Detection of gamma-ray burst Amati relation based on Hubble data set and Pantheon+ samples

Abstract Using gamma-ray bursts as standard candles for cosmological parameter constraints rely on their empirical luminosity relations and low-redshift calibration. In this paper, we examine the Amati relation and its potential corrections based on the A118 sample of higher-quality gamma-ray bursts, using both Hubble data set and Pantheon+ samples as calibration samples in the redshift range of $$z&lt;1.965$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>z</mml:mi> <mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.965</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> . In calibrating gamma-ray bursts using these two datasets, we employ Gaussian processes to obtain corresponding Hubble diagrams to avoid the dependence on cosmological models in the calibration process. We first divided the low-redshift sample of GRBs into two bins and examined the Amati relation and its potential modifications. We found that under both calibrations, the Amati relation did not show evidence of redshift evolution (68 $$\%$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mo>%</mml:mo> </mml:math> confidence level). For the other two Amati relations that include redshift evolution terms, the central values of the redshift evolution coefficients deviated from 0, but due to the limitations of the sample size and the increase in the number of parameters, most of the redshift evolution coefficients were not able to be excluded from 0 at the 1 $$\sigma $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>σ</mml:mi> </mml:math> level. Therefore, to assess their situation across the entire redshift range, we employed MCMC to globally fit three types of Amati relations. By computing AIC and BIC, we found that for the GRB A118 sample, the standard Amati relation remains the most fitting empirical luminosity formula, and no potential redshift evolution trend was observed for two different low-redshift calibrating sources.