Improved Population and EOS Joint Inference for Binary Neutron Star Systems

Marc Ebiri (1); Richard O'Shaughnessy (1) ((1) Rochester Institute of Technology)

REVIEW

Improved Population and EOS Joint Inference for Binary Neutron Star Systems

Marc Ebiri (1), Richard O'Shaughnessy (1) ((1) Rochester Institute of Technology)

High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena · Submitted 30 Sep 2026 · 85 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, honest pipeline paper whose one genuinely new scientific claim hangs on an unverified 'nearly causal' TOV gate — the machinery earns referee time, the headline finding does not yet.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 1, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2609.39057 (version 1)

Pith IDTL7M5MHC, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationMarc Ebiri (1), Richard O'Shaughnessy (1) ((1) Rochester Institute of Technology). "Improved Population and EOS Joint Inference for Binary Neutron Star Systems." arXiv:2609.39057 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TL7M5MHC

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Two things to know up front. What the paper does well is real: the rotation-plus-reflection machinery works, the efficiency gain is directly measured (physical fraction of samples jumps from roughly 1% to 80% in the first iteration, above 95% after), and the DNS-only validation reproduces the 11-pair sample means. The external-prior interface is genuinely new pipeline content. Second, the paper's one novel scientific claim — that the standard Cartesian spectral-EOS bounds in use since Carney et al. exclude physically valid EOS — rests on a load-bearing piece the authors never justify: the TOV solver's "nearly causal" physicality gate.

The stress-test concern holds up on reading. The purple draws in Fig. 11 (γ0 < 0.2, γ1 > 1.7) are counted as physical, but the text says only that the solver "allows equations of state that are nearly causal," and those same curves "exhibit a substantial change in sound speed at the matching density" — precisely the regime where a loose tolerance decides whether cs² crosses 1. If the gate admits acausal solutions, those 20 draws carry no legitimate posterior weight, the excluded region is not physically valid, and the modest EOS shift in Fig. 12 has no basis. The paper never states the tolerance. That is a gap in the central argument, and it is the hinge of the abstract's main claim.

The authors do flag the secondary weakness themselves: [b196] and [b202] concede the C'_400 posterior's ragged edge may be under-sampling rather than the edge of physical space. The stress-test sharpens this: a fully converged posterior would not rescue the claim if the gate is unsound. The gate needs checking before anything else.

Minor points. Initial EOS samples come from the GW170817 posterior while GW170817 sits in the likelihood, and the starting population values and the rotation both trace to same-group work ([25], [29]). That is standard iterative-sampler practice, not a deep flaw, though the self-referentiality deserves a referee's glance. No code or commit hash ships, so reproduction means re-implementation from the text.

The population result is confirmatory, and the authors basically concede it: their bivariate means sit within one σ of each other and average to a peak consistent with Özel's unimodal estimate.

Who this is for: the joint-inference subfield and anyone working with the Γ-spectral parameterization. It deserves a serious referee. The referee should ask for (a) the causality tolerance and a demonstration that the excluded curves are genuinely causal, and (b) released code. With the first, this is an ACCEPT; without it, the headline finding is unproven, and the paper reduces to a well-executed pipeline extension.

Referee report

Significance

If the headline claim holds, it is scientifically important: the ad hoc Cartesian bounds used for the Gamma-spectral EOS family since Carney et al. [5] would be shown to exclude physically valid EOS realizations, with consequences for a widely used parameterization. The pipeline improvements, by contrast, are convincingly established: the rotation/reflection efficiency gain is directly measured (1%→80% physical samples) and reproduced across analyses, and the DNS-only validation test reproduces the input sample means. The population results are consistent with prior work and presented carefully. The joint-inference machinery is a genuine and reusable contribution. However, the central scientific discovery is not yet established to the standard the abstract claims, because it depends on two links that the manuscript leaves quantitatively open: the TOV solver's 'nearly causal' physicality acceptance criterion is not specified, and the C'_400 posterior's convergence is explicitly uncertain. The paper is a solid methods contribution with an unproven central scientific conclusion that is in principle verifiable within the manuscript's scope.

Major objections (2)

[Sec. II A; Fig. 11] The central claim that the Carney et al. [5] Cartesian bounds exclude physically valid EOS rests on the TOV solver's physicality classification, which the text describes only as allowing equations of state that are 'nearly causal' (Sec. II A) without specifying the acceptance criterion quantitatively. The purple posterior draws in Fig. 11 (γ0 < 0.2, γ1 > 1.7) are the direct evidence for the 'too restrictive' conclusion, and the text notes these curves 'exhibit a substantial change in sound speed at the matching density' — precisely the regime where a loose causality tolerance would admit acausal solutions. The manuscript must state the maximum allowed cs² (equivalently the tolerance δ in cs² ≤ 1 + δ), the density resolution at which causality is checked, and verify explicitly that the Fig. 11 purple realizations satisfy the stated criterion over the full density range used in the TOV integration. Without this, the discovery claim is unsupported regardless of sampling efficiency.
[Sec. V B; Figs. 9-10] The manuscript's central evidence for 'bounds too restrictive' requires the C'_400 posterior to have stabilized, but the authors acknowledge the opposite: 'Whether the hyperparameters would still rail, given many more iterations, is uncertain' (b196) and that the posterior grows toward the upper-left corner of the γ0–γ1 plane each iteration with likelihoods that 'do not smoothly transition to smaller values' (b202). Because the ragged edge in Fig. 10 could equally be the boundary of the physical space (per the causality gate) or an undersampled region, the stabilization claim needs a quantitative convergence diagnostic (for example, the posterior difference or effective-sample overlap between successive iteration sets, or a materially larger iteration count) before the conclusions drawn from Fig. 8 can be taken as settled. The acknowledged possibility that C' may not enclose all of V (b40) makes this convergence question load-bearing rather than cosmetic. The authors acknowledge this: “Whether the hyperparameters would still rail, given many more iterations, is uncertain.”

