Implications of latest NICER data for the neutron star equation of state

Len Brandes; Wolfram Weise

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Implications of latest NICER data for the neutron star equation of state

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding the NICER pulsar J0437-4751 measurement shifts inferred neutron-star radii down by about 0.2–0.3 km and raises the evidence for a negative trace anomaly in heavy stars to strong.

desk verdict A solid, incremental update: the radius shifts are believable, but the 'strong' trace-anomaly Bayes factor is prior- and dataset-sensitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05923 v2 pith:EUUN677E submitted 2024-12-08 nucl-th astro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-ex

Len Brandes , Wolfram Weise This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-ex

keywords neutronstarequationofstateNICERPSRJ0437-4751Bayesianinferencetraceanomalysquaredspeedsoundmass-radiusrelationBayesfactor

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 asks what the latest NICER measurement of the nearby millisecond pulsar PSR J0437-4751 changes in our picture of the neutron-star equation of state. Including this pulsar's relatively small radius shifts the inferred radius of a typical 1.4 solar-mass neutron star down by about 0.2–0.3 km to $R_{1.4}=12.1\pm0.5$ km, with a similar $R_{2.1}=11.9^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ km for a heavy 2.1 solar-mass star. The same data strengthen the case that in the cores of heavy neutron stars the pressure exceeds one third of the energy density, $\Delta = 1/3 - P/\varepsilon < 0$, lifting the Bayes factor to $B=10.9$ when the 2.35 solar-mass black-widow pulsar is included. This implies that the matter in neutron-star cores is stiffer than the conformal benchmark and that the approach to conformal behavior is pushed to densities beyond those reached in neutron stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the squared speed of sound $c_s^2(\varepsilon)$ as a function of energy density, represented as a piecewise-linear interpolation on $N=6$ segments with parameters $\theta=\{c_{s,i}^2,\varepsilon_i\}$. Pressure follows by integration, $P(\varepsilon)=\int_0^\varepsilon d\varepsilon'\, c_s^2(\varepsilon')$, and each equation of state is fed into the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations plus tidal-deformability equations to produce mass-radius and tidal predictions. Chiral effective field theory is entered as a likelihood up to $1.3\,n_0$ rather than a prior, and a causal, thermodynamically stable connection to perturbative QCD at $n_B\gtrsim40\,n_0$ is enforced. The evidence statements are computed as Bayes factors between competing hypotheses, such as $\Delta<0$ versus $\Delta\geq0$ and $c_{s,\min}>0.1$ versus $c_{s,\min}\leq0.1$. This machinery is what converts the raw pulsar radii into statements about the equation of state.

What would settle it

One concrete test would be to rerun the same pipeline with a fundamentally different equation-of-state prior, such as a Gaussian-process prior: if the Bayes factor for $\Delta<0$ drops below about 10, the 'strong evidence' is an artifact of the parameterization. Alternatively, a future precise radius measurement of a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star at or above about 12.5 km would push the inferred radii back upward and should reduce the same Bayes factor below the strong-evidence threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding the NICER mass-radius measurement of PSR J0437-4751, together with the updated radius of PSR J0740+6620 and the heavy black-widow pulsar mass, moves the inferred equation of state modestly but does not change its qualitative shape. The median radii of neutron stars at 1.4 and 2.1 solar masses both land near 12 km, with $R_{1.4}=12.1\pm0.5$ km and $R_{2.1}=11.9^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ km at 68% credibility, while central densities rise slightly to $2.8\pm0.3$ and $3.8^{+0.6}_{-0.7}$ times nuclear saturation density. The squared speed of sound exceeds the conformal value $c_s^2=1/3$ already around $2\text{--}3\,n_0$ and remains above it, so the trace anomaly measure $\Delta=1/3-P/\varepsilon$ turns negative in the densest cores. On the paper's reading, the data now give strong Bayesian evidence for $\Delta<0$ and against a first-order phase transition in stars up to about $2.1\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the six-segment piecewise-linear sound-speed family spans the relevant equations of state without bias, so the Bayes factors reflect the data rather than the prior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 1.4 solar-mass neutron star and a 2.1 solar-mass neutron star come out with nearly the same radius, about 12 km, so future radius measurements at several masses will probe the slope of the equation of state rather than just its overall scale.
Central densities stay below $5\,n_0$ at the 68% level even for a 2.3 solar-mass star, meaning the average baryon spacing in the core remains above about 1 fm.
Strong evidence against a small minimum of the sound speed excludes a first-order phase transition inside stars up to about $2.1\,M_\odot$, which disfavors twin-star mass-radius scenarios when chiral EFT is included.
Negative trace anomaly in the core implies pressure exceeding $\varepsilon/3$, so the conformal limit is not reached inside neutron stars; this serves as a benchmark for quark-hadron continuity models such as QHC21.
The maximum supported mass shifts to $M_{\max}=2.30^{+0.12}_{-0.15}\,M_\odot$ once the black-widow mass is included, so a future discovery of a heavier neutron star would tighten constraints further.

