Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 162 references

Magnetic Burial in Millisecond Magnetars and Late GRB Afterglow Signatures

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic burial and delayed re-emergence of a millisecond magnetar's dipole can explain the late-time X-ray brightening of GW170817, with over 90 percent of the external flux initially hidden.

desk verdict Honest about its own degeneracy in §4, but the abstract and conclusions sell a non-unique local fit as a measurement; the qualitative scenario is still worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09402 v1 pith:UQJZIECD submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.HE

Nissim Fraija , Cristian Giovanni Bernal , Antonio Galván , Boris Betancourt-Kamenetskaia , Maria Giovanna Dainotti This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magneticburialmillisecondmagnetarsGRBafterglowsGW170817170817Amagnetarspin-downHall-Ohmdiffusionsynchrotronclosurerelations
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 argues that a newborn millisecond magnetar's external dipole field can be pushed under a thin accreted crust during hypercritical fallback, and that when the crust later lets the field diffuse back, the revived spin-down luminosity produces a late bump in the gamma-ray-burst afterglow. It claims this is exactly what is seen in GW170817/GRB 170817A: the X-ray excess that appeared about three years after the merger is reproduced by including magnetic burial and re-emergence, whereas the same afterglow model without burial underpredicts the X-ray flux at 1000–2000 days by more than an order of magnitude. The fit places the re-emergence timescale at $\tau_B=5.5\pm0.2$ yr, inside the allowed $3\!-\!40$ yr range, with more than 90 percent of the external dipole flux initially buried and a restored surface field $B\simeq(2\!-\!5)\times10^{15}$ G. If the paper is right, the GW170817 merger left behind a long-lived neutron star whose magnetic field is still recovering, and that recovery is observable in the current X-ray brightening.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parametric magnetic-field growth function $f(t)$ that multiplies the spin-down torque in the magnetar's equation of motion, $\dot\Omega = -k(t)\Omega^n$ with $k(t)\propto B^2 f(t)$. Three forms are used — exponential $f_1(t)=\epsilon+(1-e^{-t/\tau_B})$, hyperbolic $f_2(t)=\epsilon+\tanh(t/\tau_B)$, and power-law $f_3(t)=\epsilon+(t/\tau_B)/\sqrt{1+(t/\tau_B)^2}$ — each rising from a tiny initial value $\epsilon=(B_0/B_{\max})^2\ll1$ to unity over the diffusion timescale $\tau_B$. This function controls the spin-down luminosity $\dot E(t)$ during the phase when the crust is letting the buried field resurface; plugged into the standard non-relativistic synchrotron afterglow closure relations, it converts a delayed magnetic-field recovery into a delayed energy-injection episode that produces the late-time light-curve bump. The physical timescale $\tau_B$ is anchored to crustal Ohmic diffusion and Hall drift, with the short $\sim3$–5 yr end requiring $B\gtrsim3\times10^{15}$ G, a shallow burial layer $L\lesssim100$ m, and efficient non-linear transport.

What would settle it

Continued monitoring of GW170817 could settle it: the re-emergence fit predicts the revived spin-down luminosity peaks near $\tau_B\simeq5.5$ yr and then rejoins the standard $t^{-2}$ dipole decay, so X-ray observations that continue rising past roughly 2500 days without peaking, or a deeper exposure that shows no excess, would contradict the scenario. A microphysical calculation would also decide: if Hall-Ohm simulations of a $\simeq(2\!-\!5)\times10^{15}$ G crust with shallow burial return global re-emergence timescales above 10 yr, the fitted 5.5 yr becomes physically unattainable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a specific mechanism applied to a specific event: the late-time X-ray brightening of GRB 170817A, first seen around day 1000 and still present near day 2000, is powered by the delayed re-emergence of a magnetar dipole that was buried by hypercritical accretion within the first seconds after the neutron-star merger. The paper's fit to the X-ray, optical, and radio light curves returns $\tau_B = 5.5\pm0.2$ yr, an initial suppression factor $\epsilon=(1.1\pm0.3)\times10^{-4}$, an initial spin-down time $\tau_0 = 10.5\pm0.1$ yr, and a restored surface field around $10^{15}$ G; the re-emergence scenario reproduces the late X-ray rise and the radio spectral slope, whereas the same afterglow model without burial underpredicts the X-ray flux at 1000–2000 days by more than an order of magnitude. The paper presents this as evidence that the magnetic-field submergence/re-emergence cycle is a key component of the millisecond-magnetar central-engine paradigm, capable of explaining both plateaus and late-time brightenings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the global dipole field can actually climb back through the crust in about 5.5 years, the value returned by the fit; if the global field instead takes 30–40 years to return, or only localized patches emerge, the predicted late-time bump would be weaker, later, or absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For GW170817, the model predicts the late brightening is temporary: once the field fully resurfaces the light curve should rejoin the standard $\dot E\propto t^{-2}$ spin-down decay, giving the bump a characteristic rise-and-fall shape fixed by $\tau_B$.
  • If burial is a general feature of millisecond magnetars, then short GRBs with late rebrightenings beyond GW170817 are natural magnetar-remnant candidates, and the absence of an early magnetar plateau in GW170817 is explained by the dipole being hidden at birth.
  • The scenario is cleanly separable from plateau models: precession or inclination-angle evolution fades once the wobble damps, whereas burial predicts a delayed rise, so periodic X-ray modulations or continuous gravitational waves would discriminate between the two.
  • The very small fitted suppression factor $\epsilon\simeq10^{-4}$ implies nearly all external dipole flux was hidden at birth, so early searches for pulsar-like emission from the remnant should have failed, consistent with the first years of radio non-detections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit extension of the single-object fit is a population test: if $\tau_B\sim5.5$ yr is typical rather than an optimistic edge of parameter space, other merger remnants with ongoing multiwavelength monitoring should develop their own late X-ray rises at ages of roughly 1–30 yr, and the distribution of bump times could be compared with crustal Hall-Ohm properties.
  • The same $f(t)$ multiplies the spin-down torque, so the model implies the braking index of the GW170817 remnant deviates from $n=3$ while the field resurfaces and returns to 3 afterwards; measuring its spin evolution would directly test the time dependence, a prediction the paper does not develop.
  • Because the authors flag that their fitted parameter set is degenerate and not unique, the quantitative values are best read as an existence proof for the mechanism; a stricter test would re-fit the same multiwavelength data with a microphysics-based crustal-evolution code with no free growth-function shape.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents an analytic model in which a newborn millisecond magnetar's dipole field is buried by hypercritical fallback accretion and later re-emerges on a timescale tau_B, modifying the spin-down luminosity and hence the late multi-wavelength afterglow of a GRB. Three phenomenological growth functions f(t) are introduced, and synchrotron closure relations are derived for the afterglow with and without re-emergence. The model is applied to GW170817/GRB 170817A: fitting the X-ray data after 500 days with tau_0, tau_B, epsilon and Edot_0 free yields tau_B=5.5±0.2 yr, epsilon=(1.1±0.3)e-4, tau_0=10.5±0.1 yr, Edot_0=(1.5±0.2)e41 erg/s and a quoted chi2=1.14; the authors conclude that ≥90% of the external dipole flux was buried and that the surface field is restored to B~(2-5)e15 G, reproducing the late-time X-ray brightening better than no-burial models.

