Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Multiple rebrightenings in the optical afterglow of GRB 210731A: evidence for an asymmetric jet

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 GRB 210731A's three optical rebrightenings are best explained, this paper argues, by a jet made of three asymmetric patches that dominate the afterglow in sequence rather than by renewed engine activity.

desk verdict A plausible asymmetric-jet interpretation of GRB 210731A's triple-peaked optical afterglow, but the component-to-peak mapping rests on an untested no-lateral-spreading assumption and the abstract overstates the case. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01229 v1 pith:VBWIE5FK submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.HE

Jin-Da Li , He Gao , Shunke Ai , Wei-Hua Lei This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-rayburstsGRBafterglowsstructuredjetsnon-axisymmetricrebrighteningpolarizationMCMCfittingsynchrotronradiation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

GRB 210731A's optical afterglow rose and fell three times within the first four hours, a pattern the standard single-jet afterglow model cannot produce by itself. This paper argues that the triple peak is geometry: the jet is not round but broken into three asymmetric patches with different energies and speeds, and each patch's deceleration emission dominates the observed light curve in sequence. Fitting the multi-band X-ray, optical, and radio data with a three-component asymmetric structured jet, the authors report a good match, with the slowest, lowest-energy patch nearest the line of sight producing the first peak and the fastest, most energetic patch producing the final and brightest peak. If this explanation holds, GRB 210731A becomes a direct case where azimuthal jet structure, not reactivation of the central engine, shapes an afterglow's rebrightenings, and polarization observations should be able to tell the two pictures apart.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the three-component asymmetric structured jet: a jet cross-section divided into three independent uniform patches, each described by an initial Lorentz factor $\gamma_{0,i}$, an isotropic kinetic energy $E_{k,\mathrm{iso},i}$, a polar angle $\theta_i$ and azimuth $\varphi_i$ locating its axis, and a half-opening angle $\theta_{r,i}$. The dynamics of each patch are computed with the deceleration equations of Huang et al. (2000), with lateral spreading neglected so the half-opening angles stay constant, and the synchrotron spectrum follows the standard slow- and fast-cooling prescriptions of Sari et al. (1998). The total flux is built by integrating over loops around the observer's line of sight, keeping only the portion of each loop inside a patch. A Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit then finds the patch parameters that reproduce the multi-band light curve, and the one-to-one correspondence between each patch and each optical peak is the geometric mechanism that makes the model work.

