Highenergy photons of gammaray bursts GRBs might be emitted at different intrinsic times with energy dependence at the source. In this letter we expand the model from previous works on testing the Lorentz Invariance Violation LV with the observed GRB data from the Fermi Gammaray Space Telescope. We reanalyze the previous data with the full Bayesian parameter estimation method and get consistent results by assuming that the time delays are due to an LV term and a constant intrinsic time delay term. Subsequently we neglect the LV effect and only consider the intrinsic time delay effect. We assume a common intrinsic time delay term along with a source energy correlated time delay of highenergy photons. We find that the energydependent emission times can also explain the observed GRB data of highenergy photon events. Finally we integrate these two physical mechanisms into a unified model to distinguish and evaluate their respective contributions using the observed GRB data.
['Gamma ray burst', 'Intrinsic time delay', 'Lorentz invariance violation', 'Astrophysics - High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena', 'General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology', 'High Energy Physics - Phenomenology']
Energydependent intrinsic time delay of gammaray bursts on testing Lorentz invariance violation
{'Energy-dependent intrinsic time delay of gamma-ray bursts on testing Lorentz invariance violation': 'Hanlin Song a , Bo-Qiang Ma a,b, ∗  \na School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China b Center for High Energy Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China', 'Abstract': 'High-energy photons of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) might be emitted at di ff erent intrinsic times with energy dependence at the source. In this letter, we expand the model from previous works on testing the Lorentz Invariance Violation (LV) with the observed GRB data from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. We reanalyze the previous data with the full Bayesian parameter estimation method and get consistent results by assuming that the time delays are due to an LV term and a constant intrinsic time delay term. Subsequently, we neglect the LV e ff ect and only consider the intrinsic time delay e ff ect. We assume a common intrinsic time delay term along with a source energy correlated time delay of high-energy photons. We find that the energy-dependent emission times can also explain the observed GRB data of high-energy photon events. Finally, we integrate these two physical mechanisms into a unified model to distinguish and evaluate their respective contributions using the observed GRB data.  \nKeywords: gamma ray burst, intrinsic time delay, Lorentz invariance violation', '1. Introduction': "Lorentz invariance is a key assumption in many aspects of modern physics. However, to achieve the goal of unification of the standard model with general relativity, Lorentz invariance violation (LV) is predicted in many theories, such as string theory [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], loop quantum gravity [9, 10, 11], and doubly-special relativity [12, 13, 14]. In most of these theories, the LV might happen around the Planck scale, E P ≡ √ ℏ c 5 / G ≃ 1 . 22 × 10 19 GeV. Consequently, for a photon with energy E ≪ E P and momentum p , the dispersion relation for photons can be modified by the leading terms of Taylor series [15, 16]:  \nE 2 = p 2 c 2 [ 1 -sn ( pc E LV , n ) n ] , (1)  \nwhere sn ≡ ± 1 is the indicator for high-energy photons traveling faster ( sn = -1) or slower ( sn = + 1) than the lowenergy photons and E LV , n denotes the n -th order energy scale of LV to be determined by the observation. By applying the relation v = ∂ E /∂ p , the modified velocity relation is:  \nv ( E ) = c [ 1 -sn n + 1 2 ( pc E LV , n ) n ] . (2)  \nBecause of the great suppression of E LV , n around the Planck scale, the LV is hardly to be observable by experiments on the Earth. Amelino-Camelia et al. [1, 2] first suggested using the time delay between high-energy photons and low-energy photons of Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs), whereas the tiny velocity di ff erence can be accumulated into observable arrival time discrepancy due to the long cosmological journey of these photons to arrive at the Earth, to  \nenable the measurement of LV e ff ect. By taking into account the expansion of the universe, the time delay caused by LV can be expressed as [15, 17]:  \n∆ t LV = sn 1 + n 2 H 0 E n h -E n 1 E n LV , n ∫ z 0 (1 + z ' ) n d z ' √ Ω m(1 + z ' ) 3 + ΩΛ , (3)  \nwhere E h and E l are energies of high- and low-energy photons, z is the redshift of GRB, H 0 is the Hubble constant, and Ω m and ΩΛ are matter density parameter and dark energy density parameter of the Λ CDMmodel.  \nThe observed time delay ∆ t obs of some GRB photon events with energies ranging from 33.6 GeV to 146.6 GeV at the source frame can be explained by the LV time delay term in Eq. 3 and a common intrinsic time delay term [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. Due to the expansion of the universe, it can be expressed as:  \n∆ t obs = ∆ t LV + (1 + z ) ∆ t in , (4)  \nwhere ∆ t in is the intrinsic emission time delay between high-energy photon and low-energy photon in the GRB source frame.  \nThe GRB data can be obtained from the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (FGST), which is comprised of the Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) for observing high-energy photons and the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) for detecting low-energy photons [27, 28]. Then ∆ t LV can be calculated with given z , E h, E l of GRB events from FGST together with E LV , n as a fitting parameter for a fixed n . The observed time delay ∆ t obs is:  \n∆ t obs = t high -t low , (5)  \nwhere t high is the observed arrival time of high-energy photon and t low is the time of first significant peak of low-energy photon. As shown in previous works [21, 22], after analyzing high-energy photon GRB events detected by FGST, the results suggest that n = 1, sn = + 1, E LV , 1 ≃ 3 . 60 × 10 17 GeV, and ∆ t in = -10 . 7 s for the mainline photons (see Fig. 2 of [22]). These findings suggest that only the subluminal aspect of cosmic photon Lorentz violation remains permissible. This conclusion aligns with the stringent constraints on superluminal Lorentz violation of cosmic photons derived from vacuum birefringence (see Section 4.2 of the review [29]) and the detection of PeV photons by LHAASO [30, 31, 32, 33]. Furthermore, it is in agreement with the theoretical predictions of string theory [7, 8, 31] and loop quantum gravity [11].  \nIn principle, other physical mechanisms could also explain the observed time delay. For example, high-energy photons with di ff erent values might be emitted at di ff erent times at the source. The detailed model of intrinsic time delay should be considered. Therefore, in this work, we explore another potential mechanism for observed time delay in which we assume a correlation between the energy value of photons and intrinsic emission time. We also combine the two physical mechanisms together and try to distinguish them using the same FGST GRB data as [21, 22]. This letter is arranged as follows. In Sec. 2, we introduce the full Bayesian method for the parameter estimation. In Sec. 3, we introduce three models for analyzing the LV e ff ects and intrinsic time delay. In Sec. 4, we give a summary of our results.", '2. Parameter Estimation Method': 'In this section, we introduce a full Bayesian parameter estimation method for a general multiple linear model. Consider the multiple linear model for the true value of physical quantity yt , which depends on n physical quantities with true values { xt 1 , · · · , xtn } :  \nyt = f ( xt 1 , · · · , xtn ) = β 0 + β 1 xt 1 + · · · + β nxtn . (6)  \nIn reality, there will always be a measurement precision limit because of the existence of noise, which leads to measurement errors:  \n{ ym = yt + ye , xmi = xti + xei , (7)  \nwhere the subscript mi denotes the measurement value, and the subscript ei denotes the measurement error for the i -th variable respectively.  \nAssuming that these measurement error variables are independent and follow Gaussian distribution, then the likelihood function for measuring p times of ym , given the coe ffi cients β 0 , · · · , β n and corresponding { xm } , can be written as:  \np ( { ym }|{ xm } , β 0 , · · · , β n ) = p ∏ j = 1 1 √ 2 π ( σ 2 xm 1 , j β 2 1 + , · · · , + σ 2 xmn , j β 2 n + σ 2 ym , j ) exp   -( ym , j -β 0 -β 1 xm 1 , j -, · · · , -β nxmn , j ) 2 2 ( σ 2 xm 1 , j β 2 1 + , · · · , + σ 2 xmn , j β 2 n + σ 2 ym , j )   , (8)  \nwhere σ xmi , j and σ ym , j denote the uncertainty of variables xmi and ym during the j -th measurement.  \nAccording to the Bayesian theorem, the posterior is:  \np ( β 0 , · · · , β n |{ ym } , { xm } ) ∝ p ( { ym }|{ xm } , β 0 , · · · , β n ) p ( β 0 , · · · , β n ) , (9)  \nwhere p ( β 0 , · · · , β n ) is the prior for coe ffi cients. Assuming all the coe ffi cients are independent, the prior can be written as:  \np ( β 0 , · · · , β n ) = p ( β 0) · · · p ( β n ) . (10)  \nGiven the model and measured data, we can obtain the results for parameter estimation using the above method.', '3. Models and Results': 'In this section, we introduce three models to explain the observed time delay between high-energy and low-energy photons of GRBs. In Model A, we consider the LV time delay term and a common intrinsic time delay term. In Model B, we neglect the LV e ff ects and consider the source energy correspondent intrinsic time delay term and a common intrinsic time delay term. In Model C, we combine the above two physical mechanisms as a unified model. We apply the same FGST GRB data from [21, 22] to fit the three models. A total of 10 GRBs with 14 high-energy photon events ranging from 33.6 GeV to 146.6 GeV at the source frame and within a 90 s time window are considered. The bilby [34, 35] package is adopted in our calculation.', '3.1. Model A': "In Model A, we revisit the model mentioned in previous works [21, 22] where the observed time delay consists of two parts. One part comes from the LV time delay term as in Eq. 3. The other part is a common intrinsic time delay term for GRBs. Considering n = 1, sn = + 1, and neglecting E l, the model can be rewritten as:  \n∆ t obs 1 + z = ∆ t in + ∆ t LV 1 + z = ∆ t in + a LV K 1 , (11)  \nwhere a LV = 1 / E LV and K 1 is:  \nWe assume that the common intrinsic time delay ∆ t in follows a Gaussian distribution:  \nK 1 = 1 H 0 E h 1 + z ∫ z 0 (1 + z ' )d z ' √ Ω m(1 + z ' ) 3 + ΩΛ . (12)  \np ( ∆ t in) ∼ N ( µ, σ ) , (13)  \nwhere µ is the mean value of common intrinsic time delay ∆ t obs and σ is the standard variance.  \nConsidering the energy and time observational uncertainty [27], we take same value of σ xm , j and take σ ym , j = 0, which are the same as the works in [21, 22, 23]. Here ym , j = ∆ t obs , j / 1 + zj and xm , j = K 1 , j . Marginalizing over the  \nvariable ∆ t in, the posterior now becomes:  \np ∝ exp    -1 2 p ∑ j = 1    ( ∆ t obs , j 1 + zj -µ -a LV K 1 , j ) 2 σ 2 + a 2 LV σ 2 K 1 , j + ln ( σ 2 + a 2 LV σ 2 K 1 , j )       p ( µ ) p ( σ ) p ( a LV) . (14)  \nWe assume that these 3 parameters, µ , σ , and a LV, have flat priors:  \n     p ( µ ) ∼ U [ -30 , 30] s , p ( σ ) ∼ U [0 , 30] s , p ( a LV) ∼ U [0 , 30] × 10 -18 GeV -1 . (15)  \nWe use the same GRBs data as [21, 22]. As shown in Fig. 2 of [22], the distribution of those high-energy photons seems to show a regularity that they can be considered in two cases: the mainline photons case (9 high-energy photons are involved) and the all photons case (all 14 high-energy photons are involved). We also consider the same two cases in the discussion of Model A. The results for all photons case are shown in Fig. 1. The left panel shows the posterior distributions and the right panel shows the fitting results where all 14 photons are denoted by gray dots and the 9 mainline photons are denoted by gray dots with orange error bars, respectively. The results suggest that the mean value of intrinsic time delay µ = -6 . 48 + 4 . 53 -4 . 50 s, and a LV = 2 . 12 + 0 . 57 -0 . 57 × 10 -18 GeV -1 . The corresponding E LV = 4 . 71 + 1 . 71 -0 . 99 × 10 17 GeV ∗ . The results for the mainline photons case are shown in Fig. 2. The results suggest that the mean value of intrinsic time delay µ = -10 . 34 + 1 . 07 -1 . 10 s, and a LV = 2 . 75 + 0 . 10 -0 . 11 × 10 -18 GeV -1 . The corresponding E LV = 3 . 64 + 0 . 15 -0 . 