Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Discovery and confirmation of the shortest gamma-ray burst from a collapsar

An Author Correction to this article was published on 13 September 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the brightest and most energetic events in the Universe. The duration and hardness distribution of GRBs has two clusters1, now understood to reflect (at least) two different progenitors2. Short-hard GRBs (SGRBs; T90 < 2 s) arise from compact binary mergers, and long-soft GRBs (LGRBs; T90 > 2 s) have been attributed to the collapse of peculiar massive stars (collapsars)3. The discovery of SN 1998bw/GRB 980425 (ref. 4) marked the first association of an LGRB with a collapsar, and AT 2017gfo (ref. 5)/GRB 170817A/GW170817 (ref. 6) marked the first association of an SGRB with a binary neutron star merger, which also produced a gravitational wave. Here, we present the discovery of ZTF20abwysqy (AT2020scz), a fast-fading optical transient in the Fermi satellite and the Interplanetary Network localization regions of GRB 200826A; X-ray and radio emission further confirm that this is the afterglow. Follow-up imaging (at rest-frame 16.5 days) reveals excess emission above the afterglow that cannot be explained as an underlying kilonova, but which is consistent with being the supernova. Although the GRB duration is short (rest-frame T90 of 0.65 s), our panchromatic follow-up data confirm a collapsar origin. GRB 200826A is the shortest LGRB found with an associated collapsar; it appears to sit on the brink between a successful and a failed collapsar. Our discovery is consistent with the hypothesis that most collapsars fail to produce ultra-relativistic jets.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Gamma-ray properties of GRB 200826A in context.
Fig. 2: Discovery of the afterglow of GRB 200826A.
Fig. 3: Panchromatic afterglow and collapsar confirmation.

Data availability

Upon request, the corresponding author will provide data required to reproduce the figures, including light curves and spectra for any objects. The authors note that most of these data are publicly available, either though ZTF, the Gemini archive (GN-DD-104), the Swift catalogue (https://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt_live_cat/) or GCNs .

Code availability

Upon request, the corresponding author will provide code (primarily in Python) used to produce the figures.

Change history

References

  1. 1.

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

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Nakar, E. Short-hard gamma-ray bursts. Phys. Rep. 442, 166–236 (2007).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Woosley, S. E. & Bloom, J. S. The supernova gamma-ray burst connection. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 44, 507–556 (2006).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Galama, T. J. et al. An unusual supernova in the error box of the γ-ray burst of 25 April 1998. Nature 395, 670–672 (1998).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Coulter, D. A. et al. Swope Supernova Survey 2017a (SSS17a), the optical counterpart to a gravitational wave source. Science 358, 1556–1558 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Goldstein, A. et al. An ordinary short gamma-ray burst with extraordinary implications: Fermi-GBM detection of GRB 170817a. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L14 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Antonelli, L. A. et al. GRB 090426: the farthest short gamma-ray burst? Astron. Astrophys. 507, L45–L48 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gal-Yam, A. et al. A novel explosive process is required for the γ-ray burst GRB 060614. Nature 444, 1053–1055 (2006).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T. & Sari, R. Short versus long and collapsars versus non-collapsars: a quantitative classification of gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. 764, 179 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bellm, E. C. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility: system overview, performance, and first results. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 018002 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    D’Ai, A. et al. GRB 200826A: Swift-XRT afterglow detection. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28300 (2020).

  12. 12.

    Alexander, K. D., Fong, W., Paterson, K. & Rastinejad, J. GRB 200826A: VLA detection at 6 GHz. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28302 (2020).

  13. 13.

    Chambers, K. C. et al. The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560 (2016).

  14. 14.

    Dey, A. et al. Overview of the DESI Legacy Imaging Surveys. Astron. J. 157, 168 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Leibler, C. N. & Berger, E. The stellar ages and masses of short gamma-ray burst host galaxies: investigating the progenitor delay time distribution and the role of mass and star formation in the short gamma-ray burst rate. Astrophys. J. 725, 1202–1214 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R. & Zauderer, B. A. A decade of short-duration gamma-ray burst broadband afterglows: energetics, circumburst densities, and jet opening angles. Astrophys. J. 815, 102 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sari, R., Piran, T. & Narayan, R. Spectra and light curves of gamma-ray burst afterglows. Astrophys. J. Lett. 497, L17–L20 (1998).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Shivvers, I. & Berger, E. A beaming-independent estimate of the energy distribution of long gamma-ray bursts: initial results and future prospects. Astrophys. J. 734, 58 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Panaitescu, A. & Kumar, P. Properties of relativistic jets in gamma-ray burst afterglows. Astrophys. J. 571, 779 (2002).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Dietrich, T. et al. New constraints on the supranuclear equation of state and the Hubble constant from nuclear physics - multi-messenger astronomy. Science 370, 1450–1453 (2020).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gompertz, B. P. et al. The diversity of kilonova emission in short gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. 860, 62 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Clocchiatti, A., Suntzeff, N. B., Covarrubias, R. & Candia, P. The ultimate light curve of SN 1998bw/GRB 980425. Astron. J. 141, 163 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Cano, Z., Wang, S. -Q., Dai, Z. -G. & Wu, X. -F. The observer’s guide to the gamma-ray burst supernova connection. Adv. Astron. 2017, 8929054 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sobacchi, E., Granot, J., Bromberg, O. & Sormani, M. A common central engine for long gamma-ray bursts and type Ib/c supernovae. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 472, 616–627 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zhang, B. -B. et al. A peculiarly short-duration gamma-ray burst from massive star core collapse. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05021 (2021).

