Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 160 references

Optical plateaus in GRB afterglows point to millisecond magnetar engines.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 21:56 UTC pith:ONQLABMW

load-bearing objection A careful 200-GRB UVOT+XRT census with a genuinely new optical plateau L–t_b relation; the magnetar conclusion needs a measured-z-only refit before it is load-bearing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07560 v1 pith:ONQLABMW submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.HE

Investigating Temporal Features in Swift GRB Afterglows: A Comparative Study of UVOT and XRT Data

Amit K. Ror , S. B. Pandey , S. R. Oates , Rahul Gupta , Amar Aryan , A. J. Castro-Tirado , Sudhir Kumar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstsoptical afterglowsSwift UVOTX-ray afterglowsplateau phasemagnetar central enginereverse shockDainotti relation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the diversity of optical afterglow light curves of gamma-ray bursts can be sorted into a small set of temporal features—early flares, smooth bumps, breaks, plateaus—and that each feature carries a distinct physical origin. Using 200 Swift-UVOT bursts with matched XRT light curves, the authors identify 21 early flares consistent with reverse or internal shocks, show that simple power-law decays are often shallower in optical than X-ray because of a spectral break, and classify 30 optical plateaus. The central result is a tight anti-correlation between optical luminosity at the plateau break and rest-frame break time, log L_v,b,iso,47 = (1.57±0.80) + (-0.97±0.23) log t_b,z, with Spearman r=0.70 and p~1e-3. If this relation holds, plateau brightness and duration directly trace magnetar spin-down, with the two outlier internal-plateau bursts, GRB 060526A and GRB 060614A, pointing instead to black-hole engines. A sympathetic reader would care because it converts light-curve morphology into a diagnostic of the burst's central engine.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is an optical plateau relation: log L_v,b,iso,47 = (1.57±0.80) + (-0.97±0.23) log t_b,z, with Spearman r=0.70 and p∼1e-3. This anti-correlation between the isotropic optical luminosity at the plateau break and the rest-frame break time is the optical counterpart of the X-ray luminosity–time relation, and the paper reads it as magnetar spin-down: a millisecond magnetar with a roughly fixed energy reservoir produces a brighter plateau that ends sooner. Four plateaus followed by steep decay are tested against the relation; two satisfy it (GRB 111209A, GRB 180618A), and two do not (GRB 060526A, GRB 060614A), which the paper attributes to black-hole central engines. Arou

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the luminosity–break-time relation itself: fitting optical plateaus with a broken power law yields a break time t_b and a break luminosity L_v,b,iso; in the rest frame these follow log L_v,b,iso,47 = (1.57±0.80) + (-0.97±0.23) log t_b,z. The near-unity slope is the fingerprint of a magnetar with an approximately fixed rotational energy reservoir—the same physics used to explain X-ray plateaus—while outliers flag a different engine. Supporting machinery includes the smoothly joined broken power law used to fit bumps, the F-test criteria for adding breaks, and the comparison of optical decay indices with reverse- and internal-shock predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 21 very early flares were sampled densely enough for their decay indices and their correlation with X-ray and BAT flares to be judged; the paper itself says 2–3 data points are too few for two of the reverse-shock candidates, so if the sparse sampling is unrepresentative, the early-flare classification loses its support.

