Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 159

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toward a More Standardized Candle Using Gamma‐Ray Burst Energetics and Spectra

Open access
Friedman, Andrew S., Bloom, Joshua S.·2005·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

The use of gamma-ray burst (GRB) energetics for cosmography has long been advanced as a means to probe out to high redshifts, to the epoch of deceleration. However, although relatively immune to systematic biases from dust extinction, the prompt energy release in GRBs, even when corrected for jetting geometry, is far from being a standard candle. In this work we explore the cosmographic potential of a GRB standard candle based on the newly discovered relation by Ghirlanda and coworkers between the apparent geometry-corrected energies ( E γ ) and the peak in the rest-frame prompt-burst spectrum ( E p ). We present an explicit, self-consistent formalism for correcting GRB energies with a thorough accounting for observational uncertainties. In contrast to other work, we demonstrate that the current sample of 19 GRBs is not yet cosmographically competitive with results from Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), large-scale structure, and the microwave background. Although the E p - E γ relation is a highly significant correlation across a range of cosmologies [0 ≤ Ω M , Ω Λ ≤ 2], the goodness of fit of the data to a power law ( E p ∝ E ) depends strongly on input assumptions. The most important of these assumptions concern the unknown density (and density profile) of the circumburst medium, the efficiency of converting explosion energy to gamma rays, data selection choices for individual bursts (some of which were not included in similar work), and assumptions in the error analysis. Independent of assumptions, with very few low- z bursts, the current sample is most sensitive to Ω M but essentially insensitive to Ω Λ (let alone the dark energy equation of state w ). The relation clearly represents a significant improvement in the search for an empirical GRB standard candle but is further hindered by an unknown physical basis for the relation, the lack of a low- z training set to calibrate the relation in a cosmology-independent way, and several major potential systematic uncertainties and selection effects. Until these concerns are addressed, a larger sample is acquired, and attempts are made to marginalize or perform Monte Carlo simulations over the unknown density distribution (which itself may evolve with redshift), we urge caution concerning claims of the utility of GRBs for cosmography and especially attempts to combine the results from GRBs with those of SNe Ia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/430292

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 159

Metadata

Authors
Friedman, A. S., & Bloom, J. S.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2005-07
Volume
627
Issue
1
Pages
1-25
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2066575727
Cited by
159
References
2
FWCI
17.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward a More Standardized Candle Using Gamma‐Ray Burst Energetics and Spectra. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/430292
The paper
Friedman, A. S., & Bloom, J. S. (2005). Toward a More Standardized Candle Using Gamma‐Ray Burst Energetics and Spectra. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/430292

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.