Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 71 references

Maximum Energy of Particles Accelerated in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglow Shocks

T0 review · 2 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Electrons in GRB afterglow shocks reach lower maximum energies than the Bohm limit via small-angle scattering, producing an observable GeV synchrotron cutoff in short bursts.

desk verdict Paper folds PIC small-angle scattering limits into GRB afterglow spectra and predicts a GeV synchrotron cutoff for short bursts, but finds Fermi-LAT data on two long bursts cannot yet distinguish this from the Bohm limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.19135 v3 pith:VZFCCJ2C submitted 2026-01-27 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph

Zhao-Feng Wu , Sofía Guevara-Montoya , Paz Beniamini , Dimitrios Giannios , Daniel Grošelj , Lorenzo Sironi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph
keywords gamma-rayburstsafterglowsparticleaccelerationsynchrotronemissionPICsimulationsshortGRBsrelativisticshocks
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 models the spectral evolution of GRB afterglows using acceleration limits from PIC simulations of weakly magnetized shocks. These limits produce a maximum electron energy below the Bohm value, which appears as a synchrotron cutoff. This cutoff is predicted to be prominent in the GeV band for short GRBs in low-density environments, appearing within minutes to hours. For the observed bursts GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, the data cannot yet distinguish the PIC limit from the Bohm limit because of insufficient photon statistics in the high-energy band. The work shows that future MeV to TeV observations can resolve this and constrain the acceleration process.

What carries the argument

Maximum electron energy from small-angle scattering in PIC simulations of weakly magnetized shocks, which determines the location of the synchrotron cutoff.

What would settle it

Detection of emission from a short GRB afterglow extending to energies significantly higher than the predicted PIC cutoff without a break would falsify the limited maximum energy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Particle acceleration in GRB afterglow shocks proceeds via small-angle scattering as indicated by PIC simulations, setting a maximum electron energy below the Bohm limit that manifests as a synchrotron cutoff in the afterglow spectrum, with short GRBs providing the best opportunity to observe this feature and test the underlying physics.

Load-bearing premise

The maximum electron energy is set by small-angle scattering from PIC simulations rather than by the Bohm limit or other processes, and the observed spectrum is dominated by synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton emission.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pronounced GeV synchrotron cutoff appears in low-energy short GRB afterglows within minutes to hours after trigger.
  • Current observations of GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A lack sufficient statistics to discriminate PIC-motivated acceleration from the Bohm limit.
  • Future MeV-TeV afterglow observations can break the model degeneracy and constrain particle acceleration mechanisms.
  • A fiducial nearby short GRB simulation shows the cutoff location is cleanly distinguishable between the two scenarios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This approach could be extended to other relativistic shock environments to predict similar cutoffs.
  • Non-detection of the cutoff in future short GRB data might indicate additional emission components or different acceleration physics.
  • Better high-energy detectors would allow statistical studies of cutoff energies across many bursts to map environmental parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper develops a spectral evolution model for GRB afterglows in the relativistic deceleration phase that incorporates PIC-motivated small-angle scattering to cap the maximum electron energy below the Bohm limit. It predicts a pronounced GeV-band synchrotron cutoff within minutes to hours for low-energy short GRBs in low-density environments, applies the framework to GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, and concludes that current Fermi-LAT observations lack the statistics to discriminate the PIC prescription from the Bohm limit, while future MeV-TeV observations (including a simulated fiducial nearby short GRB) can do so.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work supplies a falsifiable observational signature of the underlying acceleration mechanism and demonstrates how self-consistent synchrotron plus SSC calculations can be used to test PIC results against afterglow data. The emphasis on short GRBs and the concrete prediction for future detectability with MeV-TeV instruments constitute a useful bridge between simulation and observation.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim that current observations cannot discriminate PIC-motivated acceleration from the Bohm limit, and that a cutoff is expected in short GRBs, rests on the assumption that small-angle scattering from weakly magnetized PIC runs applies directly and that synchrotron+SSC dominates without significant contamination. The manuscript provides no explicit check that the magnetization, turbulence spectrum, or shock parameters of the modeled bursts fall within the PIC regime, nor an independent verification of emission-component dominance; both are load-bearing for the predicted cutoff location and the discrimination conclusion.
  2. The abstract and framework description supply no quantitative details on numerical implementation, specific parameter choices for GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, or validation of the cutoff against data, making it impossible to assess robustness of the claimed GeV cutoff or the statistical-insufficiency statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight areas where the manuscript can be strengthened with additional explicit checks and quantitative details. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested revisions to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that current observations cannot discriminate PIC-motivated acceleration from the Bohm limit, and that a cutoff is expected in short GRBs, rests on the assumption that small-angle scattering from weakly magnetized PIC runs applies directly and that synchrotron+SSC dominates without significant contamination. The manuscript provides no explicit check that the magnetization, turbulence spectrum, or shock parameters of the modeled bursts fall within the PIC regime, nor an independent verification of emission-component dominance; both are load-bearing for the predicted cutoff location and the discrimination conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the PIC regime applicability strengthens the central claims. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection comparing the inferred magnetization, turbulence spectrum, and shock parameters of GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A to the weakly magnetized conditions in the referenced PIC simulations. We will also include a quantitative assessment confirming synchrotron plus SSC dominance in the GeV band with negligible contamination from other processes. These additions directly support the cutoff predictions and the conclusion regarding current observational limitations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The abstract and framework description supply no quantitative details on numerical implementation, specific parameter choices for GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, or validation of the cutoff against data, making it impossible to assess robustness of the claimed GeV cutoff or the statistical-insufficiency statement.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative details are necessary for readers to evaluate robustness. The revised manuscript will expand the methods section with a full description of the numerical implementation, including tables of specific parameter values adopted for GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, and will add direct comparisons of the model-predicted cutoffs and spectra against the Fermi-LAT data points used in the statistical analysis. This will allow independent assessment of the GeV cutoff location and the claim of insufficient photon statistics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation uses external PIC inputs as independent premise

