Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 102 references

TeV afterglow emission from a structured GRB jet using the kinetic approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Structured jets produce structure-dependent TeV afterglows, with sharper energy fall-off suppressing inverse-Compton flux relative to synchrotron flux, and the re-scaled GRB 170817A model staying below CTAO sensitivity even on-axis.

desk verdict A solid numerical implementation with honest benchmarks, but the main TeV-structure claim is hostage to an arbitrary baryon-loading choice that the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09093 v2 pith:A7XRRNHV submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.HE

John P. Hope , Hendrik J. van Eerten , Sayan Kundu , Patricia Schady This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsafterglowsstructuredjetsinverseComptonscatteringKlein-NishinaTeVemissionkineticmodellingGRB170817A
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 argues that the angular energy structure of a gamma-ray burst jet directly shapes its TeV afterglow emission. Using a kinetic model extended with adiabatic expansion and fully self-consistent inverse-Compton cooling (including Klein-Nishina effects), the authors show that jets whose energy falls off more sharply with angle exhibit a lower inverse-Compton peak flux relative to the synchrotron peak, and that the peak flux and peak time of TeV light curves depend on both the energy profile and the observer angle. They benchmark the model against the semi-analytical code afterglowpy and find agreement except at early off-axis times, where the treatment of ejecta mass matters. Applying best-fit parameters for GRB 170817A, re-scaled for this model, they find that the 1 TeV light curve would lie below the 50-hour CTAO sensitivity even if the jet were viewed on-axis. This matters because TeV detections of afterglows are becoming common, and interpreting them requires understanding how jet structure and radiation physics interact.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a multi-zone kinetic code: the structured jet is divided into 18 independent homogeneous annuli, each running its own shell model and kinetic simulation for electrons and photons, with adiabatic expansion and Klein-Nishina-corrected inverse-Compton cooling solved self-consistently. The load-bearing identity is the baryon-loading relation $E_{\mathrm{ej,iso}} = (\gamma-1) M_{\mathrm{ej}} c^2$, which, combined with the assumption of a single initial Lorentz factor $\gamma_0$, makes the ejecta mass proportional to the angular energy profile $E(\theta)$. Observed fluxes are obtained by integrating over the equal-arrival-time surface with Doppler boosting and EBL attenuation.

What would settle it

Observe a GW170817-like short GRB with CTAO: if TeV emission is detected at a flux above the on-axis 1 TeV light curve predicted here, the paper's baryon-loading and microphysics assumptions would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a kinetic code extended with adiabatic expansion and fully self-consistent inverse-Compton cooling (with Klein-Nishina effects) for electrons and photons, the paper shows that structured jets produce TeV light curves whose peak flux and peak time depend on the angular energy profile and the observer angle. When the energy falls off more steeply with angle (Gaussian vs power-law vs top-hat), the inverse-Compton peak flux falls relative to the synchrotron peak, because the electron injection rate grows faster than the magnetic field energy toward the jet tip. The paper also finds that the choice of baryon loading—fixed initial Lorentz factor with angle-dependent ejecta mass, versus fixed ejecta mass—reverses the ordering of off-axis TeV peak turnovers and shifts peak times dramatically. Applying best-fit afterglowpy parameters re-scaled for the model to GRB 170817A, the 1 TeV light curve stays below the 50-hour CTAO sensitivity even when viewed on-axis.

