Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Using negative-latency gravitational wave alerts to detect prompt radio bursts from binary neutron star mergers with the Murchison Widefield Array

T0 review · 1 major / 3 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 Negative-latency gravitational-wave alerts can let the Murchison Widefield Array catch prompt radio bursts from neutron-star mergers, and its proposed quarter-sky mode is sensitive enough to detect such a burst from a GW170817-like event…

desk verdict A genuinely new observational strategy for catching prompt radio bursts from BNS mergers, with a solid GW170817-based core but a notable inconsistency in the definition of the negative-latency time that needs fixing before the numbers are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08688 v1 pith:UPGLIWYZ submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.HE

Clancy W. James , Gemma E. Anderson , Linqing Wen , Joel Bosveld , Qi Chu , Manoj Kovalam , Teresa J. Slaven-Blair , Andrew Williams This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsbinaryneutronstarmergersgravitational-wavealertsnegative-latencytriggeringMurchisonWidefieldArraylow-frequencytransientsFRBprogenitorsGW170817
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

The paper proposes a way to catch the radio flash that may accompany the merger of two neutron stars before it fades. It argues that the usual alert chain is too slow: by the time a gravitational-wave superevent is announced and a low-frequency radio telescope repoints, the dispersed radio signal has already passed. The fix is to trigger on 'negative-latency' alerts—warnings issued from the gravitational-wave inspiral signal before the merger itself—which buys up to tens of seconds. With that head start, the Murchison Widefield Array could observe at higher frequencies (up to 300 MHz) where the burst is expected to be brighter, and a new single-dipole mode giving a quarter-sky field of view compensates for the poor localization of early alerts. The paper concludes that this mode is sensitive enough to detect an FRB-like burst from a GW170817-like event during the third observing run, or to place strong constraints on neutron-star mergers as fast radio burst progenitors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the negative-latency trigger: a gravitational-wave search that broadcasts an alert as soon as an inspiral template crosses a threshold, before the merger occurs. The paper simulates this on GW170817 data by zeroing the predicted waveform at a time $t_{\mathrm{-ve}}$ before merger and computing the network signal-to-noise ratio, then maps that ratio to a trigger distance $D_{\rm trig}$ by inverse-distance scaling. This feeds the dispersion-delay relation $t_{\rm FRB}=415\,{\rm DM}(\nu/100\,{\rm MHz})^{-2}$ ms, and the maximum observable frequency follows from $t_{\rm FRB}=t_{\rm obs}-t_{\mathrm{-ve}}$. The compensating observational mechanism is the single-dipole MWA mode: disabling 15 of 16 dipoles per tile recovers a single dipole's full sky response, a $\pi$ sr field of view above 30 degrees elevation, at a 16-fold sensitivity cost that nearby mergers overcome.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to measure the MWA single-dipole system equivalent flux density at 220–300 MHz and the end-to-end trigger latency, then plug the measured values into the radiometer equation; if the SEFD at 300 MHz exceeds the paper's extrapolated 13,200 Jy by a large margin, the claimed $5\sigma$ detection threshold would not be met at the distances claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the rapidity criterion—previously limiting triggered MWA follow-up to 136 MHz—can be pushed to 300 MHz by using negative-latency triggers from the inspiral. The authors simulate negative-latency triggering on GW170817 data, truncating the predicted waveform at times before merger and computing the network signal-to-noise ratio as a function of time before merger, which gives the distance at which an event would still trigger. Combining the resulting dispersion measure with the assumed 28-second total response time yields the maximum observable frequency $\nu_{\rm max}$; the time gained from negative latency outweighs the smaller dispersion delay of closer events. They then propose a single-dipole-per-tile MWA mode with a $\pi$ steradian field of view, calibrate its sensitivity using the fluence of FRB 171020 scaled by distance and frequency with free-free absorption, and estimate a detection probability of 100% within 30 Mpc and roughly 80% at the 40 Mpc distance of GW170817, for a detection rate of about 0.7 events per year over the quarter sky.

