Project

General

Profile

Wiki »

GRB250129A-review

Approvals for submission

Science review (Nidhal)

Editorial review (Nino)

Photometric review (Sarah): Yes

Main Leader approval (Dahlia):

Program chair approval (Marion):

KNC chair approval (Damien):

External teams approval: Colibri / KAIT / Skynet

Co-PIs approval:

Editiorial review

Need some sign up from Nino

✔ A) check Affiliation, orchid, alphabetic order

The names and all available orchids were checked, and corrections were made in two cases (M. Pereyra and A.M. Watson).
The alphabetical order after Gill's name is also correct.

✔ B) check their acknowledgements appendix B

Added acknowledgemets by The Virgin Islands Robotic Telescope (VIRT), according to Priya.

There is no further information to add.

✔ C) check telescope appendix C

✔ D) Check table D2 on table of observations

All columns in Table D2 have been checked. No errors were found!

Photometric review

OK, approved by S. Antier https://forge.in2p3.fr/projects/grb250129a/wiki/Review in June 2026

GRANDMA Science review

Comments received on 07.02.2026

✔Ernazar Comments

✔ section 4.2. “Linearly increases the jet energy within the time inverval”. Maybe it is better
to replace “the time interval" with something like “a time inverval” or “a given/chosen time
inverval”?

✔ “Appendix E” is mentioned twice in the same paragraph (2nd paragraph of Sec 4.2).
Maybe mention it once at the end.

✔ “The model parameters and priors are listed in Table 2”. This is mentioned twice in the
same paragraph (this is the 1st paragraph on page 8, section 4.2). Mentioning once
within a paragraph maybe enough?

--> We need both as it is a references to prior and a reference to posteriors

✔ Caption of Table 2: maybe replace “anomaly peaks” to “re-brightening peaks” to have
consistent terminology across the paper?

✔ It may not be entirely clear to readers what is the difference between the “agnostic
approach” (sec 4.2) and “shell collisions” (sec 4.3)? Since shell collisions also inject
energy, the agnostic approach can also model (albeit crudely) the shell collision
scenario. If I understand correctly, section 4.3 is really a better model for shell collisions
compared to what 4.2 can provide, right? Maybe the difference should be articulated
more clearly?

--> It is not completly true and i think we made large explanations on it. 4.3 is not an improvement of 4.2, but is an improvement of afterglow. 4.2 includes energy injection which is not in afterglow, the 4.2 measures energies but does not probe the origins and measures some parameters in a bayesian analysis approachs, the 4.3 imposes some parameters and say the reverse refresh shocks is a plausible scenario

✔ To avoid confusion with radius $R$, maybe use regular R for the R-band notation.
--> We need to use $R* for the band notation
I didn't agree with the choice of calling the radial distance $R_a$, and so I moved it to $\mathcal{R}$. I hope you're okay with it.

✔ In section 4.3, the results are provided at the end of the last paragraph of this section,
which starts by discussing the method. It is better to decouple the discussion of the
results in a separate paragraph (i.e., not mix with the results).

✔ The note at the bottom of Table 4: maybe you can cite some works to support this claim
and/or provide a brief explanation?

--> I rearranged the sentences in the note of table 5. The current conclusions are based on the numerical results from a range of parameter space (maybe limited) explored by me. The main issue is that we do not know the ``real'' properties of these involving shells, and there is no comprehensive paper (which tells which situation corresponds to what kind of observational features and roles of the FS/RS therein; and I have been preparing a tentative article and the relevant code, it takes me more than 2 years already) for referring in currently literature.

✔ In conclusion, you mention that refreshed shocks can explain the afterglow behavior for
reasonable values of eps_e and eps_B. Maybe it is worth mentioning that in the main
part of the paper (the values are only given in Table 4 currently). Also, adding a few
words about how the values of these parameters (and p) are picked for the refreshed
case may be useful.

--> I have added that p are consistent with the discussion in Section 4.1. As I have addressed in our meetings before, my model could only explain the flares in principle, but currently, it is hard to claim that I could arrive at these values by a more straightforward analytical formula. Again, the main challenge is that there are too many freedoms in this scenario, and we are still lacking some key observational information (constraints). For instance, we are not even confident about the realistic E_iso of the first shell (since we do not know the prompt radiation efficiency yet), which makes the analytical derivation of the radiation from the RS/FS during the collision very complex (many possible physical regimes). So I prefer to say that "a set of typical values could work in this case, but it is not a well-constrained problem, as for most bursts in history."

✔ In conclusion: what do you mean by “kinetic approach”? Maybe it is worth clarifying in
Sec 4.3?.

--> I have changed to "kinematic"

✔ In conclusion, maybe say a few words why the off-axis scenario is also ruled out?

--> I saw the current version by Ernazar, and it is fine. Thanks for adding this concise description for the off-axis jet model.

NG Comments

Comments and Corrections on the GRB 250129A paper draft

Abstract

✔ Abstract: “The latter shows late-time rebrightenings in the X-ray and optical wavelengths or rebrightenings…” First, it’s not only “late-time”; second, why the “or” in the sentence?

--> some typo, corrected

✔Usage of “interstellar medium” and “circumburst medium” in the same sentence may give the impression that these are different…

--> corrected

✔ “multiple fast optical rebrightening episodes from the X-rays to the near infrared band.” Why are these being referred to as “optical rebrightening episodes” if they are “from the X-rays to the near infrared band”?
Conclusions missing

--> true corrected

✔ Abstract needs some editing/polishing.

--> ok

Introduction

✔ Long/Short GRB distinction, surely more recent and extensive than the Kouveliotou paper can be cited.

✔For the 230812B paper, the Srinivasaragavan paper should also be cited.

✔When citing several papers, a proper ordering should be followed (e.g. first paragraph page 2) ✔done throughout the paper by order of time

✔ Lorentz factor Γ not defined (in relation to the beaming angle).

✔“The GRB central engine is expected to be erratic” – use a different, milder word.

“Multiple rebrightening episodes are not possible in this scenario.” Why??

✔“the Ultra-Violet and Optical Telescope onboard Swift (UVOT…” However, the BAT and XRT acronyms were not unpacked.

✔“Various follow-up observations were initiated rapidly, beginning as early as 1.9 minutes after T0, even while the prompt emission was ongoing and continued over several weeks.” Change to: “Various follow-up observations were initiated rapidly, beginning as early as 1.9 minutes after T0, while the prompt emission was ongoing, and observations continued over several weeks.” (As it is written, it sounds like the prompt emission continued for weeks..)

✔In §??, we present…

✔Observational Dataset

✔as detailed in §??.

Environment

✔ “at a mid-time of t-t0 ∼7.04 days after the Swift trigger, where no further spectral evolution is observed”, no supportive evidence is given (unlike the earlier epoch, where photon indices were compared).

--> edited

✔ The manuscript states that host extinction may be underestimated due to the lack of NIR data, and it later adds “we used a no-host dust extinction scenario for the later analyses and didn’t apply further correction”… “In light of these results…” but it’s not clear what results and how they imply no-host extinction. --> *the color excess is 0.05

--> edited

✔ “The slope of the X-ray wavelengths was assumed to be 0.5 steeper than the spectral slope below the cooling break of the intrinsic spectra…” Justify.

--> edited

✔Figure 5: The unit (day) for the T-T0 values should be added. Also, “injections” should be replaced with “rebrightenings” because the figure is presenting what’s observed, not what’s being modeled. And please address then remove RG’s comment (in red). --> "In days" unit is in the text. injections to rebrightenings edited.

✔ Host-galaxy discussion: Four candidate galaxies are discussed, all of which are ultimately deemed unlikely or unrelated, based on Pch values or redshift mismatch (please note Pch is not defined). But the section ends without an explicit conclusion.

--> New section 3.2 thanks to JG

✔ Table 1: “The asterisk in the photometric value indicates that it is a photometric redshift.” Change to: “The asterisk next to the redshift value for the last two galaxies indicates that it is a photometric redshift.”

