Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Physics-Informed Priors Improve Gravitational-Wave Constraints on Neutron-Star Matter

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reanalyzes gravitational-wave events with priors built from nuclear theory and QCD, reporting tighter neutron-star radius and tidal-deformability constraints.

desk verdict Physics-informed priors for GW EOS inference: useful tool, but the 'improvement' claims rest on a missing same-pipeline uniform-prior baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21526 v1 pith:ALPIXJYM submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-th

Spencer J. Magnall , Christian Ecker , Luciano Rezzolla , Paul D. Lasky , Simon R. Goode This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-th
keywords neutronstarsgravitationalwavesequationofstatetidaldeformabilityBayesianinferenceGW170817GW190425nuclearmatter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that standard gravitational-wave analyses throw away information by treating the chirp mass and the binary tidal deformability as independent quantities, and it replaces that assumption with a joint prior built from a large ensemble of neutron-star equations of state. The ensemble is constructed to satisfy low-density nuclear theory, perturbative QCD at high densities, and measured neutron-star masses and radii, producing a tight correlation between chirp mass and tidal deformability. Reanalyzing GW170817 with this prior narrows the 90% radius constraint on a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star from $R_{1.4}=12.54^{+1.05}_{-1.54}$ km to $R_{1.4}=12.11^{+0.91}_{-1.11}$ km, and turns the tidal-deformability upper limit $\tilde{\Lambda}_{1.186}<720$ into a measurement $\tilde{\Lambda}_{1.186}=384^{+306}_{-158}$. For GW190425 the same priors yield a Bayes factor of 1.33 between binary-neutron-star and neutron-star-black-hole interpretations, which the authors judge uninformative. The paper concludes that physics-informed priors improve neutron-star parameter estimation and should become the standard approach.

What carries the argument

The central object is the physics-informed joint prior $\pi(\mathcal{M},\tilde{\Lambda})$ on source-frame chirp mass and effective binary tidal deformability. It is generated by building about $10^6$ equations of state from a piecewise-linear sound-speed function $c_s^2(\mu)$ spanning the density range between a low-density crust and a perturbative-QCD constraint on cold quark matter, then keeping only those that satisfy measured pulsar masses and X-ray radius limits. This ensemble induces a strong statistical correlation between $\mathcal{M}$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}$, whose 90% contours can be summarized by the power law $\tilde{\Lambda}_{\rm min(max)}=a+b\mathcal{M}^c$; the prior is fed into the gravitational-wave likelihood as a joint distribution instead of the usual factorized uniform priors. A separate four-piece spectral parameterization is used only afterward to convert posterior samples into pressure-density and mass-radius posteriors, so the reported improvement comes from the prior itself.

What would settle it

Build an independent equation-of-state ensemble from a different parameterization family, for example a nuclear-theory metamodel with different functional forms, and keep the full X-ray likelihoods instead of hard radius cuts, then re-run the GW170817 analysis; if the 90% intervals on $R_{1.4}$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}_{1.186}$ shift by more than the quoted widths, the choice of ensemble is doing the work rather than the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the prior, not the waveform or the data, was the main obstacle to tighter neutron-star constraints. By sampling roughly $10^6$ equations of state from a sound-speed parametrization that respects nuclear and QCD bounds, and then cutting on measured pulsar masses and X-ray radii, the authors obtain a joint distribution $\pi(\mathcal{M},\tilde{\Lambda})$ that embodies physical correlations. Using that as the prior in a standard Bayesian reanalysis of GW170817 changes the 90% credible interval on the effective tidal deformability at the event's chirp mass from an upper limit to $\tilde{\Lambda}_{1.186}=384^{+306}_{-158}$, and narrows the 1.4 solar-mass radius to $R_{1.4}=12.11^{+0.91}_{-1.11}$ km. For GW190425, the same machinery produces improved tidal constraints and a Bayes factor of 1.33 that leaves the neutron-star versus black-hole question open. The authors claim this demonstrates a general improvement for gravitational-wave events involving neutron stars and provide code so the prior can be reused.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption that the randomly generated ensemble of equations of state fairly spans all physically possible neutron-star matter, so that using it as a prior does not silently exclude the true equation of state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GW170817 gains a genuine lower bound $\tilde{\Lambda}_{1.186}\gtrsim 226$, so future combined analyses can use both sides of the tidal-deformability constraint.
  • Future binary-neutron-star events analyzed with these priors should yield narrower radius and tidal-deformability posteriors than the uniform-prior pipeline.
  • The prior construction doubles as a model-selection tool, giving a Bayes factor for neutron-star versus black-hole secondaries in ambiguous mergers.
  • Because the implementation is released openly, independent analyses can adopt the same physical prior, making results across events directly comparable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not pursue it, but their numbers imply that a single well-measured event may constrain $R_{1.4}$ nearly as tightly as multiple independent radius measurements, since the prior already encodes the $\mathcal{M}$–$\tilde{\Lambda}$ correlation.
  • Replacing the hard X-ray radius cuts with full likelihoods could either sharpen these results or reveal that the cuts were responsible for part of the improvement; the paper cites earlier work suggesting the difference is small, but does not test it here.
  • If the observed BNS-to-NSBH merger ratio becomes better measured, the model-selection test for events like GW190425 will become more decisive, and the currently marginal Bayes factor could flip direction.
  • Extending the prior to high-spin neutron stars or mass-gap companions would test whether the reported improvement survives outside the low-spin regime the paper considers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces physics-informed priors on the source-frame chirp mass and effective tidal deformability for binary neutron-star and neutron-star-black-hole mergers, built from a large ensemble of equations of state that incorporate nuclear theory, perturbative QCD, pulsar mass measurements, and NICER radius constraints, while explicitly omitting gravitational-wave tidal constraints from GW170817/GW190425. These priors are implemented in Bilby and applied to GW170817 and GW190425. The authors report improved constraints on the tidal deformability and the radius of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star compared with the LVK uniform-prior results, present reconstructed pressure-density and mass-radius posteriors, and perform model selection between BNS and NSBH interpretations for GW190425, finding a Bayes factor of 1.33 in favor of BNS. The paper advocates for these priors as a standard tool and provides open-source code.

