Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Probing millisecond magnetar formation in binary neutron star mergers through X-ray follow-up of gravitational wave alerts

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Binary neutron star mergers leaving a millisecond magnetar can be caught in X-rays about two hours after merger, up to about once per year with current detectors.

desk verdict Useful, careful rate forecasts for newborn magnetar X-ray follow-up, but the headline O5 rate is an optimistic upper bound because MXT tiling time is not folded into the detection criterion. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.04990 v2 pith:SW76ADPU submitted 2026-01-08 astro-ph.HE

Clara Plasse , Alexis Reboul-Salze , Jérome Guilet , Diego Götz , Nicolas Leroy , Raphaël. Raynaud , Matteo Bugli , Tito Dal Canton This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords binaryneutronstarmergersmillisecondmagnetarsX-rayfollow-upgravitationalwavealertsmagnetarspin-downequationofstateSVOM/MXTejectareprocessing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether a newborn millisecond magnetar—a rapidly spinning, highly magnetized neutron star left over from a binary neutron star merger—can be spotted in X-rays while it spins down. It simulates a synthetic population of mergers, produces gravitational-wave localizations for current and next-generation detector networks, and computes the X-ray lightcurves from the magnetar's spin-down energy after the light passes through the merger ejecta. The central result is a rate: in the most favorable equation-of-state case, up to roughly one magnetar per year could be detected with SVOM/MXT-like X-ray instruments during the O5 observing run, with the best chance about two hours after merger. Next-generation gravitational-wave detectors would raise that rate by up to three orders of magnitude, with peak visibility at three to four hours. A single detection would identify the merger remnant as a neutron star rather than a black hole and directly probe the neutron-star equation of state.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the magnetar spin-down engine: a newborn neutron star's rotational energy is drained by magnetic dipole torque (plus gravitational-wave and propeller torques), producing an X-ray luminosity proportional to B^2 R^6 Ω^4 / c^3, which is then absorbed and re-emitted by the merger ejecta. The ejecta is split into a dense equatorial 'trapped zone' and a lower-density 'free zone' near the rotation axis, with masses and opacities taken from numerical-relativity fits; the magnetar collapses to a black hole once its spin period exceeds an equation-of-state-dependent critical value. This chain converts uncertain neutron-star parameters (maximum nonrotating mass, magnetic field,

What would settle it

During the O5 run, take the first well-localized binary neutron star merger with prompt X-ray follow-up and compute the actual on-source exposure time around two hours post-merger in the trapped-zone orientation; if no source at or above the MXT threshold (~4.3e-12 erg/cm2/s) appears for an event whose total mass favors a high maximum-mass equation of state, the optimistic detection rate is overestimated. A single detected spin-down plateau followed by a steep decay in a well-localized event would confirm the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a significant minority of binary neutron star mergers leave behind a millisecond magnetar whose spin-down X-rays can be caught, and that current instruments are close to doing so. In the simulations, 2%–16% of mergers form such a magnetar, up to 70% of those are detectable, and, for O5-era gravitational-wave detectors with an SVOM/MXT-like telescope, the rate reaches about one per year (0.99+0.31/−0.30, at a merger rate of 100 Gpc^-3 yr^-1), peaking about two hours after merger. Next-generation detectors could raise this by three orders of magnitude, with peak detectability at three to four hours. Detectability peaks near a 7.5e14 G dipolar field, and the lo

