Paper detail

The Total Errors In Measuring Epeak for Gamma-Ray Bursts

While Epeak has been extensively used in the past, for example with luminosity indicators, it has not been thoroughly examined for possible sources of scatter. In the literature, the reported error bars for Epeak are the simple Poisson statistical errors. Additional uncertainties arise due to the choices made by analysts in determining Epeak (e.g., the start and stop times of integration), imperfect knowledge of the response of the detector, different energy ranges for various detectors, and differences in models used to fit the spectra. We examine the size of these individual sources of scatter by comparing many independent pairs of published Epeak values for the same bursts. Indeed, the observed scatter in multiple reports of the same burst (often with the same data) is greatly larger than the published statistical error bars. We measure that the one-sigma uncertainty associated with the analyst's choices is 28%, i.e., 0.12 in Log10(Epeak), with the resultant errors always being present. The errors associated with the detector response are negligibly small. The variations caused by commonly-used alternative definitions of Epeak (such as present in all papers and in all compiled burst lists) is typically 23%-46%, although this varies substantially with the application. The implications of this are: (1) Even the very best measured Epeak values will have systematic uncertainties of 28%. (2) Thus, GRBs have a limitation in accuracy for a single event, with this being reducible by averaging many bursts. (3) The typical one-sigma total uncertainty for collections of bursts is 55%. (4) We also find that the width of the distribution for Epeak in the burst frame must be near zero, implying that some mechanism must exist to thermostat GRBs. (5) Our community can only improve on this situation by using collections of bursts which all have identical definitions for the Epeak calculation.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.