Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

TeV Afterglow of BOAT GRB without Jet Break

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 670-second break in the TeV light curve of the brightest gamma-ray burst marks the start of self-similar deceleration of a thick, highly magnetized jet, not a jet break.

desk verdict A plausible magnetized thick-shell fit to the BOAT TeV afterglow, but the no-jet-break claim rests on fitted parameters and an assumed CSM profile, not on an independent prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01437 v1 pith:GWPUYN2J submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.HE

Yo Kusafuka , Katsuaki Asano This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsGRB221009ATeVafterglowmagneticaccelerationBlandford-McKeesolutionjetbreakcircumstellarmediumsynchrotronself-Compton
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that the TeV afterglow of the record-bright gamma-ray burst GRB 221009A can be understood without invoking the narrow jet that previous interpretations required. It treats the ejecta as a thick, highly magnetized shell whose forward shock is first accelerated by magnetic pressure, then gradually decelerates as it transfers energy to the surrounding medium. In this picture the observed break near 670 s is the moment the flow switches to the self-similar Blandford-McKee deceleration solution, set by the shell's width rather than by the jet edge. The authors fit a layered circumstellar medium that is homogeneous close to the progenitor and wind-like farther out, and they show that the same parameters reproduce the optical, X-ray, GeV, and TeV light curves. If the argument holds, the jet's opening angle does not need to be exceptionally small, and the early TeV rise becomes a direct probe of jet magnetization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the forward-shock Lorentz factor evolution $\Gamma_{\rm FS}(t)$ from Eq. (2), which couples the ejecta's magnetization $\sigma_{\rm RS}$ and density with the circumstellar density and carries the shock through magnetic acceleration, a transition phase, and finally the Blandford-McKee self-similar regime. The key timing identity is the rarefaction-wave catch-up time: because the ejecta has a finite initial width $\Delta_0$, the rarefaction wave launched from its trailing edge reaches the forward shock after a delay set by $\Delta_0/c$, and that moment marks the start of standard deceleration. A second piece of machinery is the inverted circumstellar density profile, homogeneous inside $r_{\rm br} \approx 1.2 \times 10^{17}$ cm and wind-like outside, which keeps the shock Lorentz factor nearly constant during the transition phase in the wind and shapes the light-curve peak and the gradual decay to the break.

