Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Can average speed of sound and thermodynamic response functions signal the exotic phases in neutron star cores?

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-11 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Average speed of sound and response functions can flag exotic phases and distinguish sharp versus mixed hadron-quark transitions in neutron-star cores.

desk verdict Solid, useful diagnostic paper: equivalent rearrangements of known thermo identities, cleanly mapped onto Maxwell vs Gibbs hybrids, with consistent TOV sequences; model class is narrow but the identities themselves are not the problem. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05555 v1 pith:45XYSJIB submitted 2026-07-06 nucl-th

Suman Pal , Gargi Chaudhuri This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords speedofsoundneutronstarsequationstatehadron-quarkphasetransitionMaxwellconstructionGibbstraceanomalythermodynamicresponsefunctions
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 argues that the speed of sound in dense matter can be usefully split into an average (pressure over energy density) and its logarithmic derivative, and that this split is algebraically equivalent to two other known decompositions (slope-plus-curvature of energy per particle, and normalized trace anomaly plus its derivative). Those pieces, together with the thermodynamic response functions isothermal compressibility, baryon-number susceptibility and bulk modulus, act as diagnostics of composition in the stellar core. In particular they cleanly separate a sharp first-order transition with local charge neutrality (Maxwell construction) from a mixed phase with global charge neutrality (Gibbs construction): Maxwell produces vanishing sound speed, vanishing bulk modulus and divergences in susceptibility and compressibility across the density jump, while Gibbs keeps finite sound speed and produces peaks at the edges of the mixed phase. Solving the stellar structure equations then shows that every equation of state considered still satisfies present mass-radius and gravitational-wave bounds, yet the heaviest stable stars contain either an extended mixed phase or a pure quark core according to which construction is used.

What carries the argument

The average-speed-of-sound decomposition c_s^{2} = W + W′, where W = P/ε (or P/(ε−ε_{0}) for self-bound matter) and W′ is its logarithmic derivative, linked by algebraic identities to the slope-curvature pair (α, β) and the trace-anomaly pair (Δ, Δ′), and then related exactly to the response functions χ_N, K_T and K_B.

What would settle it

Compute the same response functions and sound-speed decompositions for a hybrid equation of state whose phase-transition construction is known a priori; if Maxwell and Gibbs curves no longer separate by vanishing versus peaked susceptibility/compressibility (or by zero versus finite sound speed), the claimed diagnostic fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors show that three equivalent decompositions of the squared speed of sound, together with the second-derivative response functions (baryon-number susceptibility, isothermal compressibility and bulk modulus), furnish clear, model-robust signatures that distinguish Maxwell from Gibbs constructions of the hadron-quark transition, and that the most massive stable configurations therefore contain either an extended mixed phase or a quark core depending on the construction.

Load-bearing premise

The qualitative distinction between Maxwell and Gibbs signatures remains the same when the microscopic models (two RMF hadronic forces and a MIT bag quark model with two vector couplings) are varied.

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies three algebraically equivalent decompositions of the squared speed of sound (slope–curvature α+β, normalized trace anomaly Δ+Δ′, and average speed of sound W+W′) for pure hadronic RMF matter, MIT-bag quark matter with vector repulsion, and hybrid EOS constructed with both Maxwell (local charge neutrality) and Gibbs (global charge neutrality) methods. It further analyzes the thermodynamic response functions χ_N, K_T and K_B, shows that they diverge or vanish on the Maxwell plateau while remaining finite and peaked under Gibbs construction, and solves the TOV equations to demonstrate that all sequences satisfy current mass–radius constraints, with the most massive stable stars containing either an extended mixed phase (GC) or a pure quark core (MC) depending on the construction. Appendix A correctly generalizes the averaged speed of sound for self-bound matter with finite ε_0 at P=0.

