Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Prospects for the Detection of High-Redshift Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Era of EP and SVOM

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Einstein Probe is predicted to find about five gamma-ray bursts per year from the early universe.

desk verdict A clear, transparent forecast of EP/SVOM high-z GRB detections; headline rates are plausible, but the paper's own total-rate discrepancy means they should be read as model-dependent rather than calibrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04709 v2 pith:DMPCKLMS submitted 2025-06-05 astro-ph.HE

Jun-Jie Wei , Xue-Feng Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstshigh-redshiftuniverseEinsteinProbeWXTSVOMECLAIRspopulationsynthesisluminosityfunctionstarformationobservationalcosmology
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

Gamma-ray bursts from the early universe are rare—only eleven bursts at redshift $z\ge6$ have been identified in twenty years of \emph{Swift} observations—but they are among the few tools that can probe the epoch of reionization and the first stars. The paper argues that two newly operating soft-X-ray missions, the Einstein Probe and SVOM, are well suited to finding them, because high-$z$ bursts are faint and their peak emission is redshifted to low energies. Using a population-synthesis model calibrated to \emph{Swift}, it predicts that EP/WXT will detect about $5.1^{+3.4}_{-2.4}$ bursts per year at $z>6$ and SVOM/ECLAIRs about $0.7^{+1.0}_{-0.4}$ per year, enough to roughly double the known sample within a few years. Because EP cannot measure redshifts itself, the authors estimate that with a 30% follow-up efficiency it will confirm about 1.5 $z>6$ bursts per year. The same model predicts that EP will collect a large sample of soft, low-luminosity bursts at low redshift, which bears on the structure of gamma-ray burst jets.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the differential detection-rate integral $$N=\frac{\$\Delta$\$\Omega$}{4\pi}T\eta_{\rm duty}\$int_0^{{z_{\rm max}}$}\frac{\psi(z)}{1+z}\frac{dV(z)}{dz}dz\int_{L_{\rm lim}(z)}^{L_{\rm max}}\$\varphi$(L)\,dL,$$ in which the GRB formation rate $\psi(z)\propto\psi_\star(z)(1+z)^\delta$ and the broken power-law luminosity function $\phi(L)$ come from Salvaterra et al. (2012), and the per-burst k-correction converts a detector's flux threshold into a luminosity threshold via the Band-function spectrum and the Epeak-L correlation. The mechanism is the calibration loop: the synthetic population is normalized to the Swift/BAT6 bright-burst rate and shown to reproduce the cumulative flux distributions seen by Swift and Fermi before being projected into EP/WXT's and SVOM/ECLAIRs' energy bands. That is what turns instrumental specifications alone into annual high-redshift detection rates.

