Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 79 references

X-ray flashes, X-ray-rich events, and normal gamma-ray bursts share common progenitors, with differences arising from jet baryon loading, energy, structure, and orientation.

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 ↗

BeppoSAX GRB sample shows XRFs, XRRs and normal GRBs share similar spectral indexes and afterglow fractions but differ in peak energy, supporting shared origins with variations in jet loading and orientation.

T0 review reviewed 2026-06-28 challenge →

load-bearing objection BeppoSAX sample of 96 events shows uniform X-ray afterglow rates across classes but the common-progenitor claim rests on a classification that uses the same spectral parameters driving the reported similarities. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.00225 v1 pith:MNDYVY4C submitted 2026-05-29 astro-ph.HE

Comparative properties of X-Ray Flashes and Gamma-Ray Bursts from BeppoSAX observations of Fast X-ray Transients

L. Piro , G. Gianfagna , J.J.M. in't Zand , B. Gendre , C. Guidorzi , L. Amati , F. Frontera , E. Kuulkers This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords X-ray flashesgamma-ray burstsBeppoSAXafterglowsspectral parameterscommon progenitorsjet orientation
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.

The reading

The paper analyzes a homogeneous sample of 96 gamma-ray bursts detected by BeppoSAX, classifying 36 as X-ray flashes, 40 as X-ray rich events, and 20 as normal GRBs using peak energy and fluence criteria. Spectral indices from the Band function remain broadly similar across the three classes, while peak energies range from 8.5 keV in XRFs to 83 keV in GRBs. Detection rates of X-ray afterglows reach about 90 percent for all classes, with lower but comparable fractions in optical and radio bands. These parallels in spectra, durations, and afterglow properties support the view that the classes originate from the same progenitors.

Core claim

The analysis of 96 events shows that XRFs, XRRs, and GRBs have broadly similar spectral indexes and afterglow properties, with peak energy as the main distinguishing factor. Nine events exhibit soft X-ray precursors. The similarities suggest common progenitors, with differences attributable to varying baryon loading, energy, jet structure, and observer orientation. A comparison with Einstein Probe indicates it will reach fainter events first hinted at by GRB980425.

What carries the argument

Division of events into XRF, XRR, and GRB classes by peak energy thresholds and fluence ratios, followed by direct comparison of Band function parameters and afterglow detection fractions across classes.

Load-bearing premise

The criteria used to divide the 96 events into XRF, XRR, and GRB classes do not introduce selection biases that artificially create the observed similarities in durations and afterglow properties.

What would settle it

A larger sample in which XRFs show systematically lower X-ray afterglow detection rates or different duration distributions from normal GRBs would contradict the claim of shared properties.

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

If this is right

  • The three classes form a continuum differentiated primarily by jet parameters rather than distinct populations.
  • Orientation and baryon loading account for the full observed range in peak energies and luminosities.
  • X-ray afterglow detection fractions near 90 percent apply uniformly across the spectral classes.
  • More sensitive instruments will detect additional faint members of the same population.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If viewing angle effects dominate the observed differences, the intrinsic rate of these events exceeds the detected sample size.
  • Progenitor models must accommodate a single mechanism producing events across a wide range of peak energies.
  • Larger samples could test whether peak energy correlates directly with afterglow brightness as expected from jet structure variations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a homogeneous sample of 96 GRBs detected by BeppoSAX WFC and GRBM. It classifies 36 as XRFs, 40 as XRRs and 20 as normal GRBs, reports that Band-function spectral indices are broadly similar across classes while E_peak ranges from 8.5 keV (XRFs) to 83 keV (GRBs), notes soft X-ray precursors in 9 of 67 dual-detected events, and finds ~90% X-ray afterglow detection rate (with 35% optical and 33% radio) that is statistically indistinguishable across the three classes. The central claim is that these similarities indicate common progenitors, with observed differences attributable to variations in baryon loading, energy, jet structure and observer orientation; a brief comparison with Einstein Probe is included.

Significance. If the classification criteria prove free of selection bias, the work supplies direct observational support for a unified jet-driven progenitor model spanning XRFs through classical GRBs. The reported uniformity in afterglow detection fractions and the hint of a fainter population accessible to Einstein Probe are potentially valuable constraints on jet physics and luminosity functions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / classification section] Abstract and classification description: the division into 36 XRF / 40 XRR / 20 GRB events is stated to rest on peak-energy thresholds and fluence ratios, yet the explicit numerical boundaries (e.g., the E_peak value separating XRF from XRR) and the precise fluence-ratio definition are not supplied. Because E_peak is simultaneously the classification variable and the quantity reported to drive the spectral shape (8.5–83 keV range), it is impossible to verify that the claimed similarities in spectral indices, durations and afterglow fractions are independent of the classification scheme.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that “about 90% of the events … exhibit an X-ray afterglow, with a similar fraction for the three classes” is given without uncertainties, sample-size breakdowns per class, or any control for detection-threshold differences between soft and hard events. This directly bears on the weakest assumption identified in the stress-test note; without these quantifications the uniformity cannot be assessed as evidence against selection bias.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: no error bars, confidence intervals or fitting-method details accompany the reported E_peak range, spectral-index distributions or precursor time offsets (14–105 s). These omissions prevent evaluation of whether the reported similarities are statistically robust or merely consistent with the classification boundaries.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains two typographical errors: “XRF keV” and the duplicated “the the corresponding fractions”.
  2. [Methods / results] The manuscript should supply a table or explicit list of the 96 events with their measured E_peak, fluence ratios and class assignments so that the classification can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and provide the requested statistical details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / classification section] Abstract and classification description: the division into 36 XRF / 40 XRR / 20 GRB events is stated to rest on peak-energy thresholds and fluence ratios, yet the explicit numerical boundaries (e.g., the E_peak value separating XRF from XRR) and the precise fluence-ratio definition are not supplied. Because E_peak is simultaneously the classification variable and the quantity reported to drive the spectral shape (8.5–83 keV range), it is impossible to verify that the claimed similarities in spectral indices, durations and afterglow fractions are independent of the classification scheme.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit classification criteria should be provided to allow independent verification. The classification follows the standard definitions in the GRB literature. We will include the precise numerical boundaries (E_peak thresholds and fluence ratio definitions) in the revised manuscript. The spectral indices are fitted independently in the Band function, and we will add distributions to demonstrate the similarities are not due to the classification scheme. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that “about 90% of the events … exhibit an X-ray afterglow, with a similar fraction for the three classes” is given without uncertainties, sample-size breakdowns per class, or any control for detection-threshold differences between soft and hard events. This directly bears on the weakest assumption identified in the stress-test note; without these quantifications the uniformity cannot be assessed as evidence against selection bias.

    Authors: We agree and will provide per-class sample sizes, fractions with uncertainties, and address potential detection threshold biases in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no error bars, confidence intervals or fitting-method details accompany the reported E_peak range, spectral-index distributions or precursor time offsets (14–105 s). These omissions prevent evaluation of whether the reported similarities are statistically robust or merely consistent with the classification boundaries.

    Authors: We will add error bars, confidence intervals, and fitting method details to the reported quantities in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational classifications and property comparisons remain independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper defines XRF/XRR/GRB classes via explicit peak-energy thresholds and fluence ratios, then reports that spectral indices (distinct from Epeak), durations, and afterglow detection fractions (~90% across classes) are similar. These measured quantities are not redefined in terms of the classification criteria, nor are any fitted parameters or self-citations used to force the reported similarities. The inference of common progenitors is an interpretive step resting on the observed data rather than a definitional reduction. No equations, ansatzes, or load-bearing self-citations appear that would make the central claim equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields minimal ledger entries; the main untested premise is the homogeneity and completeness of the 96-event sample.

free parameters (1)
  • Peak-energy boundaries separating XRF/XRR/GRB classes
    Abstract states measured values (8.5 keV to 83 keV) but does not specify whether the class thresholds themselves were chosen from the data or adopted from prior conventions.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The BeppoSAX Wide Field Cameras plus GRBM sample of 96 events is homogeneous and complete
    Explicitly stated in the first sentence of the abstract as the foundation for all subsequent comparisons.

reviewed 2026-06-28 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative properties of X-Ray Flashes and Gamma-Ray Bursts from BeppoSAX observations of Fast X-ray Transients." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MNDYVY4C

@misc{pith2026260600225,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative properties of X-Ray Flashes and Gamma-Ray Bursts from BeppoSAX observations of Fast X-ray Transients},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MNDYVY4C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.00225}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We present the homogeneous and complete sample of 96 bona-fide Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) detected by the Wide Field Cameras and Gamma Ray Burst Monitor of BeppoSAX. We derive the spectral and temporal properties of the prompt emission, and assess the properties of the soft population of GRB, namely X-ray flashes (XRFs) in comparison with normal GRBs. We find that 36 events are XRFs, 40 X-ray rich events (XRR), and 20 normal GRBs. We analyze the distribution of the spectral parameters of the Band function, finding that the spectral indexes of the three classes are broadly similar. On the contrary the peak energy is the parameter driving the spectra shape, from 8.5 keV for XRF keV to 83 keV for GRBs. For the 67 events that are detected in both instruments we find that 9 events exhibit a soft X-ray precursor taking place from 14 to 105 s before the onset of the gamma-ray burst. About 90\% of the events that were identified in real time exhibit an X-ray afterglow, with a similar fraction for the three classes. In the optical and radio the the corresponding fractions are 35% and 33%. All the similarities in the spectrum, duration and afterglow properties suggest common progenitors for the three classes, where the differences are likely a combination of the effect of different baryon loading, energy, structure and orientation of the jet with respect to the observer. A comparison with Einstein Probe shows that the latter, thanks to its sensitivity, reaches out to a population of fainter and more numerous events, whose presence was firstly hinted at by the unique very low luminosity BeppoSAX GRB980425.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00225 by B. Gendre, C. Guidorzi, E. Kuulkers, F. Frontera, G. Gianfagna, J.J.M. in't Zand, L. Amati, L. Piro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sensitivity of the WFC (blue dashed line) and GRBM (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of a GRB and an XRF light curves. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of a GRB (980519) and an XRR (990520) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of Ep for, from the top, the full sample (96 bursts), XRF, XRR and GRB. Upper and lower limits are repre￾sented as arrows. represented. The two solid lines represent the SR for two differ￾ent values of β = −2.2 and -2.7, and fixed α = −1.1. While Ep produces the overall shape of the correlation, β only influences SR at low Ep, and α at high Ep. The observed 30-400 keV fluence shows a strong co… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Softness ratio as a function of the peak energy. GRB, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of β for, from the top, all the sample (67 events with β as free parameter), XRF, XRR and GRB. Lower limits are represented as arrows. Zand et al. 1999; Piro et al. 2005). We note that for XRR 010222 and 010324 there is close to marginal signal also in the GRBM at the time of the WFC precursor (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spectral peak energy as a functio of the fluence in the 30- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: WFC T90 for the full sample (black), for GRBs (blue), XRRs (prange) and XRFs (red). Vertical dashed lines represent median, 16th, and 84th percentiles. Right panel: same as left panel, for GRBM detected bursts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of the events as function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Light curves for the nine precursors found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ∆T = T0,WFC − T0,GRBM for each BeppoSAX burst. Bursts with identified precursor emission have ∆T > 10 s. GRBs, XRRs and XRFs are represented with blue stars, orange squares and red circles respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: In grey Ep,i (the peak energy of the GRB’s prompt emission spectrum in the burst’s rest frame) and Eiso (isotropic￾equivalent energy) relation from Amati 2006 for long GRBs, lines represent the 3σ region. In color are represented our re￾sults for the BeppoSAX bursts. Only the bursts for which Eiso could be constrained are included in the Figure. Some of our BeppoSAX bursts are also present in Amati 2006, … view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Rest-frame X-ray luminosity of the afterglow at 11 hrs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Rest-frame 2-30 keV luminosity as a function of T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_18.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

79 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

    Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

    2006

  2. [2]

    2002, A&A, 390, 81–89

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81–89

    2002

  3. [3]

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., in ’t Zand, J. J. M., et al. 2004, A&A, 426, 415

    2004

  4. [4]

    A., Priedhorsky, W

    Arefiev, V . A., Priedhorsky, W. C., & Borozdin, K. N. 2003, ApJ, 586, 1238

    2003

  5. [5]

    2007, Publications of the Astronomi- cal Society of Japan, 59, 695

    Arimoto, M., Kawai, N., Suzuki, M., et al. 2007, Publications of the Astronomi- cal Society of Japan, 59, 695

    2007

  6. [6]

    2025, ApJS, 281, 20

    Aryan, A., Chen, T.-W., Yang, S., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 20

    2025

  7. [7]

    Band, D. L. 1997, ApJ, 486, 928

    1997

  8. [8]

    P., et al

    Barraud, C., Olive, J.-F., Lestrade, J. P., et al. 2003, A&A, 400, 1021

    2003

  9. [9]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 97

    Bi, X., Mao, J., Liu, C., & Bai, J.-M. 2018, ApJ, 866, 97

    2018

  10. [10]

    S., Fox, D., van Dokkum, P

    Bloom, J. S., Fox, D., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 957

    2003

  11. [11]

    C., Perola, G

    Boella, G., Butler, R. C., Perola, G. C., et al. 1997, A&AS, 122, 299

    1997

  12. [12]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 110

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2012, ApJ, 749, 110

    2012

  13. [13]

    N., Kennea, J

    Burrows, D. N., Kennea, J. A., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2011, Nature, 476, 421

    2011

  14. [14]

    J., et al

    Campana, S., Mangano, V ., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008–1010

    2006

  15. [15]

    2021, ApJ, 915, 46

    Chen, J.-C., Urata, Y ., & Huang, K. 2021, ApJ, 915, 46

    2021

  16. [16]

    B., Lamb, D

    Crew, G. B., Lamb, D. Q., Ricker, G. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 599, 387

    2003

  17. [17]

    2004, A&A, 422, 381 D’Alessio, V ., Piro, L., & Rossi, E

    Dado, S., Dar, A., & De Rújula, A. 2004, A&A, 422, 381 D’Alessio, V ., Piro, L., & Rossi, E. M. 2006, A&A, 460, 653 D’Avanzo, P., Salvaterra, R., Sbarufatti, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 506 de Pasquale, M., Piro, L., Gendre, B., et al. 2006, A&A, 455, 813

    2004

  18. [18]

    D., Chiang, J., & Böttcher, M

    Dermer, C. D., Chiang, J., & Böttcher, M. 1999, ApJ, 513, 656

    1999

  19. [19]

    & Levinson, A

    Eichler, D. & Levinson, A. 2004, ApJ, 614, L13

    2004

  20. [20]

    Eyles-Ferris, R. A. J., Jonker, P. G., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L14

    2025

  21. [21]

    E., in’t Zand, J

    Fenimore, E. E., in’t Zand, J. J. M., Norris, J. P., Bonnell, J. T., & Nemiroff, R. J. 1995, ApJ, 448, L101

    1995

  22. [22]

    1997, in EUV , X-Ray, and Gamma- Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed

    Feroci, M., Frontera, F., Costa, E., et al. 1997, in EUV , X-Ray, and Gamma- Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. O. H. W. Siegmund & M. A

    1997

  23. [23]

    A., Amati, L., et al

    Frontera, F., Antonelli, L. A., Amati, L., et al. 2000, ApJ, 540, 697

    2000

  24. [24]

    2009, ApJS, 180, 192

    Frontera, F., Guidorzi, C., Montanari, E., et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 192

    2009

  25. [25]

    & Piro, L

    Galli, A. & Piro, L. 2006, A&A, 455, 413

    2006

  26. [26]

    2007, A&A, 465, L13–L16

    Gendre, B., Galli, A., & Piro, L. 2007, A&A, 465, L13–L16

    2007

  27. [27]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 116

    Geng, J.-J., Zhang, B., & Kuiper, R. 2016, ApJ, 833, 116

    2016

  28. [28]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Gezari, S., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2017, ApJ, 851, L47

    2017

  29. [29]

    2025, A&A, 703, A92

    Gianfagna, G., Piro, L., Bruni, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A92

    2025

  30. [30]

    V ., Hamilton, T

    Gotthelf, E. V ., Hamilton, T. T., & Helfand, D. J. 1996, ApJ, 466, 779

    1996

  31. [31]

    2009, A&A, 499, 439

    Guidorzi, C., Clemens, C., Kobayashi, S., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 439

    2009

  32. [32]

    2011, A&A, 526, A49

    Guidorzi, C., Lacapra, M., Frontera, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 526, A49

    2011

  33. [33]

    M., & Woods, P

    Heise, J., in ’t Zand, J., Kippen, R. M., & Woods, P. M. 2003, AIP Conf.Proc., 662, 229

    2003

  34. [34]

    F., Wu, X

    Huang, Y . F., Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Ma, H. T., & Lu, T. 2004, ApJ, 605, 300 in ’t Zand, J. J. M., Guidorzi, C., Heise, J., et al. 2025, BeppoSAX-WFC catalog of fast X-ray transients in ’t Zand, J. J. M., Heise, J., van Paradijs, J., & Fenimore, E. E. 1999, ApJ, 516, L57

    2004

  35. [35]

    A., Brinkman, A

    Jager, R., Mels, W. A., Brinkman, A. C., et al. 1997, A&AS, 125, 557

    1997

  36. [36]

    Jiang, S.-Q., Xu, D., van Hoof, A. P. C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L34

    2025

  37. [37]

    S., & Terada, Y

    Katsukura, D., Sakamoto, T., Tashiro, M. S., & Terada, Y . 2020, ApJ, 889, 110

    2020

  38. [38]

    M., Woods, P

    Kippen, R. M., Woods, P. M., Heise, J., et al. 2003, AIP Conf. Proc., 662, 244 Lamb & Graziani. 2003, AAS, 202, 450

    2003

  39. [39]

    Q., Donaghy, T

    Lamb, D. Q., Donaghy, T. Q., & Graziani, C. 2005, ApJ, 620, 355

    2005

  40. [40]

    G., Evans, W

    Laros, J. G., Evans, W. D., Fenimore, E. E., et al. 1984, ApJ, 286, 681

    1984

  41. [41]

    2005, MNRAS, 357, 722

    Lazzati, D. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 722

    2005

  42. [42]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Li, W.-X., Zhu, Z.-P., Zou, X.-Z., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.17034

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 564 López-Cámara, D., Lazzati, D., & Morsony, B

    Liu, Y ., Sun, H., Xu, D., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 564 López-Cámara, D., Lazzati, D., & Morsony, B. J. 2016, ApJ, 826, 180

    2025

  44. [44]

    & Balbus, S

    Mummery, A. & Balbus, S. A. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5655

    2020

  45. [45]

    Murakami, T., Inoue, H., Nishimura, J., van Paradijs, J., & Fenimore, E. E. 1991, Nature, 350, 592

    1991

  46. [46]

    Murakami, T., Ogasaka, Y ., Yoshida, A., & Fenimore, E. E. 1992, in Ameri- can Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 265, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. W. S. Paciesas & G. J. Fishman (AIP), 28

    1992

  47. [47]

    & Sari, R

    Nakar, E. & Sari, R. 2012, ApJ, 747, 88

    2012

  48. [48]

    P., O’Brien, P

    Patel, M., Gompertz, B. P., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4923

    2023

  49. [49]

    2005, ApJ, 623, 314

    Piro, L., De Pasquale, M., Soffitta, P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 314

    2005

  50. [50]

    1998, A&A, 329, 906

    Piro, L., Heise, J., Jager, R., et al. 1998, A&A, 329, 906

    1998

  51. [51]

    2005, ApJ, 625, L91

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Granot, J., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, L91

    2005

  52. [52]

    & Lloyd-Ronning, N

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. & Lloyd-Ronning, N. M. 2002, New A, 7, 197

    2002

  53. [53]

    C., Levan, A

    Rastinejad, J. C., Levan, A. J., Jonker, P. G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L13

    2025

  54. [54]

    & Dwarkadas, V

    Ross, M. & Dwarkadas, V . V . 2017, AJ, 153, 246

    2017

  55. [55]

    v., Piro, L., & Troja, E

    Ryan, G., Eerten, H. v., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166

    2020

  56. [56]

    D., et al

    Sakamoto, T., Barbier, L., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, L73

    2006

  57. [57]

    2008, ApJ, 679, 570

    Sakamoto, T., Hullinger, D., Sato, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 570

    2008

  58. [58]

    Q., Kawai, N., et al

    Sakamoto, T., Lamb, D. Q., Kawai, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 629, 311

    2005

  59. [59]

    Y ., Sunyaev, R

    Sazonov, S. Y ., Sunyaev, R. A., Terekhov, O. V ., et al. 1998, A&AS, 129, 1

    1998

  60. [60]

    O., Osborne, J

    Schady, P., Mason, K. O., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2006, ApJ, 643, 276

    2006

  61. [61]

    M., Berger, E., Page, K

    Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2008, Nature, 453, 469

    2008

  62. [62]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1014

    2006

  63. [63]

    P., Hamidani, H., Schroeder, G., et al

    Srinivasaragavan, G. P., Hamidani, H., Schroeder, G., et al. 2025, ApJL, 988, L60

    2025

  64. [64]

    EP250827b/SN 2025wkm: An X-ray Flash-Supernova Powered by a Central Engine and Circumstellar Interaction

    Srinivasaragavan, G. P., Li, D., Hall, X. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.10239

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Starling, R. L. C., Wiersema, K., Levan, A. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2792

    2011

  66. [66]

    2007, A&A, 461, 485

    Stratta, G., Basa, S., Butler, N., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 485

    2007

  67. [67]

    E., Fenimore, E

    Strohmayer, T. E., Fenimore, E. E., Murakami, T., & Yoshida, A. 1998, ApJ, 500, 873

    1998

  68. [68]

    2005, ApJ, 635, 481

    Toma, K., Yamazaki, R., & Nakamura, T. 2005, ApJ, 635, 481

    2005

  69. [69]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 222

    Urata, Y ., Huang, K., Yamazaki, R., & Sakamoto, T. 2015, ApJ, 806, 222

    2015

  70. [70]

    & Mészáros, P

    Wang, X.-Y . & Mészáros, P. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1247

    2007

  71. [71]

    J., et al

    Wu, S., Pérez-García, I., Castro-Tirado, A. J., et al. 2025, Galaxies, 13

    2025

  72. [72]

    2002, ApJ, 571, L31

    Yamazaki, R., Ioka, K., & Nakamura, T. 2002, ApJ, 571, L31

    2002

  73. [73]

    2003, ApJ, 593, 941

    Yamazaki, R., Ioka, K., & Nakamura, T. 2003, ApJ, 593, 941

    2003

  74. [74]

    2004, ApJ, 606, L33

    Yamazaki, R., Ioka, K., & Nakamura, T. 2004, ApJ, 606, L33

    2004

  75. [75]

    1989, PASJ, 41, 509

    Yoshida, A., Murakami, T., Itoh, M., et al. 1989, PASJ, 41, 509

    1989

  76. [76]

    2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy, 68

    Yuan, W., Dai, L., Feng, H., et al. 2025, Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy, 68

    2025

  77. [77]

    M., & Mészáros, P

    Zhang, B., Dai, X., Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., & Mészáros, P. 2004, ApJ, 601, L119

    2004

  78. [78]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 190

    Zhang, B.-B., Fan, Y .-Z., Shen, R.-F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 190

    2012

  79. [79]

    2025, ApJL, 987, L38 Article number, page 12 of 17 L

    Zhang, Y .-Q., Xue, W.-C., Zhang, J.-P., et al. 2025, ApJL, 987, L38 Article number, page 12 of 17 L. Piro et al.: Properties of XRF versus GRBs fromBeppoSAX Appendix A: Data tables Table A.1: Counting rates and durations. In the first column the GRB name is reported, while from the second to the fifth columns T50 andT 90 values are reported for WFC and G...

    2025

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.3 on June 28, 2026.