Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims that synchrotron light from shocks moving faster than a proper velocity of about 0.1 requires a full three-dimensional radiative-transfer treatment, and that common one-zone approximations under-predict the flux by over an

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 16:03 UTC pith:SCIFHKFD

load-bearing objection Useful code and a real caution about LOS approximations, but the order-of-magnitude claim likely overstates the bias because the assumed constant post-shock density profile over-weights the distal region. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.16313 v1 pith:SCIFHKFD submitted 2025-09-19 astro-ph.HE

Numerical Modeling of Relativistic Effects in Synchrotron-Emitting Shocks

Ross Ferguson , Ben Margalit This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords synchrotron emissionrelativistic shocksradiative transfertrans-relativisticfast blue optical transientstidal disruption eventsneutron star mergersgamma-ray bursts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper develops a numerical 'full-volume' model that solves radiative transfer through a synchrotron-emitting shock without approximation, including Doppler beaming, photon time-of-flight (equal-arrival-time) effects, and deceleration in arbitrary density profiles. It claims that once the shock proper velocity exceeds (Γβ)_sh ≈ 0.1, the widely used one-zone 'effective line-of-sight' approximations become inaccurate, and in the trans-relativistic regime (Γβ)_sh ≈ 0.3–3 they can miss the flux by more than an order of magnitude. A reader should care because these approximations are the standard tools for interpreting radio observations of fast blue optical transients (FBOTs), jetted tidal disruption events, neutron-star mergers, and other relativistic explosions; the paper shows the resulting inferred shock velocities and ambient densities can be substantially biased, as demonstrated by fits to the FBOT CSS161010.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the emergent synchrotron spectrum of a shock cannot be captured by any single characteristic radius or line of sight once relativistic effects matter. Solving the full radiative-transfer equation over the equal-arrival-time surface shows that contemporaneous emission probes a broad range of shock radii and retarded times; if the shock decelerates or the ambient density falls with radius, the brightest emitting region can lie on the side of the shock facing away from the observer. The paper provides a code that handles arbitrary shock velocities and includes both power-law and thermal electron populations, and uses it to show that approximate models become unreli

What carries the argument

The equal-arrival-time surface (EATS) — the surface of points from which photons emitted at different retarded times arrive at the observer simultaneously — together with the Doppler factor D and the radiative-transfer equation solved along each ray. The paper quantifies each point's contribution via an 'effective emissivity' j_eff = j_ν' D^2 exp(−τ_ν'), and integrates over the full volume to get the flux. This machinery is what lets the authors compare full-volume, thin-shell, and effective-LOS models and pinpoint why the approximations break down.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative size of the discrepancy rests on the power-law deceleration prescription (Γβ)_sh ∝ R^{−α} and on assuming spatially constant post-shock fluid properties; if a real shock's dynamics or radial structure differ substantially, the precise factor of ~10 could change, although the qualitative necessity of a full-volume treatment at (Γβ)_sh ≳ 0.1 is likely robust.

