Gamma-ray burst prompt emission spectra at high energies

Alessio Mei; Biswajit Banerjee; Gor Oganesyan; Marica Branchesi; Pawan Tiwari; Samanta Macera

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

Gamma-ray burst prompt emission spectra at high energies

T0 review · 5 major / 8 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 argues that most GRB prompt spectra, from 10 keV to about 100 GeV, are consistent with synchrotron radiation from shock-accelerated electrons, with the electron index clustering near p≈2.7, and that only a minority require an…

desk verdict Careful synchrotron-fitting study with a useful sample-level result whose 'strong evidence for dominance' conclusion overreaches the analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10507 v1 pith:B4YC66SU submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.HE

Samanta Macera , Biswajit Banerjee , Alessio Mei , Pawan Tiwari , Gor Oganesyan , Marica Branchesi This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords gamma-rayburstspromptemissionsynchrotronradiationFermi/LATFermi/GBMhigh-energygammarayselectronenergydistributionGRBspectralmodeling

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 tests the long-standing question of what powers the prompt phase of gamma-ray bursts by jointly fitting 90 time-resolved spectra from 35 bursts observed by Fermi/GBM and Fermi/LAT across 10 keV to roughly 100 GeV. It finds that most of the spectra—75 of them—are well described by synchrotron radiation from shock-accelerated electrons, with the electron index clustering near p≈2.7, provided a high-energy cutoff is added. A minority of spectra, concentrated in three bursts, require a second power-law component, and in those cases the synchrotron spectrum carries a sharp suppression around a few MeV. The GeV data also broaden the spectra compared with keV–MeV fitting alone, which the paper argues resolves the long-standing inconsistency between observed GRB spectral widths and synchrotron predictions. The authors conclude that synchrotron radiation is the dominant prompt-emission mechanism in most GRBs and that early GeV light curves should not be treated as pure afterglow.

What carries the argument

The central object is a synchrotron table model built from a single power-law electron distribution $dN_e/d\gamma \propto \gamma^{-p}$, cooled by synchrotron radiation, with the cooling frequency $\nu_c$ fixed at 1 keV and rescaled by a free redshift shift; an empirical high-energy cutoff (highecut) is added to represent pair attenuation. In Models 2 and 3, an additional power law or cutoff power law with its own photon index is superimposed. The models are fit jointly to GBM, LLE, and LAT data, with the Akaike Information Criterion for model selection and nested-sampling Bayesian parameter estimation. The decisive ingredient is the addition of data above 30 MeV, which constrains $p$ and the characteristic frequencies $\nu_m$ and $\nu_c$ and reveals spectra broader than keV–MeV-only fits had suggested.

