Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 85 references

Off-axis jet, not a magnetar, drives GRB 250704B's plateau

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

GRB 250704B's afterglow plateau and steep break are best reproduced by an off-axis power-law structured jet with a ~0.7 deg core viewed at ~1.9 deg.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid data paper with a plausible off-axis structured-jet interpretation, but the 'better explained' claim outruns the energy-injection comparison in Appendix C. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02769 v2 pith:A7X6WFNT submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.HE

GRB 250704B: An Off-axis Short GRB with a Long-Lived Afterglow Plateau

Vishwajeet Swain , Tom\'as Ahumada , Sameer K. Patil , Yogesh Wagh , Varun Bhalerao , Ehud Nakar , Mansi Kasliwal , Xander J. Hall
show 22 more authors
Malte Busmann Shreya Anand Viraj Karambelkar Igor Andreoni G. C. Anupama Anuraag Arya Arvind Balasubramanian Sudhanshu Barway Jonathan Carney Michael Coughlin Deepak Eappachen James Freeburn Daniel Gruen Tanishk Mohan Brendan O'Connor Antonella Palmese Utkarsh Pathak D. K. Sahu Aditya Pawan Saikia Nikhil Sarin Gokul Srinivasaragavan Hitesh Tanenia
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords short gamma-ray burstsGRB afterglowsstructured jetsoff-axis jetsafterglow plateausachromatic jet breaksGRB 250704BGW170817 comparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 250704B is a short gamma-ray burst whose optical, near-infrared, and X-ray afterglow stayed nearly flat for about a day, then broke achromatically and decayed steeply. The paper argues that this unusual shape is not powered by a long-lived central engine, because constant energy injection needs implausible parameters such as an electron energy fraction of about 0.74 or a high external density. Instead, the afterglow is consistently reproduced by a power-law structured jet: energy concentrated in a core of about 0.7 degrees, viewed about 1.9 degrees off-axis. In this geometry, the plateau is the gradual arrival of emission as the relativistic beam widens into the line of sight, and the achromatic break is a geometric jet break. Reading the burst this way links it to GRB 170817A and implies that light-curve shape is set mainly by jet geometry and viewing angle rather than by energetics, microphysical parameters, or density.

Core claim

The paper claims that the one-day plateau followed by a steep achromatic decline in GRB 250704B is the signature of a narrow, power-law structured jet seen slightly off-axis. Fitting the multi-wavelength afterglow with a model in which energy falls off as E(theta) = E_K,iso [1 + (theta/theta_c)^2]^(-s/2) with s = 6 yields a core half-opening angle of about 0.7 degrees, a viewing angle of about 1.9 degrees, an isotropic kinetic energy of about 1.5 x 10^54 erg, and a low external density of about 0.01 cm^-3. The best-fit model reproduces both the flat plateau and the sharp break across X-ray, optical, and radio bands. Because a top-hat jet cannot produce such a long plateau and an energy-injec

What carries the argument

The central object is a power-law structured jet: a jet whose isotropic-equivalent energy and initial Lorentz factor decline with angle from the jet axis as [1 + (theta/theta_c)^2]^(-s/2), with core half-angle theta_c and steepness s fixed to 6. Observed off-axis, with theta_v about 1.9 degrees, roughly 2.7 times the core angle, the gradually widening relativistic beaming cone produces the early plateau, and the achromatic break comes from the geometric jet break. The afterglow is computed with a thin-shell reduced-hydrodynamics code and fitted with nested sampling, with the initial Lorentz factor set effectively infinite so the blast wave begins directly in the deceleration phase, avoiding

Load-bearing premise

The inference assumes a fixed power-law angular structure for the jet, with s fixed to 6 and the blast wave starting already in deceleration; if the true jet profile differs or the early coasting phase matters, the fitted core and viewing angles, and therefore the off-axis interpretation, are not robust.

