Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The puzzling long GRB 191019A: Evidence for Kilonova Light

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that GRB 191019A, a 65-second burst once attributed to a collapsing massive star, was instead a compact binary merger whose optical light contained a kilonova, and that its long duration was intrinsic rather than a…

desk verdict A careful reanalysis that makes a plausible but not airtight case for kilonova light in GRB 191019A; the low-density claim is more robust than the kilonova claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04059 v2 pith:TCEFA6NT submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.HE

G. Stratta , A. M. Nicuesa Guelbenzu , S. Klose , A. Rossi , P. Singh , E. Palazzi , C. Guidorzi , A. Camisasca
show 6 more authors
S. Bernuzzi A. Rau M. Bulla F. Ragosta E. Maiorano D. Paris
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords GRB191019Alonggamma-rayburstskilonovacompactbinarymergerafterglowmodelingminimumvariabilitytimescalecircumburstdensityBayesianevidence
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

GRB 191019A lasted about 65 seconds, long enough to be classified as a core-collapse supernova event, yet no supernova was ever found. This paper argues that the burst was instead the merger of two compact objects, likely neutron stars, and that its optical light contained a kilonova component. Using a prompt-emission variability criterion and a reanalysis of multi-color optical data from 0.4 to 1.5 days after the burst, the authors show that a forward-shock afterglow alone cannot explain the light curve: at 1.5 days the optical flux exceeds the afterglow prediction by more than 3 $\sigma$. A joint Bayesian fit of an afterglow plus a kilonova model is strongly preferred over an afterglow-only fit, with kilonova properties resembling those of AT2017gfo and a total ejected mass of about 0.06 solar masses. The same fit gives a circumburst density of about 1 $cm^{-3}$, implying the long duration was intrinsic rather than caused by a dense external medium.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a joint Bayesian fit of a forward-shock afterglow model with a Gaussian jet profile and standard microphysics, combined with a two-component kilonova radiation-transport model, applied to the combined X-ray and multi-color optical light curves. The afterglow is anchored mainly by the X-ray data, and the kilonova component explains the late optical excess that the afterglow alone underpredicts by more than 3 sigma at 1.5 days. A second probe is the minimum variability timescale of the prompt emission, a diagnostic that separates compact mergers from collapsars independently of burst duration; GRB 191019A's roughly 20 ms variability places it among merger-type long bursts. The kilonova model is defined by dynamical ejecta plus a slower wind component, with the grid calibrated on the kilonova AT2017gfo from the neutron-star merger GW170817, and the model comparison uses Bayesian evidence to weigh afterglow-only versus afterglow-plus-kilonova.

What would settle it

Fit the same X-ray and optical data with an afterglow model that includes reverse-shock emission, energy injection, or a structured jet, using the same priors and Bayesian evidence; if any of these alternatives reproduces the optical flattening without a kilonova, or brings the Bayes factor below the threshold the paper treats as strong, the kilonova interpretation would no longer be unique and the central conclusion would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 65-second gamma-ray burst GRB 191019A, long attributed to a collapsing massive star because of its duration, was in fact produced by a compact binary merger and that a kilonova contributed to its optical light. Two independent lines of evidence support this. The burst's minimum variability timescale of about 20 ms places it in the region of the duration-versus-variability diagram occupied by short GRBs with soft extended emission and by the two established long-merger bursts GRB 211211A and GRB 230307A. And new optical photometry shows a steep-to-shallow flattening that a forward-shock afterglow cannot reproduce, with the X-ray-scaled afterglow underpredicting the optical flux by more than 3 $\sigma$ at 1.5 days. The joint fit yields a dynamical ejecta mass of roughly 0.02 solar masses and a wind ejecta mass of roughly 0.04 solar masses, similar to AT2017gfo but about four times brighter, and the afterglow-plus-kilonova model is preferred over afterglow only by a log Bayes factor of -7.0. It also finds a circumburst density near 1 $cm^{-3}$, in contrast to the earlier $10^{7}$-$10^{8}$ $cm^{-3}$ inference, so the long duration is intrinsic.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the forward-shock afterglow model with a Gaussian jet and standard microphysics is an adequate baseline for the optical emission between 0.4 and 1.5 days, so the measured steep-to-shallow flattening, a more than 3 sigma excess at 1.5 days, is an extra component rather than an afterglow effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GRB 191019A would become the third long burst with kilonova light, after GRB 211211A and GRB 230307A, reinforcing the conclusion that burst duration alone does not identify the progenitor.
  • A circumburst density near 1 cm^-3 would invalidate the dense-environment explanation for the burst's long duration, shifting the explanation to intrinsic properties such as fallback accretion onto the merger remnant.
  • A total ejected mass of about 0.06 solar masses, comparable to AT2017gfo, would imply that such mergers are significant r-process element sources even when they appear as long GRBs in old galactic nuclei.
  • The minimum-variability-timescale diagnostic would be validated as a way to find hidden compact mergers among long GRBs without supernovae.
  • The data do not distinguish among the more sophisticated kilonova models, so the inferred ejecta masses should be treated as order-of-magnitude estimates of a multi-component outflow.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the low density holds, the kilonova ejecta from GRB 191019A should show no significant interaction with a dense circumstellar medium at late radio times; a future radio nondetection would be consistent, while a bright late radio rebrightening would challenge the low-density picture.
  • Applying the minimum-variability-timescale criterion systematically to the full sample of nearby long GRBs without supernovae could uncover additional hidden kilonovae and sharpen the statistics of the long-merger class.
  • The small projected offset from the host center, about 100 pc, need not imply formation in a dense AGN disk; if the line of sight is nearly along the offset, a merger far off center can project onto the nucleus, which would weaken the gas-capture formation argument for this event.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes the optical and X-ray data of the long-duration GRB 191019A (z = 0.248). The authors use the minimum variability timescale diagnostic to suggest a compact binary merger origin, and they present new GROND multicolor photometry obtained between 0.4 and 15 days after the burst. After image subtraction, the optical transient is detected in the first three epochs and fades until 1.5 days. A broken power-law fit to the early optical light curve shows a steep-to-shallow flattening, and a Bayesian joint fit with the NMMA framework, using an Afterglowpy Gaussian-jet afterglow plus a POSSIS kilonova model, yields ln(B) = −7.0 relative to an afterglow-only model. The inferred kilonova has dynamical and wind ejecta masses of ~0.02 and ~0.04 solar masses, respectively, and the circumburst density is found to be low (n0 ~ 1 cm^-3), in contrast to earlier claims of a very dense environment. The authors conclude that GRB 191019A is a nearby long GRB from a compact binary merger with kilonova light, and that its long duration is intrinsic rather than due to a dense external medium.

Significance. If the kilonova claim holds, this paper adds a new member to the small but growing class of long GRBs produced by compact binary mergers, and it directly challenges the dense-circumnuclear-environment interpretation of GRB 191019A. The work benefits from careful image subtraction, use of publicly available Swift-XRT data, and a Bayesian model-comparison framework that tests several kilonova models. The photometric reduction and the documentation of upper limits are thorough. However, the central evidence for kilonova light is conditional on the adequacy of a single forward-shock afterglow template and on a flattening that is quantified with a fixed break time and only two late optical epochs; therefore the conclusion is suggestive rather than definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.2, Figure 4] The broken-power-law test that establishes the steep-to-shallow flattening fixes the temporal break at 0.44 days, which is the epoch of the first GROND observation. Because only two epochs (1b and 2) fall after this break, and epoch 1b has uncertainties of 0.27–0.40 mag, the reported p-values (1.7 × 10^-5 in r' and 4 × 10^-4 in g' for a single power law) are sensitive to this a priori choice. Please repeat the fit with the break time as a free parameter and report the resulting significance, or justify explicitly why fixing the break at the first observation is a conservative procedure.
  2. [§3.3 and Table 5] The Bayesian model comparison uses a single Afterglowpy Gaussian-jet forward-shock model as the afterglow baseline. The alternative afterglow interpretations mentioned in §3.2.2 (reverse shock, energy injection, off-axis structured jet) are discussed qualitatively but not fitted to the data. Since the ln(B) = −7.0 preference for the kilonova model is conditional on this baseline, the central claim would be substantially strengthened by modeling at least one representative alternative (for example, an energy-injection afterglow) and showing that it is disfavored by the joint X-ray/optical data. Without such a test, the evidence is better phrased as 'consistent with' kilonova light than as unique evidence.
  3. [§3.3, epochs 1b and 2 in Table 1] The >3σ excess at T0 + 1.5 days is driven essentially by a single epoch (epoch 2) in the g' and r' bands, with epoch 1b providing only weak post-break constraints. Please state how the significance changes if epoch 2 were subject to an unrecognized systematic error (for example, in the image subtraction or photometric calibration), and quantify the contribution of each post-break epoch to the reported deviation. This is load-bearing because the klionova evidence rests entirely on this flattening.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Discussion, first paragraph] Typo: 'GRB 1901910A' should read 'GRB 191019A'.
  2. [Discussion, fourth paragraph] Typo: 'GRB 111210A' should read 'GRB 211211A'.
  3. [§3.3, Bayes factor] The notation for the Bayesian evidence is confusing: ln(Z) is used for the afterglow-only model and ln(Z0) for the joint model, so that ln(B) = ln(Z/Z0) = −7.0. Standard convention would set the null model as Z0; please clarify the notation so that a negative value is immediately interpretable as favoring the kilonova model.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] Grammar: 'the flux of a AT2017gfo-like kilonova' should be 'the flux of an AT2017gfo-like kilonova'.
  5. [Table 2] The formatting of the confidence intervals (e.g., '0.14 1.94−+ 0.16' for log n0) is difficult to read; please use standard interval notation such as '0.14^{+0.16}_{−1.94}'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kilonova evidence is derived from external GROND/Swift data against externally calibrated AT2017gfo models; the MVT self-citation is motivational only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that GRB 191019A's optical flattening is better described by an afterglow plus kilonova model than by afterglow alone. The derivation chain is: (i) image-subtracted GROND photometry (external data) shows a steep-to-shallow flattening; (ii) a broken power law with break at 0.44 d gives acceptable p-values while a single power law does not; (iii) NMMA/Afterglowpy+POSSIS joint fits yield ln(B) = -7.0 favoring the kilonova model; (iv) inferred ejecta masses are compared to AT2017gfo. No step defines the inferred quantity in terms of the conclusion. The MVT classification from Camisasca et al. 2023 is a self-citation with overlapping authorship (Guidorzi, Camisasca), but it is used only to motivate the reanalysis and to provide a consistency argument; the kilonova evidence itself is computed from independent photometry and does not depend on the MVT classification. The POSSIS/NMMA codes are co-authored, but the models were independently calibrated on AT2017gfo and the Bayes factor is evaluated on the GRB data, so the comparison is not circular. The skeptic's concern about the break time fixed at 0.44 d and single forward-shock baseline is a modeling-adequacy/robustness issue, not a case where a prediction reduces to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or physical entities; its central claims rest on fitted afterglow and kilonova model parameters, the validity of the afterglow and kilonova models, the MVT classification tool, the adopted extinction and cosmology, and the quality of image subtraction near a bright host nucleus.