Load-bearing premise

The headline rates assume X-ray follow-up starts about one hour after merger with the source already in the telescope's field of view, and that a predicted flux above threshold at any sampled time between one and five hours counts as a detection even if the actual tiling schedule would not have been looking at the source at that moment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If O5 produces a well-localized binary neutron star event and X-ray follow-up starts within about an hour, the best observing window is around two hours after merger; a search that ends before that could miss the signal.
  • In the high-maximum-mass equation-of-state case, the expected rate is near one magnetar per year with a narrow-field X-ray telescope, so a null result over a full O5 run would start to disfavor the stiffest equations of state.
  • Next-generation gravitational-wave detectors could raise detections by up to three orders of magnitude, making magnetar discovery a routine outcome rather than a rare one.
  • A trapped-zone (near edge-on) orientation gives longer-lived, reprocessed emission and favors pointed X-ray instruments, while a free-zone (near face-on) orientation gives brighter but shorter emission favoring wide-field monitors.
  • The predicted rates are consistent with the lack of detections so far: the O4 rate is at most about 0.15 per year.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-hour peak is robust, follow-up strategies should optimize tiling order and exposure to ensure the error box is covered by two hours post-merger, not merely started by then.
  • The paper's 2%–16% magnetar fraction is lower than the 15%–26% inferred from short gamma-ray burst plateaus; reconciling the two would require either a stiff equation of state or a selection effect in which magnetar-producing mergers are more likely to produce a jet.
  • A single detection would provide a new handle on neutron-star maximum mass, but the degeneracy between magnetic field and X-ray conversion efficiency means several events, or simultaneous gravitational-wave post-merger signals, may be needed to disentangle them.
  • The same simulation machinery could be applied to the X-ray counterpart of GW170817 to test whether a late-time magnetar component is excluded or allowed.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper simulates the GW signals of a synthetic BNS population and models the X-ray lightcurves of millisecond magnetar remnants, using a two-zone (free/trapped) ejecta model informed by numerical-relativity simulations. It predicts detection rates for current (LVK O4/O5) and future (ET, ET+CE) GW interferometers combined with MXT/FXT-like X-ray follow-up. The headline results are that 2–16% of BNS mergers leave a long-lived magnetar, that up to ~1 magnetar per year could be detected in O5 (for a high-M_TOV EoS), and that the detection rate can increase by up to three orders of magnitude with next-generation GW detectors, with optimal detectability around 2–4 hours post-merger. The paper also provides observation-strategy recommendations based on the free/trapped zone geometry.

