Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Gamma-Ray Bursts: Evidence for a Common Origin of X-ray Plateaus with Diverse Temporal Decay Index

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The X-ray plateau slope is a continuous population trait, not a separator of gamma-ray burst classes.

desk verdict Plausible null result, but classification noise and missing significance tests mean the 'indistinguishable' claim is not yet demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.00662 v2 pith:ZTHYSG7Z submitted 2026-01-31 astro-ph.HE

Xiao-Fei Dong , Yong-Feng Huang , Chen Deng , Ze-Cheng Zou , Jin-Jun Geng , Fan Xu , Chen-Ran Hu , Orkash Amat
show 3 more authors
Xiu-Juan Li Liang Li Abdusattar Kurban
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.70.Rz95.85.Nv
keywords gamma-rayburstsX-rayafterglowsplateaustemporaldecayindexluminosityfunctionLynden-BellC-minusmethodeventrateredshiftevolution
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 sets out to test whether the wide spread in the shallow-decay slope of X-ray plateaus in gamma-ray burst afterglows marks genuinely different kinds of bursts. It splits 185 long Swift/XRT bursts into rising, flat, and decaying plateau groups by that slope, then reconstructs each group's X-ray luminosity function, redshift distribution, and cosmic event rate with non-parametric methods. All three diagnostics come out statistically indistinguishable, and perturbing the group boundaries does not change the picture. The conclusion is that the slope varies continuously within one unified plateau mechanism, so it should not be used to carve the sample into separate physical classes.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is the Lynden-Bell C- estimator, a non-parametric maximum-likelihood method that recovers intrinsic luminosity functions and redshift distributions from flux-truncated samples, paired with the Efron-Petrosian tau statistic to remove luminosity-redshift evolution before the C- reconstruction. The classification instrument is the plateau decay index alpha_1, obtained from smoothly broken power-law fits; boundaries at +/-0.1 in alpha_1 sort bursts into rising, flat, and decaying groups. Robustness is tested by Monte Carlo resampling of the boundary over 0.05-0.15.

What would settle it

Take the 185 bursts, draw alpha_1 for each from its reported uncertainty (e.g., GRB 250108B at -0.22 +/- 0.43), reassign groups on every draw, and recompute the non-parametric luminosity functions; if bursts with well-measured alpha_1 (errors below 0.1) still show distinct luminosity functions or event rates, the common-origin claim fails, while a null result under full error propagation would settle it in the paper's favor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: classifying 185 long gamma-ray bursts by the plateau temporal index alpha_1 into rising (-0.5 to -0.1), flat (-0.1 to 0.1), and decaying (0.1 to 0.5) groups yields luminosity functions, cumulative redshift distributions, and comoving event rates that are consistent with one another and with the cosmic star-formation rate. A Monte Carlo test varying the classification threshold between 0.05 and 0.15 over 10,000 realizations shows the similarity holds regardless of the chosen boundary. Since alpha_1 also shows a continuous, uni-modal distribution and no correlation with the post-plateau decay index, the paper concludes that the plateau decay index alone does not delin

