Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 81 references

Shear Particle Acceleration in Structured Gamma-Ray Burst Jets: I. Physical Origin of the Band Function and Application to GRBs 090926A, 131108A, and 160509A

T0 review · 5 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that prompt gamma-ray burst spectra, including the canonical Band function, bimodal spectra, and Band-Cut spectra, can be produced by a structured jet in which shear-accelerated electrons in a sub-relativistic mixed…

desk verdict A plausible but over-flexible two-zone shear-acceleration model for GRB prompt spectra; the quantitative fits are undercut by an inconsistency in the velocity profile and a lack of statistical rigor. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11234 v1 pith:TAGYOBO3 submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.HE

Zi-Qi Wang , Xiao-Li Huang , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsstructuredjetsshearaccelerationsynchrotronself-ComptonBandfunctionjet-cocoonstructureGRB090926Anon-thermalradiation
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

The paper argues that the observed gamma-ray spectra of gamma-ray bursts can be explained by a structured jet with two emission zones: an ultra-relativistic core where internal shocks accelerate electrons, and a sub-relativistic mixed jet-cocoon layer where shear acceleration energizes electrons. In the cocoon layer, synchrotron self-Compton cooling dominates and its keV peak anchors the low-energy part of the Band function, while synchrotron emission from the jet core adds the higher-energy component. The authors fit time-integrated Fermi GBM and LAT spectra of GRBs 090926A, 131108A, and 160509A and derive cocoon magnetic fields from 54 to 450 G and inner-edge velocities from 0.83c to 0.91c. If correct, the prompt spectrum is not evidence for a single radiation mechanism but for a two-zone structured outflow.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the steady-state cosmic-ray transport equation for shear acceleration in the strong-scattering limit, solved analytically for an incompressible flow with an exponential velocity profile $u_{\rm cn}(r)=\beta_{\rm cn,0} e^{-kr}$. The solution provides a shear-accelerated electron distribution $f_0$ that rises as $p^{-\mu_0}$ below the injection momentum and falls as $p^{-\mu_\infty}$ above it, with the indices set by the velocity contrast across the layer and by Kolmogorov turbulence. Equating the shear acceleration time with the synchrotron plus synchrotron self-Compton cooling time sets the maximum electron energy, and the SSC cooling then dominates. This cocoon electron distribution, combined with a broken power-law electron distribution for internal-shock electrons in the jet core, is the mechanism that produces the Band-like and Band-Cut spectral energy distributions.

