Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Event Rate Density and Luminosity Function of Newborn-Magnetar-Driven X-Ray Transients from Neutron Star Binary Mergers

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Newborn magnetars from neutron-star mergers should produce X-ray transients at a local rate near $300\ \mathrm{Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$, with Einstein Probe detecting about 31 per year.

desk verdict Useful population-synthesis ERD for NSB-magnetar XTs, but the headline Einstein Probe rate rests on a selection-biased luminosity function and an inconsistent beaming correction. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02097 v1 pith:4LOGMNK6 submitted 2025-05-04 astro-ph.HE

Le Zou , Ji-Gui Cheng , Rui-Chong Hu , Wen-Jin Xie , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords eventratedensityluminosityfunctionnewbornmagnetarsneutronstarbinarymergersX-raytransientsEinsteinProbeshortgamma-rayburstspopulationsynthesis
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 sets out to quantify how often a neutron-star binary merger leaves behind a newborn magnetar whose magnetic-dipole spin-down powers an X-ray transient, and how luminous those transients are. It derives a cosmic event-rate history from population-synthesis simulations of neutron-star binaries, and a luminosity function from 29 candidate transients collected from deep Chandra fields and Swift follow-up of short gamma-ray bursts. The two pieces put together give a local event rate density of roughly $300\ \mathrm{Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$ peaking at redshift $z=1.81$, and predict that the wide-field Einstein Probe should detect about 31 such transients per year once jet beaming is included. That prediction is consistent with Einstein Probe's first-year detections, which for the first time ties the merger-magnetar population to a live sky survey.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing objects are the event-rate history $R(z)$ and the luminosity function $\Phi(L)$. $R(z)$ is produced by a population-synthesis model of neutron-star binary mergers, with each merger's remnant type decided by comparing total mass $M_{\rm tot}$ to the maximum neutron-star mass $M_{\rm TOV}$ for five equations of state; events with $M_{\rm tot}\gtrsim1.3\,M_{\rm TOV}$ are discarded, and the surviving rate history is fitted with a smoothly joined double power law. $\Phi(L)$ is built from the break luminosities of 29 candidate transients and fitted by a single power law joined to a broken power law. The two enter a detection-rate integral $N=(\Omega T/4\pi)\int\Phi(L)\int R(z)/(1+z)\,dV/dz\,dz\,dL$, with a $k$-correction and a beaming factor $f_{\rm b}\simeq0.04$, which turns the raw $\sim780\ \mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ into $\sim31\ \mathrm{yr^{-1}}$.

What would settle it

Settle the luminosity function by measuring it from a flux-limited sample: take the first three years of Einstein Probe transients with redshifts, apply the WXT selection function, and compare the fitted break luminosity and slope with $L_{\rm b}=4.38\times10^{47}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and $-1.66$; alternatively, check whether the cumulative detected count after three years is close to the about 90 events predicted by the $31\ \mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ rate. A clear mismatch in either the rate or the break would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that newborn-magnetar-driven X-ray transients from neutron-star binary mergers are a common, structured population. The local event rate density is $R_0\sim 300\ \mathrm{Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$, the redshift-dependent rate peaks at $z=1.81$, and beyond $z\sim4$ it falls as $R\propto z^{-3.85}$. The luminosity function is a single power law with slope $-1.03$ up to $L\simeq4.75\times10^{46}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, followed by a broken power law with break luminosity $L_{\rm b}=4.38\times10^{47}\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ and slopes $-0.28$ and $-1.66$. Integrating these against Einstein Probe's threshold flux of $10^{-9}\ \mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ over $L\in[2\times10^{44},2\times10^{49}]\ \mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ gives about $780\ \mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ before beaming and about $31\ \mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ after applying a jet opening angle of about $16^\circ$. The paper argues that this beaming-corrected rate is consistent with Einstein Probe's first-year X-ray transient detections.

