Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 77 references

The $g$-mode frequencies in cold neutron stars and nuclear saturation parameters

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes an empirical relation tying the first gravity-mode frequency of cold neutron stars to compactness and to the nuclear parameter ratio L/K0, and argues that departures from this relation expose non-nucleonic degrees of

desk verdict Useful empirical fit of g1-mode frequencies to L/K0, but the universality rests on 8 in-sample EOSs and a ~10% fit matched by the Cowling error. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02463 v1 pith:MQJNG6KV submitted 2026-08-03 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Hajime Sotani , Hajime Togashi This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Jd26.60.-c04.40.Dg
keywords neutronstarsg-modescompositiongradientnuclearequationofstatesaturationparameterssymmetryenergycompactnessasteroseismology
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 claims that in cold, non-rotating neutron stars built from nucleonic matter, the frequency of the first composition-gradient g-mode is not a free outcome of the equation of state but is governed by two quantities: the stellar compactness M/R and the ratio eta0 = L/K0 of the symmetry-energy slope to the nuclear incompressibility. The authors compute g-mode eigenfrequencies for eight nucleonic equations of state and fit the results to a cubic in compactness with coefficients that are cubic in eta0, reproducing the numerical frequencies to roughly 10 percent across 128 stellar models. Because the fit is presented as universal for nucleonic stars, a future observed g1 frequency that falls far off this surface would be evidence that something beyond nucleons, such as hyperons or quark matter, is present inside the star. The paper also shows that the g-mode frequencies are highly sensitive to the exact difference between the frozen-composition sound speed and the beta-equilibrium sound speed, and that higher g-modes resist such a simple parametrization.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that creates these modes is the mismatch between two sound speeds: c_s, the speed of small disturbances at fixed composition, and c_eq, the speed along beta-equilibrium matter. That mismatch enters the buoyancy frequency and gives rise to g-modes even at zero temperature. The paper's empirical relation is built on the scaled frequency f_g1 M^2 and uses two normalizing constants: compactness scaled by 0.172 and eta0 = L/K0 scaled by 0.25. It also introduces a continuous parameter delta that interpolates between c_eq and c_s, showing that the g-mode frequencies respond almost universally to the strength of the composition-gradient restoring force.

What would settle it

Compute the g1-mode frequency for a nucleonic equation of state not among the eight used here, using the same fixed-metric linearized equations, and compare f_g1 M^2 with the cubic formula; a single model whose residual exceeds about 10 percent would falsify the claimed universality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, within the fixed-metric approximation to the stellar oscillation equations, the first g-mode frequency obeys f_g1 M^2 = cubic in (M/R)/0.172, with each coefficient a cubic in eta0/0.25. This relation is derived from full linearized eigenvalue calculations for eight nucleonic equations of state spanning a range of L and K0, and the authors report a mean residual near zero, a standard deviation of 0.0156 kHz, and 71.9%/96.9% of 128 models within 1sigma/2sigma of a normal distribution. They emphasize that the functional form was found by trial and error, that no physical interpretation is yet known, and that higher g-modes could not be fitted the same way.