What would settle it

Run a high-resolution hydrodynamics simulation of a trans-relativistic shock with realistic radial profiles and synchrotron cooling, compute the spectrum with an independent radiative-transfer solver, and compare it with the paper's power-law constant-profile full-volume result at (Γβ)_sh ≈ 0.3–1; if the disagreement with one-zone models drops below an order of magnitude, the central quantitative claim would be weakened.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, published parameter estimates for FBOTs, jetted TDEs, and other trans-relativistic transients that use one-zone models may have substantially biased shock velocities and CSM densities.
  • Any modeling of synchrotron transients with (Γβ)_sh ≳ 0.1 should use a full-volume treatment or validate the approximation against one.
  • The thin-shell approximation remains accurate at optically thick frequencies, so it can serve as a fast check for the self-absorbed part of the spectrum.
  • Emission from the far side ('distal region') of a decelerating trans-relativistic shock can dominate the observed flux, so it cannot be neglected.
  • The public code makes it possible to fit multi-band observations of relativistic transients with a physically grounded model rather than an ad hoc analytic estimate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the calculation to include synchrotron cooling and inverse-Compton losses (which the paper deliberately omits) will likely modify the quantitative flux predictions, but should not remove the qualitative failure of one-zone models once time-of-flight and Doppler effects spread emission over many radii.
  • The same formalism could be applied to predict radio/millimeter counterparts of fast radio bursts if their ultra-relativistic shocks produce synchrotron afterglows, as the paper suggests for future work.
  • A natural testable extension is to fit a sample of FBOTs and jetted TDEs with the full-volume code and check whether the inferred explosion energies and CSM densities become systematically different from one-zone fits; if so, the bias is directly observable.
  • The conclusion that a single radius cannot represent the emission implies that semi-analytic attempts to 'fix' one-zone models by adjusting the reference radius will remain unreliable in decelerating shocks; a genuinely multi-radius calculation is needed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a numerical radiative-transfer code for synchrotron emission from spherical shocks at arbitrary velocity, solving the full relativistic transfer equation along rays that intersect the equal-arrival-time surface. It compares this full-volume calculation with two approximate methods: an effective line-of-sight one-zone model and a semi-analytic thin-shell approximation. Using a power-law deceleration model for the shock and a spatially constant post-shock shell, the paper finds that the approximate models become inaccurate for (Γβ)_sh ≳ 0.1 and can underpredict the flux by over an order of magnitude for trans-relativistic decelerating shocks in stratified media. It validates the code against Granot & Sari (2002) in the ultra-relativistic limit and illustrates the observational consequences by fitting a single-epoch SED of the FBOT CSS161010 with both the full-volume model and effective LOS approximations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is important: many published inferences for trans-relativistic transients rely on one-zone effective LOS models, and a systematic bias of order unity to order of magnitude would affect inferred shock velocities, densities, and microphysical parameters. The paper's strengths include a publicly available code, a transparent derivation of the EATS and radiative-transfer equations, a semi-analytic thin-shell approximation, and a successful benchmark against a standard GRB afterglow calculation to within several percent. The qualitative conclusion that time-of-flight and EATS-curvature effects matter for mildly relativistic shocks is very plausible and likely robust. The quantitative magnitude and the precise threshold (Γβ)_sh ≳ 0.1 are the parts that require additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (C26), Figs. 3–6] The quantitative claims in the abstract and §7 are computed with a post-shock density profile h(ξ)=1 for ξ_shell ≤ ξ ≤ 1, i.e., a uniform shell. In decelerating or stratified models the EATS assigns the distal region (y<0) to earlier, faster, denser shock states; a uniform profile gives equal weight to all of these radii, whereas realistic blast-wave profiles decline behind the shock and synchrotron cooling further suppresses old plasma. Section 7 acknowledges the assumption but states it 'has limited impact on the findings of our present work' without a test. I ask for a sensitivity study with a declining profile (e.g., a power-law h(ξ) or the Blandford–McKee profile) and, if feasible, a check of whether rapid cooling changes the distal contribution. If the order-of-magnitude bias or the (Γβ)_sh ≳ 0.1 threshold changes, the abstract should be qualified.
  2. [§4, Figure 3; §6] The magnitude of the discrepancy is implementation-dependent: the effective LOS model in §4 is evaluated at R0, while the fitted-R version in §6 gives a different SED and, in the low-(Γβ) coasting case, can match the full-volume result. The paper should define a discrepancy statistic (e.g., max |log(L_full/L_LOS)| over the frequency range) and state whether the reported 'order-of-magnitude' is a typical or a maximum value over the parameter survey. Without this, the headline claim is difficult to verify against Figures 3–6.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (11), Figure 6] Several parameter combinations that produce the largest distal-region contributions (e.g., k=2, α=1.5 in Fig. 6) are far from the energy-conserving closure α=(3−k)/2 and do not correspond to any adiabatic blast wave. The energy-conserving cases in Fig. 3 already show order-of-magnitude discrepancies, so I do not view this as fatal, but the summary should separate physically motivated parameter choices from deliberately extreme ones. The CSS161010 fit in §6 also yields α≈1.5 with k≈2, which the authors themselves flag as possibly unphysical; this does not support an observational bias claim without further robustness checks.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix D] The code validation against Granot & Sari (2002) is performed only in the ultra-relativistic limit. Since the paper's new regime is trans-relativistic, a sanity check in the non-relativistic limit (e.g., a spherical optically-thick shell) or an independent ray-tracing test at (Γβ)_sh ~ 1 would increase confidence in the new regime.
  2. [Figure 7] The text refers to the 'orange full-volume' curve, while the figure legend and caption describe a red curve. Please make the color naming consistent.
  3. [Appendix B] The hypergeometric expressions in Eqs. (B11)–(B12) are not valid at α=0; the constant-velocity case is treated separately in Eq. (B7), but this should be stated explicitly before the general expression is introduced.
  4. [Title and abstract] The term 'full-volume' is used even though the hydrodynamics are prescribed rather than solved; a short qualifier such as 'full radiative-transfer' would avoid confusion about the scope of the model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claim follows from direct full-volume numerical comparison, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the respect that matters here. The paper builds a full-volume radiative-transfer code, applies it to a stated hydrodynamic model (power-law deceleration, Eq. 11; constant post-shock variables, §3.3), and compares the emergent spectra with effective-LOS and thin-shell approximations at the same input parameters. The central claim—that approximate models deviate by ≳10× for (Γβ)≳0.1—is a direct output of these integrations, not a quantity fitted to the approximations or defined in terms of them. No equation is shown to reduce to its own input. Self-citations to Margalit & Quataert (2021, 2024) supply emission/absorption coefficients and one comparison radius prescription, but they are not load-bearing for the main conclusion: the code is independently benchmarked against Granot & Sari (2002) in Appendix D (agreement at the several-percent level), and §6 shows the discrepancy persists when the effective-LOS radius is left free and fitted rather than fixed by the cited MQ24 prescription. The word "predicts" in §6 refers to best-fit parameters for CSS161010, not an out-of-sample prediction, and is not a fitted parameter renamed as the paper's central result. The acknowledged limitation in §7—"we have also assumed here that the post-shock hydrodynamic variables are spatially constant behind the shock"—could affect the quantitative magnitude of the discrepancy by overweighting distal-region emission, but this is a model-robustness concern, not circularity, because both the full-volume and approximate models share the same hydrodynamic input and the comparison isolates relativistic transfer geometry.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on standard physics plus two ad hoc modeling choices: the power-law deceleration parameterization and spatially constant post-shock profiles. These are explicitly acknowledged as simplifications that can be relaxed within the code framework.