What would settle it

A single detection of a prompt photon above about 6 GeV from GRB 160509A would violate the paper's transparency calculation for the cocoon region, since the model requires the gamma-gamma optical depth to drop below unity only below that energy; more broadly, a stacked search of GRB spectra that finds no keV X-ray excess in bursts fitted as Band-Cut would undercut the cocoon SSC component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Band function and related prompt GRB spectra arise from the superposition of two physically distinct electron populations. Shear acceleration in the mixed jet-cocoon region, with a steadily decaying velocity profile and strong scattering, produces electrons up to Lorentz factor roughly $10^4$; their synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton emission peaks at keV energies and supplies the low-energy spectral component. Internal-shock-accelerated electrons in the jet core, with Lorentz factors $10^4$ to $10^5$, emit synchrotron radiation peaking around the keV to MeV band, supplying the high-energy component. Adding the two reproduces the observed bimodal and Band-Cut shapes. For the three bursts studied, the model gives cocoon magnetic fields of 54 to 450 G and inner-edge velocities of 0.83c to 0.91c, with the jet core highly relativistic and strongly magnetized.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the mixed jet-cocoon layer is a steady, incompressible shear flow with an exponential velocity profile, strong scattering, and a mono-energetic electron injection at a Lorentz factor roughly equal to the jet Lorentz factor; if the real layer is time-dependent, compressible, differently shaped, or injects electrons differently, the predicted spectra and the derived field and velocity values would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, the canonical Band function is a composite, so fitting GRB spectra with a single Band function may be averaging two physically separate emission components.
  • The keV X-ray excess seen in some bursts can be identified with the peak of the cocoon SSC component, giving a concrete physical origin to that excess.
  • The high-energy MeV-to-GeV hump in bimodal GRBs is attributed to the jet core's synchrotron emission, so its presence traces the core parameters rather than the cocoon physics.
  • Derived cocoon magnetic fields of 54 to 450 G and inner-edge velocities of 0.83c to 0.91c become observational constraints on jet-cocoon structure that simulations and afterglow modeling should reproduce.
  • The model provides a natural way to produce Band-Cut spectra, in which the high-energy cutoff is not intrinsic to the emission process but reflects the relative strengths of the cocoon SSC and core synchrotron components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension beyond the paper is that time-resolved spectra should show the keV SSC peak and the MeV-to-GeV synchrotron hump varying with different temporal lags if they originate in two distinct zones.
  • The same two-zone picture could be extended to explain the low-energy X-ray excess reported in some BATSE bursts; a stacked search over many GRBs for the predicted excess at a few keV would provide a statistical test.
  • The paper fixes the cocoon velocity profile to an exponential decay and only checks a power-law profile in a comparison figure; the quoted $B_{\rm cn}$ and $\beta_{\rm cn,0}$ ranges should be read as profile-dependent, and constraining the actual breakout dynamics would sharpen the fits.
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

