Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Prospect of Gamma-Ray Burst Neutrino Detection with Enhanced Neutrino Detectors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tenfold neutrino-detector sensitivity would make GRB neutrinos detectable.

desk verdict The central detection forecasts are built on an inverted cooling factor in Eq. A5, so the quantitative claims need a careful look; still a useful framework worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16868 v2 pith:LDIUBRVL submitted 2024-12-22 astro-ph.HE

Wenkang Lian , Shunke Ai , He Gao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstshigh-energyneutrinosneutrinotelescopesIceCubeGRBpromptemissionICMARTmodelinternalshockdissipativephotosphere
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

The paper asks whether a future neutrino detector with ten times IceCube IC86-II's effective area could finally detect neutrinos from gamma-ray bursts. It computes detection probabilities for a single GRB 221009A-like burst under three competing prompt-emission models—dissipative photosphere, internal shock, and ICMART—and for stacked samples of 1142 long GRBs observed over five years. The central conclusion is that a tenfold sensitivity upgrade makes a single-burst detection likely even under the least neutrino-efficient model, ICMART, and that five to ten years of stacking would either reveal GRB neutrinos or place strong limits on the photosphere and internal shock models. A GRB neutrino detection would pin down where in the jet protons and photons meet, directly testing ideas about how gamma-ray bursts shine.

What carries the argument

The central object is the neutrino fluence formula $\phi_\nu(E_\nu)=\frac{1}{8}\,f_{p\gamma}\,f_{\mathrm{cooling}}\frac{(\epsilon_p/\epsilon_e)\,S_\gamma}{\ln(E_{p,\max}/E_{p,\min})}$, combined with the Poisson detection probability $P_{N_\nu}=1-\exp(-N_\nu)$ where $N_\nu$ is computed by convolving the fluence with the effective area of IceCube IC86-II scaled by an enhancement factor. The model dependence enters through the pion-production efficiency $f_{p\gamma}$, which is set by the photon number density at the radiation radius: the photosphere ($R_{\rm ph}\sim10^{11}$–$10^{12}$ cm) and internal shock ($R_{\rm IS}\sim10^{12}$–$10^{13}$ cm) produce many neutrinos, while ICMART ($R_{\rm ICMART}\sim10^{15}$ cm) dilutes the photon field and suppresses neutrino production. The paper's quantitative statements hinge on this ratio of radii to effective area.

What would settle it

A single convincing counterexample would be an upgraded detector with ten times the IceCube effective area observing a GRB 221009A-like burst at $z\approx0.15$ and detecting no neutrinos; the paper's calculation gives a high detection probability in that case, so an absence would falsify the claim that such a burst is likely to be seen. Alternatively, showing that the true redshift distribution of the stacked sample is significantly higher than $z=2.15$ for unmeasured bursts would reduce the stacked neutrino counts and invalidate the derived rule-out timescales.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For GRB 221009A-like parameters, the paper finds expected neutrino counts for the dissipative photosphere, internal shock, and ICMART models of about 13.0, 3.5, and 0.21 events in IceCube IC86-II, corresponding to detection probabilities of 99.99%, 97.1%, and 19.0%. The nondetection of GRB 221009A therefore already points away from the photosphere and internal shock models and toward a larger radiation radius. With a tenfold increase in effective area, a burst of the same redshift would be detectable with high probability even in the ICMART model, and only about a threefold increase is needed if the burst sits at a declination where IceCube's effective area is maximal. For stacked bursts, the paper estimates that 4.35 years would give a 90% detection probability for the photosphere model and 7.11 years for the internal shock model at current sensitivity, while the ICMART model would need more than a century; a tenfold expansion brings detection probability for the first two models to near 100% on short timescales but only 58% for ICMART after ten years. If no neutrinos are seen with an enhanced detector, the paper shows that factor-4 effective-area growth rules out the photosphere model as universally applicable, factor-5.5 rules out the internal shock model with $\delta t_{\min}=0.01$ s, while the ICMART model would need factor-150 to constrain $\epsilon_p/\epsilon_e<1$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole stacked forecast rests on the assumption that every burst in the sample has the same energy-sharing fractions ($\epsilon_p/\epsilon_e=3$, $\epsilon_B/\epsilon_e=1$), the same Band-function spectrum with fixed break energy and slopes, the same variability timescale in the internal shock model, and bulk Lorentz factors given by $\Gamma \sim 250 L_{\rm iso,52}^{0.30}$ with no scatter, and that every burst without a measured redshift sits at $z=2.15$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A tenfold effective-area upgrade effectively turns a single GRB 221009A-like event into a guaranteed neutrino detection for the photosphere and internal-shock models, and a likely one for ICMART.
  • Stacked analyses with a 10x detector would either establish a GRB neutrino signal within 5–10 years or exclude the dissipative photosphere and internal-shock models as universal descriptions of prompt emission.
  • The nondetection of GRB 221009A by IceCube is explained most naturally by a magnetically dominated jet with a large dissipation radius, consistent with the ICMART picture.
  • Model discrimination becomes a practical program: future detectors with magnification factors around 8–30 already sit in the parameter space needed to test the photosphere and internal shock models.
  • For the ICMART model, even near-future detectors cannot rule it out via neutrino nonobservation; ruling it out would require an effective area roughly 150 times IceCube's.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension implied by the calculation, though not pursued in the paper, is that substituting measured redshifts for the default $z=2.15$ assignment could substantially change the stacked detection probabilities, given how sensitive the sample is to the two excluded extreme bursts.
  • If GRBs arise from multiple emission channels, a future neutrino signal will likely mix contributions from photosphere, internal shock, and ICMART regions, so the model-exclusion statements apply only to the single-model-applies-to-all hypothesis.
  • The same enhancement-factor reasoning could be applied to low-luminosity and short GRBs, which the paper identifies as possibly more efficient neutrino producers; such sources would lower the magnification factor needed for a detection.
  • The one-zone assumption—protons and gamma rays sharing the same radiation region—is probably the first simplification to break in a real jet; a future detector finding neutrinos in an unexpected energy band would reveal where the accelerated protons actually reside.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes expected neutrino event counts and detection probabilities for the single bright burst GRB 221009A and for a stacked sample of 1142 long GRBs, under three prompt-emission models: the dissipative photosphere model, the internal shock model, and the ICMART model. Using the IceCube IC86-II effective area and scaling it by factors of 5, 10, and larger, the authors estimate the sensitivity needed for future detectors to detect GRB neutrinos, and the parameter constraints that would follow if such enhanced searches still found nothing. The central claims are that a tenfold effective-area increase would make a GRB 221009A-like event detectable even under the low-neutrino-efficiency ICMART model, and that 5-10 years of stacked data would either reveal a GRB-neutrino signal or effectively rule out the dissipative photosphere and internal shock models.

Significance. If the calculations hold, the paper gives a useful, concrete target for next-generation neutrino telescopes and a clear articulation of when a non-detection becomes a model discriminator. The forward calculation is transparent and mostly self-contained: Eq. (2) expresses the neutrino fluence in terms of the gamma-ray fluence and two efficiency factors, Eqs. (3)-(4) convert that fluence into an event count and a detection probability, and Appendix A provides the auxiliary formulas. The authors also state their benchmark choices explicitly and flag important caveats, such as the redshift assignment for bursts without measured redshifts and the one-zone assumption. The main value of the paper is therefore not a new theoretical mechanism but a systematic projection of detection prospects and exclusion reaches. Its significance is, however, conditional on the correctness of the cooling treatment and on the robustness of the stacked-sample assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A5) and (2)] The cooling factor as printed appears to be inverted relative to the physics described in the text. Eq. (A5) states f_cooling ≈ 1 − exp(−(t_syn^{-1} + t_dyn^{-1})/t_dec^{-1}). In the fast-cooling limit t_syn → 0 this expression tends to 1, i.e., no suppression, while in the slow-cooling limit it tends to 0, i.e., complete suppression. The text says, correctly, that synchrotron cooling of π+ and μ+ should suppress neutrino production, so the survival fraction should vanish in the fast-cooling limit and tend to unity in the slow-cooling limit. The printed formula is closer to the complement of the decay-before-cooling probability. If this formula was the one used in the numerical calculations, the predicted counts in Sec. 3 (N_ph = 13.0, N_IS = 3.54) and Sec. 4 (N_ph ≈ 2.65, N_IS ≈ 1.62) for the small-radius photosphere and internal-shock models would be inflated, often substantially, and the rule-out thresholds in Sec. 4 and Fig. 6 would need to be recomputed. Even if the printed formula is only a typographical inversion, the manuscript must state the correct survival fraction and confirm which form was implemented; in addition, the muon cooling timescale is mentioned but not separately included in Eq. (A5), which is another source of possible overestimate.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (5) and the redshift assignment] The stacked-analysis predictions depend directly on assigning z = 2.15 to every GRB without a measured redshift and on applying the Γ ∼ 250 L_iso,52^0.30 relation without scatter. Because the neutrino fluence scales with L_iso through the photon number density and the pγ efficiency, and because the authors themselves find it necessary to exclude GRB 210518A and GRB 230614C because the fixed-redshift assumption makes them dominate the sample, the stacked detection probabilities and the magnification factors required to rule out models are sensitive to the population assumptions. A quantitative sensitivity test, for example varying the median redshift of the redshift-incomplete subset or adding log-normal scatter to Γ at fixed L_iso, is needed to support the 5-10 year stacked claims in the abstract and Sec. 4.
  3. [Sec. 5 and Figs. 3, 6, 7] The magnification factors quoted for IceCube Gen2, KM3NeT, and TRIDENT in Sec. 5 are computed by assuming an E^{-2} neutrino spectrum, whereas the required magnification factors in Figs. 3 and 6 are derived from model-dependent GRB neutrino spectra that are not E^{-2} over the 10^2-10^9 GeV integration range. Comparing the two sets of numbers directly in Fig. 7 may therefore be inconsistent, because the effective area of a future detector at the energies where a given model actually produces neutrinos can differ from the broadband E^{-2}-weighted ratio. The comparison should either use the same spectral weighting for both quantities or explicitly justify why the E^{-2} approximation is adequate for the models considered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, discussion around Fig. 3] The text says the conclusions are based on a 90% detection probability, but at the true declination of GRB 221009A a tenfold increase for the ICMART model gives N ≈ 2.11 and hence P ≈ 88%, not 90%; the required factor is approximately 11, so the wording 'tenfold' should be qualified as approximate.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2)] The sentence defining f_cooling as 'the fraction of intermediate products ... that have cooled before neutrinos are produced' conflicts with its use in Eq. (2), where a multiplying factor should instead be the fraction that decay into neutrinos before cooling; please rename or redefine f_cooling to avoid this ambiguity.
  3. [Sec. 4, text and Fig. 5 caption] There are several formatting slips, including 'we also adoptϵB/ϵe = 1' with a missing space, 'RICMAR T' for R_ICMART, and the Fig. 5 caption sentence 'The dotted lines corresponds to the dissipative photosphere, and the internal shock models have been bolded', which should be reworded.
  4. [Sec. 4, sample selection] The authors exclude GRB 221009A from the stacked sample and also exclude GRB 210518A and GRB 230614C; the reason for the latter exclusion is stated, but the text should also state how many of the remaining 1142 bursts lack redshift measurements and how sensitive the final counts are to the assumed z = 2.15 value.
  5. [Sec. 5, detector comparison] The paper states that 'all future neutrino detectors can achieve an ideal detection prospect for a single source resembling GRB 221009A, provided the source occurs at the same redshift', but this depends on the same cooling-factor correction and the E^{-2} comparison noted above, so it should be re-evaluated after those issues are resolved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the neutrino fluences, detection probabilities, and rule-out thresholds are forward calculations from observed gamma-ray properties and stated microphysical assumptions.

