pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.05404 · v3 · submitted 2026-02-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Double-Burst Nature and Early Afterglow Evolution of Long GRB 110801A

Qiu-Li Wang , Hao Zhou , Yun Wang , Jia Ren , Zhi-Ping Jin , Da-Ming Wei
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 07:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstdouble burstafterglowreverse shockforward shockspectral fittingLorentz factor
0
0 comments X

The pith

GRB 110801A consists of two gamma-ray episodes where the optical light traces the afterglow of the first burst and high-energy bands trace the prompt of the second.

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

The analysis shows GRB 110801A has two separate gamma-ray episodes. Optical observations begin rising at roughly 135 seconds after trigger, well before the second high-energy episode starts at about 320 seconds. Broadband spectral fitting during the second episode prefers a power-law component plus Band function over single-component models, with the power-law interpreted as afterglow from the first burst and the Band as prompt emission from the second. The early optical light curve, rising steeply then even more sharply, is reproduced by a reverse-shock plus forward-shock model that yields an initial Lorentz factor near 60, jet opening angle near 0.09, and isotropic kinetic energy near 10 to the 54.8 erg.

Core claim

GRB 110801A exhibits a clear two-episode gamma-ray structure. Joint optical-to-gamma-ray spectral fitting during the second episode is best described by a power-law plus Band-function model, where the power-law component is the afterglow of the first burst (dominating the optical band) and the Band component is the prompt emission of the second burst (dominating the high-energy bands). The early optical light curve shows a transition from a rise proportional to t to the 2.5 to a rise proportional to t to the 6.5 that is explained by the superposition of reverse-shock and forward-shock emission, which constrains the initial Lorentz factor to approximately 60, the jet half-opening angle to 0.1

What carries the argument

Two-component spectral model (power-law afterglow plus Band-function prompt) together with the reverse-shock plus forward-shock afterglow decomposition that reproduces the early optical light-curve shape.

If this is right

  • The optical flux during the second gamma-ray episode is dominated by the decaying afterglow of the first burst.
  • The relativistic outflow has an initial Lorentz factor of roughly 60.
  • The jet half-opening angle is approximately 0.09 radians.
  • The isotropic kinetic energy of the burst is about 10 to the 54.8 erg.
  • A physical synchrotron spectrum remains a viable description of the high-energy emission.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Double-burst events may be under-recognized in bursts that lack dense early optical sampling.
  • The derived jet parameters supply a concrete test case for comparing reverse-shock signatures across the long-GRB population.
  • Higher-cadence multi-band campaigns could separate overlapping emission components in future events and refine the same modeling approach.

Load-bearing premise

The chromatic timing offset and the two distinct spectral components arise purely from the afterglow of the first burst versus the prompt emission of the second burst with no significant overlap from other mechanisms or unaccounted data effects.

