Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Insight-HXMT observations of the extremely bright GRB 221009A

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 0.10-second minimum variability timescale is measured for the main burst of GRB 221009A using secondary-particle signals recorded by Insight-HXMT.

desk verdict A useful recovery of HXMT light curves for GRB 221009A, but the headline MVT of 0.10 s rests on an unquantified temporal-fidelity assumption that needs a dedicated test before the value should be treated as a source property. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18952 v1 pith:4OOQTOJA submitted 2025-04-26 astro-ph.HE

Wen-Long Zhang , Wang-Chen Xue , Cheng-Kui Li , Shao-Lin Xiong , Gang Li , Yong Chen , Wei-Wei Cui , Xiao-Bo Li
show 17 more authors
Cong-Zhan Liu Ming-Yu Ge Wen-Jun Tan Jia-Cong Liu Chen-Wei Wang Chao Zheng Yan-Qiu Zhang Yue Wang Zhen Zhang Shu-Xu Yi Shuo Xiao Ce Cai Shuang-Xi Yi Li-Ming Song Lian Tao Shu Zhang Shuang-Nan Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstGRB221009AInsight-HXMTminimumvariabilitytimescalesecondaryparticlesdead-timecorrectionlightcurverecoveryhightimeresolution
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

GRB 221009A, the brightest gamma-ray burst ever observed, saturated many of the detectors watching it. This paper reports that two Insight-HXMT telescopes, ME and LE, nevertheless recorded the prompt emission through secondary particles produced when the burst's gamma rays struck the satellite itself. After dead-time and saturation corrections, the reconstructed light curves closely track the unsaturated GECAM-C light curves, including the bright main-burst peak and the late flare. Using the high-time-resolution ME light curve, the paper obtains the first minimum variability timescale of the main burst: MVT = $0.10 \pm 0.01$ s for the first bump and $0.15 \pm 0.02$ s for the second. If correct, this establishes that indirect detection through secondary particles can provide high-cadence temporal data where direct gamma-ray detectors saturate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is indirect detection via secondary particles: gamma rays from the burst strike the satellite platform and the material surrounding the ME and LE detectors, producing electrons that deposit energy and trigger events. A Monte Carlo simulation with a mass model of the spacecraft explains the effective-area curves that make the recovered light curves energy-dependent. The temporal recovery depends on dead-time correction for ME and on saturation correction plus a special SAA-mode rescaling for LE, which the paper applies to reconstruct nearly full light curves. The minimum variability timescale (MVT, the shortest timescale at which the light curve shows significant fluctuation above background) is then measured by wavelet analysis of the 10 ms-binned ME light curve, using $10^4$ simulated background light curves to define the 99% containment band.

What would settle it

A quantitative test would be to measure the instrument's time response to a brief, well-localized gamma-ray flash in the same geometry, or to cross-correlate the 10 ms-binned, dead-time-corrected ME light curve with GECAM-C low-gain data binned at 10 ms. If the cross-correlation shows structure broader than about 0.1 s, or if the wavelet power at 0.1 s appears only after corrections are applied, the reported MVT would be an artifact rather than a property of the burst.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ME and LE telescopes detected GRB 221009A not through their nominal X-ray response but through secondary electrons produced when the burst's gamma rays interacted with satellite material, and that these indirect signals faithfully reproduce the temporal structure of the original gamma-ray light curve. The paper shows via Monte Carlo simulation that the effective area for this indirect detection rises with incident photon energy, matching the observed energy-dependent agreement: ME best follows GECAM-C above 400 keV, LE above 1.5 MeV. From the dead-time-corrected ME light curve binned at 10 ms, a wavelet analysis yields MVT = $0.10 \pm 0.01$ s for the first main bump and $0.15 \pm 0.02$ s for the second, with the former taken as the minimum variability timescale of the main burst. The authors then use this 0.10 s timescale, together with $\Gamma \approx 600$, to estimate a prompt-emission radius of about $6\times 10^{15}$ cm, consistent with the radius inferred for the evolving MeV emission line.

