Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

An extra hard spectral component peaking at sub-GeV in the prompt emission of GRB 260226A

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GRB 260226A's prompt emission contains a second spectral hump peaking near 50 MeV, alongside the usual keV–MeV Band component.

desk verdict Solid detection of a sub-GeV extra component in GRB 260226A, but the Γ≈10 claim is an unsupported one-line estimate that should be reframed as a possible interpretation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27650 v1 pith:ZCWVTH7Y submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.HE

Yi-Yun Huang , Hai-Ming Zhang , Ruo-Yu Liu , Xiang-Yu Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 98.70.Rz
keywords gamma-rayburstspromptemissionspectralanalysisextracomponentsub-GeVLorentzfactorgamma-gammaabsorptionsynchrotronself-Compton
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

The paper analyzes joint GBM–LAT spectra of the bright long burst GRB 260226A and finds that a single Band function cannot describe its prompt emission. An extra hard component peaking in the sub-GeV range (about 44–52 MeV in the time-integrated spectrum) is required, with a model-comparison improvement of ΔBIC ≈ 59. The shape of this component evolves: a cutoff power law fits best in the earliest main-pulse interval, while a broken power law is preferred at the burst peak, with the peak energy rising from roughly 5 MeV to tens of MeV. The paper interprets the early cutoff as gamma-gamma absorption, implying a low jet Lorentz factor Γ ≈ 10 that rises to ≳100 later, and argues that the low ratio of the extra-component peak energy to the Band peak energy (~44 MeV vs ~700 keV) is difficult to explain with a one-zone synchrotron self-Compton scenario. A sympathetic reader would care because this adds a new member to the small class of GRBs with a sub-GeV-peaked extra component and constrains the jet's early Lorentz factor and emission geometry.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is joint spectral fitting of the GBM (NaI and BGO) and LAT data with composite models: a Band function for the keV–MeV component plus either a cutoff power law, a broken power law, or a smoothly broken power law for the extra component, with the Bayesian information criterion used for model comparison. The observable that drives the interpretation is the νFν peak energy of the extra component and its evolution. Two physical relations carry the argument: the gamma-gamma opacity relation Γ ≈ E_c/(m_e c^2) converts the early cutoff energy into a Lorentz factor, and the ratio of peak energies (ν_extra/ν_syn ≈ γ_m²) is used to test whether the extra component is synchrotron

What would settle it

Re-fit the interval B spectrum with a broken power law or a cooling-break model and check whether it describes the data as well as the cutoff power law; if it does, the 5 MeV feature need not be gamma-gamma absorption. Alternatively, fit the joint GBM–LAT data with free cross-normalization constants between NaI, BGO, and LAT; if the ~50 MeV peak shifts or the ΔBIC for the extra component drops below ~7, the sub-GeV hump may be a calibration artifact. A further test: measure the cutoff energy in multiple independent pulses within interval B and check whether it tracks the instantaneous target-p

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that GRB 260226A shows statistically significant evidence for an additional hard spectral component beyond the Band function during its main prompt phase. In the time-integrated spectrum, this extra component peaks at a νFν energy of about 44–52 MeV, with a photon index below the break near 1.2 and a steep high-energy slope. Time-resolved fits show that the component's spectral shape evolves: the earliest main-pulse interval is best fit by a cutoff power law with cutoff energy 4.85 MeV, while later intervals favor a broken power law with peak energies rising to tens of MeV. Interpreting the early cutoff as internal gamma-gamma absorption yields Γ ≈ 10, increasing to ≳100 at