Load-bearing premise

The jet is modelled as independent homogeneous annuli all starting with the same Lorentz factor, so the ejecta mass follows the same angular profile as the energy; if real jets instead have roughly constant ejecta mass per angle, the off-axis (and TeV) light curves change substantially, reversing the order of peak turnovers and shifting peak times by up to three orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TeV light curves of structured jets encode the angular energy profile: steeper profiles give earlier, lower peaks when viewed off axis.
  • The inverse-Compton-to-synchrotron flux ratio increases toward the jet tip, so off-axis observers see relatively weaker TeV emission than synchrotron emission.
  • The coasting phase from baryon loading leaves an observable imprint on early off-axis light curves, and different baryon-loading choices reverse the ordering of TeV peak turnovers.
  • For the re-scaled 170817A parameters, the 1 TeV light curve remains below the CTAO 50-hour sensitivity even on-axis, so a similar event would likely be TeV-quiet.
  • A fully numerical Klein-Nishina treatment gives a smoother transition between Thomson and KN cooling regimes than semi-analytical $Y$-parameter models, with differences visible only at high Compton potential.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If future jet simulations or observations pin down the baryon loading, the predicted TeV fluxes from off-axis structured jets could change by orders of magnitude, so current non-detection constraints from TeV searches should be treated with caution.
  • Extending the same kinetic framework to include jet spreading—neglected here—could raise the late-time TeV flux and possibly bring 170817A-like events within CTAO reach, making the on-axis non-detection a testable prediction.
  • Applying this approach to GRB 221009A, where both strong TeV emission and a shallow X-ray structure are seen, would test whether the inferred angular energy profile quantitatively matches the observed TeV-to-X-ray ratio.
  • Since the IC-to-synchrotron ratio tracks the jet's energetics, TeV data from structured jets may help break degeneracies between $\epsilon_e$ and $\epsilon_B$ that synchrotron-only multi-wavelength fits cannot.
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. Hope et al. present a modified version of the kinetic code katu for GRB afterglow emission from structured jets. They add adiabatic expansion and Klein-Nishina-corrected inverse Compton (IC) cooling for electrons, couple independent shell-model annuli with different energy profiles, integrate the equal-arrival-time surface for on- and off-axis observers, and apply EBL attenuation. They benchmark synchrotron light curves and spectra against afterglowpy, compare KN, Thomson, and synchrotron-only cooling with the McCarthy & Laskar model, and construct a TeV light curve for GRB 170817A from re-scaled afterglowpy best-fit parameters. Their main qualitative claim is that steeper angular energy profiles reduce the IC-to-synchrotron flux ratio, and that for their 170817A model the 1 TeV flux would remain below CTAO's 50-hour sensitivity even on-axis.

