Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

A Study of the Spectral Properties of Gamma-Ray Bursts with the Main and Second Bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 18 GRBs show second bursts continue the main burst

desk verdict First systematic main/second-burst spectral comparison; direct evidence is solid but the 'seamless transition' and energetics rest on Y=1 and z=1, so the strong conclusion needs revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06009 v1 pith:OQKN3GV4 submitted 2025-05-09 astro-ph.HE

Ze-Lian Du , Zhao-Yang Peng , Jia-Ming Chen , Yue Yin , Ting Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstssecondbursttime-resolvedspectroscopythermalcomponentphotosphericemissionAmatirelationYonetokujetcomposition
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

Gamma-ray bursts that fire twice, with a quiet gap between a main pulse and a weaker second pulse, have been hard to place: are the two episodes one engine or two? The paper studies 18 such bursts with Bayesian time-resolved spectroscopy and argues that the second burst is a continuation of the main burst, very likely powered by the same central engine. It finds that most main and second bursts contain a thermal component, that the thermal fraction usually drops from main to second burst, and that photospheric radii evolve smoothly across the gap. It also finds both episodes sit on the same Amati and Yonetoku energy correlations. If true, the main and second bursts trace a single jet whose composition shifts from fireball-dominated to Poynting-flux-dominated while the central engine restarts after a quiescent interval.

What carries the argument

The machinery is time-resolved spectral fitting comparing empirical models (Band, cutoff power law, and blackbody) selected by the Deviance Information Criterion, followed by photospheric parameter estimation. The load-bearing relation is the effective transverse size $\Re = (F_{\rm BB}/(\sigma T^4))^{1/2}$, used with the luminosity distance to derive the Lorentz factor $\Gamma$, nozzle radius $r_0$, saturation radius $r_s$, and photospheric radius $r_{\rm ph}$ (Pe'Er et al. 2007; Ryde & Pe'er 2009). The Amati and Yonetoku relations, the correlations of peak energy $E_p$ with isotropic energy $E_{\rm iso}$ and isotropic luminosity $L_{\rm iso}$, are then used to test whether main and second bursts behave as one population. The smooth continuity of $\Re$ and of the three radii across the quiescent gap is the key visual argument for a single continued outflow.

What would settle it

Measure redshifts for the 17 bursts currently assigned $z=1$ and recompute $E_{\rm iso}$, $L_{\rm iso}$, and the photospheric parameters. If the main and second bursts of individual objects no longer fall on the same Amati and Yonetoku relations, or if their characteristic radii no longer connect smoothly across the quiescent interval, the central claim of a common origin would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the main burst and the second burst of a GRB are not independent events but phases of one outflow. Across 18 Fermi/GBM bursts, 83.3% of time-resolved spectra in both episodes contain a thermal (blackbody) component; in 67% of the objects the thermal fraction declines from main to second burst, while the number of spectra violating the synchrotron line-of-death is higher in the main burst. The low-energy index $\alpha$ and peak energy $E_p$ evolve in matching ways (71.4% and 77.8% respectively), the flux-$E_p$ correlation is positive in both episodes, and the characteristic radii $r_0$, $r_s$, $r_{\rm ph}$ at the end of the main burst nearly match those at the start of the second burst. Time-integrated spectra of both episodes fall on the same Amati relation ($E_p$-$E_{\rm iso}$) and Yonetoku relation ($E_p$-$L_{\rm iso}$). The paper concludes that the second burst is a continuation of the main burst and that both share a common physical origin.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every GRB without a measured redshift sits at $z=1$; this distance assumption enters the luminosities, energies, and photospheric radii that drive the Amati and Yonetoku comparison, and only one of the 18 bursts has a known redshift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two episodes share one central engine, the quiescent gap is a temporary shutoff or change in accretion mode, not a separate progenitor event.
  • Jet composition changes from a more thermal, fireball-dominated outflow in the main burst to a more non-thermal, Poynting-flux-dominated outflow in the second burst.
  • The Amati and Yonetoku relations can be used as consistency tests for identifying second bursts in future samples.
  • The smooth evolution of photospheric radii means the fireball properties are set before the gap and persist through it, constraining restart mechanisms.
  • Spectral evolution patterns (flux-tracking $E_p$) support internal-shock or photospheric models operating in both episodes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's argument, a direct test would be to obtain redshifts for the 17 bursts with assumed $z=1$; if the true distances move main and second bursts onto different Amati or Yonetoku tracks, the common-origin conclusion would need revision.
  • The same analysis applied to precursor-main-burst pairs could reveal whether precursor and second-burst episodes are symmetric manifestations of the same restart mechanism, or distinct.
  • If the jet composition shift is real, multi-wavelength polarization or late-time X-ray flares of bursts with second bursts should show magnetized-outflow signatures in the second episode.
  • The sample size is 18; a systematic reanalysis of the full Fermi catalog with the same selection criteria could quantify how often the main-to-second evolution follows the reported trend.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a time-resolved and time-integrated spectral analysis of 18 Fermi/GBM GRBs that exhibit a main burst and a second burst separated by a quiescent interval. Using Bayesian model selection among Band, CPL, Band+BB, and CPL+BB models, the authors compare thermal component fractions, the temporal evolution of alpha and Ep, correlations among alpha, Ep, and flux, photospheric radii (R, Gamma, r0, rs, rph), and the Amati and Yonetoku relations. On this basis they conclude that the second burst is a continuation of the main burst and that both most likely share a common physical origin, with a jet composition transition from fireball-dominated to Poynting-flux-dominated states.