What would settle it

Count the $z>6$ bursts EP/WXT actually detects with spectroscopic or reliable photometric redshifts over the first two to three years of full operation. If the confirmed rate with ~30% follow-up falls well below 1.5 per year (e.g., fewer than about three confirmed $z>6$ bursts total in three years), or if EP's total fast-transient count stays near the current ~68 per year rather than approaching the predicted ~276, the extrapolated population model is overestimating the detection rate. A single very bright $z>7$ burst like GRB 250314A would not settle it; the cumulative count is the test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is a quantitative detection-rate prediction. Adopting the Salvaterra et al. (2012) population-synthesis model—a GRB formation rate that follows the cosmic star-formation rate with an extra $(1+z)^{1.7}$ evolution and a broken power-law luminosity function spanning $10^{47}$ to $10^{55}$ erg per second—and applying each instrument's published energy band, 10-s sensitivity, field of view, and duty cycle, the authors find that EP/WXT should detect $5.1^{+3.4}_{-2.4}\ \mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ at $z>6$ ($1.3^{+1.2}_{-0.7}$ at $z>8$ and $0.5^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ at $z>10$), while SVOM/ECLAIRs should detect $0.7^{+1.0}_{-0.4}\ \mathrm{yr^{-1}}$ at $z>6$. The simulated population is checked against the cumulative flux distributions of Swift/BAT and Fermi/GBM, and the high-$z$ rates are similar under the alternative population models of Lan et al. (2021) and Ghirlanda & Salvaterra (2022). Since EP cannot determine redshifts, the authors fold in a ~30% ground-based follow-up efficiency and obtain about $1.5^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ confirmed $z>6$ bursts per year for EP. They also claim that EP's soft 0.5-4 keV selection picks out a distinct population of soft, low-luminosity GRBs, with about 10% of $z<1$ detections below $10^{49}$ erg per second and with peak energies below 20 keV.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on assuming that the statistical population of gamma-ray bursts—how bright they are and how often they occur—measured from Swift's bright bursts is the same population EP sees in its soft X-ray band, down to very faint bursts and out to redshift 20, including the assumed relation between burst brightness and spectral peak energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The combined EP and SVOM samples should roughly double the catalog of $z\ge6$ GRBs within a few years, creating the first statistical sample large enough to use bursts as tracers of star formation, reionization, and metal enrichment in the early universe.
  • EP/WXT's soft X-ray band is predicted to be the more productive high-$z$ hunter by about a factor of seven, making soft X-ray triggers the most promising route to very distant bursts.
  • The number of confirmed high-$z$ bursts from EP is set as much by ground-based near-infrared follow-up as by the telescope: at a 30% follow-up efficiency the yield is about 1.5 per year, so improving follow-up directly multiplies the sample.
  • EP should deliver a statistically useful sample of about 10% of its $z<1$ bursts as soft, low-luminosity events, enabling tests of X-ray flash and jet-structure models.
  • The model's predicted total EP rate of about 276 events per year is well above the roughly 68 fast X-ray transients per year currently reported, indicating that either the threshold assumption or the catalogue completeness will need to be revisited as mission data accumulate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the current ~68 fast X-ray transients per year prove to be EP's true total rate rather than an incompleteness effect, the model's high-$z$ rates would scale down by roughly a factor of four; the first two years of $z>6$ counts will decide.
  • Because the predictions lean on the Epeak-L correlation, EP's soft-band sample can double as a test of that correlation at low luminosity and high redshift; any systematic offset would shift both the rate estimates and the inferred jet physics.
  • EP's inability to measure redshifts means the scientific payoff hinges on coordination with 8-meter-class near-infrared spectrographs; raising the follow-up fraction from 30% to 60% would double the confirmed high-$z$ yield without any change to the satellite.
  • Bursts bright enough to be seen by both EP and SVOM would provide a cross-calibration of the two instruments, testing whether the soft-band spectral assumptions used in the k-corrections are correct.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a population-synthesis tool, calibrated to the Swift/BAT burst population, to predict high-redshift (z>6, 8, 10) GRB detection rates for EP/WXT and SVOM/ECLAIRs. Using the Salvaterra et al. (2012) baseline model with a Band-function spectrum and an Epeak-L correlation, it predicts ~5.1^{+3.4}_{-2.4} EP/WXT detections per year at z>6 and ~0.7^{+1.0}_{-0.4} SVOM/ECLAIRs detections per year at z>6, and ~1.5 confirmed z>6 events per year assuming a 30% spectroscopic follow-up efficiency. The framework is also run with the Lan et al. (2021) and Ghirlanda & Salvaterra (2022) models, and the simulated flux distributions are compared with Swift/BAT and Fermi/GBM samples.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, EP and SVOM would roughly double the known z>6 GRB sample within a few years and provide a statistical sample for early-Universe probes. The paper's strengths are its transparent analytic framework, explicit Monte Carlo propagation of parameter uncertainties, the use of three independent published population models, and a direct comparison with Swift and Fermi flux distributions. The Fermi comparison and the use of multiple models give partial external grounding. The significance is, however, tempered by the absence of an in-domain validation in EP/WXT's 0.5-4 keV band and by the factor-of-four overprediction of the total EP/WXT rate that the paper itself reports; the headline high-z number therefore remains a model-dependent extrapolation rather than a fully calibrated detector prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 3] The predicted total EP/WXT detection rate, 276^{+264}_{-175} events/yr, is about a factor of four above the observed GCN rate of ~68 events/yr. The authors attribute the excess to near-threshold incompleteness and an uncertain 10-s sensitivity, but the same sharp flux threshold and the same spectral k-correction machinery enter the z>6 integral through Eqs. (3)-(6). The 68% intervals quoted for the high-z rates are therefore conditional on the assumed Plim and spectral model; a recalibration to the observed EP/WXT total rate, or a propagation of the effective-threshold uncertainty, is needed before the value 5.1^{+3.4}_{-2.4} yr^{-1} can be read as a detector prediction. The high-z tail is not identical to the low-luminosity population that drives the total excess, so this concern may fail, but the manuscript should show this explicitly rather than leaving the discrepancy in the total-rate discussion.
  2. [Section 2.2, Section 2.3, Figure 1] The model is calibrated to the Swift/BAT6 sample and validated against Swift/BAT and Fermi/GBM flux distributions in the 15-150 keV and 50-300 keV bands. No validation is provided in the 0.5-4 keV band in which EP/WXT operates. The high-z bursts that dominate the z>6 prediction are soft, relatively faint events obtained by extrapolating the Swift-fitted luminosity function and Epeak-L correlation to Epeak values and luminosities outside the calibrating sample. The agreement among the S12, Lan et al., and Ghirlanda & Salvaterra models does not remove this concern because all three share the same Band/Epeak-L machinery and are normalized to bright Swift/Fermi samples in harder bands; the one in-domain check, the EP/WXT total rate, is currently negative. The manuscript should either calibrate the model to EP/WXT's observed soft-band flux distribution or explicitly quantify how the high-z rate depends on the Epeak-L and low-luminosity extrapolation.
  3. [Section 4, Abstract] The assumption of a ~30% ground-based spectroscopic follow-up efficiency for EP events is introduced without citation, derivation, or sensitivity analysis. This assumption is linearly load-bearing for the abstract's headline claim of ~1.5 confirmed z>6 GRBs per year. Please justify the 30% value with reference to follow-up statistics of similar X-ray-selected transients, or present the confirmed rate as a function of follow-up efficiency so that the central result is not tied to an unsupported constant.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'Swi f t' in the Introduction and 'In conclusions' in Section 4; a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Table 3] The Lan et al. (2021) row gives SVOM/ECLAIRs z>0 rate as 80^{+1}_{-1} events/yr, with an uncertainty far smaller than for the other models; please check whether this reflects the propagation of parameter uncertainties or a normalization convention, and clarify in the table caption.
  3. [Section 2.3, Figure 1] The statement 'No attempt was made to fit the observed flux distributions' is useful, but the following sentence describes agreement as supporting the model assumptions; please rephrase to clarify that the model is calibrated to the total rate and the flux-shape agreement is a consistency check, not an independent validation.
  4. [Section 3, Figure 3] The discussion of GRB 250314A notes that the burst falls outside the 3-sigma contour at the 10-s sensitivity but inside the contour at the 1000-s sensitivity; since the square represents one realized event, the text should avoid implying that a single event provides strong statistical discrimination between the two sensitivity assumptions.
  5. [Equations (5) and (6)] Please state explicitly whether N(E) denotes the observed photon spectrum or the rest-frame spectrum, since the k-correction definition depends on this convention and the current notation is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: EP/SVOM high-z rates are extrapolations from Swift-calibrated population models, with no parameter fitted to the target instruments.

