pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08748 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Chasing Gamma-Ray Signals from Binary Neutron Star Coalescences with the Cherenkov Telescope Array: Prospects and Observing Strategies

S. Abe , J. Abhir , A. Abhishek , F. Acero , A. Acharyya , R. Adam , A. Aguasca-Cabot , I. Agudo
show 452 more authors
I. Albanese J. Alfaro C. Alispach R. Alves Batista E. Amato G. Ambrosi D. Ambrosino F. Ambrosino L. Angel C. Aramo A. Arbet-Engels C. Arcaro C. Arena T. T. H. Arnesen K. Asano H. Ashkar C. Bakshi C. Balazs M. Balbo A. Baquero Larriva V. Barbosa Martins J. A. Barrio C. Bartolini I. Batkovic R. Batzofin N. Bavdaz J. Becerra Gonzalez G. Beck W. Benbow E. Bernardini M. G. Bernardini J. Bernete A. Berti B. Bertucci V. Beshley P. Bhattacharjee S. Bhattacharyya C. Bigongiari A. Biland E. Bissaldi M. Bla\ na O. Blanch J. Blazek C. Boisson G. Bonnoli Z. Bosnjak E. Bottacini M. Bottcher E. Bronzini G. Brunelli J. Buces Saez A. Bulgarelli T. Bulik L. Burmistrov P. G. Calisse A. Campoy-Ordaz B. K. Cantlay G. Capasso A. Caproni R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta M. Cardillo S. Caroff A. Carosi E. Carquin S. Casanova E. Cascone F. Cassol G. Castignani F. Catalani D. Cerasole M. Cerruti P. M. Chadwick S. Chaty A. W. Chen Y. Chen M. Chernyakova A. Chiavassa G. Chon J. Chudoba L. Chytka G. M. Cicciari A. Cifuentes Santos C. H. Coimbra Araujo J. L. Contreras B. Cornejo J. Cortina A. Costa G. Cotter P. Cristofari O. Cuevas Z. Curtis-Ginsberg G. D'Amico F. D'Ammando P. D'Avanzo P. Da Vela L. David F. Dazzi M. de Bony de Lavergne V. De Caprio E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino B. De Lotto M. de Naurois V. de Souza L. Del Peral M. V. del Valle C. Delgado D. della Volpe D. Depaoli A. Dettlaff L. Di Bella T. Di Girolamo A. Di Piano F. Di Pierro R. Di Tria L. Di Venere R. Dima A. Dinesh E. Do Souto Espi\~neira D. Dominis Prester A. Donini D. Dorner J. Dorner M. Doro L. Ducci V. V. Dwarkadas J. Ebr C. Eckner K. Egberts L. Eisenberger D. Elsasser G. Emery C. Escanuela Nieves P. Escarate M. Escobar Godoy J. Escudero Pedrosa P. Esposito D. Falceta-Goncalves E. Fedorova S. Fegan K. Feijen Q. Feng G. Ferrand E. Fiandrini A. Fiasson M. Filipovic V. Fioretti L. Foffano G. Fontaine Y. Fukazawa Y. Fukui G. Galanti G. Galaz S. Gallozzi V. Gammaldi M. Garczarczyk C. Gasbarra D. Gasparrini M. Gaug G. Ghirlanda J. G. Giesbrecht Formiga Paiva N. Giglietto F. Giordano M. Giroletti R. Giuffrida J.-F. Glicenstein P. Goldoni J. M. Gonzalez J. Goulart Coelho T. Gradetzke J. Granot R. Grau D. Green J. G. Green J. Grube J. Hackfeld D. Hadasch A. Hahn P. Hamal W. Hanlon S. Hara V. M. Harvey T. Hassan K. Hayashi L. Heckmann N. Hiroshima B. Hnatyk R. Hnatyk D. Horan P. Horvath D. Hrupec S. Hussain M. Iarlori T. Inada F. Incardona S. Inoue F. Iocco A. Iuliano Jahanvi M. Jamrozy P. Janecek F. Jankowsky C. Jarnot I. Jaroschewski P. Jean V. Jilek J. Jimenez Quiles W. Jin E. Joshi J. Jurysek V. Karas H. Katagiri J. Kataoka S. Kaufmann T. Keita D. Kerszberg M. Kherlakian D. B. Kieda R. Kissmann T. Kleiner Y. Kobayashi K. Kohri D. Kolar N. Komin A. Kong K. Kosack D. Kostunin G. Kowal H. Kubo J. Kushida A. La Barbera N. La Palombara B. Lacave M. Lainez A. Lamastra J. Lapington S. Lazarevic J.-P. Lenain F. Leone E. Leonora G. Leto E. Lindfors S. Lombardi F. Longo R. Lopez-Coto M. Lopez-Moya A. Lopez-Oramas J. Lozano Bahilo P. L. Luque-Escamilla E. Lyard O. Macias P. Majumdar M. Makariev D. Mandat S. Mangano A. Marchetti M. Mariotti S. Markoff I. Marquez G. Marsella O. Martinez G. Maurin D. Mazin D. Melkumyan S. Menon E. Mestre D. M.-A. Meyer D. Miceli M. Miceli M. Michailidis T. Miener J. M. Miranda R. Moderski M. Molero C. Molfese E. Molina K. Morik A. Morselli E. Moulin A. L. Muller K. Munari T. Murach A. Muraczewski H. Muraishi T. Nakamori R. Nemmen J. Niemiec D. Nieto M. Nievas Rosillo L. Nikolic K. Noda D. Nosek V. Novotny S. Nozaki A. Okumura R. A. Ong R. Orito M. Orlandini E. Orlando S. Orlando J. Otero-Santos I. Oya M. Ozlati Moghadam A. Pagliaro M. Palatiello A. Pandey G. Panebianco D. Paneque F. R. Pantaleo J. M. Paredes B. Patricelli A. Pe'er M. Pech M. Pecimotika M. Peresano E. Peretti J. Perez-Romero G. Peron F. Perrotta M. Persic O. Petruk F. Pfeifle E. Pietropaolo M. Pihet L. Pinchbeck F. Pintore G. Pirola C. Pittori F. Podobnik M. Pohl V. Pollet G. Ponti E. Prandini G. Principe M. Prouza E. Pueschel G. Puhlhofer M. L. Pumo M. Punch A. Quirrenbach S. Raino R. Rando S. Recchia A. Reimer O. Reimer I. Reis A. Reisenegger W. Rhode M. Ribo C. Ricci T. Richtler J. Rico L. Riitano V. Rizi E. Roache G. Rodriguez Fernandez P. Romano G. Romeo J. Rosado A. Rosales de Leon A. Roy I. Sadeh L. Saha T. Saito M. Sanchez-Conde P. Sangiorgi H. Sano R. Santos-Lima V. Sapienza S. Sarkar F. G. Saturni A. Scherer F. Schiavone P. Schipani P. Schovanek F. Schussler O. Sergijenko H. Siejkowski A. Simongini V. Sliusar A. Slowikowska I. Sofia H. Sol S. Spinello A. Stamerra T. Starecki R. Starling T. Stolarczyk Y. Suda A. Sunny T. Suomijarvi R. Takeishi S. J. Tanaka F. Tavecchio T. Tavernier Y. Terada M. Teshima V. Testa W. W. Tian Y. Tian L. Tibaldo O. Tibolla S. J. Tingay C. J. Todero Peixoto F. Tombesi D. Tonev F. Torradeflot D. F. Torres N. Tothill G. Tovmassian G. Tripodo A. Trois A. Tsiahina A. Tutone L. Vaclavek M. Vacula C. van Eldik J. Vandenbroucke V. Vassiliev M. Vazquez Acosta M. Vecchi S. Vercellone S. D. Vergani I. Viale A. Viana A. Vigliano J. Vignatti C. F. Vigorito J. Villanueva E. Visentin V. Voitsekhovskyi S. Vorobiov I. Vovk T. Vuillaume R. Walter M. Wechakama M. White A. Wierzcholska M. Will F. Wohlleben A. Wolter F. Xotta T. Yamamoto R. Yamazaki T. Yoshikoshi M. Zacharias G. Zaharijas R. Zanmar Sanchez D. Zavrtanik M. Zavrtanik A. Zech V. I. Zhdanov J. Zuriaga-Puig
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords binary neutron star mergersgravitational wavesshort gamma-ray burstsCherenkov Telescope Arraymulti-messenger astronomyGeV-TeV gamma raysfollow-up observationsjet viewing angle
0
0 comments X

