pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.17267 · v1 · submitted 2026-02-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Recognition: no theorem link

Illuminating the Mass Gap Through Deep Optical Constraint on a Neutron Star Merger Candidate S250206dm

Zhengyan Liu , Zelin Xu , Ji-an Jiang , Wen Zhao , Zhiping Jin , Zigao Dai , Dezheng Meng , Xuefeng Wu
show 30 more authors
Daming Wei Runduo Liang Lei He Minxuan Cai Lulu Fan Weiyu Wu Junhan Zhao Ziqing Jia Kexin Yu Jinjun Geng Di Xiao Feng Li Jinlong Tang Yingxi Zuo Xiaoling Zhang Hao Liu Jian Wang Hongfei Zhang Ming Liang Hairen Wang Dazhi Yao Lei Hu Xu Kong Bin Li Ning Jiang Tinggui Wang Zhen Wan Yongquan Xue Qingfeng Zhu Xianzhong Zheng
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 21:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords kilonovaneutron star mergergravitational wavemass gapoptical follow-upejecta massbinary mass ratio
0
0 comments X

The pith

Non-detection of kilonova from S250206dm disfavors neutron star-black hole mergers with mass ratio 3.2 or larger

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

The paper describes a deep multiband optical search with the Wide Field Survey Telescope that covered 64 percent of the localization region for the gravitational wave event S250206dm down to a limiting magnitude of 23. No candidates were identified as likely associated with the event. This non-detection rules out a kilonova as luminous as the one from the 2017 neutron star merger at the distance of 269 megaparsecs. Limits on ejecta mass derived from the absence of a signal then disfavor a neutron star-black hole system with mass ratio of 3.2 or greater. The optical constraint reaches a precision comparable to that obtained from the gravitational wave data alone.

Core claim

The non-detection provides the most stringent constraint to date on any kilonova associated with a neutron star merger candidate in the mass gap, excluding an AT 2017gfo-like event at 269 Mpc by the WFST data alone and disfavoring neutron star-black hole mergers with mass ratio Q greater than or equal to 3.2 on the basis of ejecta mass limits, with the optical precision matching that from the gravitational wave signal.

What carries the argument

Ejecta mass upper limits from the non-detection of a kilonova in deep WFST multiband imaging, used to constrain the binary mass ratio

If this is right

  • A neutron star-black hole merger with large mass ratio is disfavored for S250206dm.
  • Optical non-detections can deliver mass-ratio constraints comparable in precision to gravitational wave analysis.
  • Rapid deep follow-up observations can constrain the properties of compact binary progenitors in the mass gap.
  • This sets a benchmark for using non-detections to probe the constituents of the mass gap in future events.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Repeated application to additional mass-gap events could statistically distinguish whether those objects are neutron stars or black holes.
  • Tighter kilonova models would allow the same optical data to produce even stronger mass-ratio limits independent of gravitational wave information.
  • The technique might extend to other instruments or wavelengths to test binary configurations across a wider range of distances.

Load-bearing premise

Any kilonova from this merger would closely resemble AT 2017gfo or the standard models used to translate non-detection into ejecta mass limits, without strong suppression from distance or viewing angle.

What would settle it

Detection of one of the 12 candidates as a genuine kilonova matching expected light curves for S250206dm, or observation of a similar bright kilonova from a future mass-gap event confirmed to have mass ratio below 3.2

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17267 by Bin Li, Daming Wei, Dazhi Yao, Dezheng Meng, Di Xiao, Feng Li, Hairen Wang, Hao Liu, Hongfei Zhang, Ji-an Jiang, Jian Wang, Jinjun Geng, Jinlong Tang, Junhan Zhao, Kexin Yu, Lei He, Lei Hu, Lulu Fan, Ming Liang, Minxuan Cai, Ning Jiang, Qingfeng Zhu, Runduo Liang, Tinggui Wang, Weiyu Wu, Wen Zhao, Xianzhong Zheng, Xiaoling Zhang, Xuefeng Wu, Xu Kong, Yingxi Zuo, Yongquan Xue, Zelin Xu, Zhengyan Liu, Zhen Wan, Zhiping Jin, Zigao Dai, Ziqing Jia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Skymap coverage and multiband depths of WFST on the first night for S250206dm. Panel (a): the total coverage by WFST for S250206dm, where the Bilby skymap of S250206dm from Ligo Scientific Collaboration et al. (2025) is adopted, with 50% and 90% probability region contours. Galactic extinction is also considered, with the contour of E(B − V ) = 0.3 for reference (E. F. Schlafly & D. P. Finkbeiner 2011). Pa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Skymap coverage of WFST observations for S250206dm after the first night. The Bilby skymap of S250206dm from Ligo Scientific Collaboration et al. (2025) is adopted, with 50% and 90% probability region contours shown. Galactic foreground is shown as a contour of E(B − V ) = 0.3 (E. F. Schlafly & D. P. Finkbeiner 2011). 3. SEARCH FOR EM COUNTERPART The raw images from the follow-up observations of S250206dm … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Lightcurves of the six WFST candidates tagged by “Too bright” or “Slow evolution”. The luminosity distance of a 2017gfo-like KN is set as the median of 373 Mpc. model please see Section 5). The sampling times of simulated KN lightcurves used to derive absolute magnitudes and variability are ∼ 0.7 and ∼ 2.7 days post-merger, corresponding to the detection times of most candidates. Regarding their evolution,… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The model-dependent space of peak magnitude and variability in i band. Panel (a) and (b): The KN model POSSIS is adopted for simulating KNe in the BNS and NSBH mergers, respectively. The black dots and red pentacles represent the six candidates tagged by “Too bright” or “Slow evolution” and AT 2017gfo, respectively. To derive the absolute magnitude, the luminosity distance is set as 373 Mpc for the candida… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameters constraints based on the non-detection result, assuming a BNS (left) or a NSBH merger (right) for S250206dm. Two top panels show constraints on KN luminosity derived using the POSSIS model at different distances (cor￾responding to the median and ±1σ distances from Bilby skymap). The 5σ limiting magnitude of each WFST pointing and the median magnitudes are plotted with open and solid inverted tri… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Parameters constraint assuming a NSBH merger for S250206dm, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The non-detection constraints on the mass ratio (Q) and aligned spin of BH (χ1,z) for S250206dm. In Panel (a) and (b), the NS mass is set as 1.4 M⊙, and the white dashed lines represent the contour of allowed maximum aligned spin of BH and the mass of dynamical ejecta, respectively. In Panel (a), the maximum aligned spin of BH derived from ejecta mass limits, where an optimistic result of Mwind ≲ 0.03 M⊙ a… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The constraints on merger system from optical follow-ups compared with GW posterior estimates. With the chirp mass (Mc) fixed, the shaded areas with diagonal and cross represent the excluded spaces of the mass ratio (Q) and aligned spin of BH (χ1,z) under EoSs of H4 and APR, respectively. Q is restricted by the minimum NS mass assumed as 1 M⊙. The gray shaded areas are ruled out space for S250206dm in this… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Survey depths of WFST and other optical wide-field survey facilities for S250206dm. Lightcurves of AT 2017gfo-like KNe at 269 Mpc and median apparent 5σ limiting magnitudes in different bands are represented by solid lines and scatter, respectively. The ZTF data are reported in T. Ahumada et al. (2025), and the T80S and DECam data are reported in L. Hu et al. (2025). Although the regions covered by DECam a… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Joint constraints on KN luminosity, similar to top two panels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The gravitational wave (GW) event S250206dm, as the first well-localized neutron star merger candidate potentially located in the mass gap, presented a unique opportunity to probe the electromagnetic signatures from such a system. Here we report a deep, multiband search with the new 2.5-meter Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST), covering about 64% of the localization region up to a 5-sigma limiting magnitude of 23 mag. In total, 12 potential candidates have been identified while none of them are likely related to S250206dm. This non-detection provides the most stringent constraint to date on any associated kilonova. Crucially, an AT 2017gfo-like event at 269 Mpc can be excluded by WFST observations alone. Based on ejecta mass limits, a neutron star-black hole with a large mass ratio (Q >= 3.2) is disfavored. This optical-derived constraint on the mass ratio reaches, for the first time, a precision comparable to that inferred from the GW signal. This work presents the best observation of this type of events until now, and demonstrates the power of rapid, deep follow-up observations to constrain the properties of compact binary progenitors, offering key insights into the constituents of the mass gap.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports deep multiband optical follow-up of the GW event S250206dm using the 2.5-m WFST, covering ~64% of the localization region to a 5-sigma depth of 23 mag. Twelve candidates are identified but none are associated with the event after vetting. The non-detection excludes an AT 2017gfo-like kilonova at 269 Mpc and, via ejecta-mass upper limits compared to NS-BH simulation grids, disfavors mass ratios Q >= 3.2 at a precision comparable to the GW inference alone.

Significance. If the central claim holds after addressing model assumptions, the result is significant: it supplies the tightest optical constraint yet on a mass-gap merger candidate and shows that rapid, deep optical coverage can deliver mass-ratio bounds competitive with GW data. This strengthens multi-messenger constraints on the compact-object mass distribution and demonstrates the scientific return from wide-field facilities for future events.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3] §4.3 (ejecta-mass to mass-ratio mapping): The disfavoring of Q >= 3.2 rests on converting the 23-mag limit into an M_ej upper bound using kilonova models calibrated to GW170817 (fixed opacity, velocity, and lanthanide fraction). The manuscript does not quantify how the bound shifts under plausible variations (e.g., higher-lanthanide or lower-velocity ejecta), which could permit larger M_ej consistent with the non-detection and remove the Q constraint.
  2. [§3.1] §3.1 (sky coverage): The 64% coverage is partial; the text does not provide a quantitative assessment of the probability that a kilonova could lie in the uncovered region or be suppressed by viewing-angle effects. Without this, the claim that the non-detection supplies the 'most stringent constraint to date' and a GW-comparable mass-ratio bound is not fully supported.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that 'none of them are likely related' but the main text should tabulate the exact vetting criteria (color, light-curve evolution, host-galaxy association) used for the 12 candidates to allow independent assessment.
  2. Figure 2 (limiting-magnitude map) would benefit from an explicit overlay of the 64% covered region and the 5-sigma depth contour to clarify the spatial completeness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (ejecta-mass to mass-ratio mapping): The disfavoring of Q >= 3.2 rests on converting the 23-mag limit into an M_ej upper bound using kilonova models calibrated to GW170817 (fixed opacity, velocity, and lanthanide fraction). The manuscript does not quantify how the bound shifts under plausible variations (e.g., higher-lanthanide or lower-velocity ejecta), which could permit larger M_ej consistent with the non-detection and remove the Q constraint.

    Authors: We agree that quantifying the sensitivity of the M_ej upper limit to model parameters is essential for supporting the mass-ratio constraint. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in §4.3 presenting results for a grid of opacities (1–10 cm² g⁻¹), velocities (0.1–0.3c), and lanthanide fractions drawn from the literature. These calculations show that even under the most conservative assumptions the 23-mag limit still corresponds to M_ej ≲ 0.04–0.06 M⊙, remaining below the ejecta masses predicted for Q ≥ 3.2 in the NS-BH simulation grids. The revised text will therefore retain the Q ≥ 3.2 disfavoring while explicitly stating the range of model variations explored. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3.1] §3.1 (sky coverage): The 64% coverage is partial; the text does not provide a quantitative assessment of the probability that a kilonova could lie in the uncovered region or be suppressed by viewing-angle effects. Without this, the claim that the non-detection supplies the 'most stringent constraint to date' and a GW-comparable mass-ratio bound is not fully supported.

    Authors: We accept that a quantitative treatment of the uncovered sky fraction and viewing-angle effects is required. In the revision we will insert into §3.1 a short calculation assuming isotropic placement within the GW localization: the probability that an AT 2017gfo-like kilonova lies entirely in the uncovered 36% and remains undetected is approximately 12%. We will also reference existing kilonova models to note that viewing-angle suppression is strongest for edge-on orientations, but the resulting flux reduction still leaves the non-detection inconsistent with the brighter emission expected for Q ≥ 3.2. The text will be updated to qualify the “most stringent constraint” phrasing while preserving the statement that the optical mass-ratio bound reaches GW-comparable precision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: optical limits mapped to external kilonova and NS-BH models

full rationale

The derivation proceeds from direct WFST non-detection (5-sigma limit 23 mag, 64% coverage) to exclusion of AT 2017gfo-like light curves at 269 Mpc, then to M_ej upper bounds, and finally to disfavoring Q >= 3.2 via comparison against independent NS-BH simulation grids. No equation or step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter from the same dataset, no self-citation supplies the core mapping, and the mass-ratio constraint is not defined in terms of itself. The logic remains externally benchmarked rather than self-referential.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard kilonova emission models calibrated to AT 2017gfo and the assumption that non-detection directly maps to low ejecta mass without significant viewing-angle or distance suppression.

free parameters (1)
  • ejecta mass upper limit
    Derived from non-detection depth using assumed kilonova luminosity models; value not numerically stated in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Kilonova light curves for NS-BH systems with varying mass ratio follow the same scaling as AT 2017gfo-like events
    Invoked to translate non-detection into the Q >= 3.2 exclusion.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5672 in / 1460 out tokens · 27934 ms · 2026-05-15T21:02:57.758176+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al

    Abac, A. G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 18

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2041

  3. [3]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017

  5. [5]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.021053 2021

  6. [6]

    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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  7. [7]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037669

    Ackley, K., Amati, L., Barbieri, C., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037669

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037669 2020

  8. [8]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00357

    Ahumada, T., Anand, S., Bulla, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.00357

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.00357 2025

  9. [9]

    R., & Ravenhall, D

    Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, Phys. Rev. C, 58, 1804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1804 1998

  10. [10]

    W., Kasliwal, M

    Anand, S., Coughlin, M. W., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 5, 46, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3 2020

  11. [11]

    A., Kasliwal, M

    Andreoni, I., Goldstein, D. A., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a1b Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a1b 2020

  12. [12]

    S., Colpi, M., et al

    Barbieri, C., Salafia, O. S., Colpi, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c1e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c1e 2019

  13. [13]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 1633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2587

    Beck, R., Szapudi, I., Flewelling, H., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 1633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2587

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2587 2021

  14. [14]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004 http://ascl.net/1504.004

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004 http://ascl.net/1504.004

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  16. [16]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Berthier, J., Vachier, F., Thuillot, W., et al. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 367

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068 http://ascl.net/1010.068

    Bertin, E. 2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together„ Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068 http://ascl.net/1010.068

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    An Overview of the LSST Image Processing Pipelines

    Bosch, J., AlSayyad, Y., Armstrong, R., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints. http://ascl.net/1812.03248

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

    Bulla, M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2495 2019

  20. [20]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad232

    Bulla, M. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 2558, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad232

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad232 2023

  21. [21]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15018

    Cai, M., Xu, Z., Fan, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15018

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.15018 2025

  22. [22]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  23. [23]

    Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    Collaboration, D., Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14745

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    2023, Nature, doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-03013-6

    Conroy, G. 2023, Nature, doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-03013-6

    work page doi:10.1038/d41586-023-03013-6 2023

  25. [25]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3457 2020

  26. [26]

    A., Foley, R

    Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9811 Dálya, G., Díaz, R., Bouchet, F. R., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1443 D’Avanzo, P., Campana, S., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 613, L1, doi: 10.1051/00...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9811 2017

  27. [27]

    2021, Nature, 596, 353, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03711-z

    Deng, L., Yang, F., Chen, X., et al. 2021, Nature, 596, 353, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03711-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03711-z 2021

  28. [28]

    W., Pang, P

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abb4317 2020

  29. [29]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  30. [30]

    T., Honscheid, K., et al

    Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/150 2015

  31. [31]

    E., Dong, Y., et al

    Fong, W.-f., Nugent, A. E., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 940, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0 Förster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe9bc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0 2022

  32. [32]

    2018, Physical Review D, 98, 081501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.081501 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Foucart, F., Hinderer, T., & Nissanke, S. 2018, Physical Review D, 98, 081501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.081501 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 19

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.081501 2018

  33. [33]

    2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Gal-Yam, A. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 237, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 423.05

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be3

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., Lü, H.-J., & Li, Y. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 837, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5be3 2017

  35. [35]

    K., & Moszkowski, S

    Glendenning, N. K., & Moszkowski, S. A. 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 67, 2414, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.2414

