Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

GRB 230307A Formed No Dust or Was Not a Binary Neutron Star Merger

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that no kilonova model can produce both the dust needed for the infrared continuum and the heavy elements needed for the [Te III] line in GRB 230307A, so either the infrared glow is not dust or the burst was not a neutron-

desk verdict A serious paper with a real tension, but the abstract overreaches and the dust masses rest on a spectral decomposition that needs more validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.16121 v1 pith:4XXTPUDP submitted 2025-10-17 astro-ph.HE

Prasiddha Arunachalam , Phillip Macias , Ryan. J. Foley This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstskilonovar-processnucleosynthesisdustformationinfraredexcessneutronstarmergerJWSTGRB230307A
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 authors re-analyze JWST spectra of GRB 230307A taken 29 and 61 days after the burst. They model the smooth ~550 K infrared continuum as thermal emission from newly formed dust and find it requires 3–6 × 10⁻³ solar masses of carbon or silicate dust, or about 2 × 10⁻³ solar masses of iron dust. They then compare the elements needed to form that dust with nucleosynthetic yields from kilonova models. No model produces enough light elements to make the dust while also producing enough tellurium to explain the 2.1 μm line. They conclude that either the continuum is not dust emission, or GRB 230307A did not originate from a binary compact-object merger.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified blackbody dust emission model, Fν = M_d Bν(T_d) κν / D², which converts the observed infrared continuum into dust mass and temperature. A two-component dust model (warm and cold) is fit simultaneously to both spectral epochs, allowing dust masses to stay fixed while temperatures evolve. The abundance comparison then uses nucleosynthetic yields from nuclear-network calculations spanning a range of electron fractions, and from kilonova models matched to the bolometric light curve, to test whether any yield can satisfy the dust-forming element and tellurium constraints at once.

What would settle it

A calculation using a full neutron-star merger nucleosynthesis model with a realistic electron-fraction distribution that simultaneously yields more than 3 × 10⁻³ M☉ of carbon or silicate-forming elements and roughly 10⁻³ M☉ of tellurium would falsify the claim; observationally, detecting the 10 μm silicate feature in GRB 230307A would support the dust interpretation and require re-examining the nucleosynthetic constraints.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the late-time infrared continuum of GRB 230307A, if interpreted as dust emission, forces a dust mass that no neutron-star merger model can supply while also producing the r-process elements inferred from the proposed [Te III] line. Carbon or silicate dust requires 3–6 × 10⁻³ M☉, and iron dust requires roughly 2 × 10⁻³ M☉; the iron option is marginally consistent with some models at the 3σ level but physically implausible to form in the expanding ejecta. The paper also derives a 3σ upper limit of 2.6 × 10⁻³ M☉ on radioactive ⁵⁶Ni from the low late-time luminosity. Therefore, either the blackbody-like continuum has a non-dust origin, or GRB 230307A was not a binary ne