Load-bearing premise

The grouping of bursts assumes the fitted plateau slopes are accurate enough for a +/-0.1 boundary to separate real populations, but typical measurement uncertainties on alpha_1 are larger than that boundary width, so the three groups may be arbitrary partitions of a noisy continuum, which would make a null result almost unavoidable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the plateau slope carries no subclass information, future population studies can treat all plateau bursts as a single sample, increasing statistical power without splitting on alpha_1.
  • Models for the plateau, such as magnetar energy injection or black-hole fallback, must be able to produce a continuous range of alpha_1 via microphysical variation rather than discrete channels.
  • Since the unified sample's event rate tracks the cosmic star-formation rate, plateau bursts can be treated as a single tracer of massive-star formation in redshift surveys.
  • The weak correlation between alpha_1 and alpha_2 argues that the plateau and post-plateau phases can be modelled separately, with alpha_2 retaining its role as the dynamical diagnostic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported alpha_1 errors are often as large as the flat-bin width (e.g., GRB 250108B: -0.22 +/- 0.43), so the three groups may be close to random slices of a noisy continuum; the paper's Monte Carlo perturbs only group boundaries, not individual alpha_1 uncertainties, so it does not fully rule this out.
  • A direct test of the unified claim is to check whether plateau-related empirical relations, such as the plateau luminosity-break time correlation, show no systematic offset between the alpha_1 groups; this is checkable with the same 185-burst sample.
  • If a single mechanism is at work, the continuous alpha_1 distribution could map onto a continuous physical parameter, such as magnetar spin-down luminosity; future missions with many plateau detections could test this by comparing alpha_1 against independent central-engine diagnostics like internal-plateau decay steepness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles 185 long Swift GRBs with X-ray plateaus, classifies them into rising, flat, and decaying subsamples according to the plateau temporal index alpha_1, and uses the Lynden-Bell C^- method to reconstruct each subsample's X-ray luminosity function, cumulative redshift distribution, and comoving event rate. The authors find these diagnostics to be similar across groups and conclude that alpha_1 does not delineate distinct physical subclasses, so all plateaus share a common origin. The analysis also includes a Monte Carlo test varying the classification boundaries and a comparison with the cosmic star-formation rate.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper would strengthen the case that X-ray plateaus form a single continuous population and that the shallow-decay slope is a microphysical parameter rather than a population discriminator. The compiled sample, including 15 newly fitted GRBs, is a useful resource, and the use of a non-parametric method to correct for truncation is appropriate. The Monte Carlo boundary test is a reasonable robustness check. However, the statistical support is incomplete: group classification ignores measurement uncertainties in alpha_1, the per-group luminosity-evolution corrections may bias the comparison, and the 'statistically indistinguishable' conclusion is not backed by formal significance tests or uncertainty estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2; Table 1; Section 5] Group membership is assigned from point estimates of alpha_1 with boundaries at +/-0.1, but the MCMC uncertainties are comparable to or larger than the 0.2-wide flat bin. For example, GRB 250108B has alpha_1 = -0.22 (+0.43/-0.45) and GRB 250430A has alpha_1 = -0.27 (+0.47/-0.46), so each 1-sigma interval spans all three groups. The Monte Carlo test in Section 5 perturbs only the boundary between 0.05 and 0.15; it never perturbs the measured alpha_1 values by their uncertainties. Consequently, the test cannot distinguish a genuinely continuous population from one whose group labels are noisy partitions of a continuum. A reanalysis with posterior-weighted or bootstrap-resampled group membership is needed, and the diagnostics should be recomputed under such perturbations.
  2. [Section 3.1; Section 4.1; Eq. (6)-(7); Table 2] The de-evolved luminosity used in the C^- method is L'_X = L_X/(1+z)^k, with k fitted separately for each group by forcing tau = 0 in Eq. (7). The derived k values differ substantially (rising 5.53, flat 4.17, decaying 4.32), and Section 4.1 states that the rising group's low-luminosity extension is mainly caused by its larger k. Comparing the groups after applying group-specific fitted transformations is therefore partly self-referential and can erase real L-z evolution differences before the comparison. The paper should present results using a common k for all groups and/or uncorrected luminosities, and should test whether the k differences are statistically significant.
  3. [Section 4; Figures 4-6] The central claim that the three groups are 'statistically consistent' or 'statistically indistinguishable' is asserted without any formal two-sample significance test. Figures 4-6 show reconstructed luminosity functions, redshift distributions, and event rates as single curves without confidence bands or error estimates. With only 16 bursts in the rising group, the power to detect differences is low, and the arbitrary normalization of event rates in Figure 6 makes quantitative comparison with the SFR difficult. The authors should add formal tests (e.g., bootstrap confidence bands and two-sample KS/AD-type tests on the reconstructed distributions) and report the effective statistical power for the group sizes involved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typographical artifact: 'T emporal Decay Index' should be 'Temporal Decay Index.'
