Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 33 references

A Search for GeV Emission from Magnetar Giant Flare Candidates with Fermi-LAT

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper finds that six of seven nearby magnetar giant flare candidates have no detectable 0.1–10 GeV emission, and reads the silence as the predicted faintness of baryonic-poor fireball outflows.

desk verdict A genuinely new null result from a careful Fermi-LAT search, but the abstract and conclusion overstate the sample coverage for three events with zero early exposure. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06527 v1 pith:6ZAXD2WN submitted 2026-08-06 astro-ph.HE

Vikas Chand , Michela Negro , Nicola Omodei , Niccol`o Di Lalla , Eric Burns , Soebur Razzaque , Aaron C. Trigg , Giacomo Principe This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetargiantflaresFermi-LATGeVgamma-rayemissionburstsfireballmodelbaryonic-pooroutflowstackinganalysisupperlimits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether nearby extragalactic magnetar giant flares routinely emit delayed GeV gamma rays like the one seen from GRB 200415A. Searching Fermi-LAT data over $10^2$ to $10^4$ seconds after trigger for seven candidate flares, it recovers that known signal and finds no 0.1–10 GeV emission from the other six, with 95% confidence upper limits of order $10^{-9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ per event and a stacked population limit $\approx 2\times10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. For three events the earliest emission is unconstrained because the LAT had zero exposure in the shortest window. The paper interprets the silence as a prediction of the baryonic-poor fireball model: hard quasi-thermal prompt spectra imply outflows so clean that their GeV afterglows lie below current sensitivity. A model-independent photon-triplet search independently confirms that only GRB 200415A shows significant prompt GeV emission.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the relativistic fireball model of gamma-ray bursts applied to magnetar giant flares. The prompt spike's quasi-thermal peak energy $E_p$ is tied to the fireball's initial temperature, hence to its dimensionless entropy $\eta = L_0/(\dot{M} c^2)$; requiring the photosphere to lie in the acceleration phase gives $\eta > \eta_*$, where $\eta_* = (L_0\sigma_T/4\pi m_p c^3 r_0)^{1/4}$ is the critical Lorentz factor at transparency. In this baryonic-poor regime the kinetic energy of the ejecta is suppressed by the factor $\eta_*/\eta$, so the isotropic baryonic mass is bounded by $M_b^{\rm BP} = E_{\gamma,\rm iso}/(\xi_\gamma \eta_* c^2)$. Comparing this bound with the mass implied by the LAT flux, $M_b^{\rm LAT} = E_{\rm LAT,iso}/(\xi_L \eta_* c^2)$, decides whether a predicted GeV afterglow is observable. The photon-triplet waiting-time analysis provides a model-independent cross-check, using the Erlang-2 distribution of consecutive-photon intervals to flag unusually compact triplets.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be the detection of a 0.1–10 GeV counterpart from any of the six non-detected candidates at a flux above the baryonic-poor prediction, using longer exposure or a more sensitive instrument, especially covering the unobserved early epochs (GRBs 180128A, 120616A, and 200423A first enter the LAT field of view at about 148 s, 1447 s, and 619 s). Alternatively, establishing that one of the five 'quasi-thermal' candidates has a non-thermal prompt spectrum, for instance a low-energy index $\alpha \leq -2/3$ with high confidence, would remove the baryonic-poor constraint and invalidate the predicted faintness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a null result with a physical interpretation. Among seven nearby extragalactic magnetar giant flare (MGF) candidates selected from Fermi-GBM data, only GRB 200415A shows delayed GeV emission; the other six yield no significant detection in post-trigger windows spanning $10^2$ to $10^4$ seconds. Individual 95% confidence upper limits on the 0.1–10 GeV energy flux are of order $10^{-9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, and the stacked population-averaged limit is $\approx 2\times10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. For the five candidates with hard quasi-thermal prompt spectra, the baryonic-poor fireball condition $\eta > \eta_*$ restricts the ejecta mass to $M_b \lesssim 1$\textendash$4\times10^{22}$ g; since the LAT limits correspond to much larger allowed masses, the non-detections are naturally explained by intrinsically faint afterglows rather than by insufficient exposure alone. GRB 200415A, by contrast, requires a baryonic load near the critical value $\eta\sim\eta_*$, consistent with a marginally baryonic-poor outflow.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hard, quasi-thermal prompt spectra of five candidates really do come from baryonic-poor fireballs obeying $E_p \propto E_{\rm iso}^{1/4}$; if any of those events instead produces its prompt emission by non-thermal processes, the derived mass limits and the conclusion that their GeV afterglows are too faint to detect no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GeV afterglows from magnetar giant flares are not a common feature: one of seven candidates shows one, and the stacked limit places the population average more than an order of magnitude below the measured GRB 200415A flux.
  • The five baryonic-poor candidates have predicted GeV afterglows below Fermi-LAT sensitivity, so detecting them would require larger effective area or longer exposures than the current instrument provides.
  • GRB 200415A sits near the critical regime $\eta\sim\eta_*$, implying that a detectable GeV afterglow needs a finely tuned baryon load: clean enough for a high-$E_p$ prompt spike, yet loaded enough to power a shock.
  • The two candidates whose spectral indices allow a non-thermal prompt origin (GRBs 200423A and 231024A) may be baryonic-rich; their non-detections are consistent with late LAT exposure or low isotropic energy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If baryonic-poor outflows are the norm, MGF GeV afterglows are intrinsically rare, and the single detection among seven suggests that current instruments see only the bright end; instruments with larger effective area could test this by pushing below the $\sim 2\times10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ stacked limit.
  • Four of the seven flares come from the same host galaxy, NGC 253, and likely the same magnetar; the fact that only the most energetic of them produced GeV emission hints that GeV brightness tracks isotropic energy, a trend that future flares from that galaxy could confirm or refute.
  • The photon-triplet analysis shows that a single compact triplet is weak evidence once trials are accounted for: GRB 231024A's best triplet drops to $1.9\sigma$ after a Bonferroni correction, so future transient searches should fix the search window a priori rather than scan for the most compact triplet.
  • If the non-thermal interpretation for GRBs 200423A and 231024A is correct, their GeV silence may reflect magnetic dissipation of energy during the prompt phase rather than low baryon mass; measuring prompt-to-afterglow efficiency in such events would distinguish the two channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic Fermi-LAT search for GeV (0.1–10 GeV) emission from seven nearby extragalactic magnetar giant flare (MGF) candidates, using unbinned likelihood analyses in 10^2, 10^3, and 10^4 s post-trigger windows, 500 s SED scans, a stacked-likelihood analysis, and a photon-triplet waiting-time search. The authors recover the known delayed GeV signal from GRB 200415A (TS ~ 25 in the 10^3 s window, hard spectrum Γ ≈ −1.7) and report non-detections with 95% C.L. upper limits of order 10^-9 erg cm^-2 s^-1 for the other six candidates, with a stacked limit of about 2×10^-10 erg cm^-2 s^-1 over the events with LAT exposure. They explicitly note that GRBs 180128A, 120616A, and 200423A have zero exposure in the 10^2 s window, with first exposures at about 148, 1447, and 619 s, so their earliest emission is unconstrained. In the fireball interpretation, the quasi-thermal prompt spectra imply baryon-poor outflows (η > η*), limiting ejecta mass to about 1–4×10^22 g for the fainter candidates; the LAT upper limits are weaker than these baryonic mass limits, which the authors argue makes the non-detections a natural expectation rather than evidence against the model.

Significance. The central observational result—a clean, multi-method null for a rare class of transients—is valuable and appears methodologically sound. The analysis follows standard Fermi-LAT procedures (P8R3 event classes, 12-degree ROI, profile-likelihood upper limits with fixed Γ = −2), and the consistency across four independent tests (likelihood, SED, stacking, triplet) strengthens confidence in the non-detections. The photon-time scramble used to compute trials-corrected triplet probabilities is a thoughtful treatment of the look-elsewhere effect, especially for the four NGC 253 events sharing one sky position. If the result holds, it provides the first population-level LAT constraints on MGF GeV afterglows and sharpens the exceptionality of GRB 200415A. The main limitations are the small sample and the exposure gaps for three events, which narrow the scope of the astrophysical interpretation; these are acknowledged in the text but should be reflected more consistently in the headline and concluding claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, §5, Table 2] The concluding claim that the lack of GeV counterparts in the broader population is "a natural prediction of the baryonic-poor fireball model rather than an observational limitation alone" is not supported for three of the six non-detected candidates. As Table 2 reports, GRBs 180128A, 120616A, and 200423A have zero exposure in the 10^2 s window and first LAT exposures at about 148, 1447, and 619 s, respectively. The GeV signal of GRB 200415A peaked at roughly 19–380 s (Section 1), so for these three events the most relevant epoch is entirely unobserved. GRB 200423A has E_iso = 8.5×10^45 erg (Table 1), comparable to GRB 200415A; a 200415A-like early afterglow would be missed. The model conclusion can be drawn only for the subset with meaningful early-time LAT coverage (principally the quasi-thermal candidates GRBs 081213A and 231115A); for the other three non-detections the data cannot distinguish baryonic-poor suppression from lack of exposure. Please qualify the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  2. [§2.2, §4, Figure 1] The stacked-likelihood upper limit of about 2×10^-10 erg cm^-2 s^-1 is computed from individual likelihoods over heterogeneous GTIs (Equation 1). For the 10^3 s window the stacked events include GRB 200423A with only about 380 s of coverage beginning at 619 s and GRB 180128A with coverage beginning at 148 s; for the 10^2 s window only two events effectively contribute. The abstract and Section 4 should therefore state explicitly that the stacked limit applies to the population-averaged flux during the observed intervals, not to the full 10^2–10^4 s post-trigger range. Without this qualification, the comparison with GRB 200415A's flux, which is measured over a fully covered window, is not apples-to-apples.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3] There is a typo in the sentence about cross-contamination: "photons from one flare may spuriously appear as appear as delayed triplets" should read "may spuriously appear as delayed triplets".
  2. [Abstract] The abstract contains the literal LaTeX control sequence "\chng{a waiting time}"; this should be rendered as plain text such as "a waiting-time analysis".
  3. [Table 4] M_b^(BP) entries are listed for GRBs 200423A and 231024A even though Section 4 states that the baryonic-poor requirement η > η* is not enforced for these two events; the table should mark these entries as not applicable or add a clear footnote explaining that the baryonic-poor limit does not apply under the non-thermal prompt interpretation.
  4. [Table 1] For GRB 081213A the reference is given as Bissaldi & von Kienlin (2008), which is a GCN circular; please verify whether the E_p, α, and E_iso values in Table 1 come from that circular or from a later spectral analysis (e.g., Trigg et al. 2024/2026), and cite the appropriate source.
  5. [Figure 2] The caption says the stacked SED combines the four non-detected events with LAT exposure in the 500 s interval, but the four events are not named; please list them explicitly for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GeV search is independent of the fireball model, which enters only as a post-hoc interpretation.

full rationale

The central measurement — the absence of GeV emission from six MGF candidates and the recovery of GRB 200415A — is obtained from standard Fermi-LAT unbinned likelihood, stacking, and photon-triplet analyses; none of these use the fireball model as an input. The upper limits in Table 2 are profile-likelihood values with a fixed photon index, derived directly from LAT exposure and counts. The fireball interpretation in Section 4 is applied after the fact: prompt E_gamma,iso and Ep values from GBM literature determine eta* and the baryonic-poor upper bound M_b^(BP), and the LAT ULs are separately converted to M_b^(LAT) under an assumed GeV efficiency. The comparison M_b^(BP) << M_b^(LAT) is a consistency check, not a fit to the GeV data, so the statement that faint GeV afterglows are a natural prediction of the baryonic-poor model is not equivalent to the input. The paper does rely on the authors' own Trigg et al. (2026) for the candidate list and the Ep-Eiso scaling, but this is a normal, non-circular use of prior published work: the GeV measurements would stand even if the candidates were later reclassified, and the scaling is also attributed to external work (Zhang et al. 2020). The explicit concession that three events (GRBs 180128A, 120616A, and 200423A) have zero early exposure and that their earliest emission is unconstrained is a scope limitation, not a circular step. No equation in the derivation reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central null result rests only on standard LAT methodology and public data. The model interpretation adds three hand-picked parameters (xi_gamma, xi_L, r0) and a quasi-thermal interpretation of the prompt spectra; none are fitted to the GeV data. The paper quantifies sensitivity to xi_gamma and r0, so the burden is modest and transparent.

free parameters (3)
  • Prompt radiative efficiency xi_gamma = 0.3 (fiducial)
    Section 4 uses L0 = L_gamma,iso/xi_gamma to set the fireball luminosity; varying xi_gamma from 0.1 to 1 changes the baryonic mass limits by factors 2.28 down to 0.41.
  • GeV-band radiative efficiency xi_L = 0.1 (fiducial)
    Section 4 converts the LAT energy upper limit into a mass limit via M_b(LAT) = E_LAT/(xi_L eta* c^2); the choice is conservative but unconstrained by data.
  • Initial fireball radius r0 = 10^6 cm
    Section 4 assumes r0 = 10^6 cm in the fireball temperature and eta* expressions; varying from 10 to 15 km changes results by about 10 percent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The prompt spectral peak energy of these MGFs follows Ep proportional to Eiso^(1/4), implying baryon-poor outflows (eta > eta*) for quasi-thermal events.
    Section 4 uses this scaling, citing Zhang et al. (2020) and Trigg et al. (2026), to classify five candidates as baryonic-poor and derive M_b(BP). If the scaling is wrong, these mass limits do not apply.
  • domain assumption The fireball model with r0 = 10^6 cm, xi_gamma = 0.3, and xi_L = 0.1 describes MGF outflows.
    Section 4 derives T0, eta*, and mass limits from these parameters; the paper varies xi_gamma and r0 and finds the conclusions robust to factor about 2.3 changes, but the model itself is imported from Ioka et al. (2005) and Nakar et al. (2005).
  • domain assumption The host galaxy coordinates adopted in Table 1 are the true positions of the MGFs.
    The ROIs and photon selections center on these coordinates; if any association is incorrect, the search would miss the counterpart. Associations come from prior literature.
  • domain assumption Any GeV emission is powered by baryonic kinetic energy in the external shock.
    Section 4 assumes the LAT band luminosity is a fraction xi_L of the fireball baryonic kinetic energy; alternative mechanisms such as magnetic reconnection would invalidate the M_b(LAT) conversion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Search for GeV Emission from Magnetar Giant Flare Candidates with Fermi-LAT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ZAXD2WN

@misc{pith2026260806527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Search for GeV Emission from Magnetar Giant Flare Candidates with Fermi-LAT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ZAXD2WN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06527}
}
abstract

The discovery of delayed GeV emission from the extragalactic magnetar giant flare (MGF) GRB 200415A, located in the nearby Sculptor galaxy, revealed for the first time that these rare transients can launch relativistic outflows that power high-energy afterglows. Motivated by the recent identification of additional nearby MGF candidates in the archival data of the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, we conduct a search for GeV counterparts with the Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT). We analysed post-trigger time intervals taken in the range $10^{2}$--$10^{4}$\,s using a maximum-likelihood approach and performed a stacking analysis of all candidates with LAT coverage. In addition, we searched for photon triplets through \chng{a waiting time} analysis to identify events potentially associated with MGFs. We recover the known delayed signal from GRB\,200415A but find no GeV emission from the remaining six candidates. For three events, the earliest emission is unconstrained because the $10^{2}$\,s interval contains zero exposure after standard selections. For the events with LAT coverage, we obtain upper limits at 95\% confidence level of order $F_E \sim 10^{-9}\,\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ for the individual events, and a stacked population-averaged limit of $\approx2\times10^{-10}\,\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$. We interpret these upper limits within the relativistic fireball framework, where the prompt spectral peaks favor a baryonic-poor regime ($\eta > \eta_*$). For the candidates with hard prompt spectrum and early LAT coverage, the baryonic-poor condition restricts the mass of relativistic ejecta to $M_b \lesssim 1\text{--}4 \times 10^{22}$\,g; the LAT upper limits confirm that the predicted GeV afterglow from such clean outflows falls below current instrumental sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. displays the photon flux as a function of the integration time window δT for the full sample. Cir￾cles denote the detection of GRB 200415A, while in￾verted triangles represent ULs for the remaining can￾didates. The TS maps (generated with and without a point source at the host position) reveal no signifi￾cant excesses beyond GRB 200415A at the target po￾sitions (Figure A1). The individual 500 s SEDs also yield only … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SED constraints in a 500 s post-trigger inter￾val. Downward arrows indicate 95% C.L. ULs in each energy bin from the profile-likelihood scans with the index fixed to Γ = −2. The stacked limits combine the four non-detected events included in the 500 s stack; GRB 200415A is shown for reference but excluded from the stacking. of GeV emission from these events. We note, how￾ever, that for three of the six non-detected … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Photon-triplet analysis at the MGF posi￾tions. Top: distribution of the triplet time interval ∆t for consecutive-photon triplets at NGC 253 (8375 triplets over 17 yr), with (green) and without (dashed) the cor￾rection for Fermi–LAT orbit and field-of-view gaps, com￾pared to the distribution expected for independent Pois￾son events (solid black; Erlang-2). The correction shifts the distribution toward the expected fo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac6751 2022

  2. [2]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

    Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., Axelsson, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e 2019

  3. [3]

    2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.3514, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1303.3514

    Atwood, W., Albert, A., Baldini, L., et al. 2013, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.3514, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1303.3514

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1303.3514 2013

  4. [4]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

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

  5. [5]

    H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LAT collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.12546

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12546 2023

  6. [6]

    2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 8668, 1

    Bissaldi, E., & von Kienlin, A. 2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 8668, 1

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    H., Digel, S

    Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Digel, S. W., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.11394, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1810.11394

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.11394 2018

  8. [8]

    C., Gupta, R., et al

    Chand, V., Joshi, J. C., Gupta, R., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 236, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/236 Fermi-LAT Collaboration, Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 385, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01287-8 Fermi Science Support Development Team. 2019, Fermitools: Fermi Science Tools, Astrophysics Source Code ...

