Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

The Optical Afterglow of GW170817: An Off-axis Structured Jet and Deep Constraints on a Globular Cluster Origin

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep HST imaging of GW170817 shows its optical afterglow is an off-axis structured jet, and the same image rules out a globular-cluster birthplace.

desk verdict A careful template-based revision of the GW170817 optical afterglow with a strong new globular cluster limit, but the 584-day template may carry a small residual that biases the late-time slope. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08046 v1 pith:LNJ452RD submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.HE

Wen-fai Fong (Northwestern/CIERA) , P. K. Blanchard , K. D. Alexander , J. Strader , R. Margutti , A. Hajela , V. A. Villar , Y. Wu
show 20 more authors
C. S. Ye E. Berger R. Chornock D. Coppejans P. S. Cowperthwaite T. Eftekhari D. Giannios C. Guidorzi A. Kathirgamaraju T. Laskar A. MacFadyen B. D. Metzger M. Nicholl K. Paterson G. Terreran D. J. Sand L. Sironi P. K. G. Williams X. Xie J. Zrake
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords GW170817binaryneutronstarmergeropticalafterglowoff-axisstructuredjetglobularclusterHubbleSpaceTelescopeimagesubtractionshortgamma-raybursts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reconstructs the optical afterglow of the first detected neutron-star merger, GW170817, from roughly 110 to 362 days after merger, using a very deep Hubble image taken at 584 days as a background template to subtract the host galaxy. It shows that the revised light curve is fully consistent with emission from a relativistic structured jet seen off-axis, and that the radio-to-X-ray spectrum is a single power law with no evolving break frequencies. It also finds that extrapolating the afterglow's post-peak decline connects naturally to the jet-break luminosities of cosmological short gamma-ray bursts, implying similar explosion physics with viewing angle as the main difference. The same template observation places the tightest direct limit yet on any underlying globular cluster, ruling out an in-situ globular-cluster origin for the merger at about the 4-sigma level.

What carries the argument

The central object is the deep HST/F606W observation at about 584 days post-merger, which contains no source at the afterglow position to 3-$\sigma$ confidence ($m_{\rm F606W} > 28.2$ mag, $< 0.019\,\mu$Jy). Subtracting this template from nine earlier epochs with image-subtraction software produces uniform photometry of the afterglow, and the same template underlies the globular-cluster luminosity limit. The paper's interpretation leans on two comparison sets: the structured-jet and quasi-spherical outflow light curves used to discriminate jet geometry, and the globular cluster luminosity/mass function of the host galaxy NGC4993 used to convert the non-detection into a mass limit.

What would settle it

A detection of a point source at the afterglow position in deeper or independent imaging of the 584-day epoch (above about 0.019 $\mu$Jy) would invalidate the template and require re-measuring the whole light curve; a globular cluster more massive than about $1.3\times10^4\,M_\odot$ found at that position would contradict the claimed limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a deep HST/F606W observation at about 584 days as a subtraction template, the paper derives a revised optical light curve of GW170817 spanning about 110 to 362 days. The light curve reaches a peak and then declines steeply, with post-peak slope $\alpha_2 = -2.20 \pm 0.25$ and a break near 200–240 days, matching the structured-jet model favored by radio and X-ray data while over-predicting quasi-spherical outflow models by 1.5 to 4 times. Across nine epochs, the broad-band spectrum from radio through optical to X-ray is fit by a single power law with weighted-average spectral index $\langle \beta \rangle = -0.583 \pm 0.013$, implying an electron index $p = 2.166 \pm 0.026$ and no synchrotron break frequencies crossing the observed bands out to about 584 days. Extrapolating the post-peak decline to short-GRB luminosities gives jet-break times of about 0.7 to 4 days, consistent with the observed breaks in that population. The 584-day non-detection, with limit $m_{\rm F606W} > 28.2$ mag (flux density $< 0.019\,\mu$Jy), excludes any underlying globular cluster with mass $\lesssim 1.3\times 10^4\,M_\odot$, about 4$\sigma$ below the peak of the NGC4993 cluster mass function.