Reading between the lines

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

A re-analysis of the same data with a non-parametric equation-of-state prior, for example a Gaussian process, would test whether the 'strong' Bayes factor for a negative trace anomaly is a property of the data or of the six-segment sound-speed parameterization.
If the negative trace anomaly is real, the inferred compactness of heavy neutron stars predicts specific tidal deformabilities such as $\Lambda_{1.4}\simeq364$; a future gravitational-wave event with a well-measured tidal deformability would provide an independent check.
The paper's choice not to include PSR J1231-1411, because its radius inference depends strongly on the prior, leaves room for that pulsar to either corroborate or contradict the roughly 12 km radius once its analysis stabilizes.
The pattern reported here suggests that each additional precise pulsar radius will keep moving the inferred radius modestly downward; if that trend continues, tensions with the larger radius reported for J0030+0451 will need to be resolved.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

New in this paper are specific numbers: the J0437 inclusion shifts R_1.4 to 12.1±0.5 km and R_2.1 to 11.9+0.5/−0.6 km, and the Bayes factor for a negative trace anomaly reaches 10.9 when the black widow mass is included. Those numbers are defensible as updates of the authors' existing pipeline. The paper is careful where it counts: it flags the ambiguous J0030 reanalysis, excludes J1231 with a stated reason, and reports the Bayes factor without BW (5.6, moderate) instead of hiding it.

The main soft spot is the headline 'strong' evidence for Δ<0. The Bayes factor is computed inside a single piecewise-linear c_s^2 prior family, and stability checks that vary the segment count don't test a structurally different prior. At high energy densities the astrophysical data mostly constrain the integrated M-R relation, so the posterior for Δ is partly a prior-volume effect. The threshold is fragile: drop the BW mass and the evidence downgrades from strong to moderate, and the BW mass itself requires a radius-dependent rotational correction. The paper acknowledges the without-BW value but still leads with B=10.9.

The radius shifts, by contrast, look stable and are consistent with other analyses; they are modest and honestly described. No serious errors in the tables or TOV machinery are apparent. What's missing is release of code or posterior samples, which would let someone check the Bayes factor against an alternative prior. That is the main reason to be conditional rather than fully confident.

