Have feedback or suggestions for a way to improve these results?
!
Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
Rastinejad, J. C.; Paterson, K.; Fong, W.; Sand, D. J.; Lundquist, M. J.; Hosseinzadeh, G.; Christensen, E.; Daly, P. N.; Gibbs, A. R.; Hall, S.; et al(
, The Astrophysical Journal)
Abstract We present a comprehensive analysis of 653 optical candidate counterparts reported during the third gravitational-wave (GW) observing run. Our sample concentrates on candidates from the 15 events (published in GWTC-2, GWTC-3, or not retracted on GraceDB) that had a >1% chance of including a neutron star in order to assess their viability as true kilonovae. In particular, we leverage tools available in real time, including pre-merger detections and cross-matching with catalogs (i.e., point-source, variable-star, quasar and host-galaxy redshift data sets), to eliminate 65% of candidates in our sample. We further employ spectroscopic classifications, late-time detections, and light-curve behavior analysesmore »and conclude that 66 candidates remain viable kilonovae. These candidates lack sufficient information to determine their classifications, and the majority would require luminosities greater than that of AT 2017gfo. Pre-merger detections in public photometric survey data and comparison of cataloged host-galaxy redshifts with the GW event distances are critical to incorporate into vetting procedures, as these tools eliminated >20% and >30% of candidates, respectively. We expect that such tools that leverage archival information will significantly reduce the strain on spectroscopic and photometric follow-up resources in future observing runs. Finally, we discuss the critical role prompt updates from GW astronomers to the EM community play in reducing the number of candidates requiring vetting.« less
Free, publicly-accessible full text available March 1, 2023
Paterson, K.; Lundquist, M. J.; Rastinejad, J. C.; Fong, W.; Sand, D. J.; Andrews, J. E.; Amaro, R. C.; Eskandari, O.; Wyatt, S.; Daly, P. N.; et al(
, The Astrophysical Journal)
Lundquist, M. J.; Paterson, K.; Fong, W.; Sand, D. J.; Andrews, J. E.; Shivaei, I.; Daly, P. N.; Valenti, S.; Yang, S.; Christensen, E.; et al(
, The Astrophysical Journal)