full rationale

The core chain is Eq. (2) (pγ neutrino fluence from observed gamma-ray fluence Sγ, explicit εp/εe and εB/εe), Eq. (3) (convolution with IceCube IC86-II effective area), and Eq. (4) (Poisson detection probability). All inputs are independent observables (GRB 221009A fluence, redshift, Band parameters; GRBweb fluences with z=2.15 assigned to redshift-less bursts) or explicitly stated model parameters (R_ph, R_IS, R_ICMART, δt_min, εp/εe=3, εB/εe=1). Nothing in this chain is fitted to the neutrino-detection outcome being predicted; the single-burst and stacked probabilities are forward Poisson expectations. The rule-out conditions in Sec. 4 are inversions of the same forward model with stated priors, so they are conditional statements rather than retrofitted conclusions. The self-citations to Ai & Gao (2023) and Gao et al. (2015) are contextual, used to note consistency with previous nondetection analyses and to define a conventional parameter range; they are not the source of the numerical detection probabilities, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from them. The paper transparently flags its limitations: uniform microphysical parameters for all 1142 GRBs, no scatter in the Γ–L relation, assigned redshift z=2.15, exclusion of two GRBs that would dominate under that assumption, and the one-zone approximation. These are assumptions affecting robustness, not circular steps. A separate, non-circular concern is that Eq. (A5) as printed appears to invert the cooling suppression described in the text, which could alter the numerical predictions; this is a correctness issue rather than a reduction of a prediction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions depend on a set of benchmark microphysical and spectral parameters that are adopted rather than derived; varying them changes the detection probabilities. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • epsilon_p/epsilon_e = 3
    Benchmark energy partition used for all models in Sec. 2 and Fig. 2; directly scales neutrino fluence in Eq. 2.
  • epsilon_B/epsilon_e = 1
    Benchmark magnetic energy partition used for all models.
  • delta_t_min (internal shock) = 0.01 s
    Minimum variability timescale for internal shock model; sets shock radius and neutrino efficiency.
  • R_ICMART = 1e15 cm
    Radiation radius for ICMART model; sets photon density and neutrino production.
  • Gamma (GRB 221009A) = 300
    Bulk Lorentz factor adopted for the single-source calculation in Sec. 3.
  • redshift assignment for missing z = 2.15
    Assigned to all stacked GRBs without measured redshift in Sec. 4; directly sets luminosity and neutrino flux.
  • Band spectrum parameters for stacked sample = Ebreak=200 keV, alpha=1, beta=2
    Assumed for all GRBs in the stacked sample in Sec. 4.
  • Gamma_Liso relation = Gamma ~ 250 L_iso,52^0.30 (Eq. 5)
    Empirical relation used to assign bulk Lorentz factors for the stacked sample; scatter not propagated.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The pγ interaction dominates neutrino production over pp and other channels (Sec. 2.2).
    The paper focuses on pγ as the dominant hadronic process, which is standard for GRB prompt emission but not shown here.
  • domain assumption The one-zone assumption: protons are accelerated in the same region where gamma-rays are emitted (Sec. 6, condition 3).
    This is explicitly flagged by the authors as a validity condition for all their calculations.
  • standard math The Waxman-Bahcall formula (Eq. 2) correctly gives the neutrino fluence from pγ interactions.
    Adopted from the literature as the basis for the flux calculation.
  • domain assumption The characteristic emission radii for the three models (Rph, RIS, RICMART) from the cited literature are correct.
    The neutrino yield is highly sensitive to these radii, which are taken from prior model papers.
  • ad hoc to paper The reasonable parameter ranges epsilon_p/epsilon_e > 1 and epsilon_B/epsilon_e < 1 are used as priors for model ruling out (Sec. 4).
    These priors, based on afterglow observations, are necessary for the stated rule-out conclusions.
  • domain assumption IceCube IC86-II effective area data are accurate and applicable (Sec. 3).
    All scaling factors are relative to this effective area dataset.
  • domain assumption The GRB detection rate remains the same as 2019-2023 for future projections (Sec. 4).
    The stacked detection probability evolution assumes a constant GRB rate over future years.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospect of Gamma-Ray Burst Neutrino Detection with Enhanced Neutrino Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDIUBRVL

@misc{pith2026241216868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospect of Gamma-Ray Burst Neutrino Detection with Enhanced Neutrino Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDIUBRVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16868}
}
read the original abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have long been proposed as a potential source of high-energy neutrinos. Although no confirmed association between GRBs and neutrinos has been established, meaningful constraints have been placed on GRB prompt emission models. The nondetection of neutrinos, reported by the IceCube Collaboration, from both single and stacked GRB events suggests that the radiation zone is likely located at a considerable distance from the central engine, where the photon number density is relatively low. Here, we estimate future GRB neutrino detection probabilities using detectors with a higher simulated sensitivity than IceCube and explore the constraints on models if GRB neutrinos remain undetected despite improved sensitivity. Our findings reveal that if the effective area of a future neutrino detector can be enhanced by a factor of 10 compared to IceCube IC86-II, there is a high likelihood of detecting neutrinos from a GRB 221009A-like event, even in the context of the ICMART model, which exhibits the lowest efficiency in neutrino production. With such an advanced detector (enhanced by a factor of 10) and 5-10 yr of data accumulation, neutrinos from stacked GRBs should be identifiable, or several popular models for GRB prompt emission (e.g., the dissipative photosphere model and internal shock model) could be effectively ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16868 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The effective area as a function of neutrino energy at the declinations of δ = +19.77°(GRB 221009A), 0°, and -90° for IceCube IC86-II. Given the expected number of neutrinos to be de￾tected, the probability of actually detecting Nν neutri￾nos is (Mukhopadhyay et al. 2024) PNν = 1 − exp(−Nν) (4) The predicted neutrino fluence associated with GRB 221009A from the dissipative photosphere, internal shock, and ICMART mod… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The prospect to detect a GRB 221009A-like event. The horizontal axis represents the redshift of the event, and the vertical axis represents the magnification fac￾tor relative to the effective area of IceCube IC86-II. The black line represents the redshift of the GRB 221009A. The colored solid lines represent the detection limits for different models at the current decl of GRB 221009A, while the dashed lines correspo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: For different models, the detection probability of neutrinos varies with the accumulation time. The solid line represents the current effective area of IceCube, while the dashed and dotted lines represent the effective area expanded by a factor of 5 and 10, respectivel…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The solid lines are the predicted neutrino flux for the internal shock, dissipative photosphere, and ICMART models. The dashed lines represent the upper limit of ob￾serving the neutrino with a 90% probability for each model according to the effective areas of IceCube I…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The required magnification factors and data ac￾cumulation periods for future neutrino detectors to effec￾tively rule out different GRB prompt emission models are shown. The upper-right region of each line represents the required parameter space. The three dots indicate…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The solid lines represent the upper limits for which there is a 90% probability of detection. The parame￾ter space closer to the lower right corner is more tolerable. For all three models, the blue line corresponds to the current effective area of IceCube IC86-II. For …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The horizontal axis represents the photon energy in the rest frame of the proton, and the vertical axis represents the cross section for the pγ interaction. REFERENCES Aartsen, M., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2017a, Journal of Instrumentation, 12, P03012–P03012, d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aartsen, M., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2017a, Journal of Instrumentation, 12, P03012–P03012, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012 2 We consider the case that the observational angle is 1 /Γ, where the emissivity of GRBs reaches the maximum

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/03/p03012

  2. [2]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 805, L5, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L5 —. 2017b, The Astrophysical Journal, 843, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7569 11

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/l5 2015

  3. [3]

    G., Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 48, 060501, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48

    doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48 2021

  4. [4]

    2011, PhRvL, 106, 141101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.141101

    Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al. 2011, PhRvL, 106, 141101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.141101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.141101 2011

  5. [5]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9785

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9785

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9785 2022

  6. [6]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc077 Adri´ an-Mart ´ ınez, S., Ageron, M., Aharonian, F., et al

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc077 Adri´ an-Mart ´ ınez, S., Ageron, M., Aharonian, F., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 43, 084001, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/43/8/084001

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc077 2023

  7. [7]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 913–915, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4

    Agostini, M., B¨ ohmer, M., Bosma, J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 913–915, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4 2020

  8. [8]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3bf

    Ai, S., & Gao, H. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3bf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb3bf 2023

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    2019, Astroparticle Physics, 111, 100, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.04.002

