pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21624 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Multi-wavelength study of EP250416a / GRB 250416C: An Optically Dark Long GRB with a Late Jet Break

Guoying Zhao , Duo-Le Cao , Rong-Feng Shen , Hui Sun , Chi-Chuan Jin , Wei-Min Yuan , Chen-Wei Wang , Shao-Lin Xiong
show 24 more authors
Dmitry Svinkin Dong Xu Shuai-Qing Jiang Peter G. Jonker Yun Wang Hao Zhou Chang Zhou Xinlei Chen Kaushik Chatterjee Xue-Feng Wu Xiao-Feng Wang Chun Chen Yuan Liu Andrew J. Levan Jennifer Alexandra Chacon Chavez Jonathan Quirola-V\'asquez Franz E. Bauer Antonio Martin-Carrillo Gregory Corcoran Daniele B. Malesani Dmitry Frederiks Anna Ridnaia Alexandra L. Lysenko Mikhail Ulanov
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 21:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstGRB afterglowjet breakhost galaxy extinctionoptically dark GRBX-ray rich GRBmulti-wavelength observations
0
0 comments X

The pith

EP250416a shows a jet break at 1.5 million seconds after trigger, yielding a jet half-opening angle of 10.6 degrees, while host-galaxy dust with A_V = 5.5 mag accounts for its optical darkness.

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

The paper analyzes prompt and afterglow data across gamma-ray, X-ray, and optical bands for the long GRB EP250416a at redshift 0.963. It reports isotropic energies consistent with the Amati relation and classifies the event as X-ray rich based on the fluence ratio in the 25-100 keV range. The X-ray light curve displays an initial shallow decay followed by a standard decay phase and a very late break at 1.5 times 10 to the 6 seconds. This break is interpreted as the jet edge becoming visible, corresponding to a wide jet opening angle. The afterglow appears optically dark, with only a faint r-band detection and a low optical-to-X-ray index, which the authors model as resulting from substantial extinction in the host galaxy.

Core claim

EP250416a is a long GRB at z = 0.963 whose X-ray afterglow exhibits a jet break at t approximately 1.5 times 10 to the 6 seconds that corresponds to a jet half-opening angle of 10.6 degrees; the burst is optically dark because of A_V host equal to 5.5 magnitudes of extinction, while its prompt emission energies align with the Amati relation for long GRBs and its fluence ratio marks it as X-ray rich.

What carries the argument

The late break in the X-ray afterglow light curve interpreted as the jet-break time, together with an extinction-curve model that reproduces the observed optical-to-X-ray spectral index from host-galaxy dust.

If this is right

  • The derived jet opening angle of 10.6 degrees implies that the true energy release is lower than the isotropic value by a factor set by the solid angle of the jet.
  • Events with such late jet breaks are consistent with wider jets that remain detectable for longer times in X-rays.
  • High host extinction can hide the optical afterglow even when the X-ray signal remains observable, increasing the fraction of dark GRBs in flux-limited samples.
  • The classification as an X-ray rich GRB with energies on the Amati relation supports the idea that this burst belongs to the standard long-GRB population despite its optical properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If many optically dark GRBs turn out to have similarly late jet breaks, the average jet opening angle distribution would shift toward wider values.
  • Multi-wavelength campaigns that include late-time X-ray monitoring could systematically recover jet angles for bursts missed in optical surveys.
  • The required host extinction of 5.5 magnitudes suggests that dust-rich environments may be common among GRB hosts at moderate redshift, testable with future infrared observations.

Load-bearing premise

The observed X-ray break at 1.5 million seconds is produced by the jet edge becoming visible to the observer, and the optical faintness is caused entirely by dust extinction in the host galaxy rather than by intrinsically weak emission or other effects.

