later steepens to $\nu^2$ as the self-absorption frequency sweeps through the optical band — which high-cadence UV/optical spectroscopy of a future GRB 060218 analogue could directly test.
  • The requirement that $\sim 3\times10^{50}$ erg be deposited in a $\sim 0.1\,M_\odot$ envelope makes INERT breakouts a useful diagnostic for choked jets, connecting the prompt emission to jet propagation physics; one consequence is that the breakout should be axisymmetric rather than spherical, with temperature varying with latitude.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the prompt X-ray and early optical emission of GRB 060218 arise from an INERT (initially non-equilibrium rapid thermalization) shock breakout at the edge of an extended low-mass envelope. The model smears the breakout spectrum over the light-crossing time, producing a blend of free-free and blackbody components, a rapidly decaying peak energy, and early optical flux from the self-absorbed free-free spectrum. The authors fit six spectral parameters to the observations, reproduce the XRT light curve shape well and the early optical flux within a factor of a few, and infer an envelope mass of ~0.1 Msun, radius ~3e13 cm, and deposited energy ~3e50 erg, suggesting a choked-jet origin. They explicitly acknowledge, however, that their model cannot produce the observed ~0.1 keV blackbody component at times earlier than t_eq ~ 2000 s, and they rely on an aspherical or non-homogeneous ejecta extension that is not implemented.

Significance. If the INERT model were fully successful, it would unify several peculiar features of GRB 060218 within a shock-breakout framework and would strengthen the connection between low-luminosity GRBs and extended-envelope progenitors. The model's ability to reproduce the XRT light-curve shape and the early optical flux with a single physical picture is a genuine step forward, and the paper is careful to state its technical assumptions and limitations. However, the central claim in the abstract to explain the simultaneous blackbody and power-law components is not met by the present calculations: the model cannot produce the early blackbody, a feature that is part of the observational signature. In addition, the inferred envelope properties are derived from the same spectral parameters used to fit the data, so the quantitative conclusions are model-dependent rather than independently predictive. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main message, so the manuscript requires major revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1] The model cannot produce the observed ~0.1 keV blackbody at early times: the text states that 'unavoidably, blackbody emission is not present until t > t_eq ≈ 2000 s', while Campana et al. (2006) and Kaneko et al. (2007) infer a blackbody component at times well before 2000 s. Since t_eq is one of the fitted spectral parameters, this is an internal limitation of the model as presented, not an absorption or extinction effect. The abstract's claim to explain 'the simultaneous presence of blackbody and power-law components' thus overstates the model's reach; the proposed aspherical or non-homogeneous ejecta remedy is deferred to future work and is not part of the present calculations.
  2. [Section 5.2] The inferred envelope parameters—E0 >~ 3e50 erg, M_env ~ 0.1–1 Msun, R_env ~ 3e13 cm—are obtained by applying the closure relations of Paper I to the six spectral parameters that were themselves fit to the observations. The constraints in Eqs. (4)–(6) are therefore not independent predictions, and the abstract's statement that 'more than 10^50 erg must be deposited' should be framed as a model-dependent inference. The paper's own tolerance (alpha within ±0.5, other parameters within a factor of a few) and the factor-of-2 agreement with the closure relations further weaken the force of these quantitative claims.
  3. [Section 4.1] The INERT regime requires both a narrow range of shock velocities around ~0.1c and a breakout density rho_bo >~ 4e-12 R_env,14^{-15/16} g/cm^3, with the density condition holding only if breakout occurs before significant shock acceleration. The assumed envelope density rho_env ~ 1e-11 g/cm^3 is an estimate from the same extended-envelope picture, not a directly measured quantity. The appendix shows that the best-fitting models lie near the t_eq ~ t_lc boundary, so the two-component spectrum is a delicate consequence of these assumptions; small changes in the density profile index n or in R_env remove the INERT region and with it the model's ability to produce coexisting blackbody and free-free components.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] There is a typo in the sentence 'this is not consistent with with the optical/UV extinction'; it should read 'not consistent with the optical/UV extinction.'
  2. [Section 5.1 and Fig. 3 inset] The model's optical emission declines after a few thousand seconds, while the observed emission continues to rise toward the peak at ~0.5 d. The paper correctly notes that a cooling envelope is required for the later rise, but this means the model does not self-consistently explain the full optical light curve without adding an additional component.
  3. [Appendix A and Eq. (A1)] The RSS weighting in Eq. (A1) treats alpha linearly while all other spectral parameters enter logarithmically, effectively prioritizing alpha in the fit. The authors should justify this weighting more explicitly, as it directly affects the extent of the allowed parameter region shown in Fig. A1.
  4. [Section 4.1] The acronym INERT is introduced in Paper I but is only briefly unpacked in the text; a one-sentence definition ('initially non-equilibrium rapid thermalization breakout') would help readers who do not have access to Paper I.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the rapid peak-energy decay is fitted via alpha=1.6 and then presented as reproduced; the rest of the model is a genuine overconstrained fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1 (spectral-parameter estimates) and Abstract]
    "The steeply dropping peak energy at early times (∝𝑡−1.6) suggests 𝛼≈1.6. ... As the system thermalizes, the free-free component quickly evolves toward lower energies, reproducing the observed rapid peak energy decay."

