pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.27399 · v2 · pith:2BZHBIA3new · submitted 2025-10-31 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.GA

Simulating the late stages of WD-BH/NS mergers: an origin for fast X-ray transients and GRBs with periodic modulations

Jun-Ping Chen (1) , Rong-Feng Shen (1) , Jin-Hong Chen (2) , Wei-Hua Lei (3) ((1) SYSU , (2) HKU , (3) HUST) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 03:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA
keywords white dwarf mergerstidal disruptionrepeated partial disruptionaccretion rate modulationgamma-ray burstsX-ray transientsperiodic modulationneutron star black hole
0
0 comments X

The pith

White dwarf mergers with black holes or neutron stars produce accretion flows that vary with orbital period, leading to X-ray transients or GRBs with periodic modulations if jets form.

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

The paper performs smoothed-particle-hydrodynamics simulations of white dwarf-black hole and white dwarf-neutron star mergers that retain modest orbital eccentricity after the initial approach. Because the white dwarf has a large tidal radius, it suffers repeated partial disruptions each time it passes near periastron. These episodic mass-loss events feed an accretion flow whose rate rises and falls in step with the orbital period. The simulations show peak accretion rates between 4 times 10 to the minus 4 and 0.2 solar masses per second and total durations from roughly 10 seconds to an hour, with more compact systems finishing faster and brighter. If the resulting disks can launch relativistic jets, the events appear as one of three families of non-thermal X-ray or gamma-ray transients whose prompt light curves carry periodic modulations on timescales of a few to tens of seconds.

Core claim

In WD-BH/NS systems that retain residual eccentricity between 0 and 0.2, the white dwarf undergoes repeated partial disruptions near periastron that modulate the ensuing accretion rate on the orbital period; across sixteen simulated systems the peak rates span 4e-4 to 0.2 solar masses per second and the RPD episodes last from about 10 s to an hour, with higher-mass-ratio systems showing fewer cycles, shorter durations, and higher rates. If such accretion can launch jets, three categories of non-thermal X/gamma-ray transients emerge in order of decreasing mean accretion rate: an X-ray transient accompanied by a simultaneous GRB lasting 10-100 s, a longer X-ray transient up to 100-1000 s witha

What carries the argument

Repeated partial disruptions (RPDs) of the white dwarf near orbital periastron, which episodically supply material and cause the accretion rate onto the compact object to vary periodically with the orbital period.

If this is right

  • More compact systems with higher mass ratios undergo fewer RPD cycles, shorter total durations, and higher peak accretion rates.
  • Three categories of transients are expected: simultaneous X-ray transient plus GRB lasting 10-100 s, longer X-ray transient up to 100-1000 s with GRB only at late times, or ultra-long X-ray transient around 1000 s without GRB.
  • Prompt emission light curves of all three categories are expected to show periodic modulations on orbital timescales of a few to tens of seconds.
  • RPD durations range from about 10 s to one hour while peak accretion rates lie between 4 times 10 to the minus 4 and 0.2 solar masses per second.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Periodic signals in the light curves of certain fast X-ray transients or long GRBs could be used to infer the presence of residual eccentricity in the progenitor binary.
  • The mechanism links the observed properties of specific events such as GRB 230307A and GRB 211211A to a common channel involving repeated tidal stripping rather than a single complete disruption.
  • Full radiation-hydrodynamic simulations that include jet formation would test whether the simulated accretion-rate histories can actually produce the relativistic outflows assumed in the three transient categories.

Load-bearing premise

That the accretion flows produced by these repeated disruptions can launch relativistic jets.

