Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

Extragalactic Magnetar Giant Flares: Population Implications, Rates and Prospects for Gamma-Rays, Gravitational Waves and Neutrinos

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Counting magnetar giant flares hidden in a 250-burst short-GRB sample fixes newborn-magnetar fields at 0.4 to 2 quadrillion Gauss and predicts future MeV telescopes will record more flares than bursts.

desk verdict Solid population model; the B0 constraint is conditional on an unverified power-law extrapolation, but the paper is honest and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16846 v2 pith:BNMDHMFS submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.HE

Paz Beniamini , Zorawar Wadiasingh , Aaron Trigg , Cecilia Chirenti , Eric Burns , George Younes , Michela Negro , Jonathan Granot This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Jd98.70.Rz
keywords magnetargiantflaresshortgamma-rayburstsbirthmagneticfieldburstenergydistributiondecaystochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundhigh-frequencywavesneutrinoemissionfrommagnetars
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

Magnetar giant flares—brief, extremely bright eruptions that release a large share of a neutron star's magnetic energy—are common enough that they hide as a few percent of the short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) seen from the local universe, and this paper shows that hidden fraction already measures how magnetars are born. From a blind sample of 250 short GRBs, where the flare contamination is 0.7% to 5.7% at 90% confidence, the authors build a population model in which flare rates track the decay of each magnetar's magnetic field and derive a typical internal birth field of $B_0 \approx 4\times 10^{14}$–$2\times 10^{15}$ Gauss. The same model predicts that future instruments sensitive near $5\times 10^{-9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ at about 1 MeV will record more extragalactic giant flares than short GRBs, and that identifying a flare requires localizing it to a nearby star-forming host galaxy rather than merely collecting more photons. If the framework holds, a handful of already-detected events becomes a census of magnetar birth properties, and the same population sets a possible gravitational-wave background at frequencies above 10 kHz.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a single power-law burst-energy distribution with a moving cutoff, $\partial N/\partial E_t \propto E_t^{-s}\,\exp[-(E_t/E_{c,t})^{b_c}]$ with $s \approx 1.7$ and cutoff energy $E_{c,t} = f_E f_{\rm dip} E_B(\tau)$ tied to the magnetar's remaining magnetic free energy $E_B(\tau) \propto B(\tau)^2 R^3$. Because the field decays ($dB/d\tau \propto B^{1+\alpha}$), the most energetic flares occur early in a magnetar's life, so integrating over the lifetime and over the local galaxy overdensity $\Delta(r)$ yields the detected fluence distribution, which splits into an energy-limited regime with $N(>\Phi) \propto \Phi^{-3/2}$ and a volume-limited regime below a critical fluence. Matching this to the 250-sGRB sample, the MGF/sGRB ratio depends only on $\{B_0,\, f_{\rm fl} f_{\rm mag},\, f_E f_{\rm dip}/f_b\}$, producing the analytic constraint $B_0 \approx 4.5\times 10^{14}\,(f_{\rm fl} f_{\rm mag}/0.06)^{-5/7}$ G. The same machinery drives the gravitational-wave predictions: outflow acceleration gives a GW spectrum peaking near $\nu \approx 4.6/t_{\rm rise}$ (beyond 10 kHz for $t_{\rm rise} \lesssim 10\,\mu$s) with peak strain $h_+ \approx 10^{-24}(10\,{\rm kpc}/R)$, while $f$-mode oscillations of a $1.4\,M_\odot$ star give a background peaking near 1 kHz.

What would settle it

Two observations would settle the claim. A volume-limited flare sample (limiting fluence $\lesssim 10^{-8}$ erg cm$^{-2}$, host associations within about 10 Mpc) should show a cumulative energy distribution $N(>E) \propto E^{1-s}$ with $s \approx 1.7$ in the volume-limited regime; if the measured slope were steeper than 2 or broke below $E \approx 10^{46}$ erg, the extrapolation carrying the $B_0$ constraint would be invalid. Independently, dipole-field measurements across a large Galactic magnetar sample, corrected by the dipole fraction $f_{\rm dip} \approx 0.1$–$0.3$, that placed typical internal birth fields outside $4\times 10^{14}$–$2\times 10^{15}$ Gauss would conflict with the inferred range, because fields near $10^{16}$ Gauss would force the flare channel to exhaust the reservoir that persistent emission also draws on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ratio of magnetar giant flares to short GRBs—measured in a blind sample of 250 sGRBs as 0.7% to 5.7% at 90% confidence, at a limiting fluence of $2\times 10^{-6}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ and a 10 Mpc association radius—constrains the typical initial internal magnetic field of magnetars, because the detected flare rate depends on only three parameter combinations: the birth field $B_0$, the product $f_{\rm fl} f_{\rm mag}$ of flare-energy fraction and magnetar-formation fraction, and the ratio $f_E f_{\rm dip}/f_b$ relating flare energy to beamed dipole energy. Combining the ratio constraint with the energy needed to power the persistent X-ray emission of magnetars (about $10^{47}$ erg per lifetime) gives $B_0 \approx 4\times 10^{14}$–$2\times 10^{15}$ Gauss. The paper further establishes that below a limiting fluence of about $5\times 10^{-9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ at ~1 MeV, the detected rate of extragalactic MGFs exceeds that of sGRBs, so the current sGRB-dominated sky is a selection effect of sensitivity and localization rather than an intrinsic rarity of flares.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the burst energy distribution is a single power law with slope $s \approx 1.7$ extending all the way to the giant-flare cutoff; this slope is measured for low-energy magnetar bursts but extrapolated upward, and if the true distribution were steeper ($s > 2$) or bent down before reaching flare energies, the predicted rate of the largest flares—and with it the inferred birth-field range—would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At limiting fluence $\lesssim 5\times 10^{-9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ near 1 MeV, future instruments will detect more extragalactic magnetar giant flares than short GRBs, flipping the current detected-event hierarchy.
  • For a 10 Mpc association radius, improving sensitivity alone will not raise the flare-to-burst ratio until that threshold is reached; host-galaxy localization is the bottleneck, so better localization above ~100 keV, not raw sensitivity, is the priority for flare discovery.
  • The measured flare contamination (0.7%–5.7%) together with the persistent-emission energy budget pins the typical initial internal magnetic field of magnetars to $B_0 \approx 4\times 10^{14}$–$2\times 10^{15}$ Gauss, and larger samples will constrain the full distribution of birth fields rather than just the typical value.
  • Predicted per-magnetar giant-flare rates ($\dot{N}_{\rm obs} \approx 9\times 10^{-5}$ yr$^{-1}$ at $B_0 = 5\times 10^{14}$ G) agree with independent limits from a long-term search of the Virgo Cluster and nearby galaxies, providing an external cross-check of the population model.
  • If baryon-loaded outflows accelerate on $\lesssim 10\,\mu$s timescales, magnetars produce a stochastic gravitational-wave background peaking above ~10 kHz that likely dominates other conventional astrophysical sources in that band; $f$-mode oscillations would instead give a ~1 kHz background relevant to third-generation detectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The framework implies that a magnetar's single largest flare carries an order-unity share of its total burst energy budget (because $s < 2$ makes energetic flares dominate the energetics), so a second giant flare from the same extragalactic host within the observational era would strain the model; the current candidates are all one-per-host events, consistent with this but not yet a proof.
  • If the crossover at $5\times 10^{-9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ is correct, sGRB catalogs assembled by sensitive, poorly localizing instruments will accumulate a flare-interloper fraction that grows as sensitivity improves, so any neutron-star-merger rate inference drawn from such catalogs would need to model magnetar contamination explicitly—an extension the paper flags but does not quantify for rate estimat
  • The two gravitational-wave channels are separable through one observable: the outflow strain $h_+ \approx 10^{-24}$ at 10 kpc is independent of rise time, so a single Galactic giant flare with resolved microsecond variability would determine whether the >10 kHz background is within reach of high-frequency experiments, distinguishing the outflow and $f$-mode scenarios without waiting for a stochast
  • The inferred birth-field range is testable with Galactic data alone: if future X-ray surveys show that most magnetars are born with fields well above $2\times 10^{15}$ G, the model would push the flare channel fraction toward unity, exhausting the magnetic reservoir that also powers persistent emission, and the range would be falsified from the local population before any new extragalactic flare d
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a phenomenological population model for extragalactic magnetar giant flares (MGFs) and uses it to interpret the observed MGF/short-GRB ratio in the 250-event Burns et al. (2021) sample. The central quantitative claim is that the typical initial internal magnetic field of magnetars is constrained to B0 ≈ 4×10^14–2×10^15 G (Eq. 33 combined with the persistent-emission energy budget in §6.1). The paper also predicts that future MeV instruments with limiting fluence ≲5×10^-9 erg cm^-2 will detect more extragalactic MGFs than sGRBs, and it estimates the MGF contribution to the stochastic gravitational-wave background from both outflow acceleration and f-mode excitation, as well as discussing high-energy neutrino prospects.

