Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Time-integrated polarizations in GRB prompt phase via the Multi-window interpretation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that synchrotron radiation in ordered large-scale magnetic fields can account for the time-integrated polarization of 22 of 23 gamma-ray bursts once the model parameters are inferred from simultaneous multi-window fits.

desk verdict This paper gives useful per-burst polarization predictions from 23-burst multi-window fits, but the central claim rests on hand-tuned parameters and weak upper-limit comparisons. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09106 v1 pith:OCHB4D72 submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.HE

Xu Wang , Mi-Xiang Lan , Qing-Wen Tang , Xue-Feng Wu , Zi-Gao Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstspromptemissionpolarizationsynchrotronradiationmagneticfieldconfigurationmulti-windowfittingStokesparametersreconnection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tests whether synchrotron radiation in ordered magnetic fields can explain the measured polarization of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) during their prompt phase. It fits, for each of 23 bursts, the light curve, the evolution of the spectral peak energy, and the time-resolved polarization degree and angle with a multi-shell synchrotron model in two field geometries: aligned, meaning magnetar-like fields, and toroidal, meaning black-hole-like fields. The fitted parameters are then used to predict each burst's time-integrated polarization, giving about 44% for aligned fields and 49% for toroidal fields. The predicted values match the observed ones within 1σ for 22 of the 23 bursts, with GRB 110721A as the clear mismatch; one further burst, GRB 170206A, falls below the ordered-field upper limits and is interpreted as requiring mixed fields. If correct, ordered large-scale magnetic fields dominate the prompt emission region of most GRBs.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a multi-shell synchrotron model with equal-arrival-time-surface (EATS) integration, meaning that each shell's emission is collected along the locus of points whose photons reach the observer at the same time. Each shell expands with bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma(r)=\Gamma_0(r/r_0)^s$, with $s=1/3$ for aligned fields and $s=0$ for toroidal fields, in a magnetic field decaying as $B'(r)=B_0'(r/r_0)^{-1}$, and the electron Lorentz factor follows a radius-dependent power law that produces either hard-to-soft or intensity-tracking $E_p$ evolution. The predicted time-integrated polarization is $\mathrm{PD}_{cal,a}=\sqrt{\bar{Q}^2+\bar{U}^2}/\bar{F}$ for aligned fields and $\mathrm{PD}_{cal,t}=\bar{Q}/\bar{F}$ for toroidal fields, where the barred Stokes parameters are averaged over the $T_{90}$ interval and the detector energy band. The key mechanism is cancellation: when polarization angles rotate across shells or time bins, the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ contributions partially cancel and lower the integrated PD, and the aligned-field case encodes this with different field orientations $\delta$ in adjacent shells.