Minor objections (6)

[Sec. V B, footnote 1] The footnote stating that 'no EOS realizations with all four γk coordinates outside the original bounds' were found should be moved or summarized in the main text, since it substantially qualifies what 'outside the standard bounds' means for the Fig. 11 purple curves.
[Sec. II A; Table I] The rotation matrix that maps the Cartesian γk coordinates to the rotated r'i coordinates is referenced to [25] but not reproduced; for reproducibility, the transformation should be given explicitly in an appendix or as a supplementary file.
[Fig. 9 caption] The caption distinguishes 'physical' and 'unphysical' colored points; it would clarify interpretation to state whether 'unphysical' is exactly the same classification as failing the TOV solver's nearly-causal gate, or a separate criterion.
[Sec. II A 2] The initial EOS samples are drawn from the GW170817 posterior [38] while GW170817 itself contributes a likelihood factor; one sentence explaining that these samples serve only as proposal initialization and are re-weighted by the likelihood would preempt an appearance of double-counting.
[Various] Typos and minor wording: Fig. 2 caption 'indictates' should be 'indicates'; Sec. V B 'demonstates' should be 'demonstrates'; Sec. IV 'an general-purpose' should be 'a general-purpose'.
[Fig. 10] Given the authors' own caveat that the posterior expands with each iteration, the figure should report the number of samples per iteration and ideally a quantitative convergence metric between the final two iteration sets.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

This paper argues that the standard prior bounds for the Gamma-spectral neutron-star equation-of-state family are too restrictive and quietly exclude physically valid equations of state, and it shows that sampling in rotated coordinates…

The reading

The paper extends the HyperPipe/RIFT inference pipeline so that the nuclear equation of state (EOS) and the binary neutron star (BNS) mass population are inferred jointly rather than in separate analyses. Its headline finding is that the conventional Cartesian prior bounds on the four Gamma-spectral EOS parameters, in use since [5], cut off physically valid EOS realizations. Sampling instead in a rotated coordinate system with expanded, buffered bounds raises the fraction of physical EOS draws from roughly 1 percent to above 80 percent in the first pipeline iteration, and the recovered EOS shifts modestly toward lower pressures at high density. The companion population result — a bivariate normal with means (1.39, 1.27) solar masses and width 0.08 solar masses — is consistent with previous estimates and does not by itself demand distinct mass subpopulations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rotated coordinate system C', an affine transformation of the four-dimensional Cartesian space (gamma0, gamma1, gamma2, gamma3) that aligns the sampling axes with the narrow, strongly correlated physical subspace V of the Gamma-spectral EOS family, which occupies roughly 0.005 percent of the original Cartesian volume. Sampling inside C' with buffered bounds raises the fraction of physical EOS draws from about 1 percent to over 80 percent in the first pipeline iteration and keeps it above 95 percent afterward. A second modification, reflecting puffed exploratory samples at the buffered C' boundaries instead of discarding them, retains nearly all proposed samples and thickens the sampling density. The paper also extends RIFT's CIP marginalization module with an external prior script that plugs the Gaussian population model and the pulsar maximum-mass constraint directly into the gravitational-wave likelihood, so that the joint inference is computed in one pass.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ad hoc Cartesian prior boundaries used for the Gamma-spectral EOS family are too restrictive: they exclude EOS realizations that the paper's TOV solver accepts as physical. The evidence comes from a 400-percent-buffered rotated hypercube C' in which the EOS hyperparameter posteriors no longer rail against the boundary and settle well inside it, whereas the standard 10-percent-buffered rotated bounds leave the posterior hugging a corner of the box. The relaxed analysis finds physical EOS curves with gamma0 below 0.2 and gamma1 above 1.7 — values outside the standard Cartesian range — and those curves show a sharp change in sound speed and lower pressure at high density. With the expanded bounds, the fraction of physical parameter sets rises from about 1 percent to over 80 percent in the first iteration and stays above 95 percent afterward, and the inferred equation of state moves modestly toward lower pressure at high density while the DNS population posterior is essentially unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the standard Cartesian bounds exclude valid EOS rests on the TOV solver's near-causality classification, so if that solver accepts equations of state that are actually acausal, the 'too restrictive bounds' discovery would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Future EOS inference with the Gamma-spectral family should use buffered rotated bounds rather than the standard Cartesian ranges, since the latter appear to truncate the physical subspace.
Joint population-EOS sampling in rotated coordinates converges to stable, densely sampled posteriors in far fewer iterations than the original Cartesian workflow.
The recovered BNS population, with means (1.39, 1.27) solar masses and width 0.08 solar masses, is consistent with prior unimodal estimates and shows no need for distinct mass subpopulations from the present data.
Relaxing the EOS bounds shifts the equation of state modestly toward lower pressures at high density while leaving the population posterior essentially unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

If the standard Cartesian bounds exclude valid EOS realizations, then previous EOS inference studies that used those bounds may have systematically cut off the same high-density region, implying their credible intervals could be underestimated.
Because the NICER data, not the single gravitational-wave event, currently dominates the EOS posterior, the coupling between population and EOS will only become visible once several more binary neutron star mergers are added.
A clean check of the 'too restrictive' claim is to run the offending EOS families through an independent, strictly causal TOV solver; the paper's near-causality test is the step that the whole discovery rides on.