free parameters (6)
  • (Γβ)_sh,0 = varied 0.01-20
    Benchmark shock proper velocity; the central claim is that the need for full-volume treatment appears above (Γβ)≈0.1.
  • α = varied 0.0-1.5
    Shock deceleration index in Eq. 11; left free and drives the 'distal region' effects that break approximate models.
  • n0 = varied, e.g. 10^3 cm^-3 fiducial
    Benchmark CSM density; sets absolute flux scale, but the relative comparison between models is insensitive to it.
  • k = 0 or 2 in survey; fitted as 1.96 in §6
    CSM density power-law index in Eq. 12; combined with α determines the spread of probed radii.
  • ϵ_e, ϵ_T, ϵ_B = 0.01, 0.4, 0.1 (fiducial)
    Microphysical energy fractions; chosen by hand, affect the SED shape but not the qualitative failure of approximations.
  • p = 3.0 (fiducial)
    Electron power-law spectral index; standard input, not fitted in the main survey.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Spherical symmetry of the shock and emitting region
    Invoked throughout; Section 3.1. Acknowledged as a limitation for jetted sources, but justified pre-jet-break via beaming.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law deceleration model (Γβ)_sh ∝ R^{-α}
    Eq. 11; not derived from energy conservation in the trans-relativistic regime, acknowledged in §3.3 as a flexible prescription.
  • ad hoc to paper Post-shock hydrodynamic variables are spatially constant
    Section 3.3; the homogeneous-shell assumption determines the emitting-region geometry that drives the main results.
  • domain assumption Emission and absorption coefficients follow Margalit & Quataert (2021)
    Adopted in §3.2 for thermal plus power-law electrons; prior published treatment by one of the authors.
  • domain assumption Neglect of synchrotron cooling and inverse-Compton scattering
    Stated in §3.2 and §7; could affect SED shape in the optically thin regime but argued not to change the qualitative conclusions.
  • standard math Shock jump conditions with effective adiabatic index γ̂ = (4 + γ_f^{-1})/3
    Eq. 14; standard relativistic shock jump conditions from Blandford & McKee (1976).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29797 in / 12957 out tokens · 95077 ms · 2026-08-04T16:03:55.052237+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Synchrotron emission is seen in a vast array of astrophysical transients, such as gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), radio supernovae, neutron star (NS) mergers, tidal disruption events (TDEs), and fast blue optical transients (FBOTs). Despite the ubiquity of synchrotron-emitting sources, modeling of the emergent flux from these events often relies on simplified analytic approximations. These approximations are inaccurate for high-velocity shocks, where special-relativistic effects are important. Properly incorporating these effects considerably complicates calculations, and generally requires a numerical treatment. In this work we present a novel numerical model which solves the full radiative-transfer problem in synchrotron-emitting shocks, accounting for all relativistic effects. This `full-volume' model is capable of calculating synchrotron emission from a shock of arbitrary velocity, and is designed to be flexible and applicable to a wide range of astrophysical sources. Using this new code, we evaluate the accuracy of more commonly-used approximate models. We find that the full-volume treatment is generally necessary once the shock proper-velocity exceeds $(\Gamma\beta)_{\rm sh}\gtrsim 0.1$, and that approximate models can be inaccurate by $\gtrsim$ an order-of-magnitude in trans-relativistic shocks. This implies that there may be a bias in the inferred physical properties of some FBOTs, jetted TDEs, and other relativistic explosions, where approximate analytic models are typically employed. The code associated with our model is made publicly available, and can be used to study the growing population of relativistic synchrotron-emitting transients.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Synchrotron Emission from Cooled Particle Distributions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    New analytic fitting functions for synchrotron emission and absorption from radiatively and adiabatically cooled power-law and thermal electron distributions, validated against numerical integrals and a GRB afterglow model.