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-zone structured jet model for GRB prompt emission: an ultra-relativistic jet core with internal-shock-accelerated electrons, plus a surrounding sub-relativistic mixed jet-cocoon (MJC) layer where shear acceleration produces a power-law electron distribution. The model adds synchrotron and SSC emission from both zones and claims that the resulting SEDs reproduce Band-like, bimodal, and Band-Cut spectra. The manuscript applies the model to Fermi GBM+LAT spectra of GRBs 090926A, 131108A, and 160509A, reporting good fits and derived MJC parameters B_cn = 54-450 G and beta_cn,0 = 0.83-0.91c. The authors also discuss an X-ray excess produced by the SSC component and a gamma-gamma opacity check for GRB 160509A.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the model is a significant alternative to one-zone emission scenarios: it offers a physical mechanism for the Band function through shear acceleration, explains bimodal and Band-Cut spectra without invoking separate ad hoc components, and makes falsifiable predictions such as an SSC-driven X-ray excess, a prompt IR/optical flash from MJC synchrotron, and a sub-GeV to GeV spectral tail. The use of public Fermi data and the comparison with three well-known bursts are strengths, as is the explicit discussion of the gamma-gamma transparency condition. However, the evidence is currently conditional: the transport solution is adopted from the literature rather than re-derived, the fitted SEDs are presented without statistical measures, and many parameters that set the spectral shape are not reported. The significance of the derived B_cn and beta_cn,0 ranges therefore depends on the fixes requested below.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The velocity profile u_cn(r) = beta_cn,0 exp[-(r/r2) ln(beta_cn,0/beta_cn,2)] satisfies u_cn(0)=beta_cn,0 and u_cn(r2)=beta_cn,2, yet the text states that beta_cn,0 and beta_cn,2 are the fluid velocities at r0 and r2, respectively. Since r0 > 0 in the adopted jet-cocoon geometry (r0 is set by the jet half-opening angle and r2 by the cocoon half-opening angle), the inner-edge velocity actually used in the transport solution differs from the nominal beta_cn,0; for the stated angles the difference is of order ten percent. The rapidity difference xi0-xi2 in Eq. (8), which controls the spectral index mu_infinity in Eq. (13) and hence the SSC peak, is therefore not the one implied by the quoted beta_cn,0. The manuscript should either modify Eq. (1) to anchor the profile at r0 (e.g., replacing r by r-r0 and normalizing over r0 to r2) or explicitly set r0=0 and define beta_cn,0 accordingly. The values of r0, r1, and r2 used in the fits are never given, so this ambiguity directly affects the headline claims B_cn=54-450 G and beta_cn,0=0.83-0.91c and prevents the fits from being reproducible.
  2. [§3, Table 1 and Figure 4] The paper states that the three observed spectra are 'well fit' by the model, but no goodness-of-fit statistics are provided: there are no chi-square or likelihood values, no degrees of freedom, no residual plots, and no parameter uncertainties. Given that the model has a large number of free parameters (at least the 16 parameters listed in the text, several of which strongly affect the peak positions and normalizations), a visual comparison alone is insufficient to support the derived parameter ranges. Please provide a quantitative comparison, including at least reduced chi-square or Cash statistic values, parameter confidence intervals, and ideally a model-selection test (e.g., delta-AIC or delta-BIC) against a simple Band-function fit to the same data.
  3. [§3, Table 1 and §2.2] The reported fits are not reproducible from the manuscript because Table 1 lists only a subset of the model parameters. Missing are the radii r0, r1, r2, the emission radius R, the opening angles theta_cn and theta_jet, the electron number normalization N0, the turbulence parameters (eta, q, kb, kd, delta_B/B, chi), and the cooling/Compton parameter Y_cn used for each burst. Several of these parameters set the absolute flux and the peak energies of the SSC_cn and Syn_jet components, so their omission leaves the fitted B_cn and beta_cn,0 values underdetermined. Please include a complete parameter table or provide the model spectra in electronic form.
  4. [§2.2 and Table 1] The model's SSC_cn peak and the resulting Band-like shape depend sensitively on the assumed injection of a mono-energetic electron population at gamma_e,inject approximately Gamma_jet in the SBL. This assumption is taken from PIC simulations, but no sensitivity study is given: the injection distribution could have a finite width, and the value of gamma_e,inject is varied burst by burst (6.11e2, 5.02e2, 3.31e2) based on external estimates of Gamma_jet that carry their own uncertainties. Because gamma_e,inject is degenerate with beta_cn,0 and B_cn in setting the spectral shape, the paper should demonstrate that the conclusions are robust to reasonable variations in the injection Lorentz factor and to a non-monoenergetic injection spectrum.
  5. [§2.2, Eqs. (6)-(14); §4, Figure 6] The manuscript adopts the Webb et al. (2018) steady-state, incompressible, strong-scattering solution without verifying that these conditions are satisfied for the MJC region, and it does not quantify the effect of relaxing them. Section 4 notes that a power-law velocity profile leaves the 'primary conclusions' unchanged, but Figure 6 is only a qualitative comparison of the distribution shape; it does not show how the fitted B_cn and beta_cn,0 would shift, nor does it address time dependence or compressibility. Since the transport solution is the physical core of the model, a direct integration of Eq. (6) for the same parameters, or a parameter scan over profile shape and equation-of-state assumptions, is needed before the quoted parameter ranges can be considered robust.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The phrase 'is potentially explained the spectral characteristics' should be 'may explain the spectral characteristics', and 'on-borad' should be 'on-board'.
  2. [§2.3] The text says 'as usually observed with BTASE'; this should be 'BATSE'.
  3. [§4] The phrase 'the tip of an ice-burger' should be 'the tip of an iceberg'.
  4. [Eq. (17) and surrounding text] The text refers to a 'broken power-low function'; this should be 'broken power-law function'.
  5. [Figure 4] The legend for GRB 090926A labels the combined curve 'SSC_cn + Syn_cn', whereas the text and the other panels identify the high-energy hump as the Syn_jet component; please clarify which components are actually included in each plotted curve.
  6. [Figures 2 and 3] The legends showing only '0.99', '0.9', and '0.8' should explicitly state that these values are beta_cn,0, and the line styles should be identified consistently across panels.
  7. [§3, GRB 160509A paragraph] The sentence 'The SSCcn-component almost dominates the observed in the keV-MeV-GeV band' is missing the word 'spectrum' and should be rephrased.
