Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Gravitational wave asteroseismology of neutron stars with unified EOS: on the role of high-order nuclear empirical parameters

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that independently varying the high-order nuclear parameters Ksym, Qsym, and Qsat produces distinct, mass-dependent shifts in neutron-star f-mode and p-mode frequencies and in tidal deformability, so future…

desk verdict Solid forward-model sensitivity study undercut by an internal contradiction about which high-order NEP affects which mass range. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09322 v1 pith:4DZBETWX submitted 2024-11-14 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Guilherme Grams , César V. Flores , César H. Lenzi This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE
keywords neutronstaroscillationgravitationalwaveasteroseismologynuclearempiricalparameterssymmetryenergytidaldeformabilityf-modep-modeunifiedequationofstate
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 asks whether future gravitational-wave observations of neutron-star oscillations could pin down three poorly known nuclear parameters: the curvature of the symmetry energy Ksym, the symmetry-energy skewness Qsym, and the skewness of the binding energy of symmetric nuclear matter Qsat. Using a flexible nuclear meta-model that allows each parameter to be varied independently while keeping all others fixed, the authors build twelve unified equations of state and compute the quadrupolar f-mode and first p-mode frequencies and the tidal deformability as functions of neutron-star mass. They find that each parameter leaves a distinct fingerprint: Ksym shifts the f-mode mainly for low-mass stars, Qsym for intermediate masses, Qsat for heavy stars and for the p-mode at all masses. Because these parameters are currently almost unconstrained by nuclear experiments, the paper argues that third-generation gravitational-wave detectors could become a new tool to measure them. The results are qualitative, since real nuclear forces correlate these parameters, but they identify the most promising targets for the next generation of detectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the nuclear meta-model (MM), a semi-agnostic energy density functional constructed as a Taylor expansion of the energy per particle in symmetric matter and in the symmetry energy around saturation density, whose coefficients are exactly the nuclear empirical parameters. Because the meta-model does not commit to a particular nuclear force, it permits the authors to vary Ksym, Qsym, and Qsat one at a time while all other parameters stay fixed to the chiral-effective-field-theory-based H2MM reference, yielding twelve unified crust-core equations of state. On top of these, the paper solves the relativistic stellar structure equations and the Lindblom–Detweiler perturbation equations for polar non-radial fluid oscillations (restricted to l=2), enforcing outgoing-wave boundary conditions at infinity to obtain the quasinormal f- and p-mode frequencies, and integrates the standard first-order differential equation for the tidal Love number k2 to obtain the dimensionless deformability Lambda.

