A two-hump spectrum in the prompt emission of GRB 240825A

Cui-Yuan Dai; En-Wei Liang; Hai-Ming Zhang; Ruo-Yu Liu; Xiang-Yu Wang; Yi-Yun Huang; Zi-Qi Wang

REVIEW

A two-hump spectrum in the prompt emission of GRB 240825A

Hai-Ming Zhang, Zi-Qi Wang, Cui-Yuan Dai, Yi-Yun Huang, Ruo-Yu Liu, En-Wei Liang, Xiang-Yu Wang

High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena · Submitted 6 Jan 2025 · 48 references

Pith's verdict: A genuinely new two-hump spectrum in GRB 240825A, but the BPL-over-CPL preference sits in a coverage gap with sparse LAT photons—plausible, not yet proven.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 10, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2501.03082 (version 2)

Pith IDEU6425JY, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationCui-Yuan Dai, En-Wei Liang, Hai-Ming Zhang, Ruo-Yu Liu, Xiang-Yu Wang, Yi-Yun Huang, Zi-Qi Wang. "A two-hump spectrum in the prompt emission of GRB 240825A." arXiv:2501.03082 (2025). https://pith.science/paper/EU6425JY

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Here's my read. The two-hump spectrum in GRB 240825A is a real, new observation—only the second time a break in the extra hard component is resolved, and the first time a broken power law is statistically preferred over an exponential cutoff. That alone makes the paper worth a close look. The authors do the analysis carefully: joint GBM/LAT fits, four model choices, BIC model comparison, time-resolved intervals, full parameter tables. They also report a steep decay in the GeV light curve, which is new for any burst.

What works well: the SSC discussion is physically sensible. From the measured peak ratio they get gamma_m ~ 10, which forces either an enormous magnetic field or an unreasonably small radius for internal shocks. That's a legitimate challenge to the SSC origin. The alternative photosphere-IC scenario is plausible and fairly presented. The paper is also honest about what it cannot rule out: the absorption interpretation is disfavored on energy-budget grounds, not excluded, and the 7.5 MeV Gaussian is left aside after noting instrument systematics were not checked.

The soft spot is the coverage gap. The GBM BGO stops at 40 MeV, the LAT starts at 100 MeV, and the claimed break sits right there at ~40-50 MeV. So the BPL-vs-CPL preference rests entirely on the shape of the tail above 100 MeV, where the LAT data are sparse—a few tens of photons in interval b. A ΔBIC of 15 is suggestive, but it is not calibrated. The paper reports no simulations of the BIC distribution under the CPL null, no systematic scan over energy ranges or binning, and no cross-calibration constant between GBM and LAT. Any of these could shift the comparison. As it stands, the intrinsic-break claim is plausible but not nailed down.

The steep-decay claim is also somewhat fragile: the pre-break slope is -5.4 with large errors, and the break time is not tightly constrained. Still, it is a new hint and worth reporting.

Who should read this: anyone tracking extra components in Fermi GRBs or working on prompt emission models. It adds a unique data point. If the model preference holds up under the requested robustness checks, it becomes a strong anchor for the intrinsic-peak scenario. If it does not, the paper still documents a two-hump spectrum with a break candidate.

Recommendation: engage with it. I would send it to a referee, asking specifically for a cross-calibration test, simulations of the null model, and a sensitivity analysis of the BIC choice. Those are manageable additions, and the result is important enough to merit the effort.

Referee report

Significance

If the spectral break in the extra hard component is real, this is the second GRB after GRB 090926A with a clearly identified break in the high-energy extra component, and the first at a much lower energy (~50 MeV). The paper makes good use of public Fermi data, provides detailed model-comparison tables, and the comparison between CPL and BPL is an empirically well-posed question. The main strength is the time-resolved analysis across multiple intervals, with explicit BIC values and parameter uncertainties. However, the central detection rests on a model-comparison statistic in a regime where the LAT photon counts are sparse and where the break falls in the instrumental gap between BGO (up to 40 MeV) and LAT (from 100 MeV). The physical interpretation (intrinsic peak vs. absorption, SSC challenge) inherits the statistical robustness of that detection, so the significance of the paper as it stands depends on additional validation that is not yet included.