This is a competent incremental paper, not a breakthrough. It will be cited by people using empirical radii and by model builders testing whether negative trace anomaly is real. It deserves a serious referee; the report should ask for a robustness test with a different prior family or a clear statement that the claim is prior-dependent.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper updates the authors' earlier Bayesian inference of the neutron star equation of state by adding the 2024 NICER mass-radius measurement of PSR J0437-4751 to the 'Standard' data set (Shapiro-delay masses, earlier NICER data, and gravitational-wave tidal deformabilities). The authors report that including J0437 shifts the inferred radii of 1.4 and 2.1 solar-mass neutron stars downward by about 0.2-0.3 km, to R1.4 = 12.1 +/- 0.5 km and R2.1 = 11.9^{+0.5}_{-0.6} km at 68% credibility, with slightly increased central densities. The central claim highlighted in the abstract is a Bayes factor B_{Delta<0/Delta>=0} = 10.9 for a negative trace anomaly measure Delta = 1/3 - P/epsilon inside heavy neutron stars, which the authors classify as strong evidence when the black-widow pulsar J0952-0607 is included. The paper also discusses the reanalyzed PSR J0030+0451, excludes the ambiguous PSR J1231-1411, and reports additional Bayes factors concerning first-order phase transitions and twin-star scenarios.

Significance. If the results hold, the updated radius and central-density constraints are useful incremental refinements of the neutron star EoS, and the claim of strong evidence for a negative trace anomaly in neutron-star cores would be a notable input to the QCD phase-structure discussion. The paper is careful and transparent in its treatment of ambiguous data sources (notably the reanalyzed J0030+0451 and the excluded J1231-1411), and the posterior medians and credible intervals in Table II are internally consistent. The authors also make a reasonable methodological choice by implementing the chiral EFT constraint as a likelihood rather than a prior. The main weakness is that the headline Bayes factor is computed within a single sound-speed prior family and is threshold-sensitive, so the strength of the central evidence claim is not yet established at the level the paper asserts.

major comments (2)

[Section III.E, Eq. (7) and Section II, Eq. (3)] The Bayes factor B_{Delta<0/Delta>=0} = 10.9 is obtained from posterior samples drawn from a single parametric family, the N=6 piecewise-linear c_s^2 prior. The prior-stability tests cited in Section II (N>=4-5 from Ref. [38] and comparison with a Gaussian process in Ref. [24]) validate posterior credible bands for c_s^2 and P(epsilon), not the posterior probability of the nonlinear functional Delta(epsilon) < 0. At energy densities above about 700 MeV fm^{-3}, the astrophysical data constrain mostly the integrated mass-radius relation, so the posterior is close to the prior, and the Bayes factor largely reflects the prior volume ratio of Delta<0 to Delta>=0 within this parameterization. The authors should report the prior odds for Delta<0 or repeat the calculation with a qualitatively different prior (e.g., a Gaussian-process prior or a prior with an explicit phase-transition sector) before claiming strong evidence.
[Section III, black-widow paragraph; Eq. (7)] The 'strong' value B=10.9 is obtained only when the black-widow pulsar J0952-0607 is included; without it, B=5.6 corresponds to only moderate evidence. The BW mass enters through a radius-dependent rotational correction based on the empirical formula of Ref. [52], reducing the observed 2.35 +/- 0.17 M_sun to about 2.3 +/- 0.2 M_sun at R approximately 12 km. The paper does not show how B responds to the uncertainty in this correction or to alternative treatments of the BW mass, even though the threshold for 'strong' evidence (B>10) is close to the reported value. A sensitivity analysis of B to the BW mass prior and rotational-correction prescription should be provided, or the conclusion should be phrased as conditional on that correction.

minor comments (5)

[Table I and Fig. 2 caption] The pulsar name is given as 'PSR J0437-4715' in Table I and in the Fig. 2 caption; the correct designation is PSR J0437-4751.
[Section III.C and Section III (HESS J1731 discussion)] There are typographical errors: 'occurance' should be 'occurrence', and 'limt' should be 'limit' in the sentence about the HESS J1731-347 radius overlap.
[Reference [65]] Reference [65] lists the journal as 'Rhys. Rev. C' and should read 'Phys. Rev. C'.
[Figures and captions] The compiled manuscript contains garbled and duplicated figure blocks (e.g., repeated Fig. 3 text); the final version should ensure that each figure caption is unique and correctly associated with its panel.
[Equation (7)] The sentence following Eq. (7) should state explicitly that the value 10.9 corresponds to the data set including the black-widow pulsar, and that the authors base the abstract claim on that case, to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a Bayesian update driven by external NICER, Shapiro-delay, and gravitational-wave data, and the central Bayes-factor claims are posterior summaries rather than quantities defined in terms of the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central results are inferences from external empirical data sets (PSR J0437-4751 NICER radii, PSR J0740+6620, PSR J0030+0451, Shapiro-delay masses, GW170817/GW190425 tidal deformabilities, plus the black-widow mass). The reported quantities R_{1.4}, R_{2.1}, central densities, and the trace-anomaly Bayes factor B_{\Delta<0/\Delta\geq0}=10.9 are posterior summaries computed by conditioning a general EoS parameterization on those external data; they are not predictions of a model fitted to the same quantity. The piecewise-linear squared-speed-of-sound prior (Eq. 3) is taken from the authors' previous work [8], which is a self-citation, but the paper does not rely on it as an unverified uniqueness theorem. Prior robustness is explicitly cross-checked against external and independent work: stability in the number of segments is cited to [38] (Altiparmak et al.), and the parameterization is compared with a non-parametric Gaussian process [24] (Annala et al.). The trace-anomaly conclusion is additionally supported by independent Bayesian analyses cited as [17, 21, 23, 25]. The closest concern is that the high-density posterior, and hence the Bayes factor for negative trace anomaly, may inherit volume from the chosen prior family; that is a legitimate prior-sensitivity or robustness worry, but the paper's equations do not reduce the Bayes factor to the prior by construction, and the manuscript does not rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. Under the stated hard rules, a fragility or non-uniqueness objection without an exhibited equation-level reduction is a correctness risk, not circularity. No load-bearing derivation step is equivalent to its input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its free parameters are the sound-speed segment values and knot positions of the Bayesian EoS representation. The main assumptions are the flexibility of that representation, the likelihood treatment of ChEFT, the reliability of the NICER J0437 data, and the causal connection to pQCD at asymptotically high density.

free parameters (2)

c_s^2 segment values c_s^2,i (i=1,...,6) = posterior distributions; median profile tabulated in Table V
The equation of state is parametrized by six segment-wise linear squared sound speed values; the inferred radii, densities, and Bayes factors depend on this prior family.
Energy-density knot positions epsilon_i = prior-sampled positions, not reported numerically
The knot locations are part of theta = {c_s^2,i, epsilon_i} and control where the sound speed can change slope, directly affecting the flexibility of the inference.

assumptions (5)

standard math Bayes theorem and the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations convert pressure-energy density relations into mass-radius and tidal deformability predictions.
These are standard general relativity and probability tools used in Section II to connect P(epsilon) to observable M, R, and Lambda.
domain assumption A segment-wise linear prior for the squared speed of sound with N=6 segments is sufficiently flexible to represent the true neutron star EoS.
The central inference depends on this prior family. The authors cite stability tests for N >= 4-5 and a comparison with Gaussian process results, but those tests use the same general parameterization family.
domain assumption Chiral effective field theory constraints are implemented as a likelihood up to n_B = 1.3 n0 rather than as a hard prior.
This treatment differs from Ref. [4] and is argued in Section II. It affects the low-density evolution of the EoS and hence the inferred radii and central densities.
domain assumption The NICER J0437 mass-radius measurement is an unbiased representation of the true mass and radius of the source.
All posterior shifts and the strengthened Bayes factor for a negative trace anomaly inherit the systematic assumptions of the NICER hotspot and distance modeling.
domain assumption The EoS must connect to the asymptotic perturbative QCD limit at n_B >= 40 n0 through a causally and thermodynamically stable interpolation.
The pQCD likelihood is imposed following Refs. [41,42], and it constrains the high-density behavior of the sound speed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Implications of latest NICER data for the neutron star equation of state." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUUN677E

