Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 91 references

The long-short GRB connection

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Short GRBs are the descendants of long GRBs.

desk verdict A bold but underdetermined case for the long-short GRB connection: real new simulation results, but the central test is deferred. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12764 v1 pith:PVAS2HCN submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

J. A. Rueda , L. Becerra , C. L. Bianco , M. Della Valle , C. L. Fryer , C. Guidorzi , R. Ruffini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gamma-rayburstsbinary-drivenhypernovaeneutron-starmergersshortGRBslongredshiftdistributionsgalactocentricoffsetscompact-objectbinaries
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

Long and short gamma-ray bursts are usually treated as unrelated phenomena: long bursts supposedly come from the collapse of massive single stars, and short bursts from mergers of neutron-star binaries. This paper argues instead that they are two stages of one evolutionary chain: in the binary-driven hypernova (BdHN) scenario, a long burst is the supernova explosion of a carbon-oxygen star with a neutron-star companion, and the remnant is sometimes a bound neutron-star pair that later merges and produces a short burst. The evidence is that the short-burst rate is lower than the long-burst rate by the fraction of binaries that survive the explosion, that the redshift distribution of the lower-luminosity long bursts (BdHNe II and III) resembles the short-burst distribution once a peak shift of about 0.3 is allowed, and that the simulated distances travelled by the remnant binaries before merging overlap the observed offsets of short bursts in their host galaxies. If this is right, long and short GRBs cease to be two independent progenitor classes and become one binary population observed at different stages of evolution.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the post-BdHN compact-object binary that survives the supernova explosion. The workhorse calculation is the gravitational-wave merger time $\tau_{\rm merger}$ for an eccentric binary, evaluated with the final orbital separation, eccentricity, and masses obtained from the companion SN-SPH simulations in [50], together with the final centre-of-mass velocity $v_{\rm cm,f}$. Multiplying the two, $d = v_{\rm cm,f}\, \tau_{\rm merger}$, gives the distance between the long-burst site and the later short-burst merger site, and this is the quantity compared with observed galactocentric offsets. The argument also rests on the orbital-period threshold that separates BdHN I from BdHNe II and III, because that threshold decides whether the descendant is an NS-BH binary (short merger timescale, negligible contribution to the low-redshift short-GRB population) or an NS-NS binary (longer merger delays that shift the redshift peak by $\Delta z \approx 0.3$).

