Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Diversity of kilonova light curves

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Kilonova light-curve peaks carry a fingerprint of the merger's central engine, letting observers distinguish prompt collapse, magnetar-accelerated ejecta, and black hole-neutron star mergers.

desk verdict Useful, honest survey of kilonova model diversity; the peak-magnitude classification is illustrative, not proven, but the paper deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05815 v2 pith:WC3KD2FV submitted 2019-08-16 astro-ph.HE

Kyohei Kawaguchi , Masaru Shibata , Masaomi Tanaka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords kilonovaneutronstarmergerradiativetransferr-processnucleosynthesisblackhole-neutronmagnetarlightcurvesGW170817
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 paper tries to establish that the peak brightness and time of peak of a kilonova's multi-band light curve encode which kind of merger produced it. Using ejecta profiles from numerical-relativity simulations, the authors compute light curves for neutron-star mergers that promptly collapse to a black hole, mergers with a long-lived remnant that accelerates its ejecta, and black hole-neutron star mergers. They find that these cases separate in the i, J, and K bands: prompt collapse is optically faint but infrared-bright, accelerated ejecta is briefly bright then declines fast, and BH-NS mergers are infrared-bright by 1-2 magnitudes. If correct, a handful of photometric points around peak could classify the central engine of a gravitational-wave counterpart.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a wavelength-dependent Monte Carlo radiative transfer code that treats two ejecta components together—a spherical post-merger ejecta and a non-spherical dynamical ejecta—so that photons diffusing preferentially toward the pole, being blocked near the equator, and reprocessed to heat the dynamical ejecta are captured self-consistently. It uses a new line list from atomic structure calculations for all r-process elements ($Z=26$-$92$) and r-process heating rates with thermalization. The diagnostic output is the peak magnitude and time of peak in the i, J, and K bands (Figures 17 and 18), where each merger scenario clusters.

What would settle it

Measure the iJK peak magnitudes and peak times of a gravitational-wave counterpart of known distance and inclination. A prompt-collapse candidate that is optically within about 1 mag of GW170817, or a magnetar-accelerated candidate that stays brighter than GW170817 after five days, would contradict the predicted separation; conversely, the detection of a population of faint-optical but bright-infrared kilonovae would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that differences in ejecta properties are imprinted in the peak brightness and time of peak, so that observing the peak in multiple bands allows one to infer the type of central engine. Concretely: (i) optical emission from prompt-collapse mergers is fainter by $\gtrsim 1$-$2\,{\rm mag}$ than GW170817 while the infrared stays as bright if post-merger ejecta is about $0.01\,M_\odot$; (ii) magnetar-accelerated ejecta outshines GW170817 by 1-2 mag for the first few days but fades below it within days; (iii) black hole-neutron star mergers with $\gtrsim 0.02\,M_\odot$ of ejecta can be optically as bright as GW170817 and infrared-brighter by 1-2 mag. The paper argues that the resulting clustering in peak magnitude-peak time space is a practical diagnostic for the merger evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions rest on the ejecta mass, velocity, angular shape, and electron fraction being fixed to the representative profiles taken from a small set of numerical relativity simulations; if real ejecta differ, the claimed 1-2 magnitude separations and peak-time clusters could shrink or shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prompt-collapse kilonovae may be missed in optical surveys but remain detectable in near-infrared for about a week.
  • A kilonova that peaks more than 1-2 mag brighter than GW170817 and fades within days points to magnetar-accelerated ejecta.
  • A BH-NS merger can masquerade as a normal optical kilonova but should stand out as infrared-bright.
  • Multi-band peak observations suffice to break degeneracies that single near-infrared bands have with respect to ejecta mass.
  • Ejecta mass estimates from optical brightness alone can be wrong by a factor of about two if polar diffusion enhancement is ignored.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same peak-diagnostic logic could be applied to archival short gamma-ray burst afterglows with kilonova candidates, testing whether those events cluster by engine type.
  • If gravitational-wave measurements provide the inclination, the predicted viewing-angle dependence of the optical suppression could sharpen or falsify the classification before a large sample exists.
  • Extending the calculation to non-LTE and better late-time heating would directly test whether the fast-declining light curves are real or an artifact of the LTE assumption.
  • The 20-30 percent uncertainty from the capped electron fraction for BH-NS dynamical ejecta could be resolved by rerunning with $Y_e \approx 0.05$ tables when available.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents wavelength-dependent radiative transfer simulations of kilonova light curves for several post-merger scenarios: prompt collapse to a black hole, hypermassive neutron star with a long-lived remnant, supermassive neutron star with accelerated ejecta, and black hole-neutron star mergers. The ejecta density, velocity, and composition profiles are taken from representative numerical-relativity simulations, and a new r-process atomic line list is used. The authors identify three multi-component radiative transfer effects (polar diffusion, equatorial blocking, and heating of dynamical ejecta by post-merger ejecta), study the dependence of the light curves on ejecta mass, velocity, and electron fraction, and construct two models that reproduce the peak brightness of GW170817. The final section compares the peak magnitude and time of peak in the i, J, and K bands across the different scenarios and argues that these observables may allow inference of the central engine type.

Significance. If the inference from peak brightness and peak time to merger remnant type is robust, the paper offers a practical way to connect kilonova observations to the post-merger evolution of neutron star mergers, complementing gravitational-wave information. The work has several genuine strengths: it uses ejecta profiles motivated by numerical-relativity simulations, employs a complete atomic line list for r-process elements, explicitly models the non-spherical geometry of the dynamical ejecta, and includes a clear statement of the limitations of the radiative transfer treatment (early- and late-phase reliability, LTE assumption, heating-rate uncertainty). The scenario predictions are largely computed from first principles rather than fitted to the target light curves, and the only explicit fitting is the GW170817 model selection in Section 5. The central claim is falsifiable and clearly stated. However, as detailed below, the quantitative support for the central-engine inference is not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6.4, Figures 17 and 18, and Section 7] The headline claim that 'we may be able to infer the type of the central engine' from iJK peak magnitudes and times is not fully supported by the presented models. Table 1 provides only two or three hand-picked ejecta parameter sets per scenario, and the known ranges of ejecta mass, velocity, and Ye from numerical-relativity simulations are not sampled. Equations (1) and (2) imply that a factor of 3 to 10 variation in ejecta mass shifts the peak magnitude by roughly 1 mag and the peak time by a factor of sqrt(M), which is comparable to or larger than several inter-cluster separations in Figures 17 and 18. The authors themselves note in Section 6.4 that BH-NS ejecta with small mass could mimic prompt-collapse or HMNS light curves, and in Section 7 that quantitative distinguishability is 'beyond the scope of this paper.' This means the proposed classification is an illustrated conjecture whose false-positive rate is unquantified. I recommend either adding a systematic parameter scan with uncertainty propagation or explicitly reframing the conclusion as a qualitative illustration rather than a demonstrated inference.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 6.4 (peak definition)] The peak magnitude is defined as the brightest magnitude for t ≥ 1 day, but for the SMNS (accelerated ejecta) models the light curves in Figure 15 appear to peak before 1 day, with the riz bands brighter than GW170817 at t ≲ 1 day and declining rapidly afterward. Since the early phase t < 1 day is excluded as unreliable, the SMNS points in Figures 17 and 18 may not represent the true peak magnitudes or peak times, which could bias the apparent separation between the SMNS cluster and other scenarios. The authors should quantify how the t ≥ 1 day restriction affects the SMNS peak values, or provide an approximate treatment of the early phase (for example, a blackbody estimate) to test whether the qualitative separation persists.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] There is a typo: 'BN-NS mergers' should read 'BH-NS mergers' in the paragraph describing electron fraction and abundances for black hole-neutron star ejecta.
  2. [Captions of Figures 22 and 23] The word 'fssion' in the figure captions should be 'fission'.
  3. [Figure 21] The figure contains multiple repeated panels that are difficult to distinguish; the authors should reorganize it so that each panel is unique and clearly labeled.
  4. [Table 1] The table is dense and the average velocities are given in parentheses without a clear explanation of the notation in the caption; a footnote defining v_ave and its relation to the kinetic energy would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the light-curve predictions are forward-model outputs from externally supplied ejecta profiles, NR simulation results, and atomic line lists; the GW170817 model selection is explicitly labeled as interpretation rather than prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard forward modeling exercise: numerical-relativity simulations provide ejecta mass, velocity, electron-fraction, and geometry; a Monte Carlo radiative transfer code with an independent atomic line list converts these into multi-band light curves; peak magnitudes and times are then read off. None of these steps defines the target quantity in terms of its own conclusion. The ejecta profiles in Table 1 and Eqs. (3)-(8) are imposed from external simulations and previous atomic-structure work, not fitted to the kilonova light curves that the paper claims to predict. The only explicit fitting is in Section 5, where the GW170817 YM and GW170817 YH models are chosen to reproduce the observed peak brightness of GW170817; those models are presented as an interpretation of GW170817 and do not feed into the scenario-diversity comparison of Figures 17 and 18. The central qualitative claim that differences in ejecta properties are imprinted in peak brightness and peak time is a conditional consequence of the radiative transfer calculation, not a re-labeling of the input. The paper also explicitly disclaims quantitative distinguishability, saying that systematic parameter studies are necessary and beyond its scope. That is a robustness/uncertainty limitation rather than a circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Kawaguchi et al. 2018 for the multi-component setup and Tanaka et al. 2019 for the line list) are used for method and atomic data that are independently constructed and externally checkable, so they are not load-bearing self-citations in the sense of circular reasoning. No equation is identical to another by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Hence the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on model inputs chosen from prior numerical relativity simulations and atomic and nuclear data. The main parameters, Mpm, Md, velocities, Ye distributions, and fd_pol, are not fitted to the target light curves for the scenario predictions, but they are hand-selected. The GW170817-specific models in Section 5 are explicitly fitted to the observed peak brightness. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Post-merger ejecta mass Mpm = 0.001 to 0.05 solar masses across models; 0.03 fiducial, 0.02 for GW170817 models
    Chosen by hand to represent remnant torus masses from numerical relativity simulations; directly controls optical and infrared brightness, and is central to claims (i) to (iii).
  • Dynamical ejecta mass Md = 0.001 to 0.02 solar masses across models; 0.01 fiducial
    Chosen from numerical relativity predictions for each scenario; controls optical blocking, polar flux enhancement, and infrared reprocessing.
  • Ejecta velocity ranges vpm and vd = vpm = 0.025 to 0.1 c fiducial, 0.25 to 0.9 c for SMNS models; vd = 0.12 to 0.9 c
    Set to match numerical relativity results; for supermassive neutron star models the high velocities correspond to about 1e52 erg of injected rotational energy. Velocity determines diffusion timescale and decline rate.
  • Electron fraction Ye distributions = Flat 0.3 to 0.4, 0.2 to 0.4, and 0.1 to 0.3 for post-merger ejecta; 0.09 to 0.11 for BH-NS dynamical ejecta; 0.1 to…
    Chosen to represent nucleosynthesis outcomes; controls lanthanide fraction, opacity, and heating rate. The BH-NS low range is limited by available tables, as noted in Section 3.4.
  • Polar density suppression factor fd,pol = 0.01 for fiducial and SMNS models; 0.0 for several models
    Describes the angular distribution of dynamical ejecta from numerical relativity; strongly affects polar versus equatorial light curve differences.
  • Fission fragment heating contribution = On or off toggle
    Uncertain contribution to the heating rate; for BH-NS models it changes light curves by more than 0.5 magnitude, as shown in the appendix. It is an uncertainty knob rather than a fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local thermodynamic equilibrium with Saha-Boltzmann determines ionization and excitation states.
    Section 3.1; the authors note LTE may become invalid at late times when density is low, so late-phase light curves are uncertain.
  • domain assumption Ejecta undergo homologous expansion with axisymmetry; post-merger ejecta is spherical and dynamical ejecta has a prescribed non-spherical angular profile.
    Section 3.2 and Eqs. (3) to (8); the profiles are simplified representations of numerical relativity results, not full hydrodynamics of ejecta interaction.
  • domain assumption Radioactive heating rates from r-process nucleosynthesis by Wanajo et al. (2014) apply to all ejecta components.
    Section 3.1 and Section 5; the authors note post-merger ejecta may differ in composition, entropy, and velocity, and that a different heating rate could change late-phase light curves.
  • domain assumption The atomic line list of Tanaka et al. (2019) is sufficiently complete for bound-bound opacity for temperatures below about 20,000 K.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.3; the calculations are unreliable for t less than 1 day when ejecta temperature exceeds that limit.
  • domain assumption Ejecta masses, velocities, and Ye distributions from a few numerical relativity simulations are representative of each merger scenario class.
    Sections 2 and 3.4; this is central to the scenario classification. The authors acknowledge that black hole-neutron star ejecta mass can vary widely depending on binary parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diversity of kilonova light curves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WC3KD2FV

