Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 85 references

GRB 250704B: An Off-axis Short GRB with a Long-Lived Afterglow Plateau

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Off-axis jet, not a magnetar, drives GRB 250704B's plateau

desk verdict Solid data paper with a plausible off-axis structured-jet interpretation, but the 'better explained' claim outruns the energy-injection comparison in Appendix C. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02769 v2 pith:A7X6WFNT submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.HE

Vishwajeet Swain , Tomás Ahumada , Sameer K. Patil , Yogesh Wagh , Varun Bhalerao , Ehud Nakar , Mansi Kasliwal , Xander J. Hall
show 22 more authors
Malte Busmann Shreya Anand Viraj Karambelkar Igor Andreoni G. C. Anupama Anuraag Arya Arvind Balasubramanian Sudhanshu Barway Jonathan Carney Michael Coughlin Deepak Eappachen James Freeburn Daniel Gruen Tanishk Mohan Brendan O'Connor Antonella Palmese Utkarsh Pathak D. K. Sahu Aditya Pawan Saikia Nikhil Sarin Gokul Srinivasaragavan Hitesh Tanenia
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords shortgamma-rayburstsGRBafterglowsstructuredjetsoff-axisafterglowplateausachromaticjetbreaks250704BGW170817comparison
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

GRB 250704B is a short gamma-ray burst whose optical, near-infrared, and X-ray afterglow stayed nearly flat for about a day, then broke achromatically and decayed steeply. The paper argues that this unusual shape is not powered by a long-lived central engine, because constant energy injection needs implausible parameters such as an electron energy fraction of about 0.74 or a high external density. Instead, the afterglow is consistently reproduced by a power-law structured jet: energy concentrated in a core of about 0.7 degrees, viewed about 1.9 degrees off-axis. In this geometry, the plateau is the gradual arrival of emission as the relativistic beam widens into the line of sight, and the achromatic break is a geometric jet break. Reading the burst this way links it to GRB 170817A and implies that light-curve shape is set mainly by jet geometry and viewing angle rather than by energetics, microphysical parameters, or density.

What carries the argument

The central object is a power-law structured jet: a jet whose isotropic-equivalent energy and initial Lorentz factor decline with angle from the jet axis as [1 + (theta/theta_c)^2]^(-s/2), with core half-angle theta_c and steepness s fixed to 6. Observed off-axis, with theta_v about 1.9 degrees, roughly 2.7 times the core angle, the gradually widening relativistic beaming cone produces the early plateau, and the achromatic break comes from the geometric jet break. The afterglow is computed with a thin-shell reduced-hydrodynamics code and fitted with nested sampling, with the initial Lorentz factor set effectively infinite so the blast wave begins directly in the deceleration phase, avoiding

What would settle it

Late-time very long baseline interferometry at roughly 6 GHz, months after the burst, would settle the interpretation: an off-axis structured jet predicts an image centroid that shifts or resolves into superluminal structure, while an energy-injection jet stays unresolved and stationary. Alternatively, a chromatic break with different break times in X-ray versus optical bands would rule out the geometric jet-break explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the one-day plateau followed by a steep achromatic decline in GRB 250704B is the signature of a narrow, power-law structured jet seen slightly off-axis. Fitting the multi-wavelength afterglow with a model in which energy falls off as E(theta) = E_K,iso [1 + (theta/theta_c)^2]^(-s/2) with s = 6 yields a core half-opening angle of about 0.7 degrees, a viewing angle of about 1.9 degrees, an isotropic kinetic energy of about 1.5 x 10^54 erg, and a low external density of about 0.01 cm^-3. The best-fit model reproduces both the flat plateau and the sharp break across X-ray, optical, and radio bands. Because a top-hat jet cannot produce such a long plateau and an energy-injec