Load-bearing premise

The timing analysis depends on the assumption that the secondary-particle signal follows the incident gamma-ray flux with no time smearing at 0.1-second scales, and that the dead-time and saturation corrections (including the LE SAA-mode factor of $100 \times 3/4$) do not inject artificial variability; the paper validates this only by visual comparison with GECAM-C rather than with a quantitative transfer function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ME and LE light curves can be used to study the temporal structure of extremely bright GRBs even when direct gamma-ray detectors are saturated or out of field of view.
  • GRB 221009A's main burst has a minimum variability timescale of $0.10 \pm 0.01$ s, placing it in the overlapping region of long and short GRBs in the MVT-duration diagram.
  • Combining this MVT with $\Gamma \approx 600$ yields an internal-shock radius of roughly $6\times 10^{15}$ cm, consistent with the radius inferred for the evolving MeV emission line.
  • The agreement between the corrected ME/LE light curves and GECAM-C independently supports the conclusion that GECAM-C low-gain data were unaffected by instrumental saturation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if secondary-particle tracking is as faithful as the visual match suggests, particle detectors on other spacecraft could be repurposed as high-time-resolution monitors for the brightest gamma-ray bursts.
  • Because the indirect effective area rises with energy, the ME light curve is effectively a $\gtrsim 400$ keV light curve and the LE light curve a $\gtrsim 1.5$ MeV light curve; energy-band differences therefore matter when comparing MVT values across bursts.
  • A decisive extension would be applying the same correction pipeline to a dimmer burst detected simultaneously by ME/LE and GECAM-C, to check that 0.1 s structures persist in a regime with no saturation corrections.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports Insight-HXMT observations of GRB 221009A with all three telescopes. The HE data are heavily saturated and are not analyzed in detail; the ME and LE light curves are corrected for dead time and saturation, and the LE data are additionally corrected for the SAA working mode with a factor of 100 times 3/4. The corrected ME and LE light curves are compared visually with GECAM-C low-gain light curves and are claimed to track them well, with ME matching the >400 keV band and LE matching the >1.5 MeV band. Geant4 simulations are used to argue that the ME and LE signals are dominated by secondary particles produced by the burst gamma-rays interacting with satellite material. Using the dead-time-corrected ME light curve binned at 10 ms, the authors apply a wavelet analysis and report a minimum variability timescale of MVT = 0.10 ± 0.01 s for the first main bump and 0.15 ± 0.02 s for the second, and use the former to estimate a prompt emission radius.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a rare recovery of temporal structure during the main burst of GRB 221009A, where Fermi/GBM and HXMT/HE saturated, and it would be the first MVT measurement of the main burst episode. The external comparison with GECAM-C, which is unaffected by saturation, is a strong sanity check, and the Geant4-based interpretation in terms of secondary particles is a physically plausible explanation for why ME and LE, whose nominal response to direct gamma-rays is very small, saw the burst. However, the paper's headline quantitative result, the MVT, rests on an unquantified temporal-fidelity assumption: no injected-signal recovery test, impulse-response simulation, or quantitative cross-instrument timing comparison demonstrates that the secondary-particle-measured ME light curve preserves 0.1 s variability after dead-time correction. The comparison with GECAM-C is presented only visually and at bin sizes no finer than 50 ms, so it cannot certify fidelity at the 10 ms binning used for the MVT. The paper is therefore scientifically interesting but needs additional quantitative validation before the MVT can be accepted as a source property.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figure 14] The MVT = 0.10 ± 0.01 s is computed from the dead-time-corrected ME light curve binned at 10 ms, but the paper provides no test showing that the secondary-particle signal and the dead-time correction preserve variability on 0.1 s timescales. The only temporal validation is visual agreement with GECAM-C at bin sizes from 0.05 s to 1 s, and GECAM-C itself has 50 ms time bins; agreement at those bin sizes does not establish fidelity at 10 ms binning. The authors should add an injected-signal recovery test (e.g., embed a synthetic 0.1 s feature into the raw ME event stream, apply the same dead-time correction and wavelet analysis, and show it is recovered) or a simulation of the temporal impulse response of the ME chain, including count-rate-dependent dead time. Without such a test, the possibility remains that 0.10 s is an instrumental floor set by the secondary-particle response or by the correction procedure rather than an intrinsic GRB timescale.
  2. [Section 4.1, Figures 9-13] The claim that the ME and LE light curves 'track' or 'match' the GECAM-C light curves is supported only by visual inspection and maximum-normalized overlays. No quantitative metric (cross-correlation coefficient, χ², or time-dependent residual statistics with uncertainties) is reported, and the maximum-normalization procedure can hide additive or multiplicative distortions in the recovery. This matters because the authors use this agreement to argue that the secondary-particle light curves 'can largely reproduce the temporal structure of the original high-energy gamma photons,' which is the basis for trusting the ME light curve at higher time resolution. A quantitative comparison, at least in the form of residual plots with error bars and a correlation coefficient over the main-burst interval, should be added.
  3. [Section 2.2, Figures 5 and 12] The LE SAA-mode correction multiplies the measured count rate by a factor of 100 times 3/4, and the paper explicitly states that 'the margin of error is significant due to the small number of counts actually detected.' The gray regions in Figures 5, 9, and 12 mark the SAA intervals, and the figure captions concede that the correction factor 'may require further refinement in the regions.' Since the LE light curve is used to support the full-coverage temporal comparison and the energy-band-dependent matching with GECAM-C, the uncertainty in these corrected intervals should be propagated into the comparison; at present it is not clear whether the agreement in the SAA-recovered intervals is consistent with the stated uncertainty or is merely qualitative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and text] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'Espeically' (Abstract), 'caculated' (Section 4.2), 'secondariy' (Section 5), 'unalbe' (Section 4.2), 'becuase' (Section 5), 'evlove' (Section 5), and 'bight flare' (Section 1).
  2. [Figure 9] The caption states that the ME light curve is multiplied by a factor of five, but the text and later figures use maximum normalization for comparisons; the relationship between the raw scaling and the normalized comparison should be clarified.
  3. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'the light curve of ME is most consistent with the GECAM-C light curve in all energy band' is ambiguous; the authors likely mean that ME matches the summed low-gain light curve, but this should be stated explicitly with respect to the two energy bands defined earlier.
  4. [Section 4.2] The wavelet background simulation uses 10^4 simulated light curves and a 99% containment interval, but the paper does not specify whether the background rate is estimated from a time interval with no burst emission or how the Poisson noise of the dead-time-corrected counts is modeled; this detail should be added for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MVT is read off a wavelet significance test against simulated background, not fitted; the GECAM-C comparison is external; self-citations are calibration references, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is the minimum variability timescale (MVT = 0.10 s) of the main burst episode, derived in Section 4.2 from the dead-time-corrected ME light curve using the wavelet method. The calculation is self-contained: the MVT is defined as the smallest timescale whose wavelet power deviates from the 99% containment interval of 10^4 simulated background light curves, with the background rate estimated from an off-burst interval. No parameter of the source light curve is fitted into the MVT, and the GECAM-C light curves are used only as an external cross-check of the temporal shape, not as an input to the wavelet analysis. The secondary-particle interpretation of the ME and LE signals is supported by a forward Geant4 simulation of the instrument mass model; the simulated effective areas are used to explain the energy-band matching with GECAM-C, but the MVT measurement does not depend on the simulation outputs. The paper's self-citations are to instrument papers, calibration references, and the dead-time correction software (e.g., Zhang et al. 2020; Xiao et al. 2020; Ge et al. 2023), which are normal load-bearing references for data reduction, not circular imports of the result. The paper explicitly acknowledges limitations, including significant uncertainty in the LE SAA-mode correction factor, and the absence of a quantitative temporal transfer-function test is a correctness/robustness concern rather than a circularity: no equation or fitted parameter reduces the MVT to an input by construction. The post hoc 1.5 MeV energy division of GECAM-C light curves shapes the interpretation of which energy band LE tracks, but it does not enter the variability measurement. Overall, the derivation chain is independent, and the central claim is validated against an external instrument, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is an observed light curve, not a derivation from a model, so there are few free parameters. The only hand-chosen threshold is the 1.5 MeV GECAM-C band split, which affects only the energy-response interpretation. The main burdens are modeling assumptions about secondary particle production and correction fidelity, neither of which is independently verified beyond visual agreement with GECAM-C.

