Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Electromagnetic signatures from pulsar remnants of binary neutron star mergers: prospects for unique identification using multi-wavelength signatures

T0 review · 3 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 neutron star merger that leaves behind a magnetar should emit a distinctive multi-wavelength signal, visible out to gigaparsec distances and identifiable against supernovae, kilonovae, and GRB afterglows.

desk verdict Solid, honest extension of the authors' magnetar-nebula model, but the multi-Gpc horizon claim is not robust across the advertised field range, and the unique-identification scheme is qualitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09157 v2 pith:B2DLLZTP submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Mainak Mukhopadhyay , Shigeo S. Kimura This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords binaryneutronstarmergersmagnetarremnantspulsarwindnebulaelectromagneticcounterpartsmulti-messengerastronomygravitationalwaveskilonovaejectadetectionhorizon
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 argues that when a binary neutron star merger leaves behind a long-lived, highly magnetized neutron star (a magnetar), the remnant produces a predictable multi-wavelength electromagnetic signal that becomes visible days to weeks after the merger. The authors model the magnetar's spin-down power as it inflates a nebula of electron-positron pairs inside the kilonova ejecta, and they compute radio, optical/IR, X-ray, MeV, and GeV-TeV light curves from the non-thermal and thermal photon populations. Their central quantitative claim is that survey and follow-up telescopes have horizon distances of roughly a gigaparsec or more in most wavebands, and that a specific sequence of band-by-band peaks uniquely identifies the transient as magnetar-powered and links it to the gravitational-wave event. Because the spin-down energy is injected isotropically rather than through a jet, the counterpart would be visible regardless of the merger orientation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-zone pulsar-wind nebula model: a magnetar with dipole field $B_d \sim 10^{13}$--$10^{15}$ G and spin period $P_i \sim 3$ ms loses rotational energy to a wind of $e^+e^-$ pairs; the pairs inject non-thermal electrons as a broken power law $dN/d\gamma_e \propto \gamma_e^{-1.5}$ for $\gamma_e < 10^3$ and $\gamma_e^{-2.5}$ above, and the steady-state electron population radiates through synchrotron and inverse Compton scattering off thermal photons. The observable spectrum is shaped by three attenuation layers: synchrotron self-absorption and $\gamma\gamma$ pair production inside the nebula, plus a frequency-dependent ejecta opacity ($\kappa_{ej} = 10\ {\rm cm}^2\,{\rm g}^{-1}$ in the optical, scaling as $E^{1.16}$ into X-rays, with bound-free, Compton, and Bethe-Heitler terms at higher energies). The key output is the band-by-band peak time, such as $t_{pk} \approx \sqrt{3 M_{ej} \kappa / 4\pi v_0^2}$ for X-ray transparency, which produces the identifying sequence of peaks.

