Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

This paper claims that no kilonova model can produce both the dust needed for the infrared continuum and the heavy elements needed for the [Te III] line in GRB 230307A, so either the infrared glow is not dust or the burst was not a neutron-

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 ↗

The dust needed to explain GRB 230307A's infrared continuum is not produced in any tested kilonova nucleosynthesis model, so the continuum is either not dust or the burst is not a binary neutron-star merger.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A serious paper with a real tension, but the abstract overreaches and the dust masses rest on a spectral decomposition that needs more validation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.16121 v1 pith:4XXTPUDP submitted 2025-10-17 astro-ph.HE

GRB 230307A Formed No Dust or Was Not a Binary Neutron Star Merger

Prasiddha Arunachalam , Phillip Macias , Ryan. J. Foley This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstskilonovar-process nucleosynthesisdust formationinfrared excessneutron star mergerJWSTGRB 230307A
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.

The reading

The authors re-analyze JWST spectra of GRB 230307A taken 29 and 61 days after the burst. They model the smooth ~550 K infrared continuum as thermal emission from newly formed dust and find it requires 3–6 × 10⁻³ solar masses of carbon or silicate dust, or about 2 × 10⁻³ solar masses of iron dust. They then compare the elements needed to form that dust with nucleosynthetic yields from kilonova models. No model produces enough light elements to make the dust while also producing enough tellurium to explain the 2.1 μm line. They conclude that either the continuum is not dust emission, or GRB 230307A did not originate from a binary compact-object merger.

Core claim

The central claim is that the late-time infrared continuum of GRB 230307A, if interpreted as dust emission, forces a dust mass that no neutron-star merger model can supply while also producing the r-process elements inferred from the proposed [Te III] line. Carbon or silicate dust requires 3–6 × 10⁻³ M☉, and iron dust requires roughly 2 × 10⁻³ M☉; the iron option is marginally consistent with some models at the 3σ level but physically implausible to form in the expanding ejecta. The paper also derives a 3σ upper limit of 2.6 × 10⁻³ M☉ on radioactive ⁵⁶Ni from the low late-time luminosity. Therefore, either the blackbody-like continuum has a non-dust origin, or GRB 230307A was not a binary ne

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified blackbody dust emission model, Fν = M_d Bν(T_d) κν / D², which converts the observed infrared continuum into dust mass and temperature. A two-component dust model (warm and cold) is fit simultaneously to both spectral epochs, allowing dust masses to stay fixed while temperatures evolve. The abundance comparison then uses nucleosynthetic yields from nuclear-network calculations spanning a range of electron fractions, and from kilonova models matched to the bolometric light curve, to test whether any yield can satisfy the dust-forming element and tellurium constraints at once.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the smooth infrared continuum can be cleanly separated from the afterglow and emission lines and is thermal emission from newly formed dust; if the continuum has a different origin, the inferred dust masses and all abundance comparisons collapse.

What would settle it

A calculation using a full neutron-star merger nucleosynthesis model with a realistic electron-fraction distribution that simultaneously yields more than 3 × 10⁻³ M☉ of carbon or silicate-forming elements and roughly 10⁻³ M☉ of tellurium would falsify the claim; observationally, detecting the 10 μm silicate feature in GRB 230307A would support the dust interpretation and require re-examining the nucleosynthetic constraints.

