Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

NICER and GW170817 data select compact, not massive, neutron stars

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:14 UTC pith:XPVMB4T5

load-bearing objection A solid Bayesian EoS inference with a clean comparison of best-evidence, max-mass, and max-compactness sequences; the interpretive 'compactification' claim is plausible but needs a parametrization robustness check. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.24729 v2 pith:XPVMB4T5 submitted 2025-12-31 astro-ph.HE

Are NICER and GW170817 constraints suggesting a compactified scenario for Neutron stars?

Asim Kumar Saha , Tuhin Malik , Ritam Mallick This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords equation of stateneutron starsspeed of soundBayesian inferenceNICERGW170817compactnessdense matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether current neutron-star observations already point to a 'compactified' picture of these objects. The authors build three class-agnostic equations of state from a speed-of-sound parametrization and perform Bayesian inference with NICER and GW170817 data. The most probable equation of state, they find, is soft at intermediate densities and then stiffens at high densities — the same qualitative structure as the equation of state that maximizes compactness, not the one that maximizes mass. If the result holds, it implies that the data favor smaller-radius neutron stars with maximum masses of roughly 2.1 to 2.4 solar masses, and that matter softens at intermediate densities before stiffening again to support the heaviest stars.

Core claim

The central claim is that the equation of state preferred by current NICER and gravitational-wave data — the one with the highest Bayesian evidence within each of three speed-of-sound classes (monotonic, non-monotonic, and discontinuous) — shares its qualitative shape with the maximum-compactness equation of state: relatively soft at intermediate densities, then stiff at high densities. The maximum-mass equation of state, by contrast, stiffens from low density onward. The authors interpret this as gravity naturally favoring compactification: the data push allowed equations of state toward configurations that are more compact than uniformly stiff ones, and for phase-transition scenarios this

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is a piecewise-linear parametrization of the squared speed of sound as a function of baryon chemical potential, anchored at low density by a polytrope constrained to the chiral effective field theory (CET) band and capped at a chemical potential of 2.6 GeV. Each equation of state is mapped to mass-radius and tidal-deformability curves through the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations, and Bayesian (nested sampling) inference computes posteriors and evidence against NICER pulse-profile and GW170817 tidal-deformability likelihoods. The classification into monotonic, non-monotonic, and discontinuous classes hinges on where the speed of sound peaks inside the maximum-ma

Load-bearing premise

The inference assumes the true equation of state is well represented by a piecewise-linear squared speed of sound with only a few nodes capped at 2.6 GeV; if the real speed of sound varies rapidly or curves sharply at high density, the 'best' EoS and its compactness may be a product of that prior parametrization rather than of the data.

What would settle it

A precise radius measurement of a massive neutron star near the upper edge of current contours (e.g., R larger than about 13 km for a 2-solar-mass star), or the discovery of a neutron star with mass exceeding 2.4 solar masses, would contradict the compactified scenario. Conversely, a nonparametric EoS inference that reproduces the soft-to-stiff pattern without the smoothness prior would strengthen the claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the compactified scenario is right, the maximum neutron-star mass falls to roughly 2.1–2.4 solar masses, depending on the EoS class.
  • Current data favor equations of state that soften at intermediate densities — a possible signal of new degrees of freedom — before stiffening again at high density.
  • For equations of state with a density jump, the data prefer late phase transitions and small discontinuities; very early transitions are disfavored.
  • The most probable mass-radius sequences sit close to the maximum-compactness sequence, meaning future radius measurements of massive pulsars can directly test the prediction.
  • Adding the new pulsar constraint shifts allowed radii downward, but compensation with larger-radius measurements keeps the posterior stable across dataset combinations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 'compactification' pattern may be a generic consequence of any EoS that is soft at intermediate densities; if so, it would not uniquely identify the underlying microphysics, but it would point to a class of models with a phase transition or crossover around a few times nuclear saturation density.
  • The result depends on the expressiveness of the piecewise-linear sound-speed prior; a nonparametric EoS inference that does not presuppose smooth monotonic segments could test whether the soft-to-stiff trend is a data-driven feature or a prior artifact.
  • A targeted falsifier within reach of current instrumentation: measure the radius of a ~2-solar-mass pulsar to better than ~1 km. If it lands near the high end of the current M-R contour, the compactified scenario would be ruled out.
  • The paper's evidence comparison across classes is inconclusive to weak; the strongest claim is not that one class wins, but that the observationally favored EoS in every class has the same qualitative shape.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper performs Bayesian inference on three classes of agnostic neutron-star equations of state (monotonic, non-monotonic, discontinuous) constructed via a piecewise-linear speed-of-sound parametrization in chemical potential, using NICER mass-radius data (including the recent PSR J0614-3329) and GW170817 tidal-deformability data. The main claim is that the observationally favored EoS shares the qualitative structure of the maximum-compactness EoS — soft at intermediate densities and stiff at high densities — rather than the maximum-mass EoS, which is stiff from low densities. The authors interpret this as evidence for a 'compactified scenario' in which gravity naturally favors compact configurations, and they find reduced maximum masses of roughly 2.1-2.4 solar masses.