Significance. If the central constraint is robust, this is a valuable and timely result: it turns a small sample of extragalactic MGF candidates into a quantitative probe of magnetar birth fields, it gives a concrete target fluence for next-generation gamma-ray missions, and it provides new predictions for the MGF contribution to the GW background at high frequencies. Strengths of the paper include the transparent analytic derivations in Section 3, the explicit parameter table (Table 3), the use of a well-defined observational sample (Burns et al. 2021), and the cross-check against the independent INTEGRAL/Virgo limit from Pacholski et al. (2024). The main weakness is that the headline B0 range rests on an unmeasured extrapolation of the burst energy power-law index to MGF energies, and the quoted range is conditional on priors for f_fl and f_mag rather than being a fully propagated observational uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (1); §3.4, Eq. (33)] The central B0 constraint assumes that the single power-law index s=1.7, calibrated on bursts at 10^36–10^41 erg, extends unchanged to the MGF cutoff at 10^44–10^46 erg, with s<2. This is load-bearing: in the energy-limited regime of Eq. (21) the predicted rate scales as (2-s) E_B,0^{s-1}, so a break or steepening before the MGF scale changes the inferred B0 by a large factor, while for s≥2 the simplified Eq. (12) becomes negative and the model would require an explicit minimum burst energy, which is not specified. The three Galactic and six extragalactic events in Table 1 are too few to measure the slope at MGF energies. I request an explicit sensitivity analysis (for example s in [1.3, 2.0], or a broken power law with a break between 10^42 and 10^45 erg) and a statement of how the derived B0 range changes. Without this, the headline field range is only as secure as the assumed extrapolation.
  2. [§6.1 and Conclusions] The lower bound B0 ≳ 4×10^14 G is derived from an order-of-magnitude integral of persistent X-ray emission, quoted as "about 10^47 erg" over 10^2–10^6 yr with L ∝ t^{-0.6...-1}. The paper notes a factor 3–4 uncertainty in this estimate but does not propagate it into the final B0 range. Since this lower bound is used to narrow the range from 2×10^14 to 4×10^14 G in the conclusions and abstract, the final range should be accompanied by a quantitative statement of how the bound depends on the assumed persistent luminosity and active lifetime (e.g., B0 ∝ E_persistent^{1/2}). As written, the abstract's 4×10^14–2×10^15 G range has an asymmetric dependence on an unquantified order-of-magnitude input.
  3. [§2.3, Table 2; §3.4, Eq. (33)] The inference uses the 90% confidence interval 0.7%–5.7% for the MGF/sGRB ratio as a hard bracket, but the Poisson uncertainty from only four MGF candidates is not propagated into Eq. (33) or into Fig. 6. The quoted B0 range therefore mixes prior ranges on f_fl and f_mag with the finite-sample uncertainty, and the result is presented as a single deterministic range. I ask the authors to state explicitly that the B0 range is conditional on the adopted priors and to show, even approximately, how the Poisson uncertainty in the ratio maps to an uncertainty in B0.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (39)] The stated GW efficiency η_GW ∼ 3×10^-9 appears inconsistent with the numbers in Eq. (39): for m_outflow = 10^-7 M_sun and v_final = 0.7c, the kinetic energy is about 4×10^46 erg, while E_GW ≈ 1.4×10^39 erg for t_rise = 10 μs, implying η_GW ≈ 3×10^-8. Please check the normalization and either correct the efficiency or clarify what reference energy is used.
  2. [Abstract and §3.4, Fig. 4] The statement that instruments with limiting fluence ≲5×10^-9 erg cm^-2 will be dominated by MGFs should be explicitly qualified by the assumed r_cc,GF = 10 Mpc and the localization/association assumptions used in Fig. 4; as written, it could be read as a purely instrumental sensitivity statement.
  3. [§3.1.1, Eq. (16)] The piecewise expression in Eq. (16) is difficult to parse, particularly the β > 2s−1 branch with the factor (6E_t/(f_E f_dip B_max^2 R^3))^{(2s−1−β)/2}; please rewrite with clearer bracket structure or with an explicit definition of the domain of each case.
  4. [General] The paper uses "GF" and "MGF" interchangeably in several places; please define and use a single abbreviation consistently, and fix the typo "In 3.2" at the beginning of §3.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central B0 constraint inverts an externally observed MGF/sGRB ratio under explicit model assumptions, with no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Eq. (33), is obtained by inverting the analytic rate expression Eq. (21) and matching it to the observed MGF/sGRB ratio from the Burns et al. (2021) sample (Section 2.3: 'the ratio of MGFs/sGRBs is 0.007 < Ndot_MGF/Ndot_GRB < 0.057'). This ratio is an external observational input, not an output of the model. The parameters entering the inversion (s≈1.7, f_fl, f_mag, f_E f_dip/f_b, R_CCSN, etc.) are stated inputs from earlier magnetar-burst studies, not fitted to B0; Eq. 33 is a closed-form scaling B0 ∝ (f_fl f_mag)^(-5/7) with a weak dependence on f_E f_dip/f_b. The lower bound B0 ≳ 4×10^14 G comes from an independent energy budget of persistent X-ray emission (§6.1), estimated from observed L_x ∝ t_sd^-c scaling integrated over the magnetar lifetime. The power-law index s≈1.7 is an assumption extrapolated from low-energy bursts; the paper explicitly flags the s<2 condition ('we will generally assume that s<2, such that the MGF energy distribution is dominated by the more energetic bursts') and notes the opposite limit would depend on a minimum burst energy. This is an acknowledged modeling assumption and a potential correctness risk, but it is not circular: the extrapolation is not derived from the B0 constraint, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Burns et al. (2021) and Trigg et al. (2024a,b) provide the external observational sample and candidate identifications; these are data-carrying references rather than unverified theorems, and the present paper explicitly modifies the analysis to reduce assumptions (dropping the intrinsic MGF energetics function used in Burns et al. 2021). No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input; the future-detection prediction at Φlim ≲ 5×10^-9 erg cm^-2 follows from propagating the constrained B0 through the same rate expressions and is not statistically forced by the input ratio alone. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained once its stated assumptions are granted; concerns about the assumed s value belong to correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on a chain of domain assumptions: the magnetic energy reservoir scaling, the field decay law, the universality of the burst energy power law, and the connection of magnetar and sGRB rates to CCSN and BNS merger rates. The free parameters (B0, ffl, fmag, fE, fdip, fb, fbol) are highly degenerate, and the quoted B0 range is a constrained inference under priors such as fmag~0.2 and ffl>0.1.

free parameters (9)
  • B0 (initial internal magnetic field) = 4e14 - 2e15 G (constrained range)
    The main inferred quantity, constrained from the MGF/sGRB ratio and the persistent X-ray energy budget.
  • ffl (fraction of magnetic energy decay channeled into flares) = 0.1 - 1 (range adopted)
    Degenerate with fmag in the MGF rate; enters the central ratio and is not independently measured.
  • fmag (fraction of CCSNe yielding magnetars) = 0.15 - 1 (range adopted)
    Degenerate with ffl; the paper adopts fmag~0.2 for the final B0 range.
  • fE (ratio of max MGF energy to dipole magnetic energy) = 0.03 - 0.3 (range adopted)
    Enters through the combination fE*fdip/fb, which affects the MGF energy scale.
  • fdip (ratio of dipole to free magnetic energy) = 0.1 - 1 (range adopted)
    Same combination fE*fdip/fb; constrained only through the product.
  • fb (beaming fraction) = 0.1 - 1 (range adopted)
    Assumed energy-independent; affects the observed energy distribution and rate normalization.
  • fbol (observed vs bolometric energy fraction) = 0.3 - 1 (range adopted)
    Used to convert observed band energies to bolometric; affects comparisons with instrument fluence thresholds.
  • t_rise (outflow acceleration timescale) = 1e-6 - 1e-3 s (varied)
    For the GW background forecast, the peak frequency scales inversely with t_rise; not constrained by current data.
  • m_outflow (outflow mass) = 1e-7 Msun (canonical)
    For the GW outflow scenario, the strain and energy scale with m_outflow; value is an assumption.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Magnetic free energy available for bursts scales as EB ∝ B^2 R^3 and is a sizable fraction of the dipole energy.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 before Eq. 1 to connect observed MGF energies to the internal field B0.
  • domain assumption The internal magnetic field decays as |dot B| ∝ B^{1+alpha} with alpha in [-1,1] and a decay timescale tau_d,0.
    Introduced in Eq. 7; sets the time evolution of the energy reservoir and the effective lifetime of MGF activity.
  • domain assumption The burst energy distribution is a power law with universal index s~1.7 and s<2 up to the MGF cutoff.
    Used in Eq. 1 and throughout; empirical input from low-energy bursts, extrapolated to MGF energies.
  • domain assumption Magnetar formation rate is a fraction fmag of the core-collapse supernova rate.
    Used in Eq. 17 to convert volumetric CCSN rate to magnetar birth rate.
  • domain assumption sGRB rate tracks the BNS merger rate with fsGRB=1.
    Used in Section 3.3 to normalize the sGRB population; a simplification given uncertainty in jet success fraction.
  • domain assumption The local galaxy overdensity (SFR or stellar mass) from Leroy et al. (2019) correctly represents the spatial distribution of MGF hosts within 30 Mpc.
    Used in Section 2.4 and Fig. 1 to correct the volume integration; depends on catalog completeness and the assumption that MGFs trace star formation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extragalactic Magnetar Giant Flares: Population Implications, Rates and Prospects for Gamma-Rays, Gravitational Waves and Neutrinos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNMDHMFS

@misc{pith2026241116846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extragalactic Magnetar Giant Flares: Population Implications, Rates and Prospects for Gamma-Rays, Gravitational Waves and Neutrinos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNMDHMFS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16846}
}
abstract

Magnetar Giant Flares (MGFs) are the most energetic non-catastrophic transients known to originate from stellar objects. The first discovered events were nearby. In recent years, several extragalactic events have been identified, implying an extremely high volumetric rate. We show that future instruments with a sensitivity $\lesssim 5\times 10^{-9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ at $\sim 1$ MeV will be dominated by extragalactic MGFs over short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs). Clear discrimination of MGFs requires intrinsic GRB localization capability to identify host galaxies. As MGFs involve a release of a sizable fraction of the neutron star's magnetic free energy reservoir in a single event, they provide us with invaluable tools for better understanding magnetar birth properties and the evolution of their magnetic fields. A major obstacle is to identify a (currently) small sub-population of MGFs in a larger sample of more energetic and distant sGRBs. We develop the tools to analyze the properties of detected events and their occurrence rate relative to sGRBs. Even with the current (limited) number of events, we can constrain the initial internal magnetic field of a typical magnetar at formation to be $B_0\approx 4\times 10^{14}-2\times 10^{15}$\,G. Larger samples will constrain the distribution of birth fields. We also estimate the contribution of MGFs to the gravitational wave (GW) stochastic background. Depending on the acceleration time of baryon-loaded ejecta involved in MGFs, their GW emission may reach beyond 10~kHz and, if so, will likely dominate over other conventional astrophysical sources in that frequency range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The local galaxy distribution results in an overdensity of matter, as compared to the volumetric average on scales where the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. The normalization was set at 30 Mpc, which is roughly the scale where the Universe is homogeneous. Vertical lines denote the distances to MGF candidates listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left and center: distribution of magnetar burst energies, 𝜕 2N 𝜕𝐸t𝜕𝜏 (solid lines; see Eq. 3), at different stages in a magnetar’s evolution. The cut-off power-law approximation given by Eq. 11 is shown in dashed lines. The magnetar parameters used for the plot are 𝑠 = 1.7, 𝑏𝑐 = 1, 𝑓fl = 𝑓𝐸 = 𝑓dip = 0.3, 𝜏d,0 = 104 yr as well as two different values of 𝛼 (𝛼 = 1 on the left and 𝛼 = 0.5 on the right) and 𝜏 ∈ {102 , ..… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Rate of events per logarithmic unit of fluence for different assumptions on the limiting discrimination distance of the MGF sample (no similar limit is imposed on the sGRB population). Results are shown for MGFs (blue), sGRBs (red) and for the ratio of the two (black). The light blue and red shaded wide bands depict the results for Δ = 1 (i.e. uniform distribution of sources), while the thin lines show the modificat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: All-sky rate of MGFs above a given limiting fluence Φ > Φlim and below a certain luminosity distance 𝑑L < 𝑟cc,GF. Right: ratio between MGFs with Φ > Φlim and 𝑑L < 𝑟cc,G to sGRBs with Φ > Φlim (and no additional limiting distance). Results are shown for Δ = 1 on t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rate of events per logarithmic unit of isotropic equivalent energy, assuming different fluence thresholds, Φlim, and limiting identification distances for MGFs, 𝑟cc,GF, as well as (top right) no observational cut on the distributions. Results are shown separately for M…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Allowed parameter space for model parameters considering observational limits on MGF occurrence rates within the sGRB population. The allowed region is shown for the case where all magnetars are born identical (left) or assuming a power-law distribution of birth magnet…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: SGWB (ΩGW) from outflows from magnetars in units of the critical energy density for a flat universe (Ωc), varying the acceleration (rise) timescale from 10−3 s (blue) to 10−6 s (green). Here, 𝑚out = 10−7𝑀⊙ with 𝑣final = 0.7𝑐. Depending on the radiation hydrodynam…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Direct evidence for r-process nucleosynthesis in delayed MeV emission from the SGR 1806-20 magnetar giant flare

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The delayed MeV emission after the SGR 1806-20 giant flare matches the predicted radioactive decay signal of about 10^-6 solar masses of newly synthesized r-process nuclei.

  2. GRB241107A: a Giant Flare from a close-by extragalactic Magnetar?

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The short gamma-ray burst GRB 241107A is identified as a candidate magnetar giant flare based on its positional coincidence with the nearby galaxy PGC 86046 and its consistent energy and spectral behavior.

  3. A Square Kilometre Array Pulsar Census

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Composite SKA-Low + Mid Band 1/2 all-sky surveys with AA* yield ~10k slow pulsars and ~800 MSPs; AA4 yields ~20% more, rising to ~1300 MSPs if Mid coverage is broadened.

