Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 78 references

Post-merger gravitational waves carry measurable information about how fast the sound speed stiffens in neutron-star cores.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:52 UTC pith:4SIE4BYD

load-bearing objection The abstract claims a quasi-universal relation between the sound-speed derivative and f_pk that the paper's own analysis contradicts; the real claim is an interesting f_pk–D̃ correlation that still needs the missing f_pk–Λ̃ comparison. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15588 v2 pith:4SIE4BYD submitted 2026-07-17 astro-ph.HE

High-Density Sound Speed and Post-Merger Dynamics

John Stroud , David Radice , Sanjay Reddy This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords binary neutron star mergerspost-merger gravitational wavesspeed of soundhigh-density equation of stateintrinsic tidal responsequasi-universal relationsnumerical relativity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to establish that the behavior of the speed of sound at densities several times nuclear saturation leaves a measurable imprint on binary neutron-star merger signals. A one-parameter family of equations of state, in which the squared sound speed rises linearly with baryon chemical potential, drives a suite of fully relativistic merger simulations; the authors find that the dominant post-merger gravitational-wave frequency tracks the sound-speed slope almost independently of binary mass, while ejecta mass and radiated gravitational-wave energy peak at an intermediate stiffness. In a set of realistic merger simulations, a direct relation with volume-averaged sound speed or its derivative does not emerge; instead, the peak frequency follows an exponential relation with the intrinsic tidal response D̃, an energy-density-weighted average of the squared sound speed inside the star, with scatter that macroscopic tidal quantities alone do not explain. The authors conclude that post-merger gravitational waves carry genuine, though incomplete, information about the highest-density core equation of state.

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that post-merger gravitational waves are measurably sensitive to the integrated sound-speed stiffness at supranuclear densities. In the controlled simulations, the peak post-merger frequency f_pk increases with the slope parameter (c_s^2)' and is nearly mass-independent for equal-mass binaries. In the realistic database, the operative discovery is an exponential correlation between the dimensionless peak frequency M f_pk and the binary intrinsic tidal response D̃, M f_pk = b e^{-m D̃} (R^2 = 0.811), where D̃ is built from X = ε_c^{-1}∫ c_s^2 dε and Ψ = 2 d ln M / d ln ε_c. The authors interpret the remaining scatter as evidence that macr

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intrinsic tidal response D̃(X, Ψ), constructed from the dimensionless variables X = ε_c^{-1}∫ c_s^2 dε (the energy-density-weighted average of the squared sound speed) and Ψ = 2 d ln M / d ln ε_c (the logarithmic derivative of stellar mass with respect to central energy density). It encodes the integrated stiffness of the core and replaces the tidal deformability in a quasi-universal fit to the peak post-merger frequency. The other central mechanism is the one-parameter sound-speed ansatz, c_s^2(μ) = c_sm^2 + c_ref^2 (μ − μm)/μm, capped at c_s^2 = 0.95, which lets the simulations isolate the effect of the sound-speed slope on merger observables.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated equations of state assume the squared sound speed rises monotonically and linearly with chemical potential up to 0.95, with no phase transitions or softening in the density range the remnant actually probes (μ ≲ 1.5 GeV); every correlation in the paper is generated inside that one-dimensional family.