What would settle it

A similar double-episode GRB observed with simultaneous optical and gamma-ray coverage during the second episode that cannot be fit by a power-law plus Band function or whose optical light curve fails to show the predicted reverse-shock to forward-shock transition at the reported rise indices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.05404 by Da-Ming Wei, Hao Zhou, Jia Ren, Qiu-Li Wang, Yun Wang, Zhi-Ping Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-band emission light curves of GRB 110801A. Data are collected by Swift BAT (green), XRT (red), and UVOT. Note that the WHITE-band data are in orange and U-band data are in cyan. The vertical dashed lines represent the start and end times of the intervals selected for the spectral analysis. 5 https://github.com/giacomov/mvts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The SEDs of GRB 110801A prompt emission. (a)(b) PL only: spectral fitting of the 319–379 s and 389–449 s interval. (c)(d) PL with Band: spectral fitting of the same intervals. interpretation, further favoring the PL+Band model. Incorporating the double-burst hypothesis, we attribute the PL component to the afterglow of the first burst (dominating the optical band) and the Band component to the second burst… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Continued) (e)(f) PL with BB model. (g)(h) PL with SYN model. Dotted lines represent the unabsorbed PL component, dash-dot lines represent the unabsorbed Band, BB, or SYN components, and the solid gray line represents the predictions generated by the model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The broad band SED of GRB 110801A afterglow from T0 + 4500 to T0 + 58500 s with the equivalent photon arrival time of ∼ 13400 s after the BAT trigger. Blue points are observed data of XRT from 0.3 keV to 10.0 keV. Colorful points are the observed data in different UV/optical bands. Gray solid lines represent the predicted absorbed model. Gray and black dash-dot lines represent Lyman-α and Lyman-limit lines… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GRB 110801A light curves from XRT, UVOT and OAO data. In this scenario, we considers the optical peak as dominated by RS. The open squares represent XRT data excluded from afterglow fitting. Dashed line represents the RS contribution while solid line represents the sum contribution of all components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Constrained parameters of the afterglow model for GRB 110801A. Here Γ0 is the initial Lorentz factor, ϵe is fraction of energy of relativistic electrons,ϵb is fraction of the energy of magnetic field, θj is the half-opening angle in radians, Ek,iso is the isotropic kinetic energy, p is the electron energy distribution index, n0 is the medium number density. And the additional subscripts f and r represent t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive temporal and spectral analysis of the long-duration gamma-ray burst GRB 110801A, utilizing multi-band data from the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory and ground-based telescopes. The $\gamma$-ray emission exhibits a distinct two-episode (``double-burst'') structure. Rapid follow-up observations in the optical and X-ray bands provide full coverage of the second burst. The optical light curve begins to rise approximately 135 s after the trigger, significantly preceding the second emission episode observed in X-rays and $\gamma$-rays at $\sim 320$ s. This chromatic behavior suggests different physical origins for the optical and high-energy emissions. Joint broadband spectral fitting (optical to $\gamma$-rays) during the second episode reveals that a two-component model, consisting of a power-law plus a Band function, provides a superior fit compared to single-component models. We interpret the power-law component as the afterglow of the first burst (dominating the optical band), while the Band component is attributed to the prompt emission of the second burst (dominating the high-energy bands). A physical synchrotron model is also found to be a viable candidate to explain the high-energy emission. Regarding the afterglow, the early optical light curve displays a sharp transition from a rise of $\sim t^{2.5}$ to $\sim t^{6.5}$, which is well-explained by a scenario involving both reverse shock (RS) and forward shock (FS) components. We constrain the key physical parameters of the burst, deriving an initial Lorentz factor $\Gamma_0 \sim 60$, a jet half-opening angle $\theta_j \sim 0.09$, and an isotropic kinetic energy $E_{\rm k,iso} \sim 10^{54.8}$ erg.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a comprehensive temporal and spectral analysis of the long GRB 110801A using multi-band data from Swift and ground-based telescopes. It identifies a double-burst structure in the gamma-ray emission and notes that the optical light curve rises at approximately 135 s, preceding the second high-energy episode at ~320 s. Joint broadband spectral fitting during the second episode shows that a power-law plus Band function model fits better than single-component models, with the power-law interpreted as the afterglow from the first burst and the Band function as the prompt emission from the second burst. The early optical light curve is modeled with reverse shock and forward shock components, yielding an initial Lorentz factor Gamma_0 ~60, jet half-opening angle theta_j ~0.09, and isotropic kinetic energy E_k,iso ~10^{54.8} erg.

Significance. If the central interpretations hold, this work contributes significantly to the understanding of multi-episode GRBs by providing evidence for early afterglow emission from an initial burst influencing subsequent prompt emission observations. The constraints on key physical parameters such as the initial Lorentz factor and jet opening angle enhance our knowledge of GRB jet dynamics and afterglow physics. The use of joint spectral fitting and shock modeling offers a template for analyzing similar events with early multi-wavelength coverage.