Significance. If correct, the scenario provides a concrete mechanism for delayed magnetar energy injection and would imply that GW170817 left a long-lived magnetar whose dipole field is still recovering, with observable consequences for late-time afterglows of short GRBs. The paper's analytical closure relations for three f(t) forms and its explicit application to a well-studied event are useful contributions, and the authors are candid about the non-uniqueness of their fit in Section 4. However, the quantitative headline claims currently outrun the statistical and microphysical support; the significance of the paper therefore depends on whether the parameter constraints can be made robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Table 4; §5 item (iv)] The quantitative claims in the abstract and Section 5 are not supported by the fit as presented. In Section 4 the authors fit the X-ray data after 500 days with four free parameters (tau_0, tau_B, epsilon, Edot_0) and state that 'the equations with the set of parameters are degenerate... our finding is only one potential solution and is not unique.' No covariance matrix, posterior distribution, or robustness scan is given, yet the abstract reports tau_B=3-40 yr, >90% burial, and B=(2-5)e15 G, and Conclusion (iv) says the model reproduces the data 'with a single additional parameter (tau_B).' Because tau_B sets the epoch of the late-time bump, the quoted ranges are not demonstrated inferences from the data. I request either a proper degeneracy analysis (e.g., MCMC over the four parameters with stated priors, showing which combinations are constrained) or a substantial softening of the abstract and conclusions to 'one possible solution'.
  2. [§2.2, Equations (2)-(3); Table 4] The microphysical timescale used in the GW170817 fit is the optimistic end of the range the paper itself identifies. Section 2.2 states that tau_Hall ~ 3-5 yr requires B > 3e15 G, L < 100 m, and efficient non-linear transport, and that 'most realistic systems likely fall in the broader range 10-40 yr, with the fastest emergence restricted to localized patches rather than the global field structure.' The fitted value tau_B = 5.5 yr (Table 4) is therefore only plausible if GW170817's magnetar sits at this extreme corner of parameter space, while the model's f(t) represents global dipole re-emergence. The paper needs to argue explicitly why the extreme conditions apply to this event, or to present the fit as an illustrative scenario rather than an inference; otherwise the central fit rests on an unsupported microphysical premise.
  3. [§4.1 and §5 item (iv)] The comparative claim that the burial model is 'far better reproduced' than models without burial is not quantified in the paper. Section 4.1 acknowledges that the late-time X-ray excess itself is preferred at only 1-2 sigma against a single-source afterglow (Ryan et al. 2024), and Figure 7 quotes chi2=1.14 for the burial model with no comparable statistic for the no-burial model after re-optimization. Conclusion (iv) asserts an underprediction by more than an order of magnitude, but no delta-chi2, information criterion, or other model-comparison statistic is provided. A quantitative comparison with the same data set and a fixed afterglow model is needed to support the central claim.
  4. [§5, 'Robustness to stellar structure'] The 'Robustness to stellar structure' paragraph in Section 5 is internally inconsistent with Section 4's degeneracy admission and is unsupported. It asserts that tau_B and epsilon 'remain uniquely determined' and that changing I by 30% alters tau_B by less than 10%, citing an 'analytic argument' that is not shown. If the four-parameter fit is degenerate, tau_B cannot be uniquely determined by the data without additional priors or constraints; the paragraph needs either a derivation of the claimed insensitivity or removal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says the kinetic energy is varied between E=10^49 erg and E=10^49 erg, while the figure legend shows 10^47; one of the two is a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The phrase 'with alpha=1 in the latter' is unclear because the power-law function in Table 1 has no alpha parameter; please clarify which quantity is being set to unity.
  3. [§2.3, Eq. (2)] Calling k(t) 'the structural constant' is misleading because the quantity is time-dependent through f(t); suggest 'time-dependent coefficient' or equivalent.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicate entries for Bernal et al. 2013a/b and Torres-Forné 2016; these should be consolidated.
  5. [Figure 7 caption] The caption reports chi2=1.14 without defining whether this is a reduced chi-square or giving the number of degrees of freedom; please clarify.
  6. [§4, MCMC description] The MCMC fit of the afterglow parameters quotes 17,600 samples and 5,150 tuning steps but reports no convergence diagnostics or posterior uncertainties for those parameters, which makes the 1-sigma errors in Table 4 difficult to interpret.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

GW170817 re-emergence parameters are fitted to the late-time X-ray excess they are then said to reproduce; the paper's own degeneracy admission and 'single additional parameter' claim undercut the headline tau_B and burial-fraction inference.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 'PARTICULAR CASE: GRB 170817A' (fit description)]
    "The best-fit curves (solid lines) of the magnetic field reemergence model described in Section 3 were performed with the LMFIT Python package, taking into account the X-ray data at 1 keV after 500 days since the burst, allowing the parameters τ0, τB, ε and (E)0 to be free. ... It is worth noting that the equations with the set of parameters are degenerate, meaning that identical findings could be obtained for an entirely other set of values."

    The late-time X-ray excess is the observable that defines the model's distinctive bump, and the bump's timing and amplitude are controlled by exactly the parameters freed in the fit: τB and ε. The fit returns τB = 5.5±0.2 yr and ε ≈ 1.1e-4, and the abstract and conclusions translate these into the claimed 'initial burial of over 90 percent', the 're-emergence timescale 3-40 yr', and the recovered ~10^15 G field. These are therefore best-fit outputs from the very data feature they are said to explain, not independent predictions. The paper's own degeneracy admission confirms that the values are one non-unique local solution rather than uniquely determined inferences.

  2. other [Section 5 'Conclusions', point (iv) 'Strength of evidence']
    "When burial is included, the model reproduces both the late-time rise in the X-ray flux and the radio spectral slope with a single additional parameter (τB)."

    This parsimony claim contradicts the paper's own fitting procedure, which freed four emergence parameters (τ0, τB, ε, and Edot0), as stated in Section 4. The late-time rise is therefore not reproduced by one additional parameter; it is purchased with four degrees of freedom in a fit that the paper itself labels degenerate. Presenting the improvement as a one-parameter test makes the 'most economical explanation' argument appear far stronger than the analysis supports, and it converts a multi-parameter fit into an apparent predictive advantage for the burial scenario.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 5 'Conclusions', 'Robustness to stellar structure']
    "Since the diffusion parameters τB and ε are tied to the timing and shape of the late-time bump, they remain uniquely determined: changing I by 30% shifts Ė0 by the same factor, but alters τB by less than 10%."

    This uniqueness assertion is in direct tension with the Section 4 admission that 'our finding is only one potential solution and is not unique'. The same parameters that were just declared degenerate are here said to be 'uniquely determined'. This internal contradiction reinforces that the headline τB and ε are not robustly fixed by the data, and that the abstract's quantitative range is at least partly a property of the chosen local fit rather than a uniquely constrained physical measurement.

full rationale

The analytical machinery is largely self-contained: the spin-down equations, synchrotron closure relations, and Hall-Ohm timescale estimates follow from stated assumptions, and the comparison against a no-burial afterglow model (Fraija et al. 2019b) is an external data-anchored benchmark rather than a self-citation chain. The paper also honestly notes that a 3 yr re-emergence is an optimistic limit. The circularity is concentrated in the GW170817 application. The reemergence model's distinctive late-time bump is controlled by τB and ε, and Section 4 frees exactly those parameters, plus τ0 and Edot0, when fitting the X-ray data after 500 days, i.e., the data that constitute the 'late-time excess'. The abstract and conclusions then present the fitted τB, >90% burial, and recovered ~10^15 G field as indications or constraints from the modeling, and point (iv) claims the rise is reproduced 'with a single additional parameter (τB)' although four parameters were freed. The paper's own degeneracy admission says the solution is non-unique, which undercuts the quantitative headline. Thus the central quantitative claims are partly fit outputs renamed as inferences, though the qualitative scenario remains testable and the model-selection comparison to no-burial is legitimate. Score 5 reflects this partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The free-parameter count is dominated by the combined emergence-plus-afterglow model: four emergence parameters are fit to the late-time X-ray data, eight afterglow parameters are fit to the multiwavelength data, and the field-growth functional form is an ad hoc template. The domain assumptions are standard in GRB afterglow and magnetar spin-down modeling, with the short-diffusion-timescale assumption being the most fragile.

