pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06378 · v1 · pith:VML7SYC2new · submitted 2026-06-04 · ⚛️ nucl-th · astro-ph.HE· hep-ph· nucl-ex

On the Possibility of a Strong First-Order Phase Transition in Neutron Stars

Zheng Cao , Lie-Wen Chen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 23:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-ex
keywords neutron starsequation of statefirst-order phase transitionBayesian inferenceperturbative QCDchiral effective field theoryGaussian processtidal deformability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bayesian inference on neutron-star observations and QCD constraints favors a strong first-order phase transition with onset above the central density of the most massive stars.

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

The paper performs Bayesian inference on the equation of state of beta-equilibrated neutron-star matter using a non-parametric Gaussian-process representation, comparing models that include or exclude a strong first-order phase transition. Constraints come from the tidal deformability of GW170817, NICER mass-radius measurements of several pulsars, chiral effective field theory near nuclear saturation, and perturbative QCD at high densities. The analysis finds that the model with a strong first-order phase transition is favored, and that the transition density lies above the central density reached in the heaviest stable neutron stars. This placement lets the equation of state stay sufficiently stiff at intermediate densities to support observed massive stars while still allowing the softening required by perturbative QCD at still higher densities.

Core claim

Our results favor a strong first-order phase transition, with its onset most likely lying above the central density of the most massive neutron star. Such an onset reconciles the stiffness required to support massive neutron stars with the softening favored by perturbative QCD from asymptotically high density.

What carries the argument

Non-parametric Gaussian-process representation of the beta-equilibrated equation of state, implemented separately with and without a strong first-order phase transition.

If this is right

  • The equation of state remains stiff enough at neutron-star densities to support stars above two solar masses.
  • Softening occurs only at densities higher than those inside the most massive neutron stars, consistent with perturbative QCD.
  • The favored transition density provides a concrete target range for future high-density probes.
  • Models without the phase transition are disfavored relative to those that include it under the combined data set.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Neutron-star interiors would not contain the post-transition phase, so direct signatures of the transition must be sought outside stable stars.
  • The same Gaussian-process framework could be used to test hybrid-star models that place the transition inside the star if new data require it.
  • Improved perturbative QCD calculations at intermediate densities could shift the posterior odds between the two scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The non-parametric Gaussian-process representation of the equation of state, together with the chosen priors and the specific implementation of the first-order phase transition, is flexible enough to capture the true behavior of beta-equilibrated matter without introducing artifacts that bias the posterior odds between the two scenarios.

