Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

From precursor to afterglow: The complex evolution of GRB 210312B

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GRB 210312B shows a soft gamma-ray precursor 17 s before its main pulse, and its optical afterglow decomposes into an early flare plus a forward shock that settles into standard external-shock decay.

desk verdict Solid observational case study of a faint long GRB with a robust precursor and early flare, but the standard-model consistency claim is partly built into the fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16712 v1 pith:N4K5OS2B submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.HE

M. Jelínek , S. A. Grebenev , P. Yu. Minaev , C. C. Thöne , A. de Ugarte Postigo , A. Rossi , D. Paris , D. A. Kann
show 10 more authors
J. F. Agüí Fernández J. Štrobl A. S. Pozanenko I. V. Chelovekov F. Novotný S. Karpov M. Topinka M. Blažek S. Vítek R. Hudec
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsGRB210312BprecursoropticalafterglowforwardshockflareshostgalaxyINTEGRAL
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

GRB 210312B, a faint long-duration burst detected by INTEGRAL, is presented as a rare, densely sampled record of the prompt-to-afterglow transition in one object. The paper identifies a gamma-ray precursor about 17 s before the main pulse whose spectrum is significantly softer, with hardness ratio $0.37 \pm 0.12$ versus $1.9 \pm 0.4$, a $4\sigma$ difference. It then decomposes the optical light curve into an early flare peaking at $76.0^{+4.4}_{-5.1}$ s with very steep rise and decay, plus a forward-shock component that settles into a final power-law decay consistent with the standard external-shock model for electron index $p = 2.36$. If correct, this makes the burst one of the few cases where early flare, forward-shock onset, plateau, and final power-law decay are all captured, and it suggests that the standard afterglow picture holds even for intrinsically faint events.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-component MCMC model of the optical afterglow: a smoothly broken power law for the forward shock plus a flare component, fitted jointly with 128 walkers over 131072 steps. A single electron index $p$ is shared across the late-time decay, with the closure relations $\alpha_{\mathrm{FS},4} = (3p-2)/4$ and $\beta = -p/2$ built into the model, so the fitted $p = 2.36$ simultaneously forces the final decay slope $1.27$ and spectral slope $-1.18$. The precursor identification is carried by background-subtracted, mask-decoded light curves from the IBIS/ISGRI and JEM-X instruments and a hardness ratio between the 40--80 and 3--20 keV bands.

