Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

This paper argues that the short gamma-ray burst GRB 250704B/EP250704a was powered by a newborn millisecond magnetar, whose spin-down and energy injection explain the extended X-ray emission, the day-long optical/IR plateau, and the steep l

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:47 UTC pith:IFGUBLHG

load-bearing objection Serious magnetar interpretation of GRB 250704B with honest data work, but the jet-break identification is too loose to carry the conclusion and the steep-decay mismatch needs direct handling. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2601.15732 v2 pith:IFGUBLHG submitted 2026-01-22 astro-ph.HE

GRB~250704B/EP250704a a Short Gamma-Ray Burst Powered by a Magnetar

Nissim Fraija , Antonio Galv\'an , Boris Betancourt Kamenetskaia , Maria G Dainotti This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstsshort GRBmagnetarspin-downafterglowjet breakextended emissionfallback accretion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the odd multi-wavelength behavior of the short burst GRB 250704B/EP250704a — a roughly 300-second extended X-ray component, a day-long optical/IR plateau, and a steep post-plateau decay — can be explained by a newborn, accreting millisecond magnetar, without invoking fine-tuned jet geometry. The X-ray plateau is attributed to internal dissipation of magnetar spin-down power gated by the magnetization parameter; the optical/IR plateau is synchrotron forward-shock emission powered by continuous energy injection from the magnetar; and the steep decay is identified as the post-jet-break phase with time-evolving microphysical parameters. If correct, the compact-object remnant is a long-lived magnetar with a dipole field around 2–3×10^14 G and an initial spin period near 1.1 ms, adding to the growing class of short bursts with clear central-engine activity.

Core claim

The paper claims that the temporal and spectral evolution of GRB 250704B/EP250704a — from the prompt Band-function spectrum, through a ~300 s extended X-ray component, to a ~1-day optical/IR plateau and a steep achromatic decay — is consistent with a single physical picture: a millisecond magnetar formed in a compact-object merger, undergoing fallback accretion, whose spin-down luminosity feeds both internal dissipation and the forward shock. The specific new attributions are that the extended X-ray emission is internal energy dissipation gated by the magnetization parameter entering a critical range of roughly 10^2–3×10^3, and that the steep optical/IR decay results from microphysical-param

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a magnetar spin-down luminosity model with fallback accretion: the neutron star's spin evolves under dipole and accretion torques, with the Alfvén, co-rotation, and light-cylinder radii determining whether the system accretes or enters a propeller regime. The resulting spin-down luminosity laws — an early exponential-like phase, a constant-luminosity phase, and a late t^(−50/21) decay — produce internal X-ray emission via the magnetization parameter. Separately, synchrotron forward-shock light curves with continuous energy injection (from the spin-down luminosity) describe the pre-jet-break plateau, and post-jet-break light curves with evolving microphysical paramete

Load-bearing premise

The entire post-jet-break explanation rests on identifying the ~7.7×10^4 s achromatic optical/IR break as a jet break, but the fitted break time is nearly unconstrained (0.76 ± 0.73 × 10^5 s), and the late-time X-ray steepening and spectrum are too poorly constrained to independently confirm the spin-down attribution.

