Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Lorentz Factor Evolution of an Expanding Jet Shell Observed in Gamma-ray Burst: Case study of GRB 160625B

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper tracks the Lorentz factor of the expanding jet shell in GRB 160625B through the gamma-gamma pair-production cutoff and finds it nearly constant, implying low or intermediate magnetization in the emission region.

desk verdict Careful, honest spectral fits, but the expanding-shell geometry is internally inconsistent with the 6-s pulse width, so the constant-Gamma conclusion does not stand as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04641 v1 pith:PZTBKWF4 submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.HE

Da-Bin Lin , Rui-Jing Lu , Shen-Shi Du , Tong Liu , Xiang-Gao Wang , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsGRB160625BLorentzfactorjetmagnetizationhigh-energyspectralcutofftwo-photonpairproductiondynamics
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

Gamma-ray burst jets are among the fastest flows in the universe, but their bulk Lorentz factor (the standard relativistic measure of jet speed) has almost never been tracked while the jet is still expanding. This paper does that for one pulse of the bright burst GRB 160625B by using the high-energy spectral cutoff that two-photon pair production imprints on the spectrum. Fitting 25 consecutive time bins with a Band function (a smoothly broken power law) plus an exponential cutoff, the authors find that the radiation radius grows linearly with time while the Lorentz factor stays almost constant, with best-fit acceleration index $s\simeq 9\times10^{-4}$. If this reading is correct, the jet shell was already coasting in the emission region, which implies the jet's magnetization there is low or intermediate even if it was magnetically dominated (Poynting-flux dominated) closer to the engine.

What carries the argument

The central object is the observable $\Lambda(t_{\rm obs}) \equiv R(t_{\rm obs})/[2\Gamma(t_{\rm obs})]^{2\beta}$, which is fixed by the fitted cutoff energy $E_c$, the high-energy photon index $\beta$, and the normalization of the Band+cutoff spectrum once the cutoff is assumed to be pair-production absorption at $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}=1$. The second piece is the shell-expansion kinematics $dR = 2\Gamma^2 c\,dt_{\rm obs}$, which converts observer time into radius advance for an ultrarelativistic shell. Using the measured $\Lambda$ and $\beta$ bin by bin and a trial $\Gamma$ at the first bin, the authors reconstruct $R(t_{\rm obs})$ and $\Gamma(t_{\rm obs})$, then fit $\Gamma=\Gamma_0(R/R_0)^s$; the result is checked by varying the trial $\Gamma$ and by re-binning the pulse three ways. The mechanism carrying the argument is the separation of the unknown product $R/(2\Gamma)^{2\beta}$ into radius and Lorentz factor via the kinematic relation.

What would settle it

Compare each measured cutoff energy $E_c$ with the value predicted by requiring pair-production optical depth unity, using the same spectrum's lower-energy photons and the derived radius and Lorentz factor; systematic disagreement as the shell expands would falsify the interpretation. Alternatively, fit the same 25 spectra with an intrinsic exponential rollover and show whether it fits as well; if it does, the inferred constant $\Gamma$ loses its basis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is a measurement: for the first pulse in the second emission episode of GRB 160625B (about 186-192 s after trigger), the high-energy spectrum in every one of 25 time bins is well described by a Band function with an exponential cutoff. Interpreting each cutoff as the signature of $\gamma\gamma\to e^+e^-$ absorption with optical depth unity, the authors derive the combination $\Lambda = R/(2\Gamma)^{2\beta}$ and find that it grows by roughly four orders of magnitude while the observed flux falls. Combining this with the expanding-shell kinematics $dR = 2\Gamma^2 c\,dt_{\rm obs}$ for trial starting Lorentz factors between 25 and 500, the radiation radius $R$ rises linearly with $t_{\rm obs}$ while $\Gamma$ stays almost flat; the best-fit acceleration index in $\Gamma = \Gamma_0(R/R_0)^s$ is $s = 9.08\times10^{-4}$, with $\Gamma_0=58$ and $R_0=8.27\times10^{16}$ cm. The conclusion is that the shell was coasting in the emission region, so the jet's magnetization (magnetic-to-matter energy ratio) there was low or intermediate, even though it could have been Poynting-flux dominated closer to the engine.

