Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

A Unified Model of Kilonovae and GRBs in Binary Mergers Establishes Neutron Stars as the Central Engines of Short GRBs

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 Short gamma-ray bursts are powered by magnetized neutron stars, not black holes, according to a unified merger model.

desk verdict A plausible case that short GRBs are HMNS-powered, but the clinching evidence rests on four events with unquantified selection effects. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13657 v2 pith:HSFMOT24 submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.HE

Ore Gottlieb , Brian D. Metzger , Francois Foucart , Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstskilonovaeneutronstarmergershypermassivestarscompactbinaryaccretiondisksgravitationalwavesr-processnucleosynthesis
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

This paper argues that the two flavors of compact-binary gamma-ray bursts are produced by two different central engines: long binary GRBs (lbGRBs) come from black holes surrounded by massive accretion disks, while short binary GRBs (sbGRBs) come from a transient magnetized neutron star remnant, the hypermassive neutron star (HMNS), that lives about a tenth to one second before collapsing. The key evidence is the kilonova, the radioactive glow of merger debris. Black-hole engines should produce bright, red kilonovae for long bursts and faint, red kilonovae for short bursts, while neutron-star engines should produce similarly bright but bluer kilonovae. Observations of eight GRB-kilonova pairs show long bursts with bright red kilonovae and short bursts with comparably bright, bluer kilonovae, matching the neutron-star prediction and contradicting the black-hole prediction. If correct, this unifies the population: all black-hole-powered merger bursts are long, all neutron-star-powered bursts are short, and mergers of a black hole with a neutron star contribute only to the long-burst population.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is a scaling between the disk mass, jet power, and burst duration, $t_{\rm GRB} \approx (\eta_a \dot{M}(1\,{\rm s}) c^2 / P_{\rm BH})^{1/\alpha}\,{\rm s}$, with $\alpha \approx 1.5$ to $2$, which follows from the disk's viscous spreading and the transition of the black hole's magnetosphere to a magnetically arrested state. Because the jet power is set by the magnetic flux, the model must know how flux scales with disk mass; simulations showing a roughly constant dimensionless flux across disk masses imply that black holes with smaller disks produce fainter, not shorter, bursts, leaving the neutron star as the only viable short-burst engine. The neutron-star engine is quantified by the split-monopole jet power $P_{\rm NS} \approx 7.4\times10^{50}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$ for a $3\times10^{15}\,{\rm G}$ field, with a baryon-loading estimate giving Lorentz factors $\Gamma \gtrsim 10$. The kilonova then does the diagnostic work: its luminosity traces the disk-wind ejecta mass (and hence disk mass), and its color traces the electron fraction, which neutrino irradiation from a long-lived HMNS pushes above $Y_e \gtrsim 0.3$, producing the bluer short-burst kilonovae.

What would settle it

A distance-limited, deep optical and near-infrared follow-up campaign of every short gamma-ray burst within, say, 200 Mpc would settle the question: if many short bursts show only faint, red kilonovae, the representativeness assumption fails and black-hole engines remain viable, whereas if every detected short-burst kilonova is comparably bright and bluer, the neutron-star engine conclusion is strengthened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the central engine of short gamma-ray bursts is a magnetized hypermassive neutron star, not a black hole, and that this can be read off from the kilonova that accompanies each burst. In the authors' unified model, a black hole with a massive disk ($M_d \gtrsim 0.1\,M_\odot$) inevitably launches a long burst with a bright red kilonova; a black hole with a less massive disk would launch a short burst with a kilonova roughly a thousand times fainter. Since observed short bursts are accompanied by kilonovae nearly as bright as those of long bursts, and since their kilonovae are bluer, the authors conclude that the jets of short bursts are powered by the HMNS remnant itself, whose neutrino irradiation raises the electron fraction of the ejecta and shifts the kilonova color blueward. Within this framework all black-hole engines produce long binary GRBs, and black hole–neutron star mergers join the long-burst population with red kilonovae; the event GW170817 would have appeared as a long binary GRB to an on-axis observer.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes, as the paper says only plausibly, that the current sample of short-burst kilonovae is representative, with no strong observational bias against detecting faint kilonovae; if faint kilonovae around short bursts are routinely missed, the bright bluer ones could still come from black-hole engines.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, every black-hole-powered merger burst is a long binary GRB with a bright red kilonova, and no black-hole system produces a canonical short GRB.
  • Short GRBs are produced only by neutron star–neutron star mergers whose remnant survives as a hypermassive neutron star for roughly 0.1–1 s, and their kilonovae should be systematically bluer than long-burst kilonovae.
  • Black hole–neutron star mergers contribute exclusively to the long-burst population with red kilonovae, which sharpens the interpretation of future gravitational-wave–GRB coincidences.
  • GW170817, had its jet been pointed at us, would have been classified as a long binary GRB rather than a short one.
  • Alternative progenitors for long bursts from white dwarf–neutron star mergers, white dwarf–black hole mergers, or accretion-induced collapse are disfavored because they cannot match the burst durations, energies, radio limits, and kilonova colors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit, testable corollary of the paper's logic is that short-burst duration should track the HMNS lifetime distribution and should not correlate with kilonova brightness, whereas the black-hole picture predicts a tight ejecta-mass–duration correlation that the current data already fail to show.
  • If a gravitational-wave-detected binary neutron star merger with an on-axis short GRB shows gravitational-wave signatures of prompt collapse to a black hole, the neutron-star-engine model would be wrong; a long-lived remnant would confirm it.
  • One could extend the color diagnostic to ultraviolet and near-infrared follow-up of future short bursts: an HMNS engine predicts a blue or purple component within the first day, while a black-hole engine predicts only a faint red component.
  • The most valuable test is selection-effect work: if deep surveys reveal many faint, red kilonovae around short bursts, the observed bright blue kilonovae would become the biased tail of a black-hole-powered population.
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 extends the theoretical framework of Gottlieb et al. (2023a), which connects binary merger outcomes to long and short binary GRBs (lbGRBs and sbGRBs) through the post-merger accretion disk mass, by adding kilonova (KN) diagnostics. Section 2 reviews the BH disk-GRB scalings (Eqs. 1-5) and argues that only massive disks (Md ~ 0.1 Msun) can produce the observed lbGRB durations and luminosities, while both BH-powered and HMNS-powered jets could in principle power sbGRBs. Section 3 derives the expected relation between GRB duration and KN ejecta mass (Eq. 11) under the BH engine hypothesis and compares it with the Rastinejad et al. (2024) sample of eight GRB-KN associations. The authors find that the observed sbGRB KNe are too bright and too blue to fit the BH-engine predictions, concluding that HMNSs are the central engines of sbGRBs, that all BH-powered merger GRBs are lbGRBs, that BH-NS mergers feed the lbGRB population, and that GW170817 would appear as an lbGRB to an on-axis observer. Section 4.1 argues against WD-NS, WD-BH, and AIC alternatives.

