pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05046 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

Wide Jets or Low Rates: Reconciling Short GRB and Gravitational-Wave Neutron Star Merger Rates

Keerthi Kunnumkai , Antonella Palmese , Brendan O'Connor , Amanda Farah , Ignacio Magana Hernandez
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords short gamma-ray burstsbinary neutron star mergersgravitational wavesjet half-opening anglemerger rate densityneutron star black hole mergers
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gravitational wave merger rates for binary neutron stars are consistent with observed short gamma-ray burst rates if most mergers launch jets.

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

The authors compare the latest binary neutron star merger rates from gravitational wave observations with estimates of the local short gamma-ray burst rate density. They show that these rates can be reconciled if more than 55 percent of binary neutron star mergers launch a jet. This works for short gamma-ray burst rates of 1 to 7 per cubic gigaparsec per year when jets are wide, with half-opening angles of 10 degrees or more. Narrower jets only fit the lowest short gamma-ray burst rate estimates. Neutron star black hole mergers are a minor part of the population and cannot resolve discrepancies at the high end of short gamma-ray burst rates. The data thus support binary neutron star mergers as the dominant source of short gamma-ray bursts.

Core claim

If more than 55 percent of binary neutron star mergers launch jets, the current gravitational wave rates match the short gamma-ray burst rates for densities of 1 to 7 per cubic gigaparsec per year when allowing for wide jets with half-opening angles of at least 10 degrees. Narrow jets of 6 degrees require short gamma-ray burst rates of 1 or less per cubic gigaparsec per year. Neutron star black hole mergers contribute only 6 to 16 percent at lower rates and cannot account for the highest short gamma-ray burst rates.

What carries the argument

The scaling of binary neutron star merger rate by jet launching fraction and jet half-opening angle to match the short gamma-ray burst rate density.

Load-bearing premise

More than 55 percent of binary neutron star mergers launch a jet when using a short gamma-ray burst rate density of 1-7 per cubic gigaparsec per year and jet half-opening angles of 10 or 6 degrees.