What would settle it

Detection of an optical afterglow significantly brighter than predicted by the 5.5-mag extinction model, or an X-ray light curve that fails to steepen after 1.5 million seconds in a manner consistent with post-jet-break evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21624 by Alexandra L. Lysenko, Andrew J. Levan, Anna Ridnaia, Antonio Martin-Carrillo, Chang Zhou, Chen-Wei Wang, Chi-Chuan Jin, Chun Chen, Daniele B. Malesani, Dmitry Frederiks, Dmitry Svinkin, Dong Xu, Duo-Le Cao, Franz E. Bauer, Gregory Corcoran, Guoying Zhao, Hao Zhou, Hui Sun, Jennifer Alexandra Chacon Chavez, Jonathan Quirola-V\'asquez, Kaushik Chatterjee, Mikhail Ulanov, Peter G. Jonker, Rong-Feng Shen, Shao-Lin Xiong, Shuai-Qing Jiang, Wei-Min Yuan, Xiao-Feng Wang, Xinlei Chen, Xue-Feng Wu, Yuan Liu, Yun Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Image of the EP250416a captured by the EP/WXT CMOS17 detector chip at 17:53:59 UTC on 16 April 2025. the source is localized at R.A. = 256.42◦ and Dec. = 25.78◦ . observations of EP250416a : the first at ∼ 4.8 hours (PI: Kennea) and the scond at ∼ 20.5 hours (PI: EPSC) after the WXT trigger. These observations complemented the EP/FXT data by covering a time window wehn the afterglow was transitioning from … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pre-outburst LS DR10 image near the counterpart of EP250416a (left panel), and post-outburst images of the counterpart detected with GMOS in the r-band (upper right) and z-band (lower right) at 0.54 days after the outburst. Orange and blue lines denote the positional uncertain￾ties of Swift/XRT and EP/FXT, respectively, and the red mark indicates the detection position of the counterpart by GMOS in the tar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: From the observed emission lines, particularly the Oii doublet λ3727, 3729, we derive a redshift of z = 0.963 for EP250416a, assum￾ing the transient event occurred within its host galaxy at this redshift. The inset magnifies the spectral region containing his key emission line for enhanced visibility. 2.5. Optical Photometric Observations We obtained the images with the telescope of the Thai Robotic Telesc… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rest-frame spectral peak energy (Epeak) versus isotropic￾equivalent energy (Eiso) for GRBS. The best-fit Ep-Eiso (Amati) rela￾tion (Amati et al. 2002) for both Type I and Type II samples are plotted (solid lines) with 1σ scattering regions (shaded ares) (Minaev & Poza￾nenko 2020). The position of EP250416a is also marked in the diagram (red cross). Here, Eiso represents the isotropic-equivalent gamma-ray e… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: illustrates the spectral fitting results. The upper panel is multi-wavelength data points are overplotted with the best-fit absorbed CPL model. EP/WXT soft X-ray data (0.5-4.0 keV) are shown in orange (precursor; photon index Γ = 0.2 +1.8 −2.2 ) and blue (prompt), Konus-Wind gamma-ray data (18-1231 keV) in green, and SVOM-GRM gamma-ray data (15-5000 keV) in pink. The bottom panel displays the fit residuals… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of the fluence ratio S(25-50 keV)/S(50-100 keV) for the whole samples observed by Swift (Lien et al. 2016). The verti￾cal blue dashed lines correspond to the borders between C-GRBs and XRRs, and between XRRs and XRFs. 4. Afterglow emissions Afterglow emission, generated by the interaction between rela￾tivistic ejecta from GRBs and the circumburst medium (CBM), is critical for probing the b… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The afterglow spectral energy distribution of EP250416a at 47 ks, constructed from the contemporaneous r-band and X-ray ob￾servations. The solid line shows the best-fitting power-law model ob￾tained from fitting the X-ray spectrum alone, with a spectral index of β = 1.2 ± 0.2. The dashed red line indicates the extrapolation of the X￾ray–derived power-law model to the optical band, illustrating the devia￾ti… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Temporal evolution of 0.3-10.0 keV X-ray flux (observer frame) for Swift-XRT detected Long Gamma-ray bursts. Public data retrieved from the Swift Data Archive (https://www.swift.ac.uk/ xrt_curves/). EP250416a is highlighted in red. Bottom: comparative analysis of the optical luminosity light curve of EP250416a with the light curves of optical afterglows from long GRBs. These samples are cited from Ka… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The best-fit light curve for EP250416a X-ray and optical data. Black circles and red squares represent the data in the X-ray band and the optical r-band, respectively. The black solid line represents the fit￾ted X-ray light curve obtained using the PyFRS code. The red solid line shows the r-band light curve calculated using the best-fit parameters derived from the X-ray data. FS without energy injection (… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of the jet opening angle for GRBs from Lu et al. (2012). The red shaded region corresponds to θj of EP250416a. the predicted value. This discrepancy may be caused by strong extinction in the host galaxy, as will be discussed in detail in §6. The black dashed line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Posterior distributions of afterglow parameters for EP250416a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The distribution of GRBs in the Eγ,iso(EK,iso)-Eγ(EK) plane. The gray dots denote the GRB sample complied by Wang et al. (2018), covering both LGRBs and SGRBs to reflect the overall energy output characteristics of GRBs. The red “+” symbol hightlights the position of EP250416a. ati relation aligns with typical long GRBs, confirming con￾sistency with the empirical spectral-energy correlation of this GRB cl… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present multi-wavelength study of the $\gamma$/X-ray transient EP250416a (also designated GRB 250416C), triggered by the Einstein Probe (EP) Wide-field X-ray Telescope and also by SVOM and Konus-Wind. Observations spanning the gamma-ray, X-ray, and optical bands facilitated detailed analysis of the burst's prompt emission, afterglow evolution, and physical origin. EP250416a exhibits a burst duration of 30 s in X-ray and 17.7 s in gamma-rays, with joint spectral fitting of 0.5-5000 keV data gives $E\rm_{peak}=342_{-232}^{+90}$ keV. Optical spectroscopy of the afterglow, acquired with the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS) on Gemini South, yielded a redshift of $z=0.963$. Accounting for the measured redshift, the isotropic energies are $E\rm_{X,iso}=2.7_{-0.5}^{+0.9}\times10^{50}$ erg and $E\rm_{\gamma,iso}=7.34_{-2.1}^{+5.1}\times10^{51}$ erg, aligning with the Amati relation for long GRBs. The fluence ratio $\rm S(25-50~keV)/S(50-100~keV)=0.78_{-0.15}^{+0.1}$ classifies EP250416a as an X-ray rich (XRR) GRB. The X-ray afterglow shows an initial shallow decay ($\alpha \approx -0.5$) transitioning to a canonical decay phase ($\alpha \approx -1$), with a very late jet break at $t\sim 1.5\times 10^6$ s, corresponding to a jet half-opening angle of $\theta _j=10.6_{-1.8}^{+1.9}$ degrees. EP250416a is optically dark, as it shows only a faint $r$-band detection ($r=24.16$ mag) from Gemini South-GMOS and a low optical-to-X-ray spectral index $\beta_{\rm OX} = 0.3$. This may be attributed to significant host-galaxy extinction, with a required $A_V^{\text{host}}=5.5\ \text{mag}$ derived from the extinction curve model.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports multi-wavelength observations of the long GRB EP250416a/GRB 250416C, including prompt emission with E_peak = 342 keV, redshift z = 0.963 from Gemini spectroscopy, isotropic energies consistent with the Amati relation, an X-ray afterglow with shallow-to-canonical decay and a break at t ~ 1.5e6 s interpreted as a jet break giving theta_j = 10.6 deg, and optical darkness (single r = 24.16 mag detection, beta_OX = 0.3) attributed to A_V^host = 5.5 mag extinction.

Significance. If the jet-break and extinction interpretations are confirmed, the result adds a well-observed example of a very late jet break and an optically dark GRB with high host extinction, helping constrain jet opening-angle distributions and the demographics of dark bursts. The prompt-emission classification as X-ray rich and the use of Einstein Probe data provide timely multi-instrument coverage.

major comments (2)
  1. [X-ray afterglow analysis] The X-ray afterglow section (as summarized in the abstract) identifies the break at t ~ 1.5e6 s as a jet break yielding theta_j = 10.6 deg via the standard t_j formula, but reports neither the post-break temporal index nor any test for achromaticity with the optical band. Without these, the steepening cannot be verified to match the expected post-jet-break slope (alpha ~ -p or -p-1), weakening the opening-angle claim.
  2. [Optical and extinction analysis] The optical extinction analysis derives A_V^host = 5.5 mag from the single r-band point and beta_OX = 0.3 alone. The manuscript must detail the joint X-ray/optical SED fit, the specific extinction law assumed, and explicit checks that rule out an intrinsically faint afterglow or alternative spectral components before attributing the entire optical suppression to host extinction.
minor comments (2)
  1. Add a table listing all X-ray and optical photometric points with uncertainties, fit parameters, and reduced chi-squared values to support the light-curve modeling and extinction derivation.
  2. Clarify the exact functional form and any free parameters used in the extinction-curve model that produces A_V^host = 5.5 mag.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results on EP250416a. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [X-ray afterglow analysis] The X-ray afterglow section (as summarized in the abstract) identifies the break at t ~ 1.5e6 s as a jet break yielding theta_j = 10.6 deg via the standard t_j formula, but reports neither the post-break temporal index nor any test for achromaticity with the optical band. Without these, the steepening cannot be verified to match the expected post-jet-break slope (alpha ~ -p or -p-1), weakening the opening-angle claim.

    Authors: We agree that explicit reporting of the post-break temporal index and discussion of achromaticity would strengthen the jet-break interpretation. The X-ray light curve is modeled with a broken power law, and the post-break index is steeper than the pre-break canonical phase, consistent with expectations for a jet break. However, no optical observations exist after t ~ 1.5e6 s, precluding a direct achromaticity test. We will revise the X-ray afterglow section to state the fitted post-break index explicitly and note the limitation on achromaticity due to the absence of late-time optical data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Optical and extinction analysis] The optical extinction analysis derives A_V^host = 5.5 mag from the single r-band point and beta_OX = 0.3 alone. The manuscript must detail the joint X-ray/optical SED fit, the specific extinction law assumed, and explicit checks that rule out an intrinsically faint afterglow or alternative spectral components before attributing the entire optical suppression to host extinction.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater detail on the extinction analysis. The manuscript performs a joint X-ray/optical SED fit at the epoch of the optical detection using the measured beta_OX = 0.3 and assumes the SMC extinction law, which is standard for GRB host environments and yields A_V^host = 5.5 mag. We will expand the relevant section to describe the SED fitting procedure, specify the SMC curve, and add a short discussion ruling out alternatives such as an intrinsically faint afterglow (inconsistent with the observed X-ray flux and prompt energetics) or an additional spectral component. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard formulas applied to new observations

full rationale

The paper derives isotropic energies directly from measured fluences, redshift, and luminosity distance using the standard cosmological conversion E_iso = 4π d_L^2 S / (1+z). The jet half-opening angle follows from the observed X-ray break time via the canonical afterglow jet-break formula (involving E_iso and an assumed circumburst density), which is an independent calculation rather than a redefinition. Host extinction A_V is obtained by applying an extinction curve model to match the single optical detection against the X-ray spectral extrapolation; this is a forward fit to data, not a quantity defined in terms of itself. No self-citation is load-bearing for the central claims, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard cosmological distance calculations, the jet-break interpretation of light-curve breaks, and an extinction curve model fitted to explain the optical-to-X-ray ratio.

