On the formation of strange quark stars from supernova in compact binaries

A. Drago; A. Lavagno; F. Cipolletta; G. Pagliara; J. A. Rueda; L. M. Becerra; M. Guerrini

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

On the formation of strange quark stars from supernova in compact binaries

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Hypercritical accretion during a second supernova can convert neutron stars into strange quark stars: the paper shows this happens for both the companion and the newborn star at low explosion energy and low spin.

desk verdict A new formation channel for SQSs via binary second-SN hypercritical accretion, but the load-bearing deconfinement criterion is broad enough to flip borderline outcomes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22033 v1 pith:5FCQXIBT submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.HE

L. M. Becerra , F. Cipolletta , A. Drago , M. Guerrini , A. Lavagno , G. Pagliara , J. A. Rueda This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords strangequarkstarsdeconfinementhypercriticalaccretioncompactbinariesneutronequationofstatesupernovafallbacktwo-familyscenario

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 asks whether strange quark stars — compact objects made entirely of deconfined quark matter, hypothesized since the 1970s but never unambiguously observed — can form through accretion in a binary just after the second supernova. When a carbon-oxygen (or Wolf-Rayet) star in a few-minute orbit with a neutron star explodes, its ejecta fall onto both the pre-existing companion and the newly born neutron star at hypercritical rates. The added mass raises each star's central density, and if that density crosses the threshold where strangeness reaches $Y_S \sim 0.2$–$0.3$, the paper's criterion says a seed of strange quark matter appears and the whole star converts into a strange quark star. The simulations find this happens for some of the parameter space explored — preferentially at lower supernova energies and lower initial spin, and more easily for the newborn star — so the remnant of such a binary can be NS-NS, NS-SQS, or SQS-SQS. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives an astrophysical formation channel for strange quark stars distinct from mergers and X-ray binaries, with consequences for gravitational-wave and electromagnetic transients.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing criterion is the strangeness-fraction threshold: conversion begins when the total strangeness fraction $Y_S \equiv n_s/n_B$ reaches 0.2–0.3, at a critical density $n_{\rm crit}$, because strange quarks must be close enough to seed quark nucleation. This heuristic, taken from earlier work and called 'rather qualitative' in the paper, is what decides whether accretion ends in a strange quark star. The supporting machinery is the coupling of two codes: SPH simulations (SNSPH) give hypercritical accretion rates $\dot{m}_b$ and $\dot{M}_b$ onto the newborn and companion stars, and a rotating-star solver (RNS with quadrupole correction) evolves the axisymmetric equilibrium configuration for a given baryonic mass and angular momentum, with torque $\tau_{\rm acc}=\chi l \dot{M}_b$ transferring angular momentum. Two hadronic equations of state (cold $T=0$ and hot $S/A=1$, both SFHo-H$\Delta$) bracket thermal effects, and two quark equations of state (MIT bag and CFL bag) bracket the post-conversion structure.

What would settle it

Compute the homogeneous nucleation time for strange quark matter in the SFHo-H$\Delta$ hadronic equation of state at $T=0$ and at $S/A=1$: if at the central densities reached in these simulations (around $n_B \simeq 1.1$ fm$^{-3}$) the nucleation time exceeds the roughly ten-minute accretion timescale, no conversion would occur during the accretion episode and the paper's central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in Sec. 6, is that both the NS companion and the newborn NS can reach the condition for conversion into a strange quark star for some of the parameters explored. The mechanism is hypercritical accretion: SPH simulations of a CO-NS binary with orbital periods of about 4.5–4.9 minutes provide baryonic mass accretion rates onto both stars, and a rotating-star code evolves their structure under that accretion and the associated torque. Using the hadronic SFHo equation of state with hyperons and deltas, the stars' central densities climb; for the 25 and 30 $M_\odot$ ZAMS progenitors at the lowest explosion energies, the companion crosses the critical density $n_{\rm crit}$, and the newborn NS crosses it for a range of initial angular momenta below about 1.05–1.25 in dimensionless units. Upon crossing, the star is assumed to convert instantly to a strange quark star described by a MIT-bag or CFL-bag quark equation of state, releasing on the order of $10^{52}$–$10^{53}$ erg of energy.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that a neutron star converts to a strange quark star as soon as its strangeness fraction reaches about 0.2–0.3, a criterion the paper itself calls 'rather qualitative'; if real quark nucleation needs a different density, temperature, or flavor composition, accretion-driven conversion in these binaries may not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Compact binaries that survive the second supernova can end up as NS-NS, NS-SQS, or SQS-SQS systems, so mixed-composition remnants are a natural outcome of this channel.
The newborn NS is the more likely of the two to convert, especially when born with slow rotation; high initial spin ($j_{\rm ns,0}\gtrsim 1.2$, roughly 1 kHz) sends it to the Keplerian mass-shedding limit instead.
Low supernova kinetic energy favors conversion because more ejecta remain bound and accrete, pushing both stars to higher central densities.
Conversion releases on the order of $10^{52}$–$10^{53}$ erg, so if the binary survives it should be accompanied by a bright transient; the paper leaves the observable signature for future work.
The merger time of the resulting compact-object binaries is about 10 kyr, implying that such SQS binaries, if they form, merge promptly relative to typical NS-NS merger delay times.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the paper explicitly leaves binary survival to future work, the released conversion energy could disrupt or kick the system; the SQS-SQS outcome rate may therefore be lower than the fate table alone suggests.
The same strangeness-fraction logic would apply to any accretion channel that raises central density, so this parameter sweep can be read as a mapping from accretion rate and spin to conversion probability for other binaries.
Replacing the qualitative $Y_S \sim 0.2$–$0.3$ threshold with a computed homogeneous nucleation time would turn the binary-by-binary fate table into a rate prediction, which is the natural next testable step.
If future gravitational-wave inspiral constraints measure the maximum central density reached by these remnants, that would indirectly test the two-family scenario underlying the conversion criterion.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper does one thing I haven't seen before: it applies the idea that hypercritical accretion can push a neutron star over the quark deconfinement edge to the second supernova in a compact binary, using SPH-derived accretion histories and rotating equilibrium models. That's a genuinely new astrophysical channel, and a sensible extension of earlier work on LMXBs and mergers. The authors are careful to flag that their conversion criterion is qualitative, and they show runs that do not convert, so the hydrodynamics is not being reverse-fitted.

The main product is Table 3, a map of NS-NS, NS-SQS, and SQS-SQS remnants as a function of CO star mass, supernova energy, and initial angular momentum. That is a useful guide for thinking about compact binary populations and the two-family scenario.

The soft spots are real. The deconfinement condition is a heuristic taken from the authors' prior work—YS in 0.2–0.3—and the paper itself calls it 'rather qualitative.' The width of that band corresponds to roughly 0.02–0.03 solar masses in the minimum mass that reaches the threshold, which is exactly the scale of the accreted masses in the borderline cases. So a shift inside their own quoted range can move a system from SQS to NS. They also assume instantaneous conversion with no nucleation barrier or timescale, and they neglect the large conversion energy in the dynamics. These limitations are acknowledged, but they are not minor for the headline claim: the 'possibility of SQS formation' is really a possibility under a specific, self-referenced condition on strangeness fraction.

The paper doesn't ship code or data, and there is no uncertainty quantification on the SPH accretion rates. That hurts reproducibility, though the setup is standard and input parameters are given, so the broad strokes are reproducible.

I agree with the reader's conditional verdict. This deserves a serious referee. It is a clean, exploratory study with a clear parameter sweep, honest caveats, and a new application. The central claim is correctly hedged, and the limitations are in the text. A referee should focus on whether the YS criterion is defensible and on the missing nucleation physics, not on the basic numerical setup.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether hypercritical accretion during the second supernova in a compact binary can trigger quark deconfinement in the newborn neutron star (NS) and/or in the NS companion. SPH simulations of the explosion of a CO star in orbit with a 1.4 Msun NS provide time-dependent accretion rates; the RNS code, with a quadrupole correction, is then used to evolve the baryonic mass and angular momentum of both stars for two hadronic EOSs (cold T=0 and hot S/A=1) and two quark EOSs. Conversion to a strange quark star (SQS) is declared when the strangeness fraction reaches YS ~ 0.2-0.3, a criterion imported from the authors' earlier work. Some runs never convert, while others convert one or both stars, yielding NS-NS, NS-SQS, or SQS-SQS remnants. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the conversion criterion is qualitative, that conversion energy release is neglected in the dynamics, and that some newborn-NS configurations are born with central density already above the threshold, so the approach does not apply to them.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this identifies a new, astrophysically motivated formation channel for strange quark stars in the two-family scenario, with consequences for compact-binary merger rates and multi-messenger signatures. The paper is transparent and methodical: it gives explicit EOS parameters and initial conditions, uses standard SPH/RNS machinery, and reports both converting and non-converting runs, so the hydrodynamic outcome is not fitted to a preordained result. The strength of the paper, however, is conditional on a heuristic deconfinement criterion and on neglecting the dynamical feedback of the conversion energy release; these are not peripheral caveats, because they directly determine which entries in Table 3 are SQS. With those caveats addressed, the paper would be a useful first survey; as it stands, the central conclusion is plausible but not yet pinned down quantitatively.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 4, Table 2] The deconfinement criterion is the load-bearing premise of the paper. The manuscript adopts YS ~ 0.2-0.3 from refs. [11,12] and itself calls the criterion "rather qualitative". Table 2 shows that this interval corresponds to M^{J=0}(ncrit) = 1.545-1.566 Msun for EOS1 and 1.519-1.550 Msun for EOS2, a spread of only ~0.02-0.03 Msun. The accreted masses that drive the 1.4 Msun companion through the conversion band in Fig. 4 are of exactly this order, so choosing YS=0.2 versus YS=0.3 can flip the fate of the companion. In particular, the SQS-SQS outcome for Mzams=25 and Esn=4.41e50 erg depends on the lower edge of the band being the operative threshold. The paper should present the results for both edges of the band separately (or for a distribution of thresholds) and, ideally, compare with a finite nucleation-rate treatment of the type discussed in refs. [57-60].
[Sec. 4] The paper assumes instantaneous conversion upon reaching ncrit and does not implement any nucleation barrier or rate. Refs. [57-60] are cited as providing a comprehensive discussion of quark nucleation, but no element of that formalism is used here. If the actual nucleation timescale at the densities and temperatures reached is longer than the minute-scale accretion episode, the star could cross ncrit and still not convert before the accretion subsides. Since the central claim is phrased as "reaching the condition for conversion," this assumption needs at least a quantitative justification or a bracketing estimate; otherwise the conversion itself is assumed rather than predicted.
[Sec. 5, Fig. 7 and Table 3] The dynamical feedback of the conversion energy release is neglected. The lower panel of Fig. 7 quotes conversion energies of about 4e52 erg (quark EOS1) and 4e53 erg (quark EOS2), which are comparable to the SN explosion energies considered and to the binary binding energy. In Sec. 5 the authors acknowledge that the simulation continues after conversion with the "new interior physics constitution" but neglects the energy release. This can alter the orbital dynamics and the accretion flow onto the second star, so the probability that the second star reaches ncrit may be overestimated. Since the SQS-SQS entries in Table 3 rely on continuing the accretion after the first conversion, a quantitative estimate, or a test case with a simplified feedback prescription, is needed before those outcomes can be considered robust.
[Sec. 5] The paper states that when the initial angular momentum of the newborn NS is too small, the remnant is born with central density already exceeding the critical value for quark deconfinement, and that "our approach cannot be applied" in those cases. These configurations should be explicitly identified and excluded from the accretion-triggered conversion statistics in Table 3; otherwise the claim that accretion induces deconfinement is partly circular for those parameters. The current presentation does not mark which of the jns,0 values in Fig. 5 fall into this excluded regime, and it is therefore unclear which entries in Table 3 represent genuine accretion-induced conversion rather than initial-state conversion.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 5 caption] The caption gives the constant baryonic masses as mb = 1.4, 1.85, and 1.75 Msun for the left, center, and right panels, but Table 1 lists mb = 1.40, 1.80, and 1.75 Msun; the 1.85 appears to be a typo for 1.80.
