Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Recurring region for neutron-star observables

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Minimizing the average sound speed from the start of quark deconfinement to the center of a star makes otherwise different hybrid equations of state cross at the same small recurring region in mass-radius and mass-tidal deformability…

desk verdict A genuinely new selection rule for hybrid EoSs, but the universality claim outruns the evidence and the interpolation-error caveat needs to be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.24069 v1 pith:FRJBUDKJ submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.HE nucl-th

Alexander Clevinger , Zidu Lin , Milena Albino , Peter Hammond , Veronica Dexheimer , Andrew Steiner This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEnucl-th PACS 97.60.Jd26.60.Kp
keywords neutronstarhybridquarkdeconfinementpercolationmass-radiusdiagramtidaldeformabilityspeedofsoundequationstate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a recurring-region phenomenon in the observable curves of hybrid neutron stars, stars whose interiors pass from hadronic matter to deconfined quark matter. The authors build dense-matter equations of state by inserting a percolation region between realistic hadronic and quark models, and they find that for a chosen stellar mass, minimizing the average squared sound speed from the beginning of that region to the star's center sends the mass-radius and mass-tidal deformability curves through the same small region, independent of the percolation's size, its boundary conditions, or whether the transitions at its edges are second or third order. If the claim holds, it gives a practical recipe for producing hybrid equations of state that match a measured neutron-star mass and radius or a merger mass and tidal deformability without fixing the details of the deconfinement transition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the percolation region, a fifth-order polynomial in baryon chemical potential spliced between a hadronic equation of state and a quark equation of state by matching pressure and its first (and sometimes second) derivatives at the boundaries, with the baryon susceptibility $\chi^B_2$ left free on each side. The selection rule is the average squared sound speed $c^2_{avg}=(P_c-P_H)/(\epsilon_c-\epsilon_H)$, measured from the start of the percolation region to the center of a star of fixed mass; minimizing it with respect to the two boundary susceptibilities picks out the equations of state that pass through the recurring region. The appendix writes the minimum as the point where the ratio of the changes in central pressure and central energy density equals $c^2_{avg}$, so the mechanism is a balancing of pressure and energy-density growth at the star's center.

What would settle it

Recompute the mass-radius curves and $c^2_{avg}$ for the percolated equations of state shown in Fig. 1 using a high-accuracy Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff solver with much finer pressure-density interpolation, and check whether the minima marked by red dots persist and whether the curves still cluster at the recurring region; if the minima shift by more than the roughly 0.2 to 0.8 km spread reported there, the recurring region is numerical rather than physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's terms, is that no matter the size or characteristics of the percolation region, or the order of the phase transition on either side, minimizing the average squared sound speed $c^2_{avg}=(P_c-P_H)/(\epsilon_c-\epsilon_H)$ from the beginning of the percolation region to the central density of a given star produces equations of state that cross through the same small recurring region in mass-radius and mass-tidal deformability diagrams. The paper shows this for two realistic model combinations (CMF-7 and DD2F-NJL), for second- and third-order transitions at the percolation boundaries, and for different percolation density ranges, with recurring regions appearing near 1.5 solar masses and near 1.8 solar masses. Curves whose boundary susceptibilities are not near the minimum of $c^2_{avg}$ miss the recurring region, which the paper reads as evidence that the minimum, rather than the specific microscopic model, is what controls the crossing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the minima of $c^2_{avg}$ and the recurring region are genuine features of the constructed equations of state rather than artifacts of the interpolation inside the mass-radius solver.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • This gives a direct way to build hybrid equations of state aimed at a specific observed star: choose a hadronic model that puts the recurring region at the desired radius, then minimize $c^2_{avg}$ at the observed mass.
  • Because the same recurring region appears for second- and third-order boundaries and for different percolation sizes, the location of the region does not by itself reveal the order or width of the quark-deconfinement transition.
  • For a fixed stellar mass, many different microscopic parameter choices produce almost identical radius and tidal deformability, so simulations using such equations of state could compare merger dynamics while holding the macroscopic observables fixed.
  • If the method is applied to a future measurement, the observed mass-radius or mass-tidal point can be reproduced by multiple percolated equations of state, and the paper argues the matching ones are those with nearly minimal $c^2_{avg}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the recurring region persists across a wider set of hadronic and quark models, then a single observed point in the mass-radius plane may constrain only the average sound speed across the transition, not the microscopic mechanism of deconfinement.
  • The paper shows that a softer hadronic side lowers the radius of the recurring region; an extension would be to scan a family of hadronic equations of state with systematically varied stiffness and check that the recurring-region radius moves monotonically with that stiffness.
  • The minimization recipe suggests a Bayesian reformulation in which observational data act as a prior on $c^2_{avg}$ rather than on individual equation-of-state parameters; the paper's exploratory scan stops short of such an analysis.
  • Because the recurring region appears in both mass-radius and mass-tidal deformability diagrams, a simultaneous measurement of both observables for one star could test the size of the region more sharply than either diagram alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs hybrid neutron-star equations of state by inserting a fifth-order polynomial 'percolation' region between fixed hadronic and quark EoSs, with boundary conditions that fix first or second derivatives (second- or third-order transitions) and with freely varied second-order baryon susceptibilities. Solving the TOV and tidal-perturbation equations, the authors find that for a fixed stellar mass, EoSs that minimize the average speed of sound squared from the hadronic boundary of the percolation to the center (Eq. 3) cross a small, recurring region in the mass-radius and mass-tidal-deformability diagrams, independent of the percolation density boundaries and transition order. The phenomenon is demonstrated for the CMF-7 and DD2F-NJL hadronic models at masses 1.554 and 1.8 solar masses, and the authors propose minimizing c_avg^2 as a recipe for generating hybrid EoSs that match given neutron-star observations.

Significance. If the correlation is robust, the paper provides a simple, falsifiable selection rule for hybrid EoSs: minimize c_avg^2 to place a star of given mass in a universal recurring region. This is potentially useful for constructing EoS ensembles for merger simulations and for interpreting future NICER and gravitational-wave measurements, and the paper honestly labels itself exploratory and lists its limitations. The central strength is the concreteness of the recipe and the explicit map between percolation parameters (chi_2^{B,H}, chi_2^{B,Q}) and stellar radius. The main weaknesses are the lack of demonstrated numerical robustness of the minima and the limited model/parameter coverage, both of which are acknowledged in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Conclusions and Outlook] The paper states that 'the interpolation error in the mass-radius curves can propagate into both the numerator and denominator of the speed of sound average' and calls for a more robust TOV solver. Because the recurring region is defined by radius spreads as small as 0.1 km (Fig. 3) and the c_avg^2 minima are computed from the same interpolated TOV output, the paper does not yet establish that the minima (and the resulting recurring region) are physical rather than numerical artifacts. Please provide a convergence test (e.g., increasing the number of EoS tabulation points or using an independent, higher-order TOV integrator) and propagate the resulting uncertainty onto the location of the minima and the radius scatter of the recurring region.
  2. [Section 3 and Abstract] The abstract claims the recurring region appears 'no matter the size or characteristics of the percolation region, or the order of the phase transition on either side.' The systematic minimization of c_avg^2 is, however, carried out only for second-order transitions with freely varied chi_2; the third-order case enters only as a single fixed curve (the blue curve in Fig. 1) and is never optimized. The exploration covers two hadronic models, one quark model each, a few density boundaries, and two masses. Please either broaden the demonstration (additional models, masses, and an explicit scan over third-order-compatible parameters) or soften the 'no matter' claim to 'for the models and parameter ranges explored.'
  3. [Section 3, first paragraph] The EoSs displayed in Fig. 1 were selected with an explicit small-radius constraint (R < ~13.5 km) in addition to the recurring-region condition. This selection makes it difficult to rule out that the c_avg^2 minima coincide with the recurring region partly because both are correlated with the imposed radius cut. Please test the recipe without the radius constraint, e.g., by generating EoSs that minimize c_avg^2 for a wider range of hadronic models and checking whether their radii still cluster independently of the input constraint; this would directly test the claimed independence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] 'a new phenomena' should be 'a new phenomenon'.
  2. [Section 3, second paragraph] The text 'n_BH = 0.30 fm^{-1}' and 'n_BQ = 1.20 fm^{-1}' should read fm^{-3}; also the subscript notation n_BH/n_BQ is inconsistent with n_B,H/n_B,Q used elsewhere.
  3. [Section 4] 'CMF 1-7 EoSs' is likely a typo for 'CMF-7 EoSs' and should match the naming used in Section 2.
  4. [Equation (3)] Please state explicitly that P_H and epsilon_H are evaluated at the hadronic boundary of the percolation region for the chosen stellar mass, and specify the units used in the definition of c_avg^2.
  5. [Section 4, code availability] The code availability statement says scripts 'will be made available upon publication'; since the paper is under review, the absence of a link prevents direct verification of the tables and figures. A preprint version of the scripts (or a repository with a stable identifier) would strengthen the reproducibility of the claimed minima.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the recurring-region recipe is an empirical correlation with independently defined inputs.