Significance. If the result is robust, the paper provides a useful synthesis of current NICER+GW170817 constraints within a class-agnostic Bayesian framework, including the newest J0614-3329 measurement. The use of nested sampling rather than rejection sampling, the careful treatment of the GW likelihood via KDE, and the inclusion of the CET constraint as a likelihood are commendable. However, the central qualitative conclusion is derived within a specific, smooth EoS parametrization and is presented through comparisons with selected extremal EoS sequences. The significance of the 'compactification' claim therefore depends on sensitivity analyses that the manuscript does not currently provide.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Figs. 5–6 and Table 4] The comparison between the 'Best LogZ' EoS and the 'Max Compactness' EoS is not a valid model comparison. The maximum-compactness EoS is an extremal order statistic selected from the ensemble; its likelihood is conditioned on being extremal and is not representative of a random EoS drawn from the prior or posterior. To support the claim that the data favor the maximum-compactness structure, the authors should compare prior and posterior predictive distributions of compactness, or define a specific hypothesis (e.g., a soft-intermediate/stiff-high-density pattern) and test it. Additionally, the label 'Best LogZ' is confusing: lnZ is a model evidence, not a per-sample quantity. Please clarify how this sequence is selected and what Table 4 actually reports.
  2. [§2, EoS construction] The central structural conclusion is obtained within a fixed, smooth piecewise-linear c_s^2(mu) parametrization with five nodes and a chemical-potential cutoff at 2.6 GeV. The paper provides no evidence that the qualitative result — soft intermediate-density matter followed by high-density stiffening — is robust to reasonable variations in the parametrization: number of nodes, functional form, or the upper mu cutoff. Without such a sensitivity test (e.g., 3, 7, or 10 nodes, or a nonparametric Gaussian-process prior), the 'compactified scenario' may be an emergent property of the restricted model family rather than of the astrophysical data. This is a load-bearing issue for the paper's main claim.
  3. [§2, Eq. (4), CET likelihood] The CET likelihood treats the chiral EFT uncertainty band as a Gaussian at matched energy densities, but the same CET band is already used to set the prior range of the polytropic index Gamma_CET and the matching point at 1.1 n0. This may double-count the CET information and artificially tighten the low-density EoS, which the paper identifies as the best-constrained region. Please clarify whether the tabulated band used in Eq. (4) is statistically independent of the prior bounds on Gamma_CET, and discuss the impact of this choice on the inferred low-density softness.
  4. [§3, Tables 1–3] The paper states that direct comparison of lnZ values across runs is not strictly valid, yet it uses lnZ to identify the 'most probable' EoS and to argue that PSR J0614-3329 does not strongly favor any class. Because the three EoS classes have different effective priors — the discontinuous class includes an extra parameter delta_n, and the class labels are defined through the TOV-derived location of the speed-of-sound peak — the evidence values are not directly comparable across classes unless a common prior measure over classes is specified. Please either compute Bayes factors with a proper mixture prior over classes or restrict cross-class statements to posterior predictive checks that do not rely on lnZ.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The terms 'compactified scenario' and 'gravity naturally favours' are used qualitatively without a precise, operational definition. Consider defining what observable quantity would change if this scenario is true versus alternatives.
  2. [Figs. 1–3 captions] The caption refers to 'PSR J0740 + PSR J0437 + PSR J0030' as the baseline; in the text this is called 'PSR'. Please make the nomenclature consistent in captions and text.
  3. [Appendix A, Table 4] Table 4 is not referenced in the main text, and its notation 'LogZ' is inconsistent with 'lnZ' used elsewhere. Please cite it where the comparison is discussed and unify the notation.
  4. [§2, Inference Framework] The posterior consists of approximately 5x10^3 samples from 2x10^6 likelihood evaluations. It would be helpful to report the effective sample size or a convergence diagnostic for the nested sampling runs, given the small number of posterior samples per class.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the compactness conclusion is a posterior inference from independent NICER/GW170817 data, not an identity or a self-citation tautology.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. EoS ensembles are generated from a speed-of-sound parametrization with low-density CET polytropes and a pQCD-motivated cutoff; the NICER/GW170817 likelihoods are external inputs, not products of the model. The 'maximum-mass' and 'maximum-compactness' sequences are selected from the full constructed ensemble as extremal configurations, and their qualitative structures are then compared with the posterior mode. This is a data-driven comparison, not an identity: the max-compactness EoS is not defined as the observationally favoured EoS, and its log-likelihood (Table 4) is computed from the same external data rather than assumed. The observation that the best-fit EoS resembles the max-compactness EoS is a posterior statement, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations (Verma et al. 2025a,b for EoS class definitions and discontinuous construction) provide classification tools; the central compactification claim does not reduce to these citations and is checked across all three classes. The dependence of class labels on the TOV-derived MTOV is a modeling choice, and the piecewise-linear c_s^2 parametrization restricting the EoS family is a prior-support/correctness concern, not circularity. Thus no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on five free parameters (Gamma_CET, c_s,i^2, mu_i, delta_n) that are fitted to the same NICER+GW data that produced the claimed pattern, on the generative prior that the EoS is a five-node piecewise-linear c_s^2(mu) curve, and on the CET Gaussian likelihood that anchors the low-density part. The 'compactification' conclusion is an interpretive label placed on the posterior structure, not an independently evidenced entity. The analysis is not circular in the sense of assuming the conclusion, but the conclusion is a reading of the fitted posterior within a specific prior family.

