Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

The Fastest Path to Discovering the Second Electromagnetic Counterpart to a Gravitational Wave Event

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Continuing O4 finds the next kilonova before a two-year shutdown, in 88% of simulations.

desk verdict Useful, transparent simulation of a real scheduling decision, but the headline 88% conditions on the wrong counterfactual; the paper's own conditional 65% is the number to quote. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09002 v1 pith:UWBQAYBU submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.HE

Ved G. Shah , Ryan J. Foley , Gautham Narayan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords multi-messengerastronomykilonovagravitational-waveelectromagneticcounterpartsbinaryneutronstarmergersobservingrunschedulingLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAMonteCarlosimulationtransientdiscovery
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 asks which observing strategy will discover the second electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational wave event sooner: extending the current LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA run (O4) at its present sensitivity, or shutting down for roughly two years to install upgrades and then starting O5. The authors simulate binary neutron star mergers and their kilonova emission, applying both detector configurations to the same simulated events, and find that extending O4 wins in 88% of trials. A shutdown shorter than about four months would make O5 the better bet, but past shutdowns have tended to run longer than planned. The result matters because a gap of more than a decade between the first and second electromagnetic counterparts would put multi-messenger science and its trained workforce at risk.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a Monte Carlo simulation pipeline that generates a population of binary neutron star mergers, computes their gravitational-wave and kilonova signals, and then passes the identical event set through two detector configurations: O4 sensitivities and duty cycles and projected O5 ones. Kilonova brightness is interpolated from a published grid of spectral energy distribution models; gravitational-wave detectability requires a coincidence of at least two instruments with SNR above 8, and electromagnetic discoverability requires a DECam r-band peak magnitude brighter than 23. Detector uptime correlations, sampled merger rates, and binary properties (masses, ejecta masses, viewing angle, lanthanide richness, extinction, distance) all enter as distributions. Because the same events are used for both runs in a given trial, any difference in discovery time is attributed purely to detector sensitivity and duty cycle.

What would settle it

The decisive test is the actual date of the second electromagnetic counterpart discovery: if the LVK takes the planned two-year shutdown and that counterpart is discovered soon after O5 begins, the 88% claim is refuted for that realization. A less direct test is the BNS merger rate: if no candidate with two-instrument SNR above 8 appears in the remaining O4 months, high-rate trials are excluded and the comparison shifts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the fastest path to the second electromagnetic counterpart is to keep the current detectors observing rather than pause for upgrades. With 1000 Monte Carlo trials, the median time to the first discoverable kilonova is 255 days from the start of O4 and 95 days from the start of O5, a 125-day advantage for O5 measured from each run's start. But because O5 begins only after a planned two-year shutdown, continuing O4 produces a kilonova discovery sooner in 88% of trials. The break-even shutdown duration is 125 days: a shutdown shorter than that favors O5, while any longer shutdown favors staying in O4. The first kilonovas found in O5 would on average be fainter (median r-band peak 21.6 mag versus 20.6) and farther (213 Mpc versus 126 Mpc), so the additional O5 events would be harder to follow up.

