Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 10 cited by

Kilonovae

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review argues that the optical and infrared transient AT2017gfo, found alongside the gravitational-wave event GW170817, was a kilonova powered by the radioactive decay of roughly 0.02 to 0.06 solar masses of r-process nuclei…

desk verdict A useful, authoritative review of kilonova physics and GW170817 interpretation; not a new-results paper, but the field needed this stable reference. read the letter →

arxiv 1910.01617 v1 pith:2IG5OPXI submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.HE

Brian D. Metzger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords kilonovar-processnucleosynthesisneutronstarmergersGW170817AT2017gfogravitationalwaveslanthanideopacityequationofstate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review synthesizes the physics of kilonovae, the thermal transients powered by radioactive decay of r-process nuclei in neutron-star merger ejecta, and argues that the optical and infrared transient AT2017gfo, discovered alongside GW170817, confirms the pre-existing theoretical picture. The paper shows that the observed blue-to-red color evolution matches a two-component model: early emission from lanthanide-free, higher-electron-fraction ejecta, followed by week-long near-infrared emission from lanthanide-rich, neutron-rich ejecta. The inferred total ejecta mass, roughly 0.02 to 0.06 solar masses, agrees with independent modeling groups and with the disk-wind ejecta predicted by merger simulations. A sympathetic reader would care because, if this interpretation holds, neutron-star mergers are established as major sources of heavy elements like gold and platinum, and kilonova light curves become direct probes of the neutron-star equation of state.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the dependence of kilonova emission on three coupled ingredients: the electron fraction $Y_e$ of the ejecta, which determines whether lanthanide and actinide elements form; the effective gray opacity $\kappa$, which is about 20 to 30 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ for lanthanide-rich matter and about 1 to 3 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ for lanthanide-free matter; and the r-process radioactive heating rate, which decays roughly as $t^{-1.3}$ after the first second. The toy model combines these in a photon-diffusion equation for a homologously expanding ejecta, giving peak times, luminosities, and colors that map directly to ejecta mass, velocity, and composition. This framework is what allows the observed blue-to-red color evolution of AT2017gfo to be translated into a two-component ejecta structure and an inferred total mass.