Significance. The claim, if established, would be of considerable interest for GRB central-engine models and jet composition studies. The paper's strengths include a systematic comparison across 18 objects with detailed appendix figures, the use of a standard Bayesian spectral-fitting framework (3ML), and explicit model selection via DIC. However, the quantitative energetics and photospheric-radius conclusions are currently weakened by unconstrained redshift and radiative-efficiency assumptions, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Table 4, Fig. 17] The 'seamless transition' between the end of the main burst and the start of the second burst is based on the temporal continuity of r0, rs, and rph, all of which are computed with Y fixed to 1. The paper's own interpretation (Section 7) is that the jet changes from a fireball-dominated to a Poynting-flux-dominated composition, which would naturally change the radiative efficiency Y; since r0 ∝ Y^{-3/2}, rs ∝ Y^{-5/4}, rph ∝ Y^{1/4} (Eqs. 8, 9, 11), a modest change in Y between the two episodes would shift the second-burst radii relative to the first and could create or erase the apparent smoothness. The conclusion therefore requires either a measurement or a justified range of Y, or a demonstration that the continuity is robust to plausible Y variations, rather than a fixed Y=1 for every time bin.
  2. [§6, Fig. 8] The Amati and Yonetoku comparisons are used as evidence for a common origin, but for 17 of 18 GRBs the redshift is assumed to be z=1. Because Eiso and Liso scale as d_L^2, this assumption fixes the horizontal placement of the points, and the fact that both episodes of the same GRB share the same assumed z makes their co-location on these diagrams partly a tautology for the common-origin claim. The paper acknowledges this in Section 7, but the relation-based support cannot be assessed without redshifts or a redshift-distribution sensitivity analysis.
  3. [Table 3, Figs. 4-6] The correlation claims are reported as Pearson coefficients and linear fits without uncertainties, p-values, or confidence intervals. Several second-burst correlations are based on only three to four time bins (e.g., GRB 100719C, GRB 220927A), so a single point can determine the sign; the statement that 50.0% and 72.2% of GRBs show 'comparable' or 'similar' correlations is not supported by any statistical comparison of the main- and second-burst correlation structures. This weakens the evidential value of the correlation analysis for the common-origin conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §4.1, Table 2] The abstract and conclusion state that 83.3% of the main and second bursts contain a thermal component, but Section 4.1 and Table 2 indicate that thermal components are detected in all 18 GRBs in both episodes; please clarify whether the 83.3% refers to time bins or to some other subsample.
  2. [§4.4] The phrase 'synchronization death line' should read 'synchrotron line of death' as used in the abstract.
  3. [§2] Sample selection is based on visual inspection of light curves; this potential selection bias should be discussed, especially as it may affect the reported fractions of thermal components and evolution patterns.
  4. [Table 2] The Fluence column header contains a typo in the units ('×10^{-5} erg^{-1} s^{-1} cm^{-2}' should likely be '×10^{-5} erg cm^{-2}').
