arxiv: 2604.15129 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.IM

Recognition: unknown

Las Cumbres Observatory Gravitational-Wave Follow-up in O3 and O4: Strengths and Weaknesses of a Rapid Response Galaxy Targeted Strategy

Ido Keinan (1) , Iair Arcavi (1) , D. Andrew Howell (2 , 3) , Curtis McCully (2) , Craig Pellegrino (4) , Ayelet Hasson (5) , Moira Andrews (2

show 78 more authors

Jamison Burke (6) Daichi Hiramatsu (7 8 9) Jennifer Barnes (10) Sukanya Chakrabarti (11) Joseph R. Farah (2 Paul J. Groot (12 13 14 15) Na'ama Hallakoun (5) Daniel Holz (16) Saurabh W. Jha (17) Daniel Kasen (18) Chris Lidman (19) Michael J. Lundquist (20) Dan Maoz (1) Brian D. Metzger (21 22) Ehud Nakar (1) Megan Newsome (23) Yuan Qi Ni (10 2) Alexander H. Nitz (24) Estefania Padilla Gonzalez (25) Tsvi Piran (26) Dovi Poznanski (1 27 28 29) Ryan Ridden-Harper (30) David J. Sand (31) Brian P. Schmidt (32 33) Giacomo Terreran (34) Brad E. Tucker (19) Stefano Valenti (35) J. Craig Wheeler (23) Samuel Wyatt (4) Kathryn Wynn (2 3) ((1) Tel Aviv University (2) Las Cumbres Observatory (3) University of California Santa Barbara (4) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (5) Weizmann Institute of Science (6) Shady Side Academy (7) University of Florida (8) Harvard & Smithsonian (9) NSF AI Institute for Artificial Intelligence Fundamental Interactions (10) Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (11) University of Alabama (12) Radboud University (13) University of Cape Town (14) South African Astronomical Observatory (15) Inter-University Institute for Data Intensive Astronomy (16) University of Chicago (17) Rutgers University (18) University of California Berkeley (19) Australian National University (20) W. M. Keck Observatory (21) Flatiron Institute (22) Columbia University (23) University of Texas at Austin (24) Syracuse University (25) Space Telescope Science Institute (26) Hebrew University of Jerusalem (27) California Institute of Technology (28) Stanford University (29) Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics Cosmology (KIPAC) (30) University of Canterbury (31) University of Arizona (32) Australian National University (33) ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (34) Adler Planetarium (35) University of California Davis)

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

keywords gravitational-wave follow-upkilonova detectiongalaxy-targeted strategyrapid-response observationsmulti-messenger astronomyelectromagnetic counterpartslocalization efficiency

0 comments

The pith

A global rapid-response telescope network can start gravitational-wave follow-up within minutes and reach depths to detect kilonovae out to a median 250 megaparsecs, yet the galaxy-targeted strategy is far less efficient than predicted for

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

The paper tests how well a global network of telescopes performs when following up gravitational-wave alerts by targeting galaxies inside the localization region. It shows that observations can begin within minutes of an alert and that the resulting images are deep enough to catch possible kilonovae like the one seen with GW170817 out to a median distance of 250 megaparsecs. At the same time the strategy requires observing far more galaxies than originally expected because the localization areas turned out larger than the planning assumptions. A reader would care because finding electromagnetic counterparts supplies the only way to measure the physics of neutron-star mergers and the origin of heavy elements, so knowing which search methods actually work shapes how future alerts are handled.

Core claim

The central claim is that while the rapid-response network begins observations within minutes and reaches depths sufficient to detect GW170817-like kilonovae out to a median distance of 250 megaparsecs, the galaxy-targeted follow-up strategy proved much less efficient in the third and fourth observing runs than originally predicted because the gravitational-wave localization areas were larger than assumed; therefore coordination among facilities that combine wide-field and rapid-response capabilities is required to achieve efficient and comprehensive follow-up.

What carries the argument

The galaxy-targeted follow-up strategy that selects and observes galaxies lying inside the gravitational-wave localization region, evaluated for speed, depth, and overall efficiency against the actual sizes of the localizations.

