pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14297 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.IM

Recognition: unknown

Rapid-response 1.3 mm Observations of GRB 260127A with the Submillimeter Array

Garrett K. Keating , Tanmoy Laskar , Anna Y. Q. Ho , Peter K. Blanchard , Kate D. Alexander , Edo Berger , Mark Gurwell , Tarraneh Eftekhari
show 4 more authors
Chloe T. Xu Joshua Bennett Lovell Ramprasad Rao Peter K. G. Williams
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM
keywords GRB 260127Asubmillimeter observationsafterglowSubmillimeter Arraygamma-ray burstrapid responsemillimeter light curveearly afterglow
0
0 comments X

The pith

SMA observations indicate the 1.3 mm afterglow of GRB 260127A declined at least as fast as t^{-0.5} if the detection is associated.

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

This paper presents the earliest millimeter observations of any gamma-ray burst, with the Submillimeter Array on target only 12.6 minutes after the Swift trigger. A 6.9 mJy source was detected at 1.3 mm near the X-ray position, but nothing remained above 0.70 mJy two days later. If that source belongs to GRB 260127A, the light curve must have reached its peak within one day and then fallen at least as steeply as t to the minus 0.5. Such rapid behavior constrains the timing of the afterglow maximum at millimeter wavelengths and shows that submillimeter arrays can respond fast enough to catch GRBs before they fade. A sympathetic reader cares because these data open a new temporal window on the initial energy transfer from the relativistic jet into the surrounding medium.

Core claim

If the 6.9 mJy SMA source is associated with GRB 260127A, the 1.3 mm light curve declined at least as fast as t^{-0.5}, implying that peak brightness at this wavelength occurred in under a day. The early detection and subsequent non-detection are consistent with both forward-shock and reverse-shock afterglow models, with implications for the planning of future rapid millimeter and submillimeter follow-up of gamma-ray bursts.

What carries the argument

Rapid-response 1.3 mm imaging with the Submillimeter Array beginning 12.6 minutes post-burst, followed by a non-detection 1.9 days later, used to place a lower bound on the decline rate of the millimeter flux.

If this is right

  • The 1.3 mm peak must have occurred within the first day after the burst.
  • The observed behavior is compatible with a forward-shock afterglow.
  • The same data are also compatible with a reverse-shock contribution.
  • Rapid millimeter observations on these timescales can be used to test afterglow models that predict different peak times at long wavelengths.
  • Future GRB alerts should trigger submillimeter arrays within the first hour to catch the rising or peak phase.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If millimeter peaks are routinely this early, dedicated rapid-response programs at facilities like the SMA or ALMA could routinely separate forward- and reverse-shock components before they blend at later times.
  • The 2.7 arcsecond offset highlights the need for improved real-time localization or simultaneous multi-wavelength confirmation to secure associations in future events.
  • A statistical sample of such early millimeter light curves would constrain the distribution of jet energies and ambient densities without relying solely on X-ray or optical data.

Load-bearing premise

The 6.9 mJy source is physically associated with GRB 260127A even though it lies 2.7 arcseconds from the optical afterglow and has a 0.9 arcsecond radial uncertainty.

What would settle it

A high-precision position for the 6.9 mJy source that lies outside the 90 percent confidence region of the GRB afterglow, or a later 1.3 mm detection that shows flux higher than expected from a t^{-0.5} decline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14297 by Anna Y. Q. Ho, Chloe T. Xu, Edo Berger, Garrett K. Keating, Joshua Bennett Lovell, Kate D. Alexander, Mark Gurwell, Peter K. Blanchard, Peter K. G. Williams, Ramprasad Rao, Tanmoy Laskar, Tarraneh Eftekhari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Image from SMA observations of GRB 260127A on January 27 (10-min observation). A single point source-like feature at high significance (4.2σ) is seen, near the the reported X-ray and optical afterglow positions, as measured by Swift/XRT (dashed red circle; 90% error radius) and LCO (solid blue circle). There is a faint (g ∼ r ∼ 23 mag) cataloged source in the Legacy Survey (A. Dey et al. 2019), with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A histogram of the pixel fluxes (Spixel) from imag￾ing the January 27 data after subtraction of the fitted point-- source model from the visibilities. The total area imaged in this analysis is approximately 3× the area of the primary beam (i.e., measuring 81′′ on a side). The distribution of pixel fluxes are in good agreement with theoretical expecta￾tions for Gaussian noise (black dashed line), with the s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: Light curve data of GRB 260127A as mea￾sured by Swift XRT (blue; P. A. Evans et al. 2007, 2009), and by SMA at both the optical afterglow position (black) and the mm-bright position (orange). Bottom: SMA 225 GHz observations of GRB 260127A (red points) along with fidu￾cial RS (dashed) and FS (dotted) models, compared with a sample of (235 ± 50) GHz light curves, with detections (col￾ored points) highl… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the results from rapid-response 1.3 mm observations of GRB 260127A using the Submillimeter Array (SMA). SMA arrived on-source 12.6 minutes after the initial detection by the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, representing the earliest millimeter/submillimeter observations of a GRB to date. From these observations, we find a source with flux density $6.9\pm1.7$ mJy, consistent with the X-ray afterglow position but slightly offset from the optical afterglow position (2.7'' offset, with the SMA detection having a 90% confidence radial position uncertainty of 0.9''). Subsequent observations 1.9 days later show no sources of emission, with a $3\sigma$ upper limit of 0.70 mJy. If the SMA detection is associated with GRB 260127A, we infer that the 1.3 mm light curve for GRB 260127A declined at least as fast as $t^{-0.5}$, suggesting that peak brightness of the event at this wavelength was reached in under a day. We discuss how these findings may be consistent with both forward shock and reverse shock afterglow scenarios, and implications for future millimeter/submillimeter observations of GRBs on these timescales.

