Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Model-Independent Determination of the Tidal Deformability of a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ Neutron Star from Gravitational-Wave Measurements

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the tidal deformability of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star can be measured from gravitational-wave data without assuming any particular equation of state, by linearly interpolating GW170817's own mass–deformability…

desk verdict A useful cross-check that is statistically under-built: the quoted Λ_1.4 uncertainties come from independent draws of marginal KDEs rather than the joint GW170817 posterior. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14822 v1 pith:NIXZ75SR submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRgr-qcnucl-th

Chun Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRgr-qcnucl-th
keywords tidaldeformabilityneutronstarGW170817equationofstategravitationalwavesmodel-independentinferenceNICERmultimessengerastronomy
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 tidal deformability of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star—how easily the star is stretched by a companion's gravity—can be measured from gravitational waves without assuming any particular equation of state for dense matter. Its method takes the full distribution of mass-and-deformability values that GW170817 allows for its two neutron stars, keeps only cases where one star's mass falls below 1.4 solar masses and the other above it, and draws a straight line between the pair to read off the deformability at 1.4 solar masses; for the most model-agnostic of the three GW170817 data sets this gives $\Lambda_{1.4}=222.89^{+420.33}_{-98.85}$. Combining that gravitational-wave result with the corresponding X-ray result obtained from NICER pulsars by the same interpolation method yields the multimessenger values $\Lambda_{1.4}=265.18^{+237.88}_{-104.38}$ and $R_{1.4}=11.53^{+0.89}_{-0.88}$ km. Because these match the standard Taylor-expansion method within uncertainties, the paper concludes that the terms the expansion neglects do not matter yet, and that a model-free $\Lambda_{1.4}$ can serve as a benchmark for nuclear experiments and theory.

What carries the argument

The central device is the local linear interpolation of the empirical mass–deformability curve $\Lambda(m)$ inside a $\sim 0.3\,M_\odot$ window around $1.4\,M_\odot$. The method draws many $(M_1,\Lambda_1)$ and $(M_2,\Lambda_2)$ samples from kernel-density estimates of the GW170817 posteriors, selects pairs bracketing $1.4\,M_\odot$, enforces $\Lambda_1 > \Lambda_2$, and takes the straight-line intersection at $1.4\,M_\odot$ as the estimate of $\Lambda_{1.4}$. The paper supports the linearity premise with a Monte-Carlo test on 200 randomly generated relativistic mean-field equations of state, reporting a median fractional residual of about 10 percent for $\Lambda_{1.4} < 1500$ over the interval $1.2$ to $1.6\,M_\odot$, and contrasts this with the standard Taylor expansion of $\Lambda(m)m^5$ about $m=1.4\,M_\odot$, which assumes $\Lambda \propto m^{-6}$ to leading order and a slowly varying slope.

