Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

High density symmetry energy: A key to the solution of the hyperon puzzle

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A symmetry energy soft at 2–3ρ0 but stiff above 4ρ0 can keep hyperon-star masses at or above 2 solar masses while matching flow, GW170817, NICER, and HESS J1731-347.

desk verdict A credible demonstration that the density shape of the symmetry energy, not just its slope, controls the hyperon onset, but the fixed scaling factors and the treatment of HESS J1731-347 leave the quantitative claim conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18349 v2 pith:6Y6HLBGU submitted 2024-11-27 nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-ex

Jun-Ting Ye , Rui Wang , Si-Pei Wang , Lie-Wen Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-ex PACS 26.60.-c21.65.Ef26.60.Kp97.60.Jd
keywords densematterequationofstateneutronstarshyperonpuzzlesymmetryenergySkyrmepseudopotentialsoundspeed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to settle the hyperon puzzle—why neutron stars containing strange baryons still reach two solar masses—by pointing to the symmetry energy rather than to stronger hyperon forces. It extends a modern Skyrme interaction to all octet baryons and shows that the density shape of the symmetry energy controls when hyperons first appear. The proposed shape—soft at 2–3ρ0, stiff above 4ρ0—yields a maximum mass at or above two solar masses for hyperon stars while matching a long list of terrestrial and astrophysical constraints.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the extended N3LO Skyrme pseudopotential for the full baryon octet, in which every hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon parameter is a fixed multiple of the corresponding nucleon-nucleon parameter via dimensionless scaling factors f, calibrated to single-hyperon potentials at saturation density from experiments, chiral effective field theory, and lattice QCD. On top of that base interaction (HSL35), the paper varies two higher-order symmetry energy parameters—the curvature Ksym and the skewness Jsym—while leaving the slope L fixed, reshaping Esym(ρ) at high density and thereby shifting the hyperon appearance density and the maximum mass.

What would settle it

Measure the single-particle potential of a Λ or Ξ in matter at 2–3ρ0, for example from hyperon production in heavy-ion collisions or from the density dependence of hyperon potentials in hypernuclei: if its density dependence deviates from the assumed constant scaling, the predicted hyperon onset density and maximum mass change. Alternatively, a NICER or gravitational-wave determination that fixes the 1.4-solar-mass star radius above about 12.5 km would rule out the soft intermediate-density symmetry energy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the onset density of hyperons in neutron-star matter is controlled by the isospin-dependent part of the equation of state: a symmetry energy that is soft between about two and three times saturation density delays the appearance of hyperons, while a stiff symmetry energy above about four times saturation density preserves enough pressure for a two-solar-mass maximum. With the HSL35 interaction—Esym(ρ0)=32 MeV, L=35 MeV, Ksym=−300 MeV, Jsym=720 MeV—the paper obtains a maximum mass of about 2.03 solar masses for static hyperon stars and simultaneously satisfies the flow-data constraint on symmetric matter, microscopic pure-neutron-matter calculations, the GW170817 tidal deformability, NICER mass-radius data, and the small mass and radius of the HESS J1731-347 central compact object.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon forces behave at all densities as fixed scaled copies of the nucleon-nucleon force, with the scaling factors calibrated only near ordinary nuclear density.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, hyperon stars with maximum masses near two solar masses are viable without invoking extra repulsive hyperon three-body forces or deconfined quark cores.
  • Hyperon onset is pushed to roughly 4ρ0 in the preferred interaction, so a 1.4-solar-mass star contains no hyperons and therefore has the same tidal deformability as a purely nucleonic star, matching GW170817.
  • The sound-speed peak around 3–4ρ0, produced by hyperon onset, offers a natural explanation for the peak inferred from multimessenger data.
  • Direct Urca cooling thresholds move to higher masses—about two solar masses for hyperon stars—which changes predicted neutron-star cooling behavior.
  • The result singles out Ksym near −300 MeV and the high-density symmetry energy as key quantities for future experiments and observations to pin down.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the argument implies that the hyperon puzzle is largely an isovector problem, so experimental effort should shift toward constraining Esym(ρ) between 2 and 4ρ0, for instance through pion ratios, isospin diffusion, or parity-violating electron scattering.
  • Beyond the paper: if future gravitational-wave events confirm a sound-speed peak at 3–4ρ0, it would support the hyperon-onset interpretation over alternatives such as phase transitions to quark matter.
  • Beyond the paper: the predicted particle fractions—Ξ− appearing first, Σ hyperons absent below 8ρ0—are unique signatures of the scaling ansatz and could be tested by hypernuclear experiments or heavy-ion strangeness measurements.
  • Beyond the paper: the fixed-scaling assumption could be checked by computing hyperon potentials with chiral effective field theory at suprasaturation densities; if scaling breaks down, the quantitative Ksym and Jsym values would shift even if the qualitative mechanism survives.
