Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 92 references

Cooling binary neutron star remnants via nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that axion cooling of neutron-star merger remnants via nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung, though it changes the remnant's temperature profile, imprints too weakly on gravitational-wave signals and ejecta masses to…

desk verdict A clean, honest null result on axion cooling in BNS mergers that slightly overgeneralizes from a single EOS. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01278 v1 pith:PWHKILS3 submitted 2019-09-03 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-th

Tim Dietrich , Katy Clough This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-th
keywords axionbinaryneutronstarmergernucleon-nucleon-axionbremsstrahlungnumericalrelativitypostmergergravitationalwavescoolingQCDmultimessengerastronomy
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

Binary neutron star mergers heat matter to temperatures where the hypothetical QCD axion, if it exists, should be produced copiously through nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung, providing an extra cooling channel. The paper tests whether this cooling leaves a detectable signature in the postmerger remnant—in its collapse time, gravitational-wave emission, or ejected mass. Using numerical relativity simulations with a covariant phenomenological cooling term, it finds that while the remnant's temperature profile and shape do change, the resulting shifts in the gravitational-wave frequency and ejecta mass are far below what current or future planned detectors could measure. Because the simulations omit neutrino cooling and axion reabsorption, they represent a best-case scenario, so the paper concludes this particular channel cannot yield new axion-mass constraints from binary neutron star observations. If correct, supernova 1987A neutrino observations remain the strongest stellar-cooling bound on this axion coupling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung emission rate from Brinkmann and Turner, applied as a volumetric cooling term Λ = min(ϵ̇_D, ϵ̇_ND), with degenerate and non-degenerate rates proportional to $ρ^{{1/3}}$ $T^{6}$ and $ρ^{2}$ $T^{{3.5}}$ respectively. This is coupled to the hydrodynamics through a covariant radiation four-force G^α = -u^α Λ added to the general-relativistic energy-momentum equations, the same prescription used for neutrino cooling in earlier work. The min() selection stitches together the two regimes, and the four-force converts the microphysical emission rate into a local cooling of the fluid; the axion mass enters only through the coupling g ∝ m_a, so larger masses mean more cooling until reabsorption would set in.

What would settle it

A detection of a postmerger gravitational-wave signal whose dominant frequency is shifted by more than about 50 Hz relative to axion-free simulations, in a direction consistent with the axion-cooling template, would overturn the paper's null conclusion for this channel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung, modeled with the Brinkmann-Turner emission rates and a free-streaming radiation four-force, does cool the postmerger remnant—reducing its temperature, making it more spherical, and for the most massive binary shortening the time to black-hole collapse—but every observable imprint is too small to detect. The shift in the main postmerger gravitational-wave frequency stays below 50 Hz, too little for existing or upcoming analysis techniques, and the differences in dynamical ejecta mass are comparable to or smaller than current modeling uncertainties. The authors deliberately choose the most optimistic setup: no neutrino cooling, no axion reabsorption, and an equation of state consistent with GW170817. Even under these favorable assumptions, the effect is insufficient to place new limits on the axion mass, and they argue a more complete treatment would only weaken the signal further.