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

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, GRB 230307A's identification as a kilonova from a neutron-star merger is called into question, and alternative progenitor channels such as white-dwarf–neutron-star mergers or accretion-induced collapse become more plausible.
  • The ⁵⁶Ni upper limit of 2.6 × 10⁻³ M☉ provides a new constraint that any model of the event must respect.
  • The method can be applied to other GRBs with late-time infrared excesses to distinguish dust emission from kilonova emission.
  • Future late-time JWST observations of similar events could test whether the continuum cools and fades in a way consistent with dust growth or destruction.
  • If the 2.1 μm line is eventually identified as a different species, the tellurium constraint and the central contradiction would need to be revised.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the continuum is neither dust nor a standard kilonova photosphere, the unusually smooth blackbody shape may point to an emission mechanism that no current model predicts, which could open a new physics question for kilonova theory.
  • The dust-mass threshold of ~10⁻³ M☉ could serve as a general diagnostic: any kilonova candidate whose late-time infrared continuum requires that much dust may be inconsistent with a neutron-star merger origin.
  • A decisive observational test would be to search for the 10 μm silicate feature; its presence would support the dust interpretation and sharpen the contradiction, while its absence would disfavor silicate dust and weaken the abundance comparison.
  • The tension might also be resolved by improved atomic data for tellurium: if the line identification is wrong, the r-process evidence weakens and the dust interpretation becomes less constrained.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes the JWST/NIRSpec spectra of GRB 230307A at +29 and +61 days. It decomposes the IR continuum into an afterglow power law, Gaussian emission lines, and a two-temperature modified-blackbody dust component, deriving dust masses for carbonaceous, silicate, and metallic-iron compositions. These masses are converted to required elemental masses and compared to nucleosynthetic yields from single-Ye SkyNet calculations and from three POSSIS kilonova models selected by reduced chi-square. The paper finds that carbon/silicate dust requires C, O, Mg, and Si abundances orders of magnitude above kilonova predictions, that iron dust is only marginally consistent for two models and physically disfavored, and that the late-time luminosity limits 56Ni to <2.6e-3 Msun. The central conclusion is a disjunction: either the IR continuum is not dust from the merger, or GRB 230307A did not originate from a binary neutron star / neutron star-black hole merger.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper challenges the kilonova interpretation of GRB 230307A and forces consideration of alternative progenitor channels (e.g., white-dwarf-neutron-star mergers or accretion-induced collapse). The quantitative tension is large (many sigma in log-space) and the analysis uses conservative normalizations: assigning all dust mass to the key element and scaling r-process mass to a deliberately high value both make it harder to rule out kilonova models. The paper also validates its MCMC implementation against prior work, and it explicitly acknowledges the undersampled POSSIS grid. These are strengths. The significance is high because GRB 230307A is the first GRB with deep late-time JWST spectroscopy, and the interpretation of its IR continuum is currently contested. However, the strength of the final claim exceeds what the current model sampling and spectral-contamination treatment can support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 1] The handling of known contamination is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that the +29-day spectrum's galaxy contamination 'cannot qualitatively affect any results' and that the +61-day fit simply ignores data shortward of 1.7 um, but no galaxy-subtracted fit, contamination template, or sensitivity test is provided. The cold dust component is constrained primarily by the 2-5 um continuum shape; a modest galaxy contribution or a slight change in the afterglow power-law slope would propagate directly into the dust masses used in Tables 3 and 5. Because the central disjunction rests on these dust masses, this is a load-bearing gap. Please add an explicit contamination sensitivity analysis or model the galaxy/star components.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 3, Table 4] The abstract's 'No KN model can simultaneously...' is stronger than the evidence presented. The text admits that the full POSSIS model space is undersampled and that only three models from a coarse grid are used, yet it then asserts that these models 'represent the full qualitative range of Ye distributions' and are 'representative of all KN models consistent with AT2023vfi.' That assertion is not justified. To support the universal claim, the authors need either a denser grid, a full parameter inference, or a demonstration that the unexplored regions cannot satisfy both the dust and Te constraints. Without this, the conclusion should be limited to the models actually considered.
  3. [Section 3, Table 5] The normalization of every model to a total r-process mass of 0.12 Msun is described as conservative, but for high-Ye models it produces unphysical results: the paper itself notes that this normalization implies production of ≫100 Msun of He and Fe-group material. Yet the rows for Ye=0.39-0.49 are used to make quantitative exclusion claims. Please report absolute yields at the model's actual ejecta mass and treat the r-process mass normalization as an explicit parameter with a physically motivated prior, rather than applying a single scaling to all models.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] There is a missing citation: 'measured by Fermi-GBM (cite)' should be replaced with a specific reference.
  2. [Conclusions and elsewhere] Typos: 'but but producing iron dust' in Section 5; 'the the data' in the final paragraph; 'a a KN' in the Introduction.
  3. [Table 5] The definition of 'signed deviations in units of sigma in log-space' is not given. Please specify how the sigma values are computed, especially with asymmetric or non-Gaussian posteriors.
  4. [Section 2] The choice of grain size a=0.1 um is not varied. Since dust mass scales with opacity and hence grain size, a sentence justifying this choice and noting the expected effect on Mdust would improve robustness.
  5. [Section 4.1] The dismissal of iron dust relies on the statement that the gas density at T~800 K is 'too low to efficiently form iron dust' (Nozawa et al. 2011). A quantitative estimate of the density and condensation timescale would make this argument more convincing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dust masses are fitted, but the nucleosynthesis comparison is external and not constructed from the dust constraints.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: observed JWST spectra are decomposed into afterglow, lines, and a modified-blackbody dust component (Eq. 1); the fitted dust masses are converted into elemental mass fractions (Table 3); and those fractions are compared against external nuclear-network and radiative-transfer models (SkyNet, POSSIS; Table 5). The conclusion is a mismatch between the fitted dust/Te constraints and independently computed nucleosynthesis yields. The KN models are not adjusted to reproduce the dust masses or the Te mass, so the comparison is an external benchmark rather than a circular reduction. The Te mass and ejecta mass are adopted from prior independent analyses (Levan et al. 2024; Gillanders et al. 2023) with stated uncertainties, making them inputs with known assumptions, not outputs of this paper's derivation. The only self-citations (Coulter et al. 2017; Kilpatrick et al. 2017) concern the externally verified discovery of AT 2017gfo and do not carry the present argument. One robustness concern is the assertion in Section 2 that galaxy contamination 'cannot qualitatively affect any results' despite the +29-day spectrum showing narrow galaxy lines, and the +61-day fit masks wavelengths shortward of 1.7 micron; however, that is a missing-support/systematic-uncertainty issue, not a circular definition or self-referential derivation. It would affect the reliability of the fitted dust masses, not whether the derivation reduces to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on fitted dust masses and on external nucleosynthesis and line-identification assumptions, all listed above.

free parameters (8)
  • Dust mass (cold component, carbon) = (2.8 ± 0.7) × 10^-3 M_sun
    Required to reproduce the 2-5 μm continuum at 29 and 61 days (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (warm component, carbon) = (2.5 ± 0.4) × 10^-5 M_sun
    Second component needed to fit the 2-3 μm region (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (cold component, silicate) = (6.0 ± 1.9) × 10^-3 M_sun
    Fitted for silicate composition (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (warm component, silicate) = (8.4 ± 1.4) × 10^-5 M_sun
    Fitted for silicate composition (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (cold component, iron) = (1.9 ± 0.4) × 10^-3 M_sun
    Fitted for metallic iron composition (Table 2).
  • Dust mass (warm component, iron) = (1.6 ± 0.3) × 10^-5 M_sun
    Fitted for metallic iron composition (Table 2).
  • Grain size = 0.1 μm (assumed)
    Fixed in the dust opacity calculation (Section 2). Not varied; dust mass scales with assumed size and optical constants.
  • r-process normalization = 0.12 M_sun
    Assumed conservative upper limit on the total r-process mass for scaling model abundances (Section 3).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The IR continuum is optically thin thermal emission from dust, described by F = M_d B(T) κ / D^2 (Eq. 1).
    Standard dust SED model; if the dust is optically thick or geometry differs, the inferred mass changes. Section 2.
  • domain assumption No kilonova model produces a pseudo-blackbody continuum at +29/+61 days.
    The paper relies on cited models (Hotokezaka et al., Banerjee et al., Pognan et al.) to exclude an intrinsic KN origin for the continuum, needed for the 'or' in the conclusion. Sections 1, 4.2.
  • domain assumption The 2.1 μm emission line is [Te III] and the Te mass is ~1e-3 M_sun (Levan et al. 2024).
    If the line is misidentified, the r-process constraint used in Table 5 disappears. Section 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The three POSSIS models (A,B,C) selected by reduced χ² are representative of all KN models consistent with the bolometric light curve.
    Authors explicitly note the full model space is undersampled, so using these three to claim 'no KN model' is an assumption. Section 3, Figure 3.
  • domain assumption The ejecta total mass is 0.059 ± 0.011 M_sun (Gillanders et al. 2023).
    Used to convert dust masses to mass fractions (Table 3). An unstated background measurement.
  • domain assumption Iron dust cannot form at the low gas densities when ejecta cools to ~800 K (Nozawa et al. 2011).
    Used to dismiss the one dust species that is marginally consistent with KN models. Section 4.1.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRB 230307A Formed No Dust or Was Not a Binary Neutron Star Merger." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4XXTPUDP

