Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 118 references

The Wide-Field Survey Telescope can pull an AT2017gfo-like kilonova out from behind a dominant afterglow at 5σ significance in over 80% of mergers within about 600 Mpc, and should identify roughly 4–6 kilonovae per year.

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 10:23 UTC pith:OVSPJDOD

load-bearing objection Useful WFST-specific simulation, but the headline efficiency and yield numbers assume exactly known distance; treat them as upper bounds. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20233 v1 pith:OVSPJDOD submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM

Identifying Kilonovae in the Presence of Optical Afterglow for the Wide-Field Survey Telescope

Huan Yang , Zhengyan Liu , Liang-Duan Liu , Wen Zhao , Zigao Dai This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IM
keywords kilonovaebinary neutron star mergersshort gamma-ray burstssynchrotron afterglowWide-Field Survey TelescopeFisher information matrixmulti-band light curvesobserving strategy
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 sets out to show that a kilonova can be identified even when the optical afterglow of its neutron-star merger vastly outshines it — a regime where confirmed detections have been scarce. By feeding simulated multi-band light curves through a Fisher Information Matrix, the authors argue that the kilonova component is recovered at 5σ significance in over 80% of AT2017gfo-like events within roughly 600 Mpc, and that this success rate is essentially flat across jet energy, circumburst density, and shock microphysics: distance is the decisive factor. On that basis they forecast that the Wide-Field Survey Telescope will identify about 4.0–6.2 kilonovae per year within 1,400 Mpc (1–16 once merger-rate uncertainties enter), with X-ray follow-up lifting the central estimate to 6.4–8.0. A second result shapes how to observe: color-based discrimination saturates by the second night after merger, so the paper proposes high-cadence g and r monitoring on night one and adding the z band from night two onward.

Core claim

The central claim is that kilonova identification against a bright synchrotron afterglow is a distance-limited, not parameter-limited, problem. Modeling the observed flux as a known afterglow model plus a kilonova template scaled by one amplitude A, the authors compute the Fisher matrix over afterglow parameters for 10,000 simulated WFST light curves — one set from the AT2017gfo template, one from a physically sampled population. A kilonova counts as identified when the marginal uncertainty on A is at or below 0.2 (5σ). Under that criterion, efficiency exceeds 80% within ~600 Mpc for AT2017gfo-like events, stays nearly flat across afterglow parameters, and implies an annual yield of 4.0–6.2

What carries the argument

The carrying instrument is a Fisher Information Matrix on synthetic ugriz light curves from the decomposition fν,total = fν,afterglow(p) + A·fν,kilonova: the kilonova enters as one dimensionless amplitude multiplying a fixed template. The marginal Cramér-Rao uncertainty σA (Eq. 13) sets the identification threshold σA ≤ 0.2 (5σ). Afterglows come from a structured-jet synchrotron code sampled over observationally motivated ranges; kilonova SEDs come from a radiative-transfer model, either pinned to AT2017gfo or drawn from neutron-star masses, tidal-deformability relations, and ejecta-mass fits. Appendices extend the method to X-ray constraints and magnetar-powered kilonovae.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a real kilonova's spectrum is represented by a known template times a single amplitude A, with distance held fixed in the Fisher analysis — the 'optimistic and simple estimation' of Section 3.2, which Appendix B shows must be loosened to a 5% distance prior when spectral shape information is thin (magnetar-powered kilonovae).

What would settle it

Run the same pipeline on pure-afterglow light curves with no kilonova (A = 0): the σA ≤ 0.2 criterion should reject nearly all of them, and real composite events with well-measured distances (a GW-triggered merger with a precise localization) should be recovered at 5σ at the claimed rate. A false-positive rate above a few percent, or a recovery rate clearly below 80% for AT2017gfo-like events inside ~600 Mpc, would falsify the central efficiency claim.

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

If this is right

  • Within about 600 Mpc, more than 80% of AT2017gfo-like afterglow+kilonova composites pass the 5σ identification criterion, and the rate is essentially independent of jet energy, circumburst density, and shock microphysics — distance is the limiting variable.
  • The expected annual yield is 4.0–6.2 identified kilonovae in a 1,400 Mpc volume (1–16 once merger-rate uncertainties enter), rising to 8.0 or 6.4 per year when X-ray constraints are added.
  • A physically diverse kilonova population lowers the yield by about 35% relative to the AT2017gfo-template case, so template-anchored projections should be treated as upper-end estimates.
  • Color-based discrimination saturates by the second night after merger, so the decisive chromatic information separating kilonova from afterglow is captured within the first 48 hours.
  • The proposed staged strategy — high-cadence g and r monitoring on night one, adding z from night two — captures essentially all the color information that six nights of monitoring provide, since the filter efficiency plateaus at night two.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-amplitude template assumption fails — real kilonova SEDs drifting in shape, or triggers without a well-constrained distance — the 80%-within-600-Mpc curve is a ceiling rather than a prediction; the magnetar-powered case already shows the machinery needs a 5% distance prior when spectral shape information thins out.
  • The distance-limited efficiency curve implies a built-in completeness function: weighting identified events by 1/efficiency(d) could correct the observed sample back to an unbiased volumetric BNS merger rate, a step the paper does not take.
  • The same Fisher-matrix formalism could be run in reverse as a survey-design tool for other facilities: since precision plateaus by night two, additional nights of cadence buy spectral characterization rather than new identifications, so marginal observing time is better spent on sky coverage.
  • A direct test on the next GW-localized BNS merger with a bright afterglow — comparing the recovered amplitude A and color-evolution tracks against this paper's simulated templates — would validate the framework before its yield forecast is relied upon.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) framework to assess whether WFST multi-band optical light curves can identify a kilonova component in a composite afterglow+kilonova transient. Two Monte Carlo cases are considered: AT2017gfo-template kilonovae and a physically sampled kilonova population, each with 10,000 realizations drawn from the afterglow parameter space of Table 2. The identification criterion is σ_A ≤ 0.2, interpreted as a 5σ recovery of the kilonova amplitude A in Eq. (13). The authors report that identification efficiency is primarily distance-limited and exceeds 80% within ~600 Mpc for AT2017gfo-like events, with an annual WFST yield of about 4.0–6.2 kilonovae per year. They additionally study g−r and g−z color cuts, find that color separability saturates by the second night, and propose a staged observing strategy: high-cadence g and r in the first night, adding z from the second night.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive scrutiny, the paper would provide a useful and concrete survey-design tool for WFST and similar facilities. The strengths are real: the pipeline uses public, widely used codes (afterglowpy, redback/POSSIS, sncosmo), the parameter priors are fully tabulated, the two main scenarios are complemented by appendices on X-ray joint fitting and magnetar-powered kilonovae, and the 10,000-realization Monte Carlo makes the selection effects easy to inspect. The annual-yield forecast, though dominated by the uncertain merger-rate normalization, is a sharp, falsifiable prediction. However, the central efficiency and yield numbers are conditional on a distance assumption that is not part of the main FIM, and the color-threshold analysis is optimized on the same simulated sample used to report its performance. These issues do not invalidate the framework, but they change the strength of the paper's claims from predictions to upper bounds.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2, Eqs. (10)–(13)] Distance is not a Fisher parameter. Since f_AG ∝ E0 d^-2 and f_KN ∝ A d^-2, the transformation d→λd, E0→λ²E0, A→λ²A leaves every predicted magnitude exactly unchanged; with d, E0, and A all free the FIM would be singular. The quoted σ_A, the efficiency curves in Figs. 3b/5b, and the yield in Eq. (14) are therefore conditional on exactly known distance. Appendix B reveals the issue by imposing a 5% distance prior because of 'a strong degeneracy between the distance and the amplitude A'; the same degeneracy is present in Cases 1 and 2 because E0 is free. Realistic GW distance posteriors are ~10–20%, and GRB-only triggers often lack redshift; the X-ray extension in Appendix A does not break the E0/d² scaling. Please rerun Cases 1 and 2 with d as a Fisher parameter under distance priors of 5%, 10%, 20%, and no prior. Until then the 80%/600 Mpc figure and the 4.0–6.2/yr yield are upper bounds
  2. [3.2, Eq. (10)] The inference assumes a single amplitude A against a known kilonova SED. Case 2 samples diverse kilonova SEDs, but each event's FIM still uses the true injected template for that event; there is no marginalization over spectral-shape uncertainty. Thus σ_A measures recoverability of a known-template amplitude, not identification of an unknown kilonova. The text calls this 'an optimistic and simple estimation', but it is load-bearing for the efficiency claim. The magnetar case in Appendix B demonstrates how quickly degeneracies grow when the SED is more featureless. A template bank or explicit shape-nuisance parameters would be needed to support the identification language used throughout the paper.
  3. [5.3, Figs. 8–9] The color-cut thresholds are chosen by maximizing Precision at a benchmark Recall of 0.9 on the same 10,000-realization sample used to report those Precision values. This in-sample optimization overstates the expected filter performance, e.g. the Case 1 improvement from 47.9% (g−r only) to 54.4% (adding z). No independent validation set or cross-validation is described. Because the cuts are tuned to the injected model, the reported precision is a measure of the model's internal separability rather than a survey forecast. A train/test split or bootstrap would make the color-filter claims robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.1–3.2] The random Gaussian perturbation added to the simulated magnitudes is not used in the FIM; Eq. (12) uses only the model-based σ_k. Please clarify that σ_A is a Cramér–Rao forecast, not an estimate from fitting the noisy simulated light curves.
  2. [Eq. (11)] The finite-difference step ϵ_i is not specified. Please state the step sizes used and show that the results are insensitive to their choice.
  3. [Appendix B] The 5% distance prior is introduced without justification. Please state what GW/GRB distance information it represents, or assess sensitivity to prior width.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The constant d = −2.42 in Eq. (5) conflicts notationally with the distance d used elsewhere; consider renaming one to avoid confusion.
  5. [Fig. 7] The text refers to 'black points' for pure afterglow, but the legend only lists 'AG(All time)' without a black-point marker. Please add a legend entry or explicit marker.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Color-filter precision metrics are in-sample optimized; the Fisher-matrix efficiency and annual-yield forecast are self-contained, though the distance–amplitude degeneracy noted in Appendix B limits the headline numbers to known-distance upper bounds.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5 (Color-Based Identification Framework), first paragraph; §5.2-5.3 and Figs. 8-9]
    "By systematically varying the color filters and analyzing the resulting trade-off between Recall and Precision, we can determine the optimal selection criteria that maximize the scientific yield."

