Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 136 references

From Multimessenger Inference to Simulations: A Ranked Ensemble of Finite-Temperature Equations of State

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs a ranked 12-member ensemble of simulation-ready finite-temperature neutron-star equations of state from a 5.2-million-EOS multimessenger posterior, bracketing neutron-star radii, tidal deformability, and maximum mass…

desk verdict A genuine bridge from multimessenger posterior to simulation-ready finite-T tables, with a model-space caveat that is honestly stated in Section VI but missing from the headline numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04092 v1 pith:G2QUR22H submitted 2026-08-04 astro-ph.HE

Max Jacobi , Giulia Huez , Sebastiano Bernuzzi , David Radice This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstarequationofstatefinite-temperatureEOStablesmultimessengerinferenceSkyrmefunctionalspeedsoundGW170817NICERmass-radiusmergers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to close the gap between multimessenger neutron-star inference and the equations of state that numerical simulations actually use. It builds a catalogue of 5.2 million finite-temperature EOSs from a flexible Skyrme-type functional, reweights them with chiral effective field theory, perturbative QCD, GW170817, four NICER mass-radius measurements, and the J0348 pulsar mass, and reads off a posterior with $R_{1.4} = 11.8^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ km, $\Lambda_{1.4} = 334^{+193}_{-113}$, and $M_{\rm max}^{\rm TOV} = 2.18^{+0.22}_{-0.14}\,M_\odot$. From that posterior it selects a ranked 12-member ensemble whose members are individually plausible and jointly bracket the spread of neutron-star observables at the 93% level or better. If correct, simulation campaigns can finally propagate real constraints into predictions of gravitational waves, kilonovae, and nucleosynthesis rather than relying on heterogeneous hand-picked tables.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Skyrme-type energy-density functional of the SROEOS table generator, reparameterised so that each EOS is fixed by six nuclear saturation properties and ten squared-speed-of-sound targets at five supra-saturation densities; a per-draw exponent existence search finds the density exponents that make the EOS causal and thermodynamically consistent up to $10n_0$, and a linear solve recovers the coefficients. This turns a complete finite-temperature table into a drawable prior candidate. Each accepted EOS is then weighted by a product of continuous likelihoods: the chiral effective field theory pressure band, the pQCD constraint, GW170817, four NICER mass-radius posteriors, and the J0348 mass, producing the posterior. The final ensemble is a nested farthest-point (max-min) greedy selection in a five-dimensional feature space made of the four leading principal components of the beta-equilibrium pressure together with the proton fraction at $2n_0$, so the ranked list covers the plausible region with monotonically shrinking holes.

What would settle it

A measurement of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star radius firmly below 11.1 km or above 12.6 km, or a confirmed postmerger gravitational-wave signature of quark matter, would put the true equation of state outside the posterior's assumed model space.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a systematic route from multimessenger inference to simulation-ready EOS tables exists and is realized by this pipeline. The reweighted catalogue of 5.2 million EOSs produces a posterior with $R_{1.4} = 11.8^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ km, $\Lambda_{1.4} = 334^{+193}_{-113}$, and $M_{\rm max}^{\rm TOV} = 2.18^{+0.22}_{-0.14}\,M_\odot$; the 12-member ensemble, drawn from the 45% highest-posterior-density region, brackets radii, tidal polarizability, pressure, and composition at the 93% level or better. The fiducial member sits at $R_{1.4} = 12.24$ km, $\Lambda_{1.4} = 397$, and $M_{\rm max}^{\rm TOV} = 2.19\,M_\odot$, with the full ensemble spanning $R_{1.4} = 11.1\text{--}12.8$ km, $\Lambda_{1.4} = 215\text{--}587$, and $M_{\rm max}^{\rm TOV} = 2.05\text{--}2.40\,M_\odot$. Each member is delivered as a full finite-temperature table with nucleon effective-mass variants bracketing the thermal response.

