Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Gravitational-wave follow-up with CTA after the detection of GRBs in the TeV energy domain

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 The paper argues that TeV-bright short GRBs like GRB 090510 would remain detectable by CTA for more than an hour after a neutron-star merger, which would make gravitational-wave follow-up far more forgiving of delayed response.

desk verdict Useful CTA follow-up planning numbers, but the headline 'over an hour' delay result rests on an unverified TeV extrapolation from a single short GRB. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09832 v2 pith:KF5HGFCP submitted 2019-08-26 astro-ph.HE

Imre Bartos , K.Rainer Corley , Nihar Gupte , Neil Ash , Zsuzsa. Márka , Szabolcs Márka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesgamma-rayburstsshortGRBsTeVemissionCherenkovTelescopeArraymulti-messengerastronomygravitational-wavefollow-upneutronstarmergers
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 asks whether the Cherenkov Telescope Array can catch gamma-ray bursts tied to gravitational-wave detections, now that GRBs are known to shine at TeV energies. Using GRB 090510, the brightest short GRB seen at high energies, as a luminosity template, it argues that CTA could detect such an event up to more than an hour after a neutron-star merger, even with short exposures and large sky-localization areas. It then shows that most three-detector gravitational-wave events need only a handful of CTA pointings, that annual follow-up time is manageable only with prioritization, and that even a few small telescopes or existing Cherenkov facilities would help. If the TeV assumption holds, CTA's follow-up program becomes much more flexible than earlier response-time estimates suggested.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is equation (1), a spectral flux-density model for short GRBs: $F = 6\times10^{-8}\,\mu{\rm Jy}\, (t/100\,{\rm s})^{-1.38}\,(E/1\,{\rm TeV})^{-1.25}\,(d_L/500\,{\rm Mpc})^{-2}$, built from Fermi-LAT observations of GRB 090510 with forward-shock temporal and spectral indices. The paper compares this model against CTA's differential sensitivity in the 0.6--1 TeV band to compute how long after the merger an event remains detectable, and it uses BAYESTAR-reconstructed localization skymaps with two tiling schemes, 'greedy' and 'honeycomb', to count the pointings needed to cover gravitational-wave error regions. The single-telescope sensitivity of FACT stands in for an individual CTA small-size telescope when assessing partial-array usefulness.

What would settle it

Measure the TeV spectrum of a short GRB at roughly 300--500 Mpc with a fast Cherenkov response: if its flux above 0.6 TeV is more than about $10^{-3}$ times fainter than equation (1) predicts, or if the spectrum cuts off below roughly 1 TeV, then GRB 090510-like TeV emission is not typical of short GRBs and CTA's more-than-an-hour delayed detection window would not apply.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that very-high-energy gamma-ray emission from short GRBs associated with neutron-star mergers could be detected by CTA even if observations start more than an hour after the gravitational-wave trigger, provided the burst is as bright in TeV light as GRB 090510. For a burst one hundred times fainter, about twenty minutes of delay are still acceptable at 300 Mpc. The paper further finds that about 25% of three-detector mergers are localized well enough for a single small-telescope pointing to cover the 90% credible skymap, that following up all three-detector neutron-star mergers would cost 0.2 to 7 hours of CTA time per year, and that binary black-hole mergers require strong prioritization. A small number of small-size or medium-size telescopes, even at locations far from the main CTA sites, could probe nearby TeV counterparts, and continued operation of the existing H.E.S.S., MAGIC, and VERITAS arrays would widen the rapidly coverable sky.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that short GRBs actually emit TeV radiation with luminosity and spectrum comparable to GRB 090510; no short GRB has yet been detected in the TeV band, and all three TeV GRBs known at the time are long-duration bursts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CTA can keep observing a neutron-star merger localization for over an hour after a gravitational-wave alert without losing a bright TeV counterpart.
  • About one in four three-detector events needs only a single small-telescope pointing, enabling deep exposures on the full 90% localization.
  • Annual CTA follow-up of all three-detector neutron-star mergers fits in 0.2--7 hours per year, while two-detector events and most black-hole mergers require downselection.
  • A partially built CTA, or a few small-size telescopes operating on their own, can already detect nearby TeV counterparts and extend the surveyable sky.
  • Existing H.E.S.S., MAGIC, and VERITAS arrays remain scientifically useful for gravitational-wave follow-up even after CTA is complete.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If short-GRB TeV emission is as luminous as GRB 090510, the same relaxed delay applies to neutron star--black hole mergers that produce short GRBs, and to sub-threshold gravitational-wave candidates, multiplying the number of follow-up opportunities.
  • The delay argument implies that even telescopes with modest slewing speed or delayed alerts can contribute, so weather at the main CTA sites becomes less fatal to follow-up science.
  • A null TeV detection in the first years of CTA operation would directly constrain the fraction of short GRBs that sustain GRB 090510-like TeV luminosity, turning the assumed template into a measured luminosity function.
  • The geographic-sensitivity maps suggest an optimized small-telescope network placed to cover the LIGO/Virgo most-sensitive sky patches could act as a standalone TeV early-warning system while CTA is still under construction.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that, following the recent TeV detections of long GRBs, CTA can play a central role in gravitational-wave follow-up if short GRBs emit TeV radiation comparable to GRB 090510. It introduces a single-power-law template for short-GRB TeV emission, compares it with CTA's differential sensitivity as a function of delay, simulates gravitational-wave skymaps with BAYESTAR to estimate the number of CTA pointings needed, computes annual follow-up time requirements for neutron star and black hole mergers, and argues that partial CTA configurations, distributed small-size telescopes, and continued operation of current IACTs would all be scientifically useful. The central conclusion is that CTA could detect a GRB 090510-like short GRB even if observations start more than an hour after the gravitational-wave event.