What would settle it

Laboratory measurements of bound-bound transition wavelengths and oscillator strengths for singly and doubly ionized lanthanides at temperatures of roughly 5,000 to 10,000 K would settle whether the effective opacities of 20 to 30 cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ used for lanthanide-rich ejecta are correct; if the measured line-expansion opacity differs by a factor of several, the inferred ejecta masses and composition from AT2017gfo would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AT2017gfo, the electromagnetic counterpart of GW170817, was a kilonova powered by the radioactive decay of freshly synthesized r-process nuclei in roughly 0.02 to 0.06 solar masses of ejecta. The early optical emission arose from lanthanide-free ejecta with relatively high electron fraction, while the persistent near-infrared emission was produced by lanthanide-bearing, neutron-rich ejecta. The author argues that this blue-red dichotomy, the peak timescales of about a day and a week, and the inferred ejecta masses were all anticipated by the theoretical framework summarized in the review, including the toy model that couples ejecta sources, nuclear heating rates, and lanthanide opacities. The light curve is consistent with r-process heating alone, without requiring a central engine, and the inferred large ejecta mass exceeds the dynamical ejecta from merger simulations, pointing to disk winds as the dominant ejecta source.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the theoretical lanthanide and actinide opacities, whose line strengths are not experimentally measured; if those opacities are inaccurate, the inferred ejecta masses, the claimed lanthanide detection, and the equation-of-state constraints would all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, neutron-star mergers are major, and possibly dominant, sources of r-process elements in the universe, provided the local merger rate is near current LIGO/Virgo estimates.
  • Kilonova light curves can be used to infer the merger remnant type: prompt collapse to a black hole should produce dim, red kilonovae, while longer-lived remnants should produce brighter, bluer emission, potentially boosted by magnetar spin-down.
  • The inference that GW170817 formed a short-lived hypermassive neutron star yields an upper limit on the maximum non-rotating neutron star mass of approximately 2.17 solar masses, tightening constraints on the nuclear equation of state.
  • Future observations within hours of a merger, including possible ultraviolet emission from decaying free neutrons or shock re-heating by a jet, could distinguish between different ejecta sources and central engine activity.
  • A sample of about ten joint gravitational-wave and electromagnetic detections with well-measured kilonova light curves should reveal predicted trends in brightness and color with binary chirp mass, testing the remnant-lifetime dependence of ejecta electron fraction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If laboratory measurements confirm the calculated lanthanide opacities, the same two-component framework could be applied to sparser photometry, allowing electron-fraction distributions to be inferred from color evolution alone in events without spectra.
  • The paper's opacity mapping implies that strong UV/optical suppression is a generic signature of lanthanide-rich ejecta; future wide-field UV surveys could therefore identify kilonovae earlier and more cheaply than waiting for near-infrared follow-up at peak.
  • A natural test of the framework is a predicted correlation between binary chirp mass and the blue-to-red flux ratio across a sample of mergers, which would follow from the dependence of ejecta electron fraction on remnant lifetime.
  • Should the theoretical lanthanide opacities prove overestimated by even a factor of a few, the inferred ejecta masses from AT2017gfo would shrink, potentially dropping below disk-wind predictions and reopening the question of the ejecta's origin.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review article synthesizes the history, physics, and observational status of kilonovae, from Li & Paczyński's parametrized radioactive-heating model through the current two-component (blue/red) paradigm built on lanthanide-free and lanthanide-rich ejecta. It develops a self-contained one-dimensional toy model (Sect. 4) for r-process heating, gray opacities, diffusion, and optional central-engine inputs, and applies it to GW170817/AT2017gfo. The paper's central claim is that the observed blue-to-red color evolution, the ~1-day optical peak, the ~week NIR peak, and the bolometric luminosity of AT2017gfo are consistent with radioactive heating of roughly 0.02-0.06 solar masses of r-process ejecta, confirming the main pre-GW170817 predictions of the two-component picture, and that this interpretation disfavors a long-lived NS remnant and supports a relatively low TOV mass.