What would settle it

Take any equation of state that produces a strong first-order phase transition, a twin-star branch, or another sharp bend in the mass–deformability curve inside the 1.2-to-1.6-solar-mass window, compute the true $\Lambda_{1.4}$, then apply the paper's linear-interpolation scheme to synthetic measurements bracketing 1.4 solar masses; if the interpolated value misses the true value by more than the roughly 40 percent uncertainty quoted here, the method's central assumption is falsified. A simpler version of the same test is to repeat the paper's Monte-Carlo validation on equations of state of a different family than the one used; a median fractional residual above about 10 percent, or a systematic bias, would show the linearity assumption is not safe.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, stated for a fair reader, is that the tidal deformability of a $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star can be estimated by interpolating the gravitational-wave data themselves: kernel-density-estimate the joint $(M,\Lambda)$ posteriors from GW170817, keep only samples with $M_1 < 1.4\,M_\odot < M_2$ and the physically expected ordering $\Lambda_1 > \Lambda_2$, and linearly interpolate $\Lambda(m)$ to $m=1.4\,M_\odot$. On the most model-agnostic (universal-relations) data set this gives $\Lambda_{1.4}=222.89^{+420.33}_{-98.85}$, and multiplying this GW posterior with the independent X-ray posterior from the same method applied to NICER pulsars gives $\Lambda_{1.4}=265.18^{+237.88}_{-104.38}$ and $R_{1.4}=11.53^{+0.89}_{-0.88}$ km. The paper further finds that these values agree with the standard $\Lambda(m)m^5$ expansion method, so the higher-order terms omitted there do not significantly bias current $\Lambda_{1.4}$ estimates. A conditional scenario in which one GW170817 component is taken to be exactly $1.4\,M_\odot$ produces a narrower posterior, but the paper notes it is heavily suppressed by the low probability of an exact canonical mass.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that, for masses between roughly 1.25 and 1.55 solar masses, the tidal deformability of a neutron star changes in a straight line with mass, so a line drawn between the two stars in GW170817 passes through the value at 1.4 solar masses; the evidence offered for that straightness is limited to 200 computer-generated test equations of state drawn from a single theoretical family.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, $\Lambda_{1.4}$ becomes a quantity that can be quoted from gravitational-wave data alone, without conditioning on any equation-of-state model, giving nuclear theory a model-free calibration point.
  • Multiplying independent GW and X-ray posteriors yields a multimessenger, largely EOS-agnostic pair with $\Lambda_{1.4}=265.18$ and $R_{1.4}=11.53$ km, which can be compared directly with neutron-skin and parity-violating electron-scattering results without an EOS translation layer.
  • Agreement with the standard $\Lambda m^5$ expansion at current precision implies that the linearization error is subdominant today, so existing GW170817-based $\Lambda_{1.4}$ upper limits are not materially biased by the Taylor expansion.
  • With more sensitive detectors and additional binary neutron-star mergers, the same interpolation procedure should produce tighter $\Lambda_{1.4}$ posteriors and can serve as a standard baseline for future EOS-agnostic extraction.
  • The scenario treating one component as exactly $1.4\,M_\odot$ shows that, if future events have component masses very close to the canonical value, the $\Lambda_{1.4}$ constraint could become substantially narrower.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own 10-percent median residual in the linearity test suggests that, for future high-precision measurements, the interpolation error—not the statistical error—could become the dominant uncertainty; a natural extension would be to fold a linearity-error term into the posterior instead of treating the line as exact.
  • The ordering condition $\Lambda_1 > \Lambda_2$ quietly rules out exotic configurations such as twin stars or a phase-transition kink very near 1.4 solar masses; if such configurations exist, the quoted 95-percent upper limit would be too narrow, so a useful follow-up would be to repeat the analysis without that slope condition and report how much the constraint widens.
  • Because the GW and X-ray posteriors are multiplied as independent measurements, the multimessenger result inherits the same linearity assumption on both sides; if that assumption is ever tested and found wanting, the joint constraint would need to be re-derived rather than simply re-scaled.
  • The same interpolation idea could be applied to other canonical masses (for instance 1.6 or 2.0 solar masses) as data accumulate, building up a model-agnostic $\Lambda(M)$ curve that would test EOS behavior across a wider density range.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven, EOS-agnostic estimate of the tidal deformability of a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star from GW170817. The method builds kernel density estimates from the public mass–tidal-deformability posteriors, draws independent (M1, Lambda1) and (M2, Lambda2) pairs, selects pairs satisfying M1 < 1.4 solar mass < M2, and linearly interpolates to Lambda_1.4. The main result is Lambda_1.4 = 222.89^{+420.33}_{-98.85} from an 'EOS-insensitive' dataset, together with a multimessenger combination with NICER constraints giving Lambda_1.4 = 265.18^{+237.88}_{-104.38} and R_1.4 = 11.53^{+0.89}_{-0.88} km. The paper argues that higher-order terms neglected in the standard Lambda(m) m^5 expansion are not important at current precision.

Significance. If valid, the approach would provide a transparent benchmark for Lambda_1.4 that avoids explicit EOS parameterization. The manuscript ships open-source code (CompactObject, UltraNest), makes concrete comparisons with the standard expansion method, and attempts a multimessenger combination that is easy to update. However, the central result currently rests on a statistically questionable sampling procedure and an unpropagated linearity residual; these issues must be resolved before the quoted number can be accepted as an EOS-independent constraint.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The procedure builds separate KDEs for (M1, Lambda1) and (M2, Lambda2), draws 3x10^6 independent pairs, and then selects pairs with M1 < 1.4 solar mass < M2. This replaces the joint posterior p(M1, Lambda1, M2, Lambda2 | data) with the product of two marginal posteriors. In GW170817 the component masses and tidal parameters are strongly correlated (the total mass is measured to about 2.73 solar masses, and the mass ratio and tidal parameters are mutually informative), so independent draws include combinations that the actual joint posterior suppresses. The resulting Lambda_1.4 distribution is therefore not a posterior from GW170817. The paper should interpolate within joint posterior samples directly, or demonstrate that the marginal-product sampling reproduces the joint posterior (for example, by comparing with a proper joint-posterior analysis). As written, the quoted credible interval in the abstract is not a faithful summary of the data.
  2. [Sections 2.1 and 3.1] The imposed tidal-ordering condition is internally inconsistent. The text first states that Abbott et al. (2018) assumes Lambda1 > Lambda2 and that the same condition is adopted, while later it states that the EOS-insensitive analysis imposes Lambda1 <= Lambda2 and that the same condition is adopted. These are opposite inequalities, so the actual sample selection is not well defined. Furthermore, in the standard LVC labeling the more massive star is component 1, so the selection M1 < 1.4 solar mass < M2 would be essentially empty for GW170817 because the secondary mass posterior lies below 1.4 solar mass; if a relabeling is used, it must be stated explicitly and used consistently. The labels M1, M2, Lambda1, and Lambda2 must be tied to the public posterior convention before the selection and interpolation can be reproduced.
  3. [Section 2.4] The linearity justification is based on 200 Relativistic Mean Field EOSs generated with the author's CompactObject package and reports a median fractional residual |delta_lin| of about 10 percent for Lambda_1.4 < 1500 over the 1.2–1.6 solar mass interval. This residual is not propagated into the quoted uncertainty; for the EOS-insensitive result with lower error bar -98.85, a 10 percent systematic is comparable to the lower uncertainty. The paper itself lists phase transitions, twin-star configurations, and rapid rotation as cases where the relation can be non-linear, yet the validation does not cover these cases. The authors should propagate the linearity residual as a systematic uncertainty, or restrict the claim to the tested EOS family, or perform a stress test with independent EOS parametrizations (for example, piecewise polytropes and speed-of-sound models) and show that the result is robust.
  4. [Section 4 and Table 1] The R_1.4 values are obtained from the empirical relation Lambda(R_1.4) = 2.88 x 10^-6 (R_1.4/km)^7.5 from Annala et al. (2018a). This relation is a fit over a set of EOS models and has intrinsic scatter; using it to label the final constraints as EOS-independent is not justified. The scatter of this relation should be propagated into R_1.4 and Lambda_1.4, or the claim should be softened to a universal-relation-based estimate. This is load-bearing for the multimessenger constraints advertised in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (3)] The factor P(M2 = 1.4 solar mass | O) is not well defined for a continuous mass posterior; it is exactly zero unless a nonzero prior mass is placed on the point M2 = 1.4 solar mass. The interpretation of the Scenario 2 posterior and its reported suppression needs to be clarified.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract cites 'Huang_2025' while the text refers to Huang (2024) for the same X-ray constraint; the citation year is inconsistent.
  3. [Table 1] There are typos and grammatical issues, including 'sumarize' and 'emperical relation', and the caption says 'different scenario 1' instead of 'different scenarios'.
  4. [Section 3.1] The comparisons with the 'standard expansion method' quote several numbers (Lambda_1.4 <= 1400, Lambda_1.4 <= 970, Lambda_1.4 = 190^{+390}_{-120}) without a specific citation or table number; please identify the exact source for each value.
  5. [Sections 1 and 2.3] The terms 'EOS-independent', 'EOS-insensitive', and 'EOS-irrelevant' are used interchangeably. Since the universal-relations dataset imposes a model-dependent relation between Lambda1 and Lambda2, the abstract's 'EOS-independent' claim should be qualified consistently with the terminology used in Section 2.3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quoted Lambda_1.4 is a direct interpolation of public GW170817 posteriors, and the linearity assumption is tested in-paper rather than imported as an unverified self-citation.

full rationale

The central GW-only result (Lambda_1.4 = 222.89^{+420.33}_{-98.85}) is obtained by KDE-sampling the public LVC GW170817 (M, Lambda) posteriors, selecting pairs bracketing 1.4 Msun, and linearly interpolating. This is a direct reparameterization of the input posteriors under an explicit linearity assumption; it does not fit a parameter to a subset and then predict the same quantity, nor is the target value an input to the interpolation. The linearity assumption is justified in Section 2.4 by an in-paper Monte Carlo over 200 RMF EOSs from the author's CompactObject package; although this validation is self-referential in provenance, it is a numerical test of interpolation accuracy against injected values, not a citation that replaces an argument, so it does not make the derivation circular. The multimessenger combination multiplies the GW posterior with the author's prior NICER-based R1.4 posterior from Huang (2024); the two are based on independent observations, and the product is a standard Bayesian combination rather than an identity. The empirical Lambda-R relation used for Table 1 is an external universal relation (Annala et al. 2018), not an output of this paper. Concerns about replacing the joint posterior with products of marginals, or about the sign convention of the Lambda1 <= Lambda2 condition, are statistical validity issues (potentially affecting the quoted interval) but are not circularity: the estimator would still be a function of the input posteriors. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input or imports a load-bearing result solely from self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the linearity assumption for Lambda(m), the existence of a common M-Lambda relation for both stars, and the fidelity of KDE resampling. The paper introduces no new free parameters fitted to the target data, but it uses several literature derived relations and author generated EOS sets as inputs. The free parameters are modeling choices in the validation and in Scenario 2, plus the adopted empirical Lambda-R relation.

free parameters (4)
  • KDE bandwidth
    The kernel density estimate of the (M, Lambda) posteriors requires a bandwidth choice; not reported in the paper, yet it affects the resampled distribution and the resulting Lambda_1.4 posterior.
  • Monte Carlo EOS prior range = same prior range as the generating range
    The 200 equations of state used to validate linearity are generated with a prior range chosen by the author from Huang et al. (2024a); the test's coverage of viable EOSs depends on this range.
  • Scenario 2 prior U(0,2000) = 0 to 2000
    Prior for Lambda_2 in the equal mass scenario, chosen as a uniform distribution. This arbitrary prior affects the conditional posterior, though Scenario 2 is not the central result.
  • Lambda-R empirical relation coefficients = 2.88e-6 and exponent 7.5
    Adopted from Annala et al. (2018) to convert Lambda_1.4 to R_1.4; this is a literature fit from a set of EOSs, not validated or refit in this paper.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation of Lambda(m) over the roughly 0.3 solar mass window around 1.4 solar masses.
    Invoked in Sections 2.1 and 2.4. The central method assumes the mass-deformability relation is linear between the two component masses, validated only on a specific RMF EOS family from the author's own package.
  • domain assumption Both GW170817 components obey the same M-Lambda relation.
    Implicit in interpolating between the two stars' posteriors; standard in GW analyses but assumes a common underlying EOS for both stars.
  • standard math KDE resampling with 3e6 samples faithfully represents the original posterior.
    Section 2.1. KDE bandwidth and sample size are not fully specified, so fidelity of the resampled distribution to the true posterior is assumed.
  • domain assumption The universal relations dataset is EOS insensitive.
    Section 2.3. The 'EOS insensitive' posterior from Abbott et al. (2018) uses I-Love-Q universal relations, which are approximate and not entirely model free.
  • domain assumption GW and NICER measurements are statistically independent.
    Section 4. The product of posteriors assumes no shared systematic between the GW170817 analysis and the NICER X ray analyses.
  • domain assumption The empirical Lambda(R) relation from Annala et al. (2018) holds for the relevant EOSs.
    Section 3 and Table 1. Used to derive R_1.4 from Lambda_1.4; this empirical fit is taken as valid without independent verification in this paper.
  • domain assumption Lambda decreases with mass (Lambda1 greater than Lambda2) in the relevant range.
    Section 2.1. The paper imposes this condition to select pairs, reflecting typical EOS behavior, but twin star or phase transition EOSs could violate it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Model-Independent Determination of the Tidal Deformability of a 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ Neutron Star from Gravitational-Wave Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIXZ75SR

@misc{pith2026250514822,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Model-Independent Determination of the Tidal Deformability of a 1.4 $M_\odot$ Neutron Star from Gravitational-Wave Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIXZ75SR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14822}
}
abstract

Tidal deformability of a 1.4 $M_\odot$ neutron star provides a pivotal window into the physics of dense nuclear matter, bridging gravitational-wave(GW), electromagnetic observations and nuclear physics. In this work, we present a novel, data-driven approach to constrain $\Lambda_{1.4}$ without invoking specific equation-of-state(EOS) models. By interpolating directly over the mass--tidal-deformability posteriors from GW170817, we obtain an EOS-independent constraint of $ \Lambda_{1.4} \;=\; 222.89_{-98.85}^{+420.33}. $ We further combine these GW-based results with the X-ray EOS-independent constraint from \cite{Huang_2025}, deriving a multimessenger limit of $ \Lambda_{1.4} \;=\; 265.18_{-104.38}^{+237.88}, $ which remains largely EOS agnostic. This framework demonstrates that higher-order terms neglected in linear expansion methods do not significantly affect $\Lambda_{1.4}$ estimates under current observational uncertainties. As gravitational-wave detectors improve in sensitivity and more binary neutron-star mergers are discovered, our purely data-driven strategy can serve as a robust standard baseline for extracting neutron-star interior properties without relying on unverified EOS models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14822 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between λ1.4 recovered by linear interpolation and the injected (‘true’) value for 200 synthetic binaries covering ∆M = 0.1–0.4 M⊙ . Colours denote the mass gap; the dashed red line marks perfect agreement In this section, we briefly outline our statistical methodology, originally presented in Huang (2024), and describe the revisions needed for treating tidal deforma￾bility measurements. We also clarify t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The 1-D distribution of 1.4 M⊙ star tidal deformablity Λ1.4 from high-spin prior data set (left) and low-spin prior data set (right): The dashed lines in each figure from left to right represent the quantiles of each distribution at 5% quantile maximum probablity density peak value location and 90% quantile. The density function is computed using KDE estimation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 1-D distribution of 1.4 M⊙ star tidal de￾formablity Λ1.4 from EOS-insensitive data set (right): The dashed lines in each figure from left to right represent the quantiles of each distribution at 5% quantile maximum prob￾ablity density peak value location and 90% quantile. The density function is computed using KDE estimation. To assess the reliability of the assumption that m2 has a mass exactly equal to 1.4 M⊙,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 1-D distribution of 1.4 M⊙ star tidal deformablity Λ1.4 from three different data set: high-spin prior data set (red), low-spin prior data-set (green), EOS￾insensitive data set (purple): The dashed lines in each figure from left to right represent the quantiles of …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  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]

    2015, Phys

    Agathos, M., Meidam, J., Del Pozzo, W., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 023012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023012

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023012 2015

  6. [7]

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

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2018a, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.120.172703 —. 2018b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 172703, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.172703

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.172703

  7. [8]

    2022, Phys

    Biswas, B., & Datta, S. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.043012 2022

  8. [9]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 689, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449173

    Breschi, M., Gamba, R., Carullo, G., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 689, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449173

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449173 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [10]

    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

    2021 doi

  2. [11]

    2018, Physical Review D, 97, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.97.104036

    Chatziioannou, K., Haster, C.-J., & Zimmerman, A. 2018, Physical Review D, 97, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.97.104036

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    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

  4. [13]

    2019, Phys

    Christian, J.-E., Zacchi, A., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 023009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.023009

    2019 doi

  5. [14]

    R., Gittins, F., Andersson, N., & Tews, I

    Counsell, A. R., Gittins, F., Andersson, N., & Tews, I. 2025, Interface modes in inspiralling neutron stars: A gravitational-wave probe of first-order phase transitions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06181

    2025 arXiv

  6. [15]

    2009, Physical Review D, 80, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.80.084035

    Damour, T., & Nagar, A. 2009, Physical Review D, 80, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.80.084035

    2009 doi

  7. [16]

    M., et al

    De, S., Finstad, D., Lattimer, J. M., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 091102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.091102 Del Pozzo, W., Li, T. G. F., Agathos, M., Van Den Broeck, C., & Vitale, S. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 071101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.071101

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    W., Pang, P

    Dietrich, T., Coughlin, M. W., Pang, P. T. H., et al. 2020, Science, 370, 1450–1453, doi: 10.1126/science.abb4317

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    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

  10. [19]

    M., et al

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

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    2016, Physical Review C, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevc.93.054314

    Drischler, C., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2016, Physical Review C, 93, doi: 10.1103/physrevc.93.054314

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    2021, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 71, 403–432, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-041903

    Drischler, C., Holt, J., & Wellenhofer, C. 2021, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 71, 403–432, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-041903

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    S., et al

    Dutra, M., Louren¸ co, O., Avancini, S. S., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 055203, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.055203

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    Essick, R., Landry, P., & Holz, D. E. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.101.063007

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    2019, Phys

    Fasano, M., Abdelsalhin, T., Maselli, A., & Ferrari, V. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 141101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.141101

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    J., Piekarewicz, J., & Horowitz, C

    Fattoyev, F. J., Piekarewicz, J., & Horowitz, C. J. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.120.172702

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    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

  18. [27]

    2022, The European Physical Journal A, 58, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00679-w 10

    Ghosh, S., Chatterjee, D., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2022, The European Physical Journal A, 58, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00679-w 10

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Watts, A. L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 5363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz654

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    Han, S., & Steiner, A. W. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.99.083014

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    M., Pethick, C

    Hebeler, K., Lattimer, J. M., Pethick, C. J., & Schwenk, A. 2010, Physical Review Letters, 105, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.105.161102 —. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/11

    2010 doi

  22. [31]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 1216–1220, doi: 10.1086/533487

    Hinderer, T. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, 1216–1220, doi: 10.1086/533487

    2008 doi

  23. [32]

    2020, Effects of symmetry energy on the radius and tidal deformability of neutron stars in relativistic mean-field model

    Hu, J., Bao, S., Zhang, Y., et al. 2020, Effects of symmetry energy on the radius and tidal deformability of neutron stars in relativistic mean-field model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.00562

    2020 arXiv

  24. [33]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9f3c

    Huang, C. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 978, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9f3c

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    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

  26. [35]

    2025, Astrophys

    Huang, C., & Sourav, S. 2025, Astrophys. J., 983, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbb67

    2025 doi

  27. [36]

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

    arXiv

  28. [37]

    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

  29. [38]

    Huth, S., Pang, P. T. H., Tews, I., et al. 2022, Nature, 606, 276–280, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 67, 13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu141 Kr¨ uger, T., Tews, I., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A

    Ishizuka, C., Suda, T., Suzuki, H., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 67, 13, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psu141 Kr¨ uger, T., Tews, I., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 88, 025802, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.025802 Kr¨ uger, C. J., Kokkotas, K....

    2015

  31. [40]

    2023, Phys

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

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    2022, Prospects for constraining twin stars with next-generation gravitational-wave detectors

    Landry, P., & Chakravarti, K. 2022, Prospects for constraining twin stars with next-generation gravitational-wave detectors. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09733

    2022 arXiv

  33. [42]

    2019, Physical Review D, 99, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.99.084049

    Landry, P., & Essick, R. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.99.084049

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    2020, Phys

    Landry, P., Essick, R., & Chatziioannou, K. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 123007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123007

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    M., & Lim, Y

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

    2013 doi

  36. [45]

    M., & Prakash, M

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

    doi

  37. [46]

    2020, Phys

    Li, B.-A., & Magno, M. 2020, Phys. Rev. C, 102, 045807, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.045807

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    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

  39. [48]

    2018, Physical Review C, 98, doi: 10.1103/physrevc.98.035804

    Malik, T., Alam, N., Fortin, M., et al. 2018, Physical Review C, 98, doi: 10.1103/physrevc.98.035804

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    2013, Phys

    Maselli, A., Cardoso, V., Ferrari, V., Gualtieri, L., & Pani, P. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 023007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.023007

    2013 doi

  41. [50]

    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

  42. [51]

    2023, Phys

    Mondal, C., & Gulminelli, F. 2023, Phys. Rev. C, 107, 015801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.015801

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    R., Weih, L

    Most, E. R., Weih, L. R., Rezzolla, L., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 261103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.261103

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    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

  45. [54]

    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

  46. [55]

    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

  47. [56]

    2018, ApJL, 852, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa402

    Radice, D., Perego, A., Zappa, F., & Bernuzzi, S. 2018, ApJL, 852, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa402

    2018 doi

  48. [57]

    Raithel, C. A. 2019, The European Physical Journal A, 55, doi: 10.1140/epja/i2019-12759-5

    2019 doi

  49. [59]

    S., Lackey, B

    Read, J. S., Lackey, B. D., Owen, B. J., & Friedman, J. L. 2009, PhRvD, 79, 124032, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124032

    2009 doi

  50. [60]

    2021a, Phys

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

    2022 doi

  51. [61]

    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 11

    2019 doi

  52. [62]

    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

  53. [63]

    2024, Assessing the impact of uniform rotation on the structure of neutron stars

    Salinas, M., & Piekarewicz, J. 2024, Assessing the impact of uniform rotation on the structure of neutron stars. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03490

    2024 arXiv

  54. [64]

    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

  55. [65]

    2021, Phys

    Steinhoff, J., Hinderer, T., Dietrich, T., & Foucart, F. 2021, Phys. Rev. Res., 3, 033129, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033129

    2021 doi

  56. [66]

    2018a, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac267

    Tews, I., Carlson, J., Gandolfi, S., & Reddy, S. 2018a, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac267

    doi

  57. [67]

    2018b, Phys

    Tews, I., Margueron, J., & Reddy, S. 2018b, Phys. Rev. C, 98, 045804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.045804

    doi

  58. [68]

    Moustakidis, C. C. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023012

    2023 doi

  59. [69]

    C., & Stuchl ´ ık, Z

    Urbanec, M., Miller, J. C., & Stuchl ´ ık, Z. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 1903–1909, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt858

    2013 doi

  60. [70]

    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

  61. [71]

    2021, Phys

    Wu, X., Bao, S., Shen, H., & Xu, R. 2021, Phys. Rev. C, 104, 015802, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.015802

    2021 doi

  62. [72]

    2016a, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 13LT01, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/13lt01 —

    Yagi, K., & Yunes, N. 2016a, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 13LT01, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/13lt01 —. 2016b, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 015006, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/34/1/015006 —. 2017, Physics Reports, 681, 1–72, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.03.002

    2017 doi

  63. [73]

    Yu, H., Arras, P., & Weinberg, N. N. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.110.024039

    2024 doi

  64. [74]

    Zhao, T., & Lattimer, J. M. 2018, Physical Review D, 98, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.98.063020

    2018 doi

  65. [75]

    2025, Hidden Twin Star Solutions from an Agnostic Speed-of-Sound Model: Confronting XTE J1814–338’s Extreme Compactness

    Zhou, T., & Huang, C. 2025, Hidden Twin Star Solutions from an Agnostic Speed-of-Sound Model: Confronting XTE J1814–338’s Extreme Compactness. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08662

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.