Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The redshift evolution of the luminosity function of type II GRBs

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The luminosity function of Type II gamma-ray bursts is a broken power law once suspected non-collapsar bursts are removed, and the triple break seen in long-GRB samples is a contamination artifact.

desk verdict Useful Type II-purified GRB LF analysis with a robust no-evolution rejection, but the BPL-over-TPL preference rests on a weak Delta AIC of 1.6 and an unmodeled Amati cut, so treat the model claim as tentative. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10613 v1 pith:CH47K5G4 submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Yan-Kun Qu , Zhong-Xiao Man , Yu-Peng Yang , Shuang-Xi Yi , Mei Du , Fa-yin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords gamma-rayburstsluminosityfunctionTypeIIGRBscollapsarAmatirelationbrokenpowerlawtripleredshiftevolution
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

The paper isolates a clean Type II (collapsar) sample of 307 Swift gamma-ray bursts and asks what their luminosity function looks like when suspected non-collapsar bursts are removed. Using duration, peak-flux, and Amati-relation cuts, it finds that the no-evolution model cannot reproduce the observed redshift and luminosity distributions, while luminosity evolution and density evolution both fit about equally well. The sharper result is about shape: a broken power-law LF fits the purified sample at least as well as a triple power-law LF, and once extra parameters are penalized the broken power law is preferred. The paper concludes that the triple power-law LF previously reported for long GRBs was likely an artifact of mixing the bright collapsar population with fainter, non-Type II bursts. If correct, this resolves the LF shape controversy by tying the luminosity function to a single progenitor class.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a sample-purification pipeline followed by an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit with AIC model comparison. Three cuts define the sample: intrinsic duration $T_{90}/(1+z) \geq 2\,\mathrm{s}$, peak flux $P \geq 1\,\mathrm{ph\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$, and consistency with the 1-$\sigma$ band of the $E_{p,i}$--$E_{iso}$ Amati relation, the empirical correlation between rest-frame peak energy and isotropic energy. The fit maximizes a Poisson likelihood over the joint luminosity-redshift distribution, folding in the Swift trigger and redshift-completeness efficiency, and the Akaike Information Criterion ranks models by penalizing parameter count. The Amati cut does the conceptual work: removing bursts outside the Type II band is what turns the earlier TPL preference into a BPL preference in this sample.

