Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Shared Properties of Merger-driven Long-duration Gamma-Ray Bursts

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that merger-driven long-duration gamma-ray bursts obey a single energy-hardness-duration relation regardless of which emission phase is measured.

desk verdict A new empirical correlation for merger-driven long GRBs that is genuinely interesting but not yet established, since the fit doubles up the same bursts and probably just connects main-emission and extended-emission clusters. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10165 v1 pith:6P4GSKFJ submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc

Yacheng Kang , Jin-Ping Zhu , Yu-Han Yang , Ziming Wang , Eleonora Troja , Bing Zhang , Lijing Shao , Zhuo Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords gamma-rayburstsmerger-drivenlong-durationGRBskilonovaeGRBclassificationenergy-hardnessparameterextendedemissioncompactobjectmergersduration-hardnesscorrelation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to show that merger-driven long-duration gamma-ray bursts (LGRB-Is) form a coherent empirical class even though they straddle the traditional short/long GRB boundary. It claims that all five known such bursts, measured either in their main-emission or whole-emission phase, fall on a single linear relation in the log-log plane between the Energy-Hardness parameter $E_H$ and the intrinsic duration $T_{90,i}$. Fitting the eight ME/WE points gives $\log_{10}(E_H) = -0.55 \log_{10}(T_{90,i}/1\,\mathrm{s}) + 1.18$, from which the paper derives $E_{p,i} \propto E_{\gamma,\mathrm{iso}}^{0.4}\, T_{90,i}^{-0.55}$. The paper argues that this correlation is not a low-redshift selection effect and is absent or much weaker in ordinary short and long GRB populations, so it could serve as a practical identifier of merger-origin bursts and a constraint on their central engines.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phenomenological Energy-Hardness parameter $E_H = (E_{p,i}/100\,\mathrm{keV})/(E_{\gamma,\mathrm{iso}}/10^{51}\,\mathrm{erg})^{0.4}$, a ratio of the intrinsic spectral peak energy to the 0.4-power of the isotropic energy. Plotting $\log_{10}(E_H)$ against $\log_{10}(T_{90,i}/1\,\mathrm{s})$ collapses the eight fitted ME/WE measurements from five LGRB-I events onto a single sequence, where a linear fit with slope $-0.55$ and intercept $1.18$ is the proposed universal relation. The $E_H$ definition, together with a comparison sample of 42 SGRB-Is and 273 GRB-IIs, is what makes the correlation specific to LGRB-Is.

What would settle it

Take the next kilonova-confirmed, redshift-known long GRB and measure $E_{p,i}$, $E_{\gamma,\mathrm{iso}}$, and $T_{90,i}$ for both the main-emission and whole-emission phases; if either point falls outside the 90% credible interval of the fitted line, the claimed universality is falsified. A stricter test is a hierarchical regression that treats the ME/WE pair as clustered within each burst, which would show whether the correlation survives when the within-burst contrast is removed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central finding is a probable universal correlation among merger-driven LGRBs: in the $\log_{10}(E_H)$--$\log_{10}(T_{90,i})$ plane, the main-emission and whole-emission measurements of GRB060614, GRB211211A, GRB230307A, GRB060505, and GRB211227A lie along one line with Pearson coefficient $r_P = -0.95$. The best-fit relation is $\log_{10}(E_H) = (-0.55^{+0.14}_{-0.10})\, \log_{10}(T_{90,i}/1\,\mathrm{s}) + (1.18^{+0.15}_{-0.19})$, and combining it with the definition of $E_H$ yields the power-law scaling $E_{p,i}/100\,\mathrm{keV} \propto (E_{\gamma,\mathrm{iso}}/10^{51}\,\mathrm{erg})^{0.4}\, (T_{90,i}/1\,\mathrm{s})^{-0.55^{+0.14}_{-0.10}}$. The paper claims that this universality does not hold for ordinary SGRB-Is, SGRB-Is with extended emission, or GRB-IIs, and argues that the relation is intrinsic rather than a consequence of the low redshifts of the LGRB-I sample.

