Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Linking Analytic Light Curve Models to Physical Properties of Kilonovae

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fitting kilonova light curves with a standard two-component analytic model yields 'red' and 'blue' ejecta parameters that invert the true dynamical and post-merger ejecta configuration, because post-merger emission is absorbed and…

desk verdict A convincing mock-data demonstration that two-component analytic kilonova fits mis-assign ejecta masses and velocities, with total mass still recoverable to a factor of a few; the main caveat is that the ground truth is the authors' own simulation suite. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10021 v1 pith:YZSVROIO submitted 2025-02-14 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Ayari Kitamura , Kyohei Kawaguchi , Masaomi Tanaka , Sho Fujibayashi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords kilonovaneutronstarmergerlightcurvemodelingradiativetransferr-processnucleosynthesisejectareprocessingGW170817near-infraredobservations
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

Kilonovae are the optical and infrared flashes powered by the radioactive decay of neutron-rich material ejected in neutron star mergers, and observers routinely fit them with a simple two-component model labeled 'blue' and 'red'. This paper asks whether the masses and velocities those fits return correspond to anything physical. Using mock light curves from realistic radiative transfer simulations based on merger simulations with known ejecta configurations, the authors show that the fits do not: the fitted blue component is less massive and faster, the fitted red component is more massive and slower, the opposite of the true dynamical versus post-merger ejecta hierarchy. The reason is that light from the lanthanide-poor post-merger ejecta is partially absorbed by the lanthanide-rich dynamical ejecta and re-emitted at red wavelengths, so a single physical component feeds both fitted colors. The reliable output is the sum of the fitted masses, which recovers the true total ejecta mass within a factor of about three, provided near-infrared observations near the light-curve peak are included.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the standard analytic two-component kilonova model: each component is a one-zone, homologously expanding radioactive-heated shell with mass $M$, velocity $v$, constant gray opacity $\kappa$, and a temperature floor $T_c$, radiating as a blackbody, and the total flux is the simple sum of a blue and a red component. The mechanism that carries the argument is geometric reprocessing: the lanthanide-rich dynamical ejecta sit mostly around the equator, so they absorb blue photons emitted by the lanthanide-poor post-merger ejecta and re-emit them at redder wavelengths. The paper quantifies this with a surface-covering factor $f_\Omega \sim 0.6$--$0.7$ for the fiducial model, which makes the fitted blue mass roughly $(1-f_\Omega)M_{\rm pm}$ and the fitted red mass roughly $f_\Omega M_{\rm pm} + M_{\rm dyn}$.

