Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Equation of State Independent Determination on the Radius of a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ Neutron Star Using Mass-Radius Measurements

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper claims that the radius of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star can be inferred directly from NICER mass-radius measurements of two pulsars, without choosing a specific dense-matter equation of state, and that the value is about 12 km.

desk verdict A simple, transparent data-driven recipe for R1.4 from two NICER posteriors, but the 'EOS-independent' title overstates the assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10242 v2 pith:ASXIRCSR submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRnucl-th

Chun Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRnucl-th
keywords equationofstateneutronstarradiusR1.4NICERmass-radiusrelationpulsartimingtidaldeformabilityX-raypulseprofile
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 tries to establish that the canonical neutron star radius $R_{1.4}$ can be extracted from X-ray mass-radius measurements of two pulsars, PSR J0030+0451 and PSR J0437-4715, using only interpolation and Bayesian combination, with minimal reliance on equation-of-state modeling. If correct, this gives an observational anchor for a typical neutron star's radius that bypasses EOS choice, complements gravitational-wave and nuclear experiments, and offers a blueprint for future X-ray missions. The paper presents two scenarios: one treats the two stars at their measured masses and linearly interpolates between bracketing mass-radius samples, and the other assumes both are exactly $1.4\,M_\odot$ and multiplies their radius posteriors. The resulting radius estimates cluster near 12 km and are consistent with the GW170817 tidal-deformability constraint.

What carries the argument

The central object is the linear interpolation formula $R_{1.4} = R_1 + \frac{R_2-R_1}{M_2-M_1} (1.4\,M_\odot - M_1)$, applied to posterior samples drawn from each pulsar's mass-radius measurement after excluding pairs with equal masses (which would imply twin stars or a phase transition). In the second scenario, the machinery is the product of the two radius posterior distributions, each conditioned on a mass of exactly $1.4\,M_\odot$, so that enforcing a shared radius combines the information from both stars. The interpolation converts two nearby mass-radius measurements into an estimate at the canonical mass, while the Bayesian product tightens the estimate under the no-twin-star assumption.

What would settle it

A concrete test: simulate mass-radius observations from an equation of state with a strong phase transition near $1.4\,M_\odot$, generate two sources bracketing that mass with 5% uncertainties, and apply the interpolation; if the recovered $R_{1.4}$ is biased by more than the reported uncertainty, the smoothness assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $R_{1.4}$ is about 12 km, specifically $11.99^{+1.62}_{-1.57}$ km under the first scenario with the PDT-U hotspot model and $12.09^{+0.81}_{-0.63}$ km under the second scenario with ST+PDT, and that these estimates are largely independent of the equation of state. The paper argues that because both pulsars have masses near $1.4\,M_\odot$, a straight-line interpolation between a lower-mass sample and an upper-mass sample in the mass-radius plane can reach the canonical mass, and in the equal-mass scenario the two independent radius posteriors can be multiplied to sharpen the answer. The author frames this as a data-driven pathway that naturally absorbs EOS model systematic errors into the reported uncertainty, with the residual EOS dependence coming only from assumptions such as the oblate surface shape in pulse-profile modeling and the exclusion of phase transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true mass-radius relation between the two pulsars is smooth and monotonic enough that a straight line between any bracketing pair passes through the radius at $1.4\,M_\odot$, which rules out phase transitions and twin stars; a second premise is that the NICER posteriors are faithful despite the equation-of-state-dependent oblate-surface assumption baked into the pulse-profile modeling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported $R_{1.4}$ values cluster near 12 km, and the corresponding $ \Lambda_{1.4}$ values are consistent with the GW170817 tidal-deformability measurement.
  • Under Scenario 2, assuming both stars are exactly $1.4\,M_\odot$, the radius posterior is narrower than the interpolation-based Scenario 1, with the ST+PDT hotspot configuration giving the tightest 95% credible interval.
  • Simulated future observations with about 5% mass-radius precision recover an injected $R_{1.4}$ to within roughly 0.02 km in the two equations of state tested, indicating the method is accurate for ideal two-source data.
  • Because the method avoids explicit EOS priors, its uncertainties are argued to absorb EOS model systematics that traditional EOS-based inference treats as a separate step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the pairwise interpolation logic generalizes to any set of pulsars whose masses bracket $1.4\,M_\odot$; grouping sources into pairs and multiplying the resulting distributions could tighten $R_{1.4}$ as more near-canonical pulsars are measured.
  • Inference: the method's key assumption can be stress-tested by simulating mass-radius posteriors from an equation of state with a first-order phase transition at or near $1.4\,M_\odot$; a linear interpolation should then recover a biased $R_{1.4}$, quantifying the size of the model error.
  • Inference: because the NICER posteriors themselves carry some EOS dependence through the oblate-surface assumption, a fully model-free radius will require independent constraints on the stellar shape from future observations.
  • Inference: practical application to real data with current uncertainties will likely be dominated by hotspot-model systematics rather than the interpolation itself, since the three J0030 hotspot configurations shift the Scenario 1 central values by about 0.3 km.
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. The paper proposes two data-driven methods to infer the radius of a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star (R1.4) from NICER mass-radius posteriors of PSR J0030+0451 (J0030) and PSR J0437-4715 (J0437), without explicitly constructing an equation of state (EOS). Scenario 1 samples pairs of (M,R) from kernel density estimates of the two sources' posteriors, keeps pairs that bracket 1.4 solar masses, and linearly interpolates to obtain an R1.4 distribution. Scenario 2 assumes both stars have mass 1.4 solar masses and the same radius, then combines conditional radius posteriors via a product formula that also includes the probability each star has mass exactly 1.4. The paper reports R1.4 values for several J0030 hotspot models (Table 2), compares with astrophysical and nuclear constraints, and validates Scenario 1 on simulated future X-ray data generated from two relativistic mean-field EOSs (NL3 omega-rho and TM1-2omega-rho).

Significance. If the method is valid, it offers a relatively model-independent way to extract a key neutron-star observable, complementing EOS-inference approaches and providing a check on nuclear-physics constraints. The paper is transparent about several assumptions, and it uses open-source software and public likelihoods, which aids reproducibility. However, the claimed 'equation-of-state independence' is overstated: the input NICER posteriors carry EOS assumptions (oblate shape), and both scenarios explicitly exclude phase transitions and twin-star behavior. The method's novelty is therefore more modest than the title suggests, but the idea of interpolating or conditioning on mass-radius posteriors from nearby-mass sources is useful for future X-ray missions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Title and Abstract; Section 2.1] The claim of an 'Equation of State Independent' determination is contradicted by the paper's own admissions: Section 2.1 states that NICER inference results are 'not entirely EOS independent' because of the oblate surface assumption, and both scenarios explicitly exclude phase transitions and twin stars (Scenario 1 assumes linear interpolation; Scenario 2 assumes equal mass and equal radius). The title and abstract should be qualified, e.g., 'largely EOS-model-independent' or 'EOS-model-independent given the smoothness assumption,' so that readers are not misled about the strength of the result.
  2. [Section 2.1, Scenario 1 (Equation 2)] The sampling and interpolation procedure is under-specified: the paper does not report the KDE bandwidth choices, the number (or fraction) of accepted sample pairs that satisfy the bracketing condition M1<1.4<M2 or M2<1.4<M1, or any convergence checks. Because J0437's mass is 1.44±0.07 Msun and J0030's mass posterior is broad and model-dependent, the accepted pairs may be a small subset of the posterior, and the resulting R1.4 distribution in Table 2 could be dominated by the tails of the KDE rather than by the bulk of the mass-radius information. The authors should report the acceptance fraction and demonstrate robustness to KDE choices.
  3. [Section 2.1, Equation (6)] The joint posterior formula for Scenario 2 is not derived from a clear probabilistic model. The product of the two conditional posteriors P(Ri|Oi,Mi=1.4) is appropriate if the two stars share a common radius, but the extra factors P(Mi=1.4|Oi) are posterior probabilities of a point mass value and require an explicit prior on the mass. Their inclusion is not justified and the resulting expression is not a proper posterior under Bayes' theorem. The authors should either derive Equation (6) from a well-defined hierarchical model or remove the P(Mi|Oi) factors and explain why the conditional posteriors alone suffice.
  4. [Section 4, Simulated dataset] The simulation study validates Scenario 1 only for two smooth RMF EOSs with no phase transitions, which is exactly the assumption the method is built on. It does not test the failure mode—for example, a first-order phase transition between the masses of the two simulated stars, or a twin-star configuration—so the claim that the method 'is capable of recovering the underlying R1.4' is only demonstrated in favorable, assumption-satisfying cases. The paper should either run a phase-transition EOS in the simulation or explicitly state that the validity is conditional on the smoothness assumption and that no test of the failure mode is provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, paragraph on equal-mass exclusion] The text says 'we exclude pairs where M1 = M2' and then says 'we test the condition M1≠M2 with a precision of 10^-3 Msun.' These two statements are inconsistent; the paper should clarify that exact equality is replaced by a threshold of 10^-3 Msun.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 1 and discussion] The phrase 'the PDT-U model most closely represents a 1.4 Msun star' is imprecise; what is meant is that the PDT-U mass posterior places the most probability near 1.4 Msun. Please rephrase to avoid implying the model itself is a physical object.
  3. [Section 2.2, data description] The ST+PST configuration is described as using the mass-radius measurement from Riley et al. (2019), while later the paper says the updated ST+PST inference from Vinciguerra et al. (2024) is used. Please clarify which posterior samples are actually used for each hotspot model.
  4. [References] Several citations are to 'in prep' works (Huang 2024; Huang & Chen 2024) and to arXiv preprints. For a journal submission, these should be updated to published versions or clearly marked as unpublished.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: R1.4 is a conditional/interpolated summary of the input NICER posteriors, not an input to the fits.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper is a statistical re-expression of the NICER mass-radius posteriors, not a circular self-confirmation. In Scenario 1, Eq. (2) linearly interpolates between bracketing (M, R) samples drawn from the KDE-reconstructed posteriors of J0030 and J0437; the target R1.4 is not an input to any fit or likelihood. In Scenario 2, Eqs. (4)-(6) condition the same input posteriors at M = 1.4 M_sun and combine the conditional radius posteriors under the explicit assumption R1 = R2 = R1.4. The quoted values in Table 2 are therefore direct summaries of the input posterior samples, not independent predictions that were fitted to R1.4 itself. The paper also acknowledges the main limitations that prevent the result from being fully EOS-independent: the NICER posterior inputs are 'not entirely EOS independent' because of the oblate-surface assumption based on a preselected set of EOSs (Section 2.1), and Scenario 1 assumes a smooth linear mass-radius relation with no phase transitions. These are correctness/limitation concerns, not circularity. The self-citation to the author's CompactObject package (Huang et al. 2024c) is a software implementation citation and is not load-bearing for the statistical argument; the in-preparation citations (Huang 2024; Huang & Chen 2024) are contextual, not part of the derivation. No circular step can be exhibited in which a prediction reduces by construction to its own input, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the author's prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three classes of input: published NICER posterior samples (which carry their own EOS and hotspot modeling assumptions), the smoothness/no-phase-transition assumption of the interpolation, and the empirical tidal deformability relation. The free parameters are the KDE bandwidth, the equal-mass exclusion threshold, the uniform prior bounds, and the simulated uncertainty level; none of these are fitted to the target R1.4, but they affect the shape and width of the output distribution.

free parameters (4)
  • KDE bandwidth = Not specified (Python default)
    The conversion of discrete posterior samples to continuous PDFs via KDE requires a bandwidth choice that is not stated; this affects the smoothness of the R1.4 distribution.
  • Equal-mass exclusion threshold = 10^-3 Msun
    Pairs with |M1 - M2| < 10^-3 Msun are excluded as 'twin star' cases; this threshold is chosen by hand and affects which samples enter the interpolation.
  • Uniform prior range in Scenario 2 = 6 to 16 km
    Priors on R1 and R2 are uniform over 6-16 km; while broad, the range is a modeling choice that could in principle affect posterior tails.
  • Simulated uncertainty level = 5% (68% range)
    Future case study assumes 5% uncertainty on simulated mass-radius measurements; the recovery accuracy depends on this chosen precision.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NICER mass-radius posterior samples for J0030 and J0437 are faithful representations of the true mass-radius measurements.
    The analysis takes Riley et al. (2019), Vinciguerra et al. (2024), and Choudhury et al. (2024) posteriors at face value; any systematic error in those analyses propagates directly into R1.4.
  • ad hoc to paper The true mass-radius relation is smooth and monotonic between the masses of J0030 and J0437, so linear interpolation is valid.
    Scenario 1 assumes linear interpolation between the two sampled points; this is an EOS assumption (no phase transition), acknowledged in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption No twin stars exist, i.e., two stars with equal mass have equal radius.
    Scenario 2 sets R1 = R2 = R1.4, excluding the possibility of a first-order phase transition that would allow two radii at the same mass; the paper explicitly excludes such cases.
  • domain assumption The empirical tidal deformability relation Lambda(R1.4) = 2.88e-6 (R1.4/km)^7.5 holds for the inferred stars.
    The derived Lambda1.4 values in Table 2 use an empirical fit from Annala et al. (2018), which is itself an EOS-dependent fitting formula.
  • standard math The KDE reconstruction accurately represents the posterior, including tails.
    KDE smooths the posterior; any bias in the KDE, especially near the boundaries of the mass-radius plane, propagates into the interpolated R1.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equation of State Independent Determination on the Radius of a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ Neutron Star Using Mass-Radius Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASXIRCSR

@misc{pith2026241210242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equation of State Independent Determination on the Radius of a 1.4 $M_\odot$ Neutron Star Using Mass-Radius Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASXIRCSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10242}
}
abstract

Traditional methods for determining the radius of a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ neutron star ($R_{1.4}$) rely on specific equations of state (EOS) models that describe various types of dense nuclear matter. This dependence on EOS models can introduce substantial systematic uncertainties, which may exceed the measurement uncertainties when constraining $R_{1.4}$. In this study, we explore a novel approach to constraining $R_{1.4}$ using data from NICER observations of PSR J0030+0451 (J0030) and PSR J0437-4715 (J0437). However, this work presents a more data-driven analysis framework, substantially decreasing the need for EOS assumptions. By analyzing the Mass-Radius measurements of these two neutron stars, we infer $R_{1.4}$ using statistical methods based mostly on observational data. We examine various hotspot configurations for J0030, along with new J0437 observations, and their effects on the inferred radius. Our results are consistent with X-ray timing, gravitational wave, and nuclear physics constraints, while avoiding EOS-related biases. The same method has also been applied to a simulated mass-radius dataset, based on our knowledge of future X-ray telescopes, demonstrating the model's ability to recover the injected $R_{1.4}$ value in certain cases. This method provides a data-driven pathway for extracting neutron star properties and offers a new approach for future observational efforts in neutron star astrophysics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 1-D distribution of 1.4 M⊙ star radius R1.4 from joint J0030 and J0437 inference results. With mass-radius measurements of J0030 resulting from (a) ST+PST model, (b) ST+PDT model, and (c) PDT-U model. The dashed lines represent the quantiles of each distribution at 16%, 50%, and 84%. The density function is computed using KDE estimation. neutron star i (where i = 1 for J0030 and i = 2 for J0437) are derived from… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The 1-D distribution of 1.4 M⊙ star radius R1.4 from injected data set: (1) NL3ωρ and (2) TM1-2ωρ. The injected R1.4 value from the chosen EOS shown in black dashed line. The red dashed lines represent the quantiles of each distribution at 16%, 50%, and 84%. The density function is computed using KDE estimation. The values for R1.4 reported in the ST+PDT case are 12.09+0.81 −0.63 km, for ST+PST they are 12.67+1.03 −… 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. Effects of dark matter and magnetic field on neutron star properties in relativistic mean-field theory: A single-fluid approach

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fermionic dark matter and strong central magnetic fields both reduce neutron-star maximum mass and radius and lower tidal deformability in single-fluid RMF models, remaining compatible with GW/NICER constraints over t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101

    Abbott, B., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 121, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 —. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 011001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  3. [4]

    2021b, Phys

    Adhikari, D., et al. 2021b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126, 172502, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.172502

  4. [5]

    2022, Phys

    Adhikari, D., Albataineh, H., Androic, D., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 042501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.042501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.042501 2022

  5. [6]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.120.172703

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.120.172703

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.172703 2018

  6. [7]

    2013, in SF2A-2013: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Barret, D., Nandra, K., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, in SF2A-2013: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. L. Cambresy, F. Martins, E. Nuss, & A. Palacios, 447–453, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1310.3814

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.3814 2013

  7. [8]

    K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al

    Bogdanov, S., Lamb, F. K., Mahmoodifar, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968 2019

  8. [9]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    doi:10.21105/joss.03001 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [10]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

    Choudhury, D., Salmi, T., Vinciguerra, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

    2024 doi

  2. [11]

    J., Miller, M

    Dittmann, A. J., Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 295, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f1e

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    M., et al

    Drischler, C., Han, S., Lattimer, J. M., et al. 2021, PhRvC, 103, 045808, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.045808

    2021 doi

  4. [13]

    2021, PhRvL, 127, 192701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.192701

    Essick, R., Tews, I., Landry, P., & Schwenk, A. 2021, PhRvL, 127, 192701, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.192701

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    T., Pennucci, T

    Fonseca, E., Cromartie, H. T., Pennucci, T. T., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    S., Roming, P., Ray, P., et al

    Froning, C. S., Roming, P., Ray, P., et al. 2024, in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2024: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, Vol. 13093, SPIE, 729–735

    2024

  7. [16]

    C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P

    Gendreau, K. C., Arzoumanian, Z., Adkins, P. W., et al. 2016, in Space telescopes and instrumentation 2016: Ultraviolet to gamma ray, Vol. 9905, SPIE, 420–435

    2016

  8. [17]

    2024, in prep

    Huang, C., & Chen, A. 2024, in prep

    2024

  9. [18]

    L., Tolos, L., & Providˆ encia, C

    Huang, C., Raaijmakers, G., Watts, A. L., Tolos, L., & Providˆ encia, C. 2024a, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 529, 4650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae844

    doi

  10. [19]

    Huang, C., Tolos, L., Providˆ encia, C., & Watts, A. 2024b. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14572

    arXiv

  11. [20]

    2024c, Journal of Open Source Software

    Huang, C., Malik, T., Cartaxo, J., et al. 2024c, Journal of Open Source Software. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14615

    arXiv

  12. [21]

    2023, Phys

    Kumar, M., Kumar, S., Thakur, V., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. C, 107, 055801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.055801

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    M., & Lim, Y

    Lattimer, J. M., & Lim, Y. 2013, ApJ, 771, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/51

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 426, doi: 10.1086/319702

    2001 doi

  15. [24]

    2024, PhRvC, 109, 035801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.035801

    Lim, Y., & Schwenk, A. 2024, PhRvC, 109, 035801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.035801

    2024 doi

  16. [25]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    2019 doi

  17. [27]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    2021 doi

  18. [28]

    2023, Phys

    Mondal, C., & Gulminelli, F. 2023, Phys. Rev. C, 107, 015801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.015801 Providˆ encia, C. m. c., & Rabhi, A. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 87, 055801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.055801

    2023 doi

  19. [29]

    E., Watts, A

    Raaijmakers, G., Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab451a

    2019 doi

  20. [30]

    K., Riley, T

    Raaijmakers, G., Greif, S. K., Riley, T. E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 893, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab822f

    2020 doi

  21. [31]

    K., Hebeler, K., et al

    Raaijmakers, G., Greif, S. K., Hebeler, K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089a

    2021 doi

  22. [32]

    S., Arzoumanian, Z., Ballantyne, D., et al

    Ray, P. S., Arzoumanian, Z., Ballantyne, D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.03035. https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.03035

    2019 arXiv

  23. [33]

    J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Bailes, M., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad614a

    2024 doi

  24. [34]

    T., Fattoyev, F., Horowitz, C., & Piekarewicz, J

    Reed, B. T., Fattoyev, F., Horowitz, C., & Piekarewicz, J. 2021, Physical Review Letters, 126, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.126.172503

    2021 doi

  25. [35]

    2013, Phys

    Reinhard, P.-G., Piekarewicz, J., Nazarewicz, W., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 88, 034325, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.034325

    2013 doi

  26. [36]

    2021, Phys

    Reinhard, P.-G., Roca-Maza, X., & Nazarewicz, W. 2021, Phys. Rev. Lett., 127, 232501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.232501 —. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 232501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.232501

    2021 doi

  27. [37]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Bogdanov, S., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 887, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    2019 doi

  28. [38]

    E., Watts, A

    Riley, T. E., Watts, A. L., Ray, P. S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 918, L27, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    2021 doi

  29. [39]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02

    Rutherford, N., Mendes, M., Svensson, I., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 971, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5f02

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    2022, ApJ, 941, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac983d 11

    Salmi, T., Vinciguerra, S., Choudhury, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac983d 11

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.14466, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.14466

    Salmi, T., Choudhury, D., Kini, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.14466, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.14466

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [42]

    2024, The Radius of the High Mass Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 With 3.6 Years of NICER Data

    Salmi, T., Choudhury, D., Kini, Y., et al. 2024, The Radius of the High Mass Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 With 3.6 Years of NICER Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14466

    2024 arXiv

  33. [43]

    2023, Physical Review C, 107, doi: 10.1103/physrevc.107.045806

    Scurto, L., Pais, H., & Gulminelli, F. 2023, Physical Review C, 107, doi: 10.1103/physrevc.107.045806

    2023 doi

  34. [44]

    L., et al

    Vinciguerra, S., Salmi, T., Watts, A. L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83

    2024 doi

  35. [45]

    L., Andersson, N., Chakrabarty, D., et al

    Watts, A. L., Andersson, N., Chakrabarty, D., et al. 2016, Reviews of Modern Physics, 88, 021001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021001

    2016 doi

  36. [46]

    L., Yu, W., Poutanen, J., et al

    Watts, A. L., Yu, W., Poutanen, J., et al. 2019, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 29503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-017-9188-4

    2019 doi

  37. [47]

    2022, Phys

    Yue, T.-G., Chen, L.-W., Zhang, Z., & Zhou, Y. 2022, Phys. Rev. Res., 4, L022054, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022054

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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