pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17060 · v1 · pith:INCBBF2Cnew · submitted 2026-05-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Jet-Structure Imprint on the Curvature Tail of Gamma-Ray Burst Prompt Emission

Zhen-Yu Yan , Xiao-Hong Zhao , Hendrik J. van Eerten , Jun Yang , Jiang-Chuan Tuo , Shu-Xu Yi , Chen-Wei Wang , Wen-Jun Tan
show 2 more authors
Shao-Lin Xiong Bin-Bin Zhang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 15:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstsjet structureprompt emissioncurvature effectGRB 230307Astructured jetslight curve break
0
0 comments X

The pith

A power-law wing jet with narrow core explains the late break in GRB 230307A prompt emission

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

The paper aims to use the curvature tail of gamma-ray burst prompt emission as a probe of jet structure. It develops a model to calculate light curves from structured jets and tests it against the rare late-time break observed in GRB 230307A. Simple spherical and top-hat jet models cannot match the data, but a jet with a uniform core of 0.0147 radians and a power-law wing does. This suggests that the break timing and shape can reveal the angular distribution of energy in the jet.

Core claim

Our analysis demonstrates that simple spherical outflow and top-hat jet models are inadequate to reproduce the light curve. Instead, the observations are best described by a power-law wing jet with a uniform core (θ_core=0.0147 rad) and a surrounding power-law wing. The results show that the break in late-time prompt emission can be a powerful diagnostic of GRB jet structure.

What carries the argument

Numerical model of synchrotron light curves from structured jets that isolates the curvature effect from high-latitude emission to fit the observed break

If this is right

  • The curvature effect after emission ceases directly encodes the jet's angular structure.
  • Power-law wings are required to fit the prompt light curve of GRB 230307A.
  • The core angle of 0.0147 radians sets when the jet edge becomes visible.
  • High-latitude emission serves as a probe of jet geometry in the prompt phase.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar late breaks in other GRBs could be modeled to determine if power-law wings are typical.
  • This method might connect to afterglow studies for a fuller picture of jet evolution.
  • Variations in wing structure could explain differences in break times across bursts.

Load-bearing premise

The late-time break is produced solely by the curvature effect from high-latitude emission once the jet edge becomes visible, without significant contribution from continued central-engine activity.

What would settle it

Detection of ongoing central engine activity or alternative emission components in the spectrum or variability after the break would falsify the pure curvature interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17060 by Bin-Bin Zhang, Chen-Wei Wang, Hendrik J. van Eerten, Jiang-Chuan Tuo, Jun Yang, Shao-Lin Xiong, Shu-Xu Yi, Wen-Jun Tan, Xiao-Hong Zhao, Zhen-Yu Yan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Curvature-tail effect diagram. The panels a and b show two scenarios where the curvature-tail effect oc￾curs in decaying and rising phases, respectively. The cone shows the history of a jet sweeping trajectory through the outside space. The ellipse represents EATS, and its solid section contributes to the observed flux. The cone in the grey shaded region indicates the fraction that does not con￾tribute to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Scaled flux on a log-log scale and temporal decay indices. The flux is calculated using the canonical physical parameters. Colored dotted and solid curves represent the spherical model and the top-hat jet model (θjet = 0.02 rad), respectively. Three key times in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scaled flux in 15–2000 keV on a log-log scale and temporal decay indices of the jet models with wing struc￾tures. The nested subplot in the upper panel presents the normalized angular injection distribution. The flux is cal￾culated using the canonical physical parameters. The blue, purple, and pink solid curves represent the two-component model, power-law wing model, and Gaussian wing model, respectively, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaled flux of the light curves on a log-log scale predicted by the models compared with GRB 230307A’s late￾time light curves using GECAM data. The points with error bars and upper limits are from observed GECAM data. The black solid curves within 18 s to 84 s represent the prediction of the best-fit parameters of the spherical model without the curvature-tail effect. The grey dashed curves after 84 s are … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Even though the prompt emission of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is highly beamed, high-latitude emission still produces a distinct light curve break after the intrinsic emission ceases and the edge of the jet comes into view. This curvature effect offers a direct probe of the jet structure during the prompt phase. To uncover the geometric structure of the GRB jet encoded in the prompt light-curve evolution, we develop a numerical model that calculates synchrotron light curves from structured jets to interpret the observed break. We apply this model to the prompt emission of GRB 230307A, which displays a rare late-time break. Our analysis demonstrates that simple spherical outflow and top-hat jet models are inadequate to reproduce the light curve. Instead, the observations are best described by a power-law wing jet with a uniform core ($\theta_{\rm core}=0.0147$ rad) and a surrounding power-law wing. Our results demonstrate that the break in late-time prompt emission can be a powerful diagnostic of GRB jet structure.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a numerical model to compute synchrotron light curves from structured jets, focusing on the curvature effect after intrinsic emission ceases. Applied to the prompt emission of GRB 230307A, which exhibits a rare late-time break, the analysis concludes that spherical outflow and top-hat jet models are inadequate, while a power-law wing jet with a uniform core (θ_core=0.0147 rad) and surrounding power-law wings best reproduces the observed light-curve break, positioning the curvature tail as a diagnostic of prompt-phase jet structure.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing the noted issues, the work would provide a new, prompt-emission-based method to constrain GRB jet geometries, complementing afterglow studies and advancing understanding of relativistic outflow structures. The numerical synchrotron modeling of high-latitude emission from structured jets is a methodological contribution that could be applied to other bursts with similar features.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and results] Abstract and results section: The claim that the power-law wing model 'best describes' the data and reproduces the break better than alternatives is presented without reported goodness-of-fit metrics (e.g., χ² or likelihood values), error bars or uncertainties on θ_core=0.0147 rad, or explicit details on how other parameters were fixed or excluded; this weakens the quantitative basis for preferring the structured-jet solution.
  2. [Methods and discussion] Methods and discussion: The model assumes the late-time break arises solely from the curvature effect once the jet edge becomes visible after sharp termination of intrinsic emission, with no significant contribution from continued central-engine activity; however, no explicit model comparisons are shown that add a low-level decaying engine component and re-fit the parameters to test whether simpler top-hat jets viewed off-axis could then reproduce the feature.
  3. [Results] Results: The inadequacy of spherical and top-hat models is asserted based on the numerical light-curve calculations, but without statistical cross-comparisons that include possible engine contributions, the uniqueness of the power-law wing solution to the jet-structure hypothesis remains untested.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract quotes θ_core=0.0147 rad without accompanying uncertainty or context on how the value was obtained from the fit.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the power-law wing index or other jet parameters could be defined more clearly when first introduced to aid readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight opportunities to strengthen the quantitative support for our conclusions and to clarify model assumptions. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and results] Abstract and results section: The claim that the power-law wing model 'best describes' the data and reproduces the break better than alternatives is presented without reported goodness-of-fit metrics (e.g., χ² or likelihood values), error bars or uncertainties on θ_core=0.0147 rad, or explicit details on how other parameters were fixed or excluded; this weakens the quantitative basis for preferring the structured-jet solution.

    Authors: We agree that goodness-of-fit metrics and parameter uncertainties would strengthen the quantitative basis of the claims. In the revised manuscript we will report χ² (or equivalent) values for the spherical, top-hat, and power-law-wing models fitted to the late-time light curve of GRB 230307A. We will also derive and quote uncertainties on θ_core by exploring a grid of nearby values while re-optimizing the remaining parameters, and we will explicitly list the fixed parameters (bulk Lorentz factor, magnetic-field strength, electron power-law index) together with the observational or theoretical constraints used to set them. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods and discussion] Methods and discussion: The model assumes the late-time break arises solely from the curvature effect once the jet edge becomes visible after sharp termination of intrinsic emission, with no significant contribution from continued central-engine activity; however, no explicit model comparisons are shown that add a low-level decaying engine component and re-fit the parameters to test whether simpler top-hat jets viewed off-axis could then reproduce the feature.

