Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Cosmic Calipers: Precise and Accurate Neutron Star Radius Measurements with Next-Generation Gravitational Wave Detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Next-generation gravitational-wave detectors could measure neutron star radii to within about 5 percent across most of the mass range, for both soft and stiff equations of state.

desk verdict Solid, transparent forecast of XG neutron star radius measurements; the 5% accuracy claim is real but conditional on a non-uniform EoS prior the authors themselves flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03463 v1 pith:7REOJHZH submitted 2025-02-05 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Sanika Khadkikar , Ish Gupta , Rahul Kashyap , Koustav Chandra , Rossella Gamba , Bangalore Sathyaprakash This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords neutronstarradiusgravitationalwavesequationofstatenext-generationdetectorsBayesianinferencetidaldeformabilityEinsteinTelescopeCosmicExplorer
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 a network of next-generation gravitational-wave observatories, combining the Einstein Telescope with two Cosmic Explorer detectors, can measure the radius of a neutron star to within about 5 percent across most of the allowed mass range, for both soft and stiff equations of state. It reaches this conclusion through a Bayesian model-selection analysis of simulated binary neutron star mergers, using roughly 2,300 equations of state derived from GW170817 as a physically motivated set of hypotheses. The same analysis shows that current-generation detectors (O5 and the A-sharp upgrade) produce radius estimates that are both imprecise and systematically biased, overestimating radii for soft equations of state and underestimating them for stiff ones. The paper also finds that choosing an astrophysically motivated mass prior rather than a flat one does not noticeably change single-event radius inference.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the evidence-weighted radius posterior. For each of roughly 2,300 spectral-decomposition equations of state from the GW170817 analysis, the pipeline computes a Bayesian evidence for the hypothesis that that equation of state generated the signal, then draws radius samples from each equation of state's mass-radius relation in proportion to its normalized evidence. The reduced parameter space uses the effective tidal deformability, chirp mass, and symmetric mass ratio, with the chirp mass fixed to its mean to simplify the integrals. Posterior samples for the tidal parameters come from a Bayesian inference library with a nested sampling algorithm, using an inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform model with tidal corrections and relative binning for speed. The evidence weighting is what turns a discrete model set into a continuous-looking radius posterior, and the density of that model set is what ultimately controls the accuracy.

What would settle it

Inject a simulated binary neutron star signal whose true equation of state lies in a region the 2,300-model set covers sparsely, for example a very stiff equation of state with a 1.4 solar-mass radius at or above the DD2 value, and check whether the evidence-weighted posterior still recovers the injected radius within 5 percent; if the recovered value is biased low by more than 5 percent despite the high signal-to-noise ratios of the next-generation network, the accuracy claim fails for that equation of state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that next-generation detectors will act as cosmic calipers: with a network of one Einstein Telescope and two Cosmic Explorer interferometers, the fractional error in inferred neutron star radius stays below about 5 percent for nearly the entire mass range allowed by the equation of state, regardless of whether the true equation of state is soft (APR4), intermediate (SLy), or stiff (DD2). The radius uncertainty is mass-dependent, so the paper deliberately avoids quoting a single number for the radius of a 1.4 solar mass star and instead presents the uncertainty as a function of injected mass. Using that reference mass alone, the authors argue, misses that the uncertainty grows toward the maximum mass. The accuracy of the result relies on weighting each candidate equation of state by its Bayesian evidence rather than selecting a single best model, and the paper identifies a non-uniform density in the candidate equation-of-state set as the main source of the residual biases.

Load-bearing premise

The 5 percent accuracy claim presumes that the discrete set of roughly 2,300 spectral-decomposition equations of state from GW170817 is a fair and sufficiently dense covering of the true equation of state, even though the paper itself shows the set is non-uniform, clustering near APR4 and thinly covering higher-radius stiffer regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, a single Einstein Telescope-Cosmic Explorer network could deliver mass-dependent neutron star radius measurements to better than 5 percent for most of the allowed mass range, without needing to assume the radius is constant across masses.
  • Radius measurements would become precise enough to distinguish soft, intermediate, and stiff equations of state from gravitational-wave data alone, complementing electromagnetic and multi-messenger constraints.
  • Current-generation detectors (O5 and the A-sharp upgrade) would be unable to provide unbiased radius estimates on their own, so radius science would have to wait for the next-generation network.
  • The mass-prior insensitivity result implies that individual-event radius inference is dominated by signal loudness and the equation-of-state model set, not by the choice of mass prior, simplifying population-level pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to replace the discrete, non-uniform equation-of-state set with a continuously parameterized or uniformly sampled prior; the authors acknowledge this is needed to remove residual biases, and doing so could make the 5 percent accuracy claim more robust.
  • The mass-prior result likely does not generalize to low signal-to-noise events or to priors with very different support, since the paper only tests a flat prior against a double-Gaussian prior with the same mass range.
  • If the 5 percent radius precision is realized, combining individual-event radius posteriors hierarchically across a population of mergers could push the effective constraint on the equation of state well below what a single event achieves, possibly resolving the radius to a few hundred meters.
  • The same evidence-weighting machinery could be applied to measure radius from post-merger or multi-messenger signals, where the tidal imprint is not the only radius-sensitive feature.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a simulation study of neutron-star radius measurement with current and next-generation gravitational-wave detector networks. Using Bilby with the dynesty sampler and relative binning, the authors perform zero-noise injections of 100 binary neutron star signals (IMRPhenomPv2_NRTidalv2) drawn from a double-Gaussian galactic mass population, for three injected equations of state (APR4, SLy, DD2) and three networks (O5 at A+ sensitivity, the A# upgrade, and an Einstein Telescope plus Cosmic Explorer combination labeled ECC). Radius inference proceeds by computing Bayesian evidences for roughly 2300 equations of state taken from the GW170817 spectral-decomposition public release of Ref. [63] and forming an evidence-weighted mixture posterior for R (Eq. 17). The main claims are that O5 and A# radius estimates are biased and imprecise, that ECC achieves fractional radius errors of about 5% or better across most of the mass range for both soft and stiff equations of state, and that replacing a flat neutron-star mass prior by an astrophysically motivated double-Gaussian prior does not significantly change individual-event radius posteriors.

