Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Teamwork Makes the Dream Work: Optimizing Multi-Telescope Observations of Gravitational-Wave Counterparts

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Coordinated telescope networks can cover substantially more sky than the same telescopes acting independently in gravitational-wave counterpart searches.

desk verdict A simple, open-source extension of gwemopt to multi-telescope scheduling that shows real but conditional gains, with the main caveat being the full-night dedication assumption the authors themselves acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01244 v1 pith:3M3TCKEQ submitted 2019-09-03 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Michael W. Coughlin , Sarah Antier , David Corre , Khalid Alqassimi , Shreya Anand , Nelson Christensen , Ryan J. Foley , Nidhal Guessoum
show 4 more authors
Timothy M. Mikulski Mouza Al Mualla Draco Reed Duo Tao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwaveselectromagneticcounterpartstelescopeschedulingobservationoptimizationmulti-messengerastronomykilonovaskymaptilinggwemopt
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 argues that gravitational-wave counterpart searches should be scheduled as a coordinated network rather than as a set of independent telescopes. It introduces two small modifications to existing single-telescope scheduling: an iterative tiling rule that removes already-covered sky before the next telescope chooses its tiles, and an overlapping rule that forbids different telescopes from imaging the same field within a set time window. Tested on the neutron-star merger alert S190425z and the black-hole–neutron-star alert S190426c, these rules raise the covered sky area and the cumulative probability of finding the counterpart over what the same telescopes would achieve alone. This matters because most gravitational-wave alerts have huge, patchy sky localizations, and the growing number of follow-up telescopes makes network-level coordination a practical lever for finding kilonovae.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gravitational-wave sky localization map, whose pixels carry the probability that the source lies there. The load-bearing mechanism is the 'iterative' tiling algorithm: after each telescope's schedule is fixed, every pixel covered by that schedule is set to zero in the map, so the next telescope automatically targets the highest-probability sky that remains uncovered. A second mechanism, 'overlapping' scheduling, treats the time since a field was last observed as a scheduling constraint—like airmass or moon distance—so a different telescope will not revisit the same field within a user-chosen delay (one hour in the examples). Together they turn a network of independent telescopes into a single deconflicted instrument, and the paper implements them in the open-source scheduling code gwemopt.

What would settle it

Run both the independent and iterative schedulers on a set of real O3 alerts while capping each telescope's available time at, say, 50% of the night and letting the first telescope be chosen per alert rather than fixed; if the iterative method no longer beats independent scheduling in cumulative probability and area, the paper's central claim would fail under realistic operating conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, extending two proven single-telescope scheduling techniques to a telescope network yields substantially better electromagnetic follow-up of gravitational-wave alerts. In the iterative method, the first telescope tiles the skymap normally; its covered pixels are then set to zero in the skymap, and the next telescope tiles the remaining probability, and so on. In the overlapping method, a minimum time delay is imposed between different telescopes' observations of the same field, so duplicate coverage is spread out in time rather than wasted. Applied to the real alert S190425z, iterative scheduling increased the GRANDMA network's covered area from 660 to 1060 square degrees and raised the Pan-STARRS/ATLAS cumulative probability from 0.51 to 0.55; applied to S190426c with galaxy targeting, it raised the number of galaxies imaged by eleven GRANDMA telescopes from 1303 to 1929 and the cumulative metric from 85% to 99%.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that each telescope in the network can be fully dedicated to the gravitational-wave follow-up for the entire night; if real telescopes keep most of their scheduled science and take part in only a fraction of alerts, the demonstrated coverage gains would shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any telescope network that adopts iterative tiling can expect its combined coverage and cumulative probability to at least match, and generally exceed, the sum of independently scheduled observations, with the largest gains when field-of-view sizes and site locations differ.
  • Galaxy-targeted follow-up, not just wide-field tiling, benefits the same way: decrementing the weights of already-scheduled galaxies lets a network of small-aperture telescopes image roughly 50% more galaxies inside the 90% credible contour.
  • Because the overlapping rule spreads duplicate observations across time, a network can use multiple telescopes to measure kilonova color evolution and reject asteroids without sacrificing coverage of high-probability fields.
  • The open-source implementation means these coordinated strategies can be adopted by any follow-up team that already uses gwemopt, with no new telescope infrastructure required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gains hold across the full O3/O4 alert population, the biggest payoff may come from networks of small telescopes: the iterative method disproportionately increases the contribution of the smallest-field-of-view members by assigning them yet-unexplored sky.
  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit is jointly optimizing the telescope ordering instead of taking 'best first'; the gains could be larger still if the order is chosen per event from alert properties such as localization area and site weather.
  • The golden-tile idea suggests a testable hybrid: reserving the inner 50% probability region for redundant, multi-filter follow-up while iteratively covering the outer region would trade a little raw coverage for robustness against weather, a trade-off that could be measured on historical alerts.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents two extensions to the gwemopt scheduling code for coordinating electromagnetic follow-up of gravitational-wave localizations across networks of telescopes. The iterative method sequentially tiles a skymap, decrementing the probability in already-scheduled tiles so that later telescopes avoid regions already covered; the overlapping method imposes a minimum time delay between observations of the same sky field by different telescopes. The iterative method is demonstrated on the event S190425z using three networks (GROWTH, Pan-STARRS/ATLAS, and GRANDMA) and on S190426c using a GRANDMA galaxy-targeted schedule. The paper reports increases in cumulative sky area and integrated probability for the synoptic case, and in the number of galaxies and integrated metric for the galaxy-targeted case, and concludes that network-level coordinated scheduling can yield substantial gains.

Significance. The algorithms are clearly described and implemented in the open-source gwemopt software, which is a concrete contribution for the gravitational-wave follow-up community. The comparisons are fair in the limited sense that the original and iterative runs use the same skymaps and telescope models. If the quantified gains survive more realistic operational constraints, this is a useful first step toward network-level optimization. The evidence base is narrow, however: two gravitational-wave events, deterministic single runs, no uncertainty estimates, and an acknowledged assumption of full-night telescope dedication. Despite these limitations, the paper is a reasonable proof-of-concept for a simple coordination scheme, and the code release makes the results reproducible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (Conclusion)] The quantitative headline results depend on the assumption, stated in Section 4, that 'taking complete control of each of these systems for the night following the event is appropriate.' This assumption is load-bearing for the reported gains, such as the GRANDMA area increase from 660 to 1060 square degrees and the Pan-STARRS/ATLAS integrated probability increase from 0.51 to 0.55. The authors acknowledge the limitation but do not test how the iterative advantage degrades when telescopes have limited target-of-opportunity time. A simple experiment that caps each telescope's total available observing time (or number of tiles) would establish whether the gains survive realistic scheduling constraints and would materially strengthen the central claim.
  2. [Section 2 (Figures 3-5)] The improvements are reported as single deterministic realizations without uncertainties, repeated trials, or exploration of the telescope-ordering choice. The text notes that the first telescope 'should likely be the best telescope' and that ordering can depend on several event- and network-specific factors, but no alternative orderings are tested. The reader therefore cannot assess the robustness of claims such as the GRANDMA area improvement or the galaxy-targeted improvement from 1303 to 1929 galaxies. A sensitivity test over telescope orderings, or at least a statement of the variation in the metrics, is needed before the gains can be regarded as more than anecdotal.
  3. [Section 2 (galaxy-targeting paragraph and Figure 5 caption)] The galaxy-targeting demonstration relies on an 'integrated metric' whose improvement from 85% to 99% is quoted as a primary result, but the metric is never defined in the text. The description says only that galaxy weights include a proxy for location within the localization and galaxy mass or star-formation rate, with possible sensitivity-based corrections. Without the actual weighting formula or a precise reference to the implementation in gwemopt, the 85% to 99% claim is not quantitatively assessable, and the claim that the total number of galaxies imaged improves from 1303 to 1929 cannot be evaluated independently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 (galaxy-targeting paragraph)] There is a typo in the sentence 'we use use this method to schedule eleven telescopes' — 'use' is repeated.
  2. [Section 3 (overlapping algorithm)] The one-hour minimum time delay is introduced as an example, but the dependence of the resulting schedules on this user-chosen free parameter is not explored; a sentence on why one hour is sufficient for the stated asteroid/differentiation goal would help.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption reads 'On the left is the original algorithm where the telescopes are scheduled separately, and on the right, where they are scheduled iteratively.' The 'where' after 'the right' is grammatically awkward and should be rephrased, for example, 'on the right, the iterative algorithm is used.'
  4. [References] Several entries are cited as 'Coughlin et al. 2019' with different arXiv numbers; these should be disambiguated with letters (e.g., 2019a, 2019b, 2019c) in both the text and the reference list to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Area gain is partly by construction, but probability and galaxy metrics are data-dependent; no significant circularity.

  1. other [Section 2 (iterative algorithm definition), Figures 3-4]
    "After the first telescope is scheduled, the gravitational-wave skymap is decremented with all of the pixels covered by the first telescope’s observations set to zero. Following that, the tiling for the second telescope is computed with this modified map, and the process continues. At the end, this yields a map covered by tiles in the telescope network with minimal overlap. ... As expected, the iterative method covers both more S190425z sky localization and larger cumulative probability than independent scheduling of the individual telescopes."

    The sky-area component of the reported improvement is a direct logical consequence of the algorithm's definition: scheduling later telescopes on a decremented skymap enforces non-overlap, so the network's unique covered area in the iterative case is the sum of the individual telescope areas with zero overlap, whereas the original independent schedule's unique area must subtract any overlap. For the same telescopes and tile counts, the iterative union area therefore cannot be smaller, making 'more sky localization' a property of the construction rather than an empirical discovery.

full rationale

The paper is a proof-of-concept demonstration on real events (S190425z and S190426c) using the open-source gwemopt code, with no free parameters fitted to the reported outcomes. The one notable by-construction element is the sky-area gain: the iterative method is defined to decrement the skymap and thereby eliminate tile overlap, so reporting increased unique area is partly tautological. However, the cumulative-probability gain (e.g., 0.51 to 0.55 for Pan-STARRS/ATLAS) and the galaxy-targeting gains (1303 to 1929 galaxies; 85% to 99% metric) are not guaranteed by the algorithm definition and are measured from actual skymaps and telescope constraints. Self-citations to prior gwemopt work are not load-bearing because the code is independently checkable and the target results are not fitted to its outputs. The paper also explicitly discloses its main practical assumption—full-night dedication of each telescope—in Section 4, which limits the real-world strength of the claim but does not make the derivation circular. Overall, circularity is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its results depend on the skymap probability metric, the scheduling model, and the availability of telescopes, not on any fitted physical constant.

free parameters (3)
  • Time delay for overlapping observations = 1 hour
    Hand-chosen in Section 3 as more than sufficient to reject asteroids; affects the overlapping algorithm's behavior.
  • Golden tiles inner percentage
    User-defined in Section 2; controls which high-probability region is not decremented. Not demonstrated in the examples.
  • Telescope ordering = first = 'best' or most observable
    The iterative algorithm's results depend on which telescope is scheduled first; the paper suggests etendue or observable probability.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The integrated spatial probability in the skymap is the correct tiling objective.
    Used in Equation 1 and throughout Section 2 to rank tiles.
  • domain assumption Decrementing covered probability to zero is a valid way to prevent double counting across telescopes.
    Core of the iterative algorithm in Section 2; assumes overlapping coverage is pure waste.
  • domain assumption The scheduling model (visibility, airmass, moon constraints) accurately represents real telescope behavior.
    Required for the reported coverage numbers in Figures 3-6.
  • domain assumption Telescopes can be dedicated to the follow-up for the entire night.
    Stated as a limitation in Section 4; in practice target-of-opportunity time is limited.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teamwork Makes the Dream Work: Optimizing Multi-Telescope Observations of Gravitational-Wave Counterparts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3M3TCKEQ

@misc{pith2026190901244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teamwork Makes the Dream Work: Optimizing Multi-Telescope Observations of Gravitational-Wave Counterparts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3M3TCKEQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01244}
}
read the original abstract

The ever-increasing sensitivity of the network of gravitational-wave detectors has resulted in the accelerated rate of detections from compact binary coalescence systems in the third observing run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo. Not only has the event rate increased, but also the distances to which phenomena can be detected, leading to a rise in the required sky volume coverage to search for counterparts. Additionally, the improvement of the detectors has resulted in the discovery of more compact binary mergers involving neutron stars, revitalizing dedicated follow-up campaigns. While significant effort has been made by the community to optimize single telescope observations, using both synoptic and galaxy-targeting methods, less effort has been paid to coordinated observations in a network. This is becoming crucial, as the advent of gravitational-wave astronomy has garnered interest around the globe, resulting in abundant networks of telescopes available to search for counterparts. In this paper, we extend some of the techniques developed for single telescopes to a telescope network. We describe simple modifications to these algorithms and demonstrate them on existing network examples. These algorithms are implemented in the open-source software \texttt{gwemopt}, used by some follow-up teams, for ease of use by the broader community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01244 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of gravitational-wave electromagnetic counterpart follow-up strategy. and the likely formation of heavy elements (Just et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2016; Kilpatrick et al. 2017; Roberts et al. 2017; Abbott et al. 2017c; Rosswog et al. 2017; Kasliwal et al. 2019). The detection of the optical counterpart AT2017gfo (Coulter et al. 2017) at a distance of 40 Mpc was helped by a three-detector gravitational-wave dete… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of the “iterative” algorithm presented in the text. of sky location (for explanation see the LIGO-Virgo user guide4 ). The integrated probability in a tile is computed as a double integral over right ascension and declination Tij = Z αi+∆α αi Z δi+∆δ δi LGW(α, δ)dΩ. (1) In general, a fiducial target integrated probability, usu￾ally around 90%, is used to determine the number of tiles to consider for imagin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optimized coverage of S190425z. The top row shows the optimization for the “GROWTH” network, which includes ZTF, DECam, and GROWTH-India tiles. The left shows the tiles drawn using the original scheduling algorithm, while the right is the same for the iterative method discussed in the text. The middle row shows the same for the Pan-STARRS and ATLAS pair. The bottom row shows the same for some telescopes of the “GRAN… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimization comparison for the GROWTH, Pan-STARRS and ATLAS, and GRANDMA networks. The dashed lines indicate the sky area covered, while the solid line indicates the integrated probability covered of the 2D skymap. The black lines correspond to the original scheduling…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optimized coverage of S190426c using the GRANDMA “galaxy targeting” Network. On the left is the original algorithm where the telescopes are scheduled separately, and on the right, where they are scheduled iteratively. The total cumulative metric covered improves from 8…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative histogram of the difference between telescope observations of the same patch of the sky for S190425z. We plot the original algorithm in solid and over￾lapping algorithm in dashed. The inset shows the original histogram. The reader should note the lack of obs…

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. Binary neutron stars in the next-generation era: Multi-messenger detection prospects and constraints on the equation of state, mass distribution, and cosmology

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    With ET (and ET+CE), mock multi-messenger BNS catalogues yield ~40–500 EM counterparts per year and, under ideal recovery, constrain R1.4 to ~0.2 km and H0 to ~1 km s−1 Mpc−1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

  3. [3]

    [l g_o6l; v !ٚdF] Y'!ۢh [z̖ڎ>eQ7yp b XP1 c,kXE)a u5#_7ۺK [PoƸIFu; N͋( u G[ 78E#zܖ lۤ #W xOڑ YgazCv2 ku^>A w['];/f rR+ۨ gek r VLVHvyW

    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...

    work page arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001

    Aasi et al . 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001

    2015

  5. [5]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, , 551, 85

    2017

  6. [6]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2018, arXiv:1811.12907

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    2019, Phys

    ---. 2019, Phys. Rev., X9, 011001

    2019

  8. [8]

    2017 a , Phys

    Abbott et al. 2017 a , Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    2017 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L13

    ---. 2017 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L13. http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/848/i=2/a=L13

    2017

  2. [10]

    2017 c , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L39

    ---. 2017 c , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L39. http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/850/i=2/a=L39

    2017

  3. [11]

    2018, Living Reviews in Relativity, 21, 3

    ---. 2018, Living Reviews in Relativity, 21, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001

    Acernese et al . 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001

    2015

  5. [13]

    D., Berger , E., Fong , W., et al

    Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., Fong , W., et al. 2017, , 848, L21

    2017

  6. [14]

    A., Anand, S., et al

    Andreoni, I., Goldstein, D. A., Anand, S., et al. 2019 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 881, L16. https://doi.org/10.3847

    2019

  7. [15]

    2019 b , Publ

    Andreoni, I., et al. 2019 b , Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 131, 068004

    2019

  8. [16]

    Antier , S., S., A., V., A., B., B., et al. 2019,

    2019

  9. [17]

    2018, Astrophys

    Arcavi, I. 2018, Astrophys. J., 855, L23

    2018

  10. [18]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L33

    Arcavi, I., McCully, C., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L33. http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/848/i=2/a=L33

    2017

  11. [19]

    W., Dietrich, T., et al

    Ascenzi, S., Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 672. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz891

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    W., & Janka, H.-T

    Bauswein, A., Baumgarte, T. W., & Janka, H.-T. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 131101. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.131101

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L34

    Bauswein et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L34. http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/850/i=2/a=L34

    2017

  14. [22]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018002. https://doi.org/10.1088

    2018

  15. [23]

