Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Thermal Components in Gamma-ray Bursts. II. Constraining the Hybrid Jet Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hybrid jets, carrying both a hot fireball and a cold magnetic outflow, can explain the photosphere emission of most, probably all, of a sample of eight gamma-ray bursts.

desk verdict A useful first sample application of the hybrid jet diagnostic to eight Fermi GRBs, with honest caveats but a real unaddressed consistency check from the paper's own appendix. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09240 v3 pith:SJLZI3HI submitted 2019-08-25 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Liang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords gamma-rayburstshybridjetmodelphotosphereemissionPoyntingfluxdimensionlessentropymagnetizationparameterrelativisticjetsICMART
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 argues that gamma-ray bursts are not launched as either pure fireballs or pure magnetized outflows, but as hybrid jets that carry both a hot thermal component and a cold Poynting-flux component at the same time. Applying a 'top-down' photosphere inversion to eight gamma-ray bursts with detected thermal components, it infers the engine parameters under three assumed jet-base radii, $r_0 = 10^7$, $10^8$, and $10^9$ cm. For five of the bursts, the inferred magnetization $(1+\sigma_0)$ is above unity, meaning a magnetized component accompanies the hot fireball; for two of those, the magnetization near $10^{15}$ cm also exceeds unity, pointing to magnetic reconnection rather than internal shocks as the source of the nonthermal emission. The paper concludes that the majority of bursts, probably all, are well described by the hybrid jet problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid jet model with its 'top-down' photosphere inversion. For a fixed jet-base radius $r_0$, the observed blackbody temperature, blackbody flux, and total flux are fed into analytic scaling relations for one of six dynamical regimes of a hybrid relativistic outflow; these return the dimensionless entropy $\eta$, the magnetization $1+\sigma_0$ at the engine, the photosphere radius $r_{\rm ph}$, the Lorentz factor $\Gamma_{\rm ph}$, and the magnetizations $1+\sigma_{\rm ph}$ and $1+\sigma_{r15}$. Here $\sigma_0$ is the ratio of cold Poynting-flux luminosity to hot fireball luminosity, and $\sigma_{r15}$ is the magnetization at $10^{15}$ cm, the scale where internal shocks would compete with magnetic reconnection. The regime judgment decides which formula applies, and the assumed values $r_0 = 10^7, 10^8, 10^9$ cm and a fixed radiative efficiency $f_\gamma = 0.5$ enter every scaling.