full rationale

The central claim is that minimizing c_avg^2, defined in Eq. (3) as (P_c - P_H)/(epsilon_c - epsilon_H), selects hybrid EoSs that pass through a small recurring region in the mass-radius and mass-tidal deformability diagrams. This is not circular: c_avg^2 is constructed from thermodynamic quantities at the percolation boundary and at the stellar center, not from the radius or tidal deformability that define the recurring region. The minima in c_avg^2 are found by varying the second-order susceptibilities, and the corresponding radii are outputs of the TOV solve, not inputs to the minimization. The paper tests the criterion on EoSs with different percolation boundaries, different phase-transition orders, a different hadronic model (DD2F-NJL), and a different stellar mass (1.8 Msun), so the correlation is not fitted to a single target. Self-citations, such as Clevinger et al. (2022) for the CMF-7 parametrization, are used only as model inputs and are not load-bearing for the recurring-region claim. The appendix B.1 derivation (Eqs. B1-B3) is a straightforward extremum condition and does not presuppose the result. The paper's own caution about TOV interpolation error and the need for a more robust solver is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the target observables, and no 'prediction' reduces by construction to a fitted input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the percolation polynomial with hand-chosen boundary densities and susceptibilities, on the realism of the underlying hadronic and quark models, and on the newly introduced c_avg^2 minimization criterion. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • n_B,H (baryon density at hadronic boundary of percolation) = 0.15 to 0.30 fm^-3 (varied by hand)
    Chosen by hand to control the start of the deconfinement transition; the claim of independence from this parameter is tested only at these discrete values.
  • n_B,Q (baryon density at quark boundary of percolation) = 0.80 to 1.35 fm^-3 (varied by hand)
    Chosen by hand to control the end of the transition; only a few discrete values are tested.
  • chi_2^{B,H} (second-order baryon susceptibility at hadronic boundary for second-order transitions) = about 0.000186 to 0.0026 fm^3/MeV; values at c_avg^2 minima reported
    Varied to change the stiffness of the percolation; minimization of c_avg^2 over this parameter is the core selection rule.
  • chi_2^{B,Q} (second-order baryon susceptibility at quark boundary) = about 0.000619 to 0.002738 fm^3/MeV (varied)
    Same role as chi_2^{B,H}; the recurring region is defined where the minima in the two-dimensional sweep cluster.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations and general relativity are valid for neutron star structure.
    Used to compute mass-radius and central pressure and density from each EoS; standard and assumed valid.
  • standard math Hinderer's tidal deformability formalism is valid.
    Used to compute the Love number and tidal deformability from second-order perturbation of Einstein field equations; standard method.
  • domain assumption A fifth-order polynomial in baryon chemical potential, matched to boundary conditions, is a valid thermodynamic description of quark deconfinement.
    The percolation construction (Eqs. 1 and 2) assumes the polynomial interpolation between hadronic and quark EoSs is physical; motivated by quarkyonic matter but not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption The quarkyonic picture motivates smoothing the deconfinement transition.
    The physical justification for the percolation relies on the quarkyonic hypothesis (McLerran and Pisarski 2007), which is not established for three colors.
  • domain assumption CMF-7 and DD2F-NJL are realistic hadronic and quark EoS models.
    The recurring region results depend on the two underlying microscopic models; their realism is taken from prior literature.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimizing c_avg^2 is the correct selection principle for producing EoSs that match observations.
    The definition of c_avg^2 (Eq. 3) and the rule 'minimize the average sound speed' are introduced in this paper; no proof is given that this is the unique or optimal criterion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recurring region for neutron-star observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRJBUDKJ

@misc{pith2026250624069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recurring region for neutron-star observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRJBUDKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.24069}
}
read the original abstract

In this letter, we report a new phenomena of recurring regions when relating observables for hybrid neutron stars and hybrid neutron-star mergers. To describe dense matter within hybrid stars, we introduce a percolation to vary the size and characteristics of the deconfinement phase transition to quark matter. Before and after the percolation, we keep the hadronic and quark phases the same, described by different realistic models for the equation of state of beta-equilibrated, charge-neutral, zero-temperature matter. When solving spherical and deformed equations for neutron stars in general relativity, we find that: no matter the size or characteristics of the percolation region, or the order of the phase transition on either side (hadronic and quark), as long as we minimize the average sound speed from the beginning of the percolation region to the central density for a given star, we can produce equations of state that cross through the same, small recurring region within mass-radius and mass-tidal deformability diagrams. Our findings provide a new way to produce hybrid equations of state for dense matter that match a given observation of neutron stars or neutron star mergers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.24069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Speed of sound squared for five CMF-7 EoSs with percolation, together with the original microscopic EoS (left panel), corresponding mass-radius diagram (middle panel), and mass-tidal deformability diagram (right panel). The EoSs with percolation are built using different densities on the hadronic and quark percolation boundaries (values shown in fm−3 ) and reproducing different orders for the phase transitions at th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the top panels, we use the same density boundaries for the percolation regions as the blue curve of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as the right panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Ferromagnetic instabilities in quarkyonic matter

    nucl-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quarkyonic neutron matter can turn ferromagnetic below about 5.5 n0, but only with a hand-chosen negative spin-spin interaction constant.

  2. The equation of state for neutron stars

    nucl-th 2026-07 unverdicted

    A textbook-style review of the neutron-star equation of state covering the models, experimental and observational constraints, and open questions, with no new result claimed or derived.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 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]

    a`vݯ@_ZN nS օvzP G t :w vi-|/x[ Ƨ+|ý1

    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...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.161104

    Alford, M., & Sedrakian, A. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, 10.1103/physrevlett.119.161104

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161104 2017

  5. [5]

    A., Ib\'a\ nez, J

    Aloy, M. A., Ib\'a\ nez, J. M., Sanchis-Gual, N., et al. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 484, 4980, 10.1093/mnras/stz293

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz293 2019

  6. [6]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 939, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a

    Altiparmak, S., Ecker, C., & Rezzolla, L. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 939, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b2a 2022

  7. [7]

    2016, Eur

    Alvarez-Castillo, D., Ayriyan, A., Benic, S., et al. 2016, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52, 69, 10.1140/epja/i2016-16069-2

    doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16069-2 2016

  8. [8]

    2019, Physical Review D, 99, 10.1103/physrevd.99.063010

    Alvarez-Castillo, D., Blaschke, D., Grunfeld, A., & Pagura, V. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, 10.1103/physrevd.99.063010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.063010 2019

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    2020, Nature Physics, 16, 907, 10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., Nättilä, J., & Vuorinen, A. 2020, Nature Physics, 16, 907, 10.1038/s41567-020-0914-9

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Bastian, N.-U. F. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.023001

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    2019, Astrophys

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

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, Rept

    Baym, G., Hatsuda, T., Kojo, T., et al. 2018, Rept. Prog. Phys., 81, 056902, 10.1088/1361-6633/aaae14

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Bedaque, P., & Steiner, A. W. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 031103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.031103

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, Particles, 3, 477–499, 10.3390/particles3020033

    Blaschke, D., Grigorian, H., & Röpke, G. 2020, Particles, 3, 477–499, 10.3390/particles3020033

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, Zero-temperature thermodynamics of dense asymmetric strong-interaction matter

    Braun, J., & Schallmo, B. 2022, Zero-temperature thermodynamics of dense asymmetric strong-interaction matter. 2204.00358

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2022, Eur

    Clevinger, A., Corkish, J., Aryal, K., & Dexheimer, V. 2022, Eur. Phys. J. A, 58, 96, 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00745-3

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, Physical Review D, 111, 10.1103/6d9c-c4kx

    Cuceu, I., & Robles, S. 2025, Physical Review D, 111, 10.1103/6d9c-c4kx

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    M., et al

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

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    G., & Menezes, D

    de Paoli, M. G., & Menezes, D. P. 2013, in AIP Conference Proceedings (AIP), 217–224, 10.1063/1.4804121

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    O., Kl\"ahn, T., Han, S., & Salinas, M

    Dexheimer, V., Gomes, R. O., Kl\"ahn, T., Han, S., & Salinas, M. 2021, Phys. Rev. C, 103, 025808, 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.025808

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, Physical Review C, 91, 10.1103/physrevc.91.055808

    Dexheimer, V., Negreiros, R., & Schramm, S. 2015, Physical Review C, 91, 10.1103/physrevc.91.055808

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2008, Astrophys

    Dexheimer, V., & Schramm, S. 2008, Astrophys. J., 683, 943, 10.1086/589735

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    A., & Schramm, S

    Dexheimer, V. A., & Schramm, S. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 045201, 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.045201

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Hernandez-Ortiz, S., & Jeong, K

    Duarte, D. C., Hernandez-Ortiz, S., & Jeong, K. S. 2020, Phys. Rev. C, 102, 025203, 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.025203

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Dutra, M., Lourenço, O., & Menezes, D. P. 2016, Physical Review C, 93, 10.1103/physrevc.93.025806

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    S., et al

    Dutra, M., Lourenço, O., Sá Martins, J. S., et al. 2012, Physical Review C, 85, 10.1103/physrevc.85.035201

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    B., Rojas, J

    Fadafan, K. B., Rojas, J. C., & Evans, N. 2020, Physical Review D, 101, 10.1103/physrevd.101.126005

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    C., & Providência, C

    Ferreira, M., Pereira, R. C., & Providência, C. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.083030

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, Astrophys

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

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    S., da Mata, R., Pitsinigkos, S., & Schmitt, A

    Fraga, E. S., da Mata, R., Pitsinigkos, S., & Schmitt, A. 2022, Strange quark matter from a baryonic approach. 2206.09219

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    D., & Praszalowicz, M

    Fujimoto, Y., Fukushima, K., McLerran, L. D., & Praszalowicz, M. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 129, 252702, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.252702

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, Reconciling the HESS J1731-347 constraints with Parity doublet model

    Gao, B., Yan, Y., & Harada, M. 2024, Reconciling the HESS J1731-347 constraints with Parity doublet model. 2404.04786

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., Saito, K., Rodionov, E., & Thomas, A

    Guichon, P. A., Saito, K., Rodionov, E., & Thomas, A. W. 1996, Nuclear Physics A, 601, 349–379, 10.1016/0375-9474(96)00033-4

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    Gulminelli, F., & Raduta, A. R. 2015, Phys. Rev. C, 92, 055803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.055803

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    E., Haensel, P., & Kantor, E

    Gusakov, M. E., Haensel, P., & Kantor, E. M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 318–333, 10.1093/mnras/stt2438

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, Science Bulletin, 68, 913–919, 10.1016/j.scib.2023.04.007

    Han, M.-Z., Huang, Y.-J., Tang, S.-P., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2023, Science Bulletin, 68, 913–919, 10.1016/j.scib.2023.04.007

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2010, Nucl

    Hempel, M., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2010, Nucl. Phys. A, 837, 210, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.02.010

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    2008, Astrophys

    Hinderer, T. 2008, Astrophys. J., 677, 1216, 10.1086/533487

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    S., & Noronha, J

    Hippert, M., Fraga, E. S., & Noronha, J. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 034011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034011

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f3c

    Huang, K., Hu, J., Zhang, Y., & Shen, H. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7f3c

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, Physical Review D, 105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.114042

    Ivanytskyi, O., & Blaschke, D. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.114042

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    O., Steinheimer, J., & Stoecker, H