  2. [Table 2] The R^2 values for the Schechter and SBPL fits are quoted to four decimal places even though the rising-group parameters have large uncertainties (e.g., L_break = 0.34 +/- 1.19). A goodness-of-fit measure that accounts for correlated cumulative points and parameter degeneracies would be more appropriate.
  3. [Section 5] The Monte Carlo test is described only verbally; giving the random seed, the sampling distribution of the threshold, and the number of realizations retained after any cuts would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section 7] The statement that the full-sample event rate is 'independent of redshift' for z < 4 should be qualified as 'approximately flat' or 'weakly dependent,' since the plotted rate is not exactly constant.
  5. [References] The reference 'Wu & EP Collaboration et al. 2025, in prep' is not ideal for a submitted manuscript; if the catalog is public, a persistent identifier or data link should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central comparison is empirical, though statistically underpowered.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) compile 185 Swift/XRT GRB plateaus from publicly available fits, (2) split by best-fit α1 into Rising/Flat/Decaying, (3) compute K-corrected luminosities, (4) apply the standard Efron-Petrosian de-evolution L'_X = L_X/(1+z)^k with k fitted per group so τ=0, (5) reconstruct luminosity functions, redshift distributions, and event rates via the Lynden-Bell C− method, and (6) compare the three groups. The conclusion that the groups are statistically indistinguishable is an empirical output of this comparison, not an equation that reproduces its inputs. The group-specific k values (5.53, 4.17, 4.32) are nuisance parameters fitted to remove L-z correlation inside each group; they do not by construction force the de-evolved luminosity functions to be equal across groups. The passage 'the rising sample reaches a lower luminosity mainly because a stronger redshift-luminosity evolution correction (i.e., a larger k) is applied' (Section 4.1) is a limitation: the comparison is conditional on group-specific evolution corrections, and the paper does not formally test whether the k values differ. That is a statistical robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity. The Monte Carlo test (Section 5) varies only the ±0.1 classification boundary and does not perturb α1 by its MCMC uncertainties; again a power limitation, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (Tang et al. 2019; Deng et al. 2023) supply the light-curve fit parameters and are based on public Swift data; they are input data products, not assumptions that already contain the conclusion of a unified plateau mechanism. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main fitted inputs are the per-group luminosity evolution indices k and the hand-chosen alpha_1 boundaries; the C-/EP machinery then propagates these into the compared distributions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • k_rising = 5.53
    Luminosity evolution index for the rising group from the EP method (Section 3.1), fitted by requiring tau=0; uncertainty not reported.
  • k_flat = 4.17
    Luminosity evolution index for the flat group from the EP method (Section 3.1), fitted by requiring tau=0; uncertainty not reported.
  • k_decaying = 4.32
    Luminosity evolution index for the decaying group from the EP method (Section 3.1), fitted by requiring tau=0; uncertainty not reported.
  • flux_limit_log_Flim = -11.9 (erg cm^-2 s^-1)
    Adopted from Khatiya et al. (2025) in Sections 2.3 and 3; defines the completeness boundary for the C- method and is not re-fit here.
  • alpha1_group_boundaries = ±0.1 (Monte Carlo range 0.05–0.15)
    Hand-chosen boundaries dividing rising/flat/decaying groups (Section 2.2); central to the classification and not derived from theory.
  • Gamma_avg = 1.99
    Average photon index used to convert the flux limit to a luminosity limit (Section 3); computed from the sample and used in the sensitivity curve.
  • smoothness_parameter_omega = 1
    Fixed at 1 for the smoothly broken power-law fits (following Deng et al. 2023); affects the alpha_1 values used for grouping.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The C- method requires that luminosity and redshift are statistically independent after evolution correction and that truncation is random.
    Invoked in Section 3.2; if the EP de-evolution is incorrect, the reconstructed LFs and event rates are biased.
  • domain assumption Luminosity evolution has the parametric form L_X ∝ (1+z)^k.
    Section 3.1; standard but ad hoc, and k is fitted per group rather than derived.
  • domain assumption The sample is complete above log(F_lim/1 erg cm^-2 s^-1) = -11.9.
    Adopted from Khatiya et al. (2025) in Sections 2.3 and 3; defines the truncation boundary for the C- method.
  • ad hoc to paper Best-fit alpha_1 point estimates are accurate enough to assign group membership at ±0.1 boundaries.
    Section 2.2 classification ignores fit uncertainties; Table 1 shows errors up to ~0.5 spanning multiple groups.
  • standard math Standard flat ΛCDM cosmology with Planck parameters (H0=67.3, Omega_M=0.315).
    Eq. (3); conventional background assumption, not tested here.
  • domain assumption The X-ray spectrum is a simple power law N(E)=N0 E^-Gamma for the K-correction.
    Section 2.3, Eqs. (4)-(5); approximation for the Swift/XRT band.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gamma-Ray Bursts: Evidence for a Common Origin of X-ray Plateaus with Diverse Temporal Decay Index." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTHYSG7Z

