pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29909 · v1 · pith:DF5PKE4Wnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Gamma-ray signature of superluminous supernovae: Fermi-LAT GeV detection of SN 2017egm and evidence of a central engine

F. Acero , A. Acharyya , A. Adelfio , M. Ajello , E. Aviano , L. Baldini , J. Ballet , C. Bartolini
show 111 more authors
D. Bastieri J. Becerra Gonzalez R. Bellazzini E. Bissaldi R. Bonino P. Bruel S. Buson R. A. Cameron P. A. Caraveo F. Casaburo F. Casini E. Cavazzuti C. C. Cheung N. Cibrario G. Cozzolongo P. Cristarella Orestano F. Cuna S. Cutini F. D'Ammando D. Depalo S. W. Digel N. Di Lalla A. Dinesh L. Di Venere P. Fauverge A. Fiori A. Franckowiak Y. Fukazawa S. Funk P. Fusco F. Gargano C. Gasbarra D. Gasparrini S. Germani F. Giacchino N. Giglietto M. Giliberti F. Giordano M. Giroletti I. A. Grenier M.-H. Grondin S. Guiriec R. Gupta E. Hays J. W. Hewitt A. Holzmann Airasca D. Horan X. Hou T. Kayanoki M. Kerr M. Kuss A. Laviron M. Lemoine-Goumard A. Liguori J. Li I. Liodakis P. Loizzo F. Longo F. Loparco S. L\'opez P\'erez L. Lorusso M. N. Lovellette P. Lubrano S. Maldera A. Manfreda G. Mart\'i-Devesa R. Martinelli M. N. Mazziotta M. Michailidis P. F. Michelson N. Mirabal T. Mizuno P. Monti-Guarnieri M. E. Monzani A. Morselli I. V. Moskalenko M. Negro N. Omodei M. Orienti E. Orlando G. Panzarini M. Persic M. Pesce-Rollins R. Pillera T. A. Porter G. Principe S. Rain\`o R. Rando B. Rani M. Razzano A. Reimer O. Reimer M. S\'anchez-Conde P. M. Saz Parkinson D. Serini C. Sgr\`o E. J. Siskind G. Spandre P. Spinelli D. J. Suson H. Tajima D. J. Thompson D. F. Torres Z. Wadiasingh K. Wood G. Zaharijas W. Zhang (for the Fermi-LAT Collaboration) E. Chatzopoulos B. D. Metzger P. J. Pessi I. Vurm
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords superluminous supernovaegamma-ray emissionFermi-LATmagnetarcentral engineSN 2017egmCSM interactionType I SLSNe
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fermi-LAT detects GeV gamma rays from SN 2017egm between 50 and 160 days post-explosion, supporting a magnetar central engine over CSM interaction.

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

The paper reports a significant GeV gamma-ray detection from the superluminous supernova SN 2017egm using 16 years of Fermi-LAT data, with test statistic values indicating greater than 5 sigma significance. It shows that the emission's timing, power-law spectrum with index 2.17, and L_gamma to L_opt ratio near 1 align with magnetar wind nebula models under conditions of low magnetization or rapid spin-down, while the CSM interaction scenario matches the flux level but not the timing or the high luminosity ratio. A sympathetic reader would care because this provides an observational handle on the debated power source of these rare, extremely luminous explosions, which reach 10-100 times the brightness of typical core-collapse supernovae. The study concludes that a central engine plays a key role and could account for the bulk of both the optical and gamma-ray properties in this event.

Core claim

Only SN 2017egm among the sampled hydrogen-poor and hydrogen-rich SLSNe exhibits significant gamma-ray emission, arising 50-160 days after explosion and well described by a power-law spectrum. This signal is consistent with magnetar models but inconsistent with CSM shell interaction due to mismatched timing, and the observed L_gamma/L_opt ratio of approximately 1 contradicts the ratios below 10^{-2} seen in other CSM-dominated objects such as novae or standard supernovae. The authors conclude that a central engine like a magnetar plays a key role in this SLSN.

What carries the argument

The L_gamma/L_opt luminosity ratio together with the gamma-ray light-curve timing and spectrum, used to discriminate between magnetar wind nebula and CSM interaction models.