What would settle it

Recompute the magnetization at $10^{15}$ cm for GRB 110721A from the published blackbody fits assuming $r_0 = 10^7$ cm; Table 1 lists zero time bins with $1+\sigma_{r15} > 1$ at that radius, while the abstract claims a few time bins exceed unity for all $r_0$. A direct calculation from the fitted parameters settles whether the ICMART interpretation survives for every assumed base radius.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed photosphere emission of the eight bursts can be reproduced by the hybrid jet model, whose two free engine parameters are the dimensionless entropy $\eta$ and the magnetization $\sigma_0$. For every time bin of every burst, the inversion returns $\eta \gg 1$, so a hot fireball is always present. For GRB 081224, GRB 110721A, GRB 090719, GRB 100707, and GRB 100724, the value $(1+\sigma_0)$ is larger than unity for all three assumed base radii, indicating a real Poynting-flux component; for GRB 190114C, GRB 090902B, and GRB 160107A, that conclusion is radius-dependent. In GRB 081224 and GRB 110721A, some time bins also give $(1+\sigma_{r15}) > 1$ at $10^{15}$ cm, which the paper reads as evidence for internal-collision-induced magnetic reconnection and turbulence (ICMART) rather than internal shocks. The author therefore concludes that most, and probably all, of the bursts fit the hybrid jet problem.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the jet-base radius $r_0$ is a constant and tries only three fixed values, but no independent measurement fixes the true value; all conclusions about whether an individual burst contains a Poynting-flux component shift with this choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the five bursts with $(1+\sigma_0) > 1$, the central engine must launch a magnetized component together with the hot fireball, so pure fireball models are incomplete for those objects.
  • In GRB 081224 and GRB 110721A, the magnetization at $10^{15}$ cm exceeds unity in some time bins, making ICMART magnetic reconnection a more likely nonthermal mechanism than internal shocks.
  • The thermal flux ratio is positively correlated with $\eta$ and negatively correlated with $1+\sigma_0$, giving a spectral diagnostic for the engine's composition.
  • For the three bursts whose inferred $(1+\sigma_0)$ flips around unity, the presence of a Poynting-flux component is not settled: a large true $r_0$ supports the hybrid interpretation, while a small one supports a nearly pure fireball.
  • Because $\eta \gg 1$ in every time bin, even magnetized bursts retain a hot fireball component at the base of the outflow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If hybrid composition is routine, the reported distributions of $\eta$ and $1+\sigma_0$ can serve as quantitative priors for numerical central-engine simulations; the paper reports the distributions but does not build such an engine model.
  • The $r_0$ degeneracy could be broken by independent estimates of the jet-base size, for instance from sub-millimeter variability or scintillation of the early afterglow; that would convert the paper's radius-dependent conclusions into a direct test.
  • A targeted testable extension is to compare polarization or spectral-lag properties of the bursts assigned to ICMART with those assigned to internal shocks; different mechanisms should leave different observable signatures.
  • Because the photosphere diagnostic needs only blackbody temperature, blackbody flux, and total flux, it can be applied to fainter bursts and to later time bins as long as a thermal component is detected, extending the sample beyond eight bright bursts.
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 applies the 'top-down' photosphere inversion formalism of Gao & Zhang (2015) to eight Fermi-GBM GRBs with a detected thermal component, using the time-resolved spectral fits from Paper I. Assuming a constant jet base radius r0 (1e7, 1e8, 1e9 cm), a gamma-ray efficiency f_gamma = 0.5, and z = 2 for bursts without measured redshift, it infers the dimensionless entropy eta, the magnetization parameter 1+sigma0 at the engine, and the related quantities rph, Gamma_ph, 1+sigma_ph, and 1+sigma_r15. The paper reports eta >> 1 for all bursts, (1+sigma0) > 1 for five bursts, and (1+sigma_r15) > 1 in some time bins for GRB 081224 and GRB 110721A, concluding that the majority of bursts (probably all) can be explained by a hybrid fireball + Poynting-flux jet and that ICMART, rather than internal shocks, may power the nonthermal emission in the latter two bursts.

Significance. If the inferred parameters are reliable, this is the first systematic application of the hybrid jet model to a multi-burst Fermi sample, and it would provide evidence for a two-component jet composition in a majority of bursts. The paper uses publicly available spectral-fitting tools and reproduces the Gao & Zhang (2015) test case for GRB 110721A, which is a useful validation step. However, the inferred quantities are deterministic transforms of the fitted temperature and fluxes combined with assumed constants, so the central 'explanation' claim is a consistency check rather than an independent, falsifiable prediction. The scientific value therefore rests on whether the inversion is internally consistent and whether the stated parameter claims survive scrutiny of the r0 dependence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A3 / Figure A1] The paper explicitly states in the Figure A1 caption that 'eta is less that Gamma_ph in some time bins, which is impossible' and attributes this to applying coasting-phase formulas while the jet is still in the acceleration phase. The main analysis uses the same top-down formulas (Eqs. A6-A8) with only the rph > rra regime judgment, and never verifies the physical consistency condition eta >= Gamma_ph for the bins reported in Table 1. Because the derived (1+sigma0) and (1+sigma_r15) values are the basis for the claims of a Poynting-flux component in five bursts and of ICMART in GRB 081224 and GRB 110721A, the paper should check eta >= Gamma_ph for every bin used, exclude or re-derive invalid bins using the appropriate acceleration-phase formulas, and rerun the affected conclusions.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5 vs. Table 1] The claim that '(1+sigma_r15) is greater than unity in a few time bins for all r0 in GRB 081224 and GRB 110721A' is contradicted by Table 1: GRB 081224 at r0 = 1e9 cm has zero time bins passing the regime judgment (column 4 shows '0(5)'), and GRB 110721A at r0 = 1e7 cm has zero time bins with (1+sigma_r15) > 1 (column 10 shows '0'). The ICMART inference therefore cannot be stated 'for all r0'; the abstract and Section 5 should be revised to specify the r0 values and time bins for which (1+sigma_r15) > 1 actually holds.
  3. [Section 4 / Section 5 / Table 1] The derived parameters, especially (1+sigma0) and (1+sigma_r15), depend strongly on the assumed r0, as the paper acknowledges ('our results significantly vary with different r0 values' and 'this leads us to make some not very confident explanations in some cases'). Yet the abstract states without qualification that five bursts have (1+sigma0) > 1; Table 1 shows, for example, that GRB 090902B has zero time bins with (1+sigma0) > 1 at r0 = 1e7 cm and GRB 081224 cannot be evaluated at r0 = 1e9 cm. The main claims should be restated explicitly as conditional on the assumed r0 (and f_gamma = 0.5), and the r0 sensitivity should be quantified in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure A1 caption] 'less that' should be 'less than'.
  2. [Section 4, GRB 110721A and GRB 081224 paragraphs] 'ICMRAT' is a typo for 'ICMART'.
  3. [Figure 9, middle-right panel] The label 'Gamma_ph (cm)' should read 'Gamma_ph', since the bulk Lorentz factor is dimensionless.
  4. [Table 1 note and Section 4] The burst is referred to inconsistently as both 'GRB 100707' and 'GRB 100707A'; use one name throughout.
  5. [Section 5] The concluding sentence 'at least a majority of Fermi bursts (probably all) can be well interpreted' is too strong for a procedure that infers the model parameters from the same data; rephrase as a statement about the inferred hybrid-jet parameter ranges and their consistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One built-in correlation is presented as a model prediction; the central sigma0 inference retains conditional empirical content.