@misc{pith2026251016121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRB 230307A Formed No Dust or Was Not a Binary Neutron Star Merger},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4XXTPUDP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.16121}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We present a new analysis of the JWST infrared spectra of GRB 230307A (AT 2023vfi), a long gamma-ray burst (GRB) with an infrared excess and spectral lines suggestive of significant heavy $r$-process production. The spectra, taken 29 and 61~days after the GRB trigger, have blackbody-like continua with $T_{\rm eff} \approx 550$ K and an emission line near $2.1$ $\mu$m, previously attributed to [Te III]. This line identification has been used as evidence for an $r$-process-powered kilonova (KN), despite no KN model producing a blackbody-like spectrum at late times. Such an infrared continuum could be emitted by newly formed dust, and we model the thermal emission to infer dust properties, including composition and mass. We find that the emission requires at least 3--$6 \times 10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$ of carbon or silicate dust, which is inconsistent with $r$-process yields expected from a neutron star merger. Alternatively, the continuum could be from $2\times 10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$ of metallic iron dust, which is mildly consistent (at 3$\sigma$) with KN models, but such dust is unlikely to form in the expanding ejecta. GRB 230307A's low late-time luminosity also constrains the amount of radioactive $^{56}$Ni produced to $<2.6 \times 10^{-3}$~M$_{\odot}$ (3$\sigma$). No KN model can simultaneously form the necessary dust for the infrared continuum and heavy elements for the [Te III] line. We conclude that the blackbody continuum is not due to dust emission, or GRB 230307A did not originate from a binary compact-object merger.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.16121 by Phillip Macias, Prasiddha Arunachalam, Ryan. J. Foley.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: JWST/NIRSpec spectra of AT 2023vfi taken 29 (top) and 61 days (bottom) after the GRB trigger, as reduced by Gillanders & Smartt (2025, black curves). Overplotted in burnt red are the best-fit models for each spectrum. Those spectra are a combination of a power-law component (green dotted curve), two carbonaceous dust components (gold dashed and purple dot-dashed curves), and Gaussian profiles (not shown). … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: MCMC corner plot showing the two-component dust model fits to the blackbody-like emission in AT 2023vfi, using carbonaceous dust (grain size 0.1 µm). The model fits the 29-day and 61-day data simultaneously, assuming fixed dust masses between the two epochs. This corner plot corresponds to the fit shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: displays the pseudo-bolometric light curve for AT 2023vfi as calculated by Liu et al. (2025b), along with light curves (in gray) from a coarsely-sampled subset of the POSSIS models described above. We do not perform a full Monte Carlo inference on this model space, but instead high￾light (in color) the three best-fitting models according to the reduced chi-squared statistic, again noting that the full mode… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Abundance patterns at t = 29 days for single Ye Skynet runs shown in color, scaled so that the r-process mass is equal to 0.12M⊙. The orange vertical bars show the range of possible C, O, Mg, Si, and Fe masses inferred through dust modeling of this epoch for carbonaceous, silicate (Fo), and pure-Fe dust, as well as the Te constraints from the emission-line modeling of Levan et al. (2024) with an assumed fa… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. JWST observations of SN 2024abup: First Detection of CO in a broad-lined Type Ic Supernova and Constraints on r-process Nucleosynthesis

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    JWST spectra of SN 2024abup show CO, C, O, and Mg features plus possible dust emission, with no clear r-process signatures identified via SUMO modeling.

  2. Heavy element dust explains the late-time spectra of kilonovae

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Dust from refractory r-process elements forms efficiently in kilonova ejecta and explains the observed late-time infrared spectra.

