Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Unraveling the Origins of GRB X-ray Plateaus through a Study of X-ray Flares

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the statistical properties of X-ray flares in gamma-ray bursts are identical whether or not the burst's light curve shows a plateau, and uses that equality to narrow down why plateaus form.

desk verdict A useful new comparison of flare properties in plateau vs non-plateau GRBs, undermined by a headline inconsistency (w/tpk ≈ 1 vs measured ~1.7) and overstated statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11533 v1 pith:5QN6FEZN submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.HE

H. Dereli-Bégué (1) , A. Pe'er (1) , D. Bégué (1) , F. Ryde (2) ((1) Bar-Ilan University , (2) KTH Royal Institute of Technology) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords Gamma-rayburstsX-rayflaresplateausLightcurvesRelativisticjetsLorentzfactorNon-thermalradiationAstronomydataanalysis
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

This paper analyzes X-ray flares in gamma-ray bursts to test why some bursts show a flat 'plateau' phase in their early X-ray light curve. Splitting a spectroscopically selected sample of bursts into those with and without a plateau, the authors find that the distributions of flare peak times, widths, energies, and variability are statistically indistinguishable between the two groups, with the width-to-peak ratio staying of order unity. They argue this similarity is difficult to reconcile with plateau models based on late-time energy injection or on observing a structured jet off-axis, because both would predict later or narrower flares in plateau bursts. Instead the result supports a model in which plateau bursts have jets whose Lorentz factor reaches only a few tens, rather than a few hundreds, so that flare-producing dissipation occurs at smaller radii while observed flare times stay the same. If right, it would mean a substantial fraction of gamma-ray burst jets are less extreme than usually assumed, with implications for how jets are accelerated and what progenitors produce them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the dimensionless ratio $w/t_{\rm pk}$, the flare width measured at half maximum in log-flux space divided by the time the flare peaks: both are directly fixed by the best-fit light-curve model. Flares are represented by the named Norris function, an asymmetric pulse with exponential rise and decay, embedded in fits of 36 physically motivated afterglow models (wind or constant-density medium; with or without steep decay and jet break; zero, one, or two flares), with model choice made by Bayesian evidence and the corrected Akaike information criterion. The physical identity that carries the argument is the radius–time cancellation for internal dissipation: collisions in an outflow with variability timescale $\delta t$ occur at radius $r \sim \Gamma^2 c\,\delta t$, while the observer sees them at $t_{\rm obs} \sim r/\Gamma^2 c$, so the Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ drops out and low-$\Gamma$ and high-$\Gamma$ jets can produce flares at statistically identical observed times.

