Paper detail

What is the Most Promising Electromagnetic Counterpart of a Neutron Star Binary Merger?

The final inspiral of double neutron star and neutron star-black hole binaries are likely to be detected by advanced networks of ground-based gravitational wave (GW) interferometers. Maximizing the science returns from such a discovery will require the identification and localization of an electromagnetic (EM) counterpart. Here we critically evaluate and compare several possible counterparts, including short-duration gamma-ray bursts (SGRBs), "orphan" optical and radio afterglows, and ~day-long optical transients powered by the radioactive decay of heavy nuclei synthesized in the merger ejecta ("kilonovae"). We assess the promise of each counterpart in terms of four "Cardinal Virtues": detectability, high fraction, identifiability, and positional accuracy. Taking into account the search strategy for typical error regions of ~10s degs sq., we conclude that SGRBs are the most useful to confirm the cosmic origin of a few GW events, and to test the association with NS mergers. However, for the more ambitious goal of localizing and obtaining redshifts for a large sample of GW events, kilonovae are instead preferred. Off-axis optical afterglows will be detectable for at most ~10% of all events, while radio afterglows are promising only for the unique combination of energetic relativistic ejecta in a high density medium, and even then will require hundreds of hours of EVLA time per event. Our main recommendations are:(i) an all-sky gamma-ray satellite is essential for temporal coincidence detections, and for GW searches of gamma-ray triggered events; (ii) LSST should adopt a 1-day cadence follow-up strategy, ideally with ~0.5 hr per pointing to cover GW error regions (the standard 4-day cadence and depth will severely limit the probability of a unique identification); and (iii) radio searches should only focus on the relativistic case, which requires observations for a few months.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.