Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 101 references

Submillimeter Detectability of Gravitational-Wave Counterparts from Neutron-Star Mergers with the Xue-shan-mu-chang 15-meter Telescope

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At 40 Mpc, a magnetar-boosted merger afterglow peaks near 13 mJy at 230 GHz and stays detectable for months to years; a black-hole remnant stays ~8,000 times fainter — sub-mm afterglows become a remnant diagnostic.

desk verdict A useful, honest XSMT forecast with one missing benchmark: GW170817. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00770 v1 pith:QIILA73P submitted 2026-08-01 astro-ph.HE

Di Xiao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesneutronstarmergerssubmillimeterastronomymagnetarremnantsmergerejectaafterglowssynchrotronself-absorptiontarget-of-opportunityobservationsmulti-messenger
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish whether the planned 15-meter XSMT submillimeter telescope can detect and diagnose the remnants of neutron-star mergers, and how its observing time should be spent. Its central argument is that the isotropic afterglow of the merger ejecta, re-energized by a long-lived magnetar engine, is a reliable and angle-independent detection channel at 230 GHz: for a merger at the GW170817 distance of 40 Mpc, the predicted ~13 mJy peak near day 92 stays above the telescope's 1.5 mJy one-hour threshold for roughly a month to more than three years, giving a detection horizon of ~118 Mpc and an all-sky rate of 0.05–1.7 events per year if every merger leaves a magnetar. The same fiducial calculation with a prompt-collapse black hole is ~8,000 times fainter and undetectable beyond ~1.3 Mpc. Because the jet afterglow, while much brighter, is visible only for hours and only to near-aligned observers, the paper concludes that a multi-epoch sub-mm detection with a week-to-month rise would itself discriminate magnetar from black-hole remnants. A concrete two-tier observing strategy follows from that distinction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the engine-coupled ejecta acceleration equation (Eq. 6) with the dipole spin-down luminosity L_sd(t) of the magnetar (or L_eng = 0 for prompt collapse) feeding the energy balance, alongside radioactive heating, diffusion cooling, and the inertia of swept-up interstellar mass, evolved in an arrival-time formalism; the resulting shock then feeds a synchrotron radiation core with a two-branch synchrotron self-absorption treatment and deep-Newtonian corrections for the late, non-relativistic regime. This chain converts (B, P0, Mej, n_ext) into sub-mm light curves, and the peak-flux horizon distance D_max converts those light curves into detection rates.

