Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Discovery of high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation in short-duration gamma-ray bursts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Three short gamma-ray bursts show kilohertz oscillations at above 5.2-sigma confidence, which the authors attribute to a hypermassive neutron star briefly surviving a binary neutron star merger.

desk verdict First systematic kilohertz-QPO search of 605 Fermi/GBM short GRBs yields three plausible candidates; the statistics are careful but the pure-Poisson null and missing code keep it short of definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14207 v2 pith:DWVPZY3J submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.HE

Xing Yang , Hou-Jun Lü , Jared Rice , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords quasi-periodicoscillationshortgamma-rayburstshypermassiveneutronstarmagnetarcentralengineFermi/GBMpowerspectrumanalysismerger
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 claims to have found the first high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillations in the prompt gamma-ray emission of short gamma-ray bursts observed by Fermi/GBM. After analyzing 605 short bursts, three of them (GRBs 120323A, 181222B, and 190606A) show coherent oscillations at roughly 1258 Hz, 623 Hz, and 1410 Hz, each with a claimed confidence above 5.2 sigma. The authors argue that random Poisson noise, detector dead time, and detector saturation cannot explain these signals, and that the oscillation appears only in the first pulse and the rising part of the second pulse. They interpret the oscillations as imprints of a hypermassive magnetar formed in a neutron star merger, surviving for only tens of milliseconds before collapsing to a black hole. If correct, this would provide a new observable for probing the equation of state of dense nuclear matter through short GRBs.

What carries the argument

The search uses power spectra of 2.048-second light curves binned at 128 microseconds, formed by summing up to 12 NaI detectors of Fermi/GBM ranked by angular distance to the burst. Each raw periodogram $I_j$ is divided by its best-fit broken-power-law plus constant $S_j$ to produce renormalized powers $R_j = 2I_j/S_j$, which are expected to follow a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees of freedom. The detection statistic is the maximum sum $R_k$ over $k$ consecutive Fourier frequencies, for $k$ from 1 to 10, across 120 correlated trials per GRB; the probability $G_k$ that such a maximum arises from pure Poisson noise is calibrated with $10^{10}$ simulated power spectra, and the global per-GRB maximum $G_{\rm max}$ is compared against $10^8$ simulated GRBs to assign a trial-corrected confidence level.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the claim by taking the three bursts' observed count envelopes and randomly reassigning photon arrival times within each envelope, then running the identical 120-trial maximum search: if the noise-only ensemble produces as many $G_{\max}>6\sigma$ outcomes as the real data do, the QPO is a statistical artifact. Alternatively, a Bayesian or bootstrap re-analysis that fits the Lorentzian and a noise model simultaneously to each burst's raw TTE counts would directly test whether the 5.2-$\sigma$ tail probability holds for these specific bursts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that three short GRBs—GRB 120323A, GRB 181222B, and GRB 190606A—exhibit quasi-periodic oscillations in their prompt gamma-ray light curves at $1258^{+6}_{-6}$ Hz, $623^{+4}_{-4}$ Hz, and $1410^{+4}_{-5}$ Hz, respectively, all with a confidence level above $5.2\sigma$. The oscillation signal is present in the first pulse and the rising part of the second pulse, and disappears during the decay of the second pulse, lasting only tens of milliseconds. The authors interpret this as evidence for a hypermassive neutron star central engine whose differential rotation and strong magnetic fields launch quasi-periodic electromagnetic emission before the remnant collapses into a black hole.

