pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.19135 · v3 · pith:VZFCCJ2Cnew · submitted 2026-01-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · physics.plasm-ph

Maximum Energy of Particles Accelerated in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglow Shocks

Zhao-Feng Wu , Sof\'ia Guevara-Montoya , Paz Beniamini , Dimitrios Giannios , Daniel Gro\v{s}elj , Lorenzo Sironi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 07:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph
keywords gamma-ray burstsafterglowsparticle accelerationsynchrotron emissionPIC simulationsshort GRBsrelativistic shocks
0
0 comments X

The pith

Electrons in GRB afterglow shocks reach lower maximum energies than the Bohm limit via small-angle scattering, producing an observable GeV synchrotron cutoff in short bursts.

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

The paper models the spectral evolution of GRB afterglows using acceleration limits from PIC simulations of weakly magnetized shocks. These limits produce a maximum electron energy below the Bohm value, which appears as a synchrotron cutoff. This cutoff is predicted to be prominent in the GeV band for short GRBs in low-density environments, appearing within minutes to hours. For the observed bursts GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, the data cannot yet distinguish the PIC limit from the Bohm limit because of insufficient photon statistics in the high-energy band. The work shows that future MeV to TeV observations can resolve this and constrain the acceleration process.

Core claim

Particle acceleration in GRB afterglow shocks proceeds via small-angle scattering as indicated by PIC simulations, setting a maximum electron energy below the Bohm limit that manifests as a synchrotron cutoff in the afterglow spectrum, with short GRBs providing the best opportunity to observe this feature and test the underlying physics.

What carries the argument

Maximum electron energy from small-angle scattering in PIC simulations of weakly magnetized shocks, which determines the location of the synchrotron cutoff.

If this is right

  • Pronounced GeV synchrotron cutoff appears in low-energy short GRB afterglows within minutes to hours after trigger.
  • Current observations of GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A lack sufficient statistics to discriminate PIC-motivated acceleration from the Bohm limit.
  • Future MeV-TeV afterglow observations can break the model degeneracy and constrain particle acceleration mechanisms.
  • A fiducial nearby short GRB simulation shows the cutoff location is cleanly distinguishable between the two scenarios.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This approach could be extended to other relativistic shock environments to predict similar cutoffs.
  • Non-detection of the cutoff in future short GRB data might indicate additional emission components or different acceleration physics.
  • Better high-energy detectors would allow statistical studies of cutoff energies across many bursts to map environmental parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The maximum electron energy is set by small-angle scattering from PIC simulations rather than by the Bohm limit or other processes, and the observed spectrum is dominated by synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton emission.

