Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Two CubeSats carrying a tiny scintillator detector catalogued 344 gamma-ray transients, and the authors argue a satellite constellation would recover at least 60% of Fermi/GBM bursts at 5σ confidence.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 16:29 UTC pith:RYJ72AM4

load-bearing objection Valuable public CubeSat transient catalog, but the constellation-sensitivity headline is an optimistic upper bound that conflicts with the paper's own corrected rate. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17971 v1 pith:RYJ72AM4 submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.HE

The Complete Catalog of Gamma-Ray Transients Observed by GRBAlpha & VZLUSAT-2 CubeSat Missions

Marianna Dafcikova , Jakub Ripa , Andras Pal , Norbert Werner , Michaela Duriskova , Yasushi Fukazawa , Martin Kolar , Laszlo Meszaros
show 40 more authors
Filip Munz Masanori Ohno Lea Szakszonova Hiromitsu Takahashi Masato Yokota Jean-Paul Breuer Hsiang-Kuang Chang Balazs Csak Vladimir Daniel Juraj Dudas Marcel Frajt Gabor Galgoczi Peter Hanak Filip Hroch Chin-Ping Hu Jan Hudec Nikola Husarikova Yuto Ichinohe Jakub Kapus Miroslav Kasal Martin Koleda Robert Laszlo Chih-Hsun Lin Tsung-Che Liu Tsunefumi Mizuno Kazuhiro Nakazawa Hirokazu Odaka Michal Pazderka Ales Povalac Maksim Rezenov Martin Sabol Kaustubha Sen Miroslav Smelko Petr Svoboda Martin Topinka Che-Chih Tsao Tomas Urbanec Ivo Vertat Tomas Vitek Chih-En Wu
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstsCubeSatnanosatellite constellationgamma-ray transient catalogsilicon photomultiplier detectorGRBAlphaVZLUSAT-2Fermi/GBM cross-correlation
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.

This paper reports that two small satellites — each carrying a cesium-iodide crystal detector — recorded 344 gamma-ray flashes from space between 2021 and 2025, the largest set of such events ever seen by CubeSats. The authors argue that this feat, which includes the two brightest gamma-ray bursts ever observed and bursts from 12 billion light-years away, shows that cheap, quickly built nanosatellites can monitor the high-energy sky on a routine basis. They go further and estimate that a constellation of similar satellites around Earth would detect at least 60% of the gamma-ray bursts seen by the Fermi satellite at high confidence, and over 90% at lower confidence. The catalogue itself, with durations, fluxes, and hardness ratios for every event, is released in machine-readable form.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a 1U/3U CubeSat with a CsI(Tl) scintillator read out by silicon photomultipliers — a detector with a maximum on-axis area of 54 cm² and no onboard trigger or attitude knowledge — can find gamma-ray transients at a rate of about one GRB per week. The evidence is the catalog of 344 events, each verified by temporal coincidence with detections by Fermi/GBM, Swift/BAT, or other missions, and characterized by duration (T90, T50), peak count-rate, fluence, hardness ratio, and signal-to-noise. The authors show that the sample includes unsaturated measurements of the two brightest GRBs (221009A and 230307A), GRBs at redshifts up to 4.2, and 17 even

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the CsI(Tl) scintillator plus silicon-photomultiplier detector, a flat, nearly omnidirectional but attitude-dependent sensor with 54 cm² on-axis effective area around 100 keV, dropping below 5 cm² edge-on. Because the satellites tumbled and attitude was never measured, the authors express all fluxes in instrument counts rather than physical units, and they must rely on pile-up corrections (up to 33% for GRB 221009A) and on cross-correlation with other missions for validation. The scaling argument to a constellation is carried by the detection-rate statistics: one GRB per week for GRBAlpha, corrected for field of view, duty cycle, and background, yields an estim

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the satellites' unknown attitude does not systematically bias which bursts are detected, so the events actually caught represent an average over the whole sky; if the detector happened to be pointed toward the bursts it found and away from the ones it missed, the estimated recovery fractions are too high.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the attitude of GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2 for every event (e.g., from solar-panel currents, magnetometer readings, or Earth-horizon sensors) and compute the actual effective area for each of the 344 detections and for the bright non-detected GRBs listed in Section 5.3. If the detections have a systematically higher effective area than the non-detections, the 60%/90% recovery fractions are optimistic; a forward model using the true attitude distribution would then predict a recovery rate well below the observed one.

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

If this is right

  • A constellation of roughly 15 such CubeSats, with detectors on two perpendicular sides, could keep the whole sky under nearly continuous watch at a small fraction of the cost of a single large gamma-ray mission.
  • Bright bursts that saturate large detectors, like GRB 221009A, can be measured without saturation by tiny detectors, so CubeSats complement rather than duplicate Fermi.
  • The public, machine-readable catalog lets the community cross-check any transient and use the two satellites as independent confirmers, including 17 GRBs that no other mission localized.
  • Routine monitoring at one GRB per week from a single pathfinder means a fleet could catch a substantial share of the gravitational-wave-triggered bursts that future observatory runs will point to.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the satellites' attitudes could be reconstructed post hoc — from, say, solar-panel currents or Earth-sensing data — the catalog's instrument counts could be converted to physical fluxes, which would sharpen all the sensitivity claims and test the 'optimistic' warning the authors themselves attach to the 90% figure.
  • A simple on-board trigger would remove the manual, trigger-followed download scheme that limits the current yield; the paper's detection rate suggests that such an upgrade alone could roughly double the number of events caught per satellite.
  • The corrected per-satellite rate of 69 GRBs/year implied by the paper's own non-detection analysis is about a third of Fermi/GBM's rate, suggesting that the 60%/90% headline applies to a near-on-axis ideal rather than a realistic tumbling satellite; the honest near-term expectation for a single unit is closer to that lower number.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the complete catalog of 344 gamma-ray transients detected by the GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2 CubeSats, including 173 GRBs, 164 solar flares, six SGR bursts, and one X-ray binary outburst. It describes the instrument setups, trigger-following data acquisition, background fitting, Monte Carlo duration uncertainties, pile-up corrections, and cross-correlation with Fermi/GBM and other missions. The central performance claim, stated in the abstract and §6, is that a constellation of nanosatellites would observe at least 60% of Fermi/GBM GRBs at 5σ significance and over 90% at the 3σ level, based on the faintest CubeSat detections relative to GBM flux/fluence distributions.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, it would be an important design driver for future gamma-ray transient constellations. The catalog itself is genuinely valuable: every event is independently confirmed by other missions; the sample includes GRB 221009A without saturation, IPN contributions, a GRB at z=4.2, and public machine-readable data products. The Appendix is detailed, with Monte Carlo uncertainties, explicit equations, and careful treatment of pile-up and background. These strengths make the paper a useful reference even after the performance claims are corrected. However, as detailed below, the headline 60%/90% sensitivity numbers are not supported by the body's own corrected estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §6] The headline claim — a constellation would observe at least 60% of Fermi/GBM GRBs at 5σ and over 90% at 3σ — is not supported by the paper's own corrected numbers. §6 gives 140 GRBs/yr only under a near-on-axis assumption, then corrects using the non-detection distribution to 69 GRBs/yr for a GRBAlpha-like satellite on a Fermi orbit, roughly 30% of the GBM rate. The >90% figure is explicitly called 'optimistic' in the same paragraph. The abstract should either be revised to state the corrected rate with its caveats, or the claim needs a real end-to-end constellation simulation that marginalizes over attitude and duty cycle.
  2. [§5.3, §6, Figs. 11–14] The recovery statistics treat detections as though the effective area were known; it is not. The effective area ranges from 54 cm² on-axis to <5 cm² edge-on and near zero through the lead-shielded side, and satellite attitude is unknown for every event. The non-detection analysis is the right idea, but the resulting fractions of GBM GRBs above the faintest detected thresholds are upper limits, not measured detection probabilities. The paper itself concedes this for GRB 241201A. Please state this explicitly in §5.3 and adjust the abstract; an attitude-marginalized estimate using the already simulated DRMs would be a substantial improvement.