Load-bearing premise

The significance calculation assumes that the power ratios $R_j$ of real, non-stationary, non-saturated Fermi/GBM burst light curves follow the same chi-square-with-2-degrees-of-freedom distribution as the pure-Poisson-noise simulations used to calibrate the search statistic, including in the extreme tail sampled by the maximum over 120 correlated trials for the three specific bursts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the detections hold, the three bursts provide the first high-frequency QPOs seen in the prompt emission of short GRBs, extending the kilohertz QPO phenomenon beyond the two BATSE bursts previously reported.
  • A confirmed hypermassive neutron star interpretation would make each oscillation frequency a measure of the merger remnant's dynamical state, giving a direct constraint on the neutron star equation of state at densities reached only in mergers.
  • The absence of equivalent >$6\sigma$ signals in the 470,984 non-saturated long-GRB time windows supports the paper's conclusion that detector dead time and saturation are not the source, so future searches can adopt the same control strategy.
  • The QPOs appear only in the first pulse and the rising part of the second pulse, which the paper argues is intrinsic physics rather than a time-step artifact; that timing behavior becomes a new observable for merger-remnant models to reproduce.
  • A systematic search applied to future joint gravitational-wave and short-GRB events, as the paper itself encourages, could convert this candidate population into a confirmed probe of merger remnant lifetimes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The claimed 5.2 sigma is a trial-corrected maximum over 120 correlated searches, so it should not be compared with per-bin significance; a reader who wants to weigh the claim should focus on the tail behavior of the $R_j$ distribution for these three bursts, which the reported aggregate checks constrain only indirectly.
  • A decisive extension the paper does not perform is to scramble each burst's photon arrival times within its observed envelope and rerun the full pipeline; if such noise-only realizations still produce $G_{\max}$ above 6 sigma, the detection significance would be substantially reduced.
  • If the oscillations are real, the frequency ratios (approximately 1 : 2.02 : 2.26) could be compared with oscillation modes of differentially rotating hypermassive neutron star models, a test that would discriminate between magnetospheric and seismic origins and that the paper leaves implicit.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper searches for high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the prompt emission of 605 short gamma-ray bursts observed by Fermi/GBM. Using 128-microsecond binned light curves from up to 12 NaI detectors, the authors construct 12 summed light curves per burst, compute their power spectra, fit a broken power law plus constant continuum, and search for excess power summed over k=1..10 consecutive frequency bins. They flag three bursts (120323A, 181222B, 190606A) with a maximum G_k value above the 6-sigma threshold, inferring centroid frequencies of 1258, 623, and 1410 Hz with a claimed confidence above 5.2 sigma. The calibration rests on 10^10 pure-Poisson power spectra and 10^8 simulated GRBs, and the interpretation invokes a hypermassive magnetar as the central engine.

Significance. If the detection claim is correct, this would be the first reported high-frequency QPOs in short GRBs from Fermi/GBM, complementing the BATSE result of Chirenti et al. (2023) and providing a potential probe of the neutron-star equation of state through hypermassive-magnetar oscillations. The systematic sample selection, large-scale null simulations, and the instrumental-response check using long GRBs are valuable features. However, the significance depends critically on the assumption that pure-Poisson simulations reproduce the statistical tail of real, non-stationary burst light curves; the paper's own aggregate checks do not directly validate that tail for the three candidates.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figure 1] The observed Gmax distribution for the 605 short GRBs does not match the pure-Poisson null in the tail: 13 bursts have Gmax between 4 sigma and 6 sigma, whereas the null predicts about 0.02 such bursts (605 x 3.17e-5). This discrepancy, which the paper acknowledges but does not resolve, implies that the null model used to calibrate the 5.2 sigma claim is not representative of the real sample. Consequently, the per-burst false-alarm probability of 1.3e-7 and the binomial trio probability of 8.06e-14 are not credible as stated. The paper must provide a quantitative comparison of the observed and simulated Gmax distributions (e.g., a KS test or an empirical tail calibration) and either revise the significance or demonstrate that the 4-6 sigma excess arises from genuine QPOs distinct from the null.
  2. [Section 3.1] The null simulations draw pure Poisson noise and do not reproduce the non-stationary, burst-envelope count-rate structure or the per-detector rates of the three candidate bursts. The aggregate Rj checks in Section 3.3 and the long-GRB control in Section 3.2 do not directly validate the extreme tail of the Gmax distribution for these specific bursts: the long-GRB windows are not centered on bursts, and the only >6 sigma events in long GRBs come from two saturated bursts. I recommend rerunning the Gmax calibration using simulated light curves with the observed burst envelopes (e.g., a template of the count rate plus Poisson fluctuations) for the three candidates, and reporting the resulting per-burst false-alarm probabilities.
  3. [Section 2.2, Table 1] The Lorentzian widths reported in Table 1 are 1 Hz, 0.6 Hz, and 0.7 Hz, which are at or below the nominal Fourier frequency resolution of 1/2.048 s = 0.488 Hz. The claimed centroid uncertainties of +/-4-6 Hz are derived from the 90% integral area of the Lorentzian profile and do not account for the frequency-bin discretization of the periodogram. The paper should state the effective frequency resolution after the k-binned search and discuss whether the fitted widths are consistent with an unresolved line; otherwise the central frequencies may be overinterpreted.
  4. [Section 3.4] The duration analysis in Section 3.4 uses a per-window threshold of Rj > 6 (approximately 2 sigma for a single trial) without correcting for the number of time windows and frequency bins searched in Figure 7. The claim that 5-7 consecutive 0.256-second windows show the signal needs a trial-corrected significance. As written, the probability of such runs under the null may be non-negligible, so the duration estimate does not robustly support the conclusion that the QPO originates in the prompt emission.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'e.g. GRB 120323A, GRB 181222B, and GRB 190606A' should read 'i.e.' or 'namely', because these are the three detected bursts, not examples.
  2. [Equation (11)] The quantity N_kmax is not explicitly defined in the text; the authors should state that it is the number of simulated power spectra for which R_kmax exceeds the observed value.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'the confidence level of the three quasi-periodic signals are exceed 5.2 sigma' is grammatically incorrect and should be reworded. Also, the phrase 'there is 1.3x10^-7 probability to get a Gmax above 6 sigma' should clarify that 5.2 sigma corresponds to that probability.
  4. [Figure 1] The x-axis label 'Confidence probability (log10 1/(1-Gmax))' is not defined in the text; the transformation between Gmax and the sigma scale should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Section 3.3] The statement that 'the confidence level of short GRBs and long GRBs within 3 sigma completely overlap with that of the simulated GRBs' is not supported by a quantitative test; a KS test or a similar comparison would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the QPO detection is an empirical null-hypothesis test whose 5.2-sigma calibration is independent of the fitted QPO parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical detection from Fermi/GBM light curves, calibrated by Monte Carlo null simulations. Equations (8)-(11) define the search statistic Rj and its noise probability Gk from 10^10 pure-Poisson power spectra; Equation (12) and Section 3.1 use a separate 10^8-GRB simulation to correct for the 120 dependent trials and produce the 5.2-sigma threshold. No fitted parameter from the three candidate bursts enters the null calibration; the Lorentzian centroid frequencies in Table 1 are measured after selection and are not used to compute the confidence. The broken-power-law continuum fit is a nuisance baseline, and the paper explicitly checks the Rj distribution against chi-square_2 in Figures 4-6 and against a long-GRB control sample in Section 3.2. The stated weakness (pure-Poisson nulls may not reproduce the tail behavior of non-stationary real bursts) is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity: the null is not defined in terms of the detection. The magnetar interpretation in Section 4 is presented as tentative and even self-critically lists unresolved questions; it is not used to derive the detection. Hence no load-bearing self-citation or equation-level reduction is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a statistical detection rather than a derivation, so the axiom ledger contains the statistical and instrumental assumptions behind the significance calculation. No new physical entities are introduced; the hypermassive magnetar is an existing theoretical construct imported from prior literature.

free parameters (1)
  • Broken power-law continuum parameters (alpha1, alpha2, j_b, C) = not reported in text
    These are fit to each power spectrum to define the baseline S_j used in Eq. (8). The detection significance R_j depends on this baseline, so a misfit could bias the QPO significance. The parameters are nuisance quantities, not the scientific result.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The periodogram of Poisson counting noise follows a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees of freedom, and the maximum-likelihood fit in Eq. (7) is unbiased.
    Used to model I_j and to interpret R_j = 2 I_j/S_j, stated after Eq. (5) and used throughout Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption Fermi/GBM TTE data are accurately timestamped and the 50-900 keV energy selection isolates the burst emission without introducing narrow spectral features at the searched frequencies.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to justify extracting light curves with 128 microsecond bins; the instrumental response section (3.2) partially tests this.
  • ad hoc to paper The broken power law plus constant (Eq. 6) is an adequate model for the continuum power spectrum of short GRB light curves, so that residuals are approximately white and chi-square distributed.
    This functional form is chosen in Eq. (6) without a physical derivation; the paper validates it empirically with Figures 4-6.
  • ad hoc to paper Pure Poisson noise simulations reproduce the statistical dependence structure of the real per-detector summed light curves, including the correlation among the 12 nested sums and the 10 k-binned searches.
    Used in Section 3.1 to derive the 5.2 sigma confidence; the simulation does not model the non-stationary burst envelope or the actual per-detector count-rate ratios, which is a gap.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation in short-duration gamma-ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWVPZY3J

@misc{pith2026250114207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation in short-duration gamma-ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWVPZY3J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14207}
}
abstract

Rapidly rotating newborn magnetars, which originate from binary neutron star (NS) mergers and serve as the central engines of short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), may leave some imprints on their prompt gamma-ray light curves even though they are far from their radiating fireballs. A high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) would be a unique feature for the magnetar central engine, especially a hypermassive magnetar. By conducting a systematic analysis of the prompt gamma-ray light curves from 605 short GRBs observed by {\em Fermi}/Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, we have identified such QPO signals in three GRBs (e.g. GRB 120323A, GRB 181222B, and GRB 190606A). The QPOs that peaked at $1258^{+6}_{-6}$ Hz for GRB 120323A, $623^{+4}_{-4}$ Hz for GRB 181222B, and $1410^{+4}_{-5}$ Hz for GRB 190606A are all with a confidence level above 5.2 $\sigma$. The high-frequency QPO signals of those three short GRBs may be caused by a hypermassive magnetar acting as the central engine in a binary NS merger of a binary NS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The confidence probability distribution of 605 short GRBs (red line), 108 times of simulations by adopting random Poisson noise (green line), and 470984 time windows in 3069 long GRBs (blue line) with normalization in both linear scale (top) and logarithmic scale (bottom). Different vertical lines correspond to 3 𝜎, 4 𝜎, 5 𝜎, and 6 𝜎 of 𝐺max values, respectively. MNRAS 000, 1–?? (0000) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The merged light curves of prompt emission of short GRBs 120323A, 181222B, and 190606A (A). Power spectrum 𝐼j and 𝑆j with broken power-law fit(B) and Lorentzian function in inset window. The ratio 𝑅j between 𝐼j to 𝑆j (C). Distributions of 𝑅j and 𝜒 2 2 (D), and 𝑅𝑘 ( 𝑗) (E). Confidence levels shown are for the value of k indicated in each figure, as determined from simulations (see Section 3). MNRAS 000, 1–?? (0000) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of all 𝑅𝑗 values of short GRBs (left) and Long GRBs (right) in both linear scale (top) and logarithmic scale (bottom), and 𝜒 2 2 distribution. 0 10 20 30 40 50 max(Rj) 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 Ratio(counts/total number) max(Rj…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of max(Rj ) values of short GRBs (top), and Long GRBs (bottom), and 108 simulated GRBs. MNRAS 000, 1–?? (0000) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The average and variance of 𝑅j values of each Fourier frequency for short GRBs (left) and Long GRBs (right). The blue dashed lines are average and variance of 𝜒 2 2 distribution. 0 10 20 Counts/bin Fig-A:NaI:n3+n0+n1+n4+n6 +n5+n7+n2+n9+n8+nb Light-curve of GRB120323A -…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Light curves of prompt emission of short GRBs 120323A, 181222B, and 190606A (A). 2D image-style graph of power spectrum in 0.256 time window with step size of 0.0512 seconds (B). The red dashed and purple dashed lines are the first and last time segments where the sign…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2017, , 848, L12. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  3. [3]

    Acheson, D. J. & Gibbons, M. P.\ 1978, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 289, 459. doi:10.1098/rsta.1978.0066

    work page arXiv 1978

  4. [4]

    B., Axelsson M., Baldini L., Ballet J., et al., 2014, Sci, 343, 42

    Ackermann M., Ajello M., Asano K., Atwood W. B., Axelsson M., Baldini L., Ballet J., et al., 2014, Sci, 343, 42. doi:10.1126/science.1242353

    doi:10.1126/science.1242353 2014

  5. [5]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al.\ 2009, , 697, 1071. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/131

    Barret D., Vaughan S., 2012, ApJ, 746, 131. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/131

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/131 2012

  7. [7]

    M., Hasco \"e t, R., & Vurm, I.\ 2014, , 788, 36

    Beloborodov, A. M., Hasco \"e t, R., & Vurm, I.\ 2014, , 788, 36. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/36

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/36 2014

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1109/TAU.1970.1162132

    Bluestein, L.\ 1970, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 18, 4. doi:10.1109/TAU.1970.1162132

    work page arXiv 1970

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.161102

    Breschi, M., Bernuzzi, S., Godzieba, D., et al.\ 2022, , 128, 161102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.161102

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca969

    Chang, X.-Z., L \"u , H.-J., Yang, X., et al.\ 2023, , 943, 146. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca969

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Strohmayer, T., et al.\ 2019, , 884, L16

    Chirenti, C., Miller, M. C., Strohmayer, T., et al.\ 2019, , 884, L16. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab43e0

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05497-0

    Chirenti, C., Dichiara, S., Lien, A., et al.\ 2023, , 613, 253. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05497-0

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

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

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Wang, X

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, X. Y., Wu, X. F., et al.\ 2006, Science, 311, 1127. doi:10.1126/science.1123606

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad203

    Du, Z.-W., L \"u , H., Liu, X., et al.\ 2024a, , 529, L67. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad203

    doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad22e2

    Du, Z.-W., L \"u , H., Yuan, Y., et al.\ 2024b, , 962, L27. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad22e2

    doi

  9. [17]

    doi:10.1038/340126a0

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., et al.\ 1989, , 340, 126. doi:10.1038/340126a0

    1989 doi

  10. [18]

    & Xu, D.\ 2006, , 372, L19

    Fan, Y.-Z. & Xu, D.\ 2006, , 372, L19. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00217.x

    2006

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347113

    Ferro, M., Brivio, R., D'Avanzo, P., et al.\ 2023, , 678, A142. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347113

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044065

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., & L \"u , H.-J.\ 2016, , 93, 044065. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044065

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    & Perna, R.\ 2013, , 771, L26

    Giacomazzo, B. & Perna, R.\ 2013, , 771, L26. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al.\ 2017, , 848, L14. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Ravasio, M

    Gompertz, B. P., Ravasio, M. E., Nicholl, M., et al.\ 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 67. doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01819-4

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043004

    Hanauske, M., Takami, K., Bovard, L., et al.\ 2017, , 96, 043004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043004

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044026

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al.\ 2013, , 88, 044026. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044026

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044060

    Kastaun, W., Ciolfi, R., & Giacomazzo, B.\ 2016, , 94, 044060. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044060

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016242

    Kiuchi, K., Yoshida, S., & Shibata, M.\ 2011, , 532, A30. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016242

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124034

    Kiuchi, K., Cerd \'a -Dur \'a n, P., Kyutoku, K., et al.\ 2015, , 92, 124034. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124034

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    & Zhang, B.\ 2015, , 561, 1

    Kumar, P. & Zhang, B.\ 2015, , 561, 1. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Haskell, B., Ravi, V., et al.\ 2014, , 89, 047302

    Lasky, P. D., Haskell, B., Ravi, V., et al.\ 2014, , 89, 047302. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.047302

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Darbro W., Elsner R

    Leahy D. A., Darbro W., Elsner R. F., Weisskopf M. C., Sutherland P. G., Kahn S., Grindlay J. E., 1983, ApJ, 266, 160. doi:10.1086/160766

    1983 doi

  24. [32]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083010

    Li, A., Zhang, B., Zhang, N.-B., et al.\ 2016, , 94, 083010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083010

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1155

    L \"u , H.-J., Shen, J., Lan, L., et al.\ 2019, , 486, 4479. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1155

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2176

    L \"u , H.-J., Zou, L., Lan, L., et al.\ 2018, , 480, 4402. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2176

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba1ed

    L \"u , H.-J., Yuan, Y., Lan, L., et al.\ 2020, , 898, L6. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba1ed

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/89

    L \"u , H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., et al.\ 2015, , 805, 89. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/89

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/181

    L \"u , H.-J., Zhang, H.-M., Zhong, S.-Q., et al.\ 2017, , 835, 181. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/181