Major objections (3)

[Section 4, Table 2] The BPL-over-CPL preference in interval b (ΔBIC = 15.0) is derived from a joint fit of GBM and LAT data without any cross-calibration constant between the two instruments. The fitted break energy E_break = 51.22 MeV lies between the BGO upper bound (40 MeV) and the LAT lower bound (100 MeV), so the shape difference between an exponential cutoff and a steep power-law tail must be inferred across this gap. A relative normalization or effective-area mismatch between BGO and LAT could systematically bias the comparison. The authors should test the robustness of the ΔBIC by including a free cross-normalization constant (e.g., a constant factor for LAT relative to GBM) and by repeating the fits with different LAT lower-energy thresholds or with a LAT energy binning that starts just above 40 MeV if events are available.
[Section 4, BIC model comparison] The BIC penalty k ln N presumes an asymptotic likelihood regime; with only a small subset of the 284 LAT photons in interval b and particularly few photons above 100 MeV, the BIC values reported in Table 2 may not be a reliable guide to model probability. The paper provides no Monte Carlo calibration of the ΔBIC distribution under the CPL null hypothesis. To establish the central claim, the authors should simulate many realizations of the best-fit Band+CPL model using the same response files and exposure, fit each realization with Band+CPL and Band+BPL, and report how often ΔBIC ≥ 15.0 occurs by chance. Without such a test, it is possible that the extra BPL parameters (E_break and α_h) absorb Poisson fluctuations in the sparsely populated highest-energy bins.
[Section 6.1] The challenge to the synchrotron self-Compton origin uses the relation ν_SSC/ν_syn ≈ γ_m^2 to derive γ_m ≈ 10 from hν_SSC ≈ 40 MeV and hν_syn ≈ 400 keV. However, for γ_m ≈ 10 a 400 keV photon is scattered in the Klein-Nishina regime (γ_m hν_syn / (m_e c^2) ≈ 8), where the simple Thomson-regime scaling no longer holds and the SSC peak energy and efficiency are modified. The conclusion that SSC is "challenged" is therefore model-dependent; the authors should justify the Thomson-regime approximation or soften the claim to say that SSC is disfavored only under that approximation. The same caveat applies to the derived constraints on B and R.

Minor objections (5)

[Abstract, Section 4, Section 7] The break energy is quoted inconsistently: the abstract says "about 50 MeV," the time-integrated fit gives E_break = 35.71 MeV (Table 1), and the summary says "about 40 MeV." Please unify these statements to avoid confusion.
[Equation (2)] The units of the BPL normalization C are not stated; for consistency with Equation (1), specify that C is in photons cm^-2 s^-1 keV^-1. Also, the definition of E_j in Equation (3) is compact; a one-line derivation or a clearer statement of the variables would improve readability.
[Section 4] The BIC threshold of ΔBIC > 4 is attributed to Nunes et al. (2017), a cosmology paper; the standard reference for BIC evidence grades is Kass and Raftery (1995), and using that reference would be more familiar to the gamma-ray spectroscopy community.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors: "plower-law" in the Summary, "vale" for "value" in Section 4, and "in additional to" in the Abstract. Please proofread the final version.
[Figure 5] The bottom panel shows the evolution of the spectral index, but the text does not define whether this is the photon index or the energy index. Please define the symbol and the model used to derive it.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

GRB 240825A's prompt spectrum has a two-hump shape, and the extra hard component's break near 50 MeV is better fit by a broken power law than an exponential cutoff, arguing for an intrinsic peak and against the synchrotron self-Compton…