free parameters (1)
  • GECAM-C comparison band split = 1.5 MeV
    The GECAM-C light curve is split at 1.5 MeV after visual inspection showed LE correlates better with bands above 1.5 MeV; the threshold is not derived from a model and is used only for the energy-response interpretation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GECAM-C low-gain light curves are free of saturation and instrumental distortions (An et al. 2023).
    The paper uses GECAM-C as the benchmark for validating the recovered ME and LE light curves; if GECAM-C were itself distorted, the consistency argument weakens.
  • domain assumption ME and LE signals are dominated by secondary particles produced by GRB gamma rays interacting with satellite material, not by direct photon detection or unrelated background.
    This interpretation rests on Geant4 simulations whose mass model is described but not released; the paper does not separately quantify the direct-photon contribution.
  • domain assumption Dead-time and saturation corrections, including the LE SAA-mode factor of 100 times 3/4, recover true count rates without introducing artificial variability at millisecond to 0.1 second timescales.
    The MVT measurement depends on this; the paper only checks the result visually against GECAM-C at 0.05 to 1 s bins, not at 10 ms.
  • standard math Wavelet significance against 10^4 simulated background light curves yields a valid MVT (Torrence and Compo 1998; Vianello et al. 2018).
    This is a standard method, though it depends on the background estimate and the 99% containment choice.
  • domain assumption The prompt emission radius estimate r_IS approximately 2 Gamma squared c t_v with Gamma approximately 600 from Zhang et al. 2024a is valid for this burst.
    Used in Section 4.2 to derive r_IS approximately 6e15 cm; this is a consistency check, not the central measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insight-HXMT observations of the extremely bright GRB 221009A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4OOQTOJA

