Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 8 references

Finite-thickness jet dynamics, not off-axis viewing, produce the late achromatic peaks in XRF 080330 and GRB 080710; the implied shell width of ~10^13 cm suggests the central engine ran about ten times longer than the gamma-ray burst.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 18:19 UTC pith:THVSYX3E

load-bearing objection Worth a referee, but the two-event claim is really one solid constraint (XRF 080330) plus a conditional fit for GRB 080710 that leans on a post hoc 10x error inflation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2603.11718 v3 pith:THVSYX3E submitted 2026-03-12 astro-ph.HE

Revisiting early afterglows of gamma-ray bursts with finite-thickness ejecta: Implications from XRF 080330 and GRB 080710

Kaori Obayashi , Ryo Yamazaki , Yo Kusafuka , Katsuaki Asano This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.70.Rz
keywords gamma-ray burstsafterglow light curvesfinite-thickness ejectaachromatic peaksX-ray flashescircumburst density profileBayesian inferencerelativistic jets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the achromatic peaks seen a few thousand seconds after two gamma-ray bursts, XRF 080330 and GRB 080710, are produced by the forward shock's own deceleration history once the ejecta's finite radial thickness is taken into account, rather than by the off-axis viewing geometry invoked in the original discovery papers. Using Bayesian inference over an afterglow model with a free circumburst density slope, the authors find a shell width of roughly 10^13 cm in both events, about an order of magnitude larger than the size implied by the prompt gamma-ray duration. If correct, this links the prompt and afterglow phases: the central engine kept working well after the gamma-rays stopped, and early afterglow light curves cannot be safely read with the thin-shell approximation. The analysis also favors a generalized density profile over the canonical uniform or steady-wind models, with XRF 080330 preferring a slope near k=1 and GRB 080710 an approximately uniform medium.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the gradual rise and achromatic break in the multi-wavelength afterglows of XRF 080330 and GRB 080710 are fingerprints of the ejecta's transition from free expansion to the Blandford-McKee deceleration phase, with the timing set by the finite initial shell width. For XRF 080330 the event sits in the thick-shell regime (xi_k = 0.10), with the end of the transition phase at about 1.8x10^3 s matching the achromatic break; for GRB 080710 the comparable ordering of the transition, deceleration, and Blandford-McKee onset timescales around 2x10^3 s, produced by a lower Lorentz factor, shapes the peak in a thin-shell-like regime even though the shell i

What carries the argument

The central object is the finite-thickness ejecta shell with initial radial width Delta_0 and the three-phase dynamics it produces: free expansion at constant Lorentz factor, a transition phase in which the forward-shock Lorentz factor falls as R^-(2-k)/4, and the eventual approach to the Blandford-McKee self-similar deceleration. The load-bearing dimensionless parameter is xi_k = (l_S/Delta_0)^(1/2) Gamma_0^-(4-k)/(3-k), which conventionally separates thick-shell (xi<1) from thin-shell (xi>1) behavior but, as the paper stresses, does not by itself fix the ordering of the observer-frame timescales T_tr, T_gamma, and T_BM. The mechanism that carries the argument is the delay of the transition

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on a data-weighting decision made after looking at preliminary fits: Section 4.1.1 doubles the X-ray uncertainties for XRF 080330 and Section 4.2 inflates the decay-phase uncertainties tenfold for GRB 080710, so that the primary solutions are the ones that yield energetically plausible parameters and reproduce the rising phase, rather than the fits with unaltered weights.