What would settle it

Re-fit one burst, for example GRB 170206A, with a Markov Chain Monte Carlo over the Table A.1 parameter ranges and compute the range of predicted time-integrated PD values. If the spread of that range approaches the roughly 5-percentage-point gap between the aligned- and toroidal-field predictions, then the claim that the predicted PDs are stable is falsified, because the quoted values would be just one point in a wide family.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ordered large-scale magnetic fields, not tangled or random fields, are the rule in GRB prompt emission regions. Using a multi-shell synchrotron model whose parameters are inferred from the simultaneous fit of four observational windows, the paper predicts time-integrated polarization degrees of about 44% for aligned fields and 49% for toroidal fields. These agree with observed values within 1σ for 22 of 23 bursts; GRB 110721A is the only burst whose measured lower limit exceeds the model's upper limit. The three bursts with abrupt 90-degree polarization-angle rotations are reproduced only by the aligned-field case with different field orientations in adjacent shells, which the authors read as favoring magnetar central engines. The remaining special case, GRB 170206A, is interpreted as evidence for mixed magnetic fields.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the many per-shell parameters, adjusted so the model reproduces each burst's light curve, spectral peak curve, and polarization curves, are tightly enough determined that the predicted time-integrated polarization is a real prediction; if the parameter degeneracy is wide, the quoted 44% and 49% values could be artifacts of the tuning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, ordered large-scale magnetic fields dominate the prompt emission region of most GRBs, and low time-integrated PDs do not by themselves imply random fields.
  • The three bursts with abrupt 90° PA rotations single out the aligned-field geometry, and if those measurements hold, those bursts likely have magnetar central engines.
  • GRB 170206A is the one burst where the data require mixed fields, i.e., a combination of ordered and random magnetic components.
  • Because the predicted average PDs differ by only about 5 percentage points between the two field geometries, time-integrated PD alone cannot distinguish them; time-resolved PA behavior is the discriminating observable.
  • GRB 110721A is the single 1σ rejection of ordered-field synchrotron, so a higher-confidence polarization measurement of that burst would directly test the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: bursts without resolved PA rotations should show systematically higher time-integrated PDs than the POLAR average of about 22%, so future detectors with smaller error bars can decide whether the low POLAR values are measurement limitations or genuine field disorder.
  • The same fitting procedure could be calibrated on simulated bursts with known field geometry; no such calibration is reported, and it would quantify how much of the quoted 44% and 49% averages is driven by the parameter choice.
  • If the aligned-field interpretation for the three PA-rotation bursts is correct, those bursts should also show other magnetar signatures, such as X-ray plateaus in their afterglows; checking that correlation is a direct astronomical test.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-window phenomenological modeling of 23 Fermi/GBM-detected GRBs that also have polarization measurements from GAP, POLAR, or AstroSat. Under a synchrotron radiation model with multiple emitting shells and either globally aligned or toroidal ordered magnetic fields, the authors tune per-shell parameters to reproduce observed light curves, E_p evolutions, and, where available, time-resolved polarization degree (PD) and polarization angle (PA) curves. They then compute time- and energy-integrated PDs (PDcal,a and PDcal,t) and compare them with observed time-integrated values. The main claim is that ordered-field synchrotron models can interpret the polarization data of 22 of the 23 bursts within 1σ, with the exception of GRB 170206A requiring mixed fields, and that the three bursts with abrupt 90° PA rotations favor aligned fields over toroidal fields.

Significance. If the predicted time-integrated PD values were robust, the paper would provide a substantial argument that large-scale ordered magnetic fields dominate GRB prompt emission regions, and that magnetar-type central engines are favored for the PA-rotation bursts. The compilation of 23 bursts with simultaneous light-curve, spectral, and polarization constraints is valuable, and the explicit treatment of the equal-arrival-time surface and time-resolved polarization is a step beyond earlier time-integrated estimates. However, the central quantitative claim currently rests on hand-tuned parameter sets without a demonstrated fitting statistic, error propagation, or sensitivity analysis, and for the PA-rotation bursts the low predicted PD is partly enforced by construction. The paper is therefore best viewed as a promising modeling framework with an important but not yet fully supported quantitative conclusion.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table A.1, §5] The parameters in Table A.1 are presented as the result of multi-window fitting, but no fitting statistic, goodness-of-fit measure, parameter uncertainties, or covariance information is provided anywhere in the manuscript. The only robustness statement is the sentence in §5 that 'Although there is degeneracy between the parameters, the predicted time-integrated PDs with different sets of the parameters are roughly unchanged,' which is asserted without demonstration. Since the central claim depends on the predicted PDcal,a and PDcal,t values in Table 1, the authors should quantify the degeneracy, for example by sampling alternative parameter sets that fit the light curve and E_p curve equally well and showing the resulting spread in time-integrated PD.
  2. [§4.2, Table A.1, GRB 100826A/160821A/170114A] For the three bursts with observed abrupt PA rotations, the aligned-field orientations in adjacent shells are explicitly set to differ by 90° (δ values such as '-π/10+π/2', 'π/6+π/2') in order to reproduce the PA jumps. The resulting cancellation of polarized flux and the low time-integrated PD therefore follow by construction from the assumed flux ratio of the differently oriented shells. This makes the agreement with the observed time-integrated PD for these three bursts a consistency check of the assumed geometry rather than an independent prediction. A more convincing test would be to fit the light curve and E_p curve only, without the PA data, and then show that the PA curve and time-integrated PD are predicted correctly.
  3. [Abstract, Table 1, §5] The abstract and §5 state that only 1 of 23 bursts is inconsistent with the ordered-field predictions, but the paper's own text identifies GRB 110721A as having an observed 1σ lower limit (84+16−28) larger than its predicted upper limits (PDcal,a=49.79%, PDcal,t=51.85%), and GRB 170206A as requiring mixed fields because its observed PD is below the predicted upper limits. The counting of 'exceptions' is therefore ambiguous: is 170206A counted as consistent (because mixed fields are still ordered-plus-random) or as the one exception, and where does 110721A appear in the count? The authors should state explicitly how many bursts are consistent, how many are excluded at 1σ, and how the abstract's 'Except 1' should be read in light of these two cases.
  4. [§4.1, GRB 170127C] GRB 170127C is excluded from the sample because its low-energy photon spectral index αB is greater than zero, which makes the local synchrotron PD negative in the model's convention. This is a model-dependent selection criterion applied after the fact to one of the 24 multi-window bursts. The authors should report the observed polarization properties of GRB 170127C and discuss how its exclusion affects the 22/23 success rate; otherwise the sample selection is not fully transparent.
  5. [Table 1, §4.2, Figures 24–26] For the 20 bursts without PA-rotation observations, the predicted PDs are explicitly described as theoretical upper limits, and for 9 of those bursts the observed PDs are also upper limits. Comparing an upper limit with another upper limit, or with a low-significance measurement, does not constitute a strong test of the ordered-field hypothesis. The paper should quantify how many of the 22 'consistent' bursts actually have informative 1σ constraints (i.e., a reported best-fit value with a lower bound that excludes zero) and show the comparison separately for informative and non-informative cases.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors, including 'polrization', 'indebate', 'efffect', 'di fferent', and 'V olume'; a careful language edit is needed.
  2. [§2, Table 1] The confidence levels are described as 1σ for PD values and 2σ for upper limits, but Table 1 does not distinguish which entries are 1σ measurements and which are 2σ upper limits except via the '<' symbol. A column or footnote making this explicit would avoid misreading.
  3. [§4.1, Figure 1] For GRB 100826A, the time-resolved polarization observations are not shown because the reported times were not UTC; the figure caption and text should state this more prominently so readers do not interpret the absence as a lack of time-resolved PA data.
  4. [§3, Eq. (4)] For the toroidal-fields case, the Stokes parameter U is set to zero by the choice of reference axis; the text should clarify that the PA is then defined relative to this axis and that an abrupt 90° PA change corresponds to a sign change of Q, since this is central to the later discussion of PA rotations.
  5. [§4.1, Table A.1] The table would be easier to use if column headers explicitly indicated which quantities are normalized values (e.g., γ0_ch versus γm_ch, r0 versus rm) and if the notes stated whether all shells share the same r_on/r_off and θ_j values, since these are set globally but not listed in the per-burst table.
  6. [§5] The statement that 'the results here should be more accurate' compared with Sui & Lan (2024) is presented without a quantitative measure of accuracy; given the absence of error bars on the fitted parameters, the claim should be softened or supported.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The three PA-rotation bursts are constructed to cancel polarization via hand-set 90-degree field orientations, and the paper states that integrated PDs are 'customized' from fits to the PD/PA curves; the remaining bursts without time-resolved polarization retain genuine predictive content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, paragraph 'PAs of the three bursts...'; Table A.1; Eq. (5)]
    "To interpret such observations, the directions of the aligned magnetic fields in the adjacent shells with abrupt 90◦ PA rotation observation are assumed to be differently by 90◦. This assumption would lead to a reduction of the total polarized flux and hence of the final time-integrated PDs. The predicted values for the aligned-fields case are 21.87% for GRB 100826A, 5.44% for GRB 160821A and 11.68% for GRB 170114A, which are consistent with the observations, especially the observed best fit values."

