Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Identifying potential binary neutron star merger events from the Fermi GBM Gamma-Ray Burst Catalog

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cluster analysis of Fermi GRB catalog singles out 75 likely neutron-star merger bursts

desk verdict Useful follow-up prioritization tool, but the enrichment claim needs a baseline comparison—Cluster 2 largely tracks the short-hard GRB population. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18258 v1 pith:RZB7YNEX submitted 2025-07-24 astro-ph.HE

I. F. Giudice , L. Izzo , R. Martone , M. T. Botticella , E. Cappellaro , R. De Rosa , M. Della Valle This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsbinaryneutronstarmergerskilonovaFermiGBMclusteringanalysisUMAPmultimessengerastronomyshortGRBs
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 tries to establish that clustering the Fermi GBM burst catalog can isolate gamma-ray bursts most likely to come from binary neutron star mergers, using GRB 170817A and GRB 150101B as reference events. It groups 3585 bursts into five clusters from $T_{90}$, $E_{\rm peak}$, and fluence after UMAP dimensionality reduction and K-means clustering, and both reference bursts land in the same cluster. Restricting that cluster to bursts with localization error at most 0.1 degrees leaves 75 candidates, nine with redshifts, presented as a prioritized sample for kilonova and host-galaxy follow-up. The approach matters because the classification can be applied to a new Fermi detection within minutes, and it recovers most previously identified kilonova-linked short GRBs.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an unsupervised pipeline: logarithmic scaling and z-score standardization of three prompt observables ($T_{90}$, $E_{\rm peak}$, fluence), UMAP dimensionality reduction to two dimensions, and K-means clustering with five clusters. UMAP is a manifold-learning method that builds a nearest-neighbor graph and projects it into low dimensions while preserving local structure; it was chosen over PCA and t-SNE because it gave the best silhouette and Davies-Bouldin scores. The load-bearing identity is the co-location of the two reference bursts in Cluster 2, which anchors the interpretation of that cluster as the merger-like family; the paper notes that $T_{90}$ appears to be the parameter doing most of the work in separating this cluster from the long-GRB groups.

What would settle it

Take the published set of short GRBs with confirmed kilonova counterparts or gravitational-wave associations beyond the two reference events; if fewer than half of the Fermi-detected members of that set fall inside Cluster 2, the cluster is not a merger family. This test can be run immediately from existing catalogs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that prompt gamma-ray measurements alone, without afterglow information, carry enough structure for an unsupervised algorithm to mark out a merger-like subpopulation. With five clusters chosen through silhouette and Davies-Bouldin scores, UMAP followed by K-means places GRB 170817A and GRB 150101B together in Cluster 2, whose centroid is short ($T_{90}\sim0.79$ s), moderately faint in fluence, and relatively hard in peak energy. The paper interprets Cluster 2 as containing bursts with intrinsic properties similar to merger-associated events, and shows that it recovers most of the short GRBs in the cited short-GRB catalog and the ideal kilonova candidates listed in a published review. A localization filter reduces the cluster to 75 well-located candidates, including a gold subset of nine with redshift measurements; the paper argues these are the most promising targets for identifying kilonovae and host galaxies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that three prompt gamma-ray measurements ($T_{90}$, $E_{\rm peak}$, fluence) can define a physically meaningful merger/non-merger split, with GRB 170817A and GRB 150101B standing in for the entire binary neutron star merger class; the paper concedes in Section 2 that these parameters are not sufficient to distinguish different progenitor types.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A new Fermi GBM detection can be classified as merger-like or not within minutes, making the cluster a real-time triage tool for electromagnetic follow-up.
  • The 75-burst well-localized sample gives observers a concrete target list for kilonova searches, host-galaxy identification, and redshift measurement.
  • The nine gold bursts with redshifts, including 080905A, 090510, 160821B, and 210323A, become high-priority objects for multi-wavelength study of merger ejecta.
  • Cross-matching future gravitational-wave triggers with Cluster 2 will concentrate follow-up on gamma-ray events most likely to accompany a neutron-star merger.
  • Recovering most of the ideal kilonova candidates listed in the cited review suggests the five-cluster structure generalizes beyond this single catalog.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cluster definition is physically meaningful, applying the same UMAP/K-means recipe to prompt catalogs from Swift/BAT or next-generation instruments should place independently confirmed merger bursts in the analogue of Cluster 2; that is a direct transfer test of the method.
  • The 66 unconfirmed members of the filtered cluster form an archival test set: deep optical and infrared imaging of their localization regions, even years after the bursts, could reveal missed kilonova candidates.
  • The placement of the long bursts GRB 211211A and GRB 230307A outside Cluster 2 suggests duration is doing heavy lifting in this classification, so a longer-duration merger class would likely need X-ray or spectroscopic information to be rescued from prompt observables alone.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies UMAP dimensionality reduction and K-means clustering to 3585 Fermi GBM bursts using log-transformed T90, Epeak, and fluence. With five clusters, Cluster 2 contains GRB 170817A and GRB 150101B and has a centroid T90 of 0.79 s; after a post-clustering error-radius filter of 0.1 degrees, it yields 75 candidates, of which nine have X-ray afterglows and redshift measurements ('gold' sample). The authors claim that Cluster 2 identifies a subpopulation of potential kilonova-associated mergers, and they support this by overlaps with the Fong et al. (2022) short-GRB catalog and Troja (2023) Group 1 candidates, and they present a host-galaxy association pipeline tested on NGC 4993.