Load-bearing premise

The apparent universality rests on counting the main-emission and whole-emission phases of the same burst as independent data points, which doubles each event's weight and could turn within-burst differences between a hard, short flash and a soft, long tail into a false population-wide correlation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the correlation is intrinsic, a future kilonova-associated long GRB with a measured redshift can be checked directly against the fitted line; a point inside the 90% band would support the claimed universality.
  • The derived scaling $E_{p,i} \propto (E_{\gamma,\mathrm{iso}})^{0.4}\, T_{90,i}^{-0.55}$ gives a three-parameter relation that any physical model of merger-driven LGRB emission must reproduce.
  • In the $E_H$--$T_{90,i}$ plane, LGRB-Is occupy a distinct region bridging SGRB-Is and GRB-IIs, so the diagram can serve as a practical classifier for merger-origin candidates that standard duration cuts misclassify.
  • Because ordinary short bursts and collapse-driven long bursts do not show a comparably tight correlation, the relation singles out LGRB-Is as a separate empirical class.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The same $E_H$--$T_{90,i}$ test applied to SGRB-Is with extended emission, using well-measured whole-emission properties, could reveal whether LGRB-Is and SGRB-I-EEs are one continuum; the paper's reported $r_P = -0.72$ for the latter suggests they scatter more, but better data could change that.
  • Inference: A hierarchical fit that treats the ME and WE measurements as paired observations within each burst would show whether the correlation survives once within-burst contrast is removed; this is a natural next statistical test.
  • Inference: If the relation is intrinsic, it hints that one physical quantity, such as the total accreted mass or the jet-launching timescale, controls hardness, energy, and duration together; that is a physical conjecture the paper leaves open.
  • Inference: Applying the relation to long GRBs without detected kilonovae could identify hidden merger-origin candidates among the current LGRB population.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles the five known, redshift-measured merger-driven long gamma-ray bursts (LGRB-Is): GRB060614, GRB211211A, GRB230307A, GRB060505, and GRB211227A. For four of these bursts, the authors treat the main-emission (ME) and whole-emission (WE) phases as two independent sets of information (Section 2.2, Table A.1), following earlier work. After showing that standard Ep,i–Eiso and Ep–T90 classification diagrams cannot jointly accommodate the ME and WE phases, the paper argues in Section 3.3 that all LGRB-Is obey a universal linear correlation in the log10(EH)–log10(T90,i) plane, with best-fit slope K = -0.55 and intercept B = 1.18 (Eq. 3). Combining this fit with the definition of EH (Eq. 1) yields the derived power-law relation Ep,i ∝ Eiso^0.4 T90,i^-0.55 (Eq. 4). The paper also compares LGRB-Is with SGRB-Is with extended emission and with the broader GRB-II population, and argues that the correlation is not a low-redshift selection effect.