full rationale

The paper's central forecast is not circular. The S12, Lan21, and GS22 population models were fitted to Swift/BAT bright-burst samples and the simulation is normalized to the Swift/BAT rate (Section 2.3), but the EP/WXT and SVOM/ECLAIRs z>6 rates are then computed by applying each detector's energy band, sensitivity, field of view, and duty cycle through Equations (3)-(6); no parameter is adjusted to match EP or SVOM event counts, and the z>6 numbers are not inputs to the model. The agreement in Figure 1 with the Swift flux distribution is explicitly labeled a consistency check that the code reproduces the calibration sample, and the Fermi/GBM comparison is an independent external benchmark. The use of Lan et al. (2021) as an alternative model is a self-citation (Wei and Wu are co-authors), but it is not load-bearing: the S12 baseline and the external Ghirlanda & Salvaterra (2022) model yield similar high-z rates, so the robustness claim does not reduce to that self-citation. The paper honestly flags the main weakness in Section 3: the S12 model predicts about 276 EP/WXT events per year versus about 68 observed through GCN circulars, and the authors note that the 10-s limiting flux may not be appropriate; this discrepancy is a model-validation and calibration risk that propagates into the z>6 integral, but it is not circularity because the prediction is not obtained by fitting to those observed counts. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted parameter or uniqueness result is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The predictions rest on a Swift-calibrated GRB luminosity function and formation rate, an empirical Epeak-L correlation, assumed Band spectra, and nominal instrument sensitivities; the paper adds one ad hoc follow-up efficiency for the confirmed-rate sub-claim. No code or data files are shipped, and the total EP/WXT rate predicted by the baseline model exceeds the observed rate by a factor of about 4, showing the extrapolation carries unquantified systematic risk.

free parameters (6)
  • S12 luminosity function parameters (nu1, nu2, Lb) = nu1=1.50, nu2=2.32, Lb=3.8e52 erg/s
    Broken power-law LF fitted to Swift BAT6 sample by Salvaterra et al. (2012); the central high-z and low-luminosity extrapolations depend on these values.
  • S12 GRB formation rate evolution index delta = 1.7 +/- 0.5
    Power-law evolution of GRB rate relative to cosmic SFR, fitted to Swift; drives the high-z tail of predicted counts.
  • Epeak-L correlation coefficients and scatter = log10[Epeak(1+z)] = -25.33 + 0.53 log10 L; sigma_sc = 0.29 dex
    Empirical correlation from Yonetoku et al. (2004) and Nava et al. (2012); used to assign rest-frame peak energies and to compute k-corrections, including for bursts far outside the fitted luminosity range.
  • Population normalization (GRB formation efficiency per stellar mass) = not quoted; scaled so simulated rate equals ~21 events/yr/sr for P>=2.6 ph/cm2/s
    The synthetic population is normalized to the observed Swift/BAT bright rate in Section 2.3; the predicted absolute rates inherit this calibration.
  • Band function spectral index distributions = alpha=-1, beta=-2.3, sigma=0.2
    Assumed Gaussian distributions from Kaneko et al. (2006), Nava et al. (2011), and von Kienlin et al. (2020); used for k-correction flux conversion.
  • Ground-based follow-up efficiency for EP redshifts = 30%
    Assumed fraction of EP-detected bursts with successful redshifts; yields the 1.5/yr confirmed z>6 estimate and is stated without observational support in Section 4.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Flat LambdaCDM cosmology with H0=67.4, Omega_m=0.315, Omega_Lambda=0.685 and the comoving volume element (Eq. 2).
    Standard distance-redshift relations used throughout; no independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption GRB formation rate traces the cosmic SFR times (1+z)^delta up to z=20 (Eq. 7), following S12.
    Extrapolates Swift-calibrated evolution to redshifts and bands where the model has little direct constraint.
  • domain assumption The broken power-law luminosity function (Eq. 8) is valid down to 1e47 erg/s and at high z.
    No independent low-luminosity or high-z constraint; EP's soft sample is exactly the regime being predicted.
  • domain assumption The Epeak-L correlation applies to all mock bursts, including soft, low-luminosity, high-z events.
    The correlation is calibrated on relatively bright, mostly low-z Swift bursts; extrapolation drives k-corrections.
  • domain assumption Band function spectral shape with alpha=-1, beta=-2.3 applies across the 0.5-150 keV observed band and 1-1e4 keV rest frame.
    k-correction and luminosity thresholds use this spectral model (Eqs. 5-6).
  • domain assumption Nominal 10-s sensitivities act as detection thresholds; all bursts above threshold are detected.
    The authors note this threshold may not be appropriate, since the model predicts 276 EP/yr vs about 68 observed.
  • ad hoc to paper 30% spectroscopic follow-up efficiency for EP events.
    Assumed in Section 4 with no empirical basis; sets the confirmed-rate prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospects for the Detection of High-Redshift Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Era of EP and SVOM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DMPCKLMS

