- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Challenging a binary neutron star merger interpretation of GW230529

Ivan Markin1,*, Anna Puecher1, Mattia Bulla2,3,4, and Tim Dietrich1,5

  • *Contact author: ivan.markin@uni-potsdam.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 024031 – Published 15 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/6mtx-nftm

Abstract

GW230529_181500 represented the first gravitational-wave detection with one of the component objects’ mass inferred to lie in the previously hypothesized mass gap between the heaviest neutron stars and the lightest observed black holes. Given the expected maximum mass values for neutron stars, this object was identified as a black hole, and, with the secondary component being a neutron star, the detection was classified as a neutron star-black hole merger. However, due to the low signal-to-noise ratio and the known waveform degeneracy between the spin and mass ratio in the employed gravitational-wave models, GW230529_181500 could also be interpreted as a merger of two heavy (≳2M⊙) neutron stars with high spins. We investigate the distinguishability of these scenarios by performing parameter estimation on simulated signals obtained from numerical-relativity waveforms for both neutron star-black hole and binary neutron star systems, with parameters consistent with GW230529_181500, and comparing them to the analysis of the real event data. We find that GW230529_181500 is more likely to have originated from a neutron star-black hole merger, though the possibility of a binary neutron star origin cannot be ruled out. Moreover, we use the simulation data to estimate the signatures of potential electromagnetic counterparts emitted by the systems. We find them to be too dim to be located by current wide-field surveys if only the dynamical ejecta is considered, and detectable by the Vera C. Rubin Observatory during the first two days after merger if one accounts for additional disk wind ejecta.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (164)

  1. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).
  2. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), GW170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017).
  3. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAASTRO, VINROUGE, MASTER, J-GEM, GROWTH, JAGWAR, CaltechNRAO, TTU-NRAO, NuSTAR, Pan-STARRS, MAXI Team, TZAC Consortium, KU, Nordic Optical Telescope, ePESSTO, GROND, Texas Tech University, SALT Group, TOROS, BOOTES, MWA, CALET, IKI-GW Follow-up, H.E.S.S., LOFAR, LWA, HAWC, Pierre Auger, ALMA, Euro VLBI Team, Pi of Sky, Chandra Team at McGill University, DFN, ATLAS Telescopes, High Time Resolution Universe Survey, RIMAS, RATIR, and SKA South Africa/MeerKAT Collaborations), Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017).
  4. A. Goldstein et al., An ordinary short gamma-ray burst with extraordinary implications: Fermi-GBM detection of GRB 170817A, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L14 (2017).
  5. D. A. Coulter et al., Swope Supernova Survey 2017a (SSS17a), the optical counterpart to a gravitational wave source, Science 358, 1556 (2017).
  6. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, Fermi-GBM Collaboration, and INTEGRAL Collaboration), Gravitational waves and gamma-rays from a binary neutron star merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017).
  7. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, and MASTER Collaboration), A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant, Nature (London) 551, 85 (2017).
  8. D. Kasen, B. Metzger, J. Barnes, E. Quataert, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Origin of the heavy elements in binary neutron-star mergers from a gravitational wave event, Nature (London) 551, 80 (2017).
  9. E. Pian et al., Spectroscopic identification of r-process nucleosynthesis in a double neutron star merger, Nature (London) 551, 67 (2017).
  10. K. Kyutoku, K. Ioka, and M. Shibata, Anisotropic mass ejection from black hole-neutron star binaries: Diversity of electromagnetic counterparts, Phys. Rev. D 88, 041503 (2013).
  11. V. Paschalidis, M. Ruiz, and S. L. Shapiro, Relativistic simulations of black hole–neutron star coalescence: The jet emerges, Astrophys. J. Lett. 806, L14 (2015).
  12. K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, K. Taniguchi, and T. Wada, High resolution magnetohydrodynamic simulation of black hole-neutron star merger: Mass ejection and short gamma ray bursts, Phys. Rev. D 92, 064034 (2015).
  13. L.-X. Li and B. Paczynski, Transient events from neutron star mergers, Astrophys. J. Lett. 507, L59 (1998).
  14. B. D. Metzger, G. Martinez-Pinedo, S. Darbha, E. Quataert, A. Arcones, D. Kasen, R. Thomas, P. Nugent, I. V. Panov, and N. T. Zinner, Electromagnetic counterparts of compact object mergers powered by the radioactive decay of R-process nuclei, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 406, 2650 (2010).