What would settle it

Monitor the afterglow of GRB 250704B across 10^5–10^6 s in X-rays and optical/IR. If the X-ray light curve does not steepen at the same epoch as the optical/IR break, or if a refined break time is inconsistent with the jet-break scalings (θ_j ≈ 3.1°), the magnetar/post-jet-break scenario loses support. Additionally, if late-time X-ray spectra show a spectral index that does not track the expected slow-cooling segment while the temporal index deviates from the t^(−50/21) spin-down decay, the internal-dissipation attribution would be contradicted.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the interpretation holds, GRB 250704B becomes a clear example of a short gamma-ray burst whose late-time activity is powered by a long-lived magnetar, with inferred dipole field B ≈ 2–3×10^14 G and initial spin P ≈ 1.1 ms, rather than by a promptly formed black hole.
  • The ~7.7×10^4 s break seen across optical and IR bands would be identified as a jet break at opening angle θ_j ≈ 3.1°, placing the magnetar scenario on equal footing with geometric (off-axis structured jet) interpretations.
  • The claim that extended X-ray emission is gated by the magnetization parameter predicts that the onset and cessation of such emission track when σ crosses its critical range (~10^2–3×10^3) — a correlation that could be checked in other short bursts with extended emission.
  • The steep optical/IR decay being post-jet-break microphysical evolution implies that continued multi-wavelength monitoring across 10^5–10^6 s should show the X-ray and optical decay rates evolving consistently with the same spectral regime (ν_m < ν < ν_c), a testable prediction.
  • The model requires a low circumburst density (n ≈ 9×10^−2 cm^−3) and a high isotropic kinetic energy (E_K ≈ 1.8×10^52 erg), values that would be consistent with the broader short-GRB population if confirmed.
  • If correct, the inferred spin-down timescale being shorter than the fallback timescale naturally explains why the optical plateau duration is set by fallback, not by spin-down — a criterion that could identify similar bursts in future surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: if the magnetization-gating mechanism is correct, the duration of the extended X-ray emission should anti-correlate with the dipole field strength across the short-GRB population; a larger sample could confirm or refute this.
  • The jet-break identification is the fragile link in the argument — the fitted break time is essentially unconstrained (t_bo = 0.76 ± 0.73 × 10^5 s) — so additional late-time optical/IR or X-ray data that refine or move this break would either strengthen the microphysical-evolution explanation or force a return to geometric interpretations.
  • The two-timescale fallback accretion description of the X-rays could be tested by searching for a similar double-bump or shoulder structure in other bright extended-emission short bursts, using the same fitting framework.
  • If a future radio or X-ray observation catches the predicted late-time t^(−50/21) spin-down decay after the plateau, that would provide independent support for a long-lived magnetar remnant rather than a black hole.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multiwavelength temporal and spectral analysis of the short GRB 250704B/EP250704a (z=0.661) and interprets the prompt, extended X-ray, and optical/IR afterglow within a model where the central engine is a long-lived, accreting millisecond magnetar. The extended X-ray emission is attributed to internal dissipation of magnetar spin-down power gated by the magnetization parameter; the day-long optical/IR plateau is modeled as synchrotron forward-shock emission with energy injection; and the post-break steep decay is modeled by time-evolving microphysical parameters (epsilon_e ∝ t^{-a}, epsilon_B ∝ t^{-b}) after a jet break at ~7.7×10^4 s. Best-fit parameters yield B ~ (2.1-3.1)×10^14 G and P ~ 1.1 ms. The paper explicitly argues that this magnetar scenario is preferred over the off-axis structured-jet model of Swain et al. (2025a).