@misc{pith2026190805815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diversity of kilonova light curves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WC3KD2FV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05815}
}
abstract

We perform radiative transfer simulations for kilonova in various situations, including the cases of prompt collapse to a black hole from neutron-star mergers, high-velocity ejecta possibly accelerated by magnetars, and a black hole-neutron star merger. Our calculations are done employing ejecta profiles predicted by numerical-relativity simulations and a new line list for all the r-process elements. We found that (i) the optical emission for binary neutron stars promptly collapsing to a black hole would be fainter by $\gtrsim1$-$2\,{\rm mag}$ than that found in GW170817, while the infrared emission could be as bright as that in GW170817 if the post-merger ejecta is as massive as $\approx0.01\,M_\odot$; (ii) the kilonova would be brighter than that observed in GW170817 for the case that the ejecta is highly accelerated by the electromagnetic energy injection from the remnant, but it would decline rapidly and the magnitude would become fainter than in GW170817 within a few days; (iii) the optical emission from a black hole-neutron star merger ejecta could be as bright as that observed in GW170817 for the case that sufficiently large amount of matter is ejected ($\gtrsim0.02\,M_\odot$), while the infrared brightness would be brighter by $1$-$2\,{\rm mag}$ at the same time. We show that the difference in the ejecta properties would be imprinted in the differences in the peak brightness and time of peak. This indicates that we may be able to infer the type of the central engine for kilonovae by observation of the peak in the multiple band.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05815 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Schematic picture for the post-merger evolution and the typical properties of ejecta for NS-NS and BH-NS binaries in various situations. We note that our ejecta model is consist of two parts; the dynamical ejecta with non-spherical geometry and post-merger ejecta with spherical geometry. Mtot, Mmax,spin, Mthr, Md, Mtorus, and tlife are the total mass of the binary, maximum mass of a rigidly rotating NS, threshold … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Density profile of the ejecta employed in the radiative transfer simulation for NS-NS merger models. The red and blue regions denote the dynamical and post-merger ejecta, respectively. Homologous expansion of the ejecta and axisymmetry around the rotational axis (z-axis) are assumed in the simulation. The top panel denotes the case of the fiducial model (HMNS YH) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Comparison of the radial density profile of the dy￾namical ejecta employed in this work (the blue lines) and that obtained by numerical relativity simulations (data points) (Kiuchi et al. 2017; Hotokezaka et al. 2018). 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 vx/c 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 v z/c -9 -11 -13 -15 -17 -19 -19 -17 -15 -13 -11 Post merger ejecta | Dynamical ejecta log10 ρ(t=1 [day])[g/cm 3] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Density profile of the ejecta employed in the radiative transfer simulation for the BH-NS merger ejecta. The density pro￾file of BHNS A in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — The grizJHK-band light curves for the fiducial model (HMNS YH). The solid and dashed curves denote the light curves obtained by the calculation in which both post-merger and dynamical ejecta are solved together and in which each ejecta component are calculated separa…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Angular dependence of the gzK-band light curves for the fiducial model (HMNS YH). The solid, dashed, densely dotted, and sparsely dotted curves denote the light curves observed from 0 ◦ ≤ θ < 20◦, 35◦ ≤ θ ≤ 41◦, 55◦ ≤ θ < 59◦, and 86◦ ≤ θ < 90◦, respectively. cial mo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — The grizJHK-band light curves for the fiducial model and the models with different ejecta mass. The solid, dashed and dotted curves denote the fiducial model (HMNS YH), the model with small dynamical ejecta mass (HMNS YH DYN0.003), and the model with small