Significance. If the review's central claim is accepted, it makes the case that NS mergers are major r-process production sites and that kilonovae are robust electromagnetic counterparts for gravitational-wave follow-up. The paper's strengths are its explicit toy-model equations, its unusually candid treatment of dominant uncertainties (Sects. 3.2, 7.3, 8), its coverage of independent groups' analyses of AT2017gfo, and its concrete, falsifiable predictions for future mergers (Sect. 7.3). It is a valuable synthesis for a review journal and will likely be a standard reference; the quantitative mass and composition claims are, however, more opacity-limited than the headline wording sometimes suggests, and this should be tied to the stated uncertainty in lanthanide opacities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sect. 5, Eq. (24), Table 6] The quantitative central claim -- that AT2017gfo confirms the pre-GW170817 prediction and that the total ejecta mass is 0.02-0.06 solar masses -- is more opacity-limited than the text states at the point of inference. Equations (7) and (24) give t_peak proportional to kappa^(1/2) and L_peak proportional to kappa^(-0.65), so a factor-of-3 uncertainty in the gray lanthanide opacities (the scale quoted in Sect. 3.2) shifts the mass inferred from any one component by roughly 1.5-2, comparable to the width of the quoted 0.02-0.06 solar mass range. The blue/red decomposition shown in Fig. 11 and the lanthanide-rich/poor assignment in Table 6 use the Tanaka et al. (2019) opacities that Sect. 3.2 itself states are not experimentally measured. I recommend that the ejecta-mass rows of Table 6 and the abstract's 'largely confirmed' wording be framed as robust in the qualitative sense (timescale, blue-to-red color evolution, bolometric light-curve shape), with the quantitative masses explicitly labeled as opacity- and nuclear-model-limited; the paper already contains the material needed for this qualification in Sects. 3.2 and 5.
  2. [Sect. 5.1, Table 6] The exclusion of a SMNS/stable remnant and the resulting upper limit M_TOV less than about 2.17 solar masses depend partly on the inference that the red component is lanthanide-rich disk-wind ejecta, which in turn uses the opacity ladder in Eq. (20). Because the same unvalidated lanthanide opacities enter this chain, the EOS constraint inherits the opacity uncertainty; the text should state that the M_TOV bound is conditional on the opacity model rather than presenting it only through the EM/GW reasoning. I am not requesting new calculations, only a clear conditional caveat at the point where the EOS limit is quoted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 4, Eq. (11)] The first expression for t_d,v contains a factor beta in the denominator, whereas the second equality has no beta; as written the two sides differ by beta approximately 3. Please reconcile with Eq. (7) and clarify whether beta multiplies the diffusion time or appears only in the peak-time expression.
  2. [Sect. 4, first paragraph and Sect. 7.1] There are a few typographical errors: 'proceeded' should be 'preceded' in the description of blue kilonova emission, 'explainded' should be 'explained' in the discussion of GRB 080503, and the acronym for the James Webb Space Telescope is 'JWST', not 'JSWT'.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains the doubled phrase 'binary binary mass ratios'; it should read 'binary mass ratios'.
  4. [Sect. 2.1, after Eq. (3)] The sentence beginning 'Given a rate RNS-NS of detection' is missing the word 'rate'; it should read 'Given a rate R_NS-NS of detection' or 'Given the NS-NS detection rate' for clarity.
  5. [Table 6] The 'Heavy r-process yield (A greater than about 140)' row appears smaller than the 'Red KN ejecta (Amax greater than about 140)' row; please clarify whether the 'heavy yield' refers to a specific abundance range (for example the third r-process peak and beyond) and how the two rows relate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's central claims are pre-event predictions compared with external observations, not fits renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The manuscript is a review whose central assertion is that kilonova theory predictions compiled before GW170817 (Li & Paczynski 1998; Metzger et al. 2010b; Barnes & Kasen 2013; Tanaka & Hotokezaka 2013; Metzger & Fernandez 2014) were broadly confirmed by AT2017gfo. The light-curve inference of ejecta mass uses Eq. (7) t_peak ~ (M kappa / v)^{1/2} and Eq. (24) L_peak ~ M^{0.35} kappa^{-0.65}, with gray opacities cited to Tanaka et al. (2019). These opacities are not fitted in this paper to the GW170817 light curve; they are independent atomic-structure calculations descended from pre-event work. The paper explicitly flags the opacity uncertainty in Sect. 3.2 ("the atomic states and line strengths of these complex elements are not measured experimentally"), so the mass and composition statements are model-dependent but not circular. Self-citations (Metzger et al. 2010b, Metzger & Fernandez 2014, Margalit & Metzger 2017, Siegel & Metzger 2017, Metzger, Thompson, & Quataert 2018) are used as references for earlier calculations, not as unsupported premises that force the conclusion. No equation in the paper defines a prediction in terms of the data it then claims to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The red-plus-blue two-component structure was published before the event (Metzger & Fernandez 2014; Fig. 2 timeline), and the comparison to AT2017gfo is an external benchmark. The review's own stated limitations concern unmeasured lanthanide opacities and nuclear-network uncertainties, which are correctness risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review's central claims rest on standard radiative diffusion, on simulated r-process heating rates, and on theoretical lanthanide opacities that lack direct experimental verification. The toy model uses illustrative parameters from prior work rather than fitting to new data, and the paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • Velocity index beta = 3 (adopted)
    Power-law index in Eq. (10) for the mass-velocity distribution, chosen from a fit to Bauswein et al. (2013b) dynamical ejecta simulations rather than to kilonova data.
  • Thermalization efficiency constants (a, b, d) = a = 0.56, b = 0.17, d = 0.74
    Adopted from Barnes et al. (2016) for a layer with M = 1e-2 solar masses and v0 = 0.1 c; used in Eq. (25) to set the thermalization efficiency in the example light curves.
  • Gray opacities kappa(Ye) = 20-30, 3-5, and 1 cm2/g for the three Ye bins
    Taken from Tanaka et al. (2019) and encoded in Eq. (20); the red and blue dichotomy and the composition inference for GW170817 depend on these values.
  • R-process heating fit parameters = Edot = 4e18 erg/s/g, t0 = 1.3 s, sigma = 0.11 s, decay index 1.3
    Analytic fit from Korobkin et al. (2012) used in Eq. (22) and (23) to represent the radioactive heating rate; underlies the peak luminosity estimates.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ejecta expands homologously with a power-law velocity distribution M_v = M(v/v0)^-beta with beta = 3.
    Used from Eq. (10) onward to derive diffusion times and peak times; based on a fit to numerical merger simulations, not on the target observations.
  • domain assumption The r-process heating rate follows the Korobkin et al. (2012) analytic fit, with thermalization efficiency from Barnes et al. (2016).
    Eqs. (21) through (25) adopt these forms as the baseline radioactive power source; they come from nuclear network calculations and radiative transfer models in the cited literature.
  • domain assumption The gray opacity values by electron fraction, from Tanaka et al. (2019), represent the ejecta near peak light.
    Eq. (20) and Table 4 encode the red and blue emission dichotomy. The paper explicitly notes that lanthanide opacities are not experimentally measured and are difficult to compute from first principles.
  • domain assumption The kilonova emission is thermal blackbody radiation characterized by the photosphere radius and effective temperature.
    Eqs. (18) and (19) assume blackbody spectra, which is standard for this class of models but ignores wavelength-dependent transport and possible non-thermal contributions from central engines.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kilonovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2IG5OPXI