    The same 10,000-sample sets generated in Section 4 are used both to choose the color cuts and to compute the PR curves. Because the thresholds are varied to maximize Precision at Recall 0.9 on those very samples, the tabulated precisions (e.g., g-r>0.50 giving 47.9%; g-r>0.48,g-z>0.74 giving 54.4%) are in-sample optimum values, not out-of-sample predictions. The 'discriminating power' of the filters is therefore partly defined by the optimization target rather than independently measured. The Fisher-matrix efficiency and the annual-yield estimate do not inherit this circularity, so this is a secondary, localized in-sample step.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is a self-contained forward simulation: afterglow and kilonova light curves are generated from stated physical models (afterglowpy/possis), a Fisher matrix on the injected amplitude A yields sigma_A, and the annual yield multiplies the recovered fraction by a literature merger rate (Akyüz et al. 2025). That chain is not circular: A is a defined model amplitude, and the efficiency is a sensitivity calculation, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The one genuine in-sample circularity is the color-filter optimization in Section 5, where the same 10,000-event sets are used to select and to evaluate the cuts, so the reported Precision values are training-set maxima rather than independent predictions. Additionally, Appendix B concedes a distance-amplitude degeneracy that is also present in Cases 1/2 because afterglow flux is proportional to E0 and both components scale as d^-2; since distance is not in the Fisher parameter vector, the quoted sigma_A values are conditional on a known distance. This is a serious validity limitation that makes the >80%-within-600-Mpc and 4.0-6.2/yr figures known-distance upper bounds, but it is an omitted-degenerate-parameter issue rather than a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. Overall score 3.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new physical entities or fitted constants; its inputs are empirical templates, package models, and literature rates. The central claimed efficiencies depend on assumptions that the injected template is the true model, that distance is known or irrelevant, and that no non-afterglow interlopers exist. The color precision numbers are in-sample because the cuts are tuned on the same simulations used to evaluate them.

free parameters (4)
  • Identification threshold σA ≤ 0.2 = 0.2
    Hand-chosen 5σ criterion on the Fisher-derived kilonova amplitude; not derived from data or external constraints.
  • Color cut thresholds (g−r, g−z) = e.g., Case1 N2 g−r>0.50; triple N2 g−r>0.48, g−z>0.74; N6 g−z>0.93
    Thresholds are optimized on the same 10,000 simulated realizations used to report precision/recall, making the quoted precision in-sample.
  • Sky coverage fraction fsky = 0.5
    Assumed fraction of sky covered for the annual yield calculation; not measured.
  • Distance prior width (Appendix B) = 5% Gaussian
    Imposed only for magnetar-powered kilonovae to break the distance–amplitude degeneracy; illustrates that the degeneracy is otherwise unmodeled.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The true transient SED is exactly f_afterglow(p) + A·f_KN with a single amplitude A and a known template shape (Eq. 10).
    Central modeling choice in §3.2; real kilonova SEDs vary, and template mismatch changes σA.
  • domain assumption Distance is not a nuisance parameter in the Fisher matrix for the main cases.
    Eqs. 10–13 include only p and A; distance degenerates with amplitude, and Appendix B is forced to add a 5% distance prior for magnetar cases.
  • domain assumption afterglowpy, possis/redback, and sncosmo reproduce real afterglow/kilonova photometry.
    §2 bases all light curves on these packages; inaccuracies propagate directly to efficiency estimates.
  • domain assumption AT2017gfo is representative of typical kilonova brightness for Case 1.
    Case 1 fixes m_dyn=1e−2.27 M⊙, m_wind=1e−1.28 M⊙, Φ=49.5°; §4.2 shows Case 2 (diverse population) yields ~35% fewer identifications, so the template choice matters.
  • domain assumption Viewing angles are limited to θobs≤30° and sampled cos-uniform.
    §2.1 excludes on-axis/off-axis extremes and assumes BNS jet axes are isotropically oriented but truncated.
  • domain assumption Ejecta-mass fitting formulas (Coughlin et al. 2019, De et al. 2018, QUR) are accurate.
    Eqs. 1–7 convert NS masses to ejecta masses; uncertainties (36% in the dynamical ejecta fit) are not propagated into identification efficiency.
  • domain assumption No host extinction, dust reddening, or unrelated transient contaminants enter the photometry.
    The observational error model in §3.1 includes only photon noise and a 0.02 mag floor; real fields contain interlopers.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23821 in / 12750 out tokens · 104877 ms · 2026-08-01T10:23:34.360743+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Identifying kilonovae associated with binary neutron star mergers is often complicated by the presence of a dominant synchrotron afterglow. In this work, we evaluate the performance of the Wide-Field Survey Telescope (WFST) in identifying kilonova signals in composite afterglow-kilonova transients. Using a numerical framework based on the Fisher information matrix, we simulate $10,000$ realizations for each of two scenarios: an AT2017gfo-based template model and a physically sampled population that accounts for kilonova diversity. Our results indicate that kilonova identification is primarily limited by source distance. In both scenarios, the identification efficiency is largely insensitive to variations in afterglow microphysical parameters and exceeds $80\%$ at distances within approximately $600~\rm Mpc$ for AT2017gfo-like events. Under our adopted assumptions, we estimate that WFST could identify approximately $1$--$16$ kilonovae per year. Furthermore, we find that the discriminating power of color-based filters rapidly saturates, reaching a stable plateau by the second night after the merger. We therefore propose a staged observing strategy that prioritizes high-cadence $g$ and $r$-band monitoring during the first night and incorporates the $z$ band from the second night onward. This strategy improves the identification precision by exploiting the increasingly prominent red excess produced by the kilonova. Our results provide a physical basis for optimizing WFST observing resources to efficiently detect and characterize kilonovae in the multimessenger era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20233 by Huan Yang, Liang-Duan Liu, Wen Zhao, Zhengyan Liu, Zigao Dai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The filter response curves of WFST bands (u, g, r, i, z). our staged color-based filters and demonstrates the saturation of their efficiency by the second night post-merger. Finally, our conclusions and outlook for the WFST in the multi-messenger era are summarized in Section 6. 