Significance. If the central claim were robust, the paper would provide a strong case for a magnetar central engine in a short GRB and would challenge the structured-jet interpretation of the same data. The manuscript has useful strengths: the spin-down/accretion formalism in §3.1 is standard; the MCMC setup and corner plots give transparency about parameter posteriors; several alternative scenarios (thick-shell, early microphysical evolution, stratified ejecta) are explicitly discussed rather than ignored; and the comparison to the sGRB sample in §3.4.5 places the inferred B, P, and L_sd in context. However, the central claim rests on the identification of a ~7.7×10^4 s break as a jet break, on the fixing of the fallback timescale to that break, and on a claimed consistency between the model and the steep optical decay that is not numerically borne out. These issues are load-bearing, so the significance of the paper as written is conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Table 4, §3.4.1] The jet-break identification is unconstrained and is the foundation of the post-break microphysical scenario. The optical/IR break times are t_bo = (0.76±0.73)×10^5 s (j, i, r), i.e. formally consistent with no sharp break or with breaks from ~3×10^3 s to ~1.5×10^5 s. The X-ray break t_bx,2 = (1.2^{+0.9}_{-1.2})×10^5 s is similarly broad. The derived θ_j≈3.1° and the entire post-break microphysical evolution (Eqs. 27-28) presuppose that this break is geometric rather than, e.g., the end of energy injection or a structured-jet feature. Given the error bars, the paper cannot claim that the break is established as a jet break.
  2. [§3.3, Table 5] The magnetar parameters are not independent of the jet-break assumption: t_fb is fixed to 7.7×10^4 s, which is the same time as the optical break used as the jet break, and B and P are then fit to the X-ray light curve with L_sd that depends on t_fb. The reported B≈(2-3)×10^14 G and P≈1.1 ms therefore inherit the fragility of the break identification. This is a circular step for the central inference.
  3. [§3.2, §3.4.2, Table 4] The model does not actually reproduce the steep post-break optical decay it is meant to explain. With the best-fit values p=2.40, a=-0.48, b=0.98 (Table 5), Eq. 27 gives alpha ≈ 2.56 for the ν_m<ν<ν_c segment; with p=2.6 the prediction is ≈2.71. The observed values are alpha_o,II = 3.29-3.35 (Table 4), a difference of 0.6-0.8. The text in §3.4.2 calls this 'consistent with the multi-wavelength observations', but it is not. Since the steep decay is the main observable justification for post-break microphysical evolution, this tension is load-bearing.
  4. [§3.2, Table 3] The late-time X-ray data that are attributed to spin-down via Eq. 15 are effectively unconstrained. Alpha_x,III = 2.1 ± 5.9 and beta_x = 0.93 ± 1.02 at 7.7×10^3 s; the paper itself states that the X-ray spectral analysis during this period is 'inconclusive because of limited statistical significance'. The superposition of spin-down and synchrotron components at ≳10^5 s is therefore not supported by the data.
  5. [§3.4.7, §4] The paper claims that the magnetar scenario is preferred over the off-axis structured-jet model of Swain et al. (2025a), but no quantitative comparison is made. The sentence in §3.1.5 and §3.4.7.3 that the energy-injection model 'would require unreasonable parameters' refers to a variant discussed by Swain et al.; it does not evaluate the present model (which itself is an energy-injection model) against the structured-jet model with the same data set. A Bayesian evidence or AIC/BIC comparison, or at least a residual-based comparison, is needed before 'most likely a long-lived magnetar' can be concluded.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.4.1] Typos in the jet values: 't_j=7.85×10^5 s' should read 7.7×10^4 s, and the density quoted as (n=9.1×10^-2 cm^-3) appears with inconsistent notation.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says '1.5×10^3 s' for the second SED epoch; from the text and Fig. 2 this should be 1.5×10^5 s.
  3. [Table 5 vs §3.2/§3.4.2] The MCMC best fit is p=2.40 (Table 5), while the text repeatedly uses p=2.6±0.2 for the consistency checks. The author should clarify which value is used in each equation and report the derived p from the spectral index beta_o=0.72 in a consistent way.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] 'The rate values across these three channels are averaged and fit to a Gaussian function' appears to be a typo; the text correctly says the spectrum is fit with a Band function.
  5. [§3.2] The break is described as achromatic based only on optical/IR filters; the X-ray break has a very large uncertainty and the late-time X-ray spectrum is inconclusive. The wording should be softened to 'achromatic in the available optical/IR filters'.
  6. [§3.3] The paper mentions posterior predictive checks but no results or figures are shown. If they were performed, a brief summary or a reference to an appendix would make the MCMC validation transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

One parameter choice is circular (t_fb set equal to the observed plateau break and then used to explain that break); the magnetar conclusion otherwise rests on fits and a fragile jet-break assumption rather than on a definitional reduction.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§3.3, §3.4.6]
    "When we consider a fallback accretion rate with a single characteristic timescale, we fix the characteristic fall-back time to t_fb=7.7×10^4 s, which corresponds to the temporal breaks found in each filter ... Based on the derived parameters, the spin-down timescale is shorter than the characteristic fall-back timescale. Consequently, for GRB 250704B/EP250704a, the fall-back timescale determines the duration of the optical plateau phase."

