pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.28699 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

An Intertwined Short and Long GRB with 4-minute Separation

Liang Li , Yu Wang , Bing Zhang , Ye Li , Shu-Rui Zhang , Jochen Greiner , Zhi-Ping Jin , Jin-Jun Geng
show 14 more authors
Hou-Jun Lv Asaf Peer Maria Dainotti Tong Liu Yi-Zhong Fan Yong-Feng Huang Zi-Gao Dai Melin Kole Wei-Hua Lei Ye-Fei Yuan Shuang-Nan Zhang Felix Ryde She-Sheng Xue Rong-Gen Cai
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 00:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords gamma-ray burstsshort GRBslong GRBsprogenitor modelsGRB classificationprompt emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

GRB 160425A consists of a short sub-burst followed four minutes later by a long sub-burst, with diagnostics assigning each to a different progenitor class.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents GRB 160425A as two distinct sub-bursts separated by four minutes. Standard prompt-emission diagnostics such as duration, hardness, variability timescale, pulse shape, spectra, and empirical correlations classify the first sub-burst as short-like and merger-origin while classifying the second as long-like and collapsar-origin. This mixed classification within one event is shown to conflict with the usual separation of gamma-ray burst progenitors into compact-binary mergers versus massive-star collapses.

Core claim

GRB 160425A comprises a short-duration burst G1 and a long-duration burst G2 separated by four minutes. All standard prompt-emission diagnostics, including pulse morphology, T90 duration, hardness ratio, minimum variability timescale, spectral properties, and established empirical correlations, place G1 in the short/Type I category and G2 in the long/Type II category. The coexistence of these signatures in a single event therefore challenges existing progenitor frameworks and requires re-evaluation of GRB classification schemes.

What carries the argument

The two sub-bursts G1 and G2 of GRB 160425A, classified separately by the full set of prompt-emission diagnostics that normally distinguish Type I from Type II events.

Load-bearing premise

The standard observational diagnostics still map cleanly to distinct progenitor types even when the two sub-bursts occur only four minutes apart.

What would settle it

Detection of a similar event whose two sub-bursts share identical host-galaxy properties, redshift, and afterglow behavior while still showing the same short/long diagnostic split.

read the original abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), the most energetic transients in the Universe, are traditionally classified into long-duration ($T_{90}>2$ s) and short-duration ($T_{90}<2$ s) events, associated with the core collapse of massive stars (Type II) and the merger of compact binary systems (Type I), respectively. The two classes exhibit distinct observational properties that serve as key diagnostic criteria for classification. Here we report GRB 160425A, a peculiar event comprising two sub-bursts separated by four minutes: a short-duration burst ($G_1$) and a long-duration burst ($G_2$). Nearly all standard prompt-emission diagnostics, including pulse morphology, duration, hardness ratio, minimum variability timescale, spectral properties, and established empirical correlations, consistently categorize $G_1$ as a short-like (Type I, merger-origin) and $G_2$ as a long-like (Type II, collapsar-origin) GRB. The coexistence of merger and collapsar signatures in a single event challenges existing progenitor frameworks and calls for a re-evaluation of GRB classification schemes and progenitor scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports GRB 160425A as an event with two sub-bursts G1 (short-duration) and G2 (long-duration) separated by four minutes. Using standard prompt-emission diagnostics—pulse morphology, T90, hardness ratio, minimum variability timescale, spectral properties, and empirical correlations—the authors classify G1 as Type I (merger-origin) and G2 as Type II (collapsar-origin), arguing that their coexistence in one event challenges existing GRB progenitor frameworks.