Significance. If correct, these conclusions would challenge the standard assumption that short GRBs are powered by BHs formed in binary mergers, replacing the engine with a transient magnetized neutron star for the bulk of the short-burst population. The paper's strengths are that it uses an external observational sample (Rastinejad et al. 2024) that was not used to fit the model, it makes explicit falsifiable predictions (blue/purple KNe for HMNS-powered sbGRBs; BH-NS mergers producing red-KNe lbGRBs), and it is transparent about a key uncertainty in the HMNS jet Lorentz factor. The main risk is that the central inference rests on a small sample of four sbGRBs with KNe, whose representativeness is asserted as 'plausible' but not demonstrated, and on analytic scalings whose normalization is calibrated to the authors' own simulations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and §4, Table 1] The conclusion that the observed KNe accompanying sbGRBs are too bright to be BH-powered assumes that the current sample of GRB-KN associations is representative. The paper's only defense, in §4, is that it is 'plausible' that no observational bias exists against fainter sbGRB KNe, supported by the observation that lbGRB KNe are at closer distances than sbGRB KNe. This argument does not exclude a strong selection effect, because follow-up observations are often triggered by afterglow brightness, localization, and redshift availability, not solely by KN brightness. If most BH-powered sbGRBs produce faint KNe, as Eq. (11) predicts, the detected sbGRB KNe could be the bright tail of that population, making the inferred Mej-T50 relation an artifact. I request a quantified selection-function analysis (e.g., a Monte Carlo simulation of KN detection probability as a function of Mej, redshift, and observing strategy) or a restriction of the comparison to a demonstrably complete subsample.
  2. [§3.2 and Table 1] The second pillar of the HMNS argument—that sbGRB KNe are distinctly bluer—is also vulnerable to distance-dependent selection. The paper notes that lbGRB-associated KNe are closer than sbGRB-associated KNe; if the latter are typically at higher redshift, their red components, being fainter, may fall below detection thresholds, making the observed SED appear bluer. The paper does not show that the Rastinejad et al. (2024) color decompositions are compared in rest-frame bands at comparable signal-to-noise, nor does it discuss K-corrections. Since the color argument is presented as independent support for the HMNS scenario, this bias must be addressed before the claim is secure.
  3. [§3.1, Eqs. (5), (9), (11)] The quantitative prediction that BH-powered sbGRB KNe would be too faint to detect is anchored to the normalization of Eq. (5), which is fitted to the authors' own numerical results (Gottlieb et al. 2023a, Fig. 1), and to the assumed universal ejecta-mass fraction Mej = 0.3 Md (with simulations quoted at 0.3-0.4). The paper also adopts ranges for epsilon_gamma and f_b but does not propagate them into Eq. (11). Because the central argument is the contrast between predicted and observed Mej values in Table 1, I ask for a sensitivity analysis that varies the normalization of Eq. (5), f_ej, alpha, and f_-1 within the stated ranges and shows the allowed Mej-T50 region for the BH engine. This will confirm that the claimed 'orders of magnitude' discrepancy is robust.
  4. [§2.3.2, §4, Fig. 3] The treatment of GW170817 contains an apparent inconsistency. In §2.3.2, GW170817 is cited as a likely long-lived HMNS (0.1 s <= tHMNS <= 1 s), which in the model powers sbGRBs with blue KNe. However, §4 states that GW170817 might appear as an lbGRB to an on-axis observer because its KN properties resemble those of GRB 230307A, an lbGRB with a red-dominated KN. A long-lived HMNS with a red KN would contradict the model's color diagnostic, while a BH with a massive disk (required for an lbGRB) is inconsistent with the long-lived HMNS interpretation. Please clarify the inferred remnant lifetime and the classification of GW170817 in this framework.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 caption] The T50 values for GRBs 170817A, 050709, and 230307A are inferred by extrapolating the T90/T50 ratio from other GRBs; please state the uncertainty this introduces in the Mej-T50 comparisons and consider showing alternate analyses using T90 for those events.
  2. [§2.3.2, Eq. (7)] The baryon-loading estimate in Eq. (7) is strongly sensitive to L_nu and epsilon_nu; please give the ranges used for these parameters and the corresponding spread in Gamma_infty.
  3. [Fig. 2] The black region and gray line in Fig. 2 are said to have arbitrary normalization, which makes the claimed discrepancy hard to evaluate visually; please overlay the individual data points with uncertainties and, if possible, show the absolute normalization from Eq. (11) for reference.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'Gottlieb el al.' should be 'Gottlieb et al.'
  5. [§4] The statement that 'all BHs power lbGRBs' would be easier to evaluate if the predicted rate of faint lbGRBs from low-mass disks and its observational detectability were discussed quantitatively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the central KN comparison is anchored to external Rastinejad et al. (2024) data and does not reduce to the self-cited simulation framework.

