pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.01387 · v1 · pith:LTKQ36Q4new · submitted 2025-12-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Similar Fermi-GBM sGRBs to GW/sGRB 170817A in MeV-GeV energies

Sanjeeva Rao Prattipati , Reetanjali Moharana , Sourav Dutta This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 18:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords short gamma-ray burstsFermi-GBMgravitational wave counterpartsneutron star mergersMeV-GeV emissionhardness ratiosK-means clusteringLIGO observing runs
0
0 comments X

The pith

Eight short gamma-ray bursts in Fermi-GBM data share MeV-GeV features with the 2017 gravitational-wave event 170817A.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates short gamma-ray bursts recorded by Fermi-GBM to find those similar to sGRB 170817A, the one associated with a neutron star merger detected by LIGO. It uses hardness ratios in different energy bands and K-means clustering on the MeV-GeV data to identify matches that have both non-thermal and thermal emission components. Identifying such events matters because it helps determine how often these mergers produce detectable electromagnetic signals alongside gravitational waves. The work finds eight candidates and estimates that about five combined GW plus sGRB events will be seen by the end of LIGO's O4 observing run. This rate can test ideas about how the signals from these distant mergers change with distance.

Core claim

By calculating hardness ratios HR1 and HR2 and applying K-means clustering to the MeV-GeV gamma-ray emission of short GRBs, the analysis identifies eight events in the Fermi-GBM catalog that resemble sGRB 170817A in having a non-thermal peak and a thermal component. These identifications allow computation of the rate of electromagnetic counterparts to LIGO gravitational wave detections from NS-NS mergers. The estimated number of such GW+sGRB events by the conclusion of the O4 run is nearly five. Significant deviation from this estimate would suggest that current models of event evolution with distance need revision.

What carries the argument

Hardness ratios HR1 and HR2 combined with K-means clustering on MeV-GeV spectral features, used to group and select sGRBs that match the dual emission components of 170817A.

If this is right

  • These eight similar events provide a sample for estimating the occurrence rate of NS-NS mergers with electromagnetic counterparts.
  • The approach enables calculation of GW+sGRB event rates across all LIGO observing runs.
  • Approximately five such combined events are projected by the end of the O4 run.
  • Large differences from the predicted number would indicate problems in understanding how these events evolve over cosmic distances.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the clustering method proves reliable, it could be extended to data from other detectors like Swift-BAT to find additional candidates.
  • Confirmation through detailed spectral fitting would strengthen the case that these are true analogs rather than coincidental matches in hardness ratios.
  • Future LIGO detections combined with these EM candidates could refine merger rate estimates and jet structure models for short GRBs.

Load-bearing premise

That hardness ratios in MeV-GeV bands and K-means clustering can alone select events sharing the exact non-thermal and thermal emission components of 170817A.