Significance. If robust, a single empirical relation spanning both ME and WE phases of merger-driven LGRBs would be a useful phenomenological tool for classifying ambiguous bursts and would provide a falsifiable target for progenitor and jet models. The paper is honest about the sample being small and frames the correlation as 'probable.' The analysis is transparent: the sample table, fitting procedure, and error treatment are all stated, and the derived Eq. (4) follows directly from the EH definition and the fitted slope. However, the significance of the central claim is severely limited by the tiny number of independent events and by the statistical treatment of the ME/WE pairs, which is the main weakness identified below. The paper does not ship machine-checkable code, but the numerical data are given in the appendix, so the analysis is reproducible in principle.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table A.1] The central claim of a universal correlation rests on treating the ME and WE phases of the same burst as independent data points. The eight fitted points come from only four independent bursts (GRB060614, GRB211211A, GRB230307A, GRB211227A), with each burst contributing a correlated pair. The Pearson coefficient r_P = -0.95 and the reported asymmetric errors on K and B take no account of this clustering, and the apparent tightness of the relation likely reflects the within-burst contrast between a hard, short ME phase and a softer, longer WE phase. The manuscript should either justify the independence assumption quantitatively or re-analyze the data with a method that accounts for burst-level clustering (e.g., a mixed-effects model or a bootstrap that resamples bursts rather than individual points). As written, the effective sample size is at most four, and the claim that the same line describes both phases across the population is not established.
  2. [Section 3.3, footnote 6 and Figure 3] GRB060505, the one LGRB-I without an extended-emission component and therefore having only a WE point, is explicitly excluded from the linear fit because its Ep,i lacks an error. The paper notes that the point lies close to the best-fit line, but it does not test how much the fit changes when this point is included with a plausible error assignment or when it is treated with a fitting method that allows for asymmetric/normal errors. Since the paper's claim is that all LGRB-Is, regardless of phase, follow the relation, excluding the only single-phase burst from the fit weakens the universality claim. I request a robustness test that includes GRB060505 with a reasonable uncertainty model, and a statement of how K and B change.
  3. [Section 4, low-redshift selection discussion] The argument that the EH–T90,i correlation is not caused by the low-redshift selection effect is entirely qualitative. The paper states that Eiso values span a broad range and that some low-z GRB-IIs deviate from the line, but it does not provide a quantitative test. For example, one could compute the partial correlation between log EH and log T90,i controlling for redshift, or compare the residuals of low-z and high-z GRB-IIs from the LGRB-I best-fit line. Without such a test, the claim that the relation is 'likely intrinsic' (Section 4) is not supported. This is load-bearing because the sample is confined to z ≲ 0.3 and the EH parameter is constructed from quantities that are themselves redshift-dependent.
  4. [Section 3.3, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is presented as a 'further derived' power-law correlation among Ep,i, Eiso, and T90,i. Since Eq. (4) is obtained by substituting the fitted line (Eq. 3) into the definition of EH (Eq. 1), it is a rearrangement of the fit plus the definition, not an independent empirical relation. The text should state this explicitly so that readers do not mistake Eq. (4) for a new, separately tested correlation. The current wording in Section 3.3 and the abstract ('from which a power-law relation ... is derived') is acceptable, but the independence should be clarified to avoid overinterpretation.
  5. [Section 3.3, comparison with SGRB-I-EE and other populations] The paper reports r_P = -0.95 for LGRB-Is and r_P = -0.72 for SGRB-I-EE events when ME and WE are combined, and states that no similar correlations are found in traditional SGRB-Is and GRB-IIs. However, the correlation coefficients (or lack thereof) for the SGRB-I and GRB-II populations are not quoted, and the significance of the difference between r = -0.95 and r = -0.72 is not tested given the very different sample sizes. A quantitative comparison (e.g., a Fisher z-transform or a permutation test) would strengthen the claim that the LGRB-I relation is uniquely tight.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The abstract says 'whole emission' but the text consistently uses 'WE' for 'whole emission'; please make the terminology uniform.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (4)] The notation '-0.55+0.14 -0.10' in the exponent is awkward; it would be clearer to write -0.55^{+0.14}_{-0.10} and to use the same error format as in the text for K.
  3. [Table A.1] The note for GRB060505 gives a Swift/BAT catalog URL but the Ep,i value is listed without an uncertainty; consider citing the specific catalog entry and, if the error is genuinely unavailable, stating the implication for the fit more prominently than in a footnote.
  4. [Figure 3] The color bar is labeled 'redshift' but the mapping from color to z is not described in the caption; please specify the colormap and any scaling (e.g., logarithmic) used for z.
  5. [Section 2.2] The sentence 'Given that the EE component may remain undetected in some GRB events, the ME phase can be treated as the whole emission (WE) phase in such cases' is clear, but the term 'ME' for GRB060505 is not defined; please state explicitly that for this burst only a WE point exists and it is also its ME.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The EH–T90,i correlation is empirical and not circular, but Equation (4) is a definitional rearrangement of that fit rather than an independent prediction.

  1. renaming known result [Section 3.3, Eq. (4)]
    "By incorporating the derived EH− T90,i relation with the EH definition in Equation (1), we can further derive a power-law empirical correlation among Ep,i, Eγ, iso, and T90,i for LGRB-I events, Ep,i/100 keV ∝ (Eγ, iso/10^51 erg)^0.4 (T90,i/1 s)^−0.55+0.14−0.10."

    Equation (4) is not independently measured. Taking the logarithm of Eq. (1) gives log10 EH = log10(Ep,i/100 keV) − 0.4 log10(Eγ,iso/10^51 erg). Substituting this into the fitted Eq. (3), log10 EH = K log10(T90,i/1 s) + B, immediately yields log10(Ep,i/100 keV) = 0.4 log10(Eγ,iso/10^51 erg) + K log10(T90,i/1 s) + B. With K = −0.55 this is exactly Eq. (4) up to the constant. Thus the 'derived power-law empirical correlation' is a restatement of the definition of EH plus the fitted slope; it does not test a new three-parameter relation. The original EH–T90,i correlation itself is not circular because EH contains no T90,i by definition.

full rationale

The central empirical claim, the linear log EH–log T90,i relation shown in Figure 3, is self-contained: EH is defined via Ep,i and Eiso (Eq. 1) with no duration dependence, so the fitted anti-correlation with T90,i is a genuine empirical result, not an artifact of definitions. The fit uses eight ME/WE points drawn from five bursts, and the treatment of ME and WE as independent information is an explicit heuristic assumption taken from Zhu et al. (2022), which shares an author with the present paper. That assumption affects the statistical weight and is worth noting, but it is not a derivation and the paper does not pretend it is; the correlation's existence does not reduce to the citation. The only definitional step is Eq. (4): it follows algebraically from Eqs. (1) and (3) and is labeled a derivation, so it adds no independent empirical content. It is a reparameterization rather than a new prediction, and it does not retroactively make the EH–T90,i correlation tautological. No fitted parameter is renamed as an out-of-sample prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Overall circularity is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted parameters (K and B) and several domain assumptions, chiefly the independence of ME and WE phases and the classification of five events as one population. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • slope K = -0.55 (+0.14/-0.10)
    Power-law index in the EH-T90,i fit, Eq. (3), fitted to eight LGRB-I data points.
  • intercept B = 1.18 (+0.15/-0.19)
    Constant factor in the EH-T90,i fit, Eq. (3), fitted to eight LGRB-I data points.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ME and WE phases of the same burst carry independent information for the correlation test
    Section 2.2 states ME and WE are treated as two independent sets; this multiplies the effective sample size and is load-bearing for the correlation.
  • domain assumption The five events form a homogeneous LGRB-I population
    Sample selection in Section 2.2 assumes GRB060505 and GRB211227A are merger-origin due to missing supernovae, though no kilonova was detected for them.
  • domain assumption Measured Ep,i, Eiso, and T90 from different instruments are comparable without significant bandpass or selection correction
    The paper acknowledges selection biases in Section 4 but uses literature values directly in the fit and comparisons.
  • standard math Standard flat LambdaCDM cosmology with H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc
    Adopted in the introduction for deriving rest-frame quantities; a background assumption not questioned in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shared Properties of Merger-driven Long-duration Gamma-Ray Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6P4GSKFJ

@misc{pith2026250510165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shared Properties of Merger-driven Long-duration Gamma-Ray Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6P4GSKFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10165}
}
read the original abstract

