pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06772 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

Neutron Star Merger Rates from Multi-messenger Observations: Clues to the Physical Origin of the Short and Long-short Gamma-ray Bursts

Zhi-Ping Jin , Yuan-Zhu Wang , Yin-Jie Li , Yun Wang , Hao Wang , Shao-Peng Tang , Da-Ming Wei
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron star mergersshort gamma-ray burstslong-short GRBsgravitational wave observationsmulti-messenger astronomycompact object binariesvolumetric rates
0
0 comments X

The pith

The rate of neutron star mergers from LIGO data falls below what is needed to explain all short and long-short gamma-ray bursts.

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

This paper calculates the local rate of short and long-short gamma-ray bursts from observations, arriving at roughly 195 to 666 events per cubic gigaparsec per year once the uncertain event GRB 061201 is set aside. It then derives the rate of electromagnetically bright neutron star mergers from LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA data through the early part of the O4 run, obtaining 66 to 347 in the same units. The gap, made wider by the complete lack of clear counterparts in later runs, indicates that neutron star mergers cannot account for every such burst and that other compact-object pairs may contribute.

Core claim

The local rate of short and long-short GRBs is 195-666 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} after excluding GRB 061201. The EM-bright neutron star merger rate from gravitational-wave observations up to the start of O4 is 66-347 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}. Non-detections in O4b and O4c favor an even lower merger rate, which begins to challenge the neutron star merger origin of these GRBs and suggests possible additional contributions from other compact object binaries such as neutron star-white dwarf systems.

What carries the argument

Volumetric rate comparison between gamma-ray burst observations and multi-messenger neutron star merger detections.

If this is right

  • Neutron star mergers alone cannot explain the full observed population of short and long-short GRBs.
  • Mergers of other compact object pairs, such as neutron star-white dwarf binaries, may supply part of the GRB rate.
  • The allowed rate for electromagnetically bright neutron star mergers is pushed toward the lower end of current estimates.
  • This affects models linking binary evolution to the observed GRB classes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future searches may need to consider electromagnetic signatures from alternative binary systems in addition to standard neutron star mergers.
  • The rate mismatch could alter expectations for how many mergers remain undetected in gravitational-wave data alone.
  • Population synthesis calculations for compact binaries may require updates to include mixed progenitor channels.

Load-bearing premise

That the GRB sample after possible exclusions and the LIGO rate estimates accurately capture the true volumetric rates without major unaccounted selection effects, beaming uncertainties, or redshift errors.

What would settle it

Detection of multiple EM-bright neutron star mergers in the next LIGO runs whose combined rate matches or exceeds the GRB-inferred value would support the standard origin; persistent non-detections at the current level would confirm the discrepancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06772 by Da-Ming Wei, Hao Wang, Shao-Peng Tang, Yin-Jie Li, Yuan-Zhu Wang, Yun Wang, Zhi-Ping Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Neutron star merger rates derived from short and long-short GRBs. Left: results include GRB 061201. Right: result exclude GRB 061201. in Barthelmy et al. (2005), and here we use their simulated curve adjusted for off-axis projection effects. The spacetime volume covered by searching for a given burst is then calculated by: ⟨V T⟩ = 0.78 Tobs Z 0.2 0 FoV(Pf,min) 4π 1 1 + z dVc dz dz, (3) where the factor 0.7… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Probability density function for the local EM bright merger rate derived from different approaches. The blue curve is the rate obtained by performing hierarchical Bayesian inference on the chosen GW events; the red curve is the rate calculated from GRBs as introduced in Section 2; the black solid curve is the multi-messenger result derived from both GW and GRB observations. GW 170817) and the very bright G… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Short and long-short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are widely believed to be powered by neutron star mergers. In this work, we calculate local rate of such GRBs and find a relatively high value of $\sim 786-2468~{\rm Gpc^{-3}~yr^{-1}}$ when including the very narrow collimation event GRB 061201. Considering that its redshift is not very reliable, after excluding this event, the rate is $\sim 195-666~{\rm Gpc^{-3}~yr^{-1}}$. We also calculate the electromagnetically (EM) bright neutron star merger rate inferred from the LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA observations up to the end of the first epoch of the O4 run, and derive a rate of $\sim 66-347~{\rm Gpc^{-3}~yr^{-1}}$. This rate is somewhat lower than the value obtained from the GRBs, even after excluding GRB 061201. The non-detection of any viable EM bright merger in the O4b and O4c observing runs favors an even lower rate, which starts to challenge the neutron star merger origin of the short and long-short GRBs and may suggest additional contribution from the mergers of other compact object (like the neutron star-white dwarf) binaries, as speculated initially by King et al. (2007) in interpreting the long-short event GRB 060614.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript calculates the local volumetric rate of short and long-short GRBs from catalogs as ~786-2468 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} including GRB 061201 and ~195-666 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} after excluding it due to redshift uncertainty. It derives an EM-bright NS merger rate of ~66-347 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} from LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA data through O4a and argues that non-detections in O4b/c favor an even lower rate, creating tension with the GRB rate that challenges a pure NS-merger origin and suggests possible contributions from NS-WD binaries.

