Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Polarization of gamma-ray burst afterglows in the context of non-axisymmetric structured jets

T0 review · 3 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 This paper claims that azimuthally patchy GRB jets imprint distinctive, time-varying linear polarization on afterglows, including rotations of the polarization angle, which can reveal jet asymmetry.

desk verdict First polarization calculation for non-axisymmetric GRB jets with plausible qualitative signatures, but the key PA-rotation diagnostic depends on an unexamined assumption that azimuthal patches evolve without lateral mixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01228 v1 pith:FTDUXEG3 submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.HE

Jin-Da Li , He Gao , Shunke Ai , Wei-Hua Lei This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsafterglowpolarizationnon-axisymmetricjetsstructuredanglerotationsynchrotronself-Comptonjetstructurediagnostics
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

The paper argues that a gamma-ray burst jet whose cross-section is divided into azimuthal patches with different Lorentz factors and energies leaves a specific fingerprint in the linear polarization of its afterglow. Because the patches radiate into the line of sight at different times and with different Doppler factors, the polarization degree rises when the line of sight sits outside the jet, fluctuates as the dominant radiating patch changes, and the polarization angle rotates as one patch hands dominance to another. The same structure produces frequency-dependent features: larger polarization fluctuations at the spectral break frequencies than a uniform jet, and a local minimum in polarization degree that can sit above zero where synchrotron and synchrotron-self-Compton contributions compete. The paper concludes that these features, above all the rotation of the polarization angle, would identify a GRB as having a non-axisymmetric jet, distinguishing it from axisymmetric two-component jets that produce similar light curves but a fixed polarization angle.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a jet cross-section divided into N uniform 'patch' elements in azimuthal angle $\phi$, each characterized by its own initial Lorentz factor $\gamma_0$ and isotropic energy $E_{iso}$, evolving independently through the forward-shock deceleration equations. Polarization is computed by summing complex Stokes vectors over emission loops around the line of sight, with each patch's magnetic field described by the Laing compressed-tangled-field formula, synchrotron and SSC photons having perpendicular polarization angles, and a Doppler factor accounting for equal-arrival-time surfaces. The same machinery produces both light curves and polarization, so the predicted features are tied to which patch dominates at each observing time and frequency.

What would settle it

A three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulation of an otherwise identical jet with adjacent patches of $\gamma_{0,1} = 300$ and $\gamma_{0,2} = 60$ decelerating in a uniform medium: if lateral pressure gradients mix the patches and erase the azimuthal Lorentz-factor contrast before the slower patch dominates, the predicted late-time rebrightening and polarization-angle rotation would not occur, ruling out the independent-patch treatment as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a non-axisymmetric structured jet, modelled as N independent uniform patches around the jet axis with different initial Lorentz factors and isotropic energies, produces afterglow polarization that is generically nonzero and variable. In the two-element examples, polarization degree reaches tens of percent and can approach 50% when the line of sight is outside the jet, with peaks tracking the rebrightening light curve; the polarization angle stays fixed only when the line of sight is perpendicular to the patch boundary, and otherwise rotates as emission switches between patches. In the frequency domain, polarization degree fluctuates by more than 10% at $\nu_m$ and $\nu_c$, and at the synchrotron/SSC crossover the degree drops to a local minimum that is identically zero for axisymmetric structures but can be nonzero for asymmetric ones, with an accompanying rotation of the angle. Because an axisymmetric two-component jet produces comparable light curves and polarization degree but keeps the polarization angle parallel or perpendicular to the jet-axis/LOS plane, the paper identifies the time evolution of the polarization angle as the discriminating observable.

Load-bearing premise

Each patch evolves as an isolated uniform slab and never exchanges energy or momentum with its neighbours, so the large Lorentz-factor contrasts that drive the predicted polarization-angle rotations are assumed to persist throughout deceleration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Time-resolved afterglow polarimetry can reveal azimuthal jet structure: a rebrightening accompanied by a rotating polarization angle points to non-axisymmetric patches rather than energy injection.
  • Polarization can be nonzero even for a line of sight along the jet axis once the jet has more than two patches, so on-axis bursts are not guaranteed unpolarized.
  • The polarization-angle rotation separates non-axisymmetric structured jets from axisymmetric two-component jets, which keep the angle fixed even when their light curves and polarization-degree curves look similar.
  • Frequency-resolved polarization across the synchrotron and SSC bands can identify asymmetry through a nonzero local polarization minimum and the associated angle swing at the crossover.
  • Large polarization degree (up to about 50%) is expected when the line of sight lies outside the jet, making off-axis afterglows the best targets for detecting these signatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical next step is to search existing and future late-time afterglow polarimetry of GRBs with rebrightenings for a smooth, monotonic polarization-angle sweep; a fixed angle would favor axisymmetric two-component jets, while a rotation would favor patchy azimuthal structure.
  • The neglect of lateral spreading suggests a testable timescale: 3D simulations of jets with adjacent patches of very different Lorentz factors will determine whether pressure-driven mixing erases the contrast before the slower patch takes over, and if so, the late-time rotation signature would be weakened.
  • The same patchy-structure prescription could be applied to the prompt phase or to short GRBs from compact mergers, where three-dimensional simulations already find azimuthal inhomogeneity, extending the diagnostic beyond long-GRB afterglows.
  • Detecting a nonzero local polarization minimum at the synchrotron/SSC transition frequency could be a uniquely asymmetric signature searchable in multi-band polarimetric campaigns from radio to very high energies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper computes the linear-polarization signature of GRB afterglows from jets with non-axisymmetric (azimuthally structured) cross-sections, extending the light-curve model of Li et al. (2023). The jet is divided into N independent uniform patches with different initial Lorentz factors and isotropic-equivalent energies; each patch follows the Huang et al. (1999) dynamics with swept mass restricted to its own azimuthal wedge. Polarization is computed from the Laing (1980) magnetic-field prescription with maximum polarization P0, the Ghisellini & Lazzati (1999) ring integrals for emission around the line of sight, standard synchrotron and SSC spectral models (Sari et al. 1998; Sari & Esin 2001; Gao et al. 2013; Nakar et al. 2009 for Klein-Nishina corrections), and the Granot et al. (2002) Doppler factor for the equal-arrival-time surface. For 2-element and 3-element jets and multiple viewing angles (theta_obs/theta_j = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.25, 1.5; several phi_obs), the authors report the temporal evolution at nu = 8.22e14 Hz and the spectral distribution at t = 1e3 s of the polarization degree and angle.

