pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.13440 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Magnetar-powered long gamma-ray bursts and connection to superluminous supernovae and fast radio bursts

Yu-Qi Zhou , Shuang-Xi Yi , Yu-Peng Yang , Yan-Kun Qu , Ning Gai , Yan-Ke Tang , Fa-Yin Wang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 02:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarslong gamma-ray burstsX-ray plateaussuperluminous supernovaefast radio burstsmagnetic field strengthinitial spin periodDainotti correlation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Long gamma-ray bursts powered by magnetars exhibit a correlation where stronger magnetic fields correspond to shorter initial spin periods.

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

The authors assemble 169 long gamma-ray bursts whose X-ray afterglows show a plateau followed by a t to the minus 2 decay, the signature expected from a central spinning magnetar. They fit each light curve with Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods to obtain plateau luminosity and break time, then derive the magnetar's surface magnetic field and initial spin period, using the Amati relation for pseudo-redshifts where needed. Statistical tests reveal a power-law relation B_p proportional to P_0 to the power 0.83 plus or minus 0.09 across the full sample. The same bursts obey the Dainotti correlation with slope near minus one, consistent with steady energy injection. GRB magnetars display magnetic fields roughly ten times stronger than those inferred for superluminous supernovae, yet statistically indistinguishable from those linked to fast radio bursts.

Core claim

In a sample of 169 long gamma-ray bursts selected for canonical magnetar plateau signatures, the derived magnetar parameters satisfy B_p proportional to P_0 to the power 0.83 plus or minus 0.09 for the full set and 0.80 plus or minus 0.16 for the known-redshift subset. These GRB magnetars possess systematically stronger surface magnetic fields than those powering superluminous supernovae while showing no significant difference from those associated with fast radio bursts, implying distinct progenitor conditions for the former comparison and a possible shared evolutionary channel for the latter.

What carries the argument

Magnetar spin-down energy injection into the external shock, which produces the observed X-ray plateau luminosity L_0 and break time t_b used to solve for surface polar field B_p and initial period P_0.

If this is right

  • GRB magnetars arise under collapse conditions that produce stronger magnetic fields than those operating in superluminous-supernova progenitors.
  • The absence of a field-strength difference with fast-radio-burst magnetars supports the possibility of a common evolutionary sequence or progenitor channel between the two classes.
  • The Dainotti correlation holding with slope near minus one confirms that the plateau phase reflects a roughly constant rate of energy injection from the central engine.
  • The derived parameter distributions supply a uniform, model-consistent catalog for statistical studies of neutron-star birth properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Different amplification mechanisms during core collapse may operate in gamma-ray-burst progenitors compared with those producing superluminous supernovae.
  • A shared magnetar population could connect some gamma-ray bursts and fast radio bursts through orientation or evolutionary stage differences.
  • Models of magnetic-field generation in newly formed neutron stars must reproduce a B_p-P_0 scaling close to 0.8 if the observed correlation is physical.
  • Joint searches for fast radio bursts accompanying X-ray plateaus could test whether the same objects occupy both populations.

Load-bearing premise

The X-ray plateau must arise from magnetar spin-down rather than alternative energy sources, and the Amati relation must supply pseudo-redshifts accurate enough to yield reliable B_p and P_0 values.

