pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.01633 · v1 · pith:Q6UNYNCOnew · submitted 2026-03-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Episode-wise spectro-polarimetry of GRB 220107A: Testing the hypothesis of evolving radiation mechanisms

Rahul Gupta , Rushikesh Sonawane , Shabnam Iyyani , D. Frederiks , Judith Racusin , Tanmoy Chattopadhayay , A. J. Castro-Tirado , A. F. Valeev
show 12 more authors
Soumya Gupta Mayuresh Tembhurnikar A. Ridnaia D. Svinkin S. B. Pandey Dipankar Bhattacharya Vidushi Sharma Varun Bhalerao G. C. Dewangan Santosh Vadawale R. S\'anchez-Ram\'irez Anastasia Tsvetkova
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 12:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstsprompt emissionspectro-polarimetryspectral evolutionradiation mechanismsGRB 220107Apolarization constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

GRB 220107A exhibits clear spectral softening between two prompt episodes that could mark a shift from photospheric to synchrotron emission.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the spectro-polarimetric data of a long gamma-ray burst that produced two distinct emission episodes separated by a 40-second gap. It finds that the first episode has a hard spectrum consistent with quasi-thermal Comptonization, while the second shows substantial softening, and polarization remains low overall with only a marginal hint of increase in the later window. A sympathetic reader would care because the combination of time-resolved spectra and polarization upper limits offers a concrete way to test which physical process actually generates the prompt gamma rays, a question that remains open for the GRB population at large.

Core claim

Time-integrated polarization is undetected, but time-resolved analysis reveals episode 1 with a hard low-energy index and episode 2 with alpha approximately -0.72; polarization upper limits are below 52 percent for episode 1 and below 55 percent for episode 2, though a sliding-window search finds a marginal 70 plus or minus 30 percent signal. The authors interpret the spectral evolution as possible evidence for a change in dominant radiation mechanism, from photospheric emission in a baryon-rich outflow to optically thin synchrotron or sub-photospheric dissipation.

What carries the argument

Time-resolved spectro-polarimetric analysis performed separately on each emission episode using data from AstroSat/CZTI, Fermi/GBM, and Konus-Wind.

If this is right

  • Higher-sensitivity polarimeters on future missions could discriminate between competing prompt-emission models for multi-episode bursts.
  • The observed softening could be produced by sub-photospheric dissipation or by optically thin synchrotron in small-scale fields.
  • If the tentative polarization rise proves real, it would favor synchrotron radiation in large-scale ordered magnetic fields.
  • GRB 220107A serves as a concrete test case showing both the promise and the current sensitivity limits of prompt-phase polarimetry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Applying the same episode-by-episode spectro-polarimetric method to the growing sample of multi-episode GRBs could reveal whether spectral evolution is a common signature of mechanism changes.
  • Joint analysis with afterglow data or multi-wavelength coverage might help decide whether the polarization hint is robust enough to rule out photospheric models.
  • Current instrument limits imply that only a modest fraction of bright GRBs will yield decisive polarization constraints until next-generation detectors become available.

Load-bearing premise

The marginal polarization signal in the second episode is intrinsic to the source rather than a statistical fluctuation or instrumental effect, and the observed spectral softening directly indicates a change in the underlying radiation process.

What would settle it

A future observation of a similar multi-episode burst that shows no spectral softening between episodes or a high-significance polarization detection inconsistent with both photospheric and synchrotron expectations would falsify the claim that the evolution traces a mechanism change.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01633 by A. F. Valeev, A. J. Castro-Tirado, Anastasia Tsvetkova, A. Ridnaia, D. Frederiks, Dipankar Bhattacharya, D. Svinkin, G. C. Dewangan, Judith Racusin, Mayuresh Tembhurnikar, Rahul Gupta, R. S\'anchez-Ram\'irez, Rushikesh Sonawane, Santosh Vadawale, S. B. Pandey, Shabnam Iyyani, Soumya Gupta, Tanmoy Chattopadhayay, Varun Bhalerao, Vidushi Sharma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Prompt light curve of GRB 220107A from multiple observatories across various energy bands. Both AstroSat/CZTI and Konus-Wind de￾tected emission from the first and second episodes of the burst, whereas Fermi/GBM detected only the initial episode due to Earth occultation. The Konus-Wind light curve aligns with AstroSat/CZTI observations, confirming emission during the period when GBM was obscured. The vertic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Analysis of the Fermi/GBM field of view for GRB 220107A, il￾lustrating the visibility of the GRB position relative to Earth occultation. The upper panel shows a full-sky map in celestial coordinates showing the location of GRB 220107A, marked by a pink star. The pointing directions of all 14 GBM detectors at the trigger time are indicated by light-gray circles, which represent the detector normal direction… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: AstroSat/CZTI Compton light curve of GRB 220107A, illustrating the temporal distribution of photon counts as a function of time since the T0. Bayesian block analysis is employed to delineate the time-integrated duration, as well as the specific intervals for episode 1 and episode 2, which are selected for spectro-polarimetric analysis. The vertical green lines mark the start and end times of these interval… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-integrated 𝜈𝐹𝜈 spectrum of GRB 220107A (episode 1;𝑇0−2 to 𝑇0+38 sec) fitted with the cutoff power law plus blackbody (CPL+BB) model using Fermi/GBM data. The red curve shows the cutoff power law component, the blue curve shows the blackbody emission, and the green curve represents the total model. The shaded gray regions denote the 1𝜎 uncertainties of each spectral component. The fit suggests a therma… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectro-polarimetric evolution of GRB 220107A: Time-resolved spectro-polarimetric analysis of GRB 220107A. Top panel: Konus-Wind light curve in the 20–1300 keV band (red) with flux evolution (orange-red) shown on the right axis. Shaded regions indicate the two main episodes of the burst. Vertical gray dashed lines mark finer time bins used for spectral analysis using Konus-Wind data. Second panel: Evolutio… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BTA/SCORPIO-II spectrum of the optical afterglow of GRB 220107A obtained 1.36 days post-burst. Top panel: The two-dimensional spectrum showing the trace of the GRB afterglow (upper) and an unrelated foreground galaxy at 𝑧 = 0.309 (lower, Pankov et al. 2022; Castro-Tirado et al. 2022). Bottom panel: The flux-calibrated one-dimensional spectrum smoothed with a 4×4 pixel median filter. Prominent absorption fe… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GRB 220107A (red star) in the Amati (left) and Yonetoku (right) planes based on Konus-Wind data. The sample of Type I (short/hard; triangles) and Type II (long; circles) GRBs is taken from Tsvetkova et al.