Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Pieces of evidence for multiple progenitors of Swift long gamma-ray bursts

T0 review · 4 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 paper argues that one-third to nearly half of low-redshift long gamma-ray bursts likely come from non-collapsar progenitors.

desk verdict A competent LF analysis on a larger Swift sample that reinforces the non-collapsar story at z<2; the exact fractions are model-dependent and lack error bars, so treat them as indicative. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05561 v1 pith:NNTI65BO submitted 2025-05-08 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Yan-Kun Qu , Zhong-Xiao Man , Zhi-Bin Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords longgamma-rayburstscollapsarsluminosityfunctionredshiftevolutionstarformationrateSwiftGRBprogenitorsmultipleprogenitorscenarios
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

This paper asks whether all long gamma-ray bursts really come from the collapse of massive stars (collapsars). It builds a new Swift sample of 280 bursts with peak flux above $2.6\,\mathrm{ph\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$, fits a broken power-law luminosity function to the 59 bursts at $z\ge 2$ under the assumption that those are all collapsars, and extrapolates the fit to $z<2$ in three evolutionary scenarios. The no-evolution scenario is ruled out; strong luminosity evolution ($\delta = 1.87^{+0.27}_{-0.31}$) or density evolution ($\delta = 1.10^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$) is required. Extrapolating to low redshift predicts only 67.29% (luminosity evolution) or 53.04% (density evolution) of the observed $z<2$ bursts as collapsars, implying that roughly one-third to nearly one-half of low-redshift long GRBs have other progenitors. If correct, empirical GRB relations calibrated on a single collapsar population would mix two classes, biasing their use in cosmology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a broken power-law luminosity function $\phi(L,z)$ combined with a star-formation-rate-proportional event rate $\psi(z)=\eta\psi_*(z)$, where $\psi_*(z)$ is the Hopkins & Beacom / Li star formation rate. An extra factor $(1+z)^{\delta}$ is inserted either into the break luminosity $L_c(z)=L_{c,0}(1+z)^{\delta}$ (luminosity evolution) or into the rate $\psi(z)=\eta\psi_*(z)(1+z)^{\delta}$ (density evolution). A maximum-likelihood fit to the 59 bursts at $z\ge 2$ fixes the parameters, and the same integral over $0<z<2$, with a peak-flux detection efficiency and the luminosity threshold from a Band-function spectrum, gives the expected collapsar count at low redshift. The new sample itself is built by maximizing $F=N\times C^3$, balancing sample size against redshift completeness.