-->ok, done

Interpretation

✔ First paragraph, the formula for Rdec, which includes Ek,iso and A, is given without reference or explanation and looks strange dimensionally.
--> Ramandeep:
I'm not sure why this comment was made since the text above this formula exactly explains how to calculate this radius. The internal referee seems unaware of where the deceleration radius comes from. It also didn't need any citation since it is so commonly used, but I've now included it anyway. Also, the formula is dimensionally correct.

✔ The fitting formula for the flux is given as F ∝ tα νβ , but the closure relations for α and β are once given with minus signs then without minus signs (just before 4.2).

--> Ramandeep : I prefer not to use negative signs in front of alpha and beta when writing the flux density as I find it confusing. However, it's a matter of taste. I also notice that temporal slopes are shown without assuming a negative sign in Fig. 5, which agrees with my convention. There are places where a negative sign is assumed when quoting these indices in section 4.1. Whoever wrote section 4.1 should check and verify if they assumed the correct sign.

✔ Sec. 4.1: The statement “The early (< 104 s) optical and X-ray data can be modelled with simple power-laws having slopes o = 0.93 ± 0.01 and x = 0.97 ± 0.04, respectively (see Figure 1)” is totally perplexing. First, are these slopes α’s? And for which period? Figure 1 is for the prompt phase, i.e. up to about 300 seconds. And it shows a very different value for αX, closer to -1.5…

--> This statement doesn't appear anymore in the text, I think. Looks like someone fixed it.

✔The rest of the paragraph contains various LaTeX errors that make the formulas incorrect and the text difficult to follow.
The values obtained for p are quite high, and the conclusion “It seems that the results are not consistent to the predictions of the external shock in the standard fireball model” is unclear.

--> we reviewed 4.1 so it is not relevant anymore

✔Sec. 4.2: “extract the physical estimates” --> “extract physical parameters”
✔“we established an ad-hoc prescription” --> “we set an ad-hoc prescription”

✔ “the On-axis isotropic equivalent energy Ek,iso and the electron distribution power-law index p, vary significantly across the different epochs” – not true for Ek,iso

--> Peter : I have adjusted the text to mention only the electron power-law index p, as none of the other parameters show that level of variance across the 4 models, i.e., 3 different regions.

✔Sec. 4.3: “FS shocks” and “RS shocks” --> either FS and RS or “forward shocks” and “reverse shocks”

✔Tpk and tem undefined
--> Done

✔ Several formulas (e.g. Eq. 2 and 3 and formulas within paragraphs) are given with no reference, no explanation, impossible to decipher.
--> JJ: The reference for Equation 3 has been added; Equation 2 is a mathematically direct derivation of the formula above; and it is not necessary to mention a reference for each equation since they are basic equations in the GRB field.

✔ In Figure 7, the colors for the 2-injection and 3-injection curves are too similar and very difficult to distinguish.

-_> I don't see problem from my screen the problem of color, let's see what the journal referee will say

Conclusion and Discussion

✔ “rapid follow-up campaign involving about 20 instruments” – the introduction said 40 instruments!

--> 30, see D.1, corrected

✔ The RG comment (in red) can be addressed by rewriting the statement as follows: “By employing temporal and spectral modeling, we show that only the first two (of three) rebrightening episodes that can be “seen” in the data are statistical significant (see sec 4.2).”

--> yes, done

✔ Replace “probing” with “describing” or “fitting” or “modeling” because the phenomenological approach does not probe anything, it only tries to describe/fit the temporal evolution of the lightcurve. And it does not “provide clear evidence” of anything; it is simply a fit. RG is right – please rewrite the statements.

--> yes, done

✔ Also “We explore the origin of multiple rebrightening episodes” is not fully accurate; what is being done is to posit multiple energy injections and explore whether consistent values can reproduce the lightcurve.

--> changed into "We explored whether the light curve can be reproduced using consistent values from microphysics of jet from the literature, and a sequence of refreshed shocks produced by collisions between shells with different bulk Lorentz factors ejected during the prompt emission phase "

✔ “Although the current analysis requires the introduction of additional microphysical parameters to describe the separate emission components and does not involve a complete Bayesian inference, the observed flares could be broadly interpreted using a reasonable set of typical parameters (ee = 0.1, eB ≃ 10−3–10−2).” There are several issues with this statement: a) which “additional microphysical parameters” are you referring to, the additional kinetic energy? b) what do you mean “does not involve a complete Bayesian inference”? you have run NMMA with the additional energies and inferred the best physical parameters that reproduce the lightcurve with the flares, no? c) replace “broadly interpreted” with “reproduced”.

