Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Electromagnetic Follow-up to Gravitational Wave Events with the UltraViolet EXplorer (UVEX)

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ultraviolet telescope UVEX is estimated to detect 6.8 to 21.1 kilonova counterparts from binary neutron star mergers across the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O5 and O6 observing runs, depending on the adopted target-of-opportunity strategy.

desk verdict Transparent, reproducible mission-planning paper whose headline detection counts inherit the assumed KN-magnitude prior; worth refereeing after the 'regardless of modelling uncertainties' phrasing is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14109 v4 pith:REQSLIGD submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.HE

Alexander W. Criswell , Sydney C. Leggio , Michael W. Coughlin , Leo P. Singer , R. Weizmann Kiendrebeogo , Igor Andreoni , Andrew Toivonen , Hannah P. Earnshaw
show 4 more authors
Suvi Gezari Brian W. Grefenstette Fiona A. Harrison Mansi M. Kasliwal
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords UVEXkilonovagravitational-wavefollow-uptargetofopportunitybinaryneutronstarmergersLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAultravioletastronomyobservingstrategy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper estimates how many binary neutron star mergers the upcoming UVEX space telescope could follow up in the ultraviolet, and how many kilonovae -- the fast-fading explosive counterparts to such mergers -- it would actually detect. Applying the mission's target-of-opportunity selection criteria to simulated LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing scenarios for the fifth and sixth observing runs, the authors find 8.9 (O5) and 11.3 (O6) triggered observations over 1.5 years, with per-trigger success rates of 76.3 and 77.5 percent. That yields an estimated 6.8 and 8.8 kilonova counterpart detections for the fiducial strategy. A less conservative variant that assumes a brighter fiducial kilonova and accepts 90 percent tiling coverage more than doubles the yield to 15.2 and 21.1 detections, at the cost of a lower success rate of about 63-64 percent. These numbers form the current best estimate of whether UVEX can turn the single multimessenger event GW170817 into a population study.

What carries the argument

The analysis runs on a three-stage simulation pipeline. First, events from synthetic GW observing scenarios are filtered by localization area, and for each pixel in the surviving events the UVEX exposure time needed to reach signal-to-noise 5 at a fiducial far-UV source magnitude is computed with the mission's exposure time calculator. Second, an optimal tiling plan is found by mixed-integer linear programming, respecting the three-hour epoch budget. Third, events whose plan tiles less than the required fraction of the localization are discarded, and the selected fraction is scaled to the astrophysical BNS rate of 210 $Gpc^{-3}$ $yr^{-1}$. Success of a triggered observation is defined as tiling the true source pixel and reaching sufficient depth, with the latter probability evaluated by integrating a uniform prior on intrinsic kilonova absolute magnitude over the depth condition; the strategy's success rate is the mean of this per-event probability.

What would settle it

A census of kilonova ultraviolet peak magnitudes from a modest sample of gravitational-wave-detected mergers with ultraviolet follow-up would settle the matter; if the true distribution peaks fainter than the fiducial -12.1 AB mag used for exposure calculations, the predicted detection counts would fall correspondingly. Alternatively, running the same pipeline with a Gaussian or empirically calibrated luminosity prior would show how strongly the headline numbers shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that, with its wide 12.25 square-degree field of view and rapid response, UVEX can act as a practical electromagnetic follow-up instrument for gravitational-wave-discovered binary neutron star mergers in the 2030s. The central quantitative claim is that applying the mission's selection criteria -- a 90 percent credible localization area no larger than 100 square degrees, at least 99 percent of that area tiled within three hours, and per-pointing depth reaching a fiducial far-ultraviolet source magnitude of -12.1 AB mag -- to the Kiendrebeogo et al. observing scenarios yields estimated ToO trigger counts of 8.9 (O5) and 11.3 (O6) over 1.5 years of overlap. Using a uniform prior on the intrinsic kilonova ultraviolet absolute magnitude, the estimated success rates of 76.3 percent (O5) and 77.5 percent (O6) give 6.8 and 8.8 counterpart detections, respectively. The paper further claims that relaxing the required coverage to 90 percent and assuming a brighter fiducial kilonova magnitude of -13.1 AB mag raises the detection estimate to 15.2 and 21.1, making the science yield robust even if the binary neutron star rate is lower than previously assumed.