What would settle it

A single precise measurement would test the ordering claim: if a gravitational-wave event yields both the neutron-star mass and the f-mode frequency (e.g., from the post-merger signal of a binary merger) and the frequency for a low-mass star does not respond to Ksym as predicted, or if a high-mass star shows a stronger Qsym shift than Qsat shift, the sensitivity ranking would be contradicted; specifically, the models predict f-mode frequencies above about 1.8 kHz for stars above 1.4 solar masses with a nearly linear mass dependence, so a detection with frequency outside the spread spanned by the twelve equations of state at that mass would falsify the claimed sensitivity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the high-order nuclear empirical parameters Ksym, Qsym, and Qsat each leave a distinct, mass-dependent imprint on neutron-star gravitational-wave observables, so that asteroseismology can in principle separate their effects. On the f-mode frequency, Ksym acts mainly below about 1.3 solar masses, Qsym acts in the intermediate range roughly 1.2 to 1.9 solar masses, and Qsat dominates for heavier stars; the p-mode frequency is most strongly depressed by Qsat at every mass, while Ksym has little visible effect. For the tidal deformability, Qsat and Qsym produce larger changes than Ksym, with positive Qsat values pushing the predictions outside the 50% confidence contour of GW170817. Taken together, the paper argues that a population of gravitational-wave detections with accurate masses could break the degeneracies among these parameters and deliver the first empirical constraints on the curvature and skewness terms of the nuclear equation of state.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that varying one nuclear empirical parameter at a time, while holding all others at their reference values, produces equations of state that still represent physically possible dense matter; real nuclear interactions tie these parameters together, so some of the varied combinations may be unrealistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, future third-generation detectors that observe neutron-star oscillations could place first empirical constraints on Ksym, Qsym, and Qsat, which are currently nearly free parameters of the nuclear equation of state.
  • The mass-dependence of the f-mode shifts implies that a sample of detections across a range of masses, not just one event, is needed to separate the three parameters.
  • Tidal deformability measurements from inspiral signals, such as GW170817, already disfavour the stiffest equations of state considered, and positive Qsat models lie outside the 50% confidence contour, so combined tidal and oscillation data could tighten the parameter space.
  • The near-linear scaling of f-mode frequency with mass before the maximum mass, together with the distinct parameter-dependent offsets, suggests that a fit formula could extract the nuclear parameters from future events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because real nuclear forces correlate Ksym, Qsym, and Qsat, the independent-variation curves likely overstate the lever arm of any single parameter; a natural next step is to sample the correlated joint distribution from chiral effective field theory or microscopic forces and recompute the mode frequencies, which would show which combinations survive when correlations are included.
  • The same meta-model machinery could be applied to other oscillation channels, such as the damping time of the f-mode or the g-mode spectrum from a composition gradient, which may carry independent information about the same high-order parameters.
  • If the mass-dependent fingerprints survive correlated sampling, they suggest a practical observing strategy: prioritize follow-up of binary neutron star mergers with good mass ratio measurements, since each event samples the f-mode at a specific mass and helps break the degeneracy among Qsat, Qsym, and Ksym.
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 paper constructs unified equations of state using the H2MM metamodel, then independently varies the high-order nuclear empirical parameters Ksym, Qsym, and Qsat. It computes non-radial f- and p-mode frequencies and the dimensionless tidal deformability of non-rotating neutron stars, reporting mass-dependent sensitivities: Ksym matters mainly for low-mass stars, Qsat and Qsym for intermediate and heavy stars (with the ordering stated differently in the Abstract and in Section V), Qsat strongly affects the first pressure mode, and Qsat and Qsym dominate the tidal deformability. The authors conclude that future third-generation gravitational-wave detectors could provide a new tool to constrain high-order NEP.

