Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Wind-confined jet collimation revealed by the acceleration-phase photosphere of GRB 220426A

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GRB 220426A's first 5 seconds show its jet was still accelerating, with a launch radius growing linearly in time — first clear evidence for a recollimation shock confined by a dense wind-like shell.

desk verdict A careful spectral analysis of an exceptional burst; the linear r0(t) trend is likely real, but the wind-shell interpretation is underdetermined and the 'first clear evidence' wording overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10841 v1 pith:Z6I7UUJD submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.HE

Felix Ryde , Asaf Pe'er This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsphotosphericemissionradiation-dominatedflowrecollimationshockcircumburstmediumjetcollimationFermi/GBMtime-resolvedspectroscopy
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 analyzes the very bright gamma-ray burst GRB 220426A and argues that the first ~5 seconds of its prompt emission were produced while the jet was still in the radiation-dominated acceleration phase, before the thermal energy had been fully converted into bulk kinetic energy. Because the dynamics of radiation-dominated flow are tightly constrained, the narrow, blackbody-like spectra allow the effective launch radius $r_0$ of the jet to be inferred from the observed normalization, and the paper finds $r_0 \sim \mathrm{few}\times 10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm}$, growing linearly with time as $r_0(t)=k t$ with $k=1.63\times 10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm\,s^{-1}}$. The authors interpret this linear growth as the signature of a recollimation shock kept in place by a dense, wind-like circumstellar shell, since a wind-like medium makes the recollimation-shock position scale linearly with time. If this interpretation is correct, it is the first clear evidence for the existence and evolution of a recollimation shock in a gamma-ray burst jet, and it implies that the progenitor's final mass-loss activity can shape the earliest seconds of the burst. The payoff is that acceleration-phase photospheric emission becomes a probe of the innermost circumburst medium, independent of supernova observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the radiation-dominated photosphere (RDP): the photosphere that forms while the outflow is still in its acceleration phase, before saturation. Its distinguishing observable is a spectral width parameter $\eta/\eta_* \equiv (r_{\mathrm{ph}}/r_s)^{-3/4}$ (Eq. A6), with $\eta$ the dimensionless enthalpy, $\eta_*$ the critical value at which photosphere and saturation radii coincide, and $\eta/\eta_* > 1$ marking the acceleration phase. The paper fits the RDP spectral model of Ryde et al. (2017) to the time-resolved Fermi/GBM spectra, then converts the thermal normalization $R = (F_E/\sigma T^4)^{1/2}$ into the launch radius through $r_0 = \Gamma_0 R/\delta$ (Eqs. A7-A8), assuming $\Gamma_0 = 1$ and pair multiplicity $\kappa_\pm = 1$. The interpretive step equates $r_0$ with the recollimation shock position $r_{\mathrm{cs}}$; in a cylindrical cocoon model with a wind-like ambient density $\rho_w = A r^{-2}$, the shock position becomes $r_{\mathrm{cs}}(t) \sim [L_{\mathrm{iso}}\theta_j^2/(4\pi \epsilon_j c A)]^{1/2} t$ (Eq. B21), a linear scaling in observed time that the data reproduce.