What would settle it

Compute the NS-NS merger delay-time distribution from the final binary parameters of the [50] simulations convolved with the redshift-dependent formation rate of BdHN II+III CO-NS binaries, and compare the resulting short-GRB redshift distribution and offset distribution with the observed short-GRB sample. If the predicted peak does not fall near $z \approx 0.42$, or if the predicted spread of distances does not cover the observed $0.15$--$70$ kpc range with the observed median, the evolutionary connection as quantitatively stated fails. A less model-dependent check is to enlarge the host-galaxy offset sample and look for short GRBs whose offsets cannot be produced by any $d = v_{\rm cm,f}\,\tau_{\rm merger}$ combination the simulations allow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an evolutionary connection: long GRBs are not a separate class coexisting with short GRBs but the birth events that create the binaries that later produce short GRBs. In the BdHN model, a carbon-oxygen star explodes as a type Ic supernova while interacting with a neutron-star companion; depending on the orbital period, the outcome is an NS-BH binary (BdHN I, the energetic long bursts), a bound NS-NS binary (BdHNe II and III, the lower-energy long bursts), or two runaway neutron stars. The bound NS-NS binaries merge on timescales of $10^4$ to $10^9$ years, travelling $0.01$ to $100$ kpc from the birth site, and these mergers are the short GRBs. The paper supports this with the density rates ($R_{\rm short}/R_{\rm long} \approx 2\%$--$8\%$, matching the surviving bound fraction), the similarity of the BdHN II+III and short-GRB redshift distributions (Kolmogorov-Smirnov $p=0.011$, rising to about $0.35$ after shifting by $\Delta z \approx 0.3$), and the overlap of the predicted merger distances with the observed short-GRB offsets of $0.15$--$70.19$ kpc.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the redshift gap and the offset spread of short gamma-ray bursts are quantitatively explained by the merger delays of the neutron-star binaries left behind by the lower-energy long bursts. The paper shows those merger times span a wide range but never actually computes the full distribution of delays. If the true distribution differs, the claimed agreement between the redshift peaks and the offset ranges would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed association of long GRBs with type Ic supernovae becomes a signature of binary evolution rather than of single massive-star collapse.
  • The roughly one-decade difference in galactocentric offsets between long and short GRBs is a prediction: short GRBs should lie from about 0.01 to 100 kpc away from the original long-burst site, with a median of several kpc.
  • The rate ordering $R_{\rm long} > R_{\rm short}$ is expected, with a bound fraction of roughly 2% to 8% connecting the two populations.
  • BdHN I descendants (NS-BH binaries) contribute little to the observed short-GRB population because they merge on timescales below about $10^5$ years, so the short-GRB class is dominated by NS-NS mergers.
  • Independent measurements of NS-NS merger rates, including gravitational-wave detections and kilonova rates, should be consistent with the BdHN II+III event rate multiplied by the same bound fraction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to compute the full merger delay-time distribution from the final binary parameters of [50] convolved with the cosmic formation history of CO-NS binaries and check whether it reproduces the short-GRB redshift peak near $z \approx 0.42$; the paper explicitly leaves this calculation to future work.
  • If the connection holds, the short-GRB redshift distribution should trail the long-GRB distribution at all redshifts, not just near the peak, because every short burst requires an earlier long burst plus a positive merger delay.
  • The same binaries that produce short GRBs should be sources of gravitational-wave mergers whose rate and delay distribution could be measured by future detectors, turning this evolutionary claim into a population-level prediction.
  • Host-galaxy stellar-population ages provide another discriminant: young star-forming hosts should host short-delay NS-NS mergers while old quiescent hosts should host long-delay ones, consistent with the host-galaxy evidence the paper cites.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper argues that long and short gamma-ray bursts are not independent progenitors but are connected through the binary-driven hypernova (BdHN) model. In this picture, BdHNe II and III, which are long GRBs, leave bound NS-NS binaries that later merge and produce short GRBs (S-GRFs and S-GRBs), while BdHNe I leave NS-BH binaries that produce (as yet unobserved) ultra-short GRBs. The evidence presented is threefold: (i) the local rates satisfy R_short < R_long, implying a bound fraction of about 2-8%; (ii) the redshift distribution of BdHNe II+III resembles that of short GRBs (KS p = 0.011, increasing to about 0.35 after a shift of Delta z = 0.3); and (iii) the simulated merger distances d = v_cm tau_merger, which range from 0.01 to 100 kpc, overlap the observed short-GRB galactocentric offsets of 0.15-70.19 kpc. The paper concludes that short GRBs are the descendants of long GRBs and calls for further population-synthesis and cosmological modeling.