Load-bearing premise

The central conclusion depends on the assumption that the Brinkmann-Turner nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung rates, applied with a free-streaming prescription and without neutrino cooling, represent an upper bound on how much axions can cool a merger remnant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Postmerger gravitational-wave observations, even with third-generation detectors, will not constrain the QCD axion mass through this cooling channel.
  • The remnant's faster sphericalisation and earlier collapse under strong axion cooling are real dynamical effects but shift collapse times only by a few milliseconds, below observability.
  • Kilonova ejecta masses from a binary neutron star merger carry no usable axion signal: the differences are within current ejecta-mass uncertainties.
  • Since the simulations omit reabsorption and neutrinos, more realistic modeling would make the axion imprint even smaller, reinforcing the null result.
  • Supernova 1987A bounds on the axion-nucleon coupling remain the leading stellar-cooling constraints, with no independent check from merger observations via this channel.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Other axion production mechanisms, such as axion-photon conversion in the merger's magnetic field or orbital effects during the inspiral, may still offer multimessenger constraints; this paper's null result applies only to the bremsstrahlung cooling channel.
  • The non-monotonic remnant lifetime seen for m_a = 1 eV (longer than for 0.1 eV) hints that chaotic core oscillations can mask small cooling effects; population-level analyses of remnant lifetimes would need many events to average over such dynamics.
  • A longer-lived remnant, e.g., from a softer equation of state or a lower-mass binary, would amplify the integrated cooling effect; targeted simulations of such systems could test whether any configuration pushes the imprint above detectability.
  • The same covariant cooling scheme can be applied to other feebly interacting particles (e.g., ALPs with different couplings) to decide which particle models are testable with postmerger observations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first numerical relativity simulations of binary neutron star mergers that include a phenomenological description of nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung as an additional cooling channel. The cooling is implemented through a covariant radiation four-force with the Brinkmann-Turner emissivity, and a set of equal-mass irrotational ALF2 configurations is evolved for axion masses of 0, 1e-3, 1e-2, 0.1, and 1 eV. The authors find that axion cooling noticeably changes the temperature profile and, for the most massive case, the remnant lifetime, but the imprints on the postmerger gravitational-wave spectrogram and the dynamical ejecta mass are too small to be detectable with current or future detectors. They conclude that this cooling channel is unlikely to yield new axion mass constraints and that their setup represents a best-case scenario for the axion effect.