Load-bearing premise

The high-energy cutoff in each time bin really comes from gamma rays being absorbed by lower-energy photons to make electron-positron pairs, and not from a natural bend in the spectrum the jet emits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within a single GRB pulse, the Lorentz factor need not be treated as a single unknown average; the pair-cutoff method resolves its evolution over seconds.
  • A nearly constant $\Gamma$ across the emission region rules out strong magnetic acceleration or deceleration there, so the jet is not converting magnetic energy into bulk motion at these radii.
  • The low or intermediate magnetization in the emitting region is compatible with a jet that is initially Poynting-flux dominated, as long as the magnetization drops before the emission radius.
  • The linear $R$-$t_{\rm obs}$ relation gives a direct measurement of the shell expansion speed and places the emission region at roughly $10^{16}$-$10^{17}$ cm.
  • Similar high-energy cutoffs in other bright bursts can be used to map Lorentz-factor evolution and test jet models statistically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer the method should be tried on other bright GRBs with well-resolved single pulses; if several show similar flat $\Gamma$ profiles, prompt-emission models that rely on sustained magnetic acceleration at these radii would be disfavored.
  • A direct test of the paper's load-bearing assumption would be to fit each spectrum with an intrinsic high-energy rollover and compare goodness of fit against the pair-absorption cutoff.
  • The derived coasting phase refers only to the emission region; connecting it to the jet-launching radius would require a model of magnetization evolution, which the data alone cannot fix.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the first pulse in the second emission episode (FP2EE, approximately 186–192 s) of GRB 160625B using Fermi GBM and LAT/LLE data. Joint spectral fits with a Band+cutoff model show a statistically significant high-energy cutoff in each time bin that moves to higher energies with time. Interpreting the cutoff as two-photon pair-production absorption with tau_gamma_gamma(Ec)=1, the authors define Lambda(t)=R(t)/(2Gamma(t))^(2beta), derive an expression for Lambda from the spectral fit parameters (Eq. 2 and Appendix B), and then use the kinematic relation Eq. (3) together with a trial Lorentz factor Gamma_try at t0=186.83 s to solve for R(t) and Gamma(t). They find that R increases roughly linearly with time while Gamma remains nearly constant, with a best-fit acceleration power-law index s=9.08x10^-4 for Gamma=Gamma_0(R/R_0)^s (Gamma_0=58, R_0=8.27x10^16 cm). From this they conclude that the jet shell is coasting and that the magnetization in the emission region is low or intermediate.