@misc{pith2026260200662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gamma-Ray Bursts: Evidence for a Common Origin of X-ray Plateaus with Diverse Temporal Decay Index},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTHYSG7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.00662}
}
abstract

A significant fraction of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) exhibit a plateau in the early X-ray afterglow light curve, whose mechanism remains uncertain. While the post-plateau normal decay index ($\alpha_2$) is commonly used to constrain the afterglow dynamics, the shallow-decay slope of the plateau itself ($\alpha_1$) has received comparatively little attention. Recent observations, however, reveal substantial dispersion in $\alpha_1$, raising the question of whether GRBs with rising, flat and mildly decaying plateaus represent intrinsically distinct populations. To address this question, we collect a uniform sample of 185 $\textit{Swift}$ GRBs with a well-defined plateau and divide them into three groups based on $\alpha_1$. Using a non-parametric approach, we reconstruct their X-ray luminosity functions, redshift distributions and event rates. It is found that the three groups exhibit statistically consistent properties across all diagnostics, with no evidence for group-specific features. Monte Carlo perturbation tests further show that these results are insensitive to the adopted classification boundaries of $\alpha_1$. Our results indicate that variations in the plateau slope $\alpha_1$ do not define distinct GRB subclasses, but instead the sample constitutes a statistically uniform population governed by a common framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exemplar X-ray afterglow light curves of GRBs 110213A, 250424A, and 250114A, which has a rising, flat, and decaying plateau, respectively. The solid curves show the best-fit results by using Equation (1) with the MCMC method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of the temporal indices during (α1) and after (α2) the plateau phase for the three groups. Left: α2 plotted versus α1, where the filled circles, triangles and squares represent the Rising, Flat and Decaying subsamples, respectively. Middle: histogram of α1 for all the plateau GRBs. Right: histograms of α2 for the three groups. The overall distribution of α1 and α2 is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. X-ray plateau luminosity plotted versus redshift for the three subsamples. The solid curves are plotted by assuming a flux limit of log(Flim/1 erg cm−2 s −1 ) = −11.9 (Khatiya et al. 2025), which will be taken as the detection threshold to ensure sample completeness in our subsequent calculations. 2 https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/grb table/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Luminosity functions of the three subsamples. The data points have been calculated by using Equation (9), where the diamonds, triangles and filled circles represent the rising, flat and decaying subsamples, respectively. The dashed line denote the best-fit Schechter fu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Normalized cumulative redshift distributions of the three subclasses. The dashed, solid, and dash-dotted lines represent the rising, flat, and decaying plateau groups, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: illustrates the event rate of the three subsamples, computed by using Equation (11). The event rate is scaled by an arbitrary factor for direct comparison with the SFR. The three groups exhibit similar redshift evolution: the event rate is weakly dependent on the redsh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows all Monte Carlo realizations, normalized for comparison. We see that for each subsample, the realizations cluster tightly, indicating that the luminosity function, redshift distribution, and event rate are insensitive to the precise choice of the slope criteria. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Event rates derived from the full sample of 185 X-ray plateau GRBs. The solid step line shows the event rate of the full plateau sample, while the shaded step lines represent the event rates of the rising, flat, and decaying groups, respectively. Du et al. (2024) recen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Thoene, C

    Agui Fernandez, J. F., Thoene, C. C., de Ugarte Postigo, A., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33629, 1

    2023

  2. [2]

    S., et al

    Ascenzi, S., Oganesyan, G., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038265

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038265 2020

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa070

    Beniamini, P., Duque, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa070

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa070 2020

  4. [4]

    2017, A&A, 605, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730523

    Beniamini, P., & Mochkovitch, R. 2017, A&A, 605, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730523

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730523 2017

  5. [5]

    G., Brivio, R., Ferro, M., et al

    Bernardini, M. G., Brivio, R., Ferro, M., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32465, 1

    2022

  6. [6]

    S., Frail, D

    Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., & Sari, R. 2001, AJ, 121, 2879, doi: 10.1086/321093

    doi:10.1086/321093 2001

  7. [7]

    Champati, S., Petrosian, V., & Dainotti, M. G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.23945, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.23945

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.23945 2025

  8. [8]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4a

    Chen, W., Xie, W., Lei, W.-H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f4a 2017

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    G., & Lu, T

    Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1998, PhRvL, 81, 4301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4301

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Cardone, V

    Dainotti, M. G., Cardone, V. F., & Capozziello, S. 2008, MNRAS, 391, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00560.x

    2008

  3. [11]

    2017, A&A, 600, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628384

    Pian, E. 2017, A&A, 600, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628384

