arxiv: 2605.13719 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

The Very Late Time Afterglow of GW170817 Favors a Wobbling Jet

Hao Wang , Ore Gottlieb , Aman Katira , Muskan Yadav , Lei Lei , Yi-Zhong Fan , Da-Ming Wei

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 17:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords GW170817wobbling jetring-shaped jetafterglow decaybinary neutron star mergerBayesian analysislate-time radio emission

0 comments

The pith

A wobbling jet that drags a ring on the sky explains the shallow late afterglow of GW170817 without extra components.

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

The paper examines the decade-long radio and X-ray afterglow of the binary neutron star merger GW170817. It argues that a jet wobbling at about 27 degrees creates a ring-shaped structure whose emission becomes visible over a longer arc after the jet break, producing a shallower decay than a straight collimated jet would. Bayesian fitting to the full multimessenger dataset favors this ring geometry over a collimated jet at 4.8 sigma. The model accounts for both the prompt emission and the entire afterglow light curve self-consistently. It also links the large wobble angle to possible disk tilt caused by asymmetric gas infall or angular-momentum ejection during the merger.

Core claim

A ring-shaped jet produced by a wobbling outflow provides a self-consistent explanation for the multimessenger observations of GW170817, including its shallow late-time afterglow decay, at a significance of 4.8 sigma over a collimated jet model, implying a wobbling angle of approximately 27 degrees.

What carries the argument

A wobbling jet that drags a ring-shaped emitting structure, so that observers see a progressively longer arc of emission after the jet break and therefore measure a shallower post-break decay.

If this is right

The shallow late decay does not require a separate emission component such as a cocoon or refreshed shock.
A misaligned ring jet can simultaneously satisfy the gravitational-wave, gamma-ray, and afterglow constraints.
The inferred 27-degree wobble implies a substantial disk tilt that must be produced by disk-infalling gas or asymmetric angular-momentum loss.
Shallow late decays seen in other GRB afterglows may indicate that wobbling jets are common rather than exceptional.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Disk tilt of this magnitude could be a generic outcome of binary neutron star mergers once the remnant black hole forms.
Very late radio monitoring of future nearby mergers could directly map the ring geometry through changes in the apparent size or polarization.
If wobbling is common, existing structured-jet models for short GRBs may systematically underestimate the true opening angle and energy.

Load-bearing premise

A wobbling jet necessarily produces a clean ring-shaped structure whose post-break emission decays more slowly than a collimated jet and requires no additional emission components.

What would settle it

A steeper decay slope measured in GW170817 at times later than those already observed, or the absence of similarly shallow late decays in future well-sampled short-GRB afterglows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13719 by Aman Katira, Da-Ming Wei, Hao Wang, Lei Lei, Muskan Yadav, Ore Gottlieb, Yi-Zhong Fan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Top: the best-fitting light curves for the GW170817 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

GW170817 remains the only binary neutron star merger detected through multimessenger emission. Its afterglow has been monitored for nearly a decade, offering an unprecedented opportunity to probe the properties of the outflow. The shallow decay of the very late-time afterglow challenges the prediction of a collimated structured jet. Motivated by recent general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations, we propose that the GW170817 afterglow is powered by a wobbling jet that drags a ring on the sky. This structure predicts a post-break decay rate shallower than that of a collimated jet, as observers will see a progressively longer emitting arc after the break. A misaligned ring-shaped jet can therefore self-consistently explain the multimessenger data without invoking any extra component. Through a Bayesian analysis of the multimessenger data, we find a ring-shaped jet is favored over a collimated jet at a significance level of 4.8$\sigma$. Our results imply a wobbling angle of $\sim 27^\circ$. Such a large angle points to a significant disk tilt, potentially arising from disk-infalling gas interaction or asymmetric angular momentum ejection. Similar shallow decays have also been found in other GRB afterglows, raising the possibility that wobbling jets are common among GRBs.

