Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Multi-wavelength Emission of Gamma-ray Burst Prompt Phase. II. Spectral Polarimetry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Energy-resolved polarization of gamma-ray burst prompt emission can, in principle, distinguish magnetic reconnection from photosphere models, since the reconnection model predicts a polarization degree that generally rises with frequency…

desk verdict Solid forward-modeling extension with a real new result, but the abstract's nonrandom-PA discriminator is guaranteed by the axisymmetric jet assumption and overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02397 v1 pith:GYMZEAXK submitted 2025-01-04 astro-ph.HE

Jia-Sheng Li , Mi-Xiang Lan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstspromptemissionpolarizationdegreeanglemagneticreconnectionphotospheremodelsynchrotronradiationspectralpolarimetry
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

Gamma-ray burst prompt emission can be produced by several physical models that yield similar light curves and spectra, so observers need extra diagnostics. This paper computes what the magnetic reconnection model predicts for the polarization spectrum, namely the polarization degree and angle as functions of frequency from optical to MeV gamma-rays, and compares those predictions with earlier photosphere-model calculations. It claims two robust differences: under magnetic reconnection the time-integrated polarization degree generally increases with frequency for on-axis observers, while the photosphere model gives a non-monotonic trend, and the polarization angle varies non-randomly with frequency under reconnection whereas the photosphere model predicts random angle changes. If these differences hold, upcoming energy-resolved polarimeters could tell the two models apart from a single burst. The paper also introduces the polarization-angle rotation spectrum, showing that the maximum angle swing within a burst shrinks toward higher energy bands, is largest for slightly off-axis viewing, and can occur even on-axis in the optical band.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on numerical integration of the Stokes parameters $Q_\nu$ and $U_\nu$ (and flux $f_\nu$) over equal-arrival-time surfaces of a radially accelerating relativistic thin shell, with synchrotron emission in an ordered magnetic field that is either aligned or toroidal. The local polarization degree is set by the photon spectral index through $\Pi_p = \tilde{\alpha}/(\tilde{\alpha} - 2/3)$, so the three-segment power-law spectrum produces three PD plateaus joined at the break and peak energies, and the time-integrated values are computed over the energy-dependent $T_{90}$ window. For toroidal fields axial symmetry forces $U_\nu = 0$, making the PA jump by $90^\circ$ whenever the PD changes sign, while for aligned fields the PA follows $\arctan(U/Q)$ with quadrant corrections. The $\Delta$PA spectrum, defined as the maximum minus minimum time-resolved PA within $T_{90}$, is introduced as a new observable that tracks how much the angle swings in each energy band.

