Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Short GRB magnetars obey the same field–spin scaling as long GRBs, a first.

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

2026-08-01 14:36 UTC pith:C3VPQ7J6

load-bearing objection The universal Bp–P0 slope for sGRBs is probably an artifact of the L0–τ inversion, and the paper has internal contradictions; the qualitative field-strength difference is likely real. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18698 v1 pith:C3VPQ7J6 submitted 2026-07-21 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Universal scaling between magnetar field and initial spin period for short gamma ray bursts

Qin-Mei Li , Qi-Bin Sun , Sheng-Bang Qian , Li-Yin Zhu , Fu-Xing Li , Si-Yuan Zhu , Ming Lian , Jing Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords gamma-ray burstsmagnetarsshort GRBsX-ray plateausinitial spin periodmagnetic fieldaccretion rateBp-P0 correlation
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 systematically analyzes 33 short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) with X-ray plateaus and derives the initial spin period and polar magnetic field of their newborn magnetar central engines. It finds a tight Bp–P0 correlation for sGRBs, log Bp = (0.84±0.07) log P0 + (15.79±0.07), with a slope statistically consistent with that of long GRBs. The authors interpret this as evidence for a universal magnetar spin-down mechanism, while the vertical offset between the two populations traces different progenitor accretion environments. They further link the offset to higher mass accretion rates in sGRBs and note partial overlap with broad-line Type Ic supernovae, suggesting mixed progenitor channels.

Core claim

The paper claims the first systematic detection of a Bp–P0 correlation in short GRBs with X-ray plateaus. Using 33 sGRBs (22 from prior literature plus 11 newly analyzed), it derives magnetar parameters spanning P0 ∈ [1.73, 18.28] ms and Bp ∈ [0.06, 2.82]×10^17 G, with sGRB magnetars being, on average, about an order of magnitude more magnetized than lGRB magnetars. The fitted power-law slope for sGRBs, 0.84±0.07, matches the lGRB slope of 0.83±0.09, while the intercepts differ significantly. The authors argue that the slope represents a universal magnetar spin-down / accretion equilibrium (Bp ∝ P0^(7/6) at fixed accretion rate), and the intercept difference encodes progenitor-specific accre

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the magnetar spin-down model applied to X-ray plateaus: the plateau luminosity L0 and timescale τ are inverted to yield the initial spin period P0 and polar magnetic field Bp via equations (5)–(6), derived from magnetic dipole spin-down. The theoretical backbone is the equilibrium scaling Bp ∝ P0^(7/6) Mdot^(1/2), obtained by equating the Alfvén radius with the corotation radius during fallback accretion. This scaling predicts a steep positive slope in the log Bp–log P0 plane, which the paper tests against the data.

Load-bearing premise

The Bp and P0 values are not measured independently; both are computed from the same two observables (plateau luminosity and plateau timescale) via the magnetar spin-down equations, so the fitted slope between them may be a byproduct of that inversion rather than a physical correlation.

What would settle it

Scramble the plateau luminosity and timescale values across the sample, recompute Bp and P0, and re-fit the correlation; if the scrambled data still produce a slope near 0.84 with similar scatter, the correlation is an artifact of the inversion. Alternatively, independently measure the initial spin period of a magnetar remnant in an sGRB through X-ray timing or gravitational-wave observations and check whether it falls on the claimed relation.

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

If this is right

  • If the correlation is physically real, the Bp–P0 plane becomes a two-dimensional diagnostic that can separate GRB progenitor channels, with slope encoding spin-down physics and intercept encoding accretion rate.
  • sGRB magnetars being systematically more magnetized than lGRB magnetars provides a concrete observational constraint for models of compact binary merger remnants.
  • The derived mass accretion rates for sGRBs (0.1–0.3 Msun/s) are substantially higher than those for lGRBs, implying different fallback or merger disk conditions around newborn magnetars.
  • The overlap between a subset of sGRBs and SNe Ic-BL in the Bp–P0 plane supports the emerging idea that some short bursts arise from massive star core collapse, not only compact binary mergers.
  • Future sGRB plateau detections can immediately place the burst onto this correlation and estimate its central engine parameters without re-fitting the full light curve.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because Bp and P0 are both derived from the same two observables (L0 and τ) via the same inversion equations, the steep correlation may be partly baked into the mathematics; a null test that scrambles L0 and τ across the sample, or simulates independent draws from their error distributions, would establish whether the observed slope is physically meaningful or an artifact of the inversion.
  • If the correlation is verified with independent measurements of P0 (e.g., from future pulsar timing or gravitational-wave signatures of a magnetar remnant), the intercept offset could be converted into a direct probe of post-merger disk mass and magnetic flux, rather than relying on accretion-rate inference.
  • The near-unity slope (~0.84) is close to, but slightly shallower than, the theoretical 7/6 ≈ 1.17; testing whether this difference persists in larger samples could reveal additional spin-down torques beyond magnetic dipole radiation, such as gravitational wave emission.
  • The paper's mixed-origin claim for sGRBs, driven by overlap with SNe Ic-BL, suggests that a fraction of sGRB samples selected on plateau signatures may be contaminated by collapsar events; future samples should include a classification based on host galaxy type or supernova association to test this directly.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes X-ray plateaus of short GRBs to derive magnetar initial spin periods P0 and polar magnetic fields Bp via the magnetar spin-down model (Eqs. 3–6). It claims the first systematic detection of a Bp–P0 correlation in sGRBs, with slope 0.84±0.07, consistent with the lGRB slope 0.83±0.09, which the authors interpret as evidence for a universal magnetar spin-down mechanism with different accretion environments. The paper also derives mass accretion rates and compares magnetar parameters across transient classes.

