pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02032 · v1 · pith:B2BIWRJLnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Revealing the high redshift host galaxy of the short GRB 061201 with JWST

Yuhan Mao , Hanrui He , Jia Ren , Yun Wang , Hao Zhou , Qiuli Wang , Yiming Zhu , Zhiping Jin
show 1 more author
Daming Wei
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 13:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords short gamma-ray bursthost galaxyJWSTphotometric redshiftafterglow modelingkilonovabinary neutron star merger rate
0
0 comments X

The pith

Deep JWST imaging identifies a galaxy at redshift 1.2 as the host of short GRB 061201.

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

The paper establishes that GRB 061201 arises from a host at z approximately 1.2 rather than the previously claimed galaxy at z=0.111. Identification rests on a new candidate 2 arcseconds from the afterglow, with photometric redshift, plus supporting evidence from energy relations, absent kilonova emission, and afterglow model preference. If correct, this lowers the physical offset to 16-17 kpc, places the host age and properties in line with other short GRBs, and reduces the implied binary neutron star merger rate from an outlier value of 1400 per cubic gigaparsec per year to one consistent with gravitational-wave limits. A reader would care because the result removes an apparent tension between gamma-ray burst rates and merger observations while showing how extreme depth can assign hosts to previously unassociated bursts.

Core claim

GRB 061201 originates from a moderately high-redshift host at z~1.2. This conclusion follows from three lines of evidence: the burst energy lies on the Amati relation at z=1.2 but is an outlier in the Ghirlanda relation at z=0.111; deep near-infrared data exclude a kilonova like AT2017gfo at the low redshift; and afterglow modeling yields Delta AIC = 16.35 favoring the high-redshift case. The new host candidate has P_cc = 0.18 yet is accepted given JWST depth, yields a physical offset of 16.4-16.9 kpc, and a stellar age of ~2 Gyr, both consistent with the short-GRB population.

What carries the argument

Photometric redshift fitting of a new galaxy candidate identified in deep JWST near-infrared images, cross-checked against afterglow model selection via AIC and kilonova non-detection limits.

If this is right

  • At z=1.2 the burst energy is consistent with the Amati relation while at z=0.111 it violates the Ghirlanda relation for short GRBs.
  • The absence of a detectable kilonova rules out the low-redshift host under the observed depth.
  • Afterglow modeling provides strong statistical preference (Delta AIC=16.35) for the high-redshift solution.
  • The physical offset drops from ~42 kpc to 16.4-16.9 kpc and the host age of ~2 Gyr matches the short-GRB population.
  • The implied binary neutron star merger rate falls from ~1400 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} to a value compatible with gravitational-wave constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Spectroscopic follow-up of the candidate would provide the decisive test of association.
  • The same depth strategy may assign hosts to other short GRBs currently listed as hostless.
  • Some apparent outliers among short GRBs in energy relations could reflect incorrect low-redshift assignments.