Significance. If the evolutionary connection were quantitatively established, it would replace the standard single-star collapsar picture for long GRBs with a binary channel that also produces the short-GRB progenitor population. The paper's strengths are that it uses a recent set of three-dimensional SN-SPH simulations of the BdHN scenario, it updates the short-GRB redshift sample to 55 events, and it makes a falsifiable claim about the relative offsets of long and short GRBs. The rate inequality R_short < R_long is a reasonable necessary condition for a descendant scenario. However, the current evidence is largely consistency-based rather than a quantitative test: the delay-time distribution that is central to the redshift and offset arguments is never computed, the offset comparison is a range overlap rather than a distributional comparison, and the rate estimates rely on the authors' own BdHN subclass taxonomy. The manuscript is honest about these gaps, but the abstract's claim to 'demonstrate' the connection is stronger than what the analysis supports.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II B and Sec. IV, item 2] The redshift comparison does not test the evolutionary connection because the shift Delta z = 0.3 is introduced a posteriori. The KS p-value increases from 0.011 to about 0.35 only after shifting one distribution by the observed difference of the peaks. No model calculation predicts this shift; the paper explicitly defers the merger time-delay distribution to future work. Without convolving the BdHN II+III redshift distribution with a model-predicted delay-time distribution and the cosmological expansion, the improved p-value after shifting is not evidence of a physical delay.
  2. [Sec. III and Sec. IV, item 4] The offset comparison is a range overlap, not a distributional test. The simulated distances span 0.01-100 kpc and the observed short-GRB offsets span 0.15-70.19 kpc, but this overlap carries no information about the predicted shape, median, or fraction of the offset distribution. Additionally, Eq. (5) computes a three-dimensional distance traveled assuming a constant systemic velocity, whereas the observed quantities are projected physical offsets; a proper comparison requires projecting the simulated distances and, ideally, accounting for the host-galaxy gravitational potential. The claimed 'striking agreement' is therefore not yet quantitative.
  3. [Sec. II A and Table I] The inferred 2-8% bound fraction rests on rates R_I, R_II+III, R_S-GRF, and R_S-GRB that are estimated within the BdHN subclassification from Ruffini et al. (2016). Using these model-dependent rates both to define the subclasses and to test the BdHN evolutionary scenario introduces a circularity. The paper cites independent estimates of the generic long- and short-GRB rates, but it does not show that those independent values, when combined with the BdHN subclasses, produce the same bound fraction. The rate comparison would be more convincing if the ratio were derived from an independent short-GRB rate and a BdHN II+III rate computed from a separate, well-defined sample.
  4. [Sec. III and Sec. II A] The numerical simulations explore a narrow set of initial conditions: two ZAMS masses (25 and 30 solar masses), a fixed initial NS mass of 2 solar masses, and selected explosion energies, with the orbital period parameter x swept as a free parameter. The resulting ranges tau_merger = 10^4-10^9 yr and d = 0.01-100 kpc are therefore not a predicted distribution. Without an initial binary-period distribution and a cosmic star-formation history for the pre-BdHN CO-NS binaries, the ranges are broad enough that the offset and redshift comparisons cannot distinguish the BdHN model from other scenarios. The paper should either provide the delay-time distribution, even in a simplified form, or explicitly state that the current comparison is only an order-of-magnitude consistency check.
  5. [Sec. IV, Discussion] The paper itself notes that the current distributions of merger times and large systemic velocities are in tension with observations of short GRBs in dwarf galaxies, and it lists two possible resolutions without quantifying their relative importance. Because this tension directly affects the predicted offsets, the conclusion that the BdHN scenario constitutes 'a strong test' is overstated. The discussion should either include a quantitative estimate of the fraction of binaries that remain inside dwarf galaxies or soften the claim to a hypothesis that requires further modeling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract says the paper 'demonstrates' the connection, while Sec. IV repeatedly emphasizes the 'exploratory character' and defers the central delay-time calculation; the language should be made consistent, e.g., 'provides evidence for' rather than 'demonstrates'.
  2. [Sec. II A] There is a typographical issue in the rate estimate: 'RUSB ∼ 24–240 Gpc 3 yr−1' should read 'Gpc^-3 yr^-1' with the negative exponent.
  3. [Eq. (2) and surrounding text] Please verify the definition of the dimensionless parameter x; as written, 'x ≡ a_orb,i P_orb,i v_sn' appears dimensionally inconsistent, and the intended combination of orbital separation, period, and ejecta velocity should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Sec. II B] The sentence 'This very low value suggests their relationship is unlikely' is imprecise: a small p-value suggests that the two distributions are not drawn from the same parent distribution, not that a physical relationship is unlikely; rephrase to avoid statistical over-interpretation.
  5. [Sec. II A] The sentence 'the inferred ∼ 1% fraction of survived NS-NS binaries only based on the GRB rates' is awkward; 'only based on' should be 'based solely on' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

