Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 38 references

Bayesian Inference of fine-features of dense matter EOS from future high-precision data of neutron star radii

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that 0.1-km neutron-star radius data will sharpen hadronic equation-of-state parameters and the hadron-quark transition density, but will leave quark-matter stiffness and transition strength essentially unconstrained.

desk verdict This is an honest, readable self-summary of two already-published Bayesian EOS papers, but it is not a new research contribution and its headline claim overreaches by omitting the prior range on the transition density. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04967 v1 pith:MKTYZQTX submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.HE nucl-exnucl-th

Bao-An Li , Xavier Grundler , Wen-Jie Xie , Nai-Bo Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEnucl-exnucl-th
keywords neutronstarradiiequationofstateBayesianinferencenuclearsymmetryenergyhadron-quarkphasetransitionquarkmatterEOSconstantsoundspeedmodelTOVequations
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

Future instruments are expected to measure neutron-star radii to about 0.1 km rather than today's roughly 1 km. This paper asks which equation-of-state features such data would actually sharpen, using mock radius data and Bayesian inference on a parameterized meta-model for both hadronic matter and a hadron-quark first-order transition. Its central claim is that going from 1 km to 0.1 km precision would meaningfully narrow the inferred symmetry-energy slope and curvature, the symmetric-matter skewness, and the hadron-quark transition density, while leaving the quark-matter sound speed and transition strength essentially untouched. The paper matters because it tells the community what physics the expensive next-generation radius measurements can and cannot deliver.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a nine-parameter meta-model: the hadronic energy per nucleon is expanded cubically in density in terms of $E_0(\rho_0)$, $K_0$, $J_0$ and $E_{\rm sym}(\rho_0)$, $L$, $K_{\rm sym}$, $J_{\rm sym}$, and the quark phase is described by the CSS model with transition density $\rho_t$, energy-density jump $\Delta\epsilon/\epsilon_t$, and squared sound speed $c^2_{\rm qm}$. These parameters define the prior space for the equation of state; the TOV equations then produce a mass-radius sequence, and mock radius measurements with fictitious Gaussian errors of 1.0, 0.5, 0.2, and 0.1 km are used to update the parameters through Bayes' theorem. The CSS model is what makes the hadron-quark transition and quark stiffness explicit, while the cubic expansion makes the hadronic fine structure controllable; the key diagnostic is how each posterior PDF narrows, shifts, or fails to move as the mock data precision increases.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be the discovery of a neutron star whose mass-radius point cannot be reproduced by any member of the meta-model family—for instance, two stars of nearly equal mass with measurably different radii (twin stars)—or a measured posterior for $c^2_{\rm qm}$ that is no longer flat once radius precision reaches 0.1 km. Either observation would show the meta-model's prior family is missing the actual physics and that radii can carry information about the quark phase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the minimum model of $\beta$-stable nucleonic matter and the constant-sound-speed (CSS) description of a first-order hadron-quark transition, the authors find that the posterior probability distributions respond very differently to radius precision for hadronic versus quark parameters. As $\Delta R$ improves from 1.0 km to 0.1 km, the posterior of $J_0$ narrows symmetrically about the same most probable value, the most probable $L$ shifts to smaller values, the $K_{\rm sym}$ posterior develops two peaks, and the $J_{\rm sym}$ posterior piles up at the upper boundary of its prior. For a $2.0\,M_\odot$ star at fixed radius $R_{2.0}=11.9$ km, the inferred transition density shifts from about $3.5\rho_0$ to $4.7\rho_0$ as the precision improves, while the posteriors of $c^2_{\rm qm}$ and $\Delta\epsilon/\epsilon_t$ stay essentially unchanged—the former remaining flat over its whole range. The authors conclude that high-precision radii will tighten constraints on the high-density symmetry energy and the transition density, but will not much affect inference of the quark-matter equation of state in neutron-star cores.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the true neutron-star equation of state belongs to the meta-model family used here: cubic hadronic expansions plus a first-order hadron-quark transition with constant quark sound speed and a transition density between $3\rho_0$ and $6\rho_0$; if nature's transition is continuous, occurs below $3\rho_0$, or has a nonconstant sound speed, the conclusion that radius data cannot constrain quark-matter stiffness need not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Improving radius precision from 1.0 km to 0.1 km should narrow the posterior for the symmetric-matter skewness $J_0$ and produce a sharper, possibly bimodal, posterior for $K_{\rm sym}$.
  • The most probable slope $L$ moves to smaller values as precision improves, signaling that high-precision radii mainly pin down the symmetry energy near $2\rho_0$.
  • For massive stars, the hadron-quark transition density $\rho_t$ is the quark-related parameter that radius data can constrain, shifting from roughly $3.5\rho_0$ to $4.7\rho_0$ as the error shrinks.
  • Quark-matter stiffness $c^2_{\rm qm}$ and transition strength $\Delta\epsilon/\epsilon_t$ will remain essentially unconstrained by radius data alone, so planned radius missions will not by themselves determine the quark-matter equation of state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary the paper leaves implicit: if radii cannot constrain quark stiffness, progress on the quark-matter equation of state will have to come from other probes—twin-star searches, cooling observations, tidal deformability, or priors from perturbative QCD—rather than from more precise radii.
  • The claim is conditional on the prior range $3.0 \le \rho_t/\rho_0 \le 6.0$; relaxing the prior to allow lower transition densities could, in principle, make radii informative about quark matter, so the paper's negative result is a statement about the meta-model family rather than about nature.