@misc{pith2026250418952,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insight-HXMT observations of the extremely bright GRB 221009A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4OOQTOJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18952}
}
read the original abstract

The Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope (\insight) detected GRB 221009A, the brightest gamma-ray burst observed to date, with all its three telescopes, i.e. High Energy telescope (HE, 20-250 keV), Medium Energy telescope (ME, 5-30 keV), and Low Energy telescope (LE, 1-10 keV). Here we present the detailed observation results of all three telescopes of \insight~ on the prompt emission of GRB 221009A. After dead-time and data saturation correction, we recovered the light curves of HE, ME and LE telescopes and find that they generally track the GECAM-C low gain light curves that are free of data saturation issues. Particularly, the ME light curve matches the GECAM-C light curve in low gain mode above 400 keV, while the LE light curve is more consistent with the GECAM-C above 1.5 MeV. Based on simulation, we find that the signals recorded by the ME and LE are actually caused by the secondary particles produced by the interaction between GRB gamma-ray photons and the material of the satellite. Interestingly, the consistency between ME and LE light curves and GECAM-C demonstrates that ME and LE data could be used to characterize the GRB properties. Espeically, the high time resolution light curve of ME allowed us, for the first time, to calculate the minimum variability timescale (MVT = 0.10 s) of the main burst episode of GRB 221009A.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18952 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The illustration of Insight-HXMT mass model with satel￾lite platform and the payloads of HE, ME and LE telescopes. The coordinates is shown on the upper left. ious X-ray sources (e.g. Ma et al. 2021; Li et al. 2021; You et al. 2023). On contrast, since the high energy gamma-rays can pen￾etrate the satellite structure and leave signal in the CsI de￾tectors of HE, the CsI can effectively monitor the all-sky in gamma-r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Incident angles of GRB 221009A with respect to In￾sight-HXMT. Insight-HXMT is executing Galactic Plane Scanning Survey. Top panel: the incident angle θ changes with the time since trigger time T0. Bottom panel: the incident angles θ and ϕ during T0 to T0+700 s. The time evolution could be inferred from the top panel. phase, therefore we will not analyze the HE data in more de￾tail but focus on the ME and LE data her… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. HE raw light curves. The blue line shows the CsI raw light curve during T0-100 s to T0+700 s. The green line presents the NaI raw light curve. The grey regions indicate the time intervals of data saturation and the SAA region working mode. 3. SIMULATION Because this burst is out of the field of view of ME and LE, and their detection efficiency of gamma-rays is very low, it was initially unclear to us why ME and LE r… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ME light curves. The black line shows the dead-time corrected ME light curve during T0+170 s to T0+600 s. The green line presents the ME raw light curve. The grey regions are the time intervals of the SAA region working mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LE light curves. The black line represents the LE cor￾rected light curve with a bin size of 0.3 s, the green line represents the LE raw light curve, and the red line represents the LE light curve of the force trigger events. The gray regions show the time when LE enter…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated energy response of LE for GRB 221009A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effective area of ME and LE for GRB 221009A derived from the simulation. As mentioned in section 2.2, Insight-HXMT/HE suffered severe and prolonged saturation during the most energetic prompt emission, thus we just used the light curves of ME and LE to compare with the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Light curve comparison of Insight-HXMT/ME and LE and GECAM-C low gain. The red line represents the LE light curve with a bin size of 0.2 s, the green line represents the ME light curve, multiplied by a factor of five, with a bin size of 0.1 s, and the blue line represe…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Insight-HXMT ME and LE as well as GECAM-C nor￾malized light curves from T0+220 s to T0+240 s in two energy bands. (i.e. 50 ms for GECAM-C). But the reconstructed light curves of ME and LE in this work do offer data for GRB 221009A, even for the most bright region, wit…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the light curves of Insight-HXMT/LE and GECAM-C low gain around the peak of GRB 221009A. The gray regions indicate the time when LE entered and exited the SAA region working mode. Note that the LE light curve’s correction factor may require further refin…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Light curves from Insight-HXMT ME and LE as well as GECAM-C low gain during the flare of GRB 221009A. very high, it provided a very complete time coverage of GRB 221009A with high temporal resolution data. 4.2. Minimum Variability Timescale Thanks to its higher statis…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The MVT results of the first main bump (top) and second main bump (bottom) of GRB 221009A, caculated with the wavelet analysis method (Vianello et al. 2018) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The position of GRB 221009A in the minimum variabil￾ity timescale versus duration diagram. GRB samples are collected from Golkhou et al. (2015). light curves for the HE, ME and LE telescopes of Insight￾HXMT by applying dead-time and saturation corrections, and found t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A set of distinctive properties ruling the prompt emission of GRB 230307A and other long {\gamma}-ray bursts from compact object mergers