    Aiello, S., Akrame, S., Ameli, F., et al. 2019, Astroparticle Physics, 111, 100, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.04.002

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, Search for Neutrino Emission from GRB 221009A using the KM3NeT ARCA and ORCA detectors

    Aiello, S., Albert, A., Alshamsi, M., et al. 2024, Search for Neutrino Emission from GRB 221009A using the KM3NeT ARCA and ORCA detectors. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05354

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

    Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., Axelsson, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    An, Z.-H., Antier, S., Bi, X.-Z., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, Insight-HXMT and GECAM-C observations of the brightest-of-all-time GRB 221009A

    An, Z.-H., Antier, S., Bi, X.-Z., et al. 2023, Insight-HXMT and GECAM-C observations of the brightest-of-all-time GRB 221009A. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.01203

    2023

  6. [14]

    Avrorin, A., Aynutdinov, V., Belolaptikov, I., et al. 2011, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 639, 30, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.137

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    2011, Phys

    Baerwald, P., H¨ ummer, S., & Winter, W. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 067303, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.067303

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    2018, A&A, 611, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731337

    Biehl, D., Boncioli, D., Fedynitch, A., & Winter, W. 2018, A&A, 611, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731337

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    Burns, E., Svinkin, D., Fenimore, E., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, Nature Communications, 6, doi: 10.1038/ncomms7783

    Bustamante, M., Baerwald, P., Murase, K., & Winter, W. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, doi: 10.1038/ncomms7783

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Guidorzi, C., Amati, L., et al

    Camisasca, A. E., Guidorzi, C., Amati, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245657

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 296, 275–286, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x De Lia, V., & Tamborra, I

    Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 296, 275–286, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01305.x De Lia, V., & Tamborra, I. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 054, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/054

    1998

  13. [21]

    D., & Atoyan, A

    Dermer, C. D., & Atoyan, A. 2003, Physical Review Letters, 91, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.91.071102

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Kennea, J

    Dichiara, S., Gropp, J. D., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32632, 1

    2022

  15. [23]

    L., et al

    Frederiks, D., Svinkin, D., Lysenko, A. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/160

    Gao, H., Wang, X.-G., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Zhang, B. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 810, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/160

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 748, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/134

    Gao, H., Zhang, B.-B., & Zhang, B. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 748, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/134

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    2008, A&A, 480, 305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079085

    Giannios, D. 2008, A&A, 480, 305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079085

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Z., Butler, N

    Golkhou, V. Z., Butler, N. R., & Littlejohns, O. M. 2015, ApJ, 811, 93, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/93

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    2004, Astroparticle Physics, 20, 429, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-6505(03)00211-1

    Reuveni, E. 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 20, 429, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-6505(03)00211-1

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    2007, Astroparticle Physics, 27, 386, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.01.004

    Gupta, N., & Zhang, B. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, 27, 386, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.01.004

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Aptekar, R

    Hurley, K., Pal’shin, V. D., Aptekar, R. L., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 207, 39, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/39 H¨ ummer, S., Baerwald, P., & Winter, W. 2012, Physical Review Letters, 108, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.108.231101 IceCube Collaboratio...

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Kimura, S. S. 2022, Neutrinos from Gamma-ray Bursts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06480

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accf93

    Lan, L., Gao, H., Li, A., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/accf93

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b38

    Lazarian, A., Zhang, B., & Xu, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2b38

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    J., et al

    Lesage, S., Veres, P., Roberts, O. J., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32642, 1

    2022

  27. [35]

    S., et al

    Lesage, S., Veres, P., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5b4

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 2209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2209 12

    Liang, E.-W., Yi, S.-X., Zhang, J., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 2209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2209 12

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    D., et al

    Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/7

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, A&A, 672, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244815 L¨ u, J., Zou, Y.-C., Lei, W.-H., et al

    Lucarelli, Francesco, Oganesyan, Gor, Montaruli, Teresa, et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244815 L¨ u, J., Zou, Y.-C., Lei, W.-H., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/49

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    C., & Uzdensky, D

    McKinney, J. C., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 573–607, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19721.x

    2011

  32. [40]