What would settle it

Late-time very long baseline interferometry at roughly 6 GHz, months after the burst, would settle the interpretation: an off-axis structured jet predicts an image centroid that shifts or resolves into superluminal structure, while an energy-injection jet stays unresolved and stationary. Alternatively, a chromatic break with different break times in X-ray versus optical bands would rule out the geometric jet-break explanation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A roughly one-day optical plateau followed by a steep achromatic decay can arise purely from jet geometry, so such light curves are not by themselves evidence of prolonged engine activity.
  • GRB 250704B and GRB 170817A can be described within the same off-axis structured-jet framework; swapping their core angles and viewing angles swaps their light curves, with peak time set primarily by (theta_v - theta_c)^2.
  • The apparent prompt radiative efficiency of about 0.3 percent is an off-axis viewing artifact, not a fundamental problem for the fireball model.
  • Population-level GRB modeling needs jet structure: short bursts can look dim, flat, and late-peaking purely because of viewing geometry.
  • Long-term multi-band follow-up is essential because structured jets with larger viewing-to-core offsets peak very late and can be missed entirely without extended monitoring.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the geometry interpretation generalizes, many short-GRB plateaus currently attributed to magnetar spin-down may instead be off-axis structured jets; a population reanalysis of plateau durations and break steepness could test this statistically.
  • A direct test for this specific event is late-time very long baseline interferometry: an off-axis structured jet predicts a resolved or moving image centroid, whereas an energy-injection jet would remain unresolved and stationary.
  • The fitted model fixes s = 6 and ignores the early coasting phase; allowing a finite initial Lorentz factor or a different angular profile, such as a Gaussian jet, is the natural next step and would map how robust the inferred 0.7-degree core really is.
  • The inferred narrow core means many similar bursts may be missed because their off-axis peak fluxes are low, so existing short-GRB rate estimates may need an off-axis population correction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. GRB 250704B is a short GRB at z=0.661 with a rich optical/NIR afterglow, X-ray coverage, and radio detections. The authors find an unusually long optical plateau (~1 day) followed by a sharp achromatic break (α1 ≈ −0.13, α2 ≈ 3.28, tb ≈ 0.96 d), and argue that a power-law structured jet viewed off-axis with θ_c ≈ 0.7°, θ_v ≈ 1.8° reproduces the broadband light curve, while an energy-injection model requires unreasonable parameters. They support this with a cross-event comparison to GW170817. The paper includes extensive photometric reduction, temporal/spectral analysis, and nested-sampling fits using jetsimpy/afterglowpy.