Significance. If the reported sensitivities are robust, this is a useful first step connecting poorly known high-order nuclear empirical parameters to gravitational-wave observables. The paper uses thermodynamically consistent unified EOS and standard, well-established equations for stellar structure, oscillations, and tidal deformability. The authors are explicit in Section V that the results are qualitative because each NEP is varied independently. The main strength is the systematic, one-at-a-time exploration of three high-order parameters in a consistent framework. However, the central mass-dependent attributions are internally inconsistent between the Abstract and Section V, and the independent-variation premise is acknowledged but not tested against correlated variations. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving these issues.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section V] The central result is stated inconsistently. The Abstract says: "The NEP Qsym and Qsat affect the fundamental modes of intermediate and heavy neutron stars, respectively," while Section V says: "Qsat impacts more intermediate NS masses from 1.2 to 1.9 M_sun and Qsym has a strong effect for heavy NS." These two statements assign opposite roles to Qsym and Qsat for intermediate and heavy stars. Since the title and the main claim concern which high-order parameter drives the response in which mass range, this is not a minor wording issue; a reader cannot determine the actual finding. The authors must decide which attribution is supported by Fig. 2 and make the Abstract, body, and conclusions consistent.
  2. [Section II and Section V] The sensitivity rankings rest on the assumption that each high-order NEP can be varied independently while all others are fixed, as stated in Section II: "we vary independently each NEP while keeping all other parameters fixed." Realistic nuclear interactions correlate these parameters, so the explored EOS combinations may not be representative of physical dense matter. The paper acknowledges in Section V that these are "qualitative results," but the Abstract and conclusions go further and claim that GW asteroseismology "promises an alternative tool to constrain high-order NEP." To support this, the authors should either test whether the mass-dependent rankings persist under correlated variations (e.g., sampling from a joint posterior of NEP informed by chiral EFT or nuclear experiments) or explicitly state in the Abstract and conclusions that the rankings are conditional on the independence assumption.
  3. [Sections III and V] The claim that future detectors can constrain high-order NEP is not backed by a quantitative detectability estimate. The discussion is based on visual inspection of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, with no numerical values for the frequency shifts or deformability changes at representative masses. To support the central conclusion, the authors should quantify the differences (e.g., the change in f-mode frequency at 1.4 M_sun when Ksym, Qsym, or Qsat is varied within its quoted range) and compare these shifts with the expected frequency resolution and signal-to-noise forecasts for third-generation detectors such as the Einstein Telescope or Cosmic Explorer.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] The sentence "part of the data is below the 50% confidence line" should refer to "part of the curves" rather than "data," which is ambiguous.
  2. [Figure 3 and Section IV] The gray dotted lines representing GW170817 confidence regions need a precise description of how they were derived. GW170817 constrains the binary tidal deformability, so the mapping to single-star Lambda(M) curves should be explained and referenced; otherwise the claim that some EOS "are outside the 50% confidence line" is not well defined.
  3. [Abstract] The sentence "we consider that the tidal interaction is the driving force for the quadrupolar non-radial fluid oscillations" is misleading because the oscillation frequencies are computed as free quasinormal modes, not as tidally driven oscillations. Please clarify the role of tidal interactions in the mode calculation.
  4. [Introduction] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, including "asuming" (Section I), "the very well know Zerilli equations" (Section III), "Ligo Virgo" capitalization (Section IV), and "with the the reference" (Section V). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [General] The manuscript lists "PACS numbers:" but no numbers are given; either provide the relevant PACS codes or remove the line.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: NEP are inputs and f/p-mode plus tidal outputs are directly computed; self-citations are background, and the abstract/Sec. V swap is an inconsistency rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an open sensitivity study. Section II fixes a reference EoS (H2MM) and creates twelve new EoS by independently perturbing Ksym, Qsym, and Qsat: 'we vary independently each NEP while keeping all other parameters fixed.' These NEP values are inputs. The f- and p-mode frequencies are then obtained by solving the standard relativistic oscillation equations (Eqs. 13-16) with the stated boundary conditions; tidal deformability is obtained by integrating the Love-number equation (Eq. 30) with the same EoS. Nothing in these equations contains the target result, and no mode frequency or Lambda value is fitted back into the NEP. The sensitivity rankings are therefore computed outputs, not identities. The paper's self-citations (Refs. 14, 30, 32, 36) establish the H2MM reference model and its chiral-EFT context; they are background tools, not uniqueness claims and not the source of the mass-dependent attributions. The comparison to GW170817 provides an external benchmark. One notable defect is a direct internal inconsistency: the Abstract states 'Qsym and Qsat affect the fundamental modes of intermediate and heavy neutron stars, respectively,' while Section V states 'Qsat impacts more intermediate neutron star masses... and Qsym has a strong effect for heavy NS.' This swap concerns the correctness and reproducibility of the claimed attribution, not a circular reduction; it does not make any prediction equivalent to its input by construction. The authors also explicitly call the results qualitative. Overall, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a forward-model sensitivity scan. All inputs are parameters of the nuclear energy functional; no new physics entities are introduced. The study's conclusions hinge on the high-order NEP being treated as independent degrees of freedom, an assumption the authors acknowledge is a limitation.

free parameters (4)
  • Ksym (isovector incompressibility) = -200, -150, -100, -50, -1 MeV
    Varied one at a time within a quoted uncertainty range of about -100 plus or minus 100 MeV (Section II); not fitted to the GW observables.
  • Qsym (skewness of symmetry energy) = 100, 400, 1000 MeV
    Chosen around the reference value 700 MeV using guidance from Ref. [26]; not constrained by experiment.
  • Qsat (skewness of binding energy in symmetric matter) = -400, 0, 220, 400 MeV
    Chosen around the reference value -220 MeV using guidance from Ref. [26]; not constrained by experiment.
  • Reference H2MM high-order NEP set = Ksym=-144, Qsat=-220, Qsym=700 MeV
    These reference values were fixed arbitrarily in prior work, only requiring the EoS to support 2 solar mass stars (Section II), and all variations are defined relative to them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Nucleonic hypothesis: no hyperons, quark matter, or other exotic degrees of freedom in the star.
    Explicitly adopted in Section I: 'we keep the nucleonic hypothesis to better understand the impact on high-order NEP.'
  • domain assumption The metamodel Taylor expansion truncated at quartic order in x = (n - nsat)/(3 nsat) captures the relevant density behavior.
    Equations (1)-(2) truncate the energy per particle expansion at fourth order; the unknown Z terms are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper Low-order NEP are fixed by chiral EFT and high-order ones can be varied independently without altering low-order parameters.
    Key assumption of the sensitivity study (Section II); physically, parameters are correlated through the underlying nuclear interaction, and the paper itself admits the limitation in Section V.
  • standard math Standard TOV structure equations and Lindblom-Detweiler perturbation formalism describe non-radial oscillations of a non-rotating perfect fluid star.
    Used throughout Section III; standard general-relativistic stellar perturbation theory.
  • domain assumption Crust-core matching via CLDM is thermodynamically consistent.
    Adopted from Refs. [14, 30] to avoid crust-core matching uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational wave asteroseismology of neutron stars with unified EOS: on the role of high-order nuclear empirical parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4DZBETWX

