Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 71 references

A Realistic Projection for Constraining Neutron Star Equation of State with the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Detector Network in the A+ Era

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper projects that A+ era gravitational-wave detections will distinguish neutron-star equations of state only marginally, and only after correcting a systematic tidal deformability bias.

desk verdict Large-scale A+ era EOS projection with real computational value, but the headline 'marginal distinguishability' claim is asserted, not demonstrated, and the bias interpretation glosses over prior shrinkage. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11585 v1 pith:LOZSJ7EM submitted 2025-01-20 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Alexis Boudon , Hong Qi , Jean-François Coupechoux , Philippe Landry , Viola Sordini This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM
keywords neutronstarequationofstatetidaldeformabilitybinarymergersgravitationalwaveparameterestimationA+detectoreraBayesianEOSinferencesystematicbiasreducedorderquadrature
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 projects how well the upgraded LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network will constrain the neutron-star equation of state (EOS) in its next long observing run. By simulating 3,000 binary neutron-star mergers under three candidate EOS models, the authors estimate that the network will detect roughly 25 such events over three years, and that those events will separate the three models only marginally. The separation is possible only after correcting a systematic bias that makes the inferred tidal deformability too low for low-mass neutron stars and too high for high-mass ones. The paper concludes that precise EOS constraints from gravitational waves must wait for next-generation detectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tidal deformability--mass relation $\Lambda(m)$ for each EOS, computed by solving the Tolman--Oppenheimer--Volkoff equations together with the quadrupolar tidal deformation equation. The argument runs through a three-stage pipeline: population simulation that assigns each neutron star a $\Lambda$ from its mass and the chosen EOS; parameter estimation of each simulated signal to produce per-event posteriors on masses and tidal deformabilities; and hierarchical Bayesian inference that combines these posteriors with a Gaussian-process prior on the EOS to produce combined constraints. Reduced-order quadrature makes the large simulation tractable by speeding up likelihood evaluations by a factor of hundreds. The comparison between injected and recovered $\Lambda(m)$ curves, expressed as relative percentage error as a function of mass, is what exposes the systematic bias and supports the correction strategy.

What would settle it

Run the same 3,000-signal pipeline using a different waveform model for recovery, or with waveforms that add effects the model omits, and check whether the bias map changes; a significantly different map would show that the corrections are not robust. Alternatively, compare the corrected $\Lambda(m)$ recovered from real O5 detections with independent radius measurements from X-ray and radio observations; a mismatch in the same bias pattern would falsify the calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using full parameter estimation on 3,000 simulated binary neutron-star signals at A+ sensitivity, with tidal deformabilities assigned from three EOS models spanning soft, average, and stiff behavior, the paper finds that the three EOSs can be marginally distinguished once systematic biases are corrected. The central quantitative result is a mass-dependent bias in the recovered tidal deformability $\Lambda$: it is underestimated by roughly 25\--30\% at low masses and overestimated by up to about 125\% at high masses, with the crossover mass set by the steepness of the true EOS. Because this bias persists when more events are added and even when only the loudest events are used, the paper argues that it is systematic rather than statistical, and that simulation-based corrections are required to recover the true $\Lambda(m)$ relation. Under the projected three-year O5 campaign of roughly 25 detections, the hierarchy among the three EOSs is recovered only marginally, and the paper treats this as evidence that precision EOS work will need next-generation detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The whole projection assumes that the waveform model used to create and to analyze the signals is correct; if real binary neutron-star waveforms differ from it, the measured biases and the corrections built from them may not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A three-year A+ campaign will leave the soft, average, and stiff EOS models distinguishable only at the margin, not decisively separated.
  • Systematic tidal biases will not average away with more detections; they must be corrected using large simulated calibration sets.
  • Including more than about ten high-SNR events adds little to EOS recovery under A+ sensitivity, so event selection matters more than event count.
  • Reliable EOS slopes require very loud events with network SNR above 35, which will be rare in the A+ era.
  • Precision EOS constraints from gravitational waves will likely require next-generation detectors or the proposed A# and Voyager upgrades.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The corrections are calibrated under the assumption that the same waveform model generates and recovers the signals; if real waveforms include effects absent from that model, the bias map could shift and the corrections would need to be re-derived.
  • The observed underestimation at low mass and overestimation at high mass resembles a shrinkage or regression-to-the-mean pattern, so the bias may generalize beyond the three specific EOSs studied and could affect real binary neutron-star analyses in O5.
  • The crossover mass where the bias flips sign could itself be a measurable EOS diagnostic; locating it in real data would test whether the simulation-based corrections are transferring correctly.
  • The saturation at about ten loud events suggests a practical observing strategy: rather than simply accumulating detections, the collaboration could prioritize a small set of loud events and build a dedicated calibration bank from simulations.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a large-scale simulation study of binary neutron star (BNS) gravitational-wave detections at the upcoming A+ sensitivity of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network. The authors perform full parameter estimation on 3,000 injected signals (1,000 for each of three equations of state: hqc18, sly230a, and mpa1) using reduced-order quadrature in Bilby, then carry out hierarchical Bayesian EOS inference with the LWP package. They report systematic tidal deformability biases (overestimation at higher masses, underestimation at lower masses) and claim that, with 'necessary corrections,' the three EOSs can be marginally distinguished in the A+ era with roughly 25 detections over three years. They conclude that precision EOS constraints must wait for next-generation detectors.