What would settle it

For a BNS merger within roughly 100 Mpc, the model predicts 1 GeV gamma-rays that rise to a peak about ten days after the merger and then decline; a campaign that detects the radio, optical, and X-ray counterparts but sees no such gamma-ray rise would falsify the magnetar-nebula emission scenario. A cheaper test uses the X-ray peak time $t_{pk} \approx (3 M_{ej} \kappa / 4\pi v_0^2)^{1/2}$: a measured soft-X-ray peak that does not track this scaling with independently estimated ejecta mass, opacity, and velocity would contradict the ejecta-transparency mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that magnetar-powered transients from BNS mergers are not only detectable in principle but identifiable in practice. The fingerprint is a temporal sequence: a rising 100 GHz radio plateau that peaks near the spin-down timescale, an optical/IR rebrightening at AB magnitude roughly 20 to 21.5 peaking around $2\times10^6$ s, and a late rise of soft (5 keV) and hard (10 keV) X-rays peaking when the r-process ejecta becomes transparent, with MeV and GeV gamma-rays appearing on top for nearby events. The paper shows that gamma-ray emission is the decisive separator: within about 100 Mpc, a rising MeV-to-GeV light curve distinguishes the remnant from on-axis GRBs and off-axis afterglows, while at about 1 Gpc the multi-band sequence separates it from supernovae, kilonovae, and galactic X-ray transients. These conclusions are quantified as redshift-dependent horizon distances, for example roughly 24 Gpc for SKAO, 3.7 Gpc for Roman, 2.4 Gpc for Chandra, and 0.11 Gpc for Fermi-LAT in the fiducial case.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions rest on an assumed electron injection spectrum, a broken power law with break at Lorentz factor $10^3$, and an assumed ejecta opacity law that is set to $10\ {\rm cm}^2\,{\rm g}^{-1}$ in the optical and scaled as $E^{1.16}$ into the X-rays rather than derived from a radiative-transfer calculation. If either assumption is off by a significant factor, the peak times and horizon distances shift, and the claimed unique identification weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A BNS merger at distances up to about 1 Gpc that leaves a long-lived magnetar should show an observable counterpart in radio, optical/IR, and X-rays within weeks, with the 100 GHz radio plateau and late X-ray rise distinguishing it from supernovae and kilonovae.
  • For nearby mergers within about 100 Mpc, MeV-to-GeV gamma-rays that rise rather than fade over roughly one week to one month after the gravitational-wave trigger are a decisive discriminator against on-axis GRB light curves and off-axis afterglows.
  • Survey telescopes SKAO, Roman, Rubin, and EP-FXT reach horizon distances of roughly 0.9 to 24 Gpc in the fiducial scenario, so these transients can be found without deep targeted searches, while the gamma-ray horizon (Fermi-LAT about 0.11 Gpc, CTAO about 0.07 Gpc) limits the gamma-ray identifier to nearby events.
  • The optical/IR rebrightening peaks at AB magnitude roughly 20 to 21.5 about $2\times10^6$ s after the merger, comparable to the GW170817 kilonova brightness scaled to 100 Mpc, enabling late-time identification of a surviving remnant.
  • At the fiducial BNS merger rate of about 300 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$ and a 10 percent magnetar fraction, about two to three such remnants should have been detectable by Fermi-LAT over 15 years of operation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's explicit conclusions, the same horizon calculation implies that if the magnetar fraction is closer to a few tens of percent, next-generation radio arrays should find these transients in large numbers without requiring a gravitational-wave trigger.
  • An implication left implicit is that existing archival kilonova follow-up data could be re-searched for the predicted late-time rebrightening, offering a near-term test of the model before new gravitational-wave detections arrive.
  • If the ejecta mass or opacity is independently constrained from the kilonova light curve, the X-ray peak time $t_{pk} \approx (3 M_{ej} \kappa / 4\pi v_0^2)^{1/2}$ becomes a consistency probe connecting the merger parameters inferred from gravitational waves to the electromagnetic transient.
  • A further testable extension would be to use the predicted peak ordering as a classifier on untriggered survey streams; a candidate with a different ordering, such as X-rays peaking before the radio plateau, would point to a different central engine.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the multi-wavelength electromagnetic emission from a long-lived magnetar remnant formed in a binary neutron star merger. The model consists of an expanding pulsar-wind nebula surrounded by r-process-enriched ejecta; nonthermal electrons are injected as a broken power law, cool by synchrotron and inverse Compton processes, and produce photons that are attenuated by synchrotron self-absorption, gamma-gamma pair production, and ejecta opacity. The authors compute nebular photon spectra, observed spectra, light curves, and horizon distances for a set of current and upcoming telescopes, for two parameter sets termed fiducial and optimistic. They report horizon distances above about 1 Gpc for most bands and propose a qualitative multi-wavelength strategy, involving a 100 GHz plateau, optical/IR re-brightening, late X-ray rise, and MeV/GeV gamma-ray emission, to uniquely identify such transients and associate them with gravitational-wave events.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are robust, the paper is a useful guide for follow-up observations of BNS mergers: it gives concrete telescope-specific detection horizons, analytic scalings for the IC peak, the KN and gamma-gamma cutoffs, and peak times derived from tau = 1 conditions, and it makes falsifiable predictions for late-time re-brightening. The forward-model character means the light curves are not fit to the target observables, so there is no circularity in the detection claim. The main limitations are that the headline horizon statements are computed for only two parameter sets, one of which sits at the high-luminosity end of the advertised magnetar range, and that the uniqueness claim is not supported by a quantitative false-alarm analysis. The analytic estimates in Section 3.1 and Equation (4) are explicit and checkable, which strengthens the paper's usefulness.