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 proposes that the high-density behavior of the nuclear symmetry energy Esym(ρ) controls the onset of hyperons in neutron stars and can thereby resolve the hyperon puzzle. The authors extend the N3LO Skyrme pseudopotential to the baryon octet by assuming that hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions have the same density, momentum, and isospin dependence as the nucleon-nucleon interaction, up to constant scaling factors. The scaling factors are calibrated to hyperon single-particle potentials at saturation density using experimental information, chiral effective field theory, and lattice QCD results. Varying the curvature parameter Ksym and skewness parameter Jsym of Esym, they find that a symmetry energy which is soft near 2–3ρ0 but stiff above about 4ρ0 delays hyperon appearance to roughly 4ρ0, leading to static hyperon-star maximum masses above 2 solar masses. The resulting equation of state is claimed to be compatible with heavy-ion flow constraints, microscopic pure neutron matter calculations, the GW170817 tidal deformability, NICER mass-radius measurements, and the small mass and radius of the HESS J1731-347 central compact object. The paper also reports a peak in the squared sound speed at hyperon onset, and argues that this peak is consistent in position with model-agnostic Bayesian inferences.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this work would be an important step toward resolving the hyperon puzzle by showing that the density dependence of the symmetry energy, rather than only hyperonic interactions or three-body forces, can control the hyperon threshold. The paper is careful in constructing the energy density functional, tabulates all parameters, and compares with a broad set of external constraints; the full HSL35 parameter set is provided, which aids reproducibility. The explicit separation of the slope parameter L from the higher-order parameters Ksym and Jsym is a useful advance over earlier studies that varied only L. The model also makes a falsifiable prediction that the sound-speed peak coincides with the onset of strangeness. However, the result is conditional on a strong assumption for the hyperonic sector (Eq. 13) and on the interpretation of HESS J1731-347; furthermore, the compatibility claim is based on a sparse hand-selected grid without a quantitative statistical fit. These limitations are partly acknowledged in the text, but they leave the central attribution to the symmetry energy not fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (13)] The central claim that the high-density symmetry energy is the key to the hyperon puzzle rests on the assumption that all YN and YY interactions are proportional to the NN interaction with constant scaling factors f. The calibration of these factors uses only hyperon potentials at or near ρ0 (Eqs. 18-23), while the decisive physics (the hyperon threshold and the TOV maximum mass) occurs at 3-6ρ0. The reported robustness checks vary the saturation-depth values (e.g., UΞ(N) between -4 and -16 MeV and the YY depth by a factor of two), but they do not test alternative density or momentum dependences of the hyperonic interactions above ρ0. If the true YN or YY interaction has a different density dependence at suprasaturation densities, the hyperon onset density could shift by an amount comparable to the symmetry-energy effect identified here. I request that the authors test the sensitivity to the density dependence (for instance by allowing the f factors to vary with density or by using χEFT or LQCD results at several densities above ρ0), or explicitly state that the conclusion is conditional on this scaling assumption.
  2. [Section 2.3, text following Table 1, and Section 3.2] When Ksym and Jsym are varied, the scaling factors f are kept fixed at their HSL35 values even though the NN parameters that they multiply change with Ksym and Jsym. Consequently, the hyperon single-particle potentials at saturation density used in the calibration conditions (Eqs. 18-23) are not held fixed across the parameter grid. The differences in hyperon threshold and MTOV between different Ksym values shown in Fig. 2 therefore combine the intended symmetry-energy effect with uncontrolled changes in the hyperon potential depths. The authors should re-fit the f values for each grid point or at least report the resulting UY(N)(ρN = ρ0, p = 0) for each combination, to demonstrate that the hyperon constraints remain satisfied; without this, the statement that “the softening of the symmetry energy around 2-3ρ0 ... pushes the critical density for hyperon appearance” (Sec. 3.2) is not uniquely established.
  3. [Section 3.2, Fig. 2 and Table 2] The compatibility claim is based on a sparse, hand-selected grid of Ksym and Jsym values (Ksym = -300 and -210 MeV; Jsym = 720-840 MeV in steps of 40 MeV) and on visual comparison with 68% confidence bands from NICER and HESS J1731-347. No statistical measure, such as a likelihood or chi-square, is given to quantify agreement, and the preferred point (Ksym = -300 MeV, Jsym = 720 MeV) is not the result of an optimization over the full parameter space. As a result, it is difficult to assess whether the combination of constraints is satisfied at a meaningful confidence level or whether it is a selected corner of the grid. I recommend adding a quantitative comparison with the published likelihoods or credible regions, at least for the central HSL35 point.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The paper notes that Esym(2ρ0) ≈ 32 MeV is outside the 68% interval Esym(2ρ0) = 51 ± 13 MeV from Li et al. (2021). The justification given is reasonable, but since this tension is central to the adopted soft symmetry energy, a brief quantitative discussion of how the inclusion of hyperons and the HESS J1731-347 constraint changes the extracted Esym(2ρ0) would help the reader judge the severity of the discrepancy.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Introduction] The word “psuedopotential” appears twice in the opening paragraph of Section 2.2 and should be corrected to “pseudopotential”; in the Introduction, “over fourty” should be “over forty”.
  3. [Figure 1] The 16 panels in Figure 1 are dense, and some curves are difficult to distinguish in printed grayscale. Labeling the rows and columns more explicitly, or using distinct line styles, would improve readability.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Section 3.3] The comparison of the squared sound speed peak with Bayesian analyses (e.g., Legred et al. 2021) should clarify that those analyses were performed without explicit hyperon degrees of freedom; the agreement shows that the peak is not excluded, but it does not independently confirm the hyperonic origin of the peak.
  5. [Table 2 caption] In the caption of Table 2, “densitiy” should be “density”.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