Significance. The dataset is one of the best-sampled short-GRB afterglows; the plateau plus steep achromatic break is a distinctive combination. If the off-axis structured-jet interpretation holds, this would be a valuable second example after GW170817 and would support the view that jet structure and viewing geometry, rather than central-engine activity, dominate the afterglow evolution. The careful multi-wavelength reduction, use of public codes, and explicit comparison with GW170817 are strengths. However, the central claim that the off-axis model is 'better explained' is not yet quantitatively established because the alternative model is not given a fair or complete treatment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C; Table 5] The energy-injection model is too restrictive to carry the weight of the conclusion. q is fixed to 0 and the best-fit injection stop time is log10(ts) ≈ 3.06, i.e., ts ≈ 1.1e3 s, while the observed plateau lasts until tb ≈ 0.96 d ≈ 8.3e4 s. An engine that stops injecting at ~1e3 s cannot maintain a ~1e5 s plateau, so the model does not actually reproduce the feature it is invoked to explain. No Bayesian evidence (log Z) or comparable goodness-of-fit is reported against the structured-jet model. The statement that energy injection 'requires unreasonable parameters' is therefore not supported as written; a richer injection model (free q, magnetar spin-down, or injection within a structured jet) could plausibly fit the same data and remove the main reason to prefer the off-axis geometry.
  2. [§5.2, Eqs. (2)–(3), Table 1] The inference fixes s = 6 and Γ0 = 10^100. Parameter s controls the angular energy profile and therefore the plateau/break morphology; the paper itself cites GW170817 constraints favoring s ≈ 3–4 in §6.2, so fixing s = 6 is not conservative. Γ0 = 10^100 removes any early coasting phase, meaning the early plateau is imposed by construction rather than fit. Please report sensitivity runs with s free (or at least s = 3–4) and with finite Γ0, or justify why these choices do not affect the quoted θ_c and θ_v. Without this, the structured-jet parameters, and hence the off-axis interpretation, are not robust.
  3. [§5.1, §4.1, Table 4] The achromatic-break claim and the radio spectral-index argument exclude the two datasets that could test them: all XRT data before 0.03 d (attributed to high-latitude emission) and the 1.3 GHz MeerKAT detection at 492480 s (attributed to synchrotron self-absorption). Since the jetsimpy model does not include self-absorption, the model is never compared with one of the few radio detections. Please include the excluded points in a sensitivity plot or model the high-latitude/SSA contributions explicitly, so the reader can see that they do not alter the inferred geometry or the achromatic-break interpretation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2 vs §3] T90 is quoted as 0.68±0.15 s in §2 but ~0.4 s in §3; please reconcile.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (1)] The notation uses a1 and a2 in the equation but α1 and α2 in the accompanying text; unify the symbols.
  3. [§6.1, item (4)] The text says 'negative spectral decay indices (β)', but all quoted β values in §4.3 are positive (β_o1=0.43, β_o2=0.66, β_ox=0.73, β_radio=0.96). Clarify what is meant.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption quotes α2=3.29 while the text in §4.2 gives 3.28; minor inconsistency.
  5. [Table 2] The table has formatting issues (e.g., 'T able' headings) and some columns (e.g., 'Mag Corr') are not defined; please clean up.
  6. [References] Several references are duplicated with the same DOI (Mooley et al. 2022a/2022b; O'Connor et al. 2024a/2024b). Merge or clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the off-axis structured-jet inference is a fit to independent data, with an external GW170817 cross-check; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an inverse-modeling inference: an off-axis power-law structured jet (Eqs. 2–3) is fit to the observed multi-wavelength afterglow using MultiNest, and the resulting parameters (θ_c≈0.7°, θ_v≈1.9°) are reported as best-fit values. The plateau, achromatic break, and steep decay are data features; the model's ability to reproduce them is a measure of fit quality, not an independent prediction, and the paper does not present the fitted light curve as a predictive test. The GW170817 comparison (Sec. 6.2) is a cross-check against independent external data: model parameters from one event are reused with only θ_c and θ_v changed, and a flux scale factor is applied. This absorbs normalization, not temporal morphology, so the geometry-driven shape comparison retains independent content. The energy-injection comparison (Appendix C) is a model-selection argument, not a circular reduction; its restrictiveness (fixed q=0, top-hat jet, no inverse-Compton, no reported Bayesian evidence) is a possible correctness/robustness concern, but it does not make the structured-jet inference equivalent to its inputs by construction. Self-citations appear (e.g., Govreen-Segal & Nakar 2024, Nakar & Piran 2021), but they provide background physics and adopted comparison values, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz-smuggled assumptions. No equation is shown to equal its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation is therefore self-contained and not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced; the structured jet is an established model component, not an invented entity. The central inference rests on a handful of fitted macro/microphysical parameters plus two fixed model choices (s, Gamma0) that are not varied.

