Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 289 references

Time-domain astronomy's limit has shifted from discovery to coordination.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:52 UTC pith:EY67VURN

load-bearing objection A strong, operationally concrete community white paper whose real value is the detailed observing plans and coordination framework, but it needs a proofreading pass and a sensitivity analysis before agencies should treat its headline numbers as calibrated. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22404 v1 pith:EY67VURN submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

4th TDAMM Workshop White Paper

Daniel Kocevski , Raffaella Margutti , Michael Coughlin , Christopher Fryer , Kate Alexander , Igor Lorenzo Andreoni , Jean-Luc Atteia , Elias Aydi
show 41 more authors
Matthew Baring Joe Bright Eric Burns Brad Cenko Sanjana Curtis Fabio DeColle Courey Elliott Corinne Fletcher Anna Franckowiak Carla Fr"ohlich Adam Goldstein Alec Habig Erica Hammerstein Anna Y. Q. Ho D. Andrew Howell Chin-Ping Hu Xiaoshan Huang Michelle Hui Brian Humensky Jamie Kennea Ali Kheirandish Ryan Lau M. Coleman Miller Brenna Mockler Michela Negro Jan-Uwe Ness Brendan O'Connor Kim Page Tyler Pritchard Judith Racusin David Radice Christopher Roberts Dave Russell Dave Sand Peter Shawhan Rachel Street Alexander van der Horst Justin Vandenbroucke Zorawar Wadiasingh Yuhan Yao George Younes
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM
keywords time-domain astrophysicsmulti-messenger astrophysicscommunity observing plansalert brokeragetransient follow-up coordinationgravitational-wave alertsobservatory policyrare transient events
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that with the coming generation of wide-field surveys, gravitational-wave detectors, and neutrino telescopes, the field of time-domain and multi-messenger astrophysics is no longer primarily limited by how many events are discovered, but by whether the community can triage, prioritize, and act on them in time. A sympathetic reader should come away believing that the marginal scientific return of new facilities will be decided by alert distribution, automated classification, standardized observatory metadata, joint target-of-opportunity mechanisms, and pre-negotiated response plans for rare events. The paper's concrete proposal is a framework of community observing plans—prewritten, community-governed observing strategies for eight rare source classes—that would replace ad hoc, facility-by-facility follow-up with pre-committed baseline observations and immediate public data release. If the paper is right, the next few years' biggest astrophysical payoffs will be won or lost in the coordination layer, not at the telescope.

Core claim

The paper's central diagnostic claim is that time-domain and multi-messenger astrophysics has become response-limited: with the coming alert volumes, the binding constraint on scientific return is operational coordination, not discovery power. It supports this with projected rates from the Rubin survey, gravitational-wave and neutrino networks, and the aging of rapid-response high-energy assets, then proposes the community observing plan framework—pre-negotiated triggering criteria, baseline observational commitments, decision trees, and immediate public data release for eight rare source classes—as the mechanism to keep exceptional events from being lost in the noise.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the community observing plan: a pre-agreed, living strategy that turns rare-event follow-up from improvised requests into anchored commitments by specific observatories. Its components are concrete triggering criteria tied to measurable quantities, pre-specified communication pathways through alert and broker systems, minimal baseline commitments that guarantee a scientific floor, and decision trees that redirect resources as early data arrive. The paper also treats alert distribution, brokers, classification models, and cross-observatory coordination services as core scientific infrastructure; the observing plans are designed to operate on top of that stack.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's urgency rests on forward-looking projections—about ten million alerts per night, five to fifteen binary-neutron-star alerts per year in O5, and Swift re-entry within roughly twelve months—cited without uncertainty ranges. If any of these numbers is off by a large factor, the required scale of infrastructure and the observing-plan trigger thresholds would be miscalibrated, even if the general direction stands.