Load-bearing premise

Every kilonova that meets the paper's thresholds (two gravitational-wave instruments with signal-to-noise above 8 and peak r-band brightness below 23 magnitudes) is actually detected by the electromagnetic follow-up community, with no losses from weather, latency, sky coverage, or limited telescope resources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the LVK shuts down for the planned two years and no counterpart is found in the meantime, there will be more than a decade between the first and second electromagnetic counterparts.
  • For shutdown lengths of 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, continued O4 wins with 74%, 88%, 94%, and 97% probability, so longer shutdowns strongly favor the no-stop strategy.
  • Any shutdown shorter than about four months (125 days) would, on average, make O5 the faster route to discovery.
  • The first kilonovae found in O5 will be intrinsically fainter and more distant than those in O4, making them harder to discover and to observe in detail.
  • If the O5 sensitivity targets are not met, the projected O5 discovery time of 95 days would lengthen, further favoring O4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper assumes every 'discoverable' kilonova is actually detected; if real electromagnetic follow-up loses a fraction of events to weather, latency, or limited telescope time, the absolute discovery times would be longer, and since O5 events are fainter and farther, O4's relative advantage would likely grow.
  • A natural extension is a live, updating version of the simulation that absorbs real-time detector duty cycles and the growing absence of BNS detections in O4 to re-compute the probability of a second counterpart before shutdown.
  • The same simulation machinery could be pointed at the question of whether a single-detector trigger with a wide localization, or a three-detector network, changes the optimal follow-up strategy.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses Monte Carlo simulations built on the framework of Shah et al. (2024) to compare two strategies for discovering the next electromagnetic counterpart to a binary neutron star gravitational-wave event: continuing the current LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4 run at current sensitivity versus shutting down for two years and beginning O5 with planned upgraded sensitivity. For each trial, the authors sample a BNS merger rate from an LVK-informed prior, generate a set of mergers in a 910 Mpc cube over five years, and apply the O4 and O5 detector configurations to the same merger realization. A kilonova is counted as discoverable if it is coincident with a two-instrument GW detection with SNR > 8 and has DECam r-band peak magnitude < 23. The paper reports a median time to first discoverable kilonova of D_O4 = 255+301-145 days and D_O5 = 95+102-55 days, a median difference of ΔDKN = 125+253-125 days, and a headline claim that 88% of simulations favor continuing O4 over a two-year shutdown. The authors also present a conditional estimate: among trials with no O4 detection in the first 440 days, 65% have ΔDKN < 2 years. They recommend extending O4 for as long as feasible.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a quantitative, directly decision-relevant argument for LVK scheduling. Its strengths are the systematic Monte Carlo design, the use of documented external inputs for rates, detector PSDs and duty cycles, kilonova models, and the explicit statement of the main limitations. The matched-pair design—applying both O4 and O5 configurations to the same merger realization—is an appropriate counterfactual comparison, because the merger history is exogenous to detector choice; I do not regard that design as circular. However, the headline 88% probability is not the decision-relevant quantity, because the decision is being made after ~440 days of O4 have elapsed without a discoverable kilonova. The paper's own conditionally estimated 65% is the statistic that should be featured, and even that number is conservative in the direction of the O5 arm if the already-elapsed O4 time is credited. The qualitative recommendation to extend O4 is reasonably robust to the perfect-detection assumption, since O5 kilonovae are fainter and more distant and thus likely harder to detect in practice, which would further favor O4 in the relative comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract's claim that 'for 88% of our simulations, continuing O4 results in earlier KN discovery when compared to the expected two-year shutdown' is the unconditional, prior-averaged result. It does not condition on the fact that O4 has already run for roughly 440 days with no discoverable kilonova. The paper itself notes in Section 4 that conditioning on non-detection reduces the probability to 65% ('Of these trials, 35% have ΔDKN > 2 years... 65% likelihood'). Since the actual decision is being made now, the 65% conditional number is the policy-relevant statistic, and the abstract and conclusions should present it as the primary result, with the 88% clearly qualified as the from-the-start-of-O4 comparison. Presenting the unconditional number as the headline overstates the strength of the evidence for the recommendation.
  2. [Sections 3 and 4] The temporal setup of the two arms needs to be specified precisely. The text says the same set of events is used for O4 and O5, but it is not stated whether D_O4 and D_O5 are measured from a common t=0 or from each run's own start. The 88% calculation implicitly requires a statement such as P(D_O4 < 730 + D_O5), while a from-now comparison should instead use P(D_O4 - 440 < 730 + D_O5). These are different conditions. In addition, the imputation for no-detection trials is described only for O4 (D_O4 = 1825 days in Section 4); the paper does not state how O5 trials with no event after the O5 start are handled in the ΔDKN distribution. This affects the tails of the probability estimates and should be documented.
  3. [Section 3.1] The assumption 'we assume every discoverable KN is detected' is optimistic about EM follow-up efficiency. The authors acknowledge this and further note that O5 kilonovae are fainter (median rpeak 21.6 versus 20.6 in Figure 9) and more distant (213 Mpc versus 126 Mpc in Figure 10). Because real detection efficiency is likely lower for fainter and more distant events, this assumption probably biases the comparison in favor of O5, making the paper's conclusion conservative. However, the absolute discovery times and the magnitude of the reported probabilities are overestimates. The paper should state this directional bias explicitly and, ideally, add a simple sensitivity test with a brightness- or distance-dependent detection efficiency to demonstrate that the qualitative recommendation is unchanged.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'excercise' in Section 1, 'the the same set' in Section 4, 'agencies agencies' in Section 6, and 'T able' in table captions.
  2. [Table 3] The parameter labeled 'Ra' should be 'R', and the footnote marker should be placed consistently.
  3. [Figure 3] The x-axis label 'GPc' should be 'Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}'.
  4. [Figures 5 and 8] The y-axis of Figure 5 and the x-axis of Figure 8 appear to be labeled 'DKN (Days)' rather than 'ΔDKN (Days)'; the Delta symbol is missing.
  5. [Equation (1)] The units in Eq. (1) should be made explicit: R is in Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}, so the numerical factor (910 Mpc)^3 must be converted to Gpc^3; the current presentation is potentially confusing.
  6. [Section 2] The expression 'O(106)' should read 'O(10^6)'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Monte Carlo output is driven by external inputs, and the matched-pair comparison is a stated design choice rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a Monte Carlo simulation comparing the time to first discoverable kilonova under continued O4 operation versus a two-year shutdown followed by O5. The inputs — the LVK BNS merger rate distribution, Bulla (2019) SED grid, Setzer et al. (2023) ejecta masses, Galaudage et al. (2021) mass distribution, Kessler et al. (2009) extinction, and the O4/O5 detector PSDs and duty cycles — are external references, not quantities fitted to the target conclusion. The output statistics (D_O4_KN, D_O5_KN, and ΔD_KN) are computed quantities, not re-displayed inputs. The matched-pair design, in which the same Poisson realization of BNS mergers is run through both detector configurations, is an explicitly stated variance-reduction choice: the paper says 'the set of coalescing BNS systems considered for the O4 and O5 configuration for a given trial, are identical.' That makes the two arms correlated, but it does not make the comparison an identity, and the paper separately reports the conditional result for trials with no O4 detection by day 440 (65% probability that continuing O4 beats a two-year shutdown). The self-citation to Shah et al. (2024) supplies the open-source simulation framework and some population inputs, but the scheduling question posed here is new, and the framework's components are externally sourced and externally falsifiable; no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or to an ansatz imported solely from the authors' prior work. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no external benchmark is replaced by a definitional equivalence. The result is therefore self-contained as a Monte Carlo forecasting exercise, with the acknowledged caveats (e.g., assuming every discoverable kilonova is detected) being assumptions rather than circularities.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on a chain of externally sourced population models and detector projections; the paper contributes no new physical model. The ledger records the prior literature inputs and the paper's own simplification choices, especially the detection-efficiency assumption and the imputation convention.

free parameters (4)
  • BNS merger rate R = Log-normal prior with median 210 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 (P5=99, P95=450)
    Sampled from the LVK user guide distribution. The absolute and relative discovery times depend strongly on R, and the paper notes that rates above about 450 are disfavored by the O4 non-detection.
  • EM detection threshold rpeak < 23 mag = 23 mag in DECam r-band
    Chosen as a typical DECam depth. The set of events counted as discoverable, and therefore the time to first discovery, depends directly on this cutoff.
  • GW detection criterion = Coincident SNR > 8 in at least two instruments
    Chosen to ensure well-localized events. This criterion determines which simulated mergers enter the EM discovery sample.
  • Imputation for no-detection O4 trials = 1825 days (5 years)
    Trials with no O4 kilonova are assigned D_O4_KN = 1825 days when computing DeltaDKN. This convention affects the tail of the distribution and the reported percentages.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Bulla 2019 kilonova SED grid and the interpolation scheme in Shah et al. 2024 accurately represent the electromagnetic emission of BNS mergers.
    The entire detectability calculation rests on the fidelity of these models, as described in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The ejecta mass distributions (Setzer et al. 2023) and neutron star mass distribution (Galaudage et al. 2021) describe the true BNS population.
    These are the sampled population parameters listed in Table 3 and are central to both the gravitational wave and kilonova signals.
  • domain assumption Every kilonova meeting the discovered criteria is actually detected by the EM follow-up community.
    Stated in Section 3.1. This ignores latency, sky coverage, weather, and resource competition, and can only shorten true discovery times.
  • domain assumption BNS mergers are uniformly distributed in time over the five-year simulation window.
    Used in Equation 1 and Section 3 to compute the number of events and the time-to-first-detection statistics.
  • ad hoc to paper Projected O5 detector sensitivities and duty cycles will be achieved.
    Listed in Tables 1 and 2. If O5 underperforms, D_O5_KN increases, strengthening the O4-extension conclusion; if O5 overperforms, the conclusion weakens.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Fastest Path to Discovering the Second Electromagnetic Counterpart to a Gravitational Wave Event." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UWBQAYBU

@misc{pith2026241109002,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Fastest Path to Discovering the Second Electromagnetic Counterpart to a Gravitational Wave Event},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UWBQAYBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09002}
}
abstract

The discovery of a second electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational wave event represents a critical goal in the field of multi-messenger astronomy. In order to determine the optimal strategy for achieving this goal, we perform comprehensive simulations comparing two potential paths forward: continuing the current LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) observing run, O4, versus temporarily shutting down the detectors for upgrades before beginning the next observing run, O5. Our simulations incorporate current O4 instrument sensitivities and duty cycles, as well as projected configurations for O5, while accounting for variables such as binary neutron star merger rates, system properties, viewing angles, dust extinction, and kilonova (KN) observables. Our results indicate that a KN discovery would occur $125^{+253}_{-125}$~days (middle 50\% interval) sooner in O5 compared to O4, suggesting that extending O4 would lead to faster discovery if the shutdown period between runs is $>$4~months. Moreover, for 88\% of our simulations, continuing O4 results in earlier KN discovery when compared to the expected two-year shutdown between O4 and O5. Given these findings and the critical importance of avoiding a $>$10 year gap between first and second electromagnetic counterpart discoveries, we suggest LVK consider extending O4 operations for as long as feasible prior to shutting down for critical upgrades.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09002 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the pipeline used to find the time to first KN for LVK O4 and O5. Most components of this pipeline are adapted from the original simulation work done to study discovery rate of KNe (Shah et al. 2024) (Image Source: NASA, LIGO). LIGO H LIGO L Virgo KAGRA LIGO H LIGO L Virgo KAGRA 1.0 0.59 0.58 0.56 0.59 1.0 0.7 0.56 0.58 0.7 1.0 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 1.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of BNS merger rates approximates the log normal distribution from the LVK user guide. For each trial, we start by sampling from the BNS merger rate distribution ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Scatter plot showing the day to first discoverable KN (DKN) as a function of the BNS merger rate for LVK O4 and O5. KN and one that is detected requires detailed modeling of the observing capabilities, and inefficiencies (Keinan & Arcavi 2024) of the entire GW follow-up community. Given the single successful detection of a KN with a coincident GW, there currently is not enough data to properly model EM discovery eff… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scatter plot showing the difference in days to first discoverable KN between LVK O4 and O5 (∆DKN) as a function of the BNS merger rate. Since both observing run configurations are applied to the same set of events in a given trial, sometimes the first detected KN is id…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution (top) and cumulative distribution (bottom) for the days to first discoverable KN during LVK O4 (D O4 KN). The vertical blue line in the bottom panel indi￾cates the current duration of O4 (as of October 30, 2024). Given our priors, 68% of our simulations ha…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of the peak magnitudes for the first KN found in the LVK O4 and LVK O5 run simulations. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Luminosity Distance 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 Density O4 O4 Median = 126 Mpc O5 O5 Median = 213 Mpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution (top) and Cumulative Distribution (bottom) for the delta days to first discoverable KN between LVK O4 and LVK O5 (∆DKN). ∆DKN = 0 is indicative of trials in which the first KN found during the O4 and O5 runs was produced by the same BNS system. tative resu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471 —. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.1038/nature24471

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

  5. [5]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2020, ApJL, 892, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 2020

  6. [6]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.021053 2021

  7. [7]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 —. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 022001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  8. [8]

    2017, PASA, 34, e069, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.65

    Andreoni, I., Ackley, K., Cooke, J., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e069, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.65

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.65 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 5518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1846

    Antier, S., Agayeva, S., Almualla, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1846

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    A., et al

    Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature24291

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 143001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab0587

    Barack, L., Cardoso, V., Nissanke, S., et al. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 143001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab0587

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

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

    Blanchard, P. K., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9055

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    M., van Leeuwen, J., Adams, E

    Boersma, O. M., van Leeuwen, J., Adams, E. A. K., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140578

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

    Bulla, M. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Dhawan, S., & Dietrich, T

    Bulla, M., Coughlin, M. W., Dhawan, S., & Dietrich, T. 2022, Universe, 8, 289, doi: 10.3390/universe8050289

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

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

    Coughlin, M. W., Ahumada, T., Anand, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 885, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4ad8

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Foley, R

    Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9811

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Kilpatrick, C

    Coulter, D. A., Kilpatrick, C. D., Jones, D. O., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.15441, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15441

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P. S., Berger, E., Villar, V. A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 D´ alya, G., D ´ ıaz, R., Bouchet, F. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1443 D ´ ıaz, M. C., Macri, L. M., Garcia Lambas, D., et al. 2017, ApJL, ...

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Cenko, S

    Evans, P. A., Cenko, S. B., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1565, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9580

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Coulter, D

    Foley, R. J., Coulter, D. A., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 190, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa725

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3bcd

    Fragione, G. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3bcd

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2021, Astrophys

    Galaudage, S., Adamcewicz, C., Zhu, X.-J., Stevenson, S., & Thrane, E. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 909, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe7f6

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Cutter, R., Steeghs, D., et al

    Gompertz, B. P., Cutter, R., Steeghs, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1845

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Gomez, S., et al

    Hosseinzadeh, G., Cowperthwaite, P. S., Gomez, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 880, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab271c

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    2017, Science Bulletin, 62, 1433, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2017.10.006

    Hu, L., Wu, X., Andreoni, I., et al. 2017, Science Bulletin, 62, 1433, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2017.10.006

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9455

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.17558, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.17558

    Keinan, I., & Arcavi, I. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.17558, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.17558

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    C., Cinabro, D., et al

    Kessler, R., Becker, A. C., Cinabro, D., et al. 2009, ApJS, 185, 32, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/185/1/32

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, Annals of Physics, 411, 167963, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2019.167963 10

    Lattimer, J. 2019, Annals of Physics, 411, 167963, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2019.167963 10

    2019

  25. [33]

    M., Gorbovskoy, E., Kornilov, V

    Lipunov, V. M., Gorbovskoy, E., Kornilov, V. G., et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa92c0

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Paterson, K., Fong, W., et al

    Lundquist, M. J., Paterson, K., Fong, W., et al. 2019, ApJL, 881, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab32f2

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, ApJL, 850, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Paek, G. S. H., Im, M., Kim, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0238

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Kilpatrick, C

    Pan, Y. C., Kilpatrick, C. D., Simon, J. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9116

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    S., Barkov, M

    Pozanenko, A. S., Barkov, M. V., Minaev, P. Y., et al. 2018, ApJL, 852, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f6

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    N., Peiris, H

    Setzer, C. N., Peiris, H. V., Korobkin, O., & Rosswog, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 2829, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad257

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    G., Narayan, G., Perkins, H

    Shah, V. G., Narayan, G., Perkins, H. M., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 1109

    2024

  34. [42]

    J., Simon, J

    Shappee, B. J., Simon, J. D., Drout, M. R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1574, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0186

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Chen, T

    Smartt, S. J., Chen, T. W., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 75, doi: 10.1038/nature24303

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Nicholl, M., Srivastav, S., et al

    Smartt, S. J., Nicholl, M., Srivastav, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae100

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Annis, J., et al

    Soares-Santos, M., Holz, D. E., Annis, J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Gonz´ alez-Fern´ andez, C., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    2017, Nature, 551, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature24290

    Troja, E., Piro, L., van Eerten, H., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature24290

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 101, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx118

    Utsumi, Y., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 101, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx118

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Yang, S., et al

    Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., Yang, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.