    The decay index α is one of the six spectral parameters and is assigned the value 1.6 because the observed peak energy decays as t^-1.6. The abstract then credits the model with 'reproducing' this same observed decay. Section 5.2's physical closure estimate gives α≈1.1 for the nominal breakout parameters, confirming that α=1.6 is an input chosen to match the data rather than an output of the shock-breakout calculation. The agreement in peak-energy evolution is therefore a restatement of the fit, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper is a forward-model fitting study: six spectral parameters (L_bo, T_obs,bo, α, t_bo, t_lc, t_eq) are adjusted to match GRB 060218's X-ray/optical data, and the breakout parameters (M_env, R_env, E0, n) are then inferred from these fitted values via the closure relations of Paper I. This is a legitimate model inference, not circularity: the shock-breakout scalings are overconstrained (six spectral vs four physical parameters), the resulting E0/M_env/R_env ranges are checked against independent early-optical-peak modeling, and the paper explicitly reports failures (no early blackbody before ~2000 s; optical temperature too high). The main circular step is the peak-energy decay: α is set to 1.6 because the data decay as t^-1.6, and the abstract then says the model 'reproduces' this decay. That specific success reduces to the fit. The self-citations to Paper I are load-bearing for the spectral machinery, but the application here and the consistency checks give the central claim independent content; I do not find that the E0>~1e50 'prediction' is circular, since it is presented as an inference from fitted parameters and is compared with external constraints. Overall: partial circularity in one headline success, but the core modeling is not equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of hand-selected spectral parameters that are fit to the observed light curves, and on the companion Paper I's spectral model. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'INERT breakout' is a scenario label rather than a new particle or force. The inferred progenitor properties are derived from these fitted parameters using the model's own closure relations, which is the main source of circularity burden.

free parameters (7)
  • Breakout luminosity L_bo = 4.0e47 erg/s
    Chosen to match the XRT light curve peak; see Section 5.1.
  • Observed breakout temperature T_obs,bo = 9 keV
    Set by the initial peak energy Ep ~ 30 keV, assuming Ep ~ 3-4 kT.
  • Temperature evolution index alpha = 1.6
    Adopted to match the observed peak energy decay proportional to t^-1.6.
  • Dynamical time of breakout layer t_bo = 100 s
    Inferred from t_eq, T_eq, and T_obs,bo via T proportional to t^-alpha.
  • Light-crossing time t_lc = 3000 s
    Set by the burst duration; controls the total radiated energy via L_obs ~ L_bo (t_bo/t_lc).
  • Thermalization time t_eq = 2000 s
    Set by the time when the blackbody and non-blackbody components become comparable.
  • Envelope density profile index n = 0 initially; 0.5-1 preferred in Appendix A
    Chosen small (n ~ 0) to favor INERT breakout; Appendix A varies n and finds n ~ 0.5-1 gives better fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spectral model of Paper I (Irwin & Hotokezaka 2024a) correctly computes multi-temperature free-free and blackbody spectra from non-equilibrium shock breakout, including self-absorption and Comptonization.
    The paper relies on companion Paper I for the spectrum, closure relations, and the INERT condition; these are not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The ejecta are spherically symmetric and homogeneous.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 5; the paper argues asphericity may fix the unresolved early blackbody and late-time cooling problems.
  • ad hoc to paper The shock breakout occurs at the edge of an extended low-mass envelope with density profile rho proportional to (R_env - r)^n, with n ~ 0-1 and most of the mass near R_env.
    Adopted from Nakar (2015) and Paper I to satisfy the INERT conditions; Appendix A tests different n values.
  • ad hoc to paper The gas and radiation are initially out of thermal equilibrium but thermalize on a timescale t_eq < t_lc.
    This is the defining INERT condition, motivated by Faran & Sari (2019) and Paper I, but the specific realization for GRB 060218 is assumed and only checked against the model's own closure relations.
  • domain assumption Electron scattering opacity kappa = 0.2 cm^2/g and standard free-free emission coefficients are applicable.
    Assumed throughout the spectral modelling; standard for fully ionized hydrogen/helium gas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting GRB 060218: new insights into low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts from a revised shock breakout model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24KAWQWL

@misc{pith2026241206736,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting GRB 060218: new insights into low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts from a revised shock breakout model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24KAWQWL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06736}
}
abstract

Despite two decades since the discovery of low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts, their origin remains poorly understood. In events such as GRB 060218, shock breakout from a progenitor with an extended ($10^{13}$ - $10^{14}$ cm), low-mass (0.01 - 0.1 M$_\odot$) envelope provides one possible interpretation for the smooth prompt X-ray emission lasting $\sim 1000$ s and the early optical peak at $\sim 0.5$ d. However, current shock breakout models have difficulties explaining the unexpectedly strong optical emission at $\sim 100$ s, the simultaneous presence of blackbody and power-law components in the X-ray spectrum, and the rapid evolution of the peak energy. We suggest that these peculiar features can be explained by a recently realized shock breakout scenario, in which the gas and the radiation are initially out of thermal equilibrium, but they achieve equilibrium on a time-scale faster than the light-crossing time of the envelope. In this non-standard case, due to the effects of light travel time, the observed X-ray spectrum is a multi-temperature blend of blackbody and free-free components. The free-free emission is spectrally broad, peaking in hard X-rays while also enhancing the early optical signal. As the system thermalizes, the free-free component quickly evolves toward lower energies, reproducing the observed rapid peak energy decay. To match observations, we find that more than $10^{50}$ erg must be deposited in the envelope, which may be accomplished by a choked jet. These results strengthen the case for a shock breakout origin of $ll$GRBs, and provide further evidence connecting $ll$GRBs to peculiar progenitors with extended low-mass envelopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06736 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The observed peak energy 𝐸p,bo ≈ 4𝑘𝑇obs,bo of shock break￾out from an extended envelope, for a range of envelope mass and deposited energy. The hatching with dots and open circles shows where the peak en￾ergy lies within the XRT band (0.3–10 keV) or the BAT band (15–150 keV), respectively. An INERT breakout with coexisting free-free and blackbody components in the spectrum is expected in the region between the dashe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of the model spectrum for 𝐿bo = 4 × 1047 erg s−1 , 𝑇obs,bo = 9 keV, 𝑡bo = 100 s, 𝑡eq = 2000 s, 𝑡lc = 3000 s, and 𝛼 = 1.6. The colour of the lines indicates the time in seconds, as shown in the legend. Dashed lines show the approximate spectral index for optical/UV and X-rays at times 𝑡bo < 𝑡 < 𝑡eq. UVW1, UVM1, and UVW2 filters. We present here a model with 𝐿bo = 4.0 × 1047 erg s−1 , 𝑡lc = 3000 s, 𝑡eq … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The 𝜈𝐿𝜈 spectrum in our model at 2400 s (solid), compared to the one presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of the spectrum of the free-free component in our model (dashed lines), compared to the Band function spectral fits reported by Toma et al. (2007) (solid lines). The colours indicate different observer times, as shown in the legend. For visual clarity, e…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

154 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    D., 2018, ApJ, 856, 146

    Afsariardchi N., Matzner C. D., 2018, ApJ, 856, 146

    2018

  3. [3]

    Amati L., Della Valle M., Frontera F., Malesani D., Guidorzi C., Montanari E., Pian E., 2007, A&A, 463, 913

    2007

  4. [4]

    Balucinska-Church M., McCammon D., 1992, ApJ, 400, 699

    1992

  5. [5]

    Barbier L., Barthelmy S., Cummings J., Cusumano G., Fenimore E., Gehrels N., Hullinger D., et al., 2006, GCN, 4780, 1

    2006

  6. [6]

    Barniol Duran R., Nakar E., Piran T., Sari R., 2015, MNRAS, 448, 417

    2015

  7. [7]

    S., Minaev P

    Belkin S., Pozanenko A. S., Minaev P. Y., Pankov N. S., Volnova A. A., Rossi A., Stratta G., et al., 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11507

    2024

  8. [8]

    Bj \"o rnsson C.-I., 2008, ApJ, 672, 443

    2008

Show all 154 references
  1. [9]

    J., Sollerman J., Irani I., Schulze S., Chen P., Das K

    Brennan S. J., Sollerman J., Irani I., Schulze S., Chen P., Das K. K., De K., et al., 2024, A&A, 684, L18

    2024

  2. [10]

    S., Carotenuto F., Fender R., Choza C., Mummery A., Jonker P

    Bright J. S., Carotenuto F., Fender R., Choza C., Mummery A., Jonker P. G., Smartt S. J., et al., 2024, preprint (arXiv:2409.19055)

    2024

  3. [11]

    J., Tanvir N

    Cano Z., Bersier D., Guidorzi C., Kobayashi S., Levan A. J., Tanvir N. R., Wiersema K., et al., 2011, ApJ, 740, 41

    2011

  4. [12]

    J., Brown P., Burrows D

    Campana S., Mangano V., Blustin A. J., Brown P., Burrows D. N., Chincarini G., Cummings J. R., et al., 2006, Natur, 442, 1008

    2006

  5. [13]

    A., 2012, ApJL, 752, L2

    Chevalier R. A., 2012, ApJL, 752, L2

    2012

  6. [14]

    A., Fransson C., 2008, ApJL, 683, L135

    Chevalier R. A., Fransson C., 2008, ApJL, 683, L135

    2008

  7. [15]

    M., Soderberg A

    Chornock R., Berger E., Levesque E. M., Soderberg A. M., Foley R. J., Fox D. B., Frebel A., et al., 2010, preprint (arXiv:1004.2262)