Significance. If the enrichment claim were established, the 75-event candidate list would be immediately useful for prioritizing electromagnetic follow-up and the host-galaxy pipeline would aid nearby-event searches. The paper has real strengths: internal consistency checks across dimensionality-reduction methods (Silhouette, DBI, ARI/NMI, DBSCAN comparison), successful recovery of known kilonova-associated bursts, a reproducible pipeline based on standard libraries, and a host-pipeline test that correctly identifies NGC 4993. The central limitation is that Cluster 2 closely resembles the ordinary short-GRB population and no control sample or false-positive baseline is provided, so the claimed physical distinction between merger-like and collapsar-like bursts is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4 and Section 4] The identification of Cluster 2 as a merger-associated subpopulation is selected on the outcome it is meant to validate. Section 3.4 states that ncluster=5 was preferred in part because the two reference GRBs (170817A and 150101B) remain grouped together, and Section 4 defines Cluster 2 as the cluster 'as it includes both reference GRBs.' The later external validations are not independent: the Fong et al. (2022) comparison places the majority of known short GRBs in Cluster 2, and the Troja (2023) Group 1 events are known short GRBs that any short-GRB selection would recover. The authors should compare Cluster 2 against a simple T90 < 2 s cut (or a matched short-GRB control) in terms of known-merger fraction, redshift distribution, and afterglow properties, to demonstrate that the clustering adds enrichment over the standard short-GRB class.
  2. [Section 4 (post-clustering filters)] The reduction from 657 Cluster 2 members to 75 candidates via the error-radius filter and then to nine 'gold' events via afterglow and redshift requirements is applied without a control sample. Because these filters select for observability and localization quality, the resulting list may simply be the well-localized, well-observed subset of short GRBs. To support the claimed BNS-merger enrichment, the authors should apply the same error-radius, afterglow, and redshift criteria to the non-Cluster-2 short-GRB population (or to the full catalog) and report the relative recovery rate; without this false-positive baseline, the 75-event and nine-event samples do not establish that Cluster 2 is more merger-rich than the general short-GRB population.
  3. [Section 2, Section 4, Table 4, Table D.1] The physical interpretation is in tension with the data and with the paper's own caveat. Section 2 states that T90, Epeak, and fluence 'are not sufficient to distinguish between different progenitor types,' yet Section 4 concludes that Cluster 2 'encompasses GRBs with intrinsic properties similar to those of merger-associated events' and that T90 is the key parameter. However, Table 4 gives Cluster 2 a centroid T90 of 0.79 s (essentially a short-hard selection), while Table D.1 lists members with T90 up to 8-11 s and Epeak spanning 28.67 keV to 4248 keV, including on-axis energetic bursts such as GRB 090510. The cluster therefore does not select specifically off-axis or kilonova-like prompt properties, and the claimed physical distinction from ordinary short GRBs requires an explicit test (e.g., comparing Epeak distributions or local environments of Cluster 2 versus non-Cluster-2 short GRBs).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 5] The upper-limit entries for Epeak in Table 5 (e.g., 1.17 x 10^14) are inconsistent with the stated units and with the cluster centroid of 596.53 keV; please correct the units or the values.
  2. [Table 6] The distance listed for GRB 131004A (26608.86 Mpc at z=0.71) is implausible and appears to be a transcription or unit error; please verify all derived distances.
  3. [Table D.1] The naming convention is inconsistent: for example, GRB150101270 and GRB170817529 do not match the standard GCN names 150101B and 170817A used elsewhere, and some entries appear duplicated; please standardize to the catalog naming.
  4. [Section 7] The sentence attributing the lack of Fermi detections of some Troja (2023) candidates to Fermi's higher-energy sensitivity sits oddly with the preceding statement that off-axis GRBs are predominantly soft; if both are intended, reconcile the selection-bias argument explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the reference GRBs inform the choice of ncluster and are then reused to label Cluster 2 as KN-like; external validation keeps the central claim partly independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.4 (cluster number selection) and Sec. 4 (clustering results)]
    "Importantly, choosing ncluster=5 does not result in the loss of information. In fact, the cluster containing the two reference GRBs (GRB 170817A and GRB 150101B) remained consistently grouped together in the most effective combination (UMAP associated with K-Means), with both ncluster=4 and ncluster=5, ensuring the preservation of key scientific insights. ... Cluster 2 likely identifies a subpopulation of potential KN candidates, as it includes both reference GRBs, suggesting it encompasses GRBs with intrinsic properties similar to those of merger-associated events."