Significance. If the predicted rates are reliable, this work would provide the most concrete estimate to date of the feasibility of detecting a magnetar remnant in X-rays following a GW trigger, including the optimal observing window. The forward-modeling approach is a strength: it derives ejecta masses and opacities from numerical-relativity fits rather than fitting to any target observable, and it makes the simulation code available. The paper also makes a useful, falsifiable prediction about the fraction of BNS mergers that produce long-lived magnetars and the resulting detection prospects. However, the headline rates are sensitive to an optimistic detection criterion (see major comments), and the abstract contains an internal inconsistency in the claimed detectable fraction. These issues need to be addressed before the quantitative results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 and Table 2] The detection criterion scores a detection if the predicted MXT-band flux exceeds the 9-min threshold at any sampled time between 1 h and 5 h post-merger, without requiring the telescope to be pointed at the source at that time. Given MXT's ~1 deg² FoV and §2.2.6's statement that a ~30 deg² error box takes ~9 h to tile, a typical O5 event with 10–50 deg² localization will not be observed within the 1–5 h window where the flux peaks (~2 h, Fig. 9). Thus the Table 2 rates, e.g. 0.99/yr for O5 high-M_TOV, are optimistic upper bounds, not realistic detection rates. The paper should either fold in a concrete tiling schedule or explicitly present Table 2 as upper limits and provide a corrected estimate for typical localizations.
  2. [Abstract and Table 2/Fig. 12] The abstract states 'up to 70% could be detectable' among formed magnetars, but this is inconsistent with the paper's own numbers. Table 2 gives 0.99 detectable magnetars/yr out of 13.53 well-localized GW events/yr, i.e. ~7% of well-localized events, and ~46% of formed magnetars even taking the 16% formation fraction. Figure 12 reports a 0–12% fraction of detectable magnetars among well-localized events. The 70% figure is unsupported and should be corrected to match the simulation results.
  3. [§2.1.2, §3.3] The quoted uncertainties on detection rates (e.g., 0.99 +0.31/−0.30 yr⁻¹) are only statistical bootstrap uncertainties. The BNS merger rate R is fixed at 100 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹, with the paper recommending scaling by 10 for the pessimistic/optimistic cases. Since R spans a factor ~10 (10–1000 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹), this systematic uncertainty dominates the statistical one. The paper should propagate this uncertainty into the reported rates or present the rates in a way that makes the R-dependence explicit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] Typo: 'erroboxes' should be 'error boxes'.
  2. [§2.1.2] Duplicate phrase: 'To estimate the rates of detection from our number of detected systems the rates of detection' — rephrase.
  3. [§3.1.2] The claim that peaked detectability at ~2 h is new is interesting, but the figure showing normalized detectability (Fig. 9) would benefit from also showing the absolute detection fraction (or number) so the temporal peak can be compared with the rates in Table 2.
  4. [§3.2.2 / Fig. 11] The color scale in Fig. 11 is not defined in the caption. Please specify the colormap and the range of fractions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray detection predictions are derived from independent physical inputs and external benchmarks, with no fitted target value or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The X-ray lightcurves are obtained from a physical code using spin-down, propeller, and ejecta models adopted from Sun et al. (2017), Gompertz et al. (2013), and Yu et al. (2013a), with parameters such as eta_dip = 0.01, B = 1e15 G, and P0 = 1 ms fixed from literature or varied as free inputs. The fraction of mergers forming millisecond magnetars is computed from the mass distribution, EoS, M_TOV, and the collapse criterion (Eqs. 17-18), not tuned to match any observed magnetar detection rate. The comparison to Swift sGRB magnetar fractions (15-26%) in Sec. 4.2 is explicitly presented as a consistency check, not as a fitted input. The O4 GW detection simulation is said in Sec. 4.3 to be 'adapted to the non-detection of a GW BNS signal at 2/3 of the O4 run'; this calibrates the GW event rate, not the X-ray emission model or MXT threshold, and therefore does not make the X-ray prediction equivalent to the input by construction. The optimistic assumption that observations begin at 1 h and that the source falls in the first MXT tile, discussed in Secs. 2.2.6 and 4.3, is a limitation of the detection-rate estimate, not a circularity: the predicted flux is still evaluated independently of the observed detection and compared against the instrument threshold. No unique theorem or central claim is imported from the authors' own prior work, and the self-citations on dynamo action and magnetic-field amplification are contextual, not load-bearing. The stated 0.99/yr rate is an upper bound subject to realistic tiling and pointing constraints, but the derivation itself does not reduce to its own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The 'free zone'/'trapped zone' split and the 1/10 mass fraction are geometric modeling choices, not new entities. The paper's predictions rest on a fairly large number of adopted literature parameters and hand-chosen values; the most impactful are η_dip, P0, B, and the adopted merger rate R.