Load-bearing premise

The early Lorentz-factor estimate collapses if the fitted 5 MeV cutoff is an intrinsic break in the emitting electrons rather than gamma rays being absorbed by the burst's own radiation field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the extra component is real, GRB 260226A joins a small group of bursts (including GRB 190114C and GRB 240825A) whose prompt spectra show an extra hard component peaking in the sub-GeV band rather than a featureless power-law extension.
  • If the early cutoff is gamma-gamma absorption, the jet's Lorentz factor starts near 10 and rises to at least 100, which bears on jet breakout and baryon-loading physics in the first seconds of the burst.
  • The low peak-energy ratio of the extra component to the Band component disfavors a one-zone synchrotron self-Compton origin, pointing instead to two emission regions and supporting external inverse-Compton scattering of photospheric photons.
  • The late-time LAT emission decays as a single power law after T0 + 77.6 s, indicating an external-shock afterglow origin for the extended GeV emission, while the earlier GeV excess is internal to the prompt phase.
  • The measured peak energy of the extra component (~50 MeV) provides a concrete target for theoretical models of sub-GeV extra components in future bursts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The inferred Lorentz-factor evolution (Γ ≈ 10 early, ≳100 later) predicts that the early GeV flux should be strongly suppressed by pair production; a pulse-by-pulse search for a spectral cutoff that tracks the instantaneous target-photon density would test the absorption interpretation directly.
  • If the extra component is external inverse-Compton of photospheric photons, its peak energy should scale with the photospheric luminosity and electron injection compactness; comparing this burst with GRB 240825A and GRB 190114C could reveal a common scaling between Band peak energy and extra-component peak energy.
  • The joint fits do not include inter-instrument cross-normalization constants, so the apparent spectral turnover near the BGO–LAT boundary (~50 MeV) may be partly a calibration artifact; re-fitting with free normalizations would sharpen or challenge the peak-energy measurement.
  • If the early cutoff is instead an intrinsic cooling break rather than absorption, the Lorentz-factor constraint disappears, but the CPL-to-BPL evolution could then be reinterpreted as a transition from fast-cooling to slow-cooling regimes, with testable predictions for intra-pulse flux decay.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. GRB 260226A was jointly observed by Fermi/GBM and LAT. The paper defines seven time intervals (A–G) and fits the broadband spectra with Band, Band+CPL, Band+BPL, and Band+SBPL models. It reports that the time-integrated main-pulse spectrum (T0+15.1–T0+35.8 s) requires an extra hard component with ΔBIC≈59, peaking at ≈44–52 MeV in νFν. In time-resolved fits, the extra component is present in intervals B–F; interval B favors a CPL description with E_cut≈4.85 MeV, interval C favors SBPL with a peak near 10 MeV, and later intervals show CPL and broken power laws as comparable. The authors interpret the early 5 MeV cutoff as internal γγ absorption, infer Γ≈10 early increasing to ≳100 later, argue that a one-zone SSC origin is difficult to reconcile with the low peak-energy ratio, and suggest a two-zone external IC scenario involving photospheric seed photons.

