pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05059 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Implications of low neutron star merger rates for gamma-ray bursts, r-process production and Galactic double neutron stars

Aditya Vijaykumar, Alexander P. Ji, Hsin-Yu Chen, Jillian C. Rastinejad, Maya Fishbach, Tom Y. Wu, Wen-fai Fong

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords binary neutron star mergersgravitational wavesshort gamma-ray burstsr-process elementsdouble neutron starsmerger ratesLIGO-Virgo-KAGRA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Updated binary neutron star merger rate from gravitational waves is lower than rates from short gamma-ray bursts, r-process production, and Galactic double neutron stars.

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

The paper analyzes the latest gravitational wave catalog to derive a binary neutron star merger rate of 28 to 300 events per cubic gigaparsec per year. This value is lower than earlier estimates and creates discrepancies when compared against independent rate calculations from the observed short gamma-ray burst population, the total r-process material in the Milky Way, and the known systems of double neutron stars in our galaxy. A reader would care because these rate comparisons test whether neutron star mergers can explain the production of heavy elements and gamma-ray bursts across cosmic history. The work examines how uncertainties in each measurement affect the size of the gaps. The resulting tensions highlight which assumptions about merger outcomes require closer scrutiny.

Core claim

Analyzing data from the latest LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog, the total binary neutron star merger rate is 28--300 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}, consisting of 53^{+176}_{-49} Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} in GW170817-like systems. Compared to a reference rate of 100 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}, the cosmological short gamma-ray burst rate is a factor of 3.6--18 higher, the r-process rate is 0.9--4.1 times higher, and the rate inferred from Galactic double neutron stars is 2.3--5.1 times higher. Uncertainties in the inferred rates are shown to either reduce or increase these tensions, thereby constraining the physical processes that link mergers to electromagnetic signals and element production.

What carries the argument

Direct numerical comparison of the gravitational-wave binary neutron star merger rate against independent rate estimates from short gamma-ray burst observations, Milky Way r-process mass, and the Galactic double neutron star population.

If this is right

  • If the tensions remain, the fraction of binary neutron star mergers that produce observable short gamma-ray bursts after beaming corrections must be higher than assumed.
  • The r-process yield per merger or the contribution from neutron star-black hole systems may need to be revised upward to match observed abundances.
  • Uncertainties in the completeness or merger-time distribution of the Galactic double neutron star population could lower the rate inferred from that channel.
  • These comparisons constrain the conditions required for jet formation and heavy-element ejection during mergers.
  • Neutron star-black hole mergers may help close the gap if they contribute significantly to the observed electromagnetic and chemical signals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If binary neutron star mergers alone cannot supply the observed r-process material, other astrophysical sites such as certain supernovae may contribute more than standard models currently allow.
  • The lower merger rate forecasts fewer joint gravitational-wave and gamma-ray burst detections in the next observing runs, providing a direct test.
  • Refining models of jet launching efficiency in mergers could simultaneously address the short gamma-ray burst discrepancy and improve multimessenger predictions.
  • Extending the rate comparison to include black hole-neutron star systems may reconcile the different observational channels without invoking new physics.

Load-bearing premise

The rate comparisons assume that binary neutron star mergers dominate short gamma-ray bursts and r-process production while the Galactic double neutron star sample is complete and its merger times are accurately known.

