pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.07928 · v2 · pith:7E6HDEWAnew · submitted 2026-01-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

The GRB Intrinsic Duration Distribution: Progenitor Insights Across Cosmic Time

Nicole M. Lloyd-Ronning , Omer Bromberg , Tsvi Piran This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 15:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstscollapsar progenitorsintrinsic durationredshift dependenceduration distributionnon-collapsar GRBscosmic evolutionsoft spectrum
0
0 comments X

The pith

The plateau in gamma-ray burst intrinsic durations appears only for high-redshift soft events, indicating collapsar progenitors dominate at early cosmic times.

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

The paper examines the distribution of intrinsic prompt durations of gamma-ray bursts after correcting observed times for cosmological expansion. It confirms an earlier-reported plateau feature but shows this plateau exists only among bursts at redshifts above roughly 2 and only within the soft spectral class. Low-redshift bursts lack the plateau even when restricted to soft events, which the authors interpret as evidence that recent-universe GRBs receive a substantial contribution from non-collapsar channels. The location where the plateau ends supplies an upper bound on the radius of collapsar progenitors. A sympathetic reader would care because the result supplies a direct, time-dependent probe of which stellar endpoints produce the brightest explosions across cosmic history.

Core claim

The distribution of intrinsic durations T_int exhibits a plateau shifted to shorter times by a factor of roughly 1/3 relative to the observed T_90 distribution. This plateau is absent in the low-redshift sample (z less than about 2) but present in the high-redshift sample, and it appears exclusively in the soft subset of bursts. When soft bursts are further divided by redshift, only the high-redshift soft population retains the plateau, implying that low-redshift soft GRBs include a significant non-collapsar component. The duration at which the plateau terminates constrains the maximum radius of a collapsar progenitor to a few tenths of a solar radius.

What carries the argument

The plateau in the intrinsic duration distribution, which marks the jet breakout time through the stellar envelope and thereby distinguishes collapsar from non-collapsar progenitors.

If this is right

  • High-redshift GRBs are dominated by collapsar progenitors.
  • Low-redshift GRBs contain a substantial fraction of non-collapsar progenitors.
  • Only the soft high-redshift population carries the collapsar duration signature.
  • The maximum collapsar radius is limited to a few tenths of a solar radius by the end of the plateau.
  • Intrinsic durations are on average a factor of about 1/3 shorter than observed T_90 values.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If non-collapsar GRBs are common at low redshift, the local rate of GRB-associated compact-object mergers may be higher than previously estimated.
  • Improved redshift completeness for faint bursts could test whether the reported redshift split survives larger, less biased samples.
  • The radius upper limit can be combined with stellar-evolution tracks to predict which initial masses produce observable collapsars.
  • Separate high- and low-redshift populations may reduce scatter in attempts to use GRBs as cosmological standard candles.

Load-bearing premise

The absence of the plateau at low redshift reflects real differences in progenitor populations rather than systematic differences in detector sensitivity, redshift completeness, or selection biases between the low- and high-redshift subsamples.

What would settle it

A statistically significant plateau appearing in the intrinsic-duration histogram of a large, redshift-complete sample of low-redshift soft GRBs would falsify the claimed separation by progenitor type.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07928 by Nicole M. Lloyd-Ronning, Omer Bromberg, Tsvi Piran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows the distribution of the intrinsic du￾ration, dN/dTint (magenta), as well as observed dura￾tion, dN/dT90 (green), for the Swift GRBs with mea￾sured redshifts, binned into equally spaced bins. The magenta and green histograms are artificially offset by one order of magnitude along the y-axis, for clarity of comparison, and we assume Poisson statistics to esti￾mate the errors in each bin. The end of the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the intrinsic duration distribution, dN/dTint, for all of our Swift GRBs, divided into “lower” redshift (blue lines) and “higher” redshift (orange lines) sub-samples, with a delimiting value of (1 + z) = 2.2. The high redshift sample shows a clear plateau from ∼ 0.1 s up to around ∼ 15 s (confirmed by our fits shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: dN/dT distribution of intrinsic duration, Tint, for Swift GRBs with redshift, broken into “hard” and “soft” sub-samples based on the power-law index and spectral fit model. A plateau is present in the soft sample with an end at around a few seconds, while there is no plateau in the hard sample, confirming the results of Bromberg et al. (2013). The fits to these distributions, according to equation 1, are g… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Threshold time as a function of stellar radius (x-axis) and the stellar density profile index (y-axis) for a star of 15 solar masses. The black dotted and solid lines mark a timescale of 5 seconds and 15 seconds, respectively (corresponding to the range of plateau end times in our dN/dTint distributions). The left panel shows the threshold time scale based on equation 4, while the right panel applies a cor… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the intrinsic duration distributions, separated into “low” redshift (blue lines) and “high” redshift (orange lines) sub-samples for different values of the redshift delimiter, ranging from 2 ≲ (1 + z) ≲ 4.5. It is clear that separating the sample at a redshift that falls between (1 + z) ∼ 2 to (1 + z) ∼ 3 shows a clear difference in the dN/dT distributions, in that a plateau is present in the high re… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the single power-law (right panel) and cutoff power-law (left panel) spectral indices, defined in equations 2 and 3 respectively, as a function of T90 for Swift GRBs. A higher α indicates a softer burst. The traditional long-soft/short-hard separation is apparent. Hence anything above the upper line in either figure is what we define as a “soft” burst. Anything below the lower line in either figure i… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Threshold time for different progenitor masses, jet luminosity and jet opening angle. the left panels show the calculation according to equation 4, while the right panels show this timescale with a numerical correction applied according to the simulations of Harrison et al. (2018). The top panels show the threshold time for a 40M⊙ star (with all other variables as in the main text), the middle panels show … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the distribution of the intrinsic duration of gamma-ray bursts' prompt emission. This expands upon the analysis of Bromberg et al., 2012 and Bromberg et al. 2013 who showed evidence for collapsar progenitors based on the presence of a plateau in the distribution of $T_{90}$, the duration over which 90 % of the prompt emission is observed for any given detector. We confirm the presence of this plateau in the distribution of duration corrected for cosmological time dilation (what we call intrinsic duration, $T_{int}$), but shifted to smaller timescales by a factor of $1/(1+z_{\rm av}) \sim 1/3$, where $z_{\rm av}$ is the average GRB redshift. More significantly, we show this plateau is only present in the sample of GRBs with redshifts greater than $(1+z) \sim 2$, and does not appear in the duration distribution of lower redshift GRBs. This result aligns with suggestions that the low redshift population of GRBs has a significant contribution from non-collapsar progenitors (while the high redshift sample is dominated by collapsars). We also show the difference in this distribution between spectrally hard and soft GRBs, confirming that a plateau is only present for the soft subset of GRBs. However, when we separate the soft GRBs into low and high redshift subsets, we find that only the high redshift soft GRBs show evidence of a plateau, while the low-redshift soft GRBs do not. This suggests there exists a significant subset of spectrally soft non-collapsar progenitors at low redshift. Finally, we use the end time of the plateau to constrain the GRB progenitor density profile and radius, and show the maximum size of a collapsar is a few tenths of a solar radius.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends Bromberg et al. (2012, 2013) by analyzing the distribution of intrinsic GRB prompt durations T_int (T_90 corrected for cosmological time dilation). It confirms a plateau in this distribution, shifted to shorter timescales by a factor ~1/(1 + z_av), but demonstrates that the plateau appears only in the high-redshift (z ≳ 2) subsample and only among spectrally soft GRBs. Low-redshift GRBs, including the soft subset, lack the plateau, which the authors interpret as evidence for a substantial non-collapsar progenitor contribution at low z while high-z events remain collapsar-dominated. The endpoint of the plateau is then used to place an upper limit on the maximum radius of collapsar progenitors of a few tenths of a solar radius.