What would settle it

Detection of emission from a short GRB afterglow extending to energies significantly higher than the predicted PIC cutoff without a break would falsify the limited maximum energy claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19135 by Daniel Gro\v{s}elj, Dimitrios Giannios, Lorenzo Sironi, Paz Beniamini, Sof\'ia Guevara-Montoya, Zhao-Feng Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Afterglow spectrum for a burst placed at DL = 100 Mpc at Tobs = 100 s. The burst parameters are εe = 0.1, εB = 3.5 × 10−3 , Eiso = 1054 erg, Γ0 = 500, n = 0.5 cm−3 , and p = 2.4. The solid curve shows the numer￾ical spectrum, while the dashed and dotted curves show the analytical synchrotron and SSC components with character￾istic frequencies denoted by blue symbols. The red markers indicate νgap and 0.1 ν… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Flux ratio F ≡ νFν(0.1 νgap)/νFν(νgap) shown as a function of Eiso and n at observer times Tobs = 100, 250, 750 and 3000 s after trigger. Colors indicate the value of F, as shown by the color bar. All results are computed using the PIC-motivated acceleration prescription with εe = 0.1, εB = 3.5 × 10−3 , and p = 2.4. Dash–dotted curves denote the theoretical prediction corresponding to F = 10, in good agree… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spectral fitting of GRB 190114C from X-ray to TeV energies across multiple observation intervals. Differ￾ent colors denote different time intervals, as indicated in the legend. Circles, squares, and triangles represent data from Swift/XRT–BAT, Fermi-LAT, and MAGIC, respec￾tively, with error bars indicating 1σ uncertainties. Solid curves are based on the PIC acceleration model, while dashed curves correspon… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral fitting of GRB 130427A from X-ray to GeV energies over the interval 138–750 s after the onset of the prompt emission. Circles and squares denote data from Swift/XRT and Fermi-LAT, respectively, with error bars in￾dicating 1σ uncertainties. The solid curve shows the PIC– motivated acceleration model, while the dashed curve cor￾responds to the Bohm diffusion limit. Both models adopt εe = 0.1, εB = 3… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Particle acceleration in relativistic collisionless shocks remains an open problem in high-energy astrophysics. Particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations predict that electron acceleration in weakly magnetized shocks proceeds via small-angle scattering, leading to a maximum electron energy significantly below the Bohm limit. This upper bound on electron energy manifests observationally as a characteristic synchrotron cutoff, providing a direct probe of the underlying acceleration physics. Gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows offer an exceptional laboratory for testing these predictions. Here, we model the spectral evolution of GRB afterglows during the relativistic deceleration phase, incorporating PIC-motivated acceleration prescriptions and self-consistently computing synchrotron and synchrotron self-Compton emission. We find that low-energy bursts in low-density environments, typical of short GRBs, exhibit a pronounced synchrotron cutoff in the GeV band within minutes to hours after the trigger. Applying our framework to GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, we find that current observations are insufficient to discriminate between PIC-motivated acceleration and the Bohm limit, primarily due to poor photon statistics in the Fermi-LAT band. Nevertheless, future MeV-TeV afterglow observations can break model degeneracies and place substantially tighter constraints on the mechanisms responsible for particle acceleration in relativistic shocks. To this end, we simulate a fiducial nearby short GRB as a promising probe of the cutoff location, for which the two acceleration scenarios are cleanly distinguishable and the detection of such an event in the near future remains feasible.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper develops a spectral evolution model for GRB afterglows in the relativistic deceleration phase that incorporates PIC-motivated small-angle scattering to cap the maximum electron energy below the Bohm limit. It predicts a pronounced GeV-band synchrotron cutoff within minutes to hours for low-energy short GRBs in low-density environments, applies the framework to GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, and concludes that current Fermi-LAT observations lack the statistics to discriminate the PIC prescription from the Bohm limit, while future MeV-TeV observations (including a simulated fiducial nearby short GRB) can do so.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work supplies a falsifiable observational signature of the underlying acceleration mechanism and demonstrates how self-consistent synchrotron plus SSC calculations can be used to test PIC results against afterglow data. The emphasis on short GRBs and the concrete prediction for future detectability with MeV-TeV instruments constitute a useful bridge between simulation and observation.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim that current observations cannot discriminate PIC-motivated acceleration from the Bohm limit, and that a cutoff is expected in short GRBs, rests on the assumption that small-angle scattering from weakly magnetized PIC runs applies directly and that synchrotron+SSC dominates without significant contamination. The manuscript provides no explicit check that the magnetization, turbulence spectrum, or shock parameters of the modeled bursts fall within the PIC regime, nor an independent verification of emission-component dominance; both are load-bearing for the predicted cutoff location and the discrimination conclusion.
  2. The abstract and framework description supply no quantitative details on numerical implementation, specific parameter choices for GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, or validation of the cutoff against data, making it impossible to assess robustness of the claimed GeV cutoff or the statistical-insufficiency statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight areas where the manuscript can be strengthened with additional explicit checks and quantitative details. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested revisions to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that current observations cannot discriminate PIC-motivated acceleration from the Bohm limit, and that a cutoff is expected in short GRBs, rests on the assumption that small-angle scattering from weakly magnetized PIC runs applies directly and that synchrotron+SSC dominates without significant contamination. The manuscript provides no explicit check that the magnetization, turbulence spectrum, or shock parameters of the modeled bursts fall within the PIC regime, nor an independent verification of emission-component dominance; both are load-bearing for the predicted cutoff location and the discrimination conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the PIC regime applicability strengthens the central claims. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection comparing the inferred magnetization, turbulence spectrum, and shock parameters of GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A to the weakly magnetized conditions in the referenced PIC simulations. We will also include a quantitative assessment confirming synchrotron plus SSC dominance in the GeV band with negligible contamination from other processes. These additions directly support the cutoff predictions and the conclusion regarding current observational limitations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The abstract and framework description supply no quantitative details on numerical implementation, specific parameter choices for GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, or validation of the cutoff against data, making it impossible to assess robustness of the claimed GeV cutoff or the statistical-insufficiency statement.