What would settle it

Re-fit the first 5 s of GRB 220426A with a model that allows the acceleration-to-coasting transition ($\eta/\eta_*$ crossing unity) and a non-thermal component within the interval; if the inferred $r_0$ ceases to be linear once those degrees of freedom are included, the recollimation-shock and dense-wind-shell interpretation loses its observational basis. A complementary test is to measure $r_0(t)$ for another bright burst with a narrow RDP spectrum: the wind-collimation model predicts a similar linear growth, whereas an exhausted shell or pure breakout would produce a flattening or shallower slope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GRB 220426A, observed by Fermi/GBM, shows the first clear evidence for a recollimation shock in a gamma-ray burst jet, revealed through its acceleration-phase photosphere. The burst is uncommonly bright and its time-resolved spectra are among the narrowest measured, which the paper takes as unambiguous identification of a radiation-dominated photosphere (RDP) during the first ~5 s. Fitting the RDP model to 20 time bins, the paper derives the effective launch radius $r_0$ (the nozzle at which free acceleration begins) from the blackbody normalization and finds $r_0 \sim \mathrm{few}\times 10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm}$, increasing linearly in time as $r_0(t)=k t$ with $k=1.63\times 10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm\,s^{-1}}$. Because the linear trend persists far longer than the causal timescale of a $\sim 10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm}$ structure ($R/c_s \sim 0.6\,\mathrm{s}$), the authors conclude that external pressure maintained the jet's collimation after breakout. A cocoon-wind model then yields a quantitative match: in a wind-like medium the recollimation shock position scales as $r_{\mathrm{cs}}\propto t$, and reproducing the observed level requires a finite, dense shell with mass loading $\dot M/v_w \sim 10^{21}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-1}}$, a value demanding but not unphysical for eruptive pre-explosion mass loss.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that the fitted RDP spectra identify a pure radiation-dominated phase over the full 0-5 s interval, so that the blackbody normalization directly gives $r_0 = \Gamma_0 R/\delta$ with $\Gamma_0=1$ and pair multiplicity 1, together with the identification $r_0 = r_{\mathrm{cs}}$ that converts the trend into a collimation statement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The linear slope $k = 1.63\times 10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm\,s^{-1}}$ means $r_0 \simeq 0.54\,c\,t_{\mathrm{obs}}$, so the inferred nozzle keeps pace with the light-crossing time of the recollimation region, consistent with a shock continuously regenerated by external pressure.
  • The mass loading required to collimate the jet, $\dot M/v_w \sim 10^{21}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-1}}$ at $z=1$, is several orders of magnitude larger than typical Wolf-Rayet winds, so the confining agent must be a finite dense shell rather than a persistent wind.
  • Combining the collimation and jet-survival conditions gives an allowed window $\dot M/v_w \in [L_{\mathrm{iso}}\theta_j^2/(\chi \epsilon_j c^3 \beta_c^2),\, L_{\mathrm{iso}}/(c^3 \epsilon_j)]$, which for this burst requires a jet opening angle $\theta_j \lesssim 0.3$ to leave any acceptable range.
  • Because the photosphere forms during the acceleration phase, the observed luminosity and temperature trace the central engine directly, and the growing emitting area ($\propto r_0^2$) makes the pulse hard-to-soft; the spectral evolution therefore records the recollimation history, not high-latitude curvature.
  • Acceleration-phase photospheric spectra provide a way to probe the innermost circumburst medium and the progenitor's final mass-loss history independently of interacting-supernova constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The close proportionality $r_0 \simeq 0.54\,c\,t_{\mathrm{obs}}$ suggests the recollimation shock position is pinned near the causal horizon at every moment; if this is generic, the ratio $r_0/(c\,t_{\mathrm{obs}})$ is a dimensionless diagnostic of the confining pressure that could be measured in other RDP bursts.
  • The paper's shell interpretation is testable in the late-time light curve: a rarefaction wave from the outer edge of a $\sim 10^{12}\,\mathrm{cm}$ shell reaches the recollimation shock after roughly $60\,\mathrm{s}$, so the photospheric width should broaden or the $r_0$ trend break on that timescale; the current analysis stops at 6.7 s and does not test this.
  • The linear scaling is extracted from the blackbody normalization $R(t)$, which is insensitive to the assumed pair multiplicity and initial Lorentz factor (these enter only through $\Gamma_0$ in Eq. A8); the central trend is therefore more robust than the absolute value of $r_0$, so a future measurement of redshift would rescale the slope but not change the existence of the linear growth.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes Fermi/GBM observations of GRB 220426A, fitting a radiation-dominated photosphere (RDP) model to 20 time-resolved spectra. It identifies the first ~5 s as an acceleration-phase, radiation-dominated outflow, infers an effective launch radius r0 ~ few x 10^10 cm that grows linearly with time, and interprets this as the evolution of a recollimation shock confined by a dense, wind-like circumburst medium. The authors derive mass-loading constraints around 10^21 g/cm and argue that this burst provides the first clear evidence for the existence and evolution of a recollimation shock.