[Fig. 7 caption] The upper-panel caption states that the kinetic energy of the SN explosion is ~3.4e50 erg for the Mzams=25 Msun progenitor, whereas Fig. 5 and Table 3 use Esn = 4.41e50 erg for that progenitor; the value should be made consistent.
[Table 3] The formatting of Table 3 is very hard to read: the merged columns and run-together entries such as "SQS:jns,0<1.25 NS NS SQS:jns,0<1.05 SQS:jns,0<1.05 NSNS:jns,0>1.25" make it difficult to map each Esn column to the fate of the NS companion and the newborn NS. A conventional table with one column per Esn value would be much clearer.
[Sec. 6] The statement that "the merger time of such compact-object binaries is ~10 kyr" is given without derivation or citation; either provide the basis for this number or remove it.
[Fig. 2 caption] The left and right panels of Fig. 2 use the notation ṃb and Ṃb without repeating their definitions; the caption should state explicitly that these are the baryonic accretion rates onto the newborn NS and the NS companion, respectively.
[Sec. 5] The sentence "The chosen SN explosion energies are such to be sufficient to unbind the outer layers of the CO star" is grammatically awkward; it should read "are chosen to be sufficient" or "are such that they suffice".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: conversion outcomes are simulation results, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) SPH simulations with the SNSPH code, using KEPLER-derived progenitors and fixed SN energies, produce baryonic accretion rates onto the newborn NS and the NS companion; (ii) an RNS-based equilibrium code evolves the stars given those accretion rates and angular-momentum transfer; (iii) the hadronic EOS (SFHo with hyperons and deltas) determines the strangeness fraction as a function of density; (iv) a deconfinement criterion YS ~ 0.2-0.3 is adopted from refs. [11,12] and applied when the central density crosses ncrit. No parameter in this chain is fitted to the target outcome of SQS formation. The paper explicitly states that the criterion is 'rather qualitative' and that it uses the 'approximate approach presented in [11,12]', so the threshold is an openly disclosed model assumption, not a hidden input disguised as a prediction. Table 3 contains numerous non-conversion outcomes (e.g., all Mzams = 15 cases, the Mzams = 25 companion for Esn = 5.03 and 5.67, and the Mzams = 30 companion for Esn = 6.54 and 7.85), demonstrating that the conclusion 'both the NS companion and the newborn NS can reach the condition for conversion into SQS for some of the parameters explored' is not forced by construction. The sensitivity of borderline cases to choosing YS = 0.2 versus YS = 0.3 (a ~0.02-0.03 Msun spread in M^{J=0}(ncrit), Table 2) is a physical-robustness uncertainty, not a logical circularity. The two-family scenario and the YS threshold are adopted from the authors' earlier work, but they are not presented as an external uniqueness theorem, and the paper does not claim to derive them here. No step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the assumed absolute stability of strange quark matter (Bodmer-Witten), the two-family scenario, a heuristic deconfinement threshold, instantaneous conversion without feedback, and EOS inputs from the prior literature. The free parameters are the SN energy, initial spin, torque efficiency, bag constants, and the critical strangeness fraction. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Critical strangeness threshold YS for quark deconfinement = 0.2-0.3
Adopted from refs. [11,12]; sets the density at which conversion to SQS occurs; the paper calls the criterion 'rather qualitative' (Sec. 4).
Quark EOS bag parameters = B^(1/4)=137.5 MeV, a4=0.75 (MIT); B^(1/4)=135 MeV, a4=0.7, Delta=80 MeV (CFL)
Chosen from prior literature; directly sets the conversion energy and resulting SQS mass and radius (Sec. 4, Table 2, Fig. 7).
SN explosion energy Esn = 3.41-10.8, 4.41-5.67, 5.23-7.85 x 10^50 erg for 15/25/30 Msun
Selected by hand from a plausible range; lower Esn favors conversion (Sec. 5, Figs. 4-6).
Initial specific angular momentum jns,0 of newborn NS = 0.2-1.4 (rotation frequencies 500-1100 Hz)
Varied along constant baryonic mass sequences; low values favor conversion, high values lead to the Keplerian limit (Sec. 5, Fig. 5).
Torque efficiency chi = <=1 (value not specified)
Scales angular momentum transfer in Eq. (2); affects the balance between spin-up and compression; value not specified in this paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Bodmer-Witten hypothesis: beta-stable strange quark matter is absolutely stable, with (E/N)_0 < 930 MeV.
Adopted in Sec. 1; the entire two-family scenario and the possibility of SQS require SQM to be the true ground state.
domain assumption Two-family scenario: NSs and SQSs coexist, and the appearance of hyperons triggers conversion to SQS.
Sec. 1; motivates why deconfinement occurs at all; not derived in this paper.
ad hoc to paper Deconfinement criterion: the first SQM seed forms when the strangeness fraction YS reaches 0.2-0.3.
Sec. 4; approximate criterion from refs. [11,12]; the paper states it is qualitative and that a detailed analysis is left for future work.
ad hoc to paper Instantaneous conversion of NS to SQS upon reaching ncrit, with no dynamical feedback from the energy release.
Sec. 4 and Sec. 5; neglects the hydrodynamics of conversion and its energy release, which may affect binary survival.
domain assumption Cold EOS approximation: accretion does not significantly heat the NS cores because of efficient neutrino cooling.
Sec. 3; cites refs. [55,56]; used to model the stars with T=0 or S/A=1 EOS.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the formation of strange quark stars from supernova in compact binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FCQXIBT