    Jakobus, P., Motornenko, A., Gomes, R. O., Steinheimer, J., & Stoecker, H. 2021, The European Physical Journal C, 81, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08779-x

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    S., McLerran, L., & Sen, S

    Jeong, K. S., McLerran, L., & Sen, S. 2020, Physical Review C, 101, 10.1103/physrevc.101.035201

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, Physics Letters B, 829, 137121, 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137121

    Jin, H.-M., Xia, C.-J., Sun, T.-T., & Peng, G.-X. 2022, Physics Letters B, 829, 137121, 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137121

    2022

  37. [45]

    2021, Physical Review D, 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.086004

    Jokela, N., Järvinen, M., Nijs, G., & Remes, J. 2021, Physical Review D, 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.086004

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Kaltenborn, M. A. R., Bastian, N.-U. F., & Blaschke, D. B. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 056024, 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.056024

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    I., & Welle, T

    Kapusta, J. I., & Welle, T. 2021, Physical Review C, 104, 10.1103/physrevc.104.l012801

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.096034

    Kawaguchi, M., & Suenaga, D. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.096034

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, in XIAMEN-CUSTIPEN WORKSHOP ON THE EQUATION OF STATE OF DENSE NEUTRON-RICH MATTER IN THE ERA OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVE ASTRONOMY, Vol

    Kojo, T. 2019, in XIAMEN-CUSTIPEN WORKSHOP ON THE EQUATION OF STATE OF DENSE NEUTRON-RICH MATTER IN THE ERA OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVE ASTRONOMY, Vol. 2127 (AIP Publishing), 020023, 10.1063/1.5117813

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, QCD equations of state and speed of sound in neutron stars

    Kojo, T. 2021, QCD equations of state and speed of sound in neutron stars. 2011.10940

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    D., Song, Y., & Baym, G

    Kojo, T., Powell, P. D., Song, Y., & Baym, G. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 045003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.045003

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, Hadron-quark transition and chiral symmetry restoration at high density

    Kouno, H., & Kashiwa, K. 2024, Hadron-quark transition and chiral symmetry restoration at high density. 2310.09738

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2022, Physical Review D, 105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.103014

    Kovács, P., Takátsy, J., Schaffner-Bielich, J., & Wolf, G. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.103014

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    Kumar, A., Dey, D., Haque, S., Mallick, R., & Patra, S. K. 2023 a , Quarkyonic Model for Neutron Star Matter: A Relativistic Mean-Field Approach. 2304.08223

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    2023 b , Non-radial oscillation modes in hybrid stars: consequences of a mixed phase

    Kumar, D., Mishra, H., & Malik, T. 2023 b , Non-radial oscillation modes in hybrid stars: consequences of a mixed phase. 2110.00324

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2023 c , Theoretical and Experimental Constraints for the Equation of State of Dense and Hot Matter

    Kumar, R., et al. 2023 c , Theoretical and Experimental Constraints for the Equation of State of Dense and Hot Matter . 2303.17021

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    K., Ma, Y.-L., Paeng, W.-G., & Rho, M

    Lee, H. K., Ma, Y.-L., Paeng, W.-G., & Rho, M. 2022, Modern Physics Letters A, 37, 10.1142/s0217732322300038

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    2022, Physical Review D, 105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.043016

    Legred, I., Chatziioannou, K., Essick, R., & Landry, P. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.043016

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    2020 a , Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 28, 19–46, 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.07.001

    Li, A., Zhu, Z.-Y., Zhou, E.-P., et al. 2020 a , Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 28, 19–46, 10.1016/j.jheap.2020.07.001

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    2018, Physical Review D, 97, 10.1103/physrevd.97.103013

    Li, C.-M., Zhang, J.-L., Yan, Y., Huang, Y.-F., & Zong, H.-S. 2018, Physical Review D, 97, 10.1103/physrevd.97.103013

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Sedrakian, A., & Alford, M

    Li, J. J., Sedrakian, A., & Alford, M. 2020 b , Physical Review D, 101, 10.1103/physrevd.101.063022

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, 10.1103/physrevd.108.034004

    Liu, H., Yang, Y.-H., Han, Y., & Chu, P.-C. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 10.1103/physrevd.108.034004

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    L., & Menezes, D

    Lopes, L. L., & Menezes, D. P. 2021, Nuclear Physics A, 1009, 122171, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122171

    2021

  56. [64]

    G., Contrera, G

    Malfatti, G., Orsaria, M. G., Contrera, G. A., Weber, F., & Ranea-Sandoval, I. F. 2019, Physical Review C, 100, 10.1103/physrevc.100.015803

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    G., Ranea-Sandoval, I

    Malfatti, G., Orsaria, M. G., Ranea-Sandoval, I. F., Contrera, G. A., & Weber, F. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.063008

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    2020, The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 229, 3651–3661, 10.1140/epjst/e2020-000093-3

    Marczenko, M. 2020, The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 229, 3651–3661, 10.1140/epjst/e2020-000093-3

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 925, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4b61

    Marczenko, M., Redlich, K., & Sasaki, C. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 925, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac4b61

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    2020, Acta Phys

    McLerran, L. 2020, Acta Phys. Polon. B, 51, 1067, 10.5506/APhysPolB.51.1067

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    McLerran, L., & Pisarski, R. D. 2007, Nucl. Phys. A, 796, 83, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.08.013

    2007 doi

  62. [70]

    2019, Physical Review Letters, 122, 10.1103/physrevlett.122.122701

    McLerran, L., & Reddy, S. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 122, 10.1103/physrevlett.122.122701

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    C., et al

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

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    2021, Astrophys

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

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    2021, Physical Review C, 103, 10.1103/physrevc.103.045205

    Minamikawa, T., Kojo, T., & Harada, M. 2021, Physical Review C, 103, 10.1103/physrevc.103.045205

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    2019, Physical Review D, 99, 10.1103/physrevd.99.103009

    Montaña, G., Tolós, L., Hanauske, M., & Rezzolla, L. 2019, Physical Review D, 99, 10.1103/physrevd.99.103009

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    2020, Phys

    Motornenko, A., Steinheimer, J., Vovchenko, V., Schramm, S., & Stoecker, H. 2020, Phys. Rev. C, 101, 034904, 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.034904

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    C., Noronha-Hostler, J., & Yunes, N

    Mroczek, D., Miller, M. C., Noronha-Hostler, J., & Yunes, N. 2023, Nontrivial features in the speed of sound inside neutron stars. 2309.02345

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    2017, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 608, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731505

    Mukherjee, A., Schramm, S., Steinheimer, J., & Dexheimer, V. 2017, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 608, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731505

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    1961, Phys

    Nambu, Y., & Jona-Lasinio, G. 1961, Phys. Rev., 122, 345, 10.1103/PhysRev.122.345

    1961 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, Phys

    Navas, S., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 030001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    2017, Rev

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

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    R., & Volkoff, G

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

    1939 doi

  74. [82]

    Pinto, M. B. 2023, Physical Review C, 107, 10.1103/physrevc.107.045807

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    Pisarski, R. D. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, L071504, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L071504

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    R., Nacu, F., & Oertel, M

    Raduta, A. R., Nacu, F., & Oertel, M. 2021, The European Physical Journal A, 57, 10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00628-z

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    2018, Astrophys

    Raithel, C., \"O zel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 857, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/aabcbf

    2018 doi

  78. [86]

    2025, Phys

    Reinke Pelicer, M., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 103037, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103037

    2025 doi

  79. [87]

    2021, Fractionalized Quasiparticles in Dense Baryonic Matter

    Rho, M. 2021, Fractionalized Quasiparticles in Dense Baryonic Matter. 2004.09082

    2021 arXiv

  80. [88]

    E., et al

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

    2019 doi

  81. [89]

    2021, Astrophys

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

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    A., Mendes, R

    Saes, J. A., Mendes, R. F. P., & Yunes, N. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 024011, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024011

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    2021, Physical Review C, 103, 10.1103/physrevc.103.045804

    Sen, D. 2021, Physical Review C, 103, 10.1103/physrevc.103.045804

    2021 doi

  84. [92]

    2021, Astrophys

    Sen, S., & Sivertsen, L. 2021, Astrophys. J., 915, 109, 10.3847/1538-4357/abff4c

    2021 doi

  85. [93]