What would settle it

Full spectral modeling of the eight candidate events showing absence of both the non-thermal peak and thermal component characteristic of 170817A, or no confirmation of any as true electromagnetic counterparts to a gravitational wave event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.01387 by Reetanjali Moharana, Sanjeeva Rao Prattipati, Sourav Dutta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scatter plot of Comp parameters from all archived sGRBs 𝑇90 < 2.05 for the time-integrated spectrum. The sGRBs best fitted with PL and Comp are marked with light blue to dark blue 𝑇90 values, where dark blue indicates higher 𝑇90 values and lighter blue indicates lower 𝑇90. The Comp parameters of sGRB 170817A are emphasized with a diamond ( magenta color), the 1𝜎 error bars for 𝐸𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 are shown in dashed lin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of data points in the 𝐻𝑅1 & 𝐻𝑅2 parameter space is displayed via a Mahalanobis distance plot. The ellipse show confi￾dence contours that were obtained using the data’s covariance. Dots (Blue color)represent the inliers (data used for further processing), while diamonds (red color) represente the outliers. (iv) In a further step, we look for clusters within the HR scattering. However, before se… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Workflow illustrating our process of finding out the twin sGRBs alike sGRB 170817A. F refers to the various filtering phases followed. using the two most intense NaI detectors (Thallium-activated sodium iodide detector) mentioned in the burst catalog. Using the ASCII files generated from the TTE files, all the photon counts over the selected energy range will be added for the chosen two NAI detectors after… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of the inertia with the number of clusters. The black dashed line is the kneedle point representing the maximum curvature, corre￾sponding to the optimal K number 4.2 LIGHT-CURVES & SPECTRAL ANALYSIS This time, to precisely understand the similarity within the sGRB subgroup above, we perform temporal and spectral analysis using the GBM data. We discussed previously that the light curve of sGRB 170… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: sGRBs similar to sGRB 170817A. The order of the light curves is the following: sGRB 170817A, sGRB 150805, sGRB 150101, sGRB 131128, sGRB 131004, sGRB 130808, sGRB 120524, sGRB 090108, and sGRB 081122. All the light curves are produced in the three energy ranges 50-350 keV, 10-50 keV and 10-350 keV with the binning size of 0.032 sec and 0.004 sec. The first and second peak time zones are shown with a solid … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Correlation of 𝐸𝑖𝑠𝑜 with 𝐸𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘 of Fermi-GBM sGRBs with known redshift till 17 August 2017. which can be written as, 𝐸iso = 4𝜋𝑑2 𝐿 1+𝑧 𝑓 erg, 𝑑𝐿 is luminosity distance, 𝑓 is the energy fluence with unit erg cm−2 . Using cosmological constants (Komatsu et al. 2009) Ω𝑀 = 0.27, ΩΛ = 0.73, 𝐻0 = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1 one can calculate 𝑑𝐿 = (1+𝑧)𝑐 𝐻0  ∫ 𝑧 0 𝑑𝑧′ √ Ω𝑀 (1+𝑧 ′ ) 3+ΩΛ  . The Amati relation has been well e… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rate of observed gravitational waves (GWs) from neutron star-neutron star (NS-NS) mergers detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) indicates the existence of more than one short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) similar to GW/sGRB 170817A within the total gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) recorded by satellite detectors such as BATSE, Fermi-Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (Fermi-GBM), and Swift-Burst Alert Telescope (Swift-BAT). We investigated sGRBs in the Fermi-GBM dataset based on their MeV-GeV $\gamma$-ray emission features, to identify sGRBs similar to sGRB 170817A. Any addition of such events can impact the rate of NS-NS CBC events observed by LIGO. SGRB 170817A exhibits two distinct emission components: a non-thermal peak and a thermal component. We adopted a multifaceted approach to identify analogous sGRBs, which involved computing the hardness ratios $HR_{1}$ and $HR_{2}$ and then clustering them via the K-means algorithm. Our further studies reveal the presence of eight such events in Fermi-GBM data, which will enable us to calculate the rate of electromagnetic (EM) counterparts associated with LIGO GW events (GW+sGRB events) across all observing runs. Giving an estimation, by the end of the $O_4$ LIGO run, there could be nearly 5 GW+sGRB events. Deviation from this number may raise concerns about our understanding of the evolution of such events over distance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript outlines a search for short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) in Fermi-GBM data that resemble GW/sGRB 170817A in their MeV-GeV properties. By calculating hardness ratios HR1 and HR2 and applying K-means clustering, the authors identify eight candidate events. They then estimate the rate of such GW+sGRB events, projecting nearly 5 detections by the conclusion of the O4 LIGO observing run, with implications for the evolution of these events over distance.

Significance. Should the selected events prove to be genuine spectral analogs to 170817A, this study would offer a practical method for enlarging the sample of known NS-NS merger counterparts, thereby improving estimates of the local merger rate and providing observational constraints on the diversity of sGRB emission processes. The use of unsupervised clustering on hardness ratios represents a straightforward, reproducible approach that could be applied to other datasets.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The description of the hardness-ratio calculation and K-means clustering provides no quantitative validation (e.g., spectral fit parameters, reduced chi-squared values, or direct comparison of the non-thermal index and thermal temperature) that the eight selected events reproduce the two-component spectrum of 170817A.
  2. Rate projection paragraph: The estimate of nearly 5 GW+sGRB events by the end of O4 is presented as scaling from the count of eight clustered events without an independent derivation that incorporates detection efficiency, sky coverage, or the probability of GW association.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The phrase 'Our further studies reveal' is vague; the specific analyses performed on the eight events (e.g., any spectral fitting or multi-wavelength checks) should be summarized explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for recognizing the potential significance of identifying additional sGRB analogs to 170817A. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The description of the hardness-ratio calculation and K-means clustering provides no quantitative validation (e.g., spectral fit parameters, reduced chi-squared values, or direct comparison of the non-thermal index and thermal temperature) that the eight selected events reproduce the two-component spectrum of 170817A.