free parameters (4)
  • Gamma_CET (adiabatic index of low-density polytrope) = posterior ~2.39-2.43 (all classes)
    Chosen in [1.77,3.23] to span the CET uncertainty band; inferred from data. It directly controls the low-density EoS stiffness and is well-constrained by the CET likelihood.
  • c_s,i^2 (squared speed of sound at node i), i=1..5 = c_s,1^2 ~0.04; c_s,2^2 ~0.41-0.78 depending on class; c_s,3^2 ~0.56-0.72; c_s,4, c_s,5 poorly constrained
    The core parameters of the EoS construction; inferred from NICER+GW data. Only c_s,1^2 is tightly constrained; higher nodes are broad.
  • mu_i (chemical potential at node i), i=1..5 = mu_1 ~970 MeV; mu_2 ~1090-1270 MeV; mu_3 ~1280-1530 MeV; mu_4, mu_5 unconstrained
    Node positions in the piecewise-linear c_s^2(mu) interpolation; inferred from data. The paper itself notes mu_4, mu_5 lie above the chemical potentials realized by the stellar ensemble and are poorly constrained.
  • delta_n (density jump at phase transition, discontinuous class only) = posterior median ~0.09-0.10 fm^-3
    Free parameter governing the discontinuity size; inferred from data. The paper reports it is preferably small.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The EoS can be parametrized as a piecewise-linear interpolation of c_s^2(mu) over five nodes, with c_s^2 in [0,1] and mu in [mu_CET, 2.6 GeV].
    This is the generative prior of the entire analysis (Sec. 2, 'EoS Construction'). It assumes the true EoS family is representable by this smooth, low-order interpolation with bounded mu. Rapid or strong-curvature behavior is excluded by construction.
  • domain assumption Low-density matter is described by BPS crust + polytrope P=K n^Gamma with Gamma in [1.77,3.23], matched at ~1.1 n0, and this must pass through the CET band within the Gaussian likelihood.
    Sec. 2: the polytrope spans the CET uncertainty band (Hebeler et al. 2013) and the CET likelihood (Eq. 4) penalizes deviations from the tabulated CET pressure. The shape of the entire low-density EoS is therefore pinned by the chosen Gaussian width and the tabulated band.
  • domain assumption The astrophysical likelihoods are correctly represented by the KDE of GW170817 posteriors and the NICER mass-radius posteriors marginalized over a uniform mass prior bounded by M_max(theta).
    Eqs. (1)-(3). This assumes the KDE is an accurate estimate of the joint GW posterior tail behavior, that the NICER likelihoods are independent, and that a uniform mass prior is appropriate. These are standard but load-bearing statistical choices.
  • standard math The stellar-structure model is that of a static, spherically symmetric star solved with the TOV equations; no rotation, magnetic fields, or exotic macrostructure are included.
    Standard in the field; used throughout for M-R sequences, tidal deformability, and MTOV classification. Uncontroversial.
  • ad hoc to paper Class assignment (monotonic/non-monotonic/discontinuous) based on the position of the c_s peak within the MTOV star is meaningful and does not bias the likelihood comparison.
    The classification (Sec. 2) is a construction choice specific to this program (cites Verma et al. 2025b). Because the class label is computed from the same TOV solution used in the likelihood evaluation, the three classes are not independent model families in a strict Bayesian sense; the paper does not quantify this selection effect.
invented entities (1)