What would settle it

Re-run the identical maximum-likelihood fits on the subset of the 307 bursts whose peak energies come from direct Band-function spectral fits rather than from CPL fits or the $E_p$--$L$ correlation, keeping the same duration and peak-flux cuts. If the TPL model regains a lower AIC on that cleaner subset, the BPL preference depends on the very bursts the paper says add scatter, and the claimed Type II LF shape is not stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the intrinsic luminosity function of Type II GRBs is a broken power law, not the triple power law preferred in earlier long-GRB studies. Applied to the purified 307-burst sample, the same maximum-likelihood machinery yields nearly equal maximized likelihoods for the BPL and TPL models, and the Akaike Information Criterion then selects the BPL because it uses fewer parameters. The no-evolution model is excluded with a relative probability near $10^{-10}$, while luminosity evolution with $\delta = 1.74^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$ and density evolution with $\delta = 1.36^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$ both describe the data and cannot be distinguished. The paper concludes that the triple power-law LF found in mixed long-GRB samples is likely an artifact of summing a bright BPL collapsar population with a fainter, non-Type II population.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that falling inside the 1-sigma band of the Amati relation really isolates Type II bursts, even though the cut is applied before the LF fit and is not modeled as a selection effect; a biased cut would change both the fitted slopes and the BPL-versus-TPL ranking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pure collapsar GRB population needs only one break in its luminosity function; the low-luminosity third segment fitted to long-GRB samples is not intrinsic to star-collapse bursts.
  • The no-evolution hypothesis is ruled out for Type II bursts, so the high-redshift tail requires either the break luminosity to grow as roughly $(1+z)^{1.7}$ or an extra density growth of roughly $(1+z)^{1.4}$ on top of the star-formation rate.
  • Long-GRB samples are mixtures, so their total LF is the sum of a bright BPL collapsar component and a fainter non-Type II component, which would explain why long-GRB event rates exceed the star-formation rate at low redshift.
  • Redshift-complete surveys from next-generation GRB missions should be able to break the luminosity-versus-density evolution degeneracy that this sample cannot resolve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The BPL-versus-TPL ranking is conditional on the Amati cut itself; applying the same fit to bursts just outside the 1-sigma band would show whether the excluded population is the source of the third break.
  • The two-population explanation implies a quantitative sum rule: the full long-GRB LF should be reproducible by adding a fainter BPL merger component to the Type II BPL component, with the observed TPL break luminosities set by the two component break scales.
  • A direct extension would include bursts below the $P \geq 1\,\mathrm{ph\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$ threshold with a modeled trigger-efficiency curve; if the BPL preference reverses at fainter fluxes, the flux cut rather than Type II purity may be driving the result.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a sample of 307 Swift long GRBs classified as Type II by requiring T90_i >= 2 s, peak flux P >= 1 ph cm^-2 s^-1, and consistency with a 1-sigma band around the Amati relation. It fits broken power-law (BPL) and triple power-law (TPL) luminosity functions under three scenarios—no evolution, luminosity evolution, and density evolution—using a maximum-likelihood/MCMC framework with a star-formation-rate-based event rate and external spectral correlations. The main findings are that the no-evolution model is strongly excluded, luminosity and density evolution are statistically indistinguishable, and the Type II sample favors a BPL over a TPL luminosity function, which the authors interpret as evidence that the previously reported TPL shape in long GRBs arises from contamination by non-Type II bursts.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies the intrinsic collapsar-GRB luminosity function as broken power-law shaped and offers a concrete explanation for the TPL shape found in long GRB samples. The analysis has clear strengths: the maximum-likelihood machinery is transparent, the selection criteria are explicitly enumerated, the sample table with references is a useful resource, and the AIC comparisons are reported in full. The exclusion of the no-evolution model is strong (Delta AIC ~ 44), and the external inputs (SFR, Yonetoku relation, redshift-assignment efficiency) are imported from independent work. However, the BPL-over-TPL conclusion rests on a Delta AIC of only 1.6 and on a sample defined by an Amati-relation cut whose selection function is not modeled; both issues need to be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, criterion (3); Section 3, Eqs. (3)-(8)] The likelihood does not include the probability that a burst passes the 1-sigma Amati-band classification, even though that classification is part of the sample definition. Eiso in Eq. (2) and the luminosity threshold L_lim(z) in Eq. (9) are both constructed from the same fluence and spectral information, so the Amati cut is effectively a correlated selection in (L, z) space. The paper itself notes that CPL-fitted bursts add scatter and that several excluded bursts lack high-quality spectral data, implying the cut also depends on measurement quality. This unmodeled truncation can bias the fitted slopes, break luminosities, and the AIC comparison. Please add an explicit selection term for the Amati band, or demonstrate robustness by repeating the fits with alternative band definitions (e.g., 2-sigma, Band-only spectral fits, or a sample with uniform spectral quality) and reporting how the BPL/TPL Delta AIC changes.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Table 1] The BPL-over-TPL preference is quantified by Delta AIC = 1.6 (265.04 vs 266.64 for luminosity evolution; 266.22 vs 269.30 for density evolution). This corresponds to Akaike weights of roughly 0.69 vs 0.31, which is weak evidence rather than a decisive model preference. The sentence in Section 4.3 that the previously reported superiority of the TPL model 'may have been influenced by the inclusion of non-Type II GRB samples' is too strong on this basis. Please temper the conclusion or support it with additional evidence, such as parameter stability checks, posterior predictive tests, or a direct re-analysis of the full long-GRB sample with the same machinery.
  3. [Section 2 and Table 2] The text states that GRB 211211A 'was not observed by Swift, and thus is not included in our sample,' but Table 2 lists 211211A with references 1 and 2 (the Swift archive). If this burst is in the 307-event sample, the sample-purity claim is directly contradicted; if it is not, the table contains an incorrect entry. Please resolve this inconsistency and re-run the fits excluding this burst to quantify its influence on the results.
  4. [Section 4, Figures 3 and 4] The redshift and luminosity distributions are compared with the same best-fit models that were fitted to those data, so the agreement in these figures is not an independent validation. The text repeatedly uses 'fails to reproduce the observed distributions' as evidence against the no-evolution model, but for models that are not rejected by AIC the agreement is partly built in. Please replace or supplement these figures with posterior predictive checks or out-of-sample diagnostics, and use them only to support model-adequacy statements.
  5. [Section 3, Eq. (4) and Table 1] Uncertainties in the external inputs—the theta_z(P) parameters (2.09 +/- 0.26 and 0.96 +/- 0.01), the SFR model, and the Yonetoku relation—are not propagated into the parameter uncertainties or the AIC values. Since the central BPL/TPL comparison is a Delta AIC of 1.6, propagating these systematic uncertainties is directly relevant to whether the preference survives.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is typeset with fragmented notation; please define S_bolo, S_gamma, E_min, E_max, and the spectral model explicitly, and unify the notation for Epi versus E_p,i.
  2. [Table 1] In the TPL rows, two log L_c values are listed in one column without labels; please label them as L_c1 and L_c2 to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 2] The text mentions that CPL-fitted bursts add scatter but does not quantify the fraction of Band versus CPL fits in the sample; please report this fraction and, ideally, a robustness run using only Band-fitted bursts.
  4. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, including 'Fa- yin W ang' in the author list and duplicated reference numbers in Table 2; a careful proofreading pass is recommended.
  5. [Section 3, Eq. (4)] The definition of Delta Omega as the 'half-coded' field of view could be clarified, and the assumption theta_gamma(P) = 1 for P >= 1 ph cm^-2 s^-1 should be stated as an approximation with its known limitations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LF fits and model comparisons are performed on the fitted data with standard in-sample diagnostics, and the Amati-based sample selection is a modeling/selection concern rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: it defines the Type II sample using T90, a peak-flux threshold, and consistency with the Amati relation, then fits BPL and TPL luminosity functions with a maximum-likelihood formalism (Eqs. 3-8) using external inputs (SFR from Hopkins & Beacom/Li, theta_z from Lan et al., and the Yonetoku Ep-L relation). The parameters in Table 1 are optimized on the same 307 GRBs used for the redshift and luminosity distribution plots in Figures 3 and 4, but those figures are standard in-sample goodness-of-fit comparisons, not out-of-sample predictions, so they do not constitute a fitted input being renamed as a prediction. The Amati-relation cut used to define the sample is not folded into the likelihood, which is a legitimate selection-bias risk, but it does not make the LF shape or the AIC comparison equal by construction to the selection criterion: the selected sample could in principle be fit by either BPL or TPL, and the best-fit parameters are not predetermined by the cut. The self-citation to Qu et al. (2024) supplies background motivation for the collapsar-BPL hypothesis, but the BPL-over-TPL conclusion is supported by the paper's own AIC values (Table 1), so this citation is not load-bearing in the derivation. No equation in the paper reduces a derived quantity to an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent verification of the same data.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new physical entities. Every ingredient of the forward model, the SFR, the Band spectrum shape, the Ep-L relation, the redshift completeness curve, the Amati selection, and the Poisson likelihood, is imported from prior literature. The free parameters that carry the central conclusions are the LF slopes, break luminosities, and the evolution index delta, all fit by MCMC. The most fragile imports are the theta_z(P) completeness model and the Ep-L relation, whose uncertainties are not propagated.

