pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02966 · v1 · pith:LEBMLKBOnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Sensitivity of the Neutron Star Equation of State Inferences to Mass and Radius Measurements

Dmitry D. Ofengeim , Peter S. Shternin , Tsvi Piran This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords neutron starequation of statemass-radius measurementschiral effective field theoryperturbative QCDmaximum massdense matterBayesian inference
0
0 comments X

The pith

Theoretical constraints plus the 2-solar-mass limit dominate neutron-star equation-of-state inferences over most densities.

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

The paper updates earlier equation-of-state inferences by folding in recent neutron-star mass and radius data together with chiral effective field theory at low densities and perturbative QCD at high densities. It isolates the separate contributions and shows that the theoretical bounds combined with the demand that the heaviest neutron star exceed 2 solar masses set the dominant limits across a wide density range. Radius measurements tighten the low-density part while observations of masses well above 2 solar masses affect a broader interval. The work matters because the equation of state determines the internal structure, maximum mass, and possible exotic phases inside neutron stars. Future data that sharpen the maximum-mass value would produce the largest shift, yet even a confirmed 2.5-2.6 solar-mass star would leave the overall picture qualitatively unchanged.

Core claim

Updated constraints from recent mass and radius measurements combined with chiral effective field theory and perturbative QCD remain consistent with but tighter than earlier results. The theoretical constraints together with the requirement that the maximal neutron-star mass exceeds 2 M_⊙ dominate the equation-of-state inference over most densities. Radius measurements mainly refine the constraints at densities below roughly 2 times nuclear saturation density, whereas measurements of masses well above 2 M_⊙ improve the constraints over a wider density range. A future measurement that refines the maximal mass would have the largest impact, yet even a precise 2.5-2.6 M_⊙ detection would not al

What carries the argument

Bayesian inference framework that combines chiral effective field theory at low densities, perturbative QCD at high densities, and direct mass-radius observational constraints while isolating the effect of each class of input.

If this is right

  • Radius measurements mainly refine equation-of-state constraints at densities below about twice nuclear saturation density.
  • Measurements of neutron-star masses well above 2 solar masses tighten constraints across a wider density range.
  • Refining the value of the maximal neutron-star mass produces the largest change in the inferred equation of state.
  • A confirmed neutron star at 2.5-2.6 solar masses would not change the qualitative shape of the allowed equation of state.
  • Observations lying well outside the current allowed region would require new physics inside neutron-star cores.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the chiral effective field theory or perturbative QCD inputs contain unrecognized errors, their dominance over observational data would shrink and radius measurements could become more influential even at moderate densities.
  • An independent upper limit on the maximum neutron-star mass from gravitational-wave or electromagnetic observations could be combined with the present framework to test consistency without relying on the same mass-radius data.
  • The method could be extended to include additional observables such as tidal deformability from binary mergers to check whether they remain sub-dominant to the theoretical bounds.
  • A detection of a neutron star whose properties force a revision of the low-density or high-density theoretical anchors would directly challenge the assumption that those anchors remain valid up to the densities probed by neutron stars.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that inputs from chiral effective field theory at low densities and perturbative QCD at high densities are reliable and that the neutron-star mass and radius measurements can be directly translated into equation-of-state constraints without large unaccounted systematic errors.