Significance. If the headline projection holds, the paper delivers a concrete, mass-dependent forecast that an Einstein Telescope plus Cosmic Explorer network will measure neutron-star radii to roughly 5% across most of the mass range, complementing NICER and multimessenger constraints. The study's strengths are its standard, reproducible analysis stack (Bilby, dynesty, relative binning, zero-noise injections), its use of a publicly available 2300-equation-of-state ensemble, and its explicit, candid discussion in Sec. IVB of the bias introduced by the non-uniform ensemble. The mass-dependent treatment of radius uncertainty is a real improvement over projections that quote a single R_1.4 value. The central accuracy claim, however, is validated only for three equations of state that are well represented in the adopted ensemble; quantifying the discretization bias for equations of state in sparsely sampled regions would materially increase the paper's value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IVB; Eq. (17); Fig. 2] The headline accuracy claim (Abstract: 'resolved ... accurately, across most of the mass range to within ≲5% for both soft and stiff equations of state'; Sec. V) is established only for the three injected equations of state APR4, SLy, and DD2, all of which lie in well-populated regions of the ~2300-model ensemble of Ref. [63]. The paper itself states in Sec. IVB that the non-uniform density of this ensemble 'introduce[s] biases in the estimation of R', and that the sparse representation of equations of state predicting radii above DD2 'will cause a significant underestimation of R' for DD2-like signals. Because the radius posterior in Eq. (17) is an evidence-weighted mixture over this discrete ensemble, a true equation of state in a sparse or excluded region (for example R_1.4 ≈ 10 km or ≈ 15 km in Fig. 2) would cause the posterior to converge to the nearest represented models rather than to the true radius, regardless of detector sensitivity. The current validation does not probe this failure mode. I request either (a) additional ECC injections using held-out equations of state drawn from the sparsely populated regions of Fig. 2 to bound the discretization bias, or (b) an explicit restriction of the 5% accuracy claim to equations of state within the support of the adopted ensemble. Without one of these, the abstract's unqualified accuracy statement goes beyond what Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate.
  2. [Eqs. (14)-(17); Sec. IVB] The equal model prior assumed in Eqs. (15)-(16) assigns identical prior weight to each of the ~2300 discrete equations of state. Since those models are posterior samples from the GW170817 spectral-parameter analysis of Ref. [63], the effective prior over the physical equation-of-state space is proportional to the local sampling density of that posterior, not to any physically motivated measure. The paper acknowledges the resulting problem in Sec. IVB ('Addressing these biases will require either constructing a uniformly distributed EoS set or assigning a probability to each EoS'), but neither solution is implemented and the impact on the reported radii is not quantified. In particular, the ECC results in Figs. 4-5 use the same unweighted mixture, so the claimed 5% accuracy for DD2 cannot be separated from the compensating effects of the ensemble's sparsity above DD2 and of the sampling-density prior. I ask the authors to quantify how strongly the mixture weights in Eq. (17) depend on the sampling density of the Ref. [63] posterior (for example, by reweighting the ensemble uniformly over R_1.4, or by jackknifing the ensemble) and to report whether the ECC 5% claim survives such reweighting.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IIIB] The sentence stating that zero-noise injection 'ensur[es] that our results represent the ensemble average over many Gaussian noise realizations' overstates what a single noiseless realization provides: a zero-noise run measures the systematic bias of the posterior median under the assumed priors and noise spectral density, whereas realization-to-realization scatter would require averaging over noise draws. Since the zero-noise convention is standard for injection-recovery studies, I suggest rewording rather than changing the analysis.
  2. [Sec. IVA, Eqs. (9)-(13)] The evidence computation fixes the chirp mass to its posterior mean in Eq. (12), but the accuracy of this reduction for the evidence ratios, and hence for the mixture weights in Eq. (17), is not demonstrated. Since M is the best-measured parameter this is likely a small effect; a brief validation (for example, recomputing evidences with M marginalized for a few events) would make the model-selection step watertight.
  3. [Abstract; Sec. V; Fig. 5] The phrase 'to within ≲5%' is ambiguous between the fractional bias of the posterior median (the ΔR statistic of Fig. 5) and the width of the 90% credible interval, and at high masses the 90% intervals in Fig. 5 exceed 5% even when the median does not. Please state explicitly which quantity the headline refers to, and define precisely how the '5% bands' of Fig. 4 ('radius variations expected for a uniform 5% change in the EoS') were computed.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption; Sec. IVB] The Fig. 2 caption states that 'the density of EoSs is highest for radii larger than those predicted by APR4', while Sec. IVB states that 'more EoSs [are] clustered around APR4' and Sec. V says the density 'peaks around the APR4 model'. These statements should be reconciled and the location of the histogram peak in the right panel stated quantitatively.
  5. [Fig. 6] The horizontal axis label '% Radius Error [km]' mixes dimensions (a percentage expressed in km); please clarify whether the cumulative quantity is a fractional error in percent or an absolute error in km.
  6. [Ref. [108]; Sec. IV] BEOMS, the model-selection pipeline that computes the evidences feeding Eq. (17), is cited as 'in prep' and is not publicly described or released. Given that the paper's central results rest on this pipeline, a description of the algorithm or a public code release would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the radius posterior is a standard evidence-weighted model average over an external EoS ensemble; the injected EoSs are held out from the candidate set, and the acknowledged non-uniformity biases are coverage limitations, not construction identities.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: posterior on tidal parameters from Bilby (Eq. 6), per-EoS evidence Z(di|Hk) via the delta-marginalized likelihood (Eqs. 9-12), model weights p(Hk|di) from the evidences (Eq. 16), and finally the model-averaged radius posterior p(R|di) = sum_k p(R|di,Hk) Z(di|Hk)/sum_j Z(di|Hj) (Eq. 17). At no point is the target radius, or the claimed 5% accuracy, fed back into the EoS set or into the likelihood. The simulated signals are generated from APR4, SLy, and DD2, which are explicitly not members of the candidate set: the paper states 'We calculate model evidence for all simulated signals using ~2300 additional EoSs beyond those used to create the simulated signals.' Thus the recovery is a genuine held-out test rather than a lookup of a known prior member. The 2300-model ensemble from the GW170817 spectral-decomposition reanalysis [63,64] is an external prior input, not a fitted parameter, and the radius posterior would not reduce to that prior if the likelihood were uninformative. The paper explicitly identifies the ensemble's non-uniform density as a source of bias: 'These non-uniformities in the EoS distribution introduce biases in the estimation of R.' This is an acknowledged robustness limitation for EoSs in under-sampled regions of the m-R plane, not a circular step: it means the 5% accuracy claim is conditional on the true EoS being reasonably represented, which is a coverage assumption rather than an identity. The only self-citations (the BEOMS pipeline in Ref. [108], in prep, and the authors' earlier work in Refs. [42,60]) are not load-bearing: the evidence calculation is fully specified by the paper's own equations, and the earlier work is cited for context and comparison rather than to supply the central result. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no equation is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted in this simulation study; all inputs are adopted from prior literature or standard choices. The central claim rests on the EoS ensemble prior, the waveform model, and the zero-noise approximation.