free parameters (6)
  • GRB formation efficiency eta (normalization) = not reported in Table 1
    Overall rate normalization in psi(z)=eta psi*(z)[(1+z)^delta]; marginalized but not quoted.
  • BPL slope a (below break) = -0.34 (no evolution), -0.36 (luminosity), -0.56 (density)
    Low-luminosity power-law index in Eq. (6).
  • BPL slope b (above break) = -1.24 (no evolution), -1.08 (luminosity), -1.31 (density)
    High-luminosity power-law index in Eq. (6).
  • Break luminosity log10 Lc = 52.78 (no evolution), 51.55 (luminosity), 52.91 (density)
    Break position in BPL or first break in TPL.
  • Evolution index delta = 1.74 (luminosity), 1.36 (density)
    Luminosity evolution Lc(z)=Lc0(1+z)^delta or density evolution psi(z)~(1+z)^delta.
  • TPL second break log10 Lc2 and slope c = log10 Lc2=52.76-52.91; c=-1.24 to -1.31
    Extra parameters in Eq. (7); deciding whether they are needed is the BPL-vs-TPL question.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda-CDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7.
    Adopted at end of Section 1; all luminosity distances and volume elements depend on it.
  • domain assumption The empirical SFR function psi*(z) from Hopkins and Beacom (2006) / Li (2008), Eq. (5).
    Used as the baseline GRB rate; the density-evolution model multiplies it by (1+z)^delta.
  • domain assumption GRB rate is proportional to SFR, with a possible (1+z)^delta correction.
    Collapsar model assumption in Section 3; if the true GRB-SFR connection is more complex, inferred evolution parameters change.
  • domain assumption Typical Band spectrum with low and high energy photon indices -1 and -2.3 for k-correction in Eq. (9).
    Used to compute Llim(z); real bursts have a range of spectral indices.
  • domain assumption Empirical Ep-L relation log[Ep(1+z)] = -25.33 + 0.53 log L (Yonetoku et al. 2004, Nava et al. 2012).
    Converts luminosity to peak flux in Eq. (9); scatter is not propagated.
  • domain assumption Redshift completeness model theta_z(P) = 1/(1 + 2.09 x 0.96^P) from Lan et al. (2021).
    Corrects for missing redshifts in Eq. (4); central to the expected counts and LF shape.
  • domain assumption Amati relation conformity within 1-sigma identifies Type II GRBs (Section 2, criterion 3).
    Defines the sample purity that the BPL-vs-TPL conclusion relies on; the selection function is not modeled in the fit.
  • standard math Poisson likelihood L = exp(-N_exp) product Phi (Eq. 3).
    Standard maximum likelihood for counts; assumes no unmodeled selection effects beyond theta.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The redshift evolution of the luminosity function of type II GRBs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CH47K5G4

