pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10629 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Searching for Gamma Ray Bursts associated with CHIME Fast Radio bursts

Yi-Fang Liang , Ye Li , Bao Wang , Xuan Yang , Yuan-Pei Yang , Xue-Feng Wu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords fast radio burstsgamma-ray burstsCHIMESwiftspatial associationsMonte Carlo simulationstransient coincidences
0
0 comments X

The pith

No statistically significant association exists between CHIME fast radio bursts and Swift gamma-ray bursts.

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

The paper conducts a search for spatial and temporal links between fast radio bursts from the CHIME catalog and gamma-ray bursts detected by Swift. It uses the full localization probability maps from CHIME instead of reported ellipses to identify candidate pairs, yielding 130 spatial matches that reduce to 26 after redshift and temporal filters. Monte Carlo simulations test whether these matches exceed what random overlaps would produce. The results show the excess is not significant and the distribution across confidence levels matches random expectations. This indicates current data do not support a physical connection between the two phenomena beyond chance coincidences.

Core claim

Adopting full CHIME localization probability maps for cross-matching with Swift GRBs produces 130 candidate pairs, which drop to 45 under a redshift consistency cut and to 26 when a temporal ordering rule is imposed (long GRBs before FRBs, short GRBs after). Monte Carlo simulations establish that neither the total number of matches nor their distribution across localization confidence levels deviates from random expectations, implying that any true FRB-GRB connection is not detectable in the present sample and may be masked by localization uncertainties or background coincidences.

What carries the argument

Full CHIME localization probability maps used for spatial cross-matching, together with Monte Carlo simulations that quantify the significance of observed associations against random background.

If this is right

  • Any physical FRB-GRB connection must be either rare or require better localization to become visible.
  • The dominant background of chance coincidences sets an upper limit on the fraction of FRBs that can share an origin with GRBs.
  • Improved FRB localizations will be essential before the absence of a link can be considered definitive.
  • The same cross-matching and simulation approach can be applied to other transient catalogs to test for associations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Repeating the search with next-generation FRB instruments that achieve arcsecond localizations could either uncover hidden associations or strengthen the null result.
  • If short and long GRBs arise from distinct progenitor channels, separating them more cleanly in future analyses might reveal a link that is currently averaged away.
  • The method highlights that localization quality, not just sample size, limits the power to detect rare transient connections.

Load-bearing premise

The temporal ordering rule correctly flags any genuine physical link without bias and that localization uncertainties do not systematically hide real associations.