free parameters (1)
  • SNR detection threshold = 10
    Events with network SNR below 10 are excluded from the analysis (Sec. IIIB, Fig. 3). This cut affects which events contribute but not the ECC conclusion, since ECC detects all events above SNR 50.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The GW170817 spectral-decomposition EoS ensemble fairly represents the space of viable neutron star equations of state.
    Sec. IVB adopts ~2300 EoSs from Ref. [63] as the model set; the paper itself notes the density is non-uniform, so this is a load-bearing prior assumption.
  • domain assumption IMRPhenomPv2_NRTidalv2 accurately models BNS gravitational-wave signals, including tidal effects.
    Sec. IIA uses this waveform for both injection and recovery; waveform systematics are not included.
  • domain assumption Zero-noise injections reproduce the ensemble-averaged posterior over noise realizations.
    Sec. IIIB states this; it is exact only for linear/Gaussian likelihoods and is an approximation here.
  • domain assumption The chirp mass can be fixed to its posterior mean when computing EoS evidences.
    Sec. IV (before Eq. (12)) fixes M to M-bar to reduce dimensionality; this approximation is not validated.
  • domain assumption The galactic double-Gaussian distribution describes the true BNS mass population.
    Sec. IIIB samples 100 binaries from this distribution, citing Ref. [100].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic Calipers: Precise and Accurate Neutron Star Radius Measurements with Next-Generation Gravitational Wave Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7REOJHZH

@misc{pith2026250203463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic Calipers: Precise and Accurate Neutron Star Radius Measurements with Next-Generation Gravitational Wave Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7REOJHZH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03463}
}
abstract

Gravitational waves from merging binary neutron stars carry characteristic information about their astrophysical properties, including masses and tidal deformabilities, that are needed to infer their radii. In this study, we use Bayesian inference to quantify the precision with which radius can inferred with upgrades in the current gravitational wave detectors and next-generation observatories such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. We assign evidences for a set of plausible equations of state, which are then used as weights to obtain radius posteriors. We find that prior choices and the loudness of observed signals limit the precision and accuracy of inferred radii by current detectors. In contrast, next-generation observatories can resolve the radius precisely and accurately, across most of the mass range to within $\lesssim 5\%$ for both soft and stiff equations of state. We also explore how the choice of the neutron star mass prior can influence the inferred masses and potentially affect radii measurements, finding that choosing an astrophysically motivated prior does not notably impact an individual neutron star's radius measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Amplitude spectral density (ASD) of detector noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: m–R curves for the EoSs used to calculate the evidence for EoS model selection. APR4 is shown in orange, SLy in teal, and DD2 in black. The gray EoS curves are the O(2300) EoSs parameterized using the spectral decomposition method for the GW170817 event as a part of the public data release for [63]. Right panel: For the ∼ 2300 EoSs considered, we calculate the number of EoSs within each radius bin for a … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The scaled cumulative density function plot show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top row: Inferred median mass vs. radius posterior for the APR EoS (orange) for individual NSs in all detected signals. Radius uncertainties (90% confidence intervals) are superposed on the EoS, with error bar colors representing SNR. Columns correspond to the O5 confi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fractional error percentage (∆R) in the inferred value of R for the APR4, SLy, and DD2 (respectively top, middle, and bottom row) EoSs shown as a function of the injected NS masses. Different columns correspond to the considered detector sensitivities, increasing from …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing the radius uncertainties obtained with different priors on the NS mass for the APR4, SLy, and DD2 EoSs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel: Prior samples drawn from the bimodal and uniform prior distributions for the heavier component mass m1 for an example event having m1 = 1.34. The gray band represents the uncertainty in the inferred value of m1 for this event. Right panel: A similar plot wi…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the median values of the posterior distributions for the heavier component mass, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Binary neutron stars in the next-generation era: Multi-messenger detection prospects and constraints on the equation of state, mass distribution, and cosmology

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    With ET (and ET+CE), mock multi-messenger BNS catalogues yield ~40–500 EM counterparts per year and, under ideal recovery, constrain R1.4 to ~0.2 km and H0 to ~1 km s−1 Mpc−1.

  2. A case study of GW190425 for classifying binary neutron star versus binary black hole mergers and constraining asymmetric dark matter with gravitational wave detectors

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Assuming GW190425 was a black hole merger from dark-matter-induced neutron star collapse, the authors derive dark matter constraints and forecast that only Einstein Telescope/Cosmic Explorer can confidently classify s...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [63]

    Walker, R

    K. Walker, R. Smith, E. Thrane, and D. J. Rear- don, Precision constraints on the neutron star equa- tion of state with third-generation gravitational-wave observatories, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043013 (2024), arXiv:2401.02604 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    J. M. Lattimer, The nuclear equation of state and neu- tron star masses, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 485 (2012), arXiv:1305.3510 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, The Equation of State of Hot, Dense Matter and Neutron Stars, Phys. Rept. 621, 127 (2016), arXiv:1512.07820 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Özel and P

    F. Özel and P. Freire, Masses, Radii, and the Equation of State of Neutron Stars, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 401 (2016), arXiv:1603.02698 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    A. L. Watts et al. , Colloquium : Measuring the neu- tron star equation of state using x-ray timing, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 021001 (2016), arXiv:1602.01081 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, From hadrons to quarks in neutron stars: a review, Rept. Prog. Phys.81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Klähn, and S. Typel, Equa- tions of state for supernovae and compact stars, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017), arXiv:1610.03361 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    Rel.20, 7 (2017), arXiv:1612.03050 [astro-ph.HE]

    V.PaschalidisandN.Stergioulas,RotatingStarsinRel- ativity, Living Rev. Rel.20, 7 (2017), arXiv:1612.03050 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 110 references
  1. [8]

    K. C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, P. W. Adkins, C. L. Albert, J. F. Anders, A. T. Aylward, C. L. Baker, E. R. Balsamo, W. A. Bamford, S. S. Benegalrao, D. L. Berry, S. Bhalwani, J. K. Black, C. Blaurock, G. M. Bronke, G. L. Brown, J. G. Budinoff, J. D. Cantwell, T. Cazeau, P. T....

    2016

  2. [9]

    M. C. Milleret al., PSR J0030+0451 Mass and Radius from N ICERData and Implications for the Properties of Neutron Star Matter, Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    M.C.Miller et al.,TheRadiusofPSRJ0740+6620from NICER and XMM-Newton Data, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Raaijmakers et al

    G. Raaijmakers et al. , Constraining the dense matter equation of state with joint analysis of NICER and LIGO/Virgo measurements, Astrophys. J. Lett. 893, L21 (2020), arXiv:1912.11031 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Raaijmakers et al

    G. Raaijmakers et al. , A N ICER view of PSR J0030+0451: Implications for the dense matter equa- tion of state, Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L22 (2019), arXiv:1912.05703 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Raaijmakers, S

    G. Raaijmakers, S. K. Greif, K. Hebeler, T. Hinderer, S. Nissanke, A. Schwenk, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, J. M. Lattimer, and W. C. G. Ho, Constraints on the Dense Matter Equation of State and Neutron Star Prop- erties from NICER’s Mass–Radius Estimate of PSR J0740+6620 and Mul...