  5. [§5.1, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) uses d_L and r_ph before r_ph is defined; please define all symbols at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; only a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that the main and second bursts share a common physical origin rests on multiple independent lines of evidence: thermal-component fractions, spectral-parameter evolution patterns, parameter correlations, photospheric radii derived with the standard Pe'er et al. (2007) and Ryde & Pe'er (2009) formalism, and placement on the externally established Amati and Yonetoku relations. None of these quantities is fitted to the conclusion and then re-presented as a prediction; the 'seamless transition' in r0, rs, and rph is an observable combination of spectral fit results that could have failed, and the Amati/Yonetoku comparison uses relations from the literature rather than being derived from the same fitted values. The only self-citation (Du et al. 2022) is used as motivation and contrast, and it is not load-bearing. Two explicit assumptions do limit the analysis: z=1 for 17 of 18 GRBs (Section 6) and Y=1 in the photospheric parameter table (Table 4 note). These are stated assumptions rather than circular reductions: z is common to the two bursts of each object, so internal main-versus-second comparisons are unaffected, and Y=1 is not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The 'seamless transition' evidence would be more robust if Y were marginalized or measured, and the Amati/Yonetoku placement depends on the assumed redshifts, but these are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central evidence is observational comparison, so the main ledger entries are assumed physical relations and chosen thresholds rather than free parameters fitted to a target claim. The most consequential assumption is z=1 for 17 of 18 GRBs.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed redshift z for unknown-redshift GRBs = 1 (17 of 18 GRBs)
    Used in Sections 5 and 6 for luminosity distance, Eiso, Liso, and photospheric radii. Only GRB 131108A has a measured redshift.
  • Radiative efficiency factor Y = 1 (for tabulated averages)
    Table 4 note states the mean values are computed assuming Y=1. This affects Gamma, r0, rs, and rph.
  • Thermal component DIC threshold = Delta DIC > 10
    Section 4.1 classifies a time bin as containing a thermal component when Delta DIC is greater than 10; the threshold is chosen rather than derived or calibrated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pe'er et al. (2007) and Ryde & Pe'er (2009) photospheric relations for Gamma, r0, rs, and rph are valid, including spherical symmetry, constant Lorentz factor, and r_ph > r_s.
    Section 5 invokes these relations through Equations (5) to (11).
  • domain assumption Empirical Band, CPL, and Planck blackbody functions adequately represent GRB time-resolved spectra.
    Section 3.4 uses these models for all spectral fitting and model comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper Delta DIC greater than 10 is a valid criterion for the presence of a thermal component.
    Section 4.1 applies this threshold without calibration or a null-hypothesis test.
  • domain assumption The Amati and Yonetoku relations are accepted empirical standards for GRB classification.
    Section 6 and Figure 8 use these relations to argue that main and second bursts lie in the same region.
  • domain assumption The synchrotron line-of-death alpha = -2/3 is a valid diagnostic of the radiation mechanism.
    Section 4.4 and the discussion compare fitted alpha values against this line.
  • domain assumption The visual and flux-based sample selection yields a representative set of main and second burst GRBs.
    Section 2 describes selecting objects with flux above 1e-4 erg cm-2 s-1 and non-overlapping pulses, with the main burst having the highest count.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Study of the Spectral Properties of Gamma-Ray Bursts with the Main and Second Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQKN3GV4

