Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 32 references

The Machine Learning to reconstruct GRB lightcurves

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that filling gaps in GRB X-ray light curves with model-generated or Gaussian-process-reconstructed points improves the precision of fitted light-curve parameters by up to 41.5%, tightening the astrophysical correlations…

desk verdict A clearly written proceedings summary of the authors' own 2023 ApJS paper, but the 41.5% improvement claim is unsupported by the body and the gap-filling validation is circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13102 v1 pith:QCZDEJT4 submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.CO

Maria Giovanna Dainotti , Biagio De Simone , Aditya Narendra , Agnieszka Pollo This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords gamma-rayburstslightcurvereconstructionGaussianprocessesWillingalemodelbrokenpowerlawHubbletensionstandardizablecandles
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 is trying to establish that missing chunks of gamma-ray burst (GRB) light curves can be filled in—either by sampling from a best-fit model plus Gaussian noise or by Gaussian-process regression—and that doing so reduces the fractional uncertainties on the fitted light-curve parameters. It reports improvements up to 41.5%, with average reductions of 37% and 34% for the Willingale model at 10% and 20% noise, 31% and 25% for the broken power law, and 31% and 22% for Gaussian-process reconstruction. The reason this matters is that GRBs are observable at redshifts up to $z=9.4$, bridging the gap between supernovae and the cosmic microwave background, and tighter light-curve parameters would tighten the correlations used to turn GRBs into standardizable candles. If correct, the method would propagate into sharper cosmological parameter estimates, including constraints on the Hubble constant.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the synthetic gap-filling step in Equation 4: $\log_{10}F^{\mathrm{rec}}_{t} = \log_{10}f(t) + (1+m)R$, with $f(t)$ the best-fit Willingale or broken-power-law model, $m$ the noise level ($0.1$ or $0.2$), and $R$ a Gaussian random variate; the alternative is Gaussian-process regression using a radial-basis-function kernel with a 95% confidence interval. The reconstructed fluxes are inserted into the gaps and the light curve is re-fit with the same models, and the reported improvement is the percentage decrease $\Delta\%X = (\epsilon^{b}_{X} - \epsilon^{a}_{X})/\epsilon^{b}_{X} \times 100$ in the fractional parameter errors. This machinery is what turns sparse, gap-riddled light curves into continuous ones and it is the source of the claimed precision gain.

What would settle it

Mask randomly chosen real observed portions of the 218 good GRB light curves to create artificial gaps, run the reconstruction, and compare the reconstructed fluxes with the held-out true fluxes; if the reconstructed points are biased or the before/after error reductions drop toward zero when real data are used, the claimed 22% to 37% average gains are artifacts of the model generating its own validation data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the reconstruction-then-refit procedure systematically shrinks the error bars on the parameters that enter the fundamental-plane correlation. For the 218 good GRBs selected from the 455-event sample, the average fractional error reduction is 37% with the Willingale model at 10% injected noise and 34% at 20% noise; for the broken power-law model the averages are 31% and 25%, respectively; Gaussian-process reconstruction gives 31% for the Willingale form and 22% for the broken power-law. The authors also cite individual parameter gains such as a 33% reduction in $\log_{10}T^{*}_{a}$ and a 31% reduction in $\log_{10}F_{a}$ for the functional-form case, with the abstract citing up to 41.5% overall. They conclude that this improved parameter precision reduces the scatter in the fundamental plane and, consequently, improves the estimation of cosmological parameters from GRBs.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that points drawn from the best-fit model plus Gaussian noise are a faithful stand-in for the true missing observations; if the real light curve inside a gap deviates from the Willingale or broken-power-law shape, the reported precision gain is an artifact of fitting the model to itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The smaller errors on $\log_{10}T^{*}_{a}$ and $\log_{10}F_{a}$ translate directly into a tighter 3D fundamental-plane correlation, the relation used to standardize GRBs.
  • Tighter GRB correlations reduce the uncertainty on cosmological parameters when GRBs are included as high-redshift distance indicators.
  • Because any empirical light-curve model can replace the two functional forms used here, the reconstruction approach is not tied to the Willingale or broken-power-law shapes.
  • Gaussian-process reconstruction yields gains comparable to the functional-form method, so the approach works even when an analytic model is not trusted.
  • The improvements persist at both 10% and 20% noise levels and across both models, suggesting the effect is not a narrow tuning of one functional form.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The decisive test the paper leaves undone is to mask genuinely observed data, reconstruct, and compare against the held-out points; without that, the reported gains may measure self-consistency of the model rather than recovery of real signal.
  • If the masked-data test passes, the same recipe could be applied to other irregularly sampled time-domain probes such as tidal disruption events or active galactic nuclei, whose orbital gaps raise the same fitting problem.
  • A full cosmological payoff would require propagating the improved fundamental-plane scatter through an $H_{0}$ fit; the paper stops at parameter precision, so the size of the final $H_{0}$ improvement remains to be quantified.
  • The results also reveal a selection effect: only 218 of 455 GRBs (48%) qualify as 'good' after excluding flares and double breaks, so the method's benefit is demonstrated on the cleanest light curves, not on the full population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper proposes to fill gaps in X-ray GRB light curves using two approaches: (i) generating synthetic points from the best-fit Willingale or broken-power-law model plus Gaussian noise (Eq. 4), and (ii) Gaussian Process regression with an RBF kernel. The authors then refit the same two functional models to the augmented light curves and quantify the improvement in parameter uncertainties via the percentage decrease defined in Eq. (5). The abstract and conclusions claim improvements up to 41.5% (with body values of 22–37% on average and up to 44% for a single parameter) and state that these gains would reduce scatter in astrophysical correlations and cosmological parameter uncertainties.

Significance. If the claimed precision gains were real, the method could be useful for GRB cosmology, particularly for the Dainotti fundamental plane and Hubble-constant tension studies. The paper identifies a genuine practical problem (orbital and observational gaps in GRB light curves) and proposes a simple, interpretable procedure. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the evidence presented: the reconstruction is self-referential, no independent validation is given, and the reported improvements appear to be a built-in consequence of the fitting procedure rather than a demonstration of recovering true missing data. The significance of the paper as it stands is therefore limited; it would need a validation study with masked real data to justify the cosmological claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] The reconstruction procedure is circular with respect to the claim of improved precision. Equation (4) generates reconstructed fluxes as log10 F_rec = log10 f(t) + (1+m) R, where f(t) is the best-fit Willingale or broken-power-law model and R is Gaussian noise. Section 3 then refits the same functional form to the augmented light curve. Adding points drawn from the best-fit model plus noise will shrink parameter uncertainties essentially by construction, because the injected points carry information that exactly follows the assumed deterministic model. The reported Δ% in Eq. (5) therefore measures self-consistency of the fit, not the recovery of true missing observations. The paper provides no test with masked real data, no comparison of reconstructed vs. true fluxes in a gap, and no demonstration that the reduced uncertainties are not simply an artifact of adding model-conforming points.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The quantitative claims are internally inconsistent and lack uncertainty estimates. The abstract states 'improvement up to 41.5%', but the body reports a maximum single-parameter decrease of 44% (Δ% alpha2 for the Willingale model at 10% noise) and average decreases of 37%, 34%, 31%, 25%, 31%, and 22% for the various cases. The 41.5% figure does not appear in the body. Moreover, no uncertainties are given for any of the reported percentage reductions, even though they are averages over 218 GRBs and should carry a statistical error. Without error bars, one cannot assess whether the differences between models or noise levels are significant.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract and conclusions claim that the improved parameter precision 'lead[s] to a reduced scatter in the astrophysical correlations and, thus, in the estimation of cosmological parameters.' However, the paper does not compute any correlation scatter (e.g., the Dainotti fundamental plane) or any cosmological parameter uncertainties after reconstruction. No propagation of the improved LC parameter uncertainties to the astrophysical correlations is shown. This is an unsupported extrapolation of the results.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Section 3] The Gaussian Process reconstruction is described too briefly to evaluate its role in the central claim. The paper does not specify how the GP is trained (on what subset), how the kernel hyperparameters are chosen, whether the GP predictions are used only for gap filling or also for smoothing, and how the fitted model parameters are obtained after GP filling. Given that GP results (25-42% decreases) are presented as supporting the method, this lack of detail is a reproducibility concern and prevents the reader from judging whether the GP results suffer from the same circularity as Eq. (4).
minor comments (3)
  1. [General] The paper reproduces Figure 1 from reference [13] but does not clearly state this in the caption; the caption reads as if the figure is original to this work.
  2. [Section 2.1] The text says 'the residuals with respect to the logarithm of the models are defined' and then gives Eq. (3); the notation log10 F_obs^t is slightly ambiguous but understandable. Consider writing log10 F_obs(t).
  3. [References] The reference list contains an entry to Raut and Dani [25] that appears unrelated to the topic (artificial neural network layers); if it is meant to support a specific claim, the connection is not stated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Imputation loop is self-referential: Eq. (4) fills gaps with the model's own predictions and the same model is refit to measure the 'improvement'.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1, Eq. (4); Section 3, Eq. (5); abstract and conclusions]
    "The reconstruction of the LCs is performed through the following Equation: log10 F_rec_t = log10 f(t)+(1+m)·R, where m is the noise level and R is the random variate sampled from a Gaussian distribution. ... After the data points are reconstructed and the LCs filled, a re-fitting of the LCs with two theoretical models is performed to compare the precision of the LC parameters before and after the reconstruction process."

    Gap fluxes are fabricated as the best-fit model f(t) (Willingale or broken power-law, Eqs. 1-2) plus Gaussian noise, and the same f(t) is refit to the augmented light curve. The synthetic points are drawn from the model whose parameter uncertainties are being re-measured, so they add no independent information about the true unobserved flux. The reported 22-37% average uncertainty reductions (and up to 41.5%) measure self-consistency of the imputation-and-refit loop, not recovery of real gap data. No masked-real-data validation is presented, so the claimed improvement is determined by the construction of Eq. (4).

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is that filling gaps in GRB light curves improves the precision of fitted parameters by up to 41.5%. The evaluation protocol, however, is internally closed: Eq. (4) constructs each reconstructed flux as log10 f(t)+(1+m)R, where f(t) is the best-fit Willingale or broken power-law model and R is Gaussian noise. Section 3 then refits those same models to the augmented light curves and reports the change in fractional parameter errors via Eq. (5). Because the injected points are drawn from the model being refit, the post-reconstruction covariance shrinks by construction: the synthetic points encode only the model's own predictions, and any real gap structure not captured by f(t) (flares, bumps, double breaks) is overwritten by model-conforming values. The paper itself states that good GRBs are those 'well approximated by fitting models and do not have any flare, bump or double break', and no test with masked real data is presented. The GP variant is subject to the same evaluation problem, since its imputed values are interpolated from the same observed LC and then scored by refitting the same parametric models. The abstract's further claim of reduced scatter in astrophysical correlations and cosmological-parameter estimation is not derived in the paper, and the connection is asserted rather than computed. The self-citation to [13] (same group) supplies the method and the reproduced figure, but the load-bearing circularity is the imputation-and-refit loop itself, not the citation. Thus the reported precision gain is largely a self-consistency measure, giving a circularity score of 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central improvement estimate depends on a few hand-chosen inputs: the noise level m (10% or 20%), the assumed Gaussian residual distribution, the choice of empirical models, and the unstated GP kernel hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • noise level m = 10% or 20%
    Chosen by hand in Section 2.1 to represent 10% or 20% noise; the paper states the noise level can be toggled arbitrarily, and the reported improvements depend on this choice.
  • GP kernel hyperparameters = not reported
    The RBF kernel and 95% confidence interval are chosen in Section 2.2, but the optimized length scale and noise variance are not given.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The residuals between the fitted model and observed flux are Gaussian
    Section 2.1 states a test confirms the Gaussian nature of the best-fit residual distribution, and Eq. (4) uses a Gaussian random variate.
  • domain assumption The best-fit Willingale or broken power-law models are valid in the temporal gaps
    Eq. (4) uses f(t) to generate reconstructed points throughout the gap regions; if the model is wrong there, reconstruction is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Adding (1+m)R noise to the model reproduces realistic observed scatter
    Section 2.1 states the noise level can be toggled arbitrarily and is set to 10% or 20%; this scaling is not derived from the data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Machine Learning to reconstruct GRB lightcurves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCZDEJT4

@misc{pith2026250113102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Machine Learning to reconstruct GRB lightcurves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCZDEJT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13102}
}
abstract

