Can Kilonova Light curves be Standardized?

Gayathri Raman; Parameswaran Ajith; Rahul Kashyap

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Can Kilonova Light curves be Standardized?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Theoretical kilonova light curves show a Phillips-like brightness–decline correlation, suggesting neutron-star merger flashes could become standardizable distance candles.

desk verdict The paper's Phillips-like kilonova correlation is real in the model but largely a self-similarity artifact of the single-velocity assumption, making the 'remarkable' claim overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02168 v2 pith:47BYHNDY submitted 2019-08-06 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Rahul Kashyap , Gayathri Raman , Parameswaran Ajith This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEgr-qc

keywords kilonovaestandardizablecandlesPhillipsrelationbinaryneutronstarmergersr-processnucleosynthesislightcurvemodelingnumericalrelativity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether kilonovae, the radioactive afterglows of neutron-star mergers, can be used as standardizable candles in the way Type Ia supernovae are. Combining the Arnett-Chatzopoulos semi-analytic light-curve model with ejecta masses and velocities from numerical-relativity simulations, the authors generate synthetic light curves for a population of mergers with component masses between 1.2 and 1.7 solar masses. They find a tight correlation between peak bolometric luminosity and the decline in luminosity a few days after peak, a kilonova analogue of the Phillips relation. If real kilonovae obey such a relation, an observer could infer an event's intrinsic brightness from the shape of its light curve and estimate its distance, adding a new rung to the cosmic distance ladder. The authors are careful to note that the specific relation is a model prediction and that only future observations can calibrate it.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the Arnett-Chatzopoulos semi-analytic light-curve model, equation (2), in which each ejecta component's luminosity is computed under the assumptions of homologous expansion, isotropic single-velocity ejecta, and gray, time-independent opacity. The ejecta is split into blue, purple, and red components with opacities $\kappa = 0.5$, $3$ and $10\,\mathrm{cm^2\,g^{-1}}$, heated by r-process radioactive decay with the heating rate of Korobkin et al. (2012) and the thermal efficiency of Barnes et al. (2016). Ejecta mass and velocity are fed in from numerical-relativity fitting formulae that express them as functions of the neutron-star masses in the binary under a given equation of state. Because both the peak luminosity and the post-peak decline are controlled by the same ejecta mass and velocity, which in turn vary systematically with the binary's mass ratio, a correlation between brightness and decline emerges across the population.

What would settle it

A sample of a few dozen kilonovae with well-measured bolometric light curves that shows no correlation between peak luminosity and post-peak decline rate, or a scatter far exceeding the model's predicted band (Figure 3), would refute the standardization proposal. A more immediate check is radiative-transfer simulations that include anisotropic ejecta and time-dependent opacities, run on the same population of mergers, which could show whether the correlation survives more realistic physics. And a single-object test exists already: the host galaxy of the GW170817 kilonova has a known distance, so the distance implied by the model's relation should agree with the measured distance of roughly 40 Mpc.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Phillips-like correlations exist in synthetic kilonova light curves. Across a simulated population of binary neutron star mergers with component masses drawn uniformly from 1.2 to 1.7 solar masses, the maximum bolometric luminosity $L_{\rm Bol}^{\rm max}$ correlates with $\Delta \log L_{\rm Bol}$, the decline in luminosity measured 5 or 7 days after peak. The correlation persists when the authors vary the numerical-relativity fitting formulae for ejecta mass and velocity (Radice et al. 2018 versus Coughlin et al. 2018), the nuclear equation of state (DD2 versus WFF2), and the assumed distribution of electron fraction among blue, purple, and red ejecta components. The stability of the correlation across these choices is taken as evidence that a similar relation may exist in real light curves, even though the true calibration must come from observations. The authors explicitly decline to propose a specific relation, stressing that observed correlations, not theory, will determine whether kilonovae can be standardized.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Arnett-Chatzopoulos model's simplifications, homologous isotropic ejecta with gray, time-independent opacities, preserve the correlation that real kilonova light curves would show. If real ejecta are strongly anisotropic or opacities evolve in time, as the paper notes in Section 4, the correlation could dissolve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If real kilonovae show the same correlation, photometric observations of a single event could yield its intrinsic peak luminosity from its decline rate, and hence its distance without a gravitational-wave signal.
Kilonovae would provide an independent, purely local distance ladder for calibrating and cross-checking Type Ia supernova distances, with implications for the Hubble constant.
Joint gravitational-wave and electromagnetic distance estimates from the same mergers could be used to test the number of spacetime dimensions, as the paper notes.
The robustness checks, which span two NR fitting formulae, two equations of state, and three electron-fraction prescriptions, define the systematic band within which a real Phillips-like relation should lie if the model captures the essential physics.
A large sample of kilonovae from future wide-field surveys will be required to confirm whether the correlation exists and to calibrate it, which the paper identifies as the decisive test.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the correlation in the model ultimately traces to how ejecta mass and velocity scale with the binary's mass ratio, the relation will be easiest to confirm in a sample spanning a wide range of mass ratios; a sample dominated by near-equal-mass mergers may have too little dynamic range to show it.
The spread between the curves in Figure 3 gives a rough forecast of the per-event distance precision, likely tens of percent, making kilonovae useful for population statistics and local tests rather than high-precision cosmology.
A single-object validation already exists in principle: the host galaxy of the GW170817 kilonova has a known distance, so comparing the distance implied by the model relation with the measured distance would test the method now, before large samples arrive.
The same pipeline could be run on black hole-neutron star merger ejecta to see whether the correlation extends to a different binary-mass regime.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Hi [Colleague],