What would settle it

Measure the late-time afterglow of GRB 210312B (or a similarly well-sampled event) simultaneously in X-rays and optical and test whether the decay index and spectral index satisfy $\alpha = (3p-2)/4$ and $\beta = -p/2$ with one common $p$; a violation would falsify the forward-shock-consistency claim. A higher-significance hardness-ratio or spectral measurement of the precursor would also settle whether the 17 s pulse is genuinely softer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GRB 210312B emitted a precursor about 17 s before its main gamma-ray pulse, with hardness ratio $0.37 \pm 0.12$ compared with $1.9 \pm 0.4$ for the main pulse, and that its optical afterglow is not a single power law but a superposition of two components. The early component is an optical flare peaking at $76.0^{+4.4}_{-5.1}$ s with rise slope $\alpha_{\mathrm{flare,1}} = -4.1$ and decay slope $\alpha_{\mathrm{flare,2}} = 4.0$; the second is a forward shock that rises to a broad hydrodynamic peak near 150 s, shows a complex plateau with a rebrightening around 2400--3800 s, and finally decays as $\alpha_{\mathrm{FS},4} = 1.27$ with spectral index $\beta = -1.18$. Because these last two values follow from a single fitted electron index $p = 2.36$ through the standard closure relations, the paper reads them as full consistency with the external-shock model for a constant-density medium. The negligible host extinction strengthens the claim that the spectral slope is intrinsic, and the burst is classified as a Type II (long) GRB by duration, spectral lag, and energy diagnostics. The host system is an unusually luminous two-component galaxy pair at $z = 1.069$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the late-time optical emission is not a clean forward shock obeying the standard closure relations, since the fitted electron index and the consistency verdict are read off those relations and there is no X-ray data to check them independently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GRB 210312B becomes a benchmark for early-afterglow models: a correct theory of optical flares or reverse-shock emission must reproduce a 76 s peak with rise $\alpha_{\mathrm{flare,1}} = -4.1$ and decay $\alpha_{\mathrm{flare,2}} = 4.0$ while the forward shock peaks near 150 s.
  • If the late-time consistency holds, the standard external-shock model with a single electron index $p \approx 2.36$ applies down to some of the faintest afterglows followed in detail, extending its tested range.
  • The plateau and rebrightening are attributed to continued or stochastic energy injection ending near 3800 s, so any engine model must produce a smooth plateau with a roughly 0.25 mag rebrightening and no spectral change.
  • The detection of a soft precursor 17 s before the main pulse implies that real-time triggers can miss precursors when the background is variable, and that multi-band, background-subtracted analysis is needed to recover them.
  • The luminous two-component host at $z = 1.069$ adds a case where a long GRB occurs in a massive, possibly interacting galaxy pair, broadening the known environments of Type II bursts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: if soft precursors are common in long GRBs, they may trace a different dissipation region or jet component from the main pulse; a systematic hardness-ratio study of INTEGRAL precursors could check this.
  • The paper's hard-wired closure relations imply a prediction it does not test: a future X-ray observation of the same late-time phase should find $\beta \approx -1.18$ and $\alpha \approx 1.27$.
  • Beyond the paper, the stochastic energy-injection picture for the plateau predicts that other well-sampled optical light curves should show similar moderate rebrightenings; a search of existing archives would test this.
  • The luminous, possibly interacting host suggests that some long GRBs occur in environments unlike typical low-mass hosts; a census of GRB hosts in interacting pairs at $z \sim 1$ could quantify this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a multiwavelength study of the long GRB 210312B, combining INTEGRAL high-energy observations with dense ground-based optical follow-up. It identifies a soft gamma-ray precursor about 17 s before the main pulse, detected in both IBIS/ISGRI and JEM-X, and an early optical flare peaking at ~76 s with a steep rise and decay. The optical light curve is modeled with an MCMC two-component fit consisting of an early flare and a forward shock, yielding an electron distribution index p = 2.36 and a late-time decay index α_FS,4 = 1.27 that the authors claim is consistent with standard afterglow theory. The paper also characterizes the host galaxy as a luminous, possibly interacting pair at z = 1.069.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a rare, well-sampled view of the prompt-to-afterglow transition in a faint long GRB. The precursor is supported by two instruments with S/N of 6.6σ and 4.3σ, and the early optical flare is directly visible as the brightest point in the light curve at ~75 s. The host-galaxy system at z = 1.069 with two components separated by 11.5 kpc is also of interest for GRB environment studies. The paper is transparent in presenting the photometric tables and the MCMC fitting procedure, which are strengths. However, the central interpretation that the late afterglow is 'fully consistent' with standard external-shock theory is currently weakened by the model-dependent derivation of the closure relations and by a comparison analysis that is not independent.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.6, Table 1, §4.4] Section 3.6, Table 1, and Section 4.4: The claim that the afterglow is 'fully consistent' with standard theory is not an independent test, because α_FS,4 and β are derived from the fitted p via the closure relations α_FS,4 = (3p−2)/4 and β = −p/2 rather than being free parameters of the fit. The MCMC model therefore imposes the standard-model relation on the late-time decay, and the agreement reported in §4.4 is a model-imposed identity rather than a validation. In addition, these relations correspond to the slow-cooling branch above the cooling frequency; with no X-ray or radio data, there is no evidence that the optical band lies in that regime. I recommend fitting the late decay slope as a free parameter and/or deriving the spectral index from an independent SED fit, then either verifying the closure or rewriting the text to state that the data are compatible with the assumed closure rather than that they confirm it.
  2. [§4.4] Section 4.4: The comparison with Kann et al. (2024) is described as an 'independent analysis,' but D. A. Kann is a coauthor of the present paper, and the Kann et al. sample likely includes the same photometric data. This does not provide an independent check of the derived parameters. The authors should either demonstrate that the two analyses use non-overlapping data or remove the word 'independent' and explicitly discuss the degree of data overlap.
  3. [§3.6, Table 1] Section 3.6, Table 1: The fit uses 16 parameters for 38 data points with a reduced χ² of 0.52, which indicates overfitting or overestimated photometric errors. This weakens the validation of the multi-component decomposition (early flare, forward shock, energy injection, multiple breaks) and makes the quoted uncertainties on p and α_FS,4 less robust than they appear. I suggest reporting the error scale explicitly (for example, adding a systematic error term to the likelihood) and comparing with a simpler model beyond the quoted AIC/BIC values, since the large number of parameters may make the derived p and final decay index dependent on the model structure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.6] The text in §3.6 refers to the final decay index as α_FS,5 = (3p−2)/4, while Table 1 and §3.7 call the same quantity α_FS,4; please unify the notation.
  2. [Page 1] The received/accepted dates dated 'Received March 31, 2021; accepted April 1, 2021' are inconsistent with the observation date of GRB 210312B (March 12, 2021) and with the inclusion of LBT data taken 52 days later; these dates appear to be a typo.
  3. [Table 3] In the table notes, 'nothern' should be 'northern'.
  4. [Fig. 9] The residuals panel label 'Residuals [ ]' is missing units; specify magnitudes or σ.
  5. [Introduction] The introduction mentions 'two bright flares at very early times,' but the analysis models a single early optical flare; please clarify whether the second feature refers to the precursor or to the rebrightening around 3000 s.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Afterglow 'consistency' is enforced by the model's closure relations: α_FS,4 and β are derived from the fitted p, so the §3.7/§4.4 agreement is tautological; the Kann et al. (2024) comparison is not an independent check.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§4.4 'Closure relations'; see also §3.7 and Table 1 'Derived Parameters']
    "The final temporal decay rate αFS,4 = 1.27 and electron distribution index p = 2.36+0.18−0.15 are fully consistent with the expectations for an adiabatic expansion into a homogeneous ISM medium in the slow cooling regime (for a complete reference of closure relations, see Gao et al. 2013). The spectral index β = −p/2 = −1.18 derived from this electron distribution aligns with standard external shock model predictions."