What would settle it

Compute the same M f_pk versus D̃ relation for a merger simulation with a first-order phase transition or non-monotonic sound-speed profile within μ ≲ 1.5 GeV; points falling far from the exponential fit would falsify the claimed near-universality. A resolution study showing f_pk shifts by more than the fit scatter at Δx = 245 m would also undermine the extracted frequencies.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • One measured post-merger frequency can be inverted through the exponential fit to estimate D̃, translating a kilohertz gravitational-wave observation into a constraint on the core's energy-density-weighted average sound speed.
  • Because the relation is nearly mass-ratio independent in the analyzed set, equation-of-state inference from a single post-merger signal may not require precise knowledge of the binary masses.
  • The residual scatter implies that inspiral tidal deformability alone is insufficient: post-merger waves carry independent information about the highest-density core.
  • The non-monotonic behavior of ejecta mass and gravitational-wave energy with stiffness suggests that multimessenger observations, such as kilonova brightness and gravitational-wave energy, can help locate where the sound-speed slope sits.
  • The reduced one-parameter family provides a lightweight training set for surrogate or emulator models that map equation-of-state parameters to merger observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The abstract's headline claim — an approximately equation-of-state-independent relation between the derivative of the sound speed and f_pk — is stronger than what the detailed analysis shows; the body finds no such relation with volume-averaged c_s^2 or its derivative, and the operative correlation is with D̃. Read literally, the abstract's claim is not the one the evidence supports.
  • The linear, monotonic sound-speed ansatz means all correlations are sampled along a one-dimensional slice of equation-of-state space; a non-monotonic sound speed within the probed density range, which the authors explicitly allow, could break the single-slope mapping between (c_s^2)' and f_pk.
  • The perturbative-QCD compatibility patch, a first-order phase transition appended at densities beyond those reached in the mergers, means the simulated models are not self-consistent high-density equations of state without an added, unmeasured feature. This does not invalidate the D̃ relation inside the simulated family, but it cautions against assuming the relation transfers to nature unchanged.
  • A testable extension would be to apply the same D̃ fit to merger simulations with phase transitions or with c_s^2 peaking and then decreasing inside the remnant; if scatter grows substantially, the relation is a property of the parametrized family rather than of dense matter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a one-parameter family of equations of state in which the squared sound speed rises linearly with baryon chemical potential up to c_s^2 = 0.95, and uses fully relativistic WhiskyTHC simulations of equal-mass BNS mergers to study how the sound-speed slope affects post-merger gravitational-wave spectra and ejecta. A second analysis uses the CoRe database plus the eight parameterized models to search for quasi-universal relations between the post-merger peak frequency f_pk and the IPAD-TOV intrinsic tidal response D̃ (Eqs. 16–18). The authors report an exponential fit M f_pk = b e^{-m D̃} with R² = 0.811 (Table II) and interpret this as evidence that post-merger gravitational waves retain information about the integrated high-density sound speed not fully captured by macroscopic tidal parameters. The abstract, however, frames the headline result as a relation between the derivative of the sound speed and f_pk, which the body text (Sec. III B) explicitly disclaims.

