pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17170 · v1 · pith:SNKVGHVWnew · submitted 2026-06-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Discovery of a Supernova Following the Einstein Probe Transient EP250302a at z = 1.131

Brendan O'Connor , Malte Busmann , James Freeburn , Lei Hu , Noel Klingler , Daniel Gruen , Igor Andreoni , Julius Gassert
show 2 more authors
Xander J. Hall Antonella Palmese
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 02:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords fast X-ray transientsupernovabroad-lined IcEinstein Probeafterglowredshift 1.131massive star
0
0 comments X

The pith

Late-time optical excess after EP250302a matches scaled SN 1998bw, linking the X-ray transient to a massive-star death at z=1.131

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

The analysis of EP250302a combines prompt X-ray, early multi-band flaring, and deep Gemini imaging at 20-30 days. An optical excess above the afterglow decay is isolated after subtracting the standard power-law component. This excess is compared to the light curve of the broad-lined Ic supernova 1998bw, shifted to z=1.131 with appropriate k-correction and extinction, and matches after a flux scaling factor greater than 0.3. The match supplies direct evidence that this gamma-ray-dark fast X-ray transient arose from core collapse of a massive star.

Core claim

The event exhibits an optical excess at 20-30 days post-explosion that is interpreted as supernova emission and shows good agreement with the canonical broad-lined Ic SN 1998bw after a flux-scaling factor of k_98bw > 0.3, adding to evidence that the majority of EP FXTs are associated with the deaths of massive stars.

What carries the argument

Late-time optical excess at 20-30 days, isolated from the afterglow decay and matched to the SN 1998bw template after redshift and extinction corrections.

If this is right

  • The outflow must be ultrarelativistic with initial Lorentz factor greater than 25, constrained by the early optical data.
  • The chromatic flare is consistent with either a refreshed shock from shell collision or reverse-shock emission.
  • Most Einstein Probe fast X-ray transients are expected to arise from massive-star core collapse even when undetected in gamma rays.
  • The absence of a gamma-ray counterpart does not preclude a supernova association for this class of events.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Targeted late-time monitoring campaigns on future EP FXTs could systematically test whether the supernova fraction approaches 100 percent.
  • If the k > 0.3 scaling holds across the population, off-axis or low-energy jet models may unify these events with classical gamma-ray bursts.
  • Host-galaxy spectroscopy at similar redshifts would allow direct comparison of explosion-site metallicities with local broad-lined Ic supernovae.

Load-bearing premise

The late-time optical excess is produced by supernova emission rather than residual afterglow, host-galaxy variability, or other contaminants.