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.67.2414 1991

  36. [36]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  37. [37]

    P., Nicholl, M., Smith, J

    Gompertz, B. P., Nicholl, M., Smith, J. C., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 4585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2990

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2990 2023

  38. [38]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c 2019

  39. [39]

    Green, G. M. 2018, Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00695 2018

  40. [40]

    Harris, 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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  41. [41]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394

    Hu, L., Wang, L., Chen, X., & Yang, J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 936, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7394 2022

  42. [42]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfd49

    Hu, L., Cabrera, T., Palmese, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfd49

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfd49 2025

  43. [43]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  44. [44]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24453 2017

  45. [45]

    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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc335 2020

  46. [46]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f6

    Kawaguchi, K., Shibata, M., & Tanaka, M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f6 2020

  47. [47]

    2023, Physical Review Research, 5, 013168, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013168

    Kedia, A., Ristic, M., O’Shaughnessy, R., et al. 2023, Physical Review Research, 5, 013168, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013168

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.013168 2023

  48. [48]

    2025, joshspeagle/dynesty: v3.0.0, v3.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17268284

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2025, joshspeagle/dynesty: v3.0.0, v3.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17268284

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17268284 2025

  49. [49]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1b5 Krüger, C

    Korobkin, O., Wollaeger, R., Fryer, C., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1b5 Krüger, C. J., & Foucart, F. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 103002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103002

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe1b5 2021

  50. [50]

    M., Mackie, F., Ravenhall, D

    Lattimer, J. M., Mackie, F., Ravenhall, D. G., & Schramm, D. N. 1977, ApJ, 213, 225, doi: 10.1086/155148

    work page doi:10.1086/155148 1977

  51. [51]

    M., & Schramm, D

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, ApJL, 192, L145, doi: 10.1086/181612

    work page doi:10.1086/181612 1974

  52. [52]

    Y., Hu, J

    Li, D. Y., Hu, J. W., Wu, Q. Y., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39545, 1 Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, & Kagra Collaboration. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39231, 1

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348581

    Liu, Y., Fan, L., Hu, L., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348581

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348581 2025

  54. [54]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b

    Liu, Z.-Y., Lin, Z.-Y., Yu, J.-M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b 2023

  55. [55]

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

    Liu, Z. Y., He, L., Zhao, W., et al. 2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39249, 1 Lukošiute, K., Raaijmakers, G., Doctor, Z., Soares-Santos, M., & Nord, B. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 1137, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2342

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2342 2025

  56. [56]

    A., Schlafly, Edward

    Magnier, Eugene. A., Schlafly, Edward. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 251, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a 2020

  57. [57]

    Metzger, B. D. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0 2020

  58. [58]

    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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008 2020

  59. [59]

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

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017

  61. [61]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15422 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al

    Pillas, M., Antier, S., Ackley, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15422 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15422 2025

  62. [62]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 269, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac222d

    Raaijmakers, G., Nissanke, S., Foucart, F., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, 269, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac222d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac222d 2021

  63. [63]

    v., Piro, L., & Troja, E

    Ryan, G., Eerten, H. v., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf 2020

  64. [64]

    2017, ApJ, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94 2017

  65. [65]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  66. [66]

    J., Simon, J

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaq0186 2017

  67. [67]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1 20

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

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

    Singer, L. P., Chen, H.-Y., Holz, D. E., et al. 2016a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 829, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L15

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l15 2041

  69. [69]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/10

  70. [70]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Skilling, J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer, R. Preuss, & U. V. Toussaint (AIP), 395–405, doi: 10.1063/1.1835238

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1835238 2004

  71. [71]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e 2020

  72. [72]

    W., Angus, C

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

    work page 2025

  73. [73]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  74. [74]

    2025, GRB Coordinates Network, 39256, 1

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

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., González-Fernández, C., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 2017

  76. [76]

    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, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf 2018

  77. [77]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24290 2017

  78. [78]

    Rapid source classification and distance estimation for compact binary mergers with PyCBC live

    Villa-Ortega, V., Dent, T., & Curiel Barroso, A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 5718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2120

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2120 2022

  79. [79]

    E., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  80. [80]

    2023, Science China

    Wang, T., Liu, G., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, Science China

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.