Load-bearing premise

The new galaxy at 2 arcsec offset is the physical host of the burst even though its chance-coincidence probability of 0.18 exceeds the usual 0.1 threshold.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic redshift for the candidate galaxy that is inconsistent with z~1.2, or the detection of a kilonova light curve matching the luminosity expected at z=0.111.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02032 by Daming Wei, Hanrui He, Hao Zhou, Jia Ren, Qiuli Wang, Yiming Zhu, Yuhan Mao, Yun Wang, Zhiping Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: VLT and SOAR observations of GRB 061201. The red line segments point to the position of the afterglow. The images are oriented with North at the top and East to the left. The afterglow was detected by Swift/UVOT in the W hite, U, uvw1, uvm2, and uvw2 bands, but not detected in the B and V bands. 2.2. VLT and SOAR Ground follow-up observations with the VLT at 8.6 hr post-trigger identified the fading optica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Field of GRB 061201 observed with VLT and JWST. Red: sources detected in both VLT and JWST images. Blue: position of the optical afterglow. Pink: newly identified host galaxy candidate G2. The images are oriented with North at the top and East to the left. 2.3. JWST We analyzed archival JWST/NIRCam images (M. J. Rieke et al. 2023) covering the field of GRB 061201. Adopting the precise coordinate of the opt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: HST and JWST observations of the host galaxy candidate G2. The images are oriented with North at the top and East to the left. As the source is undetected in the F450W band, we derive a 5σ upper limit with the empirical empty-aperture method. Circular apertures with a radius of r = 0.50′′ are randomly distributed across source-free regions near the target, yielding 60 valid background measurements after ma… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Photometric redshift fit for the host galaxy candidate G2 σ(< m) = N(< m) Aeff (3) The JWST F150W2 image is adopted for the Pcc calculation due to its excellent depth and resolution. Adopting the VLT optical afterglow position as the GRB localization with an uncertainty of 0.2 ′′, we measure an angular separation of R0 = 1.97′′ between the location of the burst and the center of the host candidate. With a … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SED fitting for G1 and G2 with Bagpipes. The model including nebular emission provides a better fit both for G1 and G2. GRB061201 G2 G3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The ultra-faint field source G3 is closer to GRB 061201 in angular distance. The images are oriented with North at the top and East to the left. G3 (a) F450W G3 (b) F606W G3 (c) F814W G3 (d) F160W G3 (e) F150W2 G3 (f) F322W2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Images of G3 obtained by HST and JWST. The images are oriented with North at the top and East to the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stellar mass and age of G1 (blue star) and G2 (red star) in the context of sGRB host galaxies (gray circles). which securely encompasses both the galaxy’s compact morphology (Rhalf = 0.10′′) and the broadest instrumental PSF (FWHM ≲ 0.15′′) across these filters. Consequently, the detection limits were determined as F450W > 25.22, F606W > 26.54, F814W > 26.12, and F160W > 27.11 mag (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Physical offset distributions for all sGRBs (left panel) and the sub-sample with high Pcc values (right panel). (b)Comparison of the normalized offsets. In addition to the physical offset, we evaluated the host-normalized offset (defined as the physical offset divided by the effective half-light radius, Rhalf; Figure 9a left), which provides a more robust metric for the burst’s relative position within… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Energy correlations of GRB 061201 with different redshift. Left panel (a):Ep,i vs Eiso. Right panel (b): Ep,i vs Eγ which is beaming-corrected. the z = 0.111 assumption, the beaming-corrected energy, Eγ, falls significantly below the expected value, placing the burst well outside the standard sGRB region at more than the 2σ level ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Multi-band afterglow modeling of GRB 061201 with VEGASAFTERGLOW. The left panel (a) shows the best-- fitted result at z = 0.111. For comparison, the light curve of the kilonova AT2017gfo, artificially shifted to z = 0.111, is over-plotted (star symbols). The right panel (b) displays the best-fitted result at z = 1.2. 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 Rest-frame time trest (s) −30 −25 −20 −15 −10 A b s ol… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Light curves in different redshift of GRB 061201 in the background of other sGRBs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Using deep near-infrared and optical images from JWST and HST, we identify a new host galaxy candidate for GRB 061201. It lies ~2" from the optical afterglow position. Photometric redshift fitting yields z~1.2. We compare the previously proposed host at z=0.111 with the new candidate. The chance-coincidence probability is $P_{cc}=0.18$, above the classical threshold of 0.1 but consistent with a physical association given the extreme depth of JWST imaging. In contrast, evaluated with corresponding JWST observations, the previously claimed host has a lower $P_{cc}=0.11$, which is driven primarily by bright-tail statistics rather than a more plausible association. A high-z origin is favored by three independent lines of evidence. First, for the z=0.111 scenario, the beaming-corrected energy shows GRB 061201 is an outlier of the Ghirlanda ($E_{p,i}-E_\gamma$) relation for short GRBs, while for the z=1.2 scenario, it is well consistent with the Amati relation. Second, deep near-infrared observations rule out a kilonova similar to AT2017gfo at z=0.111. Third, afterglow modeling yields an AIC criterion of $\Delta$AIC=16.35, providing strong evidence for the high-redshift scenario. Assuming the host candidate is the actual host galaxy of GRB 061201, the physical offset is 16.4-16.9 kpc (substantially reduced from ~42 kpc) and the host stellar age is ~2 Gyr, which are consistent with the host population of short GRBs. A low-redshift origin would lead to a very high binary neutron star merger rate of ~1400 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$, which is contradictory to the gravitational-wave constraint. We suggest that GRB 061201 originates from a moderately high-redshift (z~1.2) host, significantly alleviating this apparent merger rate discrepancy. This case demonstrates the power of deep JWST exposures in revealing the host galaxies of historically hostless GRBs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports deep JWST and HST imaging that identifies a new candidate host galaxy for short GRB 061201 at ~2 arcsec offset with photometric redshift z~1.2. It compares this to the previously proposed z=0.111 host, reports P_cc=0.18 (vs. 0.11 for the low-z candidate under JWST limits), and argues for the high-z association on the basis of consistency with the Amati relation, non-detection of a kilonova like AT2017gfo, and afterglow modeling with ΔAIC=16.35. Adopting the new host yields a physical offset of 16.4-16.9 kpc and host age ~2 Gyr, while a low-z origin would imply an unrealistically high BNS merger rate of ~1400 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}.