What would settle it

Re-fit the full 100-burst sample without dropping the 11 bursts listed in Appendix B (including GRB 221009A and GRB 190114C) and repeat the Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests on $t_{\rm pk}$ and $w/t_{\rm pk}$; if the plateau and non-plateau groups then separate at $p<0.05$, the claimed distributional match is an artifact of the sample cut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the flare populations in gamma-ray bursts are the same whether or not the burst's X-ray light curve contains a plateau. From a spectroscopically selected sample of 100 bursts observed by an X-ray telescope, 11 are set aside because their flares were misidentified, leaving 89; 61 of these show flares and 57 show plateaus, with flare rates of 73% (42/57) and 59% (19/32) respectively. For the 65 flares in plateau bursts and the 32 flares in non-plateau bursts, Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests give $p = 0.18$ for peak time $t_{\rm pk}$, $p = 0.92$ for width, $p = 0.96$ for isotropic energy, $p = 0.88$ for the width-to-peak ratio $w/t_{\rm pk}$, and $p = 0.99$ for flux variability, leading the authors to conclude the two subsamples come from one population. The ratio $w/t_{\rm pk}$ is of order unity in both groups (logarithmic means $0.25\pm0.07$ and $0.22\pm0.09$). The paper then argues that this equality of flare timing and shape is hard to reconcile with plateau models based on late energy injection or off-axis viewing, and instead supports a coasting-phase model in which plateau bursts have terminal Lorentz factors of a few tens.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 11 bursts excluded from the sample were dropped for reasons unrelated to their flare properties; if their very wide and energetic flares were included, the two distributions might no longer match.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Flare production and plateau production are independent: the presence of flares tells nothing about whether a burst will show a plateau, and vice versa.
  • Late-time energy injection as the plateau cause is disfavored, since it would make plateau-burst flares occur later or narrower than the equal $t_{\rm pk}$ and $w/t_{\rm pk}$ observed.
  • Off-axis viewing of a structured jet is disfavored, since Doppler deboosting would delay flare peak times in plateau bursts, contrary to observation.
  • Low-Lorentz-factor jets of a few tens remain as a viable plateau origin: dissipation at smaller radii yields the same observed flare times because the Lorentz factor cancels in $t_{\rm obs}\sim r/\Gamma^2 c$.
  • A testable prediction follows: plateau bursts with long, flat plateaus should show no GeV emission and no strong thermal component.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A larger sample with denser early light-curve coverage could resolve whether the hints of bimodality in $w/t_{\rm pk}$ correspond to two distinct flare classes; the present sample is too small to settle that.
  • The same $w/t_{\rm pk}$ comparison applied to optical and ultraviolet flares would test whether the plateau-independence is a property of the jet as a whole or specific to the X-ray band.
  • If low Lorentz factors are common, GeV-bright plateau bursts would be a direct counter-example worth checking against existing high-energy catalogs; the paper notes the model predicts no GeV emission for long flat plateaus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes X-ray light curves of 100 Swift GRBs, fitting physically motivated afterglow models with Norris-function flares via MultiNest and selecting models with Bayesian evidence and AICc. The final sample contains 89 GRBs, 61 of which have flares; these are split into 65 flares from 42 bursts with an X-ray plateau and 32 flares from 19 bursts without one. The authors report that the distributions of peak time, width, isotropic energy, flux variability, and especially the width-to-peak-time ratio w/tpk are statistically indistinguishable between the two subsamples, and they interpret w/tpk ≈ 1 as evidence against viewing-angle and late-energy-injection explanations and as independent support for their low-Lorentz-factor (Γ ~ tens) coasting-phase model of plateaus.

Significance. If the central result were robust, it would be a valuable observational discriminator for plateau models: the comparison is not circular, since flare properties are measured from the light-curve fits before the low-Lorentz interpretation is applied, and the sample selection and fitting procedure are described in sufficient detail to be reproduced. The paper also contains a useful comparison with previous flaring studies. However, the main quantitative claim suffers from an internal inconsistency in the reported value of w/tpk, the statistical evidence for identical populations is weaker than claimed, and the handling of 11 excluded extreme bursts may bias the sample. These issues currently prevent full confidence in the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3.1; §4; §5; §6] The paper's headline 'w/tpk ≈ 1' is inconsistent with the values reported in §3.1. The text reports ⟨log10 w/tpk⟩ = 0.25 ± 0.07 and 0.22 ± 0.09, which correspond to 1.78 and 1.66 in linear scale, and §4 explicitly states 'approximately 0.25 ± 0.07 (1.78 linear scale) and 0.22 ± 0.09 (1.66 linear scale)'. Yet the abstract, §5 point (2), and §6 state that w/tpk ≈ 1. The physical argument in §5 ('The constant ratio (w/tpk ≈ 1) is a strong indication...') and the comparison with Lazzati & Perna (2007, w/tpk ∼ 0.83) both depend on the numerical value. The authors must either report the corrected central value and re-evaluate the support for their model, or justify why a value near 1.7 is described as ≈1 (e.g., if the median or a different width definition gives unity).
  2. [§3.1] The KS tests are used to conclude that the two subsamples 'originate from the same population'. With 65 and 32 flares, the KS test has limited power; for example, the tpk test gives D = 0.23 with p = 0.18, which is consistent with no difference but does not demonstrate identical distributions. In addition, the caption of Figure 2 notes bimodality in w/tpk, suggesting a possible mixture that a two-sample KS test is not designed to exclude. I ask the authors to provide a practical effect-size measure (e.g., 95% confidence intervals on the difference of means or medians, or a Bayesian model comparison / power calculation) before claiming population identity.
  3. [§2.4 and Appendix B] The exclusion of 11 GRBs from the sample is load-bearing. Table B0 shows that the excluded bursts have flare widths up to 0.8×10^8 s and isotropic energies up to 10^53 erg, and they include well-known extreme bursts such as GRB 221009A and 190114C. If these bursts were removed because their flares were 'misidentified', it is essential to verify that this removal is not itself correlated with the flare properties under study. Otherwise, the remaining sample may be biased against wide, late, or very energetic flares, which would directly affect the comparison of w/tpk and Eiso,f. Please show the results with a conservative alternative treatment (e.g., allowing a separate component for those flares, or presenting the distributions with the excluded flares overlaid).
  4. [§3.2] The reported correlation-fit uncertainties, r = 0.87 ± 4.2×10^-5 and r = 0.97 ± 5.9×10^-5, are unrealistically small and likely reflect a fit that ignores intrinsic scatter and measurement uncertainties. Since the text uses this correlation as independent evidence for the similarity of flare properties, the authors should quote uncertainties that account for both sources, e.g., from bootstrap or from a model that includes intrinsic dispersion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2] There is a typographical error in the sentence defining the two half-maximum times: '¯t2 > ¯t11' should presumably read '¯t2 > ¯t1'.
  2. [§2.2 and §4] The width definition appears inconsistent: §2.2 states that the width is defined from the half-maximum points in log-space, while §4 says 'in this model, the width w is defined as the distance between two points where the function has dropped to 37% (or 1/e) of its peak value.' Please reconcile these statements, since this affects the interpretation of w/tpk.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'bimodal distributions are observed' while the text in §3.1 more cautiously says the data 'may indicate a possible existence of two populations'. Please make the caption consistent with the more cautious language.
  4. [Appendix C] Table C1 is dense and difficult to read; a machine-readable version would improve usability and reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flare properties are measured directly from Swift-XRT fits and compared across plateau classes, with no parameter fitted to the low-Lorentz model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained on the observational side. Flare peak times, widths, energies, and width-to-peak ratios are obtained from Norris-function fits to Swift-XRT light curves, and the with/without-plateau comparison is made through KS tests and mean values; none of these quantities is fitted to the low-Lorentz model or derived from it. The interpretive claim that the similar flare properties 'provide an independent support' to the low-Lorentz plateau model of Dereli-Begué et al. (2022) is a consistency argument based on a generic scaling (r ~ Gamma^2 c delta_t and t ~ r/Gamma^2 c), and the cited model is externally published work with falsifiable predictions rather than an input to the flare fits. Two non-circular concerns should be weighed as correctness risks: (1) the abstract, Section 5, and Section 6 state w/tpk ~ 1, while Section 3.1 and Section 4 report <log10 w/tpk> = 0.25 +/- 0.07 and 0.22 +/- 0.09, i.e., linear values of 1.78 and 1.66, so the 'constant ratio ~ 1' premise is not supported by the paper's own reported means; (2) Appendix B excludes 11 GRBs with extreme flare widths and energies, which could bias the sub-sample comparison if the exclusion criteria correlate with flare properties. These are internal-consistency and robustness issues, not circular reductions: no equation is defined in terms of the result it is used to support, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical flare comparison itself does not rely on fitted theory parameters, but the interpretation leans on the authors' low-Lorentz model and standard GRB shock assumptions. The only explicit hand-tuned numbers are the flare amplitude threshold and the data-point criterion.

free parameters (2)
  • Minimum flare amplitude threshold (Af_min) = 0.2 in log flux, i.e. 1.58 in linear
    Hand-chosen in Section 2.3 to define a significant flare. This threshold is lower than some earlier studies and may increase the detected flare fraction (69% vs ~50% in previous work), affecting the sample and the inferred distributions.
  • Minimum data points per independent feature = 5
    Used in Section 2.1 as a sample selection criterion. Bursts with fewer than 5 points at the start or end of a decaying feature were removed, which changes the sample composition and could correlate with flare properties.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GRB prompt emission and afterglow are produced by internal and external shocks in a relativistic fireball.
    Standard framework assumed throughout, stated in Section 1.
  • domain assumption X-ray flares are produced by internal dissipation at radius r ~ Gamma^2 c dt, with observed time t_obs ~ r/(Gamma^2 c).
    Used in Section 5 to argue that the observed flare time is independent of Lorentz factor, which is the basis for claiming support for the low-Lorentz model.
  • domain assumption Long GRB progenitors expand into a low-density stellar wind environment.
    Assumed in Section 5 as a requirement for the coasting-phase plateau model of Dereli-Bégué et al. (2022).
  • ad hoc to paper The X-ray plateau is emission during the coasting phase of a forward shock with terminal Lorentz factor of a few tens.
    This is the authors' own model (Dereli-Bégué et al. 2022) and is used as the interpretive framework for the null result; it is not independently tested here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unraveling the Origins of GRB X-ray Plateaus through a Study of X-ray Flares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QN6FEZN