@misc{pith2026191001617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kilonovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2IG5OPXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1910.01617}
}
read the original abstract

The coalescence of double neutron star (NS-NS) and black hole (BH)-NS binaries are prime sources of gravitational waves (GW) for Advanced LIGO/Virgo and future ground-based detectors. Neutron-rich matter released from such events undergo rapid neutron capture (r-process) nucleosynthesis as it decompresses into space, enriching our universe with rare heavy elements like gold and platinum. Radioactive decay of these unstable nuclei powers a rapidly evolving, approximately isotropic thermal transient known as a ``kilonova', which probes the physical conditions during the merger and its aftermath. Here I review the history and physics of kilonovae, leading to the current paradigm of day-timescale emission at optical wavelengths from lanthanide-free components of the ejecta, followed by week-long emission with a spectral peak in the near-infrared (NIR). These theoretical predictions, as compiled in the original version of this review, were largely confirmed by the transient optical/NIR counterpart discovered to the first NS-NS merger, GW170817, discovered by LIGO/Virgo. Using a simple light curve model to illustrate the essential physical processes and their application to GW170817, I then introduce important variations about the standard picture which may be observable in future mergers. These include ~hours-long UV precursor emission, powered by the decay of free neutrons in the outermost ejecta layers or shock-heating of the ejecta by a delayed ultra-relativistic outflow; and enhancement of the luminosity from a long-lived central engine, such as an accreting BH or millisecond magnetar. Joint GW and kilonova observations of GW170817 and future events provide a new avenue to constrain the astrophysical origin of the r-process elements and the equation of state of dense nuclear matter.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. Subsolar-mass binary mergers of strange stars and neutron stars: gravitational waves and ejecta

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Subsolar strange star mergers produce a lower post-merger-to-cutoff GW frequency ratio than neutron star mergers, cleanly separating the two classes across equations of state and mass ratios.

  2. Direct Measurement of the Accretion Disk Formed in Prompt Collapse Mergers with Future Gravitational-Wave Observatories

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The postmerger ringdown frequency of promptly collapsing binary neutron star mergers is correlated with accretion disk mass, allowing a proposed 10 percent measurement with third-generation gravitational wave detectors.

  3. 3D Binary Neutron Star Merger Ejecta Evolution up to Seconds Timescale: Dynamics, Element Distribution, and Light Curves

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Long 3D simulations of neutron star merger ejecta show radioactive heating keeps reshaping heavy-element outflows, and 3D light curves are dimmer but no closer to AT2017gfo than 2D ones.

