High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena · arXiv:2608.27555 v1 · submitted 27 Aug 2026 · 2 references
A first-principles binary neutron star merger model of GW170817, GRB170817A, and AT2017gfo
The paper says
“The multimessenger observation of the binary neutron star merger event GW170817, associated with its electromagnetic counterparts GRB170817A and AT2017gfo, marked a milestone in astrophysics, yet its unified physical explanation remains elusive.”
more of the abstract
We conduct an end-to-end simulation based on a first-principles general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics neutrino-radiation transfer merger simulation, followed by nucleosynthesis calculations and photon radiative transfer to generate kilonova light curves. We show that the large-scale dynamo simultaneously produces a relativistic jet with an isotropic-equivalent luminosity of $\sim 10^{51}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ and ≈ 0.08M⊙ of neutron-rich ejecta, reproducing the GRB170817A afterglow and the AT2017gfo kilonova light curves. Our results establish a unified first-principles framework for interpreting binary neutron star mergers across gravitational wave, gamma-ray burst, and kilonova observations.
from the abstract
Pith says
Machine review · deepseek-v4-flash · 9 Sep 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person
It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.
Holds up, with conditions. Impressive end-to-end BNSS simulation that approximately matches GW170817 across all messengers, but the central claim of dynamo seed-field independence rests on a single cited run not in this paper. This line is wrong
3 major objections · 5 minor
How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured
Not checked: figures, code, what the 2 references say.
The paper says, at Supplementary Text, 'Convergence study in numerical relativity simulation' (Figs. S6, S7) and Eq. (S1)
The review did not quote this passage.
Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major
The seed-field independence of the large-scale dynamo, which is load-bearing for the central claim, is not established by the material in this paper. Equation (S1) sets B0,max = 10^15 G, and the convergence study varies B0 and resolution simultaneously: the fiducial run is 12.5 m with B0,max = 10^15 G, while the weak-seed runs are 200 m with B0,max = 10^14 G and 200 m with B0,max = 10^15 G.
more of objection 1
The 200 m / 10^14 G run does not launch a Poynting-flux outflow, and the text attributes this to resolution, stating that the lack of growth is 'merely caused by the low resolution, not by the weak initial field strength.' However, no presented run isolates a realistic ~10^11-10^12 G seed at a resolution known to resolve the magnetorotational instability, and the winding test of Fig. S6(A) demonstrates only that magnetic winding is resolution-insensitive, not that a dynamo seeded at 10^11-10^12 G reaches the same saturated large-scale field within the ~0.07 s remnant lifetime. The decisive computation (6.25 m, B0,max = 10^12.5 G) is cited only as ref. 71 (2026, no venue). Because the jet luminosity (Fig. 2A) and the ~0.08 solar mass ejecta (Fig. 2B) are both products of this same dynamo, a dependence of the saturation level on the initial seed would invalidate all three multimessenger matches. The revision should either present the high-resolution weak-seed run (or a B0 variation at fixed, resolved resolution) or explicitly restate the central claim as conditional on the evidence in ref. 71.
The paper says, at Main text, 'Application to GRB170817A afterglow', Fig. 3(A)
The review did not quote this passage.
Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major
The claim that the model reproduces the afterglow-inferred jet kinetic energy rests on a comparison band whose width is set by two auxiliary assumptions: a lower bound at 10% conversion efficiency and an upper bound boosted by a factor of 25 from non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics effects (ref. 44).
more of objection 2
These assumptions span a factor of roughly 250 in energy and bracket the observationally required range, so the test is substantially weaker than the wording 'can reproduce the required jet kinetic energy' suggests. The authors should state explicitly where the unboosted 100%-efficiency integrated jet energy (the blue line in Fig. 3A) falls relative to the afterglow posteriors, and should either provide a stronger justification for the factor-25 boost or present the comparison without it.
The paper says, at Main text, 'Application to AT2017gfo', and Supplementary Fig. S18
The review did not quote this passage.
Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major
There is an internal tension in the He/Sr consistency claim. The main text states that the spherically averaged mass fractions of He and Sr at v approximately 0.15-0.2 c (7e-3 and 7e-2, respectively) 'are consistent with the abundance constraints,' while the Supplementary Text accompanying Fig.
more of objection 3
S18 states that the Sr density in the high-velocity outer region 'exceeds the inferred upper limit required to reproduce the observed spectral features of AT2017gfo.' These two statements should be reconciled: the authors should specify at which velocities the Sr density violates the constraint, how the v ~ 0.15-0.2 c mass fractions map onto the density-space constraint shown in Fig. S18, and whether the Sr excess in the outer ejecta weakens the nucleosynthesis-consistency argument made in the main text.
5 minor objections
The paper says, at Abstract and Materials and Methods
Pith says: minor objection 1 of 5
The term 'first-principles' should be qualified: the initial field strength B0,max = 10^15 G (Eq. S1), the atmospheric density floor, the sigma_B reset prescription, the gamma-ray effective opacity kappa_gamma = 0.03 cm^2/g, and the domain-removal times t_rmv are input prescriptions rather than derived quantities. A short statement distinguishing these numerical/initial-data choices from the physics treated self-consistently would prevent over-reading of the abstract's claim.
The paper says, at Supplementary Text, Fig. S9 vs Materials and Methods
Pith says: minor objection 2 of 5
The legend of Fig. S9 reads '100 m, N = 386 -> 216,' while the Materials and Methods text states the grid number is reduced 'from N=385 to 217'; elsewhere the run is described as 'N=217.' This numerical inconsistency should be corrected.
show 3 more
The paper says, at Supplementary Text, 'Uncertainties and systematic errors in kilonova light curve modeling', Fig. S16(A)
Pith says: minor objection 3 of 5
The paper acknowledges that the early (t - t_merger < 0.5 d) bolometric luminosity can be systematically overestimated because of numerical dissipation in the HD simulation. Since the abstract claims reproduction of the AT2017gfo light curves, the main text should state explicitly that the early epoch is subject to this systematic effect and that the reliable comparison window starts near 0.5 d.
The paper says, at Main text, Fig. 3(C) and Supplementary Fig. S17(B)
Pith says: minor objection 4 of 5
The broadband comparison still shows unexplained discrepancies (rapid fading in g, r, i and an early excess in z), and the authors interpret these as non-LTE effects by invoking ref. 45. This is a plausible but not demonstrated resolution; a sentence in the conclusions quantifying which bands and epochs are well reproduced, and which are not, would make the 'approximately reproduces' claim more precise.
The paper says, at Main text, 'Application to GRB170817A afterglow'
Pith says: minor objection 5 of 5
The jet kinetic energy is integrated only up to t - t_merger = 0.3 s and within theta < 10 degrees, while the simulation continues to 0.7 s and the finest grid is relaxed to 100 m with the Cowling approximation after 0.155 s. A brief justification that the 0.3 s cutoff and the reduced post-0.155 s resolution do not underestimate the time-integrated jet energy would strengthen the afterglow comparison.
What would settle it
Make the decisive run of ref. 71 openly available in the supplementary material, or repeat the fiducial 12.5 m simulation with B0,max = 10^11–10^12 G (or at least the 25 m run if the former is computationally prohibitive) for >0.1 s after merger, and compare the mean poloidal-field energy, Poynting-flux luminosity, and ejecta mass with Figs. S3B, S6, S7, and Fig. 2. Agreement within a factor of roughly 2 would settle the seed-independence assumption; a divergence of more than a factor of 10 would undercut the central claim.
from the skeptic's reading
How the review went
4 readings by deepseek-v4-flash · 9 Sep 2026
- Reader holds up, with conditions
- Skeptic agrees
- Editor wrote the verdict above
- Referee major revision: 3 major objections, 5 minor
Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.
Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.
The review in full
The review in brief, machine-written
This is a serious piece of work and a genuine step forward. The authors have done something no one has done before: a single first-principles GRMHD+neutrino simulation that simultaneously produces a jet consistent with GRB170817A's afterglow, ~0.08 Msun of ejecta, and a kilonova light curve in the right ballpark for AT2017gfo. The simulation is state-of-the-art: 12.5 m resolution, 0.3 s post-merger evolution, nested grids, and a careful dynamo analysis with butterfly diagrams and alpha parameters. The convergence tests (varying resolution from 12.5 m to 200 m, with and without field winding) are presented in the supplement, and the energy/momentum conservation is excellent. For a field that has been stuck on 'this model explains one channel but not the others,' this is a genuine synthesis.
But the load-bearing assumption is the seed-field independence of the large-scale dynamo. The run uses B0 = 1015 G — six orders above observed pulsar fields. The paper's convergence test varies B0 and resolution together: 12.5 m/1015 G is compared to 200 m/1014 G and 200 m/1015 G. The 200 m/1014 G run fails to launch a Poynting outflow. The authors attribute this to resolution, but the test does not isolate a 1011-1012 G seed at a resolution known to resolve the MRI. The winding test at 1011 G only shows that pure winding is resolution-insensitive, not that a realistic seed reaches the same saturated field within the remnant's ~0.07 s lifetime. The decisive simulation (6.25 m, B0=1012.5 G) is in press as ref. 71. Since the jet power and ejecta mass both derive from the same dynamo, failure of seed independence would invalidate the three-messenger match.
Other soft spots: the kilonova model assumes LTE and uses a gray gamma opacity (0.03 cm2/g) at the low end of the literature range; early optical light curves show discrepancies that the authors attribute to non-LTE effects, which is honest but unresolved. The paper cites itself heavily (12 of ~120 refs are the group's own work), but each cited result is relevant and largely consistent — not circular, just narrow.
Who should read this: anyone working on BNSS multimessenger interpretation, GRB jets, or kilonova modeling. It will be a reference point for the field.
My recommendation: send it to peer review — it's important enough and well-executed. But the referee should press for a forthright limitation statement: the seed-field independence is not yet proven within this paper, and the central claim therefore carries a caveat that the authors should explicitly acknowledge. If that can be added without overclaiming, the paper is publishable.
The strongest objection
The central claim requires that the large-scale dynamo saturates at essentially the same state regardless of the initially imposed magnetic field, because the simulation initializes B0,max = 10^15 G (Eq. S1), many orders of magnitude above observed pulsar fields. That condition is not established by the material in this paper. The main convergence test (Figs. S6 and S7) varies initial field strength and grid resolution simultaneously: the fiducial run is 12.5 m with B0,max = 10^15 G, while the weak-seed runs are 200 m with B0,max = 10^14 G and 200 m with B0,max = 10^15 G. The 200 m/10^14 G run fails to launch a Poynting-flux outflow, and the text attributes this entirely to resolution, stating that the lack of growth is 'merely caused by the low resolution, not by the weak initial field strength.' But no run isolates a realistic 10^11–10^12 G seed at a resolution known to resolve the magnetorotational instability. The separate winding test uses 10^11 G only to show that pure magnetic winding is resolution-insensitive; it does not show that a dynamo starting from a realistic seed reaches the same saturated large-scale field within the ~0.07 s remnant lifetime. The decisive evidence, a 6.25 m run with B0,max = 10^12.5 G, is not presented here but only cited as ref. 71 (2026). Since the jet power and the ~0.08 Msun ejecta in this model are both produced by the same large-scale dynamo, failure of seed independence would invalidate all three multimessenger matches.