Significance. If the Bp–P0 correlation were based on independent measurements, the near-identical slopes between sGRBs and lGRBs would be an important result. However, the analysis inverts the same two observables (L0 and τ) to compute both Bp and P0, so the fitted Bp–P0 relation is a mathematical projection of the L0–τ joint distribution and does not provide independent evidence for a physical coupling. The paper also contains internal inconsistencies in sample size and statistical reporting. The light-curve fitting and the table of 11 sources are useful data products, but the central conclusion is not supported by the analysis as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (5)–(6); §3, Eq. (7)] Equations (5) and (6) define log Bp = −0.5 log L0 − log τ + const and log P0 = −0.5 log L0 − 0.5 log τ + const. Hence any correlation between log Bp and log P0 is induced by the covariance of L0 and τ; it does not measure an independent physical relation. The paper does not perform a null test (e.g., scrambling τ or simulating from independent Bp and P0 distributions) to show that the observed r = 0.93 is not an artifact of the inversion. This is load-bearing because the claimed universal slope comparison with lGRBs (Eqs. 7–8) could arise simply from similar L0–τ covariance in both samples. The central claim is therefore unsupported.
  2. [Abstract vs. §2 and Table 1] The abstract states 33 sGRBs with P0 in [1.73, 18.28] ms, but §2 says the final clean sample contains 11 sGRBs, and Table 1 lists 11 sources with P0 values up to 77.62 ms. The 22 sources from Lü et al. (2015) mentioned in the Introduction are not tabulated or analyzed. For the 11 listed sources, r = 0.93 corresponds to p ≈ 2×10^−5, not the quoted 2.74×10^−14; the quoted p-value implies n ≈ 33. The statistical results are not reproducible from the presented data.
  3. [§4, Eq. (9) and discussion of slopes] The statement that "all measured slopes are consistent with the theoretical 7/6 scaling" is contradicted by Eq. (7): 0.84 ± 0.07 is ~4.7σ from 7/6 ≈ 1.167. Additionally, the accretion-rate estimates use Eq. (9) with the fitted slope 0.83, but Eq. (9) assumes a 7/6 slope; using a different slope requires a modified relation. The derived Mdot ranges are therefore not well justified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors (e.g., "theroy" in §1, "invovles" and "Accoding" in §2), which should be corrected.
  2. [References] Several references appear in the bibliography but are not cited in the text (Cook et al. 1994; Duez et al. 2006; Giacomazzo & Perna 2013; Rea et al. 2015).
  3. [Figure 2 and Table 1] Some light-curve fits have very large parameter uncertainties (e.g., GRB 191031D: τ = 113.97 ± 103.05 s, P0 = 18.28 ± 14.72 ms), yet the paper does not discuss how these uncertainties propagate into the derived Bp and P0 or into the fitted correlation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Bp–P0 'universal scaling' is a projection of the L0–τ anti-correlation through the defining inversion equations; no null test is provided.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eqs. (5)–(7); see also Table 1]
    "Bp,15 = 2.05 G (I45 R−3 6 L−1/2 0,49 τ −1 3) ... P0,−3 = 1.42 s (I 1/2 45 L−1/2 0,49 τ −1/2 3) ... log Bp = (0.84±0.07) log P0 + (15.79±0.07)"