The reading

GRB 240825A, a bright Fermi-detected gamma-ray burst, shows a prompt-emission spectrum with a second hump: a hard component extending to GeV energies sits on top of the usual sub-MeV Band component. By jointly fitting GBM and LAT data, the authors find that this extra component is better described by a broken power law with a break around 40–50 MeV than by a power law with an exponential cutoff, with the decisive improvement in the second emission pulse ($\Delta{\rm BIC}=15.0$). If real, the break is a direct spectral feature that bears on what produces the extra component: it argues against the break being pair-production absorption and points instead to an intrinsic peak in the component's emission. That matters because the only previously known LAT burst with a high-energy break, GRB 090926A, did not have enough photons to distinguish these models, so this burst gives the first clear look at the shape of such a component's turnover.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-component spectral model: a Band function for the usual keV–MeV prompt emission plus a second, harder component for the GeV tail. The paper compares three forms for that second component — a power law with exponential cutoff (CPL), a broken power law (BPL), and a smoothly broken power law (SBPL) — and uses the Bayesian Information Criterion on the joint GBM+LAT fit to decide which shape the data favor. The load-bearing comparison is the BPL/CPL choice in interval b, whose $\Delta{\rm BIC}$ of 15.0 distinguishes a genuine break from a cutoff. The SBPL form, with smoothness fixed to the canonical GRB value, gives essentially the same answer with a peak at ~42 MeV.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the time-resolved spectrum of the second pulse of GRB 240825A, from about 1.9 to 3.9 s after the trigger, contains an extra hard spectral component whose turnover is an actual spectral break rather than an exponential cutoff. Fitting the joint GBM (8 keV–40 MeV) and LAT (100 MeV–100 GeV) data, a Band function plus a broken power law gives $E_{\rm break}=51.22^{+12.19}_{-12.68}$ MeV and improves the fit over Band plus cutoff power law by $\Delta{\rm BIC}=15.0$; a smoothly broken power law gives a peak at $42.26^{+10.33}_{-11.08}$ MeV with $\Delta{\rm BIC}=16.8$. The authors interpret this as an intrinsic peak of the extra component: if the break were due to gamma-gamma absorption, the intrinsic spectrum would have to peak higher and carry a much larger energy budget. They also argue the low ratio of the extra component's peak to the Band component's peak (~50 MeV vs ~400 keV) would require an unreasonably low electron Lorentz factor and extreme magnetic field in the synchrotron self-Compton scenario, and they favor inverse-Compton scattering of photospheric emission as the alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The 40–50 MeV break is inferred from data on either side of a gap — the BGO channel stops at ~40 MeV and the LAT starts at 100 MeV — so the conclusion rests on the cross-calibration of the two instruments and on the handful of LAT photons in interval b being enough for the broken-power-law preference to be real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the break is intrinsic, the extra hard component has a real peak in its $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum at tens of MeV, which constrains the radiation mechanism producing it.
The disfavoring of gamma-gamma opacity means the break cannot be used to estimate the bulk Lorentz factor via pair-production arguments.
The low ratio between the extra component's peak (~50 MeV) and the Band peak (~400 keV) strengthens the case against a synchrotron self-Compton origin for the extra component.
The observed steep decay and spectral evolution at GeV energies mark a clear transition from prompt to afterglow, with the steep decay consistent with high-latitude emission.

Reading between the lines

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

If the intrinsic-peak interpretation is correct, similar two-hump bursts should show breaks that track the Band component's peak (a roughly constant ratio), which could be tested by re-analyzing other LAT GRBs with the same BPL versus CPL comparison.
The 4–10 MeV Gaussian excess noted in the residuals invites a focused search for spectral lines in GRB 240825A, but the authors defer that; a dedicated instrument-response study could confirm or refute it before interpreting it physically.
The paper's energy-budget argument against absorption could be sharpened: computing the Compton Y parameter from the measured fluences and comparing to the prompt optical depth would give a quantitative threshold beyond which the absorption interpretation is excluded.