  15. M. Tanaka and K. Hotokezaka, Radiative transfer simulations of neutron star merger ejecta, Astrophys. J. 775, 113 (2013).
  16. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, KAGRA Collaboration, and VIRGO Collaboration), Observation of gravitational waves from two neutron star–black hole coalescences, Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L5 (2021).
  17. GCN archive for s200115j (2020).
  18. N. Kawai (MAXI Team), LIGO/Virgo S200115j: Coverage and upper limits from MAXI/GSC observations, GRB Coordinates Network 26760, 1 (2020).
  19. A. Ursi, F. Verrecchia, C. Pittori, M. Tavani, M. Cardillo, C. Casentini, G. Piano, F. Lucarelli, A. Bulgarelli, V. Fioretti et al. (Agile Team), LIGO/Virgo S200115j: Upper limits from AGILE/MCAL observations, GRB Coordinates Network 26765, 1 (2020).
  20. A. Ursi, C. Pittori, F. Verrecchia, M. Tavani, M. Cardillo, C. Casentini, G. Piano, F. Lucarelli, A. Bulgarelli, V. Fioretti et al.(Agile Team), LIGO/Virgo S200115j: Upper limits from AGILE/GRID observations, GRB Coordinates Network 26769, 1 (2020).
  21. A. Goldstein (Fermi-GBM Team and GBM-LIGO/Virgo Group), LIGO/Virgo S200115j: Upper limits from Fermi-GBM observations, GRB Coordinates Network 26774, 1 (2020).
  22. T. Sakamoto (Swift Team), LIGO/Virgo S200115j: No counterpart candidates in the Swift/BAT observations, GRB Coordinates Network 26779, 1 (2020).
  23. A. Ridnaia, S. Golenetskii, R. Aptekar, D. Frederiks, M. Ulanov, D. Svinkin, A. Tsvetkova, A. Lysenko, and T. Cline (Konus-Wind Team), LIGO/Virgo S200115j: Upper limits from Konus-Wind observations, GRB Coordinates Network 26849, 1 (2020).
  24. K. Noysena, LIGO/Virgo S200115j: No significant candidates in TAROT—FRAM—GRANDMA observations, GRB Coordinates Network 26820, 1 (2020).
  25. Y. Shimizu, A. Yoshida, T. Sakamoto, V. Pal’Shin, S. Sugita, Y. Kawakubo, K. Yamaoka, S. Nakahira, Y. Asaoka, S. Torii et al. (Calet Collaboration), LIGO/Virgo S200115j: Upper limits from CALET observations, GRB Coordinates Network 26797, 1 (2020).
  26. S. Anand et al., Optical follow-up of the neutron star–black hole mergers S200105ae and S200115j, Nat. Astron. 5, 46 (2021).
  27. S. Dichiara et al., Constraints on the electromagnetic counterpart of the neutron-star–black-hole merger GW200115, Astrophys. J. Lett. 923, L32 (2021).
  28. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, KAGRA Collaboration, and VIRGO Collaboration), Observation of gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 2.5–4.5M⊙ compact object and a neutron star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 970, L34 (2024).
  29. C. E. Rhoades, Jr. and R. Ruffini, Maximum mass of a neutron star, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 324 (1974).
  30. V. Kalogera and G. Baym, The maximum mass of a neutron star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 470, L61 (1996).
  31. C. D. Bailyn, R. K. Jain, P. Coppi, and J. A. Orosz, The mass distribution of stellar black holes, Astrophys. J. 499, 367 (1998).
  32. F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan, and J. E. McClintock, The black hole mass distribution in the Galaxy, Astrophys. J. 725, 1918 (2010).
  33. W. M. Farr, N. Sravan, A. Cantrell, L. Kreidberg, C. D. Bailyn, I. Mandel, and V. Kalogera, The mass distribution of stellar-mass black holes, Astrophys. J. 741, 103 (2011).
  34. J. Antoniadis, T. M. Tauris, F. Ozel, E. Barr, D. J. Champion, and P. C. C. Freire, The millisecond pulsar mass distribution: Evidence for bimodality and constraints on the maximum neutron star mass, arXiv:1605.01665.
  35. F. Özel and P. Freire, Masses, radii, and the equation of state of neutron stars, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 401 (2016).
  36. J. Alsing, H. O. Silva, and E. Berti, Evidence for a maximum mass cut-off in the neutron star mass distribution and constraints on the equation of state, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 1377 (2018).
  37. N. Farrow, X.-J. Zhu, and E. Thrane, The mass distribution of Galactic double neutron stars, Astrophys. J. 876, 18 (2019).
  38. P. Landry and J. S. Read, The mass distribution of neutron stars in gravitational-wave binaries, Astrophys. J. Lett. 921, L25 (2021).
  39. P. Mahapatra, D. Chattopadhyay, A. Gupta, F. Antonini, M. Favata, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and K. G. Arun, Possible binary neutron star merger history of the primary of GW230529, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123030 (2025).
  40. V. Savchenko, C. Ferrigno, J. Rodi, A. Coleiro, and S. Mereghetti, LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230529ay: No counterpart candidates in INTEGRAL SPI-ACS prompt observation, GRB Coordinates Network 33890, 1 (2023).
  41. F. Longo, M. Tavani, F. Verrecchia, C. Pittori, M. Cardillo, C. Casentini, L. Foffano, G. Piano, A. Ursi, F. Lucarelli et al. (Agile Team), LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230529ay: Upper limits from AGILE/MCAL, GRB Coordinates Network 33894, 1 (2023).
  42. S. Lesage (Fermi-Gbm Team and Gbm-LIGO/VIRGO/Kagra Group), LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230529ay: Upper limits from Fermi-GBM observations, GRB Coordinates Network 33892, 1 (2023).
  43. V. Karambelkar et al. (ZTF Collaboration and Growth Collaboration), LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230529ay: Zwicky Transient Facility observations, GRB Coordinates Network 33900, 1 (2023).
  44. IceCube Collaboration, LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230529ay: Upper limits from a two-week IceCube neutrino search, GRB Coordinates Network 33980, 1 (2023).
  45. S. Sugita, A. Yoshida, T. Sakamoto, Y. Kawakubo, K. Yamaoka, S. Nakahira, Y. Asaoka, S. Torii, Y. Akaike, K. Kobayashi et al. (Calet Collaboration), LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230529ay: Upper limits from CALET observations, GRB Coordinates Network 33897, 1 (2023).
  46. S. Sugita et al. (MAXI Team), LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230529ay: Coverage and upper limits from MAXI/GSC observations, GRB Coordinates Network 33893, 1 (2023).
  47. G. Waratkar, V. Bhalerao, D. Bhattacharya, A. R. Rao, and S. Vadawale (AstroSat CZTI Collaboration), LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230529ay: AstroSat CZTI non-detection and upper limits, GRB Coordinates Network 33896, 1 (2023).
  48. S. Ronchini et al., Constraining possible γ-ray burst emission from GW230529 using Swift-BAT and Fermi-GBM, Astrophys. J. Lett. 970, L20 (2024).
  49. M. Pillas et al., Limits on the ejecta mass during the search for kilonovae associated with neutron star-black hole mergers: A case study of S230518h, GW230529, S230627c and the low-significance candidate S240422ed, Phys. Rev. D 112, 083002 (2025).
  50. M. Fishbach, R. Essick, and D. E. Holz, Does matter matter? Using the mass distribution to distinguish neutron stars and black holes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 899, L8 (2020).
  51. A. M. Farah, M. Fishbach, R. Essick, D. E. Holz, and S. Galaudage, Bridging the gap: Categorizing gravitational-wave events at the transition between neutron stars and black holes, Astrophys. J. 931, 108 (2022).
  52. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, and LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023).
  53. J. Cotturone, M. Zevin, and S. Biscoveanu, Characterizing compact object binaries in the lower mass gap with gravitational waves, arXiv:2507.01189.
  54. E. Baird, S. Fairhurst, M. Hannam, and P. Murphy, Degeneracy between mass and spin in black-hole-binary waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024035 (2013).
  55. D. Chattopadhyay, S. Al-Shammari, F. Antonini, S. Fairhurst, B. Miles, and V. Raymond, The impact of astrophysical priors on parameter inference for GW230529, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 536, L19 (2024).
  56. LIGO Scientific Collaboration, KAGRA Collaboration, and Virgo Collaboration, Lvk data release for gw230529_181500 event (2024).
  57. L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Spin effects in the inspiral of coalescing compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 47, R4183 (1993).
  58. E. Poisson and C. M. Will, Gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Parameter estimation using second postNewtonian wave forms, Phys. Rev. D 52, 848 (1995).
  59. C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994).
  60. P. Ajith, Addressing the spin question in gravitational-wave searches: Waveform templates for inspiralling compact binaries with nonprecessing spins, Phys. Rev. D 84, 084037 (2011).
  61. S. Typel, G. Ropke, T. Klahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Composition and thermodynamics of nuclear matter with light clusters, Phys. Rev. C 81, 015803 (2010).
  62. J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Constraints on a phenomenologically parameterized neutron-star equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124032 (2009).
  63. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), GW170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018).
  64. R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, PSR J0952−0607: The fastest and heaviest known galactic neutron star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022).
  65. T. M. Tauris, N. Langer, and M. Kramer, Formation of millisecond pulsars with CO white dwarf companions—II. Accretion, spin-up, true ages and comparison to MSPs with He white dwarf companions, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 426, 1601 (2012).
  66. T. M. Tauris et al., Formation of double neutron star systems, Astrophys. J. 846, 170 (2017).
  67. L. J. Papenfort, S. D. Tootle, P. Grandclément, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, New public code for initial data of unequal-mass, spinning compact-object binaries, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024057 (2021).
  68. P. Grandclement, Kadath: A spectral solver for theoretical physics, J. Comput. Phys. 229, 3334 (2010).
  69. J. W. York, Jr., Conformal ‘thin sandwich’ data for the initial-value problem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1350 (1999).
  70. H. P. Pfeiffer and J. W. York, Jr., Extrinsic curvature and the Einstein constraints, Phys. Rev. D 67, 044022 (2003).
  71. B. Bruegmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sperhake, and W. Tichy, Calibration of moving puncture simulations, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024027 (2008).
  72. M. Thierfelder, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Bruegmann, Numerical relativity simulations of binary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044012 (2011).
  73. T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, M. Ujevic, and B. Brügmann, Numerical relativity simulations of neutron star merger remnants using conservative mesh refinement, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124041 (2015).
  74. S. Bernuzzi and T. Dietrich, Gravitational waveforms from binary neutron star mergers with high-order weighted-essentially-nonoscillatory schemes in numerical relativity, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064062 (2016).
  75. T. Dietrich, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, F. Zappa, A. Perego, B. Brügmann, S. V. Chaurasia, R. Dudi, W. Tichy, and M. Ujevic, CoRe database of binary neutron star merger waveforms, Classical Quantum Gravity 35, 24LT01 (2018).
  76. D. Hilditch, S. Bernuzzi, M. Thierfelder, Z. Cao, W. Tichy, and B. Bruegmann, Compact binary evolutions with the Z4c formulation, Phys. Rev. D 88, 084057 (2013).
  77. R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, The Dynamics of general relativity, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40, 1997 (2008).
  78. M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlochower, Accurate evolutions of orbiting black-hole binaries without excision, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006).
  79. J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Gravitational wave extraction from an inspiraling configuration of merging black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111102 (2006).
  80. R. Borges, M. Carmona, B. Costa, and W. S. Don, An improved weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 3191 (2008).
  81. M. Boyle, D. Iozzo, and L. C. Stein, moble/scri: v1.2 (2020).
  82. M. Boyle, Angular velocity of gravitational radiation from precessing binaries and the corotating frame, Phys. Rev. D 87, 104006 (2013).
  83. M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, S. Ossokine, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Gravitational-wave modes from precessing black-hole binaries (2014).
  84. M. Boyle, Transformations of asymptotic gravitational-wave data, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084031 (2016).
  85. G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Setting the cornerstone for a family of models for gravitational waves from compact binaries: The dominant harmonic for nonprecessing quasicircular black holes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064001 (2020).
  86. A. Abac, T. Dietrich, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and M. Ujevic, New and robust gravitational-waveform model for high-mass-ratio binary neutron star systems with dynamical tidal effects, Phys. Rev. D 109, 024062 (2024).
  87. I. MacDonald, S. Nissanke, H. P. Pfeiffer, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Suitability of post-Newtonian/numerical-relativity hybrid waveforms for gravitational wave detectors, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 134002 (2011).
  88. A. Nitz et al., gwastro/pycbc: v2.3.3 release of pycbc (2024).
  89. G. Ashton et al., bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 241, 27 (2019).
  90. J. S. Speagle, dynesty: A dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020).
  91. S. Koposov et al., joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4 (2024).
  92. LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, LVK Algorithm Library—LALSuite, Free software (GPL) (2018).
  93. G. Pratten et al., Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104056 (2021).
  94. C. García-Quirós, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estellés, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Multimode frequency-domain model for the gravitational wave signal from nonprecessing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064002 (2020).
  95. J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, S. Khan, E. Nitoglia, F. Pannarale, T. Dietrich, and M. Hannam, Modeling the gravitational wave signature of neutron star black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124059 (2020).
  96. C. J. F. T. Braak, A markov chain monte carlo version of the genetic algorithm differential evolution: Easy Bayesian computing for real parameter spaces, Stat. Comput. 16, 239 (2006).
  97. S. Morisaki, Accelerating parameter estimation of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence using adaptive frequency resolutions, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044062 (2021).
  98. E. Payne, C. Talbot, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, and J. S. Kissel, Gravitational-wave astronomy with a physical calibration model, Phys. Rev. D 102, 122004 (2020).
  99. L. Rezzolla, P. Diener, E. N. Dorband, D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, E. Schnetter, and J. Seiler, The final spin from the coalescence of aligned-spin black-hole binaries, Astrophys. J. Lett. 674, L29 (2008).
  100. L. Santamaria et al., Matching post-Newtonian and numerical relativity waveforms: Systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for non-precessing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064016 (2010).
  101. J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo, Rapid and accurate parameter inference for coalescing, precessing compact binaries, arXiv:1805.10457.
  102. P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries II: Modelling precession effects with a single effective precession parameter, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024043 (2015).
  103. K. Chatziioannou, N. Cornish, A. Klein, and N. Yunes, Spin-precession: Breaking the black hole–neutron star degeneracy, Astrophys. J. Lett. 798, L17 (2015).
  104. J. Lin, Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 37, 145 (1991).
  105. S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, On information and sufficiency, Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 79 (1951).
  106. R. Matur, I. Hawke, and N. Andersson, Signatures of low-mass black hole–neutron star mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 534, 2894 (2024).
  107. A. Gonzalez, R. Gamba, M. Breschi, F. Zappa, G. Carullo, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Numerical-relativity-informed effective-one-body model for black-hole–neutron-star mergers with higher modes and spin precession, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084026 (2023).
  108. A. Gonzalez, S. Bernuzzi, A. Rashti, F. Brandoli, and R. Gamba, Black-hole—neutron-star mergers: New numerical-relativity simulations and multipolar effective-one-body model with spin precession and eccentricity, arXiv:2507.00113.
  109. M. W. Coughlin, T. Dietrich, B. Margalit, and B. D. Metzger, Multimessenger Bayesian parameter inference of a binary neutron star merger, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, L91 (2019).
  110. V. Varma, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, F. Hébert, and H. Zhang, High-accuracy mass, spin, and recoil predictions of generic black-hole merger remnants, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011101 (2019).
  111. V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033015 (2019).
  112. V. Varma, L. C. Stein, and D. Gerosa, vijayvarma392/surfinbh: Surrogate final bh properties (2018).
  113. K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, H. Nakano, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Black hole-neutron star binary merger: Dependence on black hole spin orientation and equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 92, 024014 (2015).
  114. F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, S. Nissanke, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Numerical simulations of neutron star-black hole binaries in the near-equal-mass regime, Phys. Rev. D 99, 103025 (2019).
  115. S. Chen, L. Wang, K. Hayashi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kiuchi, and M. Shibata, Black hole-neutron star mergers with massive neutron stars in numerical relativity, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063016 (2024).
  116. T. Martineau, F. Foucart, M. Scheel, M. Duez, L. Kidder, and H. Pfeiffer, Black hole-neutron star binaries near neutron star disruption limit in the mass regime of event GW230529, arXiv:2405.06819.
  117. R. Matur, I. Hawke, and N. Andersson, Impact of black hole spin on low-mass black hole-neutron star mergers, arXiv:2508.06341.
  118. A. Bauswein, S. Goriely, and H. T. Janka, Systematics of dynamical mass ejection, nucleosynthesis, and radioactively powered electromagnetic signals from neutron-star mergers, Astrophys. J. 773, 78 (2013).
  119. Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Dynamical mass ejection from the merger of asymmetric binary neutron stars: Radiation-hydrodynamics study in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124046 (2016).
  120. C. Palenzuela, S. L. Liebling, D. Neilsen, L. Lehner, O. L. Caballero, E. O’Connor, and M. Anderson, Effects of the microphysical equation of state in the mergers of magnetized neutron stars with neutrino cooling, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044045 (2015).
  121. C. J. Krüger and F. Foucart, Estimates for disk and ejecta masses produced in compact binary mergers, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103002 (2020).
  122. F. Foucart, T. Hinderer, and S. Nissanke, Remnant baryon mass in neutron star-black hole mergers: Predictions for binary neutron star mimickers and rapidly spinning black holes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 081501 (2018).
  123. M. Bulla, POSSIS: predicting spectra, light curves and polarization for multi-dimensional models of supernovae and kilonovae, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 5037 (2019).
  124. M. Bulla, The critical role of nuclear heating rates, thermalization efficiencies, and opacities for kilonova modelling and parameter inference, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 520, 2558 (2023).
  125. S. Rosswog and O. Korobkin, Heavy elements and electromagnetic transients from neutron star mergers, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 536, 2200306 (2024).
  126. R. T. Wollaeger, O. Korobkin, C. J. Fontes, S. K. Rosswog, W. P. Even, C. L. Fryer, J. Sollerman, A. L. Hungerford, D. R. van Rossum, and A. B. Wollaber, Impact of ejecta morphology and composition on the electromagnetic signatures of neutron star mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 478, 3298 (2018).
  127. M. Tanaka, D. Kato, G. Gaigalas, and K. Kawaguchi, Systematic opacity calculations for kilonovae, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 496, 1369 (2020).
  128. R. Fernández, E. Quataert, J. Schwab, D. Kasen, and S. Rosswog, The interplay of disc wind and dynamical ejecta in the aftermath of neutron star–black hole mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 449, 390 (2015).
  129. A. Neuweiler, T. Dietrich, M. Bulla, S. V. Chaurasia, S. Rosswog, and M. Ujevic, Long-term simulations of dynamical ejecta: Homologous expansion and kilonova properties, Phys. Rev. D 107, 023016 (2023).
  130. I. Markin, A. Neuweiler, A. Abac, S. V. Chaurasia, M. Ujevic, M. Bulla, and T. Dietrich, General-relativistic hydrodynamics simulation of a neutron star–sub-solar-mass black hole merger, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064025 (2023).
  131. K. M. Górski, E. Hivon, A. J. Banday, B. D. Wandelt, F. K. Hansen, M. Reinecke, and M. Bartelman, healpix—A Framework for high resolution discretization, and fast analysis of data distributed on the sphere, Astrophys. J. 622, 759 (2005).
  132. M. Fukugita, T. Ichikawa, J. E. Gunn, M. Doi, K. Shimasaku, and D. P. Schneider, The Sloan digital sky survey photometric system, Astron. J. 111, 1748 (1996).
  133. T. Ahumada et al., Searching for gravitational wave optical counterparts with the Zwicky Transient Facility: Summary of O4a, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 136, 114201 (2024).
  134. T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration and NOAO Data Lab Collaboration), The Dark Energy Survey data release 1, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 239, 18 (2018).
  135. v. Ivezić et al. (LSST Collaboration), LSST: From Science drivers to reference design and anticipated data products, Astrophys. J. 873, 111 (2019).
  136. E. Nakar, The electromagnetic counterparts of compact binary mergers, Phys. Rep. 886, 1 (2020).
  137. M. Bulla, K. Kyutoku, M. Tanaka, S. Covino, J. R. Bruten, T. Matsumoto, J. R. Maund, V. Testa, and K. Wiersema, Polarized kilonovae from black hole–neutron star mergers, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 501, 1891 (2021).
  138. R. Fernández, A. Tchekhovskoy, E. Quataert, F. Foucart, and D. Kasen, Long-term GRMHD simulations of neutron star merger accretion discs: Implications for electromagnetic counterparts, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 3373 (2019).
  139. V. Nedora, S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, B. Daszuta, A. Endrizzi, A. Perego, A. Prakash, M. Safarzadeh, F. Schianchi, and D. Logoteta, Numerical relativity simulations of the neutron star merger GW170817: Long-term remnant evolutions, winds, remnant disks, and nucleosynthesis, Astrophys. J. 906, 98 (2021).