What would settle it

Monitor at 230 GHz a neutron-star merger at ~40 Mpc whose remnant is independently confirmed as a long-lived magnetar (e.g., via persistent X-ray emission): if no source rises above the 1.5 mJy threshold around the predicted ~day-92 peak, the central claim fails. Equivalently, fit the framework to the published GW170817 cm-band afterglow; if the implied ambient density or microphysical efficiencies come out an order of magnitude below the fiducial values, the predicted 13 mJy peak drops below detectability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For fiducial magnetar parameters (B = 10^15 G, P0 = 1 ms, Mej = 3e-3 M_sun, n_ext = 1e-2 cm^-3) at 40 Mpc, the 230 GHz ejecta afterglow peaks at ~13 mJy near day 92, stays above the 1.5 mJy 5σ (1 h) threshold for ~24–1,180 days, and yields a horizon of ~118 Mpc and an all-sky rate of 0.05–1.7 yr^-1 (f_mag = 1, an upper limit). A prompt-collapse black hole peaks at ~1.7e-3 mJy — ~8,000× fainter, horizon ~1.3 Mpc. The paper's physical conclusion: a multi-epoch sub-mm detection at ~100 Mpc with a week-to-month rise and SSA-consistent spectrum would favor sustained magnetar injection over prompt collapse; the brighter but beamed jet channel is geometrically suppressed.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast rests on the paper's fiducial ambient density of 10^-2 cm^-3 — which the paper itself calls the 'gatekeeper' and the leading systematic, since an order-of-magnitude density shift changes the horizon distance and rate by factors of several — and on typical but uncalibrated microphysical efficiencies (epsilon_e, epsilon_B, p) and an unstated initial ejecta velocity, with no fit to the measured GW170817 afterglow shown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A multi-epoch XSMT detection of a sub-mm ejecta afterglow at ~100 Mpc, rising over weeks to months with a self-absorption-consistent spectrum, would favor a long-lived magnetar remnant over a promptly formed black hole.
  • The 230 GHz band is the discovery channel (largest horizon, longest window); 345 GHz adds spectral leverage on the optically thin slope, and 460 GHz is reserved for very nearby or bright events.
  • The isotropic ejecta channel gives an all-sky rate of 0.05–1.7 yr^-1 — an upper limit that scales linearly with the magnetar fraction — so a null run of years would bound that fraction.
  • The two-tier ToO strategy (hours-scale jet chasing, then a gap-aware pause until the ~25–35 day ejecta onset, then sparse month-scale monitoring) is the efficient way to use XSMT time.
  • A single-band non-detection does not rule out a magnetar: distance, low ambient density, cadence, weather, and microphysical parameters can all suppress the signal below threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The model is never fit to the measured GW170817 cm-band afterglow; calibrating epsilon_e, epsilon_B, p, and n_ext to that event would turn the 13 mJy prediction into a single testable number. If the best-fit ambient density is an order of magnitude below the fiducial 10^-2 cm^-3, the predicted peak falls below XSMT's threshold — so the GW170817 calibration is the fastest check of the whole forecas
  • Because ALMA is roughly ten times deeper at 230 and 345 GHz, XSMT's distinctive contribution is sustained, schedule-robust monitoring rather than depth; a joint campaign that lets XSMT track the day-30-to-day-300 rise while ALMA measures the spectrum near the predicted peak would directly test the SSA turnover and the engine-injection hypothesis.
  • If the true long-lived magnetar fraction is only a few percent — rather than the f_mag = 1 assumed for the quoted rates — the expected yield drops to ~10^-3 yr^-1, so the first years of XSMT follow-up would plausibly yield upper limits on the engine fraction rather than detections. The 0.05–1.7 yr^-1 range should therefore be read as an optimistic ceiling, not a forecast.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a unified numerical framework for predicting 230/345/460 GHz synchrotron afterglows of binary neutron star mergers, coupling engine-dependent energy injection (magnetar spin-down vs. prompt-collapse BH) to ejecta dynamics and then to external-shock radiation with synchrotron self-absorption and deep-Newtonian corrections. It computes fiducial light curves at 40 Mpc, detectability maps in the (P0, B) and (M_ej, n_ext) planes, horizon distances, and all-sky detection rates using LVK BNS merger-rate priors. The headline result is that, for the fiducial magnetar parameters, the 230 GHz ejecta afterglow peaks at ~13 mJy near day 92, stays above the 1.5 mJy threshold for ~24--1180 days, has D_max ~118 Mpc, and corresponds to an all-sky rate ~0.05--1.7 yr^-1 under f_mag=1, while the prompt-collapse BH case is ~8e3 times fainter and effectively undetectable at 40 Mpc. The paper also proposes a two-tier Target-of-Opportunity strategy: rapid jet chasing and long-baseline ejecta monitoring.