Load-bearing premise

All quoted intervals hold only inside the paper's model space: matter is purely nucleonic, smooth, and free of first-order phase transitions, so a real hybrid or quark transition could push radii, tides, and maximum mass outside the quoted ranges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Merger and supernova simulations can adopt tables that are actual posterior draws, turning EOS uncertainty into a bracketed systematic rather than a spread of hand-picked models.
  • Campaigns can truncate the nested ranking at four, six, or twelve members and still retain a defined posterior bracket, and later extensions do not invalidate earlier runs.
  • The released effective-mass variants bound the thermal response at fixed cold-sector behaviour, which is exactly the sector where ad hoc thermal closures are known to be least reliable.
  • The selection procedure is generic, so any future weighted EOS posterior, regardless of functional form or inference scheme, can be reduced to a ranked simulation ensemble.
  • The posterior numbers themselves set concrete targets: a 1.4-solar-mass radius near 11.1 to 12.6 km and a maximum TOV mass near 2.04 to 2.40 solar masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the paper's own conditional caveat suggests a natural next test, namely grafting a hybrid or quark-matter branch onto the released baryonic tables and checking which observables move outside the quoted brackets.
  • Beyond the paper: if the 93% coverage holds, next-generation large merger campaigns could use the 12-member ensemble as a stratified design for EOS uncertainty, with per-member posterior weights for aggregating simulation results.
  • Beyond the paper: the ensemble's feature space omits temperature-sensitive ejecta observables, so a simulation study comparing bracket coverage for nucleosynthesis yields would show whether composition anchors beyond $x_\beta(2n_0)$ are needed.
  • Beyond the paper: because the selection works on any weighted catalogue, it would be straightforward to rerun the same reduction on nonparametric or Gaussian-process-based posteriors and compare the delivered members against the Skyrme set.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a 5.2-million-member catalogue of finite-temperature Skyrme equations of state by sampling six saturation parameters and ten speed-of-sound targets, retaining only draws for which an exponent vector yields a causal, thermodynamically consistent EOS. The catalogue is reweighted with continuous importance weights from chiEFT, pQCD, GW170817, four NICER sources, and the J0348 pulsar mass, yielding posterior values R1.4 = 11.8^{+0.8}_{-0.7} km, Lambda1.4 = 334^{+193}_{-113}, and Mmax_TOV = 2.18^{+0.22}_{-0.14} Msun. From this posterior the authors select a ranked 12-member ensemble via a max-min greedy traversal of a 45% highest-posterior-density selection region, and generate full SROEOS finite-temperature tables with effective-mass variants. The paper claims that the ensemble brackets the plausible range of neutron-star observables at the 93% level or better.

Significance. If the headline results stand, this is a useful and timely deliverable: it provides a systematic, reproducible route from a multimessenger EOS posterior to a small set of simulation-ready tables, with the thermal sector derived from the same functional rather than patched on. The inference is executed carefully: constraints enter as continuous importance weights, the effective sample size is large (ESS ~1.1e4), knockout tests isolate the pull of each dataset, and a broad battery of sensitivity swaps is reported. The construction of a nested, ranked ensemble is a genuine practical contribution, as is the planned public release of the tables. The main caveats are that the posterior is conditional on a smooth, purely nucleonic Skyrme model space, and that the '93% bracketing' statistic is computed over the 45% highest-density selection region rather than the full posterior; both points need to be stated more prominently in the abstract and the results sections.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Figure 11, and Abstract] The bracketing claim is computed over the selection region, not the full posterior. The selection region is defined in Section V as the highest-posterior-density region containing 45% of the total posterior mass, and Figure 11's bottom panel sums 'the posterior mass of all plausible catalogue EOSs' whose value falls inside the member min-max bracket. With this denominator, a 93% bracketing of the plausible region corresponds to at most about 42% of the total posterior mass, not 93%. The abstract's statement that the ensemble brackets 'the posterior spread' is therefore stronger than what the statistic measures. Please state the denominator explicitly, label the ordinate of the bottom panel accordingly, and adjust the abstract and Section VI wording to say that the bracketing is relative to the 45% selection region.
  2. [Section III A, Eq. (12)] The chiEFT likelihood uses an assumed RBF correlation kernel with length scale l = 0.04 fm^-3 and nugget 0.05, rather than the trained GP covariance of Gottling et al., and only the length scale is varied in the robustness tests of Section IV B. Since the chiEFT channel is a major constraint (removing it shifts the R1.4 median by about -0.19 km in Figure 8), the assumed kernel shape and nugget could affect the posterior. Please either use the full trained GP covariance if it can be made available from the underlying reference, or add sensitivity tests that vary the kernel family (e.g., Mate\'rn with different smoothness) and the nugget, and show the effect on the headline observables.
  3. [Section VI and Abstract] The paper's own limitation statement in Section VI is clear: the prior represents neither first-order phase transitions nor non-nucleonic degrees of freedom, and the quoted credible intervals do not bound the softening a strong hybrid transition could introduce. However, this conditioning is absent from the abstract and from the presentation of Table II and Figure 11. Since the deliverable is intended for simulation campaigns, a reader could mistake the quoted intervals and the 93% bracketing for coverage of the full EOS uncertainty. Please put a concise version of this caveat in the abstract and in the caption or text around the headline numbers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III A, Eq. (10)-(12)] The text says the ln|R| term "cancels in relative comparisons" but also includes it in the likelihood; if it is constant across EOSs, the sentence can be simplified to avoid implying a cancellation that is not explicitly demonstrated.
  2. [Section II C, Appendix B] The existence search is described as a nearly deterministic feasibility criterion, but the acceptance rate of 5% means the effective prior is substantially reshaped by the search. It would be helpful to show a two-dimensional slice illustrating the sharp boundary claimed in the text, since Figure 1 only shows marginal densities.
  3. [Section V] The footnote equating the 45% highest-density cut to "roughly a standard 90% credible interval" in one-dimensional marginals is useful, but it should be made explicit that this equivalence is for marginals only and does not imply the selection region contains 90% of the joint posterior mass.
  4. [Table II and Section V] The column p/p0 reports posterior density in the five-dimensional feature space; please state in the caption that this density is evaluated with the selection KDE and that all members lie at approximately the same iso-density boundary by construction, as the main text explains.
  5. [Section IV B, Figure 9] The text says restricting K to [210,250] MeV shifts the R1.4 median by "less than 0.01 km," while Figure 9 reports -0.00 km; please make the rounding convention consistent between the text and the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: posterior constraints are external, and the ensemble bracketing is an in-sample performance metric rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external data. The prior is a uniform sampling of saturation parameters and speed-of-sound anchors; the posterior is obtained by importance-sampling weights from chiEFT, pQCD, GW170817, NICER, and J0348, all external measurements. The headline values R1.4, Lambda1.4, and Mmax_TOV are computed by TOV integration of each catalogue EOS and marginalized under these weights; no parameter is defined in terms of these observables, so there is no self-definitional or fitted-input circularity. The 93% bracketing statistic (Fig. 11) is computed on the same posterior used to select the 12-member ensemble, so it is an in-sample convergence metric of the max-min algorithm, not an independent prediction; however, the selection objective is coverage in a PCA feature space rather than direct optimization of the listed observables, and the bracketing curves show non-trivial jumps, so the statistic is not forced by construction. Self-citations (e.g., GW settings from [108], the bajes code [106]) reuse public data and published, reproducible analyses; they are not load-bearing circularity. The paper also explicitly conditions all results on the smooth, purely nucleonic Skyrme model space (Section VI), which is a stated scope limitation, not a circular step.