Significance. The strength of the paper is that it converts the qualitative idea of azimuthally structured jets into concrete, falsifiable polarization observables using standard, well-understood machinery. The formalism is appropriate, the model is a genuine forward calculation rather than a fit, and the explicit comparison with the axisymmetric two-component jet (Fig. 7) gives the reader a clear sense of which observable is claimed to discriminate between the two geometries (temporal PA rotation; a possibly nonzero local PD minimum at the synchrotron-SSC transition). The authors also connect their results to existing polarization measurements of GRB afterglows and to current instruments, which makes the predictions timely. If the central predictions survive closer scrutiny of the dynamical assumptions, this would be a useful step toward using time-resolved polarimetry to constrain jet structure. The main caveat is that the predictions inherit the isolated-patch approximation of the underlying model, and the paper does not quantify how lateral pressure communication between patches would modify the PA-rotation signature.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Appendix A, Eqs. (A2)-(A3); §4] The central discriminator claimed in §4 (rotation of the polarization angle as the signature of a non-axisymmetric jet) rests on adjacent azimuthal patches maintaining large Lorentz-factor and energy contrasts for long observer-frame times (e.g., gamma0,1 = 300 versus gamma0,2 = 60 in Fig. 5, with PA rotations at t ~ 1e3-1e5 s). The dynamical equations, however, evolve each patch in isolation: Eq. (A2) contains no term for lateral momentum or energy exchange, and the swept mass in Eq. (A3) is, by construction, that of the patch's own wedge. The Introduction itself notes, citing Wu et al. (2005), that for two-component jets the polarization evolution 'largely depends on ... lateral expansion', yet the manuscript gives no justification for neglecting lateral interaction between azimuthal patches. Because the angular scale dominating the polarized emission (~1/gamma) is of the same order as the causal horizon for pressure equilibration across the interface, the contrast that drives the PA rotations can in principle be smoothed on timescales comparable to the predicted rotation epochs; the type of 3D simulations invoked in §1 to motivate azimuthal structure also show lateral spreading and smoothing of sharp interfaces, which is not addressed. As written, the PA-rotation signature is therefore not robust. I request either a quantitative estimate of the lateral-spreading (contrast-erosion) timescale, a demonstration with a smooth azimuthal profile that the signature survives, or an explicit qualification of the claim.
  2. [§3.2 and captions of Figs. 7 and 9] There is an internal inconsistency between the parameters stated in the text and those in the figure captions. For the 3-element jet, the text after Eq. (12) states gamma0,1 = 300, Eiso,1 = 1e51 ergs; gamma0,2 = 150, Eiso,2 = 1e52 ergs; gamma0,3 = 75, Eiso,3 = 1e53 ergs, whereas the caption of Fig. 9 states gamma0,1 = 100, Eiso,1 = 1e50; gamma0,2 = 50, Eiso,2 = 1e51; gamma0,3 = 25, Eiso,3 = 1e52. The same pattern (Lorentz factors differing by a factor of 3 and energies by a factor of 10) affects the comparison model: the text of §3.1 gives gamma0,inner = 300 and Eiso,inner = 1e52 ergs, while the caption of Fig. 7 gives gamma0,inner = 100 and Eiso,inner = 1e51 ergs. Because the quantitative statements in §3.1 and §3.2 (peak polarization degrees, peak times, PA-rotation epochs) are directly tied to these parameters, the reader cannot determine which model produced the plotted curves. The authors should state unambiguously which parameter sets were used and correct the discrepancy.
  3. [§3.1 and §4 (local polarization minimum)] The categorical statement in §4 that 'the local minimum of the polarization degree generated by symmetric structures is always 0' is used as an observational discriminator ('Detecting a local minimum polarization degree that is greater than zero ... can provide evidence for the existence of asymmetric structures'). The manuscript, however, demonstrates this only for the particular cases shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Whether the synchrotron and SSC contributions cancel exactly at the local minimum depends on the relative magnitudes of their polarization vectors at the crossing frequency and on the observer geometry; for an off-axis observer the cancellation need not be exact. If this claim is to function as a discriminator, it should be supported by a short analytic argument or a parameter scan (over theta_obs/theta_j and the microphysics parameters) showing that the local minimum is zero for all symmetric configurations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] In the paragraph comparing phi_obs = ±pi/4, the second instance of 'when phi_obs = pi/4' should read 'when phi_obs = -pi/4'; as written the sentence contradicts the comparison being made.
  2. [Captions of Figs. 2 and 3] The caption of Fig. 3 contains subject-verb disagreement ('phi >0 represent the LOS leans towards the first element') and mixes phi with the phi_obs used in the text; the caption of Fig. 2 ('The interface between 2 elements local at phi = 0 or phi = ±pi') is grammatically incomplete. Unify the azimuth notation between text and captions.
  3. [Caption of Fig. 3] The caption says 'we only show the polarization angle evolution when the polarization is significant' but does not define the significance threshold; please give the cutoff used for plotting the PA panels.
  4. [Appendix A] The code is named AFGoLipy but no repository link, version, or availability statement is provided; for reproducibility, please add an availability statement or a reference to the code.
  5. [§1 and Eq. (7)] The sentence 'It worth noting that Lan et al. (2023) found the influence of the EATS effect on polarization, the EATS effect shouldn't be ignored' is a run-on and should be rephrased; the text around Eq. (7) would also benefit from an explicit statement of the validity range of the approximation a ≈ 1/(1+gamma^2 theta^2).
  6. [Abstract and §4] The paper itself notes that for phi_obs = ±pi/2 (LOS perpendicular to the interface) the polarization angle does not rotate (§3.1); the abstract and §4 should carry this qualification, since the claimed PA-rotation discriminator applies only to a subset of observer azimuths.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization features are emergent outputs of a forward radiative model, not fitted data or self-citation conclusions.

