Paper detail

Are all short-hard gamma-ray bursts produced from mergers of compact stellar objects?

The origin and progenitors of short-hard gamma-ray bursts remain a puzzle and a highly debated topic. Recent Swift observations suggest that these GRBs may be related to catastrophic explosions in degenerate compact stars, denoted as "Type I" GRBs. The most popular models include the merger of two compact stellar objects (NS-NS or NS-BH). We utilize a Monte Carlo approach to determine whether a merger progenitor model can self-consistently account for all the observations of short-hard GRBs, including a sample with redshift measurements in the Swift era (z-known sample) and the CGRO/BATSE sample. We apply various merger time delay distributions invoked in compact star merger models to derive the redshift distributions of these Type I GRBs, and then constrain the unknown luminosity function of Type I GRBs using the observed luminosity-redshift (L - z) distributions of the z-known sample. The best luminosity function model, together with the adopted merger delay model, are then applied to confront the peak flux distribution (log N - log P distribution) of the BATSE and Swift samples. We find that for all the merger models invoking a range of merger delay time scales (including those invoking a large fraction of "prompt mergers"), it is difficult to reconcile the models with all the data. The data are instead statistically consistent with the following two possible scenarios. First, that short/hard GRBs are a superposition of compact-star-merger origin (Type I) GRBs and a population of GRBs that track the star formation history, which are probably related to the deaths of massive stars (Type II GRBs). Sec- ond, the entire short/hard GRB population is consistent with a typical delay of 2 Gyr with respect to the star formation history with modest scatter. This may point towards a different Type I progenitor than the traditional compact star merger models.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.