Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A unified binary neutron star merger magnetar model for the Chandra X-ray transients CDF-S XT1 and XT2

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 Magnetar model unifies two deep-field X-ray transients

desk verdict A plausible unified two-zone magnetar interpretation of XT1 and XT2, honestly limited by unverified opacity physics and modest fits, but worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01107 v3 pith:TA7AEFU7 submitted 2019-08-03 astro-ph.HE

Hui Sun , Ye Li , Binbin Zhang , Bing Zhang , Franz E. Bauer , Yongquan Xue , Weimin Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetarbinaryneutronstarmergerX-raytransientCDF-SXT1XT2freezonetrappedspindown
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 CDF-S XT1 and CDF-S XT2, two bright X-ray transients discovered in Chandra Deep Field South archival data, are both produced by rapidly spinning magnetars born in binary neutron star mergers. The two events differ only in viewing geometry: XT2 is seen through the free zone where magnetar-wind X-rays escape freely, while XT1 is seen through the trapped zone where the merger ejecta initially blocks the X-rays until it becomes transparent. If this unified picture is right, gamma-ray-free X-ray transients from neutron star mergers should be common, and future wide-field X-ray surveys should find more of them.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the free-zone versus trapped-zone classification of magnetar-wind X-ray emission from a binary neutron star merger. The key formula is the trapped-zone X-ray luminosity $L_{X,\rm trapped}(t) = e^{-\tau}\,\eta B_p^2 R^6 \Omega^4/(6c^3)$, where $\tau = \kappa (M_{\rm ej}/V')(R/\Gamma)$ is the Thomson optical depth of the ejecta and $\kappa \simeq 1\,{\rm cm}^2\,{\rm g}^{-1}$ is the assumed opacity of fully ionized ejecta. The transparency condition $\tau \sim 1$ sets the time of the observed rise, and the subsequent decay follows the dipole spindown law. The model also uses the merger-nova luminosity evolution from Yu et al. (2013) and the assumption that pair production only modestly increases the electron content of the ejecta.

What would settle it

A time-dependent photoionization and recombination calculation of merger ejecta irradiated by a magnetar with $B_p \sim 10^{16}$ G and $P_i \sim 1.2$ ms that yields an X-ray opacity substantially above $1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ at $t \sim 100$ s would break the XT1 light-curve fit. Alternatively, a wide-field X-ray survey that finds fast-rising trapped-zone transients at a rate far below the binary neutron star merger rate would challenge the conclusion that most mergers leave long-lived magnetars.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a single model, a millisecond magnetar formed in a binary neutron star merger, can fit the observed light curves of both CDF-S XT1 and CDF-S XT2. CDF-S XT2 is fitted as a free-zone event with magnetic field $B_p = 10^{15.8}$ G, initial spin period $P_i = 4.4$ ms, and X-ray efficiency $\eta = 0.001$. CDF-S XT1 is fitted as a trapped-zone event with $B_p = 10^{16}$ G, $P_i = 1.2$ ms, $\eta = 0.001$, ejecta mass $10^{-3}$ solar masses, and onset time $T_0 = -140$ s. The paper shows that XT1's fast rise corresponds to the ejecta becoming transparent as its Thomson optical depth drops below unity, after which the light curve follows the magnetar spindown decay, while XT2 shows the plateau-then-decay behavior expected in the free zone. It also argues that the magnetar parameters, host-galaxy properties, and event rate densities of both transients are consistent with those of short gamma-ray bursts and binary neutron star mergers.