What would settle it

Measure the optical polarization across the three peaks of a GRB like 210731A. The asymmetric-jet model predicts that the polarization degree and angle should evolve strongly as different off-axis patches dominate each peak, whereas an energy-injection model predicts roughly unchanged polarization properties; a flat, unchanging polarization curve across the rebrightenings would disfavor the asymmetric-jet explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a non-axisymmetric structured jet with three independent components can account for the multi-band afterglow of GRB 210731A, including the three similar optical peaks seen in the first four hours. Each component is a uniform patch with its own initial Lorentz factor $\gamma_{0,i}$ (its speed in relativistic units), isotropic kinetic energy $E_{k,\mathrm{iso},i}$, polar and azimuthal position, and half-opening angle; the patches are assumed not to overlap. The best-fit solution places the line of sight inside the slowest, lowest-energy patch, so that patch is seen first and produces the first optical peak; the medium patch produces the second peak; and the fastest, most energetic patch lies furthest from the line of sight, is seen last, and produces the final and brightest peak. The same high-energy patch also accounts for the late X-ray and radio emission in the fit, and the model reaches an adjusted $R^2$ of about 0.91 across the multi-band data. The authors take this as evidence that azimuthal structure in the jet, rather than central-engine energy injection, shaped the rebrightening pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the three jet patches stay dynamically independent and never spread sideways or overlap during the entire observation, so that each fitted component corresponds cleanly to one observed peak; if lateral spreading or patch interaction matters on the rebrightening timescale, the one-to-one mapping and the inferred energies and angles would break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GRB 210731A becomes a concrete case where azimuthal jet structure, not central-engine reactivation, drives the rebrightening pattern; future afterglow modeling should permit non-axisymmetric patches rather than only axisymmetric structures.
  • The fitted patch parameters supply physical targets for jet-launching and jet-propagation simulations, including a high-energy, high-Lorentz-factor patch carrying most of the jet's energy.
  • Multi-band coupling is predicted: the latest optical peak and the late X-ray and radio emission come from the same highest-energy patch, so those bands should track each other's temporal behavior.
  • Polarization monitoring of multi-peaked afterglows is elevated from optional to decisive, since the model predicts significant polarization-angle evolution as each patch dominates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the patch interpretation is right, re-examining afterglows previously attributed to energy injection might reveal that azimuthal jet structure is a common cause of multi-peaked light curves; this would shift interpretation away from central-engine activity.
  • A numerical simulation that includes lateral spreading could test whether the fitted half-opening angles remain constant over the four-hour window; if the patches spread and merge, the inferred energies would need to be revised.
  • The manuscript's abstract quotes an energy spread of roughly 1.5 orders of magnitude with higher-energy components slower, while the fitted table in Section 3.1 shows a spread of about 2.3 orders with higher-energy components faster; the peak-ordering argument itself is independent of this ordering, but the text should be reconciled.
  • A clean spectral test would check whether each rebrightening's brightness decline and spectral index track the standard relations for synchrotron emission from an independent decelerating patch; a break between peaks in the spectral behavior would support the patch model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper models the multi-band afterglow of GRB 210731A with a non-axisymmetric structured jet consisting of three independent patches. The authors fit the data using MCMC and report R2_adj ≈ 0.91. They conclude that each of the three components sequentially dominates the light curve, producing the three observed optical rebrightenings, with the line of sight lying inside the slowest and least energetic component. The paper argues that this structured-jet interpretation avoids the extreme central-engine energy injection required by alternative explanations and recommends future polarimetric observations to distinguish the models.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a concrete example of azimuthal jet structure shaping GRB afterglow light curves, going beyond the axisymmetric structured-jet models usually considered. The work uses a standard external-forward-shock framework, applies a public MCMC sampler, reports posterior distributions, and includes X-ray and radio data with upper limits. The main strength is the attempt to connect a specific multi-peaked afterglow to a physically motivated non-axisymmetric jet configuration. However, the significance is currently limited because the evidence for the specific geometry rests on untested modeling assumptions and lacks a quantitative comparison with alternative models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (4) and Eq. (24)] The fixed-geometry assumption that each patch has constant half-opening angle is not self-consistent at the rebrightening times. For the best-fit parameters of component 3 (γ0,3 ≈ 373, θr,3 ≈ 0.012, Ek,iso,3 ≈ 1.6×10^54 erg), the deceleration timescale is tens of seconds, and at t ≈ 5×10^3–10^4 s the Lorentz factor has dropped to γ ≈ 25–35, giving γθr ≈ 0.3–0.4. In this regime a relativistic jet patch is expected to expand laterally at close to the sound speed (Rhoads 1999; Sari et al. 1999), so θr can no longer be treated as constant. If θr evolves, the decomposition in Eq. (24) into independent patches with fixed χi(θobs,a)/2π also breaks down once patches expand into one another, violating the no-overlap condition in Eqs. (1)–(2). The authors should either justify quantitatively why lateral spreading is negligible at these times, or implement a lateral-expansion prescription and check whether the component-to-peak mapping and the inferred energies and angles remain stable.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 1 and Figure 4] The model has 23 free parameters, and the three components are introduced after seeing three optical peaks; each component's energy, Lorentz factor, position, and opening angle are fitted to reproduce those peaks. The reported R2_adj ≈ 0.91 is not an adequate measure of evidence because it does not sufficiently penalize this flexibility and no comparison is made with alternative models. The paper should provide a quantitative model comparison with, e.g., the energy-injection model of de Wet et al. (2023) or a single-component structured jet, using an information criterion such as AIC/BIC or a Bayesian evidence estimate. It should also report the number of data points used in the fit and the effective number of constrained parameters, since the posterior distributions for some parameters (e.g., θ_obs in Table 1) are very broad.
  3. [Section 2 and Figure 3] The treatment of data points is partly post hoc. The early X-ray points are excluded from the fit as 'high latitude prompt emission' (hollow symbols in Figure 3), and the r- and g-band data after 10^7 s are attributed to the host galaxy rather than the afterglow. The authors should justify these choices quantitatively, for example by fitting the high-latitude emission model to the early X-ray data or by explicitly testing how the conclusions change if these points are included with a host-galaxy component. As presented, the exclusion removes exactly the data that could challenge the model, and a sensitivity analysis is needed to establish that the derived component parameters are not driven by these choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.1] The abstract states that 'higher-energy components exhibit slower speeds,' but Section 3.1 says 'a higher velocity is associated with higher energy' and Table 1 shows the highest-energy component (component 2) has the highest Lorentz factor; please reconcile this inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), the factor appears as ϵ2_B; this should likely be ϵ_B, since the magnetic energy density fraction is defined as ϵ_B immediately above.
  3. [Section 3.1] Please report the burn-in length, the number of samples used for the posterior, and convergence diagnostics (e.g., autocorrelation time or Gelman-Rubin statistic) for the emcee run.
  4. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'exhibites' should be 'exhibits'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The fitted three-component model assigns each fitted patch to one observed rebrightening, so the central component-to-peak mapping is partly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Fitting results) and Figure 4 caption]
    "In this work, we used an asymmetric jet with 3 components to analyze multi-band observation data from multiple telescopes (de Wet et al. 2023). ... The triple peaks exhibited in the optical band correspond to the radiation peaks of the three components."

