Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Systematics from NICER Pulse Profiles Drive Uncertainty in Multi-Messenger Inference of the Neutron Star Equation of State

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pulse-profile hotspot geometry choice dominates neutron-star equation-of-state uncertainty, and multi-messenger data prefer the simpler two-spot model for PSR J0030+0451 by a Bayes factor of roughly 44.

desk verdict Useful scenario comparison, but the headline Bayes factor rests on an unspecified posterior-as-likelihood and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12540 v1 pith:KLRUZMX7 submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-th

Bhaskar Biswas , Prasanta Char This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-th
keywords neutronstarequationofstateNICERpulse-profilemodelingmulti-messengerBayesianinferencePSRJ0030+0451J0614-3329hotspotgeometrysystematicsBayesfactormodelcomparison
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to test whether a unified multi-messenger Bayesian analysis can tell apart two competing NICER pulse-profile models for the same pulsar, PSR J0030+0451, and to quantify how that choice changes the inferred neutron-star equation of state. It finds that swapping the relatively simple two-spot ST+PDT hotspot model for the more flexible, unconstrained PDT-U geometry shifts the inferred radius of a $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star from roughly $12.2$ to $13.1$ km and raises the maximum mass from about $2.2$ to $2.4\,M_\odot$. A formal model comparison returns a Bayes factor of about $44$ ($\log_{10} \mathrm{BF} \approx 1.58$) in favor of ST+PDT, which the authors describe as strong evidence that joint EOS inference can discriminate between competing pulse-profile models. Adding the new NICER measurement of PSR J0614-3329 softens the low-density EOS only mildly, lowering $R_{1.4}$ by about $100$ m. This matters because it identifies the dominant systematic in current dense-matter inference.

What carries the argument

The organising machinery is a hierarchical Bayesian multi-messenger likelihood that combines, for each NICER source, the published posterior samples of the pulse-profile analysis; gravitational-wave tidal-deformability posteriors from two binary neutron star mergers; 70 radio pulsar mass measurements; chiral effective field theory and perturbative QCD priors; and PREX-II and CREX neutron-skin constraints, all mapped through a hybrid EOS parameterization (an empirical nuclear model joined to a three-segment piecewise polytrope) and a two-component Gaussian mass distribution. The discriminating step is the Bayesian evidence difference between the ST+PDT and PDT-U configurations of PSR J0030+0451, which converts the competing hotspot geometries into a single number, the Bayes factor.