HSL35's headline M_TOV and HESS radius agreement is partly a consistency check on the chosen Ksym/Jsym values; the central hyperon-threshold mechanism itself is computed, not fitted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.3 (HSL35 parameter definition) and Sec. 3.2 (Fig. 2 and Ksym/Jsym scans, M_TOV discussion)]
    "The case with Ksym = −300 MeV and Jsym = 720 MeV shown in the left column of Fig. 2 [i.e., panels (a), (c), (e) and (g)] corresponds to the HSL35 interaction. It is seen that the HSL35 interaction predicts MTOV = 2.03 (2.30)M⊙ for HSs (NSs) and at the same time it can nicely describe the mass-radius relations obtained from astrophysical observations, especially the unusually low mass and small radius of HESS J1731-347."

    HSL35 is defined by 'setting Ksym = −300 MeV and Jsym = 720 MeV ... denoted as HSL35.' Its justification is self-referential: the paper says 'our present work suggests a quite small value of Ksym is necessary when hyperons are considered ... especially when ... HESS J1731-347 is included.' The scans then show MTOV < 2 M⊙ for Ksym > -240 MeV and no HESS radius for Jsym > 760 MeV, so HSL35 lies in the region selected by those same constraints. Reporting its MTOV and radius compatibility as a 'prediction' is a consistency check, not an independent prediction. The central hyperon-threshold mechanism is computed from the model and is not circular.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is mostly self-contained. Equation (13) states the YN/YY proportionality ansatz explicitly, and the scaling factors f are calibrated to independent chiEFT/LQCD single-hyperon potentials near rho0, so the hyperon sector is a transparent modeling assumption rather than a result imported by self-citation. Self-citations to Wang et al. (2018, 2024) are not load-bearing in a circular sense because the NN parametrization is benchmarked against independent optical-potential, flow, and pure-neutron-matter data. The main circularity concern is that HSL35 is defined with Ksym=-300 MeV and Jsym=720 MeV, and the paper's own scans show that these values are inside the region selected by the MTOV>=2 M⊙ and HESS J1731-347 radius constraints; calling the resulting agreement a 'prediction' is therefore partly a consistency check. The core physical claim, that a soft symmetry energy at 2-3 rho0 delays hyperon appearance through the beta-equilibrium chemical potentials, is a computed consequence of the model and does not reduce to its inputs. The fragility of Eq. (13) at suprasaturation densities, and the fixed f values in the Ksym/Jsym scans, are genuine robustness concerns but are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the assumed density, momentum, and isospin scaling of the YN and YY interactions relative to the NN interaction (Eq. 13), with scaling factors pinned at saturation density and with the YY attraction set to -40 MeV following Schaffner et al. 1994. The Ksym and Jsym values that drive the main result are hand-chosen within literature ranges. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Ksym = -300 MeV
    Hand-chosen curvature of the symmetry energy; the paper shows M_TOV(HS) falls below 2 solar masses for Ksym above about -240 MeV, so this value is selected to satisfy the mass constraint.
  • Jsym = 720 MeV
    Hand-chosen skewness of the symmetry energy; values above about 760 MeV fail to reproduce the small HESS J1731-347 radius, and smaller values predict too small radii for PSR J0030+0451.
  • f_LambdaN scaling (local, density, momentum) = 1.36, 1.50, 1.60
    Fitted to U_Lambda(N)(rho0,0)=-28 MeV and to the chiEFT density and momentum dependence of the Lambda potential near rho0 (Sec. 2.3).
  • f_SigmaN scaling (local, isospin, density, momentum) = 0.88, 2.41, 1.10, 3.70
    Fitted to U_Sigma(N)(rho0,0)=11 MeV in SNM and U_Sigma-(N)(rho0,0)=40 MeV in PNM plus chiEFT density and momentum dependence.
  • f_XiN scaling (local, isospin, density, momentum) = 0.52, 1.25, 0.20, 0.50
    Fitted to LQCD values U_Xi(N)=-4 MeV and U_Xi-(N)=7 MeV at rho0 and their momentum dependence.
  • f_YY scaling = 0.61 to 0.67
    Fitted to an assumed YY potential U_Y(Y')(rho0,0)=-40 MeV following Schaffner et al. 1994; the paper checks factor-two variations.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper YN and YY interactions have the same density, momentum, and isospin dependence as the NN interaction, up to constant scaling factors (Eq. 13).
    This is the central modeling assumption that lets the octet extension be built from the nucleonic N3LO Skyrme pseudopotential; it has no direct microscopic justification at high density.
  • domain assumption Only the central and density-dependent terms of the N3LO Skyrme pseudopotential contribute in spin-averaged infinite matter (Sec. 2.2).
    Standard within the Skyrme EDF approach; spin-orbit, tensor, and gradient terms are omitted for uniform matter.
  • domain assumption Infinite uniform matter at zero temperature with beta-equilibrium, and no pairing or explicit hyperonic three-body forces beyond the density-dependent terms (Sec. 2.3-2.4).
    The paper works in zero-temperature mean-field theory; pairing is acknowledged to matter below about 0.05 fm^-3.
  • ad hoc to paper YY potential at saturation density is -40 MeV (Eq. 23).
    The YY interactions are poorly known; the paper assumes U_Y(Y')(rho0,0)=-40 MeV from Ref. [Schaffner et al. 1994] and checks variations by factor two.
  • domain assumption The inner and outer crust EOS matching uses the dynamical core-crust transition and BPS or polytropic crust (Sec. 2.4).
    Standard neutron star EOS construction; crust choices have minor effect on the M_TOV result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High density symmetry energy: A key to the solution of the hyperon puzzle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6Y6HLBGU

@misc{pith2026241118349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High density symmetry energy: A key to the solution of the hyperon puzzle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6Y6HLBGU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18349}
}
abstract

The recently developed nuclear effective interaction based on the so-called N3LO Skyrme pseudopotential is extended to include the hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions by assuming the similar density, momentum, and isospin dependence as for the nucleon-nucleon interaction. The parameters in these interactions are determined from either experimental information if any or chiral effective field theory or lattice QCD calculations of the hyperon potentials in nuclear matter around nuclear saturation density $\rho_0$. We find that varying the high density behavior of the symmetry energy $E_{\rm sym}(\rho)$ can significantly change the critical density for hyperon appearance in the neutron stars and thus the maximum mass $M_{\rm TOV}$ of static hyperon stars. In particular, a symmetry energy which is soft around $2-3\rho_0$ but stiff above about $4\rho_0$, can lead to $M_{\rm TOV} \gtrsim 2M_\odot$ for hyperon stars and simultaneously be compatible with (1) the constraints on the equation of state of symmetric nuclear matter at suprasaturation densities obtained from flow data in heavy-ion collisions; (2) the microscopic calculations of the equation of state for pure neutron matter; (3) the star tidal deformability extracted from gravitational wave signal GW170817; (4) the mass-radius relations of PSR J0030+0451, PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0437-4715 measured from NICER; (5) the observation of the unusually low mass and small radius in the central compact object of HESS J1731-347. Furthermore, the sound speed squared of the hyperon star matter naturally displays a strong peak structure around baryon density of $3-4\rho_0$, consistent with the model-independent analysis on the multimessenger data. Our results suggest that the high density symmetry energy could be a key to the solution of the hyperon puzzle in neutron star physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18349 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The density (first and third columns) and momentum (second and fourth columns) dependence of single-particle potentials for octet baryons in SNM (left two columns) and PNM (right two columns) with the HSL35 interaction. The experimental nucleon optical potential (Hama et al. 1990; Cooper et al. 1993), the calculations from χEFT (Petschauer et al. 2016) and LQCD (Inoue 2019) are also included for comparison [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The mass-radius relation for static HSs and NSs (first row), density dependence of the symmetry energy Esym(ρ) (second row), the EOS of PNM EPNM(ρ) (third row) and density dependence of the squared sound speed C 2 s (ρ/ρ0) (fourth row) by varying individually Ksym and Jsym in the HSL35 interaction. The corresponding results with SP6L55 and HSL45 are included in the first column. The symmetry energy from the microsco… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The critical density ρh for hyperon appearance in NS matter (a) and the tidal deformability Λ1.4 of 1.4M⊙ NSs and HSs by varying individually Ksym and Jsym in the HSL35 interaction. Note the Λ1.4 of NSs is the same as that of HSs and thus the symbols for NSs and HSs in panel (b) are exactly coincided. See the text for more details. tidal deformability for both HSs and NSs with HSL35 is nicely compatible with the con… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Particle chemical potentials in HS matter as a function of baryon density for the HSL35 interaction (a), the HSL35 but with Ksym = −210 MeV and Jsym = 840 MeV (b), and the SP6L55 interaction (c). The chemical potential sum µn + µe for neutrons and electrons is also inc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Particle fractions in HS matter as a func￾tion of baryon density for the HSL35 interaction but with Jsym = 720 MeV (thick lines) and 840 MeV (thin lines). Ad￾ditionally, the central density for HSs with mass of 1.4M⊙ and maximum mass is indicated by the vertical lines,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quarkyonic Stars with Strangeness

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A three-flavor quarkyonic model with octet baryons yields stiffer neutron-star EOS and raises maximum masses, potentially resolving the hyperon puzzle.

  2. Recurring region for neutron-star observables

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Minimizing the average sound speed across a percolation-smoothed deconfinement transition selects hybrid neutron star equations of state that cross a common, small recurring region in mass-radius and mass-tidal deform...

  3. Neutron Star Equation of State with Nucleon Short-Range Correlations: A Concise Review and Open Issues

    nucl-th 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review of how short-range-correlation-induced high-momentum tails modify the nuclear equation of state and neutron-star observables, with open questions about supra-saturation densities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  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]

    7_ϿǗ/NFO^ wlސ +unu`8U0찓ϯ?7 ph9Zz !5 j _L fjh_ # L7 ц86> V|S>5εpV

    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., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  5. [5]

    K., De, J

    Agrawal, B. K., De, J. N., & Samaddar, S. K. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 262501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.262501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.262501 2012

  6. [6]

    Aichelin, J., & Ko, C. M. 1985, Phys. Rev. Lett., 55, 2661, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.2661

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.55.2661 1985

  7. [7]

    1968, Phys

    Alexander, G., Karshon, U., Shapira, A., et al. 1968, Phys. Rev., 173, 1452, 10.1103/PhysRev.173.1452

    doi:10.1103/physrev.173.1452 1968

  8. [8]

    2023, Nature Commun., 14, 8451, 10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Hirvonen, J., et al. 2023, Nature Commun., 14, 8451, 10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44051-y 2023

Show all 187 references
  1. [9]

    2013, Science, 340, 6131, 10.1126/science.1233232

    Antoniadis, J., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 6131, 10.1126/science.1233232

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    V., Capozziello, S., & Odintsov, S

    Astashenok, A. V., Capozziello, S., & Odintsov, S. D. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 103509, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103509

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    F., & Schulze, H

    Baldo, M., Burgio, G. F., & Schulze, H. J. 2000, Phys. Rev. C, 61, 055801, 10.1103/PhysRevC.61.055801

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    1971, Astrophys

    Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Sutherland, P. 1971, Astrophys. J., 170, 299, 10.1086/151216

    1971 doi

  5. [13]

    R., Chang, E., Cohen, S

    Beane, S. R., Chang, E., Cohen, S. D., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 172001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.172001

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Bejger, M., & Manka, R

    Bednarek, I., Haensel, P., Zdunik, J. L., Bejger, M., & Manka, R. 2012, Astron. Astrophys., 543, A157, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118560

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, Phys

    Biswas, B., Char, P., Nandi, R., & Bose, S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 103015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.103015

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Bizarro, D., Rabhi, A., & Provid\^encia, C. 2015. 1502.04952

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Blaschke, D., Grigorian, H., & Voskresensky, D. N. 2004, Astron. Astrophys., 424, 979, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040404

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, Nucl

    Bombaci, I. 2021, Nucl. Phys. News, 31, 17, 10.1080/10619127.2021.1915024

    2021

  11. [19]

    Brown, B. A. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 232502, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.232502

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    F., Schulze, H

    Burgio, G. F., Schulze, H. J., Vidana, I., & Wei, J. B. 2021, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 120, 103879, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103879

    2021

  13. [21]

    2012, Phys

    Cai, B.-J., & Chen, L.-W. 2012, Phys. Lett. B, 711, 104, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.058

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Cao, Z., & Chen, L.-W. 2023. 2308.16783

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J., & Piekarewicz, J

    Carriere, J., Horowitz, C. J., & Piekarewicz, J. 2003, Astrophys. J., 593, 463, 10.1086/376515

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    P., & Providencia, C

    Cavagnoli, R., Menezes, D. P., & Providencia, C. 2011, Phys. Rev. C, 84, 065810, 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.065810

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    2009, Phys

    Centelles, M., Roca-Maza, X., Vinas, X., & Warda, M. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 122502, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.122502

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, Eur

    Chatterjee, D., & Vida\ na, I. 2016, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52, 29, 10.1140/epja/i2016-16029-x

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2011, Sci

    Chen, L.-W. 2011, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 54, 124, 10.1007/s11433-011-4415-9

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    2015, EPJ Web Conf., 88, 00017, 10.1051/epjconf/20158800017

    ---. 2015, EPJ Web Conf., 88, 00017, 10.1051/epjconf/20158800017

    2015

  21. [29]

    M., et al

    Chen, L.-W., Cai, B.-J., Ko, C. M., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev. C, 80, 014322, 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.014322

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    M., & Li, B.-A

    Chen, L.-W., Ko, C. M., & Li, B.-A. 2005 a , Phys. Rev. C, 72, 064309, 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064309

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    2005 b , Phys

    ---. 2005 b , Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 032701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.032701

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Li, B.-A., & Xu, J

    Chen, L.-W., Ko, C. M., Li, B.-A., & Xu, J. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 82, 024321, 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.024321

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    2012, Phys

    Chen, R., Cai, B.-J., Chen, L.-W., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 024305, 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024305

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    2021, Astrophys

    Choi, S., Miyatsu, T., Cheoun, M.-K., & Saito, K. 2021, Astrophys. J., 909, 156, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe3fe

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, Phys

    Chorozidou, A., & Gaitanos, T. 2024, Phys. Rev. C, 109, L032801, 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.L032801

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, Astrophys

    Choudhury, D., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 971, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5a6f

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Hama, S., Clark, B

    Cooper, E. D., Hama, S., Clark, B. C., & Mercer, R. L. 1993, Phys. Rev. C, 47, 297, 10.1103/PhysRevC.47.297

    1993 doi

  30. [38]

    T., et al

    Cromartie, H. T., et al. 2019, Nature Astron., 4, 72, 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Danielewicz, P., Lacey, R., & Lynch, W. G. 2002, Science, 298, 1592, 10.1126/science.1078070

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    2014, Nucl

    Danielewicz, P., & Lee, J. 2014, Nucl. Phys. A, 922, 1, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.11.005

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    2017, Nucl

    Danielewicz, P., Singh, P., & Lee, J. 2017, Nucl. Phys. A, 958, 147, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.11.008

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    1963, Phys

    Danysz, M., et al. 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett., 11, 29, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.29

    1963 doi

  35. [43]

    B., Gupta, S

    Das, C. B., Gupta, S. D., Gale, C., & Li, B.-A. 2003, Phys. Rev. C, 67, 034611, 10.1103/PhysRevC.67.034611

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, Nature Astron., 6, 1444, 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    Doroshenko, V., Suleimanov, V., P\"uhlhofer, G., & Santangelo, A. 2022, Nature Astron., 6, 1444, 10.1038/s41550-022-01800-1

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    2014, Phys

    Drago, A., Lavagno, A., Pagliara, G., & Pigato, D. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 065809, 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.065809

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    S., et al

    Dutra, M., Lourenco, O., Sa Martins, J. S., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 035201, 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.035201

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    S., et al

    Dutra, M., Louren c o, O., Avancini, S. S., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 055203, 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.055203

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    1971, Phys

    Eisele, F., Filthuth, H., Foehlisch, W., Hepp, V., & Zech, G. 1971, Phys. Lett. B, 37, 204, 10.1016/0370-2693(71)90053-0

    1971 doi

  41. [49]

    1966, Phys

    Engelmann, R., Filthuth, H., Hepp, V., & Kluge, E. 1966, Phys. Lett., 21, 587, 10.1016/0031-9163(66)91310-2

    1966 doi

  42. [50]

    2010, Phys

    Feng, Z.-Q., & Jin, G.-M. 2010, Phys. Lett. B, 683, 140, 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.12.006

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    Fiorella Burgio, G., & Fantina, A. F. 2018, Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr., 457, 255, 10.1007/978-3-319-97616-7_6

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2021, Astrophys

    Fonseca, E., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 915, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    2007, Phys

    Friedman, E., & Gal, A. 2007, Phys. Rept., 452, 89, 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.08.002

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, Phys

    ---. 2021, Phys. Lett. B, 820, 136555, 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136555

    2021

  47. [55]

    Friedman, E., & Gal, A. 2024. 2411.11751

    2024

  48. [56]

    2006, Prog

    Fuchs, C. 2006, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 56, 1, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.07.004

    2006 doi

  49. [57]

    2001, Phys

    Fuchs, C., Faessler, A., Zabrodin, E., & Zheng, Y.-M. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 1974, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1974

    2001 doi

  50. [58]

    2007, Prog

    Fujiwara, Y., Suzuki, Y., & Nakamoto, C. 2007, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 58, 439, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.08.001

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    2018, Prog

    Garg, U., & Col\`o, G. 2018, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 101, 55, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.03.001

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    2020, Eur

    Gerstung, D., Kaiser, N., & Weise, W. 2020, Eur. Phys. J. A, 56, 175, 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00180-2

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    K., Chatterjee, D., & Schaffner-Bielich, J

    Ghosh, S., Pradhan, B. K., Chatterjee, D., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2022, Front. Astron. Space Sci., 9, 864294, 10.3389/fspas.2022.864294

    2022

  54. [62]

    K., & Schaffner-Bielich, J

    Glendenning, N. K., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 4564, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4564

    1998 doi

  55. [63]

    O., Dexheimer, V., Schramm, S., & Vasconcellos, C

    Gomes, R. O., Dexheimer, V., Schramm, S., & Vasconcellos, C. A. Z. 2015, Astrophys. J., 808, 8, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/8

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    2022, Phys

    Grams, G., Somasundaram, R., Margueron, J., & Khan, E. 2022, Phys. Rev. C, 106, 044305, 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.044305

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    2013, Nucl

    Haidenbauer, J., Petschauer, S., Kaiser, N., et al. 2013, Nucl. Phys. A, 915, 24, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.06.008

    2013 doi

  58. [66]

    C., Cooper, E

    Hama, S., Clark, B. C., Cooper, E. D., Sherif, H. S., & Mercer, R. L. 1990, Phys. Rev. C, 41, 2737, 10.1103/PhysRevC.41.2737

    1990 doi

  59. [67]

    2023, Sci

    Han, M.-Z., Huang, Y.-J., Tang, S.-P., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2023, Sci. Bull., 68, 913, 10.1016/j.scib.2023.04.007

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2006, Phys

    Hartnack, C., Oeschler, H., & Aichelin, J. 2006, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 012302, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.012302

    2006 doi

  61. [69]

    1989, Nucl

    Holzenkamp, B., Holinde, K., & Speth, J. 1989, Nucl. Phys. A, 500, 485, 10.1016/0375-9474(89)90223-6

    1989 doi

  62. [70]

    2014, Phys

    Hong, J., & Danielewicz, P. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 024605, 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024605

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    M., & van Hove, L

    Hugenholtz, N. M., & van Hove, L. 1958, Physica, 24, 363, 10.1016/S0031-8914(58)95281-9

    1958 doi

  64. [72]

    2021, Phys

    Huth, S., Wellenhofer, C., & Schwenk, A. 2021, Phys. Rev. C, 103, 025803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.025803

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    1997, Astrophys

    Iida, K., & Sato, K. 1997, Astrophys. J., 477, 294, 10.1086/303685

    1997 doi

  66. [74]

    2019, AIP Conf

    Inoue, T. 2019, AIP Conf. Proc., 2130, 020002, 10.1063/1.5118370

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    2007, Phys

    Ishii, N., Aoki, S., & Hatsuda, T. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 022001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.022001

    2007 doi

  68. [76]

    2012, Astrophys

    Jiang, W.-Z., Li, B.-A., & Chen, L.-W. 2012, Astrophys. J., 756, 56, 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/56