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    GRB 230307A and several other long merger-candidate bursts show exponential evolution of pulse intensity, waiting time, duration, and spectral peak energy, contrasting with supernova-associated long bursts.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V ., Balikhin, M., Hull, A

    Agapitov, O. V ., Balikhin, M., Hull, A. J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accfa0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accfa0 2023

  2. [2]

    2024, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4123241/v1

    An, T., Geng, J., Zhang, Y ., et al. 2024, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4123241/v1

    work page doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4123241/v1 2024

  3. [3]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    An, Z.-H., Antier, S., Bi, X.-Z., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.01203 2023

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04580, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04580

    Axelsson, M., Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.04580, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04580

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.04580 2024

  5. [5]

    M., et al

    Battiston, R., Neub¨user, C., Follega, F. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc247

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc247 2023

  6. [6]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32637, 1

    Bissaldi, E., Omodei, N., Kerr, M., & Fermi-LAT Team. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32637, 1

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    K., Villar, V

    Blanchard, P. K., Villar, V . A., Chornock, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 774, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02237-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02237-4 2024

  8. [8]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    Burns, E., Svinkin, D., Fenimore, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c 2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    L., Li, C

    Cai, C., Xiong, S. L., Li, C. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2760

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 2005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3075

    Cai, C., Xiong, S.-L., Xue, W.-C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3075

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249504, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1

    Cao, X., Jiang, W., Meng, B., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249504, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1506-1

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eadj2778, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adj2778

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadj2778, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adj2778

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    X., et al

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., Axikegu, Bai, Y . X., et al. 2024, PhRvL, 133, 071501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.071501

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249505, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5

    Chen, Y ., Cui, W., Li, W., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249505, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1469-5

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cec de Ugarte Postigo, A., Izzo, L., Pugliese, G., et al

    Cheng, W., Xu, W., Xiong, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cec de Ugarte Postigo, A., Izzo, L., Pugliese, G., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32648, 1

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Kennea, J

    Dichiara, S., Gropp, J. D., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32632, 1

    2022

  9. [17]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32668, 1

    Frederiks, D., Lysenko, A., Ridnaia, A., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32668, 1

    2022

  10. [18]

    L., et al

    Frederiks, D., Svinkin, D., Lysenko, A. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Y ., Liu, C

    Ge, M. Y ., Liu, C. Z., Zhang, S. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acda1d

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33243, 1

    Giarratana, S., Giroletti, M., An, T., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33243, 1

    2023

  13. [21]

    Z., Butler, N

    Golkhou, V . Z., Butler, N. R., & Littlejohns, O. M. 2015, ApJ, 811, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/93

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32660, 1

    Gotz, D., Mereghetti, S., Savchenko, V ., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32660, 1

    2022

  15. [23]

    A., & Gallagher, P

    Hayes, L. A., & Gallagher, P. T. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 222, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac9d2f

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32677, 1

    Huang, Y ., Hu, S., Chen, S., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32677, 1

    2022

  17. [25]

    Kocevski, D., Butler, N., & Bloom, J. S. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1024, doi: 10.1086/520041

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Laskar, T., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbfad

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    S., et al

    Lesage, S., Veres, P., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5b4 LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 1390, doi: 10.1126/science.adg9328

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    K., Lin, L., Xiong, S

    Li, C. K., Lin, L., Xiong, S. L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 378, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01302-6

