2009
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200809802
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of the gamma-ray bursts detected by BATSE and Swift

Abstract: Aims. The durations of 388 gamma-ray bursts detected by the Swift satellite, are analyzed statistically to search for subgroups. The results are then compared with results obtained earlier for data from the BATSE database. Methods. We apply the standard χ 2 test. Results. As for data in the BATSE database, short and long subgroups are also reliably identified in the Swift data. An intermediate subgroup is also seen in the Swift database.Conclusions. The analysis of the entire sample of 388 GRBs provides a supp… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

9
55
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
(49 reference statements)
9
55
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It was supported (Horváth 2002) with the use of the complete BATSE dataset. Evidence for a third normal component was also found in Swift data Zhang and Choi 2008;Huja et al 2009). BeppoSAX dataset was shown to be in agreement with earlier results regarding the bimodal distribution, and the detection of an intermediate-duration component was established on a lower, compared to BATSE and Swift, significance level due to a less populate sample (Horváth 2009).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…It was supported (Horváth 2002) with the use of the complete BATSE dataset. Evidence for a third normal component was also found in Swift data Zhang and Choi 2008;Huja et al 2009). BeppoSAX dataset was shown to be in agreement with earlier results regarding the bimodal distribution, and the detection of an intermediate-duration component was established on a lower, compared to BATSE and Swift, significance level due to a less populate sample (Horváth 2009).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Horváth (1998) and Mukherjee et al (1998) independently discovered a third peak in the duration distribution in the BATSE 3B catalog (Meegan et al 1996), located between the short and long peaks, and the statistical existence of this intermediate class was supported (Horváth 2002) with the use of BATSE 4B data. Evidence for a third component in log T 90 was also found in the Swift data (Horváth et al 2008a,b;Zhang & Choi 2008;Huja et al 2009;Horváth et al 2010). Other datasets, i.e., RHESSI (Řípa et al 2009) and BeppoSAX (Horváth 2009), are both in agreement with earlier results regarding the bimodal distribution, and the detection of a third component was established on a lower significance level (compared to BATSE and Swift) owing to less populated samples.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Swift also observed two local maxima, although with a prominent shoulder on the left side of the long GRB peak (Horváth et al 2008a), detected by means of the maximum log-likelihood method. Huja et al (2009) also obtained a bimodal distribution with a bump on one side of the long GRB peak, although somewhat weaker. The explanation may be that for the sample of 388 GRBs, a maximum log-likelihood method is more robust than applying a χ 2 fitting.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This was confirmed from further analysis of the complete BATSE dataset (Horváth 2002;Chattopadhyay et al 2007;Zitouni et al 2015). Evidence for a third lognormal component was also found in Swift/BAT data (Horváth et al 2008;Huja et al 2009;Horváth et al 2010) using duration and also from two-dimensional clustering using both duration and hardness (Veres et al 2010 Horváth & Tóth (2016), who pointed that three lognormal distributions provide a better fit to the data than two with 99.9999% confidence level. Tarnopolski (2016a) finds that for the similar Swift GRB dataset consisting of 947 GRBs, three groups are favored in the observer frame, whereas two in the rest frame.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 62%