  2. Multiwavelength Analysis of Six Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients

    astro-ph.HE 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0

    Six LFBOTs show uniform 10 GHz radio light curves implying a similar circumburst medium and a compact-object merger progenitor, with AT2024aehp as an outlier.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    DzCh O 4! ] /E ڹ Dqڼ9񯖿 ̃ p \;-^u]:`ffm K 5o

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    D., Margutti , R., Blanchard , P

    Alexander , K. D., Margutti , R., Blanchard , P. K., et al. 2018, , 863, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad637

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 2018

  5. [5]

    W., Perley , D

    Andreoni , I., Coughlin , M. W., Perley , D. A., et al. 2022, , 612, 430, 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  6. [6]

    2015, , 448, 417, 10.1093/mnras/stv011

    Barniol Duran , R., Nakar , E., Piran , T., & Sari , R. 2015, , 448, 417, 10.1093/mnras/stv011

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv011 2015

  7. [7]

    Bell , A. R. 1978, , 182, 147, 10.1093/mnras/182.2.147

    doi:10.1093/mnras/182.2.147 1978

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2017, , 843, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa78f3 2017

  9. [9]

    2020, , 896, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb

    ---. 2020, , 896, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab83eb 2020

  10. [10]

    2014, , 52, 43, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    Berger , E. 2014, , 52, 43, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 2014

  11. [11]

    1987, , 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    Blandford , R., & Eichler , D. 1987, , 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7 1987

  12. [12]

    D., & McKee , C

    Blandford , R. D., & McKee , C. F. 1976, Physics of Fluids, 19, 1130, 10.1063/1.861619

    doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  13. [13]

    D., & Ostriker , J

    Blandford , R. D., & Ostriker , J. P. 1978, , 221, L29, 10.1086/182658

    doi:10.1086/182658 1978

  14. [14]

    S., Giannios , D., Metzger , B

    Bloom , J. S., Giannios , D., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 203, 10.1126/science.1207150

    doi:10.1126/science.1207150 2011

  15. [15]

    N., Kennea , J

    Burrows , D. N., Kennea , J. A., Ghisellini , G., et al. 2011, , 476, 421, 10.1038/nature10374

    doi:10.1038/nature10374 2011

  16. [16]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1982, , 259, 302, 10.1086/160167

    doi:10.1086/160167 1982

  17. [17]

    1998, , 499, 810, 10.1086/305676

    ---. 1998, , 499, 810, 10.1086/305676

    doi:10.1086/305676 1998

  18. [18]

    A., & Fransson , C

    Chevalier , R. A., & Fransson , C. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 875, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_34

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_34 2017

  19. [19]

    L., Margutti , R., Terreran , G., et al

    Coppejans , D. L., Margutti , R., Terreran , G., et al. 2020, , 895, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8cc7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8cc7 2020

  20. [20]

    R., et al

    Corsi , A., Gal-Yam , A., Kulkarni , S. R., et al. 2016, , 830, 42, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/1/42

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/1/42 2016

  21. [21]

    Coughlin , E. R. 2019, , 880, 108, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab29e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab29e6 2019

  22. [22]

