Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 91 references

Connecting GRBs from Binary Neutron Star Mergers to Nuclear Properties of Neutron Stars

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ratio of long to short gamma-ray bursts from neutron-star mergers pins the remnant collapse threshold near 1.3 times the maximum neutron-star mass.

desk verdict A plausible new population-level constraint on the neutron-star remnant threshold mass, but the precision of M_ls ~ 1.3 M_TOV is limited by an unquantified remnant-to-GRB classification and a hand-drawn observational band. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07846 v2 pith:XRUGWYHM submitted 2024-12-10 astro-ph.HE

Rosalba Perna , Ore Gottlieb , Estuti Shukla , David Radice This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarmergersgamma-rayburststhresholdmassequationofstatelong-livedremnantpromptcollapsepopulationsynthesisnumericalrelativity
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

What happens right after two neutron stars merge—whether the remnant holds together as a long-lived neutron star or collapses quickly to a black hole—sets whether the resulting gamma-ray burst is short or long. The authors run this logic backward: using the observed ratio of long to short gamma-ray bursts from compact binary mergers together with a Monte Carlo population of mergers, they infer the threshold mass $M_{\rm ls}$ that separates long-lived from short-lived neutron-star remnants. Their central result is that current observations favor $M_{\rm ls}\simeq 1.3\,M_{\rm TOV}$, which corresponds to a maximum non-rotating neutron-star mass $M_{\rm TOV}\lesssim 2.6\,M_\odot$ and agrees with the collapse behavior seen in 273 numerical-relativity merger simulations. A higher threshold means long-lived remnants are more common than usually assumed, and it disfavors nuclear scenarios—such as certain phase transitions or meson condensations—that would make binaries below this mass collapse promptly.

What carries the argument

The central object is the threshold mass $M_{\rm ls}\equiv a\,M_{\rm TOV}$, the boundary between a long-lived neutron-star remnant and a short-lived one that collapses on the gravitational-wave timescale. The machinery is a Monte Carlo population synthesis: draw two neutron-star masses from a bimodal distribution, classify the remnant into one of five outcomes (stable neutron star, very long-lived neutron star, long-lived neutron star, short-lived neutron star, prompt-collapse black hole), assign each a disk mass from a fitting formula depending on total mass and mass ratio, and convert outcomes to GRB classes using the unification model: long-lived neutron stars power short GRBs, short-lived neutron stars and prompt-collapse black holes with disk mass $\gtrsim 0.1\,M_\odot$ power long GRBs, and stable or very long-lived neutron stars produce no detectable GRB. The observed long-to-short GRB ratio is the single number that carries the constraint.