    Authors: We concur that quantitative details are necessary for readers to evaluate robustness. The revised manuscript will expand the methods section with a full description of the numerical implementation, including tables of specific parameter values adopted for GRB 190114C and GRB 130427A, and will add direct comparisons of the model-predicted cutoffs and spectra against the Fermi-LAT data points used in the statistical analysis. This will allow independent assessment of the GeV cutoff location and the claim of insufficient photon statistics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation uses external PIC inputs as independent premise

full rationale

The paper's chain takes PIC simulation results on small-angle scattering and max electron energy (below Bohm) as an external premise, then computes synchrotron/SSC spectra and applies to GRB data. No self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the abstract or described structure. The central claim (cutoff observability and data insufficiency) follows from applying the external prescription rather than reducing to it by construction. This is the normal case of an independent modeling paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the applicability of PIC results to GRB afterglow conditions; no free parameters or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption PIC simulations of weakly magnetized relativistic shocks accurately capture the small-angle scattering that sets the maximum electron energy
    This premise replaces the Bohm limit and is invoked to generate the predicted synchrotron cutoff.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5825 in / 1402 out tokens · 42663 ms · 2026-05-25T07:12:57.655057+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., et al

    Acciari, V. A., et al. 2019a, Nature, 575, 459, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1754-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1754-6

  2. [2]

    A., et al

    Acciari, V. A., et al. 2019b, Nature, 575, 455, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1750-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1750-x

  3. [3]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd249

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd249 2021

  4. [4]

    I., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04416.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325..231O 325, 231

    Achterberg, A., Gallant, Y. A., Kirk, J. G., & Guthmann, A. W. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 393, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04851.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04851.x 2001

  5. [5]

    2007, A&A, 475, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065365

    Achterberg, A., & Wiersma, J. 2007, A&A, 475, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065365

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065365 2007

  6. [6]

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

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 42, doi: 10.1126/science.1242353

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1242353 2014

  7. [7]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.23349, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.23349

    Aguilar-Ruiz, E., Gill, R., Beniamini, P., & Granot, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.23349, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.23349

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.23349 2025

  8. [8]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e 2019

  9. [9]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05

    Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., Axelsson, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05 2020

  10. [10]

    D., Wijers, R

    Aksulu, M. D., Wijers, R. A. M. J., van Eerten, H. J., & van der Horst, A. J. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2848, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac246 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016a, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 61, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2015.04.004 Aleksi´ c, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016b, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 76, doi: ...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac246 2022

  11. [11]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ada272 Barniol Duran, R., & Kumar, P

    Axelsson, M., Ajello, M., Arimoto, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 277, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ada272 Barniol Duran, R., & Kumar, P. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 522, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17927.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ada272 2025

  12. [12]

    Bell, A. R. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 147, doi: 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 1978

  13. [13]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2002, ApJ, 565, 808, doi: 10.1086/324195

    work page doi:10.1086/324195 2002

  14. [14]

    B., & Piran, T

    Beniamini, P., Nava, L., Duran, R. B., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1073, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2033

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2033 2015

  15. [15]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1331 16Wu et al

    Beniamini, P., Nava, L., & Piran, T. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1331 16Wu et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1331 2016

  16. [16]

    Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A. J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2203

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2203 2017

  17. [17]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1976, Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130, doi: 10.1063/1.861619

    work page doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  18. [18]

    D., & Ostriker, J

    Blandford, R. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJL, 221, L29, doi: 10.1086/182658

    work page doi:10.1086/182658 1978

  19. [19]

    2023, ApJL, 946, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c 2023

  20. [20]

    A., et al

    Caputo, R., Ajello, M., Kierans, C. A., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 8, 044003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.4.044003

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.8.4.044003 2022

  21. [21]

    2008, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 17, 1769, doi: 10.1142/S021827180801339X

    Chang, P., Spitkovsky, A., & Arons, J. 2008, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 17, 1769, doi: 10.1142/S021827180801339X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021827180801339x 2008

  22. [22]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 2007

  23. [23]

    A., Evans, P

    Curran, P. A., Evans, P. A., de Pasquale, M., Page, M. J., & van der Horst, A. J. 2010, ApJL, 716, L135, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L135

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/l135 2010

  24. [24]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bc2 de Jager, O

    Davis, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bc2 de Jager, O. C., & Harding, A. K. 1992, ApJ, 396, 161, doi: 10.1086/171706

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8bc2 2024

  25. [25]

    V., & Piran, T

    Derishev, E. V., & Piran, T. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2036, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1175

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1175 2016

  26. [26]

    1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169

    Fermi, E. 1949, Physical Review, 75, 1169, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1169

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.75.1169 1949

  27. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add404 Groˇ selj, D., Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A

    Golant, R., Vanthieghem, A., Groˇ selj, D., & Sironi, L. 2025, ApJ, 986, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add404 Groˇ selj, D., Sironi, L., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2022, ApJ, 933, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac713e Groˇ selj, D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2c8c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add404 2025

  28. [28]

    Harris, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  29. [29]

    T., Long, G.-B., et al

    He, X.-B., Tam, P.-H. T., Long, G.-B., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040039

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040039 2022

  30. [30]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12888

    Hofmann, W., & Zanin, R. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12888, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12888

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.12888 2023

  31. [31]

    G., Giacinti, G., & Reville, B

    Huang, Z.-Q., Kirk, J. G., Giacinti, G., & Reville, B. 2022, ApJ, 925, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f38

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3f38 2022

  32. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  33. [33]

    E., Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A

    Jacovich, T. E., Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A. J. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab911

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab911 2021

  34. [34]

    2009, ApJL, 693, L127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/L127

    Keshet, U., Katz, B., Spitkovsky, A., & Waxman, E. 2009, ApJL, 693, L127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/L127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/l127 2009

  35. [35]

    G., & Reville, B

    Kirk, J. G., & Reville, B. 2010, ApJL, 710, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/710/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/710/1/l16 2010

  36. [36]

    N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01273.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423L.127R 423, L127

    Duran, R. 2012, MNRAS, 427, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01341.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01341.x 2012

  37. [37]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts081

    Lemoine, M. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts081

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts081 2013

  38. [38]

    2015a, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 455810101, doi: 10.1017/S0022377814000920

    Lemoine, M. 2015a, Journal of Plasma Physics, 81, 455810101, doi: 10.1017/S0022377814000920

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377814000920

  39. [39]

    2015b, MNRAS, 453, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1800

    Lemoine, M. 2015b, MNRAS, 453, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1800

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1800

  40. [40]

    F., Fonseca, R

    Martins, S. F., Fonseca, R. A., Silva, L. O., & Mori, W. B. 2009, ApJL, 695, L189, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/L189

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/l189 2009

  41. [41]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 66, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030066

    Miceli, D., & Nava, L. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 66, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030066

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10030066 2022

  42. [42]

    A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18706.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417.1621D 417, 1621

    Mimica, P., & Giannios, D. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 583, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19507.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19507.x 2011

  43. [43]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 675, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    Nakar, E., Ando, S., & Sari, R. 2009, ApJ, 703, 675, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/675

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/675 2009

  44. [44]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 3578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1451

    Nava, L., Vianello, G., Omodei, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1451

