Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Multi-Wavelength Analysis of AT 2023sva: a Luminous Orphan Afterglow With Evidence for a Structured Jet

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

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

Pith's one-line read AT 2023sva, a fast-fading optical transient with no detected GRB, is best explained as an off-axis structured jet.

desk verdict Solid observational paper on a new orphan afterglow, but the structured jet claim is weaker than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03337 v1 pith:ADTV5LTB submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.HE

Gokul P. Srinivasaragavan , Daniel A. Perley , Anna Y. Q. Ho , Brendan O'Connor , Antonio de Ugarte Postigo , Nikhil Sarin , S. Bradley Cenko , Jesper Sollerman
show 45 more authors
Lauren Rhodes David A. Green Dmitry S. Svinkin Varun Bhalerao Gaurav Waratkar A.J. Nayana Poonam Chandra M. Coleman Miller Daniele B. Malesani Geoffrey Ryan Suryansh Srijan Eric C. Bellm Eric Burns David J. Titterington Maria B. Stone Josiah Purdum Tomás Ahumada G.C. Anupama Sudhanshu Barway Michael W. Coughlin Andrew Drake Rob Fender José F. AgüÍ Fernández Dmitry D. Frederiks Stefan Geier Matthew J. Graham Mansi M. Kasliwal S. R. Kulkarni Harsh Kumar Maggie L. Li Russ R. Laher Alexandra L. Lysenko Gopal Parwani Richard A. Perley Anna V. Ridnaia Anirudh Salgundi Roger Smith Niharika Sravan Vishwajeet Swain Christina C. Thöne Anastasia E. Tsvetkova Mikhail V. Ulanov Jada Vail Jacob L. Wise Avery Wold
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords orphanafterglowstructuredjetlonggamma-rayburstsinterstellarscintillationmodelingmulti-wavelengthastronomyAT2023sva
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

AT 2023sva is a fast-fading, extremely luminous optical transient at redshift 2.28 with bright radio emission but no detected gamma-ray burst counterpart down to an isotropic equivalent energy limit of $E_{\gamma,\rm iso}<1.6\times10^{52}$ erg, making it one of only a handful of optically discovered afterglows with measured redshift and no associated GRB. The paper's central claim is that this 'orphan afterglow' is produced by a shallow power-law structured jet viewed slightly off-axis, with viewing angle $\theta_v = 0.07\pm0.02$ just outside the jet core opening angle $\theta_c = 0.06\pm0.02$. If correct, the missing gamma rays are a viewing-geometry effect: the jet's core pointed away from us, while its wider, slower wings still produced the optical and radio afterglow. The paper also finds that orphan afterglows with scintillation size measurements have statistically smaller source sizes than classical GRBs, and argues that future optical surveys should be designed around structured-jet light curves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the jet's angular energy profile, $E(\theta)$, which determines how the afterglow looks from a given viewing angle. The paper compares three profiles—top-hat, Gaussian, and power-law, with the power-law given by $E(\theta)=E_{\mathrm{K,iso}}[1+(\theta/(b\theta_c))^2]^{-b/2}$—inside a synchrotron afterglow model that assumes a constant-density surrounding medium. The second mechanism is interstellar scintillation, used as an angular-size ruler: strong scintillation at the Fresnel scale sets an upper limit on the source's physical size and hence its bulk Lorentz factor, independently confirming the preferred model's image size.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same multi-wavelength data with a wind-like circumstellar density profile (or a model that includes jet spreading and synchrotron self-absorption) and check whether a tophat jet becomes as good or better than the power-law structured jet; if it does, the evidence for structure evaporates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the multi-wavelength light curve of AT 2023sva—optical $gri$ photometry, a 15.5 GHz radio light curve, and an X-ray upper limit—is best reproduced by a power-law structured jet rather than a top-hat or Gaussian structured jet, using Bayesian model comparison. The best-fit jet has a shallow angular energy profile with power-law index $b\approx 1.0$, a core half-opening angle $\theta_c=0.06\pm0.02$ rad, and is observed at $\theta_v=0.07\pm0.02$ rad, just outside the core. The same best-fit model predicts an image angular size of about $1.95\,\mu$arcsec at 72 days and 15.5 GHz, matching the independent constraint from interstellar scintillation, which the paper uses as a consistency check. The absence of a GRB counterpart is then attributed primarily to the off-axis viewing geometry suppressing prompt gamma-ray emission, with low radiative efficiency ($\lesssim4\!-\!11\%$) and a moderately relativistic outflow as allowed alternatives.