What would settle it

Measure the actual steady-state alert rate in the first year of Rubin operations and the actual timing of Swift's reboost. If the alert stream stays near one million alerts per night instead of ten million, or if Swift is successfully reboosted and survives past 2028, the near-term urgency and the specific capability-gap calculus change materially; conversely, if the alert rate reaches ten million promptly and the high-energy fleet's rapid-response capacity declines as projected, the paper's central diagnosis is confirmed.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If alert distribution and brokering are funded as long-lived infrastructure, Rubin-scale alert streams can be filtered and classified in tens of seconds, preserving the ability to catch fast-evolving kilonovae and shock-cooling supernovae.
  • If Swift re-enters before a successor exists, the community loses the only routine source of arcsecond gamma-ray burst localizations within minutes, and the rapid-follow-up ecosystem loses its anchor.
  • If the gravitational-wave A+ upgrade slips relative to new high-energy missions, the overlap between detector sensitivity and monitor availability shrinks, reducing the expected number of joint detections.
  • If community observing plans are adopted, rare events like nearby core-collapse supernovae or Galactic magnetar giant flares would receive pre-committed multi-facility coverage with data released immediately, removing delays that have previously cost key early-time observations.
  • If observatory metadata become standardized machine-readable deliverables, automated coordination and real-time feasibility assessment across dozens of facilities become possible, cutting the manual overhead that currently delays multi-facility responses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An inference beyond the paper: the community observing plan framework could be stress-tested on semi-predictable events such as recurrent novae, which the text mentions, before being asked to handle once-per-century events, providing a low-risk way to validate trigger governance and data-release mechanics.
  • An inference beyond the paper: the paper's rate projections—ten million alerts per night, five to fifteen binary-neutron-star alerts per year, Swift re-entry within a year—have no uncertainty bars; if any is off by a large factor, the alert-tsunami framing and COP trigger thresholds will need recalibration even though the general direction of the recommendations would likely survive.
  • An inference beyond the paper: the same coordination layer that supports human-governed community observing plans could eventually close the loop, letting broker classifications automatically trigger queue-scheduled observations without a committee in the loop, reducing latency below anything a standing committee can achieve.
  • An inference beyond the paper: treating alert systems and software as core infrastructure carries an implicit policy shift—maintenance, validation, and support work would need to count as scholarship in hiring and promotion, or the workforce to run the proposed infrastructure will not be sustainable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This white paper, produced by the 4th Time-Domain and Multi-Messenger Astrophysics Workshop, argues that TDAMM science is transitioning from a discovery-limited to a follow-up/response-limited regime. It surveys the near-term discovery landscape (Rubin, Roman, Argus, ULTRASAT/UVEX, LVK O5, IceCube, Swift/Fermi/IPN, Einstein Probe/SVOM, StarBurst/COSI, radio facilities), the supporting infrastructure (GCN, SCiMMA, brokers, TOM/marshal systems, ACROSS/HEROIC/AEON+), and three classes of challenges (infrastructure limits, policy barriers, capability gaps), each with numbered recommendations F1–F19. Its central proposal is a framework for community observing plans (COPs): pre-negotiated, trigger-criteria-based, publicly released multi-facility response programs for rare events, with governance via a Trigger Advocate Committee and implementation through NASA's ACROSS. Appendices A and B provide eight detailed science overviews and observing strategies (GRBs, TDEs, XRBs, novae, SNe, magnetars, compact binary mergers, neutrinos).

Significance. The paper's value is as a concrete community planning artifact. Each major finding is anchored to specific evidence: the ~10^6 alert/night ceiling of Kowalski (§6.1.1), the 1–2 week ALMA DDT latency for AT2018cow (§6.2.4), the >1-day spectral delay for SN2023ixf, and the 2015–2025 IPN detector drought (§4.4.3). The COP framework is unusually operational, with triggering criteria, decision trees, baseline observational commitments, governance, and funding models, and the eight Appendix B plans are substantial deliverables. The paper also commits to open-science principles (immediate public data release, DOI/citation mechanisms). Its main weakness is that the quantitative calibration rests on point-estimate projections without uncertainty framing, but the qualitative direction of the argument is well supported by the assembled evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 (and §1.1 vs §6.3)] Section 3 asserts that 'TDAMM is quickly becoming no longer limited by discovery capability' and that the dominant challenges are operational; §1.1 repeats the framing ('transitioning from a discovery-limited to a follow-up-limited era'). This central premise is in tension with the manuscript's own §6.3 findings: §6.3.1–6.3.2 (Swift re-entry within ~12 months; StarBurst not a full replacement for Swift/Fermi), §6.3.3 (no successor identified for Swift-XRT/Chandra/XMM X-ray follow-up), §6.3.4 (IPN single-point vulnerability, Konus-Wind), and §6.3.6 (spectroscopic classification capacity as a 'bottleneck'). If key high-energy discovery and X-ray follow-up capabilities may be lost within the paper's stated 3–4 year horizon, the field is not uniformly 'no longer limited by discovery capability'; the claim must be scoped (e.g., to optical/NIR and messenger discovery) and explicitly reconciled
  2. [§4.1.1, §4.3.1, §4.4.4, §6.3.1 (calibrating F1 and §7.3.1)] Findings F1 and the Appendix B triggering/rate tables are calibrated to forward-looking point estimates presented without error bars, source dates, or alternative scenarios: Rubin 'up to 10 million alerts per night' (§4.1.1, rendered '10–20× ZTF' in §6.1.1), O5 BNS median 5/10/15 public alerts per year (§4.3.1), Einstein Probe '~80 fast X-ray transients per year' (§4.4.4), Swift 'high likelihood of re-entry in the next 12 months' (§6.3.1), and the IPN's '2015–2025... fewest number of planetary detectors ever' (§4.4.3). The paper should add a brief sensitivity discussion (e.g., early Rubin ramp, O5 delay relative to StarBurst, successful Swift reboost). The qualitative direction likely survives any plausible scenario, but the quantitative targets and the urgency framing are single-scenario as written.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4 vs §7.2–7.4.4] The findings are numbered inconsistently. §2.4 lists F15–F18 as (respectively) Trigger Advocate Committee, living document, immediate public release, and credit mechanisms; §7.2 introduces a different 'F15 – Community-defined observing plans should be limited in scope,' §7.4.1–7.4.3 use F16–F18 for the first three of the original items, and §7.4.4 assigns F19 to credit mechanisms. Renumber so one number denotes one finding and update the consolidated list.
  2. [§4.3.2] The sentence 'IceCube is operating an MeV neutrino trigger... from a Galactic SNe ()' contains an empty citation; supply the reference.
  3. [§6.3.5–6.3.6] The heading 'Spectroscopy Bottleneck' and its opening paragraph appear twice: once embedded at the end of §6.3.5 and again at the start of §6.3.6. Delete the duplicated passage.
  4. [§6.1.6 (F1)] The F1 text contains a duplicated block: the paragraph beginning 'Funding agencies should also ensure that at least one U.S.-led broker...' repeats nearly verbatim the subsequent 'The workshop consensus was that agencies should prioritize functions and interfaces...' paragraph (compiled core, Python-facing interfaces, ML models, anti-consolidation). Consolidate.
  5. [Throughout] Typos and LaTeX artifacts: 'T able 1' in the §5.2.1 caption, 'W orkshop' in the byline, 'neccessary' (§6.3.3), 'Rubin will provided' (§4.1.2), 'The white paper also present a framework' (Abstract), and 'F ermi' in section headings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the paper is a workshop-consensus white paper making policy recommendations; its claims rest on external facility projections and community discussion, not on fitting parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation chain in the sense the review targets. Its principal assertions are forward-looking statements about facility capabilities (e.g., Rubin's alert rate, O5 BNS alert projections, Swift's re-entry risk) and workshop-consensus recommendations (findings F1-F18). None of these are derived from fitted parameters or from equations; the rate projections are quoted from external sources such as LSST documentation and LIGO/Virgo user guides. The community observing plan concept is traced to the 2nd TDAMM workshop white paper, and ACROSS is described as an outcome of the PhysCOS TDAMM strategic study, but these self-citations function as historical provenance and context, not as the load-bearing justification for the recommendations. The recommendations are justified by the stated existence of coordination gaps, policy barriers, and aging missions, which are documented independently in the text. There is no self-definitional reduction, no 'fitted input called prediction,' no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renamed empirical result. The absence of error bars on some rate projections is a legitimate uncertainty/correctness concern, but it is not circularity: the paper's qualitative conclusions do not require the exact point estimates to be true, and no prediction is constructed to equal its input by definition. A score of 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

