Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Kilonova Emission from Neutron Star Mergers with Different Equations of State

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the stiffness of neutron-star matter directly shapes kilonova light curves: for neutron-star binaries of the same total mass, a softer equation of state ejects more material and produces a brighter kilonova peak.

desk verdict A competent but incremental kilonova–EoS modeling paper; the headline trend is inherited from Radice et al.'s ejecta-mass fit rather than demonstrated by the new r-process calculations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19305 v1 pith:4PT5I4NO submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.HE nucl-th

Wu-Zimo Qiumu , Meng-Hua Chen , Qiu-Hong Chen , En-Wei Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEnucl-th
keywords kilonovaneutronstarmergerequationofstater-processnucleosynthesispeakluminosityejectamassmulti-messengerastronomyGW170817
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the equation of state of neutron-star matter leaves a direct imprint on kilonova light curves: for binaries of the same mass, mergers governed by a softer equation of state eject more material and produce brighter kilonova peak luminosities. It reaches this conclusion by feeding astrophysical conditions from numerical-relativity merger simulations, computed under different equations of state, into r-process nucleosynthesis network calculations and then into a multi-layer kilonova radiative model. The authors find that abundance patterns differ noticeably for atomic mass numbers above 200 and below 120, and that peak luminosity scales with the characteristic neutron-star radius R1.35. If correct, the relation turns kilonova photometry into a probe of dense nuclear matter, complementary to gravitational-wave measurements of tidal deformability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a chain: numerical-relativity merger simulations supply astrophysical conditions for each equation of state, the SkyNet nuclear reaction network evolves the r-process composition, the thermalization efficiency follows an analytic formula, and the kilonova light curve is computed with a multi-layer semi-analytic radiative model. The physically central object is the characteristic radius R1.35 of a 1.35-solar-mass neutron star, which indexes equation-of-state stiffness: softer equations of state have smaller R1.35, larger ejecta masses, and brighter kilonova peaks.

What would settle it

A numerical-relativity simulation of a fixed binary mass in which a softer equation of state produces less ejecta, or a dimmer kilonova peak, than a stiffer equation of state would overturn the claimed trend; observationally, a well-measured merger whose gravitational-wave masses and kilonova peak luminosity sit on the opposite side of the predicted Mpeak-R1.35 relation would do the same.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the equation of state of neutron-star matter is not merely a boundary condition for the merger but an active parameter in the kilonova signal. Softer equations of state have smaller characteristic radii R1.35, which reduce the tidal disruption radius, enhance shock heating and post-merger oscillation kinetic energy, and therefore increase the ejected mass. With more ejecta, the r-process heating and photon diffusion produce a brighter peak. In a symmetric 1.35+1.35 solar-mass merger, the softest equation of state (SFHo) gives peak fluxes roughly 2.4, 3.7, and 3.13 times higher than the stiffest (DD2) in the F200W band, the F444W band, and across the 40-equation-of-state sample, respectively. The paper frames the resulting equation-of-state-to-peak-luminosity relation as a direct probe for constraining the neutron-star equation of state in multi-messenger observations.