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/236 2021

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    M., Kouveliotou, C., Gelfand, J

    Gaensler, B. M., Kouveliotou, C., Gelfand, J. D., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1104, doi: 10.1038/nature03498

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Lyubarsky, Y

    Gelfand, J. D., Lyubarsky, Y. E., Eichler, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 634, L89, doi: 10.1086/498643

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    B., et al

    Granot, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 391, doi: 10.1086/497680

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    1999, Nature, 397, 41, doi: 10.1038/16199

    Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E., et al. 1999, Nature, 397, 41, doi: 10.1038/16199

    1999 doi

  5. [13]

    2005, ApJ, 633, 1013, doi: 10.1086/466514

    Ioka, K., Razzaque, S., Kobayashi, S., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1013, doi: 10.1086/466514

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    1983, ApJ, 272, 317, doi: 10.1086/161295

    Li, T.-P., & Ma, Y.-Q. 1983, ApJ, 272, 317, doi: 10.1086/161295

    1983 doi

  8. [16]

    2006, MNRAS, 367, 1594, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10069.x

    Lyutikov, M. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1594, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10069.x

    2006

  9. [17]

    R., Bertsch, D

    Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, ApJ, 461, 396, doi: 10.1086/177068

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Golentskii, S

    Mazets, E. P., Golentskii, S. V., Ilinskii, V. N., Aptekar, R. L., & Guryan, I. A. 1979, Nature, 282, 587, doi: 10.1038/282587a0

    1979 doi

  11. [19]

    N., et al

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

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    2005, ApJ, 635, 516, doi: 10.1086/497296

    Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2005, ApJ, 635, 516, doi: 10.1086/497296

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1388953, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1388953

    Negro, M., Younes, G., Wadiasingh, Z., et al. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1388953, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1388953

    2024

  14. [22]

    S., Dom ´ ınguez, A., Ajello, M., Franckowiak, A., & Hartmann, D

    Paliya, V. S., Dom ´ ınguez, A., Ajello, M., Franckowiak, A., & Hartmann, D. 2019, ApJL, 882, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab398a

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., et al

    Palmer, D. M., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1107, doi: 10.1038/nature03525

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    D., Briggs, M

    Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., Mallozzi, R. S., et al. 1998, ApJL, 506, L23, doi: 10.1086/311644

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, A&A, 675, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346492

    Principe, G., Di Venere, L., Negro, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346492

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, Nature, 589, 211, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03076-9

    Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., Hurley, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 589, 211, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03076-9

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Burns, E., Roberts, O

    Trigg, A. C., Burns, E., Roberts, O. J., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348858

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Stewart, R., Van Kooten, A., et al

    Trigg, A. C., Stewart, R., Van Kooten, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A323, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452268

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Burns, E., Negro, M., et al

    Trigg, A. C., Burns, E., Negro, M., et al. 2026, A&A, 710, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558217

    2026 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, gtburst: Release for Zenodo, 02-01-03, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.59783

    Vianello, G. 2016, gtburst: Release for Zenodo, 02-01-03, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.59783

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06996, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06996

    Xing, Y., Yu, W., Yan, Z., Zhang, X., & Zhang, B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06996, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06996

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 899, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba745

    Yang, J., Chand, V., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 899, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba745

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    2020, ApJL, 903, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc2c9 GeV Emission Search in Magnetar Giant Flares13 16° 14° 12° 10° 8° -22° -24° -26° -28° -30° R.A

    Zhang, H.-M., Liu, R.-Y., Zhong, S.-Q., & Wang, X.-Y. 2020, ApJL, 903, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc2c9 GeV Emission Search in Magnetar Giant Flares13 16° 14° 12° 10° 8° -22° -24° -26° -28° -30° R.A. (J2000) Decl. (J2000) without GRB200415A in model J0037.2-2653 J0038.2-2459...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.