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    G., Petrosian, V., & Bowden, L

    Dainotti, M. G., Petrosian, V., & Bowden, L. 2021, ApJL, 914, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf5e4

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    G., Petrosian, V., Singal, J., & Ostrowski, M

    Dainotti, M. G., Petrosian, V., Singal, J., & Ostrowski, M. 2013, ApJ, 774, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/157

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2010, ApJL, 722, L215, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L215 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Thoene, C

    Cardone, V., & Ostrowski, M. 2010, ApJL, 722, L215, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L215 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Thoene, C. C., Agui Fernandez, J. F., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 36574, 1

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaefd

    Deng, C., Huang, Y.-F., & Xu, F. 2023, ApJ, 943, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaefd

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11396, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11396 Dereli-B´ egu´ e, H., Pe’er, A., B´ egu´ e, D., Ryde, F., & Gowri, A

    Deng, C., Huang, Y.-F., Kurban, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11396, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11396 Dereli-B´ egu´ e, H., Pe’er, A., B´ egu´ e, D., Ryde, F., & Gowri, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07731. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07731 Dereli-B´ egu´ e, H....

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae04e7

    Dong, X.-F., Huang, Y.-F., Zhang, Z.-B., et al. 2025, ApJ, 993, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae04e7

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    F., Li, X

    Dong, X. F., Li, X. J., Zhang, Z. B., & Zhang, X. L. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1078, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac949

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    F., Zhang, Z

    Dong, X. F., Zhang, Z. B., Li, Q. M., Huang, Y. F., & Bian, K. 2023, ApJ, 958, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf852

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Y., Zhen, H

    Du, X. Y., Zhen, H. Y., Liu, J. X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0f24 D¨ orre, A., & Emura, T. 2019, Analysis of Doubly Truncated Data, An Introduction (Springer Singapore), doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6241-5

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    1992, ApJ, 399, 345, doi: 10.1086/171931

    Efron, B., & Petrosian, V. 1992, ApJ, 399, 345, doi: 10.1086/171931

    1992 doi

  14. [23]

    2006, MNRAS, 369, 197, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10280.x

    Fan, Y., & Piran, T. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 197, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10280.x

    2006

  15. [24]

    P., D’Avanzo, P., et al

    Fausey, H., Zhu, Z. P., D’Avanzo, P., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32471, 1

    2022

  16. [25]

    D., & Babu, G

    Feigelson, E. D., & Babu, G. J. 2012, Modern Statistical Methods for Astronomy (Cambridge University Press), doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139015653

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    B., Galv´ an, A., & Dainotti, M

    Fraija, N., Kamenetskaia, B. B., Galv´ an, A., & Dainotti, M. G. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1970

    2025 doi

  18. [27]

    B., Galvan-Gamez, A., et al

    Fraija, N., Kamenetskaia, B. B., Galvan-Gamez, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 243, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714d

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40301, 1

    Garnichey, M., Saccardi, A., Schneider, B., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40301, 1

    2025

  20. [29]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091 Common Origin of GRB X-ray Plateaus13

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091 Common Origin of GRB X-ray Plateaus13

    2004 doi

  21. [30]

    P., Barthelmy, S

    Gehrels, N., Norris, J. P., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1044, doi: 10.1038/nature05376

    2006 doi

  22. [31]

    2007, MNRAS, 381, 732, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12243.x

    Genet, F., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 732, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12243.x

    2007

  23. [32]

    2007, ApJL, 658, L75, doi: 10.1086/515570

    Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Firmani, C. 2007, ApJL, 658, L75, doi: 10.1086/515570

    2007 doi

  24. [33]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1086, doi: 10.1086/375489 —

    Granot, J., & Kumar, P. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1086, doi: 10.1086/375489 —. 2006, MNRAS, 366, L13, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00121.x

    2003

  25. [34]

    2024, A&A, 692, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451877

    Guglielmi, L., Stratta, G., Dall’Osso, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451877

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    2025, A&A, 703, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556663

    Guidorzi, C., Maccary, R., Maistrello, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556663

    2025 doi

  27. [36]

    2025, ApJL, 995, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2745 Hasco¨ et, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R

    Guo, Y., Zeng, H., Wei, J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L53, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2745 Hasco¨ et, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 20, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu750

    2025 doi

  28. [37]

    F., Dai, Z

    Huang, Y. F., Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 513, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02887.x