Load-bearing premise

The inference assumes a fixed power-law angular structure for the jet, with s fixed to 6 and the blast wave starting already in deceleration; if the true jet profile differs or the early coasting phase matters, the fitted core and viewing angles, and therefore the off-axis interpretation, are not robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A roughly one-day optical plateau followed by a steep achromatic decay can arise purely from jet geometry, so such light curves are not by themselves evidence of prolonged engine activity.
  • GRB 250704B and GRB 170817A can be described within the same off-axis structured-jet framework; swapping their core angles and viewing angles swaps their light curves, with peak time set primarily by (theta_v - theta_c)^2.
  • The apparent prompt radiative efficiency of about 0.3 percent is an off-axis viewing artifact, not a fundamental problem for the fireball model.
  • Population-level GRB modeling needs jet structure: short bursts can look dim, flat, and late-peaking purely because of viewing geometry.
  • Long-term multi-band follow-up is essential because structured jets with larger viewing-to-core offsets peak very late and can be missed entirely without extended monitoring.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the geometry interpretation generalizes, many short-GRB plateaus currently attributed to magnetar spin-down may instead be off-axis structured jets; a population reanalysis of plateau durations and break steepness could test this statistically.
  • A direct test for this specific event is late-time very long baseline interferometry: an off-axis structured jet predicts a resolved or moving image centroid, whereas an energy-injection jet would remain unresolved and stationary.
  • The fitted model fixes s = 6 and ignores the early coasting phase; allowing a finite initial Lorentz factor or a different angular profile, such as a Gaussian jet, is the natural next step and would map how robust the inferred 0.7-degree core really is.
  • The inferred narrow core means many similar bursts may be missed because their off-axis peak fluxes are low, so existing short-GRB rate estimates may need an off-axis population correction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. GRB 250704B is a short GRB at z=0.661 with a rich optical/NIR afterglow, X-ray coverage, and radio detections. The authors find an unusually long optical plateau (~1 day) followed by a sharp achromatic break (α1 ≈ −0.13, α2 ≈ 3.28, tb ≈ 0.96 d), and argue that a power-law structured jet viewed off-axis with θ_c ≈ 0.7°, θ_v ≈ 1.8° reproduces the broadband light curve, while an energy-injection model requires unreasonable parameters. They support this with a cross-event comparison to GW170817. The paper includes extensive photometric reduction, temporal/spectral analysis, and nested-sampling fits using jetsimpy/afterglowpy.

Significance. The dataset is one of the best-sampled short-GRB afterglows; the plateau plus steep achromatic break is a distinctive combination. If the off-axis structured-jet interpretation holds, this would be a valuable second example after GW170817 and would support the view that jet structure and viewing geometry, rather than central-engine activity, dominate the afterglow evolution. The careful multi-wavelength reduction, use of public codes, and explicit comparison with GW170817 are strengths. However, the central claim that the off-axis model is 'better explained' is not yet quantitatively established because the alternative model is not given a fair or complete treatment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C; Table 5] The energy-injection model is too restrictive to carry the weight of the conclusion. q is fixed to 0 and the best-fit injection stop time is log10(ts) ≈ 3.06, i.e., ts ≈ 1.1e3 s, while the observed plateau lasts until tb ≈ 0.96 d ≈ 8.3e4 s. An engine that stops injecting at ~1e3 s cannot maintain a ~1e5 s plateau, so the model does not actually reproduce the feature it is invoked to explain. No Bayesian evidence (log Z) or comparable goodness-of-fit is reported against the structured-jet model. The statement that energy injection 'requires unreasonable parameters' is therefore not supported as written; a richer injection model (free q, magnetar spin-down, or injection within a structured jet) could plausibly fit the same data and remove the main reason to prefer the off-axis geometry.
  2. [§5.2, Eqs. (2)–(3), Table 1] The inference fixes s = 6 and Γ0 = 10^100. Parameter s controls the angular energy profile and therefore the plateau/break morphology; the paper itself cites GW170817 constraints favoring s ≈ 3–4 in §6.2, so fixing s = 6 is not conservative. Γ0 = 10^100 removes any early coasting phase, meaning the early plateau is imposed by construction rather than fit. Please report sensitivity runs with s free (or at least s = 3–4) and with finite Γ0, or justify why these choices do not affect the quoted θ_c and θ_v. Without this, the structured-jet parameters, and hence the off-axis interpretation, are not robust.
  3. [§5.1, §4.1, Table 4] The achromatic-break claim and the radio spectral-index argument exclude the two datasets that could test them: all XRT data before 0.03 d (attributed to high-latitude emission) and the 1.3 GHz MeerKAT detection at 492480 s (attributed to synchrotron self-absorption). Since the jetsimpy model does not include self-absorption, the model is never compared with one of the few radio detections. Please include the excluded points in a sensitivity plot or model the high-latitude/SSA contributions explicitly, so the reader can see that they do not alter the inferred geometry or the achromatic-break interpretation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2 vs §3] T90 is quoted as 0.68±0.15 s in §2 but ~0.4 s in §3; please reconcile.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (1)] The notation uses a1 and a2 in the equation but α1 and α2 in the accompanying text; unify the symbols.
  3. [§6.1, item (4)] The text says 'negative spectral decay indices (β)', but all quoted β values in §4.3 are positive (β_o1=0.43, β_o2=0.66, β_ox=0.73, β_radio=0.96). Clarify what is meant.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption quotes α2=3.29 while the text in §4.2 gives 3.28; minor inconsistency.
  5. [Table 2] The table has formatting issues (e.g., 'T able' headings) and some columns (e.g., 'Mag Corr') are not defined; please clean up.
  6. [References] Several references are duplicated with the same DOI (Mooley et al. 2022a/2022b; O'Connor et al. 2024a/2024b). Merge or clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the off-axis structured-jet inference is a fit to independent data, with an external GW170817 cross-check; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an inverse-modeling inference: an off-axis power-law structured jet (Eqs. 2–3) is fit to the observed multi-wavelength afterglow using MultiNest, and the resulting parameters (θ_c≈0.7°, θ_v≈1.9°) are reported as best-fit values. The plateau, achromatic break, and steep decay are data features; the model's ability to reproduce them is a measure of fit quality, not an independent prediction, and the paper does not present the fitted light curve as a predictive test. The GW170817 comparison (Sec. 6.2) is a cross-check against independent external data: model parameters from one event are reused with only θ_c and θ_v changed, and a flux scale factor is applied. This absorbs normalization, not temporal morphology, so the geometry-driven shape comparison retains independent content. The energy-injection comparison (Appendix C) is a model-selection argument, not a circular reduction; its restrictiveness (fixed q=0, top-hat jet, no inverse-Compton, no reported Bayesian evidence) is a possible correctness/robustness concern, but it does not make the structured-jet inference equivalent to its inputs by construction. Self-citations appear (e.g., Govreen-Segal & Nakar 2024, Nakar & Piran 2021), but they provide background physics and adopted comparison values, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatz-smuggled assumptions. No equation is shown to equal its input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation is therefore self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced; the structured jet is an established model component, not an invented entity. The central inference rests on a handful of fitted macro/microphysical parameters plus two fixed model choices (s, Gamma0) that are not varied.