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, Sci

    Li, T., et al. 2018, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 61, 031011, doi: 10.1007/s11433-017-9107-5

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2020a, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 64, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.009 —

    Li, X., Li, X., Tan, Y ., et al. 2020a, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 64, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.009 —. 2020b, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 64, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.009

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10714, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.10714

    Li, X., Chen, Y ., Song, L., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10714, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.10714

    doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.03859, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.03859

    Li, X.-F., Liu, C.-Z., Zhang, Y .-F., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.03859, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.03859

    doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.14459

    Liao, J.-Y ., Zhang, S., Zhang, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.14459. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14459 11

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x

    Liu, C., Zhang, Y ., Li, X., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1486-x

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJL, 943, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf5e

    Liu, R.-Y ., Zhang, H.-M., & Wang, X.-Y . 2023, ApJL, 943, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf5e

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2020.04.004

    Luo, Q., Liao, J.-Y ., Li, X.-F., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 27, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2020.04.004

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    Ma, X., Tao, L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 94, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1192-2

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    B., Levan, A

    Malesani, D. B., Levan, A. J., Izzo, L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.07891, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.07891

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba17

    Negro, M., Di Lalla, N., Omodei, N., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acba17

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, Atmosphere, 14, 217, doi: 10.3390/atmos14020217 Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B

    Pal, S., Hobara, Y ., Shvets, A., et al. 2023, Atmosphere, 14, 217, doi: 10.3390/atmos14020217 Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.16241, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.16241

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32658, 1

    Pillera, R., Bissaldi, E., Omodei, N., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32658, 1

    2022

  34. [42]

    E., Salafia, O

    Ravasio, M. E., Salafia, O. S., Oganesyan, G., et al. 2023, A bright megaelectronvolt emission line inγ-ray burst GRB 221009A. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16223

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    E., Salafia, O

    Ravasio, M. E., Salafia, O. S., Oganesyan, G., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 452, doi: 10.1126/science.adj3638

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4d22

    Song, X.-Y ., Xiong, S.-L., Zhang, S.-N., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4d22

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    J., Li, C

    Tan, W. J., Li, C. K., Ge, M. Y ., et al. 2022, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15660, 1

    2022

  38. [46]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc1dc

    Tiengo, A., Pintore, F., Vaia, B., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc1dc

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Torrence, C., & Compo, G. P. 1998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 61, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079⟨0061:APGTW A⟩2.0.CO;2

    1998 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32650, 1

    Ursi, A., Panebianco, G., Pittori, C., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32650, 1

    2022

  41. [49]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32636, 1

    Veres, P., Burns, E., Bissaldi, E., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32636, 1

    2022

  42. [50]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ea ˇR´ıpa, J., Takahashi, H., Fukazawa, Y ., et al

    Vianello, G., Gill, R., Granot, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ea ˇR´ıpa, J., Takahashi, H., Fukazawa, Y ., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346128 ˇSiljeg, B., Boˇsnjak, ˇZ., Jeli´c, V ., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2605, doi: 10.1...

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, ApJL, 968, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ce1

    Wei, Y .-J., Ren, J., He, H.-N., et al. 2024, ApJL, 968, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4ce1

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Kennea, J

    Williams, M. A., Kennea, J. A., Dichiara, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbcd1

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    L., Liu, C

    Xiao, S., Xiong, S. L., Liu, C. Z., et al. 2020, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 26, 58, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.02.003

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    S., et al

    Yi, S.-X., Zhang, Z., Yorgancioglu, E. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 982, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2403

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, Science, 381, 961, doi: 10.1126/science.abo4504

    You, B., Cao, X., Yan, Z., et al. 2023, Science, 381, 961, doi: 10.1126/science.abo4504

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6

    Zhang, S.-N., Li, T., Lu, F., et al. 2020, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 63, 249502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-019-1432-6

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, A&A, 693, A290, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453174

    Zhang, W.-L., Yi, S.-X., Zou, Y .-C., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A290, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453174

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    2024a, ApJL, 972, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6df8

    Zhang, Y .-Q., Lin, H., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2024a, ApJL, 972, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6df8

    doi

  51. [59]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 67, 289511, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2381-0

    doi

  52. [60]

    2024c, ApJL, 973, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad758e

    Zhang, Z., Lin, H., Li, Z., et al. 2024c, ApJL, 973, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad758e

    doi

  53. [61]

    2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Zhao, H. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2020

  54. [62]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2073

    Zheng, C., Zhang, Y .-Q., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2073

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.