Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Short gamma-ray bursts with extended emission are not an intermediate class: their initial pulses track short bursts while later X-ray complexity points to prolonged engine activity.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 01:44 UTC pith:T4D72XBD

load-bearing objection Solid multiwavelength census of SGRBEEs inside complete samples; the “not intermediate” claim is plausible but rests on a visual T_cut and N=11. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03541 v1 pith:T4D72XBD submitted 2026-07-03 astro-ph.HE

Multiwavelength properties of short gamma ray bursts with extended emission observed by Swift

M.M. Dinatolo , A. Mei , R. Brivio , M. Ferro , M.G. Bernardini , P. D'Avanzo , S. Belova , S. Campana
show 6 more authors
S. Covino D. Frederiks B. Haskell R. Salvaterra B. Sbarufatti A. Tsvetkova
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords short gamma-ray burstsextended emissionAmati relationX-ray afterglowSwiftspectral lagcompact binary mergersprompt emission
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.

Short gamma-ray bursts with extended emission (SGRBEEs) look long by the usual duration cut, yet they share many traits with short bursts. This paper asks whether they come from the same compact-object mergers as ordinary short bursts, form a bridge class, or are something else. Using a flux-limited, nearly redshift-complete sample, the authors split each event into an initial pulse (IP) and extended emission (EE) and compare both pieces to complete short- and long-burst samples. Spectral hardness evolves hard-to-soft inside each event, but hardness alone cannot separate IPs from EEs or short from long bursts; spectral lags are consistent with zero. Temporally, IPs and EEs are longer than ordinary short and long bursts, respectively. On the Amati plane IPs sit with short bursts while most EEs are too faint to place. X-ray afterglows of SGRBEEs are systematically more complex and, early on, more luminous, then settle into ordinary short-burst behaviour and stay less luminous than long bursts. The picture is that SGRBEEs are not intermediate: the IP links them to short bursts, while the EE and complex early X-ray light curves mark sustained post-merger engine activity.

Core claim

SGRBEEs are not an intermediate population. Despite shared spectral features, IPs and EEs temporally differ from short and long GRBs respectively; IPs occupy the same Amati parameter space as short GRBs while EEs are typically too faint to appear; early X-ray afterglows are more luminous and morphologically complex (suggesting direct EE contribution), and at later times SGRBEEs behave as standard short GRBs, both remaining systematically less luminous than long GRBs.

What carries the argument

Clean IP/EE separation inside a flux-limited, redshift-complete short-burst sample (extended SBAT4), followed by Kolmogorov–Smirnov comparisons of duration and hardness, joint broadband spectral placement on the Amati plane, spectral-lag cross-correlation, and multi-segment morphological fitting of X-ray light curves against matched short and long reference samples.

Load-bearing premise

The moment that divides the initial pulse from the extended emission is chosen by eye on signal-to-noise binned light curves, so every statistical comparison that treats the two phases as cleanly separate rests on that subjective cut and on a sample of only eleven events.

What would settle it

A larger complete sample in which broadband spectra yield well-constrained peak energies for both phases, and in which an objective, reproducible IP/EE separator places the initial-pulse points outside the short-burst Amati locus or erases the early-time X-ray luminosity and morphological excess relative to ordinary short bursts.

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a multiwavelength study of 11 short GRBs with extended emission (SGRBEEs) drawn from the flux-limited, redshift-complete extended SBAT4 sample, comparing their prompt (Swift/BAT, Fermi/GBM, Konus-WIND) and X-ray afterglow (Swift/XRT) properties to SGRBs in extended SBAT4 and LGRBs in BAT6. The authors separate each event into an initial pulse (IP) and extended emission (EE), measure spectral indices, hardness ratios, spectral lags, and (where possible) rest-frame E_peak and E_iso, and morphologically classify XRT light curves with nested/non-nested model selection. They report hard-to-soft spectral evolution within each burst, IP durations and hardness statistically closer to SGRBs than EE is to LGRBs, IPs occupying the SGRB region of the Amati plane (while most EEs are too faint to place), spectral lags consistent with zero, and systematically more complex early X-ray light curves for SGRBEEs. They conclude that SGRBEEs are not an intermediate class but are linked to compact-binary mergers with a long-lived central engine powering the EE and early afterglow structure.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the work strengthens the case that SGRBEEs are an extreme tail of the merger population rather than a bridge class or collapsar-like events, using the best available complete short-burst sample and standard spectral/temporal tools (AIC model choice, MCMC posteriors, CCF lags with randomization, F-test/AIC light-curve selection). The joint IP/EE Amati placement and the rest-frame X-ray comparison against BAT6/SBAT4 are useful diagnostics for the community and for future wide-band missions (e.g. SVOM). The analysis is carefully reported with uncertainties and explicit significance thresholds. The main scientific value is the homogeneous, bias-controlled comparison rather than a new theoretical model.