(2017, 2021), with points color-coded by redshift. The shaded regions denote the 1𝜎 and 2𝜎 scatter around the best-fit correlations. For GRB 220107A, we derive 𝐸iso = (2.15 ± 0.08) × 1053 erg and (1 + 𝑧)𝐸… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Each plot contains four subpanels: the top-left shows the posterior distribution of the polarization angle in the detector plane (Det. PA); the top-right shows the best-fit modulation curve (solid line) together with 1000 randomly selected realizations from the MCMC simulations (grey lines); the bottom-left shows the joint posterior distribution of PF and Det. PA with contours corresponding to the 68%, 95%… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top panel: Distribution of the time-averaged polarization fraction as a function of spectral peak energy for GRB 220107A (pink triangle) compared samples from GAP (red marker), POLAR (green marker), and the AstroSat (orange marker) five-year GRB polarimetry catalog (Yonetoku et al. 2011a; Kole et al. 2020; Chattopadhyay et al. 2022). No clear trend emerges, consistent with variable prompt-phase polarizatio… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Multi-band afterglow light curve of GRB 220107A. Red points show the Swift/XRT flux density at 2 keV (right-hand axis, apparent magnitude scale at far right) and orange points show contemporaneous UVOT white-band detections (scaled as indicated in the legend). Col￾ored circles represent ground-based optical photometry from MITSuME Akeno, Nanshan/NEXT, SAO RAS Zeiss-1000, AbAO AS-32, Terskol K-800, and oth… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the spectro-polarimetric properties of the long-duration GRB~220107A, which exhibited two distinct emission episodes separated by a 40 s quiescent gap, to test whether such multi-episode bursts show evidence for evolution in their underlying radiation mechanisms. We analyzed prompt emission data from AstroSat/CZTI, Fermi/GBM, and Konus-Wind, performing spectro-polarimetric analysis for each emission episode. The time-integrated polarization analysis shows no significant detection (PF$ < 38 \%$, $2\sigma$). Time-resolved analysis reveals clear spectral evolution between the two episodes, with episode 1 exhibiting a hard low-energy photon index and episode 2 showing substantial spectral softening ($\alpha \sim -0.72$). Regarding polarization: Episode 1 shows a low polarization upper limit (< 52\%), consistent with expectations for photospheric emission dominated by quasi-thermal Comptonization in a baryon-rich outflow. Episode 2 also shows overall low polarization (PF$ < 55 \%$, $2\sigma$), though sliding-window analysis yields a marginally elevated signal (PF$= 70 \pm 30\%$, BF = 2.8) between T0+76 to T0+88 s. The robust spectral softening between episodes could arise from sub-photospheric dissipation, optically thin synchrotron radiation in small-scale magnetic fields, or if the tentative polarization enhancement proves intrinsic, it would favor synchrotron emission in large-scale ordered magnetic fields. The spectral evolution of GRB 220107A, combined with our polarimetric constraints, demonstrates the diagnostic potential of time-resolved spectro-polarimetry for constraining GRB prompt emission physics. We present GRB 220107A as a test case illustrating how future higher sensitivity observations could discriminate between competing emission models for multi-episode bursts. Our results emphasize both the promise and current limitations of prompt phase polarimetry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the prompt emission of GRB 220107A using AstroSat/CZTI, Fermi/GBM, and Konus-Wind data, focusing on two emission episodes separated by a 40 s gap. It reports spectral evolution, with episode 1 having a hard spectrum and episode 2 showing softening to α ≈ -0.72. Polarization measurements yield no significant detections, with 2σ upper limits of <38% time-integrated, <52% for episode 1, and <55% for episode 2. A sliding-window analysis in episode 2 reveals a marginal polarization fraction of 70 ± 30% with a Bayes factor of 2.8. The authors interpret these results as demonstrating the diagnostic potential of time-resolved spectro-polarimetry for constraining GRB radiation mechanisms, such as photospheric Comptonization versus synchrotron emission, while acknowledging the tentative nature of the polarization signal and the need for higher-sensitivity future observations.

Significance. This study provides a concrete example of how multi-instrument spectro-polarimetric observations can be used to test hypotheses about evolving radiation mechanisms in multi-episode GRBs. The clear documentation of spectral changes between episodes is a solid observational result. Although the polarimetric constraints are primarily upper limits with one marginal hint, the work appropriately emphasizes both the promise and current limitations of prompt-phase polarimetry, making it a valuable contribution to the field as a test case for future analyses.

major comments (1)
  1. [Polarization results for episode 2 and sliding-window analysis] In the time-resolved polarimetry and sliding-window analysis (results for episode 2, T0+76 to T0+88 s): the reported PF = 70 ± 30% with BF = 2.8 constitutes only weak evidence for non-zero polarization. The 1σ uncertainty overlaps substantially with zero, and BF = 2.8 falls below conventional thresholds for moderate evidence. This weakens the interpretive link that the spectral softening (α from hard to ~−0.72) combined with polarization can robustly discriminate between photospheric Comptonization and ordered-field synchrotron, as the text itself notes multiple compatible mechanisms without unique identification from the current data.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation and terminology] Define abbreviations such as PF (polarization fraction) and BF (Bayes factor) explicitly at first use in the methods or results section.
  2. [Figures] The light-curve figure would be improved by explicitly annotating the boundaries of the two episodes and the specific sliding-window interval to aid reader interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We appreciate the positive assessment of the work as a test case for time-resolved spectro-polarimetry and have addressed the specific concern regarding the strength of the polarization evidence and its interpretive implications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: In the time-resolved polarimetry and sliding-window analysis (results for episode 2, T0+76 to T0+88 s): the reported PF = 70 ± 30% with BF = 2.8 constitutes only weak evidence for non-zero polarization. The 1σ uncertainty overlaps substantially with zero, and BF = 2.8 falls below conventional thresholds for moderate evidence. This weakens the interpretive link that the spectral softening (α from hard to ~−0.72) combined with polarization can robustly discriminate between photospheric Comptonization and ordered-field synchrotron, as the text itself notes multiple compatible mechanisms without unique identification from the current data.

    Authors: We agree that the reported polarization fraction of 70 ± 30% with Bayes factor 2.8 constitutes only weak evidence, as the 1σ range overlaps zero and falls short of conventional thresholds for moderate support. The manuscript already describes the signal as marginal and notes that multiple radiation mechanisms remain compatible without unique identification. Nevertheless, the robust spectral softening between episodes, together with the polarization upper limits and this tentative hint, illustrates the diagnostic value of such observations even when signals are not definitive. We will revise the discussion and conclusions to more explicitly state that the current data do not permit robust discrimination between models and that higher-sensitivity observations will be required for definitive tests. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational data analysis with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The manuscript reports time-resolved spectro-polarimetry of GRB 220107A from independent instruments (AstroSat/CZTI, Fermi/GBM, Konus-Wind). Spectral indices and polarization fractions are measured directly from the data; the central claim is an interpretive statement that the observed evolution plus polarimetric upper limits/limits demonstrate diagnostic potential for future observations. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citation chains, or ansatzes appear. The marginal episode-2 signal is explicitly qualified with BF=2.8 and large uncertainties, and the text conditions any mechanism discrimination on that signal proving intrinsic. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external instrument data and does not reduce any load-bearing step to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract relies on standard domain assumptions about GRB emission models (photospheric Comptonization, synchrotron in ordered vs. small-scale fields) without introducing new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard models linking low polarization to photospheric quasi-thermal Comptonization and higher polarization to synchrotron in large-scale ordered fields
    Invoked when interpreting the low polarization upper limits and the marginal signal in episode 2.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5989 in / 1297 out tokens · 63528 ms · 2026-05-21T12:48:24.131847+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 116 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Acuner,Z.,Ryde,F.,Pe’er,A.,Mortlock,D.,&Ahlgren,B.2020,ApJ,893,128

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Agostinelli, S. et al. 2003, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 506, 250

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 474

    Ahlgren, B., Larsson, J., Ahlberg, E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 474

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Aldowma, T. K. M., Razzaque, S., Martinelli, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.16475

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

    Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Baring, M. G. & Braby, M. L. 2004, ApJ, 613, 460 Bégué, D. & Pe’er, A. 2015, ApJ, 802, 134 Article number, page 15 of 16 A&A proofs:manuscript no. GRB220107A

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1033

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2011, ApJ, 737, 68

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Beloborodov, A. M. & Mészáros, P. 2017, Space Sci. Rev., 207, 87

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1785

    Beniamini, P., Barniol Duran, R., & Giannios, D. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1785

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed

    Bernard, D., Chattopadhyay, T., Kislat, F., & Produit, N. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 33

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    2009, Experimental Astronomy, 24, 47 Bošnjak, Ž., Barniol Duran, R., & Pe’er, A

    Bissaldi, E., von Kienlin, A., Lichti, G., et al. 2009, Experimental Astronomy, 24, 47 Bošnjak, Ž., Barniol Duran, R., & Pe’er, A. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 38 Bošnjak, Ž., Daigne, F., & Dubus, G. 2009, A&A, 498, 677

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    M., Bégué, D., Greiner, J., et al

    Burgess, J. M., Bégué, D., Greiner, J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 174

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    M., Kole, M., Berlato, F., et al

    Burgess, J. M., Kole, M., Berlato, F., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A105

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    N., Gropp, J

    Burrows, D. N., Gropp, J. D., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31410, 1

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 165 Caballero-García, M. D., Gupta, R., Pandey, S. B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3201

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    J., Gupta, R., Pandey, S

    Castro-Tirado, A. J., Gupta, R., Pandey, S. B., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A55

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    J., Valeev, A

    Castro-Tirado, A. J., Valeev, A. F., Vinokurov, A., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31423, 1

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    2018, ApJ, 862, 154

    Chand, V., Chattopadhyay, T., Iyyani, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 154

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 70

    Chand, V., Chattopadhyay, T., Oganesyan, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 70

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 30

    Chang, Z., Lin, H.-N., & Jiang, Y. 2014, ApJ, 783, 30

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 106

    Chattopadhyay, T. 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 106

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 12

    Chattopadhyay, T., Gupta, S., Iyyani, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 12

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    V., Aarthy, E., et al

    Chattopadhyay, T., Vadawale, S. V., Aarthy, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 123

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    V., Rao, A

    Chattopadhyay, T., Vadawale, S. V., Rao, A. R., Sreekumar, S., & Bhattacharya, D. 2014, Experimental Astronomy, 37, 555

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Chevalier, R. A. & Li, Z.-Y. 2000, ApJ, 536, 195

    work page 2000

  28. [28]

    & Boggs, S

    Coburn, W. & Boggs, S. E. 2003, Nature, 423, 415

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    P., Smith, I

    Crider, A., Liang, E. P., Smith, I. A., et al. 1997, ApJ, 479, L39

    work page 1997

  30. [30]

    DeLaunay, J., Tohuvavohu, A., Raman, G., & Kennea, J. A. 2022, GRB Coordi- nates Network, 31402, 1

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Derishev, E. V. 2007, Ap&SS, 309, 157 Fermi GBM Team. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31399, 1

    work page 2007

  32. [32]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L55

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    2018, A&A, 609, A112

    Ghirlanda, G., Nappo, F., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A112

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    S., Pescalli, A., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Pescalli, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A84

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    2006, A&A, 457, 763

    Giannios, D. 2006, A&A, 457, 763

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    & Granot, J

    Gill, R. & Granot, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4128

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    & Granot, J

    Gill, R. & Granot, J. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 1939

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 3343

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

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 82

    Gill, R., Kole, M., & Granot, J. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 82

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    1986, ApJ, 308, L47

    Goodman, J. 1986, ApJ, 308, L47

    work page 1986

  41. [41]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.07644 Götz,D.,Laurent,P.,Lebrun,F.,Daigne,F.,&Bošnjak,Ž.2009,TheAstrophys- ical Journal Letters, 695, L208

    Gotz, D., Gouiffes, C., Rodriguez, J., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.07644 Götz,D.,Laurent,P.,Lebrun,F.,Daigne,F.,&Bošnjak,Ž.2009,TheAstrophys- ical Journal Letters, 695, L208

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    & Königl, A

    Granot, J. & Königl, A. 2003, ApJ, 594, L83

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    R., Pandey, S

    Gupta, R., Oates, S. R., Pandey, S. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4086

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    B., Gupta, S., et al

    Gupta, R., Pandey, S. B., Gupta, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 166

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    2025, A&A, 701, A172 Hascoët, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R

    Gupta, S., Gupta, R., Chattopadhayay, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A172 Hascoët, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2013, A&A, 551, A124

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31413, 1

    Hosokawa, R., Imai, Y., Niwano, M., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31413, 1

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    2018, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 39, 75

    Iyyani, S. 2018, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 39, 75

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1651

    Iyyani, S., Ryde, F., Ahlgren, B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1651

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    1961, Theory of Probability, 3rd edn

    Jeffreys, H. 1961, Theory of Probability, 3rd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

    work page 1961

  50. [50]

    D., Briggs, M

    Kaneko, Y., Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 298 Kass,R.E.&Raftery,A.E.1995,JournaloftheAmericanStatisticalAssociation, 90, 773

    work page 2006

  51. [51]

    Katz, J. I. 1994, ApJ, 432, L107

    work page 1994

  52. [52]

    2020, A&A, 644, A124

    Kole, M., De Angelis, N., Berlato, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A124

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    & Zhang, B

    Kumar, P. & Zhang, B. 2015, Phys. Rep., 561, 1

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    J., & Begelman, M

    Lazzati, D., Morsony, B. J., & Begelman, M. C. 2011, ApJ, 732, 34

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 116

    Liang, E.-W., Lin, T.-T., Lü, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 116

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 2209

    Liang, E.-W., Yi, S.-X., Zhang, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2209

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 112

    Lu, R.-J., Wei, J.-J., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 112

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    2014, MNRAS, 440, 3292

    Lundman, C., Pe’er, A., & Ryde, F. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3292

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    Lundman, C., Vurm, I., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2018, ApJ, 856, 145

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 93

    Mate, S., Chattopadhyay, T., Bhalerao, V., et al. 2021, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42, 93

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    McConnell, M. L. 2017, New A Rev., 76, 1

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    J., Dean, A

    McGlynn, S., Clark, D. J., Dean, A. J., et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 895

    work page 2007

  63. [63]

    Medvedev, M. V. & Loeb, A. 1999, ApJ, 526, 697

    work page 1999

  64. [64]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791 Mészáros, P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259

    work page 2009

  65. [65]

    Minaev, P. Y. & Pozanenko, A. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1919

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    D., Malesani, D., et al

    Molinari, E., Vergani, S. D., Malesani, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, L13

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31431, 1

    Moskvitin, A. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31431, 1

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    & Medvedev, A

    Moskvitin, A. & Medvedev, A. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31426, 1

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    2022, GRB Coordi- nates Network, 31422, 1

    Moskvitin, A., Medvedev, A., Pozanenko, A., & Pankov, N. 2022, GRB Coordi- nates Network, 31422, 1

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 374

    Panaitescu, A. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 374

    work page 2007

  71. [71]

    & Kumar, P

    Panaitescu, A. & Kumar, P. 2001, ApJ, 554, 667

    work page 2001

  72. [72]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31419, 1

    Pankov, N., Belkin, S., Pozanenko, A., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 31419, 1

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    & Lazzati, D

    Parsotan, T. & Lazzati, D. 2018, ApJ, 853, 8

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 139 Pe’er, A

    Parsotan, T., López-Cámara, D., & Lazzati, D. 2020, ApJ, 896, 139 Pe’er, A. 2015, Advances in Astronomy, 2015, 907321 Pe’er, A., Mészáros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2006, ApJ, 642, 995 Pe’er, A. & Ryde, F. 2011, ApJ, 732, 49

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

    Piran, T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

    work page 2004

  76. [76]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 60

    Poolakkil, S., Preece, R., Fletcher, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 60

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    D., Briggs, M

    Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Giblin, T. W., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 1248

    work page 2002

  78. [78]

    D., Briggs, M

    Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Mallozzi, R. S., et al. 1998, ApJ, 506, L23

    work page 1998

  79. [79]

    D., Briggs, M

    Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Mallozzi, R. S., et al. 2000, ApJS, 126, 19

    work page 2000

  80. [80]

    L., Liang, E

    Racusin, J. L., Liang, E. W., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 43

    work page 2009

Showing first 80 references.