No circular step reduces a prediction to its inputs; the long-short connection is underdetermined by the missing merger-delay distribution, not circular.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular: the central claim rests on the numerical SN-SPH simulations of post-BdHN binary survival (Becerra et al. 2024), on rate comparisons that are cross-checked against independent population-synthesis and short-GRB rate estimates, and on the offset range d = v_cm * tau_merger computed from standard GW merger-time formulae (Eqs. 3-5). No equation reduces an output to an input by construction: Eq. (2) fits simulation energies, Eq. (3) gives the standard merger time, and Eq. (5) defines the travel distance, none of which is fitted to the observed offset distribution. The redshift evidence (Sec. II B) uses the BdHN II+III subsample defined in Bianco et al. (2024), a self-citation by overlapping authors, but that classification uses public Swift data and energy cuts, not the target result, and the short-GRB sample is independently defined by T90. The post-hoc shift by Delta z = 0.3 and the statement that merger timescales 'could explain' the redshift difference are underdetermined because the paper explicitly defers the merger time-delay distribution calculation (Sec. IV item 2); however, this is a modeling gap, not a circular reduction. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar, but the self-cited rate and redshift classifications carry some weight, so the score is 4 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the BdHN model (a binary CO star plus NS companion) and on simulation parameters chosen by the authors. The rate estimates used to build the case come from the same group's model-dependent classification of GRBs. The offset comparison provides an external observational handle, but the simulation parameter space is scanned rather than derived from an independent population synthesis.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial NS companion mass M_NS,i = 2 Msun
    Fixed in all simulations; chosen as representative of the BdHN progenitor.
  • ZAMS progenitor masses = 25 and 30 Msun
    Two CO star models used; the resulting d range depends on these choices.
  • SN explosion energy E_sn = 4.41 to 6.30 x 10^50 erg
    Varied across simulations; the range of merger times and distances depends on it.
  • Polynomial fit coefficients a, b, c in Eq. (2) = a=0.294, b=-3.153, c=5.219 (for E_sn=6.3e50 erg)
    Fitted to the numerical simulation outcomes in the companion paper; used to compute final binary energies.
  • Orbital period parameter x = scanned up to x=0.115
    The scan over initial orbital periods generates the spread in d and tau_merger; the distribution of these periods is not independently constrained.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Long GRBs arise from CO-NS binaries (BdHN model): the collapse of the CO star's iron core forms a newborn NS and a type Ic SN, with hypercritical accretion onto the NS companion.
    The entire analysis presupposes the BdHN progenitor channel (Sec. I).
  • domain assumption The observed short GRB population is dominated by NS-NS mergers (S-GRFs), with rate estimates from the authors' previous work.
    Sec. II A, Table I; if most short GRBs were collapsars or NS-BH mergers, the rate comparison would collapse.
  • standard math The Peters formula (Eq. 3) gives the merger time for the post-BdHN binaries without tidal or environmental perturbations.
    Standard gravitational wave merger formula from Maggiore [83]; reasonable but ignores third-body effects and the interstellar medium.
  • domain assumption The distance traveled d = v_cm * tau_merger can be directly compared with projected galactocentric offsets of short GRBs, ignoring projection effects and host galaxy gravitational potential.
    Sec. III; the paper acknowledges it predicts relative offset, not absolute, but still uses observed offsets as a test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The long-short GRB connection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVAS2HCN

@misc{pith2026241212764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The long-short GRB connection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVAS2HCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12764}
}
read the original abstract

Long and short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are thought to arise from different and unrelated astrophysical progenitors. The association of long GRBs with supernovae (SNe) and the difference in the distributions of galactocentric offsets of long and short GRBs within their host galaxies have often been considered strong evidence of their unrelated origins. Long GRBs have been thought to result from the collapse of single massive stars, while short GRBs come from mergers of compact object binaries. Our present study challenges this conventional view. We demonstrate that the observational properties, such as the association with SNe and the different galactic offsets, are naturally explained within the framework of the binary-driven hypernova model, suggesting an evolutionary connection between long and short GRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12764 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Distributions of a sample of 335 GRBs as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Characteristic merger time by gravitational-wave emission (left axis) and distance travel (right axis) for the binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The inequality Rshort < Rlong is explained as follows (see section II A)

    GRB rates . The inequality Rshort < Rlong is explained as follows (see section II A). First and foremost, the short GRB is dominated by NS-NS mergers, and only a subset of the BdHNe can pro- duce NS-NS (BdHNe II and III). Thus, the subset leading to short GRBs is given by the BdHNe II and III that lead to bound NS-NS binaries [50]. Further, BdHNe I lead t...

  2. [2]

    First, we have shown in section II B that zI p(≈ 2 − 2.5) > zII+III p (≈ 0.72) (see also Fig

    Redshift distribution. First, we have shown in section II B that zI p(≈ 2 − 2.5) > zII+III p (≈ 0.72) (see also Fig. 1), which reflects the higher energetics of the BdHN I rela- tive to BdHN II and III that allows their observa- tion at higher redshifts. Then, we showed that the short GRB distribution peaks at zshort p ≈ 0.42. The inequality zshort p ≪ zI...

  3. [3]

    Host galaxies . Short-GRB host stellar- population ages support the picture of a short delay-time population within young and star- forming galaxies at z > 0.25, along with a long delay-time population which characterizes older and quiescent galaxies at lower z [78]. The above observations suggest compact-orbit NS-NS binaries should be more abundant in th...