I read the paper as making a conditional central claim: a first-principles end-to-end simulation approximately matches GW170817, GRB170817A, and AT2017gfo, provided the large-scale magnetic field generated inside the remnant is insensitive to the initially imposed, unrealistically strong 10^15 G seed. Everything downstream—the Poynting-flux jet, the 0.08 Msun of neutron-rich ejecta, the r-process yields, and the kilonova light curves—depends on that dynamo reaching its saturated state. The paper offers substantial supporting diagnostics: MRI quality factors above threshold, Shakura-Sunyaev parameter saturation, butterfly diagrams with quantitative agreement to alpha-Omega dynamo theory, tracer-particle convergence, mapping-error checks, and conservation checks. The weak point is precisely the initial-field dependence. The presented convergence study is honest but not decisive: it varies B0 and resolution simultaneously, and the one genuinely weak-seed run at 200 m is dismissed as resolution-limited. The paper explicitly outsources the decisive weak-seed high-resolution test to ref. 71, which is not shown here. I considered whether the GRB afterglow comparison is a more serious defect, since it is an energetic consistency argument with a factor-250 shaded range rather than a full afterglow calculation. That is a real limitation, but the paper phrases it as a comparison to the robust inferred jet kinetic energy, so it weakens the precision but not the logical backbone of the claim. The initial-field assumption is more load-bearing because it sits upstream of all three observables. The reader's weakest-assumption analysis identifies the same point, and the appropriate verdict remains CONDITIONAL: the work is a major advance, but the seed-independence claim needs to be demonstrated in the presented record rather than deferred to a companion paper.
The referee's report
If the central claim holds, this would be a milestone result: a self-consistent merger-to-light-curve model matching the full multimessenger dataset with no tuning of the equation of state or chirp mass to the electromagnetic observables, with the comparisons performed post hoc. The paper has unusual verification depth for this literature: MRI quality factors, Shakura-Sunyaev diagnostics, dynamo butterfly-diagram and alpha-Omega period comparisons, energy and angular momentum conservation to about 0.3% and 1.8%, mapping-error quantification for the nucleosynthesis chain, viewing-angle dependence studies, HD resolution tests, and a gamma-ray transport cross-check. These are real strengths and should be credited. The principal risk is the seed-field independence of the large-scale dynamo: the presented convergence study varies initial field strength and resolution simultaneously, and the decisive high-resolution weak-seed run is only cited as unpublished work (ref. 71). Because both the jet and the ejecta mass derive from the same dynamo-sustained large-scale field, this assumption is load-bearing for all three multimessenger matches.
Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')
This paper claims that a fully first-principles, end-to-end general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulation of a binary neutron star merger approximately reproduces the gravitational wave signal of GW170817, the afterglow of GRB170817A, and the complete kilonova light curve of AT2017gfo. If true, this would establish that the large-scale αΩ dynamo inside the remnant neutron star simultaneously launches a relativistic jet and ejects about 0.08 solar masses of neutron-rich matter, providing a unified physical picture of a multimessenger event. The model bridges the gap between previous short-lived and long-lived remnant scenarios by using an intermediate equation of state with maximum neutron star mass ~2.11 solar masses.
What carries the argument. The magnetorotational instability-driven αΩ dynamo inside the remnant massive neutron star is the central mechanism. It generates a large-scale poloidal magnetic field from turbulent fields, which then launches a relativistic jet via the magnetic tower effect and later via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism after black hole formation. The same dynamo also drives the post-merger mass ejection.
Core claim. The paper asserts that the key to reproducing the observations is the large-scale magnetic field generated by the magnetorotational instability-driven αΩ dynamo inside the remnant massive neutron star, which survives for about 0.07 seconds before collapsing to a black hole. This dynamo produces a Poynting-flux-dominated jet with isotropic-equivalent luminosity up to $10^{52}$–$10^{53}$ erg/s and drives the ejection of neutron-rich matter. The subsequent black hole and accretion torus sustain the jet via the Blandford-Znajek mechanism. The resulting ejecta mass and electron fraction distribution, when processed through r-process nucleosynthesis and radiative transfer, yield a kilonova light curve that matches the observed bolometric and broadband data of AT2017gfo, including the inferred helium and strontium abundances.
The premise it rests on. The simulation initializes the magnetic field to a maximum of $10^{15}$ G, about three orders of magnitude stronger than observed in binary pulsars, and relies on convergence tests with coarser grids and weaker fields to argue that the large-scale dynamo is independent of this seed, but this test does not fully demonstrate that a realistic seed field would grow to the same saturation level within the merger timescale.