What would settle it

An energy-resolved polarimetric observation of a bright on-axis GRB whose time-integrated polarization degree does not rise from the optical band to MeV gamma-rays, or whose polarization angle varies randomly with energy, would falsify the magnetic reconnection model's ordered-jet prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the magnetic reconnection model of GRB prompt emission makes two frequency-dependent polarization predictions that the photosphere model does not share: a time-integrated polarization degree that in general increases with photon frequency for on-axis observations, and a polarization angle whose variation with frequency is non-random. The paper also finds that the amplitude of polarization-angle rotation within the burst duration (the ΔPA spectrum) decreases with increasing observational energy, peaks for slightly off-axis lines of sight, and can be nonzero even for on-axis viewing in the optical band. For a toroidal field the rotation is an abrupt 90 degrees and rarely occurs in the gamma-ray band, whereas for an aligned field the rotation can take any value from 0 to 90 degrees and the X-ray and gamma-ray values are governed mainly by the product of the bulk Lorentz factor and jet opening angle.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume the jet is uniform and axisymmetric with a globally ordered magnetic field, either aligned or toroidal, so that the Stokes U parameter either vanishes or evolves coherently and the polarization angle variation stays non-random.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the monotonic PD-increase prediction is right, an energy-resolved measurement of a single bright on-axis GRB from optical to MeV can discriminate magnetic reconnection from photosphere emission without needing a large sample.
  • The non-random frequency dependence of the polarization angle provides a second, independent test: random PA variations with energy would point away from reconnection in an ordered axisymmetric jet.
  • The ΔPA spectrum gives a new diagnostic for magnetic field geometry and viewing geometry: for a toroidal field, gamma-ray-band PA flips should be rare, while for an aligned field the X-ray and gamma-ray swing is controlled mainly by the product of bulk Lorentz factor and jet opening angle.
  • Because the time-integrated PD in the optical R band converges to roughly 17% for all models and parameter sets studied, optical-only polarimetry is a weak discriminator; the discriminating power mounts toward X-ray and MeV energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If real jets are non-axisymmetric or patchy, as the paper's own caveat notes, both signatures (monotonic PD rise and nonrandom PA) would be smeared; a clean on-axis PA rotation in the optical band may be the most robust geometry indicator to test.
  • The predicted PD ranges at fixed bands (about 20–35% in X-ray, 45–55% at 300 keV, 47–60% at 1 MeV) could serve as quantitative priors when designing polarimetric exposure times for upcoming detectors, although this use is not stated in the paper.
  • Combining optical and gamma-ray polarimetry of the same burst would test whether the three-plateau PD spectrum and its plateau locations, tied to the break and peak energies, appear where the model expects; current data cannot resolve this test.
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. This paper computes time-resolved and time-integrated spectral polarimetry (PD spectra, PA spectra, and PA rotation spectra) for the magnetic reconnection model of GRB prompt emission, extending previous work by the same group to multi-wavelength bands from optical to MeV gamma-rays. The authors consider seven model variants that differ in magnetic-field decay index, mid-energy photon spectral index, electron characteristic Lorentz factor evolution, and bulk Lorentz factor acceleration profile, and they sweep the viewing angle, jet opening angle, and bulk Lorentz factor. The central claimed results are two model discriminators relative to the photosphere model: (i) the time-integrated PD of the magnetic reconnection model generally increases with frequency for on-axis observations, whereas the photosphere model predicts non-monotonic PD spectra; and (ii) the PA variations with frequency are nonrandom in the magnetic reconnection model but random in the photosphere model. The paper also reports, for the first time, PA rotation spectra within the burst duration and finds that the maximal PA rotation occurs for slightly off-axis observations and that the rotation value decreases with observational energy.

Significance. If the claimed discriminators are robust, the paper provides concrete, falsifiable predictions for upcoming energy-resolved polarimeters such as IXPE, POLAR-2, and COSI. The forward calculations use a standard EATS synchrotron framework with Stokes parameters integrated over the equal-arrival-time surface, and the qualitative trends are tested across seven model variants and several parameter sweeps, which strengthens the generality of the PD-increase trend within the idealized model. The paper is also timely because multi-wavelength polarization data will soon be available. However, the second claimed discriminator, nonrandom PA variation, is not robust to the assumed axisymmetric ordered field geometry, and the abstract and conclusions present it without the caveats that the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 4. The paper's value lies mainly in the detailed predictions for idealized uniform jets; its model-discrimination claims need careful qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Abstract] The second claimed model discriminator, that the magnetic reconnection model produces nonrandom PA variations with frequency, is guaranteed by the model's symmetry assumptions rather than emerging from the physics. In Section 2 the jet is assumed to be uniform and axisymmetric, and Eq. (A1) gives U_nu = 0 for toroidal fields by axial symmetry and a coherent U_nu/Q_nu for aligned fields, so the time-integrated PA is mathematically incapable of being random. The contrast with the photosphere model is therefore built into the assumed field geometry. The authors explicitly concede in Section 4 that "the jet is assumed to be uniform and axisymmetric" and that "PA of the on-axis observation could also change continuously for non-axisymmetric patchy jets (Gill & Granot 2024)", yet the abstract states the nonrandom-PA difference without this caveat. Please rephrase the abstract and conclusions to present the PA nonrandomness as conditional on globally ordered, axisymmetric fields, and explicitly discuss whether the PD-increase trend, which only requires ordered local fields, is the more robust discriminator.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (8)-(9), and Abstract] The term "on-axis observations" is used inconsistently. Section 3.1 defines on-axis as q = theta_V/theta_j <= 1/(Gamma0 theta_j), whereas the fiducial parameters in Section 3 (Gamma0 = 250, theta_j = 0.1 rad, theta_V = 0.05 rad) give q = 0.5, which is outside that range, and the abstract uses "on-axis" without qualification. Moreover, for exactly theta_V = 0 with a toroidal field, the axial symmetry in Eq. (A1) makes the net linear polarization vanish, so the claimed "time-integrated PD would in general increase with frequency for on-axis observations" depends on the adopted finite-q definition and is not a statement about strictly on-axis lines of sight. Please specify the viewing geometry used for each qualitative claim and state explicitly how the PD spectrum behaves at exactly theta_V = 0.
  3. [Section 4 and Abstract] The claim that PA variations are "random" in the photosphere model and "not random" in the magnetic reconnection model is not supported by a quantitative definition of randomness or by a common statistical measure applied to both models. The comparison relies solely on the published results of Parsotan & Lazzati (2022), which use different assumptions and simulation setups, and no explicit criterion is given for how future observations would classify a PA series as random versus nonrandom in the presence of measurement noise and limited energy resolution. Please define the testable statistic (e.g., the distribution of PA jumps between adjacent energy bins, or the persistence of PA order across energy channels) and state what threshold would separate the two models.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] There are several typographical errors, including "in comission" for "in commission", "enengy bands" for "energy bands", "sepctra" for "spectra" in footnote 2, "consisered" for "considered" in Section 3, "duo" for "due" after Eq. (9), and "syntropy" for "symmetry" in Appendix B.
  2. [Section 3.1] The abbreviation "MFC" is used in Section 3.1 and in Table 1 but is never defined; please define it at first use (presumably "magnetic field configuration" or similar) and use a consistent notation.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence "Both the time-resolved and time-integrated polarization angles (PAs) are constants with frequency for on-axis observation" is too broad, because later results and Section 4 state that PAs rotate gradually for slightly off-axis observations in the aligned-field case. Please clarify that this sentence applies only to the strict near-axis regime q <= 1/(Gamma0 theta_j).
  4. [Figures 7 and 8] The inset panels showing PA curves with three ~90-degree rotations are difficult to read at the displayed size, especially for the Gamma0 = 500 and 800 cases and the theta_j = 0.2 rad case; please enlarge these insets or describe the three-rotation structure more explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization spectra are forward model calculations from stated assumptions, with model parameters fixed to fiducial values rather than fitted to the predicted polarimetric outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are forward calculations. The time-resolved and time-integrated Stokes parameters are integrated from stated microphysical and geometrical assumptions (Section 2; Appendix Eq. A1), and the model parameters (Gamma0=250, theta_j=0.1, B0=30 G, gamma_ch values, etc., Section 3) are fixed to fiducial GRB values rather than fitted to any polarization data. The two claimed model-discrimination signatures are then tested across a 7-model grid and over variations of q, Gamma0, and theta_j, so they are not renamed fits. The claim that the magnetic reconnection model's PA is nonrandom with frequency does follow from the explicit assumption of a uniform, axisymmetric jet with a globally ordered magnetic field, and the authors themselves concede in Section 4 that 'the jet is assumed to be uniform and axisymmetric' and that non-axisymmetric patchy jets could produce continuous PA changes (Gill & Granot 2024). That is a robustness limitation, not circularity: the prediction is a conditional consequence of stated premises, not an input-equivalent result, and the authors flag the condition. Self-citations to Lan & Dai (2020), Sui & Lan (2024), and Li et al. (2024) supply the Stokes machinery and some parameter conventions, but those are independent forward-modeling results with stated assumptions, and the new spectral-polarimetry trends are computed in this paper rather than imported as conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model imports a substantial apparatus from prior work: a power-law expanding shell, synchrotron emissivity, EATS integration, and fiducial GRB parameters. The central claim adds no new physical entities, but the quantitative PD and PA predictions depend on the fiducial parameter values listed above; the qualitative trends are checked against parameter variations.

free parameters (13)
  • Bulk Lorentz factor normalization Gamma0 = 250 (fiducial; varied 50-800)
    Sets jet beaming and Doppler factor, strongly affecting PD magnitude.
  • Magnetic field normalization B0' = 30 G
    Sets synchrotron peak and cooling break, hence the PD plateau levels.
  • Jet half-opening angle theta_j = 0.1 rad (varied 0.01-0.4 rad)
    Controls the Gamma0 theta_j product that sets on-axis versus off-axis regimes.
  • Viewing angle theta_V = 0.05 rad (q=0.5, fiducial)
    Determines whether toroidal field polarization cancels and is central to the PD increase claim.
  • Electron spectral index p = 2.6
    Sets photon spectral indices and the local PD through Eq. A2.
  • Characteristic electron Lorentz factor gamma_ch^i = 5e4
    Sets nu_min evolution in the hard-to-soft model.
  • Characteristic electron Lorentz factor gamma_ch^m = 2e5
    Sets nu_min evolution in the intensity-tracking model.
  • Magnetic field decay index b = 1 (varied 1, 1.25, 1.5)
    Controls radial decay of B and hence how PD grows with radius.
  • Lorentz factor acceleration index s = 0 (toroidal) or 0.35 (aligned)
    Controls the Gamma(r) profile and EATS geometry.
  • Emission start and end radii r_on, r_off = 1e14 cm, 3e16 cm
    Sets integration limits and the T90 duration definition.
  • gamma_ch radial index g = -0.2 (i model), 1.0 (m model)
    Sets hard-to-soft versus intensity-tracking spectral evolution.
  • Aligned field orientation delta = pi/6
    Sets the baseline polarization angle for aligned-field models.
  • Mid-energy photon spectral index alpha_2 = -1 or -1.5
    Sets the second PD plateau level through the local spectral index.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Local synchrotron polarization degree is Pi_p = alpha/(alpha - 2/3) for a power-law electron distribution (Eq. A2).
    Standard result from Rybicki & Lightman 1979; governs all PD plateau values.
  • domain assumption Emission region is a radially expanding thin shell with Gamma(r) proportional to r^s and B'(r) proportional to r^{-b} (Eqs. 1-2).
    Imported from Drenkhahn 2002; the geometry determines EATS and polarization cancellation.
  • domain assumption The electron injection spectrum is a power law N(gamma) proportional to gamma^{-p} and the synchrotron spectrum is a three-segment power law (Eq. 3).
    Standard synchrotron assumption; p=2.6 is chosen from observations.
  • domain assumption The jet is uniform and axisymmetric with a globally ordered magnetic field, aligned or toroidal, and no patchy structure.
    This makes PA variation nonrandom; the authors note in Section 4 that patchy jets break it.
  • standard math Equal-arrival-time surface integration with observer time t_obs = (t - r cos theta/c - t_on + r_on/c)(1+z) (Eq. A6).
    Standard GRB integration from Sari 1998 and Uhm & Zhang 2016.
  • domain assumption Magnetic reconnection accelerates the electrons that produce the synchrotron photons.
    Central physical premise of the model; no microphysics is simulated in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-wavelength Emission of Gamma-ray Burst Prompt Phase. II. Spectral Polarimetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYMZEAXK

@misc{pith2026250102397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-wavelength Emission of Gamma-ray Burst Prompt Phase. II. Spectral Polarimetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYMZEAXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02397}
}
read the original abstract

Polarization spectra had been predicted within the photosphere model. For the purpose of seeking more clues to distinguish between the models, both the time-resolved and time-integrated polarization spectra from optical band to MeV gamma-rays of the magnetic reconnection model are studied here. There are two newly found differences between the two models. First, the time-integrated polarization degree (PD) of the magnetic reconnection model would in general increase with frequency for on-axis observations, while it is not monotonous for the photosphere model. Second, the variations of both the time-integrated and the time-resolved polarization angles (PAs) with frequency of the magnetic reconnection model is not random, while the time-integrated PA varies randomly with frequency for the photosphere model. Therefore, future energy-resolved polarization analysis could distinguish between the two models. In addition, the PA rotation spectra are studied for the first time. The rotation value of PA within the burst duration will decrease with the increase of the observational energy band. Most significant PA rotation would happen for slightly off-axis observations in each energy band. The PA would rotate even for on-axis observations in optical band. Compared with the aligned magnetic field case, the PA rotation is quite rare in the gamma-ray band for the case with a toroidal field in the radiation region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02397 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectra and polarization spectra of the 7 models at the peak time of the corresponding light curve of each model at 300 keV. Top, middle and bottom panels show the spectra, PD spectra and PA spectra, respectively. The black-solid, red-dashed, green-dotted, blue-dash-dotted, cyan-double-dot-dashed, magenta-short-dashed, and purple-short-dashed lines correspond to the models of [1bi], [1ci], [1di], [1bi2], [1bm], [2bi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time-integrated polarization spectra for the 7 models. Top and bottom panels show the time-integrated PD and PA spectra, respectively. The black, red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, and purple lines correspond to the models of [1bi], [1ci], [1di], [1bi2], [1bm], [2bi], and [2bm], respectively. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 -2 -1 0 1 2 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 -0.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-integrated polarization spectra with various q values. Left and right panels correspond to the models of [1bi] and [2bi], respectively. PA shows abrupt 90◦ change when the PD changes its sign for the [1bi] model, so only the PD spectra are shown in the left panel. In the right panel, top and bottom panels show the time-integrated PD and PA spectra, respectively. The black, red, green, blue, cyan, and magenta so… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-integrated polarization spectra with various Γ0 values. Top and bottom panels show the time-integrated PD and PA spectra, respectively. The solid and dashed lines correspond to models of [1bi] and [2bi], respectively. The black, red, green, blue, and cyan lines co…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-integrated polarization spectra with various θj values. Top and bottom panels show the time-integrated PD and PA spectra, respectively. The solid and dashed lines correspond to models of [1bi] and [2bi], respectively. The black, red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PA rotation spectra within T90 for various q values. Left and right panels correspond to the models of [1bi] and [2bi], respectively. In the left panel, the black, red, green, blue, cyan, and magenta lines correspond to q = 0.7, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 and 2, respectively. In…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PA rotation spectra of q = 1.2 for various Γ0 values. The left and right panels correspond to the models of [1bi] and [2bi], respectively. The black, red, green, blue, and cyan lines correspond to Γ0 = 50, 100, 250, 500 and 800, respectively. For the [2bi] model, the ∆…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PA rotation spectra of q = 1.2 for various θj values. The left and right panels correspond to the models of [1bi] and [2bi], respectively. The black, red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, and purple lines correspond to θj = 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 rad, res…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    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

  2. [2]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, , 848, L13

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    A., & Vereshchagin , G

    B \'e gu \'e , D., Siutsou , I. A., & Vereshchagin , G. V. 2013, , 767, 139

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2011, , 737, 68

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    2016, , 459, 3635

    Beniamini , P., & Granot , J. 2016, , 459, 3635

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    S., Kulkarni , S

    Bloom , J. S., Kulkarni , S. R., Djorgovski , S. G., et al. 1999, , 401, 453

    work page 1999

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    2024, , 687, A128

    Cheng , K., Zhao , X., Mao , J., & Chen , Z. 2024, , 687, A128

    2024

  2. [10]

    2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Daigne , F., Bo s njak , Z ., & Dubus , G. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1133, Gamma-ray Burst: Sixth Huntsville Symposium, ed. C. Meegan , C. Kouveliotou , & N. Gehrels (AIP), 288--293

    2009

  3. [11]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference

    de Angelis , N., & Polar-2 Collaboration . 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference. 12-23 July 2021. Berlin, 580

    2022

  4. [12]

    M., Cadoux , F., et al

    De Angelis , N., Burgess , J. M., Cadoux , F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.00507

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2002, , 387, 714

    Drenkhahn , G. 2002, , 387, 714

    2002

  6. [14]

    2000, , 529, 146

    Eichler , D., & Levinson , A. 2000, , 529, 146

    2000

  7. [15]

    2018, , 609, A112

    Ghirlanda , G., Nappo , F., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2018, , 609, A112

    2018

  8. [16]

    2008, , 480, 305

    Giannios , D. 2008, , 480, 305

    2008

  9. [17]

    2024, , 527, 12178

    Gill , R., & Granot , J. 2024, , 527, 12178

    2024

  10. [18]

    2020, , 491, 3343

    Gill , R., Granot , J., & Kumar , P. 2020, , 491, 3343

    2020

  11. [19]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 82

    Gill , R., Kole , M., & Granot , J. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 82

    2021

  12. [20]

    2017, , 848, L14

    Goldstein , A., Veres , P., Burns , E., et al. 2017, , 848, L14

    2017

  13. [21]

    2016, , 816, L20

    Granot , J. 2016, , 816, L20

    2016

  14. [22]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A160

    Guan , & Lan . 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A160

    2023

  15. [23]

    2003, , 423, 847

    Hjorth , J., Sollerman , J., M ller , P., et al. 2003, , 423, 847

    2003

  16. [24]

    2020, , 892, 141

    Lan , M.-X., & Dai , Z.-G. 2020, , 892, 141

    2020

  17. [25]

    2021, , 909, 184

    Lan , M.-X., Wang , H.-B., Xu , S., Liu , S., & Wu , X.-F. 2021, , 909, 184

    2021

  18. [26]

    2016, , 816, 73

    Lan , M.-X., Wu , X.-F., & Dai , Z.-G. 2016, , 816, 73

    2016

  19. [27]

    2018, , 860, 44

    ---. 2018, , 860, 44

    2018

  20. [28]

    J., & Begelman , M

    Lazzati , D., Morsony , B. J., & Begelman , M. C. 2009, , 700, L47

    2009

  21. [29]

    J., Margutti , R., & Begelman , M

    Lazzati , D., Morsony , B. J., Margutti , R., & Begelman , M. C. 2013, , 765, 103

    2013

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Lazzati , D., Perna , R., Morsony , B. J., et al. 2018, , 120, 241103

    2018

  23. [31]

    2024, , 970, 10

    Li , J.-S., Lan , M.-X., & Wang , H.-B. 2024, , 970, 10

    2024

  24. [32]

    M., Aykutalp , A., & Johnson , J

    Lloyd-Ronning , N. M., Aykutalp , A., & Johnson , J. L. 2019, , 488, 5823

    2019

  25. [33]

    2013, , 428, 2430

    Lundman , C., Pe'er , A., & Ryde , F. 2013, , 428, 2430

    2013

  26. [34]

    Lundman , C., Vurm , I., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2018, , 856, 145

    2018

  27. [35]

    I., Woosley , S

    MacFadyen , A. I., Woosley , S. E., & Heger , A. 2001, , 550, 410

    2001

  28. [36]

    A., Deng , J., Tominaga , N., et al

    Mazzali , P. A., Deng , J., Tominaga , N., et al. 2003, , 599, L95

    2003

  29. [37]

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 2000, , 530, 292

    2000

  30. [38]

    2011, , 732, 26

    Mizuta , A., Nagataki , S., & Aoi , J. 2011, , 732, 26

    2011

  31. [39]

    2011, , 731, 80

    Nagakura , H., Ito , H., Kiuchi , K., & Yamada , S. 2011, , 731, 80

    2011

  32. [40]

    1992, , 395, L83

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

    1992

  33. [41]

    2023, , 946, L21

    Negro , M., Di Lalla , N., Omodei , N., et al. 2023, , 946, L21

    2023

  34. [42]

    2017, , 846, 137

    Oganesyan , G., Nava , L., Ghirlanda , G., & Celotti , A. 2017, , 846, 137

    2017

  35. [43]

    2018, , 616, A138

    ---. 2018, , 616, A138

    2018

  36. [44]

    2019, , 628, A59

    Oganesyan , G., Nava , L., Ghirlanda , G., Melandri , A., & Celotti , A. 2019, , 628, A59

    2019

  37. [45]

    1994, , 427, 708

    Paczynski , B., & Xu , G. 1994, , 427, 708

    1994

  38. [46]

    2022, , 926, 104

    Parsotan , T., & Lazzati , D. 2022, , 926, 104

    2022

  39. [47]

    2020, , 896, 139

    Parsotan , T., L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., & Lazzati , D. 2020, , 896, 139

    2020

  40. [48]

    2011, , 732, 49

    Pe'er , A., & Ryde , F. 2011, , 732, 49

    2011

  41. [49]

    2021, , 913, 60

    Poolakkil , S., Preece , R., Fletcher , C., et al. 2021, , 913, 60

    2021

  42. [50]

    E., Ghirlanda , G., Nava , L., & Ghisellini , G

    Ravasio , M. E., Ghirlanda , G., Nava , L., & Ghisellini , G. 2019, , 625, A60

    2019

  43. [51]

    J., & Meszaros , P

    Rees , M. J., & Meszaros , P. 1994, , 430, L93

    1994

  44. [52]

    J., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P

    Rees , M. J., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2005, , 628, 847

    2005

  45. [53]

    2023, , 959, 13

    Rouco Escorial , A., Fong , W., Berger , E., et al. 2023, , 959, 13

    2023

  46. [54]

    A., & Vereshchagin , G

    Ruffini , R., Siutsou , I. A., & Vereshchagin , G. V. 2013, , 772, 11

    2013

  47. [55]

    B., & Lightman , A

    Rybicki , G. B., & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  48. [56]

    1998, , 494, L49

    Sari , R. 1998, , 494, L49

    1998

  49. [57]

    1998, , 497, L17

    Sari , R., Piran , T., & Narayan , R. 1998, , 497, L17

    1998

  50. [58]

    2024, , arXiv:2403.10718

    Sui , L.-Q., & Lan , M.-X. 2024, , arXiv:2403.10718

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    1994, , 270, 480

    Thompson , C. 1994, , 270, 480

    1994

  52. [60]

    2021, , 652, A123

    Toffano , M., Ghirlanda , G., Nava , L., et al. 2021, , 652, A123

    2021

  53. [61]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1042

    Toma, K., Sakamoto, T., Zhang, B., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1042

    2009

  54. [62]

    2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Tomsick , J., Zoglauer , A., Sleator , C., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 98

    2019

  55. [63]

    L., & Zhang , B

    Uhm , Z. L., & Zhang , B. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 351

    2014

  56. [64]

    2015, , 808, 33

    ---. 2015, , 808, 33

    2015

  57. [65]

    2016, , 825, 97

    ---. 2016, , 825, 97

    2016

  58. [66]

    L., Zhang , B., & Racusin , J

    Uhm , Z. L., Zhang , B., & Racusin , J. 2018, , 869, 100

    2018

  59. [67]

    2023 a , , 946, 12

    Wang , H.-B., & Lan , M.-X. 2023 a , , 946, 12

    2023

  60. [68]

    2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.16618

    ---. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.16618

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273

    1993

  62. [70]

    F., & Lee , S

    Xu , M., Nagataki , S., Huang , Y. F., & Lee , S. H. 2012, , 746, 49

    2012

  63. [71]

    D., Greiner , J., et al

    Yu , H.-F., Preece , R. D., Greiner , J., et al. 2016, , 588, A135

    2016

  64. [72]

    2011, , 726, 90

    Zhang , B., & Yan , H. 2011, , 726, 90

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.