Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Long-Term Optical Follow Up of S231206cc: Multi-Model Constraints on BBH Merger Emission in AGN Disks

T0 review · 2 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 A multi-epoch optical search for an electromagnetic counterpart to the binary black hole merger S231206cc found none, and comparing the non-detection across three AGN-disk flare models points to $10^{7}$–$10^{8}$ solar-mass AGN disks as…

desk verdict Credible non-detection and a useful multi-model framework, but the detection-efficiency calculation uses 3-sigma limits while the actual search required SNR>10, which makes the headline parameter constraints and 'rule out' claims optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02224 v1 pith:XCNJFA4F submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.HE

P.Darc , C. R. Bom , C. D. Kilpatrick , A. Souza Santos , B. Fraga , J. C. Rodríguez-Ramírez , D. A. Coulter , C. Mendes de Oliveira
show 4 more authors
A. Kanaan T. Ribeiro W. Schoenell E. A. D. Lacerda
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryblackholemergerselectromagneticcounterpartsAGNdisksopticaltransientsmultimessengerastronomydarkflaresS231206cc
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 reports a dedicated optical follow-up of S231206cc, a binary black hole (BBH) merger detected by gravitational-wave observatories, and searches for a flare produced if the merger happened inside the disk of an active galactic nucleus (AGN). None of the 32 transient candidates survived the selection criteria as a plausible counterpart, so the search is a null result. The authors convert that absence into physical constraints by simulating light curves for three proposed flare mechanisms — ram-pressure stripping of a kicked gas sphere, jet-cocoon eruption, and jet breakout with shock cooling — and computing, with the Teglon detection-efficiency code, how likely each configuration would have been seen. They conclude that detectable optical flares are most probable when the merger remnant interacts with the AGN disk at $0.01$--$0.1$ parsecs from a supermassive black hole of $10^{7}$--$10^{8}\,M_\odot$, with flare delays under about 50 days. If correct, this gives future multimessenger searches a concrete target regime instead of a generic fast-and-deep strategy.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a detection-efficiency calculation built into the open-source Teglon code. For each observation, the $3\sigma$ limiting magnitude is converted into a maximum distance at which a given model light curve would be detected, and that distance truncates the gravitational-wave posterior distance distribution of each skymap pixel; the per-pixel probabilities are then combined across all pointings to give the net probability of catching the flare in at least one image. The paper extends Teglon to ingest three BBH-in-AGN flare models — MCK19, JRR-I, and TGW24 — and uses the resulting probability maps to turn the absence of a counterpart into constraints on remnant mass, kick velocity, SMBH mass, and merger radius.