The short version: this paper takes a natural question — can kilonova light curves be standardized like SNe Ia? — and gives a clear, honest theoretical exploration. The new element is showing that a Phillips-like correlation appears in synthetic light curves built from NR-based ejecta fits. That is worth knowing about. But the correlation is not as remarkable as the abstract claims: it is largely a mathematical consequence of the model's single-velocity assumption.

What the paper does well: the equations are laid out, the model is the standard Arnett-Chatzopoulos framework, the ejecta masses and velocities come from external NR fits, and the authors test robustness over two EOSs, two fitting formulas, and several electron-fraction choices. They also compare to GW170817 and get reasonable agreement. The limitations section is candid: they admit the semi-analytic models are crude and that anisotropy and time-varying opacities could wash out the correlation.

The soft spots are real, though. As the stress-test note points out, with a common ejecta velocity for all components, Eq. (2) is self-similar in sqrt(Mej/vej). Since Mej spans orders of magnitude while vej only varies ~0.15–0.25c, the population nearly traces a one-parameter curve. The Phillips-like relation is then expected from the model's symmetry, not evidence of physical universality. Varying the EOS or fe changes the mapping from NS masses to (Mej, vej) but never breaks the single-velocity symmetry. The paper also reports no scatter or correlation coefficient; 'remarkable' is supported only by eye.

That said, the authors do not overclaim. They explicitly say the specific relationship is unlikely to hold up and that future observations are the test. The extrapolation from 'the model shows a correlation' to 'a similar correlation should exist in real light curves' is a leap, but it is a conditional one, clearly framed as hope rather than prediction.

I would send this to peer review. The question is interesting, the modeling is transparent, and the self-similarity issue is addressable with a quantitative scatter estimate and at least a discussion (or better, a test) of multi-velocity ejecta. For a reader, this is useful as a theoretical benchmark and a cautionary example of how model symmetries can masquerade as empirical laws. I would not cite it as evidence for standardization, but it is a legitimate contribution to the conversation.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether kilonova (KN) light curves could be standardized in a manner analogous to Type Ia supernovae. Using the Arnett-Chatzopoulos semi-analytic light-curve model with ejecta masses and velocities taken from numerical-relativity fitting formulae (Radice et al. 2018; Coughlin et al. 2018), the authors compute synthetic bolometric light curves for a population of binary neutron star mergers with component masses uniformly distributed between 1.2 and 1.7 solar masses. They then define the peak bolometric luminosity Lmax_Bol and the decline Δlog L_Bol measured 5 and 7 days after peak, and plot Lmax_Bol versus Δlog L_Bol for several choices of nuclear equation of state (DD2, WFF2), NR fitting formula, and electron-fraction distribution parameters fe. The resulting figures show visually tight relations, which the authors interpret as a hint that observed KNe might exhibit a Phillips-like correlation that could enable local distance measurements.

