Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Depolarization by jet precession in early optical afterglows of gamma-ray bursts

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A precessing, structured jet explains the low polarization degrees measured in early gamma-ray burst afterglows.

desk verdict A plausible extension of the precession-depolarization mechanism, with a real parameter study and first sample comparison, but the small-viewing-angle inference rests on an untested four-sub-jet discretization. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15917 v1 pith:SCARCFOT submitted 2024-11-24 astro-ph.HE

Bao-Quan Huang , Tong Liu , Guo-Yu Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstspolarimetryshocksrelativisticjetsjetprecessionpolarizationdegreeearlyopticalafterglowsreverseshock
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 afterglows in their first hundreds to thousands of seconds are expected to emit highly polarized light if their jets carry large-scale ordered magnetic fields, yet observed polarization degrees are mostly below ten percent. The paper argues that jet precession can resolve this tension: when the jet axis swings around a precession axis, the light reaching the observer is a superposition of contributions from several sub-jets whose Stokes vectors partially cancel. In the model, the net polarization falls below ten percent for an observer looking almost straight down the precession axis, and stays near the no-precession value of about sixty percent for observers at three degrees or more. Comparing the predicted curves with sixteen measured early afterglows, the paper finds that the low observed values favor a viewing angle near one degree, making precession a viable alternative to other depolarization mechanisms.

What carries the argument

The central object is a precessing top-hat jet represented as a series of discrete sub-jets spaced along the precession path. The precession geometry is set by the precession angle, the angle between the jet axis and the precession axis, and the angular separation between adjacent sub-jets, which together fix the number of sub-jets per period; the fiducial choice gives four sub-jets. Each sub-jet drives its own forward and reverse shock system, and the polarization of each blast wave is computed in its own frame, rotated into a global frame whose Z-axis is the line of sight, and summed as Stokes parameters. The cancellation of the Stokes vectors from this symmetric set of blast waves is what lowers the net polarization degree.

