Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Massive cold hybrid stars in a modified Polyakov-Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a modified Polyakov-Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model that keeps the deconfinement order parameter alive at zero temperature, and shows that the resulting hybrid-star equations of state can support quark cores above two solar…

desk verdict Useful parameter map for a modified PNJL hybrid-star EOS, but the 'stable massive hybrid stars' headline is not supported until a radial-oscillation analysis is done. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12653 v1 pith:ZIN23FHA submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-th

Sk Md Adil Imam , Pedro Costa , Mariana Dutra , Odilon Lourenço , Renan Pereira , Constança Providência This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qcnucl-th
keywords modifiedPolyakov-Nambu-Jona-Lasiniomodelhybridstarsquarkyonicmatterconfinement-deconfinementtransitionneutronstarequationofstatePolyakovloopMaxwellconstructionvectorquarkinteractions
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

The paper proposes a version of the Polyakov-Nambu-Jona-Lasinio quark model in which the Polyakov loop potential depends explicitly on the quark chemical potential, so that the confinement-deconfinement order parameter does not vanish at zero temperature. Combining this quark sector with hadronic equations of state through a Maxwell construction, the authors find cold neutron stars can contain a core of confined (quarkyonic) quark matter, deconfined quark matter, or both. They report that such hybrid stars can reach maximum masses above two solar masses, provided the low-density hadronic equation of state is stiff and repulsive vector interactions among quarks are strong. The paper also maps how each model parameter shifts the phase transitions, which matters for interpreting future mass-radius and gravitational-wave constraints on dense matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified Polyakov loop potential $U(\Phi,T,\mu_f)$, obtained by replacing $T^4$ with the Stefan-Boltzmann pressure on the left of the standard potential and by substituting $T_0/T \to T_0/\sqrt{T^2+\eta_2\mu_f^2}$ on the right. The coefficient $\eta_2$ is fixed by matching the low-density expansion at the lattice deconfinement temperature, so the potential remains finite at $T=0$ and the coefficients $a(T,\mu_f)$ and $b(T,\mu_f)$ carry the chemical-potential dependence. This object supplies the confinement-deconfinement transition in cold matter: its stationary condition gives analytic branches for $\Phi$, and Maxwell constructions using those branches produce the hadronic, quarkyonic, and deconfined segments of the hybrid-star equation of state that are then integrated in the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations.