Significance. If the pair-cutoff interpretation and the expanding-shell geometry are correct, the paper provides one of the first direct measurements of Lorentz-factor evolution during the prompt phase of a GRB, with a method that could discriminate between matter-dominated and Poynting-flux-dominated jets. The spectral analysis is careful: the cutoff is clear in each time bin, the LLE and LAT data give consistent results (Appendix A), and the main trend in Lambda(t) is robust to the choice of time binning (Appendix C). The derivation of Gamma(t) and R(t) is not circular, because Lambda is measured from spectral fits and Eq. (3) is a separate kinematic relation. However, the central conclusion rests on two assumptions that are stated but not tested: that the observed cutoff is produced by pair production rather than being intrinsic, and that the emission arises from a spherical or wide-angle expanding shell whose equal-arrival-time surface is integrated as in Eq. (B3). Both assumptions need explicit validation before the constant-Gamma conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] The best-fit parameters in Section 3 (Gamma_0=58, R_0=8.27x10^16 cm at t0=186.83 s) are inconsistent with the observed pulse width if the emission comes from a uniform spherical or wide-angle shell. The angular-spreading timescale for high-latitude emission is Delta_t_ang~(1+z)R/(2Gamma^2 c) which, with z=1.406, is approximately 9.8x10^2 s, more than two orders of magnitude longer than the ~6 s width of the FP2EE shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. In such a shell the equal-arrival-time surface integration in Eq. (B3) necessarily includes angles out to ~1/Gamma, and the resulting high-latitude tail would prevent the pulse from dropping as sharply as observed. Invoking a narrow jet with opening angle much smaller than 1/Gamma could shorten the pulse, but that geometry would change the EATS integral and the normalization in Eq. (B3) and is not modeled in the paper. The authors should either demonstrate that a self-consistent light-curve model reproduces the 6-s pulse at R~10^17 cm and Gamma~60, or restrict the geometry and recompute the Lambda normalization before drawing the coasting conclusion.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (2) and Appendix B, Eq. (B12)] The derivation of Lambda assumes that the high-energy spectral cutoff is set by two-photon pair production with tau_gamma_gamma(Ec)=1, together with the geometric choices W'=R/(2Gamma) and filling factor eta=1/2. The paper does not test this interpretation against the alternative that the cutoff is an intrinsic spectral break in the emission. If the cutoff is intrinsic, Lambda loses its physical meaning and the derived Gamma(t), R(t), and the constant-Gamma conclusion collapse. A concrete test would be to fit the same time bins with an intrinsic-break model (for example, a Band function with a free exponential cutoff unrelated to pair opacity) and to check whether the pair-opacity optical depth computed independently from the derived R and Gamma and the observed luminosity is consistent with tau=1 at Ec. Without such a test, the central claim rests on an unverified assumption.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (4)] The paper reports a best fit of Gamma_0=58, R_0=8.27x10^16 cm, and s=9.08x10^-4 with chi^2=8.42, but it does not report uncertainties on these parameters or confidence contours for s. This matters because many of the Lambda values in Table 1 have fractional uncertainties of order unity or larger (for example, the last bin gives Lambda=(5.47 +/- 5.69)x10^27 cm), and the claim that Gamma is 'almost constant' is essentially the statement that s is consistent with zero. The authors should provide error estimates for s, Gamma(t), and R(t), for example from a chi^2 grid or a Monte Carlo propagation of the spectral-fit errors, to show that the coasting conclusion is statistically robust and not simply an unconstrained parameter value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'This reveals that the magnetization of the jet is low or intermediate in the emission region, event though the jet could be still Poynting flux dominated at smaller radii' contains a typo: 'event though' should be 'even though'.