Significance. If the classifications prove robust against the close temporal separation, the result would be significant for the field: it supplies a concrete case where both Type I and Type II signatures appear within minutes, forcing re-examination of whether the standard diagnostics cleanly separate progenitors or whether hybrid or unified mechanisms can produce mixed signatures. The multi-diagnostic consistency is a positive feature.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (classification section): the claim that G1 and G2 map cleanly to distinct progenitors rests on the assumption that the standard T90, hardness, and variability metrics retain their usual Type I/II separation even at 4-minute separation; no quantitative test for cross-contamination between the two intervals or for possible shared-engine scenarios (e.g., collapsar precursor or merger extended emission) is provided.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 (diagnostic summary): the reported minimum variability timescales and hardness ratios for G1 and G2 are stated to be clearly separated, but the table lacks error bars, statistical significance of the separation, or a direct comparison to the distributions of the reference Type I and Type II samples.
  3. [§5] §5 (discussion): the argument that the event challenges progenitor frameworks does not include an explicit exclusion or likelihood estimate for the alternative that a single progenitor can produce both signatures when the sub-bursts are temporally adjacent.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'nearly all' diagnostics agree, yet the main text does not enumerate the full list or note any outliers; adding this would improve transparency.
  2. [Figure 1] Figure 1 (light-curve panel): the time intervals used to extract G1 and G2 spectra and light-curve properties should be explicitly marked on the plot for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate clarifications and additional analysis where feasible.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (classification section): the claim that G1 and G2 map cleanly to distinct progenitors rests on the assumption that the standard T90, hardness, and variability metrics retain their usual Type I/II separation even at 4-minute separation; no quantitative test for cross-contamination between the two intervals or for possible shared-engine scenarios (e.g., collapsar precursor or merger extended emission) is provided.

    Authors: The sub-bursts are extracted from strictly non-overlapping intervals with the intervening gap returning to background. We have added a quantitative check confirming that residual counts in the gap contribute negligibly (<1% of G1 fluence) to either interval, supporting that cross-contamination does not affect the measured diagnostics. For shared-engine alternatives we have expanded the discussion to note that neither standard collapsar-precursor nor merger-extended-emission models reproduce the observed combination of a hard, short pulse followed four minutes later by a soft, long pulse with distinct variability timescales; however, a full population-synthesis likelihood calculation lies beyond the scope of the present work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Table 2] Table 2 (diagnostic summary): the reported minimum variability timescales and hardness ratios for G1 and G2 are stated to be clearly separated, but the table lacks error bars, statistical significance of the separation, or a direct comparison to the distributions of the reference Type I and Type II samples.

    Authors: We agree that error bars and statistical context strengthen the presentation. The revised Table 2 now includes 1σ uncertainties on the minimum variability timescales and hardness ratios, together with the p-values for the separation between G1 and G2 and a concise comparison to the reference distributions drawn from the literature samples used in the original analysis. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§5] §5 (discussion): the argument that the event challenges progenitor frameworks does not include an explicit exclusion or likelihood estimate for the alternative that a single progenitor can produce both signatures when the sub-bursts are temporally adjacent.

    Authors: We have augmented §5 with an explicit paragraph addressing the single-progenitor hypothesis. We note that the observed properties are inconsistent with documented precursor or extended-emission mechanisms for either class, but we acknowledge that a quantitative exclusion probability would require dedicated simulations that are not performed in this manuscript. The revised text therefore presents the challenge to existing frameworks as a qualitative but observationally motivated tension rather than a definitive statistical exclusion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct application of established observational diagnostics

full rationale

The paper classifies G1 and G2 using standard, pre-existing GRB metrics (T90 duration, hardness ratio, minimum variability timescale, pulse morphology, spectral shape, and empirical correlations) applied directly to the observed data. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations are presented that reduce to the inputs by construction. No self-citation load-bearing steps or ansatz smuggling occur in the central claim. The argument is an observational report that remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that established GRB classification diagnostics map cleanly to progenitor types, with no free parameters or new entities introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard prompt-emission diagnostics (T90, hardness ratio, variability timescale, spectral correlations) reliably indicate progenitor type (merger vs. collapsar).
    Invoked as the basis for classifying G1 and G2 throughout the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5588 in / 1254 out tokens · 64427 ms · 2026-05-14T00:31:50.796968+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Deng, Z.-Y

    H.-Y. Deng, Z.-Y. Peng, J.-M. Chen, Y. Yin, T. Li, A Study of the Spectral Properties of Gamma-Ray Bursts with the Precursors and Main Bursts.Astrophys. J.970(1), 67 (2024), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d95

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4d95 2024

  2. [2]

    J.-J. Geng, B. Zhang, R. Kuiper, Propagation of Relativistic, Hydrodynamic, Intermittent Jets in a Rotating, Collapsing GRB Progenitor Star.Astrophys. J.833(1), 116 (2016), doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/116

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/116 2016

  3. [3]

    N. R. Tanvir,et al., A ‘kilonova’ associated with the short-duration𝛾-ray burst GRB 130603B. Nature500(7464), 547–549 (2013), doi:10.1038/nature12505

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12505 2013

  4. [4]

    R. L. Becerra,et al., Reverse Shock Emission Revealed in Early Photometry in the Candidate Short GRB 180418A.Astrophys. J.881(1), 12 (2019), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab275b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab275b 2019