@misc{pith2026241211533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unraveling the Origins of GRB X-ray Plateaus through a Study of X-ray Flares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QN6FEZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11533}
}
abstract

The X-ray light curves of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) display complex features, including plateaus and flares, that challenge theoretical models. Here, we study the properties of flares that are observed in the early afterglow phase (up to a few thousand of seconds). We split the sample into two groups: bursts with and without X-ray plateau. We find that the distributions of flare properties are similar in each group. Specifically, the peak time ($t_{\rm pk}$) of the flares and the ratio of the flare width to the flare peak time ($w/t_{\rm pk}$) which is found to be $\approx 1$, regardless of the presence of a plateau. We discuss these results in view of the different theoretical models aimed at explaining the origin of the plateau. These results are difficult to explain by viewing angle effects or late-time energy injection, but do not contradict the idea that GRBs with X-ray plateau have low Lorentz factor, of the order of tens. For these GRBs, the dissipation processes that produce the flares naturally occur at smaller radii compared to GRBs with higher Lorentz factors, while the flares maintain a similar behaviour. Our results therefore provide an independent support for the idea that many GRBs have a Lorentz factor of a few tens rather than a few hundreds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11533 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distributions of the flare peak time, tpk (left), the flare width w (middle), and the flare isotropic energy, Eiso,f (right). The 65 flares obtained from the 42 bursts with a plateau phase are in purple, while the 32 flares obtained from the 19 GRBs without a plateau phase are in red. In each panel, the right-hand ordinate shows the number of bursts in each bin while the left-hand ordinate shows the value of the ker… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of the ratio of the flare width to the flare peak time, w/tpk (left), and the flare flux variability, ∆Fflare/Fcont. (right). The data presentation, including the color coding, is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The relation between flare peak time (tpk) and flare width (w). The purple points represent the 42 GRBs (65 flares) with plateau phases, while the red points represent the 19 GRBs (32 flares) without plateau phases in our sub-samples. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient r = 0.68 (0.77), corresponding to a chance probability of p ≪ 10−2 (≪ 10−2 ) indicates a strong monotonic relationship for GRBs with plateau… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the flare asymmetry, k. The purple bars represent the 42 GRBs (65 flares) with plateau phases, while the red bars represent the 19 GRBs (32 flares) without plateau phases. In each panel, the right-hand ordinate shows the number of burst in each histogr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Gamma-ray bursts: what do we know today that we did not know 10 years ago?

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 unverdicted

    A review of the past decade of gamma-ray burst research, highlighting structured jets, GR-MHD simulations, TeV detections, and the contested idea that many GRBs have moderate Lorentz factors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2011, , 734, L27, 10.1088/2041-8205/734/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/734/2/l27 2011

  5. [5]

    D., Cannizzo , J

    Barthelmy , S. D., Cannizzo , J. K., Gehrels , N., et al. 2005, , 635, L133, 10.1086/499432

    doi:10.1086/499432 2005

  6. [6]

    2020 a , , 492, 2847, 10.1093/mnras/staa070

    Beniamini , P., Duque , R., Daigne , F., & Mochkovitch , R. 2020 a , , 492, 2847, 10.1093/mnras/staa070

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa070 2020

  7. [7]

    2020 b , , 493, 3521, 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    Beniamini , P., Granot , J., & Gill , R. 2020 b , , 493, 3521, 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa538 2020

  8. [8]

    2019, , 482, 5430, 10.1093/mnras/sty3110

    Beniamini , P., & Nakar , E. 2019, , 482, 5430, 10.1093/mnras/sty3110

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3110 2019

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    G., Margutti , R., Chincarini , G., Guidorzi , C., & Mao , J

    Bernardini , M. G., Margutti , R., Chincarini , G., Guidorzi , C., & Mao , J. 2011, , 526, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015703

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    N., Romano , P., Falcone , A., et al

    Burrows , D. N., Romano , P., Falcone , A., et al. 2005, Science, 309, 1833, 10.1126/science.1116168

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    2007, , 671, 1903, 10.1086/521591