Original abstract

The extreme environment within neutron stars presents the opportunity to probe the nuclear equation of state at high densities while studying the properties of these stellar remnants. Historically, the equation of state and neutron star mass distribution have been inferred separately, with the latter often simply assumed to be fixed in studies of the former, but the dependence of the equation of state on neutron star mass indicates they should be inferred together. In this work, we extend the generalized version of the popular RIFT algorithm known as Hyperpipe to interface with flexible, user-provided priors that will facilitate joint inference of equation of state and binary neutron star population hyperparameters. We demonstrate this framework's utility via application to a combination of several existing observations, particularly including massive galactic pulsars, double neutron star systems, millisecond X-ray pulsars, the gravitational wave event GW170817 and the nuclear symmetry energy, within the context of a widely-adopted parametric EOS family and a simple Gaussian population model. We recover parameters consistent with previous analyses of the EOS and binary neutron star population, finding the latter to fit a bivariate normal distribution with mean $(\mu_1,\mu_2) = (1.39,1.27) M_{\odot}$ and width $\sigma = 0.08 M_{\odot}$. Furthermore, we implement novel coordinate transformations in our pipeline, with which we have discovered that the ad hoc prior boundaries used for this EOS family may be too restrictive. We present results with relaxed yet still physical prior boundaries, noting vastly improved hyperparameter posteriors and modestly different equation of state inferences.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-01: 1 request, 5,942 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.07 · states limitation 0.74 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.11 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.93 · mentions code or data availability 0.04.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

The extreme environment within neutron stars presents the opportunity to probe the nuclear equation of state at high densities while studying the properties of these stellar remnants. Historically, the equation of state and neutron star mass distribution have been inferred separately, with the latter often simply assumed to be fixed in studies of the former, but the dependence of the equation of state on neutron star mass indicates they should be inferred together. In this work, we extend the generalized version of the popular RIFT algorithm known as Hyperpipe to interface with flexible, user-provided priors that will facilitate joint inference of equation of state and binary neutron star population hyperparameters. We demonstrate this framework's utility via application to a combination of several existing observations, particularly including massive galactic pulsars, double neutron star systems, millisecond X-ray pulsars, the gravitational wave event GW170817 and the nuclear symmetry energy, within the context of a widely-adopted parametric EOS family and a simple Gaussian population model. We recover parameters consistent with previous analyses of the EOS and binary neutron star population, finding the latter to fit a bivariate normal distribution with mean $(\mu_1,\mu_2) = (1.39,1.27) M_{\odot}$ and width $\sigma = 0.08 M_{\odot}$. Furthermore, we implement novel coordinate transformations in our pipeline, with which we have discovered that the ad hoc prior boundaries used for this EOS family may be too restrictive. We present results with relaxed yet still physical prior boundaries, noting vastly improved hyperparameter posteriors and modestly different equation of state inferences.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	The extreme environment within neutron stars presents the opportunity to probe the nuclear equation of state at high densities while studying the properties of these stellar remnants.	background 1.00	0.04	0.02	asserted 0.65
s1	Historically, the equation of state and neutron star mass distribution have been inferred separately, with the latter often simply assumed to be fixed in studies of the former, but the dependence of the equation of state on neutron star mass indicates they should be inferred together.	gap 0.67	0.05	0.09	hedged possibility 0.59
s2	In this work, we extend the generalized version of the popular RIFT algorithm known as Hyperpipe to interface with flexible, user-provided priors that will facilitate joint inference of equation of state and binary neutron star population hyperparameters.	contribution 0.66	0.95	0.08	asserted 0.99
s3	We demonstrate this framework's utility via application to a combination of several existing observations, particularly including massive galactic pulsars, double neutron star systems, millisecond X-ray pulsars, the gravitational wave event GW170817 and the nuclear symmetry energy, within the context of a widely-adopted parametric EOS family and a simple Gaussian population model.	method 0.65	0.91	0.08	asserted 1.00
s4	We recover parameters consistent with previous analyses of the EOS and binary neutron star population, finding the latter to fit a bivariate normal distribution with mean $(\mu_1,\mu_2) = (1.39,1.27) M_{\odot}$ and width $\sigma = 0.08 M_{\odot}$.	result 1.00	0.96	0.27	asserted 0.99
s5	Furthermore, we implement novel coordinate transformations in our pipeline, with which we have discovered that the ad hoc prior boundaries used for this EOS family may be too restrictive.	result 0.44	0.96	0.10	hedged possibility 0.88
s6	We present results with relaxed yet still physical prior boundaries, noting vastly improved hyperparameter posteriors and modestly different equation of state inferences.	result 0.97	0.96	0.26	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 1.00 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Initial distribution of population samples (

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Masses of 11 DNS systems, plotted with their 1-

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Mass vs. radius posterior samples of NICER pulse

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Flowchart for the iterative workflow of

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Corner plot posteriors for three population param

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6. Corner plot posteriors for the four Γ-spectral hy

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7. Corner plot posteriors for seven hyperparameters, generated over 6

**Figure 8.** FIG. 8. Corner plot posteriors for seven hyperparameters, generated over 15

**Figure 9.** FIG. 9. Corner plot of EOS hyperparameter samples for the

**Figure 12.** FIG. 12. Joint 6-factor EOS constraint from DNS systems, galactic radio and x-ray pulsars, symmetry energy, and GW170817

**Figure 13.** FIG. 13. Joint EOS constraint at 90% confidence intervals, with individual marginal likelihood factors of Eq. (3) removed: the

**Figure 14.** FIG. 14. Corner plot comparison of the posterior evolution for three of the Γ-spectral EOS hyperparameters in the same

**Figure 15.** FIG. 15. Corner plot of the 6-factor

Showing 13 of the paper's 15 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:2609.39057 by the authors.

References

Works cited (85)

[25]

D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, L. Wade, and J. Lange, “Inferring the neutron star equation of state simultane- ously with the population of merging neutron stars,” (2020), arXiv:2001.01747v1 [gr-qc], arXiv:2001.01747 [gr- qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[29]

M. H. Anik, A. W. Steiner, and R. O’Shaughnessy, The Astrophysical Journal1005, 148 (2026), arXiv:2512.12130 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[5]

M. F. Carney, L. E. Wade, and B. S. Irwin, Physical Review D98(2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.063004

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.063004 2018
[1]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Physics Reports621, 127 (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[2]

G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, 17 FIG. 15. Corner plot of the 6-factorHyperPipeinference analysis, without the coordinate transformation and reflection, after 6 iterations. The corresponding posteriors from the analysis using the transformation and reflection modifications are overlaid as dashed blue lines. The Cartesian cutoff ofγ 0...