Significance. The extra-component detection is the strongest and most robust part of the paper: the time-integrated ΔBIC≈59 against a single Band function (Table 1) and the consistent requirement of a second component in intervals B–F (Table 2) establish a sub-GeV spectral peak in GRB 260226A. If correct, this adds a new member to the small group of GRBs with a peaked sub-GeV extra component, alongside GRB 190114C and GRB 240825A. The model comparison is clearly presented, and the challenge posed to one-zone SSC is a useful physical constraint. However, the paper's most novel interpretive claim — the low and rising Lorentz factor — rests on a one-line identification of a fitted cutoff with γγ absorption that is not justified by a self-consistent opacity calculation. The spectral data alone do not discriminate an absorption cutoff from an intrinsic spectral break. The paper also omits methodological details (cross-instrument normalizations) that could affect the inferred turnover. These issues are fixable by revision and reframing, but they currently overstate what the data establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (8)] The Lorentz-factor estimate Γ≃E_c/(m_e c²)=10 is not derived from the measured Band target photon field, the emission-region radius, or the redshift; it is an order-of-magnitude identification. The fitted CPL cutoff in interval B (Table 2: E_cut=4.85^{+1.60}_{-0.59} MeV) is equally compatible with an intrinsic spectral cutoff/break, so the data cannot by themselves establish an absorption feature. The paragraph's supporting inequality 'E_c ≳ Γ²m_e²c⁴/E_c' is numerically inconsistent for the quoted values (E_c≈5 MeV, Γ=10 gives RHS≈26 MeV). The abstract's statement that the Lorentz factor is lower at early times and increases with time is therefore not supported by the analysis and should be removed or explicitly presented as a speculative interpretation, ideally accompanied by a self-consistent γγ-opacity calculation using the measured target spectrum.
  2. [Abstract vs Table 2] The abstract claims 'at later times, the broken power-law model is preferred (or at least equally good).' Table 2 shows the opposite in intervals E and F: Band+CPL has ΔBIC=0 while Band+SBPL has ΔBIC=1.99 and 5.04, respectively; in interval D the models are comparable (ΔBIC=1.52). Although the main text (§4, §5.1) correctly describes CPL and SBPL as comparable in D–F, the abstract overstates the temporal evolution of the spectral shape. Please correct the abstract, or state that the later-time preference is model-dependent and below the adopted ΔBIC>7 threshold.
  3. [Section 4] The joint GBM–LAT fits do not state whether inter-instrument normalization constants between NaI, BGO, and LAT were included. The extra component's spectral turnover is located near the BGO/LAT boundary (≈50 MeV in Fig. 2 and Table 1), so a relative calibration error between BGO and LAT can directly affect the apparent break/cutoff and hence the CPL-vs-BPL preferences and the quoted peak energies. Please report the cross-normalization treatment, or rerun and quote systematic uncertainties if no constants were used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] Typo: 'extra had component' should be 'extra hard component.'
  2. [Section 5.1] Typos: 'photosphrere' appears twice and should be 'photosphere'; 'accelerate' should be 'accelerated' in 'relativistic electrons accelerate at larger radii.'
  3. [References] The reference 'Fermi Collaboration. 2009 The Astrophysical Journal' is incomplete; add the volume/article identifier.
  4. [Table 2] Several parameters lack quoted uncertainties (e.g., E_cut in interval E, Γ_1 in interval A, and some SBPL Γ_2 values). Add a footnote explaining the notation for unconstrained parameters and state whether N in Eq. (7) is the number of spectral bins used in the joint fit.
  5. [Section 4, interval G] The text says 'we therefore use a SBPL description for interval G' even though Band has a lower BIC (578.40 vs 580.67 in Table 2). Please clarify that this is a physically motivated choice rather than the BIC-preferred model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the extra-component detection is empirical, and the Lorentz-factor estimate is an external-theory interpretation of a fitted cutoff, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central detection—that a Band+extra component is required—is empirical, with ΔBIC≈59 relative to a single Band (Table 1), and does not depend on any prior work. The time-resolved spectral evolution (CPL vs SBPL preference) is likewise a data-driven BIC comparison. The Γ≈10 claim is explicitly framed as an interpretation of the fitted cutoff energy: 'Interpreting this cutoff as the γγ absorption ... Γ≃Ec/mec²=10' (Eq. 8), using an external relation (Lithwick & Sari 2001; Li 2010). This converts a fitted parameter into a physical quantity via an external theory; it is not a self-definitional reduction, and the paper does not hide the ambiguity (later intervals show CPL/BPL/SBPL are comparable, ΔBIC≤5.04). The SSC-difficulty argument uses fitted peak energies in a standard relation γm≈√(νSSC/νsyn); again a model test, not a tautology. The only self-citation (H.-M. Zhang et al. 2025 for the SBPL smoothness parameter and GRB 240825A comparison) is not load-bearing for the present detection. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection (extra component) is empirical, but every physical conclusion is a transformation of fitted spectral parameters: Γ≈10 is the fitted E_cut divided by m_e c² (Eq. 8); the 'low peak ratio' is the ratio of two fitted peak energies; the 'rising Lorentz factor' is the time evolution of fitted cutoffs/peaks. z=1 is assumed without measurement. No new physical entities are postulated; the two-zone IC-photosphere scenario is borrowed from Toma et al. (2011) and Zhang et al. (2025).