What would settle it

A precise mass-radius measurement of a neutron star whose central density exceeds the inferred transition density yet shows no softening in the equation of state would contradict the favored location of the transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06378 by Lie-Wen Chen, Zheng Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Corner plots of the posterior distributions of the FOPT onset density nS, end density nE, and central density nc of the most massive neutron star for the two choices of nL: nL = 25 n0 (left panel) and nL = 12 n0 (right panel). In each panel, the diagonal subpanels show the one-dimensional marginalized posteriors, with the median and 68% credible interval reported in each panel title; the Bayes factors B FO… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ]—the two hypotheses are statistically indistin￾guishable at the 68% level. Earlier analyses that assume an FOPT at 2–3 n0 soften the EOS at canonical-mass densities and drive R1.4 down to ∼ 10 km (Steiner et al. 2013, 2018). In our analysis, by contrast, nS is inferred rather than imposed, and the posterior favors an onset above the central density of the most massive neutron 8 10 12 14 16 R (km) 0.5 1.0 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Squared sound speed c 2 s (top) and trace anomaly ∆ = 1/3−p/ε (bottom) as functions of baryon density, with nL = 25 n0 in the left column and nL = 12 n0 in the right column. Filled bands give the 68% credible intervals and solid lines mark the median values, with FOPT shown in blue and NPT in red. Black dashed lines indicate the conformal references c 2 s = c 2 /3 and ∆ = 0. is ≤ 0.1% for both nL = 25 n0 a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Whether cold dense QCD matter undergoes a strong first-order phase transition remains an open question. In nature, neutron stars provide the most direct probe of cold dense QCD matter. Theoretically, chiral effective field theory constrains the equation of state of dense matter near nuclear saturation density, while perturbative QCD calculations constrain it at densities well beyond stable neutron-star interiors. We perform Bayesian inference with non-parametric Gaussian-process equation of state for $\beta$-equilibrated neutron-star matter under the assumption with and without a strong first-order phase transition, using the tidal deformability from GW170817, the NICER mass--radius measurements of PSR~J0740$+$6620, PSR~J0030$+$0451, PSR~J0437$-$4715, PSR~J0614$-$3329, chiral effective field theory, and perturbative QCD. Our results favor a strong first-order phase transition, with its onset most likely lying \emph{above} the central density of the most massive neutron star. Such an onset reconciles the stiffness required to support massive neutron stars with the softening favored by perturbative QCD from asymptotically high density.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs Bayesian inference on non-parametric Gaussian-process representations of the eta-equilibrated neutron-star equation of state, comparing models that include versus exclude a strong first-order phase transition. Constraints include the tidal deformability from GW170817, NICER mass-radius measurements for several pulsars, chiral effective field theory near saturation density, and perturbative QCD at high density. The central claim is that the posterior favors the strong first-order phase transition scenario, with the most probable onset density lying above the central density of the most massive stable neutron star; this is argued to reconcile the stiffness required to support ~2 M_⊙ stars with the softening implied by pQCD.

Significance. If the result is robust, it would provide a concrete link between neutron-star observations and the QCD phase structure at densities beyond those directly probed by stable stars. The non-parametric GP approach is a methodological strength that reduces reliance on specific parametric forms for the EOS. The explicit comparison of models with and without the phase transition, together with the use of both low- and high-density theoretical constraints, allows a quantitative assessment of the phase-transition hypothesis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §4] Abstract and §4 (results): The statement that 'our results favor a strong first-order phase transition' is not accompanied by quantitative measures of prior sensitivity, GP hyperparameter convergence, or the precise numerical definition of 'strong' (e.g., the minimum jump size ho_jump or latent heat that qualifies as strong). Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the reported preference is stable under reasonable variations of the model setup.
  2. [§3] §3 (methods): The likelihood incorporates chiEFT and pQCD constraints while the priors on the GP hyperparameters and phase-transition parameters are also informed by the same theoretical frameworks. The manuscript does not demonstrate that the posterior odds between the FOPT and no-FOPT models remain stable when these constraints are removed from the likelihood or when the priors are broadened, leaving open the possibility that the reported preference is partly circular.
  3. [§3.2] §3.2 (phase-transition implementation): The specific parametrization of the first-order jump (onset density, discontinuity size, and post-transition matching to the GP) is not shown to be free of artifacts that could systematically bias the posterior toward an onset density above the maximum central density; an explicit test with varied jump parametrizations or an alternative non-parametric representation would be required to establish that the location of the onset is not an artifact of the chosen implementation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses LaTeX commands such as \emph that should be rendered consistently in the final manuscript.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the 68 % and 90 % credible intervals and the precise definition of the 'strong' transition used in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed report. The comments highlight important aspects of robustness and implementation that we address point-by-point below. We propose targeted revisions to strengthen the quantitative support for our claims while preserving the core non-parametric Bayesian framework.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §4] Abstract and §4 (results): The statement that 'our results favor a strong first-order phase transition' is not accompanied by quantitative measures of prior sensitivity, GP hyperparameter convergence, or the precise numerical definition of 'strong' (e.g., the minimum jump size ho_jump or latent heat that qualifies as strong). Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the reported preference is stable under reasonable variations of the model setup.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative diagnostics are needed for full transparency. In the revised manuscript we will add (i) a definition of 'strong' as a first-order transition with energy-density discontinuity ho_jump ho_sat > 0.3 (corresponding to latent heat sufficient to produce the softening required by pQCD), (ii) posterior odds obtained after varying the GP length-scale and variance hyperparameters over their full prior ranges, and (iii) Gelman-Rubin statistics confirming MCMC convergence for both the FOPT and no-FOPT models. These additions will be placed in a new subsection of §4. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (methods): The likelihood incorporates chiEFT and pQCD constraints while the priors on the GP hyperparameters and phase-transition parameters are also informed by the same theoretical frameworks. The manuscript does not demonstrate that the posterior odds between the FOPT and no-FOPT models remain stable when these constraints are removed from the likelihood or when the priors are broadened, leaving open the possibility that the reported preference is partly circular.