What would settle it

A direct check: rerun the Bayesian inference with the original, unaltered X-ray uncertainties for XRF 080330 and decay-phase uncertainties for GRB 080710, with the data weights fixed before any fitting. If the fit again drives the isotropic energy to about 10^55 erg (the solution the authors rejected as energetically implausible) or fails to reproduce the rising phase, then the quoted shell width of 10^13 cm and the density slopes are artifacts of the post-hoc weighting. An independent observable test: at about 10^5 s the model predicts a 1.4 GHz radio afterglow near 0.1 mJy for XRF 080330-lik

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the achromatic peaks in XRF 080330 and GRB 080710 are not evidence of off-axis jets; the viewing geometry in both events is nearly on-axis, so the earlier off-axis interpretations of these two bursts are not required.
  • The constraint on the shell width, about 10^13 cm for both bursts, turns the afterglow peak time into a direct measurement of central engine activity of roughly 300-470 s in the rest frame, about ten times longer than the prompt gamma-ray duration, implying a non-uniform radial structure of the ejecta.
  • Early afterglow light curves computed under the thin-shell approximation will misplace the deceleration onset and the achromatic break; finite-thickness dynamics must be included when interpreting early-time data.
  • Fixing the external density profile to a uniform medium (k=0) or a steady wind (k=2) is strongly disfavored for XRF 080330 by the Bayesian evidence, and the inferred slopes (k near 1 for XRF 080330, near 0 for GRB 080710) point to diversity in the progenitor's terminal mass-loss history.
  • The predicted 1.4 GHz radio afterglow differs sharply between the two events, roughly 0.1 mJy peak for XRF 080330 and 10^-3 mJy for GRB 080710, making radio follow-up a concrete way to break degeneracies left by optical and X-ray data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the fit statistics reported in the paper (chi^2 per degree of freedom near 4-5 for the full datasets) show that the forward-shock model does not fully capture the X-ray band and the late optical decay; the paper's conclusion that the shell width and density slope are unaffected by this tension assumes the excess is a separate component that does not correlate with the peak-tim
  • Editorial inference: a reanalysis with structured-jet or reverse-shock components could revise the GRB 080710 result, since the paper itself notes that the top-hat jet overproduces the late-time flux; in particular, the near-uniform density slope inferred for this burst may be an artifact of the top-hat assumption.
  • Editorial inference: applied to the growing sample of X-ray flashes now being discovered, the same analysis pipeline could turn early afterglow rise times into a population measurement of shell width, testing whether the roughly tenfold ratio between engine activity and prompt duration seen in these two events is universal.
  • Editorial inference: the near-on-axis solutions for both an X-ray flash and a classical burst suggest that achromatic late peaks are not a viewing-angle diagnostic; if confirmed, the circumburst density slope k, rather than the peak morphology, is the more informative discriminator of progenitor history.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes the early afterglows of XRF 080330 and GRB 080710 using the public numerical code Magglow, which incorporates finite-thickness ejecta and a generalized power-law circumburst density profile, within a Bayesian inference framework (MultiNest). The central claim is that the achromatic peaks/breaks at ~10^3–10^4 s in both events are best explained by jet dynamical evolution with finite shell thickness, with inferred initial radial widths Δ0 ~ 8.6×10^12 cm (XRF 080330) and ~1.3×10^13 cm (GRB 080710), rather than by off-axis viewing. The paper further claims that a free density slope k is strongly favored over canonical ISM (k=0) or wind (k=2) models, and that the implied central engine activity timescale Δ0/c is about an order of magnitude longer than the prompt T90/(1+z). The analysis includes posterior predictive light curves, model comparison via Bayesian evidence, and a falsifiable radio-prediction section.