    The plateau break time is inserted into the model as t_fb itself, so the statement that the fall-back timescale determines the plateau duration is true by construction. This is not an independent inference; it is a re-description of the input value. The derived B and P inherit this imposed coincidence, although the broader magnetar interpretation does not reduce to this single step.

full rationale

The central composite model — spin-down luminosity, forward-shock synchrotron emission, and evolving microphysical parameters — is fitted to the same multi-wavelength data that are then said to be 'consistent with' it. Under the circularity rubric, fitting a model to data and reporting consistency is not by itself circular unless a fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The paper does not present B, P, a, or b as out-of-sample predictions; they are MCMC/MINUIT best-fit parameters. The one explicit definitional reduction is the fall-back timescale: t_fb is fixed to the observed optical/IR break at 7.7×10^4 s and later invoked as the reason the plateau ends when it does. That is a genuine self-definitional step, but it is supporting rather than the sole basis for the magnetar claim. The load-bearing jet-break identification is fragile — Table 4 gives t_bo = 0.76±0.73×10^5 s, and the paper itself notes the late-time X-ray spectrum is 'inconclusive because of limited statistical significance' — but fragile assumptions and weak constraints are correctness risks, not circularity. Self-citations (Fraija et al. 2020, 2021, 2024, 2026) are used as literature support for known parameterizations, not as a uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled through unverified prior work. Overall, the derivation chain is largely a fit-based interpretation with one minor definitional circularity, so the score is 3 rather than 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

14 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The magnetar interpretation depends on ~14 chosen/fitted quantities. The principal independent anchor is p = 2.4-2.6, consistent with the measured optical/X-ray spectral index beta ~ 0.72 and with the flat optical plateau (t^{(3-p)/2}), plus standard torque equations. The unusual features (extended soft X-ray, steep decay) are explained by parameters fitted to those same features (B, P; a, b; t_fb = observed break), which is the core circularity burden.

free parameters (14)
  • E_K (isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy) = log10 E_K = 52.26
    MCMC; normalization of the synchrotron model; §3.3, Table 5
  • n (circumburst density) = log10 n = -1.03 (n ~ 9.1e-2 cm^-3)
    MCMC; synchrotron normalization; §3.3, Table 5
  • p (electron spectral index) = 2.40 ± 0.01
    MCMC; independent anchor beta = (p-1)/2 with beta ~ 0.72; §3.3
  • epsilon_B (magnetic microphysical fraction) = log10 eps_B = -1.03 (≈0.09)
    MCMC; §3.3, Table 5
  • epsilon_e (electron microphysical fraction) = log10 eps_e = -2.41 (≈0.004)
    MCMC; §3.3, Table 5
  • zeta (fraction of accelerated electrons) = log10 zeta = -0.87 (≈0.13)
    MCMC; §3.3, Table 5
  • a (epsilon_e temporal PL index, eps_e ∝ t^-a) = -0.48 ± 0.02
    MCMC; fitted to the post-jet-break decay it is invoked to explain; §3.3, Table 5, §3.4.2
  • b (epsilon_B temporal PL index, eps_B ∝ t^-b) = 0.98 ± 0.01
    MCMC; fitted to the post-jet-break decay; §3.3, Table 5
  • B (dipole magnetic field) = 3.11e14 G (1 timescale); 2.13e14 G (2 timescales)
    MINUIT fit of L_sd to the X-ray data; §3.3, Table 5
  • P (initial spin period) = 1.11 ms / 1.08 ms
    MINUIT fit; §3.3, Table 5
  • t_fb (fallback characteristic timescale) = 7.7e4 s
    Fixed equal to the observed optical/IR temporal break (§3.3 'which corresponds to the temporal breaks found in each filter'); anchors the spin-down light curve to the data
  • M_fb (fallback mass) = 0.8 M_sun
    Taken from Metzger et al. 2018 without event-specific constraint; §3.3
  • eta_x (spin-down to X-ray efficiency) = 0.03
    From Bernardini et al. 2013a / Xiao & Dai 2019; §3.3
  • sigma-rho likelihood hyperparameter = half-normal, fixed std
    Hand-tuned 'sufficiently large' for MCMC exploration; §3.3
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Fallback accretion rate follows M_dot ∝ (1 + t/t_fb)^(-5/3), or the two-timescale piecewise form of Eq. 3
    Taken from Metzger et al. 2018; shapes L_sd, temporal via Eqs. 13-15; §3.1.1
  • domain assumption Spin evolution is governed by the dipole + accretion torque model of Piro & Ott (2011) and Parfrey et al. (2016), Eqs. 7-9
    The entire spin-down luminosity derivation rests on this torque model; §3.1.1
  • domain assumption Circumburst medium is uniform (ISM-like) and standard synchrotron forward-shock scalings apply
    Light-curve segments in Eqs. 21-26; §3.1.3-3.1.5
  • ad hoc to paper Microphysical parameters evolve as pure power laws eps_e ∝ t^-a, eps_B ∝ t^-b with no physical model
    'The precise process underlying this result remains ambiguous' (§3.4.2); the post-jet-break explanation of the steep decay depends entirely on this parametrization
  • ad hoc to paper The achromatic break at ~7.7 x 10^4 s is a jet break with theta_j ~ 3.1 deg
    Identified from weakly constrained break times (t_bo = 0.76 ± 0.73 x 10^5 s, Table 4); geometric alternatives not ruled out; §3.2
  • standard math Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc and Omega_M = 0.315
    Luminosity distance for flux normalization; §3.3
  • standard math Band function describes the prompt spectrum, and the synchrotron electron index relates to the spectral index via beta = (p-1)/2
    Used to derive E_gamma,iso and the p = 2.6 anchor; §2.2.1, §3.2