    2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24227

    Blazek, M., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24227

    2019

  16. [24]

    2019 a , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    Chatterjee et al. 2019 a , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 24141, \#1 (2019/April-0), 24141

    2019

  17. [25]

    2019 b , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    ---. 2019 b , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 24237, \#1 (2019/April-0), 24237

    2019

  18. [26]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L19

    Chornock et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L19. http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/848/i=2/a=L19

    2017

  19. [27]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, L6

    Connaughton, V., Burns, E., Goldstein, A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, L6. https://doi.org/10.3847

    2016

  20. [28]

    O., Kasliwal , M

    Cook , D. O., Kasliwal , M. M., Van Sistine , A., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.05016

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    O., et al

    Cook, D. O., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24232

    2019

  22. [30]

    2016, Experimental Astronomy, 1

    Coughlin, M., & Stubbs, C. 2016, Experimental Astronomy, 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10686-016-9503-4

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

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

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

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

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

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    W., Dietrich, T., Doctor, Z., et al

    Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Doctor, Z., et al. 2018 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 3871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2174

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Tao, D., Chan, M

    Coughlin, M. W., Tao, D., Chan, M. L., et al. 2018 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1066

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Ahumada , T., Anand , S., et al

    Coughlin , M. W., Ahumada , T., Anand , S., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.12645

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    W., Dekany, R

    Coughlin, M. W., Dekany, R. G., Duev, D. A., et al. 2019 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 1412. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz497

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    W., Ahumada, T., Cenko, S

    Coughlin, M. W., Ahumada, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2019 b , Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 048001

    2019

  30. [38]

    A., Foley , R

    Coulter , D. A., Foley , R. J., Kilpatrick , C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556

    2017

  31. [39]

    S., Berger , E., Villar , V

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

    2017

  32. [40]

    2018, , 479, 2374

    D \'a lya , G., Galg \'o czi , G., Dobos , L., et al. 2018, , 479, 2374

    2018

  33. [41]

    M., Kasliwal , M

    De , K., Adams , S. M., Kasliwal , M. M., et al. 2019, GCN, 24187

    2019

  34. [42]

    2019, Submitted to PASP

    Dekany, Smith, et al. 2019, Submitted to PASP

    2019

  35. [43]

    R., Piro , A

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

    2017

  36. [44]

    A., Cenko , S

    Evans , P. A., Cenko , S. B., Kennea , J. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1565

    2017

  37. [45]

    T., Honscheid , K., et al

    Flaugher , B., Diehl , H. T., Honscheid , K., et al. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 150

    2015

  38. [46]

    L., Brady, P

    Ghosh, S., Chatterjee, D., Kaplan, D. L., Brady, P. R., & Sistine, A. V. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 114503. https://doi.org/10.1088

    2017

  39. [47]

    2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    Ghosh et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 24377, \#1 (2019/May-0), 24377

    2019

  40. [48]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L14

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L14

    2017

  41. [49]

    A., et al

    Goldstein, D. A., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.06980

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 078001

    2019

  43. [51]

    2018, Astron

    Guessoum, N., Zitouni, H., & Mochkovitch, R. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 620, A131

    2018

  44. [52]

    J., et al

    Haggard , D., Nynka , M., Ruan , J. J., et al. 2017, , 848, L25

    2017

  45. [53]

    P., et al

    Hallinan , G., Corsi , A., Mooley , K. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1579

    2017

  46. [54]

    2018, arXiv:1806.10596

    Hotokezaka, K., Nakar, E., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018, arXiv:1806.10596

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A., Allsman, R., Andrew, J., & Angel, R

    Ivezic, Z., Tyson, J. A., Allsman, R., Andrew, J., & Angel, R. 2008, arXiv:0805.2366

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    A., Goriely, S., & Janka, H.-T

    Just, O., Bauswein, A., Pulpillo, R. A., Goriely, S., & Janka, H.-T. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 541. + http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv009

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    2010, in SPIE Proceedings, Vol

    Kaiser , N., Burgett , W., Chambers , K., et al. 2010, in SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 7733, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes III, 77330E

    2010

  50. [58]

    M., Kasen, D., Lau, R

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kasen, D., Lau, R. M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, http://oup.prod.sis.lan/mnrasl/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/mnrasl/slz007/27503647/slz007.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnrasl/slz007

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2017, Science, 358, 1559

    Kasliwal et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6370/1559

    2017

  52. [60]