  5. [5]

    Hjorth,et al., A very energetic supernova associated with the𝛾-ray burst of 29 March 2003

    J. Hjorth,et al., A very energetic supernova associated with the𝛾-ray burst of 29 March 2003. Nature423(6942), 847–850 (2003), doi:10.1038/nature01750

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01750 2003

  6. [6]

    Zhang,et al., Unusual Central Engine Activity in the Double Burst GRB 110709B

    B.-B. Zhang,et al., Unusual Central Engine Activity in the Double Burst GRB 110709B. Astrophys. J.748(2), 132 (2012), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/132

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/132 2012

  7. [7]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    A. Dey,et al., Overview of the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys.Astronom. J.157(5), 168 (2019), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  8. [8]

    Lan,et al., Characteristics of Two-episode Emission Patterns in Fermi Long Gamma-Ray Bursts.Astrophys

    L. Lan,et al., Characteristics of Two-episode Emission Patterns in Fermi Long Gamma-Ray Bursts.Astrophys. J.862(2), 155 (2018), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacda6. 17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacda6 2018

  9. [9]

    L. Li, J. Mao, Temporal Analysis of GRB Precursors in the Third Swift-BAT Catalog. Astrophys. J.928(2), 152 (2022), doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4af2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4af2 2022

  10. [10]

    P. A. Evans,et al., An online repository of Swift/XRT light curves of𝛾-ray bursts.Astro., Astrophys.469, 379–385 (2007), doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 2007

  11. [11]

    P. A. Evans,et al., Methods and results of an automatic analysis of a complete sample of Swift-XRT observations of GRBs.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.397, 1177–1201 (2009), doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x 2009

  12. [12]

    Vianello,et al., The Multi-Mission Maximum Likelihood framework (3ML).arXiv e-prints (2015)

    G. Vianello,et al., The Multi-Mission Maximum Likelihood framework (3ML).arXiv e-prints (2015)

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Romano,et al., Panchromatic study of GRB 060124: from precursor to afterglow.Astro., Astrophys.456(3), 917–927 (2006), doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065071

    P. Romano,et al., Panchromatic study of GRB 060124: from precursor to afterglow.Astro., Astrophys.456(3), 917–927 (2006), doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065071

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065071 2006

  14. [14]

    Cash, Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio.ApJ 228, 939–947 (1979), doi:10.1086/156922

    W. Cash, Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio.ApJ 228, 939–947 (1979), doi:10.1086/156922

    work page doi:10.1086/156922 1979

  15. [15]

    J. S. Bloom, D. A. Frail, R. Sari, The Prompt Energy Release of Gamma-Ray Bursts using a Cosmological k-Correction.aj121, 2879–2888 (2001), doi:10.1086/321093

    work page doi:10.1086/321093 2001

  16. [16]

    P. A. Evans,et al., 1SXPS: A Deep Swift X-Ray Telescope Point Source Catalog with Light Curves and Spectra.Astrophys. J. Suppl.210(1), 8 (2014), doi:10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/8 2014

  17. [17]

    J. P. Dezalay,et al., Short Cosmic Events: A Subset of Classical GRBs?, inAmerican Institute of Physics Conference Series, W. S. Paciesas, G. J. Fishman, Eds., vol. 265 ofAmerican Institute of Physics Conference Series(1992), p. 304

    work page 1992

  18. [18]

    Horv ´ath,et al., Detailed Classification of Swift ’s Gamma-ray Bursts.Astrophys

    I. Horv ´ath,et al., Detailed Classification of Swift ’s Gamma-ray Bursts.Astrophys. J.713(1), 552–557 (2010), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/713/1/552

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/713/1/552 2010

  19. [19]

    Kouveliotou,et al., Identification of two classes of gamma-ray bursts.Astrophys

    C. Kouveliotou,et al., Identification of two classes of gamma-ray bursts.Astrophys. J. Lett. 413, L101–L104 (1993), doi:10.1086/186969

    work page doi:10.1086/186969 1993

  20. [20]

    V. Z. Golkhou, N. R. Butler, Uncovering the Intrinsic Variability of Gamma-Ray Bursts. Astrophys. J.787(1), 90 (2014), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/90 2014

  21. [21]

    H.-J. L¨ u, B. Zhang, E.-W. Liang, B.-B. Zhang, T. Sakamoto, The ‘amplitude’ parameter of gamma-ray bursts and its implications for GRB classification.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 442(3), 1922–1929 (2014), doi:10.1093/mnras/stu982

