Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Inferring neutron star merger ejecta morphologies with kilonovae

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Kilonova ejecta morphology can be told apart only when JWST mid-infrared data are added to Rubin follow-up, and AT2017gfo is best matched by a toroidal ejecta with a peanut-shaped wind.

desk verdict Useful NMMA integration and a plausible Rubin-vs-JWST forecast, but the strategy Bayes factors come from a closed emulator loop and should be treated as upper bounds, not predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16876 v1 pith:BLN77KQ3 submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.HE

Brendan L. King , Soumi De , Oleg Korobkin , Michael W. Coughlin , Peter T. H. Pang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords kilonovaneutronstarmergerejectamorphologyBayesianinferenceradiativetransferSuperNuAT2017gfoJWST
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether photometric follow-up of a neutron-star-merger kilonova can reveal the geometry of the ejected material, a question that matters because ejecta geometry encodes which channels produced the r-process elements. The authors add a new grid of 12,150 SuperNu radiative-transfer light curves, organized into four two-component ejecta morphologies, to a Bayesian inference pipeline. They conclude that the planned Vera Rubin Observatory cadence alone cannot distinguish these morphologies, but that supplementing it with three late-time JWST mid-infrared observations makes the distinction possible. Applied to the one well-observed kilonova, AT2017gfo, the analysis favors a toroidal dynamical ejecta with a peanut-shaped wind.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a grid of 12,150 SuperNu Monte Carlo radiative-transfer light curves, organized into four axisymmetric two-component morphologies: a common toroidal lanthanide-rich 'dynamical ejecta' component, combined with a wind that is either spherical (TS1, TS2) or peanut-shaped (TP1, TP2) and has electron fraction 0.37 or 0.27. These light curves are compressed into neural-network emulators inside the NMMA Bayesian inference pipeline, which computes evidences and Bayes factors between models. The argument works by comparing parameter-recovery error distributions and Bayes factors for simulated follow-up campaigns, and by applying the same emulators to the AT2017gfo photometry.

What would settle it

Re-run the Rubin+JWST injection study adding realistic photometric noise and propagating the emulator's 0.4-magnitude error into the likelihood; if the Bayes factors no longer favor the injected morphology over the others, the claim that MIR observations enable morphology discrimination fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that kilonova ejecta morphology can be read from photometry only when late-time mid-infrared data are included. In injection tests, the four SuperNu morphology classes (TP1, TP2, TS1, TS2) are distinct when the data are dense, but under the proposed Rubin ToO strategy of six visits over four nights the recovered parameters overlap completely, so no morphology can be preferred. Adding three JWST MIRI observations at 8, 15, and 20 days in the f560w and f770w filters restores discrimination, with Bayes factors of 7.4 (TP2 over TP1), 4.1 (over TS1), and 2.4 (over TS2). For AT2017gfo, the TP2 model—toroidal lanthanide-rich dynamical ejecta plus a peanut-shaped, lanthanide-free wind with electron fraction 0.27—beats the spherical-wind TS2 model and the POSSIS Bu2019 model, because its recovered wind mass implies an accretion disk of 0.06–0.09 solar masses, consistent with numerical relativity expectations, while the POSSIS fit implies an implausibly large disk.