Significance. If robust, the paper would provide a genuinely new handle on structured jets: TeV emission would depend on the angular energy profile beyond achromatic light-curve shifts. The code extensions themselves are a useful contribution: self-consistent KN cooling in a kinetic solver, multi-zone structured-jet treatment, and EATS flux integration, with transparent comparisons to afterglowpy and to McCarthy & Laskar. The central qualitative claim is, however, conditional on an arbitrary baryon-loading prescription, and the paper's own Section 6.1 shows that the ordering of TeV peaks reverses under the alternative fixed-M_ej prescription. The 170817A prediction is also explicitly acknowledged in Section 6.3 as inconclusive, which should be reflected in the abstract. With these caveats addressed, the paper would be a solid advance in afterglow modelling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 / Eq. (33) / Fig. 7; Section 6.1 / Fig. 13] The abstract's central claim, that steeper angular energy drop-off reduces the IC-to-synchrotron peak ratio, is established in Section 4.1 only for the fixed-γ0 baryon loading introduced in Section 2.4, where M_ej is proportional to E(θ) via Eq. (8). The authors themselves describe this as 'an arbitrary choice in these runs.' Section 6.1 and Fig. 13 show that switching to fixed M_ej reverses the ordering of the 2 TeV light curves and shifts peak times by up to three orders of magnitude. Since 2 TeV lies in the IC component, this is direct evidence that the observable expression of Y_C may also change under an equally plausible loading prescription. Because Y_C is not reported for the fixed-M_ej runs, the paper has not shown that the abstract's claim is a property of structured jets rather than a consequence of the chosen M_ej(θ). The explanation in Section 4.1 (Q_e,0 ∝ γ^{8/3} versus B ∝ γ) is likewise frame-dependent: with fixed M_ej the annuli start with different γ0, so the deceleration ordering, and hence the γ sequence seen by an off-axis observer, reverses. Please compute Y_C for the fixed-M_ej runs, or restrict the claim to the fixed-γ0 prescription in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Section 6.1 / Fig. 13] The comparison between the fixed-γ0 and fixed-M_ej runs in Section 6.1 / Fig. 13 is not controlled for total ejecta mass. For the fixed-γ0 runs with Table 1 parameters, the total M_ej is set by Eq. (8) integrated over the jet structure and is of order 10^-6 solar masses for E0=10^53 erg and γ0=2000. The text then states 'M_ej is set to 10^-4 M_sun' without specifying whether this is per annulus or total; if per annulus, the total is roughly 18 times larger, and if total, roughly two orders of magnitude larger. Equations (7)-(9) show that a larger total M_ej at fixed energy lowers the initial γ and delays the deceleration phase for all annuli, so the later peak times and altered peak fluxes in Fig. 13 are expected even if the angular distribution of mass were irrelevant. The reversed ordering could therefore be an artifact of unmatched total mass rather than of the angular baryon loading. Please state the normalization of M_ej and repeat the comparison with matched total M_ej (and equal total energy) across the two prescriptions.
  3. [Abstract; Section 5 / Fig. 12; Section 6.3] The abstract's sentence that GRB 170817A would not have been detected in the TeV domain even on-axis is stronger than the manuscript's own discussion. Section 6.3 concludes that 'whether the TeV light curve of GRB 170817A would have been detectable on-axis remains inconclusive,' and it reports that Pellouin & Daigne (2024) obtain an on-axis CTAO-detectable flux about two orders of magnitude higher. Since the 170817A prediction also inherits the fixed-γ0 baryon loading and the re-scaled afterglowpy parameter set of Section 5, the abstract should either include the qualifier 'for our choice of parameters' (and ideally the baryon-loading qualifier) or remove the unqualified non-detection claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1.1 / Eq. (5)] The phrase 'fully self-consistent treatment of IC cooling' would be easier to verify if the text stated explicitly that the electron loss term and the photon upscattering term use the same Klein-Nishina cross-section, rather than leaving the reader to infer consistency from Eqs. (5)-(6) and the description of Katu's photon solver.
  2. [Section 5 footnote] Pair production is enabled only for the 170817A run, so the abstract's 'fully self-consistent treatment of IC cooling both for the electron and photon populations' should be scoped to exclude pair production in the general runs.
  3. [Section 3 / Figs. 3-5] The claimed 'good agreement' with afterglowpy is presented visually; adding residual panels or a quantitative goodness-of-fit measure for representative frequencies and observer angles would make the validation reproducible.
  4. [Data availability] The statement 'No new data was generated or analysed' is inaccurate in a narrow sense because the analysis uses public observational data for GRB 170817A; suggest rewording to 'No new observational data were obtained.'
  5. [Section 7] Consistent capitalization: the conclusions section uses lowercase 'katu' while the body uses 'Katu'; unify the naming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TeV predictions are forward-model outputs benchmarked against external codes; baryon-loading sensitivity is disclosed as a limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claims are obtained by forward simulation, not by fitting the target quantity. The TeV light curves and Y_C ratios in Section 4.1 are outputs of the kinetic model for prescribed jet structures, and the structure-to-emission relation is a physical consequence of the shell dynamics rather than an identity. The GRB 170817A TeV light curve in Section 5 is generated from afterglowpy best-fit parameters re-scaled to match synchrotron observations; no TeV data are used in the fit, so this is a genuine, though parameter-conditional, prediction. The principal caveat is the baryon-loading choice: Section 6.1 shows that replacing the fixed-gamma0 assumption (which makes M_ej proportional to E(theta) via Eq. 8) with fixed M_ej reverses the off-axis TeV turnover ordering. However, the paper explicitly states that the fixed-gamma0 choice is arbitrary and directly tests the alternative, so this is a disclosed modeling sensitivity rather than a circular step. Self-citations to the Katu code and to rescaling relations are methodological, and the model is benchmarked against the independent afterglowpy code and the semi-analytical results of McCarthy & Laskar (2024). No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation rests on a standard fireball shell model plus a set of chosen microphysics and jet-structure parameters. The most fragile input is the ad hoc baryon-loading choice, fixed gamma0, which the authors themselves flag. The 170817A application also depends on hand-rescaled parameters from a different code and on a model that omits jet spreading.