What would settle it

A future gravitational wave catalog that measures a binary neutron star merger rate above 300 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} at high , or a direct measurement showing the r-process yield per merger is substantially larger than current models, would remove the reported tensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05059 by Aditya Vijaykumar, Alexander P. Ji, Hsin-Yu Chen, Jillian C. Rastinejad, Maya Fishbach, Tom Y. Wu, Wen-fai Fong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Inferred BNS merger rate as a function of time, compared to the rates of short GRBs, MW DNS systems, and the rate required to explain the MW r-process mass. The GWTC-1 and GWTC-3 inferred rates show the union of 90% error bars over different posteriors (that assume different mass distributions), so we represent them as shaded blue rectangles. The GWTC-4 posterior inferred in this work is shown as a violin.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: BNS and low-mass NSBH rates, in units of Gpc−3 yr−1 , inferred from the latest GW catalog, GWTC-4, as a function of their component masses, taking mass bins with edges of 1, 1.6, 2.6 and 3.6 M⊙. For mass ranges at which no mergers have been detected, we report 90% upper limits. For mass ranges that have at least one detection, we report the median and 90% credibility interval. We conservatively count GW230… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Inferred merger rates for δ-function mass distributions of equal-mass binaries. The posteriors on the merger rates of GW170817-like and GW190425-like mergers are shown as violins (matching their chirp mass to the corresponding component mass of an equal-mass binary). At masses for which there are no detections, we show the 90% upper limit on the inferred rate under a Jeffreys prior. If the BNS mass distrib… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratio of volumetric rates RSGRB/RBNS versus jet opening angle θjet in degrees, assuming a central value RBNS = 100 Gpc−3 yr−1 . The orange bands represent local rates (< 200 Mpc) inferred from SGRBs (D. Wanderman & T. Piran 2015; G. Ghirlanda et al. 2016; S. Dichiara et al. 2020; E. J. Howell et al. 2025) in which the width of the band is set by the uncertainties in both the BNS and SGRB rates. Also shown … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: r-process event rate needed to reproduce the MW r-process mass. This includes material in both the stars and gas (interstellar and circumgalactic media). The right axis shows the results of our calculations for the for three different combinations of Solar isotopes/metallicities (E. Anders & N. Grevesse 1989; K. Lodders et al. 2025) and r/s splits (M. Arnould et al. 2007; S. Bisterzo et al. 2014). The mode… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Neutron star merger rates over time for different delay time distributions, normalized to the z = 0 rate. The dotted line shows the P. Madau & M. Dickinson (2014) star formation rate (SFR), while the dashed line shows a constant SFR. The colored lines show the P. Madau & M. Dickinson (2014) SFR convolved with different delay time distributions. More extended delay time distributions result in lower integra… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The first multimessenger discovery of a binary neutron star (BNS) merger, GW170817, proved that such mergers can source short gamma-ray bursts (SGRBs) and produce \rprocess elements. The initial merger rate from this single event in the first two observing runs of the LIGO-Virgo observatory network, $110$--$3840\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, was found to be broadly consistent with the SGRB rate, the Milky Way (MW) r-process mass, and the Galactic population of double neutron star (DNS) systems that will merge in a Hubble time. However, only one additional BNS merger has been detected since, and the BNS merger rate has been consistently revised downwards with the past few gravitational wave (GW) catalog updates. Analyzing GW data from the latest catalog GWTC-4, we find a total BNS merger rate of $28$--$300\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ (consistent with the most recently published values from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA) consisting of $53^{+176}_{-49}\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ in GW170817-like $\sim(1.3,1.3)\,M_\odot$ BNSs (90\% credibility). In light of this updated GW rate, we revisit the consistency of the BNS merger rate with SGRBs, r-process and Galactic DNSs. In all cases, there is an emerging tension with the BNS (and EM-bright neutron star--black hole, NSBH) merger rate. Comparing to a BNS merger rate of $100\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, the cosmological SGRB rate is a factor of 3.6--18 higher, the r-process rate is a factor of 0.9--4.1 higher, and the rate inferred from Galactic DNSs is a factor of 2.3--5.1 higher than the BNS rate. We discuss how various uncertainties in the inferred rates either alleviate or exacerbate this tension, which point to the various physical processes that can be constrained by such rate comparisons.

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 paper derives an updated BNS merger rate of 28--300 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} (with a GW170817-like subpopulation at 53^{+176}_{-49} Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}) from the GWTC-4 catalog and compares it to rates inferred from cosmological SGRBs, Galactic r-process abundances, and radio pulsar DNS systems. It reports factors of 3.6--18 (SGRBs), 0.9--4.1 (r-process), and 2.3--5.1 (DNS) higher than a reference BNS rate of 100 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}, framing these as emerging tensions that can constrain beaming fractions, r-process yields per merger, and DNS completeness/merger-time distributions. Uncertainties in the comparisons are discussed qualitatively.

