Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

GRB 260226A's afterglow decays as t^-2.8, too fast for standard blast-wave models, and is best explained as inverse Compton emission from a pair-loaded stellar wind.

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 00:40 UTC pith:UZZ7X2PD

load-bearing objection Genuinely new bolometric afterglow curve with a strikingly steep decay, but the headline indices depend on a spectral decomposition choice the paper does not fully justify. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26129 v1 pith:UZZ7X2PD submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.HE

The ultra-fast afterglow of GRB 260226A

Biswajit Banerjee , Alessio Mei , Annarita Ierardi , Samanta Macera , Gor Oganesyan , Shraddha Mohnani , Elias Kammoun , Pawan Tiwari
show 8 more authors
Stefano Ascenzi Samuele Ronchini Ansh Chopra Alessio Ludovico De Santis Stefano Covino Paolo D'Avanzo Andrea Melandri Silvia Piranomonte
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.70.Rz95.85.Pw98.70.Qy
keywords gamma-ray burstGRB 260226AFermi-LATafterglowexternal inverse Comptonpair loadingcircumburst mediumultra-fast decay
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 unprecedented Fermi/LAT observations of GRB 260226A, which produced the most photons above 100 MeV of any gamma-ray burst. By combining GBM, LLE, and LAT data, the authors reconstruct the bolometric afterglow light curve from 10 keV to 1 GeV and find that it decays as t^-1.5 then steepens to an ultra-fast t^-2.8 after about 65 seconds. They argue that this steep decay, together with a spectral peak near 50 MeV and an extremely soft high-energy tail, cannot be produced by standard forward-shock synchrotron emission or synchrotron self-Compton. Instead, they interpret the emission as external inverse Compton scattering of prompt MeV photons by mildly relativistic electrons in a pair-enriched, pre-accelerated stellar wind. If correct, this is the first direct observation of the formation of an external shock and of the prompt radiation front reshaping the circumburst environment.

Core claim

The central claim is that the early high-energy afterglow of GRB 260226A is powered by external inverse Compton emission from electrons heated at a forward shock that propagates into a pair-loaded, pre-accelerated stellar wind. The bolometric light curve (10 keV–1 GeV) decays as t^-1.5 for the first minute, then breaks at T0+65 s and decays as t^-2.8, which is far steeper than the t^-1 (adiabatic) or t^-10/7 (radiative) decays expected from a standard blast wave. The spectrum peaks at 15–60 MeV with a low-energy photon index of about -1.5 and a high-energy index β < -3, which the authors show is incompatible with synchrotron radiation from shock-accelerated electrons (requiring unrealistical

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'second spectral component' in the time-resolved keV–GeV spectra, which rises during the transition phase (23–35 s) and later dominates as the afterglow. It is modeled as a cutoff power law (CPL) peaking at 15–60 MeV. The key identity is the broken power-law decay of the bolometric flux, with indices -1.5 and -2.8 and a break at 65 s. The physical mechanism is external inverse Compton (EIC) scattering: freshly heated electrons behind the forward shock (Lorentz factor γ_e ~ 20) upscatter prompt MeV photons (E_t ~ 0.5 MeV) to ~50 MeV. The environment is a 'pair-loaded stellar wind'—a wind medium with density ρ = A R^-2 where A ~ 10^12 g/cm, pre-accelerated and pair-en

Load-bearing premise

The identification of a single coherent afterglow component rests on adopting the CPL+CPL spectral decomposition for the transition bins (23–35 s) even though the Akaike Information Criterion statistically prefers the Band+CPL model; if Band+CPL is correct, the second component hardens to α ≈ +0.5 and is spectrally inconsistent with the later afterglow, changing the bolometric light curve and the fitted decay indices.

What would settle it

A specific observation that would settle the claim: measure the afterglow spectrum and light curve in the 10–100 MeV band with a future sensitive instrument (e.g., e-ASTROGAM or Crystal Eye) for a similar GRB with a known redshift. If the high-energy component shows a clear high-energy power-law tail (β > -3) or a decay shallower than t^-2, the EIC-in-pair-loaded-wind interpretation would be falsified. Alternatively, if the prompt luminosity L_GRB or wind density A inferred from the model are found to be inconsistent with independent measurements (e.g., from X-ray or optical afterglow data), t