If this is right

Rapid global networks deliver timely deep observations that can catch kilonovae at distances relevant to current gravitational-wave detections.
Galaxy targeting alone covers too little of the localization volume when areas span hundreds of galaxies.
Efficient follow-up therefore requires mixing wide-field surveys with targeted rapid-response observations.
Comprehensive coverage of future gravitational-wave events depends on coordinated scheduling across different telescope classes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Better localization from next-generation detectors could revive the efficiency of galaxy targeting without wide-field support.
The same tension between localization size and targeting efficiency appears in other rapid transient searches and may call for similar hybrid strategies.
Resource planning for upcoming runs should allocate telescope time to both wide-field and pointed instruments rather than relying on one mode.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that gravitational-wave localization areas would be small enough for targeting individual galaxies to remain an efficient use of telescope time.

What would settle it

A measurement showing whether the fraction of the localization area actually imaged with the galaxy-targeted approach exceeds the fraction covered by wide-field imaging in a statistically large sample of events that have or lack detected counterparts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15129 by (10) Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, (11) University of Alabama, (12) Radboud University, 13, (13) University of Cape Town, 14, (14) South African Astronomical Observatory, 15), (15) Inter-University Institute for Data Intensive Astronomy, (16) University of Chicago, (17) Rutgers University, (18) University of California Berkeley, (19) Australian National University, 2), (20) W. M. Keck Observatory, (21) Flatiron Institute, 22), (22) Columbia University, (23) University of Texas at Austin, (24) Syracuse University, (25) Space Telescope Science Institute, (26) Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 27, (27) California Institute of Technology, 28, (28) Stanford University, 29), (29) Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics, (2) Las Cumbres Observatory, 3), (30) University of Canterbury, 3) ((1) Tel Aviv University, (31) University of Arizona, (32) Australian National University, 33), (33) ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics, (34) Adler Planetarium, (35) University of California Davis), (3) University of California Santa Barbara, (4) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, (5) Weizmann Institute of Science, (6) Shady Side Academy, (7) University of Florida, 8, (8) Harvard & Smithsonian, 9), (9) NSF AI Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Alexander H. Nitz (24), Ayelet Hasson (5), Brad E. Tucker (19), Brian D. Metzger (21, Brian P. Schmidt (32, Chris Lidman (19), Cosmology (KIPAC), Craig Pellegrino (4), Curtis McCully (2), Daichi Hiramatsu (7, D. Andrew Howell (2, Daniel Holz (16), Daniel Kasen (18), Dan Maoz (1), David J. Sand (31), Dovi Poznanski (1, Ehud Nakar (1), Estefania Padilla Gonzalez (25), Fundamental Interactions, Giacomo Terreran (34), Iair Arcavi (1), Ido Keinan (1), Jamison Burke (6), J. Craig Wheeler (23), Jennifer Barnes (10), Joseph R. Farah (2, Kathryn Wynn (2, Megan Newsome (23), Michael J. Lundquist (20), Moira Andrews (2, Na'ama Hallakoun (5), Paul J. Groot (12, Ryan Ridden-Harper (30), Samuel Wyatt (4), Saurabh W. Jha (17), Stefano Valenti (35), Sukanya Chakrabarti (11), Tsvi Piran (26), Yuan Qi Ni (10.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Sky maps of events followed up by Las Cumbres. Insets show zoomed-in regions. Filled markers denote positions of galaxies colored by their probability score. Observed footprints of the 2 m, 1 m, and 0.4 m telescopes are shown in red, blue, and green squares, respectively, denoting the true footprint size of their respective imagers. Light blue and purple contours are for the 90% and 50% localization region… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Top: Las Cumbres observation timeline for GW190425. On sky exposure blocks are shown in green, blue, and red for the 0.4 m, 1 m, and 2 m telescopes, respectively. Grey regions are night periods, defined by astronomical twilight, and diagonal hash marks denote times when the telescopes at the site were in the “not ok to open” status (which could be due to weather or technical issues). Bottom: Luminosity f… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Total response time and its constituents for each event. The times to alert shown correspond to the first EM alert issued (either preliminary or initial), except for S190510g and S250206dm, where the time is from the first update and second preliminary EM alerts, respectively (see text for details). The galaxy-targeted strategy proposed by Gehrels et al. (2016) assumed nearby and/or well-localized sources … view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: shows the distribution of apparent magnitude 5σ limits achieved by different telescope classes. More than half of the observations reached a depth of at least 21 magnitudes, sufficient to detect a GW170817- 10 20 40 100 250 500 1000 Equivalent GW170817 Distance [Mpc] 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Apparent Magnitude 10 0 10 1 10 2 Number of Limits 0.4 m: 7 2 m: 347 1 m: 1686 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: From top to bottom: Time to Alert, to Trigger, and to Observations, Las Cumbres response time and Total Response Time histograms. Values for O3 and O4 events are presented in blue and red, respectively. Black dashed lines mark the O3+O4 median value for each panel. ering GRB170817A, and with the GW190814 localization. However, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Las Cumbres 5σ non-detection limits (triangles) for the observations presented here, and GW170817 observations (circles; see text for data references). We calculate the absolute magnitude of each limit using the latest distance estimate at that coordinate, provided for each event (see Section 6.3). All limits consider Milky Way dust extinction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Stacked histograms of the Las Cumbres 5σ non-detection limits shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a summary of gravitational-wave (GW) follow-up using the Las Cumbres Observatory global network of telescopes during the third (O3) and fourth (O4) observing runs of the GW detectors. As in O2, we implemented the Gehrels et al. 2016 galaxy-targeted strategy. Here we test its efficacy in O3 and O4 and analyze the Las Cumbres Observatory response time and depth for nine GW alerts that showed a possibility of having an electromagnetic counterpart (GW190425, GW190426_152155, S190510g, GW190728_064510, GW190814, S190822c, GW191216_213338, S240422ed and S250206dm). We find that Las Cumbres Observatory is able to begin observations in response to GW alerts within minutes of the alert, with the observations being deep enough to detect possible GW170817-like kilonovae out to a median distance of 250 Mpc. In this sense a global rapid-response network of telescopes like Las Cumbres is an excellent GW follow-up facility. However, the galaxy-targeted follow-up strategy was much less efficient in O3 and O4 than originally predicted, given the larger than assumed GW localizations. We conclude that coordination between various facilities to include both wide-field and rapid-response capabilities is required to achieve efficient and comprehensive follow-up of GW events.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

LCO can hit minutes-scale response and 250 Mpc depth for kilonovae, but galaxy targeting proved inefficient in O3/O4 because localizations were larger than the 2016 predictions assumed.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper supplies real numbers on how a global rapid-response network actually performed on nine O3/O4 GW alerts. LCO started observing within minutes and reached depths sufficient for a GW170817-like event out to a median 250 Mpc. That part is useful operational data. The second point is that the galaxy-targeted strategy they followed turned out noticeably less efficient than Gehrels et al. 2016 expected, mainly because the localization areas were bigger than assumed. The paper is straightforward about both the strength and the shortfall. What is new is the set of concrete response times, depths, and coverage fractions for those specific events; the underlying strategy itself is not new. The work does well by sticking to measured quantities and drawing a clear practical conclusion that hybrid wide-field plus rapid-response coordination will be needed. Soft spots are limited. The sample is small and selected for events that had some counterpart potential, so it does not test the strategy across the full population of triggers. The abstract gives the headline numbers but leaves methods and full tables for the body, which makes independent checking of the efficiency calculation a bit harder. No major internal contradictions or unsupported leaps appear. This is for people who run or plan EM follow-up for the next GW run and want real-world benchmarks rather than simulations. A reader working on O5 strategy or network design will get usable numbers to compare against. It deserves a serious referee because the data are directly relevant to decisions that will be made soon and come from actual telescope operations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The manuscript is a purely observational report summarizing telescope response times, achieved limiting magnitudes, and coverage fractions for nine specific GW alerts. All quantitative claims (minutes-scale response, median 250 Mpc depth for GW170817-like events, reduced efficiency relative to Gehrels et al. 2016) are direct measurements or straightforward comparisons against an external prior prediction; no equations, parameter fits, derivations, or self-referential definitions appear. The cited Gehrels et al. 2016 strategy is an independent external reference whose assumptions are tested rather than presupposed. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation, fitted input renamed as prediction, or ansatz smuggled via citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the original efficiency predictions remain a fair benchmark and that galaxy catalogs plus localization maps are sufficiently complete for the comparison.

axioms (1)

domain assumption GW events occur preferentially in galaxies, so galaxy-targeted searches are efficient when localizations are small.
This premise underpins both the Gehrels et al. 2016 prediction and the paper's efficiency comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6140 in / 1416 out tokens · 56345 ms · 2026-05-10T10:00:54.385438+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

