Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 92 references

Investigating the Dainotti Relation in Gamma-Ray Bursts through Multipolar Electromagnetic Radiation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper argues that multipolar magnetar spin-down, not a pure dipole, reproduces both the slope and the normalization of the Dainotti relation in GRB X-ray plateaus, with an inferred effective multipole order near 3.7.

desk verdict A clear but underdetermined consistency argument: the Dainotti slope is built into the spin-down definition, and the inferred multipole order l=3.74 is degenerate with spin period, efficiency, and beaming. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09292 v1 pith:OQGFR2GW submitted 2025-07-12 astro-ph.HE

Emre S. Yorgancioglu , Daban Mohammed Saeed , Rahim Moradi , Yu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsDainottirelationmagnetarspin-downmultipolarmagneticfieldsX-rayafterglowplateausSwift-XRTplateauluminositycosmologicalprobes
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

Gamma-ray bursts show an empirical link between the luminosity of their X-ray plateau and the time the plateau ends, the Dainotti relation, with a slope near $-1$. This paper argues that the relation is a direct consequence of magnetar spin-down, provided the magnetar's magnetic field includes higher multipoles (quadrupole, hexapole, octopole, and beyond) rather than only a dipole. The key algebraic fact is that for any multipole order $l$, the initial plateau luminosity is $L_{l,0}=I\Omega_0^2/(2l\tau_l)$, so it is always proportional to $\tau_l^{-1}$: the Dainotti slope $-1$ is universal, while the normalization and post-plateau decay index carry the multipole order. Fitting the normalization of a platinum sample of 50 bursts gives an effective order $l\approx 3.7$, with $1\sigma$ limits of about 1.1 and 13.2, which the authors read as evidence that higher-order moments dominate the plateau phase. If correct, the same magnetar machinery simultaneously explains the slope, the normalization, and the observed spread of post-plateau decay indices between $-2$ and $-1$ in a sample of 238 Swift-XRT GRBs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized multipolar spin-down luminosity, extended to arbitrary spherical-harmonic order $l$ (dipole $l=1$, quadrupole $l=2$, hexapole $l=3$, and so on). Each order contributes $L_l(t)=C_l B_l^2 R^{2l+4}\Theta_l^2\Omega^{2l+2}$; for a single dominant order this gives $\Omega(t)=\Omega_0(1+t/\tau_l)^{-1/(2l)}$ and $L_l(t)=L_{l,0}(1+t/\tau_l)^{-(1+1/l)}$, with $\tau_l=I c^{2l+1}/[(2l+2) C_l B_l^2 R^{2l+4}\Theta_l^2\Omega_0^{2l}]$ and $L_{l,0}=I\Omega_0^2/(2l\tau_l)$. The load-bearing identity is $L_{l,0}\propto\tau_l^{-1}$: it converts the spin-down timescale into the plateau-end time and the initial spin-down luminosity into the plateau luminosity, making the Dainotti slope independent of the multipole order. The paper then uses a single-dominant-order fit, in which the multipole whose $\tau_l$ matches the observed plateau duration sets the light curve.