Original abstract

An extra hard spectral component that extends to GeV energies, in additional to the typical sub- MeV Band component, appears in several gamma-ray burst (GRBs) detected by Fermi Large Area Telescopes (LAT). Only in one case (i.e., GRB 090926A), a spectral break feature at the high energy end is identified in the extra hard component, but the photon counts are not enough to distinguish between the cutoff model and the broken power law model for the spectral break. In this work, we report the detection of an extra hard component showing the spectral break in GRB 240825A. We find that a broken power-law model fits the spectral data of the extra component better than a single power-law with an exponential cutoff in the time resolved spectrum for the second emission pulse, with a break at about 50 MeV. This spectral feature disfavors the gamma-ray opacity to pair creation as the origin of the spectral break, but points to an intrinsic peak for the extra component. The low ratio between the peak of the extra hard component and that of the Band component challenges the synchrotron self-Compton origin for the extra component. Alternative scenarios, such as the inverse Compton scattering of the photosphere emission, are discussed. In addition, we find a clear transition from the prompt emission to afterglow emission at GeV energies in GRB 240825A, manifested by a temporal steep decay and an unique spectral evolution.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,461 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.11 · states limitation 0.29 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.09 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.91 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

An extra hard spectral component that extends to GeV energies, in additional to the typical sub- MeV Band component, appears in several gamma-ray burst (GRBs) detected by Fermi Large Area Telescopes (LAT). Only in one case (i.e., GRB 090926A), a spectral break feature at the high energy end is identified in the extra hard component, but the photon counts are not enough to distinguish between the cutoff model and the broken power law model for the spectral break. In this work, we report the detection of an extra hard component showing the spectral break in GRB 240825A. We find that a broken power-law model fits the spectral data of the extra component better than a single power-law with an exponential cutoff in the time resolved spectrum for the second emission pulse, with a break at about 50 MeV. This spectral feature disfavors the gamma-ray opacity to pair creation as the origin of the spectral break, but points to an intrinsic peak for the extra component. The low ratio between the peak of the extra hard component and that of the Band component challenges the synchrotron self-Compton origin for the extra component. Alternative scenarios, such as the inverse Compton scattering of the photosphere emission, are discussed. In addition, we find a clear transition from the prompt emission to afterglow emission at GeV energies in GRB 240825A, manifested by a temporal steep decay and an unique spectral evolution.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	An extra hard spectral component that extends to GeV energies, in additional to the typical sub- MeV Band component, appears in several gamma-ray burst (GRBs) detected by Fermi Large Area Telescopes (LAT).	background 1.00	0.10	0.04	asserted 1.00
s1	Only in one case (i.e., GRB 090926A), a spectral break feature at the high energy end is identified in the extra hard component, but the photon counts are not enough to distinguish between the cutoff model and the broken power law model for the spectral break.	gap 0.63	0.07	0.03	asserted 0.98
s2	In this work, we report the detection of an extra hard component showing the spectral break in GRB 240825A.	contribution 0.83	0.97	0.54	asserted 1.00
s3	We find that a broken power-law model fits the spectral data of the extra component better than a single power-law with an exponential cutoff in the time resolved spectrum for the second emission pulse, with a break at about 50 MeV.	result 1.00	0.98	0.47	asserted 1.00
s4	This spectral feature disfavors the gamma-ray opacity to pair creation as the origin of the spectral break, but points to an intrinsic peak for the extra component.	interpretation 1.00	0.87	0.28	asserted 0.79
s5	The low ratio between the peak of the extra hard component and that of the Band component challenges the synchrotron self-Compton origin for the extra component.	interpretation 0.86	0.88	0.07	asserted 0.90
s6	Alternative scenarios, such as the inverse Compton scattering of the photosphere emission, are discussed.	interpretation 0.97	0.46	0.03	unclear 0.54
s7	In addition, we find a clear transition from the prompt emission to afterglow emission at GeV energies in GRB 240825A, manifested by a temporal steep decay and an unique spectral evolution.	result 1.00	0.97	0.13	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.79.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** GBM and LAT count-rate light curves of GRB 240825A with 0.1 s time binning in different energy band. The bottom panel shows the energies of the events above 100 MeV that have high association probability (> 95%) with this GRB. The dashed red vertical lines indicate the time intervals that are selected for spectral analyses and the blue shadow region indicates the time interval a1 when no high-energy photons are detected by Fermi LAT

**Figure 2.** The time-integrated spectrum measured from T0 + 0.529 s to T0 + 5.831 s and the model fits for GRB 240825A. Left panel: The spectral fitting with the Band+CPL model. Middle panel: The spectral fitting with the Band+BPL model. Right panel: The spectral fitting with the Band+SBPL model. The dashed lines represent the Band component, the dotted lines represent the extra component (CPL, BPL or SBPL component), and the solid lines represent the sum of them. The lower panels show the residual of the spectral fitting. 10 2 10 3 10 4 F (k e V c m 2 s 1 ) 1.901-3.915 s NaI6 NaI7 BGO1 LAT 10…

**Figure 3.** The time-resolved spectrum of GRB 240825A measured from T0 + 1.901 s to T0 + 3.915 s (interval b). Left panel: The spectral fitting with the Band+CPL model. Middle panel: The spectral fitting with the Band+BPL model. Right panel: The spectral fitting with the Band+SBPL model. The dashed lines represent the Band component, the dotted lines represent the extra component (CPL, BPL or SBPL component), and the solid lines represent the sum of them. The lower panels show the residual of the spectral fitting

**Figure 4.** The νF ν model spectra plotted for each of the time bins considered in the time-resolved spectroscopy. The dashed lines represent the Band component, the dotted lines represent the extra component (CPL or SBPL component), and the solid lines represent the best-fit model. The dashed lines represent the part above 1 GeV of the best-fit model (for intervals a2 and c), corresponding to the extrapolation of Band component

**Figure 5.** Time variation of the LAT flux (top panel) and photon index (bottom panel) for GRB 240825A. The blue line shows the fit with a broken power-law to the data after T0 + 3.9 s

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2501.03082 by the authors.

References

Works cited (48)

[1]

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Asano, K., et al. 2009a, ApJ, 707, 580, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/580

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/580
[2]

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Arimoto, M., et al. 2009b, Science, 323, 1688, doi: 10.1126/science.1169101

View on Pith doi:10.1126/science.1169101
[3]

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009c, Nature, 462, 331, doi: 10.1038/nature08574 —. 2009d, ApJL, 706, L138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L138 —. 2010, ApJ, 712, 558, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/558

View on Pith doi:10.1038/nature08574 2010
[4]

Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2010a, ApJL, 717, L127, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/2/L127

View on Pith doi:10.1088/2041-8205/717/2/l127
[5]

Ackermann, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2010b, ApJ, 716, 1178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1178

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1178
[6]

Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/114

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/2/114 2011
[7]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

View on Pith 1996
[8]

Asano, K., Guiriec, S., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2009, ApJL, 705, L191, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/L191

View on Pith Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/l191 2009
[9]

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

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009
[10]

Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995 B´ egu´ e, D., Samuelsson, F., & Pe’er, A. 2022, ApJ, 937, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b7

View on Pith doi:10.1086/172995 1993
[11]

Beloborodov, A. M., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2017, SSRv, 207, 87, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0348-6 Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Daigne, F. 2014, A&A, 568, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322341

View on Pith doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0348-6 2017
[12]

Brivio, R., Ferro, M., D’Avanzo, P., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37295, 1

View on Pith 2024
[13]

Burgess, J. M., Kole, M., Berlato, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935056

View on Pith doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935056 2019
[14]

Burgess, J. M., Preece, R. D., Connaughton, V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/17

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/17 2014
[15]