Load-bearing premise

The 584-day image used as the subtraction template is assumed to contain no residual light at the afterglow position; if a faint source is present there, every flux measurement in the light curve would be systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the optical data independently confirm that GW170817's afterglow is an off-axis structured jet, ruling out a quasi-spherical outflow as the source of the late-time emission.
  • The constant spectral index to about 584 days means radio, optical, and X-ray observations can be combined into a single synchrotron spectrum over that time, simplifying broadband modeling of neutron-star merger afterglows.
  • The match between the extrapolated decline and short-GRB jet breaks implies that short GRBs and GW170817 share similar jet energy, opening angle, and circum-merger density, with viewing angle as the main difference.
  • The globular-cluster limit rules out an in-situ globular-cluster formation and merger channel for GW170817, and shows that similarly deep imaging of future nearby mergers can test this channel directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the template non-detection is only at 3-sigma, a residual source just below the limit would systematically reduce the measured flux at every epoch; deeper later-time imaging of GW170817 could test whether the light curve needs revision.
  • The same template-subtraction strategy could be applied to archival observations of other nearby mergers or off-axis candidates after a deep late-time image becomes available, potentially revising published afterglow photometry.
  • If the short-GRB connection holds, it predicts that future gravitational-wave-discovered mergers seen off-axis will show optical post-peak slopes approaching about -2.2 and jet breaks near 0.7-4 days, independent of the observer's viewing angle.
  • The cluster mass limit does not exclude the possibility that the progenitor binary was dynamically ejected from a globular cluster before merging; associating future mergers with a specific parent cluster would require deeper imaging and kinematic information.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents revised HST/F606W photometry of the GW170817 afterglow at 110–362 days, obtained by subtracting a deep 584-day template from archival and new images, plus a deep limit at 584 days. The authors report a broken power-law light curve with pre-break slope α1 = −0.4 ± 0.2 and post-break slope α2 = −2.20 ± 0.25, a constant broad-band spectral index ⟨β⟩ = −0.583 ± 0.013 from radio to X-ray, and use these to argue that the emission is from a relativistic structured jet viewed off-axis, that an extrapolation of the post-peak decline connects to short GRB jet breaks, and that the 584-day non-detection rules out a globular cluster more massive than ∼1.3 × 10^4 M☉ at the merger site.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides the first complete optical afterglow light curve for GW170817 obtained with a consistent template subtraction, strengthens the off-axis structured jet interpretation with optical data, and places the deepest direct limit on a globular cluster progenitor for a neutron star merger. The photometric pipeline is careful in several respects: it uses injection tests, tests multiple median-filter sizes, aligns images to sub-pixel precision, and reports uncertainties. The spectral analysis uses uniform X-ray reductions and gives acceptable chi-square values. The globular cluster limit is a valuable direct constraint, and the authors appropriately note that they cannot exclude cluster ejection. However, the central photometric result rests on an assumption about the 584-day template that is not secured by the quoted 3σ limit; this requires a correction before the conclusions can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2–3.3, Table 1] The use of the 584-day observation as a zero-flux template is the most load-bearing assumption, and the 3σ limit m_F606W > 28.2 (0.019 μJy) does not justify it. If the afterglow continues with the fitted post-peak slope α2 = −2.20 from the observed 362-day flux of 0.027 ± 0.007 μJy, the self-consistent constant residual in the template is r ≈ 0.027/[(584/362)^2.20 − 1] ≈ 0.014 μJy, which is below the quoted limit. HOTPANTS subtracts this residual from every earlier epoch. Removing a constant r from the 297- and 362-day points steepens the apparent 297–362 day decline from α ≈ −1.8 to the observed ≈ −2.46, i.e., the template bias alone can shift α2 by an amount comparable to its quoted uncertainty. The reported uncertainties and the structured-jet versus quasi-spherical comparison therefore omit a systematic that is not excluded by the data. Please either include the template residual as a free parameter with a prior set by the 584-day limit, or explicitly demonstrate that adding a 0.014 μJy constant to all epochs leaves the model comparison and α2 unchanged.
  2. [§4.1, Figure 2] The broken power-law fit is quoted as α1 = −0.4 ± 0.2, α2 = −2.20 ± 0.25 with a break at 200–240 days, but the fitting procedure is not described: it is unclear whether the 336.8-day upper limit is included, how the break smoothness is parameterized, and what the covariance between α1, α2, and t_b is. Because α2 is used both to infer p = 2.20 ± 0.25 and to extrapolate to short GRBs, provide the fit details, the likelihood surface, and a version of Figure 2 with the best-fit curve and confidence band.
  3. [§4.2, Figure 5] The short GRB comparison is qualitative: a single deterministic extrapolation with α = −2.17 is said to intersect the short GRB population at 0.7–4 days, and this is compared by eye with observed jet breaks at 0.4–3.5 days. The extrapolation should include the uncertainty on α2 and the distance/luminosity uncertainty, and the consistency should be quantified, for example by computing the likelihood of the observed jet-break times under the predicted distribution. The conclusion that the primary difference is viewing angle is plausible but currently rests on a visual overlap.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1, Figure 1] The 336.83-day entry is listed as a 3σ upper limit, but the caption of Figure 1 states that the afterglow is detected at ≥3σ in all residual images; please reconcile this inconsistency.
  2. [Figure 2] The definition of the 'top 5% of models' shown in Figure 2 is not given in the text; specify what quantity defines the top 5%.
  3. [Table 2] Per-epoch χ² values for the SED fits are only quoted as a range (χν² ≈ 0.6–1.3); include the values and degrees of freedom in Table 2 so the reader can assess the fits.
  4. [Abstract and §5] The abstract says the light curve spans ≈110–362 days, while Section 5 says ≈110–584 days; clarify that the later value includes the 584-day upper limit.
  5. [§3.4 and §4.1] The paper relies on 'Hajela et al. (in prep.)' for the uniform X-ray reduction and a 6 GHz radio point at 585 days; if possible, provide a public data release or an accepted reference, because these data are central to the spectral-index claim.
  6. [§3.3, Table 1] Typographical issues: 'performe' in §3.3 and 'correspond Corr' in the Table 1 note should be corrected.
  7. [§4.1] The factor of 1.5–4 by which quasi-spherical models over-predict the optical flux is presented without a quantitative model-comparison statistic; please state how it is derived.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optical light curve, SED fits, and globular-cluster limit are measured against external data and published models, not derived from the claims they support.