    Authors: The concern is valid. While the likelihood is strictly observational (GW170817 tidal deformability and NICER mass-radius data), the GP priors were chosen to be consistent with chiEFT and pQCD to avoid unphysical extrapolations. In the revision we will perform two additional inference runs: one with chiEFT and pQCD removed from the likelihood (retaining only the observational data) and one with broadened, less informative priors on the GP hyperparameters. The resulting Bayes factors between FOPT and no-FOPT models will be reported to quantify any sensitivity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (phase-transition implementation): The specific parametrization of the first-order jump (onset density, discontinuity size, and post-transition matching to the GP) is not shown to be free of artifacts that could systematically bias the posterior toward an onset density above the maximum central density; an explicit test with varied jump parametrizations or an alternative non-parametric representation would be required to establish that the location of the onset is not an artifact of the chosen implementation.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current implementation could in principle introduce bias. To address this we will add an explicit robustness test in the revised §3.2: we will repeat the full Bayesian analysis using (a) an alternative jump parametrization in which the post-transition EOS is matched via a linear interpolation in chemical potential rather than the present density-based matching, and (b) a second run in which the discontinuity is allowed to occur at any density (including below the maximum central density) with no restriction on onset location. The posterior distribution of the onset density will be compared across implementations; if the preference for onset above the maximum central density persists, this will be stated quantitatively. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in Bayesian inference on EOS models

full rationale

The paper performs Bayesian inference comparing non-parametric Gaussian-process EOS models with and without a strong first-order phase transition, using independent observational data (GW170817 tidal deformability, NICER mass-radius measurements) together with theoretical constraints (chiEFT near saturation, pQCD at high density) to obtain posterior odds. The reported preference for an FOPT onset above the central density of the maximum-mass neutron star is an output of that inference rather than a quantity defined into the inputs or recovered by construction from any fitted parameter. No self-definitional relation, fitted-input-called-prediction, load-bearing self-citation, or ansatz smuggled via prior work appears in the described chain; the result remains falsifiable against the external data sets and does not reduce to its priors by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the Gaussian-process prior plus the chosen likelihoods from GW, NICER, chiEFT and pQCD are sufficient to distinguish the two EOS families; multiple hyperparameters of the GP and the precise location and strength of the phase transition are effectively free parameters tuned by the data.

free parameters (2)
  • Gaussian-process hyperparameters
    Control the smoothness and correlation length of the EOS; their values are determined by the Bayesian fit rather than fixed a priori.
  • Phase-transition parameters (onset density, jump size)
    Introduced to model the first-order transition; their posterior is the quantity being inferred.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Beta equilibrium and charge neutrality hold throughout the star.
    Standard assumption for cold neutron-star matter invoked when constructing the EOS.
  • domain assumption The perturbative QCD and chiral EFT calculations provide reliable upper and lower bounds on the pressure at their respective density regimes.
    Used to anchor the GP model at low and high density.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5735 in / 1698 out tokens · 20317 ms · 2026-06-27T23:08:19.369486+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. As above, so below: assessing extremeness of the neutron-star equation of state based on the unstable branch

    nucl-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Requiring causal stable thermodynamically consistent extensions of neutron-star EOS models to perturbative QCD constrains high-density behavior and disfavors purely nucleonic descriptions for all stable stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    2018, Phys