  2. [Appendix A, Tables 2 and 5] The text in Appendix A refers to 'Table 5' when citing the joint-fitting results, but the table with the NaI+BGO+LAT and NaI+BGO+LLE comparisons is Table 2 in the manuscript; the table numbering should be corrected for consistency.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The linear fits in the Figure 4 caption are written as 'R = 8.73 x 10^17 + 8.41 x 10^13 tobs' and similar expressions without specifying units for the intercept and slope; since tobs is in seconds, the dimensions should be stated explicitly (or the fit coefficients rescaled) to avoid ambiguity about the implied radius values.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] In Eq. (B1), the notation '4 pi R^2 c x 1s' is used to describe the filling volume, but the reader must infer that the dimension is a volume per unit time; this sentence could be clarified by writing the photon production rate or the shell width explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Γ(t) and R(t) are solved from the measured Λ(t) plus an independent kinematic relation, and the coasting result is a free-fit output rather than an input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The quantity Λ(t_obs) is measured from the Band+cutoff spectral fits via Eq. (2), which encodes the assumption τ_γγ(E_c)=1. The Lorentz factor Γ(t) and radius R(t) are then obtained by combining this measured Λ(t) with the independent kinematic relation Eq. (3), dt_obs = dR/(2Γ^2c), for a given trial Γ_try at the initial time. The relation between Λ, Γ, and R is not a definition that forces the answer: the same Λ(t) could in principle produce accelerated or decelerated solutions depending on the fitted β(t), and the paper explicitly varies Γ_try over a wide range (25–500) and checks robustness with alternative time binning in Appendix C. The claim that Γ is nearly constant (best fit s ≈ 9×10^-4) comes from a free χ^2 fit of the parameterization Γ = Γ0(R/R0)^s to the observed Λ(t); the ansatz allows arbitrary s, so s≃0 is an output, not an imposed constraint. The only self-citation, Lin et al. (2017) for Eq. (5), supplies the elementary integral of the same kinematic relation and is not load-bearing; the integral can be verified directly. The assumption that the high-energy cutoff is due to two-photon pair production is a stated physical hypothesis, not a circular definition: if the cutoff were intrinsic, the interpretation of Λ would indeed change, but that is a modeling assumption rather than an equivalence between input and output. The angular-spreading/pulse-width tension noted by a reader concerns internal physical consistency of the spherical-shell interpretation, which is a separate correctness risk and not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inference relies on standard GRB jet assumptions (pair-production cutoff, single expanding shell, kinematic relation) plus a handful of fitted or adopted parameters. No exotic entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Trial Lorentz factor Gamma_try = 25, 50, 100, 125, 250, 500 (six assumed values)
    The kinematic inversion requires an assumed Gamma at the reference time t_obs=186.83 s. The authors show the constant-Gamma conclusion is independent of this choice, so it sets the normalization of Gamma and R, not the evolution.
  • Pair-production filling factor eta = 1/2 (adopted)
    Adopted in Appendix B (Eq. B12) for the fraction of the shell width contributing to pair production. It rescales Lambda and hence the absolute R and Gamma, but not the time evolution.
  • Power-law acceleration parameters Gamma_0, R_0, s = 58, 8.27 x 10^16 cm, 9.08 x 10^-4
    Best-fit parameters of the assumed power-law acceleration law Gamma = Gamma_0 (R/R_0)^s (Eq. 4-6). The fitted s is essentially zero, recovering a coasting jet. These are fitted to the derived Lambda(t), not independently predicted.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The high-energy spectral cutoff in each time bin is produced by two-photon pair production with tau_gamma_gamma(E_c)=1, not by an intrinsic spectral break.
    Stated in Section 3: 'we assume that the two-photon pair production is responsible for the formation of the high-energy spectral cutoff'. If false, Eq. (2) does not relate Lambda to R and Gamma.
  • domain assumption The FP2EE is emitted by a single expanding jet shell with the kinematic relation dt_obs = dR/(2 Gamma^2 c).
    Used in Eq. (3) to connect R and Gamma between time bins. The authors justify with the smooth light curve and Lambda increase, but do not test alternative geometries such as a propagating disturbance in a steady jet.
  • domain assumption The target photon spectrum for pair production is a single power law with index Beta, emission is isotropic in the comoving frame, and the shell width is W' = R/(2Gamma).
    These enter the derivation of Eq. (2) in Appendix B and determine the functional form Lambda = R/(2Gamma)^(2Beta).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lorentz Factor Evolution of an Expanding Jet Shell Observed in Gamma-ray Burst: Case study of GRB 160625B." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZTBKWF4

