Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Reverse Shock Emission from Misaligned Structured Jets in Gamma-Ray Bursts

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reverse shock emission, not just the forward shock, drives the early afterglows of structured gamma-ray bursts viewed off-axis.

desk verdict Solid extension to structured-jet reverse-shock afterglow modeling, but the claim that early 170817A light curves are RS-dominated is underdetermined by the missing FS-only baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13968 v1 pith:46JHQEHX submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.HE

Sen-Lin Pang , Zi-Gao Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsafterglowsreverseshockstructuredjetsoff-axisGRB170817Agravitational-wavecounterpartssynchrotronemission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that when a gamma-ray burst jet is viewed away from its axis, the reverse shock—the shock wave traveling back into the ejected shell—can be a major source of the early afterglow rather than a minor correction. The authors build a forward-shock-plus-reverse-shock afterglow model for four kinds of structured jets, apply it to the off-axis merger burst GRB 170817A/GW170817, and fit both multi-wavelength light curves and VLBI proper-motion data at the same time. Their central conclusion is that the gradual early rise of that afterglow is produced by the jet's angular structure together with the difference in peak times of the reverse and forward shocks in the baryonic jet. If correct, early afterglows of future off-axis gamma-ray bursts will show either two peaks or one peak with a distinct feature, giving observers a detectable signature of the reverse shock.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is a semi-analytical dynamical solution for the forward-shock/reverse-shock system that gives the bulk Lorentz factor as a function of radius before and after the reverse shock crosses the shell, interpolating between the thick-shell and thin-shell limits through the dimensionless parameter $\xi$. A structured jet is divided into $N$ uniform polar rings, and the observed flux from each ring is obtained by integrating the Doppler-boosted comoving luminosity over the equal-arrival-time surface, including synchrotron, synchrotron self-Compton, and combined inverse-Compton emission, self-absorption, and the proper motion of the flux centroid. The relative brightness of reverse-shock versus forward-shock emission is controlled by the magnetization ratio $R_B = \epsilon_{B,3}/\epsilon_{B,2}$, the magnetic energy fractions in the two shocked regions, which the MCMC fit treats as independent parameters.

