Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

A Galaxy-Targeted Search for the Optical Counterpart of the Candidate NS-BH Merger S190814bv with Magellan

T0 review · 2 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 A galaxy-targeted optical search of the candidate neutron star–black hole merger S190814bv found no counterpart to a median 3-sigma limit of $i=22.2$, ruling out a GW170817-like kilonova and an on-axis short GRB jet within the covered…

desk verdict Clean, useful non-detection from a galaxy-targeted search for S190814bv, but the headline exclusion of a GW170817-like kilonova is overstated when applied to the full ~35% claimed coverage. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08913 v2 pith:Q44VV376 submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.HE

S. Gomez , G. Hosseinzadeh , P. S. Cowperthwaite , V. A. Villar , E. Berger , T. Gardner , K. D. Alexander , R. Chornock
show 8 more authors
M. R. Drout T. Eftekhari W. Fong K. Gill R. Margutti M. Nicholl K. Paterson P. K. G. Williams
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesneutronstar–blackholemergeropticalcounterpartkilonovagalaxy-targetedsearchS190814bvshortgamma-rayburstimagesubtraction
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 reports a targeted optical search of the gravitational-wave event S190814bv, a binary merger classified with more than 99 percent probability as a neutron star–black hole system. Using a 6.5 m telescope, the team imaged all 96 galaxies from the GLADE catalog inside the 50 percent confidence volume, covering roughly 35 percent of the event's total localization probability. No transient was found to a median 3-$\sigma$ limiting magnitude of $i=22.2$, corresponding to an absolute magnitude of about $-14.9$ at the event distance. That depth rules out optical emission as bright as the GW170817 kilonova and an on-axis short gamma-ray burst jet within the searched volume, but leaves room for a fainter lanthanide-rich kilonova of about $0.01\,M_\odot$ and off-axis jets viewed at angles above roughly $15^\circ$.

What carries the argument

The search is carried by the galaxy-targeted strategy: rank galaxies from the GLADE catalog by their probability within the 90 percent localization volume, image every catalogued galaxy down to $0.15\,L_*$ inside the 50 percent volume (96 galaxies), and estimate completeness by integrating the $B$-band luminosity function of Faber et al. 2007 to the same luminosity limit. The comparison engine is a set of model light curves: the three-component GW170817 kilonova fit, a single lanthanide-rich $0.01\,M_\odot$ kilonova, and BOXFIT afterglow models for on- and off-axis short GRBs. Image subtraction with HOTPANTS against Pan-STARRS1 templates produces the transient search, and Equation 1 condenses the kilonova exclusion boundary.

What would settle it

Recover a transient in one of the 96 imaged galaxies from the 2019 August 16–17 data with $i < 22.2$ at the reported positions, or show that the galaxy list omitted a catalogued galaxy with $L \gtrsim 0.75\,L_*$ inside the 50 percent volume; either would overturn the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no optical counterpart to S190814bv exists in the 96 targeted galaxies, and that this absence is physically informative: within the volume actually covered, the search excludes a GW170817-type kilonova and a typical on-axis short-GRB afterglow. The authors reach this by comparing their limiting magnitudes with model light curves and derive a parameter-space cut for red kilonova models: models satisfying $-0.124\,\kappa/(\mathrm{cm^2\,g^{-1}}) + 11.3\,M_{\mathrm{ej}}/M_\odot + 0.886\,v_{\mathrm{ej}}/c > 1$ are ruled out. They explicitly do not claim the event produced no light; dimmer models and off-axis geometries remain consistent. The paper also notes that the LVC classification allows the event to be a black hole–black hole merger depending on the neutron star mass cutoff, and urges future alerts to quote the probability that the lighter member is below $2\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

That the GLADE galaxy catalog plus the adopted B-band luminosity function faithfully represents all galaxies in the localization volume; if many low-luminosity galaxies are missing, the 35 percent coverage claim shrinks and the ruled-out region applies to less of the event's probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A counterpart as bright as GW170817's kilonova would have been seen; none was, so any optical emission from S190814bv in the covered volume was fainter than $M_i\approx -14.9$ mag.
  • An on-axis short gamma-ray burst jet, with typical afterglow brightness, is ruled out within the searched volume.
  • The event could still have produced a dim lanthanide-rich kilonova with $\sim 0.01\,M_\odot$ of ejecta, or an off-axis jet seen at $\theta_{\mathrm{obs}}\gtrsim 15^\circ$; the optical status of S190814bv remains ambiguous without full-volume coverage to about 25th magnitude.
  • A definitive exclusion of these dimmer models requires covering the full localization volume to $\approx 25$ mag, which the paper identifies as beyond current GCN-reported searches.
  • If S190814bv is actually a BH–BH merger, the optical limit over 35 percent of the volume is about 1.8 times deeper than the limit on GW170814.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that future NS–BH alerts will need either wider-field or deeper follow-up than single-galaxy targeting to settle the presence of emission, since this paper shows galaxy-targeted searches plateau near 35 percent coverage for this event.
  • A testable extension: apply the same galaxy-targeted ranking to the next NS–BH candidate but add a wide-field camera search of the remaining localization volume; combining the two could set bounds on ejecta mass as a function of viewing angle.
  • The paper's exclusion boundary (Equation 1) could be turned into a quick-look tool: given a measured upper limit, compute the maximum ejecta mass allowed for an assumed opacity and velocity before deciding whether continued follow-up is worthwhile.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a galaxy-targeted optical search for an electromagnetic counterpart to the candidate NS-BH merger S190814bv using Magellan/IMACS. The authors observed 96 GLADE galaxies within the 50% localization volume over two nights (45 galaxies at ~35 hr post-merger and 51 galaxies at ~59-61 hr post-merger), performing image subtraction and visual inspection. They report no counterpart to a median 3-sigma limiting magnitude of i ~ 22.2 (M_i ~ -14.9), and they compare their limits with the GW170817 kilonova template, a grid of red/purple lanthanide-rich kilonova models, and on- and off-axis short GRB afterglow models. They conclude that a GW170817-like kilonova and an on-axis jet are excluded within the ~35% effective probability volume covered, while fainter kilonovae and off-axis jets (theta_obs >~ 15 deg) remain viable. They also recommend that the LVC provide the probability that the lighter binary member is < 2 solar masses.

Significance. The result is valuable as one of the first systematic electromagnetic follow-up searches of a high-confidence NS-BH candidate, and the galaxy-targeted strategy with a quantitative completeness estimate is a methodological strength. The paper is honest about model dependence, and the per-image limiting magnitudes with a 90% range are useful. However, the headline exclusion of a GW170817-like counterpart is stronger than the data support because the second-night observations are less constraining at the far end of the distance range, and the effective coverage itself depends on catalog and luminosity-function assumptions that are not fully quantified.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 and §4] The exclusion of a GW170817-like kilonova is applied to the full ~35% effective volume, but the second-night observations (51 galaxies at 59-61 hr post-merger) rule out that model only at the lower half of the distance range, as the text itself states in §3. The per-galaxy distances in Table 1 and the model light curve imply that for many second-night galaxies at the far end of the 267 +/- 52 Mpc range the model is fainter than the median i ~ 22.2 limit, so a non-detection in those galaxies does not exclude it. The paper should compute the probability-weighted fraction of the localization (or of the targeted galaxies) for which the GW170817-like model is actually excluded, and use that reduced fraction in the abstract and conclusions instead of applying the full-sample ~35% coverage to the exclusion claim.
  2. [§2] The search for candidates was performed by 'visual inspection' of difference images, but no injection/recovery test is described to calibrate the efficiency of this human search. The quoted 3-sigma limiting magnitudes are estimates from sky background and PS1 calibration rather than measured recovery fractions, so the non-detection claim may not fully reflect the true sensitivity to point sources near the limit. Adding an injection test or explicitly labeling the limits as sensitivity estimates rather than completeness limits would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4] The fraction of integrated luminosity covered is quoted as ~70% in the abstract but ~75% in Section 4; please reconcile these numbers. Also, the abstract says 'within the 50% localization volume' while Section 2 says '50% confidence volume'; use consistent wording.
  2. [§2] The completeness calculation relies on the GLADE catalog and the Faber et al. (2007) B-band luminosity function; the authors should explicitly state that these assumptions carry unquantified systematic uncertainty in the effective probability coverage, since the exclusion claims are proportional to that coverage.
  3. [Table 1] In the last row of Table 1, 'Axug' should be 'Aug' (a typo).
  4. [Figure 3] The figure would be clearer if the second-night limiting magnitude range were shown separately for the near and far halves of the distance range, since the text correctly notes that the GW170817-like exclusion is distance-dependent for that epoch.
  5. [§3] The sentence 'We find that the resulting models are not significantly affected by the ejecta mass' is vague; please specify the mass range over which this statement holds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the non-detection is a direct measurement, model comparisons use external templates, and the coverage limitation is explicitly acknowledged.

full rationale

This paper is an observational upper-limit search, and the central claim is a direct measurement rather than a quantity derived from fitted inputs. The statement 'No counterpart was identified to a median 3sigma limiting magnitude of i=22.2' is the result of image subtraction and photometric calibration, not of a model fit to the event. The model comparisons are anchored to independent external inputs: the GW170817 kilonova template from Villar et al. (2017) is tied to observed photometry of that event, and the short-GRB afterglow models come from Fong et al. (2015) run through BOXFIT. No model parameter is adjusted to match the S190814bv non-detection; the observed upper limits are instead compared against fixed model light curves. The completeness estimate uses the GLADE catalog and a B-band luminosity function from Faber et al. (2007), both external to this paper. The self-citations that appear (Hosseinzadeh et al. 2019 for the galaxy-targeting software, Gomez et al. 2019a,b for the GCN data, and Villar et al. 2017 for the GW170817 template) are not load-bearing reductions: they are tools or independent data, not unverified premises used to force the conclusion. The skeptical concern about epoch-dependent sensitivity is a coverage/validity issue rather than circularity: the paper itself states that the second-night observations 'rule out such a kilonova only for the lower half of the distance range,' and it explicitly acknowledges in Section 4 that 'to robustly rule out the presence of an optical counterpart to S190814bv for this range of models requires coverage of the full localization volume to a limiting magnitude of about 25 mag.' That limitation is disclosed and does not make the derivation equivalent to its own inputs. There is no self-definitional step, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The circularity burden is therefore effectively zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is an observational upper limit. The only hand-chosen input is the model grid for the red/purple kilonova exploration, and the external catalog, luminosity function, and model templates are adopted from prior literature rather than fitted to the S190814bv data. This keeps the circularity burden low.

free parameters (1)
  • Red/purple kilonova model parameter grid = Mej = 0.01 to 0.1 Msun; vej = 0 to 1.0c; kappa = 1 to 10 cm2/g
    The 5000-model sample used to draw the ruled-out boundary in Equation 1 is bounded by these hand-selected ranges; models outside the grid are not tested, so the exclusion statement is conditional on this range.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GLADE catalog and its redshift completeness are representative of the galaxy population in the localization volume
    The search completeness and the 35 percent effective probability coverage rely on GLADE containing all galaxies above the stated luminosity limits with accurate redshifts; missing entries would lower the true coverage.
  • domain assumption The B-band galaxy luminosity function parameters from Faber et al. 2007 apply at the distance of S190814bv
    The expected number of galaxies and the integrated luminosity coverage are computed by integrating this luminosity function; if it is not representative, the completeness estimate changes.
  • domain assumption The LVC localization map and distance estimate for S190814bv are correct
    All galaxy targeting and absolute-magnitude comparisons use the LVC distance of 267 plus or minus 52 Mpc and the published sky map; a biased localization would change the volume and probability coverage.
  • domain assumption Kilonova and afterglow models adequately span the possible optical emission of an NS-BH merger
    The exclusions of a GW170817-like kilonova and an on-axis jet are only as strong as the adopted model grid and afterglow templates; unmodeled emission geometries or ejecta properties could evade the limits.
  • domain assumption Visual inspection of difference images detects all transients above the stated limiting magnitude
    The non-detection is based on human review of HOTPANTS subtractions; missed candidates would invalidate the reported upper limits.
  • domain assumption NS-BH mergers are assumed to lack the early blue kilonova component
    Section 3 states that blue emission from the NS-NS collision interface or a magnetar is not expected for NS-BH mergers, so the analysis focuses on red and purple kilonova components; an NS-BH event with a blue component could be brighter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Galaxy-Targeted Search for the Optical Counterpart of the Candidate NS-BH Merger S190814bv with Magellan." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q44VV376

@misc{pith2026190808913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Galaxy-Targeted Search for the Optical Counterpart of the Candidate NS-BH Merger S190814bv with Magellan},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q44VV376}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08913}
}
abstract

On 2019 August 14 the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) and the Virgo gravitational wave interferometer announced the detection of a binary merger, S190814bv, with a low false alarm rate (FAR) of about 1 in $1.6\times 10^{25}$ years, a distance of $267\pm 52$ Mpc, a 90\% (50\%) localization region of about 23 (5) deg$^2$, and a probability of being a neutron star--black hole (NS-BH) merger of $>99\%$. The LIGO/Virgo Collaboration (LVC) defines NS-BH such that the lighter binary member has a mass of $<3$ M$_\odot$ and the more massive one has $>5$ M$_\odot$, and this classification is in principle consistent with a BH-BH merger depending on the actual upper mass cut-off for neutron stars. Additionally, the LVC designated a probability that the merger led to matter outside the final BH remnant of $<1\%$, suggesting that an electromagnetic (EM) counterpart is unlikely. Here we report our optical follow-up observations of S190814bv using the Magellan Baade 6.5 m telescope to target all 96 galaxies in the GLADE catalog within the 50\% localization volume (representing about 70\% of the integrated luminosity within this region). No counterpart was identified to a median $3\sigma$ limiting magnitude of $i=22.2$ ($M_i\approx -14.9$ mag), comparable to the brightness of the optical counterpart of the binary neutron star merger GW170817 at the distance of S190814bv; similarly, we can rule out an on-axis jet typical of short GRBs. However, we cannot rule out other realistic models, such as a kilonova with only $\sim 0.01$ M$_\odot$ of lanthanide-rich material, or an off-axis jet with a viewing angle of $\theta_{\rm obs}\gtrsim 15^\circ$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08913 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Localization region of S190814bv overlaid with the locations of galaxies observed in our Magellan search on 2019 August 16 (red) and 17 (blue). These represent all galaxies present in the GLADE catalog within the 50% localization volume, corresponding to about 50% of all galaxies in this region down to a luminosity of 0.15 L ∗ , and about 75% of the integrated galaxy luminosity within the region. (S190718y). While t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Galaxy imaged with our Magellan search in the field of S190814bv (left), along with the corresponding reference image from PS1 3π (middle); Chambers et al. 2016), and the resulting subtraction (right). The images are 2.5 0 on a side, oriented with north up and east to the left. The difference image exhibits only astrometric noise and cosmic–ray artifacts; no counterpart is identified in this image to a 3σ limit of i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our Magellan search limits compared to several potential optical emission light curve models. The black arrows and lines represent the 90% range for the limiting absolute magnitudes in each night, using the relevant distance of each targeted galaxy. Also shown are the model light curves for the kilonova associated with GW170817 (blue; Villar et al. 2017), a lanthanide￾rich kilonova with an ejecta mass of 0.01 M (red… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Parameter exploration for variations of the red kilonova model shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address adsurl archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type url volume year version label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.s...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " urlcolor=magenta " "doi:" * doi * " https://dx.doi.org/" * doi * "" * if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if...

    work page

  3. [3]

    ur Physik und Astronomie, Universit\

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2016, urlcolor=magenta Living Reviews in Relativity https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/lrr-2016-1, urlcolor=blue 19, 1 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016LRR....19....1A

    doi:10.1007/lrr-2016-1 2016

  5. [5]

    2018, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f, urlcolor=blue 156, 123 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A

    Astropy Collaboration . 2018, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f, urlcolor=blue 156, 123 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    2016, extinction, v0.3.0, Zenodo, urlcolor=magenta doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.804967

    Barbary, K. 2016, extinction, v0.3.0, Zenodo, urlcolor=magenta doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.804967

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 2016

  7. [7]

    Becker , A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF And Template Subtraction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, urlcolor=magenta ascl https://ascl.net/1504.004: urlcolor=blue 1504.004 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ascl.soft04004B

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    2014, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926, urlcolor=blue http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA 43

    Berger , E. 2014, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926, urlcolor=blue http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA 43

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 2014

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, urlcolor=magenta arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05560 : urlcolor=blue 1612.05560 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv161205560C

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2018, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1703, urlcolor=blue 479, 2374 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018 479.2374D

    D\'alya, G., Galg\'oczi, G., Dobos, L., et al. 2018, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1703, urlcolor=blue 479, 2374 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018 479.2374D

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Y., et al

    Doctor , Z., Kessler , R., Chen , H. Y., et al. 2017, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5d09, urlcolor=blue 837, 57 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2017ApJ...837...57D

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Willmer , C

    Faber , S. M., Willmer , C. N. A., Wolf , C., et al. 2007, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/519294, urlcolor=blue 665, 265 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665..265F