Significance. If real kilonovae possess a tight peak-luminosity/decline relation, the result would offer a new local distance indicator with applications in cosmology, gravitational-wave cosmology, and tests of fundamental physics. The paper is appropriately framed as a theoretical exploration, and it builds on externally calibrated NR fits and a widely used semi-analytic model; the qualitative correlation persists across different EOS, fitting formulae, and fe choices, which is a genuine robustness check. However, the quantitative tightness of the relation, which is the essential property for standardization, is never measured in terms of scatter, correlation coefficient, or residual distance-modulus error. Moreover, the single-velocity assumption in the light-curve model may itself be responsible for the tightness of the relation. The paper would be substantially strengthened by quantifying the scatter and by testing whether the correlation survives when the individual ejecta components have independent velocities, as is the case in real kilonova fits.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Figure 3] The visual tightness of the correlations in Figure 3 is not quantified: no scatter, correlation coefficient, or residual statistics are reported. Since the paper's stated goal is to assess whether the relation could support standardization, please report the rms scatter of log Lmax_Bol about a fitted relation (e.g., a linear fit in Δlog L_Bol) or at least a Spearman/Pearson correlation coefficient, and translate this into an implied error in distance modulus. Without such a measure, 'remarkable correlations' remains a qualitative claim that cannot be evaluated by the reader.
[Section 2, Eq. (2)] The assumption that all ejecta components share a single velocity, stated just below Eq. (1), may artificially enforce the correlation. With fixed fe and κ, Eq. (2) has an approximate scaling symmetry under t → τ_m s with τ_m ∝ sqrt(M_rp,m/vej), so L_m(t) ≈ fe_m Mej H_m(t/τ_m); with Mej spanning roughly four orders of magnitude while vej varies only from 0.15c to 0.25c, the simulated population nearly traces a one-parameter curve. The robustness checks in Figure 3 vary the EOS, NR fitting formula, and fe, but never relax the common-velocity assumption. Real kilonova components have distinct velocities, as in the Villar et al. (2017) best fit for GW170817 (0.266c, 0.152c, 0.137c for blue, purple, and red components), and the relative velocities may vary between events. Please test whether the correlation persists when each component is assigned an independent velocity, for example by drawing velocities from the NR fits or by using per-component velocities with event-to-event scatter, and report how the scatter of the Lmax_Bol-Δlog L_Bol relation changes. If the relation broadens substantially, the claim that theoretical light curves show 'remarkable correlations' must be weakened or reframed as a property of the single-velocity approximation.
[Section 2, disk ejecta fraction] The assumed disk-unbound fraction of 30% is a free parameter that directly scales the total ejecta mass and hence, through Eq. (2), nearly linearly scales Lmax_Bol. Because Mej is the dominant driver of the correlation, a mass-ratio-dependent disk-unbound fraction, as suggested by some numerical-relativity studies, could tilt or broaden the relation. Please test the sensitivity of the Lmax_Bol-Δlog L_Bol correlation to the disk-unbound fraction (e.g., 10%, 30%, 50%) and, if possible, to a mass-dependent prescription, and show the resulting correlation plots or report the scatter as a function of this parameter.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 2] In the Figure 2 legend, 'Vilar (2017)' should be 'Villar et al. (2017)' to match the reference list.
[Figure 3] The legend labels 'f e0', 'f e1', 'f e(q)' use inconsistent subscript formatting; please use f_e0, f_e1, and f_e(q) consistently with the main text.
[Section 2, Eq. (1)] The parameters t0 and σ in the heating-rate formula are not defined in the text; please specify their values from Korobkin et al. (2012) or give an explicit reference for the chosen values.
[Section 2, interpolation of a, b, d] The text says 'we use 2-d interpolation for each of the ejecta components to obtain the values for the fit parameters a, b, d for different ejecta masses and velocities using the Table 1 of Barnes et al. (2016)', but the interpolation scheme and the grid or functional dependence are not described; please clarify whether a, b, d are functions of Mej and vej, and provide the interpolation details.
[Abstract and Section 3] The abstract refers to 'decline in luminosity (ΔL_Bol)' while the text defines Δlog L_Bol ≡ log(Lmax_Bol/L5days_Bol); please align the notation in the abstract, text, and figure captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the correlation is a derived output of an external semi-analytic model, not a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is open: it adopts the Arnett-Chatzopoulos framework and heating/thermal-efficiency prescriptions from external literature (Arnett 1982; Chatzopoulos et al. 2012; Villar et al. 2017; Korobkin et al. 2012; Barnes et al. 2016), combines them with NR-based ejecta-mass/velocity fitting formulae from Radice et al. (2018) and Coughlin et al. (2018), and then computes Lmax and Delta log L from the resulting synthetic light curves. No parameter is fitted to the target Lmax-Delta log L relation, and the correlation is not assumed anywhere; it is a calculated consequence. The paper explicitly disclaims proposing a real observed correlation ('We stress the fact that we are not proposing any particular correlation, which has to be left to future observations') and acknowledges the model's limitations, including anisotropy and time-varying opacity, as future work. The single-velocity ansatz could make the correlation tighter than real KNe would show, but that is a robustness/correctness concern, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The only self-citation (Kashyap et al. 2015) appears in a background sentence about SNe Ia delay-time distributions and carries none of the paper's argument. The GW170817 benchmark provides an external check. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central claim rests on the Arnett-Chatzopoulos model, external NR fitting formulas, and several hand-chosen parameters such as the disk mass unbound fraction and composition fractions. The 30% disk mass fraction and the equal-velocity assumption are stated but not varied, so their influence on the Phillips-like relation is not quantified.