full rationale

The paper's central products are new HST/F606W photometry obtained by subtracting a 584-day observation as a template, broad-band SED power-law fits using independent radio/X-ray data, a comparison to published structured-jet and quasi-spherical models (Wu & MacFadyen 2018), and a globular-cluster mass limit compared to the external Lee et al. (2018) GCLF. None of these steps defines the target quantity in terms of itself. The 584-day template is an empirical 3-sigma limit (m_F606W > 28.2), and although a residual source at that position could bias late-time photometry, that is a systematic-uncertainty concern rather than a definitional circularity; the limit is an input measurement, not derived from the afterglow fluxes it is used to measure. The short-GRB comparison is explicitly conditional ('If GW170817 and cosmological short GRBs share the same values for their explosion properties...'), and the matching of the extrapolated slope to observed jet-break times is an external consistency check, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations such as Wu & MacFadyen (2018), Kathirgamaraju et al. (2019), and Hajela et al. (in prep.) are prior published models and a uniform X-ray analysis; they do not assume the paper's optical conclusion, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them as a substitute for evidence. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and no circular step can be exhibited from the text.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis depends on fitted light-curve parameters, on published jet models (Wu and MacFadyen 2018), and on the adopted globular cluster luminosity function of the host galaxy. The photometric template assumption is stated and tested with injections and filter-size variations.

free parameters (4)
  • post-peak temporal slope alpha2 = -2.20 +/- 0.25
    Fitted to the revised F606W light curve at t > 200 days in Sec 4.1; used to infer p = 2.20 +/- 0.25 and to extrapolate GW170817 to short GRB luminosities in Sec 4.2.
  • pre-break temporal slope alpha1 = -0.4 +/- 0.2
    Fitted to the early part of the light curve; part of the broken power-law description of the afterglow.
  • jet break time t_b = approximately 200 to 240 days
    Fitted location of the temporal break; used to identify the jet break and support the off-axis structured jet interpretation.
  • broad-band spectral index beta = weighted average -0.583 +/- 0.013
    Fitted single power-law slope to radio, optical, and X-ray fluxes at each epoch in Sec 3.4; used to infer p = 1 - 2 beta = 2.166 +/- 0.026 and to claim no spectral evolution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The afterglow is synchrotron emission from a relativistic outflow, with the standard relations p = 1 - 2 beta and post-jet-break decay F_nu ~ t^-p.
    Used in Sec 4.1 to relate the fitted spectral index and temporal slope to the electron power-law index p and to infer the jet break.
  • domain assumption The Wu and MacFadyen (2018) structured jet and quasi-spherical outflow models correctly describe the radio and X-ray evolution to about 260 days.
    Used in Sec 3.3 and 4.1 to compare the optical light curve and claim that the structured jet is preferred; these models were not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The globular cluster luminosity function of NGC4993 from Lee et al. (2018) is Gaussian with mean m_F606W = 25.45 and width 0.69 mag, and a mass-to-light ratio of about 2 solar masses per solar luminosity applies.
    Used in Sec 4.3 to convert the 584-day optical limit into a mass limit and to claim 4 sigma below the globular cluster mass function peak. The paper notes that it does not measure the GCLF independently.
  • domain assumption At the 584-day template epoch, any source at the afterglow position is below the 3 sigma limit, so the template contains no residual afterglow flux.
    The photometric reduction in Sec 3.2 and 3.3 requires the template to be source-free; a residual would bias all earlier photometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Optical Afterglow of GW170817: An Off-axis Structured Jet and Deep Constraints on a Globular Cluster Origin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LNJ452RD