Significance. If the tensions persist after full propagation of conversion uncertainties, the result would be significant for multimessenger astrophysics by linking GW rates to EM and chemical observables, potentially ruling out BNS mergers as the sole or dominant source for some channels and motivating targeted follow-up on NSBH contributions. The work builds on prior consistency checks post-GW170817 but updates them with the latest catalog.

major comments (2)
  1. [rate comparison and discussion sections] The central tension claims (abstract and rate-comparison section) are presented by fixing conversion factors (beaming fraction for SGRBs, r-process yield per event, DNS completeness and merger-time distribution) while quoting the broad BNS credible interval 28--300. This makes the quoted factors (e.g., SGRB 3.6--18) sensitive to the choice of central value 100; folding realistic widths on the conversion factors (as the skeptic note suggests) could erase statistical significance of the discrepancy. A quantitative marginalization or sensitivity table is needed to substantiate 'emerging tension' as load-bearing.
  2. [GW rate inference section] The GW rate derivation (GWTC-4 analysis) reports a total rate and a subpopulation split, but the manuscript does not detail how selection effects, mass priors, or the distinction between total BNS and EM-bright NSBH are propagated into the final credible intervals used for the tension factors. Without this, it is unclear whether the lower edge of 28 already incorporates or excludes the conversion uncertainties.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and § on NSBH] Notation for the rate units is consistent, but the abstract and main text should explicitly state whether the quoted factors already include or exclude the NSBH contribution when comparing to SGRB and r-process channels.
  2. [discussion] The paper mentions 'we discuss how various uncertainties... alleviate or exacerbate this tension' but provides no table or figure summarizing the range of each uncertainty source; adding one would improve clarity without altering the central claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results on BNS merger rate tensions. We will revise the manuscript to strengthen the analysis by adding a quantitative sensitivity study and expanded methodological details on the GW rate derivation, while preserving the core findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [rate comparison and discussion sections] The central tension claims (abstract and rate-comparison section) are presented by fixing conversion factors (beaming fraction for SGRBs, r-process yield per event, DNS completeness and merger-time distribution) while quoting the broad BNS credible interval 28--300. This makes the quoted factors (e.g., SGRB 3.6--18) sensitive to the choice of central value 100; folding realistic widths on the conversion factors (as the skeptic note suggests) could erase statistical significance of the discrepancy. A quantitative marginalization or sensitivity table is needed to substantiate 'emerging tension' as load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree that the presentation of the tension factors would be strengthened by explicit quantification of sensitivity to the conversion factors rather than fixing them at reference values. Although the broad BNS credible interval (28--300 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}) already shows that tensions remain even when adopting the upper edge of the BNS rate for SGRBs and DNSs (and are marginal for r-process), a sensitivity table will better demonstrate robustness across plausible ranges. In the revised manuscript we will add such a table (or equivalent marginalization discussion) in the rate-comparison section, varying beaming fraction, r-process yield per merger, and DNS completeness/merger-time parameters within observationally motivated bounds. This will address the dependence on the reference value of 100 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} and clarify when the discrepancies remain statistically meaningful. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [GW rate inference section] The GW rate derivation (GWTC-4 analysis) reports a total rate and a subpopulation split, but the manuscript does not detail how selection effects, mass priors, or the distinction between total BNS and EM-bright NSBH are propagated into the final credible intervals used for the tension factors. Without this, it is unclear whether the lower edge of 28 already incorporates or excludes the conversion uncertainties.