    Table 1 lists αFS,4 and β as 'Derived Parameters', and the model is described as having 'spectral evolution governed by electron distribution index p'. The MCMC forward-shock component therefore imposes αFS,4 = (3p−2)/4 and β = −p/2 at the outset: the final temporal slope and spectral slope are not free parameters measured from the light curve but functional forms evaluated at the best-fit p. Claiming that these computed values are 'fully consistent' with the closure relations is a restatement of the model's own construction, not an external test. An independent check would fit the late-time slope and spectral index freely and then compare them to the closure predictions.

  2. self citation load bearing [§4.4 'Closure relations' (Kann et al. 2024 comparison)]
    "The robustness of our interpretation is further supported by independent analysis. Our detailed analysis is compatible with the preliminary findings reported by Kann et al. (2024) ... The agreement between these independently derived parameters, with our values emerging from a physically motivated model constrained by a single p value, strengthens confidence in the interpretation."

    Kann is a coauthor of the present paper and of the earlier GCN reports on GRB 210312B whose photometry enters Appendix A; the Kann et al. (2024) sample analysis covers the same burst. The 'independent analysis' therefore shares authorship and overlapping data rather than providing an external measurement of the afterglow. Its agreement with αFS,4 and β derived from p cannot break the closure-relation circularity; it only propagates the same standard-model parameterization to another paper by the same group.

full rationale

The precursor detection, hardness-ratio difference, early optical flare timing, and host-galaxy properties are observational results that do not depend on the model and are not circular. The circularity is confined to the standard-afterglow consistency claim: the forward-shock component of the MCMC model is built with the closure relations αFS,4=(3p−2)/4 and β=−p/2 (Table 1), so the reported agreement between p, αFS,4, and β is an identity rather than a test. The Kann et al. (2024) comparison is presented as independent support but involves a coauthor and the same burst photometry. Accordingly the overall score is 6: the central interpretation is partially forced by construction, while the main observational claims stand.

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

The central claim rests on a heavily parameterized empirical model: 16 MCMC fit parameters for 38 photometric points cover the flare, the forward shock, and host extinction. The interpretive layer adds standard GRB assumptions (external forward-shock synchrotron emission with closure relations, thin-shell deceleration for the Lorentz factor, constant-spectrum color conversion of heterogeneous photometry). No new physical entities are proposed. The absence of X-ray coverage means the closure-relation consistency is the principal physical check, and it is embedded in the model rather than external to it.

free parameters (8)
  • Electron distribution index p = 2.355
    Fitted by MCMC; the model derives α_FS,4 and β from p via closure relations, so this single parameter carries the late-time physics.
  • Host extinction A_V,host = -0.073
    Fitted; the negative value is unphysical but consistent with zero at 1σ.
  • Early flare peak time T_flare,12 = 76.0 s
    Fitted break time for the early optical flare.
  • Forward-shock break times T_FS,12, T_FS,23, T_FS,34 = 146 s, 2407 s, 3836 s
    Fitted break times describing the forward-shock rise, plateau, and final decay.
  • Temporal slopes α_FS,1..3 and α_flare,1..2 = -1.025, 0.868, -0.874, -4.080, 4.025
    Fitted slopes; the flare slopes carry large uncertainties due to overlap with the forward-shock component.
  • Smoothness parameters N_FS,12, N_FS,23, N_FS,34 = 0.561, 0.207, 0.115
    Fitted smoothness of the light-curve breaks.
  • Magnitude zero points B and B_flare = 22.07, 18.23 mag
    Fitted normalization constants for the forward shock and flare components.
  • Radiative efficiency η and ambient density n0 = 0.2 and 1 cm^-3 (assumed)
    Standard assumed values in the Γ0 estimate (Eq. 3); not fitted to data but load-bearing for the Lorentz factor value.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard external forward-shock synchrotron model with closure relations α = (3p-2)/4 and β = -p/2
    The MCMC forward-shock component is built on these relations and they are used to interpret the fitted p (§3.6, §3.7, §4.4). This is the main circularity-bearing assumption.
  • domain assumption Redshift z = 1.069 from FeII/MgII/MgI absorption lines applies to the afterglow and host
    Used to compute rest-frame energies, durations, and host properties (§3.8).
  • standard math Planck cosmology (H0 = 67.3, ΩM = 0.315, ΩΛ = 0.685)
    Adopted in §1 for distance and energy calculations.
  • domain assumption Thin-shell deceleration regime for the Γ0 estimate
    The forward-shock peak time t_p ~ 146 s is much larger than T90, warranting the thin-shell formula of Sari & Piran (1995) (§4.5).
  • domain assumption Color conversion of unfiltered and multi-filter photometry to r-band uses a constant, model-derived spectral slope
    The early D50 unfiltered data and later multi-filter data are homogenized to r-band assuming a constant spectrum based on model parameters (§2.2, §3.7). If the afterglow color evolves, the early light-curve shape is biased.
  • domain assumption Stochastic energy injection explains the plateau and rebrightening
    Invoked in §3.6 and §4.3 to interpret the complex plateau; the paper hedges that the physical significance is uncertain, and no independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From precursor to afterglow: The complex evolution of GRB 210312B." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N4K5OS2B

@misc{pith2026250516712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From precursor to afterglow: The complex evolution of GRB 210312B},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N4K5OS2B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16712}
}
read the original abstract

