ner_tags: O O O O O O B-Wavelength O B-Citation O O O O B-Wavelength O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O B-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject I-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: a cooling break blueward of the X-rays. Finally, GF17 use modelling of the radio data ( Hancock et al. 2011 , 2012 ) to derive further lower limits on the circumburst density, again finding moderately high values contrasting our estimation given above under the assumption that the Ghirlanda relation is valid. The spectral shape of the radio detections is peculiar, which GF17 explain by interstellar scintillation. Alternatively, the anomalous spectrum may be created by the overlap of multiple components; for example, a reverse shock and a forward shock, as in the cases of GRB 130427A ( Laskar et al. 2013 ; Perley et al. 2014 ) and GRB 160625B ( Alexander et al. 2017 ; Troja et al. 2017 ). In such a case, scintillation would not be necessary to fully explain the deviation from the expected spectrum (though of course a lower amount of scintillation may still exist), the source size could be significantly larger and again, the limits on the circumburst medium density could be lower. As there are no further X-ray or radio observations, to our knowledge, however, neither of our alternative explanations can be pursued any further. Metzger et al. (2018) recently presented a study on the effects of fallback accretion on rapidly spinning proto-magnetars. They find that under certain conditions, the additional accretion can keep the magnetization within a certain regime which enables the launch of a relativistic jet for thousands of seconds, while at the same time also enabling additional energy injection into the late-time supernova, creating a viable solution to GRB 111209A/SN 2011kl. One caveat of this model is that it does not imply that the maximum extracted energy from the magnetar increases compared to the case without any additional accretion. The total rotational energy budget of a magnetar is where I ≈ 1.3 × 10 45 g cm 2 is the moment of inertia of the neutron star (assuming a typical mass M NS = 1.4 M ⊙), Ω 0 is the initial angular velocity and P 0 is the initial spin period. For a typical magnetar near break-up rotation speed ( P 0 ≈ 1 ms), it is E rot ≈ 3×10 52 erg, though Metzger et al. (2015) argue that neutron stars near the maximum possible mass (see Margalit Metzger 2017 ; Shibata et al. 2017 ; Ruiz et al. 2018 ; Rezzolla et al. 2018 , for recent research) and with larger radii and extreme spin periods could have up to an order of magnitude higher E tot . We note that GF17 argue that “the majority of this [energy] is carried away by neutrinos”. Such a mechanism would be expected in Type II core-collapse SNe, but in the case of a spindown-powered central engine, such as a magnetar, the energy is released as a Poynting flux which is converted into radiation and kinetic energy. While neutrinos may be produced in the dissipation region via p - γ interactions, the expected cross section and neutrino flux are very low ( Zhang Kumar 2013 ). Therefore a large fraction of the energy is available to drive the GRB, afterglow, and supernova. Without