Significance. If the central conditional premise is granted, the paper provides a useful and transparent strategic framework: the flux-versus-sensitivity comparison is easy to check, the tiling simulations are concrete and reproducible in structure, and the proposal that a handful of low-cost SSTs at complementary geographic sites can add value is timely for CTA planning. The paper is a strategy study rather than a measurement paper, and its quantitative conclusions are explicitly conditional on an unverified short-GRB TeV template; future TeV observations of short GRBs will directly validate or invalidate that template. The work also gives a concrete prioritization scheme for CTA follow-up, which is a practical contribution to multi-messenger planning.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1) and Section 7] The entire quantitative detectability claim, including the Section 7 statement that CTA 'could detect very-high-energy emission from short GRBs even if it starts observing with significant delay' and that the delay can be 'over an hour,' rests on extrapolating the Fermi-LAT GeV spectrum of GRB 090510 to TeV energies with a single photon index and no cutoff. No short GRB has yet been detected at TeV energies, and the three TeV GRBs named in the introduction (190114C, 180720B, 190829A) are long-duration events. The paper explicitly says 'we assume that emission follows this spectrum up to TeV energies,' and the conclusion is conditioned on 'if such TeV emission is typical,' so this is not an internal contradiction, but the assumption is load-bearing: Figure 1 shows that at 10^-4 of the 090510 flux the source is undetectable even with rapid pointed observations, and a steeper spectrum, a break below ~1 TeV, or a lower normalization would remove the central delayed-observation result. Please add external constraints or a sensitivity study over plausible spectral shapes and cutoffs, or re-frame the conclusion more prominently as contingent on an unverified template, including in the abstract. In addition, no uncertainties in alpha, beta, or the EBL attenuation are propagated through Eq. (1), so the plotted crossing times have no error bars.
  2. [Sections 3 and 7] The single-pointing coverage fraction for three-detector events is reported inconsistently: Section 3 says 'about 50% of skymaps for the 3-detector case can be covered by a single CTA pointing,' while Section 7 says 'About 25% of mergers detected with 3 gravitational-wave detectors will be sufficiently well-localized to have a single SST pointing cover the full 90% C.L. gravitational-wave skymap.' The reported median tile counts of 3–4 for the three-detector case in Section 3 are also difficult to reconcile with a 50% single-pointing fraction. This inconsistency matters because Section 4 uses the single-pointing selection criterion to estimate that 10–100 binary black hole events per year could be followed up with feasible time; please correct the number and ensure that the downstream prioritization estimates are based on the correct cumulative fraction from Fig. 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The formula for the temporal decay index is printed as alpha = (2 - 3p)/4, which is negative for p = 2.5; the quoted value alpha ~ 1.38 corresponds to alpha = (3p - 2)/4, so the sign in the printed formula should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4] The lower end of the annual time estimate for three-detector neutron star mergers (0.2 h) does not obviously follow from the stated 20-600 yr^-1 rate, division by 3, 15% duty cycle, and 15 min per event, which gives about 0.25 h; please check the arithmetic.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6] 'Compliment' should be 'complement' in the abstract and in Section 6.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption phrase 'see text in figures' is vague; the scaling labels for the fainter flux curves should be defined in the caption or in the text.
  5. [Section 5, Figure 5] The legend says 'SST' while the text says the sensitivity is that of FACT, a single-SST telescope; please make the terminology consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hour-delay claim is a conditional sensitivity estimate from an external GRB 090510 template compared with CTA sensitivity.

full rationale

The central claim in Section 7, that CTA could detect very-high-energy emission from short GRBs even if observations begin more than an hour after a gravitational-wave detection, is not derived from CTA sensitivity or from the paper's own conclusions. It is computed from Eq. (1), an externally defined spectral template for GRB 090510 taken from De Pasquale et al. (2010) and extended to TeV energies, then compared with CTA's differential sensitivity in a forward calculation. The text explicitly labels the extension as an assumption: 'We assume that emission follows this spectrum up to TeV energies,' and the conclusion is explicitly conditional: 'If such TeV emission is typical, CTA will have ample opportunity...' No parameter is fitted to the target claim, no quantity is defined in terms of the result it is supposed to predict, and the pointing-count and follow-up-time estimates depend on independent simulations (BAYESTAR skymaps and CTA tiling assumptions) rather than on the detectability conclusion. The self-citations to Bartos et al. and related author-group papers appear mainly in the discussion of binary-black-hole counterparts and previous follow-up strategies, not in the derivation of the short-GRB detectability claim, so they are not load-bearing for the paper's principal numerical result. The paper's main vulnerability is the observationally unverified extrapolation of short-GRB TeV emission and its normalization; that is an assumption-dependence risk, not a circularity, and the paper itself flags the conditional nature of the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detectability claim rests on a template spectrum fitted to GRB 090510 and scaled to local distances, not on a first-principles emission model. The tiling and time-budget calculations depend on assumed detector sensitivities, merger rates, and duty cycles. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Electron spectral index p = 2.5
    Adopted from GRB 090510 afterglow fits (De Pasquale et al. 2010); sets temporal decay index alpha = 1.38 and energy index beta = 1.25 in Eq. (1).
  • Flux normalization F0 = 6e-8 microJy at 100 s, 1 TeV, 500 Mpc
    Normalization of the GRB 090510 spectrum from Fermi-LAT measurements; scaled by inverse-square law to 300 and 500 Mpc; drives all detectability limits.
  • CTA sensitivity boost factor = 1.5
    Hand-chosen factor to extrapolate CTA differential sensitivity at 250 GeV to the [0.6, 1] TeV band; no uncertainty is quoted.
  • Exposure times texp = 10 s and 100 s
    Chosen for the 300 Mpc and 500 Mpc scenarios; directly sets the detectability thresholds in Figs. 1 and 5.
  • Detection SNR thresholds = network SNR 12, per-detector SNR 4
    Assumed thresholds for the BAYESTAR simulation; shape the skymap size distribution and the resulting pointing counts.
  • Fraction of two- versus three-detector events = 55% / 45%
    Estimated from gravitational-wave detector observing duty cycle; used to compute the average of 60 pointings per event.
  • Merger rates and detection ranges = BNS 110-3840 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 at 325 Mpc; BBH 9.7-101 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 at 2.5 Gpc
    Taken from Abbott et al. 2018; enter directly into the annual follow-up time requirements.
  • CTA duty cycle and slew times = 15%, 20 s initial, 5 s between pointings
    Adopted from CTA plans; converts pointing counts into total annual follow-up time.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Short GRBs associated with gravitational-wave mergers emit TeV light comparable to GRB 090510
    No short GRB has yet been detected in TeV; the three cited TeV GRBs are long-duration events. This assumption enters Section 2 and underlies every detectability conclusion.
  • domain assumption External forward-shock model with p = 2.5 describes emission up to TeV energies
    Used to set alpha and beta in Eq. (1); not directly tested for short GRBs in the TeV band.
  • domain assumption CTA differential sensitivity curves are reliable
    Taken from the CTA performance webpage and scaled; small errors in the sensitivity curve shift the allowed delay times.
  • domain assumption BAYESTAR skymaps with LIGO/Virgo design sensitivities represent future localization accuracy
    The tiling simulation assumes design sensitivity and standard noise; poorer localization would require more pointings.
  • domain assumption LIGO/Virgo direction-dependent sensitivity is correctly modeled
    Underlies Figure 6 and the recommendation to place additional SSTs over the United States and Australia.
  • domain assumption CMB attenuation factor of about 0.4 at 500 Mpc
    Adopted from Gilmore et al. (2009); affects the 500 Mpc flux curve but not the qualitative conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational-wave follow-up with CTA after the detection of GRBs in the TeV energy domain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KF5HGFCP

@misc{pith2026190809832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational-wave follow-up with CTA after the detection of GRBs in the TeV energy domain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KF5HGFCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09832}
}
read the original abstract

The recent discovery of TeV emission from gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) by the MAGIC and H.E.S.S. Cherenkov telescopes confirmed that emission from these transients can extend to very high energies. The TeV energy domain reaches the most sensitive band of the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA). This newly anticipated, improved sensitivity will enhance the prospects of gravitational-wave follow-up observations by CTA to probe particle acceleration and high-energy emission from binary black hole and neutron star mergers, and stellar core-collapse events. Here we discuss the implications of TeV emission on the most promising strategies of choice for the gravitational-wave follow-up effort for CTA and Cherenkov telescopes more broadly. We find that TeV emission (i) may allow more than an hour of delay between the gravitational-wave event and the start of CTA observations; (ii) enables the use of CTA's small size telescopes that have the largest fields of view. We characterize the number of pointings needed to find a counterpart. (iii) We compute the annual follow-up time requirements and find that prioritization will be needed. (iv) Even a few telescopes could detect sufficiently nearby counterparts, raising the possibility of adding a handful of small-size or medium-size telescopes to the network at diverse geographic locations taking into account the positions of CTA and the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network. (v) The continued operation of VERITAS/H.E.S.S./MAGIC would be a useful compliment to CTA's follow-up capabilities by increasing the sky area that can be rapidly covered, especially for directions above and 'below' the United States in which the present network of gravitational-wave detectors is more sensitive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Expected TeV flux from GRB 090510 at 500 Mpc (left) and 300 Mpc (right) and CTA’s differential sensitivity for texp = 100 s (left) and texp = 10 s (right), as functions of time. Also shown are flux estimates from sources 1 − 4 orders of magnitude weaker than GRB 090510 (solid lines, see text in figures). CTA’s differential sensitivity for continuous exposure with a single pointing is also shown (see legend). For com… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example gravitational-wave skymaps (90% credible level) for binary neutron star mergers, reconstructed by BAYESTAR. Also shown are CTA tiling pattern suggested by the ’greedy’ method (left) and ’honeycomb’ method (right). 2018b), therefore we will adopt the same estimated follow￾up time per event. The main difference is the detection rate of black hole mergers. To estimate this rate we adopt a detection range of 2.5… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example for a poorly localized gravitational-wave skymap (90% credible level) for binary neutron star mergers, re￾constructed by BAYESTAR. Also shown are CTA tiling pattern using the ’honeycomb’ method. localization can be covered by a single CTA pointing still leaves a follow-up rate of 10 − 100 yr. Assuming texp = 100 s, this is 0.3−3 hrs per year, which could be a feasible addition to the follow-up program. An… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Differential sensitivity of FACT, a single-SST telescope as a function of time, compared to the expected TeV flux from GRB 090510 at 40 Mpc (i.e. the distance of GW170817; left) and 300 Mpc (right). Also shown are flux estimates from sources 1−2 orders of magnitude wea…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probability contours of the source directions of simulated gravitational wave discoveries by the LIGO/Virgo network, assuming uniform source distribution in co-moving volume (see legend). Directions above and ’below’ the United states are preferred due to the sensitivi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015CQGra..32g4001L 32, 074001

    Aasi J., et al., 2015, @doi [Class. Quantum Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015CQGra..32g4001L 32, 074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  2. [2]

    Abbott B., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.042002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvD..72d2002A 72, 042002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.042002 2005

  3. [3]

    Quantum Grav] 10.1088/0264-9381/25/11/114051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008CQGra..25k4051A 25, 114051

    Abbott B., et al., 2008a, @doi [Class. Quantum Grav] 10.1088/0264-9381/25/11/114051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008CQGra..25k4051A 25, 114051

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/11/114051

  4. [4]

    Abbott B., et al., 2008b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/587954 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...681.1419A 681, 1419

    doi:10.1086/587954

  5. [5]

    P., et al., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PhRvL.119p1101A 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  6. [6]

    P., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...85A 551, 85

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...85A 551, 85

    doi:10.1038/nature24471

  7. [7]

    P., et al., 2017c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  8. [8]

    P., et al., 2017d, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..13A 848, L13

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017d, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..13A 848, L13

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    P., et al., 2018a, arXiv:1811.12907, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181112907T

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2018a, arXiv:1811.12907, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181112907T

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    P., et al., 2018b, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018LRR....21....3A 21, 3

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2018b, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018LRR....21....3A 21, 3

    doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08574 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.462..331A 462, 331

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08574 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.462..331A 462, 331

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Quantum Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015CQGra..32b4001A 32, 024001

    Acernese F., et al., 2015, @doi [Class. Quantum Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015CQGra..32b4001A 32, 024001

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    S., et al., 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , @doi 10.1142/10986

    Acharya B. S., et al., 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array , @doi 10.1142/10986

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Acharyya A., et al., 2019, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.04.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019APh...111...35A 111, 35

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716.1178A 716, 1178

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/209/1/11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..209...11A 209, 11

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Ajello M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861...85A 861, 85

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Ajello M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d4e , 878, 52

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Albert A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9aed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L..35A 850, L35

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Aso Y., Michimura Y., Somiya K., Ando M., Miyakawa O., Sekiguchi T., Tatsumi D., Yamamoto H., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007 , 88, 043007

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Baixeras C., 2003, @doi [Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements] 10.1016/S0920-5632(02)01910-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003NuPhS.114..247B 114, 247

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    Baret B., et al., 2011, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.04.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011APh....35....1B 35, 1

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    Baret B., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.103004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PhRvD..85j3004B 85, 103004

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    Bartos I., Finley C., Corsi A., M \'a rka S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.251101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PhRvL.107y1101B 107, 251101

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Quantum Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/12/123001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30l3001B 30, 123001

    Bartos I., Brady P., M \'a rka S., 2013a, @doi [Class. Quantum Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/30/12/123001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013CQGra..30l3001B 30, 123001

    doi

  18. [26]

    M., Hurley K., M \'a rka S., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.241101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.110x1101B 110, 241101

    Bartos I., Beloborodov A. M., Hurley K., M \'a rka S., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.241101 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.110x1101B 110, 241101

    doi

  19. [27]

    Bartos I., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443..738B 443, 738

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Stone N

    Bartos I., Haiman Z., Marka Z., Metzger B. D., Stone N. C., Marka S., 2017a, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-017-00851-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatCo...8..831B 8, 831

    doi

  21. [29]

    Bartos I., Kocsis B., Haiman Z., M \'a rka S., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..165B 835, 165

    doi

  22. [30]

    Bartos I., Veske D., Keivani A., Marka Z., Countryman S., Blaufuss E., Finley C., Marka S., 2018a, arXiv:1810.11467, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181011467B

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bartos I., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty602 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477..639B 477, 639

    doi

  24. [32]

    J., M \'a rka S., 2011, @doi [Gen

    Chassande-Mottin E., Hendry M., Sutton P. J., M \'a rka S., 2011, @doi [Gen. Rel. Gravit] 10.1007/s10714-010-1019-z , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011GReGr..43..437C 43, 437

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2072 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4459C 488, 4459

    Corley K. R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2072 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4459C 488, 4459

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Countryman S., et al., 2019, arXiv:1901.05486, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190105486C

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    De Pasquale M., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/709/2/L146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...709L.146D 709, L146

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Dubus G., et al., 2013, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.05.020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013APh....43..317D 43, 317

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Fioretti V., et al., 2019, in ICRC2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Ghirlanda G., et al., 2019, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aau8815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Sci...363..968G 363, 968

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    C., Madau P., Primack J

    Gilmore R. C., Madau P., Primack J. R., Somerville R. S., Haardt F., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15392.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399.1694G 399, 1694

    2009

  32. [41]

    Goldstein A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..14G 848, L14

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    Hassan T., et al., 2017, @doi [Astroparticle Physics] 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.05.001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017APh....93...76H 93, 76

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2003.12.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NewAR..48..331H 48, 331

    Hinton J. A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2003.12.004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004NewAR..48..331H 48, 331

    2004 doi

  35. [44]

    A., Hofmann W., Rieger F., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol

    Holder J., et al., 2008, in Aharonian F. A., Hofmann W., Rieger F., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1085, American Institute of Physics Conference Series. pp 657--660 ( @eprint arXiv 0810.0474 ), @doi 10.1063/1.3076760

    2008 arXiv

  36. [45]

    A., M\'arka S., Bender P

    Hughes S. A., M\'arka S., Bender P. L., Hogan C. J., 2001, arXiv:astro-ph/0110349, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001astro.ph.10349H

    2001 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Ilyer B., et al., 2011, LIGO-M1100296

    2011

  38. [47]

    Ioka K., Nakamura T., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554L.163I 554, L163

    2001 doi

  39. [48]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1559K 358, 1559

    Kasliwal M. M., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1559K 358, 1559

    2017 doi

  40. [49]

    S., Murase K., Bartos I., Ioka K., Heng I

    Kimura S. S., Murase K., Bartos I., Ioka K., Heng I. S., M \'e sz \'a ros P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvD..98d3020K 98, 043020

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    Kumar P., Barniol Duran R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17274.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.409..226K 409, 226

    2010

  42. [51]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration 2018, LIGO-T1800133

    2018

  43. [52]

    J., Lopez-Camara D., Cantiello M., Ciolfi R., Giacomazzo B., Workman J

    Lazzati D., Perna R., Morsony B. J., Lopez-Camara D., Cantiello M., Ciolfi R., Giacomazzo B., Workman J. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.241103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.120x1103L 120, 241103

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    Margutti R., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab2ad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856L..18M 856, L18

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    Marka S., 2003, in Cruise M., Saulson P., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4856, . pp 222--229, @doi 10.1117/12.459091

    2003 doi

  46. [55]

    M \'a rka S., et al., 2010, in Journal of Physics Conference Series. p. 012001, @doi 10.1088/1742-6596/243/1/012001

    2010 doi

  47. [56]

    Quantum Grav] 10.1088/0264-9381/28/11/114013 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CQGra..28k4013M 28, 114013

    M \'a rka S., et al., 2011, @doi [Class. Quantum Grav] 10.1088/0264-9381/28/11/114013 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011CQGra..28k4013M 28, 114013

    2011 doi

  48. [57]

    McKernan B., Ford K. E. S., Lyra W., Perets H. B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425..460M 425, 460

    2012

  49. [58]

    McKernan B., et al., 2019, arXiv:1907.03746, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190703746M

    2019 arXiv

  50. [59]

    M \'e sz \'a ros P., Gehrels N., 2012, @doi [Res. Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/8/012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12.1139M 12, 1139

    2012 doi

  51. [60]

    Mirzoyan R., Noda K., Moretti E., et al., 2019, GCN 23701

    2019

  52. [61]

    Montaruli T., Pareschi G., Greenshaw T., 2015, arXiv:1508.06472, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150806472M

    2015 arXiv

  53. [62]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.561..355M 561, 355

    Mooley K. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.561..355M 561, 355

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    Noethe M., et al., 2017, International Cosmic Ray Conference, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ICRC...35..791N 35, 791

    2017

  55. [64]

    Patricelli B., Stamerra A., Razzano M., Pian E., Cella G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/05/056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JCAP...05..056P 5, 056

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    Ruiz-Velasco 2019, 1st International CTA Symposium

    2019

  57. [66]

    Schussler F., et al., 2019, GCN 25566

    2019

  58. [67]

    Seglar-Arroyo M., et al., 2019, in 36th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC2019). p. 790 ( @eprint arXiv 1908.08393 )

    2019 arXiv

  59. [68]

    P., Price L

    Singer L. P., Price L. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024013 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvD..93b4013S 93, 024013

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    C., Metzger B

    Stone N. C., Metzger B. D., Haiman Z., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464..946S 464, 946

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    Yang Y., et al., 2019a, arXiv:1906.09281, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190609281Y

    1906 arXiv

  62. [71]

    C., M \'a rka S., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876..122Y 876, 122

    Yang Y., Bartos I., Haiman Z., Kocsis B., M \'a rka Z., Stone N. C., M \'a rka S., 2019b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876..122Y 876, 122

    doi

  63. [72]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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