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1; Abstract] The abstract's headline claim that survey and follow-up observations have horizon distances of about 1 Gpc or more for most wavebands is not demonstrated for the parameter range advertised in the same abstract. Table 1 and Figure 5 are computed only for the fiducial case (B_d = 10^14 G, P_i = 3 ms) and the optimistic case (B_d = 2.5 x 10^13 G, P_i = 1 ms). Since L_sd is proportional to B_d^2 P_i^{-4} as used in Equation (1), a magnetar at the lower advertised field, B_d = 10^13 G with P_i = 3 ms, has L_sd smaller by a factor of 100 than the fiducial case. For a flux-limited search dlim scales roughly as the square root of L_sd, so every horizon in Table 1 shrinks by about an order of magnitude: SKAO 24 to 2.4 Gpc, Roman 3.7 to 0.37 Gpc, Rubin 0.93 to 0.09 Gpc, EP-FXT 0.48 to 0.05 Gpc, AMEGO 0.37 to 0.04 Gpc, Fermi 0.11 to 0.01 Gpc, CTAO 0.07 to 0.007 Gpc, Chandra 2.43 to 0.24 Gpc, JWST 6.67 to 0.67 Gpc. The statement that most wavebands have horizons above 1 Gpc then fails, and the Section 4.2 gamma-ray smoking gun within about 100 Mpc is unavailable for exactly the distances at which GW170817-like events are detected. The authors should either present a pessimistic parameter case or restrict the horizon-distance claim to the parameter sets actually modeled.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 2] The central claim that multi-wavelength signatures can uniquely identify magnetar-powered BNS merger remnants is supported only by a qualitative feature list. Section 4.2 itself opens by saying the discussion is qualitative, and Table 2 summarizes strategies without any estimate of contamination. Given the authors' own numbers, with GW localization areas of O(10-100) deg^2 and Rubin discovering O(10^2) supernovae per day, a list of distinguishing features is insufficient to establish uniqueness. The paper needs a quantitative false-alarm or confusion analysis showing how often supernovae, off-axis GRBs, TDEs, and kilonovae produce the same temporal sequence of a 100 GHz plateau, optical/IR re-brightening, late X-ray rise, and MeV/GeV gamma-ray emission. Without such an analysis, the title's and abstract's unique identification language overstates what Section 4.2 demonstrates.
  3. [Section 3.1, Equation (4), Section 2] The quantitative predictions, including peak times, light-curve ordering, and hence Table 1 horizons, depend on assumed microphysics that is not varied or tested. The electron injection is a broken power law with gamma_br = 10^3 and spectral indices 1.5 and 2.5, the nebular magnetization is taken from the earlier model, and the ejecta opacity is parameterized as kappa_ej = 10 cm^2/g for 0.1-10 eV, kappa_ej proportional to E^{1.16} from 10 eV to 1 keV, with X-ray mass attenuation coefficients at higher energies. Peak times scale as the square root of kappa_ej in Equation (4), and the flux levels scale with the injected electron distribution; a factor-of-few change in kappa_ej or a different injection break can shift the waveband ordering on which Section 4.2 relies. A sensitivity study over these parameters, or a clear statement of the ranges over which the conclusions hold, is needed to make the horizon distances and the unique-identification sequence robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, after Equation (4)] The opacity for 1 MeV photons is written as 0.06 cm^{-2} s^{-1}; the units should be cm^2 g^{-1}.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1] The word neubla appears in the abstract and should be nebula.
  3. [Footnote 8, Section 4.1] The neglect of extragalactic background light absorption should be quantified, since the CTAO 100 GeV channel is the only very-high-energy channel discussed and EBL attenuation is not completely negligible at 100 Mpc for energies near 100 GeV.
  4. [Section 4.1, Table 1] The text says MeV and high-energy gamma-rays can be identified approximately a week post merger using AMEGO and Fermi LAT, whereas Table 1 gives t(dlim_max) = 12 days and 10 days for those telescopes; the wording is slightly optimistic.
  5. [Table 1] Table 1 reports dlim values as large as 65.6 Gpc for ngVLA; at such distances the BNS merger rate and the absence of a gravitational-wave trigger should be mentioned, because these horizons are far beyond the gravitational-wave detection range and the identification strategy in Section 4.2 assumes a GW distance estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the light curves and horizon distances are forward-model predictions from stated physical assumptions, with no fitted target data and no self-citation chain forcing the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper is a forward-modeling study. The horizon distances in Table 1 and Figure 5 are obtained by numerically solving Equation 5 using model spectra from Section 3; no parameter is fitted to the target EM observables, and no detected magnetar transient is used as calibration. The electron injection spectrum, ejecta opacity law, and fiducial/optimistic parameter sets are stated assumptions, inherited from Mukhopadhyay et al. (2024a) but explicitly restated and used as inputs rather than disguised as predictions. The optical and infrared light curves are compared with the external GW170817 kilonova brightness, providing an independent benchmark. The multi-wavelength identification criteria in Section 4.2 are model predictions contrasted with known background classes such as GRBs, supernovae, and kilonovae; they are not definitions that equate the model input with the output. Dependencies on assumed parameters such as Bd, gamma_br, and kappa_ej are model-robustness or parameter-coverage concerns, not circular reasoning. The self-citations concern the previous neutrino model and are not used to forbid alternative models or to import an unverified uniqueness theorem. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

The model is a forward calculation with several hand-picked parameters including spin, field, ejecta mass and velocity, injection spectrum, and opacity law, plus a single-zone nebula assumption. No new entities are introduced, and the conclusions are conditional on these choices and on the fraction of mergers that yield stable magnetars.

free parameters (6)
  • Spin period Pi = fiducial 3 ms, optimistic 1 ms
    Sets the spindown luminosity L_sd proportional to P^-4; chosen from plausible post-merger range, not derived.
  • Equatorial dipole field Bd = fiducial 1e14 G, optimistic 2.5e13 G
    Sets spindown luminosity L_sd proportional to B^2; chosen from the 1e13 to 1e15 G range.
  • Ejecta mass Mej = fiducial 0.03 solar masses, optimistic 0.1 solar masses
    Controls ejecta optical depth and peak times; chosen to resemble GW170817-like parameters.
  • Ejecta initial velocity v0 = fiducial 0.2c, optimistic 0.1c
    Controls expansion and decline of tau_ej; chosen by hand.
  • Electron injection spectral indices and break = s1 = 1.5, s2 = 2.5, gamma_br = 1e3
    Broken power law injection assumed in Section 2; not derived from microphysics.
  • Ejecta opacity normalization = kappa_ej = 10 cm^2/g for 0.1 to 10 eV, kappa proportional to E^1.16 for 10 eV to 1 keV
    Assumed opacity law in Section 3.1 to connect optical and X-ray bands; affects attenuation and peak times.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A BNS merger can leave a long-lived stable magnetar remnant rather than collapsing promptly to a black hole.
    The entire scenario in Sections 1 and 2 assumes this; the fraction of mergers that do this is uncertain.
  • domain assumption The spindown luminosity is injected isotropically into the nebula with no jet.
    Section 1 states that the scenario does not necessarily include a jet and thus the total spindown luminosity is injected into the nebula; this removes inclination dependence.
  • domain assumption The nebula can be treated as a single zone with steady-state electron transport and EM cascades.
    Section 2 summarizes this from Mukhopadhyay et al. 2024a; no multidimensional or time-dependent structure is used.
  • domain assumption The ejecta is composed of r-process elements with opacity tables from Tanaka et al. 2020 and Fujibayashi et al. 2020.
    Section 3.1 uses these to compute free-free, bound-bound, bound-free, and Bethe-Heitler opacities.
  • standard math Standard radiative processes such as synchrotron, inverse Compton, gamma-gamma, and synchrotron self-absorption apply.
    Section 3.1 invokes standard formulae and cross sections; no modification of physics is introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electromagnetic signatures from pulsar remnants of binary neutron star mergers: prospects for unique identification using multi-wavelength signatures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2DLLZTP

@misc{pith2026250609157,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electromagnetic signatures from pulsar remnants of binary neutron star mergers: prospects for unique identification using multi-wavelength signatures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2DLLZTP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09157}
}
abstract

Binary neutron star (BNS) mergers can result in the formation of long-lived magnetar remnants which can enhance neutrino and electromagnetic (EM) emissions. In this work, we study the resulting multi-wavelength EM emissions and the prospects of their detectability in the current and upcoming EM telescopes. We model the pulsar-wind neubla system where the long-lived pulsar with dipolar magnetic fields of $10^{13} - 10^{15}$ G (magnetar) spins down and is surrounded by an outward expanding nebula and kilonova ejecta. Although at early times post the merger, the EM signatures are unobservable due to heavy attenuation, they become observable on timescales of $\mathcal{O}(1 - 10)$ days after the merger. We find that the survey and follow-up observations have horizon distances $\gtrsim 1\ \rm Gpc$ for most of the wavebands and conclude that the detection prospects for such long-lived remnants in the electromagnetic channel are promising. This is of crucial importance for multi-messenger observations from BNS mergers to constrain the physical parameters of the remnants. Furthermore, we highlight how observations across the electromagnetic band can uniquely identify magnetar-powered transients resulting from BNS mergers and establish concrete associations of the detected gravitational wave signatures with such transients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09157 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Photon energy density spectrum (νuν) of the non-thermal (solid) and thermal (dashed) photons in the nebula (comoving frame) after γγ and SSA attenuations, at different times for the fiducial case. The corresponding syn￾chrotron (Synch.) and inverse Compton (IC) components are shown with thin dashed-dot and dotted lines respectively. physical properties of the central engine, provide precise localization information … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Attenuation coefficients at different time snaps for γγ, SSA, and ejecta attenuations denoted by fγγ, fSSA, and fej respectively. The plots are shown for radio, X-ray/MeV, and high energy (HE) and very high energy (VHE) gamma-rays for the fiducial case. The value of f = 1 corresponds to τ = 0. from the merger to form a nebular region consisting of e + − e − pairs, non-thermal, and thermal photons. The spindown energ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Light curves from a source at 100 Mpc cor￾responding to the radio, optical, infrared, X-ray and gam￾ma-ray bands for the fiducial case. The characteristic spin￾down (tsd), nebular diffusion (t neb diff,0 ), and ejecta diffusion (t ej diff,0 ) timescales are also shown.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distance horizons (dlim see Equation 5) for vari￾ous survey and pointing telescopes for the fiducial scenario,. The upcoming telescopes are shown in dashed lines. See Ta￾ble 1 for details about the telescopes. Note that for EP-FXT, AMEGO, and NuSTAR, the sudden jump is…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time evolution of A for the fiducial (solid redorange) and the optimistic (dot-dashed purple) scenarios. APPENDIX A. APPENDIX A: ON THE TIME EVOLUTION OF ALBEDO OF THE EJECTA (1 − A) We define A in the following way A = R εmax εmin dε εLobs ε R εmax εmin dε εLintrinsic…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  2. [2]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

