Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

The classification and formation rate of $\mathbf{Swift/BAT}$ gamma-ray bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Swift/BAT gamma-ray bursts fall into three classes—short, intermediate, and long—rather than the usual two, and that the intermediate class has its own luminosity function and cosmic formation rate, distinct from…

desk verdict The GMM classification is plausible but the paper's own K-S tests undermine its claim of distinct intermediate-class evolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19813 v1 pith:ZGWOVIVX submitted 2024-11-29 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Juan-Juan Luo , Liang Zhang , Li-Yun Zhang , Yong-Feng Huang , Jia-Quan Lin , Jun-Wang Lu , Xiao-Fei Dong This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords gamma-rayburstsclassificationGaussianmixturemodelluminosityfunctionformationrateSwift/BATintermediateGRBsEfron-Petrosianmethod
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

Gamma-ray bursts have traditionally been split into short and long classes by their duration. This paper argues that the Swift/BAT sample actually contains three classes: short, intermediate, and long bursts. Using Gaussian mixture models on the duration distribution and on the joint duration–hardness distribution, the authors find that three components fit better than two by both the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria. They then reconstruct the luminosity functions and cosmic formation rates of each class, finding that the intermediate class differs from both the short and long classes. If correct, the intermediate class is a genuine population, not a statistical artifact, and theories of burst progenitors must explain it.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-stage statistical pipeline. First, Gaussian mixture models with expectation-maximization are fit to the $\log T_{90}$ distribution and to the $(\log T_{90}, \log \mathrm{HR})$ distribution, with model selection by Akaike and Bayesian information criteria; this identifies the number of subclasses. Second, the Efron–Petrosian method removes the assumed luminosity evolution $g(z) = (1+z)^k$ by finding the $k$ that makes de-evolved luminosity and redshift independent in the truncated sample, and the Lynden-Bell $c^{-}$ method then recovers the nonparametric cumulative luminosity function and redshift distribution. Broken power-law fits and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests quantify differences between the three classes.

What would settle it

Repeat the Efron–Petrosian and Lynden-Bell analysis using a different luminosity evolution form, such as a broken power law in $(1+z)$ or an exponential, and with alternative flux limits, then check whether the three-component classification and the intermediate class's distinct formation rate survive; alternatively, apply the same pipeline to an independent, larger sample such as the Fermi/GBM catalog to see whether three classes and distinct rates still emerge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a three-component Gaussian mixture model is the best description of the Swift/BAT duration data (minimum AIC 3265.21 and BIC 3307.78 for 1512 bursts) and of the joint duration–hardness data (minimum AIC 2675.07 and BIC 2764.87 for 1401 bursts). The three components correspond to short, intermediate, and long bursts. For the bursts with known redshift, the luminosity evolution index $k$ in $L = L_0(1+z)^k$ is $4.43$, $2.86$, and $2.56$ for short, intermediate, and long bursts, respectively. The de-evolved luminosity functions are best fit by broken power laws with different break luminosities and slopes, and the formation rates $\rho(z)$ scale as $(1+z)^{-3.58}$, $(1+z)^{-1.54}$, and $(1+z)^{-0.79}$ for the three classes. Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests show the cumulative luminosity functions differ significantly between short and intermediate ($p = 7.9\times 10^{-3}$) and between short and long ($p = 4.3\times 10^{-2}$), while the intermediate and long formation rates are not significantly different ($p = 0.43$). The paper concludes that the intermediate class is a distinct subclass, not a tail of the long class.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that luminosity evolves as a pure power law in $(1+z)$ and that the chosen flux limits ($2.0\times 10^{-8}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for short bursts and $5.0\times 10^{-9}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for intermediate and long bursts) correctly define the detectable boundary for each class; if either assumption fails, the derived luminosity functions and formation rates change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GRB classification schemes should consider three classes rather than two, affecting how samples are defined for population studies.
  • The intermediate class has its own luminosity function and formation rate, so it cannot be treated as a blend of short and long bursts in progenitor models.
  • The formation rates of all three classes exceed the star formation rate at $z<1$, implying strong selection effects or additional evolution that must be modeled.
  • Larger samples with measured redshifts will sharpen the parameters of the intermediate class and test whether the three-component structure persists.
  • The different luminosity evolution indices for the three classes ($k = 4.43$, $2.86$, $2.56$) indicate distinct physical evolution, which should be compared with dedicated simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The short-burst sample with known redshift contains only 25 events, so the reported short-burst luminosity function and formation rate should be treated as provisional until more redshifts are measured.
  • The distinct formation rate of the intermediate class, if real, suggests a progenitor channel that peaks at a different cosmic epoch—possibly delayed mergers or collapsars with extended emission.
  • A direct test of the classification's robustness would be to split the sample by redshift and check whether the three Gaussian components remain stable, which would indicate the structure is intrinsic rather than selection-driven.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript re-examines the classification of Swift/BAT gamma-ray bursts using Gaussian mixture models (GMM) on the T90 distribution and on the joint T90–hardness-ratio distribution, and selects a three-component model via AIC and BIC. It then applies the Efron–Petrosian and Lynden-Bell c− methods to the redshift-known subsamples of the three classes (labeled short, intermediate, and long) to derive luminosity evolution indices, cumulative luminosity functions, and formation rates. The central claims are that a three-component model best describes the observed distributions, indicating the existence of an intermediate subclass, and that the luminosity functions and birth rates of the three subclasses are different, further supporting that subclass.

Significance. If the claims are established, the paper would provide a robust three-class population structure for Swift/BAT GRBs and would suggest that the intermediate class has a distinct cosmic evolution. The GMM AIC/BIC analysis is standard, reproducible in principle, and based on a larger sample than several earlier Swift studies. The use of non-parametric truncation-robust methods (EP and Lynden-Bell c−) is appropriate for the selection effects present. However, the evolutionary evidence does not currently establish the claimed differences between the intermediate and long classes, and the paper's own statistical tests contradict the abstract's headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2] The K-S tests comparing the cumulative luminosity functions and formation rates of MGRBs and LGRBs give p23 = 0.21 (luminosity function) and p23 = 0.43 (formation rate). These values are far above the conventional threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis, so the data do not show that MGRBs and LGRBs have different luminosity distributions or birth rates. The text nevertheless states that these results 'strongly indicate' the existence of the intermediate class and 'further support' distinct subclasses. This is a misinterpretation of non-significance as evidence of difference, and it directly conflicts with the abstract's assertion that the luminosity distributions and birth rates of the three subclasses are different. The manuscript must either present a more powerful statistical comparison that actually distinguishes MGRBs and LGRBs, or substantially soften the conclusion to acknowledge that the evolutionary data are compatible with MGRBs and LGRBs sharing the same luminosity function and rate.
  2. [Sections 3 and 4.2] The luminosity evolution is assumed to be a pure power law g(z) = (1+z)^k, and the index k is estimated from the same truncated sample that is later de-evolved using that index. The paper does not test alternative evolution forms (e.g., a broken power law or an exponential) and does not assess the sensitivity of the derived luminosity functions and formation rates to the chosen flux limits Flimit,1 = 2.0e-8 erg cm^-2 s^-1 and Flimit,2 = 5.0e-9 erg cm^-2 s^-1. Since the broken power-law fits and the K-S comparisons are performed on de-evolved luminosities computed under these assumptions, the conclusion that the three subclasses have different luminosity functions and rates is conditional on these untested choices. A robustness analysis with alternative evolution forms and flux limits is necessary before the evolutionary evidence can be considered reliable.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The EP-L analysis and the GMM classification are performed on the same Swift/BAT sample. Therefore, the finding that the three subclasses have different luminosity functions and formation rates is not an independent confirmation of the classification; it is at most a consistency check. The paper should not present the EP-L results as independent support for the existence of the intermediate subclass. The reasoning should be reframed so that the classification and the evolutionary analysis are clearly separated, with the latter used only to ask whether the classes, once defined, also differ in other properties.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The text states that Sample II contains 1454 Swift/BAT GRBs, but Table 2 reports 1401 for Sample II; this discrepancy should be resolved.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains several stray LaTeX tokens (e.g., '/s48 /s50') and the garbled string 'T9 0=2s'; these presentation artifacts need to be cleaned before submission.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'a large number' is used without specifying the actual sample sizes; please state the numbers (1512, 1454/1401) explicitly in the abstract or introduction.
  4. [Section 3] The reference for the mean spectral index of -1.1 is given as 'Zhang et al. 2018', but the reference list contains 'Zhang, G. Q., & Wang, F. Y. 2018' and 'Zhang, Z. B., Zhang, C. T., Zhao, Y. X., et al. 2018'; please clarify which work is meant and match the citation to the correct entry.
  5. [Section 5] There is a typo in the sentence 'It further supports that the the three subgroups are distinct categories'; the duplicated 'the' should be removed.
  6. [Section 4.2] The reported uncertainties on the broken power-law slopes (e.g., ±0.01) appear unrealistically small given the modest sample sizes (25, 126, and 255 bursts) and the multiple systematic corrections involved; please discuss the systematic uncertainties or provide bootstrap estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the GMM classification and EP-L estimates are descriptive analyses of the same sample, not predictions forced by construction; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) GMM fitting of T90 and T90-HR distributions selects a three-component model via AIC/BIC; (ii) bursts are assigned to short, intermediate, and long subclasses; (iii) the Efron-Petrosian method estimates a luminosity-evolution index k within each subclass; (iv) Lynden-Bell's c^- method yields cumulative luminosity functions and formation rates from the same truncated data; and (v) K-S tests compare the three subclasses. None of these steps reduces to its inputs by construction. The index k is estimated from the same data, but it is a fitted description of the sample, not a held-out prediction; the luminosity functions and rates are likewise derived estimates, not predictions from an independent source. The statement that these quantities are 'different, further supporting the existence of the intermediate subclass' is an interpretive claim about the same sample, which weakens its evidentiary independence but does not create a logical circle. The only self-citation with overlapping authors is Zhang et al. (2022), used for sample-size context and AIC/BIC threshold descriptions; it is not load-bearing for the central classification or EP-L results. The paper's own K-S p-values for the intermediate-long pair (p23 = 0.21 for luminosity, p23 = 0.43 for rate) fail to reject the null hypothesis, which contradicts the abstract's claim of different distributions; however, that is a statistical-correctness issue, not circularity. Overall, the analysis is self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The intermediate subclass is a statistical category inferred from the data, not a newly postulated physical object. The paper proposes no new particle, force, dimension, or conserved quantity, so the invented-entities list is empty. The main load-bearing inputs are the assumed power-law luminosity evolution, the hand-chosen flux limits, and the Gaussian-mixture model family.

free parameters (5)
  • luminosity evolution index k = k_S = 4.43, k_M = 2.86, k_L = 2.56
    Derived by minimizing Kendall tau in the Efron-Petrosian method for each subclass; governs de-evolved luminosity L0 = L/(1+z)^k.
  • GMM component parameters = not reported in text
    The 3-G model requires means, covariance matrices, and weights; the paper reports only AIC/BIC values, not the fitted component parameters.
  • broken power-law luminosity function slopes and breaks = e.g., L^-0.22/-1.04 with break 1.68e51 erg/s for SGRBs
    Best fits to the de-evolved cumulative luminosity functions.
  • formation rate power-law slopes = -3.58 ± 0.61, -1.54 ± 0.19, -0.79 ± 0.12
    Power-law fits to the normalized formation rates.
  • flux limits = Flimit,1 = 2e-8, Flimit,2 = 5e-9 erg/cm2/s
    Chosen by hand per subclass to handle luminosity-evolution sensitivity; not fitted but affects all EP-L results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The T90 and hardness-ratio distributions of GRBs are adequately modeled by mixtures of Gaussian components in logarithmic space.
    Used throughout Section 4.1; the GMM likelihood in Eq. 2 assumes Gaussian components.
  • domain assumption Luminosity evolution follows g(z) = (1+z)^k.
    Assumed in Section 3 and used to compute L0; no alternative forms are tested.
  • domain assumption The Swift/BAT flux limits correctly characterize truncation for each subclass.
    Section 2; the EP method requires knowing the truncation boundary.
  • domain assumption Flat Lambda CDM cosmology with Omega_m = 0.27 and H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc.
    Used for luminosity distance in Section 2.
  • domain assumption K-correction uses a mean spectral index of -1.1.
    Adopted from Zhang et al. 2018 to compute luminosity and limiting luminosity.
  • domain assumption The redshift-known subsample is representative after truncation correction.
    The EP-L method corrects for flux truncation but not for possible spectroscopic follow-up biases; the paper does not discuss this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The classification and formation rate of $\mathbf{Swift/BAT}$ gamma-ray bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZGWOVIVX

@misc{pith2026241119813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The classification and formation rate of $\mathbfSwift/BAT$ gamma-ray bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZGWOVIVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19813}
}
abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are usually classified into long/short categories according to their durations, but controversy still exists in this aspect. Here we re-examine the long/short classification of GRBs and further compare the cosmological distribution and evolution of each potential subclass. A large number of $Swift/BAT$ GRBs are analyzed in this study. The Gaussian mixture model is used to fit the duration distribution as well as the joint distribution of duration and hardness ratio, and the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria are adopted to assess the goodness of fit. It is found that three Gaussian components can better fit both the univariate and bivariate distributions, indicating that there are three subclasses in the $Swift/BAT$ GRBs, namely short, intermediate, and long subclasses. The non-parametric Efron-Petrosian and Lynden-Bell's $c^{-}$ methods are used to derive the luminosity function and formation rate from the truncated data of bursts with known redshift in each subclass. It is found that the luminosity distributions and birth rates of the three subclasses are different, further supporting the existence of the intermediate subclass in the $Swift/BAT$ GRBs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fitting Samples I and II by using the GMM models. The upper panels show the T90 distribution of Sample I fitted with the 2-G and 3-G models, together with the AIC/BIC values. In (a1) and (a2) panels, the solid curves show the superposed total PDF of the 2-G model and 3-G model, while the dashed curves show the contribution of different components. The lower panels illustrate the joint distribution of T90 – HR for Sa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different features of the three subclasses of GRBs. Panels (a1), (a2), and (a3) plot the test statistic τ versus k for SGRBs, MGRBs, and LGRBs, respectively. Panels (b1), (b2), and (b3) plot the de-evolved luminosity (L0) versus the redshift (z) for the three samples. The solid lines represent the lower luminosity limits calculated from the two flux limits of Flimit,1 and Flimit,2, where Flimit,1 is adopted for SGRB… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates the GRB formation rate as a function of redshift, plotted for SGRBs, MGRBs, and LGRBs, respectively. For comparison, the observed SFR data taken from Hopkins (2004), Thompson et al. (2006), Mannucci et al. (2007), Ota et al. (2008), Bouwens et al. (2008), Bouwens et al. (2011) are also plotted. Generally, the formation rates of the three subclasses decrease monotonously as the redshift increases. They al… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    Akaike, H. 1974, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716

    1974

  2. [2]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Franx, M., & Ford, H. 2008, ApJ, 686, 230, doi: 10.1086/590103

    doi:10.1086/590103 2008

  3. [3]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labbe, I., et al. 2011, Nature, 469, 504, doi: 10.1038/nature09717

    doi:10.1038/nature09717 2011

  4. [4]

    P., & Anderson, D

    Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. 2004, Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261, doi: 10.1177/0049124104268644

    doi:10.1177/0049124104268644 2004

  5. [5]

    R., Bloom, J

    Butler, N. R., Bloom, J. S., & Poznanski, D. 2010, ApJ, 711, 495, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/1/495

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/1/495 2010

  6. [6]

    S., & Zheng, X.-P

    Cao, X.-F., Yu, Y.-W., Cheng, K. S., & Zheng, X.-P. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2174, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19194.x

    arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    2021a, Galaxies, 9, 95, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9040095

    Dainotti, M., Levine, D., Fraija, N., & Chandra, P. 2021a, Galaxies, 9, 95, doi: 10.3390/galaxies9040095

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies9040095

  8. [8]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1229

    Dainotti, M., Petrosian, V., Willingale, R., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1229

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1229 2015

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    G., Hernandez, X., Postnikov, S., et al

    Dainotti, M. G., Hernandez, X., Postnikov, S., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 848, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8a6b

    doi

  2. [10]

    G., Lenart, A

    Dainotti, M. G., Lenart, A. L., Sarracino, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbe8a

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2017b, A&A, 600, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628384

    Pian, E. 2017b, A&A, 600, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628384

    doi

  4. [12]

    G., Nielson, V., Sarracino, G., et al

    Dainotti, M. G., Nielson, V., Sarracino, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1141

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

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

    Dainotti, M. G., Petrosian, V., & Bowden, L. 2021b, ApJL, 914, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf5e4 10 J. J. Luo et al

    doi

  6. [14]

    G., Petrosian, V., Singal, J., & Ostrowski, M

    Dainotti, M. G., Petrosian, V., Singal, J., & Ostrowski, M. 2013, ApJ, 774, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/157

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, ApJ, 820, 66, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/66

    Deng, C.-M., Wang, X.-G., Guo, B.-B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 66, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/66

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    F., Li, X

    Dong, X. F., Li, X. J., Zhang, Z. B., & Zhang, X. L. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1078, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac949 D¨ orre, A., & Emura, T. 2019, Nonparametric Inference for Double-Truncation (Singapore: Springer Singapore), 63–74, doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-6241-5 4

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

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

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

    1992 doi

  10. [18]

    1998, Nonparametric Methods for Doubly Truncated Data

    Efron, B., & Petrosian, V. 1998, Nonparametric Methods for Doubly Truncated Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9808334

    1998 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S., & Peterson, B

    Efstathiou, G., Ellis, R. S., & Peterson, B. A. 1988, MNRAS, 232, 431, doi: 10.1093/mnras/232.2.431

    1988 doi

  12. [20]

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

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

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

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

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

    2004 doi

  14. [22]

    Hopkins, A. M. 2004, ApJ, 615, 209, doi: 10.1086/424032 Horv´ ath, I. 1998, ApJ, 508, 757, doi: 10.1086/306416 —. 2002, A&A, 392, 791, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020808

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1403

    Zhou, H. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1403

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Dai, Z

    Huang, Y. F., Dai, Z. G., Lu, T., Cheng, K. S., & Wu, X. F. 2003, ApJ, 594, 919, doi: 10.1086/377129

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    1995

  18. [26]

    W., Strong, I

    Klebesadel, R. W., Strong, I. B., & Olson, R. A. 1973, ApJL, 182, L85, doi: 10.1086/181225

    1973 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Fishman, G

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

    1993 doi

  20. [28]

    Liang, E., Zhang, B., Virgili, F., & Dai, Z. G. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1111, doi: 10.1086/517959

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    2007

  22. [30]

    M., & Petrosian, V

    Lloyd, N. M., & Petrosian, V. 1999, ApJ, 511, 550, doi: 10.1086/306719

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

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

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

    1971 doi

  24. [32]

    2007, A&A, 461, 423, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065993

    Pozzetti, L. 2007, A&A, 461, 423, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065993

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Long, R., & Metcalfe, L

    McBreen, B., Hurley, K. J., Long, R., & Metcalfe, L. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/271.3.662

    1994 doi

  26. [34]

    2008, ApJ, 677, 12, doi: 10.1086/529006 Paczy´ nski, B

    Ota, K., Iye, M., Kashikawa, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, 12, doi: 10.1086/529006 Paczy´ nski, B. 1998, ApJL, 494, L45, doi: 10.1086/311148

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

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

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/44

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

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2013, ApJ, 763, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/15

    Qin, Y. 2013, ApJ, 763, 15, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/15

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    E., & Ellis, R

    Robertson, B. E., & Ellis, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 744, 95, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/95

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    D., et al

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

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    Schwarz, G. 1978, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344136

    1978

  34. [42]

    2015, A&A, 581, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526415 —

    Tarnopolski, M. 2015, A&A, 581, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526415 —. 2019, ApJ, 870, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf1c5

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    I., Eisenstein, D., Fan, X., et al

    Thompson, R. I., Eisenstein, D., Fan, X., et al. 2006, ApJ, 647, 787, doi: 10.1086/505568

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    2014, PASJ, 66, 42, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu008

    Tsutsui, R., & Shigeyama, T. 2014, PASJ, 66, 42, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu008

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

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

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

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    2010, MNRAS, 406, 1944, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16787.x

    Wanderman, D., & Piran, T. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1944, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16787.x

    2010

  39. [47]

    Wang, F. Y. 2013, A&A, 556, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321623

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    P., & Tsai, W.-Y

    Wang, M.-C., Jewell, N. P., & Tsai, W.-Y. 1986, The Annals of Statistics, 14, 1597 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176350180

    1986

  41. [49]

    1985, The Annals of Statistics, 13, 163 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176346584

    Woodroofe, M. 1985, The Annals of Statistics, 13, 163 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1176346584

    1985

  42. [50]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273, doi: 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  43. [51]

    E., & Bloom, J

    Woosley, S. E., & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    2006 arXiv

  44. [52]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 4916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3342

    Xu, F., Geng, J.-J., Wang, X., Li, L., & Huang, Y.-F. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 4916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3342

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

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

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

    2004 doi

  46. [54]

    Y., Dai, Z

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

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Q., & Wang, F

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

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 5770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3131

    Zhang, L., Luo, J.-J., Huang, Y.-F., Gong, Y.-J., & Wu, S. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3131

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 3243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1835

    Zhang, Z.-B., Yang, E.-B., Choi, C.-S., & Chang, H.-Y. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 3243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1835

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    B., Zhang, C

    Zhang, Z. B., Zhang, C. T., Zhao, Y. X., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 054202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa6af Classification and Event Rate ofSwif tGRBs 11

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    J., & Mochkovitch, R

    Zitouni, H., Guessoum, N., Azzam, W. J., & Mochkovitch, R. 2015, Ap&SS, 357, 7, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2311-x

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.