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Claeys J. S. W., de Mink S. E., Pols O. R., Eldridge J. J., Baes M., 2011, A&A, 528, A131

    2011

  9. [17]

    M., Pooley D., Wheeler J

    Couch S. M., Pooley D., Wheeler J. C., Milosavljevi \'c M., 2011, ApJ, 727, 104

    2011

  10. [18]

    G., Zhang B., Liang E

    Dai Z. G., Zhang B., Liang E. W., 2006, preprint (arXiv:astro-ph/0604510)

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Danieli B., Soker N., 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2277

    2019

  12. [20]

    D'Elia V., Campana S., D'A \` A., De Pasquale M., Emery S. W. K., Frederiks D. D., Lien A., et al., 2018, A&A, 619, A66

    2018

  13. [21]

    J., Kuncarayakti H., 2022, A&A, 658, A130

    Dessart L., Hillier D. J., Kuncarayakti H., 2022, A&A, 658, A130

    2022

  14. [22]

    J., Andrews J

    Dong Y., Tsuna D., Valenti S., Sand D. J., Andrews J. E., Bostroem K. A., Hosseinzadeh G., et al., 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2405.04583

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J., Izzard R

    Eldridge J. J., Izzard R. G., Tout C. A., 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1109

    2008

  16. [24]

    J., Benetti S., Cappellaro E., Pastorello A., Kozyreva A., Lundqvist P., et al., 2024, A&A, 686, A13

    Elias-Rosa N., Brennan S. J., Benetti S., Cappellaro E., Pastorello A., Kozyreva A., Lundqvist P., et al., 2024, A&A, 686, A13

    2024

  17. [25]

    Emery S. W. K., Page M. J., Breeveld A. A., Brown P. J., Kuin N. P. M., Oates S. R., De Pasquale M., 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5484

    2019

  18. [26]

    Fan Y.-Z., Piran T., Xu D., 2006, JCAP, 2006, 013

    2006

  19. [27]

    Fan Y.-Z., Zhang B.-B., Xu D., Liang E.-W., Zhang B., 2011, ApJ, 726, 32

    2011

  20. [28]

    Faran T., Sari R., 2019, ApJ, 884, 41

    2019

  21. [29]

    Faran T., Sari R., 2023, ApJ, 943, 97

    2023

  22. [30]

    L., Yang S., Schulze S., Barbarino C., Kool E

    Fransson C., Sollerman J., Strotjohann N. L., Yang S., Schulze S., Barbarino C., Kool E. C., et al., 2022, A&A, 666, A79

    2022

  23. [31]

    L., Woosley S

    Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., 1998, ApJL, 502, L9

    1998

  24. [32]

    Fuller J., 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1642

    2017

  25. [33]

    Fuller J., Ro S., 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1853

    2018

  26. [34]

    J., Vreeswijk P

    Galama T. J., Vreeswijk P. M., van Paradijs J., Kouveliotou C., Augusteijn T., B \"o hnhardt H., Brewer J. P., et al., 1998, Natur, 395, 670

    1998

  27. [35]

    Ghisellini G., Ghirlanda G., Tavecchio F., 2007, MNRAS, 375, L36

    2007

  28. [36]

    Ghisellini G., Ghirlanda G., Tavecchio F., 2007, MNRAS, 382, L77

    2007

  29. [37]

    A., Jiang Y.-F., Bildsten L., 2022, ApJ, 933, 164

    Goldberg J. A., Jiang Y.-F., Bildsten L., 2022, ApJ, 933, 164. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac75e3

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    O., Vreeswijk P

    Gorbikov E., Gal-Yam A., Ofek E. O., Vreeswijk P. M., Nugent P. E., Chotard N., Kulkarni S. R., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 671

    2014

  31. [39]

    J., Guziy S., Larionova L., Del Olmo A., Mart \' nez M

    Gorosabel J., Larionov V., Castro-Tirado A. J., Guziy S., Larionova L., Del Olmo A., Mart \' nez M. A., et al., 2006, A&A, 459, L33

    2006

  32. [40]

    W., Klose S., Vreeswijk P., Pian E., Greiner J., 2006, GCN, 4863, 1

    Guenther E. W., Klose S., Vreeswijk P., Pian E., Greiner J., 2006, GCN, 4863, 1

    2006

  33. [41]

    Guetta D., Della Valle M., 2007, ApJL, 657, L73

    2007

  34. [42]

    Ho A. Y. Q., Kulkarni S. R., Perley D. A., Cenko S. B., Corsi A., Schulze S., Lunnan R., et al., 2020, ApJ, 902, 86

    2020

  35. [43]

    A., Johansson J., Sollerman J., et al., 2017, ApJ, 836, 158

    Hosseinzadeh G., Arcavi I., Valenti S., McCully C., Howell D. A., Johansson J., Sollerman J., et al., 2017, ApJ, 836, 158

    2017

  36. [44]