@misc{pith2026190804641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lorentz Factor Evolution of an Expanding Jet Shell Observed in Gamma-ray Burst: Case study of GRB 160625B},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZTBKWF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04641}
}
abstract

The Lorentz factor of a relativistic jet and its evolution during the jet expansion are difficult to estimate, especially for the jets in gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). However, it is related to the understanding of jet physics. Owing to the absorption of two-photon pair production ($\gamma\gamma{\leftrightarrow}e^+e^-$), a high-energy spectral cutoff may appear in the radiation spectrum of GRBs. We search such kind of high-energy cutoff in GRB 160625B, which is one of the brightest bursts in recent years. It is found that the high-energy spectral cutoff is obvious for the first pulse in the second emission episode of GRB 160625B (i.e., $\sim$186-192 s after the burst first trigger), which is smooth and well-shaped. Then, we estimate the Lorentz factor and radiation location of the jet shell associated with the first pulse in the second emission episode of GRB 160625B. It is found that the radiation location increases with time. In addition, the Lorentz factor remains almost constant during the expansion of the jet shell. This reveals that the magnetization of the jet is low or intermediate in the emission region, event though the jet could be still Poynting flux dominated at smaller radii to avoid a bright thermal component in the emission episode.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light curves of GRB 160625B, where the two vertical dashed lines mark the time period for our analysis and the inset shows a zoom around our interested time period [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectrum fitting in different time interval for the FP2EE of GRB 160625B, where the Band+cutoff spectral model is adopted in our spectral fitting. The data of NaI, BGO, and LLE are shown with black, red, and green “+” symbols, respectively. The complete figure set (25 images) is available in the online journal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Continued) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dependence of Λ on tobs, where the red line is the best fitting result by minimizing the χ 2 in Equation (4) with the downhill simplex algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Values of Γ and R at tobs(6= 186.83s), where the subscripts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) represents the situations with Γtry=25, 50, 100, 125, 250, and 500, respectively. The lines in the right panel are the best linear fittings of R−tobs relations, i.e., R = 8.73 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of Γ on tobs(6= 186.83s), where the different division methods, i.e., method I (left panel), II (middle panel), and III (right panel), are adopting to divide the FP2EE of GRB 160625B. The insets in each panel are the same as that in the left panel of [PITH_…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 114

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 114

    2011

  2. [2]

    2012, ApJS, 203, 4

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2012, ApJS, 203, 4

    2012

  3. [3]

    2013, ApJS, 209, 11

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 11

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 2 0

    Ajello, M., Albert, A., Allafort, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 2 0

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    D., Laskar, T., Berger, E., et al

    Alexander, K. D., Laskar, T., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 69

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 139

    Arimoto, M., Asano, K., Ohno, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 139

    2016

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071

    2009

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2012, ApJ L, 757, L31

    Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., Barbiellini, G., et al. 2012, ApJ L, 757, L31

    2012

  2. [10]

    Baring, M. G. 2006, ApJ, 650, 1004

    2006

  3. [11]

    G., & Harding, A

    Baring, M. G., & Harding, A. K. 1997, ApJL, 481, L85

    1997

  4. [12]

    2016, MNRAS, 459, 3635

    Beniamini, P., & Granot, J. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3635

    2016

  5. [13]

    M., B´ egu´ e, D., Ryde, F., et al

    Burgess, J. M., B´ egu´ e, D., Ryde, F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 63

    2016

  6. [14]

    2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19581, 1

    Burn, E. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19581, 1

    2016

  7. [15]

    Drenkhahn, G., & Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A, 391, 1141

    2002

  8. [16]

    E., Epstein, R

    Fenimore, E. E., Epstein, R. I., & Ho, C. 1993, A&AS, 97, 59

    1993

  9. [17]

    B., et al

    Fraija, N., Veres, P., Zhang, B. B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 15

    2017

  10. [18]

    2015, ApJ, 801, 103

    Gao, H., & Zhang, B. 2015, ApJ, 801, 103

    2015

  11. [19]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 483

    Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 483

    2012

  12. [20]

    2008, A&A, 480, 305

    Giannios, D. 2008, A&A, 480, 305

    2008

  13. [21]

    2016, ApJL, 816, L20

    Granot, J. 2016, ApJL, 816, L20

    2016

  14. [22]

    1986, ApJL, 308, L47

    Goodman, J. 1986, ApJL, 308, L47

    1986

  15. [23]

    S., et al

    Guiriec, S., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2011, ApJL, 727, L33

