Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Heavy Axions Can Disrupt $\gamma$-ray Bursts

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that heavy axion-like particles produced in the hot fireball of a gamma-ray burst would carry so much energy away that the fireball could never re-form, and that the bright bursts we do see therefore place a leading…

desk verdict Interesting mechanism, but the assumed fireball temperature is unphysical and kills the headline constraint. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08978 v1 pith:55NOXTLX submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COhep-ph

Oindrila Ghosh , Sunniva Jacobsen , Tim Linden This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords axion-likeparticlesgamma-rayburstsfireballmodelphotonfusionALP-photoncouplingheavyaxionsshort
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

This paper aims to show that a class of hypothetical particles—axion-like particles that couple to photons—can be produced in enormous numbers inside the hot, dense fireball that launches a gamma-ray burst. If such a particle is heavy (roughly 100 MeV to a few GeV), it escapes the fireball before decaying, carrying away a large share of the fireball's energy; the photons it later decays into are too sparse to re-thermalize into a new fireball. The consequence is that any burst containing such particles would be dimmed or suppressed entirely, so the very existence of bright gamma-ray bursts becomes a test of the particle's properties. Using existing fireball models, the paper derives a new bound on the axion-photon coupling down to about $4\times10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for axion masses between 200 MeV and 5 GeV. If the reasoning holds, gamma-ray bursts become one of the most sensitive known probes of heavy axions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the escaping ALP luminosity $L_a$, built from the thermal photon-fusion spectrum of Eq. (17), the decay length $\lambda_{a\to\gamma\gamma}$ of Eq. (21), and an integral over the fireball volume from the gravitational radius $r_s$ out to the matter-dominated radius $r_c$, including a gravitational-trapping cutoff. The comparison that decides the bound is $L_a \le \Delta\theta^2 L_{\rm iso}/2\simeq 10^{50}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, where $\Delta\theta$ is the jet opening angle and $L_{\rm iso}$ the observed isotropic-equivalent luminosity. The mechanism does its work only when the ALP Lorentz factor $\langle\gamma_a\rangle$ exceeds the fireball expansion Lorentz factor and when the decay photons are too rarefied to pair-produce.