free parameters (5)
  • Band E_p (time-integrated main pulse) = 703.2±14.6 keV (Band+CPL fit)
    Fitted Band peak energy; combined with the fitted extra-component peak hν_extra≈44 MeV it yields the peak-ratio argument γ_m≈8 used to rule out one-zone SSC (§5.1).
  • Extra-component cutoff E_cut (interval B) = 4.85 +1.60/−0.59 MeV
    Fitted CPL cutoff in interval B; via Eq. (8) this is the sole input to the Γ≈10 claim.
  • Extra-component νFν peak energies per interval = ~5.6 MeV (B) → ~10 MeV (C) → 20–70 MeV (D–F); 44–52 MeV time-integrated
    Fitted peak energies of the extra component across intervals; their time evolution is the evidence for the rising Lorentz factor and for the sub-GeV-peak classification.
  • Redshift z = 1 (assumed)
    No redshift is measured; §4 assumes z=1 to compute E_iso ≈ 2.18×10^54 erg and per-component energetics, which enter the physics discussion.
  • SBPL smoothness parameter n = 2.69 (fixed by hand)
    Fixed 'following the treatment of GRB 240825A' (Zhang et al. 2025, same group) to avoid a free parameter; the chosen value affects CPL-vs-BPL model discrimination in every interval.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Band function adequately describes the keV–MeV prompt emission; deviations define the 'extra component'.
    Baseline of all model comparisons in §4; if the Band baseline is wrong, the extra component's parameters are not physically meaningful.
  • domain assumption The early-time CPL cutoff is caused by internal γγ absorption rather than being intrinsic to the emission.
    §5.1: 'Interpreting this cutoff as the γγ absorption implies ... Γ≃E_c/m_e c²=10'; the paper's most distinctive physical claim depends entirely on this interpretation.
  • domain assumption The γγ-opacity relation Γ≃E_c/(m_e c²) applies to this burst's emitting region.
    Invoked in §5.1 Eq. (8) with citation to Lithwick & Sari (2001) and Li (2010); valid only for specific target-photon geometries and jet geometry.
  • domain assumption One-zone SSC peak ratio γ_m≃sqrt(ν_SSC/ν_syn), with the Band hump as the synchrotron component.
    §5.1: basis for ruling out one-zone SSC because it yields γ_m≈8; if the Band component is not optically thin synchrotron, this argument dissolves.
  • domain assumption The extended GeV emission after T0+77.6 s is external-shock afterglow whose power-law decay can be extrapolated backward to test the prompt GeV excess.
    §5.2, Eq. (9): decay index α=1.10±0.15 fit from t−T0=77.6 s; the claim that early GeV emission is internal depends on this attribution and on the reference time T_ag0=T0+15.1 s.
  • standard math C-stat plus BIC (with ΔBIC>7 threshold) is a valid model-selection procedure for these data.
    §4 Eqs. (6)–(7); all model preferences in Tables 1–2 rest on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An extra hard spectral component peaking at sub-GeV in the prompt emission of GRB 260226A." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCWVTH7Y

@misc{pith2026260727650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An extra hard spectral component peaking at sub-GeV in the prompt emission of GRB 260226A},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCWVTH7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27650}
}
abstract

