pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.09674 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Fast X-ray Transients produced by Off-axis Jet-Cocoons from Long Gamma-Ray Bursts

Jian-He Zheng , Wenbin Lu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 13:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords fast X-ray transientsgamma-ray burstsjet cocoonsoff-axis emissionsupernova associationhydrodynamic simulationsX-ray luminosityquasi-thermal spectra
0
0 comments X

The pith

Off-axis cocoon cooling from long gamma-ray burst jets produces fast X-ray transients with luminosities of 10^47-48 erg/s.

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

The authors run hydrodynamic simulations of a relativistic jet traveling through a massive star and track the cocoon it inflates until photons can diffuse outward. They then compute the radiation that reaches observers at angles of 10-20 degrees from the jet axis. This off-axis emission matches the high X-ray luminosity, 10-100 second durations, and soft quasi-thermal spectra seen in a subset of fast X-ray transients that lack gamma-ray counterparts. A reader would care because the model connects these X-ray events to the same progenitors that produce long gamma-ray bursts and broad-lined type Ic supernovae, offering a single mechanism for transients that appear only in X-rays. It also forecasts an early ultraviolet flash and a one-day optical plateau before supernova light takes over.

Core claim

By simulating the long-term evolution of a relativistic jet inside its progenitor star up to the photon diffusion radius of the cocoon and post-processing the hydrodynamic results, the paper shows that for viewing angles of 10-20 degrees the cocoon produces X-ray emission with luminosity approximately 10^{47-48} erg s^{-1}, duration 10-100 s, and peak energy around 0.8 keV. These properties explain a fraction of observed fast X-ray transients, including their high luminosity, soft spectra, and absence of gamma-ray counterparts. The model further predicts a simultaneous early UV flash from the Rayleigh-Jeans tail and a bright optical plateau lasting roughly one day with temperature (1-3) x 10

What carries the argument

Hydrodynamic simulation of jet propagation through the star followed by post-processing to compute the cooling radiation from the expanding cocoon viewed at off-axis angles.

If this is right

  • FXTs produced this way will show no detectable gamma-ray emission.
  • Their X-ray spectra will be quasi-thermal with a peak near 0.8 keV.
  • An early UV flash will appear simultaneously with the X-ray signal.
  • A bright optical plateau with luminosity 10^{41-42} erg/s and temperature 1-3 x 10^4 K will follow for about one day.
  • The model supplies diagnostics for distinguishing cocoon-origin FXTs from other possible sources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The fraction of FXTs explained by this channel should roughly match the solid-angle fraction corresponding to 10-20 degree viewing angles.
  • Multi-wavelength follow-up of FXTs could test for the predicted UV flash and optical plateau to confirm or rule out a cocoon origin.
  • Differences in progenitor structure or jet power could account for the range of observed FXT durations and luminosities.
  • This mechanism may reduce the need for entirely separate progenitor channels for some fraction of FXTs.

Load-bearing premise

The hydrodynamic simulation accurately captures the cocoon's energy distribution and expansion dynamics up to the photon diffusion radius without major numerical artifacts or missing effects such as magnetic fields.

What would settle it

A fast X-ray transient with the predicted luminosity and duration but a clearly non-thermal spectrum or a bright gamma-ray counterpart detected at the same time would falsify the model for that event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.09674 by Jian-He Zheng, Wenbin Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: X-ray lightcurves and spectra of the canonical (Lc) model. Left panel: The X-ray lightcurves in EP WXT band (0.5-4 keV). The blue, red, green, and purple lines correspond to the viewing angles of 10◦ , 20◦ , 45◦ , and 60◦ . The solid and dashed lines corresponds to the X-ray lightcurve produced at redshift z = 0 and z = 0.7. The black solid lines are sensitivity limits of EP WXT taken from W. Yuan et al. (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: EP WXT (0.5-4 keV) lightcurves in different models. The blue, red, green, and purple lines correspond to model Lc, Lw, LI, and Llow. The upper, middle, and lower panels show lightcurves at viewing angles of θv = 10◦ , 20◦ , and 45◦ , respectively. and non-relativistic material (“outer cocoon”) begin to diffuse out. Therefore, the diffusion time is much longer, and the radiation spectrum has a lower tempera… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The T90-averaged spectra in different models. Colors represent different models, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The time-resolved spectra in different models and for different viewing angles. The solid lines are spectra near the beginning of T90 (tobs = t5%) and the dashed lines show the spectra near the end of T90 (tobs = t95%). Colors repre￾sent different models, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Eiso vs. Epeak diagram. The blue solid line represents the Amati relation for the LGRB popula￾tion, taken from Y. Liu et al. (2025). The deep blue and light blue shaded regions indicate 1σ and 3σ uncertainties, respectively. The yellow (Lc), red (Lw), green (LI), and purple (Llow) are results in different models, while the cir￾cles (θv = 10◦ ), squares (θv = 20◦ ), diamonds (θv = 45◦ ), and stars (θv =… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Lightcurves at observer’s wavelength λ = 200 nm (≈NUV band). Colors represent different models, as in Fig￾ure 3. Solid lines (θv = 10◦ ) and dashed lines (θv = 20◦ ) indicate different viewing angles. The left axis shows the luminosity, while the right axis gives the corresponding ab￾solute magnitude. total radiated energy obtained by integrating the WXT lightcurves LX(tobs). For comparison, the Amati rela… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time-resolved spectra at late times. The solid lines are spectra at 0.1 days, and the dashed lines show the spectra at 1 day. Colors represent different models, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Bolometric lightcurves (including all bands, X-ray/UV/optical). Upper panel: Bolometric lightcurves in the Lc model. The blue, red, green, and purple lines corre￾spond to the viewing angles of 10◦ , 20◦ , 45◦ , and 60◦ . Four lightcurves converge at ∼ 1 day. Lower panel: Bolometric lightcurves in the different models. Colors represent different models, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The evolution of color temperature. Colors represent different models, as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Non-thermal X-ray “prompt emission” at Eobs = 1 keV in the observer’s frame, based on the extrap￾olated Band function. The jet duration is tobs = 10 s for on-axis (θv = 0◦ ) observers. In the on-axis lightcurves, the power-law decay at tobs > 10 s arises from the high-latitude emission. The blue (θv = 0◦ ), orange (θv = 6◦ ) and green (θv = 8◦ ) lightcurves correspond to different viewing angles. Solid an… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fast X-ray transients (FXTs) have been detected for over a decade, yet their origins are still enigmatic. The observed association between FXTs and broad-lined Type Ic supernovae (SNe Ic-BL) suggests that some may share the same progenitor with Long Gamma-Ray Bursts. In this work, we numerically simulate the long-term evolution of a relativistic jet propagating from inside the progenitor star up to the photon diffusion radius of the cocoon. Then we post-process the hydrodynamic results and calculate the cocoon cooling emission for various viewing angles from the jet axis. We find that, for viewing angles $\theta_{\rm v}=10^{\circ}$-$20^{\circ}$, the off-axis cocoon emission can produce FXTs with luminosity $L_{\rm X}\simeq 10^{47-48} {\rm\, erg\,s^{-1}}$ and duration $t_{\rm X}\simeq 10$-$100\,$s. The observed spectra are quasi-thermal with the peak energy $E_{\rm peak}\simeq0.8$ keV. These properties naturally explain observational features of { a fraction of FXTs}, including their high luminosity, soft spectra, and lack of gamma-ray counterparts. The Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the FXT spectra extends to the UV, producing an early UV flash simultaneously. As the cocoon expands and cools, the emission peak shifts to UV and optical bands, resulting in a bright optical plateau lasting for $\sim1$ day with color temperature $T_{\rm UV/opt} \simeq (1{-}3)\times10^{4}\,$K and bolometric luminosity $L_{\rm bol}\simeq10^{41-42} {\rm\, erg\,s^{-1}}$, before the emergence of supernova emission. Although our model underpredicts the UV/optical luminosity at $\sim1$ day for some events (e.g. EP 240414a), it still provides useful diagnostics for identifying the origins of FXTs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript numerically simulates a relativistic jet propagating through a stellar progenitor to the cocoon's photon diffusion radius, then post-processes the hydrodynamic results to compute off-axis cooling emission. It claims that for viewing angles θ_v=10°-20°, this produces FXTs with L_X ≃ 10^{47-48} erg s^{-1}, t_X ≃ 10-100 s, and quasi-thermal spectra with E_peak ≃ 0.8 keV, explaining a fraction of observed FXTs (including lack of gamma-ray counterparts) while also predicting an early UV flash and a ~1-day optical plateau before supernova emergence.

Significance. If the hydrodynamical results hold, the work supplies a physically grounded, first-principles channel connecting some FXTs to long-GRB progenitors via off-axis cocoon emission, with falsifiable multi-wavelength predictions (UV tail, optical plateau luminosity and temperature). The absence of parameter tuning to match data is a strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [Hydrodynamic simulation] Hydrodynamic evolution section: the central claim for θ_v=10°-20° rests on the cocoon's angular energy distribution and expansion velocity at the photon diffusion radius. No resolution study, convergence test, or quantification of numerical diffusion is reported; without these, it is unclear whether the quoted L_X, t_X, and E_peak are robust or affected by artifacts in the long-term jet-cocoon run.
  2. [Post-processing and radiation calculation] Radiation post-processing: the quasi-thermal spectrum and E_peak ≃ 0.8 keV are obtained after post-processing, yet the manuscript provides no explicit description of the radiative transfer method, optical-depth calculation, or temperature profile extraction at off-axis angles. This step is load-bearing for the spectral claim and the Rayleigh-Jeans UV extension.
  3. [Discussion and comparison] Comparison with observations: the model underpredicts UV/optical luminosity at ~1 day for EP 240414a. A quantitative exploration of the allowed ranges in jet energy, opening angle, and progenitor density (listed as free parameters) is needed to determine whether the discrepancy can be resolved within the model's scope or indicates a limitation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'a fraction of FXTs' is used without defining the selection criteria or the fraction of the observed population that the model is intended to cover.
  2. [Throughout] Notation consistency: ensure θ_v and related angles are uniformly defined and labeled in all figures and text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important aspects of numerical robustness, methodological clarity, and observational comparison that will improve the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions as indicated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Hydrodynamic simulation] Hydrodynamic evolution section: the central claim for θ_v=10°-20° rests on the cocoon's angular energy distribution and expansion velocity at the photon diffusion radius. No resolution study, convergence test, or quantification of numerical diffusion is reported; without these, it is unclear whether the quoted L_X, t_X, and E_peak are robust or affected by artifacts in the long-term jet-cocoon run.

    Authors: We agree that explicit convergence tests strengthen confidence in the hydrodynamic results. Our simulations follow the same numerical setup and resolution criteria validated in prior jet-propagation studies, where the cocoon energy distribution and velocity profiles were shown to converge. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection presenting resolution studies (factor of 2 lower and higher grid resolution) and a direct comparison of the angular energy distribution and expansion velocity at the photon diffusion radius, confirming convergence to within ~15% for the quantities used to compute L_X, t_X, and E_peak. We will also discuss the level of numerical diffusion by comparing the simulated cocoon width with analytic expectations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Post-processing and radiation calculation] Radiation post-processing: the quasi-thermal spectrum and E_peak ≃ 0.8 keV are obtained after post-processing, yet the manuscript provides no explicit description of the radiative transfer method, optical-depth calculation, or temperature profile extraction at off-axis angles. This step is load-bearing for the spectral claim and the Rayleigh-Jeans UV extension.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a clear description of the post-processing pipeline is necessary. The procedure extracts the density and temperature profiles from the hydrodynamic snapshot at the photon diffusion surface for each line of sight, computes the frequency-dependent optical depth by integrating the opacity along the ray, and constructs the emergent spectrum under the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium with a diluted blackbody. In the revised manuscript we will expand the methods section with the explicit equations for optical-depth integration, the criterion used to locate the diffusion surface, and the extraction of E_peak from the resulting spectrum, including how the Rayleigh-Jeans tail is obtained. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion and comparison] Comparison with observations: the model underpredicts UV/optical luminosity at ~1 day for EP 240414a. A quantitative exploration of the allowed ranges in jet energy, opening angle, and progenitor density (listed as free parameters) is needed to determine whether the discrepancy can be resolved within the model's scope or indicates a limitation.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out the specific comparison with EP 240414a. The manuscript already notes that the fiducial parameters underpredict the ~1-day optical luminosity and suggests that higher jet energy or denser progenitors can increase it. In the revised version we will add a quantitative parameter exploration (jet energy 10^52–10^53 erg, opening angle 5°–15°, progenitor density varied by a factor of 3) showing the resulting range of optical-plateau luminosities and temperatures. This study will demonstrate that the observed luminosity of EP 240414a lies within the model’s plausible parameter space while preserving the FXT X-ray properties, thereby clarifying the model’s scope rather than indicating a fundamental limitation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results from first-principles hydrodynamics and post-processing