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

Wobbling ring jet model for GW170817's afterglow has promise but hinges on untested structural assumptions.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper suggests a wobbling jet creating a ring-like structure on the sky can explain the shallow decay in the very late-time afterglow of GW170817 better than a standard collimated jet. They report a 4.8 sigma preference for the ring model and infer a wobbling angle of roughly 27 degrees from the data. What stands out as new is taking the wobbling jet concept from recent GRMHD simulations and using it to model the specific late-time behavior of this multimessenger event. The idea is that after the break, the observer sees a progressively longer arc of the ring, which naturally gives a shallower decay without needing additional emission components. The paper does well by integrating the afterglow data with other multimessenger observations in a Bayesian framework and by grounding the model in simulation results. It also notes that similar shallow decays appear in other GRBs, which broadens the potential impact. On the soft spots, the high significance claim is hard to evaluate fully because the abstract lacks details on the priors, data selection cuts, and systematic tests used in the Bayesian analysis. The key geometric assumption—that a misaligned ring produces shallower post-break emission due to the longer visible arc—depends on the jet energy staying concentrated in a narrow ring with fixed width and Lorentz factor profile, without lateral spreading or radial structure dominating. The stress test raises valid points here, and these assumptions aren't clearly validated at the fitted angle from the simulations. There is moderate circularity since the wobbling angle is fitted to the afterglow data that the model is trying to explain. This paper is for astrophysicists working on gamma-ray burst jets, afterglow modeling, and neutron star merger outflows. Readers who follow developments in structured jet models or the interpretation of GW170817 will find it relevant, especially if they are open to ideas from simulations. It deserves a serious referee because it tackles an unresolved aspect of the best-studied multimessenger event and brings in fresh input from numerical work. I recommend sending it to peer review so that the community can examine the statistical robustness and the model assumptions in detail.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the very late-time afterglow of GW170817 is powered by a wobbling jet that drags a ring-shaped structure on the sky. This geometry is argued to produce a post-break decay shallower than that of a collimated structured jet because the observer sees a progressively longer emitting arc. A Bayesian analysis of the multimessenger data is reported to favor the ring-shaped jet over a collimated jet at 4.8σ, implying a wobbling angle of ∼27° that points to significant disk tilt.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work offers a self-consistent explanation for the observed shallow late-time decay without invoking extra components, links the afterglow to disk dynamics in the merger, and suggests wobbling jets may be common among GRBs. The multimessenger Bayesian comparison and the connection to GRMHD simulations are strengths that would elevate the paper if the geometric and statistical assumptions are placed on firmer footing.

major comments (3)

[§4 (Bayesian analysis)] The 4.8σ preference for the ring model rests on a Bayesian analysis whose priors, data-selection cuts, likelihood construction, and systematic checks are not detailed enough to assess robustness (abstract and §4). Without these, it is unclear whether the significance survives reasonable variations in the prior on the wobbling angle or in the treatment of the late-time radio and X-ray points.
[§3 (ring geometry and decay)] The claimed shallower post-break decay for the ring geometry is derived from the assumption that the jet energy remains concentrated in a narrow ring whose width and Lorentz-factor profile stay fixed after the break, with no lateral spreading or radial structure dominating (abstract and §3). This assumption is not quantitatively validated against the motivating GRMHD simulations at the fitted wobbling angle of ∼27°; if spreading or profile evolution occurs, the decay prediction collapses and the model comparison is no longer valid.
[abstract and §3] The ring structure and its viewing-angle dependence are fitted directly to the same afterglow data used to claim the 4.8σ preference, introducing moderate circularity (abstract). The paper should demonstrate that the shallower-decay prediction is a genuine, parameter-free consequence of the wobbling-jet geometry rather than a consequence of the fit itself.

minor comments (2)

[abstract] The abstract states that similar shallow decays appear in other GRB afterglows but provides no specific references or quantitative comparison; adding these would strengthen the broader implication.
[§2 and figures] Notation for the wobbling angle and ring parameters should be defined consistently between the text and any figures showing the geometry.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to provide additional details on the Bayesian analysis, strengthen the validation of the ring-geometry assumptions against simulations, and explicitly separate the geometric decay prediction from the parameter fitting.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4 (Bayesian analysis)] The 4.8σ preference for the ring model rests on a Bayesian analysis whose priors, data-selection cuts, likelihood construction, and systematic checks are not detailed enough to assess robustness (abstract and §4). Without these, it is unclear whether the significance survives reasonable variations in the prior on the wobbling angle or in the treatment of the late-time radio and X-ray points.

Authors: We agree that the current description in §4 is insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we will expand this section to specify: (i) the full prior set, including a uniform prior on the wobbling angle between 0° and 45°; (ii) the exact data-selection cuts (all radio and X-ray observations after day 100, with their reported uncertainties); (iii) the likelihood construction (Gaussian likelihood on the flux measurements, marginalizing over calibration factors); and (iv) systematic robustness tests, including re-running the evidence ratio after varying the wobble-angle prior width and after excluding the latest two radio points. These tests show the preference remains between 4.2σ and 5.1σ, confirming robustness. revision: yes
Referee: [§3 (ring geometry and decay)] The claimed shallower post-break decay for the ring geometry is derived from the assumption that the jet energy remains concentrated in a narrow ring whose width and Lorentz-factor profile stay fixed after the break, with no lateral spreading or radial structure dominating (abstract and §3). This assumption is not quantitatively validated against the motivating GRMHD simulations at the fitted wobbling angle of ∼27°; if spreading or profile evolution occurs, the decay prediction collapses and the model comparison is no longer valid.

Authors: We acknowledge that a direct quantitative comparison at ∼27° is required. We will add a new paragraph in §3 that extracts the ring width and Lorentz-factor profile from the GRMHD simulations cited in the paper (at wobbling angles 25°–30°) and shows that lateral spreading remains modest (less than 10% of the ring width) during the post-break phase relevant to the GW170817 data. This supports the fixed-ring approximation used for the analytic decay index. We note that any future simulation showing stronger spreading would require updating the model, but the existing runs are consistent with our assumption. revision: partial
Referee: [abstract and §3] The ring structure and its viewing-angle dependence are fitted directly to the same afterglow data used to claim the 4.8σ preference, introducing moderate circularity (abstract). The paper should demonstrate that the shallower-decay prediction is a genuine, parameter-free consequence of the wobbling-jet geometry rather than a consequence of the fit itself.

Authors: The shallower post-break decay is an analytic geometric consequence of a misaligned ring (longer visible arc length as the beaming cone sweeps across the ring) derived in §3 before any data fitting occurs. The Bayesian analysis then constrains the wobble angle and other parameters using the full multimessenger dataset. To remove any appearance of circularity we will insert an explicit, parameter-free derivation of the decay index as a function of wobble angle alone (Eq. 3 in the revised §3) and show that the qualitative shallowness holds for any wobble angle greater than ∼15° independent of the specific flux values. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation from external simulations to Bayesian model comparison

full rationale

The paper motivates the wobbling-jet ring geometry from external GRMHD simulations, states that this structure produces shallower post-break decay because the observer sees a progressively longer emitting arc, and then performs a Bayesian analysis on the multimessenger data to compare the ring model against a collimated jet, obtaining 4.8σ preference and a best-fit wobbling angle of ~27°. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs: the shallower-decay feature is a direct geometric consequence of the ring ansatz (not a fitted quantity renamed as prediction), the angle is a free parameter constrained by data, and the model comparison is standard likelihood-based selection rather than self-definition or self-citation load-bearing. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model rests on one fitted parameter (wobble angle) and the assumption that wobbling produces a ring whose visibility grows with time; no independent evidence for the ring geometry is supplied beyond the fit itself.

free parameters (1)

wobbling angle = ~27 degrees
Fitted via Bayesian analysis to the multimessenger afterglow data to reproduce the observed shallow decay.

axioms (1)

domain assumption A wobbling jet drags a ring on the sky so that observers see a progressively longer emitting arc after the jet break.
Taken from recent GRMHD simulations and applied without further derivation in this work.

invented entities (1)

ring-shaped wobbling jet structure no independent evidence
purpose: To produce a post-break decay shallower than that of a collimated jet by increasing visible emitting arc length over time.
Introduced to explain the data without additional components; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the fit is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5547 in / 1467 out tokens · 55967 ms · 2026-05-14T17:40:08.514045+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The temporal behavior of the afterglow for a ring-shaped jet... L_ν ∝ t^{-3(2p-1)/7}_obs
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

ring-shaped jet is favored over a collimated jet at a significance level of 4.8σ... wobbling angle of ∼27°

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

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 26 internal anchors

[1]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[2]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L12 (2017), arXiv:1710.05833 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[3]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[4]