@misc{pith2026190808046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Optical Afterglow of GW170817: An Off-axis Structured Jet and Deep Constraints on a Globular Cluster Origin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LNJ452RD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08046}
}
abstract

We present a revised and complete optical afterglow light curve of the binary neutron star merger GW170817, enabled by deep Hubble Space Telescope (HST) F606W observations at $\approx\!584$ days post-merger, which provide a robust optical template. The light curve spans $\approx 110-362$ days, and is fully consistent with emission from a relativistic structured jet viewed off-axis, as previously indicated by radio and X-ray data. Combined with contemporaneous radio and X-ray observations, we find no spectral evolution, with a weighted average spectral index of $\langle \beta \rangle = -0.583 \pm 0.013$, demonstrating that no synchrotron break frequencies evolve between the radio and X-ray bands over these timescales. We find that an extrapolation of the post-peak temporal slope of GW170817 to the luminosities of cosmological short GRBs matches their observed jet break times, suggesting that their explosion properties are similar, and that the primary difference in GW170817 is viewing angle. Additionally, we place a deep limit on the luminosity and mass of an underlying globular cluster of $L \lesssim 6.7 \times 10^{3}\,L_{\odot}$, or $M \lesssim 1.3 \times 10^{4}\,M_{\odot}$, at least 4 standard deviations below the peak of the globular cluster mass function of the host galaxy, NGC4993. This limit provides a direct and strong constraint that GW170817 did not form and merge in a globular cluster. As highlighted here, HST (and soon JWST) enables critical observations of the optical emission from neutron star merger jets and outflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HOTPANTS residual images from image subtraction between nine epochs of HST/ACS F606W imaging and the template observation obtained on 2019 Mar 21-27 UT (Program 15606). The last panel at δt = 584.1 days is the median-subtracted template. The position of the afterglow at δt = 110.5 days is denoted by the blue cross-hairs in all panels. The afterglow is detected at the & 3σ level in all residual images pictured here, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: HST/F606W light curve of the afterglow of GW170817 spanning ≈ 110.5 − 584.1 days (green points; observer frame); downwards triangles denote 3σ upper limits. The upper limit at ≈ 584.1 d is measured from the median-subtracted image, while all other data points are measured from HOTPANTS residual images. Also shown are a structured jet model and the range of light curves describing the top 5% of models (black sol… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Temporal evolution of the spectral index, β, from fitting the radio, HST and Chandra X-ray data. Uncertainties correspond to 1σ, and are produced from the χ 2 fitting procedure. The red dashed line and orange band denotes the weighted average and uncertainty across the ≈ 110 − 584-day interval. et al. 1999), and thus we can infer a value of p = 2.20±0.25 from the optical light curve. We can obtain an independent con… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The afterglow (this work) and r-band kilonova (compiled in Villar et al. 2017, see references in text) of GW170817 along with the structured jet model (dotted line, Wu & MacFadyen 2018). Also shown are 25 short GRBs with optical afterglow light curves; GRB 130603B is t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The GCMF of the host galaxy NGC4993 (black line), derived from the GCLF (Lee et al. 2018), compared to various limits: the limit at the position of GW170817 on a star cluster of . 1.3×104 M (red dotted line), upper limits from z . 0.3 SGRBs (blue region), and the limit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. From Multimessenger Inference to Simulations: A Ranked Ensemble of Finite-Temperature Equations of State

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper constructs a 12-member ensemble of finite-temperature neutron star equations of state that spans the posterior from multimessenger and nuclear-physics constraints and releases simulation-ready tables.