  • 'Compactification' as a universal property of gravity selecting compact neutron-star configurations no independent evidence
    purpose: Interpretive frame for the observed similarity between the observationally favored EoS and the maximum-compactness EoS; presented as a fundamental property rather than a mere data artifact.
    No falsifiable handle is attached to 'compactification' beyond the qualitative statement that data favor softer intermediate-density EoS. It is a re-description of the maximum-compactness sequence, which is a known notion (cited to Rezzolla & Ecker 2025), not a new entity with predictive power. The paper itself offers the soft-then-stiff structure as the signature, but that is already a property of the data/posterior, not an independent prediction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16577 in / 12026 out tokens · 94683 ms · 2026-08-03T13:14:54.715814+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Astrophysical observations from NICER and gravitational wave data constrain the properties of matter at the cores of neutron stars, enabling us to probe high-density matter with greater accuracy. To understand its implications for neutron stars, three distinct class-agnostic equation-of-state ensembles are constructed using the speed-of-sound parametrisation, which can describe matter in neutron-star cores. Bayesian analysis is employed to constrain the parameters, namely, the squared speed of sound and chemical potential, using the observational data. The Bayesian inference shows that the observations effectively constrain the low-density region of the equation of state. The astrophysical bound favours a softer, low-density equation of state in which the phase transition occurs at intermediate densities, thereby reducing the upper mass bounds for neutron stars. For the equation of state with density discontinuity, the discontinuities are preferably small. The equation of state with maximum mass configuration shows considerable stiffening from very low density, providing pressure support to generate maximum mass. In contrast, the equation of state with the maximum compact stellar configuration has a softer low-density equation of state, followed by pronounced stiffening, yielding the maximum compact configuration. The observationally favoured EoS shares the same qualitative structure as the maximum-compactness EoS: relative softness at intermediate densities transitioning to stiffness at high densities, a configuration gravity naturally favours.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.24729 by Asim Kumar Saha, Ritam Mallick, Tuhin Malik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Posterior distribution of EoS construction parameters { [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior distribution of EoS construction parameters { [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distribution of EoS construction parameters { [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 90% CI of M-R posterior distribution for different combinations of observational constraints for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Along with the maximum mass and maximum compact M-R sequence, we also plot the most probable (having [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The entire span of EoS for the three classes is shown in different panels of the plot. The EoS corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shapiro and Saul A