    Authors: The curvature-effect calculation is performed under the standard assumption of abrupt cessation of the comoving emissivity, which is the minimal assumption needed to isolate the geometric signature. We did not explore superposed engine activity because the observed break is sharp and lacks the variability expected from ongoing central-engine emission. Nevertheless, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the discussion that considers a low-level decaying engine component. We will note that such a component introduces extra free parameters and that a top-hat jet viewed off-axis plus engine activity can be tuned to produce a break, but that the structured-jet solution remains more parsimonious because it reproduces the feature with the same number of parameters used for the spherical and top-hat cases. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Results] Results: The inadequacy of spherical and top-hat models is asserted based on the numerical light-curve calculations, but without statistical cross-comparisons that include possible engine contributions, the uniqueness of the power-law wing solution to the jet-structure hypothesis remains untested.

    Authors: We accept that statistical cross-comparisons would make the argument more rigorous. As stated above, we will supply χ² values for all three geometries under the pure-curvature assumption. We will also add text explaining that, while a residual engine component could in principle allow a top-hat jet to fit the data, the required engine decay law would have to be finely tuned to avoid introducing late-time variability that is not observed. The power-law-wing model therefore provides the simplest physically motivated explanation consistent with both the break morphology and standard jet-structure expectations. We will explicitly note that a exhaustive exploration of every conceivable engine-plus-geometry combination lies beyond the scope of the present study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; standard forward modeling and model comparison

full rationale

The paper constructs a numerical synchrotron light-curve code for structured jets from first principles of relativistic beaming and curvature effect, then fits jet parameters (including θ_core = 0.0147 rad for the power-law wing model) directly to the observed prompt light curve of GRB 230307A. The conclusion that spherical and top-hat models fail while the power-law wing succeeds is the explicit outcome of this data-model comparison, not a quantity that reduces to the inputs by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to force the result; the derivation remains self-contained as a forward-modeling exercise whose outputs are tested against external observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GRB jet physics plus a small number of fitted structural parameters; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • θ_core = 0.0147 rad
    Core opening angle chosen to reproduce the timing and shape of the late-time break in GRB 230307A.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption High-latitude emission after intrinsic emission ceases produces a distinct light-curve break whose properties encode jet structure.
    This premise is invoked to interpret the observed break as a geometric diagnostic.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5746 in / 1434 out tokens · 70424 ms · 2026-05-20T15:15:10.680388+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

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A., Novikov, I

    Abramowicz, M. A., Novikov, I. D., & Paczynski, B. 1991, ApJ, 369, 175, doi: 10.1086/169748

    work page doi:10.1086/169748 1991

  2. [2]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    R., Pooley, G., et al

    Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R., Pooley, G., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 154, doi: 10.1038/nature01998

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01998 2003

  5. [5]

    2005, ApJ, 621, 875, doi: 10.1086/427680

    Dai, X., & Zhang, B. 2005, ApJ, 621, 875, doi: 10.1086/427680

    work page doi:10.1086/427680 2005

  6. [6]

    G., & Gou, L

    Dai, Z. G., & Gou, L. J. 2001, ApJ, 552, 72, doi: 10.1086/320463

    work page doi:10.1086/320463 2001

  7. [7]

    A., De Marco O., Barlow M

    Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 275, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x De Colle, F., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Granot, J., &

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x 1998

  8. [8]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/57

    Lopez-Camara, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/57

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/1/57 2012

  9. [9]

    2015, ApJ, 805, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/163

    Deng, W., Li, H., Zhang, B., & Li, S. 2015, ApJ, 805, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/163

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/163 2015

  10. [10]

    Dermer, C. D. 2004, ApJ, 614, 284, doi: 10.1086/426532

    work page doi:10.1086/426532 2004

  11. [11]

    Dyks, J., Zhang, B., & Fan, Y. Z. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0511699

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0511699 2005

  12. [12]

    E., Madras, C

    Fenimore, E. E., Madras, C. D., & Nayakshin, S. 1996, ApJ, 473, 998, doi: 10.1086/178210

    work page doi:10.1086/178210 1996

  13. [13]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  14. [14]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R., et al. 2001, ApJL, 562, L55, doi: 10.1086/338119

    work page doi:10.1086/338119 2001

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    S., Paragi, Z., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aau8815 2019