Load-bearing premise

The trapped-zone identification of XT1 assumes that the merger ejecta becomes fully ionized and transparent to nonthermal X-rays with a Thomson opacity of about $1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ on the observed rise time; the paper itself notes this full-ionization hypothesis needs numerical verification, and a different opacity would change the fitted parameters and the trapped-zone interpretation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, CDF-S XT1 and XT2 are both binary-neutron-star merger magnetars, differing only in the observer's viewing angle relative to the merger ejecta.
  • The fitted magnetar parameters fall in the same range as those derived from short gamma-ray burst X-ray plateaus, supporting a common central-engine origin.
  • The estimated event rate densities, of order $10^3$ Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$ for XT2 and consistent for XT1 under the same survey strategy, match the binary neutron star merger rate, implying many mergers may leave behind long-lived neutron stars.
  • Because magnetar-powered X-ray emission is wide-angle, most binary neutron star mergers should be accompanied by gamma-ray-free X-ray transients, making them promising targets for future wide-field X-ray telescopes.
  • A future joint gravitational-wave and X-ray detection of a similar event would directly confirm the model and help identify the merger remnant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If XT1 is genuinely a trapped-zone event, its light curve probes the early hidden phase of the merger remnant and offers a line-of-sight measurement of the ejecta's transparency, which could constrain ejecta mass and geometry better than kilonova light curves alone.
  • The extreme magnetar parameters required to make XT1 detectable from the trapped zone suggest that most trapped-zone events are too faint to be seen, so the observed rate of such transients may systematically underrepresent the true trapped-zone population.
  • The full-ionization and opacity assumptions could be tested with time-dependent photoionization and recombination simulations of merger ejecta; if the opacity turns out to be significantly larger than $1$ cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$, the fitted parameters and the trapped-zone identification for XT1 would both need revision.
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 proposes a unified binary-neutron-star (BNS) merger magnetar model for two Chandra Deep Field South transients. CDF-S XT2 is interpreted as a magnetar viewed from the "free zone," where the spin-down X-ray emission escapes freely, while CDF-S XT1 is interpreted as the same type of source viewed from the "trapped zone," where the emission is initially blocked by merger ejecta and emerges as the ejecta becomes transparent. The authors fit the model to both light curves, deriving consistent magnetar parameters: for XT1, Bp = 10^16 G, Pi = 1.2 ms, eta = 0.001, Mej = 0.001 Msun, T0 = -140 s; for XT2, Bp = 10^15.8 G, Pi = 4.4 ms, eta = 0.001. They further compare the inferred magnetar parameters, photon indices, and host-galaxy properties with short gamma-ray burst (SGRB) samples, and estimate event rate densities that they claim are consistent with the BNS merger rate. The paper concludes that both transients are likely long-lived magnetars from BNS mergers, and that the unified model can be tested with future wide-field X-ray missions and gravitational-wave associations.