Significance. If the model normalization is correct, this is a practical, facility-specific forecast for an upcoming telescope, with concrete predictions for peak fluxes, detectability windows, and rates, and a clear observational strategy. The internal arithmetic is consistent: D_max from F_pk/F_th reproduces the quoted 118 Mpc, and the rate range follows from R_BNS and the horizon volume. The paper is also transparent about the linear scaling with f_mag and about n_ext being a 'gatekeeper.' However, the central forecast is not calibrated against any observed BNS afterglow, and several parameters that directly set the flux normalization are not stated. The paper's own discussion identifies n_ext as the leading systematic, yet the quoted rate range does not include this uncertainty. The value of the paper therefore hinges on a validation step that is currently missing; with that step, the paper would be a useful contribution, but as it stands the quantitative claims should be read as conditional model output.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Table 2] The fiducial magnetar/Ej. numbers (F_pk ~13 mJy at 230 GHz, D_max ~118 Mpc, N_dot ~0.05--1.7 yr^-1) are the central claims, yet the model is not benchmarked against GW170817, which is at the same 40 Mpc distance used here and is the only BNS merger with comprehensive multifrequency afterglow data. The paper cites Alexander et al. (2017), Kim et al. (2017), Hallinan et al. (2017), and Mooley et al. (2018) but never computes the model light curve for GW170817 or compares with the published sub-mm/radio fluxes and upper limits. Because GW170817 constrains n_ext, M_ej, and the microphysical parameters, such a comparison would directly test whether the 13 mJy normalization is plausible. Without it, an order-of-magnitude overprediction of the sub-mm afterglow would collapse the headline rate and horizon distance. This is a load-bearing validation gap.
  2. [Section 4 and Appendix D] The fiducial model is not fully specified. Section 4 lists B=1e15 G, P0=1 ms, M_ej=3e-3 Msun, n_ext=1e-2 cm^-3, but the microphysical and engine parameters that enter the flux normalization in Appendix D -- epsilon_e, epsilon_B, p, xi, and the initial ejecta kinetic energy/velocity -- are never given numeric values. Equations (D17)--(D20) and the acceleration equation (6) depend directly on these quantities, and the paper's conclusions about the magnetar/BH contrast (factor ~8e3 in Section 4.1) and the detectability maps in Section 5 cannot be reproduced or assessed without them. The BH 'no-injection' case in particular requires an explicit initial ejecta Lorentz factor or kinetic energy; none is stated. The authors should provide a complete fiducial parameter table and a brief sensitivity test around these choices.
  3. [Section 6.2 vs. Section 8.3] The quoted all-sky rate 0.05--1.7 yr^-1 spans only the LVK merger-rate prior (R_BNS = 7.6--250 Gpc^-3 yr^-1). The paper itself states in Section 8.3 that 'A shift in n_ext by one order of magnitude can alter the inferred horizon distance and the resulting event rate by a factor of several' and calls n_ext the 'leading systematic.' Thus the headline range is not a realistic uncertainty interval for the detection rate; it is a rate conditional on the fiducial n_ext. The authors should either marginalize over the n_ext prior or clearly present the rate as a function of n_ext, e.g., N_dot(n_ext) for a few representative densities, so that the reader can separate the astrophysical environment uncertainty from the rate prior.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The 460 GHz ejecta window is listed as '—', which is inconsistent with the other rows that give numerical durations. If the ejecta never exceeds the 10.2 mJy threshold in this band, state that explicitly; if the window was not computed, explain why.
  2. [Section 4.2 / Figure 2] The range '24.2--1.18e3 days' would be clearer as '24.2--1180 d'; the scientific notation in a textual range is awkward.
  3. [Section 8.5] The claim that the 230--460 GHz bands lie above both nu_a and nu_m near the peak is not supported by a plot. A small panel showing nu_a, nu_m, and the observed bands for the fiducial model would make this claim checkable.
  4. [Appendix B / Section 2.4] The initial conditions for the ODE system (initial R, Gamma, E_int, and the initial ejecta velocity) are not specified. A short table or equation set in Appendix B would remove ambiguity.
  5. [Global] There are several formatting artifacts in the draft (e.g., 'T able', 'LATEXtwocolumnstyle'), and the reference list contains 2026 arXiv e-prints. Please ensure that all citations are published or clearly marked as preprints with a stable identifier.
  6. [Section 8.8] The text says the pipeline is 'designed for high reproducibility' but no code or data availability statement is provided. A public repository or a statement of availability would strengthen the reproducibility claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forecasts are a stated-parameter forward model with external thresholds and priors; no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward model: the fiducial parameters (B = 1e15 G, P0 = 1 ms, Mej = 3e-3 Msun, next = 1e-2 cm^-3) are stated inputs, not fitted to data; the XSMT thresholds (Table 1) are instrument specifications; the BNS merger rate is an external LVK prior; and f_mag = 1 is explicitly labeled an upper limit in Section 6.2. The headline quantities — F_pk ≈ 13 mJy, t_pk ≈ 92 days, D_max ≈ 118 Mpc, and N_dot ≈ 0.05–1.7 yr^-1 — are computed from Eqs. (1)–(6), the synchrotron/SSA/DN prescription of Appendix D, the definition of D_max in Eq. (8), and the rate scaling in Section 6, rather than being imposed. No parameter is adjusted to reproduce a reported prediction. Eq. (8) defines D_max from model F_pk and fixed F_th; it is a metric, not a fit. The paper explicitly flags n_ext as the leading systematic and acknowledges microphysical degeneracies (Sections 5.2 and 8.3), and it discloses that the quoted ejecta-channel rates are upper limits scaling linearly with f_mag; these are honest limitations, not circular reductions. The load-bearing theoretical ingredients are adopted from prior independent work (Gao et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2020) and are not unique outputs of the present paper; no self-citation chain forces the conclusion. The absence of a GW170817 calibration is a validation gap affecting robustness, but no equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All numerical inputs are chosen by hand or taken from cited literature; none are fitted to data in this paper. The forecast therefore carries an unquantified model-parameter uncertainty, which the paper acknowledges (microphysical degeneracies, Sec. 8.3; weather and cadence, Sec. 8.8). External anchors: XSMT thresholds (Table 1) and the LVK BNS rate prior are external inputs, not derived here. No new entities are introduced: the magnetar engine, ejecta, jet, and external shock are established ingredients, and XSMT itself is defined in an external project document (XSMT Project Collaboration Group et al. 2025).

free parameters (12)
  • xi (engine thermalization fraction) = not stated in visible text
    Fraction of magnetar spin-down luminosity deposited into the ejecta; enters Eqs. (4)-(6) and scales every magnetar light curve.
  • epsilon_e (electron energy fraction) = not tabulated in visible text
    Synchrotron normalization via the minimum electron Lorentz factor, Eq. (D17); degeneracy with engine history acknowledged in Sec. 8.3.
  • epsilon_B (magnetic energy fraction) = not tabulated in visible text
    Sets post-shock magnetic field via Eq. (D20); controls the absolute flux level.
  • p (electron power-law index) = 2.3 implied (Sec. 8.7)
    Sets the optically thin spectral slope alpha = -(p-1)/2; the value used for fiducial light curves is not explicitly tabulated.
  • B (magnetar dipole field) = 1e15 G (fiducial)
    Sets L0 and Tsd via Eqs. (2)-(3); representative magnetar value chosen by hand, not fitted.
  • P0 (initial spin period) = 1 ms (fiducial)
    Sets the rotational energy reservoir E_rot = 0.5 I Omega0^2; chosen by hand.
  • Mej (ejecta mass) = 3e-3 Msun (fiducial)
    Sets inertia and deceleration in Eq. (6); representative BNS dynamical plus wind ejecta value.
  • n_ext (ambient density) = 1e-2 cm^-3 (fiducial)
    The dominant systematic ('gatekeeper', Sec. 5.2); peak flux and rate respond steeply to it.
  • kappa (gray opacity) = not stated
    Sets the diffusion luminosity in Eqs. (B5)-(B6) for the thermal components; numeric value not given.
  • theta_j (jet half-opening angle) = 0.1 rad (Table 2 caption)
    Sets the beaming factor f_b about 0.005 in the jet rate estimate, Eq. (9).
  • E_iso, Gamma_0 (jet energy, initial Lorentz factor) = not stated in visible text
    Jet dynamics inputs in Appendix C (Eqs. C8-C10); values used for the fiducial jet light curve are not given.
  • L_fb,0, t_0, alpha (BH fallback parameters) = exploratory only
    Phenomenological BH fallback power law, Eq. (E34); explicitly flagged as not required for the main results.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption External-shock synchrotron theory with SSA two-branch and deep-Newtonian corrections
    Central radiation machinery (Appendix D), built on Granot & Sari 2002, Wu et al. 2003, Sironi & Giannios 2013.
  • domain assumption Dipole spin-down magnetar engine
    Eqs. (1)-(3); standard model for a long-lived remnant, taken from the cited magnetar literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Deep-Newtonian floor gamma_DN = 2 with facc clipping
    Appendix D.1: a numerical prescription to keep spectra physical as gamma_m approaches unity; motivated by but not identical to Sironi & Giannios 2013.
  • domain assumption Uniform ambient density n_ext = constant
    Used for swept-up mass (Eq. A2) and all light curves; the paper itself flags n_ext as the dominant systematic (Sec. 8.3).
  • domain assumption Spherical 4-pi isotropic ejecta with onset at the GW trigger
    Section 2.4 and Eq. (A3); ignores clumping and asymmetry of real merger ejecta.
  • domain assumption BNS coalescence rate 7.6-250 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    External prior from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration (2025), used in Section 6.2 rate estimates.
  • domain assumption XSMT 5-sigma 1-hour thresholds 1.5/2.9/10.2 mJy
    Table 1, from the XSMT Project Collaboration (2025); telescope specifications adopted as fixed.
  • domain assumption Magnetar fraction f_mag = 1 for the headline rate
    Section 6.2; explicitly flagged by the paper as an upper limit scaling linearly with f_mag.
  • domain assumption r-process heating rate from Korobkin et al. 2012
    Supplies L'_ra in Eqs. (4)-(5) and Appendix B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Submillimeter Detectability of Gravitational-Wave Counterparts from Neutron-Star Mergers with the Xue-shan-mu-chang 15-meter Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QIILA73P