@misc{pith2026250604709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospects for the Detection of High-Redshift Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Era of EP and SVOM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DMPCKLMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04709}
}
abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are a promising probe of the high-redshift Universe, but their detection remains observationally challenging. In this work, we explore the detectability of high-$z$ GRBs by the Wide-field X-ray Telescope (WXT) aboard the Einstein Probe (\emph{EP}) and the coded-mask gamma-ray imager (ECLAIRs) aboard the Space-based multi-band astronomical Variable Objects Monitor (\emph{SVOM}). Using a population synthesis model calibrated to $Swift$ GRB observations, we develop a tool to estimate high-$z$ GRB detection rates for instruments with specific energy bands and sensitivities. Our results indicate that \emph{EP}/WXT could detect $\sim5.1^{+3.4}_{-2.4}$ (with 68\% confidence level) GRBs annually at $z>6$, compared to $\sim0.7^{+1.0}_{-0.4}$ $\mathrm{events\,yr^{-1}}$ at $z>6$ for \emph{SVOM}/ECLAIRs. While \emph{EP} cannot independently determine redshifts (requiring optical/near-infrared follow-up), its assumed $\sim30\%$ follow-up efficiency yields $\sim1.5^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ confirmed $z>6$ GRBs annually. \emph{SVOM}, equipped with dedicated follow-up telescopes, will promptly identify high-$z$ candidates deserving deep near-infrared spectroscopy to ensure robust confirmation of high-$z$ GRBs. We anticipate that \emph{EP} and \emph{SVOM} will open new avenues for utilizing enlarged samples of high-$z$ GRBs to explore the early Universe. Moreover, \emph{EP} will assemble a substantial sample of soft, low-luminosity GRBs at low-to-intermediate redshifts, providing critical insights into the structure of GRB jets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. displays the cumulative flux distribution of the observed Swift sample (blue dots), comprising 453 GRBs with P ≥ 2.6 phcm−2 s −1 . Using the simulation framework described above, we compute the expected flux distribution 4 https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/grb_table/ 100 101 102 Peak Flux [ph cm−2 s−1 ] 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 Rate( > P) [yr −1 sr −1 ] 15 − 150 keV 50 − 300 keV Swift/BAT (P > 2.6 ph cm−2 s−1) Fermi/… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. presents the redshift distributions and cumulative numbers of detected GRBs expected from observations by EP/WXT and SVOM/ECLAIRs (red curves for EP/WXT and blue ones for SVOM/ECLAIRs). The shaded regions around the model line represent the 68% uncertainty in the model predictions. These uncertainties are estimated through 1000 Monte Carlo simulations incorporating uncertainties in the model parameters. For EP/WXT, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Peak isotropic luminosity versus rest-frame peak energy of the simulated GRB populations detectable by EP/WXT (red solid contours) and SVOM/ECLAIRs (blue solid contours), with detec￾tion sensitivity thresholds corresponding to a 10-s exposure. The shaded regions represent the 1 − 3σ confidence contours. Yellow points indicate real GRBs detected by Swift (adopted from Pescalli et al. 2016). set to 7.2 × 10−8 ergcm−2 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

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. Tightening Bounds on Warm Dark Matter with High-Redshift Gamma-Ray Bursts

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using the redshift distribution of 118 luminous Swift GRBs, warm dark matter particles are bounded to mx ≥ 1.3 keV at 95% CL (≥3.4 keV if GRBs exactly trace the SFR).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    602C `\.=

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 191, 10.1016/j.asr.2018.03.010

    Amati , L., O'Brien , P., G \"o tz , D., et al. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 191, 10.1016/j.asr.2018.03.010

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2018.03.010 2018

  5. [5]

    T., G \"o tz , D., et al

    Amati , L., O'Brien , P. T., G \"o tz , D., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 52, 183, 10.1007/s10686-021-09807-8

    doi:10.1007/s10686-021-09807-8 2021

  6. [6]

    1993, , 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

    Band , D., Matteson , J., Ford , L., et al. 1993, , 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

    doi:10.1086/172995 1993

  7. [7]

    2018, , 609, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731255

    Bolmer , J., Greiner , J., Kr \"u hler , T., et al. 2018, , 609, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731255

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731255 2018

  8. [8]

    2006, , 642, 382, 10.1086/500799

    Bromm , V., & Loeb , A. 2006, , 642, 382, 10.1086/500799

    doi:10.1086/500799 2006

Show all 125 references
  1. [9]

    R., Bloom , J

    Butler , N. R., Bloom , J. S., & Poznanski , D. 2010, , 711, 495, 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/495