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is a potentially important result: it would show that time-resolved photospheric spectra during the acceleration phase can probe jet collimation and the innermost circumburst medium, linking prompt GRB emission to late-stage progenitor mass loss. The paper is built on public Fermi/GBM data, reports time-resolved fits with uncertainties, and presents explicit analytical scalings (Eqs. B21-B22) that are falsifiable with future bursts. The central evidence, however, currently rests on an insecure phase-selection step and an interpretive identification, so the strength of the conclusion is not yet matched by the analysis presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Table 1] The identification of the full 0-5 s interval as radiation-dominated is not secure. The paper requires eta/eta* > 1 (Sec. 2.3), but several included bins are marginal: at 4.17 s eta/eta* = 0.9 +/- 0.1, at 3.34 s eta/eta* = 1.1 +/- 0.3, and at 5.06 s eta/eta* = 1.6 +/- 0.3, while the Band alpha values in Table 1 are 0.18-0.35, far below the RDP expectation alpha ~ 0.6 quoted in Sec. 2.1. Since equation (A8) converts the blackbody normalization into r0 under the pure RDP assumption (Gamma0 = 1 and pair multiplicity 1, Sec. A.2.1), non-thermal contamination or a gradual coasting-phase transition biases the derived r0(t). The authors should either restrict the linear fit to bins where the RDP identification is unambiguous (for example alpha > 0.4) and show the trend is unchanged, or perform an explicit multi-component fit that quantifies the contamination.
  2. [Sec. 2.4, Fig. 5] The central trend r0(t) = k t is presented with k = 1.63 x 10^10 cm/s and no uncertainty, no intercept, no goodness-of-fit, and no comparison with alternative power-law indices. The distinction between a wind-like medium (t^1) and a uniform medium (t^0.4) made in Sec. 4.3 requires a quantitative test; as it stands, the claim that the trend is linear rather than, say, t^0.8 or a broken power law is not supported. Please provide the full fit result with covariance, a chi-squared or information-criterion comparison against competing models, and propagate the 1-sigma uncertainties from Table 1 into r0.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (B21)] The interpretation r0 = rcs is an assumption, not a derivation. The nozzle radius r0 is defined by the RDP model as the radius at which free acceleration begins (Sec. A.2), while rcs is the recollimation-shock position derived from a one-zone cocoon model. Moreover, the predicted linear scaling rcs(t) has a normalization containing Liso, theta_j, epsilon_j, A, and z, with the coefficient explicitly uncertain at the factor-of-few level (Sec. B). The observed linear slope therefore matches a relation with at least one free normalization, so the agreement is not a parameter-free prediction. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and, ideally, calibrate the coefficient against the measured slope to derive constraints on A or to test the model.
  4. [Appendix C] The alpha-eta/eta* calibration (Eq. C23) is fitted to the same time-resolved spectra that are used to select the radiation-dominated interval. Using this correlation to support the RDP identification is therefore circular and cannot independently validate the phase selection. An external calibration, or at least a leave-one-out or separate-sample test, is needed before Appendix C can be used as evidence for the RDP nature of the 0-5 s bins.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5] The figure showing the central r0(t) result contains no error bars; all other derived quantities in the paper are quoted with uncertainties, and the absence of uncertainties here is particularly conspicuous.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Gama-ray' in the Figure 1 caption, 'wavelenghts', 'beaviour', 'monotonocally', 'developped', 'rarification wave', and 'temperarure'. The manuscript should be carefully proofread.
  3. [Table 1] The column header 'K E p' is unclear; please define all columns explicitly and introduce the E_p notation before the table.
  4. [Sec. 2.3] The text states that the transition to the coasting phase is gradual in eta/eta*, yet the analysis uses a hard cutoff eta/eta* > 1. This tension should be reconciled, for example by showing how the derived trend changes when the cutoff is varied.
  5. [Sec. A.2.1] The assumptions Gamma0 = 1 and pair multiplicity kappa+/- = 1 are stated but their influence on r0 and on the mass-loading constraints is not quantified; please add a sensitivity estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: r0(t) is a fitted observable and the wind-collimation scaling is an independent theoretical prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular by construction. The empirical quantity r0(t) is obtained from the blackbody normalization R via Eqs. (A7)-(A8), i.e., r0 = Γ0 R/δ, with the stated choice Γ0 = 1 in Appendix A.2.1; this is a data-derived quantity independent of the wind/recollimation model. The linear trend r0(t) = kt is a fit to these derived points (Fig. 5), not a quantity recycled from the theory it is compared with. The wind interpretation is a separate theoretical comparison: Appendix B derives r_cs ∝ t from cocoon pressure-balance scalings (Eq. B21) using standard cocoon-jet relations, and the mass-loading in Eq. (3) is obtained from the collimation pressure-balance condition with stated assumptions, not from the fitted slope k. Thus no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation has its own output as an input. The self-citations (Ryde et al. 2017; Acuner et al. 2019; Pe'er et al. 2007) provide the RDP spectral model and the inversion relations; these are external theoretical results with stated assumptions that do not themselves assert the wind or recollimation conclusion, so they are not load-bearing circular support. Concerns about marginal η/η* values and low Band α values in Table 1 are model-selection and contamination risks that would weaken the empirical premise, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard radiation-dominated fireball formalism (Eqs. A1-A6), the identification of the fitted blackbody normalization with the nozzle radius r0, assumed G0 = 1 and pair multiplicity 1, the unmeasured fiducial redshift z = 1, and the identification r0 = rcs. The wind-shell interpretation adds a one-zone cocoon model with a wind profile and order-unity coefficients. Free parameters are dominated by the linear slope k (no uncertainty), adopted theta_j = 0.1, beta_c = 0.3, chi = 1, z = 1, and the factor-of-few normalization freedom in Eq. B21. The only invented entity is the finite dense wind shell, whose properties are derived from the hypothesis it supports, so it carries no independent evidence.