@misc{pith2026241109322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational wave asteroseismology of neutron stars with unified EOS: on the role of high-order nuclear empirical parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4DZBETWX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09322}
}
abstract

We analyze the sensitivity of non-radial fluid oscillation modes and tidal deformations in neutron stars to high-order nuclear empirical parameters (NEP). In particular, we study the impact of the curvature and skewness of the symmetry energy $K_{\rm sym}$, $Q_{\rm sym}$, and the skewness of the binding energy in symmetric nuclear matter $Q_{\rm sat}$. As we are interested in the possibility of gravitational wave detection by future interferometers, we consider that the tidal interaction is the driving force for the quadrupolar non-radial fluid oscillations. We have also studied the correlations between those quantities, which will be useful to understand the strong physics of gravitational wave phenomena. Our main results show that $K_{\rm sym}$ impacts the frequencies of the fundamental mode mainly for low-mass neutron stars. The NEP $Q_{\rm sym}$ and $Q_{\rm sat}$ affect the fundamental modes of intermediate and heavy neutron stars, respectively. In the case of the first pressure mode, $K_{\rm sym}$ shows a small effect, while $Q_{\rm sat}$ shows a considerable decrease in this oscillation mode independent of the neutron star mass. Similarly, for tidal deformability, the NEP $Q_{\rm sat}$ and $Q_{\rm sym}$ show a bigger impact than $K_{\rm sym}$. Given the impact of the NEP on gravitational wave phenomena and the currently large uncertainties of these parameters, the prospect of higher sensitivity in future gravitational wave detectors promise a possible new tool to constrain high-order NEP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09322 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Equation of state for the models used in the present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Left panels show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Tidal deformability for the EoS used in the present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Correlations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    P. S. Cowperthwaite, E. Berger, V. A. Villar, B. D. Metzger, M. Nicholl, R. Chornock, P. K. Blanchard, W. Fong, R. Margutti, M. Soares-Santos, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 848, L17 (2017), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 2017

  3. [3]

    Punturo et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0264-9381/27/19/194002

    M. Punturo et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0264-9381/27/19/194002

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Branchesi et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2023, 068 (2023), URL https://dx.doi

    M. Branchesi et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics 2023, 068 (2023), URL https://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/068 2023

  5. [5]

    E. D. Hall, K. Kuns, J. R. Smith, Y. Bai, C. Wipf, S. Bis- cans, R. X. Adhikari, K. Arai, S. Ballmer, L. Barsotti, et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 122004 (2021), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.122004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.122004 2021

  6. [6]

    E. D. Hall , Galaxies 10 (2022), ISSN 2075-4434, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/10/4/90

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Chamel and P

    N. Chamel and P. Haensel, Living Rev. Relativ. 11, 10 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Kl¨ ahn, and S. Typel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015007 (2017), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.015007 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Blaschke and N

    D. Blaschke and N. Chamel, Phases of Dense Matter in Compact Stars (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 337–400, ISBN 978-3-319-97616-7, URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97616-7_7

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Somasundaram, I

    R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and J. Margueron, Phys. Rev. C 107, 025801 (2023), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.107.025801

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Fortin, C

    M. Fortin, C. Providˆ encia, A. R. Raduta, F. Gulminelli, J. L. Zdunik, P. Haensel, and M. Bejger, Phys. Rev. C 94, 035804 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.035804

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Suleiman, M

    L. Suleiman, M. Fortin, J. L. Zdunik, and P. Haensel, Phys. Rev. C 104, 015801 (2021), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.015801

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Ferreira and C

    M. Ferreira and C. Providˆ encia, Universe6 (2020), URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/11/220

    2020

  6. [14]

    Grams, R

    G. Grams, R. Somasundaram, J. Margueron, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 105, 035806 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    B. K. Pradhan and D. Chatterjee, Phys. Rev. C 103, 035810 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevC.103.035810

    2021

  8. [16]

    Kumar, H

    D. Kumar, H. Mishra, and T. Malik, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023, 015 (2023), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/ 2023/02/015

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Shirke, B

    S. Shirke, B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, L. Sa- gunski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063025 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.063025

    2024

  10. [18]

    Dinh Thi, C

    H. Dinh Thi, C. Mondal, and F. Gulminelli, Universe 7 (2021), ISSN 2218-1997, URL https://www.mdpi.com/ 2218-1997/7/10/373

    2021

  11. [19]

    Mondal, M

    C. Mondal, M. Antonelli, F. Gulminelli, M. Mancini, J. Novak, and M. Oertel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 524, 3464 (2023), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/524/3/3464/50950126/stad2082.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2082

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. Paris, and S. Reddy, The As- trophysical Journal 629, 969 (2005), URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1086/430902

    2005 doi

  13. [21]

    Kumar, P

    A. Kumar, P. Thakur, and M. Sinha, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 530, 501 (2024), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/530/1/501/57192031/stae834.pdf, URL https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae834

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Han and A

    S. Han and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083014 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.99.083014

    2019

  15. [23]

    Hinderer, B

    T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123016 (2010), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.123016

    2010 doi

  16. [25]

    Montefusco, M

    G. Montefusco, M. Antonelli, and F. Gulminelli (2024), 2410.08008, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08008

    2024 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C 97, 025805 (2018)

    2018

  18. [27]

    Margueron, R

    J. Margueron, R. Hoffmann Casali, and F. Gulminelli, Phys. Rev. C 97, 025806 (2018)

    2018

  19. [28]

    Jaiswal and D

    S. Jaiswal and D. Chatterjee, Physics 3, 302 (2021), URL https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8174/3/2/22

    2021

  20. [29]

    B. K. Pradhan, D. Pathak, and D. Chatterjee, The As- trophysical Journal 956, 38 (2023), URL https://dx. doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acef1f

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    Grams, J

    G. Grams, J. Margueron, R. Somosundaram, and S. Reddy, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 56 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054314 (2016)

    2016

  23. [32]

    Grams, J

    G. Grams, J. Margueron, R. Somasundaram, and S. Reddy, Few-Body Syst. 62, 116 (2021)

    2021

  24. [33]

    Dinh Thi, A

    H. Dinh Thi, A. F. Fantina, and F. Gulminelli, A&A 672, A160 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    Tews, Phys

    I. Tews, Phys. Rev. C 95, 015803 (2017)

    2017

  26. [35]

    Sagawa, S

    H. Sagawa, S. Yoshida, and L.-G. Cao, AIP Conference Proceedings 2127, 020002 (2019)

    2019

  27. [36]

    Grams, R

    G. Grams, R. Somasundaram, J. Margueron, and E. Khan, Phys. Rev. C 106, 044305 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    Lindblom and S

    L. Lindblom and S. L. Detweiler, ApJS 53, 73 (1983)

    1983

  29. [38]

    Detweiler and L

    S. Detweiler and L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J. 292, 12 (1985)

    1985

  30. [39]

    D. Lai, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 270, 611 (1994), ISSN 0035- 8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/270/3/611/18199762/mnras270-0611.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/270.3.611

    1994 doi

  31. [40]

    Xu and D

    W. Xu and D. Lai, Phys. Rev. D 96, 083005 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 96.083005

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    Louren¸ co, M

    O. Louren¸ co, M. Dutra, C. H. Lenzi, C. V. Flores, and D. P. Menezes, Phys. Rev. C 99, 045202 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC. 99.045202. 10

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    Louren¸ co, M

    O. Louren¸ co, M. Dutra, C. H. Lenzi, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 32 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/ s10050-020-00040-z

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.