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1451 2014

  45. [45]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/13

    Panaitescu, A. 2017, ApJ, 837, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/13 2017

  46. [46]

    2024, A&A, 690, A281, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347516

    Pellouin, C., & Daigne, F. 2024, A&A, 690, A281, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347516

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347516 2024

  47. [47]

    2014, A&A, 564, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322520

    Pennanen, T., Vurm, I., & Poutanen, J. 2014, A&A, 564, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322520

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322520 2014

  48. [48]

    2010, ApJL, 718, L63, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L63

    Piran, T., & Nakar, E. 2010, ApJL, 718, L63, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L63

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/l63 2010

  49. [49]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 5238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty979

    Plotnikov, I., Grassi, A., & Grech, M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty979

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty979 2018

  50. [50]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 1280, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts696

    Plotnikov, I., Pelletier, G., & Lemoine, M. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1280, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts696

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts696 2013

  51. [51]

    Reville, B., & Bell, A. R. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2050, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu088

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu088 2014

  52. [52]

    Rhoads, J. E. 1997, ApJL, 487, L1, doi: 10.1086/310876 Rouco Escorial, A., Fong, W., Berger, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf830

    work page doi:10.1086/310876 1997

  53. [53]

    2015, ApJ, 798, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/10

    Ruffini, R., Wang, Y., Enderli, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/10 2015

  54. [54]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/80

    Sagi, E., & Nakar, E. 2012, ApJ, 749, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/80

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/80 2012

  55. [55]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

    Santana, R., Barniol Duran, R., & Kumar, P. 2014, ApJ, 785, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/29 2014

  56. [56]

    Sari, R., & Esin, A. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 787, doi: 10.1086/319003 Shock Acceleration in GRB Afterglows17

    work page doi:10.1086/319003 2001

  57. [57]

    1996, ApJ, 473, 204, doi: 10.1086/178136

    Sari, R., Narayan, R., & Piran, T. 1996, ApJ, 473, 204, doi: 10.1086/178136

    work page doi:10.1086/178136 1996

  58. [58]

    1995, ApJL, 455, L143, doi: 10.1086/309835

    Sari, R., & Piran, T. 1995, ApJL, 455, L143, doi: 10.1086/309835

    work page doi:10.1086/309835 1995

  59. [59]

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJL, 519, L17, doi: 10.1086/312109

    work page doi:10.1086/312109 1999

  60. [60]

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

    Sari, R., et al. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17, doi: 10.1086/311269

    work page doi:10.1086/311269 1998

  61. [61]

    2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, ApJ, 726, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/75

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/75 2011

  62. [62]

    2013, ApJ, 771, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

    Sironi, L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/54

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/54 2013

  63. [63]

    2015, Space Sci

    Sironi, L., et al. 2015, Space Sci. Rev., 191, 519, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0181-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0181-8 2015

  64. [64]

    2008a, ApJL, 682, L5, doi: 10.1086/590248

    Spitkovsky, A. 2008a, ApJL, 682, L5, doi: 10.1086/590248

    work page doi:10.1086/590248

  65. [65]

    2008b, ApJL, 673, L39, doi: 10.1086/527374

    Spitkovsky, A. 2008b, ApJL, 673, L39, doi: 10.1086/527374

    work page doi:10.1086/527374

  66. [66]

    2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0745

    Tomsick, J., Boggs, S., Zoglauer, A., et al. 2024, in 38th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 745, doi: 10.22323/1.444.0745

    work page doi:10.22323/1.444.0745 2024

  67. [67]

    J., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al

    Troja, E., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Becerra Gonz´ alez, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2255

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2255 2019

  68. [68]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Medicine, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  69. [69]

    G., Giannios, D., & Duffell, P

    Wang, H., Dastidar, R. G., Giannios, D., & Duffell, P. C. 2024, ApJS, 273, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad4d9d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad4d9d 2024

  70. [70]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13

    Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13 2018

  71. [71]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac483

    Yamasaki, S., & Piran, T. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac483

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac483 2022