free parameters (10)
  • gamma0 (initial bulk Lorentz factor) = 2000 (all runs)
    Chosen, not derived. Sets the coasting phase and, under the fixed-gamma0 assumption, the angle-dependent ejecta mass. Off-axis early light curves depend strongly on this choice.
  • Rfire (initial fireball radius) = 1e8 cm
    Chosen initial radius. Controls the start of the coasting phase in the shell model.
  • E0 (jet-tip isotropic equivalent energy) = 1e53 erg (comparison), 2.16e53 erg (170817A re-scaled)
    Fixed for the parameter scan. For 170817A it is taken from the afterglowpy best fit and then re-scaled by hand to match observed light curves.
  • n_ext (external number density) = 1 cm^-3 (comparison), 3.6e-3 cm^-3 (170817A)
    Chosen or re-scaled external density. Affects deceleration, electron injection, and light-curve timescales.
  • eps_e (electron energy fraction) = 0.1 normal, 0.5 modified, 1.71e-3 for 170817A
    Microphysical input. The modified run raises eps_e to increase the Compton potential so that inverse-Compton cooling effects become visible.
  • eps_B (magnetic energy fraction) = 0.01 normal, 1e-4 modified, 5.75e-4 for 170817A
    Microphysical input. The modified run lowers eps_B to increase the Compton potential.
  • p (electron spectral index) = 2.2 comparison, 2.13 for 170817A
    Power-law injection slope. Chosen for the comparison runs and taken from the afterglowpy fit for 170817A.
  • theta_c, theta_w, b, theta_obs (jet geometry) = 0.08/0.24 rad, b=2, 0 to 0.36 rad comparison; 3.21/15.47 degrees, b=2, 19.48 degrees for 170817A
    Jet structure and observer angle are model inputs, partly from afterglowpy fits and partly arbitrary scan values. The central claim is a scan over these inputs.
  • chi_N (fraction of electrons accelerated) = 1
    Assumed all swept-up electrons are accelerated into the non-thermal distribution. Affects normalization of the injection term.
  • eta (gamma_max ignorance parameter) = 1
    Sets the synchrotron cut-off through Eq. 20. Chosen freely, with no independent constraint.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Strong-shock jump conditions and a homogeneous shell with a trans-relativistic equation of state describe the blast wave.
    Used in Section 2.2 to set density, internal energy, and shell width. Standard in afterglow modeling but an idealization for structured jets.
  • domain assumption The electron population remains relativistic with adiabatic index gamma_hat = 4/3 throughout, including in the trans-relativistic regime.
    Stated in Section 2.1.1 and Appendix A. If the electron population becomes non-relativistic, the adiabatic cooling term would need modification.
  • domain assumption Independent homogeneous annuli with no lateral transport or jet spreading capture the structured jet.
    Zonal decomposition in Section 2.4. Jet spreading is neglected and is acknowledged as a source of excess late-time flux for GRB 170817A.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial Lorentz factor gamma0 is fixed across the jet, so ejecta mass M_ej is proportional to the angular energy profile E(theta).
    Chosen in Section 2.4 via Eq. 8 and explicitly called arbitrary in Section 6.1. Replacing it with fixed M_ej reverses the off-axis TeV turnover ordering in Fig. 13.
  • domain assumption Electron escape is negligible compared with the adiabatic timescale.
    Adopted from the original Katu treatment in Section 2.1. Electrons are assumed confined to the emitting zone.
  • domain assumption Photon escape is approximated by a cylindrical geometry with escape timescale tau_esc = (pi/4) gamma Delta R / c.
    Given in Eq. 13. Sets the time-step and the conversion from photon population to flux; the authors note that the observed flux is insensitive to the exact value because n_ph scales with tau_esc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TeV afterglow emission from a structured GRB jet using the kinetic approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7XRRNHV

@misc{pith2026250109093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TeV afterglow emission from a structured GRB jet using the kinetic approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7XRRNHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09093}
}
read the original abstract

Recent years have seen a growing sample of TeV emission detections in gamma-ray burst afterglows, as well as an increasing role for structured jets in afterglow modelling. Using a kinetic approach, we show that the structure of an afterglow jet impacts its TeV emission, with jets where the energy falls off more sharply with angle showing a decrease in Inverse Compton (IC) peak flux relative to synchrotron peak flux. We use a modified version of the code katu, to which we have added adiabatic expansion and a fully self-consistent treatment of IC cooling both for the electron and photon populations. We compare our results to the semi-analytical code afterglowpy, finding a good agreement with our model except at early times off axis where the effects of baryon loading are important. We compare electron cooling in the cases where there is no IC cooling, Thomson cooling and an inclusion of Klein-Nishina effects, finding that the spectra can only be distinguished if the Compton potential is significantly increased. We obtain a similar cooling rate compared to semi-analytical solutions, with some small difference at the transition from IC to synchrotron dominated cooling. Finally, we use best-fit parameters determined by afterglowpy and re-scaled for our model to reproduce the light curves of GRB 170817A. For our choice of parameters, we find that GRB 170817 would not have been detected in the TeV domain if seen on-axis, even by the upcoming Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09093 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of a jet with half-opening width 𝜃𝑤 and observer angle relative to jet normal 𝜃obs. The jet is assumed to be moving parallel to 𝑧ˆ without loss of generality. The emitting region of the jet has a width Δ𝑅, and has been split into a circular and annular zone (zones 0 and 1 respectively) to allow for a two component jet to be modelled. More zones (∼18) are required to capture the full structure of a Gaussian… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the same jet as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results from the on-axis (𝜃obs = 0) top-hat run from table 1, for 100 (red), 2.5 × 103 (orange), 4 × 104 (blue) and 2 × 105 (purple) seconds. (a) Spectral flux at the given times, from Katu (solid) and afterglowpy (dashed). Katu also includes self-absorption, synchrotron cut-off and IC scattering in its run, while afterglowpy only includes synchrotron cooling. (b) Katu 𝜈𝐹𝜈 spectrum of the same run at the same times,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curves for the top-hat, Gaussian and power-law jet structures for on-axis (top row) and off axis (0.36 radians or 𝜃obs/𝜃𝑤 = 1.5; bottom row), from 10 seconds to 4.5 days. The frequencies used are 1 × 1012 Hz (red), 5 × 1015 Hz (orange), 1 × 1018 Hz (blue) and 1 ×…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the shell velocity 𝛽𝛾 in observer time for the top-hat (left) and Gaussian (right) jets from table 1. The top plots are for the on-axis observer, while the bottom plots are for the off axis observer. Solid lines are from the Katu shell model, while dashed …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 2 TeV light curves for a series of observer angles (0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5 times the jet width 𝜃𝑤) relative to the jet normal for a top-hat (black), Gaussian (red) and power-law (blue) jet structure. Due to the identical use of 𝐸0 across the runs, the on-axis light curves a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Compton Y-parameter at 𝜈𝑐 (𝑌𝐶) for a series of observer angles (0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5 times the jet width 𝜃𝑤) relative to the jet normal for a top-hat (black), Gaussian (red) and power-law (blue) jet structure. 𝑌𝐶 follows a similar relationship to that shown in [PITH_FULL…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Compton Y parameter over observer time for runs with Thomson and Klein-Nishina corrected cooling for the electrons (photons have the KN￾correction enabled in all cases), using the normal parameters (those found in table 1), and the modified parameters (where 𝜖𝑒 = 0.5 a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectra and spectral gradients for a series of runs with synchrotron-only (red), Thomson IC cooling (blue) and general/KN IC cooling (black), at the start and end of the simulation (10−4 days to 4.6 days). A synchrotron run without a cut-off is also shown (dashed red l…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Electron cooling in energy space for a series of lab times in the KN corrected modified run. (a) Comparison of the synchrotron [dashed], adiabatic [dotted] and IC cooling (KN corrected) [solid], for an early lab time (193 s, black) and a late lab time (∼ 107 s, blue).…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Data points from 1 − 3000 days (Eyles-Ferris et al. 2024) for GRB170817A for 6 GHz (red), r-band (blue) and X-rays (pink). Overlaid are the best-fit light curves from afterglowpy with spreading from Ryan et al. (2024) (dashed line), the equivalent result from Katu (do…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 1 TeV light curves for the 170817A re-scaled run, with the off axis observer angle (solid) and on-axis (dashed) shown. The 50h performance for the CTAO at 1 TeV is also provided for reference (red dot-dashed) ing CTAO at 1 TeV5 , which acts as the best case scenario. …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 2 TeV light curves where we compare the fixed 𝛾0 and 𝑀ej runs. Jet structure in both plots are given by colour, with top-hat (black), Gaussian (red) and power-law (sky blue). In the top plot, we reproduce a similar figure to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al., 2017a, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017a, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2017b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c , 848, L13