This is a policy/community document, not a derivation, so the ledger contains no fitted free parameters. Its load-bearing inputs are facility projections (Rubin alert rate, O5 BNS rates, EP transient rate) and status claims (Swift re-entry timeline, IPN node count) quoted without uncertainty quantification; these function as axioms for the argument. The only genuinely new entities are organizational: COPs, the Trigger Advocate Committee, and proposed funding vehicles. Their effectiveness is untestable until implemented, so independent_evidence is false by construction rather than by deficiency.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption TDAMM is transitioning from a discovery-limited to a follow-up-limited era.
    Sections 1.1 and 3 state this as the framing premise; if false, the infrastructure-first recommendations (F1-F4) are misdirected.
  • domain assumption Rubin will produce up to 10 million alerts per night with ~60 s latency, requiring brokers to scale 10-20x beyond ZTF.
    Sections 4.1.1 and 6.1.1 quote this from facility plans without variance; it drives the broker-scaling requirements in F1.
  • domain assumption O5 BNS alert rates will be a median of 5/10/15 public alerts per year over three years, assuming A+ completion.
    Section 4.3.1; underpins the multimessenger urgency and the StarBurst/O5 alignment concern in Section 6.3.5.
  • domain assumption Workshop consensus is a valid basis for agency-facing recommendations.
    The findings F1-F18 are presented as 'workshop consensus'; the paper's authority derives from the community process (Sections 2-3).
  • domain assumption Immediate public data release with no proprietary period maximizes scientific return for COP data.
    Section 7.4.3 presents this as a 'central conclusion'; it is a value judgment about incentive structures, not a demonstrated empirical claim.
  • domain assumption ACROSS can serve as the implementing and administrative home for COPs and their funding.
    Section 7.6.1 assumes agency adoption and that a NASA program office is the right owner of community-defined plans.
invented entities (3)
  • Community Observing Plans (COPs) no independent evidence
    purpose: Pre-negotiated baseline observing protocols activated for rare, high-value events; the paper's central policy mechanism.
    New organizational artifact proposed in Section 7; no falsifiable handle exists until implemented, making effectiveness untestable by construction.
  • Trigger Advocate Committee no independent evidence
    purpose: Standing small committee to validate COP activations and guide early-time decision trees.
    Proposed governance body in Section 7.4.1; a policy proposal with no independent empirical handle.
  • ACROSS Science Leaders / Community Infrastructure Teams no independent evidence
    purpose: Proposed funding models (service-component fellowships; multi-institution infrastructure grants) to staff COP operations.
    Administrative proposals in Section 7.5; no falsifiable handle; their viability depends on agency adoption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 5178 in / 5579 out tokens · 249630 ms · 2026-08-01T04:52:23.461460+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Time-Domain and Multi-Messenger Astrophysics (TDAMM) is entering a new era in which the rate and diversity of transient discoveries will grow rapidly across electromagnetic, gravitational-wave, neutrino, and cosmic-ray facilities. The scientific return from these investments will increasingly depend not on discovery alone, but on the ability to identify, prioritize, and coordinate follow-up observations across a heterogeneous and globally distributed network of observatories. This white paper summarizes the outcomes of the Fourth TDAMM Workshop and assesses the near-term discovery landscape, the infrastructure and tools that support coordinated observations, and the technical, policy, and capability gaps that may limit future progress. The workshop identified three principal challenges: insufficiently scalable and interoperable alert and coordination infrastructure, policies that impede rapid multi-facility observations and rare-event science, and the potential loss of critical high-energy, rapid-response, and spectroscopic capabilities. The white paper identifies the need for sustained support for alert distribution, brokers, standardized observatory metadata, cross-facility coordination platforms, and unified follow-up repositories; expanded joint observing opportunities and funding mechanisms for coordinated analysis; and strategic investment in future TDAMM facilities. The white paper also present a framework for community observing plans that would establish pre-coordinated responses to rare, high-impact events, supported by transparent governance, immediate public data release, and regular community revision. Science overviews and detailed observing strategies are provided for gamma-ray bursts, tidal disruption events, X-ray binaries, novae, supernovae, magnetars, compact binary mergers, and high-energy neutrino sources.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