The pith

An optimized follow-up strategy lets the Cherenkov Telescope Array detect GeV-TeV emission from about 5 percent of simulated gravitational-wave short gamma-ray bursts from binary neutron star mergers.

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

The paper evaluates how well the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory could detect high-energy gamma rays from binary neutron star mergers that also produce gravitational waves. It uses simulations of these mergers and models the gamma-ray emission based on known short gamma-ray burst properties, including cases where the jet is not pointed directly at Earth. Different observation strategies are tested, including ones that adjust integration times based on conditions. The key result is that an optimized approach would catch detectable signals from roughly 5 percent of these events, with success depending heavily on the jet's opening angle and the observer's viewing angle. This helps in planning efficient use of the telescope for future gravitational wave alerts to capture multi-messenger signals.

Core claim

Through a multi-step simulation pipeline that models binary neutron star systems with gravitational wave detections and applies phenomenological prescriptions for short gamma-ray burst emission including off-axis jets, an optimized CTAO follow-up strategy yields detectable GeV-TeV radiation from approximately 5 percent of simulated events, with detectability strongly influenced by jet opening angle and viewing angle.

What carries the argument

The multi-step simulation pipeline combining simulated BNS mergers with GW detections, phenomenological gamma-ray emission models from the short GRB population including off-axis scenarios, and CTAO observation simulations that incorporate instrument response, sky tiling, integration times, and observing conditions.

If this is right

  • Variable and constant integration time strategies both contribute to improved detection prospects.
  • Rough estimates of viewing angle from GW alerts could significantly enhance the efficiency of targeting observations.
  • The framework extends naturally to follow-ups of neutron star-black hole mergers.
  • Advanced strategies incorporating galaxy distributions and synergies with detectors like the Einstein Telescope are supported.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Prioritizing events with smaller estimated viewing angles from GW data could boost the actual detection fraction beyond the average 5 percent.
  • Similar simulation approaches might be applied to predict detectability with other high-energy instruments for lower energies.
  • Real-world application during the O5 run would provide data to refine the phenomenological emission models.

Load-bearing premise

The gamma-ray emission is modeled using phenomenological prescriptions based on the observed population of short GRBs, including off-axis cases, and the simulated BNS systems are assumed representative of actual future detections.