What would settle it

Inject artificial point sources with signal-to-noise between 3 and 10 into the T80-South difference images and run the full STEP candidate-selection chain; if most of these injected sources are lost at the SNR $>10$ cut, the reported detection probabilities and the exclusion of hosts above $10^{9}\,M_\odot$ are overestimated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a non-detection can be as informative as a detection: for S231206cc, no optical transient in the 90% localization passed the counterpart criteria, and that null is used to delimit the BBH-in-AGN parameter space. Using $3\sigma$ limiting magnitudes and integrating the gravitational-wave distance posterior over each observed sky pixel, the authors compute detection probabilities for three emission models over wide parameter ranges: remnant mass $20$--$160\,M_\odot$, kick velocity $100$--$1000$ km/s, supermassive black hole mass $10^{5}$--$10^{9}\,M_\odot$, and merger radius from about $300$ to $60{,}000\,R_g$ (gravitational radii), or $10^{-3}$ to $1$ pc for the breakout model. The resulting maps show that detectability is controlled mainly by flare delay time, duration, and brightness relative to the AGN, with the most accessible configurations concentrated at merger radii of $0.01$--$0.1$ pc around $10^{7}$--$10^{8}\,M_\odot$ SMBHs and delay times under 50 days; AGN hosts above about $10^{9}\,M_\odot$ are ruled out by this search. The paper also names this class of transients "dark flares" to separate them from ordinary AGN variability, and it flags that the framework excludes non-thermal emission and that the large luminosity distance limits the galaxy-weighted localization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that any flare brighter than the $3\sigma$ limiting magnitude would have been found by the search, but the candidate-selection pipeline kept only sources with signal-to-noise greater than 10, about three times brighter in flux, so the reported detection probabilities and rule-out statements are optimistic unless pipeline completeness between those thresholds was separately verified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future optical follow-up of BBH mergers should prioritize AGN hosts with SMBH masses in the $10^{7}$--$10^{8}\,M_\odot$ range and search within the first roughly 50 days after merger, where delay time and duration best match survey cadence.
  • A merger flare is most promising when the remnant lands at $0.01$--$0.1$ pc from the SMBH; closer mergers flare too briefly for routine cadences, while farther ones are too slow and faint to catch.
  • Hosts above about $10^{9}\,M_\odot$ should be low-priority targets, because the AGN's own light is expected to overwhelm any merger flare at current survey depths.
  • Ram-pressure-stripping flares (MCK19) are predicted to be intrinsically faint, with maximum detection probability below 1%, so wide-field optical campaigns should concentrate on the jet-driven and breakout models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference from comparing the pipeline description with the detectability calculation: the analysis quotes $3\sigma$ limiting magnitudes, but the STEP candidate selection keeps only sources with signal-to-noise above 10, roughly three times brighter in flux; if the pipeline is incomplete between those thresholds, the reported detection probabilities and the exclusion of high-mass AGN hosts are o
  • The same three-model Teglon pipeline could be applied to the full catalog of BBH events without dedicated follow-up, turning many individual null searches into a population-level upper limit on the rate of AGN-disk BBH flares.
  • For a future detected flare, the model grids used here as detectability contours could be inverted to produce posteriors on remnant mass, kick velocity, and merger radius from the measured light curve alone.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports on an optical Target-of-Opportunity campaign for the LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA BBH event S231206cc using the T80-South telescope within STEP. The observations covered 47 tiles, approximately 26% of the GW localization probability, at epochs roughly 2-24 days and 289-318 days after merger. After pipeline processing and multi-survey vetting, 32 candidates remained and all were rejected as prior-variable or known transients, yielding a null result. The authors then use the Teglon framework with 3-sigma limiting magnitudes to compute model-dependent detection probabilities for three AGN-disk BBH flare models (MCK19, JRR-I, TGW24), producing constraints on remnant mass, kick velocity, SMBH mass, and orbital radius. They conclude that detectable optical flares are most likely for mergers at 0.01-0.1 pc around 10^7-10^8 Msun SMBHs and that high-mass (>=10^9 Msun) hosts are ruled out.