View on Pith 2018
[3]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review X9, 011001 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[6]

T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. H. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science370, 1450 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[7]

K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, The Astrophysical Journal773, 11 (2013)

View on Pith 2013
[8]

P. Landry, R. Essick, and K. Chatziioannou, Physical Review D101(2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.123007

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.123007 2020
[9]

M. C. Miller, C. Chirenti, and F. K. Lamb, The Astro- physical Journal888, 13 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[10]

A. Vilkha, A. Yelikar, R. O’Shaughnessy, and J. Read, “Inference on neutron star parameters and the nuclear equation of state with RIFT, using prior EOS information,” (2024), arXiv:2407.15753 [gr-qc], arXiv:2407.15753 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[11]

F. ¨Ozel, G. Baym, and T. G¨ uver, Physical Review D82, 101301(R) (2010)

View on Pith 2010
[12]

J. M. Lattimer and A. W. Steiner, The Astrophysical Journal784, 123 (2014)

View on Pith 2014
[13]

M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Ludlam, S. Mah- moodifar, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, T. E. Strohmayer, K. S. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, T. Okajima, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters887, L24 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[14]

S. Bogdanov, F. K. Lamb, S. Mahmoodifar, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, T. E. Riley, T. E. Strohmayer, A. K. Tung, A. L. Watts, A. J. Dittmann, D. Chakrabarty, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, The Astrophysical Journal Letters887, L26 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[15]

E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Physical Review D77 (2008), 10.1103/physrevd.77.021502

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.021502 2008
[16]

M. Favata, Physical Review Letters112(2014), 10.1103/physrevlett.112.101101

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.101101 2014
[17]

T. Dietrich, S. Khan, R. Dudi, S. J. Kapadia, P. Ku- mar, A. Nagar, F. Ohme, F. Pannarale, A. Samaj- dar, S. Bernuzzi, G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, M. Haney, C. Markakis, M. P¨ urrer, G. Riemenschneider, Y. E. Setyawati, K. W. Tsang, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys- ical Review D99, 024029 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[18]

W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, and S. Vitale, Physical Review Letters111, 071101 (2013)

View on Pith 2013
[20]

B. D. Lackey and L. Wade, Physical Review D91(2015), 10.1103/physrevd.91.043002

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.043002 2015
[21]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review Let- ters119, 161101 (2017)

View on Pith 2017
[22]

S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer, Physical Review Letters 121(2018), 10.1103/physrevlett.121.091102

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.091102 2018
[23]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abra- ham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, and et al., Classical and Quan- tum Gravity37, 045006 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[24]

A. Kedia, R. O’Shaughnessy, L. Wade, and A. Yelikar, “Astrophysical assumptions and equation of state framework have larger impact on equation of state inference than individual neutron star ob- servations,” (2025), arXiv:2405.17326v3 [astro-ph.HE], arXiv:2405.17326 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[26]

D. Wysocki, J. Lange, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Physical Review D100(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.043012

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.043012 2019
[27]

L. Wade, J. D. E. Creighton, E. Ochsner, B. D. Lackey, B. F. Farr, T. B. Littenberg, and V. Raymond, Physical Review D89(2014), 10.1103/physrevd.89.103012

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.103012 2014
[28]

J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo, “Rapid and accurate parameter inference for coalescing, precessing compact binaries,” (2018), arXiv:1805.10457v1 [gr-qc], arXiv:1805.10457 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[30]

J. Golomb, I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, and P. Landry, Phys. Rev. D111, 023029 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[31]

T. Ghosh, B. Biswas, S. Bose, and S. J. Kapadia, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series281, 11 (2025)

View on Pith 2025
[32]

E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of Australia36(2019), 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

View on Pith doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019
[33]

J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Physical Review 55, 374 (1939)

View on Pith 1939
[34]

R. C. Tolman, Physical Review55, 364 (1939)

View on Pith 1939
[35]

L. Lindblom, Physical Review D82(2010), 10.1103/physrevd.82.103011

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.103011 2010
[36]

L. Lindblom, Physical Review D97(2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.123019

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.123019 2018
[37]

M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Manthripra- gada, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cog- nard, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters918, L28 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[38]

“LIGO document P1800115-v12: GW170817: Measure- ments of neutron star radii and equation of state,” (2018), https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1800115/public

View on Pith 2018
[39]

L. S. Finn, Physical Review Letters73, 1878 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[40]

F. ¨Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan, and A. Santos Villarreal, The Astrophysical Journal757, 55 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[41]

B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, M. De Yoreo, and S. E. Thorsett, The Astrophysical Journal778, 66 (2013)

View on Pith 2013
[42]

P. Landry and J. S. Read, The Astrophysical Journal Letters921, L25 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[43]

J. Antoniadis, T. M. Tauris, F. ¨Ozel, E. Barr, D. J. Champion, and P. C. C. Freire, “The mil- lisecond pulsar mass distribution: Evidence for bi- modality and constraints on the maximum neutron star mass,” (2016), arXiv:1605.01665v1 [astro-ph.HE], arXiv:1605.01665 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016
[44]

J. Alsing, H. O. Silva, and E. Berti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society478, 1377 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[45]

J. Golomb and C. Talbot, The Astrophysical Journal 926, 79 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[46]

I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486, 1086 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[47]

F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics54, 401 (2016)

View on Pith 2016
[48]

H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. De- morest, Z. Arzoumanian, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. E. DeCesar, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, N. Garver-Daniels, P. A. Gentile, M. L. Jones, M. T. Lam, D. R. Lorimer, R. S. Lynch, M. A. McLaugh- lin, C. Ng, and et al., Nature Astronomy4, 72 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[49]

R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, The Astrophysical Journal Letters934, L17 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[50]

A. L. Watts, N. Andersson, D. Chakrabarty, M. Fe- roci, K. Hebeler, G. Israel, F. K. Lamb, M. C. Miller, S. Morsink, F. ¨Ozel, A. Patruno, J. Poutanen, D. Psaltis, A. Schwenk, A. W. Steiner, L. Stella, L. Tolos, and M. van der Klis, Reviews of Modern Physics88(2016), 10.1103/revmodphys.88.021001

View on Pith doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.021001 2016
[51]