  3. [§3.1, Eqs. (2)–(4); §5.1] For VZLUSAT-2 the energy gain is held constant at ground-calibration values, while GRBAlpha's gain drifted enough to require a cubic time dependence (Eq. 2). This affects energy-band boundaries, the T90/T50 durations computed from bands 0+1, hardness ratios, and the cross-comparisons in §5 for the VZLUSAT-2 half of the catalog. Since VZLUSAT-2 contributes 68 GRBs and 73 solar flares, the authors should either derive a time-dependent VZLUSAT-2 gain from SAA activation lines or, failing that, quantify and propagate the systematic uncertainty from the assumed gain drift.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'at least' before 60% is misleading; the analysis gives upper bounds, not lower bounds, given the attitude uncertainties.
  2. [Table 4] In the row for GRB 220608B, the S1 entry reads '18-±90'; this appears to be a typographical corruption and should be corrected to the intended value with uncertainty.
  3. [§3.2 / §4.1] Because data acquisition followed external trigger alerts, the detection rates quoted in §4.1 (one GRB per week, two transients per week) are conditional on trigger availability and download decisions. This should be stated whenever the rate is quoted, not only in the methodology section.
  4. [References] The reference list mixes diacritics inconsistently (e.g., 'Pal et al. 2025' vs. 'Pál et al.'). Please unify.
  5. [§3.3] The pile-up correction is described verbally; give the functional form or a clear pointer to the equation in Řípa et al. (2023b) so the corrected light curves are reproducible from the machine-readable tables.
  6. [Fig. 5] In the bottom panel, the RX class appears to be absent from the legend; check whether this is intentional and make the figure self-explanatory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the catalog is externally grounded and the headline sensitivity fractions are optimistic in-sample statistics, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) collect data by downloading intervals around external triggers; (2) define detections by SNR >= 3 sigma plus temporal coincidence with other missions; (3) cross-correlate the resulting sample with Fermi/GBM; (4) compare the faintest CubeSat-detected GBM GRBs' GBM fluence/peak flux to the Fermi/GBM cumulative distribution; (5) correct using non-detections to obtain 69 GRB/yr. No step defines its conclusion in terms of its premise. The catalog itself is externally confirmed: every transient is matched to Fermi/GBM, Swift, INTEGRAL, IPN, or another instrument, so the existence of the 344 transients is not an internally generated claim. The detector calibrations, including the time-dependent GRBAlpha gain (Ripa et al. 2025) and the Geant4 response simulations (Ripa et al. 2023b; Pal et al. 2023), are anchored to activation-line energies and Monte Carlo physics, not to the paper's target result. The abstract's 'at least 60%' and 'over 90%' numbers are the uncorrected, near-on-axis fractions from Figs. 11-12, and the body explicitly states that 'the possible detection of over 90% of GBM GRBs by one detector unit can be viewed as an optimistic estimate' and derives a corrected rate of 69 GRB/yr on the Fermi orbit. That is an overstatement and a selection-bias limitation (unknown attitude, trigger-selected downloads), not a circularity: the threshold is not equivalent to the prediction by construction, and the non-detection analysis provides an independent correction. Self-citations occur but are load-bearing only insofar as they supply empirically anchored calibrations, so they do not reduce the argument to a self-citation loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed. The paper's load-bearing inputs are instrumental: two fitted gain calibrations, an empirical low-energy cutoff, a pile-up threshold, and the assumption that external GRB catalogs are the correct reference frame for selection and validation. All are inherited from the team's prior papers rather than independently verified here.