What would settle it

A decisive test is a gravitational-wave-detected binary neutron star merger with an on-axis gamma-ray burst and well-measured total mass and disk mass: the model predicts a long burst when the remnant is a short-lived neutron star or prompt-collapse black hole with a disk mass above about 0.1 solar masses, and a short burst when it is a long-lived neutron star. One event whose observed burst contradicts that pairing would falsify the mapping and shift the inferred threshold; a larger low-redshift sample that fixes the long-to-short ratio outside the 0.5-1 band would similarly test the conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that the dimensionless ratio of long- to short-duration gamma-ray bursts from compact binary mergers is a sharp probe of the neutron-star equation of state, specifically of the threshold mass $M_{\rm ls}=a\,M_{\rm TOV}$ at which a post-merger neutron star becomes too massive to survive even as a long-lived remnant. Assigning long-lived neutron stars to the short-GRB population, and short-lived neutron stars plus prompt-collapse black holes with disk mass $\gtrsim 0.1\,M_\odot$ to the long-GRB population, the authors compute the predicted long-to-short ratio for 52 equations of state as a function of $M_{\rm TOV}$. Comparing with the observationally estimated ratio of roughly 0.5-1 in the local universe, they conclude that the transition must lie at $M_{\rm ls}\simeq 1.3\,M_{\rm TOV}$, with viable equations of state having $M_{\rm TOV}\lesssim 2.6\,M_\odot$. Collapse times in the numerical-relativity catalog show the same transition near 1.3-to-1.4 $M_{\rm TOV}$, which the authors take as independent confirmation. The paper presents this as a new observational handle on nuclear properties: physics that would cause a catastrophic pressure loss and rapid collapse of binaries with total mass below roughly $1.3\,M_{\rm TOV}$ is disfavored.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the classification of which remnant makes which burst: long-lived neutron stars are taken to produce short gamma-ray bursts, while long gamma-ray bursts require a black hole with a massive disk. If a long-lived remnant can also produce a long burst, the inferred threshold shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-lived remnants survive over a wider mass range than the commonly quoted supramassive limit of about $1.2\,M_{\rm TOV}$, so a sizable fraction of mergers above that limit should still emit short GRBs before their neutron star collapses.
  • Dense-matter scenarios that lose pressure catastrophically at a few times nuclear density—certain phase transitions, pion or kaon condensation—are disfavored for binaries with total mass below about $1.3\,M_{\rm TOV}$; such binaries should not collapse promptly if the inferred threshold is right.
  • The high-threshold conclusion restricts viable equations of state to $M_{\rm TOV}\lesssim 2.6\,M_\odot$, in line with existing gravitational-wave constraints.
  • Each future gravitational-wave event with an on-axis GRB, together with a kilonova-based disk-mass estimate, can bound $M_{\rm ls}$ individually; a small sample of such events would turn the statistical constraint into a per-event test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper draws both binary masses from the same bimodal distribution under random pairing, the inferred $M_{\rm ls}$ inherits the uncertainty in the mass-ratio distribution; an empirically calibrated mass-ratio distribution from future gravitational-wave and radio surveys could shift the preferred band even if the observed GRB ratio stays fixed.
  • A complementary test would combine this GRB-ratio constraint with independent measurements of $M_{\rm TOV}$ from radio timing and X-ray observations; since the paper's constraint is on $M_{\rm ls}\simeq 1.3\,M_{\rm TOV}$, any improvement in $M_{\rm TOV}$ directly sharpens the statement about when remnants collapse.
  • If future kilonova observations associate more blue-kilonova long GRBs with the sample, the clean split between long-lived neutron stars powering short GRBs and massive-disk black holes powering long GRBs would need revision, and the inferred threshold would likely move; the current classification rests on a small number of such events.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a population-synthesis method to constrain the threshold mass M_ls that separates long-lived from short-lived neutron star merger remnants by connecting it to the observed ratio of long to short gamma-ray bursts from compact binary mergers. Using a bimodal neutron-star mass distribution, a five-way merger-outcome classification, and a disk-mass fitting formula, the authors compute the predicted ratio R_pred = N_LLNS / N_(SLNS+pcBH, Mdisk>=0.1 Msun) for 52 equations of state and compare it with an adopted observed band of 50%-100%. They conclude that M_ls is around 1.3 M_TOV, implying M_TOV less than about 2.6 solar masses, which they argue disfavors equations of state with catastrophic pressure loss at high density and temperature. They also compare with 273 numerical-relativity simulations from the CoRe catalog and report support for a transition near 1.3 M_TOV, while acknowledging that the transition region is broad.

Significance. The proposed method is novel and, if the central-engine mapping is correct, offers an observable route to the post-merger remnant hierarchy and the neutron-star equation of state. The paper's strengths are its explicit scan over 52 EoSs, the systematic one-at-a-time robustness checks in the appendix, and the use of a large numerical-relativity catalog. However, the quantitative claim depends on an externally adopted, unquantified GRB classification and a hand-adopted observed ratio; the appendix is a sensitivity study rather than a formal error propagation. The result is therefore best viewed as a proof-of-concept with indicative constraints, not as a precise measurement of M_ls.

