Panning for gold with the <i>Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory</i>: an optimal strategy for finding the counterparts to gravitational wave events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA (LVK) gravitational wave observatories are currently undertaking their O4 observing run offering the opportunity to discover new electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational wave events. We examine the capability of the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory (Swift) to respond to these triggers, primarily binary neutron star mergers, with both the UV/Optical Telescope (UVOT) and the X-ray Telescope (XRT). We simulate Swift’s response to a trigger under different strategies using model skymaps, convolving these with the 2MPZ catalogue to produce an ordered list of observing fields, deriving the time taken for Swift to reach the correct field and simulating the instrumental responses to modelled kilonovae and short gamma-ray burst afterglows. We find that UVOT, using the u filter with an exposure time of order 120 s, is optimal for most follow-up observations and that we are likely to detect counterparts in $\sim 6$ per cent of all binary neutron star triggers detectable by LVK in O4. We find that the gravitational wave 90 per cent error area and measured distance to the trigger allow us to select optimal triggers to follow-up. Focussing on sources less than 300 Mpc away, or 500 Mpc if the error area is less than a few hundred square degrees, distances greater than previously assumed, offer the best opportunity for discovery by Swift with $\sim 5\!-\!30$ per cent of triggers having detection probabilities $\ge 0.5$. At even greater distances, we can further optimise our follow-up by adopting a longer 250 s or 500 s exposure time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".