Significance. If the f_pk–D̃ relation is robust and actually outperforms conventional f_pk–Λ̃ correlations, the work would be a valuable extension of the IPAD-TOV framework to dynamical merger observables and would strengthen the case that post-merger gravitational waves probe the core EOS beyond inspiral tidal measurements. The parameterized EOS family and the use of the public CoRe database are useful contributions, and the negative result on volume-averaged sound-speed derivatives is worth reporting. However, as written the main claim is not established: the abstract contradicts Sec. III B, and the promised comparison with tidal-deformability-based relations is absent. The paper's value is therefore conditional on the revisions below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III B] The abstract states that the analysis reveals 'approximately EOS-independent relations between the derivative of the sound speed and the peak post-merger gravitational-wave frequency.' Sec. III B explicitly reports the opposite: 'we were unable to find any novel universal relations between these properties of the EOS and the GW spectra' for volume-averaged c_s^2 and (c_s^2)'. The load-bearing statement as advertised is unsupported by the paper's own analysis. The abstract and conclusions must be rewritten to state the actual result: an exponential M f_pk–D̃ relation (Table II, R²=0.811), not a derivative–frequency relation.
  2. [Sec. II D / Sec. III B] The manuscript promises (Sec. II D) to examine correlations between f_pk and D̃ and 'compare these with the corresponding relations based on conventional tidal deformability.' No f_pk–Λ̃ fit, residuals, or scatter comparison is ever shown. Without this comparison, the central claim that D̃ encodes high-density sound-speed information beyond macroscopic tidal quantities is not supported. Since D̃ is defined from central-pressure variables X and Ψ that may correlate strongly with Λ, the observed R²=0.811 may be no improvement over the established f_pk–Λ̃ relation. This missing comparison is the key evidence needed to distinguish the new claim from known quasi-universal relations, and it must be added.
  3. [Sec. II B, Eq. (3)] All simulated EOSs use a monotonic linear rise of c_s^2(µ) up to a cap of 0.95, with no phase transitions or non-monotonic features in the density range probed by remnants (max µ ≲ 1.5 GeV, Fig. 4a). The paper itself notes that non-monotonic evolutions are 'equally possible' (Sec. II B, discussion of Fig. 4) and that the pQCD constraint is satisfied only by appending a first-order phase transition beyond the probed range. Consequently, the correlations in Figs. 7–9 and 11 are generated within a one-dimensional slice of EOS space and need not transfer to nature if the true high-density sound speed is non-monotonic in the merger-probed region. The title and conclusions should be tempered accordingly, and a sensitivity test with a non-monotonic c_s^2 profile in the probed range should be performed or explicitly deferred to future work.
  4. [Sec. II C, resolution] The simulations use a minimum resolution of Δx = 245 m, described as 'low resolution' and chosen 'to reduce the total computational cost.' No convergence study is presented. Since f_pk is extracted at this single resolution and the main quantitative claim rests on f_pk values (Table I, Fig. 7b, and the CoRe fit in Table II), the absence of a resolution check is a load-bearing gap: f_pk is known to be sensitive to grid resolution in BNS merger simulations. At minimum, a representative convergence test (or a reference establishing the resolution dependence of f_pk for this code) must be provided; otherwise the reported correlations and fit parameters may be contaminated by numerical systematic error.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'at the he highest densities' should be 'at the highest densities.'
  2. [Sec. II D] The text says 'Motivated by the approximately mass-independent correlation between the sound-speed parameter and the dominant post-merger frequency found in our parameterized EOS models (Sec. 7b)', but Sec. 7b is a figure reference; it should be Fig. 7(b).
  3. [Table I caption] The caption mentions 'Model C 1.3 M' but no Model C is defined in the table; presumably this refers to EOS-? The caption should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. II C and Fig. 5] Masses are written as '1.3M' without the ⊙ symbol in several places (e.g., Table I, Fig. 5 caption). Use M⊙ consistently.
  5. [Sec. II B, Fig. 4] In the text, 'Figure 4(a) shows the pressure as a function of the baryon chemical potential' and later 'stars in Figure 4(a)' but the figure panels are not rendered in the text; ensure the figure is properly placed and referenced.
  6. [Eq. (18)] The notation D̃(X1,Ψ1,X2,Ψ2) is introduced, but in Table II the fitted quantity is denoted D̃ without specifying which of the three candidate functions (linear, exponential, power-law) is used for the fit in Fig. 11. Clarify which function is plotted.
  7. [Sec. IV] The conclusions state that 'incorporating these quantities reduces the scatter in the relation between the post-merger peak frequency and the binary properties,' but no comparison to a baseline (e.g., f_pk–Λ̃) is shown. This sentence overstates the evidence presented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No construction-level circularity; the abstract/body contradiction and omitted fpk–Λ̃ comparison are correctness risks, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central relation is empirical, not definitional. The parameterized EOSs (Eq. 3) vary (c_s^2)' as the control parameter, and fpk is measured from independent WhiskyTHC simulations; D̃ is constructed from TOV structure variables X and Ψ (Eqs. 16–18), not from fpk. The exponential fit M fpk = b e^{-m D̃} (Table II) is therefore a correlation between an independently computed EOS integral and a simulated observable, not a quantity forced to equal its input. CoRe is a public database; one co-author's membership in CoRe is provenance, not circularity. Two non-circular but serious problems should be weighed separately. First, the abstract's claim of 'approximately EOS-independent relations between the derivative of the sound speed and the peak post-merger gravitational-wave frequency' is contradicted by Sec. III B, which reports being 'unable to find any novel universal relations' between fpk and volume-averaged c_s^2 or its derivative, and instead finds a relation with D̃, an integrated quantity. Second, Sec. II D promises to 'compare these with the corresponding relations based on conventional tidal deformability,' but the paper never presents a fpk–Λ̃ fit, residuals, or scatter comparison. Because D̃ is described as the 'IPAD–TOV analogue of the tidal deformability' and Eq. (18) is 'directly analogous to the binary tidal deformability Λ̃,' the missing comparison is the evidence needed to exclude that the fpk–D̃ relation is a reparameterization of the known fpk–Λ QUR. These are missing-support/omitted-proof issues, not construction-level circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