  1. self definitional [Section 5 (Conclusion and Discussion), first paragraph after Figure 10 correlations; also Section 4 final paragraph]
    "Temporal properties of the physical parameter show that basically, the thermal flux ratio is directly proportional to η, but inversely proportional to (1+σ0), which is the natural expectation predicted by the hybrid problem. Since a high thermal flux ratio indicates a strong thermal component and a weak cold Poynting-flux component, η should be large and (1+σ0) should be small."

    This 'predicted expectation' is not an independent test: η and (1+σ0) are solved from the same observed quantities (kT, FBB, Fobs) via the Gao & Zhang inversion formulas in Appendix A2, where fth=FBB/Fobs enters the formulas explicitly (e.g., A6 and A7 give (1+σ0) ∝ fth^{-1}, and A8 gives η ∝ fth^{1/2}). Saying that a high thermal-flux ratio implies large η and small (1+σ0) is a restatement of the definitions of η and σ0 rather than a model prediction confronted with new data. The sentence 'thermal flux ratio and η track each other since both denote the strength of the thermal component' makes the tautology explicit. Thus the correlation presented as consistency with the hybrid model reduces, at least in part, to the construction of the inversion formulas.

full rationale

The central inference is not wholly circular: the paper uses an external theoretical framework (Gao & Zhang 2015) and a spectral catalog from Paper I (Li 2019a); the derived (1+σ0)>1 results are data-dependent and vary nontrivially with the assumed r0, so the σ0>1 claim has independent empirical content conditional on r0 and fγ=0.5. However, the paper presents correlations between derived parameters and the observed FBB/Fobs as 'predicted by the hybrid problem,' when these correlations are partly algebraic consequences of the inversion formulas (fth appears explicitly in Eqs. A6–A8). This is the one built-in circular step. A separate validity caveat is flagged by the paper itself in Appendix A3 (Figure A1 caption): 'η is less that Γph in some time bins, which is impossible. The reason is that the jet is still in the acceleration phase; however, we use the coasting phase to derive physical parameters.' The main sample never reports a check that η≥Γph, so some inferred values may be invalid; this weakens the central claim but is a consistency/validity issue rather than a further circularity. Balanced score reflects one definitional correlation inside an otherwise data-driven inference.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on three assumed constants (r0, fγ, z for unmeasured bursts) that directly set the derived η and σ0 values. The Gao and Zhang hybrid model and the photosphere origin of the blackbody component are background assumptions inherited from prior literature. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Jet base radius r0 = assumed 10^7, 10^8, 10^9 cm
    The central engine size is unknown; the paper tries three constant values and derives parameters for each. Results vary strongly with r0 (Section 5, Table 1).
  • Gamma-ray efficiency fγ = 0.5
    Set to a typical value 0.5 (Appendix A2), this scales all derived parameters via fγ^{-1} factors; not fitted to data or justified per burst.
  • Redshift z for bursts without measurement = 2
    Five of eight bursts lack measured redshift; the paper adopts z=2 and notes the effect on η, rph, Γph is within one order of magnitude (Section 5, Figure A3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hybrid jet dynamical model of Gao and Zhang (2015): two-component outflow with phases separated by rra and rs, with the top-down equations for regimes II, III, V, VI.
    The entire inference rests on this theoretical model, which is cited from prior work and not re-derived or tested here.
  • domain assumption The observed blackbody component originates from the non-dissipative photosphere of the hybrid outflow.
    The paper assumes the BB component is photospheric emission from the hybrid jet (Section 3), excluding dissipative photosphere models and alternative interpretations such as the Induced Gravitational Collapse model mentioned in Section 5.
  • ad hoc to paper Regime judgment requires rph > rra; time bins not satisfying this are excluded.
    The analysis only retains bins where the parameters can be inferred (Section 3, Table 1). This selection is part of the model and can bias the sample toward consistency.
  • standard math Standard ΛCDM cosmology with H0=67.4, ΩM=0.315, ΩΛ=0.685.
    Used to convert fluxes to luminosities; a standard assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Components in Gamma-ray Bursts. II. Constraining the Hybrid Jet Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJLZI3HI

@misc{pith2026190809240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Components in Gamma-ray Bursts. II. Constraining the Hybrid Jet Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJLZI3HI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09240}
}
abstract

In explaining the physical origin of the jet composition of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), a more general picture, i.e. the hybrid jet model (which introduced another magnetization parameter $\sigma_{0}$ on the basis of the traditional fireball model), has been well studied in Gao \& Zhang. However, it still has not yet been applied to a large GRB sample. Here, we first employ the "top-down" approach of Gao \& Zhang to diagnose the photosphere properties at the central engine to see how the hybrid model can account for the observed data as well, through applying a {\it Fermi} GRB sample (eight bursts) with the detected photosphere component, as presented in Li (our Paper I). We infer all physical parameters of a hybrid problem with three typical values of the radius of the jet base ($r_{0}$ = 10$^{7}$, 10$^{8}$, and 10$^{9}$ cm). We find that the dimensionless entropy for all the bursts shows $\eta\gg$ 1 while the derived (1+$\sigma_{0}$) for five bursts (GRB 081224, GRB 110721A, GRB 090719, GRB 100707, and GRB 100724) is larger than unity, indicating that in addition to a hot fireball component, another cold Poynting-flux component may also play an important role. Our analysis also shows that in a few time bins for all $r_{0}$ in GRB 081224 and GRB 110721A, the magnetization parameter at $\sim$ 10$^{15}$cm (1+$\sigma_{\rm r15}$) is greater than unity, which implies that internal-collision-induced magnetic reconnection and turbulence may be the mechanism to power the nonthermal emission, rather than internal shocks. We conclude that the majority of bursts (probably all) can be well explained by the hybrid jet problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal evolution of thermal flux ratio, BB temperature, and all physical parameters (η, 1+σ0, rph, Γph, 1+σph, 1+σr15) of the hybrid problem for GRB 110721A. The fitted parameters are obtained from the best fitting of the CPL+BB model by using Bayesian analysis + MCMC method. The physical parameters are calculated by using top-down approach of Gao & Zhang (2015), and considering the case in a non-dissipative photo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distributions of characteristic parameters of the hybrid problem, which is based on the assump￾tions of constant values of r0: r0=107 cm (orange), r0=108 cm (grey), and r0=109 cm (purple). Upper-left panel: for η-distribution; upper-right panel: for (1 + σ0)-distributi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scatter plots of several characteristic parameters of the hybrid problem (based on all r0): the η-(FBB/Fobs) plot (upper-left panel), the (1 + σ0)-(FBB/Fobs) plot (upper-right panel), the η-kT plot (middle-left panel); the (1 + σ0)-kT plot (middle-right panel), the η-…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    8 J 0hFDChF? 3E Es:x 8 = B& x Y ؛)`mmJ? I G !g 2 F> . h

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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 Each re...