Significance. The method is timely and practically useful: if the claimed improvement is real, physics-informed priors offer a simple way to sharpen gravitational-wave constraints on neutron-star matter and to aid in classifying compact-binary mergers. The prior construction is transparent and largely avoids circularity because the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint is deliberately excluded from the prior. The open-source Bilby implementation is a concrete reproducibility asset. However, the central quantitative claim is currently not fully supported: the comparison against the LVK uniform-prior results is confounded by pipeline and analysis-procedure differences, and the apparent tightening of the Lambda-tilde posterior is substantially prior-driven. With a proper same-pipeline control and a validation of the EOS-inference step, this could become a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 2 and 3] The headline claim that physics-informed priors 'improve' the GW170817 constraints is based on comparing a new Bilby run using the physics-informed prior against the publicly released LVK uniform-prior posterior, not against a uniform-prior run in the same pipeline. The two analyses can differ in data release, waveform and sampler settings, noise realization, and especially in the EOS-inference procedure described in Appendix A. Any of these differences can shift the peak or change the width of the 90% intervals by an amount comparable to the claimed improvement (about 0.4 km in R1.4 and about 100 in Lambda-tilde). To attribute the improvement to the physics-informed prior, the authors should provide a same-pipeline uniform-prior run with identical settings; the statement in Section 3 that 'posterior distributions for all other binary parameters are identical' is not a substitute because no such control run is shown.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A7)-(A10)] The EOS inference that produces the reported R1.4 constraints introduces several approximations that are not validated: the chirp mass is fixed to its median value via a delta function, the posterior density is evaluated with a bounded kernel-density estimate, and the EOS is parameterized with a four-piece spectral form that differs from the seven-segment sound-speed parameterization used to construct the prior. The authors acknowledge the parameterization difference but do not test whether it biases the radius posterior. Because the R1.4 improvement is a headline result, the paper should either use the same parameterization for prior and inference, or demonstrate through a controlled test that the spectral-parameterization and KDE steps do not materially shift the posterior.
  3. [Section 2, EOS construction and astrophysical constraints] The prior incorporates NICER radius information through hard cuts (rejecting EOSs with R < 10.75 km at 2.0 Msun or R < 10.8 km at 1.1 Msun) rather than through the full NICER likelihoods. The authors cite Jiang et al. (2023) for the equivalence of constant and variable likelihoods, but they do not demonstrate this equivalence for the specific M-Lambda-tilde prior used here. If the hard cuts are not equivalent to the full likelihoods, the prior shape, and therefore the posterior intervals, will be biased. A sensitivity test replacing the hard cuts with the full NICER likelihoods, or at least showing that the resulting prior contours are unchanged, would strengthen the central claim.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 2] The reported lower limit on Lambda-tilde (226) is close to the minimum of the physics-informed prior (around 200), and the marginalised posterior in Fig. 2 appears to be cut off near the prior boundary. This means that part of the 'improvement' over the LVK result is the prior excluding the low-Lambda-tilde region rather than the data constraining it. The authors should quantify the relative contribution of the prior and the likelihood to the posterior support, for example by reporting the prior-to-posterior ratio or by showing the likelihood-only profile. This would clarify how much of the improvement is an informative prior effect and how much is genuine data-driven constraining power.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] There is a typo in the paragraph on NICER constraints: 'distirbutions' should be 'distributions'.
  2. [Section 2] The name 'Tolman-Oppenheimer-V olkoff' contains an erroneous space; it should read 'Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff'.
  3. [Section 3] In the model-selection paragraph, 'Bayes factor of1.33' is missing a space before the number.
  4. [Section 4] The sentence 'we find this analysis to be uninformative, with a odds ratio between 0.44 and 1.33' should be 'with an odds ratio'.
  5. [Introduction and References] Two different Ecker & Rezzolla (2022) works are cited without disambiguation; the reference list contains both an ApJL paper and an MNRAS paper with the same author list and year, which is confusing. Please label them 2022a and 2022b in both text and references.
  6. [Data Availability] The GitHub repository URL contains 'physics informed priors' without a hyphen; please verify that the URL is correct and that the repository name matches the displayed text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: prior is built from independent nuclear, pQCD, pulsar, and NICER inputs, with GW tidal constraints explicitly excluded from prior construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that physics-informed priors improve GW170817 constraints on R1.4 and Lambda-tilde—is not circular. The prior is constructed from external inputs: BPS crust, polytropes spanning Hebeler et al. (2013), perturbative QCD from Fraga et al. (2014), pulsar mass measurements (Antoniadis et al.; Cromartie et al.; Fonseca et al.), and NICER radius constraints (Miller et al.; Riley et al.). The authors explicitly state that they do not impose any GW-informed constraint on the binary tidal deformability: 'we do not impose any GW-informed constraints on the binary tidal deformability in the construction of our prior as we are reanalysing these data using the new prior.' The M-Lambda relation used is generated in-house from the same EOS ensemble following Altiparmak et al. (2022), whose authors overlap with the present paper, but the construction is reproduced in Section 2 rather than imported as an unverified theorem. The GW parameter estimation uses standard Bilby/dynesty with the new prior, and the reported posteriors are Bayesian updates, not fits to the target result. The comparison to the LVK uniform-prior posterior is not a same-pipeline control, which is a methodological attribution concern, but it is not circular. The Appendix A EOS-inference step sets the PE prior equal to the conditional EOS prior, which is a non-standard reweighting, but it does not assume the GW170817 outcome; it propagates the already-computed posterior. No equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction. The score of 2 reflects the presence of self-citations (Altiparmak et al. 2022; Ecker & Rezzolla 2022; Jiang et al. 2023) that are not load-bearing because the methods and results are independently grounded in external data.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a generated EOS ensemble whose sampling choices and hard cuts determine the prior. No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are stochastic sampling ranges rather than fitted values, and the axioms are standard domain assumptions in neutron-star EOS inference.

free parameters (4)
  • Maximum sound speed c_s,max = sampled uniformly in [0,1]
    Defines the stiffness range of the EOS ensemble; the posterior constraints depend on this range being a fair cover of the true EOS space.
  • Sound-speed segment parameters (μ_i, c_s,i) for seven segments = μ_i sampled in [μ_1, μ_{N+1}], c_s,i sampled in [0, c_s,max]
    These stochastic parameters generate the EOS ensemble; different sampling choices would change the prior and hence the posteriors.
  • pQCD renormalization scale X = sampled uniformly in [1,4]
    Controls the perturbative QCD pressure constraint at μ=2.6 GeV; the range is an uncertainty bracket for the pQCD calculation.
  • Hard astrophysical cuts (R>=10.75 km at 2.0 Msun, R>=10.8 km at 1.1 Msun, M_TOV>=2.0 Msun) = R thresholds and mass threshold
    These thresholds filter the EOS ensemble based on NICER and pulsar mass measurements; they are effectively free choices that determine the prior's support.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The piecewise-linear sound-speed parametrization with seven segments can represent the true EOS of cold dense matter.
    Invoked in Section 2, Eq. (1)-(3), to construct the EOS ensemble; if the true EOS is outside this functional family, the prior is incomplete.
  • domain assumption The BPS crust model is valid for densities below 0.5 ns.
    Used in Section 2 for the low-density crust; a standard but approximate treatment of the neutron-star crust.
  • domain assumption The perturbative QCD constraint from Fraga et al. (2014) at μ=2.6 GeV is valid, with X in [1,4] bracketing the uncertainty.
    Imposed in Section 2 at high densities (n >= ~40 ns); if the pQCD matching is not applicable, the high-density part of the prior is invalid.
  • domain assumption NICER radius constraints can be collapsed to hard lower limits (R>=10.75 km at 2.0 Msun, R>=10.8 km at 1.1 Msun) without materially changing the inference.
    The paper rejects EOSs failing these cuts, citing Jiang et al. (2023) to justify the hard-cut approximation over full likelihoods.
  • domain assumption The flat mass-ratio prior on q in [0.125,1] and the low-spin assumption (χ<=0.05) are appropriate for these events.
    Standard choices in LVK analyses, but they affect the prior on the binary parameters and hence the posteriors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Informed Priors Improve Gravitational-Wave Constraints on Neutron-Star Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALPIXJYM

@misc{pith2026250421526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Informed Priors Improve Gravitational-Wave Constraints on Neutron-Star Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALPIXJYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21526}
}
abstract

Gravitational-wave astronomy shows great promise in determining nuclear physics in a regime not accessible to terrestrial experiments. We introduce physics-informed priors constrained by nuclear theory and perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics calculations, as well as astrophysical measurements of neutron-star masses and radii. When these priors are used in gravitational-wave astrophysical inference, we show a significant improvement on nuclear equation of state constraints. Applying these to the first observed gravitational-wave binary neutron-star merger GW170817, the constraints on the radius of a $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star improve from $R_{1.4} ={12.54^{+1.05}_{-1.54}} \, {\rm km}$ to $R_{1.4} = 12.11^{+0.91}_{-1.11} \,{\rm km}$ and those on the tidal deformability from $\tilde{\Lambda}_{1.186} < 720$ to $\tilde{\Lambda}_{1.186} = 384^{+306}_{-158}$ ($90\%$ confidence intervals) at the events measured chirp mass $\mathcal{M}=1.186\,M_\odot$. We also show these priors can be used to perform model selection between binary neutron star and neutron star-black hole mergers; in the case of GW190425, the results provide only marginal evidence with a Bayes factor $\mathcal{BF}=1.33$ in favour of the binary neutron star merger hypothesis. Given their ability to improve the astrophysical inference of binary mergers involving neutron stars, we advocate for these physics-informed priors to be used as standard in the literature and provide open-source code for reproducibility and adaptation of the method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Priors for the source-frame chirp mass M and the di￾mensionless tidal deformability Λ˜ in the case of BNS (top panel) or NSBH binaries (bottom panel). In both panels, dashed black curves indicate analytic fits to the 90% contours of the distribution given in Eq. (6), while the dashed grey curves are the correspond￾ing fits obtained when imposing the GW170817 constraint on the prior following Altiparmak et al. (2022)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Marginalised posterior distributions of the tidal deforma￾bility Λ˜ for GW170817. The posterior using a physics-informed prior is shown in red, while the posterior using uniform priors from the LVK analysis is shown in blue: we show the (marginalised) prior with the black curve. Note that the posterior from the LVK shows support up to Λ = 2000 ˜ . binary population synthesis (e.g., Broekgaarden et al. 2021). In prac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior distributions of the range of pressures and en￾ergy densities for a nuclear-matter EOS (top panel) and of the corre￾sponding masses and radii (bottom panel) in the case of GW170817. In both panels, the shaded regions show the 90% credible intervals of the posterior distributions obtained using the physics-informed priors (red) or the uniform priors (blue), while the dashed curves show the 90% credible inte… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Locating the QCD critical point with neutron-star observations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bayesian analysis of a hybrid holographic EOS with neutron-star constraints locates the QCD critical endpoint at μ≈626 MeV and T≈119 MeV and predicts a strong first-order deconfinement transition at zero temperature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  2. [2]

    G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al

    Abac, A. G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101 —. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 011001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001 —. 2020, ApJL, 892, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  4. [4]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e 2021

  5. [5]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  6. [6]

    2015, PhRvD, 92, 023012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023012

    Agathos, M., Meidam, J., Del Pozzo, W., et al. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 023012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023012

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023012 2015

  7. [7]

    2020, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2020, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 2020

  8. [8]

    2022, Astrophys

    Altiparmak, S., Ecker, C., & Rezzolla, L. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 939, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    2020, Nature Physics, 16, 907, doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., N¨attil¨a, J., & Vuorinen, A. 2020, Nature Physics, 16, 907, doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448, doi: 10.1126/science.1233232

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 064037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064037

    Ashton, G., & Khan, S. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 064037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.064037

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., H¨ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, Rept

    Baiotti, L., & Rezzolla, L. 2017, Rept. Prog. Phys., 80, 096901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aa67bb

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    W., & Janka, H.-T

    Bauswein, A., Baumgarte, T. W., & Janka, H.-T. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 131101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.131101

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    1971, ApJ, 170, 299, doi: 10.1086/151216

    Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Sutherland, P. 1971, ApJ, 170, 299, doi: 10.1086/151216

    1971 doi

  8. [16]

    2024, A&A, 689, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449173

    Breschi, M., Gamba, R., Carullo, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449173

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Berger, E., Neijssel, C

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Berger, E., Neijssel, C. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2716

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Tews, I., Brown, S

    Capano, C. D., Tews, I., Brown, S. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B

    Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, MNRAS, 489, L91, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz133

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S

    Cromartie, H. T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Pang, P

    Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2020, Science, 370, 1450, doi: 10.1126/science.abb4317

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, PhRvD, 100, 044003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044003

    Dietrich, T., Samajdar, A., Khan, S., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 044003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044003

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2001, A&A, 380, 151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011402

    Douchin, F., & Haensel, P. 2001, A&A, 380, 151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011402

    2001 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, Astrophys

    Ecker, C., & Rezzolla, L. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 939, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8674

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, Mon

    Ecker, C., & Rezzolla, L. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 519, 2615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3755

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2025, Phys

    Ecker, C., Topolski, K., J¨arvinen, M., & Stehr, A. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 023001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023001

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, PhRvL, 112, 101101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.101101

    Favata, M. 2014, PhRvL, 112, 101101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.101101

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Pennucci, T

    Fonseca, E., Cromartie, H. T., Pennucci, T. T., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 915, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A

    Fraga, E. S., Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2014, ApJL, 781, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L25

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, 023029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023029

    Golomb, J., Legred, I., Chatziioannou, K., & Landry, P. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 023029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023029

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Pethick, C

    Hebeler, K., Lattimer, J. M., Pethick, C. J., & Schwenk, A. 2013, Astrophys. J., 773, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/11

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4be

    Jiang, J.-L., Ecker, C., & Rezzolla, L. 2023, ApJ, 949, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc4be

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, Phys

    Kashyap, R., Das, A., Radice, D., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103022

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Koehn, H., Rose, H., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2025, Physical Review X, 15, 021014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.15.021014

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2019, Astrophys

    Koeppel, S., Bovard, L., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 872, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0210 K¨olsch, M., Dietrich, T., Ujevic, M., & Br¨ugmann, B. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 044026, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.044026

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 123007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123007

    Landry, P., Essick, R., & Chatziioannou, K. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 123007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123007

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    2010, PhRvD, 82, 103011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.103011

    Lindblom, L. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 103011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.103011

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 —. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b 9

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Papenfort, L

    Most, E. R., Papenfort, L. J., Tootle, S., & Rezzolla, L. 2021, Astrophys. J., 912, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0a5

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Weih, L

    Most, E. R., Weih, L. R., Rezzolla, L., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 261103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.261103

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Pang, P. T. H., Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 8352, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-43932-6

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 084002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa61ce Planck Collaboration, et al

    Paschalidis, V . 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 084002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa61ce Planck Collaboration, et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 70, 95, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-013120-114541

    Radice, D., Bernuzzi, S., & Perego, A. 2020, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 70, 95, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-013120-114541

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Ray, P. S., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Talbot, C., Biscoveanu, S., et al

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., Talbot, C., Biscoveanu, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2850

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    Smith, R. J. E., Ashton, G., Vajpeyi, A., & Talbot, C. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2483

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.04386, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.04386

    Tiwari, P., Zhou, D., Biswas, B., McNeil Forbes, M., & Bose, S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.04386, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.04386

    2023 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    D., Papenfort, L

    Tootle, S. D., Papenfort, L. J., Most, E. R., & Rezzolla, L. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 922, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac350d

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Wade, L., Creighton, J. D. E., Ochsner, E., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 103012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103012

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.01747, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.01747

    Wysocki, D., O’Shaughnessy, R., Wade, L., & Lange, J. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.01747, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.01747

    2020 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.