Load-bearing premise

The model comparison assumes the afterglow lives in a constant-density medium and that one of three simple jet shapes describes its light; if the medium is wind-like or the jet physics is more complex, the inferred structured jet and viewing angle could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AT 2023sva joins a small set of orphan afterglows whose jet structure can be inferred, and its shallow power-law index resembles that inferred for one of the most extreme GRBs ever seen.
  • The absence of a gamma-ray counterpart does not by itself mean the explosion lacked a relativistic jet; here the jet is likely present but oriented so its core missed us.
  • Optical surveys searching for orphan afterglows should incorporate structured-jet light curves, not only tophat jets, or they will miss events like this.
  • Radio scintillation can serve as a population-level diagnostic: orphan afterglows in this sample have statistically smaller source sizes than classical GRBs.
  • The derived gamma-ray radiative efficiency is low ($\lesssim4\!-\!11\%$), consistent with off-axis structured viewing or an intrinsically inefficient prompt phase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If structured jets with shallow profiles are common, the rate of jet-producing stellar deaths may be undercounted by missions that rely on prompt gamma-ray detection.
  • The scintillation size difference could be used as a cheap classification tool for future wide-field optical discoveries: small radio sizes at roughly 70 days would flag structured or off-axis jets.
  • A decisive test is to catch the rising part of the afterglow with high-cadence early light curves; the structured-jet model makes specific predictions for the rise slope that a low-Lorentz-factor fireball would not match.
  • The same modeling approach applied to future soft X-ray transient discoveries could resolve whether off-axis structured jets or intrinsically inefficient bursts dominate the orphan population.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents multi-wavelength observations of AT 2023sva (ZTF23abelseb), an optically discovered, fast-fading, luminous transient at z = 2.28 with no detected GRB counterpart to E_gamma,iso < 1.6e52 erg. The authors analyze optical, X-ray, and radio data, identify interstellar scintillation in the radio SED at 72 days, and use it to place upper limits on the source angular size and bulk Lorentz factor. They compare ISS-based source-size upper limits for orphan afterglows and classical GRBs, and then use redback/afterglowpy Bayesian fits to three jet-structure models (tophat, Gaussian, power-law) in a constant-density ISM. The preferred model is a shallow power-law structured jet viewed slightly off-axis, with median parameters theta_v = 0.07 +/- 0.02 and theta_c = 0.06 +/- 0.02, which the authors propose as the likely explanation for the missing GRB prompt emission. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Sections 4.1 and 5 that the inference is conditional on the constant-density ISM assumption and that a wind medium cannot be ruled out.

Significance. The observational characterization of AT 2023sva is valuable: it adds a well-observed orphan afterglow with a secure redshift, extensive radio coverage, a GRB upper limit from a careful archival search, and public photometry/flux tables that will be useful for future modeling. The ISS source-size analysis is a genuine multi-epoch dataset and the comparison with other events is interesting. If the structured-jet inference were robust, the source would be a significant addition to the small sample of orphan afterglows and would strengthen the analogy with structured jets inferred for GRB 221009A. However, the model-selection evidence is mixed rather than 'clear', the claimed off-axis geometry is not statistically significant from the reported posteriors, and the wind-medium alternative is never fit despite being favored by the authors' own tophat closure-relation test. The paper's central claim is therefore plausible but currently conditional on several untested choices, and the abstract and Section 4.1 overstate the strength of the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 5] The model-selection and geometry claims are not supported as strongly as stated. The BIC difference is only BIC_tophat - BIC_powerlaw = -75.23 - (-77.63) = 2.4, which is conventionally 'positive' but not strong evidence, while the Bayes-factor difference (Delta ln Z about 9) is strong; the paper does not reconcile these two metrics or show that the evidence ratio is robust to the prior choices. More importantly, the conclusion that the line of sight lies 'just outside' the core rests on the medians theta_v = 0.07 +/- 0.02 and theta_c = 0.06 +/- 0.02; these posteriors imply theta_v - theta_c is consistent with zero at roughly 0.01 +/- 0.03. Please report the posterior distribution of theta_v - theta_c (or the fraction of posterior samples with theta_v > theta_c), and temper the wording in the abstract and Section 4.1 accordingly.
  2. [Sections 3.3, 4.1, and 5] The wind-medium alternative is acknowledged but never tested, and it is directly relevant to the central claim. Under a tophat jet, the closure relations in Section 3.3 give alpha = 1.63 +/- 0.15 for a wind and alpha = 1.13 +/- 0.15 for ISM, while the measured alpha = 1.64 +/- 0.02 favors wind. All Bayesian fits, however, assume a constant-density ISM because afterglowpy does not include a wind profile. Since the structured-jet preference is conditioned on this environmental assumption, the conclusion is not robust as stated. Please fit wind-profile versions of at least the tophat and power-law models with an independent code, or, if this is not feasible, explicitly frame the structured-jet claim as conditional in the abstract and move the wind caveat from Section 5 into the main interpretation.
  3. [Section 4.1, closure relations] The closure-relation check is presented as 'further evidence' but is partly a self-consistency check. The parameters p, b, theta_v, and theta_c used in Eqs. (4)-(5) were obtained from a fit to the same optical light curve that defines the observed alpha = 1.64 +/- 0.02, so the comparison of predicted and observed alpha is not an independent confirmation. Similarly, the source-size comparison with the ISS constraint uses the afterglow model that was fit to the 15.5 GHz radio light curve. Please relabel this as a posterior-predictive or consistency check, or provide a genuinely independent validation such as a fit to the X-ray and radio SEDs only, followed by a prediction of the optical decay.
  4. [Section 3.5, Figure 8] The claim that orphan afterglows have statistically smaller source sizes than classical GRBs is based on an Anderson-Darling test applied to quantities that are all upper limits, not measured sizes. Treating censored upper limits as point values can produce spurious separation if the limits are not homogeneous in rest-frame time, frequency, or sensitivity. Please use a survival-analysis method that handles upper limits explicitly, or state clearly that the statistical comparison is preliminary and sensitive to censoring.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The first ZTF r-band detection appears as three rows at MJD 60204.40175 and two rows at MJD 60204.42189 with slightly different magnitudes; please confirm whether these are independent measurements and provide unique exposure identifiers, or remove the accidental duplicate rows.
  2. [Section 2.2.4 and Table 2] The text says AMI-LA observed AT 2023sva over 12 epochs spanning 1 to 60 days post-discovery, but Table 2 lists nine epochs ending at MJD 60240.61, which is about 36 days after the first detection; please reconcile the number of epochs and the time span.
  3. [Section 3.5] The text cites 'GRB 907508' in the list of classical GRBs with ISS source-size constraints; this appears to be a typo for GRB 970508, which is labeled correctly in Figure 8.
  4. [Appendix A] The appendix states 'Here we show the corner plots for the modeling described in §9,' but the modeling is described in Section 4.1; please correct the cross-reference.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Two 'confirmations' in §4.1 reuse the same fitted data, but the core BIC model selection is self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§4.1 Multiwavelength Modeling, closure-relation check (Eqs. 4–5, paragraph after Table 5)]
    "Utilizing the best-fit values from the modeling, we find 𝜃eff = 0.044 and 𝑔 = 0.72. Applying the closure relations, we find 𝛼∼ 1.4 for 𝜈m < 𝜈 < 𝜈c and 𝛼∼ 1.7 for 𝜈m < 𝜈c < 𝜈. In §3.1, we found 𝛼 = 1.64± 0.02, which matches well with the 𝜈m < 𝜈c < 𝜈 case – and from the simulated spectra in Figure 11, we know that the optical bands lie in this regime. This gives further evidence favoring the power-law structured jet model."