free parameters (13)
  • log10 E0 (isotropic-equivalent kinetic energy) = 52.14 (+0.53, -0.37) erg, prior U(49,53)
    Fitted in the NMMA afterglow and kilonova model; sets the afterglow normalization.
  • log10 n0 (circumburst density) = Best-fit below 1 cm^-3, prior U(-3,7)
    Fitted and central to the claim that the environment is low density rather than the 10^7 to 10^8 cm^-3 inferred by Lazzati et al. 2023.
  • theta_c (jet core half-opening angle) = 0.05 (+0.06, -0.05) rad, prior U(0.01, pi/10)
    Fitted jet structure parameter in the afterglow model.
  • theta_w (jet wing half-opening angle) = 0.38 (+0.13, -0.19) rad, prior U(0.01, pi/4)
    Fitted jet structure parameter describing the truncated wings.
  • iota (viewing angle) = 0.07 (+0.03, -0.05) rad, sine prior on (0, pi/8)
    Fitted observer viewing angle with respect to the jet axis.
  • p (electron spectral index) = 2.75 (+0.05, -0.04), prior U(2.01,3.0)
    Fitted power-law index of the electron energy distribution.
  • log10 eps_e = -0.69 (+0.34, -0.39), prior U(-5,0)
    Fitted microphysical fraction of shock energy going into electrons.
  • log10 eps_B = -4.60 (+1.19, -1.56), prior U(-10,0)
    Fitted microphysical fraction of shock energy going into magnetic fields; very broad posterior.
  • log10 M_dyn (dynamical ejecta mass) = -1.73 (+0.24, -0.25) solar masses, prior U(-3,-1)
    Fitted kilonova parameter; central to the total ejecta mass claim.
  • log10 M_wind (wind ejecta mass) = -1.36 (+0.31, -0.39) solar masses, prior U(-3,-0.5)
    Fitted kilonova parameter; together with M_dyn gives the quoted 0.06 solar mass total.
  • Phi (half-opening angle of lanthanide-rich equatorial ejecta) = 40.13 (+10.30, -11.88) degrees, prior U(15,75)
    Fitted kilonova geometry parameter in the two-component POSSIS model.
  • em_syserr (additional magnitude error budget) = Not quoted; prior U(0,2) mag
    Nuisance parameter added to absorb model systematics; a large value would make the quoted Bayes factor less informative.
  • t_break in broken power-law fit = 0.44 days
    Chosen by hand and coincident with the first GROND epoch; used to define the steep-to-shallow flattening that motivates the kilonova component.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Forward-shock synchrotron afterglow model in Afterglowpy with a Gaussian jet and ξ_N=1 is an adequate baseline.
    Invoked in Section 3.3; if this baseline is wrong, the excess attributed to the kilonova could instead be afterglow model mismatch.
  • domain assumption Kilonova emission is described by POSSIS two-component ejecta models for an NS-NS merger (Dietrich et al. 2020).
    Invoked in Section 3.3 and Appendix C; the inferred ejecta masses depend on this radiation transport model.
  • domain assumption The minimum variability timescale criterion of Camisasca et al. 2023 reliably identifies compact-merger progenitors regardless of burst duration.
    Used in Section 3.1 to classify GRB 191019A as merger-like and to motivate the kilonova search; the diagnostic is from a paper with overlapping authorship.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy extinction AV_host = 0.06 mag and the adopted Planck cosmology are correct.
    Adopted in Section 1 from Levan et al. 2023; affects absolute magnitudes and the light-curve levels used in the fit.
  • domain assumption Image subtraction with HOTPANTS cleanly removes the bright host nucleus without introducing residual flux at the transient position.
    Invoked in Section 2.3; the transient is projected only about 100 pc from the host center, so imperfect subtraction could bias the photometry that defines the flattening.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The puzzling long GRB 191019A: Evidence for Kilonova Light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TCEFA6NT

@misc{pith2026241204059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The puzzling long GRB 191019A: Evidence for Kilonova Light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TCEFA6NT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04059}
}
read the original abstract

GRB 191019A was a long Gamma-ray burst (GRB) lasting about 65 s and, as such, originally thought to be linked to a core-collapse supernova. However, even though follow-up observations identified the optical counterpart close to the bright nucleus of a nearby ancient galaxy (z=0.248), no associated supernova was found. This led to the suggestion that the burst was caused by the merger of two compact stellar objects, likely in a dense circumnuclear environment. By using a recently developed diagnostic tool based on prompt emission temporal properties, we noticed that GRB 191019A falls among those long GRBs which are associated with compact mergers and with evidence of kilonova light. We thus re-analyzed unpublished GROND multi-color (g'r'i'z'JHK_s) data obtained between 0.4 and 15 days post trigger. Image subtraction confirmed the optical counterpart in all four optical bands, with GROND tracking its fading until 1.5 days post-burst. Incorporating publicly available Swift-XRT data, a joint fit of an afterglow plus a kilonova model revealed a better match than an afterglow-only scenario. The resulting kilonova properties resemble those of AT2017gfo associated with the binary neutron star merger GW170817, with a total ejected mass of about 0.06 solar mass. Contrary to previous findings inferring a high-density circumburst environment (n0=10^7-10^8 cm^-3), our analysis finds standard conditions (n0 = 1 cm^-3), suggesting the long duration of GRB 191019A was intrinsic rather than due to jet interaction with a dense external medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04059 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Burst duration vs. prompt emission minimum temporal variability of 1291 GRBs detected with Swift BAT (from 2005 January to 2022 July) and the corresponding marginal distributions. The sample includes 78 short GRBs (blue) and 24 short GRBs with SEE (green). Gold points are long GRBs with an associated SN (adapted from A. E. Camisasca et al. 2023). The location of GRB 191019A is indicated by a green star in the top-le… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ). The transient has coordinates R.A., decl. (J2000) = 22:40:05.861, −17:19:42.77 (±0.  3), measured on the combined gri ¢¢ ¢ residual images of the second-epoch observations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. From left to right, GROND r¢-band observations obtained during epochs 2 at 1.5 days, epoch 4 at 7.5 days, and the residual of the image subtraction (epoch 2 minus epoch 4) using HOTPANTS. The optical transient is indicated by the circle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: X-ray vs. optical light curve, where larger circles indicate GROND data from this work and the other data are taken from the literature (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the upper limits we can set on any SN that followed GRB 191019A in comparison to the r¢-band light curves of 13 GRB-SNe that have been observed with GROND [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Joint fit of an afterglow plus a kilonova model, performed with NMMA (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner plot obtained with NMMA from a joint fit assuming a model that incorporates both an afterglow and a kilonova component (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Gamma-ray burst progenitors revisited

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

    About 30–40% of long gamma-ray bursts at z<0.3 lack supernova emission and likely arise from compact object mergers, at rates comparable to short GRBs.

  2. The Cosmological Population of Gamma-Ray Bursts from the Disks of Active Galactic Nuclei

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Monte Carlo population model predicts that AGN-disk GRBs are rarely detectable, and detectable events are concentrated at low redshift, high black hole mass, and large disk radius.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L13

    2017

  2. [2]

    P., Anand, S., et al

    Ahumada, T., Singer, L. P., Anand, S., et al. 2021, NatAs, 5, 917 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip őcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    2021

  3. [3]

    2021, A&A, 651, A81

    Barbarino, C., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A81

    2021

  4. [4]

    V., & Pozanenko, A

    Barkov, M. V., & Pozanenko, A. S. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 2161

    2011

  5. [5]

    D., Barbier, L

    Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143

    2005

  6. [6]

    Becker, A., 2015 HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template

    2015

  7. [7]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2847

    Beniamini, P., Duque, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2847

    2020

  8. [8]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    2014

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    2020, GReGr, 52, 108 Björnsson, G., Hjorth, J., Jakobsson, P., Christensen, L., & Holland, S

    Bernuzzi, S. 2020, GReGr, 52, 108 Björnsson, G., Hjorth, J., Jakobsson, P., Christensen, L., & Holland, S. 2001, ApJL, 552, L121