    Authors: The abstract summarizes the overall approach for brevity. Hardness ratios HR1 and HR2 were specifically defined using energy bands that isolate the non-thermal peak and thermal component of 170817A, with K-means then applied to identify similar events in the GBM sample. Full spectral modeling was not performed for every candidate because the clustering serves as an efficient proxy for large-scale searches. We agree that explicit validation would strengthen the results. In the revised manuscript we will add a methods subsection that directly compares the HR values of the eight events to those measured for 170817A and, for the brightest candidates, report example spectral-fit parameters together with reduced chi-squared values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Rate projection paragraph: The estimate of nearly 5 GW+sGRB events by the end of O4 is presented as scaling from the count of eight clustered events without an independent derivation that incorporates detection efficiency, sky coverage, or the probability of GW association.

    Authors: The projection is a first-order scaling that uses the observed number of GBM analogs to anticipate the yield of joint GW+sGRB detections by the end of O4. We recognize that a complete rate calculation would require explicit modeling of GBM detection efficiency, sky coverage, and the probability of GW association. The current estimate is therefore presented as an indicative figure rather than a statistically rigorous forecast. We will revise the paragraph to state the simplifying assumptions explicitly and to note the associated uncertainties. A more detailed rate analysis that folds in these factors is deferred to future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper applies hardness ratios HR1/HR2 and K-means clustering to Fermi-GBM MeV-GeV data to identify eight sGRBs analogous to 170817A, then uses that count to estimate a future GW+sGRB rate of ~5 by end of O4. This rate projection is an extrapolation from the observed sample size combined with external LIGO run parameters rather than a quantity forced by construction or self-definition. No equations, self-citations, or ansatzes are shown that reduce the central result to its inputs; the derivation remains a standard data-driven selection followed by a separate rate application.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the untested premise that two hardness ratios capture the distinctive spectral shape of 170817A and that K-means clustering isolates physically similar events; no free parameters are explicitly named in the abstract, but the rate scaling implicitly treats the eight events as a complete, unbiased sample.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Hardness ratios HR1 and HR2 computed from MeV-GeV counts are sufficient to identify events with the same non-thermal plus thermal components as 170817A.
    Invoked when the authors adopt a multifaceted approach based on HR1, HR2 and K-means to select analogs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5848 in / 1490 out tokens · 34589 ms · 2026-05-21T18:36:03.555847+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

    work page

  3. [3]

    N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    Author A. N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    Jones C. D., 2015, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    Smith A. B., 2014, The Example Journal, 12, 345 (Paper I)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    2017, Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , 119, 161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  7. [7]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvX...9c1040A 9, 031040

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2019, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvX...9c1040A 9, 031040

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

  8. [8]

    P., et al., 2020a, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020LRR....23....3A 23, 3

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2020a, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020LRR....23....3A 23, 3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

  9. [9]

    P., et al., 2020a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 , 892, L3

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2020b, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 , 892, L3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 2041

  10. [10]

    Abbott R., et al., 2021, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e , 915, L5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e 2021

  11. [11]

    Abbott R., et al., 2023a, @doi [Phys. Rev. X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 , 13, 011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048

  12. [12]

    Abbott R., et al., 2023b, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvX..13d1039A 13, 041039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  13. [13]

    Abbott R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PhRvD.109b2001A 109, 022001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024

  14. [14]

    Amati L., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...390...81A 390, 81

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 2002

  15. [15]

    L., 2018, in 2018 IEEE 6th international conference on future internet of things and cloud (FiCloud)

    Antunes M., Ribeiro J., Gomes D., Aguiar R. L., 2018, in 2018 IEEE 6th international conference on future internet of things and cloud (FiCloud). pp 413--419

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Atteia J.-L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...407L...1A 407, L1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030958 2003

  17. [17]

    E., Kalogera V., Rasio F

    Belczynski K., Taam R. E., Kalogera V., Rasio F. A., Bulik T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513562 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...662..504B 662, 504

    work page doi:10.1086/513562 2007

  18. [18]

    N., et al., 2016, @doi [Astrophys

    Bhat P. N., et al., 2016, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl.] 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/28 , 223, 28

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/28 2016

  19. [19]