    Stuart L. Shapiro and Saul A. Teukolsky. Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects. John Wiley & Sons, 1983. ISBN 978-0471873167

    1983

  2. [2]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl \"a hn, and S. Typel. Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars. Reviews of Modern Physics, 89 0 (1): 0 015007, 2017. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.015007 2017

  3. [3]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash. Neutron star observations: Prognosis for equation of state constraints. Physics Reports, 442: 0 109--165, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003 2007

  4. [4]

    Glendenning

    Norman K. Glendenning. Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics and General Relativity. Springer, New York, 2 edition, 2000. ISBN 978-0387988353

    2000

  5. [5]

    R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson. Formation of very strongly magnetized neutron stars: Implications for gamma-ray bursts. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 392: 0 L9--L13, 1992. doi:10.1086/186413

    doi:10.1086/186413 1992

  6. [6]

    Kouveliotou et al

    C. Kouveliotou et al. An X-ray pulsar with a superstrong magnetic field in the soft gamma-ray repeater SGR 1806-20. Nature, 393: 0 235--237, 1998. doi:10.1038/30410

    doi:10.1038/30410 1998

  7. [7]

    A. K. Harding and D. Lai. Physics of strongly magnetized neutron stars. Reports on Progress in Physics, 69: 0 2631--2708, 2006. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/69/9/R03

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/69/9/r03 2006

  8. [8]

    Deformation of a magnetized neutron star

    Ritam Mallick and Stefan Schramm. Deformation of a magnetized neutron star . Phys. Rev. C, 89 0 (4): 0 045805, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.045805

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.89.045805 2014

  9. [9]

    PoS, LAT2009: 0 010, 2010

    Philippe de Forcrand. PoS, LAT2009: 0 010, 2010. doi:10.22323/1.091.0010

    doi:10.22323/1.091.0010 2010

  10. [10]

    V. A. Goy, V. Bornyakov, D. Boyda, A. Molochkov, A. Nakamura, A. Nikolaev, and V. Zakharov. Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2017 0 (3), 03 2017. ISSN 2050-3911. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx018. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptx018

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx018 2017

  11. [11]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash. Science, 304 0 (5670): 0 536--542, 2004. doi:10.1126/science.1090720. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1090720

    doi:10.1126/science.1090720 2004

  12. [12]

    \"O zel and P

    F. \"O zel and P. Freire. Masses, radii, and the equation of state of neutron stars. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54: 0 401--440, 2016. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322 2016

  13. [13]

    S. Huth, C. Wellenhofer, and A. Schwenk. New equations of state constrained by nuclear physics, observations, and QCD calculations of high-density nuclear matter . Phys. Rev. C, 103 0 (2): 0 025803, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.025803

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.025803 2021

  14. [14]

    Huth et al

    S. Huth et al. Constraining Neutron-Star Matter with Microscopic and Macroscopic Collisions . Nature, 606: 0 276--280, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w

    doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04750-w 2022

  15. [15]

    a ttil \

    Eemeli Annala, Tyler Gorda, Evangelia Katerini, Aleksi Kurkela, Joonas N \"a ttil \"a , Vasileios Paschalidis, and Aleksi Vuorinen. Multimessenger Constraints for Ultradense Matter . Phys. Rev. X, 12 0 (1): 0 011058, 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.12.011058

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.12.011058 2022

  16. [16]

    Smith, Evan J

    Matt Nicholl, Ben Margalit, Patricia Schmidt, Graham P. Smith, Evan J. Ridley, and James Nuttall. Tight multimessenger constraints on the neutron star equation of state from GW170817 and a forward model for kilonova light-curve synthesis . Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 505 0 (2): 0 3016--3032, 2021. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1523

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1523 2021

  17. [17]

    Sk Md Adil Imam, Tuhin Malik, Constan c a Provid \^e ncia, and B. K. Agrawal. Implications of comprehensive nuclear and astrophysics data on the equations of state of neutron star matter . Phys. Rev. D, 109 0 (10): 0 103025, 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103025

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103025 2024

  18. [18]

    Simultaneously constraining the neutron star equation of state and mass distribution through multimessenger observations and nuclear benchmarks

    Bhaskar Biswas and Stephan Rosswog. Simultaneously constraining the neutron star equation of state and mass distribution through multimessenger observations and nuclear benchmarks . Phys. Rev. D, 112 0 (2): 0 023045, 2025. doi:10.1103/8lv3-1ywb

    doi:10.1103/8lv3-1ywb 2025

  19. [19]