What would settle it

A nonperturbative QCD calculation of the Polyakov loop at zero temperature as a function of baryon chemical potential, or an imaginary-chemical-potential lattice measurement, could test whether a sharp jump from zero to nonzero actually occurs at the model's quarkyonic-to-deconfined transition; if no such jump exists, the transition is a regulator artifact. A purely empirical cross-check is that if precision mass-radius and gravitational-wave data exclude the stiff low-density equations of state used here, the predicted above-two-solar-mass quark cores cannot exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a modified Polyakov-loop potential, built by replacing $T_0/T$ with $T_0/\sqrt{T^2+\eta_2\mu_f^2}$, remains finite at $T=0$ and gives the Polyakov loop $\Phi$ a nontrivial, chemical-potential-driven behavior in cold dense matter. In $\beta$-equilibrated, charge-neutral quark matter, minimizing the thermodynamic potential yields analytic branches $\Phi=0$ (confined quarkyonic matter), $\Phi=1$, and $0<\Phi<1$ (deconfined quark matter). Maxwell-constructed hybrid equations of state built from this quark sector and the hadronic SFHo, DD2, DD2hyp, and NL3$\omega\rho$ models can produce stable hybrid stars with a deconfined quark core, a quarkyonic core, or a three-phase deconfined-quarkyonic-hadronic structure, with maximum masses above $2M_\odot$ in the stiff-equation-of-state cases. The paper finds that repulsive vector interactions, $G_V$ and $G_{vv}$, are essential for a stable quark core, and that in quarkyonic-core maximum-mass stars the central squared speed of sound exceeds the conformal value $c_s^2 = 1/3$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that replacing $T_0/T$ with $T_0/\sqrt{T^2+\eta_2\mu^2}$ keeps the Polyakov loop a genuine order parameter for deconfinement at zero temperature; the paper offers no independent evidence for that identification, and if it fails the quarkyonic-versus-deconfined distinction is an artifact of the regulator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cold neutron-star interiors can plausibly contain quarkyonic or deconfined quark matter without requiring high temperatures.
  • Maximum masses above two solar masses are achievable with quark cores only when the low-density hadronic equation of state is stiff and quark vector repulsion is sufficiently strong.
  • Quarkyonic-core maximum-mass stars require the central speed of sound to exceed the conformal limit, whereas deconfined-core stars can remain below it.
  • Depending on the parameters, the model predicts either one or two phase transitions, leading to qualitatively different mass-radius and tidal-deformability signatures.
  • With the soft SFHo hadronic equation of state, all quark-core configurations stay below two solar masses, so the existence of massive hybrid stars is tied to low-density stiffness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference the paper leaves implicit: if the zero-temperature Polyakov loop is not a genuine order parameter for deconfinement, the quarkyonic-versus-deconfined distinction reduces to a parameter choice of the regulator.
  • A natural next check, not performed here, is a radial-oscillation analysis of the three-phase branch, since the paper's stability criterion is the slope of the mass-radius curve.
  • A testable extension: the Maxwell flat segments in the equation of state should produce characteristic plateaus in mass-radius curves that future precision mass-radius and tidal-deformability measurements could distinguish.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a modified Polyakov-loop NJL (mPNJL) model in which the Polyakov potential is made finite at zero temperature by replacing T^4 with the quark-gluon Stefan-Boltzmann pressure and by substituting T0/T with T0/sqrt(T^2 + g(μ_f)) (Eqs. (16) and (20)). The quark sector is matched to several hadronic EOSs (SFHo, DD2, DD2hyp, NL3ωρ) through Maxwell constructions, and the resulting EOSs are integrated in the TOV equations. The authors systematically vary T0, α0, η2, GV, Gvv, and a bag constant B0, and identify parameter regions in which hybrid stars with quarkyonic (Φ=0) and/or deconfined (Φ>0) quark cores reach M_max > 2M_sun. The paper states that no radial-oscillation analysis is performed and that stability conclusions are based on the behavior of the mass-radius branches.

Significance. If the stability claim were fully established, the paper would provide a useful qualitative map of how Polyakov-potential parameters, vector couplings, and a bag constant control the cold dense-matter phase structure and hybrid-star properties. The study is transparent: the parameter scans are clearly described, the Polyakov-loop equation has analytical solutions, and the use of several hadronic EOSs and beta-equilibrated matter makes the setup concrete. Its main contribution would be the explicit realization of a T=0 deconfinement transition with a quarkyonic window and the identification of repulsive vector interactions as necessary for stiff quark cores. However, the headline statement that 'stable massive cold hybrid stars' are obtained is currently not supported by the analysis presented, because stability is inferred from M-R branch morphology rather than from a radial-mode or interface-stability calculation. The paper is therefore best viewed, at this stage, as a model-building and parameter-dependence study with suggestive but unverified astrophysical conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A.1 and Sec. III.B (Figs. 1c, 8c, 11c, 15c)] The paper explicitly concedes in Sec. III.A.1, immediately after Fig. 1c, that 'a more detailed radial oscillations analysis is not performed in this study.' Despite this, Sec. III.B repeatedly refers to configurations as stable (e.g., 'the stable maximum mass hybrid star' for the DD2 case of Fig. 8c, the quarkyonic-core stars of Fig. 11c, and the three-phase star of Fig. 15c), and the abstract asserts that 'Stable massive cold hybrid stars ... are obtained.' The stability classification appears to rely entirely on the shape of the mass-radius branch. For EOSs with Maxwell-constructed first-order phase transitions, the standard turning-point (dM/dε_c = 0) argument is not sufficient: the fundamental radial mode can change sign before the turning point, and interface or two-phase eigenmodes can be unstable even when the one-phase M-R slope is positive. Since this stability check is absent, the central claim is unverified. I recommend adding a radial-oscillation analysis with proper junction conditions at the hadron-quark and quarkyonic-deconfined interfaces, or explicitly revising all stability claims in the abstract and conclusions to state that only branch monotonicity has been checked.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (20)-(23)] The replacement T0/T -> T0/sqrt(T^2 + η2 μ_f^2) is introduced as a regulator for the divergent expression in Eq. (17) at T=0, and η2 is fixed by matching the Taylor expansion of Eqs. (17) and (20) to second order at T_dec^lat = 170 MeV. This is an ad hoc construction, and the paper offers no independent evidence that the traced Polyakov loop retains its confinement-deconfinement interpretation at zero temperature after this substitution. The existence of the quarkyonic (Φ=0) branch and its Maxwell transition to the deconfined (Φ>0) branch—the basis for the quarkyonic-core stars in Sec. III.B.2—is directly determined by this regulator. Because the series in Eq. (21) is truncated at quadratic order, the phase structure could depend on the omitted higher-order terms. I suggest two concrete checks: (i) extend g(μ_f) to higher orders and verify that the two-transition structure and the M-R stability classification are robust; (ii) compare the predicted Φ(μ_B) and transition chemical potentials with available functional-QCD or lattice-based constraints at finite density. Without such checks, the quarkyonic phase may be an artifact of the truncation.
  3. [Sec. III.B.3 and Conclusion (Fig. 15)] The concluding section states that, for the NL3ωρ case, 'we find a genuine, mechanically stable three-phase structure,' in which the maximum-mass configuration contains a deconfined core, a quarkyonic shell, and a hadronic envelope. This statement is not supported by the analysis in Sec. III.B.3: the three-phase star contains two first-order interfaces, and the maximum-mass configuration in Fig. 15c is again classified as stable solely from the slope of the M-R curve. Interface-coupled modes can be unstable even when the central density is below the one-phase turning point, so the term 'mechanically stable' overstates what has been demonstrated. This is the same type of gap as Major Comment 1, but it is worth flagging separately because the three-phase configuration is the most novel result of the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (1), (4), (30)] The eight-quark interaction is written in Eq. (1) with \bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\lambda^0\psi while the rest of the Lagrangian uses q fields; the mean-field reduction leading to the 4/3 G_vv (Σ_f ρ_vf)^4 term in Eq. (4) should be shown explicitly or the notation should be unified.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (23)] The text should state the mass dimension of g(μ_f) and verify that η2 as defined in Eq. (23) indeed gives g units of energy squared; this is easy to check but is not currently spelled out.
  3. [Figs. 1-6] The legends use 'Hadronic, Quarkyonic(Φ=0), Deconfined Quark(Φ≠0)' with color coding, but many curves are difficult to distinguish in printed grayscale; distinct line styles would help the reader follow the parameter shifts.
  4. [Sec. III.A.1 and Abstract] The caveat that radial-oscillation stability has not been computed appears only in Sec. III.A.1 and is not restated in Sec. III.B or the abstract; given the strong wording of the abstract, the caveat should be prominently repeated wherever the word 'stable' is used.
  5. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (21)] The series for g(μ_f) starts at n=1, so odd powers of μ_f are formally present; the paper assumes their coefficients vanish by symmetry, but μ_f is not symmetric about zero and this assumption should be justified explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the model construction is self-contained and the parameter scans are explicitly exploratory, not disguised predictions.

full rationale

The mPNJL derivation is self-contained: the quark EOS follows from the mean-field Lagrangian, the thermodynamic potential, and the explicitly phenomenological replacement of Eq. (20), with eta_2 matched to the perturbative expression in Eq. (17) rather than to any stellar output. The parameter scans over T0, alpha0, eta2, GV, Gvv, and B0 are presented as an exploratory survey ('choosing the parameters conveniently'; 'deliberately restricted to establishing this qualitative parameter dependence ... rather than fitting the model to data'), and the configurations above 2 solar masses are conditional existence statements in tuned corners of parameter space, not independent predictions. The self-citations present ([74], [90]) are provenance or supportive discussion, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and the central regularization in Eq. (20) also rests on the external Ref. [73]. The explicit limitation that 'a more detailed radial oscillations analysis is not performed in this study' weakens the mechanical-stability claim, but that is a verification gap, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model's load-bearing inputs include several free parameters (T0, alpha0, eta2, GV, Gvv, B0) that are scanned rather than fixed by external data. The central assumptions are the mean-field treatment, the phenomenological regulators that keep the Polyakov potential finite at T=0, and the identification of Phi=0 as a confined quarkyonic phase. No new fundamental entities are introduced beyond a new phase label.