free parameters (9)
  • η_dip = 0.01
    X-ray conversion efficiency of magnetar spin-down luminosity, adopted from pulsar/PWN observations (Li et al. 2008; Possenti et al. 2002). Scales all X-ray fluxes and detection rates linearly.
  • Initial spin period P0 = 1 ms
    Assumed for all magnetar remnants; sets spin-down luminosity (~Ω⁴) and collapse times. Described as conservative for formation fraction but near breakup for luminosity.
  • Fiducial dipolar magnetic field B = 1e15 G
    Central value for detection-rate estimates; varied in Fig. 11. Sets luminosity and spin-down timescale.
  • Post-merger ejecta fraction f_ej = 0.4
    Fraction of disk mass launched as post-merger ejecta, from Fujibayashi et al. 2023 / Kiuchi et al. 2024; alternative value 0.3 exists.
  • Free-zone dynamical ejecta mass fraction = 0.1 × dynamical ejecta mass
    Ad hoc from Mösta et al. 2020; controls the less-reprocessed free-zone flux.
  • Free-zone opening angle = 26°
    From Mösta et al. 2020; defines the solid angle of the less-reprocessed emission region.
  • Moment-of-inertia index n = 2
    Assumed from centrifugal-force scaling; affects collapse times and lightcurve evolution.
  • X-ray photon index Γ = 2
    Assumed power-law index for the spin-down spectrum, from pulsar/X-ray transient observations; used in redshift K-correction (Appendix A).
  • BNS merger rate R = 100 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Central adopted rate; all detection rates scale linearly with R. The authors recommend scaling by 0.1/10 for pessimistic/optimistic bounds.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Magnetar spin-down follows magnetic dipole radiation with L_dip = μ²Ω⁴/6c³ plus propeller and gravitational torques.
    Standard pulsar spin-down formalism (Sec. 2.2.2), not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The ejecta is divided into a free zone and trapped zone with opening angles 26° and 123°, with 1/10 of the dynamical ejecta mass in the free zone.
    Based on a single Mösta et al. 2020 simulation; this geometry drives the viewing-angle dependence of all predictions.
  • domain assumption A remnant collapses to a BH when its spin period exceeds P_c, with M_max = M_TOV(1+αP^β), and hypermassive NSs (lifetime ~100 ms) are excluded.
    Adopted from Lasky et al. 2014 / Sun et al. 2017; excludes short-lived remnants from detection-rate estimates.
  • domain assumption The NS component-mass distribution follows the 'Peak' model inferred from LVK O3 (Abbott et al. 2023).
    Input to the population synthesis; a different mass distribution changes the magnetar formation fraction.
  • ad hoc to paper GW localization ≤50 deg² is sufficient for X-ray follow-up, and observations can start 1 h after the merger.
    Defines the EM-detectable sample; §4.3 flags the 1 h start as 'golden-events only.'
  • domain assumption The magnetar X-ray emission is isotropic (Zhang 2013), then reprocessed by ejecta.
    No beaming model is used for the spin-down component; the observed flux depends only on ejecta reprocessing and distance.
  • standard math Cosmology is flat ΛCDM with H0=67.7 km/s/Mpc and Ωm=0.315.
    Used for redshift and luminosity distance in ET/CE simulations (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption EoS parameters from Ai et al. (2018) (M_TOV, α, β, I_rot, R) are correct.
    Determines the magnetar formation/collapse threshold and spin-down energetics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing millisecond magnetar formation in binary neutron star mergers through X-ray follow-up of gravitational wave alerts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SW76ADPU

@misc{pith2026260104990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing millisecond magnetar formation in binary neutron star mergers through X-ray follow-up of gravitational wave alerts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SW76ADPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.04990}
}
read the original abstract

The nature of the remnant of a binary neutron star (BNS) merger is uncertain. Though certainly a black hole (BH) in the cases of the most massive BNSs, X-ray lightcurves from gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows suggest a neutron star (NS) as a viable candidate for both the merger remnant as well as the central engine of these transients. When jointly observed with gravitational waves (GWs), X-ray lightcurves from BNS merger events could provide critical constraints on the remnant's nature. We aim to assess the current and future capabilities to detect a NS remnant through X-ray observations following GW detections. To this end, we simulate GW signals from BNS mergers and the subsequent X-ray emission from newborn millisecond magnetars. The GW detectability is modeled for both current and next-generation interferometers, while the X-ray emission is reproduced using a dedicated numerical code that models magnetar spin-down and ejecta dynamics informed by numerical-relativity simulations. In our simulations, 2% - 16% of BNS mergers form millisecond magnetars. Among these, up to 70% could be detectable, amounting to up to 1 millisecond magnetar detection per year with SVOM/MXT-like instruments during the LIGO Virgo KAGRA LIGO India (LVKI) O5 run, with optimal detectability occurring about 2 hours post-merger. For next-generation GW interferometers, this rate could increase by up to three orders of magnitude, with peak detectability 3 to 4 hours post-merger. We also explore how the magnetar's magnetic field strength and observer viewing angle affect detectability and discuss optimized observational strategies. Although more likely with upcoming GW interferometers, detecting the spin-down emission of a millisecond magnetar may already be within reach, warranting sustained theoretical and observational efforts given the profound implications for mergers, GRBs, and NS physics of a single detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.04990 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PSD curves (i.e. strain noise amplitude as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of erroboxes obtained on the O4 (panel (a)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Schematized ejecta geometry, seconds after the merger. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of GW localization accuracy from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated lightcurves for a magnetar of dipolar magnetic field 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative histograms showing the repartition of X-ray flux in the MXT band 1 hour after the merger for GW well-localized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative histograms of the X-ray flux in the trapped zone for ET [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Detectability of formed 1015 G millisecond magnetar as a function of time. Results are shown for the current (full) and next generation (dashed) of GW interferometers, and distributed in the free (yellow) and trapped (blue) zones configurations, as￾suming the DD2 EoS. …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Surviving fraction of our magnetar population as a function of collapse time. Results are shown for 3 magnetar dipolar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fraction of well-localized GW detected events for which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fraction of detectable millisecond magnetar among the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]