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

The central claim rests on a 23-dimensional parameterization (16 sampled physical inputs plus seven search-determined exponents) and on several external constraints. The parameters are not fitted in the optimization sense; they are importance-sampled against external likelihoods. The main unstated input is the assumption that the Skyrme functional form covers all relevant physics, plus the assumed chiEFT correlation kernel and the posterior-as-likelihood approximation.

free parameters (8)
  • n0 (saturation density) = 0.155-0.165 fm^-3
    Uniformly sampled prior for the Skyrme functional; posterior reweighting leaves it nearly unconstrained.
  • B (binding energy at saturation) = -16.5 to -15.5 MeV
    Uniform prior; posterior tracks prior.
  • K (incompressibility) = 160-315 MeV
    Uniform prior envelope of literature determinations; remains unconstrained by data.
  • J (symmetry energy) = 28.6-38.1 MeV
    Uniform prior bounded by unitary gas floor and PREX-2 central value; posterior tracks prior.
  • L (symmetry energy slope) = 20-90 MeV
    Uniform prior; shaped by chiEFT likelihood to 49 +19 -17 MeV.
  • Ksym_tilde (PNM curvature) = -400 to 800 MeV
    Uniform prior; pulled to softer values by chiEFT and astro data.
  • c_s^2 targets at 2,4,6,8,10 n0 = each in [0,1]
    10 independent sampled sound-speed anchors for PNM and SNM; the central flexibility of the high-density sector.
  • Density exponents delta_i (7 values) = chosen by SLSQP search
    Not sampled from a prior but selected to enforce causality; effectively free degrees of freedom shaping the functional.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Skyrme functional form of eq. (1) with quadratic isospin dependence spans the relevant EOS space
    Every posterior statement is conditional on this model space; the authors note it excludes phase transitions and non-nucleonic degrees of freedom (Section VI).
  • domain assumption Unitary gas bound of Tews et al. (eq. 7) is valid for neutron matter down to n=0.01 n0
    External physics bound used as a hard constraint in the exponent existence search (Section II C).
  • ad hoc to paper The chiEFT GP of Gottling et al. can be represented with an RBF kernel of length scale l=0.04 fm^-3 and nugget 0.05
    The full trained GP is not public; the correlation structure is assumed (Section III A).
  • domain assumption Astrophysical posterior samples can stand in for likelihoods because original priors are approximately flat in the measurement coordinates
    Appendix D states this as the justification for the KDE importance estimator.
  • standard math TOV equations and cold beta equilibrium determine stellar structure
    Standard GR stellar structure; used throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Multimessenger Inference to Simulations: A Ranked Ensemble of Finite-Temperature Equations of State." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2QUR22H

@misc{pith2026260804092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Multimessenger Inference to Simulations: A Ranked Ensemble of Finite-Temperature Equations of State},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2QUR22H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04092}
}
abstract