Load-bearing premise

The single most load-bearing premise is the assumed uniform range for kilonova ultraviolet peak brightness, U(-17.9, -10.2) AB mag; this distribution is not measured, and if real kilonovae are systematically fainter than about -12 absolute magnitude, every quoted detection rate is inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In 1.5 years of observing run O5, the fiducial strategy is expected to yield 6.8 kilonova detections; for O6 the expectation is 8.8.
  • The M-13.1 + CT90 variant, which assumes a brighter kilonova and accepts 90 percent tiling coverage, more than doubles the expected detections to 15.2 (O5) and 21.1 (O6).
  • Raising the maximum allowed localization area from 100 to 200 square degrees does not change the trigger count, so the 100 deg^2 cut is not a limiting choice.
  • Lowering the coverage threshold from 99 percent to 90 percent adds about 3 triggers per run with essentially no change in per-trigger success rate.
  • All quoted yields scale linearly with the assumed binary neutron star merger rate, and the paper provides a tool to rescale them when LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA updates the rate after O4.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true kilonova ultraviolet luminosity distribution is fainter or narrower than the uniform prior assumed here, the detection estimates -- especially for the M-13.1 variant -- would be systematically optimistic; a measured luminosity function from a few Swift or ULTRASAT catches would pin this down.
  • The same simulation machinery is directly applicable to neutron star-black hole mergers, of which 10-20 percent are expected to produce electromagnetic counterparts, potentially adding a comparable number of UVEX triggers.
  • The binary selection criteria used here could be replaced by a fully probabilistic trigger that marginalizes over the GW distance posterior and kilonova luminosity; such a strategy would likely push the detection yield above even the M-13.1+CT90 numbers.
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. This paper presents simulations of UVEX target-of-opportunity (ToO) follow-up of binary neutron star (BNS) mergers detected by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA in the planned O5 and O6 observing runs. The authors use the published simulated GW catalogs of Kiendrebeogo et al. (2023), apply selection criteria (localization area, tiling coverage, per-tile depth) through the uvex-followup code, and estimate ToO trigger counts and expected counterpart detections. A success-rate formalism is introduced in Section 4, based on a uniform prior on the intrinsic KN FUV absolute magnitude. The fiducial strategy yields 8.9 (11.3) triggers and 6.8 (8.8) detections for O5 (O6), while the relaxed M-13.1+CT90 strategy yields 15.2 (21.1) detections. The paper also discusses variant strategies for a lower BNS rate and provides open-source code and data products.