Significance. If correct, this work would provide a unified geometrical interpretation of two orphan X-ray transients as BNS-merger magnetars, with direct implications for the BNS merger rate, the maximum neutron-star mass, and the nature of post-merger remnants. The paper is commendably transparent about its main caveat: footnote 13 and Section 6 explicitly state that the assumed X-ray opacity of 1 cm2/g, which is load-bearing for the trapped-zone identification of XT1, requires numerical verification. The external comparisons with SGRB plateau samples and host-galaxy properties provide useful support beyond a pure refit of the light curves. However, the central claim rests on a microphysics assumption that is not yet justified, and the reported fit to XT2 is statistically poor at the conventional 5% level. The paper would be substantially strengthened by a sensitivity analysis of the opacity and a more careful treatment of fit uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (12), footnote 13] The trapped-zone interpretation of XT1 depends on the assumed X-ray opacity kappa = 1 cm2/g, which is derived assuming the ejecta is fully ionized. The authors themselves note in footnote 13 that recombination and the ionization-state dependence of the opacity have not been calculated, and Section 6 states that this assumption "needs to be proven by future simulations." Since the transparency epoch in Eq. (6) is set by tau = kappa (Mej/V')(R/Gamma), any factor-of-few change in kappa shifts the fitted T0, Bp, Pi, and Mej, and thus the claimed consistency with XT2. The manuscript should include a quantitative sensitivity analysis (e.g., fitting with kappa = 0.5 and 2 cm2/g) or explicitly present all fitted parameters as conditional on this unverified input.
  2. [Section 3, Table 1] The free-zone fit to XT2 has chi2/dof = 19.48/8, corresponding to p about 0.012, so the statement that "the light curve can be well fitted" is not supported at the 5% significance level. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the XT2 parameters are derived from this fit, and the claimed consistency with XT1 rests on these values. The authors should either identify systematic uncertainties that could make the fit acceptable (e.g., spectral index evolution, intercalibration between detectors) or present a revised model that provides an acceptable fit.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1] The XT1 fit is characterized by large degeneracies: the zero time T0 is a free parameter that is poorly constrained by the discovery observations, and the photometric redshift has a 2-sigma range of 0.39 to 3.21, which translates into a peak-luminosity range of roughly 1-140 x 10^45 erg/s. The quoted "example good fit" therefore does not demonstrate that the derived magnetar parameters are unique. A parameter-uncertainty analysis (e.g., chi-squared contours in the Bp-Pi-Mej-T0 space) and a propagation of the redshift uncertainty are needed to support the claimed parameter consistency between XT1 and XT2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract and Section 3 describe the XT2 free-zone fit as if it were acceptable, but the reported chi2/dof = 19.48/8 (p about 0.012) indicates a formally poor fit; the wording should be qualified accordingly.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (8)] The argument that the pair-production optical depth drops below unity for Gamma > 4.3 is plausible but is not connected to the Lorentz factor actually attained in the fitted ejecta dynamics; the paper should report the model-predicted Gamma values at the transparency epoch.
  3. [Section 5] There is a typo in Section 5: "hearafter" should be "hereafter".
  4. [Figure 1] In the caption of Figure 1(a), the phrase "unabsorbed trapped zone luminosity" is ambiguous; please clarify whether the red curve shows the unabsorbed or absorbed luminosity and how it relates to the data points.
  5. [Section 2.2 and Section 3] The concept of an "isotropic equivalent" ejecta mass is used without a formal definition; the distinction between the line-of-sight effective mass and the total ejecta mass should be stated more explicitly, especially in the context of comparing with kilonova ejecta masses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetar parameters are openly fitted to the light curves, and the consistency claim is an internal check, not a prediction from independent data; the unverified opacity is a robustness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper does not present a first-principles prediction that reduces to its inputs. Section 3 explicitly states that Bp, Pi, eta, Mej, and T0 are free parameters fitted to the observed light curves by least squares, so the resulting 'consistent parameters' for XT1 and XT2 are a model fit and internal consistency check rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The trapped-zone identification for XT1 is a forward-model interpretation: Eq. (5) gives LX,trapped = exp(-tau) eta Lsd + thermal, with tau set by Eq. (6) and kappa = 1 cm2/g adopted in Section 2.3. The rise time is therefore a consequence of the model plus fitted parameters, not a quantity defined in terms of the conclusion. The paper's own caveats (Section 2.3 footnote 13 and Section 6: 'The X-ray opacity which was assumed to be 1 cm2 g-1 in this work needs to be proven by future simulations') identify a genuine microphysical uncertainty that would shift the fitted parameters, but an unverified assumption is a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity. The free/trapped-zone framework is attributed to Sun et al. (2017), which has overlapping authorship, but the relevant equations are re-derived here and the cited work is an independent simulation study; no uniqueness theorem or self-citation is used to force the conclusion. The paper further benchmarks the fitted parameters against external SGRB plateau samples (R13, L15), host-galaxy properties, and the BNS merger rate density, providing independent evidence. No equation-to-equation reduction or fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses a standard magnetar spindown law and constant X-ray efficiency, plus merger-nova dynamics from the cited literature. The main hand-set inputs are the X-ray opacity and the photometric redshift of XT1; the magnetar parameters are fitted to the light curves rather than derived independently. No new particle or entity is introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Bp (XT1) = 1e16 G
    Fitted in Section 3 to reproduce the XT1 light curve.
  • Pi (XT1) = 1.2 ms
    Fitted in Section 3 to reproduce the XT1 light curve.
  • eta (XT1) = 0.001
    Fitted in Section 3 as the X-ray conversion efficiency.
  • Mej (XT1) = 0.001 solar masses (isotropic equivalent)
    Fitted in Section 3; the paper notes it is an isotropic-equivalent value, not a total ejecta mass.
  • T0 (XT1) = -140 s
    Fitted in Section 3; the zero time point is poorly constrained and affects the rise-time interpretation.
  • Bp (XT2) = 1e15.8 G
    Fitted in Section 3 to reproduce the XT2 light curve.
  • Pi (XT2) = 4.4 ms
    Fitted in Section 3 to reproduce the XT2 light curve.
  • eta (XT2) = 0.001
    Fitted in Section 3 as the X-ray conversion efficiency.
  • kappa (X-ray opacity) = 1 cm2/g (adopted)
    Adopted in Section 2.3 after an order-of-magnitude estimate; the transparency time of XT1 depends directly on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A newborn magnetar loses energy through magnetic dipole and gravitational wave spindown as in Eq. (1).
    Standard pulsar spindown from Shapiro and Teukolsky 1983 and Zhang and Meszaros 2001, used in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption The X-ray luminosity is a constant fraction eta of the dipole spindown luminosity.
    Equation (2) in Section 2.1; this converts spindown power into the light curves being fitted.
  • ad hoc to paper The ejecta is fully ionized and its X-ray opacity is dominated by Thomson scattering with kappa about 1 cm2/g.
    Section 2.3, Eqs. (11) and (12); footnote 13 says numerical photoionization calculations are needed to justify full ionization.
  • domain assumption The nonthermal spectrum of the magnetar wind is a Band function with Epeak = 10 keV, alpha = -1.43, beta = -2.5 for the pair-production estimate.
    Section 2.3; based on GRB phenomenology and used only for the pair optical depth estimate.
  • domain assumption XT1 has a photometric redshift zph = 2.23 from Bauer et al. 2017.
    All XT1 luminosities and fitted parameters scale with this redshift; the 2-sigma range is 0.39 to 3.21.
  • domain assumption The merger ejecta dynamics follow the merger-nova equations of Yu et al. 2013 and Sun et al. 2017.
    Equation (3) in Section 2.2 defines the Lorentz factor evolution used to compute when the ejecta becomes transparent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unified binary neutron star merger magnetar model for the Chandra X-ray transients CDF-S XT1 and XT2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TA7AEFU7