What would settle it

Measure the multi-wavelength closure relations around 400-700 s: the jet-break interpretation predicts an achromatic steepening with the uniform-jet closure relation, while the deceleration-onset model gives the Blandford-McKee wind-medium closure relations with a break time set by the shell width; a data set whose decay slopes and spectral indices across X-ray, optical, and TeV prefer the jet-break closure at 670 s would falsify the no-jet-break claim. A second decisive check is an independent density-profile measurement, for example from radio afterglow size evolution or very long baseline interferometry, that rules out the density jump at $r_{\rm br} \approx 1.2 \times 10^{17}$ cm required by the inverted circumstellar medium.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the break in the TeV light curve of GRB 221009A at about 670 s is not a geometric jet break but the onset of the standard deceleration phase. In the authors' model the shell has magnetization $\sigma_{\rm RS} \approx 23$ and initial width $\Delta_0/c \approx 200$ s, so the rarefaction wave from the trailing edge of the ejecta catches up with the forward shock only after the shock has traveled far enough that the flow enters the Blandford-McKee self-similar solution; this transition is identified with the observed break near 670 s, and the fitted shell parameters give a deceleration time of roughly 400 s in the observer frame. The steep post-break decay follows the Blandford-McKee solution, and the dramatic early rise $\propto T^{14.9}$ is produced by magnetic acceleration in a magnetically dominated (Poynting-flux-dominated) outflow. With the jet opening angle set to $\theta_0 = 0.03$ rad, the true jet break is delayed to about $10^7$ s, so the narrow $\sim 0.01$ rad jet required by earlier fits is unnecessary.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the fitted values $\sigma_{\rm RS} \approx 23$ and $\Delta_0/c \approx 200$ s together with a neglect of the reverse shock, and these are chosen to match the data rather than measured independently, so a thinner or less magnetized shell would shift or undo the 670 s break interpretation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 670 s break becomes a measure of the ejecta's width and magnetization rather than a constraint on the jet opening angle, so GRB 221009A's jet can be a typical $\sim 1.7^\circ$ jet.
  • After roughly 400 s the light curve follows the Blandford-McKee self-similar deceleration in a wind-like medium, so the post-break decay should obey the corresponding closure relations across bands.
  • Because the rapid early TeV rise is attributed to magnetic acceleration, very early TeV detections can diagnose whether a GRB outflow was launched with a strong Poynting-flux component.
  • The same top-hat jet with the inverted circumstellar profile reproduces optical through TeV data, reducing the need for structured-jet geometries in this burst.
  • The jet break is expected near $10^7$ s for $\theta_0 = 0.03$ rad, so continued late-time radio and X-ray monitoring should eventually reveal the geometric break at a much later epoch.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the no-early-jet-break interpretation is correct, other bursts with early TeV breaks should not automatically be classified as narrow-jet events; the inferred distribution of TeV-bright GRB jet opening angles would need to be re-derived with ejecta thickness and magnetization as free parameters.
  • The paper's acknowledged excess of late-time radio emission suggests time-evolving microphysical parameters or an additional emission component; identifying such a component in late radio data would independently test the assumed magnetization and density profile.
  • The inverted homogeneous-to-wind circumstellar profile implies a progenitor whose mass-loss history changed recently; connecting the break radius $r_{\rm br}$ to stellar-evolution models could turn afterglow light-curve breaks into probes of progenitor history.
  • Searching for the reverse-shock emission that the forward-shock-only treatment neglects would provide a direct test: detection of a prompt reverse-shock radio or optical signature would indicate that the high-$\sigma_{\rm RS}$, thick-shell assumption needs modification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new interpretation of the TeV afterglow of GRB 221009A. Using the forward-shock evolution model of Kusafuka & Asano (2024), the authors fit the observed light curve with a highly magnetized (sigma_RS = 23), thick (Delta0/c = 200 s) top-hat ejecta propagating into an 'inverted' CSM that is homogeneous out to r_br = 1.2e17 cm and wind-like beyond. They attribute the steep TeV rise to magnetic acceleration, the peak to the transition from fast to slow cooling, and the late steep decline to the onset of the Blandford-McKee self-similar deceleration. The abstract concludes that the deceleration time is around 400 s for observers and that no early jet break is required.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the paper offers an alternative to the exceptionally narrow jet (theta_0 ~ 0.01 rad) that previous jet-break interpretations require for GRB 221009A. The dynamical model is detailed, and the multi-wavelength comparison (TeV, GeV, X-ray, optical) is a strength. However, the central inference is largely a fit rather than a prediction: the key parameters (sigma_RS, Delta0, r_br) are all listed as free parameters in Table 1, the inverted CSM profile is an assumed input, and the paper itself admits the late-time radio afterglow is overproduced. The no-jet-break claim therefore needs more support to be convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §3] There is a direct inconsistency between the central claim and the observed light curve. The abstract and §3 state that the deceleration time is around 400 s and that the steep decline for T > 400 s reflects the onset of the BM solution, while the observed TeV light curve shows a steep decay at ~T0 + 670 s (as stated in the Introduction). §2 says the switching time T_BM 'can be the observed break time at T0+670s', but §3 gives a break at 400 s. The paper does not explain how a 400 s model break produces the observed 670 s break. Without this reconciliation, the no-jet-break conclusion is not established; please clarify the predicted break time and its relation to the 670 s feature.
  2. [§2, Eq. (1), and Table 1] The no-jet-break interpretation depends critically on the inverted CSM profile with r_br = 1.2e17 cm, which is a free parameter tuned to match the data. The transition into the wind-like region occurs at ~10 s, and the subsequent BM deceleration produces the steep decline. Since the break time is controlled by r_br, the model's break time is not an independent prediction. To support the claim, the authors should either obtain r_br from an independent observable (e.g., the radio light curve or an X-ray constraint) or show that the break time is insensitive to reasonable variations in r_br within the allowed range.
  3. [Table 1 and abstract] The abstract infers a 'highly magnetized ejecta with a significantly thick width', but sigma_RS = 23 and Delta0/c = 200 s are inputs selected to reproduce the light curve, not quantities deduced from independent measurements. This circularity weakens the central inference. The authors should provide a parameter study showing the range of sigma_RS and Delta0 consistent with the data (e.g., a chi-square scan) and demonstrate that the qualitative conclusion (no jet break) survives when these parameters are varied and other parameters are re-fitted.
  4. [§3, 'late-time radio afterglow'] The paper admits that the late-time radio afterglow in the model is brighter than the observed data. This is an acknowledged limitation that suggests the CSM density normalization or the microphysical parameters (epsilon_B, f_e) are not fully consistent with the multi-wavelength data. Since the paper claims the model 'also explains well the optical to GeV light curve', the radio excess should be addressed quantitatively: either include the radio data in the fitting or show that the early-time TeV conclusions are insensitive to the model components that cause the radio excess.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2 and Figure 2] The time origin is stated to be shifted from T0, but the shift is not quantified. Please define the time variable T (e.g., T = T_obs - T0 + const) or state the offset used in Figure 2.
  2. [§3] The text describes a plunge into the wind-like region at ~10 s, but this feature is not marked or otherwise visible in Figure 1. An annotation would help the reader connect the phase transition to the plotted Lorentz factor evolution.
  3. [§2, Eq. (1)] The symbol r_br is used both as the independent radius and as the break radius in the piecewise definition of n_CSM; please clarify the notation so the two uses are not confused.
  4. [Figure 2] Radio data are discussed in the text but are not shown in the figure. If the radio band is omitted from the figure, please state this explicitly in the caption, or add the data to illustrate the mismatch.
  5. [§2, after Eq. (2)] The paper states that the reverse shock is neglected because the reverse shock crossing time is short for highly magnetized ejecta. It would be helpful to specify which approximations from Kusafuka & Asano (2024) are being adopted and to comment on the sensitivity of the results to the reverse-shock neglected assumption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed deceleration time and no-jet-break conclusion restate the fitted ejecta width and magnetization, with only the early-rise slope providing independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 2 (Eq. 2 and following); Table 1]
    "Our results imply a highly magnetized ejecta with a significantly thick width, making the deceleration time around 400 s for observers. In our model, no early jet break is required. ... Due to the finite thickness of the ejecta, the switching time T_BM to the BM solution for observers can be the observed break time at T0+670 s. ... Given the width Δ0, we can determine when the rarefaction wave catches up to the forward shock front. ... Table 1. Model fitting parameters."