The current knowledge in cosmology deals with open problems whose solutions are still under investigation. The main issue is the so-called Hubble constant ($H_0$) tension, namely, the $4-6 \sigma$ discrepancy between the local value of $H_0$ obtained with Cepheids+Supernovae Ia (SNe Ia) and the cosmological one estimated from the observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). For the investigation of this problem, probes that span all over the redshift $z$ ranges are needed. Cepheids are local objects, SNe Ia reached up to $z=2.9$, and CMB is observed at $z=1100$. In this context, the use of probes at intermediate redshift $z>3$ is auspicious for casting more light on modern cosmology. The Gamma-ray Bursts (GRBs) are particularly suitable for this task, given their observability up to $z=9.4$. The use of GRBs as standardizable candles requires the use of tight and reliable astrophysical correlations and the presence of gaps in the GRB time-domain data represents an obstacle in this sense. In this work, we propose to improve the precision of the lightcurve (LC) parameters through a reconstruction process performed with the functional forms of GRB LCs and the Gaussian Processes (GP). The filling of gaps in the GRB LCs through these processes shows an improvement up to $41.5\%$ on the precision of the LC parameters fitting, which lead to a reduced scatter in the astrophysical correlations and, thus, in the estimation of cosmological parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of LC reconstruction applied to GRB 121217A. The reconstruction is performed with two models: Willingale (abbreviated with W07) and broken power-law (abbreviated with BPL). Furthermore, the two noise levels are considered (10% and 20%). Upper left panel: W07 model reconstruction with 10% noise level. Upper right panel: W07 model reconstruction with 20% noise level. Lower left panel: BPL model reconstructi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    A Stochastic Approach to Reconstruct Gamma- Ray-burst Light Curves

    Maria G. Dainotti et al. “A Stochastic Approach to Reconstruct Gamma- Ray-burst Light Curves”. In: The Astrophysical Journals 267.2, 42 (Aug. 2023), p. 42. doi: 10 . 3847 / 1538 - 4365 / acdd07. arXiv: 2305 . 12126 astro-ph.HE

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Gamma-ray bursts, quasars, baryonic acoustic os- cillations, and super- novae Ia: new statistical insights and cosmological constraints

    G. Bargiacchi et al. “Gamma-ray bursts, quasars, baryonic acoustic os- cillations, and super- novae Ia: new statistical insights and cosmological constraints”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521.3 (May 2023), pp. 3909–3924. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad763. arXiv: 2303. 07076 astro-ph.CO

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad763 2023

  3. [2]

    High-redshift cos- mology by Gamma-Ray Bursts: An overview

    Giada Bargiacchi, Maria Giovanna Dainotti, and Salvatore Capozziello. “High-redshift cos- mology by Gamma-Ray Bursts: An overview”. In: New Astronomy Reviews 100, 101712 (June 2025), p. 101712. doi: 10.1016/ j.newar.2024.101712. arXiv: 2408.10707 astro-ph.CO

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    Gamma-ray burst data strongly favour the three-parameter fundamental plane (Dainotti) cor- relation over the two-parameter one

    Shulei Cao, Maria Dainotti, and Bharat Ratra. “Gamma-ray burst data strongly favour the three-parameter fundamental plane (Dainotti) cor- relation over the two-parameter one”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 516.1 (Oct. 2022), pp. 1386–1405. doi: 10.1093/ mnras/stac2170. arXiv: 2204.08710 astro-ph.CO

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    APhotometricRedshiftofz~9.4forGRB090429B

    A.Cucchiaraetal.“APhotometricRedshiftofz~9.4forGRB090429B”.In: TheAstrophys- ical Journal 736.1, 7 (July 2011), p. 7. doi: 10.1088/ 0004-637X/736/1/7. arXiv: 1105.4915 astro-ph.CO

    arXiv 2011

  6. [5]

    A time-luminosity correlation for𝛾-ray bursts in the X-rays

    M. G. Dainotti, V. F. Cardone, and S. Capozziello. “A time-luminosity correlation for𝛾-ray bursts in the X-rays”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 391.1 (Nov. 2008), pp. L79–L83. doi: 10 . 1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00560.x. arXiv: 0809.1389 astro-ph

    arXiv 2008

  7. [6]

    AFundamentalPlaneforLongGamma-RayBurstswithX-RayPlateaus

    M.G.Dainottietal.“AFundamentalPlaneforLongGamma-RayBurstswithX-RayPlateaus”. In: The Astrophysical Journal Letters 825.2, L20 (July 2016), p. L20. doi: 10.3847/2041- 8205/825/2/L20. arXiv: 1604. 06840 astro-ph.HE 6 The Machine Learning to reconstruct GRB lightcurves M. G. Dainotti

    doi:10.3847/2041- 2016

  8. [7]

    A Study of the Gamma-Ray Burst Fundamental Plane

    M. G. Dainotti et al. “A Study of the Gamma-Ray Burst Fundamental Plane”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 848.2, 88 (Oct. 2017), p. 88. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a6b. arXiv: 1704.04908 astro-ph.HE

    arXiv 2017

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    An optical gamma-ray burst catalogue with mea- sured redshift - I. Data release of 535 gamma-ray bursts and colour evolu- tion