289 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2013, Science, 342, 1242856, doi: 10.1126/science.1242856

    doi:10.1126/science.1242856 2013

  2. [2]

    G., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2017, Astropart. Phys., 92, 30, doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.05.002

    doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2017.05.002 2017

  3. [4]

    G., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2018b, Science, 361, 147, doi: 10.1126/science.aat2890

    doi:10.1126/science.aat2890

  4. [5]

    G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2018, Science, 361, eaat1378, doi: 10.1126/science.aat1378

    doi:10.1126/science.aat1378 2018

  5. [7]

    G., et al

    Aartsen, M. G., et al. 2021b, J. Phys. G, 48, 060501, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48

    doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abbd48

  6. [8]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  7. [9]

    G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al

    Abac, A. G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de0 2024

  8. [10]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2026, Physical Review Letters, 136, 041403, doi: 10.1103/6c61-fm1n

    doi:10.1103/6c61-fm1n 2026

  9. [11]

    2011, A&A, 535, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117810

    Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., Abu-Zayyad, T., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117810

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117810 2011

  10. [12]

    2021, Astrophys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 910, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe123

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe123 2021

  11. [13]

    2022a, Science, 378, 538, doi: 10.1126/science.abg3395

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2022a, Science, 378, 538, doi: 10.1126/science.abg3395

    doi:10.1126/science.abg3395

  12. [14]

    2022b, Astrophys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2022b, Astrophys. J., 939, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9785

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9785

  13. [15]

    2022c, Astrophys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2022c, Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac67d8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac67d8 2041

  14. [16]

    2023a, Science, 380, adc9818, doi: 10.1126/science.adc9818

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2023a, Science, 380, adc9818, doi: 10.1126/science.adc9818

    doi:10.1126/science.adc9818

  15. [17]

    2023b, Astrophys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2023b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 946, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acc077

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acc077 2041

  16. [18]

    2023c, Astrophys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2023c, Astrophys. J., 959, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceefc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceefc

  17. [19]

    2023d, Astrophys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2023d, Astrophys. J. Lett., 949, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd2c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd2c9 2041

  18. [20]

    2025a, Astrophys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2025a, Astrophys. J., 988, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addd05

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addd05

  19. [21]

    2025b, Phys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2025b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 031001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.135.031001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.135.031001

  20. [22]

    2026a, Astrophys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2026a, Astrophys. J. Lett., 1000, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4aac

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4aac 2041

  21. [23]

    2026b, Phys

    Abbasi, R., et al. 2026b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 136, 121002, doi: 10.1103/2gh9-d4q7

    work page doi:10.1103/2gh9-d4q7

  22. [24]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

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

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  23. [25]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  24. [26]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  25. [27]

    A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al

    Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 817, doi: 10.1126/science.1192537

    doi:10.1126/science.1192537 2010

  26. [28]

    A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L

    Acciari, V. A., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 689, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z 2022

  27. [29]

    2014, Science, 345, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1253947

    Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 554, doi: 10.1126/science.1253947

    doi:10.1126/science.1253947 2014

  28. [30]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 913, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4

    Agostini, M., B¨ ohmer, M., Bosma, J., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 913, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1182-4 2020

  29. [31]

    2021, Journal of Instrumentation, 16, P03025, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/16/03/P03025

    Aguilar, J., Allison, P., Beatty, J., et al. 2021, Journal of Instrumentation, 16, P03025, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/16/03/P03025

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/03/p03025 2021

  30. [32]

    P., Anand, S., et al

    Ahumada, T., Singer, L. P., Anand, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 917, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 2021

  31. [33]

    Windows on the Universe: Establishing the Infrastructure for a Collaborative Multi-messenger Ecosystem

    Ahumada, T., Andrews, J. E., Antier, S., et al. 2024, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.02063

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.02063 2024

  32. [34]

    B., Baldini, L., et al

    Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, Science, 376, 521, doi: 10.1126/science.abm3231

    doi:10.1126/science.abm3231 2022

  33. [35]

    2007, ApJL, 665, L51, doi: 10.1086/521145

    Albert, J., Aliu, E., Anderhub, H., et al. 2007, ApJL, 665, L51, doi: 10.1086/521145

    doi:10.1086/521145 2007

  34. [36]

    D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al

    Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., Gomez, S., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae40ab

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae40ab 2026

  35. [37]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba ´Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, J., Alves Batista, R., Balagopal V., A., et al

    Alp, D., & Larsson, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba ´Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, J., Alves Batista, R., Balagopal V., A., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 63, 219501, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9385-7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ba 2020

  36. [38]

    2025, ApJL, 995, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2028

    An, T. 2025, ApJL, 995, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2028

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2028 2025

  37. [39]

    R., & Stone, N

    Coughlin, E. R., & Stone, N. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 1627, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3444

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3444 2022

  38. [40]

    L., Quataert, E., Coughlin, E

    Andalman, Z. L., Quataert, E., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2025, Resolving the (Debate About) Nozzle Shocks in Tidal Disruption Events, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.08928

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08928 2025

  39. [41]

    2017, PASA, 34, e069, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.65

    Andreoni, I., Ackley, K., Cooke, J., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e069, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.65

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.65 2017

  40. [42]

    W., Perley, D

    Andreoni, I., Coughlin, M. W., Perley, D. A., et al. 2022, Nature, 612, 430, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 130

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05465-8 2022

  41. [43]

    2023, The Dynamic Universe: Realizing the Science Potential of Time Domain and Multi-Messenger Astrophysics (TDAMM), Workshop report, NASA Astrophysics Division

    Andrews, J., Branchesi, M., Breivik, K., et al. 2023, The Dynamic Universe: Realizing the Science Potential of Time Domain and Multi-Messenger Astrophysics (TDAMM), Workshop report, NASA Astrophysics Division. https://assets.science.nasa.gov/content/dam/ science/astro/programs/physics-of-the- cosmos/documents/tdamm/docs/TDAMM Report.pdf

    2023

  42. [44]

    R., Baldassare, V

    Angus, C. R., Baldassare, V. F., Mockler, B., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1452, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01811-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01811-y 2022

  43. [45]

    A., et al

    Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64, doi: 10.1038/nature24291 Arg¨ uelles, C. A., Halzen, F., & Kurahashi, N. 2025, Phys. Rev. X, 15, 030501, doi: 10.1103/1z9l-kb1d

    doi:10.1038/nature24291 2017

  44. [46]

    B., Abdo, A

    Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1071 2009

  45. [47]

    P., et al

    Aydi, E., Orio, M., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 572, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1759

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1759 2018

  46. [48]

    V., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Aydi, E., Sokolovsky, K. V., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2020a, Nature Astronomy, 4, 776, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y

  47. [49]

    2020b, ApJ, 905, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Izzo, L., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 905, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

  48. [50]

    D., M´ erand, A., et al

    Aydi, E., Monnier, J. D., M´ erand, A., et al. 2026, Nature Astronomy, 10, 271, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02725-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02725-1 2026

  49. [52]

    2017, Rept

    Baiotti, L., & Rezzolla, L. 2017, Rept. Prog. Phys., 80, 096901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aa67bb

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa67bb 2017

  50. [53]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  51. [54]

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

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

    doi:10.1086/172995 1993

  52. [55]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/18

    Barnes, J., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/18

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/18 2013

  53. [56]

    2022, Mon

    Bednarek, W., & ´Smia lkowski, A. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 511, 3339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac243

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac243 2022

  54. [57]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    Kouveliotou, C. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1391

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1391 2019

  55. [58]