full rationale

The paper's central inference—that HMNSs, not BHs, power sbGRBs—is built from a scaling model (Eqs. 1–11) and tested against external KN ejecta masses from Rastinejad et al. (2024). Eq. (5) is calibrated to the authors' own numerical results ('the normalization comes from fitting the numerical results of Gottlieb et al. 2023a, their Fig. 1'), but the load-bearing prediction is the steep Mej ∝ T50^α trend, whose slope is independent of that normalization; Fig. 2 even states 'The normalization of the trends is arbitrary.' The observed sample of eight KNe is not used to fit Eq. (5) or Eq. (11), so the 'prediction' that BH-powered sbGRBs should have much fainter KNe is not forced by construction. Self-citations to Gottlieb et al. (2023a) and Izquierdo et al. (2025) supply simulation-based scalings (massive disks → lbGRBs; ϕ roughly constant across disk masses) and are used as ordinary prior results, not as an unverified uniqueness claim or ansatz smuggled in by citation. The manuscript itself flags the one genuinely soft premise in §4: it is only 'plausible that the current sample of sbGRBs is representative' against a selection bias on faint KNe. That is a correctness/robustness limitation, not a circular step, because the argument would still be a falsifiable model test even if the sample is later found to be biased. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to its target conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of standard accretion and jet physics assumptions, plus a few load-bearing modeling choices: the ejecta mass fraction, the accretion index range, the fitted duration normalization, and the assumed constancy of dimensionless flux. No new particles or forces are invoked.

free parameters (4)
  • Ejecta mass fraction f_ej = Mej/Md = 0.3
    Adopted in Section 3.1 based on simulations; directly sets the KN luminosity scaling in Eq. (11).
  • Accretion rate decay index alpha = 1.5 to 2
    Range from numerical simulations, used in Eqs. (3)-(5) and (11); affects the predicted Mej-T50 slope.
  • Normalization of Eq. (5) for tGRB = 1 s for Md=1e-2 Msun, PBH=5e50 erg/s
    Fitted to numerical results of Gottlieb et al. 2023a, Fig. 1; used for all duration-ejecta predictions.
  • Combined beaming/radiative efficiency f_-1 = f_-1 = 0.1 eps_gamma / f_b, with 0.01 <= f_b <= 0.11 and 0.15 <= eps_gamma <= 0.5
    Uncertain conversion from jet energy to observed Eiso in Eq. (10), affects the inferred Mej.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Post-merger disk accretion rate evolves as Mdot(t) ~ t^{-alpha} with 1.5 <= alpha <= 2
    Based on numerical simulations, used in Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption BH jet power follows BZ scaling with MAD saturation at phi_M ~ 50
    Standard GRMHD/MAD theory, Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption The dimensionless magnetic flux phi is approximately independent of disk mass
    Inferred from simulations (including Izquierdo et al. 2025, with overlapping authorship); used in Section 2.3.1 to argue BH engines cannot make short luminous bursts.
  • domain assumption Kilonova ejecta mass is dominated by disk winds with Mej ~ 0.3 Md
    Adopted in Section 3.1 to connect KN brightness to disk mass.
  • domain assumption The observed sample of GRB-associated KNe is representative, with no strong bias against faint sbGRB KNe
    Stated as plausible in Section 4; if false, the flat Mej-T50 trend could be a selection artifact.
  • domain assumption HMNS neutrino irradiation raises ejecta electron fraction to Ye >= 0.3, producing blue/purple KNe
    Standard neutrino-irradiation picture, Section 3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified Model of Kilonovae and GRBs in Binary Mergers Establishes Neutron Stars as the Central Engines of Short GRBs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HSFMOT24