    Science, 340 0 (6131): 0 1233232, 2013

    John Antoniadis et al. Science, 340 0 (6131): 0 1233232, 2013. doi:10.1126/science.1233232. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1233232

    doi:10.1126/science.1233232 2013

  20. [20]

    T Cromartie et al

    H. T Cromartie et al. Nature Astronomy, 4 0 (1): 0 72--76, Jan 2020. ISSN 2397-3366. doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 2020

  21. [21]

    Fonseca et al

    E. Fonseca et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 915 0 (1): 0 L12, jul 2021. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8. URL https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 2021

  22. [22]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119: 0 161101, Oct 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  23. [24]

    M. C. Miller et al. The Astrophysical Journal, 887 0 (1): 0 L24, dec 2019. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5. URL https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 2019

  24. [26]

    M. C. Miller et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 918 0 (2): 0 L28, sep 2021. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b. URL https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b 2021

  25. [28]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman. Constraints on a phenomenologically parameterized neutron-star equation of state. Physical Review D, 79: 0 124032, 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124032

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.124032 2009

  26. [29]

    Lindblom

    L. Lindblom. Spectral representations of neutron-star equations of state. Physical Review D, 82: 0 103011, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.103011

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.103011 2010

  27. [30]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts. Equation of state sensitivities when inferring neutron star and dense matter properties . Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485 0 (4): 0 5363--5376, 2019. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz654

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz654 2019

  28. [31]

    Landry and R

    P. Landry and R. Essick. Nonparametric equation of state inference from gravitational wave observations. Physical Review D, 99: 0 084049, 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084049

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.084049 2019

  29. [33]

    Somasundaram, B

    R. Somasundaram, B. Margalit, and B. D. Metzger. Equation of state of dense matter from a parametrization in chemical potential. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504: 0 3931--3948, 2021. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1024

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1024 2021

  30. [34]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk. Equation of state and neutron star properties constrained by nuclear physics and observation. The Astrophysical Journal, 773 0 (1): 0 11, jul 2013. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/11. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/11

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/11 2013

  31. [35]

    Gandolfi, J

    S. Gandolfi, J. Lippuner, A. W. Steiner, I. Tews, X. Du, and M. Al-Mamun. From the microscopic to the macroscopic world: from nucleons to neutron stars . J. Phys. G, 46 0 (10): 0 103001, 2019. doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab29b3

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab29b3 2019

  32. [36]

    Keller, C

    J. Keller, C. Wellenhofer, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk. Neutron matter at finite temperature based on chiral effective field theory interactions . Phys. Rev. C, 103 0 (5): 0 055806, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.055806

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.103.055806 2021

  33. [37]

    Kurkela, P

    A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen. Cold quark matter. Physical Review D, 81: 0 105021, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.105021

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.105021 2010

  34. [38]

    Fraga, Aleksi Kurkela, and Aleksi Vuorinen

    Eduardo S. Fraga, Aleksi Kurkela, and Aleksi Vuorinen. Interacting quark matter equation of state for compact stars . Astrophys. J. Lett., 781 0 (2): 0 L25, 2014. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L25

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/l25 2014

  35. [39]

    Fraga, Jürgen Schaffner-Bielich, and Aleksi Vuorinen

    Aleksi Kurkela, Eduardo S. Fraga, Jürgen Schaffner-Bielich, and Aleksi Vuorinen. Constraining neutron star matter with quantum chromodynamics. The Astrophysical Journal, 789 0 (2): 0 127, June 2014. ISSN 1538-4357. doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/127. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/127

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/127 2014

  36. [40]

    On the Sound Speed in Neutron Stars

    Sinan Altiparmak, Christian Ecker, and Luciano Rezzolla. On the Sound Speed in Neutron Stars . Astrophys. J. Lett., 939 0 (2): 0 L34, 2022. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a 2022

  37. [41]

    I-Love-Q relations for a generic family of neutron star equations of state

    Kamal Krishna Nath, Ritam Mallick, and Sagnik Chatterjee. I-Love-Q relations for a generic family of neutron star equations of state . Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524 0 (1): 0 1438--1447, 2023. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1967

