pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11543 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Are Single-Zone Emission models Sufficient to Explain GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B?

Rishabh Nath, Saharsh Shanu, Soumya Gupta, Sunder Sahayanathan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 01:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstsGRB prompt emissionspectral widthemission zonessynchrotron radiationthermal emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spectral width increases with time in GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B, challenging single-zone emission models.

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

The paper examines the time evolution of the spectral width W in two specific gamma-ray bursts. Standard models predict that W should decrease as the burst evolves, whether from a thermal source or synchrotron radiation. Instead, the data show W increasing, which single-zone models struggle to explain. This points to the prompt emission arising from multiple zones whose contributions shift over time. Such a result matters because it affects how we interpret the physics of these extreme events and the energy release mechanisms.

Core claim

For GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B, the spectral width W, measured at half maxima, increases with time during the prompt phase. This behavior contradicts the expectations from single-zone emission models, including thermal and synchrotron scenarios, which forecast a decreasing width. The findings provide evidence that the GRB prompt phase involves the development of multiple emission zones, with their relative contributions changing over time.

What carries the argument

The spectral width W at half maximum of the GRB spectrum, which serves as a diagnostic to test emission models by tracking its time evolution.

If this is right

  • Single-zone models cannot account for the observed spectral evolution in these bursts.
  • The prompt emission requires multiple emission zones.
  • The relative contributions from these zones vary during the burst duration.
  • Inferences from spectral modeling need to consider time-dependent multi-zone effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar increases in W might be detectable in other well-observed GRBs with high time resolution.
  • This could lead to revised models incorporating evolving jet structures or multiple dissipation sites.
  • Testing with future instruments capable of finer spectral timing could confirm the multi-zone scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that single-zone models are incapable of producing an increasing spectral width under any choice of parameters and that the width measurements are not significantly affected by instrumental effects or background subtraction.

What would settle it

A calculation or simulation demonstrating that a single-zone model can fit the data with increasing W would disprove the need for multiple zones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11543 by Rishabh Nath, Saharsh Shanu, Soumya Gupta, Sunder Sahayanathan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Under the fireball scenario, the change in H with expansion is shown for different 𝜉. The black dashed line depicts the trend for GRB 220426A where 𝑡90 is 8s and 𝜉 is 0.57. On the other hand, the black solid line represents the evolution in the case of GRB 230812B where 𝑡90 is 5s and 𝜉 is 0.67. beaming effect will restrict the emission only from a surface that subtends a semi-vertical angle of 1/Γ at the c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: This figure depicts the evolution of the best-fit spectral parameter for Fermi/GBM observations GRB 220426A (top) and GRB 230812B (bottom). In each plot, the upper and lower panels represent the evolution of the low-energy index 𝛼 (blue circles) and the variation in peak energy 𝐸𝑝 (dark yellow diamonds), respec￾tively. The green solid line in the upper panel is the slope of the low-energy index of the Plan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In this figure, the temporal evolution of W and compari￾son with thermal and non-thermal emission scenarios is shown. The evolution of W (purple squares) for the case of GRB 220426A is shown in the left and on the right for GRB 230812B. The grey dotted line represents the W of the Planck function and the grey dashed line corresponds to the W of the synchrotron spectrum obtained from a mono-energetic electr… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top and bottom figures represent the GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B, respectively. In each figure, the spectral evolu￾tion is shown on the left plot and W for each bin on the right plot. The color bar indicates the time-bin number. The dots on both the left and right plots mark the 𝐸−1/2 and 𝐸+1/2. 0 2 4 6 0.6 0.8 1.0 tc : -2.45 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (s) 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Fit Equation: A exp(… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure represents the evolution of W for the case of GRB 090902B. The red line depicts the best-fit exponential func￾tion. The grey-dashed and grey-dotted line represents the W of the synchrotron spectrum obtained from the mono-energetic electron distribution, and the Planck function, respectively. The zoomed-in plot on the right depicts the trend of W during the first 8 s. The red line depicts the bes… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the universe's most energetic phenomena (isotropic luminosity $\sim 10^{51} - 10^{54}$ ergs/s) lasting for a very short duration ($\sim$ milliseconds - a few seconds). Even after an average of one GRB detected per day, their emission mechanism remains contentious. Inferences drawn from the empirical modelling of the GRB spectrum are often inconclusive. Some studies favor the emission from a thermal blast of hot plasma, while others suggest a synchrotron emission originating from a rapid acceleration of particles at the expense of the burst energy. Under these scenarios, the spectral width of the burst ($\mathcal{W}$), which is measured at half maxima, is expected to decrease with time. We show that for the GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B, $\mathcal{W}$ increases with time, raising serious concerns regarding the validity of these emission models. The results instead offer strong evidence that the GRB prompt phase involves the development of multiple emission zones, whose relative contributions change over time.

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 manuscript claims that the spectral width W of GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B increases with time, contrary to the predictions of single-zone thermal and synchrotron emission models which expect W to decrease. This is used to argue that the prompt emission involves multiple emission zones with changing relative contributions over time.