    ---. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  3. [3]

    2019, Phys

    ---. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 011001, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  4. [4]

    2020, Publ

    Ackley, K., et al. 2020, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral., 37, e047, 10.1017/pasa.2020.39

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.39 2020

  5. [5]

    G., Han, S., & Prakash, M

    Alford, M. G., Han, S., & Prakash, M. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 083013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.083013 2013

  6. [6]

    G., Kapustin, A., & Wilczek, F

    Alford, M. G., Kapustin, A., & Wilczek, F. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 054502, 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.054502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.054502 1999

  7. [7]

    E., & Blaschke, D

    Alvarez-Castillo, D. E., & Blaschke, D. B. 2017, Phys. Rev. C, 96, 045809, 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.045809

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.96.045809 2017

  8. [8]

    2023, Nature Commun., 14, 8451, 10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Hirvonen, J., et al. 2023, Nature Commun., 14, 8451, 10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y 2023

  9. [9]

    2020, Nature Phys., 16, 907, 10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., N\"attil\"a, J., & Vuorinen, A. 2020, Nature Phys., 16, 907, 10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9 2020

  10. [10]

    2009, JHEP, 06, 088, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/06/088

    Aoki, Y., Borsanyi, S., Durr, S., et al. 2009, JHEP, 06, 088, 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/06/088

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/06/088 2009

  11. [11]

    D., & Szabo, K

    Aoki, Y., Endrodi, G., Fodor, Z., Katz, S. D., & Szabo, K. K. 2006, Nature, 443, 675, 10.1038/nature05120

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05120 2006

  12. [12]

    U., Blaschke, D., et al

    Ayriyan, A., Bastian, N. U., Blaschke, D., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. C, 97, 045802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.045802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.97.045802 2018

  13. [13]

    Ayriyan, A., Ivanytskyi, O., & Blaschke, D. 2025. 2509.02554

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    F., Blaschke, D

    Bauswein, A., Bastian, N.-U. F., Blaschke, D. B., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 061102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.061102 2019

  15. [15]

    1971, Astrophys

    Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Sutherland, P. 1971, Astrophys. J., 170, 299, 10.1086/151216

    work page doi:10.1086/151216 1971

  16. [16]

    2014, Phys

    Bazavov, A., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 094503, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.094503

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.094503 2014

  17. [17]

    F., Bauswein, A., et al

    Blacker, S., Bastian, N.-U. F., Bauswein, A., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 123023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.123023 2020

  18. [18]

    Blomqvist, S., Ecker, C., Gorda, T., & Vuorinen, A. 2025. 2512.19477

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    2014, Phys

    Borsanyi, S., Fodor, Z., Hoelbling, C., et al. 2014, Phys. Lett. B, 730, 99, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.01.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.01.007 2014

  20. [20]

    2023, Phys

    Brandes, L., Weise, W., & Kaiser, N. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 094014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.094014 2023

  21. [21]

    2006, Phys

    Cheng, M., et al. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 054507, 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.054507

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.054507 2006

  22. [22]

    2024 a , Astrophys

    Choudhury, D., et al. 2024 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 971, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f 2024

  23. [23]

    2024 b , Reproduction package for: ``A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437 - 4715'' , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13766753

    ---. 2024 b , Reproduction package for: ``A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437 - 4715'' , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13766753

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13766753 2024

  24. [24]

    2020, Astrophys

    Christian, J.-E., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 894, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8af4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8af4 2020

  25. [25]

    2024, Phys

    Christian, J.-E., Schaffner-Bielich, J., & Rosswog, S. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063035, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063035 2024

  26. [26]

    J., Melendez, J

    Drischler, C., Furnstahl, R. J., Melendez, J. A., & Phillips, D. R. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 202702, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.202702

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.202702 2020

  27. [27]

    2019, Phys

    Drischler, C., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 042501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.042501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.042501 2019

  28. [28]