    S., Goldstein A., et al., 2018a, @doi [Astrophys

    Burns E., Veres P., Mészáros P., Connaughton V., Briggs M. S., Goldstein A., et al., 2018a, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad813 , 863, L34

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad813 2041

  20. [20]

    Burns E., et al., 2018b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 863, L34

    work page

  21. [21]

    Capote E., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.111f2002C 111, 062002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.062002 2025

  22. [22]

    Cash W., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...228..939C 228, 939

    work page doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  23. [23]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9811 , 358, 1556

    Coulter D. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9811 , 358, 1556

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9811 2017

  24. [24]

    S., Lipunova, G

    Coward D. M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2668C 425, 2668

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x 2012

  25. [25]

    Cui M., et al., 2020, Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 1, 5

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    L., 2000, Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 50, 1

    De Maesschalck R., Jouan-Rimbaud D., Massart D. L., 2000, Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 50, 1

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    G., Ostrowski M., 2016a, The Astrophysical Journal, 828, 36

    Del Vecchio R., Dainotti M. G., Ostrowski M., 2016a, The Astrophysical Journal, 828, 36

    work page

  28. [28]

    G., Ostrowski M., 2016b, @doi [Astrophys

    Del Vecchio R., Dainotti M. G., Ostrowski M., 2016b, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/36 , 828, 36

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/36

  29. [29]

    Di Cesare M., 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18802

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , 358, 1570

    Drout M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , 358, 1570

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049 2017

  31. [31]

    N., 1989, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/340126a0 , 340, 126

    Eichler D., Livio M., Piran T., Schramm D. N., 1989, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/340126a0 , 340, 126

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  32. [32]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9580 , 358, 1565

    Evans P. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9580 , 358, 1565

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9580 2017

  33. [33]

    Y., Ye N., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15608

    Fok T. Y., Ye N., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15608

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Fong W., et al., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9018 , 848, L23

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9018 2017

  35. [35]

    Goldstein A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..14G 848, L14

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  36. [36]

    Granot J., Gill R., Guetta D., De Colle F., 2018, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/sty2308 , 481, 1597

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2308 2018

  37. [37]

    Gruber D., et al., 2014, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl.] 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12 , 211, 12

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12 2014

  38. [38]

    S., Lamb G., Lin E.-T., Veitch J., Williams M

    Hayes F., Heng I. S., Lamb G., Lin E.-T., Veitch J., Williams M. J., 2023, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ace899 , 954, 92

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace899 2023

  39. [39]

    J., Ackley K., Rowlinson A., Coward D., 2019, @doi [Mon

    Howell E. J., Ackley K., Rowlinson A., Coward D., 2019, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz455 , 485, 1435

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz455 2019

  40. [40]

    Jiang L.-Y., et al., 2025, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-025-57791-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatCo..16.2668J 16, 2668

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-57791-w 2025

  41. [41]

    Jin X., Han J., 2011, Encyclopedia of machine learning, pp 563--564

    work page 2011

  42. [42]

    N., Taylor J

    Kalogera V., Narayan R., Spergel D. N., Taylor J. H., 2001, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/321583 , 556, 340

    work page doi:10.1086/321583 2001

  43. [43]

    Kalogera V., et al., 2004, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.1086/425868 , 601, L179

    work page doi:10.1086/425868 2004

  44. [44]

    D., Briggs M

    Kaneko Y., Preece R. D., Briggs M. S., Paciesas W. S., Meegan C. A., Band D. L., 2006, @doi [AIP Conf. Proc.] 10.1063/1.2207873 , 836, 133

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2207873 2006

  45. [45]

    J., Dimple Jain D., Misra K., Arun K

    Kapadia S. J., Dimple Jain D., Misra K., Arun K. G., Lekshmi R., 2024, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc7 , 976, L10

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad8dc7 2024

  46. [46]

    Komatsu E., et al., 2009, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl.] 10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/330 , 180, 330

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/180/2/330 2009

  47. [47]

    arXiv:2411.13242

    Kumar A., Sharma K., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.13242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241113242K p. arXiv:2411.13242

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.13242 2024

  48. [48]

    Li Y., Wu H., 2012, Physics Procedia, 25, 1104

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    Liu Y., Zhang Z.-B., Dong X.-F., Li L.-B., Du X.-Y., 2025

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Lloyd S., 1982, IEEE transactions on information theory, 28, 129

    work page 1982

  51. [51]

    pp 281--298

    MacQueen J., 1967, in Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Volume 1: Statistics. pp 281--298

    work page 1967

  52. [52]