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1101, 10.1038/s41550-022-01804-x

    Campana , S., Ghirlanda , G., Salvaterra , R., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1101, 10.1038/s41550-022-01804-x

    2022 doi

  3. [13]

    2007, , 671, 272, 10.1086/522692

    Chary , R., Berger , E., & Cowie , L. 2007, , 671, 272, 10.1086/522692

    2007 doi

  4. [14]

    B., et al

    Chornock , R., Berger , E., Fox , D. B., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1405.7400, 10.48550/arXiv.1405.7400

    2014 doi arXiv

  5. [15]

    2013, , 774, 26, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/26

    ---. 2013, , 774, 26, 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/26

    2013 doi

  6. [16]

    2000, , 540, 687, 10.1086/309384

    Ciardi , B., & Loeb , A. 2000, , 540, 687, 10.1086/309384

    2000 doi

  7. [17]

    B., et al

    Ciardi , B., Inoue , S., Abdalla , F. B., et al. 2015, , 453, 101, 10.1093/mnras/stv1640

    2015 doi

  8. [18]

    J., Fox , D

    Cucchiara , A., Levan , A. J., Fox , D. B., et al. 2011, Astrophys. J., 736, 7, 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7

    2011 doi

  9. [19]

    M., & Mochkovitch , R

    Daigne , F., Rossi , E. M., & Mochkovitch , R. 2006, , 372, 1034, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10837.x

    2006

  10. [20]

    S., Yoshida , N., & Ioka , K

    de Souza , R. S., Yoshida , N., & Ioka , K. 2011, , 533, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117242

    2011 doi

  11. [21]

    2016, , 820, 66, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/66

    Deng , C.-M., Wang , X.-G., Guo , B.-B., et al. 2016, , 820, 66, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/66

    2016 doi

  12. [22]

    2023, , 954, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf21d

    Dichiara , S., Tsang , D., Troja , E., et al. 2023, , 954, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf21d

    2023 doi

  13. [23]

    F., Li , X

    Dong , X. F., Li , X. J., Zhang , Z. B., & Zhang , X. L. 2022, , 513, 1078, 10.1093/mnras/stac949

    2022 doi

  14. [24]

    M., van der Horst , A

    Fausey , H. M., van der Horst , A. J., Tanvir , N. R., et al. 2025 a , , 985, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/adc5fc

    2025 doi

  15. [25]

    M., Vejlgaard , S., van der Horst , A

    Fausey , H. M., Vejlgaard , S., van der Horst , A. J., et al. 2025 b , , 536, 2839, 10.1093/mnras/stae2757

    2025 doi

  16. [26]

    Firmani , C., Avila-Reese , V., Ghisellini , G., & Tutukov , A. V. 2004, , 611, 1033, 10.1086/422186

    2004 doi

  17. [27]

    2025, , 986, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1

    Gao , H.-X., Geng , J.-J., Liang , Y.-F., et al. 2025, , 986, 106, 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1

    2025 doi

  18. [28]

    2022, , 932, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    Ghirlanda , G., & Salvaterra , R. 2022, , 932, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    2013, , 428, 1410, 10.1093/mnras/sts128

    Ghirlanda , G., Ghisellini , G., Salvaterra , R., et al. 2013, , 428, 1410, 10.1093/mnras/sts128

    2013 doi

  20. [30]

    2015, , 448, 2514, 10.1093/mnras/stv183

    Ghirlanda , G., Salvaterra , R., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2015, , 448, 2514, 10.1093/mnras/stv183

    2015 doi

  21. [31]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 52, 277, 10.1007/s10686-021-09763-3

    Ghirlanda , G., Salvaterra , R., Toffano , M., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 52, 277, 10.1007/s10686-021-09763-3

    2021 doi

  22. [32]

    J., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Abel , T., & Zhang , B

    Gou , L. J., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Abel , T., & Zhang , B. 2004, , 604, 508, 10.1086/382061

    2004 doi

  23. [33]

    Greiner , J., Kr \"u hler , T., Fynbo , J. P. U., et al. 2009, Astrophys. J., 693, 1610, 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1610

    2009 doi

  24. [34]

    2014, , 211, 12, 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12

    Gruber , D., Goldstein , A., Weller von Ahlefeld , V., et al. 2014, , 211, 12, 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12

    2014 doi

  25. [35]

    2007, , 2007, 003, 10.1088/1475-7516/2007/07/003

    Guetta , D., & Piran , T. 2007, , 2007, 003, 10.1088/1475-7516/2007/07/003

    2007 doi

  26. [36]

    2005, , 619, 412, 10.1086/423125

    Guetta , D., Piran , T., & Waxman , E. 2005, , 619, 412, 10.1086/423125

    2005 doi

  27. [37]

    E., Malesani , D., Fynbo , J

    Hartoog , O. E., Malesani , D., Fynbo , J. P. U., et al. 2015, , 580, A139, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425001

    2015 doi

  28. [38]

    M., & Beacom , J

    Hopkins , A. M., & Beacom , J. F. 2006, , 651, 142, 10.1086/506610

    2006 doi

  29. [39]

    Horv \'a th , I., & T \'o th , B. G. 2016, , 361, 155, 10.1007/s10509-016-2748-6

    2016 doi

  30. [40]