  4. Multidisciplinary Science in the Multimessenger Era

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A community white paper recommending an NNSA-style end-to-end integration of astrophysics, nuclear, plasma, atomic, and computational sciences to maximize return from time-domain and multimessenger facilities.

  5. Gamma-ray bursts: what do we know today that we did not know 10 years ago?

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 unverdicted

    A review of the past decade of gamma-ray burst research, highlighting structured jets, GR-MHD simulations, TeV detections, and the contested idea that many GRBs have moderate Lorentz factors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

237 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    @T& h</dG e Ԃ;w? O:u9eD

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2019, INTEGRAL Burst Alert System, http://ibas.iasf-milano.inaf.it/

    2019

  5. [5]

    P., Abbott , R., et al

    Abadie , J., Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., et al. 2011, , 734, L35, 10.1088/2041-8205/734/2/L35

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/734/2/l35 2011

  6. [6]

    2007, , 76, 062003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.062003

    Abbott , B., Abbott , R., Adhikari , R., et al. 2007, , 76, 062003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.062003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.062003 2007

  7. [7]

    2008, , 101, 211102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.211102

    ---. 2008, , 101, 211102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.211102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.211102 2008

  8. [8]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2019, , 874, 163, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0e15 2019

Show all 237 references
  1. [9]

    2018, , 120, 091101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.091101

    ---. 2018, , 120, 091101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.091101

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Abbott , R., Adhikari , R., et al

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Adhikari , R., et al. 2009, , 701, L68, 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L68

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 044001, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa51f4

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, , 966, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27d3

    Abbott , R., Abe , H., Acernese , F., et al. 2024, , 966, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27d3

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2006, , 97, 221101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.221101

    Achterberg , A., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2006, , 97, 221101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.221101

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Agrawal , P., et al

    Ackley , K., Adya , V. B., Agrawal , P., et al. 2020, , 37, e047, 10.1017/pasa.2020.39

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Teo, M., et al

    Aggarwal, N., Winstone, G. P., Teo, M., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 111101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.111101

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Bauswein , A., et al

    Aggarwal , N., Aguiar , O. D., Bauswein , A., et al. 2021, Living Reviews in Relativity, 24, 4, 10.1007/s41114-021-00032-5

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Allen , B., & Romano , J. D. 1999, , 59, 102001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.102001

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    2002, , 390, 81, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

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

    2002 doi

  11. [19]

    An , H., Cumming , A., & Kaspi , V. M. 2018, , 859, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabafb

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    F., Scholz , P., Kaspi , V

    Archibald , R. F., Scholz , P., Kaspi , V. M., Tendulkar , S. P., & Beardmore , A. P. 2020, , 889, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab660c

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    E., Cenko , S

    Arcodia , R., Bauer , F. E., Cenko , S. B., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 316, 10.3390/universe10080316

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Arvanitaki , A., & Geraci , A. A. 2013, , 110, 071105, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.071105

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae1987

    Ball , M., Frey , R., & Merfeld , K. 2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae1987

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    1979, , 79, L24

    Barat , C., Chambon , G., Hurley , K., et al. 1979, , 79, L24

    1979

  17. [25]

    A., Hu , K., & Baring , M

    Barchas , J. A., Hu , K., & Baring , M. G. 2021, , 500, 5369, 10.1093/mnras/staa3541

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Baring , M. G. 1988, , 235, 79, 10.1093/mnras/235.1.79

    1988 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, in 44th COSPAR Scientific Assembly

    Barret , D. 2022, in 44th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 16-24 July, Vol. 44, 2316

    2022

  20. [28]

    D., Barbier , L

    Barthelmy , S. D., Barbier , L. M., Cummings , J. R., et al. 2005, , 120, 143, 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04029

    Belgacem , E., Iacovelli , F., Maggiore , M., Mancarella , M., & Muttoni , N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.04029. 2411.04029

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Beniamini , P., Giannios , D., & Metzger , B. D. 2017, , 472, 3058, 10.1093/mnras/stx2095

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, , 515, 555, 10.1093/mnras/stac1821

    Beniamini , P., Gill , R., & Granot , J. 2022, , 515, 555, 10.1093/mnras/stac1821

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2020 a , , 493, 3521, 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    Beniamini , P., Granot , J., & Gill , R. 2020 a , , 493, 3521, 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2019 a , , 487, 1426, 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    Beniamini , P., Hotokezaka , K., van der Horst , A., & Kouveliotou , C. 2019 a , , 487, 1426, 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19043, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19043

    Beniamini , P., & Kumar , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19043, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19043

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2019, , 482, 5430, 10.1093/mnras/sty3110

    Beniamini , P., & Nakar , E. 2019, , 482, 5430, 10.1093/mnras/sty3110

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    B., & Piran , T

    Beniamini , P., Nava , L., Duran , R. B., & Piran , T. 2015, , 454, 1073, 10.1093/mnras/stv2033

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    2019 b , , 483, 840, 10.1093/mnras/sty3093

    Beniamini , P., Petropoulou , M., Barniol Duran , R., & Giannios , D. 2019 b , , 483, 840, 10.1093/mnras/sty3093

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Beniamini , P., Wadiasingh , Z., & Metzger , B. D. 2020 b , , 496, 3390, 10.1093/mnras/staa1783

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, , 87, 123007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.123007

    Birnholtz , O., & Piran , T. 2013, , 87, 123007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.123007

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    D., McKenna , D

    Bochenek , C. D., McKenna , D. L., Belov , K. V., et al. 2020, , 132, 034202, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63b3

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    B., & Thorne , K

    Braginsky , V. B., & Thorne , K. S. 1987, , 327, 123, 10.1038/327123a0

    1987 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Arons , J., Quataert , E., & Del Zanna , L

    Bucciantini , N., Thompson , T. A., Arons , J., Quataert , E., & Del Zanna , L. 2006, , 368, 1717, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10217.x

    2006

  35. [43]

    2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 4, 10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7

    Burns , E. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 4, 10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, , 907, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    Burns , E., Svinkin , D., Hurley , K., et al. 2021, , 907, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2014, , 438, 3291, 10.1093/mnras/stt2432

    Camero , A., Papitto , A., Rea , N., et al. 2014, , 438, 3291, 10.1093/mnras/stt2432

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    A., et al

    Caputo , R., Ajello , M., Kierans , C. A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 044003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.4.044003

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    A., & Metzger , B

    Cehula , J., Thompson , T. A., & Metzger , B. D. 2024, , 528, 5323, 10.1093/mnras/stae358

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Gupta , R., et al

    Chand , V., Joshi , J. C., Gupta , R., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 236, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/236

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    I., Guyer , R

    Cheng , B., Epstein , R. I., Guyer , R. A., & Young , A. C. 1996, , 382, 518, 10.1038/382518a0

    1996 doi

  42. [50]

    H., & Kastaun , W

    Chirenti , C., de Souza , G. H., & Kastaun , W. 2015, , 91, 044034, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.044034

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    1992, , 46, 5250, 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5250

    Christensen , N. 1992, , 46, 5250, 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5250

    1992 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Desai , U

    Cline , T. L., Desai , U. D., Pizzichini , G., et al. 1980, , 237, L1, 10.1086/183221

    1980 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Kouveliotou , C., van der Horst , A

    Collazzi , A. C., Kouveliotou , C., van der Horst , A. J., et al. 2015, , 218, 11, 10.1088/0067-0049/218/1/11

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    2000, , 529, L29, 10.1086/312448

    Colpi , M., Geppert , U., & Page , D. 2000, , 529, L29, 10.1086/312448

    2000 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Gupta , O., Wadiasingh , Z., et al

