Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Can Neutron Star Tidal Effects Obscure Deviations from General Relativity?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reanalyzing GW170817 with scalar-tensor gravity changes neutron-star radii and the inferred equation of state without violating current limits, so deviations from general relativity could go undetected.

desk verdict First real-event application of ST tidal Love numbers; the core caution about EOS bias is plausible, but the neglected scalar dipole radiation makes the 'undetected deviations' claim broader than the analysis supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19129 v2 pith:WT33LUWF submitted 2024-11-28 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Stephanie M. Brown , Badri Krishnan , Rahul Somasundaram , Ingo Tews This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesneutronstarsscalar-tensorgravitytidaldeformabilityequationofstateGW170817spontaneousscalarizationnuclearsaturationdensity
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

This paper tests whether the unknown nuclear equation of state can hide a modified theory of gravity in today's neutron-star merger data. The authors re-analyze the GW170817 signal under a scalar-tensor theory with the strongest scalarization coupling that is still allowed, computing the tidal deformabilities in that theory while leaving the nuclear equation of state free. They find that the component masses and tidal deformabilities come out nearly the same as in general relativity, while the inferred neutron-star radii and the high-density equation of state shift. Neither shift violates current observational bounds. Their conclusion is that deviations from general relativity could go undetected in current binary neutron star analyses and that equation-of-state measurements near three times nuclear saturation density could be biased.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the DEF scalar-tensor model, defined by the conformal coupling A(φ) = exp(β φ²/2) with β = −6, which causes spontaneous scalarization inside neutron stars when β is more negative than −4.35. For this theory the paper uses the recently derived ℓ = 2 electric tidal Love numbers, so that the scalar-tensor gravity changes the waveform only through the tidal deformabilities fed into the IMRPhenomPv2_NRTidal model. Around that tidal sector, the analysis varies a 2500-member equation-of-state ensemble built from a nuclear metamodel below twice nuclear saturation density and a sound-speed parameterization above it, and it compares the two gravity theories by nested-sampling Bayesian parameter estimation of GW170817.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to inject a full scalar-tensor waveform, including scalar dipole radiation, into the same GW170817 analysis: if the resulting posteriors separate from the general-relativistic fit, or if the Bayes factor moves decisively, the claimed degeneracy fails. With current data, comparing a fit that includes dipole radiation against the published scalar-tensor fit would already show whether the neglected term changes the inferred masses and tidal deformabilities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a binary neutron star merger analyzed today can mistake scalar-tensor gravity for general relativity when the equation of state is allowed to vary. Using GW170817, the authors compare a general-relativistic fit with a fit in the DEF spontaneous-scalarization model (β = −6 and scalar field at infinity equal to 10⁻³), where only the stars' tidal deformabilities carry the modified-gravity imprint. The two fits agree on component masses and tidal deformabilities, the Bayes factor is only weakly in favor of scalar-tensor theory (3.5 ± 0.2), and the differences show up instead in the radius of the heavier star and in the speed of sound at three times nuclear saturation density, where the scalar-tensor analysis prefers a softer high-density equation of state. The authors state that a measurement of the speed of sound at three times nuclear saturation density may therefore be the discriminator between general relativity and scalar-tensor theory.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that scalar-tensor gravity changes only the stars' tidal stretching and not the orbital inspiral itself, so the same general-relativistic waveform is used and scalar dipole radiation is ignored.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ignored scalar-tensor deviations are present, published equation-of-state constraints near three times nuclear saturation density from binary neutron star mergers could be biased.
  • A measurement of the squared speed of sound at three times nuclear saturation density is a promising discriminator between general relativity and scalar-tensor theory.
  • The disagreement between two X-ray pulsar radius analyses falls within the bias introduced by alternate theories of gravity, so radius measurements alone cannot yet settle the dispute.
  • Third-generation gravitational-wave detectors, with order-of-magnitude improvements in event numbers and signal-to-noise, should be able to pin down the equation of state at these densities and break the degeneracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the general-relativity/scalar-tensor degeneracy is likely to persist for other modified-gravity theories whose main effect is to rescale the tidal deformability at fixed mass, because the equation-of-state prior absorbs the shift.
  • I infer that including scalar dipole radiation, which the paper omits, would strengthen the scalar-tensor waveform's difference in the inspiral and could make the two theories distinguishable with existing events.
  • I infer that a population-level analysis of many binary neutron star mergers, rather than a single loud event, could reveal the systematic offset in radii that a single event hides.
  • I infer that rerunning the same analysis pipeline with coupling values between −4.35 and −6 would map how the bias grows with the strength of scalarization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether deviations from general relativity in scalar-tensor (ST) theory could be hidden in current binary neutron star gravitational-wave data while simultaneously biasing inferences of the nuclear equation of state. Using the Damour-Esposito-Farèse model with β = −6 and φ∞ = 10⁻³, the authors compute ST ℓ = 2 tidal deformabilities for a 2500-member EOS ensemble and perform Bayesian parameter estimation on GW170817 with the IMRPhenomPv2_NRTidal waveform. They report that GR and ST posteriors are consistent in component masses and tidal deformabilities, that the inferred radius of the heavier component and the high-density EOS (around 3 n_sat) differ between the two theories, and that the Bayes factor slightly favors ST (log₁₀ B = 0.54 ± 0.03). They conclude that EOS measurements may be biased if non-GR effects are ignored and that such deviations could go undetected in current observations.

Significance. If established, the result would be important: it would show that a well-motivated ST theory can produce a GW170817-like signal that is statistically compatible with GR while shifting the inferred nuclear EOS, thereby coupling modified-gravity tests with dense-matter inference. The paper has clear strengths: it uses public LIGO/Virgo data, a standard nested-sampling pipeline, a transparent EOS parameterization, and it is explicit about many modeling simplifications. The main weakness is that the ST waveform is not a complete ST waveform: only the tidal deformabilities are modified, while the point-particle phasing remains the GR one. Because scalar dipole radiation in the DEF model enters at −1PN order, the paper's headline conclusion that deviations from GR could go undetected is not yet demonstrated for the full ST theory.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5 and Section 6, final paragraph] The ST analysis uses the GR waveform model IMRPhenomPv2_NRTidal and inserts ST tidal deformabilities while leaving the point-particle phasing unchanged. In the DEF theory with β = −6 and φ∞ = 10⁻³, neutron stars acquire scalar charges that source dipolar radiation at −1PN order, which enters the gravitational-wave phase well before the 5PN tidal term. The authors acknowledge neglecting this effect but do not estimate its magnitude or show that it is negligible for the masses relevant to GW170817. Without including the −1PN dipole phase, or at least providing a quantitative bound based on the scalar charges, the abstract's claim that deviations from GR could go undetected in current binary neutron star mergers is not established for the full ST theory; a complete ST waveform could, in principle, be strongly disfavored by the data. Please either include a dipole-phasing term in the waveform model or restrict the conclusion to the tidal-only model and revise the abstract and Section 6 accordingly.
  2. [Section 6, Figures 1 and 2] The paper uses the word "bias" to describe differences between the GR and ST posteriors, but the analysis is performed on real data and does not include an injection-recovery study. The ST posterior for c_s²(3 n_sat) is reported as showing essentially no change from its prior, whereas the GR posterior is updated; this difference could be driven by the different prior support in the mass-radius plane rather than by a systematic mis-recovery of a true ST signal. To substantiate the claim that EOS measurements are biased when non-GR effects are ignored, the authors should perform injection tests: inject a GW170817-like signal generated with the ST model (ideally including dipole radiation) and show that recovery with the GR model shifts the EOS parameters relative to their injected values. If such a study is outside the scope of the paper, the "bias" language should be softened to "model-dependent differences."
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The sentence "icos is taken to be uniform over [−1, 1]" appears to be a typo for "cos ι is taken to be uniform over [−1, 1]"; please correct it.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (5)–(6)] The expansion variable x is defined in the sentence after Eqs. (5)–(6) but is already used in those equations; please define x before its first use.
  3. [Section 4] Please state explicitly whether the M_TOV > 1.9 M_sun and the 2.18 M_sun pulsar cutoffs are enforced using the GR or the ST mass-radius relation, since the theory-dependent filtering changes the EOS prior entering the parameter estimation.
  4. [Section 6, Figure 1 caption] The caption says that the mass and radius priors are shown as dotted lines in the 1D marginal plots, but it does not clarify whether these priors are identical for the GR and ST runs; please state this explicitly.
  5. [Section 6, Eq. (7) and following text] Please clarify whether the quoted Bayes factor includes the EOS prior and the pulsar constraints in the evidence calculation, and state whether the quoted uncertainty (0.03 in log₁₀) is a nested-sampling sampling error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ST-vs-GR analysis is a parameter-estimation study whose non-GR inputs (TLNs, beta, phi_inf, EOS prior) come from external computations and constraints, not from GW170817.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its non-GR inputs from the data it then interprets. The ST tidal Love numbers are imported from prior published work (S. M. Brown 2023), and the paper explicitly states 'For details on the computation, see, e.g., S. M. Brown (2023).' This is a self-citation, but it supplies an independent theoretical calculation (the l=2 even-parity tensor TLNs in scalar-tensor theory), not a value fitted to GW170817. The theory parameters are fixed from external constraints: beta=-6 is justified by the scalarization threshold beta<-4.35 from Harada (1998), and phi_inf=1e-3 is set by the Cassini bound (Bertotti et al. 2003). The 2500 EOSs are generated from the metamodel of Margueron et al. and the sound-speed parameterization, and are filtered only by pulsar mass and NICER radius constraints, not by the GW data being analyzed. The GW likelihood uses the standard IMRPhenomPv2_NRTidal waveform, so the ST hypothesis differs from GR only through the prior mapping from (m1,m2,EOS) to lambda1,lambda2; the resulting mass, radius, and EOS posteriors and the Bayes factor are genuine inference outputs from the real GW170817 data. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to itself by construction. The self-citations to the analysis pipeline (Capano et al. 2020) and to the TLN computation (Brown 2023) are methodological/theoretical inputs, not load-bearing logical dependencies that force the conclusion. The paper itself flags the omission of scalar dipole radiation in Section 6 ('We have considered only the even-parity tensor perturbation, and neglected effects of scalar dipole radiation on the dynamics of the binary system, and hence on the GW signal'); this is a modeling/incompleteness caveat about the ST waveform, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis imports the ST theory, the tidal Love number formalism, the waveform model, and the EOS prior from the literature. The only theory parameters chosen by hand are β=-6 and φ∞=10^-3, both fixed from external constraints. No new particles or entities are introduced. The EOS parameters are inferred quantities whose priors are inherited from nuclear physics.

free parameters (4)
  • DEF coupling β = -6
    Chosen by hand as the largest reasonable deviation from GR; scalarization requires β < -4.35 (Harada 1998). Affects the magnitude of the ST tidal deformability differences.
  • Asymptotic scalar field φ∞ = 10^-3
    Set within the Cassini bound (2×10^-3 for β=-6); the paper states TLNs are weakly sensitive to this parameter (Brown 2023).
  • Nuclear empirical parameter priors (Ksat, Esym, Lsym, Ksym) = Ksat 210-260 MeV, Esym 28-35, Lsym 30-75, Ksym -200 to 200 MeV
    Prior ranges from the metamodel (Margueron et al. 2018); these are inferred quantities, not fixed constants, but the chosen ranges shape the EOS posterior.
  • High-density squared sound speeds at 3,4,5,6,7,8 n_sat = uniform in [0, c^2]
    Free parameters of the high-density EOS extension (Tews et al. 2018; Somasundaram et al. 2023). The 3 n_sat value is the one that shows the GR/ST difference.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ST ℓ=2 electric tidal Love number formalism from prior work is correct.
    Used without re-derivation; the ST M-R-Λ relations central to the analysis come from Brown 2023 and Creci et al. 2023.
  • domain assumption Scalar dipole radiation is negligible for this analysis.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 6; if false, the waveform model used for the ST case is incomplete and the inferred parameters could shift.
  • domain assumption IMRPhenomPv2_NRTidal is an adequate waveform for both GR and ST.
    Used for both theories with only tidal deformabilities changed; it is calibrated to GR simulations, not ST.
  • domain assumption The metamodel plus sound-speed extension is a valid EOS representation.
    The EOS posterior and the 3 n_sat sound-speed claim depend on this prior from Margueron et al. 2018 and Tews et al. 2018.
  • domain assumption The pulsar constraints (M_TOV > 2.18 M_sun and NICER 1σ radius/mass) are reliable.
    Used to filter the 2500 EOSs; wrong constraints would change the EOS posteriors.
  • ad hoc to paper β=-6 is the largest reasonable deviation from GR in DEF theory.
    The authors choose this value to maximize the effect; more negative values are claimed to be ruled out and less negative would give smaller effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Neutron Star Tidal Effects Obscure Deviations from General Relativity?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WT33LUWF

@misc{pith2026241119129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Neutron Star Tidal Effects Obscure Deviations from General Relativity?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WT33LUWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19129}
}
abstract

One of the main goals of gravitational-wave astrophysics is to study gravity in the strong-field regime and constrain deviations from general relativity (GR). Any such deviation affects not only binary dynamics and gravitational-wave emission but also the structure and tidal properties of compact objects. In the case of neutron stars, masses, radii, and tidal deformabilities can all differ significantly between different theories of gravity. Currently, the measurement uncertainties in neutron star radii and tidal deformabilities are quite large. However, much less is known about how the large uncertainty in the nuclear equation of state (EOS) might affect tests of GR using binary neutron star mergers. Conversely, using the wrong theory of gravity might lead to incorrect constraints on the nuclear EOS. Here, we study this problem within scalar-tensor (ST) theory. We apply the recently derived $\ell = 2$ tidal Love numbers in this theory to parameter estimation of GW170817. Correspondingly, we test if physics beyond GR could bias measurements of the nuclear EOS and neutron star radii. We find that parameter inference for both the GR and ST cases return consistent component masses and tidal deformabilities. The radius and the EOS posteriors, however, differ between the two theories, but neither is excluded by current observational limits. This indicates that measurements of the nuclear EOS may be biased and that deviations from GR could go undetected when analyzing current binary neutron star mergers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19129 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Neutron star mass–radius relations and marginalized posterior distributions of the source component masses M1,2 and radii R1,2, in GR (left) and ST theory with β = −6 (right). The shaded gray mass–radius curves show the prior distribution on the equation of state. The blue (green) curves on the mass–radius plot show the 50th and 90th percentile credible regions for the primary (secondary) mass. The mass and radius p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posteriors on select nuclear properties (Ksat, Esym, Lsym, Ksym, and cs 2 at 3nsat) in GR (top) and ST theory (bottom). The prior is shown in blue and the posterior is shown in red. Dashed vertical lines show the 90th percentile credible interval. 5 The Astrophysical Journal, 982:133 (6pp), 2025 April 1 Brown et al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Tidal effects in gravitational waves from neutron stars in scalar-tensor theories of gravity

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tidal contributions to neutron-star binary gravitational-wave phase in scalar-tensor gravity involve scalar, tensor, and mixed Love numbers, and generally combine to reduce the net tidal signal below the general-relat...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, PhRvL, 121, 161101

    Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 161101

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 221101

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 161101

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2014, CQGra, 32, 024001 AEI 2017, The Atlas Computing Cluster, https://www.aei.mpg.de/43564/ atlas-computing-cluster

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2014, CQGra, 32, 024001 AEI 2017, The Atlas Computing Cluster, https://www.aei.mpg.de/43564/ atlas-computing-cluster

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 021501

    Bernard, L. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 021501

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    2003, Natur, 425, 374

    Bertotti, B., Iess, L., & Tortora, P. 2003, Natur, 425, 374

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    2009, PhRvD, 80, 084018

    Binnington, T., & Poisson, E. 2009, PhRvD, 80, 084018

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    M., Capano, C

    Biwer, C. M., Capano, C. D., De, S., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 024503

    work page 2019

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Brans, C., & Dicke, R. H. 1961, PhRv, 124, 925

    1961

  2. [10]

    2024, A&A, 689, A51

    Breschi, M., Gamba, R., Carullo, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A51

    2024

  3. [11]

    Brown, S. M. 2023, ApJ, 958, 125

    2023

  4. [12]

    2018, ApJL, 854, L31

    Cantiello, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 854, L31

    2018

  5. [13]

    D., Cabero, M., Westerweck, J., et al

    Capano, C. D., Cabero, M., Westerweck, J., et al. 2023, PhRvL, 131, 221402

    2023

  6. [14]

    D., Tews, I., Brown, S

    Capano, C. D., Tews, I., Brown, S. M., et al. 2020, NatAs, 4, 625

    2020

  7. [15]

    Chatziioannou, K., Isi, M., Haster, C.-J., & Littenberg, T. B. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 044005

    2021

  8. [16]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 124073

    Creci, G., Hinderer, T., & Steinhoff, J. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 124073

    2023

  9. [17]

    1992, CQGra, 9, 2093

    Damour, T., & Esposito-Farèse, G. 1992, CQGra, 9, 2093

    1992

  10. [18]

    1993, PhRvL, 70, 2220

    Damour, T., & Esposito-Farèse, G. 1993, PhRvL, 70, 2220

    1993

  11. [19]

    2009, PhRvD, 80, 084035

    Damour, T., & Nagar, A. 2009, PhRvD, 80, 084035

    2009

  12. [20]

    M., et al

    De, S., Finstad, D., Lattimer, J. M., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 091102

    2018

  13. [21]

    X., A fle, C., et al

    Evans, M., Adhikari, R. X., A fle, C., et al. 2021, arXiv: 2109.09882

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    1956, AcHPh, 29, 128

    Fierz, M. 1956, AcHPh, 29, 128

    1956

  15. [23]

    E., & Hinderer, T

    Flanagan, E. E., & Hinderer, T. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 021502

    2008

  16. [24]

    2003, The Scalar –Tensor Theory of Gravitation, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ

    Fujii, Y., & Maeda, K.-I. 2003, The Scalar –Tensor Theory of Gravitation, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press )

    2003

  17. [25]

    K., et al

    Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., Johnson-McDaniel, N. K., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 94, 021101

    2016

  18. [26]

    2020, PhRvL, 125, 201101

    Gupta, A., Datta, S., Kastha, S., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 201101

    2020

  19. [27]

    1998, PhRvD, 57, 4802

    Harada, T. 1998, PhRvD, 57, 4802

    1998

  20. [28]

    2011, CQGra, 28, 094013

    Hild, S., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al. 2011, CQGra, 28, 094013

    2011

  21. [29]

    2008, ApJ, 677, 1216

    Hinderer, T. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1216

    2008

  22. [30]

    M., Giesler, M., Scheel, M

    Isi, M., Farr, W. M., Giesler, M., Scheel, M. A., & Teukolsky, S. A. 2021, PhRvL, 127, 011103

    2021

  23. [31]

    M., Scheel, M

    Isi, M., Giesler, M., Farr, W. M., Scheel, M. A., & Teukolsky, S. A. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 111102

    2019

  24. [32]

    1955, Schwerkraft und Weltall (Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn )

    Jordan, P. 1955, Schwerkraft und Weltall (Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn )

    1955

  25. [33]

    D., Westerweck, J., et al

    Kastha, S., Capano, C. D., Westerweck, J., et al. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 064042

    2022

  26. [34]

    Koehn, H., Rose, H., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2024, arXiv: 2402.04172

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    K., Buonanno, A., Cotesta, R., et al

    Mehta, A. K., Buonanno, A., Cotesta, R., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 044020

    2023

  28. [36]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L24

    2019

  29. [37]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L28

    2021

  30. [38]

    Mirshekari, S., & Will, C. M. 2013, PhRvD, 87, 084070

    2013

  31. [39]

    K., Arun, K

    Mishra, C. K., Arun, K. G., Iyer, B. R., & Sathyaprakash, B. S. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 064010

    2010

  32. [40]

    O., & Yunes, N

    Nair, R., Perkins, S., Silva, H. O., & Yunes, N. 2019, PhRvL, 123, 191101

    2019

  33. [41]

    T., Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M

    Pang, P. T., Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., et al. 2023, NatCo, 14, 8352

    2023

  34. [42]

    2014, PhRvD, 90, 024025

    Pani, P., & Berti, E. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 024025

    2014

  35. [43]

    K., Hebeler, K., et al

    Raaijmakers, G., Greif, S. K., Hebeler, K., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, 29

    2021

  36. [44]

    2019, EPJA, 55, 50

    Radice, D., & Dai, L. 2019, EPJA, 55, 50

    2019

  37. [45]

    T., Somasundaram, R., De, S., et al

    Reed, B. T., Somasundaram, R., De, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 281

    2024

  38. [46]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L21

    2019

  39. [47]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Ray, P. S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L27

    2021

  40. [48]

    W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A

    Romani, R. W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A. V., Brink, T. G., & Zheng, W. 2022, ApJL, 934, L17

    2022

  41. [49]

    2021, PhRvD, 104, 124052

    Saffer, A., & Yagi, K. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 124052

    2021

  42. [50]

    G., & Sathyaprakash, B

    Saleem, M., Datta, S., Arun, K. G., & Sathyaprakash, B. S. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 084062

    2022

  43. [51]

    E., Annis, J., et al

    Soares-Santos, M., Holz, D. E., Annis, J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L16

    2017

  44. [52]

    2023, PhRvC, 107, 025801

    Somasundaram, R., Tews, I., & Margueron, J. 2023, PhRvC, 107, 025801

    2023

  45. [53]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132

    2020

  46. [54]

    2018, ApJ, 860, 149

    Tews, I., Carlson, J., Gandol fi, S., & Reddy, S. 2018, ApJ, 860, 149

    2018

  47. [55]

    2024, arXiv: 2407.08979

    Tews, I., Somasundaram, R., Lonardoni, D., et al. 2024, arXiv: 2407.08979

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 58

    Wang, Y.-F., Niu, R., Zhu, T., & Zhao, W. 2021, ApJ, 908, 58

    2021

  49. [57]

    Will, C. M. 1971, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology

    1971

  50. [58]

    S., Doneva, D

    Yazadjiev, S. S., Doneva, D. D., & Kokkotas, K. D. 2018, EPJC, 78, 818 6 The Astrophysical Journal, 982:133 (6pp), 2025 April 1 Brown et al

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.