Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Neutron Star-White Dwarf Merger as One Possible Optional Source of Kilonova-like Emission: Implications for GRB 211211A

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In neutron star-white dwarf mergers, nucleosynthesis stops below mass number 90, so the early kilonova of GRB 211211A can be explained only if a newborn magnetar powers it.

desk verdict A careful but limited consistency check: A<90 is known, the new bit is the light-curve comparison with GRB 211211A, but the magnetar conclusion hinges on parameterized trajectories. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04318 v2 pith:MJU3BYQ3 submitted 2025-07-06 astro-ph.HE

Xiao-Xuan Liu , Hou-Jun Lü , Qiu-Hong Chen , Zhao-Wei Du , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstskilonovaneutronstar-whitedwarfmergernucleosynthesisr-processmagnetarGRB211211Aradioactiveheating
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

GRB 211211A is a long gamma-ray burst at $z=0.076$ with no supernova and a possible kilonova, and a neutron star-white dwarf (NS-WD) merger has been proposed as its progenitor. This paper simulates the nucleosynthesis of such mergers with the nuclear network code SkyNet, using constant-density disk evolution followed by adiabatic ejecta expansion for three mass configurations and three temperatures. The simulations produce no nuclides heavier than $A<90$, with most material near the iron peak, and the radioactive decay of that material yields a kilonova-like light curve that is fainter than the observed afterglow-subtracted kilonova during the first day. Comparing these light curves with the possible kilonova of GRB 211211A, the authors conclude that the NS-WD origin survives only if the merger remnant is a supramassive or stable magnetar whose spin-down energy powers the early emission. This matters because it sets a concrete test: detect elements with $A>90$ in such a transient and the NS-WD scenario is ruled out.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the nuclear reaction network code SkyNet, run first on a 60-second constant-density, constant-temperature disk and then on an expanding ejecta with $T V^{1/3}=\mathrm{const}$ and a 3-second expansion timescale, which yields the abundance distribution and the radioactive heating rate $\dot{q}(t)$. That heating rate, folded with a thermalization efficiency, drives a multi-layer spherical kilonova model in which each layer's thermal energy obeys adiabatic losses, photon diffusion, and radioactive heating, using a broken power-law density profile and a fixed opacity of $0.2\,\mathrm{cm}^2\,\mathrm{g}^{-1}$. Comparing these synthetic $r$-band light curves with afterglow-subtracted photometry of GRB 211211A is what forces the conclusion that a magnetar is needed at early times.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic detection of an emission line from a nuclide with mass number greater than 90 (for example, Te III at $A=128$) in a GRB 211211A-like kilonova would directly falsify the NS-WD origin as modeled here; so would a self-consistent merger simulation that produces neutron-rich outflows yielding $A>90$ elements, or an observed early kilonova that exceeds the radioactive-decay model without any magnetar signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that NS-WD merger ejecta, under the explored disk and ejecta conditions, never reach the heavy r-process region: the heaviest synthesized nuclides stay below $A=90$, peaking near $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$, and the resulting radioactive-heating-powered emission is insufficient to account for the early (first-day) kilonova brightness observed for GRB 211211A. The paper argues that if the NS-WD merger is nonetheless the progenitor, the remnant must be a supramassive or stable magnetar that injects spin-down energy into the ejecta; without such an extra energy source, the NS-WD origin is difficult to sustain. As a corollary, a spectroscopic detection of an element heavier than $A=90$ in a GRB 211211A-like kilonova would eliminate the NS-WD merger as the source.

