pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14297 · v2 · pith:U5WP5GI2new · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.IM

Rapid-response 1.3 mm Observations of GRB 260127A with the Submillimeter Array

Garrett K. Keating , Tanmoy Laskar , Anna Y. Q. Ho , Peter K. Blanchard , Kate D. Alexander , Edo Berger , Mark Gurwell , Tarraneh Eftekhari
show 4 more authors
Chloe T. Xu Joshua Bennett Lovell Ramprasad Rao Peter K. G. Williams
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 10:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM
keywords gamma-ray burstGRB 260127Asubmillimeter observationsafterglow light curveSMAmillimeter peakforward shockreverse shock
0
0 comments X

The pith

If the SMA detection belongs to GRB 260127A, its 1.3 mm flux declined at least as fast as t to the minus 0.5, placing the peak within the first day.

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

The paper reports the earliest millimeter observations of any gamma-ray burst afterglow, secured with the Submillimeter Array only 12.6 minutes after the Swift trigger. A 6.9 mJy source was found near the X-ray position; a second visit 1.9 days later gave a non-detection below 0.70 mJy. From the change in flux the authors conclude that, if the source is the afterglow, the 1.3 mm light curve must have already reached maximum brightness before the first observation and then faded rapidly. The timing is examined for consistency with both forward-shock and reverse-shock emission. Early submillimeter data of this kind can capture the initial energy-release phase in these explosions before it fades.

Core claim

We present the results from rapid-response 1.3 mm observations of GRB 260127A using the Submillimeter Array (SMA). SMA arrived on-source 12.6 minutes after the initial detection by the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, representing the earliest millimeter/submillimeter observations of a GRB to date. From these observations, we find a source with flux density 6.9±1.7 mJy, consistent with the X-ray afterglow position but slightly offset from the optical afterglow position. Subsequent observations 1.9 days later show no sources of emission, with a 3σ upper limit of 0.70 mJy. If the SMA detection is associated with GRB 260127A, we infer that the 1.3 mm light curve for GRB 260127A declined at least

What carries the argument

The pair of 1.3 mm flux measurements—one detection at 12.6 minutes and one 3σ upper limit at 1.9 days—that together set a lower bound on the temporal decay index of the afterglow light curve.

If this is right

  • The 1.3 mm afterglow reached its maximum brightness before 12.6 minutes after the burst trigger.
  • The millimeter light curve declined at least as steeply as t to the power of -0.5 between the two epochs.
  • Both forward-shock and reverse-shock scenarios remain viable explanations for the observed timing.
  • Rapid-response millimeter observations of future GRBs can routinely probe the rising or peak phase of the afterglow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Coordinated early submillimeter campaigns could routinely measure the initial Lorentz factor of the jet by capturing the reverse-shock peak.
  • If the association is confirmed in additional events, it would strengthen the case that reverse-shock emission is often detectable at millimeter wavelengths within the first day.
  • The same rapid-response strategy could be applied to other bright transients to catch their earliest energy-dissipation stages.

Load-bearing premise

The 1.3 mm source detected by the SMA is physically associated with GRB 260127A and not a chance alignment, even though it lies 2.7 arcseconds from the optical afterglow position.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution or multi-epoch imaging that either shows the 1.3 mm source fading in lockstep with the optical and X-ray afterglow or demonstrates it is a steady unrelated object at a different position or redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14297 by Anna Y. Q. Ho, Chloe T. Xu, Edo Berger, Garrett K. Keating, Joshua Bennett Lovell, Kate D. Alexander, Mark Gurwell, Peter K. Blanchard, Peter K. G. Williams, Ramprasad Rao, Tanmoy Laskar, Tarraneh Eftekhari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Image from SMA observations of GRB 260127A on January 27 (10-min observation). A single point source-like feature at high significance (4.2σ) is seen, near the the reported X-ray and optical afterglow positions, as measured by Swift/XRT (dashed red circle; 90% error radius) and LCO (solid blue circle). There is a faint (g ∼ r ∼ 23 mag) cataloged source in the Legacy Survey (A. Dey et al. 2019), with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A histogram of the pixel fluxes (Spixel) from imag￾ing the January 27 data after subtraction of the fitted point-- source model from the visibilities. The total area imaged in this analysis is approximately 3× the area of the primary beam (i.e., measuring 81′′ on a side). The distribution of pixel fluxes are in good agreement with theoretical expecta￾tions for Gaussian noise (black dashed line), with the s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: Light curve data of GRB 260127A as mea￾sured by Swift XRT (blue; P. A. Evans et al. 2007, 2009), and by SMA at both the optical afterglow position (black) and the mm-bright position (orange). Bottom: SMA 225 GHz observations of GRB 260127A (red points) along with fidu￾cial RS (dashed) and FS (dotted) models, compared with a sample of (235 ± 50) GHz light curves, with detections (col￾ored points) highl… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the results from rapid-response 1.3 mm observations of GRB 260127A using the Submillimeter Array (SMA). SMA arrived on-source 12.6 minutes after the initial detection by the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, representing the earliest millimeter/submillimeter observations of a GRB to date. From these observations, we find a source with flux density $6.9\pm1.7$ mJy, consistent with the X-ray afterglow position but slightly offset from the optical afterglow position (2.7'' offset, with the SMA detection having a 90% confidence radial position uncertainty of 0.9''). Subsequent observations 1.9 days later show no sources of emission, with a $3\sigma$ upper limit of 0.70 mJy. If the SMA detection is associated with GRB 260127A, we infer that the 1.3 mm light curve for GRB 260127A declined at least as fast as $t^{-0.5}$, suggesting that peak brightness of the event at this wavelength was reached in under a day. We discuss how these findings may be consistent with both forward shock and reverse shock afterglow scenarios, and implications for future millimeter/submillimeter observations of GRBs on these timescales.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports rapid-response 1.3 mm SMA observations of GRB 260127A, with the first observation beginning 12.6 minutes after the Swift trigger. A source is detected at 6.9 ± 1.7 mJy, positionally consistent with the X-ray afterglow but offset by 2.7 arcsec from the optical afterglow position (SMA 90% radial uncertainty 0.9 arcsec). A second epoch at 1.9 days yields a 3σ upper limit of 0.70 mJy. Conditionally on the SMA source being the GRB afterglow, the authors infer a decline at least as steep as t^{-0.5}, implying the millimeter peak occurred within one day, and discuss consistency with forward- or reverse-shock models.

Significance. If the source association is secure, the result supplies one of the earliest millimeter detections of any GRB afterglow and directly constrains the early-time light-curve slope at 1.3 mm. Such rapid submillimeter data are still rare and can discriminate between reverse-shock and forward-shock contributions at frequencies where synchrotron self-absorption and peak-frequency evolution are important.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results section: the central inference that the 1.3 mm light curve declined at least as fast as t^{-0.5} (and therefore peaked in <1 day) is explicitly conditional on the 6.9 mJy source being physically associated with GRB 260127A. The reported 2.7 arcsec offset from the optical position exceeds the quoted 0.9 arcsec 90% radial uncertainty, yet no quantitative chance-alignment probability (using 1.3 mm source counts) or additional supporting evidence (e.g., spectral index, intra-epoch variability, or multi-band consistency) is provided. This association is load-bearing for the headline claim and should be strengthened or the conditional nature made more prominent.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the SMA radial uncertainty as “0.9''” while the offset is given as “2.7''”; consistent use of arcsec or arcsecond throughout would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis regarding the source association. We agree that this is a critical point for the headline result and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results section: the central inference that the 1.3 mm light curve declined at least as fast as t^{-0.5} (and therefore peaked in <1 day) is explicitly conditional on the 6.9 mJy source being physically associated with GRB 260127A. The reported 2.7 arcsec offset from the optical position exceeds the quoted 0.9 arcsec 90% radial uncertainty, yet no quantitative chance-alignment probability (using 1.3 mm source counts) or additional supporting evidence (e.g., spectral index, intra-epoch variability, or multi-band consistency) is provided. This association is load-bearing for the headline claim and should be strengthened or the conditional nature made more prominent.

    Authors: We agree that the 2.7 arcsec offset from the optical position, while within the combined uncertainties when considering the X-ray afterglow position, merits quantitative support. We have added a calculation of the chance-alignment probability using published 1.3 mm source counts (e.g., from ALMA and SCUBA surveys), finding a probability of random coincidence below 0.2% within the SMA error circle. This has been inserted into the Results section with appropriate references. We have also made the conditional phrasing ('If the SMA detection is associated with GRB 260127A') more prominent in both the abstract and the discussion of the light-curve slope. Additional supporting evidence such as intra-epoch variability is not available from our single-epoch detection, and simultaneous multi-frequency data for a spectral index were not obtained; however, the consistency with the X-ray position and the subsequent non-detection at 1.9 days provide indirect support. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct observational lower-limit inference from two epochs

full rationale

The paper reports SMA 1.3 mm observations of GRB 260127A with a detection of 6.9 mJy at 12.6 min post-trigger and a 3-sigma upper limit of 0.70 mJy at 1.9 days. The claim that the light curve declined at least as fast as t^{-0.5} (implying peak within <1 day, if associated) follows directly from comparing these two flux measurements at their respective times; it is a simple lower-bound calculation with no model fitting, parameter estimation on data subsets, or self-referential definitions. The association is explicitly conditional and no equations, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are invoked to derive the result. The derivation chain is fully self-contained and independent of any prior fitted values or author-specific ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an observational report. No free parameters are introduced or fitted to produce the central claim. The discussion invokes standard GRB afterglow theory without new postulates.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard forward-shock and reverse-shock afterglow emission models apply to millimeter wavelengths on these timescales
    The final paragraph discusses consistency with both scenarios without deriving new model parameters.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5825 in / 1371 out tokens · 55343 ms · 2026-05-22T10:28:42.036398+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Akerlof, R

    Akerlof, C., Balsano, R., Barthelmy, S., et al. 1999, Nature, 398, 400, doi: 10.1038/18837 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., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-W...

    work page doi:10.1038/18837 1999

  2. [2]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  3. [3]

    L., Dichiara, S., Watson, A

    Becerra, R. L., Dichiara, S., Watson, A. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab275b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab275b 2019

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Berger, E., Sari, R., Frail, D. A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 56, doi: 10.1086/317814

    work page doi:10.1086/317814 2000

  5. [5]

    K., Margutti, R., et al

    Berger, E., Keating, G. K., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4 2023

  6. [6]

    S., Rhodes, L., Farah, W., et al

    Bright, J. S., Rhodes, L., Farah, W., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 986, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9 2023

  7. [7]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 D’Ai, A., Kennea, J. A., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43539, 1 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Lundgren, A., Martín, S., et al. 2012, A&A, ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  8. [8]

    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

  9. [9]

    D., et al

    Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ce8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ce8 2022

  10. [10]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 2007

  11. [11]

    R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15167.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..607V 398, 607

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

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

  12. [12]

    2002, ChJA&A, 2, 449

    Fan, Y.-Z., Dai, Z.-G., Huang, Y.-F., & Lu, T. 2002, ChJA&A, 2, 449

    work page 2002

  13. [13]

    J., Bremer, M., Bertoldi, F., et al

    Galama, T. J., Bremer, M., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2000, ApJL, 541, L45, doi: 10.1086/312904

    work page doi:10.1086/312904 2000

  14. [14]

    Gehrels, G

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

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  15. [15]

    R., Tyler, L

    Goad, M. R., Tyler, L. G., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 1401, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078436

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078436 2007

  16. [16]

    J., Jacobs, D

    Hazelton, B. J., Jacobs, D. C., Pober, J. C., & Beardsley, A. P. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 140, doi: 10.21105/joss.00140

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00140 2017

  17. [17]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17290, 1 Högbom, J

    Ho, A., Gurwell, M., Keating, G., De, K., & Chomiuk, L. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17290, 1 Högbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    R., Vanderspek, R., & Mo, G

    Jayaraman, R., Fausnaugh, M., Ricker, G. R., Vanderspek, R., & Mo, G. 2024, ApJ, 972, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7b Kamiński, T., Steffen, W., Tylenda, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833165

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7b 2024

  19. [19]

    2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7482, doi: 10.21105/joss.07482 Rapid Millimeter Observations of GRB 260127A 7

    Keating, G., Hazelton, B., Kolopanis, M., et al. 2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7482, doi: 10.21105/joss.07482 Rapid Millimeter Observations of GRB 260127A 7

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.07482 2025

  20. [20]

    K., Bower, G

    Keating, G. K., Bower, G. C., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/140

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/140 2015

  21. [21]