The recent detections of bright optical/infrared kilonova signals following two long-duration gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs), GRB 211211A and GRB 230307A, have significantly challenged the traditional classification of GRBs. These merger-driven LGRBs may represent a distinct GRB population. Since traditional GRB classification methods often struggle to distinguish merger-driven LGRBs from traditional merger-driven short-duration GRBs resulting from compact object mergers and collapse-driven LGRBs produced by massive stars, this work aims to explore the shared properties in terms of hardness, energy, and duration among currently observed merger-driven LGRB events, thereby identifying their observed differences from the traditional GRB population. We collect a sample of merger-driven LGRBs with known redshifts, including observed information on their main emission (ME) and whole emission (WE) phases. Treating ME and WE properties as two independent sets of information, we apply several GRB classification methodologies to explore their potential shared properties. Using the phenomenologically defined Energy-Hardness (EH) parameter, we identify a probable universal linear correlation across merger-driven LGRBs, regardless of whether their ME or WE phases are considered. We propose that such shared properties of merger-driven LGRBs are unlikely to arise from the low-redshift selection effect and they become particularly intriguing when compared with the relatively weak correlations or lack of correlation observed in traditional merger-driven short-duration GRBs (with or without extended emissions) and collapse-driven LGRBs. Our newly proposed correlation highlights the necessity for further investigation into the observations of merger-driven LGRBs and the physical mechanisms underlying the empirical correlation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10165 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 𝐸p,i − 𝐸𝛾,iso relations for GRBs with known redshifts. All error bars correspond to 1𝜎 confidence intervals. The solid lines, accompanied by shaded areas, represent the best-fit correlations and the 90% credible intervals for SGRB-Is (blue) and GRB-IIs (red), respectively. Solid squares and diamonds represent the properties of ME and WE phases for our LGRB-I sample, respectively. studies, listing them in Appendix A … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GRB classification diagram in the 𝐸p − 𝑇90 domain. The crosses and circles represent the known classification of SGRB-Is and GRB-IIs in the MP sample. Based on two independent 2-dimensional Gaussian components, the color scale depicts the probability of a GRB event being a SGRB-I (𝑃SGRB−I ). The dashed cyan line indicates the dividing line with 𝑃SGRB−I = 0.5. In the top and right projected histograms, the blue and r… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GRB classification diagram in the EH − T90,i domain. The colorbar now indicates the redshift. The ME and WE components of SGRB-I-EE events are denoted by the left and right triangles, respectively. The best-fit EH − T90,i correlation is shown as a solid line, with the 90% credible intervals indicated by dashed lines. The two circular points above the whole GRB-II population correspond to GRB 980425B (EH = 8.72) and … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Inferring Neutron Star Nuclear Properties from Gravitational-Wave and Gamma-Ray Burst Observations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    By matching LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA merger rates to gamma-ray burst rates, the authors infer that the dividing mass between short and long bursts is about 1.36 times the maximum neutron star mass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    G., Abbott , R., Abouelfettouh , I., et al

    Abac , A. G., Abbott , R., Abouelfettouh , I., et al. 2024, , 970, L34

    2024

  4. [4]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2017 a , ApJ, 848, L13

    2017

  5. [5]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2017 b , Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101

    2017

  6. [6]

    D., Abraham , S., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Abraham , S., et al. 2021, , 915, L5

    2021

  7. [7]

    Aghanim, N. et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, [Erratum: A&A, 652, C4 (2021)]

    2021

  8. [8]

    Ag\"u\' Fern\'andez, J. F. et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 613

    2023

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Amati, L. et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81

    2002

  2. [10]

    R., Kocevski, D., Bloom, J

    Butler, N. R., Kocevski, D., Bloom, J. S., & Curtis, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 671, 656

    2007

  3. [11]

    2024, ApJ, 973, L33

    Chen, J., Shen, R.-F., Tan, W.-J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 973, L33

    2024

  4. [12]

    2002, ApJ, 567, 1028

    Connaughton, V. 2002, ApJ, 567, 1028

    2002

  5. [13]

    Coulter, D. A. et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556

    2017

  6. [14]

    & Fermi GBM Team

    Dalessi , S. & Fermi GBM Team . 2023, GCN, 33551, 1

    2023

  7. [15]

    Della Valle, M. et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1050

    2006

  8. [16]

    2023, ApJ, 954, L29

    Dichiara, S., Tsang, D., Troja, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L29

    2023

  9. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 962, L27

    Du, Z., L\"u, H., Yuan, Y., Yang, X., & Liang, E. 2024, ApJ, 962, L27

    2024

  10. [18]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126

    1989

  11. [19]

    Evans, P. A. et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1565

    2017

  12. [20]

    Ferro, M. et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A142

    2023

  13. [21]

    Fynbo, J. P. U. et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1047

    2006

  14. [22]

    Gal-Yam, A. et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1053

    2006

  15. [23]

    Galama, T. J. et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670

    1998

  16. [24]

    2022, , 934, L12

    Gao , H., Lei , W.-H., & Zhu , Z.-P. 2022, , 934, L12

    2022

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 50

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., L\"u, H.-J., & Li, Y. 2017, ApJ, 837, 50