What would settle it

Measure the early optical polarization of a gamma-ray burst whose jet is independently known to point nearly at the observer, for example a short burst with a gravitational-wave counterpart viewed on-axis: the model predicts a polarization degree below about ten percent at zero viewing angle, whereas the no-precession case predicts about sixty percent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low polarization degrees measured in the early optical afterglows of gamma-ray bursts, which are much lower than the roughly sixty percent expected from reverse-shock emission with ordered magnetic fields, can be produced by jet precession without invoking tangled fields or other depolarizing agents. The mechanism is geometric: precession breaks the jet into a set of sub-jets arranged symmetrically around the precession axis, and the polarization vectors contributed by each blast wave cancel in the sum over Stokes parameters. The amount of cancellation is governed chiefly by the observer's angle to the precession axis: at zero degrees the computed polarization degree drops below ten percent, while at three degrees it is about sixty percent, close to the no-precession case. Applied to a sample of sixteen gamma-ray bursts with early optical polarization measurements, the model curves encompass most of the measured polarization degrees for a viewing angle near one degree, which the authors interpret as evidence that precession is a plausible origin of the low values, while noting that no individual burst can be firmly attributed to precession without direct observational evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The result that polarization nearly cancels at small viewing angles depends on modeling the precessing jet as just four discrete sub-jets per precession cycle, with the precession angle equal to the jet opening angle; a continuous sweep or a smaller precession angle could plausibly change the net polarization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At small viewing angles, roughly two degrees or less, jet precession reduces the early-afterglow polarization degree below about ten percent even when the jet carries large-scale ordered magnetic fields.
  • The low observed polarization degrees in the sixteen-burst sample are consistent with a viewing angle near one degree, so precession offers an alternative to depolarization by tangled magnetic fields or other agents.
  • The aligned and toroidal magnetic field configurations give nearly the same result, so polarization alone may not distinguish the field geometry if precession is the dominant depolarization mechanism.
  • Under precession the polarization degree decays with time during the reverse-shock-dominated phase, a trend not present without precession, and longer precession periods yield higher polarization.
  • Because precession reshapes a top-hat jet into a structured jet, a precessing-jet interpretation connects low early-afterglow polarization to the broader question of how structured jets arise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The load-bearing approximation is the discretization of the precessing jet into only four sub-jets per period; a continuous precession sweep or a precession angle smaller than the jet opening angle could give a different net polarization, so the result should be tested against finer discretizations.
  • Independent measurements of a burst's viewing angle, for example from gravitational-wave counterparts or jet-break observations, could directly test the explanation: an on-axis event should show a very low polarization degree, near or below ten percent.
  • The same geometric cancellation of Stokes vectors would apply to any symmetric multi-component jet, not only a precessing one, so low polarization may be a generic diagnostic of jet substructure rather than a unique signature of precession.
  • The paper's top-hat sub-jets with uniform energy density likely set an upper bound on the depolarization effect, since a structured jet with a brighter core would presumably produce even lower net polarization.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes jet precession as a depolarization mechanism for the low polarization degrees (PDs) measured in early optical afterglows of gamma-ray bursts. It models the precessing jet as a series of discrete sub-jets, computes the PD of reverse-shock emission with ordered magnetic fields (aligned and toroidal), and compares the results with a compiled sample of 16 GRBs. The central claim is that the PD is very sensitive to the observer angle: at θobs = 0°–1° the PD drops to ≲10–30%, which the authors argue matches the measured low PDs and implies small viewing angles for the sample.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper offers an observationally relevant alternative to other depolarization mechanisms and connects jet precession to the long-standing puzzle of low afterglow PDs. The paper compiles a useful sample of early optical polarization measurements and shows, through straightforward Stokes summation, how geometric cancellation among sub-jets can reduce polarization. The parameter trends (e.g., PD increasing with precession period, decreasing with smaller θobs) are plausible. However, the quantitative conclusion rests on a coarse four-sub-jet discretization of the precession path, and the data comparison is made by eye without a statistical treatment. These issues currently limit the strength of the paper's main inference.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.2 and Figure 2] The comparison between the theoretical PD curves and the observed PDs is made visually. The theoretical curves have no uncertainties, and upper limits (blue downward arrows) are shown alongside detections without a statistical treatment. The statement that 'the measured PDs generally support a small angle of θobs around 1°' is not supported by a quantitative fit or likelihood. Please add a statistical comparison that accounts for measurement errors and upper limits, or at least state explicitly that the inference is qualitative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, last paragraph] The word 'lunimosity' should be 'luminosity'.
  2. [Table 1 caption and §3] 'Isotopic gamma-ray energies' should be 'isotropic gamma-ray energies'.
  3. [§4.2] The phrase 'a-GRB' in 'any specific a-GRB' appears to be a typo; 'a GRB' or 'specific GRB' is intended.
  4. [§2 and §5] The dynamical and polarization calculation procedures are largely taken from Huang & Liu (2022); the paper should more clearly state which elements are new in the present work beyond applying the previous model to a new data sample.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization model is a forward calculation with fixed fiducial parameters, and the observed PDs are compared after the fact rather than used to set the model.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined here. The precession geometry, dynamics, and Stokes-vector summation are fixed before any data comparison: Section 4 sets fiducial values (L_ej, Gamma_ej, sigma_ej, n, theta_j, T, t_end, epsilon_e,r) and computes PD curves for theta_obs = 0, 1, 2, and 3 degrees. The 16-GRB sample in Table 1 is then overplotted on the theoretical curves (Figures 2 and 4); the measured PDs are not used to fit or adjust any model parameter. The statement that 'the measured low PDs favor a small [theta_obs]' is a qualitative model-data comparison, not a fitted input recycled as a prediction. The only potentially questionable choice is the discretization of the precession path into four sub-jets via theta_int = 7 degrees, but this is an openly stated modeling assumption, not an equation that reduces an output to an input; its convergence with respect to more sub-jets is a physical-robustness question, not circularity. The repeated citation of Huang & Liu (2022) for the dynamical and polarization machinery is a self-citation, but that prior paper is a published, externally checkable model and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the central conclusion. Thus no load-bearing step reduces by definition to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on a set of fiducial model parameters inherited from the authors' earlier work and on the assumption that reverse-shock emission with large-scale ordered fields is the relevant polarization source. No new physical entities are introduced; the sub-jets are a discretization of the precession path. The comparison with data uses the Liang et al. (2010) empirical Lorentz factor correlation, so the Γej values in Figure 4 are not independent measurements.