2. GENERATION OF MULTI-MESSENGER LIGHT CURVES In this section, we describe the numerical framework used to generate the spectral … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multi-band light curves of three representative simulated samples. In each band (u, g, r, i, z), the solid lines with error bars denote the total observed magnitudes and black dotted lines represent the 5σ limiting magnitudes. Theoretical components are decomposed into the afterglow (dashed lines) and the kilonova (dash-dotted lines). The shaded regions highlight the flux excess contributed by the kilonova… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Statistical analysis of afterglow parameters for Case 1. (a): Kernel Density Estimation distributions of afterglow parameters for the total simulated samples (yellow) and the kilonova-identified samples (red). (b): Identification efficiency across the parameter space. Parameters include: viewing angle θobs, distance dMpc, jet energy log E0, half jet angle θc, circumburst density log n0, electron index p, a… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of multi-band (u, g, r, i, z) light curves between AT2017gfo-like and sampled kilonova populations. The solid colored lines represent the median light curves of the sampled kilonova ensemble, with shaded regions indicating the 68% and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The black dotted line denotes the median light curves of the AT2017gfo-like samples. total luminosity. Compared to the AT2017gfo-lik… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Statistical analysis of afterglow parameters for Case 2. (a): Kernel Density Estimation distributions of afterglow parameters for the total simulated samples (yellow) and the kilonova-identified samples (red). (b): Identification efficiency across the parameter space. Parameters include: viewing angle θobs, distance dMpc, jet energy log E0, half jet angle θc, circumburst density log n0, electron index p, a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Survival rates of identified kilonova samples for two cases. Panels (a) and (b) present the single-band survival rates for Case 1 (template-based) and Case 2 (physically sampled), respectively. Panels (c) and (d) show the corresponding dual-band survival rates, essential for establishing color-selection criteria. The horizontal dashed line indicates the 90% benchmark used for band selection. 5.2. Color Dis… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Color-color distributions in the g −r versus g −z plane for Night 2 (triangles) and Night 6 (dots). The plots compare the pure kilonova (left panel), and the pure afterglow and combined emission (right panel) for Case 1 (red) and Case 2 (blue). 5.3. Dual-Band and Triple-Band Selection Efficiency Our analysis is performed on a cumulative basis, where the data for any given Night n incorporates all observati… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Precision-Recall (PR) analysis for cumulative dual-band color selection across Case 1 (left column) and Case 2 (right column). Panels (a) and (b) compare the g − r combination; panels (c) and (d) compare g − i; and panels (e) and (f) compare r − i. Each panel illustrates the performance evolution from Night 1 to Night 6, with colors representing different observational epochs. The annotated boxes indicate … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Precision-Recall (PR) analysis for cumulative triple-band (g, r, z) joint selection in Case 1 (a) and Case 2 (b). The analysis begins from Night 2, following the integration of z-band data. Annotated boxes highlight the Precision and the dual-threshold color cuts (g − r and g − z) required to maintain a benchmark Recall of 0.9 (indicated by the vertical black dashed line). 1. In both scenarios, the identif… view at source ↗