What would settle it

A spectrum at 25 days showing no broad supernova features or a light curve that falls well below the scaled 1998bw template after the same corrections would rule out the supernova interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17170 by Antonella Palmese, Brendan O'Connor, Daniel Gruen, Igor Andreoni, James Freeburn, Julius Gassert, Lei Hu, Malte Busmann, Noel Klingler, Xander J. Hall.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Finding chart of EP250302a using our deep Gemini GMOS-N i-band reference image (i > 26.3 mag) obtained at T0 + 84 d. The magenta circle shows the Swift/XRT localization (§2.3.1). Right: The six small panels display the the three initial Gemini epochs (i-band) at T0 + 9 d, 20 d, and 28 d (observer frame) after the EP trigger. The difference images are shown on the far right panels and present a clear … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observed X-ray lightcurves (0.3 − 10 keV) of Swift long duration (> 2 s) GRBs versus EP250302a (red circles). The solid red line depicts the best-fit lightcurve to EP250302a. We have included data from Swift (circles) and Chandra (pentagon) analyzed in this work and EP/FXT (squares) data presented by S.-Y. Fu et al. (2026). tical localization of EP250302a at RA, DEC (J2000) = 11h18m03s .6, +33◦35′09.6 ′′ w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Best-fit models to the multi-wavelength (riJ + X-ray) lightcurve of EP250302a in the observer-frame. FTW data are shown as circles, Gemini data as squares, and X-ray data (This work and S.-Y. Fu et al. 2026) are shown as pentagons. Upper limits from FTW are shown as downward triangles. The total model (solid lines) consists of an afterglow component (dashed lines) and the addition of a supernova (dotted li… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rest-frame optical lightcurves (r-band) of gam￾ma-ray bursts exhibiting a rapid and significant rebrighten￾ing. These are compared to EP240414a (S. Srivastav et al. 2025; J. N. D. van Dalen et al. 2025), EP241021a (M. Bus￾mann et al. 2025b), and EP250302a (This work and S.-Y. Fu et al. 2026). The sample shown includes: GRBs 970508 (E. Pian et al. 1998), 060206 (P. R. Wo´zniak et al. 2006), 060906 (S. B. Ce… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal fit to the observed r-band lightcurve of EP250302a. The best fit is shown as a thick solid red line, and 1000 lightcurves randomly sampled from the posteriors are also shown in red with lower opacity. The model residuals based on the best-fit are shown as the bottom panel. The text on the plot refers to the temporal decay in flux density Fν ∝ t −α . tory (NUTTelA-TAO; B. Grossan et al. 2019, 2022)… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plots showing the results of our lightcurve modeling using the combination of an afterglow plus SN 1998bw. The left corner plot is for a single powerlaw afterglow component, while the right corner plot allows for a jet-break (see §3.3 for details). Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024,, 2.0.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13989456 Breeveld, A. A., Landsman, W., Holland, S. T., et al. … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a multi-wavelength analysis of the Einstein Probe (EP) fast X-ray transient (FXT) EP250302a located at redshift $z=1.131$. Despite its luminous prompt X-ray emission, the event was not detected in gamma-rays. Multi-wavelength follow-up identified a bright optical and X-ray source that displayed rapid chromatic flaring before returning to the standard decay of a gamma-ray burst afterglow. We interpret the chromatic flare as either due to a refreshed shock caused by a discrete shell collision or as reverse shock emission. Using the early optical data, we place constraints on the Lorentz factor of the outflow, requiring an ultrarelativistic jet with $\Gamma_0>25$. We additionally obtained deep late-time imaging with the Gemini North Telescope that reveals the presence of an optical excess at $20-30$ d post-explosion. We interpret this as supernova (SN) emission and find good agreement with the canonical broad-lined Ic SN 1998bw with a flux-scaling factor of $k_\textrm{98bw}>0.3$. This adds to the growing evidence that the majority of EP FXTs are associated with the deaths of massive stars.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports multi-wavelength observations of the Einstein Probe FXT EP250302a at z=1.131, including chromatic flaring interpreted as refreshed shock or reverse shock emission, an ultrarelativistic outflow with Gamma_0>25 from early optical data, standard afterglow decay, and a late-time (20-30 d) optical excess from Gemini imaging interpreted as supernova emission matching a flux-scaled SN 1998bw template with k_98bw>0.3. This is presented as evidence linking EP FXTs to massive-star deaths.

Significance. If the supernova identification holds after quantitative validation, the result provides a high-redshift anchor point strengthening the association between EP FXTs and core-collapse events, complementing lower-z examples. The Lorentz-factor lower limit and chromatic-flare modeling also add to the parameter space of relativistic outflows in these transients.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / late-time analysis] Abstract and late-time section: the claim of 'good agreement' with the SN 1998bw template scaled by k_98bw>0.3 supplies neither fit statistics (chi-squared, degrees of freedom, or residual plots) nor the explicit k-correction and extinction-correction procedure applied to the template at z=1.131, where observed optical bands sample rest-UV wavelengths.
  2. [Late-time imaging] Late-time imaging paragraph: no afterglow model parameters, decay indices, or extrapolation to 20-30 d are provided, nor is the host-subtraction method described, preventing assessment of whether the reported excess is isolated from residual afterglow or host variability.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: alternative explanations for the 20-30 d excess (shallower afterglow decay, incomplete subtraction, or host contamination) receive no quantitative exclusion tests or upper limits, leaving the supernova interpretation without demonstrated robustness against these contaminants.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'standard decay of a gamma-ray burst afterglow' without quoting the measured temporal index or citing the relevant light-curve figure or section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results on EP250302a. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the supernova identification and supporting analyses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / late-time analysis] Abstract and late-time section: the claim of 'good agreement' with the SN 1998bw template scaled by k_98bw>0.3 supplies neither fit statistics (chi-squared, degrees of freedom, or residual plots) nor the explicit k-correction and extinction-correction procedure applied to the template at z=1.131, where observed optical bands sample rest-UV wavelengths.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks explicit quantitative support for the template comparison. In the revised version we will report chi-squared per degree of freedom for the scaled SN 1998bw match, include a residual plot or table of residuals, and provide a step-by-step description of the k-correction (using the SN 1998bw spectrum shifted to z=1.131) together with the adopted extinction corrections. The k_98bw>0.3 value already incorporates these steps; the added material will make the procedure fully reproducible. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Late-time imaging] Late-time imaging paragraph: no afterglow model parameters, decay indices, or extrapolation to 20-30 d are provided, nor is the host-subtraction method described, preventing assessment of whether the reported excess is isolated from residual afterglow or host variability.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission. The revised manuscript will tabulate the best-fit afterglow parameters (including the temporal decay index), show the extrapolated afterglow flux at 20–30 d, and describe the host-subtraction procedure (including the reference image used and the aperture photometry details). These additions will allow direct verification that the reported excess lies above the extrapolated afterglow plus any residual host contribution. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: alternative explanations for the 20-30 d excess (shallower afterglow decay, incomplete subtraction, or host contamination) receive no quantitative exclusion tests or upper limits, leaving the supernova interpretation without demonstrated robustness against these contaminants.

    Authors: We will add quantitative tests in the revised text. These will include (i) an upper limit on host-galaxy contamination derived from the depth of the Gemini imaging, (ii) a comparison of the observed decay index against the range allowed for a shallower afterglow component, and (iii) a check on subtraction residuals. The results will be presented as explicit upper limits or exclusion significance to demonstrate that the supernova interpretation remains the most parsimonious explanation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; SN association rests on external template comparison

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that late-time optical excess matches the known SN 1998bw template after k-correction and scaling (k_98bw>0.3). This uses an external, independently observed supernova as benchmark rather than defining any quantity in terms of itself or renaming a fit as a prediction. No equations reduce the result to inputs by construction, and no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes are invoked. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks, consistent with a low circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The interpretation depends on standard cosmological distance-redshift conversion, the assumption that the late excess is uncontaminated supernova light, and the validity of the SN 1998bw template at this redshift after corrections.

free parameters (1)
  • k_98bw
    Flux-scaling factor applied to SN 1998bw template to match the observed excess; reported only as a lower limit >0.3.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Redshift z=1.131 corresponds to a known luminosity distance under standard cosmology
    Used implicitly to convert observed fluxes into intrinsic luminosities and to place the event in context with local supernovae.
  • domain assumption The optical excess at 20-30 days is not produced by afterglow, host variability, or instrumental artifacts
    Central premise required for the supernova identification; stated as an interpretation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5779 in / 1558 out tokens · 42558 ms · 2026-06-27T02:31:30.780090+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

148 extracted references · 117 canonical work pages · 12 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39560, 1

    Adami, C., Schneider, B., Basa, S., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39560, 1

    2025

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba

    Alp, D., & Larsson, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba 2020

  3. [3]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  4. [4]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., H¨ ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  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]

    2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017 http://ascl.net/1611.017

    Barbary, K., Barclay, T., Biswas, R., et al. 2016,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017 http://ascl.net/1611.017

    2016

  7. [7]

    E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al

    Bauer, F. E., Treister, E., Schawinski, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4841, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx417

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx417 2017

  8. [8]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Bertin, E. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 112

    2006

  9. [9]

    2010, http://ascl.net/1010.068

    Bertin, E. 2010, http://ascl.net/1010.068

    2010

  10. [10]

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164 EP250302a17 p = 2.59+0.01 0.01 2.550 2.575 2.600 2.625 p 0.2 0.4 0.6 k98bw 0.2 0.4 0.6 k98bw k98bw = 0.40+0.09 0.09 p = 2.59+0.01 0.01 30 60 90 tb (days) tb = 31+40 23 d 2.55 2.58 2.61 2.64 p 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 k98bw 30 60 90 tb (days) 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 k98bw k98bw = 0.5+0.4 0.2 Figure 7....

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  11. [11]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2, 2.0.2 Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024,, 2.0.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13989456

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13989456 2024

  12. [12]

    A., Landsman, W., Holland, S

    Breeveld, A. A., Landsman, W., Holland, S. T., et al. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1358, Gamma Ray Bursts 2010, ed. J. E. McEnery, J. L. Racusin, & N. Gehrels, 373–376, doi: 10.1063/1.3621807

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3621807 2011

  13. [13]

    Robust constraints on neutrino properties

    Breeveld, A. A., Curran, P. A., Hoversten, E. A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1687, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16832.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16832.x 2010

  14. [14]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005a, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

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

  15. [15]

    N., Romano, P., Falcone, A., et al

    Burrows, D. N., Romano, P., Falcone, A., et al. 2005b, Science, 309, 1833, doi: 10.1126/science.1116168

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1116168

  16. [16]

    2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14588, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14588

    Busmann, M., O’Connor, B., Sommer, J., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14588, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14588

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14588

  17. [17]

    2006, A&A, 454, 113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064856

    Campana, S., Tagliaferri, G., Lazzati, D., et al. 2006, A&A, 454, 113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20064856

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20064856 2006

  18. [18]

    2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    Cano, Z., Wang, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    work page doi:10.1155/2017/8929054 2017

  19. [19]

    2014, A&A, 568, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423920

    Cano, Z., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Pozanenko, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423920

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423920 2014

  20. [20]

    B., Kelemen, J., Harrison, F

    Cenko, S. B., Kelemen, J., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1484, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1484

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1484 2009

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Decadal pre-explosion activity and circumstellar interaction in a supernova

    Chen, T.-W., Aryan, A., Yang, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.10009, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.10009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.10009 2026

  23. [23]

    Cotter, L., Martin-Carrillo, A., Eyles-Ferris, R. A. J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.06213. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.06213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Y., Zhao, Y

    Dai, C. Y., Zhao, Y. Q., Mao, X., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39556, 1

    2025

  25. [25]

    G., De Simone, B., Malik, R

    Dainotti, M. G., De Simone, B., Malik, R. F. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1484 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Th¨ one, C. C., Bensch, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A190, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833636 D’Elia, V., Campana, S., D’A` ı, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833847

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1484 2024

  26. [26]

    P., et al

    Eappachen, D., Swain, V., Saikia, A. P., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39575, 1

    2025

  27. [27]

    Eyles-Ferris, R. A. J., Jonker, P. G., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.08886. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08886

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    D., Morris, D., Racusin, J., et al

    Falcone, A. D., Morris, D., Racusin, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1921, doi: 10.1086/523296

    work page doi:10.1086/523296 2007

  29. [29]

    2011, A&A, 526, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015320

    Filgas, R., Kr¨ uhler, T., Greiner, J., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015320

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015320 2011

  30. [30]

    corner.py:

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 18O’Connor et al

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  31. [31]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  32. [32]

    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

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  33. [33]

    A fast X-ray transient with chromatic flares: signatures of violent collisions induced by late-time central engine reactivation

    Fu, S.-Y., Dai, C.-Y., Wang, A.-L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.14341, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.14341

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.14341 2026

  34. [34]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998a, Nature, 395, 670, doi: 10.1038/27150

    work page doi:10.1038/27150

  35. [35]

    J., Groot, P

    Galama, T. J., Groot, P. J., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998b, ApJL, 497, L13, doi: 10.1086/311268

    work page doi:10.1086/311268

  36. [36]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/160

    Gao, H., Wang, X.-G., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Zhang, B. 2015, ApJ, 810, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/160

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/160 2015

  37. [37]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21687

    Gao, H.-X., Geng, J.-J., Wu, X.-F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21687. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21687

    arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

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

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Nava, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2553, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20815.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20815.x 2012

  40. [40]

    2018, A&A, 609, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    Ghirlanda, G., Nappo, F., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731598 2018

  41. [41]

    , keywords =

    Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Celotti, A. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 926, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16171.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16171.x 2010

  42. [42]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05444, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.05444

    Gianfagna, G., Piro, L., Bruni, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.05444, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.05444

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.05444 2025

  43. [43]

    H., Rhodes, L., Srivastav, S., et al

    Gillanders, J. H., Rhodes, L., Srivastav, S., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad55cd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad55cd 2024

  44. [44]

    Pretorius, M. L. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3765, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv801

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv801 2015

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Gorbovskoy, E. S., Lipunova, G. V., Lipunov, V. M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1874, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20195.x G¨ ossl, C. A., & Riffeser, A. 2002, A&A, 381, 1095, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011522

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20195.x 2012

  46. [46]

    2001, ApJL, 551, L63, doi: 10.1086/319843

    Granot, J., & Loeb, A. 2001, ApJL, 551, L63, doi: 10.1086/319843

    work page doi:10.1086/319843 2001

  47. [47]

    2003, Nature, 426, 138, doi: 10.1038/426138a

    Granot, J., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2003, Nature, 426, 138, doi: 10.1038/426138a

    work page doi:10.1038/426138a 2003

  48. [48]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

    work page doi:10.1086/338966 2002

  49. [49]

