arxiv: 2604.13650 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Prospects for GRB Afterglow Discovery with the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System

James Freeburn , Dougal Dobie , Akash Anumarlapudi , Igor Andreoni , Brendan O'Connor , Eric Burns , Jonathan Carney , Hank Corbett

show 3 more authors

Michael W. Coughlin Anna Tartaglia V. Ashley Villar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords GRB afterglowsArgus ArrayDeep Synoptic ArrayFermi GBMserendipitous discoveryoptical surveysradio surveysmulti-messenger astronomy

0 comments

The pith

Argus and DSA will detect afterglows from 24% and 42% of Fermi long GRBs, plus 116 optical and 217 radio afterglows yearly without any trigger.

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

This paper simulates observations of GRB afterglows by the Argus Array in optical and the Deep Synoptic Array in radio. It calculates that these instruments will recover afterglows from 24 percent of long-duration GRBs detected by Fermi's GBM using Argus and 42 percent using DSA, for yearly rates of 47 and 82 detections. The same system will find an additional 116 optical and 217 radio afterglows each year through serendipitous scanning alone. Short GRB afterglows from neutron star mergers appear at 5 to 10 percent the long-GRB rate. Argus's rapid cadence lets it catch 18 percent of afterglows before they peak, adding early emission data.

Core claim

Simulations of GRB afterglow populations show that of the long-duration GRBs detected by the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, 24 percent will yield afterglow detections with Argus and 42 percent with DSA, for rates of 47 and 82 per year. The observatory system will additionally detect 116 optical and 217 radio afterglows per year independent of GRB triggers. Projected rates are given for the StarBurst and MoonBEAM monitors as well. Short-duration GRB afterglows will be recovered at 5 to 10 percent the long-GRB rate. Argus will observe roughly 18 percent of afterglows prior to peak because of its second-minute cadence.

What carries the argument

Monte Carlo simulations that fold GRB afterglow light curves, drawn from population models and luminosity functions, through the sensitivity, cadence, and field of view of the Argus Array and DSA instruments.

If this is right

The observatory system will detect 116 optical and 217 radio afterglows per year independent of GRB triggers, exceeding current global follow-up rates.
Short-duration GRB afterglows will be detected at 5-10 percent the long-GRB rate, supporting multi-messenger follow-up of gravitational-wave events from neutron star mergers.
Argus will detect afterglows before they peak about 18 percent of the time, expanding the sample of reverse-shock and prompt optical emission observations.
StarBurst is projected to yield 62 optical and 117 radio afterglow detections per year; MoonBEAM is projected to yield 62 and 105.
Overall afterglow samples will grow substantially, allowing statistical studies of GRB jet physics and energetics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Independent detections without triggers could remove selection biases that affect targeted follow-up programs today.
Early pre-peak observations may enable rapid alerts that coordinate other telescopes on prompt and reverse-shock phases in real time.
The larger, less biased sample could be used to test and refine the very population models that fed the simulations.
Similar survey strategies might be applied to other fast transients such as kilonovae or fast radio bursts.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated detection rates depend on how well the chosen GRB afterglow population models and luminosity functions match reality.