free parameters (8)
  • Linear slope k of r0(t) = 1.63e10 cm/s (no uncertainty quoted)
    Best-fit slope of inferred r0(t) over 0-5 s (Fig. 5); linearity is the empirical anchor for the wind-medium interpretation, and no error bar is given.
  • Fiducial redshift z = 1 (allowed range 0.2-5)
    z is unmeasured; it rescales r0 via the luminosity distance and the mass-loading by two orders of magnitude (Table 2: 1.6e19 to 1.6e21 g/cm).
  • Jet opening angle theta_j = 0.1 (fiducial; derived bound theta_j < 0.3)
    Adopted from Lloyd-Ronning et al. (2020); enters Eq. 3 quadratically and Eq. B22 linearly, setting the mass-loading window.
  • Cocoon lateral expansion speed beta_c = 0.3
    Adopted mildly-relativistic value (Hamidani & Ioka 2021); enters the collimation requirement (Eq. 3) as beta_c squared.
  • Shock geometry factor chi = 1
    Order-unity factor in the cocoon pressure estimate (Eq. 2), adopted without constraint.
  • Coefficient of rcs(t) scaling = factor-of-few (unquantified)
    Appendix B states the coefficient in Eq. B21 is uncertain at the factor-of-few level due to cocoon geometry, beta_h, and obliquity, so any observed linear slope can be accommodated.
  • eta/eta* vs alpha calibration parameters = 0.58 and 0.27 (Eq. C23)
    Exponential fit to the eta/eta* versus Band-alpha correlation using the same 20 bins; used to justify RDP classification of bins with alpha ~ 0.2-0.35.
  • Temperature break time t_b = 2.59 +/- 0.19 s
    Fitted break in the kT light curve; separates spectral phases in Figures 1-3, a supporting rather than load-bearing fit.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Radiation-dominated fireball scalings: Gamma proportional to r during acceleration, rs = eta*r0/G0, rph/rs = (eta/eta*)^(-4/3)
    Standard non-dissipative fireball model (Meszaros & Rees 2000; Pe'er 2008) used in Appendix A; the r0 and eta/eta* inference rests on it.
  • domain assumption G0 = 1 and pair multiplicity = 1 at the nozzle
    Stated in Appendix A.2.1; r0 scales linearly with G0 and eta* depends on pair multiplicity, so absolute values are conditional on these.
  • domain assumption Spectra are a pure RDP photosphere without non-thermal contamination
    Uniform RDP-model fits extract eta/eta* and R (Section 2.3); any non-thermal component would bias the width and normalization parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper Identified r0 equals the recollimation shock radius rcs
    Posited in Section 3.1 ('we interpret the derived value of r0 as the recollimation shock'); the hinge that turns a photometric trend into a collimation statement.
  • domain assumption One-zone, uniform-pressure cylindrical cocoon in a wind profile rho = A r^-2
    Standard cocoon treatment (Bromberg et al. 2011; Salafia et al. 2020) in Appendix B, yielding rcs proportional to t with unconstrained order-unity coefficients.
  • domain assumption Successful-jet condition: jet energy flux exceeds ambient rest-mass flux
    Acknowledged as a rough sufficient condition in Eq. 5 and Section 3.3; defines the upper bound on the mass-loading window.
  • standard math Electron-scattering opacity in the wind photosphere estimate
    Standard optical-depth integral for an r^-2 wind (Eq. 4), used to argue the collimating wind must be finite.
invented entities (1)
  • Finite, dense, wind-like circumburst shell
    purpose: Sustains external pressure to keep the recollimation shock alive beyond about 0.6 s, producing the observed linear r0(t) trend
    The shell's mass-loading follows from requiring the wind to collimate the jet (Eq. 3), i.e., from the hypothesis itself. No independent observable for this specific shell is given; SN-CSM detections (SN2021csp, SN2022oqm) make the class plausible but do not confirm this burst.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wind-confined jet collimation revealed by the acceleration-phase photosphere of GRB 220426A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z6I7UUJD

@misc{pith2026260810841,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wind-confined jet collimation revealed by the acceleration-phase photosphere of GRB 220426A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z6I7UUJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10841}
}
abstract

We analyze the prompt emission of the exceptionally bright GRB 220426A observed by Fermi/GBM, whose time-resolved spectra are among the narrowest measured in any GRB. Here we show that observations during the first $\sim 5$s are consistent with the signal being emitted while the jet was still in the initial radiation-dominated acceleration phase. The time-resolved spectra allow the effective launch radius, $r_0$, to be inferred with unusual precision. We find $r_0 \sim \mathrm{few} \times 10^{10}\,\mathrm{cm}$, increasing linearly with time. These findings match the theoretical predictions of the recollimation shock, suggesting that this GRB shows the first clear evidence for the existence and evolution of a recollimation shock. Using this interpretation, the linear increase observed is sustained over a period longer than expected from a pure jet breakout. Therefore, the jet collimation must have persisted even after breakout. We suggest that the collimation was maintained by a finite, dense, wind-like circumburst medium, which would reproduce the observed behavior of the prompt emission. We conclude that late-stage progenitor mass-loss can shape the earliest prompt emission and that the photospheric emission provides a way to probe both the jet collimation and the innermost region of the circumburst medium (CBM) surrounding the progenitor, independently of the constraints from interacting supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10841 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curve of GRB 220426A, observed by the GBM onboard the Fermi Gamma-ray Apace Telescope. During most of its duration (green shaded area) the emis￾sion is consistent with being emitted during the radiation￾dominated phase of the flow. spectra, as observed by Fermi Gamma-ray Space Tele￾scope and its GBM detector (Malacaria et al. 2022). The narrowness of the spectra is manifested by the very hard spectral power-la… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of the properties of the photosphere in GRB220426A: the observed temperature, showing the characteristic break. The break-time is shown by the dark-green, dashed line and is at tb = 2.59 ± 0.19 s after the trigger. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time [s] 0.5 1 5 10 / * [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of the properties of the photosphere in GRB220426A: The observed width of the spectra, measured by η/η∗. The brightness of the burst makes the parameter well-determined. The break-time is shown by the light￾green, dashed line, which coincides with the break-time of the the temperature decay (dark-green dashed line, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-resolved spectra of GRB220426A detected by the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope detectors NaI1, NaI2 (blue and red), and BGO1 (green), together with residuals between the data and the model. The black line shows the best spectral fit using the radiation-dominated p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Linear evolution of r0 during the radiation dominated phase in GRB 220426A. The best fit relation is shown by the orange line, whose slope is k = 1.63 × 1010 cm/s. Redshift z = 1 is assumed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time [s] 100 300 1000 3000 , , * tbreak * [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Derived properties of the flow. The black points show the dimensionless enthalpy, η, the blue points show the critical enthalpy, η∗, and the red points show the bulk Lorentz factor, Γ. The break time is from the temperature decay shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of derived fireball radii. The effective launch radius, r0, in red, the photospheric radius, rph, in black, and the saturation radius, rs, in blue. The green dashed line is the break time of the temperarure decay. cs = c/√ 3 is the speed of sound, and c is th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The spectral width η/η∗ as a function of the Band parameter α, the photon index of the low-energy power-law of the Band function. The red line corresponds to the best fit which gives η/η∗ = 0.56 ∗ exp(α/0.25). C. COMPARISON WITH BAND PARAMETERS The parameter η/η∗ of th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, Astrophys.J., 893, 128

    Acuner, Z., Ryde, F., Pe’er, A., Mortlock, D., & Ahlgren, B. 2020, Astrophys.J., 893, 128

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1356

    Acuner, Z., Ryde, F., & Yu, H.-F. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1356

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1356 2019

  3. [3]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

    Band, D., Matteson, J., & et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

    doi:10.1086/172995 1993

  4. [4]

    Battelino, M., Ryde, F., Omodei, N., & Band, D. L. 2007, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 921, The First GLAST Symposium, ed. S. Ritz, P. Michelson, & C. A. Meegan (AIP), 478–479, doi: 10.1063/1.2757410

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2757410 2007

  5. [5]

    C., & Cioffi, D

    Begelman, M. C., & Cioffi, D. F. 1989, ApJL, 345, L21, doi: 10.1086/185542

    doi:10.1086/185542 1989

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2011, ApJ, 737, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/68

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/68 2011

  7. [7]

    2007, ApJ, 671, 678, doi: 10.1086/522668

    Bromberg, O., & Levinson, A. 2007, ApJ, 671, 678, doi: 10.1086/522668

    work page doi:10.1086/522668 2007

  8. [8]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/100 2011

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    2016a, MNRAS, 456, 1739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2591 —

    Bromberg, O., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2016a, MNRAS, 456, 1739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2591 —. 2016b, MNRAS, 456, 1739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    doi

  2. [10]

    E., Guidorzi, C., Amati, L., et al

    Camisasca, A. E., Guidorzi, C., Amati, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245657

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 18

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    K., Kasliwal, M

    Das, K. K., Kasliwal, M. M., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad595f

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, ApJL, 934, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8169

    Deng, L.-T., Lin, D.-B., Zhou, L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8169

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    C., & Ho, A

    Duffell, P. C., & Ho, A. Y. Q. 2020, ApJ, 900, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba90a

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts128

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts128

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, arXiv e-prints

    Gottlieb, O., Levinson, A., & Nakar, E. 2019, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.07244

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2011, ApJL, 727, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L33

    Guiriec, S., Connaughton, V., & et al. 2011, ApJL, 727, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L33

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3276

    Hamidani, H., & Ioka, K. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3276

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd13

    Hamidani, H., Ioka, K., Kashiyama, K., & Tanaka, M. 2025, ApJ, 988, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd13

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760 Hascoët, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R

    Harrison, R., Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760 Hascoët, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2013, A&A, 551, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220023

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2011, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 126, 555, doi: 10.1143/PTP.126.555

    Ioka, K., Ohira, Y., Kawanaka, N., & Mizuta, A. 2011, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 126, 555, doi: 10.1143/PTP.126.555

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad04d7

    Irani, I., Chen, P., Morag, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad04d7

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/62

    Ito, H., Nagataki, S., Ono, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 62, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/62

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & et al

    Iyyani, S., Ryde, F., Axelsson, M., Burgess, J. M., & et al. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt863

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    1997, Astrophys.J., 490, 92

    Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1997, Astrophys.J., 490, 92

    1997

  18. [26]

    S., & Falle, S

    Komissarov, S. S., & Falle, S. A. E. G. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/288.4.833

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    G., Ridden-Harper, R., Rest, S., et al

    Lane, Z. G., Ridden-Harper, R., Rest, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.15975, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.15975

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., & Blinnikov, S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    U., Aykutalp, A., Johnson, J., & Ceccobello, C

    Lloyd-Ronning, N., Hurtado, V. U., Aykutalp, A., Johnson, J., & Ceccobello, C. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4371, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1057

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    E., et al

    Maccary, R., Guidorzi, C., Camisasca, A. E., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555418

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31955, 1

    Malacaria, C., Meegan, C., & Fermi GBM Team. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31955, 1

    2022

  24. [32]