  3. Magnetar Formation from Accretion Induced Collapse of White Dwarfs

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Nine axisymmetric GR neutrino MHD simulations of AIC produce proto-magnetars (1.15-1.45 Msun, 2.9-4.9 kHz) that exhibit universal magnetic energy evolution and episodic instabilities when magnetic energy exceeds rotat...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P ., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P ., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, ApJL, 8 48, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 —. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2041

  2. [2]

    Anand, S., Pang, P . T. H., Bulla, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prin ts, arXiv:2307.11080, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.11080 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P ., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip ˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.11080 2023

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf6ba

    Banerjee, S., Jerkstrand, A., Badnell, N., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf6ba

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf6ba 2025

  4. [4]

    2016 , ApJ, 829, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110

    Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2016 , ApJ, 829, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/110 2016

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    B., Davies, M

    Bobrick, A., Zenati, Y ., Perets, H. B., Davies, M. B., & Churc h, R. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3574

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3574 2022

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad232

    Bulla, M. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad232

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad232 2023

  8. [8]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737 2024

  9. [9]

    C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L

    Cheong, P . C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L. F., & Radice, D. 2025, ApJL, 978, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada1cc

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada1cc 2025

  10. [10]

    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

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10984 2025

  11. [11]

    A., Foley, R

    Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, S cience, 358, 1556, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9811

    doi:10.1126/science.aap9811 2017

  12. [12]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P . S., Berger, E., Villar, V . A., et al. 2017,ApJL, 848, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 2017

  13. [13]

    M., et al

    Dalessi, S., V eres, P ., Hui, C. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.12637, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.12637

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.12637 2025

  14. [14]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36 2022

  15. [15]

    T., & Hensley, B

    Draine, B. T., & Hensley, B. S. 2021, ApJ, 910, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abddb7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abddb7 2021

  16. [16]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    doi:10.1086/162480 1984

  17. [17]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science , 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049 2017

  18. [18]

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

    doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  19. [19]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  20. [20]

    D., Chevalier, R

    Fox, O. D., Chevalier, R. A., Dwek, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1 768, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1768

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1768 2010

  21. [21]

    Fryer, C., Benz, W., Herant, M., & Colgate, S. A. 1999, ApJ, 51 6, 892, doi: 10.1086/307119

    work page doi:10.1086/307119 1999

  22. [22]

    R., & Levan, A

    Gall, C., Hjorth, J., Rosswog, S., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J . 2017, ApJL, 849, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa93f9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa93f9 2017

  23. [23]

    H., & Smartt, S

    Gillanders, J. H., & Smartt, S. J. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf287 12 A RUNACHALAM , M ACIAS , & F OLEY

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf287 2025

  24. [24]

    H., Troja, E., Fryer, C

    Gillanders, J. H., Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.00633, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.00633

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00633 2023

  25. [25]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., V eres, P ., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  26. [26]

    D., Foucart, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Foucart, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E . 2025, ApJ, 984, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc577

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc577 2025

  27. [27]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  28. [28]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 5863, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1975 —

    Hotokezaka, K., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., & Gaigalas, G. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5863, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1975 —. 2022, MNRAS, 515, L89, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac071 —. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L155, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad128

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1975 2021

  29. [29]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90 , doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  30. [30]

    Kaltenborn, M. A. R., Fryer, C. L., Wollaeger, R. T., et al. 20 23, ApJ, 956, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf860

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf860

  31. [31]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2

    Kasen, D., & Barnes, J. 2019, ApJ, 876, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab06c2 2019

  32. [32]

    2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., Quataert, E., & Ramirez- Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    doi:10.1038/nature24453 2017

  33. [33]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P ., et al. 2017, Scienc e, 358, 1559, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9455

    doi:10.1126/science.aap9455 2017

  34. [34]

    Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2002, A&A, 384, 585, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020036

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020036 2002

  35. [35]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, Scien ce, 358, 1583, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0073

    doi:10.1126/science.aaq0073 2017

  36. [36]

    2005, ApJ, 629, 341, doi: 10.1086/431354

    Kohri, K., Narayan, R., & Piran, T. 2005, ApJ, 629, 341, doi: 10.1086/431354

    doi:10.1086/431354 2005

  37. [37]