Significance. If the observed differences survive quantitative selection-effect modeling, the work supplies a redshift-dependent constraint on GRB progenitor channels and a direct observational bound on collapsar envelope structure. The independent splits by redshift and hardness, together with the cosmological correction to T_int, add new information beyond the earlier Bromberg analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results on redshift and hardness splits] The central claim that the absence of a plateau at low redshift reflects a genuine rise in the non-collapsar fraction (rather than differential selection) is load-bearing for the progenitor-evolution interpretation. The manuscript splits the sample at z ~ 2 and by hardness but presents no forward modeling of redshift-success rates, fluence thresholds, or duration truncation biases that are known to correlate with spectral hardness and observed duration. Without such modeling applied to a mixed-progenitor population, the low-z versus high-z difference cannot be unambiguously attributed to astrophysics.
  2. [Progenitor radius constraint section] The radius constraint (maximum collapsar radius of a few tenths of a solar radius) is derived from the observed end time of the plateau in the high-z soft subsample. The mapping from this end time to progenitor radius and density profile is not shown with explicit equations or assumptions about jet head propagation speed and envelope structure; the numerical value therefore cannot be reproduced from the text alone.
  3. [Duration distribution figures and accompanying text] No sample sizes, Poisson errors, or statistical tests (e.g., KS or likelihood-ratio tests for plateau presence) are reported for the duration histograms in the various redshift/hardness subsets. This omission prevents assessment of whether the reported absence of a plateau in the low-z soft bin is statistically significant or merely consistent with small-number fluctuations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The definition of T_int and the precise value adopted for z_av should be stated explicitly, together with the sensitivity of the plateau location to the choice of z_av.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should list the number of events in each plotted subsample and indicate whether the histograms are normalized or cumulative.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be clarified and strengthened. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results on redshift and hardness splits] The central claim that the absence of a plateau at low redshift reflects a genuine rise in the non-collapsar fraction (rather than differential selection) is load-bearing for the progenitor-evolution interpretation. The manuscript splits the sample at z ~ 2 and by hardness but presents no forward modeling of redshift-success rates, fluence thresholds, or duration truncation biases that are known to correlate with spectral hardness and observed duration. Without such modeling applied to a mixed-progenitor population, the low-z versus high-z difference cannot be unambiguously attributed to astrophysics.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative forward modeling of selection effects would provide a more robust defense of the astrophysical interpretation. Our current analysis relies on the independent splits by redshift and hardness to reduce the impact of correlated biases, and we discuss some observational selection considerations in the text. However, we acknowledge that this falls short of a full simulation of a mixed-progenitor population through the detection pipeline. In the revised version we will add an expanded discussion of potential selection biases (including fluence thresholds and duration truncation), cite relevant literature on GRB selection effects, and explicitly note the absence of complete forward modeling as a limitation while outlining how such modeling could be performed in future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Progenitor radius constraint section] The radius constraint (maximum collapsar radius of a few tenths of a solar radius) is derived from the observed end time of the plateau in the high-z soft subsample. The mapping from this end time to progenitor radius and density profile is not shown with explicit equations or assumptions about jet head propagation speed and envelope structure; the numerical value therefore cannot be reproduced from the text alone.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this omission. The upper limit on progenitor radius follows from the jet-breakout model of Bromberg et al. (2012), in which the plateau endpoint corresponds to the time for the jet head to traverse the stellar envelope. We will insert the explicit relations in the revised manuscript, including the approximate breakout time t_b ≈ (R / v_head) scaled by (1 + z) and the dependence on the envelope density power-law index, together with the adopted assumptions for jet-head velocity and envelope structure. This will allow direct reproduction of the numerical bound of a few tenths of a solar radius. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Duration distribution figures and accompanying text] No sample sizes, Poisson errors, or statistical tests (e.g., KS or likelihood-ratio tests for plateau presence) are reported for the duration histograms in the various redshift/hardness subsets. This omission prevents assessment of whether the reported absence of a plateau in the low-z soft bin is statistically significant or merely consistent with small-number fluctuations.