What would settle it

Recompute the unified inference using the original NICER likelihoods rather than the published posterior samples, or replace the unstated approximation with an explicit, validated Gaussian KDE, and check whether the $\log_{10}$ Bayes factor between ST+PDT and PDT-U remains near $1.58$; if it drops materially or reverses sign, the paper's discrimination claim is falsified. A second check is to repeat the model comparison with a different EOS parameterization, for example speed-of-sound interpolation, and see whether the ST+PDT preference persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the systematic uncertainty from NICER pulse-profile hotspot modeling currently outweighs the constraining power of new data or theory inputs in multi-messenger equation-of-state inference. Using the published reanalysis of PSR J0030+0451, the authors show that the two competing models, ST+PDT (two hot spots with a temperature distribution) and PDT-U (an unconstrained multi-hotspot geometry), lead to incompatible EOS posteriors: the PDT-U choice demands a stiffer EOS, shifting the radius of a $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star from about $12.2$ to $13.1$ km, raising its tidal deformability from about $405$ to $669$, and increasing the maximum non-rotating mass from about $2.2$ to $2.4\,M_\odot$. A Bayesian evidence comparison across all four inference scenarios gives $\Delta\log Z \approx 3.63$, corresponding to a Bayes factor of roughly $44$ ($\log_{10} \mathrm{BF} \approx 1.58$), favoring the simpler ST+PDT model. The paper further reports that including the new NICER measurement of PSR J0614-3329 softens the low-density EOS slightly, reducing the $1.4\,M_\odot$ radius by about $100$ m, while leaving the inferred neutron-star mass distribution essentially unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the published posterior samples from the NICER pulse-profile analyses can be treated as the likelihood for each source, but the paper never states or validates the functional form of that likelihood; if the posterior-as-likelihood approximation is biased, the inferred EOS shifts and the Bayes factor could be systematically wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Joint multi-messenger EOS inference can act as a consistency test for NICER pulse-profile modeling, preferring or ruling out hotspot geometries on astrophysical grounds rather than X-ray fitting alone.
  • Quoted radius and maximum-mass error bars that ignore the choice of pulse-profile model will miss a spread of roughly 1 km in radius and 0.2 solar masses in maximum mass.
  • Including PSR J0614-3329 tightens the high-mass end of the mass-radius relation and lowers the inferred $1.4\,M_\odot$ radius by about 100 m, so future small-radius NICER sources will help pin down the low-density EOS.
  • The inferred neutron-star mass distribution is stable across all four scenarios, indicating that population parameters are driven by radio pulsar masses and are insensitive to these NICER modeling choices.
  • Bayesian model comparison across a unified dataset can statistically discriminate between competing pulse-profile models, with $\log_{10} \mathrm{BF} \approx 1.58$ in favor of ST+PDT.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue is to marginalize over hotspot models inside the EOS inference instead of selecting one; because the Bayes factor is only moderately strong, a model-averaged posterior would show wider EOS bounds than any single scenario.
  • The unstated functional form of the posterior-as-likelihood step means the Bayes factor should be checked against the raw NICER likelihoods; if a Gaussian KDE were used, the evidence difference could be sensitive to bandwidth and tail behavior.
  • The same framework could be applied to other pulsars with multiple published pulse-profile solutions, for example PSR J0437-4715 or PSR J1231-1411, to see whether the ST+PDT preference is general or specific to J0030's geometry.
  • A testable prediction of the paper's logic is that as more NICER sources with small radii are added, the low-density softening seen with J0614 should grow and begin to distinguish between EOS models that differ mainly near twice nuclear saturation density.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper applies the hierarchical Bayesian EOS inference framework of Biswas and Rosswog [24] to study the impact of two modeling choices on dense-matter constraints: the inclusion of the recent NICER mass-radius posterior for PSR J0614-3329 and the choice of hotspot geometry (ST+PDT versus PDT-U) for PSR J0030+0451. Four inference scenarios are compared. The authors report that the geometry choice substantially changes the inferred EOS, shifting R1.4 from about 12.2-12.3 km to 13.0-13.1 km, Lambda1.4 from about 405 to 620-670, and Mmax from about 2.2 to 2.4 solar masses, while the inclusion of J0614 softens the low-density EOS by roughly 100 m in R1.4. A Bayesian model comparison is quoted as Delta log Z = 3.63, i.e., log10 BF about 1.58 in favor of ST+PDT, which the authors interpret as strong evidence that joint multi-messenger inference can discriminate between competing pulse-profile models.

Significance. The claimed result is potentially important for the interpretation of NICER systematics: if valid, it would show that EOS inference with the full multi-messenger data set can serve as a statistical discriminator between competing pulse-profile models, and it quantifies a source of systematic uncertainty that is often treated informally. The paper is careful to define its four scenarios and to compare with related analyses. It also uses publicly available NICER posterior samples and clearly delineates the data sets entering each scenario. However, the central evidence claim is not yet supported as written because the conversion of published NICER posterior samples into a likelihood is unspecified, and the numerical values and interpretation of the Bayes factor need correction. The parameter-shift results in Figures 2-4 are more robust than the model-comparison claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Likelihood] The likelihood term for the NICER mass-radius data is not specified. The text only lists the NICER sources and then states that nested sampling is used; it does not say whether the published posterior samples are converted into a bivariate Gaussian, a kernel density estimate, a histogram, or some other effective likelihood, nor whether the original pulse-profile priors are reweighted out. Because the Section III.A evidence difference (Delta log Z = 3.63) is computed from this term, the Bayes factor is not well-defined or reproducible as written. Please state the exact likelihood construction and validate it, for example by showing that the effective likelihood reproduces the published source posteriors when combined with the source priors, or through a simulation study.
  2. [Section III.A] The two quoted log Z values are not explicitly tied to the four scenarios defined in Section III. The text says 'for each configuration' but reports only two numbers; the abstract and conclusion imply the comparison includes J0614, while the introduction states a Bayes factor of 'approximately 44'. Please report log Z for all four scenarios and explicitly identify which pair of scenarios is used for the headline Bayes factor.
  3. [Sections I and III.A] The quoted Bayes factor is internally inconsistent: Delta log Z = 3.63 gives log10 BF about 1.58 and BF about 38, not 'approximately 44' as written in the introduction. Please correct this and quote the Bayes factor consistently throughout the paper.
  4. [Section III.A] The evidence comparison is performed under a single hybrid EOS parameterization. Because the evidence depends on prior volumes and parameterization, and because the headline claim is that multi-messenger EOS inference can statistically discriminate between pulse-profile models, the authors should demonstrate that the ranking and strength of the Bayes factor are robust to the EOS parameterization (for example, a piecewise-polytrope or speed-of-sound model) and to the treatment of the radio mass measurements. Without such a robustness check, the model-comparison claim remains parameterization-dependent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II] There is a typo: 'Posterior samples are drawn using using nested sampling algorithm' should read 'using the nested sampling algorithm'.
  2. [Section II, Prior Ranges] The prior ranges are only given by reference to Table 1 of [24]; please reproduce the actual prior bounds in this paper for self-containedness.
  3. [Section III.A] The sentence 'Models with log10 Z <= -2 compared to the best-fitting model can be considered decisively ruled out' conflates log evidence with log Bayes factor; it should be phrased in terms of log10 BF relative to the best model.
  4. [Figure 3] The color and line-style references in the text (for example, 'solid blue and solid green curves') do not align with the colors listed in the figure legend as printed; please harmonize the text with the actual figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Bayes factor and EOS shifts are genuine evidence comparisons against external NICER, GW, and radio data, despite self-citation of the authors' previous framework.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical Bayesian inference results, not derivations from an input that contains the output. The Bayes factor between ST+PDT and PDT-U is computed as the difference of two full joint-inference evidences, log Z_ST+PDT = -11.819 and log Z_PDT-U = -15.449. Each run uses a different, externally produced NICER posterior for PSR J0030+0451 (Vinciguerra et al. samples for the two hotspot geometries) as input to the joint likelihood, together with GW170817/GW190425 tidal-deformability posteriors, radio pulsar masses, and nuclear-theory priors. The preference for ST+PDT is not encoded in the inputs: it emerges from the compatibility of each geometry's mass-radius posterior with the other data (e.g., the larger PDT-U radius at ~1.7 Msun sits in tension with GW170817 and other NICER radii). The evidence difference is therefore a fitted comparison of two externally supplied hypotheses, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The framework (hybrid EOS, Gaussian-mixture mass distribution, prior ranges) is taken from the authors' prior work [24], and the paper explicitly says 'Following our previous work [24]' and 'We adopt the same prior distributions as in our previous work [24]'. This is self-citation, but it is not load-bearing circularity: [24] is an independent prior analysis whose results (parameter posteriors, L and Ksym constraints) are not used as inputs here; the present paper recomputes the inference with new data (J0614) and new geometry comparisons. The main methodological weakness noted by the reader—that the likelihood for NICER sources is built from published posterior samples without specifying the functional form—is a correctness and robustness concern (the posterior-as-likelihood procedure can be biased by prior weighting and normalization), but it is not a circularity: the target claim (Bayes factor favoring ST+PDT) is not assumed in that construction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or definitional equivalence is invoked to force the result. Hence no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the honest score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 13 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new particles or forces. It uses a standard Bayesian parameter inference with a fixed EOS parameterization and a fixed mass distribution model; the main free parameters are the EOS and population parameters, all fitted to the data. The most fragile assumption is that NICER posterior samples can be used as exact likelihoods without explicit validation.

free parameters (13)
  • L = 54.0 MeV
    Slope of symmetry energy; median of baseline scenario posterior.
  • Ksym = -158.3 MeV
    Curvature of symmetry energy; median of baseline scenario posterior.
  • n1 = 1.7 n0
    Transition density from empirical to first polytropic segment; baseline median.
  • n2 = 3.0 n0
    Transition density between polytropic segments; baseline median.
  • n3 = 6.2 n0
    Transition density between polytropic segments; baseline median.
  • Gamma1 = 3.7
    Polytropic index of first high-density segment; baseline median.
  • Gamma2 = 2.4
    Polytropic index of second high-density segment; baseline median.
  • Gamma3 = 2.7
    Polytropic index of third high-density segment; baseline median.
  • mu1 = 1.33 Msun
    Mean of first Gaussian mass component; baseline median.
  • sigma1 = 0.08 Msun
    Width of first Gaussian mass component; baseline median.
  • mu2 = 1.66 Msun
    Mean of second Gaussian mass component; baseline median.
  • sigma2 = 0.21 Msun
    Width of second Gaussian mass component; baseline median.
  • w = 0.68
    Mixture fraction of the lower-mass component; baseline median.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The hybrid EOS parameterization (empirical nuclear around saturation plus three-segment piecewise polytrope) can represent the true EOS across the densities probed by the data.
    Section II, EOS Parameters. If this functional form is too restrictive, all inferred quantities and the model comparison could be biased.
  • domain assumption The neutron star mass distribution is well modeled as a two-component Gaussian mixture.
    Section II, Mass Distribution Parameters. This shapes the population-level likelihood.
  • domain assumption Published NICER posterior samples are a sufficient statistic for the pulse profile data and can be used directly as likelihoods in the joint inference.
    Section II, Likelihood. The paper does not specify or validate the approximation.
  • domain assumption The prior ranges adopted from [24] are appropriate and do not artificially constrain the inference.
    Section II, Prior Ranges.
  • domain assumption Theoretical constraints from chiral EFT, pQCD, PREX-II, and CREX are correctly implemented as likelihood or prior terms.
    Section II, Likelihood. Implementation details are not shown in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematics from NICER Pulse Profiles Drive Uncertainty in Multi-Messenger Inference of the Neutron Star Equation of State." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLRUZMX7

@misc{pith2026250712540,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematics from NICER Pulse Profiles Drive Uncertainty in Multi-Messenger Inference of the Neutron Star Equation of State},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLRUZMX7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12540}
}
abstract

We present new constraints on the neutron star equation of state (EOS) and mass distribution using a unified Bayesian inference framework that incorporates latest NICER measurements, including PSR J0614$-$3329, alongside gravitational wave data, radio pulsar masses, and nuclear theory. By systematically comparing four inference scenarios--varying in the inclusion of PSR J0614$-$3329 and in the pulse profile model used for PSR J0030+0451--we quantify the impact of observational and modeling choices on dense matter inference. We find that pulse profile systematics dominate EOS uncertainties: the choice of hot spot geometry for PSR J0030+0451 leads to significant shifts in the inferred stiffness of the EOS and maximum neutron star mass. In contrast, PSR J0614$-$3329 mildly softens the EOS at low densities, reducing the radius at \(1.4\,M_\odot\) by \(\sim 100\)~m. A Bayesian model comparison yields a Bayes factor of $\log_{10} \mathrm{BF} \approx 1.58$ in favor of the ST+PDT model over PDT-U, providing strong evidence that multi-messenger EOS inference can statistically discriminate between competing NICER pulse profile models. These results highlight the critical role of NICER systematics in dense matter inference and the power of joint analyses in breaking modeling degeneracies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12540 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Posterior distributions of the eight EOS parameters across the four inference scenarios: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. 90 % CI of the marginalized posterior distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 90 % CI of the marginalized posterior distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Correlations between radius ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Posterior distribution of mass model parameters are shown for each scenario considered in this study, as indicated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Equation of State Extrapolation Systematics: Parametric vs. Nonparametric Inference of Neutron Star Structure