free parameters (6)
  • T0 = varied 180-214 MeV
    Free parameter of the modified Polyakov potential; controls the location of the confinement-deconfinement transition (Sec. III A 1).
  • alpha0 = varied 0.22-0.26
    Free parameter in C1/C2 and eta2 (Eqs. 18, 19, 23); controls transition chemical potential (Sec. III A 2).
  • eta2 = varied 0.8*eta2,0 to 1.2*eta2,0 with eta2,0 = 0.106
    Coefficient of g(mu_f) = eta2 * mu_f^2; defined by lattice matching in Eq. (23), but in Sec. III A 3 treated as an effective free parameter and varied independently.
  • GV/Gs = varied 0.0 to 0.30
    Repulsive vector coupling; shifts H-Q and Q-Q transitions and is needed for stable quark cores (Sec. III A 4).
  • Gvv/Gs^4 = varied 0.0 to 2.0
    Eight-quark vector coupling; controls stiffness of quark EOS at high density (Sec. III A 5).
  • B0 = 0, 25, 50 MeV fm^-3
    Ad hoc bag constant added in Eqs. (45)-(46) to control the hadron-quark transition; not part of the original mPNJL Lagrangian and chosen per scenario to reach massive stars.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation for the NJL/mPNJL Lagrangian (Eq. 30) yields the thermodynamic potential Eqs. (31)-(33).
    Invoked in Sec. II A; standard but uncontrolled, especially at high density.
  • ad hoc to paper The replacement of T^4 by the Stefan-Boltzmann pressure (Eq. 16) preserves the physical meaning of the Polyakov potential at mu != 0.
    Motivated by Refs. [69,73], but is a phenomenological input, not derived from QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper The regulator T0/T -> T0/sqrt(T^2 + g(mu_f)) (Eq. 20) gives a finite Polyakov potential at T=0 with the same confinement-deconfinement interpretation as at finite T.
    Introduced following Refs. [73,74]; no independent evidence ties this regulator to QCD at T=0.
  • domain assumption The Phi=0 solution branch corresponds to confined (quarkyonic) matter, and Phi>0 to deconfined matter.
    Sec. II B after Eq. (37) identifies onset by Phi>0; this equates a mean-field extremum with a phase, without a true confinement mechanism in the NJL sector.
  • domain assumption Maxwell construction is valid for hadron-to-quark and Phi=0-to-Phi+ transitions, including for multi-phase stars.
    Used in Sec. III; ignores surface tension, curvature energy, and possible mixed phases; standard but approximate.
  • domain assumption Stability of M-R branches follows from the sign of the slope; radial oscillations are not computed.
    Sec. III A states no radial oscillations analysis; the stability determination is therefore incomplete.
invented entities (1)
  • Quarkyonic (confined) phase as the Phi=0 branch of the mPNJL model
    purpose: Labels the intermediate phase between hadronic and deconfined quark matter in the two-transition scenario.
    The paper reassigns the term 'quarkyonic' to the Phi=0 mean-field solution; no mechanism beyond the Polyakov-loop label is given, and no independent observable distinguishes it from ordinary NJL quark matter in this model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massive cold hybrid stars in a modified Polyakov-Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZIN23FHA

@misc{pith2026260812653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massive cold hybrid stars in a modified Polyakov-Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZIN23FHA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12653}
}
abstract