    2005, , 619, 684, 10.1086/426785

    Ioka , K., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2005, , 619, 684, 10.1086/426785

    2005 doi

  31. [41]

    Jakobsson , P., Levan , A., Fynbo , J. P. U., et al. 2006, , 447, 897, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054287

    2006 doi

  32. [42]

    D., Briggs , M

    Kaneko , Y., Preece , R. D., Briggs , M. S., et al. 2006, , 166, 298, 10.1086/505911

    2006 doi

  33. [43]

    2006, Nature, 440, 184, 10.1038/nature04498

    Kawai , N., Kosugi , G., Aoki , K., et al. 2006, Nature, 440, 184, 10.1038/nature04498

    2006 doi

  34. [44]

    2019, , 878, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2188

    Kinugawa , T., Harikane , Y., & Asano , K. 2019, , 878, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2188

    2019 doi

  35. [45]

    D., Y \"u ksel , H., Beacom , J

    Kistler , M. D., Y \"u ksel , H., Beacom , J. F., Hopkins , A. M., & Wyithe , J. S. B. 2009, , 705, L104, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/L104

    2009 doi

  36. [46]

    D., Y \"u ksel , H., Beacom , J

    Kistler , M. D., Y \"u ksel , H., Beacom , J. F., & Stanek , K. Z. 2008, , 673, L119, 10.1086/527671

    2008 doi

  37. [47]

    A., Fishman , G

    Kouveliotou , C., Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., et al. 1993, , 413, L101, 10.1086/186969

    1993 doi

  38. [48]

    2021, , 508, 52, 10.1093/mnras/stab2508

    Lan , G.-X., Wei , J.-J., Zeng , H.-D., Li , Y., & Wu , X.-F. 2021, , 508, 52, 10.1093/mnras/stab2508

    2021 doi

  39. [49]

    2019, , 488, 4607, 10.1093/mnras/stz2011

    Lan , G.-X., Zeng , H.-D., Wei , J.-J., & Wu , X.-F. 2019, , 488, 4607, 10.1093/mnras/stz2011

    2019 doi

  40. [50]

    2014, Astrophys

    Laskar , T., Berger , E., Tanvir , N., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 781, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/1

    2014 doi

  41. [51]

    Le , T., & Dermer , C. D. 2007, , 661, 394, 10.1086/513460

    2007 doi

  42. [52]

    2020, , 493, 1479, 10.1093/mnras/staa366

    Le , T., Ratke , C., & Mehta , V. 2020, , 493, 1479, 10.1093/mnras/staa366

    2020 doi

  43. [53]

    J., Gompertz , B

    Levan , A. J., Gompertz , B. P., Salafia , O. S., et al. 2024, , 626, 737, 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    2024 doi

  44. [55]

    Liang , E., Zhang , B., Virgili , F., & Dai , Z. G. 2007, , 662, 1111, 10.1086/517959

    2007 doi

  45. [56]

    D., et al

    Lien , A., Sakamoto , T., Barthelmy , S. D., et al. 2016, , 829, 7, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/7

    2016 doi

  46. [57]

    M., Tanvir , N

    Littlejohns , O. M., Tanvir , N. R., Willingale , R., et al. 2013, , 436, 3640, 10.1093/mnras/stt1841

    2013 doi

  47. [58]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 564, 10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8

    Liu , Y., Sun , H., Xu , D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 564, 10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8

    2025 doi

  48. [59]

    2024, , 685, A163, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347966

    Llamas Lanza , M., Godet , O., Arcier , B., et al. 2024, , 685, A163, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347966

    2024 doi

  49. [60]

    M., Aykutalp , A., & Johnson , J

    Lloyd-Ronning , N. M., Aykutalp , A., & Johnson , J. L. 2019, , 488, 5823, 10.1093/mnras/stz2155

    2019 doi

  50. [61]

    M., Fryer , C

    Lloyd-Ronning , N. M., Fryer , C. L., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2002, , 574, 554, 10.1086/341059

    2002 doi

  51. [62]

    2012, , 745, 168, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/168

    Lu , R.-J., Wei , J.-J., Qin , S.-F., & Liang , E.-W. 2012, , 745, 168, 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/168

    2012 doi

  52. [63]

    2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau , P., & Dickinson , M. 2014, , 52, 415, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  53. [64]

    B., Pugliese , G., Fynbo , J

    Malesani , D. B., Pugliese , G., Fynbo , J. P. U., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39732, 1

    2025

  54. [65]

    2024, , 976, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8ce0

    Matsumoto , T., Harikane , Y., Maeda , K., & Ioka , K. 2024, , 976, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8ce0

    2024 doi

  55. [66]

    2015, , 810, 64, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/64

    Matsumoto , T., Nakauchi , D., Ioka , K., Heger , A., & Nakamura , T. 2015, , 810, 64, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/64

    2015 doi

  56. [67]

    2016, , 823, 83, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/83

    Matsumoto , T., Nakauchi , D., Ioka , K., & Nakamura , T. 2016, , 823, 83, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/83

    2016 doi

  57. [68]

    G., D'Avanzo , P., et al

    Melandri , A., Bernardini , M. G., D'Avanzo , P., et al. 2015, Astron. Astrophys., 581, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526660

    2015 doi

  58. [69]

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 2010, , 715, 967, 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/967

    2010 doi

  59. [70]

    A., von Kienlin , A., et al

    Narayana Bhat , P., Meegan , C. A., von Kienlin , A., et al. 2016, , 223, 28, 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/28

    2016 doi

  60. [71]

    2005, , 364, L8, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00094.x

    Natarajan , P., Albanna , B., Hjorth , J., et al. 2005, , 364, L8, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00094.x

    2005

  61. [72]

    2011, , 530, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016270

    Nava , L., Ghirlanda , G., Ghisellini , G., & Celotti , A. 2011, , 530, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016270

    2011 doi

  62. [74]

    1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    1998 doi

  63. [75]

    T., & Daigne , F

    Palmerio , J. T., & Daigne , F. 2021, , 649, A166, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039929

    2021 doi

  64. [76]

    2018, , 473, 3385, 10.1093/mnras/stx2511

    Paul , D. 2018, , 473, 3385, 10.1093/mnras/stx2511

    2018 doi

  65. [77]

    A., Kr \"u hler , T., Schulze , S., et al

    Perley , D. A., Kr \"u hler , T., Schulze , S., et al. 2016, , 817, 7, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/7

    2016 doi

  66. [78]

    S., et al

    Pescalli , A., Ghirlanda , G., Salafia , O. S., et al. 2015, , 447, 1911, 10.1093/mnras/stu2482

    2015 doi

  67. [79]

    2016, , 587, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760

    Pescalli , A., Ghirlanda , G., Salvaterra , R., et al. 2016, , 587, A40, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760

    2016 doi

  68. [80]

    2015, , 806, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/44

    Petrosian , V., Kitanidis , E., & Kocevski , D. 2015, , 806, 44, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/44

    2015 doi

  69. [81]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  70. [82]

    2001, , 548, 522, 10.1086/319027

    Porciani , C., & Madau , P. 2001, , 548, 522, 10.1086/319027

    2001 doi

  71. [84]

    2025, , 982, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb849

    Qu , Y.-K., Man , Z.-X., Yang , Y.-P., et al. 2025, , 982, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb849

    2025 doi

  72. [85]

    2024, , 976, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88e7

    Qu , Y.-K., Man , Z.-X., Yi , S.-X., & Yang , Y.-P. 2024, , 976, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88e7

    2024 doi

  73. [86]

    C., Gompertz , B

    Rastinejad , J. C., Gompertz , B. P., Levan , A. J., et al. 2022, , 612, 223, 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    2022 doi

  74. [87]

    E., & Ellis , R

    Robertson , B. E., & Ellis , R. S. 2012, , 744, 95, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/95

    2012 doi

  75. [88]

    D., Kann , D

    Rossi , A., Frederiks , D. D., Kann , D. A., et al. 2022, , 665, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243225

    2022 doi

  76. [89]

    D., De Cia , A., et al

    Saccardi , A., Vergani , S. D., De Cia , A., et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 671, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244205

    2023 doi

  77. [90]

    B., Palmerio , J

    Saccardi , A., Malesani , D. B., Palmerio , J. T., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 35756, 1

    2024

  78. [91]

    2008, , 679, 570, 10.1086/586884

    Sakamoto , T., Hullinger , D., Sato , G., et al. 2008, , 679, 570, 10.1086/586884

    2008 doi

  79. [92]

    S., Ghisellini , G., Pescalli , A., Ghirlanda , G., & Nappo , F

    Salafia , O. S., Ghisellini , G., Pescalli , A., Ghirlanda , G., & Nappo , F. 2016, , 461, 3607, 10.1093/mnras/stw1549

    2016 doi

  80. [93]

    2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 35, 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.03.001

    Salvaterra , R. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 35, 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.03.001

    2015 doi

  81. [94]

    2007, , 656, L49, 10.1086/512606

    Salvaterra , R., & Chincarini , G. 2007, , 656, L49, 10.1086/512606

    2007 doi

  82. [95]

    2009 a , , 396, 299, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14343.x

    Salvaterra , R., Guidorzi , C., Campana , S., Chincarini , G., & Tagliaferri , G. 2009 a , , 396, 299, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14343.x

    2009

  83. [96]

    2009 b , Nature, 461, 1258, 10.1038/nature08445

    Salvaterra , R., Della Valle , M., Campana , S., et al. 2009 b , Nature, 461, 1258, 10.1038/nature08445

    2009 doi

  84. [97]

    D., et al

    Salvaterra , R., Campana , S., Vergani , S. D., et al. 2012, , 749, 68, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/68

    2012 doi

  85. [98]

    2011, , 726, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/107

    Suwa , Y., & Ioka , K. 2011, , 726, 107, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/107

    2011 doi

  86. [99]

    2013, , 772, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/772/1/L8

    Tan , W.-W., Cao , X.-F., & Yu , Y.-W. 2013, , 772, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/772/1/L8

    2013 doi

  87. [100]

    Tan , W.-W., & Wang , F. Y. 2015, , 454, 1785, 10.1093/mnras/stv2007

    2015 doi

  88. [101]

    R., Fox , D

    Tanvir , N. R., Fox , D. B., Levan , A. J., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 1254, 10.1038/nature08459

    2009 doi

  89. [102]