    2017

  4. [4]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2009, , 706, L138, 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L138

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/l138 2009

  5. [5]

    2018, , 475, 1708, 10.1093/mnras/stx3106

    Acuner , Z., & Ryde , F. 2018, , 475, 1708, 10.1093/mnras/stx3106

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3106 2018

  6. [6]

    2019, , 487, 5508, 10.1093/mnras/stz1356

    Acuner , Z., Ryde , F., & Yu , H.-F. 2019, , 487, 5508, 10.1093/mnras/stz1356

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1356 2019

  7. [7]

    2010, arXiv e-prints

    Andrae , R., Schulze-Hartung , T., & Melchior , P. 2010, arXiv e-prints. 1012.3754

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    2012, , 757, L31, 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L31

    Axelsson , M., Baldini , L., Barbiellini , G., et al. 2012, , 757, L31, 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/l31 2012

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    1993, , 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

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

    1993 doi

  2. [10]

    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

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 12193, 1

    Berger , E. 2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 12193, 1

    2011

  4. [12]

    M., Greiner , J., B \'e gu \'e , D., & Berlato , F

    Burgess , J. M., Greiner , J., B \'e gu \'e , D., & Berlato , F. 2019, , 490, 927, 10.1093/mnras/stz2589

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    M., Preece , R

    Burgess , J. M., Preece , R. D., Connaughton , V., et al. 2014, , 784, 17, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/17

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    1979, ApJ, 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939, 10.1086/156922

    1979 doi

  7. [15]

    B., Tanvir , N., & Berger , E

    Cucchiara , A., Fox , D. B., Tanvir , N., & Berger , E. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9873, 1

    2009

  8. [16]

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

    2002 doi

  9. [17]

    Feroz , F., & Hobson , M. P. 2008, , 384, 449, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12353.x

    2008

  10. [19]

    P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10, 10.21105/astro.1306.2144

    2019 arXiv

  11. [20]

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

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

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    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

  13. [22]

    2013, , 432, 3237, 10.1093/mnras/stt681

    Ghirlanda , G., Pescalli , A., & Ghisellini , G. 2013, , 432, 3237, 10.1093/mnras/stt681

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    2008, , 480, 305, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079085

    Giannios , D. 2008, , 480, 305, 10.1051/0004-6361:20079085

    2008 doi

  15. [24]

    M., Preece , R

    Goldstein , A., Burgess , J. M., Preece , R. D., et al. 2012, , 199, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/19

    2012 doi

  16. [25]

    1986, , 308, L47, 10.1086/184741

    Goodman , J. 1986, , 308, L47, 10.1086/184741

    1986 doi

  17. [26]

    2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman , J., & Weare , J. 2010, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65, 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    2010 doi

  18. [27]

    S., & Spitkovsky , A

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

    2011

  19. [28]

    M., Savchenko , V., & Yu , H.-F

    Greiner , J., Burgess , J. M., Savchenko , V., & Yu , H.-F. 2016, , 827, L38, 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L38

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    S., et al

    Guiriec , S., Connaughton , V., Briggs , M. S., et al. 2011, , 727, L33, 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L33

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

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

    2007 doi

  22. [31]

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

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

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    2015, , 450, 1651, 10.1093/mnras/stv636

    Iyyani , S., Ryde , F., Ahlgren , B., et al. 2015, , 450, 1651, 10.1093/mnras/stv636

    2015 doi

  24. [33]

    2018, , 70, 6, 10.1093/pasj/psx152

    Kawakubo , Y., Sakamoto , T., Nakahira , S., et al. 2018, , 70, 6, 10.1093/pasj/psx152

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    S., Vlahakis , N., K \"o nigl , A., & Barkov , M

    Komissarov , S. S., Vlahakis , N., K \"o nigl , A., & Barkov , M. V. 2009, , 394, 1182, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14410.x

    2009

  26. [35]

    2013, , 765, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/125

    Lei , W.-H., Zhang , B., & Liang , E.-W. 2013, , 765, 125, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/125

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    2019 a , , 245, 7, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab42de (Paper I)

    Li , L. 2019 a , , 245, 7, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab42de (Paper I)

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

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

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

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    A., et al

    Liang , L., Ruffini , R., Rueda , J. A., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.12615. 1910.12615

    2019 arXiv

  30. [39]

    N., et al

    Meegan , C., Lichti , G., Bhat , P. N., et al. 2009, , 702, 791, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    2009 doi

  31. [40]

    Meszaros , P., & Rees , M. J. 1993, , 405, 278, 10.1086/172360

    1993 doi

  32. [41]

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 1997, , 482, L29, 10.1086/310692

    1997 doi

  33. [42]

    2000, , 530, 292, 10.1086/308371

    ---. 2000, , 530, 292, 10.1086/308371

    2000 doi

  34. [43]

    2011, , 733, L40, 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L40

    ---. 2011, , 733, L40, 10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L40

    2011 doi

  35. [45]

    A., von Kienlin , A., et al

    Narayana Bhat , P., Meegan , C. A., von Kienlin , A., et al. 2016, , 223, 28, 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/28

    2016 doi

  36. [46]

    1986, , 308, L43, 10.1086/184740

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

    1986 doi

  37. [47]

    1990, , 363, 218, 10.1086/169332

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

    1990 doi

  38. [48]

    1994, , 427, 708, 10.1086/174178

    Paczynski , B., & Xu , G. 1994, , 427, 708, 10.1086/174178

    1994 doi

  39. [49]

    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

  40. [50]

    Pe'er , A., Ryde , F., Wijers , R. A. M. J., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 2007, , 664, L1, 10.1086/520534

    2007 doi

  41. [51]

    2012, , 420, 468, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20052.x

    Pe'Er , A., Zhang , B.-B., Ryde , F., et al. 2012, , 420, 468, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20052.x

    2012

  42. [52]

    1993, , 263, 861, 10.1093/mnras/263.4.861

    Piran , T., Shemi , A., & Narayan , R. 1993, , 263, 861, 10.1093/mnras/263.4.861

    1993 doi

  43. [53]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1807.06209. 1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  44. [54]

    J., & Meszaros , P

    Rees , M. J., & Meszaros , P. 1994, , 430, L93, 10.1086/187446

    1994 doi

  45. [55]

    J., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P

    Rees , M. J., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2005, , 628, 847, 10.1086/430818

    2005 doi

  46. [56]

    A., & Ruffini , R

    Rueda , J. A., & Ruffini , R. 2020, European Physical Journal C, 80, 300, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7868-z

    2020 doi

  47. [57]

    D., Wilson , J

    Ruffini , R., Salmonson , J. D., Wilson , J. R., & Xue , S.-S. 1999, , 350, 334

    1999

  48. [58]

    2000, , 359, 855

    ---. 2000, , 359, 855

    2000

  49. [59]

    A., & Vereshchagin , G

    Ruffini , R., Siutsou , I. A., & Vereshchagin , G. V. 2013, , 772, 11, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/11

    2013 doi

  50. [60]

    2019 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.04162

    Ruffini , R., Li , L., Moradi , R., et al. 2019 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.04162. 1904.04162

    2019 arXiv

  51. [61]

    A., et al

    Ruffini , R., Moradi , R., Rueda , J. A., et al. 2019 b , , 886, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ce6

    2019 doi

  52. [62]

    2004, , 614, 827, 10.1086/423782

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

    2004 doi

  53. [63]

    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

  54. [64]

    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

  55. [65]

    B., et al

    Ryde , F., Axelsson , M., Zhang , B. B., et al. 2010, , 709, L172, 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L172

    2010 doi

  56. [66]

    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

  57. [67]

    Selsing , J., Fynbo , J. P. U., Heintz , K. E., & Watson , D. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 23695, 1

    2019

  58. [68]

    1990, , 365, L55, 10.1086/185887

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

    1990 doi

  59. [69]

    2006, , 651, 333, 10.1086/505290

    Thompson , C. 2006, , 651, 333, 10.1086/505290

    2006 doi

  60. [70]

    2012, , 755, 12, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/12

    Veres , P., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2012, , 755, 12, 10.1088/0004-637X/755/1/12

    2012 doi

  61. [71]

    2018, , 236, 17, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab780

    Vianello , G. 2018, , 236, 17, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab780

    2018 doi

  62. [72]

    J., Younk , P., et al

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

    2015 arXiv

  63. [73]

    2003, , 596, 1104, 10.1086/378227

    Vlahakis , N., & K \"o nigl , A. 2003, , 596, 1104, 10.1086/378227

    2003 doi

  64. [74]

    2019, arXiv e-prints

    Wang , Y., Li , L., Moradi , R., & Ruffini , R. 2019, arXiv e-prints. 1901.07505

    2019 arXiv

  65. [75]

    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

  66. [76]

    2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430002, 10.1142/S021827181430002X

    Zhang , B. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430002, 10.1142/S021827181430002X

    2014 doi

  67. [77]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts , 10.1017/9781139226530

    ---. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts , 10.1017/9781139226530

    2018 doi

  68. [78]

    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

  69. [79]

    J., et al

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

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.