    The observed 𝛼 quoted from §3.1 is not an independent measurement: §3.1 sets 𝑡0 equal to the best-fit explosion time derived in §4.1 ('We set 𝑡0 equal to the best-fit time of explosion derived in §4.1, of 𝑡0 = 60204.09 MJD'), and the same optical light curve was used in the §4.1 fit that produced the best-fit 𝑝, 𝑏, 𝜃v, and 𝜃c. The 'predicted' 𝛼 is therefore obtained from parameters already adjusted to the same data that defined 𝛼; the agreement is a self-consistency restatement, not an independent confirmation, and is presented as 'further evidence favoring the power-law structured jet model.'

  2. fitted input called prediction [§4.1 Multiwavelength Modeling, source-size comparison after Table 5]
    "We then compute the angular size of the best-fit power-law afterglow model’s image on the sky, as a function of frequency and time, to compare it to the size derived from the ISS of the observed LC described in §3.5. We find that at 73 days at 15.5 GHz, the source has an angular size of 𝜃≈ 1.95 𝜇arcseconds. This is consistent with the ISS analysis (§3.5), where we determined that AT 2023sva’s angular size needed to be comparable or smaller than the Fresnel scale (2 𝜇arcsec). This gives us an independent confirmation that our modeling results match well with the radio observations."

    The 'independent confirmation' is drawn from the same data the fit used: §4.1 explicitly fits 'the 15.5 GHz radio LC,' and the ISS size bound in §3.5 comes from strong scintillation seen in the 15.5 GHz (and lower-frequency) VLA SED at 72 days. The model is normalized to that same 15.5 GHz band, so consistency between the model image size at 15.5 GHz and the ISS size derived from the same band is a check of internal self-consistency, not an independent verification of the model.

full rationale

The core inference of a preferred power-law structured jet is obtained by a legitimate Bayesian model comparison within afterglowpy/redback (log Z and BIC values; ΔBIC = 2.4), using the observed optical, X-ray upper limit, and 15.5 GHz radio light curve. That selection does not reduce to a fit of its own conclusion: the three jet models are distinct functional forms with independent parameters, and the posteriors for θv and θc are free outputs. However, two supporting arguments in §4.1 are presented as independent confirmations but reuse the same data. The closure-relation check computes α from best-fit parameters that were fit to the same optical light curve that defines α = 1.64 ± 0.02 (with t0 itself taken from the §4.1 fit), so the 'match' is a self-consistency check, not a new prediction. The source-size check compares the model's 15.5 GHz image size to an ISS-derived size limit obtained from the same 15.5 GHz (and lower-frequency) band that the §4.1 fit included, again making the 'independent confirmation' partially circular. The acknowledged omission of wind-profile models (§4.1, §5) is a model-robustness limitation, not a circularity; the closure relations in §3.3 actually favor a wind environment for a tophat jet (α = 1.63 ± 0.15 vs α = 1.13 ± 0.15 for ISM), and this weakens the structured-jet identification but does not make the derivation circular. Overall, the central model selection has independent content, but the two 'further evidence'/'independent confirmation' passages overstate self-consistency as independent validation.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. It fits ~11 afterglow parameters to the data, and relies on standard assumptions about cosmology, synchrotron emission, and the Milky Way scattering screen. The constant-density ISM assumption is a notable simplification that could affect the model comparison.