Long gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are characterized by a brief gamma-ray flash followed by a longer-lasting multiwavelength afterglow. The basic mechanism is largely understood, and the early afterglow evolution often shows complex features that provide crucial insights into the transition between prompt and afterglow phases. We present a detailed analysis of GRB 210312B, detected by INTEGRAL, which exhibits both a precursor and a complex optical afterglow evolution. Through careful modeling using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, we disentangled the contributions of an early optical flare and forward shock emission. Our analysis reveals a gamma-ray precursor 17 s before the main pulse with a significantly softer spectrum (hardness ratio 0.37 +/- 0.12 versus 1.9 +/- 0.4). The optical afterglow shows an early peak at 76.0^{+4.4}{-5.1} s characterized by a steep rise ({\alpha}{flare,1} = -4.1^{+1.6}{-2.3}) and decay ({\alpha}{flare,2} = 4.0^{+2.1}{-1.5}), followed by forward shock emission with a broad hydrodynamic peak at around 150 s. In the subsequent plateau phase, the afterglow initially has a complex structure before settling into a final power law decay consistent with an electron distribution index p = 2.36^{+0.18}{-0.15}. The negligible host extinction (A_{V,host} = -0.073^{+0.100}_{-0.078}) suggests we are observing the intrinsic afterglow spectrum. The host system consists of two luminous (M_B ~ -21.7) components separated by 11.5 kpc at z = 1.069, which are possibly an interacting galaxy pair. GRB 210312B provides a rare opportunity to study the prompt-to-afterglow transition in detail. The consistency of the forward shock component with standard afterglow theory supports our physical interpretation despite the lack of X-ray coverage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16712 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: Discovery image from the Ondˇrejov 0.5m telescope. The optical afterglow of GRB 210312B is marked. The image covers 10′ per side. Bottom panel: gri image (value inverted) from the 2×8.4 m LBT telescope. The location of the optical afterglow of GRB 210312B is marked. The double structure of the underlying object is clearly visi￾ble. This image has a dimension of 1.5 ′ × 1.5 ′ . 0.5 h after the trigger. Des… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sky image (S/N map) within the IBIS/ISGRI FoV obtained dur￾ing the primary pulse of GRB 210312B (2.4 s). Coordinates are Galac￾tic. GRB 210312B was the only source detected in the field (at a S/N level of 19.1σ). The crosses indicate positions of known persistent X￾ray sources (not detected in this short exposure) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Precursor After subtracting the background we find another episode of activity in the IBIS/ISGRI light curves preceding the main pulse (trigger time) by ∼ 17 s (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 20-100 keV count rate history recorded by the IBIS/ISGRI detec￾tor with a time resolution of 1.0 s (green histogram) and the correspond￾ing light curve of GRB 210312B reconstructed through the mask decod￾ing (black histogram) with the background subtracted and the dead…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Broadband spectrum measured during the main pulse (blue line and open circles) and precursor (green line and filled circles) phases of GRB 210312B as measured with the INTEGRAL IBIS/PICsIT IBIS/ISGRI and JEM-X telescopes. The best fits with the CPL model are shown with…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: T90,i – EH diagram for type I GRBs (blue squares), type II GRBs (red circles), and SGR giant flares (unfilled magenta squares) with cor￾responding cluster analysis results. The 1σ and 2σ cluster regions are shown with bold solid and thin dashed curves of the correspond…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: GRB 210312B in the Amati correlation plane. The location of the main pulse is marked. The correlations for long GRBs (Type II; red), short GRBs (Type I; blue), and SGR giant flares (purple) are shown with their respective 3σ confidence regions. 163 ± 56 keV. The corres…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Optical light curve of GRB 210312B. The data points show different filter measurements converted to the r-band equivalent using the spectral slope derived from our model fit. The solid lines show the best-fit model (red) with 68% confidence intervals (shaded regions) d…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spectral energy distribution of GRB 210312B and the resid￾uals from the temporal and spectral fit model presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: Spectrum obtained with OSIRIS at the 10.4 m GTC. The 2D and 1D extractions are shown, and the detected features are in￾dicated. Bottom: Line strength diagram obtained from the spectra of GRB 210312B. This provides a lower limit since extinction in the host galaxy…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, New Astronomy Reviews, in press

    Kuulkers , E., Ferringo , C., Kretschmar , P., et al. 2021, New Astronomy Reviews, in press

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    H., van Eerten , H

    Ayache , E. H., van Eerten , H. J., & Daigne , F. 2020, , 495, 2979

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004

    Becker , A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    O., Pozanenko , A

    Belkin , S. O., Pozanenko , A. S., Mazaeva , E. D., et al. 2020, Astronomy Letters, 46, 783

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    G., et al

    Cepa , J., Aguiar , M., Escalera , V. G., et al. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood , 623--631

    2000

  6. [6]

    A., Levan , A

    Chrimes , A. A., Levan , A. J., Stanway , E. R., et al. 2019, , 486, 3105

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    de Ugarte Postigo , A., Fynbo , J. P. U., Th \"o ne , C. C., et al. 2012 a , , 548, A11

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    de Ugarte Postigo , A., Fynbo , J. P. U., Th \"o ne , C. C., et al. 2012 b , , 548, A11

    work page 2012

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    J., Lang , D., et al

    Dey , A., Schlegel , D. J., Lang , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168

    2019

  2. [10]

    S., Paris , D., et al

    Fontana , A., Dunlop , J. S., Paris , D., et al. 2014, , 570, A11

    2014

  3. [11]