What would settle it

A dedicated campaign would obtain densely sampled optical light curves of roughly thirty plateau GRBs with known redshifts and re-fit the break time and luminosity; if the Spearman correlation drops below about 2 sigma or the slope deviates substantially from -1, the magnetar relation fails. Separately, sub-minute-cadence early optical observations would show whether the 21 steep decays have complete flares and whether the reverse-shock decay indices are real rather than artifacts of sparse sampling.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Optical plateaus can be used alongside X-ray plateaus as a central-engine diagnostic, roughly doubling the number of bursts in which magnetar versus black-hole engines can be tested.
  • Because two internal-plateau bursts violate the relation while two satisfy it, internal plateaus do not uniquely imply magnetars; some are better explained by black-hole engines.
  • Chromatic breaks between optical and X-ray plateaus in about eighteen bursts require structured or two-component jets, showing that energy injection alone cannot explain every plateau.
  • Early optical flares that are uncorrelated with X-ray and BAT flares form a clean reverse-shock sample: twelve bursts show decay indices between 2 and 3 consistent with reverse shock in ISM or wind media.
  • The plateau relation gives a quantitative way to test whether a newly observed optical plateau is powered by continued central-engine energy injection or by a different mechanism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-unity slope holds in a larger sample, the optical plateau relation could become a redshift-independent distance indicator for GRBs, in the same spirit as the X-ray Dainotti relation—though the paper does not make this claim.
  • The early-flare census is the fragile part: because several reverse-shock candidates rest on only two or three optical points, future sub-minute-cadence observations could reclassify a fraction of them as prompt-optical flares; that would not damage the plateau relation but would weaken the claimed 21-GRB decomposition.
  • The two black-hole outliers suggest a concrete next step: if internal plateaus from accreting black holes have systematically different spectral indices or prompt-to-afterglow efficiencies than magnetar plateaus, the relation could be used to separate engine classes in larger samples.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a statistical, morphological study of 200 Swift-UVOT GRB afterglow light curves from 2005–2018, jointly analysed with Swift-XRT and BAT data. Light curves are fitted with power-law and smoothly-broken-power-law models using F-test model selection; the resulting features are classified into early flares, bumps, plateaus, breaks, and late re-brightenings. The main claims are: (i) 21 GRBs show very early optical flares/steep decays attributable to reverse or internal shocks; (ii) optical plateaus mostly require energy injection, with four cases of internal plateau origin; (iii) Eq. (1) shows a tight anti-correlation between plateau optical luminosity and rest-frame break time, interpreted as magnetar spin-down; and (iv) early bump correlations are consistent with the afterglow onset interpretation of Liang et al. (2010).