  26. 26.

    Soderberg, A. M. et al. Relativistic ejecta from X-ray flash XRF 060218 and the rate of cosmic explosions. Nature 442, 1014–1017 (2006).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Nakar, E. A unified picture for low-luminosity and long gamma-ray bursts based on the extended progenitor of llGRB 060218/SN 2006aj. Astrophys. J. 807, 172 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Graham, J. F. & Schady, P. The absolute rate of LGRB formation. Astrophys. J. 823, 154 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Gehrels, N. et al. The Swift gamma-ray burst mission. Astrophys. J. 611, 1005–1020 (2004).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Piran, T., Bromberg, O., Nakar, E. & Sari, R. The long, the short and the weak: the origin of gamma-ray bursts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 371, 20120273 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Zhang, Z. -B. & Choi, Z. An analysis of the durations of swift gamma-ray bursts. Astron. Astrophys 484, 293–297 (2008).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Levesque, E. M. et al. GRB 090426: the environment of a rest-frame 0.35-s gamma-ray burst at a redshift of 2.609. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 401, 963–972 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Yang, B. et al. A possible macronova in the late afterglow of the long-short burst GRB 060614. Nat. Commun. 6, 7323 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Fynbo, J. P. et al. No supernovae associated with two long-duration γ-ray bursts. Nature 444, 1047–1049 (2006).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ricker, G. R. & Vanderspek, R. K. (eds) Gamma-Ray Burst and Afterglow Astronomy 2001: A Workshop Celebrating the First Year of the HETE Mission (Amerian Institute of Physics, 2003).

  36. 36.

    Gehrels, N. et al. A short γ-ray burst apparently associated with an elliptical galaxy at redshift z = 0.225. Nature 437, 851–854 (2005).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hjorth, J. et al. The optical afterglow of the short γ-ray burst GRB 050709. Nature 437, 859–861 (2005).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Villasenor, J. et al. Discovery of the short γ-ray burst GRB 050709. Nature 437, 855–858 (2005).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Berger, E. Short-duration gamma-ray bursts. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 43–105 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Abbott, B. P. et al. GW170817: observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Meegan, C. et al. The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor. Astrophys. J. 702, 791–804 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Abbott, B. P. et al. Gravitational waves and gamma-rays from a binary neutron star merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Savchenko, V. et al. Integral detection of the first prompt gamma-ray signal coincident with the gravitational-wave event GW170817. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L15 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Abbott, B. P. et al. Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kasliwal, M. M. et al. Illuminating gravitational waves: a concordant picture of photons from a neutron star merger. Science 358, 1559–1565 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Arcavi, I. et al. Optical emission from a kilonova following a gravitational-wave-detected neutron-star merger. Nature 551, 64–66 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Tanvir, N. R. et al. The emergence of a lanthanide-rich kilonova following the merger of two neutron stars. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L27 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Chornock, R. et al. The electromagnetic counterpart of the binary neutron star merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. IV. Detection of near-infrared signatures of r-process nucleosynthesis with Gemini-South. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L19 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Cowperthwaite, P. S. et al. The electromagnetic counterpart of the binary neutron star merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. II. UV, optical, and near-infrared light curves and comparison to kilonova models. Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L17 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Drout, M. R. et al. Light curves of the neutron star merger GW170817/SSS17a: implications for r-process nucleosynthesis. Science 358, 1570–1574 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., Quataert, E. & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. Origin of the heavy elements in binary neutron-star mergers from a gravitational-wave event. Nature 551, 80–84 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Pian, E. et al. Spectroscopic identification of r-process nucleosynthesis in a double neutron-star merger. Nature 551, 67–70 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Smartt, S. J. et al. A kilonova as the electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational-wave source. Nature 551, 75–79 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Troja, E. et al. The X-ray counterpart to the gravitational-wave event GW170817. Nature 551, 71–74 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Dichiara, S. et al. Short gamma-ray bursts within 200 Mpc. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 492, 5011–5022 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Sakamoto, T. et al. The second Swift Burst Alert Telescope gamma-ray burst catalog. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 195, 2 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    von Kienlin, A. et al. The fourth Fermi-GBM gamma-ray burst catalog: a decade of data. Astrophys. J. 893, 46 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Abbott, R. et al. GWTC-2: compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14527 (2020).