@misc{pith2026260800770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Submillimeter Detectability of Gravitational-Wave Counterparts from Neutron-Star Mergers with the Xue-shan-mu-chang 15-meter Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QIILA73P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00770}
}
abstract

Submillimeter (sub-mm) follow-up of binary neutron star (BNS) mergers provides unique constraints on the early-time energetics and environments of relativistic outflows, capturing the spectral evolution at epochs where centimeter-band emission is often still optically thick or yet to peak. However, the practical scientific yield depends on instrument-specific thresholds, the observing cadence, and the distinct temporal contributions from isotropic ejecta versus beamed relativistic jets. With the upcoming Xue-shan-mu-chang 15-meter SubMillimeter Telescope (XSMT), facility-specific forecasts are needed to test for sustained engine energy injection, as expected for a long-lived magnetar remnant rather than a promptly formed black hole. We present a unified numerical framework that couples engine-driven ejecta dynamics to non-thermal synchrotron emission, accounting for synchrotron self-absorption and deep-Newtonian effects. Adopting fixed 5$\sigma$ (1 h) point-source thresholds of 1.5/2.9/10.2 mJy at 230/345/460 GHz, we construct parameter-space detectability maps and estimate event rates based on current BNS merger-rate priors. For a fiducial local event at 40 Mpc, we find that a magnetar-boosted ejecta afterglow peaks on timescales of weeks to months and remains detectable long enough to allow delayed follow-up, with an expected all-sky rate of $\dot N_{\rm ej} \approx 0.05$--1.7 yr$^{-1}$ at 230 GHz for $f_{\rm mag}=1$; this rate is an upper limit and scales linearly with the long-lived magnetar fraction. Conversely, while relativistic jets produce intense early-time signals, their detection is constrained by narrow beaming and fleeting visibility. Our framework provides a quantitative basis for prioritizing gravitational-wave triggers and maximizing the scientific yield of XSMT in the multi-messenger era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the unified modeling framework. The pipeline proceeds through five stages: (I) central-engine energy injection; (II) ejecta and jet shock dynamics; (III) multi-channel radiation (merger-nova thermal, magnetar wind X-ray, ejecta synchrotron afterglow, and jet synchrotron afterglow); (IV) flux assembly and redshift mapping to the observer frame; and (V) application to facility-specific detectabil… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of 230 GHz ejecta afterglow light curves for the fiducial magnetar engine (red solid) and a prompt-collapse BH (blue dashed). This contrast applies to the adopted fiducial ejecta, environment, and microphysical parameters. The horizontal dotted line marks the XSMT 1-hour 5σ threshold. The magnetar-boosted signal peaks at ≃ 13 mJy and exceeds the threshold for ∼ 24.2–1.18 × 103 days, while the BH-powered e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fiducial sub-mm light curves at D = 40 Mpc for 230/345/460 GHz. Solid curves show total flux. Dashed horizontal lines mark the adopted XSMT 5σ(1 h) thresholds ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative 1D sweeps of sub-mm light curves at 230/345/460 GHz (and 3 GHz for context), assuming a magnetar central engine and the jet contribution turned off. Dashed horizontal lines denote the fixed XSMT 5σ(1 h) thresholds. Each panel shows how peak flux and dete…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detectability maps in the magnetar-engine plane (P0, B) at 230 GHz. Colors show log10 Fpk (mJy) and log10 tpk (day). The dashed contour marks the boundary Fpk = Fth, where Fth is the fixed XSMT 5σ(1 h) threshold. Only within the dashed contour is the peak time observat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detectability maps in the external-shock plane (Mej, next) at 230 GHz. The dashed contour denotes Fpk = Fth. The maps highlight the strong sensitivity of sub-mm detectability to next and the role of Mej in setting the peak time and thus the optimal follow-up window. Fo…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2020

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  4. [4]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, 083014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083014

    Aguilera-Miret, R., Palenzuela, C., Carrasco, F., Rosswog, S., & Vigan` o, D. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 083014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083014

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.083014 2024

  5. [5]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2b7

    Ai, S., Gao, H., Dai, Z.-G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2b7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2b7 2018

  6. [6]

    2020, ApJ, 893, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab80bd

    Ai, S., Gao, H., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJ, 893, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab80bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab80bd 2020

  7. [7]

    2025, ApJ, 978, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b4

    Ai, S., Gao, H., & Zhang, B. 2025, ApJ, 978, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad93b4 2025

  8. [8]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2380

    Ai, S., Zhang, B., & Zhu, Z. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2614, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2380

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2380 2022

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    D., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al

    Alexander, K. D., Berger, E., Fong, W., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d ALMA Observatory. 2025,, https://almascience.nrao.edu/documents-and- tools/latest/alma-technical-handbook ALMA Observatory. 2026,, https: //almascience.nrao.edu/proposing/sensiti...

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, PASA, 34, e069, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.65

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

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al

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

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    P., et al

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

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c Sub-mm GW Counterparts with XSMT17

    Chornock, R., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c Sub-mm GW Counterparts with XSMT17

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 063016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063016

    Ciolfi, R., Kastaun, W., Giacomazzo, B., et al. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 063016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063016

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Combi, L., & Siegel, D. M. 2023, PhRvL, 131, 231402, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.231402

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Foley, R

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

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Murphy, T., et al

    Dobie, D., Kaplan, D. L., Murphy, T., et al. 2018, ApJL, 858, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac105

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Piro, A

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

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    D., Berger, E., & ¨Ozel, F

    Fong, W., Metzger, B. D., Berger, E., & ¨Ozel, F. 2016, ApJ, 831, 141, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/141

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0

    Fujibayashi, S., Kiuchi, K., Wanajo, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9ce0

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/163

    Gao, H., Ding, X., Wu, X.-F., Dai, Z.-G., & Zhang, B. 2015, ApJ, 807, 163, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/163

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    V., et al

    Ghosh, A., Misra, K., Cherukuri, S. V., et al. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 43, 66, doi: 10.1007/s12036-022-09860-5

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Resmi, L., et al

    Ghosh, A., Vaishnava, C. S., Resmi, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3614

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    C., MacFadyen, A

    Giacomazzo, B., Zrake, J., Duffell, P. C., MacFadyen, A. I., & Perna, R. 2015, ApJ, 809, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/39

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    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

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 2405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1906

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1906

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

    Granot, J., & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, 568, 820, doi: 10.1086/338966

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    B., et al

    Granot, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 391, doi: 10.1086/497680

    2006 doi

  21. [29]

    J., et al

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

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    S., et al

    Hajela, A., Margutti, R., Bright, J. S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 927, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    P., et al

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

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Hjorth, J., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9110

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    2013, PhRvD, 87, 024001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024001

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2013, PhRvD, 87, 024001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024001

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, ApJ, 867, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf92

    Piran, T. 2018, ApJ, 867, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadf92

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, ApJ, 831, 190, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/190

    Hotokezaka, K., Nissanke, S., Hallinan, G., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 190, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/190

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    2015, MNRAS, 450, 1430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv620

    Hotokezaka, K., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv620

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv009

    Janka, H.-T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 541, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv009

    2015 doi

  30. [39]

    R., & Barnes, J

    Kasen, D., Badnell, N. R., & Barnes, J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/25

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    Kasen, D., & Bildsten, L. 2010, ApJ, 717, 245, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/1/245

    2010 doi

  32. [41]

    P., & Hotokezaka, K

    Katira, A., Mooley, K. P., & Hotokezaka, K. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 2654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf579

    2025 doi

  33. [42]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ef7

    Kawaguchi, K., Fujibayashi, S., Hotokezaka, K., Shibata, M., & Wanajo, S. 2022, ApJ, 933, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6ef7

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    D., Foley, R

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Foley, R. J., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1583, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0073

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa970b

    Kim, S., Schulze, S., Resmi, L., et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa970b

    2017 doi

  36. [45]

    2015, ApJ, 802, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/119

    Kisaka, S., Ioka, K., & Takami, H. 2015, ApJ, 802, 119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/802/2/119

    2015 doi

  37. [46]

    2015, PhRvD, 92, 124034, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124034

    Shibata, M. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 124034, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124034

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    2014, PhRvD, 90, 041502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.041502

    Wada, T. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 041502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.041502

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 298, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Shibata, M., & Sekiguchi, Y. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 298, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    2024 doi

  40. [49]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x

    Korobkin, O., Rosswog, S., Arcones, A., & Winteler, C. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x

    2012

  41. [50]

    Kulkarni, S. R. 2005, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0510256

    2005 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabaea

    Lee, S.-H., Maeda, K., & Kawanaka, N. 2018, ApJ, 858, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabaea

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    1998, ApJL, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    Li, L.-X., & Paczy´ nski, B. 1998, ApJL, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

    1998 doi

  44. [53]

    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

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b24

    Liu, L.-D., Gao, H., & Zhang, B. 2020, ApJ, 890, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b24

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 3419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1550

    Margalit, B., & Piran, T. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1550

    2015 doi

  47. [56]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1486

    Margalit, B., & Piran, T. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4981, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1486

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057

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

    2017 doi

  49. [58]

    D., Xie, X., et al

    Margutti, R., Alexander, K. D., Xie, X., et al. 2018, ApJL, 856, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab2ad 18Xiao

    2018 doi

  50. [59]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22835, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22835

    Merfeld, K., & Corsi, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22835, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.22835

    2025 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    Metzger, B. D. 2017, Living Reviews in Relativity, 20, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-017-0006-z

    2017 doi

  52. [61]

    D., & Bower, G

    Metzger, B. D., & Bower, G. C. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1821, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2010

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    D., & Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., & Piro, A. L. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu247

    2014 doi

  54. [63]

    D., Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2650, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x Minhajur Rahaman, S., Granot, J., & Beniamini, P. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.23567, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.23567

    2010

  55. [64]

    P., Nakar, E., Hotokezaka, K., et al

    Mooley, K. P., Nakar, E., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2018, Nature, 554, 207, doi: 10.1038/nature25452

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    Mukhopadhyay, M., & Kimura, S. S. 2025, ApJL, 989, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf285

    2025 doi

  57. [66]

    W., Fang, K., et al

    Murase, K., Toomey, M. W., Fang, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa48a

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2011, Nature, 478, 82, doi: 10.1038/nature10365

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335 National Radio Astronomy Observatory

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989, doi: 10.1142/S0218271811019335 National Radio Astronomy Observatory. 2026,, https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vla/docs/manuals/oss

