Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

The paper argues that off-axis viewing of standard long-GRB jets cannot explain the ultra-soft, relatively energetic fast X-ray transients seen by the Einstein Probe; these events likely come from a previously under-explored kind of relativ

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 02:28 UTC pith:5ZB4KZ2N

load-bearing objection The paper's central claim is probably right—off-axis Type II jets cannot explain the soft, moderately energetic EP FXTs—but the 3-sigma framing is built on three upper limits and a per-patch Amati input that deserves sensitivity checking. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14317 v1 pith:5ZB4KZ2N submitted 2026-07-15 astro-ph.HE

Einstein Probe Fast X-ray Transients Extend the Physical Parameter Space of Relativistic Jets

Connery Chen , Yihan Wang , Bing Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fast X-ray transientsEinstein Probegamma-ray burstsoff-axis jetsstructured jetsAmati relationLorentz factorX-ray flashes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tests one popular idea: that the fast X-ray transients discovered by the Einstein Probe are ordinary long gamma-ray bursts seen from the side. The authors simulate thousands of jet orientations for two realistic jet shapes and ask whether any on- or off-axis viewpoint lands in the observed region of the isotropic-energy versus spectral-peak plane. Off-axis views naturally make bursts dimmer, but they also make them spectrally harder; they never produce the combination of high energy and unusually low peak energy that FXTs show. The result is that bright FXTs fall outside the 3-sigma range of the models, so they cannot be dismissed as geometric look-alikes of ordinary GRBs and instead point to explosions with lower Lorentz factors, heavier baryon loading, or different emission physics.

Core claim

The central claim is a negative result with positive consequences: no standard Type II collapsar jet, whether a smooth Gaussian or a narrow core with a power-law wing, can be placed at any viewing angle and made to reproduce the measured (or lower-limit) spectral peaks of the bright FXTs. In every simulated jet, off-axis observers see emission that is weaker in total energy, but the spectral peak energy stays high or rises because the patches that dominate are Doppler-boosted toward the line of sight. The FXT events sit more than 3 sigma below the Amati correlation that anchors the models and below the X-ray-flash region, so the paper concludes that they are probing an intrinsically differen

What carries the argument

The carrying engine is a structured-jet prompt-emission simulator that tiles the jet into patches, assigns each patch a Band-function spectrum with its peak energy tied to the local isotropic energy through the empirical Amati relation, Doppler-transforms each patch using the ratio of on- to off-axis Doppler factors (R_D, with energy scaling as R_D^3), and sums over the equal-arrival-time surface. Two jet structures are used: a single-component Gaussian and a multi-component core-plus-wing profile. Detection is then filtered through a Swift/BAT-like trigger threshold so the simulated population can be compared directly with the observed E_iso-E_p plane.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the intrinsic brightness-peak correlation measured from mostly head-on bursts also holds for every off-axis patch of the jet; if that link fails at large angles, the simulated plane cannot be trusted.

