Multi-Messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger
2017 · paper · Astronomy
Describes the August 2017 detection of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star merger (GW170817) and the follow-up across the electromagnetic spectrum. A gamma-ray burst and a kilonova in NGC 4993 support the merger-origin hypothesis.
Checked: PDF from arxiv.org, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
26 findings
Substance Sec. 3.4 says LWA1 followed up "then on 2017 August 23 and 30", but Table 5 lists the LWA1 epochs at "Aug 24 19:50:00 UTC" (7 d) and Aug 30 19:50:00 UTC (13 d), with no LWA1 row on Aug 23.
- p. 17 Section 3.4
then on 2017 August 23 and 30
- p. 20 Table 5, LWA1 rows
Aug 24 19:50:00 UTC
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: p17 image and the Table 5 continuation on the upright p20 image. The LWA1 rows are Aug 24 19:50 (0.02585 and 0.04545 GHz, 7 d) and Aug 30 19:50 (13 d), and the time-since-trigger column is consistent with Aug 24. The text date of Aug 23 disagrees with the table.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 4 Haggard Chandra rows: 'Sep 02 15:22:22 UTC' is listed at 15.1 d (it would be 16.11 d), and 'Sep 02 00:00:00 UTC' is listed at 16.1 d (it would be 15.47 d); the dates and the elapsed times contradict each other.
- p. 18 Table 4, Chandra row (Haggard et al.)
Sep 02 15:22:22 UTC
- p. 18 Table 4, Chandra row (Haggard et al.)
Sep 02 00:00:00 UTC
- p. 17 Section 3.3
One day later, Haggard et al. (2017b) reported another deep observation
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 18 image (layout text lines 1133–1136): the two rows above, dated Sep 01 15:22:22, are correctly listed at 15.1 d. Text p.17 says Haggard's observation came 'One day later' than the 15-day observations. The time column cannot be reconciled with the UT dates as printed; the date may have been meant as Sep 01, or the times may be swapped. Only the authors can say.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 4 Haggard et al. Chandra rows give f_x = 3.5 × 10^-15 → L_x = 2.7 × 10^38 and 3.8 × 10^-15 → 3.0 × 10^38 erg s^-1, about 2.5 times lower than 4πd²f_x at 40 Mpc, the conversion that every other row follows.
- p. 18 Table 4, Chandra rows (Haggard et al.)
3.5 × 10−15
- p. 18 Table 4, Chandra rows (Haggard et al.)
2.7 × 10^38
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 18 image (upright file, rendered rotated): I checked the other rows against 4πd² at d = 40 Mpc (1.914e53 cm²). MAXI 8.6e-9 → 1.65e45, MAXI 4.2e-9 → 8.0e44, Swift 2.74e-13 → 5.25e40, INTEGRAL 1.9e-11 → 3.6e42 and Troja 4.5e-15 → 9e38 all agree. The two Haggard rows correspond to a distance of about 25 Mpc. Neither Table 4 nor Section 3.3 (main.txt around line 3120) gives a different distance, band treatment or absorption for these rows. Only the authors can say which values are intended.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 4 NuSTAR row 'Sep 06 17:56 UTC' is listed at 20.1 d; from tc = Aug 17 12:41:04 it is 20.22 d (the Sep 04 17:56 row is correctly 18.2).
- p. 18 Table 4, last NuSTAR rows
Sep 06 17:56 UTC
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 18 image. The Sep 04 17:56 → 18.2 and Sep 05 14:51 → 19.1 rows are consistent with tc; the Sep 06 row is not. The authors need to say whether the date or the elapsed time is wrong.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 5 Parkes rows: 'Aug 18 00:00:00 UTC' is listed at 1.38 and 1.46 d (it would be 0.47 d) and 'Aug 20 00:00:00 UTC' at 3.17 and 3.21 d (it would be 2.47 d); each pair shares one date but has two elapsed times.
- p. 19 Table 5, Parkes rows
Aug 18 00:00:00 UTC
- p. 19 Table 5, Parkes rows
Aug 20 00:00:00 UTC
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 19 image confirms the four rows. The dates look like placeholders, but as printed the date and time columns contradict each other.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 5 GMRT 'Aug 18 11:00:00 UTC' row lists Central Frequency '10.0' GHz with bandwidth 0.032 GHz.
- p. 19 Table 5, GMRT Aug 18 11:00 row
10.0
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: GMRT does not observe near 10 GHz. Page 19 image: every other GMRT row is at 0.4, 1.2 or 1.39 GHz, and the 0.032 GHz bandwidth matches the 1.39 GHz GMRT rows. The 10.0 matches the VLA row just above it, so it looks like a copy error; only the authors can give the correct frequency.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 5 MeerKAT 'Aug 26 08:43:00 UTC' is listed at 10 d; from tc it is 8.83 d.
- p. 20 Table 5, MeerKAT row
Aug 26 08:43:00 UTC
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 20 image. Other integer entries round correctly (for example MeerKAT Sep 6 03:22 → 19.61 → 20). Either the date or the elapsed time is wrong.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 5 VLA rows 'Sep 5 22:12:00 UTC' → 19.47 d and 'Sep 5 23:26:06 UTC' → 19.43 d: the earlier time has the larger elapsed time; computed values are 19.40 and 19.45 d.
- p. 20 Table 5, VLA Sep 5 rows
Sep 5 22:12:00 UTC
- p. 20 Table 5, VLA Sep 5 rows
Sep 5 23:26:06 UTC
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 20 image. The elapsed times look swapped or miscomputed. A mid-exposure convention cannot reverse the order.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table 5 e-MERLIN 'Aug 25 12:00:00 UTC' row gives bandwidth '512' GHz; every other e-MERLIN row gives 0.512 GHz at a 5.0 GHz centre frequency.
- p. 20 Table 5, e-MERLIN Aug 25 row
512
Judge's note: Confirmed on the page 20 image. A 512 GHz bandwidth is impossible at 5 GHz; the evident fix is 0.512.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Reference "Abbott ... 2017g, ApJL, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9" has the same DOI as this article (p. 1). Yet 2017g is cited for "T0 − tc = 1.734 ± 0.054 s (Abbott et al. 2017g)" and as the paper where the sub-luminosity "is explored".
- p. 33 Reference list
2017g, ApJL, https://doi.org/ 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9
- p. 1 Front matter DOI
https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9
- p. 5 Section 2.2
T0 − tc = 1.734 ± 0.054 s (Abbott et al. 2017g)
- p. 33 Reference list
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017g, ApJL, https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The p. 1 header DOI is 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9, the same as the 2017g entry on p. 33. 2017f is a separate ApJL entry (aa920c). On p. 5 the delay is attributed to 2017g, and the sub-luminous GRB is 'explored in Abbott et al. (2017g)'. As printed, 2017g points back at this paper, so either the DOI or the citation key needs fixing. Only the authors can say which.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Introduction cites "Fong & Berger 2013" but the reference list has no Fong & Berger 2013 entry; it has two unsuffixed "Fong et al. 2013" entries (ApJ 769, 56 and ApJ 776, 18), so "Fong et al. 2013" is also ambiguous.
- p. 2 Introduction
Fong & Berger 2013
- p. 34 Reference list
Fong, W., Margutti, R., Haggard, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 18
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the reviewer's view that ApJ 776, 18 is actually Fong & Berger 2013. On the page images, p.2 cites both 'Fong et al. 2013' and 'Fong & Berger 2013'. The p.34 reference list has 'Fong, W., Berger, E., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 56' and 'Fong, W., Margutti, R., Haggard, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 18' with no a/b suffixes. I found no Fong & Berger entry with a grep or in the images. Only the authors can say which entry was intended.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Reference list has two identical entries "Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013a, ApJL, 774, L23" and "... 2013b, ApJL, 774, L23"; 2013a is cited for the absence of supernovae and 2013b for r-process emission.
- p. 2 Introduction, hint (iii)
Kocevski et al. 2010; Berger et al. 2013a)
- p. 33 Reference list
Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013a, ApJL, 774, L23
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The p.33 crop shows the 2013a and 2013b entries with the same authors, journal, volume and page. Page 2 cites 2013a in hint (iii) and 2013b for r-process. One of the two entries is either a duplicate or stands in for a different paper. Only the authors can say which reference was meant for 2013a.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013a, ApJL, 774, L23" and "2013b, ApJL, 774, L23" are identical entries, yet the text cites 2013a (absence of supernovae) and 2013b (r-process signature). Separately, the text cites "Fong & Berger 2013", for which the list has no matching entry.
- p. 33 Reference list
Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013a, ApJL, 774, L23
- p. 33 Reference list
Berger, E., Fong, W., & Chornock, R. 2013b, ApJL, 774, L23
- p. 2 Introduction
Berger et al. 2013a
- p. 2 Introduction, hint (ii)
2010; Fong & Berger 2013; Tunnicliffe et al. 2014)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Seen on the p. 33 and p. 34 images. The Berger 2013a and 2013b entries are character-for-character the same, and the Introduction cites them for different claims. No 'Fong & Berger 2013' entry exists. The only other Fong 2013 entries are 'Fong, Berger, Chornock et al. 2013, ApJ 769, 56' and 'Fong, Margutti, Haggard, et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 18'; the second carries the same author list as the 2017 GCN 21786 entry. Which entry is wrong can only be settled by the authors.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "Hjorth, J., Watson, D., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2005b, Natur, 437, 859" and "2005c, Natur, 437, 859" are identical entries. The text cites 2005b (host and afterglow identifications) and 2005c (absence of supernovae) separately.
- p. 34 Reference list
2005b, Natur, 437, 859
- p. 34 Reference list
2005c, Natur, 437, 859
- p. 2 Introduction
Hjorth et al. 2005c, 2005a;
- p. 34 Reference list
Hjorth, J., Watson, D., Fynbo, J. P. U., et al. 2005c, Natur, 437, 859
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The p. 34 image shows the two identical entries. The Introduction cites them for different claims.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label False-alarm rate printed without a time unit: "with a false-alarm rate of less than one per 8.0 × 10^4 (Abbott et al. 2017c)."
- p. 3 Section 2.1, para 2
alarm rate of less than one per 8.0 × 10
- p. 3 Section 2.1, paragraph 2
alarm rate of less than one per 8.0 × 10^4 (Abbott et al. 2017c)
- p. 3 Sec. 2.1, offline analysis
less than one per 8.0 × 10^4
- p. 3 Sec. 2.1, offline GW analysis
false-alarm rate of less than one per 8.0×104
Judge's note: On the p.3 page image, Sec. 2.1 paragraph 3 reads 'less than one per 8.0 × 10^4 (Abbott et al. 2017c).' No unit is printed, so this is not an extraction loss. The evident fix is a time unit, presumably years.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "Drout et al. 2017" (no suffix) is cited in Sec. 3.1 ("fast spectral evolution (Drout et al. 2017; Nicholl et al. 2017d)") and Table 6 ("GCN 21547, Drout et al. (2017)"), but the reference list has only Drout et al. 2017a (GCN 21547) and 2017b (Science).
- p. 7 Section 3.1
fast spectral evolution (Drout et al. 2017; Nicholl et al. 2017d)
- p. 22 Table 6
GCN 21547, Drout et al. (2017)
- p. 34 Reference list
Drout, M. R., Simon, J. D., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017a, GCN, 21547
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The p.7 image shows the unsuffixed citation. The p.22 Table 6 image shows 'GCN 21547, Drout et al. (2017)', and the reference list labels that GCN 2017a. A grep also finds an unsuffixed 'Drout et al. (2017); Shappee et al. (2017)' in a table. The Table 6 case evidently means 2017a; the Sec. 3.1 case needs the authors to say which.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label In Tables 1 and 2, the VLT/X-shooter citations read "Pian et al. (2017a, 2017a)", "Pian et al. (2017b, 2017b)" and "Pian et al. (2017, 2017)". The same reference is repeated, and the reference list has only Pian 2017a and 2017b, so the unsuffixed "2017" resolves to no entry.
- p. 9 Table 1, VLT/X-shooter rows
Pian et al. (2017, 2017)
- p. 9 Table 1
Pian et al. (2017a, 2017a)
- p. 13 Table 2
Pian et al. (2017b, 2017b)
- p. 9
ug 19 00:14:01 g Pian et al. (2017, 2017) Swift/UVOT 2017 Au
Judge's note: p9 image: the X-shooter rows at Aug 19 00:08:58, 00:10:46 and 00:14:01 show these forms. Table 2 on p13 has 'Pian et al. (2017b, 2017b)'. Several Table 1 rows on later pages also cite plain 'Pian et al. (2017)'. The reference list has only Pian, E., D'Avanzo... 2017a (Natur) and Pian, E., D'Elia... 2017b (GCN 21592).
Second check: another model agreed, code check
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Sec. 3.4 cites "Parkes-64 m (SUPERB; Bailes et al. 2017a; Keane et al. 2017)", but the reference list has no Keane et al. 2017 entry.
- p. 17 Section 3.4
Parkes-64 m (SUPERB; Bailes et al. 2017a; Keane et al. 2017)
Judge's note: p17 image confirms the citation. I searched the full text: 'Keane' appears only in this citation and in the author list (E. F. Keane). The alphabetical reference list goes Kaplan, Kasen, Kasliwal, Kilpatrick, Kocevski with no Keane.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The list has two entries labelled "Haggard ... 2017a": one ApJL (aa8ede) and one "Sci, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9855". The Science one shares its DOI with "Hallinan, G., et al. 2017a, Sci, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9855".
- p. 34 Reference list
Haggard, D., Nynka, M., Kalogera, V., et al. 2017a, Sci, https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.aap9855
- p. 34 Reference list
Hallinan, G., et al. 2017a, Sci, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9855
- p. 17 Section 3.3
(Haggard et al. 2017a, 2017b)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Seen on the p. 34 image. One suffix labels two different entries, and two differently authored entries share one DOI, so the citation 'Haggard et al. 2017a' (Section 3.3) is ambiguous.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 5 LWA1 Aug 30 rows cite 'Callister et al. (2017)', but the reference list has only Callister et al. 2017a (GCN 21680) and 2017b (GCN 21848).
- p. 20 Table 5, LWA1 Aug 30 rows
Callister et al. (2017)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 20 image and reference list (main.txt lines 6765–6766). Text line 3162 cites both 2017a and 2017b for the Aug 23 and 30 observations, so 2017b is probably meant, but the printed citation is ambiguous.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 6 (p. 22) has "GCN 21550, Evans et al. (2017a)", but the reference list gives "Evans, P., Kennea, J. A., Breeveld, A. A., et al. 2017b, GCN, 21550". Evans 2017a is the Science paper.
- p. 22 Table 6, Swift/UVOT,XRT row
GCN 21550, Evans et al. (2017a)
- p. 34 Reference list
Evans, P., Kennea, J. A., Breeveld, A. A., et al. 2017b, GCN, 21550
Judge's note: I looked at the upright Table 6 image (Swift/UVOT,XRT row, 2017 Aug 18 07:24:04) and at the p. 34 reference list. Evans 2017a is Sci aap9580 and 2017b is GCN 21550, so the suffix in the table does not match the GCN number.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 6 (p. 22) credits a circular dated 2017 Aug 17 18:55:12 as "GCN 21516, Dalya et al. (2016)". The only Dalya entry in the reference list is "Dalya, G., ... 2016, yCat, 7275", a 2016 VizieR catalogue, not a GCN circular.
- p. 22 Table 6
GCN 21516, Dalya et al. (2016)
- p. 34 Reference list
Dalya, G., Frei, Z., Galgoczi, G., Raffai, P., & de Souza, R. 2016, yCat, 7275
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Seen on the upright Table 6 image and the p. 34 reference list. Every other GCN row in Table 6 points to a GCN reference entry. No reference entry gives GCN 21516. The only Dalya et al. 2016 is the catalogue, which the text also cites as a galaxy catalogue (around lines 780 and 809). Only the authors can say who wrote the circular.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table 6 (p. 24, Chandra/CXO row) has "GCN 21648, Margutti et al. (2017b)", but the reference list gives "Margutti, R., Fong, W., Berger, E., et al. 2017a, GCN, 21648". Margutti 2017b is the ApJL paper aa9057.
- p. 24 Table 6, Chandra/CXO row
GCN 21648, Margutti et al. (2017b)
- p. 35 Reference list
Margutti, R., Fong, W., Berger, E., et al. 2017a, GCN, 21648
Judge's note: Checked on the upright p. 24 image and the p. 35 reference list. The text of Section 3.3 attributes the X-ray non-detection to Margutti et al. (2017a), which agrees with the reference list, so the table suffix is the inconsistent one.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Reference entries "Abbott ... 2017a, PhRvL, 118, 221101" and "Abbott ... 2017b, PhRvL, 118, 221101" are identical.
- p. 33 Reference list
2017a, PhRvL, 118, 221101
- p. 33 Reference list
2017b, PhRvL, 118, 221101
- p. 33 Reference list
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, PhRvL, 118, 221101
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The p. 33 image shows the two entries with the same authors, journal, volume and article number. The text cites 2017a (Introduction); I found no text citation of 2017b. One entry is a duplicate or has the wrong bibliographic details.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "White, D. J., Daw, E., & Dhillon, V. 2011a, CQGra, 28, 085016" and "White, D. J., Daw, E. J., & Dhillon, V. S. 2011b, CQGra, 28, 085016" are the same article, yet the text cites 2011a and 2011b separately.
- p. 36 Reference list
White, D. J., Daw, E., & Dhillon, V. 2011a, CQGra, 28, 085016
- p. 36 Reference list
2011b, CQGra, 28, 085016
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The p. 36 image shows the same journal, volume and article number, with only the initials differing. The text cites White et al. 2011b (Swift galaxy-targeting strategy) and 2011a (galaxy catalogues), so one of the two entries is a duplicate or has the wrong details.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The reference list has two entries for the same circular: "Svinkin, D., Hurley, K., von Kienlin, A., et al. 2017b, GCN, 21515" and "Svinkin, D., Hurley, K., von, K. A., et al. 2017c, GCN, 21515". The second entry also garbles the author name as "von, K. A.".
- p. 36 Reference list
Svinkin, D., Hurley, K., von, K. A., et al. 2017c, GCN, 21515
- p. 36 Reference list
2017b, GCN, 21515
Judge's note: Checked on the page 36 image, left column. Both entries cite GCN 21515. The text on page 1 cites "Svinkin et al. 2017c" (IPN Fermi/INTEGRAL timing) and the GCN table cites "GCN 21515, Svinkin et al. (2017b)", so one circular is listed under two letters. The 2017c entry renders the author as "von, K. A.", while the 2017b entry spells "von Kienlin, A." correctly.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
34 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Reference or label Valenti et al. is cited as "Valenti et al. 2017, accepted" in Sec. 2.3 but as "Valenti et al. (submitted)" in Table 1, and the only Valenti 2017 reference-list entry is GCN 21606.
- p. 5 Section 2.3, DLT40 paragraph
Valenti et al. 2017, accepted
- p. 8 Table 1, PROMPT5(DLT40) rows
Valenti et al. (submitted)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked the p.5 image (text says 'accepted') and the p.8 Table 1 image (two PROMPT5(DLT40) rows say 'submitted'). The reference list has only 'Valenti, S., Yang, S., Sand, D., et al. 2017, GCN, 21606'. The paper's status is inconsistent, and the text citation resolves to the GCN.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label "Covino, S., Wiersema, K., Fan, Y., & Toma, K. 2017, Natur, doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0285-z" gives the journal as Nature, but the DOI has the s41550 form.
- p. 34 Reference list
Covino, S., Wiersema, K., Fan, Y., & Toma, K. 2017, Natur, doi:10.1038/ s41550-017-0285-z
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the DOI prefix 10.1038/s41550 belongs to Nature Astronomy, not Nature. The entry reads as quoted on the p. 34 image.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "implying an orbit of size ∼100 km, which is smaller than the typical radius of a white dwarf by an order of magnitude": with typical white-dwarf radii of several thousand km, the factor is closer to two orders of magnitude.
- p. 3 Sec. 2.1, right column
smaller than the typical radius of a white dwarf by an order of magnitude
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: a typical white-dwarf radius is about 10^4 km (roughly Earth-sized). The paper gives no white-dwarf radius. The p.3 image confirms the wording. Taking R_WD ~ 7000 km, the ratio is ~70, so 'an order of magnitude' understates it, though the qualitative argument holds. I did not rely on the reviewer's memory of the original wording.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Figure 2 DLT40 inset is labelled "11.08h", while the text gives the DLT40 detection image at "August 17 23:50 UTC" and Table 1 at "2017 Aug 17 23:49:00" (≈11.13–11.15 h after tc = 12:41:04).
- p. 4 Figure 2, DLT40 postage stamp
11.08h
- p. 5 Section 2.3
in an image taken on August 17 23:50 UTC
- p. 8 Table 1, PROMPT5(DLT40)
2017 Aug 17 23:49:00
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The other insets match Table 1 times: Swope 23:33:17 → 10.87 (10.86h), VISTA K 23:55 → 11.23 (11.24h), MASTER 23:59:54 → 11.31, LCO 00:15:50 → 11.58 (11.57h). The DLT40 label is about 3 minutes earlier than either stated time. This could be an exposure start vs mid-time difference; only the authors can say.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Sec. 3.1 says "The spectra, just 30 minutes after the first image", but the Swope discovery image is at 2017 Aug 17 23:33:17 (Table 1) and the first spectrum (Magellan-Clay/LDSS-3) is at 2017 Aug 18 00:26:17 (Table 2), about 53 minutes later.
- p. 7 Section 3.1
The spectra, just 30 minutes after the first image
- p. 13 Table 2, first row
2017 Aug 18 00:26:17
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I checked the p7 crop, the Table 1 crop (Swope/DirectCCD 23:33:17) and Table 2 on the upright p13 image (first row LDSS-3 00:26:17, MagE 01:26:22). The sentence refers to discovery on Swope. The gap is 53 minutes, not 30. 'Just 30 minutes' is loose wording, so only the authors can say which image they meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Sec. 3.1 gives the X-shooter coverage as "3200–24800 Å", while Table 2 lists "3000–24800" for the VLT/X-shooter rows cited to Pian et al.
- p. 7 Section 3.1
3200–24800 Å
- p. 13 Table 2, VLT/X-shooter rows (Pian et al.)
3000–24800
- p. 7
3200–24800 Å, were taken over 2 weeks
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: p7 image: the text reads 3200–24800 Å. p13 upright image: the VLT/X-shooter rows read 3000–24800 and the 'Xshooterfixed' rows 3700–22790. The two lower limits differ, and nothing in the paper explains the difference (for example nominal versus usable range).
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The Table 1 title says "Photometric Observations up to 2017 September 5 UTC", but the table goes on to list Sep 06 23:24:28 (Magellan-Baade/FourStar), Sep 07 23:11:00 and Sep 11 23:21:00 (VLT/HAWKI).
- p. 8 Table 1 title
up to 2017 September 5 UTC
- p. 12 Table 1 last rows
2017 Sep 11 23:21:00
Judge's note: I checked the title crop on p8 and the last rows of the table on p12. Three entries are dated after the cut-off given in the title.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Sec. 3.3 says JEM-X "constrained the average X-ray luminosity ... to be <2 × 10−11 erg cm−2 s−1". The units are those of a flux, and Table 4 lists the JEM-X luminosity separately as <3.6 × 10^42 erg s−1.
- p. 16 Section 3.3, INTEGRAL paragraph
average X-ray luminosity at the location of the optical transient
Judge's note: p16 image confirms the wording and the flux units. In the Table 4 text layer, the INTEGRAL JEM-X rows give flux <1.9e-11 (3–10 keV) and <7.0e-12 (10–25 keV) and luminosities <3.6e42 and <1.3e42. 'Luminosity' should read 'flux'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Sec. 3.4 dates the first VLA observation (Alexander et al. 2017d) to "August 18 at 02:09:00 UTC (T0+13.5 hr)", but Table 5 lists the VLA row at "Aug 18 02:18:00 UTC" (0.57 d).
- p. 17 Section 3.4
02:09:00 UTC (T0+13.5 hr)
- p. 19 Table 5, VLA row
Aug 18 02:18:00 UTC
- p. 17 Section 3.4
2017 August 18 at 01:46 UTC
- p. 19 Table 5, ATCA rows
Aug 18 01:00:00 UTC
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: p17 image and Table 5 on the upright p19 image. 02:09 matches the text's 13.5 hr and 02:18 matches the table's 0.57 d, so the two places give different start times for one observation. The ATCA difference (text 01:46 against table 01:00:00) is weaker: every ATCA row on Aug 18 is listed at exactly 01:00:00 with time '1' d, which looks like rounding, so I do not count it as a separate defect.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The LWA1 paragraph places the observations "at tc + 6.5 hr" but then gives the limits from the NGC 4993 beam as "about 8 hours after the GW event, as ∼200 Jy at 25 MHz and ∼100 Jy at 45 MHz". Table 5 puts these limits (<2×10^8 and <1×10^8 μJy) at Aug 17 19:15:00 UTC, 0.27 d.
- p. 17 Section 3.4
NGC 4993, about 8 hours after the GW event
- p. 19 Table 5, LWA1 rows with limits
Aug 17 19:15:00 UTC
- p. 17 Section 3.4, paragraph 2
with observations at tc + 6.5 hr
- p. 17 Section 3.4, paragraph 2
NGC 4993, about 8 hours after the GW event, as ∼200 Jy
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: p17 image and upright p19 image. 19:15 is 6.57 hr after 12:41, which matches 'tc + 6.5 hr' and 0.27 d, not about 8 hr. The 8 hr might be the midpoint of an integration, but the paper gives no duration.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table 4 Super-AGILE row: flux limit '<3.0 × 10^-9' erg cm^-2 s^-1 is printed with '<5.4 × 10^44' erg s^-1, but the 40 Mpc conversion used in the other rows gives about 5.7 × 10^44.
- p. 18 Table 4, Super-AGILE row
<5.4 × 10^44
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Page 18 image. The neighbouring MAXI rows give 4.2e-9 → 8.0e44 and 2.2e-9 → 4.2e44, both exactly at 40 Mpc. The Super-AGILE row is about 6% off. This could come from an unrounded flux or a slightly different distance, but the table does not say so. The discrepancy is small.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "merger of two neutron stars in NGC4993" lacks the space used everywhere else ("NGC 4993").
- p. 2 Introduction, last paragraph
produced by the merger of two neutron stars in NGC4993,
Judge's note: The p.2 crop shows 'NGC4993' at the end of the Introduction. Elsewhere, including earlier in the same paragraph, it is 'NGC 4993'. This is cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Footnote 960: "the motion of the solar Ssystem barycenter" should read "solar system".
- p. 3 Footnote 960
solar Ssystem barycenter
- p. 3 Footnote 960
the solar Ssystem barycenter
- p. 3
the motion of the solar Ssystem barycenter
Judge's note: The p.3 page image shows 'Ssystem' in footnote 960. This is a typo.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Sec. 2.3: "Swift UVOT/XRT (utraviolet, 07:24 UTC;" should read "ultraviolet".
- p. 5 Section 2.3
utraviolet, 07:24 UTC
- p. 5 Section 2.3, paragraph 3
UVOT/XRT (utraviolet, 07:24 UTC;
- p. 5 Sec. 2.3, independent searches sentence
Swift UVOT/XRT (utraviolet, 07:24 UTC
- p. 5
Swift UVOT/XRT (utraviolet, 07:24 UTC;
Judge's note: The p.5 page image shows 'utraviolet'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Sec. 2.2: "(2.8 ± 0.2) × 10^−7 erg cm^−2 (10–1000 keV; (Goldstein et al. 2017a)." has an extra opening parenthesis.
- p. 5 Section 2.2, paragraph 3
(10–1000 keV; (Goldstein et al. 2017a)
- p. 5 Sec. 2.2, fluence of the GRB
(10–1000 keV; (Goldstein et al. 2017a).
Judge's note: The p.5 page image shows the nested, unbalanced parenthesis.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Sec. 2.3: "AT 2017gfo/SSS17a/DL17ck" should be "DLT17ck", as on p.5 and earlier on p.6.
- p. 6 Section 2.3, last paragraph
AT 2017gfo/SSS17a/DL17ck
- p. 5 Sec. 2.3
automatically designated DLT17ck
Judge's note: The p.6 page image shows 'DL17ck' in the last paragraph of Sec. 2.3. 'DLT17ck' appears earlier on the same page and on p.5.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Sec. 3.1 writes "Gemini-South FLAMINGO2" (twice on p.6) while elsewhere the instrument is "FLAMINGOS2"/"Flamingos-2".
- p. 6 Section 3.1
South FLAMINGO2 instrument first detected near-infrared Ks-
- p. 7 Section 3.1
The FLAMINGOS2 near-infrared spectrograph
Judge's note: The p.6 image shows 'FLAMINGO2' in two places in Sec. 3.1. Page 7 has 'FLAMINGOS2', and the tables have 'Flamingos-2'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In Table 3, the first IBIS/ISGRI row's observatory is misspelled "NTEGRAL IBIS/ISGRI" (should be INTEGRAL).
- p. 15 Table 3, IBIS/ISGRI row
NTEGRAL IBIS/ISGRI
Judge's note: On the upright p15 image the row (Aug 18 12:45:10, 20–80 keV) clearly reads 'NTEGRAL'. The other INTEGRAL rows are spelled correctly.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The instrument is spelled "PiCSIT (Labanti et al. 2003)" in Sec. 3.2 but "INTEGRAL IBIS/PICsIT" in Table 3.
- p. 16 Section 3.2
PiCSIT (Labanti et al. 2003)
- p. 15 Table 3
INTEGRAL IBIS/PICsIT
Judge's note: Both spellings are visible on the p16 and upright p15 images. The difference is cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo A stray footnote marker follows "(Haggard et al. 2017a, 2017b).10" at the end of the Sec. 3.3 paragraph, and no footnote 10 exists.
- p. 17 Section 3.3, end of paragraph
(Haggard et al. 2017a, 2017b).10
Judge's note: p17 image: a superscript 10 is typeset after the citation. The footnotes on this page are numbered 964–971 and nowhere else in the paper does a footnote 10 appear, so the marker points to nothing.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 5 has two consecutive identical rows: 'VLA Aug 19 22:01:48 UTC 2 6.0 4 <22 Corsi et al. (2017a)'.
- p. 19 Table 5, VLA rows
Aug 19 22:01:48 UTC
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The page 19 image and layout text lines 1182–1183 show every field identical. It is either a duplicated row or a row whose distinct values were lost.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 5 VLITE time printed 'Aug 20 20.49:36 UTC' (a period instead of a colon).
- p. 19 Table 5, VLITE Aug 20 row
Aug 20 20.49:36 UTC
Judge's note: Confirmed on the page 19 image. The listed 3.34 d matches 20:49:36, so this is only a punctuation typo.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 5 ALMA date printed 'Sep 120:22:05 UTC'; it should read 'Sep 1 20:22:05 UTC'.
- p. 20 Table 5 (continued), ALMA row
Sep 120:22:05 UTC
Judge's note: Confirmed on the page 20 image. The listed 15.33 d is consistent with Sep 1 20:22:05 (15.32 d).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table 5 last row (VLA, Sep 25 16:51:45 UTC) prints '6.0 GHz' in the Central Frequency (GHz) column, where every other entry is a bare number.
- p. 21 Table 5 (continued), last row (VLA, Sep 25)
6.0 GHz
Judge's note: Confirmed on the page 21 image. This is a cosmetic formatting inconsistency only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Section 3.5 (p. 27) reads "no neutrinos were found over tc 500 s". The ± sign is missing; the same paragraph writes "tc ± 500 s".
- p. 27 Section 3.5
no neutrinos were found over tc 500 s
Judge's note: The page image shows 't_c 500 s' with no sign, while the earlier sentence in the same paragraph has 't_c ± 500 s'.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The 1M2H acknowledgement (p. 27) has a duplicated word: "This program was supported by the the Kavli Foundation".
- p. 27 Acknowledgments (1M2H)
was supported by the the Kavli Foundation
- p. 27 (1M2H) acknowledgement
supported by the the Kavli Foundation
- p. 27
supported by the the Kavli Foundation, Danish National
- p. 27
This program was supported by the the Kavli Foundation, D
Judge's note: The page image shows 'by the the Kavli Foundation' with both words on the same line.
Second check: code check
Report a problem with this finding
Typo D.L.K.'s NSF grant is given two different numbers: "AST-141242" (Australian Radio acknowledgement, p. 28) and "AST-1412421" (GROWTH acknowledgement, p. 30).
- p. 28 Acknowledgments (Australian Radio)
supported by NSF grant AST-141242
- p. 30 Acknowledgments (GROWTH)
D.L.K. is additionally supported by NSF grant AST-1412421
Judge's note: Both numbers checked on the page images. The six-digit form is out of line with the seven-digit NSF numbers elsewhere in the paper (e.g. AST-1313484, AST-1518052), which suggests a dropped digit in the p. 28 form.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The Las Cumbres acknowledgement (p. 31) prints the initials as "D.P. and D..M": a doubled period and a missing final period.
- p. 31
D.P. and D..M
Judge's note: The page image shows 'D..M' as quoted.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The reference author is spelled "Smitch, K. W." in "Chambers, K. C., Huber, M. E., Smitch, K. W., et al. 2017c" and also in 2017d. It is probably a misspelling of Smith.
- p. 34
Chambers, K. C., Huber, M. E., Smitch, K. W., et al. 2017c
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the Pan-STARRS co-author is K. W. Smith. Both the 2017c and 2017d entries read 'Smitch' on the p. 34 image.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Author names are misspelled in reference entries: "Troja, E., Piro, L., Sakamota, T., et al. 2017c, GCN, 21765" (also 2017e, and Nakahira et al. 2017), and "Troja, E., Watson, A., Covina, S., et al. 2017b, GCN, 21682".
- p. 36 Reference list, Troja 2017c/2017e and 2017b
Troja, E., Piro, L., Sakamota, T., et al. 2017c, GCN, 21765
Judge's note: Checked on the page 36 image. Troja 2017c and 2017e read "Sakamota, T.", and Troja 2017b reads "Covina, S.". The same list elsewhere spells "Troja, E., Sakamoto, T., ... 2016" and "Covino, S." (Covino 2017, D'Avanzo 2009 and 2017, Wiersema 2017), and the author list has T. Sakamoto (728) and S. Covino (405). The spelling is therefore inconsistent within the paper itself.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In the Fermi-LAT author list, the affiliation number is duplicated: "M. Palatiello446,446".
- p. 41
M. Palatiello446,446
Judge's note: The page 41 image shows superscript "446,446". The duplication is a clear typesetting error. The intended second number is probably 447, by analogy with F. Longo (446,447), but only the authors can confirm that.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Affiliation 176 reads "10 rue Alice Domont et Léonie Duquet", while affiliation 771 gives the same address as "10, rue Alice Domon et Léonie Duquet".
- p. 49
10 rue Alice Domont et Léonie Duquet
Judge's note: The page 49 image shows "Domont" in affiliation 176, and the page 57 crop shows "Domon" in affiliation 771. The paper spells the same street two ways. Rests on outside knowledge: the street's actual name is "rue Alice Domon et Léonie Duquet"; the internal inconsistency holds regardless.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Affiliation 351 is misspelled: "Departamento de Astronomonía, Universidad de Chile" should read "Astronomía".
- p. 51
Departamento de Astronomonía, Universidad de Chile, Camino del Observatorio 1515
Judge's note: The page 51 image confirms "Astronomonía" in affiliation 351. It is an evident misspelling of "Astronomía".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Affiliation 781 is misspelled: "Japan Aerpspace Exploration Agency (JAXA)" should read "Aerospace".
- p. 57
Japan Aerpspace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
Judge's note: The page 57 image confirms "Aerpspace" in affiliation 781. The acronym JAXA confirms the intended word is "Aerospace".
Second check: none (judge only)