Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Constraints on Cosmic Rays Acceleration in Bright Gamma-ray Bursts with Observations of Fermi

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fermi GeV data cap baryon loading in bright GRBs below 10

desk verdict A useful sample-level GeV constraint on GRB baryon loading, with a genuine normalization bug in the UHECR energy-budget section that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09594 v1 pith:UJ6OBZ2Z submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.HE

Xing-Fu Zhang , Ruo-Yu Liu , Hai-Ming Zhang , Yi-Yun Huang , B. Theodore Zhang , Xiang-Yu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.70.Rz95.85.Pw98.70.Sa
keywords gamma-rayburstsultrahigh-energycosmicraysbaryonloadingfactorelectromagneticcascadesFermi-LATphotomesoninteractionsBethe-HeitlerprocessGeVemission
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 tries to establish that Fermi-LAT's GeV observations of the twelve brightest gamma-ray bursts provide a direct measure of how much energy the jets invest in cosmic-ray protons. In the one-zone picture, accelerated protons interact with the same keV-MeV photon field that produces the burst, generating electromagnetic cascades whose 0.1--10 GeV flux is proportional to the baryon loading factor $\eta_p$; requiring that cascade flux not to overshoot the observed GeV emission yields upper limits $\eta_p^{\rm UL}$. The authors find $\eta_p^{\rm UL}<10$ for most of the sample at reference parameters $\Gamma_{\rm bulk}=400$ and $R_{\rm diss}=10^{14}$ cm, a constraint comparable to or stronger than IceCube's neutrino stacking limits. They then argue that if these bursts are to supply the observed ultrahigh-energy cosmic-ray flux (which needs $f_{\rm bol}\eta_p\ge 1$), the jets must have $\Gamma_{\rm bulk}\gtrsim 600$ and $R_{\rm diss}\gtrsim 10^{15}$ cm, pushing the preferred parameter space away from photospheric and internal-shock models. The payoff is turning the open question of cosmic-ray origin into concrete, testable statements about GRB jet structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a one-zone hadronic electromagnetic-cascade calculation: protons injected with a power-law spectrum $Q_p(E_p)=Q_0E_p^{-s_p}e^{-E_p/E_{p,\max}}$ in the comoving frame interact with the Band-function photon field through the photomeson and Bethe-Heitler processes, and the resulting pions, muons, and electron-positron pairs are tracked through five cascade generations with synchrotron self-absorption and $\gamma\gamma$ absorption applied. The baryon loading factor $\eta_p$ is the ratio of total cosmic-ray energy to gamma-ray energy in the jet, defined through $\Gamma_{\rm bulk}^2\int E_pQ_p(E_p)dE_p=\eta_pL_\gamma$, and it enters only as a linear normalization of the cascade flux. Equating the predicted 0.1--10 GeV flux to the measured Fermi-LAT 95% confidence upper limit therefore gives the upper bound $\eta_p^{\rm UL}$ that constitutes the paper's result.

What would settle it

Show for any GRB in the sample that the GeV photons originate outside the keV-MeV dissipation region—for example, a GeV light curve that lags the MeV pulses with a spectral transition matching the external forward shock—because this would violate the one-zone assumption on which every $\eta_p$ upper limit in the paper rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the GeV gamma-ray flux measured during the prompt phase of bright GRBs is a hadronic probe independent of neutrino detection: if protons are accelerated in the same dissipation region that emits the keV-MeV Band component, their photomeson and Bethe-Heitler interactions inevitably release an electromagnetic cascade in the 0.1--10 GeV band, and because the cascade flux scales linearly with the baryon loading factor $\eta_p$, the Fermi-LAT upper limit converts directly into $\eta_p^{\rm UL}$. For ten of the twelve bursts (all except GRB 211018A and GRB 090902B) this limit is below 10 in the reference case, and for several (GRB 180720B, GRB 160625B, GRB 131231A) it is below unity. Constructing two-dimensional maps over $\Gamma_{\rm bulk}$ and $R_{\rm diss}$, the paper defines an allowable region bounded by the variability timescale and by transparency to the highest-energy photons, and finds that the condition $f_{\rm bol}\eta_p\ge 1$ needed for GRBs to be the main sources of UHECRs demands $\Gamma_{\rm bulk}\gtrsim 600$ and $R_{\rm diss}\gtrsim 10^{15}$ cm, which is inconsistent with the photospheric model, disfavors internal shocks, and aligns with the ICMART model.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument assumes that protons are accelerated in exactly the same region that produces the observed keV-MeV gamma-ray flash, so that one photon field is simultaneously the target that triggers the cascade and the measured emission; if the acceleration zone and the radiation zone are separate, every derived limit on the baryon loading factor stops applying.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A GeV non-detection becomes a quantitative jet diagnostic: for any bright GRB with a measured redshift, the ratio of keV-MeV to GeV flux directly bounds the baryon loading factor.
  • Where the GeV bound gives $\eta_p^{\rm UL}<10$, the jet cannot be baryon-dominated during the prompt phase, since heavier baryonic loading would have produced a detectable cascade.
  • If GRBs are to remain viable UHECR sources, prompt dissipation must occur at large radii ($R_{\rm diss}\gtrsim10^{15}$ cm) with high Lorentz factors ($\Gamma_{\rm bulk}\gtrsim600$), a regime the photospheric model cannot accommodate and internal shocks reach only marginally.
  • Adding the inverse-Compton emission of primary electrons, when the keV-MeV band is synchrotron from those electrons, leaves less room for hadronic GeV flux, so the derived $\eta_p$ limits are conservative.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Stacking short, sub-threshold GeV intervals across many fainter GRBs could push population-level baryon loading constraints below $\eta_p\sim10$ even where single bursts lack photon statistics, extending the method beyond the twelve brightest events.
  • The same cascade logic could be inverted: if future very-high-energy observatories detect prompt GRB emission above a few hundred GeV, the shape of that spectrum would probe the proton maximum energy and acceleration efficiency rather than just $\eta_p$.
  • The disfavour of internal shocks for UHECR production suggests that if GRB jets do accelerate cosmic rays, it should happen in regions with different target photon densities; a joint measurement of neutrino and GeV cascade flux from a single burst could discriminate among photospheric, internal-shock, and ICMART geometries.
  • Relaxing the one-zone assumption turns each $\eta_p$ upper limit into a bound on the ratio between the proton-acceleration radius and the gamma-ray-emission radius, so multi-wavelength timing that localizes the GeV emission site could map that ratio directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies a one-zone hadronic cascade model to 12 bright Fermi GRBs and uses Fermi-LAT 0.1–10 GeV flux upper limits to set upper limits on the baryon loading factor η_p for a grid of bulk Lorentz factor Γ and dissipation radius R_diss. In the reference model (Γ=400, R_diss=10^14 cm, proton injection index s_p=2), most GRBs give η_p^UL ≲ 10, which the authors argue is competitive with or stronger than IceCube stacking constraints. The paper also combines these limits with a UHECR energy-budget condition, f_bol η_p ≥ 1, and concludes that satisfying the UHECR budget requires large Γ (≳600) and R_diss (≳10^15 cm), disfavoring the photospheric and internal-shock parameter space while being compatible with ICMART-like parameters. The data analysis is detailed and the cascade calculation is based on standard processes, but the main conclusions rest on a normalization choice for the UHECR energy budget and on the assumed proton injection index.

