Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Swift gives a new BAT-GLIMPSE: Gamma-ray Localization using Imaging and Mosaic techniques for Pointing and Slew Epochs

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An autonomous pipeline called BAT-GLIMPSE localizes gamma-ray bursts during Swift spacecraft slews, when the onboard trigger is off, and together with the NITRATES search is estimated to double the number of arcminute-localized bursts Swift

desk verdict Useful, well-engineered pipeline paper; the 88% and 'double' headlines are conditional on a validation sample selected for already being localized, so treat those as optimistic bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15130 v1 pith:L5POZSX6 submitted 2026-07-16 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMgr-qc

S. Ronchini , T. Parsotan , J. DeLaunay , J. A. Kennea This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords gamma-rayburstscoded-maskimagingmosaicSwift-BATarcminutelocalizationspacecraftslewtransientmulti-messengerastrophysics
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 Burst Alert Telescope on the Swift observatory can pinpoint gamma-ray bursts to a few arcminutes, but its onboard trigger is disabled whenever the spacecraft is slewing, so bursts that happen during a slew go unlocalized in real time. This paper presents BAT-GLIMPSE, a fully autonomous ground pipeline that takes the downlinked time-tagged BAT data and automatically chooses between coded-mask imaging (for very short time bins) and mosaic imaging (for longer bins overlapping the slew). Validated on 66 bursts that had already been reported, the pipeline recovers 43 arcminute positions with typical offsets under 5 arcminutes, including 88% of the bursts occurring during slews. If these rates hold more generally, BAT-GLIMPSE plus NITRATES would roughly double the rate at which Swift-BAT localizes bursts to arcminute precision, closing the slew gap and improving follow-up of gravitational-wave counterparts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing method is coded-mask imaging combined with a mosaic step. For each candidate time bin, the detector-plane image is cross-correlated with the coded mask to form a sky image; if the bin is short enough (under 0.2 seconds) that the source would not move more than the instrument point-spread function during a slew, that single image is used. Otherwise the bin is split into 0.2-second sub-bins, each is imaged, and the resulting sky images are weighted by signal-to-noise and summed into a mosaic. Automatic selection between these two modes based on spacecraft attitude is what lets the pipeline work during the slews when the onboard trigger is switched off.

What would settle it

Run BAT-GLIMPSE blindly on the full set of GUANO-triggered BAT time-tagged data from 2020 through 2026, including triggers that did not yield a published arcminute localization, and compare recovered positions with independent detections from other instruments; if the slew recovery rate on that unbiased sample falls well below 88%, or if the overall recovery fraction drops markedly, the central claims would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single automated pipeline can recover arcminute positions for gamma-ray transients from Swift-BAT data both during stationary pointing and during spacecraft slews, by splitting long time bins into 0.2-second images and co-adding them into a motion-corrected mosaic that tracks the source across the detector. Running on 66 bursts that had already been localized on the ground, BAT-GLIMPSE reproduces published positions in 43 cases with offsets of about 5 arcminutes or less; for the 16 bursts that occurred during slews, it recovers 14, eight by mosaic and six by short imaging. The authors further argue, from the sensitivity of NITRATES and the roughly 15% of t

Load-bearing premise

The performance metrics come from a sample of bursts that were already found and localized on the ground, so the recovery and doubling rates may not hold for the broader, fainter population of transients that occur during slews.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Swift-BAT can now produce arcminute localizations for bursts occurring during slews, a gap that previously left those events unlocalized.
  • Combined with NITRATES, the two pipelines are estimated to double the onboard arcminute-localization rate of Swift-BAT.
  • BAT-GLIMPSE provides localizations up to 30-60 times faster than NITRATES when a source is bright enough for imaging, enabling quicker follow-up.
  • The pipeline has operated in real time since 2025 and has already produced seven GCN circulars with arcminute positions, several confirmed by X-ray afterglow.
  • The method transfers to other coded-mask missions, such as the upcoming SVOM-ECLAIRs or THESEUS-XGIS, for localizing transients during slews.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The headline recovery percentages are measured on bursts that were already localized and reported on the ground; on a complete, unbiased set of GUANO triggers the true slew recovery could be lower, especially for faint or off-axis bursts.
  • The 'doubling' estimate is a scaling argument the paper brackets between +17% and +125%; a full archival re-run over all GUANO triggers would pin down where in that range the real gain lies.
  • Because BAT-GLIMPSE works on downlinked data after the fact, it also enables archival searches for untriggered transients in slew intervals, effectively turning slew time into survey time.
  • The partial-coding-weighted light-curve diagnostic offers a generic template for predicting whether a source is inside the coded-mask field of view during a slew, useful for any future coded-mask instrument.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents BAT-GLIMPSE, an open-source pipeline for ground-based localization of Swift-BAT TTE data using coded-mask imaging and mosaic techniques, with autonomous operation during both pointed observations and spacecraft slews. The pipeline is validated on 66 GUANO GRBs whose GCN circulars already reported an arcminute localization; 43 are recovered with angular separations ≲5′ and 14/16 events occurring during slews are recovered. The paper further estimates that BAT-GLIMPSE combined with NITRATES increases the arcminute-localized GRB detection rate relative to the onboard trigger rate by roughly +17% to +125%, and describes real-time use during LVK O4 and in the ULTRA-Swift early-warning program, together with upper-limit map products.

Significance. If the population-level claims held, this would be a valuable contribution: BAT-GLIMPSE addresses a real coverage gap created by disabled onboard triggering during slews, uses a transferable imaging/mosaic methodology, ships open-source code, and reports 29 events with independent afterglow or IPN confirmation. The offset distribution for recovered events and the practical SNR>7 reliability guidance are also useful. However, the headline recovery fractions and the factor-of-two gain estimate are currently built on a validation sample that was selected for previously published arcminute localizations. The paper is therefore more convincing as a demonstration of the pipeline on known, bright, already-localized events than as a measurement of detection efficiency on the full GUANO population. The central quantitative claims need to be re-based or explicitly re-framed as conditional before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3, Sec. 4.2, abstract] The validation sample is constructed from GCN circulars that already reported O(arcmin) GUANO localizations. The 43/66 and 14/16 recovery fractions therefore measure reproducibility on events that had already been found and localized on the ground, not detection efficiency for all GRBs occurring during slews. In particular, no slew event too faint or too far off-axis to have produced a GCN localization appears in the sample, so the abstract's 'approximately 88% of the GRBs occurring during spacecraft slews are recovered' is a population-level statement the design cannot support. The paper notes in Sec. 5.3 that the archival re-run was not done on the full GUANO trigger set, but this limitation is not carried into the abstract or Sec. 7. Please either rerun BAT-GLIMPSE on a sample of GUANO triggers selected independently of whether a localization was published—at least over all slews with
  2. [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (13), Fig. 9] The gain estimate for arcminute-localized GRBs uses the same outcome-selected sample. lambda_arcmin is inferred from Fig. 9, whose points are all GRBs already localized by NITRATES with arcmin precision; the ratio of NITRATES-to-BAT-GLIMPSE detections is therefore not an unbiased estimate of g_inFOV lambda_arcmin for the full GUANO population. The text identifies the external-trigger sensitivity bias but does not address the more basic outcome-selection bias. Consequently, rho_arcmin less-or-equal 2.25 is an upper bound in an optimistic scenario, not an expected value, and the 'double' wording in the abstract and Sec. 7 overstates the support. The abstract should say, at most, that the measured lower limit is +17% and that the upper end of the estimated range is +125% under the assumption that the selected sample is representative. A full-GUANO re-run or a clearly conditional analysis is
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3] 'In 16 cases (~18%)' appears inconsistent with the stated totals: 16/68 is about 23.5% and 16/214 is about 7.5%. Please clarify the denominator and define the percentage.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (7)] If R_BAT is the total onboard trigger rate per calendar year, the BAT-GLIMPSE slew term should scale as f_s/(1-f_s), not f_s, because R_BAT is accrued only during non-slew time. The numerical effect is small at f_s=0.15, but the formula as written is dimensionally inconsistent.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 7] The abstract says the pipelines 'are estimated to double' the onboard arcminute-localization rate, while Sec. 7 says 'by up to a factor of two' and Sec. 5.3 gives a range from +17% to +125% under optimistic assumptions. Please align the wording so the abstract does not present the upper end of the range as the expected value.
  4. [Sec. 4.2 and Table 1] Several bold rows in Table 1 correspond to GCNs produced in real time by BAT-GLIMPSE itself after 2025 (Sec. 2.4). These are not independent archival validations. The operations are disclosed, but the validation section should either exclude or separately analyze the real-time detections.
  5. [Sec. 4.2] No uncertainties are reported for the recovery fractions. The 88% figure rests on 14/16 successes; a binomial 95% confidence interval is approximately 62 to 98 percent. Please report confidence intervals for 43/66 and 14/16.
  6. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 4] The SNR histogram comparison to a Gaussian assumes the null distribution; it would help to state the expected distribution under pure Poisson noise and to define the source-detection threshold of SNR>7 in the same section. Also 'reducing the the latency' in Sec. 7 should read 'reducing the latency.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Validation sample includes BAT-GLIMPSE's own GCNs, making some 'recoveries' self-confirming; gain estimate uses the same outcome-selected sample.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.4 (real-time operations), Sec. 3 (sample selection), Table 1]
    "At the time of writing, the Swift-BAT/GUANO team has released seven circulars containing a GRB arcmin localization ... obtained with BAT-GLIMPSE (Ronchini et al. 2025e,a,b; DeLaunay et al. 2025a; Ronchini et al. 2025c,d, 2026). ... Inspecting the GCN archive ... we searched for all the circulars published until March 2026, containing the detection of a GRB using GUANO, reporting a localization precision of O(arcmin)."

    The validation ground truth is the published GUANO GCN position, but seven of those GCNs (39979, 41110, 41185, 42245, 42263, 43114, 43377) were produced by BAT-GLIMPSE itself. Table 1's last column then measures the separation between BAT-GLIMPSE and its own published position (e.g., 0.00 arcmin for GCNs 41110 and 42245), so those 7 recoveries are true by construction. The headline 43/66 recovery and 14/16 slew recovery include these self-validating entries; the only cross-check cited for them is the same team's NITRATES pipeline, not an independent position.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (13), Fig. 9; abstract]
    "This number can be obtained from Fig. 9 counting the number of GRBs localized by NITRATES over the ones by BAT-GLIMPSE. However, this estimate is biased by the selection related to the sensitivity of the external triggering instrument... g_inFOV λ_arcmin ≲ 2.1 and ρ_arcmin ≲ 2.25, i.e. a net maximum gain of +125% in the detection rate of arcmin localized GRBs."

    The gain parameter λ_arcmin is counted from the same 66-event sample that was selected for already having arcmin GCN localizations; the resulting ρ_arcmin upper limit is therefore the selected sample's internal ratio of NITRATES-arcmin events to BAT-GLIMPSE recoveries, not an out-of-sample prediction. The abstract converts this self-derived upper bound into 'estimated to double the onboard arcminute-localization rate,' dropping the paper's own Sec. 5.3 caveats that the estimate is biased and that the true gain could be as low as +17%.

full rationale

Most of the pipeline validation is a legitimate empirical exercise: BAT-GLIMPSE is run on archival GUANO TTE data and its positions are compared with published GCN positions, with no equation-level circularity in the imaging/mosaic machinery, and the code is open-source. The central capability claim also has real external grounding: 29 of the 66 events have independent afterglow or IPN confirmation, and most recovered positions are cross-checked against NITRATES, a published pipeline. The circularity is partial and concentrated in the validation set definition: because the sample was defined as 'GUANO circulars reporting O(arcmin) localizations' after BAT-GLIMPSE had begun issuing such circulars in real time, seven of the 43 recoveries compare the pipeline to its own output. This inflates the 43/66 and 88% headline fractions. The Sec. 5.3 sensitivity gain additionally uses the same outcome-selected sample to derive the λ_arcmin ratio, and the abstract's 'estimated to double' presents the optimistic end of the paper's own acknowledged range [+17%, +125%] without the caveats. These issues are real but do not reduce the entire derivation to a fit or a self-citation chain, so the score is moderate rather than severe.

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

The paper's headline sensitivity gains rest on a chain of assumed or benchmark-derived parameters (g_inFOV=4.3, ε_glimpse=1, ε_ext≥1, λ_arcmin≈2.1) rather than a direct measurement on an unbiased sample. The validation sample is itself selected from GCN circulars that already reported localizations, so the recovery rates carry selection bias. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • g_inFOV (NITRATES gain within FOV) = ≈4.3
    Derived in Eq. (5) from simulations of a GRB 170817A-like source distributed uniformly across the sky; used to estimate the NITRATES detection-volume gain and propagates to the total rate gain.
  • g_outFOV (NITRATES gain outside FOV) = ≈0.41
    Derived in Eq. (6) using the same benchmark simulation and the solid-angle ratio 4π/Ω_FOV - 1; contributes to the total gain estimate.
  • ε_glimpse (BAT-GLIMPSE sensitivity ratio) = 1 (assumed)
    Assumed in Sec. 5.2 without direct measurement; the paper calls it conservative, but the actual recovery efficiency during slews is not quantified beyond the biased archival sample.
  • ε_ext (external trigger sensitivity ratio) = ≥1 (assumed)
    Assumed in Sec. 5.2 that external triggering instruments are at least as sensitive as BAT onboard imaging; used to simplify the min() expressions and derive the gain bounds.
  • λ_arcmin (NITRATES arcmin-localization fraction) = ≲2.1
    Estimated in Sec. 5.3 from the ratio of NITRATES to BAT-GLIMPSE detections in Fig. 9; the paper acknowledges this estimate is biased by the external-trigger sensitivity selection.
  • Detection thresholds (SNR>7 imaging, SNR>5.5 mosaic, SNR>3.5 seeds) = 3.5/5.5/7
    Chosen thresholds in Secs. 2.1-2.3; they determine which detections are counted in the recovery rates. The paper notes that between SNR 6-7 only 2/5 recover the correct position.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The coded-mask cross-correlation imaging performed by batfftimage produces correct sky images for each 0.2 s sub-bin, with the spacecraft attitude tracked accurately.
    Relied on in Sec. 2.2-2.3 for both pointing and slew imaging; if the attitude interpolation during slews is inaccurate, the mosaic positions would be biased.
  • domain assumption A single detector response matrix (DRM) is sufficient for flux conversion over slews spanning less than ~15 degrees.
    Invoked in Sec. 4.3, citing the BAT software guide; used for upper-limit maps during slews, not for detection.
  • domain assumption The background count rate in the BAT light curve is well described by a third-order polynomial with Poissonian likelihood over the [t0-50s, t0+150s] window.
    Used in Sec. 2.1 for time-seed identification; an unmodeled background flare could create false seeds or mask real ones.
  • domain assumption The detectable volume of a GRB population scales as the 3/2 power of the sensitivity, valid for uniform-in-volume source distributions.
    Used in Secs. 5.1-5.2 to convert sensitivity ratios into rate gains; the paper acknowledges this is approximate and breaks for non-uniform density.
  • domain assumption The external trigger time t0 is accurately known and the GUANO data downlink is successful for each analyzed event.
    The entire pipeline seeds on t0 and requires TTE data; two events were excluded because of corrupted/unavailable data (Sec. 3).
  • standard math During a 0.2 s time bin, the apparent motion of a source across the BAT FOV is less than the PSF width (22.5 arcmin FWHM), so a static imaging assumption holds.
    From Copete (2012), used in Sec. 2.1 to justify the 0.2 s imaging threshold during slews.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Swift gives a new BAT-GLIMPSE: Gamma-ray Localization using Imaging and Mosaic techniques for Pointing and Slew Epochs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L5POZSX6

@misc{pith2026260715130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Swift gives a new BAT-GLIMPSE: Gamma-ray Localization using Imaging and Mosaic techniques for Pointing and Slew Epochs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L5POZSX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15130}
}
abstract

The Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) onboard the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory is capable of localizing gamma-ray transients with arcminute precision, enabling rapid multi-wavelength follow-up. However, onboard triggering is disabled during spacecraft slews, preventing the autonomous detection and localization of transients occurring during these intervals. We present here BAT-GLIMPSE, a fully autonomous, open-source pipeline for the low-latency localization of transient gamma-ray sources in Swift-BAT data. Making use of the BatAnalysis package, the pipeline combines coded-mask imaging and mosaic techniques, automatically selecting the appropriate analysis according to the spacecraft attitude and enabling localization searches during both pointing observations and spacecraft slews. We validate the performance of BAT-GLIMPSE on a sample of 66 GRBs reported in GUANO circulars. The pipeline successfully recovers arcminute positions for 43 events, consistent with published localizations, with typical offsets of $\lesssim5$ arcminutes. Approximately $88\%$ of the GRBs occurring during spacecraft slews are recovered through imaging or mosaic analyses. During the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, the role of BAT-GLIMPSE was crucial in the search for gamma-ray counterparts of gravitational waves, particularly in response to pre-merger alerts which triggered the slew of the Swift spacecraft with extremely low latency. Operating synergistically with NITRATES, BAT-GLIMPSE fills the critical gap left by slew intervals and, together, the two pipelines are estimated to double the onboard arcminute-localization rate of Swift-BAT, unlocking the full potential of the Swift mission for time-domain and multi-messenger astrophysics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15130 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of light curve and background fitting during slew by BAT-GLIMPSE. Middle panel: raw light curve with background fit. The light yellow band indicates the time interval excluded from the fit, by default [t0 − 5 s, t0 + 20 s]. The red curve is the best fit background model. Top panel: inset with the background-subtracted light curve, with hori￾zontal bands indicating 3.5σ and 5σ uncertainty on the back￾ground l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histogram of the delay between the GUANO trigger time and the publication time of the GCN circulars containing GUANO arcminute localization. The hatched his￾togram is the sub-sample of GRBs whose afterglow was de￾tected thanks to the GUANO position. Cases where the delay is larger than 72 hr are not included in the plot. 2.3. Mosaic search The mosaic analysis combines sky images from multi￾ple short time bins. We di… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of diagnostic plots produced during the pre-run phase of BAT-GLIMPSE, in the case of Swift in stationary pointing. The central panel shows the sky localization of the astronomical transient that triggered GUANO. The solid and dashed black lines indicate the 90% and 50% credible levels. The red solid contours identify the 1%, 30% and 80% partial coding fraction of BAT computed at the trigger time. The left pa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of summary plots produced after BAT-GLIMPSE detects and localizes the source, in the case of Swift in stationary pointing. The central panel is the same of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of diagnostic plots produced before the BAT-GLIMPSE run, in the case of Swift slewing during at the external trigger time. The central panel shows the sky localization of the astronomical transient that triggered GUANO. The solid and dashed black lines indicate…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of summary plots produced after BAT-GLIMPSE detects and localizes the source, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel: raw 256 ms binned light curve of GRB 220511A (GCN 32013, DeLaunay et al. 2022b). Bot￾tom panel: partial-coding weighted count light curve, which takes into account the apparent motion of the source across the BAT FOV. The distribution of partial coding obtai…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the angular separation between the GRB position found by BAT-GLIMPSE and the one re￾ported in the GUANO GCNs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution in the partial coding - √ T S plane of all the GRBs localized by NITRATES with arcmin precision. The points indicated with a cross are GRBs not detected by BAT-GLIMPSE, while the ✓ symbol indicates GRBs detected both by NITRATES and BAT-GLIMPSE. The color …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Diagnostic plot for the GW candidate S250331o (Ligo Scientific Collaboration et al. 2025a). BAT-GLIMPSE can be used to derive the distribution of partial coding to determine the probability that the GW candidate is inside the BAT FOV at the trigger time. The blue colo…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Flux upper limit map from a mosaiced image. The blue and orange solid lines indicate the BAT FOV at the beginning and end of the time window. The right panel shows the distribution of the upper limit obtained with positions injected according to the sky probability di…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Detectable volume of NITRATES with respect to BAT onboard imaging as a function of the angular distance α between the source and the BAT boresight, averaged over the azimuthal angle. The solid angle enclosed between the source and the boresight is indicated with Ω. Ea…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 17

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2022, PhRvD, 106, 042002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.042002

    Baltus, G., Janquart, J., Lopez, M., Narola, H., & Cudell, J.-R. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 042002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.042002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.042002 2022

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 678, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345850

    Banerjee, B., Oganesyan, G., Branchesi, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345850

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345850 2023

  4. [4]

    D., Butterworth, P., Cline, T

    Barthelmy, S. D., Butterworth, P., Cline, T. L., et al. 1998, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 428, Gamma-Ray Bursts, 4th Hunstville Symposium, ed. C. A. Meegan, R. D. Preece, & T. M. Koshut (AIP), 99–103, doi: 10.1063/1.55426

    work page doi:10.1063/1.55426 1998

  5. [5]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 143

    2005

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2021, ApJ, 921, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac17e7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac17e7 2021

  7. [7]

    2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04485

    Burns, E., Coughlin, M., Ackley, K., et al. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04485

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    N., Hill, J., Nousek, J., et al

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J., Nousek, J., et al. 2005, Space science reviews, 120, 165

    2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accffb

    Chatterjee, C., & Wen, L. 2023, ApJ, 959, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accffb

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Toivonen, A., Waratkar, G., et al

    Chaudhary, S. S., Toivonen, A., Waratkar, G., et al. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 121, e2316474121, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2316474121

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Gupta, O., Wadiasingh, Z., et al

    Cooper, A. J., Gupta, O., Wadiasingh, Z., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3923, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3580

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Copete, A. J. 2012, PhD thesis, Harvard University, Massachusetts

    2012

  5. [13]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 169

    DeLaunay, J., & Tohuvavohu, A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 941, 169

    2022

  6. [14]

    DeLaunay, J., Tohuvavohu, A., & Kennea, J. A. 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 29877, 1

    2021

  7. [15]

    X., Afle, C., et al

    Evans, M., Adhikari, R. X., Afle, C., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.09882, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.09882

    2021 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    e., et al

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P. e., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005

    2004

  9. [17]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    Ghirlanda, G., & Salvaterra, R. 2022, ApJ, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Pescalli, A., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Pescalli, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628993

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Godet, O., Nasser, G., Atteia, J.-., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9144, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, J.-W. A. den Herder, & M. Bautz, 914424, doi: 10....

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bdb

    Goldstein, A., Fletcher, C., Veres, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bdb

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    2023, ApJL, 958, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed4

    Hu, Q., & Veitch, J. 2023, ApJL, 958, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0ed4

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

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

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, Swift-SOT/swifttools: swifttools-3.0.22: Add ‘srcrad‘ parameter to ‘xrt prods‘, swifttools-3.0.22, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10610946

    Kennea, J., Evans, P., & Maddi, V. 2024, Swift-SOT/swifttools: swifttools-3.0.22: Add ‘srcrad‘ parameter to ‘xrt prods‘, swifttools-3.0.22, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10610946

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Sreekumar, A

    Kovalam, M., Kaium Patwary, M. A., Sreekumar, A. K., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5687

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Labanti, C., Amati, L., Frontera, F., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11444, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, & K. Nakazawa, 114442...

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Schroeder, G., et al

    Laskar, T., Escorial, A. R., Schroeder, G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8421 Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, & Kagra Collaboration. 2025a, GRB Coordinates Network, 39953, 1 —. 2025b, GRB Coordinates Network, 39986, 1

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f33

    Magee, R., & Borhanian, S. 2022, ApJ, 935, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f33

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    P., et al

    Magee, R., Chatterjee, D., Singer, L. P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abed54

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, histpy, 1.1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14262814

    Martinez-Castellanos, I. 2024, histpy, 1.1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14262814

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    L., Singh, N., & Palomba, C

    Miller, A. L., Singh, N., & Palomba, C. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 043021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043021 Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc). 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.0...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    H., & Dal Canton, T

    Nitz, A. H., & Dal Canton, T. 2021, ApJL, 917, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1a75

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    H., Sch¨ afer, M., & Dal Canton, T

    Nitz, A. H., Sch¨ afer, M., & Dal Canton, T. 2020, ApJL, 902, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbc10

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Page, K

    Osborne, J. P., Page, K. L., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 43155, 1 Pal’shin, V. D., Hurley, K., Svinkin, D. S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 38, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/38

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    M., et al

    Parsotan, T., Laha, S., Palmer, D. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 155

    2023

  30. [38]

    2024, parsotat/BatAnalysis: BatAnalysis, v2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916508

    Parsotan, T., Palmer, D., Ronchini, S., et al. 2024, parsotat/BatAnalysis: BatAnalysis, v2.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7916508

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Ronchini, S., et al

    Parsotan, T., Palmer, D. M., Ronchini, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade240

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    Punturo, M., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9749

    Raman, G., Ronchini, S., Delaunay, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9749

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, astropy/reproject: v0.13.1, v0.13.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10931886

    Robitaille, T., Ginsburg, A., Mumford, S., et al. 2024, astropy/reproject: v0.13.1, v0.13.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10931886

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Kennedy, T

    Roming, P. W., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 95

    2005

  36. [44]

    2026, samueleronchini/BAT-GLIMPSE, 0.1.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20689194

    Ronchini, S. 2026, samueleronchini/BAT-GLIMPSE, 0.1.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20689194

    2026 doi

  37. [45]

    2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43377, 1

    Ronchini, S., Tohuvavohu, A., DeLaunay, J., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43377, 1

    2026

  38. [46]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5d74

    Ronchini, S., Bala, S., Wood, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5d74

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2020, ApJL, 905, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc753

    Sachdev, S., Magee, R., Hanna, C., et al. 2020, ApJL, 905, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc753

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    M., et al

    Schneider, B., Moreno M´ endez, E., Watson, A. M., et al. 2026, GRB Coordinates Network, 43426, 1

    2026

  41. [49]

    G., Barkov, M

    Sharma, P., Turyshev, S. G., Barkov, M. V., & Lyutikov, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.14300, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.14300

    2026 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    S., Hurley, K., Ridnaia, A

    Svinkin, D. S., Hurley, K., Ridnaia, A. V., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4607

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    A., DeLaunay, J., et al

    Tohuvavohu, A., Kennea, J. A., DeLaunay, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 35

    2020

  44. [52]

    A., Roberts, C

    Tohuvavohu, A., Kennea, J. A., Roberts, C. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad87ce

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    2012, PhRvL, 108, 011102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.011102

    Bondarescu, R. 2012, PhRvL, 108, 011102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.011102

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, PhRvD, 104, 064013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.064013 —

    Tsutsui, T., Nishizawa, A., & Morisaki, S. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 064013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.064013 —. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac715 van Straalen, W., Kolmus, A., Janquart, J., & Van Den

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10263

    Broeck, C. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.10263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.10263

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40109, 1

    Williams, M., Ronchini, S., Raman, G., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 40109, 1

    2025

  50. [58]

    2025, ApJS, 278, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/add5ee

    Xiao, S., Zhang, Y.-T., Wang, Y., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/add5ee

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    2019, Frontiers of Physics, 14, 64402

    Zhang, B. 2019, Frontiers of Physics, 14, 64402

    2019

  52. [60]

    2026, ApJ, 998, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3319

    Zhang, S.-R., Wang, Y., Yuan, Y.-F., et al. 2026, ApJ, 998, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3319

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.