  3. [3]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017c, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

  4. [4]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  5. [5]

    2013, Mon

    Akgun, T., Reisenegger, A., Mastrano, A., & Marchant, P. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 433, 2445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt913

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt913 2013

  6. [6]

    C., Metzger, B

    Bower, G. C., Metzger, B. D., Cenko, S. B., Silverman, J. M., & Bloom, J. S. 2013, Astrophys. J., 763, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/84

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/2/84 2013

  7. [7]

    2012, Mon

    Quataert, E. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 419, 1537, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19810.x

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    2024, Astrophys

    Cendes, Y., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 971, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    2017, Astrophys

    Chornock, R., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    A., et al

    Coulter, D. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9811 D’Avanzo, P., et al. 2018, Astron. Astrophys., 613, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832664

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    D., & Menon, G

    Dermer, C. D., & Menon, G. 2009, High Energy Radiation from Black Holes: Gamma Rays, Cosmic Rays, and Neutrinos (Princeton University Press)

    2009

  4. [12]

    2022, Astrophys

    Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 939, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c36

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    R., et al

    Drout, M. R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0049

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, Astrophys

    DuPont, M., & MacFadyen, A. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 971, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad66d2

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    2008, Front

    Fan, Y.-Z., & Piran, T. 2008, Front. Phys. China, 3, 306, doi: 10.1007/s11467-008-0033-z

    2008 doi

  8. [16]

    Fang, K., Kotera, K., Murase, K., & Olinto, A. V. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 103005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.103005

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Fang, K., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Astrophys. J., 849, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b6a

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Murase, K., Bartos, I., & Kotera, K

    Fang, K., Metzger, B. D., Murase, K., Bartos, I., & Kotera, K. 2019, Astrophys. J., 878, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b72

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, Astrophys

    Fujibayashi, S., Wanajo, S., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 901, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafc2

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2013, Phys

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., Wu, X.-F., & Dai, Z.-G. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 043010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043010

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    2019, Science, 363, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815

    Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2013, Astrophys

    Giacomazzo, B., & Perna, R. 2013, Astrophys. J. Lett., 771, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/2/L26

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    2015, Astrophys

    Perna, R. 2015, Astrophys. J., 809, 39, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/39

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 74, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030074

    Gill, R., & Granot, J. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 74, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030074

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, Astrophys

    Gill, R., Nathanail, A., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16da

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, Astrophys

    Goldstein, A., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12597

    Goldstein, A., et al. 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12597

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., et al

    Haggard, D., Nynka, M., Ruan, J. J., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8ede

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, Science, 358, 1579, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9855

    Hallinan, G., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1579, doi: 10.1126/science.aap9855

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, Mon

    Hotokezaka, K., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., & Gaigalas, G. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 526, L155, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad128

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    H., & Seltzer, S

    Hubbell, J. H., & Seltzer, S. M. 2004, Tables of X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients and Mass Energy-Absorption Coefficients (version 1.4, July 12, 2004),, http://physics.nist.gov/xaamdi

    2004

  24. [32]

    Kierans, C. A. 2020, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng., 11444, 1144431, doi: 10.1117/12.2562352

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    D., et al

    Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1583, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0073

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, Nature Astron., 8, 298, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Shibata, M., & Sekiguchi, Y. 2024, Nature Astron., 8, 298, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02194-y

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    J., et al

    Levan, A. J., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 EM signatures from pulsar remnants of BNS mergers 13

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    M., et al

    Lipunov, V. M., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 850, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa92c0

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    2017, Astrophys

    Margutti, R., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9057

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 66, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030066

    Miceli, D., & Nava, L. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 66, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10030066

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    S., & Metzger, B

    Mukhopadhyay, M., Kimura, S. S., & Metzger, B. D. 2024a, Astrophys. J. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04767

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    S., & Murase, K

    Mukhopadhyay, M., Kimura, S. S., & Murase, K. 2024b, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 043053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043053

    doi

  33. [41]