free parameters (12)
  • t0 (explosion time) = 60204.09 MJD
    Fitted in the afterglow modeling; weakly constrained between last non-detection and first detection.
  • θv (viewing angle) = 0.07 ± 0.02 rad
    Fitted to the multi-wavelength light curve.
  • log10(EK,iso/erg) = 53.33 +0.27 -0.21
    Fitted isotropic kinetic energy along jet axis.
  • θc (core half-opening angle) = 0.06 ± 0.02 rad
    Fitted core opening angle of the jet.
  • θw (wing truncation angle) = 6.81 +0.79 -1.01 × θc
    Fitted as a multiple of θc.
  • log10(n0/cm^-3) = 1.40 +0.40 -0.74
    Fitted circumburst medium density.
  • p (electron spectral index) = 2.85 ± 0.09
    Fitted; constrained within prior 2-3.
  • b (jet angular energy index) = 0.99 +0.36 -0.24
    Fitted power-law index of energy distribution with angle.
  • log10(ε_e) = -0.53 +0.18 -0.28
    Fitted electron energy fraction.
  • log10(ε_B) = -3.18 +0.45 -0.26
    Fitted magnetic field energy fraction.
  • ξ_N (fraction of accelerated electrons) = 0.70 +0.19 -0.27
    Fitted in afterglow modeling.
  • E(B-V)_host (host extinction) = 0.09 ± 0.01 mag
    Fitted to the optical spectrum with Cardelli law; affects luminosity and color.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ωm=0.315, H0=67.4 km/s/Mpc
    Used to convert redshift to luminosity distance and frame rest-frame quantities.
  • domain assumption Synchrotron afterglow theory (external shock model)
    Basis for interpreting the optical/radio/X-ray emission as synchrotron radiation from a relativistic blast wave.
  • domain assumption Walker (1998) Galactic scattering model
    Used to estimate the transition frequency and Fresnel scale for ISS source size limit; a specific model of the scattering screen.
  • domain assumption Constant density ISM for afterglowpy modeling
    afterglowpy assumes constant density; wind environments are not tested, though physically plausible for massive star progenitors.
  • domain assumption Band function spectrum for gamma-ray upper limit
    The Konus-Wind upper limit is derived assuming a typical LGRB spectrum (α=-1, β=-2.5, Epeak=300 keV).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Wavelength Analysis of AT 2023sva: a Luminous Orphan Afterglow With Evidence for a Structured Jet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ADTV5LTB

@misc{pith2026250103337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Wavelength Analysis of AT 2023sva: a Luminous Orphan Afterglow With Evidence for a Structured Jet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ADTV5LTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03337}
}
abstract

We present multi-wavelength analysis of ZTF23abelseb (AT 2023sva), an optically discovered fast-fading ($\Delta m_r = 2.2$ mag in $\Delta t = 0.74 $ days), luminous ($M_r \sim -30.0$ mag) and red ($g-r = 0.50$ mag) transient at $z = 2.28$ with accompanying luminous radio emission. AT 2023sva does not possess a $\gamma$-ray burst (GRB) counterpart to an isotropic equivalent energy limit of $E_{\rm{\gamma, \, iso}} < 1.6 \times 10^{52}$ erg, determined through searching $\gamma$-ray satellite archives between the last non-detection and first detection, making it the sixth example of an optically-discovered afterglow with a redshift measurement and no detected GRB counterpart. We analyze AT 2023sva's optical, radio, and X-ray observations to characterize the source. From radio analyses, we find the clear presence of strong interstellar scintillation (ISS) 72 days after the initial explosion, allowing us to place constraints on the source's angular size and bulk Lorentz factor. When comparing the source sizes derived from ISS of orphan events to those of the classical GRB population, we find orphan events have statistically smaller source sizes. We also utilize Bayesian techniques to model the multi-wavelength afterglow. Within this framework, we find evidence that AT 2023sva possesses a shallow power-law structured jet viewed slightly off-axis ($\theta_{\rm{v}} = 0.07 \pm 0.02$) just outside of the jet's core opening angle ($\theta_{\rm{c}} = 0.06 \pm 0.02$). We determine this is likely the reason for the lack of a detected GRB counterpart, but also investigate other scenarios. AT 2023sva's evidence for possessing a structured jet stresses the importance of broadening orphan afterglow search strategies to a diverse range of GRB jet angular energy profiles, to maximize the return of future optical surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03337 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical LC of AT 2023sva in the 𝑔, 𝑟, and 𝑖 bands and the earliest 3𝜎 upper limits, along with a best fit power-law decay model. The photometry is taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The IPN 3𝜎 localization region for GRB 230917A (the thick solid black line), compared to the point-source location of AT 2023sva (star). In addition, we show the Swift-BAT field of view (FOV; the solid white line), the Earth occulted regions for Swift, Fermi, and Astrosat-CZTI (dashed lines), the ecliptic plane (the dashed black line), the Konus-Wind ecliptic latitude constraint (the solid dark green lines indicates… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optical spectrum of AT 2023sva, obtained by the OSIRIS instrument (details in §3.2). We show the Lyman-𝛼 abosorption feature along with absorption features characteristic to GRB afterglows at a redshift 𝑧 = 2.280 ± 0.002, and a best-fit spectral power-law model with additional host-galaxy extinction (details in §3.2). rates are recorded in the three energy bands: 19–80 keV (G1), 80– 325 keV (G2), and 325–1290 keV (G… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The AMI (15.5 GHz) and VLA (15.5 GHz and other frequencies) radio LCs with respect to the observed time since explosion. The 15.5 GHz LC is the most well-sampled over time and we fit a power-law to the initial rise, shallow decay, and then the steep decay. This behavio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: VLA Radio SEDs of AT 2023sva, with the observer frame time of the epochs with respect to the best-fit explosion time shown in the plots. The spectrum at 72 days shows multiple sharp spectral breaks due to the presence of interstellar scintillation. The sharp breaks con…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: uGMRT observations of AT 2023sva, where the upside down markers represent the 3𝜎 derived upper limits. Two power-law models cor￾responding to the low-frequency VLA observations at 131 and 234 days are also shown and the upper limits are consistent with the VLA observat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper limit on the initial Lorentz factor 𝛤0 plotted against the assumed rest-frame deceleration time 𝑡dec. The limit is derived from the limit obtained from scintillation analysis in §3.5 and assuming 𝛤 ∝ 𝑡 −3/8 . The allowed values are shown as the shaded region. 10 …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of source size upper limits derived from ISS analyses in seven classical GRBs (GRB 907508, GRB 030329, GRB 070125, GRB 130427A, GRB 161219B, GRB 210702A, and GRB 201216C), and five orphan afterglows (AT 2019pim, AT 2021any, AT 2021lfa, AT 2023lcr, and AT 202…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left panel: The optical observations of AT 2023sva, along with the best-fit power-law structured jet, tophat jet, and Gaussian structured jet fit to the observed LC. Optical fluxes have been multiplied by a constant factor for viewing purposes and have been corrected f…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Multiwavelength data set of AT 2023sva, along with the 90% credible interval of the predicted LCs from our posterior samples for the power-law structured jet model. Fluxes are multiplied by constant factors for visual purposes. frequency. Finally, afterglowpy does not…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Simulated optical SEDs from the best fit power-law structured jet model and the optical observations. The fluxes are scaled for visual purposes. the power-law structured jet – though the median 𝑝 is a high value, it is constrained strongly within the priors of 𝑝 = 2.8…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the Lorentz factor evolution of 𝛤 ≫ 300 and 𝛤 ≪ 300 jet models (from Dermer et al. 1999) with respect to different observed deceleration times. We also show the upper limit for AT 2023sva’s Lorentz factor at the observed time of 72 days from the scintill…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: 𝐸𝛾, iso plotted against the absolute 𝑟-band optical magnitude at 11 hours for GRBs in the literature (from Nysewander et al. 2009) along with AT 2023sva, shown in red. at 5 GHz at 𝑧 = 2.28. The flux densities were converted to luminosi￾ties through multiplying by the …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of AT 2023sva’s radio LC (stars) to other GRB afterglow LCs from literature (Chandra & Frail 2012; Perley et al. 2014). We show the rest-frame 16 GHz luminosity LC, which corresponds to an observed flux density LC at 5 GHz at a redshift 𝑧 = 2.28. Events are…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AT2019ijn: a fast-rising, slow-decaying blue optical transient with exceptionally bright radio emission

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    AT2019ijn combines LFBOT-like fast optical rise and blue color with slow decay and radio luminosity peaking late at 2e31 erg/s/Hz, best fit as an off-axis jetted IMBH TDE.

  2. The GRBSN webtool: An open-source repository for gamma-ray burst-supernova associations

    astro-ph.HE 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The GRBSN webtool is an open-source repository hosting the most complete multiwavelength dataset of 61 GRB-supernova associations, with interactive plots, search and download features.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

152 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..182..543A 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  3. [3]

    D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf19d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870...67A 870, 67

    Alexander K. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf19d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870...67A 870, 67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf19d 2019

  4. [4]

    E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4992A 523, 4992

    Anderson G. E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4992A 523, 4992

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1635 2023

  5. [5]

    Andreoni I., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bc7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...63A 918, 63

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bc7 2021

  6. [6]

    Andreoni I., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.612..430A 612, 430

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  7. [7]

    Ashton G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..241...27A 241, 27

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  8. [8]

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

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

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

Show all 152 references
  1. [9]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131f8003B 131, 068003

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131f8003B 131, 068003

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Beniamini P., Nakar E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.5430B 482, 5430

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    B., Petropoulou M., Giannios D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895L..33B 895, L33

    Beniamini P., Duran R. B., Petropoulou M., Giannios D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895L..33B 895, L33

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Berger E., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature01998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.426..154B 426, 154

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    Bhalerao V., et al., 2017, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-017-9447-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JApA...38...31B 38, 31

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Blagorodnova N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130c5003B 130, 035003

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    K., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02237-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..774B 8, 774

    Blanchard P. K., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02237-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..774B 8, 774

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240919055B p

    Bright J. S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240919055B p. arXiv:2409.19055

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Burns E., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acc39c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946L..31B 946, L31

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

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

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

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Cano Z., Wang S.-Q., Dai Z.-G., Wu X.-F., 2017, @doi [Advances in Astronomy] 10.1155/2017/8929054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AdAst2017E...5C 2017, 8929054

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769..130C 769, 130

    Cenko S. B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769..130C 769, 130

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803L..24C 803, L24

    Cenko S. B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...803L..24C 803, L24

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Cepa J., et al., 2000, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors. pp 623--631, @doi 10.1117/12.395520

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..156C 746, 156

    Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746..156C 746, 156

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Chandra P., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589807 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683..924C 683, 924

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...31C 267, 31

    Coughlin M. W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...31C 267, 31

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Cunningham V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc2cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904..166C 904, 166

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Evans P

    Curran P. A., Evans P. A., de Pasquale M., Page M. J., van der Horst A. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/716/2/L135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716L.135C 716, L135

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    De Pasquale M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw170410.48550/arXiv.1602.04158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.1111D 462, 1111

    2016

  22. [30]

    Dekany R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PASP..132c8001D 132, 038001

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Chiang J., B \"o ttcher M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...513..656D 513, 656

    Dermer C. D., Chiang J., B \"o ttcher M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306871 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...513..656D 513, 656

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2411.08866

    Finneran G., Cotter L., Martin-Carrillo A., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241108866F p. arXiv:2411.08866

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., Waxman E., Kulkarni S

    Frail D. A., Waxman E., Kulkarni S. R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...537..191F 537, 191

    2000 doi

  26. [34]

    Frederiks D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd1eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L...7F 949, L7

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Freeburn J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1489 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4836F 531, 4836

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Fremling C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...593A..68F 593, A68

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/27150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.395..670G 395, 670

    Galama T. J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/27150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.395..670G 395, 670

    1998 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Frail D

    Galama T. J., Frail D. A., Sari R., Berger E., Taylor G. B., Kulkarni S. R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/346083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...585..899G 585, 899

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

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

    2004 doi

  32. [40]

    Ghirlanda G., Salvaterra R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...932...10G 932, 10

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

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

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Gill R., Granot J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad075 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524L..78G 524, L78

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Gill R., Granot J., Kumar P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.3343G 491, 3343

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    P., Fruchter A

    Gompertz B. P., Fruchter A. S., Pe'er A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...866..162G 866, 162

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Gottlieb O., Nakar E., Piran T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473..576G 473, 576

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Gottlieb O., Nakar E., Bromberg O., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa350110.48550/arXiv.2006.02466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.3511G 500, 3511

    2021

  39. [47]

    Gottlieb O., Liska M., Tchekhovskoy A., Bromberg O., Lalakos A., Giannios D., M \"o sta P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac753010.48550/arXiv.2204.12501 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933L...9G 933, L9

    2022

  40. [48]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131g8001G 131, 078001

    Graham M. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131g8001G 131, 078001

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    arXiv:1012.5101

    Granot J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2010, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1012.5101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1012.5101G p. arXiv:1012.5101

    2010 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Granot J., Sari R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...568..820G 568, 820

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2013.44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31....8G 31, e008

    Granot J., van der Horst A. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2013.44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31....8G 31, e008

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    W., 2003, in Heck A., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol

    Greisen E. W., 2003, in Heck A., ed., Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas. p. 109, @doi 10.1007/0-306-48080-8_7

    2003 doi

  45. [53]

    Gupta R., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-021-09794-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JApA...43...11G 43, 11

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    Hickish J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty074 , 475, 5677

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    Hjorth J., 2013, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rsta.2012.0275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013RSPTA.37120275H 371, 20120275

    2013

  48. [56]

    Hjorth J., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature01750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.423..847H 423, 847

    2003 doi

  49. [57]

    Ho A. Y. Q., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc34d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...98H 905, 98

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Ho A. Y. Q., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bd0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938...85H 938, 85

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Horne K., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131801 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PASP...98..609H 98, 609

    1986 doi

  52. [60]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..50H 646, A50

    Hu Y. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..50H 646, A50

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Huang Y.-J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8f9a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...897...69H 897, 69

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    F., Hawley S

    Kowalski A. F., Hawley S. L., Wisniewski J. P., Osten R. A., Hilton E. J., Holtzman J. A., Schmidt S. J., Davenport J. R. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..207...15K 207, 15

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    Kumar P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312265 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...523L.113K 523, L113

    1999 doi

  57. [65]

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

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

    2022

  58. [66]

    Kumar H., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...90K 164, 90

    doi

  59. [67]

    LHAASO Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.adg9328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...380.1390L 380, 1390

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    P., Kobayashi S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829..112L 829, 112

    Lamb G. P., Kobayashi S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/112 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829..112L 829, 112

    2016 doi

  61. [70]

    P., Kobayashi S., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.4953L 472, 4953

    Lamb G. P., Kobayashi S., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.4953L 472, 4953

    doi

  62. [72]

    P., Tanaka M., Kobayashi S., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4435L 476, 4435

    Lamb G. P., Tanaka M., Kobayashi S., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4435L 476, 4435

    doi

  63. [73]

    J., Lopez-Camara D., Cantiello M., Ciolfi R., Giacomazzo B., Workman J

    Lazzati D., Perna R., Morsony B. J., Lopez-Camara D., Cantiello M., Ciolfi R., Giacomazzo B., Workman J. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.120x1103L 120, 241103

    2018 doi

  64. [74]

    Lesage S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952L..42L 952, L42

    2023 doi

  65. [75]

    L., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241107973L p

    Li M. L., et al., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241107973L p. arXiv:2411.07973

    2024 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Lipunov V., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4980L 516, 4980

    2022 doi

  67. [77]

    I., Woosley S

    MacFadyen A. I., Woosley S. E., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...524..262M 524, 262

    1999 doi

  68. [78]

    Margutti R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab2ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856L..18M 856, L18

    2018 doi

  69. [79]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    Masci F. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    2019 doi

  70. [80]

    Matsumoto T., Nakar E., Piran T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1563M 486, 1563

    2019 doi

  71. [81]

    P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R

    McMullin J. P., Waters B., Schiebel D., Young W., Golap K., 2007, in Shaw R. A., Hill F., Bell D. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI. p. 127

    2007

  72. [82]

    Meegan C., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...702..791M 702, 791

    2009 doi

  73. [83]

    Melandri A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.5366M 490, 5366

    2019 doi

  74. [84]

    J., Wijers R

    M \'e sz \'a ros P., Rees M. J., Wijers R. A. M. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305635 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...499..301M 499, 301

    1998 doi

  75. [85]

    Mészáros P., 2006, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/r01 , 69, 2259–2321

    2006 doi

  76. [86]

    Nakar E., Piran T., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(02)00202-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003NewA....8..141N 8, 141

    2003 doi

  77. [87]

    Nakar E., Piran T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...28N 834, 28

    2017 doi

  78. [88]

    K., Waratkar G., Vibhute A., Bhalerao V., Bhattacharya D., Rao A

    Navaneeth P. K., Waratkar G., Vibhute A., Bhalerao V., Bhattacharya D., Rao A. R., Vadawale S., AstroSat CZTI Collaboration 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023GCN.34725....1N 34725

    2023

  79. [89]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..155N 467, 155

    Nayana A. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx044 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..155N 467, 155

    2017 doi

  80. [90]

    S., Pe'er A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701..824N 701, 824

    Nysewander M., Fruchter A. S., Pe'er A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/824 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701..824N 701, 824

    2009 doi

  81. [91]

    O'Connor B., et al., 2023, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.adi1405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SciA....9I1405O 9, eadi1405

    2023 doi

  82. [92]

    O'Connor B., Beniamini P., Gill R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1941 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.1629O 533, 1629

    2024 doi

  83. [93]

    Paczy \'n ski B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...494L..45P 494, L45

    1998 doi

  84. [94]

    Panaitescu A., Kumar P., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...543...66P 543, 66

    2000 doi

  85. [95]

    Panaitescu A., Kumar P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...560L..49P 560, L49

    2001 doi

  86. [96]

    T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8001P 131, 018001

    Patterson M. T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8001P 131, 018001

    2019 doi

  87. [97]

    A., Chandler C

    Perley R. A., Chandler C. J., Butler B. J., Wrobel J. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739L...1P 739, L1

    2011 doi

  88. [98]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781...37P 781, 37

    Perley D. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781...37P 781, 37

    2014 doi

  89. [99]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.16470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240116470P p

    Perley D. A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.16470 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240116470P p. arXiv:2401.16470

    2024 doi arXiv

  90. [100]

    C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3330P 429, 3330

    Perrott Y. C., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts589 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429.3330P 429, 3330

    2013 doi

  91. [101]

    M., Taylor G

    Pihlstr \"o m Y. M., Taylor G. B., Granot J., Doeleman S., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...664..411P 664, 411

    2007 doi

  92. [102]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...6P 641, A6

    2020 doi

  93. [103]

    E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...487L...1R 487, L1

    Rhoads J. E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...487L...1R 487, L1

    1997 doi

  94. [104]

    J., Fender R., Aguilera-Dena D

    Rhodes L., van der Horst A. J., Fender R., Aguilera-Dena D. R., Bright J. S., Vergani S., Williams D. R. A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1895R 513, 1895

    2022 doi

  95. [105]

    Rhodes L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2050 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.4435R 533, 4435

    2024 doi

  96. [106]

    Rigault M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...627A.115R 627, A115

    2019 doi

  97. [107]

    J., Bala S., Meegan C., Fermi GBM Team 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023GCN.34748....1R 34748

    Roberts O. J., Bala S., Meegan C., Fermi GBM Team 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023GCN.34748....1R 34748

    2023

  98. [109]

    Rossi A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...932....1R 932, 1

    2022 doi

  99. [110]

    Ryan G., van Eerten H., Piro L., Troja E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf10.48550/arXiv.1909.11691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896..166R 896, 166

    2020 doi arXiv

  100. [111]

    arXiv:2310.02328

    Ryan G., van Eerten H., Troja E., Piro L., O'Connor B., Ricci R., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.02328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231002328R p. arXiv:2310.02328

    2023 doi arXiv

  101. [112]

    S., Ghisellini G., Pescalli A., Ghirlanda G., Nappo F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.3549S 450, 3549

    Salafia O. S., Ghisellini G., Pescalli A., Ghirlanda G., Nappo F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.3549S 450, 3549

    2015 doi

  102. [113]

    Saraogi D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.1386S 530, 1386

    2024 doi

  103. [114]

    Sari R., Piran T., Narayan R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...497L..17S 497, L17

    1998 doi

  104. [115]

    P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...519L..17S 519, L17

    Sari R., Piran T., Halpern J. P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...519L..17S 519, L17

    1999 doi

  105. [116]

    D., Ackley K., Mong Y.-L., Galloway D

    Sarin N., Ashton G., Lasky P. D., Ackley K., Mong Y.-L., Galloway D. K., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2105.10108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210510108S p. arXiv:2105.10108

    2021 doi arXiv

  106. [117]

    D., Lamb G

    Sarin N., Hamburg R., Burns E., Ashton G., Lasky P. D., Lamb G. P., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac601 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1391S 512, 1391

    2022 doi

  107. [118]

    Sarin N., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1238 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.1203S 531, 1203

    2024 doi

  108. [119]

    Sato Y., Obayashi K., Yamazaki R., Murase K., Ohira Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.5647S 504, 5647

    2021 doi

  109. [120]

    Sato Y., Murase K., Ohira Y., Yamazaki R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522L..56S 522, L56

    2023 doi

  110. [121]

    Schady P., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...537A..15S 537, A15

    2012 doi

  111. [122]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  112. [123]

    Schulze S., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526A..23S 526, A23

    2011 doi

  113. [124]

    Sharma Y., et al., 2021, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/s12036-021-09714-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JApA...42...73S 42, 73

    2021 doi

  114. [125]

    S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.3132S 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  115. [126]

    P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accf97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..39S 949, L39

    Srinivasaragavan G. P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accf97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L..39S 949, L39

    2023 doi

  116. [127]

    P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad16e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960L..18S 960, L18

    Srinivasaragavan G. P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad16e7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960L..18S 960, L18

    2024 doi

  117. [128]

    arXiv:2409.19070

    Srivastav S., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240919070S p. arXiv:2409.19070

    2024 doi arXiv

  118. [129]

    Stalder B., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa95c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..149S 850, 149

    2017 doi

  119. [130]

    arXiv:2410.02315

    Sun H., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241002315S p. arXiv:2410.02315

    2024 doi

  120. [131]

    B., Frail D

    Taylor G. B., Frail D. A., Berger E., Kulkarni S. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/422554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...609L...1T 609, L1

    2004 doi

  121. [132]

    B., Momjian E., Pihlstr \"o m Y., Ghosh T., Salter C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..986T 622, 986

    Taylor G. B., Momjian E., Pihlstr \"o m Y., Ghosh T., Salter C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..986T 622, 986

    2005 doi

  122. [133]

    Troja E., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/sly061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478L..18T 478, L18

    2018 doi

  123. [134]

    Troja E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2248 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1919T 489, 1919

    2019 doi

  124. [135]

    Tsvetkova A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908...83T 908, 83

    2021 doi

  125. [136]

    L., Li M

    Vail J. L., Li M. L., Wise J., Perley D. A., Ho A. Y. Q., Burns E., Coughlin M., 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023GCN.34730....1V 34730

    2023

  126. [137]

    A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01238.x10.1111/j.1365-8711.1998.01238.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.294..307W 294, 307

    Walker M. A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01238.x10.1111/j.1365-8711.1998.01238.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.294..307W 294, 307

    1998

  127. [138]

    A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04104.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..176W 321, 176

    Walker M. A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04104.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.321..176W 321, 176

    2001

  128. [139]

    Wang X.-G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/219/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..219....9W 219, 9

    2015 doi

  129. [140]

    arXiv:1610.06892

    Wei J., et al., 2016, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1610.06892 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161006892W p. arXiv:1610.06892

    2016 doi arXiv

  130. [141]

    Xie X., MacFadyen A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2912 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880..135X 880, 135

    2019 doi

  131. [142]

    Xu F., Huang Y.-F., Geng J.-J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.103X 679, A103

    2023 doi

  132. [143]

    Ye X.-M., Wei D.-M., Zhu Y.-M., Jin Z.-P., 2024, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ad2b39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024RAA....24d5011Y 24, 045011

    2024 doi

  133. [144]

    Yuan W., Zhang C., Chen Y., Ling Z., 2022, in Bambi C., Sangangelo A., eds, , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. p. 86, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_151-1

    2022 doi

  134. [145]

    O., Gal-Yam A., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/27 , 830, 27

    Zackay B., Ofek E. O., Gal-Yam A., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/27 , 830, 27

    2016 doi

  135. [146]

    Zwart J. T. L., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13953.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.391.1545Z 391, 1545

    2008

  136. [147]

    de Ugarte Postigo A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...548A..11D 548, A11

    2012 doi

  137. [148]

    B., Agui Fernandez J

    de Ugarte Postigo A., Malesani D. B., Agui Fernandez J. F., Thoene C. C., Geier S., 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023GCN.34740....1D 34740

    2023

  138. [149]

    van Dalen J. N. D., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240919056V p. arXiv:2409.19056

    2024 doi arXiv

  139. [150]

    G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    van Dokkum P. G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    2001 doi

  140. [151]

    van Paradijs J., Kouveliotou C., Wijers R. A. M. J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.379 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ARA&A..38..379V 38, 379

    2000 doi

  141. [152]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3151V 444, 3151

    van der Horst A. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3151V 444, 3151

    2014 doi

  142. [153]

    van der Walt S., Crellin-Quick A., Bloom J., 2019, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.01247 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JOSS....4.1247V 4, 1247

    2019 doi

  143. [154]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

  144. [155]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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