    2011

  16. [24]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 32

    Guiriec, S., Daigne, F., Hasco¨ et, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 32

    2013

  17. [25]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 148

    Guiriec, S., Kouveliotou, C., Daigne, F., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 148

    2015

  18. [26]

    2008, MNRAS, 384, L11

    Gupta, N., & Zhang, B. 2008, MNRAS, 384, L11

    2008

  19. [27]

    H., & Pier, E

    Krolik, J. H., & Pier, E. A. 1991, ApJ, 373, 277

    1991

  20. [28]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 1820 L¨ u, H.-J., L¨ u, J., Zhong, S.-Q., et al

    Kumar, P., & Crumley, P. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1820 L¨ u, H.-J., L¨ u, J., Zhong, S.-Q., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 71

    2015

  21. [29]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 2209

    Liang, E.-W., Yi, S.-X., Zhang, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2209

    2010

  22. [30]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 116

    Liang, E.-W., Lin, T.-T., L¨ u, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 116

    2015

  23. [31]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 95

    Lin, D.-B., Mu, H.-J., Lu, R.-J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 95

    2017

  24. [32]

    2001, ApJ, 555, 540

    Lithwick, Y., & Sari, R. 2001, ApJ, 555, 540

    2001

  25. [33]

    C., & Uzdensky, D

    McKinney, J. C., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 573 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 292

    2012

  26. [34]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791-804 M´ esz´ aros, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Rees, M. J., & Zhang, B. 2002, ApJ, 578, 812

    2009

  27. [35]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 1728

    Moretti, E., & Axelsson, M. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1728

    2016

  28. [36]

    1986, ApJL, 308, L43 Pe’er, A., Zhang, B.-B., Ryde, F., et al

    Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJL, 308, L43 Pe’er, A., Zhang, B.-B., Ryde, F., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 468 20 Lin et al

    1986

  29. [37]

    2010, arXiv:1002.2617

    Pelassa, V., Preece, R., Piron, F., et al. 2010, arXiv:1002.2617

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    E., Oganesyan, G., Ghirlanda, G., et al

    Ravasio, M. E., Oganesyan, G., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A16

    2018

  31. [39]

    J., & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Rees, M. J., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 1994, ApJL, 430, L93

    1994

  32. [40]

    1999, ApJ, 520, 641

    Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1999, ApJ, 520, 641

    1999

  33. [41]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 48

    Sironi, L., Giannios, D., & Petropoulou, M. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 48

    2016

  34. [42]

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

    Spruit, H. C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G. 2001, A&A, 369, 694

    2001

  35. [43]

    Tang, Q.-W., Peng, F.-K., Wang, X.-Y., & Tam, P.-H. T. 2015, ApJ, 806, 194

    2015

  36. [44]

    1994, MNRAS, 270, 480

    Thompson, C. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 480

    1994

  37. [45]

    2011, MNRAS, 415, 1663

    Toma, K., Wu, X.-F., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1663

    2011

  38. [46]

    M., Mundell, C

    Troja, E., Lipunov, V. M., Mundell, C. G., et al. 2017, Nature, 547, 425

    2017

  39. [47]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 81

    Wang, Y.-Z., Wang, H., Zhang, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 81

    2017

  40. [48]

    1995, ApJ, 453, 583

    Woods, E., & Loeb, A. 1995, ApJ, 453, 583

    1995

  41. [49]

    2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19600, 1

    Xu, D., Malesani, D., et al. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19600, 1

    2016

  42. [50]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 90

    Zhang, B., & Yan, H. 2011, ApJ, 726, 90

    2011

  43. [51]

    2014, ApJ, 782, 92

    Zhang, B., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJ, 782, 92

    2014

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Castro-Tirado, A. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 69

    2018

  45. [53]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 89

    Zhang, Y., Geng, J.-J., & Huang, Y.-F. 2019, ApJ, 877, 89

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.