Load-bearing premise

The forecasting analysis treats noise-free emulator light curves as if they were real Rubin and JWST measurements, without folding in the emulators' known errors (about 0.4 mag) or their difficulty recovering dynamical-ejecta parameters; if real noise or emulator bias is larger than assumed, the reported Bayes factors (2.4 to 7.4) could fall below the discrimination threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The planned Rubin ToO cadence of four nights is insufficient for morphology; extending optical coverage beyond one week can separate wind type (spherical vs peanut) but not full geometry.
  • A campaign that adds three JWST MIRI epochs at 8, 15, and 20 days can classify kilonova ejecta morphology with Bayes factors between 2.4 and 7.4.
  • AT2017gfo's ejecta is best described as a toroidal lanthanide-rich component plus a peanut-shaped wind, making it a concrete template for interpreting future events.
  • SuperNu-based fits that return wind masses implying disk masses near 0.06–0.09 solar masses are physically preferred over POSSIS fits implying 0.2–0.3 solar masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a few future kilonovae are followed with MIR, the inferred morphologies could map the diversity of r-process ejection geometries and test whether GW170817's torus-plus-peanut structure is typical or rare.
  • The Bayes factors reported here are modest; combining several events in a hierarchical analysis would sharpen population-level morphology inferences without relying on any single event.
  • The same methodology could be applied to early spectra or polarimetry to test whether morphology can be recovered before eight days, which the paper's photometry-only results suggest is unlikely.
  • A sharp test of the TP2 assignment: the recovered inclination angle and wind geometry should be consistent with the gravitational-wave and gamma-ray-burst afterglow constraints for GW170817; a future joint analysis would confirm or overturn it.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper incorporates a new grid of two-component SuperNu kilonova light curves, covering four axisymmetric ejecta morphologies (TP1, TP2, TS1, TS2), into the NMMA Bayesian inference pipeline. It validates neural-network emulators of this grid, uses them to simulate follow-up observations with Rubin and JWST, and evaluates whether ejecta morphology can be recovered. The main claims are that Rubin-only follow-up in the proposed ToO cadence cannot determine morphology, that adding late-time JWST MIRI photometry enables morphology discrimination (Bayes factors 2.4–7.4), and that AT2017gfo is best described by the TP2 morphology, with a slight preference over POSSIS-based models.

Significance. If the central forecast claim survives scrutiny, the paper would provide a concrete, observationally actionable conclusion: kilonova morphology determination requires late-time JWST MIR coverage, while Rubin-only optical follow-up is insufficient. The SuperNu grid and its integration into NMMA are a useful addition for kilonova parameter estimation, and the AT2017gfo comparison with POSSIS is valuable. The paper's strengths include the four-morphology simulation grid, the off-grid validation attempt, and the use of real AT2017gfo photometry. However, the forecast claim currently rests on closed-loop simulations with no described photometric noise and with unpropagated emulator error, and the AT2017gfo morphology preference is not supported by formal model comparison; the stated significance is therefore conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figures 5–8] The simulated Rubin and JWST data used to compute the reported Bayes factors are generated directly from the trained emulators and analyzed with the same emulator family, with no description of added photometric noise. In this closed-loop setting the likelihoods are artificially sharp, and the evidence differences between morphologies are inflated. This is load-bearing for the abstract claim that morphology discrimination is possible only with JWST MIR data. The authors should repeat the forecast with realistic photometric uncertainties for Rubin and JWST and propagate the emulator error quoted as sigma = 0.4 mag in Section 3.1 into the likelihood; the resulting Bayes factors should be reported with and without this noise.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figure 2, Table 2] The emulator validation shows weak recovery of the dynamical ejecta parameters from noiseless training data (Figure 2), and Table 2 reports reduced chi-squared values as high as 12.6 (entries iv, vii, xi) even with the JWST filters included. The statement that 'most of the light curves result in a reasonable reduced chi-squared' is not consistent with the table, where five entries exceed 6.0. Because the emulator bias is evidently not negligible, it must be quantified and propagated into the Section 3.2 forecasts before the Bayes factors can be taken as representative of real observations.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 7, text] There is an internal inconsistency in the idealized 10-day Rubin-only analysis. The text states that morphological differences can be discerned and reports Bayes factors of B = 33 and 48 favoring TP2 over TS1 and TP1, while the Figure 7 caption states 'the morphology cannot be distinguished.' These statements cannot both be correct. The authors should clarify what exactly is and is not discriminated: the analysis apparently separates the wind type (TP1/TS1 versus TP2/TS2) but not TP2 from TS2 (B = 1.4). This also bears on the abstract's claim that discrimination is possible 'only when late-time JWST observations in MIR are available.'
  4. [Section 3.3, Figures 9–10, Table 3] The AT2017gfo conclusion that the event follows the TP2 morphology is based on excluding TP1 and TS1 because their posteriors 'rail' at prior boundaries, and on the physical plausibility of the recovered wind mass and velocity for TP2 relative to TS2 and the POSSIS model. No evidence ratios or Bayes factors are reported for the four models against the real AT2017gfo data, nor for SuperNu-TP2 against POSSIS. Since the paper's stated preference for TP2 and for SuperNu over POSSIS is a central claim, the authors should provide formal model comparison (e.g., nested-sampling evidences or leave-one-out cross-validation) for the real data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'just mot as accurately' should read 'just not as accurately.'
  2. [Table 2 caption] The caption states that three chi-squared values are shown, but the table only lists two columns (chi2_nu and chi2_jwst); the column for the model without the PS1 g-band is missing or the caption should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.2] The description of the simulated observations should state explicitly whether photometric noise was added and, if so, what error model was used; currently the text says only that light curves were 'generated from our emulators' and used as data.
  4. [Section 3.1] The text says an ideally trained model would have recovered parameter distributions centered on the 'diagonal,' but the diagonal is only defined visually in the figure; a formal definition of the recovery metric would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Figure 4] The claim that 'each morphological model is distinct' is based on recovery with the TP2 emulator only; a cross-recovery matrix showing fits with each of the four emulators would more directly support this statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the observing-strategy forecasts are closed-loop emulator tests but the reported Bayes factors are not fitted targets and the AT2017gfo analysis rests on real data and external comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The AT2017gfo analysis uses real photometry, compares SuperNu against an independent POSSIS grid, and adjudicates between TP2 and TS2 using external numerical-relativity expectations for disk masses, so that preference is not self-referential. The observing-strategy forecasts in Section 3.2 are injection-recovery exercises: mock light curves are drawn from the trained emulators and then analyzed with the same emulator family, so they are self-consistency checks rather than independent empirical validations. However, this is a scoping limitation, not a definitional circularity: the Bayes factors are computed outputs, not fitted targets, and they are not forced by construction—for example, the 10-day Rubin-only case gives only B = 1.4 between TP2 and TS2, while the JWST case gives B = 2.4, so the comparison has discriminating content. The paper also validates the emulators against off-grid SuperNu light curves with quoted chi-squared values, providing an external anchor. The self-citations to NMMA, the SuperNu grid, and morphology construction are tool and method citations; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives, and the central morphology claim for AT2017gfo is checked against independent data and external theory. The absence of simulated photometric noise and the unpropagated emulator error (sigma = 0.4 mag) are legitimate robustness concerns about the forecast's realism, but they do not make any result equivalent to its inputs by definition. Overall circularity score: 1 (essentially none, with a minor closed-loop element in the forecast section).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on emulator fidelity and on the morphological coverage of the grid. The free parameters are the assumed emulator error and the chosen JWST cadence. No parameters are fitted to the AT2017gfo data beyond the inferred ejecta parameters themselves, which is the intended output of the Bayesian analysis. The four morphologies are taken from prior SuperNu simulation work; no new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • surrogate model statistical error sigma = 0.4 mag
    Hand-assigned in Section 3.1 ('assuming an error in the surrogate models of sigma = 0.4 in units of magnitude') and used to compute reduced chi-squared for off-grid validation; no justification is given.
  • JWST MIRI observation epochs = 8, 15, 20 days post-merger
    Chosen from proposed observing scenarios (Dicken et al. 2024) and not optimized or varied; the discrimination result could depend on this cadence.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Bayes' theorem and nested sampling provide the inference framework
    Equations (1)-(3) and the pymultinest usage in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Two-component ejecta with the four Cassini-oval morphologies (TP1, TP2, TS1, TS2) spans the relevant space of kilonova geometries
    Section 2 and Figure 1; the models come from Korobkin et al. 2021 and Wollaeger et al. 2021.
  • domain assumption SuperNu radiative transfer with LANL opacities yields light curves accurate enough for inference
    Sections 1 and 2, citing Wollaeger et al. 2013, 2021 and Fontes et al. 2020.
  • domain assumption The neural network emulators interpolate the SuperNu grid faithfully, with errors small enough to ignore in the likelihood
    Section 3.1 validation shows good wind recovery but poor dynamical ejecta recovery (Figure 2), weakening this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper TP1 and TS1 can be excluded because their posteriors rail at prior boundaries
    Section 3.3 and Figures 9-10; no evidence values are reported for these models, so exclusion is based on posterior shape rather than model comparison.
  • domain assumption Numerical-relativity disk masses of about 10^-1 to 10^-3 solar masses are the correct prior for preferring SuperNu over POSSIS
    Section 3.3, citing Dietrich et al. 2020 Figure S7; used to argue the POSSIS-inferred 0.2-0.3 solar mass disk is implausible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring neutron star merger ejecta morphologies with kilonovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLN77KQ3