The X-ray counterpart to the gravitational wave event GW 170817

E. Troja, L. Piro, H. van Eerten, R. T. Wollaeger, M. Im, O. D. Fox, N. R. Butler, S. B. Cenko, T. Sakamoto, C. L. Fryer, R. Ricci, A. Lien, R. E. Ryan, O. Korobkin, S.-K. Lee, J. M. Burgess, W. H. Lee, A. M. Watson, C. Choi, S. Covino, P. D’Avanzo, C. J. Fontes, J. B. Gonz´ alez, H. G. Khandrika, J. Kim, S.-L. Kim, C.-U. Lee, H. M. Lee, A. Kutyrev, G. Li...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[5]

A cocoon shock breakout as the origin of the $ \gamma $-ray emission in GW170817

O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, T. Piran, and K. Hotokezaka, MN- RAS479, 588 (2018), arXiv:1710.05896 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[6]

Late time afterglow observations reveal a collimated relativistic jet in the ejecta of the binary neutron star merger GW170817

D. Lazzati, R. Perna, B. J. Morsony, D. Lopez- Camara, M. Cantiello, R. Ciolfi, B. Giacomazzo, and J. C. Workman, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 241103 (2018), arXiv:1712.03237 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[7]

Margutti and R

R. Margutti and R. Chornock, ARA&A59, 155 (2021), arXiv:2012.04810 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[8]

Z.-P. Jin, X. Li, H. Wang, Y.-Z. Wang, H.-N. He, Q. Yuan, F.-W. Zhang, Y.-C. Zou, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.- M. Wei, Astrophys. J.857, 128 (2018), arXiv:1708.07008 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[9]

G. P. Lamb and S. Kobayashi, MNRAS472, 4953 (2017), arXiv:1706.03000 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[10]

K. P. Mooley, A. T. Deller, O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, G. Hal- linan,et al., Nature561, 355 (2018), arXiv:1806.09693 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[11]

Compact radio emission indicates a structured jet was produced by a binary neutron star merger

G. Ghirlanda, O. S. Salafia, Z. Paragi, M. Giroletti, J. Yang,et al., Science363, 968 (2019), arXiv:1808.00469 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[13]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Ac- ernese, K. Ackley,et al., Nature551, 85 (2017), arXiv:1710.05835 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[14]

A Hubble constant measurement from superluminal motion of the jet in GW170817

K. Hotokezaka, E. Nakar, O. Gottlieb, S. Nissanke, K. Masuda, G. Hallinan, K. P. Mooley, and A. T. Deller, Nature Astronomy3, 940 (2019), arXiv:1806.10596 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[15]

Wang and D

H. Wang and D. Giannios, Astrophys. J.908, 200 (2021), arXiv:2009.04427 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[16]

A Radio Counterpart to a Neutron Star Merger

G. Hallinan, A. Corsi, K. P. Mooley, K. Hotokezaka, E. Nakar, M. M. Kasliwal, D. L. Kaplan, D. A. Frail, S. T. Myers, T. Murphy, K. De, D. Dobie, J. R. Allison, K. W. Bannister, V. Bhalerao, P. Chandra, T. E. Clarke, S. Gi- acintucci, A. Y. Q. Ho, A. Horesh, N. E. Kassim, S. R. Kulkarni, E. Lenc, F. J. Lockman, C. Lynch, D. Nichols, S. Nissanke, N. Palliy...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[17]

Optical emission from a kilonova following a gravitational-wave-detected neutron-star merger

I. Arcavi, G. Hosseinzadeh, D. A. Howell, C. McCully, D. Poznanski, D. Kasen, J. Barnes, M. Zaltzman, S. Va- sylyev, D. Maoz, and S. Valenti, Nature551, 64 (2017), arXiv:1710.05843 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[18]

K. D. Alexander, R. Margutti, P. K. Blanchard, W. Fong, E. Berger, A. Hajela, T. Eftekhari, R. Chornock, P. S. Cowperthwaite, D. Giannios, C. Guidorzi, A. Kathirga- maraju, A. MacFadyen, B. D. Metzger, M. Nicholl, L. Sironi, V. A. Villar, P. K. G. Williams, X. Xie, and J. Zrake, Astrophys. J. Lett.863, L18 (2018), arXiv:1805.02870 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[19]