    2013, , 57, 141

    Gao , H., Lei , W.-H., Zou , Y.-C., Wu , X.-F., & Zhang , B. 2013, , 57, 141

    2013

  4. [12]

    2013, , 773, 2

    Gat , I., van Eerten , H., & MacFadyen , A. 2013, , 773, 2

    2013

  5. [13]

    2003, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 411, L223

    Goldwurm, A., David, P., Foschini, L., et al. 2003, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 411, L223

    2003

  6. [14]

    M., Miller , C

    Hopkins , A. M., Miller , C. J., Nichol , R. C., et al. 2003, , 599, 971

    2003

  7. [15]

    2021, GCN Circular, 29651

    Jelínek , M., Štrobl , J., Hudec , R., & Polášek , C. 2021, GCN Circular, 29651

    2021

  8. [16]

    2021 a , GCN Circular, 29655

    Kann , D., de Ugarte Postigo , A., Thoene , C., et al. 2021 a , GCN Circular, 29655

    2021

  9. [17]

    A., de Ugarte Postigo , A., Thoene , C

    Kann , D. A., de Ugarte Postigo , A., Thoene , C. C., et al. 2021 b , GRB Coordinates Network, 29653

    2021

  10. [18]

    A., Jelinek , M., de Ugarte Postigo , A., et al

    Kann , D. A., Jelinek , M., de Ugarte Postigo , A., et al. 2021 c , GRB Coordinates Network, 29716

    2021

  11. [19]

    A., Klose , S., Zhang , B., et al

    Kann , D. A., Klose , S., Zhang , B., et al. 2011, , 734, 96

    2011

  12. [20]

    A., White , N

    Kann , D. A., White , N. E., Ghirlanda , G., et al. 2024, , 686, A56

    2024

  13. [21]

    C., Oey , M

    Kennicutt , R. C., Oey , M. S., Zaritsky , D., & Huchra , J. P. 1993, , 27, 21

    1993

  14. [22]

    & Zhang , B

    Kobayashi , S. & Zhang , B. 2003, , 582, L75

    2003

  15. [23]

    M., Paciesas , W

    Koshut , T. M., Paciesas , W. S., Kouveliotou , C., et al. 1996, , 463, 570

    1996

  16. [24]

    & Zhang , B

    Kumar , P. & Zhang , B. 2015, , 561, 1

    2015

  17. [25]

    2003, Astron

    Labanti , C., Di Cocco , G., Ferro , G., et al. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 411, L149

    2003

  18. [26]

    P., Lavocat , P., et al

    Lebrun , F., Leray , J. P., Lavocat , P., et al. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 411, L141

    2003

  19. [27]

    2015, , 805, 13

    Li , L., Wu , X.-F., Huang , Y.-F., et al. 2015, , 805, 13

    2015

  20. [28]

    2010, , 725, 2209

    Liang , E.-W., Yi , S.-X., Zhang , J., et al. 2010, , 725, 2209

    2010

  21. [29]

    2006, , 653, L81

    Liang , E.-W., Zhang , B.-B., Stamatikos , M., et al. 2006, , 653, L81

    2006

  22. [30]

    2021, GCN Circular, 29652

    Lipunov , V., Kornilov , V., Gorbovskoy , E., et al. 2021, GCN Circular, 29652

    2021

  23. [31]

    J., et al

    Lund , N., Budtz-Jorgensen , C., Westergaard , N. J., et al. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 411, L231

    2003

  24. [32]

    2011, , 410, 1064

    Margutti , R., Bernardini , G., Barniol Duran , R., et al. 2011, , 410, 1064

    2011

  25. [33]

    & Hanlon , L

    Martin-Carrillo , A. & Hanlon , L. 2013, Proceedings of Science, 176, 121

    2013

  26. [34]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1844012

    Mazaeva , E., Pozanenko , A., & Minaev , P. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1844012

    2018

  27. [35]

    2003, Astron

    Mereghetti , S., G\" o tz , D., Borkowski , J., Walter , R., & Pedersen , H. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 411, L291

    2003

  28. [36]

    2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 29650, 1

    Mereghetti , S., Gotz , D., Ferrigno , C., et al. 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 29650, 1

    2021

  29. [37]

    2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259

    2006

  30. [38]

    & Rees , M

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. & Rees , M. J. 1997, , 476, 232

    1997

  31. [39]

    W., Rosenbluth , M

    Metropolis , N., Rosenbluth , A. W., Rosenbluth , M. N., Teller , A. H., & Teller , E. 1953, , 21, 1087

    1953

  32. [40]

    Y., Grebenev , S

    Minaev , P. Y., Grebenev , S. A., Pozanenko , A. S., et al. 2012, Astronomy Letters, 38, 613

    2012

  33. [41]

    Minaev , P. Y. & Pozanenko , A. S. 2017, Astronomy Letters, 43, 1

    2017

  34. [42]

    Minaev , P. Y. & Pozanenko , A. S. 2020, , 492, 1919

    2020

  35. [43]

    Y., Pozanenko , A

    Minaev , P. Y., Pozanenko , A. S., Molkov , S. V., & Grebenev , S. A. 2014, Astronomy Letters, 40, 235

    2014

  36. [44]

    D., Malesani , D., et al

    Molinari , E., Vergani , S. D., Malesani , D., et al. 2007, , 469, L13

    2007

  37. [45]

    1998, , 494, L45

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1998, , 494, L45

    1998

  38. [46]

    A., Tanvir , N

    Perley , D. A., Tanvir , N. R., Hjorth , J., et al. 2016, , 817, 8

    2016

  39. [47]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

    Piran , T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143

    2004

  40. [48]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2014, , 571, A16

    2014

  41. [49]

    G., Sunyaev , R

    Revnivtsev , M. G., Sunyaev , R. A., Varshalovich , D. A., et al. 2004, Astronomy Letters, 30, 382

    2004

  42. [50]

    & Piran , T

    Sari , R. & Piran , T. 1995, , 455, L143

    1995

  43. [51]

    1998, , 497, L17

    Sari , R., Piran , T., & Narayan , R. 1998, , 497, L17

    1998

  44. [52]

    2009, , 691, 182

    Savaglio , S., Glazebrook , K., & Le Borgne , D. 2009, , 691, 182

    2009

  45. [53]

    A., Roming , P

    Swenson , C. A., Roming , P. W. A., De Pasquale , M., & Oates , S. R. 2013, , 774, 2

    2013

  46. [54]

    L., Denneau , L., Flewelling , H., et al

    Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., Flewelling , H., et al. 2018, , 867, 105

    2018

  47. [55]

    2003, Astron

    Ubertini , P., Lebrun , F., di Cocco , G., et al. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 411, L131

    2003

  48. [56]

    2009, Astron

    Vianello , G., G\" o tz , D., & Mereghetti , S. 2009, Astron. Astrophys., 495, 1005

    2009

  49. [57]

    A., Pozanenko , A

    Volnova , A. A., Pozanenko , A. S., Gorosabel , J., et al. 2014, , 442, 2586

    2014

  50. [58]

    Willmer , C. N. A. 2018, , 236, 47

    2018

  51. [59]

    J.-L., di Cocco , G., et al

    Winkler , C., Courvoisier , T. J.-L., di Cocco , G., et al. 2003, Astron. Astrophys., 411, L1

    2003

  52. [60]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273

    1993

  53. [61]

    2016, , 224, 20

    Yi , S.-X., Xi , S.-Q., Yu , H., et al. 2016, , 224, 20

    2016

  54. [62]

    Y., & Dai , Z.-G

    Yi , S.-X., Yu , H., Wang , F. Y., & Dai , Z.-G. 2017, , 844, 79

    2017

  55. [63]

    G., Margutti , R., Oates , S., & Chincarini , G

    Zaninoni , E., Bernardini , M. G., Margutti , R., Oates , S., & Chincarini , G. 2013, , 557, A12

    2013

  56. [64]

    2007, , 7, 1

    Zhang , B. 2007, , 7, 1

    2007

  57. [65]

    2003, , 595, 950

    Zhang, B., Kobayashi, S., & M \'e sz \'a ros, P. 2003, , 595, 950

    2003

  58. [66]

    J., et al

    Zhang , B., Zhang , B.-B., Virgili , F. J., et al. 2009, , 703, 1696

    2009

  59. [67]

    , " * 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.sent...

  60. [68]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.