  4. [4]

    Galactocentric offsets: The NS-NS produced by BdHNe II and III have a distribution of binary pe- riods, eccentricities, and systemic velocities, which predict a wide distribution of systemic velocities 10–100 km s −1 and merger times 10 4–109 yr, lead- ing to distances of 0 .01-100 kpc traveled by these systems from the BdHN site to their merger site at w...

  5. [5]

    S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J. 405, 273 (1993)

    1993

  6. [6]

    Theories of Gamma-Ray Bursts

    P. M´ esz´ aros, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 40, 137 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0111170

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    Goodman, Astrophys

    J. Goodman, Astrophys. J. Lett. 308, L47 (1986)

    1986

  8. [8]

    Paczynski, Astrophys

    B. Paczynski, Astrophys. J. Lett. 308, L43 (1986)

    1986

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    The first GRB-SN associa- tion was GRB 980425-SN 1998bw [10]

    and observing long GRBs in temporal and spatial co- incidence with type Ic SNe. The first GRB-SN associa- tion was GRB 980425-SN 1998bw [10]. The follow-up by the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory [11–13] of the optical afterglow has confirmed about twenty GRB-SN associa- tions [...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Eichler, David, Livio, Mario, Piran, Tsvi, and Schramm, David N, Nature (ISSN 0028-0836) 340, 126 (1989)

    1989

  3. [11]

    Narayan, T

    R. Narayan, T. Piran, and A. Shemi, Astrophys. J. Lett. 379, L17 (1991)

    1991

  4. [12]

    D. N. Burrows, J. E. Hill, J. A. Nousek, J. A. Kennea, A. Wells, J. P. Osborne, A. F. Abbey, A. Beardmore, K. Mukerjee, A. D. T. Short, et al., Space Sci. Rev. 120, 165 (2005), astro-ph/0508071

    2005 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Piran, Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1143 (2004), astro-ph/0405503

    T. Piran, Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 1143 (2004), astro-ph/0405503

    2004 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Costa, F

    E. Costa, F. Frontera, J. Heise, M. Feroci, J. in’t Zand, F. Fiore, M. N. Cinti, D. Dal Fiume, L. Nicastro, M. Or- landini, et al., Nature (London) 387, 783 (1997), astro- ph/9706065

    1997

  7. [15]

    M. R. Metzger, S. G. Djorgovski, S. R. Kulkarni, C. C. Steidel, K. L. Adelberger, D. A. Frail, E. Costa, and F. Frontera, Nature (London) 387, 878 (1997)

    1997

  8. [16]

    T. J. Galama, P. M. Vreeswijk, J. van Paradijs, C. Kou- veliotou, T. Augusteijn, H. B¨ ohnhardt, J. P. Brewer, V. Doublier, J. F. Gonzalez, B. Leibundgut, et al., Na- ture (London) 395, 670 (1998), astro-ph/9806175

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. D. Barthelmy, L. M. Barbier, J. R. Cummings, E. E. Fenimore, N. Gehrels, D. Hullinger, H. A. Krimm, C. B. Markwardt, D. M. Palmer, A. Parsons, et al., Space Sci. Rev. 120, 143 (2005), astro-ph/0507410

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aimuratov, L

    Y. Aimuratov, L. M. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. Cherubini, M. Della Valle, S. Filippi, L. Li, R. Moradi, F. Rastegar- nia, J. A. Rueda, et al., Astrophys. J. 955, 93 (2023), 2303.16902

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. W. A. Roming, T. E. Kennedy, K. O. Mason, J. A. Nousek, L. Ahr, R. E. Bingham, P. S. Broos, M. J. Carter, B. K. Hancock, H. E. Huckle, et al., Space Sci. Rev. 120, 95 (2005), astro-ph/0507413. 8

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. E. Woosley and J. S. Bloom, Annu. Rev. Astron. As- trophys. 44, 507 (2006), astro-ph/0609142

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Della Valle, International Journal of Modern Physics D 20, 1745 (2011)

    M. Della Valle, International Journal of Modern Physics D 20, 1745 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Gamma-Ray Bursts

    J. Hjorth and J. S. Bloom, in “Gamma-Ray Bursts” , edited by C. Kouveliotou, R. A. M. J. Wijers, and S. Woosley (Cambridge University Press, 2012), vol. 51 of “The Gamma-Ray Burst - Supernova Connection ”, Chapter 9 in Cambridge Astrophysics Series , pp. 169– 190