full rationale

This paper is a forward-modeling study: the jet is partitioned into independent azimuthal patches with prescribed Lorentz-factor and energy profiles (Eqs. 9-12), and the afterglow flux and polarization are obtained by integrating synchrotron and SSC emission over equal-arrival-time surfaces using Eqs. (2)-(8) and the Appendix spectra. No observed polarization datum is fitted, and no equation is constructed so that a claimed output (e.g., 20-50% polarization degree, polarization-angle rotation, spectral-break fluctuations, or a nonzero local polarization minimum) is an input in disguise. The polarization-angle rotations arise from the time- and frequency-dependent weighting of the complex polarization vectors of different patches in Eq. (4); this is an emergent vector-sum effect, not a preset parameter. The main self-citation, Li et al. (2023), supplies the non-axisymmetric jet dynamics and light-curve method (Eqs. A2-A3); the polarization calculation and SSC treatment are added in this work, and the cited paper does not already contain the polarization predictions. The distinction from axisymmetric two-component jets rests on standard symmetry properties of the emission geometry, but the specific quantitative predictions, including polarization levels, fluctuation amplitudes, and rotation epochs, are not encoded in the assumptions. The lateral-spreading caveat raised in review is a physical robustness concern about whether azimuthal Lorentz-factor contrast survives, not a circularity: questioning an input assumption is different from showing that the output is equivalent to the input by construction. Therefore no circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a forward model with no fitted data. All numbers are chosen by hand, the magnetic-field and electron-distribution assumptions are standard domain inputs, and no new physical entities are introduced. The most significant ledger entry is the independent-patch axiom, which is ad hoc to this modeling framework and is load-bearing for the rotating-angle prediction.

free parameters (6)
  • per-element initial bulk Lorentz factors γ0,i = γ0,1=300, γ0,2=150 (text; Figure 9 caption lists 100, 50)
    Chosen by hand to define the non-axisymmetric structure; the polarization contrast between fast and slow patches is the basis of the predicted signatures.
  • per-element isotropic-equivalent energies Eiso,i = Eiso,1=1e51, Eiso,2=1e52, Eiso,3=1e53 erg (text)
    Set the example energy ratios; peak heights and rebrightening structure in the light curves and polarization curves depend on these values.
  • maximum parallel-frame polarization P0 = 60% (synchrotron), 100% (SSC)
    Sets the overall polarization scale in Eq. (1); all reported PD values scale with this assumed number.
  • shock microphysics ϵe, ϵB, p, n = 0.01, 0.001, 2.7, 10 cm^-3
    Chosen by hand; these set the characteristic frequencies νm and νc whose spectral breaks drive the polarization fluctuations.
  • jet opening angle and observing geometry θj, θobs, φobs = θj=5°, θobs=0 to 1.5θj, φobs various
    The off-axis enhancement of polarization degree and the LOS azimuth are the central variables of the parameter study.
  • observer frequency and redshift = νobs=8.22e14 Hz (temporal runs), z=1
    Fixed observing band for the time-evolution runs; the spectral runs scan a broad frequency range.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Each azimuthal element is independent, with no lateral interaction or spreading during deceleration.
    Section 2 and Eq. (A3): each element's swept mass uses only its own azimuthal span, ignoring pressure gradients between elements of different γ0; if lateral mixing erases the azimuthal contrast, the predicted polarization-angle rotations would vanish.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field in the shocked region is tangled in the shock plane with partial coherence described by Laing (1980), Eq. (1).
    Section 2, Eq. (1): the polarization degree amplitude depends on this field geometry, which is a standard but unverified assumption for GRB afterglow shocks.
  • domain assumption Electrons in the forward shock follow a power-law distribution and emit via synchrotron and first-order SSC with standard spectral segments.
    Appendix A-B: standard afterglow model from Sari et al. (1998), Gao et al. (2013), and Nakar et al. (2009).
  • domain assumption SSC polarization orientation is θp = χ + π/2 with P0=100%.
    Section 2, citing Gill et al. (2020); determines the polarization-angle jump at the synchrotron/SSC transition.
  • domain assumption The equal-arrival-time-surface flux correction of Granot et al. (2002) captures temporal integration effects.
    Section 2, Eqs. (7-8); used for off-axis EATS effects on polarization, especially for lines of sight outside the jet.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization of gamma-ray burst afterglows in the context of non-axisymmetric structured jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTDUXEG3

@misc{pith2026241201228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization of gamma-ray burst afterglows in the context of non-axisymmetric structured jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTDUXEG3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01228}
}
read the original abstract