What would settle it

A sample of long gamma-ray bursts with spectroscopically confirmed redshifts that shows either no B_p-P_0 correlation or magnetic fields matching those of superluminous-supernova magnetars instead of being stronger.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13440 by Fa-Yin Wang, Ning Gai, Shuang-Xi Yi, Yan-Ke Tang, Yan-Kun Qu, Yu-Peng Yang, Yu-Qi Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The X-ray light curves of 139 GRBs, excluding the 30 from Wang et al. (2022a) (GRB 090205 may be a SGRB (D’Avanzo et al. 2010)). The first 51 are GRBs with redshifts. The remaining 88 are GRBs with pseudo-redshifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution histograms of the surface magnetic field (log Bp) and the initial rotation period (log P0) for magnetars, with Gaussian fits, under the assumption of an X-ray conversion efficiency of 0.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Dainotti correlation. The best-fit curve is represented by the red solid line, with its corresponding 1σ confidence interval indicated by the shaded region. Top: Dainotti correlation (Left) and its corner plot (Right) for GRBs with redshifts. Bottom: Dainotti correlation (Left) and its corner plot (Right) for all GRBs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Bp −P0 correlation for GRB sample (assuming ηx = 0.5). The best-fit curve is represented by the red solid line, with its corresponding 1σ confidence interval indicated by the shaded region. Top: Bp − P0 correlation (Left) and its corner plot (Right) for GRBs with redshifts. Bottom: Bp − P0 correlation (Left) and its corner plot (Right) for all GRBs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the magnetar parameters among GRBs (assuming ηx = 0.5), SLSNe, and FRBs. The populations of GRBs and SLSNe can be roughly separated by the line Bp = 1014.5 G. The blue rectangles mark the inferred magnetar parameter regions for three FRBs (FRB 20121102A (middle), FRB 20190520B (right), and FRB 20240114A (left)). The polar magnetic field Bp shown here is approximated by roughly taking one-tent… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Based on X-ray afterglow observations from the Swift satellite, we construct a sample of 169 long gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) exhibiting the canonical magnetar plateau signature, i.e., a plateau followed by a $t^{-2}$ decay. We derive the plateau luminosity $L_0$ and break time $t_b$ for each burst by performing Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) fits to the light curves, and estimate pseudo-redshifts for bursts lacking known redshifts via the Amati relation. The fundamental magnetar parameters are subsequently inferred: the surface polar magnetic field strength $B_p \in [0.39,\ 23.08] \times 10^{15}$G and the initial spin period $P_0 \in [0.95,\ 13.79]$ms. Statistical analysis shows that both the known-redshift subsample and the full sample follow the Dainotti correlation between $L_0$ and $t_b$ with a slope close to $-1$, supporting a constant energy injection rate during the plateau phase. Furthermore, we identify a significant correlation between $B_p$ and $P_0$: $B_p \propto P_0^{0.83 \pm 0.09}$ for the full sample and $B_p \propto P_0^{0.80 \pm 0.16}$ for the known-redshift subsample, with both slopes consistent within uncertainties. Compared to magnetars powering superluminous supernovae (SLSNe), GRB magnetars possess systematically stronger magnetic fields (by approximately one order of magnitude), suggesting fundamental differences in their progenitor systems or collapse conditions; while their magnetic field strengths show no significant difference from those powering fast radio bursts (FRBs), suggesting a possible common evolutionary pathway. This study provides a physics-motivated, model-consistent sample of magnetar-candidate GRBs, offering a robust foundation for statistical investigations within the magnetar central engine model and placing new observational constraints on the birth properties of these extreme compact objects.

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. The manuscript constructs a sample of 169 long gamma-ray bursts exhibiting X-ray plateaus, performs MCMC fits to extract plateau luminosity L_0 and break time t_b, estimates pseudo-redshifts via the Amati relation for bursts without spectroscopic redshifts, and derives magnetar parameters B_p and P_0. It reports that both the full sample and known-redshift subsample obey the Dainotti relation with slope near -1, identifies a correlation B_p ∝ P_0^{0.83 ± 0.09} (full sample) and B_p ∝ P_0^{0.80 ± 0.16} (known-z subsample), and finds GRB magnetars have systematically stronger fields than SLSN magnetars but comparable to FRB magnetars.

Significance. If the B_p–P_0 correlation is shown to be physical rather than an algebraic consequence of the L_0–t_b mapping under the Dainotti relation, the large sample and MCMC-derived parameters would provide useful observational constraints on the initial spin periods and magnetic fields of GRB central engines, including quantitative differences from SLSN progenitors and a possible evolutionary link to FRBs.

major comments (2)
  1. [statistical analysis of B_p and P_0] The reported B_p ∝ P_0^{0.83 ± 0.09} correlation is likely induced by the Dainotti relation (slope ≈ −1) through the standard magnetar spin-down mappings L_0 ∝ B_p² P_0^{-4} and t_b ∝ P_0² B_p^{-2}. Inverting these gives B_p ∝ (L_0 t_b²)^{-1/2} and P_0 ∝ (L_0 t_b)^{-1/2}. When L_0 t_b is approximately constant (plus scatter), the derived parameters are no longer independent; the observed index is the expected outcome of propagating the measured L_0–t_b joint distribution. The manuscript does not test whether the slope and significance exceed the null distribution obtained from the L_0–t_b scatter alone (e.g., via Monte Carlo resampling).
  2. [pseudo-redshift estimation and full-sample results] Pseudo-redshifts derived from the Amati relation carry substantial systematic uncertainty that directly affects the inferred B_p and P_0 values. The paper should propagate these uncertainties explicitly into the reported correlations and demonstrate that the B_p–P_0 slope remains significant when only the known-redshift subsample is used or when Amati scatter is included in the error budget.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the B_p range but omits explicit units for P_0 (ms is implied later); add units for consistency.
  2. [Methods] The conversion formulas from L_0 and t_b to B_p and P_0 should list the exact numerical constants adopted for neutron-star radius and moment of inertia.