Significance. If the central claim were demonstrated, this would be an important quantitative projection for the O5 observing era, showing that EOS discrimination remains marginal and that systematic biases must be corrected even before next-generation detectors. The computational effort is substantial and the bias trends are of community interest. The paper leverages validated public tools (Bilby, LWP, ROQ bases) and provides a realistic population simulation. However, the headline result is not actually quantified, and the proposed corrections are never shown to improve the inference, which severely limits the paper's current contribution.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.3 (Fig. 4)] The central claim that the three EOSs 'can be marginally distinguished with necessary corrections' is never quantified. No Bayes factor, posterior probability, overlap fraction, or classification accuracy is reported. The paper should compute a measure of separation between the three recovered EOS posteriors (e.g., pairwise Bayes factors, the posterior weight of the true EOS, or the fraction of groups where the 90% credible interval excludes the median of another EOS) and state the criterion for 'marginal.' Without this, the headline claim is supported only by visual inspection of Figures 3-5.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract states that the work 'quantif[ies] the needed corrections,' and Sec. 5 claims that this 'method can enhance the accuracy of EOS constraints,' but no corrected EOS inference is shown. Figure 6 reports the relative percentage bias as a function of mass, but the authors never apply a correction (e.g., a mass-dependent calibration or a reweighting of the posteriors) to the hierarchical inference and demonstrate that it improves recovery of the true EOS. The phrase 'with necessary corrections' therefore needs an explicit demonstration of the correction's effect on the final EOS constraints.
  3. [Sec. 3 (Fig. 2) and Table 1] The systematic bias in tidal deformability is attributed to SNR and EOS steepness (Sec. 4.5), but the role of the PE prior is not analyzed. The uniform prior on Lambda_1 and Lambda_2 in [0, 5000] (Table 1) interacts with the steep Lambda(m) relation and can itself produce a shrinkage pattern resembling the reported underestimation at low mass and overestimation at high mass. The authors should test this hypothesis, for instance by comparing the recovered posteriors to the prior predictive distribution or by repeating a subset of PE runs with a different prior.
  4. [Sec. 2.1 vs. Sec. 2.2] The detection criteria are inconsistent between sections. Sec. 2.1 requires network SNR > 11.2 and per-detector SNR > 5, while Sec. 2.2 requires network SNR > 11.2 and single-detector SNR > 4 in at least two detectors. These different thresholds affect which of the 3,000 injections enter the analyzed sample (617, 635, and 676 events for hqc18, sly230a, and mpa1). The authors should reconcile these definitions and verify that the sample selection and the resulting bias trends are robust to the choice of threshold.
  5. [Secs. 2.1 and 2.2] The bias estimates and derived corrections are conditional on injecting and recovering with the same waveform model, IMRPhenomPv2 NRTidalv2. The pipeline therefore cannot detect waveform-model systematic errors, yet the paper proposes these corrections for real O5 data. The authors should either test with an alternative waveform model (e.g., a different tidal approximant or a model with dynamical tides) or clearly state that the corrections are only valid if the injected model is an accurate description of real BNS signals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'repreent' (Fig. 3 caption), 'geoup' (Fig. 5 caption), 'the underlying biases is still present' (Sec. 4.2), and inconsistent formatting of 'L WP' and 'L VK' throughout.
  2. [Bibliography] The reference 'Shoemaker et al. 2024' appears only as a URL in the bibliography; it should be formatted consistently with the other references.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'each geoup' and mentions 'gray shaded regions' while the figure panels use colored solid lines; ensure the caption matches the figure content.
  4. [Sec. 4.4] The title 'Effect of Chirp Mass and EOS Softness' is confusing because mpa1 is described as stiff in Sec. 2.1 but called 'the steepest one' here; define 'softness' in this context to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Sec. 2.3] The paper does not explicitly state that the Gaussian-process EOS prior from Legred et al. (2021) is conditioned only on pulsar mass measurements and not on GW data; adding this statement would preempt concerns about circular inference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projection is a self-contained simulation study; the EOS prior comes from external pulsar-mass data, and the unsupported 'marginal distinguishability' claim is a completeness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its headline result from the result. It injects 3,000 simulated BNS signals with known EOS models (hqc18, sly230a, mpa1), performs PE with IMRPhenomPv2 NRTidalv2, and then runs hierarchical Bayesian EOS inference using LWP. The EOS prior is not taken from the simulated GW data: it consists of Gaussian-process EOS samples from Legred et al. (2021) conditioned on external pulsar mass measurements, so the inference can in principle exclude the injected EOS and the recovery comparison is a genuine calibration test. The 'necessary corrections' are quantified by comparing recovered medians with injected EOS curves (Figures 3-6); they are presented as measured biases, not as predictions generated by the biases themselves, and they are not applied to produce the headline claim. Citations to Landry et al. (2020), Landry & Essick (2019), Essick et al. (2020), and Legred et al. (2021) involve author overlap, but the cited GP-prior and inference machinery are independently developed and anchored to external pulsar measurements, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is renamed. The main weakness is that the central assertion of 'marginal distinguishability' is never quantified with a Bayes factor, posterior separation metric, or recovery frequency; this is an unsupported-evidence/completeness problem, not a circularity, because the assertion does not reduce by construction to the data or prior used to make it.