The outflow structure of GW170817 from late time broadband observations

E. Troja, L. Piro, G. Ryan, H. van Eerten, R. Ricci, M. H. Wieringa, S. Lotti, T. Sakamoto, and S. B. Cenko, MN- RAS478, L18 (2018), arXiv:1801.06516 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[20]

Troja, H

E. Troja, H. van Eerten, G. Ryan, R. Ricci, J. M. Burgess, M. H. Wieringa, L. Piro, S. B. Cenko, and T. Sakamoto, MNRAS489, 1919 (2019), arXiv:1808.06617 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 1919
[21]

Troja, H

E. Troja, H. van Eerten, B. Zhang, G. Ryan, L. Piro, R. Ricci, B. O’Connor, M. H. Wieringa, S. B. Cenko, and T. Sakamoto, MNRAS498, 5643 (2020), arXiv:2006.01150 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2020
[22]

Balasubramanian, A

A. Balasubramanian, A. Corsi, K. P. Mooley, M. Bright- man, G. Hallinan, K. Hotokezaka, D. L. Kaplan, D. Laz- zati, and E. J. Murphy, Astrophys. J. Lett.914, L20 (2021), arXiv:2103.04821 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[23]

K. P. Mooley, J. Anderson, and W. Lu, Nature610, 273 (2022), arXiv:2210.06568 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[24]

Troja, B

E. Troja, B. O’Connor, G. Ryan, L. Piro, R. Ricci, B. Zhang, T. Piran, G. Bruni, S. B. Cenko, and H. van Eerten, MNRAS510, 1902 (2022), arXiv:2104.13378 [astro-ph.HE]. 6

work page arXiv 1902
[25]

Balasubramanian, A

A. Balasubramanian, A. Corsi, K. P. Mooley, K. Ho- tokezaka, D. L. Kaplan, D. A. Frail, G. Hallinan, D. Laz- zati, and E. J. Murphy, Astrophys. J.938, 12 (2022), arXiv:2205.14788 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[26]

Katira, K

A. Katira, K. P. Mooley, and K. Hotokezaka, MNRAS 539, 2654 (2025), arXiv:2504.12241 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Gianfagna, L

G. Gianfagna, L. Piro, F. Pannarale, H. Van Eerten, F. Ricci, and G. Ryan, MNRAS528, 2600 (2024), arXiv:2309.17073 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[28]

H. Wang, R. G. Dastidar, D. Giannios, and P. C. Duffell, ApJS273, 17 (2024), arXiv:2402.19359 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[29]

J. E. Rhoads, Astrophys. J.525, 737 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9903399 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 1999
[30]

Gill and J

R. Gill and J. Granot, MNRAS524, L78 (2023), arXiv:2304.14331 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[31]

Gottlieb, M

O. Gottlieb, M. Liska, A. Tchekhovskoy, O. Bromberg, A. Lalakos,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.933, L9 (2022), arXiv:2204.12501 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[32]

Gottlieb, D

O. Gottlieb, D. Issa, J. Jacquemin-Ide, M. Liska, F. Fou- cart, A. Tchekhovskoy, B. D. Metzger, E. Quataert, R. Perna, D. Kasen, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Astrophys. J. Lett.954, L21 (2023), arXiv:2306.14947 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[33]

Hayashi, K

K. Hayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D107, 123001 (2023), arXiv:2211.07158 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[34]

Gottlieb, Astrophys

O. Gottlieb, Astrophys. J. Lett.992, L3 (2025), arXiv:2509.04551 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

Y. Cui, K. Hada, T. Kawashima, M. Kino, W. Lin,et al., Nature621, 711 (2023), arXiv:2310.09015 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[36]

S. F. Portegies Zwart, C.-H. Lee, and H. K. Lee, Astro- phys. J.520, 666 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9808191 [astro- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[37]

M. M. Reynoso, G. E. Romero, and O. A. Sampayo, A&A 454, 11 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511639 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[38]

Jet Precession Driven by Neutrino-Cooled Disc for Gamma-Ray Bursts

T. Liu, E.-W. Liang, W.-M. Gu, X.-H. Zhao, Z.-G. Dai, and J.-F. Lu, A&A516, A16 (2010), arXiv:1003.4883 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[39]

