Papers › Kilonova modelling and parameter inference: Understanding uncertainties and evaluating...
Kilonova modelling and parameter inference: Understanding uncertainties and evaluating compatibility between observations and models
Thomas Hussenot-Desenonges, Marion Pillas, Sarah Antier, Patrice Hello, Peter T. H. Pang
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
In the study of optical transients, parameter inference is the process of extracting physical information, i.e. constraints on the source's characteristics, by comparing the observed lightcurves to the predictions of different models and finding the model and parameter combination that make the closest match. In the developing field of the study of kilonovae (KNe), systematic uncertainties in modelling are still very large, and many models struggle to fit satisfactorily the whole multi-wavelength dataset of the AT2017gfo kilonova, associated to the Binary Neutron Star (BNS) merger GW170817. In a multi-messenger context, we sometime observe tensions between KN-only inference results and constraints from other messengers. In order to discuss the compatibility of KN models with observations and with the information derived from other messengers, we detail the process of Bayesian parameter inference, identifying the many sources of uncertainty embedded in KN analyses. We highlight the systematic error margin hyperparameter σ_(sys), which can be exploited as a metric for a model's goodness-of-fit. We then discuss how to assess the performance of parameter inference analyses by quantifying the information gain using the Kullback-Leibler divergence between prior and posterior. Using the example of the Bu2019lm model with the NMMA Bayesian inference framework, we showcase the expected performance that dedicated KN follow-ups with telescope networks could reasonably reach, highlighting the different factors (observational cadence, error margins) that influence such inference performances. We finally apply our KN analysis to the dataset of AT2017gfo to validate our performance predictions and discuss the complementarity of multi-messenger approaches.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections