Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

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

The Afterglow, Energetics, and Host Galaxy of the Short‐Hard Gamma‐Ray Burst 051221a

Open access
Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Kasliwal, M., Frail, D. A., Price, P. A., Schmidt, B. P., Kulkarni, S. R., Fox, D. B., Cenko, S. B., Gal‐Yam, A., Nakar, E., Roth, K. C.·2006·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

We present detailed optical, X-ray, and radio observations of the bright afterglow of the short gamma-ray burst 051221a obtained with Gemini, Swift XRT, and the Very Large Array, as well as optical spectra from which we measure the redshift of the burst, z = 0.5464. At this redshift the isotropic-equivalent prompt energy release was about 1.5 × 10 51 ergs, and using a standard afterglow synchrotron model, we find that the blast wave kinetic energy is similar, E K ,iso ≈ 8.4 × 10 51 ergs. An observed jet break at t ≈ 5 days indicates that the opening angle is θ j ≈ 7° and the total beaming-corrected energy is therefore ≈2.5 × 10 49 ergs, comparable to the values inferred for previous short GRBs. We further show that the burst experienced an episode of energy injection by a factor of 3.4 between t = 1.4 and 3.4 hr, which was accompanied by reverse shock emission in the radio band. This result provides continued evidence that the central engines of short GRBs may be active significantly longer than the duration of the burst and/or produce a wide range of Lorentz factors. Finally, we show that the host galaxy is actively forming stars at a rate of about 1.6 M ☉ yr -1 , yet exhibits evidence for an appreciable population of old stars (~1 Gyr) and near-solar metallicity. These properties are intermediate between those of long GRB hosts and previous short burst hosts. The lack of bright supernova emission and the low circumburst density ( n ~ 10 -3 cm -3 ), however, continue to support the idea that short bursts are not related to massive stellar death. Given that the total energy release is larger than the predicted yield for a neutrino annihilation mechanism, this suggests that magnetohydrodynamic processes may be required to power the burst.

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 · 10.1086/506429

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 280

Metadata

Authors
Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Kasliwal, M., Frail, D. A., Price, P. A., Schmidt, B. P., Kulkarni, S. R., Fox, D. B., Cenko, S. B., Gal‐Yam, A., Nakar, E., & Roth, K. C.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2006-10-10
Volume
650
Issue
1
Pages
261-271
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2150299296
Cited by
280
References
2
FWCI
13.31
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: The Afterglow, Energetics, and Host Galaxy of the Short‐Hard Gamma‐Ray Burst 051221a. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/506429
The paper
Soderberg, A. M., Berger, E., Kasliwal, M., Frail, D. A., Price, P. A., Schmidt, B. P., Kulkarni, S. R., Fox, D. B., Cenko, S. B., Gal‐Yam, A., Nakar, E., & Roth, K. C. (2006). The Afterglow, Energetics, and Host Galaxy of the Short‐Hard Gamma‐Ray Burst 051221a. The Astrophysical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/506429

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.