Load-bearing premise

The entire $A<90$ result rests on the assumed thermodynamic history of the merger ejecta: a constant-density, constant-temperature 60-second disk followed by an adiabatic expansion on a 3-second timescale, with an initial composition of equal carbon and oxygen plus 1% helium; if the real ejecta is more neutron rich or has a different entropy history, heavier elements and a brighter early kilonova could be produced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NS-WD mergers should not be counted as r-process sites for elements with $A>90$; their nucleosynthesis is capped near the iron peak.
  • A kilonova from an NS-WD merger powered only by radioactivity is fainter than the observed early emission of GRB 211211A, so any successful NS-WD model of this event must include a stable or supramassive magnetar remnant.
  • A spectroscopic detection of an element with $A>90$ (such as the proposed Te III feature at $A=128$ in GRB 230307A) would rule out an NS-WD origin for that event.
  • The calculated $r$-band light curves provide a quantitative template for what an NS-WD merger kilonova should look like: a peak around 2.5 to 3 days and a luminosity fainter than typical r-process kilonovae.
  • Multimessenger or line-based identification of the merger system, for example through gravitational waves, would be needed to firmly settle the progenitor instead of relying on light-curve brightness alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true NS-WD ejecta is more neutron rich than the assumed equal carbon and oxygen plus helium composition, the $A<90$ ceiling could be lifted; a self-consistent merger simulation that includes neutrino absorption would test this directly.
  • The same parameterized trajectories imply that the 60-second disk phase and the 3-second expansion timescale are the decisive knobs: changing them would shift the $^{56}\mathrm{Ni}$ yield and hence the peak brightness, which could be checked with a grid of trajectories.
  • A magnetar-powered NS-WD kilonova should show a late-time excess or plateau from spin-down energy in the residual light curve after radioactive decay fades, a signature that can be searched for in GRB 211211A and similar events.
  • The $A<90$ result may extend to other white-dwarf-containing mergers such as white dwarf-black hole systems, which would alter predicted r-process contributions from those channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a neutron star-white dwarf (NS-WD) merger could be the progenitor of the long-duration GRB 211211A and its possible kilonova-like emission. Using the nuclear reaction network SkyNet, the authors compute nucleosynthesis for three NS-WD mass models at initial temperatures of 4, 5, and 6 GK, assuming a constant density/temperature disk phase followed by parameterized adiabatic ejecta expansion. They find that the heaviest synthesized nuclei have mass number A<90. They then compute r-band kilonova-like light curves with a multi-layer semi-analytic diffusion model and compare them with afterglow-subtracted photometry of GRB 211211A. The radioactive-decay-only light curves are fainter than the observed early emission, so the authors conclude that the NS-WD merger cannot be ruled out if the merger remnant is a supramassive or stable magnetar; otherwise the early emission is difficult to explain.

Significance. If the central results were robust, the paper would establish an upper mass limit (A<90) for elements produced in NS-WD mergers and would constrain the central-engine requirements for kilonova-like emission in GRB 211211A. The work uses a state-of-the-art nuclear network, explores a parameter grid in temperature and system masses, and directly compares against published afterglow-subtracted observations. It also identifies a falsifiable observational test involving spectral lines from A>90 elements (e.g., Te III in GRB 230307A). However, the key conclusions inherit strong sensitivity to the adopted disk and ejecta thermodynamic trajectories, which are parameterized rather than derived from merger hydrodynamics; the significance is therefore conditional on that input being representative.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Figures 1 and 3] The central claim that NS-WD merger ejecta cannot produce elements with A>90, and the resulting radioactive heating deficit, are conditioned on an assumed thermodynamic trajectory: constant density and temperature for 60 s in the disk, followed by TV^{1/3}=const with a 3 s expansion timescale, and an initial composition of equal C/O plus 1% He. These choices fix the electron fraction Ye, which controls how far the r-process can proceed. A real NS-WD merger may have lower-Ye ejecta due to electron captures near the NS, mixing of NS crust material, or a different thermal history. Without a demonstration that the A<90 result and the corresponding heating rate are robust to such variations (e.g., by sampling a range of Ye or using hydrodynamic trajectories), the conclusion is not yet established as a property of NS-WD mergers.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (6)] The conclusion that a supramassive or stable magnetar is required (or that the NS-WD scenario cannot be ruled out only if such a magnetar exists) is not supported by any quantitative model. No magnetar spin-down luminosity is added to the energy equation (Eq. 6), and no magnetar parameters are varied and compared against the data. The comparison in Figure 3 only shows that radioactive decay alone, within the adopted trajectory family, underproduces the early emission. To make the claim load-bearing, the authors should compute light curves with magnetar energy injection and show that a plausible parameter range fills the early excess without overproducing the late-time data.
  3. [Section 2.3, Eq. (8)] The opacity is fixed at κ=0.2 cm^2/g because the ejecta are assumed to be dominated by iron-group elements. This assumption is exactly the point at issue: if a different (more neutron-rich) trajectory produced A>90 nuclei, lanthanide opacities would be significantly larger, altering the light-curve shape and the inferred energy budget. The paper should either justify this opacity over the range of possible compositions or test the sensitivity of the early-deficit conclusion to higher opacities.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Header and Abstract] The header contains a typo, "KILONOV A", which should be "KILONOVA".
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] The phrase "solidly observed case of possible kilonova emission" is internally contradictory; the observations are repeatedly described elsewhere as a "possible" kilonova, so the wording should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 3] The sentence "the observations of the possible kilonova emission of GRB 211211A are lower than those of our calculated model after 1 day" is ambiguous: "lower" presumably means fainter (larger magnitude), but the next sentence says the observations are brighter at early times. Please rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction.
  4. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2)] The thermalization parameters a=0.27, b=0.10, d=0.60 are adopted from Barnes et al. (2016) without discussing their composition dependence. A brief comment on the range of validity would help the reader assess the uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the A<90 result and the kilonova-like light curves are forward outputs of the SkyNet network and a fixed-parameter photon-diffusion model, the magnetar requirement is a conditional comparison against unfitted afterglow-subtracted data, and the only same-group citation (Chen & Liang 2024) is a methodological tool anchored in external standard works.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained under the circularity definitions: no parameter is fitted to the GRB 211211A kilonova observations and then repackaged as a prediction, and no conclusion is equivalent by construction to an assumed input. The A<90 nucleosynthesis result is a genuine SkyNet output for the explicitly stated constant-density, constant-temperature disk trajectory (60 s) followed by a TV^(1/3)=const ejecta expansion with a 3 s timescale, starting from an equal-C/O-plus-1%-He composition; these inputs are parameterized assumptions taken from external works (Margalit & Metzger 2016; Zenati et al. 2019; Kaltenborn et al. 2023), not tuned to the target event, and the paper transparently declares the temperatures (4, 5, 6 GK) to be free parameters. The kilonova-like light curves are computed forward with fixed inputs (vej = 0.1c from Zenati et al. 2019; kappa = 0.2 cm^2/g for iron-rich ejecta; thermalization constants from Barnes et al. 2016; DL = 346 Mpc used only to place the model at the event distance), so the early-time deficit against the afterglow-subtracted points of Yang et al. (2022) is a comparison result, not a fitted outcome. The central claim is deliberately weak and conditional ('cannot be ruled out ... if the remnant of the WD-NS merger is a supramassive or stable magnetar'), the authors run additional robustness checks (T = 3 GK and MWD = MNS = 1.25 M_sun) that still fail to reproduce the early emission, and the paper concedes that the progenitor cannot be firmly identified from the kilonova alone. The only same-group citation (Chen & Liang 2024) supplies the layered light-curve implementation, but the substantive ingredients are traced to external references (Metzger 2019; Kasen et al. 2017), so this self-citation is methodological and not load-bearing in a circular sense. Sensitivity of A<90, and hence of the inferred magnetar need, to the assumed thermodynamic trajectory and composition is a real model-validation concern that belongs under correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of modeling assumptions: the disk composition and thermodynamic trajectory, the ejecta expansion profile, the gray opacity, and the thermalization efficiency. None of these is fitted to the GRB 211211A data, but they are all inputs that can shift A_max and the predicted luminosity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial temperature T = 4, 5, 6 GK
    Treated as free parameters in the abstract and Section 2.1; the heavy-element yields and light curves depend strongly on this choice.
  • Opacity kappa = 0.2 cm^2/g
    Assumed gray opacity for iron-rich ejecta in Eq. (8); not derived from the simulated composition and not varied.
  • Expansion timescale = 3 s
    Chosen for the ejecta expansion considering the long duration of WD-NS mergers; sets the density trajectory and freeze-out conditions.
  • Thermalization constants a, b, d = a=0.27, b=0.10, d=0.60
    Fixed from Barnes et al. (2016); these shape the heating efficiency curve ftot(t) in Eq. (2).
  • Ejecta velocity vej = 0.1 c
    Adopted from Zenati et al. (2019); sets the light-curve timescale and peak time.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math SkyNet nuclear network and JINA REACLIB rates with FRDM mass model are reliable for these proton-rich conditions.
    The nucleosynthesis calculation assumes the standard nuclear physics tools and data; no independent validation against experimental yields is provided.
  • domain assumption The WD-NS merger disk consists of equal parts carbon and oxygen with 1% helium, and the ejecta masses from Kaltenborn et al. (2023) and Zenati et al. (2019) apply.
    Stated in Section 2.1 as initial composition; the nucleosynthesis outcome is sensitive to the initial neutron-to-proton ratio set by this composition.
  • ad hoc to paper The ejecta follows a parameterized trajectory from Lippuner & Roberts (2015) with constant density and temperature for 60 s in the disk and then TV^{1/3}=const in the ejecta.
    This trajectory is not derived self-consistently from merger hydrodynamics; it is an ad hoc modeling choice that directly determines the maximum mass number A<90.
  • domain assumption The merger ejecta is spherically symmetric and follows the broken power-law density profile of Kasen et al. (2017) with exponents delta=1 and n=10.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 for the light-curve model; real merger ejecta can be anisotropic, and the choice of exponents affects the light-curve shape.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron Star-White Dwarf Merger as One Possible Optional Source of Kilonova-like Emission: Implications for GRB 211211A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJU3BYQ3

@misc{pith2026250704318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron Star-White Dwarf Merger as One Possible Optional Source of Kilonova-like Emission: Implications for GRB 211211A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJU3BYQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04318}
}
abstract

Long-duration GRB 211211A, which lacked an associated supernova at such a low redshift $z=0.076$, but was associated with a possible kilonova emission, has attracted great attention. The neutron star-white dwarf (NS-WD) merger is proposed as a possible progenitor of GRB 211211A, and it could naturally explain the long duration of the prompt emission. However, the NS-WD merger is not an ideal site for producing heavy elements via r-process nucleosynthesis. In this Letter, we investigate the heavy elements produced in NS-WD mergers based on numerical simulations of nucleosynthesis via SkyNet, and then calculate the resulting kilonova-like emission to compare with the solidly observed case of possible kilonova emission associated with GRB 211211A. By adopting three models (i.e., Model-A, Model-B, and Model-C) from \cite{2023ApJ...956...71K} at different temperatures ($T=4$ GK, 5 GK, and 6 GK), which are treated as free parameters, we find that the mass number of the heaviest element produced in our simulations is less than 90 ($A< 90$). Moreover, by comparing the calculated kilonova-like emission with the afterglow-subtracted observations of the possible kilonova associated with GRB 211211A, it is found that the merger of NS and WD cannot be ruled out as the origin of GRB 211211A to produce the possible kilonova emission if the remnant of the WD-NS merger is a supramassive or stable magnetar. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the early possible kilonova emission following GRB 211211A by invoking the merger of a WD and an NS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Final abundance of the ejecta for Model-A (top panel), Model-B (middle panel), and Model-C (bottom panel) with different temperatures (T = 4, 5, and 6 GK), respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kilonova-like light curves of the r-band for Model-A (top panel), Model-B (middle panel), and Model-C (bottom panel) with three different temperatures at DL = 346 Mpc, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ). The magnitude of kilonova-like emission at the temperature of T = 4 GK reaches its peak at about 3 days, and that of T = 5 GK and T = 6 GK peaks at about 2.5 days. We find that the observations of the possible kilonova emission of GRB 211211A are lower than those of our calculated model after 1 day. It means that the calculated kilonova-like emission from radioac￾tive decay of the nuclei is sufficient to provide … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. White dwarf-neutron star matter transition and the effect of light elements

    nucl-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A unified relativistic mean-field model connects white dwarfs to neutron stars and finds light-element seeds shift neutron star radii by roughly 0.2 km at 1.4 solar masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2017, , 119, 161101

    2017

  4. [4]

    P., Anand, S., et al.\ 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917

    Ahumada, T., Singer, L. P., Anand, S., et al.\ 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917

    2021

  5. [5]

    D., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al.\ 2017, , 848, 2, L21

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al.\ 2017, , 848, 2, L21

    2017

  6. [6]

    An, Y., Wu, M.-R., Guo, G., et al.\ 2023, , 108, 12, 123038

    2023

  7. [7]

    A., et al.\ 2017, , 551, 7678, 64

    Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al.\ 2017, , 551, 7678, 64

    2017

  8. [8]

    Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., et al.\ 2016, , 829, 2, 110

    2016

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    & Metzger, B

    Barnes, J. & Metzger, B. D.\ 2023, , 947, 2, 55

    2023

  2. [10]

    A., Cenko, S

    Berger, E., Price, P. A., Cenko, S. B., et al.\ 2005, , 438, 7070, 988

    2005

  3. [11]

    Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R.\ 2013, , 774, 2, L23

    2013

  4. [12]

    Berger, E.\ 2014, , 52, 43

    2014

  5. [13]

    B., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 3, 3758

    Bobrick, A., Zenati, Y., Perets, H. B., et al.\ 2022, , 510, 3, 3758

    2022

  6. [14]

    Chang, X.-Z., L \"u , H.-J., Yang, X., et al.\ 2023, , 943, 2, 146

    2023

  7. [15]

    & Liang, E.-W.\ 2024, , 527, 3, 5540

    Chen, M.-H. & Liang, E.-W.\ 2024, , 527, 3, 5540

    2024

  8. [16]

    Chornock, R., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al.\ 2017, , 848, 2, L19

    2017

  9. [17]

    Ciolfi, R., Kastaun, W., Giacomazzo, B., et al.\ 2017, , 95, 6, 063016

    2017

  10. [18]

    E., Bauswein, A., Sim, S

    Collins, C. E., Bauswein, A., Sim, S. A., et al.\ 2023, , 521, 2, 1858

    2023

  11. [19]

    A., Foley, R

    Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al.\ 2017, Science, 358, 6370, 1556

    2017

  12. [20]

    Z., et al.\ 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 791

    Covino, S., Wiersema, K., Fan, Y. Z., et al.\ 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 791

    2017

  13. [21]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al.\ 2010, , 189, 1, 240

    2010

  14. [22]

    & Fern \'a ndez, R.\ 2024, , 109, 8, 083010

    Dean, C. & Fern \'a ndez, R.\ 2024, , 109, 8, 083010

    2024

  15. [23]

    Della Valle, M., Chincarini, G., Panagia, N., et al.\ 2006, , 444, 7122, 1050

    2006

  16. [24]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al.\ 2017, Science, 358, 6370, 1570

    2017

  17. [25]

    Du, Z., L \"u , H., Yuan, Y., et al.\ 2024, , 962, 2, L27

    2024

  18. [26]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., et al.\ 1989, , 340, 6229, 126

    1989

  19. [27]

    A., Cenko, S

    Evans, P. A., Cenko, S. B., Kennea, J. A., et al.\ 2017, Science, 358, 6370, 1565

