Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA neutron star merger candidate S250206dm: Zwicky Transient Facility observations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ZTF's nine-night search for the optical counterpart of neutron-star merger candidate S250206dm found nothing, and the non-detection excludes up to 35% of the brightest kilonova models in the authors' BNS grid.

desk verdict Solid GW follow-up with careful candidate vetting, but the abstract oversells the kilonova exclusions by dropping the optimistic-distance and non-overlapping-coverage caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00357 v1 pith:XP27UTR3 submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.HE

Tomás Ahumada , Shreya Anand , Mattia Bulla , Vaidehi Gupta , Mansi Kasliwal , Robert Stein , Viraj Karambelkar , Eric C. Bellm
show 44 more authors
Theophile Jegou du Laz Michael W. Coughlin Igor Andreoni Smaranika Banerjee Aleksandra Bochenek K-Ryan Hinds Lei Hu Antonella Palmese Daniel Perley Natalya Pletskova Anirudh Salgundi Avinash Singh Jesper Sollerman Vishwajeet Swain Avery Wold Varun Bhalerao S. Bradley Cenko David O. Cook Chris Copperwheat Matthew Graham David L. Kaplan Leo P. Singer Niharika Sravan Malte Busmann Julius Gassert Daniel Gruen Julian Sommer Yajie Zhang Ariel Amsellem Tomás Cabrera Xander J. Hall Keerthi Kunnumkai Brendan O'Connor Tyler Barna Felipe Fontinele Nunes Andrew Toivonen Argyro Sasli Frank J. Masci Tracy X. Chen Richard Dekany Josiah Purdum Antoine Le-Calloch G. C. Anupama Sudhanshu Barway
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwaveskilonovaneutronstarmergerZwickyTransientFacilityopticalfollow-upradiativetransfermultimessengerastronomyS250206dm
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 reports the Zwicky Transient Facility's follow-up of S250206dm, a high-confidence gravitational-wave merger candidate with at least one neutron star, and concludes that no likely optical counterpart was present in the 68% of the localization region ZTF covered over nine nights. Assuming a kilonova would have been inside that footprint, the authors argue the survey's upper limits cut into the bright end of kilonova parameter space: up to 35% of their binary-neutron-star models with heavy disk-wind ejecta ($M_{\rm wind}\approx0.13\,M_\odot$) are excluded when viewed face-on, and up to 55% when ZTF limits are combined with DECam observations. The result matters because it uses a single well-localized event to shrink the range of kilonova brightnesses and ejecta masses that future searches must accommodate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the comparison of ZTF's observed upper limits (dominated by the first-night r-band limit of $\sim20.5$ mag at 1.2 days after the trigger) to a grid of 3,072 possis three-dimensional Monte Carlo radiative-transfer kilonova models spanning six ejecta parameters — dynamical mass, velocity, and electron fraction plus wind mass, velocity, and electron fraction — each viewed at 11 angles, together with 407 NSBH models. The ejection-mass and velocity space is the quantity being constrained, and the exclusion percentages are read off the fraction of grid models whose predicted light curves exceed the limits.

What would settle it

A confirmed kilonova associated with a BNS merger at comparable distance, with wind ejecta mass near $0.13\,M_\odot$, viewed nearly face-on, and peaking around $-17.5$ absolute magnitude or brighter, detected inside a similarly covered footprint would directly contradict the paper's exclusion claim; the same test could be run computationally by sampling the six ejecta parameters more finely and at the nominal $373$ Mpc distance to see whether the excluded fraction collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 300-second exposures in g, r, and i bands repeated over nine nights, ZTF imaged 68% of the S250206dm localization (64% twice) and found no transient that survived vetting as a kilonova. The paper quantifies the significance of this absence two ways: frequentist simulations (simsurvey) show detection efficiency above 10% for kilonovae brighter than $-17.5$ absolute magnitude at the nominal $373\pm104$ Mpc distance, and Bayesian inference (nimbus) disfavors models with $M_0\lesssim -17.5$ and slow decay ($\alpha<0.2$ mag/day). Comparing the survey's photometric upper limits to 3,072 possis radiative-transfer BNS models and 407 NSBH models, pinned at the closest 1-$\sigma$ distance of 269 Mpc, the authors find no NSBH model is bright enough to be ruled out, while face-on BNS models with wind ejecta mass near $0.13\,M_\odot$ and high electron fraction are excluded at up to 35%; the joint ZTF plus DECam limits raise that to 55% for high-mass face-on models.