We propose a modified Polyakov-loop Nambu--Jona-Lasinio (mPNJL) model in which the Polyakov potential is given by an explicit dependence on the quark chemical potential, allowing it to remain finite at zero temperature and thus to describe the confinement-deconfinement transition in cold dense matter. Combining this modified quark sector with hadronic equations of state via a Maxwell construction, we find that, depending on the model parameters, the equation of state can exhibit either two phase transitions, from hadronic matter to confined (quarkyonic) quark matter and subsequently to deconfined quark matter, or a single transition directly from hadronic to deconfined quark matter or from hadronic to quarkyonic quark matter. Stable massive cold hybrid stars with only quarkyonic and/or deconfined quark phase are obtained. We systematically examine how the parameters of the modified Polyakov potential and the quark vector interactions control the location of these transitions, and find that repulsive vector interactions are essential to obtain a stable quark core. Hybrid stars with quarkyonic and/or a deconfined core can reach maximum masses above $2M_\odot$, provided a sufficiently stiff hadronic equation of state is used at low density. In the core of the maximum-mass configurations, the speed of sound exceeds the conformal limit, $c_s^2 = 1/3$, for the quarkyonic core stars. This work establishes the qualitative role of each model parameter in shaping hybrid-star structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Polyakov loop as a function of the baryonic chem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. a shows that the effect of GV on the Polyakov 1400 1600 1800 2000 B (MeV) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 = 0.22 T0 = 180 MeV Gvv = B0 = 0 (a) 0 800 1600 2400 3200 (MeV/fm3 ) 0 200 400 600 800 P ( M e V / f m 3 ) (b) SFHo Gv/Gs = 0.0 Gv/Gs = 0.1 Gv/Gs = 0.2 Gv/Gs = 0.3 Hadronic Quarkyonic( = 0) Deconfined Quark( 0) H Q Q( = 0) Q( 0) 10.5 12 13.5 R (km) 0.5 1 1.5 2 M ( M ) (c) 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 B (fm 3 ) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 c 2 s (d) FIG. 4… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Baryonic density profile as a function of radial dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Variations of individual quark fractions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) Polyakov loop as a function of the baryonic chem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Baryonic density profile as a function of radial dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (a) Polyakov loop as a function of the bary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Variations of individual quark fractions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Increasing T0 shifts the confinement-deconfinement (Q-Q) transition to higher baryonic chemical potentials,µ B, as shown in Fig

    Effect ofT 0 First, we examine the effect of varyingT 0 while fix- ingα 0 = 0.22 andG V =G vv =B 0 = 0. Increasing T0 shifts the confinement-deconfinement (Q-Q) transition to higher baryonic chemical potentials,µ B, as shown in Fig. 1a. We also remark that, in the mPNJL model, the Polyakov loop presents nonzero solutions even in its sim- pler form, withGV...

  2. [2]

    The value ofT 0 was chosen because this value has shifted the Q-Q transi- tion to lowerµB in the previous section

    Effect ofα 0 Next, we investigate the effect of varyingα 0 while fix- ingT 0 = 180 MeV,G V =G vv =B 0 = 0. The value ofT 0 was chosen because this value has shifted the Q-Q transi- tion to lowerµB in the previous section. In contrast to in- creasingT 0, larger values ofα0 shift the Q-Q transition to lower baryonic chemical potentials,µ B, since the param-...

  3. [3]

    Effect ofη 2 In the previous subsections, the parameterη 2 of the Polyakov loop has been defined by Eq. (23). In the fol- lowing, we consider this quantity as an effective parame- ter and discuss its role when it is increased/decreased above/below the value defined by Eq. (23). Starting from the value ofη 2 defined by settingT 0 = 180 MeV, α0 = 0.22,G V =...

  4. [4]

    Effect ofG V To obtain stable hybrid star branches with a quark core, we next introduce repulsive vector interactions gov- erned by the coupling constantG V , while initially fixing T0 = 180 MeV,α 0 = 0.22, andG vv =B 0 = 0, see Fig. 4. Fig. 4a shows that the effect ofG V on the Polyakov 1400 1600 1800 2000 B (MeV) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 = 0.22 T0 = 180 MeV Gvv ...

  5. [5]

    The results are displayed in Fig

    Effect ofG vv We now investigate how the phase transition is affected by the 8-quark repulsive interaction couplingG vv, which helps achieve a quark core hybrid star. The results are displayed in Fig. 5. IncreasingG vv shifts the H-Q tran- sition to higher pressure and energy density and shifts the Q-Q transition to lower density, and eventually the Φ = 0...

