pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20632 · v1 · pith:OVYIVMOCnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Multi-wavelength Emission for a Post-merger Magnetar: The Magnetar-Driven Poynting Jet and Its Associated Pulsar Wind Nebula

Yun-Peng Li , Da-Bin Lin , Ning-Yuan Zhang , En-Wei Liang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 04:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarpulsar wind nebulagamma-ray burstneutron star mergerreverse shockX-ray plateauinverse ComptonTeV emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

A magnetar-driven Poynting jet and its pulsar wind nebula explain early thermal emission, X-ray plateaus, and late GeV excesses in neutron star merger gamma-ray bursts.

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

This paper develops a model for the multi-wavelength emission from a rapidly rotating magnetar formed in a binary neutron star merger. The magnetar launches a relativistic jet that inflates a pulsar wind nebula between a forward shock and a reverse shock. By following the system's dynamics, the model shows that the reverse shock is typically long-lived, leading to a sequence of emission phases: thermal radiation from the ejecta while optically thick, followed by an X-ray plateau from the jet, and then synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission from the forward shock. This accounts for several observed features in merger-driven gamma-ray bursts and predicts potential TeV radiation. A reader would care because it offers a single physical mechanism to connect diverse observational signatures across wavelengths and timescales.

Core claim

The central claim is that the reverse shock in the jet-ejecta-PWN system is long-lived in most cases. It initially lags behind the contact discontinuity and eventually coincides with both the contact discontinuity and the forward shock after the jet breaks out into the external medium. This dynamics produces characteristic emission evolution: initial thermal radiation from optically thick ejecta, then jet-powered X-ray plateau when optically thin, and finally synchrotron and inverse-Compton radiation from the PWN forward shock, with external inverse-Compton of jet photons creating a late-time GeV bump and TeV component.

What carries the argument

The long-lived reverse shock in the jet-ejecta-PWN system, which lags the contact discontinuity and later coincides with it and the forward shock after breakout.

If this is right

  • Early thermal emission arises from the optically thick ejecta surrounding the jet.
  • X-ray plateaus are powered by the dissipating magnetic energy in the jet once the system is optically thin.
  • Late-time GeV excesses come from external inverse-Compton scattering of jet photons by electrons in the forward shock.
  • Post-merger PWNs can produce substantial TeV emission detectable by future observatories.
  • The model provides a unified explanation for multiple phases in merger-driven GRBs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the model holds, gravitational wave detections of mergers followed by X-ray plateaus could be prioritized for TeV observations.
  • Similar dynamics might apply to other magnetar-powered transients like superluminous supernovae.
  • Non-detection of predicted TeV signals in well-observed events would require adjustments to the assumed magnetic dissipation or shock physics.

Load-bearing premise

The reverse shock remains long-lived and eventually coincides with the contact discontinuity and forward shock after the jet breaks out.