free parameters (6)
  • Re-emergence timescale tau_B = 5.5 ± 0.2 yr (LMFIT fit to X-ray data after 500 days); 3-40 yr window explored
    Free parameter in the fit (Section 4); controls the epoch of the late-time bump that the paper claims to explain. The abstract's 3-40 yr range combines this fit with microphysical estimates.
  • Initial field suppression epsilon = (B0/B)^2 = (1.1 ± 0.3) × 10^-4
    Free in the fit; sets the burial fraction. Corresponds to about 99.99% of the dipole flux buried, reported as 'over 90%' in the abstract.
  • Initial spin-down timescale tau_0 = 10.5 ± 0.1 yr
    Free in the fit; sets the timing of the transition to canonical spin-down decay.
  • Initial spin-down luminosity Edot_0 = (1.5 ± 0.2) × 10^41 erg/s
    Free in the fit; sets the luminosity normalization of the re-emerged dipole.
  • Afterglow parameters E, n_s, eps_e, eps_B, p, alpha, theta_j, dtheta = Table 4: E=6.2e49 erg, n_s=2.8e-4 cm^-3, eps_e=9.3e-2, eps_B=6.9e-4, p=2.2, alpha=3.0, theta_j=7.5 deg, dtheta=18.8 deg
    Obtained from an MCMC fit to the multiwavelength afterglow (Fraija et al. 2019a pipeline); these are fit in the same modeling pipeline and are degenerate with the emergence parameters.
  • Functional form f(t) of field growth = exponential f1(t) = eps + (1 - exp(-t/tau_B)) for the analytical light curves
    Chosen by hand from three ad hoc templates (Section 2.3, Table 1); the light-curve derivation in Section 3.2 uses only the exponential form.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Oblique dipole spin-down with constant braking index n=3 and no magnetic alignment; moment of inertia assumed constant
    Standard magnetar spin-down framework invoked in Equation (2); the paper explicitly neglects time-dependent alignment (Section 2.3).
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic Sedov-Taylor deceleration of quasi-spherical ejecta in a homogeneous medium with velocity distribution E_beta proportional to beta^-alpha
    Basis of the afterglow dynamics in Section 3, following Tan et al. (2001); alpha about 3 is assumed for GW170817 (Table 4).
  • domain assumption Synchrotron forward-shock emission with standard microphysical parameters eps_e, eps_B and electron spectral index p > 2
    Used throughout Section 3 to convert shock dynamics into light curves; p = 2.2 from the fit.
  • domain assumption Crustal diffusion can return the global dipole in about 3-5 yr under extreme conditions (B > 3e15 G, L < 100 m, efficient Hall or plastic transport)
    Equation (3) and Section 2.2; the fitted tau_B = 5.5 yr sits at the optimistic end of this estimate, and the paper notes most realistic systems give 30-40 yr with only patchy fast emergence.
  • domain assumption The spin-down energy injected by the re-emerging magnetar is converted into the afterglow bands through the same forward-shock electron acceleration assumed for the original outflow
    Needed to connect Edot(t) to the X-ray flux in Sections 3.2-3.4; no separate emission mechanism is modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic Burial in Millisecond Magnetars and Late GRB Afterglow Signatures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UQJZIECD

@misc{pith2026250609402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic Burial in Millisecond Magnetars and Late GRB Afterglow Signatures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UQJZIECD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09402}
}
abstract

Millisecond magnetars, one of the potential candidates for the central engine of Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), can experience significant magnetic field enhancement shortly after their formation. In some cases, this evolution is further influenced by the accretion of stellar debris, which modifies the dipole magnetic field strength. During a hypercritical accretion phase that lasts seconds or longer after the progenitor explosion, a thin crust may form, submerging the magnetic field (the so-called magnetic burial scenario). Once hypercritical accretion ceases, the buried field can diffuse back through the crust, delaying the external dipole's reactivation. On the other hand, observations have shown that relativistic outflows ejected by these objects and decelerated by the circumburst environment cause a late and temporary emission known as afterglow. This work investigates how the submergence and subsequent reemergence of the magnetar magnetic field, on a few years timescales, affect the GRB afterglow dynamics. Specifically, we apply this phenomenological scenario to the late-time X-ray excess observed approximately three years post-burst in GW170817/GRB 170817A, exploring how the evolving magnetic field strength may contribute to this emission. Our modelling of GRB 170817A indicates that $\gtrsim90$ percent of the external dipole flux was initially buried, re-emerging on a timescale $\tau_{B}=3-40$ yr and restoring a surface field $B\simeq(2-5)\times10^{15}\,$G; the late-time X-ray brightening is far better reproduced by this scenario than by models without burial.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09402 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of the accretion process onto a magnetized NS. The top row displays density color maps of the accreted material with iso-contours representing the magnetic field loop configuration. The middle row shows magnetic field strength with superimposed magnetic iso-contours, and the bottom row illustrates magnetic energy maps at 𝑡 = 0, 10, and 100 ms, depicting the interaction between the accretion flow and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnetic-field growth and spin-down luminosity for three functional forms of the diffusion law 𝑓 (𝑡). Rows (top to bottom) correspond to exponential, hyperbolic, and power-law prescriptions (with 𝛼 = 1 in the latter). Left-hand panels: evolution of the surface dipole field 𝐵(𝑡) = 𝐵max 𝑓 (𝑡), with 𝐵max = 1015 G. Right-hand panels: rotational energy loss 𝐸¤ (𝑡) computed using Equation (5), assuming a braking index 𝑛 =… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synchrotron light curves at X-ray (black), optical (blue) and radio (red) bands generated by the deceleration of the non-relativistic material in the external environment. The light curves of X-ray, optical and radio bands are estimated at 1 keV, 1 eV and 10 GHz, respectively. The parameters used for the emergence of B-field model are: 𝜏𝐵 = 3 year, 𝜖 = 10−4 , 𝜏0 = 2.5 year, 𝐸¤ 0 = 4.5 × 1043 erg/s. Each panel shows … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Synchrotron light curves at X-ray (black), optical (blue) and radio (red) bands generated by the deceleration of the non-relativistic material in the external environment. The light curves of X-ray, optical and radio bands are estimated at 1 keV, 1 eV and 10 GHz, respe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as figure 5, but for 𝛼 = 0.0. MNRAS 000, 1–18 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Multiwavelength observations of GRB 170817A with the synchrotron light curves from decelerated materials with and without the emergence of magnetic field. The radio wavelengths at 3 and 6 GHz are shown in yellow and blue, respectively, the optical band exhibited at 2.1…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