@misc{pith2026250510613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The redshift evolution of the luminosity function of type II GRBs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CH47K5G4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10613}
}
abstract

As of December 2023, the Swift satellite has detected more than 1600 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). We select 307 Type II GRBs for constructing the luminosity function (LF) based on the following criteria: (1) duration $T_{90} \geq 2 s$; (2) conformity with the Amati relation for Type II GRBs; and (3) peak flux $P \geq 1 \, \text{ph} \, \text{cm}^{-2} \, \text{s}^{-1}$. We explore two general forms of the GRB LF: a broken power-law (BPL) LF and a triple power-law (TPL) LF. We consider three evolutionary scenarios: no evolution, luminosity evolution, and density evolution. We find that the no evolution model can be excluded, while both luminosity and density evolution models effectively account for the observations. This result is consistent with previous studies on long GRBs (LGRBs). However, our Type II GRB sample favors a BPL LF, in contrast to the preference for a TPL function discovered in Long GRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The peak-flux distribution for the 1612 GRBs recorded by Swift BAT. The red solid line represents the best-fit result to the observed peak-flux distribution for bursts with 𝑃 ≥ 1 ph cm−2 s −1 , modeled using a BPL function. The dashed line indicates the flux threshold of 1 ph cm−2 s −1 , above which the effect of instrumental selection biases on the detection of fainter bursts is minimized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relationship between 𝐸𝑖𝑠𝑜 and 𝐸𝑝,𝑖 for all Swift GRBs with 𝑇90 ≥ 2𝑠. We applied the classic Amati relation to fit the 𝐸𝑖𝑠𝑜 − 𝐸𝑝,𝑖 curve. The shaded area represents the 1-sigma confidence interval. Sources within the shaded region are classified as type II GRBs. the log-likelihood value ln 𝐿 and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) score in the last two columns of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Redshift and luminosity distributions of our sample (steel blue solid points) accompanied by Poisson error bars. The different curves correspond to the predicted distributions from various best-fit models: the no evolution model (pink dotted lines), the density evolution model (pastel blue solid lines), and the luminosity evolution model (orange dashed lines). The shaded regions represent the 1𝜎 confidence intervals… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tightening Bounds on Warm Dark Matter with High-Redshift Gamma-Ray Bursts

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using the redshift distribution of 118 luminous Swift GRBs, warm dark matter particles are bounded to mx ≥ 1.3 keV at 95% CL (≥3.4 keV if GRBs exactly trace the SFR).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, GRB Coordinates Network, 22813, 1

    Mailyan, B. 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, 22813, 1

    2018

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  3. [3]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 435, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/435

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/435 2010

  4. [4]

    M., et al

    Ajello, M., Costamante, L., Sambruna, R. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 603, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/603

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/603 2009

  5. [5]

    S., Romani, R

    Ajello, M., Shaw, M. S., Romani, R. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/108 Akaike,H.1974,IEEETransactionsonAutomaticControl,19,716

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/108 2012

  6. [6]

    2006, MNRAS, 372, 233, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10840.x

    Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10840.x

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz056

    Amati, L., D’Agostino, R., Luongo, O., Muccino, M., & Tantalo, M. 2019, MNRAS, 486, L46, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz056

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 2019

  8. [8]

    2009, A&A, 508, 173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912788

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., & Guidorzi, C. 2009, A&A, 508, 173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912788

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912788 2009

Show all 98 references
  1. [10]

    2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020722 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et...