free parameters (3)
  • E_peak = 342 keV
    Joint spectral fit to 0.5-5000 keV data
  • theta_j = 10.6 degrees
    Derived from jet-break time using standard formula
  • A_V^host = 5.5 mag
    Fitted to match observed beta_OX using extinction curve
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology for luminosity distance and isotropic energy conversion
    Invoked to compute E_iso from observed fluence and redshift
  • domain assumption Late X-ray break is produced by the edge of a relativistic jet becoming visible
    Used to convert break time into opening angle

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5902 in / 1486 out tokens · 40456 ms · 2026-05-09T21:04:14.728598+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

62 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2002, A&A, 390, 81

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81

    2002

  2. [2]

    L., Frederiks, D

    Aptekar, R. L., Frederiks, D. D., Golenetskii, S. V ., et al. 1995, Space Sci. Rev., 71, 265

    1995

  3. [3]

    R., Bloom, J

    Berger, E., Kulkarni, S. R., Bloom, J. S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 981

    2002

  4. [4]

    Blandford, R. D. & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433

    1977

  5. [5]

    Burrows, D. N. & Swift XRT Team. 2004, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics

    2004

  6. [6]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  7. [7]

    2025, Experimental Astronomy, 60, 15

    Cheng, H., Zhang, C., Ling, Z., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 60, 15

    2025

  8. [8]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  9. [9]

    G., Frail, D

    Djorgovski, S. G., Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 654

    2001

  10. [10]

    1975, ApJ, 198, 95 Götz, D., Paul, J., Basa, S., et al

    Gorenstein, P. 1975, ApJ, 198, 95 Götz, D., Paul, J., Basa, S., et al. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Confer- ence Series, V ol. 1133, Gamma-ray Burst: Sixth Huntsville Symposium, ed. C. Meegan, C. Kouveliotou, & N. Gehrels, 25–30

    1975

  11. [11]

    & Sari, R

    Granot, J. & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 820 Güver, T. & Özel, F. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2050

    2002

  12. [12]

    B., van der Horst, A

    Higgins, A. B., van der Horst, A. J., Starling, R. L. C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 5245

    2019

  13. [13]

    T., Boyd, P

    Holland, S. T., Boyd, P. T., Gorosabel, J., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 122

    2007

  14. [14]

    T., Sbarufatti, B., Shen, R., et al

    Holland, S. T., Sbarufatti, B., Shen, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 223

    2010

  15. [15]

    A., Fox, D

    Jakobsson, P., Frail, D. A., Fox, D. B., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 45

    2005

  16. [16]

    Jakobsson, P., Hjorth, J., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, L21

    2004

  17. [17]

    A., Klose, S., & Zeh, A

    Kann, D. A., Klose, S., & Zeh, A. 2006, ApJ, 641, 993

    2006

  18. [18]

    A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al

    Kann, D. A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 96

    2011

  19. [19]

    A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al

    Kann, D. A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1513

    2010

  20. [20]

    W., Strong, I

    Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., & Olson, R. A. 1973, ApJ, 182, L85

    1973

  21. [21]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, L101

    1993

  22. [22]

    & Zhang, B

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

    2015

  23. [23]

    2016, ApJ, 816, 20

    Lei, W.-H., Yuan, Q., Zhang, B., & Wang, D. 2016, ApJ, 816, 20

    2016

  24. [24]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 125

    Lei, W.-H., Zhang, B., & Liang, E.-W. 2013, ApJ, 765, 125

    2013

  25. [25]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15162

    Li, R.-Z., Mao, J., Yang, Y .-P., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.15162

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    2010, ApJ, 725, 2209

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

    2010

  27. [27]

    D., et al

    Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 7

    2016

  28. [28]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40156, 1

    Lipunov, V ., Gorbovskoy, E., Tiurina, N., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40156, 1

    2025

  29. [29]

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M. & Zhang, B. 2004, ApJ, 613, 477

    2004

  30. [30]

    2012, ApJ, 745, 168

    Lu, R.-J., Wei, J.-J., Qin, S.-F., & Liang, E.-W. 2012, ApJ, 745, 168

    2012

  31. [31]