free parameters (4)
  • GRBAlpha gain polynomial coefficients (a, b, c, d) = a=5.54e-10, b=-1.91e-6, c=2.29e-3, d=4.02
    Cubic time-dependence of the energy gain (Eq. 2), fitted to in-orbit activation lines in Ripa et al. (2025); every GRBAlpha energy-band boundary in Table 1 and all catalog energies depend on it.
  • VZLUSAT-2 constant gain values and offsets = unit #0: 9.12 keV/ADU, -366 keV; unit #1: 7.84 keV/ADU, -313 keV
    From ground laboratory calibration, assumed constant over the whole mission despite SiPM degradation; the same degradation forced a time-dependent gain on GRBAlpha (§3.1).
  • Low-energy cutoff ch_cut = 54 ADU (GRBAlpha); 45 -> 48 ADU (VZLUSAT-2, Sept 2022)
    'This value was found empirically from the calibration measurements' (§3.1); determines the lowest energy band and thus all low-energy fluences.
  • Pile-up correction threshold = 2500 cnt/s (~3.7% pile-up probability)
    From the team's prior pile-up model (Ripa et al. 2023b); applied to four GRBs and nine solar flares including 33%-pile-up GRB 221009A (§3.3).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption External trigger alerts and GCN circulars used to select download intervals and validate detections are correct for all 344 catalog events.
    The CubeSats had no on-board trigger; detections were defined by SNR plus 'temporal coincidence with a burst reported by another mission' (§3.2). The catalog is only as good as the external catalogs it was selected against.
  • domain assumption Geant4-simulated DRMs (Ripa et al. 2023b) correctly model the angular and energy response, including the lead-shielded side, for the direction-dependence estimates.
    Used in §3.4 to claim the HR directional dependence is 'rather minor'; no independent in-orbit validation of the response model.
  • domain assumption The pile-up correction model (Ripa et al. 2023b) correctly reconstructs lost counts when pile-up probability reaches 33% (GRB 221009A).
    The BOAT peak-flux lower limit and the fluence comparisons depend on this correction (§3.3).
  • standard math Poisson statistics on 1 s/0.5 s binned counts adequately describe background and signal uncertainties.
    Uncertainties in Appendix A assume counts are Poissonian with the given Δt; SAA and radiation-belt background variability is handled only by the manual polynomial fits.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26136 in / 18066 out tokens · 144632 ms · 2026-08-01T16:29:33.656363+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the largest sample of gamma-ray transients observed by any CubeSat mission so far. Observations were acquired by a 1U CubeSat GRBAlpha, the smallest astrophysical space observatory, and a 3U CubeSat VZLUSAT-2. Both missions were technological pathfinders and carried a novel CsI scintillator-based detector read-out by silicon photomultipliers. They operated on Sun-synchronous low Earth orbits below 550 km for about four years; GRBAlpha between March 2021 and June 2025 while VZLUSAT-2 between January 2022 and November 2025. Despite being technological experiments, they observed over 300 gamma-ray transients including gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), solar flares, soft gamma repeaters and one outburst from an X-ray binary. Among these are the two brightest GRBs ever observed, GRB 221009A and GRB 230307A, without saturation and GRBs at redshifts up to z=4.2. GRBAlpha also contributed to the InterPlanetary Network. Regular monitoring of transients was demonstrated by a detection rate of two transients or one GRB a week and the shortest time between two subsequent detections of only 42 minutes. We show that a constellation of nanosatellites around the Earth would observe at least 60% of Fermi/GBM GRBs with 5$\sigma$ significance and over 90% at 3$\sigma$ level. GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2 prove that routine monitoring of the gamma-ray sky can also be done by low-cost and quickly developed nanosatellite missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17971 by Ales Povalac, Andras Pal, Balazs Csak, Che-Chih Tsao, Chih-En Wu, Chih-Hsun Lin, Chin-Ping Hu, Filip Hroch, Filip Munz, Gabor Galgoczi, Hirokazu Odaka, Hiromitsu Takahashi, Hsiang-Kuang Chang, Ivo Vertat, Jakub Kapus, Jakub Ripa, Jan Hudec, Jean-Paul Breuer, Juraj Dudas, Kaustubha Sen, Kazuhiro Nakazawa, Laszlo Meszaros, Lea Szakszonova, Maksim Rezenov, Marcel Frajt, Marianna Dafcikova, Martin Kolar, Martin Koleda, Martin Sabol, Martin Topinka, Masanori Ohno, Masato Yokota, Michaela Duriskova, Michal Pazderka, Miroslav Kasal, Miroslav Smelko, Nikola Husarikova, Norbert Werner, Peter Hanak, Petr Svoboda, Robert Laszlo, Tomas Urbanec, Tomas Vitek, Tsunefumi Mizuno, Tsung-Che Liu, Vladimir Daniel, Yasushi Fukazawa, Yuto Ichinohe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of a minute-long background spectral measurement from 23 April 2025 taken by GRBAlpha close to the equator and far from the SAA. The peak around 50 keV is due to thermal noise produced by the SiPMs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example light curve of GRB 250516B observed by GRBAlpha in four energy bands and their sum. Light curves of all detected events are available in the online journal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stacked bar charts showing the monthly detec￾tion rate of transients observed by GRBAlpha (top) and VZLUSAT-2 (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hardness ratio vs. T90 duration of transients observed by GRBAlpha (top) and VZLUSAT-2 (bottom). ing attitude of the satellites. In some long-duration events which were detected by both detector units on board VZLUSAT-2, we clearly see the changing attitude in the light curves and the peak time can differ even be￾tween the two VZLUSAT-2 detector units. Moreover, VZLUSAT-2 had issues with on-board clock syn… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of the peak flux P (left) and fluence S (right) for different transient types as observed by GRBAlpha. 10 2 10 3 Peak flux P (cnt/s) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 # events lGRB sGRB SF SGR 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 Fluence S (cnt) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 # events lGRB sGRB SF SGR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the peak flux P (left) and fluence S (right) for different transient types as observed by VZLUSAT-2. et al. 2025) GRB 221009A blinded most of the large gamma-ray missions (Frederiks et al. 2023; Lesage et al. 2023; Savchenko et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2025). Thanks to the small detector size, GRBAlpha provided an un￾saturated measurement of the brightest episode of the event, although the m… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curves of GRB 230307A observed jointly by GRBAlpha and VZLUSAT-2. 69.6 km/s/Mpc, ΩM = 0.29, Ω0 = 0.71, Bennett et al. 2014), this equals to a light travel time of 12.2 Gyr. The furthest GRB detected by GRBAlpha was GRB 241026A at z = 2.79 (Moskvitin et al. 2024; Izzo et al. 2024) which is equivalent to a look-back time of 11.4 Gyr. As a technological pathfinder toward a larger satellite constellation… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the T90 and T50 durations of GRBs observed jointly by GRBAlpha and Fermi/GBM. 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 VZLUSAT-2 duration (s) 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 Fermi/GBM duration (s) T90 T50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the T90 and T50 durations of GRBs observed jointly by VZLUSAT-2 and Fermi/GBM. 5.2. Peak Flux and Fluence Comparison of the peak flux and fluence measured by the CubeSat missions and Fermi/GBM is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the peak flux P of GRBs observed by GRBAlpha (left) and VZLUSAT-2 (right) with Fermi/GBM. Top: Complementary cumulative distribution function of all GBM GRBs detected until 18 November 2025. The black curve marks the normalized number of GBM GRBs with P higher than or equal to the given value. The solid (dashed) vertical lines represent significant (sub-threshold) detections by GRBAlpha or V… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distributions of the peak flux P of GRBAlpha (left) and VZLUSAT-2 (right) GRBs (in blue and green) compared to the ones which were not detected although the CubeSat was in low background and the event was not occulted by the Earth (in gray). 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 Fermi/GBM fluence S in 10 1000 keV [erg/cm2 ] 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 # GRBAlpha GRBs non-detections SNR 5 SNR < 5 10 7… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.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

84 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c —. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  2. [2]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/3

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/3 2012

  3. [3]

    2016, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

    Allison, J., Amako, K., et al. 2016, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

    2016

  4. [4]

    Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 835, 186, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125

    doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125 2016

  5. [5]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    An, Z.-H., Antier, S., Bi, X.-Z., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.01203 2023

  6. [6]

    L., Frederiks, D

    Aptekar, R. L., Frederiks, D. D., Golenetskii, S. V., et al. 1995, SSRv, 71, 265, doi: 10.1007/BF00751332

    doi:10.1007/bf00751332 1995

  7. [7]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adadef

    Atteia, J.-L., Bouchet, L., Dezalay, J.-P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adadef

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

  8. [8]

    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

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

  9. [9]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., & Hinshaw, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/135

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/135 2014

  10. [10]

    2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7

    Burns, E. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 4, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7

    doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7 2020

  11. [11]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    Burns, E., Svinkin, D., Fenimore, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c 2023

  12. [12]

    Cavallo, G., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/183.3.359

    doi:10.1093/mnras/183.3.359 1978

  13. [13]

    2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33418, 1

    Dafcikova, M., Ripa, J., Pal, A., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33418, 1

    2023

  14. [14]

    2024, ApJL, 962, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2680

    Dai, C.-Y., Guo, C.-L., Zhang, H.-M., Liu, R.-Y., & Wang, X.-Y. 2024, ApJL, 962, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2680

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2680 2024

  15. [15]

    M., et al

    Dalessi, S., Veres, P., Hui, C. M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.12637, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.12637 D´ aniel, V., Svoboda, P., Junas, M., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11530, Sensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites XXIV, ed. S. P. Neeck, A. H´ eli` ere, & T. Kimura,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.12637 2025

  16. [16]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf21d

    Dichiara, S., Tsang, D., Troja, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf21d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf21d 2023

  17. [17]

    2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 017002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.1.017002 19

    Doyle, M., Gloster, A., Griffin, M., et al. 2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 017002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.1.017002 19

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.9.1.017002 2023

  18. [18]

    2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Evangelista, Y., Fiore, F., Fuschino, F., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 114441T, doi: 10.1117/12.2561018

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2561018 2021

  19. [19]

    E., in ’t Zand, J

    Fenimore, E. E., in ’t Zand, J. J. M., Norris, J. P., Bonnell, J. T., & Nemiroff, R. J. 1995, ApJL, 448, L101, doi: 10.1086/309603

    doi:10.1086/309603 1995

  20. [20]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Sari, R., et al. 2001, ApJL, 562, L55, doi: 10.1086/338119

    doi:10.1086/338119 2001

  21. [21]

    L., et al

    Frederiks, D., Svinkin, D., Lysenko, A. L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 949, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb 2023

  22. [22]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670, doi: 10.1038/27150

    doi:10.1038/27150 1998

  23. [23]

    2021b, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Galgoczi, G., Ripa, J., Dilillo, P., et al. 2021b, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1144492, doi: 10.1117/12.2560829 Galg´ oczi, G.,ˇR ´ ıpa, J., Campana, R., et al. 2021...

    doi:10.1117/12.2560829

  24. [24]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

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

    doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  25. [25]

    H., & Smartt, S

    Gillanders, J. H., & Smartt, S. J. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf287

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staf287 2025

  26. [26]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 G´ orski, K

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  27. [27]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39857, 1

    Grefenstette, B., & NuSTAR SINGS Working Group. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39857, 1

    2025

  28. [28]

    2014, ApJS, 211, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12

    Gruber, D., Goldstein, A., Weller von Ahlefeld, V., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12 2014

  29. [29]

    Hurley, K. C. 2020, ApJ, 905, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbef1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbef1 2020

  30. [30]

    L., Romano, P., Mangano, V., et al

    Israel, G. L., Romano, P., Mangano, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1114, doi: 10.1086/590486

    work page doi:10.1086/590486 2008

  31. [31]

    2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37925, 1

    Izzo, L., Kuhn, O., Rossi, A., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37925, 1

    2024

  32. [32]

    G., et al

    Kaneko, Y., G¨ o˘ g¨ u¸ s, E., Baring, M. G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 916, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0fe7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0fe7 2021

  33. [33]

