Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 81 references

The Late-time Afterglow of GW170817 and Implications for Jet Dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GW170817's late-time afterglow is consistent with a single component from a mildly relativistic jet up to about 2000 days, with no new component and a decline shallower than standard spreading-jet models.

desk verdict A careful reanalysis that solidly rules out a new afterglow component, though the 'jet still mildly relativistic' claim rests on under-specified model fits. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12241 v1 pith:N3KIDLNH submitted 2025-04-16 astro-ph.HE

Aman Katira , Kunal P. Mooley , Kenta Hotokezaka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords afterglowdatagw170817componentdynamicsfindimplicationslate
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

GW170817 was the first collision of two neutron stars seen in both gravitational waves and light. Telescopes have tracked a fading glow, the afterglow, made when the jet slammed into surrounding gas. Some recent work suggested the X-ray glow might be flattening, perhaps from a new source of light. This paper re-examines all Chandra X-ray data with a careful reprocessing and aligns images to a common frame. The authors find that different analysis methods agree to within about five percent. When combined with radio and optical data, a single simple curve describes the fading from the peak to about 2000 days after the merger. There is no need for a new component. The brightness falls as time to the -1.76 power, which is slower than simulations of a spreading jet predict. The paper argues the jet must still be moving at mildly relativistic speeds, about twice the speed of light, rather than having slowed down and spread sideways. The slow decline could mean extra energy is being injected, or that the efficiency of electron acceleration and magnetic field amplification depends on speed. This matters for models of jets from neutron star mergers.
Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in the abstract and Sec. 4, is that 'there is no significant evidence for any new afterglow component (e.g. due to the ejecta that gave rise to the kilonova) and that the jet must be still in a mildly relativistic phase,' with the decline 'significantly shallower compared to that expected from the standard synchrotron afterglow jet models with sideways spreading' (measured alpha2 = -1.758 +- 0.08 vs. predicted ~-2.6).