    Cooper , A. J., Gupta , O., Wadiasingh , Z., et al. 2023, , 519, 3923, 10.1093/mnras/stac3580

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Corsi , A., & Owen , B. J. 2011, , 83, 104014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.104014

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    1997, , 387, 783, 10.1038/42885

    Costa , E., Frontera , F., Heise , J., et al. 1997, , 387, 783, 10.1038/42885

    1997 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Campana , S., & Esposito , P

    Coti Zelati , F., Rea , N., Pons , J. A., Campana , S., & Esposito , P. 2018, , 474, 961, 10.1093/mnras/stx2679

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    B., Ryan , G., et al

    Cunningham , V., Cenko , S. B., Ryan , G., et al. 2020, , 904, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2cd

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    G., & Lu , T

    Dai , Z. G., & Lu , T. 1998, , 81, 4301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4301

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    2012, , 422, 2878, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20612.x

    Dall'Osso , S., Granot , J., & Piran , T. 2012, , 422, 2878, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20612.x

    2012

  54. [62]

    S., et al

    De Grandis , D., Turolla , R., Wood , T. S., et al. 2020, , 903, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb6f9

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    A., & Rea , N

    Dehman , C., Vigan \`o , D., Pons , J. A., & Rea , N. 2023, , 518, 1222, 10.1093/mnras/stac2761

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    2022, , 941, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d38

    DeLaunay , J., & Tohuvavohu , A. 2022, , 941, 169, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d38

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, , 518, 810, 10.1093/mnras/stac3120

    Demidov , I., & Lyubarsky , Y. 2023, , 518, 810, 10.1093/mnras/stac3120

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    Dib , R., & Kaspi , V. M. 2014, , 784, 37, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/37

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    2020, , 492, 5011, 10.1093/mnras/staa124

    Dichiara , S., Troja , E., O'Connor , B., et al. 2020, , 492, 5011, 10.1093/mnras/staa124

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    2001, , 380, 151, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011402

    Douchin , F., & Haensel , P. 2001, , 380, 151, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011402

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    C., Quataert , E., Kasen , D., & Klion , H

    Duffell , P. C., Quataert , E., Kasen , D., & Klion , H. 2018, , 866, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae084

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    2019 b , Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 106901, 10.1088/1361-6633/ab3def

    ---. 2019 b , Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 106901, 10.1088/1361-6633/ab3def

    2019 doi

  63. [72]

    2017, , 231, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6f0a

    Enoto , T., Shibata , S., Kitaguchi , T., et al. 2017, , 231, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6f0a

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    X., Afle , C., et al

    Evans , M., Adhikari , R. X., Afle , C., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.09882, 10.48550/arXiv.2109.09882

    2021 doi arXiv

  65. [74]

    B., et al

    Fermi-LAT Collaboration , Ajello , M., Atwood , W. B., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 385, 10.1038/s41550-020-01287-8

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    1999, , 515, L9, 10.1086/311964

    Feroci , M., Frontera , F., Costa , E., et al. 1999, , 515, L9, 10.1086/311964

    1999 doi

  67. [76]

    A., Kulkarni , S

    Frail , D. A., Kulkarni , S. R., & Bloom , J. S. 1999, , 398, 127, 10.1038/18163

    1999 doi

  68. [77]

    D., Palshin , V

    Frederiks , D. D., Palshin , V. D., Aptekar , R. L., et al. 2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 19, 10.1134/S1063773707010021

    2007 doi

  69. [78]

    M., Kouveliotou , C., Gelfand , J

    Gaensler , B. M., Kouveliotou , C., Gelfand , J. D., et al. 2005, , 434, 1104, 10.1038/nature03498

    2005 doi

  70. [79]

    A., Swartz , D

    Gaskin , J. A., Swartz , D. A., Vikhlinin , A., et al. 2019, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 5, 021001, 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.2.021001

    2019 doi

  71. [80]

    P., Kaspi , V

    Gavriil , F. P., Kaspi , V. M., & Woods , P. M. 2004, , 607, 959, 10.1086/383564

    2004 doi

  72. [81]

    Y., Liu , C

    Ge , M. Y., Liu , C. Z., Zhang , S. N., et al. 2023, , 953, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/acda1d

    2023 doi

  73. [82]

    1986, , 303, 336, 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels , N. 1986, , 303, 336, 10.1086/164079

    1986 doi

  74. [83]

    Gelfand , J. D. 2007, , 308, 39, 10.1007/s10509-007-9317-y

    2007 doi

  75. [84]

    S., Pescalli , A., et al

    Ghirlanda , G., Salafia , O. S., Pescalli , A., et al. 2016, , 594, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628993

    2016 doi

  76. [85]

    2020, , 491, 3343, 10.1093/mnras/stz2976

    Gill , R., Granot , J., & Kumar , P. 2020, , 491, 3343, 10.1093/mnras/stz2976

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    C., Chawla , P., et al

    Giri , U., Andersen , B. C., Chawla , P., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16932, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16932

    2023 doi arXiv

  78. [87]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski , K. M., Hivon , E., Banday , A. J., et al. 2005, , 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    2005 doi

  79. [88]

    2021, , 500, 3511, 10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    Gottlieb , O., Nakar , E., & Bromberg , O. 2021, , 500, 3511, 10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    2006, , 445, 313, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053648

    G \"o tz , D., Mereghetti , S., Molkov , S., et al. 2006, , 445, 313, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053648

    2006 doi

  81. [90]

    N., & Cumming , A

    Gourgouliatos , K. N., & Cumming , A. 2014, , 438, 1618, 10.1093/mnras/stt2300

    2014 doi

  82. [91]

    N., Wood , T

    Gourgouliatos , K. N., Wood , T. S., & Hollerbach , R. 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113, 3944, 10.1073/pnas.1522363113

    2016 doi

  83. [92]

    M., Kouveliotou , C., et al

    G \"o g \"u s , E., Woods , P. M., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 1999, , 526, L93, 10.1086/312380

    1999 doi

  84. [93]

    M., Kouveliotou , C., et al

    G \"o g \"u s , E., Woods , P. M., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2000, , 532, L121, 10.1086/312583

    2000 doi

  85. [94]

    2017, , 464, 4895, 10.1093/mnras/stw2554

    Granot , J., Gill , R., Younes , G., et al. 2017, , 464, 4895, 10.1093/mnras/stw2554

    2017 doi

  86. [95]

    B., et al

    Granot , J., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Taylor , G. B., et al. 2006, , 638, 391, 10.1086/497680

    2006 doi

  87. [96]

    2017, , 603, A76, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630326

    Gu \'e pin , C., & Kotera , K. 2017, , 603, A76, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630326

    2017 doi

  88. [97]

    Guetta , D., Granot , J., & Begelman , M. C. 2005, , 622, 482, 10.1086/426664

    2005 doi

  89. [98]

    2018, , 863, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad335

    Hakkila , J., Lesage , S., McAfee , S., et al. 2018, , 863, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad335

    2018 doi

  90. [99]

    2021, , 500, 627, 10.1093/mnras/staa3276

    Hamidani , H., & Ioka , K. 2021, , 500, 627, 10.1093/mnras/staa3276

    2021 doi

  91. [100]

    K., Contopoulos , I., & Kazanas , D

    Harding , A. K., Contopoulos , I., & Kazanas , D. 1999, , 525, L125, 10.1086/312339

    1999 doi

  92. [101]

    2022, , 259, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3dfc

    Harikane , Y., Ono , Y., Ouchi , M., et al. 2022, , 259, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3dfc

    2022 doi

  93. [102]

    2023, , 265, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    Harikane , Y., Ouchi , M., Oguri , M., et al. 2023, , 265, 5, 10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9

    2023 doi

  94. [103]

    2008, , 2008, 025, 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/025

    Herpay , T., Razzaque , S., Patk \'o s , A., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2008, , 2008, 025, 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/025

    2008 doi

  95. [105]

    2024, , 626, 500, 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    Hu , C.-P., Narita , T., Enoto , T., et al. 2024, , 626, 500, 10.1038/s41586-023-07012-5

    2024 doi

  96. [106]

    G., Harding , A

    Hu , K., Baring , M. G., Harding , A. K., & Wadiasingh , Z. 2022, , 940, 91, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9611

    2022 doi

  97. [107]

    1999, Nature, 397, 41

    Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E., et al. 1999, Nature, 397, 41

    1999

  98. [108]

    E., Smith , D

    Hurley , K., Boggs , S. E., Smith , D. M., et al. 2005, , 434, 1098, 10.1038/nature03519

    2005 doi

  99. [109]

    2001, , 327, 639, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04756.x

    Ioka , K. 2001, , 327, 639, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04756.x

    2001

  100. [110]

    M., & Beloborodov , A

    Kaspi , V. M., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 55, 261, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  101. [111]

    M., & Boydstun , K

    Kaspi , V. M., & Boydstun , K. 2010, , 710, L115, 10.1088/2041-8205/710/2/L115

    2010 doi

  102. [112]

    M., Archibald , R

    Kaspi , V. M., Archibald , R. F., Bhalerao , V., et al. 2014, , 786, 84, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/84

    2014 doi

  103. [113]

    D., Quitzow-James , R., & Sakellariadou , M

    Kouvatsos , N., Lasky , P. D., Quitzow-James , R., & Sakellariadou , M. 2022, , 106, 063007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.063007

    2022 doi

  104. [114]

    A., Fishman , G

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

    1993 doi

  105. [115]

    2010, , 523, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014935

    Krivonos , R., Tsygankov , S., Revnivtsev , M., et al. 2010, , 523, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014935

    2010 doi

  106. [116]

    R., & Collmar , W

    Kuiper , L., Hermsen , W., den Hartog , P. R., & Collmar , W. 2006, , 645, 556, 10.1086/504317

    2006 doi

  107. [117]

    2017, , 468, 2726, 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    Kumar , P., Lu , W., & Bhattacharya , M. 2017, , 468, 2726, 10.1093/mnras/stx665

    2017 doi

  108. [118]

    Lamb , D. Q. 1995, , 107, 1152, 10.1086/133673

    1995 doi

  109. [119]

    Lander , S. K. 2023, , 947, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/acca1f

    2023 doi

  110. [120]

    2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae2453

    ---. 2024, , 10.1093/mnras/stae2453

    2024 doi

  111. [121]

    K., Andersson , N., Antonopoulou , D., & Watts , A

    Lander , S. K., Andersson , N., Antonopoulou , D., & Watts , A. L. 2015, , 449, 2047, 10.1093/mnras/stv432

    2015 doi

  112. [122]

    K., Gourgouliatos , K

    Lander , S. K., Gourgouliatos , K. N., Wadiasingh , Z., & Antonopoulou , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08020. 2411.08020

    2024

  113. [123]

    2005, , 362, L8, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00062.x

    Lazzati , D., Ghirlanda , G., & Ghisellini , G. 2005, , 362, L8, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00062.x

    2005

  114. [124]

    2019, , 881, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e06

    Lazzati , D., & Perna , R. 2019, , 881, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e06

    2019 doi

  115. [125]

    2021, , 104, 104002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.104002

    Leiderschneider , E., & Piran , T. 2021, , 104, 104002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.104002

    2021 doi

  116. [126]

    K., Sandstrom , K

    Leroy , A. K., Sandstrom , K. M., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 244, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab3925

    2019 doi

  117. [127]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 659, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19515.x

    Levin, Y., & van Hoven, M. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 659, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19515.x

    2011

  118. [128]

    Liang , E. P. 1982, , 299, 321, 10.1038/299321a0

    1982 doi

  119. [129]

    1985, , 313, 202, 10.1038/313202a0

    ---. 1985, , 313, 202, 10.1038/313202a0

    1985 doi

  120. [130]

    P., & Antiochos , S

    Liang , E. P., & Antiochos , S. K. 1984, , 310, 121, 10.1038/310121a0

    1984 doi

  121. [131]

    Liang , E. P. T. 1981, , 292, 319, 10.1038/292319a0

    1981 doi

  122. [132]

    C., & Newman , J

    Licquia , T. C., & Newman , J. A. 2015, , 806, 96, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96

    2015 doi

  123. [133]

    D., et al

    Lien , A., Sakamoto , T., Barthelmy , S. D., et al. 2016, , 829, 7, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/7

    2016 doi

  124. [134]

    2022, , 510, 1867, 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    Lu , W., Beniamini , P., & Kumar , P. 2022, , 510, 1867, 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    2022 doi

  125. [135]

    L., Ulanov , M

    Lysenko , A. L., Ulanov , M. V., Kuznetsov , A. A., et al. 2022, , 262, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac8b87

    2022 doi

  126. [136]

    A., Burns , E., et al

    Macquet , A., Bizouard , M. A., Burns , E., et al. 2021, , 918, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0efd

    2021 doi

  127. [138]

    2018, Gravitational Waves: Volume 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology , 10.1093/oso/9780198570899.001.0001

    ---. 2018, Gravitational Waves: Volume 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology , 10.1093/oso/9780198570899.001.0001

    2018

  128. [139]

    Mandel , I., & Broekgaarden , F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1, 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    2022 doi

  129. [140]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 130, 10.3390/galaxies6040130

    Mandhai , S., Tanvir , N., Lamb , G., Levan , A., & Tsang , D. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 130, 10.3390/galaxies6040130

    2018 doi

  130. [141]

    2011, , 411, 2549, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17861.x

    Marassi , S., Ciolfi , R., Schneider , R., Stella , L., & Ferrari , V. 2011, , 411, 2549, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17861.x

    2011

  131. [142]

    Margalit , B., Beniamini , P., Sridhar , N., & Metzger , B. D. 2020, , 899, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/abac57

    2020 doi

  132. [143]

    Marsden , D., & White , N. E. 2001, , 551, L155, 10.1086/320025

    2001 doi

  133. [144]

    2019, , 490, 4271, 10.1093/mnras/stz2821

    Matsumoto , J., & Masada , Y. 2019, , 490, 4271, 10.1093/mnras/stz2821

    2019 doi

  134. [145]

    Mazets, E., Golenetskii, S., Il'Inskii, V., Aptekar', R., & Guryan, Y. A. 1979, Nature, 282, 587

    1979

  135. [146]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 680, 545

    Mazets, E., Aptekar, R., Cline, T., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 680, 545

    2008

  136. [147]

    P., Cline , T

    Mazets , E. P., Cline , T. L., Aptekar' , R. L., et al. 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 635. astro-ph/9905196

    1999 arXiv

  137. [148]

    N., et al

    Meegan , C., Lichti , G., Bhat , P. N., et al. 2009, , 702, 791, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    2009 doi

  138. [149]

    2020, , 898, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    Mereghetti , S., Savchenko , V., Ferrigno , C., et al. 2020, , 898, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba2cf

    2020 doi

  139. [150]

    2023, A magnetar giant flare in the nearby starburst galaxy M82

    Mereghetti, S., Rigoselli, M., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2023, A magnetar giant flare in the nearby starburst galaxy M82. 2312.14645

    2023 arXiv

  140. [151]

    1992, High-energy radiation from magnetized neutron stars

    Meszaros , P. 1992, High-energy radiation from magnetized neutron stars

    1992

  141. [152]

    D., Beniamini , P., & Giannios , D

    Metzger , B. D., Beniamini , P., & Giannios , D. 2018, , 857, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c

    2018 doi

  142. [153]

    R., Djorgovski , S

    Metzger , M. R., Djorgovski , S. G., Kulkarni , S. R., et al. 1997, , 387, 878, 10.1038/43132

    1997 doi

  143. [154]

    C., Chirenti , C., & Strohmayer , T

    Miller , M. C., Chirenti , C., & Strohmayer , T. E. 2019, , 871, 95, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf5ce

    2019 doi

  144. [155]

    Y., Pozanenko , A

    Minaev , P. Y., Pozanenko , A. S., & Loznikov , V. M. 2010, Astrophysical Bulletin, 65, 326, 10.1134/S1990341310040024

    2010 doi

  145. [156]

    2007, , 442, 166, 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

    Nakar , E. 2007, , 442, 166, 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

    2007 doi

  146. [157]

    Nakar , E., Gal-Yam , A., Piran , T., & Fox , D. B. 2006, , 640, 849, 10.1086/498229

    2006 doi

  147. [158]

    A., von Kienlin , A., et al

    Narayana Bhat , P., Meegan , C. A., von Kienlin , A., et al. 2016, , 223, 28, 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/28

    2016 doi

  148. [159]

    2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1388953, 10.3389/fspas.2024.1388953

    Negro , M., Younes , G., Wadiasingh , Z., et al. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1388953, 10.3389/fspas.2024.1388953

    2024

  149. [160]

    2024, , 533, 1629, 10.1093/mnras/stae1941

    O'Connor , B., Beniamini , P., & Gill , R. 2024, , 533, 1629, 10.1093/mnras/stae1941

    2024 doi

  150. [161]

    Ofek , E. O. 2007, , 659, 339, 10.1086/511147

    2007 doi

  151. [162]

    O., Kulkarni, S., Nakar, E., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Kulkarni, S., Nakar, E., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 652, 507

    2006

  152. [163]

    O., Muno , M., Quimby , R., et al

    Ofek , E. O., Muno , M., Quimby , R., et al. 2008, , 681, 1464, 10.1086/587686

    2008 doi

  153. [164]

    A., & Kaspi , V

    Olausen , S. A., & Kaspi , V. M. 2014, , 212, 6, 10.1088/0067-0049/212/1/6

    2014 doi

  154. [165]

    P., Arrigoni , E., Mereghetti , S., & Salvaterra , R

    Pacholski , D. P., Arrigoni , E., Mereghetti , S., & Salvaterra , R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03235. 2411.03235

    2024 arXiv

  155. [166]

    1992, , 42, 145

    Paczynski , B. 1992, , 42, 145

    1992

  156. [167]

    1995, , 107, 1167, 10.1086/133674

    ---. 1995, , 107, 1167, 10.1086/133674

    1995 doi

  157. [168]

    2006, , 777, 497, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.09.019

    Page , D., Geppert , U., & Weber , F. 2006, , 777, 497, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.09.019

    2006 doi

  158. [169]

    M., Barthelmy , S., Gehrels , N., et al

    Palmer , D. M., Barthelmy , S., Gehrels , N., et al. 2005, , 434, 1107, 10.1038/nature03525

    2005 doi

  159. [170]

    Perna , R., & Pons , J. A. 2011, , 727, L51, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L51

    2011 doi

  160. [171]

    Phinney , E. S. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0108028

    2001 doi arXiv

  161. [172]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.02740, 10.48550/arXiv.2210.02740

    Piran , T. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.02740, 10.48550/arXiv.2210.02740

    2022 doi arXiv

  162. [173]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  163. [174]

    A., & Geppert , U

    Pons , J. A., & Geppert , U. 2007, , 470, 303, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077456

    2007 doi

  164. [175]

    A., & Rea , N

    Pons , J. A., & Rea , N. 2012, , 750, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/750/1/L6

    2012 doi

  165. [176]

    B., & Postnov , K

    Popov , S. B., & Postnov , K. A. 2010, in Evolution of Cosmic Objects through their Physical Activity, ed. H. A. Harutyunian , A. M. Mickaelian , & Y. Terzian , 129--132, 10.48550/arXiv.0710.2006

    2010 doi arXiv

  166. [177]

    B., & Stern , B

    Popov , S. B., & Stern , B. E. 2006, , 365, 885, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09767.x

    2006

  167. [178]

    2012, , 755, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/1

    Prieskorn , Z., & Kaaret , P. 2012, , 755, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/1

    2012 doi

  168. [179]

    2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002, 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    Punturo , M., Abernathy , M., Acernese , F., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002, 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    2010 doi

  169. [180]

    A., et al

    Quitzow-James , R., Brau , J., Clark , J. A., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 164002, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa7d5b

    2017 doi

  170. [181]

    L., et al

    Ramaty , R., Bonazzola , S., Cline , T. L., et al. 1980, , 287, 122, 10.1038/287122a0

    1980 doi

  171. [182]

    V., Hurley , K., & Lichti , G

    Rau , A., Kienlin , A. V., Hurley , K., & Lichti , G. G. 2005, , 438, 1175, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053159

    2005 doi

  172. [183]

    S., Kara , E

    Reynolds , C. S., Kara , E. A., Mushotzky , R. F., et al. 2023, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12678, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XXIII, ed. O. H. Siegmund & K. Hoadley , 126781E, 10.1117/12.2677468

    2023 doi

  173. [184]

    J., Veres , P., Baring , M

    Roberts , O. J., Veres , P., Baring , M. G., et al. 2021, , 589, 207, 10.1038/s41586-020-03077-8

    2021 doi

  174. [185]

    Rossi , E., Lazzati , D., & Rees , M. J. 2002, , 332, 945, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x

    2002

  175. [186]

    2004, , 70, 104012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.104012

    Sago , N., Ioka , K., Nakamura , T., & Yamazaki , R. 2004, , 70, 104012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.104012

    2004 doi

  176. [187]

    S., & Ghirlanda , G

    Salafia , O. S., & Ghirlanda , G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 93, 10.3390/galaxies10050093

    2022 doi

  177. [188]

    2020, , 493, 1633, 10.1093/mnras/staa303

    Saleem , M. 2020, , 493, 1633, 10.1093/mnras/staa303

    2020 doi

  178. [189]

    2010, , 510, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911988

    Savchenko , V., Neronov , A., Beckmann , V., Produit , N., & Walter , R. 2010, , 510, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/200911988

    2010 doi

  179. [190]

    Scholz , P., & Kaspi , V. M. 2011, , 739, 94, 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/94

    2011 doi

  180. [191]

    M., & Cumming , A

    Scholz , P., Kaspi , V. M., & Cumming , A. 2014, , 786, 62, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/62

    2014 doi

  181. [192]

    C., Burgess , J

    Sch \"o sser , E. C., Burgess , J. M., & Greiner , J. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.05922, 10.48550/arXiv.2303.05922

    2023 doi arXiv

  182. [193]

    L., & Thorne , K

    Schumaker , B. L., & Thorne , K. S. 1983, , 203, 457, 10.1093/mnras/203.2.457

    1983 doi

  183. [194]

    B., & Ori , A

    Segalis , E. B., & Ori , A. 2001, , 64, 064018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.064018

    2001 doi

  184. [195]

    2023, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 56, 41, 10.5303/JKAS.2023.56.1.41

    Seo , J., Lee , J., & An , H. 2023, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 56, 41, 10.5303/JKAS.2023.56.1.41

    2023 doi

  185. [196]

    Skiathas , D., & Gourgouliatos , K. N. 2024, , 528, 5178, 10.1093/mnras/stae190

    2024 doi

  186. [197]

    1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    Spitzer , L. 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases

    1962

  187. [198]

    1983, , 202, 467, 10.1093/mnras/202.2.467

    Stepney , S. 1983, , 202, 467, 10.1093/mnras/202.2.467

    1983 doi

  188. [199]