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

If this is right

  • Standard forward-shock synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton models are excluded for this burst's early afterglow, implying that some GRBs have a distinct radiative channel in the first minutes.
  • The early afterglow can directly probe the formation of the external shock and the physical state of the circumburst medium, including pair loading and pre-acceleration by the prompt radiation front.
  • The observed steep decay (t^-2.8) means that GeV-only light curves may miss the dominant energy output of the high-energy afterglow, which in this burst lies in the 10–100 MeV band.
  • A dense, pair-loaded wind (A ~ 10^12 g/cm) is naturally expected around a Wolf–Rayet progenitor, linking the early afterglow to the massive-star progenitor channel.
  • The model predicts related MeV-band signatures, such as absorption features and annihilation-line emission, which could be searched for in other bursts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the CPL+CPL decomposition is correct, the afterglow component is spectrally stable (α ≈ -1.5) from its emergence to 500 s, which would make it an unusually clean probe of external-shock physics; if the statistically favored Band+CPL is correct, the component hardens dramatically and the light curve before 35 s changes, weakening the specific decay indices.
  • The toy EIC model treats the prompt emission as a constant-luminosity Band spectrum; a time-dependent, realistic prompt light curve would alter the predicted light curve and peak energy, and fitting it could provide stronger constraints on the pair-loading prescription.
  • A natural extension is to search for similar ultra-fast afterglow decays in other bright Fermi/LAT bursts by including LLE data; the authors note that previous studies lacked the MeV gap, implying that this behavior may be common but missed.
  • The lack of a redshift is a major limitation; if a redshift were measured (e.g., via a late-time optical detection or H.E.S.S./CTA follow-up), the inferred L_GRB and A would be directly testable, and the rest-frame peak energy could be checked against the model's prediction.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a time-resolved broadband spectral analysis of Fermi GBM, LLE, and LAT observations of GRB 260226A from T0+14 s to T0+500 s. It identifies three phases: prompt emission (Band/BandCutoff), a transition phase with two spectral components, and a late afterglow phase described by a cutoff power law. The authors construct a bolometric (10 keV–1 GeV) afterglow light curve, fit it with a broken power law (decay indices ≈ −1.5 and ≈ −2.8, break at ≈65 s), argue that standard forward-shock synchrotron and SSC cannot explain the emission, and interpret it as external inverse Compton emission in a pair-loaded stellar wind. A simplified toy EIC model is fitted to the observed light curve and peak-energy range.

Significance. If the empirical decomposition and light curve are robust, this would be an important result: it would show that MeV–GeV observations can track the emergence of the external shock and that the early afterglow is radiatively dominated by EIC in a pair-enriched medium, challenging standard synchrotron afterglow models. The paper has clear strengths: a detailed, publicly reproducible data reduction, a dedicated LLE pipeline validated against the standard pipeline, multiple robustness checks (without calibration constants, without LLE), and full MCMC posterior reporting. However, the central empirical claim depends on a spectral decomposition that is statistically disfavored by the paper's own AIC analysis, and the temporal slopes also depend on the assumed reference time. The theoretical interpretation is a consistency check rather than a unique or falsifiable reconstruction. The AIC concern raised in the stress test is valid and load-bearing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1.6.1, Tables S2 and S4] The AIC comparison in Table S2 strongly prefers Band+CPL over CPL+CPL in all three transition bins (ΔAIC = 7.16, 9.64, 7.58), yet the analysis adopts CPL+CPL. Table S4 shows that this choice changes component 2 dramatically: in bin 5 (30–35 s) the flux is 9.12×10^-6 erg cm^-2 s^-1 with α = −1.49 under CPL+CPL, versus 3.48×10^-6 with α = +0.05 under Band+CPL. The later afterglow bins have α ≈ −1.5. Thus the 'single afterglow component' that defines the bolometric light curve exists only in the statistically disfavored decomposition. Because the broken-power-law slopes and break time are fitted to this component, the headline empirical claim is not robust to the model-selection outcome. Please reanalyze the temporal evolution using the Band+CPL component 2 (or a model-averaged estimate) and show whether a coherent broken power law still emerges, or provide a quantitative, non-circular just
  2. [§1.7, Fig. S4] The stated decay indices depend on the adopted reference time T0. The test with T_ag0 = 20 s yields a1 ≈ −0.6 and a2 ≈ −2.2 with a break about 45 s after T_ag0, quite different from the headline a1 = −1.5 and a2 = −2.8 shown in Fig. 4. The paper should report these as a systematic uncertainty on the decay indices, or justify a preferred T_ag0, before presenting single values as the burst's temporal behavior. The claim that a steep late decay is robust is credible, but the specific values 't^-1.5' and 't^-2.8' are not uniquely determined.
  3. [Methods §1.4 and supplementary 'Spectral analysis tests'] The final two bins (150–300 s and 300–500 s) use the OSV background method and LLE data with ~40% energy resolution; the paper states that these systematic uncertainties were not propagated into the fit. These bins strongly influence the post-break slope of the broken power law. The assertion that a possible overestimate of E_p would bias F_bol upward and hence steepen the decline is a directional argument, not an error propagation. Please provide conservative systematic error bars for these bins and refit the broken power law with them included; otherwise the ultra-fast t^-2.8 slope cannot be considered fully robust.
  4. [§1.8.5] The toy EIC model is fitted to the same 10 keV–1 GeV light curve and peak-energy range used to define the afterglow, with three free parameters (z, L_GRB, A) and simplified assumptions (constant prompt luminosity, no pair cascade, analytic pair-loading prescriptions). A good fit is therefore a consistency check, not a validation of the claim that standard forward-shock synchrotron is excluded. To support the exclusion, the paper should compare quantitatively with a standard forward-shock model applied to the same data, or report falsifiable predictions (e.g., spectral evolution, closure relations, late-time X-ray/optical behavior) that distinguish the EIC scenario from alternatives.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. S2 caption] The caption labels bin 5 as '30–32 s', while Table S3 and the text use 30–35 s. Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Author contributions] The contribution statement says 'S.M. produced Fig. 5. G.O. produced Fig. 5 and S5.' This appears to duplicate Fig. 5; one of the entries should presumably be Fig. S5.
  3. [§1.8.5] L_ej = 1.5 L_GRB is described as corresponding to a prompt radiative efficiency of ~0.4, but L_GRB/L_ej = 2/3. Please clarify the definition of the prompt efficiency used here.
  4. [Table S1] The LAT photon indices in bins 1 and 2 (Γ ≈ −4.5 and −5.4) are extremely soft. A brief comment on how these relate to the prompt spectral components (and whether they are physically meaningful) would help the reader.
  5. [Results, 'Bolometric evolution of the afterglow'] The text says the 'nominal MeV duration of the burst, ~80 s' but earlier the GBM T90 is quoted as 184.4 s. Please reconcile these numbers or clarify that the ~80 s refers to the bright pulse structure rather than T90.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the light-curve decay indices are measured quantities; the EIC toy model is an openly labeled fit, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The central empirical claims are observational rather than outputs of the theory. The bolometric 10 keV–1 GeV light curve is constructed from time-resolved spectral fits (CPL / CPL+CPL components), and the broken power-law indices (t^-1.5, then t^-2.8), the break at T0+65 s, and the 15–60 MeV spectral peak are all fit to those measured fluxes. The theoretical analysis compares these measurements with standard synchrotron and SSC expectations and then builds a pair-loaded EIC toy model. That model is explicitly fitted to the same data: the paper states "We fit the observed 10 keV–1 GeV light curve with the observed νFν peak energy range (15-60 MeV) as a prior," and it cautions that "The toy model should be interpreted as a viability test rather than as a unique physical reconstruction." Agreement between a model and the data it was fitted to is a limitation (no independent predictive test), not a circular derivation. The preference for CPL+CPL over the AIC-preferred Band+CPL is an acknowledged model-selection/robustness caveat and is disclosed in Section 1.6.1; it affects the interpretation of the transition bins, but the late-time single CPL bins (35–500 s) that drive the steep late-time decay are not part of that two-component ambiguity. Author-group self-citations (e.g., refs. [55], [57]) appear in supporting, secondary arguments and are not load-bearing for the main empirical result. No fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction, and no authority or uniqueness theorem is imported to force the conclusion. Therefore the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's empirical claim (temporal decay, peak energy) requires few free parameters - only the fitted slopes, break time, and flux normalization of the broken power law. The theoretical interpretation, however, relies on a number of adopted domain assumptions (standard afterglow theory, pair-loading prescriptions, wind profile, prompt-emission parameterization) and on three fitted toy-model parameters (z, L_GRB, A) that are not independently constrained. No new particles or physical entities are introduced; the pair-loaded wind is inherited from prior work.