    Chincarini , G., Moretti , A., Romano , P., et al. 2007, , 671, 1903, 10.1086/521591

    2007 doi

  4. [13]

    A., Starling , R

    Curran , P. A., Starling , R. L. C., O'Brien , P. T., et al. 2008, , 487, 533, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809652

    2008 doi

  5. [14]

    2022, Nature Communications, 13, 5611, 10.1038/s41467-022-32881-1

    Dereli-B \'e gu \'e , H., Pe'er , A., Ryde , F., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 5611, 10.1038/s41467-022-32881-1

    2022 doi

  6. [15]

    2022, , 513, 951, 10.1093/mnras/stac938

    Duque , R., Beniamini , P., Daigne , F., & Mochkovitch , R. 2022, , 513, 951, 10.1093/mnras/stac938

    2022 doi

  7. [16]

    2014, , 787, L32, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L32

    Eichler , D. 2014, , 787, L32, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L32

    2014 doi

  8. [17]

    2006, , 641, L5, 10.1086/503667

    Eichler , D., & Granot , J. 2006, , 641, L5, 10.1086/503667

    2006 doi

  9. [18]

    A., Beardmore , A

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

    2007 doi

  10. [20]

    D., Burrows , D

    Falcone , A. D., Burrows , D. N., Lazzati , D., et al. 2006, , 641, 1010, 10.1086/500655

    2006 doi

  11. [21]

    D., Morris , D., Racusin , J., et al

    Falcone , A. D., Morris , D., Racusin , J., et al. 2007, , 671, 1921, 10.1086/523296

    2007 doi

  12. [24]

    E., Epstein , R

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

    1993

  13. [25]

    P., & Bridges , M

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., & Bridges , M. 2009, , 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  14. [26]

    2004, , 611, 1005, 10.1086/422091

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

    2004 doi

  15. [27]

    2007, , 381, 732, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12243.x

    Genet , F., Daigne , F., & Mochkovitch , R. 2007, , 381, 732, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12243.x

    2007

  16. [28]

    2006, , 455, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065578

    Giannios , D. 2006, , 455, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065578

    2006 doi

  17. [29]

    L., Wynn , G

    Gibson , S. L., Wynn , G. A., Gompertz , B. P., & O'Brien , P. T. 2018, , 478, 4323, 10.1093/mnras/sty1363

    2018 doi

  18. [30]

    2006, , 370, 1946, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10621.x

    Granot , J., K \"o nigl , A., & Piran , T. 2006, , 370, 1946, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10621.x

    2006

  19. [31]

    2006, , 366, L13, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00121.x

    Granot , J., & Kumar , P. 2006, , 366, L13, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00121.x

    2006

  20. [32]

    2002, , 568, 820, 10.1086/338966

    Granot , J., & Sari , R. 2002, , 568, 820, 10.1086/338966

    2002 doi

  21. [33]

    2007, , 662, 443, 10.1086/517868

    Grupe , D., Gronwall , C., Wang , X.-Y., et al. 2007, , 662, 443, 10.1086/517868

    2007 doi

  22. [34]

    L., Hill , R

    Hinshaw , G., Weiland , J. L., Hill , R. S., et al. 2009, , 180, 225, 10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/225

    2009 doi

  23. [35]

    2005, , 631, 429, 10.1086/432567

    Ioka , K., Kobayashi , S., & Zhang , B. 2005, , 631, 429, 10.1086/432567

    2005 doi

  24. [36]

    H., & Pier , E

    Krolik , J. H., & Pier , E. A. 1991, , 373, 277, 10.1086/170048

    1991 doi

  25. [37]

    2015, , 561, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    Kumar , P., & Zhang , B. 2015, , 561, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    2015 doi

  26. [38]

    H., Morsony , B

    Lazzati , D., Blackwell , C. H., Morsony , B. J., & Begelman , M. C. 2011, , 411, L16, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00984.x

    2011

  27. [39]

    2007, , 375, L46, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00273.x

    Lazzati , D., & Perna , R. 2007, , 375, L46, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00273.x

    2007

  28. [40]

    2011, , 410, 1064, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17504.x

    Margutti , R., Bernardini , G., Barniol Duran , R., et al. 2011, , 410, 1064, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17504.x

    2011

  29. [41]

    2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259, 10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259, 10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01

    2006 doi

  30. [42]