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1ab, urlcolor=blue 869, L3 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869L...3F

    Fahlman , S., & Fern \'a ndez , R. 2018, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1ab, urlcolor=blue 869, L3 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869L...3F

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Fong , W., Berger , E., Margutti , R., & Zauderer , B. A. 2015, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102, urlcolor=blue 815, 102 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..102F

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    2019 0pt a , urlcolor=magenta GCN https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/25366.gcn3, urlcolor=blue 25366, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2019GCN.25366....1G

    Gomez, S., Hosseinzadeh, G., Berger, E., et al. 2019 0pt a , urlcolor=magenta GCN https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/25366.gcn3, urlcolor=blue 25366, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2019GCN.25366....1G

    2019

  8. [16]

    2019 0pt b , urlcolor=magenta GCN https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/25382.gcn3, urlcolor=blue 25382, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2019GCN.25382....1G

    Gomez, S., Hosseinzadeh, G., Berger, E., et al. 2019 0pt b , urlcolor=magenta GCN https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/25382.gcn3, urlcolor=blue 25382, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2019GCN.25382....1G

    2019

  9. [17]

    S., Gomez , S., et al

    Hosseinzadeh , G., Cowperthwaite , P. S., Gomez , S., et al. 2019, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab271c, urlcolor=blue 880, L4 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...880L...4H

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, urlcolor=magenta CSE https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55, urlcolor=blue 9, 90 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2007CSE.....9...90H

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    2019 0pt a , urlcolor=magenta GCN https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/25324.gcn3, urlcolor=blue 25324, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019GCN.25324....1L

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration & Virgo Collaboration . 2019 0pt a , urlcolor=magenta GCN https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/25324.gcn3, urlcolor=blue 25324, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019GCN.25324....1L

    2019

  12. [20]

    2019 0pt b , urlcolor=magenta GCN https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/25333.gcn3, urlcolor=blue 25333, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019GCN.25333....1L

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration & Virgo Collaboration . 2019 0pt b , urlcolor=magenta GCN https://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/25333.gcn3, urlcolor=blue 25333, 1 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019GCN.25333....1L

    2019

  13. [21]

    D., & Fern \'a ndez , R

    Metzger , B. D., & Fern \'a ndez , R. 2014, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu802, urlcolor=blue 441, 3444 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.3444M

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Thompson , T

    Metzger , B. D., Thompson , T. A., & Quataert , E. 2018, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab095, urlcolor=blue 856, 101 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..101M

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2017, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029, urlcolor=blue 848, L18 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..18N

    Nicholl , M., Berger , E., Kasen , D., et al. 2017, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029, urlcolor=blue 848, L18 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..18N

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Paschalidis , V., Ruiz , M., & Shapiro , S. L. 2015, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L14, urlcolor=blue 806, L14 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806L..14P

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103, urlcolor=blue 737, 103 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    2019 0pt a , ligo.skymap, urlcolor=magenta https://lscsoft.docs.ligo.org/ligo.skymap/

    Singer, L. 2019 0pt a , ligo.skymap, urlcolor=magenta https://lscsoft.docs.ligo.org/ligo.skymap/

    2019

  19. [27]

    2019 0pt b , PyGCN, urlcolor=magenta https://github.com/lpsinger/pygcn

    Singer, L. 2019 0pt b , PyGCN, urlcolor=magenta https://github.com/lpsinger/pygcn

    2019

  20. [28]

    C., & Varoquaux , G

    van der Walt , S., Colbert , S. C., & Varoquaux , G. 2011, urlcolor=magenta CSE https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2011.37, urlcolor=blue 13, 22 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CSE....13b..22V

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    J., & MacFadyen , A

    van Eerten , H. J., & MacFadyen , A. I. 2011, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L37, urlcolor=blue 733, L37 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...733L..37V

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

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

    Villar , V. A., Guillochon , J., Berger , E., et al. 2017, urlcolor=magenta https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84, urlcolor=blue 851, L21 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..21V

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Lenz, D., et al

    Zonca, A., Singer, L. P., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, urlcolor=magenta JOSS https://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.01298, urlcolor=blue 4, 1298 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2019JOSS....4.1298Z

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded nlinproc natbib The nlinproc class already includes natbib cod...

  25. [33]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  26. [34]

    high opacity

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or ""...

Pith tools

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