free parameters (4)
  • redshift z = posterior broad; log10(1+z) prior (4e-3, 0.95); Fig. S5 shows z up to ~3
    Unknown; free in toy EIC fit. Controls rest-frame energies, luminosities, and decoupling radius; all absolute quantities depend on it.
  • prompt luminosity L_GRB (isotropic-equivalent) = posterior log10 Liso ~ 52-55 (prior 49-55)
    Free parameter in toy EIC model; also enters the cooling-time constraint (Eq. 14) and the luminosity normalization of the EIC component.
  • wind density parameter A = posterior log10 A ~ 12 (g cm^-1)
    Free parameter in toy EIC model; determines lepton supply and pair loading. A ~ 10^12 is the pair-enriched value quoted in the abstract/discussion.
  • broken power-law slopes a1, a2 and break time t_b = a1 ~ -1.5, a2 ~ -2.8, t_b ~ 65 s
    Fitted to the bolometric flux of the second component (Fig. 4, Fig. S4). These ARE the empirical central claim, but they are also fitted numbers, not derived from first principles.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard external-shock afterglow theory (Blandford-McKee self-similar evolution) and standard synchrotron spectral closures
    Used to argue the observed t^-2.8 decay and soft spectrum exclude a standard cold-medium blast wave. This is a large body of prior literature, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Pair-loading and pre-acceleration prescriptions Z+-(xi) and gamma_pre(xi) from Beloborodov (2002, 2005) and Beloborodov et al. (2014)
    Adopted as external calculations. The paper explicitly uses two prescriptions (B05 cold-front and B14 hot-front) that give different posterior parameter regions, so the interpretation is prescription-dependent.
  • ad hoc to paper Prompt emission approximated as constant luminosity L_GRB lasting T_obs=35 s with a fixed Band spectrum (Ep=0.5 MeV, alpha=-1, beta=-2.5)
    Toy-model simplification (Sec. 1.8.5). The real prompt emission is time-variable and pulsed; this approximation directly affects the pair-front profile, the seed photon field, and the EIC light curve shape.
  • domain assumption Wind density profile rho = A R^-2 with mu_e=2 (helium-dominated Wolf-Rayet wind), Gamma_ej=10^3, epsilon_e=0, gamma_th=1
    These choices set the shocked-lepton Lorentz factor and the radiating lepton budget. Setting epsilon_e=0 means only the pair component is probed; a finite epsilon_e would change the inferred A and peak energy.
  • ad hoc to paper EIC seed photons are the unscattered prompt photons; photon-photon absorption is computed only against the unscattered prompt radiation, with no pair cascade
    Stated explicitly in Sec. 1.8.5 as a limitation. Scattered seed photons and cascade reprocessing are ignored, which could affect the peak energy and decay slope at late times.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36689 in / 11904 out tokens · 111150 ms · 2026-08-01T00:40:27.408272+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Long-duration gamma-ray bursts are typically powered by relativistic jets launched after the core collapse of some rapidly rotating massive stars. Internal dissipation releases part of the jet energy as highly variable MeV prompt emission, while the remaining kinetic energy drives an external shock into the surrounding medium and produces the so-called afterglow. During the first minutes of the afterglow, the unsteady jet transfers energy to the external shock. The early afterglow emission in MeV-GeV energies is rarely observed because the emergence of afterglow can be overshined by the prompt emission. Here we report exceptional observations of GRB 260226A with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, which recorded the largest number of photons above 100 MeV from a gamma-ray burst. These data allow us to reconstruct the evolution of the bolometric flux of the afterglow from its emergence during the prompt emission phase with unprecedented detail. The afterglow component peaks near 50 MeV and fades rapidly, first as t$^{-1.5}$ and then transiting to an ultra-fast t$^{-2.8}$ decay after about one minute. This behavior cannot be explained by standard synchrotron emission from a blast wave propagating into a cold medium. We interpret it as external inverse Compton radiation from freshly heated electrons cooling on prompt photons in a dense, pair-loaded stellar wind. GRB 260226A therefore shows that MeV-GeV observations can directly reveal the formation of the external shock and the massive-star environment is significantly reshaped by the prompt emission.

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

77 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Astrophys

    Woosley, S.E.: Gamma-Ray Bursts from Stellar Mass Accretion Disks around Black Holes. Astrophys. J.405, 273 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1086/172359

    doi:10.1086/172359 1993

  2. [2]

    Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal10, 422–428 (1984)

    Blinnikov, S.I., Novikov, I.D., Perevodchikova, T.V., Polnarev, A.G.: Exploding neutron stars in close binaries. Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal10, 422–428 (1984)

    1984

  3. [3]

    Nature340(6229), 126–128 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1038/340126a0

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., Schramm, D.N.: Nucleosynthesis, neutrino bursts andγ-rays from coalescing neutron stars. Nature340(6229), 126–128 (1989) https://doi.org/10.1038/340126a0

    doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  4. [4]

    Astrophys

    Rees, M.J., Meszaros, P.: Unsteady outflow models for cosmological gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J.430, 93–96 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1086/187446 astro- ph/9404038

    arXiv 1994

  5. [5]

    Astrophys

    Sari, R., Piran, T.: Variability in Gamma-Ray Bursts: A Clue. Astrophys. J. 485(1), 270–273 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1086/304428 arXiv:astro-ph/9701002 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  6. [6]

    Nature575(7783), 455–458 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-019-1750-x arXiv:2006.07249 [astro-ph.HE]

    Acciari, V.A.,et al.: Teraelectronvolt emission from theγ-ray burst GRB 190114C. Nature575(7783), 455–458 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-019-1750-x arXiv:2006.07249 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Science372(6546), 1081–1085 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe8560 arXiv:2106.02510 [astro-ph.HE]

    Abdalla, H.,et al.: Revealing x-ray and gamma ray temporal and spectral sim- ilarities in the GRB 190829A afterglow. Science372(6546), 1081–1085 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe8560 arXiv:2106.02510 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Nature575(7783), 464–467 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-019-1743-9 arXiv:1911.08961 [astro-ph.HE]

    Abdalla, H.,et al.: A very-high-energy component deep in theγ-ray burst afterglow. Nature575(7783), 464–467 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41586-019-1743-9 arXiv:1911.08961 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Science380(6652), 9328 (2023) https://doi.org/10

    Cao, Z.,et al.: A tera–electron volt afterglow from a narrow jet in an extremely bright gamma-ray burst. Science380(6652), 9328 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.adg9328 arXiv:2306.06372 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Abe, H.,et al.: MAGIC detection of GRB 201216C atz= 1.1. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527(3), 5856–5867 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2958 arXiv:2310.06473 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Astro- phys

    Paczynski, B., Rhoads, J.E.: Radio Transients from Gamma-Ray Bursters. Astro- phys. J.418, 5 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1086/187102 arXiv:astro-ph/9307024 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  12. [12]

    Astrophys

    M´ esz´ aros, P., Rees, M.J.: Optical and Long-Wavelength Afterglow from Gamma- Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.476, 232–237 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1086/303625 28

    doi:10.1086/303625 1997

  13. [13]

    Astrophys

    Sari, R., Piran, T., Narayan, R.: Spectra and Light Curves of Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows. Astrophys. J.497(1), 17–20 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1086/311269 arXiv:astro-ph/9712005 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  14. [14]

    Astrophys

    Beloborodov, A.M., Hasco¨ et, R., Vurm, I.: On the Origin of GeV Emission in Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.788(1), 36 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/788/1/36 arXiv:1307.2663 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Derishev, E., Piran, T.: The contemporaneous phase of GRB afterglows - appli- cation to GRB 221009A. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.530(1), 347–359 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae609 arXiv:2312.01447 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Celotti, A.: GeV emission from gamma- ray bursts: a radiative fireball? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.403(2), 926–937 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16171.x arXiv:0910.2459 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Nava, L.: The onset of the GeV afterglow of GRB 090510. Astron. Astrophys.510, 7 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 200913980 arXiv:0909.0016 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Kumar, P., Barniol Duran, R.: External forward shock origin of high-energy emission for three gamma-ray bursts detected by Fermi. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.409(1), 226–236 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17274.x arXiv:0910.5726 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    Nava, L., Vianello, G., Omodei, N., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Celotti, A., Longo, F., Desiante, R., Barniol Duran, R.: Clustering of LAT light curves: a clue to the origin of high-energy emission in gamma-ray bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.443(4), 3578–3585 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1451 arXiv:1406.6693 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    Astrophys

    Ajello, M.,et al.: A Decade of Gamma-Ray Bursts Observed by Fermi-LAT: The Second GRB Catalog. Astrophys. J.878(1), 52 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab1d4e arXiv:1906.11403 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Astrophys

    Atwood, W.B., Abdo, A.A., Ackermann, M., Althouse, W., Anderson, B., Axels- son, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., Band, D.L., Barbiellini, G., Bartelt, J., Bastieri, D., Baughman, B.M., Bechtol, K., B´ ed´ er` ede, D., Bellardi, F., Bellazzini, R., Berenji, B., Bignami, G.F., Bisello, D., Bissaldi, E., Blandford, R.D., Bloom, E.D., Bog- art, J.R., Bonamente, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  22. [22]

    Astrophys

    Ackermann, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W.B., Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., Barbiellini, G., Baring, M.G., Bastieri, D., Bechtol, K., Bellazzini, R., Berenji, B., Bhat, P.N., Bissaldi, E., Blandford, R.D., Bloom, E.D., Bonamente, E., Borgland, A.W., Bouvier, A., Bregeon, J., Brez, A., Briggs, M.S., Brigida, M., Bruel, P., Buson, S., Caliandro, G.A., Ca...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    Astrophys

    Vurm, I., Hasco¨ et, R., Beloborodov, A.M.: Pair-dominated GeV-Optical Flash in GRB 130427A. Astrophys. J.789(2), 37 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 2041-8205/789/2/L37 arXiv:1402.2595 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Astrophys

    Hasco¨ et, R., Vurm, I., Beloborodov, A.M.: Measuring Ambient Densities and Lorentz Factors of Gamma-Ray Bursts from GeV and Optical Observations. Astrophys. J.813(1), 63 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/63 arXiv:1504.06369 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Astrophys

    Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., Barbiellini, G., Bastieri, D., Bellazzini, R., Berretta, A., Bissaldi, E., Blandford, R.D., Bonino, R., Bottacini, E., Bregeon, J., Bruel, P., Buehler, R., Burns, E., Buson, S., Cameron, R.A., Caputo, R., Caraveo, P.A., Cavazzuti, E., Chen, S., Chiaro, G., Ciprini, S., Cohen- Tanugi, J., Costantin, D., C...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Astrophys.626, 12 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201935214 arXiv:1902.01861 [astro-ph.HE]

    Ravasio, M.E., Oganesyan, G., Salafia, O.S., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Branchesi, M., Campana, S., Covino, S., Salvaterra, R.: GRB 190114C: from prompt to afterglow? Astron. Astrophys.626, 12 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/201935214 arXiv:1902.01861 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Macera, S., Banerjee, B., Mei, A., Tiwari, P., Oganesyan, G., Branchesi, M.: Gamma-ray burst prompt emission spectra at high energies. Astron. Astrophys. 700, 88 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202553801 arXiv:2501.10507 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Time lags as proxy of spectral evolution in gamma-ray bursts

    Maraventano, C., Daigne, F., Mochkovitch, R., Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., Di Salvo, T.: Time lags as proxy of spectral evolution in gamma-ray bursts. arXiv e-prints, 2606–10926 (2026) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.10926 arXiv:2606.10926 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.10926 2026

  29. [29]

    Astrophys

    Abdo, A.A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W.B., Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., Barbiellini, G., Baring, M.G., Bastieri, D., Bechtol, K., Bellazzini, R., Berenji, B., Bhat, P.N., Bissaldi, E., Blandford, R.D., Bloom, E.D., Bonamente, E., Borgland, A.W., Bouvier, A., Bregeon, J., Brez, A., Briggs, M.S., Brigida, M., Bruel, P., Burges...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    Astrophys

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., Axelsson, M., Baldini, L., Ballet, J., Bar- biellini, G., Baring, M.G., Bastieri, D., Bechtol, K., Bellazzini, R., Berenji, B., Bhat, P.N., Bissaldi, E., Blandford, R.D., Bonamente, E., Borgland, A.W., Bou- vier, A., Bregeon, J., Brez, A., Briggs, M.S., Brigida, M., Bruel, P., Buehler, R., Buson, S., Caliandro, G.A., ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    Nature424(6950), 749–751 (2003) https://doi.org/10

    Gonz´ alez, M.M., Dingus, B.L., Kaneko, Y., Preece, R.D., Dermer, C.D., Briggs, M.S.: Aγ-ray burst with a high-energy spectral component inconsistent with the synchrotron shock model. Nature424(6950), 749–751 (2003) https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature01869

    2003

  32. [32]

    Pelassa, V., et al.: The LAT Low-Energy Technique for Fermi Gamma-Ray Bursts Spectral Analysis (2010)

    2010

  33. [33]

    Proceedings of the 7th Fermi Symposium (2011)

    Vianello, G., et al.: The Fermi-LAT Collaboration: Exploring the Low-Energy Domain of LAT-detected GRBs. Proceedings of the 7th Fermi Symposium (2011)

    2011

  34. [34]

    Astrophys

    Chand, V., Pal, P.S., Banerjee, A., Sharma, V., Tam, P.H.T., He, X.: MAGICal GRB 190114C: Implications of Cutoff in the Spectrum at sub-GeV Ener- gies. Astrophys. J.903(1), 9 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abb5fc arXiv:1905.11844 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Astrophys

    Mei, A., Oganesyan, G., Tsvetkova, A., Ravasio, M.E., Banerjee, B., Brighenti, F., Ronchini, S., Branchesi, M., Frederiks, D.: Constraints on the Physics of the Prompt Emission from Distant and Energetic Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 220101A. Astrophys. J.941(1), 82 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ aca091 arXiv:2203.04971 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Ravasio, M.E., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G.: Insights into the physics of gamma-ray bursts from the high-energy extension of their prompt emission spectra. Astron. Astrophys.685, 166 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 202348838 arXiv:2312.02259 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Astrophys

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P.N., Bissaldi, E., Briggs, M.S., Connaughton, V., Diehl, R., Fishman, G., Greiner, J., Hoover, A.S., van der Horst, A.J., von Kienlin, A., Kippen, R.M., Kouveliotou, C., McBreen, S., Paciesas, W.S., Preece, R., Steinle, H., Wallace, M.S., Wilson, R.B., Wilson-Hodge, C.: The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor. Astrophys. J.702(1),...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    GRB Coordinates Network43840, 1 (2026)

    Fermi GBM Team: GRB 260226A: Fermi GBM Final Real-time Localization. GRB Coordinates Network43840, 1 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    GRB Coordinates Network43851, 1 (2026)

    Bissaldi, E., Roberts, O.J., Veres, P., von Kienlin, A.: GRB 260226A: Fermi GBM 34 Observation. GRB Coordinates Network43851, 1 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Astrophys

    Ackermann, M.,et al.: Fermi Observations of GRB 090510: A Short Hard Gamma- Ray Burst with an Additional, Hard Power-Law Component from 10 keV to GeV Energies. Astrophys. J.716, 1178–1190 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/716/2/1178

    2010

  41. [41]

    GRB Coordinates Network 43844, 1 (2026)

    Depalo, D., Bissaldi, E., Zhu, S., Gupta, R., Racusin, J.L., Longo, F.: GRB 260226A: Fermi-LAT Detection of a Bright Burst. GRB Coordinates Network 43844, 1 (2026)

    2026

  42. [42]

    GRB Coordinates Network43878, 1 (2026)

    Reguitti, A., D’Avanzo, P., Malesani, D., Tomasella, L., Collaboration, C.,et al.: Grb 260226a: Asiago r-band upper limit. GRB Coordinates Network43878, 1 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    GRB Coordinates Network43859, 1 (2026)

    Angulo, C., Ducoin, J.-G., Basa, S., Lee, W.H., Watson, A.M., Aguilar-Ruiz, E., Atteia, J.-L., Akl, D., Antier, S., Becerra, R.L.,et al.: Grb 260226a: Colibr ´ ı optical upper limits. GRB Coordinates Network43859, 1 (2026)

    2026

  44. [44]

    GRB Coordinates Network43858, 1 (2026)

    Strausbaugh, R., Cucchiara, A.: Grb 260226a: Lcogt optical upper limit. GRB Coordinates Network43858, 1 (2026)

    2026

  45. [45]

    IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control19, 716–723 (1974)

    Akaike, H.: A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification. IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control19, 716–723 (1974)

    1974

  46. [46]

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., Schaefer, B., Palmer, D., Teegarden, B., Cline, T., Briggs, M., Paciesas, W., Pendleton, G., Fishman, G., Kouveliotou, C., Mee- gan, C., Wilson, R., Lestrade, P.: BATSE Observations of Gamma-Ray Burst Spectra. I. Spectral Diversity. Astrophys. J.413, 281 (1993) https://doi.org/10. 1086/172995

    1993

  47. [47]

    Physics of Fluids19, 1130–1138 (1976) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.861619

    Blandford, R.D., McKee, C.F.: Fluid dynamics of relativistic blast waves. Physics of Fluids19, 1130–1138 (1976) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.861619

    doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  48. [48]

    Astrophys

    Granot, J., Sari, R.: The Shape of Spectral Breaks in Gamma-Ray Burst After- glows. Astrophys. J.568(2), 820–829 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1086/338966 arXiv:astro-ph/0108027 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  49. [49]

    Astrophys

    Katz, J.I., Piran, T.: Persistent Counterparts to Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.490(2), 772–778 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1086/304913

    doi:10.1086/304913 1997

  50. [50]

    Astrophys

    Vietri, M.: The Afterglow of Gamma-Ray Bursts: The Cases of GRB 970228 and GRB 970508. Astrophys. J.488(2), 105–108 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 310931 arXiv:astro-ph/9706060 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  51. [51]

    Madau, P., Thompson, C.: Relativistic Winds from Compact Gamma-Ray Sources. I. Radiative Acceleration in the Klein-Nishina Regime. Astrophys. J. 35 534(1), 239–247 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1086/308738 arXiv:astro-ph/9909060 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  52. [52]

    Astrophys

    M´ esz´ aros, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Rees, M.J.: e+/− Pair Cascades and Precursors in Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.554(2), 660–666 (2001) https://doi.org/10. 1086/321404 arXiv:astro-ph/0011284 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  53. [53]

    Astrophys

    Beloborodov, A.M.: Radiation Front Sweeping the Ambient Medium of Gamma- Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.565(2), 808–828 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 324195 arXiv:astro-ph/0103321 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  54. [54]

    Astrophys

    Beloborodov, A.M.: Afterglow Emission from Pair-loaded Blast Waves in Gamma- Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.627(1), 346–367 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1086/ 430166 arXiv:astro-ph/0503049 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  55. [55]

    Oganesyan, G., Sharan Salafia, O., Sobacchi, E., Macera, S., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ierardi, A., Banerjee, B., Mei, A., Ascenzi, S., Branchesi, M.: MeV absorption in gamma-ray bursts as a probe of their progenitor environments. Astron. Astrophys.710, 37 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202659042 arXiv:2601.14393 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    submitted to A&A (2026)

    Salafia, O., Celotti, A., Sobacchi, E., Nava, L., Oganesyan, G., Ghirlanda, G., Boula, S., Ravasio, M.E., Ghisellini, G.: A self-consistent explanation of the MeV line in GRB 221009A unveils a dense circum-stellar medium. submitted to A&A (2026)

    2026

  57. [57]

    Science385(6707), 452–455 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj3638 arXiv:2303.16223 [astro-ph.HE]

    Ravasio, M.E., Salafia, O.S., Oganesyan, G., Mei, A., Ghirlanda, G., Ascenzi, S., Banerjee, B., Macera, S., Branchesi, M., Jonker, P.G., Levan, A.J., Malesani, D.B., Mulrey, K.B., Giuliani, A., Celotti, A., Ghisellini, G.: A mega-electron volt emission line in the spectrum of a gamma-ray burst. Science385(6707), 452–455 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/scie...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    A space mission for MeV-GeV gamma-ray astrophysics

    de Angelis, A., Tatischeff, V., Grenier, I.A., McEnery, J., Mallamaci, M., Tavani, M., Oberlack, U., Hanlon, L., Walter, R., Argan, A., von Ballmoos, P., Bulgarelli, A., Bykov, A., Hernanz, M., Kanbach, G., Kuvvetli, I., Pearce, M., Zdziarski, A., Conrad, J., Ghisellini, G., Harding, A., Isern, J., Leising, M., Longo, F., Made- jski, G., Martinez, M., Maz...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Astroparticle Physics174, 103171 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2025.103171 arXiv:2507.19958 [astro-ph.IM]

