Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Universal scaling between magnetar field and initial spin period for short gamma ray bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Short GRB magnetars obey the same field–spin scaling as long GRBs, a first.

desk verdict The universal Bp–P0 slope for sGRBs is probably an artifact of the L0–τ inversion, and the paper has internal contradictions; the qualitative field-strength difference is likely real. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18698 v1 pith:C3VPQ7J6 submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Qin-Mei Li , Qi-Bin Sun , Sheng-Bang Qian , Li-Yin Zhu , Fu-Xing Li , Si-Yuan Zhu , Ming Lian , Jing Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords gamma-rayburstsmagnetarsshortGRBsX-rayplateausinitialspinperiodmagneticfieldaccretionrateBp-P0correlation
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 systematically analyzes 33 short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) with X-ray plateaus and derives the initial spin period and polar magnetic field of their newborn magnetar central engines. It finds a tight Bp–P0 correlation for sGRBs, log Bp = (0.84±0.07) log P0 + (15.79±0.07), with a slope statistically consistent with that of long GRBs. The authors interpret this as evidence for a universal magnetar spin-down mechanism, while the vertical offset between the two populations traces different progenitor accretion environments. They further link the offset to higher mass accretion rates in sGRBs and note partial overlap with broad-line Type Ic supernovae, suggesting mixed progenitor channels.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the magnetar spin-down model applied to X-ray plateaus: the plateau luminosity L0 and timescale τ are inverted to yield the initial spin period P0 and polar magnetic field Bp via equations (5)–(6), derived from magnetic dipole spin-down. The theoretical backbone is the equilibrium scaling Bp ∝ P0^(7/6) Mdot^(1/2), obtained by equating the Alfvén radius with the corotation radius during fallback accretion. This scaling predicts a steep positive slope in the log Bp–log P0 plane, which the paper tests against the data.

What would settle it

Scramble the plateau luminosity and timescale values across the sample, recompute Bp and P0, and re-fit the correlation; if the scrambled data still produce a slope near 0.84 with similar scatter, the correlation is an artifact of the inversion. Alternatively, independently measure the initial spin period of a magnetar remnant in an sGRB through X-ray timing or gravitational-wave observations and check whether it falls on the claimed relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims the first systematic detection of a Bp–P0 correlation in short GRBs with X-ray plateaus. Using 33 sGRBs (22 from prior literature plus 11 newly analyzed), it derives magnetar parameters spanning P0 ∈ [1.73, 18.28] ms and Bp ∈ [0.06, 2.82]×10^17 G, with sGRB magnetars being, on average, about an order of magnitude more magnetized than lGRB magnetars. The fitted power-law slope for sGRBs, 0.84±0.07, matches the lGRB slope of 0.83±0.09, while the intercepts differ significantly. The authors argue that the slope represents a universal magnetar spin-down / accretion equilibrium (Bp ∝ P0^(7/6) at fixed accretion rate), and the intercept difference encodes progenitor-specific accre

Load-bearing premise

The Bp and P0 values are not measured independently; both are computed from the same two observables (plateau luminosity and plateau timescale) via the magnetar spin-down equations, so the fitted slope between them may be a byproduct of that inversion rather than a physical correlation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the correlation is physically real, the Bp–P0 plane becomes a two-dimensional diagnostic that can separate GRB progenitor channels, with slope encoding spin-down physics and intercept encoding accretion rate.
  • sGRB magnetars being systematically more magnetized than lGRB magnetars provides a concrete observational constraint for models of compact binary merger remnants.
  • The derived mass accretion rates for sGRBs (0.1–0.3 Msun/s) are substantially higher than those for lGRBs, implying different fallback or merger disk conditions around newborn magnetars.
  • The overlap between a subset of sGRBs and SNe Ic-BL in the Bp–P0 plane supports the emerging idea that some short bursts arise from massive star core collapse, not only compact binary mergers.
  • Future sGRB plateau detections can immediately place the burst onto this correlation and estimate its central engine parameters without re-fitting the full light curve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Bp and P0 are both derived from the same two observables (L0 and τ) via the same inversion equations, the steep correlation may be partly baked into the mathematics; a null test that scrambles L0 and τ across the sample, or simulates independent draws from their error distributions, would establish whether the observed slope is physically meaningful or an artifact of the inversion.
  • If the correlation is verified with independent measurements of P0 (e.g., from future pulsar timing or gravitational-wave signatures of a magnetar remnant), the intercept offset could be converted into a direct probe of post-merger disk mass and magnetic flux, rather than relying on accretion-rate inference.
  • The near-unity slope (~0.84) is close to, but slightly shallower than, the theoretical 7/6 ≈ 1.17; testing whether this difference persists in larger samples could reveal additional spin-down torques beyond magnetic dipole radiation, such as gravitational wave emission.
  • The paper's mixed-origin claim for sGRBs, driven by overlap with SNe Ic-BL, suggests that a fraction of sGRB samples selected on plateau signatures may be contaminated by collapsar events; future samples should include a classification based on host galaxy type or supernova association to test this directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes X-ray plateaus of short GRBs to derive magnetar initial spin periods P0 and polar magnetic fields Bp via the magnetar spin-down model (Eqs. 3–6). It claims the first systematic detection of a Bp–P0 correlation in sGRBs, with slope 0.84±0.07, consistent with the lGRB slope 0.83±0.09, which the authors interpret as evidence for a universal magnetar spin-down mechanism with different accretion environments. The paper also derives mass accretion rates and compares magnetar parameters across transient classes.

Significance. If the Bp–P0 correlation were based on independent measurements, the near-identical slopes between sGRBs and lGRBs would be an important result. However, the analysis inverts the same two observables (L0 and τ) to compute both Bp and P0, so the fitted Bp–P0 relation is a mathematical projection of the L0–τ joint distribution and does not provide independent evidence for a physical coupling. The paper also contains internal inconsistencies in sample size and statistical reporting. The light-curve fitting and the table of 11 sources are useful data products, but the central conclusion is not supported by the analysis as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (5)–(6); §3, Eq. (7)] Equations (5) and (6) define log Bp = −0.5 log L0 − log τ + const and log P0 = −0.5 log L0 − 0.5 log τ + const. Hence any correlation between log Bp and log P0 is induced by the covariance of L0 and τ; it does not measure an independent physical relation. The paper does not perform a null test (e.g., scrambling τ or simulating from independent Bp and P0 distributions) to show that the observed r = 0.93 is not an artifact of the inversion. This is load-bearing because the claimed universal slope comparison with lGRBs (Eqs. 7–8) could arise simply from similar L0–τ covariance in both samples. The central claim is therefore unsupported.
  2. [Abstract vs. §2 and Table 1] The abstract states 33 sGRBs with P0 in [1.73, 18.28] ms, but §2 says the final clean sample contains 11 sGRBs, and Table 1 lists 11 sources with P0 values up to 77.62 ms. The 22 sources from Lü et al. (2015) mentioned in the Introduction are not tabulated or analyzed. For the 11 listed sources, r = 0.93 corresponds to p ≈ 2×10^−5, not the quoted 2.74×10^−14; the quoted p-value implies n ≈ 33. The statistical results are not reproducible from the presented data.
  3. [§4, Eq. (9) and discussion of slopes] The statement that "all measured slopes are consistent with the theoretical 7/6 scaling" is contradicted by Eq. (7): 0.84 ± 0.07 is ~4.7σ from 7/6 ≈ 1.167. Additionally, the accretion-rate estimates use Eq. (9) with the fitted slope 0.83, but Eq. (9) assumes a 7/6 slope; using a different slope requires a modified relation. The derived Mdot ranges are therefore not well justified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors (e.g., "theroy" in §1, "invovles" and "Accoding" in §2), which should be corrected.
  2. [References] Several references appear in the bibliography but are not cited in the text (Cook et al. 1994; Duez et al. 2006; Giacomazzo & Perna 2013; Rea et al. 2015).
  3. [Figure 2 and Table 1] Some light-curve fits have very large parameter uncertainties (e.g., GRB 191031D: τ = 113.97 ± 103.05 s, P0 = 18.28 ± 14.72 ms), yet the paper does not discuss how these uncertainties propagate into the derived Bp and P0 or into the fitted correlation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Bp–P0 'universal scaling' is a projection of the L0–τ anti-correlation through the defining inversion equations; no null test is provided.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eqs. (5)–(7); see also Table 1]
    "Bp,15 = 2.05 G (I45 R−3 6 L−1/2 0,49 τ −1 3) ... P0,−3 = 1.42 s (I 1/2 45 L−1/2 0,49 τ −1/2 3) ... log Bp = (0.84±0.07) log P0 + (15.79±0.07)"