    P ., Tanvir, N

    Lamb, G. P ., Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab38bb 2019

  38. [38]

    J., et al

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Morsony, B. J., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 12 0, 241103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.241103 2018

  39. [39]

    J., Gompertz, B

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

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

  40. [40]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2017, ApJS, 233, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa94cb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa94cb 2017

  41. [41]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adec83 2041

  42. [42]

    2025b, ApJL, 983, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc260

    Liu, Z., Jiang, J.-a., & Zhao, W. 2025b, ApJL, 983, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc260

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc260 2041

  43. [43]

    I., & Woosley, S

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790

    doi:10.1086/307790 1999

  44. [44]

    P ., Xiong, Z., et al

    McCann, M., Mulholland, L. P ., Xiong, Z., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf283

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf283 2025

  45. [45]

    Pacholski, D. P . 2023, ApJ, 956, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf846

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf846 2023

  46. [46]

    D., Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., Piro, A. L., & Quataert, E. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 781, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13789.x

    arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    Ramsbottom, C. A. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 3423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2331

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2331 2024

  48. [48]

    2007, PhR, 442, 166, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

    Nakar, E. 2007, PhR, 442, 166, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.005 2007

  49. [49]

    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

  50. [50]

    2011, ApJ, 736, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/45

    Nozawa, T., Maeda, K., Kozasa, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/45

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/45 2011

  51. [51]

    Querry, M. R. 1988, ApOpt, 27, 1203, doi: 10.1364/AO.27.001203

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.27.001203 1988

  52. [52]

    1986, ApJL, 308, L43, doi: 10.1086/184740

    Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJL, 308, L43, doi: 10.1086/184740

    doi:10.1086/184740 1986

  53. [53]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751

    Perego, A., V escovi, D., Fiore, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3751 2022

  54. [54]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P ., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017

  55. [55]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12413

    Jerkstrand, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12413. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12413

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    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

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

  57. [57]

    2017, Classica l and Quantum Gravity, 34, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9

    Rosswog, S., Feindt, U., Korobkin, O., et al. 2017, Classica l and Quantum Gravity, 34, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9 2017

  58. [58]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    Savchenko, V ., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94 2017

  59. [59]

    R., Timmes, F

    Seitenzahl, I. R., Timmes, F. X., Marin-Laflèche, A., et al. 2 008, ApJL, 685, L129, doi: 10.1086/592501

    doi:10.1086/592501

  60. [60]

    M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Nature, 569, 241, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0 2019

  61. [61]

    J., Chen, T

    Smartt, S. J., Chen, T. W., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2017, Natur e, 551, 75, doi: 10.1038/nature24303

    doi:10.1038/nature24303 2017

  62. [62]

    2023, A&A, 675, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346421

    Sneppen, A., & Watson, D. 2023, A&A, 675, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346421

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346421 2023

  63. [63]

    2014, ApJL, 789, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L6

    Takami, H., Nozawa, T., & Ioka, K. 2014, ApJL, 789, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/L6

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/789/1/l6 2014

  64. [64]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc95

    Tanaka, M., Domoto, N., Aoki, W., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdc95

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdc95 2023

  65. [65]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., González-Fernández, C., et al. 2 017, ApJL, 848, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 2041

  66. [66]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.13061, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13061

    Tarumi, Y ., Hotokezaka, K., Domoto, N., & Tanaka, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.13061, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.13061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13061 2023

  67. [67]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022, Nature, 61 2, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

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

  68. [68]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df6 2024

  69. [69]

    J., Selsing, J., et al

    Watson, D., Hansen, C. J., Selsing, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 5 74, 497, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3 2019

  70. [70]

    O., & Kushnir, D

    Waxman, E., Ofek, E. O., & Kushnir, D. 2025, ApJ, 984, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc1bd GRB 230307A D UST 13

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc1bd 2025

  71. [71]

    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

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

  72. [72]

    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

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

  73. [73]

    Zenati, Y ., Bobrick, A., & Perets, H. B. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 395 6, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa507

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa507 2020

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.