    2012

  15. [23]

    Cano, S.-Q

    Z. Cano, S.-Q. Wang, Z.-G. Dai, and X.-F. Wu, Advances in Astronomy 2017, 8929054 (2017), 1604.03549

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Nomoto and M

    K. Nomoto and M. Hashimoto, Phys. Rep. 163, 13 (1988)

    1988

  17. [25]

    A. S. Fruchter, A. J. Levan, L. Strolger, P. M. Vreeswijk, S. E. Thorsett, D. Bersier, I. Burud, J. M. Castro Cer´ on, A. J. Castro-Tirado, C. Conselice, et al., Nature (Lon- don) 441, 463 (2006), astro-ph/0603537

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Raskin, E

    C. Raskin, E. Scannapieco, J. Rhoads, and M. Della Valle, Astrophys. J. 689, 358 (2008), 0808.3766

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. L. Kelly, R. P. Kirshner, and M. Pahre, Astrophys. J. 687, 1201 (2008), 0712.0430

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. A. Kobulnicky and C. L. Fryer, Astrophys. J. 670, 747 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    H. Sana, S. E. de Mink, A. de Koter, N. Langer, C. J. Evans, M. Gieles, E. Gosset, R. G. Izzard, J. B. Le Bouquin, and F. R. N. Schneider, Science 337, 444 (2012), 1207.6397

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kim, S.-C

    H.-J. Kim, S.-C. Yoon, and B.-C. Koo, Astrophys. J. 809, 131 (2015), 1506.06354

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Iwamoto, K

    K. Iwamoto, K. Nomoto, P. H¨ oflich, H. Yamaoka, S. Ku- magai, and T. Shigeyama, Astrophys. J. Lett. 437, L115 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    C. L. Fryer, P. A. Mazzali, J. Prochaska, E. Cappellaro, A. Panaitescu, E. Berger, M. van Putten, E. P. J. van den Heuvel, P. Young, A. Hungerford, et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 119, 1211 (2007), astro-ph/0702338

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S.-C. Yoon, S. E. Woosley, and N. Langer, Astrophys. J. 725, 940 (2010), 1004.0843

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Smith, W

    N. Smith, W. Li, J. M. Silverman, M. Ganeshalingam, and A. V. Filippenko, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 415, 773 (2011), 1010.3718

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Yoon, Publ

    S.-C. Yoon, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 32, e015 (2015), 1504.01205

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Becerra, C

    L. Becerra, C. L. Ellinger, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Astrophys. J. 871, 14 (2019), 1803.04356

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    C. L. Fryer, S. E. Woosley, and D. H. Hartmann, The Astrophysical Journal 526, 152 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    J. A. Rueda and R. Ruffini, Astrophys. J. Lett. 758, L7 (2012), 1206.1684

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C. L. Fryer, F. G. Oliveira, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Physical Review Letters 115, 231102 (2015), 1505.02809

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Becerra, F

    L. Becerra, F. Cipolletta, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Astrophys. J. 812, 100 (2015), 1505.07580

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Becerra, C

    L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Astrophys. J. 833, 107 (2016), 1606.02523

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. A. Rueda, L. Li, R. Moradi, R. Ruffini, N. Sahakyan, and Y. Wang, Astrophys. J. 939, 62 (2022), 2204.00579

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, L. Li, R. Moradi, J. F. Ro- driguez, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083004 (2022), 2203.16876

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    L. M. Becerra, R. Moradi, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083002 (2022), 2208.03069

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Astrophys. J. Lett. 793, L36 (2014), 1409.1473

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Becerra, M

    L. Becerra, M. M. Guzzo, F. Rossi-Torres, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and J. D. Uribe, Astrophys. J. 852, 120 (2018), 1712.07210

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ruffini, R

    R. Ruffini, R. Moradi, J. A. Rueda, L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. Cherubini, S. Filippi, Y. C. Chen, M. Kar- lica, N. Sahakyan, et al., Astrophys. J. 886, 82 (2019), 1812.00354

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ruffini, J

    R. Ruffini, J. Rodriguez, M. Muccino, J. A. Rueda, Y. Aimuratov, U. Barres de Almeida, L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. Cherubini, S. Filippi, et al., Astrophys. J. 859, 30 (2018), 1602.03545