  140. K. Kunnumkai, A. Palmese, M. Bulla, T. Dietrich, A. M. Farah, and P. T. H. Pang, Kilonova emission from GW230529 and mass gap neutron star-black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 112, 123005 (2025).
  141. K. Chandra, I. Gupta, R. Gamba, R. Kashyap, D. Chattopadhyay, A. Gonzalez, S. Bernuzzi, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, On the origins, remnant, and multimessenger prospects of the compact binary merger GW230529, Astrophys. J. 977, 167 (2024).
  142. G. Raaijmakers et al., The challenges ahead for multimessenger analyses of gravitational waves and kilonova: A case study on GW190425, Astrophys. J. 922, 269 (2021).
  143. J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Advanced LIGO, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015).
  144. https://gwosc.org
  145. I. Markin, Challenging a binary neutron star merger interpretation of GW230529—initial data, 10.5281/zenodo.16843186 (2025).
  146. I. Markin and T. Dietrich, Challenging a binary neutron star merger interpretation of GW230529—numerical waveforms, 10.5281/zenodo.16875324 (2025).
  147. I. Markin, A. Puecher, and T. Dietrich, Challenging a binary neutron star merger interpretation of GW230529—posterior samples, 10.5281/zenodo.16874963 (2025).
  148. F. Foucart, L. Buchman, M. D. Duez, M. Grudich, L. E. Kidder, I. MacDonald, A. Mroue, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, First direct comparison of nondisrupting neutron star-black hole and binary black hole merger simulations, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064017 (2013).
  149. S. V. Chaurasia, T. Dietrich, and S. Rosswog, Black hole-neutron star simulations with the BAM code: First tests and simulations, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084010 (2021).
  150. D. Radice, L. Rezzolla, and F. Galeazzi, Beyond second-order convergence in simulations of binary neutron stars in full general-relativity, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 437, L46 (2014).
  151. T. Dietrich, A. Samajdar, S. Khan, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, R. Dudi, and W. Tichy, Improving the NRTidal model for binary neutron star systems, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044003 (2019).
  152. H.-J. Kuan, I. Markin, M. Ujevic, T. Dietrich, K. Kiuchi, M. Shibata, and W. Tichy, The error budget of binary neutron star merger simulations for configurations with high spin, arXiv:2506.02115.
  153. F. Schianchi, M. Ujevic, A. Neuweiler, H. Gieg, I. Markin, and T. Dietrich, Black-hole formation in binary neutron star mergers: The impact of spin on the prompt-collapse scenario, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123011 (2024).
  154. R. Dudi, T. Dietrich, A. Rashti, B. Bruegmann, J. Steinhoff, and W. Tichy, High-accuracy simulations of highly spinning binary neutron star systems, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064050 (2022).
  155. N. Oreskes, The scientific consensus on climate change, Science 306, 1686 (2004).
  156. P. T. Doran and M. K. Zimmerman, Examining the scientific consensus on climate change, Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 90, 22 (2009).
  157. J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, S. A. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024 (2013).
  158. J. Cook, N. Oreskes, P. T. Doran, W. R. L. Anderegg, B. Verheggen, E. W. Maibach, J. S. Carlton, S. Lewandowsky, A. G. Skuce, S. A. Green et al., Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 048002 (2016).
  159. M. Lynas, B. Z. Houlton, and S. Perry, Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 114005 (2021).
  160. K. F. Myers, P. T. Doran, J. Cook, J. E. Kotcher, and T. A. Myers, Consensus revisited: Quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among earth scientists 10 years later, Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104030 (2021).
  161. I. Markin, unkaktus/calcium: Release v1.6.0 (2024).
  162. J. Yuventi and R. Mehdizadeh, A critical analysis of power usage effectiveness and its use in communicating data center energy consumption, Energy Buildings 64, 90 (2013).
  163. G. für wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Göttingen, GWDG setzt auf klimafreundlichen IT-Betrieb, https://gwdg.de/about-us/press-releases/2021/press-release-4-2021/ (2020).
  164. E. Suarez et al., Energy-aware operation of hpc systems in Germany, Frontiers in High Performance Computing Volume 3–2025, 10.3389/fhpcp.2025.1520207 (2025).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 024031– Published 15 January, 2026
  • Received 15 August 2025
  • Accepted 2 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation