Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

The Most Luminous Known Fast Blue Optical Transient AT 2024wpp: Unprecedented Evolution and Properties in the X-rays and Radio

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AT 2024wpp's radio blast wave accelerates to 0.42c, with X-ray Compton hump at day 50.

desk verdict A genuinely rich X-ray/radio dataset that makes AT 2024wpp a benchmark LFBOT, but the headline claims of an accelerating blast wave and a universal r^-3 CSM are more model-dependent than the abstract lets on. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00952 v1 pith:BLBD6SK3 submitted 2025-08-31 astro-ph.HE

A.J. Nayana , Raffaella Margutti , Eli Wiston , Tanmoy Laskar , Giulia Migliori , Ryan Chornock , Timothy J. Galvin , Natalie LeBaron
show 29 more authors
Aprajita Hajela Collin T. Christy Itai Sfaradi Daichi Tsuna Olivia Aspegren Fabio De Colle Brian D. Metzger Wenbin Lu Paz Beniamini Daniel Kasen Edo Berger Brian W. Grefenstette Kate D. Alexander G. C. Anupama Deanne L. Coppejans Luigi F. Cruz David R DeBoer Maria R. Drout Wael Farah Xiaoshan Huang W. V. Jacobson-Galán Dan Milisavljevic Alexander W. Pollak Nathan J. Roth Huei Sears Andrew Siemion Sofia Z. Sheikh James F. Steiner Indrek Vurm
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords AT2024wppfastblueopticaltransientsX-raysynchrotronself-absorptionComptonhumpsuper-Eddingtonaccretioncircumstellarmediumradio
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

The paper argues that AT 2024wpp, the most luminous known fast blue optical transient, is powered by a central engine accreting at super-Eddington rates. It shows luminous, variable X-ray emission whose spectrum hardens to F_nu proportional to nu^1.26 and a transient Compton hump peaking near 50 days, plus radio spectra whose inferred outflow speed rises from about 0.07c to 0.42c between days 32 and 73. The authors interpret this as a shock that breaks out of a dense shell at about 10^16 cm and accelerates into a very steep density profile rho proportional to r^-3.1. If correct, this is the first radio-bright fast blue optical transient with clear evidence for an accelerating, energy-increasing blast wave, linking the class to super-Eddington accretion disk winds around a compact object.

What carries the argument

The central tool is single-epoch synchrotron self-absorption modeling of radio spectral energy distributions following Chevalier 1998: from the SED peak flux and frequency, the paper derives shock radius, magnetic field, internal energy, and mean velocity R/t. This is combined with broken-power-law X-ray spectral fits and a transmission-through-expanding-ejecta interpretation that produces the transient Compton hump. The SSA machinery carries the acceleration claim: the inferred radii at 32, 46, 73, and 118 days trace an accelerating shock, while the X-ray hump and spectral evolution tie the emission to an embedded, variable high-energy source.

What would settle it

Track the radio spectral peak and the source's angular size with VLBI between days 30 and 80. If the physical radius grows more slowly than the equipartition R(t) from the SED fits, or if the 5-9 GHz spectral inversion at days 133-161 brightens into a separate component, the single accelerating blast wave interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AT 2024wpp shows a previously unseen combination of X-ray and radio behavior: a luminous, variable X-ray source that first decays steeply, then re-brightens at about 50 days while its soft spectrum flips from F_nu ~ nu^-0.6 to an extremely hard F_nu ~ nu^1.26, with a broken power-law Compton hump near 8 keV. Radio spectra evolve from a rapid order-of-magnitude rise in millimeter flux between 17 and 32 days to a slow decline, and single-epoch synchrotron self-absorption fits imply the shock radius grows faster than linear in time, with mean velocity rising from about 0.07c to 0.42c between days 32 and 73 and shock internal energy rising from about 0.8 to 33 x 10^48 erg. The favored picture is