    Authors: The reported total BNS rate (28--300 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}) and GW170817-like subpopulation rate are obtained from our analysis of the GWTC-4 catalog and are stated to be consistent with the latest LVK published values. We acknowledge that the current text does not sufficiently detail the propagation of selection effects, mass priors, and the separation between the total BNS population and the EM-bright (including possible NSBH) subset. In the revision we will expand the GW rate inference section to explicitly describe these aspects of the analysis pipeline and to state that the quoted credible intervals reflect only the GW data constraints; they do not fold in the separate conversion uncertainties from SGRB, r-process, or DNS observables, which are treated in the subsequent comparison sections. This will remove ambiguity about the origin of the lower edge at 28 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in cross-observable rate comparisons

full rationale

The paper computes the BNS merger rate directly from analysis of the external GWTC-4 gravitational-wave catalog (28--300 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}), then compares this value to SGRB rates (electromagnetic surveys), r-process yields (chemical abundances), and Galactic DNS populations (radio pulsar timing). These inputs originate from independent datasets and channels; no equation, fit, or self-citation reduces one rate to another by construction or renames a fitted parameter as a prediction. Uncertainties in beaming, yields, and completeness are discussed openly but do not close any loop within the paper's own derivations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the GW rate measurement from public catalog data and standard domain assumptions linking mergers to other observables; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • BNS merger rate = 28-300 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}
    The total rate 28-300 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} and the GW170817-like component 53^{+176}_{-49} Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} are obtained by fitting to GWTC-4 data.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption BNS mergers dominate the production of observable SGRBs after accounting for beaming and efficiency factors
    Invoked when stating the SGRB rate is 3.6-18 times higher than the BNS rate.
  • domain assumption BNS mergers are the main source of r-process elements with a characteristic yield per event
    Basis for comparing the r-process rate to the BNS merger rate.
  • domain assumption The observed Galactic DNS population is representative of the merging systems with known selection effects and merger timescales
    Used to infer the Galactic DNS rate being 2.3-5.1 times higher than the BNS rate.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5753 in / 1925 out tokens · 112640 ms · 2026-05-10T19:02:54.636039+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Double Neutron Star Delay Times Across Cosmic Metallicities: The Role of Helium Star Progenitors

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Simulations show double neutron star mergers peak 80-250 million years after star formation across metallicities, with 15% quick mergers and over 20% delayed over a billion years.

  2. Constraining the Pulsar Beaming Fraction with TeV-Selected Galactic Pulsar Wind Nebulae and unidentified TeV Sources

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    TeV-selected PWNe and unidentified sources yield beaming fractions of 0.1-0.3 across radio, gamma-ray, and X-ray bands, with survey-to-survey differences explained by selection biases or older pulsars and reproducible...

  3. Wide Jets or Low Rates: Reconciling Short GRB and Gravitational-Wave Neutron Star Merger Rates

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Latest GW neutron star merger rates are consistent with short GRBs being produced by BNS mergers if jets are wide or rates low, with NSBH mergers subdominant.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5 M ⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star.Astrophys

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

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

  2. [2]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025a, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18082

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025b, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18083

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    GWTC-4.0: Methods for Identifying and Characterizing Gravitational-wave Transients,

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025c, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18081

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 173001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/17/173001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/17/173001 2010

  6. [6]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

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

  8. [8]

    ApJ848(2), 13 (2017) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2041

  9. [9]

    P., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 2020

  11. [11]

    Physical Review X , author =

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  12. [12]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  13. [13]

    P., & Anand, S

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

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

  14. [14]

    Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics , keywords =

    Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 2021

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, GeoCoA, 53, 197, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  16. [16]

    C., Sagu´ es Carracedo, A., et al

    Andreoni, I., Kool, E. C., Sagu´ es Carracedo, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf4c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbf4c 2020

  17. [17]

    W., Kool, E

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bc7 2021

  18. [18]

    2020, Astrophys

    Safarzadeh, M. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 892, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9a 2020

  19. [19]

    doi:10.1086/307938

    Arlandini, C., K¨ appeler, F., Wisshak, K., et al. 1999, ApJ, 525, 886, doi: 10.1086/307938

    work page doi:10.1086/307938 1999

  20. [20]

    2007, PhR, 450, 97, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002

    Arnould, M., Goriely, S., & Takahashi, K. 2007, PhR, 450, 97, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002 2007

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  22. [23]

    2014b, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 2014

  23. [24]

    2023, Research Notes of the AAS, 7, 136, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ace258

    Biscoveanu, S., Burns, E., Landry, P., & Vitale, S. 2023, Research Notes of the AAS, 7, 136, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ace258

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ace258 2023

  24. [25]