  17. [17]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1086, doi: 10.1086/375489

    Granot, J., & Kumar, P. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1086, doi: 10.1086/375489

    work page doi:10.1086/375489 2003

  18. [18]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, no, doi: 10/fznj67

    Granot, J., & Piran, T. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, no, doi: 10/fznj67

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    1999, ApJ, 513, 679, doi: 10.1086/306884

    Granot, J., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 679, doi: 10.1086/306884

    work page doi:10.1086/306884 1999

  20. [20]

    A., Bloom, J

    Harrison, F. A., Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., et al. 1999, ApJL, 523, L121, doi: 10.1086/312282

    work page doi:10.1086/312282 1999

  21. [21]

    Huang, Y.-F., Lu, Y., Wong, A. Y. L., & Cheng, K. S. 2007, ChJA&A, 7, 397, doi: 10.1088/1009-9271/7/3/09

    work page doi:10.1088/1009-9271/7/3/09 2007

  22. [22]

    F., Wu, X

    Huang, Y. F., Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Ma, H. T., & Lu, T. 2004, ApJ, 605, 300, doi: 10.1086/382202

    work page doi:10.1086/382202 2004

  23. [23]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1075, doi: 10.1086/375186

    Kumar, P., & Granot, J. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1075, doi: 10.1086/375186

    work page doi:10.1086/375186 2003

  24. [24]

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

    Kumar, P., & Narayan, R. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 472, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14539.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14539.x 2009

  25. [25]

    2000a, ApJL, 541, L9, doi: 10.1086/312888 —

    Kumar, P., & Panaitescu, A. 2000a, ApJL, 541, L9, doi: 10.1086/312888 —. 2000b, ApJL, 541, L51, doi: 10.1086/312905

    work page doi:10.1086/312888

  26. [26]

    2000, ApJ, 535, 152, doi: 10.1086/308847 LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al

    Kumar, P., & Piran, T. 2000, ApJ, 535, 152, doi: 10.1086/308847 LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 1390, doi: 10.1126/science.adg9328

    work page doi:10.1086/308847 2000

  27. [27]

    Q., Wen, X

    Li, X. Q., Wen, X. Y., An, Z. H., et al. 2022, Radiation Detection Technology and Methods, 6, 12, doi: 10.1007/s41605-021-00288-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s41605-021-00288-z 2022

  28. [28]

    M., Dai, X., & Zhang, B

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., Dai, X., & Zhang, B. 2004, ApJ, 601, 371, doi: 10.1086/380483

    work page doi:10.1086/380483 2004

  29. [29]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3292, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu457

    Lundman, C., Pe’er, A., & Ryde, F. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3292, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu457

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu457 2014

  30. [30]

    Meegan, G

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791 13 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1997, ApJL, 482, L29, doi: 10.1086/310692 —. 1999, MNRAS, 306, L39, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02800.x —. 2000, ApJ, 530, 292, doi: 10.1086/308371 M´ esz´ aros, P., Rees, M. J., & Wijers, R. A. M. J. 1998, ApJ, 499, 301, ...

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/791 2009

  31. [31]

    C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00693.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397L.101I 397, L101

    Narayan, R., & Kumar, P. 2009, MNRAS, 394, L117, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00624.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00624.x 2009

  32. [32]

    P., Bonnell, J

    Norris, J. P., Bonnell, J. T., Kazanas, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 627, 324, doi: 10.1086/430294

    work page doi:10.1086/430294 2005

  33. [33]

    2019, A&A, 628, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935766

    Celotti, A. 2019, A&A, 628, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935766

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935766 2019

  34. [34]

    1994, ApJ, 427, 708, doi: 10.1086/174178 Pal’shin, V

    Paczynski, B., & Xu, G. 1994, ApJ, 427, 708, doi: 10.1086/174178 Pal’shin, V. D., Hurley, K., Svinkin, D. S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 38, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/38

    work page doi:10.1086/174178 1994

  35. [35]

    1999, ApJ, 526, 707, doi: 10.1086/308005

    Panaitescu, A., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 1999, ApJ, 526, 707, doi: 10.1086/308005

    work page doi:10.1086/308005 1999

  36. [36]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 966, doi: 10.1086/430045