162 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970L..34A 970, L34

    Abac A. G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970L..34A 970, L34

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott R., Abbott T

    Abbott B. P., Abbott R., Abbott T. D., et al. 2017a, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott R., Abbott T

    Abbott B. P., Abbott R., Abbott T. D., et al. 2017b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L12

  4. [4]

    N., Pons J

    Aguilera D. N., Pons J. A., Miralles J. A., 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 486, 255

    2008

  5. [5]

    Ajello M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878...52A 878, 52

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e 2019

  6. [6]

    V., Komissarov S

    Barkov M. V., Komissarov S. S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00427.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385L..28B 385, L28

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Beniamini P., Giannios D., Metzger B., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx2095 , 472, 3058

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2095 2017

  8. [8]

    G., Lee W

    Bernal C. G., Lee W. H., Page D., 2010, Hypercritical accretion onto a magnetized neutron star surface: a numerical approach ( @eprint arXiv 1006.3003 )

    arXiv 2010

Show all 162 references
  1. [9]

    G., Page D., Lee W

    Bernal C. G., Page D., Lee W. H., 2013a, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 106

  2. [10]

    G., Page D., Lee W

    Bernal C. G., Page D., Lee W. H., 2013b, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 106

  3. [11]

    G., Frajuca C., Hirsch H

    Bernal C. G., Frajuca C., Hirsch H. D., Minari B., Magalhaes N. S., Selbach L. B., 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1390597

    2024

  4. [12]

    G., et al., 2013a, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 67

    Bernardini M. G., et al., 2013a, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 67

  5. [13]

    Bernardini M., et al., 2013b, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 67

  6. [14]

    D., Romani R

    Blandford R. D., Romani R. W., 1988, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 234, 57P

    1988

  7. [15]

    D., Znajek R

    Blandford R. D., Znajek R. L., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.179..433B 179, 433

    1977 doi

  8. [16]

    Bucciantini N., 2011, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1017/S1743921312013075 , 7, 289

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    K., Gehrels N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1047 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1047C 700, 1047

    Cannizzo J. K., Gehrels N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1047 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700.1047C 700, 1047

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Troja E., Gehrels N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/35 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...35C 734, 35

    Cannizzo J. K., Troja E., Gehrels N., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/35 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...35C 734, 35

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Relativ., 11, 10

    Chamel N., Haensel P., 2008, Living Rev. Relativ., 11, 10

    2008

  12. [20]

    A., 1989a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...346..847C 346, 847

    Chevalier R. A., 1989a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...346..847C 346, 847

    doi

  13. [21]

    A., 1989b, Astrophysical Journal, 346, 847

    Chevalier R. A., 1989b, Astrophysical Journal, 346, 847

  14. [22]

    A., Emmering R

    Chevalier R. A., Emmering R. T., 1986, Astrophysical Journal, 304, 140

    1986

  15. [23]

    A., Li Z.-Y., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308914 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..195C 536, 195

    Chevalier R. A., Li Z.-Y., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308914 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..195C 536, 195

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Konar S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05362.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.332..933C 332, 933

    Choudhuri A. R., Konar S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05362.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.332..933C 332, 933

    2002

  17. [25]

    I., Horowitz C

    Chugunov A. I., Horowitz C. J., 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 407, L54

    2010

  18. [26]

    Cumming A., Arras P., Zweibel E., 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 609, 999

    2004

  19. [27]

    Cumming A., Macbeth J., Page D., et al., 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 646, 429

    2006

  20. [28]

    D'Avanzo P., et al., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180106164D ( @eprint arXiv 1801.06164 )

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    G., Cheng K

    Dai Z. G., Cheng K. S., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...558L.109D 558, L109

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    G., Lenart A

    Dainotti M. G., Lenart A. ., Fraija N., Nagataki S., Warren D. C., De Simone B., Srinivasaragavan G., Mata A., 2021a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psab057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PASJ...73..970D 73, 970

    doi

  23. [31]

    G., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abfe17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...13D 255, 13

    Dainotti M. G., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abfe17 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...13D 255, 13

    doi

  24. [32]

    Dainotti M., Levine D., Fraija N., Warren D., Veres P., Sourav S., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11010025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11...25D 11, 25

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Dall'Osso S., Granot J., Piran T., 2011, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 415, 191

    2011

  26. [34]

    E., Beniamini P., Cannizzo J

    Dichiara S., Troja E., O'Connor B., Marshall F. E., Beniamini P., Cannizzo J. K., Lien A. Y., Sakamoto T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.5011D 492, 5011

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    DuPont M., MacFadyen A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad66d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971L..24D 971, L24

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Thompson C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...392L...9D 392, L9

    Duncan R. C., Thompson C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...392L...9D 392, L9

    1992 doi

  29. [37]

    Fan Y., Piran T., 2006, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.369..197F 369, 197