@misc{pith2026250516876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring neutron star merger ejecta morphologies with kilonovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLN77KQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16876}
}
read the original abstract

In this study we incorporate a new grid of kilonova simulations produced by the Monte Carlo radiative transfer code SuperNu in an inference pipeline for astrophysical transients, and evaluate their performance. These simulations contain four different two-component ejecta morphology classes. We analyze follow-up observational strategies by Vera Rubin Observatory in optical, and James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in mid-infrared (MIR). Our analysis suggests that, within these strategies, it is possible to discriminate between different morphologies only when late-time JWST observations in MIR are available. We conclude that follow-ups by the new Vera Rubin Observatory alone are not sufficient to determine ejecta morphology. Additionally, we make comparisons between surrogate models based on radiative transfer simulation grids by SuperNu and POSSIS, by analyzing the historic kilonova AT2017gfo that accompanied the gravitational wave event GW170817. We show that both SuperNu and POSSIS models provide similar fits to photometric observations. Our results show a slight preference for SuperNu models, since the wind ejecta parameters recovered with these models are in better agreement with expectations from numerical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A depiction of the four axisymmetric morpholo￾gies used in this study, representing contours of the density cut in the xz-plane. In the model notation, the first letter (‘T’) stands for toroidal dynamical ejecta, the second letter (‘S’ or ‘P’) for spherical or peanut-shaped wind, and the last digit (2 or 1) stands for the type of wind, with the initial electron fractions Ye = 0.27 and 0.37, respectively. models adop… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Injected vs. recovered values for ejecta parame￾ters, clockwise from top left: dynamical ejecta mass (Mdyn ej ), dynamical ejecta velocity (v dyn ej ), wind velocity (v wind ej ), and wind mass (Mwind ej ). The violins represent one-dimensional marginal posterior distributions of recovered parameters for the corresponding injection bin. If the surrogate models were perfect in recovering the training data, every reco… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of injected vs. recovered values for ejecta parameters for each morphology compared to the TP2 morphology (gray), also shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Violin plots showing the distribution of abso￾lute errors between injected and recovered parameters for 100 light curves injections, where injections are performed with all four morphologies, and recovery is done assuming TP2. The error is summed over 56 time steps in …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ). Other aspects of a multi-messenger signal may help with the prediction of ejecta parameters, so in this next analysis we construct a better scenario for determin￾ing morphology when observing a kilonova with LSST. While the ejecta is close to spherical in the early …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Violin plots showing the distribution of absolute errors for 100 simulated light curves made using an idealized 10 day Rubin follow-up strategy with the distance known from either GW signals or host galaxy attribution. Notation is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior distributions of recovered kilonova parameters for the four SuperNu-based models resulting from the Bayesian inference of the AT2017gfo photometric observations. First we note that the TP1 (blue) and TS1 (green) models are railing in every ejecta parameter, s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Posterior distributions of recovered kilonova parameters for each of the models resulting from the Bayesian inference of the AT2017gfo light curve where we fix the luminosity distance to 40.7Mpc and the inclination angle to the range found in (Finstad et al. 2018). Th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The comparison between the POSSIS-Bu2019 and the SuperNu-TP2 models discussed above. We note that the wind velocity, inclination angle, and dynamical mass ejecta all agree. However the Bu2019 model largely overestimates the wind mass ejecta (0.245 M⊙). The Bu2019 mode…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Binary neutron stars in the next-generation era: Multi-messenger detection prospects and constraints on the equation of state, mass distribution, and cosmology

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    With ET (and ET+CE), mock multi-messenger BNS catalogues yield ~40–500 EM counterparts per year and, under ideal recovery, constrain R1.4 to ~0.2 km and H0 to ~1 km s−1 Mpc−1.