Load-bearing premise

The acceleration curve comes from fitting each radio spectrum as synchrotron self-absorbed emission from a single homogeneous sphere in equipartition, taking the mean shock velocity as R/t; if the emitting region is not a single equipartition sphere, or if the free-free-absorbed 17.5-day spectrum is mis-modeled, the acceleration claim does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AT 2024wpp becomes the most luminous known fast blue optical transient, only the second with a Compton hump, and the first with radio evidence for an accelerating, energy-increasing blast wave.
  • If the rho ~ r^-3.1 profile is real, all radio-bright fast blue optical transients share a nearly universal circumstellar density profile, pointing to a common mass-loss or progenitor process.
  • The X-ray and radio properties favor super-Eddington accretion onto a compact object launching mildly relativistic disk-wind outflows, ruling out pure circumstellar-interaction models.
  • The rapid millimeter rise between 17 and 32 days implies a dense, radially confined shell at about 10^16 cm; the shock breaks out and accelerates, explaining the increasing velocity and energy.
  • The late-time spectral inversion at 133 and 161 days may signal emergence of a second emitting component, complicating the single-blast-wave picture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the r^-3.1 profile is generic, early millimeter monitoring of future fast blue optical transients could become a diagnostic of the shell radius and breakout time, giving a quick test of the accelerating-shock scenario.
  • The delayed Compton hump (50 days, versus about 8 days in AT 2018cow) suggests differences in ejecta mass or ionization state; comparing hump peak time and energy across the class could map ejecta column density evolution.
  • The acceleration claim depends on the equipartition homogeneous-sphere assumption; a direct check would be VLBI angular-size monitoring or scintillation measurements to measure R(t) independently of the SED fits.
  • If the 5-9 GHz spectral inversion at days 133-161 brightens into a distinct component, that would favor an additional disk-wind outflow, and the single-component acceleration interpretation would need revision.
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 presents extensive X-ray (0.3–79 keV) and radio (0.25–203 GHz) observations of the LFBOT AT 2024wpp over δt ≈ 2–280 days. The X-ray data show luminous, variable emission that hardens from Fν ∝ ν^−0.8 to an extreme Fν ∝ ν^1.26 at the δt ≈ 50 d rebrightening, with a broken power-law spectrum that the authors interpret as a transient Compton hump from an embedded engine behind expanding, asymmetric ejecta. The radio data show a bell-shaped SED whose millimeter flux rises by an order of magnitude between δt ≈ 17 and 32 d, followed by a decline of the SED peak. Fitting each epoch with a single-zone synchrotron self-absorbed model, the authors infer shock radii that imply an accelerating blast wave (Γβc from 0.07 to 0.42 between 32 and 73 d) and a circumstellar density profile ρ ∝ r^−3.1, similar to other LFBOTs. They conclude that AT 2024wpp is the most luminous known FBOT, the second with a Compton hump, and that the data favor super-Eddington accretion onto a compact object launching disk winds.

Significance. If the physical interpretation holds, this is a benchmark dataset for the LFBOT class: the X-ray light curve and spectral evolution are exceptionally well sampled, the NuSTAR background treatment is careful, and the radio campaign spans a unique frequency and time range. The paper also makes concrete, falsifiable claims: an accelerating radio blast wave, a steep r^−3 CSM profile, and a quasi-universal LFBOT environment. These claims, if confirmed, would strongly constrain progenitor and central-engine models. However, the most novel radio inference (acceleration) rests on a single-zone SSA radius ladder that the authors themselves show is incomplete at 17.5 d (free-free absorption) and possibly at late times (a second component). The observational dataset itself is of high value and will be a reference regardless of the model interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Table 2, Eqs. (4)–(5) and (10)–(11)] The acceleration claim (Γβc from 0.07 to 0.42 between 32 and 73 d) rests entirely on the single-epoch SSA radius ladder. Each radius is obtained by fitting Eq. (3) to one SED with α1 fixed to −1.5, α2 partly hand-fixed, and assuming a single homogeneous equipartition component. The paper itself notes the SED at 17.5 d is non-physical without free-free absorption (Table 2 note) and that a second component appears at δt > 118 d (§5.1, §7.1), and attributes the flat α2 ≈ 1.05–1.45 to inhomogeneities (§5.1). All three violate the single-zone model. Since R ∝ Fpk^{9/19} νpk^{−1} (Eq. 4) or ∝ Fpk^{6/13} νpk^{−11/13} (Eq. 10), a factor ~2 systematic bias in νpk changes R by a comparable factor, which is enough to erase or invert the 32→73 d velocity increase. I request a robustness test: leave α1 free, fit a two-component (or FFA+SSA) model, or model all epochs simultaneously with a physical R(
  2. [§5.2, §6.3] The early 'unprecedented' mm rise is quantified through Fpk ∝ t^{4.04} and νpk ∝ t^{−2.01}, but these quantities are not direct observables. At 17.5 d the SED is constrained by two ALMA points and ATCA upper limits only (§3.1, Tables 3–4), and the fit is explicitly non-physical without free-free absorption. The Fpk and νpk at this epoch are extrapolations from a model that is not fit to the FFA; the raw data do show a real flux increase at 97.5/203 GHz, but the 'spectral peak evolution' is model dependent. Please either include FFA in the SED fits and propagate its parameters, or restrict the early-rise claim to the directly observed band fluxes.
  3. [§6.3–§8.1, Fig. 9] The density profile ρ ∝ r^{−3.10±0.16} and the 'universal' LFBOT profile are not independent measurements: they are the same R and n values from Table 2 transformed into n(R). The 32 d point comes from the cooling-dominated formulas (Eqs. 10–11) while the 46–118 d points use the standard Chevalier formulas (Eqs. 4–5), so the steep profile could partly reflect this switch of models. In addition, the comparison sample is compiled from literature fits with different assumptions. I recommend a simultaneous multi-epoch fit of the radio SEDs (SSA with cooling, FFA, and optional second component) that directly solves for R(t) and the CSM profile; the current claim overstates the evidence if this is not done.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2] Two occurrences of 'Thompson' should read 'Thomson' (Thomson optical depth, Thomson scattering). Also, the sentence 'τX ≈ 0.1 at δt ∼ 50 days' should be reconciled with the formula LX/(LX+LUVOIR) = (1−ϕ0)e^{−τX} and the stated ϕ0 = 0.5; as written the numerical value appears to require a specific LX/LUVOIR ratio that is not given in the text.
  2. [Table 2 and §6] Small typos: the Table 2 note says 'Mean shock velocity (Γβ)c = Rc/t' with an apparent stray parenthesis; §6 text has 'δrestt' instead of 'δt_rest'. Eq. (4) and (5) are a single formula split across two equation numbers; renumber or combine.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] At the flare peak (δt ≈ 50 d), the BPL high-energy photon index is Γ2 = 1.98^{+4.57}_{−0.42}, i.e., β2 is very weakly constrained. The text's statement 'Fν ∝ ν^{−1} above E_break' should be explicitly framed as the best-fit value with large uncertainty, not a tight spectral constraint.
  4. [§7.2] The re-analysis of AT 2023fhn that contradicts Chrimes et al. (2024b) is mentioned without details. If this is used as evidence, either provide the extraction/fit details or cite the forthcoming work where they will appear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's observational claims and radio/X-ray model comparisons are self-contained; the acknowledged model-dependence and self-citations do not reduce the claims to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense required by the analysis instructions. The X-ray findings (luminous, variable emission, spectral hardening, Compton hump at ~50 days, re-brightening) are direct observational results from Swift, Chandra, XMM-Newton, and NuSTAR. The physical interpretation invokes the Metzger (2022) reprocessing framework and Margutti et al. (2019) transmission simulations, but these are used as comparison templates, not as inputs that define the observed hump. The estimate tau_X ~ 0.1 at ~50 days is derived from the observed LX/(LX+LUVOIR) ratio under the adopted parameterization; the subsequent statement that Fig. 5 predicts a peak energy of ~8 keV as observed is a consistency check, not a derivation of the hump from the same data. A similar situation holds for the radio analysis: the SEDs are fit with Eq. 3 to obtain Fpk and nu_pk; Eqs. 4-7 (or the cooling-corrected Eqs. 10-11) then map these to R, B, U, and n. The velocity is computed as R/t, and the apparent acceleration between 32 and 73 days is read from the resulting radii. This is a standard model-mapping procedure, not a fit of the acceleration or of the r^-3.1 profile. The paper explicitly flags the non-physical 17.5 d parameters and the possible second component at late times, showing that the authors do not hide the model-dependence; however, those caveats are concerns about correctness/robustness, not circularity. Self-citations to prior work by Margutti, Metzger, Tsuna, Lu, and Ho are present, but the load-bearing steps on which the central observational claims rest do not reduce to those citations. No step was found where a quantity is defined in terms of the claimed result, or where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational results rest on standard telescope data reduction and spectral fitting, but the physical parameters (radii, velocities, densities, and the CSM profile) are obtained from the SSA+equipartition model and the Metzger (2022) reprocessing framework. Parameters chosen by hand (equipartition fractions, filling factor, fixed spectral slopes, covering fraction, electron temperature, and the renormalized ionization-breakout inputs) are the main unmeasured inputs. No new theoretical entity is introduced; the dense shell, the r^-3.1 CSM, and the central engine are inferences or standard constructs.