    Kimura, S. S. 2024c, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 063004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063004

    doi

  34. [42]

    2015, Astrophys

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., Kiuchi, K., & Bartos, I. 2015, Astrophys. J., 805, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/82

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    2009, Phys

    Murase, K., Meszaros, P., & Zhang, B. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 103001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.103001

    2009 doi

  36. [44]

    A., & Ofek, E

    Murase, K., Thompson, T. A., & Ofek, E. O. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 440, 2528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu384

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    2011, Astrophys

    Murase, K., Toma, K., Yamazaki, R., & Meszaros, P. 2011, Astrophys. J., 732, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/77

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    W., Fang, K., et al

    Murase, K., Toomey, M. W., Fang, K., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 854, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa48a

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Noda, K., & Parsons, R. D. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 7, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010007

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Omand, C. M. B., Sarin, N., & Lamb, G. P. 2025, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 539, 1908, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf565

    2025 doi

  41. [49]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    Pian, E., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67, doi: 10.1038/nature24298

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    2019, Mon

    Piro, L., et al. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 483, 1912, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3047

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    C., & Grossan, B

    Pooley, D., Kumar, P., Wheeler, J. C., & Grossan, B. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 859, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac3d6

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2006, Science, 312, 719, doi: 10.1126/science.1125201

    Price, D., & Rosswog, S. 2006, Science, 312, 719, doi: 10.1126/science.1125201

    2006 doi

  45. [53]

    2018, Mon

    Radice, D., Perego, A., Bernuzzi, S., & Zhang, B. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481, 3670, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2531

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2022, Mon

    Ren, J., & Dai, Z.-G. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 512, 5572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac797

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  48. [56]

    Sarin, N., & Lasky, P. D. 2021, Gen. Rel. Grav., 53, 59, doi: 10.1007/s10714-021-02831-1

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Sarin, N., Omand, C. M. B., Margalit, B., & Jones, D. I. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 516, 4949, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2609

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    2017, Astrophys

    Savchenko, V., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Murphy, E

    Selina, R. J., Murphy, E. J., McKinnon, M., et al. 2018, The Next Generation Very Large Array: A Technical Overview, https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08405

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J., et al

    Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1574, doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0186

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2019, Ann

    Shibata, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2019, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 69, 41, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023625

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    2019, Phys

    Shibata, M., Zhou, E., Kiuchi, K., & Fujibayashi, S. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 023015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023015

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    J., et al

    Smartt, S. J., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 75, doi: 10.1038/nature24303

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    2017, Astrophys

    Soares-Santos, M., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9059

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    2020, Mon

    Tanaka, M., Kato, D., Gaigalas, G., & Kawaguchi, K. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 496, 1369, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1576

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    2017, Publ

    Tanaka, M., et al. 2017, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 69, psx12, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx121

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    2017, Nature, 551, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature24290

    Troja, E., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 71, doi: 10.1038/nature24290

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    2017, Publ

    Utsumi, Y., et al. 2017, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 69, 101, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psx118

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Yang, S., et al

    Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., Yang, S., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Haggard, D., et al

    Vieira, N., Ruan, J. J., Haggard, D., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 944, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae72

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    J., Haggard, D., et al

    Vieira, N., Ruan, J. J., Haggard, D., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 962, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1193

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    O., Kushnir, D., & Gal-Yam, A

    Waxman, E., Ofek, E. O., Kushnir, D., & Gal-Yam, A. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481, 3423, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2441

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    2022, Astropart

    Zhang, J., et al. 2022, Astropart. Phys., 137, 102668, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2021.102668 14 Mukhopadhyay and Kimura 103 104 105 106 t [s] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Fiducial tneb diff, 0 (Fid) tej diff, 0 (Fid) Optimistic tneb diff, 0 (Max) tej diff, 0 (Max) Figure 6. Time...

    2022

Pith tools

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