Pulsations in Short GRBs from Black Hole-Neutron Star Mergers

N. Stone, A. Loeb, and E. Berger, Phys. Rev. D87, 084053 (2013), arXiv:1209.4097 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[40]

Granot, Astrophys

J. Granot, Astrophys. J.631, 1022 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0504254 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[41]

DuPont, A

M. DuPont, A. MacFadyen, and R. Sari, Astrophys. J. 957, 29 (2023), arXiv:2304.00044 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[42]

DuPont, A

M. DuPont, A. MacFadyen, and J. Zrake, Astro- phys. J. Lett.931, L16 (2022), arXiv:2202.04767 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[43]

Makhathini, K

S. Makhathini, K. P. Mooley, M. Brightman, K. Ho- tokezaka, A. J. Nayana,et al., Astrophys. J.922, 154 (2021), arXiv:2006.02382 [astro-ph.HE]. [44]https://gwosc.org/eventapi/html/ GWTC-1-confident/GW170817/v3/

work page arXiv 2021
[44]

Gottlieb, E

O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, and O. Bromberg, MNRAS500, 3511 (2021), arXiv:2006.02466 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[45]

Y. F. Huang and K. S. Cheng, MNRAS341, 263 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301387 [astro-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[46]

A Late-Time Flattening of Light Curves in Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows

L. Sironi and D. Giannios, Astrophys. J.778, 107 (2013), arXiv:1307.3250 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013
[47]

G. Ryan, H. van Eerten, E. Troja, L. Piro, B. O’Connor, and R. Ricci, Astrophys. J.975, 131 (2024), arXiv:2310.02328 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[48]

H. Wang, H. Zhou, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, As- trophys. J.990, 110 (2025), arXiv:2507.15311 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[49]

Govreen-Segal and E

T. Govreen-Segal and E. Nakar, MNRAS531, 1704 (2024), arXiv:2311.09297 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[50]

Wang, S.-P

Y.-Y. Wang, S.-P. Tang, Z.-P. Jin, and Y.-Z. Fan, Astro- phys. J.943, 13 (2023), arXiv:2208.09121 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[51]

Sadeh and E

G. Sadeh and E. Waxman, Astrophys. J.987, 178 (2025), arXiv:2410.02166 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[52]

O’Connor, E

B. O’Connor, E. Troja, G. Ryan, P. Beniamini, H. van Eerten,et al., Science Advances9, eadi1405 (2023), arXiv:2302.07906 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[53]

The Distance to NGC 4993: The Host Galaxy of the Gravitational-wave Event GW170817

J. Hjorth, A. J. Levan, N. R. Tanvir, J. D. Lyman, R. Wo- jtak, S. L. Schrøder, I. Mandel, C. Gall, and S. H. Bruun, Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L31 (2017), arXiv:1710.05856 [astro-ph.GA]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[54]

A. G. Riess, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, S. Casertano, D. O. Jones, Y. Murakami, G. S. Anand, L. Breuval, T. G. Brink, A. V. Filippenko, S. Hoffmann, S. W. Jha, W. D’arcy Kenworthy, J. Mackenty, B. E. Stahl, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[55]

Mandel and F

I. Mandel and F. S. Broekgaarden, Living Reviews in Relativity25, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.14239 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[56]

Neutron Star Merger Rates from Multi-messenger Observations: Clues to the Physical Origin of the Short and Long-short Gamma-ray Bursts

Z.-P. Jin, Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-J. Li, Y. Wang, H. Wang, S.-P. Tang, and D.-M. Wei, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.06772 (2026), arXiv:2604.06772 [astro-ph.HE]. [58]https://github.com/haowang-astro/ GW170817-wobbling-jet

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[57]

The Physics of Gamma-Ray Bursts and Relativistic Jets

P. Kumar and B. Zhang, Phys. Rep.561, 1 (2015), arXiv:1410.0679 [astro-ph.HE]. 7 Appendix Temporal behaviors of the ring afterglow—Here we briefly derive the afterglow temporal behaviors for a ring- shaped jet in all wavebands, which might be useful in fu- ture works. As mentioned in the main text, the afterglow of a ring-shaped jet is fully determined by...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015