Paper detail

The Possible Impact of GRB Detector Thresholds on Cosmological Standard Candles

GRB satellites are relatively inefficient detectors of dim hard bursts because they trigger on photon counts, which are number-biased against hard photons. Therefore, for example, given two bursts of identical peak luminosity near the detection threshold, a dim soft burst will be preferentially detected over a dim hard burst. This detector bias can create or skew an apparent correlation where increasingly hard GRBs appear increasingly bright. Although such correlations may be obfuscated by a middle step where GRBs need to be bright enough to have their actual redshifts determined, it is found that the bias is generally pervasive. This result is derived here through simulations convolving a wide variety of possible GRB brightnesses and spectra with the BATSE Large Area Detectors (LAD) detection thresholds. The presented analyses indicate that the rest-frame $νF_ν$ spectrum peak energy of long-duration GRBs, $\epi$, is not a good cosmological standard candle without significant corrections for selection effects. Therefore, the appearance of $\epi$ in seeming correlations such as the Amati ($E_{iso}-\epi$), Ghirlanda ($E_γ-\epi$), and $L_{iso}-\epi$ relations is statistically real but strongly influenced by so far uncalibrated GRB detector thresholds.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors4 topics

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.