    2020

  2. [10]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5037

    Bulla, M. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5037

    2019

  3. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2558

    Bulla, M. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2558

    2023

  4. [12]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 165

    2005

  5. [13]

    E., Guidorzi, C., Amati, L., et al

    Camisasca, A. E., Guidorzi, C., Amati, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A112

    2023

  6. [14]

    2017, AdAst, 2017, 8929054

    Cano, Z., Wang, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, AdAst, 2017, 8929054

    2017

  7. [15]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv: 1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A., Foley, R

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

    2017

  9. [17]

    M., Gendre, B., Tanga, P., et al

    Coward, D. M., Gendre, B., Tanga, P., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e005

    2017

  10. [18]

    G., De Simone, B., Islam, K

    Dainotti, M. G., De Simone, B., Islam, K. M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 41 Della Valle, M., Malesani, D., Benetti, S., et al. 2003, A&A, 406, L33

    2022

  11. [19]

    W., Pang, P

    Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2020, Sci, 370, 1450

    2020

  12. [20]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379

    2007

  13. [21]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177

    2009

  14. [22]

    A., Osborne, J

    Evans, P. A., Osborne, J. P., Burrows, D. N., et al. 2019, GCN, 26034, 1

    2019

  15. [23]

    A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J

    Evans, P. A., Willingale, R., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A102

    2010

  16. [24]

    A., Zeh, A., et al

    Ferrero, P., Kann, D. A., Zeh, A., et al. 2006, A&A, 457, 857

    2006

  17. [25]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102

    2015

  18. [26]

    E., Dong, Y., et al

    Fong, W.-f., Nugent, A. E., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 56

    2022

  19. [27]

    S., Paris, D., et al

    Fontana, A., Dunlop, J. S., Paris, D., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A11

    2014

  20. [28]

    Fynbo, J. P. U., Perley, D. A., de Ugarte Postigo, A., et al. 2019, GCN, 26041, 1

    2019

  21. [29]

    Fynbo, J. P. U., Watson, D., Thöne, C. C., et al. 2006, Natur, 444, 1047

    2006

  22. [30]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005

    2004

  23. [31]

    2019, GCN, 26098, 1

    Gendre, B., Crisp, H., Coward, D., et al. 2019, GCN, 26098, 1

    2019

  24. [32]

    2010, MNRAS, 405, 2372

    Gendre, B., Klotz, A., Palazzi, E., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2372

    2010

  25. [33]

    K., & Hosseinzadeh, G

    Gomez, S., Berger, E., Nicholl, M., Blanchard, P. K., & Hosseinzadeh, G. 2022, ApJ, 941, 107

    2022

  26. [34]

    P., Ravasio, M

    Gompertz, B. P., Ravasio, M. E., Nicholl, M., et al. 2023, NatAs, 7, 67

    2023

  27. [35]

    2008, PASP, 120, 405

    Greiner, J., Bornemann, W., Clemens, C., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 405

    2008

  28. [36]

    A., Kann, D

    Greiner, J., Mazzali, P. A., Kann, D. A., et al. 2015, Natur, 523, 189

    2015

  29. [37]

    2013, RSPTA, 371, 20120275

    Hjorth, J. 2013, RSPTA, 371, 20120275

    2013

  30. [38]

    Hjorth, J., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, in Gamma-Ray Bursts, ed. C. Kouveliotou, R. A. M. J. Wijers, & S. Woosley (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press ), 169

    2012

  31. [39]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 157

    Hu, L., Wang, L., Chen, X., & Yang, J. 2022, ApJ, 936, 157

    2022

  32. [40]

    2015, ApJL, 811, L22

    Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., Cano, Z., et al. 2015, ApJL, 811, L22

    2015

  33. [41]

    A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al

    Kann, D. A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1513 Table 5 The 90% Con fidence Interval and Median Values for Each Parameter Inferred from Joint Afterglow and Kilonova and Afterglow-only Jet Modeling Performed by Using the NMMA Code Bu19-BNS-Jet Bu19-NSBH-Jet Kasen1...