Ledger reflects that the paper's central correlations rest on a hand-tuned EOS family (six chosen parameters), standard GRHD/numerical-relativity axioms, and two borrowed frameworks (IPAD-TOV and pQCD integral constraints). No genuinely new physical entities are proposed; the appended phase transition is an illustrative patch with no independent evidence.

free parameters (6)
  • sound-speed slope c²_ref = (c²_s)' = ≈ 1.5–4 × 10⁻³ MeV⁻¹ across EOS-I…EOS-V (Fig. 1b; Fig. 7b axis)
    Chosen by hand within the M_TOV ≥ 2 M⊙ and R_1.4 ≤ 13.5 km constraints; it is the control knob whose effect the paper measures, and the analytic EOS (Eq. 9) is parameterized by it.
  • maximum sound-speed cap c²_s,max = 0.95
    Ad hoc cutoff terminating the linear rise; all five EOSs sustain c²_s/c² ≃ 0.6–0.95 over a broad density range, which shapes the resulting f_pk values.
  • thermal index Γ_th = 1.7
    Constant ideal-gas thermal exponent applied to all runs; directly influences thermal pressure, bounce dynamics, and the ejecta-mass peak in Fig. 9. The paper acknowledges it is a crude approximation.
  • matching point µ_m = at saturation density n0
    Junction between the BHF/chiral low-density EOS and the linear sound-speed ansatz (Eq. 3); a construction choice determining where the parameterization begins.
  • QUR fit coefficients m, b (exponential) = m = 3.38 × 10⁻³ ± 1.85 × 10⁻⁴, b = 5.51 × 10⁻² ± 1.10 × 10⁻³ (Table II)
    Two-parameter fits to CoRe f_pk vs D̃ data; R² = 0.811 is an empirical correlation, not a derivation.
  • appended phase-transition parameters = unspecified (dashed curves, Fig. 4)
    Ad hoc first-order transition added at densities beyond those probed by the mergers to reconcile the stiff EOSs with the Komoltsev–Kurkela pQCD constraint; illustrative only, not simulated.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Einstein equations + GRHD (Eqs. 13–14) govern the merger, and the WhiskyTHC discretization is convergent at Δx = 245 m
    No convergence or resolution study is reported; the f_pk, E_GW, J_GW, and ejecta numbers carry no error bars (Sec. II C, Table I).
  • domain assumption The low-density EOS (BHF/chiral tabulated, CompOSE) is correct below and around n0
    All five models share this baseline (Sec. II B); systematic errors there propagate into every TOV and merger-derived quantity.
  • domain assumption Thermal contribution separates as P = P_cold + P_th with constant Γ_th = 1.7 (Eq. 12)
    The paper itself calls this a crude approximation and notes realistic Γ varies between 1.5 and 2 (Sec. II B).
  • ad hoc to paper The stiff simulated EOSs need not satisfy the pQCD integral constraint below µ ≈ 2.5–2.7 GeV because a phase transition at higher density restores compliance
    The unextended EOSs overshoot the pQCD pressure band (Fig. 4a); compatibility is restored only by appending a first-order transition that is not part of the simulated models (Sec. II B).
  • domain assumption The IPAD-TOV intrinsic response D̃(X,Ψ) computed from cold TOV solutions captures the integrated sound-speed information (Eqs. 16–18)
    Borrowed from refs [69,70]; the CoRe analysis depends on this framework being a valid compression of the EOS.
  • standard math Spectral extraction via Ψ4, Moncrief decomposition, and fixed-frequency integration with a Tukey window gives an unbiased f_pk
    Standard tools (Kuibit), but window and integration-band choices can shift f_pk at the level of the scatter the authors discuss.
invented entities (1)
  • high-density first-order phase transition appended to the EOS family no independent evidence
    purpose: Restore compatibility of the maximally stiff simulated EOSs with the perturbative-QCD pressure constraint at µ = 2.7 GeV without changing the merger-relevant EOS
    Introduced post hoc (Fig. 4, dashed curves), not simulated, with unspecified transition density and strength; the paper presents it as an illustrative construction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17167 in / 22414 out tokens · 238971 ms · 2026-08-01T22:52:10.372751+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The density dependence of the speed of sound in cold neutron star matter remains poorly constrained and is central to determining the high-density equation of state (EOS). While binary neutron star (BNS) merger simulations increasingly incorporate detailed microphysics, the direct impact of the sound-speed in the neutron star core on observable signatures has not been