    Sen, S., & Warrington, N. C. 2021, Nuclear Physics A, 1006, 122059, 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.122059

    2021

  86. [94]

    G., & Moshfegh, H

    Shahrbaf, M., Blaschke, D., Grunfeld, A. G., & Moshfegh, H. R. 2020, Physical Review C, 101, 10.1103/physrevc.101.025807

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    2022, Europhysics Letters, 138, 14002, 10.1209/0295-5075/ac63de

    Somasundaram, R., & Margueron, J. 2022, Europhysics Letters, 138, 14002, 10.1209/0295-5075/ac63de

    2022 doi

  88. [97]

    2021 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 3476–3490, 10.1093/mnras/staa4006

    ---. 2021 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 3476–3490, 10.1093/mnras/staa4006

    2021 doi

  89. [98]

    2024, Tripling Fluctuations and Peaked Sound Speed in Fermionic Matter

    Tajima, H., Iida, K., Kojo, T., & Liang, H. 2024, Tripling Fluctuations and Peaked Sound Speed in Fermionic Matter. 2412.04971

    2024 arXiv

  90. [99]

    2022 a , Phys

    Tan, H., Dexheimer, V., Noronha-Hostler, J., & Yunes, N. 2022 a , Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.161101

    2022 doi

  91. [100]

    2022 b , Phys

    Tan, H., Dore, T., Dexheimer, V., Noronha-Hostler, J., & Yunes, N. 2022 b , Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023018, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023018

    2022 doi

  92. [101]

    2018, Astrophys

    Tews, I., Carlson, J., Gandolfi, S., & Reddy, S. 2018, Astrophys. J., 860, 149, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac267

    2018 doi

  93. [102]

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

    1939 doi

  94. [103]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3996

    Tu, Z.-H., & Zhou, S.-G. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3996

    2022 doi

  95. [104]

    2015, Phys

    Typel, S., Oertel, M., & Kl\"ahn, T. 2015, Phys. Part. Nucl., 46, 633, 10.1134/S1063779615040061

    2015 doi

  96. [105]

    2022, Eur

    Typel, S., et al. 2022, Eur. Phys. J. A, 58, 221, 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00847-y

    2022 doi

  97. [106]

    2020, Exploring hybrid equation of state with constraints from tidal deformability of GW170817

    wu Wang, Q., Shi, C., Yan, Y., & Zong, H.-S. 2020, Exploring hybrid equation of state with constraints from tidal deformability of GW170817. 1912.02312

    2020 arXiv

  98. [107]

    2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 055104, 10.1088/1674-1137/abea0d

    Xia, C., Zhu, Z., Zhou, X., & Li, A. 2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 055104, 10.1088/1674-1137/abea0d

    2021 doi

  99. [108]

    2024, Astrophysical constraints on nuclear EOSs and coupling constants in RMF models

    Xia, C.-J., Xie, W.-J., & Bakhiet, M. 2024, Astrophysical constraints on nuclear EOSs and coupling constants in RMF models. 2411.07170

    2024 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Yamamoto, Y., Yasutake, N., & Rijken, T. A. 2023, Quark phases in neutron stars consistent with implications of NICER. 2309.10233

    2023 arXiv

  101. [110]

    Yazdizadeh, T., & Bordbar, G. H. 2019, Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions A: Science, 43, 2691–2698, 10.1007/s40995-019-00731-3

    2019 doi

  102. [111]

    2025, High density symmetry energy: A key to the solution of the hyperon puzzle

    Ye, J.-T., Wang, R., Wang, S.-P., & Chen, L.-W. 2025, High density symmetry energy: A key to the solution of the hyperon puzzle. 2411.18349

    2025 arXiv

  103. [112]

    2016, Physical Review D, 93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.065011

    Zacchi, A., Hanauske, M., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.065011

    2016 doi

  104. [113]

    Zhao, T., & Lattimer, J. M. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.023021

    2020 doi

  105. [114]

    2022, Physical Review D, 105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.074011

    Zuo, B.-J., Huang, Y.-F., & Feng, H.-T. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.074011

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.