major comments (4)
  1. Methods §2.3: T_cut (IP/EE separation) is set by visual inspection of SNR=3 binned light curves, with phases treated as contiguous segments ending at T90. No automated criterion, uncertainty on T_cut, or sensitivity analysis is provided. Every subsequent KS test on duration and HR (§3.1), Amati placement (§3.2, Fig. 3), lag measurement (§3.3), and the pulse-like vs tail-like taxonomy depends on these intervals. With N=11 and many tail-like EEs already background-dominated, a shift of T_cut by a few seconds can reassign fluence and change spectral hardness. A quantitative sensitivity study (e.g. scanning T_cut within a defined window, or an SNR/flux-threshold algorithm with reported scatter) is needed before the progenitor conclusion can be considered robust.
  2. §3.1, KS tests on duration: the null that IP (EE) durations match SBAT4 SGRBs (BAT6 LGRBs) is rejected (p=0.01 and 0.02). Part of this difference is built into the sample definition (§2.1): SGRBEEs are selected as events with T90>2 s that show a short peak plus a long soft tail. The statement that IPs and EEs 'temporally differ from short and long GRBs, respectively' is therefore partly by construction and should be framed as such; the more informative comparisons are the hardness-ratio KS tests and the Amati placement, not the duration KS alone.
  3. §3.2 and Conclusions: the claim that SGRBEEs are 'not an intermediate class' rests heavily on IPs occupying the SGRB Amati region and on EE being 'too faint' to place. Only GRB 211211A has a constrained EE E_peak,z; all other joint-observation EEs remain unconstrained because of low SNR. With N=11, a single well-measured EE, and a marginal EE–BAT6 hardness KS (p=0.048), the language should be tempered to what the data actually support (IPs track SGRBs; EE energetics remain poorly constrained; early X-ray complexity suggests prolonged engine activity), rather than a firm exclusion of an intermediate population.
  4. §3.4 and Fig. 6–7: SGRBEE XRT light curves are reported as systematically more complex (Models II/III) than standard SGRBs. The text correctly notes observational gaps between WT and PC and lower temporal coverage for SGRBs, which bias toward simpler models. The morphological claim is load-bearing for the 'long-lived engine' interpretation; the paper should either restrict the complexity comparison to a common temporal baseline / comparable sampling, or quantify how often Model II/III is preferred only because of gap-spanning fits. Without that control, the afterglow complexity difference remains suggestive rather than conclusive.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 2 / Fig. 1: GRB 211227A is the clear spectral-evolution outlier; the detailed time-resolved discussion in §3.1 is useful but could be summarized in a short table of α(t) for that event so readers need not reconstruct it from the text.
  2. Fig. 3: the 3σ Amati scatter regions are very broad; a short note on how many IPs would still lie outside the LGRB 3σ region under alternative Band/CPL normalizations would help non-specialists gauge robustness.
  3. §2.4: the CCF_max ≥ 0.5 reliability cut and the change of energy bands relative to Bernardini et al. (2015) are appropriate, but the number of events discarded for the EE lag (and which ones) should be stated explicitly in the text or figure caption.
  4. Several companion papers are cited as 'in preparation' (D’Avanzo et al.; Brivio et al.; Ferro et al.). For reproducibility, the present manuscript should briefly restate the extended SBAT4 selection cuts and redshift list (or provide a machine-readable table) so the SGRBEE subsample is self-contained.
  5. Abstract and §4: 'SGRBEEs are more luminous than standard GRBs at early-time' should specify 'standard SGRBs' for consistency with the rest of the paper and Fig. 5.
  6. Minor typographical issues: 'orignal SBAT4' (§1); 'parameter evolution evolution' (Fig. 1 caption); inconsistent hyphenation of 'hard-to-soft' / 'hard to soft'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No circular derivation: pure observational KS/Amati/morphology comparisons against stated samples; only minor self-citation of companion sample papers that is not load-bearing for the claims.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§2.1 Sample selection / Table 1]
    "We analysed GRBs observed by the Swift satellite that are part of the extended SBAT4 sample (D’Avanzo et al., in preparation). ... The extended SBAT4 sample is extracted using identical selection criteria ... Two additional companion works focus on a complete analysis of the afterglow and host galaxy properties (Brivio et al., Ferro et al., in preparation, respectively)."

    The claim of a flux-limited, redshift-complete comparison rests on the extended SBAT4 catalog whose full construction is deferred to overlapping-author companions still in preparation. This is ordinary self-citation of a sample paper and does not force any of the KS, Amati or morphology results (those are computed from the listed events and public data), so it raises the score only to 1.

full rationale

The paper performs empirical multiwavelength comparisons (KS tests on durations/HR, Amati placement of IP/EE, spectral lags, XRT morphological model selection) of 11 SGRBEEs against the extended SBAT4 SGRBs and BAT6 LGRBs. Sample selection criteria are restated in §2.1 (T90 cut, peak flux threshold, AV, XRT repointing), spectra are independently fitted (PL/CPL/Band via AIC/MCMC), T_cut is a visual but explicit data-reduction choice (not a fitted free parameter re-used as a prediction), and all reported p-values, Epeak,z–Eiso points, and light-curve models are direct outputs of those fits. No equation reduces by construction to an input (no self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via citation). Companion papers (D’Avanzo et al. in prep.; Brivio/Ferro et al. in prep.) and prior works with author overlap (Nava et al. 2012; Bernardini et al. 2015) supply the parent catalog and lag method, but the present results remain externally falsifiable against the public Swift/Fermi/KW data and do not rely on those citations for the logical force of the “not intermediate” conclusion. Subjective T_cut and small N are methodological limitations, not circularity. Score 1 only for the unavoidable self-citation of the SBAT4 program that defines the input list.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper is empirical. Load-bearing choices are sample cuts, the visual IP/EE split, statistical thresholds, and standard phenomenological spectral/afterglow models taken from the literature. No new physical entities are postulated; conclusions about merger progenitors and long-lived engines are interpretive overlays on the measurements.