If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')
If correct, the model provides a self-consistent explanation for the origin of short gamma-ray bursts from binary neutron star mergers, showing that jet launching does not require a long-lived magnetar.
The specific equation of state (BHBΛφ with M_TOV_max ~2.11 M_sun) becomes a prime candidate for explaining GW170817, and future mergers can be used to narrow down the M_TOV_max–Λ_135 parameter space.
The finding that the ejecta mass is ~0.08 M_sun and that the electron fraction peaks at ~0.2 implies that r-process nucleosynthesis in such mergers produces a distribution consistent with solar abundances, with minimal production of 56Ni.
The approximate agreement with the helium and strontium abundance constraints suggests that the merger ejecta is neutron-rich even in a remnant that survives for ~0.07 s, relaxing previous constraints based on models without magnetohydrodynamics.
The successful reproduction of the multimessenger data suggests that future gravitational wave events with electromagnetic counterparts can be interpreted using this simulation framework, provided the equation of state and binary parameters are similar.
The model's reliance on a strong initial magnetic field (10^15 G) that is not observed in neutron stars implies that either the dynamo is extremely efficient in amplifying realistic seed fields, or the initial condition is not physically motivated; a definitive verification would require a simulation starting from a realistic field strength with sufficient resolution.
If the model holds, it strengthens the case that the remnant in GW170817 formed a short-lived black hole, ruling out the long-lived magnetar scenario for this event.
Check this review
Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.
How often reviews like this one are right
Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4-flash, where what was read was not recorded.
How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured
Reviews by people
This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.
The paper
Abstract
The multimessenger observation of the binary neutron star merger event GW170817, associated with its electromagnetic counterparts GRB170817A and AT2017gfo, marked a milestone in astrophysics, yet its unified physical explanation remains elusive. We conduct an end-to-end simulation based on a first-principles general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics neutrino-radiation transfer merger simulation, followed by nucleosynthesis calculations and photon radiative transfer to generate kilonova light curves. We show that the large-scale dynamo simultaneously produces a relativistic jet with an isotropic-equivalent luminosity of $\sim 10^{51}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ and ≈ 0.08M⊙ of neutron-rich ejecta, reproducing the GRB170817A afterglow and the AT2017gfo kilonova light curves. Our results establish a unified first-principles framework for interpreting binary neutron star mergers across gravitational wave, gamma-ray burst, and kilonova observations.
The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23
The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.84
“Our results establish a unified first-principles framework for interpreting binary neutron star mergers across gravitational wave, gamma-ray burst, and kilonova observations.”
How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00
What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.24 · states limitation 0.13 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.10 · mentions code or data availability 0.03
The abstract, sentence by sentence
This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.
| Sentence | Role | The authors' own work | States the main conclusion | Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The multimessenger observation of the binary neutron star merger event GW170817, associated with its electromagnetic counterparts GRB170817A and AT2017gfo, marked a milestone in astrophysics, yet its unified physical explanation remains elusive. | background 0.64 | 0.04 | 0.03 | asserted 0.99 |
| We conduct an end-to-end simulation based on a first-principles general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamics neutrino-radiation transfer merger simulation, followed by nucleosynthesis calculations and photon radiative transfer to generate kilonova light curves. | method 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.04 | asserted 0.95 |
| We show that the large-scale dynamo simultaneously produces a relativistic jet with an isotropic-equivalent luminosity of $\sim 10^{51}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ and $\approx 0.08M_\odot$ of neutron-rich ejecta, reproducing the GRB170817A afterglow and the AT2017gfo kilonova light curves. | result 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.70 | asserted 1.00 |
| Our results establish a unified first-principles framework for interpreting binary neutron star mergers across gravitational wave, gamma-ray burst, and kilonova observations. | interpretation 0.97 | 0.84 | 0.86 | asserted 1.00 |
What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00
What was examined, and what was not
Sources read
- arXiv listing abstract v1
Not examined
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
Levels run
- P abstract
Not run
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
How the labels were made
Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,994 input tokens.
Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON
References (2)
- [2] (B) The same as the panel (A), but the magnetic field is initialized during the inspiral phase. The blue and cyan curves denote the simulation withΔ𝑥 16=12.5 m with𝑁=385 (main paper) andΔ𝑥 12 =200 m with𝑁=217, respectively. The orange curve represents the simulation withΔ𝑥 12=... on Pith
- [99] argue that the conventional magnetorotational-instability quality factor may not be an appropriate diagnostic for the magneto-turbulent state because the background flow, on which the linear perturbation calculation relies (31), is highly non-axisymmetric. On the other hand, R... on Pith
Cited by 3 Pith papers
Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record
- Spins do not add: why rotating stars do not help spin-up black holes in binaries gr-qc · Nov 2026
- The kinematic Kelvin-Helmholtz instability-driven dynamo: implications for merging compact objects astro-ph.HE · Nov 2026
- Jet energetics and remnant magnetism in short gamma-ray bursts from binary neutron-star mergers: A statistical study via broadband afterglow modeling astro-ph.HE · Nov 2026
How the literature uses it
What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites
What it cites · 46 sentences without a confident label
Uses the method or tool of 3 papers
-
On top of the numerical relativity simulation data, we conduct the r-process nucleosynthesis calculation [ref] .
Production of all the r-process nuclides in the dynamical ejecta of neutron star mergers · Introduction · 0.98
-
Then, we export the resultant r-process elemental abundances and radioactive decay heating rate as well as ejecta structure to the Monte Carlo photon radiative transfer simulation to calculate the kilonova light curve [ref] (see Materials & Methods for details of each stage).
Diversity of kilonova light curves · Introduction · 0.99
-
End-to-end binary neutron star merger model– We first conduct a fully general relativistic, high-resolution, long-term, neutrino-radiation transfer magnetohydrodynamics simulation for a symmetric binary neutron star merger with the in-house code NANASI [ref] .
Implementation of advanced Riemann solvers in a neutrino-radiation magnetohydrodynamics code in numerical relativity and its application to a binary neutron star merger · Introduction · 1.00
Compares with 2 papers
-
With this setup, the remnant massive neutron star is neither a very short-lived $∼0.01 s$ [ref] , nor a very long-lived $∼10 s$ [ref] case.
A large-scale magnetic field produced by a solar-like dynamo in binary neutron star mergers · Introduction · 0.89
-
With this setup, the remnant massive neutron star is neither a very short-lived $∼0.01 s$ [ref] , nor a very long-lived $∼10 s$ [ref] case.
Self-consistent picture of the mass ejection from a one second-long binary neutron star merger leaving a short-lived remnant in general-relativistic neutrino-radiation magnetohydrodynamic simulation · Introduction · 0.89
Cites as support 1 paper
-
As demonstrated in [ref] , suppressing the populations in neutral and singly-ionized states tends to decrease the opacity in the optical bands, which could potentially solve these discrepancies (see also Supplementary Text for more discussion).
Non-Thermal Ionization of Kilonova Ejecta: Observable Impacts · Introduction · 0.96
Cites as background 4 papers
-
Introduction and unresolved issues–The binary neutron star merger event GW170817, together with the associated gamma-ray burst GRB170817A and kilonova AT2017gfo, marked the beginning of the era of multimessenger astronomy [ref] .
GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral · Introduction · 0.99
-
Introduction and unresolved issues–The binary neutron star merger event GW170817, together with the associated gamma-ray burst GRB170817A and kilonova AT2017gfo, marked the beginning of the era of multimessenger astronomy [ref] .
Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817 · Introduction · 0.99
-
Introduction and unresolved issues–The binary neutron star merger event GW170817, together with the associated gamma-ray burst GRB170817A and kilonova AT2017gfo, marked the beginning of the era of multimessenger astronomy [ref] .
GW170817: Measurements of Neutron Star Radii and Equation of State · Introduction · 0.99
Challenges and discussion
Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.
Come back by email
A short list of the week's newly reviewed papers. Nothing is sent until you confirm from your inbox, and every email has a link that stops it. No account.
No comments yet.
Sign in to comment