    N., & et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., & et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791 Mészáros, P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    Meszaros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1993, ApJ, 405, 278, doi: 10.1086/172360 Mészáros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 292, doi: 10.1086/308371

    1993 doi

  26. [34]

    Mizuta, A., & Aloy, M. A. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1261, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1261

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    2017, Astrophysical Journal, 834, 28

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2017, Astrophysical Journal, 834, 28

    2017

  28. [36]

    2009, MNRAS, 392, 1205, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14123.x

    Nalewajko, K., & Sikora, M. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 1205, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14123.x

    2009

  29. [37]

    P., Share, G

    Norris, J. P., Share, G. H., Messina, D. C., et al. 1986, ApJ, 301, 213, doi: 10.1086/163889

    1986 doi

  30. [38]

    Nugis, T., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 227 Pe’er, A. 2008, ApJ, 682, 463, doi: 10.1086/588136 Pe’er, A., Barlow, H., O’Mahony, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/127 Pe’er, A., & Ryde, F. 2011, ApJ, 732, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/4...

    2000 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al

    Perley, D. A., Sollerman, J., Schulze, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac478e

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    J., & Mészáros, P

    Rees, M. J., & Mészáros, P. 2005, ApJ, 628, 847, doi: 10.1086/430818

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    2004, Astron.J., 614, 827 —

    Ryde, F. 2004, Astron.J., 614, 827 —. 2005, Astrophys.J.Lett., 625, L95

    2004

  35. [43]

    2022, ApJL, 932, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac73fe

    Ryde, F., Iyyani, S., Ahlgren, B., et al. 2022, ApJL, 932, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac73fe

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 1897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2019

    Ryde, F., Lundman, C., & Acuner, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 1897, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2019

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    2009, Astron.J., 702, 1211

    Ryde, F., & Pe’er, A. 2009, Astron.J., 702, 1211

    2009

  38. [46]

    2019, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz083

    Ryde, F., Yu, H.-F., Dereli-Bégué, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz083

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    B., et al

    Ryde, F., Axelsson, M., Zhang, B. B., et al. 2010, Astrophys. J. Lett., 709, L172

    2010

  40. [48]

    S., Barbieri, C., Ascenzi, S., & Toffano, M

    Salafia, O. S., Barbieri, C., Ascenzi, S., & Toffano, M. 2020, A&A, 636, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936335

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac332a

    Samuelsson, F., Lundman, C., & Ryde, F. 2022, ApJ, 925, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac332a

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace441

    Samuelsson, F., & Ryde, F. 2023, ApJ, 956, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace441

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Sander, A. A. C., Hamann, W.-R., Todt, H., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833712

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Smith, N. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin, 403, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_38

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 2088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2764

    Song, X.-Y., Zhang, S.-N., Ge, M.-Y., & Zhang, S. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2764

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    P., Hamidani, H., Schroeder, G., et al

    Srinivasaragavan, G. P., Hamidani, H., Schroeder, G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L60, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade870 19

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Birkinshaw, M., & Readhead, A. C. S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae322

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    M., & Maeda, K

    Suzuki, A., Irwin, C. M., & Maeda, K. 2024, PASJ, 76, 863, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae055

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2229

    Tchekhovskoy, A., & Giannios, D. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 327, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2229

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    Thompson, C., Mészáros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1012, doi: 10.1086/518551

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    2018, ApJS, 236, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab780

    Vianello, G. 2018, ApJS, 236, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab780

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    Vianello, G., Lauer, R., Younk, P., et al. 2015, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 34, 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2015), 1042

    2015

  53. [61]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca017

    Wang, Y., Zheng, T.-C., & Jin, Z.-P. 2022, ApJ, 940, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca017

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    2025a, MNRAS, 544, 3683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1757

    Wistemar, O., Alamaa, F., & Ryde, F. 2025a, MNRAS, 544, 3683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1757

    doi

  55. [63]

    2025b, ApJ, 986, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add52d

    Wistemar, O., Ryde, F., & Alamaa, F. 2025b, ApJ, 986, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add52d

    doi

  56. [64]

    D., Greiner, J., et al

    Yu, H.-F., Preece, R. D., Greiner, J., et al. 2016, Astron.Astrophys., 588, A135

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.