Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Quasi-thermal Photosphere Emission from Structured Jets of Gamma-Ray Bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Structured GRB jets emit photosphere spectra that depend strongly on viewing angle: off-axis emission is fainter, softer, and slower to evolve, and the usual infinite-boundary treatment hides an early hard high-frequency component.

desk verdict Useful off-axis structured-jet photosphere spectra, but the headline hard component rests on applying the saturated temperature law in the acceleration phase; conditionally accept after major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15011 v1 pith:RMM5AVWZ submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.HE

Ding-Fang Hu , Jin-Jun Geng , Hao-Xuan Gao , Jing-Zhi Yan , Xue-Feng Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsphotosphereemissionstructuredjetsoff-axisviewinganglequasi-thermalspectraGRB170817AfiniteoutflowboundarySVOM-ECLAIRs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks what the quasi-thermal photosphere emission of a gamma-ray burst looks like when the jet is structured — a fast inner core with power-law wings in luminosity and Lorentz factor — and the observer sits off-axis. It claims that the instantaneous spectrum depends strongly on viewing angle $\theta_v$: off-axis emission is fainter, peaks at lower energy, and evolves far more slowly than on-axis emission, because the photosphere radius and temperature vary with latitude. It further argues that the common infinite-boundary treatment of the outflow is inadequate at early times; with a finite boundary, early flux is several orders of magnitude higher, and a hard high-frequency tail appears that persists longest for large viewing angles. For 170817A-like short bursts, the model predicts that EP-WXT and SVOM-ECLAIRs should detect this thermal emission out to about 200 Mpc for $\theta_v \lesssim 10^\circ$, giving observers a new handle on jet structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the last-scattering photosphere of the structured jet: the shell where the optical depth to the observer reaches unity, whose radius and temperature vary with polar angle through the power-law profiles $L(\theta_j)$ and $\Gamma(\theta_j)$. The argument runs through the comoving temperature profile $T'(r,\theta_j)$ with its saturation radius $r_s = \Gamma(\theta_j) r_0$ and photosphere radius $r_{\rm ph}$ (set by $\tau = 1$), the Doppler-boosted probability density $P(r,\theta,\phi)$ for the last scattering, and the time-delay geometry $t_{\rm obs}/(1+z) = \hat{t} + r u/(\beta c)$ that maps emission latitude onto observed time. The decisive element is the treatment of the outflow's outer boundary: an infinite boundary integrates the optical depth to infinity, whereas the finite-boundary treatment lets photons catch up with the expanding edge at $r_{\rm out} = \beta(\theta_j) c \hat{t}$, which brightens the early flux and produces the hard high-frequency component. The viewing-angle dependence enters through the Doppler factor $D = [\Gamma(\theta_j)(1 - \beta(\theta_j)\cos\theta)]^{-1}$ and the geometric relation $\theta_j(\theta,\phi,\theta_v)$.

What would settle it

Detect the early X-ray spectrum of a 170817A-like short burst at about 200 Mpc viewed 10–30 degrees off-axis: the finite-boundary, saturated-jet model predicts a quasi-thermal spectrum with a $\nu^2 \to \nu^{1.5}$ low-energy slope, a peak migrating into the 0.5–4 keV band, and a hard tail that persists past 100 s at $\theta_v = 20^\circ$; observing instead a pure blackbody cutoff, a fast on-axis-like evolution, or no thermal component at all would rule out the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed photosphere spectrum of a structured GRB jet is a strong function of the viewing angle. Because luminosity and Lorentz factor fall off as power laws away from the jet core, an off-axis line of sight samples a larger photosphere radius at lower temperature: the flux density and peak energy drop, and the spectrum takes much longer to settle into its quasi-saturated shape — about $10^{-4}$ s on-axis versus $\sim 10^2$ s at $\theta_v = 20^\circ$. The paper also claims that the standard infinite-boundary approximation is wrong at early times: when the outflow's finite outer boundary is treated properly, early photons escape before accumulating an artificial optical depth, so the flux is orders of magnitude higher and a power-law-like hard component sits above the thermal peak, disappearing gradually as the photosphere radius converges to the infinite-boundary value. As a corollary, the spectral peak energy tracks inversely with the luminosity history (hard-to-soft in the rise, soft-to-hard in the decay), with all evolution delayed for off-axis observers. The paper closes by predicting that EP-WXT and SVOM-ECLAIRs can detect quasi-thermal photosphere emission from 170817A-like short bursts out to roughly 200 Mpc when the viewing angle is below about $10^\circ$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the jet is already fully accelerated at every latitude before its light escapes (the photosphere lies beyond the saturation radius), so the simple temperature profile of Equation (6) holds everywhere — a condition the paper itself says may fail for dim parts of the jet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Off-axis photosphere spectra are fainter, peak at lower energy, and evolve more slowly than on-axis spectra, so the saturation timescale itself — from about $10^{-4}$ s on-axis to about $10^2$ s at $20^\circ$ — becomes a viewing-angle diagnostic.
  • The finite-boundary treatment raises the early flux by orders of magnitude and reveals a hard high-frequency component that persists for tens of seconds at large viewing angles; the infinite-boundary approximation cannot reproduce these features.
  • With a variable central engine, the peak flux tracks the luminosity history while the peak energy anti-correlates with it (hard-to-soft during the rise, soft-to-hard during the decay), with off-axis evolution delayed relative to $(1+z) t_p$.
  • EP-WXT and SVOM-ECLAIRs should detect quasi-thermal emission from 170817A-like short bursts out to about 200 Mpc as long as the viewing angle stays below roughly $10^\circ$.
  • The detection flux falls with viewing angle more steeply than the luminosity profile, because the optical depth also grows off-axis; for EP-WXT, the most favorable viewing angle is structure-dependent rather than on-axis, since the off-axis peak energy moves into its 0.5–4 keV band.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The predicted drift of the low-energy spectral index from $\nu^2$ toward $\nu^{1.5}$, together with the persistent hard tail, offers a discriminating test against synchrotron emission in joint fits of the same off-axis events, since the two mechanisms predict different index trajectories over time.
  • If the saturation assumption fails at some latitudes ($r_s > r_{\rm ph}$), the clean scaling of peak energy with viewing angle breaks down; measuring the peak energy versus viewing angle across a sample of off-axis short bursts would directly probe which latitudes of the jet are actually saturated.
  • Wide, soft X-ray surveys such as EP-WXT may be systematically biased toward off-axis thermal events, because the redshifted peak energy of off-axis emission lands squarely in their 0.5–4 keV band; this selection effect could be checked by comparing the inferred viewing-angle distribution of soft-band and hard-band detected GRBs.
  • Extending the calculation to include sub-photospheric Comptonization, which the paper itself lists as needed future work, would show whether the hard high-frequency component survives spectral processing by scattering before the photons escape.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents numerical calculations of instantaneous photosphere emission spectra from a structured gamma-ray burst jet, with an angularly dependent luminosity and Lorentz factor, for observers at different viewing angles. The authors compute spectra for constant and variable central-engine luminosity, compare an infinite outer boundary with a finite outflow boundary, and estimate the detectability of quasi-thermal photosphere emission by EP-WXT, SVOM-ECLAIRs, and Swift-BAT. The central claims are that off-axis spectra are fainter, peak at lower energies, and evolve more slowly than on-axis spectra; that treating the outflow boundary as finite enhances the early flux and produces a hard high-frequency component; and that short GRBs similar to GRB 170817A should be detectable to about 200 Mpc for viewing angles below 10 degrees.

Significance. If the finite-boundary result holds, the paper offers a new observational handle on GRB jet structure through quasi-thermal photosphere spectra, linking prompt-emission modeling to the structured-jet picture favored by afterglow observations. The forward-modeling approach is a strength: the spectra are derived self-consistently from the assumed jet structure, and the short-GRB jet parameters are taken from independent afterglow fits (Li et al. 2019) rather than fitted to the predicted outputs. The predicted differences between on-axis and off-axis temporal and spectral evolution are falsifiable with current and upcoming wide-field X-ray instruments. However, the quantitative early-time results and the detectability estimates rest on two assumptions that are not adequately validated: the application of the saturated-regime temperature law to radii below the saturation radius, and the photon-number-conservation normalization of the last-scattering probability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figs. 5-6, Eqs. (6), (8), (24)] The finite-boundary early-time spectra are computed at emission radii far below the saturation radius. For the fiducial parameters used in the figures (r0=10^7 cm, Γc=300, Eq. 30), rs=Γr0≈3×10^9 cm, whereas rout=βct is about 3×10^5 cm at t=10^-5 s and 3×10^7 cm at t=10^-3 s. In this regime the local Lorentz factor is still Γ(r)≈r/r0, not Γ(θj), so the density in Eq. (16), the Doppler factor in Eq. (5), and the optical depth in Eq. (26) are evaluated with an incorrect Lorentz factor. Since the hard high-frequency component and the early flux enhancement are the paper's headline new signatures, their quantitative support is missing unless the acceleration phase is modeled. The Section 4 caveat about an unsaturated situation acknowledges the general issue but does not identify that the earliest finite-boundary curves in Figs. 3-5 lie in the sub-saturation-radius regime; the authors should either implement a proper acceleration-phase treatment or restrict the finite-boundary claims to times when rout exceeds rs.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The normalization of the last-scattering probability P(r,Ω) is replaced by global photon-number conservation over all observer directions. However, Eq. (11) uses P as a probability density weighting the contribution of individual injected photons to a specific observer, for which the natural normalization is ∫∫P dr dΩ=1 per injection direction. Because the Doppler factor D and the optical depth τ depend on the observer direction θv, the constant A determined by Eq. (19) is an observer-averaged quantity. The manuscript does not show that this global normalization is equivalent to the per-observer probability normalization, and the issue affects the absolute flux level in every figure, including the detectability estimates. A derivation or a numerical validation against the spherically symmetric limit (e.g., Pe'er 2008) is needed.
  3. [Section 3.4, Fig. 9, Eq. (30)] The detectability conclusion that EP-WXT and SVOM-ECLAIRs can detect 170817A-like bursts within a viewing angle of 10 degrees out to 200 Mpc depends on the correctness of the early-time finite-boundary spectra, which are affected by the sub-saturation-radius problem noted above. In addition, the flux-angle dependence in Fig. 9 is presented only for a few parameter variations, with fixed r0 and fixed luminosity-history indices; given that r0 enters the peak-energy scaling in Eq. (30) and that the short-GRB case uses θv=27.6 degrees with Lc=10^51 erg/s, the 200-Mpc reach should be framed as conditional on the acceleration-phase treatment and on the parameter choices, not as a robust prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (13)] The text refers to a "Plank distribution"; this should be "Planck distribution".
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (22)] Equation (22) cites Eq. (26) for the optical depth, but Eq. (26) is introduced later in Section 3.2; please reorder the equations or adjust the cross-reference.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eq. (28)] The luminosity history is written as 10^{ar log t+br}; this is equivalent to a broken power law, and writing Lc(t)=Lcp(t/tp)^ar and Lc(t)=Lcp(t/tp)^ad for the two branches would be clearer.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Appendix C] The numerical method is described only in words; a reproducibility statement with the grid resolution, integration tolerances, and convergence checks would strengthen the paper, especially because the finite-boundary case requires solving for r2 in Eq. (25) numerically.
  5. [Eq. (30)] The peak-energy scaling in Eq. (30) is stated without intermediate steps; a short derivation in an appendix would help readers verify the exponents 5/12 ke - 8/3 kΓ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photosphere spectra follow from the assumed structured-jet profiles and standard photosphere formalism, and the one overlapping-author input (Li et al. 2019 jet parameters) is an external afterglow fit rather than a quantity fitted to the predicted spectra.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The jet is specified in Eqs. (2)-(3) by power-law luminosity and Lorentz-factor profiles, and the temperature law in Eq. (6) is taken from standard photosphere emission literature (Meszaros & Rees 2000; Rees & Meszaros 2005; Pe'er et al. 2010), not from the spectra the paper later computes. The instantaneous spectra are obtained by integrating the last-scattering probability density of Eqs. (13)-(14) together with a Planck photon distribution and an optical-depth integral; no parameter is fitted to the resulting spectra, light curves, or detectability curves. The finite-versus-infinite boundary comparison in Section 3.2 is an internal modeling choice and therefore cannot reduce to the output. The variable-luminosity spectral evolution is checked against Deng & Zhang (2014), but that is an external consistency comparison, not an input. For the short-GRB detectability claim, the jet structure and viewing angle are taken from Li et al. (2019), an earlier afterglow fit to GRB 170817A; although one of the present authors co-authored that paper, the parameters are constrained by afterglow observations, not by the photosphere spectra predicted here, so the citation carries independent evidentiary weight. The caveat in Section 4 that an unsaturated situation may hold for parts of the jet flags a potential validity limit of the adopted temperature prescription, especially for the early finite-boundary curves, but this is a correctness/applicability concern, not a case in which the predicted quantity equals its input by construction. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the standard fireball photosphere formalism, the specific saturated-outflow assumption, a nonstandard probability normalization, and a set of hand-picked jet structure and luminosity parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Core luminosity Lc = 10^52 erg/s (long GRB models); 10^51 erg/s (short GRB fiducial)
    Chosen by hand to represent typical on-axis GRB luminosity; sets the flux normalization and peak temperature in the photosphere model.
  • Core Lorentz factor Γc = 300 (long GRB models); 100 (short GRB fiducial)
    Chosen by hand; sets the photosphere radius (Eq 22), time delay (Eq 23), and the angular flux dependence.
  • Core half-opening angle θc = 3 degrees (long); 5.1 degrees (short, from Li et al. 2019)
    Sets the boundary of the jet core; controls the viewing-angle scalings in Eqs (22)-(23) and (30).
  • Outer jet half-opening angle θm = 30 degrees
    Truncates the structured jet in the calculations.
  • Luminosity angular index ke = 2 (long); 4.3 (short)
    Power-law index of L(θj) outside the core; controls off-axis flux decline and Epeak dependence in Eq (30).
  • Lorentz factor angular index kΓ = 2
    Power-law index of Γ(θj) outside the core; enters rph and the optical depth scaling.
  • Base radius r0 = 10^7 cm (implied by Eq 30)
    Injection radius at the base of the outflow; sets the normalization of temperature via Eq (7) and Epeak in Eq (30).
  • Luminosity history indices ar, ad, tp = ar=0.75, ad=-2, tp=2.4 s (long); tp=0.3 s (short)
    Broken power-law parameters of the central engine light curve (Eq 28); adopted from observed GRB pulse shapes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard photosphere temperature profile for a relativistic steady wind (Eq 6)
    Adopted from Meszaros and Rees 2000 and Pe'er et al. 2010; assumes adiabatic cooling of the fireball below the saturation radius and a coasting phase above it.
  • domain assumption Saturation regime rs < rph so that η(θj) = Γ(θj)
    Adopted throughout Section 2.1 and Eq (8); the authors acknowledge in Section 4 that unsaturated parts of the structured jet would violate it.
  • ad hoc to paper Last-scattering probability density for a structured jet (Eq 14) normalized by global photon number conservation (Eqs 18-19) rather than per-observer probability normalization
    Section 3.1 explicitly deviates from the standard normalization of Pe'er 2008; this choice is not validated against the spherical limit or Monte Carlo transport.
  • domain assumption Comoving photon spectrum is Planckian at the local temperature (Eq 13)
    The model ignores Comptonization and sub-photospheric dissipation; the paper notes in Section 4 that more general models are needed.
  • domain assumption Power-law angular structure of luminosity and Lorentz factor (Eqs 2-3)
    Motivated by afterglow observations of GRB 170817A and jet simulations; assumed for all calculations.
  • domain assumption Broken power-law luminosity history of the central engine (Eq 28)
    Adopted from empirical GRB pulse fits (Salvaterra et al. 2012; Pescalli et al. 2016).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-thermal Photosphere Emission from Structured Jets of Gamma-Ray Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMM5AVWZ

@misc{pith2026250415011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-thermal Photosphere Emission from Structured Jets of Gamma-Ray Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMM5AVWZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15011}
}
read the original abstract

The prompt emission of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is supposed to be released from the relativistic jet launched from the central engine. Apart from the non-thermal nature of the spectra in a majority of GRBs, there is evidence for the presence of quasi-thermal components in the prompt emission of a few GRBs according to observations by Fermi satellite. On the other hand, the GRB jet has been revealed as structured in recent research. The theoretical observed spectra of photosphere emissions by an off-axis observer and the dependence of the spectra on the viewing angle under the assumption of structured jets remain unexplored. In this paper, we numerically calculate the instantaneous photosphere spectra by different viewing angles from a structured jet, from which relevant temporal and spectral characteristics are derived. Moreover, we address the necessity of proper treatment of the outflow boundary in the photosphere emission scenario. Furthermore, our calculations suggest that the Einstein Probe and Space-based multi-band astronomical Variable Object Monitor will have the capability to detect the short GRBs similar to GRB 170817A up to a luminosity distance of 200Mpc if the off-axis viewing angle is less than 10 degrees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15011 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the structured jet. θv rep￾resents the viewing angle, which is also the angle between the observer frame and the jet frame. A1 and A2 represents the projection of photon A0 into the XOY plane and XjYjZj plane. The polar angles and the azimuthal angles are de￾noted as θ (θj ) and ϕ (ϕj), respectively. and then escape from the photosphere in a straight line towards the observer (Pe’er & Ryde 2011)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A geometric illustration of time delay. Photons injected at the same moment escape at different radii and latitudes, resulting in them arriving at the observer at dif￾ferent times. The contribution of the photons injected at engine time tˆ to the instantaneous specific flux observed by the ob￾server at tobs and θv can be expressed as (Zhang 2018; Deng & Zhang 2014) Fˆ νobs (νobs, tobs, θv,tˆ) = 1 + z d 2 L ∬ dN˙ dΩ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Instantaneous photosphere spectra with constant luminosity and infinite outer boundary by different viewing angles θv, the inner-core Lorentz factor Γc = 300, luminosity Lc = 1052 erg s −1 , distance dL = 8.8 × 1027 cm (z ∼ 0.5), half-opening angle of the inner-core θc = 3°, the maximum half-opening angle of the jet θm = 30°, index values are kΓ = 2, ke = 2. Different colors stand for different tobs, 10−5 s (grey), … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the geometric picture of the es￾caping photons catch-up the outer boundary of outflow, from which we have geometric relationships of ⎧ ⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪ ⎨ ⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪⎪ ⎩ r1 sin(θ1) = r2 sin(θ2), r2 cos(θ2) − r1 cos(θ1) = c∆t, r2 = β(θj2)c[tˆ+ r1 β(θj1) c + ∆t], (25) where θ…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Instantaneous photosphere spectra with constant luminosity and finite outer boundary by different viewing angles θv. Parameters are the same as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Instantaneous photosphere spectra with variable luminosity and finite outer boundary by different viewing angles θv. The solid line spectrum corresponds to a peak luminosity of Lcp = 1052 erg s −1 , and a luminosity distance of dL = 8.8 × 1027 cm (z ∼ 0.5). While the d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Light curve with variable luminosity and finite outer boundary by different viewing angles θv. Parameters are the same as the solid spectrum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Theoretical instantaneous photosphere spectra of short GRB similar to GRB 170817A by θv = 27.6°. Param￾eters are Γc = 100, Lc = 1051 erg s −1 , dL = 1.236 × 1026 cm (∼ 40 Mpc, z = 0.009), θc = 5.1°, θm = 30°, index values are kΓ = 2, ke = 4.3, and the luminosity indice…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The geometric diagram of the optical depth calculation. The diagram shows two coordinate systems with overlapping origins and the X-axis, where the origin represents the central engine. The coordinate system XjYjZj represents the jet frame, with the Zj -axis being the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 706, L138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L138

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/l138 2009

  2. [2]

    A., Novikov, I

    Abramowicz, M. A., Novikov, I. D., & Paczynski, B. 1991, ApJ, 369, 175, doi: 10.1086/169748

    doi:10.1086/169748 1991

  3. [3]

    2024, in High Energy Phenomena in Relativistic Outflows VIII, 18

    Alamaa, F., Ryde, F., & Lundman, C. 2024, in High Energy Phenomena in Relativistic Outflows VIII, 18

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    D., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d 2017

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64–66, doi: 10.1038/nature24291

    doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017

  6. [6]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/l31

    Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., Barbiellini, G., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, L31, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/l31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/l31 2012

  7. [7]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

    doi:10.1086/172995 1993

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1033, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16770.x

    arXiv 2010

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/68

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    M., B´ egu´ e, D., Greiner, J., et al

    Burgess, J. M., B´ egu´ e, D., Greiner, J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 174, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0911-z

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Preece, R

    Burgess, J. M., Preece, R. D., Baring, M. G., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/24

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    G., & Gou, L

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

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    2011, A&A, 526, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457

    Daigne, F., Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Dubus, G. 2011, A&A, 526, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457

    2011 doi

  6. [15]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/112

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/112

    2014 doi

  7. [16]

    V., Kocharovsky, V

    Derishev, E. V., Kocharovsky, V. V., & Kocharovsky, V. V. 2001, A&A, 372, 1071, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010586

    2001 doi

  8. [17]

    2008, MNRAS, 387, 92, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12886.x

    Fan, Y.-Z., Xu, D., & Wei, D.-M. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 92, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12886.x

    2008

  9. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03614, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03614 16

    Gao, C.-Y., Wei, J.-J., & Zeng, H.-D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03614, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.03614 16

    2025 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    2021, A&A, 656, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141647

    Gao, H.-X., Geng, J.-J., & Huang, Y.-F. 2021, A&A, 656, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141647

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21687, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21687

    Gao, H.-X., Geng, J.-J., Wu, X.-F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21687, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.21687

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacd05

    Geng, J.-J., Huang, Y.-F., Wu, X.-F., Song, L.-M., & Zong, H.-S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 862, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacd05

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    2018, ApJS, 234, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e84

    Geng, J.-J., Huang, Y.-F., Wu, X.-F., Zhang, B., & Zong, H.-S. 2018, ApJS, 234, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e84

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    2019, ApJL, 877, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab224b

    Geng, J.-J., Zhang, B., K¨ olligan, A., Kuiper, R., & Huang, Y.-F. 2019, ApJL, 877, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab224b

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    2002, A&A, 393, 409, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021038

    Ghirlanda, G., Celotti, A., & Ghisellini, G. 2002, A&A, 393, 409, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021038

    2002 doi

  16. [25]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Hotokezaka, K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2308

    Granot, J., Gill, R., Guetta, D., & De Colle, F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2308

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991d

    Granot, J., Guetta, D., & Gill, R. 2017, ApJL, 850, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991d

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    S., et al

    Guiriec, S., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/l33

    2011 doi

  20. [29]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc07

    Hou, S.-J., Zhang, B.-B., Meng, Y.-Z., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadc07

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559–1565, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9455

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, L121, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx175

    Kathirgamaraju, A., Barniol Duran, R., & Giannios, D. 2018, MNRAS, 473, L121, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx175

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    W., Strong, I

    Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., & Olson, R. A. 1973, ApJL, 182, L85, doi: 10.1086/181225

    1973 doi

  24. [33]

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

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

    2003 doi

  25. [34]

    P., & Kobayashi, S

    Lamb, G. P., & Kobayashi, S. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 472, 4953–4964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2345

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 52, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2508

    Lan, G.-X., Wei, J.-J., Zeng, H.-D., Li, Y., & Wu, X.-F. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 52, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2508

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2011

    Lan, G.-X., Zeng, H.-D., Wei, J.-J., & Wu, X.-F. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2011

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    J., et al

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Morsony, B. J., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 241103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab275d

    Li, L.-B., Geng, J.-J., Huang, Y.-F., & Li, B. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab275d

    2019 doi

  30. [39]

    D., Lamb, G

    Lyman, J. D., Lamb, G. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 751, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0511-3

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    2022, Astrophys

    Meng, Y.-Z. 2022, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 263, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac98b1

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    Meng, Y.-Z., Geng, J.-J., & Wu, X.-F. 2023, in 16th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics and Relativistic Field Theories, doi: 10.1142/9789811269776 0240

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab30c7

    Meng, Y.-Z., Liu, L.-D., Wei, J.-J., Wu, X.-F., & Zhang, B.-B. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab30c7

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2d9 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M

    Meng, Y.-Z., Geng, J.-J., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2d9 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 292, doi: 10.1086/308371

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    P., Nakar, E., Hotokezaka, K., et al

    Mooley, K. P., Nakar, E., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2018, Nature, 554, 207, doi: 10.1038/nature25452

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    2013, in 48th Rencontres de Moriond on Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe, VHEPU 2013, 9 March 2013 through 16 March 2013, ARISF, 293–297 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M

    Moretti, E., et al. 2013, in 48th Rencontres de Moriond on Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe, VHEPU 2013, 9 March 2013 through 16 March 2013, ARISF, 293–297 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 306, L39, doi: 10.1046...