    R., Laskar , T., Levan , A

    Tanvir , N. R., Laskar , T., Levan , A. J., et al. 2018, , 865, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba9

    2018 doi

  90. [103]

    R., Fynbo , J

    Tanvir , N. R., Fynbo , J. P. U., de Ugarte Postigo , A., et al. 2019, , 483, 5380, 10.1093/mnras/sty3460

    2019 doi

  91. [104]

    2011, , 731, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/127

    Toma , K., Sakamoto , T., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2011, , 731, 127, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/127

    2011 doi

  92. [105]

    1997, , 486, L71, 10.1086/310853

    Totani , T. 1997, , 486, L71, 10.1086/310853

    1997 doi

  93. [106]

    2006, , 58, 485, 10.1093/pasj/58.3.485

    Totani , T., Kawai , N., Kosugi , G., et al. 2006, , 58, 485, 10.1093/pasj/58.3.485

    2006 doi

  94. [107]

    2014, , 66, 63, 10.1093/pasj/psu032

    Totani , T., Aoki , K., Hattori , T., et al. 2014, , 66, 63, 10.1093/pasj/psu032

    2014 doi

  95. [108]

    L., O'Connor , B., et al

    Troja , E., Fryer , C. L., O'Connor , B., et al. 2022, , 612, 228, 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    2022 doi

  96. [109]

    2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 35755, 1

    Veres , P., Meegan , C., & Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor Team . 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 35755, 1

    2024

  97. [110]

    J., Zhang , B., Nagamine , K., & Choi , J.-H

    Virgili , F. J., Zhang , B., Nagamine , K., & Choi , J.-H. 2011, , 417, 3025, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19459.x

    2011

  98. [111]

    A., Paciesas , W

    von Kienlin , A., Meegan , C. A., Paciesas , W. S., et al. 2014, , 211, 13, 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/13

    2014 doi

  99. [112]

    2020, , 893, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18

    ---. 2020, , 893, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18

    2020 doi

  100. [113]

    P., & Bolton , J

    S oltinsk \'y , T., Kulkarni , G., Tendulkar , S. P., & Bolton , J. S. 2025, , 537, 364, 10.1093/mnras/staf026

    2025 doi

  101. [114]

    2010, , 406, 1944, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16787.x

    Wanderman , D., & Piran , T. 2010, , 406, 1944, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16787.x

    2010

  102. [115]

    Wang , F. Y. 2013, , 556, A90, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321623

    2013 doi

  103. [116]

    Y., Bromm , V., Greif , T

    Wang , F. Y., Bromm , V., Greif , T. H., et al. 2012, , 760, 27, 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/27

    2012 doi

  104. [117]

    Y., & Dai , Z

    Wang , F. Y., & Dai , Z. G. 2009, , 400, L10, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00751.x

    2009

  105. [118]

    Y., Dai , Z

    Wang , F. Y., Dai , Z. G., & Liang , E. W. 2015, NewAR, 67, 1, 10.1016/j.newar.2015.03.001

    2015 doi

  106. [119]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.06892, 10.48550/arXiv.1610.06892

    Wei , J., Cordier , B., Antier , S., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.06892, 10.48550/arXiv.1610.06892

    2016 doi arXiv

  107. [120]

    2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730002, 10.1142/S0218271817300026

    Wei , J.-J., & Wu , X.-F. 2017, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26, 1730002, 10.1142/S0218271817300026

    2017 doi

  108. [121]

    2014, , 439, 3329, 10.1093/mnras/stu166

    Wei , J.-J., Wu , X.-F., Melia , F., Wei , D.-M., & Feng , L.-L. 2014, , 439, 3329, 10.1093/mnras/stu166

    2014 doi

  109. [122]

    White , N. E. 2020, in Gamma-ray Bursts in the Gravitational Wave Era 2019, ed. T. Sakamoto , M. Serino , & S. Sugita , 51--53, 10.48550/arXiv.2003.01592

    2020 doi arXiv

  110. [123]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 25, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#182, 894

    1993

  111. [124]

    E., & Bloom , J

    Woosley , S. E., & Bloom , J. S. 2006, , 44, 507, 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    2006 arXiv

  112. [125]

    2022, , 612, 232, 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    Yang , J., Ai , S., Zhang , B.-B., et al. 2022, , 612, 232, 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    2022 doi

  113. [126]

    2004, , 609, 935, 10.1086/421285

    Yonetoku , D., Murakami , T., Nakamura , T., et al. 2004, , 609, 935, 10.1086/421285

    2004 doi

  114. [127]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Yonetoku , D., Doi , A., Mihara , T., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13093, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder , S. Nikzad , & K. Nakazawa , 1309320, 10...

    2024 doi

  115. [128]

    Y., Dai , Z

    Yu , H., Wang , F. Y., Dai , Z. G., & Cheng , K. S. 2015, , 218, 13, 10.1088/0067-0049/218/1/13

    2015 doi

  116. [129]

    2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 239501, 10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3

    Yuan , W., Dai , L., Feng , H., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 68, 239501, 10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3

    2025 doi

  117. [130]

    D., Beacom , J

    Y \"u ksel , H., Kistler , M. D., Beacom , J. F., & Hopkins , A. M. 2008, , 683, L5, 10.1086/591449

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.