Load-bearing premise

The relation is assumed to hold for every cold nucleonic neutron star, but it was derived from just eight equations of state and a trial-and-error functional form, and it has not been checked against an equation of state left out of the fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detected g1 mode, combined with mass and radius measurements, would directly yield eta0 = L/K0 for nucleonic stars.
  • A g1 frequency that deviates from the fitted surface by more than the about 10 percent uncertainty would indicate non-nucleonic degrees of freedom, such as hyperons or quark matter.
  • The empirical relation gives a target frequency band for searches: g1 modes lie at less than about 600 Hz, so future gravitational-wave detectors could look for this signal.
  • Because the g-mode frequencies are very sensitive to the choice between c_s and c_eq, any equation of state that gets the symmetry-energy slope right can be tested.
  • The fixed-metric approximation means the fitted coefficients may shift when full metric perturbations are included; the qualitative relation should remain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-universal delta-scaling curve suggests that the ratio of g-mode frequency to some buoyancy-integral scale may be approximately EOS-independent; if so, a single observed g-mode could pin down the size of the composition-gradient restoring force even without knowing the equation of state in detail.
  • The formula's dependence on M^2 rather than M alone hints that the g-mode frequency might scale with the star's dynamical frequency times a weak function of composition; rewriting the fit in dimensionless form could reveal that hidden scaling.
  • The relation was calibrated on eight equations of state with eta0 between 0.14 and 0.39; testing it on a broader set, including very stiff symmetry energies or phase transitions, would tell whether the nucleonic-only diagnostic is robust.
  • If future X-ray or gravitational-wave measurements independently determine M and R, the same data that test this relation could also break the degeneracy between L and K0, since only their ratio enters the leading-order fit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes g-mode eigenfrequencies of non-rotating, cold neutron stars in the Cowling approximation for eight nucleonic equations of state drawn from Skyrme, relativistic mean-field, and variational families. The main result is an empirical fit (Eqs. (8)-(12)) expressing the first g-mode frequency scaled by M^2 as a cubic polynomial in compactness M/R, with coefficients that are themselves cubic in η0 = L/K0. The authors report ~10% accuracy on the 128 stellar models considered (16 masses × 8 EOS) and suggest that a significant observed deviation from this relation could signal non-nucleonic degrees of freedom. They also study the sensitivity of g-mode frequencies to the difference between frozen and equilibrium sound speeds by introducing a dimensionless interpolation parameter δ, finding that the relative deviation is approximately universal across EOS, mass, and mode order, as described by the quartic fit in Eq. (15). The paper is explicit that the functional form was found by trial and error and that no physical derivation is provided.

Significance. If the empirical relation survives out-of-sample testing, it would provide a compact asteroseismology diagnostic: a measured g1 frequency and mass would directly constrain η0 = L/K0, and deviations from the relation could indicate exotic composition. The study fills a gap by systematically computing g-mode frequencies for multiple nucleonic EOSs and identifying a parameter combination that reduces EOS scatter. However, the central universality claim is not yet established: the fit is calibrated and validated on the same models, no held-out EOS is tested, and the Cowling approximation error is the same order as the claimed accuracy. The authors' transparency about the empirical nature and the self-identified limitations is a strength, but the predictive content of the formula remains conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (8)-(12) and Fig. 8] The reported ~10% accuracy and the residual statistics (mean zero, σ=0.0156 kHz) are computed on the same 128 models used to determine the coefficients of Eqs. (9)-(12). This in-sample validation cannot confirm predictive power: each a_{1j} is a cubic fitted to only eight EOS points, and the trial-and-error selection of the η0 combination (acknowledged in Sec. III) makes overfitting plausible. To support the claim that f_g1 M^2 is a universal function of (M/R, η0) for nucleonic EOSs, please perform a leave-one-EOS-out cross-validation, ideally augmented by additional nucleonic EOSs from different families (e.g., chiral effective field theory), and test explicitly whether residuals depend on other nuclear saturation parameters such as symmetry-energy curvature. Without this, the proposed diagnostic lacks a demonstrated baseline.
  2. [Sec. III (Cowling approximation) and Sec. V] The claimed fit accuracy (~10%) is the same order as the stated <10% error of the Cowling approximation (Ref. [58]), and all frequencies are computed within that approximation. The conclusion explicitly states that 'the coefficients in such formulas have to be modified after the determination of the frequencies with the metric perturbations.' Therefore the empirical relation is not yet calibrated to observable full-GR frequencies, and the systematic uncertainty from the Cowling approximation is not folded into the accuracy claim. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the full-GR correction for at least a representative subset of models, or otherwise define the regime in which the Cowling-based relation can be used for inference.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (15)] The claim that the δ-dependence of g-mode frequencies is nearly universal is based on only two EOSs (SLy4, SKa) and three masses each. The fit coefficients in Eq. (15) are given without uncertainties and no residual statistics are reported. If this is intended as a general sensitivity statement, please add more EOSs or present it as an illustrative example with error bars.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] Typos and spacing issues: 'Theg-mode' appears in the abstract and Sec. I; 'V olkoff' in Sec. II; 'c2s = ceq' in Fig. 4 caption. Also, the definition of the normalization factor 0.25 for η0 is given but its selection is not discussed; a brief justification or sensitivity check would help.
  3. [Sec. III] The text says the fitting formula was found 'through trial and error' and that another functional form may exist. This is honest but also means the physical significance of the combination f_g1 M^2 and η0 is unclear. A short discussion of why M^2 and η0 are natural scales (e.g., from dimensional analysis or the Brunt–Väisälä integral) would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

