Paper detail

Statistical Study of Observed and Intrinsic Durations among BATSE and Swift/BAT GRBs

Studies of \textit{BATSE} bursts \citep{kouveliotou:93} have resulted in the widespread adoption of a two-group categorization: long bursts (those with durations $\geq 2$ seconds) and short bursts (those with durations $\leq 2$ seconds). This categorization, one must recall, used the observed $T_{90}$ time durations for bursts (during which 90\% of a burst's fluence is measured). In this work, we have explored two ideas: 1) a statistical search for a possible third, intermediate category of bursts (between the "short" and the "long" ones) among 2041 \textit{BATSE} GRBs and 757 \textit{Swift/BAT} ones, 2) a study of bursts' intrinsic durations, where durations in the bursts' reference frames (instead of the observed durations) are considered, for this, 248 \textit{Swift/BAT} bursts that have redshift measurements were statistically analyzed for the same categorization goal. We first use a Monte Carlo method to determine the proper binning of each GRB, considering that bursts come with different uncertainties on their durations. Then, using the method of minimization of chi-square $χ^2$, we search for the best fit of the normalized frequency distributions $\frac{1}{N_0}\frac{dN}{d\ln{T}}$ of durations, this allows us to compare fits with two groups ("short" and "long") with fits with three groups ("short", "long", and "intermediate"). Our results indicate that the distributions of observed durations are better fitted by three groups than two groups for \textit{Swift/BAT} data, interestingly, the "intermediate" group appears rather clearly for both observed and intrinsic durations. For BATSE data, the statistical test does not prefer three groups over two. We discuss the results, their possible underlying causes, and reasonable interpretations.

preprint2016arXivOpen 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.