Significance. If the central inference is robust, the paper would strengthen the case that finite-thickness ejecta dynamics are important for early afterglow interpretation and would provide a physical bridge between prompt and afterglow phases. The strengths of the manuscript are substantial: it uses a publicly available numerical code with self-consistent shell-thickness evolution, performs full Bayesian parameter estimation with nested sampling, reports posterior distributions and credible intervals, makes explicit model comparisons via evidence, and gives falsifiable radio predictions (§5.6) that are not used to set the model constants. The authors are also transparent about the main systematic limitation — the infinitesimally thin emission region (§5.1). These features make the paper valuable regardless of the outcome of the specific data-weighting choices, provided those choices are justified or their impact quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 (GRB 080710, especially the paragraph beginning 'We performed Bayesian inference under several different conditions] The primary result for GRB 080710 is obtained by 'conservatively inflating the uncertainties of the decaying-phase data by a factor of ten.' The authors state that 'in almost all cases we examined, the model failed to adequately reproduce the rising phase,' so the setup is selected after inspecting the fits. Under the original uncertainties the model does not reproduce the rise; after the decay phase is effectively removed from the likelihood, the rise is fitted and the MAP values are quoted. The reported full χ²/d.o.f. = 5.4, versus 2.2 for the rise-only subset, shows that the fit is acceptable only after discarding most of the data. This makes the central claim — that the achromatic peak in GRB 080710 is explained by jet dynamics rather than off-axis effects — conditional on an a posteriori weighting choice. A pre-specified weighting rule, or a demonstration that the conclusion is inse
  2. [§4.1.1 (X-ray down-weighting for XRF 080330)] The X-ray uncertainties are inflated by a factor of two because with the original uncertainties the fit drives E0 to ~10^55 erg and θ_j > 0.1 rad, which the authors deem 'energetically implausible.' This is also a post hoc data‑weighting choice, though the authors argue that Δ0 and k are robust across setups. To make the primary result and the Bayesian model comparison (ΔlnZ > 20 favoring free k) credible, the paper should quantify how the posteriors of Δ0, k, and the evidence change when the original X-ray uncertainties are used, or when the X-ray data are treated as upper limits. Without this, the Δ0 ~ 10^13 cm conclusion for XRF 080330 is not yet shown to be independent of the selection.
  3. [§5.1 (thin emission region) and §4.1.2/§4.2.1 (χ²/d.o.f.)] The model treats the emission region as infinitesimally thin, and the authors point out that this systematically underestimates the cooling frequency and hence the X-ray flux. This is an honest caveat, but it undermines the use of the X-ray data in the same fit — the X-ray down-weighting is presented as a remedy, yet the optical/NIR fit itself has χ²/d.o.f. = 3.5 for XRF 080330 and 5.4 (full) for GRB 080710. Those values indicate systematic model–data discrepancies beyond the reported error bars. The claim that the finite-thickness treatment resolves the achromatic-peak question would be more convincing if the remaining optical/NIR discrepancies were addressed, or if the posterior predictive bands were shown to contain the data at the quoted χ² level. I recommend presenting the best-fit residuals and a χ² decomposition by band.
