deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index b871d5b..12dd880 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\   Recent works have shown that while magnetars formed via AIC may be responsible for some GRBs, magnetars formed in the core collapse of massive stars like the one those  proposed by \citet{Duncan_1992} are probably more prevalent. The modern view of the mechanism for core-collapse GRB as laid out by \citet{Metzger_2011} is as following. Shortly after the core bounce, a non-relativistic wind heated by neutrino blows through the cavity carved out by the supernova (SN) shock into a \textit{bipolar jet}. The relativistic jet from the newly formed magnetar follows, and emerges as a GRB prompt emission. After $30-100 \ \rm s$, the maximum Lorantz factor increases to $\sigma_{0} \gg 1$ rendering magnetic dissipation and jet acceleration ineffective. This ended the prompt GRB within the observed timescale of $\sim 20 \ \rm s$. After the prompt emission ended, the spin-down of the central magnetar continues to power the GRB into its X-ray plateau phase with a correlation between the plateau luminosity and duration (LT correlation).   The observed correlation is given by $ \log L_{\rm X} = a + b \log T_a$ where $L_{\rm X}$ is the plateau luminosity and $T_a$ is the rest frame plateau end time. The magnetar model predicts this correlation with $b = 1$ and $ a = \log (10^{52} I^{-1}_{45} P_{0,-3}^{-2})$ which matches observations \cite{Rowlinson_2014}.   \citet{Metzger_2011} also showed that the magnetar model is able to produce the evolution of $\sigma_{0}$ that matches observations with no need of fine-tuning, unlike models in which GRBs are powered by rapidly accreting BHs \footnote{A lot can be said about the rivalry between these two competing models for the central engine of GRBs. \citet{Metzger_2011} and references therein provide some introduction to both.}.