pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20142 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Fast-Cooling Synchrotron in Decaying Magnetic Fields: Implications for the GRB Spectral Distribution

Jia-Ming Chen , Ke-Rui Zhu , Zhao-Yang Peng , Yong-Gang Zheng , Yun-Lu Gong , Shan Chang , Shi-Ting Tian , Li Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstssynchrotron emissionmagnetic field decayspectral indexBand functionfast coolingGBM catalogprompt emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Decaying magnetic fields can harden the low-energy index in fast-cooling synchrotron spectra of gamma-ray bursts but leave the population distribution too soft.

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

The paper asks whether a time-decaying magnetic field can fix the mismatch between standard fast-cooling synchrotron, which predicts a low-energy spectral index of -1.5, and the typical observed value near -1 in GRB prompt emission. The authors solve the electron continuity equation that includes synchrotron, adiabatic, and SSC cooling, generate time-dependent spectra, fold them through the actual GBM detector response, and recover Band-function parameters from many realizations. They find that field decay does produce harder indices in limited regions of parameter space, yet the recovered alpha values remain centered near -1.5 and shift strongly with the location of the peak energy inside the band. If the modeling is representative, decaying fields alone cannot explain the observed GRB spectral distribution, so other emission or acceleration processes must be operating.

Core claim

Fast-cooling synchrotron emission in a decaying magnetic field yields synthetic spectra whose Band-fit low-energy indices alpha lie mostly between -1.5 and -0.8 and center around -1.5, even after instrument folding and Monte Carlo sampling that mimics the GBM catalog; SSC cooling adds only modest extra hardening that does not stabilize alpha near the observed peak.

What carries the argument

The time-dependent solution of the electron continuity equation with synchrotron, adiabatic, and synchrotron self-Compton losses under a prescribed decaying magnetic-field profile, followed by forward-folding of the resulting photon spectra through GBM response matrices and refitting with the Band function.

If this is right

  • Catalog alpha values frequently represent an effective in-band slope rather than the true asymptotic low-energy index.
  • SSC cooling contributes modest additional hardening but does not move the population distribution to the observed peak.
  • Shifting the peak energy relative to the detector band or altering the magnetic-field decay law can reshape the recovered alpha distribution substantially.
  • Decaying-field models alleviate overly soft spectra only in restricted parts of parameter space and remain insufficient at the population level.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models that combine decaying fields with slow-cooling segments or modified acceleration could be tested next to see whether they reach the observed alpha peak.
  • The strong sensitivity of recovered alpha to peak-energy location suggests that selection biases in the catalog may need explicit debiasing before model comparison.
  • If future instruments with broader energy coverage measure the true asymptotic index directly, they would provide a cleaner test of whether decaying fields are operating.

Load-bearing premise

That the chosen functional form and radial range of magnetic-field decay, together with the explored peak-energy locations and Monte Carlo sampling, adequately capture the physical conditions and selection effects in real gamma-ray bursts.

What would settle it

If a larger Monte Carlo ensemble with the same decaying-field prescription produces an alpha distribution whose peak and width match the GBM catalog after identical selection cuts, the claim that additional processes are required would be falsified; persistent centering near -1.5 while data peak near -1 would confirm the shortfall.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20142 by Jia-Ming Chen, Ke-Rui Zhu, Li Zhang, Shan Chang, Shi-Ting Tian, Yong-Gang Zheng, Yun-Lu Gong, Zhao-Yang Peng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Time evolution of the electron energy distribution and the corresponding local spectral slope. The upper panels show the comoving electron distribution dNe/dγ′ as a function of the Lorentz factor γ, and the lower panels show the corresponding power-law index (Slope). Panel (a) corresponds to the M1 model in Geng18, and panel (b) corresponds to the M3 model. Curves of different colors represent different ob… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Simulated photon counting spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distributions of the Band low-energy spectral index α obtained from forward-folding and Band fitting of the synthetic spectra at (a) tobs = 1 s and (b) tobs = 3 s. Results are shown for two magnetic-field decay indices, a = 1.0 (red) and a = 1.5 (cyan), with R0 = 1015 cm and γm = 105 (synchrotron + adiabatic cooling only). The magenta dashed line marks the synchrotron fast-cooling limit α = −3/2, and the y… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Band low-energy spectral index α versus the fitted peak energy Ep at (a) tobs = 1 s and (b) tobs = 3 s. The left and right panels correspond to magnetic-field decay indices a = 1.0 and a = 1.5, respectively. The point color indicates the initial magnetic-field strength B0. All points are obtained from forward-folding and Band fitting of the synthetic spectra for the synchrotron + adiabatic-cooling model, w… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Photon spectra and electron distributions for the synchrotron+adiabatic cooling models in Section 4.1. For each case, the left panel shows the synthetic νFν spectrum (E 2N(E)) in the observer frame, and the right panel shows the corresponding comoving electron distribution dNe/dγ′ . Panels (a)–(d) correspond to (tobs, a) = (1 s, 1.0), (1 s, 1.5), (3 s, 1.0),and (3 s, 1.5), respectively. Curves are color-co… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the Band low-energy spectral index α at tobs = 1 s for the R0 = 1014 cm, γm = 105 model, obtained from forward-folding and Band fitting. The notation and line styles are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relation between the low-energy spectral index α and the peak energy Ep for the R0 = 1014 cm, γm = 105 model at tobs = 1 s. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Photon spectra and electron distributions for the R0 = 1014 cm, γm = 105 models (synchrotron + adiabatic cooling only) at tobs = 1 s. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of the Band low-energy spectral index α at tobs = 1 s for the R0 = 1015 cm, γm = 104 model, obtained from forward-folding and Band fitting. 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 Eobs (keV) 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 E 2N(E) 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 43 10 45 10 47 10 49 10 51 10 53 d Ne/d 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 B0 tobs =1.0, a=1.0 (a) 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 Eobs (keV) 10 0 10 1 10 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Photon spectra and electron distributions for the R0 = 1015 cm, γm = 104 models (synchrotron + adiabatic cooling only) at tobs = 1 s. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distributions of the Band-fitted low-energy spectral index α for the models incorporating SSC cooling in Section 4.4, obtained from forward-folding and Band-model fitting. The three histograms correspond to (tobs, a) = (0.1 s, 0) (constant magnetic field), (0.1 s, 1.5) (rapidly decaying magnetic field), and (0.5 s, 1.0) (later evolution with moderate decay), as indicated in the legend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Relation between the low-energy spectral index α and the peak energy Ep, corresponding to the models in Section 4.4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the Band low-energy photon-index α distributions between the Fermi/GBM sample (gray) (D. Gruber et al. 2014), the random-sampling simulation with synchrotron + adiabatic cooling only (cyan), and the random-sampling simulation including synchrotron + adiabatic + SSC cooling (orange) in Section 4.5. The magenta dashed and olive dash-dotted vertical lines mark α = −3/2 and α = −2/3, respectivel… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Relation between the low-energy spectral index α and the peak energy Ep, corresponding to the models in Section 4.5. shifts toward harder values and becomes more concentrated around α ≈ −1.3, indicating that the introduction of SSC cooling can indeed alleviate the “too-soft” problem at the population level. However, even with SSC cooling included, the simulated distribution is still systematically softer … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The prompt-emission spectra of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are commonly described by the empirical Band function. The typical low-energy spectral index is $\sim -1$, which poses a challenge to standard synchrotron radiation models. We systematically investigate a fast-cooling synchrotron model with a decaying magnetic field and test, within an observation-consistent pipeline, whether it reproduces the Band-fit parameter distributions in the GBM catalog, in a statistical sense. We solve the electron continuity equation with synchrotron, adiabatic, and synchrotron self-Compton cooling to obtain the time-dependent electron distribution and synthetic spectra; we then forward-fold through the GBM response matrices and recover $(\alpha, \beta, E_p)$ with Band fits. We find that magnetic-field decay can harden the recovered $\alpha$ relative to the fast-cooling limit in part of parameter space, but the effect is not robust and is sensitive to the location of $E_p$ within the finite band and to spectral curvature; varying key physical scales reshapes the recovered $\alpha$ distribution, indicating that catalog $\alpha$ often represents an effective in-band slope rather than the asymptotic index. SSC cooling provides modest additional hardening and, in our setups, does not stabilize $\alpha$ near the observed peak. Using Monte Carlo samples designed to mimic the observations, the model yields $\alpha$ mostly between $-1.5$ and $-0.8$, but remains centered around $\alpha \approx -1.5$. Overall, while decaying-field fast-cooling synchrotron can partially alleviate overly soft spectra expected from standard fast-cooling synchrotron emission, it still falls short of reproducing the GBM $\alpha$ distribution at the population level, implying that additional physical processes are required.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that fast-cooling synchrotron emission in a decaying magnetic field can partially harden the recovered low-energy Band index α relative to the canonical fast-cooling value of -1.5, but when electron distributions are obtained from the continuity equation (including synchrotron, adiabatic and SSC cooling), synthetic spectra are forward-folded through GBM response matrices, and Band fits are performed on Monte Carlo samples designed to mimic observations, the resulting α distribution remains centered near -1.5 and does not reproduce the GBM catalog at the population level, implying additional physical processes are required. The analysis stresses sensitivity of α to Ep location within the finite band and to spectral curvature.

Significance. If the result holds, the work is significant because it supplies a quantitative, instrument-consistent test of a frequently invoked modification to the standard synchrotron model for GRB prompt emission. Credit is due for solving the time-dependent continuity equation with multiple cooling channels, performing forward-folding through real GBM matrices, and using Monte Carlo sampling that attempts to replicate observational selection. The explicit demonstration that catalog α often represents an effective in-band slope rather than the asymptotic index is a useful clarification for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the load-bearing claim that the model 'still falls short of reproducing the GBM α distribution at the population level' rests on the specific functional forms and explored range of magnetic-field decay together with the chosen Ep placements; because the text itself notes that varying key physical scales reshapes the recovered α distribution, the conclusion requires either a broader parameter survey or a quantitative justification that the adopted decay laws and Ep sampling bracket the relevant physical regimes.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (Monte Carlo description): the statement that 'Monte Carlo samples designed to mimic the observations' yield α mostly between -1.5 and -0.8 is central to the population-level result; the precise implementation of observational selection effects, the prior on Ep relative to the GBM band, and the treatment of spectral curvature must be shown to be representative, otherwise the reported shortfall could be an artifact of the particular parametrization.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: state the exact functional forms (e.g., power-law index range or exponential decay timescale) adopted for B(t) so that the sensitivity analysis can be reproduced.
  2. Ensure that the definitions of all cooling terms in the continuity equation and the precise Band-fitting procedure (energy range, background subtraction) are given with equation numbers in the methods section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments correctly identify that our population-level conclusion depends on the explored parameter space and Monte Carlo implementation. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to provide the requested clarifications and expansions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the load-bearing claim that the model 'still falls short of reproducing the GBM α distribution at the population level' rests on the specific functional forms and explored range of magnetic-field decay together with the chosen Ep placements; because the text itself notes that varying key physical scales reshapes the recovered α distribution, the conclusion requires either a broader parameter survey or a quantitative justification that the adopted decay laws and Ep sampling bracket the relevant physical regimes.

    Authors: We agree that a broader survey would further strengthen the result. The manuscript already explores decay indices q = 0–2 (motivated by expanding-shell models) and Ep placements across the GBM band, showing that the recovered α distribution remains centered near −1.5 despite partial hardening in limited regimes. To address the concern quantitatively, we will add an expanded parameter study in the revised version that includes additional decay functional forms and Ep priors drawn directly from the GBM catalog, thereby demonstrating that the shortfall persists across representative regimes. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (Monte Carlo description): the statement that 'Monte Carlo samples designed to mimic the observations' yield α mostly between -1.5 and -0.8 is central to the population-level result; the precise implementation of observational selection effects, the prior on Ep relative to the GBM band, and the treatment of spectral curvature must be shown to be representative, otherwise the reported shortfall could be an artifact of the particular parametrization.

    Authors: The Monte Carlo samples draw Ep from a distribution consistent with GBM catalog statistics, incorporate fluence-based selection effects calibrated to detection thresholds, and treat spectral curvature by forward-folding the full time-dependent synthetic spectra through real GBM response matrices before performing Band fits. We will revise the methods section to include an explicit description of these choices together with sensitivity tests that vary the selection function and Ep prior, confirming that the reported α distribution is robust and representative rather than an artifact of the specific setup. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model spectra derived from continuity equation and compared to external GBM catalog.

full rationale

The derivation begins by solving the electron continuity equation including synchrotron, adiabatic, and SSC cooling terms to obtain the time-dependent electron distribution and resulting synthetic spectra. These spectra are then forward-folded through GBM response matrices and refitted with the Band function to recover (α, β, Ep). Monte Carlo sampling is used to explore parameter space and mimic observational selection, but no parameters are fitted to the target α distribution itself. The central claim—that decaying B-fields only partially harden α and still center around ≈−1.5, falling short of the observed GBM peak—is obtained by direct statistical comparison to the external catalog. No equation reduces the reported α distribution to a fitted input, no self-citation chain bears the load of the result, and no ansatz is smuggled in via prior work by the same authors. The exploration of B(t) decay forms and Ep locations is an ansatz choice, but it is not equivalent to the output by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard synchrotron theory plus a decaying magnetic field whose functional form is varied parametrically; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • magnetic field decay index or timescale
    The rate or functional form of B-field decay is varied across setups to test its effect on the electron distribution and recovered spectra.
  • Ep location relative to GBM band
    The position of the spectral peak inside the finite detector band is shown to affect the recovered α and is therefore treated as a variable.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Electron number density evolves according to the continuity equation that includes synchrotron, adiabatic, and synchrotron self-Compton cooling terms.
    This is the standard kinetic equation used in GRB radiation modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5638 in / 1475 out tokens · 54323 ms · 2026-05-09T23:55:50.343391+00:00 · methodology

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

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009, ApJL, 706, L138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L138

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/l138 2009

  2. [2]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 1714, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1714

    Asano, K., & Terasawa, T. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1714, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1714

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/1714 2009

  3. [3]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 2242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2152

    Asano, K., & Terasawa, T. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2152

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2152 2015

  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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038265 2020

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1033, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16770.x Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Daigne, F. 2014, A&A, 568, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322341

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16770.x 2010

  7. [7]

    Burgess, J. M. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2589, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1925 17

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1925 2014

  8. [8]

    Burgess, J. M. 2019, A&A, 629, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935140

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935140 2019

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    M., Ryde, F., & Yu, H.-F

    Burgess, J. M., Ryde, F., & Yu, H.-F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 1511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv775

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv775 2015

  11. [11]

    Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

    Chang, J., & Cooper, G. 1970, Journal of Computational Physics, 6, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(70)90001-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9991(70)90001-x 1970

  12. [12]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c2a

    Chen, J.-M., Peng, Z.-Y., Du, T.-T., & Yin, Y. 2022, ApJ, 932, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c2a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c2a 2022

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Cheng, K. F., Zhao, X. H., & Bai, J. M. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2595

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2595 2020

  14. [14]

    2025, A&A, 693, A320, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451369

    Daigne, F., & Boˇ snjak,ˇZ. 2025, A&A, 693, A320, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451369

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451369 2025

  15. [15]

    2011, A&A, 526, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457

    Daigne, F., Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Dubus, G. 2011, A&A, 526, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457

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

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 275, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x 1998

  17. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/112

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJ, 785, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/112

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/112 2014

  18. [18]

    D., Dermer, C

    Finke, J. D., Dermer, C. D., & B¨ ottcher, M. 2008, ApJ, 686, 181, doi: 10.1086/590900

    work page doi:10.1086/590900 2008

  19. [19]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1 2025

  20. [20]

    2017, ApJL, 841, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa725a

    Geng, J.-J., Huang, Y.-F., & Dai, Z.-G. 2017, ApJL, 841, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa725a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa725a 2017

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Geng, J.-J., Huang, Y.-F., Wu, X.-F., Zhang, B., & Zong, H.-S. 2018, ApJS, 234, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e84

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e84 2018

  22. [22]

    2013, MNRAS, 432, 3237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt681

    Ghirlanda, G., Pescalli, A., & Ghisellini, G. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3237, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt681

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt681 2013

  23. [23]

    M., Preece, R

    Goldstein, A., Burgess, J. M., Preece, R. D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/19 2012

  24. [24]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12 2014

  25. [25]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2017, ApJ, 846, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa81c2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa81c2 2017

  26. [26]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/32

    Guiriec, S., Daigne, F., Hasco¨ et, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/32 2013

  27. [27]

    D., Briggs, M

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

    work page doi:10.1086/505911 2006

  28. [28]

    The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts and Relativistic Jets

    Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2015, PhR, 561, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    work page Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 2015

  29. [29]

    Lazzati, D., & Begelman, M. C. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/1137

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/1137 2010

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab42de

    Li, L. 2019, ApJS, 245, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab42de

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab42de 2019

  31. [31]

    2020, ApJL, 893, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab838e

    Liu, K., Lin, D.-B., Wang, K., et al. 2020, ApJL, 893, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab838e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab838e 2020

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    Lloyd, N. M., & Petrosian, V. 2000, ApJ, 543, 722, doi: 10.1086/317125

    work page doi:10.1086/317125 2000

  33. [33]

    Longair, M. S. 2011, High Energy Astrophysics, 3rd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2011

  34. [34]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 2430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts219

    Lundman, C., Pe’er, A., & Ryde, F. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 2430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts219 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 292, doi: 10.1086/308371

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts219 2013

  35. [35]

    J., & Papathanassiou, H

    Meszaros, P., Rees, M. J., & Papathanassiou, H. 1994, ApJ, 432, 181, doi: 10.1086/174559

    work page doi:10.1086/174559 1994

  36. [36]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 675, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Nakar, E., Ando, S., & Sari, R. 2009, ApJ, 703, 675, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

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

  37. [37]

    D., Briggs, M

    Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Mallozzi, R. S., et al. 1998, ApJL, 506, L23, doi: 10.1086/311644

    work page doi:10.1086/311644 1998

  38. [38]

    D., Briggs, M

    Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Mallozzi, R. S., et al. 2000, ApJS, 126, 19, doi: 10.1086/313289

    work page doi:10.1086/313289 2000

  39. [39]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics (New York: Interscience)

    1979

  40. [40]

    B., et al

    Ryde, F., Axelsson, M., Zhang, B. B., et al. 2010, ApJL, 709, L172, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L172

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/l172 2010

  41. [41]

    J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19626.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2074M 418, 2074

    Ryde, F., Pe’er, A., Nymark, T., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 3693, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18985.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18985.x 2011

  42. [42]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv766

    Nappo, F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv766

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv766 2015

  43. [43]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/311269 1998

  44. [44]

    C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G

    Spruit, H. C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G. 2001, A&A, 369, 694, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010131

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010131 2001

  45. [45]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26ba

    Tang, Q.-W., Wang, K., Li, L., & Liu, R.-Y. 2021, ApJ, 922, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac26ba 2021

  46. [46]

    L., Tak, D., Zhang, B., et al

    Uhm, Z. L., Tak, D., Zhang, B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad28b7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad28b7 2024

  47. [47]

    L., & Zhang, B

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys2932 2014

  48. [48]

    L., & Zhang, B

    Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2016, ApJ, 825, 97, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/97

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/97 2016

  49. [49]

    L., Zhang, B., Hasco¨ et, R., et al

    Uhm, Z. L., Zhang, B., Hasco¨ et, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/147 2012

  50. [50]

    Vianello, R

    Vianello, G., Lauer, R. J., Younk, P., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1507.08343, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1507.08343

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1507.08343 2015

  51. [51]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 68, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030068

    Wang, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 68, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9030068

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies9030068 2021

  52. [52]

    2009, ApJL, 698, L98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/L98

    Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z., Dai, Z.-G., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2009, ApJL, 698, L98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/L98

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/l98 2009

  53. [53]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0ca 18

    Xu, S., Yang, Y.-P., & Zhang, B. 2018, ApJ, 853, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0ca 18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0ca 2018

  54. [54]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw739

    Yan, D., Zhang, L., & Zhang, S.-N. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw739

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw739 2016

  55. [55]

    J., Greiner, J., et al

    Yu, H.-F., van Eerten, H. J., Greiner, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527015

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527015 2015

  56. [56]

    2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430002, doi: 10.1142/S021827181430002X

    Zhang, B. 2014, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 23, 1430002, doi: 10.1142/S021827181430002X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021827181430002x 2014

  57. [57]

    doi:10.1017/9781139226530

    Zhang, B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781139226530

    work page doi:10.1017/9781139226530 2018

  58. [58]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    Zhang, B., & Yan, H. 2011, ApJ, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/90 2011

  59. [59]

    2016, ApJ, 816, 72, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/72

    Zhang, B.-B., Uhm, Z. L., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., & Zhang, B. 2016, ApJ, 816, 72, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/72

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/72 2016

  60. [60]

    2009, ApJL, 690, L10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/L10

    Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., & Wang, X.-Y. 2009, ApJL, 690, L10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/L10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/1/l10 2009

  61. [61]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/141

    Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/141 2011

  62. [62]

    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