free parameters (8)
  • Fpk (per-epoch SED peak flux) = 0.22-2.70 mJy (Table 2)
    Free parameter in the broken-power-law SED fits (Eq. 3); directly drives R, B, U via Eqs. 4-7.
  • nu_pk (per-epoch SED peak frequency) = 6-310 GHz (Table 2)
    Free parameter in the SED fits; inversely sets the shock radius and sets B; anchors the density-profile inference.
  • alpha_2 (optically thick spectral index) = 1.05 +/- 0.05 (32.4 d), 1.45 +/- 0.18 (46.1 d)
    Fit free at two epochs; fixed to nearest-epoch values at others. Affects nu_pk and Fpk and hence all derived shock parameters.
  • epsilon_e = epsilon_B and filling factor f = 0.333 and 0.5 (assumed)
    Equipartition assumption in Eqs. 4-7; weak for R (power -1/19) but stronger for B, U, n. Not propagated as systematic error.
  • Covering fraction phi_0 of slow ejecta = 0.5 (arbitrary)
    Used in Section 4.2 to convert LX/(LX+LUVOIR) into tau_X; affects the quantitative tau_X values but not the qualitative trend claimed.
  • Ionization-breakout input parameters (M2, vej, T5, XZ, Z8) = M2=2, vej=0.2c, T5=1, XZ=0.5, Z8=1
    Renormalized in Eqs. 1-2 from Metzger et al. (2014) to match the event; chosen by hand and yield t_ion ~ 30-50 d.
  • Electron temperature for free-free absorption = T_e = 10^5 K (assumed)
    Sets kappa_FFA in Eq. 14 and the inferred shell density and mass in Section 6.3.
  • Electron energy index p = p = 3
    Adopted from the optically thin slope alpha_1 ~ -1 at 73 d; used in all SSA parameter derivations.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The radio SED is synchrotron self-absorbed emission from a single homogeneous spherical region (Chevalier 1998; Ho et al. 2022 formulas used when nu_a > nu_c).
    Central to Section 5.2 and Table 2; all radii, velocities, densities, and energies derive from this.
  • domain assumption Shock velocity equals R/t (average velocity), with the radio-emitting region tracing the forward shock.
    Used for Gamma beta c values in Table 2 and for the accelerating-blast-wave claim in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Energy equipartition between electrons and magnetic fields and a filling factor of 0.5.
    Equations 4-7; converts (Fpk, nu_pk) to R and B; systematic error from non-equipartition not propagated.
  • domain assumption The Metzger (2022) two-component reprocessing model linking LX/(LX+LUVOIR) to tau_X via LX = Lengine (1 - phi_0) e^-tau_X.
    Section 4.2, Figure 6; used to argue the delayed Compton hump arises from sustained large tau_X.
  • domain assumption Ionization-breakout timescale formulas from Metzger et al. (2014), renormalized to this event.
    Section 4.2, Eqs. 1-2; the paper states these analytical arguments require confirmation by detailed simulations.
  • domain assumption Free-free absorption with T_e = 10^5 K explains the suppressed mm flux at 17 d.
    Section 6.3; used to infer the dense shell (R ~ 0.56 x 10^16 cm, M ~ 0.07 Msun) and the outer r^-3.1 profile.
  • standard math Lambda CDM cosmology (H0 = 67.4, Omega_m = 0.315, Omega_Lambda = 0.685) and z = 0.0868 giving D = 411 Mpc.
    Distance scale for all luminosities and radii; standard cosmological assumptions from Planck Collaboration et al. (2020).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Most Luminous Known Fast Blue Optical Transient AT 2024wpp: Unprecedented Evolution and Properties in the X-rays and Radio." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLBD6SK3

@misc{pith2026250900952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Most Luminous Known Fast Blue Optical Transient AT 2024wpp: Unprecedented Evolution and Properties in the X-rays and Radio},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLBD6SK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00952}
}
abstract

