Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 94 references

Cooling proto-neutron stars can take four distinct paths involving color-superconducting cores, and only a narrow high-mass window keeps them in cold remnants.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 04:53 UTC pith:OWPC3HQQ

load-bearing objection Solid, model-dependent taxonomy of four CSC core paths along conserved-NB cooling tracks; the “narrow high-mass cold CSC” claim is real for their EoS but not shown to be generic. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11537 v1 pith:OWPC3HQQ submitted 2026-07-13 nucl-th astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

The petit four of color-superconducting phases in proto-neutron star evolution

Selina Kunkel , Ishfaq Ahmad Rather , Hosein Gholami , Marco Hofmann , J\"urgen Schaffner-Bielich This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords proto-neutron starscolor superconductivity2SC phasehybrid equation of stateNJL modelisentropic evolutionneutrino trappingcore-collapse supernovae
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 asks whether color-superconducting quark matter can appear and survive while a newborn neutron star cools and sheds neutrinos after a core-collapse supernova. Because total baryon number is conserved, the authors follow fixed-baryon-number tracks from a hot, neutrino-trapped birth state through deleptonization to a cold, neutrino-transparent remnant. Using a hybrid equation of state that joins a standard hadronic model to a renormalization-group-consistent NJL description of color-superconducting phases, they map the core composition along these tracks and find four scenarios: delayed collapse from a CSC core into a black hole, a CSC phase that persists all the way to the cold star, a CSC phase that vanishes upon final cooling, and a CSC phase that appears only transiently during the hot stage. For their chosen parameters a stable CSC core remains in the final cold neutron star only in a narrow high-mass window. The result matters because it shows that the exotic phases may be present only for seconds to minutes after the explosion, or only in the heaviest remnants, so that multimessenger signals from supernovae or mergers could still catch them even if cold pulsars look purely hadronic.

Core claim

Tracking constant-baryon-number evolutionary tracks from a neutrino-trapped, finite-entropy birth configuration through a neutrino-transparent intermediate stage to the cold catalyzed remnant yields four distinct core-composition histories involving color-superconducting matter: delayed black-hole collapse from the CSC phase, persistent 2SC, vanishing 2SC that reverts to hadronic matter, and fleeting CSC that appears only while the star is hot. For the specific hybrid equation of state used, a stable CSC phase survives into the final cold neutron star only for a narrow high-mass interval.

What carries the argument

Constant-baryon-number isolines drawn across isentropic mass-radius sequences of a hybrid DD2+RG-NJL equation of state (with Maxwell construction and bag constant B=10 MeV/fm^{3}) that connect the neutrino-trapped birth state (YL=0.4, s=1) through the post-deleptonization state (Y u=0, s=2) to the cold T=0 remnant.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid matching is done with a Maxwell construction and an ad-hoc bag constant chosen so that a 2SC phase exists at zero temperature and matching remains possible at finite temperature; changing either can erase or relocate the four evolutionary paths.

What would settle it

A core-collapse supernova neutrino light curve or megahertz gravitational-wave signal that shows two successive phase-transition signatures (or none) for a remnant whose final mass lies outside the narrow high-mass window where cold CSC is predicted to survive would contradict the four-scenario map for this equation of state.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper incorporates neutrino-trapped (YL=0.4) and neutrino-transparent conditions into a hybrid EoS that matches the DD2 hadronic model to an RG-consistent three-flavor NJL model with 2SC and CFL color superconductivity (parameter set GD=1.45 GS, GV=0.7 GS, bag constant B=10 MeV/fm^{3}). Using isentropic sequences (s=1,2,3) and Maxwell constructions for the mixed phase, the authors track constant-baryon-number isolines from hot birth configurations through deleptonization to cold T=0 remnants. They identify four core-evolution scenarios (delayed collapse from CSC to black hole; persistent 2SC; vanishing CSC; fleeting CSC) and conclude that, for this parameterization, a stable CSC core survives only in a narrow high-mass window of the final cold neutron star.

Significance. The work systematically connects the hot, lepton-rich birth state of a proto-neutron star to its cold remnant under baryon-number conservation, showing that color-superconducting phases can appear, persist, vanish or trigger collapse depending on the initial mass. Strengths include the RG-consistent NJL treatment (avoiding regularization artifacts at high density), the publicly available NJL module, explicit phase diagrams with isentropes, and a clear taxonomy that yields concrete multimessenger signatures (possible double MHz GW features, modified neutrino cooling). If the scenarios survive under broader EoS variations they would sharpen the interpretation of core-collapse supernova signals and the conditions under which cold hybrid stars can form.

major comments (2)
  1. Secs. II.5 and III.1–III.4 (and Appendix A): The four-scenario taxonomy and the claim of a “narrow high-mass region” for stable cold CSC are obtained exclusively under Maxwell matching (local charge neutrality) plus the single bag value B=10 MeV/fm^{3}. Appendix A already shows that B=0 fails to produce a stable finite-T matching point while B=20 MeV/fm^{3} eliminates the T=0 2SC phase and moves the onset to ~5 n0. A Gibbs construction would further broaden the mixed phase. Because the constant-NB tracks that define the petit four are never recomputed for either alternative, it remains untested whether the taxonomy itself is robust. At minimum the manuscript should recompute the isolines for one alternative B (or a Gibbs case) or replace the unqualified “petit four” language with a stronger, explicit statement that the four scenarios are parameterization-specific.
  2. Sec. II.5, Eq. (22) and footnote: The mixed-phase construction for isentropes uses volume fractions of the entropy per baryon even though the authors correctly note that s is not a thermodynamic potential. While linear interpolation of P and ε is said to leave the TOV results unaffected, the temperature drop along the phase boundary (and therefore the thermal-twin plateaus in Figs. 5–6) is directly controlled by this interpolation. A short quantitative check—e.g., comparing the volume-fraction result with a pure Maxwell construction at fixed s or with a Gibbs construction—would confirm that the four evolutionary tracks are not an artifact of the approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 1 caption and Sec. II.1: The schematic timeline is helpful but the entropy values quoted (inner core s~1, envelope s=5–10) are not used in the subsequent calculations; a sentence clarifying that the isentropic sequences are representative rather than radially stratified would avoid confusion.
  2. Sec. II.4: Muons and muon neutrinos are omitted from the trapped EoS “for simplicity.” A brief remark on how a non-zero YLμ would shift the 2SC onset would strengthen the discussion of lepton-fraction dependence.
  3. Figs. 5–7: The black NB isolines are the central result yet are only sparsely labeled; adding the numerical NB values (already given in the text) next to each track would improve readability.
  4. Throughout: Occasional typos (“feauture,” “delptonization,” “isodensity” vs. “isodensity contours”) and inconsistent hyphenation of “proto-neutron star” / “proto–neutron star” should be cleaned.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: four evolutionary scenarios are genuine computational outputs of a fixed hybrid EoS, not tautologies of the input parameters or self-citations.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II.2, parameter choice; also abstract and Sec. IV summary]
    "We use the parameter set GD = 1.45GS and GV = 0.7GS, corresponding to parameter set 1 of Ref. [39], which yields hybrid-star configurations consistent with current astrophysical constraints. ... For our specific parameterization of the hadronic and the CSC equation of state, we find that a stable color-superconducting phase can only be sustained in the final cold neutron star for a narrow, high-mass region."

