Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Can GRB Empirical Correlations Be Used for Population Studies?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Even in idealized selection-free simulations, empirical GRB correlations cannot recover the GRB rate.

desk verdict Solid controlled simulation showing direct pseudo-redshift inversion is biased, but the abstract's population-level conclusion overreaches what the tests actually cover. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16192 v1 pith:2BEG5IEM submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.HE

Emre S. Yorgancioglu , Yun-Fei Du , Shu-Xu Yi , Shuang-Nan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsGRBratepseudo-redshiftYonetokurelation3DDainottiL-T-Ecorrelationredshiftinferencepopulationstudies
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

Gamma-ray bursts with measured redshifts are rare, so several empirical correlations—between spectral peak energy and luminosity (the Yonetoku relation) and between X-ray plateau luminosity, prompt luminosity or energy, and plateau duration (the 3D Dainotti and $L$–$T$–$E$ relations)—have been used to assign pseudo-redshifts and then study the GRB population. This paper tests whether that population-level use can work, even under the idealized assumption that the correlations are intrinsic and free of detector selection biases. The authors generate a synthetic catalog of 4000 bursts with known true redshifts, invert each correlation to infer pseudo-redshifts, and compare the inferred redshift distribution and GRB rate $\Psi_{\mathrm{GRB}}$ with the input values. For all three correlations and every width of the intrinsic redshift distribution, the inferred distribution is statistically incompatible with the true one in a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p-value effectively zero), with rate errors at $z=0$ growing from a factor $\sim 2$ for the Yonetoku relation to $\sim 10$ and $\sim 100$ for the 3D Dainotti and $L$–$T$–$E$ relations. The paper concludes that empirical GRB correlations alone cannot serve as reliable distance indicators, for individual bursts or for population studies.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parametric redshift locus $Y(z; E_{p,o}, f_\gamma) = (L_{p,z}(z), E_{p,z}(z))$ for the Yonetoku relation, together with the analogous $D(z; T^*_{a,o}, f_x, f_\gamma)$ and $L(z; S_\gamma, T^*_{a,o}, f_x)$ curves for the 3D Dainotti and $L$–$T$–$E$ correlations. Each observer-frame observation defines one such curve, and the inferred pseudo-redshift is the point where that curve intersects the best-fit correlation plane. The appendix shows these curves rise steeply at low redshift, so their roots concentrate at $z\lesssim1$, especially for bursts whose true X-ray luminosity lies above the plane. This intersection-plus-Kolmogorov-Smirnov machinery carries the negative result: the distribution of intersections is compared with the injected true distribution, and that comparison fails for every tested width.