    M., & Shah, P

    Katoch, T., Antia, H. M., & Shah, P. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39994, 1

    2025

  34. [34]

    S., Murase, K., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Kiuchi, K

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Kiuchi, K. 2017, ApJL, 848, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8d14

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8d14 2017

  35. [35]

    M., Paciesas, W

    Koshut, T. M., Paciesas, W. S., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1996, ApJ, 463, 570, doi: 10.1086/177272

    work page doi:10.1086/177272 1996

  36. [36]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101, doi: 10.1086/186969

    doi:10.1086/186969 1993

  37. [37]

    G., Fenimore, E

    Laros, J. G., Fenimore, E. E., Fikani, M. M., Klebesadel, R. W., & Barat, C. 1986, Nature, 322, 152, doi: 10.1038/322152a0

    doi:10.1038/322152a0 1986

  38. [38]

    S., et al

    Lesage, S., Veres, P., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 952, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5b4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace5b4 2023

  39. [39]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Malesani, D. B., et al. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33569, 1

    2023

  40. [40]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024

  41. [41]

    2020, Scientia Sinica

    Li, Y., Wen, X., Sun, X., et al. 2020, Scientia Sinica

    2020

  42. [42]

    Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica, 50, 129508, doi: 10.1360/SSPMA-2019-0417

    work page doi:10.1360/sspma-2019-0417 2019

  43. [43]

    Y., Barthelmy, S

    Lien, A. Y., Barthelmy, S. D., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 16522, 1

    2014

  44. [44]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 155, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742

    Margutti, R., & Chornock, R. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 155, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742 2021

  45. [45]

    2009, PASJ, 61, 999, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    Matsuoka, M., Kawasaki, K., Ueno, S., et al. 2009, PASJ, 61, 999, doi: 10.1093/pasj/61.5.999

    doi:10.1093/pasj/61.5.999 2009

  46. [46]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/791 2009

  47. [47]

    Pacholski, D. P. 2023, ApJ, 956, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf846 M´ esz´ aros, P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf846 2023

  48. [48]

    W., Zhang, B., et al

    Moradi, R., Wang, C. W., Zhang, B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8a64

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8a64 2024

  49. [49]

    S., Vinokurov, A

    Moskvitin, A. S., Vinokurov, A. S., Pozanenko, A. S., & GRB follow-up Team. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 37916, 1

    2024

  50. [50]

    New massive X-ray binary candidates from the ROSAT Galactic Plane Survey I - Results from a cross-correlation with OB star catalogues

    Janot-Pacheco, E. 1997, A&A, 323, 853, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9611122 M¨ unz, F.,ˇR ´ ıpa, J., P´ al, A., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13093, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 130936J, doi: 10.111...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9611122 1997

  51. [51]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Ohno, M., Werner, N., P´ al, A., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10699, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2018: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 1069964, doi: 10.1117/12.2313228

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2313228 2018

  52. [52]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Ohno, M., Werner, N., P´ al, A., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11454, X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy IX, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic, 114541Z, doi: 10.1117/12.2562253 P´ al, A., Ohno, M., M´ esz´ aros, L., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation E...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2562253 2020

  53. [53]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40663, 1

    Pal, A., Werner, N., Meszaros, L., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40663, 1

    2025

  54. [54]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 38887, 1

    Pathak, U., Meegan, C., & Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor Team. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 38887, 1

    2025

  55. [55]

    2011, Comptes Rendus Physique, 12, 298, doi: 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.01.009

    Paul, J., Wei, J., Basa, S., & Zhang, S.-N. 2011, Comptes Rendus Physique, 12, 298, doi: 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.01.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2011.01.009 2011

  56. [56]

    1999, PhR, 314, 575, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    Piran, T. 1999, PhR, 314, 575, doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(98)00127-6 1999

  57. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    Poolakkil, S., Preece, R., Fletcher, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d 2021

  58. [58]

    BurstCube: A CubeSat for Gravitational Wave Counterparts

    Racusin, J., Perkins, J. S., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.09292, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1708.09292