What would settle it

A GRB with bright joint GBM–LLE–LAT coverage whose prompt $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum peaks too narrowly for the table model even with $p>4$ and a MeV cutoff, or a spectrum whose low-energy slope is flatter than the fast-cooling synchrotron limit, would count against the claim that most GRB prompt spectra are synchrotron dominated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated by the authors, is that the temporal and spectral properties of the high-energy emission provide strong evidence that synchrotron radiation dominates the prompt phase of most gamma-ray bursts. The key result is that extending spectral fits beyond 30 MeV with Fermi/LLE and Fermi/LAT data shows most GRB spectra remain consistent with synchrotron emission up to tens of GeV, with p≈2.7 and characteristic cooling near the marginally fast-cooling regime. Three GRBs—GRB 090902B, GRB 190114C, and GRB 221023A—require an additional power-law component; when it is present, the synchrotron component shows an MeV cutoff that the paper links to pair-loading in the early afterglow. The paper also shows from temporal modeling of 12 bursts that early GeV light curves deviate from standard afterglow closure relations, indicating prompt-emission contamination.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synchrotron table model, with a single power-law electron distribution and a fixed cooling frequency rescaled by redshift plus a high-energy cutoff, is an accurate and sufficiently complete description of GRB prompt spectra; if a non-synchrotron mechanism can produce the same broad keV–GeV shapes, the fit success would not establish synchrotron origin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The measured electron index $p\approx2.7$ matches the theoretical prediction of diffusive shock acceleration, so the fits turn GRB prompt emission into a direct probe of particle acceleration in relativistic shocks.
Early Fermi/LAT light curves cannot be treated as pure afterglow: deviations around the LAT peak and within the GBM $T_{90}$ point to a prompt-emission component that requires combined spectral-temporal modeling.
Bursts needing an extra power-law component (GRB 090902B, GRB 190114C, GRB 221023A) are the most promising targets for very-high-energy telescopes; the bright synchrotron-only spectra would be too faint for CTAO-class IACTs during the first seconds.
The synchrotron model with a high-energy cutoff can serve as a physical alternative to the Band function because it identifies spectral breaks that the empirical function smooths over.
If the MeV cutoff associated with power-law components is the pair-loading signature, its detection window marks a specific phase of early afterglow evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test: fitting the same sample with a synchrotron model where $\nu_c$ is free would show whether the near-1 keV cooling frequency is a physical commonality or an artifact of the fixed table.
Because the sample was selected for LAT significance and localization, the 'most GRBs' conclusion is conditioned on bursts bright enough to be seen by LAT; a flux-limited GBM-only sample would test whether fainter bursts share the same spectral shapes.
The MeV suppression required whenever an extra power-law appears could be a selection effect: the same data that demand a broader GeV component also force the synchrotron peak to narrow, and a forward simulation of injected power-law components into synthetic spectra would clarify how often the cutoff is driven by the model rather than the data.
The paper's model comparison uses AIC with a threshold $\Delta\mathrm{AIC}\ge4$; a Bayesian evidence comparison could change whether the minority power-law component is deemed real.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is a serious, systematic study of Fermi GRB spectra from 10 keV to GeV, but its headline conclusion—strong evidence for synchrotron dominance—is stronger than the analysis supports. The paper deserves a referee and will likely be citable, but the authors should be pushed to tone down that conclusion. What is actually new: a homogeneous 35-GRB sample with GBM+LLE+LAT, 90 time-resolved spectra, fitted with the Oganesyan et al. synchrotron table model plus optional power law. The sample-level result, p clustering around 2.7 once GeV data are included, is new and useful. So is the finding that three GRBs need an additional power law, with 221023A as a previously unanalysed case. The paper is careful in its handling of LAT data and model selection (AIC, BXA). Where it is soft: the main soft spot is the interpretive leap. Section 5 states the analysis is based on the assumption of synchrotron emission, and only synchrotron-based models are compared. Fitting a synchrotron model to the data shows consistency, not dominance. The Section 8 sentence claiming strong evidence for synchrotron as the dominant mechanism is an overreach; a good fit to one class of models does not rule out photospheric or Comptonized alternatives. The model also has flexibility: zmshift is effectively a free energy rescaling of the fixed 1 keV cooling frequency, and the fixed Eb=300 keV highecut adds an ad hoc break. These are not fatal, but they mean the fit is less constraining than it appears. The abstract also states the temporal analysis reveals significant prompt contamination, but Section 6.1 reports no excess above 5 sigma; that is an overstatement. There are minor counting inconsistencies (e.g., 52+23 vs 90 spectra with Model-2/3 counts) that I would ask the authors to reconcile. Overall: this is a competent, incremental but valuable observational paper. It is for GRB modelers and observers, and it would be a reasonable reference for the synchrotron interpretation and p~2.7. I would send it to peer review with a request for revisions: soften the dominance claim, add a discussion of non-synchrotron alternatives, and clarify the model degeneracies. I would not desk reject it.

Referee Report

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a temporal and spectral analysis of 35 Fermi/GBM–LAT GRBs (90 time-resolved spectra) spanning 10 keV to about 10 GeV, combining GBM, LLE, and LAT data. The authors fit a synchrotron table model from Oganesyan et al. (2019) with a high-energy cutoff (Model-1), an additional power law (Model-2), or a cutoff power law (Model-3), and select among these using AIC. They report that 75 spectra (32 GRBs) are well described by pure synchrotron, while 14 spectra (3 GRBs) require an additional power law, and that the electron spectral index p clusters around 2.7 when high-energy data are included. The paper concludes that the temporal and spectral properties provide strong evidence for synchrotron radiation as the dominant prompt-emission mechanism.

Significance. If correct, the paper would support synchrotron radiation from shock-accelerated electrons as the primary mechanism for most GRB prompt spectra and would provide a large, homogeneous catalog of synchrotron parameters. Strengths include the large public-data sample, careful joint reduction of GBM/LLE/LAT data, use of Bayesian parameter estimation (BXA/UltraNest), and detailed time-resolved modeling with full parameter tables. However, as detailed below, the central claim of synchrotron dominance is not established by the model-comparison framework, and the model's flexibility (free zmshift, ad hoc highecut) weakens the discriminatory power of the fits.

major comments (5)

[Section 5.1, Eq. (3)] The zmshift parameter is a free continuous rescaling of the energy axis with prior (−0.999, 10), so the statement that the model assumes a fixed cooling frequency νc = 1 keV is misleading: Eq. (3) gives νc = 1/(1−zmshift), which can range from roughly 0.5 keV to arbitrarily large positive values (and even negative for zmshift > 1). This parameter can absorb spectral curvature that alternative mechanisms would produce, making the synchrotron template more flexible than a fixed-νc model. The authors should constrain zmshift to the known redshift where available, or at least demonstrate that the main conclusions are robust to the choice of prior on this rescaling parameter.
[Section 5.1] The high-energy cutoff component highecut has Eb fixed at 300 keV and a free fold energy. Because 300 keV sits near the spectral peak of many GRBs, this empirical break can shape the curvature around the peak and mimic non-synchrotron spectral shapes. No physical model for pair-production attenuation is tested, and the text simply states that the component is added to account for 'putative pair-attenuation.' The authors should assess the sensitivity of the fits to the fixed Eb and to the shape of the cutoff, or replace it with a physically motivated attenuation model.
[Sections 5.2 and 8] The AIC comparison is performed only among Models 1–3, all of which contain the same synchrotron table model. No alternative prompt-emission model (e.g., photospheric, Comptonized, or a Band-function-based physical model) is fitted to the same 90 spectra. Consequently, the conclusion in Section 8 that the results provide 'strong evidence for synchrotron radiation as the dominant mechanism' overreaches the analysis: the fits can show that the spectra are consistent with synchrotron emission, but they cannot establish dominance over models that were not tested. The authors should either fit non-synchrotron models to the same data or substantially soften the claim to 'consistent with synchrotron.'
[Section 6.2 and 6.2.1] For the 23 GRBs in Sample-2, the analysis is restricted a priori to Model-1, without testing whether an additional power law or a high-energy cutoff is required; the text states this is done 'due to the absence of significant GeV excess beyond synchrotron emission.' These spectra are nevertheless counted as consistent with synchrotron emission, which biases the reported fractions (e.g., '32 GRBs best-fitted by Model-1'). The authors should report the Sample-2 results separately as consistency checks rather than as model selections, and adjust the summary statistics accordingly.
[Section 6.2.1 and Figure 7] The claim that p clusters around 2.7 is based on Sample-1 only, and the dispersion is large: Table A.1 lists time-resolved p values between about 2.0 and 4.0 (e.g., GRB 160625B with p ≈ 3.3–4.0, GRB 090510 with p ≈ 2.9–3.6, and several values above 3.5 in Sample-2). The paper should quantify the width of the p distribution, state the fraction of spectra with p in the range 2.5–3.0, and test whether the peak near 2.7 is robust to the choice of prior (the uniform prior p ∈ [2,5] can influence the median if many spectra are poorly constrained).

minor comments (8)

[Abstract vs. Section 7.1] The abstract states that temporal modeling 'reveals deviations from standard afterglow scenarios during the early phases, suggesting a significant contamination from prompt emission,' but Section 7.1 says the excess is 'not significant enough to rule out an afterglow origin.' Please align these statements.
[Section 5.2] The statement that ΔAIC ≥ 4 'corresponds to a statistical improvement of 1σ' is not standard; for a single additional parameter, ΔAIC = 4 corresponds to a likelihood-ratio preference of roughly 2σ. Please use a standard reference or rephrase.
[Section 3.2] The sentence about 'a cut in the angle of the off-axis source of 90°' is ambiguous; presumably this is an offset-angle cut, and it should be defined clearly.
[Section 2] The phrase 'probability that the trigger being a GRB exceeds 95%' is grammatically awkward; please rephrase to make clear that the trigger classification probability exceeds 95%.
[Section 6.2.1] The counts do not add up: 32 GRBs with 75 spectra plus 3 GRBs with 14 spectra gives 35 GRBs and 89 spectra, not 90 as stated in Section 6. Please verify the accounting.
[Table 2] The column 'Flux (×10−6)' is not labeled with the energy range or units clearly; some entries (e.g., GRB 141028A) appear to have inconsistent exponent notation. Please standardize.
[Section 7.2] The terms 'marginally fast cooling' and 'intermediate cooling regime' are used interchangeably; please define them precisely.
[Eq. (1)] The choice τ = 2 for the rise index is not justified; please provide a reference or a brief rationale.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 'strong evidence for synchrotron dominance' conclusion restates the Section 5 synchrotron assumption, because only synchrotron-based models are fitted and compared.

other [Section 5 (first paragraph) and Section 8 (final paragraph)]
"adopting a physical model based on the assumption that prompt emission is produced by synchrotron radiation. For the synchrotron part, we used a table model as described in Oganesyan et al. 2019. ... In conclusion, the temporal and spectral properties of the high-energy emission provide strong evidence for synchrotron radiation as the dominant mechanism for the prompt phase of most GRBs."

The spectral analysis is explicitly built on the assumption that prompt emission is synchrotron, and Section 5.2 compares only Model-1 (synchrotron + cutoff), Model-2 (synchrotron + power law), and Model-3 (synchrotron + cutoff power law), all sharing the same synchrotron base; the paper also states it does not compare the Band model with the synchrotron model. AIC can therefore only rank variants of the assumed mechanism. The concluding claim that the data provide 'strong evidence for synchrotron radiation as the dominant mechanism' is not derived from a test against non-synchrotron alternatives (e.g., photospheric or Comptonized models are never fitted to the same 90 spectra).

full rationale

The paper's spectral analysis is self-contained in the sense that it fits a published table model (Oganesyan et al. 2019) to new Fermi/GBM+LLE+LAT data and reports the fitted parameters transparently. The self-citations (Oganesyan et al. 2019, Mei et al. 2024) are not machine-checked but are not used as a uniqueness theorem; the model is externally published and the LAT data are new and independent. The principal circularity is at the level of the central claim: Section 5 adopts 'the assumption that prompt emission is produced by synchrotron radiation,' all three fitted models share the same synchrotron base, and Section 5.2 explicitly declines a Band comparison, so the AIC comparisons only rank variants of the assumed mechanism. The Section 8 conclusion that the data provide 'strong evidence for synchrotron radiation as the dominant mechanism' is therefore the input assumption reappearing as an output, not a result of a competitive test against non-synchrotron models. The fitted parameters (p ~ 2.7, nu_m, nu_c) and the identification of GRBs requiring extra power laws are empirical and not vacuous, but they do not by themselves license the 'dominant mechanism' claim. The zmshift rescaling (Eq. 3) additionally makes the nominal fixed cooling frequency nu_c = 1 keV effectively free, which weakens the model's discriminating power; this is a modeling-flexibility concern rather than a formal circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a fit to a model family. All physical numbers that drive the conclusion (p, nu_m/nu_c, nu_c via zmshift, cutoff energy, optional power-law parameters) are fitted to the same data that are then described as consistent with synchrotron emission. The model itself is taken from an earlier paper by coauthors. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

p (electron power-law index) = median ~2.7, fitted in [2,5] per spectrum
Central to the p~2.7 claim; the value is derived from fitting the data, not independently predicted.
log(gamma_m/gamma_c) = fitted in [-1,2] per spectrum
Determines the cooling regime and the ratio nu_m/nu_c used to claim marginally fast cooling.
zmshift = fitted in [-0.999,10] per spectrum
Free energy scaling that sets nu_c=1/(1-zmshift) keV; adds flexibility to the synchrotron model.
High-energy cutoff fold energy (foldE) = fitted per spectrum, often unconstrained upper limit
Empirical attenuation parameter in highecut; essential for Model-1 fits and absorbs high-energy curvature.
Power-law component photon index and normalization (Model-2/3) = fitted per spectrum for 14 spectra
Required for the subset of GRBs with an additional spectral component; values are not predicted.
Afterglow temporal parameters A0, t_b, gamma = fitted per GRB light curve
Used in the temporal analysis (Eq. 1) with tau fixed to 2; supports the discussion of prompt contamination.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Oganesyan et al. (2019) table model correctly computes synchrotron spectra for a single power-law electron distribution with fixed nu_c=1 keV, with zmshift as the only energy scaling.
Invoked in Section 5; the main spectral fits and conclusions rely on this model's accuracy.
ad hoc to paper The empirical highecut component (break energy Eb fixed at 300 keV) is an adequate representation of pair-production attenuation at GeV energies.
Section 5.1; the free fold energy absorbs high-energy curvature and is essential for Model-1 fits.
domain assumption The afterglow temporal template (Eq. 1 with tau fixed to 2) and the closure relation phi=-(2*gamma+4)/3 describe the external-shock LAT emission.
Sections 4 and 6.1; used for the temporal analysis and the interpretation of GeV emission as prompt or afterglow.
ad hoc to paper The chosen Bayesian priors (p uniform in [2,5], log(gamma_m/gamma_c) uniform in [-1,2], zmshift uniform in [-0.999,10]) do not artificially create the p~2.7 peak.
Section 5.3; if the true p lies outside the prior range, the recovered distribution would be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gamma-ray burst prompt emission spectra at high energies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4YC66SU

@misc{pith2026250110507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gamma-ray burst prompt emission spectra at high energies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4YC66SU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10507}
}

abstract

Despite more than fifty years of gamma-ray burst (GRB) observations, several questions regarding the origin of the prompt emission, particularly at high energies, remain unresolved. We present a comprehensive analysis of 35 GRBs observed by \textit{Fermi}/GBM and \textit{Fermi}/LAT over the past 15 years, focusing on the nature of high-energy (HE, E$>$100 MeV) emission during the prompt emission phase. Our study combines temporal and spectral analyses to investigate the synchrotron origin of the observed emission spanning the energy range from 10 keV to 100 GeV and explore the possible contribution of additional spectral components. Temporal modeling of \textit{Fermi}/LAT light curves for 12 GRBs in our sample reveals deviations from standard afterglow scenarios during the early phases, suggesting a significant contamination from prompt emission. We find that most GRB spectra align with synchrotron emission extending to GeV energies, with the slope $p$ of the non-thermal electron distribution clustering around $p\sim2.7$, consistently with theoretical predictions. For three GRBs, an additional power law component is required to explain the high-energy emission, but the nature and temporal evolution of this component remain unclear due to the limited quality of \textit{Fermi}/LAT data. When the power law component is needed, the synchrotron spectrum shows a sharp MeV suppression. It could be explained by the pair loading effects in the early afterglow. These findings emphasize the importance of multi-wavelength observations in unveiling the mechanisms driving early HE prompt emission in GRBs. We briefly discuss the implications of our findings for future very-high-energy (VHE, E$>$100 GeV) gamma-ray observatories, such as the Cherenkov Telescope Array, and address the detection prospects of additional non-thermal components in GRB spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10507 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Model-1 considers only synchrotron emission. In case of Model-2, an additional power law is added. Model-3 is obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Histogram of the bolometric flux of GRBs. The bolomet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Comparison between the p index obtained from the spectral analysis between 8 keV-10 GeV and using only the GBM data for Sample-1 and their corresponding uncertainties. The histogram on the sides provide a distribution of the indices for each cases. The index while adding the GeV data provides significant constrains. photon index after the peak depends on p as β = −p/2 − 1. Our analysis in most cases shows the consis… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Bolometric flux vs. Emax for the GRBs in Sample-1. Each entry in the plot represents a spectrum of Sample-1. The best fitted models (Model-1 or Model-2) of the individual spectrum are indicated with different markers. The color bar indicates the corresponding spectral …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Spectral index α from the Band model compared with the ratio of two characteristic frequencies νm, and νc derived from the synchrotron model. The ratio νm/νc indicates the cooling regime, where a value grater and less than 1 represents the fast and slow cooling regime,…

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

The ultra-fast afterglow of GRB 260226A
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The bolometric 10 keV-1 GeV afterglow of GRB 260226A decays as t^-1.5 then steepens to t^-2.8, requiring external inverse Compton emission from a pair-loaded wind rather than standard synchrotron.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 11

Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 11

work page 2013
[4]

2019, , 878, 52

Ajello , M., Arimoto , M., Axelsson , M., et al. 2019, , 878, 52

work page 2019
[5]

Ajello, M. et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 878, 52

work page 2019
[6]

Ajello, M. et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 890, 9

work page 2020
[7]

1974, IEEE Trans

Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, 19, 716

work page 1974
[8]

B., Abdo , A

Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071

2009

Show all 79 references

[9]

& Borgonovo, L

Axelsson, M. & Borgonovo, L. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 447, 3150

2015
[10]

Band, D. et al. 1993, Astrophys. J., 413, 281

1993
[11]

Banerjee, B. et al. 2023, Astron. Astrophys., 678, A126

2023
[12]

Banerjee, B. et al. 2024 [ [arXiv] 2405.15855 ]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2005, Astrophys. J., 627, 346

2005
[14]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2013, Astrophys. J., 764, 157

2013
[15]

2015, Mon

Beniamini, P., Nava, L., Barniol Duran, R., & Piran, T. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 454, 1073

2015
[16]

2016, Mon

Beniamini, P., Nava, L., & Piran, T. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 461, 51

2016
[17]

& Piran, T

Beniamini, P. & Piran, T. 2013, Astrophys. J., 769, 69

2013
[18]

Burgess, J. M. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 629, A69

2019
[19]

M., B\'egu\'e, D., Bacelj, A., et al

Burgess, J. M., B\'egu\'e, D., Bacelj, A., et al. 2019, Nature Astron., 4, 174

2019
[20]

Burgess, J. M. & Ryde, F. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 447, 3087

2015
[21]

Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. 2004, Sociological methods & research, 33, 261

2004
[22]

Cao, Z. et al. 2023 a , Science, 380, adg9328

2023
[23]

Cao, Z. et al. 2023 b , Sci. Adv., 9, adj2778

2023
[24]

2014, Astron

Castignani, G., Guetta, D., Pian, E., et al. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 565, A60

2014
[25]

S., Banerjee , A., et al

Chand , V., Pal , P. S., Banerjee , A., et al. 2020, , 903, 9

2020
[26]

P., Smith, I

Crider, A., Liang, E. P., Smith, I. A., et al. 1997, Astrophys. J., 479, 39

1997
[27]

2011, Astron

Daigne, F., Bosnjak, Z., & Dubus, G. 2011, Astron. Astrophys., 526, A110

2011
[28]

& Bo s njak, v

Daigne, F. & Bo s njak, v. 2024 [ [arXiv] 2407.04023 ]

2024 arXiv
[29]

& Mochkovitch, R

Daigne, F. & Mochkovitch, R. 2000, Astron. Astrophys., 358, 1157

2000
[30]

& Piran, T

Derishev, E. & Piran, T. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 530, 347

2024
[31]

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

Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

2013
[32]

2002, Astron

Ghirlanda, G., Celotti, A., & Ghisellini, G. 2002, Astron. Astrophys., 393, 409

2002
[33]

2003, Astron

Ghirlanda, G., Celotti, A., & Ghisellini, G. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 406, 879

2003
[34]

2010, , 510, L7

Ghirlanda , G., Ghisellini , G., & Nava , L. 2010, , 510, L7

2010
[35]

& Celotti, A

Ghisellini, G. & Celotti, A. 1999, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 138, 527

1999
[36]

2000, , 313, L1

Ghisellini , G., Celotti , A., & Lazzati , D. 2000, , 313, L1

2000
[37]

2010, Mon

Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., & Nava, L. 2010, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 403, 926

2010
[38]

Gruber, D. et al. 2014, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 211, 12

2014
[39]

Guiriec, S. et al. 2015, Astrophys. J., 807, 148

2015
[40]

2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.5737

Hasco \"e t, R., Daigne, F., Mochkovitch, R., & Vennin, V. 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.5737

2011 arXiv
[41]

D., Briggs, M

Kaneko, Y., Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2006, AIP Conf. Proc., 836, 133

2006
[42]

& Duran, R

Kumar, P. & Duran, R. B. 2010, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 409, 226

2010
[43]

2008, Mon

Kumar, P., McMahon, E., & Austin, U. 2008, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 384, 33

2008
[44]

Lloyd, N. M. & Petrosian, V. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 543, 722

2000
[45]

N., et al

Meegan , C., Lichti , G., Bhat , P. N., et al. 2009, , 702, 791

2009
[46]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08341

Mei , A., Oganesyan , G., & Macera , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.08341

2024 arXiv
[47]

2022 a , Astrophys

Mei, A., Oganesyan, G., Tsvetkova, A., et al. 2022 a , Astrophys. J., 941, 82

2022
[48]