What would settle it

Compute the fireball launch temperature $T_s$ at the gravitational radius directly from the short-GRB energy budget (total energy $E\sim10^{50}$–$10^{52}\,\mathrm{erg}$, launch radius $r_s\sim10^6\,\mathrm{cm}$). If $T_s$ comes out below about 50 MeV, then for $m_a>200$ MeV the photon-fusion rate $\propto e^{-m_a/T}$ drops by many orders of magnitude, and the predicted fireball disruption—and with it the bound—vanishes. The authors do not derive $T_s$ from the energy budget, so this single calculation would settle the reach.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that photophilic ALPs with $m_a \gtrsim 100\,\mathrm{MeV}$ are produced in the early GRB fireball primarily through photon fusion $\gamma\gamma\to a$, escape on timescales faster than the fireball expansion, and decay far outside the fireball where the photon density is too low for pair production to re-thermalize the decay products. The paper therefore argues that a bright short GRB cannot be a classical fireball if such ALPs exist with sufficient coupling, and that observations of bright bursts exclude $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ down to $\sim 4\times10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for $m_a$ in the range 200 MeV–5 GeV. The argument is made by integrating the ALP luminosity over the fireball and requiring it not to exceed the beaming-corrected intrinsic GRB luminosity $\sim 10^{50}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the fireball is born at roughly 100 MeV temperature at the gravitational radius; if the true initial temperature is a factor of a few to ten lower, the production of ALPs above 200 MeV is exponentially suppressed and the claimed high-mass constraint disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a photophilic ALP with coupling above the exclusion contour exists, no classical fireball can produce a bright GRB; observed bursts would be absent or severely dimmed.
  • The bound reaches $g_{a\gamma\gamma}\sim 4\times10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for $m_a\simeq 200\,\mathrm{MeV}$–$5\,\mathrm{GeV}$, making GRBs a leading astrophysical probe in that mass window.
  • The constraint applies only to ALPs with negligible electron coupling; leptophilic ALPs decay back to $e^\pm$ inside the fireball and re-thermalize, leaving the fireball intact.
  • The threshold is luminosity-dependent: observed bursts with higher intrinsic luminosity would be disrupted by even lower couplings, so the brightest short GRBs carry the strongest exclusion power.
  • If the mechanism holds, measuring the prompt emission of short GRBs provides a direct, parameter-free way to probe axion masses up to the fireball temperature scale, roughly the GeV range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same energy-loss budget could be applied to other hot, compact photon-lepton plasmas, such as supernova shock breakouts or magnetar giant flares; those environments could extend the exclusion region to different ALP mass windows.
  • Because the production rate is exponentially sensitive to $m_a/T$, the high-mass end of the bound acts as a thermometer for the fireball launch temperature; pinning down $T_s$ from the GRB energy budget would sharpen or remove the claims above 200 MeV.
  • The escaping ALPs' decay photons, though too diffuse to re-thermalize, should still appear as delayed GeV emission around bright bursts; a targeted search in archival gamma-ray data could provide an independent confirmation of the same parameter space.
  • A natural statistical extension would treat the full observed distribution of short-GRB luminosities rather than a single threshold; a population-level analysis could push the excluded couplings lower or reveal a deficit of the brightest bursts if the mechanism is real.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that photophilic axion-like particles (ALPs) produced via photon fusion in the hot, radiation-dominated phase of a short GRB fireball can escape the outflow before decaying, carrying away enough energy to prevent the fireball from becoming the standard relativistic jet. The authors compute ALP production rates from inverse decay and Primakoff processes, apply decay-length and gravitational-trapping corrections, and compare the resulting ALP luminosity with the beaming-corrected gamma-ray luminosity of short GRBs. They conclude that bright GRBs exclude g_aγγ down to ~4e-12 GeV^-1 for ALP masses between 200 MeV and 5 GeV, which would be among the strongest astrophysical constraints in that mass window.

Significance. The paper identifies a potentially interesting new ALP production channel and sets up the rate equations in a transparent way. If the constraints were robust, they would complement supernova and laboratory bounds in a mass range that is otherwise difficult to probe. The manuscript explicitly lists limitations and presents a useful comparison with existing constraints in Fig. 4. However, the headline numerical reach in mass is an exponential function of an assumed initial fireball temperature that is not derived from the GRB energy budget, and the luminosity threshold used for the constraint is not rigorously tied to the condition for fireball disruption. As stated, the significance of the central quantitative claim is therefore not established.

major comments (2)
  1. [II.C, Eq. (3)] The assumed initial temperature T_s ≈ O(100 MeV) at r_s is not derived from the GRB energy budget. For a radiation-dominated fireball at r_s = 8.86e5 cm, the relation E_iso ≈ (4π/3) r_s^3 a T_s^4 (with the beaming factor cancelling when conical volume and E_iso are used consistently) gives T_s ≈ 20–70 MeV for E_iso = 1e50–1e52 erg, not 300 MeV. Since the photon-fusion spectrum in Eq. (17) contains the Boltzmann factor e^{-E_a/T}, a reduction from ~300 MeV to ~40 MeV suppresses the production rate at m_a = 200 MeV by e^{-5} ≈ 7e-3 and at m_a = 1 GeV by e^{-25} ≈ 1e-11. This erodes the claimed constraint in the 200 MeV–5 GeV range and moves the effective upper mass reach close to the temperature scale. The authors should either derive T_s from a specific central-engine model or restrict the conclusions to masses for which the production rate is robust to the uncertainty in T_s.
  2. [IV.A] The constraint threshold L_a ≤ Δθ^2 L_iso/2 ≈ 10^50 erg/s is the beaming-corrected gamma-ray luminosity, but the physical condition for disrupting the fireball is that the ALP energy loss exceed the total energy content of the fireball, not merely the observed gamma-ray luminosity. If the radiative efficiency is low, an ALP luminosity between the gamma-ray luminosity and the total jet power would dim but not necessarily destroy the fireball. Please justify why the gamma-ray luminosity is the correct reference scale, or state the implied radiative-efficiency assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III.C, Eq. (19)] The gravitational-trapping step function Θ(E_a - m_a - 2GM m_a/r_c^2) has a units error: 2GM/r_c^2 is an acceleration, not an energy, so the argument inside Θ is not dimensionally an energy. Since the correction is stated to be negligible, the main result is unaffected, but the formula should be corrected.
  2. [Abstract and V] The abstract and conclusions quote the constraint for m_a up to 5 GeV, while Table I and the figures show explicit results only up to 1 GeV; please clarify which masses are actually computed.
  3. [II.C and IV.A] The text states T_s ≈ O(100 MeV) in Sec. II.C but later refers to T ∼ 10^12 K (≈86 MeV) in Sec. IV.A; use a single consistent value for the initial temperature.
  4. [III.D] The statement that ALP-mediated fireballs in GRBs cannot form for m_a ≥ 60 MeV cites supernova fireball analyses (Refs. [23,24]) rather than a GRB-specific calculation; please provide a GRB-specific justification or citation.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'presented as the Γ processes at each radius r(cm)' is awkward and obscures the meaning; rephrase for clarity.
  6. [III.B, Eq. (10)] The notation f_a^eq and the phase-space integration in the 2→1 rate would benefit from a brief explanatory sentence, as the current compact form is difficult to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the GRB-ALP bound is a direct inversion of an empirical luminosity threshold, not a fit renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

Score 0. The paper derives the ALP luminosity from standard thermal production rates (Eqs. 10, 17), gravitational-trapping and decay-length escape criteria (Eqs. 19, 21, 22), and then compares the resulting L_a to an externally motivated GRB luminosity threshold L_a <= 1e50 erg/s. The exclusion contour in Fig. 4 is the solution of this comparison, not a self-fulfilling construction: the threshold comes from observed short-GRB luminosities and beaming, and the ALP production depends only on g_agg, m_a, and the fireball temperature profile. The assumed T_s ~ O(100 MeV) is an input assumption whose physical robustness can be questioned, but it is not derived from the desired bound, so any concern about it is a correctness/robustness issue, not circularity. The one externally supported step, that ALP-decay photons do not rethermalize and ALP-mediated fireballs cannot form for m_a >= 60 MeV, rests on Diamond et al. [23,24], which is independent non-self-citation support. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a small number of parameters and domain assumptions. The most important is the initial fireball temperature, which sets the exponential production rate; the other parameters scale the result but do not change its qualitative structure. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial fireball temperature T_s at r_s = 0.337 GeV for 3 M_sun remnant (Table I)
    Assumed O(100 MeV) without derivation from the fireball energy budget; determines the exponential ALP production rate and is the dominant sensitivity.
  • Intrinsic GRB luminosity threshold L_intr = ~1e50 erg/s
    Adopted as the maximum allowed ALP luminosity; based on beaming-corrected observed L_iso ~1e52 erg/s. If the total jet power is larger, the constraint weakens.
  • Critical radius r_c = 3e7 cm
    Cutoff for the ALP production integral, estimated from the variability time and ejecta speed; affects the production volume.
  • Jet opening angle Delta_theta = 0.1 rad
    Standard one-zone collimated outflow beaming factor applied to convert isotropic to intrinsic luminosity.
  • Minimum escape Lorentz factor gamma_a,min = 1.05
    Conservative threshold for ALPs to outrun the expanding fireball; affects decay-trapping and gravitational-trapping corrections.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The GRB fireball is a pure photon-lepton blackbody with T(r)=T0 r0/r and gamma=r/r0 during the radiation-dominated phase.
    Standard fireball scaling, but the initial T0 is not derived from an energy budget.
  • standard math The ALP production spectrum via photon fusion is given by Eq. 17 with the stated matrix element and thermal photon mass.
    Standard ALP production calculation in a thermal plasma, consistent with Raffelt's plasma axion production framework.
  • domain assumption Observed bright sGRBs can be modeled as one-zone conical fireballs with the listed luminosity.
    Simplification; real jets are structured and their total energy budget may exceed the prompt gamma-ray luminosity.
  • domain assumption Decay photons from ALPs escaping the fireball cannot re-thermalize via pair production.
    Used to argue the fireball is disrupted; the density of decay photons outside the jet is assumed too low to form a new fireball.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heavy Axions Can Disrupt $\gamma$-ray Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55NOXTLX