Cheng, Y., Pan, Y., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9ea1

View on Pith doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9ea1 2025
[16]

Daigne, F., Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Dubus, G. 2011, A&A, 526, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457 7 Di Lalla, N., Gupta, R., Holzmann, A., & Fermi-LAT Collaboration. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37288, 1

View on Pith doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015457 2011
[17]

Dutton, D., Dubay, M., Schlekat, D., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37276, 1

View on Pith 2024
[18]

Evans, P. A., Goad, M. R., Osborne, J. P., Beardmore, A. P., & Swift-XRT Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37290, 1 Fermi GBM Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37273, 1

View on Pith 2024
[19]

Frederiks, D., Lysenko, A., Ridnaia, A., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37302, 1

View on Pith 2024
[20]

Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Celotti, A. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 926, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16171.x

View on Pith arXiv 2010
[21]

Granot, J., Cohen-Tanugi, J., & Silva, E. d. C. e. 2008, ApJ, 677, 92, doi: 10.1086/526414

View on Pith doi:10.1086/526414 2008
[22]

Guiffreda, O., Durbak, J., Atri, S., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37303, 1

View on Pith 2024
[23]

Gupta, R., Brivio, R., Dichiara, S., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37274, 1

View on Pith 2024
[24]

Jiang, S. Q., Liu, X., An, J., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37275, 1

View on Pith 2024
[25]

Kaneko, Y., Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 298, doi: 10.1086/505911

View on Pith doi:10.1086/505911 2006
[26]

Kumar, P., & Barniol Duran, R. 2009, MNRAS, 400, L75, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00766.x

View on Pith arXiv 2009
[27]

Kumar, P., & Panaitescu, A. 2000, ApJL, 541, L9, doi: 10.1086/312888

View on Pith doi:10.1086/312888 2000
[28]

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

View on Pith Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 2015
[29]

Li, R. Z., Wang, B. T., Song, F. F., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37280, 1

View on Pith 2024
[30]

Lipunov, V., Kornilov, V., Gorbovskoy, E., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37279, 1

View on Pith 2024
[31]

Martin-Carrillo, A., Schneider, B., Pugliese, G., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37293, 1

View on Pith 2024
[32]

Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/791 2009
[33]

Nava, L. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842003, doi: 10.1142/S0218271818420038

View on Pith doi:10.1142/s0218271818420038 2018
[34]

Nunes, R. C., Pan, S., Saridakis, E. N., & Abreu, E. M. C. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 005, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/01/005

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/01/005 2017
[35]

Odeh, M., & Guessoum, N. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37277, 1 Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B. 2006, ApJ, 653, 454, doi: 10.1086/508681

View on Pith Pith review doi:10.1086/508681 2024
[36]

Ravasio, M. E., Oganesyan, G., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732245

View on Pith Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732245 2018
[37]

Ravasio, M. E., Salafia, O. S., Oganesyan, G., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 452, doi: 10.1126/science.adj3638

View on Pith doi:10.1126/science.adj3638 2024
[38]

Ryde, F., Axelsson, M., Zhang, B. B., et al. 2010, ApJL, 709, L172, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L172

View on Pith doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/l172 2010
[39]

Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

View on Pith 1978
[40]

Sharma, V., Meegan, C., & Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37301, 1 SVOM/C-GFT Team, Wu, C., Kang, Z., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37292, 1

View on Pith 2024
[41]

Toma, K., Wu, X. F., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1663, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18807.x

View on Pith arXiv 2011
[42]

Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 351, doi: 10.1038/nphys2932

View on Pith doi:10.1038/nphys2932 2014
[43]

Wang, C.-W., Xiong, S.-L., & Gecam Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37315, 1

View on Pith 2024
[44]

Wang, K., Liu, R.-Y., Dai, Z.-G., & Asano, K. 2018, ApJ, 857, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab667

View on Pith doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab667 2018
[45]

Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z., Dai, Z.-G., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2009, ApJL, 698, L98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/L98