@misc{pith2026190801107,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unified binary neutron star merger magnetar model for the Chandra X-ray transients CDF-S XT1 and XT2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TA7AEFU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01107}
}
abstract

Two bright X-ray transients were reported from the Chandra Deep Field South archival data, namely CDF-S XT1 and XT2. Whereas the nature of the former is not identified, the latter was suggested as an excellent candidate for a rapidly spinning magnetar born from a binary neutron star (BNS) merger. Here we propose a unified model to interpret both transients within the framework of the BNS merger magnetar model. According to our picture, CDF-S XT2 is observed from the "free zone" where the magnetar spindown powered X-ray emission escapes freely, whereas CDF-S XT1 originates from the "trapped zone" where the X-ray emission is initially blocked by the dynamical ejecta and becomes transparent after the ejecta is pushed to a distance where Thomson optical depth drops below unity. We fit the magnetar model to the light curves of both transients and derived consistent parameters for the two events, with magnetic field, initial spin period and X-ray emission efficiency being ($B_p=10^{16}\,G$, $P=1.2\,\rm ms$, $\eta = 0.001$) and ($B_p=10^{15.8}\,G$, $P=4.4\, \rm ms$, $\eta = 0.001$) for XT1 and XT2, respectively. The "isotropic equivalent" ejecta mass of XT1 is $M_{\rm ej} \sim 10^{-3}$ $M_{\odot}$, while it is not constrained for XT2. Our results suggest that more extreme magnetar parameters are required to have XT1 detected from the trapped zone. The model parameters for both events are generally consistent with those derived from SGRB X-ray plateau observations. The host galaxy properties of both transients are also consistent with those of SGRBs. The event rate densities of both XT1 and XT2 are consistent with that of BNS mergers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Detectability of Gravitational-wave counterparts of EP-FXTs observed during the O4b LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No gravitational-wave counterpart is statistically associated with any of 47 Einstein Probe fast X-ray transients in the O4b run; 90% exclusion distances of ~178 Mpc (BNS) and ~349 Mpc (NSBH) disfavor nearby compact-b...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 57

    Ai, S., Gao, H., Dai, Z.-G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 57

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281

    1993

  3. [3]

    E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al

    Bauer, F. E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4841

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    2009, ApJ, 690, 231

    Berger, E. 2009, ApJ, 690, 231

    2009

  5. [5]

    K., Berger, E., & Fong, W.-f

    Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E., & Fong, W.-f. 2016, ApJ, 817, 144

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, L1

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S

    Cromartie, H. T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 439

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    G., Wang, X

    Dai, Z. G., Wang, X. Y ., Wu, X. F., & Zhang, B. 2006, Science, 311, 1127

    work page 2006

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 53, 385 Fernández, R., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2019a, MNRAS, 488, 259 Fernández, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 482, 3373

    2017

  2. [10]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 56

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 56

    2013

  3. [11]

    2016, Phys

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., Lü, H.-J. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 044065