What would settle it

A clear discrepancy between the predicted 5 percent detection rate and the actual number of GeV-TeV detections in a sample of GW-triggered short GRB follow-ups during the O5 observing run would falsify the central prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08748 by A. Abhishek, A. Acharyya, A. Aguasca-Cabot, A. Arbet-Engels, A. Baquero Larriva, A. Berti, A. Biland, A. Bulgarelli, A. Campoy-Ordaz, A. Caproni, A. Carosi, A. Chiavassa, A. Cifuentes Santos, A. Costa, A. Dettlaff, A. Dinesh, A. Di Piano, A. Donini, A. Fiasson, A. Hahn, A. Iuliano, A. Kong, A. La Barbera, A. Lamastra, A. L. Muller, A. Lopez-Oramas, A. Marchetti, A. Morselli, A. Muraczewski, A. Okumura, A. Pagliaro, A. Pandey, A. Pe'er, A. Quirrenbach, A. Reimer, A. Reisenegger, A. Rosales de Leon, A. Roy, A. Scherer, A. Simongini, A. Slowikowska, A. Stamerra, A. Sunny, A. Trois, A. Tsiahina, A. Tutone, A. Viana, A. Vigliano, A. W. Chen, A. Wierzcholska, A. Wolter, A. Zech, B. Bertucci, B. Cornejo, B. De Lotto, B. Hnatyk, B. K. Cantlay, B. Lacave, B. Patricelli, C. Alispach, C. Aramo, C. Arcaro, C. Arena, C. Bakshi, C. Balazs, C. Bartolini, C. Bigongiari, C. Boisson, C. Delgado, C. Eckner, C. Escanuela Nieves, C. F. Vigorito, C. Gasbarra, C. H. Coimbra Araujo, C. Jarnot, C. J. Todero Peixoto, C. Molfese, C. Pittori, C. Ricci, C. van Eldik, D. Ambrosino, D. B. Kieda, D. Cerasole, D. della Volpe, D. Depaoli, D. Dominis Prester, D. Dorner, D. Elsasser, D. Falceta-Goncalves, D. F. Torres, D. Gasparrini, D. Green, D. Hadasch, D. Horan, D. Hrupec, D. Kerszberg, D. Kolar, D. Kostunin, D. M.-A. Meyer, D. Mandat, D. Mazin, D. Melkumyan, D. Miceli, D. Nieto, D. Nosek, D. Paneque, D. Tonev, D. Zavrtanik, E. Amato, E. Bernardini, E. Bissaldi, E. Bottacini, E. Bronzini, E. Carquin, E. Cascone, E. Do Souto Espi\~neira, E. Fedorova, E. Fiandrini, E. Joshi, E. Leonora, E. Lindfors, E. Lyard, E. M. de Gouveia Dal Pino, E. Mestre, E. Molina, E. Moulin, E. Orlando, E. Peretti, E. Pietropaolo, E. Prandini, E. Pueschel, E. Roache, E. Visentin, F. Acero, F. Ambrosino, F. Cassol, F. Catalani, F. D'Ammando, F. Dazzi, F. Di Pierro, F. Giordano, F. G. Saturni, F. Incardona, F. Iocco, F. Jankowsky, F. Leone, F. Longo, F. Perrotta, F. Pfeifle, F. Pintore, F. Podobnik, F. R. Pantaleo, F. Schiavone, F. Schussler, F. Tavecchio, F. Tombesi, F. Torradeflot, F. Wohlleben, F. Xotta, G. Ambrosi, G. Beck, G. Bonnoli, G. Brunelli, G. Capasso, G. Castignani, G. Chon, G. Cotter, G. D'Amico, G. Emery, G. Ferrand, G. Fontaine, G. Galanti, G. Galaz, G. Ghirlanda, G. Kowal, G. Leto, G. Marsella, G. Maurin, G. M. Cicciari, G. Panebianco, G. Peron, G. Pirola, G. Ponti, G. Principe, G. Puhlhofer, G. Rodriguez Fernandez, G. Romeo, G. Tovmassian, G. Tripodo, G. Zaharijas, H. Ashkar, H. Katagiri, H. Kubo, H. Muraishi, H. Sano, H. Siejkowski, H. Sol, I. Agudo, I. Albanese, I. Batkovic, I. Jaroschewski, I. Marquez, I. Oya, I. Reis, I. Sadeh, I. Sofia, I. Viale, I. Vovk, J. A. Barrio, J. Abhir, Jahanvi, J. Alfaro, J. Becerra Gonzalez, J. Bernete, J. Blazek, J. Buces Saez, J. Chudoba, J. Cortina, J. Dorner, J. Ebr, J. Escudero Pedrosa, J.-F. Glicenstein, J. G. Giesbrecht Formiga Paiva, J. G. Green, J. Goulart Coelho, J. Granot, J. Grube, J. Hackfeld, J. Jimenez Quiles, J. Jurysek, J. Kataoka, J. Kushida, J. Lapington, J. L. Contreras, J. Lozano Bahilo, J. M. Gonzalez, J. M. Miranda, J. M. Paredes, J. Niemiec, J. Otero-Santos, J. Perez-Romero, J.-P. Lenain, J. Rico, J. Rosado, J. Vandenbroucke, J. Vignatti, J. Villanueva, J. Zuriaga-Puig, K. Asano, K. Egberts, K. Feijen, K. Hayashi, K. Kohri, K. Kosack, K. Morik, K. Munari, K. Noda, L. Angel, L. Burmistrov, L. Chytka, L. David, L. Del Peral, L. Di Bella, L. Di Venere, L. Ducci, L. Eisenberger, L. Foffano, L. Heckmann, L. Nikolic, L. Pinchbeck, L. Riitano, L. Saha, L. Tibaldo, L. Vaclavek, M. Balbo, M. Bla\ na, M. Bottcher, M. Cardillo, M. Cerruti, M. Chernyakova, M. de Bony de Lavergne, M. de Naurois, M. Doro, M. Escobar Godoy, M. Filipovic, M. Garczarczyk, M. Gaug, M. G. Bernardini, M. Giroletti, M. Iarlori, M. Jamrozy, M. Kherlakian, M. Lainez, M. Lopez-Moya, M. L. Pumo, M. Makariev, M. Mariotti, M. Miceli, M. Michailidis, M. Molero, M. Nievas Rosillo, M. Orlandini, M. Ozlati Moghadam, M. Palatiello, M. Pech, M. Pecimotika, M. Peresano, M. Persic, M. Pihet, M. Pohl, M. Prouza, M. Punch, M. Ribo, M. Sanchez-Conde, M. Teshima, M. Vacula, M. Vazquez Acosta, M. V. del Valle, M. Vecchi, M. Wechakama, M. White, M. Will, M. Zacharias, M. Zavrtanik, N. Bavdaz, N. Giglietto, N. Hiroshima, N. Komin, N. La Palombara, N. Tothill, O. Blanch, O. Cuevas, O. Macias, O. Martinez, O. Petruk, O. Reimer, O. Sergijenko, O. Tibolla, P. Bhattacharjee, P. Cristofari, P. D'Avanzo, P. Da Vela, P. Escarate, P. Esposito, P. G. Calisse, P. Goldoni, P. Hamal, P. Horvath, P. Janecek, P. Jean, P. L. Luque-Escamilla, P. Majumdar, P. M. Chadwick, P. Romano, P. Sangiorgi, P. Schipani, P. Schovanek, Q. Feng, R. Adam, R. Alves Batista, R. A. Ong, R. Batzofin, R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R. Dima, R. Di Tria, R. Giuffrida, R. Grau, R. Hnatyk, R. Kissmann, R. Lopez-Coto, R. Moderski, R. Nemmen, R. Orito, R. Rando, R. Santos-Lima, R. Starling, R. Takeishi, R. Walter, R. Yamazaki, R. Zanmar Sanchez, S. Abe, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Caroff, S. Casanova, S. Chaty, S. D. Vergani, S. Fegan, S. Gallozzi, S. Hara, S. Hussain, S. Inoue, S. J. Tanaka, S. J. Tingay, S. Kaufmann, S. Lazarevic, S. Lombardi, S. Mangano, S. Markoff, S. Menon, S. Nozaki, S. Orlando, S. Raino, S. Recchia, S. Sarkar, S. Spinello, S. Vercellone, S. Vorobiov, T. Bulik, T. Di Girolamo, T. Gradetzke, T. Hassan, T. Inada, T. Keita, T. Kleiner, T. Miener, T. Murach, T. Nakamori, T. Richtler, T. Saito, T. Starecki, T. Stolarczyk, T. Suomijarvi, T. Tavernier, T. T. H. Arnesen, T. Vuillaume, T. Yamamoto, T. Yoshikoshi, V. Barbosa Martins, V. Beshley, V. De Caprio, V. de Souza, V. Fioretti, V. Gammaldi, V. I. Zhdanov, V. Jilek, V. Karas, V. M. Harvey, V. Novotny, V. Pollet, V. Rizi, V. Sapienza, V. Sliusar, V. Testa, V. Vassiliev, V. V. Dwarkadas, V. Voitsekhovskyi, W. Benbow, W. Hanlon, W. Jin, W. Rhode, W. W. Tian, Y. Chen, Y. Fukazawa, Y. Fukui, Y. Kobayashi, Y. Suda, Y. Terada, Y. Tian, Z. Bosnjak, Z. Curtis-Ginsberg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Ratio between the energy of the jet launched fol￾lowing the merger of the BNS and the mass of the lightest NS. The inset shows the distributions of the jet energy E0,jet (orange filled histogram), the radiated energy Eγ (green filled histogram), and the isotropic equivalent radiated en￾ergy Eγ,iso (black empty histogram). the relation for short GRBs found by E. Berger (2014b): LX,11h = 8.5 × 1043E 0.83 γ,i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: TeV luminosity at 11 h versus Eγ,iso for the sam￾ple of short GRBs simulated in this work. To build the rest of the VHE lightcurve we proceed as follows. We assume that the luminosity increases as a power-law LTeV ∝ t β1 up to the deceleration time, when it reaches its maximum. The value of β1 is randomly extracted from a Gaussian distribution with ⟨β1⟩ = 2 and σβ1 = 0.05 ( LHAASO Collaboration et al. 2023… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Subset of sGRB lightcurves at 100 GeV generated using the procedure described in Sec 3. (Left panel) The color scale corresponds to the off-axis viewing angle between jet and observer, θview. The dashed, black line indicates the average sGRB integral flux sensitivity of the CTAO-South Alpha configuration (See Sec 4), for an exposure time equal to the scale of the x-axis. (Right panel) Subsample of GRB ligh… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: All curves in this plot are calculated using only events which are detectable by CTAO within 7 d of GRB onset. For these detectable events, the solid curves show the average observation time needed to reach the 5σ signif￾icance threshold given a latency tL between GW onset and start of observations. For observing latencies of tL ≲ 1 h, nearly the entire population of detectable GRBs can be de￾tected with o… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: These curves explore the relationship between the fraction of events detected and two follow-up observation pa￾rameters: exposure time on source position texp and latency time after coalescence tL. The upper left and right panels show how increasing exposure leads to a cumulative increase in detections, for all events and on- and off-axis events, respectively. In all cases, increasing exposures beyond texp… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detectability heatmaps for short gamma-ray bursts using CTAO South (upper row) and CTAO North (bottom row) across the complete simulated dataset, shown as functions of latency tL and exposure time texp. The left column displays results restricted to on-axis sources with viewing angles within the opening angle of the jet (namely having θeff < 0), whereas the right column encompasses all sources within θeff … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relationship between pairs of intrinsic GRB and observational parameters. Blue points represent detectable events from our sample while orange points are non-detectable events. θcore is the opening angle of the cone of the GRB jet, and θeff is the angular distance between the observer and the edge of the cone. The strongest distinction between the distributions of detectable and non-detectable events seen … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example lightcurves and tiling strategy for a representative event from the sample. This sGRB is seen on-axis, has an Eiso = 1.21 × 1051 erg, and it is located at a distance d = 991 Mpc. The EBL is taken into consideration with the models from A. Franceschini & G. Rodighiero (2017). The resulting skymap has a 90% credible area of 345 deg2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of detection rates with increasing duration of follow-up campaign starting from the time when the first pointing is possible. An event can reach a 5σ detection in one single pointing, or when the cumulative significance of multiple correct pointings reaches the same threshold. The left panel compares the cumulative percentage of detected events for five different followup strategies, and shows t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of the accumulated significance, displaying the detection and characterization capabilities of CTAO for the GW-GRB sample when the SAG system is involved, given a fixed 4 hr follow-up campaign with each strategy. In all cases, a SAG-RTA system was simulated, which stops the scheduler once a 5σ hotspot is detected in the FoV, and self-triggers observations of the source for the remaining durat… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of the temporal decay indices β2 (F ∝ t −β2 ) of the X-ray afterglow of short GRBs. The temporal decay is obtained from a (multiple broken) power-law fit to the Swift/XRT unabsorbed light curve in the energy range 0.3-10 keV (observer frame). Abe, H., Abe, S., Acciari, V. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2958 Abe, K., Abe, S., Abhishek, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysi… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: X-ray (0.3-10 keV) and VHE (0.3-1 TeV) simulated luminosities at 11 h. Bulgarelli, A., Caroff, S., Addis, A., et al. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 937, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0937 Burgay, M., D’Amico, N., Possenti, A., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 531, doi: 10.1038/nature02124 Cannon, K., Cariou, R., Chapman, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/136 Cao, Z., Aharonia… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The detection of gravitational waves (GWs) from a binary neutron star (BNS) merger by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo (GW170817), together with its electromagnetic counterpart, the short gamma-ray burst GRB~170817A, heralded the birth of multi-messenger astronomy. The detection of TeV emission from GRBs motivates follow-up observations with the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO), ideal for detecting such signals due to its unprecedented sensitivity, rapid response, and wide-field survey capabilities. The aim of this work is to evaluate GeV--TeV GW follow-up strategies for CTAO using a multi-step simulation pipeline and to estimate the expected rate of joint GW-GRB detections during observing run O5. Using a simulated sample of BNS systems with corresponding GW detections, gamma-ray emission is simulated through phenomenological prescriptions based on the observed population of short GRBs, including off-axis jet scenarios. CTAO observations are simulated to account for instrument response, sky tiling strategies, integration times, and varying observing conditions. Strategies with variable and constant integration times are investigated. We find that, via an optimized follow-up strategy, about 5% of simulated GW-associated short GRBs produce GeV--TeV radiation detectable by CTAO. Detectability is strongly influenced by the jet opening angle and viewing angle, suggesting that even rough estimates of the viewing angle in GW alerts could enhance targeting. This framework motivates future follow-ups of GW-detectable events, including neutron star-black hole mergers, and further supports the development of advanced strategies incorporating galaxy distributions and synergies with future detectors such as the Einstein Telescope.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a simulation-based study evaluating GeV-TeV follow-up strategies for short gamma-ray bursts associated with binary neutron star mergers using the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory (CTAO). A pipeline generates a population of BNS systems with GW detections, models their gamma-ray emission via phenomenological prescriptions calibrated on the observed short-GRB population (including off-axis jet scenarios), and simulates CTAO observations under different tiling and integration-time strategies. The central result is that an optimized follow-up strategy yields detectable GeV-TeV emission in approximately 5% of simulated events, with strong dependence on jet opening angle and viewing angle.

Significance. If the simulation pipeline and model assumptions hold, the work supplies quantitative guidance for multi-messenger observing campaigns during O5, underscoring the value of even approximate viewing-angle information in GW alerts and motivating synergies with future detectors. The forward-modeling approach and explicit treatment of off-axis geometries constitute a concrete planning tool rather than an abstract rate estimate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results] Results section (around the 5% claim): the quoted detection fraction is obtained from forward simulation but is presented without statistical uncertainties, the total number of simulated events, or bootstrap/error estimates on the percentage itself. This makes it impossible to judge whether the 5% is robust or dominated by small-number statistics.
  2. [Methods] Methods section describing the gamma-ray emission model: the phenomenological prescriptions for off-axis GeV-TeV spectra and light curves are extrapolated from the single anchor GRB 170817A and the on-axis short-GRB population. No dedicated sensitivity study is shown that varies the jet-structure parameters, spectral index, or luminosity function within observationally allowed ranges and reports the resulting range in the detectable fraction.
  3. [Simulation pipeline] Simulation pipeline description: the text does not quantify how the assumed distributions of jet opening angles and viewing angles (listed as free parameters) propagate into the final 5% figure, nor does it test alternative population models (e.g., different BNS merger rate densities or GW selection biases).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the number of simulated events and the exact definition of 'detectable' (e.g., significance threshold and energy range).
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract and conclusion should clarify that the 5% applies only to the specific phenomenological model set adopted and is not a model-independent prediction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped clarify several aspects of our analysis. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section (around the 5% claim): the quoted detection fraction is obtained from forward simulation but is presented without statistical uncertainties, the total number of simulated events, or bootstrap/error estimates on the percentage itself. This makes it impossible to judge whether the 5% is robust or dominated by small-number statistics.