What would settle it

A single precise mass or radius measurement lying well outside the region allowed by the combined theoretical bounds and current observations, or an inconsistency between the low-density and high-density theoretical inputs when confronted with data, would falsify the dominance of the present framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02966 by Dmitry D. Ofengeim, Peter S. Shternin, Tsvi Piran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A comparison of the EoS constraints obtained in Paper I with those obtained with updated theoretical and/or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Marginalized posterior distributions for the radius of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In the two left panels, the latter two constraints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The same as Fig. 1 but for comparing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The same as panels (c) and (d) of Fig. 1 but for comparing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The same as Fig. 4 but for hypothetical observations of a 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The same as Fig. 1 but for a comparison of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Distributions of relative root mean square error (a) and maximum relative errors (b) for Eq. (A3) over the whole EoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The same as Fig. 1 but for comparison of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We examine how inferences of the neutron-star equation of state depend on mass and radius observations. We update previous results with recent measurements combined with theoretical input from chiral effective field theory and perturbative quantum chromodynamics. The revised constraints are consistent with, but tighter than, those obtained in earlier work. Isolating the effects of different classes of observations we find that the theoretical constraints, together with the requirement that the maximal neutron-star mass exceeds $2\,M_\odot$, dominate the equation-of-state inference over most densities. Radius measurements mainly refine the constraints at the low-density regime, $\rho \lesssim 2\rho_0$, whereas measurements of masses well above $2\,M_\odot$ improve the constraints over a wider density range. Finally, we explore the impact of possible future observations. The largest impact would arise from a measurement that refines the value of the maximal neutron star mass. It can be, e.g., a detection of an extremely massive neutron star or an improved upper limit. However, even a precise measurement a $2.5-2.6\,M_\odot$ NS will not alter our knowledge of the equation of state qualitatively. Conversely, observations lying well outside the present allowed region, would point to new physics in neutron-star cores and require a revision of the current framework.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript updates prior neutron-star equation-of-state (EOS) constraints by folding in recent mass and radius measurements together with theoretical input from chiral effective field theory at low density and perturbative QCD at high density. It isolates the separate contributions of different observation classes and concludes that the theoretical priors plus the requirement M_max > 2 M_⊙ dominate the posterior over most densities; radius data mainly tighten the low-density regime (ρ ≲ 2ρ₀) while masses ≫ 2 M_⊙ affect a broader range. The work also examines the prospective impact of future measurements, finding that refinement of the maximum mass would produce the largest change.

Significance. If the dominance result holds, the paper supplies a useful quantitative ranking of constraint sources that can inform observational strategy and the relative priority of ab initio calculations versus new mass-radius data. The explicit isolation of observation classes against a fixed theoretical baseline is a methodological strength that allows direct comparison of posterior widths.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods / likelihood construction (likely §2–3)] The abstract and available text state that the likelihood combines external chiral-EFT and pQCD calculations with observational data, yet the explicit functional form of the joint posterior (or the precise manner in which the M_max > 2 M_⊙ cut is imposed) is not shown; without this construction it is impossible to confirm that the reported dominance is not an artifact of the particular prior implementation or of unstated correlations between the theoretical bands and the observational likelihoods.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions should explicitly list which data sets and theoretical bands are included in each posterior curve so that the isolation procedure can be reproduced from the figures alone.
  2. [Discussion of future observations] The statement that a future 2.5–2.6 M_⊙ measurement “will not alter our knowledge qualitatively” should be accompanied by a quantitative metric (e.g., change in 68 % credible interval width at a reference density) rather than a qualitative assertion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comment. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract and available text state that the likelihood combines external chiral-EFT and pQCD calculations with observational data, yet the explicit functional form of the joint posterior (or the precise manner in which the M_max > 2 M_⊙ cut is imposed) is not shown; without this construction it is impossible to confirm that the reported dominance is not an artifact of the particular prior implementation or of unstated correlations between the theoretical bands and the observational likelihoods.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit statement of the joint posterior is needed for full transparency and to allow independent verification that the reported dominance of theoretical inputs and the M_max > 2 M_⊙ requirement is robust. In the revised manuscript we will add a short subsection (likely in §2) that writes the posterior explicitly as P(EOS | data) ∝ L_chiral(EOS) × L_pQCD(EOS) × ∏_i L_obs,i(M_i, R_i | EOS) × Θ(M_max(EOS) − 2 M_⊙), where the theoretical likelihoods are taken directly from the published chiral-EFT and pQCD bands (treated as independent priors on the EOS parameters) and the observational likelihoods are the standard Gaussian or kernel-density forms for each mass-radius measurement. No additional cross-correlations between the theoretical bands and the data are introduced beyond those already present in the EOS parametrization. This addition will directly address the concern and confirm that the isolation of constraint sources is not an artifact of the implementation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that chiral EFT + pQCD priors plus the M_max > 2 M_⊙ requirement dominate the EOS posterior over most densities—is obtained by explicit comparison of posteriors constructed from independent external theoretical inputs and separate observational datasets. No equation or procedure in the derivation reduces a reported constraint to a quantity defined by the paper's own fitted parameters or by a self-citation chain whose validity is presupposed. Radius and mass measurements are treated as external data whose effects are isolated rather than redefined; the dominance result follows from the relative widths of the resulting posteriors and does not rely on renaming or smuggling an ansatz. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of chiral effective field theory and perturbative QCD as external constraints, the interpretation of mass-radius data as direct EOS bounds, and the assumption that the maximal mass exceeds 2 solar masses; these are domain assumptions rather than new entities or fitted parameters introduced in the paper.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Chiral effective field theory supplies reliable constraints on the equation of state at densities up to roughly 2 rho_0
    Invoked as theoretical input that dominates the inference together with the 2 M_sun limit.
  • domain assumption Perturbative quantum chromodynamics supplies reliable constraints at high densities
    Used to tighten the high-density part of the equation-of-state inference.
  • domain assumption Observed neutron-star masses and radii can be mapped directly onto equation-of-state constraints without large systematic biases
    Underlying the isolation of effects from different classes of observations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5773 in / 1588 out tokens · 33730 ms · 2026-06-28T09:22:24.165093+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    old” the- oretical aspects;upd theory:“old

    used in Paper I to lower values 1.806±0.037M⊙ [45]. As the radius of this star is unknown, it only constrainsM tov from below, and this constraint is negligible with respect to those coming from other heavier NSs. •Excluding PSR J2215+5135, since the recent study of its mass [46] shows that the results are not robust with respect to model systematics. •Up...

  2. [2]

    J. M. Lattimer, Neutron Stars and the Nuclear Matter Equation of State, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science71, 433 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Chatziioannou, H

    K. Chatziioannou, H. T. Cromartie, S. Gandolfi, I. Tews, D. Radice, A. W. Steiner, and A. L. Watts, Neutron stars and the dense matter equation of state, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics97, 045007 (2025), arXiv:2407.11153 [nucl- th]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    D. D. Ofengeim, E. E. Kolomeitsev, and P. S. Shternin, Neutron star equation of state, inEncyclopedia of Astro- physics, Volume 3, Vol. 3 (2026) pp. 160–204

    2026

  5. [5]

    R. C. Tolman, Static Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equa- tions for Spheres of Fluid, Physical Review55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  6. [6]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, On Massive Neu- tron Cores, Physical Review55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  7. [7]

    Lindblom, Determining the Nuclear Equation of State from Neutron-Star Masses and Radii, Astrophys

    L. Lindblom, Determining the Nuclear Equation of State from Neutron-Star Masses and Radii, Astrophys. J.398, 569 (1992)

    1992

  8. [8]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Neutron Star Structure and the Equation of State, Astrophys. J.550, 426 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0002232 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  9. [9]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, I-Love-Q relations in neutron stars and their applications to astrophysics, gravita- tional waves, and fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. D88, 023009 (2013), arXiv:1303.1528 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Binary Love relations, Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity33, 13LT01 (2016), arXiv:1512.02639 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    U. H. Gerlach, Equation of State at Supranuclear Densi- ties and the Existence of a Third Family of Superdense Stars, Physical Review172, 1325 (1968)

    1968

  12. [12]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, MULTINEST: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cos- mology and particle physics, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 398, 1601 (2009), arXiv:0809.3437 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    N¨ attil¨ a, A

    J. N¨ attil¨ a, A. W. Steiner, J. J. E. Kajava, V. F. Suleimanov, and J. Poutanen, Equation of state con- straints for the cold dense matter inside neutron stars using the cooling tail method, Astron. Astrophys.591, A25 (2016), arXiv:1509.06561 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, J. Hirvonen, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, and et al., Strongly interacting matter ex- hibits deconfined behavior in massive neutron stars, Nat. Commun.14, arXiv:2303.11356 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Brandes, W

    L. Brandes, W. Weise, and N. Kaiser, Evidence against a strong first-order phase transition in neutron star cores: Impact of new data, Phys. Rev. D108, 094014 (2023), arXiv:2306.06218 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Rutherford, M

    N. Rutherford, M. Mendes, I. Svensson, A. Schwenk, A. L. Watts, and et al., Constraining the Dense Matter Equation of State with New NICER Mass–Radius Mea- surements and New Chiral Effective Field Theory Inputs, Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L19 (2024), arXiv:2407.06790 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Brandes and W

    L. Brandes and W. Weise, Implications of latest NICER data for the neutron star equation of state, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034005 (2025), arXiv:2412.05923 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Koehn, H

    H. Koehn, H. Rose, P. T. H. Pang, R. Somasundaram, B. T. Reed, and et al., From Existing and New Nuclear and Astrophysical Constraints to Stringent Limits on the Equation of State of Neutron-Rich Dense Matter, Physi- cal Review X15, 021014 (2025), arXiv:2402.04172 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Komoltsev, First-order phase transitions in the cores of neutron stars, Phys

    O. Komoltsev, First-order phase transitions in the cores of neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D110, L071502 (2024), arXiv:2404.05637 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Tang, Y.-J

    S.-P. Tang, Y.-J. Huang, and Y.-Z. Fan, Phase transition and nuclear symmetry energy from neutron star observa- tions: Constraints in light of PSR J0614-3329, Phys. Rev. D112, 083009 (2025), arXiv:2507.10025 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Ecker, N

    C. Ecker, N. Jokela, and M. J¨ arvinen, Locating the QCD critical point with input from neutron-star observations, Phys. Rev. D113, L041302 (2026), arXiv:2506.10065 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Cuceu and S

    I. Cuceu and S. Robles, Direct nonparametric multi- messenger constraints on the equation of state of cold dense nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. D111, 123029 (2025), arXiv:2410.23407 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Biswas, Equation of State Extrapolation Systemat- ics: Parametric vs

    B. Biswas, Equation of State Extrapolation Systemat- ics: Parametric vs. Nonparametric Inference of Neutron Star Structure, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.06145 (2025), arXiv:2509.06145 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Lindblom, Spectral representations of neutron-star equations of state, Phys

    L. Lindblom, Spectral representations of neutron-star equations of state, Phys. Rev. D82, 103011 (2010), arXiv:1009.0738 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Brandes, C

    L. Brandes, C. Modi, A. Ghosh, D. Farrell, L. Lindblom, and et al., Neural simulation-based inference of the neu- tron star equation of state directly from telescope spec- tra, J. Cosmology & Astropaticles.2024, 009 (2024), arXiv:2403.00287 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    S. Soma, L. Wang, S. Shi, H. St¨ ocker, K. Zhou, and et al., Neural network reconstruction of the dense matter equa- tion of state from neutron star observables, J. Cosmol- ogy & Astropaticles.2022, 071 (2022), arXiv:2201.01756 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    D. D. Ofengeim, P. S. Shternin, and T. Piran, Three- parameter characterization of neutron star mass-radius relation and equation of state, Phys. Rev. D110, 103046 (2024), arXiv:2404.17647 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Sun and J

    B. Sun and J. M. Lattimer, Correlations between the Neutron Star Mass–Radius Relation and the Equation of State of Dense Matter, Astrophys. J.984, 30 (2025), arXiv:2412.14645 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Keller, K

    J. Keller, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Nuclear Equation of State for Arbitrary Proton Fraction and Temperature Based on Chiral Effective Field Theory and a Gaussian Process Emulator, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 072701 (2023), arXiv:2204.14016 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Komoltsev and A

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, How Perturbative QCD Constrains the Equation of State at Neutron- Star Densities, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202701 (2022), arXiv:2111.05350 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    D. D. Ofengeim, Universal properties of maximum-mass neutron stars: A new tool to explore superdense mat- ter, Phys. Rev. D101, 103029 (2020), arXiv:2005.03549 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    D. D. Ofengeim, P. S. Shternin, and T. Piran, Max- imal Mass Neutron Star as a Key to Superdense 13 Matter Physics, Astronomy Letters49, 567 (2023), arXiv:2310.16847 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Cai, B.-A

    B.-J. Cai, B.-A. Li, and Z. Zhang, Core States of Neutron Stars from Anatomizing Their Scaled Structure Equa- tions, Astrophys. J.952, 147 (2023), arXiv:2306.08202 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, J. W. T. Hessels, and et al., A two-solar-mass neutron star measured using Shapiro delay, Nature (Lon- don)467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    Agazie, M

    G. Agazie, M. F. Alam, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, and et al., The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Observations and Timing of 68 Mil- lisecond Pulsars, Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L9 (2023), arXiv:2306.16217 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, and et al., A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Rela- tivistic Binary, Science340, 448 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, W. Zheng, and et al., PSR J0952-0607: The Fastest and Heaviest Known Galactic Neutron Star, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L17 (2022), arXiv:2207.05124 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    R. W. Romani, M. Beleznay, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, W. Zheng, and et al., PSR J0952-0607: Tightening a Record-high Neutron Star Mass, Astrophys. J.996, 101 (2026), arXiv:2512.05099 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Rezzolla, E

    L. Rezzolla, E. R. Most, and L. R. Weih, Using Gravitational-wave Observations and Quasi-universal Relations to Constrain the Maximum Mass of Neu- tron Stars, Astrophys. J. Lett.852, L25 (2018), arXiv:1711.00314 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    Nathanail, E

    A. Nathanail, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, GW170817 and GW190814: Tension on the Maximum Mass, Astro- phys. J. Lett.908, L28 (2021), arXiv:2101.01735 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guil- lot, and et al., A NICER View of the Massive Pul- sar PSR J0740+6620 Informed by Radio Timing and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy, Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Salmi, D

    T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, Y. Kini, T. E. Riley, S. Vin- ciguerra, and et al., The Radius of the High-mass Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 with 3.6 yr of NICER Data, Astrophys. J.974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bog- danov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Lud- lam, S. Mahmoodifar, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, T. E. Strohmayer, K. S. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, T. Oka- jima, G. Prigozhin, and Y. Soong, PSR J0030+0451 Mass and Radius from NICER Data and Implicatio...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Vinciguerra, T

    S. Vinciguerra, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, and et al., An Updated Mass-Radius Analysis of the 2017-2018 NICER Data Set of PSR J0030+0451, Astrophys. J.961, 62 (2024), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Saffer, E

    A. Saffer, E. Fonseca, S. Ransom, I. Stairs, R. Lynch, and et al., A Lower Mass Estimate for PSR J0348+0432 Based on CHIME/Pulsar Precision Timing, Astrophys. J. Lett.983, L20 (2025), arXiv:2412.02850 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    A. G. Sullivan and R. W. Romani, The Intrabinary Shock and Companion Star of Redback Pulsar J2215+5135, Astrophys. J.974, 315 (2024), arXiv:2405.13889 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Mauviard, S

    L. Mauviard, S. Guillot, T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, B. Dorsman, and et al., A NICER View of the 1.4 M ⊙ Edge-on Pulsar PSR J0614-3329, Astrophys. J.995, 60 (2025), arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Salmi, J

    T. Salmi, J. S. Deneva, P. S. Ray, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, and et al., A NICER View of PSR J1231−1411: A Complex Case, Astrophys. J.976, 58 (2024), arXiv:2409.14923 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott,et al., GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, and et al., GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼3.4 M ⊙, Astrophys. J. Lett.892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Af- feldt, M. Agathos, and et al., GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object, Astrophys. J. Lett.896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Drischler, S

    C. Drischler, S. Han, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, S. Reddy, and et al., Limiting masses and radii of neutron stars and their implications, Phys. Rev. C103, 045808 (2021), arXiv:2009.06441 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    N. K. Glendenning, ed.,Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, and General Relativity, 2nd ed., As- tronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000)

    2000

  55. [55]

    Ayriyan, O

    A. Ayriyan, O. Ivanytskyi, and D. Blaschke, Bayesian inference favors quark matter in neutron star in- teriors, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.02554 (2025), arXiv:2509.02554 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Misra, M

    D. Misra, M. Linares, and C. S. Ye, Investigating can- nibalistic millisecond pulsar binaries using MESA: New constraints from pulsar spin and mass evolution, Astron. Astrophys.693, A314 (2025), arXiv:2408.16048 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Perna, O

    R. Perna, O. Gottlieb, E. Shukla, and D. Radice, Con- necting GRBs from binary neutron star mergers to nu- clear properties of neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D111, 063015 (2025), arXiv:2412.07846 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Chen and O

    H.-Y. Chen and O. Gottlieb, Inferring Neutron Star Nuclear Properties from Gravitational-Wave and Gamma-Ray Burst Observations, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.18151 (2025), arXiv:2506.18151 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    J. M. Lattimer and B. F. Schutz, Constraining the Equa- tion of State with Moment of Inertia Measurements, Astrophys. J.629, 979 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411470 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [60]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, C. Mondal, A. Puecher, T. Dietrich, and et al., Nuclear physics constraints from binary neutron star mergers in the Einstein Telescope era, Phys. Rev. D108, 122006 (2023), arXiv:2308.12378 [gr-qc]. 14

    arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Yunes, I-Love-Q: Unexpected Universal Relations for Neutron Stars and Quark Stars, Science 341, 365 (2013), arXiv:1302.4499 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Towards gravitational wave asteroseismology, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.299, 1059 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9711088 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  63. [63]

    C. E. Rhoades and R. Ruffini, Maximum Mass of a Neu- tron Star, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 324 (1974). Appendix A: Three-parametric representation of NS EoS Here we list the set of approximations that give the three-parametric representation of the NS EoS and allow one to perform the explicit IOVM from aM−Rcurve in the rangeM= 1M ⊙...Mtov to aP−ρdependence in th...

    1974