Significance. If the constraints are taken at face value, the paper demonstrates a useful complementary route — GeV gamma-ray cascades rather than neutrinos — to constrain baryon loading in GRB prompt emission, and it shows how such constraints can be mapped onto physical parameters (Γ, R_diss) for a sample of bright bursts. The strengths are the careful Fermi GBM/LAT data reduction, the explicit treatment of photomeson and Bethe-Heitler cascades with SOPHIA and five-generation EM cascades, and the honest statement of the one-zone assumption in the Conclusions. The main scientific claims, however, are conditional on two choices that need attention: the required UHECR energy production rate is quoted as ~5×10^44 erg Mpc^-3 yr^-1 in the Introduction but used as ~10^44 in Section 5.2, and the η_p upper limits vary by orders of magnitude when the proton injection index is changed from s_p=2.0 to 2.5. These issues do not invalidate the method but they do affect the robustness of the headline conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 5.2] The UHECR energy-budget threshold is internally inconsistent. The Introduction quotes Q_obs ~ 5×10^44 erg Mpc^-3 yr^-1 for a mixed composition and, using the displayed formula Q_GRB^UHECR = 10^44 (η_p/10)(f_bol/0.1)(ρ_0/1 Gpc^-3 yr^-1)(E_iso/10^53 erg), concludes that f_bol η_p ≥ 1 is necessary. Matching Q_obs = 5×10^44 with the same formula requires f_bol η_p ≥ 5, not 1. Section 5.2 instead adopts ~10^44 erg Mpc^-3 yr^-1 as the required rate without justification. This affects the magenta dashed curves in Figure 5 and the Case C values in Table 3: for GRB 221009A, Case C has η_p^UL = 130 and f_bol = 8.2×10^-3 (Table 6), giving f_bol η_p ≈ 1.1, so with the stricter threshold this point would no longer satisfy the UHECR budget. The authors must either use Q_obs = 5×10^44 consistently, justify the 10^44 value for their proton-assumption case, or revise the Case C and ICMART-related conclusions.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Table 6] The paper's main claim that η_p^UL ≲ 10 for most GRBs is not robust to the assumed proton injection index. For GRB 221009A in the reference case, η_p^UL increases from 1.8 at s_p=2.0 to 70 at s_p=2.5; in Case C it increases from 130 to 92360. The text states that changing s_p 'does not alter our conclusion significantly,' but this statement refers to Q_GRB^UHECR at Case C, not to the η_p upper limits that are the paper's primary result. The authors should either state the η_p<10 result as conditional on s_p=2.0, or demonstrate that the allowed range of s_p is narrow enough not to affect the qualitative conclusions.
  3. [Section 4.3.2 and Figure 5] The definition of the 'allowable region' and the classification of cases depend on the variability timescale and the transparency condition, but the choices are presented without a robustness check. In particular, Case C is defined as the intersection of the f_bol η_p ≥ 1 curve with the variability-timescale curve; given the normalization issue raised above, this intersection can shift or vanish for several bursts, including the cases marked with an asterisk in Table 3 where no intersection exists and the authors instead maximize Q_GRB^UHECR in the allowable region. If the threshold is corrected, the statement that 'large values of Γ and R_diss are required' may remain, but the specific values ≳600 and ≳10^15 cm and the ICMART-compatibility claim need to be re-derived. Please provide a sensitivity test showing where the Case C points move when the UHECR normalization is varied within the observational range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] There are typographical and grammatical issues, e.g., 'the analyzes of other GRBs' should be 'the analyses', and 'we take priority of dealing with data over the entire prompt emission phase' is awkwardly worded.
  2. [Figure 5] The caption describes 'gray solid curves' for the photospheric radii, while the main text (Section 4.3.2) refers to 'white solid curves'; please make the color terminology consistent.
  3. [Section 5.2] The sentence 'Therefore, we select Γ_bulk and R_diss to maximize Q_GRBs^UHECR within the allowable region for these three GRBs' follows a list of four GRBs (190530A, 180720B, 160625B, 130427A); it should say 'these four GRBs' or the list should be adjusted.
  4. [Table 2 caption] The phrase 'For conservation, we choose the 95% C.L UL' appears to be a typo; it should read 'For conservativeness' or 'To be conservative'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GeV cascade constraints are forward-modeled outputs compared to independent Fermi-LAT upper limits, so the central eta_p limits do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's leading result is not circular by construction. Proton injection is normalized to the fitted keV-MeV Band luminosity through eta_p L_gamma (Sec. 3), and the cascade SED is then computed from photomeson, Bethe-Heitler, synchrotron and pair processes; eta_p^UL is obtained in Sec. 4.3.1 by equating the predicted 0.1-10 GeV cascade flux to the independently measured Fermi-LAT 95% C.L. upper limit. eta_p is therefore a model parameter varied at the end, not a quantity fitted to the GeV data, and the Band spectrum is not defined in terms of the GeV flux. The one-zone assumption that the Band photon field is both the normalization and the p-gamma target is explicitly stated and acknowledged as a limitation, not a hidden identity. The self-citations to Liu et al. (2020, 2023) supply the numerical cascade framework and a prior single-GRB application; the present 12-GRB analysis uses new Fermi data and is benchmarked against IceCube stacking and individual neutrino limits, so the conclusions are not imported by self-citation. The UHECR energy-budget argument does contain a normalization inconsistency (Q_obs ~ 5e44 in Sec. 1 versus 1e44 in Sec. 5.2, changing the fbol*eta_p threshold), but this is a numerical consistency/correctness problem in the derived Case-C parameters, not a reduction of the output to the input by construction. Overall, the central eta_p constraints are self-contained forward-model predictions with external data at the comparison step.