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6e3a

    L \"u , H.-J., Yuan, H.-Y., Yi, T.-F., et al.\ 2022, , 931, L23. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6e3a

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    N., et al.\ 2009, , 702, 791

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

    2009 doi

  32. [40]

    Most, E. R. & Quataert, E.\ 2023, arXiv:2303.08062. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.08062

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    R., Quataert E., 2023, ApJL, 947, L15

    Most E. R., Quataert E., 2023, ApJL, 947, L15. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acca84

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L28

    Nagakura, H., Hotokezaka, K., Sekiguchi, Y., et al.\ 2014, , 784, L28. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L28

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    & Anderson, N.\ 1986, , 302, 1

    Paczynski, B. & Anderson, N.\ 1986, , 302, 1. doi:10.1086/163966

    1986 doi

  36. [44]

    Paczynski, B.\ 1991, Acta Astron, 41, 257

    1991

  37. [45]

    B., & Shapiro, S

    Paschalidis, V., Etienne, Z. B., & Shapiro, S. L.\ 2012, , 86, 064032. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.064032

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Pretorius, F., et al.\ 2015, , 92, 121502

    Paschalidis, V., East, W. E., Pretorius, F., et al.\ 2015, , 92, 121502. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.121502

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Price, D. J. & Rosswog, S.\ 2006, Science, 312, 719. doi:10.1126/science.1125201

    2006 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al.\ 2022, , 612, 223. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/732/1/L6

    Rezzolla, L., Giacomazzo, B., Baiotti, L., et al.\ 2011, , 732, L6. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/732/1/L6

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/11/114105

    Rezzolla, L., Baiotti, L., Giacomazzo, B., et al.\ 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 114105. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/11/114105

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    B., Thielemann, F.-K., et al.\ 2000, , 360, 171

    Rosswog, S., Davies, M. B., Thielemann, F.-K., et al.\ 2000, , 360, 171. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005550

    2000 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2502

    Rosswog, S., Korobkin, O., Arcones, A., et al.\ 2014, , 439, 744. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2502

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    B.\ 2003, , 345, 1077

    Rosswog, S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Davies, M. B.\ 2003, , 345, 1077. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07032.x

    2003

  46. [54]

    T., Metzger, B

    Rowlinson, A., O'Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., et al.\ 2013, , 430, 1061. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts683

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    T., Tanvir, N

    Rowlinson, A., O'Brien, P. T., Tanvir, N. R., et al.\ 2010, , 409, 531. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17354.x

    2010

  48. [56]

    & Lasky, P

    Sarin, N. & Lasky, P. D.\ 2021, General Relativity and Gravitation, 53, 59. doi:10.1007/s10714-021-02831-1

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al.\ 2017, , 848, L15. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    T., et al.\ 2007, , 665, 599

    Troja, E., Cusumano, G., O'Brien, P. T., et al.\ 2007, , 665, 599. doi:10.1086/519450

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    L., O'Connor, B., et al.\ 2022, , 612, 228

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O'Connor, B., et al.\ 2022, , 612, 228. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    M., Papadakis I

    Uttley P., McHardy I. M., Papadakis I. E., 2002, MNRAS, 332, 231. doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05298.x

    2002

  53. [61]

    doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2273-0\_3

    van der Klis M., 1989, ASIC, 262, 27. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2273-0\_3

    1989 doi

  54. [62]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15868.x

    Vaughan S., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 307. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15868.x

    2010

  55. [63]

    A., Kennea J

    Williams M. A., Kennea J. A., Dichiara S., Kobayashi K., Iwakiri W. B., Beardmore A. P., Evans P. A., et al., 2023, ApJL, 946, L24. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbcd1

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

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

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L22

    Zhang, B.\ 2013, , 763, L22. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/763/1/L22

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2011.03.004

    Zhang, B.\ 2011, Comptes Rendus Physique, 12, 206. doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2011.03.004

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2001, , 552, L35

    Zhang, B. & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2001, , 552, L35. doi:10.1086/320255

    2001 doi

  60. [68]

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3

    Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al.\ 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 447. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/141

    Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al.\ 2011, , 730, 141. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/141

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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