@misc{pith2026250722033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the formation of strange quark stars from supernova in compact binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FCQXIBT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22033}
}

read the original abstract

Strange quark stars (SQSs), namely compact stars entirely composed of deconfined quark matter, are characterized by similar masses and compactness to neutron stars (NSs) and have been theoretically proposed to exist in the Universe since the 1970s. However, multiwavelength observations of compact stars in the last 50 years have not yet led to an unambiguous SQS identification. This article explores whether SQSs could form in the supernova (SN) explosion of an evolved star (e.g., carbon-oxygen, or Wolf-Rayet) occurring in a binary with the companion being a neutron star (NS). The collapse of the iron core of the evolved star generates a newborn NS and the SN explosion. Part of the ejected matter accretes onto the NS companion as well as onto the newborn NS via matter fallback. The accretion occurs at hypercritical (highly super-Eddington) rates, transferring mass and angular momentum to the stars. We present numerical simulations of this scenario and demonstrate that the density increase in the NS interiors during the accretion process may induce quark matter deconfinement, suggesting the possibility of SQS formation. We discuss the astrophysical conditions under which such a transformation may occur and possible consequences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22033 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Baryonic mass accretion rate onto the newborn NS (left panel) and the NS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Fractions of neutrons, protons, ∆− and strangeness (YS) as functions of the baryon density for the two EOSs here adopted. EOS MJ=0 max MK max MJ=0(ncrit) (M⊙) (M⊙) (M⊙) EOS1: SFHo-H∆ 1.585 1.884 1.545–1.566 (T = 0) EOS2: SFHo-H∆ 1.576 1.850 1.519–1.550 (S/A = 1) Quark EOS1 2.116 3.042 – unpaired Bag model Quark EOS2 2.586 3.719 – CFL Bag model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Evolution in the central density-gravitational mass plane for an initially non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Same as Fig. 4 for the newborn NS with different initial angular momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Upper panel: Time evolution of the central baryon particle density of the NS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Upper panel: Gravitational mass and equatorial radius plane for the EOS1 model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Is the coexistence of strange quark stars and hadronic stars favored by astrophysical data? A Bayesian analysis
nucl-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Bayesian analysis of astrophysical and laboratory data favors the two-families scenario of coexisting hadronic and strange quark stars over the one-family scenario.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Annala, T

E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys. 16, 907 (2020), 1903.09121

arXiv 2020
[2]

Alford, M

M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. 629, 969 (2005), nucl-th/0411016

arXiv 2005
[3]

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

1971
[4]

Witten, Phys

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

1984
[6]

Drago, A

A. Drago, A. Lavagno, and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. D 89, 043014 (2014), 1309.7263

arXiv 2014
[7]

Berezhiani, I

Z. Berezhiani, I. Bombaci, A. Drago, F. Frontera, and A. Lavagno, ApJ 586, 1250 (2003), astro-ph/0209257

arXiv 2003
[8]

Bombaci, I

I. Bombaci, I. Parenti, and I. Vida˜ na, ApJ614, 314 (2004), astro-ph/ 0402404

work page 2004
[9]

Drago, A

A. Drago, A. Lavagno, G. Pagliara, and D. Pigato, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 40 (2016), 1509.02131

arXiv 2016

Show all 63 references

[10]

Drago and G

A. Drago and G. Pagliara, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 41 (2016), 1509.02134. 18

2016 arXiv
[11]

De Pietri, A

R. De Pietri, A. Drago, A. Feo, G. Pagliara, M. Pasquali, S. Traversi, and G. Wiktorowicz, Astrophys. J. 881, 122 (2019), 1904.01545

2019 arXiv
[12]

Bombaci, A

I. Bombaci, A. Drago, D. Logoteta, G. Pagliara, and I. Vida˜ na, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 162702 (2021), 2010.01509

2021
[13]

Lonardoni, A

D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092301 (2015), 1407.4448

2015 arXiv
[14]

Baldo, G

M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 61, 055801 (2000), nucl-th/9912066

2000 arXiv
[15]

Doroshenko, V

V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Na- ture Astron. 6, 1444 (2022)

2022
[16]

Di Clemente, A

F. Di Clemente, A. Drago, and G. Pagliara, Astrophys. J. 967, 159 (2024), 2211.07485

2024
[17]

Fischer, N.-U

T. Fischer, N.-U. F. Bastian, M.-R. Wu, P. Baklanov, E. Sorokina, S. Blinnikov, S. Typel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and D. B. Blaschke, Nature Astron. 2, 980 (2018), 1712.08788

2018 arXiv
[18]

Kuroda, T

T. Kuroda, T. Fischer, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, The Astrophysical Journal 924, 38 (2022), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3847/1538-4357/ac31a8

2022 doi
[19]

Fiore et al., Mon

A. Fiore et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 512, 4484 (2022), 2111. 07142

2022
[20]

Inserra et al., Mon

C. Inserra et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 468, 4642 (2017), 1701. 00941

2017
[21]

Umeda and K

H. Umeda and K. Nomoto, Astrophys. J. 673, 1014 (2008), 0707.2598

2008 arXiv
[22]

Goodman, ApJ 308, L47 (1986)

J. Goodman, ApJ 308, L47 (1986)

1986
[23]

Paczynski, ApJ 308, L43 (1986)

B. Paczynski, ApJ 308, L43 (1986)

1986
[24]

Eichler, David, Livio, Mario, Piran, Tsvi, and Schramm, David N, Nature (ISSN 0028-0836) 340, 126 (1989)

1989
[25]

Narayan, T

R. Narayan, T. Piran, and A. Shemi, ApJ 379, L17 (1991)

1991
[26]

Bauswein, N

A. Bauswein, N. Stergioulas, and H.-T. Janka, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 56 (2016), 1508.05493. 19

2016 arXiv
[27]

Prakash, D

A. Prakash, D. Radice, D. Logoteta, A. Perego, V. Nedora, I. Bombaci, R. Kashyap, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Endrizzi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083029 (2021), 2106.07885

2021 arXiv
[28]

Wiktorowicz, A

G. Wiktorowicz, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, and S. B. Popov, Astrophys. J. 846, 163 (2017), 1707.01586

2017 arXiv
[29]

T. M. Tauris, N. Langer, and P. Podsiadlowski, MNRAS 451, 2123 (2015), 1505.00270

2015 arXiv
[30]

J. A. Rueda and R. Ruffini, ApJ 758, L7 (2012), 1206.1684

2012 arXiv
[31]

C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, ApJ 793, L36 (2014), 1409. 1473

2014
[32]

C. L. Fryer, F. G. Oliveira, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Physical Review Letters 115, 231102 (2015), 1505.02809

2015 arXiv
[33]

Becerra, F

L. Becerra, F. Cipolletta, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, ApJ 812, 100 (2015), 1505.07580

2015 arXiv
[35]

Becerra, C

L. Becerra, C. L. Ellinger, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, ApJ 871, 14 (2019), 1803.04356

2019 arXiv
[36]

J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, L. Li, R. Moradi, J. F. Rodriguez, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083004 (2022), 2203.16876

2022 arXiv
[37]

L. M. Becerra, R. Moradi, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083002 (2022), 2208.03069

2022 arXiv
[38]

Aimuratov, L

Y. Aimuratov, L. M. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. Cherubini, M. Della Valle, S. Filippi, L. Li, R. Moradi, F. Rastegarnia, J. A. Rueda, et al., ApJ 955, 93 (2023), 2303.16902

2023 arXiv
[40]

J. A. Rueda, L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, M. Della Valle, C. L. Fryer, C. Guidorzi, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023010 (2025), 2412. 12764. 20

2025
[41]

D. J. Price, SPLASH: An Interactive Visualization Tool for Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Simulations, Astrophysics Source Code Li- brary (2011), 1103.004

2011
[42]

Heger and S

A. Heger and S. E. Woosley, ApJ 724, 341 (2010), 0803.3161

2010 arXiv
[43]

Cipolletta, C

F. Cipolletta, C. Cherubini, S. Filippi, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023007 (2015), 1506.05926

2015 arXiv
[44]

C. L. Fryer, G. Rockefeller, and M. S. Warren, ApJ 643, 292 (2006), astro-ph/0512532

2006 arXiv
[45]

C. L. Fryer, S. Andrews, W. Even, A. Heger, and S. Safi-Harb, ApJ 856, 63 (2018), 1712.03415

2018 arXiv
[46]