    1999

  29. [38]

    2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37925, 1

    Izzo, L., Kuhn, O., Rossi, A., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37925, 1

    2024

  30. [39]

    B., Heintz, K

    Izzo, L., Malesani, D. B., Heintz, K. E., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39073, 1

    2025

  31. [40]

    P., Yan, T., Fan, Y

    Jin, Z. P., Yan, T., Fan, Y. Z., & Wei, D. M. 2007, ApJL, 656, L57, doi: 10.1086/512971

    2007 doi

  32. [41]

    S., Dainotti, M

    Khatiya, N. S., Dainotti, M. G., Narendra, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf219

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    D., & Popov, S

    Khokhriakova, A. D., & Popov, S. B. 2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 24, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2019.09.004

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    2025, ApJS, 280, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adefe4

    Lan, L., Gao, H., Ai, S., et al. 2025, ApJS, 280, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adefe4

    2025 doi

  35. [44]

    J., et al

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Morsony, B. J., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 241103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    2018, ApJS, 236, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabaf3

    Li, L., Wu, X.-F., Lei, W.-H., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabaf3

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/27

    Li, L., Liang, E.-W., Tang, Q.-W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/27

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    2026, ApJL, 997, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2012

    Li, Q.-M., Sun, Q.-B., Qian, S.-B., & Li, F.-X. 2026, ApJL, 997, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2012

    2026 doi

  39. [48]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 38776, 1

    Li, R.-Z., Wang, B.-T., Song, F.-F., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 38776, 1

    2025

  40. [49]

    2007, ApJ, 670, 565, doi: 10.1086/521870

    Liang, E.-W., Zhang, B.-B., & Zhang, B. 2007, ApJ, 670, 565, doi: 10.1086/521870

    2007 doi

  41. [50]

    B., Dong, X

    Liu, Y., Zhang, Z. B., Dong, X. F., Li, L. B., & Du, X. Y. 2025, MNRAS, 542, 215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1217

    2025 doi

  42. [51]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 254, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/254 L¨ u, H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., Li, Y., & Lasky, P

    Liu, Z.-Y., Zhang, F.-W., & Zhu, S.-Y. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 254, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/254 L¨ u, H.-J., Zhang, B., Lei, W.-H., Li, Y., & Lasky, P. D. 2015, ApJ, 805, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/89

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    1971, MNRAS, 155, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/155.1.95

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1971, MNRAS, 155, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/155.1.95

    1971 doi

  44. [53]

    T., Zhang, B., et al

    Lyons, N., O’Brien, P. T., Zhang, B., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 705, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15538.x

    2010

  45. [54]

    B., Xu, D., Jiang, S

    Malesani, D. B., Xu, D., Jiang, S. Q., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 34485, 1

    2023

  46. [55]

    B., Cabrera-Lavers, A., Agui Fernandez, J

    Malesani, D. B., Cabrera-Lavers, A., Agui Fernandez, J. F., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38080, 1

    2024

  47. [56]

    T., Malesani, D., et al

    Mangano, V., Holland, S. T., Malesani, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077232

    2007 doi

  48. [57]

    G., et al

    Margutti, R., Zaninoni, E., Bernardini, M. G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts066

    2013 doi

  49. [58]

    D., Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D

    Metzger, B. D., Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D. 2018, ApJ, 857, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33187, 1

    Moskvitin, A., Pozanenko, A., Moiseev, A., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33187, 1

    2023

  51. [60]

    S., Vinokurov, A

    Moskvitin, A. S., Vinokurov, A. S., Pozanenko, A. S., & GRB follow-up Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37916, 1

    2024

  52. [61]

    A., Foley, R

    Perley, D. A., Foley, R. J., Bloom, J. S., & Butler, N. R. 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5387, 1

    2006

  53. [62]

    2016, A&A, 587, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P

    Pescalli, A., Ghirlanda, G., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, ...