free parameters (11)
  • Sub-jet angular separation θint = 7 degrees
    Chosen so the precession path is filled by discrete sub-jets with small overlap; with θp = 5° it gives 4 sub-jets per period, directly setting the cancellation geometry.
  • Precession angle θp = 5 degrees (equal to θj)
    Assumed constant and equal to the jet half-opening angle; controls the angular spread of sub-jets and hence the level of polarization cancellation.
  • Precession period T = 10 s (source frame)
    Fiducial precession period; PD increases with T, so all quoted polarization levels depend on this choice.
  • Jet half-opening angle θj = 5 degrees
    Top-hat jet half-opening angle; also sets θp in the fiducial run.
  • Observer angle θobs = 0, 1, 2, 3 degrees
    Observer angle varied to show sensitivity; the conclusion that low PDs favor small θobs depends on this grid.
  • Engine luminosity Lej = 1e50 erg/s
    Fiducial engine luminosity; affects blast-wave distances and the anisotropy that survives cancellation.
  • Initial Lorentz factor Γej = 200 (fiducial); sample values via Liang et al. (2010)
    Fiducial initial Lorentz factor; Figure 4 uses per-GRB estimates from Γej ≈ 182(Eγ,iso/1e52)^0.25.
  • Magnetization σej = 0.1
    Fiducial magnetization; PD decreases as σej increases (Figure 3c).
  • Circumburst density n = 1 cm^-3
    Fiducial ISM number density; not varied in the main parameter study.
  • Electron energy fraction εe,r = 0.1
    Fiducial electron energy fraction in the reverse shock; shown not to affect PD in the model.
  • Jet duration tend = 1000 s
    Fiducial ejecta duration; PD depends on tend until it exceeds the observer time of interest.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Top-hat jet with no sideways expansion
    Section 4: 'We consider a top-hat jet with a half-opening angle θj without sideways expansion.' All sub-jet geometries are built from this.
  • domain assumption RS emission is synchrotron radiation from a large-scale ordered magnetic field advected from the central engine
    Section 2 restricts the calculation to RS origin and assumes FS emission is unpolarized; the depolarization mechanism only applies under this assumption.
  • domain assumption Unshocked ISM is non-magnetized and ejecta magnetic field lines are parallel to the shock plane
    Section 2, inherited from the Ai & Zhang (2021) dynamical model; sets the polarization geometry of each blast wave.
  • domain assumption Blast-wave dynamics follow Ai & Zhang (2021), with late-time evolution described by the Blandford-McKee self-similar solution
    Section 2: the dynamical model and self-similar solution determine the positions and Lorentz factors of the blast waves used in the Stokes summation.
  • standard math Stokes parameters from independent blast waves add linearly in the observer frame
    Section 2: total polarization is the superposition of Stokes parameters in a global coordinate system; this is standard but essential for the cancellation effect.
  • domain assumption The Liang et al. (2010) empirical correlation between Γej and Eγ,iso applies to the sample
    Section 3: Γej ≈ 182(Eγ,iso/1e52)^0.25 is used to place the GRBs in Figure 4; if the correlation is biased, the inferred Lorentz factors shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Depolarization by jet precession in early optical afterglows of gamma-ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCARCFOT

@misc{pith2026241115917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Depolarization by jet precession in early optical afterglows of gamma-ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCARCFOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15917}
}
abstract

Polarization observations provide a unique way to probe the nature of jet magnetic fields in gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). Currently, some GRBs have been detected to be polarized in their early optical afterglows. However, the measured polarization degrees (PDs) of these GRBs are much lower than those predicted by theoretical models. In this work, we investigate the depolarization induced by jet precession in combination with the measured PDs of the GRB early optical afterglows in the reverse shock (RS) dominated phase ($\sim 10^2-10^3 \,{\rm s}$). We calculate the PDs of RS emission with and without jet precession in both magnetic field configurations, i.e., aligned and toroidal magnetic fields, and meanwhile explore the effect of different parameters on the PDs. We find that the PDs are slightly affected by the configurations of the ordered magnetic fields and are positively related to the precession period. Moreover, the PDs are sensitive to the observed angle and the measured low PDs favor a small one. Thus, as one of the plausible origins of the structured jets, jet precession could be considered as an alternative mechanism for the low PDs observed in GRB early optical afterglows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15917 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of jet precession. ated directly by the FSs (e.g., Jordana-Mitjans et al. 2021; Kuwata et al. 2023) or the magnetic field in the circumburst medium compressed by the FSs (e.g., Teboul & Shaviv 2021). Meanwhile, in the RS frame, if the large-scale ordered magnetic fields from the cen￾tral engines are not considered to exist in GRB jets, there will be not high polarization in RS emission and the low … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PDs evolution of GRB early optical afterglows with observed time. The left and right panels show the results for the AMF and TMF, respectively. The red, yellow, green, and purple lines denote the results of jet precession with θobs = 0◦ , 1 ◦ , 2◦ , and 3◦ , respectively, and the black dashed lines indicate the results without jet precession at the viewing angle of 1◦ . The observed data listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PDs of GRB early optical afterglows evolving with different parameters at θobs = 1◦ and t = 500 s, including the initial Lorentz factor Γej, the jet luminosity Lej, the magnetization parameter σej, the fraction of the internal energy density in the RS downstream shared by electrons εe,r, the precession period of the jets T , the duration of the jets tend, and the redshift z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PDs versus Lorentz factors in the GRB early optical afterglows. The left and right panels show the results with θobs = 0◦ and 1◦ , respectively. The estimated Lorentz factors are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    adobe:ns:meta/

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al.\ 2017, , 848, L12. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  3. [3]

    Varying linear polarisation in the dust-free GRB 210610B

    Ag \"u \' Fern \'a ndez, J. F., de Ugarte Postigo, A., Th \"o ne, C. C., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2403.02312. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.02312

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.02312 2024

  4. [4]

    & Zhang, B.\ 2021, , 507, 1788

    Ai, S. & Zhang, B.\ 2021, , 507, 1788. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2000

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2000 2021

  5. [5]

    S., et al.\ 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 134

    Arimoto, M., Asano, K., Kawabata, K. S., et al.\ 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 134. doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02119-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02119-1 2024

  6. [6]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Bagnulo, S., Britto, R. J., et al.\ 2021, , 506, 4621. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1791

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1791 2021

  7. [7]

    R., Bloom, J

    Butler, N. R., Bloom, J. S., & Poznanski, D.\ 2010, , 711, 495. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/495

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/1/495 2010

  8. [8]

    R., Kocevski, D., Bloom, J

    Butler, N. R., Kocevski, D., Bloom, J. S., et al.\ 2007, , 671, 656. doi:10.1086/522492

    doi:10.1086/522492 2007

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    & Liu, X.-W.\ 2021, , 504, 1759

    Chen, Q. & Liu, X.-W.\ 2021, , 504, 1759. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab946

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

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

    1998 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    Ghirlanda, G., Nappo, F., Ghisellini, G., et al.\ 2018, , 609, A112. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731598

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    A.\ 2008, , 478, 747

    Giannios, D., Mimica, P., & Aloy, M. A.\ 2008, , 478, 747. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078931

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    & Granot, J.\ 2018, , 478, 4128

    Gill, R. & Granot, J.\ 2018, , 478, 4128. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.3390/galaxies9040082

    Gill, R., Kole, M., & Granot, J.\ 2021, Galaxies, 9, 82. doi:10.3390/galaxies9040082

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., et al.\ 2018, , 479, 588. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    & K \"o nigl, A.\ 2003, , 594, L83

    Granot, J. & K \"o nigl, A.\ 2003, , 594, L83. doi:10.1086/378733

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    & Kumar, P.\ 2003, , 591, 1086

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

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    & Waxman, E.\ 1999, , 511, 852

    Gruzinov, A. & Waxman, E.\ 1999, , 511, 852. doi:10.1086/306720

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1426

    Huang, B.-Q., Lin, D.-B., Liu, T., et al.\ 2019, , 487, 3214. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1426

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    & Liu, T.\ 2022, , 933, 103

    Huang, B.-Q. & Liu, T.\ 2022, , 933, 103. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac752a

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/84

    Japelj, J., Kopa c , D., Kobayashi, S., et al.\ 2014, , 785, 84. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/84

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Kobayashi, S., et al.\ 2020, , 892, 97

    Jordana-Mitjans, N., Mundell, C. G., Kobayashi, S., et al.\ 2020, , 892, 97. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7248

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    G., Smith, R

    Jordana-Mitjans, N., Mundell, C. G., Smith, R. J., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 2662. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1003