full rationale

The paper's chain takes PIC simulation results on small-angle scattering and max electron energy (below Bohm) as an external premise, then computes synchrotron/SSC spectra and applies to GRB data. No self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the abstract or described structure. The central claim (cutoff observability and data insufficiency) follows from applying the external prescription rather than reducing to it by construction. This is the normal case of an independent modeling paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the applicability of PIC results to GRB afterglow conditions; no free parameters or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption PIC simulations of weakly magnetized relativistic shocks accurately capture the small-angle scattering that sets the maximum electron energy
    This premise replaces the Bohm limit and is invoked to generate the predicted synchrotron cutoff.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximum Energy of Particles Accelerated in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglow Shocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VZFCCJ2C

@misc{pith2026260119135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximum Energy of Particles Accelerated in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglow Shocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VZFCCJ2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.19135}
}
read the original abstract

Particle acceleration in relativistic collisionless shocks remains an open problem in high-energy astrophysics. Particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations predict that electron acceleration in weakly magnetized shocks proceeds via small-angle scattering, leading to a maximum electron energy significantly below the Bohm limit. This upper bound on electron energy manifests observationally as a characteristic synchrotron cutoff, providing a direct probe of the underlying acceleration physics. Gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows offer an exceptional laboratory for testing these predictions. Here, we model the spectral evolution of GRB afterglows during the relativistic deceleration phase, incorporating PIC-motivated acceleration prescriptions and self-consistently computing synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton emission. We find that low-energy bursts in low-density environments, typical of short GRBs, exhibit a pronounced synchrotron cutoff in the GeV band within minutes to hours after the trigger. Applying our framework to GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, we find that current observations are insufficient to discriminate between PIC-motivated acceleration and the Bohm limit, primarily due to poor photon statistics in the Fermi-LAT band. Nevertheless, future MeV-TeV afterglow observations can break model degeneracies and place substantially tighter constraints on the mechanisms responsible for particle acceleration in relativistic shocks. To this end, we simulate a fiducial nearby short GRB as a promising probe of the cutoff location, for which the two acceleration scenarios are cleanly distinguishable and the detection of such an event in the near future remains feasible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19135 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Afterglow spectrum for a burst placed at DL = 100 Mpc at Tobs = 100 s. The burst parameters are εe = 0.1, εB = 3.5 × 10−3 , Eiso = 1054 erg, Γ0 = 500, n = 0.5 cm−3 , and p = 2.4. The solid curve shows the numer￾ical spectrum, while the dashed and dotted curves show the analytical synchrotron and SSC components with character￾istic frequencies denoted by blue symbols. The red markers indicate νgap and 0.1 νgap, with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flux ratio F ≡ νFν(0.1 νgap)/νFν(νgap) shown as a function of Eiso and n at observer times Tobs = 100, 250, 750 and 3000 s after trigger. Colors indicate the value of F, as shown by the color bar. All results are computed using the PIC-motivated acceleration prescription with εe = 0.1, εB = 3.5 × 10−3 , and p = 2.4. Dash–dotted curves denote the theoretical prediction corresponding to F = 10, in good agreement with … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral fitting of GRB 190114C from X-ray to TeV energies across multiple observation intervals. Differ￾ent colors denote different time intervals, as indicated in the legend. Circles, squares, and triangles represent data from Swift/XRT–BAT, Fermi-LAT, and MAGIC, respec￾tively, with error bars indicating 1σ uncertainties. Solid curves are based on the PIC acceleration model, while dashed curves correspond to the B… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral fitting of GRB 130427A from X-ray to GeV energies over the interval 138–750 s after the onset of the prompt emission. Circles and squares denote data from Swift/XRT and Fermi-LAT, respectively, with error bars in￾dicating 1σ uncertainties. The solid curve show…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019 b , , 575, 459, 10.1038/s41586-019-1754-6