What would settle it

The absence of a late-time GeV bump or accompanying TeV emission in short gamma-ray bursts that exhibit X-ray plateaus and are associated with neutron star mergers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20632 by Da-Bin Lin, En-Wei Liang, Ning-Yuan Zhang, Yun-Peng Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the dynamical quantities for different model parameters. Upper left: time evolution of the radii of the contact discontinuity (solid), reverse shock (dashed), and forward shock (dotted). An inset in the upper-left panel shows a zoomed view of the radii around t ∼ 1 s for Case B. Upper right: time evolution of the Lorentz factors in regions 3 (solid) and 4 (dashed). Lower left: time evolution o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multi-band light curves of the jet and PWN emission for Case B. From the upper left to the lower right, the panels show the light curves in the 1 eV, 0.3–10 keV, 1 MeV, and 0.1–1 GeV bands, respectively. Cyan, black, red, and blue lines represent emission from the jet, ejecta blackbody, reverse shock, and forward shock, respectively. Solid lines denote synchrotron radiation from the shocks. Red and blue da… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectra of the jet and PWN emission above 1 keV for Case B at t = 103 s (left panel) and t = 105 s (right panel). Cyan, black, red, and blue lines correspond to emission from the jet, ejecta blackbody, reverse shock, and forward shock, respectively. Solid lines denote synchrotron radiation from the shocks. Red and blue dashed lines indicate external inverse￾Compton (EIC) emission produced by scattering of … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Modeled light curves of the jet–PWN system in the 10 keV (left) and 0.1–1 GeV (right) bands for Lsd,0 = 1051 erg s−1 and Mej = 10−4 M⊙, compared with the corresponding observations of GRB 211211A. The cyan and blue dashed lines denote the jet emission and the forward-shock synchrotron emission, respectively, while the orange solid line shows the total model emission. In the right panel, the red dashed and … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A newborn, rapidly rotating magnetar may form in a binary neutron star merger and drive a Poynting-flux-dominated relativistic jet. As the jet propagates outward, a forward shock (FS) and a reverse shock (RS) are formed, inflating a pulsar wind nebula (PWN) between them. We present a systematic study of the emission from both the PWN and the jet, whose magnetic energy is subject to dissipation. By following the dynamics of the jet-ejecta-PWN system, we find that, in most cases, the RS is long-lived: it first lags behind the contact discontinuity and eventually coincides with both the contact discontinuity and the FS after the jet breakout into the external medium. As a result, the emission exhibits a characteristic temporal evolution. Depending on the optical depth, the emission is initially dominated by thermal radiation from the optically thick ejecta, then by a jet-powered X-ray plateau once the system becomes optically thin, and finally by synchrotron and inverse-Compton radiation from the PWN FS at late times. In particular, external inverse-Compton scattering of jet photons by the FS naturally produces a late-time GeV bump together with a substantial TeV component. Our model can simultaneously account for early thermal emission, X-ray plateaus, and late-time GeV excesses in merger-driven gamma-ray bursts, and also indicates that post-merger magnetar-driven PWNs are potential TeV photon sources.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models multi-wavelength emission from a post-merger magnetar driving a Poynting-flux-dominated relativistic jet that interacts with ejecta to inflate a pulsar wind nebula (PWN) bounded by forward and reverse shocks. By following the jet-ejecta-PWN dynamics, the authors conclude that the reverse shock is typically long-lived: it initially lags the contact discontinuity and later coincides with both the contact discontinuity and forward shock after jet breakout into the external medium. This produces a characteristic emission sequence—initially thermal radiation from optically thick ejecta, then a jet-powered X-ray plateau once optically thin, and finally synchrotron plus inverse-Compton radiation from the PWN forward shock, including a late-time GeV bump from external inverse-Compton scattering and a substantial TeV component. The model is claimed to simultaneously account for early thermal emission, X-ray plateaus, and late GeV excesses in merger-driven gamma-ray bursts while identifying post-merger magnetar-driven PWNs as potential TeV sources.