Stergioulas and J

N. Stergioulas and J. L. Friedman, ApJ 444, 306 (1995), astro-ph/ 9411032

1995
[47]

Cipolletta, C

F. Cipolletta, C. Cherubini, S. Filippi, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024046 (2017), 1612.02207

2017 arXiv
[48]

L. M. Becerra, F. Cipolletta, C. L. Fryer, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Astrophys. J. 976, 80 (2024), 2409.05767

2024 arXiv
[49]

A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Astrophys. J.774, 17 (2013), 1207.2184

2013 arXiv
[50]

Drago, A

A. Drago, A. Lavagno, G. Pagliara, and D. Pigato, Phys. Rev. C 90, 065809 (2014), 1407.2843

2014 arXiv
[51]

G. F. Burgio, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, H. J. Schulze, and J. B. Wei, Astrophys. J. 860, 139 (2018), 1803.09696

2018 arXiv
[52]

Prakash, I

M. Prakash, I. Bombaci, M. Prakash, P. J. Ellis, J. M. Lattimer, and R. Knorren, Phys. Rep. 280, 1 (1997), nucl-th/9603042

1997 arXiv
[53]

L. F. Roberts, G. Shen, V. Cirigliano, J. A. Pons, S. Reddy, and S. E. Woosley, Physical Review Letters 108 (2012), ISSN 1079-7114, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.061103

2012 doi
[54]

Camelio, A

G. Camelio, A. Lovato, L. Gualtieri, O. Benhar, J. A. Pons, and V. Ferrari, Physical Review D 96 (2017), ISSN 2470-0029, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043015. 21

2017 doi
[55]

Becerra, C

L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Astrophys. J. 833, 107 (2016), 1606.02523

2016 arXiv
[56]

Becerra, M

L. Becerra, M. M. Guzzo, F. Rossi-Torres, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and J. D. Uribe, Astrophys. J. 852, 120 (2018), 1712.07210

2018 arXiv
[57]

B. W. Mintz, E. S. Fraga, G. Pagliara, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123012 (2010), 0910.3927

2010 arXiv
[58]

Bombaci, D

I. Bombaci, D. Logoteta, I. Vida˜ na, and C. Providˆ encia, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 58 (2016), 1601.04559

2016 arXiv
[59]

Guerrini, G

M. Guerrini, G. Pagliara, A. Drago, and A. Lavagno, Astrophys. J. 974, 45 (2024), 2404.06463

2024 arXiv
[60]

Guerrini, G

M. Guerrini, G. Pagliara, A. Lavagno, and A. Drago (2025), 2506. 00139

2025
[61]

Weissenborn, I

S. Weissenborn, I. Sagert, G. Pagliara, M. Hempel, and J. Schaffner- Bielich, Astrophys. J. Lett. 740, L14 (2011), 1102.2869

2011 arXiv
[62]

M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008), 0709.4635

2008 arXiv
[63]

Drago and G

A. Drago and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063003 (2020), 2007. 03436

2020
[64]

Drago and G

A. Drago and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. C 92, 045801 (2015), 1506. 08337

2015
[65]

Ouyed, R

A. Ouyed, R. Ouyed, and P. Jaikumar, Physics Letters B 777, 184 (2018), 1706.05438

2018 arXiv
[66]

Kuzur, R

D. Kuzur, R. Mallick, R. Prasad, and S. Singh, Phys. Rev. C 105, 065807 (2022), 2104.00422. 22

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Annala, T

E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. N¨ attil¨ a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Phys. 16, 907 (2020), 1903.09121

arXiv 2020

[2] [2]

Alford, M

M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. 629, 969 (2005), nucl-th/0411016

arXiv 2005

[3] [3]

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

1971

[4] [4]

Witten, Phys

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

1984

[5] [6]

Drago, A

A. Drago, A. Lavagno, and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. D 89, 043014 (2014), 1309.7263

arXiv 2014

[6] [7]

Berezhiani, I

Z. Berezhiani, I. Bombaci, A. Drago, F. Frontera, and A. Lavagno, ApJ 586, 1250 (2003), astro-ph/0209257

arXiv 2003

[7] [8]

Bombaci, I

I. Bombaci, I. Parenti, and I. Vida˜ na, ApJ614, 314 (2004), astro-ph/ 0402404

work page 2004

[8] [9]

Drago, A

A. Drago, A. Lavagno, G. Pagliara, and D. Pigato, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 40 (2016), 1509.02131

arXiv 2016