    From (5) and (6), in log-space log Bp = −½ log L0 − log τ + c and log P0 = −½ log L0 − ½ log τ + d. Thus log Bp = log P0 − ½ log τ + const, so an OLS regression of log Bp on log P0 has slope (Var L + 2 Var τ + 3 Cov(L,τ))/(Var L + Var τ + 2 Cov(L,τ)) plus selection effects. Table 1 shows F0 (∝ L0) and τ are strongly anticorrelated; the fitted slope 0.84 is therefore the projection of that F0–τ covariance through the defining equations, not an independent measurement of magnetar properties. Eq. (7) is then presented as 'the first systematic detection of the Bp–P0 correlation' and used to infer a universal spin-down mechanism. No null test (e.g., scrambling τ or forward-modeling independent Bp,P0) is performed to show the slope is not forced by the inversion.

full rationale

Equations (5)–(6) give log Bp = −0.5 log L0 − log τ + const and log P0 = −0.5 log L0 − 0.5 log τ + const. Hence the fitted slope in Eq. (7) is not an independent measurement but a deterministic function of the covariance between the two observables L0 and τ (and of sample selection). Table 1 shows F0 (∝ L0) and τ are strongly anticorrelated, so the tight r = 0.93 correlation is expected from the inversion; the paper never runs a null test (scrambling τ, or forward-simulating independent Bp/P0 values). This makes the headline 'universal magnetar spin-down' conclusion underdetermined: the same transformation would be applied to any sample with similar L0–τ distribution, including lGRBs, so the near-identical slopes in Eq. (8) do not independently confirm a universal mechanism. The interpretation also has internal tensions: the abstract claims 33 sGRBs and P0 ∈ [1.73, 18.28] ms, whereas §2 and Table 1 list 11 sGRBs with P0 values up to 77.62 ms; and the fitted slope 0.84 is ~4–5σ from 7/6, contradicting the statement that all measured slopes are consistent with 7/6. These do not by themselves establish circularity, but they reinforce the conclusion that the central claim rests on a fitted projection rather than a model-independent test.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the magnetar spin-down model and the spin-up equilibrium model, both assumed from the literature. The only hand-chosen number that materially affects the results is the adopted redshift z=0.72 for 8 sources. The free parameters are the standard NS mass/radius used in Eq. (9) and the assumed redshift; no parameters are fitted to the data beyond the light-curve fits and the final Bp–P0 regression.

free parameters (2)
  • Adopted redshift z=0.72 = 0.72
    Used for 8 of 11 newly analyzed sGRBs without measured redshift. Directly scales L0 (Eq. 2) and hence Bp and P0 (Eqs. 5–6); systematic uncertainty not propagated.
  • Canonical NS mass and radius in Eq. (9) = M=1.4 Msun, R=12 km
    Adopted from Stratta et al. (2018) to convert the fitted Bp–P0 relation into accretion rates. These values set the normalization of the derived Ṁ and are not varied.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Magnetic dipole spin-down of a newborn magnetar powers the X-ray plateau (Zhang & Mészáros 2001).
    Equations (3)–(4) are assumed to describe the plateau and are used to invert L0 and τ into Bp and P0.
  • domain assumption The plateau break time τ = tb/(1+z) equals the characteristic spin-down timescale and L0 ≃ Lb.
    The identification of the observed break with the magnetar spin-down timescale is essential; no alternative interpretation (e.g., external shock) is tested.
  • domain assumption The internal plateau is defined by a post-break decay index steeper than −2.
    Used to select the 11 sGRB sample; the selection criterion biases toward magnetar-like behavior.
  • domain assumption Spin-up equilibrium relation B ∝ P^{7/6} Ṁ^{1/2} (Eq. 9).
    Invoked to interpret the intercept offset as due to accretion rate; the theoretical slope is inconsistent with the fitted slope, so the interpretation is questionable.
  • standard math Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ωm = 0.3 and H0 = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1.
    Used for luminosity distances and K-corrections; a standard choice, but a different cosmology would shift L0 and thus Bp, P0.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12009 in / 20373 out tokens · 170208 ms · 2026-08-01T14:36:25.937910+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The $B_p$--$P_0$ correlation serves as a critical probe of magnetar engine physics. Although this scaling relation has been firmly established for long gamma-ray bursts (lGRBs), systematic investigations for short GRBs (sGRBs) remain absent, leaving the physical differences between the two populations poorly constrained. Here we analyze 33 Swift sGRBs exhibiting prominent X-ray plateaus from newborn millisecond magnetar spin-down, and derive their initial spin period $P_0$ and polar magnetic field $B_p$. sGRB magnetars span $P_0 \in [1.73,\,18.28]\ \mathrm{ms}$ and $B_p \in [0.06,\,2.82] \times 10^{17}\ \mathrm{G}$ ($\langle B_p \rangle = 7.05 \times 10^{16}\ \mathrm{G}$), significantly more magnetized than lGRB magnetars ($B_p \in [0.39,\,23.08] \times 10^{15}\ \mathrm{G}$; $\langle B_p \rangle = 3.69 \times 10^{15}\ \mathrm{G}$). For the first time, we derive consistent power-law $B_p$--$P_0$ correlations for GRBs : the scaling for sGRBs is $\log B_p = (0.84\pm0.07)\log P_0 + (15.79\pm0.07)$, whose slope is highly consistent with that of lGRBs, $\log B_p = (0.83\pm0.09)\log P_0 + (14.92\pm0.06)$. The near-identical slopes imply a universal magnetar spin-down mechanism, while the vertical offset between intercepts traces divergent progenitor channels. This scaling relation thus offers a new diagnostic to disentangle the formation pathways of GRB. Within the framework of the standard spin-up model, the mass accretion rates of sGRBs ($\dot{M} \sim 1 \times 10^{-1}$ to $3 \times 10^{-1}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$) are substantially higher than those of lGRBs ($\dot{M} \sim 10^{-4}$ to $1 \times 10^{-1}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$). Our work completes the missing $B_p$--$P_0$ statistics for sGRBs, quantitatively unifies their magnetar physics with lGRBs, and provides new observational constraints on the origin diversity of relativistic transients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18698 by Fu-Xing Li, Jing Li, Li-Yin Zhu, Ming Lian, Qi-Bin Sun, Qin-Mei Li, Sheng-Bang Qian, Si-Yuan Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Bp–P0 parameter plane of sGRBs and lGRBs powered by magnetar central engines. The two GRB populations show distinct segregation across the magnetic field–initial spin period parameter space; all magnetar parameters are inferred from modeling Swift X-ray afterglow plateaus. Overlaid comparison samples are superluminous supernovae (SLSNe, green points; Yu et al. 2017), lGRBs (violet points; Zhou et al.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: X-ray light curves of the 11 sGRB sample. Violet points show BAT (15–150 keV) data extrapolated to the XRT (0.3–10 keV) band, and blue points show raw XRT (0.3–10 keV) data. Red lines indicate the best-fit broken power-law models for each light curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Diverse Morphologies of GRB X-Ray Plateaus within a Common Magnetar Framework