    2012 doi

  69. [77]

    A., Alexander, G., Chan, J

    Kadyk, J. A., Alexander, G., Chan, J. H., Gaposchkin, P., & Trilling, G. H. 1971, Nucl. Phys. B, 27, 13, 10.1016/0550-3213(71)90076-9

    1971 doi

  70. [78]

    2006, Phys

    Klahn, T., et al. 2006, Phys. Rev. C, 74, 035802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.74.035802

    2006 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, Mon

    Kochankovski, H., Ramos, A., & Tolos, L. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 528, 2629, 10.1093/mnras/stae231

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    Koehn, H., et al. 2024. 2402.04172

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    2007, Phys

    Kowalski, S., et al. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 75, 014601, 10.1103/PhysRevC.75.014601

    2007 doi

  74. [82]

    Krastev, P. G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 16, 10.3390/galaxies10010016

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    2020, Phys

    Kubis, S., W\'ojcik, W., & Zabari, N. 2020, Phys. Rev. C, 102, 065803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.065803

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    2024, Phys

    Kumar, R., Aryal, K., Clevinger, A., & Dexheimer, V. 2024, Phys. Lett. B, 849, 138475, 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138475

    2024

  77. [85]

    M., & Lim, Y

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

    2013 doi

  78. [86]

    M., Prakash, M., Pethick, C

    Lattimer, J. M., Prakash, M., Pethick, C. J., & Haensel, P. 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 66, 2701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.2701

    1991 doi

  79. [87]

    2016, Nucl

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

    2016 doi

  80. [88]

    2021, Phys

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

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    2021, Universe, 7, 182, 10.3390/universe7060182

    Li, B.-A., Cai, B.-J., Xie, W.-J., & Zhang, N.-B. 2021, Universe, 7, 182, 10.3390/universe7060182

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    2005, Phys

    Li, B.-A., & Chen, L.-W. 2005, Phys. Rev. C, 72, 064611, 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064611

    2005 doi

  83. [91]

    Li, B.-A., Chen, L.-W., & Ko, C. M. 2008, Phys. Rept., 464, 113, 10.1016/j.physrep.2008.04.005

    2008 doi

  84. [92]

    2013, Phys

    Li, B.-A., & Han, X. 2013, Phys. Lett. B, 727, 276, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.006

    2013 doi

  85. [93]

    2022, Astrophys

    Li, F., Cai, B.-J., Zhou, Y., Jiang, W.-Z., & Chen, L.-W. 2022, Astrophys. J., 929, 183, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e2a

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    J., Long, W

    Li, J. J., Long, W. H., & Sedrakian, A. 2018 a , Eur. Phys. J. A, 54, 133, 10.1140/epja/i2018-12566-6

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    J., Sedrakian, A., & Weber, F

    Li, J. J., Sedrakian, A., & Weber, F. 2018 b , Phys. Lett. B, 783, 234, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.051

    2018 doi

  88. [96]

    2007, Phys

    Li, T., et al. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 99, 162503, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.162503

    2007 doi

  89. [97]

    H., & Schulze, H

    Li, Z. H., & Schulze, H. J. 2008, Phys. Rev. C, 78, 028801, 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.028801

    2008 doi

  90. [98]

    Z., Niu, Y

    Li, Z. Z., Niu, Y. F., & Col\`o, G. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 082501, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.082501

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    2019, Eur

    Logoteta, D., Vidana, I., & Bombaci, I. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55, 207, 10.1140/epja/i2019-12909-9

    2019 doi

  92. [100]

    2015, Phys

    Lonardoni, D., Lovato, A., Gandolfi, S., & Pederiva, F. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 092301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.092301

    2015 doi

  93. [101]

    2023, Phys

    Marczenko, M., McLerran, L., Redlich, K., & Sasaki, C. 2023, Phys. Rev. C, 107, 025802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.025802

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, Phys

    Marczenko, M., Redlich, K., & Sasaki, C. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, L041302, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L041302

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    2018, Phys

    Margueron, J., Hoffmann Casali, R., & Gulminelli, F. 2018, Phys. Rev. C, 97, 025806, 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.025806

    2018 doi

  96. [104]

    A., Kolomeitsev, E

    Maslov, K. A., Kolomeitsev, E. E., & Voskresensky, D. N. 2015, Phys. Lett. B, 748, 369, 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.032

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    J., Dover, C

    Millener, D. J., Dover, C. B., & Gal, A. 1988, Phys. Rev. C, 38, 2700, 10.1103/PhysRevC.38.2700

    1988 doi

  98. [106]

    C., et al

    Miller, M. C., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    2019 doi

  99. [107]

    2021, Astrophys

    ---. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    2021 doi

  100. [108]

    2023, Phys

    Miyatsu, T., Cheoun, M.-K., Kim, K., & Saito, K. 2023, Phys. Lett. B, 843, 138013, 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138013

    2023

  101. [109]

    2022, Astrophys

    Miyatsu, T., Cheoun, M.-K., & Saito, K. 2022, Astrophys. J., 929, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f40

    2022 doi

  102. [110]

    K., De, J

    Mondal, C., Agrawal, B. K., De, J. N., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. C, 96, 021302, 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.021302

    2017 doi

  103. [111]

    2019, Phys

    Morfouace, P., et al. 2019, Phys. Lett. B, 799, 135045, 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135045

    2019

  104. [112]

    2008, Phys

    Muto, T. 2008, Phys. Rev. C, 77, 015810, 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015810

    2008 doi

  105. [113]

    2018, EPJ Web Conf., 175, 05030, 10.1051/epjconf/201817505030

    Nemura, H., et al. 2018, EPJ Web Conf., 175, 05030, 10.1051/epjconf/201817505030

    2018

  106. [114]

    2017, Rev

    Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Kl\"ahn, T., & Typel, S. 2017, Rev. Mod. Phys., 89, 015007, 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    2017 doi

  107. [115]

    2010, Astrophys

    Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., Ransom, S., Demorest, P., & Alford, M. 2010, Astrophys. J. Lett., 724, L199, 10.1088/2041-8205/724/2/L199

    2010 doi

  108. [116]

    M., Prakash, M., & Steiner, A

    Page, D., Lattimer, J. M., Prakash, M., & Steiner, A. W. 2009, Astrophys. J., 707, 1131, 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1131

    2009 doi

  109. [117]

    Pang, P. T. H., Sivertsen, L., Somasundaram, R., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. C, 109, 025807, 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.025807

    2024 doi

  110. [118]

    2016, Eur

    Petschauer, S., Haidenbauer, J., Kaiser, N., Mei ner, U.-G., & Weise, W. 2016, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52, 15, 10.1140/epja/i2016-16015-4

    2016 doi

  111. [119]

    2006, Nucl

    Polinder, H., Haidenbauer, J., & Meissner, U.-G. 2006, Nucl. Phys. A, 779, 244, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.09.006

    2006 doi

  112. [120]

    2006, Astron

    Popov, S., Grigorian, H., Turolla, R., & Blaschke, D. 2006, Astron. Astrophys., 448, 327, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042412

    2006 doi

  113. [121]

    Y., Chugunov, A

    Potekhin, A. Y., Chugunov, A. I., & Chabrier, G. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 629, A88, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936003

    2019 doi

  114. [122]

    2018, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00013

    Provid\^encia, C., Fortin, M., Pais, H., & Rabhi, A. 2018, 10.3389/fspas.2019.00013

    2018

  115. [123]

    2013, Phys

    Providencia, C., & Rabhi, A. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 87, 055801, 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.055801

    2013 doi

  116. [124]

    S., Cavagnoli, R., et al

    Provid\^encia, C., Avancini, S. S., Cavagnoli, R., et al. 2014, Eur. Phys. J. A, 50, 44, 10.1140/epja/i2014-14044-7

    2014 doi

  117. [125]

    Prowse, D. J. 1966, Phys. Rev. Lett., 17, 782, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.17.782

    1966 doi

  118. [126]

    2024, Phys

    Qiu, M., Cai, B.-J., Chen, L.-W., Yuan, C.-X., & Zhang, Z. 2024, Phys. Lett. B, 849, 138435, 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138435

    2024

  119. [127]

    A., & Ozel, F

    Raithel, C. A., & Ozel, F. 2019, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab48e6

    2019 doi

  120. [128]

    2007, Nucl

    Reisdorf, W., et al. 2007, Nucl. Phys. A, 781, 459, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.10.085

    2007 doi

  121. [129]

    A., Stoks, V

    Rijken, T. A., Stoks, V. G. J., & Yamamoto, Y. 1999, Phys. Rev. C, 59, 21, 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.21

    1999 doi

  122. [130]

    E., et al

    Riley, T. E., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    2019 doi

  123. [131]

    2021, Astrophys

    ---. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 918, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0a81

    2021 doi

  124. [132]

    K., et al

    Roca-Maza, X., Brenna, M., Agrawal, B. K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 87, 034301, 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034301

    2013 doi

  125. [133]

    H., & Lee, C.-H

    Ryu, C.-Y., Hyun, C. H., & Lee, C.-H. 2011, Phys. Rev. C, 84, 035809, 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.035809

    2011 doi

  126. [134]

    1999, Physics Reports, 319, 85, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00011-3

    Satpathy, L., Maheswari, V., & Nayak, R. 1999, Physics Reports, 319, 85, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00011-3

    1999 doi

  127. [135]

    B., Gal, A., et al

    Schaffner, J., Dover, C. B., Gal, A., et al. 1994, Annals Phys., 235, 35, 10.1006/aphy.1994.1090

    1994

  128. [136]

    Sechi-Zorn, B., Kehoe, B., Twitty, J., & Burnstein, R. A. 1968, Phys. Rev., 175, 1735, 10.1103/PhysRev.175.1735

    1968 doi

  129. [137]

    D., & Walecka, J

    Serot, B. D., & Walecka, J. D. 1997, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E, 6, 515, 10.1142/S0218301397000299

    1997 doi

  130. [138]

    V., Yennello, S

    Shetty, D. V., Yennello, S. J., & Souliotis, G. A. 2007, Phys. Rev. C, 75, 034602, 10.1103/PhysRevC.75.034602

    2007 doi

  131. [139]

    M., & Col\`o, G

    Shlomo, S., Kolomietz, V. M., & Col\`o, G. 2006, Eur. Phys. J. A, 30, 23, 10.1140/epja/i2006-10100-3

    2006 doi

  132. [140]

    1959, Nucl

    Skyrme, T. 1959, Nucl. Phys., 9, 615, 10.1016/0029-5582(58)90345-6

    1959 doi

  133. [141]

    Song, T., & Ko, C. M. 2015, Phys. Rev. C, 91, 014901, 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.014901

    2015 doi

  134. [142]

    2024, Prog

    Sorensen, A., et al. 2024, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 134, 104080, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080

    2024

  135. [143]

    Stoks, V. G. J., & Rijken, T. A. 1999, Phys. Rev. C, 59, 3009, 10.1103/PhysRevC.59.3009

    1999 doi

  136. [144]

    2023, Astrophys

    Sun, X., Miao, Z., Sun, B., & Li, A. 2023, Astrophys. J., 942, 55, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9d9a

    2023 doi

  137. [145]

    2001, Phys

    Takahashi, H., et al. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 212502, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.212502

    2001 doi

  138. [146]

    2024, Astrophys

    Tang, S.-P., Huang, Y.-J., Han, M.-Z., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2024, Astrophys. J., 974, 244, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7503

    2024 doi

  139. [147]

    M., Ohnishi, A., & Kolomeitsev, E

    Tews, I., Lattimer, J. M., Ohnishi, A., & Kolomeitsev, E. E. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8db9

    2017 doi

  140. [148]

    B., & Sinha, M

    Thapa, V. B., & Sinha, M. 2022, Phys. Rev. C, 105, 015802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.015802

    2022 doi

  141. [149]

    2024, Acta Phys

    Tolos, L. 2024, Acta Phys. Polon. B, 55, 5, 10.5506/APhysPolB.55.5-A1

    2024 doi

  142. [150]

    2020, Prog

    Tolos, L., & Fabbietti, L. 2020, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 112, 103770, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103770

    2020

  143. [151]

    B., Zhang, Y., Danielewicz, P., et al

    Tsang, M. B., Zhang, Y., Danielewicz, P., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 122701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.122701

    2009 doi

  144. [152]