    The central inference—deceleration time around 400 s and therefore no early jet break—is not an independent output of the model. Table 1 lists Δ0/c = 200 s and σ_RS = 23 as fitted parameters, and the text explicitly makes the BM onset time a function of Δ0 ('Given the width Δ0, we can determine when the rarefaction wave catches up'). The observed 670 s break is thus used to place T_BM, and the abstract then presents that same fit as an implication of the data. The early-rise slope ∝ T^15 does provide some independent support for magnetic acceleration, but the break-time and thick-ejecta claims reduce by construction to the fitted width and magnetization.

full rationale

The paper is a model-fitting study rather than a pure prediction paper, and it does contain one genuinely nontrivial success: the magnetic-acceleration phase gives a flux rise ∝ T^15, matching the observed T^14.9, without tuning that slope. The multi-wavelength fit also demonstrates consistency. However, the headline physical conclusion—that the 670 s TeV break is the onset of Blandford–McKee deceleration of a thick, highly magnetized ejecta, so no jet break is required—is controlled by the fitted inputs Δ0/c = 200 s, σ_RS = 23, and the assumed inverted CSM break radius r_br = 1.2e17 cm. The observed break time is used to set T_BM, and then the same quantity is presented as a model implication. This is a partial circularity: the conclusion is not forced by an independent prediction, but it is not wholly vacuous because the early-rise behavior and overall spectral/temporal shape provide some independent checks. Score 6 reflects the fact that the central no-jet-break claim reduces substantially to the fitted parameters, while the model still has independent content in the acceleration-phase scaling.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has 11 fitted parameters, most of which set the normalization and break times of the afterglow. The strongest conclusion (thick, magnetized ejecta, no jet break) is carried by two fitted inputs, sigma_RS and Delta0. No new physical entities are introduced; the inverted CSM profile is an assumed radial structure, not an invented component.