major comments (4)
  1. [IIIB] The observational constraint is not a reproducible measurement. The text quotes a 40-50% ratio from Fong et al. and then adopts a 'broad conservative range' of 50-100%, whose upper end rests on a private communication (A. Levan). No Poisson, selection, or redshift-completeness uncertainties are assigned, and the lower edge excludes part of the quoted Fong et al. range. Because R_pred in Fig. 4 spans orders of magnitude, the set of allowed a values is controlled by this band. The paper should either derive the band from a published sample with quantified uncertainties or explicitly label the result as conditional on the adopted band.
  2. [IIIB] The predicted ratio is defined by three central-engine assumptions: LLNSs produce sbGRBs exclusively, SLNSs/pcBHs with Mdisk>=0.1 Msun produce lbGRBs exclusively, and SNS/VLNSs produce no detectable GRB. The manuscript itself notes (engine 3) that 'some LLNSs may contribute to the lbGRB population' and cites Margalit et al. [66] as allowing VLNS-powered sbGRBs. The appendix varies the two extreme VLNS cases but does not vary the LLNS-to-lb contamination fraction or the 0.1 Msun disk threshold. Since the ratio is steep in a, even a modest contamination in either channel changes which a-values match the observed band; the central claim M_ls ~ 1.3 M_TOV is therefore conditional on this untested mapping.
  3. [IIIB and Appendix] The inference is not a statistical fit. The scan over a = 1.2, 1.25, 1.3, 1.35, 1.4 is compared visually with a grey band; no likelihood, posterior, or goodness-of-fit is computed, and the appendix changes one input at a time without joint propagation of uncertainties. The abstract's 'broadly favour' and the conclusion's 'likely occurs in the range 1.3-1.4 M_TOV' therefore lack a quantitative significance. A formal propagation of the input uncertainties (NS mass function, M_th fit, disk-mass fit, observed ratio) is needed before this can be presented as a constraint on nuclear properties.
  4. [IIIC] The numerical-relativity comparison is qualitative. BH-formation times are identified by a peak-finding algorithm with manual inspection, many entries are lower limits, and the text itself notes that the transition region is broad (1.3-1.4 M_TOV) and that precise collapse times cannot be extracted reliably. The abstract's claim that the result is 'consistent with numerical simulations, as also shown here' overstates the support: no quantitative measure of consistency (e.g., the fraction of simulations in each remnant class versus the model prediction) is given. Please downgrade this to supporting evidence or provide a quantitative comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 4] The y-axis label 'lbGRBs/sbGRBs' is the inverse of the ratio as defined in the text ('the ratio of LLNSs to [SLNSs + pcBHs]'); please make the convention consistent among the text, caption, and axis.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption 'Remnant fractions as a function of the total mass of the binary merger remnant' is inaccurate because the x-axis is M_TOV; please correct the caption.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption uses 'Mls = 1.3M⊙' where the text defines M_ls = a M_TOV; this should read 'Mls = 1.3MTOV' to avoid confusing a dimensionless ratio with a solar-mass value.
  4. [Fig. 5] The axis label 'tbh tm(ms)' is unclear; define t_BH and t_merg explicitly and label the axis as '(t_BH - t_merg) [ms]'.
  5. [Abstract, IIIB, IV] The central value is stated inconsistently: the abstract says M_ls ~ 1.3 M_TOV, Section IIIB concludes 'likely occurs in the range 1.3-1.4 M_TOV,' and Section IV says 'M_ls >= 1.3 M_TOV'; please harmonize the statement of the result.
  6. [IIIA] The sentence 'the disk mass can vary from several tens of solar masses for high unequal mass ratios' appears to be a typo; the disk masses shown in Fig. 3 and typical merger ejecta masses are well below ten solar masses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Mls constraint is inferred from an external GRB rate ratio and independently checked against numerical-relativity collapse times, with the Gottlieb et al. classification serving as an openly cited external model rather than a re-derivation of the target parameter.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward population-synthesis model whose output, the lbGRB/sbGRB ratio, is compared to an observed ratio taken from Fong et al. and Levan (private communication). The parameter Mls = a MTOV enters only through the definitions of LLNS and SLNS/pcBH remnant classes, so scanning a and matching the observed band is a standard parameter inference, not a prediction of the input data. The central-engine mapping (LLNS to sbGRBs; SLNS/pcBH with Mdisk >= 0.1 Msun to lbGRBs; SNS/VLNS to no detectable GRB) is adopted from Gottlieb et al. [24,25], on which one author overlaps with the present paper. However, that mapping rests on published GRMHD simulations and kilonova modeling, i.e., code-reproduced external evidence whose assumptions do not include the fitted value of Mls; it is therefore independent support under the review rules and does not constitute load-bearing circularity. The paper explicitly acknowledges the LLNS-exclusivity assumption, explores the two extreme VLNS contamination cases, and quantifies sensitivity to mass distribution, Mth, and disk mass in the appendix; these are stated limitations and robustness checks, not circular reductions. The independent CoRe numerical-relativity sample provides a separate check of the ~1.3 MTOV transition. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several adopted fits and domain assumptions: the NS mass distribution from Rocha et al., the prompt-collapse threshold fit from Kashyap and Perego, the disk mass fit from Pang et al., and the remnant-to-GRB mapping from the authors' prior work. No new entities are invented. The key uncertainties are the mapping assumption and the observed GRB ratio.