free parameters (10)
  • E_K,iso (isotropic kinetic energy) = 10^54.17 erg (log10 posterior 54.17±0.12)
    Uniform log prior [51,56]; the huge inferred energy drives the luminous plateau in the structured-jet fit (Table 1).
  • epsilon_b (magnetic field energy fraction) = 10^-2.06 (log10 = -2.06±0.48)
    Fitted with uniform log prior [-5,-1]; controls synchrotron flux and break frequencies.
  • epsilon_e (electron energy fraction) = 10^-0.64 = 0.23
    Fitted with uniform log prior [-3,-0.5]; high value is part of the energy budget.
  • n0 (circum-burst ISM density) = 10^-1.86 cm^-3
    Fitted with uniform log prior [-4,1]; consistent with short GRB environment assumptions.
  • theta_c (jet core half-opening angle) = 0.012±0.003 rad (~0.69 deg)
    Log-uniform prior [1e-4,0.2] rad; central to the off-axis structured jet interpretation.
  • theta_v (observing viewing angle) = 0.032±0.008 rad (~1.83 deg)
    Log-uniform prior [1e-4,0.2] rad; central to the off-axis interpretation.
  • p (electron power-law index) = 2.04±0.01
    Uniform prior [2.001,2.8]; determines spectral and temporal closure relations.
  • s (jet power-law index) = fixed to 6
    Not fitted; adopted as nominal from Ryan et al. 2024. Changing s changes the angular energy profile and can alter inferred angles.
  • Gamma0 (initial Lorentz factor) = fixed to 10^100
    Chosen so the blast wave begins in deceleration with no coasting (Section 5.2). A finite value could shift early-time light curve.
  • Flux scale factor in cross-event comparison = overall scaling in Figures 4a and 4b
    Used to match modeled GW170817/250704B flux levels; this is a fitted normalization, not a prediction.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Synchrotron forward-shock emission model as implemented in jetsimpy (thin 2D blast wave, standard break frequencies)
    Underlies all light-curve and SED calculations in Section 5.2; no alternative radiative model is considered.
  • domain assumption Uniform ISM circum-burst density
    Assumed for short GRBs in Section 5.1, following Fong et al. 2015; wind-like or clumpy profiles not tested for the main model.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law jet structure E(theta) = E_K,iso [1+(theta/theta_c)^2]^{-s/2} with s=6; Gamma(theta) similarly
    Eqs. 2-3. This exact functional form and index are adopted a priori and are load-bearing for the inferred theta_c and theta_v.
  • domain assumption All accelerated electrons radiate (chi=1)
    Explicitly assumed in Section 5; lower chi would raise required energies.
  • domain assumption Self-absorption negligible in optical/X-ray and at 6/10 GHz; adiabatic cooling regime dominates
    Section 5.1; motivates exclusion of 1.3 GHz data and the claim nu_c above observed bands.
  • domain assumption Redshift z=0.661 from VLT/FORS2 reported in GCN
    External measurement adopted throughout; distance affects all energy scales.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRB 250704B: An Off-axis Short GRB with a Long-Lived Afterglow Plateau." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7X6WFNT

@misc{pith2026250902769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRB 250704B: An Off-axis Short GRB with a Long-Lived Afterglow Plateau},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7X6WFNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02769}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We present a detailed multi-wavelength afterglow study of the short GRB 250704B, extensively monitored in optical and near-infrared bands. Its afterglow displays an unusually long-duration plateau followed by an achromatic break and a steep decline, deviating from canonical GRB afterglows. While long plateaus are often explained by central engine activity, we find that for GRB 250704B, an energy injection model requires unreasonable parameters. The afterglow is better explained by an off-axis power-law structured jet with a narrow core ($\theta_c \approx 0.7^{\circ}$) viewed at a modest angle ($\theta_v \approx 1.9^{\circ}$). A comparison with GRB 170817A shows that both events are consistent with the off-axis structured jet scenario, where the shape of the light curve is governed primarily by the geometry of the jet and the viewing angle rather than the energetics, microphysical parameters, or external density. Our results underscore the importance of incorporating the jet structure in GRB modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02769 by Aditya Pawan Saikia, Antonella Palmese, Anuraag Arya, Arvind Balasubramanian, Brendan O'Connor, Daniel Gruen, Deepak Eappachen, D. K. Sahu, Ehud Nakar, G. C. Anupama, Gokul Srinivasaragavan, Hitesh Tanenia, Igor Andreoni, James Freeburn, Jonathan Carney, Malte Busmann, Mansi Kasliwal, Michael Coughlin, Nikhil Sarin, Sameer K. Patil, Shreya Anand, Sudhanshu Barway, Tanishk Mohan, Tom\'as Ahumada, Utkarsh Pathak, Varun Bhalerao, Viraj Karambelkar, Vishwajeet Swain, Xander J. Hall, Yogesh Wagh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The upper panel shows flux densities calculated at 1 keV (green) and 10 keV (orange). The 10 keV lightcurve is fit with a twice-broken power-law fit (blue). The two tem￾poral break are identified at tb1 = 0.033 d (purple vertical line) and tb2 = 0.774 d (brown vertical line), with decay in￾dices α1 = 5.8, α2 = 0.36, and α3 = 1.56 marked along the fit. The bottom panel shows the evolution of the photon inde… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multi-wavelength afterglow light curves of GRB 250704B in X-ray (purple), optical (r, i, z, g, and J bands), and radio (1.3, 6, and 10 GHz, with an upper limit at 0.65 GHz). The light curves are well described by a broken power-law with an initial shallow plateau phase (α1 = −0.13±0.01) followed by a steep decay (α2 = 3.29±0.18) after the break at tb = 0.96±0.02 days (red vertical line). Spectral indices f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Afterglow modeling of GRB 250704B using jetsimpy modeled with a power-law structured jet propa￾gating into a uniform ISM viewed slightly off-axis. a structured relativistic jet interacting with an exter￾nal medium. The code adopts a reduced hydrodynamic model that approximates the blast wave as a thin 2-D surface, enabling efficient treatment of jet spreading at late times with reduced computational cost. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of structured-jet geometries between GRB 250704B and the GW170817 afterglow. θc to 4◦ and θv to 18◦ . The resultant light curves, again scaled by an overall factor, are shown in Figure 4b. Despite other parameters being fit to GRB 250704B data, the model shows reasonable correspondence with observed values for GW170817. We therefore conclude that both GRB 250704B and GW170817A can be consistentl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distribution of physical parameters for model fitted using jetsimpy with structured jet interacting with ISM medium and multi-nest. The model fit for the log10(EK,iso), log10(ϵb), log10(ϵe), log10(n0), θc, θv and p parameters. The histogram shows the 16 per cent, 50 per cent, and 84 per cent percentiles of the probability distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We modeled the multi-band afterglow light curves of GRB 250704B using afterglowpy, assuming a relativistic structured jet with a top-hat profile propagating into a uni￾form-density interstellar medium (ISM), and incorporating a constant energy-injection rate. Dotted lines show the best-fit light curves, and shaded regions mark the 3σ uncertainties. Li, W. X., Xue, S. J., Andrews, M., et al. 2025, GRB Coord… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd249

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd249 2021

  2. [2]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1178

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1178 2010

  3. [3]

    P., Anand, S., et al

    Ahumada, T., Singer, L. P., Anand, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 2021

  4. [4]

    S., et al

    Ascenzi, S., Oganesyan, G., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038265 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collab...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038265 2020

  5. [5]

    Bertin, E. 2013,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1301.001 16 T able 5.Summary of the priors and posteriors for the model pa- rameters obtained frommulti-nestfitting of energy injection model implemented usingafterglowpy. Parameter Unit Prior Type Parameter Bound Posterior Value log10(EK,iso) erg uniform [48, 53] 51.04 +0.03 −0.03 log10(ϵb) ...

    2013

  6. [6]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  7. [7]

    D., Walters, R., et al

    Blagorodnova, N., Neill, J. D., Walters, R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 035003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f 2018

  8. [8]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  9. [9]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40974, 1 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Palmese, A. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40974, 1 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 2025

  10. [10]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    G., & Lu, T

    Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1998, A&A, 333, L87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810402

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9810402 1998

  12. [12]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/102 2015

  13. [13]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e1

    Fraija, N., Galvan-Gamez, A., Betancourt Kamenetskaia, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e1 2022

  14. [14]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40972, 1

    Frederiks, D., Lysenko, A., Ridnaia, A., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40972, 1

    2025

  15. [15]

    2016, A&A, 593, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275

    Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628275 2016

  16. [16]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

    doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  17. [17]

    S., Paragi, Z., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Paragi, Z., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815

    doi:10.1126/science.aau8815 2019

  18. [18]

    H., Huber, M., Chambers, K

    Gillanders, J. H., Huber, M., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40958, 1

    2025

  19. [19]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1628

    Govreen-Segal, T., & Nakar, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1628

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1628 2023

  20. [20]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 1704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1224

    Govreen-Segal, T., & Nakar, E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1224

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1224 2024

  21. [21]

    Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJL, 570, L61, doi: 10.1086/340991

    doi:10.1086/340991 2002

  22. [22]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 820–829, doi: 10.1086/338966

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 820–829, doi: 10.1086/338966

    doi:10.1086/338966 2002

  23. [23]

    G., Harrison, R., et al

    Guidorzi, C., Mundell, C. G., Harrison, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 752, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2243

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2243 2014

  24. [24]

    Kale, R., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 95, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6

    doi:10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6 2021

  25. [25]

    A., Agayeva, S., Aivazyan, V., et al

    Kann, D. A., Agayeva, S., Aivazyan, V., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc8d0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc8d0 2023

  26. [26]

    M., Cannella, C., Bagdasaryan, A., et al

    Kasliwal, M. M., Cannella, C., Bagdasaryan, A., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 038003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aafbc2

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aafbc2 2019

  27. [27]

    J., et al

    Knust, F., Greiner, J., van Eerten, H. J., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730578

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730578 2017

  28. [28]

    A., Fishman, G

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

    doi:10.1086/186969 1993

  29. [29]

    S., Golovin, D

    Kozyrev, A. S., Golovin, D. V., Litvak, M. L., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41050, 1

    2025

  30. [30]

    C., et al

    Kumar, H., Bhalerao, V., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea 2022

  31. [31]

    1999, ApJL, 523, L113, doi: 10.1086/312265

    Kumar, P. 1999, ApJL, 523, L113, doi: 10.1086/312265

    doi:10.1086/312265 1999

  32. [32]

    P., Tanvir, N

    Lamb, G. P., Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab38bb 2019

  33. [33]

    W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 2010

  34. [34]

    2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, Vol

    Lang-Bardl, F., Bender, R., Goessl, C., et al. 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, Vol. 9908, SPIE, 1295–1302

    2016

  35. [35]

    J., Gompertz, B

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024

  36. [36]

    H., Zhou, C., et al

    Li, A., Cheng, Y. H., Zhou, C., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40956, 1 17 Figure 5.Posterior distribution of physical parameters for model fitted usingjetsimpywith structured jet interacting with ISM medium andmulti-nest. The model fit for the log 10(EK,iso), log 10(ϵb), log 10(ϵe), log 10(n0),θ c,θ v andpparameters. The histogram shows the 16 per...

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    X., Xue, S

    Li, W. X., Xue, S. J., Andrews, M., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40975, 1

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    P., et al

    Liu, X., An, J., Zhu, Z. P., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40965, 1

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    M., & Zhang, B

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., & Zhang, B. 2004, ApJ, 613, 477, doi: 10.1086/423026

    work page doi:10.1086/423026 2004

  40. [40]

    P., Brightman, M., et al

    Makhathini, S., Mooley, K. P., Brightman, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc 2021

  41. [41]

    B., Eyles-Ferris, R., Corcoran, G., et al

    Malesani, D. B., Eyles-Ferris, R., Corcoran, G., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40945, 1

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    B., Liu, X., et al

    Martin-Carrillo, A., Malesani, D. B., Liu, X., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40971, 1

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 1623, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1623

    Maxham, A., & Zhang, B. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1623, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1623

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/1623 2009

  44. [44]

    2019,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1907.032 M´ esz´ aros, P

    McCully, C., & Tewes, M. 2019,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1907.032 M´ esz´ aros, P. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093821 M´ esz´ aros, P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 232, doi: 10.1086/303625

    work page arXiv 2019

  45. [46]

    P., et al

    Mohan, T., Swain, V., Saikia, A. P., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40962, 1

    work page 2025

  46. [48]

    P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W

    Mooley, K. P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W. 2022b, Nature, 610, 273, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7

  47. [49]

    P., Deller, A

    Mooley, K. P., Deller, A. T., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 355, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 2018

  48. [50]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6cd

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2021, ApJ, 909, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6cd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd6cd 2021