free parameters (10)
  • E_K,iso (isotropic kinetic energy) = 10^54.17 erg (log10 posterior 54.17±0.12)
    Uniform log prior [51,56]; the huge inferred energy drives the luminous plateau in the structured-jet fit (Table 1).
  • epsilon_b (magnetic field energy fraction) = 10^-2.06 (log10 = -2.06±0.48)
    Fitted with uniform log prior [-5,-1]; controls synchrotron flux and break frequencies.
  • epsilon_e (electron energy fraction) = 10^-0.64 = 0.23
    Fitted with uniform log prior [-3,-0.5]; high value is part of the energy budget.
  • n0 (circum-burst ISM density) = 10^-1.86 cm^-3
    Fitted with uniform log prior [-4,1]; consistent with short GRB environment assumptions.
  • theta_c (jet core half-opening angle) = 0.012±0.003 rad (~0.69 deg)
    Log-uniform prior [1e-4,0.2] rad; central to the off-axis structured jet interpretation.
  • theta_v (observing viewing angle) = 0.032±0.008 rad (~1.83 deg)
    Log-uniform prior [1e-4,0.2] rad; central to the off-axis interpretation.
  • p (electron power-law index) = 2.04±0.01
    Uniform prior [2.001,2.8]; determines spectral and temporal closure relations.
  • s (jet power-law index) = fixed to 6
    Not fitted; adopted as nominal from Ryan et al. 2024. Changing s changes the angular energy profile and can alter inferred angles.
  • Gamma0 (initial Lorentz factor) = fixed to 10^100
    Chosen so the blast wave begins in deceleration with no coasting (Section 5.2). A finite value could shift early-time light curve.
  • Flux scale factor in cross-event comparison = overall scaling in Figures 4a and 4b
    Used to match modeled GW170817/250704B flux levels; this is a fitted normalization, not a prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Synchrotron forward-shock emission model as implemented in jetsimpy (thin 2D blast wave, standard break frequencies)
    Underlies all light-curve and SED calculations in Section 5.2; no alternative radiative model is considered.
  • domain assumption Uniform ISM circum-burst density
    Assumed for short GRBs in Section 5.1, following Fong et al. 2015; wind-like or clumpy profiles not tested for the main model.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law jet structure E(theta) = E_K,iso [1+(theta/theta_c)^2]^{-s/2} with s=6; Gamma(theta) similarly
    Eqs. 2-3. This exact functional form and index are adopted a priori and are load-bearing for the inferred theta_c and theta_v.
  • domain assumption All accelerated electrons radiate (chi=1)
    Explicitly assumed in Section 5; lower chi would raise required energies.
  • domain assumption Self-absorption negligible in optical/X-ray and at 6/10 GHz; adiabatic cooling regime dominates
    Section 5.1; motivates exclusion of 1.3 GHz data and the claim nu_c above observed bands.
  • domain assumption Redshift z=0.661 from VLT/FORS2 reported in GCN
    External measurement adopted throughout; distance affects all energy scales.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRB 250704B: An Off-axis Short GRB with a Long-Lived Afterglow Plateau." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7X6WFNT