@misc{pith2026241205923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Implications of latest NICER data for the neutron star equation of state},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUUN677E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05923}
}

abstract

As an update to our previously performed Bayesian inference analyses of the neutron star matter equation-of-state and related quantities, the additional impact of the recently published NICER data of PSR J0437-4751 is examined. Including the mass and radius distributions of this pulsar in our data base results in modest shifts from previously inferred median posterior values of radii $R$ and central densities $n_c$ for representative $1.4\,M_\odot$ and $2.1\,M_\odot$ neutron stars: radii are reduced by about $0.2-0.3$ km to values of $R_{1.4} = 12.1\pm 0.5$ km and $R_{2.1} = 11.9^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ km (at the 68\% level), and central densities increase slightly to values of $n_c(1.4\,M_\odot)/n_0 = 2.8\pm 0.3$ and $n_c(2.1\,M_\odot)/n_0 = 3.8_{-0.7}^{+0.6}$ (in units of equilibrium nuclear matter density, $n_0 = 0.16$ fm$^{-3}$), i.e., they still fall below five times nuclear saturation density at the 68\% level. As a further significant result, the evidence established by analyzing Bayes factors for a negative trace anomaly measure, $\Delta = 1/3-P/\varepsilon < 0$, inside heavy neutron stars is raised to strong.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05923 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Marginal posterior probability distributions at 95% and 68% level: squared speed of sound c s ftif ditifd fthdtt ’Pi+ BW’ (TbI)Alht FIG. 3. Marginal posterior probability distributions at 95% and 68% level: squared speed of sound FIG3Mil tibbilitditibtit 95% d 68% lld d f function of energy density ", inferred from the dataset Previous + BW(see Tab. I). Also shown are the bbilitditibtifthdiltid thtidl dfbili… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Marginal 95% and 68% posterior credible bands and medians for the mass-radius relation (left) and tidal deformability as a function as a function of baryon µ for the baryon chemical potential th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** FIG. 12. Posterior 95% and 68% credible bands and medians FIG. 12. Posterior 95% and 68% credible bands and medians This value increases to BNbranches=1 Nbranches>1 = 13.0 with the in f This value increases to BNbranches=1 Nbranches>1 = 13.0 with the in F f This value increases to BNbranches=1 Nb h >1 = 13.0 with the in F f This value increases to BNbranches=1 Nbranches>1 = 13.0 with the in F f () (gy) baryon de… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Starting with a value Fig. 7. Starting with a value Fig. 7. Starting with a value Fig. 7. Starting with a value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

Short GRB 090510: a magnetized neutron star binary merger leading to a black hole
astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

GRB 090510 is modeled as a merger of two ~1.2 solar mass neutron stars that forms a spinning 2.36 solar mass black hole, with each emission phase traced to a different energy source.
Quarkyonic Quark-Meson Coupling Model for Nuclear and Neutron Matter
nucl-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A quark-based nuclear matter model combining quarkyonic Pauli blocking with quark-meson coupling can be tuned to reproduce neutron-star and heavy-ion constraints.
Quantifying the Information Gain from Future High-Precision Radius Measurements for Identifying Twin Neutron Stars
astro-ph.HE 2026-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper claims a radius precision of ~0.2 km is enough to extract most Bayesian information for identifying twin neutron stars, but its own distinguishability and entropy analyses suggest notable gains remain down t...
Compact stars in a large-tension braneworld: mildly negative Weyl coupling consistent with NICER and gravitational-wave data
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A large-tension braneworld with α_U ≈ −0.15 fits NICER and GW170817 data for SLy, raising M_max to ~2.30 M_⊙ and R_1.4 to ~13.3 km relative to GR.
Stiffening of matter in quark-hadron continuity: a mini-review
nucl-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Quark saturation inside baryons, not many-body nucleon repulsion, may drive the rapid stiffening of neutron star matter at 2-3 times nuclear saturation density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

[38]

Brandes, W

L. Brandes, W. Weise, and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D108, 094014 (2023)

work page 2023
[24]

Antoniadis et al

J. Antoniadis et al. ,S c i e n c e 340 ,1 2 3 3 2 3 2( 2 0 1 3 )

work page
[52]

Upper Limit of Sound Speed in Nuclear Matter: A Harmonious Interplay of Transport Calculation and Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamic Constraint

S.-P. Tang, Y .-J. Huang, M.-Z. Han, and Y .-Z. Fan, arXiv:2404.09563 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[20]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 ,L 2 8( 2 0 2 1 ) . 18 0 2 4 6 n/n 0 1000 1500 2000 µ [MeV] Previous + BW FIG. 12. Posterior 95% and 68% credible bands and medians for the baryon chemical potential µ as a function of baryon density n in units of the nuclear saturation density, n 0 = 0 . 16 fm 3 . " [GeV fm 3 ] c 2 s P [MeV fm 3 ] n/n 0 µ [Ge...

work page 2000
[21]

P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature 467 ,1 0 8 1( 2 0 1 0 )

work page
[22]

Fonseca et al

E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. 832 ,1 6 7( 2 0 1 6 )

work page
[23]

Arzoumanian et al

Z. Arzoumanian et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 235 ,3 7 (2018)

work page 2018
[25]

H. T. Cromartie et al. , Nat. Astron. 4 ,7 2( 2 0 2 0 )

work page

Show all 77 references

[26]

Fonseca et al

E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 915 ,L 1 2( 2 0 2 1 )
[27]

T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 ,L 2 1( 2 0 1 9 )
[28]

T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 ,L 2 7( 2 0 2 1 )
[29]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 887 ,L 2 4( 2 0 1 9 )
[30]

TIbNoSAaTWYLLUqE35kwITDnwnw=

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 ,L 2 8( 2 0 2 1 ) . <latexit sha1_base64="TIbNoSAaTWYLLUqE35kwITDnwnw=">AAAB6HicbVA9SwNBEJ2LXzF+RS1tFoNgFe4kqGXARrBJwHxAcoS9zVyyZm/v2N0TwhGwt7FQxNafZOe/cfNRaOKDgcd7M8zMCxLBtXHdbye3tr6xuZXfLuzs7u0fFA+PmjpOFcMGi0Ws2gHVKLjEhuFGYDtRSKN...
[31]

Choudhury et al

D. Choudhury et al. (NICER Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L20 (2024)

2024
[32]

Reardon et al., Astrophys

D.J. Reardon et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L18 (2024)

2024
[33]

Riley et al., Astrophys

T.E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019)

2019
[34]

Rutherford et al., Astrophys

N. Rutherford et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L19 (2024)

2024
[35]

Riley et al., Astrophys

T.E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021)

2021
[36]

Salmi et al., Astrophys

T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J. 941, 150 (2022)

2022
[37]

Salmi et al., Astrophys

T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J. 974, 294 (2024)

2024
[39]

Marczenko, L

M. Marczenko, L. McLerran, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. C 107, 025802 (2023)

2023
[40]

Han, Y .-J

M.-Z. Han, Y .-J. Huang, S.-P. Tang, and Y .-Z. Fan, Sci. Bull. 68, 913-919 (2023)

2023
[41]

Essick, I

R. Essick, I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, S. Han, and P. Landry, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043013 (2023)

2023
[42]

Tak ´atsy, P

J. Tak ´atsy, P. Kov´acs, G. Wolf, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043002 (2023)

2023
[43]

Jiang, C

J.-L. Jiang, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. 949, 11 (2023)

2023
[44]

Mroczek, M

D. Mroczek, M. C. Miller, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, arXiv:2309.02345 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[45]

P. Pang, L. Sivertsen, R. Somasundaram, T. Dietrich, S. Sen, I. Tews, M.W. Coughlin, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. C 109, 025807 (2024)

2024
[46]

Lim and A

Y . Lim and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C109, 035801 (2024)

2024
[47]

C. Y . Tsang, M. B. Tsang, W.G. Lynch, R. Kumar, and C.J. Horowitz, Nat. Astron. 8, 328–336 (2024)

2024
[48]

Fan, M.-Z

Y .-Z. Fan, M.-Z. Han, J.-L. Jiang, D.-S. Shao, and S.-P. Tang, Phys. Rev. D. 109, 043052 (2024)

2024
[49]

D. D. Ofengeim, P. S. Shternin, and T. Prian, arXiv:2404.17647 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[50]

Komoltsev, arXiv:2404.05637 (2024)

O. Komoltsev, arXiv:2404.05637 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[51]

Malik, V

T. Malik, V . Dexheimer, and C. Providˆencia, arXiv:2404.07936 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[53]

Brandes, W

L. Brandes, W. Weise, and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D107, 014011 (2023)

2023
[54]

Annala, T

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

2023
[55]

Koehn et al., arXiv:2402.04172 (2024)

H. Koehn et al., arXiv:2402.04172 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[56]

S. Soma, L. Wang, S. Shi, H. St ¨ocker, and K. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083028 (2023)

2023
[57]

Krastev, Symmetry 15, 1123 (2023)

P.G. Krastev, Symmetry 15, 1123 (2023)

2023
[58]

Guo, J.-Y

L.-J. Guo, J.-Y . Xiong, Y . Ma, and Y .-L. Ma, Astrophys. J.965, 47 (2024)

2024
[59]

Chatterjee, H

S. Chatterjee, H. Sudhakaran, and R. Mallick, arXiv:2302.13648 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[60]

W. Zhou, J. Hu, Y . Zhang, and H. Shen, Astrophys. J.950, 186 (2023)

2023
[61]

Carvalho, M

V . Carvalho, M. Ferreira, T. Malik, and C. Provid ˆencia, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043031 (2023)

2023
[62]

Carvalho, M

V . Carvalho, M. Ferreira, and C. Providˆencia, Phys. Rev. D109, 123038 (2024)

2024
[63]

Fujimoto, K

Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, S. Kamata, and K. Murase, arXiv:2401.12688 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[64]

Farrell, P

D. Farrell, P. Baldi, J. Ott, A. Ghosh, A. W. Steiner, A. Kavitkar, L. Lindblom, D. Whiteson, and F. Weber, JCAP02, 016 (2023)

2023
[65]

Farrell, P

D. Farrell, P. Baldi, J. Ott, A. Ghosh, A. W. Steiner, A. Kavitkar, L. Lindblom, D. Whiteson, and F. Weber, JCAP12, 022 (2023). 7

2023
[66]

Brandes, C

L. Brandes, C. Modi, A. Ghosh, D. Farrell, L. Lindblom, L. Heinrich, A. W. Steiner, F. Weber, and D. Whiteson, JCAP 09, 009 (2024)

2024
[67]

Legred, K

I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, and P. Landry, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043016 (2022)

2022
[68]

Altiparmak, C

S. Altiparmak, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett. 939, L34 (2022)

2022
[69]

Essick, I

R. Essick, I. Tews, P. Landry, S. Reddy, and D.E. Holz, Phys. Rev. C 102, 055803 (2020)

2020
[70]

Gorda, R

T. Gorda, R. Paatelainen, S. S¨appi, and K. Sepp¨anen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 181902 (2023)

2023
[71]

Komoltsev and A

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

2022
[72]

Gorda, O

T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, and A. Kurkela, Astrophys. J.950, 107 (2023)

2023
[73]

Arzoumanian et al., Astrophys

Z. Arzoumanian et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 235, 37 (2018)

2018
[74]

Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013)

J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013)

2013
[75]

Abbott et al., Phys

B.P. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019)

2019
[76]

Abbott et al., Astrophys

B.P. Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020)

2020
[77]

Romani, D

R.W. Romani, D. Kandel, A.V . Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L17 (2022)

2022
[78]