Load-bearing premise

The inference that the jet is still mildly relativistic (gamma ~ 2) at ~2000 days depends on the assumption that the non-spreading jet models (Hotokezaka et al. 2019; afterglowpy non-spreading, Ryan et al. 2020) with the viewing angle and jet structure fixed by earlier data correctly predict the late-time light curve, and that the spreading jet model's worse chi-square (4.0 vs 1.4) is due to spreading physics rather than to unspecified model parameters such as jet opening angle, observer angle, ambient density, or microphysics. Section 3 presents only chi-square values without listing these parameters or the number of degrees of freedom.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a reanalysis of the Chandra X-ray observations of GW170817 (47 exposures grouped into 13 epochs), a revised panchromatic afterglow dataset, and a smoothly broken power-law fit to the light curve. The fit yields a post-peak decline alpha_2 = -1.758 ± 0.08 and a constant spectral index beta = -0.580 ± 0.002. The authors argue that a single power law fits the decline phase well, so there is no significant evidence for a new afterglow component such as emission from kilonova ejecta. They further compare the late-time light curve with several jet models and claim that non-spreading jet models and models with velocity-dependent microphysics are favored over a spreading jet model, leading them to conclude that the jet is still in a mildly relativistic phase at about 2000 days post-merger.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper is important because it constrains the late-time dynamics of a short gamma-ray burst jet and places limits on any emerging kilonova-ejecta afterglow component. The strengths of the paper include a careful, documented re-reduction of the X-ray data, a public release of the revised panchromatic dataset, a demonstrably good empirical broken power-law fit (reduced chi-square near unity), and a useful spectral-index analysis that shows no strong temporal evolution. The negative claim (no new component) is supported by a straightforward F-test. However, the positive dynamical claim (the jet must still be mildly relativistic) rests on a model comparison that is not sufficiently specified in the manuscript, and the inference is not unique because alternative physical mechanisms can also produce a shallow decline. These issues are correctable with additional analysis and more careful wording, so the paper is suitable for major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Fig. 6] The comparison of jet models is the main support for the claim that the jet is still mildly relativistic, but the manuscript reports only reduced chi-square values (1.4 for the two non-spreading models, 4.0 for the afterglowpy spreading model, and 0.7–5.7 for the Govreen-Segal & Nakar models) without specifying the fitted parameters, their priors, the number of data points or degrees of freedom, or the exact data subset used for each chi-square. Without this information, the difference between chi2_nu = 1.4 and 4.0 cannot be attributed uniquely to spreading physics; a poorly chosen or unoptimized parameter set for the spreading model (viewing angle, jet opening angle, energy, ambient density, p, epsilon_e, epsilon_B) could produce a similar chi-square. Please provide a table of the model parameters, state whether each model was optimized or marginalized over the same parameter space, and report the number of data points, the number of free parameters, and how upper limits were treated. A formal model comparison (e.g., AIC/BIC or a parameter-marginalized evidence ratio) would also strengthen the conclusion.
  2. [§4(iv) and Abstract] The statement that the jet 'must be still in the mildly relativistic phase' is stronger than the evidence presented. The shallow decline t^-1.8 is consistent with the non-spreading jet models, but the paper itself acknowledges (Abstract and §4(i)) that additional energy injection or velocity-dependent microphysics could also produce the shallow decline. The F-test in §4(iv) supports only the negative claim (no new afterglow component) and does not by itself constrain jet dynamics. To support the positive claim, the authors should either rule out the alternative scenarios using additional observables (e.g., the constancy of the spectral index, radio upper limits, or the cooling-break constraint) or soften the language from 'must' to 'is consistent with' or 'is most naturally explained by.'
  3. [§2 and §3 (spectral index conversion)] The X-ray flux densities at 1 keV are converted using a spectral index beta that was 'found iteratively by fitting the X-ray data points together with the other panchromatic afterglow data with a broken power-law model' (§2). This is circular because the same beta is then a free parameter in the panchromatic broken power-law fit of §3 that includes those X-ray data. While the independent spectral fits in §2 appear to confirm beta = -0.58, the manuscript should describe the iterative procedure explicitly, demonstrate convergence from different starting values, and include the systematic uncertainty in beta from this conversion in the quoted uncertainty. The current quoted error of ±0.002 appears to reflect only statistical uncertainty from the MCMC fit after the conversion is fixed, which is likely an underestimate.
  4. [§3, Fig. 6] The data subset used for the model comparison is not defined consistently. The text says the comparison is for the 'late-time (250–2020 days post-merger)' light curve, but the chi-square values for the Hotokezaka et al. non-spreading models are reported for 'time > 300 days post merger,' and Figure 6 appears to show data from about 10 days onward. Please specify the exact time range and data points used for each chi-square value, including whether the rise phase and early decline are included, and whether the same subset is used for all models. This is essential for comparing the reported chi-square values among models.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2] The sentence 'This figure demonstrates that the aligning of points degree to which different approaches align the observations' is garbled and should be rewritten for clarity.
  2. [Table 2] For obsID 23184, the count rate is listed as '17+1.25 -0.84' in units of 10^-4 cts/s, which appears to be a typographical error (likely '1.7'); please verify and correct.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that 'Epoch 14 refers to observations carried out across Apr-May 2024,' but Table 1 lists only 13 epochs and the last epoch is at 2020 days. Please either add epoch 14 to Table 1 or clarify where the epoch-14 data are presented.
  4. [§3] The MCMC fit for the broken power-law model is not described in enough detail; please state the priors, the number of walkers/steps, and the convergence criteria used for the corner plot in Figure 9.
  5. [Fig. 6] The legend labels for the microphysics-varying models are garbled (e.g., 'e ( ) 1 b ( ) 1 e,b = Constant'); please make the legend entries clear and match them to the model descriptions in the text and to the Govreen-Segal & Nakar (2024) paper.
  6. [§4(i)] The discussion of the expected post-break decline would benefit from a direct quantitative statement of the predicted index for p = 2.2 (e.g., t^-2.6), with a reference to the specific model calculation, so that the comparison with alpha_2 = -1.758 is immediately transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity in X-ray flux calibration (iterative beta); central jet-dynamics claim rests on independent model comparison.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2 (Chandra reanalysis), flux-density conversion paragraph; used in Sec. 3 broken-power-law fit.]
    "The measured flux values (or upper limits) were converted into flux densities at 1 keV using a spectral index found iteratively by fitting the X-ray data points together with the other panchromatic afterglow data with a broken power law model (described in Sec. 3). The resultant convergence was on a spectral index of β=−0.580± 0.002."