    In Table A.1, the δ column encodes the inserted rotations (e.g., GRB 100826A: −π/10 then −π/10+π/2; GRB 160821A: π/6 then π/6+π/2). Equation (5) sums Q and U over the shells; adjacent shells with 90°-different δ contribute Stokes components of opposite sign, so the integrated PD is reduced. The 'prediction' of 21.87%, 5.44% and 11.68% is therefore the direct consequence of an input chosen to reproduce the observed PA jump, not an independent test. The exact numerical values depend on flux weighting, but the qualitative success is by construction—the model was told to cancel.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 1 (Introduction), final paragraph; Eqs. (5)-(6)]
    "More important, most of the key model parameters are inferred from the fitting of the light curves, the energy spectra and the polarization curves. The predicted time-integrated PD for each burst is customized."

    The paper states that model parameters are inferred from the polarization curves and that the predicted integrated PD is 'customized' for each burst. For the four bursts with time-resolved PD/PA observations (100826A, 160821A, 170114A, 170206A), the PD and PA curves are among the inputs used to set the parameters, and Eqs. (5)-(6) define PDcal as time averages of the same Stokes parameters. Thus comparing PDcal with PDobs for these bursts is a consistency check on the fit, not an out-of-sample prediction. This is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern; the inclusion of 170206A, where the model actually overpredicts, does not make the three matched cases independent.