What would settle it

A decisive test: obtain a secure rest-frame spectral peak for a bright FXT (E_iso greater than about 1e51 erg) instead of an upper limit. If the measured E_p,z falls on the extended Amati scatter, the new-parameter-space conclusion collapses to a selection effect; if it stays below the model boundary while remaining gamma-ray-quiet, the claim survives. A complementary check is to measure the Lorentz factor from afterglow onset and look for values an order of magnitude below canonical GRBs.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The E_iso-E_p plane can be populated by single- and multi-component structured jets, and off-axis viewing reproduces low-luminosity GRBs and GRB 170817A-like events.
  • Moderately off-axis observers of structured jets can reach the soft X-ray-flash region at the low-energy end of the Amati correlation.
  • But the brighter FXTs with E_iso above about 1e51 erg and E_p below about 2 keV lie more than 3 sigma below the simulated plane's boundary, so geometry alone cannot place them there.
  • If the paper is right, FXT spectra imply intrinsically softer emission physics: lower bulk Lorentz factors, higher baryon loading, or different dissipation mechanisms than standard Type II jets.
  • The same models predict that events with gamma-ray counterparts should fall on the ordinary GRB relation, which they do, sharpening the contrast with gamma-ray-quiet FXTs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit: if FXTs are baryon-loaded, low-Lorentz-factor outflows, their afterglow radio-to-X-ray ratios should differ systematically from classical GRBs, so targeted radio follow-up of gamma-ray-quiet FXTs can distinguish the classes.
  • The paper's logic implies that any future FXT with high E_iso and a securely measured (not upper-limit) spectral peak would directly map the low-Lorentz-factor parameter space, turning EP into a population factory for a jet regime that gamma-ray instruments systematically miss.
  • The same per-patch construction could be pushed further by modeling the spectral peak as a function of local Lorentz factor and baryon loading instead of local energy, predicting where FXTs, XRFs, and low-luminosity GRBs should separate in the plane.
  • If a large fraction of stellar collapses produce such soft jets, the volumetric rate implied by EP detections could exceed the rate of classical long GRBs, suggesting that this regime was simply invisible to past gamma-ray telescopes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper tests the hypothesis that Einstein Probe (EP) fast X-ray transients (FXTs) are the off-axis counterparts of standard Type II GRBs. The authors use a numerical jet model with single-component Gaussian and multi-component core+wing structures, apply Swift/BAT and Konus-Wind detectability criteria, and simulate Type I and Type II GRB populations in the E_iso–E_p plane. They find that the simulated populations reproduce the observed distributions of classical GRBs, low-luminosity GRBs, and X-ray flashes, but that the three energetic EP-FXTs with E_p upper limits ~1–2 keV fall more than 3σ below the simulated/Amati region. They conclude that viewing-angle effects of canonical Type II jets cannot explain these FXTs, pointing instead to intrinsically lower Lorentz factors, higher baryon loading, or alternative jet structures and emission mechanisms.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the EP FXT sample opens a new window on relativistic jet parameter space, and the paper's framework provides a useful tool for comparing structured-jet models to population-level observations. Strengths include the explicit treatment of jet structure, detectability, and the explicit acknowledgment of the Amati-extrapolation caveat. The central claim is qualitatively supported by basic Doppler scalings (E_p ∝ R_D, E_iso ∝ R_D^3), so an off-axis standard jet should appear harder, rather than softer, at a given E_iso. However, the quantitative ">3σ" exclusion is currently conditional on the per-patch application of the Amati relation and lacks a formal statistical test. The work is likely to be influential for interpreting the growing EP FXT sample, provided the robustness concerns below are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (10); §5.3] The simulated E_iso–E_p envelope is controlled by the input Amati relation, which is applied per patch. The paper's central exclusion—that no standard Type II jet reaches the FXT region—is therefore conditional on the extrapolation of the Amati relation to jet wings and far off-axis material. The authors acknowledge this in §5.3 but do not test how much the boundary moves if the intrinsic E_p–E_iso relation in wings is softer, has a floor, or has larger scatter than the deterministic mapping used. As written, the abstract's "cannot account" overstates the conclusion. Please add robustness tests (e.g., varying b_II or the slope in wings, introducing a low-E_p floor, or adding per-patch intrinsic scatter) to show the exclusion is not an artifact of Eq. (10).
  2. [§4, §5.2; Figs. 6–7] The ">3σ outlier" claim is not quantified against the model. The figures compare FXTs to the observed Amati 3σ band, but since the simulation is generated from that same relation, the comparison is partly circular. No p-value or confidence level is computed from the simulated distribution, and the three key FXT E_p values are upper limits. Please provide a statistical statement (e.g., the fraction of simulated bursts that fall at or below the FXT upper limits, given the detection criteria and the model's full scatter) or temper the quantitative claim to an upper-bound exclusion.
  3. [§2 and Figs. 1, 6–7] FXT E_iso values are reported in the 0.5–4 keV band while the Amati relation and simulated E_iso are in the 1–10^4 keV band. The paper never states whether a bolometric correction is applied. Using the soft-band E_iso shifts the FXTs leftward in the plane; a bolometric correction would move them rightward and increase the apparent offset, but it also changes the quantitative significance and the precise distance from the 3σ boundary. Please either apply and report bandpass corrections to the FXT points or explicitly justify the direct comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] The text refers to triangles, squares, and circles for viewing-angle classes, but Figs. 6 and 7 use continuous color coding; the marker description appears to be a leftover from a previous draft and should be removed or corrected.
  2. [References] Liu et al. 2025a/2025b and Jiang et al. 2025a/2025b are identical in the reference list; Fong et al. 2015a/2015b are also duplicated. Consolidate or clarify.
  3. [§3.2.1] The parameter list defines θcut as "also referred to as θwing in some contexts," but the notation is not consistently defined elsewhere. Use a single symbol and definition.
  4. [Figs. 6–7 captions] The phrase "solid lines represent the detectable (full) sample" is ambiguous; specify which line corresponds to the detectable sample and which to the full simulated population.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the simulation uses the empirical Amati relation as an input, but the central off-axis result is a derived Doppler/geometry consequence, not an identity with the input; the Amati extrapolation is explicitly acknowledged as a limitation.

full rationale

The central claim—that viewing-angle effects of standard Type II GRB jets cannot explain the low E_p of energetic FXTs—is a model inference, not a restatement of the model's inputs. The model assigns each emitting patch an intrinsic peak energy via the empirical Amati relation (Eq. 10, 'The peak energy scales with isotropic energy via the Amati relation ... with updated coefficients ... (P. Y. Minaev & A. S. Pozanenko 2020)'), then transforms the spectrum with Doppler factors (Eqs. 12 and the R_D scaling of Eq. 8). The resulting off-axis track, E_p ∝ R_D and E_iso ∝ R_D^3, moves simulated bursts upward/harder relative to the input Amati relation because a_II = 0.43 > 1/3. This is a nontrivial consequence of the transformation, not a tautology: if the intrinsic slope were smaller, off-axis emission could soften and reach the FXT region. The paper does not fit the Amati relation to the FXT data or call that input a prediction; it uses published coefficients from an independent sample (Minaev & Pozanenko 2020) and then compares simulated populations to the observed FXT positions. The strongest concern, raised explicitly in the paper, is that applying the Amati relation to off-axis and wing emission is an extrapolation: 'We note that applying the Amati relation to off-axis emission is an extrapolation, since the empirical correlation is derived from the observed population of predominantly (near) on-axis events' (§3.1), and 'Applying this relation to off-axis emission is therefore approximate' (§5.3). That is an honest, load-bearing caveat about validity, not a circular step—it does not make the conclusion equivalent to the input, it only makes the conclusion conditional. Self-citations (e.g., C. Chen et al. 2025 for the numerical framework; B. Zhang et al. 2004 for quasi-universal jet structure) are methodological and are not used to assert uniqueness or forbid alternatives. No quoted reduction shows that Eq. X equals Eq. Y by construction or that a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The observed FXT outlier status is an external benchmark; the model's inability to reach it is a derived, falsifiable statement conditional on the stated Amati extrapolation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model's location in the E_iso–E_p plane is computed from standard relativistic Doppler transformations (Eqs. 5–9, 16–18) applied to a spectrum whose peak is set by the empirical Amati relation (Eq. 10) and whose Lorentz factor follows an empirical Γ–E_iso relation (Eq. 4). These empirical inputs, plus the chosen jet-structure parameters (Tables 1–2), determine the simulated population boundary; the statement that FXTs are outliers is a statement about this boundary. The authors disclose most of these inputs, but the paper does not independently derive the correlations or provide an error budget for the boundary.