    Meszaros, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rees, M. J. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 554, 660–666, doi: 10.1086/321404

    2001 doi

  33. [41]

    Kimura, S. S. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 063004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063004

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    2007, Physical Review D, 76, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.76.123001

    Murase, K. 2007, Physical Review D, 76, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.76.123001

    2007 doi

  35. [43]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 651, L5, doi: 10.1086/509323

    Murase, K., Ioka, K., Nagataki, S., & Nakamura, T. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 651, L5, doi: 10.1086/509323

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    2013, PhRvL, 111, 131102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.131102

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2013, PhRvL, 111, 131102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.131102

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    S., & Fang, K

    Murase, K., Mukhopadhyay, M., Kheirandish, A., Kimura, S. S., & Fang, K. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 941, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca3ae

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2006, Physical Review D, 73, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.73.063002 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M

    Murase, K., & Nagataki, S. 2006, Physical Review D, 73, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.73.063002 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 530, 292, doi: 10.1086/308371 M¨ ucke, A., Rachen, J. P., Engel, R., Protheroe, R. J., &

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 16, 160–166, doi: 10.1071/as99160

    Stanev, T. 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 16, 160–166, doi: 10.1071/as99160

    1999 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1184, doi: 10.22323/1.395.01184

    Omeliukh, A., IceCube-Gen2, Abbasi, R., et al. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 1184, doi: 10.22323/1.395.01184

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8635 Pe’Er, A., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M

    Ou, Y.-D.-J., L¨ u, H.-J., Chang, X.-Z., Liu, X.-X., & Liang, E.-W. 2024, ApJ, 976, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8635 Pe’Er, A., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 365, 1171, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2006.1986 Pe...

    2024

  42. [50]

    Rees, M. J. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 664, L1, doi: 10.1086/520534

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 034, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/034

    Pitik, T., Tamborra, I., & Petropoulou, M. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 034, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/05/034

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    Poolakkil, S., Preece, R., Fletcher, C., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    2003, Physical Review Letters, 90, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.241103

    Razzaque, S., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Waxman, E. 2003, Physical Review Letters, 90, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.241103

    2003 doi

  46. [54]

    J., & Meszaros, P

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

    1994 doi

  47. [55]

    J., & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Rees, M. J., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 628, 847, doi: 10.1086/430818

    2005 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 944, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6d7

    Rudolph, A., Petropoulou, M., Winter, W., & ˇZeljka Boˇ snjak. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 944, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb6d7

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2024, ApJL, 961, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1525

    Rudolph, A., Tamborra, I., & Gottlieb, O. 2024, ApJL, 961, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1525

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46a8

    Shao, X., & Gao, H. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46a8

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Stecker, F. W. 1968, PhRvL, 21, 1016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.21.1016

    1968 doi

  52. [60]

    2015, JCAP, 2015, 036, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/036

    Tamborra, I., & Ando, S. 2015, JCAP, 2015, 036, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/036

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16748, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16748 von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C

    Veres, P., Fraija, N., Lesage, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16748, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16748 von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C. A., Paciesas, W. S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    1997, Physical Review Letters, 78, 2292–2295, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.78.2292

    Waxman, E., & Bahcall, J. 1997, Physical Review Letters, 78, 2292–2295, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.78.2292

    1997 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Kennea, J

    Williams, M. A., Kennea, J. A., Dichiara, S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbcd1

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc84b

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

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    P., Hu, F., Tian, W., et al

    Ye, Z. P., Hu, F., Tian, W., et al. 2024, A multi-cubic-kilometre neutrino telescope in the western Pacific Ocean. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.04519

    2024

  58. [66]

    W., Dai, Z

    Yu, Y. W., Dai, Z. G., & Zheng, X. P. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 385, 1461, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12924.x

    2008

  59. [67]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press)

    Zhang, B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press)

    2018

  60. [68]

    2013, Phys

    Zhang, B., & Kumar, P. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 121101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.121101

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/90

    Zhang, B., & Yan, H. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/90

    2010 doi

  62. [70]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 782, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/92

    Zhang, B., & Zhang, B. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 782, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/782/2/92

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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