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/l98 2009
[46]

Zhang, B. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 210, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1041-3

View on Pith doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1041-3 2020
[47]

Zhang, B.-B., Uhm, Z. L., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., & Zhang, B. 2016, ApJ, 816, 72, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/72

View on Pith doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/72 2016
[48]

Zhang, J., Du, G., Guo, H., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37278, 1 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 20000 40000 60000Counts/s a b c d NaI6 + NaI7 (8 - 800 keV) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2000 4000 6000Counts/s BGO (0.8 - 10 MeV) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 100 200Counts/s BGO (10 - 40 MeV) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 100 200Counts/s LAT (0.1 - 100 GeV) a1 a2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 T T0 (s) 102 1...

View on Pith 2024

How the literature uses it

2 arXiv papers cite this in 3 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Asano, K., et al. 2009a, ApJ, 707, 580, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/580

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/1/580

[2] [2]

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Arimoto, M., et al. 2009b, Science, 323, 1688, doi: 10.1126/science.1169101

View on Pith doi:10.1126/science.1169101

[3] [3]

Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009c, Nature, 462, 331, doi: 10.1038/nature08574 —. 2009d, ApJL, 706, L138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L138 —. 2010, ApJ, 712, 558, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/558

View on Pith doi:10.1038/nature08574 2010

[4] [4]

Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Baldini, L., et al. 2010a, ApJL, 717, L127, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/717/2/L127

View on Pith doi:10.1088/2041-8205/717/2/l127

[5] [5]

Ackermann, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2010b, ApJ, 716, 1178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1178

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1178

[6] [6]

Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 729, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/114

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/2/114 2011

[7] [7]

Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

View on Pith 1996

[8] [8]

Asano, K., Guiriec, S., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2009, ApJL, 705, L191, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/L191

View on Pith Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/l191 2009

[9] [9]

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

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

[10] [10]

Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995 B´ egu´ e, D., Samuelsson, F., & Pe’er, A. 2022, ApJ, 937, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac85b7

View on Pith doi:10.1086/172995 1993

[11] [11]

Beloborodov, A. M., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2017, SSRv, 207, 87, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0348-6 Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Daigne, F. 2014, A&A, 568, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322341

View on Pith doi:10.1007/s11214-017-0348-6 2017

[12] [12]

Brivio, R., Ferro, M., D’Avanzo, P., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37295, 1

View on Pith 2024

[13] [13]

Burgess, J. M., Kole, M., Berlato, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935056

View on Pith doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935056 2019

[14] [14]

Burgess, J. M., Preece, R. D., Connaughton, V., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 17, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/17

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/17 2014

[15] [15]

Cheng, Y., Pan, Y., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9ea1

View on Pith doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9ea1 2025

[16] [16]

Daigne, F., Boˇ snjak,ˇZ., & Dubus, G. 2011, A&A, 526, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015457 7 Di Lalla, N., Gupta, R., Holzmann, A., & Fermi-LAT Collaboration. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37288, 1

View on Pith doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015457 2011

[17] [17]

Dutton, D., Dubay, M., Schlekat, D., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37276, 1

View on Pith 2024

[18] [18]

Evans, P. A., Goad, M. R., Osborne, J. P., Beardmore, A. P., & Swift-XRT Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37290, 1 Fermi GBM Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37273, 1

View on Pith 2024

[19] [19]

Frederiks, D., Lysenko, A., Ridnaia, A., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37302, 1

View on Pith 2024

[20] [20]

Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Celotti, A. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 926, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16171.x

View on Pith arXiv 2010

[21] [21]

Granot, J., Cohen-Tanugi, J., & Silva, E. d. C. e. 2008, ApJ, 677, 92, doi: 10.1086/526414

View on Pith doi:10.1086/526414 2008

[22] [22]

Guiffreda, O., Durbak, J., Atri, S., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37303, 1

View on Pith 2024

[23] [23]