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable large-sample, uniformly processed comparison of UVOT and XRT afterglow morphology, providing one of the most extensive optical-plateau catalogues and a direct optical analogue of the X-ray Dainotti relation. Strengths include the homogeneous Swift data processing, use of standard F-test model selection, detailed tabulation of fit parameters in the appendices, and explicit cross-checks against earlier catalogues. However, the most load-bearing quantitative claim, Eq. (1), is potentially sensitive to the adopted z=2 assumption for redshift-unknown GRBs, and the early-flare taxonomy is built partly on very sparse photometry. These issues must be fixed before the magnetar conclusion can be regarded as robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Tables 1-2, Appendix C1] The L_v,b,iso–t_b,z correlation is fitted using GRBs with at least an optical plateau, but for redshift-unknown GRBs §2.3.2 adopts z=2 for all distance-dependent quantities. Tables B2 and B4 list several plateau GRBs with z∼2 (e.g., GRB 060111B, 110319A, 130725B, 110715A), and the text says only GRB 110420A was excluded for unknown redshift, implying other z=2-assumed bursts remain in the fit. Under that assumption, a burst at true z>2 is placed at larger t_b,z and lower L, while a burst at true z<2 is placed at smaller t_b,z and higher L—exactly along the claimed L∝t_b^-1 anti-correlation. The reported slope −0.97±0.23, r=0.70, p∼1e-3 may therefore be inflated. Please refit Eq. (1) using only the 145 GRBs with measured redshifts, and/or marginalize over the plausible redshift distribution; report the known-z-only slope, correlation, and sample size. This is load-bearing for the magnetar
  2. [§4.3.1] The early-flare classification (21 GRBs; Tables 1 and 2) is based on decay indices 'approximately obtained from fitting a few early data points; therefore, errors are not given'. Appendix C1 explicitly concedes for GRB 060729A and GRB 151027A that 'it is hard to draw any conclusion with only 2-3 data points,' yet both are counted among the 12 reverse-shock candidates in Table 1. Because this census directly supports the abstract's statement about early flares and reverse/internal shock origins, the lack of uncertainties is not merely a presentation issue. Please provide error estimates where possible, or exclude/flag cases with fewer than a minimum number of points, and state how many of the 21 classifications survive a stricter sampling requirement.
  3. [§4.3] After fitting Eq. (1) to the same plateau sample, the paper uses residuals to classify individual bursts: GRB 060526A and GRB 060614A are said to favour a black-hole engine because they are outliers, while GRB 111209A and GRB 180618A are called magnetar-driven because they lie on the relation. This is partly circular, since outliers to a fitted relation do not independently test that relation or the engine model. I ask the authors to reframe this as an interpretive classification rather than a test, and to demonstrate that the fit is not driven by the very points used to define 'magnetar' cases (e.g., jackknife or outlier-removal sensitivity). A quantitative treatment of the suggested overlapping-flare contamination would also strengthen the outlier discussion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4.2] The abstract says optical PL decay indices are shallower than X-ray ones, but §4.2 reports 3/27 GRBs with α_x ≲ α_o; please qualify the statement accordingly.
  2. [Table B4 caption] The caption says 'p-value<0.0027 indicates that the 2 break PL is preferred over the 2 break PL.' This is a typo and should read 'over the 1 break PL.'
  3. [§4.4, Table 4] The definitions of W, t_r, and t_d appear after the table is referenced; consider stating them in the table caption or before the table for readability.
  4. [Fig. 10] The figure would be much clearer with the redshift-known and redshift-assumed points marked with different symbols, and with the known-z-only fit overplotted in a distinct line style.
  5. [General] The appendix tables are dense but useful; a machine-readable version (e.g., FITS or CSV) of Tables B1–B8 would improve reproducibility and ease of use by the community.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the plateau L–t_b correlation is an empirical fit anchored to an external magnetar prediction; z=2 and sparse-flare issues are data-quality, not definitional, reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative result (Eq. 1, §4.3) is an empirical correlation between the optical plateau luminosity and rest-frame break time, fitted to plateau GRBs. The magnetar interpretation is an external theoretical consistency check: the paper cites Stratta et al. (2018) and Tang et al. (2019) for the expectation L ∝ t_b^-1, then measures −0.97±0.23. This is not circular because the theoretical prediction does not come from the fit. The z=2 assumption for redshift-unknown GRBs (§2.3.2) is an external prior based on the Swift-UVOT redshift distribution (Oates 2023; Tang et al. 2019; Gupta et al. 2022a); it can bias distance-dependent quantities and the correlation if true redshifts deviate, but it is not an input that defines the correlation, so it is a robustness/correctness concern rather than circularity. The paper explicitly concedes in App. C1 that for GRB 060729A and GRB 151027A 'it is hard to draw any conclusion with only 2-3 data points,' and Tables 1–2 state the early-flare decay indices have no quoted errors; this is a data-quality limitation in the early-flare census, not a circular reduction. Finally, using Eq. 1 to classify individual internal-plateau bursts that entered the fit is an in-sample consistency statement; outliers are explicitly identified, and the same relation is anchored to an external magnetar model, so the derivation chain does not collapse to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities; magnetars, structured/two-component jets, and off-axis jets are drawn from the cited literature and applied as interpretations. The load-bearing assumptions are the standard synchrotron closure relations, the v-band normalization without colour evolution, negligible host extinction, and z=2 for unknown redshifts. Free parameters are mainly hand-chosen analysis thresholds plus the fitted Eq. 1 coefficients.