    2026, Phys

    Ecker, C., Jokela, N., & J \"a rvinen, M. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, L041302, 10.1103/x17s-sc9t

    work page doi:10.1103/x17s-sc9t 2026

  29. [29]

    2023, Phys

    Essick, R., Legred, I., Chatziioannou, K., Han, S., & Landry, P. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 043013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.043013 2023

  30. [30]

    2021, A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    Evans, M., et al. 2021, A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community . 2109.09882

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    A., & McLerran, L

    Freedman, B. A., & McLerran, L. D. 1977, Phys. Rev. D, 16, 1169, 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1169

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1169 1977

  32. [32]

    2023, Phys

    Fujimoto, Y., Fukushima, K., Hotokezaka, K., & Kyutoku, K. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 091404, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.091404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.091404 2023

  33. [33]

    D., & Praszalowicz, M

    Fujimoto, Y., Fukushima, K., McLerran, L. D., & Praszalowicz, M. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 252702, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.252702

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.252702 2022

  34. [34]

    Glendenning, N. K. 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 46, 1274, 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.1274

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.1274 1992

  35. [35]

    2023 a , Astrophys

    Gorda, T., Hebeler, K., Kurkela, A., Schwenk, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2023 a , Astrophys. J., 955, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/aceefb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceefb 2023

  36. [36]

    2023 b , Astrophys

    Gorda, T., Komoltsev, O., & Kurkela, A. 2023 b , Astrophys. J., 950, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/acce3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acce3a 2023

  37. [37]

    2023 c , JHEP, 06, 002, 10.1007/JHEP06(2023)002

    Gorda, T., Komoltsev, O., Kurkela, A., & Mazeliauskas, A. 2023 c , JHEP, 06, 002, 10.1007/JHEP06(2023)002

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2023)002 2023

  38. [38]

    2021, Phys

    Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., Paatelainen, R., S\"appi, S., & Vuorinen, A. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 162003, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.162003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.162003 2021

  39. [39]

    2018, Phys

    Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., Romatschke, P., S \"a ppi, S., & Vuorinen, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 202701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.202701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.202701 2018

  40. [40]

    2025, Phys

    Grundler, X., & Li, B.-A. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 103012, 10.1103/hsd4-j54y

    work page doi:10.1103/hsd4-j54y 2025

  41. [41]

    2026, Phys

    Hammond, P., et al. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 044057, 10.1103/71t3-3t28

    work page doi:10.1103/71t3-3t28 2026

  42. [42]

    Han, S., & Steiner, A. W. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 083014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.083014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.083014 2019

  43. [43]

    2007, Prog

    Hands, S. 2007, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 168, 253, 10.1143/PTPS.168.253

    work page doi:10.1143/ptps.168.253 2007

  44. [44]

    M., Pethick, C

    Hebeler, K., Lattimer, J. M., Pethick, C. J., & Schwenk, A. 2013, Astrophys. J., 773, 11, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/11

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/11 2013

  45. [45]

    Hernandez Vivanco, F., Smith, R., Thrane, E., & Lasky, P. D. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 499, 5972, 10.1093/mnras/staa3243

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3243 2020

  46. [46]

    2008, Astrophys

    Hinderer, T. 2008, Astrophys. J., 677, 1216, 10.1086/533487

    work page doi:10.1086/533487 2008

  47. [47]

    2025, Astrophys

    Huang, C., & Sourav, S. 2025, Astrophys. J., 983, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/adbb67

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbb67 2025

  48. [48]

    1939, The Theory of Probability , Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences

    Jeffreys, H. 1939, The Theory of Probability , Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences

    1939

  49. [49]

    Ji, Z., Chen, J., & Wu, G. 2025. 2502.05519

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    2023, Phys

    Keller, J., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 130, 072701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.072701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.072701 2023

  51. [51]

    2023, QCD-likelihood-function , https://github.com/OKomoltsev/QCD-likelihood-function

    Komoltsev, O. 2023, QCD-likelihood-function , https://github.com/OKomoltsev/QCD-likelihood-function