What would settle it

Construct the same synthetic population and fit a full forward generative model that treats the correlation plane, intrinsic scatter, luminosity function, and selection function as latent variables and marginalizes over them; if the posterior for $\Psi_{\mathrm{GRB}}$ contains the injected value while the per-burst $z_i$ remain biased, then the blanket claim that the correlations cannot serve population studies is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no empirical GRB correlation can recover the redshift distribution needed for population studies, even when the correlation is assumed intrinsic and no selection effects are included. In the mock catalog, each inferred pseudo-redshift $z_i$ is set by tracing the parametric curve $Y(z; E_{p,o}, f_\gamma)$ (or the analogous $D$ and $L$ curves for the 3D Dainotti and $L$–$T$–$E$ planes) and taking its intersection with the best-fit correlation plane. For the Yonetoku relation the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic against the true redshifts is 0.13–0.20 across the tested widths; for 3D Dainotti it is 0.23–0.26 and for $L$–$T$–$E$ it is 0.26–0.30, all with p-values effectively zero. Many bursts yield no solution or two solutions (about 22% and 6% for 3D Dainotti; 19% and 2.5% for $L$–$T$–$E$), and inferred redshifts pile up below $z\sim1$ because the plane-intersection curves rise steeply at low redshift. The paper concludes that higher-dimensional correlations are not better distance indicators than the simpler Yonetoku relation, and that a flux-limited subsample, equivalent to a narrower intrinsic distribution, does not fix the problem.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion assumes that a population study must recover the distribution of individual pseudo-redshifts $z_i$, and the paper tests direct root-finding plus one Gaussian-likelihood variant but not a full Bayesian hierarchical forward model that could in principle recover $\Psi_{\mathrm{GRB}}$ even when individual inferred redshifts are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any published GRB rate or luminosity-function result built on pseudo-redshifts from the Yonetoku, 3D Dainotti, or $L$–$T$–$E$ correlations rests on inferred redshift distributions that this paper shows are incompatible with the true ones.
  • The failure is not a selection-effect artifact: the paper's idealized mock catalog includes no detector selection, so the problem lies in the geometry of the inversion itself.
  • Moving from the two-parameter Yonetoku relation to the three-dimensional fundamental planes makes population inference worse, not better, because of their larger scatter and steep low-redshift plane-intersection curves.
  • Population-level GRB studies should therefore move to forward modeling that fits the full data, including spectral shapes, light curves, and selection functions, rather than plugging empirical correlations into inverse redshift estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper tests direct root-finding and one Gaussian-likelihood variant that uses the true intrinsic mean and covariance, but it does not test a full Bayesian hierarchical forward model; such a model could in principle recover $\Psi_{\mathrm{GRB}}$ even when individual $z_i$ are biased, so the blanket cannot-serve conclusion is strongest against inversion-based estimators rather than against every
  • Varying the intrinsic scatter of the correlations while keeping the plane fixed would isolate whether the failure is driven by scatter or by the functional form; the current design holds scatter fixed and varies only the width of the redshift distribution.
  • The appendix's asymmetry between bursts with $L_X > L_{\rm plane}$ and $L_X < L_{\rm plane}$ suggests a possible analytic correction for the low-redshift pile-up, but the paper does not pursue one.
  • If these results hold for real data, existing pseudo-redshift catalogs contain systematically biased redshift distributions, and re-fitting published population constraints with a forward model would provide a direct observational check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper tests whether empirical GRB correlations (Yonetoku, 3D Dainotti, L-T-E) can serve as distance indicators for population studies. It generates synthetic GRB catalogs from assumed intrinsic distributions and best-fit correlation parameters, infers a pseudo-redshift for each burst by intersecting the redshift-dependent parametric locus with the correlation (or, in Section 4, by maximizing a multivariate Gaussian likelihood built from the true intrinsic mean and covariance), and compares the inferred redshift distribution and rate Psi(z) with the truth using KS tests. The simulations give statistically significant mismatches for all three correlations and all tested widths of Psi(z). The paper concludes that pseudo-redshift estimates from these correlations cannot constrain Psi_GRB and that the correlations cannot serve as reliable distance indicators at either the individual or population level.