    2010

  34. [42]

    A., Schady, P., Olivares, E

    Kann, D. A., Schady, P., Olivares, E. F., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A143

    2019

  35. [43]

    2017, Natur, 551, 80

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

    2017

  36. [44]

    2015, ApJL, 804, L16

    Kisaka, S., & Ioka, K. 2015, ApJL, 804, L16

    2015

  37. [45]

    A., et al

    Klose, S., Schmidl, S., Kann, D. A., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A138

    2019

  38. [46]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJL, 413, L101

    1993

  39. [47]

    A., Barthelmy, S

    Krimm, H. A., Barthelmy, S. D., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2019, GCN, 26046, 1 Krühler, T., Küpcü Yolda ş, A., Greiner, J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, 376

    2019

  40. [48]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 3900

    Kunert, N., Antier, S., Nedora, V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3900

    2024

  41. [49]

    Labrie, K., Anderson, K., Cárdenes, R., Simpson, C., & Turner, J. E. H. 2019, in ASP Conf. Ser. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben et al. (San Francisco, CA: ASP ), 321

    2019

  42. [50]

    J., Simpson, K

    LaPorte, S. J., Simpson, K. K. & Swift /UVOT Team 2019, GCN, 26053, 1

    2019

  43. [51]

    P., & Levan, A

    Lazzati, D., Perna, R., Gompertz, B. P., & Levan, A. J. 2023, ApJL, 950, L20

    2023

  44. [52]

    2022, ApJL, 938, L18

    Lazzati, D., Soares, G., & Perna, R. 2022, ApJL, 938, L18

    2022

  45. [53]

    J., Malesani, D

    Levan, A. J., Malesani, D. B., Gompertz, B. P., et al. 2023, NatAs, 7, 976

    2023

  46. [54]

    1998, ApJL, 507, L59

    Li, L.-X., & Paczy ński, B. 1998, ApJL, 507, L59

    1998

  47. [55]

    2022, Natur, 612, 236

    Mei, A., Banerjee, B., Oganesyan, G., et al. 2022, Natur, 612, 236

    2022

  48. [56]

    2014, A&A, 567, A29

    Melandri, A., Pian, E., D'Elia, V., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A29

    2014

  49. [57]

    Metzger, B. D. 2017, LRR, 20, 3 MichałowskI, M. J., Xu, D., Stevens, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A169

    2017

  50. [58]

    Y., Pozanenko, A

    Minaev, P. Y., Pozanenko, A. S., & Loznikov, V. M. 2010, AstL, 36, 707

    2010

  51. [59]

    2019, in ASP Conf

    Mink, J. 2019, in ASP Conf. Ser. 523, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII, ed. P. J. Teuben et al. (San Francisco, CA: ASP ), 281

    2019

  52. [60]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L31

    Musolino, C., Duqué, R., & Rezzolla, L. 2024, ApJL, 966, L31

    2024

  53. [61]

    2004, MNRAS, 353, 647

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 647

    2004

  54. [62]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 67

    Nakauchi, D., Kashiyama, K., Suwa, Y., & Nakamura, T. 2013, ApJ, 778, 67

    2013

  55. [63]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 98 Nicuesa Guelbenzu, A

    Nedora, V., Bernuzzi, S., Radice, D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 98 Nicuesa Guelbenzu, A. 2019, GCN, 26042, 1

    2021

  56. [64]

    P., & Bonnell, J

    Norris, J. P., & Bonnell, J. T. 2006, ApJ, 643, 266

    2006

  57. [65]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 4890

    O'Connor, B., Troja, E., Dichiara, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4890

    2022

  58. [66]

    F., Greiner, J., Schady, P., et al

    Olivares, E. F., Greiner, J., Schady, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A76

    2012

  59. [67]