Load-bearing premise

The luminosity function fitted to 29 events collected from Chandra deep-field and Swift short-GRB follow-up observations is treated as the true intrinsic luminosity function even though no correction is applied for instrument selection effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Einstein Probe should accumulate roughly 90 newborn-magnetar X-ray transients over three years, enough to test the fitted luminosity function with a homogeneous sample.
  • The predicted redshift peak at $z\sim1.8$ gives a concrete search strategy for follow-up observations and for joint gravitational-wave/electromagnetic searches.
  • The ratio of internal-plateau to external-plateau light curves becomes a diagnostic of the neutron-star equation of state; the DD2 equation of state predicts about 30% internal plateaus, matching the fraction seen in Swift short-GRB plateaus.
  • If the beaming-corrected rate of about $31\ \mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ holds, the local rate density of about $300\ \mathrm{Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$ implies that only a few neutron-star-binary magnetar X-ray transients per year are detectable within the current gravitational-wave horizon at $z\sim0.08$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the luminosity function is later corrected for the Swift and Chandra selection functions, the break luminosity and faint-end slope may shift; a steeper faint end would lower the Einstein Probe rate below 31 per year.
  • The same population-synthesis rate history could be combined with a jet-structure model instead of a single beaming factor, predicting how the observed rate depends on off-axis viewing angle, an extension the paper does not carry out.
  • Comparing the full first-year Einstein Probe sample of 69 X-ray transients with the mock sample's redshift-luminosity contours would provide an independent check of the rate normalization without relying on the 29-event luminosity function.
  • If Einstein Probe adopts the full WXT threshold of about $5\times10^{-10}\ \mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ and detects far more than about 60 transients per year, the beaming correction or the assumption that every newborn magnetar produces an X-ray transient would need revision.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. Using the StarTrack M33.A population-synthesis model with five neutron-star equations of state, the authors derive a cosmic event rate density (ERD) for newborn-magnetar-driven X-ray transients from neutron star binary mergers, obtaining a local rate R0 ~ 300 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 and a redshift profile peaking at z = 1.81. From 29 XT candidates assembled from Chandra/CDF-S, Swift/XRT sGRB plateaus, and sGRB extended emissions, they fit a luminosity function combining a single power law at low luminosity with a broken power law above L_b = 4.38e47 erg/s. Combining the ERD and LF through Eq. (2), they predict an EP/WXT detection rate of ~780/yr without beaming and ~31/yr after applying a jet-opening-angle correction, and state that the latter is consistent with first-year EP observations. The paper explicitly notes that the LF is subject to instrumental selection effects and small-sample uncertainties but does not quantify them.

Significance. If the results hold, the ERD estimate is a valuable input for predicting EM counterparts of NSB mergers and for planning wide-field X-ray surveys. The paper's strength is its ERD derivation: it uses a well-defined population-synthesis submodel, compares several EoSs, and provides an analytic fitting form for R(z) that can be tested against future gravitational-wave and electromagnetic data. The Monte Carlo mock sample and the explicit discussion of systematic uncertainties are also positive features. However, the luminosity function is the weakest link: it is fitted to a small, heterogeneous, selection-biased sample without correcting for flux limits, exposure, or trigger selection, yet it is fed directly into Eq. (2) to produce the headline detection rate. The claimed consistency with first-year EP observations is therefore not yet convincingly established; the central claim is defensible only if the LF caveats are addressed or the rate is explicitly reframed as conditional on the uncorrected LF.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3] The LF is fitted to a 29-event sample assembled from three different selection channels (CDF-S serendipitous XTs, Swift/XRT sGRB X-ray plateaus, and Swift/BAT sGRB extended emissions) without modeling the flux limits, exposure maps, or trigger probabilities. The text itself states “Regardless of the instrumental selection effects” (Sec. 6, Conclusions). Since Eq. (2) integrates this LF to derive the EP detection rate, the headline rate of ~31 yr^-1 rests on an uncorrected observed luminosity distribution, which can be substantially biased when the subsamples occupy different luminosity ranges (log L ~44-47 for CDF-S, ~44-48.5 for sGRB-XP, ~46.9-49.8 for sGRB-EE). The authors acknowledge this in Secs. 3 and 5.1 but do not quantify the impact; please add a selection-function treatment or explicitly reframe the detection rate as conditional on the uncorrected LF.
  2. [Sec. 4 (beaming factor)] The reduction from ~780 yr^-1 to ~31 yr^-1 applies a median sGRB jet opening angle (f_b ~ 0.04, Fong et al. 2015) uniformly to the LF, but the LF is constructed largely from on-axis sGRB afterglow plateaus and extended emissions. If the magnetar dipole XT emission is isotropic rather than collimated with the GRB jet, the no-beaming estimate is the relevant prediction; if it is collimated, the on-axis subsample cannot be treated as representative of all orientations without modeling the orientation dependence. The paper should justify the beaming assumption or present both predictions with explicit caveats about which emission geometry they assume.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (2), Tab. 3] The detection rate depends sensitively on the chosen integration range [Lmin, Lmax] = [2e44, 2e49] erg/s, which is motivated by the observed sample rather than by an independent physical boundary. Because the low-luminosity slope of the LF is shallow (a = -1.03 below 4.75e46 and beta1 = -0.28 above it), the integrated rate is potentially dominated by the lower end of the luminosity range, and a modest change in Lmin could change N by a large factor. Please provide a sensitivity analysis of N to Lmin and Lmax (beyond the Fth scan in Fig. 6) to demonstrate the robustness of the predicted rate.
  4. [Sec. 4 (consistency with EP)] The statement that ~31 yr^-1 is “consistent with” first-year EP observations is not quantified. EP detected 69 XTs in its first year, but the paper does not state how many of those are expected to be NSB-magnetar XTs, nor does it perform a Poisson or likelihood comparison that accounts for the EP exposure, trigger threshold, and the fraction of transients of other origins. Please replace the verbal consistency claim with a quantitative comparison, e.g., a predicted number of magnetar-driven XTs in the observed sample and a corresponding confidence interval.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase “following by a broken power-law function” should be “followed by”, and “an luminosity” should be “a luminosity”.
  2. [Sec. 2] The text says EoSs with MTOV lower than 2.22 Mo are excluded, but then states that EoS APR (MTOV = 2.20 Mo) is “also considered”; this is inconsistent and should be clarified.
  3. [Eq. (3)] “ΛCMD” should be “ΛCDM”.
  4. [Sec. 3] The best-fit LF parameters (a, beta1, beta2, Lb) are quoted without uncertainties; please provide confidence intervals or an error estimate from the fitting procedure.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the red, cyan, and black lines mark the 68.3% and 95.5% contours, but the mapping between line color and contour level is unclear; please label them explicitly.
  6. [Fig. 3] The y-axis label “dN/dLL” appears garbled; it should likely be dN/d log L or the conventional differential number density.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EP detection rate is a forward projection of an empirically fitted LF and an independent population-synthesis ERD, with no parameter fitted to the EP counts.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The ERD is obtained from the StarTrack population-synthesis submodel M33.A (Belczynski et al. 2020) with EoS-dependent remnant classification, independent of the XT sample. The LF is empirically fitted in Sec. 3 to a 29-event sample assembled from CDF-S and Swift observations; this is an input, not an output of the prediction. The EP detection rate in Eq. (2) then integrates this LF with the ERD, a detector threshold, a k-correction, and an external beaming factor from Fong et al. (2015). The first-year EP comparison is a post-hoc consistency check, not a fitting target: no LF or ERD parameter is adjusted to reproduce EP counts. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the LF may be biased by instrumental selection effects and small sample size (Sec. 3 and Sec. 5.1) and states that these uncertainties are currently unquantified; that is a statistical/correctness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Zou et al. 2021 for sGRB-XP identification and photon-index distribution) are empirical catalog inputs rather than load-bearing theorems, so they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on one population synthesis submodel for the merger rate and on an empirical LF that is fitted to a small, selection-biased sample. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the LF shape parameters and the luminosity range, all of which directly shift the predicted EP rate.