Significance. The controlled simulation is a strength: the test is self-consistent, since synthetic bursts are generated from the same relations being inverted, and the negative result is not an artifact of unknown ground truth. The paper also explicitly separates the assumption of no selection effects. If the narrow claim (direct pseudo-redshift inversion produces biased redshift and rate distributions) is accepted, it is a useful caution to pseudo-redshift population studies. The broad population-level claim, however, is not established because the only alternatives tested are point-estimate methods; a hierarchical forward model that marginalizes over latent redshifts is not tested, despite being recommended in the discussion. The paper's strength is therefore in the controlled demonstration of the failure of root-finding and likelihood-point-estimate approaches.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, likelihood expression] The Gaussian likelihood test conditions on the true intrinsic mean vector mu and covariance matrix Sigma. A population study does not know these; they must be inferred jointly with the latent redshifts. Because the paper conditions on truth and still assigns one z_i per burst, it does not test the Bayesian hierarchical forward model it recommends. The abstract's claim that the correlations 'cannot serve as reliable distance indicators ... at the population level' is an extrapolation beyond the evidence. To support the strong claim, add a hierarchical model test or narrow the conclusion to direct pseudo-redshift methods.
  2. [Section 2, luminosity function and scatter] The claim that 'the specific form of the luminosity function does not affect the core results' is asserted but not demonstrated. The no-solution and two-solution fractions in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 and the low-redshift pile-up described in the Appendix depend on the joint distribution of (L_p, E_p,z, T_a*, L_X) and on the intrinsic scatter sigma_int. Since the conclusion is stated as holding 'regardless of the intrinsic distribution's characteristic width', the parameter coverage is too narrow: only the width parameter c of Eq. (8) is varied, not the luminosity function or the intrinsic scatter, so the generality of the population-level claim is not tested.
  3. [Section 4, Discussion and Conclusion] The paper acknowledges that 'statistically robust, population-level methodologies' might improve inference but does not implement one. This is more than a cosmetic gap because the information content of the correlations is preserved in per-burst likelihoods even when point pseudo-redshifts are biased. A forward model with latent z_i and a flexible population prior could in principle recover Psi_GRB even when individual pseudo-redshifts are poor. Without such a test, the 'unequivocal' wording in the Abstract overstates what the simulations can establish; the central claim needs either a new test or a softening.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, code availability] The Gitlab repository link in Section 2 is empty (shown as '</>'); please provide a working URL so the code can be checked.
  2. [Section 2] There is a typo: 'observ ed plateau flux' should read 'observed plateau flux'.
  3. [Appendix, Eq. (A1) and (A3)] Equation (A1) defines g(z) as -log L_X + C0 + alpha log E_iso + beta log T_a*, while Eq. (A3) and the surrounding text use g(z_true) as log L_X - log L_plane, i.e., with the opposite sign. Please make the notation consistent.
  4. [Table 1] The p-values are reported as '0.00'; since KS p-values cannot be exactly zero, report the actual bound (for example, p < 10^-6).
  5. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'where P(z) denotes the unnormalized histogram' is unclear; please specify exactly how Psi_GRB,i is computed from the histogram of z_i.
  6. [Figure 4 caption] The caption has formatting errors ('d f /dzin', 'figures 4c and 4d , respectively'); please fix them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Controlled simulation; no derivation step reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper tests pseudo-redshift inversion by constructing a synthetic GRB catalogue from the Yonetoku, 3D Dainotti, and L-T-E correlations and then attempting to recover the injected redshifts by intersecting the same best-fit relations with parametric curves. Using the same relations for generation and reconstruction is a deliberate controlled condition, not a circular reduction: if the inversion were valid, the inferred zi distribution would match zg despite the shared inputs, and the reported KS rejections are genuine failures produced by the scatter and plane-intersection geometry. The only self-citation, to Yorgancioglu et al. (2025), is used for methodology and motivation; the negative result is independently obtained from the simulation in Sections 2-3, so the citation is not load-bearing. The abstract's population-level conclusion is broader than the tested point-inversion and single likelihood-variant methods, but overbreadth is a scope/correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a controlled simulation, not new physical entities. Its central claim rests on a chain of empirical inputs from prior literature, including correlation slopes, dispersions, the luminosity function, and the redshift-rate parametrization, plus two methodological premises: that root-finding intersections define the pseudo-redshift and that direct reconstruction of zg is the only valid population use. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Yonetoku relation slope and intercept = a_Y = 0.625, b_Y = -30.22
    Best-fit values from Yonetoku et al. (2010), used both to generate Ep,z and to define the pseudo-redshift inversion line in Eq. 1.
  • Intrinsic dispersion sigma_log Ep,z = 0.25
    Adopted from Ghirlanda et al. (2005); controls scatter in the Yonetoku simulation and is a main driver of the inferred-redshift bias.
  • Simulated luminosity function parameters = mu = 52.5, sigma = 1 in log10 Lp,z
    Chosen log-normal luminosity function for the synthetic population in Section 2.
  • 3D Dainotti plane parameters = C0 = 15.75, alpha = 0.67, beta = -0.77, sigma_int = 0.27
    Best-fit fundamental plane from Dainotti et al. (2016), used to generate LX and to define the inversion plane in Eq. 2.
  • L-T-E plane parameters = C0 = 6.0, alpha = 0.86, beta = -0.99, sigma_int = 0.36
    Best-fit fundamental plane from Deng et al. (2023), used for the L-T-E simulation in Eq. 3.
  • Redshift distribution parameters a, B, c = a = 2.7, B = 2.9, c = 5.6 baseline; c varied 4, 5, 7, 14
    Madau-Dickinson star-formation parametrization in Eq. 8, used as the underlying GRB redshift distribution, with c controlling width.
  • Swift power-law index distributions for k-correction = alpha_gamma ~ N(1.51, 0.49); beta_X ~ N(2.03, 0.45)
    Gaussian fits to Swift/BAT and Swift/XRT photon indices in Section 2, used to k-correct prompt and afterglow luminosities.
  • Flux limit for Yonetoku selection test = F_lim = 2.0e-6 erg cm^-2 s^-1
    Adopted limiting flux, one order of magnitude above Fermi's 64 ms limit, used to test a flux-limited subsample in Section 4.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The three empirical GRB correlations are intrinsic relations with log-normal intrinsic scatter, unaffected by detector selection effects.
    Stated in Sections 1 and 2: the analysis deliberately assumes the correlations are intrinsic to test the assumptions of prior pseudo-redshift studies.
  • domain assumption The simulated GRB population is described by a log-normal luminosity function and a Madau-Dickinson type redshift distribution.
    These choices generate the synthetic catalogue; the authors argue the luminosity function only changes sampling density, but the result is not proven independent of it.
  • standard math Standard flat Lambda-CDM cosmology (Planck18) with the redshift-distance relation in Eq. 6.
    Used to convert fluxes to luminosities and to construct parametric curves; it is an input from prior literature, not a new physical postulate.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-redshift is the intersection of the parametric observable curve with the best-fit correlation line.
    This root-finding prescription is the standard pseudo-redshift method being tested, not a physical axiom.
  • domain assumption k-corrections follow a single power-law spectrum with photon indices drawn from Swift-observed distributions.
    Needed for the 3D Dainotti and L-T-E observables in Eq. 14; a simplified spectral model.
  • ad hoc to paper A direct point estimate zi must match the true zg distribution for the correlations to be useful for population studies.
    The paper's broad conclusion rests on this equivalence; a forward-modeled hierarchical Bayes approach might recover Psi_GRB even if individual zi are biased. This is the weakest premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can GRB Empirical Correlations Be Used for Population Studies?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2BEG5IEM