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

The analysis relies on fixed external inputs (noise curves, waveform model, EOS prior, population model) rather than fitting parameters to the simulated data. The assumptions listed are the load-bearing choices that, if wrong, would change the bias estimates and the projection.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The IMRPhenomPv2 NRTidalv2 waveform model accurately describes BNS gravitational wave signals in the A+ era.
    Both injections and recovery use this model, so waveform systematics are not tested; the quantified biases are conditional on this model. Invoked in Sec. 2.1 and 2.2.
  • domain assumption The population model (uniform mass between 1 and M_TOV, isotropic spins up to 0.05) fixed in the inference matches the true BNS population.
    The population parameter lambda is fixed to the injection population so selection effects cancel; if the true population differs, EOS inference would be biased. Stated in Sec. 2.3.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian process EOS prior from Legred et al. (2021) provides a valid prior over the neutron star equation of state.
    The prior is conditioned on pulsar mass measurements and is used as the EOS prior in the inference; this is external to the GW data. Used in Sec. 2.3.
  • domain assumption Detector noise is Gaussian and stationary with the A+ sensitivity curves listed.
    Injected noise is Gaussian with noise curves from T2000012-v2; real detector noise has non-Gaussian transients and non-stationarity. Invoked in Sec. 2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Realistic Projection for Constraining Neutron Star Equation of State with the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Detector Network in the A+ Era." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOZSJ7EM

@misc{pith2026250111585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Realistic Projection for Constraining Neutron Star Equation of State with the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Detector Network in the A+ Era},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOZSJ7EM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11585}
}
read the original abstract

The LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network in the upcoming A+ era with upgrades of both Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo will enable more frequent and precise observations of binary neutron star (BNS) mergers, improving constraints on the neutron star equation of state (EOS). In this study, we applied reduced order quadrature techniques for full parameter estimation of 3,000 simulated gravitational wave signals from BNS mergers at A+ sensitivity following three EOS models: HQC18, SLY230A, and MPA1. We found that tidal deformability tends to be overestimated at higher mass and underestimated at lower mass. We postprocessed the parameter estimation results to present our EOS recovery accuracies, identify biases within EOS constraints and their causes, and quantify the needed corrections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of masses and tidal deformabilites for the components of the 3,000 BNS injections, with 1,000 injections per EOS. Light-colored crosses represent the pri￾mary NSs, while the dark-colored crosses denote the sec￾ondary NSs. The blue, green, and red colors correspond to the three EOS models. & Flocard 1995), and mpa1(M¨uther et al. 1987), which represent soft, average, and stiff EOSs, respectively. For eac… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of injected versus recovered component masses (left column) and tidal deformabilities Λ (right column) for the three EOS models, considering only events with SNR>11.2. The x-axis represents the injected values, and the y-axis shows the posterior medians with error bars. Both primary (circles) and secondary (triangles) NSs are included. The dashed line denotes perfect recovery (injected equals recovered). … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Combined posterior constraints on the NS EOSs, averaged over groups of 10 (left panel), 20 (middle), and 30 (right) events with SNR > 11.2, considering only groups where Neff > 100. The numbers before the parentheses indicate the number of groups used for each EOS model. The shaded regions repreent the 90% credible intervals, and the dashed lines show the median recovered EOSs. The solid lines correspond to the inje… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints on the three EOS models by averaging over the 1, 9 and 25 loudest events within groups of 25 events, all with SNR > 11.2 and Neff > 100. The shaded regions indicate the 90% credible intervals, with darker shades representing results that include more loudes…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Combined posterior EOS constraints averaged over groups of 20 events, with each geoup satisfying SNR> 11.2 and Neff > 100. Each column corresponds to one of the EOS models, and each row represents a different range of injected Mc ([1.0, 1.2] M⊙, [1.2, 1.4] M⊙, [1.4, 1.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative percentage error between the recovered and the injected tidal deformability values as a function of mass for each model, corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ""(I111z R@ ΦkSqqq 秼 s됐 I/7 3j'SL/]d xŵefѣ ;f_ V̙գG Sի x t9= V+V/lٲݻ#+ 4mԴ 7 zKW 4h :(G ;wU5H`0

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott , R., et al

    Aasi , J., Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., et al. 2015, CQGra, 32, 074001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  5. [5]

    G., Abbott , R., Abouelfettouh , I., et al

    Abac , A. G., Abbott , R., Abouelfettouh , I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  6. [6]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Living Rev. Rel., 19, 1, 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2016

  7. [7]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017 a , PhRvL, 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  8. [8]

    2017 b , ApJL, 848, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    ---. 2017 b , ApJL, 848, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    2018 a , PhRvL, 121, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    ---. 2018 a , PhRvL, 121, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2018 b , LRR, 21, 3, 10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9

    ---. 2018 b , LRR, 21, 3, 10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, PhRvX, 9, 011001, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    ---. 2019, PhRvX, 9, 011001, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2020 a , CQGra, 37, 045006, 10.1088/1361-6382/ab5f7c

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2020 b , ApJL, 892, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    ---. 2020 b , ApJL, 892, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    D., Abraham , S., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Abraham , S., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. X, 11, 021053, 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2023, PhRvX, 13, 011048, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2015, CQGra, 32, 024001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese , F., Agathos , M., Agatsuma , K., et al. 2015, CQGra, 32, 024001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, PhRvL, 126, 172502, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172502

    Adhikari , D., Albataineh , H., Androic , D., et al. 2021, PhRvL, 126, 172502, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172502

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    X., Arai , K., Brooks , A

    Adhikari , R. X., Arai , K., Brooks , A. F., et al. 2020, CQGra, 37, 165003, 10.1088/1361-6382/ab9143

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2015, Phys

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

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, PTEP, 2021, 05A101, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    Akutsu , T., Ando , M., Arai , K., et al. 2021, PTEP, 2021, 05A101, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Antoniadis , J., Freire , P. C. C., Wex , N., et al. 2013, Sci, 340, 448, 10.1126/science.1233232

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    D., et al

    Ashton , G., H \"u bner , M., Lasky , P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab441e

    Baym , G., Furusawa , S., Hatsuda , T., Kojo , T., & Togashi , H. 2019, ApJ, 885, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab441e

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 5298, 10.1093/mnras/stac3052

    Biscoveanu , S., Landry , P., & Vitale , S. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5298, 10.1093/mnras/stac3052

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Gair , J., et al

    Canizares , P., Field , S. E., Gair , J., et al. 2015, PhRvL, 114, 071104, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.071104

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Tews , I., Brown , S

    Capano , C. D., Tews , I., Brown , S. M., et al. 2020, NatAs, 4, 625, 10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Miller , J., et al

    Chen , H.-Y., Holz , D. E., Miller , J., et al. 2021, CQGra, 38, 055010, 10.1088/1361-6382/abd594

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    M., et al

    De , S., Finstad , D., Lattimer , J. M., et al. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 091102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.091102

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, PhRvD, 100, 044003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044003

    Dietrich , T., Samajdar , A., Khan , S., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 044003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044003

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2017, arXiv, arXiv:1710.08220, 10.48550/arXiv.1710.08220

    Drischler , C., Hebeler , K., & Schwenk , A. 2017, arXiv, arXiv:1710.08220, 10.48550/arXiv.1710.08220

    2017 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    2024, lwp

    Essick , R., Landry , P., Chatziioannou , K., Legred , I., & Ng , S. 2024, lwp

    2024

  27. [35]

    Essick , R., Landry , P., & Holz , D. E. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 063007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.063007

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    X., Afle , C., et al

    Evans , M., Adhikari , R. X., Afle , C., et al. 2021, arXiv, arXiv:2109.09882, 10.48550/arXiv.2109.09882

    2021 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    \'E ., & Hinderer , T

    Flanagan , \'E . \'E ., & Hinderer , T. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 021502, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.021502

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    T., Pennucci , T

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

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Ghosh, T., Biswas, B., Bose, S., & Kapadia, S. J. 2024. 2407.16669

    2024

  32. [40]

    2019, Phys

    Hernandez Vivanco, F., Smith, R., Thrane, E., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 103009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.103009

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Huth , S., Pang , P. T. H., Tews , I., et al. 2022, Natur, 606, 276, 10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Kiziltan, B., Kottas, A., De Yoreo, M., & Thorsett, S. E. 2013, Astrophys. J., 778, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/66

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    Koehn , H., Rose , H., Pang , P. T. H., et al. 2024, arXiv, arXiv:2402.04172, 10.48550/arXiv.2402.04172

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2019, PhRvD, 99, 084049, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084049

    Landry , P., & Essick , R. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 084049, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084049

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 123007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123007

    Landry , P., Essick , R., & Chatziioannou , K. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 123007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123007

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    2014, PhRvD, 89, 124011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.124011

    Landry , P., & Poisson , E. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 124011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.124011

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    Landry , P., & Read , J. S. 2021, ApJL, 921, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2f3e

    2021 doi

  40. [49]

    2016, NuPhA, 945, 112, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.09.015

    Le F \`e vre , A., Leifels , Y., Reisdorf , W., Aichelin , J., & Hartnack , C. 2016, NuPhA, 945, 112, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.09.015

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    2021, PhRvD, 104, 063003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063003

    Legred , I., Chatziioannou , K., Essick , R., Han , S., & Landry , P. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 063003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063003

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    E., Tews , I., Carlson , J., et al

    Lynn , J. E., Tews , I., Carlson , J., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 062501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.062501

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    Maggiore , M., Van Den Broeck , C., Bartolo , N., et al. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    2020 doi

  44. [53]

    C., Lamb , F

    Miller , M. C., Lamb , F. K., Dittmann , A. J., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    2021, ApJL, 918, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    ---. 2021, ApJL, 918, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    2021 doi

  46. [55]

    2023, Phys

    Morisaki, S., Smith, R., Tsukada, L., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123040, 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123040

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    J., & Gerosa, D

    Mould, M., Moore, C. J., & Gerosa, D. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063013

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    M \"u ther , H., Prakash , M., & Ainsworth , T. L. 1987, PhLB, 199, 469, 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91611-X

    1987 doi

  49. [58]

    R., & Volkoff , G

    Oppenheimer , J. R., & Volkoff , G. M. 1939, PhRv, 55, 374, 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374

    1939 doi

  50. [59]

    Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R., & Villarreal, A. S. 2012, Astrophys. J., 757, 55, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/55

    2012 doi

  51. [60]

    K., Ghosh, T., Pathak, D., & Chatterjee, D

    Pradhan, B. K., Ghosh, T., Pathak, D., & Chatterjee, D. 2024, Astrophys. J., 966, 79, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a8

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    2021, Phys

    Qi, H., & Raymond, V. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 063031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063031

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    E., Watts , A

    Raaijmakers , G., Riley , T. E., Watts , A. L., et al. 2019, ApJL, 887, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab451a

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    G., & Flocard , H

    Reinhard , P. G., & Flocard , H. 1995, NuPhA, 584, 467, 10.1016/0375-9474(94)00770-N

    1995 doi

  55. [64]

    2016, PhRvC, 94, 034608, 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034608

    Russotto , P., Gannon , S., Kupny , S., et al. 2016, PhRvC, 94, 034608, 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034608

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    2024, arXiv, arXiv:2406.14466, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.14466

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    V., Mortlock, D

    Sarin, N., Peiris, H. V., Mortlock, D. J., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 024076, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024076

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    E., Blackburn , K., et al

    Smith , R., Field , S. E., Blackburn , K., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 94, 044031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044031

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    2022, Noise curves used for Simulations in the update of the Observing Scenarios Paper

    T2000012-v2. 2022, Noise curves used for Simulations in the update of the Observing Scenarios Paper

    2022

  60. [69]

    2024, LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA Observing Run Plans , https://observing.docs.ligo.org/plan

    Shoemaker et al. 2024, LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA Observing Run Plans , https://observing.docs.ligo.org/plan

    2024

  61. [70]

    Tolman , R. C. 1939, PhRv, 55, 364, 10.1103/PhysRev.55.364

    1939 doi

  62. [71]

    Wade , L., Creighton , J. D. E., Ochsner , E., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 103012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103012

    2014 doi

  63. [72]

    2020, arXiv, arXiv:2001.01747, 10.48550/arXiv.2001.01747

    Wysocki , D., O'Shaughnessy , R., Wade , L., & Lange , J. 2020, arXiv, arXiv:2001.01747, 10.48550/arXiv.2001.01747

    2020 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.