    From (5) and (6), in log-space log Bp = −½ log L0 − log τ + c and log P0 = −½ log L0 − ½ log τ + d. Thus log Bp = log P0 − ½ log τ + const, so an OLS regression of log Bp on log P0 has slope (Var L + 2 Var τ + 3 Cov(L,τ))/(Var L + Var τ + 2 Cov(L,τ)) plus selection effects. Table 1 shows F0 (∝ L0) and τ are strongly anticorrelated; the fitted slope 0.84 is therefore the projection of that F0–τ covariance through the defining equations, not an independent measurement of magnetar properties. Eq. (7) is then presented as 'the first systematic detection of the Bp–P0 correlation' and used to infer a universal spin-down mechanism. No null test (e.g., scrambling τ or forward-modeling independent Bp,P0) is performed to show the slope is not forced by the inversion.

full rationale

Equations (5)–(6) give log Bp = −0.5 log L0 − log τ + const and log P0 = −0.5 log L0 − 0.5 log τ + const. Hence the fitted slope in Eq. (7) is not an independent measurement but a deterministic function of the covariance between the two observables L0 and τ (and of sample selection). Table 1 shows F0 (∝ L0) and τ are strongly anticorrelated, so the tight r = 0.93 correlation is expected from the inversion; the paper never runs a null test (scrambling τ, or forward-simulating independent Bp/P0 values). This makes the headline 'universal magnetar spin-down' conclusion underdetermined: the same transformation would be applied to any sample with similar L0–τ distribution, including lGRBs, so the near-identical slopes in Eq. (8) do not independently confirm a universal mechanism. The interpretation also has internal tensions: the abstract claims 33 sGRBs and P0 ∈ [1.73, 18.28] ms, whereas §2 and Table 1 list 11 sGRBs with P0 values up to 77.62 ms; and the fitted slope 0.84 is ~4–5σ from 7/6, contradicting the statement that all measured slopes are consistent with 7/6. These do not by themselves establish circularity, but they reinforce the conclusion that the central claim rests on a fitted projection rather than a model-independent test.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the magnetar spin-down model and the spin-up equilibrium model, both assumed from the literature. The only hand-chosen number that materially affects the results is the adopted redshift z=0.72 for 8 sources. The free parameters are the standard NS mass/radius used in Eq. (9) and the assumed redshift; no parameters are fitted to the data beyond the light-curve fits and the final Bp–P0 regression.

free parameters (2)
  • Adopted redshift z=0.72 = 0.72
    Used for 8 of 11 newly analyzed sGRBs without measured redshift. Directly scales L0 (Eq. 2) and hence Bp and P0 (Eqs. 5–6); systematic uncertainty not propagated.
  • Canonical NS mass and radius in Eq. (9) = M=1.4 Msun, R=12 km
    Adopted from Stratta et al. (2018) to convert the fitted Bp–P0 relation into accretion rates. These values set the normalization of the derived Ṁ and are not varied.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Magnetic dipole spin-down of a newborn magnetar powers the X-ray plateau (Zhang & Mészáros 2001).
    Equations (3)–(4) are assumed to describe the plateau and are used to invert L0 and τ into Bp and P0.
  • domain assumption The plateau break time τ = tb/(1+z) equals the characteristic spin-down timescale and L0 ≃ Lb.
    The identification of the observed break with the magnetar spin-down timescale is essential; no alternative interpretation (e.g., external shock) is tested.
  • domain assumption The internal plateau is defined by a post-break decay index steeper than −2.
    Used to select the 11 sGRB sample; the selection criterion biases toward magnetar-like behavior.
  • domain assumption Spin-up equilibrium relation B ∝ P^{7/6} Ṁ^{1/2} (Eq. 9).
    Invoked to interpret the intercept offset as due to accretion rate; the theoretical slope is inconsistent with the fitted slope, so the interpretation is questionable.
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ωm = 0.3 and H0 = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1.
    Used for luminosity distances and K-corrections; a standard choice, but a different cosmology would shift L0 and thus Bp, P0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal scaling between magnetar field and initial spin period for short gamma ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3VPQ7J6

@misc{pith2026260718698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal scaling between magnetar field and initial spin period for short gamma ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3VPQ7J6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18698}
}
abstract

The $B_p$--$P_0$ correlation serves as a critical probe of magnetar engine physics. Although this scaling relation has been firmly established for long gamma-ray bursts (lGRBs), systematic investigations for short GRBs (sGRBs) remain absent, leaving the physical differences between the two populations poorly constrained. Here we analyze 33 Swift sGRBs exhibiting prominent X-ray plateaus from newborn millisecond magnetar spin-down, and derive their initial spin period $P_0$ and polar magnetic field $B_p$. sGRB magnetars span $P_0 \in [1.73,\,18.28]\ \mathrm{ms}$ and $B_p \in [0.06,\,2.82] \times 10^{17}\ \mathrm{G}$ ($\langle B_p \rangle = 7.05 \times 10^{16}\ \mathrm{G}$), significantly more magnetized than lGRB magnetars ($B_p \in [0.39,\,23.08] \times 10^{15}\ \mathrm{G}$; $\langle B_p \rangle = 3.69 \times 10^{15}\ \mathrm{G}$). For the first time, we derive consistent power-law $B_p$--$P_0$ correlations for GRBs : the scaling for sGRBs is $\log B_p = (0.84\pm0.07)\log P_0 + (15.79\pm0.07)$, whose slope is highly consistent with that of lGRBs, $\log B_p = (0.83\pm0.09)\log P_0 + (14.92\pm0.06)$. The near-identical slopes imply a universal magnetar spin-down mechanism, while the vertical offset between intercepts traces divergent progenitor channels. This scaling relation thus offers a new diagnostic to disentangle the formation pathways of GRB. Within the framework of the standard spin-up model, the mass accretion rates of sGRBs ($\dot{M} \sim 1 \times 10^{-1}$ to $3 \times 10^{-1}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$) are substantially higher than those of lGRBs ($\dot{M} \sim 10^{-4}$ to $1 \times 10^{-1}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$). Our work completes the missing $B_p$--$P_0$ statistics for sGRBs, quantitatively unifies their magnetar physics with lGRBs, and provides new observational constraints on the origin diversity of relativistic transients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Bp–P0 parameter plane of sGRBs and lGRBs powered by magnetar central engines. The two GRB populations show distinct segregation across the magnetic field–initial spin period parameter space; all magnetar parameters are inferred from modeling Swift X-ray afterglow plateaus. Overlaid comparison samples are superluminous supernovae (SLSNe, green points; Yu et al. 2017), lGRBs (violet points; Zhou et al. 2026), fa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. X-ray light curves of the 11 sGRB sample. Violet points show BAT (15–150 keV) data extrapolated to the XRT (0.3–10 keV) band, and blue points show raw XRT (0.3–10 keV) data. Red lines indicate the best-fit broken power-law models for each light curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Diverse Morphologies of GRB X-Ray Plateaus within a Common Magnetar Framework

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A hierarchical fit of 185 GRB X-ray plateaus finds no statistical need for distinct magnetar populations behind rising, flat, and decaying plateau shapes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  2. [2]

    P., Anand, S., et al

    Ahumada, T., Singer, L. P., Anand, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 2021

  3. [3]

    D., Chincarini, G., Burrows, D

    Barthelmy, S. D., Chincarini, G., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2005, Nature, 438, 994, doi: 10.1038/nature04392

    doi:10.1038/nature04392 2005

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharya, D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1991, PhR, 203, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-s 1991

  5. [5]

    2006, A&A, 454, 113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064856

    Campana, S., Tagliaferri, G., Lazzati, D., et al. 2006, A&A, 454, 113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064856

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20064856 2006

  6. [6]

    H., Jia, X

    Chen, J. H., Jia, X. D., Dong, X. F., & Wang, F. Y. 2024, ApJL, 973, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39 2024

  7. [7]

    B., Shapiro, S

    Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1994, ApJ, 424, 823, doi: 10.1086/173934

    doi:10.1086/173934 1994

  8. [8]

    J., Fox, D

    Cucchiara, A., Levan, A. J., Fox, D. B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7 Dall’Osso, S., Stratta, G., Perna, R., De Cesare, G., &

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/7 2011

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acccec

    Stella, L. 2023, ApJL, 949, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acccec

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad22e2

    Du, Z., Lü, H., Yuan, Y., Yang, X., & Liang, E. 2024, ApJL, 962, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad22e2

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Stephens, B. C. 2006, PhRvL, 96, 031101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.031101

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

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

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 —. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2007

  6. [14]

    A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J

    Evans, P. A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014819

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    K., & Pethick, C

    Ghosh, P., Lamb, F. K., & Pethick, C. J. 1977, ApJ, 217, 578, doi: 10.1086/155606

    1977 doi

  8. [16]

    2013, ApJL, 771, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26

    Giacomazzo, B., & Perna, R. 2013, ApJL, 771, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Levan, A

    Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., & Tanvir, N. R. 2020, ApJ, 895, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    P., O’Brien, P

    Gompertz, B. P., O’Brien, P. T., & Wynn, G. A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 240, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2165

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    T., Jing, J

    Hao, C. T., Jing, J. H., Han, X. L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae24e3

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    1997, ApJ, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

    Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101, doi: 10.1086/186969

    1993 doi

  14. [22]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2606

    Lan, L., Gao, H., Zhao, L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2606

    2026 doi

  15. [23]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf20e —

    Li, Q.-M., Sun, Q.-B., Qian, S.-B., & Li, F.-X. 2025, ApJL, 990, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf20e —. 2026a, ApJL, 997, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2012

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    2026b, ApJ, 998, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2f45

    Li, Q.-M., Sun, Q.-B., Qian, S.-B., Zhu, S.-Y., & Li, F.-X. 2026b, ApJ, 998, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2f45

    doi

  17. [25]

    M., Zhang, Z

    Li, Q. M., Zhang, Z. B., Han, X. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1648

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Wang, X

    Lin, W. L., Wang, X. F., Wang, L. J., & Dai, Z. G. 2020, ApJL, 903, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc254

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2 Lü, H.-J., & Zhang, B

    Liu, J.-F., Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., & Zhang, B. 2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2 Lü, H.-J., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJ, 785, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/74 Lü, H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., Li, Y., & Lasky, P. D. 2015, ApJ, 805, 89, doi: 10.1088/0...

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x

    Bucciantini, N., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x

    2011

  21. [29]

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

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

    1992 doi

  22. [30]

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

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

    1986 doi

  23. [31]

    Y., Wang, N., & Zhang, C

    Pan, Y. Y., Wang, N., & Zhang, C. M. 2013, Ap&SS, 346, 119, doi: 10.1007/s10509-013-1432-3

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    1999, PhR, 314, 575, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    Piran, T. 1999, PhR, 314, 575, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    L., & Ott, C

    Piro, A. L., & Ott, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 736, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/108

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    A., et al

    Rea, N., Gullón, M., Pons, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/92

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2

    Rossi, A., Rothberg, B., Palazzi, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    T., Metzger, B

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts683

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    T., Tanvir, N

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 531, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17354.x

    2010

  30. [38]

    Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P

    Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 591, L17, doi: 10.1086/376976

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G

    Stratta, G., Dainotti, M. G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G. 2018, ApJ, 869, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd8f

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4711

    Tang, C.-H., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., & Zhang, Z.-B. 2019, ApJS, 245, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4711

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273, doi: 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c13

    Xie, L., Wei, D.-M., Wang, Y., & Jin, Z.-P. 2022, ApJ, 934, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c13

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2016, ApJS, 224, 20, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20 10Li et al

    Yi, S.-X., Xi, S.-Q., Yu, H., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 20, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20 10Li et al

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27

    Yu, Y.-W., Zhu, J.-P., Li, S.-Z., Lü, H.-J., & Zou, Y.-C. 2017, ApJ, 840, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Zeh, A., Klose, S., & Hartmann, D. H. 2004, ApJ, 609, 952, doi: 10.1086/421100

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L21

    Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 780, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L21

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    Zhang, B., & Mészáros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    2001 doi

  40. [48]

    2026, ApJL, 1004, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae7329

    Zhou, Y.-Q., Yi, S.-X., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1004, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae7329

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.21759, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.21759

    Zhu, J.-P., & Zhang, B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.21759, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.21759

    2026 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2766

    Zou, L., Liang, E.-W., Zhong, S.-Q., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2766

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.