What would settle it

Actual annual detection counts with Argus and DSA once both are operating, compared against the predicted 47 and 82 triggered detections from Fermi GRBs or the 116 and 217 independent detections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13650 by Akash Anumarlapudi, Anna Tartaglia, Brendan O'Connor, Dougal Dobie, Eric Burns, Hank Corbett, Igor Andreoni, James Freeburn, Jonathan Carney, Michael W. Coughlin, V. Ashley Villar.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Posterior distribution of an MCMC fit of a synthetic LGRB afterglow population to a selection of observed afterglow flux density distributions at a range of frequencies and times. The jet-opening angle, θc, is in units of radians. Our synthetic population of afterglows are drawn from this posterior distribution. lated five-year survey. Additionally, Galactic extinction values are independently assigned by … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Observed and model light curves for both SGRBs and LGRBs. Right panel: LGRB afterglow models resulting from the MCMC fit in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Distribution of simulated depths in Argus g and r-band for a the baseline cadence in addition to observations stacked at 15 minute, one hour and day duration intervals. The y-axis shows the from the density of observations at each depth bin and cadence, in arbitrary units. The baseline cadence includes second cadence observations in bright time with median depths of g = 16.8 and r = 16.9 AB mag and minute … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Detection efficiency and rates of afterglow detection with DSA and Argus from GRBs detected with a variety GRB energy bands and sensitivities. We assume Ωγ = 3π and Dγ = 0.95. Top panel: the afterglow detection efficiency with GRB detector sensitivity. Bottom panel: afterglow detection rates with GRB detector sensitivity. The afterglow detection efficiencies from Argus and DSA for GRBs detected with Ferm… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Isotropic equivalent energy release versus redshift for our population of synthetic GRBs. The left panel shows the LGRB population and the right panel shows the SGRB population. The grey points indicate all simulated GRBs, the blue circles indicate GRBs detected with Swift/BAT, the orange squares indicate GRBs with afterglows detected with Argus and the black rings indicate GRBs with afterglows detected wi… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: An example of a LGRB afterglow model with a prominent, early reverse shock, showing simulated observations at the base cadence (left panel), 15-minute coadds (center panel), and 60-minute and nightly coadds (right panel). The injected light curve is shown with solid lines and its parameters are: z = 1.47, Eiso = 7.98 × 1053 erg, n0 = 0.64 cm−3 , θc = 12.42◦ , p = 2.58, log ϵe = −1.02, log ϵB = −4.83, tj = … view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Cumulative distributions of the time between an LGRB detection and the first detection of its afterglow. Distributions are shown for each Argus cadence analyzed in this work; baseline (1 second and 1 minute), 15 min, 1 hr and 1 day in addition to DSA and are expressed as a fraction of the total number of simulated detections. 10 2 10 4 10 6 Time since GRB (seconds) 10 3 10 1 10 1 10 3 Time since GRB (days)… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The same model as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Time and flux density of afterglow first 5-σ detections in Argus g and r-bands in addition to DSA. The horizontal, dotted line indicates 21 AB mag, above which spectroscopy is feasible. ducts observations in only optical band passes, g and r. We therefore highlight the utility of follow-up of Argus-detected afterglows in the form of infrared and ultraviolet imaging to constrain thermal emission and rapid-… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Two time domain surveys, recently funded as part of the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System; the Argus Array, in the optical, and the Deep Synoptic Array (DSA), in the radio, will transform gamma-ray burst (GRB) science via the serendipitous discovery of hundreds of GRB afterglows per year. In this work, we simulate DSA and Argus observations of GRB afterglows. We find that, of the long-duration GRBs (LGRBs) detected by the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, $(24 \pm 2)\%$ will yield afterglow detections with Argus and $(42 \pm 3)\%$ with DSA, corresponding to rate of $47 \pm 4$ and $82 \pm 7$ per year respectively. We also compute rates for both upcoming and proposed GRB monitors; the forthcoming StarBurst Multi-messenger Pioneer, with $62 \pm 5$ detections per year in Argus and $117 \pm 8$ detections per year in DSA and the Moon Burst Energetics All-sky Monitor (MoonBEAM) concept, with $62 \pm 6$ per year in Argus and $105 \pm 10$ per year in DSA. The observatory system will detect also 116$\pm$8 optical and 217$\pm$15 radio afterglows per year, independent of GRB triggers, exceeding the current annual rate with global follow-up. Afterglow counterparts to short-duration GRBs, originating from neutron star mergers, will be detected at $5$-$10$% of the LGRB afterglow rate, which is promising for multi-messenger detections of gravitational wave sources and constraining the neutron star merger rate. The Argus Array, with its second-minute cadence, will detect afterglows before they peak $\sim 18\%$ of the time which will dramatically increase the sample of observed reverse shock and prompt optical emission.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper delivers concrete detection-rate forecasts for the new Argus and DSA instruments that will be useful for planning, but the quoted uncertainties only capture Monte Carlo variance inside one fixed set of afterglow models.