What would settle it

Detection or non-detection of periodic modulations with periods of a few to tens of seconds in the prompt X-ray or gamma-ray light curves of fast transients or long GRBs whose other properties match the predicted durations and accretion-rate ranges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.27399 by (2) HKU, (3) HUST), Jin-Hong Chen (2), Jun-Ping Chen (1), Rong-Feng Shen (1), Wei-Hua Lei (3) ((1) SYSU.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Density evolution of the WD over one orbital period. We present densityprojection snapshots in the xy plane from a simulation using 106 SPH particles to model the late merger phase of a 1 M⊙ WD interacting with a 10 M⊙ BH (for simulation runs No. 2a). Each panel covers a region of 0.14 × 0.14 R⊙. Subsequent evolution at t = 31.2 s (right panel of Fig￾ure 1) reveals structural reconvergence toward spheric￾i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Repeating Partial Disruption Process of a WD. We present densityprojection snapshots in the x-y plane from a simulation using 106 SPH particles to model the late merger phase of a 1 M⊙ WD interacting with a 10 M⊙ BH (for simulation runs No. 2a). Each panel corresponds to distinct evolutionary times, with all panels spanning a physical scale of 0.2 × 0.2 R⊙. The main panel shows the WD after complete disrup… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Late-stage parameter evolution of a 1 M⊙ WD merging with a 10 M⊙ BH (for simulation runs No. 2a). Panels (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) show the evolution of WD’s mass M∗, radius R∗, pericenter distance Rp, semi-major axis a, and penetration factor β, respectively. orbital modulation of the accretion rate may still leave imprints on the light curve. 4.4. Classification and parameter dependence [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the accretion rate during the late stage of the WDBH merger for simulation runs No. 1a, 8a, and 10a. The red vertical dashed line indicates the termi￾nation of the repeated partial disruptions of the WD. Each panel corresponds to one of the three categories described in §4.4. Compared with Categories II and III, Category I shows a larger modulation amplitude A, but with fewer RPD cycles [PITH… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relationship between the initial orbital eccen￾tricity e0 and the modulation amplitude A = M˙ max/M˙ min obtained from simulation runs No. 0a, 2a, 6a, and 7a. The error bars represent the statistical standard errors of our measurements. To delineate the factors behind the outcome variations among these categories, we plot in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relations of M˙ mean, the RPD duration, and the number of RPD cycles versus the initial orbital semi-ma￾jor axis a, among all our simulation runs. Dark red, dark green, and dark blue represent Categories I, II, and III, re￾spectively. Triangles, circles, squares, and diamonds corre￾spond to β0 = 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, and 0.6, respectively. 5.1. Generation of Jets In the RPD scenario of a WD-BH/NS merger, the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The successive evolution of the remnant WD mass M∗ and radius R∗ during the RPD process is shown for three representative simulation runs: No. 10a (Category I), 8a (Category II), and 2a (Category III). Their initial M∗ values are 1.3, 0.8, and 1.0 M⊙, respectively. Following each partial disruption, the WD loses mass and undergoes ex￾pansion. The black line represents Equation (1), i.e., the massradius rel… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relationship between the initial penetration factor β0 and the number of RPD cycles obtained from sim￾ulation runs No. 2, 2a, 4, and 5 whose initial parameters are the same except for β0. jet could be launched, the mechanism of which is either neutrino-driven or magnetically driven, or both. When the central engine is a BH, in the disk inner￾most region close to the BH, where the temperature is extreme… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent studies indicate that mergers of a white dwarf (WD) with a neutron star (NS) or a stellar-mass black hole (BH) may be a potential progenitor channel for certain merger-kind, but long-duration $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs), e.g., GRBs 230307A and 211211A. The relatively large tidal disruption radius of the WD can result in non-negligible residual orbital eccentricity ($0 \lesssim e \lesssim 0.2$), causing episodic mass transfer, i.e., repeated tidal disruptions (RPDs) of the WD. We perform smoothed-particle-hydrodynamics simulations of RPDs in sixteen WD-BH/NS systems, capturing the subsequent mass transfer and accretion. The WD undergoes RPDs near the orbital periastron, modulating the ensuing accretion process, leading to variations of the accretion rate on the orbital period. Across all simulations, the peak accretion rates range from $4 \times10^{-4}$ to 0.2 $M_{\odot} \rm \ s^{-1}$, while the RPD duration spans from $\sim$ 10 s to an hour. More compact systems, i.e., those with a higher mass ratio (higher WD mass and lower accretor mass), tend to undergo fewer RPD cycles, resulting in shorter durations and higher accretion rates. If such events can launch relativistic jets, three categories of non-thermal X/$\gamma$-ray transients are predicted, in decreasing order of their mean accretion rates: (1) an X-ray transient with a simultaneous GRB, both lasting for $10^{1-2}$ s; (2) a longer X-ray transient lasting up to $10^{2-3}$ s that has a GRB appearing only at its later phase ; (3) an ultra-long X-ray transient lasting for $\sim 10^{3}$ s without a GRB. A generic feature of these transients is that their prompt emission light curves are probably periodically modulated with periods of a few to tens of seconds.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents smoothed-particle-hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations of sixteen WD-BH/NS systems with residual orbital eccentricity (0 ≲ e ≲ 0.2). It shows that the WD undergoes repeated partial disruptions (RPDs) near periastron, modulating the accretion flow and producing accretion-rate variations on the orbital timescale. Across the runs, peak accretion rates span 4×10^{-4} to 0.2 M_⊙ s^{-1} and RPD durations range from ~10 s to ~1 h, with more compact systems yielding fewer cycles, shorter durations, and higher rates. Conditionally on these accretion flows launching relativistic jets, the authors predict three categories of non-thermal X/γ-ray transients (with and without GRBs) whose prompt light curves are periodically modulated on timescales of a few to tens of seconds.

Significance. If the hydrodynamical results are robust, the work supplies a concrete, numerically realized mechanism for orbital-period modulations in accretion from eccentric WD disruptions and supplies quantitative ranges for accretion rates and durations that can be compared with observations of long-duration GRBs and fast X-ray transients. The SPH campaign across sixteen systems with varying mass ratios constitutes a systematic exploration that strengthens the WD-merger channel for events such as GRB 230307A and 211211A.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the three categories of non-thermal X/γ-ray transients and the claim that these mergers constitute an origin for GRBs with periodic modulations rest on the conditional statement 'If such events can launch relativistic jets.' No jet-launching physics (magnetic-field amplification, disk magnetization thresholds, Blandford-Znajek or neutrino-driven mechanisms) is simulated or quantitatively tested against the SPH-derived disk properties. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim in the title and abstract; without it the predicted transient categories and modulation signature do not follow from the hydrodynamical results.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that sixteen SPH runs were performed and quotes ranges for accretion rates and durations, but the manuscript should explicitly document numerical resolution, particle number, convergence tests, and post-processing choices for accretion-rate extraction so that the quoted ranges can be independently assessed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and for recognizing the significance of our SPH simulations in exploring the WD-BH/NS merger channel. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the three categories of non-thermal X/γ-ray transients and the claim that these mergers constitute an origin for GRBs with periodic modulations rest on the conditional statement 'If such events can launch relativistic jets.' No jet-launching physics (magnetic-field amplification, disk magnetization thresholds, Blandford-Znajek or neutrino-driven mechanisms) is simulated or quantitatively tested against the SPH-derived disk properties. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim in the title and abstract; without it the predicted transient categories and modulation signature do not follow from the hydrodynamical results.