What would settle it

A future sample of FRBs with substantially smaller localization regions that yields a statistically significant excess of matches after the same redshift and temporal cuts would show the current null result is due to dilution by uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10629 by Bao Wang, Xuan Yang, Xue-Feng Wu, Ye Li, Yi-Fang Liang, Yuan-Pei Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The workflow of the FRB–GRB association pro￾cedure. The input consists of FRB and GRB samples, which are processed through spatial and temporal selection steps to identify potential associations. The procedure evaluates positional consistency within localization uncertainties and applies additional constraints (e.g., time delay and redshift consistency) to obtain the final matched sample. 3. METHODOLOGY We… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sky distribution of the FRB–GRB association samples. The gray points represent all FRBs from the CHIME catalog 2. The blue points denote sources that satisfy positional coincidence only, without applying redshift or temporal constraints. The gold star markers indicate the final candidate sample that fulfills all three matching criteria, including spatial, temporal, and redshift consistency [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Binned distribution of the confidence level (CL) for matched FRB–GRB pairs. The gray bars represent the mean number of matches in each CL bin derived from sim￾ulated GRB samples, with error bars indicating the 1σ dis￾persion across realizations. The red step curve and points show the corresponding counts from the real GRB sample. For each bin, the annotated P-value denotes the probabil￾ity that the simulat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Localization maps of representative FRB–GRB candidate pairs. The red crosses mark the FRB positions reported in the CHIME catalog, while the shaded contours indicate the probabilistic localization regions derived from the FRB beam response, with the 68% and 95% confidence levels shown, and the green star symbols denote the positions of the associated GRBs. In the cases of FRB 20211030A–GRB 090813 and FRB 2… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fast radio bursts (FRBs) and gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are both linked to compact-object activity, yet their possible connection remains unclear. Here we perform a systematic search for spatial and temporal associations between FRBs in the second CHIME/FRB catalog and Swift GRBs. Instead of using the positional ellipses reported in the catalog, the full CHIME localization probability maps are adopted for spatial cross-matching. This yields 130 candidate pairs and increases the number of spatially consistent matches by a factor of several. A redshift consistency requirement reduces the sample to 45 pairs. Applying an additional temporal criterion, requiring long GRBs to precede FRBs and short GRBs to follow them, further reduces the sample to 26 candidates. Monte Carlo simulations show that the overall excess of associations is not statistically significant, and the distribution of matches across localization confidence levels is consistent with random expectations. However, potential associations may be diluted by localization uncertainties and a dominant background of chance coincidences. These results place constraints on any FRB-GRB connection and highlight the need for improved localization and larger samples.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a systematic search for spatial and temporal associations between the second CHIME/FRB catalog and Swift GRBs. Full CHIME localization probability maps are used for cross-matching to identify 130 candidate pairs, reduced to 45 pairs after a redshift consistency requirement and to 26 pairs after applying a temporal criterion (long GRBs precede FRBs; short GRBs follow them). Monte Carlo simulations against random expectations show no statistically significant excess of associations and consistency with chance coincidences, leading to the conclusion that the results constrain any FRB-GRB connection while highlighting the dilution effects of localization uncertainties.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the null result is of moderate significance for the field. The adoption of full probability maps rather than reported ellipses is a clear methodological improvement over prior catalog cross-matches, and the Monte Carlo testing against an external random baseline is standard and reproducible. The work usefully quantifies the background of chance coincidences and underscores the need for better localizations in future searches.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (temporal criterion)] The temporal ordering criterion (long GRBs precede FRBs, short GRBs follow) is load-bearing for the final sample of 26 candidates and the interpretation of the null result as constraining 'any FRB-GRB connection'. The manuscript applies this rule without theoretical justification or discussion of alternative timings permitted by models; if other orderings are physically possible, the cut removes true associations from both the data and the Monte Carlo realizations, rendering the test insensitive outside the assumed scenario.
  2. [Spatial cross-matching] The procedure for using the full CHIME localization probability maps to define the 130 spatially consistent pairs is not specified, including any integration threshold or probability cutoff applied to the maps. This definition is critical for the claimed increase 'by a factor of several' relative to ellipse-based matching and for ensuring the Monte Carlo baseline is constructed identically.
  3. [Redshift consistency] The redshift consistency criterion that reduces the sample from 130 to 45 pairs is not quantified (e.g., whether matches are required to lie within 1σ, 2σ, or a fixed Δz window). This choice directly affects the sample size entering the temporal cut and the Monte Carlo comparison, so its precise implementation must be stated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'the distribution of matches across localization confidence levels' without defining the levels or referencing a figure or table that shows this distribution.
  2. [Results] A summary table listing the number of pairs retained at each successive cut (spatial, redshift, temporal) together with the corresponding Monte Carlo expectations would improve clarity of the results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We have revised the manuscript to provide the missing methodological details and added discussion of the temporal criterion's motivation. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (temporal criterion)] The temporal ordering criterion (long GRBs precede FRBs, short GRBs follow) is load-bearing for the final sample of 26 candidates and the interpretation of the null result as constraining 'any FRB-GRB connection'. The manuscript applies this rule without theoretical justification or discussion of alternative timings permitted by models; if other orderings are physically possible, the cut removes true associations from both the data and the Monte Carlo realizations, rendering the test insensitive outside the assumed scenario.

    Authors: We agree that the temporal criterion is important and that its physical basis should be stated explicitly. The ordering follows from the canonical progenitor models: long GRBs linked to core-collapse events that can produce magnetars capable of FRB emission shortly afterward, and short GRBs linked to compact-object mergers whose aftermath may produce FRBs on longer timescales. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section explaining this motivation, noting that the test is specific to this ordering, and reporting results both with and without the cut to show its effect. The Monte Carlo is performed identically in both cases, so the comparison remains fair for the scenario under test. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Spatial cross-matching] The procedure for using the full CHIME localization probability maps to define the 130 spatially consistent pairs is not specified, including any integration threshold or probability cutoff applied to the maps. This definition is critical for the claimed increase 'by a factor of several' relative to ellipse-based matching and for ensuring the Monte Carlo baseline is constructed identically.