    2021, Nature, 589, 211

    Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., Hurley, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 589, 211

    2021

  189. [200]

    S., Hurley , K., Aptekar , R

    Svinkin , D. S., Hurley , K., Aptekar , R. L., Golenetskii , S. V., & Frederiks , D. D. 2015, , 447, 1028, 10.1093/mnras/stu2436

    2015 doi

  190. [201]

    R., Chapman , R., Levan , A

    Tanvir , N. R., Chapman , R., Levan , A. J., & Priddey , R. S. 2005, , 438, 991, 10.1038/nature04310

    2005 doi

  191. [202]

    C., Bandura , K

    The Chime/Frb Collaboration , Andersen, B. C., Bandura , K. M., Bhardwaj , M., et al. 2020, , 587, 54, 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    2020 doi

  192. [203]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09151, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09151

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration , the Virgo Collaboration , the KAGRA Collaboration , et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.09151, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.09151

    2024 doi arXiv

  193. [204]

    Thompson , C., & Duncan , R. C. 1995, , 275, 255, 10.1093/mnras/275.2.255

    1995 doi

  194. [205]

    1996, , 473, 322, 10.1086/178147

    ---. 1996, , 473, 322, 10.1086/178147

    1996 doi

  195. [206]

    2017, , 841, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c30

    Thompson , C., Yang , H., & Ortiz , N. 2017, , 841, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c30

    2017 doi

  196. [207]

    A., Chang , P., & Quataert , E

    Thompson , T. A., Chang , P., & Quataert , E. 2004, , 611, 380, 10.1086/421969

    2004 doi

  197. [208]

    Thrane , E., & Romano , J. D. 2013, , 88, 124032, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.124032

    2013 doi

  198. [209]

    Y., Pozanenko , A

    Tikhomirova , Y. Y., Pozanenko , A. S., & Hurley , K. S. 2010, Astronomy Letters, 36, 231, 10.1134/S1063773710040018

    2010 doi

  199. [210]

    A., DeLaunay , J., et al

    Tohuvavohu , A., Kennea , J. A., DeLaunay , J., et al. 2020, , 900, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba94f

    2020 doi

  200. [211]

    A., Roberts , C

    Tohuvavohu , A., Kennea , J. A., Roberts , C. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.05720, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05720

    2024 doi arXiv

  201. [212]

    A., Boggs , S

    Tomsick , J. A., Boggs , S. E., Zoglauer , A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.12362, 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12362

    2023 doi arXiv

  202. [213]

    C., Burns , E., Roberts , O

    Trigg , A. C., Burns , E., Roberts , O. J., et al. 2024 a , , 687, A173, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348858

    2024 doi

  203. [214]

    C., Stewart , R., van Kooten , A., et al

    Trigg , A. C., Stewart , R., van Kooten , A., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06056, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06056

    2024 doi arXiv

  204. [215]

    Usov , V. V. 1984, , 107, 191, 10.1007/BF00649624

    1984 doi

  205. [216]

    1992, , 357, 472, 10.1038/357472a0

    ---. 1992, , 357, 472, 10.1038/357472a0

    1992 doi

  206. [217]

    A., & MacFadyen , A

    Uzdensky , D. A., & MacFadyen , A. I. 2007, , 669, 546, 10.1086/521322

    2007 doi

  207. [218]

    J., Kouveliotou , C., Gorgone , N

    van der Horst , A. J., Kouveliotou , C., Gorgone , N. M., et al. 2012, , 749, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/122

    2012 doi

  208. [219]

    J., Galama , T., et al

    van Paradijs , J., Groot , P. J., Galama , T., et al. 1997, , 386, 686, 10.1038/386686a0

    1997 doi

  209. [220]

    L., Baring , M

    van Putten , T., Watts , A. L., Baring , M. G., & Wijers , R. A. M. J. 2016, , 461, 877, 10.1093/mnras/stw1279

    2016 doi

  210. [221]

    L., D'Angelo , C

    van Putten , T., Watts , A. L., D'Angelo , C. R., Baring , M. G., & Kouveliotou , C. 2013, , 434, 1398, 10.1093/mnras/stt1093

    2013 doi

  211. [222]

    A., et al

    Vigan \`o , D., Rea , N., Pons , J. A., et al. 2013, , 434, 123, 10.1093/mnras/stt1008

    2013 doi

  212. [223]

    A., Paciesas , W

    von Kienlin , A., Meegan , C. A., Paciesas , W. S., et al. 2020, , 893, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18

    2020 doi

  213. [224]

    2020, , 891, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

    Wadiasingh , Z., Beniamini , P., Timokhin , A., et al. 2020, , 891, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d69

    2020 doi

  214. [225]

    2019, , 879, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    Wadiasingh , Z., & Timokhin , A. 2019, , 879, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2240

    2019 doi

  215. [226]

    2015, , 448, 3026, 10.1093/mnras/stv123

    Wanderman , D., & Piran , T. 2015, , 448, 3026, 10.1093/mnras/stv123

    2015 doi

  216. [227]

    C., Yi , I., H \"o flich , P., & Wang , L

    Wheeler , J. C., Yi , I., H \"o flich , P., & Wang , L. 2000, , 537, 810, 10.1086/309055

    2000 doi

  217. [228]

    2022, , 129, 053604, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.053604

    Winstone , G., Wang , Z., Klomp , S., et al. 2022, , 129, 053604, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.053604

    2022 doi

  218. [229]

    M., Kouveliotou , C., van Paradijs , J., et al

    Woods , P. M., Kouveliotou , C., van Paradijs , J., et al. 1999, , 519, L139, 10.1086/312124

    1999 doi

  219. [230]

    S., Kocevski, D., Grove, J

    Woolf, R. S., Kocevski, D., Grove, J. E., et al. 2024, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 1064, 169329

    2024

  220. [231]

    G., & Pethick , C

    Yakovlev , D. G., & Pethick , C. J. 2004, , 42, 169, 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134013

    2004

  221. [232]

    2024, , 527, 2379, 10.1093/mnras/stad3337

    Yim , G., Gao , Y., Kang , Y., Shao , L., & Xu , R. 2024, , 527, 2379, 10.1093/mnras/stad3337

    2024 doi

  222. [233]

    2004, , 609, 935, 10.1086/421285

    Yonetoku , D., Murakami , T., Nakamura , T., et al. 2004, , 609, 935, 10.1086/421285

    2004 doi

  223. [234]

    G., Kouveliotou , C., et al

    Younes , G., Baring , M. G., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2017, , 851, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96fd

    2017 doi

  224. [235]

    S., Baring , M

    Younes , G., Ray , P. S., Baring , M. G., et al. 2020, , 896, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9a48

    2020 doi

  225. [236]

    G., Harding , A

    Younes , G., Baring , M. G., Harding , A. K., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 339, 10.1038/s41550-022-01865-y

    2023 doi

  226. [237]

    2024, The Einstein Probe Mission, ed

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y., & Ling, Z. 2024, The Einstein Probe Mission, ed. C. Bambi & A. Santangelo (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 1171--1200, 10.1007/978-981-19-6960-7_151

    2024 doi

  227. [238]

    G., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Waxman , E., & Harding , A

    Zhang , B., Dai , Z. G., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Waxman , E., & Harding , A. K. 2003, , 595, 346, 10.1086/377192

    2003 doi

  228. [239]

    2020, , 903, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/abc2c9

    Zhang , H.-M., Liu , R.-Y., Zhong , S.-Q., & Wang , X.-Y. 2020, , 903, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/abc2c9

    2020 doi

  229. [240]

    D., & Kokkotas , K

    Zink , B., Lasky , P. D., & Kokkotas , K. D. 2012, , 85, 024030, 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024030

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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