  2. nmma: An extended Bayesian framework for Nuclear Multimessenger Astronomy in the Era of Next-Generation Detectors

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    nmma now jointly samples nuclear EoS parameters with GW and EM data via TOV emulators and Fiesta surrogates, delivering 20–60× speedups and future H0–nuclear constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  2. [2]

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

    Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., Fong , W., et al. 2017, , 848, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa905d 2017

  3. [3]

    W., Kasliwal, M

    Anand, S., Coughlin, M. W., Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 5, 46–53, 10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1183-3 2020

  4. [4]

    2024, Rubin ToO 2024: Envisioning the Vera C

    Andreoni , I., & Margutti , R. 2024, Rubin ToO 2024: Envisioning the Vera C. Rubin Observatory LSST Target of Opportunity program, Tech. rep., Vera C. Rubin Observatory

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 34, 10.1017/pasa.2017.65

    Andreoni, I., Ackley, K., Cooke, J., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 34, 10.1017/pasa.2017.65

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.65 2017

  6. [6]

    A., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017

  7. [7]

    An Online Framework for Fitting Fast Transient Lightcurves

    Barna, T., Reed, B., Andreoni, I., et al. 2024, An Online Framework for Fitting Fast Transient Lightcurves. 2404.17515

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    2014, Astron

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, Astron. Astrophys., 564, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 2014

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5037, 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

    Bulla, M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 5037, 10.1093/mnras/stz2495

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, 363, 241, 10.1017/S1743921322000424

    Bulla , M. 2023, 363, 241, 10.1017/S1743921322000424

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7

    Burns, E. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 10.1007/s41114-020-00028-7

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2019, The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys. 1612.05560

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2017, , 848, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c

    Chornock , R., Berger , E., Kasen , D., et al. 2017, , 848, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    W., Ahumada, T., Anand, S., et al

    Coughlin, M. W., Ahumada, T., Anand, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 885, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4ad8

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Foley , R

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

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Sneden , C., Lawler , J

    Cowan , J. J., Sneden , C., Lawler , J. E., et al. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015002, 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.015002

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Berger , E., Villar , V

    Cowperthwaite , P. S., Berger , E., Villar , V. A., et al. 2017, , 848, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Macri , L

    D \' az , M. C., Macri , L. M., Garcia Lambas , D., et al. 2017, , 848, L29, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9060

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Shivaei, I., et al

    Dicken, D., Marín, M. G., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 689, A5, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449451

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Pang, P

    Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2020, Science, 370, 1450–1453, 10.1126/science.abb4317

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 105014, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa6bb0

    Dietrich, T., & Ujevic, M. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 105014, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa6bb0

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Piro , A

    Drout , M. R., Piro , A. L., Shappee , B. J., et al. 2017, Science, in press, available via doi:10.1126/science.aaq0049, 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Cenko , S

    Evans , P. A., Cenko , S. B., Kennea , J. A., et al. 2017, Science, doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9580

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    2015, , 449, 390, 10.1093/mnras/stv238

    Fern \'a ndez , R., Quataert , E., Schwab , J., Kasen , D., & Rosswog , S. 2015, , 449, 390, 10.1093/mnras/stv238

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 398, 1601, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14548.x

    2009

  18. [26]

    A., Berger, E., & Biwer, C

    Finstad, D., De, S., Brown, D. A., Berger, E., & Biwer, C. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 860, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6c1

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Fryer , C

    Fontes , C. J., Fryer , C. L., Hungerford , A. L., et al. 2015, High Energy Density Physics , 16, 53, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hedp.2015.06.002

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Fryer , C

    Fontes , C. J., Fryer , C. L., Hungerford , A. L., Wollaeger , R. T., & Korobkin , O. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.08781. 1904.08781

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

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

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    2014, , 439, 757, 10.1093/mnras/stt2503

    Grossman , D., Korobkin , O., Rosswog , S., & Piran , T. 2014, , 439, 757, 10.1093/mnras/stt2503

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Tanvir, N

    Hjorth, J., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 848, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9110

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Hotokezaka, K., Nakar, E., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2018. 1806.10596

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1430–1440, 10.1093/mnras/stv620

    Hotokezaka, K., & Piran, T. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 1430–1440, 10.1093/mnras/stv620

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints

    Hu , L., Wu , X., Andreoni , I., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints. 1710.05462