Significance. If the qualitative contrasts survive beyond the models shown, the paper supplies a unified and pedagogically transparent thermodynamic language that connects three previously separate decompositions of c_s^{2} and links them to standard response functions and to stellar structure (Table I, Fig. 6). The identities themselves (Eqs. 1–11 and Appendix A) are model-independent rearrangements of standard thermodynamics and are correctly derived; the explicit MC/GC comparison and the self-bound generalization are useful additions relative to the authors’ earlier hadronic-only study. The work does not claim new microscopic dynamics, but it does offer falsifiable, construction-dependent signatures (vanishing vs finite c_s^{2} and the associated response-function patterns) that can be checked against other hybrid EOS families.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and §I present the response functions as a “new method” that “reveal[s] the signatures of the phase transition,” while §II.B correctly states that χ_N, K_T and K_B “do not constitute independent observables” and are “alternative thermodynamic representations of the same underlying physics” (they are exact functions of c_s^{2} and the EOS). The abstract and introduction should be brought into line with the more careful statement in §II.B so that the central claim is not oversold as providing diagnostics independent of the speed of sound.
  2. The robustness claim (Introduction and §III.A) that “the main qualitative features of the speed-of-sound decomposition remain robust across the variations considered” is load-bearing for the title question, yet the response-function and decomposition figures are shown only for BigApple/IUFSU plus MIT bag with fixed B^{1/4}=180 MeV and two discrete G_V values. Either a short additional check with a different bag constant (or a second quark model) in the response-function panels, or an explicit scoping of the diagnostic claim to this model class, is needed so that the answer to the title question is not left under-supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. Introduction contains a duplicated sentence (“Building upon this foundation, in the present study, we have extended our analysis… / Building upon this foundation, in the present work we extend…”). Remove the repetition.
  2. Abstract and opening sentence: “in details” → “in detail”; several other minor English issues (e.g., “the thermodynamics behavior” in Fig. 4 caption) should be cleaned up.
  3. Fig. 5: the dual x-axes (χ and ρ) and the large ad-hoc rescalings (χ_N, K_T/20, K_B/2, 250 c_s^{2}) make quantitative comparison difficult; a clearer legend or separate panels would help.
  4. Notation: the paper switches between C_s^{2}, c_s^{2} and c^{2}_s; adopt one convention consistently, including in figure labels.
  5. Table I: the column “Phase” for Maxwell rows reads “After density jump,” which is informal; a short phrase such as “pure quark core after density discontinuity” would be clearer.
  6. When citing the approximate universal relation between averaged speed of sound and compactness [43], a one-sentence reminder that the present W′ term is precisely what breaks that quasi-universality (as stated later in §III.C) would help the reader connect the two discussions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all decompositions and response-function diagnostics are exact thermodynamic rearrangements of a given EOS, transparently acknowledged as such.

full rationale

The paper’s central identities (c_s^{2} = α + β = 1/3 − Δ − Δ′ = W + W′, together with χ_N = ρ_B/(μ_B c_s^{2}), K_T = 1/(h c_s^{2}), K_B = h c_s^{2}) are parameter-free thermodynamic rearrangements derived from dε = μ dρ and P = ρ^{2} d(ε/ρ)/dρ. The authors explicitly state that the W + W′ scheme “does not represent a new thermodynamic identity, but rather provides an alternative and physically transparent representation of existing relations.” Consequently the vanishing/divergence of the response functions under Maxwell construction follows immediately once c_s^{2} = 0 on the constant-pressure plateau; it is a diagnostic consequence, not a circular prediction. The only self-reference is to the authors’ earlier hadronic study [24], which is used solely as a starting point for the new quark and hybrid calculations; the hybrid results, TOV sequences and Table I are independent numerical outputs of the chosen EOS models. No fitted parameter is later re-presented as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. The work is therefore self-contained against its own thermodynamic premises.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard cold-matter thermodynamics, two conventional constructions of first-order phase equilibrium, and two widely used phenomenological models (RMF + MIT bag). The free parameters are the usual bag constant and vector coupling; no new dynamical entities are introduced. The diagnostic power claimed for the response functions therefore inherits the model dependence of those inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • MIT bag constant B^{1/4} = 180 MeV (main), 185–190 MeV (variation)
    Fixed at 180 MeV for the main sequences; varied to 185 and 190 MeV in mass-radius plots. Controls the onset density of deconfinement.
  • vector coupling G_V = 0.10–0.30 fm²
    Discrete values 0.10, 0.20, 0.30 fm² used to stiffen the quark EOS and enlarge the mixed-phase window. Chosen by hand rather than fitted to data.
  • hadronic RMF parametrizations = BigApple, IUFSU
    BigApple and IUFSU are selected from the literature; their saturation properties and high-density stiffness are not re-fitted here but directly affect the location of the phase transition.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard thermodynamic identities c_s² = dP/dε, χ_N = ρ_B/(μ_B c_s²), K_T = 1/(h c_s²), K_B = h c_s² hold at T=0.
    Used throughout Sections II and III to relate all plotted quantities; never re-derived.
  • domain assumption Maxwell construction (local charge neutrality, constant pressure) versus Gibbs construction (global charge neutrality, mixed phase) correctly capture the two limiting cases of surface tension.
    Stated in the introduction and used to generate the hybrid EOSs of Fig. 1(b) and all subsequent diagnostic plots.
  • domain assumption The MIT bag model with repulsive vector interaction adequately describes cold quark matter for the purpose of qualitative diagnostics.
    Adopted without further justification beyond citations; quantitative results depend on B and G_V.
  • ad hoc to paper For self-bound quark matter the averaged speed of sound must be defined relative to the finite zero-pressure energy density ε_0.
    Introduced in Appendix A; necessary for W to remain well-defined, but changes the low-density sign of W′ relative to the hadronic case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can average speed of sound and thermodynamic response functions signal the exotic phases in neutron star cores?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45XYSJIB