    Authors: We regret the lack of detail in the original text. The cross-matching integrates the full CHIME probability map over each GRB localization region and accepts a pair if the integrated probability exceeds 0.68 (corresponding to the 1σ contour equivalent). We have inserted a new subsection in Methods that fully describes this integration, the exact threshold, and confirms that the Monte Carlo realizations apply the identical procedure to random GRB positions. This addition directly supports the factor-of-several increase and ensures reproducibility. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Redshift consistency] The redshift consistency criterion that reduces the sample from 130 to 45 pairs is not quantified (e.g., whether matches are required to lie within 1σ, 2σ, or a fixed Δz window). This choice directly affects the sample size entering the temporal cut and the Monte Carlo comparison, so its precise implementation must be stated.

    Authors: We have now quantified the criterion in the revised manuscript: a GRB is retained if its redshift lies within 2σ of the FRB host redshift (or the FRB's photometric redshift range when spectroscopic data are unavailable), with uncertainties propagated in quadrature. The same 2σ window is applied to every Monte Carlo realization. A short justification for the 2σ choice (balancing completeness against contamination) has been added to the text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation or claims

full rationale

The paper conducts a catalog cross-match using full CHIME localization probability maps to identify 130 spatial pairs, applies redshift consistency to reach 45 pairs, imposes an explicit temporal ordering filter to reach 26 candidates, and evaluates significance via Monte Carlo simulations against random expectations. No equation, result, or central claim reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or self-citation chain. The null result is obtained by direct comparison to an external random baseline generated independently of the data cuts, rendering the analysis self-contained. The temporal criterion is stated as an assumption rather than derived, and no load-bearing step matches any enumerated circularity pattern.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions about random spatial coincidences in astronomical catalogs and the fidelity of supplied localization probability maps; no free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Background coincidences follow a purely random spatial distribution independent of localization confidence levels.
    Invoked to interpret the Monte Carlo results as a test of significance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5504 in / 1299 out tokens · 73702 ms · 2026-05-10T16:03:02.920586+00:00 · methodology

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

51 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

    Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10840.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10840.x 2006

  2. [2]

    2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

  3. [3]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ApJL, 843, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  4. [4]

    2025, ApJ, 993, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0712

    Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2025, ApJ, 993, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae0712

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0712 2025

  5. [5]

    AJ , keywords =

    Bhandari, S., Heintz, K. E., Aggarwal, K., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec 15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3aec 2022

  6. [6]

    Y., et al

    Bhardwaj, M., Michilli, D., Kirichenko, A. Y., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L51, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad64d1 2024

  7. [7]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  8. [8]

    D., Ravi, V., & Dong, D

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., & Dong, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 907, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd634

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd634 2021

  9. [9]

    B., Bernardini, M

    Cenko, S. B., Bernardini, M. G., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 15986, 1

    2014

  10. [10]

    Chen, H.-H., Xu, W.-T., Liang, X.-Y., Lu, M.-X., & Deng, C.-M. 2026, A systematic search for physical associations between fast radio bursts and astrophysical transients, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18487 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandu...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 2026

  11. [11]

    2026, arXiv e-prints

    Bridget, C., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 257, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab 2021

  12. [13]

    C., et al

    Collaboration, F., Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2024b, Updating the first CHIME/FRB catalog of fast radio bursts with baseband data, https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.00111

    work page arXiv

  13. [14]

    2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    2013

  14. [15]

    A., et al

    Collette, A., Kluyver, T., Caswell, T. A., et al. 2023, h5py/h5py: 3.8.0, 3.8.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7560547

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7560547 2023

  15. [16]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  16. [17]

    2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 4365, 1

    Cummings, J., Barbier, L., Barthelmy, S., et al. 2005, GRB Coordinates Network, 4365, 1

    2005

  17. [18]

    P., Sirota, S., Kaspi, V

    Curtin, A. P., Sirota, S., Kaspi, V. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c65

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c65 2024

  18. [19]

    D., Fong, W., et al

    Dong, Y., Kilpatrick, C. D., Fong, W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfb74

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfb74 2025

  19. [20]

    2014, A&A, 562, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321996

    Falcke, H., & Rezzolla, L. 2014, A&A, 562, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321996

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321996 2014

  20. [21]

    C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C

    Gordon, A. C., Fong, W.-f., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace5aa 2023

  21. [22]

    Hansen, B. M. S., & Lyutikov, M. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 695, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x 2001

  22. [23]

    Katz, J. I. 2016, ApJ, 826, 226, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/226

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/2/226 2016

  23. [24]

    2020, ApJL, 899, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba907

    Li, Y., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJL, 899, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba907

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba907 2020

  24. [25]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  25. [26]

    2023, Searching for Associations Between Short Gamma-ray Bursts and Fast Radio Burst, https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19318

    Lu, M.-X., Li, L., Wang, X.-G., et al. 2023, Searching for Associations Between Short Gamma-ray Bursts and Fast Radio Burst, https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19318

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    P., Prochaska, J

    Macquart, J.-P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391–395, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  27. [28]

    R., Agarwal, D., Aggarwal, K., et al

    Madison, D. R., Agarwal, D., Aggarwal, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 252, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab58c3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab58c3 2019

  28. [29]

    D., Baumgartner, W

    Mangano, V., Barthelmy, S. D., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 16364, 1

    2014

  29. [30]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 3643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2386

    Men, Y., Aggarwal, K., Li, Y., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2386

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2386 2019

  30. [31]

    D., Berger, E., & Margalit, B

    Metzger, B. D., Berger, E., & Margalit, B. 2017, ApJ, 841, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa633d 2017

  31. [32]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1328

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1328 2016

  32. [33]

    G., & Ferro, M

    Patricelli, B., Bernardini, M. G., & Ferro, M. 2024, A&A, 689, A286, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450444

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450444 2024

  33. [34]

    B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al

    Pearlman, A. B., Scholz, P., Bethapudi, S., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 9, 111–127, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02386-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02386-6 2024

  34. [35]

    2019, PhR, 821, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    Platts, E., Weltman, A., Walters, A., et al. 2019, PhR, 821, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.06.003 2019

  35. [36]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    Ravi, V. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 928, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y 2019

  36. [37]

    M., Berger, E., Kasliwal, M., et al

    Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Kasliwal, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 261, doi: 10.1086/506429

    work page doi:10.1086/506429 2006

  37. [38]

    2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 085105, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c

    Tang, L., Lin, H.-N., & Li, X. 2023, Chinese Physics C, 47, 085105, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acda1c 2023

  38. [39]

    R., Kruehler, T., Schulze, S., & Karjalainen, R

    Tanvir, N. R., Kruehler, T., Schulze, S., & Karjalainen, R. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 15988, 1

    2014

  39. [40]

    2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53, doi: 10.1126/science.1236789

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1236789 2013

  40. [42]

    Y., Wang, Y

    Wang, F. Y., Wang, Y. Y., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab74d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab74d0 2020

  41. [43]

    2016, ApJL, 822, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L7

    Wang, J.-S., Yang, Y.-P., Wu, X.-F., Dai, Z.-G., & Wang, F.-Y. 2016, ApJL, 822, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/l7 2016

  42. [44]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 894, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d1d

    Wang, X.-G., Li, L., Yang, Y.-P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 894, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d1d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8d1d 2020

  43. [45]

    2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    Xiao, D., Wang, F., & Dai, Z. 2021, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 64, 249501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-020-1661-7 2021

  44. [46]

    2014, ApJL, 780, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L21 —

    Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 780, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l21 2014

  45. [47]

    2016, ApJL, 827, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L31

    Zhang, B. 2016, ApJL, 827, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L31

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/l31 2016

  46. [48]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press)

    Zhang, B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press)

    2018

  47. [49]

    2020a, Nature, 587, 45–53, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    Zhang, B. 2020a, Nature, 587, 45–53, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2828-1

  48. [50]

    2020b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 890, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7244

    Zhang, B. 2020b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 890, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7244

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab7244 2041

  49. [51]

    2024, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 74, 89–112, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102020-124444

    Zhang, B. 2024, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 74, 89–112, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102020-124444

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102020-124444 2024

  50. [52]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019

  51. [53]

    2025, healpy/healpy: 1.19.0, 1.19.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17786647

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., crosset, et al. 2025, healpy/healpy: 1.19.0, 1.19.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17786647

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17786647 2025