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al

    Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., et al. 2000, The Astronomical Journal, 119, 2498–2531, 10.1086/301330

    2000 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Korobkin , O., Lau , R

    Kasliwal , M. M., Korobkin , O., Lau , R. M., Wollaeger , R., & Fryer , C. L. 2017 a , , 843, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa799d

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Nakar , E., Singer , L

    Kasliwal , M. M., Nakar , E., Singer , L. P., et al. 2017 b , Science in press, available via doi:10.1126/science.aap9455, 10.1126/science.aap9455

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Farah, A

    Kiendrebeogo, R. W., Farah, A. M., Foley, E. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 158, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfcb1

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

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

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

    2012

  32. [40]

    T., Fryer, C

    Korobkin, O., Wollaeger, R. T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe1b5

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints

    Lipunov , V., Kornilov , V., Gorbovskoy , E., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints. 1710.05911

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    2017, , 848, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057

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

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

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

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G., Darbha , S., et al

    Metzger , B. D., Mart \' nez-Pinedo , G., Darbha , S., et al. 2010, , 406, 2650, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    2010

  37. [45]

    M., Ryan , B

    Miller , J. M., Ryan , B. R., & Dolence , J. C. 2019 a , , 241, 30, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab09fc

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Ryan , B

    Miller , J. M., Ryan , B. R., Dolence , J. C., et al. 2019 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.07477. 1905.07477

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pang , P. T. H., Dietrich , T., Coughlin , M. W., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2205.08513, 10.48550/arXiv.2205.08513

    2022 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    2017, , 551, 67, 10.1038/nature24298

    Pian , E., D'Avanzo , P., Benetti , S., et al. 2017, , 551, 67, 10.1038/nature24298

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, European Physical Journal A, 55, 50, 10.1140/epja/i2019-12716-4

    Radice , D., & Dai , L. 2019, European Physical Journal A, 55, 50, 10.1140/epja/i2019-12716-4

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    A., et al

    Ristic , M., O'Shaughnessy , R., Villar , V. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.06699, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.06699

    2023 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

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

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

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    2013, , 500, 535, 10.1038/500535a

    Rosswog , S. 2013, , 500, 535, 10.1038/500535a

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    J., Simon , J

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

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    2006, Bayesian Anal., 1, 833, 10.1214/06-BA127

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Anal., 1, 833, 10.1214/06-BA127

    2006 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Chen , T.-W., Jerkstrand , A., et al

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

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2023, Nature, 614, 436–439, 10.1038/s41586-022-05616-x

    Sneppen, A., Watson, D., Bauswein, A., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 436–439, 10.1038/s41586-022-05616-x

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    E., Annis , J., et al

    Soares-Santos , M., Holz , D. E., Annis , J., et al. 2017, , 848, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    M., Lund, K

    Sprouse, T. M., Lund, K. A., Miller, J. M., McLaughlin, G. C., & Mumpower, M. R. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1819

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 10.1093/pasj/psy076

    Sugita, S., Kawai, N., Nakahira, S., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 70, 10.1093/pasj/psy076

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    A., et al

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

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    R., Levan , A

    Tanvir , N. R., Levan , A. J., Gonz \'a lez-Fern \'a ndez , C., et al. 2017, , 848, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    2017, , 551, 71, 10.1038/nature24290

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

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

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

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

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2017, , 848, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf

    Valenti , S., David , Sand , J., et al. 2017, , 848, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    T., & van Rossum , D

    Wollaeger , R. T., & van Rossum , D. R. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 28, 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/28

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    T., van Rossum, D

    Wollaeger, R. T., van Rossum, D. R., Graziani, C., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 209, 36, 10.1088/0067-0049/209/2/36

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    T., Korobkin , O., Fontes , C

    Wollaeger , R. T., Korobkin , O., Fontes , C. J., et al. 2018, , 478, 3298, 10.1093/mnras/sty1018

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    T., Fryer , C

    Wollaeger , R. T., Fryer , C. L., Fontes , C. J., et al. 2019, , 880, 22, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab25f5

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    T., Fryer , C

    Wollaeger , R. T., Fryer , C. L., Chase , E. A., et al. 2021, , 918, 10, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0d03

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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