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on the Radice et al. (2018) analytical ejecta-mass fitting formula, used directly in Section 3, as the correct description of how ejecta mass depends on equation of state and binary masses; the paper does not re-derive or validate this fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed binary mass, measured kilonova peak luminosity can be inverted to rank candidate equations of state: a brighter peak implies a softer equation of state.
  • More massive symmetric binaries yield more ejecta and brighter kilonovae under all four equations of state studied, so the binary masses must be known before the equation of state can be inferred from brightness.
  • Kilonova observations complement gravitational-wave tidal-deformability constraints; the brightness of AT2017gfo is cited as consistent with a soft equation of state and a neutron-star radius below about 13 kilometers.
  • Equation-of-state-dependent abundance differences at atomic mass numbers above 200 and below 120 imply that the nucleosynthetic yields of heavy elements depend on the dense-matter equation of state, so kilonova spectra may carry equation-of-state information beyond the peak luminosity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the trend holds beyond the fitted grid, a population of kilonovae with gravitational-wave masses and photometric peaks could serve as a statistical equation-of-state constraint without requiring any single event to have a precisely measured radius.
  • The spherically symmetric kilonova model may hide viewing-angle and morphology effects; extending the same equation-of-state inputs to anisotropic or multi-dimensional radiative transfer could either strengthen or soften the peak-luminosity ranking.
  • The same equation-of-state-to-ejecta mechanism should apply to neutron-star-black-hole mergers, where tidal disruption also controls ejecta mass; testing the relation there would broaden the probe.
  • Because nuclear-physics uncertainties affect all kilonovae in similar ways, comparing ratios of peak luminosities across equations of state may be more robust than relying on absolute luminosity predictions.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper investigates how the neutron-star equation of state (EoS) affects r-process nucleosynthesis and kilonova emission in binary neutron star mergers. The authors use the SkyNet nuclear reaction network with astrophysical initial conditions taken from numerical-relativity simulations, adopt analytic prescriptions for ejecta electron fraction (Nedora et al. 2022) and opacity (Tanaka et al. 2020), and compute kilonova light curves with a spherically symmetric multi-layer semi-analytic model. Their main result is that, for a given binary mass, a softer EoS yields a larger ejecta mass and hence a brighter kilonova peak luminosity, a trend they extend to 40 EoSs and to a grid of binary masses using the Radice et al. (2018) analytic ejecta-mass fit. They also compare with AT2017gfo, concluding that the observed kilonova supports a soft EoS.

Significance. If the claimed EoS–peak-luminosity relation were independently established, it would provide a useful multimessenger probe of dense-matter physics, complementary to gravitational-wave tidal-deformability measurements. The paper has strengths: it performs genuine r-process network calculations, uses a range of EoSs, includes a multi-EoS comparison, and explicitly acknowledges the spherical-symmetry limitation of its light-curve model. However, the central EoS–luminosity trend is almost entirely inherited from an external analytic ejecta-mass fit, and the analysis does not propagate or quantify the dominant uncertainties. With the required validation and uncertainty treatment, the paper could be a useful contribution, but in its present form the central claim is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Figures 5 and 6] The central claim that softer EoSs lead to brighter kilonovae is effectively inherited from the Radice et al. (2018) analytic ejecta-mass fit rather than demonstrated by the authors' own calculations. The manuscript does not provide the functional form of that fit, its calibration data, or its range of validity in (M1, M2). Because the semi-analytic kilonova model is monotonically sensitive to ejecta mass, the ordering of peak luminosities in Figures 5 and 6 is essentially the ordering of Mej in the external fit. The authors need to state the fit explicitly, validate it against the full set of numerical-relativity ejecta-mass data used elsewhere in the paper, and test whether the EoS trend survives alternative ejecta-mass prescriptions (e.g., the Bauswein et al. 2013 results).
  2. [Section 4, nuclear-uncertainty discussion] The paper states that nuclear-physics uncertainties 'do not affect our main conclusions' because nuclear properties are intrinsic and influence all kilonovae. This is not self-evident: if different EoSs produce different Ye and abundance patterns, nuclear mass and decay uncertainties can affect the heating curves differently for different compositions, changing the relative peak luminosities between EoSs. Given that Zhu et al. (2021) report order-of-magnitude nuclear-physics uncertainties in luminosity, the authors should demonstrate robustness by recomputing selected light curves with, at minimum, two different nuclear mass models or an explicit variation of the heating prescription.
  3. [Section 4, comparison with AT2017gfo] The comparison to AT2017gfo is qualitative and does not support the strong conclusion that the observed kilonova favors a soft EoS. The text notes that the observed peak is brighter than the calculated ones and that the spherical model may affect peak luminosity, but no quantitative fit, distance/geometry marginalization, or systematic comparison over the model grid is provided. The conclusion would be more defensible if the authors showed, for example, a chi-squared comparison of the model light curves (with the adopted 40 Mpc distance and reasonable parameter variations) against AT2017gfo photometry.
  4. [Section 2 and Section 3, uncertainty propagation] The reported factors of ~2.4, ~3.7, and ~3.13 in peak-luminosity differences between EoSs are presented without any error bars or sensitivity analysis. The input quantities Mej, Ye, opacity, and thermalization efficiency all come from fits or external models with their own uncertainties (Equations 3 and 4; Tanaka et al. 2020; Radice et al. 2018), and none of these uncertainties is propagated into the final light curves. The authors should provide a quantitative assessment of whether the EoS-driven differences are significant compared to these combined uncertainties.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'meger ejecta' should be 'merger ejecta'.
  2. [Equation (2)] The quantity Yi(t) is described as 'elemental abundance'; since the sum runs over individual nuclei, it should be 'abundance of nucleus i' or 'nuclear abundance'.
  3. [Figure 1] The text and caption do not specify the binary mass, mass ratio, or the specific ejecta trajectories used for the r-process calculation; please state these parameters explicitly for reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 3] The polynomial fit shown as a solid line is not given explicitly; the fitting coefficients should be listed so that the relation between Ye and R1.35 can be reproduced.
  5. [Section 3, paragraph 3] The sentence citing Kasen et al. (2013) and Tanaka & Hotokezaka (2013) as 'numerical relativistic simulation conducted by' is inaccurate; those papers are not numerical-relativity simulations and the reference should be corrected or rephrased.
  6. [Section 2.1] The nuclear physics inputs are described only as 'the same as in our previous work'; for reproducibility, the authors should state which nuclear mass model and beta-decay rates were used.
  7. [Section 4, paragraph 4] The phrase 'Zhu et al. (2021) shows' should be 'Zhu et al. (2021) show'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The EoS-to-luminosity trend is inherited from the Radice et al. (2018) ejecta-mass fit, which the paper takes as input and then presents as a prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Results), paragraph introducing Figures 5 and 6]
    "We further investigate the ejected material produced by binary neutron star mergers with different masses. We utilize the analytical fitting result for ejecta mass obtained from numerical relativistic simulations by Radice et al. (2018). ... Based on the ejected material from two neutron star mergers with different masses, we calculate the peak luminosity of their kilonova emission, as shown in Figure 6. It is found that ... within the same binary neutron star system, a softer EoS leads to a brighter kilonova."

    The peak luminosity in the authors' kilonova model is proportional to the ejecta mass through the heating term Q(t) mn in Eq. (6) and the bolometric sum in Eq. (8). The ejecta mass as a function of (M1, M2, EoS) is not derived by the authors but is read off from the Radice et al. (2018) analytical fit, which already encodes the trend that softer EoSs give larger M_ej. Therefore the conclusion 'softer EoS leads to a brighter kilonova' is logically equivalent to the input fit; the r-process and radiative-transfer machinery adds composition and opacity effects but does not determine the EoS ordering of peak luminosity for these figures.

full rationale

The paper contains genuine, non-circular components: the r-process abundance calculations with SkyNet (Figure 1) and the light curves for four EoSs (Figure 2) use simulation-based astrophysical inputs and are not trivial reruns of a fit. However, the paper's general claim — that for fixed binary masses a softer EoS yields more ejecta and a brighter kilonova peak — is presented as a new result across a wide range of masses and 40 EoSs. For Figures 5 and 6, the ejecta mass is not computed from the authors' own merger simulations; it is taken directly from the analytical fitting formula of Radice et al. (2018). The kilonova model then maps M_ej to peak luminosity through the heating rate, which is proportional to M_ej (Eq. 6), so the luminosity ordering among EoSs is inherited from the fitted M_ej-EoS relation. The paper does not disclose the functional form, calibration set, or validity range of the Radice fit, nor does it propagate the fit's uncertainties into the claimed factor-of-2 to 3 luminosity differences. The same applies to the Ye fit (Nedora et al. 2022) and the opacity prescription. Hence the central prediction reduces to a propagation of external fitted relations, though not to a self-citation. No load-bearing self-citation circularity is present; the Radice/Nedora/Bauswein citations are external, but the paper's 'prediction' is not an independent test of them.

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

The central claim rests on a chain of externally fitted and simulated inputs. The paper contributes the integration of these pieces into r-process and light-curve calculations, but does not independently validate the input fits.

free parameters (4)
  • Ye fitting coefficients b0 to b5 = not provided in paper
    Analytical formula for electron fraction from Nedora et al. (2022), Eq. 4, used as input to nucleosynthesis simulations.
  • Ejecta mass fitting formula parameters (Radice et al. 2018) = not provided in paper
    Used to compute Mej as a function of binary masses and EoS; central driver of the luminosity trend.
  • Thermalization efficiency formula coefficients (Barnes et al. 2016) = 0.36, -0.56, 0.34, 0.74 in Eq. 3
    Analytic fit for f(t) used in the heating rate, adopted without modification.
  • Opacity model parameters (Tanaka et al. 2020) = not provided in paper
    Opacity as a function of Ye sets the photon diffusion timescale in the kilonova model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Numerical relativity ejecta mass and electron fraction from Radice et al. (2018) and Nedora et al. (2022) accurately represent merger outcomes for the EoSs considered.
    The entire calculation chains from these inputs; no independent validation is provided in the paper.
  • domain assumption SkyNet reaction network and ENDF/B-VIII.0 decay data provide reliable r-process abundances and heating rates.
    Nucleosynthesis results depend on unmeasured nuclear properties, which the authors acknowledge as a source of uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric, multi-layer diffusion model (Eqs. 5 to 7) adequately captures kilonova light curves.
    The authors acknowledge spherical symmetry may affect peak luminosity, citing prior works.
  • domain assumption Opacities from Tanaka et al. (2020) as a function of Ye are applicable to the ejecta compositions considered.
    Opacity directly sets the diffusion timescale and hence the peak luminosity; the paper does not test alternatives.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kilonova Emission from Neutron Star Mergers with Different Equations of State." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PT5I4NO

@misc{pith2026250119305,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kilonova Emission from Neutron Star Mergers with Different Equations of State},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PT5I4NO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19305}
}
abstract

Kilonova is an optical-infrared transient powered by the radioactive decay of heavy nuclei from binary neutron star mergers. Its observational characteristics depend on the mass and the nuclide composition of meger ejecta, which are sensitive to the equation of state (EoS) of neutron star. We use astrophysical conditions derived from different EoSs as nucleosynthesis inputs to explore the impact of various EoS on the $r$-process nucleosynthesis and the kilonova emission. Our results show that both the abundance patterns of merger ejecta and kilonova light curves are strongly dependent on the neutron star EoSs. Given the mass of two neutron stars, the merger with a softer EoS tends to generate a larger amount of ejected material, and may lead to a brighter kilonova peak luminosity. The relationship between the neutron star EoS and the peak luminosity provides a probe for constraining the properties of EoS in multi-messenger observations of neutron star mergers.