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    Omand, C. M. B., & Sarin, N. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6455, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3645

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    Omand, C. M. B., Sarin, N., & Lamb, G. P. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 1908, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf565

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

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

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt037

    Piran, T., Nakar, E., & Rosswog, S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt037

    2013 doi

  64. [73]

    L., Giacomazzo, B., & Perna, R

    Piro, A. L., Giacomazzo, B., & Perna, R. 2017, ApJL, 844, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7f2f

    2017 doi

  65. [74]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04990

    Plasse, C., Reboul-Salze, A., Guilet, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04990, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04990

    2026 doi arXiv

  66. [75]

    J., & Rosswog, S

    Price, D. J., & Rosswog, S. 2006, Science, 312, 719, doi: 10.1126/science.1125201

    2006 doi

  67. [76]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 3255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1227

    Radice, D., Galeazzi, F., Lippuner, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3255, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1227

    2016 doi

  68. [77]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf054

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

    2018 doi

  69. [78]

    A., & Shapiro, S

    Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1999, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 16, R1, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/16/6/201

    1999 doi

  70. [79]

    Ren, J., & Dai, Z. G. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac797

    2022 doi

  71. [80]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 744, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2502

    Rosswog, S., Korobkin, O., Arcones, A., Thielemann, F.-K., & Piran, T. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 744, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2502

    2014 doi

  72. [81]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1286

    Sadeh, G., Linder, N., & Waxman, E. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 3279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1286

    2024 doi

  73. [82]

    1998, ApJL, 494, L49, doi: 10.1086/311160

    Sari, R. 1998, ApJL, 494, L49, doi: 10.1086/311160

    1998 doi

  74. [83]

    Sarin, N., & Lasky, P. D. 2021, General Relativity and Gravitation, 53, 59, doi: 10.1007/s10714-021-02831-1

    2021 doi

  75. [84]

    Sarin, N., Omand, C. M. B., Margalit, B., & Jones, D. I. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2609

    2022 doi

  76. [85]

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

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

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    2020, ApJ, 902, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb407

    Schroeder, G., Margalit, B., Fong, W.-f., et al. 2020, ApJ, 902, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb407

    2020 doi

  78. [87]

    J., Simon, J

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

    2017 doi

  79. [88]

    2021a, PhRvD, 103, 043022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043022

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., & Sekiguchi, Y. 2021a, PhRvD, 103, 043022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043022

    doi

  80. [89]

    2021b, PhRvD, 104, 063026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063026

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., & Sekiguchi, Y. 2021b, PhRvD, 104, 063026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063026

    doi

  81. [90]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/107

    Sironi, L., & Giannios, D. 2013, ApJ, 778, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/107

    2013 doi

  82. [91]

    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

    2017 doi

  83. [92]

    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

    2017 doi

  84. [93]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/113 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al

    Tanaka, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2013, ApJ, 775, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/113 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

    2013 doi arXiv

  85. [94]

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

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

    2017 doi

  86. [95]

    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

    2017 doi

  87. [96]

    J., Yang, S., et al

    Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., Yang, S., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf

    2017 doi

  88. [97]

    A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al

    Villar, V. A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84

    2017 doi

  89. [98]

    2023, Science China

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

    2023

  90. [99]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2095-8

    doi

  91. [100]

    F., Dai, Z

    Wu, X. F., Dai, Z. G., Huang, Y. F., & Lu, T. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1131, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06602.x XSMT Project Collaboration Group, Ao, Y., Chang, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.13983, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.13983 Sub-mm GW Counterparts with XSMT19

    2003

  92. [101]

    2013, ApJL, 776, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L40

    Yu, Y.-W., Zhang, B., & Gao, H. 2013, ApJL, 776, L40, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L40

    2013 doi

  93. [102]

    jet-break

    Zhang, B.-B., Zhang, B., Sun, H., et al. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 447, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-02847-3 20Xiao APPENDIX A.SHARED EXTERNAL-SHOCK CONVENTIONS AND KINEMATICS This appendix summarizes the kinematic relations common to both the isotropic ejecta afterglow and t...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.