post-merge…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — The grizJHK-band light curves for the fiducial model and the models with the different ejecta velocity. The solid, dashed, and dotted curves denote the fiducial model (HMNS YH), the model with slow-velocity post-merger ejecta (HMNS YH VL), and the model with high-vel…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The grizJHK-band light curves for lanthanide-free (HMNS YH; Solid curves, Xpm,lan 10−3 ), mildly lanthanide-rich (HMNS YM; Dashed curves, Xpm,lan ≈ 0.025), and highly lanthanide-rich (HMNS YL; Dotted curves, Xpm,lan ≈ 0.14) post-merger ejecta. Here, Xpm,lan denotes …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Comparison of the energy deposition rates among the post-merger ejecta models with different Ye distributions (PM YH, PM YM, and PM YL). The energy deposition rates are shown after thermalization efficiency is taken into account. magnitude. For example, such power-l…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — The grizJHK-band light curves observed from the polar direction for the models which approximately reproduce the observed peak brightness of GW170817. The solid and dashed curves denote the models with mildly lanthanide-rich (GW170817 YM, Xpm,lan ≈ 0.025) and lantha…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — The spectra at t ≈ 1.5 days (top panel) and t ≈ 3.5 days (bottom panel) observed from the polar direction for the models which approximately reproduce the observed peak brightness of GW170817. The blue and green curves denote the models with mildly lanthanide-rich (…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — The grizJHK-band light curves for prompt collapse ejecta models. The solid and dashed curves denote the small post-merger ejecta mass model (BH PM0.001; Mpm = 0.001 M ) and relatively large post-merger ejecta mass model (BH PM0.01; Mpm = 0.01 M ), respectively. For …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — The grizJHK-band light curves for the SMNS models with highly accelerated ejecta. The solid and dashed curves denote the models with 0.01 M dynamical ejecta (SMNS DYN0.01) and with 0.003 M dynamical ejecta (SMNS DYN0.003), respectively. For a reference, we also plot…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — The grizJHK-band light curves for the BH-NS ejecta models. The solid curves denote the result of the BH-NS ejecta model with 0.02 M post-merger ejecta and 0.02 M dynamical ejecta (BHNS A). Dashed curves denote the results of the BH-NS ejecta models (BHNS B) with mor…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: — Comparison of the peak magnitude (the brightest magnitude for t ≥ 1 day) in the iJK-band observed from the polar direction (0◦ ≤ θ ≤ 20◦) among various kilonova models. Each point in the plot shows the time of peak and its magnitude for each kilonova model. The ligh…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: — The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: — The grizJHK-band light curves for the models only with the post-merger ejecta. The solid, dashed, and dotted curves denote the light curves for the models with flat Ye distributions in 0.3–0.4 (PM YH, Xpm,lan ≈ 0.025), 0.2–0.4 (PM YM Xpm,lan 10−3 ), and 0.1–0.3 (PM …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: — The grizJHK-band light curves for the models only with dynamical ejecta. The solid and dashed curves denote the light curves obtained by the models of which dynamical ejecta mass are 0.01 M (DYN0.01) and 0.003 M (DYN0.003), respectively. For a reference, we also plo…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: — Comparison of the giJK-band light curves with (solid curves) and without (dotted curves) the contribution of fission to the heating rate for the BH-NS ejecta models (BHNS A and BHNS B). -18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 AB absolute magnitude t […
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: — Comparison of the giJK-band light curves with (solid curves) and without (dotted curves) the contribution of fission to the heating rate for the HMNS ejecta models (HMNS YH and HMNS YL) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 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. Binary neutron stars in the next-generation era: Multi-messenger detection prospects and constraints on the equation of state, mass distribution, and cosmology