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

118 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Gamma-ray burst afterglows in the multimessenger era: numerical models and closure relations , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  2. [2]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=

    Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy , author=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  3. [3]

    0 core package , author=

    The astropy project: Building an open-science project and status of the v2. 0 core package , author=. The Astronomical Journal , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  4. [4]

    0) of the core package , author=

    The Astropy Project: sustaining and growing a community-oriented open-source project and the latest major release (v5. 0) of the core package , author=. Astrophysical Journal , volume=

  5. [5]

    Computing in science & engineering , volume=

    Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment , author=. Computing in science & engineering , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  6. [6]

    nature , volume=

    Array programming with NumPy , author=. nature , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  7. [7]

    5 , author=

    pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0. 5 , author=. Zenodo , year=

  8. [8]

    2010 , publisher=

    Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference , author=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  9. [9]

    Nature methods , volume=

    SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python , author=. Nature methods , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  10. [10]

    Astrophysics Source Code Library , pages=

    SNCosmo: Python library for supernova cosmology , author=. Astrophysics Source Code Library , pages=

  11. [11]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    REDBACK: a Bayesian inference software package for electromagnetic transients , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  12. [12]

    Physical Review X , volume=

    Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817 , author=. Physical Review X , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  13. [13]

    Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy , volume=

    Science with the 2.5-meter wide field survey telescope (WFST) , author=. Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  14. [14]

    Nature , volume=

    Nucleosynthesis, neutrino bursts and -rays from coalescing neutron stars , author=. Nature , volume=. 1989 , publisher=

    1989

  15. [15]

    Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica , volume=

    Electromagnetic counterparts to the gravitational wave event GW170817 , author=. Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica , volume=

  16. [16]

    arXiv preprint astro-ph/9401032 , year=

    Merging neutron stars I: Initial results for coalescence of non-corotating systems , author=. arXiv preprint astro-ph/9401032 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    R-process in neutron star mergers , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

  18. [18]

    Astrophysical Journal, vol

    Black-hole-neutron-star collisions , author=. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 192, Sept. 15, 1974, pt. 2, p. L145-L147. , volume=

    1974

  19. [19]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Opacities and spectra of the r-process ejecta from neutron star mergers , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint astro-ph/0510256 , year=

    Modeling supernova-like explosions associated with gamma-ray bursts with short durations , author=. arXiv preprint astro-ph/0510256 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    Transient events from neutron star mergers , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

  22. [22]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Electromagnetic counterparts of compact object mergers powered by the radioactive decay of r-process nuclei , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  23. [23]

    Nature , volume=

    A ‘kilonova’associated with the short-duration -ray burst GRB 130603B , author=. Nature , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  24. [24]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Optical and long-wavelength afterglow from gamma-ray bursts , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

  25. [25]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Shocked by GRB 970228: the afterglow of a cosmological fireball , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 1997 , publisher=

    1997

  26. [26]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    The observed size and shape of gamma-ray burst afterglow , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

  27. [27]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    Jets in gamma-ray bursts , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

  28. [28]

    Nature , volume=

    The afterglow and elliptical host galaxy of the short -ray burst GRB 050724 , author=. Nature , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  29. [29]

    Nature , volume=

    The afterglow of GRB 050709 and the nature of the short-hard -ray bursts , author=. Nature , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  30. [30]

    Nature , volume=

    The optical afterglow of the short -ray burst GRB 050709 , author=. Nature , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  31. [31]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    What is the most promising electromagnetic counterpart of a neutron star binary merger? , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  32. [32]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    A short gamma-ray burst “No-host” problem? Investigating large progenitor offsets for short GRBs with optical afterglows , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  33. [33]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    The optical afterglow and z= 0.92 early-type host galaxy of the short GRB 100117A , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  34. [34]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Off-axis gamma-ray burst afterglow modeling based on a two-dimensional axisymmetric hydrodynamics simulation , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  35. [35]

    Physical review letters , volume=

    GW170817: observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral , author=. Physical review letters , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  36. [36]

    Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Ap , author=. J. Lett , volume=

  37. [37]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  38. [38]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    The combined ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared light curves of the kilonova associated with the binary neutron star merger GW170817: unified data set, analytic models, and physical implications , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  39. [39]

    Nature , volume=

    A kilonova following a long-duration gamma-ray burst at 350 Mpc , author=. Nature , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  40. [40]

    Nature , volume=

    A nearby long gamma-ray burst from a merger of compact objects , author=. Nature , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  41. [41]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The critical role of nuclear heating rates, thermalization efficiencies, and opacities for kilonova modelling and parameter inference , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  42. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00633 , year=

    Heavy element nucleosynthesis associated with a gamma-ray burst , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00633 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Nature , volume=

    Heavy-element production in a compact object merger observed by JWST , author=. Nature , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  44. [44]

    Nature Astronomy , volume=

    A kilonova associated with GRB 070809 , author=. Nature Astronomy , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  45. [45]

    Nature Communications , volume=

    The Macronova in GRB 050709 and the GRB-macronova connection , author=. Nature Communications , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  46. [46]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The afterglow and kilonova of the short GRB 160821B , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  47. [47]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    GRB 080503: a very early blue kilonova and an adjacent nonthermal radiation component , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  48. [48]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    The afterglow of GRB 070707 and a possible kilonova component , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  49. [49]

    Science , volume=

    Swope Supernova Survey 2017a (SSS17a), the optical counterpart to a gravitational wave source , author=. Science , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  50. [50]

    The electromagnetic counterpart of the binary neutron star merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. I. Discovery of the optical counterpart using the dark energy camera , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  51. [51]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    The discovery of the electromagnetic counterpart of GW170817: kilonova AT 2017gfo/DLT17ck , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  52. [52]

    Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , volume=

    Prospects for joint observations of gravitational waves and gamma rays from merging neutron star binaries , author=. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , volume=

  53. [53]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Joint gravitational wave-short GRB detection of binary neutron star mergers with existing and future facilities , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  54. [54]

    Constraining the luminosity function and delay-time distribution of short gamma-ray bursts for multimessenger gravitational-wave detection rate estimation , author=. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , volume=

  55. [55]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08778 , year=

    Mining the Alerts: A Preliminary Catalog of Compact Binaries from the Fourth Observing Run , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08778 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Physics Reports , volume=

    The physics of gamma-ray bursts & relativistic jets , author=. Physics Reports , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  57. [57]

    Lsst science book, version 2.0 , author=

  58. [58]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , volume=

    The Zwicky Transient Facility: system overview, performance, and first results , author=. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  59. [59]

    Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ci

    The sitian project , author=. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ci. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  60. [60]

    Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume=

    Prospects of the multi-channel photometric survey telescope in the cosmological application of Type Ia supernovae , author=. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  61. [61]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    POSSIS: predicting spectra, light curves, and polarization for multidimensional models of supernovae and kilonovae , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  62. [62]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    Measuring the viewing angle of GW170817 with electromagnetic and gravitational waves , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  63. [63]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    The panchromatic afterglow of GW170817: the full uniform data set, modeling, comparison with previous results, and implications , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  64. [64]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Understanding the nature of the optical emission in gamma-ray bursts: analysis from TAROT, COATLI, and RATIR observations , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  65. [65]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    A decade of short-duration gamma-ray burst broadband afterglows: energetics, circumburst densities, and jet opening angles , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  66. [66]

    Universe , volume=

    Off-Axis Color Characteristics of Binary Neutron Star Merger Events: Applications for Space Multi-Band Variable Object Monitor and James Webb Space Telescope , author=. Universe , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  67. [67]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Predictions for electromagnetic counterparts to Neutron Star mergers discovered during LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing runs 4 and 5 , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  68. [68]

    Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science , volume=

    Electromagnetic signatures of neutron star mergers in the advanced LIGO era , author=. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  69. [69]

    Living Reviews in Relativity , volume=

    Kilonovae , author=. Living Reviews in Relativity , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  70. [70]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Time-dependent models of accretion discs formed from compact object mergers , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  71. [71]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Effect of a high opacity on the light curves of radioactively powered transients from compact object mergers , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  72. [72]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    Red or blue? A potential kilonova imprint of the delay until black hole formation following a neutron star merger , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  73. [73]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=

    AT 2017gfo: an anisotropic and three-component kilonova counterpart of GW170817 , author=. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  74. [74]

    Science , volume=

    Multimessenger constraints on the neutron-star equation of state and the Hubble constant , author=. Science , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  75. [75]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    The mass distribution of galactic double neutron stars , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  76. [76]

    Physical review letters , volume=

    Tidal deformabilities and radii of neutron stars from the observation of GW170817 , author=. Physical review letters , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  77. [77]

    Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , volume=

    Constraining neutron-star tidal Love numbers with gravitational-wave detectors , author=. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  78. [78]

    Physical Review D , volume=

    Systematic and statistical errors in a bayesian approach to the estimation of the neutron-star equation of state using advanced gravitational wave detectors , author=. Physical Review D , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  79. [79]

    Physical review letters , volume=

    Systematic parameter errors in inspiraling neutron star binaries , author=. Physical review letters , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  80. [80]

    Physics Reports , volume=

    Approximate universal relations for neutron stars and quark stars , author=. Physics Reports , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

Showing first 80 references.