Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 60 references

A first-order hadron-quark phase transition inside neutron stars would create twin-star branches, lower the maximum mass by 0.2–0.4 solar masses, and shift post-merger gravitational waves by 200–400 Hz, all within reach of next-generation d

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 18:06 UTC pith:Q4SN54SK

load-bearing objection Unverifiable numbers and a decorative lattice QCD section sink an otherwise timely roadmap paper. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.10589 v2 pith:Q4SN54SK submitted 2025-09-12 nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-lat

Theoretical Signatures of QCD Phase Transitions in Compact Astrophysical Systems

Debarshi Mukherjee This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-lat
keywords QCD phase transitionhybrid equation of stateneutron startwin starsgravitational waveslattice QCDquark mattermultimessenger constraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that if a strong first-order phase transition from hadronic matter to deconfined quark matter occurs inside neutron stars, it will leave a distinct set of multimessenger signatures: twin-star radius gaps of 0.5–2 km, a 0.2–0.4 solar mass drop in maximum mass, a delayed 200–400 Hz shift in post-merger gravitational waves, and a factor 2–5 increase in neutrino luminosity. Building hybrid equations of state that join chiral effective field theory at nuclear densities to perturbative QCD at high density, with the intermediate region anchored to lattice QCD data at small baryon chemical potential, the paper finds these signatures are marginally consistent with current GW170817 and NICER constraints. If the central claim is right, next-generation detectors like the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer will be able to detect quark cores in merging neutron stars, turning QCD phase transition physics into an observable astrophysical subject.

Core claim

The central claim is that a strong first-order hadron-quark transition, implemented through Maxwell or Gibbs constructions in a hybrid equation of state, produces a specific, coherent set of observable signatures rather than a single anomaly. For a transition onset near 2.8–3.2 times nuclear saturation density, the maximum neutron star mass drops from about 2.15 to 2.05 solar masses, twin branches appear with radius differences up to 2 km, the post-merger gravitational-wave frequency shifts downward by 200–400 Hz roughly 10–20 ms after merger, and neutrino emission brightens by a factor of 2–5. The paper claims these signatures survive comparison with current observations—though only in a re

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid equation of state built by interpolating between three anchors: chiral effective field theory at densities up to about twice saturation, lattice QCD susceptibilities up to baryon chemical potential over temperature of 3, and perturbative QCD at asymptotic densities. The hadron-quark transition is implemented through Maxwell and Gibbs constructions with a parameter that interpolates between them. The key mechanism is the softening of the equation of state in the coexistence region: it creates a second stable branch of compact stars (twins), lowers the maximum mass, delays the post-merger gravitational-wave frequency drop, and boosts neutrino cooling.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions stand or fall with the assumption that lattice QCD results at baryon chemical potential up to about three times the temperature can be extrapolated by Taylor expansion and resummation to the cold, high-density conditions inside neutron stars—an extrapolation the paper concedes is model-dependent.

What would settle it

Measure the radius of a 1.4 solar-mass neutron star to better than 0.5 km; a value above about 12.5 km would exclude the predicted hybrid branch at ~11.1 km. Alternatively, a high-signal post-merger gravitational-wave observation of a binary neutron star at ~100 Mpc that shows no 200–400 Hz drop in the dominant frequency within 20 ms after merger would rule out a strong first-order transition.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Twin star radius differences of 0.5–2.0 km are resolvable by next-generation X-ray timing missions and marginal with current NICER data, offering a direct test of the quark-core hypothesis.
  • Post-merger gravitational-wave frequency shifts of 200–400 Hz are detectable with signal-to-noise above 10 in Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer for sources at ~100 Mpc, providing a clean observational signature.
  • Hybrid models predict 10–30% less dynamical ejecta and more neutron-rich ejecta, making kilonovae fainter and faster with enhanced production of heavy r-process elements such as rare-earth species.
  • Universal relations (I-Love-Q, binary Love relations) are violated by 3–15% when quark cores are present, giving an equation-of-state-independent diagnostic for phase transitions.
  • The speed of sound in neutron star cores would show c_s^2 below 0.5c^2 with transient conformal bound violations around 2–4 times saturation density, testable through future radius and tidal measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: A confirmed 200–400 Hz post-merger frequency drop would not only indicate quark deconfinement but also constrain the location of the QCD critical point, effectively using astrophysical observations as a complementary probe to heavy-ion collision experiments.
  • Beyond the paper: The 'marginal consistency' with current data suggests the transition must occur at relatively low density; this narrows the allowed parameter space and could be sharpened with existing NICER data on PSR J0740+6620, potentially ruling out the hybrid branch without waiting for next-generation detectors.
  • Beyond the paper: The paper's thermal treatment in merger simulations is simplified; including non-equilibrium effects and magnetic fields could alter the predicted 10–20 ms delay time, which is a concrete extension to test.
  • Beyond the paper: A null detection by Einstein Telescope with a large sample of mergers would push the transition to be either weak, at higher density, or absent, effectively setting an upper bound on the latent heat and transition strength.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for constructing hybrid hadron-quark equations of state (EoS) for neutron stars and neutron-star mergers, combining chiral effective field theory, PNJL/NJL quark models, Maxwell/Gibbs constructions, and lattice QCD data at finite mu_B. It then applies these EoS to TOV solutions and merger hydrodynamics, claiming signatures: twin-star branches with radius differences 0.5-2.0 km, reductions in M_max by 0.2-0.4 M_sun, post-merger gravitational-wave frequency shifts of 200-400 Hz, enhanced neutrino emission, and kilonova changes, all while remaining 'marginally consistent' with GW170817, NICER, and pQCD constraints. The abstract emphasizes that the EoS are 'constrained by lattice QCD.' The manuscript also discusses speed-of-sound behavior and universal-relation violations.

Significance. If the claimed signatures were derived from a demonstrably lattice-QCD-anchored EoS framework, the paper would be valuable for guiding next-generation detectors such as Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. The paper covers a broad and important set of observables (twin stars, post-merger GW f2 shifts, neutrino cooling, kilonova properties) and lists concrete, falsifiable predictions. It also correctly identifies limitations of current lattice and nuclear-matter calculations. However, the central advertised connection to lattice QCD is not made operational, and several quantitative predictions are asserted without the corresponding computational details. As written, the paper is better described as a phenomenological survey of hybrid-EoS effects than as a lattice-QCD-constrained derivation.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.A vs. II.B] The lattice QCD input is never coupled to the EoS construction. Equations (3)-(6) give the lattice susceptibilities and the resummed pressure, but no equation in Sec. II.B uses them: the hadronic PNJL pressure and the quark NJL pressure are parameterized independently, and the coexistence conditions (12)-(19) involve only the two pressures and chemical potentials. The statement in Sec. II.B.1 that the PNJL model is 'constrained by the available lattice QCD data' is not supported by any fit, matching condition, or comparison. Consequently, the advertised first-principles anchor is not operational: the twin-star radii, mass reductions, and frequency shifts reported in Sec. III are properties of the specific NJL/PNJL parameter sets, not consequences of the lattice QCD analysis in Sec. II.A. This directly undermines the abstract's claim that the hybrid EoS are 'constrained by lattice QCD.'
  2. [Sec. III.C and Sec. II.D.2] The post-merger gravitational-wave results are reported without the computational details needed to assess them. No numerical relativity code, grid resolution, initial data, binary mass ratio, or equation-of-state table treatment is specified. The quoted frequencies f2 = 2150 ± 50 Hz and f2 = 1850 ± 80 Hz have no stated provenance for the central values or the error bars. Equation (28) is the quadrupole formula, which is not an adequate wave extraction for strong-field post-merger remnants. The detectability statement (SNR ≥ 15 at 100 Mpc with ET/CE) is unsupported: no noise curves, injection procedure, or detector-sensitivity calculation is presented. These are load-bearing for the paper's central claim (iii).
  3. [Sec. III.A and Sec. IV.A] The reported uncertainties in the neutron-star structure results have no stated origin. For example, M_max(H) = 2.15 ± 0.08 M_sun and R = 13.2 ± 0.4 km are quoted in Sec. III.A without explaining whether these reflect EoS-parameter variations, lattice-fit errors, or some other source. The same applies to the twin-star radius differences. Additionally, Sec. IV.A concludes that the viable parameter space requires rho_trans ≲ 2.5 rho_sat, but the baseline model in Sec. III.A uses rho_trans = 2.8 rho_sat, and the main quoted signatures (Delta R = 1.2-2.0 km, M_max reduction) are for that baseline. The paper does not reconcile this tension, leaving unclear which numbers are actually consistent with the multimessenger constraints.
  4. [Sec. III.D and Sec. III.E] The neutrino and kilonova predictions are asserted without the corresponding modeling details. Sec. III.D quotes neutrino luminosity enhancement factors of 2-5 and specific luminosities (e.g., 2 x 10^52 to 8 x 10^52 erg/s) but gives no neutrino transport scheme, no thermal evolution calculation, and no microphysical rates beyond a list of processes. Sec. III.E quotes ejecta masses, electron fractions, and light-curve shifts (0.3-0.8 magnitudes) without stating the ejecta model, the radiative-transfer solver, or the nuclear heating model. Since the abstract lists enhanced neutrino emission as a key signature, these omissions are load-bearing.
  5. [Sec. IV.D] The paper itself concedes in Sec. IV.D that the lattice-QCD results require 'model-dependent extrapolations to neutron star conditions.' This admission is in tension with the abstract's strong claim that the framework is 'constrained by lattice QCD at finite temperature and baryon chemical potential up to mu_B/T < 3.' The extrapolation from mu_B/T < 3 to the cold, high-density regime relevant to neutron stars is a nontrivial step, and the paper does not demonstrate how the error bars or the qualitative conclusions change if that extrapolation is unreliable. At minimum, the claim should be softened to reflect the model-dependence the authors themselves identify.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.B.1, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The beta-equilibrium conditions include a neutrino chemical potential mu_nu_e. For cold neutron stars in beta equilibrium, neutrinos have left and mu_nu = 0; the presence of mu_nu_e is only relevant in trapped-neutrino or hot proto-neutron-star contexts. Please clarify which regime is being used.
  2. [Sec. II.A] The parametrization in Eqs. (3)-(5) lists Gaussian fits with central values and errors, but it is unclear how these errors are propagated (or not) to any later result. A brief statement would help.
  3. [Sec. III.B] The phrase 'conformal bound violations' should be used carefully: c_s^2 = 1/3 is the conformal value, not a rigorous upper bound. The text later refers to c_s^2 > 1/3 as a violation, which is standard, but the initial wording could be misread.
  4. [General] The paper refers to figures (Figs. 1-6) with informative captions, but the actual figure panels are not discussed in the text with quantitative comparisons (e.g., how the hybrid curve in Fig. 4 is obtained from specific parameter choices). Please make the figures and their parameters explicit.
  5. [References] Some citations appear incomplete or imprecise: for example, Ref. [4] gives a journal page that may not correspond to the cited paper, and Ref. [16] has a typo in the quotation marks. A careful reference check is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the claimed signatures are model outputs, not the inputs restated.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward model: hadronic matter from chiral EFT, quark matter from an NJL-type model fitted to vacuum properties, a first-order transition imposed by Maxwell/Gibbs coexistence conditions, and then TOV/hydrodynamics outputs. The twin-star radii, maximum-mass reductions, post-merger frequency shifts, and neutrino rates are consequences of that model, not restatements of the model inputs. The lattice QCD susceptibilities in Sec. II.A are never explicitly coupled to the EoS construction: no equation connects Eqs. (3)–(6) to the NJL/PNJL pressures or to the coexistence conditions (12)–(19). This makes the advertised 'lattice-constrained' status overstated, but it is not circular, because the predicted signatures do not reduce to the lattice inputs—they reduce to the chosen phenomenological EoS parameters. Similarly, the 'marginal consistency' with GW170817/NICER is obtained by restricting to low transition onsets (Sec. III.B and IV.A); that is parameter tuning/postdiction, a correctness concern, not circularity, since the comparison is not identical to the construction. There are no load-bearing author self-citations, and the admitted model-dependent extrapolations (Sec. IV.D) weaken the first-principles claim without making the derivation self-referential. The central results would change if the NJL/PNJL parameters changed, confirming they are not fixed by the lattice input in any demonstrated way, but that is a missing-link issue rather than a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on a chain of fitted and assumed inputs: lattice susceptibility parametrization, NJL/PNJL quark couplings, the transition density and construction, the thermal model, and the critical point location. The paper does not propagate uncertainties through this chain, and some parameters, especially rho_trans, are adjusted after comparing with data.

free parameters (6)
  • Gaussian parametrization of lattice susceptibilities: T_c, A_2, A_4, A_6, sigma_2, sigma_4, sigma_6, B_2, B_4, B_6 = T_c=156.5 MeV, A2=8.2, A4=-11.8, A6=43, sigma2=14.2 MeV, sigma4=11.5 MeV, sigma6=9.8 MeV, B2=0.82, B4=1.15, B6=-1.9
    Fitted to lattice QCD data in Eqs. (3)-(5) and used to build the hybrid EoS; uncertainties from the fit are not propagated to star observables.
  • PNJL/NJL coupling parameters = G_S Lambda^2=2.44, G_D Lambda^2=0.75, Lambda=650 MeV
    Fixed to vacuum pion properties and constituent quark masses; their density dependence is assumed, not derived.
  • Hadron-quark transition onset density rho_trans = 2.8 rho_sat for baseline, later reduced to <=2.5 rho_sat
    Chosen by hand; the paper later adjusts it to maintain consistency with stiff-EoS multimessenger data.
  • Transition construction parameter eta (Maxwell/Gibbs interpolation) = Not specified; baseline appears to use Maxwell construction
    The eta interpolation is invoked via Ref. [44] but the baseline value is not stated quantitatively.
  • Thermal adiabatic index Gamma_th = 1.75
    Assumed additive thermal pressure in merger simulations; standard but not derived.
  • Critical point location (mu_c, T_c) = mu_c=550 MeV, T_c=110 MeV
    Used in Fig. 1 and the phase diagram discussion; treated as an input rather than a derived prediction.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Lattice QCD Taylor expansion and resummation at mu_B/T <= 3 can be extrapolated to cold neutron-star matter (mu_B/T >> 3).
    The hybrid EoS is anchored to lattice susceptibilities in Section II.A; the paper itself flags this as model-dependent in Section IV.D.
  • domain assumption A first-order hadron-quark phase transition exists in neutron-star cores with a transition density and latent heat in the range explored.
    The entire projected signature set is conditional on this unproven phase; the paper explores its consequences but does not derive its existence.
  • domain assumption The PNJL/NJL quark model is a valid representation of dense quark matter.
    Quark phase thermodynamics is computed in NJL mean field (Eq. 11) with couplings fixed to vacuum meson properties; no direct QCD benchmark at neutron-star densities is available.
  • domain assumption Maxwell and Gibbs constructions with the eta interpolation capture the physical phase transition.
    Phase transition is modeled via coexistence conditions (Eqs. 12-19) and Ref. [44]; whether this captures nucleation, surface tension, or metastability is not established.
  • domain assumption pQCD at rho > 40 rho_sat and chiral EFT at rho < 2 rho_sat provide correct boundary conditions for the interpolation.
    The EoS construction assumes these asymptotic regimes and interpolates between them; uncertainties in the interpolation are not quantified.
  • standard math The quadrupole formula and slow-motion approximation suffice for post-merger gravitational-wave extraction.
    GW signal is extracted with the quadrupole formula (Eq. 28); for strong-field post-merger remnants this is an approximation whose error is not assessed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12651 in / 15670 out tokens · 159774 ms · 2026-08-04T18:06:04.051322+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate theoretical signatures of first-order QCD phase transitions in high-density astrophysical systems through a framework combining lattice QCD, effective field theories, and multimessenger constraints. Hybrid equations of state with Maxwell and Gibbs constructions, constrained by lattice QCD at finite temperature and baryon chemical potential up to mu_B/T < 3, interpolate consistently between chiral effective field theory at nuclear densities and perturbative QCD at asymptotic densities. Applying these models to static neutron stars via Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations and to binary mergers via relativistic hydrodynamics, we find distinctive signatures: (i) twin star branches with 0.5-2.0 km radius differences at fixed mass, (ii) equation of state softening in coexistence regions reducing maximum masses by 0.2-0.4 solar masses, (iii) delayed post-merger gravitational-wave frequency shifts of 200-400 Hz, and (iv) enhanced neutrino emission during phase transitions. Confronted with multimessenger constraints from GW170817, NICER observations of PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0030+0451, and perturbative QCD, our models suggest strong first-order transitions are marginally consistent with current data but produce signatures detectable by next-generation detectors. Neutron star core sound speeds satisfy c_s^2 < 0.5c^2, with transient conformal bound violations in 2-4 times saturation density. This framework yields quantitative predictions for the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer, establishing foundations for precision QCD matter tests and possible quark matter discovery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10589 by Debarshi Mukherjee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. QCD phase diagram showing temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Temperature dependence of baryon number susceptibilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of pressure vs. energy density for crossover and hybrid equations of state. The crossover EoS represents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Mass-radius relations for hadronic and hybrid equations of state, showing the emergence of twin star branches due [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Speed of sound squared in dense nuclear matter for different equation of state scenarios. The hybrid EoS shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Post-merger gravitational-wave spectra comparing crossover and hybrid equations of state. (a) For crossover EoS, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    At nuclear densitiesρ≲2ρ sat, we use the results from Drischler et al

    Hadronic Phase For the hadronic phase, we employ chiral effective field theory (EFT) calculations combined with nuclear many- body methods. At nuclear densitiesρ≲2ρ sat, we use the results from Drischler et al. [12], which combine chiral EFT interactions at next-to-next-to-leading order (N 2LO) with quantum Monte Carlo methods to provide controlled calcul...

  2. [2]

    Quark Phase For the deconfined quark phase, we employ the three-flavor Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model with vector interac- tions and color superconductivity [47, 48]. The thermodynamic potential in the mean-field approximation is: Ωq = Ω0 + X f=u,d,s ΩMF f + (σu −m u)2 + (σd −m d)2 4GS + (σs −m s)2 + 2∆2 4GS ,(11) where Ω MF f represents the mean-field co...

  3. [3]

    Phase Transition Constructions We implement both Maxwell and Gibbs constructions to explore different scenarios for the hadron-quark phase transition, following the framework developed by Constantinou et al. [44]. Maxwell Construction:The Maxwell construction assumes local charge neutrality and sharp phase boundaries. The coexistence conditions are: PH (µ...

  4. [4]

    We employ adaptive Runge-Kutta integration with relative error tolerance of 10 −10 and implement boundary conditions at the stellar surface whereP(R) = 0

    Static Configurations For spherically symmetric, static neutron stars, we solve the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) equations: dP(r) dr =− G[ϵ(r) +P(r)][M(r) + 4πr 3P(r)/c 2] r2c2[1−2GM(r)/(rc 2)] ,(20) dM(r) dr = 4πr2ϵ(r)/c2,(21) whereP(r),ϵ(r), andM(r) are the pressure, energy density, and enclosed gravitational mass as functions of radiusr. We employ ...

  5. [5]

    Binary Merger Simulations For dynamical studies of binary neutron star mergers, we employ the framework of general relativistic hydrody- namics in the 3 + 1 formalism. The spacetime evolution is governed by the Einstein field equations: Gµν = 8πGTµν/c4,(24) while the matter evolution follows the relativistic Euler equations: ∂t(√−gD) +∂ i(√−gDv i) = 0,(25...

  6. [6]

    The order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics,

    Y. Aoki, G. Endr˝ odi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szab´ o, “The order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics,”Nature443, 675–678 (2006)

    2006

  7. [7]

    Lattice QCD at finite density via a new canonical approach,

    A. Alexandru, M. Faber, I. Horv´ ath, and K.-F. Liu, “Lattice QCD at finite density via a new canonical approach,”Phys. Rev. D72, 114513 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    Simulating QCD at finite density,

    P. de Forcrand, “Simulating QCD at finite density,”PoS LAT2009, 010 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    Constraining the QCD phase diagram by tricritical lines at imaginary chemical potential,

    de Forcrand, Philippe and Philipsen, Owe, “Constraining the QCD phase diagram by tricritical lines at imaginary chemical potential,”Phys. Rev. D105, 152001 (2010)

    2010

  10. [10]

    Skewness, kurtosis, and the fifth and sixth order cumulants of net baryon- number distributions from lattice QCD confront high-energy heavy-ion collision experiments,

    A. Bazavovet al.[HotQCD Collaboration], “Skewness, kurtosis, and the fifth and sixth order cumulants of net baryon- number distributions from lattice QCD confront high-energy heavy-ion collision experiments,”Phys. Rev. D101, 074502 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Lattice QCD equation of state for nonvanishing chemical potential by resumming Taylor expansions,

    S. Mondal, S. Mukherjee, and P. Hegde, “Lattice QCD equation of state for nonvanishing chemical potential by resumming Taylor expansions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 022001 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Curvature of the pseudocritical line in QCD: Taylor expansion matches analytic continuation,

    C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, F. Negro, F. Sanfilippo, and K. Zambello, “Curvature of the pseudocritical line in QCD: Taylor expansion matches analytic continuation,”Phys. Rev. D98, 054510 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    The QCD crossover at zero and non-zero baryon densities from Lattice QCD,

    P. Steinbrecher, “The QCD crossover at zero and non-zero baryon densities from Lattice QCD,”Nuclear Physics A982, 847–850 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    New way to resum the lattice QCD Taylor series equation of state at finite chemical potential,

    S. Mitra, P. Hegde, and C. Schmidt, “New way to resum the lattice QCD Taylor series equation of state at finite chemical potential,”Phys. Rev. D106, 034504 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    How perturbative QCD constrains the equation of state at neutron-star densities,

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, “How perturbative QCD constrains the equation of state at neutron-star densities,”Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202701 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Cold quark matter,

    A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, “Cold quark matter,”Phys. Rev. D81, 105021 (2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    Chiral effective field theory and the high-density nuclear equation of state,

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, and C. Wellenhofer, “Chiral effective field theory and the high-density nuclear equation of state,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 403–423 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Constraining the speed of sound inside neutron stars with chiral effective field theory interactions and observations,

    I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, and S. Reddy, “Constraining the speed of sound inside neutron stars with chiral effective field theory interactions and observations,”Astrophys. J.860, 149 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    The phase diagram of dense QCD,

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, “The phase diagram of dense QCD,”Rept. Prog. Phys.74, 014001 (2011)

    2011

  20. [20]

    QCD phase diagram and the critical point,

    M. A. Stephanov, “QCD phase diagram and the critical point,”Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.153, 139–156 (2004)

    2004

  21. [21]

    G. Shao, W. He, and X. Gao, ”Deformed QCD phase structure and entropy oscillation in the presence of a magnetic background,”Phys. Rev. D100, 014020 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.[STAR Collaboration], “Cumulants and correlation functions of net-proton, proton, and antiproton multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,”Phys. Rev. C104, 024902 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Nonmonotonic energy dependence of net-proton number fluctuations,

    J. Adamet al.[STAR Collaboration], “Nonmonotonic energy dependence of net-proton number fluctuations,”Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 092301 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars,

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, “Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars,”Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    The nuclear equation of state and neutron star masses,

    J. M. Lattimer, “The nuclear equation of state and neutron star masses,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 485–515 (2012)

    2012

  26. [26]

    Color superconductivity in dense quark matter,

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, “Color superconductivity in dense quark matter,”Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1455–1515 (2008)

    2008

  27. [27]

    Phases of dense matter in compact stars,

    D. Blaschke and N. Chamel, “Phases of dense matter in compact stars,” inThe Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars, edited by L. Rezzolla, P. Pizzochero, D. I. Jones, N. Rea, and I. Vidana (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 337–400

    2018

  28. [28]

    GW170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations], “GW170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,”Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    GW170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state,

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations], “GW170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state,”Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    GW190425: Observation of a compact binary coalescence with total mass∼3.4M ⊙,

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations], “GW190425: Observation of a compact binary coalescence with total mass∼3.4M ⊙,”Astrophys. J. Lett.892, L3 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    A NICER view of PSR J0030+0451: Millisecond pulsar parameter estimation,

    T. E. Rileyet al., “A NICER view of PSR J0030+0451: Millisecond pulsar parameter estimation,”Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    PSR J0030+0451 mass and radius from NICER data and implications for the properties of neutron 15 star matter,

    M. C. Milleret al., “PSR J0030+0451 mass and radius from NICER data and implications for the properties of neutron 15 star matter,”Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    The radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton data,

    M. C. Milleret al., “The radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER and XMM-Newton data,”Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    A NICER view of the massive pulsar PSR J0740+6620 informed by radio timing and XMM-Newton spectroscopy,

    T. E. Rileyet al., “A NICER view of the massive pulsar PSR J0740+6620 informed by radio timing and XMM-Newton spectroscopy,”Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L27 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    The radius of the high-mass pulsar PSR J0740+6620 with 3.6 years of NICER data,

    T. Salmiet al., “The radius of the high-mass pulsar PSR J0740+6620 with 3.6 years of NICER data,”Astrophys. J.976, 294 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    PSR J0952−0607: The fastest and heaviest known galactic neutron star,

    R. W. Romani, D. Kandel, A. V. Filippenko, T. G. Brink, and W. Zheng, “PSR J0952−0607: The fastest and heaviest known galactic neutron star,”Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L18 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    A kilonova as the electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational-wave source,

    S. J. Smarttet al., “A kilonova as the electromagnetic counterpart to a gravitational-wave source,”Nature551, 75–79 (2017)

    2017

  38. [38]

    AT2017gfo: An anisotropic and three-component kilonova counterpart of GW170817,

    A. Perego, D. Radice, and S. Bernuzzi, “AT2017gfo: An anisotropic and three-component kilonova counterpart of GW170817,”Astrophys. J. Lett.850, L37 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Radiative transfer simulation for the optical and near-infrared electromagnetic counterparts to GW170817,

    K. Kawaguchi, M. Shibata, and M. Tanaka, “Radiative transfer simulation for the optical and near-infrared electromagnetic counterparts to GW170817,”Astrophys. J.865, L21 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    Equation of state of nucleon matter and neutron star structure,

    A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, “Equation of state of nucleon matter and neutron star structure,” Phys. Rev. C58, 1804–1828 (1998)

    1998

  41. [41]

    Equation of state and neutron star properties constrained by nuclear physics and observation,

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, “Equation of state and neutron star properties constrained by nuclear physics and observation,”Astrophys. J.773, 11 (2013)

    2013

  42. [42]

    Do hyperons exist in the interior of neutron stars?

    D. Chatterjee and I. Vida˜ na, “Do hyperons exist in the interior of neutron stars?”Eur. Phys. J. A52, 29 (2016)

    2016

  43. [43]

    Neutron star radii and crusts: Uncertainties and unified equations of state,

    M. Fortin, C. Providencia, A. R. Raduta, F. Gulminelli, J. L. Zdunik, P. Haensel, and M. Bejger, “Neutron star radii and crusts: Uncertainties and unified equations of state,”Phys. Rev. C94, 035804 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    Signatures of quark- hadron phase transitions in general-relativistic neutron-star mergers,

    E. R. Most, L. J. Palejik, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. St¨ ocker, and L. Rezzolla, “Signatures of quark- hadron phase transitions in general-relativistic neutron-star mergers,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 061101 (2019)

    2019

  45. [45]

    Postmerger gravitational-wave signatures of phase transitions in binary mergers,

    L. R. Weih, M. Hanauske, and L. Rezzolla, “Postmerger gravitational-wave signatures of phase transitions in binary mergers,”Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 171103 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Identifying a first-order phase transition in neutron-star mergers through gravitational waves,

    A. Bauswein, N. U. F. Bastian, D. B. Blaschke, K. Chatziioannou, J. A. Clark, T. Fischer, and M. Oertel, “Identifying a first-order phase transition in neutron-star mergers through gravitational waves,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 061102 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    The QCD thermal phase transition in the presence of a small chemical potential,

    C. R. Allton, S. Ejiri, S. J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Schmidt, and L. Scorzato, “The QCD thermal phase transition in the presence of a small chemical potential,”Phys. Rev. D66, 074507 (2002)

    2002

  48. [48]

    QCD at finite chemical potential with six time slices,

    R. V. Gavai and S. Gupta, “QCD at finite chemical potential with six time slices,”Phys. Rev. D78, 114503 (2008)

    2008

  49. [49]

    Framework for phase transitions between the Maxwell and Gibbs constructions,

    C. Constantinou, T. Zhao, S. Han, and M. Prakash, “Framework for phase transitions between the Maxwell and Gibbs constructions,”Phys. Rev. D107, 074013 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Phase diagrams in the three-flavor Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with the Polyakov loop,

    K. Fukushima, “Phase diagrams in the three-flavor Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with the Polyakov loop,”Phys. Rev. D 77, 114028 (2008)

    2008

  51. [51]

    Phases of QCD: Lattice thermodynamics and a field theoretical model,

    C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise, “Phases of QCD: Lattice thermodynamics and a field theoretical model,”Phys. Rev. D73, 014019 (2006)

    2006

  52. [52]

    Hybrid neutron stars based on a modified PNJL model,

    D. Blaschke, J. Berdermann, and R. Lastowiecki, “Hybrid neutron stars based on a modified PNJL model,”Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.186, 81–86 (2010)

    2010

  53. [53]

    Quark-nuclear hybrid equation of state for neutron stars under modern observational constraints,

    G. A. Contrera, D. Blaschke, J. P. Carlomagno, A. G. Grunfeld, and S. Liebing, “Quark-nuclear hybrid equation of state for neutron stars under modern observational constraints,”Phys. Rev. C105, 045808 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars,

    T. Hinderer, “Tidal Love numbers of neutron stars,”Astrophys. J.677, 1216–1220 (2008)

    2008

  55. [55]

    Perturbative QCD and the neutron star equation of state,

    R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and J. Margueron, “Perturbative QCD and the neutron star equation of state,”Phys. Rev. C 107, L052801 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Inference of the sound speed and related properties of neutron stars,

    L. Brandes, W. Weise, and N. Kaiser, “Inference of the sound speed and related properties of neutron stars,”Phys. Rev. D107, 014011 (2023)

    2023

  57. [57]

    Detectability of QCD phase transitions in binary neutron star mergers: Bayesian inference with the next generation gravitational wave detectors,

    A. Prakash, I. Gupta, M. Breschi, R. Kashyap, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, D. Logoteta, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Detectability of QCD phase transitions in binary neutron star mergers: Bayesian inference with the next generation gravitational wave detectors,”Phys. Rev. D109, 103008 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Evidence of phase transition from binary neutron star merger,

    S. Chatterjee, S. Haque, K. K. Nath, R. Mallick, and R. Nandi, “Evidence of phase transition from binary neutron star merger,” arXiv:2503.23047 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    From existing and new nuclear and astrophysical constraints to stringent limits on the equation of state of neutron-rich dense matter,

    H. Koehnet al., “From existing and new nuclear and astrophysical constraints to stringent limits on the equation of state of neutron-rich dense matter,”Phys. Rev. X15, 021014 (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Simultaneously constraining the neutron star equation of state and mass distribution through multimessenger observations and nuclear benchmarks,

    B. Biswas and S. Rosswog, “Simultaneously constraining the neutron star equation of state and mass distribution through multimessenger observations and nuclear benchmarks,” arXiv:2408.15192 [astro-ph.HE] (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024