@misc{pith2026250902769,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRB 250704B: An Off-axis Short GRB with a Long-Lived Afterglow Plateau},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7X6WFNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02769}
}
abstract

We present a detailed multi-wavelength afterglow study of the short GRB 250704B, extensively monitored in optical and near-infrared bands. Its afterglow displays an unusually long-duration plateau followed by an achromatic break and a steep decline, deviating from canonical GRB afterglows. While long plateaus are often explained by central engine activity, we find that for GRB 250704B, an energy injection model requires unreasonable parameters. The afterglow is better explained by an off-axis power-law structured jet with a narrow core ($\theta_c \approx 0.7^{\circ}$) viewed at a modest angle ($\theta_v \approx 1.9^{\circ}$). A comparison with GRB 170817A shows that both events are consistent with the off-axis structured jet scenario, where the shape of the light curve is governed primarily by the geometry of the jet and the viewing angle rather than the energetics, microphysical parameters, or external density. Our results underscore the importance of incorporating the jet structure in GRB modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02769 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The upper panel shows flux densities calculated at 1 keV (green) and 10 keV (orange). The 10 keV lightcurve is fit with a twice-broken power-law fit (blue). The two tem￾poral break are identified at tb1 = 0.033 d (purple vertical line) and tb2 = 0.774 d (brown vertical line), with decay in￾dices α1 = 5.8, α2 = 0.36, and α3 = 1.56 marked along the fit. The bottom panel shows the evolution of the photon index. Prior t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-wavelength afterglow light curves of GRB 250704B in X-ray (purple), optical (r, i, z, g, and J bands), and radio (1.3, 6, and 10 GHz, with an upper limit at 0.65 GHz). The light curves are well described by a broken power-law with an initial shallow plateau phase (α1 = −0.13±0.01) followed by a steep decay (α2 = 3.29±0.18) after the break at tb = 0.96±0.02 days (red vertical line). Spectral indices from the fi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Afterglow modeling of GRB 250704B using jetsimpy modeled with a power-law structured jet propa￾gating into a uniform ISM viewed slightly off-axis. a structured relativistic jet interacting with an exter￾nal medium. The code adopts a reduced hydrodynamic model that approximates the blast wave as a thin 2-D surface, enabling efficient treatment of jet spreading at late times with reduced computational cost. We assumed… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of structured-jet geometries between GRB 250704B and the GW170817 afterglow. θc to 4◦ and θv to 18◦ . The resultant light curves, again scaled by an overall factor, are shown in Figure 4b. Despite other parameters being fit to GRB 250704B data, the model sho…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distribution of physical parameters for model fitted using jetsimpy with structured jet interacting with ISM medium and multi-nest. The model fit for the log10(EK,iso), log10(ϵb), log10(ϵe), log10(n0), θc, θv and p parameters. The histogram shows the 16 per c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We modeled the multi-band afterglow light curves of GRB 250704B using afterglowpy, assuming a relativistic structured jet with a top-hat profile propagating into a uni￾form-density interstellar medium (ISM), and incorporating a constant energy-injection rate. Dotted li…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd249

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd249 2021

  2. [2]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1178

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1178 2010

  3. [3]

    P., Anand, S., et al

    Ahumada, T., Singer, L. P., Anand, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 2021

  4. [4]

    S., et al

    Ascenzi, S., Oganesyan, G., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038265 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 al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collab...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038265 2020

  5. [5]

    Bertin, E. 2013,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1301.001 16 T able 5.Summary of the priors and posteriors for the model pa- rameters obtained frommulti-nestfitting of energy injection model implemented usingafterglowpy. Parameter Unit Prior Type Parameter Bound Posterior Value log10(EK,iso) erg uniform [48, 53] 51.04 +0.03 −0.03 log10(ϵb) ...

    2013

  6. [6]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  7. [7]

    D., Walters, R., et al

    Blagorodnova, N., Neill, J. D., Walters, R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 035003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f 2018

  8. [8]

    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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40974, 1 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al

    Palmese, A. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40974, 1 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G., & Lu, T

    Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1998, A&A, 333, L87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810402

    1998 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e1

    Fraija, N., Galvan-Gamez, A., Betancourt Kamenetskaia, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac68e1

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40972, 1

    Frederiks, D., Lysenko, A., Ridnaia, A., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40972, 1

    2025

  7. [15]

    2016, A&A, 593, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275

    Fremling, C., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    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

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Paragi, Z., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Paragi, Z., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    H., Huber, M., Chambers, K

    Gillanders, J. H., Huber, M., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40958, 1

    2025

  11. [19]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1628

    Govreen-Segal, T., & Nakar, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1628

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 1704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1224

    Govreen-Segal, T., & Nakar, E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1224

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

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

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 820–829, doi: 10.1086/338966

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 568, 820–829, doi: 10.1086/338966

    2002 doi

  15. [23]

    G., Harrison, R., et al

    Guidorzi, C., Mundell, C. G., Harrison, R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 752, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2243

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    Kale, R., & Ishwara-Chandra, C. H. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 95, doi: 10.1007/s10686-020-09677-6

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Agayeva, S., Aivazyan, V., et al

    Kann, D. A., Agayeva, S., Aivazyan, V., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc8d0

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Cannella, C., Bagdasaryan, A., et al

    Kasliwal, M. M., Cannella, C., Bagdasaryan, A., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 038003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aafbc2

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    Knust, F., Greiner, J., van Eerten, H. J., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730578

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Fishman, G

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

    1993 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Golovin, D

    Kozyrev, A. S., Golovin, D. V., Litvak, M. L., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41050, 1

    2025

  22. [30]

    C., et al

    Kumar, H., Bhalerao, V., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    1999, ApJL, 523, L113, doi: 10.1086/312265

    Kumar, P. 1999, ApJL, 523, L113, doi: 10.1086/312265

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    P., Tanvir, N

    Lamb, G. P., Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38bb

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, Vol

    Lang-Bardl, F., Bender, R., Goessl, C., et al. 2016, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, Vol. 9908, SPIE, 1295–1302

    2016

  27. [35]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    H., Zhou, C., et al

    Li, A., Cheng, Y. H., Zhou, C., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40956, 1 17 Figure 5.Posterior distribution of physical parameters for model fitted usingjetsimpywith structured jet interacting with ISM medium andmulti-nest. The model fit for the log 10(EK,iso), log 10(ϵb...

    2025

  29. [37]

    X., Xue, S

    Li, W. X., Xue, S. J., Andrews, M., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40975, 1

    2025

  30. [38]

    P., et al

    Liu, X., An, J., Zhu, Z. P., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40965, 1

    2025

  31. [39]

    M., & Zhang, B

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., & Zhang, B. 2004, ApJ, 613, 477, doi: 10.1086/423026

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Brightman, M., et al

    Makhathini, S., Mooley, K. P., Brightman, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    B., Eyles-Ferris, R., Corcoran, G., et al

    Malesani, D. B., Eyles-Ferris, R., Corcoran, G., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40945, 1

    2025

  34. [42]

    B., Liu, X., et al

    Martin-Carrillo, A., Malesani, D. B., Liu, X., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40971, 1

    2025

  35. [43]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 1623, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1623

    Maxham, A., & Zhang, B. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1623, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1623

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    2019,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1907.032 M´ esz´ aros, P

    McCully, C., & Tewes, M. 2019,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1907.032 M´ esz´ aros, P. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 137, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093821 M´ esz´ aros, P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01 M´ esz´...

    2019

  37. [46]

    P., et al

    Mohan, T., Swain, V., Saikia, A. P., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40962, 1

    2025

  38. [48]

    P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W

    Mooley, K. P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W. 2022b, Nature, 610, 273, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7

    doi

  39. [49]

    P., Deller, A

    Mooley, K. P., Deller, A. T., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, 355, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    2018 doi

  40. [50]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6cd

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2021, ApJ, 909, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd6cd

    2021 doi

  41. [51]

    P., & Bonnell, J

    Norris, J. P., & Bonnell, J. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 266, doi: 10.1086/502796

    2006 doi

  42. [52]

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

    Norris, J. P., Gehrels, N., & Scargle, J. D. 2011, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 217, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #217, 108.03 O’Connor, B., Beniamini, P., & Gill, R. 2024a, MNRAS, 533, 1629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1941 O’Connor, ...

    2011 doi

  43. [53]

    Panaitescu, A., & Vestrand, W. T. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 497, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13231.x

    2008

  44. [54]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    2022 doi

  45. [55]

    J., & Meszaros, P

    Rees, M. J., & Meszaros, P. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 41, doi: 10.1093/mnras/258.1.41P

    1992 doi

  46. [56]

    H., et al

    Resmi, L., Schulze, S., Ishwara-Chandra, C. H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae1a6

    2018 doi

  47. [57]

    L., Troja, E., & ERC BHianca Team

    Ricci, R., Becerra, R. L., Troja, E., & ERC BHianca Team. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41046, 1

    2025

  48. [58]

    T., Metzger, B

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1061–1087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts683

    2013 doi

  49. [59]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    2020 doi

  50. [60]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Troja, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14

    2024 doi

  51. [61]

    1997, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706078

    Sari, R. 1997, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706078

    1997 doi arXiv

  52. [62]

    Sari, R., & Esin, A. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 787, doi: 10.1086/319003

    2001 doi

  53. [63]

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJL, 519, L17, doi: 10.1086/312109

    1999 doi

  54. [64]

    1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    1998 doi

  55. [65]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 19

    2011 doi

  56. [66]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  57. [67]

    L., Antier, S., et al

    Schneider, B., Becerra, R. L., Antier, S., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40942, 1

    2025

  58. [68]

    D., et al

    Schroeder, G., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2025c, ApJ, 982, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada9e5

    doi

  59. [69]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41025, 1

    Shimizu, Y., Yoshida, A., Sakamoto, T., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41025, 1

    2025

  60. [70]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  61. [71]

    P., O’Connor, B., Cenko, S

    Srinivasaragavan, G. P., O’Connor, B., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accf97 SVOM/GRM Team, Wang, C.-W., Zheng, S.-J., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40940, 1

    2023 doi

  62. [72]

    B., et al

    Troja, E., Sakamoto, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/102

    2016 doi

  63. [73]

    2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4089, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06558-7

    Troja, E., Ryan, G., Piro, L., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4089, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06558-7

    2018 doi

  64. [74]

    2019a, MNRAS, 489, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2248

    Troja, E., van Eerten, H., Ryan, G., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 489, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2248

    1919 doi

  65. [75]

    J., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al

    Troja, E., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 489, 2104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2255

    doi

  66. [76]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    2022 doi

  67. [77]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41024, 1

    Volnova, A., Pozanenko, A., Klunko, E., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 41024, 1

    2025

  68. [78]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40978, 1

    Wang, C.-W., Xiong, S.-L., Li, C.-K., Zheng, C., & Insight-HXMT Team. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40978, 1

    2025

  69. [79]

    G., Giannios, D., & Duffell, P

    Wang, H., Dastidar, R. G., Giannios, D., & Duffell, P. C. 2024, ApJS, 273, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4d9d

    2024 doi

  70. [80]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 219, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

    Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 219, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

    2015 doi

  71. [81]

    C., Eikenberry, S

    Wilson, J. C., Eikenberry, S. S., Henderson, C. P., et al. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 451–458, ...

    2003 doi

  72. [82]

    P., Li, H

    Xin, L. P., Li, H. L., Qiu, Y. L., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40960, 1

    2025

  73. [83]

    2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    2022 doi

  74. [84]

    L., et al

    Yang, Y.-H., Passaleva, N., Becerra, R. L., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40970, 1

    2025

  75. [85]

    2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    Zhang, B., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    2001 doi

  76. [86]

    B., Liu, Z

    Zhang, B. B., Liu, Z. K., Peng, Z. K., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 911, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01395-z

    2021 doi

  77. [87]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 1261, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1261

    Zhang, W., & MacFadyen, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1261, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1261

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.