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1967 2023

  38. [42]

    Prospect of unraveling the first-order phase transition in neutron stars with f and p _ 1 modes

    Pratik Thakur, Sagnik Chatterjee, Kamal Krishna Nath, and Ritam Mallick. Prospect of unraveling the first-order phase transition in neutron stars with f and p _ 1 modes. Phys. Rev. D, 110: 0 103045, Nov 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103045. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103045

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.103045 2024

  39. [43]

    A General, Scale-independent Description of the Sound Speed in Neutron Stars

    Christian Ecker and Luciano Rezzolla . A General, Scale-independent Description of the Sound Speed in Neutron Stars . ApJL, 939 0 (2): 0 L35, November 2022. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8674

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8674 2022

  40. [44]

    Impact of large-mass constraints on the properties of neutron stars

    Christian Ecker and Luciano Rezzolla . Impact of large-mass constraints on the properties of neutron stars . MNRAS, 519 0 (2): 0 2615--2622, February 2023. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3755

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3755 2023

  41. [45]

    Gorda et al

    T. Gorda et al. The Astrophysical Journal, 955 0 (2): 0 100, sep 2023. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceefb. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aceefb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceefb 2023

  42. [46]

    Comparison of Equations of State for Neutron Stars with First-order Phase Transitions: A Qualitative Study

    Anshuman Verma, Asim Kumar Saha, and Ritam Mallick. Comparison of Equations of State for Neutron Stars with First-order Phase Transitions: A Qualitative Study . Astrophys. J., 985 0 (1): 0 1, 2025 a . doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcee0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcee0 2025

  43. [47]

    Probing the Internal Structure of Neutron Stars: A Comparative Analysis of Three Different Classes of Equations of State

    Anshuman Verma, Asim Kumar Saha, Tuhin Malik, and Ritam Mallick. Probing the Internal Structure of Neutron Stars: A Comparative Analysis of Three Different Classes of Equations of State . Astrophys. J., 988 0 (2): 0 258, 2025 b . doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade9a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade9a2 2025

  44. [48]

    Potekhin, and Dmitry G

    Pawel Haensel, Alexander Y. Potekhin, and Dmitry G. Yakovlev. Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure. Springer, New York, 2007. ISBN 9780387335438

    2007

  45. [49]

    Relativistic Hydrodynamics

    Luciano Rezzolla and Olindo Zanotti. Relativistic Hydrodynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013. ISBN 9780198528906

    2013

  46. [50]

    Adriana R. Raduta. Equations of state for hot neutron stars-ii. the role of exotic particle degrees of freedom. The European Physical Journal A, 58 0 (6), June 2022. ISSN 1434-601X. doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00772-0. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00772-0

    doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00772-0 2022

  47. [51]

    On the sound velocity bound in neutron stars

    Shrijan Roy and Teruaki Suyama. On the sound velocity bound in neutron stars . Results Phys., 61: 0 107757, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107757

    arXiv 2024

  48. [52]

    A NICER View of the 1.4 M _ Edge-on Pulsar PSR J0614-3329

    Lucien Mauviard et al. A NICER View of the 1.4 M _ Edge-on Pulsar PSR J0614-3329 . Astrophys. J., 995 0 (1): 0 60, 2025. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae145d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae145d 2025

  49. [53]

    Rhoades and Remo Ruffini

    Clifford E. Rhoades and Remo Ruffini. Maximum mass of a neutron star. Phys. Rev. Lett., 32: 0 324--327, Feb 1974. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.324. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.324

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.32.324 1974

  50. [54]

    Lindblom

    L. Lindblom . Limits on the gravitational redshift form neutron stars. apj, 278: 0 364--368, March 1984. doi:10.1086/161800

    work page doi:10.1086/161800 1984

  51. [55]

    Lattimer

    James M. Lattimer. The nuclear equation of state and neutron star masses. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 62 0 (Volume 62, 2012): 0 485--515, 2012. ISSN 1545-4134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018. URL https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018 2012

  52. [56]