    2023

  52. [52]

    2024, Phys

    ---. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, L071502, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L071502

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.l071502 2024

  53. [53]

    2025, Marginalized QCD likelihood function , v3, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15407795

    Komoltsev, O., Gorda, T., & Kurkela, A. 2025, Marginalized QCD likelihood function , v3, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15407795

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15407795 2025

  54. [54]

    2022, Phys

    Komoltsev, O., & Kurkela, A. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 202701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.202701 2022

  55. [55]

    2024, Phys

    Komoltsev, O., Somasundaram, R., Gorda, T., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 094030, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.094030

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.094030 2024

  56. [56]

    , year = 1994, month = jun, journal =

    Kong, A., Liu, J. S., & Wong, W. H. 1994, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 278, 10.1080/01621459.1994.10476469

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1994.10476469 1994

  57. [57]

    B., & Sinha, M

    Kumar, A., Thapa, V. B., & Sinha, M. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 063024, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063024

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063024 2023

  58. [58]

    2010, Phys

    Kurkela, A., Romatschke, P., & Vuorinen, A. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 105021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.105021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.105021 2010

  59. [59]

    2016, Phys

    Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 042501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.042501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.042501 2016

  60. [60]

    D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J

    Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. 2014, Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course (Cambridge University Press)

    2014

  61. [61]

    2025, Phys

    Li, R., Han, S., Lin, Z., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 074026, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.074026

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.074026 2025

  62. [62]

    M., & Weber, F

    Lindblom, L., Lewis, S. M., & Weber, F. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 123035, 10.1103/j1z7-jfc6

    work page doi:10.1103/j1z7-jfc6 2025

  63. [63]

    E., Tews, I., Carlson, J., et al

    Lynn, J. E., Tews, I., Carlson, J., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 062501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.062501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.062501 2016

  64. [64]

    2020, JCAP, 03, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    Maggiore, M., et al. 2020, JCAP, 03, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050 2020

  65. [65]

    2025 a , Astrophys

    Mauviard, L., et al. 2025 a , Astrophys. J., 995, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae145d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae145d 2025

  66. [66]

    2025 b , Data and Reproduction package for: ``A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614 - 3329'' , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.17380576

    ---. 2025 b , Data and Reproduction package for: ``A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614 - 3329'' , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.17380576

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17380576 2025

  67. [67]

    C., et al

    Miller, M. C., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019

  68. [68]

    2021, Astrophys

    ---. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b 2021

  69. [69]

    2019, Phys

    Montana, G., Tolos, L., Hanauske, M., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 103009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.103009 2019

  70. [70]

    R., Papenfort, L

    Most, E. R., Papenfort, L. J., Dexheimer, V., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 061101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.061101 2019

  71. [71]

    W., & Vautherin, D

    Negele, J. W., & Vautherin, D. 1973, Nucl. Phys. A, 207, 298, 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90349-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9474(73)90349-7 1973

  72. [72]

    R., & Volkoff, G

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Volkoff, G. M. 1939, Phys. Rev., 55, 374, 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.55.374 1939

  73. [73]

    Pang, P. T. H., Dietrich, T., Tews, I., & Van Den Broeck, C. 2020, Phys. Rev. Res., 2, 033514, 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033514

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.033514 2020

  74. [74]

    Pang, P. T. H., Tews, I., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 922, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac19ab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac19ab 2021

  75. [75]

    Postnikov, S., Prakash, M., & Lattimer, J. M. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 024016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.024016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.024016 2010

  76. [76]

    E., & Williams, C

    Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)

    2006

  77. [77]

    J., et al

    Reardon, D. J., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 971, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a 2024

  78. [78]

    E., et al

    Riley, T. E., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 2019

  79. [79]

    2021, Astrophys

    ---. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 2021

  80. [80]

    k., & Mallick, R

    Saha, A. k., & Mallick, R. 2024. 2410.21877

    arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.