  8. [§4] The first sentence of the fourth paragraph uses 'Combing'; this should be 'Combining'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the model SED is forward-calculated from the transport solution, the three GRBs are fit targets rather than inputs, and the co-authored injection citation is external published evidence.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing Band-like SED is produced by solving the transport equation (Eqs. 6-7) for a prescribed exponential shear profile, then summing synchrotron and SSC components from the MJC region and jet core. None of the observed GRB spectra enter that forward calculation, so the spectral shape is not defined in terms of the data it is later compared with. In Sec. 3 the model parameters (beta_cn,0, B_cn, jet parameters) are varied to fit the GBM/LAT spectra of GRBs 090926A, 131108A, and 160509A; the reported agreement is therefore a fit, not a prediction constructed from the same quantities. The derived B_cn and beta_cn,0 are presented as fit outputs, not as independent predictions. The injection assumption gamma_e,inject approximately Gamma_jet is imported from Liang et al. (2017), a published PIC simulation that overlaps with one author; this is a minor self-citation, but it is external, simulation-based, and does not use the present GRB data, so it does not reduce the model's central claim. One internal inconsistency exists in Eq. (1): the exponential velocity profile is anchored at r=0 while beta_cn,0 is described as the velocity at r0, and the paper does not state the r0/r2 values used in the fits. This affects the interpretation and uniqueness of the fitted parameters and is a correctness/robustness concern, but it is not a definitional reduction of a prediction to its input. The Sec. 4 caveat that a power-law profile preserves the qualitative conclusions further shows that the central result is not forced by a single fitted ansatz.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a chain of imported and hand-set modeling choices: the jet-cocoon geometry, the exponential shear profile, strong-scattering transport, Kolmogorov turbulence, monoenergetic injection, uniform fields, and a broken power-law core spectrum. Per-burst fits add about a dozen free parameters, and several structural parameters (r0, r1, r2, N0, ell_b) are not reported. No formal proof or code is provided, and no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (15)
  • beta_cn,0 (MJC inner-edge outflow velocity) = 0.830, 0.895, 0.906 for GRBs 090926A, 131108A, 160509A
    Controls the shear acceleration spectrum; fitted per burst in Sec. 3.
  • B_cn (MJC magnetic field strength) = 54, 80, 450 G
    Sets synchrotron and SSC peak frequencies and cooling; fitted per burst.
  • gamma_e,inject (injection Lorentz factor, identified with Gamma_jet) = 6.11e2, 5.02e2, 3.31e2
    Injection energy of shear-accelerated electrons; fitted per burst and tied to the jet Lorentz factor.
  • B_jet (jet-core magnetic field strength) = 1e6, 1e6, 3e6 G
    Sets the synchrotron peak of the core component; fitted per burst.
  • p_jet (electron spectral index in jet core) = 2.4, 2.35, 2.1
    Broken power-law index for internal-shock electrons; fitted per burst.
  • gamma_m,jet (minimum electron Lorentz factor in jet core) = 6.5e3, 5e3, 5e3
    Minimum Lorentz factor of the broken power-law distribution; fitted per burst.
  • gamma_b,jet (break Lorentz factor in jet core) = 9.8e3, 7e3, 1.3e4
    Break Lorentz factor of the broken power-law distribution; fitted per burst.
  • gamma_M,jet (maximum electron Lorentz factor in jet core) = 2e5, 1.3e5, 2.5e4
    Maximum Lorentz factor of the broken power-law distribution; fitted per burst.
  • Emission radius R = 10^15 cm (fixed)
    Distance of emitting regions from the central engine; fixed, not varied in the fits.
  • Cocoon and jet opening angles theta_cn, theta_jet = 0.7 rad, 0.07 rad (fixed)
    Geometry of the structured jet; fixed in the model.
  • Outer cocoon velocity beta_cn,2 = not specified, constrained to be less than 1/sqrt(3)
    Boundary condition in the velocity profile Eq. (1); chosen, not fitted.
  • Injection radius r1 (and r0, r2) = not specified
    Enter the transport solution Eq. (7) and its normalization; unstated in the paper.
  • Electron number normalization N0 = not reported
    Absolute flux normalization for each emission component; required to compare with data.
  • Turbulence coherence scale ell_b (eta r_cn) = not specified, eta <= 1
    Controls the scattering time tau0 through Eq. (12); hand-set, not fitted.
  • Turbulence parameters (q, k_b, k_d, delta_B/B) = q=5/3, k_b=1e-13 cm, k_d=1e-2 cm, delta_B/B unspecified (weak turbulence)
    Set the scattering time via quasi-linear theory; chosen from literature, not fitted.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The GRB ejecta during the prompt emission phase is a steady-state, incompressible, axisymmetric jet-cocoon structure with no significant density variation or lateral expansion.
    Stated in Sec. 2.1; enables the steady transport equation and removes expansion terms from Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Shear acceleration of electrons in the MJC region is governed by the isotropic diffusion transport equation in the strong scattering limit, with the scattering wave frame coinciding with the comoving fluid frame.
    Eqs. (2)-(6) follow Webb et al. (2018); this limits applicability to strong scattering and quasi-isotropic distributions.
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov turbulence with q=5/3 and a quasi-linear scattering time with mean free path lambda describe electron scattering.
    Eqs. (10)-(12); this sets the momentum dependence of tau and therefore the accelerated spectrum.
  • domain assumption Electrons are injected as a monoenergetic population at the shear boundary layer with gamma_e,inject approximately Gamma_jet.
    Sec. 2.2 after Eq. (4), based on PIC simulations; if injection is broad or occurs at different energies, the MJC spectrum changes.
  • domain assumption Magnetic fields are uniform within the jet core and within the MJC region.
    Sec. 2.1; this ignores field structure and spatial gradients.
  • domain assumption Internal-shock-accelerated electrons in the jet core follow a broken power-law distribution with specified p_jet, gamma_m, gamma_b, and gamma_M.
    Eq. (17); a standard phenomenological assumption, with parameters fitted per burst.
  • standard math The analytical solution of the transport equation given by Eq. (7), from Webb et al. (2018), is correct and applicable to the MJC boundary conditions.
    The central spectral shape is imported from the cited solution and is not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The observed Fermi GBM and LAT time-integrated spectra can be compared directly with model SEDs using the chosen detectors and response functions.
    Sec. 3; no instrument convolution, background treatment, or systematic uncertainties are described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shear Particle Acceleration in Structured Gamma-Ray Burst Jets: I. Physical Origin of the Band Function and Application to GRBs 090926A, 131108A, and 160509A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TAGYOBO3

@misc{pith2026241111234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shear Particle Acceleration in Structured Gamma-Ray Burst Jets: I. Physical Origin of the Band Function and Application to GRBs 090926A, 131108A, and 160509A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TAGYOBO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11234}
}
abstract

The radiation physics of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) remains an open question. Based on the simulation analysis and recent observations, it was proposed that GRB jets are composed of a narrow ultra-relativistic core surrounded by a wide sub-relativistic cocoon. We show that emission from the synchrotron radiations and the synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) process of shear-accelerated electrons in the mixed jet-cocoon (MJC) region and internal-shock-accelerated electrons in the jet core is potentially explained the spectral characteristics of the prompt gamma-rays. Assuming an exponential-decay velocity profile, the shear flow in the MJC region can accelerate electrons up to $\gamma_{\rm e,\max} \sim 10^4$ for injected electrons with $\gamma_{\rm e,inject}=3 \times 10^2$, if its magnetic field strength ($B_{\rm cn}$) is $100$ G and its inner-edge velocity ($\beta_{\rm cn, 0}$) is 0.9c. The cooling of these electrons is dominated by the SSC process, and the emission flux peaks at the keV band. In addition, the energy flux of synchrotron radiations of internal-shock-accelerated electrons ($\gamma_e=10^{4}\sim 10^{5}$) peaks at around the keV$-$MeV band, assuming a bulk Lorentz factor of 300, a magnetic field strength of $\sim 10^{6}$ G for the jet core. Adding the flux from both the jet core and the MJC region, the total spectral energy distribution (SED) illustrates similar characteristics as the broadband observations of GRBs. The bimodal and Band-Cut spectra observed in GRBs 090926A, 131108A, and 160509A can be well fit with our model. The derived $B_{\rm cn}$ varies from 54 G to 450 G and $\beta_{\rm cn,0}=0. 83\sim 0.91$c.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11234 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic diagram of the Jet-Cocoon structure. Particles could be accelerated through the shear acceleration mechanism in the MJC region. This process involves the coupling of the energetic particles and the shear force in the outflow due to cosmic-ray viscosity, as well as the scattering process arising from magnetic field irregularities embedded in the background outflow (Berezhko & Krymskii 1981; Webb 1989; R… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel– Velocity profiles of the MJC region as an exponential-decay function of radius, with initial velocities of βcn,0 = 0.99, 0.9, 0.8. Right panel– Distributions of shear-accelerated electrons for exponential-decay velocity profiles as shown in the left panel, where N = N0/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel (a)–The SEDs of the shear-accelerated electrons, with the electron distribution corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-integrated spectra of GRBs 090926A, 131108A, and 160509A, along with theoretical fits by our model (solid lines). The emission components of the MJC and the jet core regions are marked with dashed lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The optical depth for γγ annihilation of gamma-ray photons in the MJC region of GRB 160509A as a function of photon energy. 11 1 11 1    [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel– Velocity profiles of the MJC region as exponential-decay and power-law functions of radius, with the initial velocity of βcn,0 = 0.9. Right panel– Distributions of shear-accelerated electrons corresponding to the velocity profiles in the left panel [PITH_F…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 14 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 ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    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