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    G., Blinov, D., Giannios, D., et al.\ 2014, , 445, L114

    King, O. G., Blinov, D., Giannios, D., et al.\ 2014, , 445, L114. doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu149

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    G., Japelj, J., et al.\ 2015, , 813, 1

    Kopa c , D., Mundell, C. G., Japelj, J., et al.\ 2015, , 813, 1. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/1

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    S., et al.\ 2023, , 943, 118

    Kuwata, A., Toma, K., Kimura, S. S., et al.\ 2023, , 943, 118. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acac88

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf41d

    Lan, M.-X., Geng, J.-J., Wu, X.-F., et al.\ 2019a, , 870, 96. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf41d

    doi

  20. [28]

    D., Gill, R., et al.\ 2019, , 878, L26

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

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2606

    Li, J.-D., Gao, H., Ai, S., et al.\ 2023, , 525, 6285. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2606

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2209

    Liang, E.-W., Yi, S.-X., Zhang, J., et al.\ 2010, , 725, 2209. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2209

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001

    Liu, T., Gu, W.-M., & Zhang, B.\ 2017, , 79, 1. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2017.07.001

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e4f

    Liu, T., Song, C.-Y., Zhang, B., et al.\ 2018, , 852, 20. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e4f

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Ansoldi, S., et al.\ 2019, , 575, 455

    MAGIC Collaboration, Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., et al.\ 2019, , 575, 455. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1750-x

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    R., et al.\ 2023, , 670, A144

    Mandarakas, N., Blinov, D., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., et al.\ 2023, , 670, A144. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244802

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Dean, A

    McGlynn, S., Clark, D. J., Dean, A. J., et al.\ 2007, , 466, 895. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066179

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Kopa c , D., Arnold, D

    Mundell, C. G., Kopa c , D., Arnold, D. M., et al.\ 2013, , 504, 119. doi:10.1038/nature12814

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    G., Steele, I

    Mundell, C. G., Steele, I. A., Smith, R. J., et al.\ 2007, Science, 315, 1822. doi:10.1126/science.1138484

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    Negro, M., Di Lalla, N., Omodei, N., et al.\ 2023, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 55, 109.07

    2023

  31. [39]

    M., Lazzati, D., Salmonson, J

    Rossi, E. M., Lazzati, D., Salmonson, J. D., et al.\ 2004, , 354, 86. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08165.x

    2004

  32. [40]

    A., Kobayashi, S., et al.\ 2022, , 516, 1584

    Shrestha, M., Steele, I. A., Kobayashi, S., et al.\ 2022, , 516, 1584. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2211

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    & Liu, T.\ 2023, , 952, 156

    Song, C.-Y. & Liu, T.\ 2023, , 952, 156. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd6ee

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Kopa c , D., Arnold, D

    Steele, I. A., Kopa c , D., Arnold, D. M., et al.\ 2017, , 843, 143. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa79a2

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Mundell, C

    Steele, I. A., Mundell, C. G., Smith, R. J., et al.\ 2009, , 462, 767. doi:10.1038/nature08590

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    & Lazzati, D.\ 2020, , 892, 131

    Stringer, E. & Lazzati, D.\ 2020, , 892, 131. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab76d2

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    & Shaviv, N

    Teboul, O. & Shaviv, N. J.\ 2021, , 507, 5340. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2491

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a52

    Tuo, J.-C., Liu, H.-B., Mai, Q.-N., et al.\ 2024, , 973, 113. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a52

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    S., et al.\ 2012, , 752, L6

    Uehara, T., Toma, K., Kawabata, K. S., et al.\ 2012, , 752, L6. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L6

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8a53

    Yi, S.-X., Wu, X.-F., Zou, Y.-C., et al.\ 2020, , 895, 94. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8a53

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/L1

    Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Gunji, S., et al.\ 2012, , 758, L1. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/L1

    2012 doi

  42. [50]

    Zhang, B.\ 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Burstss (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press). doi:10.1017/9781139226530

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    & Kobayashi, S.\ 2005, , 628, 315

    Zhang, B. & Kobayashi, S.\ 2005, , 628, 315. doi:10.1086/429787

    2005 doi

  44. [52]

    & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2002, , 571, 876

    Zhang, B. & M \'e sz \'a ros, P.\ 2002, , 571, 876. doi:10.1086/339981

    2002 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.