Load-bearing premise

The strategy requires that the gravitational-wave network actually broadcasts negative-latency alerts in real time during the third observing run; the paper notes this is 'specifically planned' but does not show that such alerts were available, and without them the proposed trigger cannot be fired.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a BNS merger similar to GW170817 occurs during the O3 run within the observed $\pi$ sr of sky, the proposed mode will either detect an FRB-like burst or place strong constraints on BNS mergers as FRB progenitors.
  • Negative-latency triggering raises the maximum observable frequency from 136 MHz to 300 MHz, where any radio signal is expected to be stronger and less affected by scatter broadening or free-free absorption.
  • The trigger-distance trade-off means earlier negative-latency alerts come from closer events; the optimal observing band therefore depends on the latency of the trigger, for example two 15.36 MHz bands at 112–127 MHz and 216–231 MHz.
  • Under the assumption that BNS mergers produce a substantial fraction of the non-repeating FRB population, the detection rate for the quarter-sky mode is about 0.7 events per year, and other low-frequency arrays could use the same alerts to add sky coverage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the same negative-latency logic would apply to any wide-field low-frequency array with a rapid trigger response; a global network of such instruments would convert the single-site quarter-sky coverage into near all-sky coverage during future observing runs.
  • The paper does not quantify the computational cost of a blind dedispersion search over the full $\pi$ sr of voltage data; if that search cannot run in near real time, the practical sensitivity could be lower than the radiometer calculation suggests.
  • If negative-latency alerts fail to materialize in O3, the strategy's key premise is moot, but the sensitivity calculation can be re-used for future runs that do broadcast early inspiral triggers; the same framework would also apply to other prompt counterparts, such as gamma-ray or neutrino triggers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a strategy for detecting prompt FRB-like radio bursts from binary neutron star mergers by using 'negative-latency' gravitational-wave alerts, which are issued before merger, to trigger the Murchison Widefield Array. The authors quantify the trade-off between earlier triggering and lower GW signal-to-noise using public GW170817 data, show that negative-latency alerts would allow higher-frequency observations (up to 300 MHz versus 136 MHz with standard alerts), and propose a new single-dipole-per-tile MWA mode covering one quarter of the sky to compensate for the poorer localization of pre-merger alerts. Using a sensitivity estimate based on the FRB 171020 upper limit and assumptions about the FRB population, they conclude that for a plausible model the mode could detect FRB-like bursts from events within ~30 Mpc and has an 80% detection probability for a GW170817-like event at 40 Mpc, so an O3 trigger would either detect such a burst or place strong constraints on BNS mergers as FRB progenitors. The supplemental material derives the expected detection rate and suggests optimal split frequency bands.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is a valuable and timely observational strategy paper: it identifies a concrete way to catch prompt emission that is otherwise missed, quantifies the sensitivity trade-off with actual GW data, and proposes a new MWA observing mode. The paper's strengths include using public GW170817 data and an external FRB upper limit as a benchmark, making the sensitivity calculation traceable, and being explicit about the large uncertainties in the FRB population parameters. The qualitative argument that negative-latency triggers help is sound and of broad interest to the time-domain astronomy community. However, the quantitative mapping from negative latency to maximum observable frequency contains an internal inconsistency, and the O3-specific feasibility claim rests on a capability that is only described as 'planned', which tempers the significance of the headline conclusion.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (4) and Fig. 1] The O3 feasibility claim is load-bearing and not yet supported. The abstract and Conclusions state that the proposed mode is 'feasible during the O3 run' and that a GW170817-like event during O3 'would either detect an FRB-like burst, or place strong constraints.' The entire strategy requires that aLIGO/Virgo actually broadcast negative-latency alerts (pre-merger triggers) in real time during O3. The only evidence offered is in Section 4.1: negative-latency triggering 'is specifically planned to be implemented in GW search algorithms, such as the Summed Parallel Infinite Impulse Response SPIIR pipeline.' No demonstration, reference, or O3-era test is provided showing that such pre-merger alerts were operational. If negative-latency alerts were not available, the ordinary 18-28 s alert latency leaves ν_max at 136 MHz by the paper's own Eq. (4), and the proposed quarter-sky mode could not be triggered before the burst. The distinction between 'planned' and 'operational' should be resolved, either by citing evidence that such alerts were active during O3 or by softening the O3-specific claims to a forward-looking proposal for future runs.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph starting 'Nearby BNS mergers...'] The text contains a typo: 'aL-GIO/Virgo O3 run' should be 'aLIGO/Virgo O3 run'.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph on MWA response time] The rapid-response time is cited as 'Hancock et al. in prep.,' which is not a complete reference and may not be verifiable. Please provide a published reference or additional details.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 captions] The symbol t_ve is defined in the text but the captions do not restate the definition; adding a brief definition such as 'time before merger at which the negative-latency trigger is issued' would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity and response-time derivations are benchmarked against external data and are conditional on explicitly stated model assumptions; the negative-latency triggering requirement is an operational prerequisite, not a circular input.

full rationale

The central quantitative chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked. Equation (4) combines the dispersion relation (1) with the adopted DM model (2) and a trigger-distance scaling derived from public GW170817 data (Section 4.1), so the maximum observable frequency is computed, not fitted. The negative-latency SNR curve uses open LIGO data and a PyCBC template, with no target quantity fed back into the calculation. The sensitivity estimate in the supplement calibrates F_min to the non-detection upper limit of FRB 171020 and external FRB population parameters (equations S1-S4), then evaluates detectability as a function of distance; this is a conditional model evaluation, and the paper explicitly labels it qualitative ('These results should therefore be interpreted qualitatively'). The abstract's 'sufficient to detect' claim is explicitly premised on the FRB-like emission model stated in Section 4 and the supplement, not on the data being predicted. The only notable caveat is operational: the O3 feasibility statement ('is feasible during the O3 run') depends on negative-latency alerts being broadcast, supported only by the statement that this is 'specifically planned to be implemented' in pipelines such as SPIIR and by citations to the authors' own SPIIR papers. That is a factual prerequisite and a correctness risk, not a circular derivation: the cited pipeline work is external algorithmic evidence, and the paper's quantitative results are conditional on such alerts existing. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, self-citation-load-bearing, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, or renaming pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on several externally sourced model parameters (DM, FRB luminosity, merger rate) and two key domain assumptions: the availability of negative-latency GW alerts and the MWA's rapid response time. The free parameters listed are all adopted from prior literature or extrapolated, not fitted to new data, but they are load-bearing for the quantitative claims.

free parameters (8)
  • DM local term = 90 pc cm^-3
    Used in Eq. 2 as the constant term of the DM model. Taken from Cordes & Lazio (2002) for the Milky Way ISM at high latitude, but the value is uncertain and directly affects νmax calculations.
  • DM IGM slope = 0.21 pc cm^-3 Mpc^-1
    Used in Eq. 2 as the distance term. From Inoue (2004), but the IGM contribution is poorly known and affects the dispersion delay, hence νmax, for events beyond the local ISM.
  • BNS merger rate Phi0 = 2000 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Adopted in Eq. S5 from Abbott et al. (2017) and Lu & Piro (2019). The true rate has large uncertainties (1540 +3200/-1220), directly scaling the predicted detection rate Rdet.
  • FRB energy distribution index gamma = -0.7
    Used in Eq. S1, from Lu & Piro (2019). The power-law index of the cumulative FRB energy distribution is poorly constrained and sets the probability of detecting brighter bursts.
  • FRB 171020 fluence limit F_min^184 = 2200 Jy ms
    Used in Eq. S3 as the anchor for the minimum fluence model. The actual fluence limit from Sokolowski et al. (2018) is an upper limit, not a measurement, and heavily influences the sensitivity estimate.
  • Free-free optical depth tau_184 = 1.24
    Used in Eq. S3 to scale fluence with frequency. From Sokolowski et al. (2018), but this value is model-dependent and affects the frequency dependence of Fmin.
  • Scattering spectral index = 4 (Bhat et al. 2004)
    Used in S1.3 to scale burst width with frequency (Δt ~ ν^-4). If the true scattering index differs, the SNR calculation changes.
  • SEFD extrapolation above 220 MHz = quadratic fit
    The single-dipole SEFD is extrapolated to 220-300 MHz using a quadratic fit to data up to 220 MHz. This extrapolation introduces uncertainty at the high-frequency end where the claim of 300 MHz observations matters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption aLIGO/Virgo will implement and broadcast negative-latency alerts during O3.
    Section 4 states this is 'specifically planned' for pipelines such as SPIIR, but it is not demonstrated to exist during O3. The entire triggering method depends on this.
  • domain assumption The MWA can respond to an external trigger and be on-target within 6-14 s.
    Section 3 cites Hancock et al. (in prep.), an unpublished work, for the rapid-response capability. If this response time is longer or requires unavailable infrastructure, the tobs=28 s assumption breaks.
  • domain assumption The dispersion measure model DM = 90 + 0.21 D (pc cm^-3) applies to BNS mergers within the aLIGO/Virgo horizon.
    Adopted in Section 2. If the local ISM or IGM contribution differs significantly, the computed νmax values shift, changing the observable frequency bands.
  • domain assumption BNS mergers produce FRB-like bursts whose luminosity distribution mirrors the observed non-repeating FRB population.
    The sensitivity estimate in the supplemental material calibrates Fmin using FRB 171020 and the assumed luminosity function. This is explicitly an assumption, not a measurement, and the authors acknowledge the resulting rates are highly uncertain.
  • standard math The radiometer equation and the dispersion delay formula correctly describe the signal and noise.
    Equations (1) and (S4) are standard in radio astronomy. No issues here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Using negative-latency gravitational wave alerts to detect prompt radio bursts from binary neutron star mergers with the Murchison Widefield Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPGLIWYZ

@misc{pith2026190808688,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Using negative-latency gravitational wave alerts to detect prompt radio bursts from binary neutron star mergers with the Murchison Widefield Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPGLIWYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08688}
}
read the original abstract

We examine how fast radio burst (FRB)-like signals predicted to be generated during the merger of a binary neutron star (BNS) may be detected in low-frequency radio observations triggered by the aLIGO/Virgo gravitational wave detectors. The rapidity, directional accuracy, and sensitivity of follow-up observations with the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) are considered. We show that with current methodology, the rapidity criteria fails for triggered MWA observations above 136 MHz for BNS mergers within the aLIGO/Virgo horizon, for which little dispersive delay is expected. A calculation of the expected reduction in response time by triggering on `negative latency' alerts from aLIGO/Virgo observations of gravitational waves generated by the BNS inspiral is presented. This allows for observations up to 300 MHz where the radio signal is expected to be stronger. To compensate for the poor positional accuracy expected from these alerts, we propose a new MWA observational mode that is capable of viewing one quarter of the sky. We show the sensitivity of this mode is sufficient to detect an FRB-like burst from an event similar to GW170817 if it occurred during the ongoing aLIGO/Virgo third science run (O3).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08688 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR; left axis) of a negative￾latency trigger applied to GW170817 as a function of time (t−ve) prior to the merger. Shown are the SNRs from the Livingston and Hanford detectors, and the network SNR from equation (3). It has been normalised by the peak network SNR value of 32.6 (at t−ve = 0) to highlight the loss of sensitivity with increasing negative latency. The network SNR also gives the c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Expected dispersion measure, DM, for FRB-like events associated with BNS mergers as a function of t−ve (left axis, black dotted line). For an assumed total observational delay tobs = 28 s, the corresponding peak frequency (νmax) at which an FRB-like signal would be observable within the GW-MWA response time of 28 s (right axis, green dot-dashed line). Nearby BNS mergers will produce a stronger GW signal, resulting i… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rapid Response Triggering for Radio Transients with the SKA Observatory

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    SKA-Low and SKA-Mid should implement automated rapid-response triggering on external and internal alerts to enable early radio observations of diverse transients.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/L13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826L..13A 826, L13

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/L13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826L..13A 826, L13

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/l13 2016

  2. [3]

    P., et al., 2017b, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017b, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  3. [4]

    P., et al., 2017c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  4. [5]

    P., et al., 2017d, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..13A 848, L13

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017d, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..13A 848, L13

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

  5. [6]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.121p1101A 121, 161101

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.121p1101A 121, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  6. [7]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvX...9a1001A 9, 011001

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2019, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PhRvX...9a1001A 9, 011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  7. [8]