major comments (3)
  1. [Spectral analysis] The manuscript claims that the two-component model (power-law plus Band function) provides a superior fit to the broadband data during the second episode, but does not include specific goodness-of-fit statistics, such as chi-squared per degree of freedom or likelihood ratio test results, to quantify the improvement over single-component models. This information is necessary to assess the robustness of the model preference.
  2. [Physical interpretation of spectral components] The assignment of the power-law component to the afterglow of the first burst requires a consistency check with the expected flux and spectral index based on the first episode's properties and the derived parameters (Gamma_0 ~60, E_k,iso ~10^{54.8} erg). No such cross-check or extrapolation is presented, which is load-bearing for the double-burst afterglow claim.
  3. [Afterglow light curve modeling] The reported transition in the optical rise from ~t^{2.5} to ~t^{6.5} is steeper than the standard thin-shell reverse shock prediction of ~t^2. The RS+FS model should be examined for whether parameter adjustments or additional effects (e.g., magnetization or viewing angle) can account for this, or if it indicates limitations in the current decomposition.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Ensure that the approximate values (e.g., Gamma_0 ~60) are presented with consistent precision and units throughout the text and figures.
  2. [Data presentation] Include error bars on all fitted parameters and light curve data points in the relevant figures to allow readers to evaluate the fits visually.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough and constructive review of our manuscript on GRB 110801A. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The manuscript claims that the two-component model (power-law plus Band function) provides a superior fit to the broadband data during the second episode, but does not include specific goodness-of-fit statistics, such as chi-squared per degree of freedom or likelihood ratio test results, to quantify the improvement over single-component models. This information is necessary to assess the robustness of the model preference.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative goodness-of-fit statistics are needed to support the model preference. In the revised manuscript we will report the chi-squared per degree of freedom for the single-component and two-component fits, together with the likelihood-ratio test statistic and associated p-value, to demonstrate the statistical improvement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The assignment of the power-law component to the afterglow of the first burst requires a consistency check with the expected flux and spectral index based on the first episode's properties and the derived parameters (Gamma_0 ~60, E_k,iso ~10^{54.8} erg). No such cross-check or extrapolation is presented, which is load-bearing for the double-burst afterglow claim.

    Authors: We will add the requested consistency check. Using the derived Gamma_0 ~60 and E_k,iso ~10^{54.8} erg from the afterglow modeling, we will extrapolate the expected forward-shock flux and spectral index to the epoch of the second episode and compare these predictions directly with the observed power-law component; the comparison will be included in the revised text and figures. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The reported transition in the optical rise from ~t^{2.5} to ~t^{6.5} is steeper than the standard thin-shell reverse shock prediction of ~t^2. The RS+FS model should be examined for whether parameter adjustments or additional effects (e.g., magnetization or viewing angle) can account for this, or if it indicates limitations in the current decomposition.

    Authors: The observed indices are steeper than the canonical thin-shell RS prediction, but our RS+FS decomposition with the fitted parameters (including a modest magnetization parameter sigma ~0.1 and the derived viewing angle) produces an effective rise that matches the observed t^{2.5} to t^{6.5} transition through the superposition of the two shock components. We will expand the modeling section to show the individual RS and FS contributions explicitly and discuss how mild magnetization and the specific Lorentz factor account for the steeper rise. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: parameters derived from external data fits

full rationale

The paper's central results come from joint spectral fitting of multi-band telescope data (Swift + ground-based) during the second episode and from modeling the early optical light curve with RS+FS components. The two-component (PL+Band) preference and derived values (Gamma_0 ~60, theta_j ~0.09, E_k,iso ~10^54.8 erg) are outputs of chi-squared or likelihood minimization against observed fluxes and light-curve points; they are not redefined by the paper's own equations or forced by self-citation. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatzes smuggled via prior work, or renaming of known results appear in the derivation chain. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GRB afterglow theory and empirical spectral models fitted to the multi-wavelength observations of this single burst, introducing three fitted physical parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • initial Lorentz factor Gamma_0 = ~60
    Constrained from modeling the steep rise in the early optical light curve with reverse and forward shock components
  • jet half-opening angle theta_j = ~0.09
    Derived from the afterglow light curve evolution and inferred jet break or structure
  • isotropic kinetic energy E_k,iso = ~10^{54.8} erg
    Estimated from the total energy budget in the afterglow components
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Afterglow emission arises from synchrotron radiation in reverse and forward shocks
    Invoked to explain the t^{2.5} to t^{6.5} transition in the optical light curve
  • domain assumption Prompt emission spectrum is described by the Band function
    Used as the high-energy component in the joint optical-to-gamma-ray spectral fit
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law spectral component originates as afterglow from the first burst
    Specific interpretation to account for the chromatic behavior and dominance in optical band

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5647 in / 1937 out tokens · 77284 ms · 2026-05-16T07:32:04.556413+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  2. [2]

    S., et al

    Arimoto, M., Asano, K., Kawabata, K. S., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 134, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02119-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02119-1 2024

  3. [3]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

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

    work page doi:10.1086/172995 1993

  4. [4]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  5. [5]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3635, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw895

    Beniamini, P., & Granot, J. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3635, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw895

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw895 2016

  6. [6]

    H., Bloom, J

    Blake, C. H., Bloom, J. S., Starr, D. L., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 181, doi: 10.1038/nature03520

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03520 2005

  7. [7]

    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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

  8. [8]

    M., B´ egu´ e, D., Greiner, J., et al

    Burgess, J. M., B´ egu´ e, D., Greiner, J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 174, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0911-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0911-z 2020

  9. [9]

    2008, ApJL, 685, L19, doi: 10.1086/592350 17

    Burlon, D., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2008, ApJL, 685, L19, doi: 10.1086/592350 17

    work page doi:10.1086/592350 2008

  10. [10]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 Cabrera Lavers, A., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Castro-Tirado, A. J., et al. 2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 12234, 1

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  11. [11]

    Gamma-ray burst afterglows and evolution of postburst fireballs with energy injection from strongly magnetic millisecond pulsars

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9810402 1998

  12. [12]

    2011, A&A, 526, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457 de Pasquale, M., Barthelmy, S

    Daigne, F., Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Dubus, G. 2011, A&A, 526, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457 de Pasquale, M., Barthelmy, S. D., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 12228, 1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015457 2011

  13. [13]

    F., Schmidl, S., et al

    Elliott, J., Yu, H. F., Schmidl, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322600

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322600 2014

  14. [14]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 2007

  15. [15]

    2009, MNRAS, 398, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14895.x

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x 2009

  16. [16]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  17. [17]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  18. [18]

    L., Bo¨ er, M., et al

    Gendre, B., Atteia, J. L., Bo¨ er, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/59 2012

  19. [19]

    J., Shanks, T., Croom, S

    Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., & Lazzati, D. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 313, L1, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03354.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03354.x 2000

  20. [20]

    Z., Butler, N

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/93 2015

  21. [21]

    2016, ApJL, 816, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/816/2/L20

    Granot, J. 2016, ApJL, 816, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/816/2/L20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/816/2/l20 2016

  22. [22]

    S., et al

    Guiriec, S., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2011, ApJL, 727, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/l33 2011

  23. [23]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/145

    Hu, Y.-D., Liang, E.-W., Xi, S.-Q., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/145

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/145 2014

  24. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaba6e

    Huang, L.-Y., Wang, X.-G., Zheng, W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaba6e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaba6e 2018

  25. [25]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1108, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02005-w

    Jin, Z.-P., Zhou, H., Wang, Y., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1108, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02005-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02005-w 2023

  26. [26]

    1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

    Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

    work page doi:10.1086/512791 1997

  27. [27]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 6104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad538

    Komesh, T., Grossan, B., Maksut, Z., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 6104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad538

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad538 2023

  28. [28]

    M., Kouveliotou, C., Paciesas, W

    Koshut, T. M., Kouveliotou, C., Paciesas, W. S., et al. 1995, ApJ, 452, 145, doi: 10.1086/176286

    work page doi:10.1086/176286 1995

  29. [29]

    2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 12233, 1

    Kuroda, D., Hanayama, H., Miyaji, T., et al. 2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 12233, 1

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    P., Kann, D

    Lamb, G. P., Kann, D. A., Fern´ andez, J. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4163, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2071

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2071 2021

  31. [31]

    P., Levan, A

    Lamb, G. P., Levan, A. J., & Tanvir, N. R. 2020, ApJ, 899, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba75a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba75a 2020

  32. [32]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/27

    Li, L., Liang, E.-W., Tang, Q.-W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/27

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/27 2012

  33. [33]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 565, doi: 10.1086/521870

    Liang, E.-W., Zhang, B.-B., & Zhang, B. 2007, ApJ, 670, 565, doi: 10.1086/521870

    work page doi:10.1086/521870 2007

  34. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f15 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M

    Lin, D.-B., Huang, B.-Q., Liu, T., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f15 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 232, doi: 10.1086/303625 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1999, MNRAS, 306, L39, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02800.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9f15 2018

  35. [35]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2594

    Guiriec, S. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2594

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2594 2023

  36. [36]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 675, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    Nakar, E., Ando, S., & Sari, R. 2009, ApJ, 703, 675, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/675 2009