    2016

  4. [12]

    2006, Chinese J

    Gao, W.-H., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2006, Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys., 6, 513

    2006

  5. [13]

    2013, Phys

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 024001

    2013

  6. [14]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 541

    Just, O., Bauswein, A., Ardevol Pulpillo, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 541

    2015

  7. [15]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1012.3208

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 41

    Li, A., Zhu, Z.-Y ., & Zhou, X. 2017, ApJ, 844, 41

    2017

  9. [17]

    2018, ApJ, 861, L12

    Li, S.-Z., Liu, L.-D., Yu, Y .-W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, L12

    2018

  10. [18]

    N., Xue, Y

    Luo, B., Brandt, W. N., Xue, Y . Q., et al. 2017, ApJS, 228, 2 Lü, H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., Li, Y ., & Lasky, P. D. 2015, ApJ, 805, 89 Lü, H.-J., Yuan, Y ., Lan, L., et al. 2019, arXiv:1904.06664

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, ApJ, 850, L19 —–. 2019, ApJ, 880, L15

    2017

  12. [20]

    Metzger, B. D. 2017, arXiv:1710.05931

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D., & Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., & Piro, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3916

    2014

  14. [22]

    D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T

    Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1455

    2008

  15. [23]

    J., Franx, M., et al

    Mosleh, M., Williams, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, L12

    2012

  16. [24]

    2019, ApJ, 884, L34

    Peng, Z.-K., Yang, Y .-S., Shen, R.-F., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, L34

    2019

  17. [25]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1912

    Piro, L., Troja, E., Zhang, B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1912

    2019

  18. [26]

    C., & Grossan, B

    Pooley, D., Kumar, P., Wheeler, J. C., & Grossan, B. 2018, ApJ, 859, L23

    2018

  19. [27]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 95

    Rezzolla, L., & Kumar, P. 2015, ApJ, 802, 95

    2015

  20. [28]

    R., & Weih, L

    Rezzolla, L., Most, E. R., & Weih, L. R. 2018, ApJ, 852, L25

    2018

  21. [29]

    T., Tanvir, N

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 531

    2010

  22. [30]

    T., Metzger, B

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1061

    2013

  23. [31]

    L., & Tsokaros, A

    Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Tsokaros, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 021501

    2018

  24. [32]

    L., & Teukolsky, S

    Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Research supported by the National Science Foundation. New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1983, 663 p.,

    1983

  25. [33]

    2019, PRD, 100, 023015

    Shibata, M., Zhou, E., Kiuchi, K., & Fujibayashi, S. 2019, PRD, 100, 023015

    2019

  26. [34]

    M., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 231102

    2017

  27. [35]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 33

    Sun, H., Zhang, B., & Li, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 33

    2015

  28. [36]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 7

    Sun, H., Zhang, B., & Gao, H. 2017, ApJ, 835, 7

    2017

  29. [37]

    T., Shull, J

    Woods, D. T., Shull, J. M., & Sarazin, C. L. 1981, ApJ, 249, 399

    1981

  30. [38]

    2019, ApJ, 879, L7

    Xiao, D., Zhang, B.-B., & Dai, Z.-G. 2019, ApJ, 879, L7

    2019

  31. [39]

    Q., Zheng, X

    Xue, Y . Q., Zheng, X. C., Li, Y ., et al. 2019, Nature, 568, 198

    2019

  32. [40]

    N., Zhu, S

    Yang, G., Brandt, W. N., Zhu, S. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4721

    2019

  33. [41]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 114

    Yu, Y .-W., Liu, L.-D., & Dai, Z.-G. 2018, ApJ, 861, 114

    2018

  34. [42]

    2013, ApJ, 776, L40

    Yu, Y .-W., Zhang, B., & Gao, H. 2013, ApJ, 776, L40

    2013

  35. [43]

    K., et al

    Yuan, W., Amati, L., Cannizzo, J. K., et al. 2016, Space Sci. Rev., 202, 235

    2016

  36. [44]

    2001, ApJ, 552, L35

    Zhang, B., & Mészáros, P. 2001, ApJ, 552, L35

    2001

  37. [45]

    2018, Nature Communications, 9, 447

    Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 447

    2018

  38. [46]

    C., Xue, Y

    Zheng, X. C., Xue, Y . Q., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 127

    2017

Pith tools

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