  59. 59.

    Nissanke, S., Sievers, J., Dalal, N. & Holz, D. Localizing compact binary inspirals on the sky using ground-based gravitational wave interferometers. Astrophys. J. 739, 99 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Abbott, B. P. et al. Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo. Living Rev. Rel. 19, 1 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Abbott, B. P. et al. Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA. Living Rev. Rel. 21, 3 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Law, N. M. et al. The Palomar Transient Factory: system overview, performance, and first results. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 121, 1395 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Singer, L. P. et al. Discovery and redshift of an optical afterglow in 71 deg2: iPTF13bxl and GRB 130702A. Astrophys. J. Lett. 776, L34 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Singer, L. P. et al. The needle in the 100 deg2 haystack: uncovering afterglows of Fermi GRBs with the Palomar Transient Factory. Astrophys. J. 806, 52 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Graham, M. J. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility: science objectives. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 078001 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Masci, F. J. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility: data processing, products, and archive. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 018003 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Coughlin, M. W. et al. 2900 square degree search for the optical counterpart of short gamma-ray burst GRB 180523b with the Zwicky Transient Facility. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 048001 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Coughlin, M. W. et al. Growth on s190425z: searching thousands of square degrees to identify an optical or infrared counterpart to a binary neutron star merger with the Zwicky Transient Facility and Palomar Gattini-IR. Astrophys. J. Lett. 885, L19 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Andreoni, I. et al. GROWTH on s190510g: DECam observation planning and follow-up of a distant binary neutron star merger candidate. Astrophys. J. Lett. 881, L16 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Kasliwal, M. M. et al. Kilonova luminosity function constraints based on Zwicky Transient Facility searches for 13 neutron star mergers. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11306 (2020).

  71. 71.

    Anand, S. et al. Optical follow-up of the neutron star–black hole mergers S200105ae and S200115j. Nat. Astron. 5, 46–53 (2021).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Cenko, S. B. et al. Discovery of a cosmological, relativistic outburst via its rapidly fading optical emission. Astrophys. J. 769, 130 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Cenko, S. B. et al. iPTF14yb: the first discovery of a gamma-ray burst afterglow independent of a high-energy trigger. Astrophys. J. Lett. 803, L24 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Ho, A. Y. et al. ZTF20aajnksq (AT 2020blt): a fast optical transient at z ≈ 2.9 with no detected gamma-ray burst counterpart. Astrophys. J. 905, 98 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Fermi GBM Team. GRB 200826A: Fermi GBM final real-time localization. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28284 (2020).

  76. 76.

    Pittori, C. et al. GRB 200826A: AGILE detection. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28289 (2020).

  77. 77.

    Ridnaia, A. et al. Konus-Wind detection of GRB 200826A. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28294 (2020).

  78. 78.

    Gupta, S. et al. GRB 200826A: AstroSat CZTI detection. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28288 (2020).

  79. 79.

    Connaughton, V. et al. Localization of gamma-ray bursts using the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 216, 32 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Goldstein, A. et al. Evaluation of automated Fermi GBM localizations of gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. 895, 40 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Burgess, J. M., Yu, H.-F., Greiner, J. & Mortlock, D. J. Awakening the BALROG (BAyesian Location Reconstruction Of GRBs): a new paradigm in spectral and location analysis of gamma ray bursts. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.07385 (2016).

  82. 82.

    Band, D. et al. BATSE observations of gamma-ray burst spectra. I. Spectral diversity. Astrophys. J. 413, 281–292 (1993).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Gruber, D. et al. The Fermi GBM gamma-ray burst spectral catalog: four years of data. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 211, 12 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Mangan, J., Dunwoody, R. & Meegan, C. Fermi GBM Team. GRB 200826A: Fermi GBM observation. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28287 (2020)..

  85. 85.

    Yu, H.-F. et al. The Fermi GBM gamma-ray burst time-resolved spectral catalog: brightest bursts in the first four years. Astron. Astrophys. 588, A135 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Guiriec, S. et al. Time-resolved spectroscopy of the three brightest and hardest short gamma-ray bursts observed with the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor. Astrophys. J. 725, 225–241 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Goldstein, A., Preece, R. D. & Briggs, M. S. A new discriminator for gamma-ray burst classification: the Epeak–fluence energy ratio. Astrophys. J. 721, 1329–1332 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Svinkin, D. S. et al. Classification of gamma-ray bursts observed with Konus-Wind. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1400, 022010 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Svinkin, D. S. et al. The second Konus-Wind catalog of short gamma-ray bursts. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 224, 10 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Rothberg, B., Kuhn, O., Veillet, C. & Allanson, S. GRB 200826A. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28319 (2020).