Mei, A. et al. 2022 b , Nature, 612, 236

2022
[49]

& Rees, M

Meszaros, P. & Rees, M. J. 1997, Astrophys. J., 476, 232

1997
[50]

& Rees, M

Meszaros, P. & Rees, M. J. 2000, Astrophys. J., 530, 292

2000
[51]

& Nava, L

Miceli, D. & Nava, L. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 66

2022
[52]

2018, Int

Nava, L. 2018, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 27, 1842003

2018
[53]

2017, Mon

Nava, L., Desiante, R., Longo, F., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 465, 811

2017
[54]

2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, A21

Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 530, A21

2011
[55]

2014, Mon

Nava, L., Vianello, G., Omodei, N., et al. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 443, 3578

2014
[56]

2017, Astrophys

Oganesyan, G., Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., & Celotti, A. 2017, Astrophys. J., 846, 137

2017
[57]

2018, Astron

Oganesyan, G., Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., & Celotti, A. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 616, A138

2018
[58]

2019, Astron

Oganesyan, G., Nava, L., Ghirlanda, G., Melandri, A., & Celotti, A. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 628, A59

2019
[59]

& Xu , G

Paczynski , B. & Xu , G. 1994, , 427, 708

1994
[60]

& Kumar, P

Panaitescu, A. & Kumar, P. 2000, Astrophys. J., 543, 66

2000
[61]

2008, Astrophys

Pe'er, A. 2008, Astrophys. J., 682, 463

2008
[62]

& Waxman, E

Pe'er, A. & Waxman, E. 2004, Astrophys. J., 613, 448

2004
[63]

& Zhang, B

Pe'er, A. & Zhang, B. 2006, Astrophys. J., 653, 454

2006
[64]

2010 [ [arXiv] 1002.2617 ]

Pelassa, V., Preece, R., Piron, F., Omodei, N., & Guiriec, S. 2010 [ [arXiv] 1002.2617 ]

2010 arXiv
[65]

D., Briggs , M

Preece , R. D., Briggs , M. S., Mallozzi , R. S., et al. 1998, , 506, L23

1998
[66]

E., Ghirlanda, G., & Ghisellini, G

Ravasio, M. E., Ghirlanda, G., & Ghisellini, G. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 685, A166

2024
[67]

E., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Ghisellini, G

Ravasio, M. E., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Ghisellini, G. 2019 a , Astron. Astrophys., 625, A60

2019
[68]

E., Oganesyan, G., Salafia, O

Ravasio, M. E., Oganesyan, G., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2019 b , Astron. Astrophys., 626, A12

2019
[69]

Rees, M. J. & Meszaros, P. 1994, Astrophys. J. Lett., 430, L93

1994
[70]

Rees, M. J. & Meszaros, P. 2005, Astrophys. J., 628, 847

2005
[71]

2004, Astrophys

Ryde, F. 2004, Astrophys. J., 614, 827

2004
[72]

& Piran, T

Sari, R. & Piran, T. 1997, Astrophys. J., 485, 270

1997
[73]

1998, Astrophys

Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, Astrophys. J. Lett., 497, L17

1998
[74]

2015, Space Sci

Sironi, L., Keshet, U., & Lemoine, M. 2015, Space Sci. Rev., 191, 519

2015
[75]

C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G

Spruit, H. C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G. 2001, Astron. Astrophys., 369, 694

2001
[76]

1996, Astrophysical Journal v

Tavani, M. 1996, Astrophysical Journal v. 466, p. 768, 466, 768

1996
[77]

1994, , 270, 480

Thompson , C. 1994, , 270, 480

1994
[78]

2015, JHEAp, 7, 23

van Eerten, H. 2015, JHEAp, 7, 23

2015
[79]

2018, Astrophys

Vianello, G., Gill, R., Granot, J., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 864, 163

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

[3] [3]

2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 11

Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 11

work page 2013

[4] [4]

2019, , 878, 52

Ajello , M., Arimoto , M., Axelsson , M., et al. 2019, , 878, 52

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Ajello, M. et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 878, 52

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Ajello, M. et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 890, 9

work page 2020

[7] [7]

1974, IEEE Trans

Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, 19, 716

work page 1974

[8] [8]

B., Abdo , A

Atwood , W. B., Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., et al. 2009, , 697, 1071

2009