  • A testable extension would be to run the same Bayesian analysis on real data once sub-0.2 km radii exist and check whether the predicted bimodal $K_{\rm sym}$ posterior and the precision-driven shift in $\rho_t$ actually appear; that would validate the meta-model's claim that fine structure is visible in the radius channel.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper argues, based on the authors' previous Bayesian analyses with a meta-model EOS and mock neutron-star radius data, that future radius measurements at 0.1 km precision will sharpen the posterior PDFs of hadronic EOS parameters (L, Ksym, J0, Jsym) and of the hadron-quark transition density rho_t, but will leave the quark matter stiffness c_qm^2 and the energy-density discontinuity Delta epsilon/epsilon_t essentially unconstrained. Section 2 defines the hadronic parameterization of Eq. (1) and the CSS hybrid-star model of Eq. (2); Section 3 presents posterior PDFs taken from Refs. [5,27] and discusses their behavior as the radius precision improves from 1.0 to 0.1 km; Section 4 states the headline conclusions. The manuscript functions as a summary or research highlight rather than as a self-contained Bayesian analysis, since no likelihood, prior table, MCMC diagnostics, or mock-data description is included.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the result would provide useful guidance for prioritizing next-generation X-ray and gravitational-wave investments, identifying which EOS parameters will and will not be sharpened by high-precision radius measurements. The paper's positive message—that better radii will better determine the symmetry energy parameters L and Ksym—is plausible and consistent with the cited literature. The paper also has the virtue of making a falsifiable, specific prediction about the posterior widths, and it explicitly varies the assumed radius precision. However, the negative claim about quark-matter stiffness is conditional on the prior range 3.0 <= rho_t/rho0 <= 6.0 and on the CSS first-order transition model of Eq. (2); as stated in the abstract and conclusions, the claim overreaches. In addition, the manuscript provides no likelihood, prior ranges, sampler diagnostics, or mock-data specifications, so the reported posteriors are not independently checkable from the paper alone. These issues are fixable, but they currently limit the paper's standalone value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 5 and Section 4] The claim that radius data do not constrain c_qm^2 and Delta epsilon/epsilon_t is demonstrated only for the prior range 3.0 <= rho_t/rho0 <= 6.0, which the text explicitly states, and only within the CSS first-order model of Eq. (2). The abstract and Section 4 nevertheless present this result without the qualifier. Since a transition below 3 rho0 would place a larger quark core in the star, the flat posterior for c_qm^2 could reflect the prior's lower bound rather than a physical insensitivity of radii to quark stiffness. Please add a robustness test with an extended transition-density prior (e.g., down to 2 rho0 or below), provide an analytic estimate of dR/dc_qm^2 near the lower prior boundary, or explicitly restrict the claim in the abstract and conclusions to first-order transitions with rho_t/rho0 >= 3.0.
  2. [Section 3, Figs. 4 and 5; Refs. [5,27]] The manuscript reports 'we have recently performed Bayesian analyses' but provides no likelihood function, no prior ranges, no MCMC sampler or convergence diagnostics, and no description of the mock data (e.g., number of stars, mass uncertainties, whether the radius is simulated with Gaussian noise). As a standalone paper, the central posterior-flatness result cannot be checked; all quantitative content resides in the cited papers. Please include the missing inference setup or state clearly that the paper is a summary of Refs. [5,27] and restrict its claims to the summary level.
  3. [Section 3, first paragraph and Fig. 4] The claim that improving Delta R from 1.0 to 0.1 km 'appreciably improves' the J0 posterior while leaving Jsym largely unchanged is based only on visual inspection of the plotted PDFs, with no numerical widths or credible intervals reported. Since this is one of the paper's positive quantitative claims, please report the 68% credible-interval widths (or another quantitative measure) for the posteriors in Fig. 4 as a function of sigma.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The quantity epsilon_t in Eq. (2) is not defined; presumably it is epsilon_HM(p_t), but this should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Section 3 and Fig. 5] The notation for the quark sound speed is inconsistent: the text uses 'C^2_qm' while Eq. (2) and the Fig. 5 caption use 'c^2_qm'. Please unify the notation.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract describes the paper as reporting 'a few highlights' of recent studies; given that the title says 'Bayesian Inference', readers may expect a full analysis. Please either retitle the paper as a research highlight or add the missing methodological details.
  4. [Figs. 4 and 5] Since the figures are the main evidence and are taken from Refs. [5,27], please reproduce them at higher resolution and, if the journal allows, make the underlying posterior data available alongside the paper.
  5. [References] The mission name 'NewATHENA' in Ref. [17] appears to be a typo; please use the official name (e.g., 'New-ATHENA' or the current ATHENA mission name).
  6. [Section 2] The phrase 'the minimum model' should be 'the minimal model' for clarity in standard English.
  7. [Section 3, second bullet] The statement that PDF(Ksym) 'starts to show two peaks' is attributed to L-Ksym and Ksym-Jsym correlations, but no correlation plots or quantitative diagnostics are shown; either add a supporting figure or soften the wording.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central claim about quark-matter stiffness is imported from the authors' own previous paper and is conditioned on a prior range that the conclusions do not state.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, Fig. 5 caption and Conclusions]
    "Shown in Fig. 5 are the posterior PDFs of the three quark matter EOS parameters inferred from R2.0 =11.9 km with a precision of σ=1.0 and 0.1 km, respectively. ... Taken from Ref. [27]. ... But they will not affect much the inference of the quark matter EOS in NS cores."