What would settle it

Observe a future off-axis gamma-ray burst whose viewing angle is independently constrained, for example by gravitational-wave inclination, in radio and optical from the first day; if the early light curve rises as a single smooth forward-shock power law with no bump, double peak, or feature at the predicted reverse-shock crossing time, the central claim of reverse-shock-dominated early afterglow is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that early-time light curves of misaligned structured jets are dominated by reverse shock emission, while the gradual rise is set by the jet structure and the offset between reverse-shock and forward-shock peak times in the baryonic jet. For GRB 170817A, the authors find that in the two-component, power-law, and Gaussian jet models the reverse shock contributes substantially at early times and is needed to explain the slow rise; in the mixed jet model, which has a Poynting-flux-dominated core and a baryonic wing, the reverse shock is weak because the fitted magnetic energy fraction in the reverse-shocked region is low, and the gradual rise is instead produced by forward-shock emission from the jet wing. All four structured-jet models nevertheless converge on a viewing angle of about $17^\circ$, a jet half-opening angle of about $6^\circ$, and a core half-opening angle below about $5^\circ$, consistent with gravitational-wave constraints on the binary inclination of GW170817. The model also reproduces the observed superluminal motion of the radio centroid and predicts that future off-axis events may show double-peaked light curves or a single peak with a prominent feature.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes one electron power-law index and one set of electron and magnetic energy fractions apply to every polar-angle segment of the jet, even though the core and wing differ in composition, and the claimed split between reverse-shock and forward-shock emission depends directly on those fractions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Early afterglows of off-axis gamma-ray bursts, including gravitational-wave-detected merger counterparts, should be modeled with both forward and reverse shocks; a forward-shock-only fit will misattribute part of the rise.
  • Future off-axis events should show either a double-peaked light curve or a single peak with a prominent pre-peak feature, with the shape encoding the jet angular profile, viewing angle, and magnetic energy fractions.
  • The gradual rise of GRB 170817A can be reproduced by reverse-shock emission from a baryonic jet wing, so the event does not uniquely require forward-shock-only structured-jet explanations.
  • Simultaneous fits to multi-wavelength light curves and VLBI centroid motion are achievable within the same forward-reverse shock model, strengthening the off-axis structured-jet interpretation.
  • In a mixed jet with a Poynting-flux-dominated core, a bright reverse-shock feature before the forward-shock radio peak is a clean diagnostic of the magnetization parameter $\sigma$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If reverse-shock dominance is generic, closure-relation tests that assume pure forward-shock synchrotron emission will systematically mis-estimate the viewing angle or jet energy when applied before the forward-shock peak.
  • The model's prediction of a viewing-angle-dependent double peak could be tested with rapid-response radio follow-up of gravitational-wave mergers; an event observed just outside the core should show two radio maxima separated by roughly the difference between reverse-shock and forward-shock peak times.
  • The uniform-microphysics assumption across polar rings is the main limitation; letting $\epsilon_e$ or $p$ vary with angle would alter the reverse-shock/forward-shock decomposition, so the quoted angles and opening angles are tied to that assumption.
  • The same framework applied to on-axis structured jets would place the reverse shock in the early optical flash; if the model is right, that flash should correlate with $R_B$.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends a forward-reverse shock afterglow model to misaligned structured jets, considering two-component, power-law, Gaussian, and mixed (Poynting-flux core + baryonic wing) angular profiles. The authors compute multiwavelength light curves and flux-centroid proper motion, then fit GRB 170817A/GW170817 data with an MCMC approach for each jet structure. They report that reverse-shock emission can dominate early-time off-axis afterglows and that future events may show double peaks or a single peak with a prominent feature, while the mixed-jet fit has only a minimal reverse-shock contribution.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this paper would establish a physically important but often neglected channel: reverse-shock emission from structured jets viewed off-axis can shape early afterglows and produce observable light-curve features. The work's strengths are its transparent use of a standard semi-analytic FS-RS dynamical framework, the simultaneous fitting of multiwavelength light curves and VLBI proper-motion data for GRB 170817A, and the explicit exploration of four jet-structure models with published priors and best-fit tables. The significance is conditional, however, because the inference that reverse-shock emission dominates the early light curve is not tested against a forward-shock-only alternative; the fitted microphysics parameters, rather than the data alone, largely set the RS/FS ratio.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Table 3] The paper's central inference that early-time light curves are dominated by reverse-shock emission is not supported by a model-selection test. In the baryonic fits (2C, PL, G), the ratio ε_B,3/ε_B,2 is driven to ~10^2 (log ε_B,3 ≈ -2.8 to -2.9 versus log ε_B,2 ≈ -4.8 to -5.1), while the priors in Table 2 are uniform over seven decades; the mixed-jet fit, with ε_B,3/ε_B,2 ≈ 3, yields negligible RS and attributes the rise to the forward shock in the wing. Because the same data are fit by a structured forward shock alone in the literature, these fits cannot demonstrate that RS emission is present or that it dominates the rise. Please add an FS-only baseline (e.g., ε_B,3 = ε_B,2 or a negligible RS contribution) for each structure model and report a quantitative comparison (χ2, AIC/BIC); without it the headline claim is underdetermined.
  2. [Section 2.3 and Section 3] The model assumes angle-independent microphysics: a single p, ε_e, ε_B,2, and ε_B,3 for all polar-angle segments (Table 1). This is particularly questionable for the mixed jet, where the Poynting-flux-dominated core and baryonic wing are expected to have different shock microphysics; the RS/FS partition in each segment, which determines the early-time features, is directly controlled by these parameters. The robustness of the RS-dominated conclusion should be tested by allowing separate microphysical parameters in core and wing, or by showing that plausible variations do not change the conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase "circum-bust medium" is a typo for "circum-burst medium."
  2. [Section 2.3] The sentence "the absence of RS emission dose not significantly affect the light curve" contains a typo: "dose" should be "does."
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption uses "angular slops," which should be "angular slopes."
  4. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (29)-(30)] The final spectral branch in both equations contains a ratio (ν'_c/ν'_c), which is identically 1; this is likely a typo for a ratio involving a different frequency, and the intended expression should be clarified.
  5. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] The exponent s in the approximation R_Δ/(Γ_0^2 Δ_0) ≈ (f_1^s + f_2^s)^(1/s) is not defined in the text or in the preceding discussion.
  6. [Figure 2 caption] The caption does not explicitly map the dashed and dotted line styles to the SSC and combined-IC components described in the text; a legend or a more explicit caption would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The RS-dominance conclusion restates the fitted magnetization ratio RB = εB,3/εB,2 rather than testing an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, 'DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS' (claim paragraph); supported by Table 3 and Eqs. (36)-(37) in Section 2.1]
    "Our analysis reveals that the early-time light curves are dominated by reverse shock emission and the gradual rise can be attributed to the jet structure and difference in the peak times of the reverse shock and forward shock in the baryonic jet. In the case of a mixed jet, the reverse shock contributes only minimally to the light curve due to the relative low magnetic fields in reverse-shocked region."

    In this model the RS/FS flux ratio is set by RB ≡ εB,3/εB,2: the crossing-time peak fluxes scale as Fν,m,r ∝ εB,3^{1/2} (Eq. 37) and Fν,m,f ∝ εB,2^{1/2} (Eq. 36). For the three baryonic fits, Table 3 gives log εB,3 − log εB,2 ≈ 1.9–2.2 (e.g., PL: −2.839 vs −5.066), i.e., RB ≈ 100–200, while the mixed-jet fit gives RB ≈ 3, and the paper itself says the RS is then 'contributing insignificantly to the light curves' because of this fitted ratio. The Section 4 conclusion is therefore a restatement of the fitted magnetization ratio, not an independent test: no FS-only model was fitted for comparison, so the 'reveal' that RS dominates is forced by the fitted parameter choice.

full rationale

The derivation chain is mostly self-contained: dynamics use the external Zhang et al. (2022) semi-analytic solution and Huang et al. (1999) afterglow dynamics, the structured-jet calculation is an independent extension of Pang & Dai (2024) by splitting the jet into uniform rings, and the double-peak light curves are forward-simulated outputs rather than quantities defined by the fit. The self-citation to Pang & Dai (2024) supplies top-hat machinery and an approximate RS peak time, but it is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The one genuine reduction is the headline claim that early light curves are dominated by reverse-shock emission in baryonic jets: that ratio is a direct function of the fitted microphysics parameters εB,3 and εB,2 (Eqs. 36–37), and the Table 3 fits place log εB,3 − log εB,2 ≈ 2, while the mixed-jet fit with ratio ≈ 3 is described as RS-minimal. Thus the 'reveals' sentence is a paraphrase of the fitted magnetization ratio, not an independent test against an FS-only alternative. This is partial circularity, not a full derivation-equals-input collapse.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on 14 MCMC-fitted parameters (10 to 13 per model), the semi-analytic dynamics borrowed from Zhang et al. (2022), and strong simplifying assumptions about uniform microphysics and an infinitely thin shell. No new physical entities are introduced; the mixed jet structure is taken from prior work by Zhang et al. (2024).

free parameters (14)
  • p (electron power law index) = 2.16 +/- 0.01 (all models)
    MCMC fitted; assumed identical for forward and reverse shock regions (Section 3).
  • n1 (CBM number density) = log n1 ~ -2.7 to -3.2 cm^-3
    MCMC fitted for k=0 ISM; values vary across models.
  • theta_obs (viewing angle) = 0.251-0.275 rad
    MCMC fitted with prior 0.23-0.7 rad from GW inclination constraint.
  • theta_j (jet half-opening angle) = 0.079-0.134 rad
    MCMC fitted.
  • theta_c (jet core half-opening angle) = 0.036-0.091 rad
    MCMC fitted.
  • Gamma_0,c (core initial Lorentz factor) = log Gamma_0,c ~ 2.4-3.0
    MCMC fitted.
  • E_iso,c (core isotropic energy) = log E_iso,c ~ 53.5-53.8 erg
    MCMC fitted.
  • Gamma_0,w (wing initial Lorentz factor) = log Gamma_0,w ~ 1.8-2.4 (2C and MJ)
    MCMC fitted in two-component and mixed jet models.
  • E_iso,w (wide jet isotropic energy) = log E_iso,w ~ 52.2 (2C)
    MCMC fitted in two-component model only.
  • a (angular slope) = 4.3-4.5 (PL and MJ)
    MCMC fitted; a=b assumed.
  • epsilon_e (electron equipartition) = log epsilon_e ~ -1.1 to -2.0
    MCMC fitted; same in FS and RS.
  • epsilon_B,2 (forward shock magnetic equipartition) = log epsilon_B,2 ~ -4.1 to -5.1
    MCMC fitted.
  • epsilon_B,3 (reverse shock magnetic equipartition) = log epsilon_B,3 ~ -2.8 to -4.5
    MCMC fitted; ratio RB=epsilon_B,3/epsilon_B,2 controls RS brightness.
  • sigma (magnetization of mixed jet core) = log sigma ~ 0.07 (MJ)
    MCMC fitted in mixed jet model only.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Semi-analytic FS-RS dynamics of Zhang et al. (2022), Eq. (5), including the interpolation between thick- and thin-shell limits, correctly describes the structured jet evolution at every polar angle.
    The paper uses this to compute RS crossing radius and Lorentz factor, which set the RS peak time and flux (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption After RS crossing, the shocked ejecta follows Blandford-McKee scaling, Gamma_3 ~ R^(2k-7)/2, and the cold/hot shell difference in the reverse-shocked ejecta does not affect the light curves significantly.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 following Kobayashi & Sari (2000).
  • domain assumption A single electron power-law index p and electron equipartition fraction epsilon_e apply to both forward and reverse shock regions, and the magnetic equipartition fractions are global constants across the jet.
    Stated in Section 3; if microphysics vary with angle, the predicted RS/FS ratio changes.
  • ad hoc to paper The emitting shell is infinitely thin; radial structure of emitting regions is neglected.
    Stated at the start of Section 2.2; simplifies the EATS integration.
  • domain assumption The circum-burst medium for GRB 170817A is uniform (k=0).
    Adopted in Section 3 because short GRBs are assumed to occur in constant-density merger environments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reverse Shock Emission from Misaligned Structured Jets in Gamma-Ray Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/46JHQEHX

@misc{pith2026241113968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reverse Shock Emission from Misaligned Structured Jets in Gamma-Ray Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/46JHQEHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13968}
}
read the original abstract

The afterglow of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) has been extensively discussed in the context of shocks generated during an interaction of relativistic outflows with their ambient medium. This process leads to the formation of both a forward and a reverse shock. While the emission from the forward shock, observed off-axis, has been well-studied as a potential electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational wave-detected merger, the contribution of the reverse shock is commonly overlooked. In this paper, we investigate the contribution of the reverse shock to the GRB afterglows observed off-axis. In our analysis, we consider jets with different angular profiles, including two-component jets, power-law structured jets, Gaussian jets and 'mixed jets' featuring a Poynting-flux-dominated core surrounded by a baryonic wing. We apply our model to GRB 170817A/GW170817 and employ the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to obtain model parameters. Our findings suggest that the reverse shock emission can significantly contribute to the early afterglow. In addition, our calculations indicate that the light curves observable in future off-axis GRBs may exhibit either double peaks or a single peak with a prominent feature, depending on the jet structure, viewing angle and micro-physics shock parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The coordinate system used to calculate afterglow emission from the observer direction. The jet direction is along the z direction, while LOS is along the ˜z direction. The yellow ring is an arbitrary segment of structured jet. where x ≡ ν ′/(4γ ′2 e,iν ′ s,j ), ¯f ′ ν′ s represents the incident￾specific synchrotron flux at shock front, and g(x) = 1 + x + 2x ln(x) − 2x 2 . 2.2. Light curves from a misaligned structu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. R-band and 1 keV afterglow light curves for different jet models viewed at 20◦ . Jets have an isotropic energy Eiso,c = 2 × 1052erg and bulk Lorentz Γ0,c = 300 in the jet core. The CBM density is n1 = 0.1 cm−3 (k = 0). The model values used in each case are: θc = θj = 3◦ for a homogeneous (top-hat) jet, θc = 6◦ , θj = 15◦ for a two-component jet with an isotropic energy Eiso,w = 1051 erg and bulk Lorentz factor Γ0,w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. R-band afterglow light curves for power-law jets viewed from 10◦ and 20◦ . The red lines illustrate the contributions from the RS, while the blue lines represent the FS light curves. Dotted lines indicate the jet core components, whereas dashed￾lines denote the power-law wing components, with gray solid lines reflecting the total flux. The dots on the plot are the approximated locations of FS and RS peaks from jet c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: R-band afterglow light curves for a power-law jet in different wind environments. The dash-lines represent the FS emission, while the dotted-lines denote the RS emission. The model parameters used are as follows: the half-opening angle of jet core and jet wing are θc =…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Afterglow light curves for a mixed jet viewed from slightly off-axis. The dashed lines denote the FS emission, the dotted lines represent RS emission, and solid lines is the total flux. The values of parameters are as follows: θobs = 2◦ , θc = 5◦ , θj = 10◦ , Γ0,c = 30…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left column is multi-wavelength afterglow light curves of GRB 170817A with the best-fit curves in our afterglow model. Different colors are used to represent different bands. The RS light curves are depicted as dotted lines, while the FS light curves are represente…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: R-band afterglow for the thin-shell and thick shell case with different angular slopes. The dashed lines represent the FS emission, the dotted lines denote the RS emission, while the solid lines are total flux for each case. The width of thin-shell case is ∆0 = 3 × 101…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot of the parameters derived from fitting the multi-wavelength light curves of GRB 170817A with the two-component model. Our best-fitting parameters and corresponding 1σ uncertainties are shown with the black dashed lines in the histograms on the diagonal [PI…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. EuraGovExam: A Multilingual Multimodal Benchmark from Real-World Civil Service Exams

    cs.CV 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    EuraGovExam is a real-exam, image-only multilingual multimodal benchmark on which state-of-the-art VLMs reach only ~86% accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 6 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. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 011001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  2. [2]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    Beniamini, P., Granot, J., & Gill, R. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa538 2020

  3. [3]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1976, The Physics of Fluids, 19, 1130, doi: 10.1063/1.861619

    doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  4. [4]

    2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    Cano, Z., Wang, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    doi:10.1155/2017/8929054 2017

  5. [5]

    A., & Li, Z.-Y

    Chevalier, R. A., & Li, Z.-Y. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 520, L29, doi: 10.1086/312147

    doi:10.1086/312147 1999

  6. [6]

    M., & Lazio, T

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2003, NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    G., & Cheng, K

    Dai, Z. G., & Cheng, K. S. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 558, L109, doi: 10.1086/323566

    doi:10.1086/323566 2001

  8. [8]

    G., & Gou, L

    Dai, Z. G., & Gou, L. J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 552, 72, doi: 10.1086/320463

    doi:10.1086/320463 2001

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Veres, P., et al

    Fraija, N., Colle, F. D., Veres, P., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf564

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    2013, New Astronomy Reviews, 57, 141, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001

    Gao, H., Lei, W.-H., Zou, Y.-C., Wu, X.-F., & Zhang, B. 2013, New Astronomy Reviews, 57, 141, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/160

    Gao, H., Wang, X.-G., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Zhang, B. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/160

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    Gill, R., & Granot, J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 631, 1022, doi: 10.1086/432676

    Granot, J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 631, 1022, doi: 10.1086/432676

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    S., & Spitkovsky, A

    Granot, J., Komissarov, S. S., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 1323, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17770.x

    2011

  8. [16]

    Granot, J., & van der Horst, A. J. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31, e008, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2013.44

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    S., et al

    Hajela, A., Margutti, R., Bright, J. S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 927, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/101

    Harrison, R., & Kobayashi, S. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 101, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/101

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    F., Gou, L

    Huang, Y. F., Gou, L. J., Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 543, 90, doi: 10.1086/317076

    2000 doi

  12. [21]

    F., Wu, X

    Huang, Y. F., Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Ma, H. T., & Lu, T. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, 300, doi: 10.1086/382202

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/84

    Japelj, J., Kopaˇ c, D., Kobayashi, S., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/84

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 545, 807, doi: 10.1086/317869

    Kobayashi, S. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 545, 807, doi: 10.1086/317869

    2000 doi

  15. [24]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 819, doi: 10.1086/317021

    Kobayashi, S., & Sari, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 542, 819, doi: 10.1086/317021

    2000 doi

  16. [25]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 1075, doi: 10.1086/375186

    Kumar, P., & Granot, J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 1075, doi: 10.1086/375186

    2003 doi

  17. [26]

    Lamb, G. P. 2020, Reverse Shocks in Short Gamma-Ray Bursts – The case of GRB 160821B and prospects as gravitational-wave counterparts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.05893

    2020 arXiv

  18. [27]

    P., & Kobayashi, S

    Lamb, G. P., & Kobayashi, S. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 4953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2345 —. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1820, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2252

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    P., Levan, A

    Lamb, G. P., Levan, A. J., & Tanvir, N. R. 2020, ApJ, 899, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba75a

    2020 doi

  20. [29]

    P., Lyman, J

    Lamb, G. P., Lyman, J. D., Levan, A. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 870, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96b

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    2017, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Morsony, B., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 859, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac2c5

    Li, B., Li, L.-B., Huang, Y.-F., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 859, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac2c5

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 6285, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2606

    Li, J.-D., Gao, H., Ai, S., & Lei, W.-H. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 6285, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2606

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0974

    Li, L., & Dai, Z.-G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0974

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 3725, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1354

    Ma, J.-Z., & Zhang, B. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 3725, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1354

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    P., Brightman, M., et al

    Makhathini, S., Mooley, K. P., Brightman, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc 21

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    V., & Loeb, A

    Medvedev, M. V., & Loeb, A. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 526, 697, doi: 10.1086/308038

    1999 doi

  28. [37]

    P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W

    Mooley, K. P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W. 2022, Nature, 610, 273, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    P., Deller, A

    Mooley, K. P., Deller, A. T., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 355, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 306, L39, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02800.x

    2018

  30. [39]

    2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353, 647, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08099.x

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353, 647, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08099.x

    2004

  31. [40]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 579, 699, doi: 10.1086/342791

    Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Granot, J. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 579, 699, doi: 10.1086/342791

    2002 doi

  32. [41]

    1992, Astrophys

    Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T. 1992, Astrophys. J. Lett., 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493 O’Connor, B., & Troja, E. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32065, 1

    1992 doi

  33. [42]

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

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

    1986 doi

  34. [43]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 2066, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae197 Pe’er, A

    Pang, S.-L., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 2066, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae197 Pe’er, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 752, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L8

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    2005, Il Nuovo Cimento C, 28, 439

    Peng, F., Konigl, A., & Granot, J. 2005, Il Nuovo Cimento C, 28, 439

    2005

  36. [45]

    S., & Ghirlanda, G

    Salafia, O. S., & Ghirlanda, G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10050093

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 455, L143, doi: 10.1086/309835 —

    Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 455, L143, doi: 10.1086/309835 —. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 287, 110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/287.1.110

    1995 doi

  38. [47]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    1998 doi

  39. [48]

    Shao, L., & Dai, Z. G. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 633, 1027, doi: 10.1086/466523

    2005 doi

  40. [49]

    1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 270, 480, doi: 10.1093/mnras/270.3.480

    Thompson, C. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 270, 480, doi: 10.1093/mnras/270.3.480

    1994 doi

  41. [50]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3533

    Troja, E., O’Connor, B., Ryan, G., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3533

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    Walker, M. A. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 294, 307, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-8711.1998.01238.x —. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 321, 176, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04104.x

    1998

  43. [52]

    Wang, L., & Wheeler, J. C. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 504, L87, doi: 10.1086/311580

    1998 doi

  44. [53]

    Y., Dai, Z

    Wang, X. Y., Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 556, 1010, doi: 10.1086/321608

    2001 doi

  45. [54]

    Wijers, R. A. M. J., & Galama, T. J. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 523, 177, doi: 10.1086/307705

    1999 doi

  46. [55]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 523, 187, doi: 10.1086/307738

    Woods, E., & Loeb, A. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 523, 187, doi: 10.1086/307738

    1999 doi

  47. [56]

    2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    Woosley, S., & Bloom, J. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    2006 arXiv

  48. [57]

    F., Dai, Z

    Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Huang, Y. F., & Lu, T. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 342, 1131, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06602.x

    2003

  49. [58]

    2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

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

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/120

    Yi, S.-X., Wu, X.-F., & Dai, Z.-G. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/120

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8a53

    Yi, S.-X., Wu, X.-F., Zou, Y.-C., & Dai, Z.-G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8a53

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 628, 315, doi: 10.1086/429787

    Zhang, B., & Kobayashi, S. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 628, 315, doi: 10.1086/429787

    2005 doi

  53. [62]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 595, 950, doi: 10.1086/377363

    Zhang, B., Kobayashi, S., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 595, 950, doi: 10.1086/377363

    2003 doi

  54. [63]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 571, 876, doi: 10.1086/339981

    Zhang, B., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 571, 876, doi: 10.1086/339981

    2002 doi

  55. [64]

    2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 41, 42, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.01.002

    Zhang, B., Wang, X.-Y., & Zheng, J.-H. 2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 41, 42, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2024.01.002

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    Zhang, B., & Yan, H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    2010 doi

  57. [66]

    E., & Heger, A

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 608, 365, doi: 10.1086/386300

    2004 doi

  58. [67]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1198

    Zhang, Z.-L., Liu, R.-Y., Geng, J.-J., Wu, X.-F., & Wang, X.-Y. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 4887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1198

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca83

    Zhong, S.-Q., Li, L., & Dai, Z.-G. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca83

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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