    2002 doi

  2. [11]

    1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995 12

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995 12

    1993 doi

  3. [12]

    Band, D. L. 2006, ApJ, 644, 378, doi: 10.1086/503326

    2006 doi

  4. [13]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

    2005 doi

  5. [14]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    M., Connaughton, V., & Hamburg, R

    Bissaldi, E., Hui, C. M., Connaughton, V., & Hamburg, R. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 19769, 1

    2016

  7. [16]

    2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 21297, 1

    Bissaldi, E., & Meegan, C. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 21297, 1

    2017

  8. [17]

    2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 26000, 1

    Bissaldi, E., Veres, P., & Fermi GBM Team. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 26000, 1

    2019

  9. [18]

    Bloom, J. S. 2003, AJ, 125, 2865, doi: 10.1086/374945

    2003 doi

  10. [19]

    S., Djorgovski, S

    Bloom, J. S., Djorgovski, S. G., Kulkarni, S. R., & Frail, D. A. 1998, ApJL, 507, L25, doi: 10.1086/311682

    1998 doi

  11. [20]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/110 —

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

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    R., Kocevski, D., Bloom, J

    Butler, N. R., Kocevski, D., Bloom, J. S., & Curtis, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 671, 656, doi: 10.1086/522492

    2007 doi

  13. [22]

    2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    Cano, Z., Wang, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    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

    2011 doi

  15. [24]

    G., De Simone, B., Islam, K

    Dainotti, M. G., De Simone, B., Islam, K. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b77

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

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

    Dainotti, M. G., Petrosian, V., & Bowden, L. 2021, ApJL, 914, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf5e4

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    F., Li, X

    Dong, X. F., Li, X. J., Zhang, Z. B., & Zhang, X. L. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1078, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac949

    2022 doi

  18. [27]

    F., Zhang, Z

    Dong, X. F., Zhang, Z. B., Li, Q. M., Huang, Y. F., & Bian, K. 2023, ApJ, 958, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf852

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    2012, A&A, 539, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118561

    Elliott, J., Greiner, J., Khochfar, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118561

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 20082, 1 —

    Frederiks, D., Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., et al. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 20082, 1 —. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 20604, 1 —. 2018a, GRB Coordinates Network, 22546, 1 —. 2018b, GRB Coordinates Network, 23424, 1 Galama,T.J.,Vreeswijk,P.M.,vanParadijs,J.,etal.1998,Natu...

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 661, doi: 10.1007/s11467-013-0282-3

    Gehrels, N., & Razzaque, S. 2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 661, doi: 10.1007/s11467-013-0282-3

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  24. [33]

    2015, GRB Coordinates Network, 18433, 1

    Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., Frederiks, D., et al. 2015, GRB Coordinates Network, 18433, 1

    2015

  25. [34]

    2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 23707, 1

    Hamburg, R., Veres, P., Meegan, C., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 23707, 1

    2019

  26. [35]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/42

    Hao, J.-M., & Yuan, Y.-F. 2013, ApJ, 772, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/42

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    M., & Beacom, J

    Hopkins, A. M., & Beacom, J. F. 2006, ApJ, 651, 142, doi: 10.1086/506610

    2006 doi

  28. [37]

    Hui, C. M. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24002, 1

    2019

  29. [38]

    D., Hu, J

    Jia, X. D., Hu, J. P., Yang, J., Zhang, B. B., & Wang, F. Y. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2575, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2356

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 77, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0892-y

    Jin, Z.-P., Covino, S., Liao, N.-H., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 77, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0892-y

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    D., Briggs, M

    Kaneko, Y., Preece, R. D., Briggs, M. S., et al. 2006, ApJS, 166, 298, doi: 10.1086/505911