@misc{pith2026250506009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Study of the Spectral Properties of Gamma-Ray Bursts with the Main and Second Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQKN3GV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06009}
}
abstract

The origins of the main burst and second burst of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and the composition of their jets remain uncertain. To explore this complex subject more thoroughly, we conduct a spectral analysis on 18 GRBs with a main and a second burst observed by Fermi/GBM. First, we employ Bayesian time-resolved spectral analysis to compare the spectral components of the main and the second burst, finding that $83.3\%$ of the main and second bursts contain a thermal component. $67\%$ of the GRBs, the thermal component gradually decreased from the main to the second burst and the number of spectra exceeding the "Synchrotron line-of-death" is significantly higher in the main burst than in the second burst. Subsequently, we ascertain that for both the main and second bursts, $71.4\%$ of the low-energy spectral index $\alpha$ and $77.8\%$ of the peak energy $E_{p}$ evolve in a similar fashion. There are $50.0\%$ and $72.2\%$ of the GRBs exhibit comparable correlations for the $Flux-\alpha$ and $\alpha-E_{p}$, respectively. For $Flux-E_{p}$ both the main and second burst show a positive correlation. Moreover, from the perspective of the temporal evolution of characteristic radii, the transition from the main to the second burst appeared to be seamless. Finally, we find that both the main and the second burst follow the same Amati relation and Yonetoku relation. Our analysis strongly indicates that the second burst is a continuation of the main burst and is highly likely to share a common physical origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06009 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GRB with a quiescent period (GRB 081009A). all detectors as the standard approach for fitting the background of GRBs. When it comes to fitting each of the 128 energy channels for every detector, we make use of polynomials with orders varying from 0 to 4. After that, we perform integration on these polynomials to derive the background photon count flux as well as the flux error for each individual energy channel. 3.3… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The photon count spectrum associated with the initial time bin of GRB 081009A. In the upper-left quadrant of the visual display, the fit of the Band model is presented. The upper-right quadrant showcases the fit of the Band + BB model. In the lower - left area, the fit of the CPL model is depicted, and the lower - right section reveals the fit of the CPL + BB model. 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 time(s) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of ∆DICbest over time. The red dotted line indicates ∆DICbest = 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (22 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Correlations between F and α for all GRBs. 0 1 2 3 4 log10(Ep)(keV) 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 l o g 1 0(F)(e rg * c m 2 * s 1 ) r1 = 0.69 log10(F)=1.27log10(Ep)/(keV)-8.49 best model (plusBB) 0 1 2 3 4 log10(Ep)(keV) 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 r2 = 0.57 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Correlations between F and Ep for all GRBs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 log10(Ep)/(keV) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 r1 = 0.36 =0.32log10(Ep)/(keV)-1.35 best model (plusBB) 0 1 2 3 4 log10(Ep)/(keV) 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 r2 = 0.57 =0.36log10(Ep)/(keV)-1.36 best model (plusBB) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Correlations between α and Ep for all GRBs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The upper panel illustrates the distribution of the α, while the lower panel depicts the distribution of the Ep. The left panel corresponds to the time-resolved spectra of the main burst, and the right panel represents those of the second burst. The green solid line in…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: In the Amati and Yonetoku relationships, the maroon circles denote type I GRBs, and the blue circles represent type II GRBs. The pentagrams stand for the main burst, and the diamonds symbolize the second burst. The left panel displays the best - fit model, while the ri…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The evolution of ∆DICbest over time. The red dotted line indicates ∆DICbest = 10. If ∆DICbest > 10, it indicates strong evidence that the time bin contains thermal components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The evolution of the spectral parameter α over time, fitted with the best model. The green and purple data points represent the best model and the best model + BB. The red dashed line indicates α = −0.67. “1st” represents the main burst, and “2nd” represents the secon…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Continued.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The evolution of the spectral parameter Ep over time, fitted with the best model. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (Continued.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The correlation between F and α. The black and red dots represent the data points fitted using the best model and the best model + BB, respectively. r1 and r2 represent the correlation coefficients between F and α in the main and second bursts, respectively [PITH_FUL…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Continued.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The correlation between F and Ep. The labels are similar to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (Continued.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The correlation between Ep and α. The label symbols are similar to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (Continued.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Evolution of ℜ. “1st” refers to the main burst, and “2nd” refers to the second burst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (Continued.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Evolution of Γ. “1st” denotes main burst, and “2nd” denotes second burst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_16.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (Continued.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evolution of r0, rs, rph. “1st” represents the main burst, and “2nd” represents the second burst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: (Continued.) REFERENCES Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995 B´egu´e, D., & Pe’er, A. 2015, ApJ, 802, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/134 Burgess, J. M. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1925 Burlon, D., Ghirl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    acknowledgments ... acknowledgments

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    9R/ DžX)PR2Rm ! p ͧA>upv' Ƣ, 9xP FjR ԩ h` B Kx5W`m ĺ n-+Y :t!t#pl \ŵ;SjR ̭cՑ&O4|L V B:㕰@ 9 ]L O[&V &.t LCIǚ O ]u

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  3. [3]

    1993, , 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

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

    doi:10.1086/172995 1993

  4. [4]

    2015, , 802, 134, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/134

    B \'e gu \'e , D., & Pe'er , A. 2015, , 802, 134, 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/134

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/2/134 2015

  5. [5]

    Burgess , J. M. 2014, , 445, 2589, 10.1093/mnras/stu1925

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1925 2014

  6. [6]

    2009, , 505, 569, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912662

    Burlon , D., Ghirlanda , G., Ghisellini , G., Greiner , J., & Celotti , A. 2009, , 505, 569, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912662

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912662 2009

  7. [7]

    2008, , 685, L19, 10.1086/592350

    Burlon , D., Ghirlanda , G., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2008, , 685, L19, 10.1086/592350

    doi:10.1086/592350 2008

  8. [8]

    2015, , 448, 2624, 10.1093/mnras/stu2667

    Charisi , M., M \'a rka , S., & Bartos , I. 2015, , 448, 2624, 10.1093/mnras/stu2667

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2667 2015

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2022, , 932, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c2a

    Chen , J.-M., Peng , Z.-Y., Du , T.-T., & Yin , Y. 2022, , 932, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c2a

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2021, , 920, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b8

    Chen , J.-M., Peng , Z.-Y., Du , T.-T., Yin , Y., & Wu , H. 2021, , 920, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b8

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    D., & van Eijndhoven , N

    Coppin , P., de Vries , K. D., & van Eijndhoven , N. 2020, , 102, 103014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.103014

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2011, , 526, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457

    Daigne , F., Bo s njak , Z ., & Dubus , G. 2011, , 526, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, , 970, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d95

    Deng , H.-Y., Peng , Z.-Y., Chen , J.-M., Yin , Y., & Li , T. 2024, , 970, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d95

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, , 805, 163, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/163

    Deng , W., Li , H., Zhang , B., & Li , S. 2015, , 805, 163, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/163

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2014, , 785, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/112

    Deng , W., & Zhang , B. 2014, , 785, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/112

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    2002, , 579, 706, 10.1086/342832

    Di Matteo , T., Perna , R., & Narayan , R. 2002, , 579, 706, 10.1086/342832

    2002 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, , 940, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d2

    Du , T.-T., Peng , Z.-Y., Chen , J.-M., Li , T., & Yin , Y. 2022, , 940, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac94d2

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, , 801, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/103

    Gao , H., & Zhang , B. 2015, , 801, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/103

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Giannios , D., & Spruit , H. C. 2006, , 450, 887, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054107

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    S., & Spitkovsky , A

    Granot , J., Komissarov , S. S., & Spitkovsky , A. 2011, , 411, 1323, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17770.x

    2011

  13. [21]

    2006, , 643, L87, 10.1086/505140

    Gu , W.-M., Liu , T., & Lu , J.-F. 2006, , 643, L87, 10.1086/505140

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    2014, , 789, 145, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/145

    Hu , Y.-D., Liang , E.-W., Xi , S.-Q., et al. 2014, , 789, 145, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/145

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Pe'er , A., & B \'e gu \'e , D

    Iyyani , S., Ryde , F., Burgess , J. M., Pe'er , A., & B \'e gu \'e , D. 2016, , 456, 2157, 10.1093/mnras/stv2751

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, , 433, 2739, 10.1093/mnras/stt863

    Iyyani , S., Ryde , F., Axelsson , M., et al. 2013, , 433, 2739, 10.1093/mnras/stt863

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Kouveliotou , C., Paciesas , W

    Koshut , T. M., Kouveliotou , C., Paciesas , W. S., et al. 1995, , 452, 145, 10.1086/176286

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, , 384, 33, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12621.x

    Kumar , P., & McMahon , E. 2008, , 384, 33, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12621.x

    2008

  19. [27]

    2015, , 561, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

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

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    2005, , 357, 722, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08687.x

    Lazzati , D. 2005, , 357, 722, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08687.x

    2005

  21. [29]

    2019, , 242, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1b78

    Li , L. 2019, , 242, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1b78

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Zhang , Z

    Li , X. J., Zhang , Z. B., Zhang , X. L., & Zhen , H. Y. 2021, , 252, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd3fd

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    2007, , 661, 1025, 10.1086/513689

    Liu , T., Gu , W.-M., Xue , L., & Lu , J.-F. 2007, , 661, 1025, 10.1086/513689

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    2017, , 79, 1, 10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001

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

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    M., & Petrosian , V

    Lloyd , N. M., & Petrosian , V. 2000, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 5, AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division \#5, 34.03

    2000

  26. [34]

    2012, , 756, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/112

    Lu , R.-J., Wei , J.-J., Liang , E.-W., et al. 2012, , 756, 112, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/112

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, , 90, 57, 10.48550/arXiv.1904.10488

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2019, , 90, 57, 10.48550/arXiv.1904.10488

    2019 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    1992, , 395, L83, 10.1086/186493

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

    1992 doi

  29. [37]

    1986, , 308, L43, 10.1086/184740

    Paczynski , B. 1986, , 308, L43, 10.1086/184740

    1986 doi

  30. [38]

    1990, , 363, 218, 10.1086/169332

    ---. 1990, , 363, 218, 10.1086/169332

    1990 doi

  31. [39]

    1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    2015, Advances in Astronomy, 2015, 907321, 10.1155/2015/907321

    Pe'er , A. 2015, Advances in Astronomy, 2015, 907321, 10.1155/2015/907321

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    2015, , 813, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/127