    2006

  30. [38]

    G., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 455

    Fraija N., Bernal C. G., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 451, 455

    2015

  31. [39]

    G., Hidalgo-Gamez A

    Fraija N., Bernal C. G., Hidalgo-Gamez A. M., 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 239

    2014

  32. [40]

    Fraija N., Bernal C., Morales G., Negreiros R., 2018, Physical Review D, 98, 083012

    2018

  33. [41]

    Fraija N., Pedreira A. C. C. d. E. S., Veres P., 2019a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf80e , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..200F 871, 200

    doi

  34. [42]

    Fraija N., Lopez-Camara D., Pedreira A. C. C. d. E. S., Betancourt Kamenetskaia B., Veres P., Dichiara S., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40a9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...71F 884, 71

    doi

  35. [43]

    B., Dainotti M

    Fraija N., Laskar T., Dichiara S., Beniamini P., Duran R. B., Dainotti M. G., Becerra R. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc41a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905..112F 905, 112

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    G., Ugale S., Jyoti D., Warren D

    Fraija N., Dainotti M. G., Ugale S., Jyoti D., Warren D. C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a9c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..188F 934, 188

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Kamenetskaia B

    Fraija N., Dainotti M. G., Kamenetskaia B. B., Levine D., Galvan-Gamez A., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.1630F 525, 1630

    doi

  38. [46]

    G., Levine D., Kamenetskaia B

    Fraija N., Dainotti M. G., Levine D., Kamenetskaia B. B., Galvan-Gamez A., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb7f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958..126F 958, 126

    doi

  39. [47]

    Fraija N., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1674F 527, 1674

    doi

  40. [48]

    G., Betancourt Kamenetskaia B., Galv \'a n-G \'a mez A., Aguilar-Ruiz E., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1884F 527, 1884

    Fraija N., Dainotti M. G., Betancourt Kamenetskaia B., Galv \'a n-G \'a mez A., Aguilar-Ruiz E., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.1884F 527, 1884

    doi

  41. [49]

    L., Woosley S

    Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Hartmann D. H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...526..152F 526, 152

    1999 doi

  42. [50]

    Fryxell B., et al., 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 131, 273

    2000

  43. [51]

    Gao H., Ding X.-H., Wu X., Dai Z., Zhang B., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/163 , 807

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    Geppert U., Page D., Zannias T., 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 345, p. 847-854 (1999), 345, 847

    1999

  45. [53]

    Giacomazzo B., Perna R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771L..26G 771, L26

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    Goldstein A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..14G 848, L14

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    Gottlieb O., Nakar E., Piran T., Hotokezaka K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1462 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479..588G 479, 588

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    N., Cumming A., 2014a, Phys

    Gourgouliatos K. N., Cumming A., 2014a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 171101

  49. [57]

    Gourgouliatos K., Cumming A., 2014b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 1618

  50. [59]

    Grossman D., Korobkin O., Rosswog S., Piran T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439..757G 439, 757

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    Hajela A., et al., 2022a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 927, L17

  52. [61]

    Hajela A., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927L..17H 927, L17

    doi

  53. [62]

    Haskell B., Samuelsson L., Glampedakis K., Andersson N., 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 385, 531

    2008

  54. [63]

    C., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 2567

    Ho W. C., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 2567

    2011

  55. [64]

    Hotokezaka K., Kiuchi K., Shibata M., Nakar E., Piran T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf92 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867...95H 867, 95

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    Hurley K., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature03519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.434.1098H 434, 1098

    2005 doi

  57. [66]

    Ioka K., 2005, @doi [Progress of Theoretical Physics] 10.1143/PTP.114.1317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PThPh.114.1317I 114, 1317

    2005 doi

  58. [67]

    Ioka K., Toma K., Yamazaki R., Nakamura T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064939 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...458....7I 458, 7

    2006 doi

  59. [68]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9455 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1559K 358, 1559

    Kasliwal M. M., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9455 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1559K 358, 1559

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    Kisaka S., Ioka K., Kashiyama K., Nakamura T., 2017, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv171100243K ( @eprint arXiv 1711.00243 )

    2017 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Kobayashi S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317869 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...545..807K 545, 807

    2000 doi

  62. [71]

    Kojima Y., Kisaka S., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 421, 2722

    2012

  63. [72]

    Konar S., 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 47

    2017

  64. [73]

    Konar S., Choudhuri A., 2002, in 34th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. p. 721

    2002

  65. [74]

    W., Wong A

    Kong S. W., Wong A. Y. L., Huang Y. F., Cheng K. S., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15886.x , 402, 409

    2010

  66. [75]

    Kumar P., Panaitescu A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07138.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346..905K 346, 905

    2003

  67. [76]

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

    2015 doi

  68. [77]

    L., 2008, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1159003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Sci...321..376K 321, 376

    Kumar P., Narayan R., Johnson J. L., 2008, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1159003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Sci...321..376K 321, 376

    2008 doi

  69. [78]

    P., Kobayashi S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2345 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.4953L 472, 4953

    Lamb G. P., Kobayashi S., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2345 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.4953L 472, 4953

    2017 doi

  70. [79]

    J., Perna R., Workman J

    Lazzati D., L \'o pez-C \'a mara D., Cantiello M., Morsony B. J., Perna R., Workman J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f3d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L...6L 848, L6

    2017 doi

  71. [80]

    Lemoine M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts081 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.428..845L 428, 845

