Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Variabilities of Gamma-ray Bursts from the Dynamics of Fallback Material after Tidal Disruption

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single fallback-fluctuation spectrum with power-law slope $\beta\approx -1$ reproduces the rapid decay-phase variability of GRB 211211A, GRB 060614, and the jetted tidal disruption event Swift J1644+57.

desk verdict A suggestive but under-derived model linking TDE/GRB decay-phase variability to dM/dE fluctuations; the central β≈−1 inference lacks a transfer function and quantitative PDS comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04923 v1 pith:IHZJLHWD submitted 2025-05-08 astro-ph.HE

Yun-Peng Li , Da-Bin Lin , Guo-Yu Li , Zi-Min Zhou , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburststidaldisruptioneventsneutronstarmergersfallbackdebrisdM/dEfluctuationspowerdensityspectrumlight-curvevariabilitySwiftJ1644+57
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 takes the rapid variability seen in the decay tails of two gamma-ray bursts associated with compact-object mergers and of the jetted tidal disruption event Swift J1644+57, and traces it to one physical source: fluctuations in the energy distribution $\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}E$ of the debris that falls back after tidal disruption. It models those fluctuations with a power density spectrum, a measure of how much fluctuation power sits at each scale, proportional to $f_E^{\beta}$, where $f_E=1/E$ and $\beta$ is a slope, and shows that the resulting jet-power light curve preserves the fluctuation character. For $\beta\approx -1$, the simulated light curves match the observed flickering, and the power spectra of the three observed decay segments give fitted slopes $\alpha$ close to $-1$. The paper concludes that the fallback debris of compact-object mergers and supermassive-black-hole tidal disruptions carries the same scale-free fluctuation spectrum, making decay-phase flickering a direct probe of the disruption process itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fluctuating differential mass distribution $\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}E$ of the bound tidal debris, written as the smooth average profile times $[1+b_E\,u_E(E_{\rm cut},E)]^{\xi}$, where $u_E$ is a random field whose power density spectrum in the energy-frequency variable $f_E=1/E$ is $P_{Ef}\propto 2Q f_{\rm cut} f_E^{\beta}/(f_{\rm cut}^2+4Q^2(f_E-f_{\rm cut})^2)$. Because the fallback rate is $\dot{M}_{\rm fb}=(2\pi G M_{\rm BH})^{2/3}(\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}E)t^{-5/3}/3$ and the jet power is taken proportional to the inner-disk accretion rate, the index $\beta$ of the energy-space spectrum is what carries through to the light curve. The case that $\beta\approx -1$ rests on this mapping preserving the power-law slope from energy space to the time domain.

What would settle it

Feed a known fluctuating $\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}E$ with $\beta=-1$ through the paper's disk and jet equations, compute the power spectrum of the resulting $L_{\rm jet}$, and compare it with the observed PDS of GRB 211211A, GRB 060614, or Swift J1644+57; if the simulated slope deviates from the fitted $\alpha$ by more than the uncertainties, the claimed $\beta\approx\alpha$ mapping is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed variability in the decay phases of GRB 211211A, GRB 060614, and Swift J1644+57 is imprinted by the mass-energy distribution $\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}E$ of tidally disrupted fallback debris, not generated independently by the jet or the disk. The paper constructs a fluctuating $\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}E$ with power density spectrum proportional to $f_E^{\beta}$, feeds it through the fallback-rate relation $\dot{M}_{\rm fb}\propto (\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}E)\,t^{-5/3}$ and a viscous accretion-disk plus jet-power model, and finds that the jet luminosity keeps the fluctuation morphology while suppressing only the shortest timescales. Varying the model parameters shows that the fluctuation morphology depends only on $\beta$. Comparison with observations selects $\beta\approx -1$, and standard periodogram power-spectrum estimates of the detrended decay segments, fit with $P=N f^{\alpha}+B$, give $\alpha=-0.94\pm0.18$, $-1.30\pm0.28$, and $-0.61\pm0.14$, which the paper reads as $\beta\approx -1$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument hinges on the observed light-curve flicker spectrum having the same slope as the debris energy-distribution flicker spectrum, with the disk and jet assumed not to reshape that slope.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The decay-phase flicker of a compact-merger GRB becomes a fossil record of the debris mass distribution, so the same fallback framework applies to neutron-star mergers and supermassive-black-hole tidal disruptions.
  • The slope of the detrended light-curve power spectrum becomes a direct estimator of $\beta$, letting observers measure the debris fluctuation spectrum without full hydrodynamic simulation.
  • Because the fluctuation morphology depends only on $\beta$, the total fallback mass, viscosity parameter, fluctuation amplitude, and cutoff energy mostly set the overall normalization and peak, not the shape of the flicker.
  • Short-timescale fluctuations are suppressed by the viscous timescale at the fallback radius, so the high-frequency falloff of the observed power spectrum can constrain the disk viscosity or the radius where debris joins the disk.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference beyond the paper: if $\beta=-1$ is universal, the debris fluctuation spectrum is scale-free in energy space, which would point to self-similar turbulent mixing during tidal disruption; measuring $\mathrm{d}M/\mathrm{d}E$ fluctuation spectra in hydrodynamic TDE simulations would test this directly.
  • Inference beyond the paper: the paper's reading of the observed $\alpha$ as $\beta$ assumes the viscous disk and jet transfer function preserves the power-law slope; computing the power spectrum of the simulated jet power for $\beta=-1$ and comparing it with the observed PDS would settle whether the mapping is that clean.
  • Inference beyond the paper: applying the same detrending-plus-periodogram recipe to other GRBs and TDEs with clean $-5/3$ decay tails would show whether the fallback fluctuation slope is a universal property or varies with the type of disrupted star.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the violent variability observed in the decay phases of GRB 211211A, GRB 060614, and the TDE Sw J1644+57 arises from fluctuations in the mass-energy distribution dM/dE of tidally disrupted debris. The authors model these fluctuations with a power density spectrum ∝ f_E^β (Eq. 8), propagate them through fallback and disk equations to compute jet luminosity, and compare the resulting light curves visually with observations. They also fit the power-law slopes α of the observed light-curve power density spectra and, based on α values between −0.61 and −1.30, conclude that β ≈ −1. The central claim is that β ≈ −1 is the physical index characterizing debris-energy fluctuations.

Significance. If established, the result would provide a physical origin for the ubiquitous flicker-noise-like variability in TDE and GRB light curves and link the statistical properties of the debris energy distribution to observations. The paper is commendable for attempting a concrete dynamical model (Eqs. 1–3) and for using actual observed light curves of three well-known transients. However, the quantitative inference of β from the observed PDS slopes is not demonstrated, because the required transfer function between the energy-domain spectrum and the time-domain light-curve spectrum is never derived or computed. The paper also relies on visual matching rather than a quantitative model-data comparison, and several free parameters are fixed without a systematic study. The core claim therefore remains plausible but unsupported as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (10) and Table 1] The inference that β ≈ −1 from the observed PDS slopes α is not justified: the paper never derives the transfer function that maps the energy-domain PDS slope β in Eq. (8) to the time-domain light-curve PDS slope α fit in Eq. (10). The relation depends on the E(t) mapping E = −(2πGMBH/t)^(2/3)/2, the disk equations (1)–(3), the jet mapping (4), and the viscous filtering, none of which is analyzed. Without this mapping, identifying α with β is an assumption, not a derivation, and the abstract's statement that β ≈ −1 is 'found' from observations is unsupported.
  2. [Table 1, Sw J1644+57 row] Even under the paper's implicit α = β identification, the fitted slopes are not uniformly consistent with −1: α = −0.61 ± 0.14 for Sw J1644+57 is about 2.8σ away from −1. The claim that 'the exponential factor β ... is found to be ∼ −1' therefore glosses over a significant discrepancy in one of the three objects. The manuscript should quantify how the observed α distribution is consistent with a single β ≈ −1, or discuss the physical origin of the dispersion.
  3. [Section 3.1, Figures 3 and 5] The central demonstration that β ≈ −1 reproduces the observed variability is only qualitative. The model light curves are compared by eye to the observed light curves, and no model power density spectrum is ever computed and compared to the observed PDS shown in Figure 7. A quantitative comparison—for example, computing the PDS of the simulated jet power for β = −1 and comparing its slope and amplitude to the observed PDS—is needed to support the claim that β controls the fluctuation morphology and that β ≈ −1 matches the data.
  4. [Section 3.1, last paragraph and Section 4] The claim that 'the fluctuation characteristics of the light curve depend solely on the index β' is asserted but not demonstrated systematically. The paper varies several parameters (ηE, Q, bE, ξ, tpeak, MBH, Mstar, Rstar) in a few illustrative cases, but it does not provide a quantitative measure of fluctuation morphology (e.g., PDS slopes, rms-flux relation) as a function of these parameters. This matters because the interpretation of β hinges on the other parameters not affecting the fluctuation statistics; a more systematic parameter study is required.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, first paragraph] The text says 'the jet power effectively reverses the general fluctuating characteristics'; 'reverses' appears to be a typo for 'preserves', which would be consistent with the paper's intended meaning.
  2. [Section 4, last paragraph] The sentence 'We further examin the dependence' contains a typo: 'examin' should be 'examine'.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption lists the parameter tuple as (Q, ηE, ξ, bE, tpeak) with β = 0, −1, −2, but the order of parameters in the text is (Q, ηE, β, ξ, bE, tpeak); the caption should be checked for consistency with the text and Equations (7)–(8).
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The caption states 'with the 3σ uncertainties for each parameter indicated', but the text in Table 1 reports 1σ uncertainties (e.g., ±0.18). Please clarify which confidence level is shown and ensure consistency between the table and the figure caption.
  5. [Appendix, Table 2] For Sw J1644+57, the second row has empty entries for Fit 2; the text says this is because the −5/3 segment was taken directly, but the table should either include a dash or an explicit note to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central claim β≈−1 is a relabeling of the observed light-curve PDS slope rather than a derived or predicted result.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, after Eq. (10) and Table 1; cf. abstract and Section 4]
    "Based on the derived power-law indices, the exponential factor β, which characterizes the fluctuations for dM/dE, is found to be ∼−1."

    No transfer function is derived connecting the observed time-domain light-curve PDS slope α fitted with Eq. (10) to the energy-domain slope β of the dM/dE PDS in Eq. (8). The paper's only quantitative support for β≈−1 from data is that α≈−1, so the 'finding' is the observed slope relabeled as β. Moreover, β=−1 had already been selected in Section 3.1 to reproduce the same observed light curves ('the case β ≈ −1 closely reproduces the observed variability pattern of the jet power'), so the Section 3.2 statement is a second use of the same data, not an independent prediction. The fitted values also do not all agree with −1 (Sw J1644+57: α=−0.61±0.14, about 2.8σ away), which undercuts the claimed uniformity.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Based on the observations, we find that the value of β should be around −1."

    This sentence presents β≈−1 as an observational inference, but the only quantitative observational input is the PDS slope α from Section 3.2, which is identified with β without derivation. Since the model was already tuned to β=−1 in Section 3.1 by matching the same observed variability, the abstract's claim is a summary of that calibration rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuinely self-contained forward model: fluctuations are inserted into dM/dE via Eq. (7) with a PDS given by Eq. (8), and Equations (1)–(5) propagate them through fallback, disk accretion, and jet power. The simulations in Section 3.1 are reproducible and the claim that β controls the fluctuation morphology is an internal model result. However, the central quantitative conclusion—β≈−1—is not derived from the model or from an independent observable. Section 3.1 selects β=−1 visually by matching the observed light-curve variability, and Section 3.2 then fits the observed light-curve PDS slope α and directly equates that with the energy-domain slope β ('the exponential factor β ... is found to be ∼−1') without computing the model light-curve PDS or deriving the mapping from dM/dE fluctuations to jet-power fluctuations. The observed α≈−1 is therefore effectively relabeled as β≈−1, making the 'prediction' a restatement of the input used to calibrate the model. The inconsistency of Sw J1644+57's α=−0.61±0.14 with −1 further shows that the data do not uniformly force the claimed value. This is partial circularity in the inference chain: the forward model is independent, but the headline claim reduces to the observed PDS slope under an unstated identification.

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

The model rests on standard accretion disk theory, the fallback rate formula, and a chosen functional form for the PDS of dM/dE fluctuations. The central parameter beta is fitted to the observed variability. Other parameters (b_E, xi, eta_E, Q) affect amplitude and cutoffs but are argued not to change the fluctuation morphology.

free parameters (6)
  • beta (power-law index) = around -1
    Power-law index of the dM/dE fluctuation PDS; the main parameter of interest, chosen to match observed variability and then claimed as the inferred value.
  • eta_E (cutoff energy parameter) = 0.01
    Controls the cutoff energy of the fluctuation PDS; the authors state it does not change the fluctuation morphology.
  • xi (exponent) = 5 or 10
    Sets the amplitude of fluctuations relative to the mean; affects amplitude but not morphology.
  • b_E (amplitude factor) = 0.5 to 0.8
    Amplitude factor for fluctuations; affects amplitude but not morphology.
  • Q (quality factor) = 0.5
    Quality factor of the Lorentzian PDS; taken from prior literature, does not change morphology.
  • t_peak (peak time) = 3 s or 5 days
    Peak time of the fallback light curve, set to match each source.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Fallback rate formula dM/dt = (2 pi G M_BH)^(2/3) / 3 dM/dE t^(-5/3) (Equation 5).
    Used to connect the energy distribution dM/dE to the fallback rate.
  • domain assumption Jet power is proportional to the innermost accretion rate with efficiency eta_acc = 0.1 (Equation 4).
    Assumed to translate accretion rate into jet luminosity.
  • domain assumption The accretion rate tracks the fallback rate because the viscous timescale at the tidal radius is shorter than the fallback time.
    Stated in Section 2.1; justifies using fallback fluctuations as the driver of jet variability.
  • ad hoc to paper Fluctuations in dM/dE follow a Lorentzian-type power density spectrum P_E proportional to f_E^beta with beta <= 0 (Equation 8).
    Adopted from turbulence phenomenology without a first-principles derivation; this is the central model assumption.
  • domain assumption The decay phases of GRB 211211A, GRB 060614, and Swift J1644+57 are powered by fallback of tidally disrupted debris, analogous to a TDE.
    The paper assumes these events share a common fallback-driven mechanism in their decay phases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variabilities of Gamma-ray Bursts from the Dynamics of Fallback Material after Tidal Disruption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IHZJLHWD

@misc{pith2026250504923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variabilities of Gamma-ray Bursts from the Dynamics of Fallback Material after Tidal Disruption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IHZJLHWD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04923}
}
abstract

The gamma-ray burst (GRB) GRB 211211A and GRB 060614, believed to originate from the merger of compact objects, exhibit similarities to the jetted tidal disruption event (TDE) Sw J1644+57, by showing violent variabilities in the light-curve during the decay phase. Previous studies suggest that such fluctuations in TDE may arise from the fallback of tidal disrupted debris. In this paper, we introduce the fluctuations of the mass distribution ${\rm d}M/{\rm d}E$ for the debris ejected during the tidal disruption (with energy $E$) and study their impact on jet power. Turbulence induced by tidal force and the self-gravity of the debris may imprint variabilities in ${\rm d}M/{\rm d}E$ during fallback. We model these fluctuations with a power density spectrum $\propto f_{\rm E}^{\beta}$, where $f_{\rm E} = 1/E$ and $\beta$ is the power-law index. We find that the resulting light curve can preserve the fluctuation characteristics from ${\rm d}M/{\rm d}E$. In addition, the observed fluctuations in the light-curves can be reproduced for a given suitable $\beta$. Based on the observations, we find that the value of $\beta$ should be around $-1$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of dM/dE in energy space with fluctuations introduced (left) and the shape of the corresponding power density spectrum (PDS) (right), with parameters given by (Q, ηE, β, ξ, bE, tpeak) = (0.5, 0.01, −1, 5, 0.7, 3 s). 100 101 102 10-6 10-4 10-2 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the fallback rate (blue) and jet power (red) predicted by dM/dE fluctuation models. To pre￾vent overlap, the normalized curves are scaled by factors of 1 (blue) and 0.01 (red). Both curves correspond to the case of (Q, ηE, β, ξ, bE, tpeak) = (0.5, 0.01, −1, 5, 0.7, 3 s) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized light curves for different fluctuation parameters (β) and final fallback radii (rfb,fin). The left panel displays normalized light curves for different fluctuation parameters β. To prevent overlap, the curves are scaled by factors of 1 (red), 10−2 (blue), and 10−4 (purple). These curves correspond to the case of (Q, ηE, ξ, bE, tpeak) = (0.5, 0.01, 5, 0.7, 3 s), with β = 0 (blue), β = −1 (red), and β = −2 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized light curves for different parameters ηE and Q. To prevent overlap, the normalized curves are scaled by factors of 1 (blue), 0.1 (red) and 0.01 (blue). all of curves correspond to the case of (β, ξ, bE, tpeak) = (−1, 5, 0.7, 3 s) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of observed normalized light curves and those generated by dM/dE fluctuation models for sGRBs (left panel) and TDEs (right panel). In the left panel, the curves are scaled by factors of 1 (black), 0.1 (red), and 0.01 (blue). The red solid line represents the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of normalized light curves before and after detrending. The left, middle, and right panels show light curves for GRB 211211A, GRB 060614, and Sw J1644+57, respectively. The red solid lines represent the original light curves, the blue solid lines represent t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fitting results of the PDS for GRB 211211A (left), GRB 060614 (middle), and Sw J1644+57 (right). In the upper panel, the black solid lines represent the PDS generated by LSP, while the red lines show posterior samples from the PSD-fitting MCMC chain. The lower panels d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., & Stone, N