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. Submillimeter Detectability of Gravitational-Wave Counterparts from Neutron-Star Mergers with the Xue-shan-mu-chang 15-meter Telescope

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A magnetar-fed neutron-star merger afterglow would stay above XSMT's 230 GHz limit for months at 40 Mpc, with an all-sky rate of 0.05 to 1.7 events per year as an upper limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2025, The Science of the Einstein Telescope

    Abac, A., Abramo, R., Albanesi, S., et al. 2025, The Science of the Einstein Telescope

    2025

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 892, L3

    2020

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101

    2017

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L39

    2017

  5. [5]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048

    2023

  6. [6]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 57

    Ai, S., Gao, H., Dai, Z.-G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 57

    2018

  7. [7]

    R., & Ravenhall, D

    Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V . R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, Phys. Rev. C, 58, 1804

    1998

  8. [8]

    2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 191

    Amati, L., O’Brien, P., Götz, D., et al. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 191

    2018

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    2021, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31 Barrère, P., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Reboul-Salze, A

    Atteia, J.-L., Cordier, B., & Wei, J. 2021, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 31 Barrère, P., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Reboul-Salze, A. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A183

    2021

  2. [10]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2847

    Beniamini, P., Duque, R., Daigne, F., & Mochkovitch, R. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2847

    2020

  3. [11]

    Bernardini, M. G. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 64, swift 10 Years of Discovery, a novel approach to Time Domain Astronomy

    2015

  4. [12]

    & Logoteta, D

    Bombaci, I. & Logoteta, D. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 609, A128

    2018

  5. [13]

    2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 068

    Branchesi, M., Maggiore, M., Alonso, D., et al. 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 068

    2023

  6. [14]

    S., Toivonen, A., Waratkar, G., et al

    Chaudhary, S. S., Toivonen, A., Waratkar, G., et al. 2024, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121

    2024

  7. [15]

    & Siegel, D

    Combi, L. & Siegel, D. M. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 231402

    2023

  8. [16]

    Duncan, R. C. & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9

    1992

  9. [17]

    2024, Parame- ter estimation catalogs for binary neutron star mergers detected with next- generation gravitational wave detectors

    Dupletsa, U., Santoliquido, F., Branchesi, M., & Loffredo, E. 2024, Parame- ter estimation catalogs for binary neutron star mergers detected with next- generation gravitational wave detectors

    2024

  10. [18]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 18

    Farrow, N., Zhu, X.-J., & Thrane, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 18

    2019

  11. [19]

    D., Freire, P

    Ferdman, R. D., Freire, P. C. C., Perera, B. B. P., et al. 2020, Nature, 583, 211–214

    2020

  12. [20]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 39

    Fujibayashi, S., Kiuchi, K., Wanajo, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 39

    2023

  13. [21]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 909, L19

    Galaudage, S., Adamcewicz, C., Zhu, X.-J., Stevenson, S., & Thrane, E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 909, L19

    2021

  14. [22]

    2016, Phys

    Gao, H., Zhang, B., & Lü, H.-J. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 044065

    2016

  15. [23]

    S., Paragi, Z., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Paragi, Z., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968

    2019

  16. [24]

    Glendenning, N. K. & Moszkowski, S. A. 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 67, 2414

    1991

  17. [25]

    P., O’Brien, P

    Gompertz, B. P., O’Brien, P. T., & Wynn, G. A. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 438, 240 González Felipe, R., Manreza, D., & Martinez, A. 2016, The European Physical Journal C, 76

    2013

  18. [26]

    2015, The Microchannel X-ray Telescope on Board the SVOM Satellite

    Gotz, D., Adami, C., Basa, S., et al. 2015, The Microchannel X-ray Telescope on Board the SVOM Satellite

    2015

  19. [27]