  4. Transport Properties of the MRI in Differentially Rotating Neutron Stars

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Saturated MRI turbulence in differentially rotating neutron stars yields ℓ_mix ≈ (0.01–0.1) λ_MRI, largely independent of density, so standard GRLES mixing-length prescriptions overestimate transport by about an order...

  5. Black hole-neutron star binaries with high spins and large mass asymmetries: III. Properties of the ejected material and its electromagnetic signatures

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    High-spin, high-mass-ratio black hole–neutron star mergers eject 0.02–0.06 solar masses of neutron-rich (Y_e≈0.05) debris whose kilonovae are infrared-bright, optically dark, and match late-time AT2017gfo while stayin...

  6. Impact of eccentricity and higher-modes on neutron star-black hole parameter estimation

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric NSBH signals like GW200105 contain much more information about masses, mass ratio, and effective spin per unit SNR than circular signals, but not about sky position or distance.

  7. nmma: An extended Bayesian framework for Nuclear Multimessenger Astronomy in the Era of Next-Generation Detectors

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    nmma now jointly samples nuclear EoS parameters with GW and EM data via TOV emulators and Fiesta surrogates, delivering 20–60× speedups and future H0–nuclear constraints.

  8. SPH methods in the modelling of compact objects

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    An updated expert review of Newtonian and general-relativistic SPH for compact-object mergers, arguing that modern SPH variants with better kernels, steered dissipation and reproducing gradients match grid-based codes...

  9. The equation of state for neutron stars

    nucl-th 2026-07 unverdicted

    A textbook-style review of the neutron-star equation of state covering the models, experimental and observational constraints, and open questions, with no new result claimed or derived.

  10. Neutrinos from explosive transients at the dawn of multi-messenger astronomy

    astro-ph.HE 2024-12 unverdicted

    This review summarizes the state of neutrino emission from supernovae and neutron-star mergers, covering thermal and high-energy signals, flavor conversion, and multi-messenger detection strategies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Class Quantum Grav 27:173,001, DOI 10.1088/0264-9381/27/17/173001, 1003.2480 Abbott BP, et al (2016a) Binary Black Hole Mergers in the First Advanced LIGO Observing Run

    Abadie J, et al (2010) Predictions for the rates of compact binary coalescences observable by ground-based gravitational-wave detectors. Class Quantum Grav 27:173,001, DOI 10.1088/0264-9381/27/17/173001, 1003.2480 Abbott BP, et al (2016a) Binary Black Hole Mergers in the First Advanced LIGO Observing Run. Phys Rev X 6(4):041015, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041...

    arXiv 2010

  2. [5]

    05897 Bucciantini N, Metzger BD, Thompson TA, Quataert E (2012) Short gamma-ray bursts with extended emission from magnetar birth: jet formation and collimation. Mon Not 75 R Astron Soc 419:1537–1545, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19810.x, 1106.4668 Buckley DAH, Andreoni I, Barway S, Cooke J, Crawford SM, Gorbovskoy E, Gromadzki M, Lipunov V, Mao J, Potter...

    work page arXiv 2012

  3. [7]

    1086/174525, astro-ph/9401032 De S, Finstad D, Lattimer JM, Brown DA, Berger E, Biwer CM (2018) Tidal Deformabilities and Radii of Neutron Stars from the Observation of GW170817. Physical Review Letters 77 121(9):091102, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.091102, 1804.08583 Demorest PB, Pennucci T, Ransom SM, Roberts MSE, Hessels JWT (2010) A two-solar- mass neu...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  4. [8]

    3847/2041-8213/aa9060, 1710.05844 Dietrich T, Ujevic M (2017) Modeling dynamical ejecta from binary neutron star merg- ers and implications for electromagnetic counterparts. Classical and Quantum Gravity 34(10):105014, DOI 10.1088/1361-6382/aa6bb0, 1612.03665 Dietrich T, Bernuzzi S, Ujevic M, Tichy W (2017a) Gravitational waves and mass ejecta from binary...