    2013

  37. [46]

    2011, A&A, 530, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016270

    Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 2011, A&A, 530, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016270

    2011 doi

  38. [47]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 526, 707, doi: 10.1086/308005

    Panaitescu, A., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 526, 707, doi: 10.1086/308005

    1999 doi

  39. [48]

    2011, Comptes Rendus Physique, 12, 298, doi: 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.01.009 Pe’er, A

    Paul, J., Wei, J., Basa, S., & Zhang, S.-N. 2011, Comptes Rendus Physique, 12, 298, doi: 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.01.009 Pe’er, A. 2008, ApJ, 682, 463, doi: 10.1086/588136 Pe’er, A., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2006, ApJ, 642, 995, doi: 10.1086/501424 Pe’er, A., & Ryde, F. 2011...

    2011 doi

  40. [49]

    Rees, M. J. 2007, ApJL, 664, L1, doi: 10.1086/520534 Pe’er, A., Zhang, B.-B., Ryde, F., et al. 2010, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1358, doi: 10.1063/1.3621745

    2007 doi

  41. [50]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 379, doi: 10.1086/376772

    Perna, R., Sari, R., & Frail, D. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 379, doi: 10.1086/376772

    2003 doi

  42. [51]

    2016, A&A, 587, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760

    Pescalli, A., Ghirlanda, G., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    D., Briggs, M

    Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Mallozzi, R. S., et al. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 506, L23, doi: 10.1086/311644 —. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 126, 19, doi: 10.1086/313289

    1998 doi

  44. [53]

    J., & Meszaros, P

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

    1994 doi

  45. [54]

    J., & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Rees, M. J., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2005, ApJ, 628, 847, doi: 10.1086/430818 17

    2005 doi

  46. [55]

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

    2002

  47. [56]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 1211, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1211

    Ryde, F., & Pe’er, A. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 1211, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1211

    2009 doi

  49. [58]

    B., et al

    Ryde, F., Axelsson, M., Zhang, B. B., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 709, L172, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L172

    2010 doi

  50. [59]

    D., et al

    Salvaterra, R., Campana, S., Vergani, S. D., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/68

    2012 doi

  51. [60]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace441

    Samuelsson, F., & Ryde, F. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace441

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G

    Spruit, H. C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G. 2001, A&A, 369, 694, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010131

    2001 doi

  53. [62]

    1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 270, 480

    Thompson, C. 1994, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 270, 480

    1994

  54. [63]

    2017, Nature, 551, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature24290

    Troja, E., Piro, L., van Eerten, H., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature24290

    2017 doi

  55. [64]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2248

    Troja, E., van Eerten, H., Ryan, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2248

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    L., & Zhang, B

    Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 351–356, doi: 10.1038/nphys2932

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    M., & Poutanen, J

    Vurm, I., Beloborodov, A. M., & Poutanen, J. 2011, ApJ, 738, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/77

    2011 doi

  58. [67]

    2022, The Einstein Probe Mission (Springer Nature Singapore), 1–30, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 151-1

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y., & Ling, Z. 2022, The Einstein Probe Mission (Springer Nature Singapore), 1–30, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 151-1

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

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

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

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    2002, ApJ, 571, 876, doi: 10.1086/339981

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

    2002 doi

  61. [70]

    2022, Astroparticle Physics, 137, 102668, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102668

    Zhang, J., Qi, L., Yang, Y., et al. 2022, Astroparticle Physics, 137, 102668, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102668

    2022

  62. [71]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/12

    Zhao, X., Li, Z., Liu, X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/12

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.