free parameters (7)
  • LF slope a (low-luminosity end) = -1.03
    Fitted to the binned LF from 29 XTs in Section 3; no uncertainty quoted.
  • LF slope beta1 = -0.28
    Fitted broken power-law slope below the break in Section 3.
  • LF slope beta2 = -1.66
    Fitted broken power-law slope above the break in Section 3.
  • LF break luminosity Lb = 4.38e47 erg/s
    Fitted break in Section 3; no uncertainty quoted.
  • ERD fit parameters (a, b, B, eta) = See Table 1 for each EoS and remnant type
    Fitted to StarTrack M33.A simulation output for R(z) using Eq. 1; these parameterize the simulated merger rate, not direct observations.
  • Luminosity range [Lmin, Lmax] = [2e44, 2e49] erg/s
    Chosen to match the observed sample extremes; changing the upper limit from 1e51 to 2e49 halves the raw detection rate in Section 4.
  • Jet opening angle / beaming factor = 16 deg / fb ~ 0.04
    Taken from sGRB jet observations (Fong et al. 2015) and applied to the XT emission; reduces the predicted rate from about 780 to about 31 per year.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Standard flat LCDM cosmology with H0=70, Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7
    Stated in Section 1 and used in Eq. 3 for comoving volume.
  • domain assumption StarTrack M33.A population synthesis model provides a reliable NSB merger rate and delay time distribution
    Section 2 adopts this submodel because its predictions are consistent with observational limits; the ERD R(z) is derived from it.
  • domain assumption Remnant type is determined by Mtot/MTOV thresholds (stable NS, SMNS, HMNS, BH)
    Section 2 uses the Margalit and Metzger 2017 classification to select NS remnants and split the sample.
  • ad hoc to paper Every NSB merger with Mtot <= 1.3 MTOV produces a newborn magnetar that successfully powers an XT
    Section 5.1 explicitly acknowledges this assumption and notes it may overestimate the detection rate.
  • domain assumption X-ray plateaus and extended emissions in sGRBs are powered by magnetar dipole radiation
    Section 3 treats these features as NSB-magnetar XTs; this is the standard magnetar central engine model.
  • ad hoc to paper The binned observed luminosity distribution, without correction for flux limits and survey geometry, represents the intrinsic LF
    Section 3 fits the LF directly to the 29-event sample and Section 6 states 'regardless of the instrumental selection effects'; this is the weakest premise.
  • domain assumption The sGRB jet opening angle distribution applies to the XT emission geometry
    Section 4 applies a median beaming factor fb about 0.04 from Fong et al. 2015 to the isotropic rate.
  • domain assumption XTs with luminosity below 1e44 erg/s are not produced by NSB-magnetars
    Section 3 excludes 5 XTs citing Metzger and Piro 2014, Sun et al. 2017, and Metzger et al. 2018; this cut affects the low end of the LF.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Event Rate Density and Luminosity Function of Newborn-Magnetar-Driven X-Ray Transients from Neutron Star Binary Mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LOGMNK6

@misc{pith2026250502097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Event Rate Density and Luminosity Function of Newborn-Magnetar-Driven X-Ray Transients from Neutron Star Binary Mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LOGMNK6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02097}
}
abstract

X-ray transients (XTs) driven by newborn magnetars from mergers of neutron star binaries (NSBs) were occasionally detected in the narrow-field {\it Chandra} Deep Field-South survey (CDF-S) and the {\it Swift}/XRT observations of short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs). Quantifying their event rate density (ERD) and luminosity function (LF) is critical for understanding NSB coalescence and magnetar formation. Utilizing population synthesis calculations incorporating various equations of state (EoS), we derive a local ERD of $\sim 300\,{\rm Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$ and a redshift-dependent ERD profile peaking at $z=1.81$ followed by rapid decline beyond $z \sim 4$. Constructing an XT sample based on CDF-S and {\it Swift} observations, we characterize the LF by a single power-law function at $L \leq 4.75 \times 10^{46}\;{\rm erg\;s^{-1}}$ with a slope of $-1.03$, following by a broken power-law function in which the break luminosity is $L_{\rm b} = 4.38 \times 10^{47}\;{\rm erg\;s^{-1}}$ and the slopes are $-0.28$ and $-1.66$. Based on the ERD and the LF, we estimate that the {\it Einstein Probe} ({\it EP}) detection rate is $\sim 31\;{\rm yr^{-1}}$, adopting a conservative threshold flux of $10^{-9}\;{\rm erg}\;{\rm s^{-1}}$, an luminosity range of $L \in [2\times 10^{44},2\times 10^{49}]\;{\rm erg\;s^{-1}}$, and a correction for jet opening angle of $\sim 16^{\circ}$. This detection rate is consistent with the {\it EP} observations during its first-year operation. It is important to note that our estimation is subject to uncertainties arising from the LF derivation. Future {\it EP} observations of these XT events will be crucial in reducing these uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02097 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of the remnant masses of NSB mergers derived from the population synthesis simulations im￾plemented by the StarTrack code. According to the different EoSs with the MTOV, we classify the remnant masses into the different types, i.e. an HMNS with ∼ 1.2MTOV ≲ Mtot ≲ 1.3 − 1.6MTOV, an SMNS with MTOV ≲ Mtot ≲ 1.2MTOV, and a stable NS with Mtot < MTOV (Margalit & Metzger 2017). The different EoSs are mark… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cosmic event rate history of the NSB-magnetar-XTs derived from StarTrack M33.A population synthesis simulation with different EoSs. The black dots are the total simulation data, green, magenta, and orange dots present the redshift distributions of different remnants, respectively. The black, green, magenta and orange dashed lines are the best-fit empirical model given in Eq.1. The black dot line presents the peak R … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The constructed luminosity function of the XTs driven by NSB-magnetars. The blue dashed dot line and red dashed line are the best-fit single power-law function and a combination of a single power-law function and a broken power-law function, respectively. The data with error bars are calculated with the XTs reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulated probability distribution contours of observable XTs with the EP/WXT among the remnant types for different EoSs. The solid red, cyan, and black lines present the contours of 68.3% and 95.5% of the mock XTs distribution, respectively. The observed data (solid d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of zsim and Lsim for the mock sample for NSB-magnetars (black lines) and MS-magnetars (blue lines), respectively. And the z and Lb distributions of our sample. 1 0 -1 6 1 0 -1 4 1 0 -1 2 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -8 1 0 -2 1 0 0 1 0 2 Ch an dra/CDF-S E P/WXT N Fth (er…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observable event number as a function of instrument flux threshold based on the cosmic event rate density and the LF derived from our analysis. The red dashed line presents the best fit. The blue and green dashed lines mark the sensitivities for Chandra/CDF-S and EP/WX…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031040. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2017, , 119, 161101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  4. [4]

