AG-2025.11-1316·astro-ph.HE·cross-listed: hep-ph
The Cosmic Star Formation History: Insights from Kilonova-Associated Gamma-Ray Bursts
Authors
- Qin-Mei Li
- Qi-Bin Sun
- Sheng-Bang Qian
- Si-Yuan Zhu
- Fu-Xing Li
Abstract
The origin of the Universe and its material content remains one of the most fundamental questions in science. Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), with their extreme luminosities and high-redshift detectability, provide a unique window into the history of cosmic formation and chemical evolution. Consequently, the GRB formation rate (FR) has been employed to trace the star formation rate (SFR) across cosmic time. GRBs are conventionally classified into long and short categories (lGRBs and sGRBs) based on their $ T_{90} $ duration. sGRBs are widely employed as tracers of the delayed SFR, owing to their origin linked to the inspiral timescales of compact binary systems. However, some studies suggest that the detection of supernova-associated sGRBs may indicate potential contamination by core-collapse events. In this work, we move beyond the $ T_{90} $ classification and focus exclusively on GRBs with confirmed kilonova signatures, which provide unambiguous evidence of binary compact star mergers, to reassess their connection with the delayed SFR. Through analysis of a kilonova-associated GRB (KN/GRBs) sample, we find that even within this robust subset, the KN/GRB FR displays a trend contrary to that of the delayed SFR at low redshifts ($ z < 1 $). This result challenges the conventional theory by indicating that low-redshift KN/GRBs may not accurately trace the delayed SFR, independent of core-collapse contamination, while further validation with larger KN/GRB samples is essential to determine the reliability of compact binary mergers as probes of delayed SFR.
Submitted
16 November 20255 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2511.13783
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.