g1-mode empirical relation is validated only in-sample; the claimed ~10% predictive accuracy is a restatement of the fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, Eqs. (8)–(13), Fig. 8]
    "In practice, to see how well our fitting formula for the g1-mode frequencies given by Eqs. (8) - (12) works, in Fig. 8, we show the relative deviation defined by Eq. (13)... From this figure, one can observe that our fitting formula predicts the g1-mode frequencies with ∼10% accuracy. For all 128 stellar models (16 neutron-star models for each of the 8 EOS), we also evaluate the residuals between the g1-mode frequencies obtained from the eigenvalue problem and those predicted with the fitting formula. We find that the mean residual is essentially zero, and its standard deviation is 0.0156 kHz,"

    The coefficients in Eq. (8) are obtained by fitting f_g1 M^2 as a cubic in M/R for each EOS, and Eqs. (9)–(12) are fitted as cubics in η0 across the same 8 EOSs. The 128 stellar models are therefore the training set, not an independent validation set. A zero mean residual is a direct consequence of least-squares fitting with an intercept for each EOS, and the 1σ/2σ percentages describe the in-sample scatter of the very data used to select both the functional form and the coefficients. Calling this 'predicts' converts a fitted response into a claimed predictive accuracy. No held-out EOS, no out-of-sample model, and no independent test of the universality assumption (that only M/R and η0 matter) is provided, so the central empirical relation is validated only on its own fitting data.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that Eqs. (8)–(12) are an empirical relation found 'through trial and error' (Sec. III), so this is not a hidden first-principles derivation that secretly assumes its own conclusion. The circularity is of the fitted-input-called-prediction kind: the same 128 stellar models used to determine the polynomial coefficients are then used to report residuals and claim ~10% accuracy. A zero-mean residual and near-normal scatter are expected properties of an in-sample regression, not evidence that the relation generalizes to all nucleonic EOSs. The abstract's proposed diagnostic—that an observed g1-mode frequency deviating from the relation signals non-nucleonic degrees of freedom—depends on the relation being universal, but universality is asserted rather than tested. Meanwhile, the Cowling approximation is stated to have the same order of error (~10%), further weakening the practical significance of the claimed accuracy. No load-bearing self-citation chain is involved; the issue is purely that the prediction is the fit. Thus a score of 6 is appropriate: partial circularity because the validation reduces to the training procedure, though the authors do explicitly label the result as empirical.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result is an empirical surface calibrated by 8 EOSs and 16 coefficient functions; no independent dataset is used. It therefore rests heavily on the representativeness of the sample, the chosen ansatz, and the Cowling approximation.