-> modified, see overleaf

Address the RG comment (in red) about alternative scenarios.

--> Not sure what it refers to

✔ The passage “The observed trend of decreasing relative amplitudes in the optical rebrightenings suggests a decline in the velocities of the trailing shells. This interpretation becomes problematic since the compactness argument demands the different shells to be moving with ultra-relativistic (Γ0 > 100) velocities in order to emit the gamma-rays. If multiple jets arise from accretion onto the central compact object (e.g., a black hole), the properties of these shells could provide valuable insights into the system’s accretion history and jet-launching mechanisms. However, the kinetic energy of the rear shells may not be well constrained due to the lack of simultaneous, high-quality X-ray data and the degeneracy of microphysical parameters during the collision.” is vague and unconvincing: first, the different shells could be both ultra-relativistic and weakening; second, what “properties” of the shells could provide “valuable insights”; and third, if the kinetic energy of the rear shells are not well constrained, then what is “problematic”??

--> I have modified it. The sentence "This interpretation becomes problematic since the compactness argument demands the different shells to be moving with ultra-relativistic (Γ0 > 100) velocities in order to emit the gamma-rays. " is not original from my side. Actually, the compactness constraint on the bulk Lorentz factor is not stringent. Γ0 ~ several tens is still very safe even for MeV photons (see left column of page 6 in https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad85da/pdf).

✔ Data Availability

✔Give the URL for the SkyPortal Public Page (if it’s going to be useful to people). already given
✔What is a “reasonable” request? Usually, we just say “available upon request”…
✔In Appendix C, the formula for mAB correctly uses 3631 Jy, but the following statement says “3631 uJy”; it should be 3631 Jy.
✔Typo in Appendix E: AFERTGLOWPY

✔ Nino-Comments

✔ In the section 2. "Observational dataset" and in the corresponding Appendices C and D everything is presented correctly and clearly, including description of steps for getting, processing and using all kinds of data - prompt observations, x-ray, UVOIR and ground-based data.

✔ The section 3. "Environment" needs some additional improvement. In particular, I have the following comments for Figure 6: the black extinction curve of the LMC is not visible in Figure 6. If it is exactly the same as that of the SMC (or MW) and is "hidden" under the cyan (red) curve, then it should have been explained in the figure description as well (the above text mentions the similarity of the fitting results for SML and LMC). Or, if it is simply missing, it should have been added. It needed to be explained why the scenario of "no-host dust extinction" was used for the host galaxy.

--> edited

✔ Generally, to add a few sentences about the host galaxy would improve the manuscript. It is concluded that none of the four galaxies near the GRB are the host. Therefore, is it possible to add information about an as-yet-undiscovered host? Is the derived SED (Figure 6) of the GRB sufficient to conclude that the host is dust-free? Further explanation is needed.

--> in charge (email sent on 18.02).
--> Section to be removed or kept as it. Otherwise JG offered a different approach: Galclaim tool
--> decision: section removed and replaced with JG approach (galclaim)

✔ Additionally, I have two minor comments:
In "Introduction" - instead of "Conversely, short GRBs emerge from the merger of
compact objects" It would be better if we wrote: "In contrast, short gamma-ray bursts are caused by the merging of compact objects."

✔ In "Introduction" - better to change "the fireball model model" with "the fireball model scenario".

Sarah's review

✔ Author : Add Ernazar as author

✔ Author : Add Dilda as author

List of Author: Check acknwoldgements

Section TAROT : check mid time observations, it seemed it is shifted a buit si i would like to double check

Section Optical Observations During the Prompt Emission : need to fill the text,
\sa{Extrapolating the prompt emission to optical using $ \alpha$ to $R$ band, and taking into account an extinction of 0.0742, we found $R$ about XX mag +/- XX from 156 s to 212 s and $R$ about XX mag +/- XX from 212 s to 266 s. This is "compatible" / ? with measurements from TAROT.}

✔ Contributions: changed text on the contributions

TO BE DONE Check on colibri author list

Comments recived from authors (after paper circulation)

Nelio

TO BE CHECK ED Comment 1:
I read the article and noticed the absence of the name of the director of LNA, a Brazilian institution linked to the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology that coordinates the Pico dos Dias Observatory (OPD). The name of the LNA director is Wagner Corradi; he has participated in the activities that Marion has been sharing with us regarding the GRBs, and both he and I have participated in these activities.