Drischler, S

C. Drischler, S. Han, J.M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, S. Reddy, and T. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C103, 045808 (2021)

2021
[79]

Drischler, S

C. Drischler, S. Han, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 105, 035808 (2022)

2022
[80]

Gorda, A

T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, R. Paatelainen, S. S ¨appi, and A. Vuori- nen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 16003 (2021)

2021
[81]

Hinderer, B.D

T. Hinderer, B.D. Lackey, R.N. Lang, and J.S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123016 (2010)

2010
[82]

Konstantinou and S.M

A. Konstantinou and S.M. Morsink, Astrophys. J. 934, 139 (2022)

2022
[83]

Akmal, V .R

A. Akmal, V .R. Pandharipande, and D.G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998)

1998
[84]

Brandes and W

L. Brandes and W. Weise, Symmetry 16, 111 (2024)

2024
[85]

N ¨attil¨a, M

J. N ¨attil¨a, M. C. Miller, A. W. Steiner, J. J. E. Kajava, V . F. Suleimanov, and J. Poutanen, Astron. Astrophys. 608, A31 (2017)

2017
[86]

Fasano, T

M. Fasano, T. Abdelsalhin, A. Maselli, and V . Ferrari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 141101 (2019)

2019
[87]

Abbott et al

B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[88]

Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys

S. Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys. J. 961, 62 (2024)

2024
[89]

Salmi et al., Astrophys

T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J. 976, 58 (2024)

2024
[90]

Raaijmakers, S.K

G. Raaijmakers, S.K. Greif, K. Hebeler, T. Hinderer, S. Nis- sanke, A. Schwenk, T.E. Riley, A.L. Watts, J.M. Lattimer, and W.C.G. Ho, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L29 (2021)

2021
[91]

Doroshenko, V

V . Doroshenko, V . Suleimanov, G. P¨uhlhofer, and A. Santan- gelo, Nature Astron. 6, 1444 (2022)

2022
[92]

Fujimoto, K

Y . Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, L.D. McLerran, and M. Praszalow- icz, Phys.Rev.Lett. 129, 252702 (2022)

2022
[93]

Fukushima and S

K. Fukushima and S. Minato, arXiv:2411.03781 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[94]

Kaiser and W

N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C 110, 015202 (2024)

2024
[95]

Friman and W

B. Friman and W. Weise, Rhys. Rev. C 100, 065807 (2019)

2019
[96]

T. Kojo, G. Baym, and T. Hatsuda, Astrophys. J.934, 46 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [38]

Brandes, W

L. Brandes, W. Weise, and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D108, 094014 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [24]

Antoniadis et al

J. Antoniadis et al. ,S c i e n c e 340 ,1 2 3 3 2 3 2( 2 0 1 3 )

work page

[3] [52]

Upper Limit of Sound Speed in Nuclear Matter: A Harmonious Interplay of Transport Calculation and Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamic Constraint

S.-P. Tang, Y .-J. Huang, M.-Z. Han, and Y .-Z. Fan, arXiv:2404.09563 (2024)

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [20]

M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 918 ,L 2 8( 2 0 2 1 ) . 18 0 2 4 6 n/n 0 1000 1500 2000 µ [MeV] Previous + BW FIG. 12. Posterior 95% and 68% credible bands and medians for the baryon chemical potential µ as a function of baryon density n in units of the nuclear saturation density, n 0 = 0 . 16 fm 3 . " [GeV fm 3 ] c 2 s P [MeV fm 3 ] n/n 0 µ [Ge...

work page 2000

[5] [21]

P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature 467 ,1 0 8 1( 2 0 1 0 )

work page

[6] [22]

Fonseca et al

E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. 832 ,1 6 7( 2 0 1 6 )

work page

[7] [23]

Arzoumanian et al

Z. Arzoumanian et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 235 ,3 7 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [25]

H. T. Cromartie et al. , Nat. Astron. 4 ,7 2( 2 0 2 0 )

work page