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 the earliest 1.3 mm SMA observations of GRB 260127A, beginning 12.6 minutes after the Swift trigger. It detects a 6.9 ± 1.7 mJy source whose position is consistent with the X-ray afterglow but offset by 2.7 arcsec from the optical afterglow (SMA 90% radial uncertainty 0.9 arcsec). A second epoch at 1.9 days yields a non-detection (3σ upper limit 0.70 mJy). Conditionally on the association, the authors infer a 1.3 mm decline at least as steep as t^{-0.5}, implying the peak occurred within one day, and discuss possible forward- and reverse-shock interpretations.

Significance. If the SMA source is physically associated with GRB 260127A, the work supplies the earliest submillimeter flux measurement of any GRB afterglow and places a useful lower bound on the early-time decline rate at 1.3 mm. Such rapid-response data are scarce and can help discriminate between forward-shock and reverse-shock contributions at millimeter wavelengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results: The 2.7 arcsec offset from the optical afterglow (versus 0.9 arcsec SMA radial uncertainty) is load-bearing for the central inference. The manuscript must quantify the chance-coincidence probability using published 1.3 mm source counts; without this, the non-detection at 1.9 days cannot be unambiguously attributed to rapid afterglow evolution rather than an unrelated field source.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the detection is 'consistent with the X-ray afterglow position' requires explicit values for the X-ray position uncertainty and the measured offset. It is also necessary to verify whether the optical and X-ray positions themselves agree within their respective errors.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion: The statement that the light curve 'declined at least as fast as t^{-0.5}' rests on only two epochs and the unverified association. A quantitative assessment of the allowed range of decline indices (including the effect of the upper-limit epoch) or additional modeling is needed to support the conclusion that the peak occurred in under a day.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the radial uncertainty as 0.9'' but the text contains a typographical inconsistency in the arcsecond symbol; standardize notation throughout.
  2. A concise table listing observation times, frequencies, measured fluxes or limits, and positional offsets would improve readability of the observational results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] The 2.7 arcsec offset from the optical afterglow (versus 0.9 arcsec SMA radial uncertainty) is load-bearing for the central inference. The manuscript must quantify the chance-coincidence probability using published 1.3 mm source counts; without this, the non-detection at 1.9 days cannot be unambiguously attributed to rapid afterglow evolution rather than an unrelated field source.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative estimate of the chance coincidence probability is necessary to support the physical association. We will calculate this using published differential source counts at 1.3 mm from relevant surveys (e.g., from the literature on submillimeter source counts). The probability will be computed within the area corresponding to the SMA position uncertainty and added to the manuscript in the Results section. This will allow us to discuss the likelihood that the source is unrelated. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The claim that the detection is 'consistent with the X-ray afterglow position' requires explicit values for the X-ray position uncertainty and the measured offset. It is also necessary to verify whether the optical and X-ray positions themselves agree within their respective errors.

    Authors: We will revise the Abstract and Results to include the explicit X-ray position from the Swift/XRT catalog, its uncertainty (typically on the order of 1-3 arcseconds depending on the observation), and the precise angular offset from the SMA detection. Additionally, we will confirm and state that the optical and X-ray afterglow positions are consistent within their respective uncertainties, as expected for GRB afterglows. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] The statement that the light curve 'declined at least as fast as t^{-0.5}' rests on only two epochs and the unverified association. A quantitative assessment of the allowed range of decline indices (including the effect of the upper-limit epoch) or additional modeling is needed to support the conclusion that the peak occurred in under a day.

    Authors: We will add a quantitative assessment in the Discussion. Specifically, we will calculate the range of temporal decay indices alpha (where flux scales as t^alpha) that are consistent with the measured flux at 12.6 minutes and the 3 sigma upper limit at 1.9 days. This will provide a lower limit on the steepness of the decline (e.g., alpha less than or equal to -0.5), reinforcing that the peak must have occurred prior to our first observation or shortly after. We will also note the conditional nature on the association. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational report of fluxes and limits

full rationale

The paper reports direct SMA measurements (6.9 mJy detection at 12.6 min post-trigger; 0.70 mJy 3σ upper limit at 1.9 days) and states a conditional inference on the decay index if the source is associated. This inference is a direct comparison of observed flux limits and elapsed times, not a fit, prediction, or derivation that reduces to inputs by construction. No equations, self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness claims appear in the provided text; the association is explicitly conditional and not derived.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an observational astronomy paper reporting telescope data. No new theoretical parameters, axioms, or entities are introduced beyond standard assumptions of radio interferometry.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions for SMA flux calibration, atmospheric correction, and positional uncertainty estimation in interferometric imaging.
    Invoked to convert raw visibilities into the reported 6.9 mJy flux and 0.9 arcsec uncertainty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5594 in / 1351 out tokens · 41092 ms · 2026-05-10T12:06:47.337026+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. [1]

    1999, Nature, 398, 400, doi: 10.1038/18837 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Akerlof, C., Balsano, R., Barthelmy, S., et al. 1999, Nature, 398, 400, doi: 10.1038/18837 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., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-W...

    work page doi:10.1038/18837 1999

  2. [2]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  3. [3]

    L., Dichiara, S., Watson, A

    Becerra, R. L., Dichiara, S., Watson, A. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 881, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab275b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab275b 2019

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Berger, E., Sari, R., Frail, D. A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 56, doi: 10.1086/317814

    work page doi:10.1086/317814 2000

  5. [5]

    K., Margutti, R., et al

    Berger, E., Keating, G. K., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace0c4 2023

  6. [6]

    S., Rhodes, L., Farah, W., et al

    Bright, J. S., Rhodes, L., Farah, W., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 986, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01997-9 2023

  7. [7]

    The Swift X-ray Telescope

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 D’Ai, A., Kennea, J. A., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43539, 1 de Ugarte Postigo, A., Lundgren, A., Martín, S., et al. 2012, A&A, ...

    work page Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  8. [8]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  9. [9]

    D., et al

    Eftekhari, T., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ce8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ce8 2022

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 2007

  11. [11]

    F., Capozziello, S., & Dainotti, M

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x 2009

  12. [12]

    2002, ChJA&A, 2, 449

    Fan, Y.-Z., Dai, Z.-G., Huang, Y.-F., & Lu, T. 2002, ChJA&A, 2, 449

    2002

  13. [13]

    J., Bremer, M., Bertoldi, F., et al

    Galama, T. J., Bremer, M., Bertoldi, F., et al. 2000, ApJL, 541, L45, doi: 10.1086/312904

    work page doi:10.1086/312904 2000

  14. [14]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  15. [15]

    R., Tyler, L

    Goad, M. R., Tyler, L. G., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 1401, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078436

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078436 2007

  16. [16]

    J., Jacobs, D

    Hazelton, B. J., Jacobs, D. C., Pober, J. C., & Beardsley, A. P. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 140, doi: 10.21105/joss.00140

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00140 2017

  17. [17]

    2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17290, 1 Högbom, J

    Ho, A., Gurwell, M., Keating, G., De, K., & Chomiuk, L. 2025, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 17290, 1 Högbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417

    2025

  18. [18]

    R., Vanderspek, R., & Mo, G

    Jayaraman, R., Fausnaugh, M., Ricker, G. R., Vanderspek, R., & Mo, G. 2024, ApJ, 972, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7b Kamiński, T., Steffen, W., Tylenda, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833165

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7b 2024

  19. [19]

    2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7482, doi: 10.21105/joss.07482 Rapid Millimeter Observations of GRB 260127A 7

    Keating, G., Hazelton, B., Kolopanis, M., et al. 2025, The Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7482, doi: 10.21105/joss.07482 Rapid Millimeter Observations of GRB 260127A 7

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.07482 2025

  20. [20]

    K., Bower, G

    Keating, G. K., Bower, G. C., Marrone, D. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 140, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/140

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/140 2015

  21. [21]

    W., Strong, I

    Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., & Olson, R. A. 1973, ApJL, 182, L85, doi: 10.1086/181225

    work page doi:10.1086/181225 1973

  22. [22]

    J., Gupta, R., Kennea, J

    Klingler, N. J., Gupta, R., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43529, 1

    2026

  23. [23]

    1999, ApJ, 513, 669, doi: 10.1086/306868

    Kobayashi, S., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 669, doi: 10.1086/306868

    work page doi:10.1086/306868 1999

  24. [24]

    & Zhang, B.\ 2003, , 582, 2, L75

    Kobayashi, S., & Zhang, B. 2003, ApJL, 582, L75, doi: 10.1086/367691

    work page doi:10.1086/367691 2003

  25. [25]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1

    Laskar, T., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/1 2015

  26. [26]

    A., et al

    Laskar, T., Berger, E., Zauderer, B. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/119

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/2/119 2013

  27. [27]

    D., Berger, E., et al

    Laskar, T., Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/88

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/88 2016

  28. [28]

    2019a, ApJ, 884, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ce

    Laskar, T., van Eerten, H., Schady, P., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 884, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab40ce

  29. [29]

    D., Gill, R., et al

    Laskar, T., Alexander, K. D., Gill, R., et al. 2019b, ApJL, 878, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2247

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2247 2041

  30. [30]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Laskar, T., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acbfad

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acbfad 2023

  31. [31]

    B., Keating, G

    Lovell, J. B., Keating, G. K., Wilner, D. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 962, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad18ba

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad18ba 2024

  32. [32]

    A., Weinberger, A

    MacGregor, M. A., Weinberger, A. J., Loyd, R. O. P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf14c 2021

  33. [33]

    2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc MAGIC Collaboration, Abe, K., Abe, S., et al

    Maeda, K., Chandra, P., Matsuoka, T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc MAGIC Collaboration, Abe, K., Abe, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A217, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452785

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0dbc 2021

  34. [34]

    2014, A&A, 567, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220872

    Martin-Carrillo, A., Hanlon, L., Topinka, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220872

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220872 2014

  35. [35]

    2005 , month = sep, journal =

    McMahon, E., Kumar, P., & Piran, T. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09884.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09884.x 2006

  36. [36]

    G., Kobayashi, S., et al

    Melandri, A., Mundell, C. G., Kobayashi, S., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1209, doi: 10.1086/591243 Mészáros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1999, MNRAS, 306, L39, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02800.x

    work page doi:10.1086/591243 2008

  37. [37]

    M., von Fellenberg, S

    Michail, J. M., von Fellenberg, S. D., Keating, G. K., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae25ef

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae25ef 2026

  38. [38]

    A., Cenko, S

    Perley, D. A., Cenko, S. B., Corsi, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 37, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/37

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/37 2014

  39. [39]

    2023, ApJL, 953, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace7ba

    Prasad, S., Zhang, Q., Moran, J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 953, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace7ba

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace7ba 2023

  40. [40]

    L., Karpov, S

    Racusin, J. L., Karpov, S. V., Sokolowski, M., et al. 2008, Nature, 455, 183, doi: 10.1038/nature07270

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07270 2008

  41. [41]

    J., & Meszaros, P

    Rees, M. J., & Meszaros, P. 1994, ApJL, 430, L93, doi: 10.1086/187446

    work page doi:10.1086/187446 1994

  42. [42]

    B., & SVOM mission Team

    Saccardi, A., Malesani, D. B., & SVOM mission Team. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43530, 1

    2026

  43. [43]

    Q., Kawai, N., et al

    Sakamoto, T., Lamb, D. Q., Kawai, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 311, doi: 10.1086/431235

    work page doi:10.1086/431235 2005

  44. [44]

    1997, ApJL, 489, L37, doi: 10.1086/310957

    Sari, R. 1997, ApJL, 489, L37, doi: 10.1086/310957

    work page doi:10.1086/310957 1997

  45. [45]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/311269 1998

  46. [46]

    A., Tilanus, R

    Smith, I. A., Tilanus, R. P. J., Tanvir, N. R., & Frail, D. A. 2012, GRB Coordinates Network, 13233, 1

    2012

  47. [47]

    2024b, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    Veledina, A., Muleri, F., Poutanen, J., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1031, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02294-9 2024

  48. [48]

    T., Wren, J

    Vestrand, W. T., Wren, J. A., Panaitescu, A., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 38, doi: 10.1126/science.1242316

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1242316 2014

  49. [49]

    Wei, D. M. 2003, A&A, 402, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030371

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030371 2003

  50. [50]

    A., Berger, E., & Kulkarni, S

    Zauderer, A., Frail, D. A., Berger, E., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 11580, 1

    2011

  51. [51]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca08f

    Zhang, L.-L., Xin, L.-P., Wang, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca08f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca08f 2022