    Meszaros , P., & Rees , M. J. 1993, , 405, 278, 10.1086/172360

    1993 doi

  31. [43]

    1997, , 476, 232, 10.1086/303625

    ---. 1997, , 476, 232, 10.1086/303625

    1997 doi

  32. [44]

    J., & Wijers , R

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P., Rees , M. J., & Wijers , R. A. M. J. 1998, , 499, 301, 10.1086/305635

    1998 doi

  33. [45]

    D., Giannios , D., Thompson , T

    Metzger , B. D., Giannios , D., Thompson , T. A., Bucciantini , N., & Quataert , E. 2011, , 413, 2031, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18280.x

    2011

  34. [46]

    P., Bonnell , J

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

    2005 doi

  35. [47]

    A., Kouveliotou , C., Grupe , D., et al

    Nousek , J. A., Kouveliotou , C., Grupe , D., et al. 2006, , 642, 389, 10.1086/500724

    2006 doi

  36. [48]

    T., Willingale , R., Osborne , J., et al

    O'Brien , P. T., Willingale , R., Osborne , J., et al. 2006, , 647, 1213, 10.1086/505457

    2006 doi

  37. [49]

    2020, , 893, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8221

    Oganesyan , G., Ascenzi , S., Branchesi , M., et al. 2020, , 893, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8221

    2020 doi

  38. [50]

    2001, , 560, L49, 10.1086/324061

    Panaitescu , A., & Kumar , P. 2001, , 560, L49, 10.1086/324061

    2001 doi

  39. [51]

    2002, , 571, 779, 10.1086/340094

    ---. 2002, , 571, 779, 10.1086/340094

    2002 doi

  40. [52]

    A., et al

    Perri , M., Guetta , D., Antonelli , L. A., et al. 2007, , 471, 83, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066227

    2007 doi

  41. [53]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    Piran , T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    2004 doi

  42. [54]

    L., Karpov , S

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

    2008 doi

  43. [55]

    L., Oates , S

    Racusin , J. L., Oates , S. R., Schady , P., et al. 2011, , 738, 138, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/138

    2011 doi

  44. [56]

    J., & Meszaros , P

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

    1992 doi

  45. [57]

    2021, Nature Communications, 12, 4040, 10.1038/s41467-021-24246-x

    Ronchini , S., Oganesyan , G., Branchesi , M., et al. 2021, Nature Communications, 12, 4040, 10.1038/s41467-021-24246-x

    2021 doi

  46. [58]

    1998, , 497, L17+, 10.1086/311269

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

    1998 doi

  47. [59]

    Shen , R., & Matzner , C. D. 2012, , 744, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/36

    2012 doi

  48. [60]

    P., Dainotti , M

    Srinivasaragavan , G. P., Dainotti , M. G., Fraija , N., et al. 2020, , 903, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb702

    2020 doi

  49. [61]

    2005, , 436, 985, 10.1038/nature03934

    Tagliaferri , G., Goad , M., Chincarini , G., et al. 2005, , 436, 985, 10.1038/nature03934

    2005 doi

  50. [62]

    2006, , 640, L139, 10.1086/503384

    Toma , K., Ioka , K., Yamazaki , R., & Nakamura , T. 2006, , 640, L139, 10.1086/503384

    2006 doi

  51. [63]

    L., & Beloborodov , A

    Uhm , Z. L., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2007, , 665, L93, 10.1086/519837

    2007 doi

  52. [64]

    T., Osborne , J

    Willingale , R., O'Brien , P. T., Osborne , J. P., et al. 2007, , 662, 1093, 10.1086/517989

    2007 doi

  53. [65]

    2022, , 924, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35e7

    Yi , S.-X., Du , M., & Liu , T. 2022, , 924, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35e7

    2022 doi

  54. [66]

    2016, , 224, 20, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20

    Yi , S.-X., Xi , S.-Q., Yu , H., et al. 2016, , 224, 20, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20

    2016 doi

  55. [67]

    A., Harrison , F

    Yost , S. A., Harrison , F. A., Sari , R., & Frail , D. A. 2003, , 597, 459, 10.1086/378288

    2003 doi

  56. [68]

    Z., Dyks , J., et al

    Zhang , B., Fan , Y. Z., Dyks , J., et al. 2006, , 642, 354, 10.1086/500723

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.