free parameters (5)
  • M_sp/M_TOV (VLNS-to-LLNS transition) = 1.15
    Adopted as a conservative lower limit from Breu and Rezzolla [44]; the paper shows a higher value (1.2) would strengthen the conclusion. This is a hand-chosen input.
  • M_th fit parameters (kth and f(q) parameters) = from Kashyap et al. [45] and Perego et al. [46]; q_tilde=0.725, beta_l and beta_h determined by continuity
    The threshold mass for prompt collapse uses a fit to 250 numerical simulations. The q-dependent correction is re-derived for q_tilde=0.725 in Eq. 2.
  • Disk mass fit parameters (a0, delta_a, b0, delta_b, c, d, beta, qtrans) = a0=-1.581, delta_a=-2.439, b0=-0.538, delta_b=-0.406, c=0.953, d=0.0417, beta=3.910, qtrans=0.900
    Equation 3 from Pang et al. [47], fitted to 73 general relativistic simulations. The disk mass threshold for lbGRB detection (Md >= 0.1 Msun) is used to define the luminosity selection.
  • NS mass distribution parameters (double Gaussian) = mu1=1.351, sigma1=0.084, A1=0.539; mu2=1.816, sigma2=0.260, A2=0.460
    Adopted from Rocha et al. [40] best fit to Galactic and globular cluster binary NSs. The paper explores variations of A1/A2 and the q distribution in the appendix.
  • Disk mass threshold for detectable lbGRB = 0.1 Msun (detectable), 0.01 Msun (too faint)
    Used to classify SLNS/pcBH remnants as lbGRB producers. Adopted from Gottlieb et al. [24]; this is a hand-chosen threshold that directly affects the predicted ratio.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Random pairing of NS masses in binaries: both masses drawn from the same bimodal distribution, with the larger drawn as primary.
    Section IIA and footnote 1: random pairing is known to fail for main-sequence binaries, and the authors note more data will be needed for NSs. The q distribution strongly affects the remnant fractions.
  • domain assumption Merger remnant classification and mapping to GRB classes: LLNSs power sbGRBs; SLNS/pcBH with Md >= 0.1 Msun power lbGRBs; SNS/VLNS do not produce detectable GRBs.
    Section IIIB, central engines 1 to 3, based on Gottlieb et al. [24,25]. If the mapping is different, for example if VLNSs contribute, the inferred M_ls shifts as the appendix shows.
  • domain assumption The threshold mass M_ls = a M_TOV with a single value across EoSs.
    The analysis scans a in [1.2, 1.4] and assumes a single value; Section IIIC notes the transition region is actually broad, suggesting additional physics beyond M_TOV.
  • domain assumption Negligible contribution of NS-BH mergers to the observed lbGRB population.
    Section IIIB: motivated by numerical relativity on NS-BH disk masses; if NS-BH mergers contributed, the inferred NS-NS fraction would be smaller, strengthening the result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Connecting GRBs from Binary Neutron Star Mergers to Nuclear Properties of Neutron Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XRUGWYHM

@misc{pith2026241207846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Connecting GRBs from Binary Neutron Star Mergers to Nuclear Properties of Neutron Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XRUGWYHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07846}
}
abstract

The fate of the binary neutron star (NS) merger remnants hinges sensitively upon the NS equation of state and the threshold mass, $M_{\rm ls}$, that separates a long-lived from a short-lived NS remnant. The nature of the electromagnetic counterparts is also influenced by the remnant type, particularly in determining whether a gamma-ray burst from a compact binary merger (cbGRB) is of short or long duration. We propose a novel approach to probe $M_{\rm ls}$ by linking it to the estimated observed ratio of long to short cbGRBs. We find that current observations broadly favour a relatively high value for this transition, $M_{\rm ls}\simeq 1.3 M_{\rm TOV}$, for which $ M_{\rm TOV} \lesssim 2.6\,M_\odot $, consistent with numerical simulations, as also shown here. Our results disfavour nuclear physics scenarios that would lead to catastrophic pressure loss at a few times nuclear density and temperatures of tens of MeV, leading to a rapid gravitational collapse of binaries with total mass $M \lesssim 1.3 M_{\rm TOV}$. Future individual gravitational wave events with on-axis cbGRBs can further bound $M_{\rm ls}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. , while their mass ratio q ≡ M2/M1 is correspond￾ingly shown in the bottom panel of the same figure. It 1 A note of caution is that, for main sequence stars in binaries, observations show that random pairing is not supported [42]. For NS in binaries, more data will be needed to draw definite conclusions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Remnant fractions as a function of the total mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Post-BNS merger disk mass as a function of the NS EoS (parametrized via [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The ratio between sbGRBs and lbGRBs, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Therefore, our results of a relatively high tran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [66]

    Ciolfi, International Journal of Modern Physics D 27, 1842004 (2018), arXiv:1804.03684 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Ciolfi, International Journal of Modern Physics D 27, 1842004 (2018), arXiv:1804.03684 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Numerical simula- tions of BNS mergers also generally suggest that a hypermassive NS phase is likely necessary to launch a successful GRB jet (see e.g