free parameters (5)
  • Eq. (8) coefficients a10-a13 per EOS (4 × 8 EOS = 32 fitted values) = not tabulated
    For each of 8 EOSs, f_g1 M^2 vs M/R is fitted by a cubic; these 32 coefficients absorb the EOS dependence before being compressed to eta0.
  • Eqs. (9)-(12) cubic coefficients (16 constants) = a10=-8.2274+22.9039η̄0-20.4412η̄0^2+6.1178η̄0^3; a11=21.4329-59.3407η̄0+52.8381η̄0^2-16.0556η̄0^3; etc.
    The four coefficients for each a1j(eta0) are fitted to 8 EOS points; no uncertainties are given.
  • compactness normalization 0.172 = 0.172 (M/R for 1.4 Msun, 12 km)
    Chosen by hand; rescaling changes coefficient values but not predictive content.
  • eta0 normalization 0.25 = 0.25 (K0=240, L=60 MeV)
    Fiducial normalization chosen to make eta0 order unity; not a physical parameter.
  • δ-dependence coefficients in Eq. (15) = -0.6806, 0.3620, 0.2318, 0.090332
    Fitted to artificial variation of the sound-speed difference; a secondary empirical result, not the central claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Brunt-Väisälä frequency (Eqs 6-7) with c_s from Eq (3) and c_eq from Eq (5) is the correct g-mode restoring mechanism in cold, beta-frozen matter.
    The paper assumes the weak-interaction timescale exceeds the oscillation timescale (Sec. IIA, Ref [73]), so composition gradients are frozen and g-modes exist. If beta equilibrium is maintained, N^2=0 and the modes vanish.
  • domain assumption The Cowling approximation gives g-mode frequencies within <10% for cold neutron stars.
    Invoked in Sec. III with Ref [58]; the empirical formula inherits this error, and the authors state coefficients must be modified after metric perturbations (Sec. V).
  • domain assumption The eight adopted EOSs and their crust-core matching are representative of nucleonic matter.
    Table I lists only 8 EOSs; no out-of-sample EOS validates the eta0 surface.
  • ad hoc to paper The ansatz f_g1 M^2 = cubic(M/R) with coefficients cubic in eta0 is adequate; other saturation parameters are irrelevant.
    Authors state it was found through trial and error and may not be unique (Sec. III).
  • standard math The perturbation equations and boundary conditions of Refs [30,49] are correct.
    The eigenvalue problem is taken from previous work without re-derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • δ — dimensionless interpolation parameter between c_eq and c_s
    purpose: Scales the deviation c_s^2 - c_eq^2 in Eq (14) to test how g-mode frequencies respond to changes in the sound-speed difference.
    A mathematical control knob, not a physical quantity; the fitted Eq (15) for δ-dependence has no external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The $g$-mode frequencies in cold neutron stars and nuclear saturation parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQJNG6KV

@misc{pith2026260802463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The $g$-mode frequencies in cold neutron stars and nuclear saturation parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQJNG6KV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02463}
}
abstract

Oscillation frequencies excited in neutron stars are crucial for extracting their interior properties. In addition to the fundamental and pressure modes, the gravity ($g$-) modes can be excited even in zero-temperature stellar models due to the composition gradient. In this study, we systematically study the $g$-mode frequencies, focusing on the nucleonic equation of state. Then, we can derive an empirical relation for the 1st $g$-mode frequencies as a function of the stellar compactness and the combination of the nuclear saturation parameters, $\eta_0 \equiv L/K_0$, where $K_0$ and $L$ denote the incompressibility of symmetric nuclear matter and the density dependence of the nuclear symmetry energy, respectively. If an observed 1st $g$-mode frequency significantly deviates from our empirical relation, it may indicate the emergence of additional degrees of freedom or new compositions inside the star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Mass-radius relations for neutron star models constructed with several EOSs, where the solid, dotted, and dashed lines correspond to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The comparison between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The difference between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The excited frequencies on the neutron star models constructed with SLy4 (top-left panel) and SKa (top-right panel) are shown as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The frequencies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Relative deviation of the frequencies estimated with the fitting formula from the frequencies determined from the eigenvalue problem, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. In the top panels, we show the frequencies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [58]

    T. Zhao, C. Constantinou, P. Jaikumar, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D105, 103025 (2022)

    2022

  2. [1]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky,Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects(Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1983)

    1983

  3. [2]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature467, 1081 (2010)

    2010

  4. [3]

    Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013)

    J. Antoniadiset al., Science340, 6131 (2013)

    2013

  5. [4]

    Fonsecaet al., Astrophys

    E. Fonsecaet al., Astrophys. J.915, L12 (2021)

    2021

  6. [5]

    K. R. Pechenick, C. Ftaclas, J. M. Cohen, Astrophys. J. 274, 846 (1983)

    1983

  7. [6]

    D. A. Leahy, L. Li, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 277, 1177 (1995)

    1995

  8. [7]

    Poutanen, M

    J. Poutanen, M. Gierlinski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 343, 1301 (2003)

    2003

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    Psaltis, F

    D. Psaltis, F. ¨Ozel, Astrophys. J. 792, 87 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Sotani, U

    H. Sotani, U. Miyamoto, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044017 (2018); 98, 103019 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063013 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J.887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J.887, L24 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Blaschke, A

    D. Blaschke, A. Ayriyan, D. E. Alvarez-Castillo, and H. Grigorian, universe6, 81 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J.918, L27 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J.918, L28 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    A. J. Dittmann, M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, I. M. Holt, C. Chirenti, M. T. Wolff, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillotet al., Astrophys. J974, 295 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 172703 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    Sotani, N

    H. Sotani, N. Nishimura, and T. Naito, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022, 041D01 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Sotani and S

    H. Sotani and S. Ota, Phys. Rev. D106, 103005 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Naito, Phys. Rev. C107, 035802 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Gearheart, W

    M. Gearheart, W. G. Newton, J. Hooker, and B. -A. Li, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.418, 2343 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Nakazato, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 201101 (2012); Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.428, L21 (2013); 434, 2060 (2013)

    2012

  17. [24]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, New Astron.43, 80 (2016); Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.464, 3101 (2017);479, 4735 (2018);489, 3022 (2019)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. D. Kokkotas, and N. Stergioulas, Astron. Astrophys.676, A65 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    Sotani, Universe10, 231 (2024)

    H. Sotani, Universe10, 231 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Sotani, Z

    H. Sotani, Z. Wadiasingh, and C. Chirenti, arXiv:2602.14353

    arXiv

  21. [28]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 4134 (1996)

    1996

  22. [29]

    Andersson and K

    N. Andersson and K. D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.299, 1059 (1998)

    1998

  23. [30]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Tominaga, and K. I. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D65, 024010 (2001)

    2001

  24. [31]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Harada, Phys. Rev. D68, 024019 (2003); H. Sotani, K. Kohri, and T. Harada,ibid.69, 084008 (2004)

    2003

  25. [32]

    L. K. Tsui and P. T. Leung, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.357, 1029 (2005)

    2005

  26. [33]

    Sotani, N

    H. Sotani, N. Yasutake, T. Maruyama, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. D83024014 (2011)

    2011

  27. [34]

    Passamonti and N

    A. Passamonti and N. Andersson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.419, 638 (2012)

    2012

  28. [35]

    D. D. Doneva, E. Gaertig, K. D. Kokkotas, and C. Kr ¨uger, Phys. Rev. D88, 044052 (2013)

    2013

  29. [36]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D102, 063023 (2020); 103021 (2020)

    2020

  30. [37]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D103, 123015 (2021)

    2021

  31. [38]

    Sotani and B

    H. Sotani and B. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D104, 123002 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    Sotani, Phys

    H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D107, 123025 (2023); Phys. Rev. D109, 023030 (2024)

    2023

  33. [40]

    Ferrari, G

    V . Ferrari, G. Miniutti, and J. A. Pons, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.342, 629 (2003)

    2003

  34. [41]

    Fuller, H

    J. Fuller, H. Klion, E. Abdikamalov, and C. D. Ott, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450, 414 (2015)

    2015

  35. [42]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, Phys. Rev. D94, 044043 (2016);102, 023028 (2020)

    2016

  36. [43]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.498, 3503 (2020)

    2020

  37. [44]

    Sotani, T

    H. Sotani, T. Kuroda, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Phys. Rev. D96, 063005 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    Morozova, D

    V . Morozova, D. Radice, A. Burrows, and D. Vartanyan, Astrophys. J.861, 10 (2018)

    2018

  39. [46]

    Sotani, T

    H. Sotani, T. Kuroda, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Phys. Rev. D99, 123024 (2019)

    2019

  40. [47]

    Torres-Forn ´e, P

    A. Torres-Forn ´e, P. Cerd´a-Dur´an, A. Passamonti, M. Obergaulinger, and J. A. Font, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.482, 3967 (2019)

    2019

  41. [48]

    Sotani and K

    H. Sotani and K. Sumiyoshi, Phys. Rev. D100, 083008 (2019); Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.507, 2766 (2021)

    2019

  42. [49]

    Sotani and T

    H. Sotani and T. Takiwaki, Phys. Rev. D102, 063025 (2020)

    2020

  43. [50]

    Sotani, T

    H. Sotani, T. Takiwaki, and H. Togashi, Phys. Rev. D104, 123009 (2021). 12

    2021

  44. [51]

    Sotani, B

    H. Sotani, B. M ¨uller, and T. Takiwaki, Phys. Rev. D109, 123021 (2024);112, 083018 (2025)

    2024

  45. [52]

    C. J. Kr ¨uger, W. C. G. Ho, and N. Andersson, Phys. Rev. D92, 063009 (2015)

    2015

  46. [53]

    Passamonti, N

    A. Passamonti, N. Andersson, and W. C. G. Ho, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.455, 1489 (2016)

    2016

  47. [54]

    Sotani and A

    H. Sotani and A. Dohi, Phys. Rev. D105, 023007 (2022);110, 083036 (2024)

    2022

  48. [55]

    A. R. Counsell, F. Gittins, N. Andersson, and P. Pnigouras, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.536, 1967 (2025)

    1967

  49. [56]

    Jaikumar, A

    P. Jaikumar, A. Semposki, M. Prakash, and C. Constantinou, Phys. Rev. D103, 123009 (2021)

    2021

  50. [57]

    Constantinou, S

    C. Constantinou, S. Han, P. Jaikumar, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. C104, 123032 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    V . Tran, S. Ghosh, N. Lozano, D. Chatterjee, and P. Jaikumar, Phys. Rev. C108, 015803 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    B. K. Agrawal, S. Shlomo, and V . Kim Au, Phys. Rev. C72, 014310 (2005)

    2005

  53. [61]

    Chabanat, P

    E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, Nucl. Phys.A635, 231 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    Bennour, P.-H

    L. Bennour, P.-H. Heenen, P. Bonche, J. Dobaczewski, and H. Flocard, Phys. Rev. C40, 2834 (1989)

    1989

  55. [63]

    H. S. K ¨ohler, Skyrme force and the mass formula, Nucl. Phys. A258, 301 (1976)

    1976

  56. [64]

    Reinhard and H

    P.-G. Reinhard and H. Flocard, Nucl. Phys.A584, 467 (1995)

    1995

  57. [65]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. Singh, B. Agrawal, and S. Patra, Nuclear PhysicsA966, 197 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Kumar, S

    B. Kumar, S. K. Patra, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C97, 045806 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Parmar, H

    V . Parmar, H. C. Das, A. Kumar, M. K. Sharma, and S. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D105, 043017 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Togashi, K

    H. Togashi, K. Nakazato, Y . Takehara, S. Yamamuro, H. Suzuki, and M. Takano, Nucl. Phys.A961, 78 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Gulminelli and Ad

    F. Gulminelli and Ad. R. Raduta, Phys. Rev. C92, 055803 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Sotani, K

    H. Sotani, K. Iida, K. Oyamatsu, and A. Ohnishi, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2014, 051E01 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Shlomo, V

    S. Shlomo, V . M. Kolomietz, and G. Col`o, Eur. Phys. J. A30, 23 (2006)

    2006

  64. [72]

    B. A. Li, P. G. Krastev, D. H. Wen, and N. B. Zhang, Euro. Phys. J. A55, 117 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Douchin and P

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys.380, 151 (2001)

    2001

  66. [74]

    Sotani and K

    H. Sotani and K. D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.395, 1163 (2009)

    2009

  67. [75]

    Lee and T

    U. Lee and T. E. Strohmayer, Astron. Astrophys.311, 155 (1996)

    1996

  68. [76]

    Passamonti, B

    A. Passamonti, B. Haskell, N. Andersson, D. I. Jones, and I. Hawke, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.394, 730 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    Gaertig and K

    E. Gaertig and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D83, 064031 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.