    The final clustering solution (ncluster=5) is justified in part by the fact that the two reference GRBs stay together, and then the same reference GRBs are cited as the evidence that Cluster 2 is a KN-candidate subpopulation. The label 'potential KN candidates' is therefore not an out-of-sample validation of the cluster; it is a reuse of the same anchor events that helped motivate the chosen configuration. This is a selection-on-the-validation-set effect: the reference events enter before the label is assigned, so their presence in Cluster 2 is partly by construction. The circularity is partial because DBI/Silhouette metrics and external catalogs (Fong et al. 2022; Troja 2023) also support the cluster choice.

full rationale

The clustering itself is unsupervised and does not take the reference labels as input features, and the ncluster=5 choice is independently supported by the DBI/Silhouette scores and by previous five-cluster studies. The external comparisons with Fong et al. (2022) and Troja (2023) provide out-of-sample support, so the central claim is not entirely reduced to its inputs. The strongest remaining circularity is the reuse of the reference GRBs in model selection and then as the justification for labeling Cluster 2 as KN-like. The paper's own caveat that T90, Epeak, and fluence 'are not sufficient to distinguish between different progenitor types' highlights a statistical limitation rather than a circular one: Cluster 2's centroid T90 of 0.79 s makes it close to the short-GRB population, so the enrichment in BNS mergers is not demonstrated against a control sample. That is a correctness risk, not a derivation-equivalent-to-input finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a small set of hand-chosen hyperparameters and on the assumption that prompt gamma-ray observables can separate merger-like bursts. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'merger-like cluster' is a statistical category defined by two reference events.

free parameters (7)
  • UMAP n_neighbors = 15
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.2.3; controls the balance between local and global structure and therefore the cluster geometry.
  • UMAP min_dist = 0.1
    Chosen in Section 3.2.3; controls the minimum distance between embedded points and affects cluster compactness.
  • UMAP n_components = 2
    Set for visualization; all clustering is performed in this two-dimensional projection.
  • K-means n_cluster = 5
    Selected in Section 3.4 using Silhouette and Davies-Bouldin scores, and partly because the reference GRBs remain grouped; the cluster of interest is defined within this partition.
  • t-SNE perplexity = 30
    Default value used in Section 3.2.2; affects the t-SNE embedding but not the UMAP-based final result.
  • localization error radius filter = 0.1 degrees
    Post-clustering threshold in Section 4 that reduces Cluster 2 from 657 to 75 bursts and directly shapes the gold sample.
  • host galaxy offset threshold = 40 kpc
    Used in the host association pipeline in Section 6 to limit GRB-host galaxy separations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Fermi GBM catalog values for T90, Epeak, and fluence are accurate and complete enough for clustering.
    Used as input features in Section 2; any systematic biases in these measurements propagate directly into the clusters.
  • domain assumption Prompt gamma-ray properties are sufficient to group GRBs by progenitor type.
    The entire method rests on this; Section 2 even acknowledges the parameters are not sufficient to distinguish progenitor types.
  • domain assumption GRB 170817A and GRB 150101B are representative of the BNS-merger sGRB class.
    Used as reference events in Table 1 and to label Cluster 2 as merger-associated in Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper UMAP with n_neighbors=15 and min_dist=0.1 preserves the relevant local structure of this three-dimensional dataset.
    No stability analysis of UMAP hyperparameters is presented; if the embedding is unstable, the cluster assignment could change.
  • standard math The five-cluster partition is stable and not an artifact of K-means initialization.
    K-means is run with random initializations and max_iter=100000, but no seeded reproducibility or consensus clustering is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying potential binary neutron star merger events from the Fermi GBM Gamma-Ray Burst Catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZB7YNEX

@misc{pith2026250718258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying potential binary neutron star merger events from the Fermi GBM Gamma-Ray Burst Catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZB7YNEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18258}
}
read the original abstract

Short gamma-ray bursts are expected to be associated with compact object mergers, such as binary neutron star or neutron star-black hole systems, and are key high-energy multimessenger events. The detection of GRB 170817A, coinciding with the gravitational wave signal GW170817 from a BNS merger, confirmed the link between sGRBs and compact object mergers. Similarly, GRB 150101B displayed remarkable similarities to GRB 170817A, further supporting its association with compact binary mergers. The objective of this study is to uncover the intrinsic properties that differentiate merger-associated sGRBs from other GRBs by analyzing the Fermi GBM Burst Catalog and using GRB 170817A and GRB 150101B as reference events, enhancing our ability to select events from this class and promptly to search for their electromagnetic counterpart. We employed a clustering technique to classify GRBs based on their observed properties in gamma-rays (T90, Epeak and fluence). Prior to clustering, we tested three dimensionality reduction techniques, among which Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection demonstrated the best performance making it the preferred technique for our analysis. This combination of dimensionality reduction and clustering analysis allowed us to group GRBs with similar characteristics, with a focus on identifying those most likely associated with BNS mergers. Our analysis successfully identified a cluster of sGRBs events with characteristics consistent with sGRB merger-associated. A comparison between our sample of candidates and known kilonova candidates associated with sGRBs, identified through other methodologies, further validated our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cluster overlap across the three dimensionality reduction techniques. The label of the clusters of interest are highlighted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between our clustering results and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From top to bottom, t-SNE-based, UMAP-based and PCA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the sSFRs as a function of the physical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Constraining Binary Neutron Star Populations using Short Gamma-Ray Burst Observations

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Low binary-neutron-star merger rates (≲50 Gpc−3 yr−1) cannot alone reproduce the Fermi short-GRB population unless jets are implausibly wide; rates near 100 Gpc−3 yr−1 with jet fractions ≈0.8 match the data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2015, Class

    Aasi, J., Abbott, B., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Class. Quantum Grav., 32, 074001

    2015

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2017, , 119, 161101

    2017

  3. [3]

    2014, Class

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2014, Class. Quantum Grav., 32, 024001

    2014

  4. [4]

    & Ryde, F

    Acuner, Z. & Ryde, F. 2018, , 475, 1708

    2018

  5. [5]

    2013, , 88, 043007

    Aso, Y., Michimura, Y., Somiya, K., et al. 2013, , 88, 043007

    2013

  6. [6]

    2022, Int

    Atteia, J.-L., Cordier, B., & Wei, J. 2022, Int. J. Modern Phys. D, 31, 2230008

    2022

  7. [7]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, , 120, 143

    2005

  8. [8]

    2014, , 52, 43

    Berger, E. 2014, , 52, 43

    2014

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    G., Cordier, B., & Wei, J

    Bernardini, M. G., Cordier, B., & Wei, J. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 113

    2021

  2. [10]

    N., Meegan, C

    Bhat, P. N., Meegan, C. A., Von Kienlin, A., et al. 2016, , 223, 28

    2016

  3. [11]

    N., Hill, J., Nousek, J., et al

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J., Nousek, J., et al. 2005, , 120, 165

    2005

  4. [12]

    2023, , 671, A112

    Camisasca, A., Guidorzi, C., Amati, L., et al. 2023, , 671, A112

    2023

  5. [13]

    P., et al

    Chakyar, S. P., et al. 2025, , 982(1), 57

    2025

  6. [14]

    & Maitra, R

    Chattopadhyay, S. & Maitra, R. 2017, , 469, 3374

    2017

  7. [15]

    2025, , 276(2), 62

    Chen, J.-M., Zhu, K.-R., Peng, Z.-Y., & Zhang, L. 2025, , 276(2), 62

    2025

  8. [16]

    2015, , 216, 32

    Connaughton, V., Briggs, M., Goldstein, A., et al. 2015, , 216, 32

    2015

  9. [17]

    2023, , 268, 14

    Cook, D., Mazzarella, J., Helou, G., et al. 2023, , 268, 14

    2023

  10. [18]

    2018, , 479, 2374

    D \'a lya, G., Galg \'o czi, G., Dobos, L., et al. 2018, , 479, 2374

    2018

  11. [19]

    Davies, D. L. & Bouldin, D. W. 1979, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , 224

    1979

  12. [20]

    2023, , 954, L29

    Dichiara, S., Tsang, D., Troja, E., et al. 2023, , 954, L29

    2023

  13. [21]

    2018, Adv

    Amati, L., et al. 2018, Adv. Space Res., 62(1), 191--244

    2018

  14. [22]

    & Berger, E

    Fong, W.-f. & Berger, E. 2013, , 776, 18

    2013

  15. [23]

    Fong, W.-f., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, , 815, 102

    2015

  16. [24]

    E., Dong, Y., et al

    Fong, W.-f., Nugent, A. E., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, , 940, 56

    2022

  17. [25]

    2010, , 510, L7

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Nava, L. 2010, , 510, L7

    2010

  18. [26]

    2020, , 491, 3343

    Gill, R., Granot, J., & Kumar, P. 2020, , 491, 3343

    2020

  19. [27]

    2017, , L14

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, , L14

    2017

  20. [28]

    P., Nicholl , M., Smith , J

    Gompertz , B. P., Nicholl , M., Smith , J. C., et al. 2023, , 526, 4585

    2023

  21. [29]

    W., et al

    Gruber, D., Goldstein, A., von Ahlefeld, V. W., et al. 2014, , 211, 12

    2014

  22. [30]

    N., Klose, S., Greiner, J., et al

    Guelbenzu, A. N., Klose, S., Greiner, J., et al. 2012, , 548, A101

    2012

  23. [31]

    N., Klose, S., Schady, P., et al

    Guelbenzu, A. N., Klose, S., Schady, P., et al. 2021, , 923, 38

    2021

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, , 585, 357

    2020

  25. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90

    2007

  26. [34]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  27. [35]

    2017, , 551, 80

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., Quataert, E., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, , 551, 80

    2017

  28. [36]

    A., D'Avanzo, P., Amati, L., Klose, S., Perego, A., Pian, E., Guidorzi, C., et al

    Rossi, A., Rothberg, B., Palazzi, E., Kann, D. A., D'Avanzo, P., Amati, L., Klose, S., Perego, A., Pian, E., Guidorzi, C., et al. 2022, , 932, 1

    2022

  29. [37]

    I., Zhang, B.-B., & Lei, W.-H

    Wang, X. I., Zhang, B.-B., & Lei, W.-H. 2022, , 931, L2

    2022

  30. [38]

    A., Fishman , G

    Kouveliotou , C., Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., et al. 1993, , 413, L101

    1993

  31. [39]

    J., et al

    Kovlakas, K., Zezas, A., Andrews, J. J., et al. 2021, , 506, 1896

    2021

  32. [40]

    Lamb, G. P. & Kobayashi, S. 2017, , 472, 4953

    2017

  33. [41]

    P., Tanvir, N., Levan, A., et al

    Lamb, G. P., Tanvir, N., Levan, A., et al. 2019, , 883, 48

    2019

  34. [42]

    2010, , 716(2), 1178

    Ackermann, M., et al. 2010, , 716(2), 1178

    2010

  35. [43]

    2024, Nature, 626(8000), 737--741

    Levan, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 626(8000), 737--741

    2024

  36. [44]

    McInnes, L., et al. 2018, J. Open Source Softw., 3(29), 861

    2018

  37. [45]

    Dimple, Misra, K., & Arun, K. G. 2024, , 974(1), 55

    2024

  38. [46]

    Dimple, K., Misra, K., Arun, K. G. 2023, , 949, L22

    2023

  39. [47]

    J., & Workman, J

    Lazzati, D., Deich, A., Morsony, B. J., & Workman, J. C. 2017, , 471, 1652

    2017

  40. [48]

    J., et al

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Morsony, B. J., et al. 2018, , 120, 241103

    2018

  41. [49]

    1982, IEEE Trans

    Lloyd, S. 1982, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 28, 129

    1982

  42. [50]

    & Ratajczak, W

    Ma \'c kiewicz, A. & Ratajczak, W. 1993, Computers & Geosciences, 19, 303

    1993

  43. [51]

    N., Barthelmy, S

    Ukwatta, T. N., Barthelmy, S. D., Cenko, S. B., Cummings, J. R., Krimm, H. A., Lien, A. Y., Markwardt, C. B., Palmer, D. M., Sakamoto, T., & Stamatikos, M. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 21384, 1

    2017

  44. [52]

    2009, , 702, 791

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P., et al. 2009, , 702, 791

    2009

  45. [53]

    Mohamad, I. B. & Usman, D. 2013, Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol, 6, 3299

    2013

  46. [54]

    2025, , 981(1), 14

    Negro, M., et al. 2025, , 981(1), 14

    2025

  47. [55]

    E., Fong, W.-f., Castrejon, C., et al

    Nugent, A. E., Fong, W.-f., Castrejon, C., et al. 2024, , 962, 5

    2024

  48. [56]

    2009, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, 1

    Olofsson, G. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, 1

    2009

  49. [57]

    2022, , 515, 4890

    O’Connor, B., Troja, E., Dichiara, S., et al. 2022, , 515, 4890

    2022

  50. [58]

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 12, 2825

    2011

  51. [59]

    2017, , 551, 67

    Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, , 551, 67

    2017

  52. [60]