    2006 doi

  32. [41]

    L., Kirshner, R

    Kelly, P. L., Kirshner, R. P., & Pahre, M. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1201, doi: 10.1086/591925

    2008 doi

  33. [42]

    D., Yüksel, H., Beacom, J

    Kistler, M. D., Yüksel, H., Beacom, J. F., & Stanek, K. Z. 2008, ApJL, 673, L119, doi: 10.1086/527671

    2008 doi

  34. [43]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/116

    Kocevski, D., & Petrosian, V. 2013, ApJ, 765, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/116

    2013 doi

  35. [44]

    A., Fishman, G

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

    1993 doi

  36. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8fec

    Lan, G.-X., Wei, J.-J., Li, Y., Zeng, H.-D., & Wu, X.-F. 2022, ApJ, 938, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8fec

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 52, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2508

    Lan, G.-X., Wei, J.-J., Zeng, H.-D., Li, Y., & Wu, X.-F. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 52, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2508

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2011

    Lan, G.-X., Zeng, H.-D., Wei, J.-J., & Wu, X.-F. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2011

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    J., & Yoon, S

    Langer, N., van Marle, A. J., & Yoon, S. C. 2010, NewAR, 54, 206, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2010.09.012

    2010 doi

  40. [49]

    J., Gompertz, B

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

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    2024, A&A, 689, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348542 —

    Li, J.-L., Yang, Y.-P., Yi, S.-X., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348542 —. 2023, ApJ, 953, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace107

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1487, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13488.x

    Li, L.-X. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1487, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13488.x

    2008

  43. [52]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x Llamas Lanza, M., Godet, O., Arcier, B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.03266, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03266

    2007

  44. [53]

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

    Lloyd-Ronning, N. M., Aykutalp, A., & Johnson, J. L. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2155 Lü, H.-J., Liang, E.-W., Zhang, B.-B., & Zhang, B. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1965, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1965

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 20192, 1

    Mailyan, B., & Goldstein, A. 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, 20192, 1

    2016

  46. [55]

    B., Barthelmy, S

    Markwardt, C. B., Barthelmy, S. D., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, 20456, 1

    2017

  47. [56]

    L., Tananbaum, H., Avni, Y., & Zamorani, G

    Marshall, H. L., Tananbaum, H., Avni, Y., & Zamorani, G. 1983, ApJ, 269, 35, doi: 10.1086/161016

    1983 doi

  48. [57]

    P., Golenetskii, S

    Mazets, E. P., Golenetskii, S. V., Ilinskii, V. N., et al. 1981, Ap&SS, 80, 3, doi: 10.1007/BF00649140 13

    1981 doi

  49. [58]

    Y., & Pozanenko, A

    Minaev, P. Y., & Pozanenko, A. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3611

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    B., & Sakamoto, T

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

    2022 doi

  51. [60]

    2006, ApJ, 643, 81, doi: 10.1086/502708

    Narumoto, T., & Totani, T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 81, doi: 10.1086/502708

    2006 doi

  52. [62]

    M., Barthelmy, S

    Palmer, D. M., Barthelmy, S. D., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, 22566, 1

    2018

  53. [63]

    S., et al

    Pescalli, A., Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1911, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2482

    2015 doi

  54. [64]

    2016, A&A, 587, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760

    Pescalli, A., Ghirlanda, G., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760

    2016 doi

  55. [65]

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

    2024 doi

  56. [66]

    2015, ApJ, 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

    2015 doi

  57. [67]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2651

    Qu, Y., Zeng, H., & Yan, D. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2651

    2019 doi

  58. [68]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88e7

    Qu, Y.-K., Man, Z.-X., Yi, S.-X., & Yang, Y.-P. 2024, ApJ, 976, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88e7

    2024 doi

  59. [69]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009, doi: 10.1086/300499

    1998 doi

  60. [70]

    D., Baumgartner, W

    Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., Baumgartner, W. H., et al. 2011, ApJS, 195, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/195/1/2

    2011 doi

  61. [71]

    2009, Nature, 461, 1258, doi: 10.1038/nature08445

    Salvaterra, R., Della Valle, M., Campana, S., et al. 2009, Nature, 461, 1258, doi: 10.1038/nature08445

    2009 doi

  62. [72]

    D., et al

    Salvaterra, R., Campana, S., Vergani, S. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/68