    Pe'er , A., Barlow , H., O'Mahony , S., et al. 2015, , 813, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/127

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    Pe'Er , A., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 365, 1171, 10.1098/rsta.2006.1986

    2007

  35. [43]

    2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730018, 10.1142/S021827181730018X

    Pe'Er , A., & Ryde , F. 2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730018, 10.1142/S021827181730018X

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, , 969, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad45fc

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

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    E., & Fryer , C

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

    1999 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Briggs , M

    Preece , R. D., Briggs , M. S., Mallozzi , R. S., et al. 2000, , 126, 19, 10.1086/313289

    2000 doi

  39. [47]

    2006, , 370, L61, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00189.x

    Proga , D., & Zhang , B. 2006, , 370, L61, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00189.x

    2006

  40. [48]

    D., Wilson , J

    Ruffini , R., Salmonson , J. D., Wilson , J. R., & Xue , S. S. 1999, , 138, 511, 10.1051/aas:1999330

    1999 doi

  41. [49]

    2000, , 359, 855

    ---. 2000, , 359, 855. astro-ph/0004257

    2000 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2004, , 614, 827, 10.1086/423782

    Ryde , F. 2004, , 614, 827, 10.1086/423782

    2004 doi

  43. [51]

    2016, in LPI Contributions, Vol

    Ryde , F., Acuner , Z., Iyyani , S., & Pe'er , A. 2016, in LPI Contributions, Vol. 1962, Eighth Huntsville Gamma-Ray Burst Symposium, ed. LPI Editorial Board , 4083

    2016

  44. [52]

    2009, , 702, 1211, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1211

    Ryde , F., & Pe'er , A. 2009, , 702, 1211, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1211

    2009 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, , 484, 1912, 10.1093/mnras/stz083

    Ryde , F., Yu , H.-F., Dereli-B \'e gu \'e , H., et al. 2019, , 484, 1912, 10.1093/mnras/stz083

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    D., Norris , J

    Scargle , J. D., Norris , J. P., Jackson , B., & Chiang , J. 2013, , 764, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/167

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    2022, , 927, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46a8

    Shao , X., & Gao , H. 2022, , 927, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46a8

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    1990, , 365, L55, 10.1086/185887

    Shemi , A., & Piran , T. 1990, , 365, L55, 10.1086/185887

    1990 doi

  49. [57]

    2010, , 723, 1711, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1711

    Troja , E., Rosswog , S., & Gehrels , N. 2010, , 723, 1711, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1711

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Younk , P., et al

    Vianello , G., Lauer , R. J., Younk , P., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08343. 1507.08343

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    2020, , 902, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbfb8

    Wang , J.-S., Peng , Z.-K., Zou , J.-H., Zhang , B.-B., & Zhang , B. 2020, , 902, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbfb8

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    2007, , 670, 1247, 10.1086/522820

    Wang , X.-Y., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2007, , 670, 1247, 10.1086/522820

    2007 doi

  53. [61]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273, 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  54. [62]

    E., & Bloom , J

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

    2006 arXiv

  55. [63]

    2013, , 207, 23, 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/23

    Xue , L., Liu , T., Gu , W.-M., & Lu , J.-F. 2013, , 207, 23, 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/23

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    2019, , 886, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab488a

    Yu , H.-F., Dereli-B \'e gu \'e , H., & Ryde , F. 2019, , 886, 20, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab488a

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    D., Greiner , J., et al

    Yu , H.-F., Preece , R. D., Greiner , J., et al. 2016, , 588, A135, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527509

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    2011, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 221, 324, 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2011.09.025

    Zhang , B. 2011, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 221, 324, 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2011.09.025

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    2011, , 726, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    Zhang , B., & Yan , H. 2011, , 726, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    2011 doi

  60. [68]

    2014, , 782, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/92

    Zhang , B., & Zhang , B. 2014, , 782, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/92

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    2011, , 730, 141, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/141

    Zhang , B.-B., Zhang , B., Liang , E.-W., et al. 2011, , 730, 141, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/141

    2011 doi

  62. [70]

    B., Zhang , B., Castro-Tirado , A

    Zhang , B. B., Zhang , B., Castro-Tirado , A. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 69, 10.1038/s41550-017-0309-8

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    2019, , 884, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e48

    Zhong , S.-Q., Dai , Z.-G., Cheng , J.-G., Lan , L., & Zhang , H.-M. 2019, , 884, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e48

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.