    2016 doi

  54. [63]

    2023, A&A, 675, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245348

    Ronchini, S., Stratta, G., Rossi, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245348

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    Rossi, E., Lazzati, D., & Rees, M. J. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 945, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05363.x

    2002

  56. [65]

    P., Dainotti, M., et al

    Rowlinson, A., Gompertz, B. P., Dainotti, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1277

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    B., Corcoran, G., et al

    Saccardi, A., Malesani, D. B., Corcoran, G., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40228, 1

    2025

  58. [67]

    2009, Nature, 461, 1258, doi: 10.1038/nature08445

    Salvaterra, R., Della Valle, M., Campana, S., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 1258, doi: 10.1038/nature08445

    2009 doi

  59. [68]

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

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    1998 doi

  60. [69]

    B., Fynbo, J

    Schneider, B., Malesani, D. B., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32595, 1

    2022

  61. [70]

    2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 36176, 1 14Dong et al

    Schneider, B., Izzo, L., Saccardi, A., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 36176, 1 14Dong et al

    2024

  62. [71]

    B., et al

    Schneider, B., Saccardi, A., Malesani, D. B., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39071, 1

    2025

  63. [72]

    G., & Mirabal, N

    Shao, L., Dai, Z. G., & Mirabal, N. 2008, ApJ, 675, 507, doi: 10.1086/527047

    2008 doi

  64. [73]

    Shen, R., & Matzner, C. D. 2012, ApJ, 744, 36, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/36

    2012 doi

  65. [74]

    G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G

    Stratta, G., Dainotti, M. G., Dall’Osso, S., Hernandez, X., & De Cesare, G. 2018, ApJ, 869, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd8f

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4711

    Tang, C.-H., Huang, Y.-F., Geng, J.-J., & Zhang, Z.-B. 2019, ApJS, 245, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab4711

    2019 doi

  67. [76]

    R., Fox, D

    Tanvir, N. R., Fox, D. B., Levan, A. J., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 1254, doi: 10.1038/nature08459

    2009 doi

  68. [77]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3de4

    Tian, X., Qin, Y., Du, M., Yi, S.-X., & Tang, Y.-K. 2022, ApJ, 925, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3de4

    2022 doi

  69. [78]

    2006, ApJL, 640, L139, doi: 10.1086/503384

    Toma, K., Ioka, K., Yamazaki, R., & Nakamura, T. 2006, ApJL, 640, L139, doi: 10.1086/503384

    2006 doi

  70. [79]

    T., et al

    Troja, E., Cusumano, G., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 599, doi: 10.1086/519450

    2007 doi

  71. [80]

    L., & Beloborodov, A

    Uhm, Z. L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2007, ApJL, 665, L93, doi: 10.1086/519837

    2007 doi

  72. [81]

    T., Osborne, J

    Willingale, R., O’Brien, P. T., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093, doi: 10.1086/517989

    2007 doi

  73. [82]

    2025, in prep

    Wu, Q., & EP Collaboration et al. 2025, in prep

    2025

  74. [83]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac158a

    Xu, F., Tang, C.-H., Geng, J.-J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac158a

    2021 doi

  75. [84]

    Xu, M., & Huang, Y. F. 2012, A&A, 538, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117754

    2012 doi

  76. [85]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35e7

    Yi, S.-X., Du, M., & Liu, T. 2022, ApJ, 924, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35e7

    2022 doi

  77. [86]

    2016, ApJS, 224, 20, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20

    Yi, S.-X., Xi, S.-Q., Yu, H., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 20, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/20

    2016 doi

  78. [87]

    I., Fang, Y., Zhang, B.-B., et al

    Yin, Y.-H. I., Fang, Y., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 989, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf552

    2025 doi

  79. [88]

    Y., Dai, Z

    Yu, H., Wang, F. Y., Dai, Z. G., & Cheng, K. S. 2015a, ApJS, 218, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/218/1/13

    doi

  80. [89]

    B., Wu, X

    Yu, Y. B., Wu, X. F., Huang, Y. F., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 446, 3642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2336

    doi

  81. [90]

    Z., Dyks, J., et al

    Zhang, B., Fan, Y. Z., Dyks, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354, doi: 10.1086/500723

    2006 doi

  82. [91]

    2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    Zhang, B., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35, doi: 10.1086/320255

    2001 doi

  83. [92]

    2007, ApJ, 666, 1002, doi: 10.1086/519548

    Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., & Zhang, B. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1002, doi: 10.1086/519548

    2007 doi

  84. [93]

    Q., & Wang, F

    Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2018, ApJ, 852, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9ce5

    2018 doi

  85. [94]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07719

    Zhao, X.-H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.07719. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07719

    2025

  86. [95]

    P., Fu, S

    Zhu, Z. P., Fu, S. Y., Liu, X., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 38759, 1

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.