free parameters (6)
  • T_cut (IP/EE separation time)
    Chosen by visual inspection of SNR-binned light curves for each burst; all phase-resolved spectral, lag, and Amati results depend on this cut.
  • SNR threshold = 3 for light-curve binning
    Fixed threshold used to define the light curves from which T_cut is read.
  • ΔAIC < 2 rule for PL vs CPL
    Model-selection threshold that decides whether E_peak is reported from BAT-only fits.
  • KS and F-test significance p = 0.05
    Threshold used to claim duration/HR distributions differ and to accept more complex XRT models.
  • Cross-calibration constant allowed ±30%
    Ad hoc bound on inter-instrument constants in joint spectral fits.
  • CCF_max ≥ 0.5 lag reliability cut
    Ukwatta et al. threshold that excludes most EE lag measurements as unreliable.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Planck 2020 cosmology for luminosity distance and rest-frame conversions
    Used in E_iso and rest-frame energy/time calculations (§2.3).
  • domain assumption Phenomenological GRB spectra (PL, CPL, Band) adequately describe prompt emission for parameter extraction
    Standard in the field; no physical emission model is fit.
  • domain assumption Margutti et al. (2013) X-ray light-curve segment models (0, I, IIa/b, III) span the relevant morphologies
    Adopted wholesale for afterglow classification (§2.5).
  • domain assumption Extended SBAT4 and BAT6 flux-limited selection criteria yield comparable, minimally biased short and long populations
    Central to all population comparisons; full extended SBAT4 definition deferred to companion paper.
  • ad hoc to paper IP and EE are contiguous phases of a single event ending at T90
    Operational definition in §2.3; alternative multi-episode decompositions are not explored.
  • standard math Standard math of KS tests, AIC, F-tests, and MCMC percentile uncertainties
    Used throughout spectral and temporal analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • pulse-like vs tail-like EE morphological categories no independent evidence
    purpose: Organize EE light curves into distinct secondary pulses versus background-dominated tails that still extend T90
    Observational taxonomy introduced in Results §3.1; useful for discussing SNR limits but not a new physical object.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25450 in / 3818 out tokens · 33143 ms · 2026-07-12T01:44:46.966361+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Short gamma-ray bursts with extended emission (SGRBEEs) are a particular class of long GRBs (LGRBs) which, despite their duration, share several observational features with short GRBs (SGRBs). They are composed by a short, hard initial pulse (IP) followed by a longer and softer extended emission (EE). We investigate whether SGRBEEs originate from the same progenitor as SGRBs despite their duration, representing a peculiar subclass of LGRBs, or if they constitute a distinct population. Given their respective duration, we tested if the IP and the EE share properties with short and long GRBs, respectively. We analysed SGRBEEs from the flux-limited, redshift-complete SBAT4 sample using prompt-emission data from Swift/BAT, Fermi/GBM and Konus-WIND, and X-ray afterglow observations from Swift/XRT. The temporal and spectral properties of the IP and EE components were compared with those of SGRBs from the extended SBAT4 sample and LGRBs from the BAT6 sample. Despite observing a clear spectral evolution during the prompt phase of each SGRBEE, IPs and EEs as well as short and long GRBs can not be distinguished by their hardness ratio only. All bursts analysed have a spectral lag consistent with zero. SGRBEEs XRT light curves are consistently more complex than those of SGRBs, requiring the addition of multiple breaks and showing the presence of steep decays and plateaus. Our results indicate that SGRBEEs are not an intermediate class. During prompt emission, despite common spectral features, IPs and EEs temporally differ from short and long GRBs, respectively. EEs are on average too faint to appear in the Amati plane, but IPs occupy the same parameter space of SGRBs. In the afterglow, SGRBEEs are more luminous than standard GRBs at early-time, suggesting a direct contribution from the EE; at later times, these events behave as standard SGRBs, and both remain systematically less luminous than LGRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03541 by A. Mei, A. Tsvetkova, B. Haskell, B. Sbarufatti, D. Frederiks, M. Ferro, M.G. Bernardini, M.M. Dinatolo, P. D'Avanzo, R. Brivio, R. Salvaterra, S. Belova, S. Campana, S. Covino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a): Photon index (panel a) and hardness ratio (panel b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hardness ratio (HR) versus the burst duration during the IP (in blue) and EE (in green) phases, as well as the total duration of short and long GRBs in the SBAT4E (in red) and BAT6 (in yellow) samples, respectively. a spectrum is typically hard or soft. In this work, we generally observe a hard-to-soft evolution in single events. However, HR values during the IP phase of some GRBs might be equivalent to th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Epeak,z − Eiso (Amati) relation. SGRBs of the extended SBAT4 sample are represented by red dots, shaded regions in￾dicate the 1 and 3σsc scatter of the sample around the best fit (D’Avanzo et al., paper in preparation). LGRBs of the BAT6 sample and their fit are represented in grey (Nava et al. 2012). The power-law best fits are shown as a solid line. Results of the IP and EE joint analyses are shown as bl… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral lag for SGRBEEs in the rest frame energy bands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: XRT light curves in observer frame (left panel) and in the common rest frame (right panel) of GRBs from the SBAT4 sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Best-fit model histogram for SBAT4 (in red) and SGR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Light curve temporal indices γ from the morphological characterization of SBAT4 GRBs (circles) and the SGRBEEs (crosses) for each light curve model. t¯ is the average time of the light curve segment characterized by the given temporal index γ. Each of the light curve segments are shown with different colors. As a reference, we include the expected γ values for the plateau, steep decay, and standard aftergl… 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

67 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    1974

  2. [2]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

    Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233

    2006

  3. [3]

    2002, A&A, 390, 81

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

    2002

  4. [4]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 577

    Amati, L., Guidorzi, C., Frontera, F., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 577

    2008

  5. [5]

    L., Frederiks, D

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

    1995

  6. [6]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Con- ference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Soft- ware and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  7. [7]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281

    1993

  8. [8]

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

    1997

  9. [9]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 143

    2005

  10. [10]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    2014

  11. [11]

    G., Ghirlanda, G., Campana, S., et al

    Bernardini, M. G., Ghirlanda, G., Campana, S., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1129

    2015

  12. [12]

    N., Briggs, M

    Bhat, P. N., Briggs, M. S., Connaughton, V ., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 141

    2012

  13. [13]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 165

    2005

  14. [14]

    X., Ma, Y

    Cheng, L. X., Ma, Y . Q., Cheng, K. S., Lu, T., & Zhou, Y . Y . 1995, A&A, 300, 746

    1995

  15. [15]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.03323

    Cordier, B., Wei, J., Atteia, J.-L., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.03323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P. S., Berger, E., Villar, V . A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L17 D’Avanzo, P., Salvaterra, R., Bernardini, M. G., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 2342 D’Avanzo, P., Salvaterra, R., Sbarufatti, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 506

    2017

  17. [17]

    Dermer, C. D. 1998, ApJ, 501, L157

    1998

  18. [18]

    & Spruit, H

    Drenkhahn, G. & Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A, 391, 1141

    2002

  19. [19]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Na- ture, 340, 126

    1989

  20. [20]

    A., Cenko, S

    Evans, P. A., Cenko, S. B., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1565