full rationale

Circularity is partial but real. For the 19 bursts with no time-resolved polarization, PDcal is computed from parameters fixed by Fermi/GBM light curve and E_p fits; those PDcal values are genuine upper-limit predictions, and the comparison with PDobs is not circular. For the four bursts with time-resolved polarization, however, the paper explicitly uses PD and PA curves to infer the parameters, then quotes the time-integrated PD as a 'prediction.' Eq. (5) integrates the same Stokes parameters that were used as fit targets, so agreement is a fit diagnostic. For the three PA-rotation bursts this is compounded: δ values in Table A.1 are set to 90° different in adjacent shells precisely to reproduce the observed PA jumps, which by Eq. (5) suppresses the integrated PD. The claimed consistency of 21.87%, 5.44% and 11.68% is therefore largely by construction. The Sec. 5 assertion that degeneracy leaves PDcal unchanged is unquantified and cannot certify the hand-tuned parameters. The paper is not circular via self-citation: the model formulas in Wang et al. (2024) are borrowed as machinery, not as evidence. Overall, the headline '22/23 within 1σ' is partially inflated by three by-construction successes, so the score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a large set of hand-chosen model parameters (per-shell Lorentz factors, radii, injection rates, field orientations) plus domain assumptions that the emission is synchrotron in large-scale ordered fields and that observed PA jumps are caused by 90-degree field orientation changes. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (13)
  • Per-shell electron Lorentz factor normalization gamma0_ch/gamma_m_ch = 6e3 to 5e5 (Table A.1)
    Fitted to reproduce each burst's light curve and E_p evolution in the multi-window fitting.
  • Per-shell normalization radii r0/rm = 1e14 to 7e16 cm (Table A.1)
    Fitted; r0/rm set the radius dependence of electron energy and magnetic field.
  • Per-shell injection rate R_inj = 1e48 to 1e52 s^-1 (Table A.1)
    Fitted to normalize the flux of each shell.
  • Per-shell injection time t0 = Table A.1
    Fitted to align model light-curve pulses with observed time bins.
  • Aligned-field orientation delta per shell = pi/6, -pi/10, with +/-pi/2 shifts for PA-rotation bursts (Table A.1)
    For three bursts, delta in adjacent shells is shifted by 90 degrees to reproduce observed PA jumps; otherwise set constant, which forces constant PA and maximizes PD.
  • Bulk Lorentz factor Gamma0 for toroidal case = 30 to 200 (Table A.1); 250 fixed for aligned case
    Fitted for the toroidal case per burst; the aligned value is chosen by hand in Section 4.1.
  • Electron Lorentz index g = -0.2 for i model, 1.0 for m model; -1.0 and -1.5 for GRB 170305A
    Chosen to match E_p evolution patterns; adjusted by hand for GRB 170305A.
  • Magnetic field strength B0' = 30 G
    Fixed by hand in Section 3.
  • Magnetic field decay index b = 1.0
    Fixed by hand in Section 3.
  • Jet half-opening angle theta_j = 0.1 rad
    Typical value fixed for all bursts in Section 4.1.
  • Radiation start/stop radii r_on/r_off = 1e14 cm / 3e16 cm (3e17 cm for two bursts)
    Fixed by hand in Section 4.1.
  • Viewing angle theta_V = 0 for aligned, 0.06 rad for toroidal
    Fixed by hand in Section 4.1 to represent on-axis observations and to make toroidal PD near its upper limit.
  • Redshift z for bursts without measurement = 1
    Fixed by hand in Section 4.1.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Synchrotron radiation in large-scale ordered magnetic fields is the emission mechanism for the GRB prompt phase.
    Section 3 assumes thin shells with magnetic reconnection accelerating electrons and synchrotron emission in ordered fields; photosphere and random-field models are not fitted.
  • domain assumption Electrons are injected isotropically with a single energy, with Lorentz factor power-law evolution in radius (Uhm et al. 2018).
    Section 3 uses gamma_ch(r) power laws for the i and m models.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field in each shell is large-scale ordered and decays as B'(r) = B0'(r/r0)^-b with b = 1.
    Section 3 specifies the field decay law.
  • ad hoc to paper For bursts with observed abrupt 90-degree PA rotations, the aligned fields in adjacent shells differ in orientation by 90 degrees.
    Section 4.2 introduces this to reproduce the observed PA jumps; it forces the reduction of time-integrated PD.
  • ad hoc to paper For bursts without observed PA rotation, the aligned field direction is constant across shells.
    Section 4.2 uses this to produce constant PA and makes the predicted PD an upper limit; no independent justification from data.
  • domain assumption On-axis geometry with viewing angles theta_V = 0 (aligned) and theta_V = 0.06 rad (toroidal) is representative.
    Section 4.1 assumes bright bursts are observed on-axis; PD is roughly independent of viewing angle for aligned fields.
  • domain assumption Band function spectral shape with observed time-integrated alpha_B and beta_B applies to all time bins.
    Section 4.1 fixes spectral indices to observed time-integrated values; time evolution of the indices is not fitted.
  • ad hoc to paper For bursts without measured redshift, z = 1 is assumed.
    Section 4.1 uses z = 1, which affects distances and therefore the inferred parameter values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-integrated polarizations in GRB prompt phase via the Multi-window interpretation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCHB4D72

@misc{pith2026241109106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-integrated polarizations in GRB prompt phase via the Multi-window interpretation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCHB4D72}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09106}
}
abstract

The multi-window observations, including the light curve and the evolutions of the spectral peak energy ($E_p$), the polarization degree (PD) and the polarization angle (PA), are used to infer the model parameters to predict the time-integrated PD in gamma-ray burst (GRB) prompt phase. We select 23 GRBs co-detected by Fermi/GBM and polarization detectors (i.e., GAP, POLAR and AstroSat). In our multi-window fitting, the light curve, $E_p$ curve, PD curve and PA curve are interpreted simultaneously under the synchrotron radiation model in ordered magnetic fields (i.e., the aligned-fields case and the toroidal-fields case). For the bursts with abrupt PA rotations, the predicted time-integrated PD of the aligned-fields case roughly matches the corresponding observed best fit value, while it is higher for the toroidal-fields case. For the bursts without abrupt PA rotation(s), the predicted PDs of the aligned-fields case and the toroidal-fields case are comparable and could interpret the observational data equally well. For GRB 170206A, its observed time-resolved and time-integrated PDs are comparable and both smaller than our predicted upper limits in ordered magnetic fields. So mixed magnetic fields, i.e., the magnetic fields with both ordered and random components, should be reside in the radiation regions of this burst. Except 1 out of the total 23 bursts, the predicted time-integrated PDs, which are around $\sim44\%$ for the aligned-fields case and around $49\%$ for the toroidal-fields case, are consistent with the corresponding observed values. Therefore, consistent with the former study, the models with synchrotron radiation in ordered magnetic fields could interpret most of the current polrization data within $1\sigma$ error bar.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time-resolved fitting result of GRB 100826A. The four left panels show the light curve, Ep curve, PD curve and PA curve in proper sequence for the aligned-fields case, while the three right panels show the light curve, the evolution of Ep and the PD curve for the toroidal-fields case. The black squares show the observational data. The red circles and lines show our fitting results for the aligned-fields case, while … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Time-integrated PDs of GRBs observed by GAP. The Ep,obs refers to the time-integrated observed value of the spectral peak energy. The black-squares, red-circles, blue-stars and purple-diamonds repre￾sents the observational values, the predicted values for the aligned-…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_26.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  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]

    1993, American Institute of Physics

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., Schaefer, B., & Pendleton, G. 1993, American Institute of Physics

    1993

  4. [4]

    M., Kole, M., Berlato, F., et al

    Burgess, J. M., Kole, M., Berlato, F., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A105

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 12

    Chattopadhyay, T., Gupta, S., Iyyani, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 12

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Daigne , F., Bo s njak , Z ., & Dubus , G. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1133, Gamma-ray Burst: Sixth Huntsville Symposium, ed. C. Meegan , C. Kouveliotou , & N. Gehrels (AIP), 288--293

    2009

  7. [7]

    2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 387, 714

    Drenkhahn, G. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 387, 714

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    & Levinson , A

    Eichler , D. & Levinson , A. 2000, , 529, 146

    work page 2000

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    A., Band , D

    Ford , L. A., Band , D. L., Matteson , J. L., et al. 1995, , 439, 307

    1995

  2. [10]

    Gamma-ray astronomy Group , U. o. A. H. 2014, rmfit: Forward-folding spectral analysis software , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1409.011

    2014

  3. [11]

    2008, , 480, 305

    Giannios , D. 2008, , 480, 305

    2008

  4. [12]

    2020, , 491, 3343

    Gill , R., Granot , J., & Kumar , P. 2020, , 491, 3343

    2020

  5. [13]

    2021, Galaxies, 9, 82

    Gill , R., Kole , M., & Granot , J. 2021, Galaxies, 9, 82

    2021

  6. [14]

    2003, , 596, L17

    Granot , J. 2003, , 596, L17

    2003

  7. [15]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A160

    Guan & Lan . 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 670, A160

    2023

  8. [16]

    D., Briggs , M

    Kaneko , Y., Preece , R. D., Briggs , M. S., et al. 2006, , 166, 298

    2006

  9. [17]

    D., Berlato, F., et al

    Kole, M., Angelis, N. D., Berlato, F., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 644, A124

    2020

  10. [18]

    2019, , 870, 96

    Lan , M.-X., Geng , J.-J., Wu , X.-F., & Dai , Z.-G. 2019, , 870, 96

    2019

  11. [19]

    2021 a , , 909, 184

    Lan , M.-X., Wang , H.-B., Xu , S., Liu , S., & Wu , X.-F. 2021 a , , 909, 184

    2021

  12. [20]

    2018, , 860, 44

    Lan , M.-X., Wu , X.-F., & Dai , Z.-G. 2018, , 860, 44

    2018

  13. [21]

    2021 b , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 055

    Lan , M.-X., Wu , X.-F., & Dai , Z.-G. 2021 b , Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 055

    2021

  14. [22]

    2006, New Journal of Physics, 8, 131

    Lazzati , D. 2006, New Journal of Physics, 8, 131

    2006

  15. [23]

    & Kargatis , V

    Liang , E. & Kargatis , V. 1996, , 381, 49

    1996

  16. [24]