N. Chamel, P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, and A. F. Fantina, International Journal of Modern Physics E22, 1330018 (2013)

View on Pith 2013
[52]

Z. Arzoumanian, A. Brazier, S. Burke-Spolaor, S. Cham- berlin, S. Chatterjee, B. Christy, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cor- nish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, E. Fonseca, N. Garver-Daniels, P. A. Gentile, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series235, 37 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[53]

E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, P. S. Ray, A. Y. Kirichenko, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, I. H. Stairs, Z. Arzoumanian, L. Guillemot, A. Parthasarathy, M. Kerr, I. Cognard, P. T. Baker, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. DeCesar, T. Dolch, F. A. Dong, E. C. Fer- rara, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters915, L12 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[54]

C. Pankow, P. Brady, E. Ochsner, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Physical Review D92(2015), 10.1103/physrevd.92.023002

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023002 2015
[55]

J. Wofford, A. B. Yelikar, H. Gallagher, E. Cham- pion, D. Wysocki, V. Delfavero, J. Lange, C. Rose, V. Valsan, S. Morisaki, J. Read, C. Henshaw, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Physical Review D107, 024040 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[56]

K. J. Wagner, R. O’Shaughnessy, A. Yelikar, N. Man- ning, D. Fernando, J. Lange, V. Tiwari, A. Fer- nando, and D. Williams, “Narrowing RIFT: Focused simulation-based-inference for interpreting exceptional 19 GW sources,” (2025), arXiv:2505.11655 [astro-ph.IM], arXiv:2505.11655 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[57]

T. Dietrich, A. Samajdar, S. Khan, N. K. Johnson- McDaniel, R. Dudi, and W. Tichy, Physical Review D 100(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.044003

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.044003 2019
[58]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abra- ham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters892, L3 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[59]

K. C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, P. W. Adkins, C. L. Albert, J. F. Anders, A. T. Aylward, and C. L. Baker, inSpace Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultravio- let to Gamma Ray, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumen- tation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, edited by J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, and M. Bautz (2016) p. 99051H

View on Pith 2016
[60]

M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Ludlam, S. Mah- moodifar, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, T. E. Strohmayer, K. S. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, T. Okajima, and et al., “NICER PSR J0030+0451 Illinois-Maryland MCMC samples [data set], Version 1.0.0,...

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.3473466 2019
[61]

M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bog- danov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guil- lot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewen- stein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Manthripragada, C. B. Mark- wardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cognard, and et al., “NICER PSR J0740+6620 Illinois-Maryland MCMC samples [data...

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.4670689 2021
[62]

D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, P. S. Ray, D. Reardon, R. A. Remillard, A. Bilous, D. Huppenkothen, J. Lattimer, N. Ruther- ford, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Gendreau, S. Morsink, and W. C. G. Ho, “Reproduction package for: ’A NICER view of the nearest and brightest millisecond pulsar: PS...

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.13766753 2024
[63]

D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. E. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guil- lot, P. S. Ray, D. J. Reardon, R. A. Remillard, A. V. Bilous, D. Huppenkothen, J. M. Lattimer, N. Ruther- ford, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. M. Morsink, and W. C. G. Ho, The Astrophysical Journal Letters971, L20 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[64]

V. Doroshenko, V. F. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, “MCMC samples for X-ray spectra fits summarised in the paper “A strangely light neu- tron star” [data set], Version v2,” (2022), zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8232233

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.8232233 2022
[65]

V. Doroshenko, V. F. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nature Astronomy6, 1444 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[66]

M. Mendes, H. G¨ ottling, A. Hensel, I. Svensson, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, N. Rutherford, and A. Watts, “Astrophysics equation of state inference with bayesian chiral effective field theory uncertainties,” (2026), arXiv:2605.18560 [nucl-th], arXiv:2605.18560 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[67]

P. Char and B. Biswas, Physical Review D113, 044002 (2026)

View on Pith 2026
[68]

W. Kastaun, J. V. Kalinani, and R. Ciolfi, Physical Re- view D103, 023018 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[69]

W. Kastaun, “wokast/RePrimAnd: RePrimAnd library [computer software], Version v1.7,” (2024), zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10617510

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.10617510 2024
[70]

D. Mroczek, M. C. Miller, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Physical Review D110, 123009 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[71]

M. B. Tsang, J. R. Stone, F. Camera, P. Danielewicz, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, C. J. Horowitz, J. Lee, W. G. Lynch, Z. Kohley, R. Lemmon, P. M¨ oller, T. Murakami, S. Riordan, X. Roca-Maza, F. Sammarruca, A. W. Steiner, I. Vida˜ na, and S. J. Yennello, Physical Review C86, 015803 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[72]

B.-A. Li, P. G. Krastev, D.-H. Wen, and N.-B. Zhang, The European Physical Journal A55(2019), 10.1140/epja/i2019-12780-8

View on Pith doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12780-8 2019
[73]

D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, J. Lange, and Y.- L. L. Fang, Physical Review D99(2019), 10.1103/phys- revd.99.084026

View on Pith doi:10.1103/phys- 2019
[74]

M. Ebiri,A HyperPipeline for Joint Inference of the Equation of State and Population of Binary Neutron Stars, Master’s thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology (2026), database copyright ProQuest LLC

View on Pith 2026
[75]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, and the KAGRA Collaboration, “LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite,” Free software (GPL) (2018), dOI: https://doi.org/10.7935/GT1W-FZ16

View on Pith doi:10.7935/gt1w-fz16 2018
[76]

K. Wette, SoftwareX12, 100634 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[77]

V. Tiwari, C. Hoy, S. Fairhurst, and D. MacLeod, Phys- ical Review D108(2023), 10.1103/physrevd.108.023001

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.023001 2023
[78]

L. V. Drummond, K. Chatziioannou, and E. Fon- seca, “Observational selection effects on radio pul- sars are minimal for masses, but significant for or- bits and spins,” (2026), arXiv:2609.03157 [astro-ph.HE], arXiv:2609.03157 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[79]

O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Physical Review Letters 128, 202701 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[80]