systematically explored. We address this by introducing a simplified parametrization that suppresses microphysics while allowing controlled variation of the sound speed at supranuclear densities through its derivative with respect to the baryon chemical potential. Using the WhiskyTHC code, we perform a suite of fully relativistic BNS merger simulations and identify correlations between the sound-speed slope parameter and key merger outcomes, including remnant properties and post-merger GW frequencies. These results demonstrate that multimessenger observables are sensitive to the behavior of matter at the highest densities reached in neutron star cores. We further analyze gravitational-wave signals from the CoRe database of binary neutron star merger simulations employing more realistic equations of state. Our analysis reveals approximately EOS-independent relations between the derivative of the sound speed and the peak post-merger gravitational-wave frequency. Although these relations cannot be considered truly quasi-universal, they nonetheless indicate that post-merger gravitational waves retain measurable information about the EOS at he highest densities. At the same time, the remaining EOS dependence highlights the difficulty of isolating the underlying high-density physics and motivates the development of targeted parameterized frameworks for interpreting future multimessenger observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15588 by David Radice, John Stroud, Sanjay Reddy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) The speed of sound ansatz employed for our models along with a comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Pressure vs number density in terms of saturation density. For values below and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (a) Mass vs Radius curve generated for each model along with a sample of realistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Pressure vs chemical potential along with the b) equation of state for our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Maximum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: a) Amplitude spectral density from GWs for the runs which did not result in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) Plot of the cumulative released energy in GWs as a function of simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Mass of the shocked ejecta ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: 2D color maps of the adiabatic sound speed for the softest and stiffest EOS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Quasi-Universal relation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 54 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 485 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Klaehn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    quasi-universal

    As gamma is increased the equation of state becomes stiffer leading to higher thermal pressures. Solving forΓ th = Pth εth + 1. In a realistic situation where the thermal contribution depends on local conditions one can calculate an effective ideal gas index for each particular density, temper- ature, and composition. Since low density neutron star matter...

    1953

  4. [4]

    P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch,et al., Science340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Fonseca, H

    E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, P. S. Ray, A. Y. Kirichenko,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Bedaque and A

    P. Bedaque and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 031103 (2015), arXiv:1408.5116 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    I. Tews, J. Margueron, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C98, 045804 (2018), arXiv:1804.02783 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Nattila, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys.16, 907 (2020), arXiv:1903.09121 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Ecker and L

    C. Ecker and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.939, L35 (2022), arXiv:2207.04417 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. Lett.195, L51 (1975)

    1975

  17. [17]

    J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg, Astrophys. J.253, 908 (1982)

    1982

  18. [18]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D77, 021502 (2008)

    2008

  20. [20]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008)