    F., Greiner, J., Schady, P., et al

    Olivares, E. F., Greiner, J., Schady, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A44

    2015

  60. [68]

    Pang, P. T. H., Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2023, NatCo, 14, 8352

    2023

  61. [69]

    A., Masetti, N., et al

    Pian, E., Mazzali, P. A., Masetti, N., et al. 2006, Natur, 442, 1011 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    2006

  62. [70]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Natur, 612, 223

    2022

  63. [71]

    2019, GCN, 26036, 1

    Reva, I., Pozanenko, A., Krugov, M., et al. 2019, GCN, 26036, 1

    2019

  64. [72]

    2014, A&A, 572, A47

    Rossi, A., Piranomonte, S., Savaglio, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, A47

    2014

  65. [73]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 1

    Rossi, A., Rothberg, B., Palazzi, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932, 1

    2022

  66. [74]

    2011, A&A, 529, A142

    Rossi, A., Schulze, S., Klose, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 529, A142

    2011

  67. [75]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, 3379

    Rossi, A., Stratta, G., Maiorano, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3379

    2020

  68. [76]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 166

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166

    2020

  69. [77]

    1998, ApJL, 497, l17 Schlafly, E

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, l17 Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    1998

  70. [78]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525 Science Software Branch at STScI, 2012 PyRAF: Python alternative for IRAF, http://ascl.net/1207.011

    1998

  71. [79]

    K., Barthelmy, S

    Simpson, K. K., Barthelmy, S. D., Gropp, J. D., et al. 2019, GCN, 26031, 1

    2019

  72. [80]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  73. [81]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Price, P. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 391

    2006

  74. [82]

    Starling, R. L. C., Wiersema, K., Levan, A. J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2792

    2011

  75. [83]

    2019, A&A, 621, A71

    Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Fremling, C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A71

    2019

  76. [84]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 25

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020, ApJ, 898, 25

    2020

  77. [85]

    2018, A&A, 615, A136

    Tanga, M., Krühler, T., Schady, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A136

    2018

  78. [86]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2013, Natur, 500, 547

    2013

  79. [87]

    1993, in ASP Conf

    Tody, D. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes (San

    1993

  80. [88]

    J., Becerra González, J., et al

    Troja, E., Castro-Tirado, A. J., Becerra González, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2104

    2019

  81. [89]

    L., O'Connor, B., et al

    Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., O'Connor, B., et al. 2022, Natur, 612, 228

    2022

  82. [90]

    2018, NatCo, 9, 4089

    Troja, E., Ryan, G., Piro, L., et al. 2018, NatCo, 9, 4089

    2018

  83. [91]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 156

    Wang, S.-N., Lü, H.-J., Yuan, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 156

    2024

  84. [92]

    J., Kann, D

    Wiersema, K., van der Horst, A. J., Kann, D. A., et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 319

    2008

  85. [93]

    2022, Natur, 612, 232 Yoldaş, A

    Yang, J., Ai, S., Zhang, B.-B., et al. 2022, Natur, 612, 232 Yoldaş, A. K., Krühler, T., Greiner, J., et al. 2008, in AIP Conf. Ser. 1000, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. M. Galassi, D. Palmer, & E. Fenimore (Melville, NY: AIP ), 227

    2022

  86. [94]

    Zeh, A., Klose, S., & Hartmann, D. H. 2004, ApJ, 609, 952

    2004

  87. [95]

    2001, ApJL, 552, L35

    Zhang, B., & Mészáros, P. 2001, ApJL, 552, L35

    2001

  88. [96]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 63

    Zhang, H.-H., Zhu, J.-P., & Yu, Y.-W. 2024, ApJ, 976, 63

    2024

  89. [97]

    P., Yu, B

    Zhu, Z. P., Yu, B. Y., Xu, D., & Gao, X. 2019, GCN, 26059, 1 15 The Astrophysical Journal, 979:159 (15pp), 2025 February 1 Stratta et al

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.