As the most energetic explosion in the universe, gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are usually believed to be generated by relativistic jets. Some mechanisms (e.g. internal non-uniform magnetic dissipation processes or the precession of the central engine) may generate asymmetric jet structures, which is characterized by multiple fluctuations in the light curve of afterglow. Since the jet's structure introduces asymmetry in radiation around the line of sight (LOS), it is naturally expected that polarization will be observable. In this work, we reveal the polarization characteristics of gamma-ray burst afterglows with a non-axisymmetric structured jet. Our results show that the afterglow signal generally exhibits polarization, with the degree and evolution influenced by the specific jet structure, observing frequency, and the line of sight (LOS). The polarization degree is notably higher when the LOS is outside the jet. This degree fluctuates over time as different regions of radiation alternate in their dominance, which is accompanied by the rotation of the polarization angle and further reflects the intricate nature of the jet. Regarding its evolution over frequency, the polarization degree displays significant fluctuations at spectral breaks, with the polarization angle possibly undergoing abrupt changes. These features may provide strong evidence for future identification of potential GRBs with asymmetric jet structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01228 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The diagram illustrates the jet structure and coordinate system. The red circle represents the cross-section of a jet with a half opening angle of θj. Using the jet axis as the coordinate original point, from axis (θ = 0) to the edge of the jet (θ = θj) is the θ direction, and the circumference is φ direction with φ ∈ [−π, π]. The distribution of physical parameters on the jet circumference are step function of φ, a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of a asymmetric jet’s cross-section with 2 elements. The interface between 2 elements local at φ = 0 or φ = ±π. internal energy that goes into the random magnetic field ϵB = 0.001 and into the electrons ϵe = 0.01; particle number density of interstellar medium n = 10 cm−3 ; the power-law distribution index of electrons p = 2.7; the red shift z = 1 and the degree of polarization observed parallelly … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The afterglow light curves (Fν) and the evolution of polarization degree (PD) and angle (PA) of the asymmetric jets with 2 elements at ν = 8.22 × 1014Hz. Polarization is only sensitive to the evolution of the light curve, so the flux of afterglow radiation has been normalized. Considering that low polarization degree is difficult to observe, we only show the polarization angle evolution when the polarization is sign… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The afterglow spectrum (Fν) and the spectral distribution of polarization degree (PD) and angle (PA) of the asymmetric jets with 2 elements at t = 103 s. Polarization is only sensitive to the shape of spectrum, so the flux of afterglow radiation has been normalized. Th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: As a comparison, we show the temporal evolution at ν = 8.22 × 1014Hz and spectral distribution at t = 103 s of afterglow and polarization of 2-component jets. We set the Lorentz factor γ0,inner = 100 and the equivalent isotropic energy Eiso,inner = 1051ergs for inner c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The schematic diagrams of the cross-section of a asymmetric jet with 3 elements. φ = 0, φ1, φ2 are the interfaces of the jet with 3 elements. Eiso =    Eiso,1 0 < φ < φ1, Eiso,2 φ1 < φ < φ2, Eiso,3 others, (12) for the jet with 3 elements. And the evolution of t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The afterglow light curves (Fν) and the evolution of polarization degree (PD) and angle (PA) of the asymmetric jets with 3 elements at ν = 8.22 × 1014Hz. We show the light curves and polarization evolution in the range from φobs = 0 to φobs = 5π/3, and from θobs = 0 to…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The spectrum (Fν) and the spectral distribution of polarization degree (PD) and angle (PA) of the asymmetric jets with 3 elements at t = 103 s. Other parameters are same to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  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]

    Yz=Q H / _|P Bh#+

    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]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa538 2020

  6. [6]

    Buckley , D. A. H., Bagnulo , S., Britto , R. J., et al. 2021, , 506, 4621, 10.1093/mnras/stab1791

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1791 2021

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    de Wet , S., Laskar , T., Groot , P. J., et al. 2023, , 671, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244917

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244917 2023

  8. [8]

    2022, , 512, 2337, 10.1093/mnras/stac454

    Dichiara , S., Troja , E., Lipunov , V., et al. 2022, , 512, 2337, 10.1093/mnras/stac454