@misc{pith2026260705555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can average speed of sound and thermodynamic response functions signal the exotic phases in neutron star cores?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45XYSJIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05555}
}
read the original abstract

The speed of sound in dense nuclear matter is crucial for understanding neutron star structure and constraining the EOS. We have discussed in details the decomposition of speed of sound via the average speed of sound and its logarithmic derivative and have connected it to the other two decomposition schemes via slope and curvature of the energy per particle or through the normalized trace anomaly and its derivative. These thermodynamic variables provide important diagnostic tools for the composition of the inner core of the compact stars. We discuss a new method of understanding phase transition and the microphysics of dense matter through the thermodynamic response functions like isothermal compressibility, baryon number susceptibility and bulk modulus in order to distinguish between local (sharp interface) and global charge (mixed phase) neutrality conditions, thereby revealing the signatures of the phase transition. The corresponding neutron-star mass--radius relations demonstrate that all considered equations of state satisfy current astrophysical constraints, while the most massive stable configurations contain either an extended mixed phase or a quark core depending on the phase-transition construction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05555 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Description of EOS (a) for hadron and quark matter (b) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Description of decomposition of speed of sound for pure hadron matter and pure quark matter. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Description of decomposition of speed of sound for hybrid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The thermodynamics behavior of the three response func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The response functions for the Gibbs construction (BigApple, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Structural properties of hybrid stars obtained using the Gibbs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    as:< 𝐶 2 𝑠 >= ∫ 𝜀 0 𝐶2 𝑠 𝑑¯𝜀∫ 𝜀 0 𝑑¯𝜀 = 𝑃 𝜀 =𝑊. We propose the de- composition of the speed of sound as sum of average speed of sound W (< 𝐶 2 𝑠 >) and its logarithmic derivative with respect to energy density𝑊 ′ (𝜀 𝑑𝑊 𝑑 𝜀 ) 𝐶2 𝑠 =𝑊+𝑊 ′,(6) The different decomposition parameters are related to each other by the following equations:𝛼= 2𝑊 1+𝑊 , 𝛽=𝑊 ′ + 𝑊(1−...

    2000

  2. [2]

    Fonsecaet al., Astrophys

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

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

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

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

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

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    H. Tan, V. Dexheimer, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 161101 (2022), arXiv:2111.10260 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    S. K. Greif, G. Raaijmakers, K. Hebeler, A. Schwenk, and A. L. Watts, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 5363 (2019), arXiv:1812.08188 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. 860, 149 (2018), arXiv:1801.01923 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, L. D. McLerran, and M. Prasza- lowicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 252702 (2022), arXiv:2207.06753 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, J. Hirvonen, O. Komoltsev, A. Kurkela, J. N¨attil¨a, and A. Vuorinen, Nature Commun.14, 8451 (2023), arXiv:2303.11356 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Marczenko, L

    M. Marczenko, L. McLerran, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. C107, 025802 (2023), arXiv:2207.13059 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Brandes, W

    L. Brandes, W. Weise, and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D107, 014011 (2023), arXiv:2208.03026 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zhang, D

    N. Zhang, D. Wen, and H. Chen, Phys. Rev. C99, 035803 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Lourenc ¸o, and D. P. Menezes, Phys. Rev. C 93, 025806 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 94, 049901 (2016)], arXiv:1510.02060 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zacchi, M

    A. Zacchi, M. Hanauske, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D93, 065011 (2016), arXiv:1510.00180 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Motornenko, J

    A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, V. Vovchenko, S. Schramm, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. C101, 034904 (2020), arXiv:1905.00866 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ecker and L

    C. Ecker and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.939, L35 (2022), arXiv:2207.04417 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sorensen, D

    A. Sorensen, D. Oliinychenko, V. Koch, and L. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 042303 (2021), arXiv:2103.07365 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kojo and D

    T. Kojo and D. Suenaga, Phys. Rev. D105, 076001 (2022), arXiv:2110.02100 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Huang, L