    Authors: We acknowledge that our work does not include simulations of jet-launching physics, which is outside the scope of the hydrodynamical SPH study presented. The manuscript explicitly conditions the predictions on the ability to launch relativistic jets, as stated in the abstract. The primary results—the periodic modulation of accretion rates on the orbital timescale, the ranges of peak rates and durations across the 16 systems—are directly derived from the simulations and stand independently. The three categories are a way to organize the observational implications based on the mean accretion rates relative to typical thresholds for GRB production. To address the referee's concern, we will revise the abstract to highlight more clearly the separation between the robust hydrodynamical findings and the conditional predictions. We will also expand the discussion section to include a qualitative assessment of jet-launching plausibility using the SPH-derived disk properties, such as the high accretion rates and the presence of a disk. We disagree that the modulation signature does not follow from the hydro results; the periodic variations in accretion rate are a direct outcome of the RPDs and would modulate any jet emission if launched. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results follow from independent hydrodynamical simulations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation consists of SPH numerical simulations of 16 WD-BH/NS systems that directly compute episodic mass transfer, RPDs near periastron, and the resulting time-dependent accretion rates (peaks 4e-4 to 0.2 M⊙ s⁻¹, durations 10 s to ~1 h). These outputs are obtained from integration of the hydro equations and are not equivalent to any fitted parameter or input by construction. The three categories of X/γ-ray transients and the claim of periodic modulation in prompt emission are presented only under the explicit conditional 'If such events can launch relativistic jets'; this is an external assumption about jet physics (not simulated or derived within the paper) rather than a self-referential reduction. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing steps in the provided text, and the central results remain independent of the initial eccentricity motivation from prior studies.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of SPH for capturing episodic mass transfer and on the conditional assumption that relativistic jets can form from the resulting accretion; initial orbital eccentricities and system parameters are selected rather than derived.

free parameters (2)
  • initial orbital eccentricity
    Values between 0 and 0.2 are adopted from prior studies to enable repeated partial disruptions.
  • mass ratios and separations for the 16 systems
    Chosen to sample compact versus wider configurations and to explore trends with mass ratio.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Smoothed-particle hydrodynamics with standard artificial viscosity and self-gravity accurately captures the tidal disruption and episodic mass transfer.
    Invoked implicitly by the choice of simulation method for the RPD process.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5963 in / 1506 out tokens · 45252 ms · 2026-05-18T03:25:34.639339+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Successive Partial Disruptions with Orbital Precession in a White Dwarf-Black Hole System for Repeating GRB 250702B

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A white dwarf on an eccentric orbit around an intermediate-mass black hole undergoes successive partial tidal disruptions, with frame-dragging precession producing the irregular flares observed in GRB 250702B.

  2. Wide Jets or Low Rates: Reconciling Short GRB and Gravitational-Wave Neutron Star Merger Rates

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Latest GW neutron star merger rates are consistent with short GRBs being produced by BNS mergers if jets are wide or rates low, with NSBH mergers subdominant.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2041

  3. [3]

    D., & Znajek, R

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737

    Chen, J.-P., Shen, R.-F., Tan, W.-J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737 2024

  5. [5]

    A., Gaspari, N., Levan, A

    Chrimes, A. A., Gaspari, N., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.10984, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10984

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10984 2025

  6. [6]

    G., Wang, X

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, X. Y., Wu, X. F., & Zhang, B. 2006, Science, 311, 1127, doi: 10.1126/science.1123606

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1123606 2006

  7. [7]

    D., & Atoyan, A

    Dermer, C. D., & Atoyan, A. 2006, ApJ, 643, L13, doi: 10.1086/504895

    work page doi:10.1086/504895 2006

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly014

    Dong, Y.-Z., Gu, W.-M., Liu, T., & Wang, J. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly014

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly014 2018

  9. [9]

    A., King, A., Starling, R

    Eyles-Ferris, R. A., King, A., Starling, R. L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.22843, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.22843

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22843 2025

  10. [10]

    2014, A&A, 562, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321996 Fern´ andez, R., & Metzger, B

    Falcke, H., & Rezzolla, L. 2014, A&A, 562, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321996 Fern´ andez, R., & Metzger, B. D. 2013, ApJ, 763, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/108

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321996 2014

  11. [11]

    L., Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Herant, M., & Davies, M. B. 1999, ApJ, 520, 650, doi: 10.1086/307467

    work page doi:10.1086/307467 1999

  12. [12]

    L., Hungerford, A

    Fryer, C. L., Hungerford, A. L., Wollaeger, R. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1036

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1036 2024

  13. [13]

    2025, MNRAS, 542, 839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1270

    Garain, D., & Sarkar, T. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1270

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1270 2025

  14. [14]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/74

    Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lin, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/74

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/74 2011

  15. [15]

    Kaltenborn, M. A. R., Fryer, C. L., Wollaeger, R. T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf860

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf860 2023

  16. [16]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10165

    Kang, Y., Zhu, J.-P., Yang, Y.-H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10165, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10165

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.10165 2025

  17. [17]

    King, A., Olsson, E., & Davies, M. B. 2007, MNRAS, 374, L34, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00259.x Klu´ zniak, W., & Ruderman, M. 1998, ApJL, 505, L113, doi: 10.1086/311622

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00259.x 2007

  18. [18]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 2015

  19. [19]

    K., Wijers, R

    Lee, H. K., Wijers, R. A. M. J., & Brown, G. E. 2000, PhR, 325, 83, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00084-8 13

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(99)00084-8 2000

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024

  21. [21]

    J., Martin-Carrillo, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Levan, A. J., Martin-Carrillo, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.14286, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.14286

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14286 2025

  22. [22]

    Y., Yang, J., Zhang, W

    Li, D. Y., Yang, J., Zhang, W. D., & the Einstein Probe Collaborations. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.25877. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25877

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Liptai, D., & Price, D. J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 819, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz111

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz111 2019

  24. [24]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b

    Liu, C., Yarza, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, ApJ, 979, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b 2025

  25. [25]

    2017, NewAR, 79, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001

    Liu, T., Gu, W.-M., & Zhang, B. 2017, NewAR, 79, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001 2017

  26. [26]

    2025, ApJL, 988, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adec83

    Liu, X.-X., L¨ u, H.-J., Chen, Q.-H., Du, Z.-W., & Liang, E.-W. 2025, ApJL, 988, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adec83

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adec83 2025

  27. [27]

    Silva, M., & Cheng, R. M. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2502

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2502 2024

  28. [28]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1410

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1410 2016

  29. [29]

    Metzger, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 827, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19747.x Mor´ an-Fraile, J., R¨ opke, F. K., Pakmor, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347555

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19747.x 2012

  30. [30]

    R., Lee, T.-S

    Mumpower, M. R., Lee, T.-S. H., Lloyd-Ronning, N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 81, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1e3 2025

  31. [31]

    doi:10.1086/151568

    Nauenberg, M. 1972, ApJ, 175, 417, doi: 10.1086/151568

    work page doi:10.1086/151568 1972

  32. [32]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18694, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18694 Paczy´ nski, B

    Oganesyan, G., Kammoun, E., Ierardi, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.18694, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.18694 Paczy´ nski, B. 1971, ARA&A, 9, 183, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.09.090171.001151

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.18694 2025

  33. [33]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad45fc

    Peng, Z.-Y., Chen, J.-M., & Mao, J. 2024, ApJ, 969, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad45fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad45fc 2024

  34. [34]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb4

    Perna, R., Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Bartos, I. 2021, ApJ, 915, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfdb4 2021

  35. [35]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  36. [36]

    E., & Fryer, C

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

    work page doi:10.1086/307259 1999

  37. [37]

    , keywords =

    Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1977, ApJ, 213, 183, doi: 10.1086/155143

    work page doi:10.1086/155143 1977

  38. [38]

    Price, D. J. 2012, Journal of Computational Physics, 231, 759, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.011 2012

  39. [39]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2018.25 2018

  40. [40]

    Z., & Woosley, S

    Qian, Y. Z., & Woosley, S. E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 331, doi: 10.1086/177973

    work page doi:10.1086/177973 1996

  41. [41]

    1998, ApJ, 494, L57, doi: 10.1086/311152

    Qin, B., Wu, X.-P., Chu, M.-C., Fang, L.-Z., & Hu, J.-Y. 1998, ApJ, 494, L57, doi: 10.1086/311152

    work page doi:10.1086/311152 1998

  42. [42]

    C., Gompertz, B

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w 2022

  43. [43]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0 Risti´ c, M., Barker, B. L., Cupp, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.03003, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.03003

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/333523a0 1988

  44. [44]

    A., Tao, L., & Klu´ zniak, W

    Ruderman, M. A., Tao, L., & Klu´ zniak, W. 2000, ApJ, 542, 243, doi: 10.1086/309537

    work page doi:10.1086/309537 2000

  45. [45]

    F., Willems, B., & Kalogera, V

    Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., & Kalogera, V. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1624, doi: 10.1086/513736

    work page doi:10.1086/513736 2007

  46. [46]

    Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact objects,

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

    work page doi:10.1002/9783527617661 1983

  47. [47]

    W., Yang, J., et al

    Sun, H., Wang, C. W., Yang, J., et al. 2025, National Science Review, 12, nwae401, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwae401

    work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwae401 2025

  48. [48]

    L., & Gillanders, J

    Tak, D., Uhm, Z. L., & Gillanders, J. H. 2023, ApJ, 958, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad06b0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad06b0 2023

  49. [49]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06616, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06616

    Tan, W.-J., Wang, C.-W., Zhang, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06616, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06616

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06616 2025

  50. [50]

    J., & Liptai, D

    Toscani, M., Lodato, G., Price, D. J., & Liptai, D. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 992, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3384

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3384 2022

  51. [51]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3 2022

  52. [52]

    Usov, V. V. 1992, Nature, 357, 472, doi: 10.1038/357472a0 van Putten, M. H. P. M. 2001, PhR, 345, 1, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00014-X

    work page doi:10.1038/357472a0 1992

  53. [53]

    1999, 527, L43, doi: 10.1086/312386

    Vietri, M., & Stella, L. 1999, 527, L43, doi: 10.1086/312386

    work page doi:10.1086/312386 1999

  54. [54]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ec

    Wang, C.-W., Tan, W.-J., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ec 2025

  55. [55]

    I., Yu, Y.-W., Ren, J., et al

    Wang, X. I., Yu, Y.-W., Ren, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 964, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df6 2024

  56. [56]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8 2022

  57. [57]

    2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    Yang, Y.-H., Troja, E., O’Connor, B., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5 2024

  58. [58]

    Einstein Probe - a small mission to monitor and explore the dynamic X-ray Universe

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Feng, H., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1506.07735, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1506.07735

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.07735 2015

  59. [59]

    Zalamea, I., Menou, K., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L25, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00930.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00930.x 2010

  60. [60]

    Zenati, Y., Bobrick, A., & Perets, H. B. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3956, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa507

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa507 2020

  61. [61]

    B., & Toonen, S

    Zenati, Y., Perets, H. B., & Toonen, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1805, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz316

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz316 2019

  62. [62]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781139226530

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

    work page doi:10.1017/9781139226530 2018

  63. [63]

    2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 45, 325, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.12.013 14

    Zhang, B. 2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 45, 325, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.12.013 14

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.12.013 2025

  64. [64]

    2001, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    Zhang, B., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    work page doi:10.1086/320255 2001

  65. [65]

    B., Liu, Z

    Zhang, B. B., Liu, Z. K., Peng, Z. K., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 911, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01395-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01395-z 2021

  66. [66]

    Zhang, D., & Dai, Z. G. 2008, ApJ, 683, 329, doi: 10.1086/589820

    work page doi:10.1086/589820 2008

  67. [67]

    Zhang, D., & Dai, Z. G. 2009, ApJ, 703, 461, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/461

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/461 2009

  68. [68]

    Zhang, D., & Dai, Z. G. 2010, ApJ, 718, 841, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/841

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/718/2/841 2010

  69. [69]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca83

    Zhong, S.-Q., Li, L., & Dai, Z.-G. 2023, ApJL, 947, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca83

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acca83 2023