13 × 10 17 GeV. Results for both two cases are consistent with the results in [21, 22]. Both cases suggest that high-energy photons are emitted earlier than low-energy photons because of the negative value of µ , and the LV time delay term contributes to the observed time delay.  \nFigure 1: Results of Model A using all 14 high-energy photons same as [21, 22]. The left panel shows the posterior distribution results, where the dashed lines of subfigures show the 1σ deviation from the central value. The right panel shows the fitting results for 14 high-energy photons. The gray dots with the error bars denote the same 14 high-energy photo events as [21, 22]. The gray dots with error bars in orange color denote the 9 mainline photons in [21, 22]. The red line denotes the central value fitting results, and the two blue lines denote the 1σ deviation fitting results.  \n<!-- image -->  \n[  \n]  \n·  \n<!-- image -->  \n]  \ns  \n[  \nσ  \n10  \n5  \n]  \n1  \n-  \nGeV  \n18  \n-  \n10  \n[  \nV  \nL  \na  \n4  \n2  \n(a) Mainline photons posterior distributions  \n-  \n10  \n.  \n34  \n15  \nµ  \n[  \ns  \n]  \n-  \n+1  \n.  \n07  \n-  \n1  \n.  \n10  \n0  \n0  \n.  \n54  \n5  \nσ  \n[  \ns  \n]  \na  \nLV  \n2  \n.  \n75  \n2  \n4  \n[  \n10  \n-  \n+0  \n.  \n10  \n-  \n18  \nGeV  \n-  \n1  \n]", '3.2. Model B': 'In principle, the regularity of observed time delay for GRBs might also be caused by other physical mechanisms. For example, high-energy photons ranging from 33.6 GeV to 146.6 GeV at the source frame might be emitted at di ff erent times. Therefore, in Model B, we assume that the observed time delay comes from the intrinsic time delay and neglect the LV time delay term. We assume the intrinsic time delay consists of two parts. One part is a common time delay term ∆ t in , c. The other part is an intrinsic time delay term correlated with the source frame energies of high-energy photons. For simplicity, we assume it is proportional to the energy value. At this situation, the observed time delay satisfies:  \n∆ t obs 1 + z = α Es + ∆ t in , c , (16)  \nwhere Es is the source frame energy of high-energy photon and α is the coe ffi cient. Again, we assume the common time delay term ∆ t in , c follows Gaussian distribution and needs to be marginalized. The posterior for this model now is:  \nWe also consider the priors of these parameters, µ , σ , and α , to be flat:  \np ∝ exp    -1 2 p ∑ j = 1    ( ∆ t obs , j 1 + zj -µ -α Es ) 2 σ 2 + α 2 σ 2 Es , j + ln( σ 2 + α 2 σ 2 Es , j )       p ( µ ) p ( σ ) p ( α ) . (17)  \n     p ( µ ) ∼ U [ -30 , 30] s , p ( σ ) ∼ U [0 , 30] s , p ( α ) ∼ U [ -30 , 30] s · GeV -1 . (18)  \nApplying the same all 14 high-energy photons as Model A, we obtain the results shown in Fig. 3. We do not divide the data into two cases in Model B. This is because the variables are changed from K 1 in Model A to Es in Model B . As shown in the right panel of Fig. 3, there is no clear distinction between the 9 mainline high-energy photons in Model A (gray dotes denoted with orange error bars) and all 14 high-energy photons (all gray dotes). Therefore, we only calculate the posterior distributions for all photons in Model B. The results suggest that the mean value of intrinsic time delay is µ = -0 . 44 + 5 . 96 -5 . 90 s and the coe ffi cient is α = 0 . 13 + 0 . 08 -0 . 08 s · GeV -1 . The positive source energy correlated time delay term suggests that the high-energy photons are emitted later than the low-energy photons. With  \n0  \n.  \n11  \n+0  \n.  \n67  \n-  \n0  \n.  \n38  \n10  \nFigure 2: Same as Fig. 1, but for the 9 mainline high-energy photons as [21, 22].  \n<!-- image -->  \n·  \na tiny negative common intrinsic time delay term, Model B could also be a potential explanation for the observed time delay of GRB data.  \nFigure 3: Results of Model B for all 14 high-energy photons. The left panel shows the posterior distributions and the right panel shows the fitting results of Model B.  \n<!