    The load-bearing negative claim that high-precision radius data will not constrain quark-matter stiffness is not derived in this paper; the posterior PDFs carrying the claim are imported from Ref. [27], by the same four authors. The only in-text support is a heuristic appeal to pressure at 2ρ0 plus the most probable transition densities (3.5ρ0 and 4.7ρ0) taken from that same self-cited analysis. Since the imported analysis uses the prior range 3.0≤ρ_t/ρ0≤6.0 and the CSS first-order transition model of Eq. (2), the flat posterior for c^2_qm is partly a consequence of that prior/model choice, yet the abstract and conclusions state the result without that qualifier. The central conclusion therefore reduces to a self-citation chain for the decisive part of the claim.

full rationale

There is no definitional circularity of the kind where an output parameter is defined in terms of the target, and the mock-data Bayesian update provides a genuine likelihood-based posterior, so the paper is not circular by construction. The main circularity concern is the self-citation load-bearing structure: Figures 4 and 5, which contain essentially all quantitative results, are explicitly 'taken from' Refs. [5] and [27], both by the same authorship group. The paper presents no independent re-derivation, external benchmark, or robustness test against other EOS parameterizations or transition scenarios. In addition, the headline claim about quark-matter stiffness is stated unconditionally even though the underlying posterior PDF was computed only under the stated prior 3.0≤ρ_t/ρ0≤6.0 and the CSS model; this is an overreach rather than a formal circularity, but it compounds the citation dependence. Because the central claim still has some independent physical reasoning (the known sensitivity of NS radii to pressure around 2ρ0), the overall circularity score is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast depends on ten equation of state parameters and several modeling choices. The parameters are sampled with priors rather than fitted to real data; the one explicitly stated prior is the transition-density range (3 to 6) rho0, which is decisive for the quark-matter conclusion. The modeling axioms are mostly standard neutron star matter assumptions, but the truncated Taylor expansion and CSS transition model are paper-specific choices that shape the results.

free parameters (10)
  • E0(rho0)
    Symmetric nuclear matter energy at saturation; sampled in the Bayesian analysis. Posterior PDF is the output, not a fitted value in this preprint.
  • K0
    Incompressibility of symmetric nuclear matter; sampled in the Bayesian analysis.
  • J0
    Skewness of symmetric nuclear matter; posterior shown in Fig. 4.
  • Esym(rho0)
    Symmetry energy magnitude at saturation; sampled in the Bayesian analysis.
  • L
    Symmetry energy slope; posterior shown in Fig. 4.
  • Ksym
    Symmetry energy curvature; posterior shown in Fig. 4.
  • Jsym
    Symmetry energy skewness; posterior shown in Fig. 4 and noted to peak at the prior boundary.
  • rho_t/rho0
    Hadron-quark transition density; posterior shown in Fig. 5 and strongly dependent on precision.
  • Delta epsilon/epsilon_t
    Energy density discontinuity at the hadron-quark interface; posterior shown in Fig. 5.
  • c^2_qm
    Quark matter sound speed squared; posterior shown in Fig. 5 and found to be essentially unconstrained.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Beta-equilibrated npeμ matter is the only hadronic composition in the neutron star core.
    Section 2 states the minimum model consists of neutrons, protons, electrons, and muons. This excludes hyperons, Bose condensates, or other exotic degrees of freedom that could alter the radius inference.
  • ad hoc to paper The density expansions for E0(rho) and Esym(rho) in Eq. (1) converge over the density range probed by neutron star radii.
    The Taylor-like expansion truncated at cubic order is a modeling choice. No convergence test against microscopic calculations at densities above 2 to 3 rho0 is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The hadron-quark transition is a first-order phase transition described by the constant sound speed model in Eq. (2).
    The CSS model is adopted from Ref. [35]. The conclusions about quark matter stiffness only apply within this specific phase transition model.
  • ad hoc to paper The transition density prior is 3.0 to 6.0 rho0.
    Section 3 states this prior. It excludes transitions below 3 rho0 and is decisive for the result that radius data cannot constrain quark matter stiffness.
  • domain assumption Future radius measurements will have Gaussian uncertainties with standard deviation equal to the stated precision Delta R.
    The mock likelihood is not fully specified in this preprint, but the text describes the data as R with precision Delta R, implying a Gaussian form.
  • standard math The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations and causality provide the mapping from EOS to mass and radius.
    The TOV equations are standard for neutron star structure and are invoked throughout the interpretation of the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Inference of fine-features of dense matter EOS from future high-precision data of neutron star radii." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKTYZQTX

@misc{pith2026260804967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Inference of fine-features of dense matter EOS from future high-precision data of neutron star radii},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKTYZQTX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04967}
}
read the original abstract

Future high-precision X-ray and gravitational wave observatories are expected to measure the radii of neutron stars (NSs) with an accuracy better than about 0.1 km. However, it remains unclear what particular aspects of the Equation of State (EOS) and to what precision they will be better constrained. Within a Bayesian framework using a meta-model EOS and mock high-precision NS data, the posterior probability distribution functions (PDFs) of NS matter EOS parameters for both hadronic and quark phases and the transition between them were recently studied. We report here a few highlights of these studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: 60 examples of predicted Esym(ρ) using 6 classes of nuclear energy density functionals. Right: predictions us￾ing 11 microscopic and/or ab initio nuclear many-body theories [12]. In both panels, they are compared with the upper and lower boundaries of symmetry energy extracted from analyzing neu￾tron star observations [13, 14]. Taken from ref. [15]. launched around 2030 is designed to measure the radius of PSR… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Updated constraints on the slope parameter L of sym￾metry energy up to the year 2023. The shaded band around L = 59 ± 28 MeV is from the 2016 survey. The 24 black bars represent 24 independent analyses of NS observables conducted within two years after GW170817. They gave a mean value of L = 58 ± 19 MeV. Taken from Ref. [32] -400 -300 -200 -1 00 0 1 00 K s y m ( M e V ) 68% con fi den ce l evel 1 2 i n depen den t a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The curvature parameter Ksym at 68% confidence level from 12 independent analyses of NSs (listed in Ref. [4]). They gave a mean value of Ksym = −103 ± 101 MeV. The green band within −100±100 MeV is from the 2018 survey by Margueron et al. [33]. The pink band within −(56− 68) MeV is from Siemens’ ρ 2/3 scaling of symmetry energy [34]. Taken from Ref. [32]. model [35] ε(p) =    εHM(p) p < pt εHM (pt) + ∆ε + c −… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior PDFs of EOS parameters with R1.4 = 11.9 km and a precision of ∆R = 1.0, 0.5, 0.2, and 0.1 km, respec￾tively. The figure is taken from Ref. [5]. 3 Bayesian inferences of EOS parameters from high-precision NS radius data Shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior PDFs of the three quark matter EOS parameters inferred from R2.0 = 11.9 km data using (3.0 − 6.0)ρ0 as the prior range for ρt and precision σ = 1.0 and 0.1 km, respectively. Taken from Ref. [27] . EOS in NS cores. Acknowledgement: BAL and XG were supported in…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    B. A. Li, X. Grundler, W. J. Xie and N. B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D110, no.10, 103040 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [27]

    B. A. Li, X. Grundler, W. J. Xie and N. B. Zhang, The Astrophysical Journal998, 262 (2026)

    work page 2026

  3. [1]

    Abbottet al., Phys

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

    work page 2018

  4. [2]

    Riley,et al.Astrophys

    T.E. Riley,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L21 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [3]

    Miller,et al., Astrophys

    M.C. Miller,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. , 887, L24 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [4]

    B.A. Li, B.J. Cai, W.J. Xie and N.B. Zhang, Universe 7(6), 182 (2021). doi:10.3390/universe7060182

    doi:10.3390/universe7060182 2021

  7. [6]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D102, 023021 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Han and M

    S. Han and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J.899, 164 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Ferreira and C

    M. Ferreira and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. D110, no.6, 063018 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    N. B. Zhang and B. A. Li, Eur. Phys. J. A61, no.2, 31 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    B. J. Cai and B. A. Li, Eur. Phys. J. A61, no.3, 55 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    Grundler and B

    X. Grundler and B. A. Li, Phys. Rev.D 112, 103012 (2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    Chen, Nucl

    L.W. Chen, Nucl. Phys. Rev.37, 273 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    Zhang and B.A

    N.B. Zhang and B.A. Li,Astrophys. J.,879, 99 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Xie and B.A

    W.J. Xie and B.A. Li,Astrophys. J. 883, 174 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    Zhang and B.A

    N.B. Zhang and B.A. Li,Eur . Phys. J. A,55, 39 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Li,et al.Sci

    A. Li,et al.Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 119503 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    Cruise,et al., Nature Astron.9, 36 (2025)

    M. Cruise,et al., Nature Astron.9, 36 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Hild, et al., Class

    S. Hild, et al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 015003 (2010)

    2010

  12. [19]

    Abbott, et al., Astrophys

    R. Abbott, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.896, L44 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Sathyaprakash, et al., Class

    B. Sathyaprakash, et al., Class. Quant. Grav.29, 124013 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    Evans,et al., [arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]]

    M. Evans,et al., [arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]]

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    Chatziioannou, Phys

    K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D105, 084021 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Pacilio, et al., Phys

    C. Pacilio, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 101101 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Bandopadhyay, et al., Class

    A. Bandopadhyay, et al., Class. Quant. Grav.41, no.22, 225003 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Finstad, L.V

    D. Finstad, L.V . White, D.A. Brown, Astrophys. J. 955, 45 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    Walker,et al., Phys

    K. Walker,et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 043013 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Zhang, B.A

    N.B. Zhang, B.A. Li and J. Xu,Astrophys. J. 859, 90 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Xie and B.A

    W.J. Xie and B.A. Li,Astrophys. J. 899, 4 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    W. J. Xie and B. A. Li, J. Phys. G48, 025110 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    N. B. Zhang and B. A. Li, Astrophys. J.879, 99 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    B. A. Li, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. (2026), https://doi. org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-026-02124-1

    2026 doi

  25. [33]

    Margueron, R.H

    J. Margueron, R.H. Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C97, 025806(2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    P. J. Siemens, Nucl. Phys. A141, 225 (1970)

    1970

  27. [35]

    Alford, S

    M.G. Alford, S. Han, M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D88, 083013 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Richter and B

    J. Richter and B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. C108, 055803 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Lattimer, M

    J.M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, Phys. Rep.442, 109 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    B. J. Cai and B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. D112, 023023 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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