I also noticed a small nomenclature error in Table D1, where it should say OPD-0.6m, it says "OPD-T60". I choose to maintain the same nomenclature for the telescope throughout the text. Would there have been a misunderstanding in my interpretation?
--> edited to OPD-0.6m

--> Sarah : OPD is not present in the final data set, so must appear in table D.1

Finally, I missed a text about OPD-0.6m in Appendix D1. I have already doing the text and will send it to you.
The scientific name of the LNA director is W. Corradi, and his affiliation is in the article under number [28]

✔ Comment 2:
Hello Dalya,
Could you please include this text about OPD-0.6m in Appendix D1?
The OPD-0.6m is a Ritchey-Chrétien telescope (60 cm aperture, f/13.5 at the Cassegrain focus) managed by the Laboratório Nacional de Astrofísica (LNA) at the Pico dos Dias Observatory, Brazil. Observations of GRB 250129A were performed using an Andor iXon EMCCD (13.5 x 13.5μ pixel size) equipped with a focal reducer, providing a plate scale of 0.68”/pixel and an 11.6’ field of view. Data were acquired through Johnson-Cousins R and I filters in sequences of 300s and 600s, spanning the interval from (T-T0)=8.100 to 22.049 days. The highest quality frames were selected and stacked, with the final images uploaded to the GRANDMA repository.

--> Not relevant

✔ Comment 3:
I would like to alert you to the fact that the institution listed [63] is not part of the GRANDMA/OPD team and we do not have any professionals from that institution present in GRANDMA. Therefore, my suggestion is to remove affiliation number [63].
Explanation of why the institution was used in the past: co-author L. Almeida completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. But that was more than ten years ago. Today, researcher L. Almeida is affiliated with SOAR and LNA. In the article, the references for his affiliation are correctly marked with the numbers [27] and [28], respectively.
Thank you for your understanding, including the name of institution [63] in this article was a mistake. We would be very happy if there is a possibility of correcting this information.

--> I am not sure what it is about, but not relevant for this paper

✔Ali Takey - KAO

✔I would appreciate it if you could add Eslam as a co-author. He was taking shifts and reducing KAO images.

✔In addition, the observer needs to write his name as (Y. H. M. Hendy) instead of (Y. Hendy).

--> done. eslam added as co-author.

From Dahlia:

Tanmoy asked to remove his affilation number 52. I have done so, but we now need to move all the other affiliations after 51 up by one.

Other comments from External partners

Colibri

✔ "Figure 5 " : Ramandeep : connecting the X-ray emission with a single power law is problematic since it occurs during the rebrigtenning episodes and therefore likely doesn't maintain a single temporal index, just like the optical emission.

--> Ask Robert to measure the alpha x flux between tin, 1 and tin, 2 and above tin, 2

--> Done, all section 4.1 was finished

✔Enrique and JG Pointed out that fig 4 doesn't have the same background stars in all insets.--> done. figure updated.

JG ducoin Comments:

JG provided new analysis and text has been completely updated

Pdf attached

✔ Intro: "substantial number of GRBs (Nousek et al. 2006b; Yu et al. 2007; Margutti et al. 2010; Laskar et al. 2015a)." Add Camila GRB250221A paper citation ?

--> already mentioned in the paper

✔ "Multiple rebrightening episodes are generally not expected in this scenario." "Multiple rebrightening episodes are generally
not expected in this scenario." should be before "In both scenarios," no ?

--> it is ok like this let's see what the referee will say

✔ "(?Zhang et al. 2006)" Citation issue --> fixed.

✔Fig 4: I don't understand the cutout, all of them are showing the exact same region of the sky? If not, they should. Is the background image oriented in the same way?