    arXiv 2017

  5. [10]

    1088/0004-637X/702/2/1171, 0907.2290 Cˆ ot´ e B, Fryer CL, Belczynski K, Korobkin O, Chru´ sli´ nska M, Vassh N, Mumpower MR, Lip- puner J, Sprouse TM, Surman R, Wollaeger R (2018) The Origin of r-process Elements in the Milky Way. ApJ855(2):99, DOI 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad67, 1710.05875 76 Cˆ ot´ e B, Eichler M, Arcones A, Hansen CJ, Simonetti P, Frebel A,...

    arXiv 2018

  6. [11]

    3847/2041-8213/aac6c1, 1804.04179 Fischer T, Whitehouse SC, Mezzacappa A, Thielemann FK, Liebend¨ orfer M (2010) Pro- toneutron star evolution and the neutrino-driven wind in general relativistic neu- trino radiation hydrodynamics simulations. Astron Astrophys 517:A80, DOI 10.1051/ 0004-6361/200913106, 0908.1871 Fong W, Berger E (2013) The Locations of Sh...

    arXiv 2010

  7. [12]

    3847/1538-4357/aac206, 1710.05442 Goriely S, Demetriou P, Janka HT, Pearson JM, Samyn M (2005) The r-process nucle- osynthesis: a continued challenge for nuclear physics and astrophysics. Nucl Phys A 758:587–594, DOI 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.107, astro-ph/0410429 Goriely S, Bauswein A, Janka HT (2011) r-process Nucleosynthesis in Dynamically Ejected Ma...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  8. [13]

    1093/mnras/sty797, 1801.08943 Hallinan G, Corsi A, Mooley KP, Hotokezaka K, Nakar E, Kasliwal MM, Kaplan DL, Frail DA, Myers ST, Murphy T (2017) A radio counterpart to a neutron star merger. Science 358(6370):1579–1583, DOI 10.1126/science.aap9855, 1710.05435 Hjorth J, Levan AJ, Tanvir NR, Lyman JD, Wojtak R, Schrøder SL, Mandel I, Gall C, Bruun SH (2017)...

    arXiv 2017

Show all 21 references
  1. [15]

    3847/2041-8213/ab0210, 1901.09977 Korobkin O, Rosswog S, Arcones A, Winteler C (2012) On the astrophysical robustness of the neutron star merger r-process. Mon Not R Astron Soc 426:1940–1949, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21859.x, 1206.2379 Korobkin O, Hungerford AM, Fryer CL, ...

    2012 arXiv

  2. [18]

    Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 59:185, DOI 10.1006/adnd.1995

    1038/nature24153 M¨ oller P, Nix JR, Myers WD, Swiatecki WJ (1995) Nuclear Ground-State Masses and Deformations. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 59:185, DOI 10.1006/adnd.1995. 1002, nucl-th/9308022 87 Mooley KP, Deller AT, Gottlieb O, Nakar E, Hallinan G, Bourke S, Frail D...

    1995 arXiv

  3. [21]

    1093/mnras/stw1227, 1601.02426 Radice D, Perego A, Bernuzzi S, Zhang B (2018a) Long-lived remnants from binary neutron star mergers. MNRAS481(3):3670–3682, DOI 10.1093/mnras/sty2531, 1803.10865 Radice D, Perego A, Hotokezaka K, Bernuzzi S, Fromm SA, Roberts LF (2018b) Viscous-...

    2018 arXiv

  4. [708]

    3395 Metzger BD, Piro AL, Quataert E (2009) Neutron-rich freeze-out in viscously spreading accretion discs formed from compact object mergers. Mon Not R Astron Soc 396:304– 314, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14380.x, 0810.2535 Metzger BD, Arcones A, Quataert E, Mart´ ınez-Pined...