L. Mauviard, S. Guillot, L. Suleiman, Y. Kini, D. Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, C. Kazantsev, P. Stammler, D. Choudhury, B. Dorsman, M. Hoogkamer, D. Hup- penkothen, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, J. Novak, N. A. Webb, J.-F. Olive, M. Kerr, L. Guillemot, I. Cog- nard, and G. Theureau, “A NICER view of PSR J1614-2230: a massive and compact millisec- ond pulsar,” (2026), ar...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[81]

T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and T. E. Strohmayer, The Astrophysical Journal Letters887, L21 (2019)

View on Pith 2019
[82]

T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzouma- nian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewen- stein, R. M. Ludlam, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, C. Prescod-Weinstein, R. A. Remillard, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters918, L27 (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[83]

T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, R. A. Remillard, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. Chirenti, A. J. Dittmann, K. C. Gendreau, W. C. G. Ho, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, Z. Wadiasingh, and M. T. Wolff, The Astro- 20 physical Journal941, 150 (2022)

View on Pith 2022
[84]

S. Vinciguerra, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, Y. Kini, S. Guil- lot, D. Chakrabarty, W. C. G. Ho, D. Huppenkothen, S. M. Morsink, Z. Wadiasingh, and M. T. Wolff, The Astrophysical Journal961, 62 (2024)

View on Pith 2024
[85]

A. J. Dittmann, M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, I. Holt, C. Chirenti, M. T. Wolff, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, S. M. Morsink, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, (2024), arXiv:2406.14467 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[86]

J. E. Horvath, L. S. Rocha, L. M. de S´ a, P. H. R. S. Moraes, L. G. Bar˜ ao, M. G. B. de Avellar, A. Bernardo, and R. R. A. Bachega, Astronomy & Astrophysics672, L11 (2023)

View on Pith 2023
[87]

S. Pal, S. Podder, and G. Chaudhuri, The Astrophysical Journal983, 24 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [25]

D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, L. Wade, and J. Lange, “Inferring the neutron star equation of state simultane- ously with the population of merging neutron stars,” (2020), arXiv:2001.01747v1 [gr-qc], arXiv:2001.01747 [gr- qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[2] [29]

M. H. Anik, A. W. Steiner, and R. O’Shaughnessy, The Astrophysical Journal1005, 148 (2026), arXiv:2512.12130 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[3] [5]

M. F. Carney, L. E. Wade, and B. S. Irwin, Physical Review D98(2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.063004

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.063004 2018

[4] [1]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Physics Reports621, 127 (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[5] [2]

G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, 17 FIG. 15. Corner plot of the 6-factorHyperPipeinference analysis, without the coordinate transformation and reflection, after 6 iterations. The corresponding posteriors from the analysis using the transformation and reflection modifications are overlaid as dashed blue lines. The Cartesian cutoff ofγ 0...

View on Pith 2018

[6] [3]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review X9, 011001 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[7] [6]

T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. H. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science370, 1450 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[8] [7]

K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, The Astrophysical Journal773, 11 (2013)

View on Pith 2013

[9] [8]

P. Landry, R. Essick, and K. Chatziioannou, Physical Review D101(2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.123007

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.123007 2020

[10] [9]

M. C. Miller, C. Chirenti, and F. K. Lamb, The Astro- physical Journal888, 13 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[11] [10]

A. Vilkha, A. Yelikar, R. O’Shaughnessy, and J. Read, “Inference on neutron star parameters and the nuclear equation of state with RIFT, using prior EOS information,” (2024), arXiv:2407.15753 [gr-qc], arXiv:2407.15753 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[12] [11]

F. ¨Ozel, G. Baym, and T. G¨ uver, Physical Review D82, 101301(R) (2010)

View on Pith 2010

[13] [12]

J. M. Lattimer and A. W. Steiner, The Astrophysical Journal784, 123 (2014)

View on Pith 2014

[14] [13]

M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Ludlam, S. Mah- moodifar, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, T. E. Strohmayer, K. S. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, T. Okajima, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters887, L24 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[15] [14]

S. Bogdanov, F. K. Lamb, S. Mahmoodifar, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, T. E. Riley, T. E. Strohmayer, A. K. Tung, A. L. Watts, A. J. Dittmann, D. Chakrabarty, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, The Astrophysical Journal Letters887, L26 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[16] [15]

E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Physical Review D77 (2008), 10.1103/physrevd.77.021502

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.021502 2008

[17] [16]

M. Favata, Physical Review Letters112(2014), 10.1103/physrevlett.112.101101

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.101101 2014

[18] [17]

T. Dietrich, S. Khan, R. Dudi, S. J. Kapadia, P. Ku- mar, A. Nagar, F. Ohme, F. Pannarale, A. Samaj- dar, S. Bernuzzi, G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, M. Haney, C. Markakis, M. P¨ urrer, G. Riemenschneider, Y. E. Setyawati, K. W. Tsang, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys- ical Review D99, 024029 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[19] [18]

W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, and S. Vitale, Physical Review Letters111, 071101 (2013)

View on Pith 2013

[20] [20]

B. D. Lackey and L. Wade, Physical Review D91(2015), 10.1103/physrevd.91.043002

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.043002 2015

[21] [21]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Physical Review Let- ters119, 161101 (2017)

View on Pith 2017

[22] [22]

S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer, Physical Review Letters 121(2018), 10.1103/physrevlett.121.091102

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.091102 2018

[23] [23]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abra- ham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, and et al., Classical and Quan- tum Gravity37, 045006 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[24] [24]

A. Kedia, R. O’Shaughnessy, L. Wade, and A. Yelikar, “Astrophysical assumptions and equation of state framework have larger impact on equation of state inference than individual neutron star ob- servations,” (2025), arXiv:2405.17326v3 [astro-ph.HE], arXiv:2405.17326 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[25] [26]

D. Wysocki, J. Lange, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Physical Review D100(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.043012

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.043012 2019

[26] [27]

L. Wade, J. D. E. Creighton, E. Ochsner, B. D. Lackey, B. F. Farr, T. B. Littenberg, and V. Raymond, Physical Review D89(2014), 10.1103/physrevd.89.103012