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bogdanov et al

    S. Bogdanov et al. , Constraining the Neutron Star Mass–Radius Relation and Dense Matter Equation of State with N ICER. I. The Millisecond Pulsar X- Ray Data Set, Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L25 (2019), arXiv:1912.05706 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Bogdanov et al

    S. Bogdanov et al. , Constraining the Neutron Star Mass–Radius Relation and Dense Matter Equation of State with N ICER. II. Emission from Hot Spots on a Rapidly Rotating Neutron Star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L26 (2019), arXiv:1912.05707 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Roca-Maza, M

    X. Roca-Maza, M. Centelles, X. Vinas, and M. Warda, Neutron skin of 208P b, nuclear symmetry energy, and the parity radius experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 252501 (2011), arXiv:1103.1762 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [17]

    F. J. Fattoyev, J. Piekarewicz, and C. J. Horowitz, Neutron Skins and Neutron Stars in the Multimes- senger Era, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 172702 (2018), arXiv:1711.06615 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Implications of PREX-2 on the Equa- tion of State of Neutron-Rich Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172503 (2021), arXiv:2101.03193 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    (LIGOScientific, Virgo),GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral, Phys

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

    2017 arXiv

  13. [20]

    (LIGOScientific, Virgo),GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with To- tal Mass ∼ 3.4M⊙, Astrophys

    B.P.Abbott et al. (LIGOScientific, Virgo),GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with To- tal Mass ∼ 3.4M⊙, Astrophys. J. Lett.892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Aasiet al

    J. Aasiet al. (LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Acerneseet al

    F. Acerneseet al. (VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi- GBM, INTEGRAL), Gravitational Waves and Gamma- rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A, Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, F. Zappa, and S. Bernuzzi, GW170817: Joint Constraint on the Neutron Star Equation of State from Multimessenger Observations, Astrophys. J. Lett.852, L29 (2018), arXiv:1711.03647 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    M. W. Coughlin, T. Dietrich, B. Margalit, and B. D. Metzger, Multimessenger Bayesian parameter inference of a binary neutron star merger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 489, L91 (2019), arXiv:1812.04803 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [26]

    C. A. Raithel, Constraints on the Neutron Star Equa- tion of State from GW170817, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 80 (2019), arXiv:1904.10002 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [27]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Stringent constraints on neutron-star radii from multi- messenger observations and nuclear theory, Nature As- tron. 4, 625 (2020), arXiv:1908.10352 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Breschi, R

    M. Breschi, R. Gamba, G. Carullo, D. Godzieba, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, and D. Radice, Bayesian infer- ence of multimessenger astrophysical data: Joint and coherent inference of gravitational waves and kilonovae, Astron. Astrophys.689, A51 (2024), arXiv:2401.03750 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Koehn et al

    H. Koehn et al. , From existing and new nuclear and astrophysical constraints to stringent limits on the equation of state of neutron-rich dense matter (2024), arXiv:2402.04172 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Ayriyan, D

    A. Ayriyan, D. Blaschke, A. G. Grunfeld, D. Alvarez- Castillo, H. Grigorian, and V. Abgaryan, Bayesian analysis of multimessenger M-R data with interpo- lated hybrid EoS, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 318 (2021), arXiv:2102.13485 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Essick, I

    R. Essick, I. Tews, P. Landry, S. Reddy, and D. E. Holz, Direct Astrophysical Tests of Chiral Effective Field Theory at Supranuclear Densities, Phys. Rev. C 102, 055803 (2020), arXiv:2004.07744 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    J. Hu, S. Bao, Y. Zhang, K. Nakazato, K. Sumiyoshi, and H. Shen, Effects of symmetry energy on the ra- dius and tidal deformability of neutron stars in the rel- ativistic mean-field model, PTEP2020, 043D01 (2020), arXiv:2002.00562 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA), Overview of KAGRA: De- tector design and construction history, PTEP 2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  27. [34]

    Barsotti, L

    L. Barsotti, L. McCuller, M. Evans, and P. Fritschel, The A+ Design Curve , Tech. Rep. T1800042 (LIGO, 2018). 12

    2018

  28. [35]

    Fritschel, K

    P. Fritschel, K. Kuns, J. Driggers, A. Effler, B. Lantz, D. Ottaway, S. Ballmer, K. Dooley, R. Adhikari, M. Evans, B. Farr, G. Gonzalez, P. Schmidt, and S. Raja, Report from the LSC Post-O5 Study Group , Tech. Rep. T2200287 (LIGO, 2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    Reitze et al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitze et al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribu- tion to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull.Am.Astron.Soc. 51,035(2019),arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Evans et al

    M. Evans et al. , A Horizon Study for Cosmic Ex- plorer: Science, Observatories, and Community (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific), Exploring the Sensitivity of Next Generation Gravitational Wave Detectors, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Punturo et al

    M. Punturo et al. , The third generation of gravita- tional wave observatories and their science reach, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 084007 (2010)

    2010

  33. [40]

    Hild et al., Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class

    S. Hild et al., Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Maggiore et al

    M. Maggiore et al. (ET), Science Case for the Einstein Telescope, JCAP03 (3), 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro- ph.CO]

    1912 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Guptaet al., Characterizing gravitational wave detec- tor networks: from A♯ to cosmic explorer, Class

    I. Guptaet al., Characterizing gravitational wave detec- tor networks: from A♯ to cosmic explorer, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 245001 (2024), arXiv:2307.10421 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    L. K. Tsui and P.-T. Leung, Probing the interior of neu- tron stars with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 151101 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506681

    2005 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Agathos, J

    M. Agathos, J. Meidam, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, M. Tompitak, J. Veitch, S. Vitale, and C. Van Den Broeck, Constraining the neutron star equation of state with gravitational wave signals from coalescing bi- nary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023012 (2015), arXiv:1503.05405 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [45]

    B. D. Lackey and L. Wade, Reconstructing the neutron- star equation of state with gravitational-wave detectors fromarealisticpopulationofinspirallingbinaryneutron stars, Phys. Rev. D91, 043002 (2015), arXiv:1410.8866 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Hernandez Vivanco, R

    F. Hernandez Vivanco, R. Smith, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, C. Talbot, and V. Raymond, Measuring the neu- tron star equation of state with gravitational waves: The first forty binary neutron star merger observations, Phys. Rev. D100, 103009 (2019), arXiv:1909.02698 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Landry and R

    P. Landry and R. Essick, Nonparametric inference of the neutron star equation of state from gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084049 (2019), arXiv:1811.12529 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Chatziioannou and W

    K. Chatziioannou and W. M. Farr, Inferring the maxi- mum and minimum mass of merging neutron stars with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D102, 064063 (2020), arXiv:2005.00482 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Wysocki, Daniel and O’Shaughnessy, Richard and Wade, Leslie and Lange, Jacob, Inferring the neutron star equation of state simultaneously with the popula- tion of merging neutron stars (2020), arXiv:2001.01747 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [50]

    In contrast,A♯ and O5 networks miss approximately 10% and 30% of events respectively, assuming a network SNR threshold of 10. C. Inference Settings and Prior Choices To obtain posterior samples, we utilize the relative bin- ning implementation inBilby with thedynesty sampler. ...

  44. [51]

    Landry, R

    P. Landry, R. Essick, and K. Chatziioannou, Non- parametric constraints on neutron star matter with existing and upcoming gravitational wave and pul- sar observations, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123007 (2020), arXiv:2003.04880 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Golomb and C

    J. Golomb and C. Talbot, Hierarchical Inference of Bi- nary Neutron Star Mass Distribution and Equation of State with Gravitational Waves, Astrophys. J.926, 79 (2022), arXiv:2106.15745 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [53]

    A. Ray, I. Magaña Hernandez, S. Mohite, J. Creighton, and S. Kapadia, Nonparametric Inference of the Pop- ulation of Compact Binaries from Gravitational-wave Observations Using Binned Gaussian Processes, Astro- phys. J.957, 37 (2023), arXiv:2304.08046 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Similarly, using methods presented in Finstadet al.[57], Bandopadhyay et al

    and Pradhanet al.[55, 56]estimatedthe uncertainty on R1.41 using 50 (10) simulated BNS events, finding un- certainties of∼ 2−3% when a single XG detector is used. Similarly, using methods presented in Finstadet al.[57], Bandopadhyay et al. [58] showed that it is possible to co...

    2025 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Essick, P

    R. Essick, P. Landry, and D. E. Holz, Nonparamet- ric Inference of Neutron Star Composition, Equation of State, and Maximum Mass with GW170817, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063007 (2020), arXiv:1910.09740 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Ghosh, B

    T. Ghosh, B. Biswas, and S. Bose, Simultaneous infer- ence of neutron star equation of state and the Hubble constant with a population of merging neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123529 (2022), arXiv:2203.11756 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [57]

    B. K. Pradhan, D. Pathak, and D. Chatterjee, Constraining Nuclear Parameters Using Gravitational Waves from f-mode Oscillations in Neutron Stars, As- trophys. J. 956, 38 (2023), arXiv:2306.04626 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [58]

    B. K. Pradhan, T. Ghosh, D. Pathak, and D. Chat- terjee, Cost of Inferred Nuclear Parameters toward the f-mode Dynamical Tide in Binary Neutron Stars, As- trophys. J.966, 79 (2024), arXiv:2311.16561 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Finstad, L

    D. Finstad, L. V. White, and D. A. Brown, Prospects for a Precise Equation of State Measurement from Ad- vanced LIGO and Cosmic Explorer, Astrophys. J.955, 45 (2023), arXiv:2211.01396 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Bandopadhyay, K

    A. Bandopadhyay, K. Kacanja, R. Somasundaram, A. H. Nitz, and D. A. Brown, Measuring neutron star radius with second and third generation gravitational wave detector networks, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 225003 (2024), arXiv:2402.05056 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer, Tidal Deformabili- ties and Radii of Neutron Stars from the Observa- tion of GW170817, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 091102 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 259902 (2018)], arXiv:1804.08583 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Huxford, R

    R. Huxford, R. Kashyap, S. Borhanian, A. Dhani, I. Gupta, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Accuracy of neutron starradiusmeasurementwiththenextgenerationofter- restrial gravitational-wave observatories, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103035 (2024), arXiv:2307.05376 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Lindblom, Spectral Representations of Neutron-Star Equations of State, Phys

    L. Lindblom, Spectral Representations of Neutron-Star Equations of State, Phys. Rev. D82, 103011 (2010), arXiv:1009.0738 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    (LIGOScientific, Virgo),GW170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state, Phys

    B.P.Abbott et al. (LIGOScientific, Virgo),GW170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Parametrized Equa- tion of State: Maximum mass posterior samples, https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0152/P1800115/005/ 13 Parametrized-EoS_maxmass_posterior_samples.dat (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Futamase and Y

    T. Futamase and Y. Itoh, The post-Newtonian approx- imation for relativistic compact binaries, Living Rev. Rel. 10, 2 (2007)

    2007

  60. [68]

    Blanchet, Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves, Living Rev. Rel.17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    R. A. Porto, The effective field theorist’s approach to gravitational dynamics, Phys. Rept.633, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.04914 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Levi, Effective Field Theories of Post-Newtonian Gravity: A comprehensive review, Rept

    M. Levi, Effective Field Theories of Post-Newtonian Gravity: A comprehensive review, Rept. Prog. Phys. 83, 075901 (2020), arXiv:1807.01699 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Hinderer, Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars, As- trophys

    T. Hinderer, Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars, As- trophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 697, 964 (2009)], arXiv:0711.2420 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  64. [72]

    E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Constraining neutron star tidal Love numbers with gravitational wave detec- tors, Phys. Rev. D77, 021502 (2008), arXiv:0709.1915 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Vines, E

    J. Vines, E. E. Flanagan, and T. Hinderer, Post-1- Newtonian tidal effects in the gravitational waveform from binary inspirals, Phys. Rev. D83, 084051 (2011), arXiv:1101.1673 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  66. [74]

    L. Wade, J. D. E. Creighton, E. Ochsner, B. D. Lackey, B. F. Farr, T. B. Littenberg, and V. Raymond, Sys- tematic and statistical errors in a bayesian approach to the estimation of the neutron-star equation of state us- ing advanced gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 8...

    2014 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Effective one-body ap- proach to general relativistic two-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    1999 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001013

    2000 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Damour, Coalescence of two spinning black holes: an effective one-body approach, Phys

    T. Damour, Coalescence of two spinning black holes: an effective one-body approach, Phys. Rev. D64, 124013 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0103018

    2001 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Ajithet al., Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms for black-hole binaries with non-precessing spins, Phys

    P. Ajithet al., Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms for black-hole binaries with non-precessing spins, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 241101 (2011), arXiv:0909.2867 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Santamaria et al

    L. Santamaria et al. , Matching post-Newtonian and numerical relativity waveforms: systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for non-precessing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D82, 064016 (2010), arXiv:1005.3306 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Setting the cornerstone for a family of models for gravitational waves from compact binaries: The dominant harmonic for nonprecessing quasicircular black holes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 06...

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Dietrich et al., Matter imprints in waveform models for neutron star binaries: Tidal and self-spin effects, Phys

    T. Dietrich et al., Matter imprints in waveform models for neutron star binaries: Tidal and self-spin effects, Phys. Rev. D99, 024029 (2019), arXiv:1804.02235 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Dietrich, A

    T. Dietrich, A. Samajdar, S. Khan, N. K. Johnson- McDaniel, R. Dudi, and W. Tichy, Improving the NR- Tidal model for binary neutron star systems, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044003 (2019), arXiv:1905.06011 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. Pür- rer, X. Jiménez Forteza, and A. Bohé, Frequency- domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black- hole binaries. II. A phenomenological model for the ad- vanced detector era, Phys. Rev. D93, 044007 (2016), arXiv:1508.07253 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  76. [84]

    S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. Pürrer, F. Ohme, X. Jiménez Forteza, and A. Bohé, Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole bi- naries. I. New numerical waveforms and anatomy of the signal, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044006 (2016), arXiv:1508.07250 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  77. [85]

    European Gravitational Observatory, Et-0304b-22: Et- sensitivitycurvesusedforcoba (2022), accessed: 2024-12- 19

    2022

  78. [86]