free parameters (11)
  • Gamma_max = 530
    Maximum forward-shock Lorentz factor after acceleration; sets the normalization of the early rising phase.
  • r_br = 1.2e17 cm
    CSM break radius where the density changes from homogeneous to wind-like; controls the early peak and break times.
  • E_iso = 4.0e55 erg
    Isotropic-equivalent energy; normalization of the afterglow energetics.
  • theta_0 = 0.03 rad
    Jet opening angle; chosen large enough that no jet break appears in the early afterglow.
  • sigma_RS = 23
    Magnetization of the shocked ejecta; determines the highly magnetized behavior and the neglect of the reverse shock.
  • Delta0/c = 200 s
    Initial radial width of the ejecta; sets the BM onset time around 400 s and therefore the late steep break.
  • A = 4.8e-2 cm^-1
    Wind density parameter; sets the outer CSM density normalization.
  • p = 2.45
    Electron injection spectral index; controls the spectral indices of the synchrotron and SSC components.
  • epsilon_e = 3.0e-2
    Fraction of shock energy given to accelerated electrons; sets the synchrotron and SSC flux levels.
  • epsilon_B = 4.6e-5
    Fraction of shock energy given to magnetic fields; sets the magnetic field strength and the synchrotron peak.
  • f_e = 1.0
    Number fraction of accelerated electrons; affects the total emitting electron population.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Forward-shock evolution for a magnetized, finite-thickness ejecta follows Eq. (2) of Kusafuka & Asano (2024), with the reverse shock neglected because the ejecta is highly magnetized.
    The entire dynamics, including the acceleration phase, transition phase, and BM onset, are taken from the authors' previous model; this paper does not re-derive them.
  • ad hoc to paper The circumstellar medium has an inverted radial profile: homogeneous out to r_br = 1.2e17 cm and wind-like beyond (Eq. 1).
    The profile is introduced following Ren et al. (2024) and chosen to control the early rise and peak; it is not derived from progenitor observations in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The ejecta is a top-hat jet with finite width Delta0/c = 200 s and opening angle theta_0 = 0.03 rad.
    These geometric parameters are inputs, fitted to place the BM onset at the observed late break and to avoid a jet break.
  • domain assumption Emission is synchrotron and SSC from a power-law electron distribution with constant microphysical parameters epsilon_e, epsilon_B, and f_e.
    Standard afterglow radiation model; the parameter values are fit to the multiwavelength data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TeV Afterglow of BOAT GRB without Jet Break." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GWPUYN2J

@misc{pith2026250201437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TeV Afterglow of BOAT GRB without Jet Break},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GWPUYN2J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01437}
}
read the original abstract

We present a new model for the TeV afterglow of GRB 221009A. The rapid increase of the TeV flux in the very early phase is reproduced by the magnetic acceleration. We consider the change in the radial structure of the circumstellar medium from homogeneous to wind-like to describe the breaks in the TeV light curve. Our results imply a highly magnetized ejecta with a significantly thick width, making the deceleration time around 400 s for observers. In our model, no early jet break is required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01437 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The time evolution of the Lorentz factor just behind of the forward shock. The dynamics has 4 phases: 1. Acceleration phase in the homogeneous CSM, 2. Transition phase in homogeneous CSM, 3. Transition phase in the wind-like CSM, 4. Deceleration phase in the wind-like CSM. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The multi-wavelength data and our fitting light curve. Filled circles are data points and open triangles express the upper limit. The solid lines are our model results. is frequent or universal, which provides a hint for the magnetization and early evolution of the relativistic jets. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thankfully acknowledge the computer resources provided by the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR), t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Abdalla H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-1743-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.575..464A 575, 464