    Peng, F., K¨ onigl, A., & Granot, J. 2005, ApJ, 626, 966, doi: 10.1086/430045

    work page doi:10.1086/430045 2005

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    J., & Meszaros, P

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

    work page doi:10.1086/187446 1994

  39. [39]

    Rhoads, J. E. 1997, ApJL, 487, L1, doi: 10.1086/310876 —. 1999, ApJ, 525, 737, doi: 10.1086/307907

    work page doi:10.1086/310876 1997

  40. [40]

    Rossi, E., Lazzati, D., & Rees, M. J. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 945, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x 2002

  41. [41]

    T., Ogilvie G

    Rossi, E. M., Perna, R., & Daigne, F. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 675, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13736.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13736.x 2008

  42. [42]

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

    work page doi:10.1086/312109 1999

  43. [43]

    W., Yang, J., et al

    Sun, H., Wang, C. W., Yang, J., et al. 2025, National Science Review, 12, nwae401, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwae401

    work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwae401 2025

  44. [44]

    L., & Zhang, B

    Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2015, ApJ, 808, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/33 —. 2016, ApJ, 825, 97, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/97

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/33 2015

  45. [45]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add522

    Wang, C.-W., Tan, W.-J., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2025, ApJL, 985, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add522

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add522 2025

  46. [46]

    1997, ApJL, 491, L19, doi: 10.1086/311057

    Waxman, E. 1997, ApJL, 491, L19, doi: 10.1086/311057

    work page doi:10.1086/311057 1997

  47. [47]

    Wijers, R. A. M. J., Rees, M. J., & Meszaros, P. 1997, MNRAS, 288, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/288.4.L51

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/288.4.l51 1997

  48. [48]

    Winkler, C., Courvoisier, T. J. L., Di Cocco, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031288

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031288 2003

  49. [49]

    2001, Nature, 414, 853, doi: 10.1038/414853a

    Woosley, S. 2001, Nature, 414, 853, doi: 10.1038/414853a

    work page doi:10.1038/414853a 2001

  50. [50]

    A., okas E

    Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Huang, Y. F., & Lu, T. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1197, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08685.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08685.x 2005

  51. [51]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad14fb

    Yan, Z.-Y., Yang, J., Zhao, X.-H., Meng, Y.-Z., & Zhang, B.-B. 2024, ApJ, 962, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad14fb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad14fb 2024

  52. [52]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc84b

    Yang, J., Zhao, X.-H., Yan, Z., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc84b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc84b 2023

  53. [53]

    2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    Yang, Y.-H., Troja, E., O’Connor, B., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5 2024

  54. [54]

    S., Xiong, S.-L., & Zhang, S.-N

    Yi, S.-X., Yorgancioglu, E. S., Xiong, S.-L., & Zhang, S.-N. 2025a, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 47, 100359, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100359

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100359 2025

  55. [55]

    X., Wang, C

    Yi, S. X., Wang, C. W., Shao, X., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 985, 239, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcf98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcf98

  56. [56]

    M., & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Zhang, B., Dai, X., Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2004, ApJL, 601, L119, doi: 10.1086/382132

    work page doi:10.1086/382132 2004

  57. [57]

    2002a, ApJ, 571, 876, doi: 10.1086/339981

    Zhang, B., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2002, ApJ, 571, 876, doi: 10.1086/339981

    work page doi:10.1086/339981 2002

  58. [58]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    Zhang, B., & Yan, H. 2011, ApJ, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/90 2011

  59. [59]

    J., et al

    Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Virgili, F. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1696

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1696 2009

  60. [60]

    2023, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1056, 168586, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2023.168586 14 APPENDIX A

    Zhang, D., Zheng, C., Liu, J., et al. 2023, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 1056, 168586, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2023.168586 14 APPENDIX A. THE DEFINITIONS OF THE KEY TIMES T able A.1. The definitions of the key times Name Definition Reference frame tobs the time after the trigger of the burst observer frame tobs,0 the duration of a sh...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2023.168586 2023