    R., & Ravenhall, D

    Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G.\ 1998, , 58, 1804. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1804 1998

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2530

    Anand, N., Shahid, M., & Resmi, L.\ 2018, , 481, 4332. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2530

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2530 2018

  6. [6]

    Arnett, W. D. & Bowers, R. L.\ 1977, , 33, 415. doi:10.1086/190434

    work page doi:10.1086/190434 1977

  7. [7]

    E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al.\ 2017, , 467, 4841

    Bauer, F. E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al.\ 2017, , 467, 4841. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx417

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx417 2017

  8. [8]

    W., Shapiro, S

    Baumgarte, T. W., Shapiro, S. L., & Shibata, M.\ 2000, , 528, L29. doi:10.1086/312425

    doi:10.1086/312425 2000

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    E., et al.\ 2020, , 636, A104

    Belczynski, K., Klencki, J., Fields, C. E., et al.\ 2020, , 636, A104. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936528

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1086/340304

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., & Bulik, T.\ 2002, , 572, 407. doi:10.1086/340304

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al.\ 2008, , 174, 223

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al.\ 2008, , 174, 223. doi:10.1086/521026

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Frail, D

    Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., & Sari, R.\ 2001, , 121, 2879. doi:10.1086/321093

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2882

    Chu, Q., Yu, S., & Lu, Y.\ 2022, , 509, 1557. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2882

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Shapiro, S

    Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A.\ 1994, , 424, 823. doi:10.1086/173934

    1994 doi

  7. [15]

    Dai, Z. G. & Lu, T.\ 1998, , 333, L87. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810402

    1998 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Duncan, R. C. & Thompson, C.\ 1992, , 392, L9. doi:10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J

    Evans, P. A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J. P., et al.\ 2010, , 519, A102. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014819

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al.\ 2015, , 815, 102. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al.\ 2012, , 749, 91

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al.\ 2012, , 749, 91. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1007/s11467-019-0945-9

    Gao, H., Ai, S.-K., Cao, Z.-J., et al.\ 2020, Frontiers of Physics, 15, 24603. doi:10.1007/s11467-019-0945-9

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1086/164079

    Gehrels, N.\ 1986, , 303, 336. doi:10.1086/164079

    1986 doi

  15. [23]

    C., et al.\ 2015, , 809, 39

    Giacomazzo, B., Zrake, J., Duffell, P. C., et al.\ 2015, , 809, 39. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/39

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

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

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

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Glendenning, N. K. & Moszkowski, S. A.\ 1991, , 67, 2414. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.2414

    1991 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024001

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al.\ 2013, , 87, 024001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024001

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Zhao, D

    Hu, J. W., Zhao, D. H., Liu, Y., et al.\ 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 36053, 36053

    2024

  20. [28]

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

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

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf355

    Li, A., Miao, Z., Han, S., et al.\ 2021, , 913, 27. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf355

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    J., Zhang, Z

    Li, X. J., Zhang, Z. B., Zhang, X. L., et al.\ 2021, , 252, 16. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd3fd

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Y., Pan, X., Ling, Z

    Lian, T. Y., Pan, X., Ling, Z. X., et al.\ 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 36091, 36091

    2024

  26. [34]

    Y., Pan, X., Ling, Z

    Lian, T. Y., Pan, X., Ling, Z. X., et al.\ 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 36086, 36086

    2024

  27. [35]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/24

    Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Gehrels, N., et al.\ 2014, , 783, 24. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/24

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    T., Zhang, B., et al.\ 2010, , 402, 705

    Lyons, N., O'Brien, P. T., Zhang, B., et al.\ 2010, , 402, 705. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15538.x

    2010

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/2/47

    L \"u , H.-J., Yuan, Y., Lan, L., et al.\ 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 047. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/2/47

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    & Zhang, B.\ 2014, , 785, 74

    L \"u , H.-J. & Zhang, B.\ 2014, , 785, 74. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/74

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    & Fragos, T.\ 2017, , 840, 39

    Madau, P. & Fragos, T.\ 2017, , 840, 39. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    & Metzger, B

    Margalit, B. & Metzger, B. D.\ 2017, , 850, L19. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    D., Giannios, D., Thompson, T

    Metzger, B. D., Giannios, D., Thompson, T. A., et al.\ 2011, , 413, 2031. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x

    2011

  36. [44]

    Metzger, B. D. & Piro, A. L.\ 2014, , 439, 3916. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu247

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D.\ 2018, , 857, 95

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

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    E., Jonker, P

    Quirola-V \'a squez, J., Bauer, F. E., Jonker, P. G., et al.\ 2022, , 663, A168. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243047

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    E., Jonker, P

    Quirola-V \'a squez, J., Bauer, F. E., Jonker, P. G., et al.\ 2023, , 675, A44. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345912

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts708

    Rosswog, S., Piran, T., & Nakar, E.\ 2013, , 430, 2585. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts708

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    T., Metzger, B

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

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.083003

    Senno, N., Murase, K., & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2016, , 93, 083003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.083003

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    & Taniguchi, K.\ 2006, , 73, 064027

    Shibata, M. & Taniguchi, K.\ 2006, , 73, 064027. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.064027

    2006 doi

  46. [54]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/7

    Sun, H., Zhang, B., & Gao, H.\ 2017, , 835, 7. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/7

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    & Duncan, R

    Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. C.\ 1996, , 473, 322. doi:10.1086/178147

    1996 doi

  48. [56]

    & Duncan, R

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

    1995 doi

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    o pke, G., Kl \

    Typel, S., R \"o pke, G., Kl \"a hn, T., et al.\ 2010, , 81, 015803. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.015803

    2010 doi

  51. [59]

    V.\ 1992, , 357, 472

    Usov, V. V.\ 1992, , 357, 472. doi:10.1038/357472a0

    1992 doi

  52. [60]

    J., Zhang, B., O'Brien, P., et al.\ 2011, , 727, 109

    Virgili, F. J., Zhang, B., O'Brien, P., et al.\ 2011, , 727, 109. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/109

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    & Piran, T.\ 2015, , 448, 3026

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

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8302

    Xie, W.-J., Zou, L., Liu, H.-B., et al.\ 2020, , 894, 52. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8302

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    Q., Zheng, X

    Xue, Y. Q., Zheng, X. C., Li, Y., et al.\ 2019, , 568, 198. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1079-5

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    S., & Cao, X.-F.\ 2010, , 715, 477

    Yu, Y.-W., Cheng, K. S., & Cao, X.-F.\ 2010, , 715, 477. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/477

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Ling, Z., et al.\ 2017, The X-ray Universe 2017, 240

    2017

  58. [66]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.1506.07735

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Feng, H., et al.\ 2015, arXiv:1506.07735. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1506.07735

    2015 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

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

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

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Mao, X., Zhang, W

    Zhang, W. J., Mao, X., Zhang, W. D., et al.\ 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 35931, 35931

    2024

  61. [69]

    & 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

  62. [70]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ee4

    Zou, L., Zheng, T.-C., Yang, X., et al.\ 2021, , 921, L1. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ee4

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab17dc

    Zou, L., Zhou, Z.-M., Xie, L., et al.\ 2019, , 877, 153. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab17dc

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    & Liang, E.-W.\ 2022, , 513, L89

    Zou, L. & Liang, E.-W.\ 2022, , 513, L89. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac040

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2766

    Zou, L., Liang, E.-W., Zhong, S.-Q., et al.\ 2021, , 508, 2505. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2766

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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