What would settle it

Perform a systematic census of supernova associations versus kilonova/merger signatures for the 280 Swift LGRBs with $P\ge 2.6\,\mathrm{ph\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$: if the spectroscopically confirmed non-collapsar fraction among $z<2$ bursts is much smaller than 33-47%, the extrapolated collapsar luminosity function is wrong. A second test is to check whether the sample's $z\ge 2$ bursts contain identifiable non-collapsars; even a few would break the calibration anchor and change the predicted low-z counts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the redshift and luminosity distributions of Swift long GRBs cannot be explained by a collapsar-only population with a non-evolving luminosity function. Fitting the $z\ge 2$ bursts and extrapolating to $z<2$, the luminosity-evolution model predicts 72.67 collapsar GRBs with $z<2$ and $P\ge 2.6\,\mathrm{ph\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}$, which is 67.29% of the observed number; the density-evolution model predicts 57.28, or 53.04%. The paper concludes that a substantial fraction of low-redshift LGRBs are not collapsars, consistent with kilonova-associated long bursts such as 211211A and 230307A, and that the mixture challenges the universality of empirical GRB correlations used for cosmological applications.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that every long GRB at $z\ge 2$ in the sample is a collapsar and that the luminosity function fitted to those bursts, together with a star-formation-rate-proportional rate and a $(1+z)^{\delta}$ evolution term, remains valid when extrapolated to $z<2$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The no-evolution model is rejected at a level that matters: its BIC is worse by 8.12 and its Akaike weight relative to luminosity evolution is 0.001, so a collapsar-only explanation needs strong redshift evolution.
  • Under either viable model, z<2 Swift LGRBs contain roughly 33% to 47% non-collapsars, making non-collapsar progenitors a common rather than rare channel.
  • Empirical GRB luminosity relations calibrated on the assumption of a single collapsar population would be polluted by non-collapsar events, weakening distance estimates and cosmological parameter inference.
  • The low-luminosity end of the observed luminosity distribution lies above the collapsar prediction, supporting the view that high- and low-luminosity LGRBs have different progenitors.
  • The reported triple power-law shape of the LGRB luminosity function can be interpreted as two overlapping broken power laws: bright collapsars plus fainter non-collapsars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the non-collapsar fraction is real, its redshift dependence in this sample could be used to measure the delay-time distribution of the alternative progenitors by fitting the z<2 excess with a delayed star-formation kernel.
  • The calibration anchor itself is testable: if a non-negligible share of z>=2 bursts turn out to be non-collapsars (e.g., from host-galaxy or supernova signatures), the fitted evolution delta is overestimated and the inferred low-z non-collapsar fraction would need revision.
  • A direct census of supernova versus kilonova associations in the 280-burst sample would provide an independent check: finding merger-like signatures in roughly a third to a half of z<2 bursts would confirm the prediction, while finding almost none would point to a problem in the luminosity-function extrapolation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses a Swift sample of 280 long GRBs with peak flux >=2.6 ph cm^-2 s^-1 (60% redshift completeness) to constrain the luminosity function of collapsar GRBs, assuming that all z>=2 LGRBs are collapsars. The authors fit a broken power-law LF with three evolutionary scenarios to the 59 z>=2 bursts using maximum likelihood/MCMC, including a peak-flux-dependent completeness correction theta_z(P). They find that no-evolution is strongly disfavored by AIC/BIC, and that luminosity evolution (delta=1.87) or density evolution (delta=1.10) is required. Extrapolating the best-fit models to z<2 predicts 72.67 or 57.28 collapsar bursts, compared to 108 observed z<2 LGRBs, implying that roughly 33-47% of low-redshift LGRBs have non-collapsar progenitors.

Significance. If the result is robust, it provides quantitative support for a non-collapsar component among low-redshift LGRBs, consistent with GRB 211211A and 230307A, and it would caution against using empirical GRB relations without accounting for progenitor diversity. The analysis is transparent: the likelihood formalism is standard, the MCMC fitting and AIC/BIC comparison are reproducible in principle, the sample is public, and the central assumption is explicitly stated. The predicted low-redshift deficit is a falsifiable number. However, the quantitative claim currently rests on a point prediction without uncertainties and on a completeness correction that is assumed to be redshift-independent, so the significance is not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (3)-(6)] The completeness correction theta_z is taken to be a function of peak flux only, with no test of redshift dependence. With only 60% redshift completeness (Section 2), selection effects at fixed P can bias the z>=2 subsample if high-z bursts are systematically harder to follow up; this would flatten the fitted faint-end slope and change the low-z extrapolation. Please validate theta_z(P) against redshift (e.g., via a binned completeness map in P and z) and show how the predicted counts 72.67 and 57.28 change under a z-dependent correction.
  2. [Section 4, Table 1] The predicted numbers 72.67 and 57.28 are reported without uncertainties. These are functions of the MCMC posterior for (eta, a, b, log Lc, delta); without a posterior or confidence interval for N_exp(0<z<2), the comparison to 108 observed bursts is unquantified and the conclusion of a 'substantial' non-collapsar fraction cannot be assessed for statistical significance. Please propagate the MCMC posterior through Eq. (6) and report the full distribution or at least an uncertainty interval.
  3. [Section 2 and Abstract] The assumption that all z>=2 LGRBs are collapsars is load-bearing; the only support offered is that the high-z rate approximately tracks the SFR, which is itself subject to the same selection effects. Because the LF fitted to z>=2 is extrapolated to z<2, any non-collapsar contamination at z>=2 directly biases the inferred low-z non-collapsar fraction. Please add a robustness test, e.g., varying the high-z threshold (z>=2.5 or z>=3) or allowing a nuisance fraction of non-collapsars at z>=2, and state the resulting range of predicted low-z collapsar counts.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] The functional form and fitting procedure for theta_z(P) are described only in words, not documented in detail. Since theta_z(P) enters the likelihood and the N_exp prediction directly, the paper should provide the data used, the fitting method, the goodness of fit, and a figure or table showing the completeness as a function of P. It should also clarify whether theta_z(P) was fitted to the same 280-burst sample used for the LF fit, and if so, discuss any potential circularity in the effective exposure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Figures 2 and 3] The AIC and BIC comparisons are reported for the high-z fit, but Figures 2 and 3 show comparisons to all 167 redshift-known bursts; please clarify the role of the low-z data in the model evaluation and whether the plotted model curves include the theta_z(P) correction.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says the shaded area indicates Poisson errors, but the error bars are not defined; please state the confidence level and how the Poisson errors were computed.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (8)] The Akaike weight expression is fine, but the two-model comparison should state explicitly that the resulting probability is relative only to the two models considered, not an absolute probability of correctness.
  4. [Section 5] The text says the findings are in good agreement with Petrosian & Dainotti (2024), who found approximately 60% non-collapsars, but this paper's own estimates are 33-47%; please rephrase to reflect the partial overlap and the different model assumptions.
  5. [Table 2] The organization into three redshift groups is clear, but it would help to include a column with T90 values or a note describing how the LGRB selection (T90 > 2 s) was applied to the listed bursts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the low-redshift collapsar counts are extrapolations from a luminosity function fitted to the z>=2 sample, not refits of the target quantity.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is an extrapolation, not a restatement of its inputs. The luminosity function, evolution parameter, and efficiency are fit by maximum likelihood to the 59 z>=2 bursts (Section 4: 'the high-redshift collapsar sample used for our fit'), and the claimed z<2 collapsar counts of 72.67 and 57.28 are computed by substituting the best-fit parameters into Eq. (6) with integration limits z_min=0 and z_max=2. The observed 108 z<2 LGRBs are not used as fit constraints, so the discrepancy between predicted and observed low-redshift counts is not forced by construction. The assumption that all z>=2 LGRBs are collapsars is an explicit stated premise ('Assuming all LGRBs with z>=2 originate from collapsars'), not a conclusion imported through self-citation. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Qu et al. 2019 for the likelihood method, Dong et al. 2023 for progenitor evidence) are supporting references, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or fitted predictions. The empirical theta_z(P) completeness correction is calibrated from the sample and applied consistently in the likelihood and in the prediction integral; whether it is correctly specified is a statistical validity concern, not circularity. No equation-level reduction of the claimed prediction to the fitted inputs was found.

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

The central inference rests on a small set of fitted luminosity-function parameters and on the unverified purity of the z>=2 sample. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Luminosity evolution index delta_L = 1.87 +0.27/-0.31
    Fitted to the z>=2 sample; controls the redshift evolution of the break luminosity Lc(z)=Lc,0(1+z)^delta.
  • Density evolution index delta_d = 1.10 +0.21/-0.20
    Fitted to the z>=2 sample; controls the extra (1+z)^delta factor in the GRB event rate.
  • Break luminosity log10(Lc/[erg/s]) = 52.20 to 52.57 depending on model
    Fitted break of the broken power-law luminosity function in each model.
  • Power-law indices a and b = a about -0.29 to -0.08, b about -1.59 to -1.07 depending on model
    Fitted slopes below and above the break luminosity in Eq. (5).
  • Formation efficiency eta = 4.23 to 8.78 x 10^-8 M_sun^-1 depending on model
    Fitted normalization linking the GRB rate to the star formation rate in Eq. (3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All LGRBs with z>=2 are collapsars
    Stated in the abstract and used in Section 3; this purity assumption lets the high-z sample define the collapsar luminosity function.
  • domain assumption Collapsar rate follows the SFR with no delay
    Used in Eq. (3) with psi(z)=eta psi_star(z), following Hopkins and Beacom (2006) and Li (2008).
  • domain assumption Detection efficiency theta_gamma(P)=1 above the 2.6 ph/cm2/s threshold
    Adopted in Section 3; justified by the high flux threshold, but residual selection effects would bias the LF.
  • domain assumption Band function spectral shape with low and high energy indices -1 and -2.3
    Used in Eq. (7) to convert peak flux to a luminosity threshold.
  • domain assumption The empirical redshift completeness function theta_z(P) fitted to the sample is unbiased
    Section 3 fits theta_z(P)=(1+1.28*0.95^P)^-1 to a sample with only 60% redshift completeness; any mismatch between this function and the true completeness propagates into the LF.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pieces of evidence for multiple progenitors of Swift long gamma-ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NNTI65BO

@misc{pith2026250505561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pieces of evidence for multiple progenitors of Swift long gamma-ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NNTI65BO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05561}
}
abstract

Long gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) are typically thought to result from the collapse of massive stars. Nonetheless, recent observations of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) 211211A and 230307A, coupled with the low-redshift excess of LGRB event rates relative to star formation rates, present significant challenges to the prevailing model. We reexamine the selection criteria for higher redshift complete GRB samples and identify 280 Swift GRBs with peak flux over $2.6 ph cm^{-2} s^{-1}$. Assuming all LGRBs with $z \geq 2$ originate from collapsars, we construct the GRB luminosity functions(LFs) in three scenarios: no evolution, luminosity evolution, and density evolution. Our results indicate that a strong redshift evolution in luminosity $\delta = 1.87^{+0.27}_{-0.31}$ or in density $\delta = 1.10^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$ is necessary. The luminosity/density evolution model predicts 72.67/57.28 collapsar GRBs at $z < 2$, which can account for 67.29%/ 53.04% of the observed LGRBs. This suggests that a substantial portion of LGRBs at $z< 2$ may not be collapsar GRBs, which would challenge the universality of empirical GRB relations and affect their reliability in cosmological applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Redshift completeness as a function of observation time for Swift GRB samples selected according to the criteria defined by Salvaterra et al. (2012). The shaded area indicates Poisson errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The differential redshift distributions of three theoretical models for collapsar GRBs (color curves). shaded areas indicate the 1 𝜎 confidence intervals for each model. The blue data points represent the observed redshift distribution of 167 LGRBs with 𝑃 ≥ 2.6 ph cm−2 s −1 . 3 ANALYSIS METHOD We adopted the maximum likelihood method to optimize the free parameters of the model (Marshall et al. 1983; Qu et al. 2019;… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The blue data points show the luminosity distributions of 167 LGRBs with 𝑃 ≥ 2.6 ph cm−2 s −1 . The solid lines and the shaded regions stand for the luminosity distributions and 1𝜎 scatters of collapsar GRBs as predicted by different models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Luminosity distributions of 59 high-redshift (𝑧 ≥ 2) LGRBs with 𝑃 ≥ 2.6 ph cm−2 s −1 (solid circles, top row). The top row presents the best-fitting models(solid lines) for three different evolutionary scenarios: no evolution (left), luminosity evolution (middle), and …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  4. [4]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..435A 720, 435

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720..435A 720, 435

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

  5. [5]

    Ajello M., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/603 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...699..603A 699, 603

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

  6. [6]

    Ajello M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751..108A 751, 108

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

  7. [8]

    Amati L., Frontera F., Guidorzi C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...508..173A 508, 173

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912788 2009

  8. [9]

    Amati L., D'Agostino R., Luongo O., Muccino M., Tantalo M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486L..46A 486, L46

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz056 2019

Show all 75 references
  1. [10]

    Band D., et al., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172995 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413..281B 413, 281

    1993 doi

  2. [11]

    S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...657L...8B 657, L8

    Bavera S. S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141979 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...657L...8B 657, L8

    2022 doi

  3. [12]

    Berger E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52...43B 52, 43

    2014 doi

  4. [13]