@misc{pith2026241113657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified Model of Kilonovae and GRBs in Binary Mergers Establishes Neutron Stars as the Central Engines of Short GRBs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HSFMOT24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13657}
}
abstract

We expand the theoretical framework by Gottlieb el al. (2023), which connects binary merger populations with long and short binary gamma-ray bursts (lbGRBs and sbGRBs), incorporating kilonovae as a key diagnostic tool. We show that lbGRBs, powered by massive accretion disks around black holes (BHs), should be accompanied by bright, red kilonovae. In contrast, sbGRBs - if also powered by BHs - would produce fainter, red kilonovae, potentially biasing against their detection. However, magnetized hypermassive neutron star (HMNS) remnants that precede BH formation can produce jets with power ($P_{\rm NS} \approx 10^{51}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$) and Lorentz factor ($\Gamma>10$), likely compatible with sbGRB observations, and would result in distinctly bluer kilonovae, offering a pathway to identifying the sbGRB central engine. Recent modeling by Rastinejad et al. (2024) found luminous red kilonovae consistently accompany lbGRBs, supporting lbGRB originating from BH-massive disk systems, likely following a short-lived HMNS phase. The preferential association of sbGRBs with comparably luminous kilonovae argues against the BH engine hypothesis for sbGRBs, while the bluer hue of these KNe provides additional support for an HMNS-driven mechanism. Within this framework, BH-NS mergers likely contribute exclusively to the lbGRB population with red kilonovae. Our findings suggest that GW170817 may, in fact, have been an lbGRB to on-axis observers. Finally, we discuss major challenges faced by alternative lbGRB progenitor models, such as white dwarf-NS or white dwarf-BH mergers and accretion-induced collapse forming magnetars, which fail to align with observed GRB timescales, energies, and kilonova properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13657 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Expectations for the relationship between KN ejecta mass and GRB duration in BH-powered jet models for lbGRBs (shaded red area) and sbGRBs (shaded blue area). The pie charts repre￾sent the red, purple, and blue ejecta fractions of Mej, normalized to the maximum ejecta mass of the KN associated with GRB 060616. This highlights that lbGRBs are consistently associated with a more substantial red KN component, while sbG… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The GRB and KN outcomes of compact object mergers with masses M1 and M2. The top-left half depicts the resultant central engine, while the bottom-right half shows the GRB and KN properties. Yellow dots indicate the Galactic NS–NS population that will merge within Hubble time (Chu et al. 2022), green stars indicate NS–NS mergers from Abbott et al. (2019, 2020), assuming MTOV = 2.05 M⊙ and Mthresh = 2.8 M⊙. If Mtot ∼ … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Binary neutron stars in the next-generation era: Multi-messenger detection prospects and constraints on the equation of state, mass distribution, and cosmology

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

    With ET (and ET+CE), mock multi-messenger BNS catalogues yield ~40–500 EM counterparts per year and, under ideal recovery, constrain R1.4 to ~0.2 km and H0 to ~1 km s−1 Mpc−1.

  2. Implications of Magnetic Flux-Disk Mass Correlation in Black Hole-Neutron Star Mergers for GRB sub-populations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    BH-NS merger simulations find a nearly universal dimensionless magnetic flux on the black hole across two decades of disk mass, which, extrapolated with prior long-term runs, implies all BH-NS mergers produce long-dur...

  3. Connecting GRBs from Binary Neutron Star Mergers to Nuclear Properties of Neutron Stars

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    By matching population-synthesis predictions to the observed ratio of long to short GRBs from binary neutron star mergers, the authors infer that the long-short remnant transition lies near M_ls ~ 1.3 M_TOV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    602C `\.=

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 011001, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  3. [3]

    2020, , 892, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    ---. 2020, , 892, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 2020

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20335

    Aguilera-Miret , R., Palenzuela, C., Carrasco, F., Rosswog, S., & Viganò, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20335. 2407.20335

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.04837, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.04837

    Aguilera-Miret , R., Palenzuela , C., Carrasco , F., & Vigan \`o , D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.04837, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.04837

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.04837 2023

  6. [6]

    Bamber, J., Tsokaros, A., Ruiz, M., & Shapiro, S. L. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 10.1103/physrevd.110.024046

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.024046 2024

  7. [7]

    W., Shapiro , S

    Baumgarte , T. W., Shapiro , S. L., & Shibata , M. 2000, , 528, L29, 10.1086/312425

    doi:10.1086/312425 2000

  8. [8]

    W., & Janka , H

    Bauswein , A., Baumgarte , T. W., & Janka , H. T. 2013, , 111, 131101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.131101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.131101 2013

Show all 140 references
  1. [9]

    2021, , 920, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1678

    Beniamini , P., & Lu , W. 2021, , 920, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1678

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18185, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18185

    Bernuzzi , S., Magistrelli , F., Jacobi , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.18185, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.18185

    2024 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    D., & Begelman , M

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

    1999

  4. [12]