    Albert A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9aed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..35A 850, L35

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9aed 2017

  8. [9]

    Allen B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.062001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvD..71f2001A 71, 062001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.062001 2005

Show all 70 references
  1. [10]

    G., Brady P

    Allen B., Anderson W. G., Brady P. R., Brown D. A., Creighton J. D. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.122006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvD..85l2006A 85, 122006

    2012 doi

  2. [11]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...22A 864, 22

    Anderson M. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...22A 864, 22

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    Bhat N. D. R., Cordes J. M., Camilo F., Nice D. J., Lorimer D. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382680 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605..759B 605, 759

    2004 doi

  4. [13]

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0867-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Natur.566..230C 566, 230

    2019 doi

  5. [14]

    G., Stappers B

    Caleb M., Spitler L. G., Stappers B. W., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0612-z , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..839C 2, 839

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    A., et al., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1903.06786), https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190306786C

    Callister T. A., et al., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1903.06786), https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190306786C

    2019 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Cannon K., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748..136C 748, 136

    2012 doi

  8. [17]

    285, New Horizons in Time Domain Astronomy

    Centrella J., Nissanke S., Williams R., 2012, in Griffin E., Hanisch R., Seaman R., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 285, New Horizons in Time Domain Astronomy. pp 191--198

    2012

  9. [18]

    Chu Q., 2017, PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia

    2017

  10. [19]

    J., Rowlinson A., Gao H., Zhang B., Tingay S

    Chu Q., Howell E. J., Rowlinson A., Gao H., Zhang B., Tingay S. J., Bo \"e r M., Wen L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw576 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.459..121C 459, 121

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    M., Lazio T

    Cordes J. M., Lazio T. J. W., 2002, arXiv Astrophysics e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph..7156C

    2002

  12. [21]

    Dal Canton T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.082004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PhRvD..90h2004D 90, 082004

    2014 doi

  13. [22]

    W., Clarke T

    Ellingson S. W., Clarke T. E., Cohen A., Craig J., Kassim N. E., Pihlstrom Y., Rickard L. J., Taylor G. B., 2009, @doi [IEEE Proceedings] 10.1109/JPROC.2009.2015683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IEEEP..97.1421E 97, 1421

    2009

  14. [23]

    Goldstein A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..14G 848, L14

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    K., Du Z., Wen L., Gu Y., 2018, @doi [Comput.\ Phys.\ Communications] 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.05.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018CoPhC.231...62G 231, 62

    Guo X., Chu Q., Chung S. K., Du Z., Wen L., Gu Y., 2018, @doi [Comput.\ Phys.\ Communications] 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.05.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018CoPhC.231...62G 231, 62

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    Hansen B. M. S., Lyutikov M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.322..695H 322, 695

    2001

  17. [26]

    Hooper S., 2013, PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia

    2013

  18. [27]

    K., Luan J., Blair D., Chen Y., Wen L., 2012, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024012 , 86, 024012

    Hooper S., Chung S. K., Luan J., Blair D., Chen Y., Wen L., 2012, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024012 , 86, 024012

    2012 doi

  19. [28]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32...46H 32, e046

    Howell E. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.49 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32...46H 32, e046

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    D., 2007, @doi [Comput.\ in Sci

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Comput.\ in Sci. & Eng.] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  21. [30]

    Inoue S., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07359.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.348..999I 348, 999

    2004

  22. [31]

    W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.5934J 486, 5934

    James C. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.5934J 486, 5934

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Johnston S., et al., 2008, @doi [Exp.\ Astron.] 10.1007/s10686-008-9124-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ExA....22..151J 22, 151

    2008 doi

  24. [33]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/L25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814L..25K 814, L25

    Kaplan D. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/L25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...814L..25K 814, L25

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    L., Murphy T., Rowlinson A., Croft S

    Kaplan D. L., Murphy T., Rowlinson A., Croft S. D., Wayth R. B., Trott C. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.43 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...50K 33, e050

    2016 doi

  26. [35]

    C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa844e , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..117L 154, 117

    Lawrence E., Vander Wiel S., Law C., Burke Spolaor S., Bower G. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa844e , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..117L 154, 117

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    Liu Y., Du Z., Chung S., Hooper S., Blair D., Wen L., 2012, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/29/23/235018 , 29, 15pp

    2012 doi

  28. [37]

    R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M

    Lorimer D. R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M. A., Narkevic D. J., Crawford F., 2007, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1147532 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Sci...318..777L 318, 777

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    L., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190300014L

    Lu W., Piro A. L., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190300014L

    2019

  30. [39]

    Luan J., Hooper S., Wen L., Chen Y., 2012, @doi [Phys.\ Rev.\ D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.102002 , 85, 102002

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    Lyutikov M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/63 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...63L 768, 63

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/125 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..125M 776, 125

    Macquart J.-P., Koay J. Y., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/125 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776..125M 776, 125

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    M., Bannister K

    Macquart J.-P., Shannon R. M., Bannister K. W., James C. W., Ekers R. D., Bunton J. D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab03d6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872L..19M 872, L19

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae7cb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867L..10M 867, L10

    Mahony E. K., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae7cb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867L..10M 867, L10

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    W., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee7b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869..134M 869, 134

    Meyers B. W., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee7b , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869..134M 869, 134

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    H., Dent T., Dal Canton T., Fairhurst S., Brown D

    Nitz A. H., Dent T., Dal Canton T., Fairhurst S., Brown D. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849..118N 849, 118

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    Nitz A., et al., 2019, gwastro/pycbc: PyCBC Release v1.13.6

    2019

  38. [47]

    S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...27O 785, 27

    Obenberger K. S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...27O 785, 27

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    USA: Trelgol Publishing

    Oliphant T., 2006, Guide to NumPy. USA: Trelgol Publishing

    2006

  40. [49]

    Paczynski B., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...308L..43P 308, L43

    1986 doi

  41. [50]

    X., Zheng Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz261 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..648P 485, 648

    Prochaska J. X., Zheng Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz261 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485..648P 485, 648

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    Ravi V., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0831-y

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    E., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1905.02509), http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190502509R

    Rowlinson A., Anderson G. E., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1905.02509), http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190502509R

    2019 arXiv

  44. [53]

    B., Lightman A

    Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics . John Wiley and Sons Ltd

    1986

  45. [54]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.562..386S 562, 386

    Shannon R. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0588-y , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.562..386S 562, 386

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    Sokolowski M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...62S 34, e062

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    Sokolowski M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aae58d , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867L..12S 867, L12

    2018 doi

  48. [57]

    G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790..101S 790, 101

    Spitler L. G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/2/101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790..101S 790, 101

    2014 doi

  49. [58]

    Thornton D., et al., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1236789 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...341...53T 341, 53

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.007 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30....7T 30, e007

    Tingay S. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2012.007 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASA...30....7T 30, e007

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..199T 150, 199

    Tingay S. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150..199T 150, 199

    2015 doi

  52. [61]

    Totani T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/65.5.L12 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASJ...65L..12T 65, L12

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32....5T 32, e005

    Tremblay S. E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2015.6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASA...32....5T 32, e005

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    V., Katz J

    Usov V. V., Katz J. I., 2000, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A

    2000

  55. [64]

    Vallisneri M., Kanner J., Williams R., Weinstein A., Stephens B., 2015, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. p. 012021

    2015

  56. [65]

    Wang J.-S., Yang Y.-P., Wu X.-F., Dai Z.-G., Wang F.-Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...822L...7W 822, L7

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2018.37 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASA...35...33W 35

    Wayth R. B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2018.37 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASA...35...33W 35

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    M., Tremblay S

    Xue M., Ord S. M., Tremblay S. E., Bhat N. D. R., Sobey C., Meyers B. W., McSweeney S. J., Swainston N. A., 2019, preprint (arXiv:1905.00598), https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190500598X

    2019 arXiv

  59. [68]

    C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812..168Y 812, 168

    Yancey C. C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812..168Y 812, 168

    2015 doi

  60. [69]

    Zhang B., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L21 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...780L..21Z 780, L21

    2014 doi

  61. [70]

    P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    van Haarlem M. P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220873 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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