free parameters (6)
  • Amati intercept b_II (Type II) = -0.24 ± 0.06
    Eq. 10 sets log(E_p/100 keV) at E_iso = 1e51 erg. The simulated E_iso–E_p plane, and hence the claim that FXTs are outliers, depends directly on this fitted intercept.
  • Amati slope a_II (Type II) = 0.43 ± 0.03
    Eq. 10 controls how E_p scales with E_iso across the simulated population. The off-axis displacement (E_p ∝ R_D, E_iso ∝ R_D^3) combines with this slope to set the slope of the simulated locus.
  • Lorentz-factor normalization Γ0 = ≈ 180
    Eq. 4: Γ(E_iso) = Γ0 (E_iso/1e52)^(1/4). Sets the Doppler factors and the degree of off-axis hardening. A lower Γ0 would weaken the claim that off-axis events are always harder than on-axis ones.
  • Intrinsic Band peak E_p,0 = ≈ 600 keV
    Section 3.1: on-axis spectral peak of the Band function at each patch. It sets the spectral normalization and affects the relative hardness of simulated events, though the global E_iso–E_p structure is dominated by the Amati relation.
  • Multi-component wing parameters (A_w, k_w) = A_w = 1e-2 (σ 0.5 dex); k_w = 4 (σ 0.5)
    Tables 1/2: these control how much soft, wide-angle emission the wing contributes. The claim that even multi-component jets cannot reach the FXT region depends on these choices, which are not independently constrained.
  • Jet core width θ_j and cutoff θ_cut = θ_j ≈ 3° (log-normal); Type II θ_cut = 4 θ_j
    Tables 1/2: set the angular scale of the jet. The simulated distribution of off-axis events depends on the ratio θ_v/θ_j, sampled broadly, so this parameter is less critical but still a chosen input.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Amati relation (Eq. 10) can be applied per-patch to the on-axis emission of every jet patch, including wings and large-angle regions.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 ('The peak energy scales with isotropic energy via the Amati relation'). The authors explicitly note in the same section that applying it off-axis is an extrapolation; the central negative result depends on this.
  • standard math Off-axis Doppler scaling: E_iso ∝ R_D^3 and E_p ∝ R_D (Eqs. 7, 8 and discussion in Section 4).
    Relativistic beaming for a moving surface element (Rybicki & Lightman 1979); used to map on-axis to off-axis observables.
  • domain assumption Γ(E_iso) relation (Eq. 4) holds for all patches, including low-luminosity wings.
    Section 3.1 uses Γ0 ≈ 180 to compute Doppler factors. If the wings have systematically lower Lorentz factors than implied, off-axis spectra could be softer than modeled.
  • domain assumption Prompt spectrum of every patch is a Band function with α = −1, β = −2.3.
    Section 3.1, from Goldstein et al. (2016). This determines how individual patch spectra sum into the observed E_iso–E_p structure.
  • domain assumption Swift/BAT 5σ threshold (Eq. 25) with sliding integration windows adequately represents detectability.
    Section 3.4; defines which simulated events are 'detectable' and therefore appear in the comparison distributions.
  • domain assumption Redshift distributions: Type II follow SFR (Yüksel 2008), Type I follow SFR + delay (Zhu 2021).
    Section 3.4; used to assign luminosity distances and fluxes, affecting detectability, but not strongly the E_iso–E_p structure.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21070 in / 18415 out tokens · 182910 ms · 2026-08-02T02:28:08.843780+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fast X-ray Transients (FXTs) detected by the Einstein Probe (EP) mission possess exceptionally low spectral peak energies compared to typical long (Type II) GRBs. Some of these extragalactic transients show phenomenological similarities to X-ray flashes (XRFs), but the physical origins of FXTs remain uncertain. In this work, we investigate EP-detected FXTs using various jet structures relevant to Type II GRBs and test the hypothesis that these FXTs belong to the intrinsically same population of known GRBs but viewed at large angles from the jet axis. We apply detectability estimates to evaluate their distribution in the observed E_iso-E_p plane. We find that standard single- and multi-component jet structures can reproduce the energetics of off-axis events such as GRB 170817A and low-luminosity GRBs (llGRBs), while also yielding energetics consistent with XRFs at the lower end of the E_iso-E_p continuum for moderately off-axis observers. However, viewing-angle effects of standard Type II GRBs alone cannot account for the E_p values observed in some energetic FXTs. This tension suggests that EP-detected FXTs are unlikely to be explained solely as classical GRBs viewed off-axis, and may instead probe relativistic explosions in a previously underexplored region of parameter space. In particular, these transients may be associated with lower Lorentz factors, reduced angular momentum in the collapsing core, or alternative jet structures and emission mechanisms. Our results motivate further studies to test these scenarios and constrain the physical properties of FXT progenitors and their outflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14317 by Bing Zhang, Connery Chen, Yihan Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Observed GRBs with known redshift in the Eγ,iso–Ep,z plane (P. Y. Minaev & A. S. Pozanenko 2020). Grey and black diamonds represent Type I and Type II GRBs, respectively. The solid line and shaded region rep￾resent the Amati relation (Eq. 10) and its 3σ scatter. Col￾ored markers and corresponding labels indicate EP-detected FXTs and GRBs (Y. Liu et al. 2025b; H. Sun et al. 2025; S.-Q. Jiang et al. 2025b; W… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Single-component model parameter distribution densities for simulated events. Type I GRBs are shown in blue and Type II GRBs are shown in red. The filled histogram represents Swift/BAT-detectable simulated events (see Section 3.4), while the dashed step histogram shows the full simulated population, including events below the Swift/BAT detection threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Intrinsic redshift distribution of Type I (blue) and Type II (red) GRBs. The simulated data are plotted as his￾tograms, and model distributions are plotted as solid lines. The intrinsic redshift distribution is model-independent and representative of both single- and multi-component jet struc￾tures. populations. Accordingly, in our models, Type I GRBs are assigned lower total energy Eγ and larger cutoff an… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Eγ,iso and t90 distribution densities of simulated and observed Type I (blue) and Type II (red) GRBs. The upper panels correspond to the single-component jet structure, and the lower panels correspond to the multi-component jet structure. Simulated events are represented by filled histograms, and the observational sample from P. Y. Minaev & A. S. Pozanenko (2020) is shown as solid step histograms. The medi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated and observed Type II GRBs on the Eγ,iso–Ep,z plane. Simulated bursts are shown for single-component (left panel) and multi-component (right panel) jet structures, with parameters sampled according to Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Simulated bursts are color-coded by viewing angle θv, with opacity indicating Swift/BAT detectability (opaque for detectable bursts, semi-transparent for non-detections)… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Eγ,iso and Ep distribution densities for Type II GRBs with a multi-component jet structure, assuming KW detectabil￾ity. KW-detectable bursts are represented by the filled histogram, while the full simulated sample including undetectable bursts is shown as the dashed step histogram. Compared to Swift/BAT-detectable bursts ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Simulated and observed Type II GRBs with the multi-component jet structure on the Eγ,iso–Ep,z plane. Opacity indicates whether a burst is detectable by KW (opaque) or not (semi-transparent). For comparison, the Swift/BAT-detectable population is shown in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗

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

81 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

  2. [2]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

    doi:10.1086/172995 1993

  3. [3]

    H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C

    Baumgartner, W. H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C. B., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/19

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/19 2013

  4. [4]

    L., Yang, Y.-H., Troja, E., et al

    Becerra, R. L., Yang, Y.-H., Troja, E., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A233, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557612

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557612 2026

  5. [5]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 5430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3110

    Beniamini, P., & Nakar, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3110

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3110 2019

  6. [6]

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

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

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

  7. [7]

    2011, ApJL, 739, L55, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L55

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2011, ApJL, 739, L55, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L55

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/l55 2011

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, 2971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3316

    Bromberg, O., Tchekhovskoy, A., Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3316

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3316 2018

  9. [9]

    J., et al

    Campana, S., Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008, doi: 10.1038/nature04892

    doi:10.1038/nature04892 2006

  10. [10]

    X-ray Emission Signatures of Neutron Star Mergers

    Chen, C., Wang, Y., & Zhang, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.01606, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.01606

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.01606 2025

  11. [11]

    Origin Of The Far Off-Axis GRB171205A

    Dado, S., & Dar, A. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1712.09319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1712.09319

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.09319 2017

  12. [12]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.26213

    Dai, C.-Y., Quirola-V´ asquez, J., Wang, Y.-H., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.26213. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.26213

    arXiv 2026

  13. [14]

    D., Chiang, J., & B¨ ottcher, M

    Dermer, C. D., Chiang, J., & B¨ ottcher, M. 1999, ApJ, 513, 656, doi: 10.1086/306871

    doi:10.1086/306871 1999

  14. [15]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  15. [16]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4048

    Frontera, F. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4048

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa4048 2021

  16. [18]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015b, ApJ, 815, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

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

  17. [19]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R., et al. 2001, ApJL, 562, L55, doi: 10.1086/338119

    doi:10.1086/338119 2001

  18. [20]

    L., et al

    Frederiks, D., Svinkin, D., Lysenko, A. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb 2023

  19. [21]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670, doi: 10.1038/27150

    doi:10.1038/27150 1998

  20. [22]

    2019, ApJL, 877, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab224b

    Geng, J.-J., Zhang, B., K¨ olligan, A., Kuiper, R., & Huang, Y.-F. 2019, ApJL, 877, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab224b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab224b 2019

  21. [23]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, L47, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00977.x

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Nava, L., & Burlon, D. 2011, MNRAS, 410, L47, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00977.x

    arXiv 2011

  22. [24]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    Ghirlanda, G., & Salvaterra, R. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43 2022

  23. [25]

    2018, A&A, 609, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    Ghirlanda, G., Nappo, F., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731598 2018

  24. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    Gill, R., & Granot, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1214 2018

  25. [27]

    S., & Burns, E

    Goldstein, A., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., & Burns, E. 2016, ApJ, 818, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/18

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/18 2016

  26. [28]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Hotokezaka, K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1462 2018

  27. [29]

    Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJL, 570, L61, doi: 10.1086/340991

    doi:10.1086/340991 2002

  28. [31]

    M., & Chevalier, R

    Irwin, C. M., & Chevalier, R. A. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1680, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1058

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1058 2016

  29. [32]

    2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    Izzo, L., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Maeda, K., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3 2019

  30. [34]

    Jiang, S.-Q., Xu, D., van Hoof, A. P. C., et al. 2025b, ApJL, 988, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/addebf

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/addebf 2041

  31. [35]

    2015, Physics Reports, 561, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2015, Physics Reports, 561, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 2015

  32. [36]

    P., & Kobayashi, S

    Lamb, G. P., & Kobayashi, S. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2345

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2345 2017

  33. [37]

    P., & Kobayashi, S

    Lamb, G. P., & Kobayashi, S. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 733, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1108

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1108 2018

  34. [38]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2011

    Lan, G.-X., Zeng, H.-D., Wei, J.-J., & Wu, X.-F. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2011 2019

  35. [39]

    2007, MNRAS, 375, L46, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00273.x

    Lazzati, D., & Perna, R. 2007, MNRAS, 375, L46, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00273.x

    arXiv 2007

  36. [40]

    X., Zhu, Z

    Li, W. X., Zhu, Z. P., Zou, X. Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17034, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.17034

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.17034 2025

  37. [41]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 2209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2209

    Liang, E.-W., Yi, S.-X., Zhang, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2209

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/2209 2010

  38. [43]

    2025b, Nature Astronomy, 9, 564, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8

    Liu, Y., Sun, H., Xu, D., et al. 2025b, Nature Astronomy, 9, 564, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8

  39. [44]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd2be

    Maity, B., & Chandra, P. 2021, ApJ, 907, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd2be

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd2be 2021

  40. [45]

    Meszaros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1993, ApJ, 405, 278, doi: 10.1086/172360 17

    doi:10.1086/172360 1993

  41. [46]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x

    Bucciantini, N., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x

    arXiv 2011

  42. [47]

    Y., & Pozanenko, A

    Minaev, P. Y., & Pozanenko, A. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3611

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3611 2020

  43. [48]

    2015, A&A, 577, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424490

    Mochkovitch, R., & Nava, L. 2015, A&A, 577, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424490

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424490 2015

  44. [49]

    P., Deller, A

    Mooley, K. P., Deller, A. T., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 355, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 2018

  45. [50]

    1992, ApJL, 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493

    Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T. 1992, ApJL, 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493

    doi:10.1086/186493 1992

  46. [51]

    P., Bonnell, J

    Norris, J. P., Bonnell, J. T., Kazanas, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 627, 324, doi: 10.1086/430294 Paczy´ nski, B. 1998, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 428, Gamma-Ray Bursts, 4th Hunstville Symposium, ed. C. A. Meegan, R. D. Preece, & T. M. Koshut (AIP), 783–787, doi: 10.1063/1.55404

    doi:10.1086/430294 2005

  47. [52]

    A., Masetti, N., et al

    Pian, E., Mazzali, P. A., Masetti, N., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1011, doi: 10.1038/nature05082

    doi:10.1038/nature05082 2006

  48. [53]

    Relativistic Jets in Core Collapse Supernovae

    Piran, T., Nakar, E., Mazzali, P., & Pian, E. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.08298, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1704.08298

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.08298 2017

  49. [54]

    2005, ApJL, 625, L91, doi: 10.1086/431237

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Granot, J., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2005, ApJL, 625, L91, doi: 10.1086/431237

    doi:10.1086/431237 2005

  50. [55]

    Rossi, E., Lazzati, D., & Rees, M. J. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 945, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x Rouco Escorial, A., Fong, W., Berger, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf830

    arXiv 2002

  51. [56]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf 2020

  52. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Troja, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14 2024

  53. [58]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  54. [59]

    Q., Graziani, C., et al

    Sakamoto, T., Lamb, D. Q., Graziani, C., et al. 2004, ApJ, 602, 875, doi: 10.1086/381232

    work page doi:10.1086/381232 2004

  55. [60]

    Q., Kawai, N., et al

    Sakamoto, T., Lamb, D. Q., Kawai, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 311, doi: 10.1086/431235

    doi:10.1086/431235 2005

  56. [61]

    Y., Lutovinov, A

    Sazonov, S. Y., Lutovinov, A. A., & Sunyaev, R. A. 2004, Nature, 430, 646, doi: 10.1038/nature02748

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02748 2004

  57. [62]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1014, doi: 10.1038/nature05087

    doi:10.1038/nature05087 2006

  58. [63]

    X., Liu, L

    Sun, H., Li, W. X., Liu, L. D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1073, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02571-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02571-1 2025

  59. [64]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, L18, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly061

    Troja, E., Piro, L., Ryan, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, L18, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly061

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly061 2018

  60. [65]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 5643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2626

    Troja, E., van Eerten, H., Zhang, B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2626

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2626 2020

  61. [66]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96af

    Tsvetkova, A., Frederiks, D., Golenetskii, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa96af 2017

  62. [67]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 1944, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16787.x

    Wanderman, D., & Piran, T. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1944, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16787.x

    arXiv 2010

  63. [68]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 3026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv123

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv123 2015

  64. [69]

    2007, ApJ, 664, 1026, doi: 10.1086/519228

    Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z., Waxman, E., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2007, ApJ, 664, 1026, doi: 10.1086/519228

    doi:10.1086/519228 2007

  65. [70]

    E., & Bloom, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  66. [71]

    2023, A&A, 673, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245414

    Xu, F., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245414

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245414 2023

  67. [72]

    2003, ApJL, 594, L79, doi: 10.1086/378736

    Yamazaki, R., Yonetoku, D., & Nakamura, T. 2003, ApJL, 594, L79, doi: 10.1086/378736

    doi:10.1086/378736 2003

  68. [73]

    I., Fang, Y., Zhang, B.-B., et al

    Yin, Y.-H. I., Fang, Y., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf552

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf552 2025

  69. [74]

    2025, Science China

    Yuan, W., Dai, L., Feng, H., et al. 2025, Science China

    2025

  70. [75]

    D., Beacom, J

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 239501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3 Y¨ uksel, H., Kistler, M. D., Beacom, J. F., & Hopkins, A. M. 2008, ApJL, 683, L5, doi: 10.1086/591449

    doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3 2008

  71. [76]

    2006, Nature, 444, 1010, doi: 10.1038/4441010a

    Zhang, B. 2006, Nature, 444, 1010, doi: 10.1038/4441010a

    doi:10.1038/4441010a 2006

  72. [77]

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

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

    doi:10.1017/9781139226530 2018

  73. [78]

    M., & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Zhang, B., Dai, X., Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2004, ApJL, 601, L119, doi: 10.1086/382132

    doi:10.1086/382132 2004

  74. [79]

    2002, ApJ, 571, 876, doi: 10.1086/339981

    Zhang, B., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2002, ApJ, 571, 876, doi: 10.1086/339981

    doi:10.1086/339981 2002

  75. [80]

    2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 41, 42, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.01.002

    Zhang, B., Wang, X.-Y., & Zheng, J.-H. 2024, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 41, 42, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.01.002

    doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.01.002 2024

  76. [81]

    2007, ApJL, 655, L25, doi: 10.1086/511781

    Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2007, ApJL, 655, L25, doi: 10.1086/511781

    doi:10.1086/511781 2007

  77. [82]

    J., et al

    Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Virgili, F. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1696

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1696 2009

  78. [83]

    B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al

    Zhang, B. B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 447, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3 2018

  79. [84]

    E., & Heger, A

    Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2004, ApJ, 608, 365, doi: 10.1086/386300

    doi:10.1086/386300 2004

  80. [85]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3949

    Zheng, J.-H., Wang, X.-Y., Liu, R.-Y., & Zhang, B. 2024, ApJ, 966, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3949

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3949 2024

Showing first 80 references.