pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.05169 · v1 · pith:IE4I53I6new · submitted 2026-02-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Searching for gravitational waves from compact binary mergers powering long gamma-ray bursts during LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's O3 run

Mallika R. Sinha , Teagan A. Clarke , Qifang Zhang , Nikhil Sarin , Eric Thrane , Paul D. Lasky This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 14:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords gravitational waveslong gamma-ray burstsbinary neutron star mergersneutron star black hole mergersLIGO Virgo KAGRAluminosity distance limitsO3 observing run
0
0 comments X

The pith

No gravitational wave signals found coincident with long gamma-ray bursts in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O3 data

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

The paper examines whether some long gamma-ray bursts could be powered by neutron star binary or neutron star-black hole mergers, an idea suggested by recent kilonova detections. It analyzes LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational wave data from the third observing run for times and locations matching long GRBs observed by Fermi and Swift. No matching signals appear in the data. The authors therefore calculate upper limits on how far away each GRB source could be if it had been a compact binary merger. This approach tests the merger hypothesis for long GRBs by turning non-detections into quantitative distance bounds.

Core claim

Analysis of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O3 data coincident with long GRBs from Fermi GBM and Swift BAT yields no evidence of gravitational wave signals from binary neutron star or neutron star-black hole mergers. Upper limits are derived on the luminosity distance to each GRB under the assumption that the bursts were powered by such mergers.

What carries the argument

Search for coincident gravitational wave signals from binary neutron star and neutron star-black hole mergers in LVK O3 strain data using long GRB triggers from Fermi and Swift

If this is right

  • Any long GRB powered by a compact binary merger must lie beyond the luminosity distance limits reported for that event
  • The non-detections remain consistent with either a non-merger origin or sources too distant to detect in O3
  • Improved detector sensitivity in future runs could reveal coincident signals if the merger origin holds for some long GRBs
  • These limits constrain how common compact binary mergers can be as progenitors of the observed long GRB population

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The kilonova-long GRB association may apply only to rare or more distant events
  • Most long GRBs are probably still produced by core collapse of massive stars rather than mergers
  • Similar targeted searches in future observing runs can more tightly test alternative progenitor models for gamma-ray bursts

Load-bearing premise

The long gamma-ray bursts were powered by compact binary mergers

What would settle it

A clear gravitational wave signal from a binary merger matching the time and sky position of one of the analyzed long GRBs

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.05169 by Eric Thrane, Mallika R. Sinha, Nikhil Sarin, Paul D. Lasky, Qifang Zhang, Teagan A. Clarke.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The distribution of Bayesian coherence ratio (BCR). The distribution for long GRBs coincident with HLV data is shown in blue, the distribution for long GRBs coincident with HL data is shown in orange, and the distribution of off-source data (with no long GRB trigger) is shown in green. The BCR of a recent HL sub-threshold binary neutron-star merger candidate GW231109_235456 (Niu et al. 2025) is shown by th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Bayesian coherence ratio (blue) for a set of injected signals into a three-detector network (HLV) with varying luminosity distance, as described in Section 3.1. The background threshold, corresponding to the maximum off￾source log10(BCR) = 2.8 value, for a positive identification is shown in green. The BCR may provide evidence for sub￾threshold events with network optimal SNR ≈ 8 − 12. Parameter Value … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Estimated posterior distribution of f, the frac￾tion of gravitationally-bright long GRBs originating from bi￾nary mergers. The blue curve shows constraints obtained using the current sensitive search volume, the purple curve assumes a 500-fold increase in sensitive volume, and the or￾ange curve corresponds to a next-generation detector, Cos￾mic Explorer, under the assumption of no coincident long GRB and g… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Neutron star binary mergers are often associated with short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), but the recent detection of kilonovae coincident with long GRBs suggest that some mergers may produce long GRBs. Motivated by these developments, we perform a search for binary neutron star and neutron star-black hole gravitational-wave signals coincident with long GRBs using data from the third LIGO--Virgo--KAGRA (LVK) observing run. We analyze LVK data coincident with long GRBs detected by Fermi's GRB Monitor and Swift's Burst Alert Telescope when at least two gravitational-wave observatories were running. We find no evidence of a coincident gravitational-wave signal and set limits on the luminosity distance to each of these long GRBs under the assumption that they were powered by binary mergers.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a search for gravitational-wave signals from binary neutron star and neutron star-black hole mergers coincident with long gamma-ray bursts detected during the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O3 run. Using Fermi-GBM and Swift-BAT catalogs, the authors analyze LVK data segments where at least two detectors were operational, find no significant coincident signals, and derive luminosity-distance upper limits for each GRB under the explicit assumption that the bursts were powered by compact binary mergers.

Significance. If the central null result and conditional limits hold, the work provides a useful benchmark for multi-messenger constraints on long-GRB progenitors, building on recent kilonova associations. The analysis employs standard search pipelines on public data, which supports reproducibility. The assumption that these long GRBs are merger-powered is stated clearly in the abstract and results, so the distance limits are correctly presented as conditional rather than unconditional; this directly addresses the stress-test concern without introducing circularity.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and introduction should explicitly state the total number of long GRBs analyzed and the precise coincidence time window (e.g., the duration of the search interval around each GRB trigger) to allow immediate assessment of search completeness.
  2. In the methods or results section, the specific false-alarm-rate threshold or ranking statistic cutoff used to declare 'no evidence' of a signal should be quoted numerically, together with the assumed waveform models and prior ranges for the distance limits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and for recommending minor revision. The referee's summary accurately reflects the scope and findings of our search for gravitational-wave signals coincident with long GRBs in O3, and we appreciate the recognition that the conditional luminosity-distance limits are presented appropriately under the merger-powered assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct null search with explicitly conditional limits

full rationale

The paper reports a standard gravitational-wave search in LVK O3 data for signals coincident with long GRBs drawn from external Fermi/Swift catalogs. No coincident signals are found, and luminosity-distance upper limits are derived under the explicit assumption that each GRB was powered by a binary merger. This assumption is stated as a precondition for interpreting the non-detection as a distance constraint; it is not derived from or defined in terms of the search result itself. No equations reduce fitted parameters to predictions, no self-citations carry load-bearing uniqueness claims, and the derivation chain consists of standard matched-filter or coherent search statistics applied to external triggers. The result is therefore self-contained against external data benchmarks and receives a circularity score of zero.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the domain assumption that some long GRBs are from binary mergers, which is motivated by recent kilonova detections but not proven.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Long GRBs can be powered by compact binary mergers
    This is the key assumption stated in the abstract for setting the limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5697 in / 1152 out tokens · 67756 ms · 2026-05-21T14:41:55.842842+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Aasi, J., e. a. 2014, Physical Review Letters, 113, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.113.011102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.011102 2014

  2. [2]

    2015, Class

    Aasi, J., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  3. [3]

    2017, Phys

    Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2017a, Physical Review Letters, 119, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 —. 2019a, Physical Review X, 9, doi: 10.1103/physrevx.9.011001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c —. 2017c, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 —. 2019b, The Astrophysical Journal, 886, 75, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4b48

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2041

  5. [5]

    Abbott, B. P., e. a. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 841, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c47

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c47 2017

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac532b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac532b 2022

  7. [7]

    2023b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

    Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abee15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abee15 2021

  9. [9]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T., Acernese, F., et al. 2023b, Physical Review X, 13, doi: 10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  10. [10]

    2015, Class

    Acernese, F., et al. 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2014

  11. [11]

    Akutsu et al

    Akutsu, T., et al. 2020, Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05574

    work page arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    2020, Mon

    Ashton, G., & Thrane, E. 2020, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc., 498, 1905

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., et al. 2019b, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

  14. [14]

    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 8 GRB Name Networklog 10(BCR)D 90 (Mpc) GRB Name Networklog 10(BCR)D 90 (Mpc) GRB190404293 HLV -0.19 175 GRB190926A HL -0.12 294 GRB190406450 HLV -3.49 51 GRB191110A HLV -0.47 324 GRB190504415 HLV -0.02 498 GRB191111A HL -0.04 612 GRB190507270 HL...