read the letter

The central new material here is the set of yearly detection numbers for Argus and DSA applied to Fermi GBM long GRBs, plus the untriggered optical and radio rates and the short-GRB fractions. Those numbers come from folding standard population models through the stated instrument sensitivities and cadences, which is a straightforward exercise that had not been done for these specific funded facilities before. The work also extends the same machinery to StarBurst and MoonBEAM concepts, giving a consistent picture across current and near-future monitors. That is the useful part: observers and funding agencies now have ballpark figures for how many afterglows the Schmidt system will actually deliver each year, including the fraction caught before peak by Argus's fast cadence. The simulation approach itself is not novel, but applying it to these instruments and reporting the independent (non-triggered) rates is the concrete addition. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test. The reported ±2 % and ±3 % errors reflect only the sampling variance within a single choice of luminosity function, decay indices, and host extinction; no alternative faint-end slopes or reverse-shock prescriptions are shown. Because those parameters directly set how many faint afterglows cross the detection threshold, a modest shift in them can move the percentages by amounts comparable to the quoted errors. The abstract does not mention any validation run against the existing Swift or Fermi afterglow sample, which would have helped anchor the model. This is not a fatal flaw for a planning paper, but it does mean the numbers should be treated as order-of-magnitude guides rather than precise predictions. The paper is aimed at the GRB and multi-messenger community that needs to know what sample sizes the new facilities will produce. It is the kind of work that deserves a serious referee who can check the simulation setup and ask for the missing sensitivity tests. I would send it to review rather than desk-reject it.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses Monte Carlo simulations to forecast GRB afterglow detection rates with the Argus Array (optical) and Deep Synoptic Array (DSA, radio) within the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Observatory System. It reports that (24 ± 2)% of Fermi GBM long-duration GRBs (LGRBs) will yield Argus afterglow detections (47 ± 4 per year) and (42 ± 3)% will yield DSA detections (82 ± 7 per year). Additional forecasts are given for StarBurst and MoonBEAM monitors, independent (trigger-free) afterglow rates of 116 ± 8 optical and 217 ± 15 radio per year, short-GRB afterglow rates at 5–10% of the LGRB rate, and Argus pre-peak detections ~18% of the time.

Significance. If robust, the results provide concrete, quantitative guidance on the expected scientific return from two new wide-field facilities, showing that serendipitous afterglow discoveries will substantially exceed current global follow-up rates and open new windows for reverse-shock studies and multi-messenger neutron-star-merger observations.

major comments (2)

[Simulation setup and results sections (Monte Carlo sampling of afterglow light curves)] The central detection fractions ((24 ± 2)% Argus, (42 ± 3)% DSA) and their quoted uncertainties are obtained from a single forward-model realization of the afterglow population (luminosity function, light-curve parameters, jet structure, host extinction). No systematic re-runs with altered faint-end slopes, reverse-shock prescriptions, or extinction distributions are presented; because these parameters directly control the fraction of afterglows that exceed the stated sensitivity thresholds, the reported statistical errors alone do not bound the true uncertainty on the percentages.
[Independent afterglow detection rate calculation] The independent (trigger-free) rates of 116 ± 8 optical and 217 ± 15 radio afterglows per year are likewise derived from the same fixed population model without cross-validation against the observed afterglow luminosity function or existing survey yields; a modest change in the assumed redshift or luminosity distribution would rescale these numbers by amounts comparable to the quoted errors.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states the independent rates without repeating the 'per year' qualifier that appears in the body; adding it would improve immediate readability.
[Throughout] Notation for short-duration GRBs alternates between 'SGRBs' and 'short-duration GRBs'; consistent abbreviation after first use would reduce minor confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. The points raised regarding the quantification of uncertainties in our Monte Carlo simulations are well taken, and we outline below how we will strengthen the presentation of our results in revision. We address each major comment in turn.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Simulation setup and results sections (Monte Carlo sampling of afterglow light curves)] The central detection fractions ((24 ± 2)% Argus, (42 ± 3)% DSA) and their quoted uncertainties are obtained from a single forward-model realization of the afterglow population (luminosity function, light-curve parameters, jet structure, host extinction). No systematic re-runs with altered faint-end slopes, reverse-shock prescriptions, or extinction distributions are presented; because these parameters directly control the fraction of afterglows that exceed the stated sensitivity thresholds, the reported statistical errors alone do not bound the true uncertainty on the percentages.

Authors: We agree that the quoted uncertainties primarily reflect statistical sampling variance within our adopted population model rather than a full exploration of systematic variations in the underlying assumptions. The Monte Carlo draws parameters from observationally motivated distributions, but alternative choices for the faint-end luminosity-function slope, reverse-shock prescriptions, or host-extinction law could shift the detection fractions. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection on systematic uncertainties. This will include results from additional Monte Carlo realizations that vary the faint-end slope by ±0.2, adopt both standard and enhanced reverse-shock models, and employ two different extinction distributions. The impact on the central detection fractions and rates will be quantified and reported, providing a more complete uncertainty budget. revision: yes
Referee: [Independent afterglow detection rate calculation] The independent (trigger-free) rates of 116 ± 8 optical and 217 ± 15 radio afterglows per year are likewise derived from the same fixed population model without cross-validation against the observed afterglow luminosity function or existing survey yields; a modest change in the assumed redshift or luminosity distribution would rescale these numbers by amounts comparable to the quoted errors.

Authors: We acknowledge that the independent rates rest on the same population model and would benefit from explicit cross-checks. In revision we will add a paragraph comparing the simulated afterglow luminosity function and redshift distribution to those compiled from Swift optical and VLA radio afterglow samples. We will also propagate modest variations in the assumed redshift and luminosity distributions through the independent-rate calculation and report the resulting range alongside the nominal values. These checks will be incorporated into the same systematic-uncertainty subsection described above. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward Monte Carlo projections from external models

full rationale

The paper derives detection fractions and annual rates by Monte Carlo sampling of afterglow light curves drawn from literature population models, luminosity functions, and decay indices, then applying the stated instrument sensitivity and cadence. These outputs are not equivalent to the inputs by construction, nor are any parameters fitted to the target rates themselves. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz or renaming reduces the central claims to tautology. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The simulation relies on established GRB models and instrument parameters from prior work, introducing several free parameters related to detection thresholds and population statistics.

free parameters (3)

GRB afterglow luminosity function parameters
Assumed from prior literature to simulate detection rates
Instrument sensitivity thresholds
Specific to Argus and DSA, used to determine detection fractions
GRB rate and redshift distribution
Input from Fermi observations and models

axioms (2)

domain assumption GRB afterglows follow standard synchrotron emission models
Used to predict light curve evolution in optical and radio bands
domain assumption Detection is determined by flux exceeding instrument limits at certain times
Core to the simulation of serendipitous discovery

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1588 out tokens · 32107 ms · 2026-05-10T13:06:55.487177+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 129 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

, keywords =

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

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2041
[2]

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

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, ApJL, 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2041
[3]

, keywords =

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018
[4]

2020, MNRAS, 491, 5852, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3381

Andreoni, I., Cooke, J., Webb, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5852, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3381

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3381 2020
[5]

W., Kool, E

Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Kool, E. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bc7

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0bc7 2021
[6]

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

Angel, R., Bender, C., Berkson, J., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12182, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IX, ed. H. K. Marshall, J. Spyromilio, & T. Usuda, 121821U, doi: 10.1117/12.2629655

work page doi:10.1117/12.2629655 2022
[7]

D., et al

Ashton, G., H¨ ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration...

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019
[8]

1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, ApJ, 413, 281, doi: 10.1086/172995

work page doi:10.1086/172995 1993
[9]

2016, SNCosmo: Python library for supernova cosmology,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017 http://ascl.net/1611.017

Barbary, K., Barclay, T., Biswas, R., et al. 2016, SNCosmo: Python library for supernova cosmology,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1611.017 http://ascl.net/1611.017

2016
[10]

D., Barbier, L

Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al. 2005, SSRv, 120, 143, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3

work page doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5096-3 2005
[11]

C., Kulkarni, S

Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019
[12]

2016, MNRAS, 461, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1331

Beniamini, P., Nava, L., & Piran, T. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 51, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1331

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1331 2016
[13]

Beniamini, P., & van der Horst, A. J. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3161, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2203

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2203 2017
[14]

, 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
[15]

2010, ApJL, 719, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/L10

Beskin, G., Karpov, S., Bondar, S., et al. 2010, ApJL, 719, L10, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/L10

work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/1/l10 2010
[16]

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
[17]

S., Perley, D

Bloom, J. S., Perley, D. A., Li, W., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 723, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/723

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/1/723 2009
[18]

2024, Universe, 10, 187, doi: 10.3390/universe10040187

Bozzo, E., Amati, L., Baumgartner, W., et al. 2024, Universe, 10, 187, doi: 10.3390/universe10040187

work page doi:10.3390/universe10040187 2024
[19]

B., Kulkarni, S

Cenko, S. B., Kulkarni, S. R., Horesh, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 130, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/130

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/130 2013
[20]

Chandra, P., & Frail, D. A. 2012, ApJ, 746, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/156

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/2/156 2012
[21]

X., Bloom, J

Chen, H.-W., Prochaska, J. X., Bloom, J. S., & Thompson, I. B. 2005, ApJL, 634, L25, doi: 10.1086/498646

work page doi:10.1086/498646 2005
[22]

A., & Li, Z.-Y

Chevalier, R. A., & Li, Z.-Y. 1999, ApJL, 520, L29, doi: 10.1086/312147

work page doi:10.1086/312147 1999
[23]

A., & Li, Z.-Y

Chevalier, R. A., & Li, Z.-Y. 2000, ApJ, 536, 195, doi: 10.1086/308914

work page doi:10.1086/308914 2000
[24]

S., White, S

Cole, S., Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 255, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x

work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x 2001
[25]

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

Corbett, H., Vasquez Soto, A., Machia, L., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12189, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VII, 1218910, doi: 10.1117/12.2629533

work page doi:10.1117/12.2629533 2022
[26]

2013, MNRAS, 432, 1231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt540

Covino, S., Melandri, A., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt540

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt540 2013
[27]

M., Howell, E

Coward, D. M., Howell, E. J., Wan, L., & MacPherson, D. 2015, MNRAS, 449, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu192 19 de Ruiter, I., Dobie, D., Murphy, T., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.22739, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.22739 D’Elia, V., Fynbo, J. P. U., Covino, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015216

work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu192 2015
[28]

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

work page doi:10.1038/340126a0 1989
[29]

, keywords =

Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 379, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077530

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077530 2007
[30]

L., & Massa, D

Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2007, ApJ, 663, 320, doi: 10.1086/518158

work page doi:10.1086/518158 2007
[31]

M., Goldstein, A., & The MoonBEAM Team

Fletcher, C., Hui, C. M., Goldstein, A., & The MoonBEAM Team. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.16293, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.16293

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.16293 2023
[32]

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

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/102 2015
[33]

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
[34]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013
[35]

Fraija, N., Dichiara, S., Pedreira, A. C. C. d. E. S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 879, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ae4

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ae4 2019
[36]

A., Kulkarni, S

Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., Berger, E., & Wieringa, M. H. 2003, AJ, 125, 2299, doi: 10.1086/374364

work page doi:10.1086/374364 2003
[37]

2024, MNRAS, 531, 4836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1489

Freeburn, J., Cooke, J., M¨ oller, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 4836, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1489

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1489 2024
[38]

2025, MNRAS, 537, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf147

Freeburn, J., O’Connor, B., Cooke, J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2061, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf147

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf147 2025
[39]

Fynbo, J. P. U., Starling, R. L. C., Ledoux, C., et al. 2006, A&A, 451, L47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065056

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065056 2006
[40]

J., Vreeswijk, P

Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670, doi: 10.1038/27150

work page doi:10.1038/27150 1998
[41]

L., O’Brien, P

Gehrels, N., Sarazin, C. L., O’Brien, P. T., et al. 2005, Nature, 437, 851, doi: 10.1038/nature04142

work page doi:10.1038/nature04142 2005
[42]

C., Trotta , R., Berkes , P., Starkman , G

Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 483, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20053.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20053.x 2012
[43]

2022, ApJ, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

Ghirlanda, G., & Salvaterra, R. 2022, ApJ, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43 2022
[44]

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
[45]

2018, A&A, 609, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598 G´ orski, K

Ghirlanda, G., Nappo, F., Ghisellini, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731598 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731598 2018
[46]

& Sari, R.\ 2002, , 568, 2, 820

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

work page doi:10.1086/338966 2002
[47]

Granot, J., & van der Horst, A. J. 2014, PASA, 31, e008, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2013.44

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2013.44 2014
[48]

Green, G. M. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

work page doi:10.21105/joss.00695 2018
[49]

2008, PASP, 120, 405, doi: 10.1086/587032

Greiner, J., Bornemann, W., Clemens, C., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 405, doi: 10.1086/587032

work page doi:10.1086/587032 2008
[50]

2011, A&A, 528, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015891

Gruber, D., Kr¨ uhler, T., Foley, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015891

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015891 2011
[51]

2025, MNRAS, 538, 2676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf452

Gulati, A., Murphy, T., Dobie, D., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 2676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf452

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf452 2025
[52]

L., et al

Gulati, A., Murphy, T., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.20522, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.20522

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.20522 2026
[53]

The DSA-2000 -- A Radio Survey Camera

Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07648 2019
[54]

R., Millman, K

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

work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020
[55]

