pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.11403 · v1 · pith:457J7M2Mnew · submitted 2019-06-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

A decade of Gamma-Ray Bursts observed by Fermi-LAT: The 2^(nd) GRB catalog

M. Axelsson , E. Bissaldi , N. Omodei , G. Vianello (for the Fermi-LAT collaboration) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 14:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstsFermi LAThigh-energy emissionGRB catalogdelayed onsetextended durationfluenceredshift
0
0 comments X

The pith

The second Fermi-LAT GRB catalog finds high-energy emission delayed and extended, with some events lasting over 10 ks and no model explaining all observations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper compiles the second catalog of gamma-ray bursts detected by the Fermi Large Area Telescope over its first ten years of operation. It reports 186 GRBs, most also seen by other instruments, and examines their timing and spectral properties above 100 MeV. The results confirm that the LAT detects primarily the brightest bursts and that high-energy emission starts later and lasts longer than lower-energy emission. The expanded sample reveals even longer delays and durations, covers a broader fluence range, and includes more events with known redshifts for rest-frame analysis. These findings show that existing theoretical models fall short in accounting for the full range of observed behaviors.

Core claim

The LAT detected 186 GRBs from 2008 to 2018, with 169 above 100 MeV. The high-energy emission is characterized by delayed onset and longer duration relative to lower energies, with some delays over 1 ks and durations over 10 ks. The detections extend to lower fluences than previously sampled, and the larger set with redshifts enables both observer and rest-frame studies. No current model accounts for all these properties.

What carries the argument

The catalog of 186 LAT-detected GRBs, which tabulates onset times, durations, temporal profiles, and spectra from 100 MeV to 100 GeV for each event.

If this is right

  • LAT detection rate has increased compared to the first catalog.
  • High-energy delays can exceed 1 ks and durations can exceed 10 ks.
  • The sample includes GRBs with lower fluences in addition to the brightest ones.
  • More events with redshift measurements permit studies in both observer and rest frames.
  • No single theoretical model reproduces the complete set of timing, duration, and spectral results.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The long durations imply that particle acceleration or emission processes persist well beyond the initial burst phase.
  • Rest-frame analysis could uncover whether the observed delays scale with redshift or are intrinsic.
  • Future larger samples might distinguish whether extreme events belong to a distinct subclass of GRBs.
  • Multi-messenger data combined with these LAT results could constrain emission mechanisms more tightly.

Load-bearing premise

The measurements of onset delays and durations for the 186 events are not significantly affected by biases in background rejection, localization, or fluence estimation.

