How Sample Completeness Affects Gamma-Ray Burst Classification
  Unsupervised pattern recognition algorithms support the existence of three gamma-ray burst classes; Class I (long, large fluence bursts of intermediate spectral hardness), Class II (short, small fluence, hard bursts), and Class III (soft bursts of intermediate durations and fluences). The algorithms surprisingly assign larger membership to Class III than to either of the other two classes. A known systematic bias has been previously used to explain the existence of Class III in terms of Class I; this bias allows the fluences and durations of some bursts to be underestimated (Hakkila et al., ApJ 538, 165, 2000). We show that this bias primarily affects only the longest bursts and cannot explain the bulk of the Class III properties. We resolve the question of Class III existence by demonstrating how samples obtained using standard trigger mechanisms fail to preserve the duration characteristics of small peak flux bursts. Sample incompleteness is thus primarily responsible for the existence of Class III. In order to avoid this incompleteness, we show how a new dual timescale peak flux can be defined in terms of peak flux and fluence. The dual timescale peak flux preserves the duration distribution of faint bursts and correlates better with spectral hardness (and presumably redshift) than either peak flux or fluence. The techniques presented here are generic and have applicability to the studies of other transient events. The results also indicate that pattern recognition algorithms are sensitive to sample completeness; this can influence the study of large astronomical databases such as those found in a Virtual Observatory. 
Jon Hakkila (College of Charleston), Timothy W. Giblin (College of   Charleston), Richard J. Roiger (Minnesota State Univers...