    Coughlin, E. R., & Stone, N. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3444 Ar´ evalo, P., & Uttley, P. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 801, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09989.x

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 2014

  3. [3]

    D., & Payne, D

    Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883, doi: 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  4. [4]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  5. [5]

    S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B

    Bloom, J. S., Giannios, D., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 203, doi: 10.1126/science.1207150 Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., Daigne, F., & Dubus, G. 2009, A&A, 498, 677, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811375

    doi:10.1126/science.1207150 2011

  6. [6]

    N., Kennea, J

    Burrows, D. N., Kennea, J. A., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 421, doi: 10.1038/nature10374

    doi:10.1038/nature10374 2011

  7. [7]

    K., Lee, H

    Cannizzo, J. K., Lee, H. M., & Goodman, J. 1990, ApJ, 351, 38, doi: 10.1086/168442

    doi:10.1086/168442 1990

  8. [8]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. 2015, ApJL, 808, L11, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L11

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l11 2015

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    2020, ApJL, 896, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9a4e

    Margutti, R. 2020, ApJL, 896, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9a4e

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 859, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    1998, MNRAS, 296, 275, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x

    Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 275, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x

    1998

  4. [12]

    D., & Foucart, F

    Desai, D., Metzger, B. D., & Foucart, F. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz644

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJL, 346, L13, doi: 10.1086/185567

    1989 doi

  6. [14]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Fancher, J., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2858 Fern´ andez, R., Kasen, D., Metzger, B. D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2112

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Fynbo, J. P. U., Watson, D., Th¨ one, C. C., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1047, doi: 10.1038/nature05375

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    B., Price, P

    Gal-Yam, A., Fox, D. B., Price, P. A., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1053, doi: 10.1038/nature05373

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    Gehrels, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Fox, D. B. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 567, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145147

    2009

  11. [19]

    P., Barthelmy, S

    Gehrels, N., Norris, J. P., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1044, doi: 10.1038/nature05376

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2002, Physics of Fluids, 14, 1065, doi: 10.1063/1.1448296

    Gotoh, T., Fukayama, D., & Nakano, T. 2002, Physics of Fluids, 14, 1065, doi: 10.1063/1.1448296

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, A&A, 589, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527642

    Guidorzi, C., Dichiara, S., & Amati, L. 2016, A&A, 589, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527642

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295, doi: 10.1038/254295a0 Jankoviˇ c, T., & Gomboc, A. 2023, ApJ, 946, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb8b0

    1975 doi

  17. [25]

    2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —

    Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 2008, Black-Hole Accretion Disks — Towards a New Paradigm —

    2008

  18. [26]

    1997, ApJ, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

    Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

    1997 doi

  19. [27]

    2005, ApJ, 629, 341, doi: 10.1086/431354

    Kohri, K., Narayan, R., & Piran, T. 2005, ApJ, 629, 341, doi: 10.1086/431354

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101, doi: 10.1086/186969 Kr¨ uger, C. J., & Foucart, F. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 103002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103002

    1993 doi

  21. [29]

    2015, PhR, 561, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

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

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2021, Living Reviews in Relativity, 24, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00033-4

    Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2021, Living Reviews in Relativity, 24, 5, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00033-4

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    H., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Lee, W. H., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 17, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/9/1/017

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 199, doi: 10.1126/science.1207143

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4452

    Li, Y.-P., Chen, Z.-L., Lin, D.-B., & Liang, E.-W. 2024, ApJ, 968, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4452

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 308, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20305.x

    Lin, D.-B., Gu, W.-M., Liu, T., & Lu, J.-F. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 308, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20305.x

    2012

  27. [35]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1985

    Lin, D.-B., Lu, Z.-J., Mu, H.-J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1985

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    R., & Pringle, J

    Lodato, G., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 332, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14049.x

    2009

  29. [37]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  30. [39]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJL, 937, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac90ba

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    2007, PhR, 442, 166, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

    Nakar, E. 2007, PhR, 442, 166, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

    2007 doi

  32. [41]

    1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJL, 428, L13, doi: 10.1086/187381

    1994 doi

  33. [42]

    J., Coughlin, E

    Nixon, C. J., Coughlin, E. R., & Miles, P. R. 2021, ApJ, 922, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bb8 8 Li et al

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    Norman, S. M. J., Nixon, C. J., & Coughlin, E. R. 2021, ApJ, 923, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ee8

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    T., & Marek, A

    Oechslin, R., Janka, H. T., & Marek, A. 2007, A&A, 467, 395, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066682

    2007 doi

  36. [45]

    E., & Fryer, C

    Popham, R., Woosley, S. E., & Fryer, C. 1999, ApJ, 518, 356, doi: 10.1086/307259

    1999 doi

  37. [46]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 3255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1227

    Radice, D., Galeazzi, F., Lippuner, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1227

    2016 doi

  38. [47]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

    Radice, D., Perego, A., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    C., Gompertz, B

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

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  41. [50]

    J., & Meszaros, P

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

    1994 doi

  42. [51]

    Rosswog, S., & Davies, M. B. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 481, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05409.x

    2002

  43. [52]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  44. [53]

    2004, MNRAS, 354, 1020, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08261.x

    Danese, L. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1020, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08261.x

    2004

  45. [54]

    2008, PhRvD, 77, 084015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.084015

    Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 084015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.084015

    2008 doi

  46. [55]

    Steinberg, E., & Stone, N. C. 2024, Nature, 625, 463, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    C., Kesden, M., Cheng, R

    Stone, N. C., Kesden, M., Cheng, R. M., & van Velzen, S. 2019, General Relativity and Gravitation, 51, 30, doi: 10.1007/s10714-019-2510-9

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    Teboul, O., & Metzger, B. D. 2023, ApJL, 957, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0037

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

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

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    E., & Bloom, J

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

    2006 arXiv

  51. [60]

    2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7323, doi: 10.1038/ncomms8323

    Yang, B., Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., et al. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7323, doi: 10.1038/ncomms8323

    2015 doi

  52. [61]

    2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

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

    2022 doi

  53. [62]

    A., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 152, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/152

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A

    Zauderer, B. A., Berger, E., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 425, doi: 10.1038/nature10366

    2011 doi

  55. [64]

    2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    Zechmeister, M., & K¨ urster, M. 2009, A&A, 496, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    2009 doi

  56. [65]

    2022, ApJL, 933, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b23

    Wang, X.-Y. 2022, ApJL, 933, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b23

    2022 doi

  57. [66]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f90

    Zhou, Z.-M., Wang, X.-G., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f90

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    I., Sun, H., et al

    Zhu, J.-P., Wang, X. I., Sun, H., et al. 2022, ApJL, 936, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac85ad V ariabilities of Gamma-ray Bursts from the Dynamics of F allback Material 9 1016 1017 1018 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 100 102 104 106 108 10-18 10-16 10-14 10-12 10-10 10-8 10...

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.