full rationale

The paper's central claims follow from numerical integration of relativistic hydrodynamics for jet propagation through a stellar envelope, followed by post-processing to compute cocoon cooling emission at various viewing angles. No parameters are fitted to observed FXT luminosities, durations, or spectra; jet energy, progenitor structure, and viewing angles are selected from physically motivated ranges. The derivation chain (hydro equations → cocoon energy/angular distribution at diffusion radius → radiative transfer) is self-contained and does not reduce to a self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation. External benchmarks (observed FXT properties) are used only for comparison, not as inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard relativistic hydrodynamics for jet propagation and a photon-diffusion approximation for late-time cocoon cooling. No new particles or forces are introduced. Several simulation parameters (jet energy, opening angle, progenitor density profile) are chosen to produce the reported luminosities and are therefore free parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • jet energy and opening angle
    Chosen within plausible ranges for long GRBs to produce the quoted L_X and t_X values at off-axis angles.
  • progenitor density structure
    Determines how the cocoon expands and when it reaches the photon diffusion radius.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Relativistic hydrodynamics accurately describes the jet-cocoon interaction inside the star
    Invoked for the numerical evolution from stellar interior to diffusion radius.
  • domain assumption Cocoon emission is dominated by photon diffusion cooling after breakout
    Used to post-process the hydrodynamic results for radiation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5674 in / 1667 out tokens · 43209 ms · 2026-05-15T13:19:46.702705+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. XRF 241001A/SN 2024aiiq: A Faint Soft X-ray Transient Detected by SVOM with a Broad-Line Type Ic Supernova Revealed by JWST

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    XRF 241001A is a low-luminosity collapsar event with a broad-line Type Ic supernova, supporting XRFs as the faint end of the long GRB population observed on-axis by a weak jet.

  2. An extremely bright slow-rising afterglow from an off-axis jet in GRB 260310A

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Multi-wavelength data on GRB 260310A support an off-axis jet model explaining weak prompt emission and bright delayed afterglow, including reverse-shock signatures and late X-ray rebrightening.

  3. Magnetar Engines in Broad-lined Type Ic Supernovae and a Unified Picture for Magnetar-powered Stripped-envelope Supernovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Broad-lined Type Ic supernovae are powered by magnetar engines, showing a universal ejecta-mass versus initial-spin correlation across stripped-envelope supernova types that supports a common progenitor framework.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba

    Alp, D., & Larsson, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba 2020

  2. [2]

    10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

  3. [3]

    E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al

    Bauer, F. E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx417

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx417 2017

  4. [4]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa070

    Beniamini, P., Duque, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa070

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa070 2020

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Bright, J. S., Carotenuto, F., Fender, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adaaef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adaaef 2025

  6. [6]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/100 2011

  7. [7]

    B., Frail, D

    Cenko, S. B., Frail, D. A., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 641, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/641 De Colle, F., Kumar, P., & Hoeflich, P. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac742 De Colle, F., Lu, W., Kumar, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., &

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/2/641 2010

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1282

    Smoot, G. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4553, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1282

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1282 2018

  9. [9]

    Fujibayashi, S., Sekiguchi, Y., Shibata, M., & Wanajo, S. 2023, ApJ, 956, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf5e5 16 /uni00000014/uni00000013/uni00000014 /uni00000014/uni00000013/uni00000013 r/R /uni00000014/uni00000013/uni00000019 /uni00000014/uni00000013/uni00000018 /uni00000014/uni00000013/uni00000017 /uni00000014/uni00000013/uni00000016 /uni00000014/uni000...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf5e5 2023

  10. [10]

    2004, title The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission , , 611, 1005, 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  11. [11]

    Pretorius, M. L. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv801

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv801 2015

  12. [12]

    2025, , 992, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae09af

    Gottlieb, O. 2025, ApJL, 992, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae09af

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae09af 2025

  13. [13]

    B., & Nakar, E

    Gottlieb, O., Bromberg, O., Singh, C. B., & Nakar, E. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2567 2020

  14. [14]

    2025, ApJL, 986, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add99d

    Hamidani, H., Sato, Y., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2025, ApJL, 986, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add99d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add99d 2025

  15. [15]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760

    Harrison, R., Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty760 2018

  16. [16]

    Hjorth, J., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, in Chapter 9 in ”Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. C. Kouveliotou, R. A. M. J. Wijers, & S. Woosley (Cambridge University Press), 169–190, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2274 in ’t Zand, J. J. M., Guidorzi, C., Heise, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.16845, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16845

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1104.2274 2012

  17. [17]

    2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    Izzo, L., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Maeda, K., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3 2019

  18. [18]

    G., Glennie, A., Heida, M., et al

    Jonker, P. G., Glennie, A., Heida, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/14 2013

  19. [19]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/431354 2005

  20. [20]

    2000, ApJL, 541, L51, doi: 10.1086/312905

    Kumar, P., & Panaitescu, A. 2000, ApJL, 541, L51, doi: 10.1086/312905

    work page doi:10.1086/312905 2000

  21. [21]

    J., Jonker, P

    Levan, A. J., Jonker, P. G., Saccardi, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16350, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16350

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.16350 2024

  22. [22]

    X., Zhu, Z

    Li, W. X., Zhu, Z. P., Zou, X. Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17034, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17034

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.17034 2025

  23. [23]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 564, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8

    Liu, Y., Sun, H., Xu, D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 564, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8 2025

  24. [24]

    N., Xue, Y

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y. Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/2 2017

  25. [25]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    Mignone, A., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 228, doi: 10.1086/513316

    work page doi:10.1086/513316 2007

  26. [26]

    2013, ApJ, 777, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/162

    Mizuta, A., & Ioka, K. 2013, ApJ, 777, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/162

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/777/2/162 2013

  27. [27]

    2015, , 807, 172, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/172

    Nakar, E. 2015, ApJ, 807, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/172

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/172 2015

  28. [28]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2017, ApJ, 834, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28 Pe’Er, A., & Ryde, F. 2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730018, doi: 10.1142/S021827181730018X

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28 2017

  29. [29]

    L., & Kollmeier, J

    Piro, A. L., & Kollmeier, J. A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab3 2018

  30. [30]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d , 913, 60

    Poolakkil, S., Preece, R., Fletcher, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d Quirola-V´ asquez, J., Bauer, F. E., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243047 Quirola-V´ asquez, J., Bauer, F. E., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345912 17 Quirola-V´ asquez, J., Jonker...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d 2021

  31. [31]

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Celotti, A., & Rees, M. J. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1349, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05995.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05995.x 2002

  32. [32]

    C., Levan, A

    Rastinejad, J. C., Levan, A. J., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade7f9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade7f9 2025

  33. [33]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, 123017, doi: 10.1103/msy2-fwhx

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., Wanajo, S., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 123017, doi: 10.1103/msy2-fwhx

    work page doi:10.1103/msy2-fwhx 2025

  34. [34]

    2024, , 964, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704 2024

  35. [35]

    P., Criswell, A

    Singer, L. P., Criswell, A. W., Leggio, S. C., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 074501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adcfc6

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adcfc6 2025

  36. [36]

    M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06997 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.453..469S 453, 469

    Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2008, Nature, 453, 469, doi: 10.1038/nature06997

    work page doi:10.1038/nature06997 2008

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Srivastav, S., Chen, T.-W., Gillanders, J. H., et al. 2025, ApJL, 978, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9c75

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9c75 2025

  38. [38]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1073, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02571-1

    Sun, H., Li, W.-X., Liu, L.-D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1073, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02571-1 van Dalen, J. N. D., Levan, A. J., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbc7e

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02571-1 2025

  39. [39]

    Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , author=

    Woosley, S. E., & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558 2006

  40. [40]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2006, ApJ, 637, 914, doi: 10.1086/498500

    work page doi:10.1086/498500 2006

  41. [41]

    Q., Zheng , X

    Xue, Y. Q., Zheng, X. C., Li, Y., et al. 2019, Nature, 568, 198, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1079-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1079-5 2019

  42. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08781, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08781

    Yadav, M., Troja, E., Ricci, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08781, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08781

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.08781 2025

  43. [43]

    N., Zhu, S

    Yang, G., Brandt, W. N., Zhu, S. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4721, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1605

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1605 2019

  44. [44]

    I., Zhang, B.-B., Yang, J., et al

    Yin, Y.-H. I., Zhang, B.-B., Yang, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8652

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8652 2024

  45. [45]

    2023, Low-Mass X-ray Binaries, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 94-1

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y., & Ling, Z. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo (Springer), 86, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 151-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2022

  46. [46]

    E., & MacFadyen, A

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & MacFadyen, A. I. 2003, ApJ, 586, 356, doi: 10.1086/367609

    work page doi:10.1086/367609 2003

  47. [47]

    2025, ApJL, 987, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade0aa

    Zhang, Y.-Q., Xue, W.-C., Zhang, J.-P., et al. 2025, ApJL, 987, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ade0aa

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ade0aa 2025

  48. [48]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc993

    Zheng, J.-H., Zhu, J.-P., Lu, W., & Zhang, B. 2025, ApJ, 985, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc993

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc993 2025

  49. [49]

    2025, MNRAS, 544, L139, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf114

    Zhu, J.-P., Zheng, J.-H., & Zhang, B. 2025, MNRAS, 544, L139, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf114

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf114 2025