  6. [6]

    We introduce the bag pressureB 0 on theG vv/G4 s = 0.35 case of Fig

    Effect ofB 0 Next, we study the effect of bag constantB 0 which moves the H-Q transition to lowerµ B. We introduce the bag pressureB 0 on theG vv/G4 s = 0.35 case of Fig. 5. From Figs. 6a and 6b, we conclude that the increase of B0 shifts the H-Q transition to lower energy density, and 9 1500 1750 2000 2250 B (MeV) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 = 0.22 T0 = 180 MeV Gv...

  7. [7]

    With deconfined quark core From the previous analysis, it is found that increasing α0 or decreasingT 0 shifts the Q-Q transition to a lower chemical potentialµ B, and increasing the couplingG V or the bag constantB 0 shifts the H-Q transition to a lowerµB. We chooseα 0 = 0.26,G V = 0,T 0 = 180 MeV, andB 0 = 10 MeV fm−3, which shift the Q-Q transition belo...

  8. [8]

    We first consider the DD2 model for the low density hadron phase

    With quarkyonic core In this subsection, we discuss hybrid stars with a quarkyonic core. We first consider the DD2 model for the low density hadron phase. The results are shown in Fig. 11. Notice that the hadron to confined quark tran- sition is taking place with an extremely small gap in the energy density, see Fig. 11b. Furthermore, the hybrid stars abo...

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    It is achieved with the stiff EOS NL3ωρand by tuning the mPNJL model parameters; see Fig

    With both quarkyonic and deconfined quark cores In this subsection, we will discuss the scenario of a stable hybrid star with a mass above 2M⊙ that has three phases: (i) hadronic, (ii) quarkyonic, and (iii) deconfined quark. It is achieved with the stiff EOS NL3ωρand by tuning...

    2000

  2. [10]

    307255/2023-9 (O.L.), No

    It is also supported by Conselho Nacional de De- senvolvimento Cient´ ıfico e Tecnol´ ogico (CNPq) under Grants No. 307255/2023-9 (O.L.), No. 301779/2025- 2 (M.D.), No. 01565/2023-8 (Universal - O.L., M.D.), No. 409736/2025-2 (Universal - O.L, M.D.), No. 444797/2024-6 (O.L., M...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Bonanno and A

    L. Bonanno and A. Sedrakian, Astron. Astrophys.539, A16 (2012), arXiv:1108.0559 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Benic, D

    S. Benic, D. Blaschke, D. E. Alvarez-Castillo, T. Fis- cher, and S. Typel, Astron. Astrophys.577, A40 (2015), arXiv:1411.2856 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Miyatsu, M.-K

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, and K. Saito, Astrophys. J. 813, 135 (2015), arXiv:1506.05552 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zhao and J

    T. Zhao and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D102, 023021 (2020), arXiv:2004.08293 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Malik and C

    T. Malik and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D106, 063024 (2022), arXiv:2205.15843 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Brookhaven National Laboratory, Relativistic heavy ion collider (rhic),https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/(2025), ac- cessed: 2026-06-03

    2025

  9. [17]

    CERN, Large hadron collider,https://home.cern/sc ience/accelerators/large-hadron-collider(2026), accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  10. [18]

    Brookhaven National Laboratory, Electron-ion collider (eic),https://www.bnl.gov/eic/(2026), accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  11. [19]

    GSI Helmholtzzentrum f¨ ur Schwerionenforschung, Fair – facility for antiproton and ion research,https://www.gs i.de/en/researchaccelerators/fair(2026), accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  12. [20]

    Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Nica: Nuclotron- based ion collider facility,https://nica.jinr.ru/ (2026), accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  13. [21]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    H. T. Cromartie et al. (NANOGrav), Nature Astron.4, 72 (2019), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Antoniadis et al., Science340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    J. Antoniadis et al., Science340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Fonseca et al., Astrophys

    E. Fonseca et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

    D. Choudhury et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.971, L20 (2024), arXiv:2407.06789 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Mauviard et al., Astrophys

    L. Mauviard et al., Astrophys. J.995, 60 (2025), arXiv:2506.14883 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  19. [27]

    T. E. Rileyet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Vinciguerra, T

    S. Vinciguerra, T. Salmi, A. L. Watts, D. Choudhury, T. E. Riley, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, Y. Kini, S. Guillot, D. Chakrabarty, W. C. G. Ho, D. Huppenkothen, S. M. Morsink, Z. Wadiasingh, and M. T. Wolff, The Astro- physical Journal961, 62 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L27 (2021), arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Salmi, D