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the smooth infrared continuum can be cleanly separated from the afterglow and emission lines and is thermal emission from newly formed dust; if the continuum has a different origin, the inferred dust masses and all abundance comparisons collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, GRB 230307A's identification as a kilonova from a neutron-star merger is called into question, and alternative progenitor channels such as white-dwarf–neutron-star mergers or accretion-induced collapse become more plausible.
  • The ⁵⁶Ni upper limit of 2.6 × 10⁻³ M☉ provides a new constraint that any model of the event must respect.
  • The method can be applied to other GRBs with late-time infrared excesses to distinguish dust emission from kilonova emission.
  • Future late-time JWST observations of similar events could test whether the continuum cools and fades in a way consistent with dust growth or destruction.
  • If the 2.1 μm line is eventually identified as a different species, the tellurium constraint and the central contradiction would need to be revised.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the continuum is neither dust nor a standard kilonova photosphere, the unusually smooth blackbody shape may point to an emission mechanism that no current model predicts, which could open a new physics question for kilonova theory.
  • The dust-mass threshold of ~10⁻³ M☉ could serve as a general diagnostic: any kilonova candidate whose late-time infrared continuum requires that much dust may be inconsistent with a neutron-star merger origin.
  • A decisive observational test would be to search for the 10 μm silicate feature; its presence would support the dust interpretation and sharpen the contradiction, while its absence would disfavor silicate dust and weaken the abundance comparison.
  • The tension might also be resolved by improved atomic data for tellurium: if the line identification is wrong, the r-process evidence weakens and the dust interpretation becomes less constrained.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes the JWST/NIRSpec spectra of GRB 230307A at +29 and +61 days. It decomposes the IR continuum into an afterglow power law, Gaussian emission lines, and a two-temperature modified-blackbody dust component, deriving dust masses for carbonaceous, silicate, and metallic-iron compositions. These masses are converted to required elemental masses and compared to nucleosynthetic yields from single-Ye SkyNet calculations and from three POSSIS kilonova models selected by reduced chi-square. The paper finds that carbon/silicate dust requires C, O, Mg, and Si abundances orders of magnitude above kilonova predictions, that iron dust is only marginally consistent for two models and physically disfavored, and that the late-time luminosity limits 56Ni to <2.6e-3 Msun. The central conclusion is a disjunction: either the IR continuum is not dust from the merger, or GRB 230307A did not originate from a binary neutron star / neutron star-black hole merger.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper challenges the kilonova interpretation of GRB 230307A and forces consideration of alternative progenitor channels (e.g., white-dwarf-neutron-star mergers or accretion-induced collapse). The quantitative tension is large (many sigma in log-space) and the analysis uses conservative normalizations: assigning all dust mass to the key element and scaling r-process mass to a deliberately high value both make it harder to rule out kilonova models. The paper also validates its MCMC implementation against prior work, and it explicitly acknowledges the undersampled POSSIS grid. These are strengths. The significance is high because GRB 230307A is the first GRB with deep late-time JWST spectroscopy, and the interpretation of its IR continuum is currently contested. However, the strength of the final claim exceeds what the current model sampling and spectral-contamination treatment can support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 1] The handling of known contamination is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that the +29-day spectrum's galaxy contamination 'cannot qualitatively affect any results' and that the +61-day fit simply ignores data shortward of 1.7 um, but no galaxy-subtracted fit, contamination template, or sensitivity test is provided. The cold dust component is constrained primarily by the 2-5 um continuum shape; a modest galaxy contribution or a slight change in the afterglow power-law slope would propagate directly into the dust masses used in Tables 3 and 5. Because the central disjunction rests on these dust masses, this is a load-bearing gap. Please add an explicit contamination sensitivity analysis or model the galaxy/star components.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 3, Table 4] The abstract's 'No KN model can simultaneously...' is stronger than the evidence presented. The text admits that the full POSSIS model space is undersampled and that only three models from a coarse grid are used, yet it then asserts that these models 'represent the full qualitative range of Ye distributions' and are 'representative of all KN models consistent with AT2023vfi.' That assertion is not justified. To support the universal claim, the authors need either a denser grid, a full parameter inference, or a demonstration that the unexplored regions cannot satisfy both the dust and Te constraints. Without this, the conclusion should be limited to the models actually considered.
  3. [Section 3, Table 5] The normalization of every model to a total r-process mass of 0.12 Msun is described as conservative, but for high-Ye models it produces unphysical results: the paper itself notes that this normalization implies production of ≫100 Msun of He and Fe-group material. Yet the rows for Ye=0.39-0.49 are used to make quantitative exclusion claims. Please report absolute yields at the model's actual ejecta mass and treat the r-process mass normalization as an explicit parameter with a physically motivated prior, rather than applying a single scaling to all models.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There is a missing citation: 'measured by Fermi-GBM (cite)' should be replaced with a specific reference.
  2. [Conclusions and elsewhere] Typos: 'but but producing iron dust' in Section 5; 'the the data' in the final paragraph; 'a a KN' in the Introduction.
  3. [Table 5] The definition of 'signed deviations in units of sigma in log-space' is not given. Please specify how the sigma values are computed, especially with asymmetric or non-Gaussian posteriors.
  4. [Section 2] The choice of grain size a=0.1 um is not varied. Since dust mass scales with opacity and hence grain size, a sentence justifying this choice and noting the expected effect on Mdust would improve robustness.
  5. [Section 4.1] The dismissal of iron dust relies on the statement that the gas density at T~800 K is 'too low to efficiently form iron dust' (Nozawa et al. 2011). A quantitative estimate of the density and condensation timescale would make this argument more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dust masses are fitted, but the nucleosynthesis comparison is external and not constructed from the dust constraints.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: observed JWST spectra are decomposed into afterglow, lines, and a modified-blackbody dust component (Eq. 1); the fitted dust masses are converted into elemental mass fractions (Table 3); and those fractions are compared against external nuclear-network and radiative-transfer models (SkyNet, POSSIS; Table 5). The conclusion is a mismatch between the fitted dust/Te constraints and independently computed nucleosynthesis yields. The KN models are not adjusted to reproduce the dust masses or the Te mass, so the comparison is an external benchmark rather than a circular reduction. The Te mass and ejecta mass are adopted from prior independent analyses (Levan et al. 2024; Gillanders et al. 2023) with stated uncertainties, making them inputs with known assumptions, not outputs of this paper's derivation. The only self-citations (Coulter et al. 2017; Kilpatrick et al. 2017) concern the externally verified discovery of AT 2017gfo and do not carry the present argument. One robustness concern is the assertion in Section 2 that galaxy contamination 'cannot qualitatively affect any results' despite the +29-day spectrum showing narrow galaxy lines, and the +61-day fit masks wavelengths shortward of 1.7 micron; however, that is a missing-support/systematic-uncertainty issue, not a circular definition or self-referential derivation. It would affect the reliability of the fitted dust masses, not whether the derivation reduces to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on fitted dust masses and on external nucleosynthesis and line-identification assumptions, all listed above.

