*5.4. Light Curve Classifications*

In Salmon et al. [17], Gaussian Mixture Model-based clustering of the hardness-T<sup>90</sup> plane identified two classes of bursts in the *Swift*/BAT and *Fermi*/GBM samples. The results suggest that the intermediate duration class may be an artefact of the application of unsuitable models, as was also suggested by Tarnopolski [25], Koen and Bere [103], Tarnopolski [104], Tarnopolski [105]. The results of the model-independent analysis of light curves presented in this paper and by Jespersen et al. [33] lend further support to this conclusion.

Jespersen et al. [33] found two distinct groups of bursts in their t-SNE map obtained from Fourier decomposition of full *Swift*/BAT light curves. The composition of the 'type-S' and 'type-L' groups from Jespersen et al. [33] are compared to the clusters found in this work. For the T<sup>100</sup> interval, there is an agreement in classification for 96% of bursts, after removing bursts for which no light curve files are available. Although the same burst intervals are considered, Jespersen et al. [33] input flux-normalised light curves into a Fourier-based analysis, potentially leading to small differences in the resulting burst memberships compared to the wavelet-based analysis presented here. The light curves in this study were not flux-normalised, as the resulting t-SNE maps did not separate the groups.

More than 96% of the bursts classified using wavelets and the T<sup>1</sup> interval were found to match the membership assigned by Jespersen et al. [33] based on Fourier decomposition in the T<sup>100</sup> interval. Eight of the 20 bursts found to be within Group 1 in this study, classified as type-L by Jespersen et al. [33], have extended emission episodes, which are not captured within the first second.