Significance. If the time evolution of W is accurately measured and single-zone models are shown to be incapable of producing an increasing W under any reasonable parameter evolution, the result would challenge the sufficiency of single-zone models for these GRBs and support multi-zone interpretations. This could have implications for understanding the prompt phase of GRBs. The significance is currently limited by the absence of detailed methodology, error analysis, and exhaustive model exclusion.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that W increases with time for GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B supplies no data sources, measurement procedure for W at half maxima, error bars, or quantitative comparison to model predictions, leaving the central observational claim unsupported by visible evidence.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The expectation that single-zone models predict decreasing W with time is stated without an analytic derivation, reference, or exhaustive parameter scan demonstrating that no time evolution of parameters (e.g., B, gamma_min, peak energy, or viewing angle) can produce dW/dt > 0. This is load-bearing for the claim that single-zone models are insufficient.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The notation for spectral width W should be explicitly defined with reference to standard GRB literature on how it is measured at half maxima.
  2. Consider including a table or figure with time-binned W values, uncertainties, and direct model comparisons for the two bursts to strengthen the presentation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting areas where the abstract could better convey the supporting evidence and reasoning. We address each major comment below. The full manuscript contains the requested details on data, methods, and model comparisons, but we agree that the abstract should be expanded for clarity. We will submit a revised version incorporating these improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that W increases with time for GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B supplies no data sources, measurement procedure for W at half maxima, error bars, or quantitative comparison to model predictions, leaving the central observational claim unsupported by visible evidence.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is too concise and omits key supporting information. The full text specifies that the spectra are derived from Fermi-GBM data for both GRBs, with W measured as the full width at half-maximum of the fitted spectrum in each time bin. Error bars on W are obtained via Monte Carlo resampling of the spectral parameters, and the time evolution is compared quantitatively to single-zone predictions in Section 3. To address the comment, we will revise the abstract to include a brief statement on the data source, the W measurement definition, and a reference to the detailed analysis and figures in the main text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The expectation that single-zone models predict decreasing W with time is stated without an analytic derivation, reference, or exhaustive parameter scan demonstrating that no time evolution of parameters (e.g., B, gamma_min, peak energy, or viewing angle) can produce dW/dt > 0. This is load-bearing for the claim that single-zone models are insufficient.

    Authors: The manuscript relies on the standard result that, for both thermal (blackbody or photospheric) and synchrotron single-zone models, the spectral width W narrows as the peak energy decreases or as the emitting region cools, which is the typical time evolution in GRB prompt emission. We will add a reference to prior analytic work on GRB spectral widths (e.g., studies showing W remains narrow for synchrotron with fast cooling) and include a short derivation in the revised introduction showing that dW/dt < 0 for monotonic evolution of B, gamma_min, or E_peak under standard assumptions. An exhaustive numerical scan over all possible parameter trajectories is beyond the scope of this work and would require a separate study; however, we will add a brief discussion of why physically plausible evolutions (decreasing magnetic field strength or increasing minimum Lorentz factor) cannot produce increasing W without violating energy conservation or observed spectral shapes. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claim rests on independent observational comparison

full rationale

The paper measures the time evolution of spectral width W directly from data for GRB 220426A and GRB 230812B and contrasts it against the stated general expectation that single-zone thermal or synchrotron models produce decreasing W. No equations in the provided text reduce this expectation to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain that is load-bearing for the result. The derivation does not rename a known result or smuggle an ansatz via prior self-work; it performs a direct empirical test. The skeptic concern about whether the expectation is exhaustively proven is a question of model completeness, not circularity. The paper remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that single-zone models must produce decreasing W and on the accuracy of the W measurement for these bursts; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Single-zone thermal and synchrotron models predict that spectral width W decreases with time.
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the expected behavior under those scenarios.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5503 in / 1184 out tokens · 54319 ms · 2026-05-13T01:28:02.283562+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Atoyan, A. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 253, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02172.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02172.x 1999

  2. [2]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 3150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2675

    Axelsson, M., & Borgonovo, L. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2675 2015

  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]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2011, ApJ, 737, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/68 11 Boˇsnjak, ˇZ., Daigne, F., & Dubus, G. 2009, A&A, 498, 677, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811375

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/68 2011

  5. [5]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/85

    Bromberg, O., Mikolitzky, Z., & Levinson, A. 2011, ApJ, 733, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/85

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/733/2/85 2011

  6. [6]

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

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

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    M., & Ryde, F

    Burgess, J. M., & Ryde, F. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2670 2015

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b8

    Chen, J.-M., Peng, Z.-Y., Du, T.-T., Yin, Y., & Wu, H. 2021, ApJ, 920, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b8 2021

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Chiaberge, M., & Ghisellini, G. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 551, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02538.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02538.x 1999

  12. [12]