Significance. The paper provides a useful template for turning BBH non-detections in AGN environments into quantitative constraints, and the extension of the open-source Teglon pipeline to multiple BBH emission models is a practical contribution to multimessenger follow-up planning. The null result itself is well supported: the candidate selection and vetting are described concretely, and the rejection of all 32 candidates is credible. The model constraints are forward-modeled from published light curves, and the preferred 0.01-0.1 pc / 10^7-10^8 Msun region is corroborated by the external TGW24 and McK19 results, so the author overlap with JRR-I does not by itself drive the conclusion. However, the quantitative detection probabilities and exclusion statements depend on a detection-threshold assumption that is not matched to the actual candidate selection, which is a load-bearing issue for the constraint claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1.1 (Table 1) and Section 5.1 (Eq. 5)] The Teglon detection efficiency is evaluated with per-pointing 3-sigma limiting magnitudes, but the STEP candidate selection applied a hard SNR > 10 cut and retained 11,959 candidates. For a sky-noise-limited point source, a 10-sigma threshold is about 1.31 mag brighter than a 3-sigma threshold, a factor of roughly 3 in flux. The paper reports no injection/recovery or completeness validation for sources with 3 < SNR < 10, so all P_model values in Figures 3-8 count simulated flares in that range as detectable even though the search would not have selected them. This systematically overestimates the reported detection probabilities, with the largest effect on faint, long-duration flares associated with high SMBH masses and large radii, and it propagates into the Section 7 item 2 claim that configurations with MSMBH > 10^9 Msun are ruled out. The calculation should be redone with the true 10-sigma threshold, or an injection/recovery test should be presented demonstrating completeness down to 3-sigma.
  2. [Section 7, item 2 and Section 6.1.2] The exclusion language is stronger than the analysis supports even after correcting the threshold issue. The observations cover only about 26% of the GW localization probability, the models assume a fixed SMBH accretion rate of 0.05 Mdot_Edd (Table 2), and flares fainter than the AGN baseline are set unobservable by construction. The appropriate conclusion is that no detectable flare is expected under these model assumptions within the covered probability, not that all merger configurations in high-mass hosts are ruled out. The Section 6.5 caveat about undetected flares originating in massive AGN hosts is not reflected in the concluding claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says the GW events are detailed in Table 2, but the relevant list is Table 3; this cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eq. (5)] The formula introduces Pmodel_i,j without defining it, while Eq. (4) defines Wmodel_i,j; the relationship between these quantities should be stated explicitly, since Eq. (5) is the core of the probability calculation.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, e.g., 'TEGLON softaware' (Section 3.3), 'suceffuly' and 'accreation' (Section 6.5), and 'aligns' in the abstract; a careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Section 1] The term 'Dark Flares' is introduced in Section 1 but does not appear in the abstract or conclusions; either use it consistently or remove it.
  5. [References] The reference list contains a duplicate entry for R. Abbott et al. 2020, with the same title and DOI listed twice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central detectable-window claim is independently reproduced by the external TGW24 model, and no parameter is fitted to the S231206cc data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is forward-modeled rather than circular. In Section 5.1, P_model is computed with Teglon (Equations 2-5) by convolving published model light curves with the observed per-pointing 3-sigma limiting magnitudes; no model parameter is fit to the S231206cc photometry. The JRR-I model (Section 2.2.1) is co-authored by three of the present authors and the paper says 'The detailed derivation of this model lies outside the scope of this work,' but this self-citation is not load-bearing for the headline claim: the preferred window (0.01-0.1 pc, 10^7-10^8 M_sun) is independently produced by the external TGW24 model in Section 6.4 and Figure 7, and the MCK19 model is also external. The 'rule out MSMBH > 1e9 M_sun' statement is a statistical inference from the detection-efficiency calculation, not a definitional or fitting consequence. The main caveat noted in the review pipeline, the mismatch between the 3-sigma limiting magnitudes used in Equation 5 and the SNR>10 candidate-selection cut in Section 4.1.1, is a sensitivity-calibration concern rather than a circularity. The score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor self-citations (JRR-I, Teglon, and the STEP pipeline) that do not force the central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit any parameter to the S231206cc data. It forward-models three published AGN-disk flare mechanisms with priors from the literature. The central constraints depend on the fixed model parameters (accretion rate, jet opening angle, radiation efficiency, correction factors) and on the validity of the three published models, one of which (JRR-I) was authored by three coauthors of this paper. No new physical entities are introduced; the term 'Dark Flares' is a name for a proposed transient class, not a new physical object.

free parameters (7)
  • SMBH accretion rate fraction = 0.05 (fraction of Eddington rate)
    Adopted fixed for all three models (Sections 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.3); the central detection probability depends on this choice, and AGN accretion rates vary in nature.
  • Jet opening angle (JRR-I) = 12 degrees
    Adopted from JRR-I; affects cocoon emergence and flare timescale.
  • Jet opening angle (TGW24) = 0.2 rad
    Adopted from Tagawa et al. 2024 for TGW24 model.
  • Radiation efficiency eta_rad = 0.1
    Adopted from Tagawa et al. 2024 for TGW24 model.
  • Delay correction factor f_corr = 3
    Adopted from Tagawa et al. 2024 for TGW24 model.
  • Consumption fraction f_cons = 1
    Adopted from Tagawa et al. 2024 for TGW24 model.
  • Alpha viscosity parameter = 0.1
    Adopted from Tagawa et al. 2024 for TGW24 model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Standard LambdaCDM with H0=70 km/s/Mpc and Omega_m=0.315
    Invoked at end of Section 1 when converting distances and redshifts; standard in the field.
  • domain assumption Shakura-Sunyaev thin disk model for AGN disk structure
    Used in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3 to parametrize AGN disk properties as functions of SMBH mass, accretion rate, and radius.
  • domain assumption Validity of the three published flare models (MCK19, JRR-I, TGW24)
    The constraints assume these models correctly predict optical emission from BBH mergers in AGN disks; the models are taken as given from the cited literature.
  • domain assumption Accuracy of LIGO/Virgo localization and distance posterior for S231206cc
    The Teglon calculation integrates the GW-derived distance distribution per pixel; if the localization or distance estimate is biased, the detection probabilities change.
  • ad hoc to paper Flat priors over the adopted parameter ranges for mean-probability maps
    The mean detection probability in Figures 4, 5, 7 averages over uniform priors in each parameter; a different prior choice would shift the inferred 'most likely' regions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-Term Optical Follow Up of S231206cc: Multi-Model Constraints on BBH Merger Emission in AGN Disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XCNJFA4F

@misc{pith2026250602224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-Term Optical Follow Up of S231206cc: Multi-Model Constraints on BBH Merger Emission in AGN Disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XCNJFA4F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02224}
}
read the original abstract

The majority of gravitational wave events detected by the LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaboration originate from binary black hole (BBH) mergers, for which no confirmed electromagnetic counterparts have been identified to date. However, if such mergers occur within the disk of an active galactic nucleus (AGN), they may generate observable optical flares induced by relativistic jet activity and shock-heated gas. We present results from a long-term optical follow-up of the gravitational wave event S231206cc, conducted with the T80-South telescope as part of the S-PLUS Transient Extension Program (STEP). Our search prioritized AGN-hosted environments by crossmatching the gravitational wave localization with known AGN catalogs. No candidate met the criteria for a viable optical counterpart. We explored three BBH merger scenarios predicting optical emission in AGN disks: (i) ram pressure stripping, (ii) long-term emission from an emerging jet cocoon, and (iii) jet breakout followed by shock cooling. Using our observational cadence and depth, we constrained the BBH parameter space, including the remnant's location within the AGN disk, kick velocity, and supermassive black hole (SMBH) mass. Detectable flares are most likely when mergers occur at 0.01-0.1 parsecs from SMBHs with masses between 10^7 and 10^8 solar masses, where short delay times and long durations best align with our follow-up strategy. These results provide a framework for identifying AGN-hosted BBH counterparts and guiding future multimessenger efforts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-panel schematic showing the different flare mechanisms capable of producing EM counterparts to BBH mergers in AGN disks. Each panel highlights a distinct physical scenario: top-right shows the flare model from B. McKernan et al. (2019), center-right depicts the jet breakout and shock cooling emission scenario from H. Tagawa et al. (2024), and lower-right presents the delayed jet-driven model from J. C. Rodr´ıg… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The LVK collaboration localization region for S231206cc. Contours correspond to the 50th (90 deg2 ) and 90th (342 deg2 ) percentile regions. Gold squares indicate the T80-South pointings used in our follow-up observations, while blue stars mark the positions of AGNs located within each tile. The estimated luminosity distance to the source is 1467 ± 264 Mpc. CBPF (Brazilian Center for Physics Research), carries out t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Maximum detection probabilities for BBH models from MCK19 model as a function of remnant black hole mass (MBH) and kick velocity (vkick). The color scale is logarith￾mic, with a maximum probability of 0.15%. The GW events depicted in the plot are detailed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detection probabilities for BBH models from JRR-I model as a function of black hole mass (MBH) and kick velocity (vkick). (Left) Maximum detection probability across all parameter configurations, illustrating the best-case detection scenario for each (MBH, vkick) pair.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detection probabilities for BBH models from JRR-I model as a function of remnant black hole mass (MBH) and log of the SMBH mass (log10(Msmbh/M⊙)). (Left) Maximum detection probability across all parameter configurations, illustrating the best-case detection scenario fo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plot and histograms of the time duration and delay for different kick velocities (vk) in km s−1 , with a fixed θk = 0.3. Each color represents a different kick velocity: black (vk = 600 km s−1 ), orange (vk = 400 km s−1 ), purple (vk = 300 km s−1 ), and red (vk…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Constraints on the presence of a flare assuming the TWG24 model. (Left) Mean detection probability across all pa￾rameter configurations, illustrating the best-case detection scenario for each (MBH, log10(Msmbh/M⊙)) pair. (Right) Mean detec￾tion probability across all p…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Constraints on the presence of a Flare for the TGW24 model assuming a merget at 0.1 pc. The colorbar shows the estimated likelihood that we would have detected a source for a given remnant Mass and SMBH mass. The star symbols indicate ZTF-detected flares that have been…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observational light curve data from ATLAS, ZTF, Fink, and STEP for the candidate STEPlwuwhisa, initially identified during the search for an electromagnetic counterpart to the GW event S231206cc but later classified as a supernova (ZTF23absarbp). The x-axis shows time …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A population of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA mergers happening inside active galactic nuclei

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

    Thirteen preferred LVK BBH–AGN associations yield cumulative ln B ≈ +81, with sky localization dominating model selection while SMBH environmental redshifts remain inconclusive.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101

    Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  2. [2]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, Nature, 551, 85–88, doi: 10.1038/nature24471

    doi:10.1038/nature24471

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

  5. [5]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2020, Living reviews in relativity, 23, 1

    work page 2020

  6. [7]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020

  7. [8]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.021053 2021

  8. [9]

    2023, Physical Review X, 13, doi: 10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, doi: 10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

Show all 78 references
  1. [10]

    A., & Fragile, P

    Abramowicz, M. A., & Fragile, P. C. 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2013-1

    2013 doi

  2. [11]

    W., et al

    Ahumada, T., Anand, S., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 114201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad8265

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    R., Palmese, A., et al

    Alfradique, V., Bom, C. R., Palmese, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae086

    2024 doi

  4. [13]

    Alves, L. M. B., Sullivan, A. G., Yang, Y., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1360

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    2019 doi

  6. [15]

    M., Low, M.-M

    Bellovary, J. M., Low, M.-M. M., McKernan, B., & Ford, K. E. S. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 819, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l17

    2016 doi

  7. [16]

    C., & Katz, S

    Bentz, M. C., & Katz, S. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 67, doi: 10.1086/679601

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  9. [18]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 961

    Bom, C., Alfradique, V., Palmese, A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 961

    2024

  10. [19]

    2024, Physical Review D, 110, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.110.083005

    Bom, C., & Palmese, A. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.110.083005

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    R., Santos, A., Kilpatrick, C

    Bom, C. R., Santos, A., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 36146, 1

    2024

  12. [21]

    1944, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    1944 doi

  13. [22]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10698

    Cabrera, T., Palmese, A., Hu, L., et al. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10698

    2024 arXiv

  14. [23]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    Chen, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    Coulter, D. A. 2021,, v0.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5683508

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    A., Foley, R

    Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556–1558, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9811

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    A., Kilpatrick, C

    Coulter, D. A., Kilpatrick, C. D., Jones, D. O., et al. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15441

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 873, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab08a3 El Bouhaddouti, M., & Cholis, I

    Doctor, Z., Kessler, R., Herner, K., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 873, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab08a3 El Bouhaddouti, M., & Cholis, I. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 043020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043020

    2019 doi

  19. [28]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023,, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VII/294. Originally published in: 2023OJAp....6E..49F

    2023

  20. [29]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 3879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab247

    Fragione, G., & Loeb, A. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 3879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab247

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    A., Bonnerot, C., & Gerosa, D

    Gangardt, D., Trani, A. A., Bonnerot, C., & Gerosa, D. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1117

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 1731–1754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3536

    Grado, A., Cappellaro, E., Covino, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 1731–1754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3536

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca480

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, 131, doi: 10.1086/520497

    2007 doi

  26. [35]

    G., et al

    Gupta, I., Afle, C., Arun, K. G., et al. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 245001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad7b99

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    G., Zhu, M., Chen, B., et al

    Howard, A. G., Zhu, M., Chen, B., et al. 2017, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1704.04861 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2017 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    D., Coulter, D

    Kilpatrick, C. D., Coulter, D. A., Arcavi, I., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23c6 23

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    Kim, J., Im, M., Paek, G. S. H., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0446

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    S., Murase, K., & Bartos, I

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & Bartos, I. 2021, Astrophys. J., 916, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0535

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 Koz lowski, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 228, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/9

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    2018, https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10457

    Lange, J., O’Shaughnessy, R., & Rizzo, M. 2018, https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10457

    2018 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Leoni, M., Ishida, E. E. O., Peloton, J., & Moller, A. 2022, Astronomy & amp; Astrophysics, 663, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142715

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18333, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.18333

    Li, G.-P., & Fan, X.-L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.18333, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.18333

    2025 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    O., Campanelli, M., Zlochower, Y., & Nakano, H

    Lousto, C. O., Campanelli, M., Zlochower, Y., & Nakano, H. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 114006, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/11/114006

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    O., Zlochower, Y., Dotti, M., & Volonteri, M

    Lousto, C. O., Zlochower, Y., Dotti, M., & Volonteri, M. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 084015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.084015

    2012 doi

  37. [46]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18567

    Ma, Z.-P., Wang, K., Wu, Q., & Wang, J.-M. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18567

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    2024, Physical Review D, 110, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.110.084041

    Mahapatra, P., Favata, M., & Arun, K. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.110.084041

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    2022, Phys

    Mandel, I., & Farmer, A. 2022, Phys. Rept., 955, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    E., Bellovary, J., et al

    McKernan, B., Saavik Ford, K. E., Bellovary, J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadae5

    2018 doi

  42. [51]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bartos, I., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886 Mendes de Oliveira, C., Ribeiro, T., Schoenell, W., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 241–267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1985

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    2017, Phys

    Messick, C., Blackburn, K., Brady, P., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 042001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.042001

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    Metzger, B. D. 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, doi: 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafaa

    Morgan, R., Soares-Santos, M., Annis, J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafaa

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    L., Rinaldi, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al

    Morton, S. L., Rinaldi, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039 M¨ oller, A., Peloton, J., Ishida, E. E. O., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 3272, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3602

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    B., Tominaga, N., et al

    Ohgami, T., Gonz´ alez, J. B., Tominaga, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 947, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbd42

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    J., Annis, J., & Liu, X

    Palmese, A., Fishbach, M., Burke, C. J., Annis, J., & Liu, X. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 914, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0883 Rodr ´ ıguez-Ram ´ ırez, J., Nemmen, R., & Bom, C. 2025, Physical Review D, 111, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.111.083020 Rodr ´ ıguez-Ram ´ ı...

    2021 doi

  49. [58]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 6076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3575

    Nemmen, R. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 6076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3575

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 833–842, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae037

    Saini, P. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 833–842, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae037

    2024 doi

  51. [60]

    D., Bom, C

    Santos, A., Kilpatrick, C. D., Bom, C. R., Lacerda, E., & STEP-GW Collaboration. 2023, GRB Coordinates Network, 33986, 1

    2023

  52. [61]

    D., Bom, C

    Santos, A., Kilpatrick, C. D., Bom, C. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 59, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae466

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    J., Dudik, R

    Secrest, N. J., Dudik, R. P., Dorland, B. N., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 221, 12, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/221/1/12

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  55. [64]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 024013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024013

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    P., Chen, H.-Y., Holz, D

    Singer, L. P., Chen, H.-Y., Holz, D. E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 829, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L15

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

    Sirko, E., & Goodman, J. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

    2003

  58. [67]

    E., Annis, J., et al

    Soares-Santos, M., Holz, D. E., Annis, J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4bb

    Bartos, I. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4bb

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Thompson, T. A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 630, 167, doi: 10.1086/431923

    2005 doi

  62. [71]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf 24

    2018 doi

  63. [72]

    Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., Prusti, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    E., Wilhite, B

    VanBerk, D. E., Wilhite, B. C., Kron, R. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 692, doi: 10.1086/380563

    2004 doi

  65. [74]

    2022, Phys

    Varma, V., Biscoveanu, S., Islam, T., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.191102

    2022 doi

  66. [75]

    M., & van Velzen, S

    Veronesi, N., Rossi, E. M., & van Velzen, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 6031–6040, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3157

    2023 doi

  67. [76]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1868–1881, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  68. [77]

    2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.123.181101

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Gayathri, V., et al. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.123.181101

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10395, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10395

    Zhang, S.-R., Wang, Y., Yuan, Y.-F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.10395, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.10395

    2025 doi

  70. [79]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02924, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02924

    Zhu, L.-G., & Chen, X. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.02924, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.02924

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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