    Authors: This is a valid and important point. We will revise the figures and surrounding text to report the number of GRBs in each redshift/hardness subset, add Poisson error bars to the histograms, and include statistical comparisons. Specifically, we will apply Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests against a reference power-law distribution and likelihood-ratio tests between models with and without a plateau feature to quantify the significance of the plateau in the high-z soft sample and its absence in the low-z soft sample. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation for interpretation; new subsample splits and radius constraint remain independent

full rationale

The paper corrects observed durations for cosmological time dilation to define T_int and examines the resulting distributions after splitting the sample by redshift (above/below z~2) and spectral hardness. The key observational result—that a plateau appears only for high-redshift soft GRBs—is obtained directly from these splits. The link to collapsar progenitors is described as aligning with prior suggestions from Bromberg et al. (2012, 2013), which share an author; this citation supports interpretation but is not required for the new empirical splits or for reading the plateau end time as a radius upper limit. No self-definitional reduction, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or ansatz imported via citation occurs in the reported derivation chain. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external data benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the domain assumption that the duration plateau directly traces progenitor type, plus an estimated average redshift for the time-dilation correction; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • average redshift z_av
    Used to apply the uniform shift factor 1/(1 + z_av) approximately 1/3 to the entire distribution.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Presence of a plateau in the duration distribution is a signature of collapsar progenitors.
    Invoked throughout to interpret the plateau's presence or absence in different subsets; drawn from Bromberg et al. 2012 and 2013.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5878 in / 1343 out tokens · 67108 ms · 2026-05-21T15:35:04.546963+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

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    and Langer, Norbert and Antoniadis, John and Müller, Bernhard , year=

    Aguilera-Dena, D. R., Langer, N., Antoniadis, J., & M¨ uller, B. 2020, ApJ, 901, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb138

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb138 2020

  3. [3]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 4332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2530

    Anand, N., Shahid, M., & Resmi, L. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2530

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2530 2018

  4. [4]

    Binary neutron star formation and the origin of GW170817

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Olejak, A., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.10065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.10065

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.10065 2018

  5. [5]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1589

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1589 2019

  6. [6]

    B., Price, P

    Berger, E., Fox, D. B., Price, P. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, 1000, doi: 10.1086/518762

    work page doi:10.1086/518762 2007

  7. [7]

    S., Kulkarni, S

    Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Djorgovski, S. G. 2002, AJ, 123, 1111, doi: 10.1086/338893

    work page doi:10.1086/338893 2002

  8. [8]

    Double compact object rates and properties

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5737, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1677

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1677 2022

  9. [9]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2011, ApJ, 740, 100, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/100 —. 2012, ApJ, 749, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/110 —. 2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/740/2/100 2011

  10. [10]

    2016, , 456, 1739, 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    Bromberg, O., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 1739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2591 2016

  11. [11]

    E., Fong, W.-f., et al

    Castrejon, C., Nugent, A. E., Fong, W.-f., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20156, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.20156

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20156 2025

  12. [12]

    2022, Radio-bright vs

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. 2022, Radio-bright vs. Radio-dark Gamma-ray Bursts - More Evidence for Distinct Progenitors, arXiv:2210.12972 [astro-ph.HE]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.12972

    work page arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00472

    Chen, J., Shen, R.-F., Tan, W.-J., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.00472. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00472

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    2024b, MNRAS, 527, 4272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3407

    Chen, J.-M., Zhu, K.-R., Peng, Z.-Y., & Zhang, L. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 4272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3407

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3407

  15. [15]

    A., Gaspari, N., Levan, A

    Chrimes, A. A., Gaspari, N., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.10984, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10984 12

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10984 2025

  16. [16]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2923

    Chruslinska, M., Belczynski, K., Klencki, J., & Benacquista, M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2923

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2923 2018

  17. [17]

    arXiv:1208.1380 [astro-ph.GA] Zuckerman B, Melis C, Klein B, Koester D, Jura M (2010) Ancient Planetary Systems are Orbiting a Large Fraction of White Dwarf Stars

    Coward, D. M., Howell, E. J., Piran, T., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2668, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x

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

  18. [18]

    J., Fox, D

    Cucchiara, A., Levan, A. J., Fox, D. B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/7

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/1/7 2011

  19. [19]

    G., Petrosian, V., & Bowden, L

    Dainotti, M. G., Petrosian, V., & Bowden, L. 2021, ApJL, 914, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf5e4 D’Avanzo, P. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 73, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.07.002

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf5e4 2021

  20. [20]

    P., Levan, A

    Dimple, Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1574

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1574 2025

  21. [21]

    1992, ApJ, 399, 345, doi: 10.1086/171931

    Efron, B., & Petrosian, V. 1992, ApJ, 399, 345, doi: 10.1086/171931

    work page doi:10.1086/171931 1992

  22. [22]