Significance. If the claimed rate tension survives quantitative scrutiny, the work would constrain the EM-bright fraction of NS mergers and the progenitor diversity of short/long-short GRBs. The multi-messenger framing is a positive feature, but the absence of explicit posterior updating or sensitivity tests on key assumptions limits its immediate impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The GRB rate interval after exclusion (195-666 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}) overlaps substantially with the LIGO EM-bright interval (66-347 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}). The central claim that non-detections 'start to challenge' the NS-merger origin therefore requires an explicit update of the LIGO rate posterior (or equivalent statistical comparison) showing that the O4b/c null result pushes the upper bound below the GRB lower bound; this step is missing.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: Exclusion of GRB 061201 is performed post-hoc on the basis of redshift reliability and lowers the GRB rate by a factor of ~4. Because this choice directly controls whether a discrepancy appears, a sensitivity analysis (or pre-defined selection criterion) is needed to establish that the conclusion is robust rather than driven by the exclusion.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: Derivation details for both rates—including sample selection, error propagation, beaming/collimation corrections, and the assumed EM-bright fraction—are not supplied. These quantities are load-bearing for the comparison and must be shown explicitly before the tension can be assessed against the weakest assumptions (selection effects, redshift errors, beaming uncertainties).
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would be improved by stating the precise LIGO observing runs used and the volumetric-rate calculation method (e.g., luminosity function assumptions or completeness corrections).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly to provide greater clarity and quantitative support for our conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The GRB rate interval after exclusion (195-666 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}) overlaps substantially with the LIGO EM-bright interval (66-347 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}). The central claim that non-detections 'start to challenge' the NS-merger origin therefore requires an explicit update of the LIGO rate posterior (or equivalent statistical comparison) showing that the O4b/c null result pushes the upper bound below the GRB lower bound; this step is missing.

    Authors: We acknowledge the substantial overlap between the quoted intervals and the need for a more quantitative treatment of the O4b/c non-detections. While the manuscript notes that these null results favor a lower rate, we agree an explicit update strengthens the argument. In the revision we will add a simple Poisson-based calculation (or equivalent frequentist upper limit) incorporating the O4b/c exposure and null detections to show how the EM-bright NS merger rate upper bound can be tightened, and we will compare this directly to the GRB lower bound after exclusion of GRB 061201. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: Exclusion of GRB 061201 is performed post-hoc on the basis of redshift reliability and lowers the GRB rate by a factor of ~4. Because this choice directly controls whether a discrepancy appears, a sensitivity analysis (or pre-defined selection criterion) is needed to establish that the conclusion is robust rather than driven by the exclusion.

    Authors: The exclusion of GRB 061201 is justified by its uncertain redshift in the literature, which propagates directly into the luminosity distance and volumetric rate. We recognize that this choice influences the final numbers. In the revised manuscript we will include a dedicated sensitivity analysis presenting the GRB rate both with and without this event, together with a discussion of the redshift uncertainty range and its effect on the derived interval. We will also state the pre-defined criterion used for redshift reliability. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: Derivation details for both rates—including sample selection, error propagation, beaming/collimation corrections, and the assumed EM-bright fraction—are not supplied. These quantities are load-bearing for the comparison and must be shown explicitly before the tension can be assessed against the weakest assumptions (selection effects, redshift errors, beaming uncertainties).

    Authors: We agree that the derivation details are essential for evaluating the robustness of the rate comparison. Although the full manuscript contains the underlying calculations, the presentation in the current version is too concise. In the revision we will expand the relevant sections to explicitly document: (i) the GRB sample selection criteria and catalog sources, (ii) the error propagation method (including treatment of redshift and fluence uncertainties), (iii) the beaming/collimation corrections and the jet opening angles adopted, and (iv) the EM-bright fraction inferred from the LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA detections. This will allow direct assessment of the key assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: rates from independent observational datasets

full rationale

The paper computes GRB volumetric rates directly from catalog event counts (with/without GRB 061201) and EM-bright NS-merger rates from LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA triggers up to O4, then notes that zero additional events in O4b/c would pull the LIGO rate lower. These steps are inferences from separate external data sources rather than any equation or parameter that reduces one quantity to the other by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or smuggled ansatzes appear in the derivation chain. The claimed tension is therefore an empirical comparison, not a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into exact parameters; standard rate calculations in this field typically involve beaming corrections and detection efficiencies drawn from prior work.

free parameters (2)
  • beaming/collimation factor
    Converts observed GRB rate to intrinsic rate; value range implied by the quoted 786-2468 and 195-666 intervals.
  • EM-bright fraction for NS mergers
    Used to derive the 66-347 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} LIGO rate from total merger rate.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Short and long-short GRBs are powered by compact object mergers
    Stated as widely believed at the start of the abstract.
  • domain assumption Redshift measurements are reliable for rate calculations except for specific flagged events
    Invoked when discussing exclusion of GRB 061201.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5590 in / 1584 out tokens · 61051 ms · 2026-05-10T17:44:48.701332+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Very Late Time Afterglow of GW170817 Favors a Wobbling Jet