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.09292 2017

  59. [59]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w 2022

  60. [60]

    1999, MNRAS, 306, 100, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02473.x

    Reig, P., & Roche, P. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 100, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02473.x

    arXiv 1999

  61. [61]

    2023a, GRB Coordinates Network, 33424, 1 —

    Ripa, J., Dafcikova, M., Pal, A., et al. 2023a, GRB Coordinates Network, 33424, 1 —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.16609, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.16609

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.16609 2026

  62. [62]

    2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Sanna, A., Burderi, L., Di Salvo, T., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 114444X, doi: 10.1117/12.2561758

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2561758 2021

  63. [63]

    2024, A&A, 684, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346336

    Savchenko, V., Ubertini, P., Bazzano, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346336

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346336 2024

  64. [64]

    P., Tandon, S

    Singh, K. P., Tandon, S. N., Agrawal, P. C., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9144, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, J.-W. A. den Herder, & M. Bautz, 91441S, doi: 10.1117/12.2062667

    doi:10.1117/12.2062667 2014

  65. [65]

    The Cross-Calibration of Swift-BAT and Fermi-GBM via Correlative Spectral Analysis of GRBs

    Stamatikos, M. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0907.3190, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0907.3190

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0907.3190 2009

  66. [66]

    Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P

    Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 591, L17, doi: 10.1086/376976

    doi:10.1086/376976 2003

  67. [67]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40506, 1

    Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., Lysenko, A., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40506, 1

    2025

  68. [68]

    2009, A&A, 502, 995, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810527

    Tavani, M., Barbiellini, G., Argan, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 502, 995, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810527

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810527 2009

  69. [69]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39848, 1 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al

    Tembhurnikar, M., Joshi, J., Waratkar, G., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39848, 1 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18082 —. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.27225, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.27225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18082 2025

  70. [70]

    2023, PASA, 40, e008, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.4

    Thomas, M., Trenti, M., Sanna, A., et al. 2023, PASA, 40, e008, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2023.4

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2023.4 2023

  71. [71]

    A., DeLaunay, J., et al

    Tohuvavohu, A., Kennea, J. A., DeLaunay, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 900, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba94f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba94f 2020

  72. [72]

    S., & Calet Collaboration

    Torii, S., Marrocchesi, P. S., & Calet Collaboration. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 64, 2531, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.04.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.04.013 2019

  73. [73]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14034, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14034

    Trenti, M., Ortiz del Castillo, M., Mearns, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14034, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.14034 2024

  74. [74]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3 2022

  75. [75]

    2003, A&A, 411, L131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031224

    Ubertini, P., Lebrun, F., Di Cocco, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031224

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031224 2003

  76. [76]

    P., Sch¨ onfelder, V., et al

    Vedrenne, G., Roques, J. P., Sch¨ onfelder, V., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031482 von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C. A., Paciesas, W. S., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/13 —. 2020, ApJ, 893, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18 ˇR ´ ıpa, J., Dilillo, G., Campana, R., & Galg´ oczi, G. 2021, in Society of Photo-Opti...

    arXiv 2003

  77. [77]

    2023, ApJL, 953, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace7d4

    Wang, Y., Xia, Z.-Q., Zheng, T.-C., Ren, J., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2023, ApJL, 953, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace7d4

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace7d4 2023

  78. [78]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32855, 1

    Waratkar, G., Bhalerao, V., Vibhute, A., et al. 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32855, 1

    2022

  79. [79]

    1997, PhRvL, 78, 2292, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2292

    Waxman, E., & Bahcall, J. 1997, PhRvL, 78, 2292, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2292

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.2292 1997

  80. [80]

    2019, Experimental Astronomy, 48, 77, doi: 10.1007/s10686-019-09636-w

    Wen, J., Long, X., Zheng, X., et al. 2019, Experimental Astronomy, 48, 77, doi: 10.1007/s10686-019-09636-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s10686-019-09636-w 2019

Showing first 80 references.