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.103012 2014

[27] [28]

J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo, “Rapid and accurate parameter inference for coalescing, precessing compact binaries,” (2018), arXiv:1805.10457v1 [gr-qc], arXiv:1805.10457 [gr-qc]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[28] [30]

J. Golomb, I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, and P. Landry, Phys. Rev. D111, 023029 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[29] [31]

T. Ghosh, B. Biswas, S. Bose, and S. J. Kapadia, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series281, 11 (2025)

View on Pith 2025

[30] [32]

E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of Australia36(2019), 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

View on Pith doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019

[31] [33]

J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Physical Review 55, 374 (1939)

View on Pith 1939

[32] [34]

R. C. Tolman, Physical Review55, 364 (1939)

View on Pith 1939

[33] [35]

L. Lindblom, Physical Review D82(2010), 10.1103/physrevd.82.103011

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.103011 2010

[34] [36]

L. Lindblom, Physical Review D97(2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.123019

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.123019 2018

[35] [37]

M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Manthripra- gada, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cog- nard, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters918, L28 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[36] [38]

“LIGO document P1800115-v12: GW170817: Measure- ments of neutron star radii and equation of state,” (2018), https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1800115/public

View on Pith 2018

[37] [39]

L. S. Finn, Physical Review Letters73, 1878 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[38] [40]

F. ¨Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan, and A. Santos Villarreal, The Astrophysical Journal757, 55 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[39] [41]

B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, M. De Yoreo, and S. E. Thorsett, The Astrophysical Journal778, 66 (2013)

View on Pith 2013

[40] [42]

P. Landry and J. S. Read, The Astrophysical Journal Letters921, L25 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[41] [43]

J. Antoniadis, T. M. Tauris, F. ¨Ozel, E. Barr, D. J. Champion, and P. C. C. Freire, “The mil- lisecond pulsar mass distribution: Evidence for bi- modality and constraints on the maximum neutron star mass,” (2016), arXiv:1605.01665v1 [astro-ph.HE], arXiv:1605.01665 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2016

[42] [44]

J. Alsing, H. O. Silva, and E. Berti, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society478, 1377 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[43] [45]

J. Golomb and C. Talbot, The Astrophysical Journal 926, 79 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[44] [46]

I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486, 1086 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[45] [47]

F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics54, 401 (2016)

View on Pith 2016

[46] [48]

H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. De- morest, Z. Arzoumanian, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. E. DeCesar, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, N. Garver-Daniels, P. A. Gentile, M. L. Jones, M. T. Lam, D. R. Lorimer, R. S. Lynch, M. A. McLaugh- lin, C. Ng, and et al., Nature Astronomy4, 72 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[47] [49]

R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, The Astrophysical Journal Letters934, L17 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[48] [50]

A. L. Watts, N. Andersson, D. Chakrabarty, M. Fe- roci, K. Hebeler, G. Israel, F. K. Lamb, M. C. Miller, S. Morsink, F. ¨Ozel, A. Patruno, J. Poutanen, D. Psaltis, A. Schwenk, A. W. Steiner, L. Stella, L. Tolos, and M. van der Klis, Reviews of Modern Physics88(2016), 10.1103/revmodphys.88.021001

View on Pith doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.021001 2016

[49] [51]

N. Chamel, P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, and A. F. Fantina, International Journal of Modern Physics E22, 1330018 (2013)

View on Pith 2013

[50] [52]

Z. Arzoumanian, A. Brazier, S. Burke-Spolaor, S. Cham- berlin, S. Chatterjee, B. Christy, J. M. Cordes, N. J. Cor- nish, F. Crawford, H. T. Cromartie, K. Crowter, M. E. DeCesar, P. B. Demorest, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, R. D. Ferdman, E. C. Ferrara, E. Fonseca, N. Garver-Daniels, P. A. Gentile, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series235, 37 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[51] [53]

E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, P. S. Ray, A. Y. Kirichenko, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, I. H. Stairs, Z. Arzoumanian, L. Guillemot, A. Parthasarathy, M. Kerr, I. Cognard, P. T. Baker, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. DeCesar, T. Dolch, F. A. Dong, E. C. Fer- rara, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters915, L12 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[52] [54]

C. Pankow, P. Brady, E. Ochsner, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Physical Review D92(2015), 10.1103/physrevd.92.023002

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023002 2015

[53] [55]

J. Wofford, A. B. Yelikar, H. Gallagher, E. Cham- pion, D. Wysocki, V. Delfavero, J. Lange, C. Rose, V. Valsan, S. Morisaki, J. Read, C. Henshaw, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Physical Review D107, 024040 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[54] [56]

K. J. Wagner, R. O’Shaughnessy, A. Yelikar, N. Man- ning, D. Fernando, J. Lange, V. Tiwari, A. Fer- nando, and D. Williams, “Narrowing RIFT: Focused simulation-based-inference for interpreting exceptional 19 GW sources,” (2025), arXiv:2505.11655 [astro-ph.IM], arXiv:2505.11655 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[55] [57]

T. Dietrich, A. Samajdar, S. Khan, N. K. Johnson- McDaniel, R. Dudi, and W. Tichy, Physical Review D 100(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.044003

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.044003 2019

[56] [58]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abra- ham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters892, L3 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[57] [59]

K. C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, P. W. Adkins, C. L. Albert, J. F. Anders, A. T. Aylward, and C. L. Baker, inSpace Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultravio- let to Gamma Ray, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumen- tation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9905, edited by J.-W. A. den Herder, T. Takahashi, and M. Bautz (2016) p. 99051H

View on Pith 2016

[58] [60]

M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, R. M. Ludlam, S. Mah- moodifar, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, T. E. Strohmayer, K. S. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, T. Okajima, and et al., “NICER PSR J0030+0451 Illinois-Maryland MCMC samples [data set], Version 1.0.0,...