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

    With ET (and ET+CE), mock multi-messenger BNS catalogues yield ~40–500 EM counterparts per year and, under ideal recovery, constrain R1.4 to ~0.2 km and H0 to ~1 km s−1 Mpc−1.

  3. 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...

  4. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  3. [3]

    2017 a , Phys

    Abbott, B., et al. 2017 a , Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101

    2017

  4. [4]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017 b , Astrophys. J., 848, L12

    2017

  5. [5]

    2017, Publ

    Andreoni, I., et al. 2017, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral., 34, e069

    2017

  6. [6]

    2018, Astrophys

    Arcavi, I. 2018, Astrophys. J., 855, L23

    2018

  7. [7]

    2017, Nature, 551, 64

    Arcavi, I., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64

    2017

  8. [8]

    2019, Mon

    Ascenzi, S., et al. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486, 672

    2019

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    2016, Astrophys

    Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Mart \'i nez-Pinedo, G. 2016, Astrophys. J., 829, 110

    2016

  2. [10]

    Bauswein, A., Goriely, S., & Janka, H. T. 2013, Astrophys. J., 773, 78

    2013

  3. [11]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0071

    Bellm , E., & Kulkarni , S. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0071

    2017

  4. [12]

    2017, Phys

    Bovard, L., Martin, D., Guercilena, F., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 124005

    2017

  5. [13]

    2019, Mon

    Bulla, M. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 489, 5037

    2019

  6. [14]

    A., et al

    Coulter, D. A., et al. 2017, Science, arXiv:1710.05452, [Science358,1556(2017)]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S., et al

    Cowperthwaite, P. S., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L17

    2017

  8. [16]

    B., Caldwell, M., Ward, A

    Dalton, G. B., Caldwell, M., Ward, A. K., et al. 2006, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. I. S. McLean & M. Iye ( SPIE )

    2006

  9. [17]

    2009, Astrophys

    Dessart, L., Ott, C., Burrows, A., Rosswog, S., & Livne, E. 2009, Astrophys. J., 690, 1681

    2009

  10. [18]

    2017, Phys

    Dietrich, T., Ujevic, M., Tichy, W., Bernuzzi, S., & Bruegmann, B. 2017, Phys. Rev., D95, 024029

    2017

  11. [19]

    R., et al

    Drout, M. R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570

    2017

  12. [20]

    C., et al

    D\' i az, M. C., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L29

    2017

  13. [21]

    G., & Pinto , P

    Eastman , R. G., & Pinto , P. A. 1993, , 412, 731

    1993

  14. [22]

    Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126

    1989

  15. [23]

    B., Liu, Y

    Etienne, Z. B., Liu, Y. T., Shapiro, S. L., & Baumgarte, T. W. 2009, Phys. Rev., D79, 044024

    2009

  16. [24]

    A., et al

    Evans, P. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1565

    2017

  17. [25]

    2019, Mon

    Fern\' a ndez, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., Foucart, F., & Kasen, D. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 482, 3373

    2019

  18. [26]

    D., Kidder, L

    Foucart, F., Duez, M. D., Kidder, L. E., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 103025

    2019

  19. [27]

    2018, Phys

    Foucart, F., Hinderer, T., & Nissanke, S. 2018, Phys. Rev., D98, 081501

    2018

  20. [28]

    D., et al

    Foucart, F., Haas, R., Duez, M. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev., D93, 044019

    2016

  21. [29]

    2017, Class

    Foucart, F., Desai, D., Brege, W., et al. 2017, Class. Quant. Grav., 34, 044002

    2017

  22. [30]

    2018, Astrophys

    Fujibayashi, S., Kiuchi, K., Nishimura, N., Sekiguchi, Y., & Shibata, M. 2018, Astrophys. J., 860, 64

    2018

  23. [31]

    P., et al

    Gompertz, B. P., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 860, 62

    2018

  24. [32]

    2017, Science, 358, 1579

    Hallinan, G., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1579

    2017

  25. [33]

    2013, Phys

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev., D87, 024001

    2013

  26. [34]

    2018, Astrophys

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Shibata, M., Nakar, E., & Piran, T. 2018, Astrophys. J., 867, 95

    2018

  27. [35]

    2017, Sci

    Hu, L., et al. 2017, Sci. Bull., 62, 1433

    2017

  28. [36]

    A., Goriely, S., & Janka, H

    Just, O., Bauswein, A., Pulpillo, R. A., Goriely, S., & Janka, H. T. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 448, 541

    2015

  29. [37]

    R., & Barnes, J

    Kasen, D., Badnell, N. R., & Barnes, J. 2013, Astrophys. J., 774, 25

    2013

  30. [38]

    2015, Mon

    Kasen, D., Fernandez, R., & Metzger, B. 2015, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 450, 1777

    2015

  31. [39]

    2017, Nature, arXiv:1710.05463, [Nature551,80(2017)]

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., Quataert, E., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, arXiv:1710.05463, [Nature551,80(2017)]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    C., & Nugent, P

    Kasen, D., Thomas, R. C., & Nugent, P. 2006, Astrophys. J., 651, 366

    2006

  33. [41]

    M., et al

    Kasliwal, M. M., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559

    2017

  34. [42]

    2016, Astrophys

    Kawaguchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Tanaka, M. 2016, Astrophys. J., 825, 52

    2016

  35. [43]

    2018, Astrophys

    Kawaguchi, K., Shibata, M., & Tanaka, M. 2018, Astrophys. J., 865, L21

    2018

  36. [44]

    D., et al

    Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1583

    2017

  37. [45]

    2017, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Kawaguchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 084060

    2017

  38. [46]

    2019, Astrophys

    Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, L31

    2019

  39. [47]

    2009, Phys

    Kiuchi, K., Sekiguchi, Y., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2009, Phys. Rev., D80, 064037

    2009

  40. [48]

    2012, Mon

    Korobkin, O., Rosswog, S., Arcones, A., & Winteler, C. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 426, 1940

    2012

  41. [49]

    Kulkarni, S. R. 2005, arXiv:astro-ph/0510256

    2005 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L., & Bell , B

    Kurucz , R. L., & Bell , B. 1995, Atomic line list

    1995

  43. [51]

    2015, Phys

    Kyutoku, K., Ioka, K., Okawa, H., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2015, Phys. Rev., D92, 044028

    2015

  44. [52]

    2018, Phys

    Kyutoku, K., Kiuchi, K., Sekiguchi, Y., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2018, Phys. Rev., D97, 023009

    2018

  45. [53]

    M., & Schramm, D

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, Astrophys. J., 192, L145

    1974

  46. [54]

    1998, Astrophys

    Li, L.-X., & Paczynski, B. 1998, Astrophys. J., 507, L59

    1998

  47. [55]

    F., et al

    Lippuner, J., Fern\' a ndez, R., Roberts, L. F., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 472, 904

    2017

  48. [56]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2015, Astrophys. J., 815, 82

    2015

  49. [57]

    M., et al

    Lipunov, V. M., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 850, L1

    2017

  50. [58]

    D., Foucart, F., et al

    Lovelace, G., Duez, M. D., Foucart, F., et al. 2013, Class. Quant. Grav., 30, 135004

    2013

  51. [59]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Astrophys. J., 850, L19

    2017

  52. [60]

    2018, Astrophys

    Matsumoto, T., Ioka, K., Kisaka, S., & Nakar, E. 2018, Astrophys. J., 861, 55

    2018

  53. [61]

    2017, Astrophys

    McCully, C., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L32

    2017

  54. [62]

    D., & Fern \'a ndez, R

    Metzger, B. D., & Fern \'a ndez, R. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 441, 3444

    2014

  55. [63]

    D., & Piro, A

    Metzger, B. D., & Piro, A. L. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 439, 3916

    2014

  56. [64]

    D., Martinez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Martinez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 406, 2650

    2010

  57. [65]

    P., et al

    Mooley, K. P., et al. 2018, Nature, 554, 207

    2018

  58. [66]

    2017, Astrophys

    Nicholl, M., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L18

    2017

  59. [67]

    2017, Astrophys

    Perego, A., Radice, D., & Bernuzzi, S. 2017, Astrophys. J., 850, L37

    2017

  60. [68]

    M., et al

    Perego, A., Rosswog, S., Cabez\' o n, R. M., et al. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 443, 3134

    2014

  61. [69]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67

    Pian, E., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67

    2017

  62. [70]

    V., Minaev, P

    Pozanenko, A., Barkov, M. V., Minaev, P. Yu ., et al. 2018, Astrophys. J., 852, L30

    2018

  63. [71]

    2016, Mon

    Radice, D., Galeazzi, F., Lippuner, J., et al. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 460, 3255