    Millisecond SNSs and VLNSs are disfavoured as GRB progenitors since their immense rotational en- ergy is notably absent in GRB radio afterglows [56– 59] and optical kilonova signals. Numerical simula- tions of BNS mergers also generally suggest that a hypermassive NS phase is likely necessary to launch a successful GRB jet (see e.g. [60–62], but also note

  3. [2]

    When the disk mass is high, Md ≳ 0.1 M⊙, the BH will inevitably produce a long-lived jet, leading to a detectable lbGRB

    The outcome of mergers resulting in SLNSs or prompt BH formation depends on the disk mass. When the disk mass is high, Md ≳ 0.1 M⊙, the BH will inevitably produce a long-lived jet, leading to a detectable lbGRB. However, if the disk mass is Md ≲ 10−2 M⊙, then given the magnetic flux on the BH, proportional to B2 ∼ Md, is reduced, the jet would be too fain...

  4. [3]

    supramassive

    LLNSs power the standard sbGRBs, where the NS remnant lifetime roughly determines the GRB du- ration. We note that LLNSs are predicted to form massive accretion disks [e.g., 7]. This implies that in some cases, the collapse of the LLNSs into a BH could extend the emission, potentially produc- ing an lbGRB. However, the classification of the GRB would depe...

  5. [4]

    Margalit and B

    B. Margalit and B. D. Metzger, ApJ 850, L19 (2017), arXiv:1710.05938 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Shibata, S

    M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123012 (2017), arXiv:1710.07579 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [6]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Afrough, B. Agar- wal, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, L. Aiello, A. Ain, P. Ajith, B. Allen, G. Allen, A. Allocca, P. A. Altin, A. Amato, A. Ananyeva, S. B. Anderson, W. G. Anderson, S. V. Angelov...

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    K. P. Mooley, A. T. Deller, O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, G. Hallinan, S. Bourke, D. A. Frail, A. Horesh, A. Corsi, and K. Hotokezaka, Nature 561, 355 (2018), arXiv:1806.09693 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- 11 hikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, B. Agarwal, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, L. Aiello, A. Ain, P. Ajith, B. Allen, G. Allen, A. Allocca, M. A. Aloy, ...

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Rezzolla, E

    L. Rezzolla, E. R. Most, and L. R. Weih, ApJ 852, L25 (2018), arXiv:1711.00314 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Shibata, E

    M. Shibata, E. Zhou, K. Kiuchi, and S. Fujibayashi, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023015 (2019), arXiv:1905.03656 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    E. R. Most, L. R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, and J. Schaffner- Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261103 (2018), arXiv:1803.00549 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, K. Hotokezaka, S. A. Fromm, S. Bernuzzi, and L. F. Roberts, ApJ 869, 130 (2018), arXiv:1809.11161 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, F. Zappa, and S. Bernuzzi, ApJ 852, L29 (2018), arXiv:1711.03647 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    S. E. Woosley, ApJ 405, 273 (1993)

    1993

  8. [15]

    A. I. MacFadyen and S. E. Woosley, ApJ524, 262 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810274 [astro-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Dietrich, M

    T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. H. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science 370, 1450 (2020), arXiv:2002.11355 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lazzati and R

    D. Lazzati and R. Perna, ApJ 881, 89 (2019), arXiv:1904.08425 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Kouveliotou, C

    C. Kouveliotou, C. A. Meegan, G. J. Fishman, N. P. Bhat, M. S. Briggs, T. M. Koshut, W. S. Paciesas, and G. N. Pendleton, ApJ 413, L101 (1993)

    1993

  12. [20]

    Zhang, Y.-Y

    H.-M. Zhang, Y.-Y. Huang, J.-H. Zheng, R.-Y. Liu, and X.-Y. Wang, ApJ 933, L22 (2022), arXiv:2205.09675 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. C. Rastinejad, B. P. Gompertz, A. J. Levan, W.-f. Fong, M. Nicholl, G. P. Lamb, D. B. Malesani, A. E. Nu- gent, S. R. Oates, N. R. Tanvir, A. de Ugarte Postigo, C. D. Kilpatrick, C. J. Moore, B. D. Metzger, M. E. Ravasio, A. Rossi, G. Schroeder, J. Jencson, D. J. Sand, N. S...