Significance. If the null result is robust, it closes a specific and previously unexplored avenue for using BNS postmerger observations to constrain the QCD axion mass. The paper has several strengths: it uses established numerical relativity codes (SGRID and BAM), reports constraint-violation checks in Appendix B, and deliberately neglects neutrino cooling and axion reabsorption so that the simulated cooling effect is an upper bound. The numerical framework is clearly described and the code behavior is validated. The main weakness is that the ``best case'' interpretation is incomplete with respect to equation-of-state and mass-ratio variations, and the abstract overstates the generality of the conclusion. The work is a solid first step that is likely to be influential for future axion searches.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] The ``best case'' argument does not account for the sensitivity of the result to the nuclear equation of state, and the abstract therefore overstates the generality of the null result. The simulations use only the ALF2 EOS (Sec. III, Table I), while the axion emissivities in Sec. II A scale as epsDot_D proportional to rho^(1/3) T^6 and epsDot_ND proportional to rho^2 T^3.5; a hotter remnant, which may be produced by another EOS or by a different mass ratio, could increase the cooling rate by orders of magnitude. The manuscript itself concedes in Sec. V that ``other equations of state ... might lead to larger, more noticeable effects,'' yet the abstract claims that ``a more thorough investigation is unlikely to change the conclusions.'' The evidence presented establishes the null result only for the ALF2 equal-mass irrotational configurations considered. The abstract and conclusion should be reworded to restrict the claim to those configurations, or a quantitative argument for why ALF2 represents a near-maximal temperature case must be added.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. I] The last paragraph of the introduction refers to ``Ref. IV'' when describing the results; this should read ``Sec. IV.''
  2. [Sec. IV B and Fig. 4 caption] The main text states that the GW spectrograms are computed for an inclination of iota = pi/4, while the caption of Fig. 4 says iota = pi/2; please reconcile this inconsistency.
  3. [Sec. IV C] The text says ``the ejection ... of the two neutron''; this should be ``the two neutron stars.''
  4. [Sec. V] The conclusion that ``with an increasing mass of the axion, the lifetime of the remnant before collapsing to a BH decreases'' is contradicted by the non-monotonic behavior reported in Sec. IV A, where the ma = 1 eV case has a longer lifetime than the ma = 0.1 eV case; please qualify this statement as a general trend rather than a strict monotonic decrease.
  5. [Sec. III and footnote [92]] The footnote mentioning that the most recent GW170817 analysis suggests radii slightly smaller than ALF2 predicts is relevant to the representativeness of the EOS choice and would be more visible if discussed in the main text.
  6. [Sec. IV A] The sentence ``The central core has a low temperature for all studied systems'' is confusing because the temperature maps in Fig. 2 show high temperatures in much of the inner region; please clarify the meaning of ``central core'' in this context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cooling rate is an external input, the axion mass is scanned, and the null result is a genuine simulation outcome.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The axion emissivities in Eqs. (1)-(3) of Sec. II A are taken from the independent astrophysics literature (Brinkmann and Turner, Ref. [19]), including the min(epsilon_D, epsilon_ND) prescription, and the axion mass m_a is scanned as a free input parameter over {100, 10^-1, 10^-2, 10^-3, 0} eV. The cooling source is then inserted into the covariant GRHD equations via Lambda = epsilon (Eq. 11) with G^alpha = -u^alpha Lambda, and the system is evolved numerically. No parameter is fitted to the simulation output, and the central conclusion that the imprint on the gravitational-wave signal and ejecta mass is too small to improve axion-mass constraints is a nontrivial result of the simulations and detector-sensitivity comparison, not an identity with any input. The observed temperature-profile difference is of course built into the presence of the cooling term, but that is not the paper's load-bearing claim. Self-citations appear only for numerical infrastructure (BAM, SGRID, previous simulation methods) and are independently validated code/analysis tools, not imported conclusions. The explicit caveats in Sec. V that only one EOS, a simplified cooling model, and no neutrino cooling were considered are robustness limitations rather than circular steps; if anything, the omitted reabsorption makes the setup a stated 'best case' for cooling and therefore does not secretly supply the null result. The broader extrapolation that a more thorough investigation is unlikely to change the conclusions is a judgment call, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the Brinkmann-Turner emission rates, the hadronic axion coupling relation, and the free-streaming assumption. All three are taken from prior literature or flagged as best-case simplifications. No parameters are fitted to data in this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • axion mass m_a = scanned: 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0 eV
    Input parameter of the axion model; scanned over the range allowed by SN1987A. Not fitted to data.
  • nucleon mass fraction X and pion-nucleon coupling f = X = 1, f = 1
    Set to unity in the Brinkmann-Turner emission rates used in Sec. II A.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math General relativistic hydrodynamics with radiation four-force (Eqs. 4-10)
    Covariant extension of GRHD used to incorporate cooling, following Paschalidis et al.
  • domain assumption Brinkmann-Turner nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung emission rates (Sec. II A)
    Emission rates derived for supernova conditions are assumed to apply to the postmerger remnant.
  • domain assumption Axion-nucleon coupling g = m_n / f_a (Eq. 2)
    Assumes a hadronic axion model relation between coupling and axion mass.
  • ad hoc to paper No axion absorption or scattering: G^alpha = -u^alpha Lambda
    Simplification flagged by the authors as a best-case scenario; reabsorption would reduce cooling at high masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooling binary neutron star remnants via nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PWHKILS3

@misc{pith2026190901278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooling binary neutron star remnants via nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PWHKILS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01278}
}
read the original abstract

The QCD axion is a hypothetical particle motivated by the Strong CP problem of particle physics. One of the primary ways in which its existence can be inferred is via its function as an additional cooling channel in stars, with some of the strongest constraints coming from the supernova observation SN1987A. Multimessenger observations of binary neutron star mergers (such as those of GW170817, AT2017gfo, and GRB170817A) may provide another scenario in which such constraints could be obtained. In particular, the axion could potentially alter the lifetime, the ejection of material, and the emitted gravitational wave signal of the postmerger remnant. In this article, we perform numerical relativity simulations of a binary neutron star merger, including a phenomenological description of the nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung to quantify the effects of such a cooling channel on the dynamical evolution. While our simulations show a difference in the temperature profile of the merger remnant, the imprint of the axion via nucleon-nucleon-axion bremsstrahlung on the emitted gravitational wave signal and the ejecta mass is too small to improve constraints on the axion mass with current or future planned detectors. Whilst we consider a limited number of cases, and a simplified cooling model, these broadly represent the "best case" scenario, thus, a more thorough investigation is unlikely to change the conclusions, at least for this particular interaction channel.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01278 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Direct and exchange diagrams corresponding to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Density profile (left) and temperature profile (right) for the configuration Case-1 at a time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Maximum Density evolution for all four configu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Mass of the ejected material for all our simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Hamiltonian (top panel) and Momentum Constraint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), 1710.05832

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), 1805.11581

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019), 1805.11579

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) (2018), 1811.12907

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRAL, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. 848, L13 (2017), 1710.05834

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Astrophys. J. 848, L12 (2017), 1710.05833

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    D. A. Coulter et al., Science (2017), [Sci- ence358,1556(2017)], 1710.05452

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. 832, L21 (2016), 1607.07456

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Chruslinska, K

    M. Chruslinska, K. Belczynski, J. Klencki, and M. Be- nacquista, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.474, 2937 (2018), 1708.07885

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977), [,328(1977)]

    1977

  3. [11]

    Vafa and E

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 535 (1984)

    1984

  4. [12]

    Hook, PoS T ASI2018, 004 (2019), 1812.02669

    A. Hook, PoS T ASI2018, 004 (2019), 1812.02669

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP 06, 051 (2006), hep- th/0605206

    2006

  6. [14]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rept. 150, 1 (1987)

    1987

  7. [15]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B120, 127 (1983), [,URL(1982)]

    1983

  8. [16]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 (1983), [,URL(1982)]

    1983

  9. [17]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983), [,URL(1982)]

    1983

  10. [18]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. 643, 1 (2016), 1510.07633

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    R. P. Brinkmann and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D38, 2338 (1988)

    1988

  12. [20]

    D. A. Dicus, E. W. Kolb, V. L. Teplitz, and R. V. Wag- oner, Phys. Rev. D18, 1829 (1978)

    1978

  13. [21]

    M. I. Vysotsky, Ya. B. Zeldovich, M. Yu. Khlopov, and V. M. Chechetkin, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 27, 533 (1978), [JETP Lett.27,502(1978)]

    1978

  14. [22]

    G. G. Raffelt, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 163 (1999), hep-ph/9903472

    1999 arXiv

  15. [23]

    G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D37, 1356 (1988)

    1988

  16. [24]

    Schlattl, A

    H. Schlattl, A. Weiss, and G. Raffelt, Astropart. Phys. 10, 353 (1999), hep-ph/9807476

    1999 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Isern and E

    J. Isern and E. Garcia-Berro, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 114, 107 (2003), [,107(2003)]

    2003

  18. [26]

    G. G. Raffelt, Lect. Notes Phys. 741, 51 (2008), [,51(2006)], hep-ph/0611350

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. R. Ellis and K. A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B193, 525 (1987)

    1987

  20. [28]

    Raffelt and D

    G. Raffelt and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1793 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1797 (1988)

    1988

  22. [30]

    Mayle, J

    R. Mayle, J. R. Wilson, J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, D. N. Schramm, and G. Steigman, Phys. Lett. B203, 188 (1988)

    1988

  23. [31]

    Mayle, J

    R. Mayle, J. R. Wilson, J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, D. N. Schramm, and G. Steigman, Phys. Lett. B219, 515 (1989), [,188(1989)]

    1989

  24. [32]

    Burrows, M

    A. Burrows, M. S. Turner, and R. P. Brinkmann, Phys. Rev. D39, 1020 (1989)

    1989

  25. [33]

    Burrows, M

    A. Burrows, M. T. Ressell, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D42, 3297 (1990)

    1990

  26. [34]

    Keil, H.-T

    W. Keil, H.-T. Janka, D. N. Schramm, G. Sigl, M. S. 9 Turner, and J. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D56, 2419 (1997), astro-ph/9612222

    1997 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 09, 051 (2018), 1803.00993

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Paschalidis, Z

    V. Paschalidis, Z. B. Etienne, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys.Rev. D86, 064032 (2012), 1208.5487

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R. Gill, A. Nathanail, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. 876, 139 (2019), 1901.04138

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. 851, L16 (2017), 1710.09320

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rosswog and M

    S. Rosswog and M. Liebendoerfer, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 342, 673 (2003), astro- ph/0302301

    2003

  32. [40]

    Dessart, C

    L. Dessart, C. Ott, A. Burrows, S. Rosswog, and E. Livne, Astrophys.J. 690, 1681 (2009), 0806.4380

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys.Rev.Lett. 107, 051102 (2011), 1105.2125

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Galeazzi, W

    F. Galeazzi, W. Kastaun, L. Rezzolla, and J. A. Font, Phys.Rev. D88, 064009 (2013), 1306.4953

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Foucart, M

    F. Foucart, M. B. Deaton, M. D. Duez, E. O’Connor, C. D. Ott, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Phys. Rev. D90, 024026 (2014), 1405.1121

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Neilsen, S

    D. Neilsen, S. L. Liebling, M. Anderson, L. Lehner, E. OConnor, et al., Phys.Rev. D89, 104029 (2014), 1403.3680

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Palenzuela, S

    C. Palenzuela, S. L. Liebling, D. Neilsen, L. Lehner, O. L. Caballero, E. OConnor, and M. Anderson, Phys. Rev. D92, 044045 (2015), 1505.01607

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lehner, S

    L. Lehner, S. L. Liebling, C. Palenzuela, O. L. Ca- ballero, E. O’Connor, M. Anderson, and D. Neilsen, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 184002 (2016), 1603.00501

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Foucart, M

    F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, R. Nguyen, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D98, 063007 (2018), 1806.02349

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Brito, S

    R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D96, 064050 (2017), 1706.06311

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    D. Blas, D. L. Nacir, and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261102 (2017), 1612.06789

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Rozner, E

    M. Rozner, E. Grishin, Y. B. Ginat, A. P. Igoshev, and V. Desjacques (2019), 1904.01958

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hook and J

    A. Hook and J. Huang, JHEP 06, 036 (2018), 1708.08464

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Huang, M

    J. Huang, M. C. Johnson, L. Sagunski, M. Sakellari- adou, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 063013 (2019), 1807.02133

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1 (2015), 1501.06570

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, C. F. B. Macedo, H. Okawa, and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D93, 044045 (2016), 1512.00466

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ellis, A

    J. Ellis, A. Hektor, G. Htsi, K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Lett. B781, 607 (2018), 1710.05540

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bezares, D

    M. Bezares, D. Vigano, and C. Palenzuela (2019), 1905.08551

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Paschalidis, Y

    V. Paschalidis, Y. T. Liu, Z. Etienne, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D84, 104032 (2011), 1109.5177

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Douchin and P

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys. 380, 151 (2001), astro-ph/0111092

    2001 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D79, 124032 (2009), 0812.2163

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Radice and L

    D. Radice and L. Dai, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 50 (2019), 1810.12917

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M. W. Coughlin, T. Dietrich, B. Margalit, and B. D. Metzger (2018), 1812.04803

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Tichy, Class.Quant.Grav

    W. Tichy, Class.Quant.Grav. 26, 175018 (2009), 0908.0620

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Tichy, Phys

    W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 86, 064024 (2012), 1209.5336

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Dietrich, N

    T. Dietrich, N. Moldenhauer, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, S. Bernuzzi, C. M. Markakis, B. Br¨ ugmann, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D92, 124007 (2015), 1507.07100

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Br¨ ugmann, J

    B. Br¨ ugmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sperhake, et al., Phys.Rev. D77, 024027 (2008), gr- qc/0610128

    2008

  58. [66]

    Thierfelder, S

    M. Thierfelder, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys.Rev. D84, 044012 (2011), 1104.4751

    2011 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Dietrich, S

    T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, M. Ujevic, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D91, 124041 (2015), 1504.01266

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Dietrich, S

    T. Dietrich, S. Ossokine, and K. Clough, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 025002 (2019), 1807.06959

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Wilson and G

    J. Wilson and G. Mathews, Phys.Rev.Lett. 75, 4161 (1995)

    1995

  62. [70]

    Wilson, G

    J. Wilson, G. Mathews, and P. Marronetti, Phys.Rev. D54, 1317 (1996), gr-qc/9601017

    1996 arXiv

  63. [71]

    York, James W., Phys.Rev.Lett

    J. York, James W., Phys.Rev.Lett. 82, 1350 (1999), gr- qc/9810051

    1999

  64. [72]

    Tichy, Rept

    W. Tichy, Rept. Prog. Phys. 80, 026901 (2017), 1610.03805

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bernuzzi and D

    S. Bernuzzi and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D81, 084003 (2010), 0912.2920

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Hilditch, S

    D. Hilditch, S. Bernuzzi, M. Thierfelder, Z. Cao, W. Tichy, et al., Phys. Rev. D88, 084057 (2013), 1212.2901

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    C. Bona, J. Mass´ o, J. Stela, and E. Seidel, inThe Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravi- tation, and Relativistic Field Theories , edited by R. T. Jantzen, G. M. Keiser, and R. Ruffini (World Scientifi...

    1996

  68. [76]

    Alcubierre, B

    M. Alcubierre, B. Br¨ ugmann, P. Diener, M. Koppitz, D. Pollney, et al., Phys.Rev. D67, 084023 (2003), gr- qc/0206072

    2003

  69. [77]

    J. R. van Meter, J. G. Baker, M. Koppitz, and D.-I. Choi, Phys. Rev. D73, 124011 (2006), gr-qc/0605030

    2006 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Borges, M

    R. Borges, M. Carmona, B. Costa, and W. S. Don, Journal of Computational Physics 227, 3191 (2008), ISSN 0021-9991, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0021999107005232

    2008

  71. [79]

    Bernuzzi and T

    S. Bernuzzi and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D94, 064062 (2016), 1604.07999

    2016 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Dietrich, S

    T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, B. Bruegmann, and W. Tichy, in Proceedings, 26th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-based Processing (PDP 2018): Cambridge, UK, March 21-23, 2018 (2018), pp. 682–689, 1803.07965

    2018 arXiv

  73. [81]

    R. Dudi, F. Pannarale, T. Dietrich, M. Hannam, S. Bernuzzi, F. Ohme, and B. Brgmann, Phys. Rev.D98, 084061 (2018), 1808.09749

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    K. W. Tsang, M. Rollier, A. Ghosh, A. Samajdar, M. Agathos, K. Chatziioannou, V. Cardoso, G. Khanna, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D98, 024023 (2018), 1804.04877

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Chatziioannou, J

    K. Chatziioannou, J. A. Clark, A. Bauswein, M. Mill- house, T. B. Littenberg, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D96, 124035 (2017), 1711.00040

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    B. D. Metzger, Living Rev. Rel. 20, 3 (2017), 1610.09381

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Tanaka, Adv

    M. Tanaka, Adv. Astron. 2016, 6341974 (2016), 10 1605.07235

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Shibata, S

    M. Shibata, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D96, 123012 (2017), 1710.07579

    2017 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, K. Hotokezaka, S. A. Fromm, S. Bernuzzi, and L. F. Roberts, Astrophys. J. 869, 130 (2018), 1809.11161

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Iwazaki, Phys

    A. Iwazaki, Phys. Rev. D91, 023008 (2015), 1410.4323

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Bai and Y

    Y. Bai and Y. Hamada, Phys. Lett. B781, 187 (2018), 1709.10516

    2018 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Dietrich, F

    T. Dietrich, F. Day, K. Clough, M. Coughlin, and J. Niemeyer, arXiv: 1808.04746 (2018), 1808.04746

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy (2019), 1908.10352

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    We note that the most recent analysis of GW170817 [91], which has been published while our manuscript was in internal circulation, suggests neutron star radii slightly smaller than predicted by the ALF2 EOS

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.