What would settle it

Future data showing a short gamma-ray burst rate density much higher than 7 per cubic gigaparsec per year while the binary neutron star merger rate stays too low to match at full jet efficiency would disprove the reconciliation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05046 by Amanda Farah, Antonella Palmese, Brendan O'Connor, Ignacio Magana Hernandez, Keerthi Kunnumkai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Compilation of local sGRB rate density estimates from the literature. Each horizontal bar shows the 90% credible interval reported by the corresponding study, while the black vertical line marks the median value. The inferred rate depends on the sample selection as well as on assumptions on the minimum luminosity (Lmin), as indicated alongside each estimate. The shaded intervals corresponds to 90% credible… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Corner plot showing the posterior distributions for the binary BNS jet opening angle θBNS, the BNS merger rate RBNS, and the jet launching fraction fs,BNS under the as￾sumption that all observed sGRBs originate from BNS merg￾ers, for different sGRB rate densities. Diagonal panels show marginalized one dimensional posteriors (histograms) along with the prior distributions (dashed lines), while off-diagonal … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Joint posterior distributions for the BNS and NSBH parameters in the two channel model. The sampled parameters include the jet opening angles θBNS and θNSBH, the merger rates RBNS and RNSBH, and the jet launching fractions fs,BNS and fs,NSBH. Marginalized one dimensional posteriors are shown along the diagonal, with two dimensional correlations displayed off-diagonal. The structure of the posterior demonst… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: RsGRB as a function of RBNS. Left panel: Each colored curve corresponds to different values of the BNS jet opening angle θBNS. The solid and dashed curves corresponds to fs,BNS = 0.96 and fs,BNS = 0.55, respectively. The NSBH contribution is fixed at θNSBH = 6.1° and fs,NSBH = 0.23. Right panel: Each colored curve correspond to a different NSBH jet opening angle θNSBH, with solid and dashed lines correspon… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Violin plots showing the inferred posterior distributions of the BNS jet opening angle θBNS and jet launching fraction fs,BNS for different assumed sGRB Poisson rates λsGRB and a range of intrinsic BNS merger rates RBNS, corresponding to the BNS only scenario. The variation across colors illustrates how changes in the assumed RBNS influence the allowed θBNS–fs,BNS parameter space for the BNS-only progenito… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: BNS merger rate required to reproduce the observed sGRB rate. The solid orange line shows the median intrinsic merger rate inferred from the mock jet population of A. Rouco Escorial et al. (2023), while the solid pink line shows the median rate inferred using only bursts with measured jet breaks, which preferentially selects narrow jets. The shaded regions indicate the corresponding uncertainties. The grey… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gravitational wave (GW) and short Gamma Ray Burst (sGRB) observations provide us with complementary views of compact object mergers. The paucity of binary neutron star merger (BNS) detections in the latest LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA (LVK) observing run raises the question of whether the GW merger rates are sufficient to explain the observed sGRB rate with compact object mergers alone. We investigate this connection using the latest merger rate constraints from the fourth LVK observing run (O4) and published estimates of the local sGRB rate density. For an observed sGRB rate density of $ \sim 1-7~\mathrm{Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$, if $>55\%$ of BNS mergers can successfully launch a jet, we find that the current LVK BNS merger rate can be reconciled with a sGRB merger population containing a significant fraction of relatively wide jets with core half-opening angles $\theta_j \geq 10^\circ$. Meanwhile, a narrow jet population ($\theta_j \sim 6^\circ$) can only be matched with the O4 neutron star merger rate estimates for an observed sGRB rate density of $\lesssim 1~\mathrm{Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$, which is broadly consistent with several of the latest available estimates. We also find that neutron star-black hole mergers (NSBH) are expected to be a subdominant component of the sGRB population compared to BNS mergers, and they cannot help reconcile some of the highest available sGRB rate ($ >7~\mathrm{Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$) with the GW rate estimates. However, they can still substantially contribute to the sGRB population, comprising $\sim 6-16\%$ of it for an observed sGRB rate density of $\sim 1-3~\mathrm{Gpc^{-3}\,yr^{-1}}$. Overall, our results indicate that present GW and sGRB observations remain broadly consistent with BNS mergers as the main progenitors of sGRBs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares local BNS and NSBH merger rate densities constrained by LVK O4 observations against published sGRB rate densities in the range 1-7 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}. Incorporating an explicit jet-launching success fraction f_jet and beaming factor (1-cos θ_j), it shows that consistency holds for f_jet > 0.55 when θ_j ≥ 10°, while narrower jets (θ_j ~6°) require the lower end of the sGRB rate range. NSBH mergers contribute a subdominant 6-16% fraction for sGRB rates of 1-3 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} and cannot reconcile the highest sGRB rates with current GW estimates. The paper concludes that present observations remain broadly consistent with BNS mergers as the main sGRB progenitors.

Significance. If the result holds, the work provides a transparent, quantitative reconciliation of independent GW and sGRB rate estimates using the latest O4 constraints. By stating the required f_jet and jet-angle thresholds explicitly rather than deriving them circularly from the same data, it offers a clear, falsifiable framework for the BNS-sGRB connection and quantifies the limited NSBH contribution. Credit is due for the straightforward rate arithmetic, use of published independent estimates, and conditional phrasing that avoids overclaiming.