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Troja, C

    E. Troja, C. L. Fryer, B. O’Connor, G. Ryan, S. Dichiara, A. Kumar, N. Ito, R. Gupta, R. T. Wollaeger, J. P. Norris, N. Kawai, N. R. Butler, A. Aryan, K. Misra, R. Hosokawa, K. L. Murata, M. Niwano, S. B. Pandey, A. Kutyrev, H. J. van Eerten, E. A. Chase, Y. D. Hu, M. D. Cabal...

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. Yang, S. Ai, B.-B. Zhang, B. Zhang, Z.-K. Liu, X. I. Wang, Y.-H. Yang, Y.-H. Yin, Y. Li, and H.-J. L¨ u, Na- ture 612, 232 (2022), arXiv:2204.12771 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, E. Quataert, D. Issa, T. Martineau, F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, ApJ 958, L33 (2023), arXiv:2309.00038 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, F. Foucart, and E. Ramirez- Ruiz, ApJ (2024), arXiv:2411.13657 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Levan, B

    A. Levan, B. P. Gompertz, O. S. Salafia, M. Bulla, E. Burns, K. Hotokezaka, L. Izzo, G. P. Lamb, D. B. Malesani, S. R. Oates, M. E. Ravasio, A. Rouco Esco- rial, B. Schneider, N. Sarin, S. Schulze, N. R. Tanvir, K. Ackley, G. Anderson, G. B. Brammer, L. Christensen, V. S. Dhil...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H. Sun, C. W. Wang, J. Yang, B. B. Zhang, S. L. Xiong, Y. H. I. Yin, Y. Liu, Y. Li, W. C. Xue, Z. Yan, C. Zhang, W. J. Tan, H. W. Pan, J. C. Liu, H. Q. Cheng, Y. Q. Zhang, J. W. Hu, C. Zheng, Z. H. An, C. Cai, L. Hu, C. Jin, D. Y. Li, X. Q. Li, H. Y. Liu, M. Liu, W. X. Peng, L...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lazzati, R

    D. Lazzati, R. Perna, B. P. Gompertz, and A. J. Levan, ApJ 950, L20 (2023), arXiv:2303.12935 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    O. S. Salafia, A. Colombo, F. Gabrielli, and I. Mandel, A&A 666, A174 (2022), arXiv:2202.01656 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. L. Piro, B. Giacomazzo, and R. Perna, ApJ 844, L19 (2017), arXiv:1704.08697 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. C. Rastinejad, W. Fong, C. D. Kilpatrick, M. Nicholl, and B. D. Metzger, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.02158 (2024), arXiv:2409.02158 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Belczynski, R

    K. Belczynski, R. O’Shaughnessy, V. Kalogera, F. Ra- sio, R. E. Taam, and T. Bulik, ApJ 680, L129 (2008), arXiv:0712.1036 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. L. Fryer, K. Belczynski, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, S. Ross- wog, G. Shen, and A. W. Steiner, ApJ 812, 24 (2015), arXiv:1504.07605 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, ApJ 934, L17 (2022), arXiv:2207.05124 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Schwab, P

    J. Schwab, P. Podsiadlowski, and S. Rappaport, ApJ 719, 722 (2010), arXiv:1006.4584 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sarin, P

    N. Sarin, P. D. Lasky, and G. Ashton, Phys. Rev. D 101, 12 063021 (2020), arXiv:2001.06102 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Guglielmi, G

    L. Guglielmi, G. Stratta, S. Dall’Osso, P. Singh, M. Brusa, and R. Perna, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.07941 (2024), arXiv:2410.07941 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    T. M. Tauris, M. Kramer, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, H. T. Janka, N. Langer, P. Podsiadlowski, E. Bozzo, S. Chaty, M. U. Kruckow, E. P. J. van den Heuvel, J. Antoniadis, R. P. Breton, and D. J. Champion, ApJ 846, 170 (2017), arXiv:1706.09438 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Galaudage, C

    S. Galaudage, C. Adamcewicz, X.-J. Zhu, S. Stevenson, and E. Thrane, ApJ 909, L19 (2021), arXiv:2011.01495 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    L. S. Rocha, J. E. Horvath, L. M. de S´ a, G. Y. Chinen, L. G. Bar˜ ao, and M. G. B. de Avellar, Universe 10, 3 (2023), arXiv:2312.13244 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Antoniadis, T

    J. Antoniadis, T. M. Tauris, F. Ozel, E. Barr, D. J. Champion, and P. C. C. Freire, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1605.01665 (2016), arXiv:1605.01665 [astro- ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alsing, H