    2013 doi

  72. [81]

    Levin Y., Lyutikov M., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 1574

    2012

  73. [82]

    M., 2015a, Astrophys

    Li S., Beloborodov A. M., 2015a, Astrophys. J., 815, 25

  74. [83]

    M., 2015b, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 25

    Li X., Beloborodov A. M., 2015b, The Astrophysical Journal, 815, 25

  75. [84]

    Li L., Dai Z.-G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0974 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...52L 918, 52

    2021 doi

  76. [85]

    Li L., Wu X.-F., Lei W.-H., Dai Z.-G., Liang E.-W., Ryde F., 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 26

    2018

  77. [86]

    Lien A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829....7L 829, 7

    2016 doi

  78. [87]

    L \"u H.-J., Zhang B., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...74L 785, 74

    doi

  79. [88]

    L \"u H.-J., Zhang B., 2014b, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 74

  80. [90]

    I., Woosley S

    MacFadyen A. I., Woosley S. E., 1999b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..262M 524, 262

    doi

  81. [91]

    arXiv:2004.13028

    Margalit B., Piran T., 2020, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200413028M p. arXiv:2004.13028

    2020 arXiv

  82. [92]

    Margutti R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2017ApJ...848L..20M 848, L20

    2017 doi

  83. [93]

    Metzger B., Giannios D., Thompson T., Bucciantini N., Quataert E., 2011b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 2031

  84. [94]

    D., Giannios D., Thompson T

    Metzger B. D., Giannios D., Thompson T. A., Bucciantini N., Quataert E., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.2031M 413, 2031

    2011

  85. [96]

    D., Beniamini P., Giannios D., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857...95M 857, 95

    Metzger B. D., Beniamini P., Giannios D., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857...95M 857, 95

    doi

  86. [97]

    C., 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol

    Michel F. C., 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 431, no. 1, p. 397-401, 431, 397

    1994

  87. [98]

    Moderski R., Sikora M., Bulik T., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308257 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...529..151M 529, 151

    2000 doi

  88. [99]

    Mukherjee D., 2017a, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9465-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...48M 38, 48

    doi

  89. [100]

    Mukherjee D., 2017b, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 48

  90. [101]

    Muslimov A., Page D., 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 458, 347

    1995

  91. [102]

    Narayan R., Paczynski B., Piran T., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186493 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...395L..83N 395, L83

    1992 doi

  92. [103]

    Nedora V., Radice D., Bernuzzi S., Perego A., Daszuta B., Endrizzi A., Prakash A., Schianchi F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5908N 506, 5908

    2021 doi

  93. [104]

    Negreiros R., Bernal C., 2015, Growth of the Magnetic Field in Young Neutron Stars ( @eprint arXiv 1505.02823 )

    2015 arXiv

  94. [105]

    B., et al., 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11813 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11813

    Newville M., Stensitzki T., Allen D. B., et al., 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11813 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11813

    2014 doi

  95. [106]

    A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..389N 642, 389

    Nousek J. A., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..389N 642, 389

    2006 doi

  96. [107]

    R., Page M

    Oates S. R., Page M. J., De Pasquale M., Schady P., Breeveld A. A., Holland S. T., Kuin N. P. M., Marshall F. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01331.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426L..86O 426, L86

    2012

  97. [108]

    \"O zel F., Freire P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..401O 54, 401

    2016 doi

  98. [109]

    Paczy \'n ski B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...494L..45P 494, L45

    1998 doi

  99. [110]

    Panaitescu A., Kumar P., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340094 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...571..779P 571, 779

    2002 doi

  100. [111]

    Panaitescu A., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305856 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...501..772P 501, 772

    1998 doi

  101. [112]

    Panaitescu A., M \'e sz \'a ros P., Burrows D., Nousek J., Gehrels N., O'Brien P., Willingale R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10453.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.369.2059P 369, 2059

    2006

  102. [113]

    Payne D. J. B., Melatos A., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07798.x , 351, 569

    2004

  103. [114]

    A., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 727

    Perna R., Pons J. A., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 727

    2011

  104. [115]

    L., Ott C

    Piro A. L., Ott C. D., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..108P 736, 108

    doi

  105. [116]

    L., Ott C

    Piro A. L., Ott C. D., 2011b, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, 108

  106. [117]

    A., Geppert U., 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 470, 303

    Pons J. A., Geppert U., 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 470, 303

    2007

  107. [118]

    A., Perna R., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 123

    Pons J. A., Perna R., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 123

    2011

  108. [119]

    J., Rosswog S., 2006, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1125201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Sci...312..719P 312, 719

    Price D. J., Rosswog S., 2006, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1125201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Sci...312..719P 312, 719

    2006 doi

  109. [120]

    Quataert E., Kasen D., 2012b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 419, L1

  110. [121]

    Quataert E., Kasen D., 2012a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01151.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419L...1Q 419, L1

    2011

  111. [122]

    L., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/43 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698...43R 698, 43

    Racusin J. L., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/43 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698...43R 698, 43

    2009 doi

  112. [123]

    G., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac797 , 512, 5572

    Ren J., Dai Z. G., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac797 , 512, 5572

    2022 doi

  113. [124]

    Riley T. E. e. a., 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L27

    2021

  114. [125]

    Roberts O., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-03077-8 , 589, 207

    2021 doi

  115. [126]

