RECORD
Cautionary tales on heating-rate prescriptions in kilonovae
High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena · Submitted 10 Apr 2024
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim While providing great fits to the photometry, an incorrect heating-rate prescription fails to recover the input ejecta masses with a bias significantly larger than the typical statistical uncertainty.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
A major ingredient for kilonova lightcurves is the radioactive heating rate and its dependence on the electron fraction and velocity of the ejecta and, in principle, on the nuclear mass formula. Heating-rate formulae commonly used as the basis for kilonova models previously employed in the literature produce substantially different outputs for high electron fractions ($Y_{e} \gtrsim 0.3$) and at late times ($t \gtrsim 1$d) compared to newer prescriptions. Here, we employ standard semi-analytical models for kilonovae with better heating rate prescriptions valid for the full parameter space of kilonova velocities and electron fractions to explore the impact of the heating rate on kilonova lightcurves. We show the dangers of using inappropriate heating rate estimates by simulating realistic observations and inferring the kilonova parameters via a misspecified heating-rate prescription. While providing great fits to the photometry, an incorrect heating-rate prescription fails to recover the input ejecta masses with a bias significantly larger than the typical statistical uncertainty. This bias from an incorrect prescription has significant consequences for interpreting kilonovae, their use as additional components in gamma-ray burst afterglows, and understanding their role in cosmic chemical evolution or for multi-messenger constraints on the nuclear equation of state. We showcase a framework and tool to better determine the impact of different modelling assumptions and uncertainties on inferences into kilonova properties.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | A major ingredient for kilonova lightcurves is the radioactive heating rate and its dependence on the electron fraction and velocity of the ejecta and, in principle, on the nuclear mass formula. | background 1.00 | 0.06 | 0.03 | asserted 0.85 |
| s1 | Heating-rate formulae commonly used as the basis for kilonova models previously employed in the literature produce substantially different outputs for high electron fractions ($Y_{e} \gtrsim 0.3$) and at late times ($t \gtrsim 1$d) compared to newer prescriptions. | background 0.72 | 0.15 | 0.11 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | Here, we employ standard semi-analytical models for kilonovae with better heating rate prescriptions valid for the full parameter space of kilonova velocities and electron fractions to explore the impact of the heating rate on kilonova lightcurves. | method 0.75 | 0.90 | 0.06 | asserted 0.94 |
| s3 | We show the dangers of using inappropriate heating rate estimates by simulating realistic observations and inferring the kilonova parameters via a misspecified heating-rate prescription. | contribution 0.65 | 0.90 | 0.19 | asserted 0.99 |
| s4 | While providing great fits to the photometry, an incorrect heating-rate prescription fails to recover the input ejecta masses with a bias significantly larger than the typical statistical uncertainty. | result 1.00 | 0.92 | 0.43 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | This bias from an incorrect prescription has significant consequences for interpreting kilonovae, their use as additional components in gamma-ray burst afterglows, and understanding their role in cosmic chemical evolution or for multi-messenger constraints on the nuclear equation of state. | interpretation 1.00 | 0.40 | 0.41 | asserted 1.00 |
| s6 | We showcase a framework and tool to better determine the impact of different modelling assumptions and uncertainties on inferences into kilonova properties. | contribution 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.08 | asserted 1.00 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v2
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
A major ingredient for kilonova lightcurves is the radioactive heating rate and its dependence on the electron fraction and velocity of the ejecta and, in principle, on the nuclear mass formula. Heating-rate formulae commonly used as the basis for kilonova models previously employed in the literature produce substantially different outputs for high electron fractions ($Y_{e} \gtrsim 0.3$) and at late times ($t \gtrsim 1$d) compared to newer prescriptions. Here, we employ standard semi-analytical models for kilonovae with better heating rate prescriptions valid for the full parameter space of kilonova velocities and electron fractions to explore the impact of the heating rate on kilonova lightcurves. We show the dangers of using inappropriate heating rate estimates by simulating realistic observations and inferring the kilonova parameters via a misspecified heating-rate prescription. While providing great fits to the photometry, an incorrect heating-rate prescription fails to recover the input ejecta masses with a bias significantly larger than the typical statistical uncertainty. This bias from an incorrect prescription has significant consequences for interpreting kilonovae, their use as additional components in gamma-ray burst afterglows, and understanding their role in cosmic chemical evolution or for multi-messenger constraints on the nuclear equation of state. We showcase a framework and tool to better determine the impact of different modelling assumptions and uncertainties on inferences into kilonova properties.
Human review
References
How the literature uses it
12 arXiv papers cite this in 16 sentences
Papers citing it · 14 sentences without a confident label
Uses its method or tool 2 papers
-
We employed a two-component ejecta model following prescriptions in [ref] with updated heating rates [ref] .
ENGRAVE follow-up of a type IIb supernova spatially coincident with the sub-threshold gravitational wave trigger S250818k · Light curve modelling · 0.98
-
For shells containing r-process material, we use the analytic heating-rate approximant of [ref] , calibrated against nuclear network calculations across $Y_e ∈[0.05, 0.50]$ and $v ∈[0.05, 0.50] c$: [equation] where $t$ is in seconds and all thirteen coefficients depend on $(v,Y_e)$ through bilinear interpolation [ref] .
Signatures of $^{56}$Ni Mixing and Neutron-rich Ejecta in Supernovae · Extension to for neutron-rich ejecta · 0.97
What it cites · 1 sentence without a confident label
Uses the method or tool of 1 paper
-
In particular, in Sec. [ref], we briefly describe a semi-analytical kilonova model implemented in open-source software, Redback [ref] , highlighting the differences in individual light curves and a population due to the heating-rate prescription alone.
Redback: A Bayesian inference software package for electromagnetic transients · Introduction · 0.98
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.