    T. Salmi, D. Choudhury, Y. Kini, T. E. Riley, S. Vin- ciguerra, A. L. Watts, M. T. Wolff, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Bogdanov, D. Chakrabarty, K. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, D. Huppenkothen, R. M. Ludlam, S. M. Morsink, and P. S. Ray, The Astrophysical Journal974, 294 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    A. J. Dittmann, M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, I. M. Holt, C. Chirenti, M. T. Wolff, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, S. M. Morsink, Z. Arzoumanian, and K. C. Gendreau, The Astrophysical Journal974, 295 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Punturo et al., Class

    M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Reitze et al., Bull

    D. Reitze et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.31, 494 (1973)

    1973

  32. [40]

    Fritzsch, M

    H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B47, 365 (1973)

    1973

  33. [41]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 1343 (1973)

    1973

  34. [42]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, Reviews of Modern Physics80, 1455–1515 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Kurkela, P

    A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D81, 105021 (2010), arXiv:0912.1856 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Komoltsev and A

    O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202701 (2022), arXiv:2111.05350 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Splittorff and J

    K. Splittorff and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 031601 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    DeGrand, R

    T. DeGrand, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, and J. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D12, 2060 (1975)

    1975

  39. [47]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

    1961

  40. [48]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.124, 246 (1961)

    1961

  41. [49]

    Buballa, Physics Reports407, 205–376 (2005)

    M. Buballa, Physics Reports407, 205–376 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    Vogl and W

    U. Vogl and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.27, 195 (1991)

    1991

  43. [51]

    S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 649 (1992)

    1992

  44. [52]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B591, 277 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0310121

    2004

  45. [53]

    R¨ oßner, C

    S. R¨ oßner, C. Ratti, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D75, 034007 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Ratti, S

    C. Ratti, S. R¨ oßner, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise, The European Physical Journal C49, 213 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Bratovic, T

    N. Bratovic, T. Hatsuda, and W. Weise, Physics Letters B719, 131 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Ratti, M

    C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D73, 014019 (2006)

    2006

  49. [57]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D77, 114028 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    V. A. Dexheimer and S. Schramm, Phys. Rev. C81, 045201 (2010)

    2010

  51. [59]

    O. A. Mattos, O. Louren¸ co, and T. Frederico, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1291, 012031 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    O. A. Mattos, T. Frederico, and O. Louren¸ co, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 24 (2021), arXiv:2101.07340 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Ivanytskyi, M

    O. Ivanytskyi, M. A. P´ erez-Garc´ ıa, V. Sagun, and C. Al- bertus, Phys. Rev. D100, 103020 (2019)

    2019

  54. [63]

    I. N. Mishustin, L. M. Satarov, H. St¨ ocker, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C62, 034901 (2000)

    2000

  55. [64]

    Ferreira, R

    M. Ferreira, R. Cˆ amara Pereira, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D102, 083030 (2020), arXiv:2008.12563 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [65]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8 (1976). 15

    1976

  57. [66]

    Klimt, M

    S. Klimt, M. Lutz, U. Vogl, and W. Weise, Nuclear Physics A516, 429 (1990)

    1990

  58. [67]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Progress of Theoretical Physics44, 1422 (1970), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/44/5/1422/5309362/44-5-1422.pdf

    1970

  59. [68]

    Svetitsky and L

    B. Svetitsky and L. G. Yaffe, Physical Review D26, 963 (1982)

    1982

  60. [69]

    R¨ oßner, T

    S. R¨ oßner, T. Hell, C. Ratti, and W. Weise, Nuclear Physics A814, 118 (2008)

    2008

  61. [70]

    Dexheimer and S

    V. Dexheimer and S. Schramm, Nuclear Physics A827, 579c (2009), pANIC08

    2009

  62. [71]

    Steinheimer, V

    J. Steinheimer, V. Dexheimer, M. Bleicher, H. Petersen, S. Schramm, and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Rev. C81, 044913 (2010)

    2010

  63. [72]