If this is right

  • A magnetar central engine can reproduce the combined optical and gamma-ray light-curve properties of SN 2017egm.
  • Fifty-hour CTAO observations would detect an SN 2017egm-like event to 140 Mpc under the magnetar model but not under the CSM model owing to gamma-gamma absorption.
  • Systematic GeV searches can serve as a new discriminator among powering mechanisms for hydrogen-poor SLSNe.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Gamma-ray follow-up of additional nearby SLSNe could show whether central engines operate in a larger fraction of these events.
  • The strong gamma-gamma absorption predicted in the CSM case implies that very-high-energy telescopes offer an independent test of the two scenarios.
  • If the magnetar interpretation holds, the same central-engine physics may connect SLSNe to other young-neutron-star phenomena such as fast radio bursts or certain gamma-ray bursts.

Load-bearing premise

That the low L_gamma/L_opt ratios measured in other interacting transients apply directly to hydrogen-poor SLSNe and therefore rule out CSM interaction for the observed gamma-ray signal.

What would settle it

A calculation or observational analog demonstrating that CSM interaction in hydrogen-poor SLSNe can produce an L_gamma/L_opt ratio near 1 at 50-160 days after explosion would falsify the preference for the central-engine interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29909 by A. Acharyya, A. Adelfio, A. Dinesh, A. Fiori, A. Franckowiak, A. Holzmann Airasca, A. Laviron, A. Liguori, A. Manfreda, A. Morselli, A. Reimer, B. D. Metzger, B. Rani, C. Bartolini, C. C. Cheung, C. Gasbarra, C. Sgr\`o, D. Bastieri, D. Depalo, D. F. Torres, D. Gasparrini, D. Horan, D. J. Suson, D. J. Thompson, D. Serini, E. Aviano, E. Bissaldi, E. Cavazzuti, E. Chatzopoulos, E. Hays, E. J. Siskind, E. Orlando, F. Acero, F. Casaburo, F. Casini, F. Cuna, F. D'Ammando, F. Gargano, F. Giacchino, F. Giordano, F. Longo, F. Loparco, G. Cozzolongo, G. Mart\'i-Devesa, G. Panzarini, G. Principe, G. Spandre, G. Zaharijas, H. Tajima, I. A. Grenier, I. Liodakis, I. V. Moskalenko, I. Vurm, J. Ballet, J. Becerra Gonzalez, J. Li, J. W. Hewitt, K. Wood, L. Baldini, L. Di Venere, L. Lorusso, M. Ajello, M. E. Monzani, M. Giliberti, M. Giroletti, M.-H. Grondin, M. Kerr, M. Kuss, M. Lemoine-Goumard, M. Michailidis, M. Negro, M. N. Lovellette, M. N. Mazziotta, M. Orienti, M. Persic, M. Pesce-Rollins, M. Razzano, M. S\'anchez-Conde, N. Cibrario, N. Di Lalla, N. Giglietto, N. Mirabal, N. Omodei, O. Reimer, P. A. Caraveo, P. Bruel, P. Cristarella Orestano, P. Fauverge, P. F. Michelson, P. Fusco, P. J. Pessi, P. Loizzo, P. Lubrano, P. Monti-Guarnieri, P. M. Saz Parkinson, P. Spinelli, R. A. Cameron, R. Bellazzini, R. Bonino, R. Gupta, R. Martinelli, R. Pillera, R. Rando, S. Buson, S. Cutini, S. Funk, S. Germani, S. Guiriec, S. L\'opez P\'erez, S. Maldera, S. Rain\`o, S. W. Digel, T. A. Porter, T. Kayanoki, T. Mizuno, W. Zhang (for the Fermi-LAT Collaboration), X. Hou, Y. Fukazawa, Z. Wadiasingh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the r band absolute magnitude (left) and the pseudo-bolometric (using the gri bands; right) luminosity light curves for the objects of our samples. The light curves have been aligned to r band peak; see Sect. 2.2 for more details. Fewer time bins appear in the luminosity panel because of the unfulfilled requirement of simultaneous g − r − i observations in some bins. in the properties of the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Luminosity light curves in the 100 MeV - 100 GeV energy range over 16 yrs for each SN of our sample from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: Comparison of the optical bolometric luminosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: One can see that besides SN 2017egm, no time bin with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Photon angular distance to SN 2017egm optical position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Residual TS map in the 0.1–100 GeV energy range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multiwavelength maps of the region around the giga-electronvolt excess: radio (VLA; left) and X-rays (XMM; right). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Energy conversion into cosmic rays as a function of time for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Comparison of CSM and magnetar (magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Superluminous supernovae (SLSNe) are a rare class of transients with peak luminosities 10-100 times greater than those of standard core-collapse supernovae (SNe). The mechanisms powering their extreme brightness remain debated, with circumstellar medium (CSM) interaction, or energy injection from a central engine like a magnetar wind nebula being the most plausible scenarios. To further constrain the underlying mechanism, we carried out a systematic search for GeV gamma-ray emission using the Fermi-LAT telescope from a sample of nearby hydrogen-poor (Type I) and hydrogen-rich (Type II) SLSNe over the past 16 years. Among the sample, only SN 2017egm shows significant gamma-ray emission, with likelihood test statistic (TS) values of 26-33 (i.e., >5$\sigma$) depending on the adopted time window. The signal arises between 50 and 160 days after explosion and is well described by a power-law spectrum with index $\Gamma=2.17 \pm 0.23$. The emission is consistent both in terms of its light curve and its spectrum, with predictions from magnetar models requiring either low nebular magnetization or faster spin-down than dipole losses. The CSM shell interaction scenario can reproduce the observed flux level but not the observed timing of the gamma-ray signal. In addition, the observed ratio, $L_{\gamma}/L_{opt} \sim 1$, is inconsistent with theoretical expectations and not in line with ratio measurements in other interacting CSM-dominated objects (e.g., novae or SNe) where this ratio is less than $10^{-2}$. Our study strongly suggests that a central engine like a magnetar plays a key role in this SLSN and could explain the bulk of the optical and gamma-ray light curves properties. Finally, simulations of 50 hours of CTAO observations indicate that a SN 2017egm-like event would be detectable up to 140 Mpc in the magnetar model but not in the CSM model due to strong gamma-gamma absorption.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a systematic Fermi-LAT search for GeV emission from a sample of nearby Type I and Type II SLSNe. Only SN 2017egm yields a significant signal (TS = 26–33, >5σ) between 50–160 days post-explosion, described by a power-law spectrum with Γ = 2.17 ± 0.23. The authors argue that the timing, spectrum, and observed Lγ/Lopt ∼ 1 are consistent with magnetar models (requiring low nebular magnetization or faster spin-down) but inconsistent with CSM interaction, both in timing and because the ratio exceeds the <10^{-2} values seen in other interacting transients. CTAO simulations indicate detectability to 140 Mpc under the magnetar scenario but not the CSM scenario.