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  15. [15]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/l23

    Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/l23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/l23 2013

  16. [16]

    Berlato, F., Greiner, J., & Burgess, J. M. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0413

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0413 2019

  17. [17]

    Collaboration, T. L. S., the Virgo Collaboration, & the KAGRA Collaboration, e. a. 2025, GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18083 Della Valle, M., Chincarini, G., Panagia, N., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1050, doi: 10.1038/nature05374

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/nature05374 2025

  18. [18]

    2019, Physical Review D, 100, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.100.044003

    Dietrich, T., Samajdar, A., Khan, S., et al. 2019, Physical Review D, 100, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.100.044003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.044003 2019

  19. [19]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  20. [20]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    Evans, M., Adhikari, R. X., Afle, C., et al. 2021, A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community. https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.09882 9

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    2025, Astronomy and Computing, 52, 100954, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2025.100954

    Finneran, G., Cotter, L., & Martin-Carrillo, A. 2025, Astronomy and Computing, 52, 100954, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2025.100954

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2025.100954 2025

  22. [22]

    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

  23. [23]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

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

    work page doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  24. [24]

    P., Barthelmy, S

    Gehrels, N., Norris, J. P., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1044, doi: 10.1038/nature05376

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05376 2006

  25. [25]

    2007, A&A, 466, 127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077119

    Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., & Firmani, C. 2007, A&A, 466, 127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077119

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077119 2007

  26. [26]

    2022, The Cosmic History of Long Gamma Ray Bursts

    Ghirlanda, G., & Salvaterra, R. 2022, The Cosmic History of Long Gamma Ray Bursts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.06390

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    H., & Smartt, S

    Gillanders, J. H., & Smartt, S. J. 2025, Analysis of the JWST spectra of the kilonova AT 2023vfi accompanying GRB 230307A. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11093

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

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

  29. [29]

    P., Ravasio, M

    Gompertz, B. P., Ravasio, M. E., Nicholl, M., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 7, 67–79, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01819-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01819-4 2022

  30. [30]

    Gottlieb, B

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, A Unified Picture of Short and Long Gamma-ray Bursts from Compact Binary Mergers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00038

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    W., & Fairhurst, S

    Harry, I. W., & Fairhurst, S. 2011, Physical Review D, 83, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.83.084002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.084002 2011

  32. [32]

    Hjorth, J., & Bloom, J. S. 2011, The Gamma-Ray Burst - Supernova Connection. https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2274

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    2016, Physical Review D, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93.044006

    Husa, S., Khan, S., Hannam, M., et al. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93.044006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.044006 2016

  35. [35]

    2018, Physical Review D, 98, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.98.042007

    Isi, M., Smith, R., Vitale, S., et al. 2018, Physical Review D, 98, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.98.042007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.042007 2018

  36. [36]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 811, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/l22

    Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., Cano, Z., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 811, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/l22

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/811/2/l22 2015

  37. [37]

    2016, Phys

    Khan, S., Husa, S., Hannam, M., et al. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93.044007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.044007 2016

  38. [38]

    A., Fishman, G

    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

  39. [39]

    2021, Living Reviews in Relativity, 24, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00033-4

    Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2021, Living Reviews in Relativity, 24, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00033-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00033-4 2021

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 626, 737–741, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2023

  41. [41]

    Liang, E., Zhang, B., Virgili, F., & Dai, Z. G. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 1111–1118, doi: 10.1086/517959

    work page doi:10.1086/517959 2007

  42. [42]

    2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 49, 100456, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100456

    Maccary, R., Guidorzi, C., Maistrello, M., et al. 2026, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 49, 100456, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100456

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100456 2026

  43. [43]

    N., et al

    Meegan, C., Lichti, G., Bhat, P. N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 702, 791, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/791 2009

  44. [44]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/186493 1992

  45. [45]

    L., et al

    Neights, E., Burns, E., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf2019

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2019 2025

  46. [46]

    2025, GW231109_235456: A Sub-threshold Binary Neutron Star Merger in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4a Observing Run? https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09741

    Niu, W., Hanna, C., Haster, C.-J., et al. 2025, GW231109_235456: A Sub-threshold Binary Neutron Star Merger in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4a Observing Run? https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09741

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    1998, , 494, L45, 10.1086/311148

    Paczynski, B. 1991, AcA, 41, 257 Paczyński, B. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 494, L45–L48, doi: 10.1086/311148

    work page doi:10.1086/311148 1991

  48. [48]

    E., & Fryer, C

    Popham, R., Woosley, S. E., & Fryer, C. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 518, 356–374, doi: 10.1086/307259

    work page doi:10.1086/307259 1999

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223–227, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w 2022

  50. [50]

    M., et al

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., et al. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 3295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2850

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2850 2020

  51. [51]

    2024, Mergers of double neutron stars with one high-spin component: brighter kilonovae and fallback accretion, weaker gravitational waves

    Sarin, N. 2024, Mergers of double neutron stars with one high-spin component: brighter kilonovae and fallback accretion, weaker gravitational waves. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.15920

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    S., Colombo, A., Gabrielli, F., & Mandel, I

    Salafia, O. S., Colombo, A., Gabrielli, F., & Mandel, I. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 666, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243260

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243260 2022

  53. [53]

    S., & Schutz, B

    Sathyaprakash, B. S., & Schutz, B. F. 2009, Living Reviews in Relativity, 12, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2009-2

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2009-2 2009

  54. [54]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94 2017

  55. [55]

    2006, Physical Review D, 74, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.74.121503

    Shibata, M., & Ury¯ u, K. 2006, Physical Review D, 74, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.74.121503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.121503 2006

  56. [56]

    Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P

    Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M., et al. 2003, ApJL, 591, L17, doi: 10.1086/376976

    work page doi:10.1086/376976 2003

  57. [57]

    W., Yang, J., et al

    Sun, H., Wang, C. W., Yang, J., et al. 2024, Magnetar emergence in a peculiar gamma-ray burst from a compact star merger. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05689

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    J., Jones, G., Chatterji, S., et al

    Sutton, P. J., Jones, G., Chatterji, S., et al. 2010, New Journal of Physics, 12, 053034, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/12/5/053034

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/5/053034 2010

  59. [59]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 547–549, doi: 10.1038/nature12505

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12505 2013

  60. [60]

    A., DeLaunay, J., et al

    Tohuvavohu, A., Kennea, J. A., DeLaunay, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba94f 10

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba94f 2020

  61. [61]

    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

  62. [62]

    2022, Mon

    Vajpeyi, A., Smith, R., Thrane, E., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc., 516, 5309

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    2010, Physical Review D, 81, 062003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.062003

    Veitch, J., & Vecchio, A. 2010, Physical Review D, 81, 062003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.062003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.062003 2010

  64. [64]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13

    Wang, X.-G., Zhang, B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aabc13 2018

  65. [65]

    H., Capano, C

    Wang, Y.-F., Nitz, A. H., Capano, C. D., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 939, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac990c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac990c 2022

  66. [66]

    2014, Physical Review D, 90, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.90.122004

    Williamson, A., Biwer, C., Fairhurst, S., et al. 2014, Physical Review D, 90, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.90.122004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.122004 2014

  67. [67]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273, doi: 10.1086/172359 Wąs, M., Sutton, P. J., Jones, G., & Leonor, I. 2012, Physical Review D, 86, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.86.022003

    work page doi:10.1086/172359 1993

  68. [68]

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

    Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 232–235, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05403-8 2022

  69. [69]

    2023, A lanthanide-rich kilonova in the aftermath of a long gamma-ray burst

    Yang, Y.-H., Troja, E., O’Connor, B., et al. 2023, A lanthanide-rich kilonova in the aftermath of a long gamma-ray burst. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00638

    work page arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    S., Xiong, S

    Yi, S.-X., Yorgancioglu, E. S., Xiong, S. L., & Zhang, S. N. 2025, Long Pulse by Short Central Engine: Prompt emission from expanding dissipation rings in the jet front of gamma-ray bursts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.16174

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781139226530

    Zhang, B. 2018, The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.1017/9781139226530

    work page doi:10.1017/9781139226530 2018

  72. [72]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 655, L25, doi: 10.1086/511781

    Zhang, B., Zhang, B.-B., Liang, E.-W., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 655, L25–L28, doi: 10.1086/511781

    work page doi:10.1086/511781 2007

  73. [73]

    2022, ApJL, 933, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b23

    Wang, X.-Y. 2022, ApJL, 933, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b23

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b23 2022

  74. [74]

    Zhu, S.-Y., Deng, H.-Y., Zhang, F.-W., Mo, Q.-Z., & Tam, P.-H. T. 2025, Identifying Merger-Driven Long Gamma-Ray Bursts based on Machine Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08675

    work page arXiv 2025