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Nonparametric GP-based high-density extensions yield softer EOS posteriors with larger uncertainties than parametric PP extensions when jointly constrained by multi-messenger neutron star observations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    Chiral Ef- fective Field Theory and the High-Density Nuclear Equa- tion of State,

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, and C. Wellenhofer, “Chiral Ef- fective Field Theory and the High-Density Nuclear Equa- tion of State,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 403–432 (2021), arXiv:2101.01709 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    [34]), J0740+6620, and J0437+4715, along with 70 well-vetted radio pulsar mass measurements

    Baseline Scenario (W/O J0614, W J0030 ST + PDT): Includes mass–tidal deformabil- ity ( M –Λ) posteriors from GW170817 and GW190425, NICER mass–radius inferences for PSRs J0030+0451 (using the ST+PDT model from Vinciguerra et al. [34]), J0740+6620, and J0437+4715, along with 70 well-vetted radio pulsar mass measurements. Theoretical priors from chiral effe...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Baseline + PSR J0614 −3329 (W J0614, W J0030 ST + PDT): Extends the Baseline by adding the NICER mass–radius posterior of PSR J0614−3329

    work page

  4. [3]

    [34], which assumes more complex hot spot geometries

    Alternative PSR J0030+0451 Model (W/O J0614, W J0030 PDT-U): Uses the same data as the Baseline but replaces the ST+PDT model for PSR J0030+0451 with the PDT-U model from Vin- ciguerra et al. [34], which assumes more complex hot spot geometries. This model results in a signif- icantly larger inferred radius ( R = 14 .44+0.88 −1.05 km) and higher mass ( M ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    PDT-U + PSR J0614 −3329 (W J0614, W J0030 PDT-U): Combines the PDT-U model for PSR J0030+0451 with the NICER observation of PSR J0614−3329. Figure 1 shows the marginalized posterior distributions of the eight EOS parameters used in our model: the slope (L) and curvature ( Ksym) of the symmetry energy, the transition densities n1, n2, n3, and the polytropi...

    work page

  6. [5]

    The equa- tion of state of hot, dense matter and neutron stars,

    James M. Lattimer and Madappa Prakash, “The equa- tion of state of hot, dense matter and neutron stars,” Physics Reports 621, 127–164 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Equa- tions of state for supernovae and compact stars,

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, “Equa- tions of state for supernovae and compact stars,” Re- views of Modern Physics 89 (2017), 10.1103/revmod- phys.89.015007

    doi:10.1103/revmod- 2017

  8. [7]

    From hadrons to quarks in neutron stars: a review,

    Gordon Baym, Tetsuo Hatsuda, Toru Kojo, Philip D Powell, Yifan Song, and Tatsuyuki Takatsuka, “From hadrons to quarks in neutron stars: a review,” Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 056902 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    A NICER View of PSR J0030+0451: Millisecond Pulsar Parameter Estimation,

    Thomas E. Riley et al. , “A NICER View of PSR J0030+0451: Millisecond Pulsar Parameter Estimation,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    PSR J0030+0451 Mass and Radius from NICER Data and Implications for the Properties of Neutron Star Matter,

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

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A NICER View of the Massive Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 Informed by Radio Timing and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy,

    Thomas E. Riley et al. , “A NICER View of the Massive Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 Informed by Radio Timing and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data,

    M. C. Miller et al., “The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton Data,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A NICER View of the Near- est and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437–4715,

    Devarshi Choudhury et al., “A NICER View of the Near- est and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437–4715,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    The Neutron star Interior Composition Ex- plorer (NICER): design and development,

    Keith C. Gendreau, Zaven Arzoumanian, Phillip W. Ad- kins, et al., “The Neutron star Interior Composition Ex- plorer (NICER): design and development,” inSpace Tele- scopes and Instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engi- neers ...

    2016

  7. [14]

    GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral,

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

    2017 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Proper- ties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817,

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Proper- ties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817,” Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    GW170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state,

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

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Advanced LIGO,

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

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,

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

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces,

    Evgeny Epelbaum, Hans-Werner Hammer, and Ulf- G. Meissner, “Modern Theory of Nuclear Forces,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1773–1825 (2009), arXiv:0811.1338 [nucl- th]

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces,

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, “Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces,” Phys. Rept.503, 1–75 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Three-body forces: From cold atoms to nu- clei,

    Hans-Werner Hammer, Andreas Nogga, and Achim Schwenk, “Three-body forces: From cold atoms to nu- clei,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 197 (2013), arXiv:1210.4273 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Three-nucleon forces: Implementation and applications to atomic nuclei and dense matter,

    Kai Hebeler, “Three-nucleon forces: Implementation and applications to atomic nuclei and dense matter,” Phys. Rept. 890, 1–116 (2021), arXiv:2002.09548 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [25]

    How Perturba- tive QCD Constrains the Equation of State at Neutron- Star Densities,

    Oleg Komoltsev and Aleksi Kurkela, “How Perturba- tive QCD Constrains the Equation of State at Neutron- Star Densities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 202701 (2022), arXiv:2111.05350 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Accurate Determination of the Neutron Skin Thickness of 208Pb through Parity- Violation in Electron Scattering,

    D. Adhikari et al. (PREX), “Accurate Determination of the Neutron Skin Thickness of 208Pb through Parity- Violation in Electron Scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172502 (2021), arXiv:2102.10767 [nucl-ex]. 10

    2021 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Precision Determination of the Neutral Weak Form Factor of Ca48,

    D. Adhikari et al. (CREX), “Precision Determination of the Neutral Weak Form Factor of Ca48,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 042501 (2022), arXiv:2205.11593 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Simultaneously Constraining the Neutron Star Equation of State and Mass Distribution through Multimessenger Observations and Nuclear Benchmarks,

    Bhaskar Biswas and Stephan Rosswog, “Simultaneously Constraining the Neutron Star Equation of State and Mass Distribution through Multimessenger Observations and Nuclear Benchmarks,” (2024), arXiv:2408.15192 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Towards mitigation of apparent tension between nuclear physics and astrophysical observations by improved modeling of neutron star matter,

    Bhaskar Biswas, Prasanta Char, Rana Nandi, and Sukanta Bose, “Towards mitigation of apparent tension between nuclear physics and astrophysical observations by improved modeling of neutron star matter,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 103015 (2021), arXiv:2008.01582 [astro- ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [30]

    GW190814: On the properties of the secondary component of the binary,

    Bhaskar Biswas, Rana Nandi, Prasanta Char, Sukanta Bose, and Nikolaos Stergioulas, “GW190814: On the properties of the secondary component of the binary,” (2020), arXiv:2010.02090 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Impact of PREX-II and Combined Radio/NICER/XMM-Newton’s Mass–radius Measure- ment of PSR J0740+6620 on the Dense-matter Equation of State,

    Bhaskar Biswas, “Impact of PREX-II and Combined Radio/NICER/XMM-Newton’s Mass–radius Measure- ment of PSR J0740+6620 on the Dense-matter Equation of State,” Astrophys. J. 921, 63 (2021), arXiv:2105.02886 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Asymmetric nuclear mat- ter equation of state,

    I. Bombaci and U. Lombardo, “Asymmetric nuclear mat- ter equation of state,” Phys. Rev. C 44, 1892–1900 (1991)

    1991

  24. [33]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev, Neu- tron stars 1: Equation of state and structure , Vol. 326 (Springer, New York, USA, 2007)

    2007

  25. [34]

    The nuclear symmetry energy,

    M. Baldo and G. F. Burgio, “The nuclear symmetry energy,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91, 203–258 (2016), arXiv:1606.08838 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Equation of state for dense nu- cleonic matter from metamodeling. I. Foundational as- pects,

    J´ erˆ ome Margueron, Rudiney Hoffmann Casali, and Francesca Gulminelli, “Equation of state for dense nu- cleonic matter from metamodeling. I. Foundational as- pects,” Phys. Rev. C97, 025805 (2018), arXiv:1708.06894 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Constraints on a phe- nomenologically parameterized neutron-star equation of state,

    Jocelyn S. Read, Benjamin D. Lackey, Benjamin J. Owen, and John L. Friedman, “Constraints on a phe- nomenologically parameterized neutron-star equation of state,” Phys. Rev. D79, 124032 (2009), arXiv:0812.2163 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Maximum gravita- tional mass MTOV=2.25-0.07+0.08M⊙ inferred at about 3% precision with multimessenger data of neutron stars,

    Yi-Zhong Fan, Ming-Zhe Han, Jin-Liang Jiang, Dong- Sheng Shao, and Shao-Peng Tang, “Maximum gravita- tional mass MTOV=2.25-0.07+0.08M⊙ inferred at about 3% precision with multimessenger data of neutron stars,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 043052 (2024), arXiv:2309.12644 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    An updated mass-radius analysis of the 2017-2018 NICER data set of PSR J0030+0451,

    Serena Vinciguerra et al. , “An updated mass-radius analysis of the 2017-2018 NICER data set of PSR J0030+0451,” (2023), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    An updated mass-radius anal- ysis of the 2017-2018 nicer data set of psr j0030+0451,

    Serena Vinciguerra, Tuomo Salmi, Anna L. Watts, Devarshi Choudhury, Thomas E. Riley, Paul S. Ray, Slavko Bogdanov, Yves Kini, Sebastien Guillot, Deepto Chakrabarty, Wynn C. G. Ho, Daniela Hup- penkothen, Sharon M. Morsink, Zorawar Wadiasingh, and Micheal T. Wolff, “An updated ...

    2023

  31. [40]

    A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614–3329,

    Lucien Mauviard et al. , “A NICER view of the 1.4 solar-mass edge-on pulsar PSR J0614–3329,” (2025), arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  32. [41]

    A unified equation of state of dense matter and neutron star structure,

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, “A unified equation of state of dense matter and neutron star structure,” Astron. As- trophys. 380, 151 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0111092

    2001 arXiv

  33. [42]

    The Radius of the High Mass Pul- sar PSR J0740+6620 With 3.6 Years of NICER Data,

    Tuomo Salmi et al. , “The Radius of the High Mass Pul- sar PSR J0740+6620 With 3.6 Years of NICER Data,” (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Data and software for: ’the radius of the high- mass pulsar psr j0740+6620 with 3.6 yr of nicer data’,

    Tuomo Salmi, Devarshi Choudhury, Yves Kini, Thomas Riley, Serena Vinciguerra, Anna L. Watts, Michael T. Wolff, Zaven Arzoumanian, Slavko Bogdanov, Deepto Chakrabarty, Keith Gendreau, Sebastien Guillot, Wynn C. G. Ho, Daniela Huppenkothen, Renee M. Ludlam, Sharon M. Morsink, an...

    2024

  35. [44]

    Reproduction package for: ’a nicer view of the nearest and brightest millisecond pulsar: Psr j0437–4715’,

    Devarshi Choudhury, Tuomo Salmi, Vinciguerra Serena, Thomas Riley, Yves Kini, Anna L. Watts, Bas Dorsman, Slavko Bogdanov, Sebastien Guillot, Paul S. Ray, Daniel Reardon, Ronald A. Remillard, Anna Bilous, Daniela Huppenkothen, James Lattimer, Nathan Rutherford, Za- ven Arzouma...

    2024

  36. [45]

    GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with To- tal Mass ∼ 3.4M⊙,

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

    2020 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Buqeye software repository,

    BUQEYE Collaboration, “Buqeye software repository,” https://buqeye.github.io/software/ (2020), bayesian Uncertainty Quantification for Equation of State

    2020

  38. [47]

    How Well Do We Know the Neutron-Matter Equation of State at the Densities Inside Neutron Stars? A Bayesian Approach with Correlated Uncertainties,

    C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, and D. R. Phillips, “How Well Do We Know the Neutron-Matter Equation of State at the Densities Inside Neutron Stars? A Bayesian Approach with Correlated Uncertainties,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 202702 (2020), arXiv:2004.07232 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Soft Interactions in Cold Quark Matter,

    Tyler Gorda, Aleksi Kurkela, Risto Paatelainen, Saga S¨ appi, and Aleksi Vuorinen, “Soft Interactions in Cold Quark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 162003 (2021), arXiv:2103.05658 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Ab- initio QCD Calculations Impact the Inference of the Neutron-star-matter Equation of State,

    Tyler Gorda, Oleg Komoltsev, and Aleksi Kurkela, “Ab- initio QCD Calculations Impact the Inference of the Neutron-star-matter Equation of State,” Astrophys. J. 950, 107 (2023), arXiv:2204.11877 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Evidence for a maximum mass cut-off in the neutron star mass distribution and constraints on the equation of state,

    Justin Alsing, Hector O. Silva, and Emanuele Berti, “Evidence for a maximum mass cut-off in the neutron star mass distribution and constraints on the equation of state,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478, 1377–1391 (2018), arXiv:1709.07889 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Bayesian constraints on covariant density functional equations of state of compact stars with new NICER mass-radius measurements,

    Jia-Jie Li, Yu Tian, and Armen Sedrakian, “Bayesian constraints on covariant density functional equations of state of compact stars with new NICER mass-radius measurements,” Phys. Lett. B 865, 139501 (2025), arXiv:2412.16513 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Bayesian inferences on covariant density functionals from multi- messenger astrophysical data: Nucleonic models,

    Jia-Jie Li, Yu Tian, and Armen Sedrakian, “Bayesian inferences on covariant density functionals from multi- messenger astrophysical data: Nucleonic models,” Phys. Rev. C 111, 055804 (2025), arXiv:2502.20000 [nucl-th]

    2025

  44. [53]

    A NICER View of PSR J1231−1411: A Complex Case,

    Tuomo Salmi et al. , “A NICER View of PSR J1231−1411: A Complex Case,” Astrophys. J. 976, 58 (2024), arXiv:2409.14923 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue,

    J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, L. Hsu, C. Rangel, M. Brightman, A. Merloni, M. Salvato, J. Donley, and D. Kocevski, “X-ray spectral modelling of the AGN obscuring region in the CDFS: Bayesian model selection and catalogue,” Astron. Astrophys. 564, A125 11 (2014), arXiv...

    2014 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Bayes Factors,

    Robert E. Kass and Adrian E. Raftery, “Bayes Factors,” J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 90, 773–795 (1995)

    1995

  47. [56]

    Constraining the dense mat- ter equation of state with new NICER mass-radius mea- surements and new chiral effective field theory inputs,

    Nathan Rutherford et al. , “Constraining the dense mat- ter equation of state with new NICER mass-radius mea- surements and new chiral effective field theory inputs,” (2024), 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02, arXiv:2407.06790 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Relativistic mean-field predictions for dense matter equation of state and application to neutron stars,

    Luca Passarella, Jerome Margueron, and Giuseppe Pagliara, “Relativistic mean-field predictions for dense matter equation of state and application to neutron stars,” (2025), arXiv:2503.23028 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Infer- ring the neutron star equation of state with nuclear- physics informed semiparametric models,

    Sunny Ng, Isaac Legred, Lami Suleiman, Philippe Landry, Lyla Traylor, and Jocelyn Read, “Infer- ring the neutron star equation of state with nuclear- physics informed semiparametric models,” (2025), arXiv:2507.03232 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.