Significance. If the quantitative estimates are reliable, this paper provides a valuable forecast of UVEX's electromagnetic follow-up yield in the 2030s and a practical framework for ToO selection. The release of the uvex-followup code, the rate-updater tool, and the data products is a clear strength, enabling independent checking and updates. The scheduling simulation itself is a useful contribution. However, the headline detection counts are strongly determined by the assumed uniform prior on the kilonova UV luminosity, which is not empirically validated. Because the paper is transparent about this assumption, the result is internally consistent, but its scientific value depends on how the prior is interpreted and on the absence of a sensitivity analysis. The internal tension between the 'regardless of modelling uncertainties' claim for the -12.1 AB mag depth and the prior's 24.7% probability of fainter intrinsic magnitudes is a substantive issue that should be addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (4)-(5), and Section 5] The reported success rates are essentially the cumulative fraction of the assumed uniform prior above the fiducial magnitude threshold. For the fiducial strategy, P(M_AB,true <= -12.1) = (-12.1 - (-17.9)) / (-10.2 - (-17.9)) = 5.8/7.7 = 75.3%, which matches the quoted 76.3%/77.5% success rates up to small corrections from the distance-ratio term in Eq. (6). For M-13.1, P(M_AB,true <= -13.1) = 4.8/7.7 = 62.3%, matching the 63.5%/63.6% rates for M-13.1+CT90. Thus the headline detection numbers are a re-statement of the prior rather than an independent output of the tiling simulation. This is not a mathematical error, since the paper declares the prior, but it is a load-bearing assumption. The claim in Section 1.5 that the fiducial -12.1 depth is 'conservative' and works 'regardless of current modelling uncertainties' is internally inconsistent with Eq. (4), which assigns 24.7% probability to intrinsic magnitudes fainter than -12.1 at equal distance (and a larger fraction once distance uncertainty is considered). I request a sensitivity analysis with alternative priors (e.g., Gaussian or log-normal distributions, or a prior anchored to AT2017gfo) and/or success rates reported as a function of assumed depth, together with revised wording that does not overstate robustness.
  2. [Section 6.3 and Table 4] For the M-13.1 strategy without CT90, Table 4 reports success rates of 78.6% (O5) and 80.4% (O6), which are higher than the fiducial values of 76.3% (77.5%) even though the assumed intrinsic magnitude is 1 mag brighter and the cumulative prior fraction at -13.1 is lower. The paper does not explain this counterintuitive result. If it arises from a selection effect (e.g., distance overestimation for the additional distant events that pass the relaxed depth requirement), that should be explicitly stated and quantified. Otherwise, this may indicate a bug in the success-rate calculation for one of the strategies. This needs clarification because it bears on the interpretation of the variant strategies and on the paper's central recommendation to adopt M-13.1+CT90.
  3. [Section 5, Table 4, and Section 7] The quoted uncertainties on detection counts include the log-normal error in the BNS rate and Poisson counting statistics, but do not include any systematic uncertainty in the KN magnitude prior or in the success-rate model. Since the success rate is the dominant factor converting triggers into detections, the absence of any prior-related systematic error makes the error bars optimistic. Please propagate at least a bracketing set of prior assumptions (e.g., varying the prior bounds or adopting a non-uniform distribution) into the detection-count uncertainties, or explicitly state that the quoted uncertainties exclude this dominant systematic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and throughout] The title contains a spurious space in 'F ollow-up'; similarly, 'L VK', 'SN R', and 'T able' appear with stray spaces in several places. These should be corrected in the final version.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract refers to 'AT 170817gfo'; the standard name for the kilonova is AT 2017gfo. Please verify and correct.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'It important to note' is missing the verb 'is'. Also, the description of the per-tile exposure time as the maximum across the localization region could be clarified with a concrete example, since this choice is central to the scheduling constraints.
  4. [Table 4 caption] The caption contains 'success rates and, and estimated' with a doubled comma and conjunction. Please rephrase.
  5. [Section 4] The term 'success rate' is used for the mean of ptot(S) over selected events, but a reader may interpret it as the actual detection probability for a triggered event during real operations. Please add a clarifying sentence that the success rate is a model-dependent estimate conditioned on the prior and the simulated catalogs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the trigger counts come from fixed cuts on public simulated GW catalogs and the success rates are explicitly prior-weighted integrals that the paper labels as assumptions, so no prediction reduces to a hidden input by construction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. Section 3 describes uvex-followup, which applies fixed selection criteria (90% localization area <= 100 deg^2, coverage >= 99%, per-tile exposure limits, fiducial FUV magnitude -12.1) to the publicly available Kiendrebeogo et al. (2023) simulated observing scenarios. The trigger counts in Section 5 (8.9 and 11.3 BNS ToO triggers for O5/O6) are obtained by normalizing the fraction of selected simulated events to the stated GWTC-3 BNS rate; these are simulation outputs, not fitted parameters. Section 4 defines the success probability explicitly: Eq. (5) integrates the indicator F in Eq. (6) against the uniform prior pi(M_AB,true) ~ U(-17.9,-10.2) stated in Eq. (4). The paper is transparent that this prior is an assumption: 'This distribution is solely used to estimate the probability of success' and 'We do not at this juncture have a good understanding of the true distribution of UV KN luminosities.' Therefore the reported success rates (76.3%/77.5% fiducial, 63.5%/63.6% for M-13.1) are, as the skeptic notes, essentially the prior mass above the assumed point-estimate magnitude with a small distance-ratio correction. That is a conditional forecast under an explicitly stated assumption, not a hidden fit or a conclusion smuggled into the premises. The detection counts are triggers times this prior-weighted success probability, and the paper says the same. The self-citations to Kulkarni et al. (2023) and Kiendrebeogo et al. (2023) are load-bearing, but those cited works provide public code, data products, and simulations with stated assumptions; they are not unverified uniqueness theorems or ansatze cached in a citation. The internal tension between the Section 1.5 claim that -12.1 works 'regardless of current modelling uncertainties' and the Eq. (4) prior containing fainter models is a real robustness/correctness concern, but it is not circularity: the paper does not use the success rates to justify the prior, and it explicitly flags the prior as provisional. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input by construction.

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

The central numbers are conditional on a chain of external inputs: simulated GW catalogs, the BNS rate, the KN luminosity prior, and the instrument model. No new physical entities are introduced and no parameters are fit to data; the paper scans over hand-chosen selection thresholds.

free parameters (6)
  • Fiducial FUV source magnitude (assumed intrinsic KN absolute magnitude) = -12.1 AB mag
    Hand-chosen in the UVEX proposal (Kulkarni et al. 2023) as a conservative depth target for exposure time calculations. Not fitted to data, but directly controls which events survive selection.
  • Uniform prior bounds on intrinsic KN FUV magnitude = U(-17.9, -10.2) AB mag
    Chosen to span the spread of KN models in Kulkarni et al. (2023), not measured. Directly determines pdepth and hence all success rates and detection counts.
  • Coverage threshold = 99% fiducial; 95% and 90% variants
    User-defined selection cut that the paper varies to produce the CT95 and CT90 strategies.
  • Maximum localization area cut = 100 deg2 fiducial; 150 and 200 deg2 variants
    User-defined selection cut; the paper shows it has no effect in this simulation set.
  • Per-tile exposure time floor and cap = 500 s minimum, 3 hr maximum
    Scheduling configuration that affects which events are selected and how much sky can be tiled.
  • GW distance estimate choice = Mean posterior distance
    Using the mean rather than the 90% upper limit yields shorter required exposure times and more triggers.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Kiendrebeogo et al. (2023) observing scenarios correctly forecast the O5/O6 detector networks, sensitivities, and compact binary populations.
    The entire trigger-count analysis is run on these simulated event catalogs; if future sensitivity or network configuration differs, all counts change.
  • domain assumption The GWTC-3 BNS merger rate of 210 (+240/-120) Gpc^-3 yr^-1 is the correct astrophysical rate for the O5/O6 era.
    Used to normalize simulated event counts to real-world trigger rates. The paper provides a rescaling tool, but all headline numbers assume this rate.
  • domain assumption The UVEX exposure time calculator (uvex-mission v0.11-158) accurately models instrument response and UV background.
    Exposure times and selection outcomes hinge on this private ETC. The authors note performance may change as the mission matures.
  • domain assumption The KN FUV luminosity models in Kulkarni et al. (2023) bracket the true range of kilonova UV peaks, so a uniform prior over [-17.9, -10.2] covers physical possibilities.
    Used to define the success-rate prior in Eq. (4). If the true peak distribution falls outside this range, or is much fainter, detection counts change.
  • ad hoc to paper A uniform prior is an appropriate representation of ignorance over KN peak magnitudes.
    The authors choose uniform because the true distribution is unknown. They note a Gaussian or half-Gaussian would change the success-rate estimate, making this a paper-specific modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The dorado-scheduling mixed-integer linear programming solver produces feasible, near-optimal observing plans for UVEX.
    The tiling coverage and trigger selection depend on the scheduler's ability to find valid telescope pointings within constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electromagnetic Follow-up to Gravitational Wave Events with the UltraViolet EXplorer (UVEX)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/REQSLIGD

@misc{pith2026250114109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electromagnetic Follow-up to Gravitational Wave Events with the UltraViolet EXplorer (UVEX)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/REQSLIGD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14109}
}
read the original abstract

The Ultraviolet Explorer (UVEX) is expected to fly in 2030 and will have the opportunity -- and the rapid near/far ultraviolet (UV) capabilities -- to glean unprecedented insight into the bright UV emission present in kilonovae like that of AT 170817gfo, the electromagnetic counterpart to binary neutron star merger GW170817. To do so, it will need to perform prompt target-of-opportunity observations following detection of binary neutron star mergers by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational observatories. We present initial simulations to develop UVEX target-of-opportunity strategies for such events and provide the community with detailed initial estimates of the prospects for and characteristics of UVEX target-of-opportunity observations following gravitational-wave events, considering fiducial scenarios for the fifth and sixth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing runs. Additionally, in light of the relatively few binary neutron star mergers observed since GW170817, we consider variant target-of-opportunity strategies for UVEX to maximize scientific gain in the case of a lowered binary neutron star merger rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14109 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UVEX ToO selection summary plots for selected simulations discussed in §5–6. Top: event selection for the fiducial strategy (§5) as applied to the O5 and O6 observing scenarios. Bottom: event selection for selected expanded ToO strategies. The bottom left panel shows the CT90 strategy (§6.2), which reduces the minimum required UVEX coverage of the GW localization region to 90%. The bottom right panel shows the M-13.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Localization area distributions for UVEX BNS ToO triggers in the simulations of O5 (top) and O6 (bottom). Distributions are shown for the fiducial UVEX EM-GW strategy, the variant strategy with a 90% coverage threshold and the variant strategy with a 90% coverage threshold and an assumed KN absolute magnitude of -13.1 AB mags for both the O5 and O6 simulations. The median area and 90% credible intervals (C.I.) are i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Event distance distributions for UVEX BNS ToO triggers in the simulations of O5 (top) and O6 (bottom). Distri￾butions are shown for the fiducial UVEX EM-GW strategy, the variant strategy with a 90% coverage threshold and the variant strategy with a 90% coverage threshold and an assumed KN absolute magnitude of -13.1 AB mags for both the O5 and O6 simulations. The median distance and 90% C.I. are indicated with solid… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time to first detection distributions for for UVEX BNS ToO triggers in the simulations of O5 (top) and O6 (bottom). Note that t = 0 denotes the beginning of observations, not the time of merger. The UVEX ToO response time requirement is < 3 hrs from receipt of the trig…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2017b, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 —. 2017c, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471 —. 2017d, The Astrophysical Journal, 850, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9478 —. 2017e, The Astroph...

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  2. [2]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 915, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e —. 2021b, Physical Review X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e

  3. [3]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  4. [4]

    W., et al

    Ahumada, T., Anand, S., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 114201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad8265

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad8265 2024

  5. [5]

    2019, The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope: 100 Hubbles for the 2020s, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  6. [6]

    W., N¨ attil¨ a, J., et al

    Al-Mamun, M., Steiner, A. W., N¨ attil¨ a, J., et al. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 126, 061101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.061101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.061101 2021

  7. [7]

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

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d 2017

  8. [8]

    W., Kasliwal, M

    Anand, S., Coughlin, M. W., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 46, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3 2021

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    2020a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 3904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3142

    Antier, S., Agayeva, S., Aivazyan, V., et al. 2020a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 3904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3142

    doi

  2. [10]

    2020b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 5518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1846 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Antier, S., Agayeva, S., Almualla, M., et al. 2020b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 5518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1846 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4029

    Banerjee, S., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., & Gaigalas, G. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 968, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4029

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae61

    Gaigalas, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae61

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 5298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3052

    Biscoveanu, S., Landry, P., & Vitale, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 5298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3052

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c72

    Biswas, B. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c72

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, Bayesian Inference of Multimessenger Astrophysical Data: Joint and Coherent Inference of Gravitational Waves and Kilonovae, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.03750

    Breschi, M., Gamba, R., Carullo, G., et al. 2024, Bayesian Inference of Multimessenger Astrophysical Data: Joint and Coherent Inference of Gravitational Waves and Kilonovae, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.03750

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 1661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1287

    Breschi, M., Perego, A., Bernuzzi, S., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 1661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1287

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

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

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

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Tews, I., Brown, S

    Capano, C. D., Tews, I., Brown, S. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 625, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Toivonen, A., Waratkar, G., et al

    Chaudhary, S. S., Toivonen, A., Waratkar, G., et al. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121, e2316474121, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2316474121

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c

    Chornock, R., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

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

    Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2019a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 489, L91, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz133

    doi

  14. [22]

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

    Coughlin, M. W., Ahumada, T., Anand, S., et al. 2019b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 885, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4ad8

    doi

  15. [23]

    W., Antier, S., Dietrich, T., et al

    Coughlin, M. W., Antier, S., Dietrich, T., et al. 2020a, Nature Communications, 11, 4129, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17998-5

    doi

  16. [24]

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

    Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Heinzel, J., et al. 2020b, Physical Review Research, 2, 022006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.022006

    doi

  17. [25]

    W., Dietrich, T., Antier, S., et al

    Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Antier, S., et al. 2020c, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 863, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3457

    doi

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P. S., Berger, E., Villar, V. A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Criswell, A. 2024, Criswellalexander/Uvex-Followup: Code Release for Electromagnetic Follow-up to Gravitational Wave Events with the UltraViolet EXplorer (UVEX), Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14014700 16

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Chase, E

    Dichiara, S., Becerra, R. L., Chase, E. A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4259

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Pang, P

    Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2020a, Science, 370, 1450, doi: 10.1126/science.abb4317 —. 2020b, Science, 370, 1450, doi: 10.1126/science.abb4317

    doi

  23. [31]

    Essick, R., Landry, P., & Holz, D. E. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063007

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f03

    Galaudage, S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f03

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, New NASA Mission Will Study Ultraviolet

    Fisher, A. 2024, New NASA Mission Will Study Ultraviolet

    2024

  27. [35]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 4771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1728

    Gianfagna, G., Piro, L., Pannarale, F., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 4771, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1728

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16da

    Gill, R., Nathanail, A., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16da

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

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

    Gompertz, B. P., Cutter, R., Steeghs, D., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 497, 726, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1845

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa363

    Gottlieb, O., & Loeb, A. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 1753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa363

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 851, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa009

    Guidorzi, C., Margutti, R., Brout, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 851, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa009

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Hjorth, J., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9110

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Gomez, S., et al

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

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a98

    Hotokezaka, K., & Nakar, E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a98

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 940, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1

    Hotokezaka, K., Nakar, E., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 940, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  39. [47]

    Huth, S., Pang, P. T. H., Tews, I., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 276, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

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

    Kasliwal, M. M., Anand, S., Ahumada, T., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 905, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc335

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Kasen, D., Lau, R

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kasen, D., Lau, R. M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 510, L7, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz007

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    W., Farah, A

    Kiendrebeogo, R. W., Farah, A. M., Foley, E. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfcb1

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1583, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0073

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Klion, H., Duffell, P. C., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 865, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab042

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Harrison, F

    Kulkarni, S. R., Harrison, F. A., Grefenstette, B. W., et al. 2023, Science with the Ultraviolet Explorer (UVEX), arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2111.15608

    2023 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    2011, Euclid Definition Study Report, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193

    Laureijs, R., Amiaux, J., Arduini, S., et al. 2011, Euclid Definition Study Report, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1110.3193

    2011 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2024, Data Products for ”Electromagnetic Follow-up to Gravitational Wave Events with the UltraViolet EXplorer (UVEX)”, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14014902

    Leggio, S., & Criswell, A. 2024, Data Products for ”Electromagnetic Follow-up to Gravitational Wave Events with the UltraViolet EXplorer (UVEX)”, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14014902

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2021, Physical Review D, 104, 063003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063003

    Landry, P. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, 063003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063003

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    Li, L.-X., & Paczy´ nski, B. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    1998 doi

  52. [60]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ae2

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 155, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742

    Margutti, R., & Chornock, R. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 155, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057

    Margutti, R., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    Metzger, B. D. 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 17

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    D., Bauswein, A., Goriely, S., & Kasen, D

    Metzger, B. D., Bauswein, A., Goriely, S., & Kasen, D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2225

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    D., Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 406, 2650, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    2010

  59. [67]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    D., et al

    Murguia-Berthier, A., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Colle, F. D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd08e

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, Physics Reports, 886, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008

    Nakar, E. 2020, Physics Reports, 886, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1523

    Nicholl, M., Margalit, B., Schmidt, P., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1523

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

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

    2024 doi

  65. [73]

    L., Evans, P

    Page, K. L., Evans, P. A., Tohuvavohu, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 3459, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3032

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 063508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063508

    Palmese, A., Kaur, R., Hajela, A., et al. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 063508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063508

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Pang, P. T. H., Tews, I., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac19ab

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    Peeples, M., & The STScI Science Mission Office. 2025, HST Primer: Scientific Instrument Comparisons - HST User Documentation, https://hst-docs.stsci.edu/hsp/the- hubble-space-telescope-primer-for-cycle-33/hst-primer- scientific-instrument-comparisons

    2025

  69. [77]

    P., Coughlin, M

    Petrov, P., Singer, L. P., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac366d

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    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

  71. [79]

    L., & Kollmeier, J

    Piro, A. L., & Kollmeier, J. A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 103, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaab3

    2018 doi

  72. [80]

    K., Riley, T

    Raaijmakers, G., Greif, S. K., Riley, T. E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab822f

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    K., Hebeler, K., et al

    Raaijmakers, G., Greif, S. K., Hebeler, K., et al. 2021, arXiv:2105.06981 [astro-ph, physics:nucl-ex, physics:nucl-th]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.06981

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  75. [83]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9

    Rosswog, S., Feindt, U., Korobkin, O., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9

    2017 doi

  76. [84]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732117

    Rosswog, S., Sollerman, J., Feindt, U., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 615, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732117

    2018 doi

  77. [85]

    O., et al

    Sagiv, I., Gal-Yam, A., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/79

    2014 doi

  78. [86]

    G., & Mohan, S

    Saleem, M., Resmi, L., Arun, K. G., & Mohan, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6731

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 024013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024013

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    P., Chen, H.-Y., Holz, D

    Singer, L. P., Chen, H.-Y., Holz, D. E., et al. 2016a, The Astrophysical Journal, 829, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L15 —. 2016b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 226, 10, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/10

    doi

  82. [90]

    P., Criswell, A

    Singer, L. P., Criswell, A. W., Leggio, S. C., et al. 2025, Optimal Follow-Up of Gravitational-Wave Events with the UltraViolet EXplorer (UVEX), arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.17560

    2025 doi arXiv

  83. [91]

    J., Chen, T.-W., Jerkstrand, A., et al

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

    2017 doi

  84. [92]

    E., Annis, J., et al

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

    2017 doi

  85. [93]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3921 The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Song, H.-R., Ai, S.-K., Wang, M.-H., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3921 The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2019 doi

  86. [94]

    A., Roberts, C

    Tohuvavohu, A., Kennea, J. A., Roberts, C. J., et al. 2024, Swiftly Chasing Gravitational Waves across the Sky in Real-Time, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.05720 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2024 doi arXiv

  87. [95]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  88. [96]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd39c 18

    Wang, H., & Giannios, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd39c 18

    2021 doi

  89. [97]

    J., Selsing, J., et al

    Watson, D., Hansen, C. J., Selsing, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 497, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    2019 doi

  90. [98]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6e5

    Yu, Y.-W., Liu, L.-D., & Dai, Z.-G. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6e5

    2018 doi

  91. [99]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.