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

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017
[2]

, keywords =

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017
[3]

P., et al

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019
[4]

, keywords =

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 2041
[5]

GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object.Astrophys

Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 896, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f —. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2041
[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]

2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f 2023
[8]

2024, Phys

Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 022001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024
[9]

2022, Galaxies, 10, 63, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030063

Abe, H., Akutsu, T., Ando, M., et al. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 63, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030063

work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10030063 2022
[10]

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

Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2014
[11]

S., Ahumada, R., Almeida, A., et al

Aguado, D. S., Ahumada, R., Almeida, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651 2019
[12]

D., Margutti, R., Blanchard, P

Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., Blanchard, P. K., et al. 2018, ApJL, 863, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad637

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 2018
[13]

and Ackley, K

Andreoni, I., Ackley, K., Cooke, J., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e069, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.65

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.65 2017
[14]

2018, ApJL, 855, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab267

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab267 2018
[15]

Andrew and McCully, Curtis and Poznanski, Dovi and Kasen, Daniel and Barnes, Jennifer and Zaltzman, Michael and Vasylyev, Sergiy and Maoz, Dan and Valenti, Stefano , year=

Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature24291

work page doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017
[16]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa910f Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

Arcavi, I., McCully, C., Hosseinzadeh, G., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa910f 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., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-...

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa910f 2017
[17]

2014, ApJS, 210, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/9

Steward, L. 2014, ApJS, 210, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/9

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/9 2014
[18]

, keywords =

Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 1031, doi: 10.1086/673168

work page doi:10.1086/673168 2013
[19]

Buckley, D. A. H., Jha, S. W., Cooke, J., & Mogotsi, M. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24205, 1

2019
[20]

Buckley, D. A. H., Andreoni, I., Barway, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, L71, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx196

work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx196 2018
[21]

, month = nov, year =

Bulla, M. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5037, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2495 2019
[22]

2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24206, 1

Burke, J., Hiramatsu, D., Arcavi, I., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24206, 1

2019
[23]

SoftwareX , keywords =

Cannon, K., Caudill, S., Chan, C., et al. 2021, SoftwareX, 14, 100680, doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100680

work page doi:10.1016/j.softx.2021.100680 2021
[24]

Classical and Quantum Gravity , keywords =

Chen, H.-Y., Holz, D. E., Miller, J., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 055010, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/abd594

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abd594 2021
[25]

Science358, 1556 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9811 arXiv:1710.05452 [astro- ph.HE]

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

work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9811 2017
[26]

A., Kilpatrick, C

Coulter, D. A., Kilpatrick, C. D., Jones, D. O., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.15441, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15441

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.15441 2024
[27]

S., Berger, E., Villar, V

Cowperthwaite, P. S., Berger, E., Villar, V. A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 D´ alya, G., Galg´ oczi, G., Dobos, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1703

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 2017
[28]

S., Berger, B

Davis, D., Areeda, J. S., Berger, B. K., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 135014, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/abfd85 D´ ıaz, M. C., Macri, L. M., Garcia Lambas, D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9060

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abfd85 2021
[29]

Science , keywords =

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

work page doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049 2017
[30]

A., Cenko, S

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

work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9580 2017
[31]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Gehrels, N., Cannizzo, J. K., Kanner, J., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 136, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/136

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/136 2016
[32]

S., Paragi, Z., et al

Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Paragi, Z., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815

work page doi:10.1126/science.aau8815 2019
[33]

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 20 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005a, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976 —. 2005b, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017
[34]

Science , author =

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

work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9855 2017
[35]

Ashley, Michael C

Hu, L., Wu, X., Andreoni, I., et al. 2017, Science Bulletin, 62, 1433, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2017.10.006

work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2017.10.006 2017
[36]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 IRSA. 2022, Galactic Dust Reddening and extinction, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA537

work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007
[37]

2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24208, 1

Izzo, L., Carini, R., Benetti, S., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24208, 1

2019
[38]

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
[39]

M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

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

work page doi:10.1126/science.aap9455 2017
[40]

M., Coughlin, M

Kasliwal, M. M., Coughlin, M. W., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24191, 1

2019
[41]

2025, Astrophys

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcba5 2025
[42]

D., Coulter, D

Kilpatrick, C. D., Coulter, D. A., Arcavi, I., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23c6 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, & Virgo Collaboration. 2019a, GRB Coordinates Network, 24168, 1 —. 2019b, GRB Coordinates Network, 24228, 1 —. 2019c, GRB Coordinates Network, 24237, 1 —. 2019d, GRB Coordinates Network, 24277, 1 —. 2019e, GRB Coordinates...