minor comments (3)
  1. The derivation of the >55% f_jet threshold for θ_j=10° should be shown explicitly (e.g., via the rate-multiplication formula and error propagation) in the main text or an appendix so readers can reproduce the exact numerical value from the quoted O4 and sGRB ranges.
  2. Clarify whether the adopted sGRB rate density range of 1-7 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} already incorporates any beaming corrections or is the observed (beamed) rate; this affects how the (1-cos θ_j) factor is applied.
  3. The abstract and conclusion would benefit from a brief statement of the assumed BNS rate density central value and uncertainty from O4 to make the 55% threshold immediately traceable without consulting external references.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our manuscript and the recommendation for minor revision. We are pleased that the work is viewed as providing a transparent, quantitative reconciliation of GW and sGRB rates using the latest O4 constraints. We respond to the referee's summary below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The manuscript compares local BNS and NSBH merger rate densities constrained by LVK O4 observations against published sGRB rate densities in the range 1-7 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}. Incorporating an explicit jet-launching success fraction f_jet and beaming factor (1-cos θ_j), it shows that consistency holds for f_jet > 0.55 when θ_j ≥ 10°, while narrower jets (θ_j ~6°) require the lower end of the sGRB rate range. NSBH mergers contribute a subdominant 6-16% fraction for sGRB rates of 1-3 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} and cannot reconcile the highest sGRB rates with current GW estimates. The paper concludes that present observations remain broadly consistent with BNS mergers as the main sGRB progenitors.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this accurate and concise summary of our key results. It correctly captures the rate comparisons, the conditions on f_jet and jet opening angles for consistency, the limited contribution from NSBH systems, and our overall conclusion that current observations remain consistent with BNS mergers as the primary sGRB progenitors. We have no corrections or additions to this summary. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The derivation consists of direct rate comparisons between independently published LVK O4 BNS/NSBH merger rate densities and literature sGRB rate densities (1-7 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}). The required f_jet > 0.55 (for theta_j = 10°) or lower values for narrower jets follows from explicit multiplication by the beaming factor (1 - cos theta_j) and addition of the NSBH sub-population fraction; these are stated assumptions, not parameters fitted to the target data or derived via self-citation chains. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; free parameters are jet properties and rate densities taken from literature or set to match observations. No new invented entities. Axioms are standard domain assumptions about merger progenitors.

free parameters (3)
  • BNS jet launching fraction
    Threshold value >55% required for wide-jet reconciliation with observed sGRB rates.
  • jet half-opening angle
    Assumed values of 10° for wide population and 6° for narrow population to test rate matching.
  • sGRB rate density
    Adopted range 1-7 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} from published estimates.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption BNS mergers are the primary progenitors of sGRBs
    The paper tests consistency under this standard assumption in the field.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5707 in / 1266 out tokens · 57237 ms · 2026-05-10T19:31:40.784612+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Double Neutron Star Delay Times Across Cosmic Metallicities: The Role of Helium Star Progenitors

    astro-ph.SR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Simulations show double neutron star mergers peak 80-250 million years after star formation across metallicities, with 15% quick mergers and over 20% delayed over a billion years.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

161 extracted references · 158 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., & Acernese, F. e. a. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18083

  2. [2]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5 M ⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star.Astrophys

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  3. [4]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 Reconciling sGRB and GW neutron star merger rates19

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  4. [6]

    ApJ848(2), 13 (2017) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2041

  5. [7]

    , keywords =

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 892, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 2041

  6. [8]

    and others

    Abbott, R., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 913, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe949

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe949 2021

  7. [9]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  8. [10]

    Physical Review X , author =

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  9. [11]

    P., & Anand, S

    Ahumada, T., Singer, L. P., & Anand, S. e. a. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 2021

  10. [12]

    D., Margutti, R., Blanchard, P

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad637 2018

  11. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 5430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3110

    Beniamini, P., & Nakar, E. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 5430, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3110

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3110 2019

  12. [14]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3093

    Giannios, D. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3093

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3093 2019

  13. [15]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1589

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1589

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1589 2019

  14. [16]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2024, ApJ, 966, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd 2024

  15. [17]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Berger, E. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1946, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1946

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1946 2010

  16. [18]

    A., Levan, A., et al

    Berger, E., Zauderer, B. A., Levan, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/121

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/2/121 2013

  17. [19]

    Polnarev, A. G. 1984, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 10, 177, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1808.05287

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.05287 1984

  18. [20]

    S., Kulkarni, S

    Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Djorgovski, S. G. 2002, AJ, 123, 1111, doi: 10.1086/338893

    work page doi:10.1086/338893 2002

  19. [21]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/179 2013

  20. [22]

    N., Grupe, D., Capalbi, M., et al

    Burrows, D. N., Grupe, D., Capalbi, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 468, doi: 10.1086/508740

    work page doi:10.1086/508740 2006

  21. [23]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.03841, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.03841

    Chandra, K., Gupta, I., Gamba, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.03841, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.03841

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.03841 2024

  22. [24]

    2024, ApJL, 973, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737

    Chen, J., Shen, R.-F., Tan, W.-J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 973, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7737 2024