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29838 in / 24507 out tokens · 217792 ms · 2026-08-03T08:47:14.211554+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

GRB~250704B/EP250704a, identified as a short gamma-ray burst (sGRB), exhibited prolonged X-ray emission following the prompt phase and, in optical and infrared (IR) bands, an unusual one-day plateau succeeded by a rapid decline. This sGRB was observed by multiple satellites and ground-based observatories across the electromagnetic spectrum. This study presents temporal and spectral analyses from radio to gamma-ray frequencies, spanning several observation periods beginning after the trigger and continuing for nearly 2 days. The results of the temporal and spectral analyses of the prompt episode, the extended X-ray component, and the afterglow phase are consistent with a millisecond magnetar undergoing accretion. The long-lasting X-ray emission is attributed to the internal energy dissipation of the magnetar spin-down power, governed by the magnetization parameter; the extended optical/IR plateau to synchrotron afterglow emission with energy injection; and the steep decay to changes in microphysical parameters during the post-jet break phase. The X-ray observations are consistent with the superposition of spin-down luminosity and synchrotron afterglow scenario. These findings suggest that the compact-object remnant is most likely a long-lived magnetar.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.15732 by Antonio Galv\'an, Boris Betancourt Kamenetskaia, Maria G Dainotti, Nissim Fraija.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The upper-left panel presents the KW public light curves of GRB 250704B/EP250704a in the 18-70, 70-300, and 300-1160 keV channels, arranged from top to bottom. The orange region indicates the period used for spectral data collection. The upper-right panel displays the corresponding spectrum. The rate values across these three channels are averaged and fit to a Gaussian function. The least squares method fi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The upper panels show the X-ray light curve at 0.3-10 keV (left) and optical/IR light curves (right) in the J, z, i, r and g filters. The lines in both panels correspond to the best-fit PL segments. The lower panel displays the SED of EP250704a at 2.7 × 103 s and 1.5 × 103 s (lighter points). We combined binned X-ray data from the Swift/XRT repository and interpolated the optical flux densities corrected f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The upper-left panel displays the X-ray observations, with the best-fit curve generated by the internal energy dissipation of the magnetar spin-down power with the respective magnetization parameter, and the HXM2 (CALET) light curve on counts in the 7 - 10 keV channel. The upper-right panel shows the evolution of the light cylinder, corotation and Alfven radii together with the evolution of the spin period… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot illustrating the median values of parameters (blue lines) obtained from fitting the X-ray, optical and radio observations of GRB 250704B requiring the internal energy dissipation of the magnetar spin-down power and synchrotron afterglow emission with energy injection and microphysical parameter evolution. The median values of the parameters found are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: X-rays light curves of GRBs with Extended emission (in the observer’s frame) detected by Swift satellite, including GRB 250704B/EP250704a. References: (Berger 2014; Kagawa et al. 2019) MNRAS 000, 1–19 (2026) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The hydrodynamics of stratified ultra-relativistic outflows and the origin of GRB X-ray plateaus

