Cosmological Aspects of Gamma‐Ray Bursts: Luminosity Evolution and an Estimate of the Star Formation Rate at High Redshifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using 220 Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB) redshifts and luminosities derived from the luminosity-variability correlation of Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz (2000), we show that there exists significant evolution of the GRB luminosity function. In particular, we find that the average GRB luminosity L is proportional to (1+z)^1.4, where z is the burst redshift. We discuss the possible reasons behind this evolution and compare it to other known sources that exhibit similar behavior. In addition, we use non-parametric statistical techniques to independently estimate the distributions of the luminosity and redshift of bursts, accounting for the evolution (in contrast to previous studies which have assumed that the luminosity function is independent of redshift). We present these distributions and discuss their implications. Most significantly, we find a co-moving rate density of GRBs that continues to increase to (1+z) > 10. From this estimate of the GRB rate density, we then use the population synthesis codes of Fryer et al. (1999) to estimate the star formation rate at high redshifts, based on different progenitor models of GRBs. We find that no matter what the progenitor or population synthesis model, the star formation rate increases or remains constant to very high redshifts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".