  91. 91.

    Tsvetkova, A. et al. The Konus-Wind catalog of gamma-ray bursts with known redshifts. II. Waiting-mode bursts simultaneously detected by Swift/BAT. Astrophys. J. 908, 83 (2021).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Amati, L. et al. Intrinsic spectra and energetics of BeppoSAX gamma-ray bursts with known redshifts. Astron. Astrophys. 390, 81–89 (2002).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Yonetoku, D. et al. Gamma-ray burst formation rate inferred from the spectral peak energy–peak luminosity relation. Astrophys. J. 609, 935 (2004).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Bhalerao, V. et al. The Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager on AstroSat. J. Astrophys. Astron. 38, 31 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Sharma, Y. et al. The search for fast transients with CZTI. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07067 (2020).

  96. 96.

    Coughlin, M. W. et al. Optimizing searches for electromagnetic counterparts of gravitational wave triggers. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 692–702 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Coughlin, M. W. et al. Optimizing multi-telescope observations of gravitational-wave counterparts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 5775–5783 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Almualla, M. et al. Dynamic scheduling: target of opportunity observations of gravitational wave events. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 495, 4366–4371 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Rana, J., Singhal, A., Gadre, B., Bhalerao, V. & Bose, S. An enhanced method for scheduling observations of large sky error regions for finding optical counterparts to transients. Astrophys. J. 838, 108 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Burrows, D. N. et al. The Swift X-Ray Telescope. Space Sci. Rev. 120, 165–195 (2005).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Hurley, K., et al. IPN triangulation of GRB 200826A (short/bright). GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28291 (2020).

  102. 102.

    Patterson, M. T. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility alert distribution system. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 018001 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Kasliwal, M. et al. The growth marshal: a dynamic science portal for time-domain astronomy. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 038003 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Duev, D. A. et al. Real-bogus classification for the Zwicky Transient Facility using deep learning. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 3582–3590 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Nordin, J. et al. Transient processing and analysis using AMPEL: alert management, photometry, and evaluation of light curves. Astron. Astrophys. 631, A147 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Soumagnac, M. T. & Ofek, E. O. catsHTM: a tool for fast accessing and cross-matching large astronomical catalogs. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 130, 075002 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Stein, R. et al. A high-energy neutrino coincident with a tidal disruption event. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05340 (2020).

  108. 108.

    Stein, R. & Reusch, S. robertdstein/ampel_followup_pipeline: v1.1 release (Zenodo, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4048336

  109. 109.

    Tachibana, Y. & Miller, A. A. A morphological classification model to identify unresolved PanSTARRS1 sources: application in the ZTF real-time pipeline. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 130, 128001 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Mahabal, A. et al. Machine learning for the Zwicky Transient Facility. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 038002 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Cutri, R. M. et al. Explanatory supplement to the AllWISE data release products The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer at IPAC https://wise2.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/release/allwise/expsup/index.html (2013).

  112. 112.

    Wright, E. L. et al. The wide-field infrared survey explorer (WISE): mission description and initial on-orbit performance. Astron. J. 140, 1868 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Stern, D. et al. Mid-infrared selection of active galactic nuclei with the wide-field infrared survey explorer. I. Characterizing WISE-selected active galactic nuclei in COSMOS. Astrophys. J. 753, 30 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Assef, R. J. et al. The WISE AGN catalog. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 234, 23 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Yao, Y. et al. ZTF early observations of type Ia supernovae. I. Properties of the 2018 sample. Astrophys. J. 886, 152 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Jedicke, R., Bolin, B., Granvik, M. & Beshore, E. A fast method for quantifying observational selection effects in asteroid surveys. Icarus 266, 173–188 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Sagues Carracedo, A. et al. GRB200826A: Zwicky Transient Facility follow-up of a Fermi short GRB (trigger 620108997). GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28293 (2020).

  118. 118.

    Ahumada, T. et al. GRB200826A: Zwicky Transient Facility identifies optical afterglow candidate of a fermi short GRB (trigger 620108997). GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28295 (2020).

  119. 119.

    Stalder, B. et al. Observations of the GRB afterglow ATLAS17aeu and its possible association with GW 170104. Astrophys. J. 850, 149 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Lipunov, V. et al. The Master mobile astronomical system. Optical observations of gamma-ray bursts. Astrophysics 48, 389–399 (2005).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Lipunov, V. et al. Fermi GRB 200826a: global master-net observations report. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28285 (2020).

  122. 122.

    Belkin, S. et al. GRB 200826A: Kitab optical observations. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28306 (2020).

  123. 123.

    Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. SExtractor: software for source extraction. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 117, 393–404 (1996).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Becker, A. HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction. Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:1504.004 (2015).

  125. 125.

    Bertin, E. Automatic astrometric and photometric calibration with SCAMP. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV (eds Gabriel, C. et al.) Astron. Soc. Pac. Conf. Ser. 351, 112–115 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2006).

  126. 126.

    Wilson, J. C. et al. A Wide-field infrared camera for the Palomar 200-inch telescope. Proc. SPIE 4841, 451–458 (2003).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    De, K. et al. Palomar Gattini-IR: survey overview, data processing system, on-sky performance and first results. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 132, 025001 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Bertin, E. et al. The TERAPIX pipeline. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XI (eds Bohlender, D. et al.) Astron. Soc. Pac. Conf. Ser. 281, 228–237 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2002).

  129. 129.

    De, K. et al. The Zwicky Transient Facility census of the local universe. I. Systematic search for calcium-rich gap transients reveals three related spectroscopic subclasses. Astrophys. J. 905, 58 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Massey, P. et al. As big and as good as it gets: the large monolithic imager for Lowell Observatory’s 4.3-m Discovery Channel Telescope. In American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #221 345.02 (American Astronomical Society, 2013).

  131. 131.

    Ahumada, R. et al. The 16th data release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: first release from the APOGEE-2 southern survey and full release of eBOSS spectra. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 249, 3 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Labrie, K., Anderson, K., Cardenes, R., Simpson, C. & Turner, J. E. H. DRAGONS - data reduction for astronomy from Gemini Observatory North and South. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII (eds Teuben, P. J., et al.) Astron. Soc. Pac. Conf. Ser. 523, 321–324 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2019).

  133. 133.

    Zackay, B., Ofek, E. O. & Gal-Yam, A. Proper image subtraction - optimal transient detection, photometry, and hypothesis testing. Astrophys. J. 830, 27 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Bertin, E. Automated morphometry with SExtractor and PSFEx. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX (eds Evans, I. N., et al.) Astron. Soc. Pac. Conf. Ser. 442, 435–438 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2011).

  135. 135.

    Guevel, D. & Hosseinzadeh, G. PyZOGY v.0.0.1 (Zenodo, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1043973

  136. 136.

    Gaia Collaboration. et al.Gaia Data Release 2. Summary of the contents and survey properties. Astron. Astrophys. 616, A1 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Fremling, C. et al. PTF12os and iPTF13bvn. Two stripped-envelope supernovae from low-mass progenitors in NGC 5806. Astron. Astrophys. 593, A68 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Gal-Yam, A., Maoz, D., Guhathakurta, P. & Filippenko, A. V. Supernovae in low-redshift galaxy clusters: observations by the Wise Observatory Optical Transient Search (WOOTS). Astrophys. J. 680, 550–567 (2008).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Ahumada, T. et al. GRB 200826A: GMOS-N detected source magnitude (Correction). GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 29029 (2020).

  140. 140.

    Evans, P. et al. An online repository of Swift/XRT light curves of γ-ray bursts. Astron. Astrophys. 469, 379–385 (2007).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Evans, P. 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).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Willingale, R., Starling, R., Beardmore, A. P., Tanvir, N. R. & O’Brien, P. T. Calibration of X-ray absorption in our Galaxy. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 431, 394–404 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Gupta, Y. et al. The upgraded GMRT: opening new windows on the radio universe. Curr. Sci. 113, 707–714 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    McMullin, J. P., Waters, B., Schiebel, D., Young, W. & Golap, K. CASA architecture and applications. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI (eds Shaw, R. A., et al.) Astron. Soc. Pac. Conf. Ser. 376, 127–130 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2007).

  145. 145.

    Chandra, P., Purkayastha, S., Bhalerao, V., Kumar, H. & Kasliwal, M. GRB 200826A: uGMRT radio upper limit at 1.25 GHz. GRB Coord. Netw. Circ. 28410 (2020).

  146. 146.

    Cappellari, M. Improving the full spectrum fitting method: accurate convolution with Gauss–Hermite functions. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 466, 798–811 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. Measuring reddening with Sloan Digital Sky Survey stellar spectra and recalibrating SFD. Astrophys. J. 737, 103 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J. L., Conroy, C. & Speagle, J. S. Prospector: Stellar population inference from spectra and SEDs. Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:1905.025 (2019).

  149. 149.

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E. & White, M. The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling. I. The relevance of uncertain aspects of stellar evolution and the initial mass function to the derived physical properties of galaxies. Astrophys. J. 699, 486–506 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Conroy, C. & Gunn, J. E. The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling. III. Model calibration, comparison, and evaluation. Astrophys. J. 712, 833–857 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Hinshaw, G. et al. Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Chabrier, G. Galactic stellar and substellar initial mass function. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 115, 763–795 (2003).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Calzetti, D. et al. The dust content and opacity of actively star-forming galaxies. Astrophys. J. 533, 682–695 (2000).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Speagle, J. S. DYNESTY: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132–3158 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Nugent, A. E. et al. The distant, galaxy cluster environment of the short GRB 161104a at z ~ 0.8 and a comparison to the short GRB host population. Astrophys. J. 904, 52 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Paterson, K. et al. Discovery of the optical afterglow and host galaxy of short GRB 181123b at z = 1.754: implications for delay time distributions. Astrophys. J. Lett. 898, L32 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    O’Connor, B. et al. A tale of two mergers: constraints on kilonova detection in two short GRBs at z ~ 0.5. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 502, 1279–1298 (2021).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Granot, J. & Sari, R. The shape of spectral breaks in gamma-ray burst afterglows. Astrophys. J. 568, 820–829 (2002).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Zhang, B. et al. Physical processes shaping gamma-ray burst X-ray afterglow light curves: theoretical implications from the Swift X-Ray Telescope observations. Astrophys. J. 642, 354–370 (2006).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Sironi, L., Keshet, U. & Lemoine, M. Relativistic shocks: particle acceleration and magnetization. Space Sci. Rev. 191, 519–544 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: the MCMC Hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Buchner, J. et al. X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue. Astron. Astrophys. 564, A125 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. 163.

    Ryan, G., Eerten, H. V., Piro, L. & Troja, E. Gamma-ray burst afterglows in the multimessenger era: numerical models and closure relations. Astrophys. J. 896, 166 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Troja, E. et al. The outflow structure of GW170817 from late-time broad-band observations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, L18–L23 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  165. 165.

    Cunningham, V. et al. GRB 160625b: evidence for a Gaussian-shaped jet. Astrophys. J. 904, 166 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Cash, W. Parameter estimation in astronomy through application of the likelihood ratio. Astrophys. J. 228, 939–947 (1979).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Pei, Y. C. Interstellar dust from the Milky Way to the Magellanic Clouds. Astrophys. J. 395, 130 (1992).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    Robitaille, T. P. et al. Astropy: a community Python package for astronomy. Astron. Astrophys. 558, A33 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. 169.

    Schady, P. Gamma-ray burst afterglows as probes of the ISM. J. High Energy Astrophys. 7, 56–63 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  170. 170.

    Littlejohns, O. M. et al. A detailed study of the optical attenuation of gamma-ray bursts in the Swift era. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449, 2919–2936 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    Zafar, T. et al. VLT/X-Shooter GRBs: individual extinction curves of star-forming regions. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 479, 1542–1554 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  172. 172.

    Bulla, M. POSSIS: predicting spectra, light curves, and polarization for multidimensional models of supernovae and kilonovae. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 5037–5045 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Coughlin, M. W. et al. Constraints on the neutron star equation of state from at2017gfo using radiative transfer simulations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 3871–3878 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  174. 174.

    Coughlin, M. W. et al. Implications of the search for optical counterparts during the first six months of the Advanced LIGO’s and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run: possible limits on the ejecta mass and binary properties. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 492, 863–876 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    Klose, S. et al. Four GRB supernovae at redshifts between 0.4 and 0.8 - the bursts GRB 071112C, 111228A, 120714B, and 130831A. Astron. Astrophys. 622, A138 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    Kasliwal, M. M. et al. Illuminating gravitational waves: a concordant picture of photons from a neutron star merger. Science 358, 1559–1565 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Berger, E., Fong, W. & Chornock, R. An r-process kilonova associated with the short-hard GRB 130603b. Astrophys. J. Lett. 774, L23 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Troja, E. et al. The afterglow and kilonova of the short GRB 160821B. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 2104–2116 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  179. 179.

    Kasliwal, M. M., Korobkin, O., Lau, R. M., Wollaeger, R. & Fryer, C. L. Infrared emission from kilonovae: the case of the nearby short hard burst GRB 160821B. Astrophys. J. Lett. 843, L34 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Villar, V. A. et al. The combined ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared light curves of the kilonova associated with the binary neutron star merger GW170817: unified data set, analytic models, and physical implications. Astrophys. J. Lett. 851, L21 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  181. 181.

    Barbary, K. et al. SNCosmo: Python library for supernova cosmology. Astrophysics Source Code Library ascl:1611.017 (2016).

  182. 182.

    Richardson, D., Jenkins, R. L. III, Wright, J. & Maddox, L. Absolute-magnitude distributions of supernovae. Astron. J. 147, 118 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the GROWTH (Global Relay of Observatories Watching Transients Happen) project funded by the National Science Foundation under PIRE grant No. 1545949. GROWTH is a collaborative project among California Institute of Technology (USA), University of Maryland College Park (USA), University of Wisconsin Milwaukee (USA), Texas Tech University (USA), San Diego State University (USA), University of Washington (USA), Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA), Tokyo Institute of Technology (Japan), National Central University (Taiwan), Indian Institute of Astrophysics (India), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (India), Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel), The Oskar Klein Centre at Stockholm University (Sweden), Humboldt University (Germany), Liverpool John Moores University (UK) and University of Sydney (Australia). Based on observations obtained with the Samuel Oschin Telescope 48-inch and the 60-inch Telescope at the Palomar Observatory as part of the Zwicky Transient Facility project. ZTF is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant No. AST-1440341 and a collaboration including Caltech, IPAC, the Weizmann Institute for Science, the Oskar Klein Center at Stockholm University, the University of Maryland, the University of Washington (UW), Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron and Humboldt University, Los Alamos National Laboratories, the TANGO Consortium of Taiwan, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. Operations are conducted by Caltech Optical Observatories, IPAC and UW. The work is partly based on the observations made with the Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC), installed in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, in the island of La Palma. The material is based on work supported by NASA under award No. 80GSFC17M0002. Based on observations obtained at the international Gemini Observatory, a program of NSF’s NOIRLab, which is managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation on behalf of the Gemini Observatory partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), National Research Council (Canada), Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (Chile), Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Argentina), Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (Brazil), and Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (Republic of Korea). The observations were obtained as part of Gemini Director’s Discretionary Program GN-2020B-DD-104. The Gemini data was processed using DRAGONS (Data Reduction for Astronomy from Gemini Observatory North and South). This work was enabled by observations made from the Gemini North telescope, located within the Maunakea Science Reserve and adjacent to the summit of Maunakea. We are grateful for the privilege of observing the Universe from a place that is unique in both its astronomical quality and its cultural significance. A.J.C.T. acknowledges all co-Is of the GTC proposal and the financial support from the State Agency for Research of the Spanish MCIU through the ‘Center of Excellence Severo Ochoa’ award to the Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (SEV-2017-0709). The ZTF forced-photometry service was funded under the Heising-Simons Foundation grant No. 12540303 (PI: Graham). S.M. and J.M. acknowledge support from Science Foundation Ireland under grant No. 17/CDA/4723. R.D. acknowledges support from the Irish Research Council (IRC) under grant GOIPG/2019/2033. Analysis was performed on the YORP cluster administered by the Center for Theory and Computation, part of the Department of Astronomy at the University of Maryland. Resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center. These results also made use of Lowell Observatory’s Lowell Discovery Telescope (LDT), formerly the Discovery Channel Telescope. Lowell operates the LDT in partnership with Boston University, Northern Arizona University, the University of Maryland and the University of Toledo. Partial support of the LDT was provided by Discovery Communications. LMI was built by Lowell Observatory using funds from the National Science Foundation (AST-1005313). M.W.C. acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation with grant No. PHY-2010970. S.A. gratefully acknowledges support from the GROWTH PIRE grant (1545949). Part of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. E.C.K. acknowledges support from the G.R.E.A.T research environment and the Wenner-Gren Foundations. P.T.H.P. is supported by the research program of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). H.K. is an LSSTC Data Science Fellow and thanks the LSSTC Data Science Fellowship Program, which is funded by LSSTC, NSF Cybertraining grant No. 1829740, the Brinson Foundation and the Moore Foundation; his participation in the program has benefited this work. S.M. and J.M. acknowledge support from Science Foundation Ireland under grant No. 17/CDA/4723. R.D. acknowledges support from the Irish Research Council (IRC) under grant GOIPG/2019/2033. P.C. is a Swarana Jayanti Fellow and acknowledges support from the Department of Science and Technology via award No. DST/SJF/PSA-01/2014-15). We thank the staff of the GMRT who made these observations possible. GMRT is run by the National Centre for Radio Astrophysics of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. P.C. is a Swarna Jayanti Fellow and thanks the Department of Science & Technology in India. We thank D. Bhattacharya, A. Vibhute and V. Shenoy for help with the CZTI analysis. V.A.F. acknowledges support from the RFBR 18-29-21030.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

T.A. and L.P.S. were the primary authors of the manuscript. M.M.K. is the PI of GROWTH and the ZTF EM-GW program, and S.B.C. is PI of the SGRB program. M.W.C., S.A., I.A. and M.A. support development of the GROWTH ToO Marshal and associated program. H.K. and C.F. led the reductions of the Gemini data. E.Burns led analysis of the Fermi gamma-ray data. G.R., V.C., T.D. and P.T.H.P. contributed to the afterglow, KN and SN modelling. R.D. and J.M. were the GBM burst advocates and provided gamma-ray analysis. D.S.S., D.F., K.H., A.R. and A.T. performed IPN and Konus analyses. A.J.C.-T., A.F.V. and S.B.P. provided the GTC spectrum. K.D. performed the WIRC data reduction. P.C. and S.P. provided GMRT data. P.G., S.D. and E.T. provided the LDT data. E.H. performed galaxy and SED fitting. S.I. and V.B. performed the Astrosat analyses. C.C. contributed to the GROWTH Marshal. B.B., A.G.-Y., D.P., A.Y.Q.H., V.K., E.C.K., S.R., A.S.C. and R.Stein contributed to candidate scanning, vetting, and classification. E.Bellm., D.A.D., M.G., S.R.K., F.M., A.M., P.R., B.R., R.Smith., M.S. and R.W. are ZTF builders. All authors contributed to edits to the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomás Ahumada.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review informationNature Astronomy thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 The AstroSat and Konus-Wind gamma-ray detections.

a, The de-trended light curve (blue) for GRB 200826A obtained from AstroSat CZTI data. We combined data from all four CZTI quadrants and binned it in 0.05 s bins. We fit and subtract a quadratic trend from the background to obtain zero-mean data. The shaded green region and corresponding green symbols denote a conservative GRB time span excluded from background trend estimation. Similarly red points denote outliers that are automatically flagged and rejected from the background estimate. b, A cumulative light curve (blue) obtained by summing the de-trended data, and normalised such that the median post-GRB value is 1.0. The dashed horizontal lines denote the 5% and 95% intensity levels. The corresponding vertical dotted black lines denote T05 and T95, yielding T90 of \(0.9{4}_{-0.18}^{+0.72}\) s. c, Rest-frame energetics of 331 Konus-Wind GRBs (SGRB: triangles, LGRB: circles) with known redshift in the EisoEpeak,z plane, with Epeak,z the rest frame Epeak. The hardness-intensity (‘Amati’) relation for LGRBs is plotted with its 68% and 90% prediction intervals (dark and light gray regions, respectively). GRB 200826A, as a red star, appears not to be consistent with the SGRB population.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Afterglow panchromatic observations.

Observations of the GRB 200826A afterglow and SN. GRB 200826A was triggered at Julian day 2459087.6874. The δt column shows the days from the trigger date.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Afterglow X-ray detections.

X-ray observations of GRB 200826A. The δt column shows the days from the trigger.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Radio data.

Radio observations of GRB 200826A. The δt column shows the days from the trigger. ** VLA data from Ref. 12.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Host galaxy panchromatic data.

Observations of the host galaxy of GRB 200826A. The δt column shows the days from the trigger. *Magnitudes are in the Vega system.

Extended Data Fig. 6 The Host Galaxy.

a, The GTC spectrum of the host galaxy and the lines used to determine a redshift of 0.748. b, The photometry of the host galaxy (ugrizJ, see Extended Data Table 2) in the AB system is presented in red circles, with their respective 1σ uncertainty. The best SED model and photometry from Prospector are shown in green. c, The pPXF host galaxy model results described in §1.3. The integrated spectrum (black) overlaid with the best-fit spectrum (orange), which sums the contributions of stars and gas in the modeled galaxy. The red spectrum shows the gas contribution to the spectrum, and the blue diamonds show the residuals to the fit. The gas is offset by 1.59e-18 erg s−1 cm−2. d, The pPXF weights (color bar) of the different stellar population templates used to construct the best-fit galaxy.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Host galaxy emission line fluxes.

Fluxes derived with pPXF for the lines detected in the GTC spectrum of the host galaxy.

Extended Data Fig. 8 SED sequence of the afterglow.

The SED of our model compared to observations at five epochs. Multiwavelenght data are shown as circles along their uncerntainties (1σ), while the 5σ upper-limits are shown as triangles (3σ for the radio data). The central line shows the posterior median flux density at each epoch, the dark band is the central 68% quantile (for example the 16-84% quantiles) and the lighter band is the central 95% quantile (2.5% to 97.5%). The cooling frequency νc is located at frequencies higher than 1 keV (that is νc > 2.4 × 1017 Hz). The glitches at optical ν ~ 1016 Hz are the edge of validity of our dust extinction model. The SN makes a large contribution at late times. See the observations in Extended Data Table 1,Extended Data Table 3, and Extended Data Table 4.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Posterior predictive plot for the GMOS i-band detection.

The posterior of the AB magnitude estimated at the time of the i-band data point ( ~ 28 days after the trigger) using afterglow only (blue) and afterglow-and-SN (orange) light curves are shown. The dashed black line shows the magnitude of the transient at ~ 28 days, an the grey area its 1σ uncertainty.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Afterglow properties.

Posterior afterglowpy fit model parameters with an SMC extinction curve, a SN1998bw template and including the final Gemini+GMOS detection. Uncertainties are quoted at 90%. Ek is the beamed corrected kinetic energy. See §1.4 for more details.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1, Figs. 1 and 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahumada, T., Singer, L.P., Anand, S. et al. Discovery and confirmation of the shortest gamma-ray burst from a collapsar. Nat Astron 5, 917–927 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing