Paper detail

GRB Progenitors and Observational Criteria

Phenomenologically, two classes of GRBs (long/soft vs. short/hard) are identified based on their gamma-ray properties. The boundary between the two classes is vague. Multi-wavelength observations lead to identification of two types of GRB progenitor: one related to massive stars (Type II), and another related to compact stars (Type I). Evidence suggests that the majority of long GRBs belong to Type II, while at least the majority of nearby short GRBs belong to Type I. Nonetheless, counter examples do exist. Both long-duration Type I and short-duration Type II GRBs have been observed. In this talk, I review the complications in GRB classification and efforts in diagnosing GRB progenitor based on multiple observational criteria. In particular, I raise the caution to readily accept that all short/hard GRBs detected by BATSE are due to compact star mergers. Finally, I propose to introduce "amplitude" as the third dimension (besides "duration" and "hardness") to quantify burst properties, and point out that the "tip-of-iceberg" effect may introduce confusion in defining the physical category of GRBs, especially for low-amplitude, high-redshift GRBs.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.

Authors

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.