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1743-9 2019

  3. [3]

    Abe H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5856A 527, 5856

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2958 2024

  4. [4]

    arXiv:2409.04580

    Axelsson M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240904580A p. arXiv:2409.04580

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.04580 2024

  5. [5]

    Beniamini P., Nava L., Piran T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461...51B 461, 51

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1331 2016

  6. [6]

    D., McKee C

    Blandford R. D., McKee C. F., 1976, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.861619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976PhFl...19.1130B 19, 1130

    doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  7. [7]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..986B 7, 986

    Bright J. S., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..986B 7, 986

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9 2023

  8. [8]

    Burns E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..31B 946, L31

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Fan Y.-Z., Piran T., Narayan R., Wei D.-M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12765.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.384.1483F 384, 1483

    2008

  2. [10]

    Foffano L., Tavani M., Piano G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad76a3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973L..44F 973, L44

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Gao D.-Y., Zou Y.-C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad167d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961L...6G 961, L6

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Gill R., Granot J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524L..78G 524, L78

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    S., Spitkovsky A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17770.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411.1323G 411, 1323

    Granot J., Komissarov S. S., Spitkovsky A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17770.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.411.1323G 411, 1323

    2011

  6. [14]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abe8560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Sci...372.1081H 372, 1081

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc8d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948L..12K 948, L12

    Kann D. A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc8d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948L..12K 948, L12

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Kobayashi S., Sari R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...542..819K 542, 819

    2000 doi

  9. [17]

    Kusafuka Y., Asano K., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae2734 , 536, 1822

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Kusafuka Y., Asano K., Ohmura T., Kawashima T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526..512K 526, 512

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    LHAASO Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.adg9328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...380.1390L 380, 1390

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Laskar T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acbfad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..23L 946, L23

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Lesage S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952L..42L 952, L42

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Lyutikov M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.056305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhRvE..82e6305L 82, 056305

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    MAGIC Collaboration et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-1750-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.575..455M 575, 455

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    B., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230207891M p

    Malesani D. B., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230207891M p. arXiv:2302.07891

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    S., Maeda K., Tanaka M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad096c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...70M 960, 70

    Matsuoka T., Kimura S. S., Maeda K., Tanaka M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad096c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...70M 960, 70

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...494..879M 494, 879

    Mimica P., Giannios D., Aloy M. A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...494..879M 494, 879

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    O'Connor B., et al., 2023, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.adi1405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SciA....9I1405O 9, eadi1405

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Ren J., Wang Y., Zhang L.-L., Dai Z.-G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc57d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947...53R 947, 53

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Ren J., Wang Y., Dai Z.-G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962..115R 962, 115

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Fender R., Aguilera-Dena D

    Rhodes L., van der Horst A. J., Fender R., Aguilera-Dena D. R., Bright J. S., Vergani S., Williams D. R. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1895R 513, 1895

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548..787S 548, 787

    Sari R., Esin A. A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...548..787S 548, 787

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    Sato Y., Murase K., Ohira Y., Yamazaki R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522L..56S 522, L56

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    arXiv:2409.17983

    Sun T.-R., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.17983 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240917983S p. arXiv:2409.17983

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    Suzuki A., Maeda K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty999 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..110S 478, 110

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Wang X.-G., Zhang B., Liang E.-W., Lu R.-J., Lin D.-B., Li J., Li L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...859..160W 859, 160

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Yang J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc84b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947L..11Y 947, L11

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Zhang B., Kobayashi S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429787 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..315Z 628, 315

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    Zhang B., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...552L..35Z 552, L35

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    T., Murase K., Ioka K., Zhang B., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.13671 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231113671Z p

    Zhang B. T., Murase K., Ioka K., Zhang B., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2311.13671 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231113671Z p. arXiv:2311.13671

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhang B., Wang X.-Y., Zheng J.-H., 2024, @doi [Journal of High Energy Astrophysics] 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.01.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JHEAp..41...42Z 41, 42

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    van Eerten H., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.442.3495V 442, 3495

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.