    M. G. Dainotti et al. “An optical gamma-ray burst catalogue with mea- sured redshift - I. Data release of 535 gamma-ray bursts and colour evolu- tion”. In: Monthly Notices of the RoyalAstronomicalSociety533.4(Oct.2024),pp.4023–4043.doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1484. arXiv: 2405.0226...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Optical and X-ray GRB Fundamental Planes as cosmological distance indicators

    M. G. Dainotti et al. “Optical and X-ray GRB Fundamental Planes as cosmological distance indicators”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 514.2 (Aug. 2022), pp. 1828–1856. doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stac1141. arXiv: 2203.15538 astro-ph.CO

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Selection Effects in Gamma-Ray Burst Correlations: Consequences on the Ratio between Gamma-Ray Burst and Star Forma- tion Rates

    M. G. Dainotti et al. “Selection Effects in Gamma-Ray Burst Correlations: Consequences on the Ratio between Gamma-Ray Burst and Star Forma- tion Rates”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 800.1, 31 (Feb. 2015), p. 31. doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/31. arXiv: 1412.3969 astro-ph.HE

    2015 arXiv

  4. [11]

    The gamma-ray bursts fundamental plane correla- tion as a cosmo- logical tool

    M. G. Dainotti et al. “The gamma-ray bursts fundamental plane correla- tion as a cosmo- logical tool”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 518.2 (Jan. 2023), pp. 2201–2240. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2752. arXiv: 2209.08675 astro-ph.HE

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    TheOpticalTwo-andThree-dimensionalFunda-mentalPlaneCorrela- tionsforNearly180Gamma-RayBurstAfterglowswithSwift/UVOT,RATIR,andtheSubaru Telescope

    M.G.Dainottietal.“TheOpticalTwo-andThree-dimensionalFunda-mentalPlaneCorrela- tionsforNearly180Gamma-RayBurstAfterglowswithSwift/UVOT,RATIR,andtheSubaru Telescope”. In: The Astro- physical Journals 261.2, 25 (Aug. 2022), p. 25. doi: 10 . 3847 / 1538 - 4365/ac7c64. arXiv: 2203....

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Determination of the Intrinsic Luminosity Time Correlation in the X-Ray Afterglows of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Maria Giovanna Dainotti et al. “Determination of the Intrinsic Luminosity Time Correlation in the X-Ray Afterglows of Gamma-Ray Bursts”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 774.2, 157 (Sept. 2013), p. 157. doi: 10.1088/ 0004-637X/774/2/157. arXiv: 1307.7297 astro-ph.HE

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Discovery of a Tight Correlation for Gamma-ray Burst Afterglows with “Canonical

    Maria Giovanna Dainotti et al. “Discovery of a Tight Correlation for Gamma-ray Burst Afterglows with “Canonical” Light Curves”. In: The Astrophysical Journal Letters 722.2 (Oct. 2010), pp. L215–L219. doi: 10. 1088/2041-8205/722/2/L215. arXiv: 1009.1663 astro- ph.HE

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Study of Possible Systematics in the L*X - T*a Correlation of Gamma-ray Bursts

    Maria Giovanna Dainotti et al. “Study of Possible Systematics in the L*X - T*a Correlation of Gamma-ray Bursts”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 730.2, 135 (Apr. 2011), p. 135. doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/730/2/135. arXiv: 1101.1676 astro-ph.HE

    2011 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Towards a new model-independent calibration of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Arianna Favale et al. “Towards a new model-independent calibration of Gamma-Ray Bursts”. In: Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 44 (Nov. 2024), pp. 323–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.10.010. arXiv: 2402. 13115 astro-ph.CO 7 The Machine Learning to reconstruct GRB lightcurves ...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission

    N. Gehrels et al. “The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission”. In: The Astro- physical Journal 611.2 (Aug. 2004), pp. 1005–1020. doi: 10.1086/422091. arXiv: astro-ph/0405233 astro-ph

    2004 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Planetary eclipse mapping of CoRoT-2a - Evolution, differential rotation, and spot migration

    Huber, K. F. et al. “Planetary eclipse mapping of CoRoT-2a - Evolution, differential rotation, and spot migration”. In: Astronomy & Astrophysics 514 (2010), A39. doi: 10 . 1051 / 0004 - 6361 / 200913914. url: https : //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/200913914

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    ABias-freeCosmologicalAnalysiswithQuasarsAlleviating H 0 Tension