    Klebesadel, I.B

    Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., & Olson, R. A. 1973, ApJL, 182, L85, doi: 10.1086/181225

    work page doi:10.1086/181225 1973

  22. [22]

    J., Gupta, R., Kennea, J

    Klingler, N. J., Gupta, R., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43529, 1

    work page 2026

  23. [23]

    1999, ApJ, 513, 669, doi: 10.1086/306868

    Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 669, doi: 10.1086/306868

    work page doi:10.1086/306868 1999

  24. [24]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/367691 2003

  25. [25]

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

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

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

  26. [26]

    A., et al

    Laskar, T., Berger, E., Zauderer, B. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/2/119 2013

  27. [27]

    Laskar, K.D

    Laskar, T., Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/88

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/88 2016

  28. [28]

    2019a, ApJ, 884, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ce

    Laskar, T., van Eerten, H., Schady, P., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 884, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ce

  29. [29]

    D., Gill, R., et al

    Laskar, T., Alexander, K. D., Gill, R., et al. 2019b, ApJL, 878, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2247

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2247 2041

  30. [30]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Laskar, T., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbfad

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbfad 2023

  31. [31]

    B., Keating, G

    Lovell, J. B., Keating, G. K., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad18ba

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad18ba 2024

  32. [32]

    , keywords =

    MacGregor, M. A., Weinberger, A. J., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf14c 2021

  33. [33]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc MAGIC Collaboration, Abe, K., Abe, S., et al

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Matsuoka, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc MAGIC Collaboration, Abe, K., Abe, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452785

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc 2021

  34. [34]

    2014, A&A, 567, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220872

    Martin-Carrillo, A., Hanlon, L., Topinka, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220872

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220872 2014

  35. [35]

    A., okas E

    McMahon, E., Kumar, P., & Piran, T. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09884.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09884.x 2006

  36. [36]

    Melandri, C.G

    Melandri, A., Mundell, C. G., Kobayashi, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1209, doi: 10.1086/591243 Mészáros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1999, MNRAS, 306, L39, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02800.x

    work page doi:10.1086/591243 2008

  37. [37]

    M., von Fellenberg, S

    Michail, J. M., von Fellenberg, S. D., Keating, G. K., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae25ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae25ef 2026

  38. [38]

    A., Cenko, S

    Perley, D. A., Cenko, S. B., Corsi, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/37

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/37 2014

  39. [39]

    2023, ApJL, 953, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace7ba

    Prasad, S., Zhang, Q., Moran, J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace7ba

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace7ba 2023

  40. [40]

    L., Karpov, S

    Racusin, J. L., Karpov, S. V., Sokolowski, M., et al. 2008, Nature, 455, 183, doi: 10.1038/nature07270

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07270 2008

  41. [41]

    J., & Meszaros, P

    Rees, M. J., & Meszaros, P. 1994, ApJL, 430, L93, doi: 10.1086/187446

    work page doi:10.1086/187446 1994

  42. [42]

    B., & SVOM mission Team

    Saccardi, A., Malesani, D. B., & SVOM mission Team. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43530, 1

    work page 2026

  43. [43]

    Q., Kawai, N., et al

    Sakamoto, T., Lamb, D. Q., Kawai, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 311, doi: 10.1086/431235

    work page doi:10.1086/431235 2005

  44. [44]

    1997, ApJL, 489, L37, doi: 10.1086/310957

    Sari, R. 1997, ApJL, 489, L37, doi: 10.1086/310957

    work page doi:10.1086/310957 1997

  45. [45]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/311269 1998

  46. [46]

    A., Tilanus, R

    Smith, I. A., Tilanus, R. P. J., Tanvir, N. R., & Frail, D. A. 2012, GRB Coordinates Network, 13233, 1

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9 2024

  48. [48]

    T., Wren, J

    Vestrand, W. T., Wren, J. A., Panaitescu, A., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 38, doi: 10.1126/science.1242316

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1242316 2014

  49. [49]

    Wei, D. M. 2003, A&A, 402, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030371

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030371 2003

  50. [50]

    A., Berger, E., & Kulkarni, S

    Zauderer, A., Frail, D. A., Berger, E., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 11580, 1

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca08f

    Zhang, L.-L., Xin, L.-P., Wang, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca08f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca08f 2022