We present X-ray (0.3--79 keV) and radio (0.25--203 GHz) observations of the most luminous Fast Blue Optical Transient (LFBOT) AT\,2024wpp at $z=0.0868$, spanning 2--280 days after first light. AT 2024wpp shows luminous ($L_{\rm X} \approx 1.5 \times 10^{43}\, \rm erg\,s^{-1}$), variable X-ray emission with a Compton hump peaking at $\delta t \approx 50$ days. The X-ray spectrum evolves from a soft ($F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-0.6}$) to an extremely hard state ($F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{1.26}$) accompanied by a re-brightening at $\delta t \approx 50$\,days. The X-ray emission properties favor an embedded high-energy source shining through asymmetric expanding ejecta. We detect radio emission peaking at $L_{\rm 9\,GHz} \approx 1.7 \times 10^{29}\,\rm erg\,s^{-1}\,Hz^{-1}$ at $\delta t \approx 73$ days. The spectral evolution is unprecedented: the early millimeter fluxes rise nearly an order of magnitude during $\delta t \approx 17-32$ days followed by a decline in spectral peak fluxes. We model the radio emission as synchrotron radiation from an expanding blast wave interacting with a dense environment ($\dot{M} \sim 10^{-3}\, \rm M_{\odot}\,yr^{-1}$ for $v_{\rm w} = 1000\,\rm km\,s^{-1}$). The inferred outflow velocities increase from $\Gamma \beta c \approx 0.07\, \rm to\,0.42c$ during $\delta t \approx 32-73$ days, indicating an accelerating blast-wave. We interpret these observations as a shock propagating through a dense shell of radius $\approx 10^{16}$\,cm, then accelerating into a steep density profile $\rho_{\rm CSM}(r) \propto r^{-3.1}$. All radio-bright LFBOTs exhibit similar circumstellar medium (CSM) density profiles ($\rho_{\rm CSM} \propto r^{-3}$), suggesting similar progenitor processes. The X-ray and radio properties favor a progenitor involving super-Eddington accretion onto a compact object launching mildly-relativistic disk-wind outflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper Panel: Evolution of the spectral photon index β with time (where Fν ∝ ν −β ), showing clear evidence for spectral hardening until the time of the flare peak at ≳50 days, followed by softening of the emission. Aside from the flare peak, the plotted β values apply to the broad-band soft+hard X-ray spectral range; at the time of the flare peak, when there is evidence for a broken power-law spectrum, the plotted v… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Probability density distributions of the spectral photon indices derived from the broad-band X-ray spectral fitting of §4 with a broken power-law model. At the time of the flare peak at ≈ 50 days, we find evidence for a broken power-law spectrum with a rising spectrum Fν ∝ ν 1.25 at hν ≲ 8 keV. There is a hint for a harder spectral index at softer energies at earlier times (i.e., β2 < β1), which suggests the presenc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Probability density distributions of the spectral photon indices (left panel) and spectral break energy (central panel), for the broken power-law model that best fits the broad-band X-ray SED at the time of the flare peak (right panel, unfolded spectrum). The CXO data (red) indicate a rising spectrum with extreme properties: Fν ∝ ν 1.25. The lack of bright hard X-ray emission at the same time, as constrained by NuST… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the SPL (orange) and hump (lime green) component luminosities (left) and their ratio (central) with time in the fixed observer frame energy band 0.3–10 keV as constrained by our analysis of §4.2. The Compton hump contribution increases with time as the opt…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Selection of X-ray transmission spectra from a central source with intrinsic spectrum Fν ∝ ν −0.5 (black dashed line) from the simulations presented in Margutti et al. (2019) for a range of Thomson optical depth values τT show￾ing the increasing dominance of the Compto…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radio spectra of AT 2024wpp in the time range δtrest ≈ 13−161 days acquired with MeerKAT, GMRT, ATCA, ATA, and ALMA. Inverted triangles mark the 3σ flux density upper limits. Solid lines represent best-fit broken power-law models with smoothing parameter s = −1 and opt…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the radius of optical photosphere and radio photosphere of AT 2018cow in left panel (Margutti et al. 2019) and AT 2024wpp in right panel (Paper I). The size of optical photosphere is derived by fitting a blackbody function to the bolometric luminosities. T…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Density profile of the medium around LFBOTs. AT 2024wpp (this work), AT 2018cow (Ho et al. 2019; Margutti et al. 2019), CSS161010 (Coppejans et al. 2020), AT2020xnd (Bright et al. 2021; Ho et al. 2022), AT 2020mrf (Yao et al. 2021), AT 2022tsd (Ho et al. 2023b), and AT…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left Panel: Radio luminosity light-curve of AT 2024wpp at ≈ 10 GHz in the context of other transients. FBOTs stand out for their luminosities that are intermediate between ultra-relativistic GRBs and SNe, while also showing a characteristic bell-shaped light-curve pea…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Blast wave energy versus shock velocity of FBOTs: AT 2024wpp (δt ≈ 32 − 118 days) AT 2018cow (δt ≈ 22 d), CSS161010 (δt ≈ 99 d), AT 2020xnd (δt ≈ 38 d), AT2022mrf (δt ≈ 261 d, and AT 2023fhn (δt ≈ 138 d). Ref￾erences: Margutti et al. (2019); Ho et al. (2019); Coppejan…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radio spectral luminosities of different astro￾physical transients. Lp denotes the peak spectral lumi￾nosity in the 8 − 10 GHz band. νp and tp represent the peak frequency and peak time of radio SED, respectively. The dashed lines denote the mean shock velocity in a s…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left Panel: Soft X-ray luminosity evolution of AT 2024wpp in the context of explosive transients capable of launching relativistic ejecta (long GRBs, TDEs, H-poor SNe). FBOTs span the entire dynamical range of X-ray luminosity observed for long GRBs to date. Right Pan…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A cartoon diagram (not to scale) showing the geometry of AT 2024wpp and various emission components in the context of an engine-driven progenitor model. The physical picture is motivated by the models presented in Tsuna & Lu (2025) and Metzger (2022). Both these model…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. AT2019ijn: a fast-rising, slow-decaying blue optical transient with exceptionally bright radio emission