    B., & Granot, J

    Beniamini, P., Perets, H. B., & Granot, J. 2026, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 9, 57985, doi: 10.33232/001c.157985

    doi:10.33232/001c.157985 2026

  56. [59]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad208

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., Hare, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 1872, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad208

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad208 2023

  57. [60]

    2025, ApJ, 980, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada947

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., Trigg, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 980, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ada947

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ada947 2025

  58. [61]

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

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

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 2014

  59. [62]

    2013, ApJL, 774, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L23

    Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013, ApJL, 774, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L23

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/l23 2013

  60. [63]

    M., Frail, D

    Berger, E., Soderberg, A. M., Frail, D. A., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2003, ApJL, 587, L5, doi: 10.1086/375158

    doi:10.1086/375158 2003

  61. [64]

    2022, in 2022 4th International Conference on Robotics and Computer Vision (ICRCV) (IEEE), 606, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0606

    Bhatta, G., & Dhital, N. 2022, in 2022 4th International Conference on Robotics and Computer Vision (ICRCV) (IEEE), 606, doi: 10.22323/1.395.0606

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0606 2022

  62. [65]

    M., Blewitt, G., Bratton, C

    Bionta, R. M., Blewitt, G., Bratton, C. B., et al. 1987, PhRvL, 58, 1494, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1494

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.58.1494 1987

  63. [66]

    Polnarev, A. G. 1984, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 10, 177, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1808.05287

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.05287 1984

  64. [67]

    S., Frail, D

    Bloom, J. S., Frail, D. A., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2003, ApJ, 594, 674, doi: 10.1086/377125

    doi:10.1086/377125 2003

  65. [68]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  66. [69]

    F., & Evans, A

    Bode, M. F., & Evans, A. 2008, Classical Novae, Vol. 43, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511536168

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511536168 2008

  67. [70]

    Bonnerot, C., Lu, W., & Hopkins, P. F. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab398

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab398 2021

  68. [71]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699

    Braun, R., Bonaldi, A., Bourke, T., Keane, E., & Wagg, J. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.12699, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.12699

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.12699 2019

  69. [72]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

    Bricman, K., & Gomboc, A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6989 2020

  70. [73]

    S., Fender, R

    Bright, J. S., Fender, R. P., Motta, S. E., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1023-5 2020

  71. [74]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2013, ApJ, 764, 179, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/179

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/179 2013

  72. [75]

    Trinity: An Imaging Air Cherenkov Telescope to Search for Ultra-High-Energy Neutrinos

    Brown, A. M., Bagheri, M., Doro, M., et al. 2021, in Proceedings of Science, Vol. ICRC2021, Proceedings of the 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2021), 1179, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.03125

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.03125 2021

  73. [76]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    Burns, E., Svinkin, D., Hurley, K., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8 2021

  74. [77]

    L., Agullo, I., et al

    Burns, E., Fryer, C. L., Agullo, I., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.03577

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.03577 2025

  75. [79]

    J., et al

    Campana, S., Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J., et al. 2006, Nature, 442, 1008, doi: 10.1038/nature04892

    doi:10.1038/nature04892 2006

  76. [80]

    2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    Cano, Z., Wang, S.-Q., Dai, Z.-G., & Wu, X.-F. 2017, Advances in Astronomy, 2017, 8929054, doi: 10.1155/2017/8929054

    doi:10.1155/2017/8929054 2017

  77. [81]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d67

    Carney, J., Andreoni, I., O’Connor, B., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L46, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d67

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d67 2025

  78. [82]

    A., Kheirandish, A., & Murase, K

    Carpio, J. A., Kheirandish, A., & Murase, K. 2026a, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.08684 131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  79. [83]

    A., Kheirandish, A., & Zhang, B

    Carpio, J. A., Kheirandish, A., & Zhang, B. 2026b, JHEAp, 51, 100538, doi: 10.1016/j.jheap.2025.100538

    arXiv 2025

  80. [84]

    D., et al

    Cendes, Y., Berger, E., Alexander, K. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 185, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5541 2024

Showing first 80 references.