Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Non-Radial Oscillation Modes in Hybrid Stars with Hyperons and Delta Baryons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that delta baryons and a quark-matter phase transition shift neutron star f-mode frequencies in composition-dependent ways, and that the Cowling approximation's usual mass-dependent error reverses near the maximum mass…

desk verdict Useful full-GR f-mode maps for delta-admixed hybrid stars, but the phase-transition signature in the Cowling discrepancy looks like an artifact of comparing each model at its own different maximum mass. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12002 v2 pith:DQK52TAM submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.HE hep-phnucl-th

Ishfaq Ahmad Rather , Kau D. Marquez , Prashant Thakur , Odilon Lourenço This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-phnucl-th
keywords neutronstarasteroseismologyf-modeoscillationsCowlingapproximationgeneralrelativisticperturbationshybridstarsdeltabaryonshyperonsquarkmatterphasetransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to establish that the composition of a neutron star's core—hyperons, delta baryons, and a quark-matter core—changes the frequencies of its fundamental non-radial oscillation mode (the f-mode) in ways large enough to matter for gravitational-wave asteroseismology. It computes f-mode frequencies in full general relativity and in the Cowling approximation for four hadronic compositions, each with and without a Maxwell first-order phase transition to quark matter. The central quantitative claims are that the Cowling approximation overestimates f-mode frequencies by 10–30 percent, that this error usually shrinks with stellar mass but grows again near the maximum mass when a phase transition is present, and that delta baryons systematically shift the f-mode frequency and bend the empirical relations connecting it to compactness, average density, and tidal deformability. If these claims hold, observed f-mode frequencies could serve as a diagnostic for delta baryons and quark cores in future detectors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the f-mode, the fundamental quadrupolar fluid oscillation of a neutron star, whose frequency is computed by solving the coupled Einstein-fluid perturbation equations in the Regge-Wheeler gauge for full general relativity, and alternatively with the metric perturbations set to zero, which is the relativistic Cowling approximation. The argument is carried by the equations of state: DDME2, a density-dependent relativistic mean-field model, for the hadronic phase, and DDQM, a density-dependent quark-mass model, for the quark phase, joined by a Maxwell construction at equal pressure and chemical potential. The load-bearing comparison is between the two perturbation schemes across four compositions (nucleons, nucleons plus deltas, nucleons plus hyperons, and nucleons plus hyperons plus deltas), each with and without the phase transition.