    Bissaldi E., Meegan C., 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017GCN.21297....1B 21297, 1

    2017

  5. [14]

    S., Djorgovski S

    Bloom J. S., Djorgovski S. G., Kulkarni S. R., Frail D. A., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...507L..25B 507, L25

    1998 doi

  6. [15]

    R., Kocevski D., Bloom J

    Butler N. R., Kocevski D., Bloom J. S., Curtis J. L., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..656B 671, 656

    2007 doi

  7. [16]

    F., Li X

    Dong X. F., Li X. J., Zhang Z. B., Zhang X. L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.1078D 513, 1078

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    F., Zhang Z

    Dong X. F., Zhang Z. B., Li Q. M., Huang Y. F., Bian K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf852 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...37D 958, 37

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    B., Li G

    Du X., Zhang Z. B., Li G. A., et al., 2024a, Event rates of short gamma-ray bursts originated from compact binary mergers in the era of multiple missions, To be submitted to ApJL

  10. [19]

    Y., Zhen H

    Du X. Y., Zhen H. Y., Liu J. X., Zhang Z. B., Dong X. F., Ge Y., Yan J. M., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0f24 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960...77D 960, 77

    doi

  11. [20]

    L., Rau A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A.113E 539, A113

    Elliott J., Greiner J., Khochfar S., Schady P., Johnson J. L., Rau A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A.113E 539, A113

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    Fong W., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...769...56F 769, 56

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    Fong W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc74a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...906..127F 906, 127

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  15. [24]

    Frederiks D., et al., 2016, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016GCN.20082....1F 20082, 1

    2016

  16. [25]

    Frederiks D., et al., 2017, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017GCN.20604....1F 20604, 1

    2017

  17. [26]

    Frederiks D., et al., 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018GCN.22546....1F 22546, 1

    2018

  18. [27]

    J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/27150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.395..670G 395, 670

    Galama T. J., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/27150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.395..670G 395, 670

    1998 doi

  19. [28]

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

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    Golenetskii S., et al., 2015, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015GCN.18433....1G 18433, 1

    2015

  21. [30]

    Goodman J., Weare J., 2010, @doi [Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science] 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CAMCS...5...65G 5, 65

    2010 doi

  22. [31]

    Hao J.-M., Yuan Y.-F., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/42 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...772...42H 772, 42

    2013 doi

  23. [32]

    M., Beacom J

    Hopkins A. M., Beacom J. F., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...651..142H 651, 142

    2006 doi

  24. [33]

    Jakobsson P., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054287 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...447..897J 447, 897

    2006 doi

  25. [34]

    D., Briggs M

    Kaneko Y., Preece R. D., Briggs M. S., Paciesas W. S., Meegan C. A., Band D. L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505911 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJS..166..298K 166, 298

    2006 doi

  26. [35]

    L., Kirshner R

    Kelly P. L., Kirshner R. P., Pahre M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591925 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...687.1201K 687, 1201

    2008 doi

  27. [36]

    A., Fishman G

    Kouveliotou C., Meegan C. A., Fishman G. J., Bhat N. P., Briggs M. S., Koshut T. M., Paciesas W. S., Pendleton G. N., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413L.101K 413, L101

    1993 doi

  28. [37]

    Lan G.-X., Zeng H.-D., Wei J.-J., Wu X.-F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4607L 488, 4607

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    Lan G.-X., Wei J.-J., Zeng H.-D., Li Y., Wu X.-F., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508...52L 508, 52

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    Lan G.-X., Wei J.-J., Li Y., Zeng H.-D., Wu X.-F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8fec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938..129L 938, 129

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.626..737L 626, 737

    Levan A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.626..737L 626, 737

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    Li L.-X., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13488.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388.1487L 388, 1487

    2008

  33. [42]

    Lloyd-Ronning N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928..104L 928, 104

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Fryer C

    Lloyd-Ronning N. M., Fryer C. L., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..554L 574, 554

    2002 doi

  35. [44]

    M., Gompertz B., Pe'er A., Dainotti M., Fruchter A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..118L 871, 118

    Lloyd-Ronning N. M., Gompertz B., Pe'er A., Dainotti M., Fruchter A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871..118L 871, 118

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    M., Johnson J

    Lloyd-Ronning N. M., Johnson J. L., Upton Sanderbeck P. R., Silva M., Cheng R. M., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.12654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240812654L p. arXiv:2408.12654

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    L., Tananbaum H., Avni Y., Zamorani G., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...269...35M 269, 35

    Marshall H. L., Tananbaum H., Avni Y., Zamorani G., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/161016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...269...35M 269, 35

    1983 doi

  38. [47]

    P., et al., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00649140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981Ap&SS..80....3M 80, 3

    Mazets E. P., et al., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00649140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981Ap&SS..80....3M 80, 3

    1981 doi

  39. [48]

    Narumoto T., Totani T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/502708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...643...81N 643, 81

    2006 doi

  40. [49]

    Paczy \'n ski B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...494L..45P 494, L45

    1998 doi

  41. [50]

    Paul D., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.3385P 473, 3385

    doi

  42. [51]

    Paul D., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.4275P 477, 4275

    doi

  43. [52]

    Pescalli A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...587A..40P 587, A40

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963L..12P 963, L12

    Petrosian V., Dainotti M. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963L..12P 963, L12

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    Petrosian V., Kitanidis E., Kocevski D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/44 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806...44P 806, 44

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    Poolakkil S., Meegan C., Fermi GBM Team 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019GCN.25130....1P 25130, 1

    2019

  47. [56]

    Qu Y., Zeng H., Yan D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490..758Q 490, 758

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.612..223R 612, 223

    Rastinejad J. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.612..223R 612, 223

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    Salvaterra R., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749...68S 749, 68

    2012 doi

  50. [59]

    Sun H., Zhang B., Li Z., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...33S 812, 33

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

    M., Levan A

    Svensson K. M., Levan A. J., Tanvir N. R., Fruchter A. S., Strolger L. G., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16442.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.405...57S 405, 57

    2010

  52. [61]

    Svinkin D., et al., 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019GCN.25974....1S 25974, 1

    2019

  53. [62]

    R., Levan A

    Tanvir N. R., Levan A. J., Fruchter A. S., Hjorth J., Hounsell R. A., Wiersema K., Tunnicliffe R. L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.500..547T 500, 547

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    Totani T., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310853 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...486L..71T 486, L71

    1997 doi

  55. [64]

    Troja E., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.2104T 489, 2104

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    Tsvetkova A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850..161T 850, 161

    2017 doi

  57. [66]

    Tsvetkova A., et al., 2018, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018GCN.23363....1T 23363, 1

    2018

  58. [67]

    S., Wang F

    Wang J. S., Wang F. Y., Cheng K. S., Dai Z. G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...585A..68W 585, A68

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    Wang F., Zou Y.-C., Liu F., Liao B., Liu Y., Chai Y., Xia L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0a86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...77W 893, 77

    2020 doi

  60. [69]

    arXiv:2407.02376

    Wang C.-W., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.02376 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240702376W p. arXiv:2407.02376

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [70]

    E., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..273W 405, 273

    Woosley S. E., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405..273W 405, 273

    1993 doi

  62. [71]

    Y., Dai Z

    Yu H., Wang F. Y., Dai Z. G., Cheng K. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/218/1/13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..218...13Y 218, 13

    2015 doi

  63. [72]

    Zeng H., Yan D., Zhang L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu644 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.1760Z 441, 1760

    2014 doi

  64. [73]

    Zeng H., Melia F., Zhang L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.3094Z 462, 3094

    2016 doi

  65. [74]

    B., Choi C

    Zhang Z. B., Choi C. S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20079210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...484..293Z 484, 293

    2008 doi

  66. [75]

    Zhang B., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1696Z 703, 1696

    2009 doi

  67. [76]

    von Kienlin A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...893...46V 893, 46

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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