    The number of model components (three) is taken from the number of observed optical peaks, and each component's Lorentz factor, isotropic energy, polar/azimuth angles, and opening angle are free parameters adjusted by MCMC to the same light curve. The later claim that the triple peaks correspond to the three components is therefore an assignment made by the fit: with three tunable patches, the model is constructed so it can place three bumps at the observed times and amplitudes. The good fit shows flexibility, not an independent derivation that the jet is non-axisymmetric; the rebrightenings are not predicted from the model before fitting.

full rationale

The paper is an application/fitting study: a three-patch asymmetric structured jet from the same group's prior work (Li et al. 2023) is fitted to the multi-band afterglow of GRB 210731A, and the good fit is presented as evidence for the asymmetric-jet interpretation. The main circularity is that the number of components is set equal to the number of observed optical peaks, while each component's dynamic and geometric parameters are free parameters fitted to that same light curve; consequently, the statement that the triple peaks correspond to the three components is an assignment produced by the fit rather than an independent prediction. I do not find a self-definitional equation or a uniqueness-import circularity. The self-citation to Li et al. (2023) supplies the model, but the dynamical and radiation equations are standard and re-implemented here, so it is not the primary problem. The multi-band data (X-ray, radio, late UV/optical) give the fit some nontrivial content because common microphysical parameters must also match those bands, and the paper honestly notes that the L-band upper limit is exceeded; nevertheless, the central three-peak-to-three-component mapping remains fitted input presented as explanatory evidence. Score 6 reflects partial circularity in the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 22 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

All free parameters are fitted to the same multi-band light curve they are used to explain; there are no independent constraints on the component energies, angles, or microphysics. The physical picture additionally rests on assumptions about patch independence, no overlap, no lateral spreading, and a uniform external medium. The three-component structure is not an outcome of the fit but an input chosen because three optical peaks were observed.