@misc{pith2026250108978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heavy Axions Can Disrupt $\gamma$-ray Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55NOXTLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08978}
}
abstract

Axion-like particles (ALPs) can be produced in the hot dense plasma of fireballs that develop in the initial stage of $\gamma$-ray burst (GRB) outflows. They can transport an enormous amount of energy away from the jet by propagating out of the fireball. The photons produced by the eventual decay of such ALPs do not reach a sufficient density to re-thermalize through pair production, preventing fireball re-emergence. Thus, the production of heavy ALPs disrupts the fireball and dims GRBs, allowing bright GRB observations to strongly constrain the existence of heavy ALPs. By adding ALP interactions to existing models of GRB fireballs, we set competitive bounds on the ALP-photon coupling down to $g_{a \gamma \gamma} \sim 4 \times 10^{-12}~{\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}}$ for ALPs in the mass range of 200 MeV - 5 GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic depicting a GRB outflow that is launched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Total rates for all relevant processes obtained by integrating over the entire fireball, presented as the Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spectrum of ALPs produced per unit volume through photon fusion calculated at different fireball radii of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Luminosity exclusion contours in the ALP-photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Reappraisal of the Constraints on Heavy Axion-like Particles from Gamma-Ray Bursts

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Realistic GRB parameters weaken previous ALP cooling bounds, but ALP-induced secondary fireballs in GRBs could still be probed via isotropic X-ray emission from future telescopes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Piran, Gamma-ray bursts and the fireball model, Physics Reports 314, 575 (1999)

    T. Piran, Gamma-ray bursts and the fireball model, Physics Reports 314, 575 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    O. S. Salafia and G. Ghirlanda, The structure of gamma ray burst jets, Galaxies 10, 93 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Electromagnetic ex- traction of energy from kerr black holes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 179, 433 (1977)

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    Popham, S

    R. Popham, S. E. Woosley, and C. Fryer, Hyperaccret- ing black holes and gamma-ray bursts, The Astrophysical Journal 518, 356 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Ruffert and H.-T

    M. Ruffert and H.-T. Janka, Gamma-ray bursts from accreting black holes in neutron star mergers, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9809280 (1998). 10

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    T. A. Thompson, P. Chang, and E. Quataert, Magnetar spin-down, hyperenergetic supernovae, and gamma-ray bursts, The Astrophysical Journal 611, 380 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Metzger, D

    B. Metzger, D. Giannios, T. Thompson, N. Bucciantini, and E. Quataert, The protomagnetar model for gamma- ray bursts, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 413, 2031 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Goodman, Are gamma-ray bursts optically thick?, As- trophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Editor (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    J. Goodman, Are gamma-ray bursts optically thick?, As- trophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Editor (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 308, Sept. 15, 1986, p. L47-L50. 308, L47 (1986)

    work page 1986

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Paczynski, Gamma-ray bursters at cosmological dis- tances, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Ed- itor (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    B. Paczynski, Gamma-ray bursters at cosmological dis- tances, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters to the Ed- itor (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 308, Sept. 15, 1986, p. L43- L46. 308, L43 (1986)

    1986

  2. [10]

    Rees and P

    M. Rees and P. M´ esz´ aros, Relativistic fireballs: energy conversion and time-scales, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 258, 41P (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    G. G. Raffelt, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles (University of Chicago press, 1996)

    1996

  4. [12]

    Langhoff, N

    K. Langhoff, N. J. Outmezguine, and N. L. Rodd, Irre- ducible axion background, Physical Review Letters 129, 241101 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    P. F. Depta, M. Hufnagel, and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Up- dated bbn constraints on electromagnetic decays of mev- scale particles, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (04), 011

    2021

  6. [14]

    Cadamuro and J

    D. Cadamuro and J. Redondo, Cosmological bounds on pseudo nambu-goldstone bosons, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (02), 032

    2012

  7. [15]

    Giannotti, I

    M. Giannotti, I. Irastorza, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Cool wisps for stellar cooling excesses, Journal of Cosmol- ogy and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (05), 057

    2016

  8. [16]

    M¨ uller, F

    E. M¨ uller, F. Calore, P. Carenza, C. Eckner, and M. D. Marsh, Investigating the gamma-ray burst from decaying mev-scale axion-like particles produced in supernova ex- plosions, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023 (07), 056

    2023

  9. [17]

    Carenza, O

    P. Carenza, O. Straniero, B. D¨ obrich, M. Giannotti, G. Lucente, and A. Mirizzi, Constraints on the coupling with photons of heavy axion-like-particles from globular clusters, Physics Letters B 809, 135709 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Calore, P

    F. Calore, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, J. Jaeckel, G. Lu- cente, and A. Mirizzi, Supernova bounds on axionlike particles coupled with nucleons and electrons, Physical Review D 104, 043016 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Radiative transfer in stars by feebly interacting bosons, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (08), 045

    2022

  12. [20]

    Caputo, H.-T

    A. Caputo, H.-T. Janka, G. Raffelt, and E. Vitagliano, Low-energy supernovae severely constrain radiative par- ticle decays, Physical review letters 128, 221103 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    D. F. Fiorillo and F. Iocco, Axions from neutron star mergers, Physical Review D 105, 123007 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    P. B. Dev, J.-F. Fortin, S. P. Harris, K. Sinha, and Y. Zhang, First constraints on the photon coupling of ax- ionlike particles from multimessenger studies of the neu- tron star merger gw170817, Physical Review Letters132, 101003 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Diamond, D

    M. Diamond, D. Fiorillo, G. Marques-Tavares, I. Tam- borra, and E. Vitagliano, Multimessenger constraints on radiatively decaying axions from gw170817, Physical Re- view Letters 132, 101004 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Diamond, D

    M. Diamond, D. F. Fiorillo, G. Marques-Tavares, and E. Vitagliano, Axion-sourced fireballs from supernovae, Physical Review D 107, 103029 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    M. M. Reynoso, On the production of heavy axion-like particles in the accretion disks of gamma-ray bursts, Physics Letters B 775, 338 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Paczynski, Super-eddington winds from neutron stars, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    B. Paczynski, Super-eddington winds from neutron stars, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 363, Nov. 1, 1990, p. 218-226. 363, 218 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    Shemi and T

    A. Shemi and T. Piran, The appearance of cosmic fire- balls, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004- 637X), vol. 365, Dec. 20, 1990, p. L55-L58. Research sup- ported by BSF. 365, L55 (1990)

    1990

  20. [28]

    M´ esz´ aros, Gamma-ray bursts: theoretical issues and developments, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10488 (2019)

    P. M´ esz´ aros, Gamma-ray bursts: theoretical issues and developments, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10488 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M´ esz´ aros and M

    P. M´ esz´ aros and M. Rees, Tidal heating and mass loss in neutron star binaries-implications for gamma-ray burst models, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 397, no. 2, p. 570-575. 397, 570 (1992)

    1992

  22. [30]

    M´ esz´ aros and M

    P. M´ esz´ aros and M. Rees, High-entropy fireballs and jets in gamma-ray burst sources, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 257, 29P (1992)

    1992

  23. [31]

    O. S. Salafia, G. Ghisellini, and G. Ghirlanda, Jet- driven and jet-less fireballs from compact binary mergers, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Let- ters 474, L7 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    A. R. Escorial, W.-f. Fong, E. Berger, T. Laskar, R. Margutti, G. Schroeder, J. C. Rastinejad, D. Cornish, S. Popp, M. Lally, et al., The jet opening angle and event rate distributions of short gamma-ray bursts from late- time x-ray afterglows, The Astrophysical Journal959, 13 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    D. A. Frail, S. Kulkarni, R. Sari, S. Djorgovski, J. Bloom, T. Galama, D. Reichart, E. Berger, F. A. Harrison, P. Price, et al. , Beaming in gamma-ray bursts: evidence for a standard energy reservoir, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 562, L55 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    W.-f. Fong, E. Berger, R. Margutti, and B. A. Zaud- erer, A decade of short-duration gamma-ray burst broad- band afterglows: energetics, circumburst densities, and jet opening angles, The Astrophysical Journal 815, 102 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Svensson, Electron-positron pair equilibria in relativis- tic plasmas, Astrophysical Journal, Vol

    R. Svensson, Electron-positron pair equilibria in relativis- tic plasmas, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 258, P. 335, 1982 258, 335 (1982)

    1982

  28. [36]

    J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The theory of photons and electrons: the relativistic quantum field theory of charged particles with spin one-half (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Svensson, The pair annihilation process in relativistic plasmas, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol

    R. Svensson, The pair annihilation process in relativistic plasmas, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 258, July 1, 1982, p. 321-334. Research supported by the University of California 258, 321 (1982)

    1982

  30. [38]

    Alexanian, Photon bremsstrahlung from an extreme- relativistic electron gas, Physical Review 165, 253 (1968)

    M. Alexanian, Photon bremsstrahlung from an extreme- relativistic electron gas, Physical Review 165, 253 (1968)

    1968

  31. [39]

    R. Z. Ferreira, M. D. Marsh, and E. M¨ uller, Strong su- pernovae bounds on alps from quantum loops, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022 (11), 057

    2022

  32. [40]

    Lucente, O

    G. Lucente, O. Straniero, P. Carenza, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Constraining heavy axionlike particles by en- ergy deposition in globular cluster stars, Physical Review Letters 129, 011101 (2022). 11

    2022

  33. [41]

    Lithwick and R

    Y. Lithwick and R. Sari, Lower limits on lorentz factors in gamma-ray bursts, The Astrophysical Journal 555, 540 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    V. A. Villar, J. Guillochon, E. Berger, B. D. Metzger, P. S. Cowperthwaite, M. Nicholl, K. D. Alexander, P. K. Blanchard, R. Chornock, T. Eftekhari, et al. , The com- bined ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared light curves of the kilonova associated with the binary neutron ...

    2017

  35. [43]

    Ackermann, M

    M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Albert, W. Atwood, L. Bal- dini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, et al. , The spectrum of isotropic diffuse gamma-ray emission between 100 mev and 820 gev, The Astrophysical Journal 799, 86 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Markwardt, S

    C. Markwardt, S. Barthelmy, J. Cummings, V. D’Elia, H. Krimm, S. Laha, A. Lien, D. Palmer, T. Sakamoto, M. Stamatikos, et al. , Grb 201015a: Swift-bat refined analysis (a soft short pulse with a tail emission), GRB Coordinates Network 28658, 1 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Hu, S. Chen, M. Zha, C. Liu, Z. Yao, Z. Cao, et al., Lhaaso observed grb 221009a with more than 5000 vhe photons up to around 18 tev, GRB Coordinates Net- work 32677, 1 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Piran, The physics of gamma-ray bursts, Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1143 (2004)

    T. Piran, The physics of gamma-ray bursts, Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1143 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    M´ esz´ aros and M

    P. M´ esz´ aros and M. Rees, Optical and long-wavelength afterglow from gamma-ray bursts, The Astrophysical Journal 476, 232 (1997)

    1997

  40. [48]

    Loeb, Are γ-ray bursts at cosmological distances op- tically thin?, Physical Review D 48, R3419 (1993)

    A. Loeb, Are γ-ray bursts at cosmological distances op- tically thin?, Physical Review D 48, R3419 (1993)

    1993

  41. [49]

    Lazzati, R

    D. Lazzati, R. Ciolfi, and R. Perna, Intrinsic properties of the engine and jet that powered the short gamma- ray burst associated with gw170817, The Astrophysical Journal 898, 59 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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