    Acciari, V. A., et al. 2019a, Nature, 575, 459, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1754-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1754-6

  2. [2]

    A., Ansoldi , S., et al

    Acciari, V. A., et al. 2019b, Nature, 575, 455, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1750-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1750-x

  3. [3]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd249

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd249 2021

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04222.x , eprint =

    Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y. A., Kirk, J. G., & Guthmann, A. W. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 393, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04851.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04851.x 2001

  5. [5]

    Achterberg \ and\ author J

    Achterberg, A., & Wiersma, J. 2007, A&A, 475, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065365

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065365 2007

  6. [6]

    2014 Science, 343, 42, doi: 10.1126/science.1242353

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 42, doi: 10.1126/science.1242353

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1242353 2014

  7. [7]

    Synchrotron Self-Compton Model of TeV Afterglows in Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Aguilar-Ruiz, E., Gill, R., Beniamini, P., & Granot, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.23349, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.23349

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.23349 2025

  8. [8]

    A Decade of Gamma-Ray Bursts Observed by Fermi-LAT: The Second GRB Catalog

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e 2019

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05

    Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., Axelsson, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Wijers, R

    Aksulu, M. D., Wijers, R. A. M. J., van Eerten, H. J., & van der Horst, A. J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2848, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac246 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016a, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 61, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.04.004 Aleksi´ c, J., A...

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ada272 Barniol Duran, R., & Kumar, P

    Axelsson, M., Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ada272 Barniol Duran, R., & Kumar, P. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17927.x

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    1978 doi

  5. [13]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2002, ApJ, 565, 808, doi: 10.1086/324195

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    B., & Piran, T

    Beniamini, P., Nava, L., Duran, R. B., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2033

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1331 16Wu et al

    Beniamini, P., Nava, L., & Piran, T. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1331 16Wu et al

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A. J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2203

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1976, Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130, doi: 10.1063/1.861619

    1976 doi

  10. [18]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, doi: 10.1086/182658

    1978 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

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

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    A., et al

    Caputo, R., Ajello, M., Kierans, C. A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 044003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.4.044003

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2008, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 17, 1769, doi: 10.1142/S021827180801339X

    Chang, P., Spitkovsky, A., & Arons, J. 2008, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 17, 1769, doi: 10.1142/S021827180801339X

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Evans, P

    Curran, P. A., Evans, P. A., de Pasquale, M., Page, M. J., & van der Horst, A. J. 2010, ApJL, 716, L135, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L135

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bc2 de Jager, O

    Davis, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bc2 de Jager, O. C., & Harding, A. K. 1992, ApJ, 396, 161, doi: 10.1086/171706

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    V., & Piran, T

    Derishev, E. V., & Piran, T. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1175

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169

    Fermi, E. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169

    1949 doi

  19. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add404 Groˇ selj, D., Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A

    Golant, R., Vanthieghem, A., Groˇ selj, D., & Sironi, L. 2025, ApJ, 986, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add404 Groˇ selj, D., Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, ApJ, 933, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac713e Groˇ selj, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2c8c

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    T., Long, G.-B., et al

    He, X.-B., Tam, P.-H. T., Long, G.-B., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040039

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12888

    Hofmann, W., & Zanin, R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12888