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. Mixing neutron star material into the jets in the common envelope jets supernova r-process scenario

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the CEJSN scenario, the accretion disk can entrain up to ~0.01-0.03 M_sun of neutron star crust material via Kelvin-Helmholtz mixing, enhancing the r-process yield.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 161101

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    A., et al

    Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    2007, Phys

    Arnould, M., Goriely, S., & Takahashi, K. 2007, Phys. Rep., 450, 97

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 18

    Barnes, J., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 18

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 110

    Barnes, J., Kasen, D., Wu, M.-R., & Mart´ınez-Pinedo, G. 2016, ApJ, 829, 110

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    L., Lund, K

    Barnes, J., Zhu, Y . L., Lund, K. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, 44

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Bauswein, A., Goriely, S., & Janka, H. T. 2013, ApJ, 773, 78

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    A., Chadwick, M

    Brown, D. A., Chadwick, M. B., Capote, R., et al. 2018, Nuclear Data Sheets, 148, 1

    work page 2018

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    M., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547

    1957

  2. [10]

    2022, ApJ, 932, L7

    Chen, M.-H., Hu, R.-C., & Liang, E.-W. 2022, ApJ, 932, L7

    2022

  3. [11]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 2806

    Chen, M.-H., Hu, R.-C., & Liang, E.-W. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2806

    2023

  4. [12]

    2025, A&A, 693, A1

    Chen, M.-H., Li, L.-X., Liang, E.-W., & Wang, N. 2025, A&A, 693, A1

    2025

  5. [13]

    2021, ApJ, 919, 59

    Chen, M.-H., Li, L.-X., Lin, D.-B., & Liang, E.-W. 2021, ApJ, 919, 59

    2021

  6. [14]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 5540

    Chen, M.-H., & Liang, E.-W. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5540

    2024

  7. [15]

    A., Foley, R

    Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556

    2017

  8. [16]

    J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

    Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015002

    2021

  9. [17]

    S., Berger, E., Villar, V

    Cowperthwaite, P. S., Berger, E., Villar, V . A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L17

    2017

  10. [18]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240

    2010

  11. [19]

    M., et al

    De, S., Finstad, D., Lattimer, J. M., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 091102

    2018

  12. [20]

    2022, ApJ, 939, 8

    Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 8

    2022

  13. [21]

    2021, ApJ, 913, 26

    Domoto, N., Tanaka, M., Wanajo, S., & Kawaguchi, K. 2021, ApJ, 913, 26

    2021

  14. [22]

    R., Piro, A

    Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1570

    2017

  15. [23]

    A., Cenko, S

    Evans, P. A., Cenko, S. B., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1565

    2017

  16. [24]

    2017, ApJ, 848, L14

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L14

    2017

  17. [25]

    Goriely, S., Hilaire, S., & Koning, A. J. 2008, A&A, 487, 767

    2008

  18. [26]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005

    Hotokezaka, K., Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005

    2018

  19. [27]

    2013, Phys

    Hotokezaka, K., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 024001

    2013

  20. [28]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, L155

    Hotokezaka, K., Tanaka, M., Kato, D., & Gaigalas, G. 2023, MNRAS, 526, L155

    2023

  21. [29]

    R., & Barnes, J

    Kasen, D., Badnell, N. R., & Barnes, J. 2013, ApJ, 774, 25

    2013

  22. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 128

    Kasen, D., & Barnes, J. 2019, ApJ, 876, 128

    2019

  23. [31]

    2017, Nature, 551, 80

    Kasen, D., Metzger, B., Barnes, J., Quataert, E., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80

    2017

  24. [32]

    M., Nakar, E., Singer, L

    Kasliwal, M. M., Nakar, E., Singer, L. P., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1559

    2017

  25. [33]

    G., Wang, M., Huang, W

    Kondev, F. G., Wang, M., Huang, W. J., Naimi, S., & Audi, G. 2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 030001

    2021

  26. [34]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940

    Korobkin, O., Rosswog, S., Arcones, A., & Winteler, C. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1940

    2012

  27. [35]

    T., Fryer, C

    Korobkin, O., Wollaeger, R. T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 116

    2021

  28. [36]

    M., & Schramm, D

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, ApJ, 192, L145

    1974

  29. [37]

    J., Gompertz, B

    Levan, A. J., Gompertz, B. P., Salafia, O. S., et al. 2024, Nature, 626, 737

    2024

  30. [38]

    1998, ApJ, 507, L59

    Li, L.-X., & Paczy´nski, B. 1998, ApJ, 507, L59

    1998

  31. [39]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2015, ApJ, 815, 82

    2015

  32. [40]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2017, ApJS, 233, 18

    2017

  33. [41]

    Metzger, B. D. 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 1

    2019

  34. [42]

    D., Mart´ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Mart´ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2650 M¨oller, P., Sierk, A. J., Ichikawa, T., & Sagawa, H. 2016, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 109, 1

    2010

  35. [43]

    R., Surman, R., McLaughlin, G

    Mumpower, M. R., Surman, R., McLaughlin, G. C., & Aprahamian, A. 2016, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 86, 86

    2016

  36. [44]

    2014, ApJ, 784, L28

    Nagakura, H., Hotokezaka, K., Sekiguchi, Y ., Shibata, M., & Ioka, K. 2014, ApJ, 784, L28

    2014

  37. [45]

    2022, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39, 015008

    Nedora, V ., Schianchi, F., Bernuzzi, S., et al. 2022, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39, 015008

    2022

  38. [46]

    2017, ApJ, 848, L18 ¨Ozel, F., & Freire, P

    Nicholl, M., Berger, E., Kasen, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L18 ¨Ozel, F., & Freire, P. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 401

    2017

  39. [47]

    2017, Nature, 551, 67

    Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67

    2017

  40. [48]

    2020, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 70, 95

    Radice, D., Bernuzzi, S., & Perego, A. 2020, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 70, 95

    2020

  41. [49]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 130

    Radice, D., Perego, A., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 130

    2018

  42. [50]

    A., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D

    Raithel, C. A., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2018, ApJ, 857, L23

    2018

  43. [51]

    2024, Annalen der Physik, 536, 2200306

    Rosswog, S., & Korobkin, O. 2024, Annalen der Physik, 536, 2200306

    2024

  44. [52]

    2016, Phys

    Sekiguchi, Y ., Kiuchi, K., Kyutoku, K., Shibata, M., & Taniguchi, K. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 124046 Kilonova with Different Equations of State 9

    2016

  45. [53]

    J., Simon, J

    Shappee, B. J., Simon, J. D., Drout, M. R., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1574

    2017

  46. [54]

    2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, 41

    Shibata, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2019, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 69, 41

    2019

  47. [55]

    Siegel, D. M. 2019, European Physical Journal A, 55, 203

    2019

  48. [56]

    J., Chen, T

    Smartt, S. J., Chen, T. W., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 75

    2017

  49. [57]

    2023, Nature, 614, 436

    Sneppen, A., Watson, D., Bauswein, A., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 436

    2023

  50. [58]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 113

    Tanaka, M., & Hotokezaka, K. 2013, ApJ, 775, 113

    2013

  51. [59]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1369

    Tanaka, M., Kato, D., Gaigalas, G., & Kawaguchi, K. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1369

    2020

  52. [60]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 109

    Tanaka, M., Kato, D., Gaigalas, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 852, 109

    2018

  53. [61]

    R., Levan, A

    Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Gonz´alez-Fern´andez, C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L27

    2017

  54. [62]

    J., Kondev, F

    Wang, M., Huang, W. J., Kondev, F. G., Audi, G., & Naimi, S. 2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 030003

    2021

  55. [63]

    J., Selsing, J., et al

    Watson, D., Hansen, C. J., Selsing, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 497

    2019

  56. [64]

    Wu, M.-R., Barnes, J., Mart´ınez-Pinedo, G., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 062701

    2019

  57. [65]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 912

    Zhao, C., Lu, Y ., Chu, Q., & Zhao, W. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 912

    2023

  58. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 897, 20

    Zhu, J.-P., Yang, Y .-P., Liu, L.-D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 20

    2020

  59. [67]

    L., Lund, K

    Zhu, Y . L., Lund, K. A., Barnes, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 906, 94

    2021

Pith tools

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