What would settle it

One direct test would be to measure the f-mode frequency and compactness of a neutron star near the maximum mass whose equation of state is independently constrained to contain deconfined quark matter, then check whether the full-GR frequency sits below the Cowling prediction by more than the 10–30 percent band and whether the discrepancy is largest at maximum mass. Short of observation, repeating the same calculation with a Gibbs mixed-phase construction or with a different DDQM parameter set would settle whether the near-maximum-mass increase in the Cowling error survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that delta baryons and a hadron-quark phase transition imprint distinct, composition-dependent signatures on the f-mode, and that these signatures survive in universal relations. Using DDME2 for hadronic matter and DDQM for quark matter, the authors construct hybrid equations of state and solve the full perturbed Einstein-fluid equations for the f-mode. They find that at fixed compactness, stars with hyperons and delta baryons oscillate at higher f-mode frequencies than purely nucleonic stars, and that the Cowling-to-GR error, normally decreasing with mass, rises by a few percent near maximum mass only when a quark core is present. The relations between f-mode frequency and compactness, average density, and tidal deformability deviate from earlier nucleonic and hyperonic fits, and the deviations are attributed to delta baryons. Above a tidal deformability of roughly 300, the frequencies converge across all compositions, so the discriminating power is confined to compact, low-deformability stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hadron-quark transition is a sharp first-order change at a single pressure, using the two specific quark-model parameter sets the paper picks; if a different transition prescription or different parameters are used, the phase-transition signature in the f-mode trends could change or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the phase-transition signature is real, asteroseismology of a neutron star near the maximum mass requires full general relativity, because the Cowling approximation's error grows just where the quark core matters.
  • Observed f-mode frequencies, combined with independent compactness or tidal-deformability measurements, could distinguish stars containing delta baryons from purely nucleonic stars.
  • The new empirical fits for mass-scaled and radius-scaled frequencies replace older fits that omit delta baryons, changing the dense-matter properties inferred from a measured frequency.
  • Because f-mode frequencies converge for tidal deformability above roughly 300, the proposed composition diagnostics work best for compact, low-deformability systems such as the massive star in a merger remnant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the near-maximum-mass rise in the Cowling error is tested only for two DDQM parameter pairs; repeating the calculation with a Gibbs mixed-phase construction or other parameter values could weaken or erase that signature, so it should be read as conditional on the Maxwell construction.
  • Beyond the paper, the convergence of f-mode frequencies above a tidal deformability of about 300 implies that future detectors may need targeted searches in the low-deformability, high-mass regime rather than broad surveys.
  • Beyond the paper, the same DDME2 plus DDQM machinery could be extended to g-modes or gravitational-wave damping times, where composition gradients from a mixed phase might produce larger signatures than the f-mode.
  • Beyond the paper, testing the fitted universal relations against independent families of hadronic equations of state, with different symmetry-energy behavior, would show whether the delta-baryon shift is a genuine universal feature or an artifact of the DDME2 model family.
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. This paper computes l=2 f-mode eigenfrequencies for non-rotating neutron stars in full general relativity and in the relativistic Cowling approximation, using four hadronic compositions (nucleonic, with Delta baryons, with hyperons, and with both) together with hybrid stars constructed by a Maxwell transition to the DDQM quark phase. The TOV and Lindblom-Detweiler equations are solved for the DDME2 hadronic EoS, and the authors report Cowling/GR discrepancies of about 10-30%, mass-frequency trends, tidal-deformability behavior, and empirical fits/universal relations connecting f-mode frequencies to average density, compactness, and tidal deformability. The central interpretive claims are that the Cowling discrepancy increases near maximum mass when a phase transition is present, and that Delta baryons systematically shift f-mode frequencies and modify universal relations.

Significance. If the results are taken at face value, the paper would extend f-mode asteroseismology to hybrid stars with Delta baryons in full GR, a combination not previously tabulated, and would provide useful empirical fits for gravitational-wave data analysis. The numerical machinery is standard, and the reported Cowling/GR percentages are consistent with earlier studies, which is a useful check on the implementation. The paper is also careful to present tables of masses, radii, tidal deformabilities, and frequencies. However, the headline phase-transition signature is currently based on comparisons at different terminal masses, and the model sampling (one SU(6) coupling choice and two DDQM parameter pairs) is too narrow to support the paper's robustness statements. These issues are fixable but require additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.2, Table IV] The abstract and Sec. VI claim that, for EoSs with a phase transition, the Cowling/GR discrepancy 'increases by a few percent' near maximum mass relative to EoSs without a phase transition. Table IV does not establish this: at fixed masses of 1.40 and 1.80 solar masses, the with- and without-phase-transition rows are essentially identical (e.g., N: 27.03% and 23.46% for both; N+H: 22.23% vs 22.27% at 1.80 solar masses). The apparent increase appears only when comparing each model at its own maximum mass, where the masses differ (N without PT: 11.93% at 2.46 solar masses; N with PT: 17.43% at 2.29 solar masses). Since the discrepancy decreases steeply with mass, this comparison at different masses is not a controlled phase-transition signature. Please provide a fixed-stellar-mass comparison, or an interpolation of the without-PT curves to the hybrid maximum masses, and revise the abstract and conclusions accordingly; with that correction the claimed effect may be substantially smaller or absent for some compositions.
  2. [Sec. II.1.2, Table III, Sec. VI] The robustness statement in Sec. VI, that reasonable variations in DDQM parameters do not significantly affect the universal relations, is not supported by the presented sampling. Only two parameter pairs are used, and they are not varied for a fixed hadronic composition: N and N+Delta use (C,D^{1/2})=(0.90,125 MeV), while N+H and N+H+Delta use (0.65,133 MeV). Because the position of the Maxwell transition (Eqs. (22)-(24)) is highly sensitive to these parameters, as the paper itself notes, the differences between hybrid models cannot be separated from differences in quark-model parameters, and no Gibbs-construction alternative is considered. A direct scan of (C,D^{1/2}) for at least one hadronic EoS is needed before the claimed robustness and the phase-transition trends can be evaluated.
  3. [Sec. II.1.1, Table II] The conclusion that Delta baryons 'systematically shift' f-mode frequencies and modify universal relations rests on a single coupling choice, the unbroken SU(6) scheme with alpha_V=1.0 and U_Delta=-98 MeV. The Delta-meson couplings are not tightly constrained by experiment, and the paper gives no sensitivity test to alpha_V or to the adopted hyperon potentials. I ask the authors either to add a second coupling prescription or to soften the 'systematic' claim so that it is explicitly a prediction of this particular coupling scheme.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (37)] The denominator 'c^4 f' in the definition of Q(r) contains an undefined symbol f; this appears to be a typographical error.
  2. [Tables III and IV] The DDQM parameter pair is sometimes labeled '(0.90,1.25)'; for consistency with the text it should read '(0.90,125)' with units MeV.
  3. [Sec. IV.1] The text refers to 'PSR J0740-220', but the intended pulsar is PSR J0740+6620; please correct the typo.
  4. [Sec. V] The statement that the difference from earlier fits 'highlights the impact of Delta baryons' is not fully controlled, because the comparison is made across different hadronic models and different fit ranges; please temper this attribution or include a controlled comparison.
  5. [Appendix VIII.1] The sentence about omitting a term 'in Eq. (38)' appears to refer to the wrong equation; please correct the cross-reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: f-mode frequencies are computed from standard GR/Cowling perturbation equations, and the universal relations are explicit fits to those computed values.

full rationale

The f-mode frequencies are obtained by solving the full GR perturbation system (Eqs. 33-36) and the relativistic Cowling system (Eqs. 44-47); they are not inferred from the universal relations or from the EoS inputs in a way that assumes the oscillation results. The universal relations in Sec. V are explicitly empirical fits (Eqs. 41-43) with fitted coefficients reported in Tables V-VII, not first-principles predictions. The hadronic and quark EoS parameters are inherited from the authors' prior work (Refs. [47,61]) and selected to satisfy coexistence and astrophysical constraints, but those papers did not determine f-mode behavior or the claimed deviations in universal relations, so the self-citations are ordinary model-input choices rather than load-bearing circular evidence. The main caveat is that the phase-transition 'increase' in the Cowling-GR discrepancy is read off at each model's own maximum mass in Table IV; at fixed 1.4 and 1.8 solar masses the with- and without-PT rows are essentially identical, so the claimed effect is confounded by evaluating different stellar masses. This is a comparison-design/correctness limitation, not a circular derivation: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no oscillation result is assumed by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical results rest on a chain of model choices imported from prior literature: DDME2 hadronic couplings fitted to nuclear data, an SU(6)-inspired baryon coupling scheme with alpha_V=1.0, a DDQM quark model with two hand-picked parameter sets, and a Maxwell first-order construction. The empirical universal relations add four sets of fitted coefficients. The paper provides no code or machine-readable data, and no independent cross-check of the oscillation solver. These model choices are not circular in the logical sense, but they are inherited and selected, not derived.

free parameters (4)
  • DDME2 meson-baryon couplings and density dependence = Table I: g_sigmaN(n0)=10.5396, g_omegaN(n0)=13.0189, g_rhoN(n0)=7.3672, with density-dependent parameters a_i, b_i…
    The hadronic EoS stiffness, maximum mass, and all oscillation frequencies depend on these couplings, which were fitted in earlier work to nuclear binding energies, radii, and saturation properties. The paper imports them as fixed inputs.
  • Baryon-meson coupling ratio alpha_V (SU(6) scheme for hyperons and deltas) = 1.0
    Sets the chi_ib values in Table II, including U_Delta = -98 MeV. The only free parameter of the coupling scheme; different alpha_V would change the softening and the claimed delta-baryon frequency shifts.
  • DDQM quark-model parameters (C, D^{1/2}) = (0.90, 125 MeV) for hybrid N and N+Delta; (0.65, 133 MeV) for hybrid N+H and N+H+Delta
    Chosen to produce a coexistence point with the hadronic EoS and to exclude strange-star-stable parameter sets. The paper tests only these two pairs; the transition density and post-transition EoS are highly sensitive to them.
  • Empirical fit coefficients a and b in Eqs. (41)-(43) = Tables V-VII; for Eq. (41) GR fits, a=0.44, b=1.72 kHz (no phase transition) and a=0.39, b=1.79 kHz (with phase…
    The universal and empirical relations are least-squares fits to the computed frequencies; the claimed deviations from previous fits are differences between these fitted coefficients and earlier fits. No fit uncertainties are reported.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Cold (T=0) beta-equilibrated, charge-neutral stellar matter.
    Used throughout Section II to solve chemical equilibrium and TOV equations; thermal and rotation effects are ignored.
  • domain assumption Hadron-quark deconfinement is a first-order Maxwell transition with local charge conservation.
    Section II.1.3; the alternative Gibbs mixed phase would give a different hybrid EoS and different frequency-mass behavior.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic sound speed c_ad^2 equals equilibrium sound speed dp/depsilon for oscillations.
    Section III.1 states c_ad^2 is approximated by c_eq^2 = dp/depsilon following references [30,34]; composition-relaxation effects on the mode are neglected.
  • standard math The Cowling and full-GR perturbation equations (Lindblom-Detweiler and Zerilli) and the Regge-Wheeler even-parity decomposition are correct for non-rotating stars.
    Section III uses these standard equations; no derivation or machine-checking is provided.
  • domain assumption Static, spherically symmetric background metric with l=2 f-mode perturbations is the relevant regime.
    Sections II.2 and III; rotation, magnetic fields, and higher multipoles are ignored.
  • domain assumption Delta baryons are described by a Rarita-Schwinger Lagrangian simplified to spin-1/2-like equations within the RMF framework.
    Section II.1.1, citing reference [57]; this model choice affects the onset densities and the softening.
  • domain assumption Quark matter is described by the density-dependent quark mass model with thermodynamic consistency via rearrangement terms.
    Section II.1.2; the quark EoS and phase-transition point depend on this specific model.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen DDQM parameters avoid the Bodmer-Witten hypothesis and produce a hadron-quark coexistence point for all hadronic compositions.
    Sections II.1.2 and VI; only two parameter sets are considered, and the authors acknowledge the transition point is highly sensitive to them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Radial Oscillation Modes in Hybrid Stars with Hyperons and Delta Baryons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DQK52TAM

@misc{pith2026241212002,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Radial Oscillation Modes in Hybrid Stars with Hyperons and Delta Baryons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DQK52TAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12002}
}
abstract

We study the effects of hyperons, delta baryons, and quark matter phase transitions on $f$-mode oscillations in neutron stars. Using the density-dependent relativistic mean-field model (DDME2) for the hadronic phase and the density-dependent quark mass (DDQM) model for the quark phase, we construct hadronic and hybrid equations of state (EoSs) consistent with astrophysical constraints. Including hyperons and delta baryons soften the EoS, reducing maximum mass, while phase transition to the quark matter further softens the EoS, decreasing the speed of sound and hence the maximum mass. We confirm the well-known overestimation of $f$-mode frequencies by the Cowling approximation (by about 10-30\%) compared to full General Relativity calculation, and show that this discrepancy persists across models including hyperons, $\Delta$ baryons, and a phase transition to quark matter. While the discrepancy generally decreases with stellar mass, it increases near the maximum mass in the presence of a phase transition compared to EoSs without this phenomenology. We derive universal relations connecting the frequencies of the $f$-mode to the average density, compactness, and tidal deformability, finding significant deviations due to hyperons and delta baryons. These deviations could provide distinct observational signatures in gravitational wave data, offering new insights into dense matter physics and advancing gravitational wave asteroseismology of neutron star interiors. Empirical relations for mass-scaled and radius-scaled frequencies are also provided, highlighting the importance of GR calculations for accurate modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12002 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy density and pressure variation for the given DD-ME2 parameter set without (left) and with (right) phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Speed of sound squared as a function of number density for the different hadronic compositions of EoS without (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Left: Mass-Radius relation for the EoS with different hadronic compositions. The solid lines represent the stable part [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dimensionless tidal deformability as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: illustrates the variation of f-mode frequencies with compactness (C), i.e., the f–C relation, for EoS with different compositions. The solid lines represent results without phase transitions, while the dashed lines represent results with a phase transition to quark mat…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dimensionless tidal deformability (Λ) vs fundamental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Average density of the star vs fundamental frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Stellar compactness vs the angular frequency ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: presents the f-mode frequency as a function of stellar compactness computed under the relativistic Cowling approximation. Compared to the full GR results shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Same as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Reaction-constrained composition \(g\)-modes in neutron stars with antikaon condensates, hyperons, and \(\Delta(1232)\) resonances

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Antikaon condensates create a distinct composition g-mode that survives fast kaon equilibration, while strong Delta equilibration suppresses the Delta-driven mode except where a frozen Lambda gradient survives.

  2. Examining the influence of anisotropy on the fundamental mode of nonradial oscillation in neutron stars on a complete general relativistic scheme

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pressure anisotropy in strange quark stars measurably changes the f-mode oscillation frequency and the dimensionless tidal deformability, with positive anisotropy increasing mass and deformability while lowering the f...

  3. Role of density profile of sub-GeV dark matter in the properties of dark matter admixed quark stars with Bayesian analysis of dark-NJL model

    hep-ph 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A model of quark stars with a variable dark matter density profile claims sub-GeV dark matter can satisfy all current compact star constraints.

  4. Effect of Dark matter and $\sigma$-cut potential on radial and non-radial oscillation modes in neutron stars

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Dark matter-admixed neutron stars oscillate at higher f- and p1-mode frequencies than ordinary or σ-cut models, while quasi-universal oscillation relations still hold.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    For very high densities, perturbative QCD findings anticipate an upper limit of c2 s = 1 /3 [ 89]. The two solar mass requirements, according to several studies [ 89– 91], necessitates a speed of sound squared that exceeds the conformal limit ( c2 s = 1/3), revealing that the matter inside of NS is a highly interacting system. In Figure 2, the c2 s for pu...

    1998

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott and R. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    The particle populations of each individual species are determined by Eq

    (7) The effective chemical potentials read µ∗ b = µb − gωbω0 − gρbI3bρ03 − gϕbϕ0 − Σr, (8) where Σ r is the rearrangement term, necessary to en- sure thermodynamical consistency due to the density- dependent couplings, Σr = X b " ∂gωb ∂nb ω0nb + ∂gρb ∂nb ρ03I3bnb + ∂gϕb ∂nb ϕ0nb − ∂gσb ∂nb σ0ns b # , (9) and the µb are determined by the chemical equilibri...

    2000

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbott and R. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Punturo et al

    M. Punturo et al. , Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Sathyaprakash et al

    B. Sathyaprakash et al. , Bull. Am. Astron. Soc 51, 251 (2019)

    2019

  8. [9]

    Kalogera et al

    V. Kalogera et al. , arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2111.06990 (2021), arXiv:2111.06990 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 118 references
  1. [10]

    Bombaci, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics (HYP2015 (2017) p

    I. Bombaci, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics (HYP2015 (2017) p. 101002

    2017

  2. [11]

    Xiang and G

    H. Xiang and G. Hua, Phys. Rev. C 67, 038801 (2003)

    2003

  3. [12]

    J. J. Li, A. Sedrakian, and F. Weber, Physics Letters B 783, 234–240 (2018)

    2018

  4. [13]

    Malfatti, M

    G. Malfatti, M. G. Orsaria, I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, G. A. Contrera, and F. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063008 (2020)

    2020

  5. [14]

    Malfatti, M

    G. Malfatti, M. G. Orsaria, I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, G. A. Contrera, and F. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063008 (2020), arXiv:2008.06459 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [15]

    J. J. Li, A. Sedrakian, and F. Weber, Phys. Lett. B 783, 234–240 (2018), arXiv:1803.03661 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [16]

    A. R. Raduta, Phys. Lett. B 814, 136070 (2021), arXiv:2101.03718 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Gondek, P

    D. Gondek, P. Haensel, and J. L. Zdunik, Astron. As- trophys. 325, 217–227 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9705157

    1997 arXiv

  9. [18]

    K. D. Marquez, D. P. Menezes, H. Pais, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C 106, 055801 (2022), arXiv:2206.02935 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [19]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Nature Astronomy 4, 625–632 (2020)