Significance. If the host association holds, the result would meaningfully reduce the apparent tension between short-GRB-inferred BNS merger rates and gravitational-wave constraints, while illustrating JWST's capability to resolve historically hostless events. The work also supplies concrete numbers (offsets, ages, rate implications) that could be tested with future observations or refined modeling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the association rests on P_cc=0.18 exceeding the classical 0.1 threshold; the justification is qualitative (extreme JWST depth) without a revised magnitude-dependent prior, updated threshold, or Bayesian posterior odds that fold in the photometric-redshift likelihood.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported ΔAIC=16.35 favoring the high-z afterglow model is presented without the explicit model parameterizations, number of free parameters, or the functional forms being compared, preventing assessment of whether the difference is driven by the redshift assumption itself.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the three supporting arguments (Ghirlanda/Amati consistency, kilonova non-detection, AIC) each presuppose a redshift value and therefore cannot independently validate the host identification; a quantitative test that does not condition on redshift (e.g., direct posterior odds) is needed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states P_cc=0.11 for the z=0.111 galaxy under JWST limits but does not clarify whether this uses the same magnitude limit or surface-density model as the new candidate.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to improve the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the association rests on P_cc=0.18 exceeding the classical 0.1 threshold; the justification is qualitative (extreme JWST depth) without a revised magnitude-dependent prior, updated threshold, or Bayesian posterior odds that fold in the photometric-redshift likelihood.

    Authors: We agree that the justification for adopting P_cc=0.18 could be made more quantitative. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit discussion of magnitude-dependent priors appropriate to JWST depths, together with a brief calculation of Bayesian posterior odds that incorporate the photometric-redshift likelihood for the new candidate. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported ΔAIC=16.35 favoring the high-z afterglow model is presented without the explicit model parameterizations, number of free parameters, or the functional forms being compared, preventing assessment of whether the difference is driven by the redshift assumption itself.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the AIC comparison requires additional detail for full reproducibility. The revised manuscript will include the explicit functional forms of the afterglow models, the number of free parameters in each, and the precise parameterization of the redshift-dependent components so that readers can evaluate the origin of the ΔAIC value. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the three supporting arguments (Ghirlanda/Amati consistency, kilonova non-detection, AIC) each presuppose a redshift value and therefore cannot independently validate the host identification; a quantitative test that does not condition on redshift (e.g., direct posterior odds) is needed.

    Authors: The AIC comparison is performed between two explicit afterglow models that differ in their assumed redshift; it therefore constitutes a direct, quantitative test that does not presuppose which redshift is correct. The Amati and kilonova arguments are presented as consistency checks once each redshift is assumed. We will clarify this distinction in the revised abstract and main text, but we maintain that the current set of tests already provides independent lines of evidence. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external relations and direct observations

full rationale

The paper's central claim (high-z host at z~1.2) rests on photometric redshift fitting from JWST/HST imaging, standard P_cc calculations, and consistency checks against external literature relations (Amati, Ghirlanda) plus afterglow model comparison via AIC and kilonova non-detection limits. These elements draw on independent data and published calibrations rather than reducing to self-referential fits, definitions, or self-citation chains within the manuscript. The qualitative discussion of the P_cc=0.18 threshold exceeding 0.1 does not create a definitional loop or force the result by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on photometric redshift template fitting (with free parameters for redshift and galaxy templates), afterglow hydrodynamic modeling (multiple fitted parameters), standard cosmological distance conversions, and the validity of empirical GRB energy correlations from prior literature.

free parameters (2)
  • photometric redshift = ~1.2
    Fitted via SED matching to JWST/HST photometry yielding z~1.2
  • afterglow model parameters
    Circumburst density, energy, viewing angle and other parameters fitted to produce the AIC comparison
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard flat Λ CDM cosmology for luminosity distances and physical offsets
    Required to convert observed angular offset and redshift into physical kpc and isotropic energies
  • domain assumption The Amati and Ghirlanda relations apply to short GRBs and can be used to discriminate redshift scenarios
    Invoked to argue consistency at z~1.2 versus outlier status at z=0.111

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5968 in / 1673 out tokens · 45049 ms · 2026-06-28T13:22:26.669528+00:00 · methodology

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

53 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  2. [2]

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

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 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., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Pr...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

  3. [3]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/18

    Barnes, J., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/18 2013

  4. [4]

    D., Chincarini, G., Burrows, D

    Barthelmy, S. D., Chincarini, G., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2005, Nature, 438, 994, doi: 10.1038/nature04392

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04392 2005

  5. [5]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

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

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

  6. [6]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 1946, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1946

    Berger, E. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1946, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1946

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1946 2010

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  8. [8]

    S., Kulkarni, S

    Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Djorgovski, S. G. 2002, AJ, 123, 1111, doi: 10.1086/338893

    work page doi:10.1086/338893 2002

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Bloom, J. S., Sigurdsson, S., & Pols, O. R. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 763, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02437.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02437.x 1999

  10. [10]

    S., Perley, D

    Bloom, J. S., Perley, D. A., Chen, H.-W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 878, doi: 10.1086/509114

    work page doi:10.1086/509114 2007

  11. [11]

    EAZY: A Fast, Public Photometric Redshift Code

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  12. [12]

    P., & Anderson, D

    Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. 2002, Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach (Springer)

    2002

  13. [13]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Davé, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  14. [14]

    E., & Bailyn, C

    Cobb, B. E., & Bailyn, C. D. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1157, doi: 10.1086/533427

    work page doi:10.1086/533427 2008

  15. [15]

    J., Berry, D

    Currie, M. J., Berry, D. S., Jenness, T., et al. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 485, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, ed. N. Manset & P. Forshay, 391

    2014

  16. [16]

    G., De Simone, B., Mohideen Malik, R

    Dainotti, M. G., De Simone, B., Mohideen Malik, R. F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4023, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1484

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1484 2024

  17. [17]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049 2017

  18. [18]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  19. [19]

    A., Cenko, S

    Evans, P. A., Cenko, S. B., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1565, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9580

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9580 2017

  20. [20]

    2013, ApJ, 776, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/18

    Fong, W., & Berger, E. 2013, ApJ, 776, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/18 2013

  21. [21]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., & Fox, D. B. 2010, ApJ, 708, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/9 2010

  22. [22]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/102 2015

  23. [23]

    E., Dong, Y., et al

    Fong, W.-f., Nugent, A. E., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0 2022

  24. [24]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  25. [25]

    2004, ApJ, 616, 331, doi: 10.1086/424913

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Lazzati, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 331, doi: 10.1086/424913

    work page doi:10.1086/424913 2004

  26. [26]

    Nature , year = 2020, volume = 585, pages =

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  27. [27]

    A., Hester, J

    Holtzman, J. A., Hester, J. J., Casertano, S., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 156, doi: 10.1086/133533

    work page doi:10.1086/133533 1995

  28. [28]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  29. [29]

    Neutron Star Merger Rates from Multi-messenger Observations: Clues to the Physical Origin of the Short and Long-short Gamma-ray Bursts

    Jin, Z.-P., Wang, Y.-Z., Li, Y.-J., et al. 2026, Neutron Star Merger Rates from Multi-messenger Observations: Clues to the Physical Origin of the Short and Long-short Gamma-ray Bursts, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.06772 16

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.06772 2026

  30. [30]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d

    Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., Wang, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d 2018

  31. [31]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  32. [32]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9455

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9455 2017

  33. [33]

    Townsend, J. A. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7010, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2008:

    2008

  34. [34]

    Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. W. M. de Graauw, & H. A. MacEwen, 70101E, doi: 10.1117/12.789581

    work page doi:10.1117/12.789581

  35. [35]

    , year = 1973, month = jun, volume =

    Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., & Olson, R. A. 1973, ApJL, 182, L85, doi: 10.1086/181225

    work page doi:10.1086/181225 1973

  36. [36]

    The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts and Relativistic Jets

    Kumar, P., & Zhang, B. 2015, PhR, 561, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 2015

  37. [37]

    1998, ApJL, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    Li, L.-X., & Paczyński, B. 1998, ApJL, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    work page doi:10.1086/311680 1998

  38. [38]

    E., Perri, M., Stratta, G., et al

    Marshall, F. E., Perri, M., Stratta, G., et al. 2006, Swift Observations of the Short/Hard Burst GRB 061201„ GCN Report 18.1 https://gcn.nasa.gov/reports/report_18_1.pdf

    2006

  39. [39]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Metzger, B. D., Martínez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2650, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x 2010

  40. [40]

    1992, ApJL, 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493

    Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T. 1992, ApJL, 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493 Nicuesa Guelbenzu, A. M., Klose, S., Schady, P., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2faa

    work page doi:10.1086/186493 1992

  41. [41]

    E., Fong, W.-F., Dong, Y., et al

    Nugent, A. E., Fong, W.-F., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d1 O’Connor, B., Troja, E., Dichiara, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4890, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1982

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d1 2022

  42. [42]

    ( year 2017 ), month Oct

    Pian, E., D’A vanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017

  43. [43]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 028001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acac53

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acac53 2023

  44. [44]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Rowlinson, A., Wiersema, K., Levan, A. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 383, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17115.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17115.x 2010

  45. [45]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Salvaterra, R., Devecchi, B., Colpi, M., & D’A vanzo, P. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1248, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16752.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16752.x 2010

  46. [46]

    A., Kirk J

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  47. [47]

    J., Benítez, N., et al

    Sirianni, M., Jee, M. J., Benítez, N., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1049, doi: 10.1086/444553

    work page doi:10.1086/444553 2005

  48. [48]

    J., Chen, T.-W., Jerkstrand, A., et al

    Smartt, S. J., Chen, T.-W., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 75, doi: 10.1038/nature24303

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24303 2017

  49. [49]

    2007, A&A, 474, 827, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078006

    Stratta, G., D’A vanzo, P., Piranomonte, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 474, 827, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078006

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078006 2007

  50. [50]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., González-Fernández, C., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 2017

  51. [51]

    ( year 2017 ), month Dec

    Villar, V. A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84 2017

  52. [52]

    2020 , pages =

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Medicine, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  53. [53]

    Interfaces 19 (2025) 100490

    Wang, Y., Chen, C., & Zhang, B. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 50, 100490, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100490

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100490 2026