    D., & Znajek , R

    Blandford , R. D., & Znajek , R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  5. [13]

    F., & Radice , D

    Chi-Kit Cheong , P., Pitik , T., Longo Micchi , L. F., & Radice , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10938, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10938

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    M., Lalakos , A., Tchekhovskoy , A., et al

    Christie , I. M., Lalakos , A., Tchekhovskoy , A., et al. 2019, , 490, 4811, 10.1093/mnras/stz2552

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, , 509, 1557, 10.1093/mnras/stab2882

    Chu , Q., Yu , S., & Lu , Y. 2022, , 509, 1557, 10.1093/mnras/stab2882

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, , 495, L66, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa062

    Ciolfi , R. 2020, , 495, L66, 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa062

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, , 95, 063016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063016

    Ciolfi , R., Kastaun , W., Giacomazzo , B., et al. 2017, , 95, 063016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063016

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    V., & Giacomazzo , B

    Ciolfi , R., Kastaun , W., Kalinani , J. V., & Giacomazzo , B. 2019, , 100, 023005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023005

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Combi , L., & Siegel , D. M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.12284, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.12284

    2023 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2024, , 961, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0fe1

    Curtis , S., Bosch , P., M \"o sta , P., et al. 2024, , 961, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0fe1

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, , 518, 5313, 10.1093/mnras/stac3128

    Curtis , S., M \"o sta , P., Wu , Z., et al. 2023, , 518, 5313, 10.1093/mnras/stac3128

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, , 897, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a34

    Darbha , S., & Kasen , D. 2020, , 897, 150, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a34

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    2024, , 527, 2240, 10.1093/mnras/stad2931

    de Haas , S., Bosch , P., M \"o sta , P., Curtis , S., & Schut , N. 2024, , 527, 2240, 10.1093/mnras/stad2931

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    Dessart , L., Burrows , A., Livne , E., & Ott , C. D. 2006, , 645, 534, 10.1086/504068

    2006 doi

  17. [26]

    D., Burrows , A., Rosswog , S., & Livne , E

    Dessart , L., Ott , C. D., Burrows , A., Rosswog , S., & Livne , E. 2009, , 690, 1681, 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1681

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    2017, , 95, 024029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024029

    Dietrich , T., Ujevic , M., Tichy , W., Bernuzzi , S., & Br \"u gmann , B. 2017, , 95, 024029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024029

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

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

    1989 doi

  20. [29]

    2022, , 513, 2689, 10.1093/mnras/stac948

    Fahlman , S., & Fern \'a ndez , R. 2022, , 513, 2689, 10.1093/mnras/stac948

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1ab

    Fahlman, S., & Fernández, R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 869, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1ab

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 154001, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa7a77

    Fern \'a ndez , R., Foucart , F., Kasen , D., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 154001, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa7a77

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    2020, , 497, 3221, 10.1093/mnras/staa2209

    Fern \'a ndez , R., Foucart , F., & Lippuner , J. 2020, , 497, 3221, 10.1093/mnras/staa2209

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    Fern \'a ndez , R., Margalit , B., & Metzger , B. D. 2019 a , , 488, 259, 10.1093/mnras/stz1701

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    Fern \'a ndez , R., & Metzger , B. D. 2013, , 435, 502, 10.1093/mnras/stt1312

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    2015, , 449, 390, 10.1093/mnras/stv238

    Fern \'a ndez , R., Quataert , E., Schwab , J., Kasen , D., & Rosswog , S. 2015, , 449, 390, 10.1093/mnras/stv238

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    2019 b , , 482, 3373, 10.1093/mnras/sty2932

    Fern \'a ndez , R., Tchekhovskoy , A., Quataert , E., Foucart , F., & Kasen , D. 2019 b , , 482, 3373, 10.1093/mnras/sty2932

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    2012, , 86, 124007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124007

    Foucart , F. 2012, , 86, 124007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124007

    2012 doi

  29. [38]

    B., Duez, M

    Foucart, F., Deaton, M. B., Duez, M. D., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 084006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.084006

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    2018, , 860, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabafd

    Fujibayashi , S., Kiuchi , K., Nishimura , N., Sekiguchi , Y., & Shibata , M. 2018, , 860, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabafd

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    2023, , 942, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0

    Fujibayashi , S., Kiuchi , K., Wanajo , S., et al. 2023, , 942, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    2018, , 609, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    Ghirlanda , G., Nappo , F., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2018, , 609, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    W., Connaughton , V., van Paradijs , J., et al

    Giblin , T. W., Connaughton , V., van Paradijs , J., et al. 2002, , 570, 573, 10.1086/339622

    2002 doi

  34. [43]

    2018, , 479, 588, 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    Gottlieb , O., Nakar , E., Piran , T., & Hotokezaka , K. 2018, , 479, 588, 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    D., Goldberg , J

    Gottlieb , O., Renzo , M., Metzger , B. D., Goldberg , J. A., & Cantiello , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16745, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16745

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    D., Quataert , E., et al

    Gottlieb , O., Metzger , B. D., Quataert , E., et al. 2023 a , , 958, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    2023 b , , 954, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aceeff

    Gottlieb , O., Issa , D., Jacquemin-Ide , J., et al. 2023 b , , 954, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aceeff

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 1879–1887, 10.1093/mnras/stx1739

    Guilet , J., Bauswein, A., Just, O., & Janka, H.-T. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 1879–1887, 10.1093/mnras/stx1739

    2017 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Daigne , F., & Mochkovitch , R

    Hasco \"e t , R., Beloborodov , A. M., Daigne , F., & Mochkovitch , R. 2014, , 782, 5, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/5

    2014 doi

  40. [49]

    2022, , 106, 023008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023008

    Hayashi , K., Fujibayashi , S., Kiuchi , K., et al. 2022, , 106, 023008, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023008

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    2023, , 107, 123001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123001

    Hayashi , K., Kiuchi , K., Kyutoku , K., Sekiguchi , Y., & Shibata , M. 2023, , 107, 123001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123001

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10958, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10958

    ---. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10958, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10958

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [52]

    2016, , 819, L22, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L22

    Horesh , A., Hotokezaka , K., Piran , T., Nakar , E., & Hancock , P. 2016, , 819, L22, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L22

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    R., Palenzuela , C., Liebling , S., Gottlieb , O., & Bezares , M

    Izquierdo , M. R., Palenzuela , C., Liebling , S., Gottlieb , O., & Bezares , M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13154, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13154

    2025 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    F., G \"o g \"u s , E., & Lin , L

    Kaneko , Y., Bostanc , Z. F., G \"o g \"u s , E., & Lin , L. 2015, , 452, 824, 10.1093/mnras/stv1286

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    2017, , 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

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

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    2015, , 91, 064027, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064027

    Kastaun , W., & Galeazzi , F. 2015, , 91, 064027, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064027

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02380, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02380

    Kawaguchi , K., Fujibayashi , S., & Shibata , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02380, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02380

    2024 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    2023, , 131, 011401, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.011401

    Kiuchi , K., Fujibayashi , S., Hayashi , K., et al. 2023, , 131, 011401, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.011401

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 298, 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    Kiuchi , K., Reboul-Salze , A., Shibata , M., & Sekiguchi , Y. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 298, 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    2024 doi

  51. [60]

    2009, , 80, 064037, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.064037

    Kiuchi , K., Sekiguchi , Y., Shibata , M., & Taniguchi , K. 2009, , 80, 064037, 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.064037

    2009 doi

  52. [61]

    N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Martizzi , D., Macias , P., & Soares-Furtado , M

    Kolborg , A. N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Martizzi , D., Macias , P., & Soares-Furtado , M. 2023, , 949, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/acca80

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    2015, Phys

    Kyutoku, K., Ioka, K., Okawa, H., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 044028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.044028

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    H., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E

    Lee , W. H., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 17, 10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/017

    2007 doi

  55. [64]

    H., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D

    Lee , W. H., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D. 2009, , 699, L93, 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/L93

    2009 doi

  56. [65]

    P., Salafia , O

    Levan , A., Gompertz , B. P., Salafia , O. S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.02098, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.02098

    2023 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    F., et al

    Lippuner , J., Fern \'a ndez , R., Roberts , L. F., et al. 2017, , 472, 904, 10.1093/mnras/stx1987

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    M., Johnson , J

    Lloyd-Ronning , N. M., Johnson , J. L., Upton Sanderbeck , P. R., Silva , M., & Cheng , R. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.12654. 2408.12654

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Lorimer , D. R. 2008, Living Reviews in Relativity, 11, 8, 10.12942/lrr-2008-8

    2008 doi

  60. [69]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.01351, 10.48550/arXiv.2302.01351

    Lowell , B., Jacquemin-Ide , J., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Duncan , A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.01351, 10.48550/arXiv.2302.01351

    2023 doi arXiv

  61. [70]

    2023, , 522, 5848, 10.1093/mnras/stad1336

    Lu , W., & Quataert , E. 2023, , 522, 5848, 10.1093/mnras/stad1336

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    S., Metzger , B

    Margalit , B., Jermyn , A. S., Metzger , B. D., Roberts , L. F., & Quataert , E. 2022, , 939, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b01

    2022 doi

  63. [72]

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

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    2019, , 880, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ae2

    ---. 2019, , 880, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ae2

    2019 doi

  65. [74]

    2019, , 483, 1247, 10.1093/mnras/sty3200

    Matsumoto , T., Nakar , E., & Piran , T. 2019, , 483, 1247, 10.1093/mnras/sty3200

    2019 doi

  66. [75]

    2002, , 393, L29, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021073

    McBreen , S., McBreen , B., Hanlon , L., & Quilligan , F. 2002, , 393, L29, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021073

    2002 doi

  67. [76]

    Metzger , B. D. 2012, , 419, 827, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19747.x

    2012

  68. [77]

    2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 1, 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0

    ---. 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 1, 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    D., Beniamini , P., & Giannios , D

    Metzger , B. D., Beniamini , P., & Giannios , D. 2018 a , , 857, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c

    2018 doi

  70. [79]

    D., & Bower , G

    Metzger , B. D., & Bower , G. C. 2014, , 437, 1821, 10.1093/mnras/stt2010

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    D., & Fern \'a ndez , R

    Metzger , B. D., & Fern \'a ndez , R. 2014, , 441, 3444, 10.1093/mnras/stu802

    2014 doi

  72. [81]

    2021, , 916, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1169

    ---. 2021, , 916, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1169

    2021 doi

  73. [83]

    2009, , 396, 1659, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14909.x

    ---. 2009, , 396, 1659, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14909.x

    2009

  74. [84]

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

    Metzger , B. D., Quataert , E., & Thompson , T. A. 2008 b , , 385, 1455, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12923.x

    2008

  75. [85]

    D., Thompson , T

    Metzger , B. D., Thompson , T. A., & Quataert , E. 2007, , 659, 561, 10.1086/512059

    2007 doi

  76. [86]

    2018 b , , 856, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab095

    ---. 2018 b , , 856, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab095

    2018 doi

  77. [87]

    D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G., Darbha , S., et al

    Metzger , B. D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G., Darbha , S., et al. 2010, , 406, 2650, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    2010

  78. [88]

    P., Deller , A

    Mooley , K. P., Deller , A. T., Gottlieb , O., et al. 2018, , 561, 355, 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    2018 doi

  79. [89]

    K., Pakmor , R., et al

    Mor \'a n-Fraile , J., R \"o pke , F. K., Pakmor , R., et al. 2024, , 681, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347555

    2024 doi

  80. [90]

    Most , E. R. 2023, , 108, 123012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123012

    2023 doi

  81. [91]

    R., & Quataert , E

    Most , E. R., & Quataert , E. 2023, , 947, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/acca84

    2023 doi

  82. [92]

    2020, , 901, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb6ef

    M \"o sta , P., Radice , D., Haas , R., Schnetter , E., & Bernuzzi , S. 2020, , 901, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb6ef

    2020 doi

  83. [93]

    Murguia-Berthier , A., Montes , G., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., De Colle , F., & Lee , W. H. 2014, , 788, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L8

    2014 doi

  84. [94]

    Musolino , C., Rezzolla , L., & Most , E. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.06253, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.06253

    2024 doi arXiv

  85. [95]

    2007, , 442, 166, 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

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

    2007 doi

  86. [96]

    V., & Abramowicz , M

    Narayan , R., Igumenshchev , I. V., & Abramowicz , M. A. 2003, , 55, L69, 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  87. [97]

    1992, , 395, L83, 10.1086/186493

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

    1992 doi

  88. [98]

    2021, , 906, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9be

    Nedora , V., Bernuzzi , S., Radice , D., et al. 2021, , 906, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc9be

    2021 doi

  89. [99]

    P., & Bonnell , J

    Norris , J. P., & Bonnell , J. T. 2006, , 643, 266, 10.1086/502796

    2006 doi

  90. [100]

    T., & Marek , A

    Oechslin , R., Janka , H. T., & Marek , A. 2007, , 467, 395, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066682

    2007 doi

  91. [101]

    1986, , 308, L43, 10.1086/184740

    Paczynski , B. 1986, , 308, L43, 10.1086/184740

    1986 doi

  92. [102]

    M., et al

    Perego , A., Rosswog , S., Cabez \'o n , R. M., et al. 2014, , 443, 3134, 10.1093/mnras/stu1352

    2014 doi

  93. [103]

    A., Metzger , B

    Perley , D. A., Metzger , B. D., Granot , J., et al. 2009, , 696, 1871, 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1871

    2009 doi

  94. [104]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07846, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07846

    Perna , R., Gottlieb , O., Shukla , E., & Radice , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.07846, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.07846

    2024 doi arXiv

  95. [105]

    Z., & Woosley , S

    Qian , Y. Z., & Woosley , S. E. 1996, , 471, 331, 10.1086/177973

    1996 doi

  96. [106]

    2024, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Radice , D., & Bernuzzi , S. 2024, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2742, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012009, 10.1088/1742-6596/2742/1/012009

    2024 doi

  97. [107]

    2018 a , , 869, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

    Radice , D., Perego , A., Hotokezaka , K., et al. 2018 a , , 869, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

    2018 doi

  98. [108]

    2018 b , , 852, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa402

    Radice , D., Perego , A., Zappa , F., & Bernuzzi , S. 2018 b , , 852, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa402

    2018 doi

  99. [109]

    C., Fong , W., Kilpatrick , C

    Rastinejad , J. C., Fong , W., Kilpatrick , C. D., Nicholl , M., & Metzger , B. D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02158, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02158

    2024 doi arXiv

  100. [110]

    C., Gompertz , B

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

    2022 doi

  101. [111]

    2011, , 732, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/732/1/L6

    Rezzolla , L., Giacomazzo , B., Baiotti , L., et al. 2011, , 732, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/732/1/L6

    2011 doi

  102. [112]

    F., Kasen , D., Lee , W

    Roberts , L. F., Kasen , D., Lee , W. H., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2011, , 736, L21, 10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L21

    2011 doi

  103. [113]

    K., van Son , L

    Roy , S. K., van Son , L. A. C., Ray , A., & Farr , W. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02494, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02494

    2024 doi arXiv

  104. [114]

    N., Paschalidis , V., & Shapiro , S

    Ruiz , M., Lang , R. N., Paschalidis , V., & Shapiro , S. L. 2016, , 824, L6, 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L6

    2016 doi

  105. [115]

    Ruiz , M., Tsokaros, A., Paschalidis, V., & Shapiro, S. L. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, 10.1103/physrevd.99.084032

    2019 doi

  106. [116]

    Ruiz , M., Tsokaros , A., & Shapiro , S. L. 2020 a , , 101, 064042, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064042

    2020 doi

  107. [117]

    L., Nelli, K

    Ruiz , M., Tsokaros , A., Shapiro, S. L., Nelli, K. C., & Qunell, S. 2020 b , Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.104022

    2020 doi

  108. [118]

    2020, , 902, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb407

    Schroeder , G., Margalit , B., Fong , W.-f., et al. 2020, , 902, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb407

    2020 doi

  109. [119]

    2015, , 91, 064059, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064059

    Sekiguchi , Y., Kiuchi , K., Kyutoku , K., & Shibata , M. 2015, , 91, 064059, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064059

    2015 doi

  110. [120]

    2016, , 93, 124046, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124046

    Sekiguchi , Y., Kiuchi , K., Kyutoku , K., Shibata , M., & Taniguchi , K. 2016, , 93, 124046, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124046

    2016 doi

  111. [121]

    2021 a , , 104, 063026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063026

    Shibata , M., Fujibayashi , S., & Sekiguchi , Y. 2021 a , , 104, 063026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063026

    2021 doi

  112. [122]

    2021 b , , 103, 043022, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043022

    ---. 2021 b , , 103, 043022, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043022

    2021 doi

  113. [123]

    2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, 41, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023625

    Shibata , M., & Hotokezaka , K. 2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, 41, 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023625

    2019 doi

  114. [124]

    2005, , 71, 084021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.084021

    Shibata , M., Taniguchi , K., & Ury \= u , K. 2005, , 71, 084021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.084021

    2005 doi

  115. [125]

    Siegel , D. M. 2022, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 306, 10.1038/s42254-022-00439-1

    2022 doi

  116. [126]

    M., & Metzger , B

    Siegel , D. M., & Metzger , B. D. 2017, , 119, 231102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.231102

    2017 doi

  117. [127]

    W., Yang , J., et al

    Sun , H., Wang , C. W., Yang , J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.05689, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.05689

    2023 doi arXiv

  118. [128]

    L., & Tsokaros , A

    Sun , L., Ruiz , M., Shapiro , S. L., & Tsokaros , A. 2022, , 105, 104028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.104028

    2022 doi

  119. [129]

    A., et al

    Tanaka , M., Utsumi , Y., Mazzali , P. A., et al. 2017, , 69, 102, 10.1093/pasj/psx121

    2017 doi

  120. [130]

    2016, , 458, 2024, 10.1093/mnras/stw429

    Tarnopolski , M. 2016, , 458, 2024, 10.1093/mnras/stw429

    2016 doi

  121. [131]

    2015, , 447, 327, 10.1093/mnras/stu2229

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

    2015 doi

  122. [132]

    Tchekhovskoy , A., Narayan , R., & McKinney , J. C. 2011, MNRAS, 418, L79, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01147.x

    2011

  123. [133]

    A., Burrows , A., & Meyer , B

    Thompson , T. A., Burrows , A., & Meyer , B. S. 2001, , 562, 887, 10.1086/323861

    2001 doi

  124. [134]

    L., O'Connor , B., et al

    Troja , E., Fryer , C. L., O'Connor , B., et al. 2022, , 612, 228, 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    2022 doi

  125. [135]

    2024, , 527, 5166, 10.1093/mnras/stad3560

    Wang , H., Beniamini , P., & Giannios , D. 2024, , 527, 5166, 10.1093/mnras/stad3560

    2024 doi

  126. [136]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273, 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  127. [137]

    Wu , M.-R., Fern \'a ndez , R., Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G., & Metzger , B. D. 2016, , 463, 2323, 10.1093/mnras/stw2156

    2016 doi

  128. [138]

    2022, , 612, 232, 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

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

    2022 doi

  129. [139]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.00638

    Yang , Y.-H., Troja , E., O'Connor , B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.00638. 2308.00638

    2023 arXiv

  130. [140]

    Yi , I., & Blackman , E. G. 1998, , 494, L163, 10.1086/311192

    1998 doi

  131. [141]

    2022, , 933, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b23

    Zhang , H.-M., Huang , Y.-Y., Zheng , J.-H., Liu , R.-Y., & Wang , X.-Y. 2022, , 933, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b23

    2022 doi

  132. [142]

    I., Sun , H., et al

    Zhu , J.-P., Wang , X. I., Sun , H., et al. 2022, , 936, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ad

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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