  49. [51]

    P., & Bonnell, J

    Norris, J. P., & Bonnell, J. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 266, doi: 10.1086/502796

    doi:10.1086/502796 2006

  50. [52]

    P., Gehrels, N., & Scargle, J

    Norris, J. P., Gehrels, N., & Scargle, J. D. 2011, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 217, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #217, 108.03 O’Connor, B., Beniamini, P., & Gill, R. 2024a, MNRAS, 533, 1629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1941 O’Connor, B., Beniamini, P., & Gill, R. 2024b, MNRAS, 533, 1629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae19...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1941 2011

  51. [53]

    Panaitescu, A., & Vestrand, W. T. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13231.x

    arXiv 2008

  52. [54]

    C., Gompertz, B

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w 2022

  53. [55]

    J., & Meszaros, P

    Rees, M. J., & Meszaros, P. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/258.1.41P

    doi:10.1093/mnras/258.1.41p 1992

  54. [56]

    H., et al

    Resmi, L., Schulze, S., Ishwara-Chandra, C. H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae1a6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae1a6 2018

  55. [57]

    L., Troja, E., & ERC BHianca Team

    Ricci, R., Becerra, R. L., Troja, E., & ERC BHianca Team. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41046, 1

    work page 2025

  56. [58]

    T., Metzger, B

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1061–1087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts683

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts683 2013

  57. [59]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf 2020

  58. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Troja, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14 2024

  59. [61]

    Hydrodynamics of GRB After-Glow

    Sari, R. 1997, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706078

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9706078 1997

  60. [62]

    Sari, R., & Esin, A. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 787, doi: 10.1086/319003

    doi:10.1086/319003 2001

  61. [63]

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJL, 519, L17, doi: 10.1086/312109

    doi:10.1086/312109 1999

  62. [64]

    1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    doi:10.1086/311269 1998

  63. [65]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 19

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  64. [66]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  65. [67]

    L., Antier, S., et al

    Schneider, B., Becerra, R. L., Antier, S., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40942, 1

    work page 2025

  66. [68]

    D., et al

    Schroeder, G., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2025c, ApJ, 982, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada9e5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada9e5

  67. [69]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41025, 1

    Shimizu, Y., Yoshida, A., Sakamoto, T., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41025, 1

    work page 2025

  68. [70]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  69. [71]

    P., O’Connor, B., Cenko, S

    Srinivasaragavan, G. P., O’Connor, B., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accf97 SVOM/GRM Team, Wang, C.-W., Zheng, S.-J., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40940, 1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/accf97 2023

  70. [72]

    B., et al

    Troja, E., Sakamoto, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/102 2016

  71. [73]

    2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4089, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06558-7

    Troja, E., Ryan, G., Piro, L., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4089, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06558-7

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06558-7 2018

  72. [74]

    2019a, MNRAS, 489, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2248

    Troja, E., van Eerten, H., Ryan, G., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 489, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2248

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2248 1919

  73. [75]

    J., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al

    Troja, E., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 489, 2104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2255

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2255

  74. [76]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3 2022

  75. [77]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41024, 1

    Volnova, A., Pozanenko, A., Klunko, E., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41024, 1

    work page 2025

  76. [78]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40978, 1

    Wang, C.-W., Xiong, S.-L., Li, C.-K., Zheng, C., & Insight-HXMT Team. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40978, 1

    work page 2025

  77. [79]

    G., Giannios, D., & Duffell, P

    Wang, H., Dastidar, R. G., Giannios, D., & Duffell, P. C. 2024, ApJS, 273, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4d9d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad4d9d 2024

  78. [80]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 219, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

    Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 219, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9 2015

  79. [81]

    C., Eikenberry, S

    Wilson, J. C., Eikenberry, S. S., Henderson, C. P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 451–458, doi: 10.1117/12.460336

    doi:10.1117/12.460336 2003

  80. [82]

    P., Li, H

    Xin, L. P., Li, H. L., Qiu, Y. L., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40960, 1

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.