    Aloisio, R., Atalay, U., Banerjee, B., Barbato, F.C.T., Bissaldi, E., Branchesi, M., Capitanio, F., Casilli, E., Colalillo, R., De Mitri, I., De Santis, A., Di Giovanni, A., Alonso, M.F., Fontanella, G., Gargano, F., Garufi, F., Guarino, F., Kyratzis, D., Lima, H., Loparco, F., Longo, F., Martinelli, R., Montaruli, T., Oganesyan, G., Rico, J., Santoliquid...

    arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    GRB Coordinates Network43850, 1 (2026)

    Depalo, D., Bissaldi, E., Holzmann Airasca, A., Gupta, R., Longo, F., Lopez, S., Martinelli, R., Racusin, J.L.: GRB 260226A: Fermi-LAT Refined Analysis. GRB Coordinates Network43850, 1 (2026)

    2026

  61. [61]

    In: Jacoby, G.H., Barnes, J

    Arnaud, K.A.: XSPEC: The First Ten Years. In: Jacoby, G.H., Barnes, J. (eds.) Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, vol. 101, p. 17 (1996)

    1996

  62. [62]

    Astrophys

    Atwood, W.B., Abdo, A.A., Ackermann, M.,et al.: The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope Mission. Astrophys. J.697, 1071–1102 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  63. [63]

    https://github.com/ 37 LudovicoAlt/py3

    De Santis, A.L.: Orbital Subtraction Tool - GBM (2024). https://github.com/ 37 LudovicoAlt/py3

    2024

  64. [64]

    https: //arxiv.org/abs/1111.3779

    Fitzpatrick, G., Connaughton, V., McBreen, S., Tierney, D.: Uncovering low- level Fermi/GBM emission using orbital background subtraction (2011). https: //arxiv.org/abs/1111.3779

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  65. [65]

    Astrophys

    Cash, W.: Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likeli- hood ratio. Astrophys. J.228, 939–947 (1979) https://doi.org/10.1086/156922

    doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  66. [66]

    Sociological Methods & Research 33(2), 261–304 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644

    Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R.: Multimodel inference: Understand- ing aic and bic in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research 33(2), 261–304 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644

    doi:10.1177/0049124104268644 2004

  67. [67]

    PASP125(925), 306 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1086/670067 arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D.W., Lang, D., Goodman, J.: emcee: The MCMC Hammer. PASP125(925), 306 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1086/670067 arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    Astrophys

    Beloborodov, A.M.: Optical and GeV-TeV Flashes from Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.618(1), 13–16 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1086/427627 arXiv:astro- ph/0410050 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2005

  69. [69]

    Astrophys

    Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z., M´ esz´ aros, P.: GeV-TeV and X-Ray Flares from Gamma- Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.641(2), 89–92 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1086/504151 arXiv:astro-ph/0601229 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  70. [70]

    Fan, Y., Piran, T.: Sub-GeV flashes inγ-ray burst afterglows as probes of underlying bright far-ultraviolet flares. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.370(1), 24–28 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00181.x arXiv:astro- ph/0601619 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2006

  71. [71]

    Fan, Y.-Z., Piran, T., Narayan, R., Wei, D.-M.: High-energy afterglow emission from gamma-ray bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.384(4), 1483–1501 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12765.x arXiv:0704.2063 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  72. [72]

    Kumar, P., Smoot, G.F.: Some implications of inverse-Compton scattering of hot cocoon radiation by relativistic jets in gamma-ray bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.445(1), 528–543 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu1638 arXiv:1402.2656 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  73. [73]

    Astrophys

    Kimura, S.S., Murase, K., Ioka, K., Kisaka, S., Fang, K., M´ esz´ aros, P.: Upscat- tered Cocoon Emission in Short Gamma-Ray Bursts as High-energy Gamma-Ray Counterparts to Gravitational Waves. Astrophys. J.887(1), 16 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab59e1 arXiv:1910.13277 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    Zhang, H., Christie, I.M., Petropoulou, M., Rueda-Becerril, J.M., Giannios, D.: Inverse Compton signatures of gamma-ray burst afterglows. Mon. Not. R. 38 Astron. Soc.496(1), 974–986 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa1583 arXiv:1910.14049 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    Astrophys

    Abramowicz, M.A., Novikov, I.D., Paczynski, B.: The Appearance of Highly Rel- ativistic, Spherically Symmetric Stellar Winds. Astrophys. J.369, 175 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1086/169748

    doi:10.1086/169748 1991

  76. [76]

    Ap&SS79(2), 321–336 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00649428

    Aharonian, F.A., Atoyan, A.M.: Compton Scattering of Relativistic Electrons in Compact X-Ray Sources. Ap&SS79(2), 321–336 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00649428

    1981

  77. [77]

    Gamma-ray bursts: a probe of multi-messenger and extreme Astrophysics

    Brunetti, G.: Anisotropic inverse Compton scattering from the trans-relativistic to the ultra-relativistic regime and application to the radio galaxies. Astroparticle Physics13(1), 107–125 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-6505(99)00102-4 arXiv:astro-ph/9908236 [astro-ph] Declarations Author information statement.Correspondence and requests for materia...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000