    I. M. Romero-Shawet al., Bayesian inference for com- pact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and ap- plication to the first LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499, 3295 (2020), arXiv:2006.00714 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ashton et al., BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian in- ference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astro- phys

    G. Ashton et al., BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian in- ference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astro- phys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro- ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [88]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite, Free software (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  81. [89]

    Wette, SWIGLAL: Python and Octave interfaces to the LALSuite gravitational-wave data analysis libraries, SoftwareX12, 100634 (2020)

    K. Wette, SWIGLAL: Python and Octave interfaces to the LALSuite gravitational-wave data analysis libraries, SoftwareX12, 100634 (2020)

    2020

  82. [90]

    J. S. Speagle, dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evi- dences, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [91]

    N. J. Cornish, Fast Fisher Matrices and Lazy Likeli- hoods (2010), arXiv:1007.4820 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  84. [92]

    N. J. Cornish, Heterodyned likelihood for rapid gravi- tational wave parameter inference, Phys. Rev. D104, 104054 (2021), arXiv:2109.02728 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Zackay, L

    B. Zackay, L. Dai, and T. Venumadhav, Relative Bin- ning and Fast Likelihood Evaluation for Gravitational Wave Parameter Estimation (2018), arXiv:1806.08792 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Krishna, A

    K. Krishna, A. Vijaykumar, A. Ganguly, C. Talbot, S. Biscoveanu, R. N. George, N. Williams, and A. Zim- merman, Accelerated parameter estimation in Bilby with relative binning (2023), arXiv:2312.06009 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  87. [95]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo, VIRGO), Prospects for observing and localiz- ing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA, Living Rev. Rel.21, 3 (2018), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  88. [96]

    C. S. Unnikrishnan, IndIGO and LIGO-India: Scope and plans for gravitational wave research and precision metrology in India, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D22, 1341010 (2013), arXiv:1510.06059 [physics.ins-det]

    2013 arXiv

  89. [97]

    M.Saleem et al.,ThesciencecaseforLIGO-India,Class. Quant. Grav.39, 025004 (2022), arXiv:2105.01716 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Pandey, I

    S. Pandey, I. Gupta, K. Chandra, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, The Critical Role of LIGO-India in the Era of Next-Generation Observatories (2024), arXiv:2411.10349 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Population Properties of Compact Objects from the Second LIGO- Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, Astro- 14 phys. J. Lett.913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Antoniadis, T

    J. Antoniadis, T. M. Tauris, F. Ozel, E. Barr, D. J. Champion, and P. C. C. Freire, The millisecond pulsar mass distribution: Evidence for bimodality and con- straints on the maximum neutron star mass (2016), arXiv:1605.01665 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Alsing, H

    J. Alsing, H. O. Silva, and E. Berti, Evidence for a max- imum mass cut-off in the neutron star mass distribution and constraints on the equation of state, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, 1377 (2018), arXiv:1709.07889 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  94. [102]

    W. M. Farr and K. Chatziioannou, A Population- Informed Mass Estimate for Pulsar J0740+6620, Re- search Notes of the American Astronomical Society4, 65 (2020), arXiv:2005.00032 [astro-ph.GA]

    2020 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Shao, S.-P

    D.-S. Shao, S.-P. Tang, J.-L. Jiang, and Y.-Z. Fan, Max- imum mass cutoff in the neutron star mass distribution and the prospect of forming supramassive objects in the double neutron star mergers, Phys. Rev. D102, 063006 (2020), arXiv:2009.04275 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Landry and J

    P. Landry and J. S. Read, The Mass Distribution of Neutron Stars in Gravitational-wave Binaries, Astro- phys. J. Lett.921, L25 (2021), arXiv:2107.04559 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  97. [105]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Model comparison from LIGO–Virgo data on GW170817’s binary components and consequences for the merger remnant, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 045006 (2020), arXiv:1908.01012 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Nissanke, D

    S. Nissanke, D. E. Holz, S. A. Hughes, N. Dalal, and J. L. Sievers, Exploring short gamma-ray bursts as gravitational-wave standard sirens, Astrophys. J.725, 496 (2010), arXiv:0904.1017 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Ewinget al., Performance of the low-latency GstLAL inspiral search towards LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth observing run, Phys

    B. Ewinget al., Performance of the low-latency GstLAL inspiral search towards LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth observing run, Phys. Rev. D109, 042008 (2024), arXiv:2305.05625 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Veitchet al., Parameter estimation for compact bina- ries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the LALInference software library, Phys

    J. Veitchet al., Parameter estimation for compact bina- ries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the LALInference software library, Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015), arXiv:1409.7215 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and VirgoDuringtheFirstHalfoftheThirdObservingRun, Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Kashyap, I

    R. Kashyap, I. Gupta, A. Dhani, M. Bapna, and B. Sathyaprakash, Optimizing Bayesian model selec- tion for equation of state of cold neutron stars, in prep (2024). Appendix A: Details about Mass Priors In Fig. 6, we compare the radius uncertainties ob- tained using the bimodal ...

    2024

Pith tools

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