    2019, , 485, 5105, 10.1093/mnras/stz232

    Crumley , P., Caprioli , D., Markoff , S., & Spitkovsky , A. 2019, , 485, 5105, 10.1093/mnras/stz232

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz232 2019

  23. [23]

    Fong , W., Berger , E., Margutti , R., & Zauderer , B. A. 2015, , 815, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/102 2015

  24. [24]

    D., Berger , E., & \"O zel , F

    Fong , W., Metzger , B. D., Berger , E., & \"O zel , F. 2016, , 831, 141, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/141

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/141 2016

  25. [25]

    F., & Popham , R

    Gammie , C. F., & Popham , R. 1998, , 498, 313, 10.1086/305521

    work page doi:10.1086/305521 1998

  26. [26]

    Giannios , D., & Metzger , B. D. 2011, , 416, 2102, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19188.x

    arXiv 2011

  27. [27]

    2009, , 400, 330, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15454.x

    Giannios , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2009, , 400, 330, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15454.x

    arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    2025, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.16.0, v1.16.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15716342

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2025, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.16.0, v1.16.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15716342

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15716342 2025

  29. [29]

    2025, Gemini , https://gemini.google.com/

    Google . 2025, Gemini , https://gemini.google.com/

    2025

  30. [30]

    1999 a , , 513, 679, 10.1086/306884

    Granot , J., Piran , T., & Sari , R. 1999 a , , 513, 679, 10.1086/306884

    doi:10.1086/306884 1999

  31. [31]

    1999 b , , 527, 236, 10.1086/308052

    ---. 1999 b , , 527, 236, 10.1086/308052

    doi:10.1086/308052 1999

  32. [32]

    2002, , 568, 820, 10.1086/338966

    Granot , J., & Sari , R. 2002, , 568, 820, 10.1086/338966

    doi:10.1086/338966 2002

  33. [33]

    S., et al

    Hajela , A., Margutti , R., Bright , J. S., et al. 2022, , 927, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac504a 2022

  34. [34]

    2025, , 988, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/addd13

    Hamidani , H., Ioka , K., Kashiyama , K., & Tanaka , M. 2025, , 988, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/addd13

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd13 2025

  35. [35]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  36. [36]

    Ho , A. Y. Q., Phinney , E. S., Ravi , V., et al. 2019, , 871, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473 2019

  37. [37]

    Ho , A. Y. Q., Perley , D. A., Kulkarni , S. R., et al. 2020, , 895, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bcf

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bcf 2020

  38. [38]

    Ho , A. Y. Q., Margalit , B., Bremer , M., et al. 2022, , 932, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e97

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4e97 2022

  39. [39]

    2016, , 819, L22, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L22

    Horesh , A., Hotokezaka , K., Piran , T., Nakar , E., & Hancock , P. 2016, , 819, L22, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L22

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l22 2016

  40. [40]

    2015, , 450, 1430, 10.1093/mnras/stv620

    Hotokezaka , K., & Piran , T. 2015, , 450, 1430, 10.1093/mnras/stv620

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv620 2015

  41. [41]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  42. [42]

    R., Frail , D

    Kulkarni , S. R., Frail , D. A., Wieringa , M. H., et al. 1998, , 395, 663, 10.1038/27139

    doi:10.1038/27139 1998

  43. [43]

    2020, , 890, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b24

    Liu , L.-D., Gao , H., & Zhang , B. 2020, , 890, 102, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6b24 2020

  44. [44]

    2014, , 442, L9, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    Lyubarsky , Y. 2014, , 442, L9, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu046

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu046 2014

  45. [45]

    Margalit , B., Beniamini , P., Sridhar , N., & Metzger , B. D. 2020 a , , 899, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/abac57

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abac57 2020

  46. [46]

    D., & Sironi , L

    Margalit , B., Metzger , B. D., & Sironi , L. 2020 b , , 494, 4627, 10.1093/mnras/staa1036

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1036 2020

  47. [47]

    2015, , 452, 3419, 10.1093/mnras/stv1550

    Margalit , B., & Piran , T. 2015, , 452, 3419, 10.1093/mnras/stv1550

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1550 2015

  48. [48]

    2020, , 495, 4981, 10.1093/mnras/staa1486

    ---. 2020, , 495, 4981, 10.1093/mnras/staa1486

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1486 2020

  49. [49]

    2021, , 923, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3d97

    Margalit , B., & Quataert , E. 2021, , 923, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3d97

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3d97 2021