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017 a , , 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  5. [5]

    2017 b , , 848, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    ---. 2017 b , , 848, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  6. [6]

    2011, , 729, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/114

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Asano , K., et al. 2011, , 729, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/114

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/2/114 2011

  7. [7]

    2013, , 209, 11, 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/11

    ---. 2013, , 209, 11, 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/11

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/11 2013

  8. [8]

    2019, , 886, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab564f

    Ajello , M., Arimoto , M., Asano , K., et al. 2019, , 886, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab564f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab564f 2019

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    A., M \"u ller , E., Ib \'a \ n ez , J

    Aloy , M. A., M \"u ller , E., Ib \'a \ n ez , J. M., Mart \' , J. M., & MacFadyen , A. 2000, , 531, L119, 10.1086/312537

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Grismayer , T., Fonseca , R

    Alves , E. P., Grismayer , T., Fonseca , R. A., & Silva , L. O. 2014, New Journal of Physics, 16, 035007, 10.1088/1367-2630/16/3/035007

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Grismayer , T., Martins , S

    Alves , E. P., Grismayer , T., Martins , S. F., et al. 2012, , 746, L14, 10.1088/2041-8205/746/2/L14

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    1993, , 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

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

    1993 doi

  5. [13]

    G., & Krymskii , G

    Berezhko , E. G., & Krymskii , G. F. 1981, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 7, 352

    1981

  6. [14]

    2018, , 476, 1191, 10.1093/mnras/sty285

    Biehl , D., Heinze , J., & Winter , W. 2018, , 476, 1191, 10.1093/mnras/sty285

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    2003, Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence

    Biskamp , D. 2003, Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence

    2003

  8. [16]

    S., Piron , F., Takahashi , H., & Uehara , T

    Bissaldi , E., Briggs , M. S., Piron , F., Takahashi , H., & Uehara , T. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9972, 1