free parameters (22)
  • gamma0_1 = 203.7
    Initial Lorentz factor of the slow, low-energy component; fitted to set the time and brightness of the first optical peak.
  • gamma0_2 = 610.9
    Initial Lorentz factor of the fast, high-energy component; fitted to set the late, brightest peak.
  • gamma0_3 = 373.2
    Initial Lorentz factor of the medium component; fitted to set the second peak.
  • Ek_iso_1 = 5.0 x 10^52 erg
    Isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy of component 1; fitted.
  • Ek_iso_2 = 1.0 x 10^55 erg
    Isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy of component 2; fitted.
  • Ek_iso_3 = 1.6 x 10^54 erg
    Isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy of component 3; fitted.
  • theta_1 = 0.004 rad
    Polar angle of component 1 axis; fitted.
  • theta_2 = 0.038 rad
    Polar angle of component 2 axis; fitted.
  • theta_3 = 0.028 rad
    Polar angle of component 3 axis; fitted.
  • phi_1 = 1.9 rad
    Azimuth angle of component 1 axis; fitted.
  • phi_2 = 3.4 rad
    Azimuth angle of component 2 axis; fitted.
  • phi_3 = 5.2 rad
    Azimuth angle of component 3 axis; fitted.
  • theta_r_1 = 0.020 rad
    Half-opening angle of component 1; fitted and assumed constant because lateral spreading is ignored.
  • theta_r_2 = 0.011 rad
    Half-opening angle of component 2; fitted and assumed constant.
  • theta_r_3 = 0.012 rad
    Half-opening angle of component 3; fitted and assumed constant.
  • epsilon_e = 0.24
    Fraction of shock internal energy going into electrons; fitted.
  • epsilon_B = 5.1 x 10^-5
    Fraction of shock internal energy going into magnetic fields; fitted.
  • n = 0.42 cm^-3
    Circumburst particle density in the assumed uniform ISM; fitted.
  • p = 2.8
    Electron power-law distribution index; fitted.
  • theta_obs = 7.4 x 10^-4 rad
    Observer line-of-sight polar angle; fitted.
  • phi_obs = 2.6 rad
    Observer line-of-sight azimuth angle; fitted.
  • f = 0.036
    Variance-underestimation fraction introduced into the likelihood; fitted, effectively inflating error bars and weakening constraints.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption External forward shock synchrotron afterglow model (Sari et al. 1998; Huang et al. 2000) produces the afterglow spectrum and light curve.
    Section 3 adopts this framework wholesale; the flux formulas in Eqs. 13-21 are taken from the literature, not derived here.
  • domain assumption Each of the three jet components evolves independently as a uniform patch, with no lateral spreading.
    Section 3 states 'the lateral spread of the jet is ignored, therefore theta_r,i is a constant'; the peak structure depends on patches staying separate.
  • ad hoc to paper The three components do not overlap on the jet cross-section and the line of sight lies inside component 1.
    Stated as 'Assuming there is no overlap between three components' before Eq. 1; the best-fit LOS location is a fitted output used to order the peaks.
  • domain assumption The circumburst medium is uniform (k=0, n constant).
    Section 3.1 states 'we assume that the jet decelerates in uniform interstellar medium'; de Wet et al. used a wind profile, so the environment choice changes the fit.
  • domain assumption Electrons are accelerated to a power-law distribution with index p, with energy fractions epsilon_e and epsilon_B.
    Adopted in Section 3 to compute gamma_e_min, characteristic frequencies and fluxes.
invented entities (1)
  • Three-component non-axisymmetric structured jet configuration
    purpose: To explain the three optical rebrightenings as sequential radiation from three off-axis jet patches.
    No independent observable is presented beyond the fitted light curves; the paper proposes future polarization measurements as the discriminating test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiple rebrightenings in the optical afterglow of GRB 210731A: evidence for an asymmetric jet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBWIE5FK

@misc{pith2026241201229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiple rebrightenings in the optical afterglow of GRB 210731A: evidence for an asymmetric jet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBWIE5FK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01229}
}
read the original abstract

The broadband afterglow of Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is usually believed to originate from the synchrotron radiation of electrons accelerated by the external shock of relativistic jets. Therefore, the jet structure should have a significant impact on the GRB afterglow features. The latest observations indicate that the GRB jets may possess intricate structures, such as Gaussian structure, power-law structure, or jet-cocoon structure. Most recently, an abnormal afterglow of GRB 210731A has raised extensive attention, whose optical afterglow exhibites multiple rebrightening phenomena within 4 hours, posing a serious challenge to the standard afterglow model. Here we intend to interpret the characteristics of GRB 210731A afterglows within the framework of non-axisymmetric structured jets, where multiple distinct peaks in the afterglow light curve are caused by the uneven distribution of energy and velocity within the jet in the azimuth angle direction. Through Monte Carlo Markov Chain fitting, we show that a three-component asymmetric structured jet can well explain the multi-band afterglow data. The energy difference among the three components is about 1.5 orders of magnitude, with higher-energy components exhibiting slower speeds. The radiation contribution of each component has sequentially dominated the light curve of the afterglow, resulting in multiple peaks, with the highest peak occurring at the latest time. We suggest that in the future, polarization observations should be conducted on afterglows with multiple brightening signatures, which will help to effectively distinguish the structured jet model from other alternative models, such as energy injection, and ultimately help to determine the true configuration of jets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01229 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic diagram represents the cross-section of an asymmetric jet. The jet consists of three components (the solid line circles with different colors), which have different initial Lorentz factor γ0 and equivalent isotropic kinetic energy Ek,iso. We assume that different components don’t have overlapping regions on the cross-section. Taking the assumed jet axis as the coordinate origin (0, 0), the projection o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fitting results of MCMC on all parameters. The best-fit values are marked with red crosses and solid red lines. The solid black lines represent the median values of the posterior distributions of the parameters. The range of 1 − σ for each parameter’s posterior distribution is located between two dashed lines. The fraction f, which underestimates the variance of the data, is used as a free parameter for fitting.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-band afterglow data of GRB 210731A and the best fitting result. The observation data of each band is represented by points, with the inverted triangle representing the upper limit. And the hollow dots of X-ray at early time are considered as high latitude prompt emission. The theoretical light curves corresponds to the solid line. a result, the component with the lowest energy and slowest speed was observed ea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    An, Z.-H., Antier, S., Bi, X.-Z., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.01203, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01203