Load-bearing premise

The exclusion percentages are fractions of the authors' own finite model grids and assume the merger sits at 269 Mpc — the closest 1-sigma end of the distance distribution — with the kilonova inside the 68% of the localization that ZTF covered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For S250206dm, ZTF alone rules out up to 35% of face-on BNS kilonova models with high wind ejecta mass ($M_{\rm wind}\approx0.13\,M_\odot$) at 269 Mpc.
  • None of the NSBH kilonova models in the grid are bright enough to be excluded by the ZTF limits.
  • Combining ZTF with DECam/GW-MMADS coverage (73% of the localization) raises the excluded fraction to 55% for the same face-on high-mass models and pushes recovery efficiency near 60% for rising and slowly fading kilonovae.
  • The survey's efficiency for recovering a GW170817-like kilonova in this event is below 1%, so this non-detection mainly sharpens limits on the bright end of the kilonova luminosity function.
  • The nimbus analysis disfavors kilonovae with peak absolute magnitude $M_0$ below about $-17.5$ and slow evolution, pointing future searches toward earlier and deeper first-epoch observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 35% and 55% exclusion fractions are relative to the authors' discrete model grids and to the optimistic 269 Mpc distance; at the nominal 373 Mpc the simulated light curves are fainter, so a denser grid or more probable distance would likely shrink the excluded fraction.
  • The strongest leverage comes from the very first night of coverage, so a survey that begins within hours of a merger — or a network distributing fields by probability — could convert similar non-detections into substantially tighter ejecta-mass limits.
  • If future events give overlapping wide-field coverage from ZTF and DECam, the paper's joint-analysis exercise becomes directly applicable, and the 55% exclusion could be realized without the present assumption of overlapping footprints.
  • Seven candidates (including AT2025bcc and AT2025bey) could not be individually ruled out; if any were actually the counterpart and simply fainter than the KN models, the parameter-space constraints would need to be relaxed.
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 reports the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) search for an optical counterpart to the gravitational-wave event S250206dm, a high-significance compact-binary merger candidate with at least one neutron star. ZTF observed 68% of the localization region over nine nights, identified 13 candidate transients from its own alert stream, and vetted an additional 22 candidates circulated by other facilities; all 13 ZTF candidates were rejected and seven external candidates could not be ruled out, so the paper proceeds under the explicit assumption that none is the kilonova. The authors quantify the search efficiency with the simsurvey and nimbus pipelines, compare ZTF upper limits to new POSSIS radiative-transfer model grids for BNS and NSBH mergers, and report that up to 35% of BNS models with high wind ejecta mass viewed face-on are ruled out at the optimistically assumed distance of 269 Mpc. Finally, they combine ZTF and DECam/GW-MMADS observations in a joint analysis, reporting 73.3% combined coverage, improved efficiency for rising and slowly fading models, and up to 55% exclusion of face-on high-wind-mass BNS models. The central scientific result is a non-detection and the associated constraints on the brightest end of kilonova parameter space.

Significance. If the stated constraints are taken at face value, the paper provides a useful upper limit on optical emission from a nearby NS-involved merger and demonstrates the current capability of wide-field optical follow-up for LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA events. The strengths are the very careful candidate vetting, the use of forced-photometry history, the combination of several independent alert-filtering pipelines, and the application of established efficiency tools (simsurvey and nimbus) together with new POSSIS model grids that are promised to be public. The ZTF-only non-detection and its efficiency statement for KNe brighter than about -17.5 mag are defensible. The significance is diminished, however, by the fact that the headline joint 55% exclusion is explicitly hypothetical, because ZTF and DECam did not overlap in sky coverage for this event, and by the distance and viewing-angle conditions attached to the model-exclusion numbers. The paper is a solid observational contribution, but its abstract overstates the actual constraining power of the joint analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §5] The 55% joint-exclusion figure is not an actual constraint for S250206dm. Section 5 explicitly states 'Although this approach assumes joint coverage, which is not the case for S250206dm', and the 73.3% coverage quoted in the abstract is the union of the ZTF and DECam footprints, not the region where both instruments have upper limits. The abstract nevertheless presents 'allowing us to rule out 55% of the high-mass KN models viewed face-on' as a result of this event's joint observations, which is an overstatement. Please remove the 55% number from the abstract or clearly label it as a hypothetical forecast for overlapping wide-field coverage, and report separately what the actual non-overlapping data constrain.
  2. [§4.2; Fig. 14; abstract] The ZTF-only exclusion of 35% is computed at 269 Mpc, which the text calls the 'optimistically assumed' closest 1-sigma distance, and for face-on viewing (cos θobs = 1.0). At the nominal LVK distance of 373 ± 104 Mpc the number of excluded models is smaller, as Fig. 14 demonstrates with its distance-sensitivity corner plot. The abstract states 'Up to 35% of the models with high wind ejecta mass ... are ruled out when viewed face-on' without mentioning the 269 Mpc pin, so the claim as written is stronger than what the observations establish. Please state the distance and viewing-angle assumptions wherever the 35% and 55% exclusion percentages appear, and clarify that the excluded fractions are fractions of a finite model grid rather than a continuous measure of parameter-space volume.
  3. [§3.3; Appendix C] Seven candidates (AT2025bcc, AT2025bey, AT2025bbp, AT2025bah, AT2025bam, AT2025bce, AT2025baf) cannot be ruled out by the stated rejection criteria, and the paper assumes they are not counterparts. This assumption is reasonable and is stated in the text, but it should be carried through explicitly in the abstract and conclusion, where the language 'no likely optical counterpart' is stronger than the candidate evidence alone supports; the constraint results depend on this assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3; §6] The event name is misspelled as 'S250602dm' in the Fig. 3 caption and in Section 6; it should be S250206dm throughout.
  2. [Fig. 15 caption] The Fig. 15 caption says 'a fixed distance of 269 Mpc' while the panel label reads 'd = 373Mpc'; one of these is incorrect and should be fixed.
  3. [§3.3] The text refers to 'Table D' for the summary of follow-up of candidates from other facilities, but the relevant summary appears to be in Appendix C and Table 2; please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [§4.2; Figs. 5, 12-15] The notation for the wind electron fraction is inconsistent: the text and some axis labels use Ye,wind while the corner-plot colorbars use \bar{Y}_{e,wind}; please standardize.
  5. [§5] The sentence beginning 'The simsurvey approach accounts for the fact that the two instruments cover different areas' is correct, but it sits directly next to the joint-coverage assumption that contradicts it; consider restructuring so the reader can distinguish the efficiency calculation, which uses the actual union of pointings, from the model-exclusion calculation, which assumes overlapping coverage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exclusion limits are forward-model comparisons against observed upper limits, not fits to the data; the only flagged issue is an abstract/body mismatch on the hypothetical 55% joint exclusion, which the body itself discloses.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central claim is that ZTF's non-detection, under the explicit assumption that a kilonova lies within the imaged footprint, rules out some bright BNS model light curves. The model grids (3072 BNS and 407 NSBH possis models) are forward-simulated from ejecta parameters (Section 4.2) and are compared to observed g/r/i upper limits; no model parameter is fitted to the S250206dm observations, and the '35% ruled out' figure is literally the fraction of grid models exceeding the observed limits at 269 Mpc and face-on viewing (Figures 4-5), so the output is not an input by construction. The nimbus and simsurvey efficiencies are software tools cited from earlier work (Ahumada et al. 2024; Mohite et al. 2022), and the possis radiative-transfer code (Bulla 2023) provides externally validated physics; these self-citations are methodological continuity, not load-bearing uniqueness arguments or smuggled ansatze. One flagged limitation: the abstract reports the joint DECam+ZTF '55%' exclusion without the caveat that Section 5 states 'Although this approach assumes joint coverage, which is not the case for S250206dm'; the body correctly labels that number as a hypothetical obtained under an overlap assumption, and the simsurvey joint efficiency analysis in the same section does account for the instruments covering different areas. The issue is therefore an abstract-level overstatement or internal-consistency concern, not circular reasoning: no step reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The paper adds no new physics entities. Its constraints rest on the LVK event parameters (skymap, pastro = 0.92, distance 373 +/- 104 Mpc), the adopted KN light-curve models (tophat, Bulla/possis, Kasen, Banerjee), the choice of the BNS grid's six ejecta parameters and ranges, the optimistic 269 Mpc distance pin for the exclusion fractions, and the stated assumption that seven unruled-out candidates are not counterparts. The 35% and 55% exclusion percentages are counts over the authors' grids, so the grid design itself shapes the headline numbers.

free parameters (4)
  • BNS grid ejecta parameter ranges = Mdyn = 0.001-0.02 Msun; vdyn = 0.12-0.25c; Ye,dyn = 0.15-0.30; Mwind = 0.01-0.13 Msun; vwind = 0.03-0.15c; Ye,wind =…
    The exclusion percentages are fractions of this finite 3072-model grid with 11 viewing angles; the claimed 35% and 55% constraints are defined by these chosen ranges and sampling.
  • Distance pin for model exclusion = 269 Mpc (closest 1-sigma of 373 +/- 104 Mpc)
    Model light curves are pinned at the optimistically assumed closest 1-sigma distance; at the nominal 373 Mpc the apparent magnitudes are roughly 0.7 mag fainter so fewer models would exceed the ZTF and DECam limits.
  • Tophat grid (M0, alpha) sampling = M0 roughly -18 to -12 mag; alpha roughly -0.5 to 1.5 mag per day
    The efficiency maps, including the 'above 10% for M0 < -17.5' statement, are computed over this adopted linear light-curve family rather than over all possible kilonova light curves.
  • Candidate selection cuts = 5-sigma residual threshold; real-bogus score greater than 0.3; two detections separated by at least 15 minutes
    These hand-chosen filtering criteria define what counts as a detection in both the real search and the simulated efficiency calculation; changing the cuts changes the efficiency percentages.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The possis radiative-transfer models (Bulla 2023) with Rosswog and Korobkin (2024) heating rates faithfully represent real BNS and NSBH kilonova light curves.
    The exclusion analysis in Section 4.2 compares observed upper limits to these simulated curves; if the heating rates, two-component ejecta geometry, or opacities are wrong, the ruled-out fractions do not apply to the real event.
  • domain assumption The LVK event parameters are accurate inputs: skymap, FAR of 1 in 25 years, pastro = 0.92, and distance 373 +/- 104 Mpc.
    All efficiency and posterior calculations are weighted by the skymap and use the distance; an error in these propagates into every quoted percentage.
  • domain assumption Kilonovae from this event are described by the two-component (dynamical plus disk-wind) ejecta parameterization sampled by the grids.
    A real kilonova with parameters outside the sampled ranges, for example heavier ejecta or a different angular distribution, would evade the exclusion claims, so the constraints are conditional on the model family.
  • ad hoc to paper The seven candidates that passed all rejection tests are not counterparts to S250206dm.
    Stated at the end of Section 3.3: 'we assume these candidates are not counterparts to S250206dm.' The no-counterpart interpretation and the subsequent exclusion analysis depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption simsurvey and nimbus correctly estimate detection efficiency and posteriors.
    The quantitative claims rest on these two published tools (simsurvey; nimbus from Mohite et al. 2022), which the paper uses without re-validation. In particular nimbus's single average-band light curve with shared color evolution is an approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA neutron star merger candidate S250206dm: Zwicky Transient Facility observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XP27UTR3