What would settle it

Find a GRB whose X-ray plateau is demonstrably powered by external-shock energy injection, for example a plateau accompanied by a simultaneous optical plateau with matching decay and no steep X-ray drop at the magnetar spin-down time; the paper itself states that in that case its multipolar interpretation no longer applies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that multipolar electromagnetic spin-down of a newborn magnetar reproduces the Dainotti relation in full: slope, normalization, and scatter. For a single dominant multipole of order $l$, the spin-down luminosity evolves as $L_l(t)=L_{l,0}(1+t/\tau_l)^{-(1+1/l)}$, and the identity $L_{l,0}=I\Omega_0^2/(2l\tau_l)$ makes $L_{l,0}\propto\tau_l^{-1}$ independent of $l$. Identifying the observed plateau-end time $T_a^*$ with $\tau_l$ and the plateau luminosity $L_X$ with $L_{l,0}$ gives the observed slope $b\approx -1$ for every multipole order. Normalizing this curve to the platinum Dainotti sample yields an effective order $l=3.74$ with $1\sigma$ envelope $l=1.06$--$13.16$, above the dipole value; the same model accommodates the post-plateau decay indices between $-2$ and $-1$ seen in most of the 238 Swift-XRT bursts because the decay slope $-(1+1/l)$ interpolates between the dipole value $-2$ and the high-order limit $-1$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the X-ray plateau is powered by internal dissipation of the magnetar wind with constant radiative efficiency and geometric parameters; if the plateau instead arises from external-shock energy injection or black-hole spin-down, the paper concedes that the multipolar spin-down interpretation no longer applies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Dainotti slope of about $-1$ is not evidence for a pure dipole; it follows from any single dominant multipole order.
  • Post-plateau decay indices between $-2$ and $-1$ map directly onto multipole orders $l\ge 1$, with steeper indices corresponding to lower-order fields.
  • The normalization of the platinum Dainotti sample implies an effective dominant order $l\approx 3.7$, so plateaus are likely shaped by higher-order magnetic moments rather than by a dipole.
  • Population-level corrections for jet opening angle and radiative efficiency shift the inferred normalization by a factor of order unity, so the multipole range should persist and may tighten once burst-by-burst corrections are applied.
  • The plateau energy $L_X T_a^*$ is bounded from above by $L_{l,0}^{\rm UL}=2.2\times10^{52}/(l\tau_l)$ for a 1 ms initial spin period, linking the observed plateau energy range to the shortest stable magnetar spin period.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the multipolar picture is right, the post-plateau decay index becomes a probe of the dominant multipole order: $\alpha=-(1+1/l)$, so a decay of $t^{-1.5}$ would indicate quadrupole dominance and $t^{-1.33}$ hexapole dominance; sorting the 238 bursts by decay index and comparing their $L_X T_a^*$ values with the order implied by $\alpha$ would be a direct test.
  • The inferred order $l\approx 3.7$ is computed with a fixed 1 ms initial spin period and vacuum spin-down; a population with different initial spins or plasma-filled magnetospheres would shift the effective order, so the value should be read as an order-of-magnitude constraint rather than a precise measurement.
  • A population-level correction for jet opening angle and radiative efficiency should shrink the $1\sigma$ multipole range; if the dispersion instead remains wide after such corrections, magnetar spin-down alone is unlikely to be the sole power source of the plateaus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper argues that multipolar electromagnetic spin-down of newborn magnetars can explain the Dainotti relation between X-ray plateau luminosity and plateau-end time in gamma-ray bursts. The authors generalize the single-multipole spin-down solution from Wang et al. (2024), show via Eq. (8) that L_l,0 = I Omega0^2 / (2 l tau_l) and hence L_l,0 proportional to tau_l^{-1} for every multipole order l, fit the normalization of the 50-GRB platinum sample of Cao et al. (2022b) with the slope fixed to -1, infer an effective multipole order l = 3.74 with a 1 sigma envelope of 1.06 to 13.16, and compare the distribution of post-plateau decay indices from 238 Swift-XRT GRBs with the range -2 to -1 that integer multipole orders can produce. The paper concludes that higher-order multipoles are needed to match both the slope and the normalization of the Dainotti relation and to explain the variety of observed decay slopes.

Significance. If the claims were established, the paper would provide a physical basis for using the Dainotti relation as a standard candle and would identify an observational signature of magnetar magnetic-field structure. The manuscript is honest about its main caveats: Section 2 states that the interpretation fails if plateaus are external-shock features, and Section 6 lists black-hole spin-down and efficiency and geometry uncertainties. It also updates the Swift plateau sample to 238 events. However, the central quantitative result is not an independent test: Eq. (8) defines L_l,0 through tau_l, so L proportional to tau^{-1} is an identity, and the fitted l absorbs the unknown conversion factors in Eq. (13). The paper therefore does not deliver a falsifiable prediction or a new constraint on magnetic geometry; at best it illustrates that magnetar spin-down can be made consistent with the observed normalization if l, P0, epsilon, theta_j, and k are tuned. This is a substantial gap between the abstract's claims and the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (8)] The claimed derivation of the slope is an identity, not a physical prediction. Equation (8) defines L_l,0 = I Omega0^2 / (2 l tau_l), so L_l,0 proportional to tau_l^{-1} holds for every l by construction; substituting any observed (L_X, T_a^*) pair onto a line of slope -1 is guaranteed by the definition of tau_l. Consequently, the agreement with the observed slope b approximately -1 (Section 1) carries no evidential weight for multipolar spin-down, and the model predicts zero scatter, while the observed Dainotti relation has intrinsic dispersion. The paper never models this dispersion, and the statement in Section 5.1 that the observed slope b approximately -1 holds across all multipolar orders is a restatement of Eq. (8), not a test.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eqs. (11)-(13)] The inference of l = 3.74, and the 1 sigma envelope 1.06 < l < 13.16, is underdetermined. Equation (11) assumes P0 = 1 ms, and Eq. (13) shows that the true luminosity depends on theta_j, epsilon, and k; for a fixed observed normalization, changing P0 from 1 ms to 1.5 ms changes the inferred l from 3.74 to roughly 1.7, while P0 = 0.8 ms gives l approximately 5.9. The quoted envelope already contains l = 1.06, and with plausible efficiency and beaming choices a pure dipole (l = 1) cannot be excluded. Moreover, l is treated as a continuous fit parameter even though the multipole order in Eq. (1) is an integer; an effective l that absorbs nuisance parameters is not evidence for a physical higher-order moment. In addition, Figure 3 fits only the normalization of lines with slope -1, so the slope itself is not fitted, and the statement that both best-fit values exceed unity does not support the need for higher-order multipoles.
  3. [Section 2, Figure 1] The comparison with the 238-GRB decay-index distribution is qualitative. Figure 1 is a histogram of power-law decay indices, but no per-burst light-curve fit to the multipolar spin-down model is performed, no predicted distribution of alpha for an ensemble of magnetars is derived, and no account is taken of selection effects or jet breaks, which the authors themselves invoke for about 15 percent of the sample. The statement that multipoles can explain the range of alpha between -2 and -1 is therefore not quantitatively supported; it only shows that the model's allowed range overlaps the observed range.
  4. [Section 5.2] The central premise that plateaus are powered by internal magnetar wind dissipation is not tested. Section 5.2 requires constant radiative efficiency and geometric parameters, and Section 2 concedes that if plateaus are external-shock energy injection, the multipolar spin-down interpretation no longer applies. The paper offers no diagnostic that distinguishes the magnetar-wind interpretation from external-shock injection or Blandford-Znajek spin-down, which is mentioned as an alternative in Section 6. Since the entire connection between Eq. (8) and the Dainotti relation depends on this premise, the conclusion is conditional on an assumption that the data set does not establish.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5 heading] The heading contains a typo: 'DAINOTTI RELATION WHITHIN' should be 'DAINOTTI RELATION WITHIN'.
  2. [Sections 5.2 and 6] There are small typos in the text: 'their paramaters' should be 'their parameters' in Section 5.2, and 'the the Dainotti relation' should be 'the Dainotti relation' in Section 6.
  3. [References] The reference list contains two entries for Spitkovsky 2006 with identical bibliographic information; one should be removed or merged.
  4. [Figure 3] The figure uses 'l' for the multipole order in the legend while the text uses 'l'; using a consistent notation, preferably the calligraphic ell, would avoid confusion with luminosity.
  5. [Section 2] The sentence describing GRB 130831A states that the afterglow showed 'a decay slope of approximately 0.8'; the sign of the slope should be stated explicitly, since all decay indices elsewhere in the paper are quoted as negative quantities.
  6. [Section 4.3] The interval 't approximately 107-108 s' should be written with superscripts as '10^7-10^8 s' for consistency with the rest of the paper.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed Dainotti slope from Eq. (8) is an identity of the definitions of tau_l and L_l,0, and the inferred multipole order l=3.74 is a normalization ratio degenerate with spin period, efficiency, and beaming.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1 (after Eq. 5) and Section 5.1 (Eq. 8)]
    "Ll,0 = IΩ2 0 2lτl , Ll,0 ∝ τ −1 l . (8) ... The observed slope b ≈ −1 holds across all multipolar orders, while the model accommodates decay indices ranging from −2 to −1 in Swift-XRT GRB afterglows."

    Equation (8) is obtained by eliminating the field-strength parameter between the two quantities τ_l and L_l,0 that were defined together in the single-multipole solution. Hence L_l,0 ∝ τ_l^{-1} is an algebraic identity, not a derived physical prediction. Stating that 'the observed slope b ≈ −1 holds across all multipolar orders' is therefore a restatement of the definition of the spin-down timescale. The Dainotti slope cannot test the multipolar model, because any source with a fixed rotational energy reservoir and a single dominant timescale automatically produces L τ = constant.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, Eq. (12) and paragraph following Eq. (11)]
    "We fit for the mean and 1 σ dispersion lines normalizations; from the mean fit, we find l = 3.74, corresponding to LUL,obs l,0 = 5.87 × 1051 τl . (12) ... Since both of these best-fit values exceed unity, they reinforce the need for higher-order magnetic moments beyond a pure dipole."

    With P0 = 1 ms fixed, Eq. (11) gives L_UL = 2.2×10^52/(l τ_l). The 'fit' determines only the normalization a in log L = log a - log T*, and l is then read off as l = 2.2×10^52 / (5.87×10^51) ≈ 3.74. No multipole order is fitted from any light curve; every observed normalization is converted into an effective l. This l is degenerate with the assumed spin period P0 (l ≈ 1.7 for P0 = 1.5 ms, l ≈ 5.9 for P0 = 0.8 ms) and with ε, θ_j, and k introduced in Eq. (13), which shift the normalization by order-unity factors. The 1σ envelope l = 1.06 already reaches a pure dipole, so 'reinforce the need for higher-order magnetic moments' overstates the evidence contained in a ratio of two assumed normalizations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that multipolar spin-down reproduces the Dainotti relation decomposes into two steps, and both are partially circular. First, the slope: Eq. (8) states L_l,0 = IΩ0^2/(2lτ_l), and since τ_l and L_l,0 were defined from the same single-multipole solution, L_l,0 ∝ τ_l^{-1} holds by construction for every order l. The observed slope b ≈ −1 is therefore not an independent prediction of the multipolar framework; it is an identity of the spin-down timescale definition. Second, the normalization: the inferred l = 3.74 is not a measured multipole moment but the ratio of the assumed millisecond-magnetar rotational energy to the observed L_X T* product. The same section admits that ε, θ_j, and k change the normalization substantially, and the 1σ range 1.06 < l < 13.16 includes l ≈ 1. Consequently, the claim that higher-order multipoles are required is an over-interpretation of a fitted ratio. The paper is otherwise candid: it explicitly states that external-shock energy injection would invalidate the model, acknowledges black-hole spin-down as an alternative, and concedes that 'the precise value of the multipole index remains uncertain'. These caveats prevent a higher score, but the model's headline evidence for multipolar fields is largely a renaming of the known L ∝ T^{-1} correlation and of a degenerate normalization fit.

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

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The multipole is a pre-existing description of magnetic field geometry, and the fitted l is an effective index rather than a physically separate entity. The main free parameter count is moderate: l is fit to data, P0 and the field/geometry choices are fiducial, and efficiency and jet-angle corrections are adopted from literature ranges.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective multipole order l = l = 3.74 (mean), 1.06 (upper envelope), 13.16 (lower envelope)
    Inferred by equating the predicted spin-down normalization L_UL,l0 = 2.2e52/(l tau_l) to the observed Dainotti normalizations in the platinum sample (Section 5.1, Eqs. 11-12). This fitted l is then used to argue that higher-order multipoles are needed.
  • Initial spin period P0 = 1 ms
    Chosen as a fiducial breakup limit. It sets the absolute normalization of the upper-limit luminosity; a shorter period would raise the dipole-only normalization and weaken the need for multipoles (Section 5.1).
  • Multipolar field strengths and geometric factors B_l, Theta_l = B_dip = 2e13 G, B_quad = 3e14 G, B_hexa = 1.5e15 G, B_octo = 6e15 G; Theta^2 values up to 1.18e6
    Hand-picked to produce Figure 2 and to demonstrate decay-index diversity. They are not constrained by fitting to the 238-GRB sample.
  • Radiative efficiency epsilon, jet opening angle theta_j, bolometric correction k = epsilon = 0.1, theta_j = 10 degrees, k = 3.7
    Fiducial population values adopted in Section 5.2 to argue that the Dainotti normalization is not changed significantly by efficiency and geometry corrections. They are chosen from literature ranges, not measured.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Vacuum multipolar spin-down luminosity formula L_l = C_l Omega^(2l+2) B_l^2 R^(2l+4) Theta_l^2
    Invoked in Eq. (1). The vacuum scaling is an approximation; the authors note in Section 4.3 that plasma effects modify braking indices and wind efficiency.
  • domain assumption The observed X-ray plateau is powered by internal dissipation of the magnetar wind with constant radiative efficiency and geometric parameters
    Stated in Sections 2 and 5.2. If the plateau is produced by external-shock energy injection, the multipolar spin-down interpretation does not apply.
  • domain assumption Separated multipoles and a single dominant multipole approximation
    Used in Section 4.2 and Section 5.1 to write the total luminosity as a sum of independent single-pole laws and to fit one (tau_l, L_l,0) pair per burst.
  • domain assumption Minimum initial spin period near 1 ms
    Used to set the upper normalization boundary; justified by the breakup limit and the fastest observed pulsar period (Eqs. 9-10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Dainotti Relation in Gamma-Ray Bursts through Multipolar Electromagnetic Radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQGFR2GW

@misc{pith2026250709292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Dainotti Relation in Gamma-Ray Bursts through Multipolar Electromagnetic Radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQGFR2GW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09292}
}
abstract

The Dainotti relation empirically connects the isotropic plateau luminosity ($L_X$) in gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) X-ray afterglows to the rest-frame time at which the plateau ends ($T_a^*$), enabling both the standardization of GRBs and their use as cosmological probes. However, the precise physical mechanisms underlying this correlation remain an active area of research. Although magnetars, highly magnetized neutron stars, have been proposed as central engines powering GRB afterglows, traditional dipole spin-down radiation models fail to account for the full diversity of observed behaviors. This limitation necessitates a more comprehensive framework. We propose that multipolar magnetic field emissions from magnetars offer a plausible explanation for the Dainotti relation. Unlike simple dipole fields, higher-order multipolar configurations enable more complex energy dissipation processes. The coexistence of multiple components can plausibly explain the range of afterglow decay indices found from a sample of 238 GRBs with plateau features from the Swift-XRT database up to the end of December 2024, the majority of which deviate from the dipolar prediction of $\alpha = -2$, and more crucially, the spin-down physics yields a link between $L_X$ and $T_a^*$ in a way that preserves the Dainotti correlation with a slope of $b = - 1$, independent of the specific multipole order. Moreover, we find that the inclusion of higher order multipoles can explain the range of plateau energies found in the Dainotti relations. Thus, a unified picture emerges in which multipolar fields are able to reproduce both the slope and the normalization of the correlation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09292 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. presents the distribution of the power-law decay indices, which mainly range between −1 and −2, with median and mean val￾ues of −1.39 and −1.54, respectively. Although traditional models emphasize the dominance of dipole radiation (α = −2), the inclusion of higher-order magnetic field components is es￾sential for capturing these observed decay pro￾1 https : //www.swift.ac.uk/xrt products/index.php 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spin–down luminosity contributions of a newborn magnetar endowed with multipolar fields: dipole (Bdip = 2 × 1013 G), quadrupole (Bquad = 3 × 1014 G), hexapole (Bhexa = 1.5 × 1015 G), and octopole (Bocto = 6 × 1015 G). The higher-order multipoles, owing to their stronger field strengths, dominate the early energy release; beyond t ≃ 108 s, the dipole term becomes the dominant contributor to the spin–down luminosity. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Platinum Sample of GRBs taken from Cao et al. (2022b). The upper and lower thin dashed lines denote the 1 σ dispersion lines of the data, with an upper envelope corresponding to l = 1.06 (LX = 2.07 × 1052 T ∗−1 a ), the lower envelope corresponding to l = 13.16 (LX = 1.67×1051 T ∗−1 a ), and the mean fit line corresponds to l = 3.74 as￾suming a magnetar with an initial spin period of 1 ms. • When modeling the electr… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  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 note 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.co...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  4. [4]

    1998, , 502, 708

    Andersson , N. 1998, , 502, 708

    1998

  5. [5]

    2002, , 334, 743

    Asseo , E., & Khechinashvili , D. 2002, , 334, 743

    2002

  6. [6]

    G., Estevez, G

    Barrera, R. G., Estevez, G. A., & Giraldo, J. 1985, European Journal of Physics, 6, 287

    1985

  7. [7]

    Beniamini, P., Giannios, D., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 472, 3058

    2017

  8. [8]

    2014, , 52, 43

    Berger , E. 2014, , 52, 43

    2014

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Bernardini, M. G. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 64, swift 10 Years of Discovery, a novel approach to Time Domain Astronomy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221440481500021X

    2015

  2. [10]

    G., Margutti , R., Mao , J., Zaninoni , E., & Chincarini , G

    Bernardini , M. G., Margutti , R., Mao , J., Zaninoni , E., & Chincarini , G. 2012, , 539, A3

    2012

  3. [11]

    S., Frail , D

    Bloom , J. S., Frail , D. A., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2003, , 594, 674

    2003

  4. [12]

    S., Frail, D

    Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., & Sari, R. 2001, Astron. J., 121, 2879

    2001

  5. [13]

    K., & Gehrels , N

    Cannizzo , J. K., & Gehrels , N. 2009, , 700, 1047

    2009

  6. [14]

    K., Troja , E., & Gehrels , N

    Cannizzo , J. K., Troja , E., & Gehrels , N. 2011, , 734, 35

    2011

  7. [15]

    2022 a , Mon

    Cao, S., Dainotti, M., & Ratra, B. 2022 a , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 516, 1386

    2022

  8. [16]

    G., & Ratra, B

    Cao, S., Dainotti, M. G., & Ratra, B. 2022 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 1386. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2170

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, , 510, 2928

    Cao , S., Khadka , N., & Ratra , B. 2022, , 510, 2928

    2022

  10. [18]

    2006, , 643, 1139

    Contopoulos , I., & Spitkovsky , A. 2006, , 643, 1139

    2006

  11. [19]

    G., Cardone , V

    Dainotti , M. G., Cardone , V. F., & Capozziello , S. 2008, , 391, L79

    2008

  12. [20]

    G., Del Vecchio , R., Shigehiro , N., & Capozziello , S

    Dainotti , M. G., Del Vecchio , R., Shigehiro , N., & Capozziello , S. 2015, , 800, 31

    2015

  13. [21]

    G., Del Vecchio , R., & Tarnopolski , M

    Dainotti , M. G., Del Vecchio , R., & Tarnopolski , M. 2018, Advances in Astronomy, 2018, 4969503

    2018

  14. [22]

    G., Fabrizio Cardone , V., Capozziello , S., Ostrowski , M., & Willingale , R

    Dainotti , M. G., Fabrizio Cardone , V., Capozziello , S., Ostrowski , M., & Willingale , R. 2011 a , , 730, 135

    2011

  15. [23]

    G., Lenart, A

    Dainotti, M. G., Lenart, A. L., Chraya, A., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 518, 2201

    2023

  16. [24]

    G., Nagataki , S., Maeda , K., Postnikov , S., & Pian , E

    Dainotti , M. G., Nagataki , S., Maeda , K., Postnikov , S., & Pian , E. 2017, , 600, A98

    2017

  17. [25]

    G., Ostrowski , M., & Willingale , R

    Dainotti , M. G., Ostrowski , M., & Willingale , R. 2011 b , , 418, 2202

    2011

  18. [26]

    G., Petrosian , V., Singal , J., & Ostrowski , M

    Dainotti , M. G., Petrosian , V., Singal , J., & Ostrowski , M. 2013, , 774, 157

    2013

  19. [27]

    G., Postnikov , S., Hernandez , X., & Ostrowski , M

    Dainotti , M. G., Postnikov , S., Hernandez , X., & Ostrowski , M. 2016, , 825, L20

    2016

  20. [28]

    G., Willingale , R., Capozziello , S., Fabrizio Cardone , V., & Ostrowski , M

    Dainotti , M. G., Willingale , R., Capozziello , S., Fabrizio Cardone , V., & Ostrowski , M. 2010, , 722, L215

    2010

  21. [29]

    2007, , 308, 119

    Dall'Osso , S., & Stella , L. 2007, , 308, 119

    2007

  22. [30]

    2011, , 526, A121

    Dall'Osso , S., Stratta , G., Guetta , D., et al. 2011, , 526, A121

    2011

  23. [31]

    2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 73

    D'Avanzo , P. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 73

    2015

  24. [32]

    R., Racusin, J

    De Pasquale, M., Oates, S. R., Racusin, J. L., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 1027. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv2280

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Beardmore , A

    Evans , P. A., Beardmore , A. P., Page , K. L., et al. 2009, , 397, 1177

    2009

  26. [34]

    G., G\'omez-Valent, A., & Migliaccio, M

    Favale, A., Dainotti, M. G., G\'omez-Valent, A., & Migliaccio, M. 2024, JHEAp, 44, 323

    2024

  27. [35]

    Fong, W.-f., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, Astrophys. J., 815, 102

    2015

  28. [36]

    A., Kulkarni , S

    Frail , D. A., Kulkarni , S. R., Sari , R., et al. 2001, , 562, L55

    2001

  29. [37]

    2016, , 93, 044065

    Gao , H., Zhang , B., & L \"u , H.-J. 2016, , 93, 044065

    2016

  30. [38]

    1999, , 345, 847

    Geppert , U., Page , D., & Zannias , T. 1999, , 345, 847

    1999

  31. [39]

    2004, , 616, L131

    Ghirlanda , G., Ghisellini , G., & Lazzati , D. 2004, , 616, L131

    2004

  32. [40]

    1992, , 395, 250

    Goldreich , P., & Reisenegger , A. 1992, , 395, 250

    1992

  33. [41]

    S., & Burns, E

    Goldstein, A., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., & Burns, E. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 18

    2016

  34. [42]

    G., Kouveliotou , C., et al

    G \"o g \"u s , E., Baring , M. G., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 2020, , 905, L31

    2020

  35. [43]

    N., & Hollerbach , R

    Gourgouliatos , K. N., & Hollerbach , R. 2018, , 852, 21

    2018

  36. [44]

    N., Wood , T

    Gourgouliatos , K. N., Wood , T. S., & Hollerbach , R. 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113, 3944

    2016

  37. [45]

    2003, , 591, 1086

    Granot , J., & Kumar , P. 2003, , 591, 1086

    2003

  38. [46]

    2005, , 619, 412

    Guetta , D., Piran , T., & Waxman , E. 2005, , 619, 412

    2005

  39. [47]

    K., Contopoulos , I., & Kazanas , D

    Harding , A. K., Contopoulos , I., & Kazanas , D. 1999, , 525, L125

    1999

  40. [48]

    K., & Lai , D

    Harding , A. K., & Lai , D. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2631

    2006

  41. [49]

    2024, arXiv:2410.07883

    Hashemi, P., Shakeri, S., Wang, Y., Li, L., & Moradi, R. 2024, arXiv:2410.07883

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hessels , J. W. T., Ransom , S. M., Stairs , I. H., et al. 2006, Science, 311, 1901

    2006

  43. [51]

    Hjorth , J., & Bloom , J. S. 2012, in Chapter 9 in ''Gamma-Ray Bursts, 169--190

    2012

  44. [52]

    P., Popov , S

    Igoshev , A. P., Popov , S. B., & Hollerbach , R. 2021, Universe, 7, 351

    2021

  45. [53]

    Jackson , J. D. 1998, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd Edition , 832

    1998

  46. [54]

    2015, , 561, 1

    Kumar , P., & Zhang , B. 2015, , 561, 1

    2015

  47. [55]

    M., & Prakash , M

    Lattimer , J. M., & Prakash , M. 2004, Science, 304, 536

    2004

  48. [56]

    2007, , 442, 109

    ---. 2007, , 442, 109

    2007

  49. [57]

    L., Dainotti, M

    Lenart, A. L., Dainotti, M. G., Khatiya, N., et al. 2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 47, 100384

    2025

  50. [58]

    2014, , 785, 74

    L \"u , H.-J., & Zhang , B. 2014, , 785, 74

    2014

  51. [59]

    L \"u , H.-J., Zhang , B., Lei , W.-H., Li , Y., & Lasky , P. D. 2015, , 805, 89

    2015

  52. [60]

    T., Zhang , B., et al

    Lyons , N., O'Brien , P. T., Zhang , B., et al. 2010, , 402, 705

    2010

  53. [61]

    2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259

    2006

  54. [62]

    D., Giannios , D., Thompson , T

    Metzger , B. D., Giannios , D., Thompson , T. A., Bucciantini , N., & Quataert , E. 2011, , 413, 2031

    2011

  55. [63]

    2013 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 2107

    Nava, L., Sironi, L., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., & Ghirlanda, G. 2013 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 2107. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt872

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    2013 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 2107, arXiv:1211.2806v2 [astro-ph.HE]

    ---. 2013 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 2107, arXiv:1211.2806v2 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    S., Georganopoulos , M., Guiriec , S., et al

    Nemmen , R. S., Georganopoulos , M., Guiriec , S., et al. 2012, Science, 338, 1445

    2012

  58. [66]

    A., Kouveliotou , C., Grupe , D., et al

    Nousek , J. A., Kouveliotou , C., Grupe , D., et al. 2006, , 642, 389

    2006

  59. [67]

    T., & Rowlinson , A

    O'Brien , P. T., & Rowlinson , A. 2012, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 279, Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. P. Roming , N. Kawai , & E. Pian , 297--300

    2012

  60. [68]

    J., Lindblom , L., Cutler , C., et al

    Owen , B. J., Lindblom , L., Cutler , C., et al. 1998, , 58, 084020

    1998

  61. [69]

    A., Spitkovsky , A., & Cerutti , B

    Philippov , A. A., Spitkovsky , A., & Cerutti , B. 2015, , 801, L19

    2015

  62. [70]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

    Piran , T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

    2004

  63. [71]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 714

    Pétri, J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 714

    2015

  64. [72]

    L., Pons , J

    Rea , N., Vigan \`o , D., Israel , G. L., Pons , J. A., & Torres , D. F. 2014, , 781, L17

    2014

  65. [73]

    2010, Science, 330, 944

    Rea , N., Esposito , P., Turolla , R., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 944

    2010

  66. [74]

    P., Dainotti , M., et al

    Rowlinson , A., Gompertz , B. P., Dainotti , M., et al. 2014, , 443, 1779

    2014

  67. [75]

    T., Metzger , B

    Rowlinson , A., O'Brien , P. T., Metzger , B. D., Tanvir , N. R., & Levan , A. J. 2013, , 430, 1061

    2013

  68. [76]

    T., & Tanvir , N

    Rowlinson , A., O'Brien , P. T., & Tanvir , N. R. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1358, Gamma Ray Bursts 2010, ed. J. E. McEnery , J. L. Racusin , & N. Gehrels (AIP), 195--198

    2011

  69. [77]

    A., Ruffini , R., Karlica , M., Moradi , R., & Wang , Y

    Rueda , J. A., Ruffini , R., Karlica , M., Moradi , R., & Wang , Y. 2020, , 893, 148

    2020

  70. [78]

    1998, , 497, L17

    Sari , R., Piran , T., & Narayan , R. 1998, , 497, L17

    1998

  71. [79]

    L., & Teukolsky , S

    Shapiro , S. L., & Teukolsky , S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars. The physics of compact objects , doi:10.1002/9783527617661

    1983 doi

  72. [80]

    Skiathas , D., & Gourgouliatos , K. N. 2024, , 528, 5178

    2024

  73. [81]

    2006, , 648, L51

    Spitkovsky , A. 2006, , 648, L51

    2006

  74. [82]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, L51

    Spitkovsky, A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 648, L51

    2006

  75. [83]

    G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G

    Stratta, G., Dainotti, M. G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 155

    2018

  76. [84]

    Thompson , C., Lyutikov , M., & Kulkarni , S. R. 2002, , 574, 332

    2002

  77. [85]

    T., et al

    Troja , E., Cusumano , G., O'Brien , P. T., et al. 2007, , 665, 599

    2007

  78. [86]

    2024, Astrophys

    Wang, Y., Moradi, R., & Li, L. 2024, Astrophys. J., 974, 89

    2024

  79. [87]

    2019, , 878, 62

    Xiao , D., & Dai , Z.-G. 2019, , 878, 62

    2019

  80. [88]

    Xu , M., & Huang , Y. F. 2012, , 538, A134

    2012

  81. [89]

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

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

    2018 doi

  82. [90]

    Z., Dyks , J., et al

    Zhang , B., Fan , Y. Z., Dyks , J., et al. 2006, , 642, 354

    2006

  83. [91]

    2001, , 552, L35

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

    2001

  84. [92]

    2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 2385

    ---. 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 2385

    2004

Pith tools

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