    2017

  20. [28]

    Farouqi, K., Kratz, K.-L., Pfeiffer, B., et al.\ 2010, , 712, 2, 1359

    2010

  21. [29]

    & Metzger, B

    Fern \'a ndez, R. & Metzger, B. D.\ 2013, , 435, 1, 502

    2013

  22. [30]

    D.\ 2019, , 488, 1, 259

    Fern \'a ndez, R., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D.\ 2019, , 488, 1, 259

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ferro, M., Brivio, R., D'Avanzo, P., et al.\ 2023, , 678, A142

    2023

  24. [32]

    B., Frail, D

    Fox, D. B., Frail, D. A., Price, P. A., et al.\ 2005, , 437, 7060, 845

    2005

  25. [33]

    L., Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Herant, M., et al.\ 1999, , 520, 2, 650

    1999

  26. [34]

    S., Levan, A

    Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Strolger, L., et al.\ 2006, , 441, 7092, 463

    2006

  27. [35]

    Fynbo, J. P. U., Watson, D., Th \"o ne, C. C., et al.\ 2006, , 444, 7122, 1047

    2006

  28. [36]

    B., Price, P

    Gal-Yam, A., Fox, D. B., Price, P. A., et al.\ 2006, , 444, 7122, 1053

    2006

  29. [37]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al.\ 1998, , 395, 6703, 670

    1998

  30. [38]

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., L \"u , H.-J., et al.\ 2017, , 837, 1, 50

    2017

  31. [39]

    P., Barthelmy, S

    Gehrels, N., Norris, J. P., Barthelmy, S. D., et al.\ 2006, , 444, 7122, 1044

    2006

  32. [40]

    H., Sim, S

    Gillanders, J. H., Sim, S. A., & Smartt, S. J.\ 2020, , 497, 1, 246

    2020

  33. [41]

    Gillanders, J. H. & Smartt, S. J.\ 2025, , 538, 3, 1663

    2025

  34. [42]

    H., Troja, E., Fryer, C

    Gillanders, J. H., Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., et al.\ 2023, arXiv:2308.00633

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al.\ 2017, , 848, 2, L14

    2017

  36. [44]

    P., Ravasio, M

    Gompertz, B. P., Ravasio, M. E., Nicholl, M., et al.\ 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 67

    2023

  37. [45]

    D., Quataert, E., et al.\ 2023, , 958, 2, L33

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al.\ 2023, , 958, 2, L33

    2023

  38. [46]

    D., Foucart, F., et al.\ 2025, , 984, 1, 77

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Foucart, F., et al.\ 2025, , 984, 1, 77

    2025

  39. [47]

    Hjorth, J., Watson, D., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al.\ 2005, , 437, 7060, 859

    2005

  40. [48]

    Jin, Z.-P., Hotokezaka, K., Li, X., et al.\ 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 12898

    2016

  41. [49]

    Kaltenborn, M. A. R., Fryer, C. L., Wollaeger, R. T., et al.\ 2023, , 956, 2, 71

    2023

  42. [50]

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., et al.\ 2017, , 551, 7678, 80

    2017

  43. [51]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P., et al.\ 2017, Science, 358, 6370, 1559

    2017

  44. [52]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al.\ 1993, , 413, L101

    1993

  45. [53]

    P., Tanvir, N

    Lamb, G. P., Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., et al.\ 2019, , 883, 1, 48

    2019

  46. [54]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al.\ 2024, , 626, 8000, 737

    2024

  47. [55]

    & Paczy \'n ski, B.\ 1998, , 507, 1, L59

    Li, L.-X. & Paczy \'n ski, B.\ 1998, , 507, 1, L59

    1998

  48. [56]

    & Roberts, L

    Lippuner, J. & Roberts, L. F.\ 2017, , 233, 2, 18

    2017

  49. [57]