Significance. If the detection significance holds after proper accounting for analysis choices, the result would provide direct multi-wavelength evidence favoring a central engine in at least one SLSN and would strengthen the case for magnetar-powered models more generally. The systematic sample search and the CTAO forward predictions are clear strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported TS range of 26–33 is stated to depend on the adopted time window, with the signal appearing between 50 and 160 days. The manuscript must quantify and correct for the look-elsewhere effect arising from post-hoc time-window selection; without an explicit trials factor the effective significance may fall below the threshold required to discriminate magnetar versus CSM scenarios.
  2. [Model comparison section] Model comparison section (abstract): the assertion that Lγ/Lopt ∼ 1 rules out CSM interaction because analogous objects show ratios <10^{-2} rests on the direct transferability of those ratios to hydrogen-poor SLSNe. This comparison is load-bearing for rejecting CSM and requires either dedicated modeling or explicit justification of the analogy.
  3. [Fermi-LAT analysis] Fermi-LAT analysis: full documentation of background modeling, systematic uncertainties, and the precise likelihood procedure is needed to substantiate the TS values, especially given their dependence on the chosen time interval.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify whether any pre-defined criteria were used to select the 50–160 day window or whether the interval was identified after data inspection.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important aspects of statistical rigor, model justification, and analysis transparency that we address point by point below. We have revised the manuscript accordingly where changes are warranted.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported TS range of 26–33 is stated to depend on the adopted time window, with the signal appearing between 50 and 160 days. The manuscript must quantify and correct for the look-elsewhere effect arising from post-hoc time-window selection; without an explicit trials factor the effective significance may fall below the threshold required to discriminate magnetar versus CSM scenarios.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit accounting of the look-elsewhere effect is required. In the revised manuscript we add a new subsection that enumerates the independent time windows explored (30 trials spanning 10–300 days post-explosion) and applies a conservative trials factor. Even after correction the minimum effective TS remains ~20 (>4.5σ), preserving the statistical preference for the magnetar interpretation. We also clarify that the 50–160 day window was additionally motivated by the theoretical peak timescale of magnetar-powered GeV emission, which reduces the effective number of trials. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Model comparison section] Model comparison section (abstract): the assertion that Lγ/Lopt ∼ 1 rules out CSM interaction because analogous objects show ratios <10^{-2} rests on the direct transferability of those ratios to hydrogen-poor SLSNe. This comparison is load-bearing for rejecting CSM and requires either dedicated modeling or explicit justification of the analogy.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the analogy requires explicit justification. The revised text adds a paragraph citing theoretical calculations of gamma-ray production (inverse-Compton and pion-decay) in dense CSM shocks, which demonstrate that Lγ/Lopt ≪ 1 is expected regardless of hydrogen content because of the same pair-production and synchrotron-loss physics. We reference both H-rich (e.g., SN 2010jl) and H-poor interaction models to support the transferability of the ratio limit. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Fermi-LAT analysis] Fermi-LAT analysis: full documentation of background modeling, systematic uncertainties, and the precise likelihood procedure is needed to substantiate the TS values, especially given their dependence on the chosen time interval.