@misc{pith2026250700357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA neutron star merger candidate S250206dm: Zwicky Transient Facility observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XP27UTR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00357}
}
abstract

We present the searches conducted with the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) in response to S250206dm, a bona fide event with a false alarm rate of one in 25 years, detected by the International Gravitational Wave Network (IGWN). Although the event is significant, the nature of the compact objects involved remains unclear, with at least one likely neutron star. ZTF covered 68% of the localization region, though we did not identify any likely optical counterpart. We describe the ZTF strategy, potential candidates, and the observations that helped rule out candidates, including sources circulated by other collaborations. Similar to Ahumada et al. 2024, we perform a frequentist analysis, using simsurvey, as well as Bayesian analysis, using nimbus, to quantify the efficiency of our searches. We find that, given the nominal distance to this event of 373$\pm$104 Mpc, our efficiencies are above 10% for KNe brighter than $-17.5$ absolute magnitude. Assuming the optical counterpart known as kilonova (KN) lies within the ZTF footprint, our limits constrain the brightest end of the KN parameter space. Through dedicated radiative transfer simulations of KNe from binary neutron star (BNS) and black hole-neutron star (BHNS) mergers, we exclude parts of the BNS KN parameter space. Up to 35% of the models with high wind ejecta mass ($M_{\rm wind} \approx 0.13$ M$_{\odot}$) are ruled out when viewed face-on ($\cos\theta_{\rm obs} = 1.0$). Finally, we present a joint analysis using the combined coverage from ZTF and the Gravitational Wave Multimessenger Dark Energy Camera Survey (GW-MMADS). The joint observations cover 73% of the localization region, and the combined efficiency has a stronger impact on rising and slowly fading models, allowing us to rule out 55% of the high-mass KN models viewed face-on.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00357 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Localization of the high-significance event S250206dm, overlaid with the ZTF tiles (black squares), the GW-MMADS tiles (black circles), and the 90% probability contour (navy). The green stars represent transients reported on TNS that were accessible from Palomar, while the white stars indicate candidates that were not accessible from Palomar. 12 14 16 18 M0 (mag) 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 (m a g d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kilonova single-detection efficiency with simsurvey for the Tophat model evolution for (left) S250206dm and (right) for the combined set of GW triggers: S250206dm, S230518h, S230627c, S230731an, S231113bw, GW230529, GW200115, GW200105, GW190814, GW190426, and GW190425. The color bar shows the fraction of sources detected once versus the number of sources ingested in the GW volume. We mark the position of a GW170817-… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The nimbus results of (left) S250206dm and (right) the combined set of GW triggers: S250206dm, S230518h, S230627c, S230731an, S231113bw, GW200115, GW190524, GW190426, GW190814 and GW230529 for KN model parameters assuming the Tophat model. The x-axis shows the peak absolute magnitude M0 of a model, while the y-axis shows its evolution rate α. The color bar shows the posterior probability of each model, where yellow … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Corner plot showing in a colorbar the percentage of BNS models ruled out at a fixed distance of 269 Mpc and at a fixed viewing angle of 0 deg. The parameters correspond to the ejecta mass, mass-weighted averaged velocity and mass-weighted electron fraction for the dyna…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: simsurvey recovery efficiency for KNe injected in the S250206dm skymap using a grid of peak absolute mag￾nitude, M0, and evolution rate, α, using ZTF and DECam observations. One of the main differences is that compared to the ZTF only analysis, the joint observations a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (left) Light-curves of BNS models pinned at 269 Mpc, the closest 1-sigma from the GW distance distribution. We show the ZTF and DECam median limits as triangles for (left) r band and (center) i band. BNS models were ruled out by both ZTF and DECam at different stages i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Localization of the high-significance event S250206dm, overlaid with the ZTF tiles and the 90% probability contour. The blue region shows the center of different multi-wavelength and multi-messenger transients detected coincident in time with S250206dm. The green stars…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Light-curves for optical counterparts of S250206dm. The color (red, green, yellow, blue, cyan) represent the different filters (g, r, i, L, c). The different symbols (circle, square, pentagon, diamond, X, filled cross, and thin cross) represent the different facilities…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Light-curves for optical counterparts of S250206dm. The color (red, green, yellow, blue, cyan) represent the different filters (g, r, i, L, c). The different symbols (circle, square, pentagon, diamond, X, filled cross, and thin cross) represent the different facilitie…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The optical (top) and near-infrared (bottom) spectra of the counterpart candidates of S250602dm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Corner plot showing in a colorbar the percentage of BNS models ruled out at a fixed distance of 269 Mpc and at a fixed viewing angle of 45 deg. The parameters correspond to the ejecta mass, mass-weighted averaged velocity and mass-weighted electron fraction for the dy…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Corner plot showing in a colorbar the percentage of BNS models ruled out at a fixed distance of 269 Mpc and at a fixed viewing angle of 90 deg. The parameters correspond to the ejecta mass, mass-weighted averaged velocity and mass-weighted electron fraction for the dy…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Corner plot showing in a colorbar the percentage of BNS models ruled out at a fixed distance of 373 Mpc and at a fixed viewing angle of 0 deg. The parameters correspond to the ejecta mass, mass-weighted averaged velocity and mass-weighted electron fraction for the dyn…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Corner plot showing in a colorbar the percentage of BNS models ruled out at a fixed distance of 269 Mpc and at a fixed viewing angle of 45 deg. The parameters correspond to the ejecta mass, mass-weighted averaged velocity and mass-weighted electron fraction for the dy…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Black hole-neutron star binaries with high spins and large mass asymmetries: III. Properties of the ejected material and its electromagnetic signatures

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    High-spin, high-mass-ratio black hole–neutron star mergers eject 0.02–0.06 solar masses of neutron-rich (Y_e≈0.05) debris whose kilonovae are infrared-bright, optically dark, and match late-time AT2017gfo while stayin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

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

    2017

  2. [2]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, , 848, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  5. [5]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  6. [6]

    2017, Phys

    Abbott et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  7. [7]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39197, 1

    Ackley , K., Belkin , S., Steeghs , D., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39197, 1

    2025

  8. [8]

    P., Anand , S., et al

    Ahumada , T., Singer , L. P., Anand , S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917, 10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 2021

Show all 150 references
  1. [9]

    W., et al

    Ahumada , T., Anand , S., Coughlin , M. W., et al. 2022, , 932, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c29

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, , 136, 114201, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad8265

    ---. 2024, , 136, 114201, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad8265

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39228, 1

    Ahumada , T., Karambelkar , V., Bellm , E., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39228, 1

    2025

  4. [12]

    R., & Ravenhall , D

    Akmal , A., Pandharipande , V. R., & Ravenhall , D. G. 1998, , 58, 1804, 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804

    1998 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Schroeder , G., Paterson , K., et al

    Alexander , K. D., Schroeder , G., Paterson , K., et al. 2021, , 923, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac281a

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    W., Kasliwal , M

    Anand , S., Coughlin , M. W., Kasliwal , M. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Anand , S., Pang , P. T. H., Bulla , M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.11080, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.11080

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    A., Anand , S., et al

    Andreoni , I., Goldstein , D. A., Anand , S., et al. 2019, , 881, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3399

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Kasliwal , M

    Andreoni , I., Goldstein , D. A., Kasliwal , M. M., et al. 2020, , 890, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a1b

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    W., Kool , E

    Andreoni , I., Coughlin , M. W., Kool , E. C., et al. 2021, , 918, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bc7

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, , 497, 5518, 10.1093/mnras/staa1846

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

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, , 855, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/aab267

    Arcavi , I. 2018, , 855, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/aab267

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    D., et al

    Ashton , G., H \"u bner , M., Lasky , P. D., et al. 2019, , 241, 27, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    P., et al

    Balasubramanian , A., Corsi , A., Mooley , K. P., et al. 2022, , 938, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9133

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, , 934, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7565

    Banerjee , S., Tanaka , M., Kato , D., et al. 2022, , 934, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7565

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Dichiara , S., Watson , A

    Becerra , R. L., Dichiara , S., Watson , A. M., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39208, 1

    2025

  17. [25]

    S., & Csabai , I

    Beck , R., Dobos , L., Budav \'a ri , T., Szalay , A. S., & Csabai , I. 2016, , 460, 1371, 10.1093/mnras/stw1009

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    C., & Sesar , B

    Bellm , E. C., & Sesar , B. 2016, pyraf-dbsp: Reduction pipeline for the Palomar Double Beam Spectrograph . 1602.002

    2016

  19. [27]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Bellm , E. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Graham , M. J., et al. 2019, , 131, 018002, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    2010, SExtractor: Source Extractor , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Bertin , E., & Arnouts , S. 2010, SExtractor: Source Extractor , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1010.064

    2010

  21. [29]

    D., Walters , R., et al

    Blagorodnova , N., Neill , J. D., Walters , R., et al. 2018, , 130, 035003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa53f

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2019, , 489, 5037, 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

    Bulla , M. 2019, , 489, 5037, 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, , 520, 2558, 10.1093/mnras/stad232

    ---. 2023, , 520, 2558, 10.1093/mnras/stad232

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2025 a , GRB Coordinates Network, 39214, 1

    Busmann , M., Gruen , D., O'Connor , B., et al. 2025 a , GRB Coordinates Network, 39214, 1

    2025

  25. [33]

    2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14588, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14588

    Busmann , M., O'Connor , B., Sommer , J., et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14588, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14588

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39318, 1

    Cabrera , T., Hu , L., Hall , X., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39318, 1

    2025

  27. [35]

    2024, , 110, 123029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123029

    Cabrera , T., Palmese , A., Hu , L., et al. 2024, , 110, 123029, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123029

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Magnier , E

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

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R., et al

    Chatterjee , D., Ghosh , S., Brady , P. R., et al. 2020, , 896, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8dbe

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Vinko , J., & Lighetr Collaboration

    Chen , H.-Y., Zeimann , G., Wheeler , J. C., Vinko , J., & Lighetr Collaboration . 2025 a , GRB Coordinates Network, 39785, 1

    2025

  31. [39]

    W., Aryan , A., Yang , S., et al

    Chen , T. W., Aryan , A., Yang , S., et al. 2025 b , GRB Coordinates Network, 39285, 1

    2025

  32. [40]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39216, 1

    Chime/Frb Collaboration . 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39216, 1

    2025

  33. [41]

    W., T., A., S., A., et al

    Coughlin, M. W., T., A., S., A., et al. 2019 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 885, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4ad8

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    W., Tao, D., Chan, M

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

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Ahumada, T., Cenko, S

    Coughlin, M. W., Ahumada, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2019 b , Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 048001, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaff99

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Bloom , J

    Coughlin , M. W., Bloom , J. S., Nir , G., et al. 2023, , 267, 31, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Kilpatrick , C

    Coulter , D. A., Kilpatrick , C. D., Macias , P., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39234, 1

    2025

  38. [46]

    A., Foley , R

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

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Bloemen , S., et al

    de Wet , S., Groot , P. J., Bloemen , S., et al. 2021, , 649, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040231

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Riddle , R., et al

    Dekany , R., Smith , R. M., Riddle , R., et al. 2020, , 132, 038001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    W., Pang , P

    Dietrich , T., Coughlin , M. W., Pang , P. T. H., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.11355. 2002.11355

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    2022, , 510, 3794, 10.1093/mnras/stab3628

    Dobie , D., Stewart , A., Hotokezaka , K., et al. 2022, , 510, 3794, 10.1093/mnras/stab3628

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2014, , 90, 065809, 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.065809

    Drago , A., Lavagno , A., Pagliara , G., & Pigato , D. 2014, , 90, 065809, 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.065809

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Piro , A

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

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Mahabal , A., Masci , F

    Duev , D. A., Mahabal , A., Masci , F. J., et al. 2019, , 489, 3582, 10.1093/mnras/stz2357

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Cenko , S

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

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    M., Antier , S., et al

    Fortin , F., Watson , A. M., Antier , S., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39226, 1

    2025

  48. [56]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39196, 1

    Freeburn , J., Carney , J., Andreoni , I., & Cook , D. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39196, 1

    2025

  49. [57]

    2016, , 593, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275

    Fremling , C., Sollerman , J., Taddia , F., et al. 2016, , 593, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628275

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Stein , R

    Frostig , D., Karambelkar , V. R., Stein , R. D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12384, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12384

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/345

    Gaia Collaboration . 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/345

    2018

  52. [60]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Andreoni , I., Nugent , P

    Goldstein , D. A., Andreoni , I., Nugent , P. E., et al. 2019, , 881, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3046

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

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

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

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    A., & Riffeser , A

    G \"o ssl , C. A., & Riffeser , A. 2002, , 381, 1095, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011522

    2002 doi

  57. [65]

    J., Kulkarni , S

    Graham , M. J., Kulkarni , S. R., Bellm , E. C., et al. 2019, , 131, 078001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    2017, Dguevel/Pyzogy: Initial Release , v0.0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1043973

    Guevel , D., & Hosseinzadeh , G. 2017, Dguevel/Pyzogy: Initial Release , v0.0.1, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1043973

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    J., et al

    Haggard , D., Nynka , M., Ruan , J. J., et al. 2017, , 848, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8ede

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    P., et al

    Hallinan , G., Corsi , A., Mooley , K. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1579, 10.1126/science.aap9855

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    2010, , 837, 210, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.02.010

    Hempel , M., & Schaffner-Bielich , J. 2010, , 837, 210, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.02.010

    2010 doi

  62. [70]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Hopp , U., Bender , R., Grupp , F., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V, ed. L. M. Stepp , R. Gilmozzi , & H. J. Hall , 91452D, 10.1117/12.2054498

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    J., et al

    Hosseinzadeh , G., Shrestha , M., Sand , D. J., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39191, 1

    2025

  64. [72]

    Hu , L., et al. 2025

    2025

  65. [73]

    D., Fern \'a ndez-Garc \' a , E., Caballero-Garc \' a , M

    Hu , Y. D., Fern \'a ndez-Garc \' a , E., Caballero-Garc \' a , M. D., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, 952887, 10.3389/fspas.2023.952887

    2023

  66. [74]

    E., Gillanders , J

    Huber , M. E., Gillanders , J. H., Chambers , K., et al. 2025 a , GRB Coordinates Network, 39272, 1

    2025

  67. [75]

    E., Gillanders , J

    Huber , M. E., Gillanders , J. H., Chambers , K. C., et al. 2025 b , GRB Coordinates Network, 39195, 1

    2025

  68. [76]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39176, 1

    IceCube Collaboration . 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39176, 1

    2025

  69. [77]

    2025 a , GRB Coordinates Network, 39229, 1

    Karambelkar , V., Ahumada , T., Kasliwal , M., Ztf Collaboration , & Growth Collaboration . 2025 a , GRB Coordinates Network, 39229, 1

    2025

  70. [78]

    2025 b , GRB Coordinates Network, 39273, 1

    Karambelkar , V., Ahumada , T., Rose , S., et al. 2025 b , GRB Coordinates Network, 39273, 1

    2025

  71. [79]

    2017, , 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

    Kasen , D., Metzger , B., Barnes , J., Quataert , E., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2017, , 551, 80, 10.1038/nature24453

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    M., Nakar , E., Singer , L

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

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    M., Kasen, D., Lau, R

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kasen, D., Lau, R. M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz007

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    M., Cannella , C., Bagdasaryan , A., et al

    Kasliwal , M. M., Cannella , C., Bagdasaryan , A., et al. 2019, , 131, 038003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aafbc2

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    2020 b , , 905, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc335

    ---. 2020 b , , 905, 145, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc335

    2020 doi

  76. [85]

    2020, , 889, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f6

    Kawaguchi , K., Shibata , M., & Tanaka , M. 2020, , 889, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f6

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    D., Coulter , D

    Kilpatrick , C. D., Coulter , D. A., Arcavi , I., et al. 2021, , 923, 258, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23c6

    2021 doi

  78. [87]

    L., Rigault , M., Neill , J

    Kim , Y. L., Rigault , M., Neill , J. D., et al. 2022, , 134, 024505, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac50a0

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    C., et al

    Kumar , H., Bhalerao , V., Anupama , G. C., et al. 2022, , 164, 90, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea

    2022 doi

  80. [89]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Lang-Bardl , F., Bender , R., Goessl , C., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 990844, 10.1117/12.2232039

    2016 doi

  81. [90]

    2020, PoS, Asterics2019, 044, 10.22323/1.357.0044

    Levan, A. 2020, PoS, Asterics2019, 044, 10.22323/1.357.0044

    2020 doi

  82. [91]

    Y., Hu , J

    Li , D. Y., Hu , J. W., Wu , Q. Y., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39545, 1

    2025

  83. [92]

    2025 a , GRB Coordinates Network, 39178, 1

    Ligo Scientific Collaboration , VIRGO Collaboration , & Kagra Collaboration . 2025 a , GRB Coordinates Network, 39178, 1

    2025

  84. [93]

    2025 b , GRB Coordinates Network, 39175, 1

    ---. 2025 b , GRB Coordinates Network, 39175, 1

    2025

  85. [94]

    2025 c , GRB Coordinates Network, 39231, 1

    ---. 2025 c , GRB Coordinates Network, 39231, 1

    2025

  86. [95]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39265, 1

    Lipunov , V., Gorbovskoy , E., Kuznetsov , A., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39265, 1

    2025

  87. [96]

    M., Gorbovskoy , E., Kornilov , V

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

    2017 doi

  88. [97]

    Y., He , L., Zhao , W., et al

    Liu , Z. Y., He , L., Zhao , W., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39249, 1

    2025

  89. [98]

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

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

    2019 doi

  90. [99]

    P., Brightman , M., et al

    Makhathini , S., Mooley , K. P., Brightman , M., et al. 2021, , 922, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc

    2021 doi

  91. [100]

    2017, , 848, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057

    Margutti , R., Berger , E., Fong , W., et al. 2017, , 848, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057

    2017 doi

  92. [101]

    J., Laher , R

    Masci , F. J., Laher , R. R., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  93. [102]

    Mathias , L. W. P., Di Clemente , F., Bulla , M., & Alessandro , D. 2024, , 527, 11053, 10.1093/mnras/stad3919

    2024 doi

  94. [103]

    R., Rajkumar, P., Anand, S., et al

    Mohite, S. R., Rajkumar, P., Anand, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3981

    2022 doi

  95. [104]

    P., Anderson , J., & Lu , W

    Mooley , K. P., Anderson , J., & Lu , W. 2022, , 610, 273, 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7

    2022 doi

  96. [105]

    P., Deller , A

    Mooley , K. P., Deller , A. T., Gottlieb , O., et al. 2018, , 561, 355, 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3

    2018 doi

  97. [106]

    2020, , 901, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafaa

    Morgan , R., Soares-Santos , M., Annis , J., et al. 2020, , 901, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafaa

    2020 doi

  98. [107]

    2023, , 108, 123040, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123040

    Morisaki , S., Smith , R., Tsukada , L., et al. 2023, , 108, 123040, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123040

    2023 doi

  99. [108]

    2020, , 886, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008

    Nakar , E. 2020, , 886, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008

    2020 doi

  100. [109]

    2019, , 631, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935634

    Nordin , J., Brinnel , V., van Santen , J., et al. 2019, , 631, A147, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935634

    2019 doi

  101. [110]

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

    2024 doi

  102. [111]

    Paek , G. S. H., Im , M., Jeong , M., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39241, 1

    2025

  103. [112]

    T., Bellm , E

    Patterson , M. T., Bellm , E. C., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018001, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae904

    2019 doi

  104. [113]

    2017, , 850, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9

    Perego , A., Radice , D., & Bernuzzi , S. 2017, , 850, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9

    2017 doi

  105. [114]

    Perley , D. A. 2019, , 131, 084503, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    2019 doi

  106. [115]

    A., Ho , A

    Perley , D. A., Ho , A. Y. Q., Fausnaugh , M., et al. 2025, , 537, 1, 10.1093/mnras/staf125

    2025 doi

  107. [116]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15422, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15422

    Pillas , M., Antier , S., Ackley , K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15422, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15422

    2025 doi

  108. [117]

    S., Barkov, M

    Pozanenko, A. S., Barkov, M. V., Minaev, P. Y., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 852, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f6

    2018 doi

  109. [118]

    X., Hennawi , J

    Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J. F., Westfall , K. B., et al. 2020 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.06505. 2005.06505

    2020 arXiv

  110. [119]

    X., Hennawi , J., Cooke , R., et al

    Prochaska , J. X., Hennawi , J., Cooke , R., et al. 2020 b , pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0 , v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    2020 doi

  111. [120]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  112. [121]

    2018, , 869, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

    Radice , D., Perego , A., Hotokezaka , K., et al. 2018, , 869, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

    2018 doi

  113. [122]

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

    Rastinejad, J. C., Paterson, K., Fong, W., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 927, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4d34

    2022 doi

  114. [123]

    D., Blagorodnova , N., et al

    Rigault , M., Neill , J. D., Blagorodnova , N., et al. 2019, , 627, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935344

    2019 doi

  115. [124]

    2024, Annalen der Physik, 536, 2200306, 10.1002/andp.202200306

    Rosswog , S., & Korobkin , O. 2024, Annalen der Physik, 536, 2200306, 10.1002/andp.202200306

    2024 doi

  116. [125]

    N., Peiris , H

    Setzer , C. N., Peiris , H. V., Korobkin , O., & Rosswog , S. 2023, , 520, 2829, 10.1093/mnras/stad257

    2023 doi

  117. [126]

    J., Prieto , J

    Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., Grupe , D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 48, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  118. [127]

    P., & Price, L

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

    2016 doi

  119. [128]

    W., Angus , C

    Smith , K. W., Angus , C. R., Young , D. R., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39211, 1

    2025

  120. [129]

    2017, Astrophys

    Soares-Santos, M., Holz, D., Annis, J., Chornock, R., & Herner, K. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059

    2017 doi

  121. [130]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39215, 1

    Steeghs , D., Ackley , K., Kennedy , M., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39215, 1

    2025

  122. [131]

    A., Smith, R

    Steele, I. A., Smith, R. J., Rees, P. C., et al. 2004, in Ground-based Telescopes, Vol. 5489, International Society for Optics and Photonics, 679--692

    2004

  123. [132]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39256, 1

    Stein , R., Karambelkar , V., Frostig , D., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39256, 1

    2025

  124. [133]

    2023, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7990902

    Stein, R., Reusch, S., & Necker, J. 2023, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.7990902

    2023 doi

  125. [134]

    2023, , 521, 5046, 10.1093/mnras/stad767

    Stein , R., Reusch , S., Franckowiak , A., et al. 2023, , 521, 5046, 10.1093/mnras/stad767

    2023 doi

  126. [135]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 128001, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae3d9

    Tachibana & Miller . 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 128001, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae3d9

    2018 doi

  127. [136]

    L., Dichiara , S., Troja , E., et al

    Thakur , A. L., Dichiara , S., Troja , E., et al. 2021, , 501, 2821, 10.1093/mnras/staa3872

    2021 doi

  128. [137]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

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

    2018

  129. [138]

    2017, , 551, 71, 10.1038/nature24290

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

    2017 doi

  130. [139]

    L., Wiesner , M

    Tucker , D. L., Wiesner , M. P., Allam , S. S., et al. 2022, , 929, 115, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5b60

    2022 doi

  131. [140]

    2017, , 69, 101, 10.1093/pasj/psx118

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

    2017 doi

  132. [141]

    S., Yang, S., et al

    Valenti, S., David, J. S., Yang, S., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf

    2017 doi

  133. [142]

    J., Crellin-Quick, A., & Bloom, J

    van der Walt, S. J., Crellin-Quick, A., & Bloom, J. S. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1247, 10.21105/joss.01247

    2019 doi

  134. [143]

    J., Haggard , D., et al

    Vieira , N., Ruan , J. J., Haggard , D., et al. 2020, , 895, 96, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab917d

    2020 doi

  135. [144]

    M., Ducoin , J.-G., Antier , S., et al

    Watson , A. M., Ducoin , J.-G., Antier , S., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39193, 1

    2025

  136. [145]

    M., Foley , E

    Weizmann Kiendrebeogo , R., Farah , A. M., Foley , E. M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.09234, 10.48550/arXiv.2306.09234

    2023 doi arXiv

  137. [146]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1868. http://stacks.iop.org/1538-3881/140/i=6/a=1868

    2010

  138. [147]

    D., Tohuvavohu , A., Arcavi , I., et al

    Wyatt , S. D., Tohuvavohu , A., Arcavi , I., et al. 2020, , 894, 127, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab855e

    2020 doi

  139. [148]

    M., et al

    Yao , Y., De , K., Kasliwal , M. M., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.12922. 2005.12922

    2020 arXiv

  140. [149]

    R., Gillanders , J

    Young , D. R., Gillanders , J. H., Huber , M. E., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39210, 1

    2025

  141. [150]

    O., & Gal-Yam, A

    Zackay, B., Ofek, E. O., & Gal-Yam, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 830, 27, 10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/27

    2016 doi

  142. [151]

    A., Mao , Y.-Y., et al

    Zhou , R., Newman , J. A., Mao , Y.-Y., et al. 2021, , 501, 3309, 10.1093/mnras/staa3764

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.