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.01203 2023

  3. [3]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

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

  4. [4]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 3521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    Beniamini, P., Granot, J., & Gill, R. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3521, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa538

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa538 2020

  5. [5]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bloemen, S., Groot, P., Woudt, P., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9906, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI, ed. H. J. Hall, R. Gilmozzi, & H. K. Marshall, 990664, doi: 10.1117/12.2232522

    doi:10.1117/12.2232522 2016

  6. [6]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  7. [7]

    2018, A&A, 617, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832926

    Corre, D., Buat, V., Basa, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832926

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832926 2018

  8. [8]

    1997, Nature, 387, 783, doi: 10.1038/42885

    Costa, E., Frontera, F., Heise, J., et al. 1997, Nature, 387, 783, doi: 10.1038/42885

    doi:10.1038/42885 1997

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    G., & Lu, T

    Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1998, A&A, 333, L87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9810402 —. 1999, ApJL, 519, L155, doi: 10.1086/312127 de Wet, S., Laskar, T., Groot, P. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244917

    1998 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    V., Li, W

    Filippenko, A. V., Li, W. D., Treffers, R. R., & Modjaz, M. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2001

  3. [11]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Taylor, G. B. 1997, Nature, 389, 261, doi: 10.1038/38451

    1997 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 61, 59531, doi: 10.1007/s11433-017-9149-3

    Gao, H. 2018, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 61, 59531, doi: 10.1007/s11433-017-9149-3

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2013, NewAR, 57, 141, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001

    Gao, H., Lei, W.-H., Zou, Y.-C., Wu, X.-F., & Zhang, B. 2013, NewAR, 57, 141, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2013.10.001

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  8. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3991

    Gill, R., & Granot, J. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3991

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Bromberg, O. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Hotokezaka, K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1462

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, ApJL, 570, L61, doi: 10.1086/340991

    2002 doi

  12. [21]

    2008, PASP, 120, 405, doi: 10.1086/587032

    Greiner, J., Bornemann, W., Clemens, C., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 405, doi: 10.1086/587032

    2008 doi

  13. [22]

    2009, ApJ, 693, 1912, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1912

    Greiner, J., Kr¨ uhler, T., McBreen, S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1912, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1912

    2009 doi

  14. [23]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1426

    Huang, B.-Q., Lin, D.-B., Liu, T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1426

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    1999a, Chinese Physics Letters, 16, 775, doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/16/10/027

    Huang, Y.-f., Dai, Z.-g., & Lu, T. 1999a, Chinese Physics Letters, 16, 775, doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/16/10/027

    doi

  16. [25]

    F., Dai, Z

    Huang, Y. F., Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 1999b, MNRAS, 309, 513, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02887.x

    1999

  17. [26]

    F., Gou, L

    Huang, Y. F., Gou, L. J., Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 2000, ApJ, 543, 90, doi: 10.1086/317076

    2000 doi

  18. [27]

    F., Wu, X

    Huang, Y. F., Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Ma, H. T., & Lu, T. 2004, ApJ, 605, 300, doi: 10.1086/382202

    2004 doi

  19. [28]

    A., Izzo, L., Levan, A

    Kann, D. A., Izzo, L., Levan, A. J., et al. 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 30583, 1

    2021

  20. [29]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9455

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

    Kuin, N. P. M., Troja, E., & Swift/UVOT Team. 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 30572, 1

    2021

  22. [31]

    P., Nativi, L., Rosswog, S., et al

    Lamb, G. P., Nativi, L., Rosswog, S., et al. 2022, Universe, 8, 612, doi: 10.3390/universe8120612

    2022 doi

  23. [32]

    J., et al

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Morsony, B. J., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 241103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    2003, A&A, 410, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031321

    Lazzati, D., Covino, S., di Serego Alighieri, S., et al. 2003, A&A, 410, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031321

    2003 doi

  25. [34]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stad2606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2606 —

    Li, J.-D., Gao, H., Ai, S., & Lei, W.-H. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stad2606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2606 —. 2024, submitted

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    D., Lamb, G

    Lyman, J. D., Lamb, G. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 751, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0511-3

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    T., Malesani, D., et al

    Mangano, V., Holland, S. T., Malesani, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077232 12 J.-D. Li et al. M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 232, doi: 10.1086/303625

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    2004, ApJL, 602, L97, doi: 10.1086/382729

    Nakar, E., & Oren, Y. 2004, ApJL, 602, L97, doi: 10.1086/382729

    2004 doi

  29. [38]

    2009, MNRAS, 394, L117, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00624.x Nicuesa Guelbenzu, A., Klose, S., Schmidl, S., & Rau, A

    Narayan, R., & Kumar, P. 2009, MNRAS, 394, L117, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00624.x Nicuesa Guelbenzu, A., Klose, S., Schmidl, S., & Rau, A. 2021a, GRB Coordinates Network, 30574, 1 Nicuesa Guelbenzu, A., Klose, S., Schmidl, S., Rau, A., &

    2009

  30. [39]

    Kann, D. A. 2021b, GRB Coordinates Network, 30584, 1 O’Connor, B., Troja, E., Ryan, G., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadi1405, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adi1405

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    2005, ApJ, 626, 966, doi: 10.1086/430045

    Peng, F., K¨ onigl, A., & Granot, J. 2005, ApJ, 626, 966, doi: 10.1086/430045

    2005 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Chandler, C

    Perley, R. A., Chandler, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Wrobel, J. M. 2011, ApJL, 739, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L1

    2011 doi

  33. [42]

    L., & Kollmeier, J

    Piro, A. L., & Kollmeier, J. A. 2018, ApJ, 855, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab3

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  35. [44]

    M., Lazzati, D., Salmonson, J

    Rossi, E. M., Lazzati, D., Salmonson, J. D., & Ghisellini, G. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 86, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08165.x

    2004

  36. [45]

    1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    1998 doi

  37. [46]

    D., Krimm, H

    Stamatikos, M., Barthelmy, S. D., Krimm, H. A., et al. 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 30580, 1

    2021

  38. [47]

    Oates, S. R. 2013, ApJ, 774, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/2

    2013 doi

  39. [48]

    2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 30568, 1

    Troja, E., Ambrosi, E., D’Elia, V., et al. 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 30568, 1

    2021

  40. [49]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, L18, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly061 van Paradijs, J., Groot, P

    Troja, E., Piro, L., Ryan, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, L18, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly061 van Paradijs, J., Groot, P. J., Galama, T., et al. 1997, Nature, 386, 686, doi: 10.1038/386686a0

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/32

    Wang, J.-Z., Lei, W.-H., Wang, D.-X., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/32

    2014 doi

  42. [51]

    2015, ApJS, 219, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

    Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9

    2015 doi

  43. [52]

    F., Dai, Z

    Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Huang, Y. F., & Lu, T. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1131, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06602.x —. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1197, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08685.x

    2003

  44. [53]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2b

    Xiao, D., Liu, L.-D., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, ApJL, 850, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2b

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    Z., Dyks, J., et al

    Zhang, B., Fan, Y. Z., Dyks, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354, doi: 10.1086/500723

    2006 doi

  46. [55]

    B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al

    Zhang, B. B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 447, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    V., & KAIT GRB Team

    Zheng, W., Filippenko, A. V., & KAIT GRB Team. 2021, GRB Coordinates Network, 30582, 1

    2021

  48. [57]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20f3

    Zhou, C., Zhu, Z.-P., Lei, W.-H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20f3

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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