    Authors: We agree that statistical uncertainties are essential for assessing robustness. The original manuscript omitted the total number of simulated events and error estimates. In the revised version, we now report the total number of simulated BNS events and provide bootstrap-derived uncertainties on the detection fraction, confirming that the ~5% result is not dominated by small-number statistics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section describing the gamma-ray emission model: the phenomenological prescriptions for off-axis GeV-TeV spectra and light curves are extrapolated from the single anchor GRB 170817A and the on-axis short-GRB population. No dedicated sensitivity study is shown that varies the jet-structure parameters, spectral index, or luminosity function within observationally allowed ranges and reports the resulting range in the detectable fraction.

    Authors: We recognize the value of exploring parameter variations. We have conducted additional simulations varying jet-structure parameters, spectral index, and luminosity function within observationally allowed ranges. The resulting range in the detectable fraction is now reported in a new subsection of the revised Methods section. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Simulation pipeline] Simulation pipeline description: the text does not quantify how the assumed distributions of jet opening angles and viewing angles (listed as free parameters) propagate into the final 5% figure, nor does it test alternative population models (e.g., different BNS merger rate densities or GW selection biases).

    Authors: We agree that propagation of parameter uncertainties should be quantified. The revised manuscript includes additional text and analysis showing how the assumed jet opening angle and viewing angle distributions affect the 5% figure. A complete exploration of alternative population models (e.g., varying merger rate densities or GW selection biases) lies beyond the scope of this work due to computational demands; we have added a discussion of this limitation and its implications for future studies. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forward simulation pipeline yields detectability fraction without circular reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper's central result (~5% of simulated GW-associated short GRBs detectable by CTAO under optimized strategy) is obtained by a multi-step forward-modeling chain: (1) draw BNS systems and GW detections from a simulated population, (2) assign gamma-ray emission via phenomenological prescriptions calibrated on the observed short-GRB sample (including off-axis jets), and (3) simulate CTAO instrument response, tiling, and observing conditions to count detectable events. This fraction is an emergent output of the simulation, not a fitted parameter, a self-defined quantity, or a prediction that reduces by construction to the input models. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling are described; the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks once the (explicitly stated) phenomenological inputs are accepted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central 5% claim rests on phenomenological emission models and a simulated BNS population whose parameters are drawn from observed short-GRB statistics; these constitute domain assumptions rather than new derivations.

free parameters (2)
  • jet opening angle distribution
    Drawn from observed short GRB population to generate off-axis scenarios
  • viewing angle sampling
    Simulated to explore detectability dependence
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Phenomenological prescriptions based on the observed short-GRB population accurately represent GeV-TeV emission including off-axis cases
    Invoked to generate the simulated gamma-ray signals
  • domain assumption The simulated sample of BNS systems reproduces realistic GW detection properties
    Used to estimate joint detection rates

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 8149 in / 1337 out tokens · 45581 ms · 2026-05-10T16:52:14.323344+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2041

  3. [3]

    Living Reviews in Relativity , keywords =

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2020

  4. [4]

    Physical Review X , author =

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  5. [5]

    2017, ApJL, 850, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d2

    Abdalla, H., Abramowski, A., Aharonian, F., et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d2 2017

  6. [6]

    2019, Nature, 575, 464, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1743-9

    Abdalla, H., Adam, R., Aharonian, F., et al. 2019, Nature, 575, 464, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1743-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1743-9 2019

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJL, 894, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8b59 28 Figure 13.Distribution of the temporal decay indicesβ 2 (F∝t −β2) of the X-ray afterglow of short GRBs

    Abdalla, H., Adam, R., Aharonian, F., et al. 2020, ApJL, 894, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8b59 28 Figure 13.Distribution of the temporal decay indicesβ 2 (F∝t −β2) of the X-ray afterglow of short GRBs. The temporal decay is obtained from a (multiple broken) power-law fit to the Swift/XRT unabsorbed light curve in the energy range 0.3-10keV (observer frame)

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8b59 2020

  8. [8]

    A., et al

    Abe, H., Abe, S., Acciari, V. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2958

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2958 2024

  9. [9]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 988, L42

    Abe, K., Abe, S., Abhishek, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 988, L42

    2025

  10. [10]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05215, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05215

    Abe, S., Abhir, J., Abhishek, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05215, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05215

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.05215 2025

  11. [11]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd249

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd249 2021

  12. [12]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  13. [13]

    S., Actis, M., Aghajani, T., et al

    Acharya, B. S., Actis, M., Aghajani, T., et al. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 3, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.01.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2013.01.007 2013

  14. [14]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 175012, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/17/175012

    Adams, T., Buskulic, D., Germain, V., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 175012, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/17/175012

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/17/175012 2016

  15. [15]

    G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al

    Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al. 2009, A&A, 495, 505, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811072

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200811072 2009

  16. [16]

    2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 165008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab28a9

    Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 165008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab28a9

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab28a9 2019

  17. [17]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac880e

    Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac880e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac880e 2022

  18. [18]

    2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 045, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/045

    Ashkar, H., Brun, F., Füßling, M., et al. 2021, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021, 045, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/045

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/045 2021

  19. [19]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A126

    Banerjee, B., Oganesyan, G., Branchesi, M., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A126

    2023

  20. [20]

    R., Gupte, N., et al

    Bartos, I., Corley, K. R., Gupte, N., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3476

    2019

  21. [21]

    2014, MNRAS, 443, 738, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1205

    Bartos, I., Veres, P., Nieto, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 738, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1205 2014

  22. [22]

    R., et al

    Bartos, I., Di Girolamo, T., Gair, J. R., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 639

    2018

  23. [24]

    2014b, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    Berger, E. 2014b, ARA&A, 52, 43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926

  24. [25]

    2020, GRB Coordinates Network, 28659, 1

    Blanch, O., Gaug, M., Noda, K., et al. 2020, GRB Coordinates Network, 28659, 1

    2020

  25. [26]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1976, Physics of Fluids, 19, 1130, doi: 10.1063/1.861619 Bošnjak, Ž., Zhang, B. T., Murase, K., & Ioka, K. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae093 29 40 42 44 46 Log10(LX, 11h/ [erg/s]) 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46Log10(LTeV, 11h/ [erg/s]) Figure 14.X-ray (0.3-10keV) and VHE (0.3-1TeV) simulated luminosities at 11h

    work page doi:10.1063/1.861619 1976

  26. [27]

    2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 937, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0937

    Bulgarelli, A., Caroff, S., Addis, A., et al. 2022, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 937, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0937

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0937 2022

  27. [28]

    2003, Nature, 426, 531, doi: 10.1038/nature02124

    Burgay, M., D’Amico, N., Possenti, A., et al. 2003, Nature, 426, 531, doi: 10.1038/nature02124

    work page doi:10.1038/nature02124 2003

  28. [29]

    2012, ApJ, 748, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/136

    Cannon, K., Cariou, R., Chapman, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/136 2012

  29. [30]

    2023, Science Advances, 9, eadj2778, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adj2778 Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, Acharya, B

    Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., An, Q., et al. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadj2778, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adj2778 Cherenkov Telescope Array Consortium, Acharya, B. S.,

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adj2778 2023

  30. [31]

    doi:10.1142/10986 , adsurl =

    Agudo, I., et al. 2019, Science with the Cherenkov Telescope Array, doi: 10.1142/10986 coll. (in prep.), M. 2025,

    work page doi:10.1142/10986 2019

  31. [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

  32. [33]

    Colombo, A., Sharan Salafia, O., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2025, Multi-messenger observations in the Einstein Telescope era: binary neutron star and black hole - neutron star mergers, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.00116 Dal Canton, T., Nitz, A. H., Lundgren, A. P., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 082004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.082004 Dálya, G., Díaz, R., Bouchet,...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00116 2025

  33. [34]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  34. [35]

    2023, A&A, 678, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346488 30

    Donath, A., Terrier, R., Remy, Q., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346488 30

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346488 2023

  35. [36]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Egberts, K., Hoischen, C., Steppa, C., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12186, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems IX, ed. D. S. Adler, R. L. Seaman, & C. R. Benn, 121860L, doi: 10.1117/12.2629372

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2629372 2022

  36. [38]

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

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

  37. [39]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 603, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629684

    Franceschini, A., & Rodighiero, G. 2017, A&A, 603, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629684

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629684 2017

  38. [40]

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.05.018 , eprint =

    Funk, S., Hinton, J. A., & CTA Consortium. 2013, Astroparticle Physics, 43, 348, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.05.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.05.018 2013

  39. [41]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 418, L109

    Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., & Nava, L. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 418, L109

    2011

  40. [42]

    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

  41. [43]

    S., Paragi, Z., et al

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

    2019

  42. [44]

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

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

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

  43. [45]

    G., Patricelli, B., Stamerra, A., & Seglar-Arroyo, M

    Green, J. G., Patricelli, B., Stamerra, A., & Seglar-Arroyo, M. 2026, Sensipy: simulate gamma-ray observations of transient astrophysical sources, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.06783 H. E. S. S. Collaboration, Abdalla, H., Aharonian, F., et al. 2021, Science, 372, 1081, doi: 10.1126/science.abe8560

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06783 2026

  44. [46]

    P., van Eerten, H

    Hope, J. P., van Eerten, H. J., Kundu, S., & Schady, P. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 538, 281

    2025

  45. [48]

    2007b, ApJ, 654, 385, doi: 10.1086/508324

    Kaneko, Y., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Granot, J., et al. 2007b, ApJ, 654, 385, doi: 10.1086/508324

    work page doi:10.1086/508324

  46. [49]