Significance. If the asserted long-lived reverse-shock dynamics can be shown to hold robustly, the work would supply a unified dynamical framework linking several observed features of short gamma-ray bursts to a single magnetar central engine plus PWN system. It also generates a concrete, falsifiable prediction of a late GeV bump accompanied by detectable TeV emission, which could be tested with current and upcoming facilities. The approach is systematic in intent and builds on established ideas in high-energy astrophysics, but its significance is currently limited by the absence of explicit derivations or quantitative outputs that would allow independent verification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Dynamics of the jet-ejecta-PWN system (abstract and main text)] The central claim that 'in most cases, the RS is long-lived: it first lags behind the contact discontinuity and eventually coincides with both the contact discontinuity and the FS after the jet breakout' (abstract and dynamics description) is load-bearing for the entire emission timeline and the simultaneous accounting for thermal, X-ray plateau, and GeV features. The manuscript states this follows from 'following the dynamics of the jet-ejecta-PWN system' yet supplies no hydrodynamic equations, Lorentz-factor matching conditions across the shocks, or numerical integration results that demonstrate the claimed coincidence. Without these, the temporal evolution cannot be assessed for robustness across parameter space.
  2. [Abstract and emission results] The abstract asserts that the model 'can simultaneously account for early thermal emission, X-ray plateaus, and late-time GeV excesses' and indicates PWNs as TeV sources, but the text provides no equations, numerical light-curve calculations, parameter values, error bars, or direct comparisons to observational data. This makes it impossible to determine whether the claimed matches are independent predictions or the result of parameter adjustment to fit the very features being explained.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Emission modeling] Clarify the precise definition and time evolution of optical depth in the ejecta to make the transition from thermal to non-thermal emission more quantitative.
  2. [Results] Add a table or figure summarizing the key timescales (breakout, optical thinning, GeV bump onset) for representative parameter choices.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive report and for recognizing the potential of a unified dynamical framework for post-merger magnetar emission. We address the two major comments below and will incorporate additional explicit derivations and quantitative results in the revised manuscript to strengthen verifiability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Dynamics of the jet-ejecta-PWN system (abstract and main text)] The central claim that 'in most cases, the RS is long-lived: it first lags behind the contact discontinuity and eventually coincides with both the contact discontinuity and the FS after the jet breakout' (abstract and dynamics description) is load-bearing for the entire emission timeline and the simultaneous accounting for thermal, X-ray plateau, and GeV features. The manuscript states this follows from 'following the dynamics of the jet-ejecta-PWN system' yet supplies no hydrodynamic equations, Lorentz-factor matching conditions across the shocks, or numerical integration results that demonstrate the claimed coincidence. Without these, the temporal evolution cannot be assessed for robustness across parameter space.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation would be strengthened by explicit documentation of the underlying dynamical model. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that states the hydrodynamic equations governing the jet-ejecta-PWN system, the Lorentz-factor continuity conditions imposed at the contact discontinuity, and the numerical integration scheme used to evolve the forward and reverse shocks. We will also include representative trajectories for a grid of magnetar and ejecta parameters that illustrate the long-lived reverse-shock behavior and its coincidence with the contact discontinuity and forward shock after breakout. These additions will permit independent assessment of robustness. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and emission results] The abstract asserts that the model 'can simultaneously account for early thermal emission, X-ray plateaus, and late-time GeV excesses' and indicates PWNs as TeV sources, but the text provides no equations, numerical light-curve calculations, parameter values, error bars, or direct comparisons to observational data. This makes it impossible to determine whether the claimed matches are independent predictions or the result of parameter adjustment to fit the very features being explained.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the present version does not yet supply the full set of emission equations, numerical light-curve outputs, adopted parameter values, or quantitative comparisons with data. In the revision we will expand the results section to include the explicit expressions for thermal, synchrotron, and external inverse-Compton emissivities, the specific parameter sets employed, and direct overlays of model light curves against representative short-GRB observations (with uncertainties). This will clarify the predictive versus fitting character of the reported matches and allow readers to evaluate the TeV predictions independently. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation of RS evolution and emission sequence follows from jet-ejecta-PWN dynamics without reduction to fits or self-citations

full rationale

The paper states that by following the dynamics of the jet-ejecta-PWN system it finds the RS is long-lived, first lagging the contact discontinuity then coinciding with CD and FS after breakout. This structural result directly produces the claimed temporal sequence of thermal emission, X-ray plateau, and late PWN synchrotron/IC (including GeV bump via external IC). No equations or steps in the provided text reduce this finding to a fitted parameter or prior self-citation; the model is presented as a first-principles hydrodynamic consequence whose ability to account for observations is a downstream implication rather than an input. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies insufficient detail to enumerate specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond the overall physical setup.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A newborn, rapidly rotating magnetar drives a Poynting-flux-dominated relativistic jet after binary neutron star merger.
    This is the foundational premise stated at the start of the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5810 in / 1427 out tokens · 40694 ms · 2026-05-21T04:20:53.905745+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2041

  2. [2]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1178

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1178 2010

  3. [3]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b4

    Ai, S., Gao, H., & Zhang, B. 2025, ApJ, 978, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b4 2025

  4. [4]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2380

    Ai, S., Zhang, B., & Zhu, Z. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2380

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2380 2022

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature24291

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017

  6. [6]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx717

    Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx717

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx717 2017

  7. [7]

    Beniamini, P., Giannios, D., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3058, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2095

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2095 2017

  8. [8]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 3892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2032

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3892, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2032

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2032 2014

  9. [9]

    Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A. J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2203

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2203 2017

  10. [10]

    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

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 2014

  11. [11]

    2020, General Relativity and Gravitation, 52, 108, doi: 10.1007/s10714-020-02752-5

    Bernuzzi, S. 2020, General Relativity and Gravitation, 52, 108, doi: 10.1007/s10714-020-02752-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-020-02752-5 2020

  12. [12]

    R., & Gould, R

    Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould, R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.42.237 1970

  13. [13]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1905.02773

    Cao, Z., della Volpe, D., Liu, S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02773, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1905.02773

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.02773 2019

  14. [14]

    2025, Science China

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., Axikegu, et al. 2025, Science China

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 279502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2477-9 Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, Acharya, B. S.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2477-9

  16. [16]

    2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array, doi: 10.1142/10986

    Agudo, I., et al. 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array, doi: 10.1142/10986

    work page doi:10.1142/10986 2019

  17. [17]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 1992, ApJ, 395, 540, doi: 10.1086/171674

    work page doi:10.1086/171674 1992

  18. [18]