    Y.-J. Huang, L. Baiotti, T. Kojo, K. Takami, H. Sotani, H. To- gashi, T. Hatsuda, S. Nagataki, and Y.-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 181101 (2022), arXiv:2203.04528 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Chiba and T

    R. Chiba and T. Kojo, Phys. Rev. D109, 076006 (2024), arXiv:2304.13920 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chiba, T

    R. Chiba, T. Kojo, and D. Suenaga, Phys. Rev. D110, 054037 (2024), arXiv:2403.02538 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Marczenko, K

    M. Marczenko, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D109, L041302 (2024), arXiv:2311.13401 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pal and G

    S. Pal and G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Lett. B868, 139701 (2025), arXiv:2507.02669 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. St ¨ocker, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 122, 061101 (2019), arXiv:1807.03684 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. G. Alford and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161104 (2017), arXiv:1706.01592 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pal and G

    S. Pal and G. Chaudhuri, Astrophys. J.991, 158 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Laskos-Patkos, G

    P. Laskos-Patkos, G. A. Lalazissis, S. Wang, J. Meng, P. Ring, and C. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. C111, 025801 (2025), arXiv:2408.15056 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. Pal, S. Podder, and G. Chaudhuri, Astrophys. J.983, 24 (2025), arXiv:2504.02945 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pal and G

    S. Pal and G. Chaudhuri, JCAP10, 064 (2024), arXiv:2405.04856 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. G. Alford, S. Han, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D88, 083013 (2013), arXiv:1302.4732 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gorda, K

    T. Gorda, K. Hebeler, A. Kurkela, A. Schwenk, and A. Vuori- nen, Astrophys. J.955, 100 (2023), arXiv:2212.10576 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, K. Hotokezaka, and K. Kyutoku, Phys. Rev. D111, 063054 (2025), arXiv:2408.10298 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Xie and B.-A

    W.-J. Xie and B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev. C103, 035802 (2021), arXiv:2009.13653 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Pfaff, H

    A. Pfaff, H. Hansen, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C105, 035802 (2022), arXiv:2112.09595 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Albino, T

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

    2026

  30. [38]

    Chatziioannou, H

    K. Chatziioannou, H. T. Cromartie, S. Gandolfi, I. Tews, D. Radice, A. W. Steiner, and A. L. Watts, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 045007 (2025), arXiv:2407.11153 [nucl-th]

    2025

  31. [39]

    Cai, B.-A

    B.-J. Cai, B.-A. Li, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D108, 103041 (2023), arXiv:2307.15223 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Fukushima and S

    K. Fukushima and S. Minato, Phys. Rev. D111, 094006 (2025), arXiv:2411.03781 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, K. Hotokezaka, and K. Kyutoku, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 091404 (2023), arXiv:2205.03882 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mondal, M

    C. Mondal, M. Antonelli, F. Gulminelli, M. Mancini, J. Novak, and M. Oertel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524, 3464 (2023), arXiv:2305.05999 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. Endo, T. Maruyama, S. Chiba, and T. Tatsumi, Prog. Theor. Phys.115, 337 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510279

    2006 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. A. Saes, R. F. P. Mendes, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D110, 024011 (2024), arXiv:2402.05997 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    N. K. Glendenning,Compact stars: Nuclear physics, particle physics and general relativity(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Marczenko, Phys

    M. Marczenko, Phys. Rev. C110, 045811 (2024), arXiv:2407.15486 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    2001 arXiv

  40. [48]

    F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and G. Shen, Phys. Rev. C82, 055803 (2010), arXiv:1008.3030 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [49]

    F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and B. Reed, Phys. Rev. C102, 065805 (2020), arXiv:2007.03799 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. Pal, S. Podder, D. Sen, and G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D107, 063019 (2023), arXiv:2303.04653 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

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

    1992

  44. [52]

    N. K. Glendenning, Phys. Rept.342, 393 (2001)

    2001

  45. [53]

    Bhattacharyya, I

    A. Bhattacharyya, I. N. Mishustin, and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G 37, 025201 (2010), arXiv:0905.0352 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Podder, S

    S. Podder, S. K. Roy, S. Pal, and G. Chaudhuri, JHEAp49, 100457 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    Pal and G

    S. Pal and G. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D113, 103006 (2026), arXiv:2605.05005 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  48. [56]

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

    1939

  49. [57]

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

    1939

  50. [58]

    Choudhuryet al., Astrophys

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

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Salmiet al., Astrophys

    T. Salmiet al., Astrophys. J.976, 58 (2024), arXiv:2409.14923 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Qiet al., Astrophys

    L. Qiet al., Astrophys. J.981, 99 (2025), arXiv:2502.09147 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.