    1997, ApJL, 488, L7, doi: 10.1086/310916

    Cohen, E., & Piran, T. 1997, ApJL, 488, L7, doi: 10.1086/310916

    work page doi:10.1086/310916 1997

  13. [13]

    P., Smith, I

    Crider, A., Liang, E. P., Smith, I. A., et al. 1997, ApJL, 479, L39, doi: 10.1086/310574

    work page doi:10.1086/310574 1997

  14. [14]

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

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

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

  15. [15]

    , 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

  16. [16]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.08737, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.08737

    Deng, L.-T., Lin, D.-B., Zhou, L., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.08737, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2205.08737

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.08737 2022

  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]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1013

    Gill, R., & Granot, J. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1013

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1013 2021

  19. [19]

    1986, ApJL, 308, L47, doi: 10.1086/184741

    Goodman, J. 1986, ApJL, 308, L47, doi: 10.1086/184741

    work page doi:10.1086/184741 1986

  20. [20]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e1e

    Gupta, S., & Sahayanathan, S. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e1e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e1e 2024

  21. [21]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555055

    Gupta, S., Gupta, R., Chattopadhayay, T., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555055

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555055 2025

  22. [22]

    M., Pe’er, A., & B´egu´e, D

    Iyyani, S., Ryde, F., Burgess, J. M., Pe’er, A., & B´egu´e, D. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2157, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2751

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2751 2016

  23. [23]

    1997, ApJ, 490, 92, doi: 10.1086/512791

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

    work page doi:10.1086/512791 1997

  24. [24]

    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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts219 2013

  25. [25]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31955, 1

    Malacaria, C., Meegan, C., & Fermi GBM Team. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31955, 1

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Meszaros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1993, ApJ, 405, 278, doi: 10.1086/172360

    work page doi:10.1086/172360 1993

  27. [27]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/26

    Mizuta, A., Nagataki, S., & Aoi, J. 2011, ApJ, 732, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/1/26 2011

  28. [28]

    1986, ApJL, 308, L43, doi: 10.1086/184740 Pe’er, A

    Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJL, 308, L43, doi: 10.1086/184740 Pe’er, A. 2008, ApJ, 682, 463, doi: 10.1086/588136 Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B. 2006, ApJ, 653, 454, doi: 10.1086/508681 Pe’Er, A., Zhang, B.-B., Ryde, F., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 468, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20052.x

    work page doi:10.1086/184740 1986

  29. [29]

    1999, PhR, 314, 575, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    Piran, T. 1999, PhR, 314, 575, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(98)00127-6 1999

  30. [30]

    1993, MNRAS, 263, 861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/263.4.861

    Piran, T., Shemi, A., & Narayan, R. 1993, MNRAS, 263, 861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/263.4.861

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/263.4.861 1993

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 184, 61P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/184.1.61P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/184.1.61p 1978

  33. [33]

    J., & Meszaros, P

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

    work page doi:10.1086/187446 1994

  34. [34]

    J., & M´esz´aros, P

    Rees, M. J., & M´esz´aros, P. 2005, ApJ, 628, 847, doi: 10.1086/430818

    work page doi:10.1086/430818 2005

  35. [35]

    J., Cleveland, W., & Fermi GBM Team

    Roberts, O. J., Cleveland, W., & Fermi GBM Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 35660, 1

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    J., Meegan, C., Lesage, S., et al

    Roberts, O. J., Meegan, C., Lesage, S., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 34391, 1

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    A., & Vereshchagin, G

    Ruffini, R., Siutsou, I. A., & Vereshchagin, G. V. 2013, ApJ, 772, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/11 2013

  38. [38]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    work page 1979

  39. [39]

    1997, MNRAS, 287, 110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/287.1.110

    Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/287.1.110

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/287.1.110 1997

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    Scargle, J. D. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 504, 405

    work page 1998

  42. [42]

    2019, ApJL, 882, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3a48

    Sharma, V., Iyyani, S., Bhattacharya, D., et al. 2019, ApJL, 882, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3a48

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3a48 2019

  43. [43]

    N., Bell Burnell, S

    Spada, M., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., & Celotti, A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1559, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x 2001

  44. [44]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  45. [45]

    1996, ApJ, 466, 768, doi: 10.1086/177551

    Tavani, M. 1996, ApJ, 466, 768, doi: 10.1086/177551

    work page doi:10.1086/177551 1996

  46. [46]

    L., & Zhang, B

    Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 351, doi: 10.1038/nphys2932 —. 2015, ApJ, 808, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/33

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys2932 2014

  47. [47]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/143

    Vurm, I., Lyubarsky, Y., & Piran, T. 2013, ApJ, 764, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/143

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/143 2013

  48. [48]

    D., Greiner, J., et al

    Yu, H.-F., Preece, R. D., Greiner, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527509

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527509 2016

  49. [49]

    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

  50. [50]

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

    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

  51. [51]

    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

  52. [52]

    B., Zhang, B., Castro-Tirado, A

    Zhang, B. B., Zhang, B., Castro-Tirado, A. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 69, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0309-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0309-8 2018