We construct a set of microphysical, finite-temperature equations of state (EOSs) for numerical simulations of neutron star mergers and core-collapse supernovae that is consistent with modern constraints from nuclear theory and multimessenger astronomy and systematically spans the posterior distribution of allowed EOSs. The EOSs are based on a simplified Skyrme functional whose inputs are nuclear matter saturation properties, extended to supra-saturation densities through the speed of sound at a set of reference densities. The models are assigned continuous likelihood weights from chiral effective field theory and perturbative quantum chromodynamics calculations, the gravitational wave signal GW170817, the complete set of NICER mass-radius measurements, and the Shapiro-delay mass measurement of the radio pulsar J0348. From the resulting catalogue of 5.2 million EOSs, the posterior yields $R_{1.4} = 11.8^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ km, $\Lambda_{1.4} = 334^{+193}_{-113}$, and $M_{\rm max}^{\rm TOV} = 2.18^{+0.22}_{-0.14}\,M_\odot$ (medians with 90% credible intervals). From this posterior we select a ranked 12-member ensemble, headed by a fiducial, central EOS, whose members are individually plausible while jointly bracketing the posterior spread of neutron-star observables. For all ensemble members we generate general-purpose finite-temperature tables with the SROEOS code, each accompanied by nucleon effective-mass variants that bracket the ensemble's thermal-sector uncertainty, to be made publicly available upon publication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Marginal distributions of the six saturation parameters under the prior (filled), only-nuclear, only-astro, and posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Knockout test for the symmetry-energy parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. As in fig. 2, for the PNM squared speed of sound at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mass–radius diagram: 90% credible bands for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Marginal distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. As in fig. 2, for the headline observables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Sensitivity test: posterior medians and 90% credible intervals under one-at-a-time swaps of the analysis inputs, relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The delivered simulation ensemble: the fiducial member (rank 1) and the eleven further ranked members, over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Convergence of the ranked ensemble with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baiotti and L

    L. Baiotti and L. Rezzolla, Rept.Prog.Phys.80(2017), 10.1088/1361-6633/aa67bb, arXiv:1607.03540 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. Hotokezaka, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 69, 41 (2019), arXiv:1908.02350 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Radice, S

    D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Perego, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci.70, 95 (2020), arXiv:2002.03863 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Bernuzzi, Gen.Rel.Grav.52, 108 (2020), arXiv:2004.06419 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Bernuzzi, Gen.Rel.Grav.52, 108 (2020), arXiv:2004.06419 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Bernuzzi, A

    S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, T. Dietrich, and T. Damour, Phys.Rev.Lett.114(2015), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.114.161103, arXiv:1412.4553 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    A. Abac, T. Dietrich, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and M. Ujevic, Phys.Rev.D109(2024), 10.1103/Phys- RevD.109.024062, arXiv:2311.07456 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Breschi, S

    M. Breschi, S. Bernuzzi, F. Zappa, M. Agathos, A. Perego, D. Radice, and A. Nagar, Phys.Rev.D 100(2019), 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104029, 19 arXiv:1908.11418 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    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. da Silva Schneider, Phys.Rev.D105(2022), 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103022, arXiv:2111.05183 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 136 references
  1. [9]

    Perego, D

    A. Perego, D. Logoteta, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, R. Kashyap, A. Das, S. Padamata, and A. Prakash, Phys.Rev.Lett.129(2022), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.129.032701, arXiv:2112.05864 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Nedora, S

    V. Nedora, S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, B. Daszuta, A. En- drizzi, A. Perego, A. Prakash, M. Safarzadeh, F. Schi- anchi, and D. Logoteta, Astrophys.J.906, 98 (2021), arXiv:2008.04333 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kiuchi, S

    K. Kiuchi, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hayashi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys.Rev.Lett. 131(2023), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.011401, arXiv:2211.07637 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Neuweiler, H

    A. Neuweiler, H. Gieg, H. Rose, H. Koehn, I. Markin, F. Schianchi, L. Brodie, A. Haber, V. Nedora, M. Bulla, and T. Dietrich, Phys.Rev.D113(2026), 10.1103/mxlf- 8sbm, arXiv:2510.14850 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  5. [13]

    Magistrelli, S

    F. Magistrelli, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, M. Jacobi, and C. J. Fontes, Astron.Astrophys.708, A126 (2026), arXiv:2512.11032 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bauswein, T

    A. Bauswein, T. Baumgarte, and H. T. Janka, Phys.Rev.Lett.111(2013), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.111.131101, arXiv:1307.5191 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hayashi, S

    K. Hayashi, S. Fujibayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys.Rev.D106(2022), 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023008, arXiv:2111.04621 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kiuchi, A

    K. Kiuchi, A. Reboul-Salze, M. Shibata, and Y. Sekiguchi, Nature Astron.8, 298 (2024), arXiv:2306.15721 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Musolino, L

    C. Musolino, L. Rezzolla, and E. R. Most, Astro- phys.J.Lett.984, L61 (2025), arXiv:2410.06253 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. Lattimer, C. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys.J.773, 11 (2013), arXiv:1303.4662 [astro- ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. Lynn, I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, A. Gezerlis, K. Schmidt, and A. Schwenk, Phys.Rev.Lett. 116(2016), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.062501, arXiv:1509.03470 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Drischler, R

    C. Drischler, R. Furnstahl, J. Melendez, and D. Phillips, Phys.Rev.Lett.125(2020), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.125.202702, arXiv:2004.07232 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lonardoni, I

    D. Lonardoni, I. Tews, S. Gandolfi, and J. Carl- son, Phys.Rev.Res.2(2020), 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.2.022033, arXiv:1912.09411 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Keller, K

    J. Keller, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 072701 (2023), arXiv:2204.14016 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    G¨ ottling, L

    H. G¨ ottling, L. Hoff, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C113, 055804 (2026), arXiv:2512.19593 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Komoltsev and A

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Phys.Rev.Lett. 128(2022), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202701, arXiv:2111.05350 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gorda, O

    T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, and A. Kurkela, Astrophys. J.950, 107 (2023), arXiv:2204.11877 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Hard- ing, W. C. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and T. E. Strohmayer, Astrophys.J.Lett.887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.0...

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Miller, F

    M. Miller, F. Lamb, A. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. Hard- ing, W. Ho, J. Lattimer, R. Ludlam, S. Mahmoodifar, S. Morsink, P. Ray, T. Strohmayer, K. Wood, T. Enoto, R. Foster, T. Okajima, G. Prigozhin, and Y. Soong, Astrophys.J.Lett.887, L2...

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzouma- nian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewen- stein, R. M. Ludlam, C. B. Markwardt, T. Okajima, C. Prescod-Weinstein, ...

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Miller, F

    M. Miller, F. Lamb, A. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. G. Ho, J. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, S. Morsink, P. Ray, M. Wolff, C. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Manthripra- gada, C. Markwardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cog- nard, H. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, L...

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Salmi et al., Astrophys

    T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J.974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

    D. Choudhury et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y. Kini, L. Mauviard, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, S. Guillot, B. Dorsman, D. Choudhury, D. Gonz´ alez- Caniulef, M. Hoogkamer, D. Huppenkothen, C. Kazant- sev, M. Kerr, S. Nissanke, P. S. Ray, P. Stammler, and S. Vinciguerra, Astrophys.J.1005, 201 (2026), arXiv:2602.23743 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  28. [36]

    Mauviard, S

    L. Mauviard, S. Guillot, T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, B. Dorsman, D. Gonzalez-Caniulef, M. Hoogkamer, D. Huppenkothen, C. Kazantsev, Y. Kini, J.-F. Olive, P. Stammler, A. L. Watts, M. Mendes, N. Rutherford, A. Schwenk, I. Svensson, S. Bogdanov, M. Kerr, P. S. Ray, L. Guillemot, I. ...

    2025

  29. [37]

    Antoniadis, P

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon, T. Driebe, J. W. Hessels, V. M. Kaspi, V. I. Kondratiev, N. Langer, T. R. Marsh, M. A. McLaugh- lin, T. T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, J. van Leeuw...

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fonseca et al., Astrophys

    E. Fonseca et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Phys.Rev.D79(2009), 10.1103/Phys- 20 RevD.79.124032, arXiv:0812.2163 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, and S. Reddy, Astro- phys.J.860, 149 (2018), arXiv:1801.01923 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Greif, G

    S. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. Watts, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.485, 5363 (2019), arXiv:1812.08188 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Landry and R

    P. Landry and R. Essick, Phys.Rev.D99(2019), 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084049, arXiv:1811.12529 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuori- nen, Phys.Rev.Lett.120(2018), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.120.172703, arXiv:1711.02644 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Legred, K

    I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, S. Han, and P. Landry, Phys.Rev.D104(2021), 10.1103/Phys- RevD.104.063003, arXiv:2106.05313 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Dietrich, M

    T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science370, 1450 (2020), arXiv:2002.11355 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. Huth, P. Pang, I. Tews, T. Dietrich, A. L. F` evre, A. Schwenk, W. Trautmann, K. Agarwal, M. Bulla, M. Coughlin, and C. Van Den Broeck, Nature606, 276 (2022), arXiv:2107.06229 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Koehn, H

    H. Koehn, H. Rose, P. T. Pang, R. Somasundaram, B. T. Reed, I. Tews, A. Abac, O. Komoltsev, N. Kunert, A. Kurkela, M. W. Coughlin, B. F. Healy, and T. Dietrich, Phys.Rev.X15(2025), 10.1103/Phys- RevX.15.021014, arXiv:2402.04172 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rutherford et al., Astrophys

    N. Rutherford et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L19 (2024), arXiv:2407.06790 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Mendes, H

    M. Mendes, H. G¨ ottling, A. Hensel, I. Svensson, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, N. Rutherford, and A. Watts, arXiv:2605.18560 (2026), arXiv:2605.18560 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Multimessenger Astronomy of 17 Neutron Star Mergers with Numerical Relativity

    and the nucleonic metamodel [54]. AnSROEOS-like table generator built on such a functional would simplify the causality search and remedy them ∗(n) shape limita- tion at once, and we consider it the natural next step for constraint-consistent table sets. The smooth Skyrme func...

  43. [51]

    Lim and A

    Y. Lim and A. Schwenk, Phys.Rev.C109(2024), 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.035801, arXiv:2307.04063 [nucl- th]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Lim and J

    Y. Lim and J. W. Holt, Phys.Rev.Lett.121(2018), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.062701, arXiv:1803.02803 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    M. V. Beznogov and A. R. Raduta, Phys.Rev.C 110(2024), 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.035805, arXiv:2403.19325 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. V. Beznogov and A. R. Raduta, Astrophys.J.966, 216 (2024), arXiv:2308.15351 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys.Rev.C97(2018), 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.025806, arXiv:1708.06895 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys.Rev.C97(2018), 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.025805, arXiv:1708.06894 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys.Rev.D101(2020), 10.1103/Phys- RevD.101.084006, arXiv:1907.03790 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    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

  51. [59]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev.Mod.Phys.89(2017), 10.1103/RevMod- Phys.89.015007, arXiv:1610.03361 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gonzalez, F

    A. Gonzalez, F. Zappa, M. Breschi, S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, A. Adhikari, A. Camilletti, S. V. Chaura- sia, G. Doulis, S. Padamata, A. Rashti, M. Uje- vic, B. Br¨ ugmann, W. Cook, T. Dietrich, A. Perego, A. Poudel, and W. Tichy, Class.Quant.Grav.40(2023), 10.1088/1361-6382/acc23...

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Foucart, D

    F. Foucart, D. Desai, W. Brege, M. D. Duez, D. Kasen, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 044002 (2017), arXiv:1611.01159 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Typel, M

    S. Typel, M. Oertel, and T. Kl¨ ahn, Phys.Part.Nucl.46, 633 (2015), arXiv:1307.5715 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bauswein, H.-T

    A. Bauswein, H.-T. Janka, and R. Oechslin, Phys.Rev.D82(2010), 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.084043, arXiv:1006.3315 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Foucart, Liv

    F. Foucart, Liv. Rev. Comput. Astrophys.9, 1 (2023), arXiv:2209.02538 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Fields, A

    J. Fields, A. Prakash, M. Breschi, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, and A. da Silva Schneider, Astro- phys.J.Lett.952, L36 (2023), arXiv:2302.11359 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Figura, J.-J

    A. Figura, J.-J. Lu, G. Burgio, Z. Li, and H.- J. Schulze, Phys.Rev.D102(2020), 10.1103/Phys- RevD.102.043006, arXiv:2005.08691 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    E. R. Most and C. A. Raithel, Phys.Rev.D104(2021), 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.124012, arXiv:2107.06804 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    C. A. Raithel, F. Ozel, and D. Psaltis, Astrophys.J. 875, 12 (2019), arXiv:1902.10735 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Shankar, P

    S. Shankar, P. M¨ osta, S. R. Brandt, R. Haas, E. Schnetter, and Y. de Graaf, Class.Quant.Grav. 40(2023), 10.1088/1361-6382/acf2d9, arXiv:2210.17509 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023

  62. [70]

    Fields, H

    J. Fields, H. Zhu, D. Radice, J. M. Stone, W. Cook, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Daszuta, Astrophys.J.Suppl.276, 35 (2025), arXiv:2409.10384 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Musolino, C

    C. Musolino, C. Ecker, K. Topolski, M. Cassing, K. Miler, H. H.-Y. Ng, K. Pierre, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, arXiv:2607.09854 (2026), arXiv:2607.09854 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. V. Kalinani, L. Ji, L. Ennoggi, F. G. L. Ar- mengol, L. T. Sanches, B.-J. Tsao, S. R. Brandt, M. Campanelli, R. Ciolfi, B. Giacomazzo, R. Haas, E. Schnetter, and Y. Zlochower, Class.Quant.Grav.42 (2025), 10.1088/1361-6382/ad9c11, arXiv:2406.11669 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. R. Raduta and M. V. Beznogov, Astron.Astrophys. 701, A143 (2025), arXiv:2504.21725 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Endeve, V

    E. Endeve, V. Mewes, J. A. Harris, M. P. Laiu, R. Chu, S. A. Fromm, A. Mezzacappa, O. B. Messer, W. R. Hix, S. W. Bruenn, E. J. Lentz, K. Weide, C. Y. Cardall, A. S. Almgren, A. Dubey, S. M. Couch, P. Moesta, and D. E. Willcox, Astrophys.J.Suppl.284, 40 (2026), arXiv:2601.0097...

    2026

  67. [75]

    X. Du, A. W. Steiner, and J. W. Holt, Phys. Rev. C 105, 035803 (2022), arXiv:2107.06697 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    A. R. Raduta and M. V. Beznogov, Astron.Astrophys. 705, A151 (2026), arXiv:2509.23910 [nucl-th]

    2026

  69. [77]

    A. S. Schneider, L. F. Roberts, and C. D. Ott, Phys. Rev. C96, 065802 (2017), arXiv:1707.01527 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Duan and M

    M. Duan and M. Urban, Phys.Rev.C108(2023), 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.025813, arXiv:2305.09499 [nucl- th]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Schneider, L

    A. Schneider, L. Roberts, C. Ott, and E. O’connor, Phys.Rev.C100(2019), 10.1103/Phys- RevC.100.055802, arXiv:1906.02009 [astro-ph.HE]. 21

    2019 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Yasin, S

    H. Yasin, S. Sch¨ afer, A. Arcones, and A. Schwenk, Phys.Rev.Lett.124(2020), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.124.092701, arXiv:1812.02002 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Carbone and A

    A. Carbone and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C100, 025805 (2019), arXiv:1904.00924 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Keller, C

    J. Keller, C. Wellenhofer, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C103, 055806 (2021), arXiv:2011.05855 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    S. Huth, C. Wellenhofer, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C103, 025803 (2021), arXiv:2009.08885 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Li, B.-J

    B.-A. Li, B.-J. Cai, L.-W. Chen, and J. Xu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.99, 29 (2018), arXiv:1801.01213 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Garg and G

    U. Garg and G. Col` o, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.101, 55 (2018), arXiv:1801.03672 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    B.-A. Li, P. G. Krastev, D.-H. Wen, and N.-B. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 117 (2019), arXiv:1905.13175 [nucl- th]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Le F` evre, Y

    A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin, and C. Hartnack, Nucl. Phys. A945, 112 (2016), arXiv:1501.05246 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Z. Z. Li, Y. F. Niu, and G. Col` o, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 082501 (2023), arXiv:2211.01264 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    J. R. Stone, N. J. Stone, and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. C89, 044316 (2014), arXiv:1404.0744 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. A. Melendez, R. J. Furnstahl, and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C102, 054315 (2020), arXiv:2004.07805 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [91]

    B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172503 (2021), arXiv:2101.03193 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, and C. Wellenhofer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 403 (2021), arXiv:2101.01709 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Zhang and L.-W

    Z. Zhang and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C108, 024317 (2023), arXiv:2207.03328 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Adhikari et al

    D. Adhikari et al. (CREX), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 042501 (2022), arXiv:2205.11593 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [95]

    J. M. Lattimer and Y. Lim, Astrophys. J.771, 51 (2013), arXiv:1203.4286 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  88. [96]

    I. Tews, J. M. Lattimer, A. Ohnishi, and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Astrophys. J.848, 105 (2017), arXiv:1611.07133 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Reinhard, X

    P.-G. Reinhard, X. Roca-Maza, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 232501 (2021), arXiv:2105.15050 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Reinhard, X

    P.-G. Reinhard, X. Roca-Maza, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 232501 (2022), arXiv:2206.03134 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  91. [99]

    J. M. Lattimer, Particles6, 30 (2023), arXiv:2301.03666 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Essick, I

    R. Essick, I. Tews, P. Landry, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 192701 (2021), arXiv:2102.10074 [nucl- th]

    2021 arXiv

  93. [101]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys.Rev.55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  94. [102]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971)

    1971

  95. [103]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari, and D. B. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed. (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2013)

    2013

  96. [104]

    Oppenheimer and G

    J. Oppenheimer and G. Volkoff, Phys.Rev.55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  97. [105]

    Komoltsev, R

    O. Komoltsev, R. Somasundaram, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Margueron, and I. Tews, Phys.Rev.D 109(2024), 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.094030, arXiv:2312.14127 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Neutron star crust and outer core equation of state from chiral effective field theory with quantified uncer- tainties,

    H. G¨ ottling, L. Hoff, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, “Neutron star crust and outer core equation of state from chiral effective field theory with quantified uncer- tainties,” (2026)

    2026

  99. [107]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Breschi, R

    M. Breschi, R. Gamba, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 042001 (2021), arXiv:2102.00017 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Nagar and P

    A. Nagar and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D99, 021501 (2019), arXiv:1805.03891 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Breschi, R

    M. Breschi, R. Gamba, G. Carullo, D. Godzieba, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, and D. Radice, Astron. Astro- phys.689, A51 (2024), arXiv:2401.03750 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  103. [111]

    V. A. Villar et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.851, L21 (2017), arXiv:1710.11576 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Gamba, S

    R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084058 (2021), arXiv:2012.00027 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Fong et al., Astrophys

    W.-f. Fong et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.883, L1 (2019), arXiv:1908.08046 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Troja, B

    E. Troja, B. O’Connor, G. Ryan, L. Piro, R. Ricci, B. Zhang, T. Piran, G. Bruni, S. B. Cenko, and H. van Eerten, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 1902 (2022), arXiv:2104.13378 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Ricigliano, A

    G. Ricigliano, A. Perego, S. Borhanian, E. Lof- fredo, K. Kawaguchi, S. Bernuzzi, and L. C. Lip- pold, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529, 647 (2024), arXiv:2311.15709 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Makhathini et al., Astrophys

    S. Makhathini et al., Astrophys. J.922, 154 (2021), arXiv:2006.02382 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  109. [117]

    K. P. Mooley, A. T. Deller, O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, G. Hallinan, S. Bourke, D. A. Frail, A. Horesh, A. Corsi, and K. Hotokezaka, Nature561, 355 (2018), arXiv:1806.09693 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  110. [118]

    G. Ryan, H. van Eerten, E. Troja, L. Piro, B. O’Connor, and R. Ricci, Astrophys. J.975, 131 (2024), arXiv:2310.02328 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  111. [119]

    K. P. Mooley, J. Anderson, and W. Lu, Nature610, 273 (2022), arXiv:2210.06568 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Ghirlanda et al., Science363, 968 (2019), arXiv:1808.00469 [astro-ph.HE]

    G. Ghirlanda et al., Science363, 968 (2019), arXiv:1808.00469 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys

    S. Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys. J.961, 62 (2024), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Miller, A

    M. Miller, A. Dittmann, I. Holt, F. Lamb, C. Chirenti, Z. Arzoumanian, J. Berteaud, S. Bogdanov, K. Gen- dreau, W. G. Ho, S. Morsink, P. Ray, R. Remillard, Z. Wadiasingh, and M. Wolff, Astrophys.J.Lett.1000, L48 (2026), arXiv:2512.08790 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  115. [123]

    L. Qi, S. Zheng, J. Zhang, M. Ge, A. Li, S.-N. Zhang, F. Lu, F.-J. Lu, H. Peng, H.-L. Peng, L. Zhang, H. Feng, Z. Zhang, Y. Xu, Z.-W. Li, L.-M. Song, Z. Li, L. Song, S. Zhang, L. Tao, and W. Ye, Astrophys.J.981, 99 (2025), arXiv:2502.09147 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Salmi, J

    T. Salmi, J. S. Deneva, P. S. Ray, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, Y. Kini, S. Vinciguerra, H. T. Cromar- tie, M. T. Wolff, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Bogdanov, K. Gen- dreau, S. Guillot, W. C. Ho, S. M. Morsink, I. Cognard, L. Guillemot, G. Theureau, and M. Kerr, Astrophys.J. 976, 58 (202...

    2024 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Kish, Survey Sampling (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1965)

    L. Kish, Survey Sampling (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1965)

    1965

  118. [126]

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L17 (2022), arXiv:2207.05124 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Sekiguchi, K

    Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shi- bata, Phys. Rev. D91, 064059 (2015), arXiv:1502.06660 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  120. [128]

    D. W. Scott, Multivariate Density Estimation (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1992). 22

    1992

  121. [129]

    Y. Z. Qian and S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J.471, 331 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9611094

    1996 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Perego, S

    A. Perego, S. Bernuzzi, and D. Radice, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 124 (2019), arXiv:1903.07898 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Jacobi, F

    M. Jacobi, F. Magistrelli, E. Loffredo, G. Ricigliano, L. Chiesa, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, and A. Arcones, Astrophys. J. Lett.999, L16 (2026), arXiv:2503.17445 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  124. [132]

    The first member is the fiducial choice

    produces the ranked list. The first member is the fiducial choice. Each subsequent member is the catalogue point that maximises the Euclidean distance in the fea- ture space to its nearest already-selected neighbour. This maximised distance is the coverage radiusr max of the e...

  125. [133]

    Bernuzzi, F

    S. Bernuzzi, F. Magistrelli, M. Jacobi, D. Logoteta, A. Perego, and D. Radice, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 542, 256 (2025), arXiv:2409.18185 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  126. [134]

    T. F. Gonzalez, Theoretical Computer Science38, 293 (1985)

    1985

  127. [135]

    R. H. Cyburt, A. M. Amthor, R. Ferguson, Z. Meisel, K. Smith, S. Warren, A. Heger, R. D. Hoffman, T. Rauscher, A. Sakharuk, H. Schatz, F. K. Thiele- mann, and M. Wiescher, Astrophys. J. Suppl.189, 240 (2010)

    2010

  128. [136]

    Jacobi, F

    M. Jacobi, F. M. Guercilena, S. Huth, G. Ricigliano, A. Arcones, and A. Schwenk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 8812 (2023), arXiv:2309.09233 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.