    J. Alsing, H. O. Silva, and E. Berti, MNRAS 478, 1377 (2018), arXiv:1709.07889 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    W. M. Farr and K. Chatziioannou, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 4, 65 (2020), arXiv:2005.00032 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Breu and L

    C. Breu and L. Rezzolla, MNRAS 459, 646 (2016), arXiv:1601.06083 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kashyap, A

    R. Kashyap, A. Das, D. Radice, S. Padamata, A. Prakash, D. Logoteta, A. Perego, D. A. Godzieba, S. Bernuzzi, I. Bombaci, F. J. Fattoyev, B. T. Reed, and A. d. S. Schneider, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103022 (2022), arXiv:2111.05183 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Zhang, S

    W. Zhang, S. E. Woosley, and A. Heger, ApJ 679, 639 (2008), arXiv:astro-ph/0701083 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. B. N. Kouwenhoven, A. G. A. Brown, S. P. Good- win, S. F. Portegies Zwart, and L. Kaper, A&A 493, 979 (2009), arXiv:0811.2859 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Radice, S

    D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Perego, Annual Re- view of Nuclear and Particle Science 70, 95 (2020), arXiv:2002.03863 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Dietrich, M

    T. Dietrich, M. Ujevic, W. Tichy, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024029 (2017), arXiv:1607.06636 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, ApJ 876, L31 (2019), arXiv:1903.01466 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Perego, D

    A. Perego, D. Logoteta, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, R. Kashyap, A. Das, S. Padamata, and A. Prakash, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 032701 (2022), arXiv:2112.05864 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    P. T. H. Pang, L. Sivertsen, R. Somasundaram, T. Dietrich, S. Sen, I. Tews, M. W. Coughlin, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. C 109, 025807 (2024), arXiv:2308.15067 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Kiuchi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 124008 (2011), arXiv:1105.4370 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    We note that this is a rough estimate and possibly subject to change with more future data

    to represent the lbGRB share. We note that this is a rough estimate and possibly subject to change with more future data. A more comprehensive analysis extending the sample to z ≲ 0.5 suggests that the long-to-short ra- tio might be even as high as ∼ 1 (A. Levan, private com- ...

  47. [55]

    Tchekhovskoy, R

    A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney, MN- RAS 418, L79 (2011), arXiv:1108.0412 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. W. Coughlin, T. Dietrich, Z. Doctor, D. Kasen, S. Coughlin, A. Jerkstrand, G. Leloudas, O. McBrien, B. D. Metzger, R. O’Shaughnessy, and S. J. Smartt, MN- RAS 480, 3871 (2018), arXiv:1805.09371 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    W.-f. Fong, A. E. Nugent, Y. Dong, E. Berger, K. Pater- son, R. Chornock, A. Levan, P. Blanchard, K. D. Alexan- der, J. Andrews, B. E. Cobb, A. Cucchiara, D. Fox, C. L. Fryer, A. C. Gordon, C. D. Kilpatrick, R. Lun- nan, R. Margutti, A. Miller, P. Milne, M. Nicholl, D. Perley,...

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gehrels, J

    N. Gehrels, J. P. Norris, V. Mangano, S. D. Barthelmy, D. N. Burrows, J. Granot, Y. Kaneko, C. Kouveliotou, C. B. Markwardt, P. Meszaros, E. Nakar, J. A. Nousek, P. T. O’Brien, M. Page, D. M. Palmer, A. M. Parsons, P. W. A. Roming, T. Sakamoto, C. L. Sarazin, P. Schady, and M....

    2006

  51. [59]

    Y.-H. Yang, E. Troja, B. O’Connor, C. L. Fryer, M. Im, J. Durbak, G. S. H. Paek, R. Ricci, C. R. Bom, J. H. Gillanders, A. J. Castro-Tirado, Z.-K. Peng, S. Dichiara, G. Ryan, H. van Eerten, Z.-G. Dai, S.-W. Chang, H. Choi, K. De, Y. Hu, C. D. Kil- patrick, A. Kutyrev, M. Jeong...