    2020

  11. [20]

    Chirenti, M

    C. Chirenti, M. C. Miller, T. Strohmayer, and J. Camp, The Astrophys. J. Lett. 884, L16 (2019)

    2019

  12. [21]

    Passamonti, M

    A. Passamonti, M. Bruni, L. Gualtieri, A. Nagar, and C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev. D 73, 084010 (2006)

    2006

  13. [22]

    Passamonti, N

    A. Passamonti, N. Stergioulas, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084038 (2007)

    2007

  14. [23]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061104 (2019)

    2019

  15. [24]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 2 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9909058

    1999 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Benhar, V

    O. Benhar, V. Ferrari, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124015 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407529

    2004 arXiv

  17. [26]

    P. C. Mock and P. C. Joss, The Astrophysical Journal 500, 374 (1998)

    1998

  18. [27]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. , Prog. Th. Exp. Phys. 2022 (2022), 10.1093/ptep/ptac073

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Ferrari, G

    V. Ferrari, G. Miniutti, and J. A. Pons, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 342, 629 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210581

    2003 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo,, KA- GRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. 966, 137 (2024), arXiv:2210.10931 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [30]

    K. D. Kokkotas, T. A. Apostolatos, and N. Anders- son, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 320, 307–315 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/9901072

    2001 arXiv

  22. [31]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. 874, 163 (2019), arXiv:1902.01557 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [32]

    H. K. Lau, P. T. Leung, and L. M. Lin, Astrophys. J. 714, 1234–1238 (2010), arXiv:0911.0131 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Kunjipurayil, T

    A. Kunjipurayil, T. Zhao, B. Kumar, B. K. Agrawal, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063005 (2022), arXiv:2205.02081 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 299, 1059–1068 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9711088

    1998 arXiv

  26. [35]

    B. K. Pradhan and D. Chatterjee, Phys. Rev. C 103, 035810 (2021), arXiv:2011.02204 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [36]

    T. K. Chan, Y.-H. Sham, P. T. Leung, and L.-M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124023 (2014)

    2014

  28. [37]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123002 (2022), arXiv:2204.03037 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [38]

    I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, O. M. Guilera, M. Mariani, and M. G. Orsaria, JCAP 12, 031 (2018), arXiv:1807.02166 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [39]

    D. G. Roy, T. Malik, S. Bhattacharya, and S. Banik, Astrophys. J. 968, 124 (2024), arXiv:2312.02061 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Maiti and D

    R. Maiti and D. Chatterjee, (2024), arXiv:2412.04373 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  32. [41]

    D. Dey, J. A. Pattnaik, R. N. Panda, M. Bhuyan, and S. K. Patra, (2024), arXiv:2412.06739 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123006 (2021), arXiv:2109.01851 [nucl- th]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Thakur, T

    P. Thakur, T. Malik, A. Das, T. K. Jha, B. K. Sharma, and C. Providˆ encia, (2024), arXiv:2408.03780 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Barman, B

    N. Barman, B. K. Pradhan, and D. Chatterjee, (2024), arXiv:2408.00739 [astro-ph.HE]. 19

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    P. J. Kalita, P. Routaray, S. Ghosh, B. Kumar, and B. K. Agrawal, JCAP 04, 065 (2024), arXiv:2308.09008 [nucl-th]

    2024

  37. [46]

    B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, M. Lanoye, and P. Jaiku- mar, Phys. Rev. C 106, 015805 (2022), arXiv:2203.03141 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [47]

    I. A. Rather, K. D. Marquez, B. C. Backes, G. Pan- otopoulos, and I. Lopes, JCAP 05, 130 (2024), arXiv:2401.07789 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [48]

    B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, and D. E. Alvarez- Castillo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531, 4640–4655 (2024), arXiv:2309.08775 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    I. A. Rather, K. D. Marquez, G. Panotopoulos, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123022 (2023), arXiv:2303.11006 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    S. Sen, S. Kumar, A. Kunjipurayi, P. Routaray, T. Zhao, and B. Kumar, (2022), arXiv:2205.02076 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    H.-B. Li, Y. Gao, L. Shao, R.-X. Xu, and R. Xu, MNRAS 516, 6172–6179 (2022)

    2022

  43. [52]

    Kokkotas, K. D. and Ruoff, J., A&A 366, 565–572 (2001)

    2001

  44. [53]

    Routray, H

    P. Routray, H. C. Das, S. Sen, B. Kumar, G. Panotopou- los, and T. Zhao, (2022), arXiv:2211.12808 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Sagun, G

    V. Sagun, G. Panotopoulos, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063025 (2020)

    2020

  46. [55]

    Panotopoulos and I

    G. Panotopoulos and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083001 (2018)

    2018

  47. [56]

    Malik, M

    T. Malik, M. Ferreira, B. K. Agrawal, and C. Providˆ encia, Astrophys. J.930, 17 (2022)

    2022

  48. [57]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. Avancini, B. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, S. Typel, and J. Stone, Physical Review C 90, 055203 (2014)

    2014

  49. [58]

    Louren¸ co, M

    O. Louren¸ co, M. Dutra, C. H. Lenzi, C. V. Flores, and D. P. Menezes, Physical Review C 99, 045202 (2019)

    2019

  50. [59]

    Brockmann and H

    R. Brockmann and H. Toki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3408– 3411 (1992)

    1992

  51. [60]

    M. G. de Paoli, D. P. Menezes, L. B. Castro, and C. C. Barros, Jr, J. Phys. G 40, 055007 (2013), arXiv:1207.4063 [math-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  53. [62]

    Issifu, K

    A. Issifu, K. D. Marquez, M. R. Pelicer, and D. P. Menezes, (2023), arXiv:2302.04364 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [63]

    G. A. Lalazissis, T. Nikˇ si´ c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 71, 024312 (2005)

    2005

  55. [64]

    L. L. Lopes, K. D. Marquez, and D. P. Menezes, Physical Review D 107, 036011 (2023)

    2023

  56. [65]

    C. J. Xia, G. X. Peng, S. W. Chen, Z. Y. Lu, and J. F. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 89, 105027 (2014)

    2014

  57. [66]

    Typel and H

    S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. A 656, 331–364 (1999)

    1999

  58. [67]

    Fuchs, H

    C. Fuchs, H. Lenske, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C 52, 3043–3060 (1995)

    1995

  59. [68]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272–285 (1984)

    1984

  60. [69]

    B. C. T. Backes, K. D. Marquezb, and D. P. Menezes, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 229 (2021), arXiv:2103.14733 [nucl- th]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [70]

    A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D 4, 1601–1606 (1971)

    1971

  62. [71]

    Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Nature 443, 675–678 (2006), arXiv:hep- lat/0611014

    2006

  63. [72]

    B. C. Backes, E. Hafemann, I. Marzola, and D. P. Menezes, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 48, 055104 (2021)

    2021

  64. [73]

    Nagata, Prog

    K. Nagata, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103991 (2022), arXiv:2108.12423 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D 96, 074510 (2017), arXiv:1708.04897 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [75]

    X. Luo, S. Shi, N. Xu, and Y. Zhang, Particles 3, 278– 307 (2020), arXiv:2004.00789 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , Phys. Rev. D 95, 054504 (2017), arXiv:1701.04325 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Maruyama, S

    T. Maruyama, S. Chiba, H.-J. Schulze, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 123015 (2007), arXiv:0708.3277 [nucl- th]

    2007 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2011), arXiv:1005.4814 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  70. [79]

    D. N. Voskresensky, M. Yasuhira, and T. Tatsumi, Nucl. Phys. A 723, 291–339 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0208067

    2003 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Lugones and A

    G. Lugones and A. G. Grunfeld, Phys. Rev. C 95, 015804 (2017), arXiv:1610.05875 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  72. [81]

    M. B. Pinto, V. Koch, and J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. C 86, 025203 (2012), arXiv:1207.5186 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Lugones, A

    G. Lugones, A. G. Grunfeld, and M. Al Ajmi, Phys. Rev. C 88, 045803 (2013), arXiv:1308.1452 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [83]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374–381 (1939)

    1939

  75. [84]

    Lugones and A

    G. Lugones and A. G. Grunfeld, Phys. Rev. C 99, 035804 (2019), arXiv:1811.09954 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [85]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364–373 (1939)

    1939

  77. [86]