    N., Lloyd-Ronning, N

    Espinoza, S. N., Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., Negro, M., Cheng, R. M., & Cibrario, N. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 239, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ae031c

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ae031c 2025

  23. [23]

    2013, ApJ, 776, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/18

    Fong, W., & Berger, E. 2013, ApJ, 776, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/18 2013

  24. [24]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., & Fox, D. B. 2010, ApJ, 708, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/9 2010

  25. [25]

    L., Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Herant, M., & Davies, M. B. 1999, ApJ, 520, 650, doi: 10.1086/307467

    work page doi:10.1086/307467 1999

  26. [26]

    J., Vreeswijk, P

    Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670, doi: 10.1038/27150

    work page doi:10.1038/27150 1998

  27. [27]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1

    Gao, H.-X., Geng, J.-J., Liang, Y.-F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 986, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adceb1 2025

  28. [28]

    2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5923, doi: 10.21105/joss.05923

    Garcia-Cifuentes, K., Becerra, R., & De Colle, F. 2024, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 5923, doi: 10.21105/joss.05923

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.05923 2024

  29. [29]

    G., Calderone, G., & D’Avanzo, P

    Ghirlanda, G., Bernardini, M. G., Calderone, G., & D’Avanzo, P. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 81, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.002 2015

  30. [30]

    S., Pescalli, A., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Pescalli, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628993

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628993 2016

  31. [31]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 3947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1068

    Gottlieb, O., Bromberg, O., Levinson, A., & Nakar, E. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1068

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1068 2021

  32. [32]

    B., & Nakar, E

    Gottlieb, O., Bromberg, O., Singh, C. B., & Nakar, E. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3320, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2567

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2567 2020

  33. [33]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 4962, 10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 4962, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3784 2022

  34. [34]

    D., Quataert, E., et al

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad096e 2023

  35. [35]

    2007, ApJL, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    Guetta, D., & Della Valle, M. 2007, ApJL, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    work page doi:10.1086/511417 2007

  36. [36]

    2006, A&A, 453, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054498

    Guetta, D., & Piran, T. 2006, A&A, 453, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054498

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054498 2006

  37. [37]

    2023, , 944, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb702

    Halevi, G., Wu, B., M¨ osta, P., et al. 2023, ApJL, 944, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb702

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb702 2023

  38. [38]

    2013, A&A, 558, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321471

    Hao, J.-M., & Yuan, Y.-F. 2013, A&A, 558, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321471

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321471 2013

  39. [39]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760

    Harrison, R., Gottlieb, O., & Nakar, E. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty760

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty760 2018

  40. [40]

    M., & Azzam, W

    Hasan, A. M., & Azzam, W. J. 2024, International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 20, doi: 10.4236/ijaa.2024.141002

    work page doi:10.4236/ijaa.2024.141002 2024

  41. [41]

    2005, A&A, 443, 581, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053329

    Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2005, A&A, 443, 581, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053329

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053329 2005

  42. [42]

    Hjorth, J., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, Gamma-ray bursts

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01750 2003

  44. [44]

    F., G¨ o˘ g¨ u¸ s, E., & Lin, L

    Kaneko, Y., Bostancı, Z. F., G¨ o˘ g¨ u¸ s, E., & Lin, L. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 824, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1286

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1286 2015

  45. [45]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9455

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9455 2017

  46. [46]

    S., Dainotti, M

    Khatiya, N. S., Dainotti, M. G., Narendra, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf219

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf219 2025

  47. [47]

    , keywords =

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101, doi: 10.1086/186969

    work page doi:10.1086/186969 1993

  48. [48]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5fa7

    Le, T., & Mehta, V. 2017, ApJ, 837, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5fa7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5fa7 2017

  49. [49]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 1479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa366

    Le, T., Ratke, C., & Mehta, V. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1479, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa366

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa366 2020

  50. [50]

    2010, Journal of Korean Physical Society, 56, 1619, doi: 10.3938/jkps.56.1619

    Lee, C.-H. 2010, Journal of Korean Physical Society, 56, 1619, doi: 10.3938/jkps.56.1619

    work page doi:10.3938/jkps.56.1619 2010

  51. [51]