    Ferreira, P

    M. Ferreira, P. Costa, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 98, 034006 (2018), arXiv:1806.05757 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Hansen, R

    H. Hansen, R. Stiele, and P. Costa, Phys. Rev. D101, 094001 (2020), arXiv:1904.08965 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Dexheimer, R

    V. Dexheimer, R. O. Gomes, T. Kl¨ ahn, S. Han, and M. Salinas, Phys. Rev. C103, 025808 (2021)

    2021

  66. [75]

    Costa, M

    P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo, C. A. De Sousa, and H. Hansen, Symmetry2, 1338–1374 (2010)

    2010

  67. [76]

    Ejiri, Y

    S. Ejiri, Y. Iwasaki, and K. Kanaya, Physical Review D 58, 10.1103/physrevd.58.094505 (1998)

    1998 doi

  68. [77]

    G. Boyd, J. Engels, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Lege- land, M. L¨ utgemeier, and B. Petersson, Nuclear Physics B469, 419–444 (1996)

    1996

  69. [78]

    Kaczmarek, F

    O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, P. Petreczky, and F. Zantow, Physics Letters B543, 41–47 (2002)

    2002

  70. [79]

    C. S. Fischer, L. Fister, J. Luecker, and J. M. Pawlowski, Physics Letters B732, 273 (2014)

    2014

  71. [80]

    Schaefer, J

    B.-J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D76, 074023 (2007)

    2007

  72. [81]

    Abuki, R

    H. Abuki, R. Anglani, R. Gatto, G. Nardulli, and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D78, 034034 (2008)

    2008

  73. [82]

    Shao, Z.-d

    G.-y. Shao, Z.-d. Tang, M. Di Toro, M. Colonna, X.-y. Gao, and N. Gao, Physical Review D94, 10.1103/phys- revd.94.014008 (2016)

    2016 doi

  74. [83]

    Xin, S.-x

    X.-y. Xin, S.-x. Qin, and Y.-x. Liu, Phys. Rev. D89, 094012 (2014)

    2014

  75. [84]

    Pereira, Chiral Transition and Deconfinement in Hybrid Stars, Master’s thesis, University of Coimbra (2016)

    R. Pereira, Chiral Transition and Deconfinement in Hybrid Stars, Master’s thesis, University of Coimbra (2016)

    2016

  76. [85]

    Gupta, X

    S. Gupta, X. Luo, B. Mohanty, H. G. Rit- ter, and N. Xu, Science332, 1525 (2011), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1204621

    2011 doi

  77. [86]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Physics Reports247, 221–367 (1994)

    1994

  78. [87]

    Olive, Chinese Physics C38, 090001 (2014)

    K. Olive, Chinese Physics C38, 090001 (2014)

    2014

  79. [88]

    Sch¨ afer, E

    T. Sch¨ afer, E. V. Shuryak, and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D51, 1267 (1995)

    1995

  80. [89]

    T. Hell, K. Kashiwa, and W. Weise, Journal of Modern Physics04, 644–650 (2013)

    2013

  81. [90]

    R. Z. Denke and M. B. Pinto, Phys. Rev. D88, 056008 (2013), arXiv:1306.6246 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Costa, M

    P. Costa, M. Ferreira, D. P. Menezes, J. Moreira, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D92, 036012 (2015), arXiv:1508.07870 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Cˆ amara Pereira, P

    R. Cˆ amara Pereira, P. Costa, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D94, 094001 (2016), arXiv:1610.06435 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  84. [93]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, Astrophys. J. 774, 17 (2013)

    2013

  85. [94]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. R¨ opke, T. Kl¨ ahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C81, 015803 (2010)

    2010

  86. [95]

    Fortin, M

    M. Fortin, M. Oertel, and C. Providˆ encia, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.35, 44 (2018), arXiv:1711.09427 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  87. [96]

    C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5647 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010227

    2001 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. Paris, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J.629, 969 (2005)

    2005

  89. [98]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev.55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  90. [99]

    R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev.55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  91. [100]

    Albino, T

    M. Albino, T. Malik, M. Ferreira, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D113, 083019 (2026), arXiv:2511.02653 [nucl-th]

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.