Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 95 references

The smallest reliably measured neutron star radius, about 10.3 km for a 1.44-solar-mass pulsar, forces the chiral-invariant share of the nucleon mass above 800 MeV — at least 85% of it — in a parity-doublet model with quark-hadron crossover

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The parity doublet model combined with the new NICER radius measurement restricts the chiral invariant nucleon mass m0 to 800-860 MeV, implying it is at least 85% of the nucleon mass.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Legitimate model update using the new small-radius pulsar, but the m0≥800 MeV bound is cut at an unjustified 1-σ line; at 2-σ it drops to 700 MeV (~74%), so the headline is not robust. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.03008 v1 pith:6KAPPKVN submitted 2025-09-03 nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-ph

Origin of nucleon mass in the light of PSR J0614-3329 with quark-hadron crossover

Bikai Gao , Yuk-Kei Kong , Yong-Liang Ma This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords nucleon mass originchiral invariant massparity doublet modelneutron star equation of statePSR J0614-3329NICER radius measurementquark-hadron crossovergluon condensation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 uses the recent NICER measurement of PSR J0614-3329 — the smallest reliably measured neutron star radius, about 10.3 km for a 1.44-solar-mass star — to weigh in on a question usually reserved for particle physics: where does the nucleon's mass come from? The authors build unified equations of state that stitch a parity doublet hadronic model, valid up to twice nuclear saturation density, to a quark model above five times that density through a smooth crossover; the chiral invariant mass m0 — the part of the nucleon mass that would remain if chiral symmetry were restored — is treated as a free parameter, and every current astrophysical constraint is applied. Older constraints allowed 580–860 MeV for m0; adding the small radius of PSR J0614-3329 shrinks the allowed window to 800–860 MeV. If the calculation is right, over 85% of the nucleon mass comes from chiral-invariant mechanisms such as gluon condensation rather than from spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking — a direct challenge to the traditional picture.

Core claim

The central claim is that the chirally invariant component of the nucleon mass, m0, must lie in the window 800 MeV ≲ m0 ≲ 860 MeV — at least 85% of the physical nucleon mass — once the small radius of PSR J0614-3329 joins the constraint set. In the parity doublet model, the nucleon mass splits into a chiral variant piece tied to the quark condensate and the parameter m0, which persists in the chirally restored phase. Larger m0 softens the equation of state and shrinks neutron stars, so the small measured radius rules out m0 ≲ 800 MeV; conversely m0 = 900 MeV makes stars too small for the two-solar-mass pulsar PSR J0740+6620. The authors take this as evidence that gluon condensation and other

What carries the argument

The central object is the chiral invariant mass m0 in the parity doublet model: the parameter that sets the mass of the nucleon doublet when the chiral condensate vanishes. In the model's mass formula, m* = (1/2)[sqrt((g1+g2)^2 (σ−ja)^2 + 4m0^2) ± (g1−g2)(σ−ja)], the condensate-dependent term dies as σ → 0 while m0 remains, so m0 is the natural candidate for the mass that would survive chiral restoration. The argument chains m0 to astrophysics: larger m0 weakens the σ coupling, softens the equation of state, and shrinks the predicted radius of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star. Carrying the chain is a unified equation of state — parity doublet hadronic matter up to 2n0, a fifth-order polynomial

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the parameter m0 in the parity doublet mass formula equals the chirally invariant part of the physical nucleon mass — the mass that would survive in the chirally restored phase — so that fitting neutron star radii can be read as measuring the QCD origin of nucleon mass; equally load-bearing is the assumption that the smooth polynomial crossover between hadronic (2n0) and quark (5n0) matter represents the real transition region.

What would settle it

A future high-precision radius measurement of a ~1.4-solar-mass neutron star would settle the central claim: a central value clearly above the J0614-3329 1σ band (above ~11.3 km) dissolves the pressure that raised the m0 lower bound, and the allowed window reverts toward 580–860 MeV; a value below ~10 km pushes the required m0 past 860 MeV and clashes with the two-solar-mass constraint, forcing changes in the quark-matter sector. Independently, a lattice QCD or QCD sum-rule computation of the baryon mass in the chirally restored phase below 800 MeV would falsify the nucleon-mass-origin interpr

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Nucleon mass is mostly not a product of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking: at most about 15% of the 940 MeV can come from the quark condensate.
  • The allowed window 800–860 MeV sits in a narrow band where the equation of state is soft enough to give a 10.3 km radius yet stiff enough to still reach two solar masses.
  • Future radius measurements of 1.4-solar-mass neutron stars become direct probes of m0: the current constraint sits near the edge of the PSR J0614-3329 contour, so a slightly different central radius would move the window.
  • The lower bound is robust to where the hadron-quark crossover is placed: moving the matching density between 1.5n0 and 2.5n0 shifts the lower bound only between about 790 and 800 MeV, while the upper bound responds more strongly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The interpretation implies a concrete prediction: a second, independent small-radius measurement of a 1.4-solar-mass neutron star should land near 10.3 km. A central value above roughly 11.3 km would reopen m0 ≈ 700 MeV; one below roughly 10 km would push m0 past 860 MeV and force revisions in the quark-matter sector (diquark coupling or vector repulsion).
  • The fit constrains m0 only through the model's mass formula, so a direct lattice QCD or QCD sum-rule determination of the baryon mass in the chirally restored phase below 800 MeV would falsify the nucleon-mass-origin conclusion even while leaving the equation-of-state fit intact.
  • The paper tests the crossover boundaries but not the interpolation shape; repeating the analysis with a Maxwell construction (first-order transition) or with a family of alternate interpolation profiles would show how much of the 220 MeV shift is forced by the radius measurement and how much is carried by the assumed smooth crossover.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs unified neutron-star equations of state by combining a parity doublet model (PDM) for hadronic matter up to 2n0 with an NJL-type quark matter model beyond 5n0, connected by a smooth fifth-order polynomial crossover in the baryon chemical potential. The EOS is matched to nuclear saturation properties and the symmetry-energy slope, then used to solve the TOV equations. The authors scan the chiral invariant mass m0 from 600 to 900 MeV and vary quark-matter couplings H and gV, imposing causality, the existence of 2-solar-mass stars, and current NICER/GW170817 constraints. Their central claim is that including the new small-radius measurement of PSR J0614-3329 tightens the allowed range from 580 MeV ≲ m0 ≲ 860 MeV to 800 MeV ≲ m0 ≲ 860 MeV, implying m0 ≥ 85% of the nucleon mass and hence that non-chiral mechanisms dominate the origin of nucleon mass.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would provide an astrophysical bridge between neutron-star radii and the QCD decomposition of the nucleon mass—an unusual and valuable connection. The internal chain (mean-field EOS, crossover construction, TOV integration, comparison with observational contours) is coherent, and the direction of the effect (smaller radius requires larger m0) is physically clear. The authors also test sensitivity to the interpolation boundaries nL and nU, and they explicitly enforce causality and thermodynamic stability. However, the main quantitative claim rests on a hard 1-sigma acceptance rule and on an identification between an effective-model parameter and a QCD mass decomposition; both are load-bearing and neither is satisfactorily justified. The paper is therefore potentially significant but requires substantial strengthening before the abstract-level conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Fig. 4] The exclusion of m0 = 700 MeV, and hence the new lower bound m0 ≥ 800 MeV, is an artifact of requiring consistency with PSR J0614-3329 at 1σ. The text states that m0 = 700 MeV is consistent with GW170817, J0030+0451, and J0740+6620 at 1σ and with J0614-3329 only at 2σ. Since the quoted NICER intervals are posterior credible intervals, using the 68% level as a hard accept/reject threshold without a likelihood or an explicitly justified decision rule is statistically arbitrary. Under a 90% or 2σ standard, m0 = 700 MeV would be admitted, lowering the bound to ≤700 MeV and reducing the inferred fraction from ≥85% to about 74%. The '220 MeV raise' and the '85%' claim are therefore not robust to the choice of confidence level. The authors should report the compatibility level of each m0 value, propagate the full NICER posterior contours, or otherwise justify the 1σ cutoff.
  2. [Eq. (3) and Sec. IV] The paper identifies the PDM parameter m0 with the chirally invariant component of the physical nucleon mass and concludes that gluon condensation and other non-chiral mechanisms dominate nucleon mass generation. This identification is an interpretation of an effective-model parameter, not a derived equality. The mass formula m*_αj = ... with a constant m0 in the parity-doublet Lagrangian is one possible parametrization; it need not coincide numerically with the chiral-invariant component defined in lattice QCD or QCD sum rules after mean-field and quantum corrections are absorbed. Thus the radius fit can be internally valid while the 'origin of nucleon mass' conclusion does not follow. The authors should either derive the connection from a QCD-based operator decomposition or explicitly frame the conclusion as model-dependent.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (25)-(28)] The crossover region 2n0–5n0 is modeled with a fifth-order polynomial in μB matched through second derivatives. The paper tests sensitivity to the boundary densities nL and nU, but not to the functional form or matching order. Since PSR J0614-3329 constrains radii at densities that likely include the interpolation region, the assumed crossover form is load-bearing. Another interpolation scheme that satisfies the same boundary conditions but differs in the interior (e.g., a speed-of-sound interpolation or a different thermodynamic variable) could shift the M–R relation by an amount comparable to the 220-MeV effect claimed here. A systematic comparison of interpolation forms is needed before the tightened m0 range can be considered robust.
  4. [Sec. II.A and Table III] The symmetry-energy slope is fixed to L = 57.7 MeV, the central value of the empirical constraint 57.7 ± 19 MeV. Because L controls the isospin-dependent pressure and hence the radius, and because the a0 meson and ω-ρ mixing are introduced specifically to reproduce L, the m0 constraint should be tested over the empirical range of L. The paper currently gives no indication whether the allowed range 800 ≲ m0 ≲ 860 MeV shifts when L = 38.7 MeV or L = 76.7 MeV is used. This uncertainty should be propagated into the final m0 bounds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.A] The sentence 'This model was originally constructed to include strange quark effects through KMT-type interactions' appears twice in consecutive paragraphs; one occurrence should be removed.
  2. [References] Ref. [85] appears to duplicate Ref. [83] (same paper, one with arXiv number). Please consolidate.
  3. [Sec. III.B] The upper bound m0 ≲ 860 MeV is inherited from the previous analyses cited as Refs. [42,83], not derived from the new PSR J0614-3329 data. The phrase 'narrows this range to 800 ≲ m0 ≲ 860 MeV' could be misread as a new upper bound; clarify that only the lower bound is sharpened here.
  4. [Eq. (25)] The interpolation polynomial is written in powers of μB, but the text says 'fifth order polynomial of μB' and then sums from i=0 to 5; this is consistent but could be stated more explicitly as degree 5 to avoid confusion with a fifth-order expansion in another variable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the new m0 constraint is data-driven; only a minor self-citation appears in the baseline comparison.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is not circular. For each fixed m0, the hadronic parameters are set by vacuum masses and nuclear saturation properties (Tables I–III), not by the neutron-star radius. The quark-model parameters (H, gV) are scanned under causality and 2-solar-mass constraints, and the resulting M–R curves are compared with external NICER and GW170817 data. The exclusion of m0 = 700 MeV follows from the 1σ acceptance rule relative to PSR J0614-3329, and the acceptance of m0 = 800 MeV from consistency with the same external data; this is a data-driven filter, not a fit of m0 to a pre-ordained conclusion. The only self-citation that appears is the previous 580–860 MeV range (Refs. [42,83]) used to quantify the improvement; that baseline is not load-bearing for the new 800–860 MeV constraint, which is derived independently. The statement that m0 is at least 85% of the nucleon mass follows from the model's definition of m0 as the chirally invariant mass in Eq. (3); this is an interpretive assumption about the model-to-QCD mapping, not a circular derivation. Robustness concerns about the 1σ threshold and the crossover interpolation form are validity issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis is a parameter-space scan: m0, H, gV, and the hadronic couplings are free parameters fitted to vacuum and saturation data and then constrained by astrophysical observations. The new radius measurement directly pushes m0 up, but the specific range depends on model assumptions, the chosen 1-sigma acceptance, and the interpolation window. No new theoretical entities are introduced; the a0(980) meson and the chiral invariant mass parameter are pre-existing concepts in the model.

free parameters (5)
  • m0 (chiral invariant mass) = 800-860 MeV (constrained)
    Central parameter of the parity doublet model; varied from 600 to 900 MeV and selected to satisfy the neutron star observations.
  • NJL quark model couplings H and gV = Allowed region satisfying causality and Mmax >= 2 Msun
    Scan over diquark coupling H and vector repulsion gV; the quark matter EOS and the interpolated unified EOS, and hence the mass-radius relation, depend on these values.
  • Hadronic model couplings (g1, g2, g_omega_NN, g_rho_NN, lambda_omega_rho, meson potential parameters) = Tab. III values for m0 = 600, 700, 800, 900 MeV
    Determined by fitting vacuum masses, pion decay constant, and nuclear saturation properties; the resulting stiffness controls the radius and therefore the m0 constraint.
  • Symmetry energy slope L = 57.7 MeV (central value)
    Fixed to the empirical central value; the quoted uncertainty of ±19 MeV is not propagated into the mass-radius predictions.
  • Interpolation boundaries nL, nU = nL = 2n0, nU = 5n0
    Chosen crossover window; the paper tests nL = 1.5 and 2.5 and finds the lower bound shifts to 790-800 MeV, so the quoted range depends on this choice.
axioms (6)
  • standard math The Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations give the correct mass-radius relation for non-rotating neutron stars.
    Basis of all mass-radius comparisons; not questioned in the paper.
  • domain assumption The parity doublet mass formula (Eq. 3) with positive- and negative-parity nucleons is a valid effective description of nucleon masses in medium.
    Basis for the density-dependent effective masses; if the parity doublet mass splitting is incorrect, the EOS and the inferred m0 range change.
  • domain assumption The NJL-type quark model with U(1)A KMT interaction, vector repulsion, and color-flavor locked diquark condensates correctly describes matter above 5n0.
    Used for the high-density quark EOS; H and gV are scanned, but the model form is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper A smooth fifth-order polynomial crossover between the PDM EOS at 2n0 and the NJL EOS at 5n0, with pressure matched to second derivative in muB, faithfully represents the unknown transition region.
    The interpolation affects the mass-radius relation; the paper tests boundary sensitivity but not the interpolation form itself.
  • domain assumption The chiral invariant m0 in the parity doublet model corresponds to the chirally invariant component of the nucleon mass that persists in the chirally restored phase.
    Needed to translate the astrophysical constraint on m0 into the claim that gluon condensation dominates nucleon mass; this identification is not derived from QCD in the paper.
  • domain assumption The NICER and LIGO/Virgo observational constraints, as represented by their published confidence contours, are accurate.
    All conclusions flow from comparing computed mass-radius curves with these published contours; no systematic uncertainty in the contours is modeled.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Origin of nucleon mass in the light of PSR J0614-3329 with quark-hadron crossover." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KAPPKVN

@misc{pith2026250903008,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Origin of nucleon mass in the light of PSR J0614-3329 with quark-hadron crossover},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KAPPKVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03008}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The recent NICER observation of PSR J0614-3329, revealing the smallest reliably measured neutron star radius of $R = 10.29^{+1.01}_{-0.86}$ km at mass $M = 1.44^{+0.06}_{-0.07} M_\odot$, provides an unprecedented constraint on the equation of state of dense matter. We investigate the implications of this measurement for the origin of nucleon mass within the parity doublet model framework, which naturally incorporates both chiral variant and chiral invariant mass components. We construct unified equations of state by employing the parity doublet model with isovector scalar meson $a_0(980)$ for hadronic matter up to twice nuclear saturation density, smoothly connected to a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio-type quark model at higher densities through a crossover transition. By systematically varying the chiral invariant mass $m_0$ and quark matter parameters, we determine which values simultaneously satisfy all current astrophysical constraints, including gravitational wave observations from GW170817, NICER measurements of several pulsars, and the existence of two-solar-mass neutron stars. The inclusion of PSR J0614-3329 dramatically refines the allowed range of the chiral invariant mass from the previous constraint of $580~\text{MeV} \lesssim m_0 \lesssim 860~\text{MeV}$ to $800~\text{MeV} \lesssim m_0 \lesssim 860~\text{MeV}$, raising the lower bound by approximately 220 MeV. This result indicates that the chiral invariant mass must constitute at least 85\% of the nucleon mass, challenging the traditional picture of nucleon mass generation through spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking alone and highlighting the importance of gluon condensation and other non-chiral mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03008 by Bikai Gao, Yong-Liang Ma, Yuk-Kei Kong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: EOS for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Upper panel: Unified EOS with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Allowed combination of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 22 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRA WITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAAS- TRO, VINROUGE, MASTER...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys

    S. Vinciguerra et al., Astrophys. J. 961, 62 (2024), arXiv:2308.09469 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Choudhury et al., Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Raaijmakers, S

    G. Raaijmakers, S. K. Greif, K. Hebeler, T. Hinderer, S. Nissanke, A. Schwenk, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, J. M. Lattimer, and W. C. G. Ho, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L29 (2021), arXiv:2105.06981 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    A. J. Dittmann et al., Astrophys. J. 974, 295 (2024), arXiv:2406.14467 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Salmi et al., Astrophys

    T. Salmi et al., Astrophys. J. 974, 294 (2024), arXiv:2406.14466 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, S. Hands, B. J¨ ager, C. Praki, and J.-I. Skullerud, Phys. Rev. D 92, 014503 (2015), arXiv:1502.03603 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. De Boni, S. Hands, B. J¨ ager, C. Praki, and J.-I. Skullerud, JHEP 06, 034 (2017), arXiv:1703.09246 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Baryons in the plasma: in-medium effects and parity doubling

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. de Boni, S. Hands, B. J¨ ager, C. Praki, and J.-I. Skullerud, EPJ Web Conf. 171, 14005 (2018), arXiv:1710.00566 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Hyperons in thermal QCD from the lattice

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. de Boni, J. Glesaaen, S. Hands, B. J¨ ager, and J.-I. Skullerud, Springer Proc. Phys.250, 29 (2020), arXiv:1911.01449 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Vector meson mass in the chiral symmetry restored vacuum

    J. Kim and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 103, L051501 (2021), arXiv:2012.06463 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014014 (2022), arXiv:2109.12791 [hep-ph]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    S. H. Lee, Symmetry 15, 799 (2023), arXiv:2303.14415 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Dilaton-Limit Fixed Point in Hidden Local Symmetric Parity Doublet Model

    W.-G. Paeng, H. K. Lee, M. Rho, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054022 (2012), arXiv:1109.5431 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    Ma and M

    Y.-L. Ma and M. Rho, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 113, 103791 (2020), arXiv:1909.05889 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    C. E. Detar and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2805 (1989)

    1989

  22. [22]

    D. Jido, M. Oka, and A. Hosaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 106, 873 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0110005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  23. [23]

    Zschiesche, L

    D. Zschiesche, L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. C 75, 055202 (2007), arXiv:nucl- th/0608044

    work page arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Dexheimer, S

    V. Dexheimer, S. Schramm, and D. Zschiesche, Phys. Rev. C 77, 025803 (2008), arXiv:0710.4192 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  25. [25]

    Neutron stars within the SU(2) parity doublet model

    V. Dexheimer, G. Pagliara, L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and S. Schramm, Eur. Phys. J. A 38, 105 (2008), arXiv:0805.3301 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [26]

    Sasaki and I

    C. Sasaki and I. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C 82, 035204 (2010), arXiv:1005.4811 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    Sasaki, H

    C. Sasaki, H. K. Lee, W.-G. Paeng, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 84, 034011 (2011), arXiv:1103.0184 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [28]

    Steinheimer, S

    J. Steinheimer, S. Schramm, and H. Stocker, Phys. Rev. C 84, 045208 (2011), arXiv:1108.2596 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Asymmetric nuclear matter in a parity doublet model with hidden local symmetry

    Y. Motohiro, Y. Kim, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 92, 025201 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 059903 (2017)], arXiv:1505.00988 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    Mukherjee, J

    A. Mukherjee, J. Steinheimer, and S. Schramm, Phys. Rev. C 96, 025205 (2017), arXiv:1611.10144 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    Nuclear matter within a dilatation-invariant parity doublet model: the role of the tetraquark at nonzero density

    S. Gallas, F. Giacosa, and G. Pagliara, Nucl. Phys. A 872, 13 (2011), arXiv:1105.5003 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Examination of $N^*(1535)$ as a probe to observe the partial restoration of chiral symmetry in nuclear matter

    D. Suenaga, Phys. Rev. C 97, 045203 (2018), arXiv:1704.03630 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Marczenko and C

    M. Marczenko and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 97, 036011 (2018), arXiv:1711.05521 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Chiral symmetry restoration by parity doubling and the structure of neutron stars

    M. Marczenko, D. Blaschke, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103021 (2018), arXiv:1805.06886 [nucl- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Constraint to chiral invariant masses of nucleons from GW170817 in an extended parity doublet model

    T. Yamazaki and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 100, 025205 (2019), arXiv:1901.02167 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Marczenko, D

    M. Marczenko, D. Blaschke, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Universe 5, 180 (2019), arXiv:1905.04974 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Chiral condensates for neutron stars in hadron-quark crossover: from a parity doublet nucleon model to an NJL quark model

    T. Minamikawa, T. Kojo, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 104, 065201 (2021), arXiv:2107.14545 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    B. Gao, T. Kojo, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D 110, 016016 (2024), arXiv:2403.18214 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    B. Gao, Y. Yan, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 109, 065807 (2024), arXiv:2404.04786 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Gao and M

    B. Gao and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D111, 016024 (2025), arXiv:2410.16649 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    W.-L. Yuan, B. Gao, Y. Yan, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023019 (2025), arXiv:2502.17859 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Y.-K. Kong, B. Gao, and M. Harada, (2025), arXiv:2506.16684 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    B. Gao, X. Liu, M. Harada, and Y.-L. Ma, (2025), arXiv:2508.00243 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept. 247, 221 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9401310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  45. [45]

    Buballa, Phys

    M. Buballa, Phys. Rept. 407, 205 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0402234

    arXiv 2005

  46. [46]

    Fukushima, Phys

    K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D 77, 114028 (2008), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 78, 039902 (2008)], arXiv:0803.3318 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    Y. Song, G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, and T. Kojo, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034018 (2019), arXiv:1905.01005 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    C.-J. Xia, T. Maruyama, N. Yasutake, and T. Tatsumi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114024 (2024), arXiv:2409.12489 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Gholami, M

    H. Gholami, M. Hofmann, and M. Buballa, Phys. Rev. D 111, 014006 (2025), arXiv:2408.06704 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Kawaguchi, I

    M. Kawaguchi, I. Siddique, and M. Huang, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 246 (2025), arXiv:2408.14808 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Christian, I

    J.-E. Christian, I. A. Rather, H. Gholami, and M. Hof- mann, (2025), arXiv:2503.13626 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    The Con- densed matter physics of QCD,

    K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, “The Con- densed matter physics of QCD,” in At the frontier of particle physics. Handbook of QCD. Vol. 1-3, edited by M. Shifman and B. Ioffe (2000) pp. 2061–2151, arXiv:hep-ph/0011333

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  54. [54]

    Gapless Color-Flavor-Locked Quark Matter

    M. Alford, C. Kouvaris, and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 222001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311286

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  55. [55]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    P. T. Oikonomou and C. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063010 (2023), arXiv:2304.12209 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    P.-C. Chu, H. Liu, M. Ju, X.-H. Wu, H.-M. Liu, Y. Zhou, H. Liu, S.-Y. Lu, and X.-H. Li, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043032 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Asymptotically conformal CFL quark matter within a nonlocal chiral quark model

    O. Ivanytskyi, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034004 (2025), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 111, 079904 (2025)], arXiv:2409.05859 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Minamikawa, B

    T. Minamikawa, B. Gao, T. Kojo, and M. Harada, Sym- metry 15, 745 (2023), arXiv:2302.00825 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Y.-L. Ma, M. Harada, H. K. Lee, Y. Oh, B.-Y. Park, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 88, 014016 (2013), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 88, 079904 (2013)], arXiv:1304.5638 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Y.-L. Ma, M. Harada, H. K. Lee, Y. Oh, B.-Y. Park, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. D 90, 034015 (2014), arXiv:1308.6476 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Mauviard et al., (2025), arXiv:2506.14883 [astro- ph.HE]

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

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Tang, Y.-J

    S.-P. Tang, Y.-J. Huang, and Y.-Z. Fan, (2025), arXiv:2507.10025 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Shirke, R

    S. Shirke, R. Maiti, and D. Chatterjee, (2025), arXiv:2508.02652 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    B. Gao, T. Minamikawa, T. Kojo, and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 106, 065205 (2022), arXiv:2207.05970 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Li, B.-J

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

    doi:10.3390/universe7060182 2021

  68. [68]

    Kubis and M

    S. Kubis and M. Kutschera, Physics Letters B 399, 191 (1997)

    1997

  69. [69]

    Influence of the interactions of scalar mesons on the behavior of the symmetry energy

    N. Zabari, S. Kubis, and W. W´ ojcik, Phys. Rev. C 99, 035209 (2019), arXiv:1809.03420 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    Multilayer neutron stars with scalar mesons crossing term

    S. Kubis, W. W´ ojcik, and N. Zabari, Phys. Rev. C 102, 065803 (2020), arXiv:2007.00738 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    Miyatsu, M.-K

    T. Miyatsu, M.-K. Cheoun, and K. Saito, The Astro- physical Journal 929, 82 (2022)

    2022

  72. [72]

    Li, B.-J

    F. Li, B.-J. Cai, Y. Zhou, W.-Z. Jiang, and L.-W. Chen, The Astrophysical Journal 929, 183 (2022). 10

    2022

  73. [73]

    Thakur, R

    V. Thakur, R. Kumar, P. Kumar, V. Kumar, M. Kumar, C. Mondal, B. K. Agrawal, and S. K. Dhiman, Physical Review C 106 (2022), 10.1103/physrevc.106.045806

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.106.045806 2022

  74. [74]

    B. Liu, H. Guo, M. D. Toro, and V. Greco, The European Physical Journal A 25, 293 (2005)

    2005

  75. [75]

    Ma and Y.-L

    Y. Ma and Y.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074022 (2024), arXiv:2311.07899 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Ma and Y.-L

    Y. Ma and Y.-L. Ma, (2025), arXiv:2507.10049 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Rabhi, C

    A. Rabhi, C. Providˆ encia, and J. D. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C 80, 025806 (2009)

    2009

  78. [78]

    Gaitanos, M

    T. Gaitanos, M. D. Toro, S. Typel, V. Baran, C. Fuchs, V. Greco, and H. Wolter, Nuclear Physics A 732, 24 (2004)

    2004

  79. [79]

    Greco, M

    V. Greco, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, and F. Matera, Phys. Rev. C 67, 015203 (2003)

    2003

  80. [80]

    B. Liu, V. Greco, V. Baran, M. Colonna, and M. Di Toro, Phys. Rev. C 65, 045201 (2002)

    2002

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.