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac23c6 2021
[43]

M., Gorbovskoy, E., Kornilov, V

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa92c0 2017
[44]

2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

Vauglin, I. 2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423496 2014
[45]

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
[46]

D., Xie, X., et al

Margutti, R., Alexander, K. D., Xie, X., et al. 2018, ApJL, 856, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab2ad

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab2ad 2018
[47]

A., et al

McCully, C., Hiramatsu, D., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9111

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9111 2017
[48]

2018, LCOGT/banzai: Initial Release, 0.9.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1257560

McCully, C., Turner, M., Volgenau, N., et al. 2018, LCOGT/banzai: Initial Release, 0.9.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1257560

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1257560 2018
[49]

Metzger, B. D. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.05931, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1710.05931

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1710.05931 2017
[50]

P., Deller, A

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

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 2018
[51]

, keywords =

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

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008 2020
[52]

2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Narita, N., Fukui, A., Yamamuro, T., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J

2020
[53]

Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 114475K, doi: 10.1117/12.2559947

work page doi:10.1117/12.2559947
[54]

2021, MNRAS, 505, 3016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1523

Nicholl, M., Margalit, B., Schmidt, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 3016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1523

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1523 2021
[55]

2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24211, 1 Pˆ aris, I., Petitjean, P., Ross, N

Nicholl, M., Short, P., Anderson, J., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24211, 1 Pˆ aris, I., Petitjean, P., Ross, N. P., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527999

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527999 2019
[56]

C., Kiran, B

Pavana, M., Anupama, G. C., Kiran, B. S., & Bhalerao, V. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24200, 1

2019
[57]

A., et al

Pellegrino, C., Arcavi, I., Howell, D. A., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 36480, 1 21

2024
[58]

A., Copperwheat, C

Perley, D. A., Copperwheat, C. M., & Taggart, K. L. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24204, 1

2019
[59]

and D’Avanzo, P

Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

work page doi:10.1038/nature24298 2017
[60]

S., Barkov, M

Pozanenko, A. S., Barkov, M. V., Minaev, P. Y., et al. 2018, ApJL, 852, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f6

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f6 2018
[61]

and Ferrigno, C

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94 2017
[62]

, year = 1976, month = jan, volume =

Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

work page doi:10.1086/154079 1976
[63]

and Finkbeiner, Douglas P

Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 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
[64]

2011, Sky Event Reporting Metadata Version 2.0, IVOA Recommendation 11 July 2011, doi: 10.5479/ADS/bib/2011ivoa.spec.0711S

Seaman, R., Williams, R., Allan, A., et al. 2011, Sky Event Reporting Metadata Version 2.0, IVOA Recommendation 11 July 2011, doi: 10.5479/ADS/bib/2011ivoa.spec.0711S

work page doi:10.5479/ads/bib/2011ivoa.spec.0711s 2011
[65]

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
[66]

F., Cutri, R

Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

work page doi:10.1086/498708 2006
[67]

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

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

work page doi:10.1038/nature24303 2017
[68]

E., Annis, J., et al

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059 2017
[69]

R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..27T 848, L27

Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Gonz´ alez-Fern´ andez, C., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18082

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 2017
[70]

and Piro, L

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

work page doi:10.1038/nature24290 2017
[71]

2017, PASJ, 69, 101, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx118

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

work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psx118 2017
[72]

A., Stritzinger, M

Valenti, S., Howell, D. A., Stritzinger, M. D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3939, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw870

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw870 2016
[73]

2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf

Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., Yang, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf 2017
[74]

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
[75]

J., Daw, E

White, D. J., Daw, E. J., & Dhillon, V. S. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 085016, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/28/8/085016

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/8/085016 2011
[76]

J., Fraser, M., et al

Wiersema, K., Levan, A. J., Fraser, M., et al. 2019, GRB Coordinates Network, 24209, 1

2019
[77]

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

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab855e 2020