-- image -->  \n[  \n·  \n]', '3.3. Model C': 'For the high-energy photons from the same GRB, we can not mathematically distinguish between the LV time delay term in Model A and the source energy correlated time delay term in Model B, although the physical mechanisms are totally di ff erent. However, when considering multiple sources of GRB events, we might distinguish those two terms because of their di ff erent responses to the redshifts of GRBs. Therefore, we combine the above two models into a unified model as Model C. We assume the observed time delay comes from two mechanisms: the LV time delay and intrinsic time delay with a common term plus a source energy correlated term. The observed time delay in this model now satisfies:  \n∆ t obs 1 + z = ∆ t in , c + α Es + a LV K 1 . (19)  \nAfter marginalizing over the common time delay term ∆ t in , c, we obtain the posterior as:  \np ∝ exp    -1 2 p ∑ j = 1    ( ∆ t obs , j 1 + zj -µ -α Es , j -a LV Kj ) 2 σ 2 + α 2 σ 2 Es , j + a 2 LV σ 2 Kj + ln( σ 2 + α 2 σ 2 Es , j + a 2 LV σ 2 Kj )       p ( µ ) p ( σ ) p ( a LV) p ( α ) . (20)  \nWe consider the flat priors for the parameters µ , σ , a LV, and α :  \n         p ( µ ) ∼ U [ -30 , 30] s , p ( σ ) ∼ U [0 , 30] s , p ( a LV) ∼ U [0 , 30] × 10 -18 GeV -1 , p ( α ) ∼ U [ -30 , 30] s · GeV -1 . (21)  \nAs there are both Es -dependence and K 1-dependence in the fitting procedure rather than a simple linear relation, we should fit all 14 high-energy photons in Model C. Then we obtain the results shown in Fig. 4. The left panel  \n<!-- image -->  \nshows the posterior distributions and the right panel shows the fitting results. The results suggest that the mean value of intrinsic time delay µ = -4 . 98 + 4 . 26 -4 . 32 s, a LV = 3 . 38 + 1 . 05 -0 . 98 × 10 -18 GeV -1 , and α = -0 . 15 + 0 . 10 -0 . 11 s · GeV -1 . The corresponding E LV = 2 . 96 + 1 . 21 -0 . 70 × 10 17 GeV. We obtain a physics picture similar to that of Model A. Both the common intrinsic time delay term and the source energy correlated intrinsic time delay term are negative, which suggests that the high-energy photons are emitted earlier than the low-energy photons. Meanwhile, the E LV ≃ 2 . 96 × 10 17 GeV in Model C is smaller than the results in Model A as E LV ≃ 4 . 71 × 10 17 GeV for all 14 high-energy photons case, implying a slightly stronger LV e ff ect. It is worth mentioning that we still need more high-energy photons from GRBs to get more solid conclusions.  \nFigure 4: Results of Model C for all 14 high-energy photons. The left panel shows the posterior distributions. The right panel shows the fitting results with the red line. The all 14 high-energy photons are denoted by gray dots with two-dimensional error bars in the K 1 axis and the E s axis, respectively. The 9 mainline high-energy photons are denoted by gray dots with two-dimensional error bars in orange color.  \n<!-- image -->  \n[  \n]  \n[  \n·  \n]  \nIt is imperative to investigate the discrepancies in the constraints placed on E LV in other studies compared to our findings. The primary factor contributing to these variations lies in the assumptions made regarding the timing of emission between high-energy and low-energy photons. For instance, shortly after the detection of a high-energy photon from GRB 090510 by Fermi LAT [36], Ref.[16] proposed a stringent constraint E LV > 6 . 3 E P based on the assumption that high-energy photons cannot be inherently emitted before low-energy photons at the GRB source. Additionally, the analysis conducted by MAGIC [37] on TeV scale photon events from GRB 190114C was carried out under the assumption that all photons were emitted after the trigger time T 0 at the source.  \nIn contrast, our current analysis reveals a scenario where high-energy photons were emitted prior to low-energy photons at the GRB source solely through data fitting. This prediction of a preburst phase for high-energy photons has been discussed in previous studies [23, 38, 24] with favorable signals.', '4. Summary': 'In this letter, our primary focus is on investigating the energy-dependent intrinsic time delay e ff ect and integrating it with the existing model to examine Lorentz invariance violation (LV) through fitting the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope (FGST) high-energy photon data from Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs). We introduce a comprehensive Bayesian parameter estimation approach for a multiple linear model. Subsequently, we propose three distinct models to fit the high-energy photon data from GRBs as documented in previous studies [21, 22].', '(b) Fitting results': 'All photons by Xu & Ma  \nMainline photons by Xu & Ma  \n10  \n75  \n50  \n25  \nE  \ns  \n[GeV]  \n100  \n5  \n1  \nK  \n18  \n[10  \n0  \n125  \n150  \n0  \n15  \ns  \n·  \n30  \n20  \n10  \n0  \n-  \n20  \n10  \nGeV]  \n]  \ns  \n[  \nz  \n1+  \nobs  \nt  \n∆  \nModel A aligns with the approach adopted in prior research [21, 22, 23], yielding consistent outcomes. These findings indicate that high-energy photons are emitted prior to low-energy photons, with an associated Lorentz invariance violation energy scale of E LV ≃ 4 . 71 × 10 17 GeV for the complete photon dataset.  \nIn Model B, we exclude the consideration of LV e ff ects and solely focus on intrinsic time delay. We postulate that the intrinsic time delay comprises two components: a shared time delay term ∆ t in , c and an intrinsic time delay term proportional to the source frame energies of each high-energy photon. Unlike the scenario in Model A, where a distinction was made between the 9 primary high-energy photons and all 14 high-energy photons, in Model B, we incorporate the entire set of 14 high-energy photons for calculating the posterior distribution. The outcomes indicate a marginal negative common intrinsic time delay. With the inclusion of the positive source energy-correlated intrinsic time delay term, Model B emerges as a plausible explanation for the observed time delay phenomenon in GRBs.  \nFinally, in Model C, we integrate the two aforementioned models into a unified framework and perform fitting on the same set of 14 high-energy photons from GRBs as in Model A. The outcomes indicate the presence of a common negative intrinsic time delay term along with a negative source energy-correlated intrinsic time delay term. Consequently, a physical scenario akin to that of Model A emerges, revealing that high-energy photons are emitted prior to low-energy photons. Additionally, in comparison to the energy scale of Lorentz invariance violation (LV) in Model A, a reduced value of E LV ≃ 2 . 96 × 10 17 GeV is obtained. This implies that even with the incorporation of the source energy-correlated intrinsic time delay, LV e ff ects may still serve as a significant underlying physical mechanism for the observed time delay. It is important to note that the aforementioned conclusions are derived from the same dataset of GRB data as detailed in [21, 22]. Further GRB data are essential to distinguish and evaluate the respective contributions due to LV-induced time delays and intrinsic time delays, as well as to explore potential patterns in the arrival time data of high-energy photons from GRBs.  \nAcknowledgements: This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 12335006 and No. 12075003. We thank Zhenwei Lyu, Jie Zhu, and Hao Li for helpful discussions and comments. This work is supported by High-performance Computing Platform of Peking University.', 'References': '- [1] G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, Distance measurement and wave dispersion in a Liouville string approach to quantum gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) 607-624. arXiv:hep-th/9605211 , doi:10.1142/S0217751X97000566 .  \n- [16] Z. Xiao, B.-Q. Ma, Constraints on Lorentz invariance violation from gamma-ray burst GRB090510, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 116005. arXiv: 0909.4927 , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.116005 .\n- [17] J. Zhu, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz-violation-induced arrival time delay of astroparticles in Finsler spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 105 (12) (2022) 124069. arXiv:2206.07616 , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.124069 .\n- [18] J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, A. S. Sakharov, E. K. G. Sarkisyan, Robust limits on Lorentz violation from gammaray bursts, Astropart. Phys. 25 (2006) 402-411, [Erratum: Astropart.Phys. 29, 158-159 (2008)]. arXiv:0712.2781 , doi:10.1016/j. astropartphys.2007.12.003 .\n- [19] L. Shao, Z. Xiao, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz violation from cosmological objects with very high energy photon emissions, Astropart. Phys. 33 (2010) 312-315. arXiv:0911.2276 , doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.03.003 .\n- [20] S. Zhang, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz violation from gamma-ray bursts, Astropart. Phys. 61 (2015) 108-112. arXiv:1406.4568 , doi:10.1016/j. astropartphys.2014.04.008 .\n- [21] H. Xu, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation from gamma-ray bursts, Astropart. Phys. 82 (2016) 72-76. arXiv:1607.03203 , doi:10.1016/j. astropartphys.2016.05.008 .\n- [22] H. Xu, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation from gamma ray burst GRB 160509A, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 602-604. arXiv:1607.08043 , doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.044 .\n- [23] J. Zhu, B.-Q. Ma, Pre-burst events of gamma-ray bursts with light speed variation, Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136518. arXiv:2108.05804 , doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136518 .\n- [24] J. Zhu, B.-Q. Ma, Pre-burst neutrinos of gamma-ray bursters accompanied by high-energy photons, Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136546. arXiv: 2108.08425 , doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136546 .\n- [25] J. Zhu, B.-Q. Ma, Light speed variation from GRB 221009A, J. Phys. G 50 (6) (2023) 06LT01. arXiv:2210.11376 , doi:10.1088/ 1361-6471/accebb .\n- [26] Y. Huang, H. Li, B.-Q. Ma, Consistent Lorentz violation features from near-TeV IceCube neutrinos, Phys. Rev. D 99 (12) (2019) 123018. arXiv:1906.07329 , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.123018 .  \n[27]  \nW. B. Atwood, et al., The Large Area Telescope on the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope Mission, Astrophys. J. 697 (2009) 1071-1102.  \narXiv:0902.1089  \n,  \ndoi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071  \n.  \n- [28] C. Meegan, et al., The Fermi Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor, Astrophys. J. 702 (2009) 791-804. arXiv:0908.0450 , doi:10.1088/ 0004-637X/702/1/791 .\n- [29] P. He, B.-Q. Ma, Lorentz Symmetry Violation of Cosmic Photons, Universe 8 (6) (2022) 323. arXiv:2206.08180 , doi:10.3390/ universe8060323 .\n- [30] Z. Cao, et al., Ultrahigh-energy photons up to 1.4 petaelectronvolts from 12 γ -ray Galactic sources, Nature 594 (7861) (2021) 33-36. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03498-z .\n- [31] C. Li, B.-Q. Ma, Ultrahigh-energy photons from LHAASO as probes of Lorentz symmetry violations, Phys. Rev. D 104 (6) (2021) 063012. arXiv:2105.07967 , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063012 .\n- [32] P. He, B.-Q. Ma, Joint photon-electron Lorentz violation parameter plane from LHAASO data, Phys. Lett. B 835 (2022) 137536. arXiv: 2210.14817 , doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137536 .\n- [33] P. He, B.-Q. Ma, Comprehensive analysis on photon-electron Lorentz-violation parameter plane, Phys. Rev. D 108 (6) (2023) 063006. arXiv:2308.02021 , doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.063006 .\n- [34] G. Ashton, et al., BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241 (2) (2019) 27. arXiv:1811.02042 , doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc .\n- [35] I. M. Romero-Shaw, et al., Bayesian inference for compact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and application to the first LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499 (3) (2020) 3295-3319. arXiv:2006.00714 , doi:10.1093/mnras/ staa2850 .\n- [36] M. Ackermann, et al., A limit on the variation of the speed of light arising from quantum gravity e ff ects, Nature 462 (2009) 331-334. arXiv:0908.1832 , doi:10.1038/nature08574 .\n- [37] V. A. Acciari, et al., Bounds on Lorentz invariance violation from MAGIC observation of GRB 190114C, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2) (2020) 021301. arXiv:2001.09728 , doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.021301 .\n- [38] Y. Chen, B.-Q. Ma, Novel pre-burst stage of gamma-ray bursts from machine learning, JHEAp 32 (2021) 78-86. arXiv:1910.08043 , doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2021.09.002 .'}