@misc{pith2026250716192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can GRB Empirical Correlations Be Used for Population Studies?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2BEG5IEM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16192}
}
abstract

Only a small fraction of Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have independent redshift measurements, which are essential for understanding their intrinsic properties. For this reason, empirical correlations of GRBs have often been touted as useful distance indicators, for both individual GRBs as well as population studies. Building upon our previous work, we test the ability of the Yonetoku, 3D Dainotti, and the L-T-E correlation to adequately constrain the GRB rate, $\Psi_{GRB}$. Our analysis demonstrates that, even under idealized conditions that neglect substantial uncertainties, the derived redshift solutions cannot accurately constrain $\Psi_{GRB}$, regardless of the intrinsic distribution's characteristic width. We thus demonstrate unequivocally that -- notwithstanding the questionable assumption of no selection biases -- empirical GRB correlations alone cannot serve as reliable distance indicators at either the individual or population level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Redshift distribution of the simulated GRB pop￾ulation based on the parametrization of Eq. 8, with varying values of c corresponding to different widths. DL(z) = (1 + z) c H0 Z z 0 dz′ p ΩM(1 + z ′) 3 + ΩΛ . (6) We adopt the Planck18 cosmology, assuming a flat ΛCDM universe with H0 = 67.66 km s−1 Mpc−1 and ΩM = 0.3111 as reported by N. Aghanim et al. (2020). Our methodology follows the prescription of E. S. Yor￾ganc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panels (a), (c), and (e) show the normalized redshift distributions of zi (red) and zg (cyan) for c = 5.6, corre￾sponding to the Yonetoku, 3D Dainotti, and L–T–E relations, respectively. The right-hand panels (b), (d), and (f) display the corresponding GRB rate, ΨGRB,i and ΨGRB,g (scaled by a factor of 109 for visualization) for each case. The rate densities are smoothed using a Gaussian kernel density estimate. The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Normalized redshift distributions for the generated redshift zg (blue) and the inferred redshift zi (red), computed for c = 5.6. The inferred values are obtained by maximizing the multivariate Gaussian likelihood constructed from the intrinsic 3D Dainotti relation. Bottom: Corre￾sponding GRB rate densities, ΨGRB,g and ΨGRB,i, as func￾tions of redshift, scaled by a factor of 109 for visualization. As is evident … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Panels (a) and (b) plot g(z) and f(z) of 50 GRBs, respectively. Their derivatives, dg/dz and df /dz are plotted in panels (c) and (d), respectively </> [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Contributions to zi by GRBs satisfying LX > Lplane (Red) and LX < Lplane (Green). Right: Two illustrative curves L(z; Sγ, T ∗ a,o, fx) satisfying LX > Lplane (Red) and LX < Lplane (Green), with αγ = 1.51 and βγ = 2.03. The stars denote the true position of the GR…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  2. [2]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2676

    Aldowma, T., & Razzaque, S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2676

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    2008, MNRAS, 391, 577, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13943.x

    Amati, L., Guidorzi, C., Frontera, F., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 577, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13943.x

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f As...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

  5. [5]

    Atteia, J. L. 2003, A&A, 407, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030958

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030958 2003

  6. [6]

    L., & Preece, R

    Band, D. L., & Preece, R. D. 2005, Astrophys. J., 627, 319, doi: 10.1086/430402

    work page doi:10.1086/430402 2005

  7. [7]

    S., Frail, D

    Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., & Sari, R. 2001, AJ, 121, 2879, doi: 10.1086/321093

    doi:10.1086/321093 2001

  8. [8]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/148

    Dado, S., & Dar, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/148

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/148 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    2000, A&A, 358, 1157, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005193

    Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2000, A&A, 358, 1157, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005193

    2000 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    G., & Amati, L

    Dainotti, M. G., & Amati, L. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 051001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa8d7

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Cardone, V

    Dainotti, M. G., Cardone, V. F., & Capozziello, S. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 391, L79, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00560.x

    2008

  4. [12]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/135

    Ostrowski, M., & Willingale, R. 2011, ApJ, 730, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/135

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 825, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L20

    Ostrowski, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 825, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L20

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    G., Taira, E., Wang, E., et al

    Dainotti, M. G., Taira, E., Wang, E., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 22

    2024

  7. [15]

    2023, Astrophys

    Deng, C., Huang, Y.-F., & Xu, F. 2023, Astrophys. J., 943, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaefd

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2004, ApJL, 614, L13, doi: 10.1086/425310

    Eichler, D., & Levinson, A. 2004, ApJL, 614, L13, doi: 10.1086/425310

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4048

    Frontera, F. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5723, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa4048

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    L., et al

    Frederiks, D., Svinkin, D., Lysenko, A. L., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb2d3

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 360, L45, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00043.x

    Bosnjak, Z. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 360, L45, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2005.00043.x

    2005

  12. [20]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJL, 570, L61, doi: 10.1086/340991

    2002 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, Astron

    Heussaff, V., Atteia, J.-L., & Zolnierowski, Y. 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 557, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321528

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Hodges, J. L. 1958, Arkiv f¨ or Matematik, 3, 469, doi: 10.1007/BF02589501

    1958 doi

  16. [24]

    2019, Nature Communications, 10, 1504, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09281-z

    Ito, H., Matsumoto, J., Nagataki, S., et al. 2019, Nature Communications, 10, 1504, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09281-z

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2013, Astrophysical Journal, 776, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/9

    Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 776, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/9

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Dainotti, M

    Lenart, A. L., Dainotti, M. G., Khatiya, N., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16204. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.16204

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M., Petrosian, V., & Mallozzi, R

    Lloyd, N. M., Petrosian, V., & Mallozzi, R. S. 2000, ApJ, 534, 227, doi: 10.1086/308742

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    2014

  21. [29]

    P., & Bonnell, J

    Norris, J. P., & Bonnell, J. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 266, doi: 10.1086/502796 O’Connor, B., Troja, E., Ryan, G., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadi1405, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adi1405

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Shahmoradi, A., & Nemiroff, R

    Osborne, J. A., Shahmoradi, A., & Nemiroff, R. J. 2020, ApJ, 903, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb9b7

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2511

    Paul, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 3385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2511

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2005, ApJL, 625, L91, doi: 10.1086/431237

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Granot, J., Kouveliotou, C., et al. 2005, ApJL, 625, L91, doi: 10.1086/431237

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    J., & Meszaros, P

    Rees, M. J., & Meszaros, P. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 430, L93

    1994

  26. [34]

    P., Dainotti, M., et al

    Rowlinson, A., Gompertz, B. P., Dainotti, M., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 1779, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1285

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 497, L17

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 497, L17

    1998

  28. [36]

    2013, ApJL, 772, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/1/L8 11

    Tan, W.-W., Cao, X.-F., & Yu, Y.-W. 2013, ApJL, 772, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/1/L8 11

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt262

    Morihara, Y. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt262

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ec

    Wang, C.-W., Tan, W.-J., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad98ec

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Xu, M., & Huang, Y. F. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 538, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117754

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    2004, ApJL, 606, L33, doi: 10.1086/421084

    Yamazaki, R., Ioka, K., & Nakamura, T. 2004, ApJL, 606, L33, doi: 10.1086/421084

    2004 doi

  33. [41]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 609, 935, doi: 10.1086/421285

    Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Nakamura, T., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 609, 935, doi: 10.1086/421285

    2004 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 62, 1495, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.6.1495

    Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Tsutsui, R., et al. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 62, 1495, doi: 10.1093/pasj/62.6.1495

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/65

    Toyanago, A. 2014, ApJ, 789, 65, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/1/65

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    S., Du, Y.-F., Yi, S.-X., et al

    Yorgancioglu, E. S., Du, Y.-F., Yi, S.-X., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J., 981, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb712

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    2006, Nature, 444, 1010

    Zhang, B. 2006, Nature, 444, 1010

    2006

  38. [46]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1696

    Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1696

    2009 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.