    2012 doi

  63. [73]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/33

    Sun, H., Zhang, B., & Li, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/33

    2015 doi

  64. [74]

    Strolger, L. G. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 57, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16442.x

    2010

  65. [75]

    2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 25974, 1

    Svinkin, D., Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 25974, 1

    2019

  66. [76]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 547, doi: 10.1038/nature12505

    2013 doi

  67. [77]

    2023, ApJ, 958, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed8

    Tian, X., Li, J.-L., Yi, S.-X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfed8

    2023 doi

  68. [78]

    1997, ApJL, 486, L71, doi: 10.1086/310853

    Totani, T. 1997, ApJL, 486, L71, doi: 10.1086/310853

    1997 doi

  69. [79]

    J., Becerra González, J., et al

    Troja, E., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Becerra González, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2104, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2255

    2019 doi

  70. [80]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96af

    Tsvetkova, A., Frederiks, D., Golenetskii, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96af

    2017 doi

  71. [81]

    2018a, GRB Coordinates Network, 22513, 1 —

    Tsvetkova, A., Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., et al. 2018a, GRB Coordinates Network, 22513, 1 —. 2018b, GRB Coordinates Network, 23363, 1 —. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 23637, 1

    2019

  72. [82]

    Meegan, C., & Mailyan, B

    Veres, P. Meegan, C., & Mailyan, B. 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, 23053, 1

    2018

  73. [83]

    J., Zhang, B., Nagamine, K., & Choi, J.-H

    Virgili, F. J., Zhang, B., Nagamine, K., & Choi, J.-H. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 3025, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19459.x von Kienlin, A. 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, 22386, 1 von Kienlin, A., & Burns, E. 2015, GRB Coordinates Network, 17319, 1 von Kienlin, A., Meegan, C. A., Pac...

    2011

  74. [84]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.02376, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.02376

    Wang, C.-W., Tan, W.-J., Xiong, S.-L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.02376, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.02376

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [85]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0a86

    Wang, F., Zou, Y.-C., Liu, F., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0a86

    2020 doi

  76. [86]

    Y., & Dai, Z

    Wang, F. Y., & Dai, Z. G. 2009, MNRAS, 400, L10, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00751.x

    2009

  77. [87]

    Y., Dai, Z

    Wang, F. Y., Dai, Z. G., & Liang, E. W. 2015, NewAR, 67, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2015.03.001

    2015 doi

  78. [88]

    Y., Hu, J

    Wang, F. Y., Hu, J. P., Zhang, G. Q., & Dai, Z. G. 2022, ApJ, 924, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3755

    2022 doi

  79. [89]

    S., Wang, F

    Wang, J. S., Wang, F. Y., Cheng, K. S., & Dai, Z. G. 2016, A&A, 585, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526485

    2016 doi

  80. [90]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.06892, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1610.06892

    Wei, J., Cordier, B., Antier, S., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.06892, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1610.06892

    2016 doi arXiv

  81. [91]

    2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 232, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    2022 doi

  82. [92]

    2004, ApJ, 609, 935, doi: 10.1086/421285

    Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Nakamura, T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 935, doi: 10.1086/421285

    2004 doi

  83. [93]

    Y., Dai, Z

    Yu, H., Wang, F. Y., Dai, Z. G., & Cheng, K. S. 2015, ApJS, 218, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/218/1/13

    2015 doi

  84. [94]

    Yu, H. F. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 17216, 1 Yüksel, H., Kistler, M. D., Beacom, J. F., & Hopkins, A. M. 2008, ApJL, 683, L5, doi: 10.1086/591449

    2014 doi

  85. [95]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 3094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1817

    Zeng, H., Melia, F., & Zhang, L. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1817

    2016 doi

  86. [96]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 1760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu644

    Zeng, H., Yan, D., & Zhang, L. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1760, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu644

    2014 doi

  87. [97]

    2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 45, 325, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.12.013

    Zhang, B. 2025, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 45, 325, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2024.12.013

    2025 doi

  88. [98]

    J., et al

    Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Virgili, F. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1696, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1696

    2009 doi

  89. [99]

    Zhang, B. B. 2014, GRB Coordinates Network, 16798, 1

    2014

  90. [100]

    Q., & Wang, F

    Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2018, ApJ, 852, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9ce5

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.