What would settle it

An independent analysis of the same LAT dataset that finds most onset delays under 100 seconds or most durations under 1 ks would contradict the reported typical properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.11403 by E. Bissaldi, G. Vianello (for the Fermi-LAT collaboration), M. Axelsson, N. Omodei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flow diagram representation of the analysis pipeline. The LTF detection algorithm is highlighted in yellow, and the catalog analysis pipeline, which is executed after manually checking the candidate seeds, is highlighted in blue. The LLE analysis pipeline, which is executed on all input triggers, is highlighted in green. All input candidates are analysed by the LTF/LLE pipelines; only those passing the det… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left panel: LLE light curve of GRB 131014 in the 30 MeV – 1 GeV energy range. The polynomial fit to the background is marked by a red line. Right panel: Bayesian Blocks representation of the light curve of GRB 131014. All light curves are centered around the GBM trigger time T0 = 403420143.2 (in MET). 3 photons are required in order to have both the normalization and the photon index free during the likeli… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Temporal extended emission for two bright LAT GRBs, the long GRB 080916C (left panel), and the short GRB 090510 (right panel). Blue points show the flux in each time bin, while black arrows mark upper limits. The green vertical dashed lines indicate the first and the last LAT-detected event, while the vertical dashed black line marks the end of the GBM emission (TGBM,95). Shaded grey areas mark intervals w… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Distribution of the Test Statistic (TS) for 14 short (red) and 155 long (blue) GRBs detected by LTF algorithm. Right panel: TS values for long and short bursts as a function of the angle θ at the trigger time. Bursts which triggered an ARR are marked with a triangle. the Test Statistic (TS) obtained by the LTF algorithm is shown in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sky distribution of 2357 GBM-triggered GRBs (from 2008 July 14 to 2018 July 31) in equatorial coordinates (grey asterisks). Blue (red) asterisks indicate 160 (16) long (short) LAT-detected GRBs included in the 2FLGC over the same time period. GRB 110518A, GRB 120911B, GRB 140825A, the short GRB 160702A, and GRB 180526A. While GRB 120911B did not trigger GBM, it was the only burst to be later found in on-gr… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal extended emission for two GRBs detected by LAT at very late times, namely GRB 080818B (left panel), and GRB 160503A (right panel). Markers and colors are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: T LAT,0 (a) and T LAT,1 (b) calculated in the 100 MeV–100 GeV energy range vs. the same quantities calculated in the 50–300 keV energy range. Panel (c) shows the onset times (T LAT,0) in the 100 MeV–100 GeV vs. the durations (TGBM,90) in the 50–300 keV energy range. The solid line denotes where values are equal. Blue and red circles represent long and short GRBs, respectively. In panel (c), we additionally… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Composite light curve of GRB 160625B: summed GBM/NaI detectors (first two panels), GBM/BGO (third panel), LLE (fourth panel), and LAT rates above 100 MeV (bottom panel). The grey shaded area indicates the TGBM,90 calculated in the 50–300 keV energy range. The dashed red lines marks the GBM trigger time. A zoom around trigger time is shown in two insets for each energy range of the NaI detectors, highlighti… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: Difference of the T LAT,0 and the TGBM,05 with respect to the incident angle of the GRB at the time of the trigger. The yellow region highlights the GRBs that were outside the LAT FoV (θ ∼ 75◦ ) at the time of the GBM trigger. Right panel: Zenith angle (ζ) vs incident angle (θ). The symbols are colored as a function of the difference of the T LAT,0 and the TGBM,05 (left plot, y-axis). Circles … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left panel: Off axis angle for GRB 170127C as a function of time since the GBM trigger. The horizontal red line corresponds at θ = 75◦ . Right panel: Temporal extended emission for GRB 170127C. The blue point is the photon flux measurement with a significance of TS > 10, while, for lower value of TS, upper bounds are displayed as black arrows. The horizontal red line indicates the estimated duration of th… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Onset times (TLLE,05; left panel) and durations (TLLE,90; right panel) calculated using LLE data in the 30 MeV–1 GeV energy range vs. the corresponding quantities (TGBM,05 and TGBM,90) calculated using GBM data in the 50–300 keV energy range. The solid green line denotes where value are equal. Blue and red circles represent long and short GRBs, respectively. 4.3. LLE onset and duration If we restrict our … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left panel: The distribution of energy fluence calculated in the 10–1000 keV energy range for 178 bursts detected by the LAT compared to the entire sample of 2357 GRBs detected by GBM over the same time period. Middle panel: The distribution of peak photon flux in the 10–1000 keV energy range for the same sample of LAT and GBM detected populations. Right panel: The GBM peak photon flux (10–1000 keV), as m… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Fluxes (left panels) and fluences (right panels) calculated in the 100 MeV–100 GeV energy range vs. GRB durations. Upper panels show fluxes and fluences evaluated in the “GBM” time window vs. durations calculated in the 50–300 keV energy range (TGBM,90). Bottom panels show fluxes and fluences evaluated in the “LAT” time window vs. durations calculated in the 100 MeV–100 GeV energy range (T LAT,100). Blue … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Left panel: Fluences calculated in the 10–1000 keV energy range vs. fluences calculated in the 100 MeV–100 GeV energy range. All values are estimated in the “GBM” time window. Right panel: Fluences calculated in the 100 MeV–100 GeV energy range evaluated in the “EXT” time window vs. the same quantities evaluated in the “GBM” time window. The solid green lines denote where values are equal. The dashed and … view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Photon indexes ΓGBM (left panels) and ΓEXT (right panels) calculated in the 100 MeV–100 GeV energy range vs. duration calculated in the 50–300 keV energy range (top panels) and LAT 100 MeV–100 GeV fluxes (bottom panels). These are calculated in the “GBM” (bottom left) and “EXT” (bottom right) time windows, respectively. The green dashed lines denote the mean values and the dotted lines the 10 % and 90 % p… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Redshift distribution of 34 GRBs detected by LAT (blue histogram), 405 GRBs detected by Swift-BAT (grey histogram) and 116 GRBs detected by GBM (cyan histogram) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Left panel: Isotropic radiated energy vs. redshift. Right panel: Isotropic luminosity vs. redshift. Blue/red circles indicate the LAT long/short GRBs, black and grey circles indicate GBM/Swift-BAT GRBs, with short bursts always marked by empty symbols. Swift-BAT online catalog14 (see Lien et al. 2016 for more details). These are calculated over a time interval corresponding to a duration that contains 100… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Flux calculated in the 100 MeV–100 GeV energy range vs. elapsed time after trigger for 115 long (left panel) and 11 short (right panel) bursts. Each color represents a separate GRB. the standard blue and red circles used in this paper. LAT-detected GRBs populate the top portion of both distributions, as was previously seen in the 1FLGC. At that time, this figure only contained 9 LAT-detected GRBs with red… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Distribution of the temporal decay indexes for 86 long (blue histogram) and 2 short (red histogram) bursts, calculated in the “ETX” time window. A Gaussian fit of the lGRB indexes (mean 0.99 ± 0.04; standard deviation 0.80 ± 0.07) is superimposed on the distributions (dashed black line). accommodate the data in the “GBM” time window. However, in the “EXT” time window used for the fits, a PL model is stati… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Isotropic luminosity Liso calculated in the 100 MeV-100 GeV rest frame energy range for the 34 GRBs in our sample with measured redshift. The left panel shows Liso vs. the time elapsed since the trigger. GRB 090510 is the only short GRB with known redshift and it is marked with black stars. In the middle panel Liso is plotted against the vs. the time elapsed since the trigger in the rest frame. In the rig… view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Fraction of GRBs with the highest energy photon detected above selected threshold energies (250 MeV, 500 MeV, 1 GeV, 5 GeV, 10 GeV, 50 GeV) (green solid line). The distribution of the source￾frame-corrected energies for the redshift sample is indicated with the dashed green line. The dashed black line denotes a linear fit to the values corresponding to the center of each bin. 10−1 100 101 102 103 104 105 … view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Energy vs. arrival time for the highest energy photon of each GRB. In the right panel, the arrival time is normalized to the duration (T90) calculated in the 50–300 keV energy range (indicated by the dashed vertical line). Blue and red circles represent long and short GRBs, respectively. burst. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Energy of the highest-energy photon calculated in the rest frame vs. Eiso in the 1 keV–10 MeV (left panel) and in the 100 MeV–10 GeV (right panel) energy ranges for each GRB with redshift estimation. Blue and red circles represent long and short GRBs, respectively. In the 1FLGC, there was a trend for the photons with highest source-frame energy to appear in the GRBs with highest 1 keV–10 MeV Eiso (figure … view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Light curve of GRB 160509A together with the fit using the Willingale et al. (2007) model model (solid line). The black dot indicates the end time of the plateau emission and its corresponding flux. the X–ray band. The stable decay index with a value around α = 1 for the small sample of bursts in the 1FLGC was taken as support for adiabatic expansion within the fireball scenario. The index reported here r… view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Test Statistic evolution with respect to the time delay (in hours) of the CTA alert reception, obtained from the analysis with a power-law model, with respect to the beginning of the LAT-detected extended emission. The figure shows the TS values for 27 GRBs. For clarity, TS values less than 1 are fixed to 1. the GRBs at redshift > 1 (20 GRBs), we fixed the critical energy at 30 GeV (following figure 2 of … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Large Area Telescope (LAT) aboard the $Fermi$ spacecraft routinely observes high-energy emission from gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). Here we present the second catalog of LAT-detected GRBs, covering the first 10 years of operations, from 2008 August 4 to 2018 August 4. A total of 186 GRBs are found; of these, 91 show emission in the range $30-100\,$MeV (17 of which are seen only in this band) and 169 are detected above 100 MeV. Most of these sources were discovered by other instruments ($Fermi$/GBM, $Swift$/BAT, AGILE, INTEGRAL) or reported by the Interplanetary Network (IPN); the LAT has independently triggered on 4 GRBs. This catalog presents the results for all 186 GRBs. We study onset, duration and temporal properties of each GRB, as well as spectral characteristics in the $100\,$MeV$-100\,$GeV energy range. Particular attention is given to the photons with highest energy. Compared with the first LAT GRB catalog, our rate of detection is significantly improved. The results generally confirm the main findings of the first catalog: the LAT primarily detects the brightest GBM bursts, and the high-energy emission shows delayed onset as well as longer duration. However, in this work we find delays exceeding 1 ks, and several GRBs with durations over 10 ks. Furthermore, the larger number of LAT detections shows that these GRBs cover not only the high-fluence range of GBM-detected GRBs, but also samples lower fluences. In addition, the greater number of detected GRBs with redshift estimates allows us to study their properties in both the observer and rest frames. Comparison of the observational results with theoretical predictions reveals that no model is currently able to explain all results, highlighting the role of LAT observations in driving theoretical models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the second Fermi-LAT GRB catalog covering 2008–2018, reporting 186 detected GRBs (169 above 100 MeV), with analyses of onset times, durations, fluences, and spectra in the 100 MeV–100 GeV band. It confirms that LAT detects primarily bright GBM bursts with delayed and extended high-energy emission, but reports new cases with delays >1 ks and durations >10 ks, an expanded fluence range, and the conclusion that no current model accounts for all observations.