    2017

  18. [26]

    Gehrels, N. et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1044

    2006

  19. [27]

    Goldstein, A. et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L14

    2017

  20. [28]

    Gompertz, B. P. et al. 2023, Nat. Astron., 7, 67

    2023

  21. [29]

    D., Foucart, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Foucart, F., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2024, arXiv:2411.13657

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    D., Quataert, E., et al

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, L33

    2023

  23. [31]

    Gruber, D. et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 12

    2014

  24. [32]

    2015, Apj, 811, L22

    Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., Cano, Z., et al. 2015, Apj, 811, L22

    2015

  25. [33]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 147

    Kagawa, Y., Yonetoku, D., Sawano, T., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 147

    2019

  26. [34]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 5309

    Kang, Y., Liu, C., Zhu, J.-P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5309

    2024

  27. [35]

    2024, Nature, 626, 717

    Kasen , D. 2024, Nature, 626, 717

    2024

  28. [36]

    Kilpatrick, C. D. et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1583

    2017

  29. [37]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, L101

    1993

  30. [38]

    Krimm, H. A. et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 1405

    2009

  31. [39]

    2001, A&A, 379, L39

    Lazzati, D., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Ghisellini, G. 2001, A&A, 379, L39

    2001

  32. [40]

    Levan, A. J. et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737

    2024

  33. [41]

    & Paczynski, B

    Li, L.-X. & Paczynski, B. 1998, ApJ, 507, L59

    1998

  34. [42]

    L\"u, H.-J. et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, L23

    2022

  35. [43]

    & Woosley, S

    MacFadyen, A. & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262

    1999

  36. [44]

    Margutti, R. et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 63

    2012

  37. [45]

    J., Long , R., & Metcalfe , L

    McBreen , B., Hurley , K. J., Long , R., & Metcalfe , L. 1994, , 271, 662

    1994

  38. [46]

    I., & Liu, Z.-K

    Meng, Y.-Z., Wang, X. I., & Liu, Z.-K. 2024, ApJ, 963, 112

    2024

  39. [47]

    D., Martinez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Martinez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2650

    2010

  40. [48]

    Minaev, P. Y. & Pozanenko, A. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1919, [Erratum: MNRAS, 504, 926--927 (2021)]

    2021

  41. [49]

    2005, ApJ, 625, L17

    Montanari, E., Frontera, F., Guidorzi, C., & Rapisarda, M. 2005, ApJ, 625, L17

    2005

  42. [50]

    K., Pakmor, R., et al

    Mor\'an-Fraile, J., R\"opke, F. K., Pakmor, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A41

    2024

  43. [51]

    1992, ApJ, 395, L83

    Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T. 1992, ApJ, 395, L83

    1992

  44. [52]

    Norris, J. P. & Bonnell, J. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 266

    2006

  45. [53]

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

    Norris, J. P., Gehrels, N., & Scargle, J. D. 2010, ApJ, 717, 411

    2010

  46. [54]

    Ofek, E. O. et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1129

    2007

  47. [55]

    1986, ApJ, 308, L43

    Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJ, 308, L43

    1986

  48. [56]

    1991, , 41, 257

    Paczynski , B. 1991, , 41, 257

    1991

  49. [57]

    1998, ApJ, 494, L45

    Paczynski, B. 1998, ApJ, 494, L45

    1998

  50. [58]

    2024 a , ApJ, 967, 156

    Peng, Z.-K., Liu, Z.-K., Zhang, B.-B., & Gao, H. 2024 a , ApJ, 967, 156

    2024

  51. [59]

    2024 b , ApJ, 969, 26

    Peng, Z.-Y., Chen, J.-M., & Mao, J. 2024 b , ApJ, 969, 26

    2024

  52. [60]

    Pian, E. et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67

    2017

  53. [61]

    Qin, Y. et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 15

    2013

  54. [62]

    Rastinejad, J. C. et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223

    2022

  55. [63]

    2013, , 766, 41

    Sakamoto , T., Troja , E., Aoki , K., et al. 2013, , 766, 41

    2013

  56. [64]

    Salvaterra, R. et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 1258

    2009

  57. [65]

    Savchenko, V. et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L15

    2017

  58. [66]

    Selsing, J. et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A48

    2018

  59. [67]

    & Nemiroff, R

    Shahmoradi, A. & Nemiroff, R. J. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 126

    2015

  60. [68]

    Sun, H. et al. 2025, Natl. Sci. Rev., 12, nwae401

    2025

  61. [69]

    Tanvir, N. R. et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 1254

    2009

  62. [70]

    Thone, C. C. et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1151

    2008

  63. [71]

    Troja, E. et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 71

    2017

  64. [72]

    Troja, E. et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 228

    2022

  65. [73]

    Villasenor, J. S. et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 855

    2005

  66. [74]

    von Kienlin, A. et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 46

    2020

  67. [75]

    Wang, C.-W. et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 73

    2025

  68. [76]

    I., Yu, Y.-W., Ren, J., et al

    Wang, X. I., Yu, Y.-W., Ren, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, L9

    2024

  69. [77]

    2023, ApJ, 953, L8

    Wang, Y., Xia, Z.-Q., Zheng, T.-C., Ren, J., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2023, ApJ, 953, L8

    2023

  70. [78]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273

    1993

  71. [79]

    Woosley, S. E. & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 507

    2006

  72. [80]

    E., Eastman, R

    Woosley, S. E., Eastman, R. G., & Schmidt, B. P. 1999, ApJ, 516, 788

    1999

  73. [81]

    2015, Nat

    Yang, B., Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., et al. 2015, Nat. Commun., 6, 7323

    2015

  74. [82]

    2022, Nature, 612, 232

    Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 232

    2022

  75. [83]

    2024, Nature, 626, 742

    Yang , Y.-H., Troja , E., O'Connor , B., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 742

    2024

  76. [84]

    I., Zhang, B.-B., Sun, H., et al

    Yin, Y.-H. I., Zhang, B.-B., Sun, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L17

    2023

  77. [85]

    G., Margutti, R., & Amati, L

    Zaninoni, E., Bernardini, M. G., Margutti, R., & Amati, L. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1375

    2016

  78. [86]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press)

    Zhang, B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press)

    2018

  79. [87]

    Zhang, B. 2025, J. High Energy Astrophys., 45, 325

    2025

  80. [88]

    2007, ApJ, 655, L25

    Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, L25

    2007

  81. [89]

    Zhang, B. et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1696

    2009

  82. [90]

    B., Zhang , B., Sun , H., et al

    Zhang , B. B., Zhang , B., Sun , H., et al. 2018, Nat. Commun., 9, 447

    2018

  83. [91]

    2022, , 933, L22

    Zhang , H.-M., Huang , Y.-Y., Zheng , J.-H., Liu , R.-Y., & Wang , X.-Y. 2022, , 933, L22

    2022

  84. [92]

    L., Zhang, C

    Zhang, X. L., Zhang, C. T., Li, X. J., et al. 2020, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 20, 201

    2020

  85. [93]

    2023, ApJ, 947, L21

    Zhong, S.-Q., Li, L., & Dai, Z.-G. 2023, ApJ, 947, L21

    2023

  86. [94]

    2024 a , ApJ, 963, L26

    Zhong, S.-Q., Li, L., Xiao, D., et al. 2024 a , ApJ, 963, L26

    2024

  87. [95]

    2024 b , Phys

    Zhong, S.-Q., Meng, Y.-Z., & Gu, J.-H. 2024 b , Phys. Rev. D, 110, 083001

    2024

  88. [96]

    2024, , 974, 211

    Zhu , J.-P., Hu , R.-C., Kang , Y., et al. 2024, , 974, 211

    2024

  89. [97]

    I., Sun, H., et al

    Zhu, J.-P., Wang, X. I., Sun, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, L10

    2022

  90. [98]

    2021, , 921, 156

    Zhu , J.-P., Wu , S., Yang , Y.-P., et al. 2021, , 921, 156

    2021

  91. [99]

    & Tam, P.-H

    Zhu, S.-Y. & Tam, P.-H. T. 2024, ApJ, 976, 62

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.