    Lindblom and S

    L. Lindblom and S. L. Detweiler, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 53, 73–92 (1983)

    1983

  78. [87]

    Chanmugam, Astrophys

    G. Chanmugam, Astrophys. J. 217, 799–808 (1977)

    1977

  79. [88]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 737–738 (1970)

    1970

  80. [89]

    Bedaque and A

    P. Bedaque and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 031103 (2015)

    2015

  81. [90]

    S. L. Detweiler and L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J. 292, 12–15 (1985)

    1985

  82. [91]

    K. D. Marquez, D. P. Menezes, H. Pais, and C. m. c. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C106, 055801 (2022)

    2022

  83. [92]

    Bedaque and A

    P. Bedaque and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 031103 (2015), arXiv:1408.5116 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  84. [93]

    C. C. Moustakidis, T. Gaitanos, C. Margaritis, and G. A. Lalazissis, Phys. Rev. C 95, 045801 (2017)

    2017

  85. [94]

    I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, and S. Reddy, The Astrophys. J. 860, 149 (2018)

    2018

  86. [95]

    M. C. Miller et al. , Astrophys. J. 887, L24 (2019)

    2019

  87. [96]

    M. C. Miller et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 918, L28 (2021)

    2021

  88. [97]

    T. E. Riley et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 918, L27 (2021)

    2021

  89. [98]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299–317 (1971)

    1971

  90. [99]

    T. E. Riley et al. , Astrophys. J. 887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  91. [100]

    Choudhury et al

    D. Choudhury et al. , The Astrophysical Journal Letters 971, L20 (2024)

    2024

  92. [101]

    I. A. Rather, A. Usmani, and S. Patra, Nuclear Physics A 1010, 122189 (2021)

    2021

  93. [102]

    S. S. Avancini, L. Brito, J. R. Marinelli, D. P. Menezes, M. M. W. de Moraes, C. Providˆ encia, and A. M. Santos, Phys. Rev. C 79, 035804 (2009)

    2009

  94. [103]

    Pais and C

    H. Pais and C. m. c. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C 94, 015808 (2016)

    2016

  95. [104]

    G. F. Burgio, V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044017 (2011), arXiv:1106.2736 [astro- ph.SR]

    2011 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020)

    2020

  97. [106]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. C 95, 015801 (2017)

    2017

  98. [107]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, L. M. Gonz´ alez-Romero, and F. Navarro-L´ erida, Phys. Rev. D 89, 044006 (2014), 20 arXiv:1307.1063 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4134–4137 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9610035

    1996 arXiv

  100. [109]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: Nuclear physics, particle physics, and general relativity (1997)

    1997

  101. [110]

    D. D. Doneva, E. Gaertig, K. D. Kokkotas, and C. Kr¨ uger, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044052 (2013), arXiv:1305.7197 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  102. [111]

    Shirke, B

    S. Shirke, B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, L. Sagun- ski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063025 (2024), arXiv:2403.18740 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  103. [112]

    H. C. Das, A. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123006 (2021)

    2021

  104. [113]

    Sotani, N

    H. Sotani, N. Yasutake, T. Maruyama, and T. Tat- sumi, Physical Review D 83 (2011), 10.1103/phys- revd.83.024014

    2011 doi

  105. [114]

    by systematically analyzing the impact of ∆ baryons on neutron star oscillations. Unlike previous works, which 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.275 0.300 M/R 80 100 120 140 160ωR (kHz km) N (0.90, 125) N + ∆ (0.90, 125) N + H (0.65, 133) N + H + ∆ (0.65, 133) Fit w ...

    2021

  106. [115]

    Benhar, V

    O. Benhar, V. Ferrari, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124015 (2004)

    2004

  107. [116]

    Wen, B.-A

    D.-H. Wen, B.-A. Li, H.-Y. Chen, and N.-B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 045806 (2019)

    2019

  108. [117]

    B. K. Pradhan and D. Chatterjee, Phys. Rev. C 103, 035810 (2021)

    2021

  109. [118]

    P. N. McDermott, H. M. van Horn, and J. F. Scholl, Astrophys. J. 268, 837–848 (1983)

    1983

  110. [119]

    T. Zhao, C. Constantinou, P. Jaikumar, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103025 (2022), arXiv:2202.01403 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.