Gupta, R., Brivio, R., Dichiara, S., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37274, 1

View on Pith 2024

[24] [24]

Jiang, S. Q., Liu, X., An, J., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37275, 1

View on Pith 2024

[25] [25]

Kaneko, Y., Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 298, doi: 10.1086/505911

View on Pith doi:10.1086/505911 2006

[26] [26]

Kumar, P., & Barniol Duran, R. 2009, MNRAS, 400, L75, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00766.x

View on Pith arXiv 2009

[27] [27]

Kumar, P., & Panaitescu, A. 2000, ApJL, 541, L9, doi: 10.1086/312888

View on Pith doi:10.1086/312888 2000

[28] [28]

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

View on Pith Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 2015

[29] [29]

Li, R. Z., Wang, B. T., Song, F. F., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37280, 1

View on Pith 2024

[30] [30]

Lipunov, V., Kornilov, V., Gorbovskoy, E., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37279, 1

View on Pith 2024

[31] [31]

Martin-Carrillo, A., Schneider, B., Pugliese, G., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37293, 1

View on Pith 2024

[32] [32]

Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/791 2009

[33] [33]

Nava, L. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842003, doi: 10.1142/S0218271818420038

View on Pith doi:10.1142/s0218271818420038 2018

[34] [34]

Nunes, R. C., Pan, S., Saridakis, E. N., & Abreu, E. M. C. 2017, JCAP, 2017, 005, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/01/005

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/01/005 2017

[35] [35]

Odeh, M., & Guessoum, N. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37277, 1 Pe’er, A., & Zhang, B. 2006, ApJ, 653, 454, doi: 10.1086/508681

View on Pith Pith review doi:10.1086/508681 2024

[36] [36]

Ravasio, M. E., Oganesyan, G., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732245

View on Pith Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732245 2018

[37] [37]

Ravasio, M. E., Salafia, O. S., Oganesyan, G., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 452, doi: 10.1126/science.adj3638

View on Pith doi:10.1126/science.adj3638 2024

[38] [38]

Ryde, F., Axelsson, M., Zhang, B. B., et al. 2010, ApJL, 709, L172, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L172

View on Pith doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/l172 2010

[39] [39]

Schwarz, G. 1978, Annals of Statistics, 6, 461

View on Pith 1978

[40] [40]

Sharma, V., Meegan, C., & Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37301, 1 SVOM/C-GFT Team, Wu, C., Kang, Z., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37292, 1

View on Pith 2024

[41] [41]

Toma, K., Wu, X. F., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1663, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18807.x

View on Pith arXiv 2011

[42] [42]

Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2014, Nature Physics, 10, 351, doi: 10.1038/nphys2932

View on Pith doi:10.1038/nphys2932 2014

[43] [43]

Wang, C.-W., Xiong, S.-L., & Gecam Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37315, 1

View on Pith 2024

[44] [44]

Wang, K., Liu, R.-Y., Dai, Z.-G., & Asano, K. 2018, ApJ, 857, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab667

View on Pith doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab667 2018

[45] [45]

Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z., Dai, Z.-G., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2009, ApJL, 698, L98, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/L98

View on Pith doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/l98 2009

[46] [46]

Zhang, B. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 210, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1041-3

View on Pith doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1041-3 2020

[47] [47]

Zhang, B.-B., Uhm, Z. L., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., & Zhang, B. 2016, ApJ, 816, 72, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/72

View on Pith doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/72 2016

[48] [48]

Zhang, J., Du, G., Guo, H., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37278, 1 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 20000 40000 60000Counts/s a b c d NaI6 + NaI7 (8 - 800 keV) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2000 4000 6000Counts/s BGO (0.8 - 10 MeV) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 100 200Counts/s BGO (10 - 40 MeV) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 100 200Counts/s LAT (0.1 - 100 GeV) a1 a2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 T T0 (s) 102 1...

View on Pith 2024