    AleksanderLukaszLenartetal.“ABias-freeCosmologicalAnalysiswithQuasarsAlleviating H 0 Tension”. In: The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment 264.2, 46 (Feb. 2023), p. 46. doi: 10 . 3847 / 1538 - 4365 / aca404. arXiv: 2211.10785 astro-ph.CO

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Reconstructing a cepheid light curve with Fourier techniques. I. The Fourier expansion and interrelations

    Chow-Choong Ngeow et al. “Reconstructing a cepheid light curve with Fourier techniques. I. The Fourier expansion and interrelations”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 586.2 (2003), p. 959

    2003

  14. [22]

    Measurements ofΩ and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae

    S. Perlmutter et al. “Measurements ofΩ and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 517.2 (June 1999), pp. 565– 586. doi: 10.1086/307221. arXiv: astro-ph/9812133 astro-ph

    1999 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Discovery of an Apparent Red, High-velocity Type Ia Supernova at z = 2.9 with JWST

    J. D. R. Pierel et al. “Discovery of an Apparent Red, High-velocity Type Ia Supernova at z = 2.9 with JWST”. In: The Astrophysical Journall 971.2, L32 (Aug. 2024), p. L32. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6908. arXiv: 2406.05089 astro-ph.GA

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Planck2018results.VI.Cosmologicalpa-rameters

    PlanckCollaborationetal.“Planck2018results.VI.Cosmologicalpa-rameters”.In: Astron- omy & Astrophysics 641, A6 (Sept. 2020), A6. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. arXiv: 1807.06209 astro-ph.CO

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    CorrelationBetween Numberof HiddenLayers andAccuracy ofArtificialNeuralNetwork

    Purva Rautand ApurvaDani. “CorrelationBetween Numberof HiddenLayers andAccuracy ofArtificialNeuralNetwork”.In: AdvancedComput-ingTechnologiesandApplications.Ed. by Hari Vasudevan et al. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2020, pp. 513–521. isbn: 978-981- 15-3242-9

    2020

  18. [26]

    Constraining the GRB-Magnetar Model by Means of the Galactic Pulsar Population

    N. Rea et al. “Constraining the GRB-Magnetar Model by Means of the Galactic Pulsar Population”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 813.2, 92 (Nov. 2015), p. 92. doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/813/2/92. arXiv: 1510. 01430 astro-ph.HE

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. In: The Astronomical Journal 116.3 (Sept. 1998), pp. 1009–1038. doi: 10.1086/300499. arXiv: astro-ph/9805201 astro-ph

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s-1 Mpc-1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team

    Adam G. Riess et al. “A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s-1 Mpc-1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 934.1, L7 (July 2022), p. L7. doi: 10.3847/2041- 8213/ac5c5b. arXiv: 2...

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Constraining properties of GRB magnetar central engines using the observed plateau luminosity and duration correlation

    A. Rowlinson et al. “Constraining properties of GRB magnetar central engines using the observed plateau luminosity and duration correlation”. In: Monthly Notices of the Royal AstronomicalSociety443.2(Sept.2014),pp.1779–1787.doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1277.arXiv: 1407.1053 astro-ph....

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    On the Investigation of the Closure Re- lations for Gamma-Ray Bursts Observed by Swift in the Post-plateau Phase and the GRB Fundamental Plane

    G. P. Srinivasaragavan et al. “On the Investigation of the Closure Re- lations for Gamma-Ray Bursts Observed by Swift in the Post-plateau Phase and the GRB Fundamental Plane”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 903.1, 18 (Nov. 2020), p. 18. doi: 10.3847/1538- 4357/abb702. arXiv: 20...

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    On the Investigation of the Closure Re- lations for Gamma-Ray Bursts Observed by Swift in the Post-plateau Phase and the GRB Fundamental Plane

    G. P. Srinivasaragavan et al. “On the Investigation of the Closure Re- lations for Gamma-Ray Bursts Observed by Swift in the Post-plateau Phase and the GRB Fundamental Plane”. In: The Astrophysical Jour- nal 903.1 (Oct. 2020), p. 18. doi: 10 . 3847 / 1538 - 4357 / abb702. url:...

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Testing the Standard Fireball Model of Gamma- Ray Bursts Using Late X-Ray Afterglows Measured by Swift

    R. Willingale et al. “Testing the Standard Fireball Model of Gamma- Ray Bursts Using Late X-Ray Afterglows Measured by Swift”. In: The Astrophysical Journal 662.2 (June 2007), pp. 1093–1110. doi: 10.1086/ 517989. arXiv: astro-ph/0612031 astro-ph 9

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.