Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Inferring Neutron Star Nuclear Properties from Gravitational-Wave and Gamma-Ray Burst Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By comparing gravitational-wave and gamma-ray burst rates, this paper identifies a dividing total binary mass of 1.36 times the neutron-star TOV mass, implying heavy remnants survive long after merger.

desk verdict A genuinely new rate-based probe of the NS maximum mass, but the headline k2 rests on an untested step-function mapping between total mass and GRB duration. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18151 v2 pith:M6YGMEHY submitted 2025-06-22 astro-ph.HE gr-qcnucl-ex

Hsin-Yu Chen , Ore Gottlieb This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-ex
keywords neutronstarmergersgamma-rayburstsgravitationalwavesTOVmassequationofstatekilonovamergerremnantGRBduration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to explain what determines whether a neutron-star merger produces a short or a long gamma-ray burst, proposing that total binary mass is the controlling factor. By comparing merger rates measured by gravitational-wave detectors with the observed rates of kilonova-associated long and short bursts, it finds the dividing total mass is $1.36^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ times the maximum mass of a nonrotating neutron star (the TOV mass), with $k_2 > 1.24$ at 90% confidence. If correct, this gives a new, observation-based route to the neutron-star equation of state, independent of pulsar timing and radius measurements, and implies that neutron stars noticeably heavier than the TOV limit can survive for hundreds of milliseconds after merger. The inference is presented as insensitive to the large uncertainties in the gamma-ray burst rates and to the choice of mass-ratio cuts at the boundaries.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a ladder of three characteristic total masses, each expressed as a multiple of the TOV mass: $M_{\mathrm{VL}}=k_1 M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ for the very-long-lived/long-lived boundary, $M_{\mathrm{LS}}=k_2 M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ for the long-lived/short-lived boundary, and $M_{\mathrm{PC}}=k_3 M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ for prompt collapse, with $k_3>k_2>k_1>1$. The paper assigns gravitational-wave-detected mergers to short-burst or long-burst categories by placing their total masses on this ladder and compares the resulting rate ratio to observed gamma-ray burst rates using a Bayesian likelihood whose two factors are normal distributions centered on the observed short-burst rate and the long/short rate ratio. The priors for $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ and the neutron-star radius come from existing pulsar, gravitational-wave, and X-ray constraints, and $M_{\mathrm{PC}}$ is tied to $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ and radius through a semi-analytic fitting formula from numerical relativity. The key work of the ladder is to make the mass-to-duration mapping explicit, so that a small shift in any characteristic mass changes the predicted long/short burst ratio by much more than current observational uncertainty.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier is a gravitational-wave binary neutron star merger with total mass above the inferred $k_2 M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ threshold (about $3.0\,M_\odot$ if $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}\simeq 2.2\,M_\odot$) that still produces a short gamma-ray burst, or a kilonova-associated long burst from a merger well below that threshold. A statistical version would be a future joint sample in which burst duration varies continuously with mass ratio or spin rather than switching at a single total mass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the total binary mass separating short-burst and long-burst merger remnants is $k_2 M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ with $k_2 = 1.36^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ (median and 68% confidence interval), and $k_2 > 1.24$ at 90% confidence, where $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ is the maximum mass of a cold, nonrotating neutron star. Because $k_2$ sets the boundary between a remnant that lives on the hundreds-of-milliseconds timescale, powering a short burst, and one that collapses earlier and leaves a black-hole disk, powering a long burst, a large value means mergers with total mass well above the TOV mass do not collapse promptly. The same inference returns $k_1 = 1.11^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ for the very-long-lived/long-lived boundary, $k_3 = 1.43^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ for the prompt-collapse boundary, and $M_{\mathrm{TOV}} = 2.21^{+0.20}_{-0.13} M_\odot$, together with a strong correlation between $k_2$ and $k_3$ and an anti-correlation between $k_2$ and $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$.

Load-bearing premise

The inference assumes that the observed ratio of long to short gamma-ray burst rates directly equals the ratio of gravitational-wave merger rates in two total-mass ranges, with no correction for beaming, detector selection, or other burst-duration drivers such as spin, mass ratio, or viewing angle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $k_2$ is really 1.36, neutron-star remnants with total masses up to about $1.36\,M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ survive for hundreds of milliseconds before collapse, setting the timescale for short-burst emission and for ejecta that enriches the disk before the black hole forms.
  • The inferred anti-correlation between $k_2$ and $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ means a sharper determination of either quantity sharpens the other, so an independent measurement of the TOV mass would translate directly into a constraint on the long-lived/short-lived mass boundary and the prompt-collapse mass.
  • A single joint gravitational-wave and gamma-ray burst detection of a neutron-star merger with measured total mass and burst duration would anchor $M_{\mathrm{LS}}$ and, through the correlations, constrain $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{PC}}$.
  • The result supports the picture in which kilonova-associated long bursts come from heavier mergers whose remnant collapses to a black hole surrounded by a massive disk, while short bursts come from lighter mergers with longer-lived neutron-star remnants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not draw this conclusion, but if $k_2$ is robust the duration distribution of merger-induced bursts should show a sharp transition at a fixed total mass; future gravitational-wave detectors could test this by stacking events with measured total mass and electromagnetic counterparts.
  • A testable extension suggested by the anti-correlation between $k_2$ and $M_{\mathrm{TOV}}$ is that an independent TOV-mass measurement from radio pulsars or nuclear theory could be inserted into this relation to predict where the short/long burst divide sits before more multi-messenger events arrive.
  • If the total-mass assumption is ever relaxed, the same rate-comparison method could be reversed to constrain the mass-ratio or spin distributions of merging neutron-star binaries instead of nuclear parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Bayesian framework that combines LVK merger-rate posterior samples with observed rates of short gamma-ray bursts and kilonova-associated long gamma-ray bursts to infer the ratios (k1, k2, k3) of characteristic binary total masses (very long-lived, long-lived/short-lived, and prompt-collapse) to the TOV mass M_TOV. The fiducial analysis yields k2 = 1.36^{+0.08}_{-0.09} (median and 68% confidence interval), with a 90% lower bound of 1.24, which the authors interpret as evidence that neutron stars substantially above the non-rotating maximum mass can survive for an extended period after merger. The inference is reported to be robust to variations in the assumed GRB rates and mass-ratio cuts.

Significance. If the assumed sharp mass-duration mapping is correct, the method provides a novel and independent constraint on neutron-star nuclear properties and identifies correlations among M_LS, M_PC, and M_TOV. The analysis is commendably anchored to external LVK rate posterior samples and public equation-of-state constraints, and it includes explicit robustness tests over rate priors and mass-ratio thresholds. The central quantitative claim, however, is entirely conditional on the assumed step-function classification of GRB duration by total mass; the paper acknowledges this reliance in the Discussion. The significance of the claimed constraint is therefore moderate until that assumption is systematically tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Method, Eq. (3)] The likelihood models sGRB and lGRB production as a sharp partition of total mass into intervals (M_VL, M_LS] and (M_LS, M_PC]. There is no parameter for a smooth transition or for a fraction of mergers producing the 'wrong' burst class. Because k2 is defined as the location of the boundary, the quoted posterior on k2 is conditional on this step-function form. The Discussion states that the results rely on this assumption. I request either a smooth classification model P(sGRB|Mtot) with a width parameter, or a demonstration that the inference is invariant to such a width; without this, the 68% interval understates the systematic uncertainty.
  2. [Method, Eq. (3)] The normal likelihood for eta with mean 1 and sigma 1 is an ad hoc choice; eta is a positive quantity bounded by observations in [0.005,1], so the normal assigns roughly 16% probability to unphysical negative values and centers the likelihood at the upper edge of the observed range. The authors should justify the fiducial (eta, sigma_eta) = (1,1) or adopt a distribution with the correct support (e.g., lognormal) and confirm that the posterior is robust to this choice.
  3. [Method and Discussion] The comparison equates the observed GRB rate ratio with the ratio of GW merger rates in the two mass ranges, with no explicit treatment of beaming or detection selection. If the literature rates are not already beaming-corrected, or if the beaming corrections differ between sGRBs and lGRBs, eta is not equal to the merger-rate ratio. Please state clearly whether the adopted rates are intrinsic (beaming-corrected) and quantify the impact of beaming uncertainties on k2.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I] The fiducial row reads "R_sGRB = 100100-100 Gpc^-1 yr^-1", which appears to be a formatting error for 100^{+100}_{-100} Gpc^-3 yr^-1, and the units should be Gpc^-3 yr^-1, not Gpc^-1 yr^-1.
  2. [Method, bullet list] In the bullet list, "t >> 1 s" appears twice; please use the much-greater symbol (≫) for consistency with the rest of the text.
  3. [Results, Figure 1] The sentence "The variations in ηGW significantly surpass the observational uncertainty of GRBs with ≲10% fluctuations" is ambiguous about whether the 10% changes apply to the parameters or to the uncertainty; please rephrase.
  4. [Section heading] The section title "Agnostic to model" is unidiomatic; consider "Model-agnostic analysis" or "Robustness to model assumptions".
  5. [Figure 1] The y-axis label "Long GRB Rate/Short GRB rate" should be "R_lGRB/R_sGRB" for consistency with the text and equations.
  6. [Method, Eq. (2)] The integral signs in Eq. (2) lack explicit limits; since the variables are rates, the integration domain should be specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: k2 is a measured threshold under an explicit, externally anchored forward model.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity standard. The paper defines M_LS = k2 MTOV as a parameter with physical meaning, but does not fix k2 by definition. The posterior for (k1, k2, k3, MTOV) is computed from Bayes' theorem (Eq. 1) with a likelihood (Eqs. 2-3) that compares LVK-derived merger rates R_GW,sGRB and eta_GW, integrated over mass intervals, to the observed GRB rate RsGRB = 100 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 and rate ratio eta = 1. The reported k2 = 1.36 is therefore a measurement of where the observed GRB rate ratio intersects the GW mass distribution, not an input, prior, or self-citation. The physical sentence 'large k2 indicates that heavy NSs could survive for a relatively long timescale after merger' is an interpretation of the fitted boundary under the model, not a separately derived prediction. The paper transparently labels its central assumption: 'The results rely on the assumption that merger-induced lGRBs and sGRBs are mainly divided by the total mass of the mergers.' The simulation inputs motivating the mass-duration mapping ([11, 12, 24, 36]) are external, falsifiable numerical results, several coauthored by O. Gottlieb, but they do not enter the likelihood as fitted values and do not set k2; they serve as supporting context and an independent consistency check. No equation reduces to another by construction: M_LS = k2 MTOV only parameterizes the boundary, and the posterior does not collapse to the definition. The sharp-cutoff mass classification is a physical assumption whose violation would bias the inference, but that is a correctness and robustness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not postulate new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The characteristic masses M_VL, M_LS, M_PC are parameterized boundaries, not new physical entities. The ledger is dominated by domain assumptions about the mapping between merger mass and GRB duration, together with fitted characteristic-mass ratios and a TOV-mass prior taken from earlier work.

free parameters (5)
  • k1 = 1.11 +0.11 -0.08
    Ratio of the very-long-lived remnant mass M_VL to M_TOV; fitted to rate matching and weakly constrained by the data.
  • k2 = 1.36 +0.08 -0.09
    Ratio of the long-lived/short-lived remnant boundary M_LS to M_TOV; the central inferred parameter of the paper.
  • k3 = 1.43 +0.07 -0.08
    Ratio of the prompt-collapse mass M_PC to M_TOV; heavily informed by the Kashyap et al. fitting formula and the R_TOV/M_TOV prior.
  • M_TOV = 2.21 +0.20 -0.13 solar masses
    Maximum mass of a cold non-rotating neutron star; prior taken from Legred et al. 2021 and the posterior is nearly unchanged, so it is not independently measured here.
  • R_TOV = Prior from Legred et al. 2021
    Radius of a neutron star at M_TOV; enters the prompt-collapse mass formula and is drawn from the external posterior rather than fitted by this paper.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Merger-induced sGRBs and lGRBs are divided mainly by the total binary mass.
    The whole rate comparison in the Method section partitions GW mergers into sGRB and lGRB classes using total-mass cutoffs k1, k2, k3.
  • domain assumption sGRBs are powered by long-lived neutron star remnants, while lGRBs are powered by black holes with massive accretion disks.
    Introduction cites Gottlieb et al. 2023 and Izquierdo et al. 2025; this physical mapping is assumed before the fit.
  • domain assumption Very long-lived remnants with Mtot below M_VL do not produce the observed GRB population.
    Method section defines M_VL and excludes Mtot < M_VL from sGRBs, citing lack of rotational energy injection signatures.
  • domain assumption Prompt-collapse mergers with mass ratio outside [q_low, q_high] produce no GRB or only low-luminosity GRBs.
    Method section restricts lGRB production to q_low = 1.2 to q_high = 3; these cuts are varied but not derived from data.
  • ad hoc to paper Observed sGRB rate and rate ratio eta follow independent normal distributions with mean and sigma chosen as (100,100) and (1,1).
    Equation (3) models the observational uncertainties with normal distributions; this is a modeling choice specific to this paper and is not derived from the GRB literature.
  • domain assumption The prompt-collapse mass M_PC follows the fitting formula in Eq. (1b) of Kashyap et al. 2022 as a function of R_TOV and M_TOV.
    Method section adopts this numerical-relativity based formula as the prior relation for k3.
  • domain assumption The Legred et al. 2021 posterior is a valid prior for M_TOV and R_TOV.
    Method section uses the public Legred et al. posterior samples as the prior for R_TOV and M_TOV; the inferred M_TOV posterior remains close to this prior.
  • domain assumption The LVK Power Law + Dip + Break population model describes the local BNS and NSBH merger rate as a function of component masses.
    Method section adopts this GWTC-3 population model and draws 1000 rate posterior samples from Abbott et al. 2023 and Abac et al. 2024.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring Neutron Star Nuclear Properties from Gravitational-Wave and Gamma-Ray Burst Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M6YGMEHY

@misc{pith2026250618151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring Neutron Star Nuclear Properties from Gravitational-Wave and Gamma-Ray Burst Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M6YGMEHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18151}
}
abstract

Recent discoveries of long gamma-ray bursts accompanied by kilonova emission prompted interest in understanding their progenitors. If these long-duration bursts arise from neutron star mergers, similar to short gamma-ray bursts, it raises the question of which physical properties govern burst duration. The mass of the merger stands out as a key factor, strongly influencing the lifetime of the merger remnant, which in turn determines the burst duration: lighter mergers that form long-lived remnants produce short bursts, whereas more massive mergers result in short-lived remnants that collapse into black holes, powering longer bursts. In this paper, we compare merger rates from gravitational-wave observations of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA with the rates of kilonova-associated long and short gamma-ray bursts, to identify a characteristic total neutron star mass that separates the two burst classes at $1.36^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ times of the neutron star Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) mass (median and 68% confidence interval). This result suggests that massive neutron stars could survive an extended period after merger. Our findings are robust against substantial observational uncertainties and model assumptions. Moreover, we identify a correlation between the characteristic mass and the neutron star TOV mass, allowing constraints on the characteristic mass to be directly mapped to upper limits on the TOV mass. This establishes a novel, independent method for constraining the neutron star TOV mass and their equation of state using gravitational-wave and gamma-ray burst observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18151 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Rate ratio between merger-induced lGRBs and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Marginalized 1- and 2-dimensional posteriors of the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Implications of low neutron star merger rates for gamma-ray bursts, r-process production and Galactic double neutron stars

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.5 of 10

    The GWTC-4 BNS merger rate is 28–300 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, a factor of 3.6–18 lower than the cosmological short GRB rate and 2.3–5.1 lower than Galactic DNS estimates, implying an emerging tension among neutron-star merger probes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fiducial parameters

    We then infer (k 1,k 2,k 3,M TOV) by comparing GW and GRB observations. We use the LVK’s GWTC-3 catalog [29] and the obser- vation of NSBH, GW230529 [30], for the local (z≲0.2) merger rate as a function of binary masses. Specifi- cally, we adopt thePower Law + Dip + Breakpopu- lation model from Abbottet al.[29]; other population model choices in that stud...

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRAL), Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAAS- TRO, VINROUGE, MASTER, J...

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    D. A. Coulter, R. J. Foley, C. D. Kilpatrick, M. R. Drout, A. L. Piro, B. J. Shappee, M. R. Siebert, J. D. Simon, N. Ulloa, D. Kasen, B. F. Madore, A. Murguia- Berthier, Y. C. Pan, J. X. Prochaska, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, A. Rest, and C. Rojas-Bravo, Science358, 1556 (2017), arXiv:1710.05452 [astro-ph.HE]. 6

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    J. C. Rastinejad, B. P. Gompertz, A. J. Levan, W.-f. Fong, M. Nicholl, G. P. Lamb, D. B. Malesani, A. E. Nu- gent, S. R. Oates, N. R. Tanvir, A. de Ugarte Postigo, C. D. Kilpatrick, C. J. Moore, B. D. Metzger, M. E. Ravasio, A. Rossi, G. Schroeder, J. Jencson, D. J. Sand, N. Smith, J. F. Ag¨ u´ ı Fern´ andez, E. Berger, P. K. Blan- chard, R. Chornock, B. ...

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Troja, C

    E. Troja, C. L. Fryer, B. O’Connor, G. Ryan, S. Dichiara, A. Kumar, N. Ito, R. Gupta, R. T. Wollaeger, J. P. Norris, N. Kawai, N. R. Butler, A. Aryan, K. Misra, R. Hosokawa, K. L. Murata, M. Niwano, S. B. Pandey, A. Kutyrev, H. J. van Eerten, E. A. Chase, Y. D. Hu, M. D. Caballero-Garcia, and A. J. Castro-Tirado, Na- ture (London)612, 228 (2022), arXiv:22...

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    J. Yang, S. Ai, B.-B. Zhang, B. Zhang, Z.-K. Liu, X. I. Wang, Y.-H. Yang, Y.-H. Yin, Y. Li, and H.-J. L¨ u, Na- ture (London)612, 232 (2022), arXiv:2204.12771 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Y.-Y

    H.-M. Zhang, Y.-Y. Huang, J.-H. Zheng, R.-Y. Liu, and X.-Y. Wang, Astrophys. J. Lett.933, L22 (2022), arXiv:2205.09675 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Levan, B. P. Gompertz, O. S. Salafia, M. Bulla, E. Burns, K. Hotokezaka, L. Izzo, G. P. Lamb, D. B. Malesani, S. R. Oates, M. E. Ravasio, A. Rouco Esco- rial, B. Schneider, N. Sarin, S. Schulze, N. R. Tanvir, K. Ackley, G. Anderson, G. B. Brammer, L. Christensen, V. S. D...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    H. Sun, C. W. Wang, J. Yang, B. B. Zhang, S. L. Xiong, Y. H. I. Yin, Y. Liu, Y. Li, W. C. Xue, Z. Yan, C. Zhang, W. J. Tan, H. W. Pan, J. C. Liu, H. Q. Cheng, Y. Q. Zhang, J. W. Hu, C. Zheng, Z. H. An, C. Cai, Z. M. Cai, L. Hu, C. Jin, D. Y. Li, X. Q. Li, H. Y. Liu, M. Liu, W....

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Y.-H. Yang, E. Troja, B. O’Connor, C. L. Fryer, M. Im, J. Durbak, G. S. H. Paek, R. Ricci, C. R. Bom, J. H. Gillanders, A. J. Castro-Tirado, Z.-K. Peng, S. Dichiara, G. Ryan, H. van Eerten, Z.-G. Dai, S.-W. Chang, H. Choi, K. De, Y. Hu, C. D. Kilpatrick, A. Ku- tyrev, M. Jeong...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, F. Foucart, and E. Ramirez- Ruiz, Astrophys. J.984, 77 (2025), arXiv:2411.13657 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, E. Quataert, D. Issa, T. Mar- tineau, F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Astrophys. J. Lett.958, L33 (2023), arXiv:2309.00038 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kang, J.-P

    Y. Kang, J.-P. Zhu, Y.-H. Yang, Z. Wang, E. Troja, B. Zhang, L. Shao, and Z. Li, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.10165 (2025), arXiv:2505.10165 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. A. Rueda, L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, M. Della Valle, C. L. Fryer, C. Guidorzi, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023010 (2025), arXiv:2412.12764 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. C. Rastinejad, W. Fong, C. D. Kilpatrick, M. Nicholl, and B. D. Metzger, Astrophys. J.979, 190 (2025), arXiv:2409.02158 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mochkovitch, M

    R. Mochkovitch, M. Hernanz, J. Isern, and X. Martin, Nature (London)361, 236 (1993)

    1993

  10. [18]

    H. T. Janka, T. Eberl, M. Ruffert, and C. L. Fryer, Astrophys. J. Lett.527, L39 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9908290 [astro-ph]

    1999

  11. [19]

    M. A. Aloy, H. T. Janka, and E. M¨ uller, Astron. As- trophys.436, 273 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408291 [astro- ph]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Rezzolla, B

    L. Rezzolla, B. Giacomazzo, L. Baiotti, J. Granot, C. Kouveliotou, and M. A. Aloy, Astrophys. J. Lett. 732, L6 (2011), arXiv:1101.4298 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bucciantini, B

    N. Bucciantini, B. D. Metzger, T. A. Thompson, and E. Quataert, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.419, 1537 (2012), arXiv:1106.4668 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Narayan, I

    R. Narayan, I. V. Igumenshchev, and M. A. Abramowicz, PASJj55, L69 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305029 [astro- ph]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Tchekhovskoy, R

    A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKin- ney, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.418, L79 (2011), arXiv:1108.0412 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gottlieb, D

    O. Gottlieb, D. Issa, J. Jacquemin-Ide, M. Liska, F. Fou- cart, A. Tchekhovskoy, B. D. Metzger, E. Quataert, R. Perna, D. Kasen, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Astrophys. J. Lett.954, L21 (2023), arXiv:2306.14947 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. R. Izquierdo, C. Palenzuela, S. Liebling, O. Gottlieb, and M. Bezares, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2501.13154 (2025), arXiv:2501.13154 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D73, 064027 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603145 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Foucart, Phys

    F. Foucart, Phys. Rev. D86, 124007 (2012), arXiv:1207.6304 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. Hotokezaka, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science69, 41 (2019), arXiv:1908.02350 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, K. Hotokezaka, S. A. Fromm, S. Bernuzzi, and L. F. Roberts, Astrophys. J.869, 130 (2018), arXiv:1809.11161 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro- ph.HE]. 7

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo,, KA- GRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. Lett.970, L34 (2024), arXiv:2404.04248 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. M. Coward, E. J. Howell, T. Piran, G. Stratta, M. Branchesi, O. Bromberg, B. Gendre, R. R. Burman, and D. Guetta, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.425, 2668 (2012), arXiv:1202.2179 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Mandhai, N

    S. Mandhai, N. Tanvir, G. Lamb, A. Levan, and D. Tsang, Galaxies6, 130 (2018), arXiv:1812.00507 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Rouco Escorial, W

    A. Rouco Escorial, W. Fong, E. Berger, T. Laskar, R. Margutti, G. Schroeder, J. C. Rastinejad, D. Cor- nish, S. Popp, M. Lally, A. E. Nugent, K. Paterson, B. D. Metzger, R. Chornock, K. Alexander, Y. Cen- des, and T. Eftekhari, Astrophys. J.959, 13 (2023), arXiv:2210.05695 [as...

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S. J. Kapadia, Dimple, D. Jain, K. Misra, K. G. Arun, and R. Lekshmi, Astrophys. J. Lett.976, L10 (2024), arXiv:2407.19033 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    E. J. Howell, E. Burns, and A. Goldstein, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.17244 (2024), arXiv:2411.17244 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  29. [37]

    Perna, O

    R. Perna, O. Gottlieb, E. Shukla, and D. Radice, Phys. Rev. D111, 063015 (2025), arXiv:2412.07846 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Landry and J

    P. Landry and J. S. Read, Astrophys. J. Lett.921, L25 (2021), arXiv:2107.04559 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Beniamini and W

    P. Beniamini and W. Lu, Astrophys. J.920, 109 (2021), arXiv:2104.01181 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, T. Muranushi, Y.-i. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D88, 044026 (2013), arXiv:1307.5888 [astro- ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. D. Kaplan, C. D. Ott, E. P. O’Connor, K. Kiuchi, L. Roberts, and M. Duez, Astrophys. J.790, 19 (2014), arXiv:1306.4034 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 051102 (2011), arXiv:1105.2125 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bauswein, T

    A. Bauswein, T. W. Baumgarte, and H. T. Janka, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 131101 (2013), arXiv:1307.5191 [astro- ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bauswein, O

    A. Bauswein, O. Just, H.-T. Janka, and N. Stergioulas, Astrophys. J. Lett.850, L34 (2017), arXiv:1710.06843 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. D. Tootle, L. J. Papenfort, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.922, L19 (2021), arXiv:2109.00940 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kashyap, A

    R. Kashyap, A. Das, D. Radice, S. Padamata, A. Prakash, D. Logoteta, A. Perego, D. A. Godzieba, S. Bernuzzi, I. Bombaci, F. J. Fattoyev, B. T. Reed, and A. d. S. Schneider, Phys. Rev. D105, 103022 (2022), arXiv:2111.05183 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Perego, D

    A. Perego, D. Logoteta, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, R. Kashyap, A. Das, S. Padamata, and A. Prakash, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 032701 (2022), arXiv:2112.05864 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Legred, K

    I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, S. Han, and P. Landry, Physical Review D104, 063003 (2021), arXiv:2106.05313 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    S. Huth, P. T. H. Pang, I. Tews, T. Dietrich, A. Le F` evre, A. Schwenk, W. Trautmann, K. Agarwal, M. Bulla, M. W. Coughlin, and C. Van Den Broeck, Nature (Lon- don)606, 276 (2022), arXiv:2107.06229 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Na- ture Astronomy4, 625 (2020), arXiv:1908.10352 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    P. C.-K. Cheong, T. Pitik, L. F. Longo Micchi, and D. Radice, Astrophys. J. Lett.978, L38 (2025), arXiv:2410.10938 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    B. D. Metzger and G. C. Bower, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.437, 1821 (2014), arXiv:1310.4506 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Horesh, K

    A. Horesh, K. Hotokezaka, T. Piran, E. Nakar, and P. Hancock, Astrophys. J. Lett.819, L22 (2016), arXiv:1601.01692 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Schroeder, B

    G. Schroeder, B. Margalit, W.-f. Fong, B. D. Met- zger, P. K. G. Williams, K. Paterson, K. D. Alexander, T. Laskar, A. V. Goyal, and E. Berger, Astrophys. J. 902, 82 (2020), arXiv:2006.07434 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.