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Giacinti, G., & Reville, B

    Huang, Z.-Q., Kirk, J. G., Giacinti, G., & Reville, B. 2022, ApJ, 925, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f38

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A

    Jacovich, T. E., Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A. J. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab911

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2009, ApJL, 693, L127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/L127

    Keshet, U., Katz, B., Spitkovsky, A., & Waxman, E. 2009, ApJL, 693, L127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/L127

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    G., & Reville, B

    Kirk, J. G., & Reville, B. 2010, ApJL, 710, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/710/1/L16

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01341.x

    Duran, R. 2012, MNRAS, 427, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01341.x

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts081

    Lemoine, M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts081

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2015a, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 455810101, doi: 10.1017/S0022377814000920

    Lemoine, M. 2015a, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 455810101, doi: 10.1017/S0022377814000920

    doi

  31. [39]

    2015b, MNRAS, 453, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1800

    Lemoine, M. 2015b, MNRAS, 453, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1800

    doi

  32. [40]

    F., Fonseca, R

    Martins, S. F., Fonseca, R. A., Silva, L. O., & Mori, W. B. 2009, ApJL, 695, L189, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/L189

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 66, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030066

    Miceli, D., & Nava, L. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 66, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030066

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 583, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19507.x

    Mimica, P., & Giannios, D. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 583, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19507.x

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 675, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    Nakar, E., Ando, S., & Sari, R. 2009, ApJ, 703, 675, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 3578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1451

    Nava, L., Vianello, G., Omodei, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1451

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/13

    Panaitescu, A. 2017, ApJ, 837, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/13

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, A&A, 690, A281, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347516

    Pellouin, C., & Daigne, F. 2024, A&A, 690, A281, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347516

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, A&A, 564, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322520

    Pennanen, T., Vurm, I., & Poutanen, J. 2014, A&A, 564, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322520

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    2010, ApJL, 718, L63, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L63

    Piran, T., & Nakar, E. 2010, ApJL, 718, L63, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L63

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 5238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty979

    Plotnikov, I., Grassi, A., & Grech, M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty979

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 1280, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts696

    Plotnikov, I., Pelletier, G., & Lemoine, M. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1280, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts696

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    Reville, B., & Bell, A. R. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu088

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    Rhoads, J. E. 1997, ApJL, 487, L1, doi: 10.1086/310876 Rouco Escorial, A., Fong, W., Berger, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf830

    1997 doi

  45. [53]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/10

    Ruffini, R., Wang, Y., Enderli, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/10

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/80

    Sagi, E., & Nakar, E. 2012, ApJ, 749, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/80

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

    Santana, R., Barniol Duran, R., & Kumar, P. 2014, ApJ, 785, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    Sari, R., & Esin, A. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 787, doi: 10.1086/319003 Shock Acceleration in GRB Afterglows17

    2001 doi

  49. [57]

    1996, ApJ, 473, 204, doi: 10.1086/178136

    Sari, R., Narayan, R., & Piran, T. 1996, ApJ, 473, 204, doi: 10.1086/178136

    1996 doi

  50. [58]

    1995, ApJL, 455, L143, doi: 10.1086/309835

    Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1995, ApJL, 455, L143, doi: 10.1086/309835

    1995 doi

  51. [59]

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJL, 519, L17, doi: 10.1086/312109

    1999 doi

  52. [60]

    1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    Sari, R., et al. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    1998 doi

  53. [61]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

    Sironi, L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    2015, Space Sci

    Sironi, L., et al. 2015, Space Sci. Rev., 191, 519, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0181-8

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    2008a, ApJL, 682, L5, doi: 10.1086/590248

    Spitkovsky, A. 2008a, ApJL, 682, L5, doi: 10.1086/590248

    doi

  57. [65]

    2008b, ApJL, 673, L39, doi: 10.1086/527374

    Spitkovsky, A. 2008b, ApJL, 673, L39, doi: 10.1086/527374

    doi

  58. [66]

    2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0745

    Tomsick, J., Boggs, S., Zoglauer, A., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0745

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al

    Troja, E., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2255

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Medicine, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    G., Giannios, D., & Duffell, P

    Wang, H., Dastidar, R. G., Giannios, D., & Duffell, P. C. 2024, ApJS, 273, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4d9d

    2024 doi

  62. [70]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13

    Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac483

    Yamasaki, S., & Piran, T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac483

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.