    2009

  9. [17]

    2011, , 740, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg , O., Nakar , E., Piran , T., & Sari , R. 2011, , 740, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, , 837, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/33

    Bustamante , M., Heinze , J., Murase , K., & Winter , W. 2017, , 837, 33, 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/33

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    1998, , 296, 275, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x

    Daigne , F., & Mochkovitch , R. 1998, , 296, 275, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x

    1998

  12. [20]

    C., Jones , F

    Ellison , D. C., Jones , F. C., & Reynolds , S. P. 1990, , 360, 702, 10.1086/169156

    1990 doi

  13. [21]

    2019, , 871, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf564

    Fraija , N., De Colle , F., Veres , P., et al. 2019, , 871, 123, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf564

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, , 609, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    Ghirlanda , G., Nappo , F., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2018, , 609, A112, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, , 524, L78, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad075

    Gill , R., & Granot , J. 2023, , 524, L78, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad075

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    1986, , 308, L47, 10.1086/184741

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

    1986 doi

  17. [25]

    2021, , 915, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac05c5

    Gottlieb , O., & Globus , N. 2021, , 915, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac05c5

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, , 479, 588, 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    Gottlieb , O., Nakar , E., Piran , T., & Hotokezaka , K. 2018, , 479, 588, 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Briggs , M

    Kaneko , Y., Preece , R. D., Briggs , M. S., et al. 2006, , 166, 298, 10.1086/505911

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    2005, , 94, 111102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.111102

    Keshet , U., & Waxman , E. 2005, , 94, 111102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.111102

    2005 doi

  21. [29]

    1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    Kolmogorov , A. 1941, Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady, 30, 301

    1941

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    D., Berger , E., et al

    Laskar , T., Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., et al. 2016, , 833, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/88

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Lazzati , D., & Begelman , M. C. 2005, , 629, 903, 10.1086/430877

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, , 881, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e06

    Lazzati , D., & Perna , R. 2019, , 881, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2e06

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, , 847, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8772

    Liang , E., Fu , W., & B \"o ttcher , M. 2017, , 847, 90, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8772

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    M., & Aharonian , F

    Liu , R.-Y., Rieger , F. M., & Aharonian , F. A. 2017, , 842, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7410

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0312347

    Lyutikov , M., & Blandford , R. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0312347

    2003 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Malesani , D., Goldoni , P., Fynbo , J. P. U., et al. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9942, 1

    2009

  30. [38]

    2019, , 490, 4271, 10.1093/mnras/stz2821

    Matsumoto , J., & Masada , Y. 2019, , 490, 4271, 10.1093/mnras/stz2821

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    2002, , 40, 137, 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093821

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2002, , 40, 137, 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093821

    2002

  32. [40]

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 2000, , 530, 292, 10.1086/308371

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    2013, , 777, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/162

    Mizuta , A., & Ioka , K. 2013, , 777, 162, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/162

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, , 709, L83, 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L83

    Mizuta , A., Kino , M., & Nagakura , H. 2010, , 709, L83, 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L83

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    P., Deller , A

    Mooley , K. P., Deller , A. T., Gottlieb , O., et al. 2018, , 561, 355, 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Lazzati , D., & Begelman , M

    Morsony , B. J., Lazzati , D., & Begelman , M. C. 2007, , 665, 569, 10.1086/519483

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    2012, , 746, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/164

    Murase , K., Asano , K., Terasawa , T., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2012, , 746, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/164

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    2009, , 703, 675, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    Nakar , E., Ando , S., & Sari , R. 2009, , 703, 675, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    2017, , 834, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28

    Nakar , E., & Piran , T. 2017, , 834, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    1992, , 395, L83, 10.1086/186493

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

    1992 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eadi1405, 10.1126/sciadv.adi1405

    O'Connor , B., Troja , E., Ryan , G., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadi1405, 10.1126/sciadv.adi1405

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    1986, , 308, L43, 10.1086/184740

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

    1986 doi

  43. [51]

    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

  44. [52]

    Pe'er , A., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 2006, , 652, 482, 10.1086/507595

    2006 doi

  45. [53]

    2014, , 795, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/155

    Peng , F.-K., Liang , E.-W., Wang , X.-Y., et al. 2014, , 795, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/155

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    P., & Loeb , A

    Pilla , R. P., & Loeb , A. 1998, , 494, L167, 10.1086/311193

    1998 doi

  47. [55]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    Piran , T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    2004 doi

  48. [56]

    2021, , 913, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    Poolakkil , S., Preece , R., Fletcher , C., et al. 2021, , 913, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    D., Briggs , M

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

    2000 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Briggs , M

    Preece , R. D., Briggs , M. S., Pendleton , G. N., et al. 1996, , 473, 310, 10.1086/178146

    1996 doi

  51. [59]

    Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Celotti , A., & Rees , M. J. 2002, , 337, 1349, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05995.x

    2002

  52. [60]

    J., & Meszaros , P

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

    1994 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, , 962, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcd

    Ren , J., Wang , Y., & Dai , Z.-G. 2024, , 962, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcd

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    M., & Duffy , P

    Rieger , F. M., & Duffy , P. 2004, , 617, 155, 10.1086/425167

    2004 doi

  55. [63]

    2005, , 632, L21, 10.1086/497634

    ---. 2005, , 632, L21, 10.1086/497634

    2005 doi

  56. [64]

    M., & Mannheim , K

    Rieger , F. M., & Mannheim , K. 2002, , 396, 833, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021457

    2002 doi

  57. [65]

    2023, , 522, L56, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad038

    Sato , Y., Murase , K., Ohira , Y., & Yamazaki , R. 2023, , 522, L56, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad038

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    1975, , 172, 557, 10.1093/mnras/172.3.557

    Skilling , J. 1975, , 172, 557, 10.1093/mnras/172.3.557

    1975 doi

  59. [67]

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

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

    2001 doi

  60. [68]

    E., Fenimore , E

    Strohmayer , T. E., Fenimore , E. E., Murakami , T., & Yoshida , A. 1998, , 500, 873, 10.1086/305735

    1998 doi

  61. [69]

    2017, , 844, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a58

    Tang , Q.-W., Wang , X.-Y., & Liu , R.-Y. 2017, , 844, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a58

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    R., Levan , A

    Tanvir , N. R., Levan , A. J., Cenko , S. B., et al. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19419, 1

    2016

  63. [71]

    C., & Narayan , R

    Tchekhovskoy , A., McKinney , J. C., & Narayan , R. 2008, , 388, 551, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13425.x

    2008

  64. [72]

    2018, , 864, 163, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ea

    Vianello , G., Gill , R., Granot , J., et al. 2018, , 864, 163, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ea

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    Webb , G. M. 1989, , 340, 1112, 10.1086/167462

    1989 doi

  66. [74]

    M., Barghouty , A

    Webb , G. M., Barghouty , A. F., Hu , Q., & le Roux , J. A. 2018, , 855, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6c

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

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

    1993 doi

  68. [76]

    2017, , 606, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630353

    Yassine , M., Piron , F., Mochkovitch , R., & Daigne , F. 2017, , 606, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630353

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    P., Li , G., Florinski , V., et al

    Zank , G. P., Li , G., Florinski , V., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A04107, 10.1029/2003JA010301

    2004 doi

  70. [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

  71. [79]

    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

  72. [80]

    E., & MacFadyen , A

    Zhang , W., Woosley , S. E., & MacFadyen , A. I. 2003, , 586, 356, 10.1086/367609

    2003 doi

  73. [81]

    Zrake , J., & MacFadyen , A. I. 2012, , 744, 32, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/32

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.