    2022, Mon

    Biscoveanu, S., Landry, P., & Vitale, S. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 518, 5298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3052

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3052 2022

  25. [26]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eaf

    Biscoveanu, S., Thrane, E., & Vitale, S. 2020, ApJ, 893, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eaf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7eaf 2020

  26. [27]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/10

    Bisterzo, S., Travaglio, C., Gallino, R., Wiescher, M., & K¨ appeler, F. 2014, ApJ, 787, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/10 2014

  27. [28]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/179 2013

  28. [29]

    2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18151

    Chen, H.-Y., & Gottlieb, O. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18151

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    Chen, H.-Y., & Holz, D. E. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.181101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.181101 2013

  30. [31]

    S., & Siegel, D

    Chen, H.-Y., Landry, P., Read, J. S., & Siegel, D. M. 2025, ApJ, 985, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add0af 2025

  31. [32]

    A., Kilpatrick, C

    Coulter, D. A., Kilpatrick, C. D., Jones, D. O., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade0b3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade0b3 2025

  32. [33]

    F., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Coward, D. M., Howell, E. J., Piran, T., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2668, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x Della Valle, M., Guetta, D., Cappellaro, E., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2541

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x 2012

  33. [34]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 5011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa124

    Dichiara, S., Troja, E., O’Connor, B., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa124 2020

  34. [35]

    W., Zevin, M., et al

    Essick, R., Coughlin, M. W., Zevin, M., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 102001, doi: 10.1103/44x3-hv3y

    work page doi:10.1103/44x3-hv3y 2025

  35. [36]

    Farah, A., Essick, R., Doctor, Z., Fishbach, M., & Holz, D. E. 2020, ApJ, 895, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d26

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d26 2020

  36. [37]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102 16

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/102 2015

  37. [38]

    and Dong, Yuxin and Berger, Edo and Paterson, Kerry and Chornock, Ryan and Levan, Andrew and Blanchard, Peter and Alexander, Kate D

    Fong, W.-f., Nugent, A. E., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0

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

  38. [39]

    2018, Phys

    Foucart, F., Hinderer, T., & Nissanke, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 081501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.081501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.081501 2018

  39. [40]

    Frebel, A., & Ji, A. P. 2023, Observations of R-Process Stars in the Milky Way and Dwarf Galaxies, ed. I. Tanihata, H. Toki, & T. Kajino, 1–64, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1 92-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-8818-1 2023

  40. [41]

    2021, Astrophys

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe7f6 2021

  41. [42]

    2024, A&A, 687, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349078

    Gallart, C., Surot, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349078

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202349078 2024

  42. [43]

    S., Pescalli, A., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Pescalli, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628993

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628993 2016

  43. [44]

    H., & Smartt, S

    Gillanders, J. H., & Smartt, S. J. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf287

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf287 2025

  44. [45]

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

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

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

  45. [46]

    P., Levan, A

    Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., & Tanvir, N. R. 2020, ApJ, 895, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24 2020

  46. [47]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 5658, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2198

    Grunthal, K., Kramer, M., & Desvignes, G. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5658, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2198

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2198 2021

  47. [48]

    2009, A&A, 498, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810493

    Guetta, D., & Stella, L. 2009, A&A, 498, 329, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810493

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810493 2009

  48. [49]

    M., & Andrews, J

    Holmbeck, E. M., & Andrews, J. J. 2024, Astrophys. J., 963, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e52

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e52 2024

  49. [50]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005, doi: 10.1142/S0218271818420051

    Hotokezaka, K., Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005, doi: 10.1142/S0218271818420051

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271818420051 2018

  50. [51]

    J., Burns, E., & Goldstein, A

    Howell, E. J., Burns, E., & Goldstein, A. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 3158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1915

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1915 2025

  51. [52]

    K., Severin, J

    Jespersen, C. K., Severin, J. B., Steinhardt, C. L., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab964d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab964d 2020

  52. [53]

    P., Drout, M

    Ji, A. P., Drout, M. R., & Hansen, T. T. 2019, ApJ, 882, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3291

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3291 2019

  53. [54]

    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

  54. [55]

    2025, Astrophys

    Keinan, I., & Arcavi, I. 2025, Astrophys. J., 985, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcba5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcba5 2025

  55. [56]

    R., & White, T

    Kim, C.-L., Kalogera, V., Lorimer, D. R., & White, T. 2004, Astrophys. J., 616, 1109, doi: 10.1086/424954

    work page doi:10.1086/424954 2004

  56. [57]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

    Kobayashi, C., Mandel, I., Belczynski, K., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad82 2023

  57. [58]

    K., Hanna, C., Kalogera, V., et al

    Kopparapu, R. K., Hanna, C., Kalogera, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1459, doi: 10.1086/527348

    work page doi:10.1086/527348 2008

  58. [59]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, & KAGRA Collaboration. 2025, GWTC-4.0 cumulative search sensitivity estimates, Zenodo LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 07400...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024

  59. [60]

    2025, SSRv, 221, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01146-w Ludovico De Santis, A., Ronchini, S., Santoliquido, F., &

    Lodders, K., Bergemann, M., & Palme, H. 2025, SSRv, 221, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01146-w Ludovico De Santis, A., Ronchini, S., Santoliquido, F., &

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01146-w 2025

  60. [61]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.13391

    Branchesi, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.13391. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13391

    work page arXiv 2026

  61. [62]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  62. [63]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 2022

  63. [64]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 130, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6040130

    Mandhai, S., Tanvir, N., Lamb, G., Levan, A., & Tsang, D. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 130, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6040130

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies6040130 2018

  64. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bd

    Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2025, ApJ, 982, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bd 2025

  65. [66]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 155, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742

    Margutti, R., & Chornock, R. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 155, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742 2021

  66. [67]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017

  67. [68]

    Metzger, B. D. 2020, Living Rev. Rel., 23, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0

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

  68. [69]

    2016, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 86, 86, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001

    Aprahamian, A. 2016, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 86, 86, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001 2016

  69. [70]

    Colle, F., & Lee, W. H. 2014, ApJL, 788, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/l8 2014

  70. [71]

    2014, ApJL, 784, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L28

    Nagakura, H., Hotokezaka, K., Sekiguchi, Y., Shibata, M., & Ioka, K. 2014, ApJL, 784, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/l28 2014

  71. [72]

    Nakar, E., Gal-Yam, A., & Fox, D. B. 2006, ApJ, 650, 281, doi: 10.1086/505855

    work page doi:10.1086/505855 2006

  72. [73]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.09741, doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2509.097413

    Niu, W., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09741

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [74]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbb6a O’Shaughnessy, R., Kalogera, V., & Belczynski, K

    Voort, F. 2025, ApJ, 982, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbb6a O’Shaughnessy, R., Kalogera, V., & Belczynski, K. 2010, ApJ, 716, 615, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/615 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R., & Santos Villarreal, A. 2012, ApJ, 757, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/55

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbb6a 2025

  74. [75]

    Pavan, A., Ciolfi, R., Dreas, E., & Kalinani, J. V. 2025, MNRAS, 540, 1345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf795 17

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf795 2025

  75. [76]

    S., Werk, J

    Peeples, M. S., Werk, J. K., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 786, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/54 P´ eroux, C., & Howk, J. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 363, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-021820-120014

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/54 2014

  76. [77]

    Phinney, E. S. 1991, ApJL, 380, L17, doi: 10.1086/186163

    work page doi:10.1086/186163 1991

  77. [78]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 083002, doi: 10.1103/6ld6-95xh

    Pillas, M., Antier, S., Ackley, K., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 083002, doi: 10.1103/6ld6-95xh

    work page doi:10.1103/6ld6-95xh 2025

  78. [79]

    Pol, N., McLaughlin, M., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, ApJ, 870, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf006

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf006 2019

  79. [80]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03861, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03861

    Pracchia, M., & Sharan Salafia, O. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03861, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03861

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03861 2026

  80. [81]

    and Bernuzzi, Sebastiano and Roberts, Luke F

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054 2018

Showing first 80 references.