pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23818 · v1 · pith:A6CM4J3Qnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

An extremely bright slow-rising afterglow from an off-axis jet in GRB 260310A

Yu-Han Yang , Roberto Ricci , Eleonora Troja , Muskan Yadav , Yi-Han Iris Yin , Rub\'en S\'anchez-Ram\'irez , Brendan O'Connor , Niccol\'o Passaleva
show 26 more authors
Alberto J. Castro-Tirado Hendrik van Eerten Simone Dichiara Vincenzo Galluzzi Narjes Shahamat Dehsorkh Iv\'an Agudo Jes\'us Aceituno Malte Busmann Mar\'ia D. Caballero-Garc\'ia Emilio Fern\'andez-Garc\'ia Daniel Gruen Maria Gritsevich Sergiy Guziy David Hiriart You-Dong Hu Martin Jel\'inek Alexander Kutyrev Alzbeta Malenakova Filip Novotny Ignacio P\'erez-Garc\'ia Shashi B. Pandey Jorma Ryske Alfredo Sota Jan Strobl Hira Waseem Siyu Wu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 03:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstoff-axis jetafterglowreverse shockforward shocksynchrotronsupernovapolarization
0
0 comments X

The pith

GRB 260310A's weak prompt emission and bright delayed afterglow result from an off-axis jet view.

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

GRB 260310A has modest prompt gamma-ray output yet one of the brightest afterglows seen in X-ray, optical, and radio bands. The optical afterglow rises slowly with a late peak at roughly 0.1 days. These features together with the hard peak energy are explained by viewing the relativistic jet from outside its beaming cone. Radio spectral energy distributions match synchrotron emission and show both reverse-shock and forward-shock components. Late X-ray rebrightening without spectral change and low radio polarization at 55 days indicate forward-shock dominance at those epochs.

Core claim

The paper argues that the combination of weak prompt emission, hard peak energy, and late afterglow onset with slow rise is naturally explained by a GRB jet viewed off-axis. Radio spectral energy distributions are consistent with synchrotron radiation and indicate both reverse- and forward-shock components, providing a test of reverse-shock models in off-axis geometry. The X-ray rebrightening monitored to 68 days with no spectral evolution and the measured polarization of about 1.7 percent at 15 GHz suggest forward-shock dominance from radio to X-rays at late times.

What carries the argument

Off-axis viewing of a relativistic GRB jet, which reduces observed prompt emission and delays afterglow onset through relativistic beaming effects.

If this is right

  • The extreme afterglow brightness is only apparent and would appear different to an on-axis observer.
  • Radio observations supply the first test of reverse-shock models under off-axis conditions.
  • The late X-ray rebrightening may mark the emergence of a narrow jet core viewed at a larger angle, implying high on-axis energetics.
  • Low polarization at late times confirms forward-shock dominance across bands.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Events like this may be missed by prompt gamma-ray triggers yet found through wide-field afterglow searches.
  • Accounting for off-axis viewing could revise estimates of the true GRB rate and typical jet structure.
  • The supernova association remains intact even when the jet is seen off-axis.

Load-bearing premise

Standard synchrotron afterglow models describe the radio data without other emission processes contributing substantially.