    2008

  21. [21]

    B. D. Metzger, Living Rev. Rel.23(2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Kasen, B

    D. Kasen, B. Metzger, J. Barnes, E. Quataert, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Nature551, 80 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Bauswein and H.-T

    A. Bauswein and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 011101 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Hotokezakaet al., Phys

    K. Hotokezakaet al., Phys. Rev. D88, 044026 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    Bauswein, T

    A. Bauswein, T. W. Baumgarte, and H.-T. Janka, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 131101 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    Köppel, L

    S. Köppel, L. Bovard, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.872, L16 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    Koehnet al., Phys

    H. Koehnet al., Phys. Rev. X15, 021014 (2025), arXiv:2402.04172 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J.550, 426 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0002232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Science304, 536 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0405262

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    Rezzolla and O

    L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti,Relativistic Hydrodynamics(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    Hebeler and A

    K. Hebeler and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C82, 014314 (2010). 27

    2010

  32. [32]

    I. Tews, T. Kruger, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 032504 (2013), arXiv:1206.0025 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Drischler, A

    C. Drischler, A. Carbone, T. Soma, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C94, 054307 (2016)

    2016

  34. [34]

    Gandolfi, J

    S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C85, 032801 (2012), arXiv:1101.1921 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    D. J. Gross, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.102, 9099 (2005)

    2005

  36. [36]

    Somasundaram, I

    R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C107, L052801 (2023), arXiv:2204.14039 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, J. Hirvonen, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, J. Naettilae, and A. Vuorinen, Nat. Commun.14, 8451 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Komoltsev and A

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202701 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Kiuchi, Phys. Rev. D83, 124008 (2011), arXiv:1105.4370 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  40. [40]

    Shibata, K

    M. Shibata, K. Taniguchi, and K. Uryu, Phys. Rev. D71, 084021 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0503119

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  41. [41]

    Bombaci and D

    I. Bombaci and D. Logoteta, Astron. Astrophys.609, A128 (2018), arXiv:1805.11846 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Douchin and P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  43. [43]

    Typel, M

    S. Typel, M. Oertel, and T. Klähn, Phys. Part. Nucl.46, 633 (2015), arXiv:1307.5715 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    Typelet al.(CompOSE Core Team), Eur

    S. Typelet al.(CompOSE Core Team), Eur. Phys. J. A58, 221 (2022), arXiv:2203.03209 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Hebeler and A

    K. Hebeler and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C82, 014314 (2010), arXiv:0911.0483 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  46. [46]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C.102, 042501 (2020), arXiv:2004.07805 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    S. Huth, P. Pang, I. Tews, T. Dietrich, A. Le Fevre, A. Schwenk, W. Trautmann, K. Agar- wal, M. Bulla, M. Coughlin, and C. Van Den Broeck, Nature Phys.606, 276 (2022), arXiv:2107.06229 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Drischler, V

    C. Drischler, V. Somà, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C89, 025806 (2014), arXiv:1310.5627 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Gezerlis, I

    A. Gezerlis, I. Tews, E. Epelbaum, S. Gandolfi, K. Hebeler, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 032501 (2013), arXiv:1303.6243 [nucl-th]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  50. [50]

    J. E. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, K. E. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 062501 (2016), arXiv:1509.03470 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Lonardoni, S

    D. Lonardoni, S. Gandolfi, J. Lynn, C. Petrie, J. Carlson, K. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C97, 044318 (2018), arXiv:1904.08050 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Krüger, I

    T. Krüger, I. Tews, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C88, 025802 (2013), arXiv:1304.2212 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [53]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D81, 123016 (2010), arXiv:0911.3535 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [54]

    Gonzalezet al., Class

    A. Gonzalezet al., Class. Quant. Grav.40, 085011 (2023), arXiv:2210.16366 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    E. S. Fraga, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Astrophys. J. Lett.781, L25 (2014), arXiv:1311.5154 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    Bauswein, H

    A. Bauswein, H. T. Janka, and R. Oechslin, Phys. Rev. D82, 084043 (2010), arXiv:1006.3315 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [57]

    Mroczek, M

    D. Mroczek, M. C. Miller, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D110, 123009 (2024), arXiv:2309.02345 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Rizzo, R

    M. Rizzo, R. Haas, S. R. Brandt, Z. Etienne, D. Ferguson, L. T. Sanches, B.-J. Tsao, L. Wer- neck, D. Boyer, G. Bozzola, C.-H. Cheng, S. Cupp, P. Diener, T. P. Jacques, L. Ji, H. Macpher- son, I. Markin, E. Schnetter, W. Tichy, S. Tootle, Y. Xu, M. Zilhão, Y. Zlochower, M. Al- cubierre, D. Alic, G. Allen, M. Ansorg, F. G. L. Armengol, M. Babiuc-Hamilton, ...

    2025

  59. [59]

    Loffleret al., Class

    F. Loffleret al., Class. Quant. Grav.29, 115001 (2012), arXiv:1111.3344 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    Radice, L

    D. Radice, L. Rezzolla, and F. Galeazzi, Class. Quant. Grav.31, 075012 (2014), arXiv:1312.5004 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro,Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein ’s Equations on the Computer(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010)

    2010

  62. [62]

    Kurganov and E

    A. Kurganov and E. Tadmor, J. Comput. Phys.160, 241 (2000)

    2000

  63. [63]

    Pollney, C

    D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, E. Schnetter, N. Dorband, and P. Diener, Phys. Rev. D83, 044045 (2011), arXiv:0910.3803 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [64]

    Reisswig, C

    C. Reisswig, C. D. Ott, E. Abdikamalov, R. Haas, P. Moesta, and E. Schnetter, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 151101 (2013), arXiv:1304.7787 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  65. [65]

    Weyhausen, S

    A. Weyhausen, S. Bernuzzi, and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D85, 024038 (2012), arXiv:1107.5539 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [66]

    Gourgoulhon, P

    E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclement, K. Taniguchi, J.-A. Marck, and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. D63, 064029 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0007028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  67. [67]

    Bozzola, J

    G. Bozzola, J. Open Source Softw.6, 3099 (2021), arXiv:2104.06376 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    Del Pozzo, T

    W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 071101 (2013), arXiv:1307.8338 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  69. [69]

    Chatziioannou, Gen

    K. Chatziioannou, Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 109 (2020), arXiv:2006.03168 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    Cai and B.-A

    B.-J. Cai and B.-A. Li, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 55 (2025), arXiv:2501.18676 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Jian-Hao, B.-J

    S. Jian-Hao, B.-J. Cai, and Y.-G. Ma, A new scaling of neutron star tidal deformability for directly probing the core equation of state (2026), arXiv:2606.21402 [astro-PH.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Dietrich, D

    T. Dietrich, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, F. Zappa, A. Perego, B. Brügmann, S. V. Chaurasia, R. Dudi, W. Tichy, and M. Ujevic, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 24LT01 (2018), arXiv:1806.01625 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  73. [73]

    F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and B. Reed, Phys. Rev. C102, 065805 (2020), arXiv:2007.03799 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    Banik, M

    S. Banik, M. Hempel, and D. Bandyopadhyay, Astrophys. J. Suppl.214, 22 (2014), arXiv:1404.6173 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  75. [75]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Astrophys. J.774, 17 (2013), arXiv:1207.2184 [astro-ph.SR]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [76]

    J. M. Lattimer and F. D. Swesty, Nucl. Phys. A535, 331 (1991)

    1991

  77. [77]

    Rosswog, N

    S. Rosswog, N. Sarin, E. Nakhar, and P. Diener, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.538, 907 (2025), arXiv:2411.18813 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Bernuzzi, A

    S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, S. Balmelli, T. Dietrich, and M. Ujevic, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 201101 (2014), arXiv:1402.6244 [gr-qc]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014