    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

  47. [50]

    W., Farah, A

    Kiendrebeogo, R. W., Farah, A. M., Foley, E. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 158

    2023

  48. [51]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1075, doi: 10.1086/375186

    Kumar, P., & Granot, J. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1075, doi: 10.1086/375186

    work page doi:10.1086/375186 2003

  49. [52]

    J., Sah, M

    Kuralkar, H. J., Sah, M. R., & Mukherjee, S. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18955

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [53]

    P., & Kobayashi, S

    Lamb, G. P., & Kobayashi, S. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2345 2017

  51. [54]

    and Gompertz, Benjamin P

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 LHAASO Collaboration, Cao, Z., Aharonian, F., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 1390, doi: 10.1126/science.adg9328 Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, & Kagra Collaboration. 2025a, GRB Coordinates Network, 38991, 1 Ligo Scientific Collabo...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06759-1 2024

  52. [55]

    G., et al

    Margutti, R., Zaninoni, E., Bernardini, M. G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts066

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts066 2013

  53. [56]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 042001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.042001

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.042001 2017

  54. [57]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10030066 2022

  55. [58]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 35

    Mondal, T., Chakraborty, S., Resmi, L., & Bose, D. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 35

    2025

  56. [59]

    2021, Universe, 7, 503, doi: 10.3390/universe7120503

    Nava, L. 2021, Universe, 7, 503, doi: 10.3390/universe7120503

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7120503 2021

  57. [60]

    Brown, D. A. 2017, ApJ, 849, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f50 O’Reilly, B., Branchesi, M., Haino, S., & Gemme, G. 2020, LIGO-T2000012-v1 https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2000012/public

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f50 2017

  58. [61]

    2024, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VIII, Vol

    Oya, I., Aubert, P., Baroncelli, L., et al. 2024, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VIII, Vol. 13101, SPIE, 537–548 Özel, F., & Freire, P. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 401, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322 2024

  59. [62]

    2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38443, 1

    Paneque, D., Teshima, M., Seglar Arroyo, M., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38443, 1

    2024

  60. [63]

    2018, JCAP, 2018, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/05/056

    Patricelli, B., Stamerra, A., Razzano, M., Pian, E., & Cella, G. 2018, JCAP, 2018, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/05/056

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/05/056 2018

  61. [64]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A281

    Pellouin, C., & Daigne, F. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A281

    2024

  62. [65]

    2024, A&A, 690, A281, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347516

    Pellouin, C., & Daigne, F. 2024, A&A, 690, A281, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347516

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347516 2024

  63. [66]

    P., Coughlin, M

    Petrov, P., Singer, L. P., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac366d Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 31

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac366d 2022

  64. [67]

    C., Gompertz, B

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223

    2022

  65. [68]

    and Gompertz, Benjamin P

    Rastinejad, J. C., Gompertz, B. P., Levan, A. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w Rouco Escorial, A., Fong, W., Berger, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf830

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w 2022

  66. [69]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    Ryan, G., van Eerten, H., Piro, L., & Troja, E. 2020, ApJ, 896, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab93cf 2020

  67. [70]

    Salafia, O. S. 2025, A&A, 702, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555997

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555997 2025

  68. [71]

    S., Colombo, A., Gabrielli, F., & Mandel, I

    Salafia, O. S., Colombo, A., Gabrielli, F., & Mandel, I. 2022a, A&A, 666, A174, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243260

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243260

  69. [72]

    S., & Ghirlanda, G

    Salafia, O. S., & Ghirlanda, G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 93

    2022

  70. [73]

    S., Ghirlanda, G., Ascenzi, S., & Ghisellini, G

    Salafia, O. S., Ghirlanda, G., Ascenzi, S., & Ghisellini, G. 2019, A&A, 628, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935831

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935831 2019

  71. [74]

    S., & Giacomazzo, B

    Salafia, O. S., & Giacomazzo, B. 2021, A&A, 645, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038590

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038590 2021

  72. [75]

    S., Berti, A., Covino, S., et al

    Salafia, O. S., Berti, A., Covino, S., et al. 2022b, in 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 944, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0944

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0944

  73. [76]

    D., Vivanco, F

    Sarin, N., Lasky, P. D., Vivanco, F. H., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 083004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.083004 2022

  74. [77]

    and Ferrigno, C

    Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94 2017

  75. [78]

    Seglar-Arroyo, M., Ashkar, H., de Lavergne, M. d. B., & Schüssler, F. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 1

    2024

  76. [79]

    2021, Data-driven expectations for electromagnetic counterpart searches based on LIGO/Virgo public alerts: O5 Simulations, v1, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4765752

    Singer, L. 2021, Data-driven expectations for electromagnetic counterpart searches based on LIGO/Virgo public alerts: O5 Simulations, v1, Zenodo Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4765752

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4765752 2021

  77. [80]

    P., Price, L

    Singer, L. P., Price, L. R., Farr, B., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/105

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/2/105 2014

  78. [81]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    Singer, L. P., Criswell, A. W., Leggio, S. C., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17560 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18083 2025

  79. [82]

    A., Nitz, A

    Usman, S. A., Nitz, A. H., Harry, I. W., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 215004, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/21/215004

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/21/215004 2016

  80. [83]

    2015, PhRvD, 91, 042003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.042003

    Veitch, J., Raymond, V., Farr, B., et al. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 042003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.042003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.042003 2015

Showing first 80 references.