    M., Chevalier R

    Irwin C. M., Chevalier R. A., 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1680

    2016

  37. [45]

    M., Linial I., Nakar E., Piran T., Sari R., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5766

    Irwin C. M., Linial I., Nakar E., Piran T., Sari R., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5766

    2021

  38. [46]

    M., Nakar E., Piran T., 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2844

    Irwin C. M., Nakar E., Piran T., 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2844

    2019

  39. [47]

    A., Nomoto K., Umeda H., Nakamura T., Patat F., Danziger I

    Iwamoto K., Mazzali P. A., Nomoto K., Umeda H., Nakamura T., Patat F., Danziger I. J., et al., 1998, Natur, 395, 672

    1998

  40. [48]

    R., Raimundo S

    Izzo L., Auchettl K., Hjorth J., De Colle F., Gall C., Angus C. R., Raimundo S. I., et al., 2020, A&A, 639, L11

    2020

  41. [49]

    C., Kann D

    Izzo L., de Ugarte Postigo A., Maeda K., Th \"o ne C. C., Kann D. A., Della Valle M., Sagues Carracedo A., et al., 2019, Natur, 565, 324

    2019

  42. [50]

    V., Dessart L., Jones D

    Jacobson-Gal \'a n W. V., Dessart L., Jones D. O., Margutti R., Coppejans D. L., Dimitriadis G., Foley R. J., et al., 2022, ApJ, 924, 15

    2022

  43. [51]

    E., Patel S

    Kaneko Y., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Granot J., Kouveliotou C., Woosley S. E., Patel S. K., Rol E., et al., 2007, ApJ, 654, 385

    2007

  44. [52]

    Katz B., Budnik R., Waxman E., 2010, ApJ, 716, 781

    2010

  45. [53]

    K., Narlikar J

    Kembhavi A. K., Narlikar J. V., 1999, Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 279

    1999

  46. [54]

    Ko T., Tsuna D., Takei Y., Shigeyama T., 2022, ApJ, 930, 168

    2022

  47. [55]

    F., 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6104

    Komesh T., Grossan B., Maksut Z., Abdikamalov E., Krugov M., Smoot G. F., 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6104

    2023

  48. [56]

    E., Patel S

    Kouveliotou C., Woosley S. E., Patel S. K., Levan A., Blandford R., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Wijers R. A. M. J., et al., 2004, ApJ, 608, 872

    2004

  49. [57]

    R., Frail D

    Kulkarni S. R., Frail D. A., Wieringa M. H., Ekers R. D., Sadler E. M., Wark R. M., Higdon J. L., et al., 1998, Natur, 395, 663

    1998

  50. [58]

    R., Harrison F

    Kulkarni S. R., Harrison F. A., Grefenstette B. W., Earnshaw H. P., Andreoni I., Berg D. A., Bloom J. S., et al., 2021, preprint (arXiv:2111.15608)

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kuriyama N., Shigeyama T., 2020, A&A, 635, A127

    2020

  52. [60]

    Kuriyama N., Shigeyama T., 2021, A&A, 646, A118

    2021

  53. [61]

    E., Justham S., Farmer R., 2020, A&A, 637, A6

    Laplace E., G \"o tberg Y., de Mink S. E., Justham S., Farmer R., 2020, A&A, 637, A6

    2020

  54. [62]

    Leung S.-C., Blinnikov S., Nomoto K., Baklanov P., Sorokina E., Tolstov A., 2020, ApJ, 903, 66

    2020

  55. [63]

    Leung S.-C., Fuller J., 2020, ApJ, 900, 99

    2020

  56. [64]

    Leung S.-C., Fuller J., Nomoto K., 2021, ApJ, 915, 80

    2021

  57. [65]

    Leung S.-C., Nomoto K., Blinnikov S., 2019, ApJ, 887, 72

    2019

  58. [66]

    Leung S.-C., Wu S., Fuller J., 2021, ApJ, 923, 41

    2021

  59. [67]

    Li L.-X., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 240

    2007

  60. [68]

    doi:10.1086/510516

    Liang E.-W., Zhang B.-B., Stamatikos M., Zhang B., Norris J., Gehrels N., Zhang J., et al., 2006, ApJL, 653, L81. doi:10.1086/510516

    2006 doi

  61. [69]

    G., 2007, ApJ, 662, 1111

    Liang E., Zhang B., Virgili F., Dai Z. G., 2007, ApJ, 662, 1111

    2007

  62. [70]

    Linial I., Fuller J., Sari R., 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4266

    2021

  63. [71]

    Linial I., Sari R., 2019, PhFl, 31, 097102

    2019

  64. [72]

    Mcley L., Soker N., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2492

    2014

  65. [73]

    J., 2022, ApJ, 927, 25

    Maeda K., Moriya T. J., 2022, ApJ, 927, 25

    2022

  66. [74]

    Maity B., Chandra P., 2021, ApJ, 907, 60

    2021

  67. [75]

    A., et al., 2004, ApJL, 609, L5

    Malesani D., Tagliaferri G., Chincarini G., Covino S., Della Valle M., Fugazza D., Mazzali P. A., et al., 2004, ApJL, 609, L5

    2004

  68. [76]

    Mandal S., Eichler D., 2010, ApJL, 713, L55

    2010

  69. [77]

    Marchant P., Renzo M., Farmer R., Pappas K. M. W., Taam R. E., de Mink S. E., Kalogera V., 2019, ApJ, 882, 36

    2019

  70. [78]

    Margalit B., Quataert E., Ho A. Y. Q., 2022, ApJ, 928, 122

    2022

  71. [79]

    Margutti R., Guidorzi C., Lazzati D., Milisavljevic D., Kamble A., Laskar T., Parrent J., et al., 2015, ApJ, 805, 159

    2015

  72. [80]

    M., Wieringa M

    Margutti R., Soderberg A. M., Wieringa M. H., Edwards P. G., Chevalier R. A., Morsony B. J., Barniol Duran R., et al., 2013, ApJ, 778, 18

    2013

  73. [81]

    D., 2022, ApJ, 936, 114

    Matsumoto T., Metzger B. D., 2022, ApJ, 936, 114

    2022

  74. [82]

    D., Levin Y., Ro S., 2013, ApJ, 779, 60

    Matzner C. D., Levin Y., Ro S., 2013, ApJ, 779, 60

    2013

  75. [83]

    D., Ro S., 2021, ApJ, 908, 23

    Matzner C. D., Ro S., 2021, ApJ, 908, 23

    2021

  76. [84]

    C., Smith N., Filippenko A

    Mauerhan J. C., Smith N., Filippenko A. V., Blanchard K. B., Blanchard P. K., Casper C. F. E., Cenko S. B., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1801

    2013

  77. [85]

    A., Deng J., Nomoto K., Sauer D

    Mazzali P. A., Deng J., Nomoto K., Sauer D. N., Pian E., Tominaga N., Tanaka M., et al., 2006, Natur, 442, 1018

    2006

  78. [86]

    A., Deng J., Pian E., Malesani D., Tominaga N., Maeda K., Nomoto K., et al., 2006, ApJ, 645, 1323

    Mazzali P. A., Deng J., Pian E., Malesani D., Tominaga N., Maeda K., Nomoto K., et al., 2006, ApJ, 645, 1323

    2006

  79. [87]

    A., Foley R

    Mazzali P. A., Foley R. J., Deng J., Patat F., Pian E., Baade D., Bloom J. S., et al., 2007, ApJ, 661, 892

    2007

  80. [88]

    A., Valenti S., Della Valle M., Chincarini G., Sauer D

    Mazzali P. A., Valenti S., Della Valle M., Chincarini G., Sauer D. N., Benetti S., Pian E., et al., 2008, Sci, 321, 1185

    2008

  81. [89]

    D., 2022, ApJ, 932, 84

    Metzger B. D., 2022, ApJ, 932, 84

    2022

  82. [90]

    P., Arcavi I., 2019, NatAs, 3, 717

    Modjaz M., Guti \'e rrez C. P., Arcavi I., 2019, NatAs, 3, 717

    2019

  83. [91]

    S., et al., 2009, ApJ, 702, 226

    Modjaz M., Li W., Butler N., Chornock R., Perley D., Blondin S., Bloom J. S., et al., 2009, ApJ, 702, 226

    2009

  84. [92]

    J., Maeda K., 2016, ApJ, 824, 100

    Moriya T. J., Maeda K., 2016, ApJ, 824, 100

    2016

  85. [93]

    Morrison R., McCammon D., 1983, ApJ, 270, 119

    1983

  86. [94]

    Nakar E., 2015, ApJ, 807, 172

    2015

  87. [95]

    L., 2014, ApJ, 788, 193

    Nakar E., Piro A. L., 2014, ApJ, 788, 193

    2014

  88. [96]

    Nakar E., Sari R., 2010, ApJ, 725, 904

    2010

  89. [97]

    Nakar E., Sari R., 2012, ApJ, 747, 88

    2012

  90. [98]

    O., Sullivan M., Shaviv N

    Ofek E. O., Sullivan M., Shaviv N. J., Steinbok A., Arcavi I., Gal-Yam A., Tal D., et al., 2014, ApJ, 789, 104

    2014

  91. [99]

    Ohtani Y., Suzuki A., Shigeyama T., Tanaka M., 2018, ApJ, 853, 52

    2018

  92. [100]

    Ouchi R., Maeda K., 2019, ApJ, 877, 92

    2019

  93. [101]

    J., Mattila S., Eldridge J

    Pastorello A., Smartt S. J., Mattila S., Eldridge J. J., Young D., Itagaki K., Yamaoka H., et al., 2007, Natur, 447, 829

    2007

  94. [102]

    A., Sollerman J., Augusteijn T., Brewer J., et al., 2001, ApJ, 555, 900

    Patat F., Cappellaro E., Danziger J., Mazzali P. A., Sollerman J., Augusteijn T., Brewer J., et al., 2001, ApJ, 555, 900

    2001

  95. [103]

    P., O'Brien P

    Patel M., Gompertz B. P., O'Brien P. T., Lamb G. P., Starling R. L. C., Evans P. A., Amati L., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4923

    2023

  96. [104]

    A., Terreran G., Arcavi I., Bostroem K

    Pellegrino C., Howell D. A., Terreran G., Arcavi I., Bostroem K. A., Brown P. J., Burke J., et al., 2022, ApJ, 938, 73

    2022

  97. [105]

    A., Butler R

    Pian E., Amati L., Antonelli L. A., Butler R. C., Costa E., Cusumano G., Danziger J., et al., 2000, ApJ, 536, 778

    2000

  98. [106]

    A., Masetti N., Ferrero P., Klose S., Palazzi E., Ramirez-Ruiz E., et al., 2006, Natur, 442, 1011

    Pian E., Mazzali P. A., Masetti N., Ferrero P., Klose S., Palazzi E., Ramirez-Ruiz E., et al., 2006, Natur, 442, 1011

    2006

  99. [107]

    Podsiadlowski P., Hsu J. J. L., Joss P. C., Ross R. R., 1993, Natur, 364, 509

    1993

  100. [108]

    C., Hsu J

    Podsiadlowski P., Joss P. C., Hsu J. J. L., 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

    1992

  101. [109]

    Quataert E., Shiode J., 2012, MNRAS, 423, L92

    2012

  102. [110]

    E., Zapartas E., Marchant P., et al., 2020, A&A, 640, A56

    Renzo M., Farmer R., Justham S., G \"o tberg Y., de Mink S. E., Zapartas E., Marchant P., et al., 2020, A&A, 640, A56

    2020

  103. [111]

    Y., Lutovinov A

    Sazonov S. Y., Lutovinov A. A., Sunyaev R. A., 2004, Natur, 430, 646

    2004

  104. [112]

    L., MacLeod M., Loeb A., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Mandel I., 2020, ApJ, 892, 13

    Schr der S. L., MacLeod M., Loeb A., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Mandel I., 2020, ApJ, 892, 13

    2020

  105. [113]

    R., Kr \"u hler T., de Ugarte Postigo A., Leloudas G., et al., 2014, A&A, 566, A102

    Schulze S., Malesani D., Cucchiara A., Tanvir N. R., Kr \"u hler T., de Ugarte Postigo A., Leloudas G., et al., 2014, A&A, 566, A102

    2014

  106. [114]

    H., Quataert E., 2014, ApJ, 780, 96

    Shiode J. H., Quataert E., 2014, ApJ, 780, 96

    2014

  107. [115]

    O., Ben-Ami S., Berge D., Kowalski M., et al., 2024, ApJ, 964, 74

    Shvartzvald Y., Waxman E., Gal-Yam A., Ofek E. O., Ben-Ami S., Berge D., Kowalski M., et al., 2024, ApJ, 964, 74

    2024

  108. [116]

    V., Chornock R., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1522

    Smith N., Li W., Filippenko A. V., Chornock R., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1522

    2011

  109. [117]

    M., Kulkarni S

    Soderberg A. M., Kulkarni S. R., Berger E., Fox D. W., Sako M., Frail D. A., Gal-Yam A., et al., 2004, Natur, 430, 648

    2004

  110. [118]

    M., Kulkarni S

    Soderberg A. M., Kulkarni S. R., Nakar E., Berger E., Cameron P. B., Fox D. B., Frail D., et al., 2006, Natur, 442, 1014

    2006

  111. [119]

    O., Fynbo J

    Sollerman J., Jaunsen A. O., Fynbo J. P. U., Hjorth J., Jakobsson P., Stritzinger M., F \'e ron C., et al., 2006, A&A, 454, 503

    2006

  112. [120]

    H., Rhodes L., Smartt S

    Srivastav S., Chen T.-W., Gillanders J. H., Rhodes L., Smartt S. J., Huber M. E., Aryan A., et al., 2024, preprint (arXiv:2409.19070)

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    J., Eldridge J

    Stancliffe R. J., Eldridge J. J., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1699

    2009

  114. [122]

    Starling R. L. C., Wiersema K., Levan A. J., Sakamoto T., Bersier D., Goldoni P., Oates S. R., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2792

    2011

  115. [123]

    L., Ofek E

    Strotjohann N. L., Ofek E. O., Gal-Yam A., Bruch R., Schulze S., Shaviv N., Sollerman J., et al., 2021, ApJ, 907, 99

    2021

  116. [124]

    Sun H., Li W.-X., Liu L.-D., Gao H., Wang X.-F., Yuan W., Zhang B., et al., 2024, preprint (arXiv:2410.02315)

    2024

  117. [125]

    M., Maeda K., 2024, PASJ, 76, 863

    Suzuki A., Irwin C. M., Maeda K., 2024, PASJ, 76, 863

    2024

  118. [126]

    Suzuki A., Maeda K., Shigeyama T., 2016, ApJ, 825, 92

    2016

  119. [127]

    C., Matzner C

    Tan J. C., Matzner C. D., McKee C. F., 2001, ApJ, 551, 946

    2001

  120. [128]

    M., Langer N., Moriya T

    Tauris T. M., Langer N., Moriya T. J., Podsiadlowski P., Yoon S.-C., Blinnikov S. I., 2013, ApJL, 778, L23

    2013

  121. [129]

    M., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123

    Tauris T. M., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123

    2015

  122. [130]

    Thomsen B., Hjorth J., Watson D., Gorosabel J., Fynbo J. P. U., Jensen B. L., Andersen M. I., et al., 2004, A&A, 419, L21

    2004

  123. [131]

    C., de Ugarte Postigo A., Fryer C

    Th \"o ne C. C., de Ugarte Postigo A., Fryer C. L., Page K. L., Gorosabel J., Aloy M. A., Perley D. A., et al., 2011, Natur, 480, 72

    2011

  124. [132]

    Toma K., Ioka K., Sakamoto T., Nakamura T., 2007, ApJ, 659, 1420

    2007

  125. [133]

    C., Fuller J., 2024, ApJ, 966, 30

    Tsuna D., Matsumoto T., Wu S. C., Fuller J., 2024, ApJ, 966, 30

    2024

  126. [134]

    Tsuna D., Takei Y., 2023, PASJ, 75, L19

    2023

  127. [135]

    Tsuna D., Takei Y., Kuriyama N., Shigeyama T., 2021, PASJ, 73, 1128

    2021

  128. [136]

    Tsuna D., Takei Y., Shigeyama T., 2023, ApJ, 945, 104

    2023

  129. [137]

    C., Fuller J., Dong Y., Piro A

    Tsuna D., Wu S. C., Fuller J., Dong Y., Piro A. L., 2024, OJAp, 7, 82

    2024

  130. [138]

    Urata Y., Toma K., Huang K., Asada K., Nagai H., Takahashi S., Petitpas G., et al., 2019, ApJL, 884, L58

    2019

  131. [139]

    van Dalen J. N. D., Levan A. J., Jonker P. G., Malesani D. B., Izzo L., Sarin N., Quirola-V \'a squez J., et al., 2024, preprint (arXiv:2409.19056)

    2024 arXiv

  132. [140]

    J., Liang E.-W., Zhang B., 2009, MNRAS, 392, 91

    Virgili F. J., Liang E.-W., Zhang B., 2009, MNRAS, 392, 91

    2009

  133. [141]

    P., Xu D., Xin L

    Wang J., Zhu Z. P., Xu D., Xin L. P., Deng J. S., Qiu Y. L., Qiu P., et al., 2018, ApJ, 867, 147

    2018

  134. [142]

    Wang X.-Y., Li Z., Waxman E., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2007, ApJ, 664, 1026

    2007

  135. [143]

    T., Osborne J

    Watson D., Hjorth J., Levan A., Jakobsson P., O'Brien P. T., Osborne J. P., Pedersen K., et al., 2004, ApJL, 605, L101

    2004

  136. [144]

    Waxman E., M \'e sz \'a ros P., Campana S., 2007, ApJ, 667, 351

    2007

  137. [145]

    Wilms J., Allen A., McCray R., 2000, ApJ, 542, 914

    2000

  138. [146]

    E., 2017, ApJ, 836, 244

    Woosley S. E., 2017, ApJ, 836, 244

    2017

  139. [147]

    E., 2019, ApJ, 878, 49

    Woosley S. E., 2019, ApJ, 878, 49

    2019

  140. [148]

    C., Fuller J., 2022, ApJ, 930, 119

    Wu S. C., Fuller J., 2022, ApJ, 930, 119

    2022

  141. [149]

    C., Fuller J., 2022, ApJL, 940, L27

    Wu S. C., Fuller J., 2022, ApJL, 940, L27

    2022

  142. [150]

    E., Langer N., 2010, ApJ, 725, 940

    Yoon S.-C., Woosley S. E., Langer N., 2010, ApJ, 725, 940

    2010

  143. [151]

    Springer, Singapore, p

    Yuan W., Zhang C., Chen Y., Ling Z., 2022, in Bambi C., Santangelo A., eds, Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. Springer, Singapore, p. 86

    2022

  144. [152]

    Zenati Y., Wang Q., Bobrick A., DeMarchi L., Glanz H., Rozner M., Rest A., et al., 2022, preprint (arXiv:2207.07146)

    2022 arXiv

  145. [153]

    L., 2001, ApJ, 550, 357

    Zhang W., Fryer C. L., 2001, ApJ, 550, 357

    2001

  146. [154]

    Zhang Z.-D., Yu Y.-W., Liu L.-D., 2022, ApJ, 936, 54

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.