The prompt emission spectra of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) have long been empirically described by the Band function over the keV--MeV range, whereas several \textit{Fermi}/LAT-detected GRBs show evidence for an extra hard component at higher energies. Here we present a joint GBM--LAT study of GRB~260226A, a rare LAT seeded onboard trigger GRB, and find that an extra sub-GeV component is present. In the time-resolved analysis, we find that a cutoff power-law model fits the spectral data of the extra component better than other models at earlier times, while at later times, the broken power-law model is preferred (or at least equally good). Interpreting the early cutoff as the $\gamma\gamma$ absorption implies that the Lorentz factor at early time is lower and increases with time. The low ratio between the peak energy of the extra component and that of the Band component is difficult to explain with a one-zone synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) scenario. Two-zone emission models, such as external inverse Compton scattering of the photosphere emission by relativistic electrons accelerated in internal shocks, could provide a possible explanation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27650 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GBM and LAT count-rate light curves of GRB 260226A. Top panel: GBM light curve in the 8–900 keV energy band. Middle panels: GBM light curve in the 200 keV–40 MeV band (BGO). Bottom panel: LAT light curve above 100 MeV. Red points mark LAT photons above 100 MeV with probability greater than 90%. The vertical dashed lines mark the time bins used for time-resolved spectral analysis. The shaded yellow region marks the i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Broadband SED of GRB 260226A in the interval T0 + 15.1–T0 + 35.8 s. The three panels show the fits with Band, Band+CPL, and Band+SBPL,respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-resolved broadband SEDs of GRB 260226A for the continuous intervals from T0 − 2.2 s to T0 + 247.0 s, together with the late LAT-only SED for T0 + 247.0–T0 + 1000 s in the last panel. In each panel, the data points are shown together with the best-fit spectral model selected using the BIC criterion. Model components are shown with dashed or dotted curves when applicable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overlay of the best-fit broadband SED models of GRB 260226A from T0 − 2.2 s to T0 + 247.0 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: LAT light curve of GRB 260226A in the 0.1–100 GeV band. Top panel: energy fluxes are shown as black points, and 95% confidence upper limits are indicated by downward triangles. The blue step curve shows the TS value in each time bin, with the scale given by the right a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between Band+CPL and Band+SBPL fits for selected time-resolved intervals. Panels a, b, and c show intervals D, E, and F, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2009 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 706, L138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L138

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/706/1/l138 2009

  2. [2]

    2011 The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/114

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2011 The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/114

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/2/114 2011

  3. [3]

    2013 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/11

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Asano, K., et al. 2013 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 11, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/11

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/11 2013

  4. [4]

    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

    doi:10.1126/science.1242353 2014

  5. [5]

    B., et al

    Ackermann, M., Asano, K., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2010 The Astrophysical Journal, 716, 1178, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1178

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1178 2010

  6. [6]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e 2019

  7. [7]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05

    Ajello, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5b05 2020

  8. [8]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, 101, 17

    1996

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009 The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    1993 The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993 The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

    1993 doi

  3. [12]

    J., Veres, P., & von Kienlin, A

    Bissaldi, E., Roberts, O. J., Veres, P., & von Kienlin, A. 2026, GRB 260226A: Fermi GBM observation,, GCN Circular 43851 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43851 7

    2026

  4. [13]

    M., B´ egu´ e, D., Greiner, J., et al

    Burgess, J. M., B´ egu´ e, D., Greiner, J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 174, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0911-z

    2020 doi

  5. [14]

    S., Banerjee, A., et al

    Chand, V., Pal, P. S., Banerjee, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5fc

    2020 doi

  6. [15]

    2014 The Astrophysical Journal

    Chen, Y., Li, H., Zhang, B., et al. 2014 The Astrophysical Journal. https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0238

    2014 arXiv

  7. [16]

    2026b, GRB 260226A: Fermi-LAT refined analysis,, GCN Circular 43850 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43850 Fermi Collaboration

    Depalo, D., et al. 2026b, GRB 260226A: Fermi-LAT refined analysis,, GCN Circular 43850 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43850 Fermi Collaboration. 2009 The Astrophysical Journal Fermi GBM Team. 2026, GRB 260226A: Fermi GBM Final Real-time Localization,, GCN Circular 43840 https:...

    2009

  8. [17]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 706, L33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L33

    Gao, W.-H., Mao, J., Xu, D., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 706, L33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/L33

    2009 doi

  9. [18]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 403, 926, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16171.x

    Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., & Celotti, A. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 403, 926, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16171.x

    2010

  10. [19]

    H., et al

    Harsha, K. H., et al. 2026, GRB 260226A: AstroSat CZTI detection of bright long burst,, GCN Circular 43846 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43846

    2026

  11. [20]

    2026, GRB 260226A: CALET Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor detection,, GCN Circular 43860 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43860

    Kobayashi, K., et al. 2026, GRB 260226A: CALET Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor detection,, GCN Circular 43860 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43860