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Moradi, J

    R. Moradi, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, L. Li, C. L. Bianco, S. Campion, C. Cherubini, S. Filippi, Y. Wang, and S. S. Xue, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063043 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Moradi, J

    R. Moradi, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and Y. Wang, Astron. Astrophys. 649, A75 (2021), 1911.07552

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Y. Wang, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, R. Moradi, L. Li, Y. Aimuratov, F. Rastegarnia, S. Eslamzadeh, N. Sa- hakyan, and Y. Zheng, Astrophys. J. 936, 190 (2022), 2207.05619

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y. Wang, L. M. Becerra, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Astrophys. J. 945, 95 (2023), 2208.02725

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ruffini, J

    R. Ruffini, J. A. Rueda, M. Muccino, Y. Aimuratov, L. M. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, M. Kovacevic, R. Moradi, F. G. Oliveira, G. B. Pisani, et al., Astrophys. J. 832, 136 (2016), 1602.02732

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Guetta and M

    D. Guetta and M. Della Valle, Astrophys. J. Lett. 657, L73 (2007), astro-ph/0612194

    2007 arXiv

  47. [55]

    L. M. Becerra, C. Fryer, J. F. Rodriguez, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Universe 9, 332 (2023), 2307.09646

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    L. M. Becerra, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2401.15702 (2024), 2401.15702

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    H. Sun, B. Zhang, and Z. Li, Astrophys. J. 812, 33 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Wanderman and T

    D. Wanderman and T. Piran, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 406, 1944 (2010)

    2010

  51. [59]

    T. M. Tauris, N. Langer, and P. Podsiadlowski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 451, 2123 (2015), 1505.00270

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mandel and F

    I. Mandel and F. S. Broekgaarden, Living Reviews in Relativity 25, 1 (2022), 2107.14239

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Frohmaier, C

    C. Frohmaier, C. R. Angus, M. Vincenzi, M. Sullivan, M. Smith, P. E. Nugent, S. B. Cenko, A. Gal-Yam, S. R. Kulkarni, N. M. Law, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 500, 5142 (2021), 2010.15270

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Liang, B

    E. Liang, B. Zhang, F. Virgili, and Z. G. Dai, Astrophys. J. 662, 1111 (2007), astro-ph/0605200

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    F. J. Virgili, E.-W. Liang, and B. Zhang, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 392, 91 (2009), 0801.4751

    2009 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Della Valle, D

    M. Della Valle, D. Guetta, E. Cappellaro, L. Amati, M. T. Botticella, M. Branchesi, E. Brocato, L. Izzo, M. A. Perez-Torres, and G. Stratta, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 481, 4355 (2018), 1809.04295

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Andreoni, M

    I. Andreoni, M. W. Coughlin, E. C. Kool, M. M. Kasli- wal, H. Kumar, V. Bhalerao, A. S. Carracedo, A. Y. Q. Ho, P. T. H. Pang, D. Saraogi, et al., Astrophys. J. 918, 63 (2021), 2104.06352

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    C. S. Kochanek, K. Auchettl, and K. Belczynski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 5394 (2019), 1810.08620

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Dominik, K

    M. Dominik, K. Belczynski, C. Fryer, D. E. Holz, E. Berti, T. Bulik, I. Mandel, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Astrophys. J. 759, 52 (2012), 1202.4901. 9

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    K. A. Postnov and L. R. Yungelson, Living Reviews in Relativity 17, 3 (2014), 1403.4754

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Dominik, E

    M. Dominik, E. Berti, R. O’Shaughnessy, I. Mandel, K. Belczynski, C. Fryer, D. E. Holz, T. Bulik, and F. Pan- narale, Astrophys. J. 806, 263 (2015), 1405.7016

    2015 arXiv

  62. [70]

    C. L. Fryer, K. Belczynski, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, S. Rosswog, G. Shen, and A. W. Steiner, Astrophys. J.812, 24 (2015), 1504.07605

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Belczynski, S

    K. Belczynski, S. Repetto, D. E. Holz, R. O’Shaughnessy, T. Bulik, E. Berti, C. Fryer, and M. Dominik, Astrophys. J. 819, 108 (2016), 1510.04615

    2016 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Moore, S

    T. Moore, S. J. Smartt, M. Nicholl, S. Srivastav, H. F. Stevance, D. B. Jess, S. D. T. Grant, M. D. Fulton, L. Rhodes, S. A. Sim, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 956, L31 (2023), 2309.12750

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. A. Chrimes, A. J. Levan, A. S. Fruchter, P. J. Groot, P. G. Jonker, C. Kouveliotou, J. D. Lyman, E. R. Stan- way, N. R. Tanvir, and K. Wiersema, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 513, 3550 (2022), 2204.09701

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Luitel and B

    S. Luitel and B. Rangelov, Research Notes of the Amer- ican Astronomical Society 6, 13 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    A. A. Chrimes, A. J. Levan, J. J. Eldridge, M. Fraser, N. Gaspari, P. J. Groot, J. D. Lyman, G. Nelemans, E. R. Stanway, and K. Wiersema, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522, 2029 (2023), 2304.02542

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Ogata, R

    M. Ogata, R. Hirai, and K. Hijikawa, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 505, 2485 (2021), 2103.10111

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    O. D. Fox, S. D. Van Dyk, B. F. Williams, M. Drout, E. Zapartas, N. Smith, D. Milisavljevic, J. E. Andrews, K. A. Bostroem, A. V. Filippenko, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 929, L15 (2022), 2203.01357

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    This fraction decreases significantly at low red- shift ( z ≲ 0.25), in line with galaxy evolution

    shows that 84% are star-forming, like long GRB hosts. This fraction decreases significantly at low red- shift ( z ≲ 0.25), in line with galaxy evolution. Inter- estingly, high-mass galaxies are less abundant among the 5 short GRB hosts than field galaxies, which becomes more e...

  71. [79]

    Chen, S.-J

    H.-P. Chen, S.-J. Rau, and K.-C. Pan, Astrophys. J. 949, 121 (2023), 2304.02662

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    P. Chen, A. Gal-Yam, J. Sollerman, S. Schulze, R. S. Post, C. Liu, E. O. Ofek, K. K. Das, C. Fremling, A. Horesh, et al., Nature (London) 625, 253 (2024), 2310.07784

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    C. L. Bianco, M. T. Mirtorabi, R. Moradi, F. Rastegar- nia, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, Y. Wang, M. Della Valle, L. Li, and S. R. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 966, 219 (2024), 2306.05855

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    A. Lien, T. Sakamoto, S. D. Barthelmy, W. H. Baum- gartner, J. K. Cannizzo, K. Chen, N. R. Collins, J. R. Cummings, N. Gehrels, H. A. Krimm, et al., Astrophys. J. 829, 7 (2016), 1606.01956

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Grieco, F

    V. Grieco, F. Matteucci, G. Meynet, F. Longo, M. Della Valle, and R. Salvaterra, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 423, 3049 (2012)

    2012

  76. [84]

    A. E. Nugent, W.-F. Fong, Y. Dong, J. Leja, E. Berger, M. Zevin, R. Chornock, B. E. Cobb, L. Z. Kelley, C. D. Kilpatrick, et al., Astrophys. J. 940, 57 (2022), 2206.01764

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    W.-f. Fong, A. E. Nugent, Y. Dong, E. Berger, K. Pater- son, R. Chornock, A. Levan, P. Blanchard, K. D. Alexan- der, J. Andrews, et al., Astrophys. J. 940, 56 (2022), 2206.01763

    2022 arXiv

  78. [86]

    O’Connor, E

    B. O’Connor, E. Troja, S. Dichiara, P. Beniamini, S. B. Cenko, C. Kouveliotou, J. B. Gonz´ alez, J. Durbak, P. Gatkine, A. Kutyrev, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 515, 4890 (2022), 2204.09059

    2022 arXiv

  79. [87]

    P. K. Blanchard, E. Berger, and W.-f. Fong, Astrophys. J. 817, 144 (2016), 1509.07866

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

    C. L. Fryer, G. Rockefeller, and M. S. Warren, Astrophys. J. 643, 292 (2006), astro-ph/0512532

    2006 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press, 2007), ISBN 9780198570745, 9780198520740, URL http://www.oup. com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198570745

    2007

  82. [90]

    B. K. Wiggins, C. L. Fryer, J. M. Smidt, D. Hartmann, N. Lloyd-Ronning, and C. Belcynski, Astrophys. J. 865, 27 (2018), 1807.02853

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    A. E. Nugent, W.-f. Fong, C. Castrejon, J. Leja, M. Zevin, and A. P. Ji, Astrophys. J. 962, 5 (2024), 2310.12202

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.