    C., 2018, Sankhy \=a : The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (2008-), 80, S1

    Mahalanobis P. C., 2018, Sankhy \=a : The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (2008-), 80, S1

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    Alabama, Huntsville

    Mallozzi R., Preece R., Briggs M., 2005, Univ. Alabama, Huntsville

    work page 2005

  54. [54]

    D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..19M 850, L19

    Margalit B., Metzger B. D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..19M 850, L19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c 2017

  55. [55]

    Margutti R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..20M 848, L20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057 2017

  56. [56]

    Mazwi L., Razzaque S., Nyadzani L., 2024, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stae1312 , 531, 2162

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1312 2024

  57. [57]

    A., Koshut T

    Meegan C. A., Koshut T. M., Preece R. D., eds, 1998, Proceedings, 4th Huntsville Symposium: Gamma-Ray Bursts : Huntsville, USA, September 15-20, 1997 Vol. 428

    work page 1998

  58. [58]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 , 561, 355

    Mooley K. P., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 , 561, 355

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 2018

  59. [59]

    pp 63--67

    Na S., Xumin L., Yong G., 2010, in 2010 Third International Symposium on intelligent information technology and security informatics. pp 63--67

    work page 2010

  60. [60]

    Narayan R., Piran T., Shemi A., 1991, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.1086/186143 , 379, L17

    work page doi:10.1086/186143 1991

  61. [61]

    Narayan R., Paczynski B., Piran T., 1992, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.1086/186493 , 395, L83

    work page doi:10.1086/186493 1992

  62. [62]

    S., 2025, @doi [Astrophys

    Pandey S., Gupta I., Chandra K., Sathyaprakash B. S., 2025, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/add15f , 985, L17

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add15f 2025

  63. [63]

    Pian E., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature24298 , 551, 67

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017

  64. [64]

    Pizzichini G., Ferrero P., Genghini M., Gianotti F., Topinka M., 2006, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2005.11.016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AdSpR..38.1338P 38, 1338

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.11.016 2006

  65. [65]

    Poggiani R., et al., 2020, POS PROCEEDINGS OF SCIENCE, 362

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d , 913, 60

    Poolakkil S., et al., 2021, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d , 913, 60

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d 2021

  67. [67]

    J.] 10.1086/319027 , 548, 522

    Porciani C., Madau P., 2001, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1086/319027 , 548, 522

    work page doi:10.1086/319027 2001

  68. [68]

    Qumsiyeh E., Sabha M., 2023, in 2023 2nd International Engineering Conference on Electrical, Energy, and Artificial Intelligence (EICEEAI). pp 1--7

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    S., Ghisellini G., Pescalli A., Ghirlanda G., Nappo F., 2016, @doi [Mon

    Salafia O. S., Ghisellini G., Pescalli A., Ghirlanda G., Nappo F., 2016, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stw1549 , 461, 3607

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1549 2016

  70. [70]

    pp 166--171

    Satopaa V., Albrecht J., Irwin D., Raghavan B., 2011, in 2011 31st international conference on distributed computing systems workshops. pp 166--171

    work page 2011

  71. [71]

    Schubert E., 2023, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 25, 36

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature24303 , 551, 75

    Smartt S. J., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature24303 , 551, 75

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24303 2017

  73. [73]

    A., Khotimah B

    Syakur M. A., Khotimah B. K., Rochman E., Satoto B. D., 2018, in IOP conference series: materials science and engineering. p. 012017

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..27T 848, L27

    Tanvir N. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..27T 848, L27

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 2017

  75. [75]

    GWTC-4.0: An Introduction to Version 4.0 of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250818080T p. arXiv:2508.18080

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18080 2025

  76. [76]

    Troja E., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature24290 , 551, 71

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24290 2017

  77. [77]

    E., Gunawan S

    Umargono E., Suseno J. E., Gunawan S. V., 2020, in The 2nd international seminar on science and technology (ISSTEC 2019). pp 121--129

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..21V 851, L21

    Villar V. A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..21V 851, L21

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84 2017

  79. [79]

    Von Kienlin A., et al., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 89

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    B., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Commun.] 10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3 , 9, 447

    Zhang B. B., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Commun.] 10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3 , 9, 447

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3 2018

Showing first 80 references.