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 in detail below and have revised the analysis to strengthen the statistical robustness of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [statistical analysis of B_p and P_0] The reported B_p ∝ P_0^{0.83 ± 0.09} correlation is likely induced by the Dainotti relation (slope ≈ −1) through the standard magnetar spin-down mappings L_0 ∝ B_p² P_0^{-4} and t_b ∝ P_0² B_p^{-2}. Inverting these gives B_p ∝ (L_0 t_b²)^{-1/2} and P_0 ∝ (L_0 t_b)^{-1/2}. When L_0 t_b is approximately constant (plus scatter), the derived parameters are no longer independent; the observed index is the expected outcome of propagating the measured L_0–t_b joint distribution. The manuscript does not test whether the slope and significance exceed the null distribution obtained from the L_0–t_b scatter alone (e.g., via Monte Carlo resampling).

    Authors: We agree that this is a critical point and that the observed B_p–P_0 correlation could partly arise from the scatter around the Dainotti relation via the algebraic mappings. To address this rigorously, we will add a Monte Carlo test in the revised manuscript: we will generate large numbers of synthetic L_0–t_b pairs drawn from the observed joint distribution (including the measured Dainotti slope and intrinsic scatter), compute the corresponding B_p and P_0 values, and derive the null distribution of the fitted power-law index α in B_p ∝ P_0^α. We will then compare our measured slopes (0.83 ± 0.09 for the full sample and 0.80 ± 0.16 for the known-z subsample) against this null distribution to quantify the significance of any excess correlation. This will clarify whether the relation contains a physical component beyond the induced effect. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [pseudo-redshift estimation and full-sample results] Pseudo-redshifts derived from the Amati relation carry substantial systematic uncertainty that directly affects the inferred B_p and P_0 values. The paper should propagate these uncertainties explicitly into the reported correlations and demonstrate that the B_p–P_0 slope remains significant when only the known-redshift subsample is used or when Amati scatter is included in the error budget.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of propagating the Amati-relation scatter. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly include the typical Amati scatter (≈0.3–0.4 dex) when estimating pseudo-redshifts and will propagate the resulting uncertainties on luminosity distance, L_0, and t_b into the derived B_p and P_0 values for the full sample. As already reported, the known-redshift subsample (which bypasses pseudo-redshifts entirely) yields a fully consistent slope of 0.80 ± 0.16 that remains statistically significant; we will highlight this comparison more prominently and show the effect of adding Amati scatter on the full-sample fit to demonstrate robustness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; correlations are empirical outputs from data-driven parameter derivation

full rationale

The paper obtains L0 and tb directly from MCMC fits to observed Swift X-ray light curves, applies standard (non-self-referential) magnetar spin-down formulas to compute Bp and P0, confirms the Dainotti relation in the fitted L0-tb plane, and reports the Bp-P0 power-law as a statistical property of the resulting sample. No step reduces the reported correlation to an algebraic identity of the inputs, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a self-citation chain; the derivation chain remains self-contained against the external light-curve data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central inferences rest on the magnetar spin-down model for the plateau phase and on the Amati relation for pseudo-redshifts; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Amati relation parameters
    Used to estimate pseudo-redshifts for bursts without measured z; parameters taken from prior literature.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption X-ray plateau followed by t^{-2} decay is produced by magnetar spin-down energy injection
    Invoked to convert observed L0 and tb into Bp and P0.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5709 in / 1287 out tokens · 35534 ms · 2026-05-15T02:38:32.751589+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, 2, L12. Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390,

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 1,

    Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1,

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 1, L46

    Amati, L., D’Agostino, R., Luongo, O., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1, L46. Ascenzi, S., Oganesyan, G., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A61. Atteia, J.-L. 2003, A&A, 407, L1. Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413,

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    2013, ApJL, 774, 2, L23

    Bargiacchi, G, Dainotti, M & Capozziello, S., 2025, New Astronomy Reviews, 100, 101712 Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013, ApJL, 774, 2, L23. Bhattacharya, M., Murase, K., & Kashiyama, K. 2025, MNRAS. Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179,

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    S., Kulkarni, S

    Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Djorgovski, S. G. 2002, AJ, 123, 3,

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    S., Frail, D

    Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., & Sari, R. 2001, AJ, 121, 6,

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 7832,

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 1,

    Cao, S., Dainotti, M., & Ratra, B. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1,

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    & Beloborodov, A

    Chen, W.-X. & Beloborodov, A. M. 2007, ApJ, 657, 1,

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al

    Chen, Z. H., Yan, L., Kangas, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 1,

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    C., Bandura, K

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 7832,

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    B., Shapiro, S

    Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1994, ApJ, 424,

    work page 1994

  13. [13]

    & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Corsi, A. & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2009, ApJ, 702, 2,

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    J., Fox, D

    Cucchiara, A., Levan, A. J., Fox, D. B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 1,

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    2010, A&A, 522, A20

    D’Avanzo, P., Perri, M., Fugazza, D., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A20. Dai, Z. G. & Lu, T. 1998, PhRvL, 81, 20,

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    Dai, Z. G. & Lu, T. 1998, A&A, 333, L87. Dainotti, M. G., Cardone, V. F., Piedipalumbo, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1,

    work page 1998

  17. [17]

    G., Cardone, V

    Dainotti, M. G., Cardone, V. F., & Capozziello, S. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1, L79. Dainotti, M. G., Hernandez, X., Postnikov, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 2,

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    G., Lenart, A

    Dainotti, M. G., Lenart, A. L., Sarracino, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 2,

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    G., Willingale, R., Capozziello, S., et al

    Dainotti, M. G., Willingale, R., Capozziello, S., et al. 2010, ApJL, 722, 2, L215. Dainotti, M. G., Nielson, V., Sarracino, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2,

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    G., Bargiacchi, G., Bogdan, M., et al

    Dainotti, M. G., Bargiacchi, G., Bogdan, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 1,

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    G., Lenart, A

    Dainotti, M. G., Lenart, A. L., Chraya, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2,

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    G., Narendra, A., Pollo, A., et al

    Dainotti, M. G., Narendra, A., Pollo, A., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, 2, L30. Dainotti, M. G., Taira, E., Wang, E., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 1,

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Gamma-Ray Bursts as an Independent High-Redshift Probe of Dark Energy

    Dainotti, M. G., Lukasz Lenart, A., De Simone, B., et al. 2026, arXiv:2603.18223. Dall’Osso, S., Stratta, G., Guetta, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A121. Dereli-B´ egu´ e, H., Pe’er, A., Ryde, F., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 2,

    Du, M., Yi, S.-X., Liu, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 2,

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    1989, Nature, 340, 6229,

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., et al. 1989, Nature, 340, 6229,

    work page 1989

  26. [26]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 1,

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    A., Beardmore, A

    10 Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 3,

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J

    Evans, P. A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A102. Favale, A., Dainotti, M. G., G´ omez-Valent, A., et al. 2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 44,

    work page 2010

  29. [29]

    W., Lang, D., et al

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 925,

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    B., Frail, D

    Fox, D. B., Frail, D. A., Price, P. A., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 7060,

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    2016, PhRvD, 93, 4, 044065

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., & L¨ u, H.-J. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 4, 044065. Gehrels, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Fox, D. B. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 1,

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    2004, ApJ, 616, 1,

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Lazzati, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 1,

    work page 2004

  33. [33]

    2003, Nature, 423, 6942,

    Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 6942,

    work page 2003

  34. [34]

    & Bildsten, L., 2010, ApJ, 717, 245 Khadka, N., Luongo, O., Muccino, M., et al

    Kasen, D. & Bildsten, L., 2010, ApJ, 717, 245 Khadka, N., Luongo, O., Muccino, M., et al. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 9,

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101. Kumar, P. & Zhang, B. 2015, PhR, 561,

    work page 1993

  36. [36]

    2025, ApJS, 280, 1,

    Lan, L., Gao, H., Ai, S., et al. 2025, ApJS, 280, 1,

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    2025, , arXiv:2511.22149

    Lan, L., Gao, H., Zhao, L., et al. 2025, , arXiv:2511.22149. Lasky, P. D., Leris, C., Rowlinson, A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 843, 1, L1. Lattimer, J. M. & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 1,

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    H., Wang, D

    Lei, W. H., Wang, D. X., Zhang, L., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 2,

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 2,

    Lei, W.-H., Zhang, B., & Liang, E.-W. 2013, ApJ, 765, 2,

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    L., Dainotti, M

    Lenart, A. L., Dainotti, M. G., Khatiya, N., et al. 2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 47, 100384. Levine, D., Dainotti, M., Zvonarek, K. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 1,

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 1,

    Li, J.-L., Yang, Y.-P., Yi, ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 1,

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    2026, , arXiv:2601.01586

    Li, X.-Y., Liu, T., Huang, B.-Q., et al. 2026, , arXiv:2601.01586. Liu, T., Gu, W.-M., & Zhang, B. 2017, NewAR, 79,

    work page arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    T., Zhang, B., et al

    Lyons, N., O’Brien, P. T., Zhang, B., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 2,

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 1,

    L¨ u, H.-J., Lan, L., & Liang, E.-W. 2019, ApJ, 871, 1,

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 2,

    L¨ u, H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 2,

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    & Zhang, B

    L¨ u, H.-J. & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJ, 785, 1,

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 4,

    L¨ u, H.-J., Zou, L., Lan, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4,

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    MacFadyen, A. I. & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 1,

    work page 1999

  49. [49]

    & Metzger, B

    Margalit, B. & Metzger, B. D. 2018, ApJL, 868, 1, L4. Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., Thompson, T. A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 3,

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T

    Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 3,

    work page 2008

  51. [51]

    Metzger, B. D. & Piro, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 4,

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    & Meszaros, P., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498 Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K. & Meszaros, P., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498 Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T. 1992, ApJL, 395, L83. Narendra, A., Dainotti, M. G., Sarkar, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A92. Nicholl, M., Williams, P. K. G., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 2,

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    A., Kouveliotou, C., Grupe, D., et al

    Nousek, J. A., Kouveliotou, C., Grupe, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 1,

    work page 2006

  54. [54]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, 23, eadi1405

    O’Connor, B., Troja, E., Ryan, G., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, 23, eadi1405. Oganesyan, G., Ascenzi, S., Branchesi, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 2,

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 4,

    Piran, T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 4,

    work page 2004

  56. [56]

    2020, A&A, 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6. Platts, E., Weltman, A., Walters, A., et al. 2019, PhR, 821,

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    E., & Fryer, C

    Popham, R., Woosley, S. E., & Fryer, C. 1999, ApJ, 518, 1,

    work page 1999

  58. [58]

    L., Liang, E

    Racusin, J. L., Liang, E. W., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1,

    work page 2009

  59. [59]

    M., Acharya, S

    Rahaman, S. M., Acharya, S. K., Beniamini, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 2,

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    A., et al

    Rea, N., Gull´ on, M., Pons, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 2,

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    T., Tanvir, N

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 2,

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    P., Dainotti, M., et al

    Rowlinson, A., Gompertz, B. P., Dainotti, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2,

    work page 2014

  63. [63]

    T., Metzger, B

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2,

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    1997, A&A, 319,

    Ruffert, M., Janka, H.-T., Takahashi, K., et al. 1997, A&A, 319,

    work page 1997

  65. [65]

    D., & Ashton, G

    Sarin, N., Lasky, P. D., & Ashton, G. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4,

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1,

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 1,

    Si, S.-K., Qi, Y.-Q., Xue, F.-X., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 1,

    work page 2018

  68. [68]

    G., Dall’Osso, S., et al

    Stratta, G., Dainotti, M. G., Dall’Osso, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 2,

    work page 2018

  69. [69]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 1,

    Tang, C.-H., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 1,

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    1994, MNRAS, 270,

    Thompson, C. 1994, MNRAS, 270,

    work page 1994

  71. [71]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 1,

    11 Tian, X., Li, J.-L., Yi, S.-X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 1,

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    T., et al

    Troja, E., Cusumano, G., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1,

    work page 2007

  73. [73]

    Usov, V. V. 1992, Nature, 357, 6378,

    work page 1992

  74. [74]

    Wang, F. Y. & Dai, Z. G., 2013, Nature Physics, 9, 463 Wang, F. Y., Dai, Z. G., & Liang, E. W. 2015, NewAR, 67,

    work page 2013

  75. [75]

    Y., Hu, J

    Wang, F. Y., Hu, J. P., Zhang, G. Q., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 2,

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    The Deep and Transient Universe in the SVOM Era: New Challenges and Opportunities - Scientific prospects of the SVOM mission

    Wang, F. Y., Zhang, G. Q., Dai, Z. G. & Cheng, K. S., 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 4382 Wang, F. Y., Qi, S. & Dai, Z. G., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3423 Wang, J. S., Wang, F. Y., Cheng, K. S. & Dai, Z. G., 2016, A&A, 585, A68 Wei, J., et al., 2016, arXiv: 1610.06892 Willingale, R., O’Brien, P. T., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 2,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Woosley, S. E. & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 1,

    work page 2006

  78. [78]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405,

    work page 1993

  79. [79]

    E., 2010, ApJL, 719, L204 Xiao, D

    Woosley, S. E., 2010, ApJL, 719, L204 Xiao, D. & Dai, Z.-G. 2019, ApJ, 878, 1,

    work page 2010

  80. [80]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 2,

    Xie, L., Wei, D.-M., Wang, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 2,

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.