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A ring-shaped wobbling jet explains the shallow late-time afterglow decay of GW170817 better than a collimated jet at 4.8 sigma significance, implying a ~27 degree wobble angle.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2041

  2. [2]

    Physical Review X , author =

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 Aky¨ uz, A., Correia, A., Garofalo, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08778

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  3. [3]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 Della Valle, M., Chincarini, G., Panagia, N., et al. 2006, Nature, 444, 1050, doi: 10.1038/nature05374

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005

  4. [4]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  5. [5]

    B., Frail, D

    Fox, D. B., Frail, D. A., Price, P. A., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 845, doi: 10.1038/nature04189

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04189 2005

  6. [6]

    L., O’Brien, P

    Gehrels, N., Sarazin, C. L., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 851, doi: 10.1038/nature04142 7 T able 2.The properties of gravitational wave events with secondary mass<3M ⊙. The data are taken from theGravitational Wave Open Science Centerhttps://gwosc.org/eventapi/html/allevents/, and supplemented by Abbott et al. (2017b); Ligo Scientific Collabo...

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04142 2005

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Gottlieb, O., Liska, M., Tchekhovskoy, A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7530

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac7530 2022

  8. [8]

    2023, ApJL, 954, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceeff

    Gottlieb, O., Issa, D., Jacquemin-Ide, J., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aceeff

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aceeff 2023

  9. [9]

    2023, PhRvD, 107, 123001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123001

    Shibata, M. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 123001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.123001 2023

  10. [10]

    Nature Communications , keywords =

    Jin, Z.-P., Hotokezaka, K., Li, X., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 12898, doi: 10.1038/ncomms12898

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms12898 2016

  11. [11]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d

    Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., Wang, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d 2018

  12. [12]

    King, A., Olsson, E., & Davies, M. B. 2007, MNRAS, 374, L34, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00259.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00259.x 2007

  13. [13]

    P., Tanvir, N

    Lamb, G. P., Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 883, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab38bb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab38bb

  14. [14]

    P., Lyman, J

    Lamb, G. P., Lyman, J. D., Levan, A. J., et al. 2019b, ApJL, 870, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96b 2041

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, ApJL, 192, L145, doi: 10.1086/181612

    work page doi:10.1086/181612 1974

  16. [16]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Wiersema, K., & O’Brien, P. T. 2011, GRB Coordinates Network, 12414, 1

    2011

  17. [17]

    and Gompertz, Benjamin P

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024

  18. [18]

    ApJ507, 59 (1998) https://doi.org/ 10.1086/311680 arXiv:astro-ph/9807272

    Li, L.-X., & Paczy´ nski, B. 1998, ApJL, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    work page doi:10.1086/311680 1998

  19. [19]

    2021a, ApJ, 923, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac34f0

    Li, Y.-J., Tang, S.-P., Wang, Y.-Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac34f0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac34f0 2021

  20. [20]

    D., et al

    Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/7 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, & Virgo Collaboration. 2020, GRB Coordinates Network, 26807, 1 Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, & Kagra Collaboration. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 34148, 1

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/7 2016

  21. [21]

    P., Brightman, M., et al

    Makhathini, S., Mooley, K. P., Brightman, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc 2021

  22. [22]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 2022

  23. [23]

    O., Cenko, S

    Ofek, E. O., Cenko, S. B., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1129, doi: 10.1086/518082

    work page doi:10.1086/518082 2007

  24. [24]

    A., Meyers, J., Hsiao, E., et al

    Perley, D. A., Meyers, J., Hsiao, E., et al. 2010, GRB Coordinates Network, 10429, 1

    2010

  25. [25]

    and Gompertz, Benjamin P

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

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

  26. [26]

    2010, , 405, 1025, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16486.x

    Rowlinson, A., Wiersema, K., Levan, A. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 383, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17115.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17115.x 2010

  27. [27]

    2007, A&A, 474, 827, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078006

    Stratta, G., D’Avanzo, P., Piranomonte, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 474, 827, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078006

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078006 2007

  28. [28]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 547, doi: 10.1038/nature12505 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, & the KAGRA Collaboration. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/nature12505 2013

  29. [29]

    Nature Communications , keywords =

    Troja, E., Ryan, G., Piro, L., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 4089, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06558-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06558-7 2018

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2255 2019

  31. [31]

    , keywords =

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O’Connor, B., et al. 2022a, Nature, 612, 228, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05327-3

  32. [32]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3533

    Troja, E., O’Connor, B., Ryan, G., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 510, 1902, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3533 8

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3533 1902

  33. [33]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca96c

    Wang, Y.-Y., Tang, S.-P., Jin, Z.-P., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2023, ApJ, 943, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca96c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca96c 2023

  34. [34]

    2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7323, doi: 10.1038/ncomms8323

    Yang, B., Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., et al. 2015, Nature Communications, 6, 7323, doi: 10.1038/ncomms8323

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms8323 2015

  35. [35]

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

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

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

  36. [36]

    Nature , author =

    Yang, Y.-H., Troja, E., O’Connor, B., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5 2024