    2019, GCN, 24191

    ---. 2019, GCN, 24191

    2019

  53. [61]

    2017, Science, 358, 1583

    Kilpatrick et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1583. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6370/1583

    2017

  54. [62]

    2008, , 120, 1298

    Klotz , A., Bo \"e r , M., Eysseric , J., et al. 2008, , 120, 1298

    2008

  55. [63]

    2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 349171

    Lipunov , V., Kornilov , V., Gorbovskoy , E., et al. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 349171

    2010

  56. [64]

    D., Lamb, G

    Lyman, J. D., Lamb, G. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 751. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0511-3

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2017, , 848, L20

    Margutti , R., Berger , E., Fong , W., et al. 2017, , 848, L20

    2017

  58. [66]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018003

    2018

  59. [67]

    A., et al

    McCully , C., Hiramatsu , D., Howell , D. A., et al. 2017, , 848, L32

    2017

  60. [68]

    Metzger, B. D. 2017, Living Rev. Rel., 20, 3

    2017

  61. [69]

    P., Deller , A

    Mooley , K. P., Deller , A. T., Gottlieb , O., et al. 2018, , 561, 355

    2018

  62. [70]

    M., & Kasliwal , M

    Moore , A. M., & Kasliwal , M. M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 109

    2019

  63. [71]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L18

    Nicholl et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L18. http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/848/i=2/a=L18

    2017

  64. [72]

    2018, in COSPAR Meeting, Vol

    O'Brien , P. 2018, in COSPAR Meeting, Vol. 42, 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, E1.15--18--18

    2018

  65. [73]

    2017, , 551, 67

    Pian , E., D'Avanzo , P., Benetti , S., et al. 2017, , 551, 67

    2017

  66. [74]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 852, L29

    Radice, D., Perego, A., Zappa, F., & Bernuzzi, S. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 852, L29. http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/852/i=2/a=L29

    2018

  67. [75]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 104

    Rana, J., Anand, S., & Bose, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 104. https://doi.org/10.3847

    2019

  68. [76]

    F., Lippuner, J., Duez, M

    Roberts, L. F., Lippuner, J., Duez, M. D., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 3907. + http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2622

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    2017, Class

    Rosswog, S., Feindt, U., Korobkin, O., et al. 2017, Class. Quant. Grav., 34, 104001

    2017

  70. [78]

    J., Prieto , J

    Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., Grupe , D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 48

    2014

  71. [79]

    J., Simon , J

    Shappee , B. J., Simon , J. D., Drout , M. R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1574

    2017

  72. [80]

    2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    Shawhan et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 24098, \#1 (2019/April-0), 24098

    2019

  73. [81]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Phys. Rev., D93, 024013

    2016

  74. [82]

    P., Price, L

    Singer, L. P., Price, L. R., Farr, B., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 795, 105

    2014

  75. [83]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 776, L34

    Singer et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 776, L34. http://stacks.iop.org/2041-8205/776/i=2/a=L34

    2013

  76. [84]

    2019 a , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    ---. 2019 a , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 24069, \#1 (2019/April-0), 24069

    2019

  77. [85]

    2019 b , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    ---. 2019 b , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 24168, \#1 (2019/April-0), 24168

    2019

  78. [86]

    2019 c , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No

    ---. 2019 c , GRB Coordinates Network, Circular Service, No. 24228, \#1 (2019/May-0), 24228

    2019

  79. [87]

    2017, Nature, 551, 75 EP

    Smartt et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 75 EP . http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature24303

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 064505. http://stacks.iop.org/1538-3873/130/i=988/a=064505

    2018

  81. [89]

    2017, , 551, 71

    Troja , E., Piro , L., van Eerten , H., et al. 2017, , 551, 71

    2017

  82. [90]

    2017, , 69, 101

    Utsumi , Y., Tanaka , M., Tominaga , N., et al. 2017, , 69, 101

    2017

  83. [91]

    2015, Phys

    Veitch, J., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev., D91, 042003

    2015

  84. [92]

    2019, arXiv:1905.08755

    Veres, P., dal Canton, T., Burns, E., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.08755

    2019 arXiv

  85. [93]

    2019, GCN, 24316

    Waratkar , G., Kumar , H., Bhalerao , V., et al. 2019, GCN, 24316

    2019

  86. [94]

    Wu, M.-R., Fern \'a ndez, R., Mart??nez-Pinedo, G., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 463, 2323. + http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2156

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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