    The only mild circularity is that the cold hybrid EoS (and therefore the high-mass window that survives to T = 0) is fixed by a parameter set taken from the authors' own prior paper chosen to satisfy the 2 M⊙ constraint. This is ordinary model-building practice, not a reduction of the four evolutionary scenarios themselves; the scenarios remain genuine outputs of the subsequent isentrope + NB-isoline calculation and are not presupposed by the fit.

full rationale

The paper's central result (four distinct core-evolution paths along conserved-NB isolines, with cold CSC only in a narrow high-mass window) is obtained by solving the TOV equations on isentropic hybrid sequences constructed from DD2 + RG-NJL under Maxwell matching and B = 10 MeV/fm^{3}, then connecting configurations of equal baryon number. These paths are not forced by definition or by a fit to the same data; they are model-dependent numerical outcomes that the authors themselves flag as such ("for our specific parameterization", "model-dependent", Appendix A variations). The parameter set GD = 1.45 GS, GV = 0.7 GS is imported from the authors' prior hybrid-star work solely to satisfy the 2 M⊙ constraint; that choice fixes the cold EoS but does not encode or presuppose the PNS trajectories. Self-citations of the RG-consistent NJL framework and open-source module supply legitimate prior infrastructure, not a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that smuggles the target result. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no fitted quantity is re-labeled a prediction, and no external uniqueness claim is invoked. Score 1 reflects only the ordinary (non-load-bearing) self-citation of the parameter set; the derivation chain itself is independent and self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard mean-field hybrid-star pipeline plus several free couplings and an ad-hoc bag constant that set the hadronic–2SC–CFL boundaries. No new particles or forces are invented; CSC phases and PNS epochs are domain standard. The load-bearing modeling choices are Maxwell matching, fixed YL=0.4 and discrete isentropes, and the RG-NJL parameter set tuned previously to cold hybrid-star constraints.

free parameters (6)
  • GD / GS = 1.45
    Diquark coupling fixed to 1.45 GS (parameter set 1 of Ref. [39]) to produce hybrid stars consistent with ~2 M⊙ constraints; controls CSC gap size and phase boundaries.
  • GV / GS = 0.7
    Vector coupling fixed to 0.7 GS to stiffen the quark EoS for two-solar-mass support; directly affects maximum masses and radii of hybrid sequences.
  • Bag constant B = 10 MeV/fm³
    Chosen by hand as 10 MeV/fm³ so a 2SC phase exists at T=0 and matching to DD2 remains possible at finite T; Appendix shows B=0 and B=20 qualitatively change the phase diagram.
  • Three-momentum cutoff Λ' = 602.3 MeV
    Sharp cutoff 602.3 MeV from vacuum meson-spectrum fit of the NJL model; non-renormalizable regularization scale.
  • Electron lepton fraction YLe (trapped) = 0.4
    Fixed to 0.4 as representative of early PNS after bounce; sets neutrino-trapped beta equilibrium and shifts phase boundaries.
  • Entropy per baryon grid s = 1, 2, 3
    Discrete isentropes s=1,2,3 plus T=0 used as evolutionary stages; standard but discrete sampling of continuous cooling.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation for the three-flavor NJL model with chiral, diquark, and vector condensates; equilibrium from minimizing Ω_eff.
    Sec. II.2; standard for dense QCD effective models but omits fluctuations and confinement dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Maxwell construction (local charge neutrality) for hadronic–quark mixed phase; large surface-tension limit.
    Sec. II.5 explicitly chooses Maxwell over Gibbs because surface tension and nucleation timescales are unknown; this choice narrows the mixed phase and shapes the MR plateaus and evolutionary tracks.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static isentropic stellar structure: hydrodynamic timescale ≪ Kelvin–Helmholtz cooling; radial profiles nearly isentropic.
    Sec. II.1; justified by prior dynamical simulations but freezes out convection and detailed neutrino transport.
  • domain assumption Baryon number conserved along evolutionary isolines after birth; lepton fraction and entropy evolve between discrete stages.
    Central methodological premise of Secs. III.2–III.4; standard for long-term PNS evolution studies.
  • domain assumption Beta equilibrium and charge neutrality with either free-streaming neutrinos (Yν=0) or trapped electron leptons (fixed YLe); muons omitted in trapped case.
    Sec. II.4; simplification stated explicitly for the trapped EoS.
  • domain assumption DD2 RMF EoS for the hadronic phase at low density.
    Sec. II.3; widely used supernova EoS, not derived in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25964 in / 3818 out tokens · 39001 ms · 2026-07-14T04:53:24.319145+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

At high densities and moderate temperatures, hadronic matter is expected to undergo a first-order phase transition into a color-superconducting (CSC) state. A proto-neutron star describes the earliest evolutionary stages during the first seconds to minutes after core-collapse supernovae and therefore has the potential to assess the appearance of CSC phases at such high densities and moderate temperatures. To address this, we incorporate proto-neutron star conditions, considering neutrino-trapped and neutrino-transparent ones, into the equation of state including color-superconducting phases in a recently developed RG-consistent NJL model. Since the total baryon number of a proto-neutron star is conserved during its later evolution, tracking stellar configurations from an initial mass of the hot proto-neutron star to the final cold neutron star along isolines of baryon number allows us to investigate whether color-superconducting phases can form at any point along this trajectory. By mapping this multidimensional transition in the hot furnace of a core-collapse supernovae cooling from a neutrino-trapped birth state to a cold, neutrino-transparent final state, we reveal four distinct core evolution scenarios-our "petit four" of proto-neutron star evolution: a delayed collapse from the CSC phase to a black hole, a persistent CSC phase, a vanishing CSC phase, and a fleeting CSC phase. For our specific parameterization of the hadronic and the CSC equation of state, we find that a stable color-superconducting phase can only be sustained in the final cold neutron star for a narrow, high-mass region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11537 by Hosein Gholami, Ishfaq Ahmad Rather, J\"urgen Schaffner-Bielich, Marco Hofmann, Selina Kunkel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic overview of proto-neutron star evolution. The stages trace the long-term transition from an early neutrino [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Phase diagram of quark matter within the RG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mass–radius relations for the DD2+NJL1 hybrid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Zoomed mass–radius diagram in the high-mass region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.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

94 extracted references · 55 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    We first tabulate the quark-matter EoS as a three- dimensional table with T, µB, µQ as free parameters. 5

  2. [2]

    The electron chemical potential µe is fixed by requiring electric charge neutrality nQ = 0 of the system including quarks and electrons

    For a given T, µB, µQ in the table, we then add electrons to the EoS. The electron chemical potential µe is fixed by requiring electric charge neutrality nQ = 0 of the system including quarks and electrons

  3. [3]

    (20) now fixes the electron lepton-number chemical potential µLe, and equili- brated electron neutrinos are added to the system with this chemical potentialµ νe =µ Le (Eq

    Given µQ and µe, Eq. (20) now fixes the electron lepton-number chemical potential µLe, and equili- brated electron neutrinos are added to the system with this chemical potentialµ νe =µ Le (Eq. (21))

  4. [4]

    The three-dimensional EoS table of the system with quarks, electrons and electron-neutrinos with the free parameters T, µB, µQ is now interpolated along a fixed electron lepton-number fraction YLe = constant in the plane spanned by T, µB. From this two-dimensional table, one-dimensional slices at con- stant T can be obtained or slices at constant en- trop...

  5. [5]

    As the star cools and deleptonizes, it sheds the crucial lepton and thermal pressure support required to balance its im- mense gravity

    Delayed gravitational collapse to a black hole: This scenario applies to PNSs born with a high baryon mass, such as the topmost isoline originat- ing at the YL = 0.4 maximum-mass configuration (M≈ 2.20 M⊙, R≈ 13.22 km). As the star cools and deleptonizes, it sheds the crucial lepton and thermal pressure support required to balance its im- mense gravity. B...

  6. [6]

    Upon deleptonization to the Yν = 0, s = 2 sequence, the track remains stable within the 2SC phase, passing through its respective maximum-mass configuration

    2SC → 2SC → 2SC sequence:This path de- scribes stable high-mass remnants, exemplified by the second isoline from the top, which originates on the dashed branch of the birth state (M≈ 2.15 M⊙) with a pure 2SC core. Upon deleptonization to the Yν = 0, s = 2 sequence, the track remains stable within the 2SC phase, passing through its respective maximum-mass ...

  7. [7]

    The star is born with a suf- ficiently high central density to possess a pure 2SC core on the YL = 0.4 curve

    2SC → 2SC → Hadronic sequence:This track corresponds to mass configurations of M≈2.05M ⊙ −2.1M ⊙. The star is born with a suf- ficiently high central density to possess a pure 2SC core on the YL = 0.4 curve. During the deleptoniza- tion phase to the s = 2 sequence, the star contracts and its core remains within the pure 2SC phase. However, during final co...

  8. [8]

    Hadronic → 2SC → Hadronic sequence:For remnants with masses of M≲ 2.0 M⊙, represented by the bottommost isolines, the star is born on the solid, purely hadronic branch of the YL = 0.4, s = 1 curve. As the star sheds its trapped neutrinos and transitions to the Yν = 0, s = 2 sequence, the star’s increased temperature allows for a shift of the core across t...

  9. [9]

    2SC→Collapse to black hole,

  10. [10]

    2SC→2SC→Hadronic, and

  11. [11]

    The final T = 0 stellar configurations are fully compatible with the astrophysical constraints from PSR J0740+6620

    Hadronic→2SC→Hadronic. The final T = 0 stellar configurations are fully compatible with the astrophysical constraints from PSR J0740+6620. Our macrostructural results are tightly bound to the microphysical structure of the underlying T –µB phase di- agrams. The temperature and lepton-fraction dependence of the phase boundaries determines when and where co...

  12. [12]

    Chadwick, Proc

    J. Chadwick, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A136, 692–708 (1932)

    1932

  13. [13]

    Baade and F

    W. Baade and F. Zwicky, Phys. Rev.46, 76 (1934)

    1934

  14. [14]

    Hewish, S

    A. Hewish, S. J. Bell, J. D. H. Pilkington, P. F. Scott, and R. A. Collins, Nature217, 709–713 (1968)

    1968

  15. [15]

    S. J. Bell Burnell, inEighth Texas Symposium on Relativis- tic Astrophysics, Vol. 302, edited by M. D. Papagiannis (1977) p. 685

    1977

  16. [16]

    Janka, Ann

    H.-T. Janka, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 407–451 (2012), arXiv:1206.2503 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    H. A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys.62, 801–866 (1990)

    1990

  18. [18]

    R. M. Biontaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1494 (1987)

    1987

  19. [19]

    K. S. Hirataet al., Phys. Rev. D38, 448–458 (1988)

    1988

  20. [20]

    Burrows and J

    A. Burrows and J. M. Lattimer, Astrophys. J.307, 178– 196 (1986)

    1986

  21. [22]

    Pascal, J

    A. Pascal, J. Novak, and M. Oertel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 356–370 (2022), arXiv:2201.01955 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [23]

    Burrows and J

    A. Burrows and J. M. Lattimer, physrep163, 51–62 (1988)

    1988

  23. [24]

    W. Keil, H. T. Janka, and E. Mueller, apjl473, L111 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9610203 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  24. [25]

    J. A. Pons, A. W. Steiner, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lat- timer, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5223–5226 (2001), arXiv:astro- 13 ph/0102015

    arXiv 2001

  25. [26]

    Fischer, M.-R

    T. Fischer, M.-R. Wu, B. Wehmeyer, N.-U. F. Bastian, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, and F.-K. Thielemann, Astrophys. J.894, 9 (2020), arXiv:2003.00972 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [27]

    Jakobus, B

    P. Jakobus, B. Mueller, A. Heger, A. Motornenko, J. Stein- heimer, and H. Stoecker, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 516, 2554–2574 (2022), arXiv:2204.10397 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [28]

    Fischer, I

    T. Fischer, I. Sagert, G. Pagliara, M. Hempel, J. Schaffner- Bielich, T. Rauscher, F. K. Thielemann, R. Kappeli, G. Martinez-Pinedo, and M. Liebendorfer, Astrophys. J. Suppl.194, 39 (2011), arXiv:1011.3409 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [29]

    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, 980–986 (2018), arXiv:1712.08788 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [30]

    N. K. Glendenning, Phys. Rev. D46, 1274–1287 (1992)

    1992

  30. [31]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi, and A. Olinto, Astrophys. J.310, 261–272 (1986)

    1986

  31. [32]

    Bombaci, I

    I. Bombaci, I. Parenti, and I. Vidana, Astrophys. J.614, 314–325 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402404

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [33]

    Weber, Prog

    F. Weber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.54, 193–288 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0407155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  33. [34]

    Buballa, Phys

    M. Buballa, Phys. Rept.407, 205–376 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0402234

    arXiv 2005

  34. [35]

    Sagert, T

    I. Sagert, T. Fischer, M. Hempel, G. Pagliara, J. Schaffner- Bielich, A. Mezzacappa, F. K. Thielemann, and M. Liebendorfer, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 081101 (2009), arXiv:0809.4225 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [36]

    Malfatti, M

    G. Malfatti, M. G. Orsaria, G. A. Contrera, F. Weber, and I. F. Ranea-Sandoval, Phys. Rev. C100, 015803 (2019), arXiv:1907.06597 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [37]

    Sabatucci and A

    A. Sabatucci and A. Sedrakian, (2026), arXiv:2603.19085 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [38]

    Roark, X

    J. Roark, X. Du, C. Constantinou, V. Dexheimer, A. W. Steiner, and J. R. Stone, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486, 5441–5447 (2019), arXiv:1812.08157 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [39]

    Roark and V

    J. Roark and V. Dexheimer, Phys. Rev. C98, 055805 (2018), arXiv:1803.02411 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [40]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev.108, 1175–1204 (1957)

    1957

  40. [41]

    B. C. Barrois, Nucl. Phys. B129, 390–396 (1977)

    1977

  41. [42]

    Bailin and A

    D. Bailin and A. Love, Phys. Rept.107, 325–385 (1984)

    1984

  42. [43]

    M. G. Alford, K. Rajagopal, and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B537, 443–458 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9804403

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  43. [44]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1455–1515 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [45]

    S. B. Ruester and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D69, 045011 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0309022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  45. [46]

    Baldo, M

    M. Baldo, M. Buballa, F. Burgio, F. Neumann, M. Oertel, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Lett. B562, 153–160 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0212096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  46. [47]

    S. B. Ruester, V. Werth, M. Buballa, I. A. Shovkovy, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D72, 034004 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0503184

    arXiv 2005

  47. [48]

    Sandin and D

    F. Sandin and D. Blaschke, Phys. Rev. D75, 125013 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701772

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  48. [49]

    Roupas, G

    Z. Roupas, G. Panotopoulos, and I. Lopes, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083015 (2021), arXiv:2010.11020 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [50]

    Gholami, I

    H. Gholami, I. A. Rather, M. Hofmann, M. Buballa, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D111, 103034 (2025), arXiv:2411.04064 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Geißel, T

    A. Geißel, T. Gorda, and J. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 211901 (2025), arXiv:2504.03834 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    Christian, I

    J.-E. Christian, I. A. Rather, H. Gholami, and M. Hofmann, Astron. Astrophys.701, A145 (2025), arXiv:2503.13626 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    S. B. Ruester, V. Werth, M. Buballa, I. A. Shovkovy, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D73, 034025 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0509073

    arXiv 2006

  53. [54]

    T. A. S. do Carmo and G. Lugones, Physica A392, 6536–6544 (2013), arXiv:1308.4461 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [55]

    M. G. Alford, L. Brodie, M. Buballa, H. Gholami, A. Haber, and M. Hofmann, (2025), arXiv:2509.04240 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    Gholami, M

    H. Gholami, M. Hofmann, D. Mroczek, and J. Noronha- Hostler, (2025), arXiv:2512.16720 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [57]

    Prakash, I

    M. Prakash, I. Bombaci, M. Prakash, P. J. Ellis, J. M. Lattimer, and R. Knorren, Phys. Rept.280, 1–77 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9603042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  57. [58]

    J. A. Pons, S. Reddy, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and J. A. Miralles, Astrophys. J.513, 780 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9807040

    arXiv 1999

  58. [59]

    Kunkel, S

    S. Kunkel, S. Wystub, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C111, 035807 (2025), arXiv:2411.14930 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [60]

    Rehberg, S

    P. Rehberg, S. P. Klevansky, and J. Hufner, Phys. Rev. C53, 410–429 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506436

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  60. [61]

    Gastineau, R

    F. Gastineau, R. Nebauer, and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. C65, 045204 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0101289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  61. [62]

    Kl¨ ahn, D

    T. Kl¨ ahn, D. Blaschke, F. Sandin, C. Fuchs, A. Faessler, H. Grigorian, G. Ropke, and J. Trumper, Phys. Lett. B 654, 170–176 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0609067

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  62. [63]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.44, 1422–1424 (1970)

    1970

  63. [64]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8–11 (1976)

    1976

  64. [65]

    Gholami, M

    H. Gholami, M. Hofmann, and M. Buballa, Phys. Rev. D111, 014006 (2025), arXiv:2408.06704 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [66]

    Braun, M

    J. Braun, M. Leonhardt, and J. M. Pawlowski, SciPost Phys.6, 056 (2019), arXiv:1806.04432 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [67]

    Nambu–jona-lasinio equation of state module,

    M. Hofmann, H. Gholami, M. Pelicer, and Y. Yang, “Nambu–jona-lasinio equation of state module,” (2026)

    2026

  67. [68]

    Jahanet al., (2026), arXiv:2606.26326 [nucl-th]

    J. Jahanet al., (2026), arXiv:2606.26326 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [69]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. Ropke, T. Klahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C81, 015803 (2010), arXiv:0908.2344 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  69. [70]

    Hempel and J

    M. Hempel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A837, 210–254 (2010), arXiv:0911.4073 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  70. [71]

    J. M. Lattimer, Particles6, 30–56 (2023), arXiv:2301.03666 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [72]

    Essick, I

    R. Essick, I. Tews, P. Landry, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 192701 (2021), arXiv:2102.10074 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [73]

    Lim and A

    Y. Lim and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C109, 035801 (2024), arXiv:2307.04063 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [74]

    Fischer, M

    T. Fischer, M. Hempel, I. Sagert, Y. Suwa, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Eur. Phys. J. A50, 46 (2014), arXiv:1307.6190 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  74. [75]

    Typelet al.(CompOSE Core Team), Eur

    S. Typelet al.(CompOSE Core Team), Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 221 (2022), arXiv:2203.03209 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [76]

    Typel, M

    S. Typel, M. Oertel, and T. Kl¨ ahn, Phys. Part. Nucl.46, 633–664 (2015), arXiv:1307.5715 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  76. [77]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015007 (2017). [67]https://compose.obspm.fr/

    2017

  77. [78]

    Buras, M

    R. Buras, M. Rampp, H. T. Janka, and K. Kifonidis, Astron. Astrophys.447, 1049–1092 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0507135

    arXiv 2006

  78. [79]

    L. F. Roberts, C. D. Ott, R. Haas, E. P. O’Connor, P. Diener, and E. Schnetter, Astrophys. J.831, 98 (2016), arXiv:1604.07848 [astro-ph.HE]. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  79. [80]

    Kuroda, K

    T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, T. Takiwaki, and F.-K. Thiele- mann, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.477, L80–L84 (2018), arXiv:1801.01293 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [81]

    Burrows, D

    A. Burrows, D. Radice, D. Vartanyan, H. Nagakura, M. A. Skinner, and J. Dolence, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 491, 2715–2735 (2020), arXiv:1909.04152 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.