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu982 1922

  22. [22]

    L. X. Cheng, Y. Q. Ma, K. S. Cheng, T. Lu, Y. Y. Zhou, The time delay of gamma-ray bursts in the soft energy band.Astro., Astrophys.300, 746 (1995). 18

    work page 1995

  23. [23]

    D. L. Band, Gamma-Ray Burst Spectral Evolution through Cross-Correlations of Discrimi- nator Light Curves.Astrophys. J.486, 928–937 (1997), doi:10.1086/304566

    work page doi:10.1086/304566 1997

  24. [24]

    T. N. Ukwatta,et al., Spectral Lags and the Lag-Luminosity Relation: An Investigation with Swift BAT Gamma-ray Bursts.Astrophys. J.711, 1073–1086 (2010), doi:10.1088/ 0004-637X/711/2/1073

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    L. Li, Y. Wang, A Novel Method of Estimating Gamma-Ray Burst Peak Energies beyond the Swift/BAT Limit.Astrophys. J. Suppl.283(1), 18 (2026), doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae36a5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae36a5 2026

  26. [26]

    Planck Collaboration,et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.arXiv e-prints arXiv:1807.06209 (2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Newville,et al., LMFIT: Non-linear least-square minimization and curve-fitting for Python

    M. Newville,et al., LMFIT: Non-linear least-square minimization and curve-fitting for Python. asclpp. ascl–1606 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    P. W. A. Roming,et al., The Swift Ultra-Violet/Optical Telescope.Spa., Sci., Rev.120(3-4), 95–142 (2005), doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 2005

  29. [29]

    E. F. Schlafly, D. P. Finkbeiner, Measuring Reddening with Sloan Digital Sky Survey Stellar Spectra and Recalibrating SFD.ApJ737, 103 (2011), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  30. [30]

    J. B. Oke, A. Sandage, Energy Distributions, K Corrections, and the Stebbins-Whitford Effect for Giant Elliptical Galaxies.Astrophys. J.154, 21 (1968), doi:10.1086/149737

    work page doi:10.1086/149737 1968

  31. [31]

    B. M. Peterson,An Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei(Cambridge University Press) (1997)

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    Li,et al., A Large Catalog of Multiwavelength GRB Afterglows

    L. Li,et al., A Large Catalog of Multiwavelength GRB Afterglows. I. Color Evolution and Its Physical Implication.Astrophys. J. Suppl.234(2), 26 (2018), doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa02a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa02a 2018

  33. [33]

    Pei, Y C, Interstellar dust from the Milky Way to the Magellanic Clouds.ApJ(1992)

    work page 1992

  34. [34]

    Cano, S.-Q

    Z. Cano, S.-Q. Wang, Z.-G. Dai, X.-F. Wu, The Observer’s Guide to the Gamma-Ray Burst Supernova Connection.Advances in Astronomy2017, 8929054 (2017), doi:10.1155/2017/ 8929054

    work page doi:10.1155/2017/ 2017

  35. [35]

    N. R. Tanvir,et al., GRB 160425A VLT/X-shooter redshift.GRB Coordinates Network19350, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    Calzetti, Reddening and Star Formation in Starburst Galaxies.Astronom

    D. Calzetti, Reddening and Star Formation in Starburst Galaxies.Astronom. J.113, 162–184 (1997), doi:10.1086/118242. 19

    work page doi:10.1086/118242 1997

  37. [37]

    Clocchiatti, N

    A. Clocchiatti, N. B. Suntzeff, R. Covarrubias, P. Candia, The Ultimate Light Curve of SN 1998bw/GRB 980425.Astronom. J.141, 163 (2011), doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/163

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/163 2011

  38. [38]

    A. Zeh, S. Klose, D. H. Hartmann, A Systematic Analysis of Supernova Light in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows.Astrophys. J.609(2), 952–961 (2004), doi:10.1086/421100

    work page doi:10.1086/421100 2004

  39. [39]

    G. Ryan, H. van Eerten, L. Piro, E. Troja, Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows in the Multimessenger Era: Numerical Models and Closure Relations.Astrophys. J.896(2), 166 (2020), doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab93cf

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Selsing,et al., The X-shooter GRB afterglow legacy sample (XS-GRB).Astro., Astrophys

    J. Selsing,et al., The X-shooter GRB afterglow legacy sample (XS-GRB).Astro., Astrophys. 623, A92 (2019), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832835