free parameters (5)
  • SBPL smoothness parameter s = 1 or 3, chosen by hand per GRB
    Kept fixed at 1 or 3 depending on the flatness or sharpness of the bump (§4.4.1, Table B3); affects the derived peak time t_p and hence the Lorentz factor estimates.
  • Assumed redshift z=2 for 55 GRBs without measured redshift = 2
    Used to compute L_v,b, E_gamma,iso, and t_b,z; justified by the sample's average redshift (Oates 2023), but it is an assumed value that enters Eq. 1 directly, e.g. for GRB 110420A (§2.3.2).
  • F-test inclusion threshold p = 0.0027
    Hand-chosen significance level for adding breaks to PL models (§2.3.1, Fig. B3).
  • Onset-bump peak-time threshold = 3600 s (1 hour)
    Hand-chosen cutoff defining onset bumps versus late re-brightening (§4.4.1), motivated by Sari & Piran (1999) for Gamma=10 and E=1e51 erg.
  • Eq. 1 fitted slope and intercept = slope -0.97±0.23, intercept 1.57±0.80
    Linear fit to the optical plateau L_v,b-t_b,z data (r=0.70, p~1e-3); these fitted values are then used to classify individual bursts as magnetar- or black-hole-engine and to assign outlier status to GRB 060526A and GRB 060614A (§4.3, Fig. 10).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption External forward-shock synchrotron closure relations (Sari et al. 1998) map (alpha, beta) to electron index p and medium type
    Invoked throughout §3.2.4 and Tables B1-B4 to classify bursts as ISM/wind and to judge consistency with the forward-shock model.
  • domain assumption No colour evolution during the afterglow, so UVOT filter LCs can be normalized to v-band
    §2.2: 'The normalization of the LCs is only possible if there is no colour evolution.' Load-bearing for all flux densities and luminosities.
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy extinction is negligible
    §2.3.3: 'We have not applied the host extinction, and host extinction is assumed to be negligible.' Affects optical fluxes and L_v,b directly.
  • domain assumption z=2 is representative for redshift-unknown GRBs
    §2.3.2, taken from Oates (2023); enters all distance-dependent quantities.
  • domain assumption UVOT LCs reach sensitivity limits within 1-5 days, so late bumps cannot be supernovae
    §3.2: 'Any bumps observed within this time frame are inconsistent with typical expectations for supernovae.' Used to discard supernova contamination.
  • ad hoc to paper Overlapping flares contaminate the plateau luminosity and explain outliers to Eq. 1
    §4.3: 'The observed high luminosity in these cases might be attributed to the overlapping flares observed during the plateau phase.' Used post hoc to explain why some bursts violate the correlation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 80140 in / 18925 out tokens · 166774 ms · 2026-08-04T21:56:54.841977+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating Temporal Features in Swift GRB Afterglows: A Comparative Study of UVOT and XRT Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ONQLABMW