What would settle it

Detection of strong spectral evolution during the X-ray rebrightening or absence of a reverse-shock signature in the radio spectral energy distributions would challenge the off-axis interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23818 by Alberto J. Castro-Tirado, Alexander Kutyrev, Alfredo Sota, Alzbeta Malenakova, Brendan O'Connor, Daniel Gruen, David Hiriart, Eleonora Troja, Emilio Fern\'andez-Garc\'ia, Filip Novotny, Hendrik van Eerten, Hira Waseem, Ignacio P\'erez-Garc\'ia, Iv\'an Agudo, Jan Strobl, Jes\'us Aceituno, Jorma Ryske, Malte Busmann, Mar\'ia D. Caballero-Garc\'ia, Maria Gritsevich, Martin Jel\'inek, Muskan Yadav, Narjes Shahamat Dehsorkh, Niccol\'o Passaleva, Roberto Ricci, Rub\'en S\'anchez-Ram\'irez, Sergiy Guziy, Shashi B. Pandey, Simone Dichiara, Siyu Wu, Vincenzo Galluzzi, Yi-Han Iris Yin, You-Dong Hu, Yu-Han Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Prompt emission properties of GRB 260310A. a. Fermi/GBM count-rate light curves from NaI detectors na and nb in the 50 − 300 keV energy band. The black lines and gray lines represent the net counts and errors with a bin size of 2 s. b. Accumulated counts. The blue horizontal solid (dashed) lines are drawn at 0%–100% (5%–95%) of the total accumulated counts. The vertical lines in a and b represent the T90 i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: X-ray observations of GRB 260310A. a. 1 keV flux density light curve fitted with a four-segment smoothly broken power-law model (black solid line) and the associated 95% confidence region (gray shaded area). Vertical dashed lines indicate the break times. Detailed spectral views of four representative epochs: (b) T0+2.6 d (the initial EP/FXT epoch), (c) T0+10.8 d (the first NuSTAR epoch with quasi-simultan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left panel: False-color LBT image of the field of GRB 260310A, constructed from the r, z, and J bands, mapped to blue, green, and red, respectively. The transient position is marked by white ticks. Right panel: 0.5-8.0 keV Chandra image of the same field, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of σ = 2 pixels. The cyan circle marks the EP/FXT localization region. In both panels, north is up and east is to the lef… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multi-color optical and nIR lightcurves of GRB230610A, compared to the X-ray lightcurve (gray squares). Data were rescaled to the R band. The red solid line shows the best fit temporal model, describing the early optical data. Dashed lines show the late-time decay in different colors. Vertical bars mark the two epochs of optical spectroscopy. Inset: CAHA spectra observed on March 13 and April 4, 2026, corr… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stokes IQU images and linear polarization map for the target GRB 260310A (top), the phase calibrator J+1357 (middle) and the leakage term calibrator J+1407 (bottom). The field was imaged at T0+55 d in the Ku-band. tal intensity (I-Stokes). The polarization angle (PA) was calculated as χ = 0.5 tan−1 (U/Q). The leakage terms calibrator showed a polarization fraction below 1% and the phase calibrator J1357+76… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radio spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of GRB 260310A at five epochs (T0+17, 25, 36, 50, 55 and 62 d, color-coded from dark to light). Solid curves are the best fit SEDs assuming a smoothness parameter s = 2. tral shape is instead consistent with optically thin emis￾sion. We model the radio SED using a smoothly broken power-law based on a synchrotron spectrum. The func￾tion consists of three power-law … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of GRB 260310A with the broader population of GRB afterglows with known redshifts. The panels display the observer-frame X-ray flux (0.3-10 keV; top left), rest-frame X-ray luminosity (0.3-10 keV; top right), optical apparent magnitude (R-band; middle left), optical absolute magnitude (R-band; middle right), radio observed flux density (8.5 GHz; bottom left) and radio rest-frame luminosity (8.5G… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Afterglow rest-frame X-ray luminosity at rest-frame 2.2 d (a) and R-band absolute magnitude MR at rest-frame 11 hr (b) versus 10–1000 keV prompt emission isotropic-equivalent energy for a sample of GRBs detected by Fermi/GBM. Filled symbols in the right panel denote interpolated values, while open symbols denote extrapolated predictions. The red-edged star highlights GRB 260310A. Black dashed lines and sha… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The rebrightening of GRB 260310A (black squares), scaled from X-rays to optical assuming νc ≈ 0.1 keV and a power-law index β ∼0.6. A sample of late-time afterglow rebrightenings, including AT2019pim (D. A. Per￾ley et al. 2025), GRB 970508 (T. J. Galama et al. 1998b), GRB 210704A (assuming z ≈2.3; R. L. Becerra et al. 2023), EP241021a (M. Busmann et al. 2025), and EP240414a (H. Sun et al. 2025), is shown f… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a multi-wavelength study of GRB 260310A, a nearby long-duration gamma-ray burst at $z\simeq0.153$ associated with a broad-lined Type Ic supernova. Despite its modest prompt gamma-ray output, $E_{\gamma,\rm iso}\simeq3.5\times10^{50}$ erg, GRB\,260310A exhibits one of the brightest afterglows ever observed in the X-ray, optical, and radio bands. Its apparent brightness is not its only remarkable feature. The optical afterglow displays a delayed onset, characterized by a slow rising phase, with slope $\alpha\approx-1$, and a late peak at $\approx$0.1 d. We argue that the combination of weak prompt emission, hard peak energy, and late afterglow onset is naturally explained by a GRB jet viewed off-axis. The radio spectral energy distributions are consistent with synchrotron radiation and indicate the presence of both reverse- and forward-shock components, thus providing a first test of reverse-shock models in an off-axis geometry. The X-ray afterglow displays a prominent rebrightening, monitored for up to $\approx$68 d with no evidence of spectral evolution. A low level of linear polarization, $\Pi\approx1.7\%$, is measured at 15 GHz at $T_0+55$ d and suggests that, at these late times, the forward-shock is the dominant emission component from radio to X-rays. This late-time rebrightening represents a critical test for the two-component jet model. If interpreted as the emergence of a narrow jet core viewed further off-axis, it would imply extreme luminosities and energetics for an on-axis observer.

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 reports multi-wavelength observations of the nearby long GRB 260310A (z≈0.153) associated with a broad-lined Ic supernova. Despite modest prompt emission (Eγ,iso≈3.5×10^50 erg), the afterglow is extremely bright across X-ray, optical, and radio bands, with a slow optical rise (α≈−1) peaking at ≈0.1 d. The authors interpret the weak prompt emission, hard Epeak, and delayed afterglow onset as signatures of an off-axis jet. Radio SEDs are fitted with synchrotron emission from both reverse- and forward-shock components; the X-ray light curve shows a rebrightening persisting to ≈68 d without spectral evolution, and a low polarization (Π≈1.7%) is measured at 15 GHz at T0+55 d, taken to indicate forward-shock dominance at late times.

Significance. If the off-axis interpretation holds, the work supplies one of the first observational tests of reverse-shock models in an off-axis geometry and illustrates how viewing angle can reconcile apparently discrepant prompt and afterglow properties. The combination of radio component separation, late rebrightening, and polarization provides a multi-probe consistency check on jet structure that is rare in the literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Radio SED analysis] Radio SED analysis (section discussing multi-frequency radio data): the two-component (reverse+forward shock) identification rests on the direct applicability of standard synchrotron spectral indices and temporal slopes derived for on-axis or spherical outflows. Off-axis Doppler boosting, angle-dependent shock dynamics, and possible jet-structure effects are not quantitatively modeled, so the SED decomposition does not uniquely establish the off-axis geometry or rule out alternative emission processes.
  2. [X-ray rebrightening discussion] X-ray rebrightening discussion: the suggestion that the late rebrightening represents the emergence of a narrow jet core viewed further off-axis is presented as a critical test, yet no quantitative calculation of the implied on-axis isotropic energy or Lorentz factor is provided to demonstrate consistency with the observed flux and timing.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states the optical rise slope as α≈−1; the sign convention for the temporal index should be stated explicitly in the text to avoid ambiguity with the usual F∝t^α notation.
  2. Polarization measurement timing (T0+55 d) and frequency (15 GHz) are given only in the abstract; repeating these values in the relevant results section would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate clarifications and additional discussion where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Radio SED analysis] Radio SED analysis (section discussing multi-frequency radio data): the two-component (reverse+forward shock) identification rests on the direct applicability of standard synchrotron spectral indices and temporal slopes derived for on-axis or spherical outflows. Off-axis Doppler boosting, angle-dependent shock dynamics, and possible jet-structure effects are not quantitatively modeled, so the SED decomposition does not uniquely establish the off-axis geometry or rule out alternative emission processes.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the SED decomposition relies on standard synchrotron relations derived primarily for on-axis or spherical cases and does not include a full numerical treatment of off-axis Doppler effects or structured jet dynamics. This is a valid limitation. The off-axis interpretation is primarily motivated by the prompt emission properties (weak E_gamma,iso and hard Epeak) combined with the delayed afterglow onset, with the radio SED providing supporting consistency rather than standalone proof. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section noting these caveats, emphasizing that the decomposition is an approximation, and highlighting the need for future hydrodynamic simulations to quantitatively test uniqueness against alternatives. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [X-ray rebrightening discussion] X-ray rebrightening discussion: the suggestion that the late rebrightening represents the emergence of a narrow jet core viewed further off-axis is presented as a critical test, yet no quantitative calculation of the implied on-axis isotropic energy or Lorentz factor is provided to demonstrate consistency with the observed flux and timing.

    Authors: We agree that explicit estimates strengthen the argument. In the revised manuscript we have added order-of-magnitude calculations in the X-ray rebrightening section. Assuming the rebrightening marks the point at which the narrow core becomes visible at a smaller viewing angle, the required on-axis E_iso is approximately 5 x 10^52 to 10^53 erg (depending on the exact core opening angle and efficiency), which is within the range of typical long GRBs. The implied initial Lorentz factor of the core (~100-200) is also consistent with the observed rebrightening timescale of ~10-20 days when accounting for the off-axis viewing geometry and deceleration. These estimates are now included with the relevant equations and assumptions stated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; interpretation grounded in new observations and standard models

full rationale

The paper reports new multi-wavelength data for GRB 260310A and interprets the weak prompt emission, hard E_peak, delayed afterglow onset, and radio SEDs (showing reverse+forward shock components) as consistent with an off-axis jet viewed at an angle. These conclusions rest on direct comparison of observed light curves, spectra, and polarization to standard synchrotron afterglow predictions without any quoted equations or steps that reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation. The radio two-component identification is presented as a test of existing models in a new geometry rather than a renaming or ansatz smuggled from prior author work. No self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked in the provided text to force the off-axis conclusion. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model depends on standard GRB afterglow assumptions and several fitted jet parameters such as viewing angle and energy; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • viewing angle
    Adjusted to reproduce the delayed onset and peak time of the optical afterglow.
  • jet isotropic energy and Lorentz factor
    Fitted to match the observed brightness across bands and the slow rise slope.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Synchrotron emission from forward and reverse shocks in relativistic jets
    Invoked to interpret the radio SEDs as evidence for both shock components.
  • domain assumption Standard afterglow models apply without dominant alternative emission mechanisms
    Used to link the observed rebrightening and polarization to forward-shock dominance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6041 in / 1283 out tokens · 45963 ms · 2026-05-25T03:09:59.164412+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

174 extracted references · 154 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Amati, L. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 372, 233–245, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10840.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10840.x 2006

  3. [3]

    10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

  4. [4]

    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 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et a...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  5. [5]

    2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 1

    Atteia, J.-L., Moreno M´ endez, E., Lincetto, M., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 1

    2026

  6. [6]

    P., et al

    Balasubramanian, A., Corsi, A., Mooley, K. P., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9133

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9133 2022

  7. [7]

    L., Troja, E., Watson, A

    Becerra, R. L., Troja, E., Watson, A. M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5204, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1372

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1372 2023

  8. [8]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004 http://ascl.net/1504.004

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004 http://ascl.net/1504.004

    2015

  9. [9]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 555, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1821

    Beniamini, P., Gill, R., & Granot, J. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 555, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1821

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1821 2022

  10. [10]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 1254, doi: 10.1086/522195

    Berger, E. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1254, doi: 10.1086/522195

    work page doi:10.1086/522195 2007

  11. [11]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  12. [12]

    2026, A&A, 706, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556805

    Birenbaum, G., Granot, J., & Beniamini, P. 2026, A&A, 706, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556805

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556805 2026

  13. [13]

    S., Frail, D

    Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., & Sari, R. 2001, AJ, 121, 2879, doi: 10.1086/321093

    work page doi:10.1086/321093 2001

  14. [14]

    S., Kulkarni, S

    Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Djorgovski, S. G. 2002, AJ, 123, 1111, doi: 10.1086/338893

    work page doi:10.1086/338893 2002

  15. [15]

    2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 44004, 1

    Brivio, R., Malesani, D., Izzo, L., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 44004, 1

    2026

  16. [16]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

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

  17. [17]

    2025, A&A, 701, A225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554626

    Busmann, M., O’Connor, B., Sommer, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A225, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554626

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554626 2025

  18. [18]

    2017, A&A, 605, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731005 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Cano, Z., Izzo, L., de Ugarte Postigo, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731005 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731005 2017

  19. [19]

    Castro-Tirado, A. J. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1136, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02075-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02075-w 2023

  20. [20]

    P., & Resmi, L

    Chakyar, S. P., & Resmi, L. 2025, ApJ, 983, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb626 22

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb626 2025

  21. [21]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  22. [22]

    Chandra, P., & Frail, D. A. 2012, ApJ, 746, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/156

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/156 2012

  23. [23]

    A., & Fransson, C

    Chevalier, R. A., & Fransson, C. 2006, ApJ, 651, 381, doi: 10.1086/507606

    work page doi:10.1086/507606 2006

  24. [24]

    First Detection of Faraday Rotation in a Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglow: Low Polarization and High Rotation Measure in GRB 260310A Reveal Jet Magnetic Structure and Environment

    Christy, C. T., Laskar, T., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.27480, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.27480

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.27480 2026

  25. [25]

    1997, Nature, 387, 783, doi: 10.1038/42885

    Costa, E., Frontera, F., Heise, J., et al. 1997, Nature, 387, 783, doi: 10.1038/42885

    work page doi:10.1038/42885 1997

  26. [26]

    Polarization of prompt and afterglow emission of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Covino, S., & Gotz, D. 2016, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 29, 205, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1605.03588

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.03588 2016

  27. [27]

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

    Dainotti, M. G., De Simone, B., Mohideen Malik, R. F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1484 D’Avanzo, P., Salvaterra, R., Sbarufatti, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 506, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21489.x de Ugarte Postigo, A., Geier, S., Izzo, L., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 44124, 1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1484 2024

  28. [28]

    D., Andrews, J

    Decleir, M., Gordon, K. D., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe 2022

  29. [29]

    Delchambre, L., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Bellas-Velidis, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243423 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:10.1051/0004-6361/202243423 2023

  30. [30]

    D., Chiang, J., & B¨ ottcher, M

    Dermer, C. D., Chiang, J., & B¨ ottcher, M. 1999, ApJ, 513, 656, doi: 10.1086/306871

    work page doi:10.1086/306871 1999

  31. [31]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  32. [32]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac454 Escudero Pedrosa, J., Agudo, I., Morcuende, D., et al

    Dichiara, S., Troja, E., Lipunov, V., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac454 Escudero Pedrosa, J., Agudo, I., Morcuende, D., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5a80

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac454 2022

  33. [33]

    , keywords =

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x Fermi GBM team. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43951, 1

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

  34. [34]

    Clayton, G. C. 2019, ApJ, 886, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a 2019

  35. [35]

    E., Dong, Y., et al

    Fong, W.-f., Nugent, A. E., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0 2022

  36. [36]

    Taylor, G. B. 1997, Nature, 389, 261, doi: 10.1038/38451

    work page doi:10.1038/38451 1997

  37. [37]

    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 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: ...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    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

  40. [40]

    2013, NewAR, 57, 141, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001

    Gao, H., Lei, W.-H., Zou, Y.-C., Wu, X.-F., & Zhang, B. 2013, NewAR, 57, 141, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001 2013

  41. [41]

    2012, Science, 337, 932, doi: 10.1126/science.1216793

    Gehrels, N., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2012, Science, 337, 932, doi: 10.1126/science.1216793

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1216793 2012

  42. [42]

    P., Barthelmy, S

    Gehrels, N., Norris, J. P., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1044, doi: 10.1038/nature05376

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05376 2006

  43. [43]

    2025, A&A, 703, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555450

    Gianfagna, G., Piro, L., Bruni, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555450

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555450 2025

  44. [44]

    2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 44045, 1

    Giarratana, S., Giroletti, M., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 44045, 1

    2026

  45. [45]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  46. [46]

    Z., & Butler, N

    Golkhou, V. Z., & Butler, N. R. 2014, ApJ, 787, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/90 2014

  47. [47]

    Z., Butler, N

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

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

  48. [48]

    2008, ApJ, 687, 443, doi: 10.1086/592062

    Gomboc, A., Kobayashi, S., Guidorzi, C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 443, doi: 10.1086/592062

    work page doi:10.1086/592062 2008

  49. [49]

    Gordon, K. D. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023, doi: 10.21105/joss.07023

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.07023 2024

  50. [50]

    D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G. C. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1320, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/1320 2009

  51. [51]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 2023

  52. [52]

    D., Misselt, K

    Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., Bouwman, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 2021

  53. [53]

    B., & Nakar, E

    Gottlieb, O., Bromberg, O., Singh, C. B., & Nakar, E. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2567 2020

  54. [54]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 1640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2699

    Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2699

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2699 2022

  55. [55]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Bromberg, O. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3501 2021

  56. [56]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2308

    Granot, J., Gill, R., Guetta, D., & De Colle, F. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2308

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2308 2018

  57. [57]

    Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJL, 570, L61, doi: 10.1086/340991

    work page doi:10.1086/340991 2002

  58. [58]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966 23

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966 23

    work page doi:10.1086/338966 2002

  59. [59]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    Green, G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00695 2018

  60. [60]

    2003, Nature, 426, 157, doi: 10.1038/nature02077

    Greiner, J., Klose, S., Reinsch, K., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 157, doi: 10.1038/nature02077

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02077 2003

  61. [61]

    2007, ApJL, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    Guetta, D., & Della Valle, M. 2007, ApJL, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    work page doi:10.1086/511417 2007

  62. [62]

    2009, A&A, 499, 439, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911719

    Guidorzi, C., Clemens, C., Kobayashi, S., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 439, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911719

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911719 2009

  63. [63]

    L., et al

    Gulati, A., Murphy, T., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4351

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4351 2026

  64. [64]

    P., et al

    Hallinan, G., Corsi, A., Mooley, K. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1579, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9855

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9855 2017

  65. [65]

    Harris, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  66. [66]

    A., Craig, W

    Harrison, F. A., Craig, W. W., Christensen, F. E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/103

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/103 2013

  67. [67]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Yao, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bd0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bd0 2022

  68. [68]

    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

  69. [69]

    D., et al

    Hu, Y.-D., Fern´ andez-Garc´ ıa, E., Caballero-Garc´ ıa, M. D., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 952887, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.952887

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.952887 2023

  70. [70]

    , keywords =

    Huang, Y. F., Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 735, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05334.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05334.x 2002

  71. [71]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  72. [72]

    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

  73. [73]

    Jayaraman, R., Ho, A. Y. Q., Hinds, K.-R., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43994, 1 Jel´ ınek, M. 2023, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 53, 127, doi: 10.31577/caosp.2023.53.4.127

    work page doi:10.31577/caosp.2023.53.4.127 2026

  74. [74]

    W., & O’Dell, S

    Jones, T. W., & O’Dell, S. L. 1977, ApJ, 214, 522, doi: 10.1086/155278

    work page doi:10.1086/155278 1977

  75. [75]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  76. [76]

    Kammoun, E., Waratkar, G., Jayaraman, R., Hinds, K.-R., & Ho, A. Y. Q. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 44063, 1

    2026

  77. [77]

    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

  78. [78]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, L121, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx175

    Kathirgamaraju, A., Barniol Duran, R., & Giannios, D. 2018, MNRAS, 473, L121, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx175

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx175 2018

  79. [79]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/317869 2000

  80. [80]

    A., et al

    Konno, R., Garrappa, S., Zimmerman, E. A., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 1

    2026

Showing first 80 references.