Significance. If the reported timing and fluence measurements hold, the doubled sample size relative to the first catalog provides a valuable public resource for statistical studies of high-energy GRB properties in both observer and rest frames, and the explicit statement that no model explains all results usefully constrains theory. The work draws on public Fermi data, supporting reproducibility of the catalog entries.

major comments (2)
  1. [Data analysis / event selection] Data analysis / event selection section: no quantitative propagation is shown of background-model uncertainties, Earth-albedo leakage, or time-dependent effective-area variations into the onset-delay and duration values, especially for the tail events with delays exceeding 1 ks and durations exceeding 10 ks. These tail measurements are load-bearing for the central claim that high-energy emission properties extend beyond previous catalogs.
  2. [Results on temporal properties] Results on temporal properties: the reported delays and durations for the full sample of 186 events rest on localization and background rejection whose systematic floor is not assessed; any position-dependent PSF or integration-time-dependent bias would directly shift the headline numbers used to argue that “no model explains all results.”
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions for the fluence and duration distributions should explicitly state the energy band and any cuts applied so that the claim of sampling lower fluences than the first catalog can be directly verified.
  2. [Sample description] The statement that 17 GRBs are seen only in the 30–100 MeV band would benefit from a short table or list of those events to allow readers to assess their contribution to the overall sample.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and will revise the paper to incorporate additional systematic assessments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Data analysis / event selection] Data analysis / event selection section: no quantitative propagation is shown of background-model uncertainties, Earth-albedo leakage, or time-dependent effective-area variations into the onset-delay and duration values, especially for the tail events with delays exceeding 1 ks and durations exceeding 10 ks. These tail measurements are load-bearing for the central claim that high-energy emission properties extend beyond previous catalogs.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative propagation of these uncertainties into the reported onset times and durations was not presented. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection to the Data analysis section that estimates the contributions from background-model uncertainties, Earth-albedo leakage, and time-dependent effective-area variations, with explicit attention to the events having delays >1 ks and durations >10 ks. This will be done via Monte Carlo realizations of the background and exposure variations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on temporal properties] Results on temporal properties: the reported delays and durations for the full sample of 186 events rest on localization and background rejection whose systematic floor is not assessed; any position-dependent PSF or integration-time-dependent bias would directly shift the headline numbers used to argue that “no model explains all results.”

    Authors: We acknowledge that the systematic floor arising from localization accuracy and background rejection was not quantified. The revised Results section on temporal properties will include an assessment of this floor, including estimates of position-dependent PSF variations and integration-time-dependent biases, and will discuss how these affect the headline numbers and the statement that no current model accounts for all observations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Catalog reports direct measurements; no derivation chain present

full rationale

This is an observational catalog paper that tabulates detected GRBs, reports measured onset times, durations, fluences, and spectra extracted from LAT data after standard processing. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are derived from the catalog itself and then re-presented as independent results. The statement that 'no model is currently able to explain all results' is an external comparison, not a self-referential derivation. Self-citations to prior LAT work are present but are not load-bearing for any claimed prediction or uniqueness theorem. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks (telescope data) and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an observational catalog paper. No free parameters are fitted to produce the central claims, no new entities are postulated, and no non-standard axioms are invoked beyond routine assumptions of high-energy astrophysics data analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5923 in / 1138 out tokens · 26915 ms · 2026-05-25T14:59:01.698356+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 130 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 34

    Abdollahi, S., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 34

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2015, ApJS, 218, 23 —

    Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 23 —. 2016, ApJS, 223, 26

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 114

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 114

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    2013a, ApJ, 763, 71 —

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 763, 71 —. 2013b, ApJS, 209, 11 —. 2014, Science, 343, 42

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJL, 823, L2

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2016, ApJL, 823, L2

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193

    Actis, M., Agnetta, G., Aharonian, F., et al. 2011, Experimental Astronomy, 32, 193