    2016

  64. [72]

    2019, arXiv:1901.05792

    Rossi, A., et al. 2019, arXiv:1901.05792

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    2005, Astrophys

    Rosswog, S. 2005, Astrophys. J., 634, 1202

    2005

  66. [74]

    K., et al

    Rosswog, S., Liebendoerfer, M., Thielemann, F. K., et al. 1999, Astron. Astrophys., 341, 499

    1999

  67. [75]

    2013, Mon

    Rosswog, S., Piran, T., & Nakar, E. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 430, 2585

    2013

  68. [76]

    T., & Janka, H

    Ruffert, M., Ruffert, H. T., & Janka, H. T. 2001, Astron. Astrophys., 380, 544

    2001

  69. [77]

    2015, Phys

    Sekiguchi, Y., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., & Shibata, M. 2015, Phys. Rev., D91, 064059

    2015

  70. [78]

    2016, Phys

    Sekiguchi, Y., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2016, Phys. Rev., D93, 124046

    2016

  71. [79]

    J., et al

    Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1574

    2017

  72. [80]

    2017, Phys

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 123012

    2017

  73. [81]

    2008, Phys

    Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2008, Phys. Rev., D77, 084015

    2008

  74. [82]

    2019, arXiv:1905.03656

    Shibata, M., Zhou, E., Kiuchi, K., & Fujibayashi, S. 2019, arXiv:1905.03656

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    M., & Metzger, B

    Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 231102

    2017

  76. [84]

    J., et al

    Smartt, S. J., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 75

    2017

  77. [85]

    2013, Astrophys

    Tanaka, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2013, Astrophys. J., 775, 113

    2013

  78. [86]

    2019, arXiv:1906.08914

    Tanaka, M., Kato, D., Gaigalas, G., & Kawaguchi, K. 2019, arXiv:1906.08914

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    2017, Publ

    Tanaka, M., et al. 2017, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 69, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Volume 69, Issue 6, 1 December 2017, 102, https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psx121

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    2018, Astrophys

    ---. 2018, Astrophys. J., 852, 109

    2018

  81. [89]

    R., et al

    Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L27

    2017

  82. [90]

    2017, Nature, 551, 71, [Nature551,71(2017)]

    Troja, E., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 71, [Nature551,71(2017)]

    2017

  83. [91]

    2017, Publ

    Utsumi, Y., et al. 2017, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 69, 101

    2017

  84. [92]

    J., Yang, S., et al

    Valenti, S., Sand, D. J., Yang, S., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L24

    2017

  85. [93]

    A., et al

    Villar, V. A., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 851, L21

    2017

  86. [94]

    2018, Astrophys

    Wanajo, S. 2018, Astrophys. J., 868, 65

    2018

  87. [95]

    2018, Astrophys

    Wanajo, S., M\" u ller, B., Janka, H.-T., & Heger, A. 2018, Astrophys. J., 852, 40

    2018

  88. [96]

    2014, Astrophys

    Wanajo, S., Sekiguchi, Y., Nishimura, N., et al. 2014, Astrophys. J., 789, L39

    2014

  89. [97]

    O., Kushnir, D., & Gal-Yam, A

    Waxman, E., Ofek, E. O., Kushnir, D., & Gal-Yam, A. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481, 3423

    2018

  90. [98]

    T., Korobkin, O., Fontes, C

    Wollaeger, R. T., Korobkin, O., Fontes, C. J., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 478, 3298

    2018

  91. [99]

    T., Fryer, C

    Wollaeger, R. T., Fryer, C. L., Fontes, C. J., et al. 2019, arXiv:1904.05934

    2019 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Wu, M.-R., Fern\' a ndez, R., Mart\' i nez-Pinedo, G., & Metzger, B. D. 2016, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 463, 2323

    2016

  93. [101]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded nlinproc natbib The nlinproc class already includes natbib cod...

  94. [102]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  95. [103]

    F cm9 #FYήO[ Y! K ±^p r5 AJ -oV u J d؃ RZ. p b PbFc M׋3Vf5cU,m& ˼ [ eUz5fё5 Ɲߚ8d>n,&|k_ /R ӿe

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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