    , keywords =

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024

  52. [52]

    J., Martin-Carrillo, A., Laskar, T., et al

    Levan, A. J., Martin-Carrillo, A., Laskar, T., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf8e1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf8e1 2025

  53. [53]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b3

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b3 2022

  54. [54]

    M., et al

    Lloyd-Ronning, N., Johnson, J., Cheng, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc795

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc795 2023

  55. [55]

    M., Aykutalp, A., & Johnson, J

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., Aykutalp, A., & Johnson, J. L. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2155

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2155 2019

  56. [56]

    Silva, M., & Cheng, R. M. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2502

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2502 2024

  57. [57]

    M., Johnson, J

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., Johnson, J. L., & Aykutalp, A. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 5041, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2787

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2787 2020

  58. [58]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad03ec

    Luo, J.-W., Wang, F.-F., Zhu-Ge, J.-M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad03ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad03ec 2023

  59. [59]

    D., Levan, A

    Lyman, J. D., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1795, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx220

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx220 2017

  60. [60]

    1971, MNRAS, 155, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/155.1.95 13

    Lynden-Bell, D. 1971, MNRAS, 155, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/155.1.95 13

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/155.1.95 1971

  61. [61]

    I., & Woosley, S

    MacFadyen, A. I., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/307790 1999

  62. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08630, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08630 —

    Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08630, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08630 —. 2025, ApJ, 982, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bd

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.08630 2024

  63. [63]

    Matzner, C. D. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 575, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06969.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06969.x 2003

  64. [64]

    Cuadra and P

    Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1455, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12923.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12923.x 2008

  65. [65]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, L55, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx131

    Moharana, R., & Piran, T. 2017, MNRAS, 472, L55, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx131 2017

  66. [66]

    B., & Sakamoto, T

    Moss, M., Lien, A., Guiriec, S., Cenko, S. B., & Sakamoto, T. 2022, ApJ, 927, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d94

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d94 2022

  67. [67]

    Nakar, E., Gal-Yam, A., & Fox, D. B. 2006, ApJ, 650, 281, doi: 10.1086/505855

    work page doi:10.1086/505855 2006

  68. [68]

    , keywords =

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 40, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05158.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05158.x 2002

  69. [69]

    1992, ApJL, 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493

    Narayan, R., Paczynski, B., & Piran, T. 1992, ApJL, 395, L83, doi: 10.1086/186493

    work page doi:10.1086/186493 1992

  70. [70]

    2024, Prompt GRB recognition through waterfalls and deep learning, arXiv:2406.03643 [astro-ph.IM]

    Negro, M., Cibrario, N., Burns, E., et al. 2024, Prompt GRB recognition through waterfalls and deep learning, arXiv:2406.03643 [astro-ph.IM]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03643 O’Connor, B., Beniamini, P., Troja, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.07141, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07141

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07141 2024

  71. [71]

    A., Kr¨ uhler, T., Schulze, S., et al

    Perley, D. A., Kr¨ uhler, T., Schulze, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/7

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/7 2016

  72. [72]

    Petrosian, V., & Dainotti, M. G. 2024, ApJL, 963, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2763

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2763 2024

  73. [73]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/44

    Petrosian, V., Kitanidis, E., & Kocevski, D. 2015, ApJ, 806, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/44

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/44 2015

  74. [74]

    , keywords =

    Piran, T. 1992, ApJL, 389, L45, doi: 10.1086/186345 —. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    work page doi:10.1086/186345 1992

  75. [75]

    Kilonovae and Long-duration Gamma-ray Bursts

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w Risti´ c, M., Barker, B. L., Cupp, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.03003, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.03003

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w 2022

  76. [76]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2

    Rossi, A., Rothberg, B., Palazzi, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a2 2022

  77. [77]

    C., & Boco, L

    Santoliquido, F., Mapelli, M., Artale, M. C., & Boco, L. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2384

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2384 2022

  78. [78]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1014, doi: 10.1038/nature05087

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05087 2006

  79. [79]

    R., Laskar, T., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Laskar, T., Levan, A. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 865, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadba9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadba9 2018

  80. [80]

    L., O’Connor, B., et al

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3 2022

Showing first 80 references.