  23. [25]

    Simulating the late stages of WD-BH/NS mergers: an origin for fast X-ray transients and GRBs with periodic modulations

    Chen, J.-P., Shen, R.-F., & Chen, J.-H. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.27399, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.27399

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.27399 2025

  24. [26]

    C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L

    Cheong, P. C.-K., Pitik, T., Longo Micchi, L. F., & Radice, D. 2025, ApJL, 978, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada1cc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada1cc 2025

  25. [27]

    A., Gaspari, N., Levan, A

    Chrimes, A. A., Gaspari, N., Levan, A. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A168, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555128

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555128 2025

  26. [28]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842004, doi: 10.1142/S0218271818420049

    Ciolfi, R. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842004, doi: 10.1142/S0218271818420049

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271818420049 2018

  27. [29]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 063016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063016

    Ciolfi, R., Kastaun, W., Giacomazzo, B., et al. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 063016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.063016 2017

  28. [30]

    2015, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Ciolfi, R., & Siegel, D. 2015, in APS Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 2015, APS April Meeting Abstracts, E14.004

    2015

  29. [31]

    A., Lasky, P

    Clarke, T. A., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 984, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc804

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc804 2025

  30. [32]

    S., Gabrielli, F., et al

    Colombo, A., Salafia, O. S., Gabrielli, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d00

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d00 2022

  31. [33]

    M., Foley , R

    Coward, D. M., Howell, E. J., Piran, T., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 2668, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x D’Avanzo, P., Campana, S., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832664 De Santis, A. L., Ronchini, S., Santoliquido, F., &

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x 2012

  32. [34]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.13391

    Branchesi, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.13391, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.13391

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13391 2026

  33. [35]

    D., Burrows, A., Rosswog, S., & Livne, E

    Dessart, L., Ott, C. D., Burrows, A., Rosswog, S., & Livne, E. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 690, 1681, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1681

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/2/1681 2008

  34. [36]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 5011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa124

    Dichiara, S., Troja, E., O’Connor, B., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 5011, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa124

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa124 2020

  35. [37]

    Science , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abb4317 2020

  36. [38]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126, doi: 10.1038/340126a0

    work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989

  37. [39]

    and Fishbach, Maya and Essick, Reed and Holz, Daniel E

    Galaudage, S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f03

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f03 2022

  38. [40]

    Fishbach, M., Essick, R., & Holz, D. E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 899, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba7b6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba7b6 2020

  39. [41]

    Implications of low neutron star merger rates for gamma-ray bursts, r-process production and Galactic double neutron stars

    Fishbach, M., Ji, A. P., Fong, W.-f., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05059. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [43]

    2013b, ApJ, 776, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/18

    Fong, W., & Berger, E. 2013b, ApJ, 776, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/18

  41. [44]

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

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

  42. [45]

    2012, ApJ, 756, 189, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/189 20Kunnumkai et al

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 189, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/189 20Kunnumkai et al

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/189 2012

  43. [46]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/56

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/56

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/56 2013

  44. [47]

    and Dong, Yuxin and Berger, Edo and Paterson, Kerry and Chornock, Ryan and Levan, Andrew and Blanchard, Peter and Alexander, Kate D

    Fong, W., Nugent, A. E., Dong, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac91d0 2022

  45. [49]

    2012b, Phys

    Foucart, F. 2012b, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 124007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.124007

  46. [50]

    2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space

    Foucart, F. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space

    2020

  47. [51]

    Sciences, Volume 7 - 2020, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.00046

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2020.00046 2020

  48. [52]

    2018, Phys

    Foucart, F., Hinderer, T., & Nissanke, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 081501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.081501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.081501 2018

  49. [53]

    B., Frail, D

    Fox, D. B., Frail, D. A., Price, P. A., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 845, doi: 10.1038/nature04189

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04189 2005

  50. [54]

    L., Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Herant, M., & Davies, M. B. 1999, ApJ, 520, 650, doi: 10.1086/307467

    work page doi:10.1086/307467 1999

  51. [55]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8039

    Fujibayashi, S., Sekiguchi, Y., Kiuchi, K., & Shibata, M. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8039