    The X-ray count rates are converted to flux densities using a conversion factor that depends on β, and β is itself determined by fitting the broken power-law model to those same flux densities (plus radio/optical data). The calibration and the fit are therefore mutually defined: the X-ray 'data' are not independent of the model parameter they are used to estimate. In principle this fixed-point loop could let β absorb a spectral change and rescale the X-ray points, artificially supporting the single-component/'no new component' claim. The paper partly mitigates this by fitting the X-ray spectra directly and finding β=-0.58 consistent at all epochs (Fig. 4), so the loop is not the sole basis of the conclusion; it remains a genuine but non-load-bearing circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — no new afterglow component and a mildly relativistic jet — are based on an empirical broken-power-law fit to the panchromatic light curve and a comparison of that decline with external model predictions (Sari et al. 1999; van Eerten & MacFadyen 2013; Govreen-Segal & Nakar 2023/2024; afterglowpy). These comparisons are not self-referential: the observed α2=-1.76 is fitted from data, and the expected t^-2.6 decline comes from independent spreading-jet calculations. The non-spreading jet models include Hotokezaka et al. (2019), a coauthor paper, but the independent afterglowpy non-spreading model gives the same chi-square=1.4, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The lack of reported fitted parameters, degrees of freedom, and upper-limit treatment in the Sec. 3 chi-square comparison is a statistical-reporting weakness, not a circularity. The only circular element is the iterative beta used to convert Chandra count rates to flux densities, which is partially checked by direct spectral fitting; hence score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The fitted broken power-law parameters are the primary free parameters. The analysis relies on standard synchrotron afterglow theory, a constant spectral index, and specific jet and microphysics models from prior work. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Fp = 102.2 (+3.44/-3.07) microJy
    Peak flux density at 3 GHz from the MCMC broken power-law fit (Sec. 3).
  • tp = 150.5 (+3.27/-3.02) days
    Time of peak in the broken power-law fit (Sec. 3).
  • alpha1 = 0.85 (+0.03/-0.03)
    Rise power-law index in the broken power-law fit (Sec. 3).
  • alpha2 = -1.758 (+0.07/-0.08)
    Decay power-law index; central to the shallow decline claim versus spreading-jet predictions (Sec. 3 and Sec. 4(i)).
  • beta = -0.580 (+/- 0.002)
    Spectral index from the MCMC fit, used to scale the light curve to 3 GHz and to convert X-ray fluxes (Sec. 2 and Sec. 3).
  • s = 4.57 (+1.97/-1.06)
    Smoothness parameter in the broken power-law fit (Sec. 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The afterglow is synchrotron radiation from a power-law distribution of electrons with p ~ 2.2, and beta = -(p-1)/2.
    Sec. 4(i) uses Sari et al. (1999) to relate the spectral index to the electron index and to predict the post-jet-break decline.
  • domain assumption The smoothly broken power-law model is an adequate empirical description of the multi-frequency light curve.
    Sec. 3, Eq. (1) follows Beuermann et al. (1999), standard in afterglow studies.
  • domain assumption The jet structure and viewing angle (~20 deg) inferred from earlier proper motion and light curve data (Mooley et al. 2022; Hotokezaka et al. 2019) remain valid at late times.
    Sec. 1 and Sec. 3; used as inputs to the afterglowpy and Hotokezaka model comparisons.
  • domain assumption The synchrotron cooling break has not passed through the X-ray band up to ~2000 days, so a single spectral index applies from radio to X-ray.
    Sec. 4(iii) infers this from the constant spectral index; this underlies the X-ray flux conversion and single-component interpretation.
  • domain assumption Microphysical parameters epsilon_e and epsilon_B are either constant or follow specific velocity dependencies as modeled by Govreen-Segal & Nakar (2024).
    Sec. 3 and Figure 6 compare data to these model curves, which assume these velocity dependences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Late-time Afterglow of GW170817 and Implications for Jet Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3KIDLNH

@misc{pith2026250412241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Late-time Afterglow of GW170817 and Implications for Jet Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3KIDLNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12241}
}
read the original abstract

GW170817 is the first binary neutron star merger detected with gravitational and electromagnetic waves, and its afterglow is still detectable 7 years post-merger. Some previous studies of the X-ray afterglow have claimed the onset of a new afterglow component or raised concerns about the data processing techniques. Motivated thus, we present here a reanalysis of X-ray afterglow data for GW170817 and find potential sources of discrepancies between the data reduction techniques employed by various research groups. We also analyze the updated panchromatic afterglow data to find that there is no significant evidence for any new afterglow component (e.g. due to the ejecta that gave rise to the kilonova) and that the jet must be still in a mildly relativistic phase. The decline in the afterglow light curve is significantly shallower compared to that expected from the standard synchrotron afterglow jet models with sideways spreading, indicating either an additional energy injection at late times or the velocity dependence on the microphysics parameters. In this context, we discuss the implications of the late time afterglow data on jet dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of positional offsets in the right ascension (RA) vs. declination (Dec) plane for GW170817. The offsets are shown for all observations with respect to the source position in ObsID 20860, after applying two different methodologies. 1. Updating the aspect solution file using "Repro_aspect" (Upper Left), and then using that aspect solution file to reproject the observation in a single epoch to a common… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The X-ray flux density (at 𝜈 = 2.4 × 1017 ≡ 1 keV) light curve for the afterglow of GW170817. The values from this work together with those published in literature (Makhathini et al. 2021; Troja et al. 2022; Hajela et al. 2022) are shown. The flux density values at 2.3 days correspond to 3𝜎 upper limits. See Sec. 2 for more details. 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 Time Since Merger [days] 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Energy Conversion Factor (ECF) derived for all the GW170817 data taken with the Chandra X-ray Observatory is a smoothly rising function as expected. The ECFs from this work are consistent with those from (Troja et al. 2022); any small differences are likely due to the updated CALDB files in the latest version of CIAO that we have used in this work. values vary by 50% on an average although they generally all agr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: Broken power-law fit (black curve) to the afterglow light curve, color coded according to the observing frequency, (all data points have 1𝜎 errorbars; upper limits are 3𝜎) using the uniform dataset presented in this work. The light curve is scaled to 3 GHz…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hydrodynamical models plotted with the panchromatic afterglow data for GW170817. The color coding of the data points is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectral index (𝛽) values derived from radio, optical, and X-ray data at various times for GW170817. Two lower limits at later times, derived from radio upper limits, are consistent with 𝛽 = −0.580 ± 0.002 (shaded region), as obtained from the broken power-law fit. Thi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Afterglow data of GW170817 (post-peak decline) fitted with the power-law 𝑡 −1.758, as found from the broken power-law fit (Sec. 3) The fit yields a reduced chi-square value of 1.24, indicating that a single power-law component fits the decline part well, without the ne…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot for broken power-law fit to the light curve presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    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.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    P., et al., 2017a, @doi [Phys

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017a, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 , 119, 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  4. [4]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  5. [5]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

  6. [6]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863L..18A 863, L18

    Alexander K. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863L..18A 863, L18

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 2018

  7. [7]

    Andreoni I., et al., 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 34, e069

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...64A 551, 64

    doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Balasubramanian A., et al., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/abfd38 , 914, L20

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Balasubramanian A., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9133 , 938, 12

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Beuermann K., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909043 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...352L..26B 352, L26

    1999 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    R., Robinson D

    Bevington P. R., Robinson D. K., 1992, Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences

    1992

  5. [13]

    Buckley D. A. H., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slx196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474L..71B 474, L71

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Chornock R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..19C 848, L19

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Corsi A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aacdfd , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861L..10C 861, L10

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1556C 358, 1556

    Coulter D. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9811 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1556C 358, 1556

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..17C 848, L17

    Cowperthwaite P. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..17C 848, L17

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    D'Avanzo P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...613L...1D 613, L1

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..29D 848, L29

    D \' az M. C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..29D 848, L29

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Dobie D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aac105 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...858L..15D 858, L15

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1570D 358, 1570

    Drout M. R., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0049 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1570D 358, 1570

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1565E 358, 1565

    Evans P. A., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1565E 358, 1565

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    arXiv:1710.05450

    Fermi-LAT Collaboration 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1710.05450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv171005450F p. arXiv:1710.05450

    2017 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fong W., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9018 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..23F 848, L23

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

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

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Govreen-Segal T., Nakar E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524..403G 524, 403

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Govreen-Segal T., Nakar E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.1704G 531, 1704

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Hajela A., et al., 2020, GRB Coordinates Network, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020GCN.27414....1H 27414, 1

    2020

  21. [29]

    arXiv:2104.02070

    Hajela A., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210402070H p. arXiv:2104.02070

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hallinan G., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aap9855 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1579H 358, 1579

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Hotokezaka K., Piran T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv620 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.1430H 450, 1430

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    P., Deller A

    Hotokezaka K., Nakar E., Gottlieb O., Nissanke S., Masuda K., Hallinan G., Mooley K. P., Deller A. T., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..940H 3, 940

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Hu L., et al., 2017, @doi [Science Bulletin] 10.1016/j.scib.2017.10.006 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SciBu..62.1433H 62, 1433

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    M., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz007 , 510, L7

    Kasliwal M. M., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters] 10.1093/mnrasl/slz007 , 510, L7

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Keshet U., Waxman E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.111102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvL..94k1102K 94, 111102

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    D., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1583K 358, 1583

    Kilpatrick C. D., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0073 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1583K 358, 1583

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...49K 926, 49

    Kilpatrick C. D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3e59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926...49K 926, 49

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870L..15L 870, L15

    Lamb G. P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf96b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870L..15L 870, L15

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa92c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L...1L 850, L1

    Lipunov V. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa92c0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L...1L 850, L1

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0511-3 , 2, 751

    Lyman J. D., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0511-3 , 2, 751

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Makhathini S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..154M 922, 154

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Margutti R., Chornock R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59..155M 59, 155

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

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

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Matsumoto T., Nakar E., Piran T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1247M 483, 1247

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    McCully C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..32M 848, L32

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    P., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25452 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554..207M 554, 207

    Mooley K. P., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25452 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554..207M 554, 207

    doi

  41. [49]

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

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

    doi

  42. [50]

    P., et al., 2018c, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda7 , 868, L11

    Mooley K. P., et al., 2018c, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda7 , 868, L11

    doi

  43. [51]

    P., Anderson J., Lu W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.610..273M 610, 273

    Mooley K. P., Anderson J., Lu W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.610..273M 610, 273

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Nakar E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.08.008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhR...886....1N 886, 1

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    Nakar E., Piran T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature10365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.478...82N 478, 82

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    Nicholl M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..18N 848, L18

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Haggard D., Evans P

    Nynka M., Ruan J. J., Haggard D., Evans P. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad32d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862L..19N 862, L19

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Pian E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...67P 551, 67

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852L..30P 852, L30

    Pozanenko A. S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa2f6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852L..30P 852, L30

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    Resmi L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aae1a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...867...57R 867, 57

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    Ryan G., van Eerten H., Piro L., Troja E., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf , 896, 166

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Ryan G., van Eerten H., Troja E., Piro L., O'Connor B., Ricci R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a14 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..131R 975, 131

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    arXiv:2410.02166

    Sadeh G., Waxman E., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241002166S p. arXiv:2410.02166

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312109 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...519L..17S 519, L17

    Sari R., Piran T., Halpern J. P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312109 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...519L..17S 519, L17

    1999 doi

  55. [63]

    Savchenko V., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..15S 848, L15

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    F., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1038/323310a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.323..310S 323, 310

    Schutz B. F., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1038/323310a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.323..310S 323, 310

    1986 doi

  57. [65]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1574S 358, 1574

    Shappee B. J., et al., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaq0186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Sci...358.1574S 358, 1574

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...75S 551, 75

    Smartt S. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...75S 551, 75

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    Soares-Santos M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..16S 848, L16

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    Takahashi K., Ioka K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab032 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.5746T 501, 5746

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.5541T 517, 5541

    Takahashi K., Ioka K., Ohira Y., van Eerten H. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.5541T 517, 5541

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..27T 848, L27

    Tanvir N. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..27T 848, L27

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    Tominaga N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psy007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASJ...70...28T 70, 28

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    Troja E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.551...71T 551, 71

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    Troja E., et al., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz2248 , 489, 1919

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    arXiv:2104.13378

    Troja E., et al., 2022, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210413378T p. arXiv:2104.13378

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Utsumi Y., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psx118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASJ...69..101U 69, 101

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    Valenti S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..24V 848, L24

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..21V 851, L21

    Villar V. A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..21V 851, L21

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862L..11V 862, L11

    Villar V. A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862L..11V 862, L11

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    Willingale R., Starling R. L. C., Beardmore A. P., Tanvir N. R., O'Brien P. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt175 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431..394W 431, 394

    2013 doi

  72. [80]

    Xie X., Zrake J., MacFadyen A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacf9c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863...58X 863, 58

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    van Eerten H., MacFadyen A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..141V 767, 141

    2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.