    Coroniti, F. V. 1990, ApJ, 349, 538, doi: 10.1086/168340

    work page doi:10.1086/168340 1990

  19. [19]

    2010, A&A, 524, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912461

    Corsi, A., Guetta, D., & Piro, L. 2010, A&A, 524, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912461

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912461 2010

  20. [20]

    A., Foley, R

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9811 2017

  21. [21]

    Gamma-ray burst afterglows and evolution of postburst fireballs with energy injection from strongly magnetic millisecond pulsars

    Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1998, A&A, 333, L87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810402 D’A vanzo, P. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 73, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.07.002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9810402 1998

  22. [22]

    2002, A&A, 387, 714, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020390

    Drenkhahn, G. 2002, A&A, 387, 714, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020390

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020390 2002

  23. [23]

    Drenkhahn, G., & Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A, 391, 1141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020839

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020839 2002

  24. [24]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9, doi: 10.1086/186413

    work page doi:10.1086/186413 1992

  25. [25]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  26. [26]

    Capozziello , V

    Fan, Y.-Z., Piran, T., Narayan, R., & Wei, D.-M. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1483, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12765.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12765.x 2008

  27. [27]

    Z., Wei, D

    Fan, Y. Z., Wei, D. M., & Wang, C. F. 2004, A&A, 424, 477, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041115

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041115 2004

  28. [28]

    Measuring Average Treatment Effect from Heavy-tailed Data

    Gaensler, B. M., & Slane, P. O. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 17, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092528 2006

  29. [29]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/163

    Gao, H., Ding, X., Wu, X.-F., Dai, Z.-G., & Zhang, B. 2015, ApJ, 807, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/163

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/163 2015

  30. [30]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/86

    Gao, H., Ding, X., Wu, X.-F., Zhang, B., & Dai, Z.-G. 2013, ApJ, 771, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/86

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/2/86 2013

  31. [31]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be3

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., Lü, H.-J., & Li, Y. 2017, ApJ, 837, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be3 2017

  32. [32]

    2010, A&A, 510, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913980

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Nava, L. 2010, A&A, 510, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913980

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913980 2010

  33. [33]

    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

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

  34. [34]

    2008, A&A, 480, 305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079085 —

    Giannios, D. 2008, A&A, 480, 305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079085 —. 2010, MNRAS, 408, L46, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00925.x

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20079085 2008

  35. [35]

    Giannios, D., & Spruit, H. C. 2005, A&A, 430, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20047033

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20047033 2005

  36. [36]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  37. [37]

    P., Levan, A

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24 2020

  38. [38]

    P., O’Brien, P

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2165 2014

  39. [39]

    P., Ravasio, M

    Gompertz, B. P., Ravasio, M. E., Nicholl, M., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 67, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01819-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01819-4 2023

  40. [40]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/167

    Guo, F., Liu, Y.-H., Daughton, W., & Li, H. 2015, ApJ, 806, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/167

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/167 2015

  41. [41]

    2015, SSRv, 191, 545, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0132-9

    Kagan, D., Sironi, L., Cerutti, B., & Giannios, D. 2015, SSRv, 191, 545, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0132-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0132-9 2015

  42. [42]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/1/245 2010

  43. [43]

    2016, ApJ, 818, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/94 14 Li et al

    Margutti, R. 2016, ApJ, 818, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/94 14 Li et al

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/94 2016

  44. [44]

    2000, ApJL, 541, L51, doi: 10.1086/312905

    Kumar, P., & Panaitescu, A. 2000, ApJL, 541, L51, doi: 10.1086/312905

    work page doi:10.1086/312905 2000

  45. [45]

    Coward, D. M. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 047302, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.047302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.047302 2014

  46. [46]

    2019, ApJS, 242, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab1b78

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab1b78 2019

  47. [47]

    1998, ApJL, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    Li, L.-X., & Paczyński, B. 1998, ApJL, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    work page doi:10.1086/311680 1998

  48. [48]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4452

    Li, Y.-P., Chen, Z.-L., Lin, D.-B., & Liang, E.-W. 2024, ApJ, 968, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4452

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4452 2024

  49. [49]

    2025, ApJ, 985, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add3ff

    Li, Y.-P., Lin, D.-B., Li, G.-Y., Zhou, Z.-M., & Liang, E.-W. 2025, ApJ, 985, 195, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add3ff

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add3ff 2025

  50. [50]

    W., Zhang, B., O’Brien, P

    Liang, E. W., Zhang, B., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, 351, doi: 10.1086/504684

    work page doi:10.1086/504684 2006

  51. [51]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab68

    Lin, W.-L., Wang, L.-J., & Dai, Z.-G. 2018, ApJ, 855, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaab68 2018

  52. [52]

    D., Wang, L

    Liu, L. D., Wang, L. J., & Dai, Z. G. 2016, A&A, 592, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628072

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628072 2016

  53. [53]

    2015, PhRvL, 114, 095002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095002

    Liu, Y.-H., Guo, F., Daughton, W., Li, H., & Hesse, M. 2015, PhRvL, 114, 095002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.095002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.095002 2015

  54. [54]

    Lyubarsky, Y. E. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08767.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08767.x 2005

  55. [55]

    2022, Chinese Physics C, 46, 030001, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3fa6

    Ma, X.-H., Bi, Y.-J., Cao, Z., et al. 2022, Chinese Physics C, 46, 030001, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac3fa6

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac3fa6 2022

  56. [56]

    W., Dai, Z

    Mao, Z., Yu, Y. W., Dai, Z. G., Pi, C. M., & Zheng, X. P. 2010, A&A, 518, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913252

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913252 2010

  57. [57]

    S., Metzger, B

    Margalit, B., Jermyn, A. S., Metzger, B. D., Roberts, L. F., & Quataert, E. 2022, ApJ, 939, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b01

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b01 2022

  58. [58]

    S., Murase, K., & Mészáros, P

    Matsumoto, T., Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & Mészáros, P. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 783, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa305

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa305 2020

  59. [59]

    2024, A&A, 691, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451528

    Mattia, G., Del Zanna, L., Pavan, A., & Ciolfi, R. 2024, A&A, 691, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451528

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451528 2024

  60. [60]

    2022, Nature, 612, 236, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05404-7

    Mei, A., Banerjee, B., Oganesyan, G., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 236, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05404-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05404-7 2022

  61. [61]

    D., & Berger, E

    Metzger, B. D., & Berger, E. 2012, ApJ, 746, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/48

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/48 2012

  62. [62]

    , keywords =

    Bucciantini, N., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x 2011

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

    Metzger, B. D., Martínez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2650, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x 2010

  64. [64]

    2013, MNRAS, 433, 2107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt872

    Nava, L., Sironi, L., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., & Ghirlanda, G. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt872

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt872 2013

  65. [65]

    P., & Bonnell, J

    Norris, J. P., & Bonnell, J. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 266, doi: 10.1086/502796

    work page doi:10.1086/502796 2006

  66. [66]

    C., Gompertz, B

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

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

  67. [67]

    Ravi, V., & Lasky, P. D. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu720

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu720 2014

  68. [68]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4188 —

    Ren, J., Lin, D.-B., Zhang, L.-L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4188 —. 2020, ApJL, 901, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb672

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4188 2019

  69. [69]

    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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts683 2013

  70. [70]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

    Santana, R., Barniol Duran, R., & Kumar, P. 2014, ApJ, 785, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/29 2014

  71. [71]

    1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    work page doi:10.1086/311269 1998

  72. [72]

    Sarin, N., & Lasky, P. D. 2021, General Relativity and Gravitation, 53, 59, doi: 10.1007/s10714-021-02831-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-021-02831-1 2021

  73. [73]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv641

    Sironi, L., Petropoulou, M., & Giannios, D. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 183, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv641

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv641 2015

  74. [74]

    2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJL, 783, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/l21 2014

  75. [75]

    C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G

    Spruit, H. C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G. 2001, A&A, 369, 694, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010131

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010131 2001

  76. [76]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd8f 2018

  77. [77]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/32

    Suzuki, A., Maeda, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2017, ApJ, 834, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/32

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/32 2017

  78. [78]

    A., Chang, P., & Quataert, E

    Thompson, T. A., Chang, P., & Quataert, E. 2004, ApJ, 611, 380, doi: 10.1086/421969

    work page doi:10.1086/421969 2004

  79. [79]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

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

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

  80. [80]

    Q., Wang, L

    Wang, S. Q., Wang, L. J., Dai, Z. G., & Wu, X. F. 2015, ApJ, 799, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/107

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/1/107 2015

Showing first 80 references.