--> i have edited the figure. it is the same, the orientation (north up) was not the same for the insets.

✔ "and can not be properly modeled in afterglowpy." A bit missleading sentence I think. should be "that is not included in afterglowpy model"

--> We won't take this comment into account

✔ Discussion: "Several lines of evidence support the refreshed-shock scenario considered here. First, the prompt emission of GRB 250129A displayed four distinct emission episodes in gamma-rays and at least one in optical, suggesting the ejection
of multiple relativistic shells." Is the prompt emission of the other GRB showing similar rebrightenings also showing distinct gamma emission episodes ? Are other GRB with distinct prompt gamma emission episodes also showing optical rebrightenings ?
-->  
JJ: There are indeed several (or many) bursts that show a clear association between the multiple prompt pulses and optical afterglow rebrightenings. For example, in GRB 100621A (Figure 5 in the paper attached, and the BAT lightcurve at https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/BATbursts/425151/bascript/top.html). However, in the past studies, many authors, including myself adopt other scenarios (e.g., energy injection) to explain these bursts. So this important point raised in our paper has not been addressed in the literature. I have been collecting these bursts to revise them again carefully. Therefore, I suggest answering yes, but we do not need to address this point in the text, since we need to fix this "concern" in the future series of papers.

2. Further Comments on section 3.2

✔  - Why are galaxies with non-compatible spectro-redshifts considered as candidates? (They should be rejected as a first step)
- I don't find the same SDSS 1237655125552333194 and SDSS 1237655125552333205 while querying SDSS DR12 as stated in the draft. Maybe I'm using the wrong afterglow position?
- The Pcc computation is using the Bloom et al. (2002) approach, but recent works (e.g. Chrime et al 2018, Ducoin 2023) improved the "galaxy number counts from deep optical imaging" in order to include galaxy clustering effects in the computation. I recommend using these.
- Overall, Table 1 shows galaxies that have non-compatible redshifts (spectro and photo), and physical offsets > 50 kpc, which is EXTREME for a long GRB (see Blanchard 2016, ApJ, 817, 144). I don't think it's reasonable to keep such a table.

JG Proposed: Using Galclaim tool to look for such associations

--> All is fixed thanks to Nidhal

R. Beccera

PDF attached.

✔ Author list D. Akl I am in favour to add Dayla as corresponding author.
--> We won't implement this option, as the corresponding authors are the two colleagues that worked intensively on the modeling + a senior. With the first author + her supervisor (e.g me), it constitutes the core team

✔Author list R.L.Becerra My affiliation is 18 and the orcid: 0000-0002-0216-3415

✘ Abstract (Context): "However, a minority of well-sampled GRBs deviate from this behavior," change "well-sampled" to "them"

--> will not change as we are showing that specifically we see rebrightenings when we have good sampling.

✔ Abstract (Conclusion): "least two statistically significant rebrightening episodes" add "observed at T+XXX and T+XXX days/hours..."

--> Done, "within a 1.1 day post trigger time "

✔Introduction: "The GRB was classified as a long burst" Type II (and add REF)
--> Long refers to the duration, we won't add further

✘ Introduction: "Note that these are uncorrected for the extinctions. "change to Galactic extinction"

--> will not change as this refers to host galaxy and MW.

Fig. 3 this is the same format than in the burst analyser webpage, I would consider some modifications in the format
This fig. could be merged with Fig. 6

✔ "Forced photometry of all the stacked images (e.g,∼ 290 images) was performed at the transient position (e.g, RA, Dec:
198.676728, 5.030631) using STDPipe (Karpov 2021; Karpov 2025), a home-made Python-based set of codes for performing" please describe the criteria with more detail to understand the difference

--> everything about photometry is already described in the section and in appendix

✔In the same line than the previous comment, then the photometry is not homogeneous right? I suggest saying explicitly here.

--> Photometry is completely homogenous. STDWeb and STDPipe are the same thing.

✔Fig 4: the regions are not the same in the main panel and in the instets

--> i have edited the figure. it is the same, the orientation (north up) was not the same for the insets.

Table 2: "0.231-1.020 alpha_R,1b =-1.59 +/-0.00" zero error? please check. 0 error is not consistent with what is shown in the figure, as the data within the plotted range do not follow a perfectly linear trend.

--> ill contact ernazar and delida

Fig. 5: alpha_R,0a this index do not describe this interval in R. The reported values for alpha_{R,0a} (within the time interval covered in the figure) do not appear consistent with the temporal behaviour shown. This value seems more consistent with the rise observed between T+3×10^{-3} d and T+1×10^{-2} d.

alpha_R,3 is this value correct? please add errors to the values

axis label tobs[day]: add 'days'

--> ill contact ernazar and delida

Leonardo Garcia G -COLIBRI
PDF attached.

✔some missing ORCID, please check the wiki

✔my affilation is 32 --> edited

NOT IMPLEMENTED Abstract: "Results. GRB250129A is an interesting GRB with multi-wavelength prompt and afterglow emissions." Is not a result

Intro: "(Siegel et al. 2025)" perhaps cite{}?

--> i dont understand the issue. asked leonardo.

✔"Optical Observations During the Prompt Emission –" and "Light curve –" The paragraph titles are not the same style. Is that on purpose?

--> fixed. now they are the same

✔ Fig. 2: It is difficult to see the horizontal dotted lines, especially the grey one. A bit more width on the line would be great.
The grey errors are almost indistinguishable. Consider changing the color.

--> great point, we will see what the referee will say at the second round

✔ Fig. 3: Thicker lines might help to visualize better the figure

--> great point, we will see what the referee will say at the second round

✔Fig. 4: Figure 4 is not mentioned in the text. subplots do not sem to correspond to the event
--> i have edited the figure. it is the same, the orientation (north up) was not the same for the insets.

Fig.5
✔Why do the brown dashed lines notfit the data? The lines are above the dots (see XR segments for comparison)
--> already responded. They didnt see the caption that the fits are shifted vertically for visibility. 

- Maybe you could also add the text segment with the same angle as the lines

-The label text should be larger, and the legend text as well

Fig.5 Could you please clarify which data points were used for the fitting? If only two data points were considered, the error would naturally be zero. It seems that the pinkish and red lines (added by me) may not fully capture all the points within the intervals. Perhaps it would be worth revisiting the fits to ensure they accurately represent the data.

NOT IMPLEMENTED "Fig.6 Figure need to be self contained. Please add what are the blue ponts and mabe a good idea is to add the legend for the dashed lines. Thick lables are almos invisble, and dashed lines are almost not distinguishable"

--> asked Ny

✔"with the Large (LMC) and Small Magellanic Clouds (SMC) yielding statistical similar" You define the LMC and SMC in a previous paragraph

--> edited

NOT IMPLEMENTED "Interpretation: The shell propagates through the external medium that has number density $n_{\rm ext}(\mathcal{R})=n_0(\mathcal{R}/\mathcal{R}_0)^{-k} = A\mathcal{R}^{-k}$ with $\mathcal{R}$ the distance from the explosion center, $k$ the index of the density profile, $n_0$ the density normalization defined at a fixed $\mathcal{R}_0$, and $A=n_0\mathcal{R}_0^k$. It is slowed down as it sweeps up this medium in its path." Not conected phrases

--> JJ

✔ This conclusion is further supported by visual inspection of the light curve (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:LC}): the first and second rebrightenings are clearly identifiable, whereas the third episode is less distinct." At the beginig you say something different.

--> no we never say three episodes...

NOTIMPLEMENTED "Energy injection provides a physically motivated explanation for afterglow rebrightenings." Disconected from the text

--> JJ

✔ "Lorentz Factor" it should be consistently used LF as was defined before
-_> i think it is fine to use both

KAIT: Weikang Zheng

I have one comment about KAIT data we provided.I saw you wrote the KAIT analysis, and I think you did photometry on your own instead using the result we provided, which is totally fine. In the text, you said KAIT data was "without a filter", which we call it "clear" band, as you wrote in page 19.
I guess you calibrated the Clear band data with "R" band. In Table D.3, could you change the filter name of "R" to "Clear" for KAIT data? You may add a note saying "calibrated to R band" if necessary.