    2017

  21. [21]

    A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J

    Evans, P. A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A102

    2010

  22. [22]

    A., Band, D

    Ford, L. A., Band, D. L., Matteson, J. L., et al. 1995, ApJ, 439, 307

    1995

  23. [23]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L55

    2001

  24. [24]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    2004

  25. [25]

    P., Barthelmy, S

    Gehrels, N., Norris, J. P., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1044

    2006

  26. [26]

    2009, A&A, 496, 585

    Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., & Firmani, C. 2009, A&A, 496, 585

    2009

  27. [27]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24249

    Godet, O., Atteia, J.-L., Schanne, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.24249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    2017, ApJ, 848, L14

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L14

    2017

  29. [29]

    P., O’Brien, P

    Gompertz, B. P., O’Brien, P. T., & Wynn, G. A. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 240

    2014

  30. [30]

    F., Gö˘güs, , E., & Lin, L

    Kaneko, Y ., Bostancı, Z. F., Gö˘güs, , E., & Lin, L. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 824

    2015

  31. [31]

    A., Fishman, G

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

    1993

  32. [32]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737

    2024

  33. [33]

    D., et al

    Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 7 Lü, H.-J., Yuan, H.-Y ., Yi, T.-F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, L23

    2016

  34. [34]

    2006, MNRAS, 367, 275

    Lu, R.-J., Qin, Y .-P., Zhang, Z.-B., & Yi, T.-F. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 275

    2006

  35. [35]

    L., Svinkin, D

    Lysenko, A. L., Svinkin, D. S., Frederiks, D. D., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e063

    2025

  36. [36]

    MacFadyen, A. I. & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262

    1999

  37. [37]

    G., et al

    Margutti, R., Zaninoni, E., Bernardini, M. G., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 729

    2013

  38. [38]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791

    2009

  39. [39]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, The Astrophysi- cal Journal, 702, 791 Mészáros, P. & Rees, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 232

    2009

  40. [40]

    D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T

    Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1455

    2008

  41. [41]

    1992, ApJ, 395, L83

    Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T. 1992, ApJ, 395, L83

    1992

  42. [42]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 1256

    Nava, L., Salvaterra, R., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1256

    2012

  43. [43]

    Norris, J. P. & Bonnell, J. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 266

    2006

  44. [44]

    P., Gehrels, N., & Scargle, J

    Norris, J. P., Gehrels, N., & Scargle, J. D. 2011, ApJ, 735, 23

    2011

  45. [45]

    P., Marani, G

    Norris, J. P., Marani, G. F., & Bonnell, J. T. 2000, ApJ, 534, 248

    2000

  46. [46]

    A., Metzger, B

    Perley, D. A., Metzger, B. D., Granot, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1871

    2009

  47. [47]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Piran, T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2004

  48. [48]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Na- ture, 612, 223

    2022

  49. [49]

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

    1994

  50. [50]

    Rees, M. J. & Mészáros, P. 2005, ApJ, 628, 847

    2005

  51. [51]

    Rhoads, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 525, 737

    1999

  52. [52]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 1

    Rossi, A., Rothberg, B., Palazzi, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 1

    2022

  53. [53]

    Salmonson, J. D. 2000, ApJ, 544, L115

    2000

  54. [54]

    D., et al

    Salvaterra, R., Campana, S., Vergani, S. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 68

    2012

  55. [55]

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

    1999

  56. [56]

    1998, ApJ, 497, L17

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17

    1998

  57. [57]

    2017, ApJ, 848, L15

    Savchenko, V ., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L15

    2017

  58. [58]

    S., Frederiks, D

    Svinkin, D. S., Frederiks, D. D., Aptekar, R. L., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 10

    2016

  59. [59]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 228

    2022

  60. [60]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 161

    Tsvetkova, A., Frederiks, D., Golenetskii, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 161

    2017

  61. [61]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 83

    Tsvetkova, A., Frederiks, D., Svinkin, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 83

    2021

  62. [62]

    N., Stamatikos, M., Dhuga, K

    Ukwatta, T. N., Stamatikos, M., Dhuga, K. S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 1073

    2010

  63. [63]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.06892

    Wei, J., Cordier, B., Antier, S., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.06892

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [64]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273

    1993

  65. [65]

    Woosley, S. E. & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 507

    2006

  66. [66]

    2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1186

    Zhang, B. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1186

    2007

  67. [67]

    2011, Comptes Rendus Physique, 12, 206 Article number, page 12 of 12

    Zhang, B. 2011, Comptes Rendus Physique, 12, 206 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2011