  4. [§4.2.1 (bimodality of log(Δ0/c))] The one-dimensional posterior of log(Δ0/c) for GRB 080710 is bimodal, but the authors interpret this as 'an apparent effect arising from the geometry of the parameter space' without quantitative support. Since Δ0 is a central quantity, the bimodality should either be analyzed (e.g., by showing the two modes correspond to different physical branches of the model, or by presenting the posterior conditioned on p and β) or demonstrated to be a marginalization artifact through a likelihood-ratio or profile-likelihood calculation. As written, the claim that Δ0 = 1.3×10^13 cm is the representative value is not fully justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (24)] The jet-break time formula uses 'θ_obs ± θ_j' with a brief explanation, but the sign convention is not fully tied to the text. In §4.1.2 and §4.2.1, it would help to state explicitly which branch is used for each event and how the plus/minus choice affects the quoted T_jet values.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 captions] The captions say 'black dashed lines show the medians and the 95% credible intervals,' but the text says 'black dashed lines show the medians,' and the figure descriptions in the main text sometimes call them 'dashed lines.' Please make the caption consistent with the actual plot.
  3. [Table 3] The column header reads 'T90/(1+z)' but the values (24 s, 65 s) are rest-frame durations; the comparison to Δ0/c is then only meaningful if the units are made explicit. Suggest writing 'cT90/(1+z) [s]' to match the text and to avoid implying that the gamma-ray duration itself is a length.
  4. [Equations (1) and footnote 1] The normalization A(n0,k) = n0 (3×10^35)^(k/2) and the statement 'n0 has units [cm^{k-3}]' are confusing; for k=2 the text says n0 is in cm^{-1}, for k=1 in cm^{-2}. Please clarify the units of n0 consistently, ideally by writing n0 as a density normalization at a reference radius (e.g., R = 10^17 cm).
  5. [§5.4] The 'local' prompt efficiency uses f_rad = cT90/Δ0, but the numerical values are not stated for the two events (only Δ0/c is in Table 3). Including f_rad and the resulting η_γ,local explicitly would help the reader check the claimed factor-of-~10 reduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Δ0 and k are inferred parameters; the radio predictions are independent and not used to set constants.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities, Δ0 and k, are free parameters in a Bayesian inference against the observed multiband afterglows, not quantities built from the conclusions they allegedly support. Δ0 is constrained by identifying the observed achromatic break with the analytic transition end time T_BM (Eq. 10, T_BM ∼ (1+z)(C_RS+√3)Δ0/c), which is a model-based measurement, not a tautology; the break time is observed independently and then converted to a shell width. The k posterior is constrained by pre-break temporal slopes, and the Bayesian model comparison between free k and fixed k=0, k=2 is carried out with the same likelihood framework, so the preference for generalized profiles is an evidence-based result, not an input. The radio afterglow estimates in §5.6 are genuine predictions from the MAP parameters and are not used to adjust any model constants. The heavy use of the authors' own Magglow code and prior papers is mitigated by the code being open-source and by the paper reproducing the key dynamics analytically (e.g., Eqs. 4-10); no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives. The manuscript's own caveats — the a posteriori inflation of X-ray uncertainties for XRF 080330 (§4.1.1) and the 10× inflation of decaying-phase uncertainties for GRB 080710 (§4.2), plus the admitted failure 'in almost all cases we examined' to reproduce the rising phase without the latter weighting — are genuine robustness and model-selection concerns, not circularity: the model is still scored against observed fluxes and the quoted MAP parameters are not forced by the conclusions. The comparison cT90/(1+z) < Δ0 in §5.3 is an interpretive reading of the inferred Δ0, and the interpretation that the shell width reflects central-engine activity is physically motivated but not used to define or fit Δ0. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: parameters are fit, model comparisons are computed, and independent predictions are offered. I find no step where a prediction is equivalent by construction to its input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

13 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

All inputs are physical parameters or standard model assumptions; the only ad hoc elements are the data-downweighting factors and the interpretive identification of Delta0/c with engine activity time (not an entity). No new particles or forces.

free parameters (13)
  • log10(E0/erg) = 54.2 (XRF080330); 54.3 (GRB080710)
    Isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy; MAP from Bayesian fit.
  • log10(Gamma0) = 2.69 (XRF080330); 1.62 (GRB080710)
    Initial Lorentz factor; MAP from Bayesian fit.
  • log10(Delta0/c [s]) = 2.46 (XRF080330); 2.65 (GRB080710)
    Initial radial width of ejecta; central parameter of the paper.
  • log10(n0 [cm^{k-3}]) = 0.78 (XRF080330); 2.05 (GRB080710)
    CBM density normalization; MAP from Bayesian fit.
  • k = 0.86 (XRF080330); 0.06 (GRB080710)
    CBM density power-law index; free parameter in the generalized model.
  • p = 2.11 (XRF080330); 2.05 (GRB080710)
    Electron energy distribution index; MAP from Bayesian fit.
  • log10(epsilon_e) = -0.93 (XRF080330); -2.65 (GRB080710)
    Fraction of shock energy in electrons; MAP from Bayesian fit.
  • log10(epsilon_B) = -5.84 (XRF080330); -1.13 (GRB080710)
    Fraction of shock energy in magnetic fields; strongly affects radio predictions.
  • log10(f_e) = -0.05 (XRF080330); -0.07 (GRB080710)
    Number fraction of electrons accelerated; MAP from Bayesian fit.
  • theta_j [rad] = 0.08 (XRF080330); 0.15 (GRB080710)
    Jet opening half-angle; MAP from Bayesian fit.
  • beta = theta_obs/theta_j = 0.40 (XRF080330); 0.64 (GRB080710)
    Viewing geometry; posteriors converge to beta<1.
  • X-ray downweight factor = 2
    Quoted X-ray uncertainties inflated by factor 2 to make forward-shock fit to optical/NIR primary; changes E0 from ~10^55 to ~10^54 erg.
  • GRB080710 decay downweight factor = 10
    Uncertainties of decaying-phase data inflated by factor 10; primary result chosen as the one best reproducing the rising phase.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Forward shock synchrotron emission with electron distribution parameters epsilon_e, epsilon_B, p, f_e (Eqs. 15-20)
    Standard external-shock radiation model; assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Ejecta dynamics given by Eq. (4) from Kusafuka & Asano 2025a, including coasting, transition, and BM phases
    Load-bearing dynamical framework; adopted from the authors' prior model.
  • domain assumption Ejecta magnetization sigma0 = 0; no reverse-shock emission
    Stated in §3; affects early light curves if wrong.
  • domain assumption No sideways expansion of the jet
    Ignored because focus is on early afterglow; could affect late-time behavior.
  • domain assumption Top-hat jet with sharp edges
    The authors note in §4.2.1 that jet structure may be needed for GRB 080710's late decay.
  • domain assumption CBM density is a single power law n = A(n0,k) R^{-k} without breaks (Eq. 1)
    Generalized profile; the key comparison against k=0 and k=2 rests on this functional form.
  • domain assumption Gaussian likelihood for fluxes with stated uncertainties (Eq. 23)
    Statistical model; downweighting modifies sigma_s by hand.
  • standard math Cosmology H0=70, Omega_Lambda=0.7, Omega_M=0.3
    Used for luminosity distance; standard convention.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32332 in / 12465 out tokens · 105856 ms · 2026-08-02T18:19:38.110204+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit the physical origin of the achromatic peaks and breaks observed several thousand seconds after the burst in the multi-wavelength afterglows of XRF 080330 and GRB 080710. Using a numerical afterglow model that consistently incorporates finite ejecta thickness and a generalized external density profile, we perform Bayesian inference to estimate model parameters describing these events. Our analysis shows that the gradual rise and achromatic temporal features in both events are more naturally explained by jet dynamical evolution with finite shell thickness rather than by off-axis viewing effects. The inferred initial radial width of the ejecta is of order $10^{13}$ cm for both bursts, implying a central engine activity timescale significantly longer than that suggested by the prompt gamma-ray duration alone. Taken together, these results demonstrate that early afterglow light curves are strongly influenced by transition dynamics when finite ejecta thickness is properly taken into account, thereby providing a physical link between the prompt and afterglow phases and highlighting limitations of simply applying the thin-shell approximation when interpreting early-time afterglows. Furthermore, Bayesian model comparison favors a generalized circumburst density profile over the canonical uniform or steady-wind models, suggesting that fixing the external density structure to idealized profiles a priori may obscure crucial information about the progenitor's pre-burst activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.11718 by Kaori Obayashi, Katsuaki Asano, Ryo Yamazaki, Yo Kusafuka.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-wavelength afterglow observations of XRF 080330 (data points) together with posterior predictive light curves (100 faint solid lines). From top to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior probability distributions obtained from the Bayesian inference applied to the observational afterglow data of XRF 080330. The diagonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Multi-wavelength afterglow observations of GRB 080710 (data points) together with posterior predictive light curves (100 faint solid lines). From top to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior probability distributions for GRB 080710, shown in the same format as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1422]

    Ror, A.K., Pandey, S.B., Oates, S.R., Gupta, R., Aryan, A., Castro-Tirado, A.J., Kumar, S., 2025

    doi:10.1086/508481,arXiv:astro-ph/0509273. Ror, A.K., Pandey, S.B., Oates, S.R., Gupta, R., Aryan, A., Castro-Tirado, A.J., Kumar, S., 2025. Investigating tempo- ral features in Swift GRB afterglows: a comparative study of UVOT and XRT data. Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 543, 2404–2441. doi:10.1093/mnras/ staf1514,arXiv:2509.07560. R...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [1998]

    The Astrophysical Journal 500, 873–887

    X-Ray Spectral Characteristics of GINGA Gamma- Ray Bursts. The Astrophysical Journal 500, 873–887. doi:10.1086/305735,arXiv:astro-ph/9712332. 16 Tagliaferri, G., Goad, M., Chincarini, G., Moretti, A., Cam- pana, S., Burrows, D.N., Perri, M., Barthelmy, S.D., Gehrels, N., Krimm, H., Sakamoto, T., Kumar, P., Mészáros, P.I., Kobayashi, S., Zhang, B., Angelin...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [2004]

    The Astrophysi- cal Journal Letter 601, L119–L122

    Quasi-universal Gaussian Jets: A Unified Picture for Gamma-Ray Bursts and X-Ray Flashes. The Astrophysi- cal Journal Letter 601, L119–L122. doi:10.1086/382132, arXiv:astro-ph/0311190. Zhang, B., Fan, Y .Z., Dyks, J., Kobayashi, S., Mészáros, P., Burrows, D.N., Nousek, J.A., Gehrels, N., 2006. Physical Processes Shaping Gamma-Ray Burst X-Ray Afterglow Ligh...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [2005]

    Nature 436, 985–988

    An unexpectedly rapid decline in the X-ray after- glow emission of longγ-ray bursts. Nature 436, 985–988. doi:10.1038/nature03934,arXiv:astro-ph/0506355. Toma, K., Yamazaki, R., Nakamura, T., 2005. Ep-Eiso Correla- tion in a Multiple Subjet Model of Gamma-Ray Bursts. The Astrophysical Journal 635, 481–486. doi:10.1086/497388, arXiv:astro-ph/0504624. Totan...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [2006]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 369, 311–316

    Tail emission of prompt gamma-ray burst jets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 369, 311–316. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10290.x, arXiv:astro-ph/0509159. Yi, S.X., Wu, X.F., Dai, Z.G., 2013. Early Afterglows of Gamma-Ray Bursts in a Stratified Medium with a Power-law Density Distribution. The Astrophysical Jour- nal 776, 120. doi:10.1088...

    arXiv 2006

  6. [2011]

    Astronomy and Astro- physics 526, A23

    The circumburst density profile around GRB pro- genitors: a statistical study. Astronomy and Astro- physics 526, A23. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015581, arXiv:1010.4057. Sfaradi, I., Horesh, A., Fender, R., Rhodes, L., Bright, J., Williams-Baldwin, D., Green, D.A., 2025. The Observed Phase Space of Mass-loss History from Massive Stars Based on Radio Observa...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [2023]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society 526, 512–522

    Dynamical energy dissipation of relativistic mag- netic bullets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society 526, 512–522. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2804, arXiv:2307.10576. Kusafuka, Y ., Obayashi, K., Asano, K., Yamazaki, R., 2025. Double-peaked optical afterglow in GRB 110213A inferring a magnetized thick shell ejecta. Monthly Notices of the Royal A...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [2025]

    Sci- ence China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy 68, 239501

    Science objectives of the Einstein Probe mission. Sci- ence China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy 68, 239501. doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2600-3,arXiv:2501.07362. Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y ., Ling, Z., 2022. The Ein- stein Probe Mission, in: Bambi, C., Sangangelo, A. (Eds.), Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, p. 86. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022