pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05320 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Moving-mesh simulations of spreading dynamics and local electron cooling in structured gamma-ray burst afterglow jets

Hendrik van Eerten, Sayan Kundu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burst afterglowsstructured jetssynchrotron coolingmoving-mesh simulationsjet spreadingelectron coolinghydrodynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

In structured gamma-ray burst afterglow jets, a local electron cooling approach shifts the synchrotron cooling break upward in frequency by more than a factor of ten and smooths the transition.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents moving-mesh hydrodynamics simulations of axi-symmetric structured jets in gamma-ray burst afterglows. It finds that jet spreading is only moderately affected by the initial angular structure, with the effect vanishing once the jet has expanded significantly, and that the onset of spreading is best indicated by the travel time of a sound wave across the jet front. When computing the afterglow spectrum, switching to a local cooling model that follows the electron population after shock acceleration, rather than a global cooling timescale, causes the synchrotron cooling break to move to much higher frequencies and makes the break in the spectrum smoother. This local cooling also makes the emission come from a narrow region behind the shock whose size depends on frequency.

Core claim

When computing the afterglow spectrum using a local cooling approach that traces the electron population following shock-acceleration, we observe a significant impact on the synchrotron cooling break. Similar to earlier results for top-hat jets, the cooling break is found to shift upward in frequency by well over a factor of ten relative to approaches that assume a global cooling timescale across the jet. The cooling break transition in the spectrum also becomes substantially smoother. For both local and global cooling, jet breaks become sharper with increasing frequency.

What carries the argument

The local cooling approach that traces the electron population following shock-acceleration, replacing the assumption of a single global cooling timescale across the jet.

Load-bearing premise

The local cooling implementation, which traces individual electron populations post shock-acceleration without full radiation transport or back-reaction, correctly captures the dominant emission physics for the frequencies and times of interest.

What would settle it

Multi-frequency observations of a gamma-ray burst afterglow that place the synchrotron cooling break at frequencies matching global cooling predictions rather than the much higher frequencies and smoother transition predicted by local cooling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05320 by Hendrik van Eerten, Sayan Kundu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Initial angular distribution of Energy (left) and maximum fluid Lorentz factor (right) for different jet structures with different core angles, 𝜃c. The wing angle, 𝜃w, for all the simulations is kept constant with a value of 0.2 radian. a piecewise linear reconstruction with minmod flux limiter. Further, a 3 𝑟 𝑑 order Runge-Kutta time-stepping algorithm is employed for the temporal evolution of the variabl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A consistency check on the total jet energy evolution for the different simulated jets, showing the fractional deviation of simulation grid energy 𝐸tot from the theoretically expected value 𝐸ana. The color coding is as indicated in the legend of view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial profiles of (from top to bottom) density, pressure, fluid Lorentz factor, and 𝛾max of the non-thermal particle population experiencing synchrotron and adiabatic losses, in the shock downstream for Gaussian jet with 𝜃c = 0.1 rad at 𝑡lab = 3 × 107 s. Different coloured dots correspond to tracks with different angular coordinates; orange describes the innermost, and blue corresponds to the outermost tr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the lateral energy profile for different jet structures. Top panel corresponds to jet structures having 𝜃c = 0.1 rad and bottom panel shows the evolution for the structures with 𝜃c = 0.2 rad. Different colours of the curve correspond to different 𝑡lab as shown in the colourbar. 107 108 t in seconds 10−1 2 × 10−1 3 × 10−1 4 × 10−1 θ30% 107 108 t in seconds 2 × 10−1 3 × 10−1 4 × 10−1 6 … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of 𝜃 containing 30%, 60% and 90% of the total jet energy for all the jet structures described in table 1. MNRAS 000, 1–21 (2026) view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between the evolution of the lateral distribution of energy of a Gaussian structured jet (run G-12) and the inward motion of a rarefaction wave starting at the jet edge at the initial time of the simulation and moving inward with the speed of sound. The energy profile for five representative outflow angles is drawn from the simulation output, while the sound wave position along the jet front is … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: On-axis SED at 𝑡obs = 105 s for different jet structures (with 𝜃w = 0.2). Solid lines correspond to light curves computed from the local cooling approach, and dashed lines correspond to the global cooling approach. The SED of the Tophat jet computed from both the cooling approaches is presented with the black coloured lines for comparison. Bottom: The slope of the SED is shown for different jet struc… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution peak flux 𝐹peak, injection break 𝜈m and cooling break 𝜈c, shown in the top, middle, and bottom panels, respectively, for different jet structures in the local cooling scenario. The expected evolution 𝜈c ∝ 𝑡 −1/2 obs in the top-hat case is shown with black dotted curves for comparison. is less beamed than faster-moving material within the jet. The impact can clearly be seen in the early-time diff… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution 𝐹peak, 𝜈m and 𝜈c, now assuming global cooling. 105 106 107 tobs in s. 100 Sharpness of the cooling break Gaussian θc = 0.1 rad θc = 0.2 rad θc = 0.1 rad θc = 0.2 rad 105 106 107 tobs in s. Power-law with index 3 θc = 0.1 rad θc = 0.2 rad θc = 0.1 rad θc = 0.2 rad 105 106 10 7 tobs in s. Power-law with index 7 θc = 0.1 rad θc = 0.2 rad θc = 0.1 rad θc = 0.2 rad Local Global Tophat Spherical Grano… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of the sharpness of the cooling break for different structures in both the cooling scenarios. The cooling breaks obtained from the global cooling approximation are shown with squares, while the cooling breaks using local cooling are shown with dots. The corresponding evolution for the top-hat jet is shown in black for comparison. Note that the primes applied to 𝑟¯ in the integrals of Eq. 32 are … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Top panel: Off-axis SED at 𝑡obs = 105 s for different jet structures using both the cooling prescription for two different observing angles, 0.1 and 0.3 rad. The SED from the local cooling approach is shown with the solid lines, while the SEDs from the global cooling approach are shown with dashed lines. Bottom Panel: Shows the slopes of the SEDs shown in the top panel. The slopes for 3 different spectral… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Normalized cumulative flux as function of scaled distance to the shock front, for three representative frequencies, mapping the extent of the region behind the shock front that contributes to the observed flux (with the cumulative flux for higher frequency emission reaching its peak closer to the shock front). Unless stated otherwise in the legend or below, all curves refer to measurements taken at 𝑡obs =… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Top: On-axis X-ray light curves for different jet structures at a frequency of 1017 Hz. The solid lines show results produced using local cooling, while the dashed lines show results using the global cooling approach. Bottom: The slopes of the light curves shown in the top panel, using corresponding line styles and colours to the top panel. 1014 1016 1018 νobs −1.4 −1.2 −1.0 −0.8 Pre jet break slope (α 0)… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Frequency dependence of the pre-, post-jet break slope and the sharpness of the jet break for different jet structures, considering both cooling scenarios, is shown in the left, middle and right plots, respectively. Solid curves with filled circles are obtained using a local cooling approach, whereas dashed curves with square data points are obtained using a global cooling approach. In the left plot, the … view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Dependence of the sharpness of the jet-break on the viewing angle at frequency 1017 Hz., and for local cooling scenario. the jet self-organises into a lateral energy profile (Lazzati & Begel￾man 2005). This implies that our imposition of axi-symmetry in the simulations is not unrealistic. For shock acceleration we have adopted an instantaneous accel￾eration model, resulting in a power-law like non-thermal… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the results for the dynamics and emission profiles of axi-symmetric numerical simulations of structured gamma-ray burst afterglow jets, computed using the relativistic moving-mesh hydrodynamics code GAMMA. We find that the spreading of jets of average opening angle is moderately impacted by the initial steepness of the angular structure, although the effect disappears once the working surface of the jet substantially exceeds its initial width, and that the travel time of a sound wave across the front surface remains the best indicator of the onset of spreading also for structured jets. When computing the afterglow spectrum using a local cooling approach that traces the electron population following shock-acceleration, we observe a significant impact on the synchrotron cooling break. Similar to earlier results for top-hat jets, the cooling break is found to shift upward in frequency by well over a factor of ten relative to approaches that assume a global cooling timescale across the jet. The cooling break transition in the spectrum also becomes substantially smoother. For both local and global cooling, jet breaks become sharper with increasing frequency. Local cooling is found to initially lead to a steeper slope post jet-break. The local-cooling emission is shown to originate from a narrow frequency-dependent sized region behind the shock front, as expected, but in strong contrast to a global cooling approach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper presents axi-symmetric moving-mesh hydrodynamical simulations of structured gamma-ray burst afterglow jets using the GAMMA code. It investigates the dynamics of jet spreading as a function of initial angular structure steepness and compares a local electron cooling approach (tracing post-shock electron populations) to global cooling in computing the afterglow spectrum, reporting that local cooling shifts the synchrotron cooling break upward in frequency by well over a factor of ten with a smoother transition, produces sharper jet breaks at higher frequencies, and yields emission from a narrow frequency-dependent region behind the shock.

Significance. If the local cooling results hold under more complete physics, the work would be significant for GRB afterglow modeling by showing that detailed electron population tracking substantially modifies key spectral features such as the cooling break and post-break slopes relative to standard global assumptions. This has implications for interpreting multi-wavelength observations of structured jets. The direct numerical outputs from moving-mesh simulations, without fitted parameters or analytical reductions, and the extension of prior top-hat jet findings provide reproducible, falsifiable predictions for jet dynamics and emission.

major comments (2)
  1. [Emission profiles] Emission modeling: The local cooling scheme traces individual electron populations after shock acceleration but does not feed synchrotron losses back into the fluid energy equation or solve full radiative transfer. In structured jets, where shock Lorentz factor and magnetic-field strength vary strongly with angle and radius, this decoupled treatment requires a quantitative test (e.g., estimating the fractional energy lost to radiation across the range of simulated shocks) to establish that the reported >10× upward shift in the cooling break is robust rather than an artifact of the approximation.
  2. [Methods] Methods and results: Convergence tests for the moving-mesh hydrodynamical resolution and the number of tracked electron populations are not presented. Specific figures or tables quantifying the factor-of-ten cooling-break shift and the smoothing of the spectral transition are also absent, preventing full assessment of the quantitative support for the central emission claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'average jet opening angle' is imprecise; the specific values or range adopted in the simulations should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The reference to 'earlier results for top-hat jets' should be accompanied by a citation in the main text to allow readers to compare the structured-jet findings directly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Emission profiles] Emission modeling: The local cooling scheme traces individual electron populations after shock acceleration but does not feed synchrotron losses back into the fluid energy equation or solve full radiative transfer. In structured jets, where shock Lorentz factor and magnetic-field strength vary strongly with angle and radius, this decoupled treatment requires a quantitative test (e.g., estimating the fractional energy lost to radiation across the range of simulated shocks) to establish that the reported >10× upward shift in the cooling break is robust rather than an artifact of the approximation.

    Authors: We agree that the local cooling treatment is an approximation that omits radiative back-reaction on the hydrodynamics. To strengthen the claim, we will add to the revised manuscript a quantitative estimate of the fractional energy lost to synchrotron radiation, computed across the range of Lorentz factors and magnetic field strengths present in our structured-jet simulations. This will show that the losses remain small on the relevant dynamical timescales, supporting that the reported upward shift of the cooling break by more than a factor of ten is not an artifact of the decoupling. We will also explicitly note the limitations of the current approach and its relation to more complete radiative-transfer calculations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods and results: Convergence tests for the moving-mesh hydrodynamical resolution and the number of tracked electron populations are not presented. Specific figures or tables quantifying the factor-of-ten cooling-break shift and the smoothing of the spectral transition are also absent, preventing full assessment of the quantitative support for the central emission claims.

    Authors: We acknowledge that convergence tests and explicit quantification of the key spectral changes were omitted. In the revised manuscript we will include dedicated convergence studies that vary both the moving-mesh resolution and the number of tracked electron populations, demonstrating that the reported spectral features are numerically converged. We will also add a new figure (or table) that directly quantifies the cooling-break frequency shift (confirming the factor-of-ten displacement) and the change in transition smoothness between the local- and global-cooling cases for representative observer angles and times. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are direct numerical outputs from moving-mesh hydro simulations

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from axi-symmetric numerical simulations performed with the GAMMA relativistic moving-mesh hydrodynamics code. Jet spreading dynamics, sound-wave travel times, and afterglow spectra (including the upward shift and smoothing of the synchrotron cooling break under local electron cooling) are computed directly from the evolved hydrodynamical fields and post-processed electron populations. No analytical derivation chain exists that reduces any reported quantity to an input parameter by construction, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The comparison between local and global cooling is performed within the same simulation framework, yielding independent numerical results rather than tautological restatements of the setup.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on numerical solutions of relativistic hydrodynamics with chosen initial jet angular structures and a post-processing local electron cooling model; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • initial angular structure steepness
    The steepness parameter of the structured jet is varied as an input to test its effect on spreading.
  • average jet opening angle
    An average opening angle is chosen as the baseline for the structured jet models.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The GAMMA moving-mesh code accurately solves the special relativistic hydrodynamics equations for the jet evolution.
    All dynamics results depend on the code correctly implementing the relativistic fluid equations without numerical artifacts.
  • domain assumption The local cooling post-processing correctly traces the electron energy distribution after shock acceleration without significant omitted physics.
    The emission spectra and cooling-break shift rest on this implementation being a faithful representation of the microphysics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5530 in / 1684 out tokens · 64284 ms · 2026-05-08T15:44:54.422215+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  2. [2]

    H., van Eerten, H

    Ayache E. H., van Eerten H. J., Daigne F., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1397 , 495, 2979

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1397 2020

  3. [3]

    H., van Eerten H

    Ayache E. H., van Eerten H. J., Eardley R. W., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 1315

    2022

  4. [4]

    Beniamini P., Granot J., Gill R., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3521

    2020

  5. [5]

    Beuermann K., et al., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...352L..26B 352, L26

    1999

  6. [6]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford R. D., McKee C. F., 1976, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.861619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976PhFl...19.1130B 19, 1130

    work page doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  7. [7]

    De Colle F., Granot J., L \'o pez-C \'a mara D., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2012a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/122 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..122D 746, 122

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/122

  8. [8]

    De Colle F., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Granot J., Lopez-Camara D., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751...57D 751, 57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/1/57

  9. [9]

    R., Tout, C

    Downes T. P., Duffy P., Komissarov S. S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05282.x , 332, 144

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05282.x 2002

  10. [10]

    C., Laskar T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...94D 865, 94

    Duffell P. C., Laskar T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...94D 865, 94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadb9c 2018

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Duffell P. C., MacFadyen A. I., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...775...87D 775, 87

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/87 2013

  12. [12]

    Eichler D., Waxman E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...627..861E 627, 861

    work page doi:10.1086/430596 2005

  13. [13]

    N., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1038/340126a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.340..126E 340, 126

    Eichler D., Livio M., Piran T., Schramm D. N., 1989, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/340126a0 , 340, 126

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  14. [14]

    Filgas R., et al., 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 535, A57

    2011

  15. [15]

    Geng J.-J., Zhang B., K \"o lligan A., Kuiper R., Huang Y.-F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab224b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877L..40G 877, L40

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab224b 2019

  16. [16]

    Ghirlanda G., et al., 2019, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aau8815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Sci...363..968G 363, 968

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aau8815 2019

  17. [17]

    Gill R., Granot J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.4128G 478, 4128

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1214 2018

  18. [18]

    D., Urrutia G., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 15

    Gill R., Granot J., Colle F. D., Urrutia G., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 15

    2019

  19. [19]

    Giri G., Vaidya B., Rossi P., Bodo G., Mukherjee D., Mignone A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142546 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A...5G 662, A5

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142546 2022

  20. [20]

    Gottlieb O., Nakar E., Bromberg O., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 3511

    2021

  21. [21]

    Govreen-Segal T., Nakar E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.1704G 531, 1704

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1224 2024

  22. [22]

    Granot J., 2007, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica, vol. 27. pp 140--165 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0610379 )

    work page arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    Granot J., Kumar P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591.1086G 591, 1086

    work page doi:10.1086/375489 2003

  24. [25]

    Granot J., Piran T., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20335.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421..570G 421, 570

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20335.x 2011

  25. [26]

    Granot J., Sari R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568..820G 568, 820

    work page doi:10.1086/338966 2002

  26. [27]

    Granot J., Piran T., Sari R., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306884 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...513..679G 513, 679

    work page doi:10.1086/306884 1999

  27. [28]

    Gamma-ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era , year = 2001, eprint =

    Granot J., Miller M., Piran T., Suen W. M., Hughes P. A., 2001, in Costa E., Frontera F., Hjorth J., eds, Gamma-ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era. p. 312 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0103038 ), @doi 10.1007/10853853_82

    work page doi:10.1007/10853853_82 2001

  28. [29]

    , eprint =

    Granot J., Panaitescu A., Kumar P., Woosley S. E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340991 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...570L..61G 570, L61

    work page doi:10.1086/340991 2002

  29. [30]

    arXiv:0704.3081

    Gruzinov A., 2007, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.0704.3081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0704.3081G p. arXiv:0704.3081

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.0704.3081 2007

  30. [31]

    Guidorzi C., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2243 , 438, 752

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2243 2014

  31. [32]

    Hallinan G., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1579H 358, 1579

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9855 2017

  32. [33]

    Kathirgamaraju A., Tchekhovskoy A., Giannios D., Barniol Duran R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484L..98K 484, L98

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz012 2019

  33. [34]

    Keshet U., Kogan D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..100K 815, 100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/100 2015

  34. [35]

    Kumar P., Granot J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591.1075K 591, 1075

    work page doi:10.1086/375186 2003

  35. [36]

    Kumar P., Zhang B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhR...561....1K 561, 1

    work page Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 2015

  36. [37]

    J., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 667, A138

    Kundu S., Vaidya B., Mignone A., Hardcastle M. J., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 667, A138

    2022

  37. [38]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Lamb G. P., Kobayashi S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..733L 478, 733

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1108 2018

  38. [39]

    Q., Donaghy T

    Lamb D. Q., Donaghy T. Q., Graziani C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426099 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...620..355L 620, 355

    work page doi:10.1086/426099 2005

  39. [40]

    P., Kann D

    Lamb G. P., Kann D. A., Fern \'a ndez J. J., Mandel I., Levan A. J., Tanvir N. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2071 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.4163L 506, 4163

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2071 2021

  40. [41]

    C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..903L 629, 903

    Lazzati D., Begelman M. C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...629..903L 629, 903

    work page doi:10.1086/430877 2005

  41. [42]

    Lyutikov M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20331.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.421..522L 421, 522

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20331.x 2012

  42. [43]

    , keywords =

    MacFadyen A. I., Woosley S. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307790 , 524, 262

    work page doi:10.1086/307790 1999

  43. [44]

    Margutti R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..20M 848, L20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057 2017

  44. [45]

    Meliani Z., Keppens R., Casse F., Giannios D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11500.x , 376, 1189

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11500.x 2007

  45. [46]

    J., & Papathanassiou, H

    Meszaros P., Rees M. J., Papathanassiou H., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...432..181M 432, 181

    work page doi:10.1086/174559 1994

  46. [47]

    Mignone A., Bodo G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09546.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.364..126M 364, 126

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09546.x 2005

  47. [48]

    Mizuta A., Ioka K., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777..162M 777, 162

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/162 2013

  48. [49]

    Mochkovitch R., Hernanz M., Isern J., Loiseau S., 1995, , 293, 803

    1995

  49. [50]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Mooley K. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554..207M 554, 207

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25452 2018

  50. [51]

    O’Connor B., et al., 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadi1405

    2023

  51. [52]

    , keywords =

    Rees M. J., Meszaros P., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/258.1.41P , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992MNRAS.258P..41R 258, 41

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/258.1.41p 1992

  52. [53]

    A., 2003, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112002003506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JFM...479..199R 479, 199

    Rezzolla L., Zanotti O., Pons J. A., 2003, @doi [Journal of Fluid Mechanics] 10.1017/S0022112002003506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JFM...479..199R 479, 199

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112002003506 2003

  53. [54]

    E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...487L...1R 487, L1

    Rhoads J. E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...487L...1R 487, L1

    work page doi:10.1086/310876 1997

  54. [55]

    E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...525..737R 525, 737

    Rhoads J. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...525..737R 525, 737

    work page doi:10.1086/307907 1999

  55. [56]

    R., Tout, C

    Rossi E., Lazzati D., Rees M. J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x , 332, 945

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x 2002

  56. [57]

    Ryan G., van Eerten H., Piro L., Troja E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896..166R 896, 166

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf 2020

  57. [58]

    Ryan G., van Eerten H., Troja E., Piro L., O'Connor B., Ricci R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..131R 975, 131

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14 2024

  58. [59]

    Sari R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...494L..49S 494, L49

    work page doi:10.1086/311160 1998

  59. [60]

    Sari R., Piran T., Narayan R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...497L..17S 497, L17

    work page doi:10.1086/311269 1998

  60. [61]

    , keywords =

    Sari R., Piran T., Halpern J. P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...519L..17S 519, L17

    work page doi:10.1086/312109 1999

  61. [62]

    Takahashi K., Ioka K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.1217T 497, 1217

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1984 2020

  62. [63]

    Troja E., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature24290 , 551, 71

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24290 2017

  63. [64]

    Troja E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2248 , 489, 1919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2248 2019

  64. [65]

    Troja E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5643T 498, 5643

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2626 2020

  65. [66]

    L., Zhang B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/82 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...82U 780, 82

    Uhm Z. L., Zhang B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/82 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780...82U 780, 82

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/82 2014

  66. [67]

    Wijers R. A. M. J., Galama T. J., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307705 , 523, 177

    work page doi:10.1086/307705 1999

  67. [68]

    Wijers R. A. M. J., Rees M. J., Meszaros P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/288.4.L51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.288L..51W 288, L51

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/288.4.l51 1997

  68. [69]

    E.\ 1993, , 405, 273

    Woosley S. E., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..273W 405, 273

    work page doi:10.1086/172359 1993

  69. [70]

    A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738L..23W 738, L23

    Wygoda N., Waxman E., Frail D. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738L..23W 738, L23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/738/2/l23 2011

  70. [71]

    Zanotti O., Rezzolla L., Del Zanna L., Palenzuela C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...523A...8Z 523, A8

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014969 2010

  71. [72]

    Zhang W., MacFadyen A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698.1261Z 698, 1261

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1261 2009

  72. [73]

    Zhang B., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2004, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics A] 10.1142/S0217751X0401746X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004IJMPA..19.2385Z 19, 2385

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x0401746x 2004

  73. [74]

    Zhang B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1696Z 703, 1696

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1696 2009

  74. [75]

    van Eerten H., 2013, @doi [eConf Proceedings C1304143] 10.48550/arXiv.1309.3869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1309.3869V p. 24

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1309.3869 2013

  75. [76]

    van Eerten H., 2018, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271818420026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018IJMPD..2742002V 27, 1842002

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271818420026 2018

  76. [77]

    J., MacFadyen A

    van Eerten H. J., MacFadyen A. I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/155 , 751, 1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/155 2012

  77. [78]

    van Eerten H., MacFadyen A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..141V 767, 141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/2/141 2013

  78. [79]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 1383, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14843.x

    van Eerten H. J., Wijers R. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14482.x , 394, 2164

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14482.x 2009

  79. [80]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 1383, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14843.x

    van Eerten H. J., Leventis K., Meliani Z., Wijers R. A. M. J., Keppens R., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16109.x , 403, 300

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16109.x 2009

  80. [81]

    van Eerten H., Zhang W., MacFadyen A., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/235 , 722, 235

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/235

Showing first 80 references.