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    AT2019ijn combines LFBOT-like fast optical rise and blue color with slow decay and radio luminosity peaking late at 2e31 erg/s/Hz, best fit as an off-axis jetted IMBH TDE.

  2. Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients as "Failed" Gravitational-wave Sources: Helium Core$-$Black Hole Mergers Following Delayed Dynamical Instability

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Luminous fast blue optical transients may be the aftermath of a black hole merging with a companion star's helium core after prolonged mass transfer, producing a super-Eddington accretion flare.

  3. Implications of the UV/optical Plateau of AT2018cow

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A wind-and-irradiation disk model fits the AT2018cow UV plateau with accretor masses from 1.4 to ~100 solar masses, removing the need for a >200 solar-mass black hole.

  4. Synchrotron Emission from Cooled Particle Distributions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New analytic fitting functions for synchrotron emission and absorption from radiatively and adiabatically cooled power-law and thermal electron distributions, validated against numerical integrals and a GRB afterglow model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    W., Perley, D

    Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Perley, D. A., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 430, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  2. [2]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3776

    Antoni, A., & Quataert, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 176, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3776

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3776 2022

  3. [3]

    M., Howell, D

    Arcavi, I., Wolf, W. M., Howell, D. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 35, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/35 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/35 2016

  4. [4]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 1978

  5. [5]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    Beniamini, P., Piran, T., & Matsumoto, T. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1386, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1950

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1950 2023

  6. [6]

    G., et al

    Berger, E., Zauderer, A., Pooley, G. G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/36 Bj¨ ornsson, C. I. 2024, ApJ, 963, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1109 Bj¨ ornsson, C. I., & Keshavarzi, S. T. 2017, ApJ, 841, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6cad

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/36 2012

  7. [7]

    1987, PhR, 154, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    Blandford, R., & Eichler, D. 1987, PhR, 154, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7 1987

  8. [8]

    D., & Begelman, M

    Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02358.x

    arXiv 1999

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, doi: 10.1086/182658

    1978 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Margutti, R., Matthews, D., et al

    Bright, J. S., Margutti, R., Matthews, D., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.05514. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05514

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S., Rhodes, L., Farah, W., et al

    Bright, J. S., Rhodes, L., Farah, W., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 986, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    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

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Caprioli, D. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 8, doi: 10.22323/1.236.0008 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, doi: 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Berger, E., et al

    Cendes, Y., Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 919, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac110a

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 810, doi: 10.1086/305676

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Fransson, C., & Nymark, T

    Chevalier, R. A., Fransson, C., & Nymark, T. K. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1029, doi: 10.1086/500528

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Coppejans, D

    Chrimes, A. A., Coppejans, D. L., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2024a, A&A, 691, A329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451172

    doi

  11. [19]

    A., Jonker, P

    Chrimes, A. A., Jonker, P. G., Levan, A. J., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad145

    doi

  12. [20]

    L., Margutti, R., Terreran, G., et al

    Coppejans, D. L., Margutti, R., Terreran, G., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8cc7

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Janka, H. T. 2021, A&A, 656, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141927

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    R., & Langer, N

    Dessart, L., Yoon, S.-C., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., & Langer, N. 2020, A&A, 642, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038763

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/23

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Dwarkadas, V. V. 2025, Universe, 11, 161, doi: 10.3390/universe11050161

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    D., et al

    Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ce8

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, A&A, 696, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2025, A&A, 696, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009

  20. [28]

    D., & Smith, N

    Fox, O. D., & Smith, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1925

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    P., Fruchter, A

    Gompertz, B. P., Fruchter, A. S., & Pe’er, A. 2018, ApJ, 866, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba8 32

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3810, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac910

    Gottlieb, O., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Margutti, R. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3810, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac910

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2003

  25. [33]

    285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed

    Library, Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck, 109, doi: 10.1007/0-306-48080-8 7 Guti´ errez, C. P., Mattila, S., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad89a5 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., ...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Srinivasaragavan, G., Perley, D., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 272, 1

    2024

  27. [35]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Phinney, E. S., Ravi, V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bcf

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Margalit, B., Bremer, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e97

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    doi

  31. [39]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Chen, P., et al. 2023b, Nature, 623, 927, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06673-6

    doi

  32. [40]

    1994, ApJ, 428, 654, doi: 10.1086/174276

    Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., & Shu, F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 654, doi: 10.1086/174276

    1994 doi

  33. [41]

    B., et al

    Horesh, A., Stockdale, C., Fox, D. B., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1258, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1645

    2013 doi

  34. [43]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 976, doi: 10.1086/520320

    Keto, E. 2007, ApJ, 666, 976, doi: 10.1086/520320

    2007 doi

  35. [44]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0

    2024 doi

  36. [45]

    2023, NewAR, 96, 101672, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672

    King, A., Lasota, J.-P., & Middleton, M. 2023, NewAR, 96, 101672, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101672

    2023

  37. [46]

    2021, PASJ, 73, 450, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab011

    Kitaki, T., Mineshige, S., Ohsuga, K., & Kawashima, T. 2021, PASJ, 73, 450, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psab011

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    L., et al

    Kremer, K., Lu, W., Piro, A. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb14

    2021 doi

  39. [48]

    Kuin, N. P. M., Wu, K., Oates, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz053

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    R., Harrison, F

    Kulkarni, S. R., Harrison, F. A., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    2021 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba33

    Leung, S.-C., Blinnikov, S., Nomoto, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abba33

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcbe

    Leung, S.-C., Fuller, J., & Nomoto, K. 2021, ApJ, 915, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfcbe

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x

    Li, W., Chornock, R., Leaman, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x

    2011

  44. [53]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab89b6

    MacLeod, M., & Loeb, A. 2020, ApJ, 895, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab89b6

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/282

    MacLeod, M., Macias, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/282

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1410

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    2021, ApJL, 923, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3d97

    Margalit, B., & Quataert, E. 2021, ApJL, 923, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3d97

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    G., et al

    Margutti, R., Zaninoni, E., Bernardini, M. G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts066

    2013 doi

  49. [58]

    D., Chornock, R., et al

    Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., Chornock, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01

    2019 doi

  50. [59]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 278, 1

    Margutti, R., AJ, N., Chornock, R., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 278, 1

    2024

  51. [60]

    Matsumoto, T., & Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 938, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6269

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 4565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1269

    Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 4565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1269

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    D., et al

    Matthews, D., Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 126, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acdde1

    2023 doi

  54. [63]

    D., & McKee, C

    Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 1999, ApJ, 510, 379, doi: 10.1086/306571

    1999 doi

  55. [64]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 932, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59

    2022 doi

  56. [65]

    D., & Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., & Piro, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu247

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    D., Vurm, I., Hasco¨ et, R., & Beloborodov, A

    Metzger, B. D., Vurm, I., Hasco¨ et, R., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1922

    2014 doi

  58. [67]

    D., et al

    Migliori, G., Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2764

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    1995, ApJ, 444, 231, doi: 10.1086/175599

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1995, ApJ, 444, 231, doi: 10.1086/175599

    1995 doi

  60. [69]

    J., & Chandra, P

    Nayana, A. J., & Chandra, P. 2021, ApJL, 912, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abed55

    2021 doi

  61. [70]

    J., Margutti, R., Laskar, T., et al

    Nayana, A. J., Margutti, R., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 114, 1

    2025

  62. [71]

    O., Ozer, L., Konno, R., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Ozer, L., Konno, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18359. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18359

    2025 arXiv

  63. [72]

    R., & Smirnov, O

    Offringa, A. R., & Smirnov, O. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1547

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    2007, PASJ, 59, 1033, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.5.1033

    Ohsuga, K. 2007, PASJ, 59, 1033, doi: 10.1093/pasj/59.5.1033

    2007 doi

  65. [74]

    D., & Tomida, K

    Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., & Tomida, K. 2016a, MNRAS, 461, 2527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1481 —. 2016b, MNRAS, 455, 4351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2592

    doi

  66. [75]

    D., Tyles, J

    Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., Tyles, J. G., & Tomida, K. 2017, ApJ, 850, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95b9

    2017 doi

  67. [76]

    A., Vink´ o, J., et al

    Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., Vink´ o, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e63 33

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    A., Ho, A

    Perley, D. A., Ho, A. Y. Q., Petitpas, G., & Keating, G. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31627, 1

    2022

  69. [78]

    A., Mazzali, P

    Perley, D. A., Mazzali, P. A., Yan, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3420

    2019 doi

  70. [79]

    A., Qin, Y., Rich, R

    Perley, D. A., Qin, Y., Rich, R. M., et al. 2024a, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 280, 1 —. 2024b, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 280, 1 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2309

    Pursiainen, M., Childress, M., Smith, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2309

    2018 doi

  72. [81]

    L., Kuncarayakti, H., et al

    Pursiainen, M., Killestein, T. L., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf232

    2025 doi

  73. [82]

    Quataert, E., Lecoanet, D., & Coughlin, E. R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L83, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz031

    2019 doi

  74. [83]

    2020, A&A, 640, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037710

    Renzo, M., Farmer, R., Justham, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037710

    2020 doi

  75. [84]

    M., Khatami, D., et al

    Rest, A., Garnavich, P. M., Khatami, D., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 307, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0423-2

    2018 doi

  76. [85]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  77. [86]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 3213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1802 —

    Sadowski, A., & Narayan, R. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1802 —. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3929, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2941

    2015 doi

  78. [87]

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJL, 519, L17, doi: 10.1086/312109

    1999 doi

  79. [88]

    Schroeder, G., Ho, A. Y. Q., & Perley, D. A. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 314, 1

    2024

  80. [89]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 290, 1

    Sfaradi, I., Margutti, R., Farah, W., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 290, 1

    2024

  81. [90]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 1523, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1523 —

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1523, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1523 —. 2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    2009 doi

  83. [92]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

    2014 doi

  84. [93]

    2008, ApJL, 682, L5, doi: 10.1086/590248

    Spitkovsky, A. 2008, ApJL, 682, L5, doi: 10.1086/590248

    2008 doi

  85. [94]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 276, 1

    Srinivasaragavan, G., Ho, A., Perley, D., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 276, 1

    2024

  86. [95]

    R., & Ohsuga, K

    Takahashi, H. R., & Ohsuga, K. 2017, ApJL, 845, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8222

    2017 doi

  87. [96]

    2020, ApJ, 894, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ccc

    Tampo, Y., Tanaka, M., Maeda, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7ccc

    2020 doi

  88. [97]

    C., Matzner, C

    Tan, J. C., Matzner, C. D., & McKee, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 551, 946, doi: 10.1086/320245

    2001 doi

  89. [98]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/5

    Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., Morokuma, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/5

    2016 doi

  90. [99]

    M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2123, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv990

    2015 doi

  91. [100]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3961

    Titarchuk, L., & Seifina, E. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3961

    2021 doi

  92. [101]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add158

    Tsuna, D., & Lu, W. 2025, ApJ, 986, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add158

    2025 doi

  93. [102]

    Vurm, I., & Metzger, B. D. 2021, ApJ, 917, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0826

    2021 doi

  94. [103]

    1993, Physics of Fluids A, 5, 1035, doi: 10.1063/1.858668

    Waxman, E., & Shvarts, D. 1993, Physics of Fluids A, 5, 1035, doi: 10.1063/1.858668

    1993 doi

  95. [104]

    W., Panagia, N., Montes, M

    Weiler, K. W., Panagia, N., Montes, M. J., & Sramek, R. A. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 387, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093744

    2002

  96. [105]

    W., Williams, C

    Weiler, K. W., Williams, C. L., Panagia, N., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1959, doi: 10.1086/523258

    2007 doi

  97. [106]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2017 doi

  98. [107]

    C., & Fuller, J

    Wu, S. C., & Fuller, J. 2022, ApJL, 940, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b3d

    2022 doi

  99. [108]

    Yao, Y., Ho, A. Y. Q., Medvedev, P., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.00751. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00751

    2021 arXiv

  100. [109]

    2024, PASJ, 76, 1015, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae067

    Kitaki, T. 2024, PASJ, 76, 1015, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae067

    2024 doi

  101. [110]

    D., Lei, W.-H., Gao, H., & Zhang, B

    Yuan, Q., Wang, Q. D., Lei, W.-H., Gao, H., & Zhang, B. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3375, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1543

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.