    & Roberts, L

    Lippuner, J. & Roberts, L. F.\ 2015, , 815, 2, 82

    2015

  50. [58]

    an ., & Zhao, W.\ 2025, , 983, 2, L34

    Liu, Z., Jiang, J.-. an ., & Zhao, W.\ 2025, , 983, 2, L34

    2025

  51. [59]

    M., Johnson, J., Upton Sanderbeck, P., et al.\ 2024, , 535, 3, 2800

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., Johnson, J., Upton Sanderbeck, P., et al.\ 2024, , 535, 3, 2800

    2024

  52. [60]

    L \"u , H.-J., Yuan, H.-Y., Yi, T.-F., et al.\ 2022, , 931, 2, L23

    2022

  53. [61]

    L \"u , H.-J., Liang, E.-W., Zhang, B.-B., et al.\ 2010, , 725, 2, 1965

    2010

  54. [62]

    L \"u , H.-J., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al.\ 2014, , 442, 3, 1922

    2014

  55. [63]

    L \"u , H.-J., Zhang, H.-M., Zhong, S.-Q., et al.\ 2017, , 835, 2, 181

    2017

  56. [64]

    Ma, S.-B., Lei, W.-H., Gao, H., et al.\ 2018, , 852, 1, L5

    2018

  57. [65]

    & Metzger, B

    Margalit, B. & Metzger, B. D.\ 2016, , 461, 2, 1154

    2016

  58. [66]

    D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T

    Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A.\ 2008, , 385, 3, 1455

    2008

  59. [67]

    D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al.\ 2010, , 406, 4, 2650

    Metzger, B. D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al.\ 2010, , 406, 4, 2650

    2010

  60. [68]

    D.\ 2017, Living Reviews in Relativity, 20, 1, 3

    Metzger, B. D.\ 2017, Living Reviews in Relativity, 20, 1, 3

    2017

  61. [69]

    D.\ 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 1, 1

    Metzger, B. D.\ 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 1, 1

    2019

  62. [70]

    K., Pakmor, R., et al.\ 2024, , 681, A41

    Mor \'a n-Fraile, J., R \"o pke, F. K., Pakmor, R., et al.\ 2024, , 681, A41

    2024

  63. [71]

    J., Ichikawa, T., et al.\ 2015, , 91, 2, 024310

    M \"o ller, P., Sierk, A. J., Ichikawa, T., et al.\ 2015, , 91, 2, 024310

    2015

  64. [72]

    R., Portegies Zwart, S

    Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L. R., Portegies Zwart, S. F., et al.\ 2001, , 365, 491

    2001

  65. [73]

    & Kim, C.\ 2010, , 715, 1, 230

    O'Shaughnessy, R. & Kim, C.\ 2010, , 715, 1, 230

    2010

  66. [74]

    Paczynski, B.\ 1986, , 308, L43

    1986

  67. [75]

    Paczynski, B.\ 1991, , 41, 257

    1991

  68. [76]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B. & Pringle, J. E.\ 1984, , 208, 721

    1984

  69. [77]

    Pian, E., D'Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al.\ 2017, , 551, 7678, 67

    2017

  70. [78]

    A., Masetti, N., et al.\ 2006, , 442, 7106, 1011

    Pian, E., Mazzali, P. A., Masetti, N., et al.\ 2006, , 442, 7106, 1011

    2006

  71. [79]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al.\ 2022, , 612, 7939, 223

    2022

  72. [80]

    Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al.\ 2017, , 848, 2, L15

    2017

  73. [81]

    J., Simon, J

    Shappee, B. J., Simon, J. D., Drout, M. R., et al.\ 2017, Science, 358, 6370, 1574

    2017

  74. [82]

    Siegel, D. M. & Metzger, B. D.\ 2018, , 858, 1, 52

    2018

  75. [83]

    J., Chen, T.-W., Jerkstrand, A., et al.\ 2017, , 551, 7678, 75

    Smartt, S. J., Chen, T.-W., Jerkstrand, A., et al.\ 2017, , 551, 7678, 75

    2017

  76. [84]

    Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P

    Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M., et al.\ 2003, , 591, 1, L17

    2003

  77. [85]

    Sun, H., Wang, C.-W., Yang, J., et al.\ 2025, National Science Review, 12, 3, nwae401

    2025

  78. [86]

    A., et al.\ 2017, , 69, 6, 102

    Tanaka, M., Utsumi, Y., Mazzali, P. A., et al.\ 2017, , 69, 6, 102

    2017

  79. [87]

    R., Chapman, R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Chapman, R., Levan, A. J., et al.\ 2005, , 438, 7070, 991

    2005

  80. [88]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al.\ 2013, , 500, 7464, 547

    2013

  81. [89]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Gonz \'a lez-Fern \'a ndez, C., et al.\ 2017, , 848, 2, L27

    2017

  82. [90]

    Timmes, F. X. & Swesty, F. D.\ 2000, , 126, 2, 501

    2000

  83. [91]

    B., Igoshev, A

    Toonen, S., Perets, H. B., Igoshev, A. P., et al.\ 2018, , 619, A53

    2018

  84. [92]

    L., O'Connor, B., et al.\ 2022, , 612, 7939, 228

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O'Connor, B., et al.\ 2022, , 612, 7939, 228

    2022

  85. [93]

    J., Becerra Gonz \'a lez, J., et al.\ 2019, , 489, 2, 2104

    Troja, E., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Becerra Gonz \'a lez, J., et al.\ 2019, , 489, 2, 2104

    2019

  86. [94]

    I., Yu, Y.-W., Ren, J., et al.\ 2024, , 964, 1, L9

    Wang, X. I., Yu, Y.-W., Ren, J., et al.\ 2024, , 964, 1, L9

    2024

  87. [95]

    T., Korobkin, O., Fontes, C

    Wollaeger, R. T., Korobkin, O., Fontes, C. J., et al.\ 2018, , 478, 3, 3298

    2018

  88. [96]

    E.\ 1993, , 405, 273

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

    1993

  89. [97]

    Woosley, S. E. & Bloom, J. S.\ 2006, , 44, 1, 507

    2006

  90. [98]

    Yang, B., Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., et al.\ 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7323

    2015

  91. [99]

    Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al.\ 2022, , 612, 7939, 232

    2022

  92. [100]

    Yang, Y.-H., Troja, E., O'Connor, B., et al.\ 2024, , 626, 8000, 742

    2024

  93. [101]

    Yu, Y.-W., Zhang, B., & Gao, H.\ 2013, , 776, 2, L40

    2013

  94. [102]

    Yuan, Y., L \"u , H.-J., Yuan, H.-Y., et al.\ 2021, , 912, 1, 14

    2021

  95. [103]

    B., & Toonen, S.\ 2019, ,486, 2, 1805

    Zenati, Y., Perets, H. B., & Toonen, S.\ 2019, ,486, 2, 1805

    2019

  96. [104]

    B.\ 2020, , 493, 3, 3956

    Zenati, Y., Bobrick, A., & Perets, H. B.\ 2020, , 493, 3, 3956

    2020

  97. [105]

    M., Metzger, B

    Zenati, Y., Siegel, D. M., Metzger, B. D., et al.\ 2020, , 499, 3, 4097

    2020

  98. [106]

    Zhang, B.-B., Liu, Z.-K., Peng, Z.-K., et al.\ 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 911

    2021

  99. [107]

    Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al.\ 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 447

    2018

  100. [108]

    Zhang, B.\ 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

    2018

  101. [109]

    Zhang, B.\ 2006, , 444, 7122, 1010

    2006

  102. [110]

    Zhong, S.-Q., Li, L., & Dai, Z.-G.\ 2023, , 947, 2, L21

    2023

  103. [111]

    Zhong, S.-Q., Li, L., Xiao, D., et al.\ 2024, , 963, 1, L26

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.