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.3473466 2019

[59] [61]

M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bog- danov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guil- lot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewen- stein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Manthripragada, C. B. Mark- wardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cognard, and et al., “NICER PSR J0740+6620 Illinois-Maryland MCMC samples [data...

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.4670689 2021

[60] [62]

D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, P. S. Ray, D. Reardon, R. A. Remillard, A. Bilous, D. Huppenkothen, J. Lattimer, N. Ruther- ford, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Gendreau, S. Morsink, and W. C. G. Ho, “Reproduction package for: ’A NICER view of the nearest and brightest millisecond pulsar: PS...

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.13766753 2024

[61] [63]

D. Choudhury, T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, T. E. Riley, Y. Kini, A. L. Watts, B. Dorsman, S. Bogdanov, S. Guil- lot, P. S. Ray, D. J. Reardon, R. A. Remillard, A. V. Bilous, D. Huppenkothen, J. M. Lattimer, N. Ruther- ford, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. M. Morsink, and W. C. G. Ho, The Astrophysical Journal Letters971, L20 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[62] [64]

V. Doroshenko, V. F. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, “MCMC samples for X-ray spectra fits summarised in the paper “A strangely light neu- tron star” [data set], Version v2,” (2022), zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8232233

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.8232233 2022

[63] [65]

V. Doroshenko, V. F. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nature Astronomy6, 1444 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[64] [66]

M. Mendes, H. G¨ ottling, A. Hensel, I. Svensson, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, N. Rutherford, and A. Watts, “Astrophysics equation of state inference with bayesian chiral effective field theory uncertainties,” (2026), arXiv:2605.18560 [nucl-th], arXiv:2605.18560 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[65] [67]

P. Char and B. Biswas, Physical Review D113, 044002 (2026)

View on Pith 2026

[66] [68]

W. Kastaun, J. V. Kalinani, and R. Ciolfi, Physical Re- view D103, 023018 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[67] [69]

W. Kastaun, “wokast/RePrimAnd: RePrimAnd library [computer software], Version v1.7,” (2024), zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10617510

View on Pith doi:10.5281/zenodo.10617510 2024

[68] [70]

D. Mroczek, M. C. Miller, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Physical Review D110, 123009 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[69] [71]

M. B. Tsang, J. R. Stone, F. Camera, P. Danielewicz, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, C. J. Horowitz, J. Lee, W. G. Lynch, Z. Kohley, R. Lemmon, P. M¨ oller, T. Murakami, S. Riordan, X. Roca-Maza, F. Sammarruca, A. W. Steiner, I. Vida˜ na, and S. J. Yennello, Physical Review C86, 015803 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[70] [72]

B.-A. Li, P. G. Krastev, D.-H. Wen, and N.-B. Zhang, The European Physical Journal A55(2019), 10.1140/epja/i2019-12780-8

View on Pith doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12780-8 2019

[71] [73]

D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, J. Lange, and Y.- L. L. Fang, Physical Review D99(2019), 10.1103/phys- revd.99.084026

View on Pith doi:10.1103/phys- 2019

[72] [74]

M. Ebiri,A HyperPipeline for Joint Inference of the Equation of State and Population of Binary Neutron Stars, Master’s thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology (2026), database copyright ProQuest LLC

View on Pith 2026

[73] [75]

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, and the KAGRA Collaboration, “LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite,” Free software (GPL) (2018), dOI: https://doi.org/10.7935/GT1W-FZ16

View on Pith doi:10.7935/gt1w-fz16 2018

[74] [76]

K. Wette, SoftwareX12, 100634 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[75] [77]

V. Tiwari, C. Hoy, S. Fairhurst, and D. MacLeod, Phys- ical Review D108(2023), 10.1103/physrevd.108.023001

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.023001 2023

[76] [78]

L. V. Drummond, K. Chatziioannou, and E. Fon- seca, “Observational selection effects on radio pul- sars are minimal for masses, but significant for or- bits and spins,” (2026), arXiv:2609.03157 [astro-ph.HE], arXiv:2609.03157 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[77] [79]

O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Physical Review Letters 128, 202701 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[78] [80]

L. Mauviard, S. Guillot, L. Suleiman, Y. Kini, D. Gonz´ alez-Caniulef, C. Kazantsev, P. Stammler, D. Choudhury, B. Dorsman, M. Hoogkamer, D. Hup- penkothen, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, J. Novak, N. A. Webb, J.-F. Olive, M. Kerr, L. Guillemot, I. Cog- nard, and G. Theureau, “A NICER view of PSR J1614-2230: a massive and compact millisec- ond pulsar,” (2026), ar...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[79] [81]

T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and T. E. Strohmayer, The Astrophysical Journal Letters887, L21 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

[80] [82]

T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzouma- nian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewen- stein, R. M. Ludlam, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, C. Prescod-Weinstein, R. A. Remillard, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters918, L27 (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[81] [83]

T. Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, R. A. Remillard, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. Chirenti, A. J. Dittmann, K. C. Gendreau, W. C. G. Ho, M. C. Miller, S. M. Morsink, Z. Wadiasingh, and M. T. Wolff, The Astro- 20 physical Journal941, 150 (2022)

View on Pith 2022

[82] [84]

S. Vinciguerra, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, Y. Kini, S. Guil- lot, D. Chakrabarty, W. C. G. Ho, D. Huppenkothen, S. M. Morsink, Z. Wadiasingh, and M. T. Wolff, The Astrophysical Journal961, 62 (2024)

View on Pith 2024

[83] [85]

A. J. Dittmann, M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, I. Holt, C. Chirenti, M. T. Wolff, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, S. M. Morsink, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, (2024), arXiv:2406.14467 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[84] [86]

J. E. Horvath, L. S. Rocha, L. M. de S´ a, P. H. R. S. Moraes, L. G. Bar˜ ao, M. G. B. de Avellar, A. Bernardo, and R. R. A. Bachega, Astronomy & Astrophysics672, L11 (2023)

View on Pith 2023

[85] [87]

S. Pal, S. Podder, and G. Chaudhuri, The Astrophysical Journal983, 24 (2025)

View on Pith 2025