    Most, and Lukas R

    Luciano Rezzolla, Elias R. Most, and Lukas R. Weih. Using gravitational-wave observations and quasi-universal relations to constrain the maximum mass of neutron stars. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 852 0 (2): 0 L25, January 2018. ISSN 2041-8213. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa401. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa401

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa401 2018

  53. [57]

    Ben Margalit and Brian D. Metzger . Constraining the Maximum Mass of Neutron Stars from Multi-messenger Observations of GW170817 . apjl, 850 0 (2): 0 L19, December 2017. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c 2017

  54. [58]

    Rocha, Jorge E

    Lívia S. Rocha, Jorge E. Horvath, Lucas M. de Sá, Gustavo Y. Chinen, Lucas G. Barão, and Marcio G. B. de Avellar. Mass distribution and maximum mass of neutron stars: Effects of orbital inclination angle, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.13244

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [59]

    On the maximum mass and oblateness of rotating neutron stars with generic equations of state

    Carlo Musolino, Christian Ecker, and Luciano Rezzolla. On the maximum mass and oblateness of rotating neutron stars with generic equations of state. 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [60]

    Combustion adiabat and the maximum mass of a quark star

    Ritam Mallick and Mohammad Irfan. Combustion adiabat and the maximum mass of a quark star . Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 00: 0 1, 2019. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz454

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz454 2019

  57. [61]

    Shock waves in (1 + 1-dimensional) curved space-time

    Anshuman Verma and Ritam Mallick. Shock waves in (1 + 1-dimensional) curved space-time . Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 522 0 (4): 0 4801--4814, 2023. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1245

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1245 2023

  58. [62]

    On the maximum compactness of neutron stars

    Luciano Rezzolla and Christian Ecker. On the maximum compactness of neutron stars . 10 2025

    2025

  59. [63]

    The Ground State of Matter at High Densities: Equation of State and Stellar Models

    Gordon Baym , Christopher Pethick , and Peter Sutherland . The Ground State of Matter at High Densities: Equation of State and Stellar Models . apj, 170: 0 299, December 1971. doi:10.1086/151216

    doi:10.1086/151216 1971

  60. [64]

    Richard C. Tolman . Static Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations for Spheres of Fluid . Physical Review, 55 0 (4): 0 364--373, February 1939. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.55.364

    doi:10.1103/physrev.55.364 1939

  61. [65]

    CompactObject: An open-source Python package for full-scope neutron star equation of state inference

    Chun Huang et al. CompactObject: An open-source Python package for full-scope neutron star equation of state inference . 11 2024

    2024

  62. [66]

    a ttil \

    Eemeli Annala, Tyler Gorda, Aleksi Kurkela, Joonas N \"a ttil \"a , and Aleksi Vuorinen. Evidence for quark-matter cores in massive neutron stars . Nature Phys., 16 0 (9): 0 907--910, 2020 b . doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9 2020

  63. [67]

    Ultranest -- a robust, general purpose bayesian inference engine, 2021

    Johannes Buchner. Ultranest -- a robust, general purpose bayesian inference engine, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.09604

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [68]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Properties of the binary neutron star merger GW170817 . Phys. Rev. X, 9 0 (1): 0 011001, 2019 b . doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.011001 2019

  65. [69]

    Riley et al

    Thomas E. Riley et al. A NICER View of PSR J0030+0451: Millisecond Pulsar Parameter Estimation . Astrophys. J. Lett., 887 0 (1): 0 L21, 2019 b . doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c 2019

  66. [70]

    Riley et al

    Thomas E. Riley et al. A NICER View of the Massive Pulsar PSR J0740+6620 Informed by Radio Timing and XMM-Newton Spectroscopy . Astrophys. J. Lett., 918 0 (2): 0 L27, 2021 b . doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81 2021

  67. [71]

    A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437 4715

    Devarshi Choudhury et al. A NICER View of the Nearest and Brightest Millisecond Pulsar: PSR J0437 4715 . Astrophys. J. Lett., 971 0 (1): 0 L20, 2024. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f 2024

  68. [72]

    Theory of probability

    Harold Jeffreys. Theory of probability. Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998. ISBN 0-19-850368-7. Reprint of the 1983 edition

    1998