    2024, A&A, 692, A73

    Guglielmi, L., Stratta, G., Dall’Osso, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A73

    2024

  20. [28]

    2022, MN- RAS, 516, 4346

    Guilet, J., Reboul-Salze, A., Raynaud, R., Bugli, M., & Gallet, B. 2022, MN- RAS, 516, 4346

    2022

  21. [29]

    D., Lang, R

    Hinderer, T., Lackey, B. D., Lang, R. N., & Read, J. S. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 123016

    2010

  22. [30]

    E., Smith, D

    Hurley, K., Boggs, S. E., Smith, D. M., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1098

    2005

  23. [31]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 541

    Just, O., Bauswein, A., Ardevol Pulpillo, R., Goriely, S., & Janka, H.-T. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 541

    2015

  24. [32]

    2024, Nature Astron- omy, 8, 298

    Kiuchi, K., Reboul-Salze, A., Shibata, M., & Sekiguchi, Y . 2024, Nature Astron- omy, 8, 298

    2024

  25. [33]

    1998, Nature, 393, 235

    Kouveliotou, C., Dieters, S., Strohmayer, T., et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 235

    1998

  26. [34]

    A., Fishman, G

    Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C. A., Fishman, G. J., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, L101

    1993

  27. [35]

    Kumar, P., Narayan, R., & Johnson, J. L. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 1729

    2008

  28. [36]

    P., Kann, D

    Lamb, G. P., Kann, D. A., Fernández, J. J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 4163–4174

    2021

  29. [37]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 14

    Lan, L., Gao, H., Ai, S., & Li, S.-Z. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 14

    2021

  30. [38]

    D., Haskell, B., Ravi, V ., Howell, E

    Lasky, P. D., Haskell, B., Ravi, V ., Howell, E. J., & Coward, D. M. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 047302

    2014

  31. [39]

    2021, Advances in Space Research, 67, 1701

    Li, G., Guo, S., Lv, J., Zhao, K., & He, Z. 2021, Advances in Space Research, 67, 1701

    2021

  32. [40]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 682, 1166

    Li, X., Lu, F.-J., & Li, a. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 682, 1166

    2008

  33. [41]

    2025, A&A, 697, A36

    Loffredo, E., Hazra, N., Dupletsa, U., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A36

    2025

  34. [42]

    1995, ApJ, 455, 598

    Mereghetti, S. 1995, ApJ, 455, 598

    1995

  35. [43]

    L., & Stella, L

    Mereghetti, S., Chiarlone, L., Israel, G. L., & Stella, L. 2002, The Anomalous X-ray Pulsars

    2002

  36. [44]

    Metzger, B. D. 2010, Gamma-Ray Burst Central Engines: Black Hole Vs. Mag- netar

    2010

  37. [45]

    Metzger, B. D. 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23

    2019

  38. [46]

    D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3311–3316 Mösta, P., Radice, D., Haas, R., Schnetter, E., & Bernuzzi, S. 2020a, The Astro- physical Journal, 901, L37 Mösta, P., Radice, D., Haas, R., Schnette...

    2015

  39. [47]

    2024, gwastro/pycbc: v2.3.3 release of Py- CBC

    Nitz, A., Harry, I., Brown, D., et al. 2024, gwastro/pycbc: v2.3.3 release of Py- CBC

    2024

  40. [48]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 60

    Pankow, C. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 60

    2018

  41. [49]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L37 Article number, page 17 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no

    Perego, A., Radice, D., & Bernuzzi, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L37 Article number, page 17 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    2017

  42. [50]

    L., Giacomazzo, B., & Perna, R

    Piro, A. L., Giacomazzo, B., & Perna, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters, 844, L19

    2017

  43. [51]

    2002, A&A, 387, 993

    Possenti, A., Cerutti, R., Colpi, M., & Mereghetti, S. 2002, A&A, 387, 993

    2002

  44. [52]

    & Lasky, P

    Ravi, V . & Lasky, P. D. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety, 441, 2433

    2014

  45. [53]

    2020, Science Advances, 6

    Raynaud, R., Guilet, J., Janka, H.-T., & Gastine, T. 2020, Science Advances, 6

    2020

  46. [54]

    2025, A&A, 699, A4

    Reboul-Salze, A., Barrère, P., Kiuchi, K., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A4

    2025

  47. [55]

    2021, A&A, 645, A109

    Reboul-Salze, A., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Bugli, M. 2021, A&A, 645, A109

    2021

  48. [56]

    2022, A&A, 667, A94

    Reboul-Salze, A., Guilet, J., Raynaud, R., & Bugli, M. 2022, A&A, 667, A94

    2022

  49. [57]

    T., Metzger, B

    Rowlinson, A., O’Brien, P. T., Metzger, B. D., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 1061

    2013

  50. [58]

    Santoliquido, F., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., Bouffanais, Y ., & Artale, M. C. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4877

    2021

  51. [59]

    & Lasky, P

    Sarin, N. & Lasky, P. D. 2021, General Relativity and Gravitation, 53, 59

    2021

  52. [60]

    D., Sammut, L., & Ashton, G

    Sarin, N., Lasky, P. D., Sammut, L., & Ashton, G. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 043011

    2018

  53. [61]

    & Nemiroff, R

    Shahmoradi, A. & Nemiroff, R. J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 451, 126

    2014

  54. [62]

    Singer, L. P. & Price, L. R. 2016, Physical Review D, 93

    2016

  55. [63]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 22

    Srivastava, V ., Davis, D., Kuns, K., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 22

    2022

  56. [64]

    2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 662

    Stratta, G., Ciolfi, R., Amati, L., et al. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 662

    2018

  57. [65]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 7

    Sun, H., Zhang, B., & Gao, H. 2017, ApJ, 835, 7

    2017

  58. [66]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 1369–1392

    Tanaka, M., Kato, D., Gaigalas, G., & Kawaguchi, K. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 1369–1392

    2020

  59. [67]

    A., et al

    Tanaka, M., Utsumi, Y ., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Japan, 69, 102 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Col- laboration, et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 995, L18

    2017

  60. [68]

    & Duncan, R

    Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 408

    1993

  61. [69]

    2016, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of Japan, 68, S32

    Tomida, H., Uchida, D., Tsunemi, H., et al. 2016, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of Japan, 68, S32

    2016

  62. [70]

    T., et al

    Troja, E., Cusumano, G., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 665, 599–607

    2007

  63. [71]

    2015, Physics of Particles and Nuclei, 46, 633

    Typel, S., Oertel, M., & Klähn, T. 2015, Physics of Particles and Nuclei, 46, 633

    2015

  64. [72]

    Usov, V . V . 1992, Nature, 357, 472

    1992

  65. [73]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L24

    Valenti, S., Sand, David, J., Yang, S., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L24

    2017

  66. [74]

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

    Waxman, E., Ofek, E. O., Kushnir, D., & Gal-Yam, A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 3423

    2018

  67. [75]

    2016, The Deep and Transient Universe in the SVOM Era: New Challenges and Opportunities - Scientific prospects of the SVOM mission

    Wei, J., Cordier, B., Antier, S., et al. 2016, The Deep and Transient Universe in the SVOM Era: New Challenges and Opportunities - Scientific prospects of the SVOM mission

    2016

  68. [76]

    Q., Zheng, X

    Xue, Y . Q., Zheng, X. C., Li, Y ., et al. 2019, Nature, 568, 198

    2019

  69. [77]

    2022, The Einstein Probe Mission (Springer Nature Singapore), 1–30

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y ., & Ling, Z. 2022, The Einstein Probe Mission (Springer Nature Singapore), 1–30

    2022

  70. [78]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 763, L22

    Zhang, B. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 763, L22

    2013

  71. [79]

    Z., Dyks, J., et al

    Zhang, B., Fan, Y . Z., Dyks, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354

    2006

  72. [80]

    2022, Astroparticle Physics, 137, 102668 Özel, F

    Zhang, J., Qi, L., Yang, Y ., et al. 2022, Astroparticle Physics, 137, 102668 Özel, F. & Freire, P. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 401–440 Appendix Appendix A : Accounting for cosmological effects for the sim- ulation of next generation GW interferomete...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.