    2010, Class

    Punturo, M., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al. 2010, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 194002

    2010

  53. [61]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, , 612, 223

    2022

  54. [62]

    2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9353, 1

    Rau , A., McBreen , S., & Kruehler , T. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9353, 1

    2009

  55. [63]

    W., Kennedy, T

    Roming, P. W., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, , 120, 95

    2005

  56. [64]

    Rousseeuw, P. J. 1987, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 20, 53

    1987

  57. [65]

    J., et al

    Rowlinson, A., Wiersema, K., Levan, A. J., et al. 2010, , 408, 383

    2010

  58. [66]

    2016, , 831, 178

    Ruffini, R., Muccino, M., Aimuratov, Y., et al. 2016, , 831, 178

    2016

  59. [67]

    S., Ghisellini, G., Pescalli, A., Ghirlanda, G., & Nappo, F

    Salafia, O. S., Ghisellini, G., Pescalli, A., Ghirlanda, G., & Nappo, F. 2016, , 461, 3607

    2016

  60. [68]

    Shan, Y., Liu, X.-X., Yang, X., Yuan, H., & Lu, H. 2024,

    2024

  61. [69]

    2017, , 551, 75

    Smartt, S., Chen, T.-W., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2017, , 551, 75

    2017

  62. [70]

    Team, T. P. D. 2020, Zenodo, February

    2020

  63. [71]

    2023, Universe, 9, 245

    Troja, E. 2023, Universe, 9, 245

    2023

  64. [72]

    2022, in *Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics* (Springer), 1--30

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y., & Ling, Z. 2022, in *Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics* (Springer), 1--30

    2022

  65. [73]

    A., Paciesas, W

    von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C. A., Paciesas, W. S., et al. 2014, , 211(1), 13

    2014

  66. [74]

    J., Becerra Gonz \'a lez, J., et al

    Troja, E., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Becerra Gonz \'a lez, J., et al. 2019, , 489, 2104

    2019

  67. [75]

    2022, , 612, 228

    Troja, E., Fryer, C., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022, , 612, 228

    2022

  68. [76]

    2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4089

    Troja, E., Ryan, G., Piro, L., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4089

    2018

  69. [77]

    Y., Barthelmy, S

    Lien, A. Y., Barthelmy, S. D., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2015, GRB Coordinates Network, 18751, 1

    2015

  70. [78]

    2015, GRB Coordinates Network, 18756, 1

    von Kienlin, A., & Meegan, C. 2015, GRB Coordinates Network, 18756, 1

    2015

  71. [79]

    2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 21383, 1

    Stanbro, M., & Meegan, C. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 21383, 1

    2017

  72. [80]

    Band, D. L. 2003, , 588(2), 945

    2003

  73. [81]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., Van Paradijs, et al. 1999, , 138(3), 465--466

    1999

  74. [82]

    2003, , 423(6942), 847--850

    Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., M ller, P., et al. 2003, , 423(6942), 847--850

    2003

  75. [83]

    & Hinton, G

    Van der Maaten, L. & Hinton, G. 2008, JMLR, 9

    2008

  76. [84]

    Ettore Pancini

    Von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C., Paciesas, W., et al. 2020, , 893, 46aa54133-25.out0000664000000000000000000000604715040401054011514 0ustar rootroot [1][-] section.1 \376\377\000I\000n\000t\000r\000o\000d\000u\000c\000t\000i\000o\000n [1][-] section.2 \376\377\000D\000a\000t\000a\...

    2020

  77. [85]

    2024, Res

    Shan, Y., Liu, X.-X., Yang, X., Yuan, H., & Lu, H. 2024, Res. Astron. Astrophys.,, 24, 085003

    2024

  78. [86]

    2020, , 893, 46

    Von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C., Paciesas, W., et al. 2020, , 893, 46

    2020

  79. [87]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  80. [88]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  81. [89]

    Dimple and Misra, K. and Arun, K. G

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.