    2009

  5. [1204]

    ApJL869(1):L3, DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1ab, 1811.08906 Fairhurst S (2011) Source localization with an advanced gravitational wave detector network

    3858 Fahlman S, Fern´ andez R (2018) Hypermassive Neutron Star Disk Outflows and Blue Kilo- novae. ApJL869(1):L3, DOI 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1ab, 1811.08906 Fairhurst S (2011) Source localization with an advanced gravitational wave detector network. Class Quantum Grav 28:105021, ...

    2018 arXiv

  6. [1306]

    3960 Bhattacharya M, Kumar P, Smoot G (2019) Mergers of black hole-neutron star binaries and rates of associated electromagnetic counterparts. MNRAS486(4):5289–5309, DOI 10.1093/mnras/stz1147, 1809.00006 Biscoveanu S, Vitale S, Haster CJ (2019) The reliability of the low-laten...

    2019 arXiv

  7. [1510]

    Science 358(6370):1570–1574, DOI 10.1126/science

    00673 Drout MR, et al (2017) Light curves of the neutron star merger GW170817/SSS17a: Implica- tions for r-process nucleosynthesis. Science 358(6370):1570–1574, DOI 10.1126/science. aaq0049, 1710.05443 Duez MD, Liu YT, Shapiro SL, Shibata M, Stephens BC (2006) Collapse of Magn...

    2017 arXiv

  8. [1710]

    MNRAS475(3):2971–2977, DOI 10.1093/mnras/stx3316,

    05897 Bromberg O, Tchekhovskoy A, Gottlieb O, Nakar E, Piran T (2018b) The γ-rays that accompanied GW170817 and the observational signature of a magnetic jet breaking out of NS merger ejecta. MNRAS475(3):2971–2977, DOI 10.1093/mnras/stx3316,

    2018 doi

  9. [1804]

    Astrophys J Lett 315:L113–L118, DOI 10.1086/ 184871 Lippuner J, Roberts LF (2015) r-process Lanthanide Production and Heating Rates in Kilo- novae

    06597 Lightman AP, Zdziarski AA, Rees MJ (1987) Effects of electron-positron pair opacity for spherical accretion onto black holes. Astrophys J Lett 315:L113–L118, DOI 10.1086/ 184871 Lippuner J, Roberts LF (2015) r-process Lanthanide Production and Heating Rates in Kilo- novae...

    1987 arXiv

  10. [1805]

    The Cosmic Coalescence Rates for Double Neutron Star Binaries

    04909 Ji AP, Frebel A, Chiti A, Simon JD (2016) R-process enrichment from a single event in an 82 ancient dwarf galaxy. Nature 531:610–613, DOI 10.1038/nature17425, 1512.01558 Jin ZP, Li X, Cano Z, Covino S, Fan YZ, Wei DM (2015) The Light Curve of the Macronova Associated wit...

    2016 arXiv

  11. [1806]

    Nature561:355–359, DOI 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3, 1806.09693 Most ER, Papenfort LJ, Tsokaros A, Rezzolla L (2019) Impact of high spins on the ejection of mass in GW170817

    09693 Mooley KP, Deller AT, Gottlieb O, Nakar E, Hallinan G, Bourke S, Frail DA, Horesh A, Corsi A, Hotokezaka K (2018b) Superluminal motion of a relativistic jet in the neutron-star merger GW170817. Nature561:355–359, DOI 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3, 1806.09693 Most ER, Papenfo...

    2018 arXiv

  12. [1905]

    12016 Bovard L, Martin D, Guercilena F, Arcones A, Rezzolla L, Korobkin O (2017) r -process nucleosynthesis from matter ejected in binary neutron star mergers. Phys. Rev. D. 96(12):124005, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.124005, 1709.09630 Bromberg O, Tchekhovskoy A (2016) Relativisti...

    2017 arXiv

  13. [2015]

    merger-nova

    Res Astron Astrophys 15:1945, DOI 10.1088/1674-4527/15/12/001, 1505.01195 Smartt SJ, et al (2017) A kilonova as the electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational-wave source. Nature551:75–79, DOI 10.1038/nature24303, 1710.05841 Sneden C, Cowan JJ, Gallino R (2008) Neutron-Cap...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.