@misc{pith2026250907560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating Temporal Features in Swift GRB Afterglows: A Comparative Study of UVOT and XRT Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ONQLABMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07560}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This study presents a statistical analysis of optical light curves (LCs) of 200 UVOT-detected GRBs from 2005 to 2018. We have categorised these LCs based on their distinct morphological features, including early flares, bumps, breaks, plateaus, etc. Additionally, to compare features across different wavelengths, we have also included XRT LCs in our sample. The early observation capability of UVOT has allowed us to identify very early flares in 21 GRBs preceding the normal decay or bump, consistent with predictions of external reverse or internal shock. The decay indices of optical LCs following a simple power-law (PL) are shallower than corresponding X-ray LCs, indicative of a spectral break between two wavelengths. Not all LCs with PL decay align with the forward shock model and require additional components such as energy injection or a structured jet. Further, plateaus in the optical LCs are primarily consistent with energy injection from the central engine to the external medium. However, in four cases, plateaus followed by steep decay may have an internal origin. The optical luminosity observed during the plateau is tightly correlated with the break time, indicative of a magnetar as their possible central engine. For LCs with early bumps, the peak position, correlations between the parameters, and observed achromaticity allowed us to constrain their origin as the onset of afterglow, off-axis jet, late re-brightening, etc. In conclusion, the ensemble of observed features is explained through diverse physical mechanisms or emissions observed from different outflow locations and, in turn, diversity among possible progenitors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07560 by A. J. Castro-Tirado, Amar Aryan, Amit K. Ror, Rahul Gupta, S. B. Pandey, S. R. Oates, Sudhir Kumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Time of the first optical detections plotted versus their T90. Red squares represent GRBs with the first optical detection occurring after T90, while cyan squares indicate those detected before T90 ends. The regions corresponding to T90 less than or greater than the first optical detection are shown with the red and cyan shaded regions and separated by a thin line corresponding to T90 = first optical detec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Panel (1) to (9) represents the diverse range of distinct features such as breaks, bumps, flares, plateaus, and late re-brightening observed in v-band LCs by the Swift-UVOT. The coloured square represents the observed UVOT data, and the corresponding fitted models are shown with solid coloured lines. We utilised an absorption Power-law function with multiplicative absorption components PHABS and ZPHABS to … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The upper panel represents the decay indices 𝛼𝑜,1, 𝛼𝑜,2, and 𝛼𝑜,3 obtained from the fitting of UVOT v-band LCs with a smoothly joined broken PL model and PL models with 0-2 breaks. The decay indices are plotted against their T90 duration, and a black dashed horizontal line is plotted at zero to distinguish between the rise or decay behaviour. Similarly, the middle panel represents the decay indices 𝛼𝑥1, 𝛼𝑥… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: On the X-axis, the spectral indices 𝛽𝑥, obtained from the fitting of X-ray spectra in 0.3-10 keV for the PC mode, are shown for all 200 GRBs in our sample. On the Y-axis, the 𝛽𝑜𝑥, obtained from the fitting of optical to X-ray SED of all 200 GRBs in our sample. The 𝛽𝑜𝑥 vs 𝛽𝑥 plots is shown with the blue filled circles. The solid line represents the 𝛽𝑜𝑥 = 𝛽𝑥 and the dashed line represents the 𝛽𝑜𝑥 = 𝛽𝑥 - 0.5.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The upper panel represents the distribution of the first (𝑡𝑜,𝑏1) and second break (𝑡𝑜,𝑏2) in the optical LCs in v-band obtained from the fitting of PL models with 1 and 2 breaks. Similarly, the lower panel represents the distribution of breaks 𝑡𝑥,𝑏1, 𝑡𝑥,𝑏2, and 𝑡𝑥,𝑏3 in the Swift-XRT LCs at 10 keV obtained from the fitting of PL models with 1, 2, and 3 breaks. (GRB 080916A, GRB 130122A, GRB 140206A, GRB 14… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Represents the distribution of prompt emission and X-ray afterglow properties of GRBs included in our sample. Panel 1 shows the distribution of T90 for all GRBs detected by Swift (light blue) and for 200 GRBs in our sample, depicted in pink. Panels 2 and 3 display the distributions of spectral fit parameters, Γ and Epeak. Here, Γ obtained from the PL and cutoff PL models are shown in light blue and pink, r… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Represents the flow chart of various characteristic features observed in Swift-UVOT v-band LCs and their possible origin. The flow chart consists of four main branches corresponding to the observed optical LCs exhibiting a very initial flare or steep decay (1, blue branch), a simple PL behaviour throughout (2, purple branch), a plateau phase (3, green branch), and a bump in the optical LC (2, red branch). … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Panels (1)-(6) represent multiband Swift-UVOT LCs of GRBs, which show only a PL decay throughout, regardless of the behaviour of XRT LCs at 10 keV, i.e., X-ray LCs have different behaviours in each panel. The LCs in the different optical bands are scaled for better visualisation, as shown in the legends. used to interpret late-time (after an hour but before the jet break transition (> 104 s) into steep dec… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Represents the decay indices (𝛼x vs 𝛼o) obtained from the fitting of optical and X-ray LCs, where both show the simple PL decay. The black dashed line represents the 𝛼x = 𝛼o. show a shallow decay phase as shown in Fig. B5. Whereas, for LCs have a plateau and one or more breaks are shown in Fig. B6. MNRAS 000, 1–39 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Represent the correlation between the isotropic equivalent luminosity (L𝑣,𝑏,𝑖𝑠𝑜,47 = L𝑣,𝑏,𝑖𝑠𝑜 × 10−47) calculated at break time following the plateau phase and rest frame break time (𝑡𝑏,𝑧 ) for GRBs with at least a plateau in the v-band LC (red filled circle). A linear fit between log(𝑡𝑏,𝑧 )-log(L𝑣,𝑏,𝑖𝑠𝑜,47) is shown with a black solid line, and the corresponding 1𝜎 error of the fit is shown with black da… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Panels (1)-(6) represent multiband Swift-UVOT LCs of GRBs, which show a bump in the early optical LCs regardless of the behaviour of XRT LCs at 10 keV, i.e., X-ray LCs have different behaviours in each panel. The UVOT LCs in the different optical bands are scaled for better visualization, as shown in the legends. radio emission and 𝜈𝑐 mostly lies above the optical band (Gao et al. 2013). The peak synchrot… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Panels (1)-(6) represent the Swift-UVOT LCs in multiple filters (coloured squares) and XRT LC at 10 keV (black squares) for GRBs with the signature of late re-brightening. The fitted models to the multi-band UVOT LCs are plotted with the coloured lines as shown in the legend, and XRT LC at 10 keV is plotted with the black line. explanation is the residual activity of the central engine. The late ejected s… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