Hjorth,et al., A very energetic supernova associated with the𝛾-ray burst of 29 March 2003

Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., Møller, P., et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847, doi: 10.1038/nature01750

work page doi:10.1038/nature01750 2003
[56]

2012, ApJ, 756, 187, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/187 H¨ oflich, P., Wheeler, J

Hjorth, J., Malesani, D., Jakobsson, P., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 187, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/187

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/2/187 2012
[57]

Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Yao, Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bd0

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8bd0 2022
[58]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007
[59]

2014, ApJ, 785, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/84

Japelj, J., Kopaˇ c, D., Kobayashi, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/84

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/84 2014
[60]

R., Vanderspek, R., & Mo, G

Jayaraman, R., Fausnaugh, M., Ricker, G. R., Vanderspek, R., & Mo, G. 2024, ApJ, 972, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7b Jel´ ınek, M., Ierardi, A., Novotn´ y, F., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.05608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.05608

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7b 2024
[61]

2013, ApJ, 774, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/114

Jin, Z.-P., Covino, S., Della Valle, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/114

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/774/2/114 2013
[62]

A., Klose, S., & Zeh, A

Kann, D. A., Klose, S., & Zeh, A. 2006, ApJ, 641, 993, doi: 10.1086/500652

work page doi:10.1086/500652 2006
[63]

A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al

Kann, D. A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1513, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1513

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/2/1513 2010
[64]

A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al

Kann, D. A., Klose, S., Zhang, B., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/734/2/96

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/2/96 2011
[65]

2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

work page doi:10.1038/nature24453 2017
[66]

2006, Nature, 440, 184, doi: 10.1038/nature04498

Kawai, N., Kosugi, G., Aoki, K., et al. 2006, Nature, 440, 184, doi: 10.1038/nature04498

work page doi:10.1038/nature04498 2006
[67]

D., Y¨ uksel, H., Beacom, J

Kistler, M. D., Y¨ uksel, H., Beacom, J. F., Hopkins, A. M., & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2009, ApJL, 705, L104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/L104

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/l104 2009
[68]

L., & Gendre, B

Klotz, A., Bo¨ er, M., Atteia, J. L., & Gendre, B. 2009, AJ, 137, 4100, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4100 20

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4100 2009
[69]

& Zhang, B.\ 2003, , 582, 2, L75

Kobayashi, S., & Zhang, B. 2003, ApJL, 582, L75, doi: 10.1086/367691

work page doi:10.1086/367691 2003
[70]

2012, ApJ, 747, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/146

Kocevski, D. 2012, ApJ, 747, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/146

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/2/146 2012
[71]

E., Briggs, M., et al

Kocevski, D., Grove, J. E., Briggs, M., et al. 2024, in AAS/High Energy Astrophysics Division, Vol. 21, AAS High Energy Astrophysics Division Meeting #21, 406.02

2024
[72]

G., Lipunov, V

Kornilov, V. G., Lipunov, V. M., Gorbovskoy, E. S., et al. 2012, Experimental Astronomy, 33, 173, doi: 10.1007/s10686-011-9280-z

work page doi:10.1007/s10686-011-9280-z 2012
[73]

A., Chandler, C

Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb 2020
[74]

Q., & Reichart, D

Lamb, D. Q., & Reichart, D. E. 2000, ApJ, 536, 1, doi: 10.1086/308918

work page doi:10.1086/308918 2000
[75]

M., Fors, O., Ratzloff, J., et al

Law, N. M., Fors, O., Ratzloff, J., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 234, doi: 10.1086/680521

work page doi:10.1086/680521 2015
[76]

and Corbett, Hank and Galliher, Nathan W

Law, N. M., Corbett, H., Galliher, N. W., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 035003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac4811

work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac4811 2022
[77]

K., Murphy, T., Lenc, E., et al

Leung, J. K., Murphy, T., Lenc, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4029, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1670

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1670 2023
[78]

K., Murphy, T., Ghirlanda, G., et al

Leung, J. K., Murphy, T., Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab326

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab326 2021
[79]

2010, ApJ, 725, 2209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2209

Liang, E.-W., Yi, S.-X., Zhang, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2209

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/2209 2010
[80]

D., et al

Lien, A., Sakamoto, T., Barthelmy, S. D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 7, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/7 LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (LSST DESC),

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/7 2016

Showing first 80 references.