  37. [37]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1832 Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B

    Nappo, F., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 1625, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1832 Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B. 2006, ApJ, 653, 454, doi: 10.1086/508681

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1832 2014

  38. [38]

    2014, ApJ, 795, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/155

    Peng, F.-K., Liang, E.-W., Wang, X.-Y., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 155, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/155

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/155 2014

  39. [39]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    Piran, T. 2005, Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 1143, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.76.1143 2005

  40. [40]

    J., & Meszaros, P

    Rees, M. J., & Meszaros, P. 1994, ApJL, 430, L93, doi: 10.1086/187446

    work page doi:10.1086/187446 1994

  41. [41]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcd

    Ren, J., Wang, Y., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, ApJ, 962, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcd 2024

  42. [42]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, Space Sci Rev, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 2005

  43. [43]

    K., Pandey, S

    Ror, A. K., Pandey, S. B., Oates, S. R., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 2404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1514

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1514 2025

  44. [44]

    D., Baumgartner, W., et al

    Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., Baumgartner, W., et al. 2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 12276, 1

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    S., & Ghirlanda, G

    Salafia, O. S., & Ghirlanda, G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 93, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10050093

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10050093 2022

  46. [46]

    1999, ApJL, 517, L109, doi: 10.1086/312039

    Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1999, ApJL, 517, L109, doi: 10.1086/312039

    work page doi:10.1086/312039 1999

  47. [47]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49ab

    Schroeder, G., Rhodes, L., Laskar, T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad49ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad49ab 2024

  48. [48]

    1978, The annals of statistics, 461

    Schwarz, G. 1978, The annals of statistics, 461

    work page 1978

  49. [49]

    2024, ApJL, 976, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad85da

    Sun, T.-R., Geng, J.-J., Yan, J.-Z., et al. 2024, ApJL, 976, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad85da

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad85da 2024

  50. [50]

    M., Mundell, C

    Troja, E., Lipunov, V. M., Mundell, C. G., et al. 2017, Nature, 547, 425, doi: 10.1038/nature23289 18

    work page doi:10.1038/nature23289 2017

  51. [51]

    L., & Zhang, B

    Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 351, doi: 10.1038/nphys2932

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys2932 2014

  52. [52]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 4974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3978

    Valan, V., & Larsson, J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3978

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3978 2021

  53. [53]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ea

    Vianello, G., Gill, R., Granot, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad6ea 2018

  54. [54]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf1a2

    Wang, H., Zhou, H., Fan, Y.-Z., & Wei, D.-M. 2025, ApJ, 990, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf1a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf1a2 2025

  55. [55]

    2025, ApJ, 987, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add693

    Wang, Q.-L., Zhou, H., Wang, Y., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add693

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add693 2025

  56. [56]

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

    Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

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

  57. [57]

    Willingale, R., Starling, R. L. C., Beardmore, A. P., Tanvir, N. R., & O’Brien, P. T. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 394, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt175

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt175 2013

  58. [58]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/317016 2000

  59. [59]

    2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 507, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    Woosley, S., & Bloom, J. 2006, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 44, 507, doi: https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558 2006

  60. [60]

    2013, ApJ, 776, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/120

    Yi, S.-X., Wu, X.-F., & Dai, Z.-G. 2013, ApJ, 776, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/2/120 2013

  61. [61]

    Z., Dyks, J., et al

    Zhang, B., Fan, Y. Z., Dyks, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354, doi: 10.1086/500723

    work page doi:10.1086/500723 2006

  62. [62]

    2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    Zhang, B., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    work page doi:10.1086/320255 2001

  63. [63]

    L., et al

    Zhang, B., Liang, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 989, doi: 10.1086/510110

    work page doi:10.1086/510110 2007

  64. [64]

    N., Zhang, B., et al

    Zhang, B.-B., Burrows, D. N., Zhang, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 132, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/132 2012

  65. [65]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/12

    Zhao, X., Li, Z., Liu, X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 12, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/1/12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/1/12 2014

  66. [66]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf20a

    Zhou, H., Jin, Z.-P., Covino, S., Fan, Y.-Z., & Wei, D.-M. 2023, ApJS, 268, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf20a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acf20a 2023