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac454 2022

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

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

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, , 435, 2520, 10.1093/mnras/stt1461

    Gao , H., Lei , W.-H., Wu , X.-F., & Zhang , B. 2013, , 435, 2520, 10.1093/mnras/stt1461

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    1998, , 297, 348, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01442.x

    Ghisellini , G., Haardt , F., & Svensson , R. 1998, , 297, 348, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01442.x

    1998

  4. [13]

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

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

    2020 doi

  5. [14]

    Granot , J., Panaitescu , A., Kumar , P., & Woosley , S. E. 2002, , 570, L61, 10.1086/340991

    2002 doi

  6. [15]

    Granot , J., & Taylor , G. B. 2005, , 625, 263, 10.1086/429536

    2005 doi

  7. [16]

    2019, , 487, 3214, 10.1093/mnras/stz1426

    Huang , B.-Q., Lin , D.-B., Liu , T., et al. 2019, , 487, 3214, 10.1093/mnras/stz1426

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    1999 a , Chinese Physics Letters, 16, 775, 10.1088/0256-307X/16/10/027

    Huang , Y.-f., Dai , Z.-g., & Lu , T. 1999 a , Chinese Physics Letters, 16, 775, 10.1088/0256-307X/16/10/027

    1999 doi

  9. [18]

    F., Dai , Z

    Huang , Y. F., Dai , Z. G., & Lu , T. 1999 b , , 309, 513, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02887.x

    1999

  10. [19]

    F., Gou , L

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

    2000 doi

  11. [20]

    Huang , Y.-F., Lu , Y., Wong , A. Y. L., & Cheng , K. S. 2007, , 7, 397, 10.1088/1009-9271/7/3/09

    2007 doi

  12. [21]

    F., Wu , X

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

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    2005, , 631, 429, 10.1086/432567

    Ioka , K., Kobayashi , S., & Zhang , B. 2005, , 631, 429, 10.1086/432567

    2005 doi

  14. [23]

    Laing, R. A. 1980, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 193, 439, 10.1093/mnras/193.3.439

    1980 doi

  15. [24]

    P., Nativi , L., Rosswog , S., et al

    Lamb , G. P., Nativi , L., Rosswog , S., et al. 2022, Universe, 8, 612, 10.3390/universe8120612

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    2016, , 816, 73, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/73

    Lan , M.-X., Wu , X.-F., & Dai , Z.-G. 2016, , 816, 73, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/73

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    2023, , 952, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6ef

    ---. 2023, , 952, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd6ef

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    D., Gill , R., et al

    Laskar , T., Alexander , K. D., Gill , R., et al. 2019, , 878, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2247

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    2023, , 525, 6285, 10.1093/mnras/stad2606

    Li , J.-D., Gao , H., Ai , S., & Lei , W.-H. 2023, , 525, 6285, 10.1093/mnras/stad2606

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    M., Vladimirov , V

    Lipunov , V. M., Vladimirov , V. V., Gorbovskoi , E. S., et al. 2019, Astronomy Reports, 63, 293, 10.1134/S1063772919040073

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    Longair , M. S. 1994, High energy astrophysics. Vol.2: Stars, the galaxy and the interstellar medium , Vol. 2

    1994

  22. [31]

    I., & Woosley , S

    MacFadyen , A. I., & Woosley , S. E. 1999, , 524, 262, 10.1086/307790

    1999 doi

  23. [32]

    2018, , 860, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5d9

    Mao , J., Covino , S., & Wang , J. 2018, , 860, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac5d9

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    V., & Loeb , A

    Medvedev , M. V., & Loeb , A. 1999, , 526, 697, 10.1086/308038

    1999 doi

  25. [34]

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 1997, , 482, L29, 10.1086/310692

    1997 doi

  26. [35]

    J., & Wijers , R

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Rees , M. J., & Wijers , R. A. M. J. 1998, , 499, 301, 10.1086/305635

    1998 doi

  27. [36]

    G., Kopa c , D., Arnold , D

    Mundell , C. G., Kopa c , D., Arnold , D. M., et al. 2013, , 504, 119, 10.1038/nature12814

    2013 doi

  28. [37]

    2000, , 534, L159, 10.1086/312663

    Nakamura , T. 2000, , 534, L159, 10.1086/312663

    2000 doi

  29. [38]

    2009, , 703, 675, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    Nakar , E., Ando , S., & Sari , R. 2009, , 703, 675, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    2009 doi

  30. [39]

    2009, , 394, L117, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00624.x

    Narayan , R., & Kumar , P. 2009, , 394, L117, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00624.x

    2009

  31. [40]

    1992, , 395, L83, 10.1086/186493

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

    1992 doi

  32. [41]

    2011, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol

    ORSI , S. 2011, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 6, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 403, 10.7529/ICRC2011/V06/1128

    2011 doi

  33. [42]

    2011, Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions, 7, 43, 10.5194/astra-7-43-2011

    Orsi , S., & Polar Collaboration . 2011, Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions, 7, 43, 10.5194/astra-7-43-2011

    2011 doi

  34. [43]

    1986, , 308, L43, 10.1086/184740

    Paczynski , B. 1986, , 308, L43, 10.1086/184740

    1986 doi

  35. [44]

    1991, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1991, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 265, Gamma-ray Bursts, 144--148, 10.1063/1.42815

    1991 doi

  36. [45]

    1991, , 41, 257

    ---. 1991, , 41, 257

    1991

  37. [46]

    1998, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1998, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 428, Gamma-Ray Bursts, 4th Hunstville Symposium, ed. C. A. Meegan , R. D. Preece , & T. M. Koshut , 783--787, 10.1063/1.55404

    1998 doi

  38. [47]

    2005, , 626, 966, 10.1086/430045

    Peng , F., K \"o nigl , A., & Granot , J. 2005, , 626, 966, 10.1086/430045

    2005 doi

  39. [48]

    J., & Meszaros , P

    Rees , M. J., & Meszaros , P. 1994, , 430, L93, 10.1086/187446

    1994 doi

  40. [49]

    M., Lazzati , D., Salmonson , J

    Rossi , E. M., Lazzati , D., Salmonson , J. D., & Ghisellini , G. 2004, , 354, 86, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08165.x

    2004

  41. [50]

    1999, , 524, L43, 10.1086/312294

    Sari , R. 1999, , 524, L43, 10.1086/312294

    1999 doi

  42. [51]

    Sari , R., & Esin , A. A. 2001, , 548, 787, 10.1086/319003

    2001 doi

  43. [52]

    1998, , 497, L17, 10.1086/311269

    Sari , R., Piran , T., & Narayan , R. 1998, , 497, L17, 10.1086/311269

    1998 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Piascik , A

    Shrestha , M., Steele , I. A., Piascik , A. S., et al. 2020, , 494, 4676, 10.1093/mnras/staa1049

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    A., Mundell , C

    Steele , I. A., Mundell , C. G., Smith , R. J., Kobayashi , S., & Guidorzi , C. 2009, , 462, 767, 10.1038/nature08590

    2009 doi

  46. [55]

    2019, , 884, L58, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab48f3

    Urata , Y., Toma , K., Huang , K., et al. 2019, , 884, L58, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab48f3

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 80, 10.1038/s41550-022-01832-7

    Urata , Y., Toma , K., Covino , S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 80, 10.1038/s41550-022-01832-7

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    C., Barkov , M

    Warren , D. C., Barkov , M. V., Ito , H., Nagataki , S., & Laskar , T. 2018, , 480, 4060, 10.1093/mnras/sty2138

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273, 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  50. [59]

    E., & Bloom , J

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

    2006 arXiv

  51. [60]

    F., Dai , Z

    Wu , X. F., Dai , Z. G., Huang , Y. F., & Lu , T. 2003, , 342, 1131, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06602.x

    2003

  52. [61]

    2005, , 357, 1197, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08685.x

    ---. 2005, , 357, 1197, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08685.x

    2005

  53. [62]

    2004, , 607, L103, 10.1086/421872

    Yamazaki , R., Ioka , K., & Nakamura , T. 2004, , 607, L103, 10.1086/421872

    2004 doi

  54. [63]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts , 10.1017/9781139226530

    Zhang , B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts , 10.1017/9781139226530

    2018 doi

  55. [64]

    2011, , 726, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    Zhang , B., & Yan , H. 2011, , 726, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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