What would settle it

Run the identical fitting pipeline on mock light curves from a radiative transfer simulation in which the lanthanide-rich dynamical ejecta is placed near the poles instead of the equator; if the red component still comes out systematically more massive and slower than the blue component, the reprocessing mechanism proposed here is not the whole story.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the fiducial DD2-135 model viewed from the pole, the input configuration is dynamical ejecta with $M_{\rm dyn}=0.0015\,M_\odot$ and $v_{\rm dyn}=0.19\,c$ plus post-merger ejecta with $M_{\rm pm}=0.080\,M_\odot$ and $v_{\rm pm}=0.092\,c$. The analytic two-component fit returns $M_{\rm blue}=0.010\,M_\odot$, $v_{\rm blue}=0.43\,c$, $M_{\rm red}=0.028\,M_\odot$, and $v_{\rm red}=0.26\,c$, so the inferred red component is more massive and slower while the blue component is less massive and faster. The same reversal appears for all four merger models and for the equatorial viewing angle, and it reproduces the pattern previously inferred for GW170817/AT2017gfo. By re-running the radiative transfer with 30% and 10% of the post-merger ejecta mass, the authors show that both fitted masses shrink together, proving that the post-merger ejecta contributes to both blue and red emission: part of its blue light is absorbed by the lanthanide-rich dynamical ejecta and reprocessed into the red. The paper concludes that the analytic blue and red components are not the physical post-merger and dynamical ejecta, and that only the total fitted mass is a trustworthy physical estimate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation light curves are faithful stand-ins for real kilonovae: the radiative transfer code assumes local thermodynamic equilibrium with a particular set of heavy-element opacities, and the boundary between dynamical and post-merger ejecta is a modeling convention, so a mismatch found in these mock data could in principle be an artifact of those choices rather than a general property of analytic fitting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fitted red mass should not be read as dynamical ejecta mass, nor the fitted blue mass as post-merger ejecta mass; the paper shows these identifications fail in every tested merger model.
  • $M_{\rm blue}+M_{\rm red}$ recovers the true total ejecta mass within a factor of about three across equations of state, merger masses, and viewing angles, because total luminosity tracks total mass.
  • The inferred blue mass drops by roughly 60% for an equatorial observer in the fiducial model, so comparing fitted blue components across events without accounting for viewing angle is unreliable.
  • Missing near-infrared data near the peak can inflate the inferred total mass by up to a factor of two; multi-epoch NIR coverage near peak is therefore necessary for reliable mass estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the reprocessing picture is that the fitted blue velocity is set mainly by the diffusion timescale of the small uncovered fraction of post-merger ejecta, so the high blue velocities inferred for AT2017gfo need not imply a distinct fast ejecta layer; the same pipeline applied to a sample should show the blue/red hierarchy reversed even when the underlying ejecta hierarchy is
  • If the same mechanism operates in GRB-associated kilonova candidates, analytic fits to their sparse, late-time NIR data inherit the same mislabeling, leaving the total mass as the only parameter worth comparing across events.
  • Because the inferred total mass runs low when high-electron-fraction (high-$Y_e$) post-merger ejecta dominate, folding a composition-dependent heating rate into the analytic model could tighten the factor-of-three total-mass recovery into a more precise estimate.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the ejecta parameters inferred from popular analytic two-component kilonova light curve models (mass, velocity, opacity for a 'blue' and a 'red' component) correspond to the physical dynamical and post-merger ejecta in neutron star mergers. The authors use mock light curves generated by multi-dimensional, wavelength-dependent radiative transfer simulations based on numerical relativity simulations (Kawaguchi et al. 2021, 2022, 2023) as ground truth, and fit them with an analytic model similar to Villar et al. (2017b) via MCMC. For a fiducial model (DD2-135, polar view) and for other merger models and viewing angles, they find that the inferred red component is more massive and slower than the blue component, opposite to the input hierarchy of the dynamical and post-merger ejecta. They demonstrate, by varying the post-merger ejecta mass in separate simulations, that the post-merger ejecta contributes to both blue and red emission, because blue emission from the post-merger ejecta is absorbed and reprocessed to red by lanthanide-rich dynamical ejecta. The paper additionally shows that the sum of the inferred blue and red masses recovers the total input ejecta mass to within a factor of about three, and that incomplete observational coverage, especially the lack of NIR data near peak, degrades the total mass estimate.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a valuable caution against interpreting the parameters of the widely used two-component analytic kilonova models as physical masses and velocities of the dynamical and post-merger ejecta. The use of controlled mock data with known input ejecta properties is a strong aspect: it converts a conceptual worry about analytic model limitations into a quantitative demonstration. The paper also gives a practical, observationally actionable recommendation about the importance of multi-epoch NIR observations near peak for total mass estimation. The proposed reprocessing interpretation is physically plausible and is supported by the controlled variation of post-merger mass. The main caveat is that the mock ground truth comes from a single simulation suite with specific assumptions; however, the authors are transparent about these assumptions and include a comparison with GW170817/AT2017gfo that shows the simulated light curves resemble the observed ones.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2.2 and Appendix A] The paper does not include a self-consistency or recovery test in which the analytic model is fit to light curves generated with the same analytic model for known input parameters. Such a test would establish whether the MCMC procedure and the analytic model can recover the true parameters when the model is correct, thereby isolating the effect of the radiative transfer physics (e.g., reprocessing) from any inherent bias or degeneracy of the fitting procedure itself. Without this test, the reported mismatch between input and inferred parameters could be partly due to the fitting procedure rather than the physical reprocessing that the paper emphasizes. I recommend adding a recovery test, at least for the fiducial parameter set.
  2. [§2.1 and Table 1] The central conclusion that analytic parameters do not represent the actual ejecta configuration rests entirely on the fidelity of the radiative transfer simulations, which assume LTE and use the Domoto et al. (2022) line list, and on a conventional split between dynamical and post-merger ejecta. The paper acknowledges these limitations but does not discuss how the inferred hierarchy (M_red > M_blue, v_red < v_blue) might change if, for example, the dynamical ejecta were distributed more spherically around the post-merger ejecta, or if the line list were incomplete at NIR wavelengths. Since the claim is general rather than specific to the simulated models, I ask the authors to add an explicit discussion of the robustness of the main conclusion to these assumptions, and to state clearly which aspects of the result are expected to be generic.
  3. [§3.4 and Table 3] The fit to the DD2-125 model yields a variance parameter σ = 0.329 mag, which is about three times larger than the σ ≈ 0.1 mag obtained for the other models. This indicates that the analytic two-component model is a poor fit to the DD2-125 light curve. The paper nevertheless uses DD2-125 to support the cross-model statement that the inferred hierarchy M_red > M_blue and v_red < v_blue is common to all models. The authors should either discuss whether the inferred parameters are reliable for DD2-125 given the poor fit, or exclude it from the general trend and explicitly state the reason.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] "Despite of the challenges in the parameter estimation" should read "Despite the challenges in the parameter estimation".
  2. [Appendix B, Figure 12 caption] "The bolometric luminosity of the best-fit model (line) with that of GW170187/AT2017gfo" contains a typo: "GW170187" should be "GW170817".
  3. [§3.2, first paragraph] "we peform two additional radiative transfer simulation" contains a typo: "peform" should be "perform".
  4. [References] Some references are duplicated (e.g., Kasen et al. 2015 appears twice, Tanaka et al. 2013 appears twice). Please use a single entry for each work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic-model mismatch is established by an independent mock-data comparison, not by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that parameters from analytic two-component light-curve fits do not map onto the physical dynamical/post-merger ejecta. This is established by fitting an externally established analytic model (Villar et al. 2017b / Metzger 2017) to mock light curves produced by radiative transfer simulations, and then comparing the fitted blue/red masses and velocities with the known simulation inputs. The target conclusion is the output of that comparison, not an input to it. The reprocessing interpretation is tested by a controlled experiment: the authors rerun the radiative transfer with reduced post-merger ejecta mass and show that both the inferred blue and red masses decrease; this is a genuine manipulation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to Kawaguchi et al. (2021, 2022, 2023) and Fujibayashi et al. (2020, 2023) are data provenance, not load-bearing circular arguments; the simulations rest on stated, published assumptions (LTE, Domoto et al. 2022 line list) and are externally checkable against GW170817/AT2017gfo in Appendix B. The paper's own admission that the dynamical/post-merger split is conventional is a limitation on the definition of ground truth, not a circular reduction. No equation or parameter in the paper is defined in terms of the conclusion it supports, so no specific circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the mock data (LTE, line list, conventional ejecta split) and on the analytic model assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters listed are either fixed by hand (kappa_blue), nuisance (sigma), or interpretive (f_Omega), and do not drive the conclusion by construction.

free parameters (3)
  • blue opacity kappa_blue = 0.5 cm^2/g (fixed by hand)
    Fixed to 0.5 to match Villar et al. (2017b) rather than fitted. Directly affects the blue component's inferred mass and velocity because the analytic model uses constant gray opacity.
  • variance parameter sigma = 0.10-0.33 depending on model (Table 3)
    Nuisance parameter in the likelihood representing additional scatter; fitted by MCMC. Not part of the physical conclusion.
  • surface covering factor f_Omega = ~0.6-0.7 for DD2-135
    Introduced in Section 3.2 to approximately explain the mass partition in the reprocessing picture; not used in the analytic model or MCMC, but serves as an interpretive parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and the Domoto et al. (2022) line list adequately capture bound-bound opacities in kilonova ejecta.
    The mock light curves used as ground truth rely on these in the radiative transfer code (Section 2.1). If the line list is incomplete, the reprocessing signature could differ.
  • domain assumption The analytic model's one-zone approximation with constant density and homologous expansion (v = sqrt(3/5) v_max) is the standard model from Metzger (2017) and Villar et al. (2017b).
    Adopted in Appendix A; the paper uses this model as the test subject, so it is not derived but assumed.
  • domain assumption The conventional decomposition of ejecta into dynamical and post-merger components is well-defined and corresponds to distinct physical components.
    Table 1 says there is no strict way to distinguish the components; the split is conventional. The central claim that the analytic parameters do not match the true configuration depends on this split being meaningful.
  • domain assumption The specific heating rate dot q = 2e10 (t/1day)^-1.3 erg/s/g and the thermalization treatment are approximately correct for all ejecta.
    Used in the analytic model (Eq. A4-A6); the paper itself notes that high-Ye post-merger ejecta have lower heating rates, which biases total mass estimates (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linking Analytic Light Curve Models to Physical Properties of Kilonovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZSVROIO

@misc{pith2026250210021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linking Analytic Light Curve Models to Physical Properties of Kilonovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZSVROIO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10021}
}
read the original abstract

In binary neutron star mergers, lanthanide-rich dynamical ejecta and lanthanide-poor post-merger ejecta have been often linked to the red and blue kilonova emission, respectively. However, analytic light curve modeling of kilonova often results in the ejecta parameters that are at odds with such expectations. To investigate the physical meaning of the derived parameters, we perform analytic modeling of the kilonova light curves calculated with realistic multi-dimensional radiative transfer based on the numerical relativity simulations. Our fiducial simulations adopt a faster-moving, less massive dynamical ejecta and slower-moving, more massive post-merger ejecta. The results of analytic modeling, however, show that the inferred ''red'' component is more massive and slower, while the ''blue'' component is less massive and faster, as also inferred for GW170817/AT2017gfo. This suggests that the parameters derived from light curve modeling with an analytic model do not represent the true configuration of the kilonova ejecta. We demonstrate that the post-merger ejecta contributes to both blue and red emissions: the emission from the post-merger ejecta is absorbed and reprocessed to red emission by the dynamical ejecta with a higher lanthanide fraction. Our results caution against separately discussing the origins of red and blue components derived from the analytic models. Despite of the challenges in the parameter estimation, we show that the estimate of the total ejecta mass is rather robust within a factor of a few, reflecting the total luminosity output. To derive the reliable total ejecta mass, multi-epoch observations in near-infrared wavelengths near their light curve peaks are important.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10021 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relationship between mass and velocity of the ejecta from neutron star mergers. The blue and red points represent the blue and red components from the an￾alytic model fitting of GW170817/AT2017gfo (Villar et al. 2017b). Other symbols represent four different NR simula￾tions: blue and red colors indicate the post-merger and dy￾namical ejecta, respectively (Fujibayashi et al. 2020, 2023). 2017). The optical and NIR li… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rest-mass density profile of the ejecta in the meridional plane (the z-axis denotes the polar axis) obtained by the hydrodynamics simulation at t ≈ 0.1 days for DD2-135, along with the multiband light curves resulting from the radiative transfer simulation, observed from the polar angle (0◦ < θ < 20◦ ) and the equatorial angle (86◦ < θ < 90◦ ), respectively (Kawaguchi et al. 2022). pretation (as we discuss below), w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Left) Mock observational data prepared by radiative transfer simulation: DD2-135 viewed from a polar angle (0◦ < θ < 20◦ , points). Thick points are the data used for parameter estimation. Solid lines represent the realizations of the highest likelihood (best-fit) for each filter, while thin lines show the projections of results from 100 randomly chosen chains. (Right) The same as the left panel but for the light c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot showing the posterior distributions of parameters obtained by using our method for the fiducial case (DD2-135, polar view) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) Relationship between the mass and velocity for input values of DD2-135 (Mdyn ej , Mdyn ej ), (Mpm ej , Mpm ej ) and parameters inferred from the analytic modeling (Mblue, vblue),(Mred, vred). Thick circles represent the estimated parameters for the light curves …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relationship between the mass and velocity for three simulations: (a) the fiducial model (DD2-135), and two additional simulation models (b) DD2-135 pm03 and (c) DD2-135 pm01 with 30% and 10% of the post-merger ejecta mass as compared with the fiducial model. Although …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit multiband light curves of three models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) Relationship between the mass and velocity for four different merger models and the inferred parameters from the light curve modeling. Each symbol represents a different model. (Right) The mass ratio of the post-merger/dynamical (input parameters) and blue/red c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relationship between the total ejecta mass in the simulations Mtot ej (= Mdyn ej + Mpm ej ) and the sum of the inferred masses of the blue and red components Mtot (= Mblue + Mred). The lines represent Mtot = Mtot ej and a factor of 3 difference. two parts have a simila…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Best-fit multiband light curves for three datasets with different observational conditions: (i) Observed in optical bands (i, z) starting at 3 days after the merger, and observed in the NIR bands (J, H, K) only for points brighter than −15 mag. (ii) Observed only in t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Estimated masses for three datasets with differ￾ent observational conditions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Left) Individual band light curves of GW170817/AT2017gfo taken from Villar et al. (2017b) (gray circles), the two-component best-fit model (gray lines), and the blue and red components in the model (blue and red lines). (Right) The bolometric luminosity of the best-f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    Using Neural Networks to Perform Rapid High-Dimensional Kilonova Parameter Inference

    Almualla, M., Ning, Y., Salehi, P., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.15470, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.15470 16 Kitamura et al

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.15470 2021

  3. [3]

    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

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.65 2017

  4. [4]

    A., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110

    Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, G. 2016, ApJ, 829, 110, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/110 2016

  6. [6]

    2013, ApJL, 774, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L23

    Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013, ApJL, 774, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L23

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/l23 2013

  7. [7]

    W., Dietrich, T., Doctor, Z., et al

    Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Doctor, Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2174

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2174 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Foley, R

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

    doi:10.1126/science.aap9811 2017

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Rev. Mod. Phys., 93, 015002, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015002

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    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

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a34 D ´ ıaz, M

    Darbha, S., & Kasen, D. 2020, ApJ, 897, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a34 D ´ ıaz, M. C., Macri, L. M., Garcia Lambas, D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9060

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, Astrophys

    Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

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

    1989 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Cenko, S

    Evans, P. A., Cenko, S. B., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1565, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9580 Fern´ andez, R., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66, 23, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102115-044819

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc74a

    Fong, W., Laskar, T., Rastinejad, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc74a

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Freiburghaus, C., Rosswog, S., & Thielemann, F. K. 1999, ApJL, 525, L121, doi: 10.1086/312343

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc2

    Fujibayashi, S., Wanajo, S., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V. A., et al. 2018, ApJS, 236, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Dietrich, T., et al

    Heinzel, J., Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 502, 3057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab221

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    2020, ApJ, 891, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a98

    Hotokezaka, K., & Nakar, E. 2020, ApJ, 891, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a98

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, ApJL, 951, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdad2

    Just, O., Vijayan, V., Xiong, Z., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdad2

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    R., & Barnes, J

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

    2013 doi

  19. [28]

    Kasen, D., Fern´ andez, R., & Metzger, B. D. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1777, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv721

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

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

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

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

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

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2430

    Kawaguchi, K., Fujibayashi, S., Domoto, N., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2430

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    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

  24. [33]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3bc

    Wanajo, S. 2021, ApJ, 913, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf3bc

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    2018, ApJL, 865, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aade02 —

    Kawaguchi, K., Shibata, M., & Tanaka, M. 2018, ApJL, 865, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aade02 —. 2020, ApJ, 889, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab61f6

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 1940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x

    Korobkin, O., Rosswog, S., Arcones, A., & Winteler, C. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 1940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x

    2012

  27. [36]

    T., Fryer, C

    Korobkin, O., Wollaeger, R. T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1b5

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    Kulkarni, S. R. 2005, Modeling Supernova-like Explosions Associated with Gamma-ray Bursts with Short Durations. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510256

    2005 arXiv

  29. [38]

    M., & Schramm, D

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

    1974 doi

  30. [39]

    1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 507, L59, doi: 10.1086/311680

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

    1998 doi

  31. [40]

    F., et al

    Lippuner, J., Fern´ andez, R., Roberts, L. F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1987

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    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

  33. [42]

    A., Deng, J., et al

    Maeda, K., Mazzali, P. A., Deng, J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 931, doi: 10.1086/376591