    Authors: The methods section already specifies the P8R3_SOURCE_V3 IRF, gll_iem_v07 galactic and iso_P8R3_SOURCE_V3_v1 isotropic templates, and the standard binned likelihood procedure. To improve transparency we expand this section with a supplementary table that lists every tested time interval, the corresponding TS values, the free parameters in each fit, and the systematic uncertainty budget obtained from diffuse-model variations and bracketing IRFs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports an observational Fermi-LAT detection (TS values 26-33 for SN 2017egm) and compares its timing, spectrum, and Lγ/Lopt ratio to independent model predictions and external ratio measurements from other interacting objects. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain; the magnetar consistency and CSM inconsistency arguments rely on separate theoretical calculations and literature benchmarks outside the present dataset. The analysis remains self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Fermi-LAT likelihood analysis for source detection and on theoretical predictions from magnetar wind nebula and CSM interaction models, with limited free parameters introduced to match the specific observation.

free parameters (2)
  • nebular magnetization = low
    Adjusted to low values to reproduce the observed gamma-ray flux and timing in the magnetar model.
  • spin-down timescale = faster than dipole
    Adjusted to faster than standard dipole losses as an alternative to match the data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The detected gamma-ray signal is physically associated with SN 2017egm rather than an unrelated background source or fluctuation.
    Invoked when interpreting the TS values and spatial coincidence as evidence for emission from the supernova.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6612 in / 1408 out tokens · 47861 ms · 2026-06-29T06:04:26.911950+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 33

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Ackermann, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 33

    2020

  2. [2]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53

    2022

  3. [3]

    2016, ApJS, 223, 26

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 223, 26

    2016

  4. [4]

    2025, gammapy: v1.3, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14760974

    Acero, F., Aguasca-Cabot, A., Bernete, J., et al. 2025, gammapy: v1.3, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14760974

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14760974 2025

  5. [5]

    2022, A&A, 660, A129

    Acero, F., Lemoine-Goumard, M., & Ballet, J. 2022, A&A, 660, A129

    2022

  6. [6]

    B., Bangale, P., et al

    Acharyya, A., Adams, C. B., Bangale, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 30

    2023

  7. [7]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 169

    Ackermann, M., Arcavi, I., Baldini, L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 169

    2015

  8. [8]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 105

    Ajello, M., Angioni, R., Axelsson, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 105

    2020

  9. [9]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al

    Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 25

    2017

  10. [10]

    P., Pessi, P

    Anderson, J. P., Pessi, P. J., Dessart, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A67

    2018

  11. [11]

    2013, arXiv:1303.3514

    Atwood, W., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2013, arXiv:1303.3514

    work page arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071

    2009

  13. [13]

    Fermi Large Area Telescope Fourth Source Catalog Data Release 4 (4FGL-DR4)

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    K., Berger, E., Nicholl, M., & Villar, V

    Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E., Nicholl, M., & Villar, V . A. 2020, ApJ, 897, 114

    2020

  15. [15]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 57

    Bose, S., Dong, S., Pastorello, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 57

    2018

  16. [16]

    J., Schulze, S., Lunnan, R., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Schulze, S., Lunnan, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A259

    2024

  17. [17]

    2008, A&A, 485, 657

    Brinchmann, J., Kunth, D., & Durret, F. 2008, A&A, 485, 657

    2008

  18. [18]

    Fermi-LAT improved Pass~8 event selection

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11394

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    & Wheeler, J

    Chatzopoulos, E. & Wheeler, J. C. 2012, ApJ, 760, 154

    2012

  20. [20]

    C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z

    Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., Horvath, Z. L., & Nagy, A. 2013, ApJ, 773, 76

    2013

  21. [21]

    W., Brennan, S

    Chen, T. W., Brennan, S. J., Wesson, R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.07942

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    C., Johnson, T

    Cheung, C. C., Johnson, T. J., Jean, P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 44

    2022

  23. [23]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 1693

    1998

  24. [24]

    L., Margutti, R., Guidorzi, C., et al

    Coppejans, D. L., Margutti, R., Guidorzi, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 56

    2018

  25. [25]

    2011, European Physical Jour- nal C, 71, 1554

    Cowan, G., Cranmer, K., Gross, E., & Vitells, O. 2011, European Physical Jour- nal C, 71, 1554

    2011

  26. [26]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3321

    Cristofari, P., Marcowith, A., Renaud, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3321

    2022

  27. [27]

    Dermer, C. D. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 091101

    2012

  28. [28]

    J., Waldman, R., Livne, E., & Blondin, S

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Waldman, R., Livne, E., & Blondin, S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, L76

    2012

  29. [29]

    2023, A&A, 678, A157

    Donath, A., Terrier, R., Remy, Q., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A157

    2023

  30. [30]

    N., Evans, J

    Evans, I. N., Evans, J. D., Martínez-Galarza, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 22

    2024

  31. [31]

    D., Vurm, I., Aydi, E., & Chomiuk, L

    Fang, K., Metzger, B. D., Vurm, I., Aydi, E., & Chomiuk, L. 2020, ApJ, 904, 4

    2020

  32. [32]

    R., Prust, L

    Farah, J. R., Prust, L. J., Howell, D. A., et al. 2025, Submitted to Nature, arXiv:2509.08051

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Flesch, E. W. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2024

  34. [34]

    2019, ARA&A, 57, 305

    Gal-Yam, A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 305

    2019

  35. [35]

    & Bell, A

    Giacinti, G. & Bell, A. R. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3693

    2015

  36. [36]

    K., & Hosseinzadeh, G

    Gomez, S., Berger, E., Nicholl, M., Blanchard, P. K., & Hosseinzadeh, G. 2022, ApJ, 941, 107

    2022

  37. [37]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 471 Gutiérrez, C

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Berger, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 471 Gutiérrez, C. P., Pastorello, A., Bersten, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 2056

    2024

  38. [38]

    1983, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, 212, 319 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al

    Helene, O. 1983, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, 212, 319 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116

    1983

  39. [39]

    D., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 14

    2022

  40. [40]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697

    Inserra, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697

    2019

  41. [41]

    E., & Nagataki, S

    Ito, H., Levinson, A., Stern, B. E., & Nagataki, S. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2828

    2018

  42. [42]

    M., & Vila, G

    Kafexhiu, E., Aharonian, F., Taylor, A. M., & Vila, G. S. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 123014

    2014

  43. [43]

    2012, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Katz, B., Sapir, N., & Waxman, E. 2012, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 279, Death of Massive Stars: Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. P. Roming, N. Kawai, & E. Pian, 274–281

    2012

  44. [44]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 92 König, O., Saxton, R

    Kerr, M. 2019, ApJ, 885, 92 König, O., Saxton, R. D., Kretschmar, P., et al. 2022, Astronomy and Computing, 38, 100529

    2019

  45. [45]

    A., Chandler, C

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001

    2020

  46. [46]

    1918, Astronomische Nachrichten, 206, 117

    Lense, J. 1918, Astronomische Nachrichten, 206, 117

    1918

  47. [47]

    & Nakar, E

    Levinson, A. & Nakar, E. 2020, Phys. Rep., 866, 1

    2020

  48. [48]

    2026, Phys

    Li, S., Liang, Y .-F., Liao, N.-H., Lei, L., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2026, Phys. Rev. Lett., 136, 111402

    2026

  49. [49]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 779

    Lin, W., Wang, X., Yan, L., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 779

    2023

  50. [50]

    M., et al

    Margutti, R., Milisavljevic, D., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 21 Martí-Devesa, G., Cheung, C. C., Di Lalla, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A254

    2014

  51. [51]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

    2019

  52. [52]

    W., & Theiss, D

    Mashhoon, B., Hehl, F. W., & Theiss, D. S. 1984, General Relativity and Gravi- tation, 16, 711

    1984

  53. [53]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396

    1996

  54. [54]

    A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., Greiner, J., & Kann, D

    Mazzali, P. A., Sullivan, M., Pian, E., Greiner, J., & Kann, D. A. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3455

    2016

  55. [55]

    D., Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D

    Metzger, B. D., Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D. 2018, ApJ, 857, 95

    2018

  56. [56]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 3311

    2015

  57. [57]

    Moriya, T. J. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, V olume 2, V ol. 2, 720–743

    2026

  58. [58]

    Murase, K., Franckowiak, A., Maeda, K., Margutti, R., & Beacom, J. F. 2019, ApJ, 874, 80

    2019

  59. [59]

    A., Lacki, B

    Murase, K., Thompson, T. A., Lacki, B. C., & Beacom, J. F. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 043003

    2011

  60. [60]

    A., & Ofek, E

    Murase, K., Thompson, T. A., & Ofek, E. O. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2528

    2014

  61. [61]

    2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34

    Nicholl, M. 2021, Astronomy and Geophysics, 62, 5.34

    2021

  62. [62]

    2017, ApJ, 845, L8

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, L8

    2017

  63. [63]

    Ofek, E. O. & Frail, D. A. 2011, ApJ, 737, 45

    2011

  64. [64]

    J., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al

    Pessi, P. J., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A142 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A1

    2025

  65. [65]

    A., Moraghan, A., & Vink, J

    Prokhorov, D. A., Moraghan, A., & Vink, J. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1413

    2021

  66. [66]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Quimby, R. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 487

    2011

  67. [67]

    R., Law, N

    Rau, A., Kulkarni, S. R., Law, N. M., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1334

    2009

  68. [68]

    2018, A&A, 611, A45

    Renault-Tinacci, N., Kotera, K., Neronov, A., & Ando, S. 2018, A&A, 611, A45

    2018

  69. [69]

    2020, A&A, 640, A56

    Renzo, M., Farmer, R., Justham, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A56

    2020

  70. [70]

    D., Norris, J

    Scargle, J. D., Norris, J. P., Jackson, B., & Chiang, J. 2013, ApJ, 764, 167

    2013

  71. [71]

    2009, A&A, 499, 191

    Tatischeff, V . 2009, A&A, 499, 191

    2009

  72. [72]

    E., Taggart, K., et al

    Tinyanont, S., Woosley, S. E., Taggart, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 34

    2023

  73. [73]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505

    2018

  74. [74]

    & Metzger, B

    Vurm, I. & Metzger, B. D. 2021, ApJ, 917, 77

    2021

  75. [75]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A136

    2020

  76. [76]

    C., Chatzopoulos, E., Vinkó, J., & Tuminello, R

    Wheeler, J. C., Chatzopoulos, E., Vinkó, J., & Tuminello, R. 2017, ApJ, 851, L14

    2017

  77. [77]

    2017, in International Cosmic Ray Con- ference, V ol

    Wood, M., Caputo, R., Charles, E., et al. 2017, in International Cosmic Ray Con- ference, V ol. 301, 35th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2017), 824

    2017

  78. [78]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, ApJ, 836, 244

    2017

  79. [79]

    E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A. 2007, Nature, 450, 390

    2007

  80. [80]

    & Gal-Yam, A

    Yaron, O. & Gal-Yam, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668

    2012

Showing first 80 references.