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Stratified ultra-relativistic outflows with broad Lorentz factor distributions explain GRB X-ray plateaus via forward shock emission while producing long-lived reverse shock millimeter radiation.

  2. Detectability of Gravitational-wave counterparts of EP-FXTs observed during the O4b LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    No gravitational-wave counterpart is statistically associated with any of 47 Einstein Probe fast X-ray transients in the O4b run; 90% exclusion distances of ~178 Mpc (BNS) and ~349 Mpc (NSBH) disfavor nearby compact-b...

  3. EP251023a: A fast X-ray transient featuring a magnetar-powered optical internal plateau followed by a steep decay

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    EP251023a is a new extragalactic fast X-ray transient whose optical light curve is interpreted as a rare magnetar-powered internal plateau with derived upper limits on spin period and magnetic field.

  4. The hydrodynamics of stratified ultra-relativistic outflows and the origin of GRB X-ray plateaus

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    GRB X-ray plateaus can be explained by a single ultra-relativistic outflow with a broad spread of Lorentz factors, which also predicts bright millimeter emission from the reverse shock.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Cannizzo J

    Ahlgren B., Larsson J., Nymark T., Ryde F., Pe’er A., 2015, MNRAS, 454, L31 An J., et al., 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40966, 1 Baiotti L., Rezzolla L., 2017, Reports on Progress in Physics, 80, 096901 Band D., et al., 1993, ApJ, 413, 281 Barniol Duran R., Nakar E., Piran T., Sari R., 2015, MNRAS, 448, 417 Barthelmy S. D., Cannizzo J. K., Gehrels N., C...

    arXiv 2015

  2. [4]

    r g (x 0.125) 1 keV10-7 10-4 10-1 100 103 106 Lsd Figure 5.The same as Figure 3, but for a fallback accretion rate with two characteristic timescales. MNRAS000, 1–19 (2026) GRB 250704B/EP250704a25 10-16 10-14 10-12 10-10 10-8 10-6 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Flux [0.3-10 keV] (erg cm -2 s -1) Time (s) ★ ★★★★★★★★★★★★ ★ ★ ★ GRB 050724 GRB 051221A GRB 06...

    2026

  3. [5]

    MNRAS000, 1–19 (2026) 24Fraija, N. et al. 10-5 10-3 10-1 700 750 800 850 900 Flux (erg cm -2 s -1) rate (counts/s) Lsd XRT (1 keV) 100 102 104 106 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 σ Time after trigger (s) 101 102 1 00 1 01 1 02 1 03 1 04 1 05 1 06 R (km) rlc rm rc 100 101 102 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 P (10 -3 s) Time (s) Peq 10-10 10-8 10-6 10-4 10-2 1...

    2026

  4. [8]

    The upper-right panel shows the evolution of the light cylinder, corotation and Alfven radii together with the evolution of the spin period

    r g (x 0.125) 1 keV10-7 10-4 10-1 100 103 106 Lsd Figure 3.The upper-left panel displays the X-ray observations, with the best-fit curve generated by the internal energy dissipation of the magnetar spin-down power with the respective magnetization parameter, and the HXM2 (CALET) light curve on counts in the 7 - 10 keV channel. The upper-right panel shows ...

    2026

  5. [2019]

    MNRAS000, 1–19 (2026)

    2026