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A hierarchical fit of 185 GRB X-ray plateaus finds no statistical need for distinct magnetar populations behind rising, flat, and decaying plateau shapes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  2. [2]

    P., Anand, S., et al

    Ahumada, T., Singer, L. P., Anand, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 2021

  3. [3]

    D., Chincarini, G., Burrows, D

    Barthelmy, S. D., Chincarini, G., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2005, Nature, 438, 994, doi: 10.1038/nature04392

    doi:10.1038/nature04392 2005

  4. [4]

    Bhattacharya, D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1991, PhR, 203, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-s 1991

  5. [5]

    2006, A&A, 454, 113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064856

    Campana, S., Tagliaferri, G., Lazzati, D., et al. 2006, A&A, 454, 113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064856

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20064856 2006

  6. [6]

    H., Jia, X

    Chen, J. H., Jia, X. D., Dong, X. F., & Wang, F. Y. 2024, ApJL, 973, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7b39 2024

  7. [7]

    B., Shapiro, S

    Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1994, ApJ, 424, 823, doi: 10.1086/173934

    doi:10.1086/173934 1994

  8. [8]

    J., Fox, D

    Cucchiara, A., Levan, A. J., Fox, D. B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7 Dall’Osso, S., Stratta, G., Perna, R., De Cesare, G., &

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/7 2011

  9. [9]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acccec

    Stella, L. 2023, ApJL, 949, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acccec

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acccec 2023

  10. [10]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad22e2

    Du, Z., Lü, H., Yuan, Y., Yang, X., & Liang, E. 2024, ApJL, 962, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad22e2

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad22e2 2024

  11. [11]

    Stephens, B. C. 2006, PhRvL, 96, 031101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.031101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.031101 2006

  12. [12]

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

    doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  13. [13]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 —. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J

    Evans, P. A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014819

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014819 2010

  15. [15]

    K., & Pethick, C

    Ghosh, P., Lamb, F. K., & Pethick, C. J. 1977, ApJ, 217, 578, doi: 10.1086/155606

    work page doi:10.1086/155606 1977

  16. [16]

    2013, ApJL, 771, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26

    Giacomazzo, B., & Perna, R. 2013, ApJL, 771, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/l26 2013

  17. [17]