    M., Aykutalp , A., & Johnson , J

    Lloyd-Ronning , N. M., Aykutalp , A., & Johnson , J. L. 2019, , 488, 5823

    2019

  17. [25]

    J., Hou , S

    Lu , R. J., Hou , S. J., & Liang , E.-W. 2010, , 720, 1146

    2010

  18. [26]

    2018, , 865, 153

    Lu , R.-J., Liang , Y.-F., Lin , D.-B., et al. 2018, , 865, 153

    2018

  19. [27]

    2012, , 756, 112

    Lu , R.-J., Wei , J.-J., Liang , E.-W., et al. 2012, , 756, 112

    2012

  20. [28]

    Lundman , C., Vurm , I., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2018, , 856, 145

    2018

  21. [29]

    & Rees , M

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. & Rees , M. J. 2000, , 530, 292

    2000

  22. [30]

    2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Murakami , T., Yonetoku , D., Sakashita , T., et al. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1279, Deciphering the Ancient Universe with Gamma-ray Bursts, ed. N. Kawai & S. Nagataki (AIP), 227--230

    2010

  23. [31]

    1992, , 395, L83

    Narayan , R., Paczynski , B., & Piran , T. 1992, , 395, L83

    1992

  24. [32]

    & Xu , G

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

    1994

  25. [33]

    & Lazzati , D

    Parsotan , T. & Lazzati , D. 2022, , 926, 104

    2022

  26. [34]

    2020, , 896, 139

    Parsotan , T., L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., & Lazzati , D. 2020, , 896, 139

    2020

  27. [35]

    W., Batsch , T., et al

    Produit , N., Bao , T. W., Batsch , T., et al. 2018, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 877, 259

    2018

  28. [36]

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

    1994

  29. [37]

    M., Lazzati , D., Salmonson , J

    Rossi , E. M., Lazzati , D., Salmonson , J. D., & Ghisellini , G. 2004, , 354, 86

    2004

  30. [38]

    2023, , 959, 13

    Rouco Escorial , A., Fong , W., Berger , E., et al. 2023, , 959, 13

    2023

  31. [39]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 882, L10

    Sharma, V., Iyyani, S., Bhattacharya, D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 882, L10

    2019

  32. [40]

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

    Spruit, H. C., Daigne, F., & Drenkhahn, G. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 369, 694

    2001

  33. [41]

    & Lan , M.-X

    Sui , L.-Q. & Lan , M.-X. 2024, [ [arXiv] 2403.10718 ]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    1994, , 270, 480

    Thompson , C. 1994, , 270, 480

    1994

  35. [43]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1042

    Toma, K., Sakamoto, T., Zhang, B., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, 1042

    2009

  36. [44]

    L., Zhang, B., & Racusin, J

    Uhm, Z. L., Zhang, B., & Racusin, J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 869, 100

    2018

  37. [45]

    A., Paciesas, W

    von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C. A., Paciesas, W. S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 46

    2020

  38. [46]

    2024, , 972, 15

    Wang , X., Lan , M.-X., Tang , Q.-W., Wu , X.-F., & Dai , Z.-G. 2024, , 972, 15

    2024

  39. [47]

    2003, , 423, 388

    Waxman , E. 2003, , 423, 388

    2003

  40. [48]

    2011, , 63, 625

    Yonetoku , D., Murakami , T., Gunji , S., et al. 2011, , 63, 625

    2011

  41. [49]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 758, L1

    Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Gunji, S., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 758, L1

    2012

  42. [50]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, L30

    Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Gunji, S., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, L30

    2011

  43. [51]

    2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Yonetoku , D., Murakami , T., Masui , H., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6266, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation II: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. M. J. L. Turner & G. Hasinger , 62662C

    2006

  44. [52]

    & Yan , H

    Zhang , B. & Yan , H. 2011, , 726, 90

    2011

  45. [53]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 258

    Zhang, S.-N., Kole, M., Bao, T.-W., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 258

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.