free parameters (8)
  • Dust mass (cold component, carbon) = (2.8 ± 0.7) × 10^-3 M_sun
    Required to reproduce the 2-5 μm continuum at 29 and 61 days (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (warm component, carbon) = (2.5 ± 0.4) × 10^-5 M_sun
    Second component needed to fit the 2-3 μm region (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (cold component, silicate) = (6.0 ± 1.9) × 10^-3 M_sun
    Fitted for silicate composition (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (warm component, silicate) = (8.4 ± 1.4) × 10^-5 M_sun
    Fitted for silicate composition (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (cold component, iron) = (1.9 ± 0.4) × 10^-3 M_sun
    Fitted for metallic iron composition (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (warm component, iron) = (1.6 ± 0.3) × 10^-5 M_sun
    Fitted for metallic iron composition (Table 2).
  • Grain size = 0.1 μm (assumed)
    Fixed in the dust opacity calculation (Section 2). Not varied; dust mass scales with assumed size and optical constants.
  • r-process normalization = 0.12 M_sun
    Assumed conservative upper limit on the total r-process mass for scaling model abundances (Section 3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The IR continuum is optically thin thermal emission from dust, described by F = M_d B(T) κ / D^2 (Eq. 1).
    Standard dust SED model; if the dust is optically thick or geometry differs, the inferred mass changes. Section 2.
  • domain assumption No kilonova model produces a pseudo-blackbody continuum at +29/+61 days.
    The paper relies on cited models (Hotokezaka et al., Banerjee et al., Pognan et al.) to exclude an intrinsic KN origin for the continuum, needed for the 'or' in the conclusion. Sections 1, 4.2.
  • domain assumption The 2.1 μm emission line is [Te III] and the Te mass is ~1e-3 M_sun (Levan et al. 2024).
    If the line is misidentified, the r-process constraint used in Table 5 disappears. Section 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The three POSSIS models (A,B,C) selected by reduced χ² are representative of all KN models consistent with the bolometric light curve.
    Authors explicitly note the full model space is undersampled, so using these three to claim 'no KN model' is an assumption. Section 3, Figure 3.
  • domain assumption The ejecta total mass is 0.059 ± 0.011 M_sun (Gillanders et al. 2023).
    Used to convert dust masses to mass fractions (Table 3). An unstated background measurement.
  • domain assumption Iron dust cannot form at the low gas densities when ejecta cools to ~800 K (Nozawa et al. 2011).
    Used to dismiss the one dust species that is marginally consistent with KN models. Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRB 230307A Formed No Dust or Was Not a Binary Neutron Star Merger." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4XXTPUDP

@misc{pith2026251016121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRB 230307A Formed No Dust or Was Not a Binary Neutron Star Merger},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4XXTPUDP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.16121}
}
abstract

We present a new analysis of the JWST infrared spectra of GRB 230307A (AT 2023vfi), a long gamma-ray burst (GRB) with an infrared excess and spectral lines suggestive of significant heavy $r$-process production. The spectra, taken 29 and 61~days after the GRB trigger, have blackbody-like continua with $T_{\rm eff} \approx 550$ K and an emission line near $2.1$ $\mu$m, previously attributed to [Te III]. This line identification has been used as evidence for an $r$-process-powered kilonova (KN), despite no KN model producing a blackbody-like spectrum at late times. Such an infrared continuum could be emitted by newly formed dust, and we model the thermal emission to infer dust properties, including composition and mass. We find that the emission requires at least 3--$6 \times 10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$ of carbon or silicate dust, which is inconsistent with $r$-process yields expected from a neutron star merger. Alternatively, the continuum could be from $2\times 10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$ of metallic iron dust, which is mildly consistent (at 3$\sigma$) with KN models, but such dust is unlikely to form in the expanding ejecta. GRB 230307A's low late-time luminosity also constrains the amount of radioactive $^{56}$Ni produced to $<2.6 \times 10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$ (3$\sigma$). No KN model can simultaneously form the necessary dust for the infrared continuum and heavy elements for the [Te III] line. We conclude that the blackbody continuum is not due to dust emission, or GRB 230307A did not originate from a binary compact-object merger.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.16121 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. JWST/NIRSpec spectra of AT 2023vfi taken 29 (top) and 61 days (bottom) after the GRB trigger, as reduced by Gillanders & Smartt (2025, black curves). Overplotted in burnt red are the best-fit models for each spectrum. Those spectra are a combination of a power-law component (green dotted curve), two carbonaceous dust components (gold dashed and purple dot-dashed curves), and Gaussian profiles (not shown). The temper… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MCMC corner plot showing the two-component dust model fits to the blackbody-like emission in AT 2023vfi, using carbonaceous dust (grain size 0.1 µm). The model fits the 29-day and 61-day data simultaneously, assuming fixed dust masses between the two epochs. This corner plot corresponds to the fit shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. displays the pseudo-bolometric light curve for AT 2023vfi as calculated by Liu et al. (2025b), along with light curves (in gray) from a coarsely-sampled subset of the POSSIS models described above. We do not perform a full Monte Carlo inference on this model space, but instead high￾light (in color) the three best-fitting models according to the reduced chi-squared statistic, again noting that the full model space is… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Abundance patterns at t = 29 days for single Ye Skynet runs shown in color, scaled so that the r-process mass is equal to 0.12M⊙. The orange vertical bars show the range of possible C, O, Mg, Si, and Fe masses inferred through dust modeling of this epoch for carbonaceo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P ., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P ., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, ApJL, 8 48, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 —. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  2. [2]

    Anand, S., Pang, P . T. H., Bulla, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prin ts, arXiv:2307.11080, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.11080 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P ., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip ˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f ...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.11080 2023

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf6ba

    Banerjee, S., Jerkstrand, A., Badnell, N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf6ba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf6ba 2025

  4. [4]

    2016 , ApJ, 829, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110

    Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2016 , ApJ, 829, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/110 2016

  5. [5]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 2014

  6. [6]

    B., Davies, M

    Bobrick, A., Zenati, Y ., Perets, H. B., Davies, M. B., & Churc h, R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3574

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3574 2022

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad232

    Bulla, M. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad232

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad232 2023

  8. [8]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L33 , doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737

    Chen, J., Shen, R.-F., Tan, W.-J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L33 , doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L

    Cheong, P . C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L. F., & Radice, D. 2025, ApJL, 978, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada1cc

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Gaspari, N., Levan, A

    Chrimes, A. A., Gaspari, N., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.10984, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10984

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Foley, R

    Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, S cience, 358, 1556, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9811

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P . S., Berger, E., Villar, V . A., et al. 2017,ApJL, 848, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    M., et al

    Dalessi, S., V eres, P ., Hui, C. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.12637, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.12637

    2025 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    T., & Hensley, B

    Draine, B. T., & Hensley, B. S. 2021, ApJ, 910, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb7

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    1984 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science , 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Natu re, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Dwek, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1 768, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1768

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    Fryer, C., Benz, W., Herant, M., & Colgate, S. A. 1999, ApJ, 51 6, 892, doi: 10.1086/307119

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    R., & Levan, A

    Gall, C., Hjorth, J., Rosswog, S., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J . 2017, ApJL, 849, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa93f9

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    H., & Smartt, S

    Gillanders, J. H., & Smartt, S. J. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf287 12 A RUNACHALAM , M ACIAS , & F OLEY

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Troja, E., Fryer, C

    Gillanders, J. H., Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.00633, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.00633

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., V eres, P ., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Foucart, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Foucart, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E . 2025, ApJ, 984, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc577

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5863, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1975 —

    Hotokezaka, K., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., & Gaigalas, G. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5863, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1975 —. 2022, MNRAS, 515, L89, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac071 —. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L155, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad128

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90 , doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Kaltenborn, M. A. R., Fryer, C. L., Wollaeger, R. T., et al. 20 23, ApJ, 956, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf860

    doi

  23. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2

    Kasen, D., & Barnes, J. 2019, ApJ, 876, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., Quataert, E., & Ramirez- Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P ., et al. 2017, Scienc e, 358, 1559, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9455

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2002, A&A, 384, 585, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020036

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, Scien ce, 358, 1583, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0073

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    2005, ApJ, 629, 341, doi: 10.1086/431354

    Kohri, K., Narayan, R., & Piran, T. 2005, ApJ, 629, 341, doi: 10.1086/431354

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    P ., Tanvir, N

    Lamb, G. P ., Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38bb

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    J., et al

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Morsony, B. J., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 12 0, 241103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P ., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Natu re, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2017, ApJS, 233, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa94cb

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    2025a, ApJL, 988, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adec83

    Liu, X.-X., Lü, H.-J., Chen, Q.-H., Du, Z.-W., & Liang, E.-W. 2025a, ApJL, 988, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adec83

    doi

  34. [42]

    2025b, ApJL, 983, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc260

    Liu, Z., Jiang, J.-a., & Zhao, W. 2025b, ApJL, 983, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc260

    doi

  35. [43]

    I., & Woosley, S

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790

    1999 doi

  36. [44]

    P ., Xiong, Z., et al

    McCann, M., Mulholland, L. P ., Xiong, Z., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf283

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    Pacholski, D. P . 2023, ApJ, 956, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf846

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., Piro, A. L., & Quataert, E. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13789.x

    2008

  39. [47]

    Ramsbottom, C. A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2331

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2007, PhR, 442, 166, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

    Nakar, E. 2007, PhR, 442, 166, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    1992, ApJL, 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493

    Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T. 1992, ApJL, 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493

    1992 doi

  42. [50]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/45

    Nozawa, T., Maeda, K., Kozasa, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/45

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    Querry, M. R. 1988, ApOpt, 27, 1203, doi: 10.1364/AO.27.001203

    1988 doi

  44. [52]

    1986, ApJL, 308, L43, doi: 10.1086/184740

    Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJL, 308, L43, doi: 10.1086/184740

    1986 doi

  45. [53]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751

    Perego, A., V escovi, D., Fiore, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P ., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12413

    Jerkstrand, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12413. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12413

    2025

  48. [56]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P ., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, Classica l and Quantum Gravity, 34, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9

    Rosswog, S., Feindt, U., Korobkin, O., et al. 2017, Classica l and Quantum Gravity, 34, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    Savchenko, V ., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    R., Timmes, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Timmes, F. X., Marin-Laflèche, A., et al. 2 008, ApJL, 685, L129, doi: 10.1086/592501

    doi

  52. [60]

    M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Nature, 569, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Chen, T

    Smartt, S. J., Chen, T. W., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2017, Natur e, 551, 75, doi: 10.1038/nature24303

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, A&A, 675, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346421

    Sneppen, A., & Watson, D. 2023, A&A, 675, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346421

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    2014, ApJL, 789, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L6

    Takami, H., Nozawa, T., & Ioka, K. 2014, ApJL, 789, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L6

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc95

    Tanaka, M., Domoto, N., Aoki, W., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc95

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., González-Fernández, C., et al. 2 017, ApJL, 848, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6

    doi

  58. [66]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.13061, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13061

    Tarumi, Y ., Hotokezaka, K., Domoto, N., & Tanaka, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.13061, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13061

    2023 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022, Nature, 61 2, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    I., Y u, Y .-W., Ren, J., et al

    Wang, X. I., Y u, Y .-W., Ren, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 964, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df6

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Selsing, J., et al

    Watson, D., Hansen, C. J., Selsing, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 5 74, 497, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    O., & Kushnir, D

    Waxman, E., Ofek, E. O., & Kushnir, D. 2025, ApJ, 984, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc1bd GRB 230307A D UST 13

    2025 doi

  63. [71]

    2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    Yang, Y .-H., Troja, E., O’Connor, B., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    Zenati, Y ., Bobrick, A., & Perets, H. B. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 395 6, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa507

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.