    2013, A&A, 560, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321284

    Greiner, J., Kr¨ uhler, T., Nardini, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321284

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321284 2013

  50. [50]

    Grossan, B., Kumar, P., & Smoot, G. F. 2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 23, 14, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2019.08.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2019.08.001 2019

  51. [51]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Grossan, B., Maksut, Z., Komesh, T., & Krugov, M. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J

    2022

  52. [52]

    Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121848A, doi: 10.1117/12.2630491

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2630491

  53. [53]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16243

    Hamidani, H., Sato, Y., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.16243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16243

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16243 2025

  54. [54]

    Hjorth, J., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, in Chapter 9 in ”Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. C. Kouveliotou, R. A. M. J. Wijers, & S. Woosley, 169–190, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1104.2274

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1104.2274 2012

  55. [55]

    2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01750 2003

  56. [56]

    M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J

    Hook, I. M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 425, doi: 10.1086/383624

    work page doi:10.1086/383624 2004

  57. [57]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Hopp, U., Bender, R., Grupp, F., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V, ed. L. M. Stepp, R. Gilmozzi, & H. J. Hall, 91452D, doi: 10.1117/12.2054498

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2054498 2014

  58. [58]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394

    Hu, L., Wang, L., Chen, X., & Yang, J. 2022, ApJ, 936, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394 2022

  59. [59]

    2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    Izzo, L., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Maeda, K., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 324, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3 2019

  60. [60]

    Jiang, S.-Q., Xu, D., van Hoof, A. P. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04306, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.04306

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.04306 2025

  61. [61]

    G., Glennie, A., Heida, M., et al

    Jonker, P. G., Glennie, A., Heida, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/14 2013

  62. [62]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39612, 1

    Junjie-Jin, Haiyang-Mu, Jinlei-Zhang, et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39612, 1

    2025

  63. [63]

    A., Klose, S., & Zeh, A

    Kann, D. A., Klose, S., & Zeh, A. 2006, ApJ, 641, 993, doi: 10.1086/500652

    work page doi:10.1086/500652 2006

  64. [64]

    A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al

    Kann, D. A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1513, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1513

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1513 2010

  65. [65]

    A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al

    Kann, D. A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/96

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/96 2011

  66. [66]

    A., Schady, P., Olivares, E

    Kann, D. A., Schady, P., Olivares, E. F., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731292

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731292 2018

  67. [67]

    2000, ApJ, 545, 807, doi: 10.1086/317869 EP250302a19

    Kobayashi, S. 2000, ApJ, 545, 807, doi: 10.1086/317869 EP250302a19

    work page doi:10.1086/317869 2000

  68. [68]

    2003, ApJL, 582, L75, doi: 10.1086/367691

    Kobayashi, S., & Zhang, B. 2003, ApJL, 582, L75, doi: 10.1086/367691

    work page doi:10.1086/367691 2003

  69. [69]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39569, 1

    Komesh, T., Abdullayev, Z., Maksut, Z., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39569, 1

    2025

  70. [70]

    A., Fishman, G

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

    work page doi:10.1086/186969 1993

  71. [71]

    2000, ApJ, 532, 286, doi: 10.1086/308537

    Kumar, P., & Piran, T. 2000, ApJ, 532, 286, doi: 10.1086/308537

    work page doi:10.1086/308537 2000

  72. [72]

    Turner, J. E. H. 2019, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben, M. W. Pound, B. A. Thomas, & E. M. Warner, 321

    2019

  73. [73]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044

    Labrie, K., Simpson, C., Cardenes, R., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 214, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad0044 2023

  74. [74]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Lang-Bardl, F., Bender, R., Goessl, C., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J

    2016

  75. [75]

    Simard, & H

    Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 990844, doi: 10.1117/12.2232039

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2232039

  76. [76]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1

    Laskar, T., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/1 2015

  77. [77]

    J., Jonker, P

    Levan, A. J., Jonker, P. G., Saccardi, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16350, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.16350

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.16350 2024

  78. [78]

    X., Zhu, Z

    Li, W. X., Zhu, Z. P., Zou, X. Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17034. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17034

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02449-8 2025

  80. [80]

    1998, ApJ, 495, 597, doi: 10.1086/305337

    Loeb, A., & Perna, R. 1998, ApJ, 495, 597, doi: 10.1086/305337

    work page doi:10.1086/305337 1998

Showing first 80 references.