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8039 2017

  52. [56]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    work page doi:10.1086/164079 1986

  53. [57]

    S., Paragi, Z., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Paragi, Z., Giroletti, M., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 968, doi: 10.1126/science.aau8815

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aau8815 2019

  54. [58]

    S., Pescalli, A., et al

    Ghirlanda, G., Salafia, O. S., Pescalli, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628993

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628993 2016

  55. [59]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    Gill, R., & Granot, J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4128, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1214

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1214 2018

  56. [60]

    H., & Smartt, S

    Gillanders, J. H., & Smartt, S. J. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 1663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf287

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf287 2025

  57. [61]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Gillanders, J. H., Troja, E., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.00633, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.00633

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00633 2023

  58. [62]

    2017, ApJL, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 2017

  59. [63]

    P., Levan, A

    Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., & Tanvir, N. R. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24 2020

  60. [64]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991d

    Granot, J., Guetta, D., & Gill, R. 2017, ApJL, 850, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa991d 2017

  61. [65]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1207.4620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1207.4620

    Gruber, D. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1207.4620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1207.4620

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1207.4620 2012

  62. [66]

    N., Patel, S

    Grupe, D., Burrows, D. N., Patel, S. K., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 462, doi: 10.1086/508739

    work page doi:10.1086/508739 2006

  63. [67]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    Guetta, D., & Della Valle, M. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    work page doi:10.1086/511417 2007

  64. [68]

    2006, A&A, 453, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054498

    Guetta, D., & Piran, T. 2006, A&A, 453, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054498

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054498 2006

  65. [69]

    J., Palmese, A., O’Connor, B., et al

    Hall, X. J., Palmese, A., O’Connor, B., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.23723, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.23723

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.23723

  66. [70]

    J., Busmann, M., Koehn, H., et al

    Hall, X. J., Busmann, M., Koehn, H., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.24620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.24620

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24620

  67. [71]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 778, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L16

    Hotokezaka, K., Kyutoku, K., Tanaka, M., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 778, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/L16

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/778/1/l16 2013

  68. [72]

    J., Ackley, K., Rowlinson, A., & Coward, D

    Howell, E. J., Ackley, K., Rowlinson, A., & Coward, D. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 1435, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz455

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz455 2019

  69. [73]

    J., Burns, E., & Goldstein, A

    Howell, E. J., Burns, E., & Goldstein, A. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 3158, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1915

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1915 2025

  70. [74]

    J., & Coward, D

    Howell, E. J., & Coward, D. M. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 428, 167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts020

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts020 2012

  71. [75]

    and O’Connor, Brendan and Amsellem, Ariel and Bom, Clécio R

    Hu, L., Cabrera, T., Palmese, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfd49

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfd49 2025

  72. [76]

    Huth, S., Pang, P. T. H., Tews, I., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 276, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w 2022

  73. [77]

    2018, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2018, 043E02, doi: 10.1093/ptep/pty036

    Ioka, K., & Nakamura, T. 2018, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2018, 043E02, doi: 10.1093/ptep/pty036

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/pty036 2018

  74. [78]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d

    Jin, Z.-P., Li, X., Wang, H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab76d 2018

  75. [79]

    Kacanja, K., Soni, K., Aky¨ uz, A., & Nitz, A. H. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.12115, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.12115

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.12115 2026

  76. [80]

    2025 , note =

    Kasliwal, M. M., Ahumada, T., Stein, R., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 995, L59, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2000

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2000 2025

  77. [81]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, L121, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx175

    Kathirgamaraju, A., Barniol Duran, R., & Giannios, D. 2018, MNRAS, 473, L121, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slx175

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx175 2018

  78. [82]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4341

    Kaur, R., O’Connor, B., Palmese, A., & Kunnumkai, K. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4341

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4341 2026

  79. [83]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 52, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/52

    Kawaguchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Tanaka, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 52, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/52

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/52 2016

  80. [84]

    Kim, C., Perera, B. B. P., & McLaughlin, M. A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 928, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2729

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2729 2015

Showing first 80 references.