    Rogers A., Safi-Harb S., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw014 , 457, 1180–1189

    2016 doi

  116. [127]

    Rowlinson A. e. a., 2013, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 430, 1061

    2013

  117. [128]

    T., Tanvir N

    Rowlinson A., O'Brien P. T., Tanvir N. R., Zhang B., Evans P. A., et al. 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17354.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..531R 409, 531

    2010

  118. [129]

    T., Metzger B

    Rowlinson A., O'Brien P. T., Metzger B. D., Tanvir N. R., Levan A. J., 2013a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.1061R 430, 1061

    doi

  119. [130]

    J., 2013b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1061

    Rowlinson A., O'brien P., Metzger B., Tanvir N., Levan A. J., 2013b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1061

  120. [131]

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

    2024 doi

  121. [132]

    Sari R., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312689 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...535L..33S 535, L33

    2000 doi

  122. [133]

    Sari R., Piran T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309835 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...455L.143S 455, L143

    1995 doi

  123. [134]

    Sarin N., Lasky P., Ashton G., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3090 , 499, 5986

    2020 doi

  124. [135]

    Savchenko V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..15S 848, L15

    2017 doi

  125. [136]

    Shabaltas N., Lai D., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/148 , 748, 148

    2012 doi

  126. [137]

    Shalybkov D., Urpin V., 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 273, 643

    1995

  127. [138]

    Sironi L., Giannios D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...778..107S 778, 107

    2013 doi

  128. [139]

    N., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 5178

    Skiathas D., Gourgouliatos K. N., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 5178

    2024

  129. [140]

    P., Dainotti M

    Srinivasaragavan G. P., Dainotti M. G., Fraija N., Hernandez X., Nagataki S., Lenart A., Bowden L., Wagner R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...903...18S 903, 18

    2020 doi

  130. [141]

    L., Vecchio A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...634L.165S 634, L165

    Stella L., Dall'Osso S., Israel G. L., Vecchio A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...634L.165S 634, L165

    2005 doi

  131. [142]

    G., Kokkotas K

    Suvorov A. G., Kokkotas K. D., 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 899, L10

    2020

  132. [143]

    G., Melatos A., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 3243

    Suvorov A. G., Melatos A., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 3243

    2020

  133. [144]

    L., Racusin J., Asano K., McEnery J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..134T 883, 134

    Tak D., Omodei N., Uhm Z. L., Racusin J., Asano K., McEnery J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..134T 883, 134

    2019 doi

  134. [145]

    C., Matzner C

    Tan J. C., Matzner C. D., McKee C. F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320245 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...551..946T 551, 946

    2001 doi

  135. [146]

    B., Frail D

    Taylor G. B., Frail D. A., Berger E., Kulkarni S. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422554 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...609L...1T 609, L1

    2004 doi

  136. [147]

    Thompson C., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/270.3.480 , http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/1994MNRAS.270..480T 270, 480

    1994 doi

  137. [148]

    C., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...408..194T 408, 194

    Thompson C., Duncan R. C., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...408..194T 408, 194

    1993 doi

  138. [149]

    A., Font J

    Torres-Forn \'e A., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n P., Pons J. A., Font J. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456.3813T 456, 3813

    2016 doi

  139. [150]

    Torres-Forné A. e. a., 2016, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 456, 3813

    2016

  140. [151]

    T., Zhang B., Sbarufatti B., et al

    Troja E., Cusumano G., O'Brien P. T., Zhang B., Sbarufatti B., et al. 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..599T 665, 599

    2007 doi

  141. [152]

    2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature24290 , 000, 1

    Troja E., Piro L., van Eerten H., et al. 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature24290 , 000, 1

    2017 doi

  142. [153]

    Urrutia G., De Colle F., Murguia-Berthier A., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.4363U 503, 4363

    2021 doi

  143. [154]

    V., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/357472a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.357..472U 357, 472

    Usov V. V., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/357472a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.357..472U 357, 472

    1992 doi

  144. [155]

    A., 2012a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2487

    Vigan \`o D., Pons J. A., 2012a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2487

  145. [156]

    A., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21679.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2487V 425, 2487

    Vigan \`o D., Pons J. A., 2012b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21679.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2487V 425, 2487

    2012

  146. [157]

    A., Perna R., Aguilera D

    Viganò D., Rea N., Pons J. A., Perna R., Aguilera D. N., Miralles J. A., 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 123

    2013

  147. [158]

    Vigelius M., Melatos A., 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1985

    2009

  148. [159]

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

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

    1993 doi

  149. [160]

    E., Bloom J

    Woosley S. E., Bloom J. S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44..507W 44, 507

    2006 arXiv

  150. [161]

    E., Heger A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...752...32W 752, 32

    Woosley S. E., Heger A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...752...32W 752, 32

    2012 doi

  151. [162]

    A., Harrison F

    Yost S. A., Harrison F. A., Sari R., Frail D. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/378288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...597..459Y 597, 459

    2003 doi

  152. [163]

    Zhang B., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320255 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...552L..35Z 552, L35

    2001 doi

  153. [164]

    Z., Dyks J., Kobayashi S., M \'e sz \'a ros P., Burrows D

    Zhang B., Fan Y. Z., Dyks J., Kobayashi S., M \'e sz \'a ros P., Burrows D. N., Nousek J. A., Gehrels N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500723 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...642..354Z 642, 354

    2006 doi

  154. [165]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.