MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490156253 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425013

Are long gamma-ray bursts biased tracers of star formation? Clues from the host galaxies of the<i>Swift</i>/BAT6 complete sample of LGRBs

2015· article· en· W1490156253 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBrookhaven National LaboratoryLeibniz-GemeinschaftScience and Technology Facilities CouncilJet Propulsion LaboratoryOffice of ScienceYork UniversityIstituto Nazionale di AstrofisicaGeneralitat ValencianaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAgence Nationale de la RechercheAustralian Research CouncilSpace Telescope Science InstituteInstituto de Astrofísica de CanariasCarnegie Mellon UniversityUniversity of ArizonaCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityPrinceton UniversityAlfred P. Sloan FoundationUniversity of WashingtonJohns Hopkins UniversityHarvard UniversityOhio State UniversityNew Mexico State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthYale UniversityVanderbilt UniversityNational Science FoundationLabex UnivEarthSU.S. Department of EnergyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGalaxyStar formationStarsStellar massRedshiftMetallicityPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims. Long gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) are associated with massive stars and are therefore linked to star formation. However, the conditions needed for the progenitor stars to produce LGRBs can affect the relation between the LGRB rate and star formation. By using the power of a complete LGRB sample, our long-term aim is to understand whether such a bias exists and, if it does, what its origin is. Methods. To reach our goal we use the Swift/BAT6 complete sample of LGRBs. In this first paper, we build the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the 14 z < 1 host galaxies of the BAT6 LGRB sample and determine their stellar masses (M ) from SED fitting. To investigate the presence of a bias in the LGRB-star formation relation we compare the stellar mass distribution of the LGRB host galaxies (i) with star-forming galaxies observed in deep surveys (UltraVISTA) within the same redshift limit; (ii) with semi-analytical models of the z < 1 star-forming galaxy population; and (iii) with dedicated numerical simulations of LGRB hosts having different metallicity thresholds for the progenitor star environment. Results. We find that at z < 1, LGRBs tend to avoid massive galaxies and are very powerful for selecting a population of faint low-mass star-forming galaxies, partly below the completeness limits of galaxy surveys. The stellar mass distribution of the hosts is not consistent with that of the UltraVISTA star-forming galaxies weighted by their star formation rate (SFR). This implies that, at least at z < 1, LGRBs are not unbiased tracers of star formation. To make the two distributions consistent, a much steeper faint end of the mass function would be required or a very shallow SFR-mass relation for the low-mass galaxy population. The comparison with the GRB host galaxy simulations indicates that, to reproduce the stellar mass distribution, a metallicity threshold of the order of Z th = 0.3-0.5 Z is necessary to form a LGRB. Models without a metallicity threshold or with an extreme threshold of Z th = 0.1 Z are excluded at z < 1. Under a very basic assumption, we estimate that the LGRB rate can directly trace the SFR starting from z 4 and above. Conclusions. GRB hosts at z < 1 have lower luminosities and stellar masses than expected if LGRBs were unbiased star formation tracers. The use of the Swift/BAT6 complete sample keeps this result from being affected by possible biases that could have influenced past results based on incomplete samples. The preference for low metallicities (Z 0.5 Z ) inferred by the comparison with the simulations can be a consequence of the particular conditions needed for the progenitor star to produce a GRB.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207