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, L31

    Ahlgren, B., Larsson, J., Nymark, T., Ryde, F., & Pe’er, A. 2015, MNRAS, 454, L31

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    2018, ApJ, 861, 85

    Ajello, M., Allafort, A., Axelsson, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 85

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 139

    Arimoto, M., Asano, K., Ohno, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 139

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    2009, Astrophys

    Asano, K., Guiriec, S., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2009, Astrophys. J. Lett., 705, L191

    work page 2009

  11. [11]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.3514

    Atwood, W., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2013a, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.3514

    work page arXiv

  12. [12]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    2012, ApJL, 757, L31

    Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., Barbiellini, G., et al. 2012, ApJL, 757, L31

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281

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

    work page 1993

  15. [15]

    L., Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., et al

    Band, D. L., Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 1673

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    D., Kennea, J., & Racusin, J

    Barthelmy, S. D., Kennea, J., & Racusin, J. 2012, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 13381, #1 (2012), 13381

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 143

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2002, ApJ, 565, 808 —. 2005, ApJL, 618, L13

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    M., Hasco¨ et, R., & Vurm, I

    Beloborodov, A. M., Hasco¨ et, R., & Vurm, I. 2014, ApJ, 788, 36

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    1995, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

    Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. 1995, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57, 289

    work page 1995

  21. [21]

    2014, ApJ, 794, 135 88 The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Hinshaw, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 135 88 The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    N., Meegan, C

    Bhat, P. N., Meegan, C. A., von Kienlin, A., et al. 2016, ApJS, 223, 28

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    2017, in Proceedings of Science, ed

    Bissaldi, E., Omodei, N., Vianello, G., Kocevski, D., & on behalf of the Fermi-LAT Collaboration. 2017, in Proceedings of Science, ed. Greiner & McEnery, Vol. 312, 5 Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., Daigne, F., & Dubus, G. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 498, 677

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    M., B´ egu´ e, D., Ryde, F., et al

    Burgess, J. M., B´ egu´ e, D., Ryde, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 63

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    Perley, D. A. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9053 Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, T., :,

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array

    Acharya, B. S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1709.07997 [astro-ph.IM] Chernoff, H. 1954, Ann. Math. Statist., 25, 573

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    A., & Li, Z.-Y

    Chevalier, R. A., & Li, Z.-Y. 2000, ApJ, 536, 195

    work page 2000

  29. [29]

    Bloom, J. S. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9028

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    J., & on behalf of the Fermi LAT collaboration

    Ciprini, S., Thompson, D. J., & on behalf of the Fermi LAT collaboration. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.4054

    work page arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    S., Goldstein, A., et al

    Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., Goldstein, A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 32

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    2010, ApJ, 720, 1008

    Corsi, A., Guetta, D., & Piro, L. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1008

    work page 2010

  33. [33]

    10202, #1 (2009), 10202

    Service, No. 10202, #1 (2009), 10202

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Cucchiara, A., & Fox, D. B. 2010, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 10606, #1 (2010), 10606

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    1031, #1 (2009), 10031

    Network, Circular Service, No. 1031, #1 (2009), 10031

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    R., & Palmer, D

    Cummings, J. R., & Palmer, D. M. 2013, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 14257, #1 (2013), 14257

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    2011, A&A, 526, A110 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Jakobsson, P., Malesani, D., et al

    Daigne, F., Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Dubus, G. 2011, A&A, 526, A110 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Jakobsson, P., Malesani, D., et al. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 8766 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Kann, D. A., Thoene, C. C., et al. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 20990, #1 (2017), 20990 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Thoene, C. C., Gorosabel, J., et al. 2013a, ...

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    15187, #1 (2013), 15187 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Xu, D., Malesani, D., &

    Service, No. 15187, #1 (2013), 15187 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Xu, D., Malesani, D., &

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    17822, #1 (2015), 17822 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Campana, S., Th¨ one, C

    Network, Circular Service, No. 17822, #1 (2015), 17822 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Campana, S., Th¨ one, C. C., et al. 2013c, A&A, 557, L18 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Fynbo, J. P. U., Thoene, C., et al. 2015b, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 17583, #1 (2015), 17583

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 73

    Desai, A., Ajello, M., Omodei, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 73

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJL, 392, L9

    work page 1992

  42. [42]

    A., Bertsch, D

    Esposito, J. A., Bertsch, D. L., Chen, A. W., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 203

    work page 1999

  43. [43]

    Beardmore, A. P. 2016, GRB Coordinates

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    19927, #1 (2016), 19927

    Network, Circular Service, No. 19927, #1 (2016), 19927

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    2013, A&A, 553, A33

    Galli, M., Marisaldi, M., Fuschino, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A33

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    2013, NewAR, 57, 141

    Zhang, B. 2013, NewAR, 57, 141

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 661

    Gehrels, N., & Razzaque, S. 2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 661

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    2010, MNRAS, 403, 926

    Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Celotti, A. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 926

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    C., Bouvier, A., Connaughton, V., et al

    Gilmore, R. C., Bouvier, A., Connaughton, V., et al. 2013, Experimental Astronomy, 35, 413

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Evans, P. A. 2015, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 18403, #1 (2015), 18403

    work page 2015

  52. [52]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    2008, Astrophys

    Granot, J., Cohen-Tanugi, J., & do Couto e Silva, E. 2008, Astrophys. J., 677, 92

    work page 2008

  54. [54]

    2009, A&A, 498, 89 The 2nd Fermi-LAT GRB catalog 89

    Greiner, J., Clemens, C., Kr¨ uhler, T., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 89 The 2nd Fermi-LAT GRB catalog 89

    work page 2009

  55. [55]

    2012, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular

    Gruber, D., Paciesas, W., Pelassa, V., & Chaplin, V. 2012, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    13757, #1 (2012), 13757

    Service, No. 13757, #1 (2012), 13757

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 12 Hasco¨ et, R., Daigne, F., Mochkovitch, R., &

    Gruber, D., Goldstein, A., Weller von Ahlefeld, V., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 12 Hasco¨ et, R., Daigne, F., Mochkovitch, R., &

    work page 2014

  58. [58]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 525

    Vennin, V. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 525

    work page 2012

  59. [59]

    T., et al

    Inoue, S., Granot, J., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 252

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 159

    Ito, H., Nagataki, S., Matsumoto, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 159

    work page 2014

  61. [61]

    2017, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    Kankare, E., O’Neill, D., Izzo, L., et al. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 22002, #1-2018 (2017), 22002

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    I., & Piran, T

    Katz, J. I., & Piran, T. 1997, ApJ, 490, 772

    work page 1997

  63. [63]

    A., Lien, A

    Kocevski, D., Kennea, J. A., Lien, A. Y., Page, K. L., & Racusin, J. L. 2015, GRB Coordinates

    work page 2015

  64. [64]

    17810, #1 (2015), 17810

    Network, Circular Service, No. 17810, #1 (2015), 17810

    work page 2015

  65. [65]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101

    work page 1993

  66. [66]

    Kruehler, T., Greiner, G., & A., K. D. 2010, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 14500, #1 (2010), 14500

    work page 2010

  67. [67]

    Kruehler, T., Schady, P., Greiner, J., & Tanvir, N. R. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 20686, #1 (2017), 20686

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    2009, Mon

    Kumar, P., & Barniol Duran, R. 2009, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.Soc., 400, L75

    work page 2009

  69. [69]

    2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 8601

    Landsman, W., de Pasquale, M., Kuin, P., et al. 2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 8601

    work page 2008

  70. [70]

    P., Lavocat, P., et al

    Lebrun, F., Leray, J. P., Lavocat, P., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L141

    work page 2003

  71. [71]

    Leloudas, G., Fynbo, J. P. U., Schulze, S., et al. 2013, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular

    work page 2013

  72. [72]

    14983, #1 (2013), 14983

    Service, No. 14983, #1 (2013), 14983

    work page 2013

  73. [73]

    D., et al

    Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 7

    work page 2016

  74. [74]

    2001, Astrophys

    Lithwick, Y., & Sari, R. 2001, Astrophys. J., 555, 540

    work page 2001

  75. [75]

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

    work page 2009

  76. [76]

    2016, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    Malesani, D., de Ugarte Postigo, A., de Pasquale, M., et al. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 19708, #1 (2016), 19708

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    2014, Science, 343, 48

    Maselli, A., Melandri, A., Nava, L., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 48

    work page 2014

  78. [78]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396

    work page 1996

  79. [79]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 791 M´ esz´ aros, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJ, 554, 660

    work page 2009

  80. [80]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031

    Bucciantini, N., & Quataert, E. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2031

    work page 2011

Showing first 80 references.