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832835 2019

  41. [41]

    Stroe, V.-N

    A. Stroe, V.-N. Savu, GLEAM: Galaxy Line Emission & Absorption Modeling.Astronom. J. 161(4), 158 (2021), doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe12a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abe12a 2021

  42. [42]

    E. F. Schlafly, D. P. Finkbeiner, Measuring Reddening with Sloan Digital Sky Survey Stellar Spectra and Recalibrating SFD.Astrophys. J.737(2), 103 (2011), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/ 737/2/103

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/ 2011

  43. [43]

    R. C. Kennicutt, N. J. Evans, Star Formation in the Milky Way and Nearby Galaxies.Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.50, 531–608 (2012), doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  44. [44]

    R., Iliev, I

    M. Pettini, B. E. J. Pagel, [OIII]/[NII] as an abundance indicator at high redshift.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.348(3), L59–L63 (2004), doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x 2004

  45. [45]

    Freudling,et al., Automated data reduction workflows for astronomy

    W. Freudling,et al., Automated data reduction workflows for astronomy. The ESO Reflex environment.Astro., Astrophys.559, A96 (2013), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322494

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322494 2013

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    E. Bertin, S. Arnouts, SExtractor: Software for source extraction.Astro., Astrophys., Suppl 117, 393–404 (1996), doi:10.1051/aas:1996164

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  47. [47]

    Bertin, Automatic Astrometric and Photometric Calibration with SCAMP, inAstronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, C

    E. Bertin, Automatic Astrometric and Photometric Calibration with SCAMP, inAstronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, S. Enrique, Eds., vol. 351 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series(2006), p. 112

    work page 2006

  48. [48]

    Bertin,et al., The TERAPIX Pipeline, inAstronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, D

    E. Bertin,et al., The TERAPIX Pipeline, inAstronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI, D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, T. H. Handley, Eds., vol. 281 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series(2002), p. 228

    work page 2002

  49. [49]

    Y. Li, B. Zhang, H.-J. L¨ u, A Comparative Study of Long and Short GRBs. I. Overlapping Properties.Astrophys. J. Suppl.227(1), 7 (2016), doi:10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/7. 20

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/7 2016

  50. [50]

    Fong,et al., Short GRB Host Galaxies

    W.-f. Fong,et al., Short GRB Host Galaxies. I. Photometric and Spectroscopic Catalogs, Host Associations, and Galactocentric Offsets.Astrophys. J.940(1), 56 (2022), doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac91d0

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    F. J. Virgili,et al., GRB 091024A and the Nature of Ultra-long Gamma-Ray Bursts.Astrophys. J.778, 54 (2013), doi:10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/54

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/1/54 2013

  52. [52]

    Huang, H.-M

    Y.-Y. Huang, H.-M. Zhang, K. Yan, R.-Y. Liu, X.-Y. Wang, Detection of GeV Emission from an Ultralong Gamma-Ray Burst with the Fermi Large Area Telescope.Astrophys. J. Lett. 940(2), L36 (2022), doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca147

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca147 2022

  53. [53]

    Li, Multipulse Fermi Gamma-Ray Bursts

    L. Li, Multipulse Fermi Gamma-Ray Bursts. I. Evidence of the Transition from Fireball to Poynting-flux-dominated Outflow.Astrophys. J. Suppl.242(2), 16 (2019), doi:10.3847/ 1538-4365/ab1b78

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    de Wet,et al., The ultra-long GRB 220627A at z = 3.08.Astro., Astrophys.677, A32 (2023), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347017

    S. de Wet,et al., The ultra-long GRB 220627A at z = 3.08.Astro., Astrophys.677, A32 (2023), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347017

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347017 2023

  55. [55]

    Shi, X.-K

    Y.-R. Shi, X.-K. Ding, S.-Y. Zhu, W.-P. Sun, F.-W. Zhang, Statistical Properties of X-ray Flares in Gamma-Ray Bursts.Universe8(7), 358 (2022), doi:10.3390/universe8070358

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8070358 2022

  56. [56]

    2011, MNRAS, 411, 955, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17731.x

    G. Chincarini,et al., Unveiling the origin of X-ray flares in gamma-ray bursts.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.406(4), 2113–2148 (2010), doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17037.x. 21 Acknowledgments We acknowledge the use of public data from the Fermi Science Support Center, Swift Science Data Centre, and GCN circulars reported by multiple facilities. LL thanks Filip...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17037.x 2010