160 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Akerlof C., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1038/18837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.398..400A 398, 400

    doi:10.1038/18837 1999

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507L..45A 507, L45

    Antonelli L. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507L..45A 507, L45

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913062 2009

  3. [3]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

    Arnaud K. A., 1996, in Jacoby G. H., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V. p. 17

    1996

  4. [4]

    Arnaud K., Dorman B., Gordon C., 1999, XSPEC: An X-ray spectral fitting package , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9910.005

    1999

  5. [5]

    D., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..143B 120, 143

    Barthelmy S. D., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..143B 120, 143

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  6. [6]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3262B 525, 3262

    Becerra R. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3262B 525, 3262

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2513 2023

  7. [7]

    Beniamini P., Duque R., Daigne F., Mochkovitch R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2847B 492, 2847

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa070 2020

  8. [8]

    Berger E., et al., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/317814 , 545, 56

    doi:10.1086/317814 2000

  9. [9]

    D., McKee C

    Blandford R. D., McKee C. F., 1976, @doi [Physics of Fluids] 10.1063/1.861619 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976PhFl...19.1130B 19, 1130

    doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  10. [10]

    L., Damerdji Y., Gendre B., Klotz A., Stratta G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/501048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638L..71B 638, L71

    Bo \"e r M., Atteia J. L., Damerdji Y., Gendre B., Klotz A., Stratta G., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/501048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...638L..71B 638, L71

    work page doi:10.1086/501048 2006

  11. [12]

    N., et al., 2005a, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005a, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120..165B 120, 165

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

  12. [13]

    N., et al., 2005b, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1116168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Sci...309.1833B 309, 1833

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2005b, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1116168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Sci...309.1833B 309, 1833

    doi:10.1126/science.1116168

  13. [14]

    N., et al., 2007, in Siegmund O

    Burrows D. N., et al., 2007, in Siegmund O. H., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 6686, UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XV. p. 668607 ( @eprint arXiv 0803.1844 ), @doi 10.1117/12.735130

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [15]

    S., Ramsay S

    Butler N., et al., 2012, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV. p. 844610, @doi 10.1117/12.926471

    work page doi:10.1117/12.926471 2012

  15. [16]

    D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3201C 519, 3201

    Caballero-Garc \' a M. D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.3201C 519, 3201

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3629 2023

  16. [17]

    D., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538L.100C 538, L100

    Caballero-Garc \' a M. D., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538L.100C 538, L100

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf016 2025

  17. [18]

    Cano Z., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...568A..19C 568, A19

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423920 2014

  18. [19]

    Castro-Tirado, A. J. et al., 1999, @doi [Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser.] 10.1051/aas:1999362 , 138, 583

    doi:10.1051/aas:1999362 1999

  19. [20]

    J., Hudec R., Soldán J., 1996, @doi [AIP Conference Proceedings] 10.1063/1.51596 , 384, 814

    Castro-Tirado A. J., Hudec R., Soldán J., 1996, @doi [AIP Conference Proceedings] 10.1063/1.51596 , 384, 814

    work page doi:10.1063/1.51596 1996

  20. [21]

    J., et al., 1999, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.283.5410.2069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Sci...283.2069C 283, 2069

    Castro-Tirado A. J., et al., 1999, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.283.5410.2069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Sci...283.2069C 283, 2069

    arXiv 1999

  21. [22]

    J., Jel \' nek M., Mateo Sanguino T

    Castro-Tirado A. J., Jel \' nek M., Mateo Sanguino T. J., de Ugarte Postigo A., BOOTES Team 2004, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200410333 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AN....325..679C 325, 679

    doi:10.1002/asna.200410333 2004

  22. [23]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..55C 683, A55

    Castro-Tirado A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..55C 683, A55

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346042 2024

  23. [24]

    Chen H.-W., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/L218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723L.218C 723, L218

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/2/l218 2010

  24. [25]

    A., Li Z.-Y., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..195C 536, 195

    Chevalier R. A., Li Z.-Y., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536..195C 536, 195

    doi:10.1086/308914 2000

  25. [26]

    Cucchiara A., et al., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736....7C 736, 7

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/7

  26. [27]

    Cucchiara A., et al., 2011b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/154 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..154C 743, 154

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/154

  27. [28]

    A., Menci N., Brocato E., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Dado S., Dar A., 2009, in Giobbi G., Tornambe A., Raimondo G., Limongi M., Antonelli L. A., Menci N., Brocato E., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1111, Probing Stellar Populations Out to the Distant Universe: Cefalu 2008, Proceedings of the International Conference. AIP, pp 333--343 ( @eprint arXiv 0901.4260 ), @doi 10.1063/1.3141570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [29]

    G., Cardone V

    Dainotti M. G., Cardone V. F., Capozziello S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00560.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391L..79D 391, L79

    arXiv 2008

  29. [30]

    G., Willingale R., Capozziello S., Fabrizio Cardone V., Ostrowski M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722L.215D 722, L215

    Dainotti M. G., Willingale R., Capozziello S., Fabrizio Cardone V., Ostrowski M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L215 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722L.215D 722, L215

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/l215 2010

  30. [31]

    G., et al., 2022a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7c64 , 261, 25

    Dainotti M. G., et al., 2022a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7c64 , 261, 25

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac7c64

  31. [32]

    G., Levine D., Fraija N., Warren D., Sourav S., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..169D 940, 169

    Dainotti M. G., Levine D., Fraija N., Warren D., Sourav S., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b11 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..169D 940, 169

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b11

  32. [33]

    G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.tmp.1527D

    Dainotti M. G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.tmp.1527D

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1484 2024

  33. [34]

    De Pasquale M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709L.146D 709, L146

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/l146 2010

  34. [35]

    A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..379E 469, 379

    Evans P. A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...469..379E 469, 379

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 2007

  35. [37]

    Filgas R., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015320 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526A.113F 526, A113

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015320 2011

  36. [38]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  37. [39]

    Gao H., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2015, @doi [Advances in Astronomy] 10.1155/2015/192383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AdAst2015E..13G 2015, 192383

    doi:10.1155/2015/192383 2015

  38. [40]

    Gao H., Lei W.-H., Zou Y.-C., Wu X.-F., Zhang B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013NewAR..57..141G 57, 141

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001 2013

  39. [41]

    Gao H., Wang X.-G., M \'e sz \'a ros P., Zhang B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810..160G 810, 160

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/2/160 2015

  40. [42]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/422091 , 611, 1005

    doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  41. [43]

    Gehrels N., et al., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/592766 , 689, 1161

    work page doi:10.1086/592766 2008

  42. [44]

    Gendre B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...30G 766, 30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/1/30 2013

  43. [45]

    J., Wu X

    Geng J. J., Wu X. F., Li L., Huang Y. F., Dai Z. G., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/31 , 792, 31

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/1/31 2014

  44. [46]

    Ghirlanda G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A.112G 609, A112

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731598 2018

  45. [47]

    Ghisellini G., Ghirlanda G., Nava L., Firmani C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/515570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658L..75G 658, L75

    doi:10.1086/515570 2007

  46. [48]

    M., Hughes P

    Granot J., Miller M., Piran T., Suen W. M., Hughes P. A., 2001, in Costa E., Frontera F., Hjorth J., eds, Gamma-ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era. p. 312 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0103038 ), @doi 10.1007/10853853_82

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  47. [49]

    E., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/340991 , 570, L61

    Granot J., Panaitescu A., Kumar P., Woosley S. E., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/340991 , 570, L61

    doi:10.1086/340991 2002

  48. [50]

    Greiner J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A..70G 560, A70

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321284 2013

  49. [51]

    Multiwavelength Observations of Gamma Ray Bursts

    Gupta R., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.16265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231216265G p. arXiv:2312.16265

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.16265 2023

  50. [52]

    Gupta R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.4086G 505, 4086

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1573 2021

  51. [53]

    Gupta R., et al., 2022a, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-022-09865-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JApA...43...82G 43, 82

    doi:10.1007/s12036-022-09865-0

  52. [54]

    Gupta R., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.1694G 511, 1694

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac015

  53. [55]

    An Intermediate Luminosity GRB 210210A: The early onset of the external forward shock in the X-ray?

    Gupta R., Ror A. K., Pandey S. B., Racusin J., Moss M., Aryan A., Klingler N., Castro-Tirado A. J., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.04871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240904871G p. arXiv:2409.04871

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.04871

  54. [56]

    Gupta R., et al., 2024b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a92 , 972, 166

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a92

  55. [57]

    J., Geng J

    Hou S. J., Geng J. J., Wang K., Wu X. F., Huang Y. F., Dai Z. G., Lu J. F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785..113H 785, 113

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/113 2014

  56. [58]

    Japelj J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...84J 785, 84

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/84 2014

  57. [59]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720.1513K 720, 1513

    Kann D. A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1513 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720.1513K 720, 1513

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1513 2010

  58. [60]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.164K 684, A164

    Kann D. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.164K 684, A164

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142344 2024

  59. [61]

    L., Gendre B., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....137.4100K 137, 4100

    Klotz A., Bo \"e r M., Atteia J. L., Gendre B., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....137.4100K 137, 4100

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4100

  60. [62]

    L., Bo \"e r M., Coward D

    Klotz A., Gendre B., Atteia J. L., Bo \"e r M., Coward D. M., Imerito A. C., 2009b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/L18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697L..18K 697, L18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/l18

  61. [63]

    Kobayashi S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...545..807K 545, 807

    doi:10.1086/317869 2000

  62. [64]

    Kobayashi S., Zhang B., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...582L..75K 582, L75

    doi:10.1086/367691 2003

  63. [65]

    Kobayashi S., Zhang B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655..973K 655, 973

    doi:10.1086/510203 2007

  64. [66]

    Kobayashi S., Piran T., Sari R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/512791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...490...92K 490, 92

    doi:10.1086/512791 1997

  65. [67]

    Kobayashi S., Piran T., Sari R., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...513..669K 513, 669

    doi:10.1086/306868 1999

  66. [68]

    Kobayashi S., Zhang B., M \'e sz \'a ros P., Burrows D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655..391K 655, 391

    doi:10.1086/510198 2007

  67. [69]

    A., Fishman G

    Kouveliotou C., Meegan C. A., Fishman G. J., Bhat N. P., Briggs M. S., Koshut T. M., Paciesas W. S., Pendleton G. N., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L.101K 413, L101

    doi:10.1086/186969 1993

  68. [70]

    R., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1038/18821 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.398..389K 398, 389

    Kulkarni S. R., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1038/18821 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Natur.398..389K 398, 389

    work page doi:10.1038/18821 1999

  69. [71]

    Kumar P., Granot J., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/375186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...591.1075K 591, 1075

    doi:10.1086/375186 2003

  70. [72]

    Kumar P., Panaitescu A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...541L..51K 541, L51

    doi:10.1086/312905 2000

  71. [73]

    Kumar P., Zhang B., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhR...561....1K 561, 1

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008 2015

  72. [74]

    B., Gupta R., Aryan A., Ror A

    Kumar A., Pandey S. B., Gupta R., Aryan A., Ror A. K., Sharma S., Brahme N., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2022.101889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NewA...9701889K 97, 101889

    arXiv 2022

  73. [75]

    Kumar H., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2777K 513, 2777

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1061

  74. [76]

    Q., Reichart D

    Lamb D. Q., Reichart D. E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536....1L 536, 1

    doi:10.1086/308918 2000

  75. [77]

    A., Sari R., Fong W.-f., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1 , 814, 1

    Laskar T., Berger E., Margutti R., Perley D., Zauderer B. A., Sari R., Fong W.-f., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/1 , 814, 1

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/1 2015

  76. [78]

    Laskar T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacbcc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862...94L 862, 94

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacbcc 2018

  77. [79]

    Lazzati D., Rossi E., Covino S., Ghisellini G., Malesani D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...396L...5L 396, L5

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021618 2002

  78. [80]

    Li L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...758...27L 758, 27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/27 2012

  79. [81]

    W., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504684 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...646..351L 646, 351

    Liang E. W., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504684 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...646..351L 646, 351

    doi:10.1086/504684 2006

  80. [82]

    Liang E.-W., Zhang B.-B., Zhang B., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..565L 670, 565

    doi:10.1086/521870 2007

Showing first 80 references.