    & Rees, M

    Meszaros, P. & Rees, M. J. 1993, ApJ, 405, 278

    1993

  32. [32]

    Minaev, P. Y . & Pozanenko, A. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1919 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs:manuscript no. EP250416a

    2020

  33. [33]

    P., Nemiroff, R

    Norris, J. P., Nemiroff, R. J., Bonnell, J. T., et al. 1996, ApJ, 459, 393

    1996

  34. [34]

    A., Gorosabel, J., et al

    Piro, L., Frail, D. A., Gorosabel, J., et al. 2002, ApJ, 577, 680

    2002

  35. [35]

    & Schmitt, J

    Predehl, P. & Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1995, A&A, 293, 889

    1995

  36. [36]

    Rees, M. J. & Meszaros, P. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 41

    1992

  37. [37]

    Rees, M. J. & Meszaros, P. 1994, ApJ, 430, L93

    1994

  38. [38]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 1098

    Rol, E., van der Horst, A., Wiersema, K., et al. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1098

    2007

  39. [39]

    2012, A&A, 545, A77

    Rossi, A., Klose, S., Ferrero, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A77

    2012

  40. [40]

    D., Barbier, L., et al

    Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 179

    2008

  41. [41]

    & Piran, T

    Sari, R. & Piran, T. 1999, ApJ, 520, 641

    1999

  42. [42]

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 519, L17

    1999

  43. [43]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40166, 1

    Sbarrato, T., Brivio, R., Salvaggio, C., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40166, 1

    2025

  44. [44]

    2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1005.5008

    Schanne, S., Paul, J., Wei, J., et al. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1005.5008

    work page arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40167, 1 SVOM/GRM Team, Wang, C.-W., Huang, Y ., et al

    Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., Lysenko, A., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40167, 1 SVOM/GRM Team, Wang, C.-W., Huang, Y ., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Net- work, 40184, 1

    2025

  46. [46]

    2007, PASJ, 59, L29 van der Horst, A

    Urata, Y ., Huang, K.-Y ., Kuo, P.-H., et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, L29 van der Horst, A. J., Kouveliotou, C., Gehrels, N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1087

    2007

  47. [47]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 32

    Wang, J.-Z., Lei, W.-H., Wang, D.-X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 32

    2014

  48. [48]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 160

    Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 160

    2018

  49. [49]

    2017, ApJ, 834, L13

    Wei, J.-J., Zhang, B.-B., Shao, L., Wu, X.-F., & Mészáros, P. 2017, ApJ, 834, L13

    2017

  50. [50]

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

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y ., & Ling, Z. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. C. Bambi & A. Sangangelo, 86

    2022

  51. [51]

    2007, Chinese J

    Zhang, B. 2007, Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys., 7, 1

    2007

  52. [52]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    Zhang, B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    2018

  53. [53]

    L., et al

    Zhang, B., Liang, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 989

    2007

  54. [54]

    & Mészáros, P

    Zhang, B. & Mészáros, P. 2001, ApJ, 552, L35

    2001

  55. [55]

    & Mészáros, P

    Zhang, B. & Mészáros, P. 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 2385

    2004

  56. [56]

    J., et al

    Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Virgili, F. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1696

    2009

  57. [57]

    2006, Chinese J

    Zhang, Z.-B., Deng, J.-G., Lu, R.-J., & Gao, H.-F. 2006, Chinese J. Astron. As- trophys., 6, 312

    2006

  58. [58]

    Y ., Zhou, C., Chen, X

    Zhao, G. Y ., Zhou, C., Chen, X. L., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40154, 1

    2025

  59. [59]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 66

    Zhou, C., Zhu, Z.-P., Lei, W.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 66

    2024

  60. [60]

    Y ., Zhou, C., et al

    Zhou, H., Zhao, G. Y ., Zhou, C., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40165, 1

    2025

  61. [61]

    A., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al

    Zhou, R., Newman, J. A., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3309

    2021

  62. [62]

    Zhu, Z.-P., Xu, D., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 30 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2023