    P., Levan, A

    Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., & Tanvir, N. R. 2020, ApJ, 895, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24 2020

  18. [18]

    P., O’Brien, P

    Gompertz, B. P., O’Brien, P. T., & Wynn, G. A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 240, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2165

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2165 2014

  19. [19]

    T., Jing, J

    Hao, C. T., Jing, J. H., Han, X. L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae24e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae24e3 2026

  20. [20]

    1997, ApJ, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

    Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1997, ApJ, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

    doi:10.1086/512791 1997

  21. [21]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101, doi: 10.1086/186969

    doi:10.1086/186969 1993

  22. [22]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2606

    Lan, L., Gao, H., Zhao, L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2606

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2606 2026

  23. [23]

    2025, ApJL, 990, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf20e —

    Li, Q.-M., Sun, Q.-B., Qian, S.-B., & Li, F.-X. 2025, ApJL, 990, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf20e —. 2026a, ApJL, 997, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2012

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf20e 2025

  24. [24]

    2026b, ApJ, 998, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2f45

    Li, Q.-M., Sun, Q.-B., Qian, S.-B., Zhu, S.-Y., & Li, F.-X. 2026b, ApJ, 998, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2f45

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2f45

  25. [25]

    M., Zhang, Z

    Li, Q. M., Zhang, Z. B., Han, X. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1648

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1648 2023

  26. [26]

    L., Wang, X

    Lin, W. L., Wang, X. F., Wang, L. J., & Dai, Z. G. 2020, ApJL, 903, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc254

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abc254 2020

  27. [27]

    2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2 Lü, H.-J., & Zhang, B

    Liu, J.-F., Zhu, J.-P., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y.-W., & Zhang, B. 2022, ApJL, 935, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2 Lü, H.-J., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJ, 785, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/74 Lü, H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., Li, Y., & Lasky, P. D. 2015, ApJ, 805, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/89

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac86d2 2022

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/184740 1986

  31. [31]

    Y., Wang, N., & Zhang, C

    Pan, Y. Y., Wang, N., & Zhang, C. M. 2013, Ap&SS, 346, 119, doi: 10.1007/s10509-013-1432-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-013-1432-3 2013

  32. [32]

    1999, PhR, 314, 575, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    Piran, T. 1999, PhR, 314, 575, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(98)00127-6 1999

  33. [33]

    L., & Ott, C

    Piro, A. L., & Ott, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 736, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/108

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/108 2011

  34. [34]

    A., et al

    Rea, N., Gullón, M., Pons, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/92

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/813/2/92 2015

  35. [35]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2

    Rossi, A., Rothberg, B., Palazzi, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2 2022

  36. [36]

    T., Metzger, B

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts683

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts683 2013

  37. [37]

    T., Tanvir, N

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 531, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17354.x

    arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P

    Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 591, L17, doi: 10.1086/376976

    doi:10.1086/376976 2003

  39. [39]

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

    Stratta, G., Dainotti, M. G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G. 2018, ApJ, 869, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd8f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd8f 2018

  40. [40]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4711

    Tang, C.-H., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., & Zhang, Z.-B. 2019, ApJS, 245, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4711

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab4711 2019

  41. [41]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273, doi: 10.1086/172359

    doi:10.1086/172359 1993

  42. [42]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c13

    Xie, L., Wei, D.-M., Wang, Y., & Jin, Z.-P. 2022, ApJ, 934, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c13 2022

  43. [43]

    2016, ApJS, 224, 20, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20 10Li et al

    Yi, S.-X., Xi, S.-Q., Yu, H., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 20, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20 10Li et al

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20 2016

  44. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27

    Yu, Y.-W., Zhu, J.-P., Li, S.-Z., Lü, H.-J., & Zou, Y.-C. 2017, ApJ, 840, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c27 2017

  45. [45]

    Zeh, A., Klose, S., & Hartmann, D. H. 2004, ApJ, 609, 952, doi: 10.1086/421100

    doi:10.1086/421100 2004

  46. [46]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L21

    Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 780, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L21

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l21 2014

  47. [47]

    2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    Zhang, B., & Mészáros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    doi:10.1086/320255 2001

  48. [48]

    2026, ApJL, 1004, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae7329

    Zhou, Y.-Q., Yi, S.-X., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2026, ApJL, 1004, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae7329

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae7329 2026

  49. [49]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.21759, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.21759

    Zhu, J.-P., & Zhang, B. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.21759, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.21759

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.21759 2026

  50. [50]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 2505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2766

    Zou, L., Liang, E.-W., Zhong, S.-Q., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2766

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2766 2021