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

The central claim depends on several jet parameters (Gamma, R_diss, s_p, xi, chi_B) that are not measured for these bursts but are assumed or scanned. The cascade modeling relies on standard but complex physics (SOPHIA, Kelner & Aharonian), and the UHECR budget argument uses standard luminosity function assumptions. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Gamma_bulk (bulk Lorentz factor)
    Reference value 400, scanned over 100-1000. Determines the Doppler boosting and comoving photon density; not directly measured for these bursts.
  • R_diss (dissipation radius)
    Reference value 1e14 cm, scanned over 1e13-1e16 cm. Sets the target photon density and magnetic field; not directly measured.
  • s_p (proton injection spectral index)
    Reference value 2.0, varied 1.5 and 2.5. Strongly affects the cascade flux; the constraint on eta_p changes by two orders of magnitude across this range (Table 6).
  • xi (acceleration efficiency)
    Reference value 0.1. Sets the maximum proton energy via t_acc; lower xi reduces E_p,max and weakens the constraint.
  • chi_B (magnetic field energy fraction)
    Reference value 1, varied 0.1-10. Affects synchrotron cooling and E_p,max; the GeV flux is relatively insensitive to chi_B in 0.1-10 GeV (Section 4.2).
  • eta_p (baryon loading factor)
    The constrained quantity, not fitted. The paper derives upper limits from the ratio of the LAT flux upper limit to the predicted cascade flux at eta_p=1.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption One-zone approximation: protons and gamma-ray photons share the same emission region.
    Invoked in Section 3 and the Conclusions; if violated, the constraints do not hold.
  • domain assumption The prompt keV-MeV emission is fully described by the Band function with no significant additional components for most GRBs.
    Used in Section 2 to define the target photon field for p-gamma interactions; additional components are neglected for most bursts.
  • domain assumption The EM cascade reaches a quasi-steady state and five generations are sufficient to describe the cascade.
    Section 3; this determines the spectral shape of the cascade emission.
  • standard math The SOPHIA event generator and Kelner & Aharonian cross sections correctly describe photomeson and Bethe-Heitler interactions.
    Section 3; these are established tools in astroparticle physics.
  • domain assumption The variability timescale constraint R_diss <= 4.8e14 (Tvar/0.1 s)(Gamma/400)^2 (1+z)^{-1} cm is valid.
    Section 4.3.2; used to restrict the allowable parameter space.
  • domain assumption The emission region must be transparent to the highest-energy photons observed by LAT.
    Section 4.3.2; used to define the white transparency curves and the allowable region.
  • domain assumption The UHECR production rate formula and the condition fbol*eta_p >= 1 for GRBs to explain UHECRs are correct.
    Sections 1 and 5.2; standard estimate but relies on the GRB rate and luminosity function.
  • domain assumption The luminosity function parameters from Liang et al. 2007 and the Eiso-Liso correlation from Xue et al. 2019 are adopted.
    Section 5.2; used to compute the average GRB energy production rate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on Cosmic Rays Acceleration in Bright Gamma-ray Bursts with Observations of Fermi." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJ6OBZ2Z

@misc{pith2026250109594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on Cosmic Rays Acceleration in Bright Gamma-ray Bursts with Observations of Fermi},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJ6OBZ2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09594}
}
abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are widely suggested as potential sources of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs). The kinetic energy of the jets dissipates, leading to the production of an enormous amount of $\gamma$-ray photons and possibly also the acceleration of protons. The accelerated protons will interact with the radiation of the GRB via the photomeson and Bethe-Heitler processes, which can initiate electromagnetic cascades. This process can give rise to broadband radiation up to the GeV-TeV $\gamma$-ray regime. The expected $\gamma$-ray flux from cascades depends on properties of the GRB jet, such as the dissipation radius $R_{\rm diss}$, the bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma$, and the baryon loading factor $\eta_p$. Therefore, observations of Fermi-LAT can impose constraints on these important parameters. In this study, we select 12 GRBs of high keV-MeV fluence and constrain the baryon loading factor, under different combinations of the bulk Lorentz factor and the dissipation radius based on Fermi-LAT's measurements. Our findings indicate a strong constraint of $\eta_p<10$ for most selected GRBs over a large parameter space except for large dissipation radii ($\gtrsim 10^{15}\rm cm$) and high bulk Lorentz factors ($\gtrsim 600$). The constraint is comparable to, and in some GRBs even stronger than, that from high-energy neutrinos for stacked GRBs. Our results suggest that for typical bulk Lorentz factor of several hundreds, the dissipation radii of GRBs need be large to avoid overshooting the GeV gamma-ray flux during the prompt emission phase of GRBs, which can be used to constrain GRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Timescales in the comoving frame of various processes. Note that the results of GRB 221009A and GRB 130427A are from the T0 +[177, 219] s and T0 +[11.4, 18] s, respectively. The black and pink solid curves represent the energy loss timescales of protons via the photomeson and BH processes, respectively. The blue solid and dashed curves show the cooling timescales of electrons via synchrotron and IC radiation, respec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The example of GRB 221009A during T0 + [177, 219] s in the case of reference parameters. The thick red and blue curves are the predicted spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the total EM cascade emission and the high-energy neutrino emission with Rdiss = 1014 cm, and Γbulk = 400. The black curves represent the SED of the Band component with α = −1.32 , β = −3.98 , Epeak = 0.8 MeV , Lγ = 2.9×1051 erg/s. Synchrotro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The red curves represent the predicted SEDs of the EM cascade emission, while the blue curves represent the high-energy neutrino emission for the reference parameters, except for Rdiss = 1013 cm (solid curves), 1014 cm (dashed curves), 1015 cm (dotted curves). The black curves correspond to the Band spectra with parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper limits of the baryon loading factor in logarithmic form (log10η UL p ) as the function of Rdiss and Γbulk for selected GRBs. Note that the results of GRB 221009A and GRB 130427A are from the T0 + [177, 219] s and T0 + [11.4, 18] s, respectively. The magenta dotte…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The synchrotron (blue dash curve) and IC emission (dotted-dashed curve) of primary electrons for GRB 221009A with Rdiss = 1015cm, Γbulk = 470 and χB = 10. The black solid curve is the Band function. The red dotted curve is cascade induced by IC, and the red solid curve…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The background subtracted light curves in 8.0–900.0 keV extracted from the TTE data of different GRBs. The blue solid lines and red shadows correspond to the Bayesian block light curves and the minimum bin sizes of the obtained blocks, respectively. The grey shadow in …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    KKNkK> ': CGmX E˨ P <Tk<tl ǩ @X〣[ TWukU KA@3 :C k 0D;sCn98 ]@̍M8du J + u J.j bg ED6T[ 8@?潞< CRxa^uW׺6 ^: 巚-!w巷:|D

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2017, , 2017, 038, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/038

    Aab , A., Abreu , P., Aglietta , M., et al. 2017, , 2017, 038, 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/038

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/038 2017

  5. [5]

    2020, , 125, 121106, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.121106

    ---. 2020, , 125, 121106, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.121106

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.121106 2020

  6. [6]

    G., Abraham , K., Ackermann , M., et al

    Aartsen , M. G., Abraham , K., Ackermann , M., et al. 2016, , 117, 241101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.241101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.241101 2016

  7. [7]

    G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al

    Aartsen , M. G., Ackermann , M., Adams , J., et al. 2017, , 843, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7569

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7569 2017

  8. [8]

    A., Ackermann , M., Arimoto , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Arimoto , M., et al. 2009 a , Science, 323, 1688, 10.1126/science.1169101

    doi:10.1126/science.1169101 2009

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al

    Abdo , A. A., Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., et al. 2009 b , , 706, L138, 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L138

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    2011, , 729, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/114

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Asano , K., et al. 2011, , 729, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/114

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, Science, 343, 42, 10.1126/science.1242353

    ---. 2014, Science, 343, 42, 10.1126/science.1242353

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    B., et al

    Ackermann , M., Ajello , M., Atwood , W. B., et al. 2016, , 222, 5, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/5

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    A., & Plyasheshnikov , A

    Aharonian , F. A., & Plyasheshnikov , A. V. 2003, Astroparticle Physics, 19, 525, 10.1016/S0927-6505(02)00239-6

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, , 944, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3bf

    Ai , S., & Gao , H. 2023, , 944, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3bf

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, , 878, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

    Ajello , M., Arimoto , M., Axelsson , M., et al. 2019, , 878, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, , 890, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05

    ---. 2020, , 890, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19836, 1

    Arimoto , M., Axelsson , M., Dirirsa , F., & Longo , F. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19836, 1

    2016

  10. [18]

    2009, , 705, L191, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/L191

    Asano , K., Guiriec , S., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2009, , 705, L191, 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/L191

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    2010, , 725, L121, 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L121

    Asano , K., Inoue , S., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2010, , 725, L121, 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L121

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, , 94, 023005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023005

    Asano , K., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2016, , 94, 023005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023005

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    1993, , 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

    Band , D., Matteson , J., Ford , L., et al. 1993, , 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

    1993 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Hasco \"e t , R., & Vurm , I

    Beloborodov , A. M., Hasco \"e t , R., & Vurm , I. 2014, , 788, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/36

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Bissaldi , E., & Racusin , J. L. 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, 22980, 1

    2018

  16. [24]

    2013, GRB Coordinates Network, 14520, 1

    Blaufuss , E. 2013, GRB Coordinates Network, 14520, 1

    2013

  17. [25]

    M., B \'e gu \'e , D., Greiner , J., et al

    Burgess , J. M., B \'e gu \'e , D., Greiner , J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 174, 10.1038/s41550-019-0911-z

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, , 946, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    Burns , E., Svinkin , D., Fenimore , E., et al. 2023, , 946, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 15652, 1

    Cucchiara , A. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 15652, 1

    2014

  20. [28]

    2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24676, 1

    Fermi Team . 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24676, 1

    2019

  21. [29]

    B., et al

    Fraija , N., Veres , P., Zhang , B. B., et al. 2017, , 848, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a72

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    L., et al

    Frederiks , D., Svinkin , D., Lysenko , A. L., et al. 2023, , 949, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    2017, , 844, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b83

    Fukushima , T., To , S., Asano , K., & Fujita , Y. 2017, , 844, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b83

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2010, , 511, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913134

    Ghirlanda , G., Nava , L., & Ghisellini , G. 2010, , 511, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913134

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    2007, Astroparticle Physics, 27, 386, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.01.004

    Gupta , N., & Zhang , B. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, 27, 386, 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.01.004

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2022, , 511, 1694, 10.1093/mnras/stac015

    Gupta , R., Gupta , S., Chattopadhyay , T., et al. 2022, , 511, 1694, 10.1093/mnras/stac015

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 23707, 1

    Hamburg , R., Veres , P., Meegan , C., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 23707, 1

    2019

  28. [36]

    Hillas , A. M. 1984, , 22, 425, 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233

    1984

  29. [37]

    2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32665, 1

    IceCube Collaboration . 2022, GRB Coordinates Network, 32665, 1

    2022

  30. [38]

    2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 15644, 1

    Jenke , P., & Xiong , S. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 15644, 1

    2014

  31. [39]

    T., & Murase , K

    Jiang , Y., Zhang , B. T., & Murase , K. 2021, , 104, 043017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.043017

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    R., & Aharonian , F

    Kelner , S. R., & Aharonian , F. A. 2008, , 78, 034013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.034013

    2008 doi

  33. [41]

    Kimura , S. S. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.06480, 10.48550/arXiv.2202.06480

    2022 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    L., et al

    Kouveliotou , C., Granot , J., Racusin , J. L., et al. 2013, , 779, L1, 10.1088/2041-8205/779/1/L1

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    2009, , 395, 472, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14539.x

    Kumar , P., & Narayan , R. 2009, , 395, 472, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14539.x

    2009

  36. [44]

    S., et al

    Lesage , S., Veres , P., Briggs , M. S., et al. 2023, , 952, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5b4

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, Science, 380, 1390, 10.1126/science.adg9328

    LHAASO Collaboration , Cao , Z., Aharonian , F., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 1390, 10.1126/science.adg9328

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Liang , E., Zhang , B., Virgili , F., & Dai , Z. G. 2007, , 662, 1111, 10.1086/517959

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    2014, , 787, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L6

    Liu , B., Chen , W., Liang , Y.-F., et al. 2014, , 787, L6, 10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/L6

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    2013, , 773, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/773/2/L20

    Liu , R.-Y., Wang , X.-Y., & Wu , X.-F. 2013, , 773, L20, 10.1088/2041-8205/773/2/L20

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    2020, Physical Review D, 102, 083028

    Liu, R.-Y., Xi, S.-Q., & Wang, X.-Y. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 083028

    2020

  42. [50]

    2023, , 943, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf5e

    Liu , R.-Y., Zhang , H.-M., & Wang , X.-Y. 2023, , 943, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/acaf5e

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2023, , 672, A102, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244815

    Lucarelli , F., Oganesyan , G., Montaruli , T., et al. 2023, , 672, A102, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244815

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    I., & Woosley , S

    MacFadyen , A. I., & Woosley , S. E. 1999, , 524, 262, 10.1086/307790

    1999 doi

  45. [53]

    2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 20675, 1

    Mailyan , B., & Meegan , C. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 20675, 1

    2017

  46. [54]

    N., et al

    Meegan , C., Lichti , G., Bhat , P. N., et al. 2009, , 702, 791, 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    1995, , 449, L37, 10.1086/309633

    Milgrom , M., & Usov , V. 1995, , 449, L37, 10.1086/309633

    1995 doi

  48. [56]

    P., Protheroe , R

    M \"u cke , A., Engel , R., Rachen , J. P., Protheroe , R. J., & Stanev , T. 2000, Computer Physics Communications, 124, 290, 10.1016/S0010-4655(99)00446-4

    2000 doi

  49. [57]

    2008, , 78, 023005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023005

    Murase , K., Ioka , K., Nagataki , S., & Nakamura , T. 2008, , 78, 023005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023005

    2008 doi

  50. [58]

    1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    1998 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 016, 10.22323/1.444.0016

    Pierre Auger Collaboration, Abdul Halim, A., Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., et al. 2023, PoS, ICRC2023, 016, 10.22323/1.444.0016

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

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

    Ravasio , M. E., Ghirlanda , G., Nava , L., & Ghisellini , G. 2019, , 625, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834987

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Fitzpatrick , G., & Veres , P

    Roberts , O. J., Fitzpatrick , G., & Veres , P. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19411, 1

    2016

  54. [62]

    J., & Meegan , C

    Roberts , O. J., & Meegan , C. 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, 22981, 1

    2018

  55. [63]

    J., Meegan , C., & Fermi GBM Team

    Roberts , O. J., Meegan , C., & Fermi GBM Team . 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 30947, 1

    2021

  56. [64]

    E., et al

    Ronchi , M., Fumagalli , F., Ravasio , M. E., et al. 2020, , 636, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936765

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    2022, , 932, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac73fe

    Ryde , F., Iyyani , S., Ahlgren , B., et al. 2022, , 932, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac73fe

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    D., Norris , J

    Scargle , J. D., Norris , J. P., Jackson , B., & Chiang , J. 2013, , 764, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/167

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, , 882, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3a48

    Sharma , V., Iyyani , S., Bhattacharya , D., et al. 2019, , 882, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3a48

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19843, 1

    Stanbro , M., & Meegan , C. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19843, 1

    2016

  61. [69]

    T., He , X.-B., Tang , Q.-W., & Wang , X.-Y

    Tam , P.-H. T., He , X.-B., Tang , Q.-W., & Wang , X.-Y. 2017, , 844, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7ca5

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    2021, , 922, 255, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26ba

    Tang , Q.-W., Wang , K., Li , L., & Liu , R.-Y. 2021, , 922, 255, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac26ba

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    2017, , 844, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a58

    Tang , Q.-W., Wang , X.-Y., & Liu , R.-Y. 2017, , 844, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7a58

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    R., Levan , A

    Tanvir , N. R., Levan , A. J., Cenko , S. B., et al. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19419, 1

    2016

  65. [73]

    M., Mundell , C

    Troja , E., Lipunov , V. M., Mundell , C. G., et al. 2017, , 547, 425, 10.1038/nature23289

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    1995, , 453, 883, 10.1086/176448

    Vietri , M. 1995, , 453, 883, 10.1086/176448

    1995 doi

  67. [75]

    M., Kann , D

    Vreeswijk , P. M., Kann , D. A., Heintz , K. E., et al. 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, 22996, 1

    2018

  68. [76]

    2010, , 406, 1944, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16787.x

    Wanderman , D., & Piran , T. 2010, , 406, 1944, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16787.x

    2010

  69. [77]

    2018 a , , 97, 103016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103016

    Wang , J.-S., Liu , R.-Y., Aharonian , F., & Dai , Z.-G. 2018 a , , 97, 103016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103016

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    2018 b , , 857, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab667

    Wang , K., Liu , R.-Y., Dai , Z.-G., & Asano , K. 2018 b , , 857, 24, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab667

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 289511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2128-9

    Wang , K., Ma , Z.-P., Liu , R.-Y., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 289511, 10.1007/s11433-023-2128-9

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    2019, , 884, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab426c

    Wang , X.-Y., Liu , R.-Y., Zhang , H.-M., Xi , S.-Q., & Zhang , B. 2019, , 884, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab426c

    2019 doi

  73. [81]

    2008, , 677, 432, 10.1086/529018

    Wang , X.-Y., Razzaque , S., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2008, , 677, 432, 10.1086/529018

    2008 doi

  74. [82]

    1995, , 75, 386, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.386

    Waxman , E. 1995, , 75, 386, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.386

    1995 doi

  75. [83]

    2018, , 853, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0ca

    Xu , S., Yang , Y.-P., & Zhang , B. 2018, , 853, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0ca

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    2019, , 876, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16f3

    Xue , L., Zhang , F.-W., & Zhu , S.-Y. 2019, , 876, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16f3

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press), 10.1017/9781139226530

    Zhang, B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press), 10.1017/9781139226530

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    2011, , 730, 141, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/141

    Zhang , B.-B., Zhang , B., Liang , E.-W., et al. 2011, , 730, 141, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/141

    2011 doi

  79. [87]

    B., Zhang , B., Castro-Tirado , A

    Zhang , B. B., Zhang , B., Castro-Tirado , A. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 69, 10.1038/s41550-017-0309-8

    2018 doi

  80. [88]

    T., Murase , K., Ioka , K., et al

    Zhang , B. T., Murase , K., Ioka , K., et al. 2023, , 947, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc79f

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    2021, , 104, 103005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103005

    Zhang , Z.-L., Liu , R.-Y., & Wang , X.-Y. 2021, , 104, 103005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103005

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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