    2013, Nucl

    Tsubakihara, K., & Ohnishi, A. 2013, Nucl. Phys. A, 914, 438, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.04.006

    2013 doi

  145. [153]

    2018, Proc

    Vida\ na, I. 2018, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 474, 0145, 10.1098/rspa.2018.0145

    2018

  146. [154]

    2022, EPJ Web Conf., 271, 09001, 10.1051/epjconf/202227109001

    ---. 2022, EPJ Web Conf., 271, 09001, 10.1051/epjconf/202227109001

    2022

  147. [155]

    2000, Phys

    Vidana, I., Polls, A., Ramos, A., Engvik, L., & Hjorth-Jensen, M. 2000, Phys. Rev. C, 62, 035801, 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.035801

    2000 doi

  148. [156]

    2012, Phys

    Wada, R., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 064618, 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.064618

    2012 doi

  149. [157]

    Walecka, J. D. 1985, ADVANCES IN NUCLEAR PHYSICS

    1985

  150. [158]

    2018, Phys

    Wang, R., Chen, L.-W., & Zhou, Y. 2018, Phys. Rev. C, 98, 054618, 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.054618

    2018 doi

  151. [159]

    2024, Phys

    Wang, S.-P., Wang, R., Ye, J.-T., & Chen, L.-W. 2024, Phys. Rev. C, 109, 054623, 10.1103/PhysRevC.109.054623

    2024 doi

  152. [160]

    2024, Phys

    Wei, S.-N., Feng, Z.-Q., & Jiang, W.-Z. 2024, Phys. Lett. B, 853, 138658, 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138658

    2024

  153. [161]

    1990, Phys

    Weinberg, S. 1990, Phys. Lett. B, 251, 288, 10.1016/0370-2693(90)90938-3

    1990 doi

  154. [162]

    2012, Phys

    Weissenborn, S., Chatterjee, D., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2012, Phys. Rev. C, 85, 065802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.065802

    2012 doi

  155. [163]

    2011, Astrophys

    Weissenborn, S., Sagert, I., Pagliara, G., Hempel, M., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2011, Astrophys. J. Lett., 740, L14, 10.1088/2041-8205/740/1/L14

    2011 doi

  156. [164]

    2009, Phys

    Xiao, Z., Li, B.-A., Chen, L.-W., Yong, G.-C., & Zhang, M. 2009, Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, 062502, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.062502

    2009 doi

  157. [165]

    2013, Phys

    Xie, W.-J., Su, J., Zhu, L., & Zhang, F.-S. 2013, Phys. Lett. B, 718, 1510, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.12.021

    2013 doi

  158. [166]

    2010 a , Phys

    Xu, C., Li, B.-A., & Chen, L.-W. 2010 a , Phys. Rev. C, 82, 054607, 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.054607

    2010 doi

  159. [167]

    M., & Li, B.-A

    Xu, J., Chen, L.-W., Ko, C. M., & Li, B.-A. 2010 b , Phys. Rev. C, 81, 055803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.055803

    2010 doi

  160. [168]

    M., Li, B.-A., & Ma, Y.-G

    Xu, J., Chen, L.-W., Ko, C. M., Li, B.-A., & Ma, Y.-G. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 87, 067601, 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.067601

    2013 doi

  161. [169]

    2009 a , Astrophys

    Xu, J., Chen, L.-W., Li, B.-A., & Ma, H.-R. 2009 a , Astrophys. J., 697, 1549, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1549

    2009 doi

  162. [170]

    2009 b , Phys

    ---. 2009 b , Phys. Rev. C, 79, 035802, 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.035802

    2009 doi

  163. [171]

    2020, Phys

    Xu, J., Zhou, J., Zhang, Z., Xie, W.-J., & Li, B.-A. 2020, Phys. Lett. B, 810, 135820, 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135820

    2020

  164. [172]

    H., Clark, H

    Youngblood, D. H., Clark, H. L., & Lui, Y. W. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, 691, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.691

    1999 doi

  165. [173]

    2022, Phys

    Yue, T.-G., Chen, L.-W., Zhang, Z., & Zhou, Y. 2022, Phys. Rev. Res., 4, L022054, 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.L022054

    2022 doi

  166. [174]

    2019 a , Phys

    Zabari, N., Kubis, S., & W\'ojcik, W. 2019 a , Phys. Rev. C, 99, 035209, 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.035209

    2019 doi

  167. [175]

    2019 b , Phys

    ---. 2019 b , Phys. Rev. C, 100, 015808, 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.015808

    2019 doi

  168. [176]

    L., & Haensel, P

    Zdunik, J. L., & Haensel, P. 2013, Astron. Astrophys., 551, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220697

    2013 doi

  169. [177]

    2019, Eur

    Zhang, N.-B., & Li, B.-A. 2019, Eur. Phys. J. A, 55, 39, 10.1140/epja/i2019-12700-0

    2019 doi

  170. [178]

    2023, Eur

    ---. 2023, Eur. Phys. J. A, 59, 86, 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01010-x

    2023 doi

  171. [179]

    Zhang, Y., Liu, M., Xia, C.-J., Li, Z., & Biswal, S. K. 2020, Phys. Rev. C, 101, 034303, 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.034303

    2020 doi

  172. [180]

    2013, Phys

    Zhang, Z., & Chen, L.-W. 2013, Phys. Lett. B, 726, 234, 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.08.002

    2013 doi

  173. [181]

    2014, Phys

    ---. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 064317, 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.064317

    2014 doi

  174. [182]

    2019, Phys

    ---. 2019, Phys. Rev. C, 100, 044301, 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.044301

    2019 doi

  175. [183]

    2023, Phys

    ---. 2023, Phys. Rev. C, 108, 024317, 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.024317

    2023 doi

  176. [184]

    Zhang, Z., & Ko, C. M. 2017, Phys. Rev. C, 95, 064604, 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.064604

    2017 doi

  177. [185]

    2018, Phys

    ---. 2018, Phys. Rev. C, 98, 054614, 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.054614

    2018 doi

  178. [186]

    2019, Astrophys

    Zhou, Y., & Chen, L.-W. 2019, Astrophys. J., 886, 52, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4adf

    2019 doi

  179. [187]

    2019, Phys

    Zhou, Y., Chen, L.-W., & Zhang, Z. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 121301, 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.121301

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.