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Margalit, B

    B. Margalit, B. D. Metzger, and A. M. Beloborodov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 171101 (2015), arXiv:1505.01842 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    B. D. Metzger and G. C. Bower, MNRAS 437, 1821 (2014), arXiv:1310.4506 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Horesh, K

    A. Horesh, K. Hotokezaka, T. Piran, E. Nakar, and P. Hancock, ApJ 819, L22 (2016), arXiv:1601.01692 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    for a successful outcome). While we adopt this as our fiducial model, however we also explore how our results vary if this assumption is released and magnetars associated with VLNSs make up a size- able fraction of cbGRBs

  56. [64]

    Beniamini and W

    P. Beniamini and W. Lu, ApJ 920, 109 (2021), arXiv:2104.01181 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    H. Wang, P. Beniamini, and D. Giannios, MNRAS 527, 5166 (2024), arXiv:2308.09164 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Murguia-Berthier, E

    A. Murguia-Berthier, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, G. Montes, F. De Colle, L. Rezzolla, S. Rosswog, K. Takami, A. Perego, and W. H. Lee, ApJ 835, L34 (2017), arXiv:1609.04828 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Kiuchi, A

    K. Kiuchi, A. Reboul-Salze, M. Shibata, and Y. Sekiguchi, Nature Astronomy 8, 298 (2024), arXiv:2306.15721 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Foucart, Phys

    F. Foucart, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124007 (2012), arXiv:1207.6304 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and V

    R. Abbott, others (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and V. Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Letters 915, L5 (2021)

    2021

  62. [71]

    Margalit, A

    B. Margalit, A. S. Jermyn, B. D. Metzger, L. F. Roberts, and E. Quataert, ApJ 939, 51 (2022), arXiv:2206.10645 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [72]

    T. W. Baumgarte, S. L. Shapiro, and M. Shibata, ApJ 528, L29 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910565 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  64. [73]

    P. D. Lasky, B. Haskell, V. Ravi, E. J. Howell, and D. M. Coward, Phys. Rev. D 89, 047302 (2014), arXiv:1311.1352 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Dietrich, D

    T. Dietrich, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, F. Zappa, A. Perego, B. Br¨ ugmann, S. V. Chaurasia, R. Dudi, W. Tichy, and M. Ujevic, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 24LT01 (2018), arXiv:1806.01625 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Gonzalez et al., Class

    A. Gonzalez et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 085011 13 (2023), arXiv:2210.16366 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Zappa, S

    F. Zappa, S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, and A. Perego, MN- RAS 520, 1481 (2023), arXiv:2210.11491 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Bruegmann, J

    B. Bruegmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sperhake, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024027 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0610128

    2008 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Thierfelder, S

    M. Thierfelder, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Bruegmann, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044012 (2011), arXiv:1104.4751 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Radice and L

    D. Radice and L. Rezzolla, Astron. Astrophys. 547, A26 (2012), arXiv:1206.6502 [astro-ph.IM]

    2012 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Radice, L

    D. Radice, L. Rezzolla, and F. Galeazzi, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 075012 (2014), arXiv:1312.5004 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Radice, L

    D. Radice, L. Rezzolla, and F. Galeazzi, ASP Conf. Ser. 498, 121 (2015), arXiv:1502.00551 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Bernuzzi, A

    S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, S. Balmelli, T. Dietrich, and M. Ujevic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 201101 (2014), arXiv:1402.6244 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Fan, M.-Z

    Y.-Z. Fan, M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, D.-S. Shao, and S.-P. Tang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043052 (2024), arXiv:2309.12644 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Nedora, S

    V. Nedora, S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, A. Perego, A. Endrizzi, and N. Ortiz, ApJ 886, L30 (2019), arXiv:1907.04872 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Nedora, F

    V. Nedora, F. Schianchi, S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, B. Daszuta, A. Endrizzi, A. Perego, A. Prakash, and F. Zappa, Classical and Quantum Gravity 39, 015008 (2022), arXiv:2011.11110 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Bernuzzi, F

    S. Bernuzzi, F. Magistrelli, M. Jacobi, D. Lo- goteta, A. Perego, and D. Radice, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.18185 (2024), arXiv:2409.18185 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [87]

    B. D. Metzger, P. Beniamini, and D. Giannios, ApJ 857, 95 (2018), arXiv:1802.07750 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Combi and D

    L. Combi and D. M. Siegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 231402 (2023), arXiv:2303.12284 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Bauswein, S

    A. Bauswein, S. Blacker, G. Lioutas, T. Soultanis, V. Vi- jayan, and N. Stergioulas, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123004 (2021), arXiv:2010.04461 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  81. [90]

    S. D. Tootle, L. J. Papenfort, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, ApJ 922, L19 (2021), arXiv:2109.00940 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [91]

    K¨ olsch, T

    M. K¨ olsch, T. Dietrich, M. Ujevic, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044026 (2022), arXiv:2112.11851 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Chattopadhyay, S

    D. Chattopadhyay, S. Stevenson, J. R. Hurley, L. J. Rossi, and C. Flynn, MNRAS 494, 1587 (2020), arXiv:1912.02415 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.