  2. Gamma-ray bursts: what do we know today that we did not know 10 years ago?

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 unverdicted

    A review of the past decade of gamma-ray burst research, highlighting structured jets, GR-MHD simulations, TeV detections, and the contested idea that many GRBs have moderate Lorentz factors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., et al

    Alexander, K. D., et al. 2018, ApJL, 863, L18

    2018

  2. [2]

    1990, Nature, 346, 42

    Wolszczan, A. 1990, Nature, 346, 42

    1990

  3. [3]

    2017, PASA, 34, e069

    Andreoni, I., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e069

    2017

  4. [4]

    J., & Mandel, I

    Andrews, J. J., & Mandel, I. 2019, ApJL, 880, L8

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    2017, Nature, 551, 64

    Arcavi, I., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Bae, Y .-B., Kim, C., & Lee, H. M. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2714

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 2174

    Baumgardt, H. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2174

    2017

  8. [8]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Becker, A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    work page 2015

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., & Hinshaw, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 135

    2014

  2. [10]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    Berger, E. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 43

    2014

  3. [11]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393

    1996

  4. [12]

    K., et al

    Blanchard, P. K., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L22

    2017

  5. [13]

    Bohlin, R. C. 2016, AJ, 152, 60

    2016

  6. [14]

    P., & Strader, J

    Brodie, J. P., & Strader, J. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 193

    2006

  7. [15]

    N., et al

    Burrows, D. N., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 468

    2006

  8. [16]

    2018, ApJL, 854, L31

    Cantiello, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 854, L31

    2018

  9. [17]

    C., et al

    Chambers, K. C., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints

    2016

  10. [18]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L19

    Chornock, R., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L19

    2017

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Coulter, D. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556

    2017

  12. [20]

    S., et al

    Cowperthwaite, P. S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L17 D’Avanzo, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, L1

    2017

  13. [21]

    E., & Mack, J

    Deustua, S. E., & Mack, J. 2017, Comparing the ACS/WFC and WFC3/UVIS Calibration and Photometry, Technical report Díaz, M. C., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L29

    2017

  14. [22]

    2018, ApJL, 858, L15

    Dobie, D., et al. 2018, ApJL, 858, L15

    2018

  15. [23]

    R., et al

    Drout, M. R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570

    2017

  16. [24]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L23

    Fong, W., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L23

    2017

  17. [25]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102

    2015

  18. [26]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 189

    Fong, W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 189

    2012

  19. [27]

    2014, ApJ, 780, 118

    Fong, W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 118

    2014

  20. [28]

    B., et al

    Fox, D. B., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 845

    2005

  21. [29]

    2019, Science, 363, 968

    Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968

    2019

  22. [30]

    Gonzaga, S. e. 2012, The DrizzlePac Handbook

    2012

  23. [31]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 820

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 820

    2002

  24. [32]

    2006, Nature Physics, 2, 116

    Grindlay, J., Portegies Zwart, S., & McMillan, S. 2006, Nature Physics, 2, 116

    2006

  25. [33]

    Fregeau, J. M. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 553

    2008

  26. [34]

    M., et al

    Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559

    2017

  27. [35]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, L121

    Kathirgamaraju, A., Barniol Duran, R., & Giannios, D. 2018, MNRAS, 473, L121

    2018

  28. [36]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, L98

    Duran, R. 2019, MNRAS, 484, L98

    2019

  29. [37]

    P., et al

    Lamb, G. P., et al. 2019b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02159

    1905 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cantiello, M., Ciolfi, R., Giacomazzo, B., & Workman, J. C. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 241103

    2018

  31. [39]

    G., Kang, J., & Im, M

    Lee, M. G., Kang, J., & Im, M. 2018, ApJL, 859, L6

    2018

  32. [40]

    H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & van de Ven, G

    Lee, W. H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & van de Ven, G. 2010, ApJ, 720, 953

    2010

  33. [41]

    J., et al

    Levan, A. J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L28

    2017

  34. [42]

    Lin, E.-T., Yu, H.-F., & Kong, A. K. H. 2019, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 21, 1

    2019

  35. [43]

    M., et al

    Lipunov, V . M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, L1

    2017

  36. [44]

    D., et al

    Lyman, J. D., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 751

    2018

  37. [45]

    D., et al

    Lyman, J. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1795

    2017

  38. [46]

    2018, ApJL, 856, L18

    Margutti, R., et al. 2018, ApJL, 856, L18

    2018

  39. [47]

    D., et al

    Metzger, B. D., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2650

    2010

  40. [48]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L18

    Nicholl, M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L18

    2017

  41. [49]

    J., Haggard, D., & Evans, P

    Nynka, M., Ruan, J. J., Haggard, D., & Evans, P. A. 2018, ApJL, 862, L19

    2018

  42. [50]

    2017, ApJL, 849, L34

    Palmese, A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 849, L34

    2017

  43. [51]

    C., et al

    Pan, Y . C., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L30

    2017

  44. [52]

    Y ., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H. W. 2007, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 39, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 804

    2007

  45. [53]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67

    Pian, E., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67

    2017

  46. [54]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1912

    Piro, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1912

    2019

  47. [55]

    C., & Grossan, B

    Pooley, D., Kumar, P., Wheeler, J. C., & Grossan, B. 2018, ApJL, 859, L23

    2018

  48. [56]

    2003, ApJL, 591, L131 GW170817 HST 11 Portegies Zwart, S

    Pooley, D., et al. 2003, ApJL, 591, L131 GW170817 HST 11 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431

    2003

  49. [57]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics (Caucasus), 1, 8

    Pozanenko, A., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics (Caucasus), 1, 8

    2017

  50. [58]

    Rhoads, J. E. 1999, ApJ, 525, 737

    1999

  51. [59]

    J., Nynka, M., Haggard, D., Kalogera, V ., & Evans, P

    Ruan, J. J., Nynka, M., Haggard, D., Kalogera, V ., & Evans, P. 2018, ApJL, 853, L4 Salafia, O. S., Ghirlanda, G., Ascenzi, S., & Ghisellini, G. 2019, A&A, 628, A18

    2018

  52. [60]

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJL, 519, L17

    1999

  53. [61]

    1998, ApJL, 497, L17 Schlafly, E

    Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJL, 497, L17 Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    1998

  54. [62]

    2005, PASP, 117, 1049

    Sirianni, M., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1049

    2005

  55. [63]

    J., et al

    Smartt, S. J., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 75

    2017

  56. [64]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L16

    Soares-Santos, M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L16

    2017

  57. [65]

    M., et al

    Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 261

    2006

  58. [66]

    P., Spitler, L., & Beasley, M

    Strader, J., Brodie, J. P., Spitler, L., & Beasley, M. A. 2006, AJ, 132, 2333

    2006

  59. [67]

    H., Larsen, S., Brodie, J

    Strader, J., Smith, G. H., Larsen, S., Brodie, J. P., & Huchra, J. P. 2009, AJ, 138, 547

    2009

  60. [68]

    R., et al

    Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L27

    2017

  61. [69]

    M., et al

    Tauris, T. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 170

    2017

  62. [70]

    1986, in Proc

    Tody, D. 1986, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

    1986

  63. [71]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    1993

  64. [72]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.01290

    Troja, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.01290

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    2017, Nature, 551, 71

    Troja, E., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 71

    2017

  66. [74]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 102

    Troja, E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 102

    2016

  67. [75]

    2018c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.06617

    Troja, E., et al. 2018c, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.06617

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    2017, PASJ, 69, 101

    Utsumi, Y ., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 101

    2017

  69. [77]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L24 van Eerten, H

    Valenti, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L24 van Eerten, H. J., & MacFadyen, A. I. 2012, ApJ, 751, 155

    2017

  70. [78]

    A., et al

    Villar, V . A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L21

    2017

  71. [79]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47

    2018

  72. [80]

    2010, ApJ, 721, 1689

    Wong, T.-W., Willems, B., & Kalogera, V . 2010, ApJ, 721, 1689

    2010

  73. [81]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 55

    Wu, Y ., & MacFadyen, A. 2018, ApJ, 869, 55

    2018

  74. [82]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02665

    Wu, Y ., & MacFadyen, A. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02665

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    2018, ApJL, 865, L2

    Zrake, J., Xie, X., & MacFadyen, A. 2018, ApJL, 865, L2

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.