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c , 848, L13

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

  3. [3]

    Abdalla H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-1743-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.575..464A 575, 464

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1743-9 2019

  4. [4]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd249 , 908, 90

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd249 , 908, 90

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd249 2021

  5. [5]

    A., Kirk J

    Achterberg A., Gallant Y. A., Kirk J. G., Guthmann A. W., 2001, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04851.x , 328, 393

    arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1227160 , 338, 1190

    doi:10.1126/science.1227160 2012

  7. [7]

    Ajello M., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05 , 890, 9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05 2020

  8. [8]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 , 863, L18

    Alexander K. D., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 , 863, L18

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 2018

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    An Z.-H., et al., 2023, Insight-HXMT and GECAM-C observations of the brightest-of-all-time GRB 221009A ( @eprint arXiv 2303.01203 )

    2023

  2. [10]

    H., van Eerten H

    Ayache E. H., van Eerten H. J., Eardley R. W., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3509 , 510, 1315

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Banerjee B., et al., 2024, Camelidae on BOAT: observation of a second spectral component in GRB 221009A ( @eprint arXiv 2405.15855 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15855

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    B., Piran T., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2033 , 454, 1073

    Beniamini P., Nava L., Duran R. B., Piran T., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2033 , 454, 1073

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Beniamini P., Granot J., Gill R., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa538 , 493, 3521

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Blanch O., et al., 2020, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020GCN.29075....1B 29075, 1

    2020

  7. [15]

    R., Gould R

    Blumenthal G. R., Gould R. J., 1970, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.42.237 , 42, 237

    1970 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Krawczynski H., 2012, Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei

    Boettcher M., Harris D. E., Krawczynski H., 2012, Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei

    2012

  9. [17]

    T., Murase K., Ioka K., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae093 , 528, 4307

    Bošnjak v., Zhang B. T., Murase K., Ioka K., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae093 , 528, 4307

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium et al., 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , @doi 10.1142/10986

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    SISSA, Trieste, p

    Collaboration M., et al., 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2021). SISSA, Trieste, p. 788, @doi 10.3929/ethz-b-000524275

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Costa E., et al., 1997, Nature, 387, 783

    1997

  13. [21]

    Derishev E., 2021, Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics, 63, 862

    2021

  14. [22]

    Derishev E., Piran T., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2dec , 923, 135

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Domínguez A., et al., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17631.x , 410, 2556

    2011

  16. [24]

    C., MacFadyen A

    Duffell P. C., MacFadyen A. I., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/776/1/L9 , 776, L9

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Daigne, F

    Duque, R. Daigne, F. Mochkovitch, R. 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935926 , 631, A39

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    et al., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832664 , 613, L1

    D’Avanzo, P. et al., 2018, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832664 , 613, L1

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Eyles-Ferris R. A. J., van Eerten H., Troja E., O’Brien P. T., 2024, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad1f6a , 8, 27

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670067 , 125, 306

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    Frederiks D., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb , 949, L7

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Fukushima T., To S., Asano K., Fujita Y., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b83 , 844, 92

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Achterberg A., 1999, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02566.x , 305, L6

    Gallant Y. A., Achterberg A., 1999, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02566.x , 305, L6

    1999

  24. [32]

    Geng J.-J., Zhang B., Kölligan A., Kuiper R., Huang Y.-F., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab224b , 877, L40

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Gill R., Granot J., 2022, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies10030074 , 10

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Granot J., 2006, The Structure and Dynamics of GRB Jets ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0610379 )