    2026

  12. [21]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 655, 973, doi: 10.1086/510203

    Kobayashi, S., & Zhang, B. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 655, 973, doi: 10.1086/510203

    2007 doi

  13. [22]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 409, 226, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17274.x

    Kumar, P., & Barniol Duran, R. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 409, 226, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17274.x

    2010

  14. [23]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 525, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/525

    Li, Z. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 525, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/1/525

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    2001 The Astrophysical Journal, 555, 540, doi: 10.1086/321455

    Lithwick, Y., & Sari, R. 2001 The Astrophysical Journal, 555, 540, doi: 10.1086/321455

    2001 doi

  16. [25]

    M., & Petrosian, V

    Lloyd, N. M., & Petrosian, V. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 543, 722, doi: 10.1086/317125

    2000 doi

  17. [26]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009 The Astrophysical Journal, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791 M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 530, 292, doi: 10.1086/308371

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    C., Pan, S., & Saridakis, E

    Nunes, R. C., Pan, S., & Saridakis, E. N. 2017, Physical Review D, 96, 023534, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023534 Pe’er, A., M´ esz´ aros, P., & Rees, M. J. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 642, 995, doi: 10.1086/501424

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    J., & M´ esz´ aros, P

    Rees, M. J., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 1994 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 430, L93, doi: 10.1086/187446

    1994 doi

  20. [29]

    B., et al

    Ryde, F., Axelsson, M., Zhang, B. B., et al. 2010 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 709, L172, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L172

    2010 doi

  21. [30]

    D., Norris, J

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

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    1978 Annals of Statistics, 6, 461, doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    Schwarz, G. 1978 Annals of Statistics, 6, 461, doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    1978

  23. [32]

    2026, Konus-Wind detection of GRB 260226A,, GCN Circular 43864 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43864

    Svinkin, D., et al. 2026, Konus-Wind detection of GRB 260226A,, GCN Circular 43864 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43864

    2026

  24. [33]

    1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 466, 768, doi: 10.1086/177551

    Tavani, M. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 466, 768, doi: 10.1086/177551

    1996 doi

  25. [34]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 1663, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18807.x

    Toma, K., Wu, X.-F., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 1663, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18807.x

    2011

  26. [35]

    L., & Zhang, B

    Uhm, Z. L., & Zhang, B. 2014 Nature Physics, 10, 351, doi: 10.1038/nphys2932

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 712, 1232, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1232

    Wang, X.-Y., He, H.-N., Li, Z., Wu, X.-F., & Dai, Z.-G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 712, 1232, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/2/1232

    2010 doi

  28. [37]

    2026, GRB 260226A: NuSTAR detection of bright prompt emission,, GCN Circular 43854 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43854

    Waratkar, G., & Grefenstette, B. 2026, GRB 260226A: NuSTAR detection of bright prompt emission,, GCN Circular 43854 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43854

    2026

  29. [38]

    2026, GRB 260226A: Glowbug gamma-ray detection,, GCN Circular 43855 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43855

    Woolf, R., et al. 2026, GRB 260226A: Glowbug gamma-ray detection,, GCN Circular 43855 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43855

    2026

  30. [39]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730677

    Yassine, M., Piron, F., Mochkovitch, R., & Daigne, F. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 606, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730677

    2017 doi

  31. [40]

    2026, GRB 260226A: Insight-HXMT/HE detection of the very bright burst,, GCN Circular 43865 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43865

    Yu, Z.-H., Wang, C.-W., & Xiong, S.-L. 2026, GRB 260226A: Insight-HXMT/HE detection of the very bright burst,, GCN Circular 43865 https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars/43865

    2026

  32. [41]

    2011 The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    Zhang, B., & Yan, H. 2011 The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    2011 doi

  33. [42]

    Zhang, H.-M., Wang, Z.-Q., Dai, C.-Y., et al. 2025 The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 984, L45, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adcf1a 8 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000Counts/s A B C D E NaI 0 + 1 + 3 F G 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500Counts/s BGO (0.4 - 2 MeV) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000Counts...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.