    2003 doi

  34. [43]

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

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    D., & Fern´ andez, R

    Metzger, B. D., & Fern´ andez, R. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 3444, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu802 Linking Analytic Light Curve Models to Physical Properties of Kilonovae 17

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    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

    2010

  37. [46]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334 O’Connor, B., Troja, E., Dichiara, S., et al

    Nicholl, M., Guillochon, J., & Berger, E. 2017, ApJ, 850, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9334 O’Connor, B., Troja, E., Dichiara, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1279, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab132

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    Pang, P. T. H., Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 8352, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-43932-6

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9

    Perego, A., Radice, D., & Bernuzzi, S. 2017, ApJL, 850, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9ab9

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    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

  41. [50]

    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

  42. [51]

    C., Fong, W., Kilpatrick, C

    Rastinejad, J. C., Fong, W., Kilpatrick, C. D., Nicholl, M., & Metzger, B. D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02158, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02158

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [52]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    2022 doi

  44. [54]

    2022, Physical Review Research, 4, 013046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.013046

    Ristic, M., Champion, E., O’Shaughnessy, R., et al. 2022, Physical Review Research, 4, 013046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.013046

    2022 doi

  45. [55]

    F., Kasen, D., Lee, W

    Roberts, L. F., Kasen, D., Lee, W. H., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJL, 736, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L21

    2011 doi

  46. [56]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9

    Rosswog, S., Feindt, U., Korobkin, O., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 104001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68a9

    2017 doi

  47. [57]

    K., et al

    Rosswog, S., Liebend¨ orfer, M., Thielemann, F. K., et al. 1999, A&A, 341, 499, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9811367

    1999 doi arXiv

  48. [58]

    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

  49. [59]

    2017, PhRvD, 96, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123012

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123012

    2017 doi

  50. [60]

    2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, 41, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023625

    Shibata, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, 41, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023625

    2019 doi

  51. [61]

    J., Collins, C

    Shingles, L. J., Collins, C. E., Vijayan, V., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf29a

    2023 doi

  52. [62]

    J., Chen, T

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

    2017 doi

  53. [63]

    2016, Advances in Astronomy, 2016, 634197, doi: 10.1155/2016/6341974

    Tanaka, M. 2016, Advances in Astronomy, 2016, 634197, doi: 10.1155/2016/6341974

    2016 doi

  54. [65]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/113

    Tanaka, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2013, ApJ, 775, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/113

    2013 doi

  55. [66]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1576

    Tanaka, M., Kato, D., Gaigalas, G., & Kawaguchi, K. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1576

    2020 doi

  56. [67]

    A., et al

    Tanaka, M., Utsumi, Y., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 102, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx121

    2017 doi

  57. [69]

    2018, Astrophys

    Tanaka, M., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 852, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0cb

    2018 doi

  58. [70]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 547, doi: 10.1038/nature12505

    2013 doi

  59. [71]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Gonz´ alez-Fern´ andez, C., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6

    2017 doi

  60. [72]

    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

  61. [73]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 69, 101, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx118

    Utsumi, Y., Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 69, 101, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx118

    2017 doi

  62. [74]

    2008, MNRAS, 383, 1485, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12647.x

    Valenti, S., Benetti, S., Cappellaro, E., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1485, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12647.x

    2008

  63. [75]

    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

  64. [76]

    A., Berger, E., Metzger, B

    Villar, V. A., Berger, E., Metzger, B. D., & Guillochon, J. 2017a, ApJ, 849, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8fcb

    doi

  65. [77]

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

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

    doi

  66. [78]

    2014, ApJL, 789, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L39

    Wanajo, S., Sekiguchi, Y., Nishimura, N., et al. 2014, ApJL, 789, L39, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L39

    2014 doi

  67. [79]

    O., Kushnir, D., & Gal-Yam, A

    Waxman, E., Ofek, E. O., Kushnir, D., & Gal-Yam, A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2441

    2018 doi

  68. [80]

    Metzger, B. D. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2156

    2016 doi

  69. [81]

    2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    Yang, Y.-H., Troja, E., O’Connor, B., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.