    2006 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Granot J., Kumar P., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/375489 , 591, 1086

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    Granot J., Sari R., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/338966 , 568, 820

    2002 doi

  29. [37]

    Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abe8560 , 372, 1081

    H.E.S.S. Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abe8560 , 372, 1081

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Hajela A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927L..17H 927, L17

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Dwek E., 2001, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.249 , 39, 249

    Hauser M. G., Dwek E., 2001, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.249 , 39, 249

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    Huang Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...931..150H 931, 150

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Beniamini P., van der Horst A

    Jacovich T. E., Beniamini P., van der Horst A. J., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab911 , 504, 528

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Jim \'e nez Fern \'a ndez B., 2022, PhD thesis, University of Bath, United Kingdom

    2022

  35. [43]

    J., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3163 , 500, 3613

    Jiménez-Fernández B., van Eerten H. J., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3163 , 500, 3613

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    C., 1968, @doi [Phys

    Jones F. C., 1968, @doi [Phys. Rev.] 10.1103/PhysRev.167.1159 , 167, 1159

    1968 doi

  37. [45]

    M., Winter W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..242K 977, 242

    Klinger M., Yuan C., Taylor A. M., Winter W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9392 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977..242K 977, 242

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Kobayashi S., Piran T., Sari R., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/306868 , 513, 669

    1999 doi

  39. [47]

    LHAASO Collaboration T., 2023, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.adj2778 , 9, eadj2778

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Kobayashi S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1820L 489, 1820

    Lamb G. P., Kobayashi S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2252 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1820L 489, 1820

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Perna R., Workman J

    Lazzati D., López-Cámara D., Cantiello M., Morsony B. J., Perna R., Workman J. C., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f3d , 848, L6

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Lemoine M., Pelletier G., 2012, @doi [AIP Conference Proceedings] 10.1063/1.3701361 , 1439, 194

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    Lesage S., et al., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952, L42

    2023

  44. [52]

    MAGIC Collaboration et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-019-1750-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.575..455M 575, 455

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    Margutti R., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab2ad , 856, L18

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    G., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9610058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...320...19M 320, 19

    Mastichiadis A., Kirk J. G., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9610058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...320...19M 320, 19

    1997 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    A., Laskar T., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4e37 , 970, 135

    McCarthy G. A., Laskar T., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4e37 , 970, 135

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    M\' e sz\' a ros P., 2002, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093821 , 40, 137

    2002

  49. [57]

    J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..278M 405, 278

    Meszaros P., Rees M. J., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172360 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..278M 405, 278

    1993 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Papathanassiou H., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...432..181M 432, 181

    Meszaros P., Rees M. J., Papathanassiou H., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...432..181M 432, 181

    1994 doi

  51. [59]

    Mignone A., Plewa T., Bodo G., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/430905 , 160, 199

    2005 doi

  52. [60]

    Mirzoyan R., et al., 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019GCN.23701....1M 23701, 1

    2019

  53. [61]

    A., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1261 , 699, 1261

    Mizuta A., Aloy M. A., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1261 , 699, 1261

    2009 doi

  54. [62]

    Mondal T., Pramanick S., Resmi L., Bose D., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad1388 , 522, 5690

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Wijers R

    Mészáros P., Rees M. J., Wijers R. A. M. J., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305635 , 499, 301

    1998 doi

  56. [64]

    Nakar E., Ando S., Sari R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703..675N 703, 675

    2009 doi

  57. [65]

    Nava L., Sironi L., Ghisellini G., Celotti A., Ghirlanda G., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt872 , 433, 2107

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    D., 2022, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies10010007 , 10

    Noda K., Parsons R. D., 2022, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies10010007 , 10

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    O’Connor B., et al., 2023b, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.adi1405 , 9, eadi1405

    doi

  60. [69]

    Pellouin C., Daigne F., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.281P 690, A281

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    Pennanen T., Vurm I., Poutanen J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A..77P 564, A77

    2014 doi

  62. [71]

    Petropoulou M., Mastichiadis A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507..599P 507, 599

    2009 doi

  63. [72]

    Petry D., et al., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/308955 , 536, 742

    2000 doi

  64. [73]

    J., Mészáros P., 1992, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/258.1.41P , 258, 41P

    Rees M. J., Mészáros P., 1992, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/258.1.41P , 258, 41P

    1992 doi

  65. [74]

    Ren J., Wang Y., Dai Z.-G., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1bcd , 962, 115

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.332..945R 332, 945

    Rossi E., Lazzati D., Rees M. J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.332..945R 332, 945

    2002

  67. [76]

    Rudolph A., Petropoulou M., Željka Bošnjak Winter W., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc861 , 950, 28

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    Ryan G., van Eerten H., Piro L., Troja E., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf , 896, 166

    2020 doi

  69. [78]

    Ryan G., van Eerten H., Troja E., Piro L., O'Connor B., Ricci R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..131R 975, 131

    2024 doi

  70. [79]

    S., Ghirlanda G., 2022, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies10050093 , 10

    Salafia O. S., Ghirlanda G., 2022, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies10050093 , 10

    2022 doi

  71. [80]

    A., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/319003 , 548, 787

    Sari R., Esin A. A., 2001, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/319003 , 548, 787

    2001 doi

  72. [81]

    Sari R., Piran T., Narayan R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...497L..17S 497, L17

    1998 doi

  73. [82]

    H., Barthelmy S

    Siegel M. H., Barthelmy S. D., Burrows D. N., Lien A. Y., Marshall F. E., Palmer D. M., Sbarufatti B., 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016GCN.19833....1S 19833, 1

    2016

  74. [83]

    Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75 , 726, 75

    2010 doi

  75. [84]

    Sironi L., Spitkovsky A., Arons J., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54 , 771, 54

    2013 doi

  76. [85]

    Stanbro M., Meegan C., 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016GCN.19843....1S 19843, 1

    2016

  77. [86]

    W., de Jager O

    Stecker F. W., de Jager O. C., Salamon M. H., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...390L..49S 390, L49

    1992 doi

  78. [87]

    W., Malkan M

    Stecker F. W., Malkan M. A., Scully S. T., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/506188 , 648, 774

    2006 doi

  79. [88]

    Troja E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...71T 551, 71

    2017 doi

  80. [89]

    Troja E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478L..18T 478, L18

    2018 doi

  81. [90]

    Troja E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1919T 489, 1919

    2019 doi

  82. [91]

    Troja E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3533 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.1902T 510, 1902

    2022 doi

  83. [92]

    Van Paradijs J., et al., 1997, Nature, 386, 686

    1997

  84. [93]

    Vurm I., Poutanen J., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/293 , 698, 293

    2009 doi

  85. [94]

    Wu Y., MacFadyen A., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9de , 869, 55

    2018 doi

  86. [95]

    Yamasaki S., Piran T., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac483 , 512, 2142

    2022 doi

  87. [96]

    M., Mészáros P., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/382132 , 601, L119

    Zhang B., Dai X., Lloyd-Ronning N. M., Mészáros P., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/382132 , 601, L119

    2004 doi

  88. [97]

    van Eerten H., 2013a, Gamma-ray burst afterglow theory ( @eprint arXiv 1309.3869 )

    arXiv

  89. [98]

    arXiv:1309.3869

    van Eerten H., 2013b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1309.3869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1309.3869V p. arXiv:1309.3869

    doi arXiv

  90. [99]

    van Eerten H., 2018, @doi [International Journal of Modern Physics D] 10.1142/S0218271818420026 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018IJMPD..2742002V 27, 1842002

    2018 doi

  91. [100]

    J., MacFadyen A

    van Eerten H. J., MacFadyen A. I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/747/2/L30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747L..30V 747, L30

    2012 doi

  92. [101]

    J., Ryan G

    van Eerten H. J., Ryan G. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.4094V 530, 4094

    2024 doi

  93. [102]

    J., Wijers R

    van Eerten H. J., Wijers R. A. M. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14482.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.394.2164V 394, 2164

    2009

  94. [103]

    van Eerten H., Zhang W., MacFadyen A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722..235V 722, 235

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.