Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Subsolar-mass binary mergers of strange stars and neutron stars: gravitational waves and ejecta

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Ratio of two gravitational-wave frequencies cleanly separates strange stars from neutron stars

desk verdict First NR simulations of subsolar-mass binary strange star mergers; the f2/fcut discriminator is promising but the 'clean separation' claim rests on a case with non-monotonic convergence. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07668 v1 pith:6475SCDY submitted 2026-07-08 astro-ph.HE gr-qchep-phnucl-th

Yong Gao , Ming-Zhe Han , Kenta Kiuchi , Masaru Shibata , Enping Zhou , Kenta Hotokezaka This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-phnucl-th
keywords binarymergerssubsolar-massclassescontactfrequencymathrmneutron
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

This paper presents the first full numerical-relativity simulations of subsolar-mass binary strange star mergers, comparing them head-to-head with binary neutron star mergers across a grid of equations of state, masses, and mass ratios. Strange stars are hypothesized compact objects made of deconfined quark matter, self-bound by the strong interaction rather than by gravity. Their self-bound nature makes them more compact and less tidally deformable than neutron stars of the same mass, and this structural difference drives qualitatively different merger dynamics. The strange star's sharp surface and compactness mean it stays intact until contact, then collides violently with strong shock heating and a large radial bounce; the neutron star, being more extended, develops tidal spiral arms and sheds mass before contact. These differing dynamics leave opposing imprints on two characteristic gravitational-wave frequencies: the cutoff frequency f_cut (where tidal effects accelerate the late inspiral) is higher for strange stars because they are more compact, while the dominant post-merger frequency f_2 is lower for strange stars because the violent bounce lowers the average density of the remnant. The paper shows that within each class, these frequencies follow quasi-universal power-law relations with the tidal deformability. The compounding of the two opposing shifts in the ratio f_2/f_cut produces a clean separation: strange stars cluster at 2.1-2.5, neutron stars at 2.65-2.97, with no overlap across the entire simulated grid. Both classes eject roughly 10^-2 solar masses of material, but of different composition — neutron-rich matter for neutron stars and decompressed quark matter for strange stars — offering a complementary electromagnetic test.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the structural difference between self-bound strange stars (compact, sharp-surfaced, R ∝ M^{1/3}) and gravitationally bound neutron stars (extended, growing radius at low mass). This difference propagates through the merger in opposite directions for two frequencies: it raises f_cut for strange stars (less tidal deformation delays the inspiral breakdown to higher frequency) but lowers f_2 (the violent radial bounce and shock re-expansion lower the remnant density). The ratio f_2/f_cut compounds both shifts, producing the discriminant.

What would settle it

If a simulation with a different strange-star equation of state, a more extreme mass ratio, or rapidly spinning components produced f_2/f_cut above 2.5 — or if a neutron-star model produced it below 2.65 — the clean separation would break.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The ratio f_2/f_cut of the post-merger peak frequency to the gravitational-wave cutoff frequency cleanly separates subsolar-mass binary strange star mergers (2.1-2.5) from binary neutron star mergers (2.65-2.97) with no overlap across the simulated grid of equations of state, masses, and mass ratios. This separation arises because the self-bound, compact strange star reaches a higher cutoff frequency (less tidal deformation during inspiral) but a lower post-merger frequency (violent shock and radial bounce lower the remnant's average density), and the two effects compound in the ratio. The paper establishes this by running the first numerical-relativity simulations of subsolar strange star二进

Load-bearing premise

The clean, non-overlapping separation rests on a grid of three strange-star equations of state and three neutron-star equations of state, with mass ratios up to 1.5 and no stellar rotation. Whether more extreme mass ratios, different equation-of-state parameterizations, or rapidly spinning configurations would bridge the gap between the two classes remains untested. The paper itself notes that the q=1.5 strange-star case already pushes f_2/f_cut to 2.48, approaching the NSs'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a subsolar-mass compact-binary merger is detected by third-generation gravitational-wave detectors, measuring f_2/f_cut would allow a direct classification as either a strange star or neutron star binary, testing the Bodmer-Witten conjecture that strange quark matter is the true ground state of baryonic matter.
  • The quasi-universal relations between characteristic frequencies and tidal deformability, if they hold beyond the simulated grid, could reduce the parameter space needed for waveform templates in subsolar-mass searches.
  • The different ejecta composition — neutron-rich matter versus decompressed quark matter — means an electromagnetic counterpart (or its absence) to a subsolar merger would provide an independent test of the strange-star hypothesis, complementary to the gravitational-wave discriminant.
  • The rapidly rotating remnant with ~10^52 erg of rotational energy could power a synchrotron transient from radio to X-ray, offering a third observational channel to distinguish the two classes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The discriminant's robustness against rapid stellar rotation is untested. If either class can be spun up before merger, centrifugal flattening could alter the effective compactness and tidal deformability enough to shift f_cut and f_2 in ways that might narrow or bridge the gap.
  • If the f_2/f_cut separation holds for mixed binaries (one strange star, one neutron star), the ratio could also diagnose the composition of individual components, not just homogeneous binaries — though the paper does not simulate this case.
  • The detectability of f_2 requires high signal-to-noise in the post-merger signal, which for subsolar masses at realistic distances likely demands third-generation detectors. The practical utility of the discriminant may therefore be gated by detector sensitivity rather than physics.
  • If strange quark matter ejected from an SS merger does not fragment into electromagnetically dark nuggets but instead evaporates into neutron-rich nucleons, the kilonova signatures of the two classes could be more similar than expected, making the gravitational-wave discriminant the primary rather than complementary diagnostic.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This Letter presents the first numerical-relativity simulations of subsolar-mass binary strange star (SS) mergers, systematically comparing them with subsolar binary neutron star (NS) mergers across three equations of state (EOSs) per class, component masses 0.3–0.7 M⊙, and mass ratios q=1, 1.22, and 1.5. The simulations use established NR infrastructure (FUKA initial data, SACRA-K evolution, Z4c formulation, HLLC/HLLE solvers) with three grid resolutions per binary. The central claim is that the ratio f2/fcut of the post-merger peak frequency to the gravitational-wave cutoff frequency cleanly separates SS mergers (2.1–2.5) from NS mergers (2.65–2.97) with no overlap. The paper also reports ejecta properties and discusses electromagnetic counterpart prospects.

Significance. The paper is a genuine first: no prior NR simulations of subsolar-mass binary SS mergers exist. The f2/fcut discriminant is a falsifiable, parameter-free prediction derived from simulation dynamics rather than fitted to target frequencies. The quasi-universal relations are fitted to simulation outputs as functions of the tidal deformability Λ̃ computed from stellar models. The ejecta analysis, including the distinction between neutron-rich NS ejecta and decompressed quark-matter SS ejecta, adds astrophysical utility. The simulation grid spans a reasonable EOS range and multiple mass ratios, and the convergence assessment (half-spreads of 2.6–5% across resolutions) is reported transparently. These are substantial strengths for a Letter.

major comments (3)
  1. The central claim of 'clean' non-overlapping separation in f2/fcut rests disproportionately on the single extreme case SS1 0.4+0.6 (q=1.5), which yields f2/fcut = 2.48 at the finest resolution versus the NS minimum of 2.65 (WFF1 0.5+0.5). Table S1 reveals that this exact case shows strongly non-monotonic convergence: f2/fcut = 2.598, 2.567, and 2.484 from coarsest to finest. The finest-resolution value is the outlier on the low side, not a converged limit. If the true converged value lies closer to the coarser-resolution values (~2.57–2.60), the gap to the NS branch shrinks to ~0.05–0.08, comparable to the resolution-induced scatter the paper itself quotes (≲3.7% for f2/fcut). The paper uses the finest-resolution value as the headline number without Richardson extrapolation or a fourth resolution to confirm convergence direction. The authors should either (a) add a fourth resolution for,
  2. this case to establish convergence, or (b) reframe the claim from 'clean separation with no overlap' to 'suggestive separation with a thin margin whose convergence is uncertain for the most extreme case.' The current phrasing in the abstract ('cleanly separates') and the main text ('do not overlap across the numerical models') overstates what the data support given this single load-bearing data point.
  3. The quasi-universal relations and the f2/fcut discriminant are established on a grid of three SS EOSs and three NS EOSs. The paper itself notes that the q=1.5 SS case 'rises onto the NS relation' for f2, and the separation gap narrows to ~0.17 at the finest resolution (2.48 vs 2.65). Whether more extreme mass ratios (q>1.5), different SS EOS parameterizations (e.g., color-superconducting gaps, non-MIT-bag models), or rapidly spinning configurations would bridge this gap remains untested. The authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the discussion of the discriminant's robustness, rather than stating it 'is a robust discriminant' without qualification. A brief statement that the claim is conditional on the simulated EOS and mass-ratio range would suffice.
minor comments (7)
  1. The abstract states f2/fcut 'cleanly separates the two classes'; given the convergence concern for the q=1.5 SS case, consider softening to 'separates the two classes across the simulated grid' or similar.
  2. In the description of Fig. 3 (lower panel), the shaded band is stated to be at f2/fcut = 2.5–2.6, but the q=1.5 SS data point at 2.48 falls below this band. Clarify whether the band represents the proposed classification threshold or simply marks the visual gap.
  3. The ejecta for the unequal-mass SS binaries (q=1.22 and 1.5) approaches the baryonic mass-conservation error level (M_ej < 2×10^{-4} M⊙), as noted in Fig. 4. Table S1 shows the Bernoulli-criterion ejecta for SS1 0.45+0.55 at the finest resolution is 1.50×10^{-2} M⊙, well above this floor, but the geodesic criterion gives 1.45×10^{-2}. The text should briefly comment on the consistency between the two criteria for the cases near the conservation floor.
  4. The thermal adiabatic indices differ between SS (Γ_th = 4/3) and NS (Γ_th = 1.75). A brief justification for these choices, or a reference to where they are validated, would help readers assess sensitivity.
  5. Reference [70] (SACRA-K) is listed as 'in preparation' (2026). If the code description is not yet available, the manuscript should provide enough detail in the Supplemental Material for reproducibility, which Table S2 partially addresses.
  6. The text mentions 'animations of the snapshots and corresponding GWs can be found at [42]' — ensure the linked URL is persistent and accessible at publication.
  7. Minor typographical issue: in the abstract and main text, 'cutofffrequencyfcut' appears to be missing a space (likely a LaTeX formatting artifact).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The two major comments are well-taken and we will revise the manuscript accordingly. Below we address each point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim of 'clean' non-overlapping separation in f2/fcut rests disproportionately on the single extreme case SS1 0.4+0.6 (q=1.5), which shows strongly non-monotonic convergence. The finest-resolution value is the outlier on the low side. The paper uses the finest-resolution value as the headline number without Richardson extrapolation or a fourth resolution.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the SS1 0.4+0.6 (q=1.5) case is the most marginal data point and that its convergence is non-monotonic. We have re-examined Table S1 carefully. The three-resolution sequence for f2/fcut is 2.598, 2.567, 2.484 (coarse to fine), so the finest value is indeed the lowest and the convergence direction is not established. We acknowledge that if the true converged value lies closer to the coarser-resolution values (~2.57–2.60), the gap to the NS minimum (2.65 at finest resolution for WFF1 0.5+0.5) narrows to ~0.05–0.08, which is comparable to the ~3.7% resolution half-spread we quote for f2/fcut. This is a fair concern. We do not currently have a fourth resolution for this case and cannot perform a reliable Richardson extrapolation given the non-monotonic trend. We will therefore revise the manuscript as follows: (1) We will soften the abstract from 'cleanly separates' to 'separates' and add a qualifier noting that the margin is thinnest for the most asymmetric SS case, whose convergence is not yet fully established. (2) In the main text, we will replace 'do not overlap across the numerical models' with a statement that the two branches are separated across our simulation grid, with the smallest margin (~0.16 at finest resolution, possibly as small as ~0.05 if the coarser-resolution values for the q=1.5 SS case are closer to convergence) occurring for the most asymmetric SS binary. (3) We will explicitly flag the non-monotonic convergence of the SS1 0.4+0.6 case in the text and note it as a limitation. We agree that 'clean separation with no overlap' overstates what the current data support for this single load-bearing data point. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The quasi-universal relations and the f2/fcut discriminant are established on a grid of three SS EOSs and three NS EOSs. More extreme mass ratios, different SS EOS parameterizations, or rapidly spinning configurations could bridge the gap. The authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation.

    Authors: We agree. The claim of robustness is currently stated without sufficient qualification regarding the explored parameter space. We will add a sentence in the discussion of the discriminant explicitly noting that the separation is established within the simulated range of EOSs (three MIT-bag-family SS models and three nuclear NS models), mass ratios (q ≤ 1.5), and non-spinning configurations, and that its persistence under more extreme mass ratios, alternative SS EOS parameterizations (e.g., color-superconducting gap models or non-MIT-bag constructions), or rapidly spinning progenitors remains untested. We will also adjust the phrase 'is a robust discriminant' to 'is a promising discriminant within the simulated EOS and mass-ratio range.' This is an honest reflection of what the simulations cover. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found. The f2/fcut discriminant is computed directly from simulation outputs, not forced by fits or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that f2/fcut cleanly separates SS from NS mergers — is derived directly from numerical relativity simulation outputs. The characteristic frequencies f_cut, f_merger, and f_2 are extracted from the GW spectrum (broken power-law fit for f_cut, amplitude peak for f_merger, post-merger spectral peak for f_2) and are independent measurements from the simulation dynamics. The ratio f2/fcut is then computed directly from these independently measured quantities. The quasi-universal relations (Mf = A·Λ̃^p) are descriptive power-law fits to the simulation data points, but they are not used as inputs to compute the f2/fcut ratio — the paper explicitly states 'Markers use the finest-resolution value' (Fig. 3 caption), meaning the plotted ratio uses raw simulation outputs, not fitted values. The tidal deformability Λ̃ is computed from the stellar models (EOS + mass → R, k2, Λ), not fitted to the target frequencies. Self-citations (e.g., [63], [66], [70], [87]) are for methodology (SACRA-K code, FUKA initial data, self-bound surface solver) and prior context, none of which are load-bearing for the discriminant claim itself. The separation emerges from the physics of self-bound vs. gravitationally bound stars producing different merger dynamics, not from any definitional or fitted input-output equivalence. The derivation is self-contained against the simulation data.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. Strange stars and strange quark matter are pre-existing concepts from the Bodmer-Witten conjecture. The MIT bag model is a standard framework. The SACRA-K code is a new implementation of established NR methods but is a tool, not a physical entity. No free parameters are fitted to force the central result (f2/fcut separation); the power-law fits are descriptive. The EOS parameters are inputs from prior literature.

free parameters (5)
  • SS EOS: bag constant B = 52.4, 75.0, 96.0 MeV/fm^3 (for SS1, SS2, SS3)
    Set from prior literature [68], not fitted to merger simulations. Determines SS surface density and compactness.
  • SS EOS: coupling parameter λ² = 0, 38.9, 157.3 MeV/fm^3 (for SS1, SS2, SS3)
    Set from prior literature [68]. Absorbs perturbative QCD correction, strange quark mass, and color-superconducting pairing.
  • Thermal Γ_th (SS) = 4/3
    Chosen for the SS thermal component; standard for radiation-dominated quark matter but stated without explicit justification in the main text.
  • Thermal Γ_th (NS) = 1.75
    Chosen for the NS thermal component; standard value but not derived in this paper.
  • Power-law fit parameters (A, p) = NS: (2.2,-0.307), (4.1,-0.313), (3.7,-0.262); SS: (1.5,-0.272), (3.4,-0.292), (4.4,-0.296) for f_cut, f_merger, f_2
    Fitted to simulation outputs. Descriptive fits, not inputs. The exponents agree between classes to within ~0.04.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Strange quark matter may be the true ground state of baryonic matter (Bodmer-Witten conjecture)
    Invoked in the Introduction to motivate SS existence. Not proven; the paper's results are conditional on this hypothesis.
  • domain assumption The modified MIT bag model (Eq. S1) adequately describes cold, charge-neutral, beta-equilibrated three-flavor quark matter
    Used for all SS EOSs. The three parameter sets (SS1-SS3) span a range but do not cover all possible SS EOS families.
  • standard math Quasi-equilibrium initial data with iteratively reduced eccentricity (≲7×10^-4) adequately represents the late inspiral
    Standard NR practice; eccentricity is low enough that its effect on merger frequencies is negligible.
  • domain assumption The three NS EOSs (DD2, SFHo, WFF1) and three SS EOSs (SS1-SS3) span the relevant EOS diversity for establishing universal relations
    The claim of clean class separation depends on this. The paper does not test, e.g., hybrid stars with phase transitions or SS EOSs with different functional forms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Subsolar-mass binary mergers of strange stars and neutron stars: gravitational waves and ejecta." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6475SCDY

@misc{pith2026260707668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Subsolar-mass binary mergers of strange stars and neutron stars: gravitational waves and ejecta},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6475SCDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07668}
}
abstract

We present the first numerical-relativity simulations of subsolar-mass binary strange star (SS) mergers and compare with binary neutron star (NS) mergers across equations of state, masses, and mass ratios. The self-bound nature of SSs makes them less deformed during the inspiral and keeps a sharp surface up to contact, driving strong shock heating and a large radial bounce that are far weaker in the NS. The more compact SS thus reaches a higher gravitational-wave cutoff frequency $f_\mathrm{cut}$ before contact but a lower post-merger peak frequency $f_2$. Within each class these frequencies follow quasi-universal relations with the tidal deformability, and their ratio $f_2/f_\mathrm{cut}$ cleanly separates the two classes. Both classes can eject $\sim10^{-2}\,M_\odot$ of material, neutron-rich for the NS and decompressed quark matter for the SS, a potential source of an electromagnetic counterpart whose observation could test the SS and NS hypotheses for subsolar-mass events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Equatorial-plane rest-mass density log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Characteristic GW frequencies of all binaries in the grid, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Ejecta mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

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. SACRA-K: A Performance-Portable Numerical Relativity Code with Kokkos

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Kokkos-based C++ port of the SACRA numerical relativity code achieves ~10x speedup on GPU/APU over the Fortran CPU version while preserving waveform accuracy, pi-symmetry, and second-order convergence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations, arXiv e- print (2026), arXiv:2605.27225 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L12 (2017), arXiv:1710.05833 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Observation of gravitational waves from two neutron star-black hole coalescences

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), As- trophys. J. Lett.915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), As- trophys. J. Lett.970, L34 (2024), arXiv:2404.04248 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    A. H. Nitz and Y .-F. Wang, Phys. Rev. D106, 023024 (2022), arXiv:2202.11024 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Kacanja, K

    K. Kacanja, K. Soni, A. Aky ¨uz, and A. H. Nitz, arXiv e-print (2026), arXiv:2602.12115 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  2. [10]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), arXiv e-print (2026), arXiv:2605.05444 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Niuet al., arXiv e-print (2025), arXiv:2509.09741 [astro- ph.HE]

    W. Niuet al., arXiv e-print (2025), arXiv:2509.09741 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025

  4. [12]

    GraceDB superevent S250818k,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, “GraceDB superevent S250818k,” (2025),https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/ S250818k/

    2025

  5. [13]

    GraceDB superevent S251112cm,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, “GraceDB superevent S251112cm,” (2025),https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/ S251112cm/

    2025

  6. [14]

    M. M. Kasliwalet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L59 (2025), arXiv:2510.23732 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  7. [15]

    X. J. Hallet al., arXiv e-print (2025), arXiv:2510.24620 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Ackleyet al., arXiv e-print (2026), arXiv:2605.02639 [astro-ph.HE]

    K. Ackleyet al., arXiv e-print (2026), arXiv:2605.02639 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y . B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, Soviet Astronomy10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  10. [18]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  11. [19]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D113, 083008 (2026), arXiv:2601.22220 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. R. Haque, F. Iocco, and L. Visinelli, arXiv e-print (2026), arXiv:2603.25795 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026

  14. [22]

    Crescimbeni, G

    F. Crescimbeni, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D109, 124063 (2024), arXiv:2402.18656 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. L. Miller, inPrimordial Black Holes, edited by C. Byrnes, G. Franciolini, T. Harada, P. Pani, and M. Sasaki (Springer,

  16. [24]

    arXiv:2404.11601 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Y . Suwa, T. Yoshida, M. Shibata, H. Umeda, and K. Taka- hashi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.481, 3305 (2018), arXiv:1808.02328 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M ¨uller, A

    B. M ¨uller, A. Heger, and J. Powell, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 071403 (2025), arXiv:2407.08407 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. G. Martinez, K. Stovall, P. C. C. Freire, J. S. Deneva, F. A. 6 Jenet, M. A. McLaughlin, M. Bagchi, S. D. Bates, and A. Ri- dolfi, Astrophys. J.812, 143 (2015), arXiv:1509.08805 [astro- ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    T. M. Tauris and H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J. Lett.886, L20 (2019), arXiv:1909.12318 [astro-ph.SR]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Doroshenko, V

    V . Doroshenko, V . Suleimanov, G. P¨uhlhofer, and A. Santan- gelo, Nature Astron.6, 1444 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    A. L. Piro and E. Pfahl, Astrophys. J.658, 1173 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0610696

    2007 arXiv

  23. [31]

    B. D. Metzger, L. Hui, and M. Cantiello, Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L34 (2024), arXiv:2407.07955 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chen and B

    Y .-X. Chen and B. D. Metzger, Astrophys. J. Lett. (2025), 10.3847/2041-8213/ae045d, arXiv:2508.17183 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. Wu, E. R. Most, N. L. Vu, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, K. C. Nelli, and W. Throwe, Astrophys. J. Lett.1004, L19 (2026), arXiv:2604.26912 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Nakamura, Prog

    T. Nakamura, Prog. Theor. Phys.81, 1006 (1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D4, 1601 (1971)

    1971

  28. [36]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  29. [37]

    Farhi and R

    E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D30, 2379 (1984)

    1984

  30. [38]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi, and A. Olinto, Astrophys. J.310, 261 (1986)

    1986

  31. [39]

    Shao and M

    J. Shao and M. Huang, arXiv e-print (2025), arXiv:2510.06065 [hep-ph]

    2025

  32. [40]

    Nakamura, arXiv eprint (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205526

    T. Nakamura, arXiv eprint (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205526

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    R. X. Xu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.356, 359 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0402659

    2005 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Di Clemente, A

    F. Di Clemente, A. Drago, P. Char, and G. Pagliara, Astron. Astrophys.678, L1 (2023), arXiv:2207.08704 [astro-ph.SR]. [42]https://gravyong.github.io/subsolar/

    2023

  35. [43]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008), [Erratum: Astro- phys.J. 697, 964 (2009)], arXiv:0711.2420 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D80, 084035 (2009), arXiv:0906.0096 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Li and B

    L.-X. Li and B. Paczynski, Astrophys. J. Lett.507, L59 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807272

    1998 arXiv

  38. [46]

    B. D. Metzger, G. Martinez-Pinedo, S. Darbha, E. Quataert, A. Arcones, D. Kasen, R. Thomas, P. Nugent, I. V . Panov, and N. T. Zinner, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.406, 2650 (2010), arXiv:1001.5029 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. Hotokezaka, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 41 (2019), arXiv:1908.02350 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    B. D. Metzger, Living Rev. Rel.23, 1 (2020), arXiv:1910.01617 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D77, 021502 (2008), arXiv:0709.1915 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Favata, Phys

    M. Favata, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 101101 (2014), arXiv:1310.8288 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L. Wade, J. D. E. Creighton, E. Ochsner, B. D. Lackey, B. F. Farr, T. B. Littenberg, and V . Raymond, Phys. Rev. D89, 103012 (2014), arXiv:1402.5156 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. S. Read, L. Baiotti, J. D. E. Creighton, J. L. Friedman, B. Gi- acomazzo, K. Kyutoku, C. Markakis, L. Rezzolla, M. Shi- bata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D88, 044042 (2013), arXiv:1306.4065 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, Y .-i. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D93, 064082 (2016), arXiv:1603.01286 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044001 (2013), arXiv:1301.3555 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D81, 123016 (2010), arXiv:0911.3535 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    H. O. Silva, H. Sotani, and E. Berti, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.459, 4378 (2016), arXiv:1601.03407 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gao, X.-Y

    Y . Gao, X.-Y . Lai, L. Shao, and R.-X. Xu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.509, 2758 (2021), arXiv:2109.13234 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bandopadhyay, B

    A. Bandopadhyay, B. Reed, S. Padamata, E. Leon, C. J. Horowitz, D. A. Brown, D. Radice, F. J. Fattoyev, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. D107, 103012 (2023), arXiv:2212.03855 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Corman, W

    M. Corman, W. E. East, and J. S. Read, arXiv e-print (2026), arXiv:2603.25102 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  52. [60]

    Crescimbeni, G

    F. Crescimbeni, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and M. Vaglio, Phys. Rev. D111, 083538 (2025), arXiv:2408.14287 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Z. Wang, Y . Gao, D. Liang, J. Zhao, and L. Shao, JCAP11, 038 (2024), arXiv:2409.11103 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Bauswein, R

    A. Bauswein, R. Oechslin, and H. T. Janka, Phys. Rev. D81, 024012 (2010), arXiv:0910.5169 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    E. Zhou, K. Kiuchi, M. Shibata, A. Tsokaros, and K. Uryu, Phys. Rev. D106, 103030 (2022), arXiv:2111.00958 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Zhu and L

    Z. Zhu and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D104, 083004 (2021), arXiv:2102.07721 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Grippa, A

    F. Grippa, A. Prakash, D. Logoteta, D. Radice, and I. Bom- baci, Phys. Rev. D111, 083009 (2025), arXiv:2407.11143 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    E. Zhou, K. Kiuchi, M. Shibata, A. Tsokaros, and K. Uryu, Phys. Rev. D103, 123011 (2021), arXiv:2105.07498 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Chen and L.-M

    K. Chen and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D108, 064007 (2023), arXiv:2307.01598 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Zhang and R

    C. Zhang and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D103, 063018 (2021), arXiv:2009.07182 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    L. J. Papenfort, S. D. Tootle, P. Grandcl ´ement, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D104, 024057 (2021), arXiv:2103.09911 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M.-Z. Han, K. Kiuchi, and M. Shibata, (2026), in preparation

    2026

  63. [71]

    Yamamoto, M

    T. Yamamoto, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D78, 064054 (2008), arXiv:0806.4007 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, Y . Sekiguchi, M. Shi- bata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D96, 084060 (2017), arXiv:1708.08926 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Kiuchi, L

    K. Kiuchi, L. E. Held, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D106, 124041 (2022), arXiv:2205.04487 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Shibata and T

    M. Shibata and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. D52, 5428 (1995)

    1995

  67. [75]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D59, 024007 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9810065

    1998 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 111102 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0511103

    2006

  69. [77]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y . Zlo- chower, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 111101 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0511048

    2006

  70. [78]

    Hilditch, S

    D. Hilditch, S. Bernuzzi, M. Thierfelder, Z. Cao, W. Tichy, and B. Bruegmann, Phys. Rev. D88, 084057 (2013), arXiv:1212.2901 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  71. [79]

    A magnetar formation in binary neutron star merger,

    K. Kiuchi, A. Reboul-Salze, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, “A magnetar formation in binary neutron star merger,” (2026), arXiv:2606.11299 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Kiuchi, Y

    K. Kiuchi, Y . Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 141101 (2010), arXiv:1002.2689 [astro- ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Limousin, D

    F. Limousin, D. Gondek-Rosinska, and E. Gourgoulhon, Phys. Rev. D71, 064012 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0411127

    2005 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Gondek-Rosinska and F

    D. Gondek-Rosinska and F. Limousin, (2008), arXiv:0801.4829 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  75. [83]

    J. L. Friedman, K. Uryu, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D65, 064035 (2002), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 70, 129904 (2004)], arXiv:gr-qc/0108070

    2002 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Bauswein, N.-U

    A. Bauswein, N.-U. F. Bastian, D. B. Blaschke, K. Chatziioan- 7 nou, J. A. Clark, T. Fischer, and M. Oertel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061102 (2019), arXiv:1809.01116 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    L. R. Weih, M. Hanauske, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 171103 (2020), arXiv:1912.09340 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V . Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. St ¨ocker, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061101 (2019), arXiv:1807.03684 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    A. T.-L. Lam, Y . Gao, H.-J. Kuan, M. Shibata, K. Van Aelst, and K. Kiuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151402 (2025), arXiv:2410.00137 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D101, 084006 (2020), arXiv:1907.03790 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    B. D. Metzger and R. Fern ´andez, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 441, 3444 (2014), arXiv:1402.4803 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Fujibayashi, K

    S. Fujibayashi, K. Kiuchi, N. Nishimura, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Astrophys. J.860, 64 (2018), arXiv:1711.02093 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    D. M. Siegel and B. D. Metzger, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 231102 (2017), arXiv:1705.05473 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Fujibayashi, S

    S. Fujibayashi, S. Wanajo, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Astrophys. J.901, 122 (2020), arXiv:2007.00474 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Kiuchi, S

    K. Kiuchi, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hayashi, K. Kyutoku, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 011401 (2023), arXiv:2211.07637 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Kiuchi, A

    K. Kiuchi, A. Reboul-Salze, M. Shibata, and Y . Sekiguchi, Nature Astron.8, 298 (2024), arXiv:2306.15721 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Kawaguchi, M

    K. Kawaguchi, M. Shibata, and M. Tanaka, Astrophys. J.889, 171 (2020), arXiv:1908.05815 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Alcock and E

    C. Alcock and E. Farhi, Phys. Rev. D32, 1273 (1985)

    1985

  89. [97]

    Madsen, Lect

    J. Madsen, Lect. Notes Phys.516, 162 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9809032

    1999

  90. [98]

    Bucciantini, A

    N. Bucciantini, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, S. Traversi, and A. Bauswein, Phys. Rev. D106, 103032 (2022), arXiv:1908.02501 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022

  91. [99]

    Z. Miao, Z. Zhu, and D. Lai, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091402 (2025), arXiv:2411.09013 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  92. [100]

    Price and S

    D. Price and S. Rosswog, Science312, 719 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603845 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Kiuchi, P

    K. Kiuchi, P. Cerd ´a-Dur´an, K. Kyutoku, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D92, 124034 (2015), arXiv:1509.09205 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  94. [102]

    B. D. Metzger and A. L. Piro, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 439, 3916 (2014), arXiv:1311.1519 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Hotokezaka and T

    K. Hotokezaka and T. Piran, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450, 1430 (2015), arXiv:1501.01986 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Horesh, K

    A. Horesh, K. Hotokezaka, T. Piran, E. Nakar, and P. Han- cock, Astrophys. J. Lett.819, L22 (2016), arXiv:1601.01692 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  97. [105]

    E.-P. Zhou, X. Zhou, and A. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 083015 (2018), arXiv:1711.04312 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J.629, 969 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411016. 8 6 8 10 12 14 16 R [km] 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 M [M⊙] 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1 M [M⊙] 104 105 106 107 108 Λ Λ ∝ M □5 Λ ∝ M □4 NS DD2 SFHo WFF1 SS SS1 SS2 SS3 FIG. S1. Mass–radius r...

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.