free parameters (6)

Ejecta composition fractions fe = fe0 = [0.2, 0.6, 0.2]; fe1 = [0.26, 0.6, 0.14]; fe(q) with fe_blue fixed to 0.1 or 0.2
The distribution of ejecta mass among blue, purple, and red opacity components is chosen by hand or inferred from Villar et al. (2017) fits to GW170817; it affects both peak luminosity and decline rate.
Disk mass unbound fraction = 0.3 (30%)
Assumed fraction of the disk mass that becomes unbound and contributes to the r-process ejecta; directly scales total ejecta mass and hence the light curve.
Ejecta opacity values = kappa = 0.5, 3, 10 cm2/g
Values for the blue, purple, and red ejecta components, taken from Villar et al. (2017); the diffusion timescale depends on them.
Geometric constant beta = 13.4
Dimensionless constant in the Arnett model diffusion timescale, taken from Villar et al. (2017).
Decline time window = 5 days and 7 days after peak
The definition of Delta log L_Bol depends on an arbitrarily chosen time delay; the authors state the choice is motivated by observability.
NS mass range = uniform in 1.2 to 1.7 solar masses for each star
The simulated population uses a chosen mass distribution, not an observed BNS mass distribution, which could affect the range of ejecta properties and the resulting correlation.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Arnett-Chatzopoulos semi-analytic model, assuming homologous expansion, isotropic ejecta, and gray opacity, captures the essential features of kilonova light curves.
Used throughout Section 2 via equations (1) and (2); the paper's synthetic light curves and correlations are produced by this model. The paper notes preliminary agreement with GW170817 but also acknowledges the model omits anisotropy and time-varying opacity.
domain assumption The NR fitting formulas of Radice et al. (2018) and Coughlin et al. (2018) for ejecta mass and velocity are reliable functions of NS masses and EOS.
Central input to the population synthesis; the two fits differ by about 29% in mass and 12% in velocity, which the authors note but do not propagate into the correlation.
domain assumption The heating rate of Korobkin et al. (2012) and thermal efficiency of Barnes et al. (2016) describe the radioactive power input to the light curve.
Equation (1) uses these external prescriptions; the light curve shape and its peak and decline depend on them.
domain assumption The DD2 and WFF2 equations of state are representative of neutron star matter.
Used to convert NS masses to radii and tidal deformabilities via the NR fits; a different EOS could shift ejecta properties and the correlation.
ad hoc to paper All ejecta components share a single velocity.
The paper states 'we assume the same velocity vej for all components of the ejecta' in Section 2; this is an acknowledged simplification that could affect the correlation.
domain assumption The simulated mass distribution (uniform in 1.2 to 1.7 solar masses) spans the relevant BNS population.
Population choice in Section 3; not derived from an observed BNS mass distribution, but used to generate the spread of synthetic light curves.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Kilonova Light curves be Standardized?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47BYHNDY

@misc{pith2026190802168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Kilonova Light curves be Standardized?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47BYHNDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02168}
}

abstract

Binary neutron star mergers have been recently confirmed to be the progenitors of the optical transients kilonovae (KNe). KNe are powered by the radioactive decay of neutron-rich elements (r-process elements) which are believed to be the product of disruption of neutron stars during their merger. KNe exhibit interesting parallels with type Ia supernovae (SNe), whose light curves show specific correlations which allow them to be used as standardizable candles. In this paper, we investigate the possibility of the KN light curves exhibiting similar correlations. While a satisfactory answer to this question can only be provided by future KN observations, employing theoretical models we explore whether there is any ground for harboring such expectations. Using semi-analytic models of KN light curves in conjunction with results from numerical relativity simulations of binary neutron star mergers, we obtain the maximum bolometric luminosity ($L_{\mathrm{Bol}}^{\mathrm{max}}$) and decline in luminosity ($\Delta L_{\mathrm{Bol}}$) for a simulated population of mergers. We find that theoretical light curves of KNe show remarkable correlations despite the complex physics governing their behavior. This presents a possibility of future observations to uncover such correlations in the observed light curves, eventually allowing observers to standardize these light curves and to use them for local distance measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02168 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The solid traces show the evolution of bolometric luminosity of the KNe associated with GW170817 as predicted by the semi-analytical KNe models. The Different markers show the observed luminosity evolution from the same event calculated by Drout et al. (2017) and Cowperthwaite et al. (2017). (2018) and Coughlin et al. (2018). The light curve modeling justifiably assumes that the physical processes responsible for h… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The relation between maximum luminosity L max bol and decline in luminosity in few days ∆logLbol from simulated light curves. We consider masses in the range 1.2−1.7 M , two different NR fitting formulae for ejecta mass and velocity (Radice et al. (2018) and Coughlin et al. (2018); shown in different colors), two different EoSs (DD2 and WFF2; shown by markers with and without black edges), and two different choices … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, Astrophys. J., 848, L13 —. 2017b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101 —. 2017c, ApJ, 848, L12 —. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 011102

work page 2019
[2]

2017, ApJ, 848, L33

Arcavi, I., McCully, C., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L33

work page 2017
[3]

Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785

1982
[4]

2013, ApJ, 775, 18

Barnes, J., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 18

2013
[5]

2016, ApJ, 829, 110

Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2016, ApJ, 829, 110

work page 2016
[6]

C., & Vinko, J

Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., & Vinko, J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 121

2012
[7]

W., Dietrich, T., Heinzel, J., et al

Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Heinzel, J., et al. 2019, arXiv:1908.00889

arXiv 2019
[8]

W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B

Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.04803

arXiv 2018

Show all 45 references

[9]

S., Berger, E., Villar, V

Cowperthwaite, P. S., Berger, E., Villar, V . A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L17

2017
[10]

2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 105014

Dietrich, T., & Ujevic, M. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 105014

2017
[11]

R., Piro, A

Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570

2017
[12]

A., & Rasio, F

Faber, J. A., & Rasio, F. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Relativity, 15, 8

2012
[13]

E., & Hinderer, T

Flanagan, E. E., & Hinderer, T. 2008, Phys. Rev., D77, 021502

2008
[14]

S., & Schutz, B

Gupta, A., Fox, D., Sathyaprakash, B. S., & Schutz, B. F. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09897

2019 arXiv
[15]

2010, Nucl

Hempel, M., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2010, Nucl. Phys. A, 837, 210

2010
[16]

2016, MNRAS, 459, 35

Hotokezaka, K., Wanajo, S., Tanaka, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 35

2016
[17]

Hoyle, F., & Fowler, W. A. 1960, ApJ, 132, 565

1960
[18]

Iben, Jr., I., & Tutukov, A. V . 1984, ApJS, 54, 335

1984
[19]

2017, Nature, 551, 80

Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., Quataert, E., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80

2017
[20]

2015, ApJ, 800, L7

Kashyap, R., Fisher, R., García-Berro, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, L7

2015
[21]

2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940

Korobkin, O., Rosswog, S., Arcones, A., & Winteler, C. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940

2012
[22]

1998, ApJ, 507, L59

Li, L.-X., & Paczy´nski, B. 1998, ApJ, 507, L59

1998
[23]

F., et al

Lippuner, J., Fernández, R., Roberts, L. F., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 472, 904

2017
[24]

2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

2014
[25]

Metzger, B. D. 2017, Living Reviews in Relativity, 20, 3 5

2017
[26]

D., Martínez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al

Metzger, B. D., Martínez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 2650

2010
[27]

M., Ryan, B

Miller, J. M., Ryan, B. R., Dolence, J. C., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 023008

2019
[28]

R., Portegies Zwart, S

Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L. R., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Verbunt, F. 2001, A&A, 365, 491

2001
[29]

E., & Spergel, D

Pardo, K., Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Spergel, D. N. 2018, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2018, 048

2018
[30]

Phillips, M. M. 1993, ApJ, 413, L105

1993
[31]

2018, ApJ, 869, 130

Radice, D., Perego, A., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 130

2018
[32]

G., Filippenko, A

Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Challis, P., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009

1998
[33]

G., Filippenko, A

Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Li, W., et al. 1999, The Astronomical Journal, 118, 2675

1999
[34]

2015, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24, 1530012

Rosswog, S. 2015, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 24, 1530012

2015
[35]

J., Belczynski, K., & Fryer, C

Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., & Fryer, C. 2009, ApJ, 699, 2026

2009
[36]

2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, annurev

Shibata, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, annurev

2019
[37]

2016, Advances in Astronomy, 2016, 634197

Tanaka, M. 2016, Advances in Astronomy, 2016, 634197

2016
[38]

A., et al

Tanaka, M., Utsumi, Y ., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 102

2017
[39]

R., Levan, A

Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., González-Fernández, C., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L27

2017
[40]

Typel, S., Röpke, G., Klähn, T., Blaschke, D., & Wolter, H. H. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 015803

2010
[41]

A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al

Villar, V . A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, L21

2017
[42]

Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355

1984
[43]

C., & Harkness, R

Wheeler, J. C., & Harkness, R. P. 1990, Reports on Progress in Physics, 53, 1467

1990
[44]

B., Fiks, V ., & Fabrocini, A

Wiringa, R. B., Fiks, V ., & Fabrocini, A. 1988, Phys. Rev. C, 38, 1010

1988
[45]

2017, ApJ, 851, L48

Yang, S., Valenti, S., Cappellaro, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 851, L48

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, Astrophys. J., 848, L13 —. 2017b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101 —. 2017c, ApJ, 848, L12 —. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 011102

work page 2019

[2] [2]

2017, ApJ, 848, L33

Arcavi, I., McCully, C., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L33

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785

1982

[4] [4]

2013, ApJ, 775, 18

Barnes, J., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 18

2013

[5] [5]

2016, ApJ, 829, 110

Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Martínez-Pinedo, G. 2016, ApJ, 829, 110

work page 2016

[6] [6]

C., & Vinko, J

Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., & Vinko, J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 121

2012

[7] [7]

W., Dietrich, T., Heinzel, J., et al

Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Heinzel, J., et al. 2019, arXiv:1908.00889

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B

Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.04803

arXiv 2018